Why all the hate?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by MrHankey, Nov 12, 2009.

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

    Thread Starter New Member

    Sep 3, 2009
    14
    0
    ok, i know this will piss off you know-it-all senior members, but an old closed thread on Stan Meyer, im sure you know of it...

    i must say, its rather interesting that all the senior members instantly try to discredit anything pertaining to "free-energy".

    was it not einestein who said a gallon of water has enough energy to send a 1000 car train around the world?

    just because you yourself cannot perform the said task does not mean it will never be so.

    there are OLD patents using a dielectric container that can do just what stan was doing.

    just like the 200 mile carburetor, you will never see such inventions on the shelf because of people like the senior members who will do ANYTHING to get people to NOT build such a device. even Lie.

    i used to think you masons were "good" people...

    now i realize YOU are the Crocks.


    now delete this message to cover your a$$ like i know you will.
     
  2. thatoneguy

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    6,357
    718
    Things do not have to exist or work to be patented.

    We've helped people build the circuits they are given, and the "system" fails to work as advertised.

    To save them money, we let them know ahead of time that there hasn't been one scientifically documented case of onboard hydrogen generation giving ANY benefit. Only anecdotal stories.

    Human nature has a nasty twist of when people spend thousands on something, and it doesn't work as it was promised, they try to recoup their money by selling the same thing they fell for.

    We know that nobody has made the "pulsed current hydrolyzer" work as advertised. The best cases have been break even, or slight loss. Trying to build them again will not change that fact.
     
  3. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Gosh, MrHankey, I guess we are guilty. Since we won't make whatever it is that you true believers want us to, we must be guilty of something. Nobody can quite say what that might be, though. It's like calling us guilty for steadfastly refusing to spin straw into gold.

    Certainly, if we maintain that nothing like old Stan put forth is even remotely possible, we must be fudging, as, in the vastness of ignorance, people with no scientific or electronic backgrounds say that getting something for nothing is really neat, and must be possible on that basis alone.

    We, the few, the protectors of the moneyed elites, must be doing everything in our powers to prevent others from making the breakthroughs that will free humanity from the crushing burden of keeping the oil interests in control (wait, I missed the Masons).

    We invite anyone to learn something and see that we don't have to try to discredit free energy - no such thing is possible. But it appears you (speaking of a class of believers in free energy) would rather see vast conspiracies than actually spend some mental effort and learn electronics.

    Stan did a nice job in setting up that particular scam. It is not in our interest in confirming scammers in their efforts to continue to delude the public. We know and will always say that so-called free energy is a lie based on a scam. Why do you think nobody has any stuff to show off? If this crud actually worked, somebody would have a working model by now.

    Can you really point out how I am actually able to prevent anybody else from doing experiments? Shall I hold my breath until I turn blue? To maintain that I can actually do anything of the kind is ridiculous.

    It's also why entering into further "discussions" with true believers is pointless.
     
  4. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,532
    Tain't no hate, just tired of wasting time on uneducted arguements about extremely basic physics.

    Water is an ash from burning hydrogen from oxygen. If I asked you but burn ash from a woodstove you would (rightly) think me crazy, but somehow water is magical and different. It's not.
     
  5. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    No, you are the crock. You've provided no data to show that the existing accepted laws of physics are invalid, and that these various schemes work. Nobody else has either. No hard data exists, so why should we accept it?

    Why would anybody need to delete your nonsensical post? It simply reveals your unscientific approach to judging reality. If someone claims something, you just accept it.

    Rigorously applying the scientific method is not hateful. We are simply using the tools of our craft. Would you go to a modern doctor and expect him to rattle some beads and chant some words to cure you? If you want to believe in nonsense, go somewhere else. Don't expect us to abandon our sensibility to keep your fanstasies alive.

    If you're so interested in showing us to be crocks, then go build your device and become a billionaire. Then you can come back here and make us eat crow. Go ahead, we'll be here doing more than waiting. We will be building realistic devices that actually work.
     
  6. MrHankey

    Thread Starter New Member

    Sep 3, 2009
    14
    0
    you can build circuits all day and they will fail because the user has no clue what they are doing.

    ive watched all of meyers videos, then went out and asked questions & did my own research only to find that everything he talks about is true.

    All of his work is based on the laws of electronics & physics. if it is all false, then by what "Laws" of electronics will prevent such things from working?

    inventing is a trial and error process, if your not willing to loose money in the process, you will never have success.

    ive had my successes, and ive had my failures. yet threw an ever growing number of failures, i still have my very few successes which compel me to continue.

    stan said it took him 15 years to develop his first "system". how long have the people youve helped been working on theirs?

    so what you say, other inventors cannot produce similar results, and anyone who even suggests it possible are liars & frauds?



    sounds a little paranoid to me.
     
  7. MrHankey

    Thread Starter New Member

    Sep 3, 2009
    14
    0
    you know, tesla was laughed at too.

    not until after he died did we realize what he did for us.
     
  8. thatoneguy

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    6,357
    718

    Have you built a greater than unity device? If so, I am very interested in seeing it function. In person, not through a video.
     
  9. BMorse

    Senior Member

    Sep 26, 2009
    2,675
    234

    Show me a working model of this and where I can purchase it, with all the years he spent on this, there must be something available in the market that is based on his studies and development that has evolved into a working device.......

