Author Topic: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun (Read 31249 times)

newbie123 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 13, 2009, 04:46:14 PM »

Quote from: nightlife on June 13, 2009, 07:52:16 AM

Stan was a bright man but yet even he never grasped the true concept of what energy is.

Two naive assumptions...

@quarktoo

Are you going to defend yourself? Or should I just assume that you're full of it?

Quote from: Farrah Day on June 13, 2009, 02:25:10 PM

As per usual, I see a lot of hot air and plenty of theorising, but nothing concrete to work with.

Incidentally, there is also a big difference between a typo and whole paragraghs of utter garbage.

Weird isn't it? It's almost as if people are trying to defend Stan Meyer and his technology, even though in all of his documents, patents, and information there isn't enough info to making a working WFC or hydrogen device....

So now we have people injecting their own theories, etc, on what Stan Meyer might have been REALLY DOING (grasping at straws) Could it be that he wasn't really doing ANYTHING special?? Could it be he was delusional? Oh no no no....

nightlife · « **Reply #31 on:** June 13, 2009, 08:34:14 PM »

Quote from: newbie123 on June 13, 2009, 04:46:14 PM

Two naive assumptions...

Naive? Easy there. Stan was bright and your denial is nothing more then your own misconception of the work he has done.
I have yet to see a true replica of his work to even assume it doesn't work. Some of his most important work is still being hid from us and or as been lost for ever. There are some threads here where we have came up with some good designs that may work but I have yet to hear of any one building one to see if they do and or do not work. Everything has a vibrance break down point. Just as everything has a vibrance make up cemistry. This is what some of John's work is about. Stan took a spark and broke it down into diferent vibrances which allowed him to use one to split and then another to fire. The firing had to take place where the split was already seperated. In this case, Hydrogen and Oxygen. If it wasn't, the energy released from one would be absobed by the other making it what it was before it was split creating a implosion instead of a explosion. Therefore none of the oxygen that was split can be present and or only lesser amounts can be present when the hydrogen is ignited. The amounts would determain the strenth of the explosion. Equal amounts would create a implosion where as odd amounts would create a explosion as long as the larger amount is the substance being fired apon. The mixture is as critical as the vibrance of the vibrances used to split and fire are. The vibrant cemistry of the split mixture is already 100% compatable where as outside like componets are most likely not conditioned enough to be 100% compatable.

Yes we all may have our own theorys but we all have to agree with the basics as to what we can see, hear, touch feel and smell. Vibrance makes that all possible becuase without vibrance, there would be nothing at all. Hearing of others theory's helps inspire others to create there own and or to just get involved. We need as many as we can to get involved because the more help we can get, the better the chances are to acheiving what we all are seeking. Name calling and rude comments do nothing but steer others away so please keep the name calling and rude comments to your selves.

Again, good luck to you all and I will now go back to hiding under the rock I just crawled out from under again.

newbie123 · « **Reply #32 on:** June 13, 2009, 09:10:33 PM »

Quote from: nightlife on June 13, 2009, 08:34:14 PM

Naive? Easy there. Stan was bright and your denial is nothing more then your own misconception of the work he has done.

Just curious.. Why do you think he was bright?

All I've seen from Stan Meyer are: Some patents filled with misinformation (or deception). Some lectures full of bogus information and fantasy science.. Not a single working WFC replication.. Some videos that prove nothing... What else is there?

Quote

I have yet to see a true replica of his work to even assume it doesn't work.

So do you just assume that it does work, without any skepticism?

Quote

Some of his most important work is still being hid from us and or as been lost for ever.

Another wild assumption. Someone is actually selling all of Stan Meyer's notes (cabinets full) ... equipment, buggy, etc... right now for around 100,000 USD. A real bargin ... If there is just one shred of information really explaining how to build a WFC.

Quote

There are some threads here where we have came up with some good designs that may work but I have yet to hear of any one building one to see if they do and or do not work.

My point exactly. Why are people having to come up with their own designs? This is what I call 'grasping at straws' ... Why keep wasting your time analyzing Meyer's bull shit stories and circuits?

If Stan Meyer did something special (by accident, imho) ... He was doing LENR / Cold Fusion ... That is all it could have been, there is nothing else... No magical vibrational energy harnessing, just nuclear fusion (which is still very cool)..

