Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Stanley Meyer Explained  (Read 363674 times)

Offline alan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #705 on: January 07, 2022, 03:54:12 PM »
Great work! Interesting work and progress, you have built something that actually will work!   
Beware of what you post, I have understood there are people here who must prevent this from succeeding.

Floor

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #706 on: January 07, 2022, 04:51:35 PM »
@H2Opower

I'm sure that  your en-devour is one of the valid ones, here at the forum.
It's not my area and I would just be mostly in the way if I posted here
more often than I do.

Sometimes, I think it is the ones pushing the fears that are holding us
back, most.

Courage come from the heart, but somethings have changed and
nobody's has to be a martyr for this stuff to come forward.

I ask ...

that the many who    are     qualified to undertake a serious study
of  your materials, will do so and in short order.

Lets bring these things forward.

Thank you so much, for your years of dedication.

    regards
          floor

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #707 on: January 08, 2022, 08:17:03 AM »
Thanks and know I don't mind the warnings as I've had to fight the whole way thus far so why quit now?


Right now I think I am on the slow part of the tech in trying to get the rest of the materials I need to finish things up. My one contact that I use to get some of my material from isn't working at that place anymore for reasons unknown to me at the moment. But I have a lot of stuff on order and must simply wait it out until these things come in. This is a costly technology when you don't have a lot coming in to fund it. I keep my head up as I know I've already done the most important part in solving the technology and then posting the science behind it for all to have free of charge. The primary reason for doing such a thing was I noticed that what everyone else that came before me had in common was when they passed away they took what they knew about this technology with them in death. Now that pattern of loss has been broken so in the event of my death the science behind this technology will forever live on the internet. Once I shared the actual science behind this technology my death would now mean nothing as the cat is out of the bag.


In time I hope this technology brings on the change we need to have happen to do something meaningful about our shared climate change problems. When I look out at most of the other technologies this one still has the most promise to end fossil fuel use for practically everything we now use fossil fuels for right now. From planes, and trains, too power generation, and transportation this technology has it covered. Getting started is the hardest part as it's not easy to bring things to the marketplace as that is when a company will face it's hardest times. I think this year will be the year things finally kick off.


Take care all and again much thanks to those that have moved to support the cause: [size=78%]https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me[/size]


Shalom,
Edward

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #708 on: January 10, 2022, 02:55:02 AM »
Cut my first piece of glass today and while it's not perfect the bobbins fit in nice and snug. The reason for doing this is to save on the high voltage transformer resin use as it's hard to come by and on the costly side. I have a two gallon vacuum chamber and that would be a whole lot of resin wasted if I were to fill it to cover these bobbins. So now I just add the resin to the jar I cut and sanded smooth so that it doesn't cut me, lol, and save on resin use.
For the most part this is how I work as cost cutting is good for the pocketbook, but if I have no choice then I save up and pony up the cash. Thanks to all that have donated to the cause as your help is what's needed so that this technology can do what it was created to do. For those sitting on the fence now it the time to help out with whatever you can spare as this is going to be the year this technology comes out as I can feel it: [size=78%]https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me[/size]


Shalom Everyone,
Edward Mitchell

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #709 on: January 10, 2022, 10:03:11 AM »
Good luck. Shouldn't be hard to crack, if you ignore the fluff he put in the patents and videos to throw off anyone trying to use them to reproduce the effects. Remember, he wanted to make money off of the idea, and what I mentioned is standard practice in both cases concerning such for anyone, including Tesla (why his stuff is so hard to reproduce accurately using the patents).


I have gone over all of his (Stanley Meyers) patents recently since they have all expired, as well as various videos. The videos are generally a waste of time, excepting one where he lets slip a lot more than he realized, where he was trying to impress someone (unknown) with a video camera concerning the famous car.


When it might be viewed, eventually, by someone like me, that is a horrible mistake.


I took notes of the relevant characteristics of how the system worked. This allowed me to weed out a LOT of fluff and BS, like the whole laser thing. The system is based upon a type of resonance, treating the water as a dielectric in a capacitor, intentionally trying for efficiency of dielectric breakdown utilizing high voltage at high frequency. Fifty thousand build types could easily perform the feat, though specific capacitor designs would probably be more efficient. Basically, he used destructive, reinforcing resonance.


I will explain destructive resonance. Destructive resonance does not need a lot of energy, since the amount applied, if exactly at Q, is completely or mostly absorbed within a substance. This has to do with not only the substance material, but by it's shape as well. That is how a certain pitch can shatter a crystal glass over time, since each vibration absorbed makes the glass vibrate harder, until the absorbed energy is sufficient to cause the lattices in the crystals to separate. High frequency electricity is already heck on dielectrics, piercing glass (a usually good dielectric) as if it wasn't there. The problem is that you want a resonating field, and not an arc, which limits the applied voltage to the dielectric, or modifies your capacitor to suit the applied voltage.


