6

5

4

s

ss

kızlık bozma videoları türbanlı pornosu izle

Thanks for this. I need it :)
kızlık bozma videoları türbanlı pornosu izle

Jason you appear to be an honest individual who is just sharing your current perception of the water for fuel issue. The issues that tie in with this are extremely broad and beyond the scope of a simple response ;). What I hope to accomplish with this short post is to induce curiosity such that you explore outside of the realm of "mainstream" top-down politically controlled academia. I do have a lengthy background in many different fields of science and 3 years ago I decided to look into energy issues. It became abundantly clear that this issue is inundated with legitimate scientists and tinkerers, con artists who abuse the ignorant and niave, and disinformation agents who represent power factions. So to cut to the chase I hunted down the legitimate scientists who have made a name for themselves from actual major contributions to society. The one individual who stands above all the others is Nikola Tesla. It would behoove you as a young scientist and an individual interested in this topic to research his primary source material. You can find his patents, videos on his work, and actual Colorado lab notes online at sites like thepiratebay.org or mininova.org. Gary Vasilitos has done a fine job of distilling the most important findings which Tesla is not known for. Tesla's "radiant energy" is in actuality longitudinal or scalar waves. He found a number of methods to manipulate and create these waves. One involved the extremely rapid contact and disconnection of a circuit. The other is well described in his single wire transmission of energy patents. This is exactly what the Meyers and Boyce circuits (namely the toroid) operate upon. The secondaries are wound first on the toroid and the primaries are wound on top of the secondaries. Tesla's patents display the same pattern except on a 2 dimensional plane which in all probability increases the pressure upon the wave forms as they spiral inward. What appears to be happening is that the transverse waves applied to the primaries induce longitudinal waves as a result of pressure. These longitudinal waves have different properties depending upon frequency, amplitude, and speed of propagation relative to the speed of light. Longitudinal waves moving at slow rate produce auditory stimulation (sound), closer to the speed of light they result in plasma's, and faster than the speed of light result in the phenomena in particle physics termed neutrino's. The long. waves Tesla, Meyers, Boyce, and others produce are faster than the speed of light. Yes this is possible. Compression waves follow a straight path whereas transverse waves do not. Light is a transverse wave (just do some research). You might be familiar with the detectors which pick up ambient neutrino's passing through the earth. There are two different forms of detectors required because of the different manifestations of neutrinos. One utilizes water. The devices made by Meyers and Boyce create and actively pull in neutrinos which results in neutrinolysis in the "water cells". This is obviously not Faraday based electrolysis. Indeed Faraday electrolysis does not apply at all. Faraday's work only applies to a very specific context. All science is context dependent and given our nature as humans, our limited senses and processing capabilities hinder our ability to "think outside the box". Do some research and you will be rewarded with what you find. Check out Dr. Konstantin Meyl's modern work regarding this topic.

Jason, I stumbled upon your post after looking up Dale Pond, John Keely, etc. etc., since someone told me to look them up.

I don't have any sort of background in science (I'm studying math and philosophy as an undergraduate), but I at least have some understanding of the scientific method (as well as some knowledge of the philosophical history behind it) and a little bit of elementary knowledge of physics. And... well, I totally agree with your post.

A lot of these different "breakthroughs" would be truly beneficial if and only if they actually stood their ground against scrutiny, with some of the findings submitted to a journal. Yet, they weren't. Some of the proponents of the Meyer engine might say something about whether it even MATTERS if it was submitted to a journal or not. I would say that it would, considering that in order for the findings to actually add to knowledge, the device actually has to have something NOVEL behind the workings of it. This is where the semantical word play comes in: "the nuclear release of the particles in the hydrogen atom is due to the electrolysis..." Well, IS that what's actually happening? That's why we use our "dogmatic science", whatever "dogmatic science" means... so that we can actually see if it matches up with prior findings. If there is a genuine disproof of X, Y, or Z theory in our "dogmatic science," then we REPEAT the tests in different settings, maybe prodding the issue further with different experimental apparatus or whatever, and see whether the disproof actually holds when the tests are repeated. I hope I'm getting the methodology right here; as I said again, I'm not a scientist, so I'm probably getting it wrong by just a little bit at the very least.

