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 365266 times)

Offline Vortex 22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #795 on: May 14, 2022, 11:34:17 PM »

This will be a direct replacement for most of what we use fossil fuels for now. So, yes we can cook our food, heat things, wield, and much much more as again with fossil fuels it's the hydrogen we are actually making use of and this technology gives us the hydrogen we need from a different source, IE, just natural water. It's the most transformative technology that I have ever come across. It's hard for most folks to imagine this technology replacing everywhere we use fossil fuels for when it comes to transportation, power generation, and more as it just seems too large for a small technology to be able to accomplish such a great change in the way we do things.


Hydrogen already runs the world as nothing that I know of would be alive today without hydrogen.


Shalom,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
https://www.gofundme.com/f/77uvw4-energy-independence-for-you-and-me
Hi Edward,
It's nice to hear from you
Thank you
God Bless You

Offline Vortex 22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #796 on: May 14, 2022, 11:54:15 PM »
This is from an expert on the subject

YOU WANT THE WATER FUEL TO BURN SLOWLY ?
He is speaking of hydrogen or HHO gaz ?

Thanks

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #797 on: May 15, 2022, 03:57:32 AM »
In order to control the burn rate of hydrogen all that is done is to add in gases that do not support the burning process. A good analogy of this is say you drive on the highway from one city to the other and time yourself. The first drive there is no traffic and you note the time it took you and upon coming back there is a traffic jam and again you note the time it took you. The trip with no traffic will be a lot faster than the trip with heavy traffic, correct? But why? It's because all of those cars physically got in your way on the return trip. This is what adding gases that do not support the combustion process does as they physically get in the way of the hydrogen and oxygen gases from being able to come together quickly.


With stove top burners Meyer redirected the flame front to go back in on itself, on cars he used the spent exhaust gases to add in gases that do not support the combustion process back into the mixture by way of the Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system with an electronically controlled metering value. This question seems as if it comes from one of my enemies that think I don't understand this technology like Tony Quinn. Trust me he is no expert as he has never moved to perform any real world experiments and thus hasn't learned anything as a result. To me he is a person that just loves the sound of their own voice as to come at this technology from a non-scientific perspective, IE, not making use of the scientific method will leave one lost and confused. When I started working to understand this technology I did so bringing science along with me actually making use of the scientific method. This method requires one to perform countless experiments as it's a slow process of elimination that gets at the truth of just how this technology works.


Most of people that come up against me don't like to make use of the scientific method as that forces them to perform experiments which in turn cost a lot of money. With this method anything you find that you are missing must be attained no mater what it is that is missing. Say if you find yourself not understanding scientific concepts all that well, then this method requires you to go to college too pick up the missing information and then you can get back to experimenting. Or, if you require a tool like a Differential Probe you can't move forwards until you get that measuring tool. People don't like this method as it leaves out nothing and thus does cost quite a bit of money and time to be spent in order to keep moving forwards with your experimentation on trying to understand this technology. I made use of the scientific method which is how I got to fully understand just what was actually going on. In doing so I was able to come up with a totally new theory that will one day be added to our books of science as those are the rewards of making use of the scientific method on something that is truly an unknown. This is why the way I now talk about this technology isn't talked about by others as simply put they don't know about these connections I have discovered about this technology when comparing it to how nature goes about breaking the bonds of the water molecules.


I moved this thread to a new spot so that I could raise the funding to be able to get this technology off the ground once I fully understood how the technology worked. I openly ask folks to donate to the cause so that this technology can get to phasing out the use of fossil fuels world wide in order to actually do something about our shared climate change problems. I move my thread because folks were complaining that I was trying to raise funds on this site. When it comes to our climate change problems we are all in the same boat together. In order to be effective this technology needs to go into mass production and for me to be able to do that I need the support of the people. If, like Meyer said, we all come together in one accord the world will have this technology. All I can do is hope folks move to support my efforts to bring this technology in by way of mass production so that the world can have it.


