Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 88   Go Down

Author Topic: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power  (Read 828047 times)

sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1215 on: August 24, 2009, 09:05:58 PM »
thats why stanley used 12 vic.

And thats why i claim collision takes place inside the water. 
Logged

newbie123

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 459
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1216 on: August 24, 2009, 09:26:29 PM »
Quote from: sebosfato on August 24, 2009, 09:05:58 PM
thats why stanley used 12 vic.

And thats why i claim collision takes place inside the water.

sebosfato,

Lol..  Your claims are wortheless!

All you have is blind theory, just like all the other Stan Meyer fanatics that think they know what Meyer did..
You're Funny!



« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 02:22:07 AM by newbie123 »
Logged

newbie123

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 459
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1217 on: August 24, 2009, 09:29:47 PM »
Quote from: Tacmatricx on August 24, 2009, 08:11:51 PM

That is correct... however you have forgotten the core rule:


And don't forget the rule Stan Meyer didn't understand fully...     1 Volt  =  1 Joule / 1 Coulomb
Logged

Tacmatricx

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1218 on: August 24, 2009, 10:57:26 PM »
I actually think Stan was onto something... he totally stole Andrija Puharich's work and made it his own with no reference to Andrija.

However they both made engines run from water alone. Stan had a buggy and Andrija had a RV.

I honestly don't follow how you arrive that H2O2 is involved? If you could turn 2 H2O into H2O2 + H2 there would be no oxygen gas bubbling off as all would be used in the reaction... The only gas released would be H2 and the water would slowly turn to H2O2. A simple test of this is to expose the gas to platinum. H2 gas exposed to platinum does nothing... Mixed H2 and O2 gas explodes in the presence of platinum. This caused a meyer replication rig to explode when it was connected to a PEM fuel cell. H2O2 is also extremely dangerous in high concentrations!

If you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide you will notice that the manufacturing process is rather complex and no where near as simple as applying a current to water.

In my understanding, the base for both Stan's and Andrija Puharich's technology revolves around harmonic frequencies that cause the H2 atoms in the water molecule to stretch away from the O2 molecule. Repeatedly doing this strips away the H- ions leaving the O+ ions that are attracted to and become H2 and O2 at the electodes. The same principle as shattering a wine glass using sound waves. To break a glass requires either high power waves or low power tuned resonance. i.e. Hard Electrolysis vs. Low voltage frequency.

Tacmatricx
Logged

quarktoo

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1219 on: August 25, 2009, 01:36:42 AM »
Quote from: Tacmatricx on August 24, 2009, 10:57:26 PM
I actually think Stan was onto something... he totally stole Andrija Puharich's work and made it his own with no reference to Andrija.

However they both made engines run from water alone. Stan had a buggy and Andrija had a RV.

I honestly don't follow how you arrive that H2O2 is involved? If you could turn 2 H2O into H2O2 + H2 there would be no oxygen gas bubbling off as all would be used in the reaction... The only gas released would be H2 and the water would slowly turn to H2O2. A simple test of this is to expose the gas to platinum. H2 gas exposed to platinum does nothing... Mixed H2 and O2 gas explodes in the presence of platinum. This caused a meyer replication rig to explode when it was connected to a PEM fuel cell. H2O2 is also extremely dangerous in high concentrations!

If you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide you will notice that the manufacturing process is rather complex and no where near as simple as applying a current to water.

In my understanding, the base for both Stan's and Andrija Puharich's technology revolves around harmonic frequencies that cause the H2 atoms in the water molecule to stretch away from the O2 molecule. Repeatedly doing this strips away the H- ions leaving the O+ ions that are attracted to and become H2 and O2 at the electodes. The same principle as shattering a wine glass using sound waves. To break a glass requires either high power waves or low power tuned resonance. i.e. Hard Electrolysis vs. Low voltage frequency.

Tacmatricx

I agree that Meyer stole Puharich's idea and Puharich stole Dad Garret's idea and so on.

They all did the same thing but Meyer probably told more than the others when he patented both the air gas processor and the cell.

Look at the photos of the dune buggy. You see two gate valves. One valve is fed by the steam generator and the other by the ozone generator. That goes to a stack of four resonant cavities which are ultrasonic mixers to combine the two gasses into H2O2 or H2O3.

You don't see how combining H2O and O3 = H2O2 with an extra oxygen? I suspect Meyer eventually got the process up to H2O3 or trioxidane and is what Meyer described as greater than normal energy release once the electrons were extracted during combustion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2O3

The most significant piece of information is that Meyer did not split H2O into HHO, he built the H2O molecule into H2O2.

"What we are doing is exactly 180 degrees out of phase of Faraday electrolysis" - Stan Meyer.
Logged

sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1220 on: August 27, 2009, 09:21:35 AM »
Anyway stanley didn't stole only andrija but also stephen horvath tech nology....


Stanley wasn't creating other molecules the way you said, anyway nothing i can say can change your mind even if i came here with what i'm saying and this being the only solution. You have being blinded by so much misinformation and dangerous high voltage and 0 current.