In any case, I have no idea why anyone would want to follow such quackery. I'd say that things that seem so mysterious and powerful are always going to be believed without any further inquiry, which is why, I believe, many people think that people going to school and studying the ever-so-mysterious "dogmatic science" are actually ignorant (because those being trained in the sciences and go on to do mainstream research might just as well be "brainwashed" into believing those oh-so-mysterious propositions in science), and that these quacks like Meyer, et. al., are believed to be the real pioneers in science, because they do some sort of awesome thing and make gold out of iron or some crap, while never doing ANYTHING but throwing semantical candy around like crazy.

Do you know who is the first to propose Alternating Current we use as electricity today? Nikola Tesla, this man found a way to transfer electricity wirelessly, an improvement of his radio transmitter knowledge, improvement of his open loop one wire electricity. When researching this, he found that the earth receive infinite invisible energy that penetrate all kind of thing but do not harm us. When we harvest this we will have cheaper energy source.

Why I brought this up? because many of HHO researcher is trying to utilize this energy. Some of them succeed like Bob Boyce, Joe Cell, and not to forget Stanley Meyer.

Stanley meyer do not use HHO in his final buggy, he use high voltage spark plug that can create plasma explosion from water. This knowledge is based by Dale Pond suggestion of John Worrel Keely device which can make water vaporize in an instant by pulsing it at spesific frequency. Keely do it mechanically, without electricity.

For video search google video for:
Borderlands longitudinal
Dale Pond

Thank you Jason ...

I have no idea how his system works. My studies were in Business & Accounting.
But after researching every single patent, video and document, I have found similarities in his system with other systems available to him during the time he patented this system.

1. The "VIC" is similar to a PULSED DC BATTERY CHARGER.
2. The "vibrations" in his cell can be explained by looking at a simple ULTRASONIC JEWELRY CLEANER as the frequencies he describes are close.
3. Personally, I have witnessed that an increase in VOLTAGE with a decrease in AMPERAGE does produce MORE (Hydrogen/Oxygen) pressure in my system.
Why? I have no clue, not my field of study.

There is "something" happening with this combination of components. You have the Science background to research and explain this system.

It is electrolysis! as there is some CURRENT passing thru the electrodes. It seems that the system uses the POTENTIAL ENERGY built up (stored) by the "water" capacitor. The system does CONSUME ENERGY. How much does it consume (efficiency) and from where is up to the scientific community.

A few questions for you:
Could you direct me to some SIMPLE documents from the SCIENTIFIC community that explain potential energy vs using current?

Let me make another remark in addition to what I posted before:

Some of the effects apparently discovered by Stan Meyer and other experimenters like Puharich before him seem to indicate that he found a new process for splitting water. We should probably not address this as electrolysis anymore.
It looks to me much more like "laser pumping". In laser technology, you pump energy into a gas or a crystal which is then released in form of a sharp coherent light beam. the history of invention of the laser shows that this came as unexpected as possible. Technicians working on microwave amplifiers (masers) found that their process WHICH INVOLVES RESONANCE also could be extended to light waves.
the Meyer process could be similar to the laser- it pumps energy into the water molecules. Instead of emitting visible light radiation the water splits into its components. Many researchers have reported visible light effects in their water cells.
There also have been reports of anomalous explosions in water fog. This has been discovered by people who cleaned tanks of large ships with high energy water jets. If static electricity hit these water droplets under certain circumstances,a huge hydrogen explosion occurred. There even is a paper on that somewhere on the Internet.
Meyers last and most advanced system did not involve a water fuel cell but directly injected a fine water mist that was charged to a high potential into the cylinders of his motors. This produced a flammable gas.
High voltage pulses-sharp transients- are involved in many of the so called overunity processes we seem to consider these days. There still is more to electricity than we know. I have personally witnessed many times the demonstration of LONGITUDINAL pulses- they are not like the transverse electrical pulses we use mostly. They can easily tunnel through a massive faraday cage, where every other kind of RF transmission fails. Tesla knew about this and used these pulses in many of his inventions. his so called "radiant energy" is being researched with great intensity by many experimenters today. If applied to a Stan Meyer type cell, this has effects that are different from normal electricity. It seems that one can get the water molecule to split into its components by using POTENTIAL and almost no current. Just the same as in a Bedini setup where you have almost current-free short sharp pulses charging lead acid batteries. I have done this many times....
So think about it, use your scientific expertise but keep your mind open!

