Stanley Meyer water fuel cell
Marin
I'm considering setting up an email discussion list for people who
want to cooperate in developing the water fuel cell. I have been very
interested in Stanley Meyer's device since I saw a TV documentary
about it about 7-8 years ago and am currently starting to try to
replicate it myself. I imagine that some people may decide to try to
make some money by producing units for people, but the main aim of the
list is to create exact construction and tuning details and distribute
it for free on the net. Assuming the device really does work, I'm
interested in creating a serious information pack for DIY people and
those with basic electronics skills to build it and use it how they
like - preferably the info pack should be as close to a no-brainer as
is possible. The people who are repressing this technology will find
it very hard to repress masses of people from building it in their own
homes. Essentially we want to liberate the technology.
The need for such a discussion list was conceived due to the fact the
serious supporters of this technology can't use newsgroups because
they get pounced upon by skeptics etc. The list would be heavily
moderated and would hopefully provide a safe area in which to exchange
ideas and help each other from a technical point of view, and would no
doubt contain a mixture of experts and amateurs.
I want to figure out if there would be much demand for this list as
what I have in mind would require some money out of my own pocket. I
imagine there might only be say about 20 subscribers, although the
more the better. Would you be interested in such a group? Do you think
it's a good idea? If you would be interested in joining such a list
then please contact me, preferably by email.
Skeptics need not reply to this posting. Please express your opinions
in other newsgroup threads, thank you.
Sincerely,
Marin
Michael Davis
> All,
>
> I'm considering setting up an email discussion list for people who
> want to cooperate in developing the water fuel cell. I have been very
> interested in Stanley Meyer's device since I saw a TV documentary
> about it about 7-8 years ago and am currently starting to try to
> replicate it myself. I imagine that some people may decide to try to
> make some money by producing units for people, but the main aim of the
> list is to create exact construction and tuning details and distribute
> it for free on the net. Assuming the device really does work, I'm
> interested in creating a serious information pack for DIY people and
> those with basic electronics skills to build it and use it how they
> like - preferably the info pack should be as close to a no-brainer as
> is possible. The people who are repressing this technology will find
> it very hard to repress masses of people from building it in their own
> homes. Essentially we want to liberate the technology.
The only thing repressing this "technology" is the fact that it doesn't
work.
> The need for such a discussion list was conceived due to the fact the
> serious supporters of this technology can't use newsgroups because
> they get pounced upon by skeptics etc. The list would be heavily
> moderated and would hopefully provide a safe area in which to exchange
> ideas and help each other from a technical point of view,
True believers only then is it? Rational thinkers need not apply? You
know, things that are real can stand up to a little healthy skepticism.
Only fictional bunk needs a skepticism free environment to thrive.
> and would no
> doubt contain a mixture of experts and amateurs.
>
> I want to figure out if there would be much demand for this list as
> what I have in mind would require some money out of my own pocket.
Even from the grave, Meyer continues to separate the gullible from their
money.
> I
> imagine there might only be say about 20 subscribers, although the
> more the better. Would you be interested in such a group? Do you think
> it's a good idea? If you would be interested in joining such a list
> then please contact me, preferably by email.
>
> Skeptics need not reply to this posting. Please express your opinions
> in other newsgroup threads, thank you.
Request denied. Once you have your little dictatorship set up on your
kooky Meyer mailing list you'll be able to dictate who posts or doesn't
post on it. But this is an open forum and you are nobody. So screw you,
kook.
--
The Evil Michael Davisâ„¢
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club
"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably
not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." - H. L. Mencken
Don Widders
illumination of scientific review/criticism?
You're right, the 'WFC' cult is better off in it's own underground
newsgroup.
Don Widders
"Marin" <dol...@psydolphin.net> wrote in message
news:ee1d9799.02040...@posting.google.com...
Tim Perdue
combust. To make it combust you have to split the hydrogen out, which takes
more energy than you get when you combust it again.
This is a dead end, only interesting to braindead suckers.
Tim
"Marin" <dol...@psydolphin.net> wrote in message
news:ee1d9799.02040...@posting.google.com...
ken...@shangrila.net
Marin wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm considering setting up an email discussion list for people who
> want to cooperate in developing the water fuel cell. I have been very
This should be encouraged. Anything that syphons off the cranks should be
encouraged.
Don Lancaster
If you wish to perform a genuinely useful service here, make the court
transcripts available via a web site.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Don Lancaster
>
> Water doesn't
> combust. To make it combust you have to split the hydrogen out, which takes
> more energy than you get when you combust it again.
>
> This is a dead end, only interesting to braindead suckers.
>
> Tim
> > Marin
Even more fundamentally, the quality of the energy degrades
significantly during splitting.
From thermodynamic fundamentals, a kilowatt hour of electricity is
INHERENTLY worth a lot more than a kilowatt hour of hydrogen.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
Harry Conover
> Skeptics need not reply to this posting. Please express your opinions
> in other newsgroup threads, thank you.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Marin
Sorry Marin, but when you post a pseduo-science thread to a sci
hierarchy newsgroup you implicitly invite criticism based on real
scientific knowledge.
In this case, Stan Meyer's "Water Fuel Cell" has already been soundly
debunked as being a fraud based a pseudo-scientific, nonsense concept.
Given the fact that no one has yet made a WFC work, science
demonstrates why it cannot work, and its promoter has been proven to
be the perpetrator of a fraud, it's difficult to imagine anyone not
incredibly ignorant continuing to whip this old, dead horse!
In the future, if you don't wish to read informed scientific opionion,
don't post in a sci hierarchy newsgroup! It's as simple as that.
Harry C.
Marin
Of course! How silly of me, I forgot. The same as I forgot that
enzymes can't reduce the amount of energy required to perform a
reaction.
> Water doesn't combust.
Wow, you don't say? Maybe that's why they use it to put out fires?
> To make it combust you have to split the hydrogen out,
You know, I reckon you've actually been reading up on this stuff and
cottoned onto the idea behind it.
> which takes more energy than you get when you combust it again.
I'd love to see you prove that categorically, especially when our
models of the universe are incomplete.
Don Lancaster
>
>
> > which takes more energy than you get when you combust it again.
>
> I'd love to see you prove that categorically, especially when our
> models of the universe are incomplete.
The "proof" lies in not one exception to normal sized thermodynamics
~ever~ having been convincingly shown. Nor so much as a possible
mechanism for such an exception.
And to the centralmost role thermodynamics plays in virtually all
science and engineering.
It is a matter of probabilities.
No sane scientist or engineer would fight the house odds.
The Technical Manager
> dol...@psydolphin.net (Marin) wrote in message news:<ee1d9799.02040...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Skeptics need not reply to this posting. Please express your opinions
> > in other newsgroup threads, thank you.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Marin
>
> Sorry Marin, but when you post a pseduo-science thread to a sci
> hierarchy newsgroup you implicitly invite criticism based on real
> scientific knowledge.
>
> In this case, Stan Meyer's "Water Fuel Cell" has already been soundly
> debunked as being a fraud based a pseudo-scientific, nonsense concept.
> Given the fact that no one has yet made a WFC work,
When you say work what exactly do you mean ? I have built a Meyer WFC and it successfully splits water into
hydrogen and oxygen. Thats all. It is NOT an overunity device and there is no reason for it to be. Faradays
law of electrolysis still applies. The water is electrolysed by an electric current traversing it and not by
voltage alone.
John
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>Harry Conover wrote:
>> In this case, Stan Meyer's "Water Fuel Cell" has already been soundly
>> debunked as being a fraud based a pseudo-scientific, nonsense concept.
>> Given the fact that no one has yet made a WFC work,
>
>When you say work what exactly do you mean ? I have built a Meyer WFC and it successfully splits water into
>hydrogen and oxygen. Thats all. It is NOT an overunity device and there is no reason for it to be. Faradays
>law of electrolysis still applies. The water is electrolysed by an electric current traversing it and not by
>voltage alone.
Meyer claimed to be able to fuel a car with nothing but water. That
directly requires the water fuel cell to operate as a overunity
device.
Thank you for confirming that Meyer was a fraud.
Don Lancaster
The ridiculous technical mistakes in the Meyer system (obviously gross
impedance mismatch, incorrect electrode choice, wildly wrong waveforms)
would seem to guarantee that the efficiency was only the tiniest
fraction of normal industrial practice.
Harry Conover
> Harry Conover wrote:
>
> > dol...@psydolphin.net (Marin) wrote in message news:<ee1d9799.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Skeptics need not reply to this posting. Please express your opinions
> > > in other newsgroup threads, thank you.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Marin
> >
> > Sorry Marin, but when you post a pseduo-science thread to a sci
> > hierarchy newsgroup you implicitly invite criticism based on real
> > scientific knowledge.
> >
> > In this case, Stan Meyer's "Water Fuel Cell" has already been soundly
> > debunked as being a fraud based a pseudo-scientific, nonsense concept.
> > Given the fact that no one has yet made a WFC work,
>
> When you say work what exactly do you mean ? I have built a Meyer WFC and it successfully splits water into
> hydrogen and oxygen. Thats all. It is NOT an overunity device and there is no reason for it to be. Faradays
> law of electrolysis still applies. The water is electrolysed by an electric current traversing it and not by
> voltage alone.
>
You're of course pulling our collective legs! ;-)
Meyer's WFC was picthed entirely on implicit and explicit claims of
over-unity performance, otherwise no one would have had any reason to
invest in it. In fact, its failure to measure up to these claims seem
precisely what led to his fraud charges against Meyer, when his device
was revealed to be doing nothing more than perform ordinary
electrolysis (and evidently not even that efficiently, judging from
his WFC design depicted in his patent).
Then too, if you were suckered into building one of his devices, shame
on you! That makes as much sense as having someone tell you that if
you take enough Vitamin C you can breath underwater, then actually
trying to do so yourself. Education conveys familiarity with at least
some of the knowledge that man (civilization) has accumulated, hence
helps most of us avoid repeating the foolish mistakes of those who
lived before us, to use what they learned as our information
foundation, and to build upon that foundation.
It is such a terrible waste of human endeavor to expend any effort
whatsoever on replicating the unfounded claims of fools, lunatics, and
confidence artists.
At least that's how it appears to me.
Harry C.
None of Your Business
writes:
>Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer water fuel cell
>From: Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
>Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:28:44 -0700
>
>John wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:01:46 +0100, The Technical Manager
>> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Harry Conover wrote:
>>
>> >> In this case, Stan Meyer's "Water Fuel Cell" has already been soundly
>> >> debunked as being a fraud based a pseudo-scientific, nonsense concept.
>> >> Given the fact that no one has yet made a WFC work,
>> >
>> >When you say work what exactly do you mean ? I have built a Meyer WFC and
>it successfully splits water into
>> >hydrogen and oxygen. Thats all. It is NOT an overunity device and there is
>no reason for it to be. Faradays
>> >law of electrolysis still applies. The water is electrolysed by an
>electric current traversing it and not by
>> >voltage alone.
>>
>> Meyer claimed to be able to fuel a car with nothing but water. That
>> directly requires the water fuel cell to operate as a overunity
>> device.
>>
>> Thank you for confirming that Meyer was a fraud.
>
>
>The ridiculous technical mistakes in the Meyer system (obviously gross
>impedance mismatch, incorrect electrode choice, wildly wrong waveforms)
>would seem to guarantee that the efficiency was only the tiniest
>fraction of normal industrial practice.
Another classic exchange showing the BS "science" peddled here regarding
Meyer's circuit.
Regards,
JW
From: Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Meyer cell experiment comments (Was: Re: combustion of hydrogen?)
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
View: Complete Thread (22 articles) | Original Format
Date: 1997/09/15
Bill Ward wrote:
> > Michael Hannon <oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > I looked over the schematic at the site and have a few comments:
>
> >From:
> > http://www.iinet.net.au/~steveb/danforth/dan1.html > >"In the original
setup that Stan Meyer showed us, he used 36 volts as
> >the basic potential applied to the reaction chamber. He also commented
> >that stainless steel ( 410 not 403 ) was the only metal that could be
> >used as oxides formed with all others. His original chamber used 18 inch
> >long by 0.375 inch diameter (o.d.) rod surrounded by 1 inch diameter
> >(i.d.) 16 inch long pipe.
> >The reason for the difference in length is for mechanical ease of
> >construction. My prototype used 14 inch long rod and 12 inch long pipe
> >of similar diameters as the drawing indicates.
> >Having a severe lack of parts diversity here in Sri-Lanka, I was only
> >able to obtain a 24 volt. 8 amp transformer and built my circuitry
> >around that. The final output is 20 volts with Ml reading 10 amps to the
> >pulsing circuit which generates a symetricel squarewave ( 50% duty cycle
> > The 10 amps also flows through the cell, electrolysing the water.
>
PURE BULLSHIT, Mr. Ward, and you know it. The 10 amps at 24 volts (240
watts) is sent to the primary of the high-voltage circuit, where it is
converted to high-voltage, very low amperage as described in the next
section below, at 50% duty cycle, where only HALF of the original
10amps at 24v input ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (120Watts) is actually used.
There is no TV flyback transformer I know of that will hand 10 amps at
its high-voltage output.
As an engineer, for you to make such spurious emmissions is beyond
belief, and shows an open intent to obfuscate and deny actual honest
results, and you know it.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> >) to the flyback inductor connected in series with the chamber as the
> >schematic shows. The flyback high voltage spike is directed across
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >chamber via c* end d*. The use of a high voltage spike alone, without
> >the current being delivered through the liquid, will not cause the
> >disassociation to take place.
> > That's in accordance with known principles of electrolysis. No current,
> no gas.
More crap from someone who is supposed to be an engineer.
The output of a flyback tramnsformer IS and has ALWAYS BEEN high volts
and milliamps of current. ANYONE who has seen the ouput coil on a
flyback transformer can clearly see very thin conductors, capable of
only very small amperages, and anyone who knows the use of flybacks in
TV's knows that they produce thousands of volts at very low amperage
levels.
More lying and bad engineering (let alone science) conduct from you, Mr.
Ward.
This circuit is ANYTHING BUT a standard electrolysis circuit, and you
know it.
>
> >This I verified using an ignition coil in
> >place of the inductor and applied the secondary with halfwave
> >rectification and blocking capacitor to prevent burn out to the chamber
> >with no results. Apparently the current in the water aligns the
> >molecules approprately to allow the high voltege spike to do its work
> >which in my opinion is the stimu- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >lation of molecular resonance.
> > Or simply electrolyses it.
PURE BALONEY, and you know it.
>
> >Once
> >Stan's unit was made to begin breakdown (which takes 6 to 8 seconds) he
> >was able to reduce both current and voltage to miniscule proportions. I
> >attribute this to sympathetic oscillation of the aligned molecules,
> >requiring very little in the way of additional excitation. A phenomena
> >akin to Tesla's super resonance... resulting in Stan discovering that he
> >only had to supply three pulses in ten to satisfy the requirement of the
> >chamber. I have not yet had the opportunity to duplicate this portion of
> >the experiment but, in time I will.
> > Note the experimenter did not duplicate Meyer's claims. Current was
> necessary to produce gas, consistent with ordinary electrolysis.
More lies. Current is always required in the primary of this type of
high-voltage circuit, but the OUTPUT END of the circuit, which is what
is feeding power to the cell, is a flyback transformer, outputting
thousands of volts, totally incapable of handling anything but a few
milliamps of current without burning up instantly.
This is very interesting, Mr. Ward, because you are obviously, to ANYONE
WITH A MODICUM OF KNOWLEDGE, lying your pants off, and showing everyone
here your intentions of "denial at all cost" of what is going on.
You have shown us all your colors, Mr. Ward.
>
> >Duplication of the device described in these pages, however, will
> >produce the phenomena and hopefully launch other enterprising end
> >inventive souls on to designing their own refined models. It would be
> >nice to have feedback so that we can all collectively work to bring
> >about the transition to non-pollution energy.
> >P.S.- The electrical circuit is by no means optimised, but represents
> >instead the result of parts availability here. Any good technician could
> >improve on it quite readily.
> >There are two primary frequencies that produce the best results. They
> >are 143,762 Hz and 43430 Hz. The former is about 50% more efficient, but
> >it seems that just about any frequency between 9 KHz and 143762 KHz
> >works quite well). This is because the nature of the wave form (a spike
> >) is rich in harmonics and one of them is bound to be close to one of
> >the two primary frequencies.
> > Or that the frequency actually has very little, if any, influence on gas
> production compared to the current. The frequencies look suspiciously
> like resonances of the coil with itself and the capacitor (L and C# in
> the schematic).
MOre fabricative crapola, MR. Ward, and you know it as well.
"any frequency between 9 KHz and 143762 KHz works quite well). This is
because the nature of the wave form of a spike is rich in harmonics"
is hardly what you would call a description denying the relevance of
frequency in the process.
>
> >Use of permanent magnets may also increase efficiency.
> > How and why?
Gee, I don't know, Mr. Ward (actually I do), but YOU'RE the ENGINEER -
why would magnets help?
>
> >I'll give you the
> >outcome of that attempt in my next letter along with the plans for what
> >I hope to be a much improved version.
> > And where is that report?
I don't know. Mr. Ward.
Where is your report on your testing of ANYTHING?
After reading your comments here,
where is proof that you have ever read,
or have ANY working knowledge of,
any electronics material on flyback transformers,
or high-voltage circuits?
>
> >Note: Sub-harmonics of the two primary frequencies at which dissociation
> >will occur:
> >43430 Hz 143,762 HZ
> >SUBHARMONIC SUBHABMONIC
> >1st 21715 HZ 1st 71881 HZ
> >2nd 14476.67 HZ 2nd 47920.67 HZ
> >3rd 15517.5 HZ 3rd 35840.1 HZ
> >4th 8686 Hz 4th 28752.4 HZ
> >*1500 VOLTS IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR MOLECULAR RINGING TO BEGIN.
> > <snip>
> > The experiment provides absolutely no evidence for anything other than
> ordinary electrolysis taking place in the cell.
ABSOLUTE, PURE CACA, Mr. Ward,
and anyone who understands what he wrote,
and flyback circuitry knows this.
This is ANYTHING BUT a low-voltage,
high current output circuit feeding the test cell -
it is, without question,
a flyback circuit,
totally incapable of such output,
and capable of high-voltage at milliamps of current,
which is EXACTLY what this person witnessed
in a totally non-electrolytic separation of water.
Electrolysis uses low voltage and high current, and an electrolyte,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
none of which were present in the cell producing the gases.
Regards,
OHannon
<end>
"If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free,
it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."
-- Thomas Jefferson --
"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
None of Your Business
(Harry Conover) writes:
From: Michael Hannon (oh2...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Name calling vs. science
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
View: Complete Thread (22 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-04-06 01:37:22 PST
Fascinating collection of speculative presumption and character
assassination.
Mr. Conover has spent a good amount of time mixing fact and fiction
here, and he should be darkly lauded for the dexterity with which he has
combined the two.