You want the water molecules to align, then hit them with a sharp pulse to fracture them at the right time. Concerning the supposed need of a laser -- remember that his videos showing his early working units often had NO light source other than ambient. No other energy source other than the power source, for the device he took to the patent office, as one specific.


Sounds easy right? Its not, rofl, no more than it is easy to knock down a building using destructive resonance, or drill through rock with sound using the same principles, but it can be done.


It is about as easy as accurately tuning an actual Tesla coil to Q, instead of making a Tesla coil shaped device that puts out arcs and can make music. Just because it looks like a Tesla coil and operates on high frequency and voltages, does not make it an intentionally engineered device, whether achieved initially by intention (Tesla) or by accident, trial and experimentation (most inventors like Stanley who start out with a good idea).


Stanley even ripped off some of Tesla's drawings for his patents, which I find hilarious and somehow honorific to Tesla -- both at the same time. He was basing his idea on Tesla's work, so it makes sense, though I think he could have done without that part.


Only the three lobed waveform lines up with explanations, by the way. It would probably be better to use an exciting field to line up the water molecules, then hit with as close to a voltage only (as high as possible without arcing through the dielectric) spike as possible.


I suggest experimenting with tuned D'Arsonval style autotransformer coil if you intend to use capacitive based current spikes instead, as that coil style is high amperage/high voltage/high frequency. 15Watts is 15watts, whether at five volts, five thousand, fifty thousand, five hundred thousand, or five million. However, that fifteen watts continuous can give pulses in the effective rage of hundreds of watts or even megawatts -- if the initial voltage is converted to high voltage and stored in a capacitor and then released as a single pulse, if the duration of the pulse is short enough -- for those reading that don't have a clue. The primary circuit of a properly designed tesla coil will quite possibly put you in the morgue with only 15 watts if touched by bare skin for that very reason, if you have built the design properly that is.


Paul Andrulis

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #710 on: January 10, 2022, 04:48:40 PM »
Good luck. Shouldn't be hard to crack, if you ignore the fluff he put in the patents and videos to throw off anyone trying to use them to reproduce the effects. Remember, he wanted to make money off of the idea, and what I mentioned is standard practice in both cases concerning such for anyone, including Tesla (why his stuff is so hard to reproduce accurately using the patents).


I have gone over all of his (Stanley Meyers) patents recently since they have all expired, as well as various videos. The videos are generally a waste of time, excepting one where he lets slip a lot more than he realized, where he was trying to impress someone (unknown) with a video camera concerning the famous car.


When it might be viewed, eventually, by someone like me, that is a horrible mistake.


I took notes of the relevant characteristics of how the system worked. This allowed me to weed out a LOT of fluff and BS, like the whole laser thing. The system is based upon a type of resonance, treating the water as a dielectric in a capacitor, intentionally trying for efficiency of dielectric breakdown utilizing high voltage at high frequency. Fifty thousand build types could easily perform the feat, though specific capacitor designs would probably be more efficient. Basically, he used destructive, reinforcing resonance.


I will explain destructive resonance. Destructive resonance does not need a lot of energy, since the amount applied, if exactly at Q, is completely or mostly absorbed within a substance. This has to do with not only the substance material, but by it's shape as well. That is how a certain pitch can shatter a crystal glass over time, since each vibration absorbed makes the glass vibrate harder, until the absorbed energy is sufficient to cause the lattices in the crystals to separate. High frequency electricity is already heck on dielectrics, piercing glass (a usually good dielectric) as if it wasn't there. The problem is that you want a resonating field, and not an arc, which limits the applied voltage to the dielectric, or modifies your capacitor to suit the applied voltage.


You want the water molecules to align, then hit them with a sharp pulse to fracture them at the right time. Concerning the supposed need of a laser -- remember that his videos showing his early working units often had NO light source other than ambient. No other energy source other than the power source, for the device he took to the patent office, as one specific.


Sounds easy right? Its not, rofl, no more than it is easy to knock down a building using destructive resonance, or drill through rock with sound using the same principles, but it can be done.


It is about as easy as accurately tuning an actual Tesla coil to Q, instead of making a Tesla coil shaped device that puts out arcs and can make music. Just because it looks like a Tesla coil and operates on high frequency and voltages, does not make it an intentionally engineered device, whether achieved initially by intention (Tesla) or by accident, trial and experimentation (most inventors like Stanley who start out with a good idea).


Stanley even ripped off some of Tesla's drawings for his patents, which I find hilarious and somehow honorific to Tesla -- both at the same time. He was basing his idea on Tesla's work, so it makes sense, though I think he could have done without that part.


