View Single Post
 
Old 12-27-2014, 06:35 AM
tutanka's Avatar
tutanka tutanka is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyasi View Post
  1. I need not ever quote Meyer if I want to preach to non-believers.
  2. Fortunately for us, Herman Anderson has never been affiliated with Stanley Meyer. Thank God for another independent researcher.
  3. I have quoted online resources, above, having no association with either fellow.
  4. I need not preach to the choir.
  5. This refutes perpetual motion claims.
  6. What on Earth would I want with reading Stanley's patents? If it can't be explained in general terms, then it's a wash.
  7. The only time I'd need to read a patent is whenever two plus two equals something other than four.
  8. I do not consider science to be magic. If there's an easier way, then great! But it's never easy discussing this topic with a non-believer. So, a technicality of electro-chemistry is invoked - not necessarily to make it happen, but - to confirm the possibility in the mind of the doubter. Baby steps!
  9. Water has nothing to do with my statements. The hydrogen could be stored in tanks for all I care. My only premise for pursuing this line of hypothetical reasoning is: How can electro-chemistry favor the production of ammonia on the fly from hydrogen and air? That is all...
  10. Thanks for clarifying my incomplete treatise.
You has posted that video referring to Meyer ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF_xkEbArrw

Herman Handerson was working to an water injector fuel similarry to Stan Meyer.

In other words the high voltage present inside these devices was used as ignition and not for convert water into hydrogen/oxygen!!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote