Nicola Tesla, Yull Brown, Stanley Allan Meyer, Dad Garret, Paul Pantone, Bill Williams, Ted Zettergren, Nakamats, Alexander Rabinovich,L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, J. Heywood, Bill Richardson MIT
gdew...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > "gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:
> > > > > "gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:
> > > > > > September 8, 1935, Charles H. Garrett sun of Dad Garrett operated his
> > > > > > engine continuously for more than forty-eight hours.
>
> > > > Pathe' News filmed the car driving along Garland Road with the driver
> > > > stopping at White Rock Lake to fill the fuel tank with water
>
> > > Ever considered there were TWO tanks ? One for water for publicity and a
> > > hidden one with gasoline to actually make it go ?
>
> > What good psycho analysis.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > Yes, this is definitely a possibility Rabbit man.
>
> You bet it is !
>
Have you considered the possibility it is real?
Would you have sentenced Aristotle to death?
Would you have locked up Galileo?
Would you have condemned aviation?
I know some people argue the scientific method dictates one should
come up with results or shut up.
But before anyone can come up with the results they need to do a lot
of work, before this work can be accomplished the inventor basically
has to do something that doesn't make sense by definition.
Edison made quite a few light bulbs that absolutely didn't work.
Even from the perspective a water powered auto is not possible one
could still attempt to accomplish the work.
We are not working from a clean sheet at all.
If you look at how much people condemn the mere idea and I mean with
strong disapproval you should be able to see the discussion about the
topic was made impossible. I can post as much links as I like, I can
cite a million professors people will curse me and litter what ever
chat I try to have about the topic.
The professors must be crank, the chemist must have lost it etc etc
I'm sure this much you can see?
So assuming such effort could be made, and I mean effort towards
physically disproving the many inventors.
Do you think anyone would be interested either way?
Say Graham has a moment of enlightenment and creates cold fusion using
10 cent worth of kitchen items. Would it matter if this happened in
1700, in 1800 or in 2100?
You would be treated just the same, scientists would ridicule you
until you either die from misery or decide to shut up about it. If you
have thick skin you will be man handled, beaten up, your lab set on
fire and in the end you will be assassinated.
People say Tesla was nuts, a loon, crazy etc etc but at the same time
we are all using his alternating current and his radio technology.
If that isn't a credible inventors resume then nothing ever will be
you see?
He powered his car with 2 rods made up of baked and compressed
elements. When everyone agreed he was using black magic he took the
box out of the car and he didn't look back.
Professor nakamats invented the floppy disk. He holds over 3200
patents.
Why would he not be a credible inventor?
I'm sure he doesn't live up to Tesla but why isn't the person with the
most inventions a credible source for a hydrogen generator?
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&p=6132
If his work is not credible to you, then what do you expect? Should
God come down to earth and beg you on his knees? Something tells me
you will debunk God if he would do that. hahaha
Those who build a working Joe Cell have all been told to shut up about
it. Bill Williams has been playing with his car engine and sharing
everything he found since he was 14 or something. Then one day he just
stopped talking about his hobby and vanished? He didn't have anything
for sale and he had a dozen videos online showing goofy experiments.
He didn't care about the results, he was just playing!
In his last video he was like: "wow, I disconnected the power and it
keeps running!"
When asked what happened he stated he was ordered to stop his
experiments. Why would he lie? Why would a person give up on his
hobby? He was not the only one who build a working Joe cell. He was
just replicating things. Non of the claims came from him.
I'm sure you are familiar with this conversation
http://groups.google.de/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/86420899b49ac4dc
In the watercar group I found this posting.
From: "Tad Johnson" <h2opowered@... To: <wate...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:39 AM Subject: [watercar]
Meyer Experiment Recap
For those of you who were not here, or have not watched the Keelynet
boards and such I will revamp my entire history of Meyer experiments.
In 1996 I was an amateur electronics hobbyist. I had been interested
in electrolysis and hydrogen study for many years prior, but this year
I was watching the sci.hydrogen news group to become more educated on
hydrogen in general. During that year I met a man who was good friends
with Stanley Meyer and regularly went to visit him in Ohio. John lived
here in California, and had also invested some money in the Water
07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
of 25951 Page 2 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/
20771 Fuel cell project of Meyers'. I became friends with this man and
became more interested in the Stanley Meyer system. As I became more
adept at electronic design and troubleshooting I began to want to try
and duplicate the Stanley Meyer process of breaking water with high
voltage at resonance.
During that year and onward a couple years I was able to ask John
questions which he would then ask Stanley, and would then feed the
answer back to me. You see, Stan was not willing to just talk to
anyone about the process let alone give away any secrets of the
process that were not mentioned already in the patents. So I had to
ask these questions through John who was good friends with Stanley.
My first few circuits worked but the cell would not make any hydrogen,
especially under the conditions that Stanley and his patents said they
would. The problem is that I would tune the cell like he said and yet
no gas would be produced. It took three years of tinkering to finally
figure out what I was doing wrong, and it was a big blunder. The
answer to what I was doing wrong came to me through the sci.hydrogen
group by a man who lived in Sweden and had already duplicated the
Meyer experiments based on his patents. His name was Ted Zettergren,
and he was an inventor who helped other inventors file patents and
market products. He posted on exactly what he did and how the system
worked. To my knowledge he was one of the first of three people who
duplicated the Meyer experiments successfully.
After Stan was killed I had no information other than Ted's to go by,
but it was all I needed, or anyone else needs to duplicate the Meyer's
process. 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages :
Message 20771 of 25951 Page 3 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
energy2000/message/20771 The process is achieved by the following:
1. Pulsing circuit or power supply capable of producing 600+ Volts @
20Khz+ @ 100uA+. My system was a simple, off the shelf inverter with
an input of 12VDC and an output of 1200VAC @ 20Khz @ 1mA. I then took
this circuit and modified the circuit to run at 42.5-43.0Khz. This was
an off-the-shelf inverter sold by Fry's electronics. It is a neon
power supply with a very small bobbin core transformer. Anyone can buy
this circuit or one just like it and modify it to run within the specs
I gave you. The hard part is obtaining resonance which takes years of
electronics expertise to do.
2. A small electrolysis cell with the ability to vary distance between
conductors.
3. 2 - Chokes, one adjustable, one fixed.
4. One high voltage diode to go in-line with the cathode of the power
supply output.
5. Inductance Meter, Capacitance meter, frequency counter/
Oscilloscope, and high voltage probe.
The key to the Meyer process is resonance, and without resonance the
system produces no gas. At 12watts you see why no gas is produced
without resonance. This is a standard LC resonant circuit in which you
MUST (!) match Capacitive reactance with Inductive reactance. This
then creates an LC resonant circuit in which the two legs of the power
supply match in frequency exactly. A Ham calc make the calculation of
resonance easy once you know the capacitance of the cell and the
frequency you are driving it at. Once you have your inductance
calculated you then buy the proper chokes 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo!
Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771 of 25951 Page 4 of
6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771 that fall
within the inductance range needed. The adjustable one needs
(obviously) to be tunable within a small range, so that when the cell
temperature changes and causes the capacitance of the cell to change,
then the inductance can also be changed to keep the cell in resonance.
If you cell has the ability to vary distance between conductors, then
you simply change the distance and thus change the capacitance of the
cell rather than changing the inductance. You must vary one of the
other though. I have found since then that the capacitance of the cell
can be changed and works just as well as the inductors being adjusted.
You don't use ANY electrolyte, you don't want ANY amperage at all,
only voltage @ resonance. REPEAT, YOU DON'T NEED ANY CURRENT FLOW,
ONLY VOLTAGE!
What I found frustrating is that the cell temperature would change and
the system would stop making gas. In order to keep the system making
gas you constantly have to keep the cell in resonance, and thus you
really need the system to be controlled by a processor, that
constantly checks frequency on both legs and then adjusts inductance
to keep the cell in resonance. This is why Stanley move to the other
patents where the spark plus type of electrolysis chamber was used
instead of a large cell.
With the cell running at 1200Volts @ 1mA @ 42.8Khz I found I could
make 200LP/H of gas. Do the math and you will find that this is
impossible given our current understanding of electrolysis. If you
scale this equation up you will find that you can make over 20,000LP/H
of gas for 1200Watts. This is easily enough to run most any Internal
combustion engine. The only problem has been keeping the cell in tune.
An alternator will easily produce 3000 watts of power, so this is
easily enough to power the car on 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups :
energy2000 Messages : Message 20771 of 25951 Page 5 of 6http://
groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771 this system alone.
This is how the Volkswagen Buggy was running around on water only. The
car has to wait a minute or two before he stored enough gas to run the
car, then once it was started and running it would make enough gas to
run the car at up to 60MPH. I never saw this car run personally, but I
have two people that went to two showings and both said it worked and
they verified there was no gasoline on board.
3 Years ago I sent Stefan and others this experimental data and never
heard back form anyone, nor did anyone ever repeat my experiment. To
this date I know of only Ted, Me, and one other person who has
duplicated this experiment and done so successfully. The third person
is a PHD on the east coast of the U.S. who is in contact with
Stanley's widow. Stanley's brother now takes care of all water fuel
cell business and claims he will start it up again and make sure it
makes it to market this time. But I have not heard from them in years
now. Stefan easily has the electronics experience to duplicate this
process and also solve the issue of keeping the cell in resonance. I
probably do as well at this point but I am not going to do it alone.
It takes allot of electronics expertise and hard work to solve this
problem of cell tuning.
Whew, my fingers are tired.......
Tad
Simple: H2o(l) - H2(g) + O2(g) - H2O(g) Yahoo! Groups Links
After that I found this one:
Here is a machine translation.
====================
The report can be ordered from NUTEK (former STU). The reason that
alternative fuels are not allowed is what I understand the
government's commitment to guarantee the energy sector to guarantee
energy supplies in times of crisis. Offering means that the state may
pay the energy sector in option causes the energy sector profit
reduction. If you look more carefully at the options, the you find
that you can not do anything without huge resistance. Want to build a
wind farm, you must have close to 30 different permits from different
authorities. Water Court prevents you to use the water, etc. When it
was discovered that it could burn cheap peat from their own land
politicians solved the problem of classify peat as a mineral. There is
no shortage of imagination our politicians when it comes to discourage
individual initiative and it finally puts an end to it all is rate.
Would petrol companies have bug and stop charging for its product, you
can be confident that the tax immediately would be increased to a
level so that the price for the customer became about the past.
m.v.h.
ted
===================
Which was in response to this:
===================
Thomas Palm <Thomas.P...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in the Post
<Xns93CF69726A0CBThomasPalmchell...@212.83.64.229> ...
> "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se> wrote in
> News: 01c35c65 $ 1fff8e80 $ 3b7497d4 @ tedz:
>> You are poorly informed Kaj. As I wrote in a previous speech:
>> "The industry in Sweden are forced to emit hydrogen in the atmosphere in
>> Instead of
>> Use it for vehicle fuel. According NUTEK's investigation dnr 81-3174
>> Would amount sufficient to run a million cars. So why
>> Produce something that already exists. "
> Do you have any suggestions on where to find that the report or on
other
> Hold few details about the task. A rough indication that it is very
> Unlikely given the value of all the energy you are talking about. There is a considerable
> Part of Sweden's energy consumption which would be placed in the form of hydrogen.
> What industry is what accounts for this and why does not already
today
> To be on hydrogen?
===================
There are hundreds of stories like this.
Yull Brown ran away from Australia when it was getting to hot.
Then he was killed in the US.
> > But this would mean the Garrett's would have endangered their successful career
> > as
> > inventors.
>
> Cite their successful careers as inventors then. How many of these 'inventions'
> actually went into production ?
Oh, but if you don't believe Tesla can beat the law book the Garretts
will never be credible. You can read their radio patent, it seems
advanced enough for them to just about anything the electric law
allows them to.
I'm documenting the Garrett's because they tried, if it works is not
really important. I like to have as much information on the topic as
possible. Ignoring even a little bit is dishonest in my opinion. So I
worked many thousands of hours documenting this information. All you
have to do is read the digests. I confess nothing is finished, there
is lots of information on the topic.
But I'm doing it for free, as in free lunch, free wily and free mason.
All I expect in return is assault and ridicule. I've been listening to
that all my life. It's not very impressive.
I even designed a fuel-less car specially for the debunkers.
Moar ass the tin foil hat argument I didn't hear thus far.
Magnetic perpetual motion devices are to easy to debunk, I work and I
work and after lots of work my documentation cant possibly be less
complicated by now.
You know what the debunkers say after all my effort?
"it cant be that simple, if it was that simple people would have
figured it out already"
I have reduced the explanation to holding 2 magnets in your hands and
paying attention to the truth. So, enough of that. Now it will be
waterauto's, at least here I get an army of scientists who back my
arguments.
Here is Yull Brown
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/Yull-Brown/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/9#view
Here is Stanly Allan Meyer
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/stanley-allan-meyer/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/6
If you would be honest this should already be enough documentation.
Faraday was an experimentalist FOR FUCK SAKE. Where did you get the
idea you can use experiments to refute all future experiments? From
the book of law again?
Non of the experiments are correct because Faraday who didn't have any
formal education did some experiments?
Think about it,
by spewing at the researchers one will discover the superior truth?
Non of the perpetual motion devices ever need investigation because
they are all not real because non of them work?
Seems the research is mandatory to come to that last conclusion.
Without investigation you nevah get to claim non of them work because
the establishment never looked at any of them? hahahaha???
I'm not saying all claims are real, I'm saying the circular reasoning
doesn't allow for factual evidence.
God is real because the bible says he is real?
Yes? Are you that kind of person?
> > It also has a rational conflict with the various explosions
> > in their workshop.
>
> I don't think explosions prove anything other than incompetence.
Of course, one can interpret things in many ways but if you refuse to
look at the context then the conclusions are nothing but wishful
thinking.
Sure, you can accuse me of wishful thinking.
But what is your goal?
The economy is going RIP, I think it would be cool to just get rid of
it.
Everyone is brainwashed anyway, so the rich will become moar wealthy
from it in the long run. They shouldn't whine about coins when their
workers are about to suffer massive death.
You have any idea how many days worth of food there is the moment
supplies stop? Do you think it will be enough to build alternative
means by then? We will discuss the waterauto sitting in front of our
wigwam trying to keep warm without food?
I think you wishful thinking works towards that picture.
Yull Brown managed to power cars on his gas alone, he didn't use an
efficient electolyser. Meyer made browns gas at 1200 V and 10 mA
It will kill the whole petroleum tax industry.
Paul Pantone only invented a fuel saving apparatus. 5 times the
mileage was already enough to get rid of him.
This is what we need
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8045542117971466961
April 18, 2007 Judge Royal Hansen denies Paul Pantone his right of
choice of counsel. http://paul-pantone-court-recordings.go-here.nl/Pantone_Court_2007_04_18.mp3
He doesn't get a lawyer because he is incompetent.
He was already tortured beyond imagination in 2005.
His own doctor stated he is allergic to penicillin, so they keep
giving him that. His own doctor is overruled because he would have a
financial interest in Pantone.
Now they want to force medicate him with a psycho cocktail so that he
can become competent enough to be convicted. BUT he can get 6 months
as the maximum sentence.
A few hundred people paid Pantone for lectures. This is what he was
convicted for, the students didn't get a cent in return. What they did
get was the bill from the legal hoax. They would have to release him
in 2005. He did 4 times the 6 month sentence. Convicted for teaching
people something that doesn't exist the court claims.
He was initially arrested for not showing up for his court case. The
assigned legal counsel claimed he didn't answer the phone, but Paul
has phone records showing he used the phone lots of times that day.
Both to call and to get called.
Even if Pantone was the most fantastic liar in human history that
doesn't change the fact that MIT has a patent for the plasmatron.
A device practically the same as the GEET engine.
> The point is, that the hard well-proven laws of physics mean that their idea is
> bunkum. If you'd actually studied science this fact would be second nature to
> you. Therefore it HAD to be fraud. The hidden tank is the simplest explanation.
I know that is what the bookie says. You get to debunk the MIT
plasmatron, the professors are much to scared to continue their work
on it. In stead of making it better they are making it smaller. I'm
not that stupid. Pantone's plasma reactor tube is at least 10 times as
big.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3kueRyzvlY
1997:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/ed2b54b8c87e5729
On Feb 22 1997, 10:00 am, r...@aol.com (RAJ) wrote:
> Over-Unity Hydrogen Production? Nuclear Energy?
> [snip]
> The increasing coverage of the patented (#5,435,274 - others pending)
> AquaFuel and COH2 discoveries in science, engineering, environmental trade
> journals, newspapers, and TV
>[snip]
> The AquaFuel process appears to mirror image MIT’s work on theplasmatron(See Plasma Reformer-Fuel Cell Systems For Decentralized Power
> Applications International Journal of Hydrogen Energy -January 1997) where
> various hydrocarbons are subjected to an electric arc and reformed into H
> and CO.
>[snip]
> This could well be one of the
> biggest breakthroughs in new energy technology of the past seven years!"
> is right on target. We look forward to the promise of accelerated
> research and results coverage of carbon arc technology in future issues of
> Infinite Energy Magazine. For those who don't yet subscribe but are
> interested to see several carbon-arc patents on gas production, experiment
> data, and various analysis I suggest a subscription starting with back
> issues #9 and #10. Subscription information can be found at
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell. AquaFuel Inventor
> Bill Richardson can be contacted at phone: 407-723-1163 or fax:
> 407-723-4114.
>[snip]
2001:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/3c43c274e0837766
On Aug 27 2001, 3:57 pm, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
> ContentsDirect from Elsevier Science
> ======================================
>
> Journal: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
> ISSN : 0360-3199
> Volume : 26
> Issue : 10
> Date : Oct-2001
>
> Visit the journal athttp://www.elsevier.nl/locate/jnlnr/00485
> [snip]
> pp 1115-1121
> Emissions reductions using hydrogen from plasmatron fuel converters
> L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, J. Heywood
>
2003:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/851174199f68ac42
On May 28 2003, 4:52 am, Tim M <gringo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is a paper on Plasma Reformation of our favorite element
> http://www.psfc.mit.edu/plasmatech/Plasmatron.pdf written by
> L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn and A. Rabinovich @ MIT
>
> This issue of e-lab includes an analysis of a hydrogen bus it doesn't
> look to encouraging
> http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/e-lab/july-sep00/july-sep00.html
>
> A press release on a plasma reformation device Alexander Rabinovich
> calls theplasmatron
> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/1997/plasmatron.htmland a paper on the
> same
> http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library/02ja/02JA030/02JA030_full.pdf
> and an other
> http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library/00JA/00JA039/00JA039_full.pdf
>
> A very cool paper on the physical limits of portable power storage
> http://aries.www.media.mit.edu/people/aries/portable-power/power.html
>
> MIT researchers inch toward photosynthesis in a beaker
> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/nocera.html
>
> Tim M.
A bus? haha?
http://www.google.com/search?q=plasmatron+bus
A fuel recycler would be a useful addon for a hydrogen fuel savings
technology.
5% petroleum would cut the cost by 95%, engines are made to burn
petroleum making them run 100% on hydrogen would reduce the life span
of the motor.
dedanoe
Don Lancaster
I think I found your problem.
In that time frame, useful instruments of reasonable cost were simply
not available. Your work was thus, by definition, bogus.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
doug
gdew...@gmail.com wrote:
No, we need to respect the laws of physics.
>
> If you look at how much people condemn the mere idea and I mean with
> strong disapproval you should be able to see the discussion about the
> topic was made impossible. I can post as much links as I like, I can
> cite a million professors people will curse me and litter what ever
> chat I try to have about the topic.
>
> The professors must be crank, the chemist must have lost it etc etc
If the claim is to violate the laws of physics, the comments are true
and the people will be seen as cranks. Proof is necessary for
these claims of new magic.