Shalom,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
https://www.gofundme.com/f/77uvw4-energy-independence-for-you-and-me
« Last Edit: May 15, 2022, 11:44:15 AM by h20power »

Offline Vortex 22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #798 on: May 15, 2022, 08:07:15 AM »
In order to control the burn rate of hydrogen all that is done is to add in gases that do not support the burning process. A good analogy of this is say you drive on the highway from one city to the other and time yourself. The first drive there is no traffic and you note the time it took you and upon coming back there is a traffic jam and again you note the time it took you. The trip with no traffic will be a lot faster than the trip with heavy traffic, correct? But why? It's because all of those cars physically got in your way on the return trip. This is what adding gases that do not support the combustion process does as they physically get in the way of the hydrogen and oxygen gases from being able to come together quickly.


With stove top burners Meyer redirected the flame front to go back in on itself, on cars he used the spent exhaust gases to add in gases that do not support the combustion process back into the mixture by way of the Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system with an electronically controlled metering value. This question seems as if it comes from one of my enemies that think I don't understand this technology like Tony Quinn. Trust me he is no expert as he has never moved to perform any real world experiments and thus hasn't learned anything as a result. To me he is a person that just loves the sound of their own voice as to come at this technology from a non-scientific perspective, IE, not making use of the scientific method will leave one lost and confused. When I started working to understand this technology I did so bringing science along with me actually making use of the scientific method. This method requires one to perform countless experiments as it's a slow process of elimination that gets at the truth of just how this technology works.


Most of people that come up against me don't like to make use of the scientific method as that forces them to perform experiments which in turn cost a lot of money. With this method anything you find that you are missing must be attained no mater what it is that is missing. Say if you find yourself not understanding scientific concepts all that well, then this method requires you to go to college too pick up the missing information and then you can get back to experimenting. Or, if you require a tool like a Differential Probe you can't move forwards until you get that measuring tool. People don't like this method as it leaves out nothing and thus does cost quite a bit of money and time to be spent in order to keep moving forwards with your experimentation on trying to understand this technology. I made use of the scientific method which is how I got to fully understand just what was actually going on. In doing so I was able to come up with a totally new theory that will one day be added to our books of science as those are the rewards of making use of the scientific method on something that is truly an unknown. This is why the way I now talk about this technology isn't talked about by others as simply put they don't know about these connections I have discovered about this technology when comparing it to how nature goes about breaking the bonds of the water molecules.


I moved this thread to a new spot so that I could raise the funding to be able to get this technology off the ground once I fully understood how the technology worked. I openly ask folks to donate to the cause so that this technology can get to phasing out the use of fossil fuels world wide in order to actually do something about our shared climate change problems. When it comes to our climate change problems we are all in the same boat together. In order to be effective this technology needs to go into mass production and for me to be able to do that I need the support of the people. If, like Meyer said, we all come together in one accord the world will have this technology. All I can do is hope folks move to support my efforts to bring this technology in by way of mass production so that the world can have it.


Shalom,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
https://www.gofundme.com/f/77uvw4-energy-independence-for-you-and-me
Hi Edward,

It's nice to hear from you!!!

Thank you so much!!!
God Bless You

Offline massive

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #799 on: May 17, 2022, 02:32:27 AM »
Huh! I bumped this thread days ago. I dont know why anyone rips into Ed.  why not just let the guy do his thing?
 
Governments around the world are jointly motivated to remove ALL piston driven vehicles from the road.
People dont have a choice, even if they Believe they made the choice to buy an EV. all they did was buy yet another consumer item.
Electric vehicles are being forced on people. Do a search in your own country, Governments are crushing cars in record numbers.
just more divide and rule.

everyone was taught the basics of the ATOM , at school, yet everyone ditches the basics.
no one on these sites mentions the Free Electron

E-cars dont run on Batteries , they run on Free Electrons. People dont have to be held to ransom for Batteries for E-cars or the breakdown of water.
Ed has the pic/diagram representing a Lightning strike / circuit.  A free lesson by Nature on HV and Free electrons. 


Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #800 on: May 17, 2022, 09:39:07 AM »
Thanks Massive,


Personally I don't like EV's all that much as I see them as switching to a far larger problem as here is a truth that no one is talking about when it comes to EV's: [size=78%]http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipOeH7GW0M8&t=7s[/size] The raw materials that EV's currently require have a lot of problems when it come to disposal too: [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLr0GStrnwQ&t=83s[/size] People haven't heard of these dark sides of EV's before as those in power bury the data and keep it off of the main stream media outlets. Truthfully there isn't enough materials to go around either besides them being extremely toxic.


Hydrogen is the future for as of right now all life on the planet requires hydrogen as without hydrogen there would be no life as we know it. So, it's about time we jumped on board to how nature does things. Now with this technology one just needs a kit to allow them to switch from fossil fuel burning to just having nothing but water in their tanks for fuel. With this technology the problem of hydrogen storage is solved as it's stored in the safest way possible, IE, just ordinary water. Also the problem with power density or energy density of hydrogen as a fuel is also solved via the Gas Processor. In leading the way I believe big things often have small beginnings. Just like Apple started out in someone's garage it looks as if this technology will be starting off in mines. Once things are perfected to a reasonable level I can move in many directions with this technology.


With this technology hydrogen is no longer an energy carrier but an energy source as it is with all life as the technology basically mimics how nature uses hydrogen so one can think of this technology as tapping into the very wheelwork of life. With this technology fueling stations should be a thing of the past as any source of water will work with this technology as long as it isn't too salty. With EV's most owners just aren't prepared to deal with a failing battery as the cost of replacing one is very high, as shown with Tesla cars that cost is around $22,500 USD, plus you will also find that you will never truly own the car. When you take a close look at all the hype about EV's you will find big industry is just moving in a direction that keeps the populations they govern enslaved to them. With this technology the energy enslavement chain is also being broken as once it rolls out in a big way you will stop paying for energy completely.


The reason for my moving this thread to "Capital Funding" is so that I could ask for donations to help speed this process up as the technology needs help getting off the ground as when I did so while the thread was in the other spot people started complaining about me doing so saying it went against the sites rules. Without support the rollout of this technology is going to be a slow one as in order to get it out to the masses that need it the technology must go into mass production. So, with that being said please support my efforts to bring this technology into our world. You will find the link to donate to my crowdfund just after my name. Thanks in advance to those that willing choose to support me in my efforts to phase out the use of fossil fuels making the world a better place for you and me.


Shalom,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me

Offline Vortex 22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #801 on: May 18, 2022, 05:23:34 PM »
Hi,

Any references related to stove burner of water fuel?
Diagram, photo or parents?

Many Thanks
Vortex 22

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #802 on: May 18, 2022, 09:08:06 PM »
Hi,

Any references related to stove burner of water fuel?
Diagram, photo or parents?

Many Thanks
Vortex 22




No as my focus in this thread is getting the funding I need to get this technology off the ground. I will no longer entertain things that do nothing to aid this technology getting off the ground. This technology has the power to phase out the use of fossil fuels but without support it may never get the chance to do so. I wish folks on this site would take these matters seriously enough to invest in this technology so that their futures can see a cleaner world a world that is no longer run by fossil fuels.


Big things often have small beginnings and I for one know this technology will make everyone's lives better on the planet if it is able to get to a point where it goes into mass production. No more wars for fossil fuels, no more oil spills, coal ash spills, or even Nuclear waste to have to manage for centuries. We can stop cutting down the forest for fuel and just use plain ordinary water instead. Without support no technology has a future so please stop asking questions that do not support this technology getting off the ground and thus never starting to actually phase out the use of fossil fuels. We must come together in one accord to make this a reality as most, if not all, of our leaders have no interest in this technology. Thus it is up to us to support technologies like this one so that it can see the light of day to do great things in making the lives of everyone on the planet lives better.


