Stanley Meyer > Stanley Meyer

Covalent switch-off

(1/1)

Dankie:
So it appears that the covalent switch off , whatever that is , weakens the covalent bonding of the water . Its is not the same process as the electrical polarization process as you can see from the way he phrases it .

So what is it ?? I have my ideas but i'd like you guys to discuss , I think theres more to high gas production than just a resonant cell , thats just to the situation where we spend the least amount of energy , but what about the actual water molecule , whats going on there , how is it moving , what is holding up the covalent bonding anyways ?

More importantly how do we "weaken this covalent bond" , how are we gonna do this in electrical terms ?? How do we slow down the orbital spin ?? What is the order of things happening , what needs to happen before what ? What force is affecting what ? Are these two seperate things ? Are they happening at the same time or in a sequence of events ?  Can the HHO gas itself be primed by this force ?

These are all questions we must ask ourselves ...

Lets look again @ what JohnB posted


From: Precursor Engineering and the Falsification of Modern Physics by: Thomas Eugene Bearden

With this more advanced understanding of what an "observable" actually is, then when we now introduce a bit of "sharp little gradient tickling" the vacuum in a local area, per P.A.M. Dirac, that tickling will produce negative energies in that tickled
vacuum as well. And that means that we are adding in "negative probabilities" into that bubbling structure (say, a container of water, in each water molecule structure) so that the entire bubble structure for the water molecule starts "backing back down" its ongoing creation chain -- in short, it starts "unhappening" at its "highest positive energy end". If we just use a gross pattern of tickling, we get "overall" unhappening, so the last and highest positive energy thing that made the water molecule possible -- i.e., the OH bond positive probability -- now has much-reduced overall probability. The net probability is the summation of (1) the usual positive probability and (2) the added negative probability due to tickling. Hence statistically the water molecules in the tickled area start "falling apart" as their
OH bonds now have much less probability, and so they just start "unhappening" statistically as their OH bonds start vanishing statistically. So intermixed bubbles of H2 and O2 gas (from those molecules whose OH bond "unhappened") begin appearing throughout the vacuum-tickled "water". But these mixtures are not very combustible or explosive because in that altered (tickled) region
now it is very difficult to form the OH bond. Aha! But if we then pipe the resulting gas bubbles out of that local tickled-vacuum
region -- i.e., out of the water container itself-- and a few inches away and into the combustion chamber of a nearby combustion engine, then the vacuum in that combustion chamber is "normal" and not being "tickled". Hence the OH bond is back in its full normal probability, and so the mix of O2 and H2 will burn and power the engine, giving no exhaust except water vapor.

Flaghole:
Maybe this ...

http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,381.msg6132.html#msg6132

QUOTE:

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.

Flag  8)

Dankie:
I dont understand the puharich setup , seems to me like Stan was the better genius and took it farther than puharich ever did , it might sound funny but I also think Stan expalins it better .

I wanna know how to "tickle the vacuum" , by the looks of it Stan is using this technique on the liquid water and on the gas Hydroxy ,

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Go to full version