>
> I'm sure this much you can see?
>
> So assuming such effort could be made, and I mean effort towards
> physically disproving the many inventors.
>
> Do you think anyone would be interested either way?
>
> Say Graham has a moment of enlightenment and creates cold fusion using
> 10 cent worth of kitchen items. Would it matter if this happened in
> 1700, in 1800 or in 2100?
>
> You would be treated just the same, scientists would ridicule you
> until you either die from misery or decide to shut up about it. If you
> have thick skin you will be man handled, beaten up, your lab set on
> fire and in the end you will be assassinated.
If anyone invented cold fusion, the world would be all over it in
a hurry. Look at how much interest came out from the bad work
done by Pons and Fleishman. Their setup did not work but it started
a lot of money flowing into the field. People now realize that
it all was just bad lab work.
>
> People say Tesla was nuts, a loon, crazy etc etc but at the same time
> we are all using his alternating current and his radio technology.
>
> If that isn't a credible inventors resume then nothing ever will be
> you see?
>
> He powered his car with 2 rods made up of baked and compressed
> elements. When everyone agreed he was using black magic he took the
> box out of the car and he didn't look back.
>
> Professor nakamats invented the floppy disk. He holds over 3200
> patents.
>
> Why would he not be a credible inventor?
>
> I'm sure he doesn't live up to Tesla but why isn't the person with the
> most inventions a credible source for a hydrogen generator?
>
> http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&p=6132
This was 1995. Nothing has come of it. Even in the patent he only
claims efficiency up to 95%. This means any hydrogen powered
car runs off the battery. You would be much better off just using an
electric motor.
>
> If his work is not credible to you, then what do you expect? Should
> God come down to earth and beg you on his knees? Something tells me
> you will debunk God if he would do that. hahaha
>
> Those who build a working Joe Cell have all been told to shut up about
> it. Bill Williams has been playing with his car engine and sharing
> everything he found since he was 14 or something. Then one day he just
> stopped talking about his hobby and vanished? He didn't have anything
> for sale and he had a dozen videos online showing goofy experiments.
> He didn't care about the results, he was just playing!
He found out it did not work and went on to something else.
>
> In his last video he was like: "wow, I disconnected the power and it
> keeps running!"
Videos are proof only that he coulc make a video.
>
> When asked what happened he stated he was ordered to stop his
> experiments. Why would he lie? Why would a person give up on his
> hobby? He was not the only one who build a working Joe cell. He was
> just replicating things. Non of the claims came from him.
Probably his wife told him to stop wasting his time and her money.
>
> I'm sure you are familiar with this conversation
> http://groups.google.de/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/86420899b49ac4dc
>
> In the watercar group I found this posting.
Snip the stuff below since it shows more bad lab work with
unsubstatiated claims. There are no real measurents, only
vague assumptions.
>
//blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
gabydewilde
> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > If you look at how much people condemn the mere idea and I mean with
> > strong disapproval you should be able to see the discussion about the
> > topic was made impossible. I can post as much links as I like, I can
> > cite a million professors people will curse me and litter what ever
> > chat I try to have about the topic.
>
> > The professors must be crank, the chemist must have lost it etc etc
>
> If the claim is to violate the laws of physics, the comments are true
> and the people will be seen as cranks. Proof is necessary for
> these claims of new magic.
>
Well, you are free to show your credentials for remote viewing,
Faraday, Nicola Tesla, Yull Brown, Stanley Allan Meyer, Dad Garret,
Paul Pantone, Bill Williams, Ted Zettergren, Nakamats, Alexander
Rabinovich,L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, J. Heywood and Bill
Richardson all build things and based their conclusions on real world
contraptions.
For you to theorise your preconceaved superiority is just not sanity.
> > Say Graham has a moment of enlightenment and creates cold fusion using
> > 10 cent worth of kitchen items. Would it matter if this happened in
> > 1700, in 1800 or in 2100?
>
> > You would be treated just the same, scientists would ridicule you
> > until you either die from misery or decide to shut up about it. If you
> > have thick skin you will be man handled, beaten up, your lab set on
> > fire and in the end you will be assassinated.
>
> If anyone invented cold fusion, the world would be all over it in
> a hurry.
You are looking at it right now and you are not all over it, you are
in full denial.
You think the bookie has everything the gallaxy has to offer in it.
>Look at how much interest came out from the bad work
> done by Pons and Fleishman.
haha? Pons and Fleishman?
They left the US because people openly talked about physically geting
rid of them. The scientists didn't even leave the room anymore. It was
time for them to RUN AWAY and hide. They never could finish their
work, your kind of divine preception of all possible research outcomes
is exactly that what prevented them from doing the actual research.
Pons and Fleishman were immediately ridiculed out of the profession in
the same manner as many who have made revolutionary scientific
discoveries throughout history. The high temperature plasma physics
crowd, funded to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars, were
particularly vicious. The physics establishment declared that such a
result was not permitted by their models, mostly because it failed to
produce a cesspool of nuclear waste, and therefore not possible. Never
allowing for the possibility that they or their models might not know
everything, the High Priests of Science declared Pons and Fleishman
crackpots, the government and the media bought it, and that little bit
of unpleasantness was quickly put behind the scientific establishment.
Or so they thought.
Pons and Fleishmann's research was immediately declared to be faulty
and they were blacklisted from the scientific community. Academic
journals declared that their results violated the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, which sets limits on how heat can be converted into
energy. The U.S. Department of Energy released a report saying that
the cold fusion
experiment did present some unexplained phenomena, but it did not
warrant any additional funding.
Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The
announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights.
Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the
length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to
protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of
the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments.
Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years
and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the
experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of
positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a
backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of
power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature
and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it
was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched
immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used
de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of
people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the
scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had
tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not
active.
Pons and Fleishman discovered cold fusion which was quickly followed
by verification of the results from several nationally recognized
research labs as well as academic papers on bosun theorey that
completely explained the observed the phenomena.
I repeate, 17 years ago, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann captured
the imagination of the world with their announcement of fusion at room
temperature. When duplicating the effect turned out to be difficult,
the whirlwind of positive publicity quickly turned with a vengeance
into a firestorm of negative publicity and ridicule, which continues
to this day.
Despite the ridicule, there has remained a dedicated and growing core
of scientists who have not only replicated room-temperature fusion,
but also have improved on its performance and have broadened the
number of methods for achieving it. In the midst of this academic
pariah movement, Dr. Martin Fleischmann has continued his research,
and regularly presents at conferences.
A couple of years back in Britain, he tried to retire, but could not
stay away from his experimentation.
After its recent formation in California, the company D2Fusion has
extended an invitation to Dr, Fleischmann to work with them as a
senior research advisor, with the objective of bringing a commercial
application of the technology to market. A California-based solid
state fusion energy firm with engineering centers in Silicon Valley
and Los Alamos, New Mexico, D2Fusion is a subsidiary of Solar Energy
Limited (OTCBB:SLRE).
On Thursday (March 23rd), the seventeenth anniversary of the original
announcement of cold fusion, the company announced that they will tap
Dr. Fleischmann's experience and expertise to produce prototypes of
solid-state fusion-heating modules for homes and industry.
David Kubiak, Communications Director for D2Fusion, expects that in a
little more than a year the company will have a production prototype
ready. Although the number and scale of potential applications is wide
and diverse, they would like first to target the home-heating market.
Another market sector they are looking at is independent heaters for
cars. As more hybrid technologies and fuel cells are introduced,
engines will no longer be reliable sources of passenger compartment
heat in cold climes. Kubiak said winter automotive heating makes
serious BTU demands on these sophisticated engines that they cannot
efficiently respond to, especially in idle mode. Their technology
could address that shortfall and cover this ever widening market
niche.
Also, they have been eyeing the WhisperGen device, presently on its
maiden voyage in the London area with about 400 test installations.
That system has their attention because it can use a wide variety of
sources for input heat to generate electricity output. The WhisperGen
is a Stirling engine technology, also called an "external combustion
engine", inasmuch as the heat source operates from outside of the
engine to effect the turning of components within it.
Kubiak says that the strategy for going to a home application at first
is to garner grass-root support, which should help to unravel some of
the entrenched political and scientific opposition to the technology.
It's kind of hard to argue against the feasibility of a technology if
it is already at work heating and powering homes.
The company website anticipates that eventually the commercialization
of D2Fusion technology will have almost unimaginable economic, social
and political impact on the world.
Fleischmann will actually be leading one of three labs at D2Fusion,
each approaching the phenomenon from a slightly different angle.
Fleischmann's lab will be pursuing an electrochemical approach.
Another will be using the palladium-carbon catalytic process, and a
third lab will be researching the glow discharge process, which uses a
gas environment, rather than a liquid medium. The three will be in
friendly competition with one another, Kubiak said.
The principal player at D2Fusion is Russ George, who has actually
rubbed shoulders occasionally with Fleischmann down through the years,
as both of them have been pursuing the cold fusion technology with a
variety of techniques. More recently, George worked with Dr. Yoshiaki
Arata at Osaka University utilizing nanoscale palladium particles to
quantum vault the Coulomb barrier -- the classical electromagnetic
plus-plus charge repulsion that allegedly precludes the type of fusion
that is being observed.
Kubiak said that the sporadic reproducibility of most cold fusion
techniques still plagues many researchers in the field, as the metal
materials seem to be particularly temperamental. One batch will work,
while the next will not. While that might frustrate impatient
scientists who want to see instant impeccable reproducibility from new
discoveries, it does not deter the cold fusion community. "Once you
see it work, you realize a new frontier is opening and you're hooked,"
he said.
A company press release explains that, in brief, "cold” fusion
involves the fusion of two nuclei of deuterium or heavy hydrogen into
a single helium atom, accompanied only by a burst of heat. Unlike
"thermonuclear hot fusion" that requires the plasma-inducing inferno
temperatures of the sun or a hydrogen bomb, solid-state fusion
reactions can be produced at normal temperatures in certain hydrogen-
loving metals without unleashing hot fusion's dangerous radiation.
Many experimental reports suggest the importance of nano-scale
reaction sites and the occurrence of coherent quantum electrodynamic
(QED) states that circumvent the strong mutual repulsion of positively
charged deuterium nuclei. The QED features are markedly similar to
processes now familiar in solid-state physics, such as
superconductivity, and have led the company to conclude that "solid-
state fusion" is a more accurate and fruitful characterization of the
field than the term “cold fusion”
Before his historic work at Utah University with his associate Dr.
Stanley Pons, Professor Fleischmann taught electrochemistry at the
University of Southampton, Britain's equivalent to MIT. There he was
named a Fellow of the Royal Society, and served as Council president
of the International Society of Electrochemistry.
Initially inspired by Alfred Coehn's groundbreaking work on proton
conduction in the late 1920s, Dr. Fleischmann labored privately and
tirelessly in the early eighties to deepen his understanding of
quantum electrodynamics, which, he believed, should allow low-
temperature coherent fusion phenomena. After his demonstration of this
effect in Utah and the March '89 announcement, he continued his QED
work – in obscurity as far as the media was concerned, but with
excellent backing. First, Toyota's research and development institute
funded his efforts in France, and subsequently he worked in Italy with
the support of several prestigious Italian energy labs.
At D2Fusion, Prof. Fleischmann will work in conjunction with Dr.
Thomas Passell, the firm's CTO and a former manager in the Electric
Power Research Institute's Nuclear Power Division, who directed the
North American power industry's investigations of "cold fusion"
phenomena for five years. Fleischmann will also aid and consult with
top Los Alamos physicists at D2Fusion's New Mexico R&D laboratory.
D2Fusion CEO Russ George notes, "Dr. Fleischmann's genius inspired a
generation of audacious researchers, and there are now thousands of
scientific reports confirming the reality, safety and stunning promise
of solid-state fusion energy. Aided by his insight and most recent
discoveries, we believe it is time to start delivering that potential
to the world.
"True, our theoretical grasp of all the processes in play remains
imperfect, but neither can we fully explain the workings of aspirin,
acupuncture or high-temperature superconductivity. Unresolved
questions about their mechanisms have not stopped us from enjoying
their respective benefits, which are pale indeed compared to what
solid-state fusion offers. We are now certain that heat generation
from this process is copious, safe, inexpensive and reproducible, and
in terms of commercialization that seems like a perfect place to
start."
> > People say Tesla was nuts, a loon, crazy etc etc but at the same time
> > we are all using his alternating current and his radio technology.
>
> > If that isn't a credible inventors resume then nothing ever will be
> > you see?
>
> > He powered his car with 2 rods made up of baked and compressed
> > elements. When everyone agreed he was using black magic he took the
> > box out of the car and he didn't look back.
>
> > Professor nakamats invented the floppy disk. He holds over 3200
> > patents.
>
> This was 1995. Nothing has come of it.
Oh, but his public statement is that he is "waiting for the world to
be ready for it"
You are clearly not "ready for it" jet.
> > If his work is not credible to you, then what do you expect? Should
> > God come down to earth and beg you on his knees? Something tells me
> > you will debunk God if he would do that. hahaha
>
> > Those who build a working Joe Cell have all been told to shut up about
> > it. Bill Williams has been playing with his car engine and sharing
> > everything he found since he was 14 or something. Then one day he just
> > stopped talking about his hobby and vanished? He didn't have anything
> > for sale and he had a dozen videos online showing goofy experiments.
> > He didn't care about the results, he was just playing!
>
> He found out it did not work and went on to something else.
>
It was his hobby, he didn't care if it worked or not. He was just
playing.
Lets not pretend you are an expert on the joy of experimentation.
You are not.
> > In his last video he was like: "wow, I disconnected the power and it
> > keeps running!"
>
> Videos are proof only that he coulc make a video.
>
Google group postings are only proof you can write a google group
posting.
> Probably his wife told him to stop wasting his time and her money.
Nice, you are trying on the tin foil hat here?
> Snip the stuff below since it shows more bad lab work with
> unsubstatiated claims.
What do you mean? Does the quantity of quality information scare your?
Tesla was not good enough lets forget about Yull Brown, Stanley Allan
Meyer, Dad Garret, Paul Pantone, Bill Williams, Ted Zettergren,
Nakamats, Alexander Rabinovich,L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich,
J. Heywood and Bill Richardson?
Nice try but it's not very convincing now it is.
> There are no real measurents,
You are now trying to badge-debunk real world demonstration with your
uninformed opinion?
> only vague assumptions.
The way you keep repeating the same preconceaved arguments is quite
revealing.
This was the spot where it became to much for you?
I'm sure you are familiar with this conversation
http://groups.google.de/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/86420899b49ac4dc
In the watercar group I found this posting. btw, it was not written by
me Don Lancaster.
doug
gabydewilde wrote:
> On Oct 8, 7:48 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you look at how much people condemn the mere idea and I mean with
>>>strong disapproval you should be able to see the discussion about the
>>>topic was made impossible. I can post as much links as I like, I can
>>>cite a million professors people will curse me and litter what ever
>>>chat I try to have about the topic.
>>
>>>The professors must be crank, the chemist must have lost it etc etc
>>
>>If the claim is to violate the laws of physics, the comments are true
>>and the people will be seen as cranks. Proof is necessary for
>>these claims of new magic.
>>
>
>
> Well, you are free to show your credentials for remote viewing,
> Faraday, Nicola Tesla, Yull Brown, Stanley Allan Meyer, Dad Garret,
> Paul Pantone, Bill Williams, Ted Zettergren, Nakamats, Alexander
> Rabinovich,L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, J. Heywood and Bill
> Richardson all build things and based their conclusions on real world
> contraptions.
>
I do not know why you put Faraday in with a group of cranks.
Tesla had some good ideas early but went very weird near the end. Brown
is presenting something that does not exist. Meyer is presenting
something that does not work. All the cranks have their specialties.
None of the group above is doing anything useful.
> For you to theorise your preconceaved superiority is just not sanity.
Assuming the laws of physics are subject to change by an admiral
is not sanity.
>
>
>>>Say Graham has a moment of enlightenment and creates cold fusion using
>>>10 cent worth of kitchen items. Would it matter if this happened in
>>>1700, in 1800 or in 2100?
>>
>>>You would be treated just the same, scientists would ridicule you
>>>until you either die from misery or decide to shut up about it. If you
>>>have thick skin you will be man handled, beaten up, your lab set on
>>>fire and in the end you will be assassinated.
>>
>>If anyone invented cold fusion, the world would be all over it in
>>a hurry.
>
>
> You are looking at it right now and you are not all over it, you are
> in full denial.
That is because it did not work.
>
> You think the bookie has everything the gallaxy has to offer in it.
>
>
>>Look at how much interest came out from the bad work
>>done by Pons and Fleishman.
>
>
> haha? Pons and Fleishman?
>
> They left the US because people openly talked about physically geting
> rid of them. The scientists didn't even leave the room anymore. It was
> time for them to RUN AWAY and hide. They never could finish their
> work, your kind of divine preception of all possible research outcomes
> is exactly that what prevented them from doing the actual research.
>
They were looked down on because they were wrong.
So a cold fusion supporter is supporting a cold fusion supporter.
Where can I buy one of these devices?
>
> Kubiak said that the sporadic reproducibility of most cold fusion
> techniques still plagues many researchers in the field, as the metal
> materials seem to be particularly temperamental. One batch will work,
> while the next will not. While that might frustrate impatient
> scientists who want to see instant impeccable reproducibility from new
> discoveries, it does not deter the cold fusion community. "Once you
> see it work, you realize a new frontier is opening and you're hooked,"
> he said.
>
> A company press release explains that, in brief, "cold” fusion
> involves the fusion of two nuclei of deuterium or heavy hydrogen into
> a single helium atom, accompanied only by a burst of heat. Unlike
> "thermonuclear hot fusion" that requires the plasma-inducing inferno
> temperatures of the sun or a hydrogen bomb, solid-state fusion
> reactions can be produced at normal temperatures in certain hydrogen-
> loving metals without unleashing hot fusion's dangerous radiation.
>
Thereby demonstrating it is not fusion. The energy difference between
hydrogen and helium is independent of how you got there. The proof
that they were not seeing fusion is that they are still alive. The
radiation would be deadly.
Read the patent. There is nothing there to offer. He just offers
a way to generate hydrogen and he is not even claiming 100%
efficiency. He just shows how to waste electricity making hydrogen.
>
>>>If his work is not credible to you, then what do you expect? Should
>>>God come down to earth and beg you on his knees? Something tells me
>>>you will debunk God if he would do that. hahaha
>>
>>>Those who build a working Joe Cell have all been told to shut up about
>>>it. Bill Williams has been playing with his car engine and sharing
>>>everything he found since he was 14 or something. Then one day he just
>>>stopped talking about his hobby and vanished? He didn't have anything
>>>for sale and he had a dozen videos online showing goofy experiments.
>>>He didn't care about the results, he was just playing!
>>
>>He found out it did not work and went on to something else.
>>
>
>
> It was his hobby, he didn't care if it worked or not. He was just
> playing.
And now he is playing with something else. It does not work.
>
> Lets not pretend you are an expert on the joy of experimentation.
>
> You are not.
Well, actually I am.
>
>
>>>In his last video he was like: "wow, I disconnected the power and it
>>>keeps running!"
>>
>>Videos are proof only that he coulc make a video.
>>
>
>
> Google group postings are only proof you can write a google group
> posting.
>
>
>>Probably his wife told him to stop wasting his time and her money.
>
>
> Nice, you are trying on the tin foil hat here?
>
Where can I buy a working useful version of what he built?
>
>>Snip the stuff below since it shows more bad lab work with
>>unsubstatiated claims.
>
>
> What do you mean? Does the quantity of quality information scare your?
No, it is the quality that is bad. You are good for quantity.
