Author Topic: Stan Meyer skepticism?  (Read 2869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Stan Meyer skepticism?
« on: December 30, 2015, 19:35:00 pm »
I've studied Stan's work for close to 10 years now.

After all those years I still believe Stan discovered something which made it all possible, what he called
"The Electrical Polarization Process".

But as time and research has gone on I've noticed a lot of inconsistencies about Stan's work.
Throughout his work he made some big claims that never came to fruition.

So, how do you guys feel about his work?

Do you think he had reliable systems developed that were ready to sell?

What about the injectors? There is no video or records proving they ever worked....and people who worked with
him even said he didn't get the injectors to work.

Do you think he ran the buggy on the injectors?

What is your overall opinion on what Stan accomplished?

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: Stan Meyer skepticism?
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2015, 21:13:25 pm »
 
my over over all opinion = Yes he split water , yes he ran his VW car on H2 gas
did he hand out how to, instructions ? = No he certainly did not

did Pacheco run a boat On H2 ? = Yes
did he hand out how to instructions ? = No


did Puharich run a bus On H2 ? = Yes
did he hand out how to instructions ? = No


did Horvath run a car On H2 ? = Yes
did he hand out how to instructions ? = No


did Yul Brown run a car on H2 ? = Yes
did he hand out how to instructions ? = No



did Anderson run a car On H2 ? = Yes
did he hand out how to instructions ? = No


did Dad Garrett run a car On H2 ? = Yes
did he hand out how to instructions ? = No

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
Re: Stan Meyer skepticism?
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2015, 22:02:35 pm »
Everyone knows he died before finishing his injectors.
Us poor boys will have to wait till all the apples have decayed to have access to Stans more detailed demonstrations...mayb after those with all the detailed videos have finished their fame and fortune run we ALL ' will have a chance to observe and enjoy his detailed demonstrations and have a better chance to feel a complete understanding from Stan his self rather than from someone else with all that real information that has made their own conclusions...we all have understandings of parts of the puzzle and one day even us oranges will taste good.
 

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Stan Meyer skepticism?
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2015, 10:40:27 am »
There's no question that Stan Meyer had something. But what he was doing evolved with time.  He produced Hydrogen by chopping the output from an automotive alternator.  He also showed the process as being workable at 48 Volts, what he called "an extremely low voltage".  Then he said it needed to be "500 to 2,000 Volts", and later, at least a thousand Volts.  So it's doubtful that there's a magic threshold at which an extra ten or fifteen Volts will suddenly make it all happen.  Also, according to Wikipedia, electrical polarization can be produced at a very small potential.  And there's the issue of electrode design, to produce his "rotating electric field".

He said that he deliberately gave wrong or misleading information at times, even covered up some details, to "maintain secrecy".  Furthermore, he wasn't an expert scientist.  His statement that the Oxygen is completely converted to energy during the cold fusion process just isn't right.  (If this was the basis for his claim that one gallon of water contains as much energy as 200 barrels of oil, then that isn't correct.)  He also presented the cold fusion as being caused by replacing orbital electrons with pi muons.  At the time, muon catalysis was a scientific conjecture, but getting these particles isn't easy.  So LENR is a more accurate description of the process.

With his lack of scientific understanding, his quest for secrecy, and his always improving technology, it's little wonder that replication is difficult.  But I think the electrolysis part of his technology can be duplicated.  The cold fusion part of it (the OU) will require more information, perhaps from someone who has made a related, 'accidental' discovery.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: Stan Meyer skepticism?
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2015, 21:34:54 pm »

theres also the possibility he had a pretty good  science understanding , deliberately gave misleading information and had a quest for secrecy

its easier for a smart man to play stupid , than a stupid man to play smart

I do not see SM as being stupid at any point   ,    "KISS" s . meyer

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • let the voltage do the work
Re: Stan Meyer skepticism?
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2015, 22:41:10 pm »
What rotating electric field? There isn't any.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • let the voltage do the work
Re: Stan Meyer skepticism?
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2016, 00:17:31 am »
The electric field is imaginary as it doesn't follow the movement of the causative particle. If you rotate a particle then the electric field doesnt rotate with it. The magnetic field is up to debate.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Stan Meyer skepticism?
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2016, 06:30:01 am »

theres also the possibility he had a pretty good  science understanding , deliberately gave misleading information and had a quest for secrecy

its easier for a smart man to play stupid , than a stupid man to play smart

I do not see SM as being stupid at any point   ,    "KISS" s . meyer

I agree.  And by "KISS" I presume you mean "Keep It Short and Simple"?  I've been known to use this principle myself.

What rotating electric field? There isn't any.

He does describe a rotating electric field in his Hydrogen Generator patent.  But it depends on what stage of his development we look at, as well as the waveform, the electrical connection points, and even a slight protrusion of the outer grid's connection bolt (with a corresponding slot in the inner grid - to prevent shorts).  Rotation is produced by a quadrature signal (the TGS waveform, rather than the opposing 180 degree fields of the 8xA circuit), in conjunction with a 90 degree offset between the connection points.

Keep in mind that this is not the Resonant Cavity patent.  In that patent he states that the resonance frequency matches the time of travel of a water molecule between electrode impacts.  And it would seem that this time of travel should also depend on the voltage, as shown by Farnsworth.  BUT the resonance supposedly remains the same, in spite of ever increasing velocity.  And this part is unscientific.

As I said, his technology evolved.  He later claimed the molecules remained stationary and were stretched apart.  This would be similar to multi photon thermolytic decomposition.