Relative Permittivity of Water

[h20power]

What are the goals of this thread? From my observations they are not to aid humanity to get off of oil, coal, & nuclear energy or any other form of energy that can be offered to everyone by a pure monopoly system that keeps humanity enslaved for the rest of its days.

This thread does nothing to attempt to solve any science that will lead the world to using a new source of energy.

The main focus of this thread is looking for how a man would try and hide and/or protect his patents from being stolen so that he could profit from his inventions. The current monetary system makes inventors do this as it is a self defeating system and will not stop hurting humanities chances for advancement until it has killed everyone down to the last man.

I see nothing of value being talked about that would aid anyone to finding energy independence. All I see is someone wanting to be heard and likes to hear himself talk on his quest to show Stanley A. Meyer had flaws as a man. If you where there when Jesus said let the man without sin cast the first stone you more than likely would have bent over picking up a stone and threw it.

Yes, Meyer hid the technology, so that being said we have to figure it out on our own and try to add real science to the work as we go and learn all of this the hard way. That is what I have been doing, but I ask what have you been doing? What is the purpose of this whole tread?

That is what makes you and I different I have a goal to figure out what was done looking through all of the attempts to hide the technology. You have a goal to find an attempt to hid the technology sit back and harp on it as if you have really done something.

Meyer says the technology is simple but from what I have found out about it it is far from simple. But when someone says something is simple that is subjective to the person saying it as if Albert Einstein says calculus is simple you would have a hard time agreeing with him as most of it more than like would fly right over your head, but you are not alone as many would find Albert's statement to be false from their point of view.

Right now I think I have solved just what Meyer had done, but learning how to build it correctly to the science I have figured out is now the new task at hand.

But where does that leave you? Still stuck in this thread going in circles from what I and many others can see all too clearly. The goal of this thread is not that of aiding humanity in it's time of need but to prove a small man with an small mind can be right some of the time about something utterly pointless to the advancement of mankind as a whole.

Hope you do take this personal as that was the intent so you would reflect on just what are your goals in life.

h2opower

[jbignes5]

 H20Power,

You have to understand that these pencil pushers know nothing more then that. They don't understand the pressure Stan was under to fold or even sell out. They take everything written by Stan as the ultimate truth when in fact these guys have to put down bogus stuff in order for the idea to get through.
The Idea did in fact get through and even if Stan was only partially right he is tons more along then this guys futile attempt to thwart his efforts.
You are gonna have to learn to ignore the nay sayers and get on with your own investigation of Stan and his process. His process was not one of numbers. His process was understanding what water is and how it can be converted to hydrogen for use in an engine on the fly.
Get back to what is important and thats the work you have started! Stay the course and discover what Stan did.

jbignes5

[Torana]

Good morning H2Opower,

h20power
Full Member

Posts: 196

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #99 on: April 08, 2009, 10:13:11 PM »But I would like to add to that, for I am a homble man. If anyone finds mistakes in anything I have done show me and I will correct myself for I am not error proof. At first I made a mistake with the energy level of gasoline for I forgot to write the last digit and had 495k J/mol for the energy level of gasoline, someone was nice enough to point out that mistake and I corrected it. And then my numbers made since with what Stanley Meyer was saying when he spoke of stripping 4 or more electrons off of the oxygen atom for it was at the fourth energy level that water for fuel surpassed the energy content of gasoline. That should give everyone an example of what a simple mistake can do, I said I was sorry to the group and corrected my mistake and move on. For it is not our thoughts that define us but our actions that we chose to act on with our thoughts. For if I made any mistakes it won't prevent the Gas Processor from working.

h2opower.

**(Humble is spelt wrong)

[Torana]

This thread SHOULD aid WFC researchers simply to abandone stans info (WHAT?.............never!never!NEVER!)
Ive added real science throughout, the fundamental basis of the Tech Brief is the use of a water capacitor. THAT means ...attention needs to make its way to permittivity of water and capacitor function...the FOUNDATION.
*IF that falls over ,the whole concept is FALSE*
Beleive it or not ,theres a large number of people who have been before you....IM one of them! (where'd all the rest go?)
Ive done series ,parallel,series/parallel,HV and resonance and built george wisemans gas gen, this is over 10 years ago!
Ive seen people copy the 8XA for years ...I cant beleive it........A SCR! ! !
Ive put links for people to learn what a SCR is and what it is NOT capable of doing.  (personal choice- not forced)

You acknowledge that stan HID his tech, which is a major step forward , the next step is to accept that he released NO written clues, evidence, test data, circuit diagrams or indication of technology branch .  (remember Eugene Mallove?)

It is a widely accepted  *assumption* that he used an iso tank circuit resonance and that is simply because that is the circuit he pounded into everyones head continuously.

IF stans info was HIDDEN then what foundation has anybody got to build on?   the science of..?
Water dielectric value is NOT 78.54 OHMS , it is 78.54 @25 C specific-  thats SCIENCE!

Theres a pic of a PATENT INVOICE = I know about patents , patent lawyers and how the system is run. Is there anyone else who has a realistic view on this site?
No where have I discouraged anyone or given anyone a kick in the guts and Im unlikely to put down your efforts, that is not the kindve guy I am.
How would I benefit? ?

[Torana]

*** NO where have I doubted stan meyers invention but obviously Im portryed as a NAY SAYER- HOW? ?

MY STATEMENT IN RESPONSE ;
1 ; I believe stan meyers invention WORKED***
2; "     "      john kanzius          "             "
3 ; "     "     Henry puharich       "            '
4;  "     "     stephen horvath     "           "
5;  "     "     yul brown              "           "
6; "      "     steve ryan            "            "
7; I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY INFO RELEASED BY ANY OF THESE INVENTORS.

Based on experience , training and knowledge.

**It actually makes good bussiness sense NOT to release info.    This I accept.

*SO How can I be ANTI stan meyers ? 
(remember the part where I said the easiest option is to reject anything contrary to the tech brief)

What can I say to experimenters going in circles with VARIACS ?
Its not in me to kick them while theyre down, all Ive done is post obvious mistakes in stans info , its NOT MY fault he put them there for you.
Its a personal choice to ignore the signs- simple!

Are there any sparkies out there? Im usually on industry based sites, this is the only free energy site Ive ever posted on.
I know full well there is a lack of electrical knowledge on these sites.

...How about that ...jbignes5 is having a crack too !    good on ya