>
> Tesla was not good enough lets forget about Yull Brown, Stanley Allan
> Meyer, Dad Garret, Paul Pantone, Bill Williams, Ted Zettergren,
> Nakamats, Alexander Rabinovich,L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich,
> J. Heywood and Bill Richardson?
>
Lets see again, meyer was a convicted fraud, Brown is pushing something
that does not exist etc.
> Nice try but it's not very convincing now it is.
>
>
>> There are no real measurents,
>
>
> You are now trying to badge-debunk real world demonstration with your
> uninformed opinion?
>
>
>>only vague assumptions.
>
>
> The way you keep repeating the same preconceaved arguments is quite
> revealing.
Show the measurements then.
This shows how little he knows about electronics. He is using the
power supply for the backlights for lcds. These are a good way to
foul up the current measrurements since they are pulsed. Also,
resonance is not hard to find. You need to have a first year
class in electonics but it is very basic.
Thus you have no conversion to hydrogen. It takes electrons to make
hydrogen from water.
>
> What I found frustrating is that the cell temperature would change and
> the system would stop making gas. In order to keep the system making
> gas you constantly have to keep the cell in resonance, and thus you
> really need the system to be controlled by a processor, that
> constantly checks frequency on both legs and then adjusts inductance
> to keep the cell in resonance. This is why Stanley move to the other
> patents where the spark plus type of electrolysis chamber was used
> instead of a large cell.
>
> With the cell running at 1200Volts @ 1mA @ 42.8Khz I found I could
> make 200LP/H of gas. Do the math and you will find that this is
> impossible given our current understanding of electrolysis.
Thus he needs to find out where his measuring mistakes is. The
typical one is to use a cheap meter and assume that the readings
mean something.
If you
> scale this equation up you will find that you can make over 20,000LP/H
> of gas for 1200Watts. This is easily enough to run most any Internal
> combustion engine. The only problem has been keeping the cell in tune.
> An alternator will easily produce 3000 watts of power, so this is
> easily enough to power the car on 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups :
> energy2000 Messages : Message 20771 of 25951 Page 5 of 6http://
> groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771 this system alone.
> This is how the Volkswagen Buggy was running around on water only. The
> car has to wait a minute or two before he stored enough gas to run the
> car, then once it was started and running it would make enough gas to
> run the car at up to 60MPH.
Notice that he is claiming something but has not seen it.
I never saw this car run personally, but I
> have two people that went to two showings and both said it worked and
> they verified there was no gasoline on board.
Where is their input?
>
> 3 Years ago I sent Stefan and others this experimental data and never
> heard back form anyone, nor did anyone ever repeat my experiment. To
> this date I know of only Ted, Me, and one other person who has
> duplicated this experiment and done so successfully. The third person
> is a PHD on the east coast of the U.S. who is in contact with
> Stanley's widow. Stanley's brother now takes care of all water fuel
> cell business and claims he will start it up again and make sure it
> makes it to market this time. But I have not heard from them in years
> now. Stefan easily has the electronics experience to duplicate this
> process and also solve the issue of keeping the cell in resonance. I
> probably do as well at this point but I am not going to do it alone.
> It takes allot of electronics expertise and hard work to solve this
> problem of cell tuning.
It has been ten years and nothing has happened. Where can I buy one?
Since electrolysis has not changed, Faraday's work still applies.
There is nothing new in the work of Meyer. He just added lots of
gee whiz things to suck people into his fraud.
>
> Non of the experiments are correct because Faraday who didn't have any
> formal education did some experiments?
>
> Think about it,
>
> by spewing at the researchers one will discover the superior truth?
>
> Non of the perpetual motion devices ever need investigation because
> they are all not real because non of them work?
>
> Seems the research is mandatory to come to that last conclusion.
>
> Without investigation you nevah get to claim non of them work because
> the establishment never looked at any of them? hahahaha???
>
> I'm not saying all claims are real, I'm saying the circular reasoning
> doesn't allow for factual evidence.
>
> God is real because the bible says he is real?
>
> Yes? Are you that kind of person?
No, this is your tact. You are saying that since you found all
this stuff on the internet, it must be true.
>
>
>>>It also has a rational conflict with the various explosions
>>>in their workshop.
>>
>>I don't think explosions prove anything other than incompetence.
>
>
> Of course, one can interpret things in many ways but if you refuse to
> look at the context then the conclusions are nothing but wishful
> thinking.
>
> Sure, you can accuse me of wishful thinking.
>
> But what is your goal?
>
> The economy is going RIP, I think it would be cool to just get rid of
> it.
>
> Everyone is brainwashed anyway, so the rich will become moar wealthy
> from it in the long run. They shouldn't whine about coins when their
> workers are about to suffer massive death.
>
> You have any idea how many days worth of food there is the moment
> supplies stop? Do you think it will be enough to build alternative
> means by then? We will discuss the waterauto sitting in front of our
> wigwam trying to keep warm without food?
>
> I think you wishful thinking works towards that picture.
>
> Yull Brown managed to power cars on his gas alone, he didn't use an
> efficient electolyser. Meyer made browns gas at 1200 V and 10 mA
Brown's gas as brown described it does not exist. Chemistry is
well enough developed that they can verify this.
Eeyore
"gdew...@gmail.com" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > "gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:
> > > > > > "gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:
> > > > > > > September 8, 1935, Charles H. Garrett sun of Dad Garrett operated his
> > > > > > > engine continuously for more than forty-eight hours.
> >
> > > > > Pathe' News filmed the car driving along Garland Road with the driver
> > > > > stopping at White Rock Lake to fill the fuel tank with water
> >
> > > > Ever considered there were TWO tanks ? One for water for publicity and a
> > > > hidden one with gasoline to actually make it go ?
> >
> > > What good psycho analysis.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > > Yes, this is definitely a possibility Rabbit man.
> >
> > You bet it is !
>
> Have you considered the possibility it is real?
Have you considered the possibility the moon really IS made of green cheese ? After all I'm sure you know the moon landings were faked, so we
can't trust them for sure !
Graham
Eeyore
"gdew...@gmail.com" wrote:
> Edison made quite a few light bulbs that absolutely didn't work.
But he got the process right in the end.
That's where the difference lies you see. It didn't require rewriting all of science to do it.
Graham
gdew...@gmail.com
wrote:
Inventions don't require rewriting the science dogma?
What is your definition of an invention?
Something we already have?
Benj
> I do not know why you put Faraday in with a group of cranks.
> Tesla had some good ideas early but went very weird near the end. Brown
> is presenting something that does not exist. Meyer is presenting
> something that does not work. All the cranks have their specialties.
> None of the group above is doing anything useful.
Come on! Faraday was a raving loon! A totally uneducated self-taught
putterer who never discovered anything that he wasn't accuse of
stealing from someone else! You are a loon for trying to take Faraday
OUT of this list of do-nothing loons! Sure he popularized a few ideas
he stole from others, but to call him other than a crank means that
you need to get out the Tinfoil helmet materials!
There! I'm glad you all now know how to act.
Here's an interesting question for all of you. Just when is science
done like politics with derision, black-listing, name-calling, career
ruining and all the rest that we see in these certain cases? Have any
of you ever actually KNOWN any real professors or actual scientists?
Obviously not since you seem to think that some so-called "poor lab
work" is some kind of excuse for a person to be drummed out of the
profession. HA! If that were true probably 90% of the people in it
would be gone! Hey if someone makes a mistake, it's pointed out, they
check to see if it's true, if it is they slink away but they don't get
attacked for it. Usually the worst thing that happens is they fire the
graduate student the "scientist" actually stole the work from.
So what is it with Pons and Fleishman? Clearly all the name calling
and career ending and black-balling says that probably what they've
done is stumble upon something VERY real and those in power very much
don't want this science to come to light in a public way. Proof
positive of this theory would obviously be that they get despondent
and each commit suicide with three shots to the back of the head. The
fact that they are still alive probably means their work isn't
airtight yet, but it surely has obviously headed in directions that
someone doesn't much like.
Science by ridicule, libel and slander is clear evidence that it is
NOT science that is going on.
Tesla "had a few good ideas" but really never invented anything of
importance! Bwahahaha! I find it incredible that Tesla is STILL on
the ridicule list after nearly a century. He must have come up with
some seriously powerful physics toward the end!
gdew...@gmail.com
> Science by ridicule, libel and slander is clear evidence that it is
> NOT science that is going on.
>
WHAHVBHAHAHAHAHA
gdew...@gmail.com
> importance! Bwahahaha! I find it incredible that Tesla is STILL on
> the ridicule list after nearly a century. He must have come up with
> some seriously powerful physics toward the end!
Like shooting your own foot with a cruse missile.
HAHAHAHA
Fred Kasner
Science (or at least what is purported to be science) by assertion and
refusal to produce a working model of the claimed procedures that
clearly violate the principle of physics and chemistry is not science at
all. When you drive up to my front door with a vehicle that runs on
essentially all water I will insist on examining the vehicle myself.
Until such time the laws of thermodynamics are not broken and can safely
assert that the claim is nonsense.
FK
Eeyore
Fred Kasner wrote:
I wonder when the Xtian Right will insist on alchemy being taught in schools
along with 'Creationism'.
Graham
Fred Kasner
Tesla was brilliant engineer who clearly had a much better view (and was
vindicated) than Edison on how to distribute electricity to customers
both commercial and private. His early work stands as a tribute to his
early genius. However he lapsed into some kind of incomprehensible
claims in his later years that have never been verified or exploited.
What was superior in his younger years is indisputable. What remained in
his later years is strange and has never been verified by peer reviewed
work and seems to be a mere figment of a wasted imagination.
FK
gabydewilde
> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 1:14 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >> Science by ridicule, libel and slander is clear evidence that it is
> >> NOT science that is going on.
>
> > WHAHVBHAHAHAHAHA
>
> clearly violate the principle of physics and chemistry is not science at all.
Want pictures?
http://geetfriends.net/persecution/med.pdf
> When you drive up to my front door with a vehicle that runs on
> essentially all water I will insist on examining the vehicle myself.
Richard Herring
<fka...@sbcglobal.net> writes
Tesla is remembered for the Tesla coil and the Tesla turbine, among
other things. But I don't think it's fair to blame him for what's
possibly his noisiest contribution to the world: the Tesla crank.
--
Richard Herring
gabydewilde
>
> Tesla is remembered for the Tesla coil and the Tesla turbine, among
What a brain dead uneducated moron you are.
Richard Herring
<ab029ec1-7cb1-4a1c...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
gabydewilde <gdew...@gmail.com> writes
whatever it was.
--
Richard Herring
gabydewilde
>
> Ah, there's nothing like a good ad-hominem attack to make your point,
> whatever it was.
>
Ah, look at mister smear campaign drooling all over the usenet.
Nothing like a bit of cyberstalking ahhh?
Here, go educate your utter stupidity you dumb fist fuck.
1. US Patent 11,865 Method Of Insulating Electric Conductors
2. US Patent 334,823 Commutator For Dynamo-Electric Machines
3. US Patent 335,786 Electric-Arc Lamp
4. US Patent 335,787 Electric-Arc Lamp
5. US Patent 336,961 Regulator For Dynamo-Electric Machines
6. US Patent 336,962 Regulator For Dynamo-Electric Machines
7. US Patent 350,954 Regulator For Dynamo-Electric Machines
8. US Patent 359,748 Dynamo-Electric Machine
9. US Patent 381,968 Electro-Magnetic Motor
10. US Patent 381,969 Electro-Magnetic Motor
11. US Patent 381,970 System Of Electrical Distribution
12. US Patent 382,279 Electro-Magnetic Motor
13. US Patent 382,280 Electrical Transmission Of Power
14. US Patent 382,281 Electrical Transmission Of Power
15. US Patent 382,282 Method Of Converting And Distributing Electric
Currents
16. US Patent 382,845 Commutator For Dynamo-Electric Machines
17. US Patent 390,413 System Of Electrical Distribution
18. US Patent 390,414 Dynamo-Electric Machine
19. US Patent 390,415 Dynamo-Electric Machine Or Motor
20. US Patent 390,721 Dynamo-Electric Machine
21. US Patent 390,820 Regulator For Alternate-Current Motors
22. US Patent 396,121 Thermo-Magnetic Motor
23. US Patent 401,520 Method Of Operating Electro-Magnetic Motors
24. US Patent 405,858 Electro-Magnetic Motor
25. US Patent 405,859 Method Of Electrical Power Transmission
26. US Patent 406,968 Dynamo-Electric Machine
27. US Patent 413,353 Method Of Obtaining Direct From Alternating
Currents
28. US Patent 416,191 Electro-Magnetic Motor
29. US Patent 416,192 Method Of Operating Electro-Magnetic Motors
30. US Patent 416,193 Electro-Magnetic Motor
31. US Patent 416,194 Electric Motor
32. US Patent 416,195 Electro-Magnetic Motor
33. US Patent 417,794 Armature For Electric Machines
34. US Patent 418,248 Electro-Magnetic Motor
35. US Patent 424,036 Electro-Magnetic Motor
36. US Patent 428,057 Pyromagneto-Electric Generator
37. US Patent 433,700 Alternating-Current Electro-Magnetic Motor
38. US Patent 433,701 Alternating-Current Motor
39. US Patent 433,702 Electrical Transformer Or Induction Device
40. US Patent 433,703 Electro-Magnetic Motor
41. US Patent 445,207 Electro-Magnetic Motor
42. US Patent 447,920 Method Of Operating Arc-Lamps
43. US Patent 447,921 Alternating Electric Current Generator
44. US Patent 454,622 System Of Electric Lighting
45. US Patent 455,067 Electro-Magnetic Motor
46. US Patent 455,068 Electrical Meter
47. US Patent 455,069 Electric Incandescent Lamp
48. US Patent 459,772 Electro-Magnetic Motor
49. US Patent 462,418 Method Of And Apparatus For Electrical
Conversion And Distribution
50. US Patent 464,666 Electro-Magnetic Motor
51. US Patent 464,667 Electrical Condenser
52. US Patent 487,796 System Of Electrical Transmission Of Power
53. US Patent 511,559 Electrical Transmission Of Power
54. US Patent 511,560 System Of Electrical Power Transmission
55. US Patent 511,915 Electrical Transmission Of Power
56. US Patent 511,916 Electric Generator
57. US Patent 512,340 (HTML) Coil For Electro-magnets
58. US Patent 512,340 (PDF) Coil For Electro-Magnets
59. US Patent 514,167 Electrical Conductor
60. US Patent 514,168 Means For Generating Electric Currents
61. US Patent 514,169 Reciprocating Engine
62. US Patent 514,170 Incandescent Electric Light
63. US Patent 514,972 Electric Railway System
64. US Patent 514,973 Electrical Meter
65. US Patent 517,900 Steam Engine
66. US Patent 524,426 Electromagnetic Motor
67. US Patent 555,190 Alternating Motor
68. US Patent 567,818 Electrical Condenser
69. US Patent 568,176 Apparatus For Producing Electric Currents Of
High Frequency And Potential
70. US Patent 568,177 Apparatus For Producing Ozone
71. US Patent 568,178 Method Of Regulating Apparatus For Producing
Electric Currents Of High Frequency
72. US Patent 568,179 Method Of And Apparatus For Producing Currents
Of High Frequency
73. US Patent 568,180 Apparatus For Producing Electrical Currents Of
High Frequency
74. US Patent 577,670 Apparatus For Producing Electric Currents Of
High Frequency
75. US Patent 577,671 Manufacture Of Electrical Condensors, Coils
And Similar Devices
76. US Patent 583,953 Apparatus For Producing Currents Of High
Frequency
77. US Patent 593,138 Electrical Transformer
78. US Patent 609,245 Electrical Circuit Controller
79. US Patent 609,246 Electric Circuit Controller
80. US Patent 609,247 Electric Circuit Controller
81. US Patent 609,248 Electric Circuit Controller
82. US Patent 609,249 Electric Circuit Controller
83. US Patent 609,250 Electrical Igniter For Gas Engines
84. US Patent 609,251 Electric Circuit Controller
85. US Patent 611,719 Electrical Circuit Controller
86. US Patent 613,735 Electric Circuit Controller
87. US Patent 613,809 Method Of And Apparatus For Controlling
Mechanism Of Moving Vessels Or Vehicles
88. US Patent 645,576 System Of Transmission Of Electrical Energy
89. US Patent 649,621 Apparatus For Transmission Of Electrical
Energy
90. US Patent 655,838 Method Of Insulating Electric Conductors
91. US Patent 685,012 Means For Increasing The Intensity Of
Electrical Oscillations
92. US Patent 685,953 Method Of Intensifying And Utilizing Effects
Transmitted Through Natural Media
93. US Patent 685,954 Method Of Utilizing Effects Transmitted
Through Natural Media
94. US Patent 685,955 Apparatus For Utilizing Effects Transmitted
From A Distance To A Receiving Device Through Natural Media
95. US Patent 685,956 Apparatus For Utilizing Effects Transmitted
Through Natural Media
96. US Patent 685,957 Apparatus For The Utilization of Radiant
Energy
97. US Patent 685,958 Method Of Utilizing of Radiant Energy
98. US Patent 723,188 Method Of Signaling
99. US Patent 725,605 System Of Signaling
100. US Patent 787,412 Art Of Transmitting Electrical Energy Through
The Natural Mediums
101. US Patent 1,061,142 Fluid Propulsion
102. US Patent 1,061,206 Turbine
103. US Patent 1,113,716 Fountain
104. US Patent 1,119,732 Apparatus For Transmitting Eleectrical
Energy
105. US Patent 1,209,359 Speed Indicator
106. US Patent 1,266,175 Lightning Protector
107. US Patent 1,274,816 Speed Indicator
108. US Patent 1,314,718 Ship's Log
109. US Patent 1,329,559 Valvular Conduit
110. US Patent 1,365,547 Flow Meter
111. US Patent 1,402,025 Frequency Meter
112. US Patent 1,655,113 Method Of Aerial Transportation
113. US Patent 1,655,114 Apparatus For Aerial Transportation
114. British Patent 1,877 Improvements in Electric Lamps
115. British Patent 2,801 Improvements in Reciprocating Engines and
Means for Regulating the Period of the same
116. British Patent 2,812 Improvements in Methods of and Apparatus
for the Generation of Electric Currents of Defined Period
117. British Patent 2,975 Improvements in Dynamo Electric Machines
118. British Patent 6,481 Improvements relating to the Electrical
Transmission of Power and to Apparatus therefor
119. British Patent 6,502 Improvements relating to the Generation and
Distribution of Electric Currents and to Apparatus therefor
120. British Patent 6,527 Improvements relating to Electro-motors
121. British Patent 8,200 Improvements relating to the Transmission
of Electrical Energy
122. British Patent 8,575 Improved Methods of and Apparatus for
Generating and Utilizing Electric Energy for Lighting Purposes
123. British Patent 11,293 Improvements relating to the Utilization
of Electromagnetic, Light, or other like Radiations Effects or
Disturbances transmitted through the Natural Media and to Apparatus
therefor
124. British Patent 11,473 Improvements in Alternating Current
Electro-magnetic Motors
125. British Patent 13,563 Improvements in, and relating to, the
Transmission of Electrical Energy
126. British Patent 14,550 Improvements relating to the Insulation of
Electric Conductors
127. British Patent 14,579 Improvements in and relating to the
Transmission of Electrical Energy
128. British Patent 16,709 Improvements relating to the Conversion of
Alternating into Direct Electric Currents
129. British Patent 19,420 Improvements in Alternating Current
Electro-magnetic Motors
130. British Patent 19,426 Improvements in the Construction and Mode
of Operating Alternating Current Motors
131. Canadian Patent 24,033 Improvements in Dynamo Electric Machines
132. Canadian Patent 29,537 Improvements in Methods of and Apparatus
for the Electrical Transmission of Power
133. Canadian Patent 30,172 Improvements in Methods of and Apparatus
for Converting and Distributing Electric Currents
134. Canadian Patent 33,317 Improvements in Methods and Apparatus for
Converting Alternating into Direct Currents
135. Canadian Patent 135,174 Improvements in Fluid Propulsion (Tesla
Pump)
136. Canadian Patent 142,352 Improvement in the Art of Transmitting
Electrical Energy Through the Natural Mediums
Richard Herring
<3bebd91d-4d12-47e7...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
gabydewilde <gdew...@gmail.com> writes
>On Oct 15, 2:13 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, there's nothing like a good ad-hominem attack to make your point,
>> whatever it was.
