Hydrogen Electrolosis from water
Christopher
his device?
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Corruptissima republicae,
plurimae leges"
Tacitus
Don Lancaster
> Have any of you lot heard of Stanley Meyer and what do you think of
> his device?
The whole sordid Meyer debacle is found in Deja News.
Key soundbytes from his fraud trial were "gross and egregrious fraud"
and "loose grip on reality".
"The experiment" is done many, many thousands of time each day by EDM
Machines, by Qprox sensors, by myself and others, and, most especially,
by highly qualified EIS (electrochemical impedance spectroscopy)
researchers. All with result uniformly and consistently the ~exact
opposite~ of the Meyer claims.
Sigh.
One more time...
(1) The net energy required to dissociate hydrogen is independent of
method.
(2) One electron needs added per hydrogen atom.
(3) Approximately two electron volts of energy are required.
(4) Since hydrogen involves a double integration, only the dc term of
any fancy frequency or pulse waveform normally makes any significant
contribution.
(5) Because of surface passivity and the hydrogen overvoltage of iron,
stainless steel is an exceptional poor choice for electrode surfaces in
any efficient electrolysizer.
(6) Electrolysis is a really, really dumb way to produce hydrogen that
is virtually never used for bulk energy apps. The reason involves
exergy. Electrolysis starts with high quality energy, dissipates much to
most of it as low grade heat, and leaves you with an energy carrier of
much lower quality and value. It thus normally makes no economic or
thermodynamic sense whatsoever for bulk hydrogen energy apps. A kilowatt
hour stored in hydrogen has a much lower value than a kilowatt hour of
electricity. Electricity = 10 cents per kwh. Gasoline = 3 cents per kwh.
Hydrogen = unestablished, but certainly less than 1 cents per kwh.
Start with Faraday out of Great Books #45, then the links at
http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.html
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (520)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Harry H Conover
: Have any of you lot heard of Stanley Meyer and what do you think of
: his device?
:
He was a crackpot inventer and scam artist. Evidently he was
far more successful as a scam artist than he was as an inventor.
Evident for this is that he was able to bilk his "investers" out
of over (reportedly) a million dollars, but produced nothing of
marketable value.
Form your own conclusion.
Harry C.
fkasner
FK
"Christopher" <cdeatgu...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3aabb00e...@newshost.netscapeonline.co.uk...
Christopher
wrote:
Thanks for that. I was just wondering, as I found a site yesterday
will full spec and blue prints regarding his device.
Christopher
Hmm, he wasn't flavour of the month then.
Gerry Schneider
Christopher wrote:
> >Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> Have any of you lot heard of Stanley Meyer and what do you think of
> >> his device?
> Thanks for that. I was just wondering, as I found a site yesterday
> will full spec and blue prints regarding his device.
Yup, that bunch of baloney will always be around, since the true believers
love to see "mainstream" technical information to support their looniness.
Have a go at building it if you like, but don't expect much. About a year ago
I built it up in my spare time just to have some fun with water and
electricity. When it failed to even remotely work, I tweaked it until I
actually got some action going - first the (entrained? dissolved?) air came
out, then steam came out, but no H2 or O2 - at least nothing you could detect
with a lit match. Naturally, the true believers will say I didn't build it
according to the master's secret method, but I figure after a few decades of
doing power systems and general engineering physics work I might just have
been able to get it working if there were something to it. I actually
generated a large range of frequencies with a computer-controlled sweep rate
and applied it to the LC network through a 25 watt broadband power amp.
Surprise, surprise, there was a resonance effect based on the L and C time
constant that actually pushed current through the water (distilled worked as
well or better than minerallized) and created bubbles as mentioned above, but
alas, no electrolysis. Well, it was fun to tinker with. Right now I'm messing
around with an experimental Neurophone design using the same 25 amp and a
1500V step-up transformer. Let's see, was I supposed to insulate the
electrodes before sticking them on my face? I don't think
so....BZZZERRTT!..............#@&^$##!....(connection lost)
Chris1
>Have any of you lot heard of Stanley Meyer and what do you think of
>his device?
>
>
>Christopher
Stanley Meyer is currently burning in hell for his sins.
Chris
Christopher
<ger...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Christopher wrote:
>
>> >Christopher wrote:
>> >
>> >> Have any of you lot heard of Stanley Meyer and what do you think of
>> >> his device?
>> Thanks for that. I was just wondering, as I found a site yesterday
>> will full spec and blue prints regarding his device.
>
>Yup, that bunch of baloney will always be around, since the true believers
>love to see "mainstream" technical information to support their looniness.
<chop>
>
Thanks for that. Hmmm, I wonder why then his public demonstration
test device always produces loads of hydrogen.
Christopher
wrote:
Me thinks you tell your children "if you don't go to bed Stanley Meyer
will come and get you"
Don Lancaster
>
> Thanks for that. Hmmm, I wonder why then his public demonstration
> test device always produces loads of hydrogen.
>
> Christopher
>
Please quantity "loads"
Please also explain how the water vapor was separated from the hydrogen.
None of Your Business
writes:
>Christopher wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for that. Hmmm, I wonder why then his public demonstration
>> test device always produces loads of hydrogen.
>>
>> Christopher
>>
>
>Please quantity "loads"
>Please also explain how the water vapor was separated from the hydrogen.
>
Very little water vapor when the gases are separated by a COLD PROCESS.
Regards,
JW
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--- George Washington
"That's all very nice Mr. Tesla but where do we put the meter?"
J.P. Morgan
fkasner
water only also producing heat? Where have you been when Don has presented
the facts about thermoneutral electrolysis? I presume with your head in the
sand.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010318143646...@nso-fi.aol.com...
fkasner
FK
"Christopher" <cdeatgu...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ab4d743...@newshost.netscapeonline.co.uk...
Christopher
wrote:
>Christopher wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for that. Hmmm, I wonder why then his public demonstration
>> test device always produces loads of hydrogen.
>>
>> Christopher
>>
>
>Please quantity "loads"
Being fed through what looked to be a pin valve and, once lit
producing a flame 2" - 3" long and, hot enough to cut through 1/8"
steel plate.
>Please also explain how the water vapor was separated from the hydrogen.
Havent the faintest. I just remember seeing Meyer switch on the
device and boom the water just goes milky in a zillionth of a second
so much "electrolosis" was happening, most impressive it was to.
None of Your Business
writes:
>I see, JW the dummy, you believe it is impossible to produce hydrogen from
>water only also producing heat?
Nope. More lies from the king Dummy. This is just another example of how you
put words in people's mouths that were NEVER uttered. And you of all people
should be the first to know that I wouldn't use the term "impossible."
>Where have you been when Don has presented
>the facts about thermoneutral electrolysis?
Right here watching the one or two teeny bubbles that that process produces.
>I presume with your head in the
>sand.
>
>FK
No, but you have your head somewhere besides in the sand. You have not seen
Meyer's cell and the "copious" amounts of gas produced FAR GREATER than any
amount produced by standard thermal neutral electrolysis. And you refuse to
acknowledge the testimony of numerous witnesses who have seen his work.
You still refuse to read.
ftp://colossus2.cvl.bcm.tmc.edu/pub/free_energy/meyer/meyer.txt
Expert witnesses said that it is obviously NOT STANDARD ELECTROLYSIS.
My bet still stands. I said I will pay $1000 to anyone who will produce the
amount of gas Meyer produced in his cell with 144 sq. inches of stainless steel
as in his cell with the use of only a permantly magnetized automotive generator
without generating any heat. Shit, I'll even let you do it and generate all the
heat you want. You CAN'T put in any electrolyte though. You can't do it either
way with standard electrolysis and an automotive generator. I tried it with
only 70 sq inches of steel and it wanted to fry the whole system while
producing minimal gases. It drew about 1400 watts and got too hot to even
touch. One can build any type of black box they wish in between the cell and
the power supply.
Tips are here and in Meyer's numerous patents.
ftp://colossus2.cvl.bcm.tmc.edu/pub/free_energy/meyer/meyer.txt
Meyer did it. I, along with thousands of others, saw it, felt it, and burned
alloy steel from the flame coming from his cell.
You bring new meaning to the term brown nose Fred.
<a bit more below>
>
>"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
>news:20010318143646...@nso-fi.aol.com...
>> In article <3AB4DF50...@tinaja.com>, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> >Christopher wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for that. Hmmm, I wonder why then his public demonstration
>> >> test device always produces loads of hydrogen.
>> >>
>> >> Christopher
>> >>
>> >
>> >Please quantity "loads"
I described long ago how fast his cell/vessel presurized with gases. Didn't you
ever get the download video of his cell firing up Donny? It is NOT STANDARD
ELECTROLYSIS.
JW
fkasner
under thermoneutral conditions. Your description of what you think it will
do reveals your ignorance and your lack of experience here. In addition your
stupid but almost certainly true claim that you have almost no knowledge of
science does in no way prepare you to witness the scam that Meyer subjected
you to. Almost certainly when you do an electrolysis that produces only a
very small amount of gas and yet gets very hot it is because you stupidly
are using an AC.
