New Stan Meyer Replication - off topic

[mikrovolt]

Each time someone adds a little more to the hydrogen we all advance.
I really think the circuit is an exciting build, worthwhile. I downloaded the pdf for safe keeping. I wish I could spend time on the circuit board.

Jon, from what I gather you would like to focus on sharing the circuit get it out there and get others build it, improve on it, or as the country song goes 'just wanna sleep on it' perhaps this is a good goal.

I really want it to be more than just another HHO circuit, so my comments tend to jump ahead as an excited enthusiast. The proof is on your scope, more discussion on the waveforms and less distraction on general meyers philosophy may help bring out significance of the res-circuit at this time.

Possibly we now have the ability to bring Stans electrical diagrams into a conventional format.

[jonabel1971]

It's wonderful to predict the responses of people on these discussion groups. You are indeed a troll. A little more subtle than other trolls, but a troll, none the less. Trying to gain sides by offering a vote? How about you offer a Stan Meyer machine, we compare, and people vote on that? Would that be a little more fair?


You speak of hydrogen cars before natural gas? Not according to Obama. Please watch his latest State of the Union. Listen to the context. He's talking about natural gas cars, not hydrogen cars.

Also, If you are going to put the word 'replication' in quotes, then you are obviously biased. You're showing that you already don't believe this is resonance, or a Stan Meyer replication. There are obvious resonant points in LRC circuits, including Meyer's, Naudin's, Lawton's, and my own.

If you listen to the radio interview, you will know that resonance is an initial step towards getting a Stan Meyer device to work, and you twisted it to sound like I was saying something else. Don't put words in my mouth, liar.

As for "well-documented", I was talking about Naudin's replication, not mine.

You are wrong on every point you made. And by the way, bringing up civility, and then sending this virtual "witch hunt test" over has shown how full of crap you are.

Please research a little more carefully next time before attacking me.

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:


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. )

[jonabel1971]

Assumptions will make asses.

Ravi's replication is one of the most assuming, so I stay away from it. If you helped him with that, then you assume too much, also.

I was the one that showed Ravi how to condition his tubes. He put out the best info on that and you can find his work online. I also did tests with super corona dope.

Don't forget testing with plastidip.

[jonabel1971]

If you think I got an ego, then you obviously suffer from that malady. Look, this is easy, if you think Nitrogen made such a big impact on Stan's work, then show it. I can't say I've been through all his documentation - and I never did (as you claim). Every video from Stan that is somewhere on the internet has been watched by me, yes (unless it is unavailable to the public, of course). If you have other videos, then don't let me stop you - just post the link. This is about sharing information, and if you are gonna withhold data from people, (so you can retain this ability of being "over-knowledgeable" - just to get a rush at abusing new people) - then why should I correspond with you? When I come across data, I give it away. You cannot say the same - I caught your lie.

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.

[tutanka]

If you think I got an ego, then you obviously suffer from that malady. Look, this is easy, if you think Nitrogen made such a big impact on Stan's work, then show it. I can't say I've been through all his documentation - and I never did (as you claim). Every video from Stan that is somewhere on the internet has been watched by me, yes (unless it is unavailable to the public, of course). If you have other videos, then don't let me stop you - just post the link. This is about sharing information, and if you are gonna withhold data from people, (so you can retain this ability of being "over-knowledgeable" - just to get a rush at abusing new people) - then why should I correspond with you? When I come across data, I give it away. You cannot say the same - I caught your lie.

YOUNG MAN PLEASE READ CAREFULLY...

STAN MEYER IN SOME DOCUMENTS WRITE ABOUT "THERMAL EXPLOSIVE ENERGY" AS AN DIFFERENT REACTION NOT JUST STANDARD COMBUSTION OF HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN..

BECAUSE IN FACT IS AN NUCLEAR REACTION TO LOWER LEVEL WITHOUT EMISSION OF ALPHA, BETA, GAMMA RAYS.

WFC IS USED INITIALLY FROM MEYER FOR GAS CREATION BUT WHEN HIM HAVE UNDERSTAND (IN PART) THE FINAL REACTION HAS CHANGED METHOD USING THE WATER INJECTOR..

MY QUESTION TO YOU IS.... WHY HAS CHANGED METHOD????

MY WORDS ARE FOR HELP YOU, I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR START AN STUPID TECH WAR..

