New Stan Meyer Replication - off topic

[BobBrown]

New, its a work in progress

Bob,

It can be summarized in one famous quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

The title of his thread is Stan Meyer replication.

I agree with your approach that you suggest, but you appear to be selectively reading what you want to read. I apologized to Jon for "not being more diplomatic" and I told him I thought his work on the cell was much better than mine. So no, I haven't failed to see anything. I insisted he missed something big about Meyer and his response was to attack me, accuse me of being a paid misinformation agent or bot, etc... He was incapable of arguing the points and instead choose to attack me.

Your last paragraph is baffling. Pursuit of new forms of knowledge? First, there is nothing new about achieving resonance with a wfc. Second, what I shared about Nitrogen and Meyer is extremely new to MOST Stan Meyer fans. It is not me that is blocking anything - I'm not going to sit by and let people get abused by being misled into thinking that the initial step to replicating Stan Meyer is by building a resonant wfc. And if anyone is blocking knowledge - it was Jon's wholesale denial that Meyer ever discussed anything about Nitrogen while trying to convince everyone Meyer was talking about Argon.

Yes, it is new. It is new to Jon, it is a fresh look for myself. A different point of view. Possibly a good starting point to expand upon Myers work, therefore NEW again.
Remember , not everybody has studied all his works, and those who did had to start somewhere. This is Jon's first attempt at the most common knowledge of Myers work. Therefore " NEW " to him.
This website is here to encourage people to TRY.
And in their efforts, to expand upon their work and others works.
With happily volentiered encouragement of others.
That is the way it works.

[Aaron]

@Chet

Aaron
Some of us are not so good at spelling and prose,and I hope this is not some line that separates us?

There is another line that has separated us for quite some time,on one side
all is as it should be... on the other side ... we start with the What ifs??

You have a 5x Faraday is old news claim??

What if you share a bit of that ??

Thx
Chet
ps
I see the board cut off some of your quote to Bob

Aaron
Quote
Bob,

It can be summarized in one famous quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Chet,

I really don't have a problem with people's spelling except for when it is chronic, mixed in with a bunch of jumbled paragraphs and they're trying to make an intelligent argument - it just can't be taken seriously. The only issue I actually had was if he was going to criticize me, spell my name right. It's not that hard.

300-500% Faraday. It is because of the conditioned tubes. There is a hydrogen loading process on the negative electrodes along with the calcium and magnesium oxides that plate on there. They act as a dielectric. The magnesium oxide itself has a dielectric strength of 10-30kv/mm.

Anyway, as hydrogen is loaded into that plate, it is released later. Then you only have to make up the loss and you can beat Faraday by several hundred percent. You could consider that cheating but so what? It works.

Not sure why so many people can't get this coating and wind up with garbage in their water. I don't have those problems and it does it every time.

Water Fuel Cell | Conditioned Tubes - YouTube

[Aaron]

@Bob

Remember , not everybody has studied all his works, and those who did had to start somewhere.

I'm with you on all that Bob, but you keep leaving out the point that he DID claim to have studied all of Meyer's work that is online and that there absolutely are no documents by Meyer that address Nitrogen. He didn't imply it, he explicitly claimed this about a dozen times attached to insults and name-calling because he didn't believe it. If you can't appreciate the fact that those kind of ludicrous claims can throw someone off and have someone spending months to years of time, money and resources because they were turned away from some crucial facts about Meyer, then I'd have to question your integrity. That is abusing people even if it isn't intentional.

Jon Abel is unbanned and can post. If he attacks me, calls me or anyone else names, fills other threads with garbage, he will be permanently banned. Feel free to contact him about this and encourage him all you want.

I'll happily bow out of this thread and will continue to share the Meyer documentation where he actually explains what he did. Take care.

[RAMSET]

Thank you

Aaron
I have a bit of an impedement that makes it very difficult at times for me to understand sentence structure and spelling!
In my professional life this was not such an issue ,the girls in the office would always "scrub" things up [test reports, letters and such].

Sigh.... I miss the girls sometimes!

I really don't believe Jon to be looking for trouble,I just think he has strong opinions on what he feels is happening.