Harry H Conover wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> > First of all, let me qualify the following as being my honest opinion
> regarding Stan Meyer and his rather remarkable claims.
> > Before starting, let me offer a definition. Patter: A magician's
> term for the fabricated tale or the words he uses to accompany
> a trick for the purpose of enhancing its effect or entertainment
> value.
Yes, of course - begin your dissertation on patter
by using your own patter in order to "set the stage" for the
story of character assassination you plan by describing
the same method you are using, and blaming Stan Meyer for doing it.
Wonderful technique, Mr. Conover.
> > Stan Meyer claimed to have invented what he termed a "Water Fuel
> Cell" (WFC) that functioned by producing energy using ordinary
> water as its fuel source. He also claimed to have a truck that
> he operated using the WFC as its only energy source.
Uh - not exactly.
The WFC separated water into hydrogen and oxygen,
which was then sparked by the ignition and spark plug.
> > His apparatus consisted of (based on his patent drawings) what appears
> to be an electrolysis cell consisting of two concentric metal cylinders
> immersed in a liquid claimed to be pure water. Meyer claimed that this
> was not a conventional electrolysis cell, but some sort of a capacitor.
No - that's what you say he said.
Actually, every typical electrolysis cell is already a capacitor.
Why deceive, Mr. Conover?
> He also claimed that by driving this cell with pulses of high-voltage
> electricity (the circuit for a rather crude high-voltage pulse
> generator is depicted in his patent)
Note the description _ "a rather crude high-voltage pulse generator" -
more slight of hand word usage from our amateur magician, Harry Conover
to discredit a simple circuit required to supply high voltage at limited
current.
Actually, Mr. Conover had himself a good chuckle one day in the past
by claiming that the toroid output transformer in Meyer's design
couldn't possibly have an output because the input was DC pulses,
which, of course is pure misdirection and fraud since it is well known
that DC pulses in the primary of such a device will of course create
an output in the secondary.
It was later indicated by the actions of Don Lancaster, who actually
posted a question about flyback transformers (TV type high voltage
transformers that run on pulsating DC) that Mr. Conover knew
all along that Meyer's transformer would output from DC pulses in,
but was blatantly and misleading people by lying when he laughed at the
Meyer design as bogus.
> that he could liberate hydrogen
> from the water without passing a current through it commensurate
> with Faraday's Law of Electrolysis.
No, not just hydrogen, but oxygen as well.
More deceit.
> Also, he claimed that the energy
> potential of the hydrogen produced would exceed the electrical energy
> consumption of the WFC required to produce it.
> > Evidently, Meyer's patter involved quite a bit of scientific sounding
> mumbo-jumbo (which when carefully examined is nothing but pseudo-
> scientific nonsense phrases) and exploited the well meaning desire
> of his victims to finance a source of clean, pollution-free energy.
> (Dennis Lee is today doing pretty much the same sort of thing with
> "Brown's Gas".)
Fascinating bit of fabrication, Mr. Conover.
I notice that you, as usual, have no references to cite
for your description above.
> > All of this is, of course, contrary to what is predicted by long
> established and tested scientific principles.
Such as?
> > Meyer evidently financed his "word" by luring naive investors to
> purchase some sort of product or distribution rights, or by the
> sale of outright shares in his enterprise. The details of this
> scheme are difficult to pin-point so I can't be more specific,
> but it seems to be documented that Meyer took in more than
> $1-Million though the use of this scam.
References, Mr. Conover?
> > Also, at some late point in his criminal enterprise,
Ah, now here comes the good part -
the innuendo of criminality from the same person who
attempted to describe a commonly used flyback circuit
in the Meyer patent as fraudulent and incapable of output.
Has Harry Conover so far committed any criminal acts in his post here?
Technically, he could be brought into court, and proven to be lying
about some things he's said so far. So, is Harry Conover a criminal
who just hasn't been prosecuted for his activities yet?
> Meyer
> was hauled into court by some of his investers,
More lying.
Meyer was sued by ONE investor,
of all the people who invested in his work -
ONE.
> but lost the
> case when expert testimony revealed his WFC to be nothing more
> than a simple electrolysis apparatus. He was found guilty of
> fraud.
Highly and deftly inaccurate.
The "expert witnesses" were "expert" witnesses
hired to provide anything they could to discredit Meyer,
just like every other paid "expert witness"
who is hired to appear in court, such as the DNA "expert"
in the OJ Simpson case, who "proved" that despite the fact
that the blood found at the scene contained
DNA exactly like Simpson's, there was no way to prove
it was his, despite the fact that the chances of it being
someone else's were, oh, say one in 5,000,000 or so.
For enough money, I can hire an expert witness that can
"prove" that Harry Conover may have been the murderer.
Part of their means for "proving" that the WFC was "nothing
but a poor electrolyzer" was to add electrolyte to the water
in the cell, drastically reducing the dielectric strength of
the water in it, and basically rendering the cell inoperative,
since its control circuitry was designed to STOP all input to
the cell during any input current over a few MICRO amperes.
Meyer complanied about what they did, then the tape recorder
used to keep the courtroom dialogue suddenly stopped working,
while the judge refused to let Meyer clean the electrolyte-
saturated water out of the cell so that he could demonstrate
it in proper operation.
The plaintiff was awarded a minuscule amount in damages
(I think it was $1), and his investment back.
Meyer had no "expert witnesses"- just himself there with his lawyer.
> > Evidently, Meyer performed a number of demonstrations of his
> WFC, however it appears that the witnesses to these demos were
> largely true believing Meyer supporters and potential investors
> having limited technical expertise. To my knowledge, Meyer never
> conducted a demonstration in front of a critical audience holding
> any level of expertise in the area of his claims.
Good cop out, Mr. Conover.
However, for an extended period of at least several months,
anyone who wanted to investigate the Meyer device was invited
to do so at his demonstration facility in Ohio.
ANYONE, including Harry Conover could have gone there
and interrogated the living daylights out of Meyer
while scrutinizing his device in action,
and Harry Conover KNEW IT.
His claim :
"To my knowledge, Meyer never
conducted a demonstration in front of a critical audience holding
any level of expertise in the area of his claims" is totally bogus.
He was HERE when JW told everyone to GO to the demo, and where it was,
but nobody here went.
> Given this,
> it is rather obvious that any of Meyer's demonstations could have
> been easily rigged with trickery.
Given this, Mr. Conover appears to be as big
a scam artist as he claims Meyer was.
> > The final chapter is that Stan Meyer died a year or so ago, and
> quite likely his WFC died with him (although evidently some people
> are attempting to continue exploiting it for profit even after his
> death).
References, Mr. Conover?
> > It's difficult to get the entire Stan Meyer WFC story documented,
> since to my knowledge none of his victims are willing to speak
> candidly about their experiences -- a situation commonly encountered
> by the police in many confidence-scam and fraud situations.
Lovely assemblage of half-truths and outright lying.
One of his "victims" as Conover describes them,
is right here, in this NG. So Harry Conover
has again been caught in yet another lie.
Who is he?
JW, who goes under the moniker "None of Your Business"
He's been adamant here about Meyer's honesty for YEARS,
but Mr. Conover, who just loves to mix fact with fiction
in order to defame inventions and their inventors,
has failed to mention someone he knows quite well
who has been RIGHT HERE IN THIS NG for years
(look at all the guy's posts here, right now!!!)
who has been battling with him about Meyer's work
for years here as well!
Here's a header from Mar 23, 2001
from JW himself:
Subject: Re: Hydrogen Electrolysis from water
Date: 23 Mar 2001 00:02:51 GMT
From: h2o...@aol.comic (None of Your Business)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
References:
Hey, JW -
do you see this fraud here?
Conover says he doesn't know anyone
who has anything to say about Stan.
This is really darkly hilarious, Mr. Conover.
> > The bottom line is that Stan Meyer was a confidence artist who was
> quite successful in employing an obvious hoax apparatus to extract
> over a million dollars from his naive victims.
The bottom line is that Harry Conover is a confidence artist who is
quite successful in employing an obvious hoax technique
to defame numerous people in this NG.
And no one in this NG knew and invested in his device -
except, of course, JW, who has been extolling Meyer here
for years.
> > Hope this helps. While Stan Meyer is only now on his way to
> becoming a classical scam, there are others that are well documents
> and surprisingly the diciples continue to perpetuate the original
> scams while still using remarkably similar patter lines.
Mr. Conover has really outdone himself here.
I haven't seen such an elegant mixture of fact and fiction
since Bill Clinton was in office, or, er, under the office table,
to be exact.
> > Realize, some of what we guys post is done to protect the public and
> young minds, but some of these scams are simply plain fun to read about
> and realize how stupid their victims must be!
Oh, you've definitely convinced us of your unintentions, Mr. Conover,
and we do realize now just how stupid your victims must be.
> > Harry C.
> > p.s. On a more grim vein, you might want to research a Dr. Abrams and
> one Royal Rife on the web. While the scams of Abrams and Rife
> have been explosed many times over, their hoax medical devices
> continue to be exploited and sold to the desperate and unwary
> via the web! (Makes you wonder about the FDA's competency and
> devotion to protecting the public!)
Actually, Mr. Conover, I'm too busy rereading the fruits of
your "creative" talent further above.
Regards,
OH (M D)
<end>
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating
it people will eventually come to believe it."
-- Joseph Goebbels --
The Technical Manager
The water fuel cell and the water powered car were two completely different things. I am only interested in the
water fuel cell side of things.
