Hi Newbie, I think I should take the credit for HB's last breathtaking response.

Anyway, just to say that I've read and looked into quite a bit of Stifflers work, and he does some really interesting work and seems to open source it all. My hat's off to him.

From what I can gather, very much like ourselves, he simply has a low tolerance for stupid posts and has no time for stupid people.

What exactly is cold fusion Newbie? or LNR... whatever it's called today. When asked what he would change if he could do it all over again, Pons replied, "I wish I would have never used the word fusion". I agree the tech is worthy of more research but it's still "junk science" in the eyes of the majority.

Are you implying Stan was doing a form of cold fusion? OK... how? why aren't you doing any of these experiments? I would love to see you be the first from this forum showing an attempt at what you think is a viable form of alternate energy. If we are all wrong, than go do what's right and show us.

Farrah, quit typing and go do some Stiffler stuff, I think he is about to sell some more of his toys which are not too expensive, at least when I bought one. Not all of his work is open source (free) but interesting none the less. You think Stan made up wording, Stiffler has a few new ones of his own.

Ohhh for piss sakes quit with the personal stabs!

Quote from: quarktoo

Quote from: quarktoo on June 12, 2009, 09:09:02 AM


    Meyer is referring to the oxygen ozone cycle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle

    He produced a powerful form of ozone O4 in the air gas processor. The Ozone and water mist were injected at 120 PSI into the injector and a "high voltage high frequency arc" bond cleaved the covalent electron off the excited H2O molecule using the stronger attraction force of the O4 atom which instantly cleaved (common chemistry term) "fractured" Meyer's term or "shattered" Puharich's term the H2O molecule.

Really?   Where does Stan Meyer explain this?

I really wish someone could give me a reference for this O4 production talk.

Actually, I found some information stating that Stan Meyer actually steals energy from the Sun. This is new to me since before I found him in videos stating that the energy was from the vacuum or from "God" (sigh).

If it comes from the Sun, it would explain where it comes from without it being from Magical sources.

Some quotes below:

http://www.automorrow.com/articles/meyers2.html

"Nitrous oxide formation is held to a minimum." (end quote)

Ahh, but is it in YOUR cells? Lightening causes fertilizer...

(begin quote) "When you ignite gases from water, the by-product is a de-energized water mist which goes out the exhaust," Meyer explained. "It's an open energy system. The water mist is then re-energized by absorbing photon energy from the sun and then returning to the earth's water supply in the form of rain for energy re-use. We can also use a dosed, transparent recycling system to keep the vapors from going out into the atmosphere, yet still allow the photon energy absorption process to take place. This is now being looked at for possible future use"...

..."The Water Fuel Cell only uses natural energy present in our environment," said Meyer. "It doesn't add to or subtract from universal energy that is already present in the combustible gas atoms of water. All we have done is tap into this universal energy safely."  (end quote)

Hmmm.... at one point Stan was saying it was from the Vacuum. From this source in 1993/1994 he says it is from the sun? Is the energy from both the sun and the vacuum, or just the Sun alone? or does the Sun recharge the vacuum?  These questions are not necessarily meant for you to answer right now, because you probably can't - they are just to ponder.

http://www.automorrow.com/articles/meyers2.html

Warning: anyone working on the Stan Meyer device better be pretty careful about what they are doing to our environment and water supply. (if  the stan meyer system is even legitimate; I have small faith that it is.)

This could also mean something happened to Water when earth was formed.. and it absorbed energy through photons. Could even tie into evolution and/or Big Bang theories. Is it pseudoscience though? I do not know.

Try to see it like this:
when a photon interacts with a molecule or atom, light energy gets 'absorbed' and the energy level of the atom raises, the raise in energy is equal or less than the photon energy.
Now, how does the absorption of photon energy take place - how does the 'conversion' take place from photon to atomic energy level? [and vice versa, why does a molecule emit photons when the electron 'collapses' to the nucleus from a high energy state?]

I don't know myself, Meyer said: By pumping in energy from the vacuum, or universal energy into the energy spectrum of the atom - this is the source of the atomic energy [or ionization energy]. Photons are a way to pump in vacuum energy, so is voltage, because they force the electron to be deflected to a higher energy orbit [... longer orbit -> increased electric stress on nucleus -> slowing down of gyroscopic movement -> opening of energy apertures -> EM vacuum energy to energy spectrum ..].
according to Stan. I do believe it.