>>
>
>Ah, look at mister smear campaign drooling all over the usenet.
[snip]
?
What's your point? Mine was that Tesla-cranks do nothing to enhance the
reputation of their idol. You appear to be making it for me.
--
Richard Herring
gdew...@gmail.com
>
> What's your point? Mine was that Tesla-cranks do nothing to enhance the
> reputation of their idol. You appear to be making it for me.
>
You are not doing your insults much good with your attempt to make
sense.
My point is that reputation is your motivation to be ignorant. I want
the facts, you want believe systems. You didn't read any of those
patents, so it is easy to see where your conclusion came from. You
didn't read but spew in stead for those are your methods.
What you refer to as normal is nothing other that thoughtless
imitation. You actually think your pathetic insults are a good way to
figure out the truth. HAHAHAHA
I raise you 5 fish slaps, 2 obvious clearly hoaxes, 4 tin foil hats
and 12 knee jerks.
This obviously, clearly, shows I'm smarter ass you.
At least by your lack of logic.
http://www.leestrainer.nl/Woordenschat/map10/zwijgen.jpg
Now piss off and go imitate some other monkey you lame uninformed etc
etc
Or did you want to say something nice, constructive or worth reading
about Nicola Tesla, Yull Brown, Stanley Allan Meyer, Dad Garret, Paul
Pantone, Bill Williams, Ted Zettergren, Nakamats, Alexander
Rabinovich,L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, J. Heywood, Bill
Richardson or MIT?
Apparatus for the utilzation of radiant energy
http://www.google.com/patents?id=YitoAAAAEBAJ&dq=685957
Filing date: Mar 21, 1901
And now you have this imaginary energy crisis. BWHAHAHA
Go crank up your bankers mister death-wish. HAHAHAHA
No no no!! We must has neoconversation of energy!! And credibility
sauce!
Don Lancaster
Don Lancaster
>
>
> Tesla is remembered for the Tesla coil and the Tesla turbine, among
> other things. But I don't think it's fair to blame him for what's
> possibly his noisiest contribution to the world: the Tesla crank.
>
Mister Science".
The Tesla Turbine does not work. Its thermodynamic efficiency is
ludicrous and is thus noncompetitive for most turbine apps. The disks
demand lateral shear forces that are inherently thermodynamically
irreversible.
Except for pumping frozen chickens or live fish, teeth are added to the
blades of virtually all commercial Tesla Turbine pumps. Their
overwhelmingly most popular use is pumping shit.
And most of their problems can be eliminated entirely simply by calling
them shit pumps instead of tesla turbines.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse128.pdf for a tutorial and references.
Richard Herring
<c85d6a1e-75fa-41cf...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> writes
>On Oct 15, 3:44 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
>> What's your point? Mine was that Tesla-cranks do nothing to enhance the
>> reputation of their idol. You appear to be making it for me.
>>
>
>You are not doing your insults much good with your attempt to make
>sense.
>
>My point is that reputation is your motivation to be ignorant. I want
>the facts, you want believe systems. You didn't read any of those
>patents, so it is easy to see where your conclusion
What conclusion?
--
Richard Herring
Bill Ward
Just think: If Tesla had only got the photoelectric effect right, he'd
have been Einstein. The patent shows the need for testing theories
carefully before going out on a limb with impractical applications.
Interesting stuff.
Too bad you don't have enough science background to have a clue what it
means. Try reading some real science sometime to see what you're missing.
rlbell...@gmail.com
Edison did not invent the lightbulb. Anyone with a vacuum pump and a
platinum wire could make an incandescent light. Edison invented a
cheap electric lightbulb.
Invention is applying something known to create a solution to a known
problem. Steam had been lifting the lids off of kettles long before
even Heron of Alexandria put it to any use.
Invention is propelled by the twin pressures of need and possibility.
The telegraph allowed for the invention of the fax machine, but it was
about forty years, before it caught on as a way to send photographs,
and another ninety before it became that ubiquitous office fixture.
Read James Burke's book Connections, or watch the series (avoid the
sequels, they are nowhere near as well done).
rlbell...@gmail.com
>
>
> Would you have condemned aviation?
>
Lord Kelvin has always been misquoted. He did not say that man-
carrying, heavier-than-air flight was impossible [cannot be done],
only that it was infeasible [not worth the necessary expense], and if
he had been present at Kittyhawk, on that fall morning in 1903, he
would have been able to say to his critics 'I told you so', as man
carrying, heavier-than-air flight was not really shown to be feasible
before Bleriot flew across the channel.
gabydewilde
Oh tell me mister Ward, who cares about your photo electric effect?
What do you have to show for your claim Tesla didn't understand the
topic?
To me it is pretty obvious you are the ignorant dogmatist preaching
form his dogma riddled text book.
For you Einstein was a kind of god, then you say....
> The patent shows the need for testing theories
> carefully before going out on a limb with impractical applications.
Here you killed Einstein plagiarism yourself.
Hilarious!
Go 'n rub yourself with it Ward boy.
> Interesting stuff.
Trust me, you wouldn't know. You are looking at actual science for the
first time. You are like a virgin. Interesting is of course vastly
inferior to applicable to give you a hint.
> Too bad you don't have enough science background to have a clue what it
> means.
What do you care? If only you knew enough about slander you might have
a chance at debunking me. For now you look absolutely foolish.
BWHAHAHA Who cares what I have a clue about? What purpose does your
remark serve beyond being an insult? Are you taking revenge for
getting debunked?
> Try reading some real science sometime to see what you're missing.
Dude, your "real" science makes me laugh the tears in my eyes. Non of
your "real" science seems to involve anything practical. It seems
pretty obvious your "real" science is nothing but circular reasoning.
In fact, biblical scriptures relate more to the real world than
anything your text bookie contains. Conservation of nonsense, that is
what your "real" science is all about. Have you figured out teh
gravity already? Ow it's teh gravitons? Now really? I find your "real"
science to be particularly hilarious. "He would have been Einstein"
BWHAHAHA Tears in my eyes.
You have some weird goals in your dogma. All you desire to accomplish
is a pad on your back, your idea of accomplishment is a freaking
Edison medal or a Nobel prize. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"Jan. 4, 1903: Edison Fries an Elephant to Prove His Point"
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/dayintech_0104
IEEE!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Alfred Bernhard Nobel teh inventor
of dynamite. BAHAHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA He invented death ! Hurray! What
noble deedz! Le marchand de la mort!! WAHAHAHAHAHAHA You heroes smell
like shiaat to me. They seem to fit the description of psychopaths
like a glove. But I hope you can obtain such medal you ward doctor. if
that is all you desire. Perhaps you can find new ways to kill people,
a new and improved electric chair? A better nuke? Who is to say what
"real" great things you might accomplish.
... and he said, letz there be lightz..... BOOOOM!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA
gabydewilde
>
> Nikoli Tesla is the patron saint of the church of the latter day crackpots.
>
What elegant scientific reasoning again Donny boy.
You don't have to act so emotional about Tesla like this.
It's kind of sad to see a grown man cry.
Do you want to talk about your intellectual inferiority?
I think it will make you feel better.
gabydewilde
> Richard Herring wrote:
>
> > Tesla is remembered for the Tesla coil and the Tesla turbine, among
> > other things. But I don't think it's fair to blame him for what's
> > possibly his noisiest contribution to the world: the Tesla crank.
>
Ahh, non that you are aware of. I would love to elaborate but it's not
worth it. All I'm interested in is free energy, multidimensional
travel just doesn't seem like a good idea at this stage. Perhaps you
could try learn to use a search engine and read about it all by your
self? I'm not going to take you by the hand and guide you. Nor will I
bring it to your armchair.
doug
gabydewilde wrote:
So, in other words, you do not know of any applications either.
I did like the shit pump part you snipped though.
gabydewilde
>
> So, in other words, you do not know of any applications either.
Oh but that is not what I said doug. You can talk for yourself cant
you?
Tell us about all those water powered auto's you was lookin at.
Have you finished building your first Browns gas cell already?
How is the output?
Perhaps you should make a youtube video and show it to us?
_____
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/garrett-carburetor/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/5
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/stanley-allan-meyer/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/6
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/Yull-Brown/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/9#view
http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl
doug
gabydewilde wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2:30 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>So, in other words, you do not know of any applications either.
>
>
> Oh but that is not what I said doug. You can talk for yourself cant
> you?
>
> Tell us about all those water powered auto's you was lookin at.
There are none.
>
> Have you finished building your first Browns gas cell already?
>
I have built as many as you have. How is your cell working?
> How is the output?
>
Obeying all the laws of physics I would expect.
john180908
> gabydewilde wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 2:30 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>So, in other words, you do not know of any applications either.
>
> > Oh but that is not what I said doug. You can talk for yourself cant
> > you?
>
> > Tell us about all those water powered auto's you was lookin at.
>
> There are none.
>
> > Have you finished building your first Browns gas cell already?
>
> I have built as many as you have. How is your cell working?
>
> > How is the output?
>
> Obeying all the laws of physics I would expect.
>
> > Perhaps you should make a youtube video and show it to us?
>
> > _____
> >http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
> >http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/stanley-allan-meyer/1yrf1mzjtx...
> >http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/Yull-Brown/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/9#view
> >http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl
Had you clicked on that first link,
you would have read this: perhaps you would
explain the laws in terms of this:
Meyer earned US patents granted under Section 101. As, 1) his water
fuel cell did not follow the established scientific understanding of
electrolysis and 2) patents for basic electrolysis apparatus can not
be granted Meyer was granted his patents only after successful
demonstration of the inventions 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
(excitors) 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 1.5 mm produces satisfactory results.
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 DC potential across the
electrodes of the cell until a point is reached where the water breaks
down and a momentary high current flows. A current measuring circuit
in the supply detects this breakdown and removes the pulse drive for a
few cycles allowing the water to "recover".
Research chemist Keith Hindley offers this description of a Meyer cell
demonstration: "After a day of presentations, the Griffin committee
witnessed a number of important demonstration of the WFC" (water fuel
cell as named by the inventor).
A witness team of independent UK scientific observers testified that
US inventor Stanley Meyer successfully decomposed ordinary tap water
into constituent elements through a combination of high, pulsed
voltage using an average current measured only in milliamps. Reported
gas evolution was enough to sustain a hydrogen /oxygen flame which
instantly melted steel.
In contrast with normal high current electrolysis, the witnesses
report the lack of any heating within the cell. Meyer declines to
release details which would allow scientists to duplicate and evaluate
his "water fuel cell". However, he has supplied enough detail to the
US Patent Office to persuade them that he can substantiate his 'power-
from-water' claims.
One demonstration cell was fitted with two parallel plate "excitors".
Using tap water to fill the cell, the plates generated gas at very low
current levels --- no greater than a tenth of an amp on the ammeter,
and claimed to be milliamps by Meyer --- and this gas production
increased steadily as the plates were moved closer together and
decreased as they were separated. The DC voltage appeared to be pulsed
at tens of thousands of volts.
A second cell carried nine stainless steel double tube cell units and
generated much more gas. A sequence of photographs was taken showing
gas production at milliamp levels. When the voltage was turned up to
its peak value, the gas then poured off at a very impressive level.
"We did notice that the water at the top of the cell slowly became
discolored with a pale cream and dark brown precipitate, almost
certainly the effects of the chlorine in the heavily chlorinated tap
water on the stainless steel tubes used as "excitors".
He was demonstrating hydrogen gas production at milliamp and kilovolt
levels.
"The most remarkable observation is that the WFC and all its metal
pipework remained quite cold to the touch, even after more than twenty
minutes of operation. The splitting mechanism clearly evolves little
heat in sharp contrast to electrolysis where the electrolyte warms up
quickly."
"The results appear to suggest efficient and controllable gas
production that responds rapidly to demand and yet is safe in
operation. We clearly saw how increasing and decreasing the voltage is
used to control gas production. We saw how gas generation ceased and
then began again instantly as the voltage driving circuit was switched
off and then on again."
"After hours of discussion between ourselves, we concluded that Stan
Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method for
splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical
electrolysis. Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from
his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC
system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent
Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined
experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts
and all the claims have been established."
"The basic WFC was subjected to three years of testing. This raises
the granted patents to the level of independent, critical, scientific
and engineering confirmation that the devices actually perform as
claimed."
The practical demonstration of the Meyer cell appears substantially
more convincing than the para-scientific jargon which has been used to
explain it. The inventor himself talks about a distortion and
polarization of the water molecule resulting in the H:OH bonding
tearing itself apart under the electrostatic potential gradient, of a
resonance within the molecule which amplifies the effect.
Apart from the copious hydrogen/oxygen gas evolution and the minimal
temperature rise within the cell, witnesses also report that water
within the cell disappears rapidly, presumably into its component
parts and as an aerosol from the myriad of tiny bubbles breaking the
surface of the cell.
Meyer claims to have run a converted VW on hydrogen/oxygen mixture for
the last four years using a chain of six cylindrical cells. He also
claims that photon stimulation of the reactor space by optical fibre
piped laser light increases gas production.
The inventor is a protegee' of the Advanced Energy Institute.
doug
john180908 wrote:
Meyer was a convicted fraudster. The proof that his work is
worthless is that it is free for anyone to use and even with
high oil prices, no one is doing anything. Even gaby and JW
the biggest supporters of it will not put one penny into building
one.
>
> 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 DC potential across the
> electrodes of the cell until a point is reached where the water breaks
> down and a momentary high current flows. A current measuring circuit
> in the supply detects this breakdown and removes the pulse drive for a
> few cycles allowing the water to "recover".
This is a joke. The laws of physics are quite healthy.
>
> Research chemist Keith Hindley offers this description of a Meyer cell
> demonstration: "After a day of presentations, the Griffin committee
> witnessed a number of important demonstration of the WFC" (water fuel
> cell as named by the inventor).
They are idiots. Why did it never work when Meyer was not around?
Lots of claims but no facts. It has been 10 years since he died and
nothing has happened. It is free and no one wants it. Why don't you
take all of your money and put it into this if it is so great?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 15, 2:13 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ah, there's nothing like a good ad-hominem attack to make your point,
> > whatever it was.
>
> Ah, look at mister smear campaign drooling all over the usenet.
>
> Nothing like a bit of cyberstalking ahhh?
>
> Here, go educate your utter stupidity you dumb fist fuck.
>
> 1. US Patent 11,865 Method Of Insulating Electric Conductors
<SNIP all those silly patents that they just "rubber stamp" to get the
money because patent examiners don't know shit.>
> 136. Canadian Patent 142,352 Improvement in the Art of Transmitting
> Electrical Energy Through the Natural Mediums
Stop with the evidence of Tesla's dedication and genius you are
corrupting the Sci newsgroup.
Jeeez.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Don't forget his cell stayed COLD.
COLD, COLD, COLD, COLD, COLD.
Even after hours of operation.
> Meyer was a convicted fraudster.
Courts DO NOT DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF PATENTS.
CIVIL action. "By preponderance of the evidence" much of which was not
presented or understood by the judge.
>The proof that his work is
> worthless is that it is free for anyone to use and even with
> high oil prices, no one is doing anything.
Proof?
"No one?"
Why would they tell anyone here or make it public ANYWHERE?
Not everyone wants to "make millions."
Maybe they are building cells, moving to remote places, waiting for
the shit storm...
Meyer proved his work under "Critical Review."
35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
"The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
Pat# 4936961
Got land.....
Real-Est-Broker who sold land to them.
42 acre vacant, 1,479,415. James John Owner/Seller 614/875-
xxxx........ Seeds Rd….county number 25.
Sold to philippe vandemoortele
c/o WFC address
Closing date. By Waranty Deed 13/feb/1998
Recording/Franklin/Reference 2508H14
Broker for Seller brought Deal. Grover Johnson got listing- got
buyer ..…Meyer a few months later but say’s “Meyer found by Lord
telling to look on Seeds Rd.. Really religious, “didn’t do anything
the Lord didn't say to do, ‘”Told go to seed Rd. found tractor, land
behind, found it. Also says found other contamination on other land by
Lord’s help.”./JJ. Was told by Meyer
14 acre Joseph Wxxxx 614/xxx-8335.......Assistant"Seeds Rd" 495K
Sold by JJ to Guy who remodeled. Then to Wormen by will. Thinks “all
were gay.”
“Now somebody living, come and go. “
Got financed.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html
Then.....
GOT DEAD.
>Even gaby and JW
> the biggest supporters of it will not put one penny into building
> one.
>
Proof???
>
> > 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 DC potential across the
> > electrodes of the cell until a point is reached where the water breaks
> > down and a momentary high current flows. A current measuring circuit
> > in the supply detects this breakdown and removes the pulse drive for a
> > few cycles allowing the water to "recover".
>
> This is a joke. The laws of physics are quite healthy.
>
Yup.
Meyer agrees.
So did patent office.
>
> > Research chemist Keith Hindley offers this description of a Meyer cell
> > demonstration: "After a day of presentations, the Griffin committee
> > witnessed a number of important demonstration of the WFC" (water fuel
> > cell as named by the inventor).
>
> They are idiots. Why did it never work when Meyer was not around?
>
Proof?
What difference does it make.
Meyer opened the "black box."
http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>
>
> > A witness team of independent UK scientific observers testified that
> > US inventor Stanley Meyer successfully decomposed ordinary tap water
> > into constituent elements through a combination of high, pulsed
> > voltage using an average current measured only in milliamps. Reported
> > gas evolution was enough to sustain a hydrogen /oxygen flame which
> > instantly melted steel.
>
As shown in JW's video that has only been seen by a handful of people.
Just what else is in JW's video?
> > In contrast with normal high current electrolysis, the witnesses
> > report the lack of any heating within the cell. Meyer declines to
> > release details which would allow scientists to duplicate and evaluate
> > his "water fuel cell". However, he has supplied enough detail to the
> > US Patent Office to persuade them that he can substantiate his 'power-
> > from-water' claims.
>
But this isn't enough for "science."
> > One demonstration cell was fitted with two parallel plate "excitors".
> > Using tap water to fill the cell, the plates generated gas at very low
> > current levels --- no greater than a tenth of an amp on the ammeter,
> > and claimed to be milliamps by Meyer --- and this gas production
> > increased steadily as the plates were moved closer together and
> > decreased as they were separated. The DC voltage appeared to be pulsed
> > at tens of thousands of volts.
>
> > A second cell carried nine stainless steel double tube cell units and
> > generated much more gas. A sequence of photographs was taken showing
> > gas production at milliamp levels. When the voltage was turned up to
> > its peak value, the gas then poured off at a very impressive level.
>
> > "We did notice that the water at the top of the cell slowly became
> > discolored with a pale cream and dark brown precipitate, almost
> > certainly the effects of the chlorine in the heavily chlorinated tap
> > water on the stainless steel tubes used as "excitors".
>
> > He was demonstrating hydrogen gas production at milliamp and kilovolt
> > levels.