Thx for giving this another go...
..-------------
And thanks for posting that link on your cells and coatings!

Chet

[qvision]

...everything follows the laws of physics ...

The laws of physics follow our universe, they change as we understand more, they are only the descriptions we can come up with to the best of our current knowledge.


QV.

[Tinmanpower]

A "commer"??? That's comma! And I was referring to the fact that you can't even spell my name correctly!

And no, it is not debatable. It isn't my claim - it is what Stan Meyer is saying and the references I posted are HIS OWN WORDS. How is it debatable what he is saying when I spell it out word for word and give references? This is STAN MEYER saying it and I'm telling you what he is saying.

Abusing people by claiming "STAN MEYER REPLICATION" is misleading. And telling Jon the only way Stan Meyer is going to be replicated is by doing exactly what I said and it is based on Stan Meyer's own words. Why that eludes you is beyond me.

Without my intervention? Anyone coming here claiming they have "replicated" Stan Meyer had better be able to take some heat or get out of the kitchen. I've had my feet put to the fire plenty of times and I backed my claims just like I backed my claims again about the Stan Meyer documentation discussing NITROGEN contrary to Jon and Bussi's claims that it doesn't exist! And when I'm wrong, I admit and make corrections. I'm more interested in moving forward than defending my ego.

The ONLY expert on Stan Meyer is Stan and he is dead. So the ONLY authoritative opinion on how his technology worked are the documents he left behind such as the patents, etc... So knowing how his technology works is completely dependent on doing what he said he did in the patents, etc... Therefore, if there is any credibility to Stan Meyer's own claims, that means that we CAN know how his technology works by actually READING what he wrote and doing what he showed in the diagrams.

Contrary to Jon's claims that he read everything online about Stan Meyer - I actually DID read them. He has a degree in computers that he is so proud of but don't even know how to use a search engine. Or maybe he is already aware of all those patents revealing the nitrogen key and doesn't want anyone to know about them as you can see he tried to convince everyone the non-combustible gas is ARGON!??!

And because I did pay attention to what certain people told me coupled with the fact that I read these documents that Jon denies the existence of, I'm able to run a jet engine on 88-98% WATER. I'll know what the actual number is when I have a finer scale with accompanying needle valve.

Not 100%, but can you show me better by anyone who is trying to convince everyone that the initial step to replicating Stan Meyer is to build a WFC with resonant circuits? That's completely laughable! AND, I didn't even use ANY electrolysis cell at all! You don't know what my results are and you're telling everyone as if you know. You should find out first before you share Crow with Jon.

To summarize - you are as much of a manipulator as Jon is. Why? You're changing the context of what I said is not debatable - and what is NOT debatable is what Stan Meyer said - I proved it, therefore it is not debatable since you can read it in my Stan Meyer's own words.

I'm not talking about "debatable" in the sense that any ignoramus can come along and debate it just out of spite. I'm talking about debatable as in actually using some logic and authenticity to debate what I said. I posted what Meyer said and gave references so there you go - you cannot debate that I am 100% accurate and correct in every way, shape or form when it comes to whether or not Stan Meyer said what I said he said.

And please learn to use the return key to separate your paragraphs.

Aaron
Why do you continue to pick on my grammar?,when yours is far from perfect.
Quote: He has a degree in computers that he is so proud of but don't even know how to use a search engine.

Don't even know?- do you mean dose not or doesn't ?.

And to make a statement like this-Quote: Anyone coming here claiming they have "replicated" Stan Meyer had better be able to take some heat or get out of the kitchen.

Nice,realy nice Aaron.
In other words,they may only put forth what you have read to be true.
And with that,my statements stand.Reguardless of what you have read,until such time as you have a vehicle that runs on water as Stan's did-you have no right to judge anybodies work or tell them how it has to be done.

Every one here has the right to put forth what they have,and how they believe thing's were.
It is not up to you to be judge,jury and executioner.

And this Quote: You should find out first before you share Crow with Jon.

Well i did ask politely to see this 300 to 500% faraday setup of your's.
And please feel free to show us all this jet engine that runs on 88% to 98% water.
And i can say(as i stated above)with some certainty that you still put gas in your vehicle. But please feel free to prove me wrong,and i will withdraw my statement and appologise for my incorrect crowing with Jon.

And last but no least-befor everyone here, i do appologise for miss spelling your name.Although not intentional,it was still disrespectful.

[qvision]

Very rude to pick on someone's spelling and grammar.

There are quite a few people with dyslexia on the forum.

If you are able to correct the spelling and/or grammar then you must have understood it therefore there is no point in persisting with pedantry.


Be nice,

[citfta]

Spelling

I don't think I could ever actually criticize someone publicly for their spelling mistakes. However I have to wonder why more people don't use the spell checker function of their browsers. If I am going to post something the whole world could potentially see I want it to be as correct as I can make it. My spell checker gets a good work out every time I write a post. I think taking the time to correct my spelling just makes it easier for people to read my posts and also helps to reduce confusion.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[wrtner]

Very rude to pick on someone's spelling and grammar.

There are quite a few people with dyslexia on the forum.

If you are able to correct the spelling and/or grammar then you must have understood it therefore there is no point in persisting with pedantry.


Be nice,

We need to remember that Google sometimes corrects inaccurate
spelling but often does not - and spins us off on the wrong track.

There are several threads on this board that are lost for eternity
because the spelling of the central word is wrong and the search
facility will never find them.
.

[tutanka]

words words words

Just words and nothing else... an photo, an video an diagram.. nothing!!

[tutanka]

No Just Words..

No Just Words!!

Attached Image Of Working Air-as-fuel Technology

[Jeff Pearson]

The Basics of Air Ionization for High-Technology Manufacturing Applications
This is the kind of stuff I was looking at before this thread blew up.
It seems to me both the WFC and the Gas Processor are both pulsed dc plasma ionizers. According to this report pulsed dc ionization produces "dramatic lowering of the recombination rate"
Its Basics of Air Ionization

[RAMSET]

well at least some one is having fun!!

TUTanka
So thats the new Technology you are bringing?
Thanks for sharing I hope it proves to be viable..

Chet

[tutanka]

TUTanka
So thats the new Technology you are bringing?
Thanks for sharing I hope it proves to be viable..

Chet

This technology will change the energy vision in the world

[Aaron]

the key = nitrogen

Aaron
Why do you continue to pick on my grammar?,when yours is far from perfect.

And last but no least-befor everyone here, i do appologise for miss spelling your name.Although not intentional,it was still disrespectful.

At least be honest - I already told you if you're going to criticize me, spell my name right. Don't make it look like I'm picking your grammar apart because I wasn't. I have said this probably 2-3 times already. I accept your apology in relation to my name but that doesn't change the other facts.

You had no polite requests. You already called me a liar and you then ask for me to show you my work? I wonder what's wrong with that picture and you want to play nice guy now? You said, "I have a book for sale,it's called pinokio--only 7 bucks"

For your information, several years ago when it was pointed out to me that I'm missing something big with the Stan Meyer water fuel concepts, instead of throwing a hissy fit and denying it, I embraced it because nothing else was working! I didn't blindly believe it but I would have been an idiot to deny it. I went and looked at Stan Meyer's work again and voila - there it was right in front of my eyes the entire time - NITROGEN. And all the historical references 100-200 years old regarding electrolysis, water, hydrogen, oxgyen and nitrogen basically spelled out it out as well.

In any case, I'm not here to prove anything to anyone other than the indisputable fact of what Stan Meyer said in his own words in the patents that came way before any resonant circuits or tube electrodes. And, that has been accomplished.

I spent about $8000 to purchase all the machine shop equipment and other tools to simply build my own jet engine for this project. If you want to cover these expenses, I'll be happy to show you a video clip with the jet running and the propane gauge sitting on zero (0.1 to 0.9 psi), which is a huge difference from 8psi.

I'm not sure what is confusing about this diagram - it applies to cars, turbojet engines or generators. Anyone is welcome to build this concept and find out for themselves - I did. Everyone seems so eager to jump all over the WFC builds - why not the very thing that Meyer showed that predates all that with the secret key of blending nitrogen and recycled exhaust with the HHO?