You are so remarkably stupid as you never cease to demonstrate.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010318171323...@nso-fc.aol.com...
fkasner
hydrogen at all. A hydrogen flame is blue and very faint. At any distance it
is almost invisible. Now an acetylene flame made from calcium carbide
dropped into water which will turn milky due to the calcium hydroxide in the
water produces a very visible flame and can get quite hot. Hmmmm .........
FK
"Christopher" <cdeatgu...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ab52802...@newshost.netscapeonline.co.uk...
None of Your Business
writes:
>Very interesting. A visible flame of that size doesn't sound anything like
>hydrogen at all. A hydrogen flame is blue and very faint. At any distance it
>is almost invisible.
Did he say anything about seeing anything else?
>Now an acetylene flame made from calcium carbide
>dropped into water which will turn milky due to the calcium hydroxide in the
>water produces a very visible flame and can get quite hot. Hmmmm .........
>
>FK
Fred, Meyer had to turn out the lights for one to see the flame coming from his
cell. The very slight orange and blue color that one could see for the first
inch of it was from contaminants in the ambient air that are released from the
water as the water is decomposed. There was nothing put in Meyer's cell but
plain tap water. It did not bubble one bit before he put the power to it. I
witnessed this many times with from one to fifty people in the room. Any one of
them was free to inspect the cell. He usually sent anyone who wanted to to go
get the water from the bathroom in gallon jugs. And no, the volunteer for this
was NOT a plant as I knew everyone that was working with him.
Hmmmm, yourself.
Regards,
JW
>
>"Christopher" <cdeatgu...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3ab52802...@newshost.netscapeonline.co.uk...
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 09:16:16 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Christopher wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for that. Hmmm, I wonder why then his public demonstration
>> >> test device always produces loads of hydrogen.
>> >>
>> >> Christopher
>> >>
>> >
>> >Please quantity "loads"
>>
>> Being fed through what looked to be a pin valve and, once lit
>> producing a flame 2" - 3" long and, hot enough to cut through 1/8"
>> steel plate.
>>
>>
>> >Please also explain how the water vapor was separated from the hydrogen.
>>
>> Havent the faintest. I just remember seeing Meyer switch on the
>> device and boom the water just goes milky in a zillionth of a second
>> so much "electrolosis" was happening, most impressive it was to.
>>
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Walter Curnow
wrote:
>Fred, Meyer had to turn out the lights for one to see the flame coming from his
>cell. The very slight orange and blue color that one could see for the first
>inch of it was from contaminants in the ambient air that are released from the
>water as the water is decomposed. There was nothing put in Meyer's cell but
>plain tap water. It did not bubble one bit before he put the power to it. I
>witnessed this many times with from one to fifty people in the room. Any one of
>them was free to inspect the cell. He usually sent anyone who wanted to to go
>get the water from the bathroom in gallon jugs. And no, the volunteer for this
>was NOT a plant as I knew everyone that was working with him.
Why do people still defend Stanley Meyer?
The guy was a fraud. He was taken to court and found guilty of fraud.
He died, and his "investors" don't have a hope in the world to ever
see their money again (as if they did when he was alive).
Get over it.
Christopher
wrote:
>In article <996pvd$rq2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "fkasner" <fka...@enteract.com>
>writes:
>
>>Very interesting. A visible flame of that size doesn't sound anything like
>>hydrogen at all. A hydrogen flame is blue and very faint. At any distance it
>>is almost invisible.
>
>Did he say anything about seeing anything else?
Nope, I just saw what I discribed, I have to add it was on a British
TV program...Horizon I think, the camera was at a guess 2 feet or so
from the pin valve, and the flame was a faint blues purple colour like
the colur of meth...ish sprits.
>
<bandwidth saving chop>
fkasner
well known to be in his employ to be the "plant"? For somebody who really
believes that there are all sorts of terrible conspiratorial scams in
abundance that doesn't speak very well for any consistency on your part.
Why would you believe all those conspiracy ideas but swear on the honesty of
Meyer? Something wrong there wouldn't you say?
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010320023551...@nso-mq.aol.com...
fkasner
together and rehearse you story before delivering it.
FK
"Christopher" <cdeatgu...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ab79950...@newshost.netscapeonline.co.uk...
None of Your Business
writes:
>And what about the orange color that JW says he saw.
I told you it was minimal and was from contaminants in the ambient air being
released during decomposition. With the lights on one could not really see the
flame AS I ALREADY SAID. Meyer had to turn the lights out for one to see any
flame at all.
>You guys ought to get
>together and rehearse you story before delivering it.
>
>FK
Fred, I have my own video that I did as an eye witness to Meyer's
demonstration. The poster saw a rebroadcast of someone elses film or video. The
television broadcast colors could easily not be the same do to many factors in
filming and broadcast quality. You can try to pick this apart all you want
thinking it is "scientific" but you will never succeed because you never
OBSERVED it in person and EVERYTHING you say is pure speculation. Just as you
and Harry comment about books you NEVER READ. Your explainations will never
stand up. Meyer did what all you jamokes keep saying that these inventors
should do. He DEMONSTRATED his cell in front of many many people. There was no
stage. There were no tubes or wires. He used two seperate cells. One was to
show the affect of the voltage field as gas production increased when he moved
the ELECTRODES CLOSER TOGETHER. In standard electrolysis THAT DISTANCE MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE IN GAS PRODUCTION. There were experts and skeptics with far more
knowledge and experience than you who went to see Meyer's work. He showed it to
anyone who would make the trip to Ohio.
JW
>"Christopher" <cdeatgu...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3ab79950...@newshost.netscapeonline.co.uk...
>> On 20 Mar 2001 07:35:51 GMT, h2o...@aol.comic (None of Your Business)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <996pvd$rq2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "fkasner"
><fka...@enteract.com>
>> >writes:
>> >
>> >>Very interesting. A visible flame of that size doesn't sound anything
>like
>> >>hydrogen at all. A hydrogen flame is blue and very faint. At any
>distance it
>> >>is almost invisible.
>> >
>> >Did he say anything about seeing anything else?
>>
>>
>> Nope, I just saw what I discribed, I have to add it was on a British
>> TV program...Horizon I think, the camera was at a guess 2 feet or so
>> from the pin valve, and the flame was a faint blues purple colour like
>> the colur of meth...ish sprits.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
fkasner
was from contaminants from the air? You are a lousy observer. You even
believe in flying saucers.
It makes no difference that you were there. If you claim the orange color
was from the air then you have to prove that. You have never mentioned it
before and now I tell you that your claim that it was due to something in
the air is yours to prove. As you will never see that demo again since the
con man is gone you are not in any position to prove that assertion. If I
were to claim that is was part of the scam and was something that Meyer was
probably careless about as he produced all that gas of some sort that I
doubt was Brown's Gas (whatever Brown's Gas is) I would be as credible as
you since you have absolutely no idea what the orange color stuff was at
all. Since you weren't able to collect some of it and analyze it you have
absolutely no basis for your claim that it was something from the air that
was a contaminant. Do you have any knowledge of any common ingredient of air
that is orange in color? Could it be that some chemical reaction to which
you were not privy was going on that produced all the gas that was released
(not from water at all) as well as that orange color stuff? You have now let
the cat out of the bag that something else was going on that you can't
identify. You want it to be immaterial but it clearly isn't! So much for the
great scientist JW who looks at orange colored stuff and pronounces that it
is unimportant and it comes from the ambient air. Your credibility based on
"I was there and saw it" is paper thin. You say you saw an orange color
something or other but have really no idea what it was. So there really is
some flim flam involved in what Meyer let you see. You denied all along that
nothing but those special gases (Brown's Gas ?) were produced in the
operation of the apparatus. But we now know - if you are to be believed in
anything at all - that you have been hiding evidence of something else.
Your clear dishonesty dismisses your claims as being tainted.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010320175518...@nso-fi.aol.com...
Nonnaho
>
<snip>
Mr. Karsner talk about JW's honesty said:
>
> Your clear dishonesty dismisses your claims as being tainted.
>
> FK
The fact the JW admits to cheating on his income taxes, but still has
no problem using services paid by those same income taxes, says a lot
about him and his integrity. Why would you expect him to be honest
in other areas of his life?
Nonnaho
None of Your Business
And just which services do I get by paying interest on a "National Debt" to the
illegally created and unaudited PRIVATE Central bank called the Federal Reserve
which is neither Federal nor has ANY reserve?
Read dick brain.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html
>
>Nonnaho
Fuck you. Show your face to me and I'll sue your ignorant ass for libel. I pay
all legal excise taxes for which I am responsible. Not paying "income" taxes is
NOT CHEATING. "Income" taxes by their definition HAVE TO BE AVOIDABLE. READ THE
LAW ASSHOLE. I HAVE NO "GROSS INCOME." I AM NOT ENGAGED IN ANY "REVENUE"
GENERATING ACTIVITY. I DERIVE NO INCOME FROM ANY "SOURCE." Selling your labor
for compensation is NOT A REVENUE GENERATING ACTIVITY unless the income is from
a "source." Read the fucking Public Law Sec 1.861you brain washed hypnotized
ignorant sheep.
