Stanley Meyer > Stanley Meyer

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

<< < (2/3) > >>

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



Steve

Logic:
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.

Dave:
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.

Steve:
The eec is a device that Stan used in the gas part.
He ionized it and then tried to catch electrons to prevent recombination of atoms, from my current point of view....

geon:
I have come to some conculsions:  "an electric field removes ionized electrons reducing the rate of electron hole recombination , what you must do is control the electric field and maintain to regular levels , you can also ionize electrons using light quanta (laser field or light field) depending what electron band you want to excitate. if I was ionizing I wouldnt want any ozon forming ... earth receivers electrons very easily. it has a positive net charge. 

About meyer you can do a lot with some alpha radiation alone , the electric field is maybe just there to keep atoms from recombining to electronically stable forms.. electrolysis produce some alpha radiation depending on the setup. you actually want to short-circuit water and control electron recombination to prevent water reformation you have like .5 seconds before that happens."
 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page