Lots of interesting and real scientific information available on this subject at www.lenr-canr.org, btw.

Quote

Everything has a vibrance break down point. Just as everything has a vibrance make up cemistry. This is what some of John's work is about. Stan took a spark and broke it down into diferent vibrances which allowed him to use one to split and then another to fire. The firing had to take place where the split was already seperated. In this case, Hydrogen and Oxygen. If it wasn't, the energy released from one would be absobed by the other making it what it was before it was split creating a implosion instead of a explosion. Therefore none of the oxygen that was split can be present and or only lesser amounts can be present when the hydrogen is ignited. The amounts would determain the strenth of the explosion. Equal amounts would create a implosion where as odd amounts would create a explosion as long as the larger amount is the substance being fired apon. The mixture is as critical as the vibrance of the vibrances used to split and fire are. The vibrant cemistry of the split mixture is already 100% compatable where as outside like componets are most likely not conditioned enough to be 100% compatable.

Lol.. What? Please don't just make things up. Yes, atoms and molecules vibrate but don't get carried away.

Farrah Day · « **Reply #33 on:** June 13, 2009, 10:08:50 PM »

@ Nightlife

Quote

The firing had to take place where the split was already seperated. In this case, Hydrogen and Oxygen. If it wasn't, the energy released from one would be absobed by the other making it what it was before it was split creating a implosion instead of a explosion. Therefore none of the oxygen that was split can be present and or only lesser amounts can be present when the hydrogen is ignited.

You weren't by any chance Meyers ghostwriter were you, because you're well up there in the realms of pseudoscience. Have you any idea of the nonsense you have just posted?

I totally agree with Newbie, nothing in any video lecture I have seen of Meyer inclines me to think he was bright or indeed gifted in any way... rather the opposite - and the videos are there for everyone to see. He always comes across as a regular Joe talking about stuff waaay beyond his knowledge or understanding and is clearly totally out of his depth. If you can't see this it is only because you lack the education in the subject to do so - as it appears do many others.

And as Newbie highlights, to simply assume something works because no one else has yet replicated it to prove it doesn't, is a quite absurd statement.

And what the hell is all this talk of vibrance... for Pete's sake???

newbie123 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 13, 2009, 11:56:58 PM »

Quote from: Farrah Day on June 13, 2009, 10:08:50 PM

He always comes across as a regular Joe talking about stuff waaay beyond his knowledge or understanding and is clearly totally out of his depth. If you can't see this it is only because you lack the education in the subject to do so - as it appears do many others.

Farrah Day,

I agree, but I wouldn't call him an average Joe...

The thing that throws people off with Stan Meyer, is his extreme confidence and apparent honesty. He acts like he knows exactly what he's talking about even when he's DEAD WRONG (this can be easily proven).. In my mind this is HUGE red flag, but some people choose to judge his information/inventions by his charismatism and apparent character (over even some mystical Tesla technology). Which is the foolish thing to do. The best frauds ever were very charismatic, confident, likable, seemly honest, etc....

When I first watched the Stan Meyer news clip (a long time ago).. I was intrigued and thought... Why would this guy come out and BS everyone about his technologies? He seems very honest.. He even has a working water car video.... etc. .. All this doesn't matter.

After reading his patents/papers, and watching his lectures, while I learned more about the science, I started to see problems with his theories and information...

HeairBear · « **Reply #35 on:** June 14, 2009, 01:06:02 AM »

What's with the broken record syndrome Newbie? You keep repeating yourself as if no one is listening to you. You keep trying to debunk with your opinion and show no data of your own. I have never encountered a person who claims that their misunderstanding is proof for debunking. Are you saying "I don't understand what he said so it's wrong."? Although when it comes to Boyce, you turn into the exact opposite of what you just claimed all others are. You don't believe Stan was legit even after numerous studies and demos of working devices, but, Bob who has nothing more than stories and poor circuit diagrams along with no working demos is in your opinion the real deal...

Smoke another bowl Newbie, I think it's working!

Farrah Day · « **Reply #36 on:** June 14, 2009, 01:15:24 AM »

HB

Quote

You don't believe Stan was legit even after numerous studies and demos of working devices,

Just curious, what studies and demos of working devices are you refering to? I know of none that back up Meyer's claims.

