New video: Edward Mitchel

[Login to see usernames]

Thanks Steve but I can't post replies as I'd like too as a result.

[Login to see usernames]

'The lowest current flow through the exciter array was measured at only 0.7 mA at 9kv potential difference measured across the exciter array."

That's 6.3 A/V, or 5.12 A/1.23V

How does your gas production compare with normal electrolysis, at the same amps?

Asked without disrespect.

[Login to see usernames]

Sorry I asked.  Even more sorry that I actually expected an answer.

[Login to see usernames]

My question dealt with comparing your results to normal electrolysis.  Meyer's claim was that he produced an unusual amount of Hydrogen for the amount of power he used.  What is YOUR benchmark?

[Login to see usernames]

@h2opower:

The waveform you claim is "impossible" is not impossible at all.  The only difference between that envelope and what Stan shows as the output of the 8xa circuit is that the amplitude increases with each pulse.  This is exactly what would be expected if a number of choke coils were spaced along a standing wave.  As the amplitude of the standing wave increases, so will the amplitude of the pulse produced by the coil at that position. 

[Login to see usernames]

@h2opower:

The waveform you claim is "impossible" is not impossible at all.  The only difference between that envelope and what Stan shows as the output of the 8xa circuit is that the amplitude increases with each pulse.  This is exactly what would be expected if a number of choke coils were spaced along a standing wave.  As the amplitude of the standing wave increases, so will the amplitude of the pulse produced by the coil at that position. 

You Jerry have no idea how Meyer made his standing waves or how this technology behaves as you have not built & tested a single part of this technology correctly. If I don't tell you right now you simply will not be able to tell everyone just how Meyer went about making standing waves and guess what? I am not going to tell you.

You see I have built & tested a great many things concerning this technology so I speak from experience have done the ground work to be able to know what it is I am talking about. You try and compare yourself to Stanley Meyer telling everyone, "See I am like Stanley Meyer" when you are nothing like him and you resorted to lying about and/or slandering Stanley Meyer in order for you to make such a bold claim: http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showpost.php?p=12862&postcount=144

What is your real agenda? Who's payroll are you actually on? The only way you are going to be able to see what this technology does is for you to build it as close to that of Stanley A. Meyer's designs and afterwords test what ever you build with actual hands on experiments. You can't look at the pictures and gain any real world knowledge or experience in dealing with this technology as it simply doesn't work that way.

Tell us which section in the technical brief is Stanley A. Meyer actually talking about standing waves if you please so we can at least know that you read it.

[Login to see usernames]

I already told you I quoted the wrong video.  Why are you ignoring what I said?  And why are you calling me a liar, instead of the person who made the video?  Besides, YOU were the one who brought up the subject of standing waves.  Why don't YOU tell us the effect of a standing wave on the coils which are positioned along it? 

I think you claim the waveform is impossible just because YOU can't make it.  Speaking of which, where have YOU shown a standing wave, with all your 'hands on' experience?

And I also told you someone doesn't have to build the same hardware he shows to infringe on his patents.  Are you using 'deliberate amnesia' to justify continued defamatory statements?  I am still copying what you say.  Ignoring that as well?

[Login to see usernames]

guys guys....
Please keep it techno , please.
No liars, no mud slinging.
Respect rules here. You know that all....

thanks