Shalom,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me

Offline Vortex 22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #803 on: May 18, 2022, 10:10:28 PM »
I pray for your success!,
God Bless You

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #804 on: May 22, 2022, 04:30:07 PM »
I pray for your success!,
God Bless You


Thanks as this technology needs all the help it can get. I have been going over a few ideas I have in how to go about actually implementing this technology so that folks can make use of it. Thus far it seems fairly straight forwards as one just needs to respect the fuel so that no one gets hurt by this technology by accident. Safety first, yes? In any event the road seems clear as to just what I have to do to get this technology phasing out the use of fossil fuels for vehicles with conversion kits. Not sure of the cost as I am just looking at what has to be done and haven't moved towards pricing things out just yet.


But without funding it's going to be a slow rollout of this technology as I can only move at a pace I can afford. That is why I created my little crowdfund so that folks like you can donate to the cause supporting my efforts to bring this technology into our world. It has to be a grassroots campaign as politicians and most of our leaders have sold us out. It's up to everyday person to support this technology in it's greatest time of need so that true meaningful change that actually moves to phase out the use of fossil fuels can begin. With fuel prices on the rise just because they can do so with no cause for the price increases other than pure greed one would think folks are tired of being ripped off by the fossil fuel industry by now and would leap at the possibility of cutting those fuel prices out of their monthly budgets in support of this technology. Perhaps all that is needed is to get the word out in a meaningful way that there is a way to stop paying for fossil fuels by getting the hydrogen they need to run their many machines directly from good old h2o.


With the proper support this technology can end all of these expenses brought on to us by those that sell energy so that we can keep our hard earned money all the while cleaning the air that we breath. All this technology needs is the support of the people. Please give your support for a better future for us and our children, and children's children to come.


Shalom,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me
« Last Edit: May 22, 2022, 11:19:27 PM by h20power »

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #805 on: June 11, 2022, 04:14:10 AM »
Hello Everyone,


This video was very instrumental to me being able to solve how this technology actually worked: [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkjpVcsRQLc&t=221s&ab_channel=EdwardMitchell[/size] As when Dr. Cxysz said the device will run for a half hour but the temperature hasn't changed really helped my experiments get on the right tract. You see once I solved the heating problems I had solved the technology without knowing it. It took me a few more months to learn just what I had done but once I did I made the graphs I have shared with everyone so that you all could see just how this technology worked. Those graphs illustrate just how current is canceled out while allowing voltage to take over.


Once you take the sum of all the energy under the curve what is left over will pass through the water bath but in this case there is very little energy left over to pass through the water bath. I measured only 0.6 mA flowing through the water bath of my WFC which is not enough current to change the temperature of the water one bit. I ran temperature readings every 30 minutes for 72 hours and found that the temps of the cell just followed the temps of the day. All of these findings I had this "Eye witness video" to thank as it let me know just what to look for while experimenting with this technology.


At the time I was working with Max Miller running parallel experiments together using the exact same setup for the most part. My cell kept heating up so I knew that according to the video I was doing something wrong. This is where Max and I parted ways as he told me that his cell wasn't heating up but I could clearly see in his videos the heat waves coming out of the resonant cavities. Basically from his point of view nothing was wrong with his experiments so he stopped asking questions, but for me I still needed to solve that problem. It turned out to be the waveform shown on the oscilloscope that was going to the WFC was wrong. I then went back to the patents and other reading material to take a closer look and found that there was supposed to be a positive and negative component to the waveform. Luckily for me I had made some changes to the transformer that allowed me to actually charge up the WFC so that I got a waveform that had both negative and positive voltages with a bit of retuning the frequency being sent to the primary coil of the transformer.


