Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
Forum issues / Re: Forum issues
« Last post by Login to see usernames on Yesterday at 22:21:24 »
Thanks, Massive!

A lot of life out of my body sucking things happend to me the last years....As many of you guys also experience...probably

Did you had any progress with the water as a possible fuel techno?


cheers!
2
Forum issues / Re: Forum issues
« Last post by Login to see usernames on Yesterday at 18:51:18 »

Hi Steve, I was wondering what happened. Zero access for a long time. Did they destroy files?
Hopefully everyone receives your email. There was no way to make contact to alert log in problems. You got it back on. cheers
3
Forum issues / We are back!
« Last post by Login to see usernames on Yesterday at 12:21:49 »
Dear members,

After being hacked, sadly enough, i was now able to restore the forum.
It runs again.
I trully hope that you havent give up hope.
Maybe we can say hi and even start new discussions.

Steve
4
Stanley Meyer / Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Last post by Login to see usernames 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"?
5
Stanley Meyer / Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Last post by Login to see usernames 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.
6
Stanley Meyer / Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Last post by Login to see usernames on August 31, 2023, 14:29:58 pm »
These are just words, they are not confirmed by calculations, and calculations are not confirmed by experiments.
Having a successful experiment without calculations does not guarantee that the process went exactly as you describe in words.
There is no way to verify your words if you have not provided calculations.Moreover, there is no way to test the experiment if you do not provide calculations.
By what figures can you prove that you had the Meyer process and not the Faraday electrolysis?
I am skeptical of your words.
I think you got a Faraday pulsed electrolysis.
7
Stanley Meyer / Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Last post by Login to see usernames on August 31, 2023, 14:17:02 pm »
Thats a very nice drawing! 
I can follow what your are thinking there..

Glad to hear it Steve, and thanks, thought it deserved a proper mock-up👌
8
Stanley Meyer / Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Last post by Login to see usernames on August 31, 2023, 14:10:56 pm »
The statement "demystification" is too loud.
There are no formulas that can be checked and recalculated.
You can check your words (text), if only your installation gives a volume of Brown gas greater than Faraday electrolysis.That is, according to the final result. With the same size of the fuel cell area and the volume of water used.
Formulas also allow you to check at each stage. Starting from the generation scheme -> VIC -> fuel cell

I mean, burden of proof is on whoever wants the world to buy their product. I don't want you buy a thing from me. My efforts, now, and in the past speak for themselves.
Just like the truth, it's self-evident...and it's easy enough to explore for yourself.

I experimentally verified this circuit 14yrs ago...with a dpdt relay and a 555...I saw it underlying in many OU patents I've studied since I started this quest with David Wenbrent's water4fuel Skype channel in 2007... I have replicated many anomalous circuits on my quest to understand, and out of them all, this is the one that stuck in my mind. As I realized that a version of this is in all the significant patents, from Gray's tube, Puriarch's nickel coated water plugs, the three terminal excitation source in the fueless noble gas engine....I would put my money on this is the "truth" of electricity and magnetism Edward Leedskalin was alluding to, that he used to build the Coral Castle.

If you didn't see the experimental proof/demo I had on youtube, looking for a better host atm, but it's very easy to replicate, and that original schematic with the 555, ignition coil and dpdt relay will get you looking the phenomenon in the face, just swap the 35v DC with bridge rectified wall current to see it real nice and significant....you can do it with like $20 on Amazon parts (9$ ignition coil, a dpdt relay/switch and a few bucks for a bridge rectifier and a handful of 1n4007diodes).

It should be glaringly obvious that if the discharge energy increases, as I have shown, with a few extra diodes added in the right place, despite their resistive losses and voltage drops then it's output must be more efficient, regardless...if not, then I can't help you, and your opinion is yours. But why try and disparage?...just move on. If you got a hv ammeter and a hv probe, please take a definitive reading...

Odd how this "give use calculations, and hook it up, or quite down" shade throwing, comes after elucidating how the anomaly of the observation can be explained and how the "unexpected behavior" of a reverse-biased diode conducting by spurious spikes of self/mutually induced counter-currents, often referred to as "reverse recovery" or "reverse conduction" can be exploited to our benefit by using it to regauge the opposing forces of self/mutual induction.

Odd that while it was a demo circuit just showing the concept, with an experimental proof, and words (text)...it was no comment, or "interesting" at best. But the moment I share how I see it, or more accurately, it's abstraction, in some of Stan's circuits...then put together how the abstraction (or possibly the alteration) could be made to work with this observation I took the time to share, in a circuit (that I took the time to fix a mistake on), you want equations, and volumes 🤣

Take it or leave it, I don't really care either way. The word "demystified" is exactly the perfect decibel level to explain "Voltage can do work" as Stan claimed, then say "I believe certain claims and language were disingenuous and misleading....look at this circuit/effect, it's essence is in these schematics, and this schematic has the exact waveform made by digital/semiconductor means that this manually discharged capacitor in my experiment has...weird, this circuit just needs to have the common ground changed to a common +, and this alternate pulse needs to be delivered a little differently based off of my observations of the way this thing triggers/arcs"

Odd and dismissive response for someone on "ionization"x.com
9
Stanley Meyer / Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Last post by Login to see usernames on August 31, 2023, 09:32:47 am »
The statement "demystification" is too loud.
There are no formulas that can be checked and recalculated.
You can check your words (text), if only your installation gives a volume of Brown gas greater than Faraday electrolysis.That is, according to the final result. With the same size of the fuel cell area and the volume of water used.
Formulas also allow you to check at each stage. Starting from the generation scheme -> VIC -> fuel cell
10
Tur55 / Re: Stanley Meyer's fuel cell theory
« Last post by Login to see usernames on August 31, 2023, 09:02:07 am »
On my YouTube channel there is a video of laboratory experiments where the Meyer process is demonstrated.
In order to break 1 water molecule by covalent bond, it is necessary to spend 1.07 attojules. This is a very small value. If converted to volts it will be less than 1 volt.
But for the industrial volume of Brown's gas production, a VIC is needed.


On video without VIC
https://youtu.be/mQsS8CnTRqA?si=bbPk9aykpxrKGY78
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10