The IRS doesn't seem to have any trouble with my statement of FACT saying that
I have no "gross income" and neither does the California Franchise Tax Board.
So fuck off eat dirt and die because unless you have income from "gains" or a
"source" you are not "LIABLE" for taxes either.
I will bet you ANYTHING that you cannot show me where in says in ANY LAW that
YOU or ANY American is "liable" for income taxes. ANYTHING, COME ON ASSHOLE,
PUT UP OR SHUTUP.
JW
Say all you want about my "profanity" too ignoramus.
None of Your Business
writes:
>Since when are you scientist enough to firmly assert that the orange color
>was from contaminants from the air? You are a lousy observer. You even
>believe in flying saucers.
You are a none observer making comments about people that you have NEVER met,
technology you have NEVER seen, and books you have NEVER read. Great science
king Dummy.
You want another long list of people smarter and more credentialed than you
that believe in or have seen Anomoulous Arial Phenomenon so you can accuse me
of taking this thread of topic again? Sorry Fred, when you learn to read you be
able to read the thousands of eyewitness testimonies of their sightings and
contact experiences. But you refuse to read so it is quite pointless. You are
and will always be the King Dummy
JW
None of Your Business
>It makes no difference that you were there. If you claim the orange color
You still are asleep at the wheel trying to confuse Meyer's work with Brown's
gas. You are either doing it on purpose or are going senile. You cannot
discredit what I and thousands of others saw Meyer do with his cell. I am not
going to continue to let you try to discredit me when you have no direct
knowledge or experience with Meyer or his technology. When one does
electrolysis there are contaminants in the water and ambient air that are
released and mixed with the H and O gases from decomposed tap water.
JW
Hion solar
>From: "fkasner" fka...@enteract.com
>Date: 03/21/2001 0:50 AM EST
>Message-id: <999fen$6mo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>
>Since when are you scientist enough to firmly assert that the orange color
>was from contaminants from the air?
<<Remainder clipped to save bandwidth>>
Fred and JW,
When we burn hydrogen in our Hydro-que [TM] table top gas cooking grill, at
night the flame has orange high-lights. You can see point-flashes of light from
dust particles in the combustion air.
In daylight it is difficult to see the hydrogen flames on the burner ports,
unless a lot of gas is flowing and the flames are very large.
Since the hydrogen gas we use is made from caustic water electrolyte by
PV-electrolysis, it contains both water vapor and perhaps traces of KOH that
could be the source of the orange color that we observe. Drying the hydrogen
before using it in the Hydro-que would eliminate water as a contaminant, and
then the KOH would be suspect, or perhaps the burner stainless steel itself?
The orange color of the flame is real in our application.
Regards...Walt Pyle
None of Your Business
(Hion solar) writes:
Thank you Walt. Your expertise and comments are greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Walter Curnow
wrote:
>In article <20010321213733...@ng-mc1.aol.com>, hion...@aol.com
>(Hion solar) writes:
>>When we burn hydrogen in our Hydro-que [TM] table top gas cooking grill, at
>>night the flame has orange high-lights. You can see point-flashes of light
>>from dust particles in the combustion air.
>>
>> In daylight it is difficult to see the hydrogen flames on the burner ports,
>>unless a lot of gas is flowing and the flames are very large.
>>
>>Since the hydrogen gas we use is made from caustic water electrolyte by
>>PV-electrolysis, it contains both water vapor and perhaps traces of KOH that
>>could be the source of the orange color that we observe. Drying the hydrogen
>>before using it in the Hydro-que would eliminate water as a contaminant, and
>>then the KOH would be suspect, or perhaps the burner stainless steel itself?
>>
>>The orange color of the flame is real in our application.
>Thank you Walt. Your expertise and comments are greatly appreciated.
If Walt's orange color comes from KOH, where did the orange color come
from in Meyer's flame? (dust particles glowing look different from an
orange tinge) Wasn't Meyer supposedly using pure water?
By the way, Walt, I know that you deal in real hydrogen science.
Thanks for your input here. It's sad that people like JW can't tell
the difference between what you do and what that fraud Stanley Meyer
did.
fkasner
proportional to the degree of profanity employed to defend it.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010321170158...@nso-fi.aol.com...
fkasner
somehow taken as proof of their existence. I guess the large list of
scientology members proves the claims of that cult?
Hey, tell us more about the orange color of Meyer's cell output that you so
positively identify as results of air pollution. That should really prove
your scientific abilities, Junior Dummy.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010321170937...@nso-fi.aol.com...
fkasner
gases coming out of Meyer's machine as H and O . In other words the
monatomic forms of those elements. And you still can clearly identify
without any reference to how you did it that the orange emissions were from
air pollution. And what about that cute trick of turning off the lights
solely for the purpose of seeing that faint blue flame. What a grand
opportunity for something unseen to occur.
The more you insist on claims that require chemical analysis to verify the
more stupid you appear, Junior Dummy.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010321171522...@nso-fi.aol.com...
... the usual unproven bull ...
fkasner
matter what kind of jet I've used the only coloration I've ever seen is the
very prominent D line of sodium which is a bright yellow. It is the results
of material in the air or very briefly on the tip of the jet. And even to me
(slightly blue-green color blind) the difference between a brief very bright
yellow and an orange is very distinct. The orange claim is pure nonsense as
far as I can verify after many years of demonstration of burning hydrogen in
a large variety of jets (glass, quartz, various metals).
FK
"Hion solar" <hion...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010321213733...@ng-mc1.aol.com...
fkasner
acceptable. Try to comment in anyway on stuff that you consider nonsense
that he posts and he will employ the most vitriolic terms to denigrate your
comments.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010321215648...@nso-fi.aol.com...
Don W
in your neighborhood (or city, or planet), frequenting any places that you
and your family might go? I wonder why he is so bitter and unable to
communicate in a civil manner? I'll show my face to you -- will you sue me
too?
Don W
None of Your Business
writes:
>Remarkable, a list of people who claim to have seen flying saucers is
>somehow taken as proof of their existence. I guess the large list of
>scientology members proves the claims of that cult?
>
Ok smart ass here you are. I suppose the astronauts the THE US GOVERNMENT puts
into space don't know what they are seeing. Yea Fred, a wacko cult of the
brightest that the government can find to go into space.
From:
http://www.rense.com/general9/filers32201.htm
3-22-1
SENATOR GLENN ON "FRASIER TV SHOW"
CONTROVERSY
Several people wrote saying that what Senator John Glenn'
statements concerning UFOs in space were not valid since he
was on a comedy show. Glenn was the first American to
orbit Earth. The Mercury-6 astronaut successfully completed
a three-orbit mission around Earth on February 20, 1962, in
Friendship 7, but was forced to manually pilot his spacecraft
for reentry when the autopilot failed. Flaming chunks of his
spacecraft flew past his window, but he landed safely. In
1998, at age 77 he returned to space aboard the space shuttle
STS-95 Discovery, where anomalous objects were also
observed. Glenn has logged over 218 hours in space. He
appeared on "Frasier" a nationwide situation comedy
television show on March 6, 2001, where Frasier and a
female character are arguing, while Glenn faces the camera
and delivers the following speech playing himself:
"Back in those glory days, I was very uncomfortable when
they asked us to say things we didn't want to say and deny
other things. Some people asked, you know, were you alone
out there? We never gave the real answer, and yet we see
things out there, strange things, but we know what we saw
out there. And we couldn't really say anything. The bosses
were really afraid of this, they were afraid of the War of the
Worlds type stuff, and about panic in the streets. So, we had
to keep quiet. And now we only see these things in our
nightmares or maybe in the movies, and some of them are
pretty close to being the truth."
Lets assume that Senator John Glenn during the Frasier show
made prejudiced statements against a particular race or
religion, there is no doubt he would be held accountable,
sitcom or not. I personally feel his remarks on a national TV
show were designed to tell us what he saw in space, but to
give him reasonable deniability if pressed. It is interesting that
many of his fellow astronauts have made similar statements.
Astronaut Dr. Brian O'Leary, told me, "We have contact with
alien cultures." James McDivet often claims he saw an
unidentified object in space, and even took photos of a beer
can like device and the famous "tadpole". I have never talked
to an astronaut or seen a quote from one that claims its all
nonsense. Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, 1971 said, "We all
know UFOs are real. All we need to ask is where are they
from." Just before my televised talk with him, he said
something like, "Listen to Major George Filer and these other
speakers they're telling the truth."
GORDON COOPER'S MESSAGE TO THE UNITED
NATIONS.
Astronaut Gordon L. Cooper, one of America's original seven
Mercury Astronauts orbited the Earth for a record 34-hour,
and 22 orbits in May of 1963 on board Faith 7. He personally
saw and his men filmed UFOs so he has been outspoken
about the need for an open inquiry into UFOs. In 1978, he
sent the following letter to the United Nations:
"I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews
are visiting this planet from other planets, which are a little
more technically advanced than we are on Earth. I feel that
we need to have a top level, coordinated program to
scientifically collect and analyze data from all over the Earth
concerning any type of encounter, and to determine how best
to interfere with these visitors in a friendly fashion. We may
first have to show them that we have learned how to resolve
our problems by peaceful means rather than warfare, before
we are accepted as fully qualified universal team members.