Most people that have risen up against me telling everyone that the waveform is an AC waveform and AC doesn't break the bonds of the water molecules fail to understand the purpose of the diode in the voltage intensifier circuit. With the diode in place one plate of the WFC will always be positive and the other plate will always be negative thus now you can take the sum of all the energies being sent to the WFC. When the negative and positive voltages are equal the energy under the curve shown on the oscilloscope and the sum of those energies are taken there is not much left over to perform the work of electrolysis.


Now when it comes to implementing this technology my mechanical knowledge of being a mechanic for over 30 years allows me to know just how to go about doing that. When implementing this technology above all it must be made safe for use. I feel I am the right man for the task at hand as I have poured my heart into this technology figuring out how it worked the old fashion way by making use of the scientific method. This is why I ask for help in being able to bring this technology to market: [size=78%]https://gofund.me/09b949fa[/size] as I know just how to implement this technology for vehicles and thus will lead the world towards phasing out the use of fossil fuels. With fuel prices soaring most people will welcome this technology with open arms once it is proven to be safe for use. But for right now I need the help of the crowd in funding this technology so that it can do all of these wonderful things.


My latest transformer bobbin design is meant to make it easy for me to wind up with the coil machine I need to get. But I will have to make quite a few modifications for the winding machine so that it winds these transformers up perfectly. I have spent so much on equipping my little shop for dealing with this technology but still have a bit more things I need to get. My success means no more paying for gasoline or diesel but the engines will still need to be lubricated with oil. But since this technology doesn't thin out the oil as fossil fuels do you will now have to wear the oil out which will take far more time to do so oil changes every 25k or more miles might become the norm. All in all I feel my life has lead me up to this moment with my choices of study in college to even my being picked to be a mechanic in the military when I went in under a open contract meaning they could have picked me to do something else. I have even proven to be a man of my word by sharing the actual science behind this technology in a open source forum and have shown the willingness to carry this mission out. This is why I feel I am the right man for the task at hand.


All I am asking for is a bit of help in getting this technology off the ground. Together we can change the world if we act as a crowd to fund this technology.


Shalom,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
https://gofund.me/09b949fa

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #806 on: June 15, 2022, 08:45:14 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6LPLKbXMKE&t=2s Now this video comes from a Nay Sayer's perspective as the individual hasn't taken the time to notice that there are other ways to break the bonds of the water molecules as shown by nature as plants break the bonds of the water molecules each and every day and no they are not hooked up to the nation's electric power grid system to produce electrolysis. People need to start paying more attention to how nature does things as in general it's methods are the most efficient means to go about doing things as things will die if they don't in the world of the survival of the fittest.


When I went to give photosynthesis another look to see if they had missed anything I was told by many that I was just wasting my time as those people were far smarter than you. But I didn't listen as I have some unanswered questions from my experiments to answer. The question I had was, "How does a plant break the bonds of the water molecules?" So, with this question in hand I set out to take a second look at photosynthesis. As I followed along learning the many process a plant took to be alive I saw something main stream science seemed to gloss over in that the last step a plant took when breaking the bonds of the water molecules was to simply take away the electrons from the atoms that made up the water molecules.


As seen in the photo you have 2h2o entering into the plant structure and with that aid of light at the proper wavelengths that plant takes away the electron from the atoms that make up the water molecules. As once it does this the bonds of the water molecules have been broken and you can see you get one oxygen molecule and four monatomic hydrogen atoms. For me that was the end of my search as I had found the answer to my question. But this cause me to ask more questions as I knew there was more ways that we know of in getting the electrons away from their atoms and I wondered if those other methods could also work to break the bonds of the water molecules? So, I started searching to see if I could find examples of this specific type of water separation could be found taking place but folks simply not noticing it. I found several examples of water being broken down by other methods to get the electrons away from their atoms. So, I concluded that this was a brand new method to break the bonds of molecules as I soon found out that all molecules can be broken down into their component elements by simply taking away the electrons from the atoms that made up the molecules.


