International Independent Test-Evaluation Report of Stan Meyer's Water Fuel Cellll
knews4...@yahoo.com
http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
And who wrote it?
Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
process:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
From:
http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
And:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KEYXM2TRIPFO?ASIN=1932595260&nodeID=
http://fu.fi/~esa/merlib/?q=person/patrick-g-bailey
http://www.worldnpa.org/php/MemberPretty.php?id=67
But I doubt you Dorks can read.
Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
You'll just stay in Dork Land
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Here you go Dorks.
>
> http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>
> And who wrote it?
> About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
> process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
> From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>
> And:http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KEYXM2TRIPFO?ASIN=1932595260&nodeID=http://fu.fi/~esa/merlib/?q=person/patrick-g-baileyhttp://www.worldnpa.org/php/MemberPretty.php?id=67
>
> But I doubt you Dorks can read.
> Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
>
> You'll just stay in Dork Land
And:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Toby-Grotz
Biography
Grotz received his Baccalaureate of Science in electrical engineer
from the University of Connecticut in 1973. Grotz has worked in the
field of geophysics, aerospace, and industrial research and design. He
worked at Texas Instruments, Geophysical Services Division, and the
University of Texas at Dallas. Grotz was a Senior Engineer at Martin
Marietta. A bachelors degree is usually an undergraduate academic
degree awarded for a course that generally lasts three or four
years. ... University of Connecticut The University of Connecticut,
commonly known as UConn, is the State of Connecticuts flagship land-
grant university. ... 1973 was a common year starting on Monday. ...
Geophysics, the study of the earth by quantitative physical methods,
especially by seismic reflection and refraction, gravity, magnetic,
electrical, electromagnetic, and radioactivity methods. ... Aerospace
engineering is the branch of engineering concerning aircraft,
spacecraft and related topics. ... Texas Instruments (NYSE: TXN),
better known in the electronics industry as TI, is a company based in
Dallas, Texas, renowned for developing and commercializing
semiconductor and computer technology. ... The University of Texas
System comprises fifteen educational institutions in Texas, of which
nine are general academic universities, and six are health
institutions. ... Martin Marietta Corporation was founded in 1961
through the merger of The Martin Company and American-Marietta
Corporation. ...
Grotz managed the the 1984 Tesla Centennial Symposium and the 1986
International Tesla Symposium and was president of the International
Tesla Society. As Project Manager for Project Tesla, Grotz helped in
the recreation of Nikola Tesla's wireless transmission of power
experiments.
...............................
But he's not in the Dork Club like you guys so he's full of shit
right?
dedanoe
> On Sep 30, 2:48 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here you go Dorks.
>
> >http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>
> > And who wrote it?
> > Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
> > About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
> > process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
> > But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
> > From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
this one's good for virus.exe production:
just press ctrl+a then ctrl+c in the reply box
then open notepad and press ctrl+v and ctrl+s.
in the save as box type virus.exe for filename
publish the file on the www and wait for MDK 3.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Sep 30, 2:48 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here you go Dorks.
>
> >http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>
> > And who wrote it?
> > Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
> > About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
> > process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
> > But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
> > From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>
So come on Moron Dork Tards, Donny, KrassAss, RailRoad Harry the lying
piece of Yak Dung?
Where's all your smart ass comments about it?
What's the matter you afraid people might start looking at the
archives of sci.energy.hydrogen for everything
JW
OHANNON
told you about all the work not published or propagandized in your
"peer reviewed" toilet paper?
Why is there no "peer review" of the simple experiment?
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$1...@client2.news.psi.net>...
>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
>equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
>legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
>and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
>"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
>to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
>
>Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
>and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
>egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'. As far as I
>know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
>'investment'. Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
>he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
>THE CONSPIRACY).
>
>After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
>to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
>spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
>It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
>device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously working
>under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
>unjust guilty verdict.
>
>As far as I know, Meyer's home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
>court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
>passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
>off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
>minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I'd
>stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
>records of the trial.
>
>Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
>City, county, etc., date(s)??? Possibly an official case name?
>
>Thanks.
>
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
AT FIRST:
You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.
In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.
HOW TO?
As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.
Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to Ohio!
Ted!
/////////////////////////////
But YOU Dork Farts have your heads so far up your asses you have to
pull down your pants to see.
...................................
From: michael Hannon <big.b...@planet.nl>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 13:49:17 +0200
Not in those conditions.
The nucleus reacts by emitting either photons or antiphotons,
or possibly other particles -
it is a non-radioactive nuclear reaction, and such reactions have
already been demonstrated in experiments.
Col. Tom Bearden and his associates have been studying
these reactions for years, and written about them.
The Sweet Vacuum Triode is designed around such reactions.
OHannon
Nonnaho wrote:
> Fred Kasner wrote:
> >
> > This joker who understands almost no science at all is still claiming
> > that the reaction in the Meyer apparatus is nuclear.
>
Which JW, to whom Mr. KrassAss is addressing his assault, not THE
POSTER OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.
Can you understand "straw man?"
> If the reaction was nuclear, would the cell produce some type of radiation that
> can be measured?
With no cite of ANY sort to back his Professor's claim.
He NEVER attempted to discuss the "claim" with the "Ted' but nstead
attacks JW.
It's all RIGHT IN THE ARCHIVE Krass Ass.
Dork.
>
> Big snip
>
> Nonnaho
But YOU KrassAss know more than "Col. Tom Bearden and his associates?"
"Those who can't teach."
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
>
> John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
The silence is deafening.
Dorks.
Fools.
Pinheads.
"Why I aughta...."
You DORKS wasted 10 years bagging on Meyer and JW.
How long have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan?
OH SHIT. I FORGOT.
"It's NOT ABOUT OIL" according to you Pinheads.
ALL wars are over resources.
We didn't "Liberate" shit over there except a SHITSTORM.
doug
> The silence is deafening.
> Dorks.
> Fools.
> Pinheads.
> "Why I aughta...."
> You DORKS wasted 10 years bagging on Meyer and JW.
> How long have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan?
> OH SHIT. I FORGOT.
> "It's NOT ABOUT OIL" according to you Pinheads.
> ALL wars are over resources.
> We didn't "Liberate" shit over there except a SHITSTORM.
So, if it works so well, start producing them and get rich.
Given the oil prices, if it worked, we would see millions of
them in the stores. It does not work, Meyer was a con man
and nothing will ever come of it. Physics still works
DB
There has been, at countless universities for one hundred years. There
is no observation to support your claim.
>
> The silence is deafening.
As it should be.....
knews4...@yahoo.com
> > The silence is deafening.
> > Dorks.
> > Fools.
> > Pinheads.
> > "Why I aughta...."
> > You DORKS wasted 10 years bagging on Meyer and JW.
> > How long have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan?
> > OH SHIT. I FORGOT.
> > "It's NOT ABOUT OIL" according to you Pinheads.
> > ALL wars are over resources.
> > We didn't "Liberate" shit over there except a SHITSTORM.
>
> So, if it works so well, start producing them and get rich.
You think it's that easy to build, install, legalized, manufacture,
and sell anything don't you?
> Given the oil prices, if it worked,
Fallacy.
It worked.
Meyer's estate controlled it until his patents expired.
Now it's open source.
ANYONE could have built one for their own use since the "Experiment"
was posted.
Why don't you build one asshole?
we would see millions of
> them in the stores.
It works. It takes years to develop systems without thousands and
millions of dollars.
Meyer is dead and maybe was murdered almost 10 years ago exactly to
the day the started the Iraq war.
He died 5 WEEKS after his investors bought the land for his
manufacturing facility.
I spoke to the Seller of the land and with his file in hand e told me:
Real-Est-Broker Grover Johnson.
42 acre vacant land on Seeds Rd.
County number 25.
Price $1,479,415. James John Seller 614/875-XXXX
Sold to Philippe Vandemoortele
c/o WFC address
Closing date. By Waranty Deed 13/feb/1998
Recording/Franklin/Reference 2508H14
Broker for Seller brought Deal. Grover Johnson got listing- got
buyer ..…Meyer a few moths later but say’s “Meyer found by Lord
telling to look on Seeds Rd.
The Seller quotes Meyer.
"Meyer was really religious, “didn’t do anything the Lord did say to
do, ‘”Told go to seed Rd. found tractor sitting by road, land behind,
found it. Also says found other contamination on other land he didn't
buy by Lord’s help.”
It does not work,
Yes it does.
Have you done the experiment?
>Meyer was a con man
> and nothing will ever come of it. Physics still works
Meyer NEVER claimed it did.
Did you read the International Report?
It's all right there.
EVERYTHING these assholes here wanted.
He opened the black box and showed it to the Evaluators.
So.......FUCK OFF.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> Why is there no "peer review" of the simple experiment?
>
> There has been, at countless universities for one hundred years. There
> is no observation to support your claim.
>
Cite someone doing the posted experiment, matching the inductance and
capacitance with water as the dielectric?
>
>
> > The silence is deafening.
>
> As it should be.....
As you should be since you are FULL OF SHIT.
gdew...@gmail.com
> [troll]
You feel the need to respond but attack the person rather than address
the topic?
How revealing.
gdew...@gmail.com
> [troll]
You feel the need to respond but attack rather than address the topic?
How revealing.
gdew...@gmail.com
> [troll]
You feel the need to respond but attack the person rather than address
the topic?
How revealing.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:24 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>>The silence is deafening.
>>>Dorks.
>>>Fools.
>>>Pinheads.
>>>"Why I aughta...."
>>>You DORKS wasted 10 years bagging on Meyer and JW.
>>>How long have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan?
>>>OH SHIT. I FORGOT.
>>>"It's NOT ABOUT OIL" according to you Pinheads.
>>>ALL wars are over resources.
>>>We didn't "Liberate" shit over there except a SHITSTORM.
>>
>>So, if it works so well, start producing them and get rich.
>
>
> You think it's that easy to build, install, legalized, manufacture,
> and sell anything don't you?
Having done this for years, yes I know how it works. If this were
not a fraud, I would be out making them.
>
>
>>Given the oil prices, if it worked,
>
>
> Fallacy.
> It worked.
No, it never did. That was shown in court.
> Meyer's estate controlled it until his patents expired.
> Now it's open source.
And no one wants it anyway. There is nothing stopping people
from making and selling these. If there is money in it,
people will do it.
> ANYONE could have built one for their own use since the "Experiment"
> was posted.
> Why don't you build one asshole?
>
> we would see millions of
>
>>them in the stores.
>
>
> It works. It takes years to develop systems without thousands and
> millions of dollars.
If it worked, there would be people falling all over themselves
handing out money. Oil is getting more expensive you know.
> Meyer is dead and maybe was murdered almost 10 years ago exactly to
> the day the started the Iraq war.
> He died 5 WEEKS after his investors bought the land for his
> manufacturing facility.
>
> I spoke to the Seller of the land and with his file in hand e told me:
> Real-Est-Broker Grover Johnson.
> 42 acre vacant land on Seeds Rd.
> County number 25.
> Price $1,479,415. James John Seller 614/875-XXXX
> Sold to Philippe Vandemoortele
> c/o WFC address
> Closing date. By Waranty Deed 13/feb/1998
> Recording/Franklin/Reference 2508H14
> Broker for Seller brought Deal. Grover Johnson got listing- got
> buyer ..�Meyer a few moths later but say�s �Meyer found by Lord
> telling to look on Seeds Rd.
> The Seller quotes Meyer.
> "Meyer was really religious, �didn�t do anything the Lord did say to
> do, ��Told go to seed Rd. found tractor sitting by road, land behind,
> found it. Also says found other contamination on other land he didn't
> buy by Lord�s help.�
>
>
> It does not work,
>
> Yes it does.
> Have you done the experiment?
>
>
>>Meyer was a con man
>>and nothing will ever come of it. Physics still works
>
>
> Meyer NEVER claimed it did.
His claims violate lots of physics laws. Those laws have
not changed any.
> Did you read the International Report?
There is that silly business about "first you must understand
the differnce between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction..."
You clearly do not understand this at all.
> It's all right there.
> EVERYTHING these assholes here wanted.
> He opened the black box and showed it to the Evaluators.
> So.......FUCK OFF.
So why is no one building it? The answer is that it is a fraud.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 8:24 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>>The silence is deafening.
> >>>Dorks.
> >>>Fools.
> >>>Pinheads.
> >>>"Why I aughta...."
> >>>You DORKS wasted 10 years bagging on Meyer and JW.
> >>>How long have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan?
> >>>OH SHIT. I FORGOT.
> >>>"It's NOT ABOUT OIL" according to you Pinheads.
> >>>ALL wars are over resources.
> >>>We didn't "Liberate" shit over there except a SHITSTORM.
>
> >>So, if it works so well, start producing them and get rich.
>
> > You think it's that easy to build, install, legalized, manufacture,
> > and sell anything don't you?
>
> Having done this for years, yes I know how it works.
What works?
Inventing, developing, promoting, financing, engineering, testing,
building facilities, fighting with partners and investors?
Yes, it's done all the time over a decade or so.
>If this were
> not a fraud, I would be out making them.
>
You have millions and millions of dollars, facilities, technicians,
distribution, marketing, legal today?
>
> >>Given the oil prices, if it worked,
>
> > Fallacy.
> > It worked.
>
> No, it never did. That was shown in court.
Liar.
The court case was BULLSHIT.
They put powder in Meyer's cell.
It's all on video. It was in Deposition.
Meyer's cell was NEVER in court.
They shut of recording equipment during his experts testimony and he
was stopped from testifying.
Courts don't analyze technology.
Read the report.
>
> > Meyer's estate controlled it until his patents expired.
> > Now it's open source.
>
> And no one wants it anyway.
Bet?
I already have one bet for $5000.
There is nothing stopping people
> from making and selling these.
Nope.
So make one and sell it.
>If there is money in it,
> people will do it.
>
Patience Grasshopper.
> > ANYONE could have built one for their own use since the "Experiment"
> > was posted.
> > Why don't you build one asshole?
>
> > we would see millions of
>
> >>them in the stores.
>
> > It works. It takes years to develop systems without thousands and
> > millions of dollars.
>
> If it worked, there would be people falling all over themselves
> handing out money.
No.
First you have incorporate and sell stock which usually means giving
up control and all the other problems. That takes a year or two. Give
secured loans. Sell stocks. Bonds. Etc ETCetcetc.
Or sell dealerships and Profit Participation Certificates like Meyer
had done.
>Oil is getting more expensive you know.
>
Really?
Meyer knew that in 1973 when he started fooling with hydrogen.
Probably before you were born.
>
> > Meyer is dead and maybe was murdered almost 10 years ago exactly to
> > the day the started the Iraq war.
> > He died 5 WEEKS after his investors bought the land for his
> > manufacturing facility.
>
> > I spoke to the Seller of the land and with his file in hand e told me:
> > Real-Est-Broker Grover Johnson.
> > 42 acre vacant land on Seeds Rd.
> > County number 25.
> > Price $1,479,415. James John Seller 614/875-XXXX
> > Sold to Philippe Vandemoortele
> > c/o WFC address
> > Closing date. By Waranty Deed 13/feb/1998
> > Recording/Franklin/Reference 2508H14
> > Broker for Seller brought Deal. Grover Johnson got listing- got
> > buyer .. Meyer a few moths later but say s Meyer found by Lord
> > telling to look on Seeds Rd.
> > The Seller quotes Meyer.
> > "Meyer was really religious, didn t do anything the Lord did say to
> > do, Told go to seed Rd. found tractor sitting by road, land behind,
> > found it. Also says found other contamination on other land he didn't
> > buy by Lord s help.
>
> > It does not work,
>
> > Yes it does.
> > Have you done the experiment?
>
> >>Meyer was a con man
> >>and nothing will ever come of it. Physics still works
>
> > Meyer NEVER claimed physics didn't.
>
> His claims violate lots of physics laws. Those laws have
> not changed any.
>
No they don't.
My technicians say it doesn't. Do you know quantum physics?
Do you know sympathetic vibratory plasma physics?
Read the International Report.
His devices were reviewed and examined by the patent examiners and
they say it works as claimed under the LAW in "Critical Review."
35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
"The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
Meyer tells the story in JW's video of how the patent examiners came
out his chair exclaiming, "That's a cold process!" , meaning it's not
consumming a great deal of current/power/amps to decompose the water
(dielectric).
I know top Military Brass that took him and his cell to the Pentagon.
So....FUCK OFF.
> > Did you read the International Report?
>
No is you answer since divert to.....
> There is that silly business about "first you must understand
> the differnce between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction..."
> You clearly do not understand this at all.
>
I didn't write that.
A successful experimenter who knew one of Meyer's expert witnesses
posted that ALONG WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SEE FOR YOURSELF.
Is that in the Report?
Why are you distracting back to another argument that should have been
with the Experiment poster.
Answer the question.
DID YOU READ THE FUCKING REPORT?
> > It's all right there.
> > EVERYTHING these assholes here wanted.
> > He opened the black box and showed it to the Evaluators.
> > So.......FUCK OFF.
>
> So why is no one building it? The answer is that it is a fraud.
How do you know "no one is building it?"
Dumb FUCK.
Where is your proof that "no one is building it."
Because it isn't on the shelf at KMart?
It takes years.
Especially when Dork Fuck Piss Pants Morons WON'T EVEN TRY.
You are an idiot.
gdew...@gmail.com
>[snip]
You feel the need to respond but attack rather than address the topic?
How revealing.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
No, it does not work. I cannot try to sell
something that is a fraud.
Electrolysis is well studied and understood. What Meyer did was
to find an inefficient way to do it but a way that made lots
of bubbles so it looked good.
>>
>>>>Meyer was a con man
>>>>and nothing will ever come of it. Physics still works
>>
>>>Meyer NEVER claimed physics didn't.
Physics works or Meyers cell worked. Those are mutually
exclusive situations.
>>
>>His claims violate lots of physics laws. Those laws have
>>not changed any.
>>
>
> No they don't.
> My technicians say it doesn't. Do you know quantum physics?
Yes I do.
> Do you know sympathetic vibratory plasma physics?
This is a busword joke.
> Read the International Report.
> His devices were reviewed and examined by the patent examiners and
> they say it works as claimed under the LAW in "Critical Review."
> 35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
> "The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
> convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
> invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
> ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
>
> Meyer tells the story in JW's video of how the patent examiners came
> out his chair exclaiming, "That's a cold process!" , meaning it's not
> consumming a great deal of current/power/amps to decompose the water
> (dielectric).
You have the conman Meyer making claims.
>
> I know top Military Brass that took him and his cell to the Pentagon.
> So....FUCK OFF.
And then what happened? Did the military buy a bunch and
use them?
>
>
>>>Did you read the International Report?
>>
> No is you answer since divert to.....
>
>
>>There is that silly business about "first you must understand
>>the differnce between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction..."
>>You clearly do not understand this at all.
>>
>
>
> I didn't write that.
> A successful experimenter who knew one of Meyer's expert witnesses
> posted that ALONG WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SEE FOR YOURSELF.
This is scientific lunacy at its worst. There is no nuclear
reaction going on in there, the energies are much too low. And,
if there were, there would be large amounts of radiation emitted.
>
> Is that in the Report?
> Why are you distracting back to another argument that should have been
> with the Experiment poster.
> Answer the question.
> DID YOU READ THE FUCKING REPORT?
The laws of physics are not subject to modification by the report
of either an imcompetent experimenter or a crank or a fraud.
You were around years ago pushing this and explaining and bringing
up the same tired old delusions then. Nothing has changed since
then. It still does not and cannot work as Meyer claimed. He
was a fraud.
>
>
>>>It's all right there.
>>>EVERYTHING these assholes here wanted.
>>>He opened the black box and showed it to the Evaluators.
>>>So.......FUCK OFF.
>>
>>So why is no one building it? The answer is that it is a fraud.
>
>
> How do you know "no one is building it?"
Search the web to see where you can buy one.
>
> Dumb FUCK.
> Where is your proof that "no one is building it."
> Because it isn't on the shelf at KMart?
> It takes years.
> Especially when Dork Fuck Piss Pants Morons WON'T EVEN TRY.
So, which is it? Are they building them or no one will try
to build them? You should try to keep your story straight.
> You are an idiot.
>
>
Don Lancaster
Peer review DOES take place tens of thousands of times daily.
By EIS (Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy) specialists.
Results are uniformly negative.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse137.pdf for tutorial.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
gdew...@gmail.com
> [snip insanity]
Don Lancaster eats babies.
knews4...@yahoo.com
NO.