Their acceptance will have tremendous possibilities of
advancing our world in all areas. Certainly then it would seem
that the U.N. has a vested interest in handling the subject
quickly and properly. I should point out that I am not an
experienced UFO professional researcher - I have not yet had
the privilege of flying a UFO nor of meeting the crew of one.
However, I do feel that I am somewhat qualified to discuss
them, since I have been into the fringes of the vast areas of
which they travel. Also, I did have occasion in 1951 to have
two days of observation of many flights of them, of different
sizes flying in fighter formation, generally from west to east
over Europe. They were at a higher altitude than we could
reach with our jet fighters. If the U.N. agrees to pursue this
project and lend the credibility to it, perhaps many more well
qualified people will agree to step forth and provide help and
information." Sincerely Astronaut Gordon Cooper .
<snip>
Them cooky ASTRONASUTS. No they don't have the foggiest idea what they OBSERVED
do they Fred?
>Hey, tell us more about the orange color of Meyer's cell output that you so
>positively identify as results of air pollution. That should really prove
>your scientific abilities, Junior Dummy.
>
>FK
No, the flicks of orange are just as Walt described from contaminants. The
flame became very bright white when WE burned alloy steel in a split second
from the tiny flame coming from his cell. He warned us not to run our hand
over it within less than about 2 feet because of the invisibility and high
temperature of the hydrogen and oxygen flame. I'm sure it would have burned a
hole right through flesh in seconds.
None of Your Business
writes:
>Ah, I see now that your great scientific expertise has also identified the
>gases coming out of Meyer's machine as H and O .
I called them H and O because that is what comes from water. If it was H2 and
O2 I wil not argue about it as I knew you would find something about my post to
pick on. Hydrogen and Oxygen gases come from water decomposition.
>In other words the
>monatomic forms of those elements.
I wouldn't say that. Meyer NEVER claimed such.
> And you still can clearly identify
>without any reference to how you did it that the orange emissions were from
>air pollution.
The orange flicks were not predominant Fred. You are beating a dead horse that
never was alive.
>And what about that cute trick of turning off the lights
>solely for the purpose of seeing that faint blue flame. What a grand
>opportunity for something unseen to occur.
>
Yup, exactly why I kept my video camera on for later review. You are a fool to
be SPECULATING about events of which you were no part. His cell sat in the
middle of the floor after being moved WHILE IN OPERATION from the bench so that
the flame could be lit and be at waist level for lighting and burning the
alloy steel we burned for about 15 minutes while discussing things.
>The more you insist on claims that require chemical analysis to verify the
>more stupid you appear, Junior Dummy.
>
>FK
>
Fred, I will not argue that what Meyer did is not "indisputable." My challenge
still stands. $1000 bucks to fake what he did with the same amount of steel
and power supply. Make the same amount of gas and have the cell remain cold.
Come on, DO IT.
JW
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
None of Your Business
writes:
>Would you want your daughter to marry this man? Do you want this man living
>in your neighborhood (or city, or planet), frequenting any places that you
>and your family might go? I wonder why he is so bitter and unable to
>communicate in a civil manner? I'll show my face to you -- will you sue me
>too?
>
>Don W
>
Don, you are new here. You haven't seen what has transpired in the past. Would
you stand for it if someone called you a cheat without one shred of evidence?
If you can't stand the heat. Put me in your killfile. These jamokes here have
no shame and accuse me of hiding behind a psuedo name while they libel me from
behind one. You haven't seen one percent of what has gone on here over the last
4 and a half years. Believe me, if you did you would respond the same.
Regards,
JW
None of Your Business
writes:
>What he means, Walt, is that your help is appreciated since he found it
>acceptable. Try to comment in anyway on stuff that you consider nonsense
>that he posts and he will employ the most vitriolic terms to denigrate your
>comments.
>
>FK
Kinda like you but you shade your language so you don't "appear" as "profane"
as me right Freddy? Get a life.
fkasner
observing that they claimed they didn't understand that they reported. Of
course much to their chagrin the scientists were able to tell them what they
had seen. Natural phenomena but astronauts are sort of engineer type jack of
all trades after their training. However they are not usually astronomers
nor physicists. The two you referred to were military pilots. And the
military academies they attended are not exactly renowned as great science
institutions. I don't think I would trust to make scientific judgments
graduates of colleges where the regulations require you to turn off the
lights at a specific hour regardless of your burning scientific desires to
gain greater scientific proficiency.
You've been snookered by guys who were pilots and not scientists. I'm sure
they saw something but I question if they properly interpreted what they
saw. You, certainly, are not a person to make any scientific evaluation.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010322185615...@nso-ch.aol.com...
fkasner
Meyer's machine. Whether it came from water you have no ability to verify
and whether it was oxygen and hydrogen you have no definitive proof of that
other than what Meyer told you it was.
"None of Your Business" h2o...@aol.com wrote in message
news:20010322185612...@nso-ch.aol.com...
fkasner
repeatedly. It is his inability to show enough fortitude to withstand the
slings hurled at his nonsense that leads him in his total lack of scientific
skepticism or scientific knowledge to react with such foul epithets. Sick
guy. Note I don't use a pseudonym.
FK
"None of Your Business" h2o...@aol.com wrote in message
news:20010322190251...@nso-ch.aol.com...
fkasner
some manner acceptable? And there is something wrong with me because I don't
use such filth? What you do doesn't constitute anything resembling a life,
you foul mouthed dreg of humanity!
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010322190925...@nso-ch.aol.com...
WV
Gezzz... Could someone point me to a good "sci.energy" newsgroup thats
a little more scientific and without all the flames? hehe...
Thanks
Will
"fkasner" <fka...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:99h317$eb1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
None of Your Business
writes:
>"Shade" language. That filth that spills from your brain and keyboard is in
>some manner acceptable?
No, just human response to your childish games.
>And there is something wrong with me because I don't
>use such filth?
Putting more words in my mouth Mr. "Scientist?" You are making this into an ego
battle again. Ok, you win. You have the biggest ego.
>What you do doesn't constitute anything resembling a life,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What I "do?"
It is human response to unending derogation and obfuscation. It detracts little
from my witness and to what I know or do not know. You made this personal long
ago, I didn't open that door. Anyone can check the record.
>you foul mouthed dreg of humanity!
>
>FK
>
See Freddy, you think your profanity is less profane than mine and that is what
makes you so full of it. Again, how I respond to you is of no matter because
you will never stop your attacks.You even attack how I defend myself from your
attacks. It's a game with you. You can call it street slang if you choose but
is no worse than the language you use to attack me. When you constantly say the
things you say you are no better than I. And you have yet to take up ONE of
the NUMEROUS bets I have proffered. But you still insist on attacking and
confusing what I discuss and say here.
JW
>"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
>news:20010322190925...@nso-ch.aol.com...
>> In article <99dqko$km6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "fkasner"
><fka...@enteract.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> >What he means, Walt, is that your help is appreciated since he found it
>> >acceptable. Try to comment in anyway on stuff that you consider nonsense
>> >that he posts and he will employ the most vitriolic terms to denigrate
>your
>> >comments.
>> >
>> >FK
Funny how Walt hasn't felt the need to do that either.
Only you and Nonnoho have made it your mission to TRY to discredit me here in
every way you can.
JW
None of Your Business
writes:
>There were several kinds of anomalous things that the astronauts reported
>observing that they claimed they didn't understand that they reported. Of
>course much to their chagrin the scientists were able to tell them what they
>had seen.
NOT ACORDING TO THE COMMENTS BELOW FRED. DID YOU EVEN READ IT?
SHEEEESH.
>Natural phenomena but astronauts are sort of engineer type jack of
>all trades after their training.
And that changes their eyesight huh Fred? Are you a holacost denier by any
chance?
>However they are not usually astronomers
>nor physicists.
No just EYE WITNESSES.
>The two you referred to were military pilots.
THEY WERE BOTH.
>And the
>military academies they attended are not exactly renowned as great science
>institutions.
And this again changes their eyesight?
>I don't think I would trust to make scientific judgments
>graduates of colleges where the regulations require you to turn off the
>lights at a specific hour regardless of your burning scientific desires to
>gain greater scientific proficiency.
>
And this has what to do with describing what you see and not knowing what it is
or ISN'T?
>You've been snookered by guys who were pilots and not scientists.
No, they actually were there doing observations not like armchair scientists
like you.
> I'm sure
>they saw something but I question if they properly interpreted what they
>saw.
Without even getting a FULL DESRIPTION OR BRIEFING as to what they saw. Great
science Fred. I got news for you. Any one of them is far more credible than you
because THEY WERE THERE. Those guys probably have spent as much time looking at
the sky as you have seen the inside of your eyelids.
