Stanley Meyer > Stan Meyers system 1

Open letter to P. Lindemann

<< < (12/12)

Donaldwfc:

--- Quote from: tutanka on October 23, 2011, 08:44:05 am ---
--- Quote from: Donaldwfc on October 23, 2011, 03:37:28 am ---Everything I said was correct. You have some more learning to do.

--- End quote ---
Sorry .. in part is correct.. however explain chemically with formula what is your water fuel. If you know for you is simple write that.. My formula is 8N2+6HHO+Hv=4NH3+6N2O.. yours??

--- End quote ---

It's not a chemical process, it's a physical process. I see you are not working on Stan's tech at all, you are doing something else. I wish you luck with that. I hope my comments here serve as a record to other researchers that they may distinguish between Stan's work and the other theories out there. I correct your statements in reference to Stan's technology only.

sebosfato:
Physical or chemical, does it really matter? We found here a big claim, and i don't think we should deny new theories.

I still think there is something else stan was talking about... in the end he clearly says that he can transform hydrogen into energy at 100% mass decay. But of course he worked thru many things in 30 years, i'm sure he might had used this system tut is talking about at maybe the initial time...   later he was going to use the injectors only...

Donaldwfc:
100% Mass decay into energy would be E=mc^2 from Einstein. Stan supersedes this, as he mentions while teasing Einstein's theory for only being 3 dimensional in the New Zealand video. Mass energy is one thing and Stan's Universal Energy is another. You can find out more by reading the Universal Energy Balance of Water in the Tech Brief.

Bubz:
100%? That doesn't sound right. Doesn't that mean something turns to nothing? Not to be a nag or anything, but, could you give me a better description? Why is it considered "decay"?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page