Only the three lobed waveform lines up with explanations, by the way. It would probably be better to use an exciting field to line up the water molecules, then hit with as close to a voltage only (as high as possible without arcing through the dielectric) spike as possible.


I suggest experimenting with tuned D'Arsonval style autotransformer coil if you intend to use capacitive based current spikes instead, as that coil style is high amperage/high voltage/high frequency. 15Watts is 15watts, whether at five volts, five thousand, fifty thousand, five hundred thousand, or five million. However, that fifteen watts continuous can give pulses in the effective rage of hundreds of watts or even megawatts -- if the initial voltage is converted to high voltage and stored in a capacitor and then released as a single pulse, if the duration of the pulse is short enough -- for those reading that don't have a clue. The primary circuit of a properly designed tesla coil will quite possibly put you in the morgue with only 15 watts if touched by bare skin for that very reason, if you have built the design properly that is.


Paul Andrulis




If there was a way I could delete your comment I would as I've already posted, in this very thread, how this technology works and what it is mimicking in nature. I was able to get around all of the inventor's attempt to keep the technology hidden in plain sight by making use of the scientific method. It's a slow process of elimination but it gets the desired results if one just sticks to science learns how to truly observe the world around them. Lots of asking and answering questions using those well trained skills of observation is also a must something people truly tend not to do as it's much easier to just say stuff that sounds good in an attempt to be viewed as knowing something when they actually know nothing by their perceived peers.


You don't speak in scientific terms when the technology is quite simple because you never took the time to make use of the scientific method or read this thread and get the information I put out about this technology. I and I alone solved this technology by ignoring people like you and even Meyer and others like him and instead focus my efforts on making use of the scientific method. In the end I figured out stuff about this technology not even Meyer knew about, but unlike Meyer I shared the science behind this technology for free and people like you simply refuse to listen to what I have to say really gets on my nerves as I did all the hard work of asking and answering questions about this technology already. I think it's because I posted what I learned for free is why people like you like to ignore the science I put out and simply chime in with a bunch of nonsense when no one is asking you too. You see I am fully aware of what I did as someone had to break the chain and not take the science behind this technology with them in death and guess what? I am that someone. Here again is the actual science behind this technology given to the world by me: [size=78%]https://adobefreeuserschannel.na3.documents.adobe.com/public/fs?aid=CBFCIBAA3AAABLblqZhBHwnu0ZoIma-oV4QM4v1jOGi46qx-tIaYtZpYhOzFPQSVahcL3H7Rv0oPteGmUhck%2A[/size]


Again I did this to break the pattern I saw with all those that stumbled upon this technology figuring out how it all worked but taking that information with them in death. Now the true science behind this technology is on the net and it will forever be on the net thanks to me. I did this with a whole lot of resistance coming from mostly Open Source forums of people trying to sound worthy of being listened too but having nothing to actually say who would repeatedly get in my way to the point of telling lies about me saying I was trying to rip everyone off when I was attempting to bring standardization to the table. I was banned and kicked out of all but two Open Source forums for my troubles even though I was the only one actually applying high voltage to his WFC. This is the school of hard knocks Meyer talked about but I persevered through it keeping my nose on the grindstone of science.


And I say this again, I don't share any credit with anyone, other than the most high YAH which whom I give all the credit, on figuring out the science behind this technology as I was basically told by the hho community and the scientific community to go take a hike.


Just take a look at all the many times I've been banned and that is not a complete list.


Take care all,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions

Offline activ25

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
    • i%4-1KuequidD`vb{Tbff`Vbndndkdnogr1:201:90
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #711 on: January 10, 2022, 07:14:48 PM »
Yeah, a lot of videos deseappered, maybe some patents are available.

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #712 on: January 10, 2022, 11:02:10 PM »
Well, that just proves you are into censoring, whatever.


You can repeat "using scientific method" all you wish, but that changes nothing, as you do not own a license on the scientific method. Anyone who follows the steps below is using the scientific method.



1. Make an observation.
2. Ask questions.
3. Create a testable explanation. (hypothesis if you prefer the term)
4. Create a prediction based on the explanation.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Utilize the new information and repeat from step 1.


Most experimenters use the scientific method, whether they know it or not.


I have not read your work yet, but will give it a look and see whether it matches what I have determined. As far as you "being the only one" that is false, since obviously Stanley at the very least came up with the idea long before you. As far as any information I have, it came directly from Stanley's own mouth or writing. If I want to understand someone's point of view, I don't ask others, I ask them, so to speak. Stanley's patents are all available for download, nothing secret there. Videos of his are still on Youtube, so nothing hidden there either. Either way it doesn't matter since ENOUGH videos are available, with him providing the information personally, to provide the necessary information.