>You, certainly, are not a person to make any scientific evaluation.
>
>FK
>
I didn't say I was. But you certainly think you are without ever having talked
to the witnesses about their obsevations and knowledge. Great scince Freddy.
JW
None of Your Business
JW
In article <99h2pd$d0q$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "fkasner" <fka...@enteract.com>
writes:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
christophe...@btinternet.com
wrote:
>You really think that a scammer with any brains is going to use a person
>well known to be in his employ to be the "plant"? For somebody who really
>believes that there are all sorts of terrible conspiratorial scams in
>abundance that doesn't speak very well for any consistency on your part.
>Why would you believe all those conspiracy ideas but swear on the honesty of
>Meyer? Something wrong there wouldn't you say?
Who said "I" belive in conspiracy scams?
All I said was the device demonstration was most impressive.
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Corruptissima republicae,
plurimae leges"
> Tacitus
fkasner
equate words like dummy and stupid with the gutter language you employ is
risible in the extreme.) Words that can be used in polite society, words
that my Victorian era grandmothers would find acceptable will suffice.
However even in today's world it is not considered acceptable except among
friends to employ the kind of language you use as being indicative of an
educated cultured gentleman. Clearly you are not. Driven to desperation to
respond to the pointed observations of your impossibly obtuse claims and
evidence of your lack of any scientific comprehension you descend to the
lowest levels of attempts at discourse. Your remarks claiming me responsible
for obfuscation is totally without merit since the obfuscating remarks at
variance with real science versus pseudoscience fantasy is the whole of your
contribution here.
I am sure that your advisors can translate the above for you into the gutter
vernacular that you so heartedly embrace. I know of no 4 letter words that
will do it for you but I am sure that your feeble intellect will find some
approximation even if inadequate in reality.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010324021538...@nso-mi.aol.com...
fkasner
has featured flaming. The somewhat anonymous nature of its character (not
for the most serious stuff which was done via telnet directly from one
computer to another and not via servers employing dialups) led to
differences of opinion that found it diverting to respond in a rather
critical manner to those who were least sure of their footing.
FK
"WV" <Dia...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:KQWu6.1376$tP2....@nnrp1.sbc.net...
fkasner
were reading gospel or opinion. You are generally so lacking in critical
faculties in science that anything you read would almost certainly be beyond
your ability to rationally criticize.
I doubt that you are capable of understanding what you read if it even
borders on science or technology.
Clearly your lowest level of disgusting behavior now appears by trying to
tar me with the brush of being a holocaust denier. You are a disgusting scum
floating on the cess pool of humanity.
The infantry group I was scheduled to accompany to Europe was one of the
first to see the horrors of the death camps. I never accompanied them
because I came down with a case of malaria before I was to go and missed the
shipment. After that I was sent instead to go to Army Specialized Training
Program to study electrical engineering. After that was offered the
opportunity to go to OCS to be a intelligence officer. Stayed instead with
my buddies in a signal corps outfit that was scheduled to go to the Pacific
after our training was completed. War ended before we finished. As for the
holocaust one of my maternal grandmother's brother got out of Germany in the
late '30's with information about the terrible things being done there.
After the war it appears that of our large extended family ranging from
France to Germany to Austria, to Poland, to Russia none had survived. You
filthy pig, I wouldn't have traded the worst of them for your useless hide.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010324025459...@nso-mi.aol.com...
fkasner
the big conspiracy fool. But he firmly believes all the Meyer claims which
are patently conspiratorial.
FK
<christophe...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3abcec1f...@news.btinternet.com...
fkasner
that I'd even consider doing such a thing. I suspect that only those who
have a tendency to want such things would be the ones who would defend such
things. Just can't admit that you were scammed. So instead you defend it! My
comment remains. You are incredibly stupid. And I don't gamble on trivial
matters. I certainly wouldn't accept Jed Checketts nonsensical claims of
things that couldn't happen, then why would you expect that I would gamble
on things that you alone would be the arbiter of acceptability. If I faked
it you would claim that I wasn't doing what Meyer did. If I couldn't fake it
then you would claim that you were correct all along because he had some
magic way of doing it that was real science. Putting up money to get
somebody else to attempt to disprove a negative is nonsense. You can't prove
a negative. However I will call on you to show that Meyer's work can be
replicated and allow those of us who watch it to sample the gases put out by
the machine and show that they certainly were not O and H atoms and that the
energy of the system's output was larger than the system's input. With the
correct equipment that is almost trivially easy. That is the one thing that
Meyer never did, allow disinterested scientists to examine the machinery and
attempt to do the experiments themselves. If that could be done
successfully then you could earn a lot of money. If is could be proven that
what you claim is correct. But you can't. All you can do is insist that we
have to prove it wrong. That isn't how science works. The proposer of
strange things have to prove it right.
FK
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010324025651...@nso-mi.aol.com...
John Savage
>When we burn hydrogen in our Hydro-que [TM] table top gas cooking grill, at
>night the flame has orange high-lights. You can see point-flashes of light from
>dust particles in the combustion air.
I, too, notice this in the ordinary towngas cooker. Dust may be the source,
but it could also be due to traces of something from splatter in previous
cooking. This could be organic (sugar, flour, fat, etc.) contributing
glowing carbon particulates to the blue flame, but especially salt (NaCl),
since even tiny traces of sodium contribute yellow brilliance to a flame.
>Since the hydrogen gas we use is made from caustic water electrolyte by
>PV-electrolysis, it contains both water vapor and perhaps traces of KOH that
>could be the source of the orange color that we observe. Drying the hydrogen
>before using it in the Hydro-que would eliminate water as a contaminant, and
>then the KOH would be suspect, or perhaps the burner stainless steel itself?
Possibly a chemical contaminant, but an orange colour means it is unlikely
to be KOH. The standard flame test for potassium demonstrates its
characteristic violet colour. But there possibly could be traces of sodium
in the caustic potash (KOH), or, as you say, specks containing iron would
produce orange fleck in the flame.
>The orange color of the flame is real in our application.
--
John Savage (for email, replace "ks" with "k" and delete "n")
None of Your Business
writes:
>It is not necessary to discredit you with foul language (your attempts to
>equate words like dummy and stupid with the gutter language you employ is
>risible in the extreme.)
Doesn't change the facts that it is in self defense of what you started. If you
are going to call names expect anything in return.
>Words that can be used in polite society, words
>that my Victorian era grandmothers would find acceptable will suffice.
Oh, you are back to being the thread police and setting the rules for conduct.
And it's ok to enforce Victorian language but not that dumb old Constitution.
Geeeez, you are lame.
>However even in today's world it is not considered acceptable except among
>friends to employ the kind of language you use as being indicative of an
>educated cultured gentleman. Clearly you are not.
See your nice polite profanity is no less profane Fred. Get a life.
>Driven to desperation to
>respond to the pointed observations of your impossibly obtuse claims and
>evidence of your lack of any scientific comprehension you descend to the
>lowest levels of attempts at discourse.
But you still won't take any of my bets even though I'm so wrong.
>Your remarks claiming me responsible
>for obfuscation is totally without merit since the obfuscating remarks at
>variance with real science versus pseudoscience fantasy is the whole of your
>contribution here.
>
Sure it is Fred. At least I don't comment about people I've never met, books
I've never read, and technology I've never seen.
>I am sure that your advisors can translate the above for you into the gutter
>vernacular that you so heartedly embrace. I know of no 4 letter words that
>will do it for you but I am sure that your feeble intellect will find some
>approximation even if inadequate in reality.
>
>FK
Blaa, blaa, blaa, blaa.
Another thread deteriorated into Fred and his ego on parade.
Don Lancaster
Or, if you want to scam somebody, just throw in some calcium carbide.
Us older cavers still use bright orange flames.
In fact a cave looks "wrong" with more modern light sources.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (520)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
None of Your Business
writes:
>Oh yes I read it.
Then why do your comments directly contravene what the article says?
>Clearly you didn't bother to attempt to understand if you
>were reading gospel or opinion.
No, just the comments of first hand TRAINED observers with thousands of hours
of looking at the sky that you claim do not know what they saw first hand with
their own eyes.
>You are generally so lacking in critical
>faculties in science that anything you read would almost certainly be beyond
>your ability to rationally criticize.
>
I can criticize anything. It is easy. Believing is harder.
>I doubt that you are capable of understanding what you read if it even
>borders on science or technology.
>
Well that is just more of your profanity and judgements about something of
which you know nothing about.
>Clearly your lowest level of disgusting behavior now appears by trying to
>tar me with the brush of being a holocaust denier. You are a disgusting scum
>floating on the cess pool of humanity.
No, I was making a comparison. But because you do not know how to read and
comprehend you missed it. There are more witnesses to UFOs than there are to
the holocast but you will believe in that.
>The infantry group I was scheduled to accompany to Europe was one of the
>first to see the horrors of the death camps. I never accompanied them
>because I came down with a case of malaria before I was to go and missed the
>shipment. After that I was sent instead to go to Army Specialized Training
>Program to study electrical engineering. After that was offered the
>opportunity to go to OCS to be a intelligence officer. Stayed instead with
>my buddies in a signal corps outfit that was scheduled to go to the Pacific
>after our training was completed. War ended before we finished.