>
> > "The most remarkable observation is that the WFC and all its metal
> > pipework remained quite cold to the touch, even after more than twenty
> > minutes of operation. The splitting mechanism clearly evolves little
> > heat in sharp contrast to electrolysis where the electrolyte warms up
> > quickly."
>
Do you understand the word "clearly?"
As in crystal clearly.
As in glass clearly.
As in water clearly.
As in air clearly.
As in demonstated hundreds of times with CLEARLY NO TRICKS.
CLEARLY NO HOSES.
CLEARLY NO ELECTROLYTE.
CLEARLY NO HEAT.
CLEARLY TOO LITTLE WATTS INPUT TO BE "CLASSIC" ELECTROLYSIS.
CLEARLY WITNESSED BY HIGH LEVEL AUTHORITIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL
"EXPERTS" AT THEIR DISPOSAL.
CLEARLY NO FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN.
CLEARLY RISKING THEIR CAREERS AND THEIR LIVES BY STATING THE EVIDENCE
AS THEY SAW IT FOR "PUBLICATION".
Got "CLEARLY" yet?
Ever heard the saying "Seeing is believing?"
They went.
They witnessed.
They testified.
Admiral Tony Griffin died under "suspicious" circumstances as did
Meyer.
Can YOU "clearly" "connect the dots?"
I doubt it.
The world is backwards and gone completely made over "profit."
> > "The results appear to suggest efficient and controllable gas
> > production that responds rapidly to demand and yet is safe in
> > operation.
The militaries had five criteria which needed to be met for the use of
hydrogen from water or any other source to ever become a reality.
Meyer met all 5 of them plus more.
It only took a few minutes for Meyer to walk into the Pentagon with
his "device."
But Boys did he play hell trying to get it back out.
Meyer's demonstration cell, at the proper voltage, could convert a
gallon of water a second into H and O gases. They thought he had a
atom bomb.
>We clearly saw how increasing and decreasing the voltage is
> > used to control gas production.
And YOU "scientists" have a problem with this?
>We saw how gas generation ceased and
> > then began again instantly as the voltage driving circuit was switched
> > off and then on again."
>
Do you guys understand the word INSTANTLY?
Like, as fast or faster than the light goes on in your house a split
second after you hit the switch.
"Magic trick."
> > "After hours of discussion between ourselves,
HOURS OF DISCUSSION.
HOURS.
AND HOURS.
Do you guys do anything for hours besides NOT doing the Meyer
experiment as Ted Z describes?
YOU could save yourselves HOURS AND HOURS of bagging on Meyer by doing
it, and showing us all ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT IT IS NOT MORE EFFICIENT
THEN "CLASSIC" ELECTROLYSIS.
Why would you not do this?
You are getting older and older with less time before you are worm
food.
You could spend your time with wife and kids, grandkids.
It would all be settled.
Peer review it just as Ted Z explained.
You are the BIG Professor.
Surely this is "child's-play" for you with all your old buddies.
>we concluded that Stan
> > Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method
ENTIRELY.
Do you understand the word ENTIRELY?
Why must I talk to you like you are children?
>of
> > splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical
> > electrolysis.
FEW.
Do you understand FEW?
As in how FEW "brains" are really here against 3 or 4 chatbots.
>Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from
> > his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC
> > system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent
> > Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined
> > experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts
> > and all the claims have been established."
>
CONFIRMATION.
Do you understand the word CONFIRMATION?
It was good enough for ADMIRAL A. Griffin and his experts BUT not good
enough for you?
From where do you get such arrogance?
> > "The basic WFC was subjected to three years of testing. This raises
> > the granted patents to the level of independent, critical, scientific
> > and engineering confirmation that the devices actually perform as
> > claimed."
>
You think Meyer "spoon" fed this to these guys and the didn't vet and
verify his claims before the went "public" with their comments?
> > The practical demonstration of the Meyer cell appears substantially
> > more convincing than the para-scientific jargon which has been used to
> > explain it. The inventor himself talks about a distortion and
> > polarization of the water molecule resulting in the H:OH bonding
> > tearing itself apart under the electrostatic potential gradient, of a
> > resonance within the molecule which amplifies the effect.
>
No different than Faraday not "knowing the math" behind his
discoveries.
> > Apart from the copious hydrogen/oxygen gas evolution and the minimal
> > temperature rise within the cell, witnesses also report that water
> > within the cell disappears rapidly, presumably into its component
> > parts and as an aerosol from the myriad of tiny bubbles breaking the
> > surface of the cell.
>
My decomposition cells have always left brown "gunk" in the bottom
when using tap water.
Filtered ionized water works best in a Meyer process.
> > Meyer claims to have run a converted VW on hydrogen/oxygen mixture for
> > the last four years using a chain of six cylindrical cells. He also
> > claims that photon stimulation of the reactor space by optical fibre
> > piped laser light increases gas production.
>
What do you think pulsed red LED photons would stimulate in unstable H
and O gas ions? Maybe other photons?
> Lots of claims but no facts.
In court and "eye-witness's" testimony is taken as "fact."
>It has been 10 years since he died and
> nothing has happened.
There's been a multi-billion dollar, or trillions by now really, war
to control oil.
But what's a dollar besides a piece of fiat paper that we are enslaved
to?
>It is free
YUP.
JW and I have made sure of that.
>and no one wants it.
How do you know this?
Where is your proof besides all the experimental demonstrations,
explanations, and forums disseminating their results?
Do you think Lockheed should have it on their website?
Why would they?
They make BILLIIONS on WAR PROFITS.
What would we fight over if not OIL?
>Why don't you
> take all of your money and put it into this if it is so great?
>
This what?
All you need is two stainless tubes to prove the circuit is more
efficient at decomposition of water.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
So what? Low current electrolysis cells do not get warm.
>
>
>>Meyer was a convicted fraudster.
>
>
> Courts DO NOT DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF PATENTS.
> CIVIL action. "By preponderance of the evidence" much of which was not
> presented or understood by the judge.
>
Courts do determine the validity of patents. That is how the
legal system works. They do not decide the validity of
the laws of physics. That is done by the universe.
>
>>The proof that his work is
>>worthless is that it is free for anyone to use and even with
>>high oil prices, no one is doing anything.
>
>
> Proof?
> "No one?"
> Why would they tell anyone here or make it public ANYWHERE?
> Not everyone wants to "make millions."
> Maybe they are building cells, moving to remote places, waiting for
> the shit storm...
How many have you made? Where can they be bought?
How much money are you putting into it now? How much is gaby?
>
>>>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 DC potential across the
>>>electrodes of the cell until a point is reached where the water breaks
>>>down and a momentary high current flows. A current measuring circuit
>>>in the supply detects this breakdown and removes the pulse drive for a
>>>few cycles allowing the water to "recover".
>>
>>This is a joke. The laws of physics are quite healthy.
>>
>
> Yup.
> Meyer agrees.
> So did patent office.
If meyer agrees, his cell is just electrolysis and there is
nothing new.
>
>
>>>Research chemist Keith Hindley offers this description of a Meyer cell
>>>demonstration: "After a day of presentations, the Griffin committee
>>>witnessed a number of important demonstration of the WFC" (water fuel
>>>cell as named by the inventor).
>>
>>They are idiots. Why did it never work when Meyer was not around?
>>
>
> Proof?
> What difference does it make.
> Meyer opened the "black box."
> http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
It makes all the difference in the world. Frauds only work
when the fraudster is there.
High current electrolysis cels heat up. Low current ones do not.
>>
> Do you understand the word "clearly?"
> As in crystal clearly.
> As in glass clearly.
> As in water clearly.
> As in air clearly.
> As in demonstated hundreds of times with CLEARLY NO TRICKS.
> CLEARLY NO HOSES.
> CLEARLY NO ELECTROLYTE.
> CLEARLY NO HEAT.
> CLEARLY TOO LITTLE WATTS INPUT TO BE "CLASSIC" ELECTROLYSIS.
This is an assertion. Where are the measurements in support of
this.
> CLEARLY WITNESSED BY HIGH LEVEL AUTHORITIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL
> "EXPERTS" AT THEIR DISPOSAL.
> CLEARLY NO FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN.
> CLEARLY RISKING THEIR CAREERS AND THEIR LIVES BY STATING THE EVIDENCE
> AS THEY SAW IT FOR "PUBLICATION".
> Got "CLEARLY" yet?
> Ever heard the saying "Seeing is believing?"
Fraud works by making people believe that they are seeing something
they are not. Believing is seeing scientific measurements.
> They went.
> They witnessed.
> They testified.
No one did any scientific tests. They saw a performance by meyer.
> Admiral Tony Griffin died under "suspicious" circumstances as did
> Meyer.
> Can YOU "clearly" "connect the dots?"
> I doubt it.
> The world is backwards and gone completely made over "profit."
>
>
>>>"The results appear to suggest efficient and controllable gas
>>>production that responds rapidly to demand and yet is safe in
>>>operation.
>
Note the words "appear" and "suggest". Scienc would use the word
"shows" after making measurements. No measurements were made.
>
> The militaries had five criteria which needed to be met for the use of
> hydrogen from water or any other source to ever become a reality.
> Meyer met all 5 of them plus more.
> It only took a few minutes for Meyer to walk into the Pentagon with
> his "device."
> But Boys did he play hell trying to get it back out.
> Meyer's demonstration cell, at the proper voltage, could convert a
> gallon of water a second into H and O gases. They thought he had a
> atom bomb.
>
This is where your violation of the laws of physics comes in. This
kind of production would require about 50KW of power to do. His cell
is not going to do that. It seems the story gets better with the
telling.
>
>
>>We clearly saw how increasing and decreasing the voltage is
>>
>>>used to control gas production.
>
So? Electrolysis is dependent on current.
>
> And YOU "scientists" have a problem with this?
>
>
>>We saw how gas generation ceased and
>>
>>>then began again instantly as the voltage driving circuit was switched
>>>off and then on again."
So?
>>
> Do you guys understand the word INSTANTLY?
> Like, as fast or faster than the light goes on in your house a split
> second after you hit the switch.
> "Magic trick."
>
>
>
>>>"After hours of discussion between ourselves,
>
>
> HOURS OF DISCUSSION.
> HOURS.
> AND HOURS.
> Do you guys do anything for hours besides NOT doing the Meyer
> experiment as Ted Z describes?
How many cells have you built and tested?
> YOU could save yourselves HOURS AND HOURS of bagging on Meyer by doing
> it, and showing us all ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT IT IS NOT MORE EFFICIENT
> THEN "CLASSIC" ELECTROLYSIS.
Only if it violates the laws of physics.
> Why would you not do this?
How many cells have you built and tested?
> You are getting older and older with less time before you are worm
> food.
> You could spend your time with wife and kids, grandkids.
> It would all be settled.
> Peer review it just as Ted Z explained.
> You are the BIG Professor.
> Surely this is "child's-play" for you with all your old buddies.
>
>
>
>>we concluded that Stan
>>
>>>Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method
>
>
> ENTIRELY.
> Do you understand the word ENTIRELY?
Yes, he was claiming to have violated the laws of physics.
> Why must I talk to you like you are children?
>
>
>>of
>>
>>>splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical
>>>electrolysis.
>
>
> FEW.
> Do you understand FEW?
> As in how FEW "brains" are really here against 3 or 4 chatbots.
>
All of your comments come with a complete lack of scientific
measurements. They are worthless without those measurements.
>
>>Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from
>>
>>>his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC
>>>system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent
>>>Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined
>>>experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts
>>>and all the claims have been established."
>>
The patent office people are not competent to judge science.
>
> CONFIRMATION.
> Do you understand the word CONFIRMATION?
> It was good enough for ADMIRAL A. Griffin and his experts BUT not good
> enough for you?
So an admiral who not a scientist can change the laws of physics?
> From where do you get such arrogance?
Where does the admiral get such arrogance?
>
>
>>>"The basic WFC was subjected to three years of testing. This raises
>>>the granted patents to the level of independent, critical, scientific
>>>and engineering confirmation that the devices actually perform as
>>>claimed."
>>
> You think Meyer "spoon" fed this to these guys and the didn't vet and
> verify his claims before the went "public" with their comments?
>
People committing fraud do not seek to get independent tests
on their work. Meyer never had any independent test.
>
>>>The practical demonstration of the Meyer cell appears substantially
>>>more convincing than the para-scientific jargon which has been used to
>>>explain it. The inventor himself talks about a distortion and
>>>polarization of the water molecule resulting in the H:OH bonding
>>>tearing itself apart under the electrostatic potential gradient, of a
>>>resonance within the molecule which amplifies the effect.
>>
This violates the laws of physics.
> No different than Faraday not "knowing the math" behind his
> discoveries.
>
>
>>>Apart from the copious hydrogen/oxygen gas evolution and the minimal
>>>temperature rise within the cell, witnesses also report that water
>>>within the cell disappears rapidly, presumably into its component
>>>parts and as an aerosol from the myriad of tiny bubbles breaking the
>>>surface of the cell.
>>
> My decomposition cells have always left brown "gunk" in the bottom
> when using tap water.
> Filtered ionized water works best in a Meyer process.
>
>
>>>Meyer claims to have run a converted VW on hydrogen/oxygen mixture for
>>>the last four years using a chain of six cylindrical cells. He also
>>>claims that photon stimulation of the reactor space by optical fibre
>>>piped laser light increases gas production.
>>
> What do you think pulsed red LED photons would stimulate in unstable H
> and O gas ions? Maybe other photons?
>
>
>>Lots of claims but no facts.
>
>
> In court and "eye-witness's" testimony is taken as "fact."
So the laws of physics are set by testimony?
>
>
>>It has been 10 years since he died and
>>nothing has happened.
>
>
> There's been a multi-billion dollar, or trillions by now really, war
> to control oil.
> But what's a dollar besides a piece of fiat paper that we are enslaved
> to?
>
>
>>It is free
>
>
> YUP.
> JW and I have made sure of that.
>
>
>>and no one wants it.
>
>
> How do you know this?
> Where is your proof besides all the experimental demonstrations,
> explanations, and forums disseminating their results?
> Do you think Lockheed should have it on their website?
> Why would they?
> They make BILLIIONS on WAR PROFITS.
> What would we fight over if not OIL?
Your paranoia is getting to you. If it worked, the greed of the
corporations like Lockheed would get them into the business in
a great hurry. There are more billiions to be made from the
energy business than from the defense business.
>
>
>>Why don't you
>>take all of your money and put it into this if it is so great?
>>
>
You did not answer why you are not putting all your money into
it. Don't you want to get filthy rich?
Eeyore
john180908 wrote:
> Meyer earned US patents
You don't 'earn' a patent. You PAY for one. Nor is the product obliged to work
as described. The USPTO is not a scientific testing lab.
Graham
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_114.htm
35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens. - Patent Laws
35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
The Director may require the applicant to furnish a model of
convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
invention.
When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the Director
may require the applicant to furnish specimens or ingredients for the
purpose of inspection or experiment.
(Amended Nov. 29, 1999, Public Law 106-113, sec. 1000(a)(9), 113 Stat.
1501A-582 (S. 1948 sec. 4732(a)(10)(A)).)
..........................................................................
What part of "inspection or experiment" don't you understand?
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
What part of there was no testing or measurements done do you
not understand. Meyer put on his standard dog and pony show
geared to sucking money out of stupid people. The patent office
people are not competent to make scientific measurements. Were
any measurements taken? Just saying the cell was cool does not
count as a measurement. A careful measurement of input power
and output gas was not done. All that they would have seen
is that meyer made the water froth and that the small amount
of electrolysis done would make a bit of burnable gas. That
does not mean that he did anything useful.
knews4...@yahoo.com
And it doesn't produce "copious amounts" gas.
But Meyer's cell "clearly" does.
Do you understand the word "clearly?
> >>Meyer was a convicted fraudster.
>
> > Courts DO NOT DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF PATENTS.
> > CIVIL action. "By preponderance of the evidence" much of which was not
> > presented or understood by the judge.
>
> Courts do determine the validity of patents.
CITE?
Ownership of patents but NOT VALIDITY.
>That is how the
> legal system works.
Sure it does.
>They do not decide the validity of
> the laws of physics. That is done by the universe.
>
And YOU KNOW IT ALL, Right?
>
> >>The proof that his work is
> >>worthless is that it is free for anyone to use and even with
> >>high oil prices, no one is doing anything.
>
> > Proof?
> > "No one?"
> > Why would they tell anyone here or make it public ANYWHERE?
> > Not everyone wants to "make millions."
> > Maybe they are building cells, moving to remote places, waiting for
> > the shit storm...
>
> How many have you made?
Doesn't matter.
>Where can they be bought?
>
Buy the pieces and build one per the patent and Ted's EASY TO FOLLOW
INSTRUCTIONS.
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$1...@client2.news.psi.net>...
>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
>equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
>legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
>and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
>"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
>to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
>
>Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
>and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
>egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'. As far as I
>know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
>'investment'. Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
>he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
>THE CONSPIRACY).
>
>After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
>to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
>spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
>It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
>device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously working
>under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
>unjust guilty verdict.
>
>As far as I know, Meyer's home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
>court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
>passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
>off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
>minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I'd
>stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
>records of the trial.
>
>Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
>City, county, etc., date(s)??? Possibly an official case name?
>
>Thanks.
>
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
AT FIRST:
You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.
In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.
HOW TO?
As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.
Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to Ohio!
Ted!
> >http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/08/hy...
>
> > Then.....
> > GOT DEAD.
>
> >>Even gaby and JW
> >>the biggest supporters of it will not put one penny into building
> >>one.
>
> > Proof???
>
> How much money are you putting into it now? How much is gaby?
>
Doesn't make a nickel's difference to YOU what I have done, Meyer,
Queen's College, or Anthony Griffin's team.
All you want to do is argue and detract, not experiment like others
are doing.
>
> >>>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 DC potential across the
> >>>electrodes of the cell until a point is reached where the water breaks
> >>>down and a momentary high current flows. A current measuring circuit
> >>>in the supply detects this breakdown and removes the pulse drive for a
> >>>few cycles allowing the water to "recover".
>
> >>This is a joke. The laws of physics are quite healthy.
>
> > Yup.
> > Meyer agrees.
> > So did patent office.
>
> If meyer agrees, his cell is just electrolysis and there is
> nothing new.
>
No.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
>
> >>>Research chemist Keith Hindley offers this description of a Meyer cell
> >>>demonstration: "After a day of presentations, the Griffin committee
> >>>witnessed a number of important demonstration of the WFC" (water fuel
> >>>cell as named by the inventor).
>
> >>They are idiots. Why did it never work when Meyer was not around?
>
> > Proof?
> > What difference does it make.
> > Meyer opened the "black box."
> >http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>
> It makes all the difference in the world. Frauds only work
> when the fraudster is there.
>
Like you being here?
> High current electrolysis cells heat up. Low current ones do not.
>
Low current cells don't produce shit.
Meyer's produced enough to scare the shit out of the Pentagon.
>
> > Do you understand the word "clearly?"
> > As in crystal clearly.
> > As in glass clearly.
> > As in water clearly.
> > As in air clearly.
> > As in demonstated hundreds of times with CLEARLY NO TRICKS.
> > CLEARLY NO HOSES.
> > CLEARLY NO ELECTROLYTE.
> > CLEARLY NO HEAT.
> > CLEARLY TOO LITTLE WATTS INPUT TO BE "CLASSIC" ELECTROLYSIS.
>
> This is an assertion. Where are the measurements in support of
> this.
>
In the Independent Report you refuse to read.
http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
> > CLEARLY WITNESSED BY HIGH LEVEL AUTHORITIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL
> > "EXPERTS" AT THEIR DISPOSAL.
> > CLEARLY NO FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN.
> > CLEARLY RISKING THEIR CAREERS AND THEIR LIVES BY STATING THE EVIDENCE
> > AS THEY SAW IT FOR "PUBLICATION".
