Author Topic: Stanley Meyer demystified  (Read 6306 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #48 on: August 31, 2023, 14:50:22 pm »
Dude, the government was trying to get his investors to sue Stan in a class-action lawsuit for this being "normal" electrolysis before he died...I never said Stan's process wasn't Faradic electrolysis...in fact I'm alluding to it being just that. The only thing that makes it viable is the power amplification provided by the phenomenon I'm describing. It's my contention (implied), that his special terms were allegorical, to evade patent invalidation for thermodynamic violations.

Furthermore, DC neon electrode illumination is a known and fixed fact, it can most certainly be used to prove polarity changes experimentally. Empirical observations are also quite persuading in my opinion. The fact that the electrode polarity changes, and the discharge is obviously and undeniably amplified...coupled with the fact that a capacitor cannot supply anything above its rated capacitance is in fact "proof"....the dpdt switch/relay acts as undeniable isolation from source, and mandates nothing extra is added. Sorry that's not enough to prove it to you, and if you don't care enough to look at it yourself (cheap and easy to look at), then, once again, neither do I.

 Mathematical proof is often crafted and in-fact invented after the fact to explain experimental observations. Mathematically crafting/modeling the experiment first, then running the experiment to prove the math is cool and all...but I'm a mathematical fallibist...and I'm after the truth first, then mathematical proof after.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #49 on: August 31, 2023, 15:00:06 pm »
His demo cell (Lawton replication) was resonant and arguably non-faradic...but how the hell could he supply water vapor and ozone directly to a spark plug voltage zone (his very last version) and have a singular dissociation and then explosive event at the end, and it have any of the stuff claimed to be going on in the Lawton replication happen?
Hmm, I wonder what he meant by Voltage "Intensifier" Circuit...or the comment "current is not delivered or made to flow....in the standard way"?

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4701
    • water structure and science
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #50 on: September 01, 2023, 08:49:59 am »
Meyer is full of mysteries  ;) :D

Meyer never said that he was NOT using current. He even said that it not a big deal to use 1 amp, 3 Amp 4 Amps......
And that makes a lot of sense.
ANY ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT ONLY WORKS WHEN CURRENT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO FLOW. You have to create a closed loop / circuit. And when you created 1, current will flow. Thats the law.

cheers

Online Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 100
    • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp7oJf9m5gRPBi5PFhtsK_w
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #51 on: September 01, 2023, 14:22:41 pm »
Quote

His demo cell (Lawton replication) was resonant and arguably non-faradic...but how the hell could he supply water vapor and ozone directly to a spark plug voltage zone (his very last version) and have a singular dissociation and then explosive event at the end, and it have any of the stuff claimed to be going on in the Lawton replication happen?
Hmm, I wonder what he meant by Voltage "Intensifier" Circuit...or the comment "current is not delivered or made to flow....in the standard way"?


And on my channel, all the formulas that explain what is happening in the Meyer cell are presented.

Maxwell's law works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Exactly Ampère's circuital law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampère%27s_circuital_law

Online Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 100
    • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp7oJf9m5gRPBi5PFhtsK_w
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #52 on: September 01, 2023, 14:36:46 pm »
Radiant_1.  that's how to explain it. With graphs, pictures, formulas. Your naked text can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways.


Online Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4131
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2023, 00:17:10 am »
Theres something About a magic frequência that when you hits with it simply break apart… the frequency is very very high

The question really is how the hell he made it self oscillate at that frequency by other means and accomplish the task that really is to break the covalent bound

I believe heat is part of the process in the sense that heat is vibration and water heat capacity has to do with the vibrations we talk about

The hotter something is the higher is the amplitude of this vibration

As I tried to explain is possible to cause a field from inside out the water… I have that tests of the water coil to prove that it kind of work but the only think regarding it is the resistance of the large water volume…

I need to spare some time to get it on again… in mean while I’m trying to keep up with work

I believe this frequency may be dependent on pressure and temperature in a sense…


A chain reaction is a reaction in where you put energy in for a while and than the medium start to decay generating more energy and not actually consuming the energy was charged completely

So at a certain energy density the reaction occur in a explosive manner that’s why Meyer had his injectors idea…

After all they will catch lot of heat and work hot

Nuclear reactors operate with pressurized water at high temperature but it don’t explode…

They don’t apply a electric field maybe?

Perhaps the easier way to discover is to make a water hydrogen bomb hahaha put it under a very high pressure and monitor the pressure vs temperature change try to find some range where it explode nicely

Online Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4131
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2023, 00:32:16 am »
One thing I found interesting is that when you have pure water and you add potassium to is with current applied it will start a strange reaction that is not the same if you dilute the same amount of potassium before hand and make the same experiment…

There is something about the ionization  energy of the molecules that come into play and somehow rings in the cell…

Basically you are producing ions while splitting them at same time without letting time for them to equi distribute forming a strong equilibrium

I found it has the potential to destabilize the reaction.. you should test it… to confirm if that was my impression from my tests..

Get to be real potassium hydroxide pure

The weak version didn’t made this effect … don’t even look the same… I tried to buy a kilo of it but is kind of very white… seems not pure at all…

Could be a way to understand it… prepare the readings and make the experiment the best you can …


I was thinking also corona discharge is favored in a low vacuum…
The pressure change the distance between the molecules in the gas…
Mean free path as increase it become easier for the ionized molecules to accelerate…

But is to be questioned…

« Last Edit: September 03, 2023, 12:31:23 pm by sebosfato »