And this has what to do with anything besides you tooting your own horn?
>As for the
>holocaust one of my maternal grandmother's brother got out of Germany in the
>late '30's with information about the terrible things being done there.
>After the war it appears that of our large extended family ranging from
>France to Germany to Austria, to Poland, to Russia none had survived. You
>filthy pig, I wouldn't have traded the worst of them for your useless hide.
>
>FK
Well it just goes to show you what you know about me or my family. But I'm not
going to use it to try to get crediblity with pity. Besides, your constant
attacks on my character have nothing to do with what Meyer demonstrated to me
and thouands of others to in his words. "end all wars over fossil fuels." I
guess those battles will continue.
None of Your Business
writes:
>What makes you think I have the kind of mind that is so enamored of trickery
>that I'd even consider doing such a thing. I suspect that only those who
>have a tendency to want such things would be the ones who would defend such
>things. Just can't admit that you were scammed. So instead you defend it!
Yes I can, but I can no more know that FOR SURE than I can know that I wasn't
being "scammed." And as has been said here before, that if there is even the
slightest chance that Meyer had a newer more efficient process of water
decomposition, it should be followed until it is proven unequivically that it
was not what he described it to be.
>My
>comment remains. You are incredibly stupid.
Right, more gentleman's profanity.
>And I don't gamble on trivial
>matters.
You don't gamble at all. You are gutless.
>I certainly wouldn't accept Jed Checketts nonsensical claims of
>things that couldn't happen, then why would you expect that I would gamble
>on things that you alone would be the arbiter of acceptability. If I faked
>it you would claim that I wasn't doing what Meyer did. If I couldn't fake it
>then you would claim that you were correct all along because he had some
>magic way of doing it that was real science.
Neither of your comments here make a bit of sense as to the substance of any of
the bets I have proffered.
>Putting up money to get
>somebody else to attempt to disprove a negative is nonsense. You can't prove
>a negative.
You are lost again. Meyer demonsrated his work before thaousands of hands on
witnesses.
>However I will call on you to show that Meyer's work can be
>replicated and allow those of us who watch it to sample the gases put out by
>the machine and show that they certainly were not O and H atoms and that the
>energy of the system's output was larger than the system's input.
As I said before. If I had duplicated Meyer's process, this would be the LAST
place I would come to share it or get it verified.
>With the
>correct equipment that is almost trivially easy. That is the one thing that
>Meyer never did, allow disinterested scientists to examine the machinery and
>attempt to do the experiments themselves.
Right, and niether do many other businesses with proprietary technolgy. You
really don't think about what you are saying.
>If that could be done
>successfully then you could earn a lot of money. If is could be proven that
>what you claim is correct. But you can't. All you can do is insist that we
>have to prove it wrong. That isn't how science works. The proposer of
>strange things have to prove it right.
>
>FK
>
Nope, I said duplicate it ANY WAY YOU WANT within the paramenters given and you
won't accept. End of story.
JW
fkasner
make modestly egoistic statements. What have you got dummy? And your
insults to our Constitution which protects your butt in so many ways show
what a despicable creature you are. You don't deserve this wonderful country
(with all its faults it is still wonderful.) Only fools like your self are a
blot on the honor of this country. All that filthy language you employ and
you think that what I say is comparable? What a stupid person you are.
FK
"None of Your Business" h2o...@aol.com wrote in message
news:20010324194947...@nso-md.aol.com...
fkasner
fairly good examples for flames like those from a Bunsen burner of meeker
burner are used are very distinctly yellow. It is the D line - actually two
very close lines - that are distinctly yellow and not orange. Any orange you
see is from something other than sodium. And potassium produces a violet
flame. I know it is tempting to believe that is might be Na but Na won't fit
that description, Don. I too have seen on occasion a brief occurrence of a
YELLOW from a hydrogen flame. But the hydrogen flame is too hot and it
causes any Na to disappear very quickly. Not so in cases where the Na is in
a not too volatile compound. And I've never seen a Na color above the flame.
Any excess H2 or the H2O produced in combustion produces such a rapid
convection that such things are blown away from the flame very quickly in
lab conditions. I don't know what would happen under other conditions.
What further puzzles me is that JW tells us that Meyer had the lights of for
some time. Not just long enough to make the very faint blue flame of the
claimed H2 visible. I'd want the lights on all the time. And JW wants us to
believe that his video camera can take pictures in the dark. He responded
that way when I questioned the in the dark period.
FK
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3ABD40DC...@tinaja.com...
fkasner
language is what you refer to when you claim I use profanity. That shows you
to be a truly great fool in matters of rhetoric as well as in science. God,
you are stupid.
FK
"None of Your Business" h2o...@aol.com wrote in message
news:20010324200937...@nso-md.aol.com...
> In article <99j997$9o2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "fkasner"
<fka...@enteract.com>
> writes:
>
> >Oh yes I read it.
>
> Then why do your comments directly contravene what the article says?
What? You expect me to accept it just because you like it? God, you are
stupid!
FK
>
> >Clearly you didn't bother to attempt to understand if you
> >were reading gospel or opinion.
>
> No, just the comments of first hand TRAINED observers with thousands of
hours
> of looking at the sky that you claim do not know what they saw first hand
with
> their own eyes.
Sure that is what is required to believe the world is flat. Simple
observation so commonly leads to error that even so called trained observer
is merely one who believes that what he sees is what his initial guess is.
The ancient Greeks never were fooled by the apparent flatness of the Earth.
They had lots of ways to show it wasn't. I suspect you couln't even come up
with two of them. And all of them were based on the proper interpretation of
direct observation. So much for trained observers who saw it with their own
eyes. Those trained observers also saw the ablative shield peeling off and
burning without realizing what it was. God, you are stupid!
FK
>
> >You are generally so lacking in critical
> >faculties in science that anything you read would almost certainly be
beyond
> >your ability to rationally criticize.
> >
>
> I can criticize anything. It is easy. Believing is harder.
What you refer to as "criticize" is that dumbness that passes for
intelligence in your activities. In actuality criticism is much more
difficult to do rationally than believing. You believe some wonderful
clearly and obviously non-existant (where are all those concentration
camps?) things as well as conspiracies for which there is only speculation
rather than evidence. Believing something is easy. A well reasoned criticism
is much more difficult. It is clearly beyond you. God, you are stupid!
FK
>
> >I doubt that you are capable of understanding what you read if it even
> >borders on science or technology.
> >
> Well that is just more of your profanity and judgements about something of
> which you know nothing about.
Still trying to justify your use of filthy language by defining language
devoid of the filth you employ as profane! Sorry that just doesn't wash with
anyone save one who is as stupid as you are.
God, you are stupid!
FK
>
> >Clearly your lowest level of disgusting behavior now appears by trying to
> >tar me with the brush of being a holocaust denier. You are a disgusting
scum
> >floating on the cess pool of humanity.
>
> No, I was making a comparison. But because you do not know how to read and
> comprehend you missed it. There are more witnesses to UFOs than there are
to
> the holocast but you will believe in that.
Really! What you mean are there are people who have seen many cases of
atmospheric strangeness that is readily explicable as natural phenomena.
When the "Blue Book" was assembled it was found that almost all the
observations reported were clearly natural phenomena. Very few observations
claimed were without any readily available natural phenomena explanations.
Even all those video pictures and film pictures were mostly the results of
optical phenomena that can produce abberations even at times when nobody in
the vicinity claims to have seen anything unusual. I've seen lots of strange
things that can be explained. A common thing for older people is "floaters"
which are small crystals in the eye's humerous fluid that float around and
make you think you are seeing objects moving rapidly across the sky.
As for those who saw the results of the holocaust not only did millions of
American, British, and Russian soldiers see it. But several hundred thousand
the Germans hadn't gotten around to killing just yet were saved and are
testaments to what happened in the death camps.
God, you are stupid!
FK
>
> >The infantry group I was scheduled to accompany to Europe was one of the
> >first to see the horrors of the death camps. I never accompanied them
> >because I came down with a case of malaria before I was to go and missed
the
> >shipment. After that I was sent instead to go to Army Specialized
Training
> >Program to study electrical engineering. After that was offered the
> >opportunity to go to OCS to be a intelligence officer. Stayed instead
with
> >my buddies in a signal corps outfit that was scheduled to go to the
Pacific
> >after our training was completed. War ended before we finished.
>
>
> And this has what to do with anything besides you tooting your own horn?
I was in contact with old friends who saw the camps, the ovens, the gas
chambers, spoke to the survivors, etc. as they came upon them during the
last days of the war in Europe. The remainder of that information above was
intended to refute any questions you might raise as to why I was able to
talk so confidently about that subject. Without doubt you would have argued
that I could not speak confidently because I didn't see it myself.
God, you are stupid!
FK
>
> >As for the
> >holocaust one of my maternal grandmother's brother got out of Germany in
the
> >late '30's with information about the terrible things being done there.