"No appreciable current is consumed."
No heat.
No electrolyte.
NO ELECTROLYSIS.
Did you ever see Meyer's cell?
NO.
Did you ever touch Meyer's COLD CELL after HOURS OF OPERATION.
NO.
JW did.
JW has video in Meyer's lab.
JW went to numerous demonstrations of Meyer's cell.
Meyer's cell was taken to the Pentagon.
YOU THINK Meyer got in the Pentagon with an Electrolysis cell?
You are an idiot.
>
> >>>>Meyer was a con man
> >>>>and nothing will ever come of it. Physics still works
>
> >>>Meyer NEVER claimed physics didn't.
>
> Physics works or Meyers cell worked. Those are mutually
> exclusive situations.
>
>
>
> >>His claims violate lots of physics laws. Those laws have
> >>not changed any.
>
> > No they don't.
> > My technicians say it doesn't. Do you know quantum physics?
>
> Yes I do.
But you are an unexperienced nobody who refuses to do a simple
experiment to see his process for yourself.
>
> > Do you know sympathetic vibratory plasma physics?
>
> This is a busword joke.
No, it's description of a process.
>
> > Read the International Report.
> > His devices were reviewed and examined by the patent examiners and
> > they say it works as claimed under the LAW in "Critical Review."
> > 35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
> > "The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
> > convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
> > invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
> > ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
>
> > Meyer tells the story in JW's video of how the patent examiners came
> > out his chair exclaiming, "That's a cold process!" , meaning it's not
> > consumming a great deal of current/power/amps to decompose the water
> > (dielectric).
>
> You have the conman Meyer making claims.
>
No.
I have expert witnesses in the patent examiner's office.
>
>
> > I know top Military Brass that took him and his cell to the Pentagon.
> > So....FUCK OFF.
>
> And then what happened? Did the military buy a bunch and
> use them?
>
Don't have to.
The military doesn't have to buy.
They can build what they want.
>
> >>>Did you read the International Report?
>
Still haven't.
Loser.
You argue but don't read the documentation and test results that
everyone here has been screaming for for 12 years and then you don't
read it.
Idiot.
> > No is you answer since divert to.....
>
> >>There is that silly business about "first you must understand
> >>the differnce between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction..."
> >>You clearly do not understand this at all.
>
> > I didn't write that.
> > A successful experimenter who knew one of Meyer's expert witnesses
> > posted that ALONG WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SEE FOR YOURSELF.
>
> This is scientific lunacy at its worst.
This from someone who refuses to do the Experiment.
>There is no nuclear
> reaction going on in there, the energies are much too low.
"Particle ocillation as an energy generator."
>And,
> if there were, there would be large amounts of radiation emitted.
>
Cite.
Proof.
Test of Ted's/Meyer's experiment....which you won't do of course....
>
>
> > Is that in the Report?
> > Why are you distracting back to another argument that should have been
> > with the Experiment poster.
> > Answer the question.
> > DID YOU READ THE FUCKING REPORT?
>
> The laws of physics are not subject to modification by the report
> of either an imcompetent experimenter or a crank or a fraud.
No laws of physics are broken in Meyer's work.
> You were around years ago pushing this and explaining and bringing
> up the same tired old delusions then. Nothing has changed since
> then. It still does not and cannot work as Meyer claimed. He
> was a fraud.
>
For which he was fined "one ollar.
You are an idiot.
He was maybe murdered 5 weeks after he secured 45 acres of land to
build his manufacturing center.
>
>
> >>>It's all right there.
> >>>EVERYTHING these assholes here wanted.
> >>>He opened the black box and showed it to the Evaluators.
> >>>So.......FUCK OFF.
>
> >>So why is no one building it? The answer is that it is a fraud.
>
> > How do you know "no one is building it?"
>
> Search the web to see where you can buy one.
>
So, "If it's not on the web it doesn't exist."
You are an idiot.
I told you Morons, we have thousands of pages of Meyer's engineering
drawings and specs.
>
> > Dumb FUCK.
> > Where is your proof that "no one is building it."
> > Because it isn't on the shelf at KMart?
> > It takes years.
> > Especially when Dork Fuck Piss Pants Morons WON'T EVEN TRY.
>
> So, which is it?
Which is what?
You are a Dumb Fuck or a Moron?
Are they building them or no one will try
> to build them?
Look at youtube.com for real experimenters who are "willing to show
their work."
>You should try to keep your story straight.
You should get your Dick out of your mouth and build a simple single
tube cell and learn something.
>
> > You are an idiot.
Talk to real experimenters and scientists about it.
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$1...@client2.news.psi.net>...
knews4...@yahoo.com
> DB wrote:
> > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> Why is there no "peer review" of the simple experiment?
>
> Peer review DOES take place tens of thousands of times daily.
>
> By EIS (Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy) specialists.
>
> Results are uniformly negative.
>
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
Donny, you are a liar.
With all your smarts up your ass, assets, and ability, YOU ONCE AND
FOR ALL COULD BUILD A CELL PER THE EXPERIMENT AND SHOW WHOLE WORLD
IT'S "FRAUD" BUT YOU WON'T
WHY IS THAT?
YOU are the FRAUD.
doug
You see, the problem is that to sell something, it
really should work. Meyer did not care as he was
not selling product, he was selling images. Products
should work, images do not need to.
Thus no hydrogen production.
> No heat.
> No electrolyte.
> NO ELECTROLYSIS.
Yes, and no hydrogen.
>
> Did you ever see Meyer's cell?
> NO.
I have read the patents and gotten a good laugh.
> Did you ever touch Meyer's COLD CELL after HOURS OF OPERATION.
> NO.
I believe it will be cold since there is not enough power going into
it to raise the temperature much.
> JW did.
That is not a physics proof.
> JW has video in Meyer's lab.
Which is not a physics proof. Meyer was used to staging his
fraud.
> JW went to numerous demonstrations of Meyer's cell.
And JW still does not know any physics and is easily
fooled.
> Meyer's cell was taken to the Pentagon.
> YOU THINK Meyer got in the Pentagon with an Electrolysis cell?
No, he got in with a fraud.
> You are an idiot.
>
>
>
>>>>>>Meyer was a con man
>>>>>>and nothing will ever come of it. Physics still works
>>
>>>>>Meyer NEVER claimed physics didn't.
>>
>>Physics works or Meyers cell worked. Those are mutually
>>exclusive situations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>His claims violate lots of physics laws. Those laws have
>>>>not changed any.
>>
>>>No they don't.
>>>My technicians say it doesn't. Do you know quantum physics?
>>
>>Yes I do.
>
>
> But you are an unexperienced nobody who refuses to do a simple
> experiment to see his process for yourself.
If I tell you that I can jump 100 feet straight up and you
tell me I cannot. Can I complain that you did not do an
experiment to verify this?
>
>
>>>Do you know sympathetic vibratory plasma physics?
>>
>>This is a busword joke.
>
>
> No, it's description of a process.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the meyer fraud.
>
>
>>>Read the International Report.
>>>His devices were reviewed and examined by the patent examiners and
>>>they say it works as claimed under the LAW in "Critical Review."
>>>35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
>>>"The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
>>>convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
>>>invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
>>>ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
>>
>>>Meyer tells the story in JW's video of how the patent examiners came
>>>out his chair exclaiming, "That's a cold process!" , meaning it's not
>>>consumming a great deal of current/power/amps to decompose the water
>>>(dielectric).
>>
>>You have the conman Meyer making claims.
>>
>
> No.
> I have expert witnesses in the patent examiner's office.
Microsoft just patented the page-up and page-dn key. That tells
you all about the patent examiners.
>
>
>>
>>>I know top Military Brass that took him and his cell to the Pentagon.
>>>So....FUCK OFF.
>>
>>And then what happened? Did the military buy a bunch and
>>use them?
>>
>
> Don't have to.
> The military doesn't have to buy.
> They can build what they want.
And how many did they build?
>
>
>>>>>Did you read the International Report?
>>
>
> Still haven't.
> Loser.
> You argue but don't read the documentation and test results that
> everyone here has been screaming for for 12 years and then you don't
> read it.
> Idiot.
>
>
>>>No is you answer since divert to.....
>>
>>>>There is that silly business about "first you must understand
>>>>the differnce between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction..."
>>>>You clearly do not understand this at all.
>>
>>>I didn't write that.
>>>A successful experimenter who knew one of Meyer's expert witnesses
>>>posted that ALONG WITH HIS INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SEE FOR YOURSELF.
>>
>>This is scientific lunacy at its worst.
>
>
> This from someone who refuses to do the Experiment.
Have you done the experiment?
>
>
>>There is no nuclear
>>reaction going on in there, the energies are much too low.
>
>
> "Particle ocillation as an energy generator."
Buzzphrase generator. Standard type of meaninlyless phrase
for frauds.
>
>
>>And,
>>if there were, there would be large amounts of radiation emitted.
>>
>
> Cite.
> Proof.
You see, you first must know the difference between a chemical
reaction and a nuclear reaction. Nuclear reactions give off
radiation....
> Test of Ted's/Meyer's experiment....which you won't do of course....
>
>>
>>>Is that in the Report?
>>>Why are you distracting back to another argument that should have been
>>>with the Experiment poster.
>>>Answer the question.
>>>DID YOU READ THE FUCKING REPORT?
>>
>>The laws of physics are not subject to modification by the report
>>of either an imcompetent experimenter or a crank or a fraud.
>
>
>
> No laws of physics are broken in Meyer's work.
He claims to get out more energy than he puts in. That is
a pretty basic law to claim to break. We saw that he tried
to cloak this in pseudoscientific bablle to suck in the gullible.
It worked for a lot of people and he found it easier than
working.
>
>
>>You were around years ago pushing this and explaining and bringing
>>up the same tired old delusions then. Nothing has changed since
>>then. It still does not and cannot work as Meyer claimed. He
>>was a fraud.
>>
>
> For which he was fined "one ollar.
> You are an idiot.
>
> He was maybe murdered 5 weeks after he secured 45 acres of land to
> build his manufacturing center.
>
>
>>
>>>>>It's all right there.
>>>>>EVERYTHING these assholes here wanted.
>>>>>He opened the black box and showed it to the Evaluators.
>>>>>So.......FUCK OFF.
>>
>>>>So why is no one building it? The answer is that it is a fraud.
>>
>>>How do you know "no one is building it?"
>>
>>Search the web to see where you can buy one.
>>
>
> So, "If it's not on the web it doesn't exist."
>
> You are an idiot.
>
> I told you Morons, we have thousands of pages of Meyer's engineering
> drawings and specs.
So why don't you build one and go around and get someone
interested in building lots of them.
>
>
>>>Dumb FUCK.
>>>Where is your proof that "no one is building it."
>>>Because it isn't on the shelf at KMart?
>>>It takes years.
>>>Especially when Dork Fuck Piss Pants Morons WON'T EVEN TRY.
>>
>>So, which is it?
>
>
> Which is what?
> You are a Dumb Fuck or a Moron?
>
> Are they building them or no one will try
>
>>to build them?
>
>
> Look at youtube.com for real experimenters who are "willing to show
> their work."
>
>
>>You should try to keep your story straight.
>
>
> You should get your Dick out of your mouth and build a simple single
> tube cell and learn something.
How many have you built?
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Oct 2, 8:04 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
> Donny, you are a liar.
> With all your smarts up your ass, assets, and ability, YOU ONCE AND
> FOR ALL COULD BUILD A CELL PER THE EXPERIMENT AND SHOW WHOLE WORLD
> IT'S "FRAUD" BUT YOU WON'T
> WHY IS THAT?
> YOU are the FRAUD.
It is always false accusations with this guy.
Never a constructive argument, always spam and lies.
Don Lancaster is clearly a fraud.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
And what is stopping you from building one?
If you would just build one and show it works, then
you could stop all this dancing you are doing.
> WHY IS THAT?
Physics says it doesn't work. And he is not required to
prove that you do not understand physics. You have
already demonstrated that to our satisfaction.
> YOU are the FRAUD.
No, Meyer was the one found guilty of fraud.
gdew...@gmail.com
Yes, Don Lancaster is clearly a fraud.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 8:04 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
> >>DB wrote:
>
> >>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>Why is there no "peer review" of the simple experiment?
>
> >>Peer review DOES take place tens of thousands of times daily.
>
> >>By EIS (Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy) specialists.
>
> >>Results are uniformly negative.
>
> >>Seehttp://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse137.pdffortutorial.
>
> >>--
> >>Many thanks,
>
> >>Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> >>Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> >>rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> >>Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
>
> > Donny, you are a liar.
> > With all your smarts up your ass, assets, and ability, YOU ONCE AND
> > FOR ALL COULD BUILD A CELL PER THE EXPERIMENT AND SHOW WHOLE WORLD
> > IT'S "FRAUD" BUT YOU WON'T
>
> And what is stopping you from building one?
How do you know I have not?
> If you would just build one and show it works, then
> you could stop all this dancing you are doing.
>
No because everyone will say "It's a trick' just like the do to the
guy who built, patented, financed, and was ready to manufacture and
sell just before he may have been murdered.
> > WHY IS THAT?
>
> Physics says it doesn't work.
The experiment shows the first step to show you are not reading your
physics properly..
>And he is not required to
> prove that you do not understand physics.
Who?
>You have
> already demonstrated that to our satisfaction.
I have specialists.
Like Henry Ford, I just push a button to get my professionals.
I don't come here for them yet some have contacted me because of my
advocacy.
>
> > YOU are the FRAUD.
>
> No, Meyer was the one found guilty of fraud.
Meyer's case was a joke.
They didn't tell him to stop financing his needs in any manner he had
been doing all along. He broke no financing laws. It was a CIVIL CASE.
Wooooooppppppeeeeeeeeeee Fuck.
NO "Cease and Desist Order."
NO, award besides the repayment of investor funds.
No damages.
A "One Dollar" fine.
Ahahahahahahaha
You are an idiot.....or...oil company, CIA, pawn.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 2, 11:37 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 2, 8:04 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>DB wrote:
>>
>>>>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Why is there no "peer review" of the simple experiment?
>>
>>>>Peer review DOES take place tens of thousands of times daily.
>>
>>>>By EIS (Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy) specialists.
>>
>>>>Results are uniformly negative.
>>
>>>>Seehttp://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse137.pdffortutorial.
>>
>>>>--
>>>>Many thanks,
>>
>>>>Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
>>>>Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
>>>>rss:http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>>
>>>>Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
>>
>>>Donny, you are a liar.
>>>With all your smarts up your ass, assets, and ability, YOU ONCE AND
>>>FOR ALL COULD BUILD A CELL PER THE EXPERIMENT AND SHOW WHOLE WORLD
>>>IT'S "FRAUD" BUT YOU WON'T
>>
>>And what is stopping you from building one?
>
>
> How do you know I have not?
>
Because you would either be showing your wonderful
results or you would shut up. You want others to
do your work for you.
>
>>If you would just build one and show it works, then
>>you could stop all this dancing you are doing.
>>
>
>
> No because everyone will say "It's a trick' just like the do to the
> guy who built, patented, financed, and was ready to manufacture and
> sell just before he may have been murdered.
He never had a scientific demonstration with him not present. It
only "worked" when he was there. That is standard with frauds.
>
>
>>>WHY IS THAT?
>>
>>Physics says it doesn't work.
>
>
> The experiment shows the first step to show you are not reading your
> physics properly..
Conservation of energy applies pretty well to this experiment.
>
>
>>And he is not required to
>>prove that you do not understand physics.
>
>
> Who?
>
>
>>You have
>>already demonstrated that to our satisfaction.
>
>
> I have specialists.
> Like Henry Ford, I just push a button to get my professionals.
> I don't come here for them yet some have contacted me because of my
> advocacy.
So have your "professionals" build one and show the world that
meyer was not a fraud. You are a lot of talk and no action.
You should do something besides swear at those point out your
misconceptions. Put up or shut up.
>
>
>>>YOU are the FRAUD.
>>
>>No, Meyer was the one found guilty of fraud.
>
>
> Meyer's case was a joke.
> They didn't tell him to stop financing his needs in any manner he had
> been doing all along. He broke no financing laws. It was a CIVIL CASE.
> Wooooooppppppeeeeeeeeeee Fuck.
> NO "Cease and Desist Order."
> NO, award besides the repayment of investor funds.
The money he took by fraud.
gdew...@gmail.com
Yes, Don is a fraud.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 11:37 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> >>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Oct 2, 8:04 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>DB wrote:
>
> >>>>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Why is there no "peer review" of the simple experiment?
>
> >>>>Peer review DOES take place tens of thousands of times daily.
>
> >>>>By EIS (Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy) specialists.
>
> >>>>Results are uniformly negative.
>
> >>>>Seehttp://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse137.pdffortutorial.
>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Many thanks,
>
> >>>>Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> >>>>Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
>
> >>>>Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinaja.com
>
> >>>Donny, you are a liar.
> >>>With all your smarts up your ass, assets, and ability, YOU ONCE AND
> >>>FOR ALL COULD BUILD A CELL PER THE EXPERIMENT AND SHOW WHOLE WORLD
> >>>IT'S "FRAUD" BUT YOU WON'T
>
> >>And what is stopping you from building one?
>
> > How do you know I have not?
>
> Because you would either be showing your wonderful
> results or you would shut up.
Non Sequituer (sp)?
>You want others to
> do your work for you.
>
Many, many, many others have.
Youtube, waterfuel.org etc are full of folks who followed JW's lead
from the Experimenter's post.
>
>
> >>If you would just build one and show it works, then
> >>you could stop all this dancing you are doing.
>
No.
You don't even believe the patent office or the writers of the
International Report that everyone has been screaming here for for
years.
Why would you believe my results?
Then what would you DO ANYWAYS?
> > No because everyone will say "It's a trick' just like the do to the
> > guy who built, patented, financed, and was ready to manufacture and
> > sell just before he may have been murdered.
>
> He never had a scientific demonstration with him not present. It
> only "worked" when he was there. That is standard with frauds.
>
Sure it is when you use a strawman.
>
>
> >>>WHY IS THAT?
>
> >>Physics says it doesn't work.
>
> > The experiment shows the first step to show you are not reading your
> > physics properly..
>
> Conservation of energy applies pretty well to this experiment.
>
Yup.
All the energy put in is right where is belongs.
Solar. (photons)
Static (electrons)
etc etc
>
>
> >>And he is not required to
> >>prove that you do not understand physics.
>
> > Who?
>
> >>You have
> >>already demonstrated that to our satisfaction.
>
> > I have specialists.
> > Like Henry Ford, I just push a button to get my professionals.
> > I don't come here for them yet some have contacted me because of my
> > advocacy.
>
> So have your "professionals" build one and show the world that
> meyer was not a fraud.
youtube.com
Search lawton cell etc.
>You are a lot of talk and no action.
Iv'e got 30 years in hydrogen research.
> You should do something besides swear at those point out your
> misconceptions. Put up or shut up.
>
Do the experiment and prove me wrong.
Build a circuit EXACTLY like the experiment and show it on youtube.
>
>
> >>>YOU are the FRAUD.
>
> >>No, Meyer was the one found guilty of fraud.
>
> > Meyer's case was a joke.
> > They didn't tell him to stop financing his needs in any manner he had
> > been doing all along. He broke no financing laws. It was a CIVIL CASE.
> > Wooooooppppppeeeeeeeeeee Fuck.
> > NO "Cease and Desist Order."
> > NO, award besides the repayment of investor funds.
>
> The money he took by fraud.
>
> > No damages.
> > A "One Dollar" fine.
> > Ahahahahahahaha
> > You are an idiot.....or...oil company, CIA, pawn.
No answer noted.
NOT ONE CREDENTIAL?
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
If it worked well, at least some of them would have been
injured. Working with hydrogen requires a huge amount of
care.
>
>
>>
>>>>If you would just build one and show it works, then
>>>>you could stop all this dancing you are doing.
>>
>
> No.
So you do not believe in it enough to build one. Do you
believe in it enough to pay me to build one?
> You don't even believe the patent office or the writers of the
> International Report that everyone has been screaming here for for
> years.
> Why would you believe my results?
> Then what would you DO ANYWAYS?
>
>
>>>No because everyone will say "It's a trick' just like the do to the
>>>guy who built, patented, financed, and was ready to manufacture and
>>>sell just before he may have been murdered.