[Ein~+ein]

Please research a little more carefully next time before attacking me.

Jonabel: You may not forgive me but I sincerely apologize. I know very little about this and should've done what you've advised. I didn't even listen to that broadcast, watch Obama's address, or realize how in my ignorance of both Stan's work and yours, my questions would appear so biased. Even if they weren't biased, the questions were a dumb idea. It's facts, not opinions that matter so I will read, watch and learn before commenting again.

Once again, I'm terribly sorry!

[wrtner]

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:


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. )

This reminds me of the Dunning Kruger effect:

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jonabel1971]

If you don't want to start a tech war, then maybe stop saying things that you are unwilling to quote out of Meyer's work? Maybe you should try to prove anything that you just wrote? At least I have pictures and movies. Prove it, or sit down. And no, nobody is going to Italy - from the US - to see your machine - Unless you are willing to buy everyone here a ticket.

YOUNG MAN PLEASE READ CAREFULLY...

STAN MEYER IN SOME DOCUMENTS WRITE ABOUT "THERMAL EXPLOSIVE ENERGY" AS AN DIFFERENT REACTION NOT JUST STANDARD COMBUSTION OF HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN..

BECAUSE IN FACT IS AN NUCLEAR REACTION TO LOWER LEVEL WITHOUT EMISSION OF ALPHA, BETA, GAMMA RAYS.

WFC IS USED INITIALLY FROM MEYER FOR GAS CREATION BUT WHEN HIM HAVE UNDERSTAND (IN PART) THE FINAL REACTION HAS CHANGED METHOD USING THE WATER INJECTOR..

MY QUESTION TO YOU IS.... WHY HAS CHANGED METHOD????

MY WORDS ARE FOR HELP YOU, I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR START AN STUPID TECH WAR..

[jonabel1971]

Naw, this guy knew he was wrong. He apologized. I don't think he suffers from this cognitive disorder. He is smart enough to recognize what he said.

This reminds me of the Dunning Kruger effect:

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jonabel1971]

I got invited to go to different discussion. Many of the people over their mention why they moved over. It is due to the abuse that is being delivered in this group.

Your group is not the winner - so sorry. Have fun abusing each others work and playing with Nitrogen.

Have you looked at the gas processor....It ionizes the ambient air. (I believe ionization is happening inside the WFC and I can pull the ambient through there) While I agree tutanka and aaron may appear to be bullying, they do seemingly to me make some valid points

[bussi04]

2 years ago when another Stan Meyer replication thread was dumped and closed the same thing happened to people interested in that tech.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-explained-55.html#post86952

some individuals did the same things they did now.

reason: guess what! nitrogen ...

those "breaking news" disrupting the thread became a dead end story. after the thread was dumped the nitrogen story silently died some months later.

big claims from thin air ...

lessons learned - nope ...

as joit mentioned yesterday it´s quite difficult to understand why at this forum it´s so difficult to post some technical information as a result of one´s own work on that issue.

it´s much more fun and efficient to work and discuss in a user friendly and creative space.

if this post you are reading now should disappear some way the next hours it was not magic and it was not me :-)

[Aaron]

time has come for the Stan Meyer "experts" to put a foot in their mouth

2 years ago when another Stan Meyer replication thread was dumped and closed the same thing happened to people interested in that tech.

Why don't you tell the truth? And that isn't the only thread. Nitrogen was brought up politely and H2Opower (you?) started calling people idiots amongst other insults. Just like John Abel, he thought he had Meyer all figured out while ignoring what Stan Meyer actually said. Even without the documents that Meyer spells out nitrogen, it only takes a bit of common sense to see EXACTLY what Meyer was saying in all the common tech manuals, etc... It's EXACTLY what Alex and I have said.

Then H2oPower threatens my life so for my own protection I post a picture of his workplace with his car sitting in front of it - he works in a car shop in Arlington, Texas - I have a lot of friends and family in Arlington so he isn't anonymous like he thinks he is. He PUBLICLY posted who he is, his name, his bodybuilding hobby, etc... in his online Google profile and attaches his h2opower username to it and he accuses me of violating his privacy? That is the type of mentality I'm dealing with here.

So stop misrepresenting the facts about what happened. Here you are a few years later, still not confident enough about what you claim and too gutless to use your real name - just hiding behind an anonymous username like some pervert at the end of some dark alley.