    I am not trying to burst your bubble or anything, but I have done studies in HHO (Browns Gas, whatever you call it) production myself, and yes I have blown up quite a bit of stuff with the HHO gas (which is quite fun :D, I love it when things go Kaboom!), but I haven't had any conclusive evidence to support all these theories.....

    You can watch my HHO generator videos here http://www.youtube.com/mcscoder#p/u/33/5yNl6CeZeSc

    So if there is a WORKING device based on his theories I want to see it, and I would like to purchase it....(but if it comes in a form of a mason jar and some bungee cords to tie it down in your engine compatment, then it is a scam, and I don't want any part of it)...



    My .02
     
  10. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    Well, there actually IS no-cost energy available, if we would only tap into it.

    The trouble is, it takes resources to use those real-world free energy sources.

    The big one is that ball o' fire that's about 93,000,000 miles from us. Got solar panels?

    Then there's geothermal energy; more than we could ever use. It's getting it up to the surface that's the problem.

    How about wind? That's been in use for more than a few centuries now (more like the beginning of recorded time), and getting more widespread.

    Wave energy is beginning to be tapped in some areas. Hydroelectric dams have been in use for over a century.

    There IS "free energy" available. But it takes money, time, materials and a lot of work to harness it.

    Unfortunately, getting "free energy" from "HHO" just isn't one of those options; no matter how fervently you might wish for it to be so.
     
  11. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    So, what is there to develop into something? Do you or anyone else actually have a device that works to produce a greater output than it takes to power it?

    Why is this somehow our fault?

    You are completely free to spend your time and money as you wish. However, invention and wish fulfillment are not necessarily related.

    We do not subscribe to beliefs that somehow there is a way to force the universe to provide us with whatever we wish. Most adults come to that realization.

    Who came to us with angry words?
     
  12. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    No, not paranoid at all. We're simply explaining the known proven science. What you are doing is like trying to pan for gold in your bathtub. Perhaps some strange geological process will cause gold to come bubbling up from your drain, but it's not likely to happen. If we are going to talk about psychological afflictions, why don't we name the one that explains what drives your hopeless quest.

    Instead of talk, why don't you show us the details of your so-called successes. Or publish them in an engineering journal so that the methods and results can be verified. Why talk with empty words if you have real successful demonstrations that will speak for themselves? I'll tell you why. It's because you live in a fantasy world and your fantasy will be shattered if the details are examined in the light of day.
     
  13. MrHankey

    Thread Starter New Member

    Sep 3, 2009
    14
    0
    i couldnt agree more, the mason jar product = SCAM lol. who in their right mind would buy that?

    now ive seen the "booster" application do quite well, my friend is getting +18 mpg in his truck and +12 in his diesel car. with adjustment to fuel intake (required, else u still burn the same amount of gas(duh))

    as for HV separation, it is not so much producing the effect, but rather REproducing the effect that has been tedious.

    should one day i have success, again, you will be the first person i call.
     
  14. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,532
    Actually Tesla had a nice little fight with Edison, and won, because he did make workable devices. This has yet to happen with Myers.

    People like to compare the two, their is no comparison.

    Tesla invented and kept on inventing, device after device after device. Some didn't live up to claims, but the point is he didn't spend his entire life pushing one idea that didn't work, doesn't work.

    Tesla also made a lot of fundimental discoveries, unlike Myers. There is a unit of measurement named Tesla, does this sound like a failure (like Myers)? Tesla discovered new science, he did not contradict science at any time.

    People who believe this bunk slept through basic physics. Might as well draw a pentigram and mutter spells.

    Someone is getting money for this, but if you're serious and not a scammer it ain't you.
     
  15. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    Absolutely true! Wind, solar and wave energy systems are what I spend my time on in recent years. These are real approaches that work, and they will change the world.
     
  16. MrHankey

    Thread Starter New Member

    Sep 3, 2009
    14
    0
    Bill:

    i am serious, im making NO money, and have spent plenty. ive had success, till it shorted out & caught on fire.

    as for tesla, has anyone been able to reproduce is ability to transmit power for miles, enough that could light a house?

    or perhaps his earth quake machine?

    i have not seen any of these being reproduced or on the shelf either.

    how many failures did he have before success?
     
  17. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    I call that statement a black lie. It is always "my friend" or "my brother-in-law" who is getting a mileage boost, but there is never any factual evidence to back up the claims. Do you have any slightest idea of the sheer volume of gas needed to burn in place of the fuel to give those figures? Do you understand that an explosive gas mixture may cause some problems for any IC engine? Do you have the slightest idea why a diesel engine can't use the stuff?

    No claim has ever been substantiated. Lots of testimonials, no numbers or hardware to show off.
     
  18. thatoneguy

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    6,357
    718

    If you are going to make that comparison, then the "Stanley Supporters" of the world seem to be the Edisons.

    Edison went everywhere electrocuting animals to show how evil tesla was, Tesla made the system for power distribution that worked, was built in Germany and worked, then powered the world's fair. All Edison did was scream how evil Tesla was through every outlet available.
     
  19. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,532
    Naw, for all his flaws Edison invented and created hardware too, working hardware. I think the most significant invention was the industrial R&D lab. We'll never know how many of his employee's ideas he co-opted, but the fact is there was a lot of working hardware created because of it.

    What we see and what Myer's claimed don't even come close.

    I've seen magic that worked too, but never believed it. The magicians never claimed it was real either, which makes them more honest.
     
  20. Robin Mitchell

    Well-Known Member

    Oct 25, 2009
    732
    199
    mmmmmmmmmm
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.