>>
>>He never had a scientific demonstration with him not present. It
>>only "worked" when he was there. That is standard with frauds.
>>
>
> Sure it is when you use a strawman.
>
>>
>>>>>WHY IS THAT?
>>
>>>>Physics says it doesn't work.
>>
>>>The experiment shows the first step to show you are not reading your
>>>physics properly..
>>
>>Conservation of energy applies pretty well to this experiment.
>>
>
> Yup.
> All the energy put in is right where is belongs.
Conservation of energy says that it does not matter how you
break up water, the best you can do is put in the amount
of energy that you get out of when you burn the hydrogen to
get water. (This is ignoring some small heat effects that
do not change the argument significantly). This does not
mean that you can get around it by oscillating the atoms
or any other game. Since there is no other energy input
mechanism (no, it is not a nuclear process) there is no
way you can do better than simple electrolysis. If you
do the games that meyer did, you are guaranteed to waste
more energy and be much more inefficient.
> Solar. (photons)
> Static (electrons)
> etc etc
>
>
>>
>>>>And he is not required to
>>>>prove that you do not understand physics.
>>
>>>Who?
>>
>>>>You have
>>>>already demonstrated that to our satisfaction.
>>
>>>I have specialists.
>>>Like Henry Ford, I just push a button to get my professionals.
>>>I don't come here for them yet some have contacted me because of my
>>>advocacy.
>>
>>So have your "professionals" build one and show the world that
>>meyer was not a fraud.
>
>
> youtube.com
> Search lawton cell etc.
Yes, he makes lots of bubbles. Missing is any analysis
of efficiency. No one ever said that you cannot do
electrolysis, just that it is a waste of good electricity
to do it.
If this worked, these people would not be on youtube,
they would be making them.
>
>
>>You are a lot of talk and no action.
>
>
> Iv'e got 30 years in hydrogen research.
Show some of the cells you have made. How much
money have you made doing this? Where can I buy
a commercial one.
>
>
>>You should do something besides swear at those point out your
>>misconceptions. Put up or shut up.
>>
>
> Do the experiment and prove me wrong.
> Build a circuit EXACTLY like the experiment and show it on youtube.
There is no point in building anything to show you
are wrong. I know you are wrong. How about if YOU build
something to show you are right?
You are trying to convince the world of something by
yelling. That is not how science works.
hhc...@yahoo.com
> Here you go Dorks.
>
> http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>
> And who wrote it?
> Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
> About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
> process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
> But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
> From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>
>
> But I doubt you Dorks can read.
> Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
>
> You'll just stay in Dork Land
A Dork or really simply a terminally stupid guy is anone who realizes
by laboratory testing, none of Stan Meyer's silly schemes has ever
worked, or actually will ever work. If they actually did, it would
indicate that all man's accumated knowledge of physics and physical
chemestry be reset to zero, and begin again.
Guess what, there, based on the nonsensical evidence surfaced to date,
that simply is not going to occur.
If you after all these years haven't yet figured out that good old
Stan was a confidence artist, then is is you that is the Dork.
Harry C.
Fred Kasner
> On Sep 30, 3:01 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 2:48 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Here you go Dorks.
>>> http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>>> And who wrote it?
>>> Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
>>> About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
>>> process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
>>> But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
>>> From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>>> But I doubt you Dorks can read.
>>> Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
>>> You'll just stay in Dork Land
>> Biography
>>
>> Grotz received his Baccalaureate of Science in electrical engineer
>> from the University of Connecticut in 1973. Grotz has worked in the
>> field of geophysics, aerospace, and industrial research and design. He
>> worked at Texas Instruments, Geophysical Services Division, and the
>> University of Texas at Dallas. Grotz was a Senior Engineer at Martin
>> Marietta. A bachelors degree is usually an undergraduate academic
>> degree awarded for a course that generally lasts three or four
>> years. ... University of Connecticut The University of Connecticut,
>> commonly known as UConn, is the State of Connecticuts flagship land-
>> grant university. ... 1973 was a common year starting on Monday. ...
>> Geophysics, the study of the earth by quantitative physical methods,
>> especially by seismic reflection and refraction, gravity, magnetic,
>> electrical, electromagnetic, and radioactivity methods. ... Aerospace
>> engineering is the branch of engineering concerning aircraft,
>> spacecraft and related topics. ... Texas Instruments (NYSE: TXN),
>> better known in the electronics industry as TI, is a company based in
>> Dallas, Texas, renowned for developing and commercializing
>> semiconductor and computer technology. ... The University of Texas
>> System comprises fifteen educational institutions in Texas, of which
>> nine are general academic universities, and six are health
>> institutions. ... Martin Marietta Corporation was founded in 1961
>> through the merger of The Martin Company and American-Marietta
>> Corporation. ...
>>
>> Grotz managed the the 1984 Tesla Centennial Symposium and the 1986
>> International Tesla Symposium and was president of the International
>> Tesla Society. As Project Manager for Project Tesla, Grotz helped in
>> the recreation of Nikola Tesla's wireless transmission of power
>> experiments.
>> ...............................
>>
>> But he's not in the Dork Club like you guys so he's full of shit
>> right?
>
> So come on Moron Dork Tards, Donny, KrassAss, RailRoad Harry the lying
> piece of Yak Dung?
> Where's all your smart ass comments about it?
> What's the matter you afraid people might start looking at the
> archives of sci.energy.hydrogen for everything
> JW
> OHANNON
> told you about all the work not published or propagandized in your
> "peer reviewed" toilet paper?
>
> Why is there no "peer review" of the simple experiment?
>
>
> But YOU Dork Farts have your heads so far up your asses you have to
> pull down your pants to see.
> ...................................
> From: michael Hannon <big.b...@planet.nl>
> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 13:49:17 +0200
>
> Not in those conditions.
> The nucleus reacts by emitting either photons or antiphotons,
> or possibly other particles -
> it is a non-radioactive nuclear reaction, and such reactions have
> already been demonstrated in experiments.
> Col. Tom Bearden and his associates have been studying
> these reactions for years, and written about them.
> The Sweet Vacuum Triode is designed around such reactions.
>
> OHannon
>
> Nonnaho wrote:
>
>> Fred Kasner wrote:
>>> This joker who understands almost no science at all is still claiming
>>> that the reaction in the Meyer apparatus is nuclear.
> Which JW, to whom Mr. KrassAss is addressing his assault, not THE
> POSTER OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.
>
> Can you understand "straw man?"
>
>> If the reaction was nuclear, would the cell produce some type of radiation that
>> can be measured?
>
> With no cite of ANY sort to back his Professor's claim.
> He NEVER attempted to discuss the "claim" with the "Ted' but nstead
> attacks JW.
> It's all RIGHT IN THE ARCHIVE Krass Ass.
> Dork.
>
>> Big snip
>>
>> Nonnaho
>
> But YOU KrassAss know more than "Col. Tom Bearden and his associates?"
>
> "Those who can't teach."
>
Actually, yes. My research is almost all published by ASTM as methods in
Committee D.02.11. I and several others have many such published methods
for high performance and aerospace fluids. But then again I guess that
just sails over your pointy head.
Still supporting the nonsense about not needing any current only voltage
to produce a nuclear change, you idiot. OK, idiot, once again I'll point
out to you that the energies of nuclear changes are frequently listed in
electron volts (usually as Mev = million electron volts). The fact is
that a volt is NOT the same as an electron volt. And electron volt is an
energy that can be restated in units called joules. A volt is NOT an
electron vclt. When will you get that through you thick skull, idiot?
As for the failure to publish claims from Meyer or Rense or others of
their ilk in refereed scientific or engineering journals is because they
won't publish them because they make unreproducible claimed results of
experiments that not only violate fundamental laws of science (including
not being able to distinguish between things such as electron volts and
volts. If these idiots have anything truly reproducible and
revolutionary a journal such as Nature will jump right on it as soon as
they can see proof that others can produce the same results. But they
can't and so the chemistry and physics and engineering journals will
never publish this hogwash.
FK
Fred Kasner
>> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
>>
>> John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
> Dorks.
> Fools.
> Pinheads.
> "Why I aughta...."
> You DORKS wasted 10 years bagging on Meyer and JW.
> How long have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan?
> OH SHIT. I FORGOT.
> "It's NOT ABOUT OIL" according to you Pinheads.
> ALL wars are over resources.
> We didn't "Liberate" shit over there except a SHITSTORM.
Remarkable, Junior Dummy, JW, actually really believes he can read my
mind about Iraq and Afghaniostan. Where can you find a quote about me
opinions about those subjects. You utter fool have decided you know what
I think about those subjects. Not a word can you find in any newsgroup
about my political opinions about those subjects. But a super idiot such
as you will use it to attempt to discredit a person. You are a hopeless
idiot, junior dummy
1
FK
Fred Kasner
It takes years? Many years have passed and there is nothing approaching
such a device available in the market. Ergo, there can't be such a
device that accomplishes what you and the other idiots claim. The laws
of thermodynamics are not broken.
FK
Fred Kasner
The laws of physics are not broken in Meyer's device? But you keep
insisting that a volt is a unit of energy. It is NOT. An electron volt
is a unit of energy. You keep insisting that you can produce a chemical
change without a transfer of electric charge. Chemical bonds are
electric in fact. When bonds are broken there must be transfer of
charge. (Transfer of charge is commonly called an electric current.) You
are a hopeless imbecile.
FK
Fred Kasner
> On Sep 30, 8:30 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:>> There has been, at countless universities for one hundred years. There
>> is no observation to support your claim.
>>
> Liar.
> Cite someone doing the posted experiment, matching the inductance and
> capacitance with water as the dielectric?
>>
>>> The silence is deafening.
>> As it should be.....
>
> As you should be since you are FULL OF SHIT.
>
As a matter of fact I presented at the Chemistry Department of the U. of
Chicago in the 1950's a method for determining the moment of inertia of
a molecule via the use of tuned circuit of high Q. If it weren't for the
fact that it is very difficult to get very pure conductivity water such
a method would work for water also. But the conduction of less pure
water than conductivity water prevents water being used as such as there
is too much current leakage through the dielectric.
FK
knews4...@yahoo.com
> > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
>
> > John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
How about a paper about dielectric breakdown under tuned vibration?
>
> Still supporting the nonsense about not needing any current only voltage
> to produce a nuclear change, you idiot.
NEVER EVER CLAIMED "only voltage" liar.
<snip remaining diversionary tactic"
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Sep 30, 5:48 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here you go Dorks.
>
> >http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>
> > And who wrote it?
> > Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
> > About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
> > process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
> > But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
> > From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>
>
> > But I doubt you Dorks can read.
> > Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
>
> > You'll just stay in Dork Land
>
> A Dork or really simply a terminally stupid guy is anone who realizes
> by laboratory testing, none of Stan Meyer's silly schemes has ever
> worked, or actually will ever work.
Why did the Patent Examiners disagree RailRoad Harry?
>If they actually did, it would
> indicate that all man's accumated knowledge of physics and physical
> chemestry be reset to zero, and begin again.
>
That's pretty slippery slope for eve who NEVER did the experiment, saw
Meyer's cell, or read the International reort.
> Guess what, there, based on the nonsensical evidence surfaced to date,
> that simply is not going to occur.
>
"If it "didn't surface it doesn't exist."
You are a FUCKING GENIUS RAILROAD.
> If you after all these years haven't yet figured out that good old
> Stan was a confidence artist, then is is you that is the Dork.
>
> Harry C.
Yea Harry.
He raised millions of dollars and fooled the patent examiners, the
Pentagon, Admirals and their experts from the Royal Institute of Navel
Architects, and the guys who spent 1.5 million to buy him land 5 weeks
before his death with "electrolysis."
Ahahahahahahahahaha.....
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz
Dork.
gdew...@gmail.com
> > Hairy C.
>
> Yea Harry.
> He raised millions of dollars and fooled the patent examiners, the
> Pentagon, Admirals and their experts from the Royal Institute of Navel
> Architects, and the guys who spent 1.5 million to buy him land 5 weeks
> before his death with "electrolysis."
> Ahahahahahahahahaha.....
ohhhh? are U trying to say Haarpy haz lies to us?
Me wonders what the power source is in his perpetual efforts.
hahahhahaha
On Oct 3, 6:45 am, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> As a matter of fact I presented at the Chemistry Department of the U. of
> Chicago in the 1950's a method for determining the moment of inertia of
> a molecule via the use of tuned circuit of high Q.
Ohh professeur Kasner the free energy inventor?
Be carefull sir, there are petroleum snakes all around you!
Perhaps you can explain why micheal Faraday and Nicola Tesla
accomplished moar ass the entire academic establishment put together?
Why is the academic arbeit so fruitless and void of practical results?
Or is that answer classified for national security purposes? I cant
seem to be able to equate keeping people stupid with security.
How is starting a world war and killing your own economy securing you?
Thanks,
Don Lancaster
>
> As for the failure to publish claims from Meyer or Rense or others of
> their ilk in refereed scientific or engineering journals is because they
> won't publish them because they make unreproducible claimed results of
> experiments that not only violate fundamental laws of science (including
> not being able to distinguish between things such as electron volts and
> volts. If these idiots have anything truly reproducible and
> revolutionary a journal such as Nature will jump right on it as soon as
> they can see proof that others can produce the same results. But they
> can't and so the chemistry and physics and engineering journals will
> never publish this hogwash.
>
> FK
There always is the alternative of "publishing" in aisle 13 of WalMart.
There is absolutely no way the journals could suppress a legitimate
alternate energy breakthrough for any significant amount of time.
To dissociate hydrogen from water, an electron needs moved. AKA a
CURRENT, per Faraday. No exceptions have EVER been demonstrated.
Meanwhile, fundamental water measurement experiments are made thousands
of times daily by EIS researchers. With uniformly negative results.
The experiment IS run hundreds of times per hour, day in and day out.
No credible mechanism has been convincingly shown. Meanwhile, many
products require the EXACT OPPOSITE of such a mechanism for their
continued ongoing demonstrated commercial success. Qprox, EDM, etc etc etc..
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/morenrgf.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 2, 5:24 pm, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Sep 30, 5:48 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Here you go Dorks.
>>
>>>http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>>
>>>And who wrote it?
>>>Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
>>>About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
>>>process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
>>>But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
>>>From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>>
>>>And:http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KEYXM2TRIPFO?ASIN=1932595260&nodeID=ht...
>>
>>>But I doubt you Dorks can read.
>>>Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
>>
>>>You'll just stay in Dork Land
>>
>>A Dork or really simply a terminally stupid guy is anone who realizes
>>by laboratory testing, none of Stan Meyer's silly schemes has ever
>>worked, or actually will ever work.
>
>
> Why did the Patent Examiners disagree RailRoad Harry?
The patent examiners do not set the laws of physics nor,
in many cases, know much about them.
>
>
>>If they actually did, it would
>>indicate that all man's accumated knowledge of physics and physical
>>chemestry be reset to zero, and begin again.
>>
>
> That's pretty slippery slope for eve who NEVER did the experiment, saw
> Meyer's cell, or read the International reort.
Your report was a pretty funny read. It is a fraud marketing sheet.
>
>
>>Guess what, there, based on the nonsensical evidence surfaced to date,
>>that simply is not going to occur.
>>
>
> "If it "didn't surface it doesn't exist."
> You are a FUCKING GENIUS RAILROAD.
>
>
>>If you after all these years haven't yet figured out that good old
>>Stan was a confidence artist, then is is you that is the Dork.
>>
>>Harry C.
>
>
> Yea Harry.
> He raised millions of dollars and fooled the patent examiners, the
> Pentagon, Admirals and their experts from the Royal Institute of Navel
> Architects, and the guys who spent 1.5 million to buy him land 5 weeks
> before his death with "electrolysis."
> Ahahahahahahahahaha.....
> Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz
Meyer was not in the business of making hydrogen generators. Meyer
was in the business of making money off of promising to make
hydrogen generators. That is a very different business model.
He succeeded in making a living for himself by making fraudulent
promises to others to get their money. There are many companies
now who are using this business model. Most of the dot com
companies used it. It works but it does not help the economy.
>
> Dork.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
Don't you even read what you post? Look up near the top of
your own posting.
>
> <snip remaining diversionary tactic"
>
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 9:24 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Sep 30, 3:01 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sep 30, 2:48 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>Here you go Dorks.
> >>>>>http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
> >>>>>And who wrote it?
Snip useless argument ot about the content of the Report
>
> > How about a paper about dielectric breakdown under tuned vibration?
>
> >>Still supporting the nonsense about not needing any current only voltage
> >>to produce a nuclear change, you idiot.
>
> > NEVER EVER CLAIMED "only voltage" liar.
>
> Don't you even read what you post? Look up near the top of
> your own posting.
>
I, Meyer, or the Experimenter NEVER claimed "only voltage."
Meyer always said, "No appreciable current."
Read another 240 pages like the first 140 in the report you didn't
read.
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Stan_Meyer_Full_Data.pdf
> > <snip remaining diversionary tactic"
Are you ever going to stick to the topic of the post?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Fred Kasner wrote:
>
> > As for the failure to publish claims from Meyer or Rense or others of
> > their ilk in refereed scientific or engineering journals is because they
> > won't publish them because they make unreproducible claimed results of
> > experiments that not only violate fundamental laws of science (including
> > not being able to distinguish between things such as electron volts and
> > volts. If these idiots have anything truly reproducible and
> > revolutionary a journal such as Nature will jump right on it as soon as
> > they can see proof that others can produce the same results. But they
> > can't and so the chemistry and physics and engineering journals will
> > never publish this hogwash.
>
> > FK
>
> There always is the alternative of "publishing" in aisle 13 of WalMart.
>
> There is absolutely no way the journals could suppress a legitimate
> alternate energy breakthrough for any significant amount of time.
>
> To dissociate hydrogen from water, an electron needs moved. AKA a
> CURRENT, per Faraday. No exceptions have EVER been demonstrated.
>
> Meanwhile, fundamental water measurement experiments are made thousands
> of times daily by EIS researchers. With uniformly negative results.
>
> The experiment IS run hundreds of times per hour, day in and day out.
> No credible mechanism has been convincingly shown. Meanwhile, many
> products require the EXACT OPPOSITE of such a mechanism for their
> continued ongoing demonstrated commercial success. Qprox, EDM, etc etc etc..
>
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lambaster voice phone: (000)428-4073
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
>
> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site athttp://www.tinajahahahaha.com
Thanks for your Auto-Response and Shameless plug Donny.
What exactly will you EVER address about the authors of the
International Report instead of your hand waving about something
different from Meyer's circuit and processes?
doug
This is an amazing document. The fraud indicator that went into full
alert in the other document upon seeing the headlines about National
Security. The "science" that meyer puts forth is so wrong as to be
completely hilarious to anyone who knows any physics. The whole intent
of this is to make it look scientific to those with money so that in a
little while they will have less money. His voltage dissociation
is one example. To dissociate water with an electric field, you
need to have a field gradient such that you get the dissociation
energy over the size of the molecule. This is about 2 volts over
an angstrom. This is 2x10^10 volts per meter. If you have plates
one cm apart, you need a voltage of 2x10^8 volts or 200 million
volts. Since meyer's apparatus maybe gives you a few hundred,
you are a million times short of what you need. His comments
about LEDs are just wrong and more attempts to dress up the
fraud. LEDs do not work the way he says and shining LEDs into
the mixture makes no difference.
His figure 1.8 is particularly humorous including the "nuclei
decay" portion and the drawing of the electron orbits that
totally ignores the structure of atoms and how they work.
Lots of other things like LEDs do not put out laser light.
Light does not have an effect on the water. Have you noticed
that water is transparent? His "amp consuming device" is
particulary funny. Amps do not get consumed.
The rest of it gets funnier. I knew Meyer was a fraud but,
after seeing this, I begin to realize the level of the fraud.
He was experienced at it and made a living for many years
on it.
>
>>><snip remaining diversionary tactic"
You like to cut out things that show you are wrong. That is
pretty cowardly.
Bill Ward
WRT oxygen, Stan was 8 neutrons short of a nucleus (pg63).
But he was generous to the natural gas molecule, promoting it to
pentane (pg64).
I also liked the concrete submarine concept (pg124). Why
didn't I think of that?
doug
Bill Ward wrote:
I particularly liked the smiley faces on the electrons.
DB
>
>
> Bill Ward wrote:
>
>>
>> WRT oxygen, Stan was 8 neutrons short of a nucleus (pg63).