You inspired me however, I think I'll write a book and sell it online and will document the denials of John Abel and H2OPower (I'll use his real name in the book) and will post the KEY Stan Meyer document IN YOUR FACE so the whole "free energy" and Stan Meyer world will know exactly who is telling the truth and who is blowing smoke. Everyone will see you all talking a bunch of smack and are too lazy to have ever done any real research on Stan Meyer - and it is right in front of your face. You all will be the laughing stocks of this whole field and each time you deny the Nitrogen key, you're just digging yourselves a hole deeper and deeper and won't be able to get out of it. The truth always wins out in the end.

In the end, this document that the "experts" claim don't exist isn't even needed because the facts are that myself and others have clearly pointed out all the references needed so everyone knows EXACTLY what Stan Meyer did.

[bussi04]

Why don't you tell the truth? And that isn't the only thread. Nitrogen was brought up politely and H2Opower (you?) started calling people idiots amongst other insults. Just like John Abel, he thought he had Meyer all figured out while ignoring what Stan Meyer actually said. Even without the documents that Meyer spells out nitrogen, it only takes a bit of common sense to see EXACTLY what Meyer was saying in all the common tech manuals, etc... It's EXACTLY what Alex and I have said.

Then H2oPower threatens my life so for my own protection I post a picture of his workplace with his car sitting in front of it - he works in a car shop in Arlington, Texas - I have a lot of friends and family in Arlington so he isn't anonymous like he thinks he is. He PUBLICLY posted who he is, his name, his bodybuilding hobby, etc... in his online Google profile and attaches his h2opower username to it and he accuses me of violating his privacy? That is the type of mentality I'm dealing with here.

So stop misrepresenting the facts about what happened. Here you are a few years later, still not confident enough about what you claim and too gutless to use your real name - just hiding behind an anonymous username like some pervert at the end of some dark alley.

You inspired me however, I think I'll write a book and sell it online and will document the denials of John Abel and H2OPower (I'll use his real name in the book) and will post the KEY Stan Meyer document IN YOUR FACE so the whole "free energy" and Stan Meyer world will know exactly who is telling the truth and who is blowing smoke. Everyone will see you all talking a bunch of smack and are too lazy to have ever done any real research on Stan Meyer - and it is right in front of your face. You all will be the laughing stocks of this whole field and each time you deny the Nitrogen key, you're just digging yourselves a hole deeper and deeper and won't be able to get out of it. The truth always wins out in the end.

In the end, this document that the "experts" claim don't exist isn't even needed because the facts are that myself and others have clearly pointed out all the references needed so everyone knows EXACTLY what Stan Meyer did.

"the truth always wins out in the end". I agree.

You are wrong, I´m from Europe and you have wiped out some of your embarassing statements far below the belt 2 years ago. Btw you are not polite.

I´m not the only one who has made hardcopies from that nightlong dispute. Interested to memorize? You had to be stopped by your own moderator collegues, yep.

"the truth always wins out in the end". So true.

I´m not h2opower but only "one of his blind followers" as you labeled me. That´s not polite again and that´s wrong again.

"Here you are a few years later, still not confident enough about what you claim and too gutless to use your real name - just hiding behind an anonymous username like some pervert at the end of some dark alley."

who do you think you are that you can insult another person that way?

obviously you are a man who knows the modus operandi of stan meyer´s technology and doesn´t make use of it. sounds interesting, doesn´t it`?

"to know and not to do is not to know"

I don´t want to disturb your regime any more. I don´t think it´s a good idea to read a book from an author who is wrong more than twice in a single post, is it? That was no good example for "A course in Mind Power" at work and no "Catalyst for Transformation" at all ...

Farewell Aaron Murakami, Spiritual Entrepreneur (ret.)

[MasterBlaster]

New development

So Aaron, it is great that you look out for the subscribers to this forum. You were very adamant that jonabel was misleading everyone with his videos and information. I look forwards to see what you are going to present us with instead.

[shylo]

Learning

IT is so hard to learn new stuff when you dont know who to believe.
If you do something and it works ,please share ,if it dosen't work..why waste your time ?
Can't the same thing be acheived by, two different methods? Or even several?
We need to use variations ,experimentation,...If you run your set-up through water ,..do you get this vapour , as a free bi-product?
So many things need to be combined together
shylo