The Technical Manager
> The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3CB5CF89...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
> > Harry Conover wrote:
> >
> > > dol...@psydolphin.net (Marin) wrote in message news:<ee1d9799.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > > Skeptics need not reply to this posting. Please express your opinions
> > > > in other newsgroup threads, thank you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Marin
> > >
> > > Sorry Marin, but when you post a pseduo-science thread to a sci
> > > hierarchy newsgroup you implicitly invite criticism based on real
> > > scientific knowledge.
> > >
> > > In this case, Stan Meyer's "Water Fuel Cell" has already been soundly
> > > debunked as being a fraud based a pseudo-scientific, nonsense concept.
> > > Given the fact that no one has yet made a WFC work,
> >
> > When you say work what exactly do you mean ? I have built a Meyer WFC and it successfully splits water into
> > hydrogen and oxygen. Thats all. It is NOT an overunity device and there is no reason for it to be. Faradays
> > law of electrolysis still applies. The water is electrolysed by an electric current traversing it and not by
> > voltage alone.
> >
>
> You're of course pulling our collective legs! ;-)
>
> Meyer's WFC was picthed entirely on implicit and explicit claims of
> over-unity performance, otherwise no one would have had any reason to
> invest in it.
Where is the evidence for this ?
> In fact, its failure to measure up to these claims seem
> precisely what led to his fraud charges against Meyer, when his device
> was revealed to be doing nothing more than perform ordinary
> electrolysis (and evidently not even that efficiently, judging from
> his WFC design depicted in his patent).
How do you know that his latest version was exactly the same as in the patent ?
> Then too, if you were suckered into building one of his devices, shame
> on you! That makes as much sense as having someone tell you that if
> you take enough Vitamin C you can breath underwater, then actually
> trying to do so yourself. Education conveys familiarity with at least
> some of the knowledge that man (civilization) has accumulated, hence
> helps most of us avoid repeating the foolish mistakes of those who
> lived before us, to use what they learned as our information
> foundation, and to build upon that foundation.
Whats wrong with a few dead end experiments to verify something ? His WFC is not mentioned in any technical detail
in any professional physics or electronics journals. It seems as if having anything remotely to do with a Meyer WFC
is a cardinal sin.
> It is such a terrible waste of human endeavor to expend any effort
> whatsoever on replicating the unfounded claims of fools, lunatics, and
> confidence artists.
>
Considering that no efficiency figure has ever been published then the only way to get such a figure is to
replicate the experiment.
Marin
>
> Thank you for confirming that Meyer was a fraud.
Actually he hasn't confirmed that Meyer was a fraud. He has clearly
stated on newsgroups that he did NOT replicate the water fuel cell as
per the patents. He chose a different electrode material and,
crucially, used a different circuit. It has proved nothing for or
against Meyer's device. It is a different device.
Nonnaho
news:3CB6BE9C...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> John wrote:
<SNIP>
> >
> > Meyer claimed to be able to fuel a car with nothing but water. That
> > directly requires the water fuel cell to operate as a overunity
> > device.
> >
> > Thank you for confirming that Meyer was a fraud.
>
> The water fuel cell and the water powered car were two completely
> different things. I am only interested in the water fuel cell side
> of things.
Please explain.
The water fuel cell produced hydrogen that the car's engine used as fuel.
Correct?
Nonnaho
Don Lancaster
>
> Whats wrong with a few dead end experiments to verify something ?
You'd still have to ask what the possible point would be.
Any reasonably intelligent electrochemist will recognize the three key
differences between the Meyer experiment and conventional electrolysis
are a gross impedance mismatch, use of wildly inappropriate waveforms,
and a failure to recognize hydrogen overvoltage of iron effects. All are
known and proven drastic efficiency limiters.
Further, any reasonably intelligent electrochemist will recognize that
accurate separation and measurement of dry STP hydrogen and accurate
measurement of true input energy (both electrical and thermal) are
enormously difficult tasks. Ones that, when done improperly, almost
invariably grossly overstate efficiency.
Thus, there are only two reasonably expected outcomes of the experiment:
abysmal efficiency or lab error.
Bear in mind that similar EIS and Qprox experiments are performed
millions of times daily with uniformly negative results.
None of Your Business
In a sense yes. He had numerous cells.
Meyer never claimed he could run a "standard" car only on water at any given
time.
He was developing and improving the technology and it's efficiency toward that
end.
When he demonstrated the car run on the fuel cell from water he had an
"additional" electric generator with which he "primed" the cell that produced
the hydrogen and oxygen which ran the car. He never closed the loop or ran the
system from start up without priming it with the large onboard generator. His
efforts were to be able to eventually close the loop with his "Hydrogen
Fracturing Process" which released more power to run it from start up.
JW
'The splitting of the atom changed everything, save man's mode
of thinking, thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."
--Albert Einstein-
None of Your Business
writes:
>The Technical Manager wrote:
>>
>
>> Whats wrong with a few dead end experiments to verify something ?
>
>
>You'd still have to ask what the possible point would be.
>
>Any reasonably intelligent electrochemist will recognize the three key
>differences between the Meyer experiment and conventional electrolysis
>are a gross impedance mismatch, use of wildly inappropriate waveforms,
>and a failure to recognize hydrogen overvoltage of iron effects. All are
>known and proven drastic efficiency limiters.
>
>Further, any reasonably intelligent electrochemist will recognize that
>accurate separation and measurement of dry STP hydrogen and accurate
>measurement of true input energy (both electrical and thermal) are
>enormously difficult tasks. Ones that, when done improperly, almost
>invariably grossly overstate efficiency.
>
>Thus, there are only two reasonably expected outcomes of the experiment:
>abysmal efficiency or lab error.
>
>Bear in mind that similar EIS and Qprox experiments are performed
>millions of times daily with uniformly negative results.
>
Yea Doony, where were you in the discussion of the flyback transformer in
Meyer's circuit? Hiding in the corner?
JW
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating
it people will eventually come to believe it."
-- Joseph Goebbels --
Don Widders
news:3CB6BE9C...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
WHY???
Don W.
Don Widders
You claim to have 'replicated the experiment', yet you haven't published any
efficiency figures.
Don W.
Nonnaho
> Harry Conover wrote:
<snip>
> > You're of course pulling our collective legs! ;-)
> >
> > Meyer's WFC was picthed entirely on implicit and explicit claims of
> > over-unity performance, otherwise no one would have had any reason to
> > invest in it.
>
> Where is the evidence for this ?
http://colossus2.cvl.bcm.tmc.edu/ftp/free_energy/meyer/meyer.txt
"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"
further down in the text
"Apart from the copious hydrogen/oxygen gas evolution"
Ask Mr. Lancaster about the significance of these two statements.
> > In fact, its failure to measure up to these claims seem
> > precisely what led to his fraud charges against Meyer, when his device
> > was revealed to be doing nothing more than perform ordinary
> > electrolysis (and evidently not even that efficiently, judging from
> > his WFC design depicted in his patent).
>
> How do you know that his latest version was exactly the same as
> in the patent ?
Are you saying the patented device didn't work ( work as in
"copious hydrogen/oxygen gas evolution" with "no greater than a
tenth of an amp" )?
Nonnaho
P.S. The author of the quoted text is way too impressed with the fact
that a patent was granted for this device. Patents prove nothing!
None of Your Business
Meyer does not ONLY have patents on devices. He has PROCESS patents. Two in
particular, "Electrical Polarization" and "Hydrogen Fracturing." There is a big
difference in that no one cannot use his prior art to duplicate his protected
process. He has other DEVICE patents for the use of hydrogen as well as for the
cell circuitry itself. He had a number of cells that performed his PROCESSES.
JW
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
--Thomas Jefferson
None of Your Business
(None of Your Business) writes:
>Meyer does not ONLY have patents on devices. He has PROCESS patents. Two in
>particular, "Electrical Polarization" and "Hydrogen Fracturing." There is a
>big
>difference in that no one cannot use his prior art to duplicate his
protected...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oops, strike no. Make it one cannot.
JW
Harry Conover
> Whats wrong with a few dead end experiments to verify something ? His WFC is not mentioned in any technical detail
> in any professional physics or electronics journals. It seems as if having anything remotely to do with a Meyer WFC
> is a cardinal sin.
Actually Meyer's patents do contain sufficient information to reveal
him to be a totally clueless crank, and his WFC to be a device that at
best can perform simple electrolysis with abyssmally poor efficiency.
The point of attempting to replicate the work of a demonstrated crank,
whose published work consists of little more than what one would
expect of a technological incompetent/ignorant person, still eludes
me.
Harry C.
Don Lancaster
Especially since the experimenter could possibly accomplish something
useful instead simply by spending the time and energy taking an
electrochem 101 course.
John
wrote:
Meyer also claimed he was working on "water injectors" that would
exploit his "polarization process", allowing you to inject water
directly into the engine's cylinders, where the hydrogen would be
extracted and burned to power the engine. Total lunacy. It's really
mind-boggling that anybody would fall for such bull. One of the Meyer
legends has prototype "water injectors" being stolen at gunpoint.
Meyer was, and his followers still are, extremely ignorant and
paranoid nuts.
Meyer drove around in a dune buggy with big letters on the side of it
that read "WATER POWERED CAR". He was definitely trying to give the
impression that it was powered by water.
None of Your Business
Yea, so inefficient it only takes milliamps of current.
Harry your record of lyinmg about Meyer in this group is legendary and well
documented.
JW
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating
it people will eventually come to believe it."
-- Joseph Goebbels --
None of Your Business
writes:
>Harry Conover wrote:
>>
>> The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<3CB6BFDA...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
>>
>> > Whats wrong with a few dead end experiments to verify something ? His WFC
>is not mentioned in any technical detail
>> > in any professional physics or electronics journals. It seems as if
>having anything remotely to do with a Meyer WFC
>> > is a cardinal sin.
>>
>> Actually Meyer's patents do contain sufficient information to reveal
>> him to be a totally clueless crank, and his WFC to be a device that at
>> best can perform simple electrolysis with abyssmally poor efficiency.
>>
>> The point of attempting to replicate the work of a demonstrated crank,
>> whose published work consists of little more than what one would
>> expect of a technological incompetent/ignorant person, still eludes
>> me.
>>
>> Harry C.
>
>Especially since the experimenter could possibly accomplish something
>useful instead simply by spending the time and energy taking an
>electrochem 101 course.
>
Try learning to read Meyer's circuit correctly and not ignoring 1/2 of it and
the function of the flyback transformer.
JW
"If you look too deeply into the abyss,
the abyss will look into you."
--Friedrich Nietzsche --
None of Your Business
(John) writes:
>On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:32:52 -0700, "Nonnaho" <NoBr...@all.org>
>wrote:
>
>>"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:3CB6BE9C...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
>>> John wrote:
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>> >
>>> > Meyer claimed to be able to fuel a car with nothing but water. That
>>> > directly requires the water fuel cell to operate as a overunity
>>> > device.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for confirming that Meyer was a fraud.
>>>
>>> The water fuel cell and the water powered car were two completely
>>> different things. I am only interested in the water fuel cell side
>>> of things.
>>
>>Please explain.
>>
>>The water fuel cell produced hydrogen that the car's engine used as fuel.
>>Correct?
>
>Meyer also claimed he was working on "water injectors" that would
>exploit his "polarization process", allowing you to inject water
>directly into the engine's cylinders, where the hydrogen would be
>extracted and burned to power the engine. Total lunacy.
The lunacy is that you can tell such bald faced lies with a straight face. You
don't know ANYTHING about his processes or how they were to be applied. The
water was to be COMPLETELY decomposed into it's constituent gases and
combustible ions before EVER being injected into the cylinders.
>It's really
>mind-boggling that anybody would fall for such bull.
It's amazing that you can claim that THIS is what Meyer claimed when you never
met him, read ANY of his material, or saw his injectors.
>One of the Meyer
>legends has prototype "water injectors" being stolen at gunpoint.
>Meyer was, and his followers still are, extremely ignorant and
>paranoid nuts.
>
Another lie. Where do you come up with this shit?
>Meyer drove around in a dune buggy with big letters on the side of it
>that read "WATER POWERED CAR". He was definitely trying to give the
>impression that it was powered by water.
>
Ever heard of advertizing? It was. He used only water broken
down into the gases to drive it.
JW
"If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free,
it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."
-- Thomas Jefferson --
Littlefish
exothermic which makes it a interesting reaction. You can split it with
sound, heat, light, magnetism, atomic radiation, and electricity.
Littlefish
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3CB5CC1E...@tinaja.com...
tony
Anyone seen the Blue Hydrolyser? These things really work and are
powerring autos in new Zealand for ten years or more...
I built one in three hours using simple workshop tools... But they need a
gas carbureter!
Tesla Centre for Advanced technology
Sydney
Australia
Marin wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm considering setting up an email discussion list for people who
> want to cooperate in developing the water fuel cell. I have been very
> interested in Stanley Meyer's device since I saw a TV documentary
> about it about 7-8 years ago and am currently starting to try to
> replicate it myself. I imagine that some people may decide to try to
> make some money by producing units for people, but the main aim of the
> list is to create exact construction and tuning details and distribute
> it for free on the net. Assuming the device really does work, I'm
> interested in creating a serious information pack for DIY people and
> those with basic electronics skills to build it and use it how they
> like - preferably the info pack should be as close to a no-brainer as
> is possible. The people who are repressing this technology will find
> it very hard to repress masses of people from building it in their own
> homes. Essentially we want to liberate the technology.
>
> The need for such a discussion list was conceived due to the fact the
> serious supporters of this technology can't use newsgroups because
> they get pounced upon by skeptics etc. The list would be heavily
> moderated and would hopefully provide a safe area in which to exchange
> ideas and help each other from a technical point of view, and would no
> doubt contain a mixture of experts and amateurs.
>
> I want to figure out if there would be much demand for this list as
> what I have in mind would require some money out of my own pocket. I
> imagine there might only be say about 20 subscribers, although the
> more the better. Would you be interested in such a group? Do you think
> it's a good idea? If you would be interested in joining such a list
> then please contact me, preferably by email.
The Technical Manager
> In article <3CB76368...@tinaja.com>, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
> writes:
>
> >Harry Conover wrote:
> >>
> >> The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<3CB6BFDA...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
> >>
> >> > Whats wrong with a few dead end experiments to verify something ? His WFC
> >is not mentioned in any technical detail
> >> > in any professional physics or electronics journals. It seems as if
> >having anything remotely to do with a Meyer WFC
> >> > is a cardinal sin.
> >>
> >> Actually Meyer's patents do contain sufficient information to reveal
> >> him to be a totally clueless crank, and his WFC to be a device that at
> >> best can perform simple electrolysis with abyssmally poor efficiency.
> >>
> >> The point of attempting to replicate the work of a demonstrated crank,
> >> whose published work consists of little more than what one would
> >> expect of a technological incompetent/ignorant person, still eludes
> >> me.
> >>
> >> Harry C.
> >
> >Especially since the experimenter could possibly accomplish something
> >useful instead simply by spending the time and energy taking an
> >electrochem 101 course.
> >
>
> Try learning to read Meyer's circuit correctly and not ignoring 1/2 of it and
> the function of the flyback transformer.
Try just using two signals. Low voltage AC at the resonant frequency of the LC
tuned circuit superimposed onto high voltage DC.
The Technical Manager
Because the WFC works and the water powered car doesn't.
The Technical Manager
Its an improved version of the design in the patent but working on the same principle. On Meyer's
schematic it shows a transformer producing high voltage spikes. Fourier transforms of these
spikes produce a spectrum consisting of a DC component with a broad spread of higher frequencies
with the amplitude decreasing as the frequency increases. As the load is an LC tuned circuit then
only two frequencies are relevant - DC and the frequency of the LC tuned circuit. Thats why I
used a different technique.
The Technical Manager
> The splitting of water into Hydrogen and oxygen can be either endothermic or
> exothermic which makes it a interesting reaction. You can split it with
> sound, heat, light, magnetism, atomic radiation, and electricity.
It still takes energy of one sort or another to break the O-H bonds.
The Technical Manager
Read some of my previous posts for the figures and the measurement techniques
used.
John
wrote:
>In article <3cb7677b....@netnews.att.net>, John_J...@hotmail.com
>(John) writes:
>>One of the Meyer
>>legends has prototype "water injectors" being stolen at gunpoint.
>>Meyer was, and his followers still are, extremely ignorant and
>>paranoid nuts.
>Another lie. Where do you come up with this shit?
From you.
From: h2o...@aol.comic (None of Your Business)
Subject: Re: Stanley A. Meyer
Date: 2000/03/23
Message-ID: <20000323031553...@nso-cg.aol.com>
References: <20000322210622...@nso-ch.aol.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
An excerpt:
::This suit charged that Schneider, Brooks
::and Gilvesy violated the WFC Dealership Contract Agreement
::by attempting to make, sell and utilize a patented WFC device
::without the written permission of Stan Meyer and that Brooks
::and Gilvesy were possible co-conspirators with Rick Schneider
::in the 8 August 1992 illegal seizure of WFC systems by gunpoint.
You were saying?
The Technical Manager
> Hi
>
> Anyone seen the Blue Hydrolyser? These things really work and are
> powerring autos in new Zealand for ten years or more...
>
> I built one in three hours using simple workshop tools... But they need a
> gas carbureter!
Like most of these highly dubious car powering devices they are not suitable
for use with a fuel injection system.
Don Lancaster
>
> Hi
>
> Anyone seen the Blue Hydrolyser?
Wasn't he in Action Comics #17?
Don Lancaster
>
>
>
> Try just using two signals. Low voltage AC at the resonant frequency of the LC
> tuned circuit superimposed onto high voltage DC.
>
Measure the actual electrode CURRENT rather than voltage waveforms, and
you will find a portion of the AC getting inefficiently rectified and
doing an ordinary dc electrolysis. The rest of the AC is wasted as heat.
None of Your Business
(John) writes:
>On 13 Apr 2002 02:24:37 GMT, h2o...@aol.comic (None of Your Business)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3cb7677b....@netnews.att.net>, John_J...@hotmail.com
>>(John) writes:
>
>>>One of the Meyer
>>>legends has prototype "water injectors" being stolen at gunpoint.
>>>Meyer was, and his followers still are, extremely ignorant and
>>>paranoid nuts.
>
>>Another lie. Where do you come up with this shit?
>
>From you.
>
Liar. I never said any such thing.
>From: h2o...@aol.comic (None of Your Business)
>Subject: Re: Stanley A. Meyer
>Date: 2000/03/23
>Message-ID: <20000323031553...@nso-cg.aol.com>
>References: <20000322210622...@nso-ch.aol.com>
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>
>An excerpt:
>
This is from Meyer's "Public Notice to Inform."
I didn't write it. Your posts are fraught with inaccurate information.
>::This suit charged that Schneider, Brooks
>::and Gilvesy violated the WFC Dealership Contract Agreement
>::by attempting to make, sell and utilize a patented WFC device
>::without the written permission of Stan Meyer and that Brooks
>::and Gilvesy were possible co-conspirators with Rick Schneider
>::in the 8 August 1992 illegal seizure of WFC systems by gunpoint.
>
>You were saying?