>> But he was generous to the natural gas molecule, promoting it to
>> pentane (pg64).
>>
>> I also liked the concrete submarine concept (pg124). Why
>> didn't I think of that?
>>
> I particularly liked the smiley faces on the electrons.
They are attracted to the frowny faces of protons.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 5:24 pm, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 30, 5:48 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>Here you go Dorks.
>
> >>>http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>
> >>>And who wrote it?
> >>>Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
> >>>About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
> >>>process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
> >>>But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
> >>>From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>
> >>>And:http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KEYXM2TRIPFO?ASIN=1932595260&nodeID=ht...
>
> >>>But I doubt you Dorks can read.
> >>>Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
>
> >>>You'll just stay in Dork Land
>
> >>A Dork or really simply a terminally stupid guy is anone who realizes
> >>by laboratory testing, none of Stan Meyer's silly schemes has ever
> >>worked, or actually will ever work.
>
> > Why did the Patent Examiners disagree RailRoad Harry?
>
> The patent examiners do not set the laws of physics nor,
> in many cases, know much about them.
>
>
Here's is that which Meyer was required to comply.
35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
"The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
As to patent #4936961.
This is ESPECIALLY TRUE in dealing with patents that are put under
'National Security review."
Do you think everyone from British Admirals ad Top Brass at the
Pentagon and Patent office would not be able to find "experts" to
either prove Meyer wrong or right?
Do you think for ONE MINUTE that YOU are smarter and better than these
high level people in finding people to tell them "It's impossible?"
Yet, they all spent thousands of dollars and hours and taking the
"risk of ruining their careers" to back and advocate for Meyer. And
Admiral Griffin, along with Meyer's death is also "suspicious." Follow
the dots" like your CIA boss says.
You think Meyer wasn't smart enough to discover and improve an old
process (not electrolysis) and put it to better use in a more
efficient manner using the "atom," a miniature dynamo, as an energy
generator to collaps a simple dielectric medium but YOU THINK HE'S
SMART ENOUGH TO FOOL ALL THOSE PEOPLE AND ALL THOSE EXPERTS FOR ALL
THOSE YEARS AND GET THEM TO TESTIFY ON HIS BEHALF IN COURT AND WRITE
INTERNATIONAL-INDEPENDENT REPORTS?
Dork.
>
> >>If they actually did, it would
> >>indicate that all man's accumated knowledge of physics and physical
> >>chemestry be reset to zero, and begin again.
>
> > That's pretty slippery slope for eve who NEVER did the experiment, saw
> > Meyer's cell, or read the International reort.
>
> Your report was a pretty funny read. It is a fraud marketing sheet.
>
Meyer didn't write it, only published.
The writers got nothing for doing it.
Only fraud here is YOU.
Start at the first thing you refute.
Arm waving ain't gonna cut it.
>
>
> >>Guess what, there, based on the nonsensical evidence surfaced to date,
> >>that simply is not going to occur.
>
> > "If it "didn't surface it doesn't exist."
> > You are a FUCKING GENIUS RAILROAD.
>
> >>If you after all these years haven't yet figured out that good old
> >>Stan was a confidence artist, then is is you that is the Dork.
>
> >>Harry C.
>
> > Yea Harry.
> > He raised millions of dollars and fooled the patent examiners, the
> > Pentagon, Admirals and their experts from the Royal Institute of Navel
> > Architects, and the guys who spent 1.5 million to buy him land 5 weeks
> > before his death with "electrolysis."
> > Ahahahahahahahahaha.....
> > Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
> Meyer was not in the business of making hydrogen generators.
Yup.
Was granted a patent for a NEW AND NOVEL PROCESS FOR DOING SO.
>Meyer
> was in the business of making money off of promising to make
> hydrogen generators.
No, he never turned a profit.
He died in the red.
>That is a very different business model.
Than what?
Selling derivatives on gold stock hedges against long positions in
pork belly futures secured by gold loans from gold that isn't out of
the ground yet?
You mean like that?
You are obfuscating.
Start arguing ONE POINT IN THE REPORT.
> He succeeded in making a living for himself by making fraudulent
> promises to others to get their money.
Which living?
He's dead.
May have been poisoned too.
>There are many companies
> now who are using this business model. Most of the dot com
> companies used it. It works but it does not help the economy.
>
Straw man.
You lose again, and again.....
>
> > Dork.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
>
> > John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
And his search:
2 Ways.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Electrical+Engineer+Mathias+Johanson&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Electrical+Engineer+Mathias+Johansson&spell=1
But you DOPES know more than him right?
> > From: michael Hannon <big.boo...@planet.nl>
> > Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 13:49:17 +0200
>
> > Not in those conditions.
> > The nucleus reacts by emitting either photons or antiphotons,
> > or possibly other particles -
> > it is a non-radioactive nuclear reaction, and such reactions have
> > already been demonstrated in experiments.
> > Col. Tom Bearden and his associates have been studying
> > these reactions for years, and written about them.
> > The Sweet Vacuum Triode is designed around such reactions.
>
> > OHannon
>
> > Nonnaho wrote:
>
> >> Fred Kasner wrote:
> >>> This joker who understands almost no science at all is still claiming
> >>> that the reaction in the Meyer apparatus is nuclear.
> > Which JW, to whom Mr. KrassAss is addressing his assault, not THE
> > POSTER OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.
>
> > Can you understand "straw man?"
>
> >> If the reaction was nuclear, would the cell produce some type of radiation that
> >> can be measured?
>
> > With no cite of ANY sort to back his Professor's claim.
> > He NEVER attempted to discuss the "claim" with the "Ted' but instead
> > attacks JW.
> > It's all RIGHT IN THE ARCHIVE Krass Ass.
> > Dork.
>
> >> Big snip
>
> >> Nonnaho
>
> > But YOU KrassAss know more than "Col. Tom Bearden and his associates?"
>
> > "Those who can't teach."
>
> Actually, yes. My research is almost all published by ASTM as methods in
> Committee D.02.11. I and several others have many such published methods
> for high performance and aerospace fluids. But then again I guess that
> just sails over your pointy head.
>
Again, as to Col. Bearden?
> Still supporting the nonsense about not needing any current only voltage
> to produce a nuclear change, you idiot. OK, idiot, once again I'll point
> out to you that the energies of nuclear changes are frequently listed in
> electron volts (usually as Mev = million electron volts). The fact is
> that a volt is NOT the same as an electron volt. And electron volt is an
> energy that can be restated in units called joules. A volt is NOT an
> electron vclt. When will you get that through you thick skull, idiot?
>
> As for the failure to publish claims from Meyer or Rense or others of
> their ilk in refereed scientific or engineering journals is because they
> won't publish them because they make unreproducible claimed results of
> experiments that not only violate fundamental laws of science (including
> not being able to distinguish between things such as electron volts and
> volts. If these idiots have anything truly reproducible and
> revolutionary a journal such as Nature will jump right on it as soon as
> they can see proof that others can produce the same results. But they
> can't and so the chemistry and physics and engineering journals will
> never publish this hogwash.
>
> FK
Smear and obfuscation noted.
What about Bearden or any of Meyer's other experts?
And:
Why didn't you OR ANY OF YOUR ILK take it up with the original
SUCCESSFUL Experimenter who made the claim?
Why did you jump all over JW and now ME when you NEVER EVER TOOK IT UP
WITH Ted?
HERE is some JW's correspondence with the SUCCESSFUL Experimenter.
Did any of YOU DORKS try to email him?
Why not?
Because you are Chicken Shit.
Subj: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
Date: 12/16/98
To: ted.zet...@swipnet.se
>this experiment will really surprise
>you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with>a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to>Ohio!
Ted!
Dear Ted,
Have you actually reproduced the effect from Stan's circuitry yourslf
as described?
Regards,
JW
Subj: Re: SV: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
Date: 12/17/98
To: ted.zet...@swipnet.se
In a message dated 12/17/98 2:11:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ted.zet...@swipnet.se writes:
> >Dear Ted,
> >Have you actually reproduced the effect from Stan's circuitry yourslf as
> >described?
> >Regards,
> >JW
> >
>
> Dear JW.
>
> Thank you for all your writing in this NG. I like your writing best.
I feel honored that you say that to me.
> People can learn something from you.
I really appreciate you saying this. My failing has been that I have
not gone after learning enough electronics to test Stan's process
myself. I thought it was just to complex. I have been trying for
yerars to find someone that can tell exactly the specs from the patent
and their brain or book learning to be able to measure and test the
process.
How long have you been reading the newsgroup?
>Even (I think a friend of you)
> Mr. OHannon do a good job here. Not so much for learning people
> but he is a fighter.
Yes, Michael has stood up for me from day 1 too. He is a good man.
>
> I'm not found of talking about others inventions because I don't
> know what WFC think about it.
I am a licensee. I cannot discuss the status of the company right
now. I spent many hours with Stan. He taught me many things. It is a
great loss that he paased over.
>It's up to them if they want to learn
> people more.
Stan was very secretive about the essence of his processes.
>But I make an exception for you and tell you here
> what I was doing.
>
I thank you for your explaination of your duplication experiance of
the effect of Stan's process. I hope it is not impinging on your time
too greatly. I would like to correspond with you for a while and give
you a detailed response.
Do you think you can make a drawing of the circuit and component list
that anyone with a few $$ and a soldering iron can build for testing?
I can get the stainles tubing I know I need.
I am not very electronically literate. I also have a spinal injury
and do not have two good hands. Just 1 about 80%% I have many friends
that are electrical engineers. I have been talking to them about this
for years. I could have raised so much money for Stan if I could have
independently verified his work.
Also I request that I be allowed to post all or parts of your first
response to me on the newsgroup. I will leave your name out of it.
And I could translate into a bit more proper English and no one will
know it is you. I do not think you will have a problem with WFC
because you are not using the technolgy commercially. Stan's patents
are the things that protect his commercial rights. It is ok to test
and verify I think.
I have a group of people that I have been corresponding with from the
group. I have some of Stan's technical manuals and the people I
showed it too could not figure it out or said it was jibberish.
Thank you for speaking up on the group.
Regards,
JW
//////////////////////////////
10 yeas ago he told you how to start Dorks.
Subj: Specifications
Date: 12/28/98
To: ted.zet...@swipnet.se
Dear Ted,
I hope you are having a nice holiday season. My engineer friend Tad
is having trouble getting the combination of specifications for the
circuit properly.
Could you answer these questions for us? He says he has been close
and produced gas a bit but knows he does not have it all correct. He
has been making his own toroid transformers and has missed the proper
winding.
We need to know what core material and size the core of the variable
Inductor and the Choke were (if you made them yourself)?
How many turns of wire each?
It would also be nice to know what kind of transformer and pulsing
circuit you were using?
Thank you,
Regards,
JW
///////////////////////////////////
----------
Från: H2O...@aol.com
Till: ted.zet...@va.itv.se
Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
Datum: den 12 mars 1999 03:47
In a message dated 2/23/99 2:18:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ted.zet...@va.itv.se writes:
> > Till: ted.zet...@swipnet.se
> > Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
> > Datum: den 21 december 1998 21:06
> >
> > In a message dated 12/19/98 2:33:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > ted.zet...@swipnet.se writes:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm a member of a team here in Sweden and trying to help
> > > inventors with their problems. We are doing that for free and
> > > they know now after a couple of years they can trust us.
> >
> > I think I have heard of your group. Does it have a name?
> >
> No it's a group on local level. Earlier it was not so interesting but
> now some of the inventors are working with energy project.
Can you give me info about your scientific/engineering credentials?
I was earlier responsible for the laboratorycin Nordhydraulic AB,
a company in the NordwincGroup making hydraulic valves.
I then started my own company making remote control equipment.
You can search for some of my patent in mycname (Zettergren Ted)
on IBM patent server.
After that, I sold my company because it wasca lot of work but not
so much fun. Now I work mostly with computer programming.
> >
> > Did Stan explain his process to someone in your group?
> >
> No they don't know about Stanley Meyer and no one work with
> hydrogen. A man living here, but not a member of our group, working
> a lot with hydrogen. His name is Olof Tegstrom.
[You STUPID FUCKERS]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Olof+Tegstrom&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
So?
Who do YOU THINK JW was listenig to?
Ted, as successful experimenter, or YOU DUMB FUCKS?
> >
> > > I know I legally can make a Stanley Meyer Unit and use it for
> > > myself but I'm not doing that.
> >
> > We may all have to if they do not get on with it very soon. This
> technology
> > should be put to use. Time is passing very fast for the environment.
> Our
> > group here is discussing how/if we might share this when we are
> successful.
> > We know we cannot use it commercially.
> >
> It's not legal burning hydrogen in Sweden. That's why Saab and Volvo
move
> their hydrogen-car development to USA. We throw away hydrogen enough for
> 1 million cars. It's a lot of energy for a country with a population of
8
> million.
I was not aware you cannot burn hydrogen in Sweden. That is
unbelievable.
Yes, but most people don't care.
> >
> > > A few selling their units but for a lot of money (RQM).
> >
> ^^^^^^^^
> You can find information about RQM at http://www.rqm.ch/indexeng.htm
I have passed it along to Steven Meyer, Stan's Brother, and my other
assaciates.
I have not had real time to read it yet.
The RQM has nothing to do with hydrogen.
It converts gravity waves to electric energy.
> >
> > > No one sell a ship unit with full description.
> > > I'm still waiting for the smart gay published his invention on
> > > Internet as ShareWare.
> >
> > You mean put Stan's process on the net for free??
> >
> No I was thinking on project without patent, shareholders etc. The
inventor
>
> make a working prototype with full documentation and publish it on
> Internet.
> People using it successfully pay 200$ or what can be convenient. The
> inventor
> don't need to do all the work himself. Of course some people don't pay
but
> a
> lot of them will do and it's impossible to stop the project.
I think may be a great idea to do with Water Fuel Cell to get it going
in
many
areas at once. I plan to discuss it with Steven also.
The WFC have some different products:
1. The old gas generating system.
2. The newer with the watersplitter.
3. The Steam Resonator.
Why not publish the old system with all information needed
for everyone to build a system. They never going to market
that system anyway so why not try shareware. Many
programmers have make millions of dollars this way.
If not, they can support experimenters around the world with
this information. It can be done without any visible
connection to WFC.
It must be safer for the WFC people if people around the world
know about the system.
I know how to build a refrigerator but I still buy one if I need one.
I think you will do the same. WFC have no reason to keep this
secret. If they want to sell this system, people will buy it, not
build it.
> >
> > Yes, Michael has been in Holland for a few months. Do you want his
email
> > address to say Hello?? I'm sure he would like to meet and hear of
your
> work.
> >
> At this moment I try to get some time for my own experiment so I like to
> wait
> with that. If Michael is in Holland it's not far from Switzerland so why
> not visit
> RQM. They have a special room for visitors where they demonstrating a
small
> 500W device
> >
> > Do you mean many products can be made? I know this is true.
> > Do you think the process can be done a different way that can be
> patented?
> >
> No, not a different way but you can patent some extensions and the
technic
> can be used for other applications then separated hydrogen and oxygen.
> > >
> > > I don't now what WFC are doing now.
> >
> > I think I have good information about the status of things. I am
sorry I
> > cannot share just yet.
> >
> I hope they are still fit for fight but they must hurry up. If the
system
> with the
> water splitter is ready for manufacturing I think it's hard to make
> something
> better with hydrogen, but other system making electricity looks more
> interesting.
> If they wait to long they can miss the whole market.
I expect to be talking to Steven within a week. I hope to get a feel
for
what
they wantto do with theWater Fuel Cell business.
>
> I will now start with a new letter to you.
>
> Regards,
> Ted
>
>
Best to you,
JW
----------
Dorks, dorks, dorks, dorks, dorks......
Ahahahahahahaha
So then thanks to Ted and JW.
From: "Tad Johnson" <h2opowered@...
To: <wate...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:39 AM
Subject: [watercar] Meyer Experiment Recap
For those of you who were not here, or have not watched
the Keelynet
boards
and such I will revamp my entire history of Meyer
experiments.
In 1996 I was an amateur electronics hobbyist. I had
been interested in
electrolysis and hydrogen study for many years prior,
but this year I was
watching the sci.hydrogen news group to become more
educated on hydrogen in general. During that year I met
a man who was good
friends with Stanley Meyer and regularly went to visit
him in Ohio. John
lived here in California, and had also invested some
money in the Water
07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
of 25951
Page 2 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771
Fuel cell project of Meyers'. I became friends with this
man and became
more interested in the Stanley Meyer system. As I became
more adept at
electronic design and troubleshooting I began to want to
try and duplicate
the Stanley Meyer process of breaking water with high
voltage at
resonance.
During that year and onward a couple years I was able to
ask John
questions
which he would then ask Stanley, and would then feed the
answer back to
me.
You see, Stan was not willing to just talk to anyone
about the process let
alone give away any secrets of the process that were not
mentioned already
in the patents. So I had to ask these questions through
John who was good
friends with Stanley.
My first few circuits worked but the cell would not make
any hydrogen,
especially under the conditions that Stanley and his
patents said they
would. The problem is that I would tune the cell like he
said and yet no
gas would be produced. It took three years of tinkering
to finally figure
out what I was doing wrong, and it was a big blunder.
The answer to what I
was doing wrong came to me through the sci.hydrogen
group by a man who
lived in Sweden and had already duplicated the Meyer
experiments based on
his patents. His name was Ted Zettergren, and he was an
inventor who
helped
other inventors file patents and market products. He
posted on exactly
what
he did and how the system worked. To my knowledge he was
one of the first
of three people who duplicated the Meyer experiments
successfully.
After Stan was killed I had no information other than
Ted's to go by, but
it was all I needed, or anyone else needs to duplicate
the Meyers'
process.
07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
of 25951
Page 3 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771
The process is achieved by the following:
1. Pulsing circuit or power supply capable of producing
600+ Volts @
20Khz+
@ 100uA+. My system was a simple, off the shelf inverter
with an input of
12VDC and an output of 1200VAC @ 20Khz @ 1mA. I then
took this circuit and
modified the circuit to run at 42.5-43.0Khz. This was an
off-the-shelf
inverter sold by Fry's electronics. It is a neon power
supply with a very
small bobbin core transformer. Anyone can buy this
circuit or one just
like
it and modify it to run within the specs I gave you. The
hard part is
obtaining resonance which takes years of electronics
expertise to do.
2. A small electrolysis cell with the ability to vary
distance between
conductors.
3. 2 - Chokes, one adjustable, one fixed.
4. One high voltage diode to go in-line with the cathode
of the power
supply output.
5. Inductance Meter, Capacitance meter, frequency
counter/Oscilloscope,
and
high voltage probe.
The key to the Meyer process is resonance, and without
resonance the
system
produces no gas. At 12watts you see why no gas is
produced without
resonance. This is a standard LC resonant circuit in
which you MUST (!)
match Capacitive reactance with Inductive reactance.
This then creates an
LC resonant circuit in which the two legs of the power
supply match in
frequency exactly. A Ham calc make the calculation of
resonance easy once
you know the capacitance of the cell and the frequency
you are driving it
at. Once you have your inductance calculated you then
buy the proper
chokes
07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
of 25951
Page 4 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771
that fall within the inductance range needed. The
adjustable one needs
(obviously) to be tunable within a small range, so that
when the cell
temperature changes and causes the capacitance of the
cell to change, then
the inductance can also be changed to keep the cell in
resonance. If you
cell has the ability to vary distance between
conductors, then you simply
change the distance and thus change the capacitance of
the cell rather
than
changing the inductance. You must vary one of the other
though. I have
found since then that the capacitance of the cell can be
changed and works
just as well as the inductors being adjusted. You don't
use ANY
electrolyte, you don't want ANY amperage at all, only
voltage @ resonance.
REPEAT, YOU DON'T NEED ANY CURRENT FLOW, ONLY VOLTAGE!
What I found frustrating is that the cell temperature
would change and the
system would stop making gas. In order to keep the
system making gas you
constantly have to keep the cell in resonance, and thus
you really need
the
system to be controlled by a processor, that constantly
checks frequency
on
both legs and then adjusts inductance to keep the cell
in resonance. This
is why Stanley move to the other patents where the spark
plus type of
electrolysis chamber was used instead of a large cell.
