Re: The Experts Speak.

From: If I told U I'd have 2 kill U (knews4u2chew_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/12/04 

Date: 11 Aug 2004 21:43:37 -0700

fkasner <fkasner@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<S1TRc.4387$u_4.2892@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> If I told U I'd have 2 kill U wrote:
> > murin@notin.notout.edu (The Murinator) wrote in message news:<40ffa034.136519@netnews.att.net>...
> >
> >>On 21 Jul 2004 20:09:43 -0700, knews4u2chew@yahoo.com (If I told U I'd
> >>have 2 kill U) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message news:<40fedb71_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
> >>>
> >>>>Don't you mean "How it doesn't work"?
> >>>>
> >>>>It doesn't, you know .....
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Steve Spence
> >>>>sspence@beavercreekconsulting.com
> >>>>http://www.beavercreekconsulting.com
> >>>>"If I told U I'd have 2 kill U" <knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:36caa37d.0407211049.2fbe8b1f@posting.google.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>Here, read some of these posts and threads to see just how much the
> >>>>>"experts" here know about Meyer's circuit and how it works.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22flyback+transformer%22&btnG=Search&meta=group%3Dsci.energy.hydrogen
> >>>
> >>>Gee, that isn't what the patent examiners said.
> >>>
> >>>Stan Meyer, did, in fact, under 35 USC 101 demonstrate to the PTO
> >>>that his technology works.
> >>>
> >>>Ever read this?
> >>>
> >>>35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
> >>>
> >>>"The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
> >>>convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
> >>>invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
> >>>ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
> >>
> >>Stan's patents say nothing about the composition of the gases
> >>produced, and his WFC was never demonstrated to the patent office.
> >>
> >
> > His processes deals with the (de)composition of matter. It deals "with
> > matter" made up of h2o processed with electrons under force.
> >
> >
> >>When his water fuel cell _was_ demonstrated to people beyond the
> >>suckers he ripped off for $1.5 million (i.e. when he demonstrated it
> >>in court when he was being sued) it was determined that it was doing
> >>nothing but normal electrolysis.
> >
> >
> > Read his statement about "white powder being introduced to his cell."
> > HIS PROCESSS IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT ELECTROLYSIS. Adding electrolyte
> > fucks up his process. His process is A COLD PROCESS. Using "no
> > appreciable current." MILIAMPS, GET IT, MILLIAMPS.
> >
> >
> >>In response, Stan complained that
> >>the cell had been tampered with, and somebody secretly added
> >>electrolyte to the "pure water" that had been in it. Stan didn't fool
> >>the court, and was found guilty of fraud.
> >
> >
> > Civil fraud. Easy to do. Has standard of "preponderence of the
> > evidence," NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt," as in criminal cases.
> > For this "gross and egregeous" fraud he returned to one guy about 25
> > grand and was "fined" ONE FUCKING DOLLAR, GET THAT? ONE FUCKING
> > DOLLAR.
> >
> > Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
> > From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zettergren@swipnet.se>
> > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
> >
> >
> > John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet
> > <756atu$mkn$1@client2.news.psi.net>...
> >
> >>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
> >>equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to
> >
> > this
> >
> >>legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
> >>and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
> >>"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
> >>to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
> >>
> >>Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
> >>and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
> >>egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'. As far as I
> >>know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
> >>'investment'. Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
> >>he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
> >>THE CONSPIRACY).
> >>
> >>After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
> >>to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
> >>spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
> >>It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
> >>device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously
> >
> > working
> >
> >>under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
> >>unjust guilty verdict.
> >>
> >>As far as I know, Meyer's home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
> >>court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
> >>passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
> >>off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
> >>minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I'd
> >>stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
> >>records of the trial.
> >>
> >>Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
> >>City, county, etc., date(s)??? Possibly an official case name?
> >>
> >>Thanks.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
> >
> > Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
> > so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
> >
> > The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
> > Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
> >
> >
> > The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
> > 1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
> > Chillicothe, Ohio.
> >
> > By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
> >
> > AT FIRST:
> >
> > You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
> > nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
> > to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
> >
> > In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
> > making the water conductive.
> >
> > In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
> > voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
> > on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
> >
> > Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
> > reactions.
> >
> > HOW TO?
> >
> > As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
> >
> > If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
> > It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
> > Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
> > step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
> > with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
> >
> > The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
> > with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
> > diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
> > Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
> >
> > The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
> > frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.
> >
> > Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
> > the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
> > same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
> > energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
> > to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
> >
> > Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
> > producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
> > hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
> > this experiment will really surprise you.
> >
> > For even less current you can make some experiment with a
> > centertapped puls-transformer.
> >
> > Have a nice trip to Ohio!
> >
> > Ted!
> >
> >
> >
> >>Still not a single WFC powered car on the planet. Those Men In Black
> >>are effective, aren't they?
> >
> >
> > They got BILLIONS BEHIND THEM.
> > Meyer has a few hundred thousand.
> > He spent about a million or so on his patents.
> > It took years.
> > He started in 1976.
> > What do you have to show for the last 30 years?
>
>
> You keep repeating the same discredited Hannon arguments. One is that
> you can with low frequency AC produce the energy needed to break the H2O
> bonds.

Straw man noted.

>Since those bonds have frequencies in the infrared spectrum you
> would need incredible harmonics of the fundamental of the AC you used.

Do anything but the experiment.

> How much energy could you impart to such a high multiple harmonic? Or do
> you know even an iota of the world of electricity.
>
Do anything but the experiment.

> Secondarily there is that collosal error of implying that high voltage
> does not require much current for producing changes in matter.

What electrons are ill defined at best.

>Note that
> a volt is a joule per coulomb. So if there is a very high voltage
> employed in a process the number of joules produced depends on the
> number of coulombs as well. In other word your implication that high
> voltage produces change is based on the ignorance you exhibit about
> terms used in high energy processes such as nuclear processes.

Why don't you email the experimenter?
He seems to disagree with you.

>Those
> "volts" you talk about are realln not volts at all but electron volts.

Did I say anything about them?
Seems your arguement is with the successful experimenter.

> That is a product of a a charge (similar to a coulomb which is a charge)
> multiplied by a volt (a joule per coulomb). In other words it is a unit
> of energy and cannot be said to be a unit of potential. Your ignorance
> is profound and all your attacks against Harry are wasted since your
> ignorance disqualifies you in this debate.
>
Harry lies and obfuscations are well documented in history of this
group.

> Try to learn some simple things about electricity and energy before you
> return to further disgrace yourself, dummy II.
> FK

Water is polarized not electrolyzed.
The molecule is tricked by manipulation and disruption of it's
characteristics and electron orbits.
Do anything but the experiment.

Quantcast