>
Where does it say it had anything to do with the injectors?
Even if it did, what are you disputing?
Meyer was threatened at gunpoint by Schneider. That is historical fact.
Meyer found out a number of lies that Schneider told him and when confronted in
an airplane hanger he pulled a gun on Meyer.
There were a number of suits against Schneider by Meyer.
JW
"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax,
and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as
different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules just will not
apply..." Dwight E. Avis, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
Division of the IRS, testifying before a House Ways and Means subcommittee
in 1953
None of Your Business
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes:
>tony wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Anyone seen the Blue Hydrolyser? These things really work and are
>> powerring autos in new Zealand for ten years or more...
>>
>> I built one in three hours using simple workshop tools... But they need a
>> gas carbureter!
>
>Like most of these highly dubious car powering devices they are not suitable
>for use with a fuel injection system.
>
What is so dubious about it being EXTREMELY difficult to intergrate hydrogen
gas into a liquid fuel computer controlled injector system? It's not a small or
cheap undertaking.
Regards,
JW
"I don¹t like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get
around to the idea of Å’from each according to his capacity and to each
according to his needs¹. That¹s socialism. It¹s written into the Communist
Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return
receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what¹s
happening to him". T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
May 25, 1956 in US. News & World Report
None of Your Business
writes:
>The Technical Manager wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Try just using two signals. Low voltage AC at the resonant frequency of the
>LC
>> tuned circuit superimposed onto high voltage DC.
>>
>
>Measure the actual electrode CURRENT rather than voltage waveforms, and
>you will find a portion of the AC getting inefficiently rectified and
>doing an ordinary dc electrolysis. The rest of the AC is wasted as heat.
>
Meyer's process generated NO heat from the molecular disassociation.
JW
"...the key question is: can we define "incomeน in a fair and reasonably
straightforward manner? Unfortunately we have not yet succeeded in doing
so." Shirley Peterson, former IRS Commissioner, April 1993
None of Your Business
this thread.
You can find it in Google Newsgroup search.
From: Michael Hannon (oha...@mailroom.worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Water Explosion
Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
View this article only
Date: 1997/06/27
The following is a verbatim text* of the work of a real
scientist/engineer, as opposed to the armchair science practiced by
the resident "good 'ol boys" in this NG.
OHannon
*(Minus one simulated graphic - Fig.1, which will be placed in its
original place in the text below, which shows a series circuit in which
a capacitor C with a voltage Vo across it is in a series circuit with
and inductor L and a Resistance Rw [the resistance of a quantity of
water]). There is an open switch between C and L.
/ _______
__/ _| L |___________
| |_____| |
___|___ __|_
| | | |
Vo | C | | Rw |
_|___|_ |____|
| |
|__________________________|
Fig. 1: Water Arc Discharge Circuit
(anywhere you see mH here it means micro-Henry, and anywhere you see mF,
it means microFarad - the mailer won't send the Greek micron symbol)
"27th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference Proceedings
San Diego, CA, August 3-7, 1992, Vol. 4, pp 335-33
929469
Electrically Induced Explosions in Water
Gary Johnson Kansas State University
ABSTRACT
A 2 mF capacitor was charged to voltages in the 1-10 kV range and
discharged into water column through a 38 mH inductor. At voltages up to
about 6 kV, the water acted as a relatively high resistance and the
circuit decayed as an overdamped RLC circuit. Resistance decreased with
time. When the resistance dropped below about 10 W, the water would
explode if the capacitor still had sufficient energy. The loudness was
distinctly greater than an equivalent amount of gunpowder.
During the explosion, resistance would drop still more, so the circuit
Read the rest of this message... (124 more lines)
Regards,
JW
"In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service,
I was amazed when he told me that "If the taxpayers of this country ever
discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff the entire system will
collapseน". Henry Bellmon, Senator (1969)
John Riley
wrote:
>>Meyer drove around in a dune buggy with big letters on the side of it
>>that read "WATER POWERED CAR". He was definitely trying to give the
>>impression that it was powered by water.
>>
>
>Ever heard of advertizing?
As in honesty in...?
> It was. He used only water broken
>down into the gases to drive it.
So the water hadn't been "energy added" by the amount that was given
out by the recombination?
Where did the energy come from, we all ask.
ATB John
None of Your Business
<lizr...@wantree.com.au> writes:
Look at the Graneau work and the Johnson paper.
JW
"Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and
completely counterproductive [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally
un-American...it has earned a rebellion and it零 time we rebelled."
President Ronald Reagan, May 1983, Williamsburg, VA
Don Widders
> Don Widders wrote:
>
> > "The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3CB6BE9C...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> > > I am only interested in the water fuel cell side of things.
> > >
> >
> > WHY???
>
> Because the WFC works and the water powered car doesn't.
>
"...the WFC works" in what respect? You mean as an extraordinarily poor
electrolyzer design?
Don W.
None of Your Business
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> writes:
Yea so poor it makes copious amounts of gas from about 144 sq/in of steel
without making any heat from milliamps of current.
JW
"If no information or return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot
assess you." Gary Makovski, Special IRS Agent, testifying under oath in
US. v. Lloyd
John Riley
wrote:
>In article <gfohbucnmb45ojq6n...@4ax.com>, John Riley
><lizr...@wantree.com.au> writes:
>
>>On 13 Apr 2002 02:24:37 GMT, h2o...@aol.comic (None of Your Business)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Meyer drove around in a dune buggy with big letters on the side of it
>>>>that read "WATER POWERED CAR". He was definitely trying to give the
>>>>impression that it was powered by water.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ever heard of advertizing?
>>
>>As in honesty in...?
>>
>>> It was. He used only water broken
>>>down into the gases to drive it.
>>
>>So the water hadn't been "energy added" by the amount that was given
>>out by the recombination?
>>Where did the energy come from, we all ask.
>>
>>ATB John
>>
>
>Look at the Graneau work and the Johnson paper.
No, you tell us. You said it.
ATB John
The Technical Manager
> In article <ubhujgg...@corp.supernews.com>, "Don Widders"
> <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> writes:
>
> >"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:3CB80E14...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> >> Don Widders wrote:
> >>
> >> > "The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> > news:3CB6BE9C...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> ><sinp>
> >> > > I am only interested in the water fuel cell side of things.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > WHY???
> >>
> >> Because the WFC works and the water powered car doesn't.
> >>
> >
> >"...the WFC works" in what respect? You mean as an extraordinarily poor
> >electrolyzer design?
> >
> >Don W.
>
> Yea so poor it makes copious amounts of gas from about 144 sq/in of steel
> without making any heat from milliamps of current.
Why use steel as an electrode material ? Also a large AC current traverses the
water which is what electrolyses it.
Don Lancaster
>
>
> Why use steel as an electrode material ?
Hydrogen overvoltage of iron is typically 1.2 volts or so, thus cutting
efficiency in half.
Are you claiming a hydrogen overvoltage violation?
Also a large AC current traverses the
> water which is what electrolyses it.
>
The cell nonlinearity inherently forms a low efficiency rectifier.
Portions of ac input waveforms are converted to dc current where they do
a normal dc electrolysis.
The remainder of the ac terms are wasted as heat.
All ac or pulses accomplish is REDUCING the efficiency.
Are you claiming a Faraday's Law violation?
None of Your Business
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes:
>None of Your Business wrote:
>
>> In article <ubhujgg...@corp.supernews.com>, "Don Widders"
>> <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> writes:
>>
>> >"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:3CB80E14...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
>> >> Don Widders wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> > news:3CB6BE9C...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
>> ><sinp>
>> >> > > I am only interested in the water fuel cell side of things.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > WHY???
>> >>
>> >> Because the WFC works and the water powered car doesn't.
>> >>
>> >
>> >"...the WFC works" in what respect? You mean as an extraordinarily poor
>> >electrolyzer design?
>> >
>> >Don W.
>>
>> Yea so poor it makes copious amounts of gas from about 144 sq/in of steel
>> without making any heat from milliamps of current.
>
>Why use steel as an electrode material ? Also a large AC current traverses
>the
>water which is what electrolyses it.
>
Becaue it isn't "standard electroysis." This would be the reason Meyer called
his process "Electrical Polarization." Meyer used stainless in his cells.
Meyer's circuit DOES NOT pass large current.
JW
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
--Thomas Jefferson
Marin
> The splitting of water into Hydrogen and oxygen can be either endothermic or
> exothermic which makes it a interesting reaction. You can split it with
> sound, heat, light, magnetism, atomic radiation, and electricity.
> Littlefish
Hi. Can you send me an email at dol...@psydolphin.net. Someone
recommended I talk to you but I can't find a valid email address.
Thanks!
Regards,
Marin
The Technical Manager
> The Technical Manager wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Why use steel as an electrode material ?
>
> Hydrogen overvoltage of iron is typically 1.2 volts or so, thus cutting
> efficiency in half.
>
> Are you claiming a hydrogen overvoltage violation?
>
> Also a large AC current traverses the
> > water which is what electrolyses it.
> >
>
> The cell nonlinearity inherently forms a low efficiency rectifier.
> Portions of ac input waveforms are converted to dc current where they do
> a normal dc electrolysis.
> The remainder of the ac terms are wasted as heat.
>
> All ac or pulses accomplish is REDUCING the efficiency.
>
> Are you claiming a Faraday's Law violation?
No it complies with Faraday's law. I did say it is current that performs
the electrolysis.
Don Lancaster
Because of the extreme cell nonlinearity, if you carefully measure the
actual cell CURRENT you will find it is wildly different than the
applied VOLTAGE waveform.