With the cell running at 1200Volts @ 1mA @ 42.8Khz I
found I could make
200LP/H of gas. Do the math and you will find that this
is impossible
given
our current understanding of electrolysis. If you scale
this equation up
you will find that you can make over 20,000LP/H of gas
for 1200Watts. This
is easily enough to run most any Internal combustion
engine. The only
problem has been keeping the cell in tune. An alternator
will easily
produce 3000 watts of power, so this is easily enough to
power the car on
07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
of 25951
Page 5 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771
this system alone. This is how the Volkswagon Buggy was
running around on
water only. The car has to wait a minute or two before
he stored enough
gas
to run the car, then once it was started and running it
would make enough
gas to run the car at up to 60MPH. I never saw this car
run personally,
but
I have two people that went to two showings and both
said it worked and
they verified there was no gasoline on board.
3 Years ago I sent Stefan and others this experimental
data and never
heard
back form anyone, nor did anyone ever repeat my
experiment. To this date I
know of only Ted, Me, and one other person who has
duplicated this
experiment and done so successfully. The third person is
a PHD on the east
coast of the U.S. who is in contact with Stanley's
widow. Stanley's
brother
now takes care of all water fuel cell business and
claims he will start it
up again and make sure it makes it to market this time.
But I have not
heard from them in years now. Stefan easily has the
electronics experience
to duplicate this process and also solve the issue of
keeping the cell in
resonance. I probably do as well at this point but I am
not going to do it
alone. It takes alot of electronics expertise and hard
work to solve this
problem of cell tuning.
Whew, my fingers are tired.......
Tad
Don Lancaster
==============================
Detailed debunking of the Meyer fiasco appears
here and here. A summary...
What most likely happened were the usual
incompetent pulse measurement errors that
everybody else always makes.
Not one individual anyplace ever has been
able to duplicate the Meyer claims on an
independently verifiable basis.
An Ohio judge found "gross and egregrious
fraud" and a "loose grip on reality" The
actual trial transcriptions have never been
made available due to high admin costs.
The experiment DOES get rerun many
tens of thousands of times daily by EIS
researchers. With uniformly negative
results.
A fundamental thermodynamic principle
involving exergy flat out GUARANTEES
that bulk energy hydrogen electrolysis
from high value sources (such as grid, pv,
wind, or alternator) ain't gonna happen.
The whole venture is thus totally useless.
Convincing British "experts" simply did
not happen. Based on a "lame excuse"
at test time.
Newsgroup response by proponents is
uniformly vitrolic and crudely ad-hominum.
Credible and factual info is rarely posted.
Many proponents are clearly not housebroken.
No unusual or overunity claims appear in
any of the patents. The patents simply
describe an enormously inefficient
and impractical approach to electrolysis..
For Meyer to be right, countless others would
have to be dead wrong. Including Faraday's Law,
Fourier Series, the fundamental definition of
current, EDM machining, Qprox proximity
sensors, thermodynamic fundamentals, and
many more diverse examples.
Claims of "nuclear and not chemical" are
prima facie absurd because of the outrageous
energy level differences. The root cause
appeared to be not knowing the difference
between "volts" (a potential) and "electron
volts" (an energy measurement).
The molecular resonance frequency of water
is THOUSANDS of times higher than the
frequencies in use. No overunity resonance
effect has ever been demonstrated anytime
ever.
The Meyer circuits completely ignore the
inescapable fact that water-to-hydrogen
conversion involves moving electrons and
thus is inherently CURRENT driven rather
than voltage. Current sources are inherently
inefficient unless special switchmode techniques
are in use.
Not one credible peer reviewed paper has ever
been published anywhere on what certainly would
have been a world class fundamental upheaval in
the laws of thermodynamics. "Publish or Perish"
should have produced a glut of scholarly research.
"Oil company suppression" seems conspicuously
absent since all the fully detailed material is
freely available on the web from multiple sources.
Albeit highly incompetent and sorely misguided ones.
Failing to use platinized platinum electrodes
and the stainless steel overvoltage of iron
guarantees low efficiency. Only the DC term
of a Fourier equivalent pulse waveform will
normally contribute significantly to gas production.
A double intergration is clearly involved.
Much more in our Pseudoscience Bashing tutorial.
======================
The above with live links can be found at
http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu08.asp#05-22-08
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:18 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 2, 5:24 pm, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sep 30, 5:48 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>Here you go Dorks.
>>
>>>>>http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>>
>>>>>And who wrote it?
>>>>>Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
>>>>>About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
>>>>>process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
>>>>>But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
>>>>>From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>>
>>>>>And:http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KEYXM2TRIPFO?ASIN=1932595260&nodeID=ht...
>>
>>>>>But I doubt you Dorks can read.
>>>>>Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
>>
>>>>>You'll just stay in Dork Land
>>
>>>>A Dork or really simply a terminally stupid guy is anone who realizes
>>>>by laboratory testing, none of Stan Meyer's silly schemes has ever
>>>>worked, or actually will ever work.
>>
>>>Why did the Patent Examiners disagree RailRoad Harry?
>>
>>The patent examiners do not set the laws of physics nor,
>>in many cases, know much about them.
>>
>>
>
> Cite?
You clearly have not dealt with the patent office. There are
lots of patents for perpetual motion machines, faster than
light schemes etc.
>
> Here's is that which Meyer was required to comply.
> 35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
> "The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
> convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
> invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
> ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
> As to patent #4936961.
>
> This is ESPECIALLY TRUE in dealing with patents that are put under
> 'National Security review."
>
> Do you think everyone from British Admirals ad Top Brass at the
> Pentagon and Patent office would not be able to find "experts" to
> either prove Meyer wrong or right?
And where is the report by the Pentagon that says that Meyer
was right? And how many did they buy, make or have made?
>
> Do you think for ONE MINUTE that YOU are smarter and better than these
> high level people in finding people to tell them "It's impossible?"
> Yet, they all spent thousands of dollars and hours and taking the
> "risk of ruining their careers" to back and advocate for Meyer. And
> Admiral Griffin, along with Meyer's death is also "suspicious." Follow
> the dots" like your CIA boss says.
> You think Meyer wasn't smart enough to discover and improve an old
> process (not electrolysis) and put it to better use in a more
> efficient manner using the "atom," a miniature dynamo, as an energy
> generator to collaps a simple dielectric medium
This is in violation of a huge amount of known physics and chemistry
so, yes, he did not discover anything new.
but YOU THINK HE'S
> SMART ENOUGH TO FOOL ALL THOSE PEOPLE AND ALL THOSE EXPERTS FOR ALL
> THOSE YEARS AND GET THEM TO TESTIFY ON HIS BEHALF IN COURT AND WRITE
> INTERNATIONAL-INDEPENDENT REPORTS?
>
His "experts" were in other fields than physics and no one has
ever replicated his results without meyer being there. And a
court found him guilty of fraud. The fact that no one has
taken his work, now available for free, and done anything with
it in this age of expensive oil is another proof that it is
just a fraud.
> Dork.
>
>
>>>>If they actually did, it would
>>>>indicate that all man's accumated knowledge of physics and physical
>>>>chemestry be reset to zero, and begin again.
>>
>>>That's pretty slippery slope for eve who NEVER did the experiment, saw
>>>Meyer's cell, or read the International reort.
>>
>>Your report was a pretty funny read. It is a fraud marketing sheet.
>>
>
> Meyer didn't write it, only published.
> The writers got nothing for doing it.
> Only fraud here is YOU.
> Start at the first thing you refute.
> Arm waving ain't gonna cut it.
>
It was completely fraudulent with just enough babble that
sounded sort of like physics. I pointed out a number of mistakes
to you but you are ignoring them.
>>
>>>>Guess what, there, based on the nonsensical evidence surfaced to date,
>>>>that simply is not going to occur.
>>
>>>"If it "didn't surface it doesn't exist."
>>>You are a FUCKING GENIUS RAILROAD.
>>
>>>>If you after all these years haven't yet figured out that good old
>>>>Stan was a confidence artist, then is is you that is the Dork.
>>
>>>>Harry C.
>>
>>>Yea Harry.
>>>He raised millions of dollars and fooled the patent examiners, the
>>>Pentagon, Admirals and their experts from the Royal Institute of Navel
>>>Architects, and the guys who spent 1.5 million to buy him land 5 weeks
>>>before his death with "electrolysis."
>>>Ahahahahahahahahaha.....
>>>Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz
>>
>>Meyer was not in the business of making hydrogen generators.
>
>
> Yup.
> Was granted a patent for a NEW AND NOVEL PROCESS FOR DOING SO.
>
Patents mean nothing. It is the physics that matters. His
stuff does not work.
>
>>Meyer
>>was in the business of making money off of promising to make
>>hydrogen generators.
>
>
> No, he never turned a profit.
> He died in the red.
>
>
>>That is a very different business model.
>
>
> Than what?
> Selling derivatives on gold stock hedges against long positions in
> pork belly futures secured by gold loans from gold that isn't out of
> the ground yet?
> You mean like that?
> You are obfuscating.
I am saying he was wanting to make money off of people's ignorance
and greed. There is a lot of that going on now.
> Start arguing ONE POINT IN THE REPORT.
>
I did, you ignored it.
>
>>He succeeded in making a living for himself by making fraudulent
>>promises to others to get their money.
>
>
> Which living?
He mad a living for 20 years off this fraus.
> He's dead.
> May have been poisoned too.
>
>
>>There are many companies
>>now who are using this business model. Most of the dot com
>>companies used it. It works but it does not help the economy.
>>
>
> Straw man.
> You lose again, and again.....
Come back when you have built a Meyer cell and had it verified
by competent scientists. Until then, you lost big time.
>
>>>Dork.
>
>
>
Don Lancaster
>
> His "experts" were in other fields than physics and no one has
> ever replicated his results without meyer being there.
The "expert" he tried wasting my time with to see if I suffered fools
gladly was a totally incompetent and clueless moron.
The result of the experiment was that I do not suffer fools gladly.
And that the Meyer electrocity is just that.
Eeyore
Don Lancaster wrote:
> The result of the experiment was that I do not suffer fools gladly.
Funny, I had a med exam on Tuesday and the Doc said exactly the same.
Graham
knews4...@yahoo.com
Deathly silence as Donny bites the dust......
knews4...@yahoo.com
And his search:
2 Ways.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Electrical+Engineer+Mathias+Johanson&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Electrical+Engineer+Mathias+Johansson&spell=1
But you DOPES know more than him right?
> > The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
> > He NEVER attempted to discuss the "claim" with the "Ted' but instead
> > attacks JW.
> > It's all RIGHT IN THE ARCHIVE Krass Ass.
> > Dork.
>
> >> Big snip
>
> >> Nonnaho
>
> > But YOU KrassAss know more than "Col. Tom Bearden and his associates?"
>
> > "Those who can't teach."
>
> Actually, yes. My research is almost all published by ASTM as methods in
> Committee D.02.11. I and several others have many such published methods
> for high performance and aerospace fluids. But then again I guess that
> just sails over your pointy head.
>
Again, as to Col. Bearden?
> Still supporting the nonsense about not needing any current only voltage
> to produce a nuclear change, you idiot. OK, idiot, once again I'll point
> out to you that the energies of nuclear changes are frequently listed in
> electron volts (usually as Mev = million electron volts). The fact is
> that a volt is NOT the same as an electron volt. And electron volt is an
> energy that can be restated in units called joules. A volt is NOT an
> electron vclt. When will you get that through you thick skull, idiot?
>
> As for the failure to publish claims from Meyer or Rense or others of
> their ilk in refereed scientific or engineering journals is because they
> won't publish them because they make unreproducible claimed results of
> experiments that not only violate fundamental laws of science (including
> not being able to distinguish between things such as electron volts and
> volts. If these idiots have anything truly reproducible and
> revolutionary a journal such as Nature will jump right on it as soon as
> they can see proof that others can produce the same results. But they
> can't and so the chemistry and physics and engineering journals will
> never publish this hogwash.
>
> FK
Smear and obfuscation noted.
What about Bearden or any of Meyer's other experts?
And:
Why didn't you OR ANY OF YOUR ILK take it up with the original
SUCCESSFUL Experimenter who made the claim?
Why did you jump all over JW and now ME when you NEVER EVER TOOK IT UP
WITH Ted?
HERE is some JW's correspondence with the SUCCESSFUL Experimenter.
Did any of YOU DORKS try to email him?
Why not?
Because you are Chicken Shit.
Subj: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
Date: 12/16/98
To: ted.zet...@swipnet.se
>this experiment will really surprise
>you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with>a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to>Ohio!
Ted!
Dear Ted,
Thank you,
Regards,
JW
///////////////////////////////////
Tad
////////////////////////////////
And where is Tad today???
knews4...@yahoo.com
>
> > As for the failure to publish claims from Meyer or Rense or others of
> > their ilk in refereed scientific or engineering journals is because they
> > won't publish them because they make unreproducible claimed results of
> > experiments that not only violate fundamental laws of science (including
> > not being able to distinguish between things such as electron volts and
> > volts. If these idiots have anything truly reproducible and
> > revolutionary a journal such as Nature will jump right on it as soon as
> > they can see proof that others can produce the same results. But they
> > can't and so the chemistry and physics and engineering journals will
> > never publish this hogwash.
>
> > FK
>
> There always is the alternative of "publishing" in aisle 13 of WalMart.
>
> There is absolutely no way the journals could suppress a legitimate
> alternate energy breakthrough for any significant amount of time.
>
> To dissociate hydrogen from water, an electron needs moved. AKA a
> CURRENT, per Faraday. No exceptions have EVER been demonstrated.
>
> Meanwhile, fundamental water measurement experiments are made thousands
> of times daily by EIS researchers. With uniformly negative results.
>
> The experiment IS run hundreds of times per hour, day in and day out.
> No credible mechanism has been convincingly shown. Meanwhile, many
> products require the EXACT OPPOSITE of such a mechanism for their
> continued ongoing demonstrated commercial success. Qprox, EDM, etc etc etc..
>
>
> --
> Many thanks sucker,
>
> Don Lancaster voice phone: (CIA)428-4073
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
You too Donny.
You were told by Roamer how it works long ago.
Loser.
On Oct 2, 9:24 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se>
> > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
>
> > John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
> > $...@client2.news.psi.net>...
And his search:
2 Ways.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Electrical+Engineer+Mathias+Johanson&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Electrical+Engineer+Mathias+Johansson&spell=1
But you DOPES know more than him right?
> > The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
> > From: michael Hannon <big.boo...@planet.nl>
> > Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 13:49:17 +0200
>
> > Not in those conditions.
> > The nucleus reacts by emitting either photons or antiphotons,
> > or possibly other particles -
> > it is a non-radioactive nuclear reaction, and such reactions have
> > already been demonstrated in experiments.
> > Col. Tom Bearden and his associates have been studying
> > these reactions for years, and written about them.
> > The Sweet Vacuum Triode is designed around such reactions.
>
> > OHannon
>
> > Nonnaho wrote:
>
> >> Fred Kasner wrote:
> >>> This joker who understands almost no science at all is still claiming
> >>> that the reaction in the Meyer apparatus is nuclear.
> > Which JW, to whom Mr. KrassAss is addressing his assault, not THE
> > POSTER OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.
>
> > Can you understand "straw man?"
>
> >> If the reaction was nuclear, would the cell produce some type of radiation that
> >> can be measured?
>
> > With no cite of ANY sort to back his Professor's claim.
> > He NEVER attempted to discuss the "claim" with the "Ted' but instead
> > attacks JW.
> > It's all RIGHT IN THE ARCHIVE Krass Ass.
> > Dork.
>
> >> Big snip
>
> >> Nonnaho
>
> > But YOU KrassAss know more than "Col. Tom Bearden and his associates?"
>
> > "Those who can't teach."
>
> Actually, yes. My research is almost all published by ASTM as methods in
> Committee D.02.11. I and several others have many such published methods
> for high performance and aerospace fluids. But then again I guess that
> just sails over your pointy head.
>
Again, as to Col. Bearden?
> Still supporting the nonsense about not needing any current only voltage
> to produce a nuclear change, you idiot. OK, idiot, once again I'll point
> out to you that the energies of nuclear changes are frequently listed in
> electron volts (usually as Mev = million electron volts). The fact is
> that a volt is NOT the same as an electron volt. And electron volt is an
> energy that can be restated in units called joules. A volt is NOT an
> electron vclt. When will you get that through you thick skull, idiot?
>
> As for the failure to publish claims from Meyer or Rense or others of
> their ilk in refereed scientific or engineering journals is because they
> won't publish them because they make unreproducible claimed results of
> experiments that not only violate fundamental laws of science (including
> not being able to distinguish between things such as electron volts and
> volts. If these idiots have anything truly reproducible and
> revolutionary a journal such as Nature will jump right on it as soon as
> they can see proof that others can produce the same results. But they
> can't and so the chemistry and physics and engineering journals will
> never publish this hogwash.
>
> FK
Smear and obfuscation noted.
What about Bearden or any of Meyer's other experts?
And:
Why didn't you OR ANY OF YOUR ILK take it up with the original
SUCCESSFUL Experimenter who made the claim?
Why did you jump all over JW and now ME when you NEVER EVER TOOK IT UP
WITH Ted?
HERE is some JW's correspondence with the SUCCESSFUL Experimenter.
Did any of YOU DORKS try to email him?
Why not?
Because you are Chicken Shit.
Subj: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
Date: 12/16/98
To: ted.zet...@swipnet.se
>this experiment will really surprise
>you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with>a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to>Ohio!
Ted!
Dear Ted,
Thank you,
Regards,
JW
///////////////////////////////////
Tad
With JW and Stan Meyer 5 miles underground in Balarat?
Eeyore
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear Ted,
> Have you actually reproduced the effect from Stan's circuitry yourslf
> as described?
Clearly not since the very concept is complete nonsense.
Graham
knews4...@yahoo.com
International INDEPENDENT Test-Evaluation of WFC Processes, Admiral
Griffin's Lecture, and doing the Experiment because all you arguments
are answered that you woudn't accept from me if I had them.>
Buy here is a real Experimenter whom the "scientists" here NEVER took
to task over his results and observations but INSTEAD chose to attack
JW.
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$1...@client2.news.psi.net>...
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
AT FIRST:
HOW TO?
Ted!
Subj: SV: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
Date: 12/17/98 2:11:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: ted.zet...@swipnet.se (Ted Zettergren)
To: H2O...@aol.com
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: H2O...@aol.com <H2O...@aol.com>
Till: ted.zet...@swipnet.se <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Datum: den 16 december 1998 18:21
Ämne: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
>Dear Ted,
>Have you actually reproduced the effect from Stan's circuitry yourslf as
>described?
>Regards,
>JW
>
Dear JW.
Thank you for all your writing in this NG. I like your writing best.
People can learn something from you. Even (I think a friend of you)
Mr. OHannon do a good job here. Not so much for learning people
but he is a fighter.
I'm not found of talking about others inventions because I don't
know what WFC think about it. It's up to them if they want to learn
people more. But I make an exception for you and tell you here
what I was doing.
I read in an article (WIRELESS WORLD) about Stanley Meyer's
invention. It looks like a serious article and I keep my eyes open
for more information. The times goes on but nothing happened.
At this time (1992) I was developing electronic circuits for Hard
Coating Anodizing of Aluminum. Earlier I make some circuits for
remote control of hydraulic equipment (US Patent 4,360,807 etc.)
I ordered some of Stanley's patent and the circuit he use looks very
familiar to me.
It was impossible to stop thinking on that article so I have to make
some test. It was a very simple test, only for checking out if it was
possible to do what they say.
The water cell was very ugly. The bigger tubes was putting all
together with rubber band I take from a bicycle-tyre. I lock this
rubberband with tape. So you understand it looks very ugly.
For fixing the inner tube in center of the bigger one I make some
small plugs. This plugs tighten the tubes so I got to drill a few
holes for the water to come in between the tubes. In the other end
(upper) the small tubes was holding in position only with the current
wire and some small parts of nylon I have to put there for a better
centering. All this was putting down in a big plastic can with tap
water covered the bigger tubes and the smaller tubes goes up in
the air 20 cm.
My first test was not successful because the used transformer start
burning when I tried to adjust the frequency. Of any reason, I don't
remember now, I thought the voltage should be 15.000V. It was a
mistake.
The next test was very successful. When adjusting the frequency it
start bubbling. I never seen so much bubbles before.
I make a lot of test with different inductors. When I change inductor
I also have to change the frequency. I found that it must be some
problem with the balance between the tubes and you have to
compensate it with the other inductor. I think it depends on different
areas on tubes (outer and inner).
