1. Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
    Dismiss Notice

Stanley Meyers and Zero-Point energy

Discussion in 'Alternative Energy' started by firewater, Sep 16, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Leftyretro

    Leftyretro New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,420
    Likes:
    13
    Location:
    Hercules, California
    I have a general suggestion to make.

    Why don't those people who wish to post or read about religious topics find such forums that the internet is sure to have many of. That could also apply to those that like to express their political opinions.

    I think a forum such as this one, named electro-tech-online should deal with just technical topics with an occasional joke now and then.

    I personally get my religious teachings from Christopher Hitchens, great mind he has. ;)

    Lefty
     
  2. blueroomelectronics

    blueroomelectronics Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    12,536
    Likes:
    168
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    They love this stuff over at overunity you get plenty of encouragement and maybe even a hug even if the buzzword is almost, why bother coming here and having to deal with boring hard reality and dull things like that. They've got Jesus, UFO, Conspiracy theory's, Government cover ups, Fun with magnets & Prizes. They only they don't have is an actual overunity device or a car that runs only on water.
    PS why always water cars? Why not power your home, much less effort than a moving application.
    [​IMG]
    Now we know where "Brown Gas" comes from...
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2008
  3. Mikebits

    Mikebits Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes:
    174
    Location:
    San Diego, Ca
    ONLINE
    I thought you were a Navy tech? Surely you must know you use a high voltage probe. I guess ET school has changed.
     
  4. dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 1997
    Messages:
    -
    Likes:
    0


     
  5. allcanadian

    allcanadian New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes:
    0

    @HawkNo1
    I would not buy it ---build it for about $3, I find most conventional equipment is obsolete when dealing with electric fields and magnetic ones--voltage and frequency measurement tell you nothing about the fields generated. follow this link---http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/emotor/chargdet.html
    This is the charge detector I use, connect your scope across the LED. An electric field follows the inverse square law so the detector can be calibrated using this rule. The inverse square law is F=1/D squared but this is only used if the distance from the conductor changes. Charge a conductor to a known voltage and place the detector a known distance away--note the voltage on your scope. Now half then double the voltage on the conductor--note the voltage on your scope in both cases. Plot a graph using the noted voltages from your scope, if the voltage across the LED gets above 3V then move the detector farther away and repeat the calibration. I tied this detector into the microphone jack of my laptop then wrote some code in VB6, you input the distance and it auto-graphs the voltage. On a non-humid day I can tell when you comb your hair twenty feet away--Oh the wonders of technology.:D
     
  6. ArrowHead

    ArrowHead New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    3
    Location:
    Quebekistan
    Oxygen doesn’t burn – it makes things burn more intensely. When you take a lit match to a container or room full of oxygen, the flame will burn bigger and brighter. That’s all. This isn’t the oxygen burning, but rather the wax burning more intensely.

    No, I don’t know it all myself, but clearly, I know more than you.

    No, we’re just correcting you where you’re wrong. When you get everything wrong, expect to be corrected on everything.

    That doesn’t follow.

    Wrong. Only the “noble” gases are truly inert. Other elements are reactive, just to different degrees. And whether the inert gases should be labeled as such on the tanks is debatable, since they’re harmless.

    Oxygen is not flammable, and any oxygen tank that says it’s flammable is wrong. It’s an oxidizing agent and should be labeled as such.

    It doesn’t work.…

    None of the above. False dichotomy.

    Either you were lied to or you misunderstood. Oxygen does not burn. It’s really that simple.

    1. Water doesn’t burn either.
    2. Do you believe everything you watch on TV? No, of course not. Now keep in mind that YouTube doesn’t have any of the checks and balances that broadcast TV does. So if you believe everything you see on YouTube then I have a bridge in New York I’m willing to sell you.
    That’s not true. Many things are just plain impossible.

    Okay, so now, what the heck does this have to do with anything we’re talking about? Are you saying that there’s some kind of atheist conspiracy behind the NKJV?

    True. All I know at this point is it was a steam-engine car. By steam engine I mean similar to what trains of the time used.

    Interesting, but not exactly relevant to the discussion.…

    Nope. The water car scam sites are actually proliferating.

    Conspiracy theories?

    Could it possibly be that something else has replaced them for their intended use? Nah, there’s no such thing as Occam’s Razor in your world, is there?

    Because you’re doing it wrong. You’re trying to reply inside my quote tags and write nothing outside.

    Water isn’t HHO. It’s HOH. When you break the atomic bonds (by whatever means) it isn’t water anymore.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  7. ArrowHead

    ArrowHead New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    3
    Location:
    Quebekistan
    That was painful to read. Have you not bothered to read any of that garbage you just posted yourself, or is it so far over your head you don’t realize how nonsensical it is?

    Nope, this is just another case of you not knowing what you’re talking about. For starters, do you know how much power it takes to make a single X-ray? And static charges really don’t have power. A “charge” is a quantity of energy sitting in one place. Power is a property of energy transfer. If the energy’s just sitting there, it isn’t being transferred, so there’s no power to speak of.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  8. ArrowHead

    ArrowHead New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    3
    Location:
    Quebekistan
    You can’t get more out than you have coming in. If you seem to be, then there’s just something you’ve failed to take into account.