Any ac components are rectified, frequency converted, and split into two
components: A DC term that does conventional electrolysis and all
remaining terms that are wasted as efficiency robbing heat.
Nonnaho
news:20020414150357...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> In article <3CB96698...@niobiumfive.co.uk>, The Technical Manager
> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes:
<snip>
> >Why use steel as an electrode material ? Also a large AC current
traverses
> >the water which is what electrolyses it.
> >
>
> Becaue it isn't "standard electroysis." This would be the reason Meyer
> called his process "Electrical Polarization." Meyer used stainless in
> his cells. Meyer's circuit DOES NOT pass large current.
Says who, oh, that's right Meyer. But then again, he was found guilty of
gross fraud! That's the type of man I would trust. *NOT*
>
> JW
Nonnaho
Nonnaho
"None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
> In article <a97ile$3...@news.or.intel.com>, "Nonnaho" <NoBr...@all.org>> >news:3CB6BFDA...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
> >> Harry Conover wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> > You're of course pulling our collective legs! ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Meyer's WFC was picthed entirely on implicit and explicit claims of
> >> > over-unity performance, otherwise no one would have had any reason to
> >> > invest in it.
> >>
> >> Where is the evidence for this ?
> >
> >
> >"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"
> >
> >further down in the text
> >
> >"Apart from the copious hydrogen/oxygen gas evolution"
> >
> >Ask Mr. Lancaster about the significance of these two statements.
> >
> >> > In fact, its failure to measure up to these claims seem
> >> > precisely what led to his fraud charges against Meyer, when his
device
> >> > was revealed to be doing nothing more than perform ordinary
> >> > electrolysis (and evidently not even that efficiently, judging from
> >> > his WFC design depicted in his patent).
> >>
> >> How do you know that his latest version was exactly the same as
> >> in the patent ?
> >
> >"copious hydrogen/oxygen gas evolution" with "no greater than a
> >tenth of an amp" )?
> >
> >
> >Nonnaho
> >
> >P.S. The author of the quoted text is way too impressed with the fact
> > that a patent was granted for this device. Patents prove nothing!
> >
>
> Meyer does not ONLY have patents on devices. He has PROCESS patents.
> Two in particular, "Electrical Polarization" and "Hydrogen Fracturing."
> There is a big difference in that no one cannot use his prior art to
> duplicate his protected process. He has other DEVICE patents for the
> use of hydrogen as well as for the cell circuitry itself. He had a
> number of cells that performed his PROCESSES.
>
> JW
Why don't you call up the patent office and ask them if having something
patented proves it works. Go ahead. What are you afraid of? The TRUTH?
After taking a quick look at Meyer's US Pat # 4,936,961, I didn't see a
single word talking about how efficient his system was ( I could have
missed it, if you find it, please point it out ). So Meyer wouldn't have
had his patent rejected on efficiency claim anyways.
Nonnaho
Don Lancaster
The only tiny detail in the not even wrong "does not pass large current"
ludicrousity is explaining where the electrons came from needed to do
the dissociation. For dissociation, each hydrogen atom DEMANDS a new
electron from SOMEWHERE.
Um, where if not current?????
And, no, "nuclear" won't hack it, since nuclear means nucleous, and that
there is NOTHING in a hydrogen nucleous except ONE proton that stays
EXACTLY the same before and after dissociation.
Nonnaho
wrote:
>>Meyer drove around in a dune buggy with big letters on the side of it
>>that read "WATER POWERED CAR". He was definitely trying to give the
>>impression that it was powered by water.
>>
>
>Ever heard of advertizing?
Get your stories straight! You keep telling everyone how top secrete
Meyer's work was and how the oil companies were out to get him. Yet he
drives around in this car advertising! You can't even remember what
lies you told.
Nonnaho
Nonnaho
What is your source for this info? Meyer - A man found guilty of FRAUD!
Nonnaho
John
wrote:
>In article <3cb82ee8....@netnews.att.net>, John_J...@hotmail.com
>(John) writes:
>
>>On 13 Apr 2002 02:24:37 GMT, h2o...@aol.comic (None of Your Business)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3cb7677b....@netnews.att.net>, John_J...@hotmail.com
>>>(John) writes:
>>
>>>>One of the Meyer
>>>>legends has prototype "water injectors" being stolen at gunpoint.
>>>>Meyer was, and his followers still are, extremely ignorant and
>>>>paranoid nuts.
>>
>>>Another lie. Where do you come up with this shit?
>>
>>From you.
>>
>
>Liar. I never said any such thing.
Yes you did:
>>From: h2o...@aol.comic (None of Your Business)
>>Subject: Re: Stanley A. Meyer
>>Date: 2000/03/23
>>Message-ID: <20000323031553...@nso-cg.aol.com>
>>References: <20000322210622...@nso-ch.aol.com>
>>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>>Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
>>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>>
>>An excerpt:
>>
>This is from Meyer's "Public Notice to Inform."
>I didn't write it. Your posts are fraught with inaccurate information.
Your logic astounds me. You've posted that "public notice to inform"
a bunch of times. But since you're merely posting somebody else's
writings, you're not saying "any such thing". You truly are a lunatic
of the highest order.
>>::This suit charged that Schneider, Brooks
>>::and Gilvesy violated the WFC Dealership Contract Agreement
>>::by attempting to make, sell and utilize a patented WFC device
>>::without the written permission of Stan Meyer and that Brooks
>>::and Gilvesy were possible co-conspirators with Rick Schneider
>>::in the 8 August 1992 illegal seizure of WFC systems by gunpoint.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>You were saying?
>
>Where does it say it had anything to do with the injectors?
Read this:
:::From: h2o...@aol.com (H2OPWRD)
:::Subject: Re: When will cars drive on hydrogen?
:::Date: 1998/08/14
:::Message-ID: <199808141456...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
:::
:::In a 11 November 1993 letter to the Common Pleas Court of Feyette
:::County, Ohio, Stan denied the allegations and asked for $333,929
:::in compensatory damages and $279,250 in punitive damages.
:::He stated that Forrest Harper and Richard Willis were in direct
:::violation of the WFC Dealership Terms of Agreement, that Forrest
:::Harper violated Inventor Stan Meyer's patent rights by attempting
:::to make, sell and utilize a WFC patented device without written
:::permission and that Forrest Harper was under investigation as a
:::coconspirator in the "hostile takeover attempt and illegal seizure
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:::by gunpoint of the two duplicate WFC Water Fuel Injection
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:::systems by Rick Schneider
^^^^^^^
>Even if it did, what are you disputing?
Nothing. It is *you* who are disputing statements regarding the Meyer
saga. Besides, if he had actually written such a letter to the court
alleging "illegal seizure by gunpoint", there would most definitely
would have been an investigation. There never was. If he had been
threatened at gunpoint, he certainly would have brought it up at his
trial. He never did.
>Meyer was threatened at gunpoint by Schneider. That is historical fact.
No. It is hysterical fantasy. And the tales get taller with each
passing year! The only historical fact surrounding Stanley Meyer is
that he scammed a bunch of gullible people out of about $1.5 million
and he was found guilty of fraud.
>Meyer found out a number of lies that Schneider told him and when confronted in
>an airplane hanger he pulled a gun on Meyer.
>There were a number of suits against Schneider by Meyer.
So now you're not simply regurgitating Meyer's "public notice to
inform"? You're making your own statement that somebody pulled a gun
on Meyer? Do you have proof of this "historical fact"? Or should we
just take your word for it?
John
wrote:
>>Ever heard of advertizing?
That one's always killed me about all these free energy nutcases.
They say that they have to be sooperseekrit because "They" are after
them. But at the exact same time they're being sooperseekrit they're
posting their crap all over the Internet, getting patents, selling
books and videos, taking ads out in magazines, going on radio
programs, going on nationwide tours, driving around in cars saying
"water powered car", and selling plans to build your own. But no,
they can't show you their working model because they've got to keep it
secret, lest "They" knock them off and steal their machine.
It boggles the mind.
Nonnaho
"John" <John_J...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cbb8091....@netnews.att.net...
This last statement got me thinking. Science and common sense boggles
the minds of the "free energy nutcases" just as much as their actions/
beliefs boggles the minds of sane rational people. I guess there is
something that boggles everyone's mind. It's just different things for
different people. :-)
Nonnaho
The Technical Manager
You Americans have far too much faith in your Lawyers.
I would rather replicate the experiment and see for myself what the outcome and
efficiencies are than go by the work of a senile, clueless, technically
illiterate judge.
The Technical Manager
Patents rarely have any numbers for dimensions, efficiencies, voltages etc. on
them.
>
>
> Nonnaho
John
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>Nonnaho wrote:
>
>> Saucer boy "None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
>> news:20020413152758...@mb-fp.aol.com...
>> > Where does it say it had anything to do with the injectors?
>> > Even if it did, what are you disputing?
>> > Meyer was threatened at gunpoint by Schneider. That is historical fact.
>> > Meyer found out a number of lies that Schneider told him and when
>> > confronted in an airplane hanger he pulled a gun on Meyer.
>> > There were a number of suits against Schneider by Meyer.
>> >
>> > JW
>> What is your source for this info? Meyer - A man found guilty of FRAUD!
>You Americans have far too much faith in your Lawyers.
Apparently Meyer's faith in his lawyer wasn't strong enough to avoid a
fraud conviction.
>I would rather replicate the experiment and see for myself what the outcome and
>efficiencies are
Apparently you have too little faith in physics. Some of us would
rather spend our time doing more productive things, than trying to
duplicate the non-workable device of a convicted fraud.
Besides, aren't you the one who claims to have already duplicated
Meyer's device? Didn't you take any measurements?