With a small changes using the centertap of the transformer this
problem disappear.
Now! What was it coming out from the water cell? Steam or
hydrogen/oxygen?
I glue a smaller can on the top of the big one. From the top of the
new can I connecting a tube leading the gas to the bottom of
another can filled with water for preventing a flush back. In the
bottom of that can I use a noise reducer from a compressed air
cylinder. The noise reducer makes the bubbles very small. In the
top of the can I put a dish-pad of stainless steel.
When fired the gas it burns why it must be oxygen/hydrogen coming
out. The flame was nearly invisible but the upper wires on the
dish-pad glows. When blowing out the flame it igniting at once again
because the wires in the dish-pad was still glowing.
As you see it not a serious laboratory test but after this test I
believe it was true what Stanley Meyer's patent says.
Stanley Meyer was a big scientist, I can see that from his patent,
but was he all the time jumping to a new idea and never finished
anything.
If I understand his inventions to 100% then the most interesting part
must be the STEAM RESONATOR using for heating water. But
where is the patent????
Regards, Ted!
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Received: from rly-zb02.mx.aol.com (rly-zb02.mail.aol.com
[172.31.41.2]) by air-zb05.mail.aol.com (v53.29) with SMTP; Thu, 17
Dec 1998 17:11:14 -0500
Received: from mb07.swip.net (mb07.swip.net [193.12.122.211])
by rly-zb02.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id RAA26982 for <H2O...@aol.com>;
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:11:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ted2 (dialup210-4-58.swipnet.se [130.244.210.250])
by mb07.swip.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP
id XAA09461 for <H2O...@aol.com>;
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 23:11:10 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <002001be2942$231aeca0$fad2f482@ted2>
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
To: <H2O...@aol.com>
Subject: SV: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:19:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
///////////////////////////////////////
>In a message dated 12/17/98 2:11:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>ted.zet...@swipnet.se writes:
>
I'm very sad to hear about your illness.
I'm a member of a team here in Sweden and trying to help
inventors with their problems. We are doing that for free and
they know now after a couple of years they can trust us.
That's why I don't like to talk to much about others patent.
I know I legally can make a Stanley Meyer Unit and use it for
myself but I'm not doing that.
It's very confusing to hear inventors speak about how they like
to save the world and give free energy to all of us. The global
economy don't work this way. It is dangerous.
Some of them have wonderful ideas but keep the big secret for
themselves and try to start a factory for manufacturing.
A few selling their units but for a lot of money (RQM).
Some others give you information but you must keep it secret.
No one sell a ship unit with full description.
I'm still waiting for the smart gay published his invention on
Internet as ShareWare.
A lot of people don't pay for it but with this big market he can
take it.
>How long have you been reading the newsgroup?
I don't know, but I read about OHannons disaster with Browns
Gas. I also read your nice article about your first meeting with
Stanley Meyer.
>Stan was very secretive about the essence of his processes.
Yes I understand him, because if my understanding of the
process is correct it's a lot of spin-of-effects from his patent.
The Steam Resonator is one example and you can use the
method for separating much more than hydrogen/oxygen.
I'm sure on Stanley saw it too.
If that's the reason to be secretive I don't like the idea to put to
much info on the newsgroups. If it help Fred, Harry etc. to patent
some of this spin-of-effects I can't sleep for a long time.
I don't now what WFC are doing now. Perhaps they need a
period without extra trouble, but there are a limit. People need
this invention so they have to do something. If not, I agree
with you, anyone else had to do something.
But, you are free to share my writing with your friends.
It's a lot of articles on Internet describing nearly the same
technic. BUT they all use a lot of current. (driving transducers
for optic, sound etc.)
When I first was reading Stanley's patent I associated his
technic with Coulomb's Laws for electrical attraction force.
On this Nuclear Level you can manipulate the forces DIRECT
(no transducers) with help of electricity. Look at the picture
how nice this forces works. How much current you need for
this operation depends on the dielectric constant (in this case
water). You want as low voltage level as possible for this
operation and you can do it with help of Resonant Action.
But don't let Resonant Action take place in the wrong order.
It depends on your application what action you need.
(Following lines comes from the Hubbard Coil description)
The coil system built by Hubbard in 1919 was reported to
have a damping time of several hours. Damping is to the
extent of reduction of amplitude of oscillation in an oscillatory
system, due to energy dissipation as resistance. With no
supply of energy, the oscillation dies away at a rate
depending on the degree of damping. The effect of damping
is to increase the period of vibrations. It also diminishes
sharpness of resonance for frequencies in the neighborhood
of natural frequency.
As you see you can't ignore the damping-factor. I was
ignoring that. Perhaps I was lucky.
What happened if it still "ringing" inside the pulstrain-break.
I was an idiot not measured that. What is the optimal "time
for ringing" in an WFC application??????
I never write in the English language why this writing take
some time. If you write some more, please, don't be upset
if you not receive a quick answer. Reading is no problem
so feel free to write if you want. I don't know much about
hydrogen and I'm not working with any gases so don't
expect to much from me. But if my writing can be helpful to
you, that's fine.
Regards, Ted!
Subj: SV: Missing photo
Date: 12/20/98 9:04:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: ted.zet...@swipnet.se (Ted Zettergren)
To: H2O...@aol.com
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: H2O...@aol.com <H2O...@aol.com>
Till: ted.zet...@swipnet.se <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Datum: den 20 december 1998 10:36
Ämne: Re: Missing photo
>In a message dated 12/19/98 2:38:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>ted.zet...@swipnet.se writes:
>
>> I send you the missing photo.
>>
In my E-Mail to you ( 18 december 1998 ) beginning with
the line "I'm very sad to hear about your illness."
I wrote "Look at the picture how nice this forces works"
but I forgot to connect the picture to the E-Mail.
In the letter it was only the comment
"I send you the missing photo"
togather with the missing picture.
If it's something more, it must be some scrap.
Regareds, Ted!
[The photo described is a thin stream of tap water flowing by and
being bent toward a statically charged hair comb. "Zero-point energy,"
just as Admiral Anthony Griffin describes in his lecture.
But I'm sure it's all "just gobbledygook fed to him buy Meyer."
There's NO WAY he would have RISKED HIS NAME and had it proven to
himself by his own "experts" before he opened his fat mouth to his
esteemed colleagues. No, instead HE WINDS UP DEAD UNDER "suspicious
circumstances."
You Dork Farts, fricken fuckin fools have your heads SO FAR UP YOUR
POMPOUS ASSES....
knews4...@yahoo.com
> > >>and nothing will ever come of it. Physics still works
>
> > > Meyer NEVER claimed physics didn't.
>
> > not changed any.
>
> No they don't.
> My technicians say it doesn't. Do you know quantum physics?
And neither does Admiral Griffin in his lecture you refuse to read.
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf
Word for the Day.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Annulus.html
“The technical basis for Meyer’s extraction and control of zero-point
energy lies mainly in the effect produced on an atomic nucleus by
continuation of the same high voltage pulsing that causes the
dissociation of the water molecule. The nucleus consists of one or
more positively charged protons bound together with a number of
neutrally charged neutrons. The electrical effect of the electron
pumping action mentioned earlier, causes an annulus to appear in the
middle of the nucleus. The zero-point energy is drawn through the
nucleus in a helical motion and n so doing, becomes and coherent and
hence a usable source of energy. The voltage dictates the size of the
annulus, and hence controls the energy obtained. Since the basic
structure of the atom is retained, no alpha or gamma radiation occurs.
[PERIOD] The effect might be illustrated by a bath full of water. So
long as the plug is in place, the water remains still and apparently
powerless. However, when the plug is removed, the water swirls in a
way with a helical motion down the plug hole and, under the influence
of gravity, forms a powerful jet which can be directed to do work.
Meyer further stimulates the energy yield by injecting laser energy
into the ionized water vapour. A diagram f the energy enhancement
system is shown in Figure 9.”
Keep reading, if you know how, and get to Second Law and Conservation
consistencies....But you won't.
You are a lazy, closed minded, mind controlled moron or a Chat-Bot
(R).
And Boy Howdy, Yea old Freddy Boy, King Dummy, they let a “dumb old
Admiral” with "experts" coming out of his ass advise him to tell this
to governments and scientists all over the world because “Meyer had
em’ fooled.”
Dork.
Moron.
What did Ted say?
What did Ohannon say?
What did Roamer say?
What did JW say
What did I say?
"It works."
PERIOD
Eat it Fred.
Crow city.
On yer knees King Dummy.
Graham..you better hope they kill me to save you $$$5K!!
Make check payable to Universal Bookkeeping.
Any other takers???
Dumb asses…..
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
No, he is just tired of telling you that breaking the laws of physics
is not going to happen. You refuse to believe that but that is no
fault of or shortcoming of Don.
Meyer was a fraud. The reports are wonderful examples of useless but
nice sounding things that have nothing to do with his work. It is
a classic deception scheme. If it worked, he would have been able
to have others replicate it. Since no one can, that is clear proof
that it is a fraud. The laws of physics will not be broken by
this setup. The nonsense about nuclear effects and vibration
are just buzzworks to suck in the gullible. All of known physics
would have to be thrown out for this to be real. Those laws
work just fine. Reports from other quacks, cranks, incompetents
and admirals does not change that.
If Meyer's stuff is fantastically valuable and it is free for anyone
to use, the only reason it is not used is that it is a fraud.
Don Lancaster
>
> If Meyer's stuff is fantastically valuable and it is free for anyone
> to use, the only reason it is not used is that it is a fraud.
What the Meyer electrocity proponents miss is that the whole concept is
totally worthless and utterly pointless.
A fundamental thermodynamic principle involving exergy flat out
GUARANTEES that electrolysis from high value sources such as grid, pv,
wind, or alternator flat out ain't gonna happen.
The outcome is not the least in doubt.
The electrolysis process is exactly the same as 1:1 exchanging US
dollars for Mexican pesos. Instantly and irreversibly destroying most of
the quality of an energy source is just plain stupid. There ALWAYS will
be more intelligent things to do with high value electricity.
http://www.tinaja.com/morenrgf.pdf for a detailed tutorial.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
knews4...@yahoo.com
> doug wrote:
>
> > His "experts" were in other fields than physics and no one has
> > ever replicated his results without meyer being there.
>
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf
> The "expert" he tried wasting my time with to see if I suffered fools
> gladly was a totally incompetent and clueless moron.
>
He who?
English please.
> The result of the experiment was that I do not suffer fools gladly.
>
An experiment at talking on the phone to someone who knows how to make
a Meyer process?
> And that the Meyer electrocity is just that.
>
What?
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Wangtaster voice phone: (928)CIA-4073
> Snickergetics 3860 West Turd Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss:http://www.tinears.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> Please visit my GURU's LIAR web site athttp://www.tinears.com
DB
> http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf
You have got to be kidding!
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 4, 9:12 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
>>doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>>His "experts" were in other fields than physics and no one has
>>>ever replicated his results without meyer being there.
>>
> Liar.
> http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf
This is absolutely hilarious. It is either a terrible
insult to an older retired person or demonstrates that
he was totally out of his area and got suckered by
Meyer's fraud. Why do you believe that repeating
Meyer's lies by another person somehow changes the laws
of physics? Meyer was a fraud, his "physics" is
laughably wrong and nothing will ever come of his
deceptions. Even you really believe this since
you will not even take the time to build one of
his devices. Instead you just to pretend that they]
work and want others to be suckered in like you
were. Pretty sad.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 9:12 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
> >>doug wrote:
>
> >>>His "experts" were in other fields than physics and no one has
> >>>ever replicated his results without meyer being there.
>
> > Liar.
> >http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf
>
> This is absolutely hilarious.
Which fact here are you disputing?
It is either a terrible
> insult to an older retired person or demonstrates that
> he was totally out of his area and got suckered by
> Meyer's fraud.
Are you going to address the facts in his report or "shoot the
messenger," straw man.
>Why do you believe that repeating
> Meyer's lies by another person somehow changes the laws
> of physics?
Non sequitur.
The report explains how Meyer's process complies with the Second Law
and Conservation.
Meyer was a fraud, his "physics" is
> laughably wrong and nothing will ever come of his
> deceptions.
Not to you because you don't read.
>Even you really believe this since
> you will not even take the time to build one of
> his devices.
Proof?
>Instead you just to pretend that they]
> work and want others to be suckered in like you
> were. Pretty sad.
>
Proof?
>
> >>The "expert" he tried wasting my time with to see if I suffered fools
> >>gladly was a totally incompetent and clueless moron.
>
> > He who?
> > English please.
>
> >>The result of the experiment was that I do not suffer fools gladly.
>
> > An experiment at talking on the phone to someone who knows how to make
> > a Meyer process?
>
> >>And that the Meyer electrocity is just that.
>
> > What?
>
> >>--
> >>Many thanks,
>
> >>Don Wangtaster voice phone: (928)CIA-4073
> >>Snickergetics 3860 West Turd Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> >>rss:http://www.tinears.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> >>Please visit my GURU's LIAR web site athttp://www.tinears.com
You lose.
Are you going to address the scientific explanations given by Admiral
Griffin from his eyewitness experts and people who duplicated Meyer's
process for him?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf
>
> You have got to be kidding!
Some SPECIFIC you want to address in Admiral Griffin's comments?
Or you just gonna dodge, obfuscate, and detract?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> So why is no one building it? The answer is that it is a fraud.
Proof "no one is building it."
knews4...@yahoo.com
> A summary of the arguments against the Meyer electrocity...
<snip everything but experimental results per Ted's directions>
OOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPS!!!!
Nothing left.
gabydewilde
> Here you go Dorks.
>
> http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>
> And who wrote it?
> Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
> About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
> process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
> But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
> From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>
>
> But I doubt you Dorks can read.
> Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
>
> You'll just stay in Dork Land
Browns gas is made in a common ducted electrolyzer. The gas is a
stable "mixture" of di-atomic and mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen with
a higher energy state than diatomic hydrogen.
http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/whatis.html
The water molecules are not totally separated, they are still 'held
under a pressure', causing the water molecules to behave differently.
http://www.nottaughtinschools.com/Yull-Brown/Free-Energy-Interview.html
Oxyethylene can achieve a temperature of 6300 degrees Fahrenheit but
it takes over 10,500 degrees Fahrenheit to sublimate Tungsten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ0yQKl6M-Q
Burn temperature depends on the target material rather than the flame
itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHwM-tguyfM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1df1TLB-PAU
As the gas produces 1860 liters of gas per liter of water
http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/watergas.html
Browns gas eliminates many of the disadvantages associated with
conventional gas welding like dangerous oxy-acetylene bottles, it is
inexpensively, doesn't pollute the atmosphere.
Brown's Gas can efficiently neutralize radioactive waste though
transmutation right at the reactor
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=411405755714495752
http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html
http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl/
http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/fabuses/possib.html
The DOE argued 1) "the radioactivity was encapsulated in the sample",
but the sample was crushed and the Geiger counter reading was the
same. They argued 2) "the radioactivity must be disparaged into the
atmosphere" while the department of health preformed in depth
investigation of the environment. This much to the frustration of the
nuclear physicist preforming the research for it suggested their
incompetence. The laboratory was not closed clearly indicating no
radioactivity was found in or around the building. In stead (after 3
months) the government payroll advanced to the claim they had seen
nothing.
Yull brown converted various cars to run on Browns gas and/or a
mixture of gasoline and Browns gas. A simple technology hobbyists
still apply today.
Stanley Meyer found a way to make the gas though even cheaper means.
doug
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:01 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 4, 9:12 am, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>doug wrote:
>>
>>>>>His "experts" were in other fields than physics and no one has
>>>>>ever replicated his results without meyer being there.
>>
>>>Liar.
>>>http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf
>>
>>This is absolutely hilarious.
>
>
>
> Which fact here are you disputing?
>
> It is either a terrible
>
>>insult to an older retired person or demonstrates that
>>he was totally out of his area and got suckered by
>>Meyer's fraud.
>
>
> Are you going to address the facts in his report or "shoot the
> messenger," straw man.
>
It is a rehash of meyers' fraudulent claims. There is nothing
new added to them.
>
>>Why do you believe that repeating
>>Meyer's lies by another person somehow changes the laws
>>of physics?
>
>
> Non sequitur.
> The report explains how Meyer's process complies with the Second Law
> and Conservation.
It explains how meyer claimed to violate the laws of physics.
It is very simple, you must put in as much energy as you
get out. Meyer tried handwaving to divert attention from
this. His fraud comes in trying to claim nonexistent
conversion processes such as nuclear vibration or zero point
energy.
>
>
> Meyer was a fraud, his "physics" is
>
>>laughably wrong and nothing will ever come of his
>>deceptions.
>
>
> Not to you because you don't read.
You do not like the fact that I can readn AND understand
the fraud.
>
>
>>Even you really believe this since
>>you will not even take the time to build one of
>>his devices.
>
>
> Proof?
Show one you have built.
>
>
>>Instead you just to pretend that they]
>>work and want others to be suckered in like you
>>were. Pretty sad.
>>
>
> Proof?
You are not building and testing them.
>
>
>>>>The "expert" he tried wasting my time with to see if I suffered fools
>>>>gladly was a totally incompetent and clueless moron.
>>
>>>He who?
>>>English please.
>>
>>>>The result of the experiment was that I do not suffer fools gladly.
>>
>>>An experiment at talking on the phone to someone who knows how to make
>>>a Meyer process?
>>
>>>>And that the Meyer electrocity is just that.
>>
>>>What?
>>
>>>>--
>>>>Many thanks,
>>
>>>>Don Wangtaster voice phone: (928)CIA-4073
>>>>Snickergetics 3860 West Turd Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
>>>>rss:http://www.tinears.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>>
>>>>Please visit my GURU's LIAR web site athttp://www.tinears.com
>
>
> You lose.
> Are you going to address the scientific explanations given by Admiral
> Griffin from his eyewitness experts and people who duplicated Meyer's
> process for him?
There was no duplication of meyer's results. It was just a rehash of
meyer's claims.
Don Lancaster
> Browns gas is made in a common ducted electrolyzer. The gas is a
> stable "mixture" of di-atomic and mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen with
> a higher energy state than diatomic hydrogen.
>
Not even wrong.
"Brown's gas" is plain old stoke gas, nothing more, nothing less.
Everything else about it is total bullshit.
It has no known uses and is incredibly and monumentally dangerous.
Detailed analysis at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse120.pdf
gabydewilde
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> gabydewilde wrote:
>
>> Browns gas is made in a common ducted electrolyzer. The gas is a
>> stable "mixture" of di-atomic and mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen with
>> a higher energy state than diatomic hydrogen.
>>
>
> Not even wrong.
>
> "Brown's gas" is plain old stoke gas, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Everything else about it is total bullshit.
>
> It has no known uses and is incredibly and monumentally dangerous.
It is, and has been for many decades, used in some niche torch applications.
I once concidered building a torch and asked the neighbor who is a long
time welder about them.
His reply was he had used one a few times, but acetylene was much more
versatile and I shouldn't waste the effort.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Fred Kasner
... snip ...
>>> In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
>>> making the water conductive.
>>> In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
>>> voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
>>> on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
>>> Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
>>> reactions.
>>>> Fred Kasner wrote:
>>>>> This joker who understands almost no science at all is still claiming
>>>>> that the reaction in the Meyer apparatus is nuclear.
>>> Which JW, to whom Mr. KrassAss is addressing his assault, not THE
>>> POSTER OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.
>>> Can you understand "straw man?"
>>>> If the reaction was nuclear, would the cell produce some type of radiation that
>>>> can be measured?
>>> With no cite of ANY sort to back his Professor's claim.
>>> He NEVER attempted to discuss the "claim" with the "Ted' but nstead
>>> attacks JW.
>>> It's all RIGHT IN THE ARCHIVE Krass Ass.
>>> Dork.
>>>> Big snip
>>>> Nonnaho
>>> But YOU KrassAss know more than "Col. Tom Bearden and his associates?"
>>> "Those who can't teach."
>> Actually, yes. My research is almost all published by ASTM as methods in
>> Committee D.02.11. I and several others have many such published methods
>> for high performance and aerospace fluids. But then again I guess that
>> just sails over your pointy head.
>
> How about a paper about dielectric breakdown under tuned vibration?
>> Still supporting the nonsense about not needing any current only voltage
>> to produce a nuclear change, you idiot.
>
> NEVER EVER CLAIMED "only voltage" liar.