HeairBear · « **Reply #37 on:** June 14, 2009, 02:00:58 AM »

Quote from: Farrah Day on June 14, 2009, 01:15:24 AM

HB

Just curious, what studies and demos of working devices are you refering to? I know of none that back up Meyer's claims.

I thought you would never ask... Here is one, Copied from this page http://www.osen.org/Technologies/Hydrogen/StanMeyerReport/tabid/373/Default.aspx

Article about Stan Meyers

Reprinted in part from an article in "ELECTRONICS WORLD + WIRELESS
WORLD" January 1991:

Eye-witness accounts suggest that US inventor Stanley Meyer has
developed an electric cell which will split ordinary tap water into
hydrogen and oxygen with far less energy than that required by a
normal electrolytic cell.

In a demonstration made before Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of
Engineering at Queen Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony
Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr Keith
Hindley, a UK research chemist. Meyer's cell, developed at the
inventor's home in Grove City, Ohio, produced far more
hydrogen/oxygen mixture than could have been expected by simple
electrolysis.

Where normal water electrolysis requires the passage of current
measured in amps, Meyer's cell achieves the same effect in
milliamps. Furthermore ordinary tap water requires the addition of
an electrolyte such as sulphuric acid to aid current conduction;
Meyer's cell functions at greatest efficiency with pure water.

According to the witnesses, the most startling aspect of the Meyer
cell was that it remained cold, even after hours of gas production.

Meyer's experiments, which he seems to be able to perform to order,
have earned him a series of US patents granted under Section 101.
The granting of a patent under this section is dependent on a
successful demonstration of the invention to a Patent Review Board.

Meyer's cell seems to have many of the attributes of an electrolytic
cell except that it functions at high voltage, low current rather
than the other way around. Construction is unremarkable. The
electrodes - referred to as "excitors" by Meyer- are made from
parallel plates of stainless steel formed in either flat or
concentric topography. Gas production seems to vary as the inverse
of the distance between them; the patents suggest a spacing of 1.5mm
produces satisfactory results.

The real differences occur in the power supply to the cell. Meyer
uses an external inductance which appears to resonate with the
capacitance of the cell - pure water apparently possesses a
dielectric constant of about 5 - to produce a parallel resonant
circuit. This is excited by a high power pulse generator which,
together with the cell capacitance and a rectifier diode, forms a
charge pump circuit. High frequency pulses build a rising staircase

Dublin Tech has a nice study too, I can dig it up if you like. For some reason, I can find what you say is not there and I seem to understand it when you say it doesn't make sense. Hell, if you really have to have your cake and eat it too, I can run over to Stephen's house and have a chat with him too. He's got his own company out also and he's looking for investors. For some reason though, I get the feeling that even if I did replicate it for you and proved beyond a doubt that it works, you would still deny the facts, for you seem to be discussing this topic just to stir the pot.

The only thing you want is an equation? of what? A non-exothermic electrochemical reaction induced by external stimuli? What the hell is an equation gonna do for ya? Solve the problem of building it? According to Dublin it's "4H3O+ +4OH- --> 2H2 + O2 + 6H2O"

nightlife · « **Reply #38 on:** June 14, 2009, 05:14:10 AM »

newbie123, I will answer all your questions with this one submission.

It is obvious that you do not comprehend what Stan has been said to have accomplished and or how it could be accomplished. He was a bright man and bright enough to not make it as obvious as it really is as to how it works.
Knowing that you can not comprehend what Stan has been said to have done leads me to believe that there is no way you can comprehend what I have said. I gave you some clear easy to understand examples of what energy is, it's up to you to take the time and really think about them and then you may start to understand what it is that I am talking about.

I am not a big fan of Stans but I have took the time to understand what he could have done and how it could be done. I personally am not a fan of using a inteligent design as a fuel source. I prefer to search for ways to utilize the natural flows of energy that inteligent designs emit.

Good luck to you and please don't try and debunk anyones ideas and or designs untill you fully understand what it is that they are trying to do and or have done.

nightlife · « **Reply #39 on:** June 14, 2009, 06:06:10 AM »

Quote from: Farrah Day on June 13, 2009, 10:08:50 PM

@ Nightlife

You weren't by any chance Meyers ghostwriter were you, because you're well up there in the realms of pseudoscience. Have you any idea of the nonsense you have just posted?