> > Got "CLEARLY" yet?
> > Ever heard the saying "Seeing is believing?"
>
> Fraud works by making people believe that they are seeing something
> they are not. Believing is seeing scientific measurements.
>
> > They went.
> > They witnessed.
> > They testified.
>
> No one did any scientific tests. They saw a performance by meyer.
>
They saw his cell "clearly" d what they have stated.
As did thousands of others.
> > Admiral Tony Griffin died under "suspicious" circumstances as did
> > Meyer.
> > Can YOU "clearly" "connect the dots?"
> > I doubt it.
> > The world is backwards and gone completely made over "profit."
>
> >>>"The results appear to suggest efficient and controllable gas
> >>>production that responds rapidly to demand and yet is safe in
> >>>operation.
>
> Note the words "appear" and "suggest". Scienc would use the word
> "shows" after making measurements. No measurements were made.
>
LIAR.
They tell you what they saw on the meters.
But you'll use Donny's canard that "the experts can't read/understand/
are fooled by "funky" wave forms."
> > The militaries had five criteria which needed to be met for the use of
> > hydrogen from water or any other source to ever become a reality.
> > Meyer met all 5 of them plus more.
> > It only took a few minutes for Meyer to walk into the Pentagon with
> > his "device."
> > But Boys did he play hell trying to get it back out.
> > Meyer's demonstration cell, at the proper voltage, could convert a
> > gallon of water a second into H and O gases. They thought he had a
> > atom bomb.
>
> This is where your violation of the laws of physics comes in.
You are blind as a bat.
>This
> kind of production would require about 50KW of power to do.
It required very high voltage at KHZ of frequency and "milli-amps" of
current..
>His cell
> is not going to do that. It seems the story gets better with the
> telling.
>
I told you "they thought" it could.
That is how impressed they were with the cell's performance.
> >>We clearly saw how increasing and decreasing the voltage is
>
> >>>used to control gas production.
>
> So? Electrolysis is dependent on current.
>
That's why Meyer's process is different.
Voltage is the dominant motive force.
>
> > And YOU "scientists" have a problem with this?
>
> >>We saw how gas generation ceased and
>
> >>>then began again instantly as the voltage driving circuit was switched
> >>>off and then on again."
>
> So?
>
So, build one and see it for yourself.
>
>
> > Do you guys understand the word INSTANTLY?
> > Like, as fast or faster than the light goes on in your house a split
> > second after you hit the switch.
> > "Magic trick."
>
> >>>"After hours of discussion between ourselves,
>
> > HOURS OF DISCUSSION.
> > HOURS.
> > AND HOURS.
> > Do you guys do anything for hours besides NOT doing the Meyer
> > experiment as Ted Z describes?
>
> How many cells have you built and tested?
>
Doesn't matter.
You wouldn't believe anything I say or produce.
You've proven that endlessly.
> > YOU could save yourselves HOURS AND HOURS of bagging on Meyer by doing
> > it, and showing us all ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT IT IS NOT MORE EFFICIENT
> > THEN "CLASSIC" ELECTROLYSIS.
>
> Only if it violates the laws of physics.
>
Nope.
> > Why would you not do this?
>
> How many cells have you built and tested?
>
Doesn't matter.
> > You are getting older and older with less time before you are worm
> > food.
> > You could spend your time with wife and kids, grandkids.
> > It would all be settled.
> > Peer review it just as Ted Z explained.
> > You are the BIG Professor.
> > Surely this is "child's-play" for you with all your old buddies.
>
> >>we concluded that Stan
>
> >>>Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method
>
> > ENTIRELY.
> > Do you understand the word ENTIRELY?
>
> Yes, he was claiming to have violated the laws of physics.
>
No.
Do you understand "demonstration?"
> > Why must I talk to you like you are children?
>
> >>of
>
> >>>splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical
> >>>electrolysis.
>
> > FEW.
> > Do you understand FEW?
> > As in how FEW "brains" are really here against 3 or 4 chatbots.
>
> All of your comments come with a complete lack of scientific
> measurements. They are worthless without those measurements.
>
The experiment is repeatable.
It was repeated by Lawton at Queen's College.
> >>Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from
>
> >>>his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC
> >>>system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent
> >>>Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined
> >>>experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts
> >>>and all the claims have been established."
>
> The patent office people are not competent to judge science.
>
Proof?
Cite?
Evidence?
>
> > CONFIRMATION.
> > Do you understand the word CONFIRMATION?
> > It was good enough for ADMIRAL A. Griffin and his experts BUT not good
> > enough for you?
>
> So an admiral who not a scientist can change the laws of physics?
>
Never claimed to.
Just reported what he and his experts saw and had their hands on.
> > From where do you get such arrogance?
>
> Where does the admiral get such arrogance?
>
He just was an eye-witness.
What are you?
Where is your resume'?
> >>>"The basic WFC was subjected to three years of testing. This raises
> >>>the granted patents to the level of independent, critical, scientific
> >>>and engineering confirmation that the devices actually perform as
> >>>claimed."
>
> > You think Meyer "spoon" fed this to these guys and the didn't vet and
> > verify his claims before the went "public" with their comments?
>
> People committing fraud do not seek to get independent tests
> on their work. Meyer never had any independent test.
>
Ted Z did an "independent test."
You won't follow instructions.
>
> >>>The practical demonstration of the Meyer cell appears substantially
> >>>more convincing than the para-scientific jargon which has been used to
> >>>explain it. The inventor himself talks about a distortion and
> >>>polarization of the water molecule resulting in the H:OH bonding
> >>>tearing itself apart under the electrostatic potential gradient, of a
> >>>resonance within the molecule which amplifies the effect.
>
> This violates the laws of physics.
>
Nope.
> > No different than Faraday not "knowing the math" behind his
> > discoveries.
>
> >>>Apart from the copious hydrogen/oxygen gas evolution and the minimal
> >>>temperature rise within the cell, witnesses also report that water
> >>>within the cell disappears rapidly, presumably into its component
> >>>parts and as an aerosol from the myriad of tiny bubbles breaking the
> >>>surface of the cell.
>
> > My decomposition cells have always left brown "gunk" in the bottom
> > when using tap water.
> > Filtered ionized water works best in a Meyer process.
>
> >>>Meyer claims to have run a converted VW on hydrogen/oxygen mixture for
> >>>the last four years using a chain of six cylindrical cells. He also
> >>>claims that photon stimulation of the reactor space by optical fibre
> >>>piped laser light increases gas production.
>
> > What do you think pulsed red LED photons would stimulate in unstable H
> > and O gas ions? Maybe other photons?
>
> >>Lots of claims but no facts.
>
> > In court and "eye-witness's" testimony is taken as "fact."
>
> So the laws of physics are set by testimony?
>
The laws of physics are not at issue.
Never were.
Aren't.
Won't be.
Your laziness is the issue.
>
> >>It has been 10 years since he died and
> >>nothing has happened.
>
> > There's been a multi-billion dollar, or trillions by now really, war
> > to control oil.
> > But what's a dollar besides a piece of fiat paper that we are enslaved
> > to?
>
> >>It is free
>
> > YUP.
> > JW and I have made sure of that.
>
> >>and no one wants it.
>
> > How do you know this?
> > Where is your proof besides all the experimental demonstrations,
> > explanations, and forums disseminating their results?
> > Do you think Lockheed should have it on their website?
> > Why would they?
> > They make BILLIIONS on WAR PROFITS.
> > What would we fight over if not OIL?
>
> Your paranoia is getting to you.
Ad hominem, the loser's last refuge.
>If it worked, the greed of the
> corporations like Lockheed would get them into the business in
> a great hurry.
Nope.
Besides, his patents just ran out this year.
>There are more billiions to be made from the
> energy business than from the defense business.
>
No there isn't if people are "off grid" and don't need "centralized
and controlled energy."
> >>Why don't you
> >>take all of your money and put it into this if it is so great?
>
> You did not answer why you are not putting all your money into
> it.
It doesn't make a tinker's damn how much money I have in my research.
>Don't you want to get filthy rich?
Why do you think they call it "filthy?"
> This what?
> > All you need is two stainless tubes to prove the circuit is more
> > efficient at decomposition of water.
>
> >>>The inventor is a protegee' of the Advanced Energy Institute.
And you are what?
A lazy armchair punk?
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>Proof?
>>>"No one?"
>>>Why would they tell anyone here or make it public ANYWHERE?
>>>Not everyone wants to "make millions."
>>>Maybe they are building cells, moving to remote places, waiting for
>>>the shit storm...
>>
>>How many have you made?
>
>
> Doesn't matter.
So you want others to go out and spend their time and money
but you will not. That means you really do not believe in it.
>
>
>>Where can they be bought?
>>
>
> Buy the pieces and build one per the patent and Ted's EASY TO FOLLOW
> INSTRUCTIONS.
>
Which Walmart carries premade cells?
> Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
> From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
>
You keep posting this crap from Ted and it is still wrong.
Posting it again does not improve it.
Hint: There are no nuclear forces involved here.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>How much money are you putting into it now? How much is gaby?
>>
>
> Doesn't make a nickel's difference to YOU what I have done, Meyer,
> Queen's College, or Anthony Griffin's team.
> All you want to do is argue and detract, not experiment like others
> are doing.
>
>
>>>>>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 DC potential across the
>>>>>electrodes of the cell until a point is reached where the water breaks
>>>>>down and a momentary high current flows. A current measuring circuit
>>>>>in the supply detects this breakdown and removes the pulse drive for a
>>>>>few cycles allowing the water to "recover".
>>
>>>>This is a joke. The laws of physics are quite healthy.
>>
>>>Yup.
>>>Meyer agrees.
>>>So did patent office.
>>
>>If meyer agrees, his cell is just electrolysis and there is
>>nothing new.
>>
>
> No.
> You have a reading comprehension problem.
No, I believe the laws of physics.
>
>
>>
>>>CLEARLY WITNESSED BY HIGH LEVEL AUTHORITIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL
>>>"EXPERTS" AT THEIR DISPOSAL.
>>>CLEARLY NO FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN.
>>>CLEARLY RISKING THEIR CAREERS AND THEIR LIVES BY STATING THE EVIDENCE
>>>AS THEY SAW IT FOR "PUBLICATION".
>>>Got "CLEARLY" yet?
>>>Ever heard the saying "Seeing is believing?"
>>
>>Fraud works by making people believe that they are seeing something
>>they are not. Believing is seeing scientific measurements.
>>
>>
>>>They went.
>>>They witnessed.
>>>They testified.
>>
>>No one did any scientific tests. They saw a performance by meyer.
>>
>
> They saw his cell "clearly" d what they have stated.
> As did thousands of others.
So you are admitting that no one did any measurements?
>
>
>>>Admiral Tony Griffin died under "suspicious" circumstances as did
>>>Meyer.
>>>Can YOU "clearly" "connect the dots?"
>>>I doubt it.
>>>The world is backwards and gone completely made over "profit."
>>
>>>>>"The results appear to suggest efficient and controllable gas
>>>>>production that responds rapidly to demand and yet is safe in
>>>>>operation.
>>
>>Note the words "appear" and "suggest". Scienc would use the word
>>"shows" after making measurements. No measurements were made.
>>
>
> LIAR.
> They tell you what they saw on the meters.
> But you'll use Donny's canard that "the experts can't read/understand/
> are fooled by "funky" wave forms."
Sorry but the truth is that Don is correct about the meters.
How much do you know about pulsed measurements.
>
>
>>>The militaries had five criteria which needed to be met for the use of
>>>hydrogen from water or any other source to ever become a reality.
>>>Meyer met all 5 of them plus more.
>>>It only took a few minutes for Meyer to walk into the Pentagon with
>>>his "device."
>>>But Boys did he play hell trying to get it back out.
>>>Meyer's demonstration cell, at the proper voltage, could convert a
>>>gallon of water a second into H and O gases. They thought he had a
>>>atom bomb.
>>
>>This is where your violation of the laws of physics comes in.
>
>
> You are blind as a bat.
You do not understand the laws of physics. To get this much
hydrogen out, you would need kw of power.
>
>
>>This
>>kind of production would require about 50KW of power to do.
>
>
> It required very high voltage at KHZ of frequency and "milli-amps" of
> current..
So it did not produce that much hydrogen.
>
>
>>His cell
>>is not going to do that. It seems the story gets better with the
>>telling.
>>
>
> I told you "they thought" it could.
> That is how impressed they were with the cell's performance.
>
So you admit that his cell did not produce that much hydrogen?
>
>>>>We clearly saw how increasing and decreasing the voltage is
>>
>>>>>used to control gas production.
>>
>>So? Electrolysis is dependent on current.
>>
>
> That's why Meyer's process is different.
> Voltage is the dominant motive force.
Electrolysis runs on current.
>
>
>>>And YOU "scientists" have a problem with this?
>>
>>>>We saw how gas generation ceased and
>>
>>>>>then began again instantly as the voltage driving circuit was switched
>>>>>off and then on again."
>>
>>So?
>>
>
> So, build one and see it for yourself.
How many have you built? I tell you what. Build one
and send it to me and I will test it.
No competent scientists ever examined his cell.
>
>
>>>Why must I talk to you like you are children?
>>
>>>>of
>>
>>>>>splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical
>>>>>electrolysis.
>>
>>>FEW.
>>>Do you understand FEW?
>>>As in how FEW "brains" are really here against 3 or 4 chatbots.
>>
>>All of your comments come with a complete lack of scientific
>>measurements. They are worthless without those measurements.
>>
>
> The experiment is repeatable.
> It was repeated by Lawton at Queen's College.
Where are his measurements?
>
>
>>>>Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from
>>
>>>>>his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC
>>>>>system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent
>>>>>Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined
>>>>>experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts
>>>>>and all the claims have been established."
>>
>>The patent office people are not competent to judge science.
>>
>
> Proof?
> Cite?
> Evidence?
Look at the patents they have granted-- magnetic motors, faster
than light projects...
>
>>>CONFIRMATION.
>>>Do you understand the word CONFIRMATION?
>>>It was good enough for ADMIRAL A. Griffin and his experts BUT not good
>>>enough for you?
>>
>>So an admiral who not a scientist can change the laws of physics?
>>
>
> Never claimed to.
> Just reported what he and his experts saw and had their hands on.
What he claimed violated the laws of physics.
>
>
>>>From where do you get such arrogance?
>>
>>Where does the admiral get such arrogance?
>>
>
>
> He just was an eye-witness.
> What are you?
> Where is your resume'?
>
>
>>>>>"The basic WFC was subjected to three years of testing. This raises
>>>>>the granted patents to the level of independent, critical, scientific
>>>>>and engineering confirmation that the devices actually perform as
>>>>>claimed."
>>
>>>You think Meyer "spoon" fed this to these guys and the didn't vet and
>>>verify his claims before the went "public" with their comments?
>>
>>People committing fraud do not seek to get independent tests
>>on their work. Meyer never had any independent test.
>>
>
> Ted Z did an "independent test."
> You won't follow instructions.
>
>
>>>>>The practical demonstration of the Meyer cell appears substantially
>>>>>more convincing than the para-scientific jargon which has been used to
>>>>>explain it. The inventor himself talks about a distortion and
>>>>>polarization of the water molecule resulting in the H:OH bonding
>>>>>tearing itself apart under the electrostatic potential gradient, of a
>>>>>resonance within the molecule which amplifies the effect.
>>
>>This violates the laws of physics.
>>
>
> Nope.
This is pretty funny. Meyer was claiming to get more energy
out than he put in. That violates the laws of physics. The
enthalpy of water and of the constituent gases is a state
function and the value is independent of the path to get from
one to the other. Any claim otherwise violates the laws of
physics.
>
>
>>>No different than Faraday not "knowing the math" behind his
>>>discoveries.
>>
>>>>>Apart from the copious hydrogen/oxygen gas evolution and the minimal
>>>>>temperature rise within the cell, witnesses also report that water
>>>>>within the cell disappears rapidly, presumably into its component
>>>>>parts and as an aerosol from the myriad of tiny bubbles breaking the
>>>>>surface of the cell.
>>
>>>My decomposition cells have always left brown "gunk" in the bottom
>>>when using tap water.
>>>Filtered ionized water works best in a Meyer process.
>>
>>>>>Meyer claims to have run a converted VW on hydrogen/oxygen mixture for
>>>>>the last four years using a chain of six cylindrical cells. He also
>>>>>claims that photon stimulation of the reactor space by optical fibre
>>>>>piped laser light increases gas production.
>>
>>>What do you think pulsed red LED photons would stimulate in unstable H
>>>and O gas ions? Maybe other photons?
>>
>>>>Lots of claims but no facts.
>>
>>>In court and "eye-witness's" testimony is taken as "fact."
>>
>>So the laws of physics are set by testimony?
>>
>
> The laws of physics are not at issue.
> Never were.
> Aren't.
> Won't be.
> Your laziness is the issue.
You are the lazy one. You claim to believe it works yet you are
too lazy to build one. build it and sent it to me and I will
test it.
daestrom
"MAY" require, does not mean always. Besides, IIRC reading some of those
patents, they are careful not to claim the same things that the sales pitch
claims. So it gets past the patent clerk because it doesn't claim
incredible things, and the poor sucker invests in it because, "It's patented
technology".
So, are you suggesting that the applicant actually furnished models that
exhibited the claims in the patent, and that the patent claims are exactly
what are being promoted in the 'sales' pitch? If that were true, then there
wouldn't be a problem supplying any number of independent testing
laboratories with similar models now, would there.
daestrom
knews4...@yahoo.com
>
> Professor nakamats invented the floppy disk. He holds over 3200
> patents.
>
> Why would he not be a credible inventor?
>
> I'm sure he doesn't live up to Tesla but why isn't the person with the
> most inventions a credible source for a hydrogen generator?
>
> http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&...
I have a jpg of "Invention Convention" Santa Barbara News Press
article dated 2 years after Meyer's death:
May 5th 1990.
Titled:
Invention for fleas, fire escapes.
by Jim Strader (AP)
I features a picture of the inventor, "Yoshiro Nakamatsu, the inventor
of the floppy disk and digital watch, says his engine that runs on
water alone can create more power than one run on gasoline."
In the photo he is holding what looks remarkably like one of Meyer's
"Hydrogen Gas Gun" cells that I have seen and held in my own hands.
In the article states, in part.
And I quote....
"The exhibition also included the unveiling of a water-powered engine
created by Yoshiro Nakamatsu who became known as the "Edison of Japan"
after inventing the computer floppy disk and the digital watch.
Nakamatsu said his pollution-free engine, called Enerex, that runs on
tap water alone can create three times the power of a standard
gasoline engine.
"It will generate electricity for any purpose," he said. "Petroleum
will exhaust in 100 years."
He said he will modify the engine and build a special vehicle powered
by it."
end quote.
But NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN MEYER'S WORK HUH?
Meyer's body wasn't even cold and this guy is taking credit for
Meyer's work.
Which on of you MORONS talked about standing on the shoulders of
who???????????
Fuckin idiots.
Enerex patent.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nakamats/nakamats.htm
Dork fucks...
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 8:37 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> john180908 wrote:
> >>> Meyer earned US patents
>
> >> You don't 'earn' a patent. You PAY for one. Nor is the product
> >> obliged to work as described. The USPTO is not a scientific testing
> >> lab.
>
> >> Graham
>
>
> > 35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens. - Patent Laws
>
> > 35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
>
> > The Director may require the applicant to furnish a model of
> > convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
> > invention.
>
> > When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the Director
> > may require the applicant to furnish specimens or ingredients for the
> > purpose of inspection or experiment.
>
> > (Amended Nov. 29, 1999, Public Law 106-113, sec. 1000(a)(9), 113 Stat.