With a plant it has a molecule that catches the electron when the electrons get into a certain orbit about the atoms. The wavelengths of light coming from the sun are not coming in a steady stream of light but in pulses. This pulsing is what pushes the electrons to go into high orbits around the atom. Meyer gave an example of this with K, L, M, N orbitals for the electrons as the atom absorbs light energy of the correct wavelength at these energy sublevels. This way you can visualize this a bit better. But the key thing to note was it was the action of taking away the atoms electrons that cause the water molecules to fall apart. Of the many ways we know of in how to get the electrons away from the atoms IONIZATION is the most efficient or that is to say the method that requires the least amount of energy input into the system to remove that electrons away from their atoms in a process known as ionization which uses high voltages to push the electrons into higher and higher orbits until the electron is removed completely from the atom.


Again this video was instrumental towards me being able to solve this technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkjpVcsRQLc&t=221s&ab_channel=EdwardMitchell


The reasons why I am explaining this to all of you reading this is because I want you to know that I have in fact solved just how this technology actually works and I could use a bit of help in bringing this technology into our world through my crowdfunding efforts.


Thanks Everyone for your support,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me
« Last Edit: June 16, 2022, 02:30:47 AM by h20power »

Offline alan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #807 on: June 17, 2022, 01:24:41 PM »
Hello Edward, 
plants break down covalently bonded molecules by getting energy from photons that 'helps' electrons into higher level orbits following quantum theory, there is no free energy here, photon energy=orbit energy change.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgKhBcsE49Y 
Science has found out how to use light to enhance breakdown with "100%+ quantum efficiency", they probably started wondering  if photons can contribute to ionization and electrolysis. 

Okay you know this, but my question is: 
is the Meyer electric field only method free energy? Were you able to confirm it?   
Meyer said something along the lines of this:   The field 'forces' the (covalent) electrons into higher energy levels, it doesn't pump in energy like a photon does which then automatically causes an increase of orbit and energy.  Cause-effect are switched.
Meyer said this energy is pulled in from another dimension, the ultimate source of free energy, even when using the photoelectric effect this source is siphoning in energy but it's controlled by how much is put in.

You said that your theory is new, but covalent breakdown by taking away the electrons I believe is known. 
Or do they keep the world ignorant? They describe it like this: To break most covalent bonds between any two given atoms, a certain amount of energy must be supplied. 
They explain it as a caloric exchange, but they do know because they can explain photosynthesis. 
regards!

Offline h20power

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #808 on: June 17, 2022, 05:58:01 PM »
Hello Edward, 
plants break down covalently bonded molecules by getting energy from photons that 'helps' electrons into higher level orbits following quantum theory, there is no free energy here, photon energy=orbit energy change.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgKhBcsE49Y 
Science has found out how to use light to enhance breakdown with "100%+ quantum efficiency", they probably started wondering  if photons can contribute to ionization and electrolysis. 

Okay you know this, but my question is: 
is the Meyer electric field only method free energy? Were you able to confirm it?   
Meyer said something along the lines of this:   The field 'forces' the (covalent) electrons into higher energy levels, it doesn't pump in energy like a photon does which then automatically causes an increase of orbit and energy.  Cause-effect are switched.
Meyer said this energy is pulled in from another dimension, the ultimate source of free energy, even when using the photoelectric effect this source is siphoning in energy but it's controlled by how much is put in.

You said that your theory is new, but covalent breakdown by taking away the electrons I believe is known. 
Or do they keep the world ignorant? They describe it like this: To break most covalent bonds between any two given atoms, a certain amount of energy must be supplied. 
They explain it as a caloric exchange, but they do know because they can explain photosynthesis. 
regards!