    Okay, thanks, that was an interesting read. I guess if I have a question to ask about the Bible sometime, you should be my go-to guy.

    But all this has absolutely nothing to do with Stanley Meyer and his “water fuel cell”.

    >100% output is impossible.

    :D

    :D :D

    :D :D :D
     
  9. allcanadian

    allcanadian New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes:
    0
    @Arrowhead
    Maybe you should google electrostatic induction, a "charged" body can induce an opposite charge in another body and no charge is lost in the original body---energy is not transfered it is induced. Energy just sitting there? Energy is due to motion, energy is not something it is a condition of something. I understand the point you are making I have been down that road, what we have is a difference of opinion. If you cannot or will not make an effort to understand my perspective then I guess Im just another crackpot.
     
  10. ArrowHead

    ArrowHead New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    3
    Location:
    Quebekistan
    Wrong.

    Wrong.

    Not necessarily.

    Finally something you’ve gotten halfway right.

    No, what we have is someone with some pretty severe misconceptions about physics and someone who’s trying to correct him. Most of the members here can figure out which one is which.

    No, you’re just another crackpot because you’re promoting bunk, and because you’re projecting your ignorance of physics on us and the scientific community at large.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  11. blueroomelectronics

    blueroomelectronics Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    12,536
    Likes:
    168
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
  12. Hero999

    Hero999 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes:
    79
    Location:
    England
    No, if I remember rightly at least half the people here believe in God.

    I would post a link to my Do you believe in God poll but I can't find it.

    What's wrong with the search feature?

    I've tried searching for "believe god" and it doesn't come up with anything.
     
  13. Conrad_Turbo

    Conrad_Turbo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Likes:
    1
    What I don't understand about all this religion talk is that when the Bible was written there wasn't even a transistor or 555 chip around... Bringing religion into an electronics topic is a sure sign of grasping for straws in order to try and justify a faulty and 100% unproven theory.
     
  14. Mikebits

    Mikebits Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes:
    174
    Location:
    San Diego, Ca
    ONLINE
    Perhaps it is an attempt by some into guilting you to take their side of an argument. I would call these people manipulators.
     
  15. Conrad_Turbo

    Conrad_Turbo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Likes:
    1
    NO kidding. The funny thing is that I do have a faith however I have never once brought religion into any form of engineering (nor would I know how!)...any professional in the engineering field wouldn't or they could kiss their job goodbye.
     
  16. bigkim100

    bigkim100 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    269
    Likes:
    1
    Location:
    Toronto
    It used to be that the "Auto Giants" withheld any free energy engines/cars. Now that they are practically out of business, who is going to keep all of the free energy devices under wraps, and out of the hands of the average users now???
     
  17. bigkim100

    bigkim100 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    269
    Likes:
    1
    Location:
    Toronto
     
  18. Conrad_Turbo

    Conrad_Turbo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Likes:
    1
    Um...GM/Ford/Chrysler makes dashboards that feel like tupperware... There are still a lot of other car manufacturers out there.

    Nobody has kept anything under wraps, anyone can build something that a patent states...can't sell it...but anyone can copy a patent for their own use. Why haven't anyone proven anything about "free" energy devices? Everyone is waiting for some secret document, are they also waiting for the aliens from Roswell to be put on exibit as well?
     
  19. Mikebits

    Mikebits Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes:
    174
    Location:
    San Diego, Ca
    ONLINE
    All the secret documents can be found buried on a grassy knoll.
     
  20. Mikebits

    Mikebits Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes:
    174
    Location:
    San Diego, Ca
    ONLINE
     
  21. HawkNo1

    HawkNo1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes:
    0
    Stanley Meyers did not use electrolysis. He used a water filled capacitor and the side effect was HHO in high volumes And electricity off the circuit to recharge batteries when the circuit was tuned right. Electrolysis is not efficient enough to make HHO and electricity. It sucks electricity to make HHO and you end up loosing in the long run. It has no efficiency what-so-ever. Stanley Meyers said up was said to have achieved 1700% efficiency.

    The only Electrolysis set up that even out performed others was for a HHO welding rig and it was only 300% efficiency. I think it was Dennis something or other? Can't remember right at this time. He did show me one thing though. He took a block of regular carbon steel and torched it all over with a HHO welding rig then put it in water for 10 years and it never rusted. It worked in salt water also. You could build underwater structures in the ocean with this technique and they would never rust using low cost steel. You would not have to paint them or anything for that matter. I would still worry about sea barnacles and etc. Maybe a electric charge would keep them off the steel? Or maybe a coating made from Habanaro Pepper Oil? Or something even hotter?

    Your 100% right though. Electrolysis is not efficient at all. Stanley Meyers used no catalyst to make his work like Electrolysis uses. He used straight tap water. It is a lot cheaper than gasoline by the gallon or methane or propane and etc..
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page