> > 1501A-582 (S. 1948 sec. 4732(a)(10)(A)).)
> > ..........................................................................
>
> > What part of "inspection or experiment" don't you understand?
>
> "MAY" require, does not mean always. Besides, IIRC reading some of those
> patents, they are careful not to claim the same things that the sales pitch
> claims. So it gets past the patent clerk because it doesn't claim
> incredible things, and the poor sucker invests in it because, "It's patented
> technology".
>
> So, are you suggesting that the applicant actually furnished models that
> exhibited the claims in the patent, and that the patent claims are exactly
> what are being promoted in the 'sales' pitch? If that were true, then there
> wouldn't be a problem supplying any number of independent testing
> laboratories with similar models now, would there.
>
> daestrom
You have to start with Meyer's basic "Polarization Process" before you
will believe or understand anything about it.
You don't get it.
Everything takes time.
We were handed hundreds of pages of Meyer's FINAL engineering in about
May of this year for the auto injector system and besides figuring out
exactly how they work and using todays advances in materials and
computer technology to improve them, even with millions of dollars, we
will not likely see a "production ready" prototype this year.
Now go start from scratch like we did.
Why should anyone give you a damn thing to buy or otherwise?
You were handed the FIRST STEP HERE:
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
gabydewilde
> On Oct 8, 5:41 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Professor nakamats invented the floppy disk. He holds over 3200
> > patents.
>
> > Why would he not be a credible inventor?
>
> > I'm sure he doesn't live up to Tesla but why isn't the person with the
> > most inventions a credible source for a hydrogen generator?
>
> >http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&...
>
> I have a jpg of "Invention Convention" Santa Barbara News Press
> article dated 2 years after Meyer's death:
> May 5th 1990.
> Titled:
> Invention for fleas, fire escapes.
> by Jim Strader (AP)
>
> I features a picture of the inventor, "Yoshiro Nakamatsu, the inventor
> of the floppy disk and digital watch, says his engine that runs on
> water alone can create more power than one run on gasoline."
>
> In the photo he is holding what looks remarkably like one of Meyer's
> "Hydrogen Gas Gun" cells that I have seen and held in my own hands.
Oh but the technology was re-invented a dozen times before meyer.
> In the article states, in part.
> And I quote....
> "The exhibition also included the unveiling of a water-powered engine
> created by Yoshiro Nakamatsu who became known as the "Edison of Japan"
> after inventing the computer floppy disk and the digital watch.
> Nakamatsu said his pollution-free engine, called Enerex, that runs on
> tap water alone can create three times the power of a standard
> gasoline engine.
> "It will generate electricity for any purpose," he said. "Petroleum
> will exhaust in 100 years."
> He said he will modify the engine and build a special vehicle powered
> by it."
> end quote.
>
> But NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN MEYER'S WORK HUH?
>
Exactly, even Nobel prize winners are not credible sources.
Even an inventor with multiple products on the market cant bring this
even an inch forwards.
> Meyer's body wasn't even cold and this guy is taking credit for
> Meyer's work.
He is a patent junky, so he knows all related patents.
There are plenty of patents disclosing the same kind of technology.
Don't forget, just the water fuel cell was already good enough to
power his dune buggy.
The other things he invented only aimed to make implementation as
simple as possible.
> Which on of you MORONS talked about standing on the shoulders of
> who???????????
> Fuckin idiots.
Oh, to make it even more funny, the last 100 years we had loads of
inventors going to American.
It was marketed as the land of infinite possibilities remember?
But the American dream is clearly a hoax a fraud and a scam.
> Enerex patent.http://www.rexresearch.com/nakamats/nakamats.htm
>
> Dork fucks...
MIT build plasma reactors just like the GEET
http://www.geetfriends.net/persecution/med.pdf
Puharich got his patent before Stan did.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-7oa0bFK6iNI/andrija_puharich_lecture_part1/
I cant say Meyer stole the technology. It should be available for
everyone. That was the point remember? That is what all the inventors
keep repeating.
The Garrets got it to work.
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/garrett-carburetor/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/5#
There is a pulse width modulator in the schematics.
It is a mechanical one but that doesn't matter.
John W. Keely Got it to work.
Tesla build an electric car without batteries.
Joseph Papp absolutely knew how to make Browns gas and how to run
engines and submarines on it.
Yull Brown converted various cars.
And there are hundreds more.
But if you seek to much publicity the stalkers will come stalk you.
Meyer discovered that the hard way.
After him we got Dennis Klein who also got it to work.
And Steve Ryan with his Bios Fuel.
Daniel Dingle has been driving his car since 1960.
This year it was Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe
I'm not sure if Bob Boyce has a car running on browns gas alone but it
looks good what he does.
Then there is xogen who have a water energy tech.
William A. Rhodes discovered the properties of the gas before Yull
Brown.
It's all quite bla bla bla
The lecture is nice.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-7oa0bFK6iNI/andrija_puharich_lecture_part1/
My knol needs some work but it appears even you cant be bothered to
read it. haha
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
What a waste of my time.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
This is 18 years old and nothing has happened since then. Sounds
like no one is interested.
>
> Meyer's body wasn't even cold and this guy is taking credit for
> Meyer's work.
> Which on of you MORONS talked about standing on the shoulders of
> who???????????
> Fuckin idiots.
It is free and no one will even pick it up off the trash heap.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yep, free and no one wants it, not even you. You will not spend
a nickel on making a cell. You want others to spend their money.
I have offered to properly test a cell if you build one but you
are afraid to do that.
gabydewilde
Then why the perpetual attacks Dougy?
Looks indeed like you are not interested and you want to expand your
lack of interests INTO other peoples activities.
I feel sorry for your lack of interest.
I wish you had something constructive to do.
doug
gabydewilde wrote:
There are no attacks. I am pointing out the facts. Why are you
not interested in pushing this? Why are you not building a cell?
If you build one, I will test it properly. If you are interested
you will take me up on this. If not, then we know.
>
> Looks indeed like you are not interested and you want to expand your
> lack of interests INTO other peoples activities.
>
> I feel sorry for your lack of interest.
>
> I wish you had something constructive to do.
I have offered to test a cell for you. What have you offered to
do? All you have been doing is to show your paranoia.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Woopeeeeefuck.
You think I or anyone that has been reading here is gonna hand
anything to you to "test."
I could get 400 guys to test anything I present.
Your arrogance is astounding.
Eeyore
doug wrote:
> knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > You have to start with Meyer's basic "Polarization Process" before you
> > will believe or understand anything about it.
> >
> Yep, free and no one wants it, not even you.
I think you just summed it up neatly there.
Graham
Eeyore
doug wrote:
> gabydewilde wrote:
> >
> > Then why the perpetual attacks Dougy?
>
> There are no attacks. I am pointing out the facts. Why are you
> not interested in pushing this? Why are you not building a cell?
> If you build one, I will test it properly. If you are interested
> you will take me up on this. If not, then we know.
I'd LOVE to measure one. But I'm not going out of my way to build one. I have
FAR better things to do.
Graham
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
As I thought, you are afraid to have tests done by a real
scientist.
Meyer work, free and no one wants it.
doug
Eeyore wrote:
It would be very interesting to see the details of what meyer did for
his demos. I would be shocked if someone actually took me up on
the offer. They do not believe in it enough to spend their own
money on it. They probably also do not want a careful scientist to
examine it.
Don Lancaster
>
>
> It is free and no one will even pick it up off the trash heap.
>
Nobody even wants to even view the fraud trial transcript.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Don Lancaster
>
>
> If you build one, I will test it properly.
Making a ludicrously absurd statement like this GUARANTEES you have
neither the competence nor the instruments to even THINK about a proper
test.
What resolution and sample rate A/D converters do you propose using?
How will you guarantee synchronous sampling?
Proper testing of pulse electrolysis would take at least a $50,000.00
minimum program.
doug
Don Lancaster wrote:
> doug wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> If you build one, I will test it properly.
>
>
>
> Making a ludicrously absurd statement like this GUARANTEES you have
> neither the competence nor the instruments to even THINK about a proper
> test.
>
> What resolution and sample rate A/D converters do you propose using?
> How will you guarantee synchronous sampling?
>
> Proper testing of pulse electrolysis would take at least a $50,000.00
> minimum program.
>
>
As much as I enjoy reading your posts, sometimes you go off the deep
end without paying much attention to what was being discussed.
I know how to do proper electronics measurements as I have a PhD
in physics, many years of engineering experience and I have the
proper lab facitilies to do the tests. I get paid for making
proper measurements and have been doing that for years.
I also know that there is nothing that violates any laws of
physics going on. I am just curious to play with one of these
and see how meyer did his fraud. However, no one will supply
one of these since they do not even believe in it enough to
make one.
Eeyore
doug wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > doug wrote:
> >>gabydewilde wrote:
> >>
> >>>Then why the perpetual attacks Dougy?
> >>
> >>There are no attacks. I am pointing out the facts. Why are you
> >>not interested in pushing this? Why are you not building a cell?
> >>If you build one, I will test it properly. If you are interested
> >>you will take me up on this. If not, then we know.
> >
> >
> > I'd LOVE to measure one. But I'm not going out of my way to build one. I have
> > FAR better things to do.
>
> It would be very interesting to see the details of what meyer did for
> his demos. I would be shocked if someone actually took me up on
> the offer. They do not believe in it enough to spend their own
> money on it. They probably also do not want a careful scientist to
> examine it.
I bet they don't. It would be like proving the non-existence of God (see the
Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy for various conundrums associated with this).
Graham
Eeyore
doug wrote:
I still reckon it's down to using cheap crap measuring equipment, such as
non-RMS and limited bandwidth.
Graham
Don Lancaster
>
> doug wrote:
>
>> I know how to do proper electronics measurements as I have a PhD
>> in physics, many years of engineering experience and I have the
>> proper lab facitilies to do the tests. I get paid for making
>> proper measurements and have been doing that for years.
Then there is NO WAY you would make such a ludicrous offer.
Again, which resolution and speed synchronous A/D converters would you use?
Where would you get them?
Why would you offer to do $50,000 worth of work free?
Trying to skimp by on, say, $49,990 aint gonna happen.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> doug wrote:
>
> > It is free and no one will even pick it up off the trash heap.
>
> Nobody even wants to even view the fraud trial transcript.
>
> --
>
> Don Lambaster voice phone: (CIA)428-4073
> Snickergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss:http://www.tinaja.conjob/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> Please visit my GURU's LIAR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
What for when they can do the experiment for a couple hundred dollars
and prove it to themselves?
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Is THAT WHY you've wasted so many years here bagging on Meyer.
"Because you have "better things to be doing?"
That is the "better thing?"
Making sure you smear Meyer here?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> doug wrote:
>
> > If you build one, I will test it properly.
>
> Making a ludicrously absurd statement like this GUARANTEES you have
> neither the competence nor the instruments to even THINK about a proper
> test.
>
> What resolution and sample rate A/D converters do you propose using?
> How will you guarantee synchronous sampling?
>
> Proper testing of pulse electrolysis would take at least a $50,000.00
> minimum program.
>
All you have to do is build a 9 tube cell like Meyer's demonstration
cell.
Run it with a permanently magnetized generator running off a 5 horse
lawnmower motor.
Close the loop for yourself after starting the mower motor on petrol
gas and switching to the HHO after the cell is primed keep adding
water and dumping the toxic waste sludge in the bottom of the cell.
Run it until the engine breaks in a year or so.
Then do it with a VW motor.
Or with an 8KV Genset....
Then try to tell the world it works and get financing without getting
dead.
It's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy right?
Or build it.
Keep your mouth shut except to your friends and neighbors and go off
grid as JW suggests in his Rense.com radio interview of June 29, 2008.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Contact on of the cell builders on youtube or any one of the numerous
Meyer/WFC/HHO forums and pages.
You could prove them ALL WRONG and save them millions of hours and
dollars right???????????????
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lawton+cell&search_type=
http://www.youtube.com/user/sirHOAX
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/index.php?sid=db12475327496042ca0e9a3fc5408be5
But you won't......
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> doug wrote:
> > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > You have to start with Meyer's basic "Polarization Process" before you
> > > will believe or understand anything about it.
>
> > Yep, free and no one wants it, not even you.
>
> I think you just summed it up neatly there.
>
> Graham
5 Grand Graham.
Make check out to Universal Bookkeeping.
I'm gonna frame it.
doug
The Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy has been my guiding set of books
for many years. I attended a wonderful lecture on his last book "Last
Chance to See" and was devastated when he died a week later. It was my
last chance to see.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 18, 9:07 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
>>doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It is free and no one will even pick it up off the trash heap.
>>
>>Nobody even wants to even view the fraud trial transcript.
>>
>>--
>>Many yanks,
>>
>>Don Lambaster voice phone: (CIA)428-4073
>>Snickergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
>>rss:http://www.tinaja.conjob/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>>
>>Please visit my GURU's LIAR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
>
>
> What for when they can do the experiment for a couple hundred dollars
> and prove it to themselves?
>
So why don't you spend a couple of hundred dollars and build one
and send it to me for tests? If you believed in this you would.
>
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
If YOU believe in it, you will build one. You have not so you do not
really believe in it.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
Since you do not believe in it enough to build one and send it for
tests. Why are you afraid to do that?
doug
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
>>
>> doug wrote:
>>
>
> >> I know how to do proper electronics measurements as I have a PhD
> >> in physics, many years of engineering experience and I have the
> >> proper lab facitilies to do the tests. I get paid for making
> >> proper measurements and have been doing that for years.
>
> Then there is NO WAY you would make such a ludicrous offer.
>
> Again, which resolution and speed synchronous A/D converters would you use?
> Where would you get them?
I have a dual channel 16 bit, 20 megasample data acquisition board
based on an LTC2203 and a dual channel 80MHz 14bit board based on an
LTC2249. These each have two synchonously sampled a/d cards and
transient memory. They are interfaced to the data processing computer
where the calculations are done. These were made for my work on
radar IF quadrature detection and processing.
>
> Why would you offer to do $50,000 worth of work free?
I am retired for the most part and enjoy working in the lab.
Besides, it would be fun to have real measurements to point
to when the cranks start up. It will not stop them but they
are immune to discusssions of the laws of physics. At least
it makes it harder for them to do broad brush dismissals
by them appealing to dielectric oscillations and so forth.
>
> Trying to skimp by on, say, $49,990 aint gonna happen.
The important measurements here are to properly measure the
input power and the input thermal power (monitoring the
temperature of the device after calibrating the heat capacity of
it in a calorimeter). The output gas volume would be measured
in a gas colection system. The composition of the output gas
would be checked by running it through either a condenser or
a moisture filter to separate out any froth (which I suspect
is part of what meyer was showing). This way we know the
gas is actually from the electrolysis. The heat output of the
gas can also be measured in a calorimeter as another verification.
I realize that you have been in the business a long time but I have
been doing this for almost 50 years. I do not know where you got
the idea that you are the only person who knows how to do science.
knews4...@yahoo.com
I don't NEED YOU.
Don't you get it?
I'm not here to prove to myself or you that it works.
I'm here to get real technicians to successfully build on THEIR OWN
just like JW did from Ted Z, Tad J and many, many others.
I am not buying, selling, or doing ANYTHING in which I need YOU or
anyone of you DORKS.
I have my proof, testing, engineering, and technicians.
I am not sharing my data anywhere to PROVE ANYTHING TO YOU.
I am guiding others to the first step.
If you don't like it....lump it
BUILD YOUR OWN CIRCUIT AND SEE IT WORK.
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$1...@client2.news.psi.net>...
>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
>equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
>legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
>and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
>"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
>to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
>Thanks.
>
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
[Note not ONE OF YOU DORKS has gone after him or the original poster
about their results]
Just attack me or JW.]
Don Lancaster
I was more than willing to spend $500 to put the Meyer electrocity
transcripts on my website. But $19,000 seemed a little excessive.
900 pages at $19 per page.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 18, 5:06 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 18, 9:07 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>doug wrote:
>>
>>>>>It is free and no one will even pick it up off the trash heap.
>>
>>>>Nobody even wants to even view the fraud trial transcript.
>>
>>>>--
>>>>Many yanks,
>>
>>>>Don Lambaster voice phone: (CIA)428-4073
>>>>Snickergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
>>>>rss:http://www.tinaja.conjob/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>>
>>>>Please visit my GURU's LIAR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
>>
>>>What for when they can do the experiment for a couple hundred dollars
>>>and prove it to themselves?
>>
>>So why don't you spend a couple of hundred dollars and build one
>>and send it to me for tests? If you believed in this you would.
>>
>>
>
>
> I don't NEED YOU.
> Don't you get it?
> I'm not here to prove to myself or you that it works.
>
> I'm here to get real technicians to successfully build on THEIR OWN
> just like JW did from Ted Z, Tad J and many, many others.
There have been no careful scientific tests, only meyer's fraud
and a bunch of incomptetents on youtube.
>
> I am not buying, selling, or doing ANYTHING in which I need YOU or
> anyone of you DORKS.
Since you want to change the laws of physics, you need all the
help you can get.
>
> I have my proof, testing, engineering, and technicians.
There is no proof because it does not work. There are only
demonstrations of incompetence.
>
> I am not sharing my data anywhere to PROVE ANYTHING TO YOU.
So you do not have any data either.
>
> I am guiding others to the first step.
You want them to waste their money instead of you wasting yours.
>
> If you don't like it....lump it
>
> BUILD YOUR OWN CIRCUIT AND SEE IT WORK.
How many have your built?
doug
Don Lancaster wrote:
> doug wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 9:07 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> doug wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is free and no one will even pick it up off the trash heap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nobody even wants to even view the fraud trial transcript.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Many yanks,
>>>>
>>>> Don Lambaster voice phone: (CIA)428-4073
>>>> Snickergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
>>>> rss:http://www.tinaja.conjob/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>>>>
>>>> Please visit my GURU's LIAR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What for when they can do the experiment for a couple hundred dollars
>>> and prove it to themselves?
>>>
>> So why don't you spend a couple of hundred dollars and build one
>> and send it to me for tests? If you believed in this you would.
>>
>>>
>
> I was more than willing to spend $500 to put the Meyer electrocity
> transcripts on my website. But $19,000 seemed a little excessive.
>
> 900 pages at $19 per page.
>
JW justs wants others to spend their money and he will not spend
his. I made him a generous offer and he is unwilling to have the
cells tested. He knows that Meyer was a fraud.
knews4...@yahoo.com
YOU don't get it.
It doesn't matter if I have built one or not.
YOU won't believe anything I say or my "experts" say.
Meyer invented, built, demonstrated, patented, and had an INDEPENDENT
STUDY. and you don't believe them
SO....you must build a test circuit for yourself.
I am not sharing any more than the first step.
I could have a room full of technicians that say it works and have
buuilt cells and DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FIRST THING ANY SERIOUS INVESTOR
WOULD WANT?
COMPLETE SECRECY.
If you doubt it....tough shit.
knews4...@yahoo.com
I TOLD YOU.
I'm not sharing with you.
Build your own toys like we did.
>
>Why are you talking about distilled water? Tap water will work with
the only
>side effect that the cell needs to be flushed out. It would depened
on how
>much water is going through but distillation takes tons of power or
costs a
>buck a gallon. I know distilled may work better as it would have less
minerals
>and chemicals that would act as electrolyte. If you burn the H2O2
gases and
>condense the water you will get very distilled water. One of Stan's
Canadian
>Patents show this as well.
>
The cleaner the water, the better. I have literally destroyed the
stainless rods by using tap water in the past. Distilled water keeps
the cell very clean. I will try tap water again, but I do not want to
waste any more eletrodes.
Last night I got a good amount of gas out at 700volts. Looks like with
a little more tuning we should have this thing licked.
