Stanley Meyer Explained

[h20power]

And in the simplest construction, for example, like this one, will it be possible to get gas in excess of the Faraday law? (over current) If everything is done correctly.At least twice.So that you can fix, measure?
I have not succeeded yet.

Interesting that this same circuit is on page 15 of this thread minus the chokes which were added in latter by Dave Lawton latter on. I built and tested that circuit many years ago and it was good for getting my feet wet in this technology as I learned quite a bit from using it. But no it will not get this technology to work correctly as the voltage intensifier circuit must be used along with a circuit similar to or just like Meyer's circuit. I think the 8xa circuit can be made to work but it's difficult to control everything with that circuit but as before I did build and test it and learned a lot from using it. Now that I understand what Meyer was actually doing, IE, mimicking the earths Global Electric Circuit I can see the technology far more clearly than I use to do in the past when I started this thread.

[kolbacict]

Well, good people told me how to prevent some mistakes.I do not need 3000%, at least twice the current output is more than Faraday.That there was an incentive for further success.

[h20power]

Well, good people told me how to prevent some mistakes.I do not need 3000%, at least twice the current output is more than Faraday.That there was an incentive for further success.

Not sure what you are getting at with your last post as nothing can be seen. But to me it seems clear that you seem to reject the science I have shown and chosen a different path of your own making based on the words of those "Good People," which perhaps in your view I am not? Anyway I posted what I learned from hands on experiments dealing with this technology over the coarse of several years. In my humble view it is better to know where you are going instead of just picking a direction and going for it when trying to get someplace. Getting at the core science behind the technology was my way of doing just that as now I know what is to be done and most importantly why it is being done in this manor. Without the core science behind the technology I had no hope of getting the technology up and running as it was more or less like trying to guess up a solution.
Now that I have an understanding of why things are being done this way and what part of nature is this technology trying to mimic I have true hope as I can clearly point out to any scientist how the technology works now. I can even do the math up to certain point showing clearly why there is no current being pushed through the water bath as is the case with Faraday's electrolysis method. In fact Dr. Faraday's method of water decomposition is the total opposite of how this technology goes about breaking the bonds of the water molecules as what makes electrolysis work better has the opposite effect on this method of water decomposition and vise versa as what makes this technology work better totally messes up how electrolysis works. Since one method of water separation is coming from man and the other from nature it should be clear which method is the most efficient as nature always tends to do things with the least amount of wasted energy.

[onepower]

h20power

In my humble view it is better to know where you are going instead of just picking a direction and going for it when trying to get someplace.

Not unlike the difference between a shopper and a browser, the shopper is looking to find something specific of value they want while the browser is just looking to fulfill an impulsive need. Sure they may appear as the same thing however the context and the goal are not the same.

Getting at the core science behind the technology was my way of doing just that as now I know what is to be done and most importantly why it is being done in this manor. Without the core science behind the technology I had no hope of getting the technology up and running as it was more or less like trying to guess up a solution.

I think you nailed it, and I have found there are two kinds of science/experiments. One is the most common which I call the "Hail Mary" where we just throw some stuff together we don't understand and hope something happens which is seldom if ever the case, lol. However the second kind is when we can literally see what it is we want however were not quite sure how to get there. In this case there is a predetermined method and progression always acting forwards towards our goal.

In my opinion science is when we have already nailed down all the understanding and theory we need at which point the experiment is just an exercise in proving what we already know for others. There is only one real proof which is ... real proof, the rest is speculation at best.

[kolbacict]

Excuse me if not. It's just that you really need to get something.