I totally agree with Newbie, nothing in any video lecture I have seen of Meyer inclines me to think he was bright or indeed gifted in any way... rather the opposite - and the videos are there for everyone to see. He always comes across as a regular Joe talking about stuff waaay beyond his knowledge or understanding and is clearly totally out of his depth. If you can't see this it is only because you lack the education in the subject to do so - as it appears do many others.

And as Newbie highlights, to simply assume something works because no one else has yet replicated it to prove it doesn't, is a quite absurd statement.

And what the hell is all this talk of vibrance... for Pete's sake???

Farrah Day, I may be in within the relm of what your thought of what pseudoscience is to you but please note that I did give some examples and therefore can not be thought of as being pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is the lack of supporting evidence and our senses alone are all the supporting evidence needed to crasp the theory I have posted. I could go more into detail but it would take the focus off the topic of this thread.
Your education appearently does not allow you to know how to understand what Stan has been said to have done and or how it could work. It would be absurb to assume something works becuase no one has yet to properly duplicate it and trust me when I say that it took me some time to truly understand how it could work. I personally have not tried to replicate it mainly becuase I have no true interest in utilizing water as a energy source.

By you asking what all the talk of vibrance is leads me to assume that you don't have a clue about what true energy is. We have all these people out here looking for ways to produce energy but yet I have yet to come across anyone who even knows what energy is. LOL

Whats electricity? A VIBRANCE
Whats a sound? A VIBRANCE
Whats a smell? A VIBRANCE
Whats a feeling? A VIBRANCE
Whats seen? A VIBRANCE
Whats energy? A VIBRANCE

Vibrance is every thing and without it, there would be nothing. Vibrance is not created, it is released. I amy start a thread to help you and others understand what it is that I am talking about.

Good luck to you and I do hope that you too can learn to grasp what true energy is.

newbie123 · « **Reply #40 on:** June 14, 2009, 07:28:28 AM »

Quote from: HeairBear on June 14, 2009, 01:06:02 AM

What's with the broken record syndrome Newbie? You keep repeating yourself as if no one is listening to you. You keep trying to debunk with your opinion and show no data of your own.

I do sound like a broken record, because I keep getting the same lame arguments as to why Stan Meyer must be legitimate.

Quote

I have never encountered a person who claims that their misunderstanding is proof for debunking.

What is my misunderstanding? Please tell me.

Quote

Are you saying "I don't understand what he said so it's wrong."

I'm just saying that you don't have a working replication, and haven't seen wide spread independent replications & verifications.. So it's wrong.

Quote

Although when it comes to Boyce, you turn into the exact opposite of what you just claimed all others are. You don't believe Stan was legit even after numerous studies and demos of working devices, but, Bob who has nothing more than stories and poor circuit diagrams along with no working demos is in your opinion the real deal...

Really? I think Boyce is the real deal? That's new to me.. Maybe I should repeat myself again then..... HE'S A CRANK UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE!

Quote

Smoke another bowl Newbie, I think it's working!

Get your story right before attempting another snide remark.

Farrah Day · « **Reply #41 on:** June 14, 2009, 10:29:10 AM »

HB

I'd seen that article before and the most interesting thing about it was the part which stated that the unit remained cold after long periods of operation.

If Meyer was a fraud, he could easliy have modified the ammeter to show milliamps instead of amps, and remember that this was only a visual demonstration. It was not a thorough or detailed independent investigation, it was all in the control of Meyer. Gas output was not measured for example, and we all can produce what seems like litres of bubbles from ss tubes in plain tap water with relatively low current with ss tubes spaced very closely together - we can all produce the same visual effect as Meyer. Furthermore we all know that electrolyte is not needed even in standard electrolysis as the report suggests it is.

My insistence on a balanced electrochemical equation for the reaction/s taking place - that no one has yet proffered - is quite valid. Whatever is occuring is not by magic, so there will be specific reactions taking place.

It's all very well Meyer saying he was pulling water apart using HV, but this is meaningless and quite laughable in scientific terms unless you can substantiate that statement with valid reaction processes. The claim would be well backed up if he had - or anyone else could - provide a process of reactions that leads us to the evolution of H2 and O2.

