Stan said: electrons are consumed...but are they?

[Login to see usernames]

Sometime some people on other forums also come up with interesting theory's.
Here is one that shook me up.
Its about one of Stan Meyers theory:

Electrons are not consumed by a lamp or a bulb, or a resistor. Electrons are vibrating or moving. When the electrons go into a lightbulb filament they just pass through it, they do not get "burnt" or "convert into heat". They simply slow down their speed.

This is the biggest issue I have with stan meyer. He claimed to be an electronics expert and he doesn't even know that electrons are not consumed in a circuit. At least, in his patents he misleads people into thinking that electrons can be consumed in a light bulb.

Crackpots and quacks on the forums are now going around thinking the electron extraction circuit is all about "consuming electrons" in the light bulb. No such thing occurs in a light bulb. I guess these people think that electrons get consumed and burnt off (like some kind of wood in a fire).

Even if it were the case that electrons were "burnt off", this would be very dangerous and would reduce the mass of our world very very quickly. The earth might become some kind of atomic bomb waiting to explode.

So if stan was not a fraud, then someone better come up with an explanation how electrons are "Extracted", because they sure aren't "burnt off" in a light bulb. Anyone with basic electronics experience should know that electrons are not "burnt off" just because a light is shining bright.

So, what you think on this?

[Login to see usernames]

This statement always bothered me too.

It has always been my position that there was never a light bulb or resistive element, but this
was used to power the LED's.

Mike

[Login to see usernames]

Crackpots and quacks on the forums are now going around thinking the electron extraction circuit is all about "consuming electrons" in the light bulb. No such thing occurs in a light bulb. I guess these people think that electrons get consumed and burnt off (like some kind of wood in a fire).

Even if it were the case that electrons were "burnt off", this would be very dangerous and would reduce the mass of our world very very quickly. The earth might become some kind of atomic bomb waiting to explode.

Yeah sometimes even in the free energy scene you need to have some basic physics knowledge. Just don't listen to this absurd theories.

[Login to see usernames]

Stan means consumed in a resistive load as opposed to used in an inductive load, because if you use an inductive load then there is the chance of back emf and the electrons re-entering the water bath, it is important that the electron extraction circuit has a resistive load/element for this reason, and the electrons are not technically consumed, this is not what stan means, but their energy is consumed, the energy is dissipated, and they are effectively removed from the system, the water, and the gas, which is the whole point of the process. You want to removed the electrons to destabilize the gas atoms, as well as possibly use this electricity for other reasons, but you have to design for that.


It's simple to see Stan was smarter than this guy.
If Stan says something you don't understand then that is your problem for not understanding it.
You have to learn to ask the right questions.

[Login to see usernames]

Reading this guys post again, he says his biggest problem with stan was that he said 'consuming electrons' ... well to me that seems like a pretty insignificant thing to pick on Stan for if you are going to write-off his whole 20 years of work.

I'd say this guy hasn't a clue what he's talking about in any regard, he's probably just reading a few things and then ranting about then trying to spoil real research efforts and discourage the weak minded. I won't bother giving him a second more thought, if he's stuck up on something simple like that he's never going to grasp any of Stan's real methods even if you spent a week trying to explain it to him.

[Login to see usernames]

The term: bleed off the electrons would be a better choice then?



Steve

[Login to see usernames]

For every electron entering a hydrogen cell another leaves.  So the total amount of electrons used is ...?

You are NOT creating electrons to add to a water molicule; you are using Voltage and Current flow to overcome the Electronegativity of the O atom.

If you did have to add electrons to a water molicule to get it to split into H & O you would only need one wirw going into the cell.
You would also not be able to do so using heat alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermolysis

The conventional way to split water is by adding energy in the form of electrical power, (= VxA) or Heat.
Or a combination of the two.

The reason you and I are here is because we want to find an alternative way of doing so.
One that requires either much less energy input, or uses free energy.

The methods being tried are:
Getting the molicule to resonate at some frequency of the molicule or H or O atom or something.
Free energy devices that supply the energy, usually electrical?, to do so in a conventional manner.
Catalysts, that by definition, speed up reactions while not being consumed in the reaction themselves.
Using other properties of either Monatomic and/or Diatomic H and its changing between the two states.

Adding electrons to an atom or molicule simply gives you a negativly charged ion of the same atom or molicule.

[Login to see usernames]

Hmm funny thing happened today, I came to some conclusens after testing my electron extraction circuit. I was googling stuff about the electron extraction and here I am. I came to the same conclusion as the guy Steve quoted to start this topic. To be honest, after reading the patent which includes Stan's electron extraction last night, I lost a lot of faith. He kept mentioning amp consuming devices. This doesn't happen across a resister, you get a voltage drop, not an amp drop. The only possible way I can see it working is if the bulb functioned as an electron emitter. Also, if we remove electrons from the exciter, would theory not say we would have to also add one back in at the same time?

I tried taking the output of a MOT and rectifying it and then connecting one lead to ground and the positive to the grid, nothing happened. No amp flow. After doing it, I realized it just doesn't make sense electrically speaking. I think this guy was right.

I'm not sure the electron emitter is the answer either. If no current flows, the bulb will not get hot and will not emit electrons creating the void to be filled.