You clearly have republished this claim repeatedly and now you are
trying to disavow it? You are not only an idiot you are dishonest to the
extreme. You put your very limited credibility behind such repeated
fundamentally and totally impossible statements so you have
responsibility for such fallibility. As such you demonstrate your
inherents stupidity. And your response to repeated observations of your
incorrectness: volumes of filthy mouthed invective. Calling people names
just because they point out that you support stupid claims does nothing
for your veracity. Your repeated name calling (not just statements that
those of us who differ with you cannot be correct because fundamentals
of science are in your favor) does not serve you well at all. Those who
cannot appeal to observable truth (such as definitions of the
fundamentals of science) but instead babble on about how we can only
dismiss your claims by wasting our time attempting to repeat the foolish
experiments that you refer to. When are you going to do so yourself so
you may see that they really don't work. Thousands of experiments have
been performed that demonstrate that such a process is impossible. You
can't influence a chemical bond in water by pumping energy into it
little by little. You can either pump energy into the bond by
introducing a quantum of infrared energy (an energy hugely larger than
the electrical circuits you refer to) but not in small increments like
pushing a swing synchronously to make it go higher and higher. The laws
of quantum mechanics do not allow such. The only way to add small
increments of energy to a water molecule is by collisions that increase
the KE of the whole molecule or in the case of very very high frequency
electric energy (e.g. microwaves) that will increase the rotational
energy of the whole molecule.) It would billions of seconds or larger to
input increments of energy by synchronous increments of energy into a
single molecule of water and long before that elapsed interval
collisions would almost certainly "drain off" those increments of added
energy.
You are hopelessly stupid, Junior Dummy.
Learn some physics and stop embarrassing yourself repeatedly.
FK
> <snip remaining diversionary tactic"
>
Fred Kasner
What you refer to as "experimental results" is either falsification, or
error, or stupidity, or outright fraud. Nature does not function the way
you want it to. There is not free lunch.
FK
Fred Kasner
It might be able to increment enough energy in a pure vacuum to break
one or two molecules of water (if such a process were possible - which
quantum mechanics says it isn't - if we could run this experiment for
something the approaching the age of the solar system or maybe the age
of the universe.
Hopeless drivel.
FK
Fred Kasner
Hey about the possibility that Stan and his followers were merely
boiling the water and driving their vehicle as a steam engine vehicle.
However with enough insulation they could let the not too bright
observers touch the engine and proclaim it as quite cool. Remarkable
that nobody is getting super rich today with this invention. Since all
the stuff is available somewhere on the internet it surely isn't being
supressed by Big Oil. Explain that anomoly, Junior Dummy?
FK
Fred Kasner
> On Oct 3, 7:55 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 5:24 pm, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> ... you that is Dork.
>>> Hairy C.
>> Yea Harry.
>> He raised millions of dollars and fooled the patent examiners, the
>> Pentagon, Admirals and their experts from the Royal Institute of Navel
>> Architects, and the guys who spent 1.5 million to buy him land 5 weeks
>> before his death with "electrolysis."
>> Ahahahahahahahahaha.....
>
> ohhhh? are U trying to say Haarpy haz lies to us?
>
> Me wonders what the power source is in his perpetual efforts.
>
> hahahhahaha
>
> On Oct 3, 6:45 am, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> As a matter of fact I presented at the Chemistry Department of the U. of
>> Chicago in the 1950's a method for determining the moment of inertia of
>> a molecule via the use of tuned circuit of high Q.
>
> Ohh professeur Kasner the free energy inventor?
>
> Be carefull sir, there are petroleum snakes all around you!
>
> Perhaps you can explain why micheal Faraday and Nicola Tesla
> accomplished moar ass the entire academic establishment put together?
> Why is the academic arbeit so fruitless and void of practical results?
> Or is that answer classified for national security purposes? I cant
> seem to be able to equate keeping people stupid with security.
>
> How is starting a world war and killing your own economy securing you?
>
> Thanks,
A remarkably incoherent response on your part. At the time I was not a
professor. I was merely an instructor and was still working on my
doctoral dissertation (in another field altogether.) I have no belief in
free lunches and don't understand why you think I am a supporter of
"free energy". The only free energy of which I am aware is the
thermodynamic quantity once symbolized in the US as "F" which was the
later referred to as the Gibbs free energy ans was resymbolized with the
symbol "G". The "free" part of the name is understood by chemists,
physicists, and engineers and is used in computer "lingo" in a similar
misleading way when one refers to "free software".
As for the accusations that somehow I am personally responsibility for
starting the last "world war" that was some feat. I was 13 at the time
and clearly must have been some wonderfully evil person to have wished
such a blight on the world.
FK
Fred Kasner
> On Oct 3, 10:18 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 5:24 pm, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Here you go Dorks.
>>>>> http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>>>>> And who wrote it?
>>>>> Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
>>>>> About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
>>>>> process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
>>>>> But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
>>>>> From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>>>>> And:http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KEYXM2TRIPFO?ASIN=1932595260&nodeID=ht...
>>>>> But I doubt you Dorks can read.
>>>>> Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
>>>>> You'll just stay in Dork Land
>>>> by laboratory testing, none of Stan Meyer's silly schemes has ever
>>>> worked, or actually will ever work.
>>> Why did the Patent Examiners disagree RailRoad Harry?
>> The patent examiners do not set the laws of physics nor,
>> in many cases, know much about them.
>>
>>
> Cite?
>
> Here's is that which Meyer was required to comply.
> 35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
> "The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
> convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
> invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
> ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
> As to patent #4936961.
>
> This is ESPECIALLY TRUE in dealing with patents that are put under
> 'National Security review."
>
> Do you think everyone from British Admirals ad Top Brass at the
> Pentagon and Patent office would not be able to find "experts" to
> either prove Meyer wrong or right?
>
> Do you think for ONE MINUTE that YOU are smarter and better than these
> high level people in finding people to tell them "It's impossible?"
> Yet, they all spent thousands of dollars and hours and taking the
> "risk of ruining their careers" to back and advocate for Meyer. And
> Admiral Griffin, along with Meyer's death is also "suspicious." Follow
> the dots" like your CIA boss says.
> You think Meyer wasn't smart enough to discover and improve an old
> process (not electrolysis) and put it to better use in a more
> efficient manner using the "atom," a miniature dynamo, as an energy
> generator to collaps a simple dielectric medium but YOU THINK HE'S
> SMART ENOUGH TO FOOL ALL THOSE PEOPLE AND ALL THOSE EXPERTS FOR ALL
> THOSE YEARS AND GET THEM TO TESTIFY ON HIS BEHALF IN COURT AND WRITE
> INTERNATIONAL-INDEPENDENT REPORTS?
>
> Dork.
>
>>>> If they actually did, it would
>>>> indicate that all man's accumated knowledge of physics and physical
>>>> chemestry be reset to zero, and begin again.
>>> That's pretty slippery slope for eve who NEVER did the experiment, saw
>>> Meyer's cell, or read the International reort.
>> Your report was a pretty funny read. It is a fraud marketing sheet.
>>
> Meyer didn't write it, only published.
> The writers got nothing for doing it.
> Only fraud here is YOU.
> Start at the first thing you refute.
> Arm waving ain't gonna cut it.
>>
>>>> Guess what, there, based on the nonsensical evidence surfaced to date,
>>>> that simply is not going to occur.
>>> "If it "didn't surface it doesn't exist."
>>> You are a FUCKING GENIUS RAILROAD.
>>>> If you after all these years haven't yet figured out that good old
>>>> Stan was a confidence artist, then is is you that is the Dork.
>>>> Harry C.
>>> Yea Harry.
>>> He raised millions of dollars and fooled the patent examiners, the
>>> Pentagon, Admirals and their experts from the Royal Institute of Navel
>>> Architects, and the guys who spent 1.5 million to buy him land 5 weeks
>>> before his death with "electrolysis."
>>> Ahahahahahahahahaha.....
>> Meyer was not in the business of making hydrogen generators.
>
> Yup.
> Was granted a patent for a NEW AND NOVEL PROCESS FOR DOING SO.
>
>> Meyer
>> was in the business of making money off of promising to make
>> hydrogen generators.
>
> No, he never turned a profit.
> He died in the red.
>
>> That is a very different business model.
>
> Than what?
> Selling derivatives on gold stock hedges against long positions in
> pork belly futures secured by gold loans from gold that isn't out of
> the ground yet?
> You mean like that?
> You are obfuscating.
> Start arguing ONE POINT IN THE REPORT.
>
>> He succeeded in making a living for himself by making fraudulent
>> promises to others to get their money.
>
> Which living?
> He's dead.
> May have been poisoned too.
>
>> There are many companies
>> now who are using this business model. Most of the dot com
>> companies used it. It works but it does not help the economy.
>>
> Straw man.
> You lose again, and again.....
>>> Dork.
>
>
Yes, all those people who were taken in by Stan were clearly - at least
in this instance - intellectually quite inferior to people such as
Harry, Don, and myself. As for you, you clearly are intellectually
inferior to my left shoe.
FK
Fred Kasner
What makes you think an expert in naval architecture is somehow
qualified to comment on the fundamentals of physics other than strength
of materials, marine engines, or buoyancy?
FK
Fred Kasner
... snip repeat (God, how many times are you going to spill the same
waste) ...
>
> You Dork Farts, fricken fuckin fools have your heads SO FAR UP YOUR
> POMPOUS ASSES....
Gee, JW, AKA junior dummy, your compelling logic in the final paragraph
shows your virtue and your appeal to logic that is so overwhelming that
it defies response.
FK
Fred Kasner
Yeah, that's true there is no potential energy in a tub full of water.
All that blather about fluid mechanics is just that. How do we know?
Because the junior dummy told us so. in the above post. You have to have
the water in motion down the drain to get any energy from it. Sure, yeah.
Another domenstration of you hopeless knowledge of the fundamentals of
physics.
FK
Fred Kasner
Brown's Gas is a hypothetical construct that has never been shown to the
satisfaction of any major refereed science journal to exist. Monatomic
hydrogen and monatomic oxygem has a remarkably brief lifetime in the
presence of other such atoms and recombine quickly to form the diatomic
molecules that are quite stable even in each other's presence and need
not explosively combine to form water if one is careful.
FK
Fred Kasner
I see, you have observed this first hand and not reported it to the
authorities? Were you joining him in the repast?
FK
gabydewilde
gabydewilde
Oh, thanks it's my specialty.
> I have no belief in free lunches
You have willful disbelieves. It's called willful ignorance.
Dismissive behaviour, very disturbing. I really don't care about your
negative believes. I suggest you keep your filth to yourself and try
to have a proper discussion.
> and don't understand why you think I am a supporter of "free energy".
Fred the free energy inventor! NA NA NANA NA!
What is next? Are you going to invent anti gravity?
>The only free energy of which I am aware is the
> thermodynamic quantity once symbolized in the US as "F" which was the
> later referred to as the Gibbs free energy ans was resymbolized with the
> symbol "G". The "free" part of the name is understood by chemists,
> physicists, and engineers and is used in computer "lingo" in a similar
> misleading way when one refers to "free software".
Free energy is the energy available to do useful work.
In the context of devices free energy means it doesn't cost any
resources.
It liberates energy from the environment, it makes free energy.
> As for the accusations that somehow I am personally responsibility for
> starting the last "world war" that was some feat.
No your smear campaign buddies are responsible for the current world
war. You are merely lending them a hand for free.
You claim to understand water fueled auto's but this is not possible,
you are far to dismissive to ever learn anything outside your academic
views.
When are you going to address the topic?
I claim everyone was murdered and/or harassed into abandoning the
topic.
First they burn Tesla's lab, then they beat him to death.
Victor Schauberger died from misery: "They took everything away from
me I don't even own myself anymore."
What happened to Ottis Carr?
What happened to Eugene Mallove?
Who killed Arie de Geus?
What happend to Howard Johnson?
Where is Edwin Gray's stuff?
Where's Bruce DePalma's n-machine?
At what stage is Henry Moray's creation today?
If the US gov can kill 2 million civilians for energy resources a few
inventors shouldn't be a problem. Academics follow everything written
in the books, the books are fully moderated by the government.
There are thousands of classified energy patents.
gabydewilde
> gabydewilde wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 11:48 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Here you go Dorks.
>
> >>http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>
> >> And who wrote it?
> >> Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
> >> About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
> >> process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
> >> But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
> >> From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>
Why havent this accademic LHC worshiping idiots figured out there is
an aditional state of water? Are they all stupid or something? Or is
it that they can read much faster than think?
stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALALALAL I CANT HEAR YOU
LALLALALALLALA
I'm pretty sure that is what happened.
PRoof:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/c36ab13e19271195?hl=en
On May 24, 11:17 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On May 23, 3:42 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Hey, dumbo, I've done many experiments on using a resonant circuit to
> >> determine the dipole moment of a molecule. And it is quite apparent that
> >> you can't put energy into the bonds of a dipole using the frequency of
> >> the molecule's rotational frequency.
>
> > Where doesMeyerclaim that this is the frequency at which the
> > electron(s) gives up their orbit?
>
> >> This frequency lies in the
> >> microwave region of the EM spectrum. Surely you have heard about
> >> microwave ovens? This frequency is way above anything that you and your
> >> nutsoMeyersupporters claim that he used. Producing a dipole from a
> >> nonpolar molecule requires a fairly strong field to produce a dipole of
> >> any number of Debyes. In any event this energy is way too small to break
> >> a bond. God you guys are ignorant.
> >> FK- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >http://keelynet.com/keely/puha1.txt
>
> It doesn't make any difference if idiot Meyer didn't claim that the
> frequencies of his machine are nowhere near those needed to break the
> O-H bond. You were the one who claimed that this is the way that the
> bonds are broken. He needed a total moron such as yourself to make
> matters worse than his vague and nonreproducible process was to begin with.
> FK
You see? LALALALALA??? Can you see it?
the document http://keelynet.com/keely/puha1.txt describes the work of
Dr. Andrija Puhairch.
Specifically this part is of interest:
"Dr. Andrija Puharich has found a way to split water molecules by
tuning in on the vibrations of their atoms and breaking the molecules
into hydrogen, which could become fuel, and oxygen. Alternating-
current impulses augment naturally occurring vibrations in the H2O
molecules. By boosting the vibrations out of control, Puharich makes
the molecules fly apart into the component atoms. He likens the water-
splitting effect to the way soldiers marching in step across a bridge
risk damaging the structure by making it vibrate at a critical, stress-
producing rate. Electrolysis by simple direct current would create
hydrogen and oxygen with a net energy efficiency of only 54 percent,
according to Puharich, a Virginia-based inventor. But he says his
alternating-current system reaches better than 90 per cent
efficiency."
Originally in the late 50's, Puharich was investigating the disruptive
effect of electrical resonances on blood clots and noticed a peculiar
thing: in dilute blood, a specific freqency made bubbles appear in
the liquid.
His paper correlates with Keely, water can be progressively
dissociated at 620, 630 and 12,000 cycles per second. These Keely
explains are on the molecular, atomic and etheric levels respectively.
It is interesting that the etheric level of 12,000 / 20 = 600
(Puharich's frequency) found by original experimentation. This 600 cps
frequency is therefore a harmonic of the 12,000 cps frequency which
Puharich discovered.
Keely refered to his technique as progressive dissociation and wrote:
***
The orders of intensification for accelerating dissociation would not
be understood by any explanations that could be made, if unaccompanied
by the demonstrations witnessed by the late Professor Leidy, Dr.
Brinton, and others.
When the ether flows from a tube, its negative centre represents
molecular sub-division carrying interstitially (or between its
molecules) the lowest order of liberated ozone.
This is the first order of ozone and its wonderfully refreshing and
vitalizing to those who breathe it.
The second order, or atomic separation, releases a much higher grade
of ozone; in fact, too pure for inhalation, is the one that has been
(though attended withe much danger to the operator) utilized by Keely
in his carbon register to produce the circuit of high vibration that
breaks up the molecular magnetism which is recognized as cohesion.
The acceleration of these orders is governed by the introductory
impulse on a certain combination of vibratory chords, arranged for
this purpose in the instrument, with which Keely dissociates the
elements of water, and which he calls a Liberator.
In molecular dissociation one fork of 620 is used, setting the chords
on the first octave.
In atomic separation two forks, one of 620 and one of 630 per second;
setting the chords on the second octave.
In the etheric three forks; one of 620, one of 630, and one of 12,000,
setting the chords on the third octave.
As a matter of further clarification, Keely states that you cannot
directly dissociate a single level of aggregation due to the shell
structure of matter.
In other words, if you wish to dissociate the Atomic level, you must
first dissociate the molecular to be able to get to the atomic. That
follows also if you wish to dissociate the etheric, you must disrupt
the molecular and the atomic, then the etheric.
***
Now before you start screaming hoax, fraud or any insults of this
kind, no there is no pear review and there remain no good scientific
documents.
In stead of blaming me it's the establishment who deserve all credit
for destroying the information.
In 1988, Andrija Puharich stated had not heard of Keely or his work.
See? Had his fingers in his ears and went "LALALALA" all of his
career.
He should have known better than to think he invented something new,
but most scientists are not aware what lures outside their field of
expertise.
Much like they don't know about the work of Yull Brown, not about that
of Meyer not about Dad Garrett, not about Dennis Klein, Joseph Pap,
the list goes on beyond boring.
The DOE argued 1) "the radioactivity was encapsulated in the sample",
but the sample was crushed and the Geiger counter reading was the
same. They argued 2) "the radioactivity must be disparaged into the
atmosphere" while the department of health preformed in depth
investigation of the environment. This much to the frustration of the
nuclear physicist preforming the research for it suggested their
incompetence. The laboratory was not closed clearly indicating no
radioactivity was found in or around the building. In stead (after 3
months) the government payroll advanced to the claim they had seen
nothing.
I'm not sitting here making stuff up Fred.
Yull Brown was safely locked up in customs but Dan Halley jumped in to
tell his version of the story. He made a lot of effort getting the DOE
to use the technology that was offered to them for free. As in free
lunch, free willy and Free mason.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=411405755714495752
PACE is a fine resource
http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html
Eagle research is not peer review but it is nothing to complain about
as a 3rd source.
http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/fabuses/possib.html
Now in the face of this gigantic LHC altar I should be the one asking
you where the peer reviews are.
I don't even have access to the journals, that sums up how honest
things are on this planet quite nicely.
or not?
Eeyore
gabydewilde wrote:
There should be a Usenet hall of fame / shame where such posts can be
displayed for all to see in perpetuity.
Graham
Eeyore
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Sensible advice I reckon, not that blowing yourself up with acetylene is too
difficult either.
Graham
Eeyore
gabydewilde wrote:
> I don't even have access to the journals
Don't worry, it shows. We can tell anyway.
Graham
Fred Kasner
And of those you support none of them work. All sorts of unworkable
claims have been patented.
I even have it from a friend who has lab facilities that I don't have
that the attempt to follow the directions for Stan's device don't do
what he claims at all.
FK
Fred Kasner
The frequencies of the vibratory modes of the O-H bond in water lie in
the infrared. No electrical circuit can be produced that produce such
electrical frequencies and so no additional quanta of vibration can be
added to the water bonds to make it break. The limit of electrical
frequencies seem to be in the microwave region which can affect only the
rotation of molecules not the much higher frequencies of vibrations of
bonds. Not just an opinion but a matter of fact.
FK
gdew...@gmail.com
> No electrical circuit can be produced that produce such
> electrical frequencies and so no additional quanta of vibration can be
> added to the water bonds to make it break.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
You are trying to say: "I don't know of any electrical circuit that
can produce such electrical frequencies and I don't know how
additional quanta of vibration can be added to the water bonds to make
it break."
But your previous claim involved dismissing the existence and
application of Browns gas.
"Brown's Gas is a hypothetical construct that has never been shown to
the satisfaction of any major refereed science journal to exist. "
PACE is a fine resource, you should stop acting like a spoiled child
and accept their findings until better research is supplied to your
armchair.
http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html
You then proceed to say:
"Monatomic hydrogen and monatomic oxygem has a remarkably brief
lifetime in the presence of other such atoms and recombine quickly to
form the diatomic."
Even if this was true it is of no relevance to using the gas on
demand. You effectively shoot both your own arguments in the foot thus
therefor as a result thereof leaving you no legs to stand on.
"molecules that are quite stable even in each other's presence and
need not explosively combine to form water if one is careful."