> >After the war it appears that of our large extended family ranging from
> >France to Germany to Austria, to Poland, to Russia none had survived. You
> >filthy pig, I wouldn't have traded the worst of them for your useless
hide.
> >
> >FK
>
> Well it just goes to show you what you know about me or my family. But I'm
not
> going to use it to try to get crediblity with pity. Besides, your constant
> attacks on my character have nothing to do with what Meyer demonstrated to
me
> and thouands of others to in his words. "end all wars over fossil fuels."
I
> guess those battles will continue.
> JW
I will merely assume that you are by far the worst of your family by far.
You really can't usually find a whole family who is as stupid as you are.
And now you are trying to present Meyer as some kind of noble individual? He
scammed you and you want to nominate him as a saint? God, you are stupid!
FK
fkasner
> In article <99j9tu$cdu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "fkasner"
<fka...@enteract.com>
> writes:
>
> >What makes you think I have the kind of mind that is so enamored of
trickery
> >that I'd even consider doing such a thing. I suspect that only those who
> >have a tendency to want such things would be the ones who would defend
such
> >things. Just can't admit that you were scammed. So instead you defend it!
>
> Yes I can, but I can no more know that FOR SURE than I can know that I
wasn't
> being "scammed." And as has been said here before, that if there is even
the
> slightest chance that Meyer had a newer more efficient process of water
> decomposition, it should be followed until it is proven unequivically that
it
> was not what he described it to be.
>
> >My
> >comment remains. You are incredibly stupid.
>
> Right, more gentleman's profanity.
Profanity is the use in your case of filthy expressions. You can call what I
write as profanity but only you would be the one to so define it. Further
proof of your stupidity. You alone define rhetoric totally free of the
gutter language you employ as profanity. You make as much sense as the Queen
of Hearts who defines a word to be whatever she so wishes it to mean.
God, you are stupid!
FK
> >And I don't gamble on trivial
> >matters.
>
> You don't gamble at all. You are gutless.
Has little to do with guts. However your dodging the draft to avoid VN and
let others serve in your place - that is gutless! It doesn't take any guts
to dispose of money while you have a sufficient supply of it. However I
intend to leave something of value for my daughter and grandson in order to
protect them from a wold where there are people as stupid as you messing up
things.
God, you are stupid.
FK
>
> >I certainly wouldn't accept Jed Checketts nonsensical claims of
> >things that couldn't happen, then why would you expect that I would
gamble
> >on things that you alone would be the arbiter of acceptability. If I
faked
> >it you would claim that I wasn't doing what Meyer did. If I couldn't fake
it
> >then you would claim that you were correct all along because he had some
> >magic way of doing it that was real science.
>
> Neither of your comments here make a bit of sense as to the substance of
any of
> the bets I have proffered.
You and Jed only offer bets because you are aware that I don't bet about
things except for amusement. And do not dignify trivial nonsensical matters
with any significant bets. I've better things to do with my money. There are
several charities I support that I could be more generous with at this time.
FK
>
> >Putting up money to get
> >somebody else to attempt to disprove a negative is nonsense. You can't
prove
> >a negative.
>
> You are lost again. Meyer demonsrated his work before thaousands of hands
on
> witnesses.
That's about as convincing as all those observers of UFO's. And Meyer never
let a serious scientist with proper equipment examine in detail his
apparatus. So much for observers. And what about that turning off the lights
after a quick demo of the burning flame? Typical con man effort.
FK
>
> >However I will call on you to show that Meyer's work can be
> >replicated and allow those of us who watch it to sample the gases put out
by
> >the machine and show that they certainly were not O and H atoms and that
the
> >energy of the system's output was larger than the system's input.
>
> As I said before. If I had duplicated Meyer's process, this would be the
LAST
> place I would come to share it or get it verified.
Surprise, surprise! But you without anything resemebling proof continue to
flay that dead horse here while always insist that real proof would never be
displayed here. In other words you will defend that nonsense but will not
present anything resembling proof. And you expect to be taken seriously
here? A fine way of having to present any proof at all but still claim the
validity of that scam.
FK
>
> >With the
> >correct equipment that is almost trivially easy. That is the one thing
that
> >Meyer never did, allow disinterested scientists to examine the machinery
and
> >attempt to do the experiments themselves.
>
> Right, and niether do many other businesses with proprietary technolgy.
You
> really don't think about what you are saying.
I most certainly know what I am saying. What he claimed or at least what you
say he claimed would be so revolutionary that that saintly guy would have
been the hero of the ages for mankind if he just let other people prove it.
He would become rich beyond all possible measure even it others attempted to
steal his wonderful idea. And doesn't that sound as if her wasn't sincere
about using it to prevent war over petroleum resources?
God, you are stupid!
FK
>
> >If that could be done
> >successfully then you could earn a lot of money. If is could be proven
that
> >what you claim is correct. But you can't. All you can do is insist that
we
> >have to prove it wrong. That isn't how science works. The proposer of
> >strange things have to prove it right.
> >
> >FK
> >
> Nope, I said duplicate it ANY WAY YOU WANT within the paramenters given
and you
> won't accept. End of story.
> JW
I just say it can't be done. It is a scam. You can't use water to create
that fuel which Meyer claimed he was using to run an automobile. It is more
than likely that he may have been getting that bubbling gas from calcium
carbide reacting with water to produce acetylene. And the vehicle was
probably running on acetylene rather than hydrogen or Brown's Gas or
whatever. But you just continue to believe that it ran the way Meyer claimed
it ran. It has not been commercialized because it won't work. It's a scam.
And you fell for it.
None of Your Business
writes:
>The flame that is produced when sodium in a volatile compound (chlorides are
>fairly good examples for flames like those from a Bunsen burner of meeker
>burner are used are very distinctly yellow. It is the D line - actually two
>very close lines - that are distinctly yellow and not orange. Any orange you
>see is from something other than sodium. And potassium produces a violet
>flame. I know it is tempting to believe that is might be Na but Na won't fit
>that description, Don. I too have seen on occasion a brief occurrence of a
>YELLOW from a hydrogen flame. But the hydrogen flame is too hot and it
>causes any Na to disappear very quickly. Not so in cases where the Na is in
>a not too volatile compound. And I've never seen a Na color above the flame.
>Any excess H2 or the H2O produced in combustion produces such a rapid
>convection that such things are blown away from the flame very quickly in
>lab conditions. I don't know what would happen under other conditions.
>
>What further puzzles me is that JW tells us that Meyer had the lights of for
>some time.
He moved the cell around the room to the floor while in operation. He had to
turn out the lights to even see if he had a flame lit because as you say a
hydrogen flame is NEARLY INVISIBLE UNDER NORMAL LIGHTING.
>Not just long enough to make the very faint blue flame of the
>claimed H2 visible.
Who said this? you attributing to me things I NEVER said again.
>I'd want the lights on all the time.
They were on plenty. They were off so we could see they flame and the steel we
were burning. He moved the cell, killed some lights, lit the cell, burned
steel, turned on the lights. Got it?
>And JW wants us to
>believe that his video camera can take pictures in the dark.
There was other ambient light from the other room. And there may have been a
small florecent bench light on too. I'd have to look at my film again to be
sure. It was not pitch black Fred. You make more assumptions than anyone I
ever met for such a "scientist." There was plenty of light especially from all
the sparks coming from the melting steel we were burning for my camera. If you
knew anything about video cameras you would know that many of them work very
well in low light conditions.
>He responded
>that way when I questioned the in the dark period.
^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>FK
Just what is "that way" Fred?
None of Your Business
writes:
>At least I have something resembling knowledge in the sciences - enough to
>make modestly egoistic statements. What have you got dummy? And your
>insults to our Constitution which protects your butt in so many ways show
>what a despicable creature you are. You don't deserve this wonderful country
>(with all its faults it is still wonderful.) Only fools like your self are a
>blot on the honor of this country. All that filthy language you employ and
>you think that what I say is comparable? What a stupid person you are.
>
>FK
Ploink.
JW
>
>"None of Your Business" h2o...@aol.com wrote in message
>news:20010324194947...@nso-md.aol.com...
>> In article <99j7k2$200$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "fkasner"
><fka...@enteract.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> >It is not necessary to discredit you with foul language (your attempts to
>> >equate words like dummy and stupid with the gutter language you employ is
>> >risible in the extreme.)
>>
>> Doesn't change the facts that it is in self defense of what you started.
>If you
>> are going to call names expect anything in return.
>>
<SNIP>
WV
Shove the dictionary up your ass, and go get some work done.news:99j8iu$6kn$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
None of Your Business
writes:
>Yet more nonsense on the part of the Junior Dummy. I suppose this kind of
>language is what you refer to when you claim I use profanity. That shows you
>to be a truly great fool in matters of rhetoric as well as in science. God,
>you are stupid.
>
>FK
Ploink.
JW
>
>"None of Your Business" h2o...@aol.com wrote in message
>news:20010324200937...@nso-md.aol.com...