Paul Andrulis

Floor

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #713 on: January 10, 2022, 11:56:21 PM »
ish

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #714 on: January 11, 2022, 01:43:14 AM »
Well, that just proves you are into censoring, whatever.


You can repeat "using scientific method" all you wish, but that changes nothing, as you do not own a license on the scientific method. Anyone who follows the steps below is using the scientific method.



1. Make an observation.
2. Ask questions.
3. Create a testable explanation. (hypothesis if you prefer the term)
4. Create a prediction based on the explanation.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Utilize the new information and repeat from step 1.


Most experimenters use the scientific method, whether they know it or not.


I have not read your work yet, but will give it a look and see whether it matches what I have determined. As far as you "being the only one" that is false, since obviously Stanley at the very least came up with the idea long before you. As far as any information I have, it came directly from Stanley's own mouth or writing. If I want to understand someone's point of view, I don't ask others, I ask them, so to speak. Stanley's patents are all available for download, nothing secret there. Videos of his are still on Youtube, so nothing hidden there either. Either way it doesn't matter since ENOUGH videos are available, with him providing the information personally, to provide the necessary information.


Paul Andrulis


Since there is no way you could know this I spoke directly with Dr. Dingle when he was alive. You know the guy that drove two Presidents in his car with nothing but water in it's tank for fuel back in 1968. But getting to my point all the work I have put into this trying to get at the true science behind the technology is mines and mines alone. Now I gave away the science behind the technology for free as I had made this site a promise that if I got at the science I'd post it for all to have and I kept my promise and did so. Now that science is in the public domain complete with a whole new theory I came up with based on the science I uncovered.


You also don't seem to know that Meyer's injectors never worked and I know the reason why they didn't as Meyer himself also didn't know this information for if he did they why was he creating a research facility to study the technology further? When that theory makes it to the books of science it will have my ugly mug sitting right besides it as that's all I truly want is credit given were credit is due.


As far as I can tell not a soul has managed to put true high voltage to their WFC's since I showed it was possible in the interview video by John Fraser in 2013 while I was at the Global Breakthrough Energy Conference held in Boulder, Colorado. I know Meyer did so but he had been dead for 15 years when I showed a WFC having a applied voltage of 7.4kv to it's plates in a provable manor with all the correct equipment to do so. You see at that time all the science guys were telling me that one could not put a high voltage to a bath of water and when I did it they naturally went and moved the goal post on me saying water couldn't be broken down that way as that would violate the laws of physics. And when I showed a video of me breaking the bonds of the water molecules with high voltage potentials they just starting telling everyone I was cheating somehow. Since all the forums at the time sided with the mainstream science guys I gave up trying to teach anyone this technology and moved on towards trying to put the technology into the marketplace.


I think we are entering into what Arthur C. Clarke called, "The four stages involved in any revolutionary development."
1.  It's nonsense don't waste my time.
2.  Oh, it's interesting but not important.
3.  I always said it was a good idea.
4.  I thought of it first.


You see I am already prepared for this and have been preparing for this for a long time now. People are going to be coming out of the woodwork to try and take the credit for my hard work, but my defense against that is time as I figure this technology out a long time ago. Because I'm poor is the only reason why the technology hasn't made it to the market yet as the cost of doing so is on the high side.


All the many times I was told to shove that "Scientific Theory" where the sun doesn't shine, all those times I was told to just give up as it simply wasn't possible, and all the times the entire Open Source community rose up against me to ban me and kick me out of their forums I had to go through and I pressed on despite all of that. It wasn't easy and at times I was thinking of giving up but that is not in my character. That school of hard knocks is a tough one. Each time the Open Source community rose up against me it chipped away at my giving spirit and now I just give what I promised I would give and nothing more. Gunther my partner was surprised of how ignorant I was when it came to matters like these but was also equally impressed at how quickly I learned the ropes. You see I use to share everything in real time as I figured things out, but over time I lost the desire to do that due directly to how I was being treated by the Open Source community for doing so.


Now all of my efforts are to get this technology into the marketplace where it can start repairing all the damage we have done to our world with our use of fossil fuels.


Well, I think I have said enough on this. I hope everyone understands my position on these matters.
Take care,
Edward Mitchell




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #715 on: January 12, 2022, 05:18:13 AM »

Since there is no way you could know this I spoke directly with Dr. Dingle when he was alive. You know the guy that drove two Presidents in his car with nothing but water in it's tank for fuel back in 1968. But getting to my point all the work I have put into this trying to get at the true science behind the technology is mines and mines alone. Now I gave away the science behind the technology for free as I had made this site a promise that if I got at the science I'd post it for all to have and I kept my promise and did so. Now that science is in the public domain complete with a whole new theory I came up with based on the science I uncovered.


