The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: rick_sobie on 28 Sep 2007 05:52 Well I don't know if Stan Meyers method is the best approach or not. Basically all the results are similar. If it was me, I wouldn't pursue that method because it is unnecessarily complex. The small round plates with holes in them seemed to produce as much gas with that simple configuration. You know the 2 inch round plates with 1/8 in holes in them and maybe 5 plates stacked together. That looks like a good starting point to me. But I can tell you hypothetically how to maximize your gas production. If you consider the molecule H2O it has of course two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom and they are joined by a covalent bond. And if you imagine what it might look like, you have seen pictures of a triangle configuration. Well what is happening is that the oxygen nucleus emits a spherical wave that crests at the electron shell radius and so do the hydrogen nuclei, and together inside that triangle, what happens is the two H atoms are producing waves of two times the H frequency and the O atom is producing waves at the O frequency and where they combine inside that triangle they form a low pressure area, and that causes them to be attracted right there. So to break that covalent bond you have to deal with the H frequency O frequency combination, know what it might be at that location and then change that low pressure area, to a high pressure area and break that bond. So ultrasound would do it at the right frequency but you don't want all sorts of ultrasound pollution in the world either, so you can use em waves and experiment to find out what frequency will break that bond. Now you also have to take into account the inverse square law, and so at the correct distance from your plate or plates will be the correct frequency of wave coming off the steel atoms, to interfere with that covalent bond. So its not enough to say, well lets try a 1/4 in separation, lets try 1/8 you are dealing with precision amounts for maximum efficiency. So you should experiment with a sliding distance to test for maximum production and you should keep in mind the frequency of thos atoms and maybe try to modulate on a frequency that will break that bond and you can do that by trial and error to reach maximum efficiency as well. Then you have the different metal alloys, like is stainless steel the best to use or is nickel better? These are the things you can look at. So if you look at the frequency of H times 2, plus the frequency of O, at room temperature and then use your intuition keeping in mind that you want to interfere with that frequency.
From: Eeyore on 28 Sep 2007 06:00 rick_sobie(a)hotmail.com wrote: > Well I don't know if Stan Meyers method is the best approach or not. Stam Meyer was a crook.
From: rick_sobie on 28 Sep 2007 06:26 On Sep 28, 10:52 am, rick_so...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > Well I don't know if Stan Meyers method is the best approach or not. > Basically all the results are similar. > If it was me, I wouldn't pursue that method because it is > unnecessarily complex. > The small round plates with holes in them seemed to produce as much > gas with that simple configuration. > You know the 2 inch round plates with 1/8 in holes in them and maybe 5 > plates stacked together. > That looks like a good starting point to me. > > But I can tell you hypothetically how to maximize your gas production. > > If you consider the molecule H2O it has of course two Hydrogen atoms > and one Oxygen atom and they are joined by a covalent bond. > > And if you imagine what it might look like, you have seen pictures of > a triangle configuration. > > Well what is happening is that the oxygen nucleus emits a spherical > wave that crests at the electron shell radius and so do the hydrogen > nuclei, and together inside that triangle, what happens is the two H > atoms are producing waves of two times the H frequency and the O atom > is producing waves at the O frequency and where they combine inside > that triangle they form a low pressure area, and that causes them to > be attracted right there. > > So to break that covalent bond you have to deal with the H frequency O > frequency combination, know what it might be at that location and then > change that low pressure area, to a high pressure area and break that > bond. > So ultrasound would do it at the right frequency but you don't want > all sorts of ultrasound pollution in the world either, so you can use > em waves and experiment to find out what frequency will break that > bond. > > Now you also have to take into account the inverse square law, and so > at the correct distance from your plate or plates will be the correct > frequency of wave coming off the steel atoms, to interfere with that > covalent bond. > So its not enough to say, well lets try a 1/4 in separation, lets try > 1/8 you are dealing with precision amounts for maximum efficiency. So > you should experiment with a sliding distance to test for maximum > production and you should keep in mind the frequency of thos atoms and > maybe try to modulate on a frequency that will break that bond and you > can do that by trial and error to reach maximum efficiency as well. > > Then you have the different metal alloys, like is stainless steel the > best to use or is nickel better? These are the things you can look at. > > So if you look at the frequency of H times 2, plus the frequency of O, > at room temperature and then use your intuition keeping in mind that > you want to interfere with that frequency. Here is something else you can try and that is you know that the Casimir effect causes a potential between two plates, well that happens when the atoms in the plates give off waves that interfere with each other in between them causing a low pressure area which attracts the plates together. And that will happen without current going through the plates simply because the waves given off by the atoms interfere and cancel out. Now if you take one plate and interfere on the H frequency, and take the second plate and interfere on the O frequency, you will attract the H to one plate and the O to the other and that may help to assist in breaking the bond. So then what you would want to do to accomplish that is either have two different alloys, or modulate the frequency differently for each plate, matching the H frequency with one and the O frequency with the other. In this way the waves between the H atoms and the plate will cancel out leaving a low pressure area which will attract the H and the same will happen with the O.
From: Erdemal on 28 Sep 2007 06:42 Eeyore wrote: > > rick_sobie(a)hotmail.com wrote: > >> This is what Stan Meyers did. >> >> Now I have shown 20 videos of people making Brown's Gas, and I will >> now show you Stan's device, which incidentally before you flame me, >> because I know you hate to see so much Brown's Gas produced because it >> makes you look stupid, but hear me out, I know you people railroaded >> ol Stan and someone poisoned him at the diner, and he was charged with >> fraud and the pentagon stole his patents and all the rest, but keep in >> mind people have reproduced this, and got the same results. > > Bwahahahahahahaa ! > > Stan Meyer was a convicted fraudster amd still you keep falling for it. Galileo too was convicted ! One more cover up the majors are responsable for. Erdy
From: Eeyore on 28 Sep 2007 06:58
Erdemal wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > > rick_sobie(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > > >> This is what Stan Meyers did. > >> > >> Now I have shown 20 videos of people making Brown's Gas, and I will > >> now show you Stan's device, which incidentally before you flame me, > >> because I know you hate to see so much Brown's Gas produced because it > >> makes you look stupid, but hear me out, I know you people railroaded > >> ol Stan and someone poisoned him at the diner, and he was charged with > >> fraud and the pentagon stole his patents and all the rest, but keep in > >> mind people have reproduced this, and got the same results. > > > > Bwahahahahahahaa ! > > > > Stan Meyer was a convicted fraudster amd still you keep falling for it. > > Galileo too was convicted ! Not true. A comparison is absurd anyway. Galileo was fundamentally scientific in his approach. Meyer had no time for science. Meyer was a lying fraudster. Graham |