Hello,

I welcome the fact that people with "proper" scientific training look into this. But I really think one has to have an open mind. Now "flaming" one who has a different opinion does not help. I respect your viewpoint but perhaps you should try to perform some experiments yourself. We cannot get to the bottom of the problem by theoretical discussion only.

I have experimented with various setups such as the Bedini Motor and used the high voltage output pulses to run an electrolysis cell. The Stan Meyer process differs from normal electrolysis because the cell puts out copious amounts of gas but stays cold. It also does so without catalysts of any kind in the water. British scientist Dave Lawton even used distilled water which should not work at all. I think we can consider this proven.It has been replicated many times. Just look on the forums. Now this alone will not be sufficient to run a car but that does not mean it is not worth looking into.

My own experiments with lead acid batteries and the high voltage pulse charge show that one can overcharge the battery to 15-17 volts. It will produce large amounts of gas AND STAY COLD. Any battery overcharged to this point with a normal charger will turn into a heater and probably blow up on you. so what's going on?
scientific curiosity should look at the unusual results people are getting with this process- there is something about the water molecule we do not know yet. The water molecule is the base for all life forms on Earth. It might well have properties we have not found yet.
Just look at the John Kanzius process for splitting sea or salt water using a defined microwave frequency. THAT has been replicated and is a proven thing.
There can be two possible sources of energy in the Meyer splitting process: One- he used a strange RESONANT transformer system very similar to many of the other "overunity" setups we are discussing in the international forums right now. So it might be in his power setup used to drive the cell. TWO: the water in itself might be the power source. I think it might be a combination of the two things. Once you bring things in resonance they start to "ring" and stange things beginn to happen. This also is a proven concept. And it seems to be hard to grasp because you need evolved mathematical concepts. For the practical experimenter this means that many of these circuits are probably easy to make but VERY DIFFICULT TO TUNE. Thats why so many attempts fail. The electronic setups also de- tune easily and fall out of resonance. Even a simple resonant circuit can be an nightmare of tuning. Just ask any ham radio operator.

If all things I have personally seen in my experiments and read about in various forums are taken together, I think there is need for serious, non-prejudiced schíentific study of this process. Perhaps discussions such as these might get things going in a positive way

Albert

There is a simple version of water electrolizer. Not for running car with water, but to make the engine running more effeciently. Using spoon electrode, a bottle with tube and DC electricity from motor. Electrolyte may be needed depend on your knwledge. It's cheap to make and durable. Many people test this simple version and already believe it's effectiveness.

Here in Indonesia many people start selling this. There are complain, but not because it doesn't work. But it's because it's not made durable, or not enough maintenance information. Since this device is new here, many still have problem with brownish water, water tank overheat, electrode corrotion, etc.

Goverment here is not as rectrictive as in US. A governor even suggest the use of this technology to all it's staff and result in 100 goverment car being installed with this device. Some people provide free learning program and installation too. It is published in TV and newspaper too.

Although the device use the old version of this technology. No one doubt it's effeciency after installing it, except those that have car that have O2 sensor (need altering ECU).

It really can improve mileage and improve power. Yes it is not matured, but it work.

I would split the hoax question:

1) Whats up with Mr. Meyer ?

2) Whats up with all those replicators, wannabe researchers and
guys which run their business on Meyer stuff.

What concerns 2) we have kind of Hoax movement.
I´ve seen lots of the stuff and it´s very painful.
There is no single (what I´ve seen so far) series of documented
experiments which try to verify his claims.
There are millions of mindless replications - which can never work
due to the high degree of tuning and unknown fundamentals.

What concerns Mr. Meyer - I want to see the 10million research project -
And then we know more about the issue.

Right now we build up some Meyer setup - and because of the amount
of unknown variables - we decided to build some high voltage amplifiers
to study the issue from a more scientific point.

All those pulse-transformer setups have a very narrow operating point -
and every change done requires lots of hardware modifications.

I somehow believe that the "Meyer Tube" needs some sort of vibration
mode to perfom - so the first step would be to check out the vibration
modes of the tube - next step would be to reduce power input by fitting
a usable inductor to that water cap - which should lead to an optimized
LC circuit which oscillate an the frequency of the mechanical vibration.
Than ramp up the power, check if some effect.

Perfoming such tests with different tube setups should give some feeling
about the effect.

Hi there, I just wanted to comment on the inverted minded and unloving way nature is treated by man.

I think we should use water as fuel because it is better for mother earths and its all its because of oil companies want more money they greedy and dont want us to use water as fuel because its cheaper then oil and its cleaner as well.

Also, we should be wanting to look at LENR, tesla coils and other new technologies to produce more electricity then we are now.

I blame the universities and all the greedy ignorant people out there for lieing to us and hiding these better technologies so they can make dollar.

Stanley Meyers is a hero that was died because he invented a better energy machine more then big oil company.

We should be helping people like stanley to make cleaner energy rather then wasting time on your outdated science ideas.

From Harry.B

I hate skeptics, but as you chose to put up your picture which is something very exclusive for a skeptic and you specifically asked not to be hated.

The thing is the enthusiast's had this discussion a 1000 times already. It literally took tens of thousands of insults to irritate even a thick skinned person like myself.

I'm projecting this back on you, this is not something you deserve but a clever chunk of engineering the linguists created for us.

Lets start by right out calling you a troll. hehehe That is not very nice now is it? You claim to be looking for evidence. This suggests you are not 100% sure, I even think you would be willing to learn how it works if the information is presented to you. Now from this position you proceed to denounce Stanley Meyer a hoax, Dennis Klein a hoax etc etc everyone is a hoax right? haha

Clear poof of trolling. This has nothing to do with science. In stead of honestly looking for the story behind the topic you decided to make false accusations. Don't get me wrong I'm not offended, this is about your method of acquiring data.

To be honest the people who keep abusing discussion to make negative remarks are really the only reason why there is no easy to find public domain information for you.

This is not a warning or anything but Klein is getting bashed from all directions so he does takes people to court who slander him or his company. Here the judge will review the evidence you supplied.

To cite your favorite author:

"No matter how real something seems, and no matter how real one may perceive something to be, we have no place to ascertain anything as real until it can be proven or suggested to be real beyond any reasonable doubt."

This of course applies to your claim of hoaxes in the same way it applies to inventions.

Lets extend this to the laws of thermodynamics. If you claim they are factual then why isn't there any proof? It's a false positive remember?

Like I would call you a fraud and demand you provide evidence you are not a fraud. Even if you could it wouldn't be a very interesting discussion. It would most definitely not be a productive one.

Scientists use to look for perpetual motion, this was artificially changed into looking for ways to debunk it.

Both are the same study. But when we look closer we see debunking perpetual motion apparently doesn't require any evidence? haha?

In fact it is applied as the main excuse to ignore the actual evidence!

Non of the perpetual motion devices worked because we don't have to look at them? Well you cant have it both ways you cant. no-no ^_^

A invention is something new, not maybe but by definition. So the claim an invention has to follow established believe system contradicts the very definition of the invention.

But say I will attempt to explain one such system to you. Will you then proceed by publicly calling me a hoax?

There are lots of effects involved, in the established paradigm of disapproval you may debunk the first and be done with it?

To explain the fuel savers, the gas is a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen (browns gas) so it replaces part of the air intake. You understand that because it contains more oxygen the petrol burns faster, when burning browns gas the exhaust contains oxygen. Normal combustion ends when there is no more oxygen available.

This is just 2 details you see? Not much room for denial. There is more combustion so there is more power and this power comes from the exhaust gases. It's very obvious? no?

It gets funky where the petroleum doesn't need to be compressed so the injection can take place much later in the cycle. It also burns faster so it can be injected even later then you think.

Here the cylinder can be filled with a lot of uncompressed browns gas, the piston may forcefully suck the gas out of the electrolyser.

Now lets make it even more funky. Brown claimed he got 1860 liters of gas out of each liter of water.

So after filling the cylinder 2/3 with gas we have only a small duration worth of self propagating explosion BUT after that the gas collapses 1860:1 thus creating an IMPLOSION CYCLE! Here the energy comes from the atmosphere.