Donate if you can

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=ERQSHHBGWC5P2&lc=GB&item_name=Bring%20power%20to%20the%20people&currency_code=EUR&bn=PP%2dDonationsBF%3abtn_donateCC_LG_global%2egif%3aNonHosted

More info
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true.html
Logged

dankie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1221 on: August 27, 2009, 06:45:46 PM »
why are you always asking for $ .

People have No money , I have only 2 orders for my wonderful ocillator , I was expecting hundreds . NOBODY HAS ANY $ , ESPECIALY NOT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY GIVE AWAY . THIS IS NOT 1999



Logged

CrazyEwok

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1222 on: August 28, 2009, 06:19:43 AM »
People would only want to jump on if you can proove your design works and is replicatable... If your design worked and was replicatable you wouldn't need to ask on web forums for investors...
FAIL!!!
Logged

sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1223 on: August 28, 2009, 11:29:34 AM »
Until people think they are better than others they won't see the truth...

If you fail it doesn't mean i fail.
Logged

L505

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1224 on: September 08, 2009, 10:18:52 AM »
Quote from: TheBuzz on January 23, 2009, 02:59:30 PM
1. A transformer of some sort to drive piezo bolts going into the center bottom tubes?
2. A gas discharge lamp to consume electrons from the water?
3. Who knows?

Electrons are not consumed by a lamp or a bulb, or a resistor. Electrons are vibrating or moving. When the electrons go into a lightbulb filament they just pass through it, they do not get "burnt" or "convert into heat". They simply slow down their speed.

This is the biggest issue I have with stan meyer. He claimed to be an electronics expert and he doesn't even know that electrons are not consumed in a circuit. At least, in his patents he misleads people into thinking that electrons can be consumed in a light bulb.

Crackpots and quacks on the forums are now going around thinking the electron extraction circuit is all about "consuming electrons" in the light bulb. No such thing occurs in a light bulb. I guess these people think that electrons get consumed and burnt off (like some kind of wood in a fire).

Even if it were the case that electrons were "burnt off", this would be very dangerous and would reduce the mass of our world very very quickly. The earth might become some kind of atomic bomb waiting to explode.

So if stan was not a fraud, then someone better come up with an explanation how electrons are "Extracted", because they sure aren't "burnt off" in a light bulb. Anyone with basic electronics experience should know that electrons are not "burnt off" just because a light is shining bright.
Logged

L505

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1225 on: September 08, 2009, 10:24:51 AM »
Quote from: sebosfato on August 24, 2009, 06:33:27 AM
So read my thread and if you want my data make a donation

You're a Class A Idiot.
Logged

dankie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1226 on: September 08, 2009, 01:34:36 PM »
Sebosfato is one of these italian biggots .

He even asked me for a free circuit , FREE LOL .

He has no skill or $ and wants you to do the work for him , but all he can do is ask for help lol .
Logged

sebosfato

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1227 on: September 08, 2009, 08:52:07 PM »
@dankie i didn't ask you any free circuit as i already have the phase lock loop circuit done and working i have constructed the all design stanley meyer proposed with the resonant scanning circuit and lock indicator and feedback obviously.

Idiot is who really don't understand that electrons are consumed (being attached to the oxygen atoms to allow the hydrogen to be liberated) yes splitting the water as you know you must pass the current thru the water to make electrolysis.
Logged

L505

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1228 on: September 09, 2009, 01:00:22 AM »
Quote from: sebosfato on September 08, 2009, 08:52:07 PM
Idiot is who really don't understand that electrons are consumed (being attached to the oxygen atoms to allow the hydrogen to be liberated) yes splitting the water as you know you must pass the current thru the water to make electrolysis.

Stan says electrons are taken away from the oxygen, hence the "electron extraction" you moron, and not "electron addition". If this is some cover up and stan was really adding electrons, his patent wouldn't even be valid, moron, because he called it "extraction" and a patent cannot lie 180 degrees off course.

Everything sebosfato says is opposite to what Stan meyer said. Sebosfato's theory is to go 180 degrees opposite of stan's patents.  Why not 45 degrees or 60 degrees? where do you draw the line?

Sebosfato is a psychopathic demented troll, and a quack, and a crackpot.

Adding light to the oxygen atoms is not adding electrons, it is encouraging the atoms to be positive and hence electrons are taken away.

Even if electrons were moved into the oxygen to make it more negative instead of positive, this would not be consumption of electrons.

Consumption of electrons is a false phrase and makes no sense, as matter is not destroyed (unless Mr. Genius Stan was able to destroy them somehow which would f**k up our world and make him die an early death due to a "brain fry" from all the missing electrons in his water vapor he breathed. He probably drank the water from his water cell because he thought it was blessed by god, and this killed him due to toxicity)

« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 01:27:11 AM by L505 »
Logged

newbie123

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 459
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #1229 on: September 09, 2009, 05:07:47 AM »
lol
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 88   Go Up
« previous next »