Charges must be exchanged at some point, it CANNOT simply be about pulling electrons off the water molecules by some 'Electron Extraction Unit' or whatever made up term Meyer employed, and then magically get O2 and H2 evolving. Think about it.

It's all very well conveniently overlooking these important little details, but it is in these details that the science resides. It is in these important details that the proof of concept lies... or not.

But I guess the science is completely irrelevant to folk who believe in magic.

Quote

The only thing you want is an equation? of what? A non-exothermic electrochemical reaction induced by external stimuli? According to Dublin it's "4H3O+ +4OH- --> 2H2 + O2 + 6H2O"

Is this supposed to be an explanation that answers all the questions??

I don't know what you think this is supposed to be, but clearly you have no grasp of what I'm getting at - where are the charges exchanged in that equation?

Quote

What the hell is an equation gonna do for ya? Solve the problem of building it?

What a stupid thing to say. If you knew what the balanced equations were, if you knew what science was taking place, you could build a unit to enhance the process. Instead most people simply, blindly build units hoping they will do what they want them to do.

You know, I'm tired of talking to people who live in fantasy worlds!

HeairBear · « **Reply #42 on:** June 14, 2009, 03:06:14 PM »

And yet, you keep coming back. I have watched you pull this trollish crap many times before and it's getting old. Go build a TPU with Loner and bother those people. Maybe they will accept your condescending attitude which is so very loathed here in this section. Better yet, try a dialogue with Stiffler and see how he responds to your childish banter. Oh, and take Newbie with you...

Farrah Day · « **Reply #43 on:** June 14, 2009, 04:47:15 PM »

You know what HB, all I've ever wanted to do is to get to the science behind Meyers WFC. And it is science not magic.

I look at all the possibilities and try to fathom what I could be missing that would make it work, unlike many who simply accept it... though can never replicate it!

For all those people who believe in Meyer or profess to understand how his WFC works, no one has yet explained the electrochemistry involved which would substantiate the claims.

Meyer did himself no favours by the crap he wrote (and even that link you provided states his demonstration was more impressive than the para-scientific jargon in his technical brief).

Without people like Loner, Newbie and myself asking the right questions and looking for real answers to those questions, you and the rest of the mindless Meyer fanatics will forever be on a quest to nowhere and be getting there very, very slowly.

My so-called condescending attitude simply comes from my low tolerance for idiots and having to wade through piles of illiterate or nonsensical posts made by uneducated or ignorant wannabes such as yourself.

What have you ever proffered by way of explanation of the workings of the Meyers WFC? Nothing... like most, you're waiting for educated people to fill in the gaps and give it you on a plate.

The real problem around here is that there are only a mere handful of open-minded people with a background education in science that can actually make any progress with this... the thing is most of them spend much of that time having to do battle with retards.

Pretty pathetic really.

Ok I'll go and build a TPU with Loner... I'm sure by the time I get back you will have it all figured out.... or maybe not

newbie123 · « **Reply #44 on:** June 14, 2009, 04:57:54 PM »

Quote from: HeairBear on June 14, 2009, 03:06:14 PM

And yet, you keep coming back. I have watched you pull this trollish crap many times before and it's getting old.

Well shit HB.... What do you expect? You put words in my mouth, say that I have a misunderstanding, continue to defend the nonsensical, and you still won't answer my questions. (like so many other around here!)

I'm not a troll.. I've been coming to this forum for the last 3 years (without commenting). I used to think a lot of these FE technologies might be real.. But then I learned what real is (in science): (warning: broken record alert!) Wide spread independent replications/verifications of claimed phenomenas. I think most here understand this.

But now I'm just curious why everyone is so hell bent on Stan Meyers, when there is real progress happening in the LENR/CF arena (which might have some real potential)?

Quote

Better yet, try a dialogue with Stiffler and see how he responds to your childish banter.

From what I've seen Dr Stiffler doesn't respond well to criticism either (big surprise on this forum), but I don't know enough about his circuits to comment.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun (Read 31249 times)

newbie123

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

nightlife

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

newbie123

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

Farrah Day

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

newbie123

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

HeairBear

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

Farrah Day

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

HeairBear

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

nightlife

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

nightlife

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

newbie123

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

Farrah Day

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

HeairBear

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

Farrah Day

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun

newbie123

Re: Stan Meyer Energy is Stolen from The Sun