More fun it gets where the implosion is also endothermic effectively sucking back the heat losses back into the system.

I'm convinced you know what Intellectual property is, I want 10 million euro for my water power plant. For 10 million you get a system far superior to any of the water car systems ever build in fact they can all be combined with my system.

The invention is easily worth a hundred times that. This while killing people can be as cheap as 100 bucks. I don't expect everyone profiting from our enormous petroleum industry to be honest. 4 million Iraqi people are either dead or without a home just for the petroleum. That should provide a frame of reference. It would be naive to think you can beat them in the market. They can do hundreds of things, like buy out every company you ordered materials form or just buy all of your production for a few years then dump your stuff on the market at a lower price. After the stock runs out your customers will say your stuff is to expensive.

Only a multinational could bring this to the market but even those fear their stock drops like a stone after which they will likely suffer a hostile take over.

Are you getting a picture already?

Say you have 100 000 000 000 USD to spend. And I want to destroy your profits in weekly millions. Do you really think you cant stop me? You honestly would just sit there and look how I destroy everything you own? haha? Perhaps you would, you would be an exceptionally bad business man to all of a sudden give up everything you worked so hard for.

To give you an example, the google groups posting isn't a valid source by Wikipedia definitions, the original article was pulled because Meyer was going to take legal action because claimed the journalist didn't have the expertise to review the invention and he even did so without seeing it. Magic?

Meyer also claimed the court jury didn't have the authority to discard the findings from patent office as incompetent.

Only his water fuel cell was reviewed in court, the lame excuse one of the professors mentioned was that Meyer's other inventions where still classified under the national security act. Meyer already obtained patents in other countries (like Canada) so the classification was merely a means of stalling him.

It's like the eyewitnesses who had seen the UFO crash in Roswell got sworn to secrecy for national security reasons. It doesn't fit seeing a landing weather baloon. I'm not even saying the millions of UFO sightings are real. (haha)

I'm saying that national security is national security. It's not used for random nonsense.

But to get back to Wikipedia, for some reason this reference is used to denounce Meyer to be a hoax. If you so much as suggest it is not a valid source you will be jumped by 20 users who will find a consensus of you being a troll and you will be IP blocked.

I mean, I read it in google groups so that has to mean it is true right? LOL! See [WP:RS] it is clearly not a reliable source, the article is not publicly available and it is a copyvio.

Wikipedia is a game people play, it has nothing to do with the truth.

If you don't have 10 million for me then for free you can have a car that doesn't use any fuel.

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

This I specially designed for debunkers. Go 'n give her your best shot Jason. :-) ha-ha

I have a better idea, what about you give me a hand here?

http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2#

I'm kind of lazy, just gathering the links is already a lot of work and I haven't even begun doing that really.

I would feel honored if you would validate your credentials with knol and help save the planet :-)

You do have to consider if you want to pollute your resume with this. If you fear doing so perhaps it is better if you wrote your own knols about the topic.

Unlike wikipedia (which might be written by 12 year olds for all we know) Knol can reflect your official training and expertise (or lack there of)

It was fun writing this anyway, hope it helps.

Regards,

-gaby de wilde

A _WATER_ electrolysis splits up generic water molecules.
If you can change the properties of water by using electrical current - there will be some electrolysis.
What if this change in properties would have some nuclear
output - maybe not of the (usual) radiating type - what if some stimulated acceleration of nuclei would make a nuclei collapse ... this could be the source of the energy needed to split up the molecule neigbours...
As a result - some mass would disappear.

Wherever nuclear power is involved - it would look like "overunity" as long as you cannot observe any changed mass.

Your argument is pointless due to the lack of understanding of the non-electrolysis method Stan patented. The mode of operation you presented is of normal Faraday electrolysis, Stan's is not. For one, the current going through the cell is cause for heating. Stan publicly demonstrated several times, that his device used little or no current. No current, no heat. Secondly, a quick reading of the "Technical Brief" reveals that Stan never claimed to break the laws of thermodynamics with his patented method. Another great document to read is the "Independent Study" of Stan's devices by various qualified people, confirming that his devices worked as described.

Either you have failed your education or your education has failed you. Great men will never ponder how it can't be done.