You also don't seem to know that Meyer's injectors never worked and I know the reason why they didn't as Meyer himself also didn't know this information for if he did they why was he creating a research facility to study the technology further? When that theory makes it to the books of science it will have my ugly mug sitting right besides it as that's all I truly want is credit given were credit is due.


As far as I can tell not a soul has managed to put true high voltage to their WFC's since I showed it was possible in the interview video by John Fraser in 2013 while I was at the Global Breakthrough Energy Conference held in Boulder, Colorado. I know Meyer did so but he had been dead for 15 years when I showed a WFC having a applied voltage of 7.4kv to it's plates in a provable manor with all the correct equipment to do so. You see at that time all the science guys were telling me that one could not put a high voltage to a bath of water and when I did it they naturally went and moved the goal post on me saying water couldn't be broken down that way as that would violate the laws of physics. And when I showed a video of me breaking the bonds of the water molecules with high voltage potentials they just starting telling everyone I was cheating somehow. Since all the forums at the time sided with the mainstream science guys I gave up trying to teach anyone this technology and moved on towards trying to put the technology into the marketplace.


I think we are entering into what Arthur C. Clarke called, "The four stages involved in any revolutionary development."
1.  It's nonsense don't waste my time.
2.  Oh, it's interesting but not important.
3.  I always said it was a good idea.
4.  I thought of it first.


You see I am already prepared for this and have been preparing for this for a long time now. People are going to be coming out of the woodwork to try and take the credit for my hard work, but my defense against that is time as I figure this technology out a long time ago. Because I'm poor is the only reason why the technology hasn't made it to the market yet as the cost of doing so is on the high side.


All the many times I was told to shove that "Scientific Theory" where the sun doesn't shine, all those times I was told to just give up as it simply wasn't possible, and all the times the entire Open Source community rose up against me to ban me and kick me out of their forums I had to go through and I pressed on despite all of that. It wasn't easy and at times I was thinking of giving up but that is not in my character. That school of hard knocks is a tough one. Each time the Open Source community rose up against me it chipped away at my giving spirit and now I just give what I promised I would give and nothing more. Gunther my partner was surprised of how ignorant I was when it came to matters like these but was also equally impressed at how quickly I learned the ropes. You see I use to share everything in real time as I figured things out, but over time I lost the desire to do that due directly to how I was being treated by the Open Source community for doing so.


Now all of my efforts are to get this technology into the marketplace where it can start repairing all the damage we have done to our world with our use of fossil fuels.


Well, I think I have said enough on this. I hope everyone understands my position on these matters.
Take care,
Edward Mitchell


Edward, you seem to think I give a hoot about "recognition" which I actually find funny as heck. I solved the SM TPU issue, but who cares? I don't.  I could not care less whether history even knows my name, let alone remembers it. I want good accurate information to reach "we the people" and after that, I don't care who gave it. If you have put your information, full and complete into the pubic domain, then awesome, I am the first to cheer for you then.


However, I do not necessarily need anyone's interpretation of the data to figure something out concerning new technology. I am perfectly capable of doing it myself.


Now, concerning the people that you talked about at the conference, I am not surprised in the least. People have been taught since birth that "science has all the answers" and this is due to the cold war. (History lesson) Before the cold war, Americans were free to learn whatever the teachers wanted to teach in school within limits. People often learned their ABC's using scripture verses, for instance. Evolution was taught alongside Creationism. However, with the launch of sputnik our glorious government decided "we were behind" and that Russia "was more scientific" in their approach, so they copied Russia's example, not knowing that Russia was generally way behind us technologically as a country already. They however, started the "science has all the answers" propaganda that most actually believe, including a sizeable portion of scientists themselves.


Do I believe high voltage can be used to crack water molecules? ABSOLUTELY. Do I think it requires Amperage? HECK NO!


WHY?


Because science basically thinks thermodynamics is king, while ignoring the fact that every scientific law ever conceived by man has limits to its applicability. The conservation law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, for instance. For a theory to be true (or applicable in a specific case), its postulates must first be true, such as no preference being given to any specific frame of reference for the theory of Relativity, which is violated all of the time by Physicists.  Such things are inconvenient.


With the high voltage method we are talking finesse to break water molecules, not brute force using pure amperage. For the physicists reading this: Which is faster and more effective at cutting stone using a stream of water, using flow (volume) or high pressure? Answer - High pressure.  Another question, which is more effective at removing material from a metal object, soaking in water or soaking in water in a resonant (sonic cleaning) tank, and why? Answer - sonic cleaning, because the high frequency pulses dislodge the material.


For you an me, stressing a molecule then smacking it with a high voltage pulse is not rocket science. It is a unique idea for the first person to think of it, but ll either of us can do after the fact is reproduce an already realized and invented concept (in this case literally patented). 