This graph show voltage performing the work of ionizing the atoms that make up the water molecules getting them to eject their electrons. It is this action that breaks the bonds of the water molecules as the water molecules simply fall apart when the electrons are take away from the atoms that make up the water molecules, IE, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. You see with this technology the voltage keeps being raised until it reaches the ionization threshold for the atoms that make up the water molecules which causes them to eject their electrons. No electrons no water molecules as it's the electrons job to hold the water molecules together. What those scientist don't know is this relationship that my theory explains as all molecules can be broken down this way, not just the water molecules.


It is the act of taking away the electrons from the atoms that breaks the bonds of the water molecules as that is just how a plant breaks the bonds of the water molecules but it uses sunlight at the correct wavelengths to pump up the electrons to a higher orbit where it has a specific molecule to catch the electrons when they are far enough away from the atoms. It's different in how it takes the electrons away but the end result is the same. How I solved this was by asking and answering more questions. I ask, "How many ways to we know of to get the electrons away from their atoms?" and it turns out each way will break the bonds of the water molecules when said electrons are taken away from the atoms that make up the water molecules. This technology uses ionization to get the atoms to release their electrons and as I stated the result is the same as without those electrons the water molecules simply fall apart as hydrogen and oxygen are gases at standard temperature and pressure that the WFC is held at.


When the water molecules are broken down like this you get hydrogen and oxygen gas atoms, plus the creation of an electric charge as the electrons remain in the system. This is why if you push the terminals of a volt meter into a plant you will get a voltage reading. Why the scientist missed this relationship in my view is because of capitalism as that system is always looking for ways to make a profit. Thus if they could duplicate how a plant created electricity from the sun they could then push that electricity to the national grid system and get paid as a result which is exactly the path they chose to take, yes? When I took another look at photosynthesis I asked some very different questions than they did and as a result I went in a totally different direction than they did. They used what they learned to create solar panels and folks that have gotten this technology to work used ionization to cause the atoms that make up the water molecules to eject their electrons. These are two totally different objectives as one objective is to mimic how a plant creates electricity and the other is to mimic how the earth's Global Electric Circuit goes about breaking the bonds of the water molecules by way of ionizing the atoms until they eject their electrons.


I don't know why people think this is "Free Energy" as it isn't as the energy supplied to the primary coil isn't free and has a source. Typically this technology takes between 0.5-3.5 amps to be sent to the primary coil so that it can put a high voltage potential difference on the electrodes of the Water Fuel Capacitor. It's just that the energy required to ionize the atoms is a far more efficient way to break the bonds of the water molecules than the standard electrolysis method is by doing the same thing using current to get the electrons away from their atoms. Voltage does in fact perform work and now that I have pointed it out to you you should be able to see that now. And you should have seen this video of me getting this technology working correctly by now, though I do need to make a new one: [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW78gKn1ZZ0[/size]


And yes, my theory is brand new as no one has ever made this connection that by taking away the electrons from the atoms that make up the molecules one can break those molecules down into their component atoms before. As it matters not which method you use to get the electrons away from their atoms as each of those methods will result in the molecules being broken down into their component atoms. A plant doesn't ionize the atoms it uses electromagnetic energy from the sun to accomplish this task. But as I stated each and every way we know of on how to get the electrons away from their atoms will result in the breaking down of the molecules those atoms have formed. So, my question to you is, "How many different ways do we know of to get the atoms electrons away from their atoms?" I have given you two ways but lets see if you can figure out the others on your own. You see the video which you shared with me he is only talking about one way that we know of in how to get the electrons away from their atoms, but in his case he really went over the whole process very well, but he says on thing about ionization being used to get the electrons move the electrons to higher orbits or getting the atom to fully eject it's electron(s).


From my perspective you think what I have done isn't something special as you think I am just like you, ordinary, when I am not as my life has taken me down a different path than most people. It's an art form to be able to ask the right questions that most people that I know of simply aren't capable of doing. For me I became really good at troubleshooting, kind of a natural at it in automotive world but I could apply this skill to many other things, which is why I like to make use of the scientific method when most scientist get offended if you ask them to make use of it as if that method is beneath them somehow. People like me are not common in our world whom are capable of asking and answering a lot of their own questions.