The toroid core I bought works so dam good I can't believe it! All
parts were purchased from All Electronics Corp. in LA.
Part listing:
Toroidal Power transformer #TTX-1470 $18.00
5 Amp Variac (Variable Transformer) $95.00
High-Voltage Diodes 1000Volt @ 3 amp #1N5408 3/$1.00
and #R6000 6000 volt @ .2 amp $.50
Various Chokes - Some variable (variable inductor)
Values - 40uH Hash Choke non-variable
.676 Micro Henry Adjustable
Two Full Wave Bridges, one for 220 Volt max (for toroid)
and the other for 20 volt max (for timer circuit)
Pulsing Circuit is made with a 555 timer controlling
the gate on a Power Mosfet fed by the variac
I have pics I will send. I am going to keep working
on this today.
knews4...@yahoo.com
>
> >> On Oct 18, 9:07 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
> >>> doug wrote:
>
> >>>> It is free and no one will even pick it up off the trash heap.
>
> >>> Nobody even wants to even view the fraud trial transcript.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Many yanks,
>
> >>> Don Lambaster voice phone: (CIA)428-4073
> >>> Snickergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> >>> rss:http://www.tinaja.conjob/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> >>> Please visit my GURU's LIAR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
>
> >> What for when they can do the experiment for a couple hundred dollars
> >> and prove it to themselves?
>
> > So why don't you spend a couple of hundred dollars and build one
> > and send it to me for tests? If you believed in this you would.
>
> I was more than willing to spend $500 to put the Meyer electrocity
> transcripts on my website.
But you won't spend ONE DIME TO BUILD THE CIRCUIT EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED
BY TED ZETERGREN????????????
>But $19,000 seemed a little excessive.
>
You are a joke Donny.
> 900 pages at $19 per page.
>
The transcripts are worthless and incomplete.
The video at the Deposition is what you want to see.
That is where the Plaintiff's "expert" put white powder in Meyer's
cell whereupon it ceased to produce gas."
"Electrical Polarization."
"No electrolyte"
"COLD PROCESS."
"Milli-amps of power consumed."
The DORKFUCKS here can't even read a schematic that was with this web
page.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020202191516/http://members.iinet.net.au/~steveb/danforth/dan1.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_frm/thread/5f0bc6a3fdc9de6/b730830d838e403e?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=flyback+transformer#b730830d838e403e
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_frm/thread/fa45ef55cf4c0e10/9fa6901d696e0f08?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=flyback+transformer#9fa6901d696e0f08
> --
> Many tankjobs,
>
> Don Lambaster voice phone: (CIA)428-4073
> SNICKERrgetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss:http://www.tinears.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
It does because it tells us you do not think it worth your
time or money to do so.
> YOU won't believe anything I say or my "experts" say.
I would believe experts but you have not shown any.
> Meyer invented, built, demonstrated, patented, and had an INDEPENDENT
> STUDY. and you don't believe them
Where are the measurements from the independent study?
There was lots of marketing BS from the Admiral but no measurents.
> SO....you must build a test circuit for yourself.
> I am not sharing any more than the first step.
So you do not know how to build one.
>
> I could have a room full of technicians that say it works and have
> buuilt cells and DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FIRST THING ANY SERIOUS INVESTOR
> WOULD WANT?
>
> COMPLETE SECRECY.
I thought they wanted sales and publicity.
>
> If you doubt it....tough shit.
It is easier to sell things when people know about them. You should
study marketing.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 18, 5:06 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 18, 9:07 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>doug wrote:
>>
>>>>>It is free and no one will even pick it up off the trash heap.
>>
>>>>Nobody even wants to even view the fraud trial transcript.
>>
>>>>--
>>>>Many yanks,
>>
>>>>Don Lambaster voice phone: (CIA)428-4073
>>>>Snickergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
>>>>rss:http://www.tinaja.conjob/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>>
>>>>Please visit my GURU's LIAR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
>>
>>>What for when they can do the experiment for a couple hundred dollars
>>>and prove it to themselves?
>>
>>So why don't you spend a couple of hundred dollars and build one
>>and send it to me for tests? If you believed in this you would.
>>
>>
>
> You're logic is faulty as always, asshole.
> I TOLD YOU.
> I'm not sharing with you.
> Build your own toys like we did.
Which one is the lie? That you built one or that you did not?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 5:06 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Oct 18, 9:07 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>doug wrote:
>
> >>>>>It is free and no one will even pick it up off the trash heap.
>
> >>>>Nobody even wants to even view the fraud trial transcript.
>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Many yanks,
>
> >>>>Don Lambaster voice phone: (CIA)428-4073
> >>>>Snickergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
"I" can't wind a toroid asshole.
"I" don't have an NC lathe.
"I" don't have an 1800 sq ft shop.
"I" have MOTIVATED people do things for me like Henry Ford did.
"I" can find hundreds of people more capable than me to do what needs
to be done.
"I" don't need YOU.
"I" have and shared Meyer's final engineering for the injectors with
my technicians who are much brighter and capable than the dim bulbs
here including YOU.
"I" don't need publicity or interference.
So just kill me and get it over with.
Eeyore
doug wrote:
Yes, a great shame and loss. Did you ever read the Dirk Gently books too ?
Graham
Eeyore
doug wrote:
He claims he recently employed a 'tech' to build one. Maybe the tech explained the
fraud to him but he can't back down now ?
Graham
doug
Yes, those were great. I particularly remember the scene where he had
bought some cookies and shared a table with another person. He thought
the other person was eating his cookies and quietly faced him about it.
When he got up to leave, he found that he had put the newspaper on top
of his cookies.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sure you can, it is easy.
> "I" don't have an NC lathe.
None needed.
> "I" don't have an 1800 sq ft shop.
Not needed.
> "I" have MOTIVATED people do things for me like Henry Ford did.
What you need are competent people.
> "I" can find hundreds of people more capable than me to do what needs
> to be done.
I can believe there are those people.
> "I" don't need YOU.
What you need is a competent scientist. I made the offer but you are
afraid to have anything tested by someone who knows what they are
doing. Meyer never would allow that since it would have exposed
his fraud.
> "I" have and shared Meyer's final engineering for the injectors with
> my technicians who are much brighter and capable than the dim bulbs
> here including YOU.
You are always trying to charm me.
> "I" don't need publicity or interference.
All you need is to have the laws of physics revised and
you are all set.
knews4...@yahoo.com
The non-ex of god is easy.....
Try the non-existence of hope.
doug
Eeyore wrote:
He is probably a little fuzzy on the terms "employ" and "tech". The
usual group of people who get involved with this tend to be
knuckledragers.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > doug wrote:
>
> >>gabydewilde wrote:
>
> >>>Then why the perpetual attacks Dougy?
>
> >>There are no attacks. I am pointing out the facts. Why are you
> >>not interested in pushing this? Why are you not building a cell?
> >>If you build one, I will test it properly. If you are interested
> >>you will take me up on this. If not, then we know.
>
> > I'd LOVE to measure one. But I'm not going out of my way to build one. I have
> > FAR better things to do.
>
Shows how great your "love" is doesn't it?
> > Graham
>
> It would be very interesting to see the details of what meyer did for
> his demos.
The "details" have been widely available and are described in the
Admiral Griffin et al. article in Wireless World.
Meyer did his demonstration in his lab and at Deer Creek Lodge near
Grove City Ohio as well as in many countries all over the world.
At the Lodge, where there was NO WAY FOR MEYER TO HAVE ANY TRICKS, he
would have his assistant Charlie Holbrook bring the two Demo cells
into the large open conference hall from the van outside.
There was NO POSSIBILITY OF WIRES, TUBES, OR ANYTHING HIDING BEHIND
ANY 'CURTAINS." He set up CLEAR OF ANYTHING BUT A WALL SOCKET.
He would have "anyone who wanted to" get tap water from the restroom
down the hall.
He would fire up the cell by plugging the "washing machine size" motor
into the wall which has a belt drive to his "pulse frequency
generator" or permanently magnetized generator as seen in many photos
and videos.
In a few seconds the cell would have about 10lbs of back pressure and
after he purged the "ambient air" he could light the hydrogen/oxygen
gases coming from the anti-flashback "choking circuit."
You couldn't see the flame unless the lights were completely out and
one could "only see it slightly because of the "ambient air and
particles being burned."
When he put "alloy steel paper clips" into the flame, they sublimated
instantly in a shower of sparks.
I have a number of these in my possession too thanks to JW.
All this time he would invite anyone who chose to to come up and "feel
the cell" to see how cold it maintained throughout the demonstration
often last 30 minutes or more.
When I was there there was about 100 people in attendance. Many from
engineering and scientific backgrounds from all over the country. The
day I was there I also met Paul Fischer (sp?) the owner of the famous
pen company.
>I would be shocked if someone actually took me up on
> the offer.
So would I.
You're a DORK.
>They do not believe in it enough to spend their own
> money on it.
You are so fucking cock sure of that aren't you, dick brain?
>They probably also do not want a careful scientist to
> examine it.
Just because no one is dumb enough to hand their data and equipment to
YOU does not mean it is not happening.
Dork.
You have no LOGIC.
daestrom
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
<snip>
> Yes, those were great. I particularly remember the scene where he had
> bought some cookies and shared a table with another person. He
> thought the other person was eating his cookies and quietly faced him
> about it. When he got up to leave, he found that he had put the
> newspaper on top of his cookies.
Ah, another fan of D. Adams. I still think his greatest one was learning
how to fly. You just have to throw yourself at the ground....
.... and miss.
daestrom
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 18, 9:55 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>
>>>doug wrote:
>>
>>>>gabydewilde wrote:
>>
>>>>>Then why the perpetual attacks Dougy?
>>
>>>>There are no attacks. I am pointing out the facts. Why are you
>>>>not interested in pushing this? Why are you not building a cell?
>>>>If you build one, I will test it properly. If you are interested
>>>>you will take me up on this. If not, then we know.
>>
>>>I'd LOVE to measure one. But I'm not going out of my way to build one. I have
>>>FAR better things to do.
>>
>
> Shows how great your "love" is doesn't it?
>
>
>>>Graham
>>
>>It would be very interesting to see the details of what meyer did for
>>his demos.
>
>
> The "details" have been widely available and are described in the
> Admiral Griffin et al. article in Wireless World.
No, those are marketing and fraud fluff. There is no technical
information in them. The attempts at drawings of atoms and
what he claimed to do violate nearly all the laws of physics.
>
> Meyer did his demonstration in his lab and at Deer Creek Lodge near
> Grove City Ohio as well as in many countries all over the world.
He was always looking to separate money from suckers.
>
> At the Lodge, where there was NO WAY FOR MEYER TO HAVE ANY TRICKS, he
> would have his assistant Charlie Holbrook bring the two Demo cells
> into the large open conference hall from the van outside.
>
> There was NO POSSIBILITY OF WIRES, TUBES, OR ANYTHING HIDING BEHIND
> ANY 'CURTAINS." He set up CLEAR OF ANYTHING BUT A WALL SOCKET.
How about some scientific measurenments of what was done? Correct
measurements have never been done.
>
> He would have "anyone who wanted to" get tap water from the restroom
> down the hall.
>
> He would fire up the cell by plugging the "washing machine size" motor
> into the wall which has a belt drive to his "pulse frequency
> generator" or permanently magnetized generator as seen in many photos
> and videos.
>
> In a few seconds the cell would have about 10lbs of back pressure and
> after he purged the "ambient air" he could light the hydrogen/oxygen
> gases coming from the anti-flashback "choking circuit."
>
> You couldn't see the flame unless the lights were completely out and
> one could "only see it slightly because of the "ambient air and
> particles being burned."
> When he put "alloy steel paper clips" into the flame, they sublimated
> instantly in a shower of sparks.
>
> I have a number of these in my possession too thanks to JW.
>
> All this time he would invite anyone who chose to to come up and "feel
> the cell" to see how cold it maintained throughout the demonstration
> often last 30 minutes or more.
That is the way electrolysis works you know.
>
> When I was there there was about 100 people in attendance. Many from
> engineering and scientific backgrounds from all over the country. The
> day I was there I also met Paul Fischer (sp?) the owner of the famous
> pen company.
>
So how many of them made scientific measurements? None.
There has never been a careful measurement of what was going on.
>
>>I would be shocked if someone actually took me up on
>>the offer.
>
>
> So would I.
> You're a DORK.
You really do not want me to look at this because I am a
qualified scientist and you cannot get the cell near one
because the fraud would be carefully documented.
>
>
>>They do not believe in it enough to spend their own
>>money on it.
>
>
> You are so fucking cock sure of that aren't you, dick brain?
You will not even build one. gaby will not build one...
>
>
>>They probably also do not want a careful scientist to
>>examine it.
>
>
> Just because no one is dumb enough to hand their data and equipment to
> YOU does not mean it is not happening.
Well, just show us where the data is. It either does not exist (most
likely) or you do not want us to see it. What are you afraid of?
> Dork.
> You have no LOGIC.
Says the man who claims that the laws of physics are subject to
change by a presentation from an admiral.
Don Lancaster
>
>
> He claims he recently employed a 'tech' to build one. Maybe the tech explained the
> fraud to him but he can't back down now ?
>
> Graham
>
>
If it was the "tech" he tried sending me over the phone, hoo boy was he
ever had.
Don Lancaster
>>
>> You are so fucking cock sure of that aren't you?
>
Correct.
The Meyer Electrocity is not the least in doubt.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > He claims he recently employed a 'tech' to build one. Maybe the tech explained the
> > fraud to him but he can't back down now ?
>
> > Graham
>
> If it was the "tech" he tried sending me over the phone, hoo boy was he
> ever had.
>
Anyone who called you and tried to explain the work to you was too far
over your head so you hung up.
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lambaster voice phone: (CIA)428-4073
However, I do know who called you and who he worked under.
I told him he was wasting his time and the nickel it cost to call you.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=PATER+GRANEAU&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
So...go back to your tinker toys kid.
Dorks, dorks, dorks, dorks, dorks, dorks,.......
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> doug wrote:
> > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Oct 18, 10:36 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> > >>I also know that there is nothing that violates any laws of
> > >>physics going on.
Bingo.
It's all on the quantum level.
>I am just curious to play with one of these
> > >>and see how meyer did his fraud.
If you get off your fat, lazy, arrogant ass and build one you can
prove there was NO FRAUD.
But that would be too easy wouldn't it.
More fun to be lazy and sit on your high horse screaming "fraud" when
you've ADMITTEDLY NEVER BEEN WITHIN 100 MILES OF A MEYER CELL.
>However, no one will supply
> > >>one of these since they do not even believe in it enough to
> > >>make one.
>
No one?
Proof again here for you silly claims?
Let's get this straight.
Because "no one" will hand YOU their data and equipment "no one" is
working on a successful cell?
Is that right?
Is that YOUR CLAIM?
You truly are a DORK FUCK.
> > > Contact on of the cell builders on youtube or any one of the numerous
> > > Meyer/WFC/HHO forums and pages.
> > > You could prove them ALL WRONG and save them millions of hours and
> > > dollars right???????????????
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lawton+cell&search_type=
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/user/sirHOAX
>
> > >http://www.waterfuel.org/
>
> > >http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/index.php?sid=db12475327496042ca0e9a3...
>
> > > But you won't......
>
> > Since you do not believe in it enough to build one and send it for
> > tests. Why are you afraid to do that?
>
Diversion noted.
He won't contact ANYONE who is ACTUALLY EXPERIMENTING AND SHOWING
THEIR WORK.
> He claims he recently employed a 'tech' to build one.
Cite?
I claimed nothing.
I have technicians can mean a hundred things besides "employ" in the
legal sense.
>Maybe the tech explained the
> fraud to him but he can't back down now ?
>
> Graham
Maybe the tech has a "vehicle" registered with the DMV as a Hydroxy
add-on already running on a Meyer cell that's being road tested?
Maybe he has bought a couple of Buggy's like Meyer's so when he shows
it he will dedicate it ALL TO MEYER.
Maybe he has all the backing he needs and doesn't need a dime from me?
Maybe he just has me as a consultant for my connections to Meyer, his
cronies here, England, Sweden, and the Military?
Maybe you could build on too if you got off your arrogant, lazy, hot-
aired, DORK FUCKING ass?
5 Grand Graham. Get a job and start saving.
Make check to Universal Bookkeeping.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 19, 12:25 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>doug wrote:
>>
>>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 18, 10:36 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>I also know that there is nothing that violates any laws of
>>>>>physics going on.
>
>
> Bingo.
> It's all on the quantum level.
No, you do not get to violate those laws of physics either.
>
>
>>I am just curious to play with one of these
>>
>>>>>and see how meyer did his fraud.
>
>
> If you get off your fat, lazy, arrogant ass and build one you can
> prove there was NO FRAUD.
He was convicted by a court. His work is free and no one wants it.
> But that would be too easy wouldn't it.
> More fun to be lazy and sit on your high horse screaming "fraud" when
> you've ADMITTEDLY NEVER BEEN WITHIN 100 MILES OF A MEYER CELL.
>
Send one and I will test it.
>
>>However, no one will supply
>>
>>>>>one of these since they do not even believe in it enough to
>>>>>make one.
>>
> No one?
> Proof again here for you silly claims?
> Let's get this straight.
> Because "no one" will hand YOU their data and equipment "no one" is
> working on a successful cell?
> Is that right?
> Is that YOUR CLAIM?
>
No, you are too stupid to read. Send the cell and I will provide
the data and equipment to test it. You are afraid of that.
> You truly are a DORK FUCK.
>
>
>>>>Contact on of the cell builders on youtube or any one of the numerous
>>>>Meyer/WFC/HHO forums and pages.
>>>>You could prove them ALL WRONG and save them millions of hours and
>>>>dollars right???????????????
>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lawton+cell&search_type=
>>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/user/sirHOAX
>>
>>>>http://www.waterfuel.org/
>>
>>>>http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/index.php?sid=db12475327496042ca0e9a3...
>>
>>>>But you won't......
>>
>>>Since you do not believe in it enough to build one and send it for
>>>tests. Why are you afraid to do that?
>>
> Diversion noted.
> He won't contact ANYONE who is ACTUALLY EXPERIMENTING AND SHOWING
> THEIR WORK.
>
>
>>He claims he recently employed a 'tech' to build one.
>
>
> Cite?
> I claimed nothing.
> I have technicians can mean a hundred things besides "employ" in the
> legal sense.
So you do not believe in this enough to spend any money?
>
>
>>Maybe the tech explained the
>>fraud to him but he can't back down now ?
>>
>>Graham
>
>
> Maybe the tech has a "vehicle" registered with the DMV as a Hydroxy
> add-on already running on a Meyer cell that's being road tested?
>
> Maybe he has bought a couple of Buggy's like Meyer's so when he shows
> it he will dedicate it ALL TO MEYER.
>
> Maybe he has all the backing he needs and doesn't need a dime from me?
>
> Maybe he just has me as a consultant for my connections to Meyer, his
> cronies here, England, Sweden, and the Military?
Sure he has done all this. Yes, that sounds very likely. Just as
likely as Meyer having done anything.
>
> Maybe you could build on too if you got off your arrogant, lazy, hot-
> aired, DORK FUCKING ass?
So you are describing yourself here since you will not make the effort
to construct one. Why are you so lazy? Or do you just know it will not
work?
knews4...@yahoo.com
<snip the same old obfuscations and lies>
> Well, just show us where the data is. It either does not exist (most
> likely) or you do not want us to see it. What are you afraid of?
>
Being thought a "fool for arguing with one"
> > Dork.
> > You have no LOGIC.
>
> Says the man who claims that the laws of physics are subject to
> change by a presentation from an admiral.
Again more faulty logic and lies.
No such claim was ever made.
You are a liar.
I am done with you.