Nowhere does stan mention Ozone, but it is probable it is being produced by the air processor, since no arc discharge may takes place but a corona discharge instead - by displacement current resonance I think.
--
Unlimited Renewable Solar Energy from Water
by Dr. Peter Graneau, Dr. Neal Graneau
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Books&tab1=Display&id=80&tab=3

Newbie, yes I think that about sums up Quarky. And to be honest it's nothing less than I would have expected from him. Guess he's going to try to find a few suckers on another forum.

Seems to me he was hoping that we would simply accept him as having superior knowledge and intellect, before he asked us for $250 of our cash in order to learn the secrets.

He never did tell me how the ions reacted to form O2 and H2 without any current flow - guess that comes after the $250 payment, eh. A complete tosser really.

I like the bit where he says he's spent $100K on discovering the secret as if this gives him credibility. Now there's a nice round figure... I guess that justifies him asking for $250 

Will be watching the other forum with interest to see if there are any takers. I'm a member of that forum, but it's composed mainly of out-and-out and blinkered Meyer fanatics and has been stagnant for a good while now.

Alan

I don't know myself, Meyer said: By pumping in energy from the vacuum, or universal energy into the energy spectrum of the atom - this is the source of the atomic energy [or ionization energy]. Photons are a way to pump in vacuum energy, so is voltage, because they force the electron to be deflected to a higher energy orbit [... longer orbit -> increased electric stress on nucleus -> slowing down of gyroscopic movement -> opening of energy apertures -> EM vacuum energy to energy spectrum ..].
according to Stan. I do believe it.

I tend to start yawning if a sentence starts off, "Meyer said..", as he didn't really say much that was actually comprehendable.

It is common knowledge and well known science that photons will be absorbed by atoms and raise electrons to higher orbits (energy levels), but it takes an exact amount of energy to raise an electron to a higher energy level. Likewise photons are emitted by atoms if an electron drops to a lower energy level. This is accepted science.

Photons are a way to pump in vacuum energy

  Come on, a photon itself carries energy, where does he get the vacuum energy part from. As usual he makes things more complicated than they really are in order to baffle people - classic Meyer gibberish.

It does, and this amount of photon energy will be siphoned in from the vacuum through the proton into the energy spectrum [according to Meyer   ]

Yes, according to Meyer (who was no scientist and did not use standard scientific terms)... and therein lies the problem.

Alan I know it might be difficult but do not take too literally anything that Meyer states, it will only create confusion. The science simply never adds up in Meyer's personal interpretation of things.

If an electron orbiting an atom drops to a lower energy level it emits a photon. This photon contains exactly the amount of energy (no more or no less) than is required. Vice-versa, to move an electron to a higher energy level, a photon of exactly the correct energy must be absorbed by the atom. A photon of more or less energy will not achieve this, it has to be exactly the right energy photon. Different atoms and different electron orbits required different amounts of energy to shift energy levels, so specific photons, carrying specific energy affect specific electron orbits. Different frequencies of EMR provide different photon energies - all photons do not carry the same amount of energy.

When an electron drops to a lower energy state, that surplus energy has to go somewhere, so the atom releases it as a photon.

So, certain EMR will have no effect whatsover on shifting electrons to higher levels. It has to be EMR carrying photons of exactly the correct energy level to be absorbed by any specific atom and so move an electron to a higher energy level.

Hope this helps.

 

As per axioma, but does science also explain why it works this way or does it only explain the statistics a la quantum?
am eager to learn this

the reason must be of electromagnetic origin

A quantum of radiation is emitted when an electron makes a transition (or jump) from a higher energy level orbit to a lower one. This radiation will be in the form of a photon at a specific frequency. As electrons energies are restricted to discrete levels, transitions will only occur by the absorbtion or emission of photons of the correct energy (frequency).

Required reading would be the works of Niels Bohr. Much has been discovered and many theories proven over the years, but there are many things that still remain unknown (or disputed), and the deeper you dig the more patchy things get. However, a lot is known and accepted in quantum physics with reference to electron energy levels within atoms.

I'm not sure how much more I can proffer at this level; the science is out there and available to study, but it can get very heavy reading from this point on. Besides, you don't want to learn from myself or anyone else around here - if you really want those answers get them from a reliable and trusted source and save yourself from the headaches of misinfo.

One thing I'm sure of though: There will always be questions you can ask that scientists do not yet know the answer to.