Don't expect science to come knocking down your down, or lauding you with praise and notoriety, as that will not happen. If anything, expect public shaming and debunking, as scientists are real touchy about those that rock the boat. Science is not a "thing" like a "body of knowledge" as some like to propose, but instead it is a group of people using a specific but very simple to follow and understand method, who generally don't enjoy when questioned about their collective logic or wisdom on any subject at all. I have literally lillte respect for many so called scientists, as the term 'egotist' is often more accurate, especially when accompanied by 'refuse to do their job'.


Something interesting for you. Working on an interesting coil project long ago, I needed a specific 555 timer circuit, so I searched the net and found one that had the features I needed. Fairly simple circuit that used an extra transistor, no problem. I tested it, and in the thread here that I was working on the project posted a drawing of the circuit giving attribution to the original creator of the circuit with a link to his site. An EE (Electrical Engineer) here at Overunity private messaged me, patiently explaining that "my" circuit would not work. I thought maybe I had made a mistake when redrawing it, so checked against the original and my own breadboarded circuit, and everything was fine. I told him that I did not originate the original circuit, but found it on the net. I asked him if he had replicated it, because the one I had built was still working fine, exactly as I had posted pictures of on my oscilloscope. His response afterward stuck with me, as it so classically encompasses scientific attitudes today. He said "I am not going to waste my time building something that I know won't work."


That is modern science, in a nutshell. I laughed, and laughed, and laughed some more, due to how ridiculously stubborn and completely illogical the attitude was.


The very people debunking you WILL HAVE NEVER EVEN TRIED to replicate what you build, even if you provide an exact circuit diagram for them -- understand that right now bro.


I use my name because I don't care what any of them thinks of me. I am not hiding behind an internet moniker. If they want to take me to task, great. They better bring their big boy pants because I will check their logic. I will also use logic to literally shred their arguments into tiny pieces right in front of them, as I do the same with my own concept, and have no intention of being any easier on them than I am on my own self.


Paul Andrulis


Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #716 on: January 12, 2022, 07:04:18 AM »
Fair enough I suppose. Mimicking a thunderstorm is all Dr. Dingle, Stanley Meyer, and many others did but they didn't know that they were doing so. The science of thunderstorms is vague and they even admit at times that they don't fully understand what's going on. I had to do a lot of this research totally on my own as there simply wasn't any data to read on the topic.


For me it all started with a series of dreams and those dreams lead me to the solution. I believe with all my heart that Yahweh sent those dreams to me. With those dreams I started asking some very different questions that to most sounded like I was coming totally out of left field. In fact the more progress I made the more resistance I got from the Open Source community. I remember clearly when I showed a screen shot of me getting 8.8kv to the WFC and getting no praise at all but condemnation. In time I just stopped trying to teach this technology as there are rules that must be followed and if I'd suggest someone to get a needed tool several people would come behind me and tell that person they didn't need that tool. I'd sit back and wait to see if the person would actually move to get the tool but I think it only happened once and that person got the tool and broke it on purpose as what it showed of his work didn't agree with what he thought he was getting. So, basically that means no one followed anything I was suggesting people to do. Now I could see if I didn't have any results why listen to someone like me but I did have results.


At the Global BreakThrough Energy Movement conference held in Boulder, Colorado in 2013 I was supposed to get interviewed by Sterling Allen but he snubbed me. I let a lot of people at the controls and even had Moray King come by. We spoke about so many different topics and I shared my thunderstorm idea with him but he too didn't quite understand how thunderstorms actually work, but it sure was fun to meet him. I was getting depressed as only one guy wanted to give me an interview but he was asking all the wrong questions so I said no. Then John Fraser came around asking the right questions and I agreed to be interviewed by him. I am so thankful that I agreed to that interview as the video came out great. That video is the only one I have ever seen of someone actually applying high voltage to a WFC before. I think before then the highest voltage I had ever seen anyone apply to their WFC was 560 volts. In most of the forums those experimenting with this technology were only getting around 5-12 volts to their WFC's. Most people that took the time to come by more than once were shocked that the cell was on for hours on end and the temperature never changed. I told them that I took amp reading with my analog micro amp meter and the readings I got were only 0.6mA flowing through the cell which was simply not enough to heat the water bath. All in all the event was okay but it also let me down as I had a speaking part but my time was taken from me and given to someone to just tell jokes.


After the event a few people contacted me but the proposals they were offering me were totally one sided. Some even wanted me to work for them which I declined as I had a business already and found it very disappointing that no one seemed to want to do things fairly where we both came out with something. Even now a few people are making contact with me out of the clear blue wanting to work with me in some way. With these new ones I am thinking it over but I am not stopping what I am doing as I have plans of my own that I am following. With the purchase of the Photon Mono X I cut out a very expensive middle man and can now move forwards with this technology with more speed as a result. I keep what I am planning to myself as there is such a thing as giving out too much information something else I learned from the school of hard knocks.


Now like you I really don't hide my name much anymore as I have a business and thus anyone can look up my name so no reason to hide anymore. Most people whom call my business are looking for someone to cut their lawns, lol. I remember running into a guy that was trying to do something to own the names of future companies he thought people would use and admitted to me that he didn't see someone using what I named my company coming. If I remember correctly he told me that he would allow folks to use a name he had licensed for a few years and then come to that company demanding money from them as they were using a name he had licensed. Nice guy, huh? I don't like capitalism as it makes people do some really wicked/evil stuff.


Now I really don't like being called "Bro" as I do have a name but I understand a lot of times it's just slang people have gotten use to using in their neck of the woods when they see that a person is black. No one that I know of talks that way in the central valley were I'm from.


When it comes to the science guys I respect them but I also know they only know what they've been taught and haven't yet learned to question things like a true person of science is supposed to do. I fully understand that a simple lawn full of grass breaks the laws of thermal dynamics as each blade of grass is breaking down the water molecules outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method. When I was looking into things like this many years ago I found it interesting that no one seems to have ever ask how a plant goes about breaking the bonds of the water molecules. All they seemed concerned about was how it moved electrons around which lead to the invention of the solar technology. Basically that was all due to capitalism in their never ending quest to make money at all cost. In my view that system of governance just has to be done away with as it's destroying the whole planet.


Well, I think I've typed enough for now, lol.
Shalom,
Edward Mitchell

Offline kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #717 on: January 12, 2022, 08:13:15 AM »
Quote
Do I believe high voltage can be used to crack water molecules? ABSOLUTELY.
it is possible to destroy the molecule with high voltage.
the problem is to create this high voltage in a conductive medium.
I haven't succeeded yet. :(

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #718 on: January 12, 2022, 06:16:35 PM »
it is possible to destroy the molecule with high voltage.
the problem is to create this high voltage in a conductive medium.
I haven't succeeded yet. :(




This is why it puzzles me when folks like you refuse to listen to what I have to say when I have gotten voltages to the WFC into the kilovolt range. Here is a video that shows the need to get a differential probe, but first let me ask the right question so that you all will understand. "Why did the nylon streamers fall down when he touched the capacitor?" [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOLd2KVK-Mo&ab_channel=JamesLincoln[/size] Once you answer that question you will be on your way to actually applying high voltage to your WFC's. This is but one of the many rules for working with this technology that you must obey.
Now if you add that information to all the other information I have posted in this thread you too will get high voltage to your WFC's as I even gave the turn count data for making these multispooled transformers someplace in this thread. The real problem with this technology is there is no short cutting the rules that govern it and that makes getting started down the right path expensive. Even I am currently running into MOQ's (minimum order quantities) that are pushing pass my abilities to purchase the stuff I need as I try and setup my supply chains in getting ready to put this technology on the marketplace. It's just not easy getting started as there are many barriers you will run into while trying to get this technology up and running correctly. This is why those that want to be cheap or are just poor have no hope of getting this technology working correctly. Now if you add that to folks being stubborn or adversarial towards the one doing things correctly and you have a total no win situation.


When trying to get the technology working correctly these MOQ's and MBA's(minimum buy amounts) are really going to cause you to pause and save up the cash as you can't move forwards without what they are selling or the services they are providing when you can't do the work yourself. This is why what Paul says about me just dumping all I know about the technology on the thread and having no one actually move to do it is true as these cost barriers stand in the way of moving forwards for most people. Some companies only sell to other companies and not to the general public which is the primary reason why I started my company True Green Solutions as it was the only way to get some of the things I needed. Most of you don't know these things as you have never progressed enough in your studies on this technology as you learn what works and what does not work. I try and cut cost as much as I can but on some things there is no cutting the cost and you have to hope that they don't raise their prices on you as you attempt to save up for the things you need.
Here is an example of what I am talking about; that none flash back tubbing cost around $100 bucks per foot with a minimum buy of 100 feet which comes to $10k USD. How many of you have $10k ready to spend on some flashback tubbing what Meyer called "Quenching Circuit tubing"? And guess what it's a safety item which means you will not be able to sell anything to anyone on the open market until you get the tubing unless you come up with a different way of doing things that is also safe so no one blows themselves up with the product you sold them. There is a lot to think about with this technology that, outside of myself, I don't see anyone talking about. I think this is why after all that I have posted in this thread to get people started in the right direction is the primary reason why no one has done so as all of these barriers have been put in place to prevent the poor from being able to get this technology up and running correctly and were money wasn't an issue they put well worded propaganda in place to stop folks from pursuing this technology. This is why I hate Capitalism.


This technology is something we can do but it's going to take a lot of work and we have to be prepared to fail and get right back up again until the mission is completed. I have failed many times before I was able to get this technology up and running correctly. Knowing the actual science behind the technology allowed me to ask the right questions thus cutting cost as I was no longer going down blind allies as I did before I got at the true science behind this technology. Knowing that I was trying to mimic a thunderstorm with this technology made all the difference in the world and I shared that scientific discovery with all of you free of charge. With this post you now have an idea of what it takes to get this technology up and running correctly. Best of luck to you all and remember I am still seeking the support of the people so that this technology can make it to the marketplace so we can start cleaning up the mess we have all contributed to towards damaging the very atmosphere we all need to survive. [size=78%]https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me[/size]


Shalom,
Edward Mitchell

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #719 on: January 13, 2022, 09:49:21 PM »
Hello Everyone,


In my latest disagreement with Paul I decided to take a close look at this entire thread and see if I did in fact give this technology away. In summery it would seem I did but left out about 2% of what I know about the technology. If one would read the thread, especially from pages 21-up and followed instructions they would be getting high voltages to their WFC provided they ever built a WFC. The main problem I see is people just don't know how to follow instructions and have no true desire to be lead by someone that looks like me. In this thread, which is approaching 13 old, I gave the technology away for all to have. I showed how to be humble and admit when I was wrong about something and also apologized to the person and the entire community here. When reading the thread I found that I repeated myself far too much on simple topics that should have been very easy for folks to understand.


It's clear that I gave the need to know information to get everyone getting high voltages to their WFC's. Now sadly a lot of the links I gave no longer work as the sites shut down, videos were removed, or other things that broke the links. And I also saw that I did give up on this site a few times out of frustration. The one thing I really don't like is all the many pages of nonsense filling up the thread with folks trying to tell how they thought things work or were just down right being bad faith actors. For twelve years I was trying to teach this technology and having no one follow my lead so I tossed that towel in and moved to just trying to get this technology into the marketplace as our climate change problems are here now and this technology can address them head on. For those wishing to aid my efforts to put this technology into the marketplace you can do so here and know your help is very much appreciated: [size=78%]https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me[/size]


Going over every page showed me I really did try and get others to get stated on this technology successfully or at the very least headed in the right direction. The fault lies with those who read the thread and moved to do nothing with the information I posted in this thread. So, now I am trying to build the technology for you since you all have shown me you are totally unwilling to build this technology for ourselves. As for the rest of the world I understand not everyone is capable of building this technology for themselves, nor are they capable of understanding this technology, but I understand that they need to be made free from the energy enslavement system we all are trapped in today.


In this thread I showed my work, gave examples, and taught the science as best as I could so that folks would be able to understand it.


The primary difference between Paul Andrulis and myself is Paul is a talker and I am a doer basically a man of action. If you are waiting for Paul to actually do something about our climate change problems you will be dead and gone before he actually builds anything to try and turn the tide on our climate change problems. I on the other hand am actively building the things I am talking about and therefor have actual hands on experience dealing with Meyer's technology. Plus, I am now attempting to put the technology on the marketplace so that the technology can start actually doing something towards solving our climate change problems. For as long as we remain just talking nothing is getting done, do you feel me? Your not going to get anything done by going outside and trying to talk to our atmosphere into cleaning itself at higher rates than we are messing things up. You have to move to address the problem which is our continued use of fossil fuels, poor land management, and poor water management, plus a whole lot of other stuff as it is us humans that are the problem.


Here in this thread have I not shown my work? Have I not given the sizes of the electrodes and the turn counts of the Multispooled transformers? Have I not pointed you to use a circuit for this technology? And on top of all that I walked you all through the science behind this technology with comparisons and real world examples to back up those comparisons as proof of what I am telling you is the truth in a scientific manor. Here in this thread I have even went one further in telling everyone which types of probes are needed to be purchased for use on this technology and why those types of probes were needed, did I not? There is so much information in this thread that it would make one's head spin. But the one thing I could not do is give any of you the desire or the will to move to build this technology for yourselves as that has to come from within.


"Be the change you wish to see in this world," is a quote I know not whom came up with but those are words of action. Being a man of action I say that quote is right as we can't go around sitting on our butts waiting for someone to come and save us as we must jump into action. So I moved to do just that in actively trying to get this technology into the marketplace. So, don't come over here hating because I have moved to actually trying to be the change I wish to see in this world.


Shalom Everyone,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
« Last Edit: January 14, 2022, 12:56:05 AM by h20power »