Browns gas can be stored for a long time but it does loose some of
it's energy content.
However! If it would/when it does implode 1:1860 sufficient useful
energy remains to do useful work.
"The limit of electrical frequencies seem to be in the microwave
region which can affect only the rotation of molecules not the much
higher frequencies of vibrations of bonds."
"The frequencies of the vibratory modes of the O-H bond in water lie
in the infrared."
Just for fun, here is the transcript of Griffin's lecture preceding
his positive witness testimonial on Stanley Meyer's technology. Find
page 6 if you are to lazy to read it again and again. Start reading
under the picture.
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf
"Not just an opinion but a matter of fact."
Why this sentence?
How often do I have to explain I'm not impressed by your opinion? I'm
sorry but you are not levitating your opinion to fact levels with me.
By attacking the source of the information you (and your
petroapologist buddies) have ruled out all possibility of you knowing
the technology.
All we need to do is look at your superficial review then it
instantaneously becomes obvious that you know of nothing outside your
academic constructs. In your defence, in 1988, Andrija Puharich stated
had not heard of Keely or his work 40 years after Punarich
rediscovered the phenomenon himself. Very typical. You didn't know
about Andrija Puharich. More evident this self propagating scientific
dishonesty cant possibly get.
It's safe to say all your arguments imploded endothermically drawing
in hot air from your direct surroundings.
Soon you will be blowing off steam.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Nor is such very difficult to avoid with just a little common sense and
paying attention to instructions.
knews4...@yahoo.com
It ain't about the "bond" doofus.
It's about the energy in the vacuum.
>No electrical circuit can be produced that produce such
> electrical frequencies and so no additional quanta of vibration can be
> added to the water bonds to make it break.
Do the FUCKING EXPERIMENT.
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$1...@client2.news.psi.net>...
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
AT FIRST:
HOW TO?
Ted!
/////////////////////////////////
Learn something.
YOU DO NOT KNOW IT ALL.
>The limit of electrical
> frequencies seem to be in the microwave region which can affect only the
> rotation of molecules not the much higher frequencies of vibrations of
> bonds. Not just an opinion but a matter of fact.
>
> FK
BLALABLAAHBLAHBLAHHHHH
doug
gdew...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:08 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>No electrical circuit can be produced that produce such
>>electrical frequencies and so no additional quanta of vibration can be
>>added to the water bonds to make it break.
>
>
> Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
>
> You are trying to say: "I don't know of any electrical circuit that
> can produce such electrical frequencies and I don't know how
> additional quanta of vibration can be added to the water bonds to make
> it break."
You are missing the point. Meyer's claims involved frequencies in
the KHz region. The water resonances are in the THz region. This
is a billion times higher. Thus Meyer's work has nothing to do
with water vibration modes.
>
> But your previous claim involved dismissing the existence and
> application of Browns gas.
>
> "Brown's Gas is a hypothetical construct that has never been shown to
> the satisfaction of any major refereed science journal to exist. "
>
> PACE is a fine resource, you should stop acting like a spoiled child
> and accept their findings until better research is supplied to your
> armchair.
> http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html
The web is a dangerous thing for those who do not know any science.
This article is sheer fantasy.
>
> You then proceed to say:
> "Monatomic hydrogen and monatomic oxygem has a remarkably brief
> lifetime in the presence of other such atoms and recombine quickly to
> form the diatomic."
>
> Even if this was true it is of no relevance to using the gas on
> demand. You effectively shoot both your own arguments in the foot thus
> therefor as a result thereof leaving you no legs to stand on.
It is true. The lifetime is in the range of nanoseconds so it
makes no difference whether the gas is generated on demand or
hours before, the monatomic gas is gone long before it can be used.
>
> "molecules that are quite stable even in each other's presence and
> need not explosively combine to form water if one is careful."
>
> Browns gas can be stored for a long time but it does loose some of
> it's energy content.
>
> However! If it would/when it does implode 1:1860 sufficient useful
> energy remains to do useful work.
>
> "The limit of electrical frequencies seem to be in the microwave
> region which can affect only the rotation of molecules not the much
> higher frequencies of vibrations of bonds."
>
> "The frequencies of the vibratory modes of the O-H bond in water lie
> in the infrared."
>
> Just for fun, here is the transcript of Griffin's lecture preceding
> his positive witness testimonial on Stanley Meyer's technology. Find
> page 6 if you are to lazy to read it again and again. Start reading
> under the picture.
> http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf
>
> "Not just an opinion but a matter of fact."
This is just complete nonsense, not even close enough to be wrong. For
starters, the model of the atom that is being used was shown to be
wrong nearly a century ago. The rest is just delusional buzz phrases
from someone who knows no physics.
>
> Why this sentence?
>
> How often do I have to explain I'm not impressed by your opinion? I'm
> sorry but you are not levitating your opinion to fact levels with me.
> By attacking the source of the information you (and your
> petroapologist buddies) have ruled out all possibility of you knowing
> the technology.
We are just trying to help you. The laws of physics have not changed.
Meyer's device claims to violate them. Meyer was a fraud. The
information that you presented was laughable wrong. It is in no
way support for anything other than there are a lot of gullible,
technically ignorant people out there.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
It is all about the bond. To separate hydrogen from oxygen,
you need to break the bond. That requires a specific amount
of energy which has to come from somewhere. Hint: it is
not from the dream in the sentence below.
> It's about the energy in the vacuum.
You clearly have no idea what is being discussed about the
vacuum. You do not get to take energy out of it, particularly
with the equipment that Meyer had.
>
>
>>No electrical circuit can be produced that produce such
>>electrical frequencies and so no additional quanta of vibration can be
>>added to the water bonds to make it break.
>
>
> Do the FUCKING EXPERIMENT.
How many times have you done the experiment?
gdew...@gmail.com
> [snip boo whoo]
Howabout you go play with the other kids Dougie? Cant you see the
adults are talking? By attacking the source of the information you
have ruled out all possibility of you knowing anything about the
technology.
The loop is closed, you lost the game, there is no way out and you
cant win.
doug believes: "Meyer's claims involved frequencies in the KHz
region."
What? Where? You don't know anything about the technology. I just
proved that. By attacking the source of the information you have ruled
out all question of this fact. Where is your source? You don't have
any source? Are you's entering the clown zone again?
doug wrote: " The water resonances are in the THz region."
We has to ask our self: "Is our children learning?"
doug lied: "Meyer's work has nothing to do with water vibration modes.
"
You still needs to lurn civililisered conducts, google search and
readings little boy.
"We are just trying to help you."
Yes, you are a mass murdering lunatic and you are here to "help" kill
everyone. Please feel free to fuck off with your "help" really really
hard up your ass, don't let the tombstone hit you on your way down.
Mister "laughable" helptard petroapologist.
http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html
Proceedings of the Second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
Conference
Texas A&M University - September 13-14, 1996
doug weasels: "The web is a dangerous thing for those who do not know
any science.
This article is sheer fantasy."
Hey, perhaps you are braindead? Did this ever pop to mind? Or wait...
you don't have to answer that one. It's kinda obvious you cant know as
proven above and beyond.
http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html
Referrences:
1. Aharonov, Y. and D. Bohm. Significance of electromagnetic
potentials in the quantum theory. Physical Review, Second series.
Vol. 115, Number 3., August 1, 1959. p. 485-491. [In the total absence
of electromagnetic force fields, the potentials remain and can
interfere at a distance to produce real effects of charged particle
systems. Forced fields are actually effects generated from potentials.
See: Whittaker's two papers and research by T. E. Bearden on
radioactive neutralization.]
2. Anomalous water -- explained by Brown's Gas research.
Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter. Vol. 6 (4), July,
1993. p. 11 - 12.
3. Bearden, T. E.. A redefinition of the energy ansatz,
leading to a fundamentally new class of nuclear interactions. In:
Proceedings of the 27th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering
Conference, San Diego, California. 1992. IECEC, c/o American Nuclear
Society. Vol. IV. p. 4.303 - 4.310.
4. Bird, Christopher. The destruction of radioactive nuclear
wastes: does Professor Yull Brown have the solution ? Explore !
Volume 3, Number 5. 1992. p. 3.
5. Brown, Yull. Welding. U.S. Patent 4,014,777. March 29,
1977. ["The invention also relates to atomic welding to which the
mixture {of hydrogen and oxygen generated ion substantially
stoichiometric proportions} is passed through an arc causing
disassociation of both the hydrogen and oxygen into atomic hydrogen
and oxygen which on recombination generate an extremely hot flame."]
6. Brown, Yull. Arc-assisted oxy/hydrogen welding. U.S.
Patent 4,081,656. March 28, 1978.
7. Bruch, R., Elizabeth A. Rauscher, H. Wang, T. Tanaka and
D. Schneider. Bulletin of the American Physical Society. Volume 37,
1992. [Discusses nature of variable decay rates of the radioactive
nuclides, and the basis for their interaction with electromagnetic and
gravitational forces].
8. Bruch, R., Elizabeth A. Rauscher, S. Fuelling, D.
Schneider. Collision processes of molecules and atoms. In: L. Byass,
editor. Encyclopedia of applied physics. American Institute of
Physics. 1993. [Discusses nature of variable decay rates of the
radioactive nuclides, and the basis for their interaction with
electromagnetic and gravitational forces].
9. Costa de Beauregard, Olivier. The expanding paradigm of
the Einstein Theory. In: Andrija Puharich, editor. Iceland Papers.
New York. Essentia Research Associates. 1979. 190 p.; p. 161-189.
10. Dudley, H. C.. Radioactivity re-examined. CAEN Editors.
April 7, 1975. [Review of deviation of radioactive decay rates].
11. Haley, Daniel. Transmutation of radioactive materials
with Yull Brown's Gas -- 2500% radioactivity reduction. Planetary
Association for Clean Energy Newsletter. Vol. 6 (4), July, 1993. p. 8
-9.
12. Harada, K. and Elizabeth A. Rauscher. Unified theory of
Alpha decay. Physical Review. Volume 169, 1968. P. 818
13. Harada, K. and Elizabeth A. Rauscher. Alpha decay of
Po212 Pb208, , Po210 Pb206, treated by the Unified Theory of Alpha
decay. UCRL-70513, May, 1967.
14. Kervran, C. Louis. Biological transmutations. Magalia,
CA. Happiness Press. 1989. 163 p.
15. Kervran, C. Louis. Transmutation of the elements in oats:
new analyses. Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter. Vol.
2 (3), July/August 1980. p. 4-6.
16. Kervran, C. Louis. Transmutation à faible énergie. Paris
Maloine. 1972.
17. Magos, L. and T. W. Clarkson. Volatilization of mercury
by bacteria. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. October, 1964.
p. 294-8.
18. Rabzi, Georgiy S. Mechanism of low temperature
transmutation. In: John O'M. Bockris. Proceedings of Low-energy
Transmutation Conference, Texas A&M University, June 19, 1995.
[Available from New Energy News, P. O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City, Utah
84158-8639; (801) 583-6232, fax: 583-2963]
19. Rauscher, Elizabeth A. and R. Bruch. S-matrix theory of
Alpha decay. [Book manuscript in progress.]
20.. Puharich, Andrija [Henry K.]. Successful treatment of
neoplasms in mice with gaseous superoxide anion (O2) and Ozone (O3)
with rationale for effect. New York. Essentia Research Associates.
[Presented to Sixth Ozone World Congress. International Ozone
Association. May 26-28, 1983. Washington.] 89 p. [Pages 5-7 discuss
numerous in vitro biological transmutation or Kervran reactions.]
21.. Puharich, Andrija [Henry K.]. Method and apparatus for
splitting water molecules. U.S. Patent 4,394,230. July 18, 1983.
22.. Rauscher, Elizabeth A.. Study and application of the
modification of nuclear decay rates by changes in atomic states.
Tecnic Research Laboratories, Nevada. April, 1993. 28 p. [Protocol for
design, test and implementation of decay rate change effects to
nuclear waste materials].
23. Rauscher, Elizabeth A. The properties of Plutonium and
comparison to other metallic elements. University of California,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. February 23, 1991. [Set basis for
variable decay rates of the radioactive nuclides -- and their
interaction with electromagnetic and gravitational forces].
24.. Rein, Glen. Ability of non-Hertzian energy to modulate
Cobalt-60 radioactivity. [Manuscript prepared for Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency presentation by the Planetary
Association for Clean Energy]. 1 sheet. 1995.
25.. Rein, Glen. Utilization of a cell culture bioassay for
measuring quantum fields generated from a modified Caduceus Coil. In:
Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering
Conference, Boston, Massachusetts. IECEC, c/o American Nuclear
Society. August, 1991. 4 pages. [Specific details regarding protocol
and procedure used for modulation of radioactivity].
26. Smith, Wilbert B.. The new science. Ottawa. The Planetary
Association for Clean Energy. 1995. Keith Press. 1964. 72 p.
27. Soinski, A. J., Elizabeth A. Rauscher and J. O.
Rasmussen. Alpha particle amplitude and phases in the decay of 253Es.
Bulletin of American Physical Society. Volume 18, 1973. p.768.
[Modulation of decay rate of radionuclides by extra nuclear
environmental conditions].
28. Yull Brown's Gas. Planetary Association for Clean Energy
Newsletter. Vol. 6 (4), July, 1993. p. 10 - 11.
29. Whittaker, E. T.. On the partial differential equations
of mathematical physics. Mathematische Annalen. Vol. 57,. 1903. p.
333-355. [Demonstrates that a standing scalar potential wave can be
decomposed into a special set of directional electromagnetic waves
that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave. As a corollary,
then, a set of bi-directional electromagnetic waves -- stress waves --
can be constructed to form such a wave in space. Whittaker's wave
represents a standing wave of variation in the local curvature of
vacuum.]
30. Whittaker, E. T.. On an expression of the
electromagnetic field due to electrons by means of two scalar
potential functions. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society.
Vol. 1. 1904. p. 367-72. [Shows how to turn a standing scalar
potential wave back into electromagnetic energy, even at a distance,
by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding
the famous Aharonov-Bohm effect, predating the modern (Bohm) hidden
variable theory of quantum potentials. Such a procedure could be
developed to neutralize radioactive nuclei.]
This paper has been possible by the advice and help of Tom E. Bearden,
John O'M Bockris, Yull Brown, Olivier Costa de Beauregard, Hal Fox,
Elizabeth A. Rauscher, Glen Rein, William A. Tiller, Tom Valone,
William Van Bise.
References
doug: "We are just trying to help you."
You are not doing a fucking thing douggie. Go 'n fetch.
Go help "Iraq" with their "Democracy" or something.
Go "support" the troops.
http://www.warcomeshome.org/
You can stop "helping" me if that is what you believe is what you are
doing.
No moar free uranium for the military you dirty sex bomb fetesist.
No moar nuking babies for doug. ahhhh you poor thing.
No moad "my way" cheap skating.
http://www.thepartyparty.com/thepartyparty/myway.html
It's kinda obvious what the future looks like.
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=CNY&amt=1&t=5y
Back to wigwams & buffalo hunt.
doug
gdew...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:26 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>>[snip boo whoo]
>
>
> Howabout you go play with the other kids Dougie? Cant you see the
> adults are talking? By attacking the source of the information you
> have ruled out all possibility of you knowing anything about the
> technology.
>
You really do not like having your delusions pointed out do you?
> The loop is closed, you lost the game, there is no way out and you
> cant win.
The laws of physics work. Meyer was a fraud
>
> doug believes: "Meyer's claims involved frequencies in the KHz
> region."
>
> What? Where? You don't know anything about the technology. I just
> proved that. By attacking the source of the information you have ruled
> out all question of this fact. Where is your source? You don't have
> any source? Are you's entering the clown zone again?
Look at Meyer's patents. Read his papers. Look at his
circuits.
>
> doug wrote: " The water resonances are in the THz region."
>
> We has to ask our self: "Is our children learning?"
I clearly have. You have no idea about molecular resonances.
Look in a textbook and you can find them.
>
> doug lied: "Meyer's work has nothing to do with water vibration modes.
> "
>
> You still needs to lurn civililisered conducts, google search and
> readings little boy.
What Meyer claimed had nothing to do with the truth or physics.
He was a conman.
>
> "We are just trying to help you."
>
> Yes, you are a mass murdering lunatic and you are here to "help" kill
> everyone. Please feel free to fuck off with your "help" really really
> hard up your ass, don't let the tombstone hit you on your way down.
> Mister "laughable" helptard petroapologist.
It is odd that you think that pointing out your mistakes and
delusions is so bad.
>
> http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html
> Proceedings of the Second International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
> Conference
> Texas A&M University - September 13-14, 1996
>
> doug weasels: "The web is a dangerous thing for those who do not know
> any science.
> This article is sheer fantasy."
My comment is true in spite of your delusions.
>
> Hey, perhaps you are braindead? Did this ever pop to mind? Or wait...
> you don't have to answer that one. It's kinda obvious you cant know as
> proven above and beyond.
>
> http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html
This one is so stupid as to not need any comment. Just read it and
laugh.
>
> Referrences:
>
> 1. Aharonov, Y. and D. Bohm. Significance of electromagnetic
> potentials in the quantum theory. Physical Review, Second series.
> Vol. 115, Number 3., August 1, 1959. p. 485-491. [In the total absence
> of electromagnetic force fields, the potentials remain and can
> interfere at a distance to produce real effects of charged particle
> systems. Forced fields are actually effects generated from potentials.
> See: Whittaker's two papers and research by T. E. Bearden on
> radioactive neutralization.]
It is an insult to Aharonv and Bohm to put their names in the same
paragraph with Bearden. He is worse than meyer.
>
> 2. Anomalous water -- explained by Brown's Gas research.
> Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter. Vol. 6 (4), July,
> 1993. p. 11 - 12.
There is no science in Brown's gas. This is folk tales.
>
> 3. Bearden, T. E.. A redefinition of the energy ansatz,
> leading to a fundamentally new class of nuclear interactions. In:
> Proceedings of the 27th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering
> Conference, San Diego, California. 1992. IECEC, c/o American Nuclear
> Society. Vol. IV. p. 4.303 - 4.310.
Nothing needs to be said about the delusions of Bearden.
>
> 4. Bird, Christopher. The destruction of radioactive nuclear
> wastes: does Professor Yull Brown have the solution ? Explore !
> Volume 3, Number 5. 1992. p. 3.
The answer is no.
More nonsense from people with no knowledge of science.
>
> 12. Harada, K. and Elizabeth A. Rauscher. Unified theory of
> Alpha decay. Physical Review. Volume 169, 1968. P. 818
>
> 13. Harada, K. and Elizabeth A. Rauscher. Alpha decay of
> Po212 Pb208, , Po210 Pb206, treated by the Unified Theory of Alpha
> decay. UCRL-70513, May, 1967.
>
> 14. Kervran, C. Louis. Biological transmutations. Magalia,
> CA. Happiness Press. 1989. 163 p.
>
> 15. Kervran, C. Louis. Transmutation of the elements in oats:
> new analyses. Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter. Vol.
> 2 (3), July/August 1980. p. 4-6.
>
> 16. Kervran, C. Louis. Transmutation à faible énergie. Paris
> Maloine. 1972.
>
> 17. Magos, L. and T. W. Clarkson. Volatilization of mercury
> by bacteria. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. October, 1964.
> p. 294-8.
>
> 18. Rabzi, Georgiy S. Mechanism of low temperature
> transmutation. In: John O'M. Bockris. Proceedings of Low-energy
> Transmutation Conference, Texas A&M University, June 19, 1995.
> [Available from New Energy News, P. O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City, Utah
> 84158-8639; (801) 583-6232, fax: 583-2963]
More crank papers.
You really could use some education. Why not go out and build
a meyer cell and show it works?
>
> Go help "Iraq" with their "Democracy" or something.
>
> Go "support" the troops.
> http://www.warcomeshome.org/
>
> You can stop "helping" me if that is what you believe is what you are
> doing.
>
> No moar free uranium for the military you dirty sex bomb fetesist.
>
> No moar nuking babies for doug. ahhhh you poor thing.
>
> No moad "my way" cheap skating.
> http://www.thepartyparty.com/thepartyparty/myway.html
>
> It's kinda obvious what the future looks like.
> http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=CNY&amt=1&t=5y
>
> Back to wigwams & buffalo hunt.
You need to have some quiet time so you can calm down from your tantrum.
You are looking pretty silly with your ranting.
>
> ______
> http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress