New Stan Meyer Replication - off topic

[Joit]

But I haven't heard any apologies for their abuse.

I doubt you will hear any apolgies from them, they allways only bother Peoples with no manners.
I think, its only the best way, to tell them, to not post anymore in YOUR Thread.

Like little Childs, what you have to tell Put your fingers off from here, even when they start crying afterwards.

[jonabel1971]

Well, I would say ban them, and if they weren't really Trollbots that didn't care about coming back, then they can re-register. I went to some of the different US govt websites to see if hydrogen technology was being sought.

The DOD website didn't have a proposal for hydrogen, but, they had a proposal for a computer programmer to write bots to send out and post disinformation on YouTube, and discussion groups like this one. Tachyon and/or Tutanka are likely trollbots, waiting for the name "Stan Meyer" to show up.

My complaing was actually right now directed to Tutanka, the guy what asked for Donations for something what never ever worked, only on his Papers, and Tachyon, what seems to twitter here around lately, i guess its a buddy from Tutanka

[jonabel1971]

See? All I had to do was mention his name, and this bottom-feeding Trollbot comes a knockin'

the only troll here is the thread starter..

[bussi04]

the only troll here is the thread starter..

Farewell tachyon, follow your path backwards in time :-)

[jonabel1971]

Let's see if I can get him to do it again........ "Stan Meyer"

See? All I had to do was mention his name, and this bottom-feeding Trollbot comes a knockin'

[Joit]

Let's see if I can get him to do it again........ "Stan Meyer"

At the time what i am here at this Forum i did read a lot of 'Discussions' and i am tired of them too, not worth to really think about it. There are all kind of Peoples what try to interrupt, paid writers, self-proclaimed scientists or theses hardcore EE, what think, they are born with the ultimative Truth. I want to puke, when i see what they call today Science, how they behave and represent herself.
But for your entertainment you can click on her names at a Posting and choose 'find all Posts fom xxx'. Then you see how serious they are or not.

[jonabel1971]

Is there any way someone can remove some of the bull**** that got posted on my thread?

At the time what i am here at this Forum i did read a lot of 'Discussions' and i am tired of them too, not worth to really think about it. There are all kind of Peoples what try to interrupt, paid writers, self-proclaimed scientists or theses hardcore EE, what think, they are born with the ultimative Truth. I want to puke, when i see what they call today Science, how they behave and represent herself.
But for your entertainment you can click on her names at a Posting and choose 'find all Posts fom xxx'. Then you see how serious they are or not.

[jonabel1971]

Stan Meyer Nitrogen fission?

There is no mention of "nitrogen fission" in any Stan Meyer documentation I have read. It sounds like this guy is tying his technology to Stan's name, for the sake of recognition. Besides nitrogen-oxides, I have not seen Nitrogen mention in Stan Meyer's documentation. Can somebody verify this?

That's great. Would a moderator please clean this thread of tachyon's and Tunguska's (or whatever his name is) posts?

[Ein~+ein]

Mind if I interject to see where everyone stands here? Maybe it'll help restore some civility.

1. Apart from Jonabel's 'replication' (see next question), 'no other "well-documented" replications exist for the Stan Meyer Water Fuel Cell'.
[a] strongly agree; [b] agree; [c] disagree; [d] strongly disagree; [e] don't know

2. Jonabel has ' replicated Stan's Water Fuel Cell', not something different--look up the definition of 'replicate'.
[a] definitely yes; [b] probably; [c] don't know/maybe; [d] probably not; [e] definitely not

3. According to Aaron 'The only way Meyer is going to be replicated is if you're ionizing the air and diluting the HHO with it. That IS his "secret" to getting the thermal energy out of the fuel. It isn't debatable. Read ALL his patents - he spells it out. If you're creating water as the combustion by product, then you are not doing what Meyer did. If you create water as the primary by product, you will never get the thermal energy from the water gas. It was NEVER about any significant gas production. It was about preventing the formation of the water molecule during combustion. If you prevent that from happening, you then get the thermal energy instead of a quick "Brown's Gas" pop, which is all you're going to get.'.
[a] strongly agree; [b] agree; [c] disagree; [d] strongly disagree; [e] don't know

4. I think Jon's videos and pictures show resonance?
[a] strongly agree; [b] agree; [c] disagree; [d] strongly disagree; [e] don't know

5. According to Jon, the knowledge exists to build water-powered cars--you can 'build your own'.
[a] strongly agree; [b] agree; [c] disagree; [d] strongly disagree; [e] don't know

But here's where Jon is definitely wrong:

The car companies will not build water-powered cars, until they get a chance at selling natural gas-powered cars...

Quite the contrary! As a matter of fact, they're all looking toward hydrogen now and given the safety and expense of setting up the infrastructure, they're probably looking at on-board electrolyis--first Toyota last Nov, and now the others earlier this year. I'm sure their engineers all tune into SmartScarecrow. )

[tutanka]

Good old tutanka, always in a good mood ... nothing changed the last 2 years when I ultimately read your posts.

You´re certainly wrong :-)

If you use your keyboard properly you finally succeed writing lower case. just press the shift key twice. that should work quite well for you ...
mine works pretty well that way :-)

good luck!


btw: did you get your nitrogen car up and running in 2010?

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post84300



ooops!

If I'm wrong demonstrate me the contrary but if you can't please silence !!

[tutanka]

There is no mention of "nitrogen fission" in any Stan Meyer documentation I have read. It sounds like this guy is tying his technology to Stan's name, for the sake of recognition. Besides nitrogen-oxides, I have not seen Nitrogen mention in Stan Meyer's documentation. Can somebody verify this?

Stan Meyer don't have understood completely the process but just in part!

I have cut all info from my web site http://www.air4gas.com including working video ( and peoples can confirm) because I'm patent pending.

Instead of writing words without sense you come in Florence in date 8-9-10 April 2013 and see with your young eyes the AIR-AS-FUEL technology.

Other words don't have sense!!

[tutanka]

There is no mention of "nitrogen fission" in any Stan Meyer documentation I have read. It sounds like this guy is tying his technology to Stan's name, for the sake of recognition. Besides nitrogen-oxides, I have not seen Nitrogen mention in Stan Meyer's documentation. Can somebody verify this?

This is extracted from Stan Mayer patent US 5293857..


You must study more , more and more including some other peoples..

[Aaron]

@John Abel

Aaron, it seems it is you that is attempting to bully. I have done nothing other than my own replication, and others can decide for themselves whether they think my videos and pictures show resonance. You appear biased - right out of the starting gate. I have ran in to this personality before. It's called a BIG EGO. Please don't split hairs with me if you are going to ask questions, and don't compare me with others who have read Stan's work. If you don't think I did it, then show me your circuit and videos, and screenshots. Since you are listed on Naudin's site, I would assume you followed similar circuitry. Why are you bothering me?

Please don't BS me. You're in there harassing Alex accusing him of being a bot and whatever else.

You are openly denouncing the fact that Meyer was all about the nitrogen. Ego? Don't mistake an immovable commitment against misinformation for anything other than what it is. On that point, I won't budge.

My concern is that you claiming you replicated Meyer without understanding what he actually did will simply place countless more people on the wrong path. Thinking you have it figured out by doing your best to replicate the WFC and circuitry is like the blind men and elephant parable where everyone is grabbing a different part of the elephant and describing what an elephant is by grabbing a leg, trunk, tail, etc... And that is exactly what you're doing by grabbing hold of the WFC and circuitry and that is only a means to an end.

Yes, I did countless tests with many variations of the VIC in countless configurations and when the KEY was pointed out to me, I realized how irrelevant it was in the end. The WFC and VIC setup that Meyer used just happened to be the way Meyer went to create the water gas, but that gas alone is not what ran his dune buggy. It's what I said and what Alex (Tutanka) said.

You can call it what you want but ionizing nitrogen is splitting nitrogen molecules into active nitrogen - then what happens???

Honestly, I think it is great that you're passionate about the WFC project that you're working on. I looked at your PDF and did a little looking around.

But, just because you personally haven't read everything Meyer made available, don't denounce anyone else that said they did because you don't know what you don't know and there just may be something hiding in plain sight that continues to evade Meyer followers. You only know the Meyer references that most people reference.

[Aaron]

videos

I watched all of Stan's videos

As a clarification - you watched all of Stan's videos that you know of.

[Aaron]

@John Abel

Wow, you and Aaron are really getting into the technology. That's great.

However, since you are going to criticize for not attempting every single patent of Stan's, then don't try to get overly technical with me - I don't really have the time right now. As you know, I attempted one patent - one replication. That's it. I got resonance - that's it. I gave it away to everybody. That's it. If you don't like it, I don't care. You are not Stan Meyer - you have no more proof than I do.

If you want to play with Stan's steam resonator, and gas gun, then go for it. Until then, question someone else to the point of obscurity - don't bother me.

Aaron, it seems it is you that is attempting to bully. I have done nothing other than my own replication, and others can decide for themselves whether they think my videos and pictures show resonance. You appear biased - right out of the starting gate. I have ran in to this personality before. It's called a BIG EGO. Please don't split hairs with me if you are going to ask questions, and don't compare me with others who have read Stan's work. If you don't think I did it, then show me your circuit and videos, and screenshots. Since you are listed on Naudin's site, I would assume you followed similar circuitry. Why are you bothering me?

Fair enough - at least you admit that.

Myself and a few others spend MONTHS AND MONTHS here trying to get people on the right track about Meyer and the facts about nitrogen. Meyer spells it out over and over and over in certain documents and I'm not talking about vague references to "non-combustible" gases.

So, when someone comes along and claims to have replicated Meyer's WFC, what do you think that implies? The general belief amongst an overwhelming majority of Meyer followers is that the WFC is relevant to how Meyer got a dune buggy to run on water. That made "hho", which is really a mixture of about a dozen molecules and then that mixture is modified. But the "hho" source can be from any electrolysis cell - even steady current DC electrolysis at low efficiency. The gas as it leaves the water cell, in that form, is NOT what ran the engine.

Anyway, yes, actually I do have more proof than you in Stanley Meyer's own words. I'll just go back to - you haven't read or seen everything Meyer made available. You're even surprised that anyone would say such a thing and ask if anyone can validate that. I know many people that have spent tens of thousands of dollars on Meyer's projects and they have NOT read everything.

So, in all fairness to you, I agree, you admitted that you only claimed to have replicated the WFC. Congratulations - your work is better quality than my own with anything I've done with the WFC and associated circuitry.

But you also claim that you have seen all his videos and that is false. You watched what you thought were all his videos. You say he didn't talk about nitrogen - only reference to nitrogen oxides meaning you indirectly claim to have read everything to, but that is false as you haven't read everything. You say the ambient air may be important to his technology - well, the air and what he did with it is all important because that is the key to the whole technology.

Anyway, I apologize for not being more diplomatic about it.