>> In article <99j997$9o2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "fkasner"
><fka...@enteract.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> >Oh yes I read it.
>>
>> Then why do your comments directly contravene what the article says?
>
>What? You expect me to accept it just because you like it? God, you are
>stupid!
>FK
>
>>
>> >Clearly you didn't bother to attempt to understand if you
>> >were reading gospel or opinion.
>>
>> No, just the comments of first hand TRAINED observers with thousands of
>hours
>> of looking at the sky that you claim do not know what they saw first hand
>with
>> their own eyes.
>
<snip>
None of Your Business
writes:
>Subject: Re: Hydrogen Electrolosis from water
>From: "fkasner" <fka...@enteract.com>
>Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 01:23:31 -0600
>
>
Ploink.
JW
fkasner
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010325043530...@nso-md.aol.com...
fkasner
the demo. Now suddenly you are upset because I make reference to things that
you didn't describe but clearly implied. Why should I assume that when you
say the lights were off that it wasn't all of them. And you are now upset
because what you didn't claim before you now claim is otherwise. You never
said some of the lights were off. You just said they were off. I took that
to mean all of them save maybe just a small light so Stan wouldn't dump
that device in your lap and burn you with all that calcium hydroxide that
was producing acetylene (ooops, I can't assume that can I since you are the
absolute arbiter of truth and omnipotent observation and you have never
admitted to any such stuff around there. That white frothing of the water in
the cell while the gas was being produced, ...) yeah we know JW, the
omnipotent observer who can't be fooled.
Why is it that you apparently want me to believe things you never clearly
express but get excited that you never wrote them but respond about them
after saying nothing about them initially. In other words I must accept
silently whatever you say. Then I must accept silently what you amend after
I find fault with the omissions? In other words your real response to my
skepticism is "Damn it! Shut up and just believe!"?
If you want unquestioning compliance with your limited claims then take them
elsewhere. We are skeptics here as is appropriate for scientists and
engineers. And we are especially skeptical about new "facts" added to the
argument after every skeptical comment about the claims you make.
Waiting for the deluge of gutter language response ...
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010325042243...@nso-md.aol.com...
fkasner
commitment to scholarship. What an ass!
FK
One of the hops in the trip here was AOL. Do we dare to assume ... ?
FK
"WV" <Dia...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:pZiv6.832$op4....@nnrp1.sbc.net...
fkasner
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010325043843...@nso-md.aol.com...
fkasner
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010325043656...@nso-md.aol.com...
WV
insults. Im a very busy man unlike yourself (judging from the amount of your
useless posts), but if you prefur, I can continue to tell you what a
pathetic wind bag you are in private via e-mail.news:99m4ch$k7i$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
None of Your Business
None of Your Business
walter...@hotmail.com (Walter Curnow) writes:
>Subject: Re: Orange Color of Hydrogen gas flame [Was:Hydrogen
Electrolosis
>from water
>From: walter...@hotmail.com (Walter Curnow)
>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 03:26:12 GMT
>
>On 22 Mar 2001 02:56:48 GMT, h2o...@aol.comic (None of Your Business)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <20010321213733...@ng-mc1.aol.com>, hion...@aol.com
>>(Hion solar) writes:
>
>>>When we burn hydrogen in our Hydro-que [TM] table top gas cooking grill, at
>>>night the flame has orange high-lights. You can see point-flashes of light
>>>from dust particles in the combustion air.
>>>
>>> In daylight it is difficult to see the hydrogen flames on the burner
>ports,
>>>unless a lot of gas is flowing and the flames are very large.
>>>
>>>Since the hydrogen gas we use is made from caustic water electrolyte by
>>>PV-electrolysis, it contains both water vapor and perhaps traces of KOH
>that
>>>could be the source of the orange color that we observe. Drying the
>hydrogen
>>>before using it in the Hydro-que would eliminate water as a contaminant,
>and
>>>then the KOH would be suspect, or perhaps the burner stainless steel
>itself?
>>>
>>>The orange color of the flame is real in our application.
>
>>Thank you Walt. Your expertise and comments are greatly appreciated.
>
>If Walt's orange color comes from KOH, where did the orange color come
>from in Meyer's flame? (dust particles glowing look different from an
>orange tinge)
I wasn't orange "color" it was orange flecks if that. It was not visible in the
light.
>Wasn't Meyer supposedly using pure water?
No, he used tap water, "natural" water, as he called it. No electrolyte. In the
video session, a witness, and later investor who later claimed to have lost
$250,000, with some science background retrieved the water from the tap. Two
and a half gallons or so. I had my camera on the empty cell for many minutes
before it was filled with the water by Meyer's assistant as my camera rolled.
My video is about 30 minutes long. I spent two days in Meyer's lab more than
once.
>
>By the way, Walt, I know that you deal in real hydrogen science.
>Thanks for your input here. It's sad that people like JW can't tell
>the difference between what you do and what that fraud Stanley Meyer
>did
I showed my video in a number of electronics, science, and physics classes and
not one Professor ever questioned the quality of the observations. They were
convinced enough to allow it's showing to classes in the first place. Students
would come out of their chairs when they saw the amount of gas INSTANTAINIOUSLY
eminating from the "Voltage zones" of the cell.
There were many more expert people than I at:
ftp://colossus2.cvl.bcm.tmc.edu/pub/free_energy/meyer/meyer.txt
that were as qualified as any here to question Meyers demonstration that had no
question or doubt that Meyer's cell produced hydrogen and oxygen from plain
water because of what they say and did as well. At least three people who were
not unfamiliar with scientific investigation make NO MENTION OF DOUBT that the
flame coming from Meyer's cell was not such gasses. I admit they did not mass
spec the gases but I bet Meyer did. I bet the Patent office did too when Meyer
was issued his process patent for a "new and unique' method of water
decomposition under Sec 101 of the PTC/PTA.
fkasner
See the sharply reasoned response below.
FK
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:20010325223220...@nso-ch.aol.com...
Michael Hannon
>
> What a charming person! What a paradigm of scientific objectivity and
> commitment to scholarship. What an ass!
More personally aberrant behavior from you, Fred?
I find it difficult to believe that someone who claims to be so willing
to "educate" anyone who wishes his "help" finds so little time to do
what he claims he is offering that one has to spend hours in deja news
to find ANY indication that he has made any attempt at all to to it,
but spends basically ALL his time fabricating one disgraceful misuse
of the usenet after another to promote himself as a "trusted expert,"
while in fact spreading a layer of disinformation over every topic he
can in an unending 24 hour a day personal campaign of the most heinous
and aberrant abuse of science solely for the discrediting and defamation
of people and topics he has dedicated himself to disallow any competent
discussion of, while exercising every know tactic of disinformation
and discrediting in order to do so.
How dare you, sir, conduct yourself in such a fashion and then claim
your
goal to be the benefit of a Science which is the product of centuries of
self-sacrifice by people who dedicated their lives to concepts of open,
non vitriolic discussion, and the impersonal quest for the truth that
has
freed us from the chains of ignorance fostered over the centuries by
people
in power who have practiced the same despicable tactics you now employ
in
order to enslave others in ignorance.
Respect and regards,
Michael
Michael Hannon
by fabricated characterization of someone else here :
Fred Kasner wrote:
>You missed the attribution of the claims I was protesting. It was JW who
>is the big conspiracy fool. But he firmly believes all the Meyer claims
>which are patently conspiratorial.
FK
<christophe...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3abcec1f...@news.btinternet.com...
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:54:12 -0600, "fkasner" <fka...@enteract.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You really think that a scammer with any brains is going to use a person
> >well known to be in his employ to be the "plant"? For somebody who really
> >believes that there are all sorts of terrible conspiratorial scams in
> >abundance that doesn't speak very well for any consistency on your part.
> >Why would you believe all those conspiracy ideas but swear on the honesty
of
> >Meyer? Something wrong there wouldn't you say?
>
> Who said "I" belive in conspiracy scams?
>
> All I said was the device demonstration was most impressive.
>
>
> Christopher
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> "Corruptissima republicae,
> plurimae leges"
> > Tacitus
fkasner
"Michael Hannon" <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ACE01B0...@earthlink.net...
> fkasner wrote:
> >
> > What a charming person! What a paradigm of scientific objectivity and
> > commitment to scholarship. What an ass!
>
> More personally aberrant behavior from you, Fred?
>
blah, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum from MH.
FK
fkasner
reversibility what you can't demonstrate or prove directly. What a terrible
come down for you. At one time you attempted to prove your points with
faulty science and pure assertion. Now you just attack the critics for being
not only bad scientists but say they are naughty boys as well. Very funny.
But totally ineffective.
FK
"Michael Hannon" <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ACECCD3...@earthlink.net...
> More of the now classic Kasner excusive whitewashing of his conduct
> by fabricated characterization of someone else here :
>
> Fred Kasner wrote:
>
> >You missed the attribution of the claims I was protesting. It was JW who
> >is the big conspiracy fool. But he firmly believes all the Meyer claims
> >which are patently conspiratorial.
>
> FK
>
... snip ...