>than go by the work of a senile, clueless, technically
>illiterate judge.
Wow. This is the first time anybody has described him like that.
(Like I say, the Meyer tales grow taller with each passing year.) Up
until now, JW has been claiming that the judge suffered from a
conflict of interest, supposedly being related to one of the
plaintiffs. Now he's incompetent. What's next? When the lights go
out he sheds his human skin and breathes dryer lint?
The Technical Manager
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:03:48 +0100, The Technical Manager
> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Nonnaho wrote:
> >
> >> Saucer boy "None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
> >> news:20020413152758...@mb-fp.aol.com...
>
> >> > Where does it say it had anything to do with the injectors?
> >> > Even if it did, what are you disputing?
> >> > Meyer was threatened at gunpoint by Schneider. That is historical fact.
> >> > Meyer found out a number of lies that Schneider told him and when
> >> > confronted in an airplane hanger he pulled a gun on Meyer.
> >> > There were a number of suits against Schneider by Meyer.
> >> >
> >> > JW
>
> >> What is your source for this info? Meyer - A man found guilty of FRAUD!
>
> >You Americans have far too much faith in your Lawyers.
>
> Apparently Meyer's faith in his lawyer wasn't strong enough to avoid a
> fraud conviction.
>
> >I would rather replicate the experiment and see for myself what the outcome and
> >efficiencies are
>
> Apparently you have too little faith in physics.
I don't. I have NEVER said it is overunity or anything like that.
> Some of us would
> rather spend our time doing more productive things, than trying to
> duplicate the non-workable device of a convicted fraud.
It works. It manages to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
> Besides, aren't you the one who claims to have already duplicated
> Meyer's device? Didn't you take any measurements?
Yes I did take measurements. Read my previous posts for more info. I can get a cast
iron value of efficiency once I get my hands on a gas calorimeter.
>
> >than go by the work of a senile, clueless, technically
> >illiterate judge.
>
> Wow. This is the first time anybody has described him like that.
> (Like I say, the Meyer tales grow taller with each passing year.) Up
> until now, JW has been claiming that the judge suffered from a
> conflict of interest, supposedly being related to one of the
> plaintiffs. Now he's incompetent. What's next? When the lights go
> out he sheds his human skin and breathes dryer lint?
Most judges are technically illiterate. At least in the UK.
None of Your Business
(John) writes:
>>You Americans have far too much faith in your Lawyers.
>
>Apparently Meyer's faith in his lawyer wasn't strong enough to avoid a
>fraud conviction.
Meyer was NOT "CONVICTED" of fraud. His case was a civil action NOT CRIMINAL.
The standard for a "Civil Judgement" is "a proponerance of the evidence." This
is the standard under which O.J. lost the Civil Case for wrongful death of his
wife. The standard for Criminal actions is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Meyer NEVER had any legal criminal action taken against him. If he was, they
would have issued a "Cease and Desist" order against him for his funding plan.
Meyer's attorney and the court system failed miserably in this action and
anyone who thinks different needs to ask themselves why he was only fined $1
for this "gross and egregeous fraud" by a judge who was related to the
Plaintiff who refused to recuse from the case.
Regards,
JW
None of Your Business
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes:
Noooo, this is just the first time you have read it. This has all been hashed
and rehashed here about 3 times in the last 5 years.
>> (Like I say, the Meyer tales grow taller with each passing year.)
Liar. Nothing has changed. Meyer's Public Notice was posted about 4 years ago.
But you can continue to lie, exagerate, and misquote for the rest of your life.
>Up
>> until now, JW has been claiming that the judge suffered from a
>> conflict of interest, supposedly being related to one of the
>> plaintiffs. Now he's incompetent. What's next? When the lights go
>> out he sheds his human skin and breathes dryer lint?
>
Another sensless gross exageration.
>Most judges are technically illiterate. At least in the UK.
>
Judges are notoriously ignorant of anything besides the law. And a few don't
even use that knowledge when they have it. I have seen bald faced liars win
small claims actions against honest meticulous accountants because the judge
was not familiar with simple spread sheet software and accounting printouts
from such. Going to court in 90% of cases is not much more than a crap shoot
not unlike throwing your fate to the winds.
Don Widders
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3CBD4884...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
to break those laws. Replicating such a silly experiment doesn't seem like
a very good investment of anyone's time or money. Use your resources
wisely!
Don W.
Nonnaho
> In article <3CBDA97C...@niobiumfive.co.uk>, The Technical Manager
> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes:
> >John wrote:
<snip>
> >> (Like I say, the Meyer tales grow taller with each passing year.)
>
> Liar. Nothing has changed. Meyer's Public Notice was posted about 4
> years ago. But you can continue to lie, exagerate, and misquote for
> the rest of your life.
"Meyer's Public Notice", that about says it all about your inability to
come to grips with reality.
Every prison in every country is just filled with innocent people. There
really must be a world wide conspiracy!
> Regards,
> JW
Nonnaho
P.S. Charles Manson is God, I heard him say it on T.V., so it MUST be
true. You better start praying to him or you'll be sorry.
Nonnaho
> In article <3cbd53c5....@netnews.att.net>, John_J...@hotmail.com
> (John) writes:
>
> >>You Americans have far too much faith in your Lawyers.
> >
> >Apparently Meyer's faith in his lawyer wasn't strong enough to avoid a
> >fraud conviction.
>
<snip>
> Meyer's attorney and the court system failed miserably in this action
> and anyone who thinks different needs to ask themselves why he was
> only fined $1 for this "gross and egregeous fraud" by a judge who was
> related to the Plaintiff who refused to recuse from the case.
All anyone needs to ask is why you believe Meyer's Public Lie,
I mean Notice. For all you know, there was four or more zeros
after that $1 figure.
> Regards,
> JW
Nonnaho
Littlefish
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3CBB3790...@tinaja.com...
> Nonnaho wrote:
> >
> > Saucer boy "None of Your Business" <h2o...@aol.comic> wrote in message
> > news:20020414150357...@mb-ch.aol.com...
> > > In article <3CB96698...@niobiumfive.co.uk>, The Technical
Manager
> > > <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >Why use steel as an electrode material ? Also a large AC current
> > traverses
> > > >the water which is what electrolyses it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Becaue it isn't "standard electroysis." This would be the reason
Meyer
> > > called his process "Electrical Polarization." Meyer used stainless in
> > > his cells. Meyer's circuit DOES NOT pass large current.
> >
> > Says who, oh, that's right Meyer. But then again, he was found guilty
of
> > gross fraud! That's the type of man I would trust. *NOT*
> >
> > >
> > > JW
> >
> > Nonnaho
>
> The only tiny detail in the not even wrong "does not pass large current"
> ludicrousity is explaining where the electrons came from needed to do
> the dissociation. For dissociation, each hydrogen atom DEMANDS a new
> electron from SOMEWHERE.
>
it needs a electron, we intentionally need it to be UNSTABLE . It has been
shown that water can be split by increasing the internal oscillation to 4
times the original volume. You can do this with photons and NO electrons.
Using Gamma rays doesn't use electrons either.
Littlefish
to store energy will hit home as supplies of some energy supplies become
low.
Littlefishnews:3CB72575...@tinaja.com...
> The Technical Manager wrote:
> >
>
> > Whats wrong with a few dead end experiments to verify something ?
>
>
> You'd still have to ask what the possible point would be.
>
> Any reasonably intelligent electrochemist will recognize the three key
> differences between the Meyer experiment and conventional electrolysis
> are a gross impedance mismatch, use of wildly inappropriate waveforms,
> and a failure to recognize hydrogen overvoltage of iron effects. All are
> known and proven drastic efficiency limiters.
>
> Further, any reasonably intelligent electrochemist will recognize that
> accurate separation and measurement of dry STP hydrogen and accurate
> measurement of true input energy (both electrical and thermal) are
> enormously difficult tasks. Ones that, when done improperly, almost
> invariably grossly overstate efficiency.
>
> Thus, there are only two reasonably expected outcomes of the experiment:
> abysmal efficiency or lab error.
>
> Bear in mind that similar EIS and Qprox experiments are performed
> millions of times daily with uniformly negative results.
Don Widders
Why do "we intentionally need it to be UNSTABLE"?? So that it can recombine
and become water before the precious hydrogen bubbles away? Are you saying
the WFC works because of Gamma rays?
Don W.
Don Widders
> Within a very short amount of time the economic reality of splitting water
> to store energy will hit home as supplies of some energy supplies become
> low.
> Littlefish
Wanna bet?
Don W.
Harry Conover
> No it doesn't need a electron to break the bonds in the water. To be stable
> it needs a electron, we intentionally need it to be UNSTABLE . It has been
> shown that water can be split by increasing the internal oscillation to 4
> times the original volume. You can do this with photons and NO electrons.
> Using Gamma rays doesn't use electrons either.
This is utter nonsense.
Can you post even one literature citation reflecting such a claim
being made by any technically competent person? Of course you can't,
because such a claim flies in the face man's total accumulation of
knowledge. Were the claim to make any sense at all, which it doesn't,
the universe itself would be in chaos!
Harry C.
fkasner
Small brained fish, it really makes sense as petroleum reserves become small
that we should use it to split water to get hydrogen. The logic of that
evades you?
FK
fkasner
The frequency of any electromagnetic radiation must be at least as large as
the frequency of vibration of the hydrogen to oxygen bond. This is not a
pushed swing. The only energy that bond can absorb is some integral multiple
of the bond's natural frequency. That natural frequency is in the infrared.
Those piddling frequencies employed by Meyer will never do it, small
fishbrain.
FK