That graph that I just shared says it all, but only if you know how to read it. You see that graph clearly shows voltage performing work while current flow is being restricted. When I first shared that graph on this forum I was laughed at as folks tend to do that when they don't understand something to kinda save face in their eyes as they attempt to grapple with things they don't yet understand so that they appear smarter than they actually are. I've been known to call people's bluff which is why a lot of folks don't like me as I will do so with no regards to how it makes them feel or look in front of others. To me if you are right you are right and if you are wrong then you are wrong. I find that people love to appear to always be correct even when they are dead wrong, but doing things like that will only last for so long as the truth will out in the end. Now after all these years people are finally starting to understand that what I have been saying all this time is correct as those that they chose to listen too in the past simply gave it up as how long can one push a lie?


Don't you find it interesting that no one has ever reached the voltages I have shown being applied to the WFC but claim that I don't know what I am doing? I have not seen anyone put voltages as high as I have to a WFC before in a provable way. The most voltage I have seen others put to a WFC is around 1kv when I am pushing 10kv and more to the WFC. But I have seen someone get the same type of gas production as I got, but that person gave up as it all became too costly for them to continue. Ironically now it seems it has become too costly for me too to be able to continue thus I am made to wait until I do have the funds on hand to keep things going as quitting I am not! I feel that if I quit this just might be the end of the road for this technology but I do know of others that are still working on this technology though their pace seems to be far too slow to be able to make a difference with our climate change problems. All I can do now is ask for people to come together in one accord in support of this technology as that's what it's going to take to be able to phase out the use of fossil fuels.


Shalom,
Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions
https://www.gofundme.com/f/energy-independence-for-you-and-me
Hint: [size=78%]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-elements-broken-down-into-protons-electrons-and-neutrons/[/size]

Offline alan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #809 on: June 18, 2022, 02:22:45 PM »
Yeah one needs  experience and  an educated mindset to take the right steps into a clear direction.   
The ~2amps@300V in one of your videos, is this input current or output current?   Input current i hope. :)

When we first read through the techbrief years ago it was very plain how the water is broken down: epp, elongation, electron ejection, covalent switch-off., you identified it as a real process in nature. The technical methods are limited, but even radioactive waste can be used  to ionize water, since it emits EM constantly. It's not that I think it's nothing special you discovered, i'm merely trying to understand and connect, asking questions is how you got to where you are.
 
Here the same is done, this was posted before (all covalent bonds can be broken down by ionization ('stripping the electrons') using fields):
Field-Driven Splitting of Pure Water for Hydrogen Production
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.04677 

Why is it called free energy: is has to be free energy (or more precisely COP>>1) for it to be the solution to the energy crisis. Without it being 'overunity', all joules combusted in an engine are less than the joules delivered by the battery.  Clean electrolysis of distilled water is not new, an over-potential or hv is needed according to wikipedia.  I hink the main difference with the WFC is the VIC which chokes current through mutual induction while HV is transformed, and ss wire restricts current even more while the transformed voltage remains the same (Tesla wrote about the use of resistive wire and the exotic effects), if current is impeded, HV through the water won't collapse (because V=I*R, I is forced down while the other remain the same).   And the difference with photosynthesis is EM-waves (photons, poynting flow,  real joules) vs E only. (VIC, scalar potential, joules/coulomb only to create the field potential) 

According to my views.

Dynodon is also going forward with this tech, but more commercial, business-like. 
https://securesuppliesusasupply.wordpress.com/   


Could you explain how a DC pulse (of V+ - V-) becomes 5 AC oscillations? It's the only part I don't fully understand yet. I believe his brother showed the same waveform. 
If the cell is being step-charged, what is charging the plates? Electrons ejected from the water, the polarized dielectric of water, or charge from the VIC current?
« Last Edit: June 18, 2022, 05:46:14 PM by alan »