# Stanly Meiyer Explained with science.

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### blueroomelectronics

Joined Jul 22, 2007
1,757
I fixed the Title, you left out the word "bad"

#### h2opower

Joined Aug 30, 2009
45
h2opower,

Can you explain and show where this extra energy is coming from. Notice I did not ask how it is released. The first Law of Thermodynamics says that energy is not created or destroyed, so the energy you seek must be stored somewhere. Where is it?

Ratch
This is my mathmatical hypotheses as to what is going on in the water for fuel technology put forth by Stanley Meyer's.

(Processed air gases focausing on oxygen) O2 + H2O(atomized)→ 2 H + O + O(highly reactive oxygen from the GP & EEC missing electrons) → H2O

The math that goes with it at the 4th energy level:
2 H-H bonds 872 kJ/mol and 1 O=O bond 7469.2 kJ/mol are formed yielding 8341.2 kJ/mol. The net sum of the reaction (4 H-O 459 kJ/mol bonds are broken taking 1836 kJ/mol) now is 8341.2-1836 = +6505.2 kJ/mol

Non-sequential ionization

When the fact that the electric field of light is an alternating electric field is combined with tunnel ionization, the phenomenon of non-sequential ionization emerges. An electron that tunnels out from an atom or molecule may be sent right back in by the alternating field, at which point it can either recombine with the atom or molecule and release any excess energy, or it also has the chance to further ionize the atom or molecule through high energy collisions. This additional ionization is referred to as non-sequential ionization for two reasons: one, there is no order to how the second electron is removed, and two, an atom or molecule with a +2 charge can be created straight from an atom or molecule with a neutral charge, so the integer charges are not sequential. Non-sequential ionization is often studied at lower laser-field intensities, since most ionization events are sequential when the ionization rate is high.
Now the Gas Processor is the one that is doing all of the work towards getting the nessasary energy content, and the electron extraction circuit makes it so the unstable atoms have no free electrons to stabalize them before mixing in the combustion chamber. By focusing on oxygens wavelengths the coherent light can and will be absorbed by the oxygen atoms. The corona discharge ionizes the gases, and inbetween pulses the coherent light doesn't give the atoms a break so the energy levels don't fall back down. Any electrons nocked off will be consumed by the electron extraction circuit. A lot of this is the same as the way a lighting storm works. This MIT vidoe helps to understand the gas processor for it is for the most part the same thing, minus the coherent light, and electron extraction circuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQvXrxrqshk and this MIT video shows that water as a dielectric liquid will only take an image charge of around 20k volts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=algECMeQFrE at that voltage the water molecule will split dividing the voltage between the two new droplets. This is important in understanding how the water injectors work.

This is the model I am following for it is the only way possible this can all work. Unlike others before me I started out looking for energy content, and when I finally took a look at what the Gas Processor is doing I knew I was on the right track for the math like this doesn't lie. The energy is not extra it is just taking advantage of what mother nature has been doing since the dawn of a lightining storm. But the laws of theromodynamics in the oppions of many are incomplete. Here is some food for thought when it comes to all the laws of thermodynamics: [A Proposed Fifth Law of Thermodynamics] ***!!! Be warned that the site in brackets has a link to another site that is actively phishing!!!***

It goes to show that when someone constantly keeps talking about breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the carnot model they are trying to use 18th century science to describe events of the 20th century as if mankind has made no advances in that time frame.

Quick history lesson
Laws of thermodynamics
The first established principle which eventually became the Second Law was formulated by Sadi Carnot during 1824. By 1860, as found in the works of those such as Rudolf Clausius and William Thomson, there were two established "principles" of thermodynamics, the first principle and the second principle. As the years passed, these principles were termed "laws." By 1873, for example, thermodynamicist Josiah Willard Gibbs, in his “Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids”, clearly stated that there were two absolute laws of thermodynamics, a first law and a second law.
Now as I have said we have advanced much from the 1800s and those laws need to be changed so that they include us walking and talking, and/or life in genaral. For what good are the laws of thermodynamics if they fall apart when it comes to applying it to you or me? This water for fuel technology is tapping into the wheel work of life, and that wheel is made of water and ions. For without water/ions there is no life as we know it.

Use this line of thinking when told that all of this violates the laws of thermodynamics

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,155
Quick history lesson
Now as I have said we have advanced much from the 1800s and those laws need to be changed so that they include us walking and talking, and/or life in genaral. For what good are the laws of thermodynamics if they fall apart when it comes to applying it to you or me? This water for fuel technology is tapping into the wheel work of life, and that wheel is made of water and ions. For without water/ions there is no life as we know it.
Actually this is well understood. Our sun is the source of all energy on earth, discounting the thermal vents. Ultimately, we depend on nuclear fussion for our existance, there is no mystery here.

Water is hydrogen ash, no mystery there either. As with rechargable batteries, the reaction is reversable, but there are always losses. They are well understood and quantified.

#### beenthere

Joined Apr 20, 2004
15,819
Fifth law of thermodynamics? The site makes it to be -
5th Law: "An open system containing a large mixture of similar automatons, placed in contact with a non-equilibriated environment, has a finite probability of supporting the spontaneous generation and growth of self constructing machines of unlimited complexity."
That is not thermodynamics, it is just the old infinite number of monkeys restated. You may recall that the "original" statement was that, as an illustration of infinity and probability, the works of Shakespeare could be recreated completely by chance simply by situating an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters. At least one monkey would duplicate Shakespeare by purely random typing.

Sadly, infinities are more mathematical concepts than real. Thus, any real-world event that depends on some infinite number of states to come into being is really no different from magic.

Magic is: because I think it should be possible, it must therefore be possible. All I need do is wish and it will be so.

Last edited:

#### Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,070
h2opower,

I was afraid you would answer my question the way you did. I asked you where this hidden energy was stored. You answered by explaining how you could/would release it. Can you give me a succinct answer as to where this energy is? Inquiring minds besides myself want to know.

Ratch

#### h2opower

Joined Aug 30, 2009
45
h2opower,

I was afraid you would answer my question the way you did. I asked you where this hidden energy was stored. You answered by explaining how you could/would release it. Can you give me a succinct answer as to where this energy is? Inquiring minds besides myself want to know.

Ratch
Wow, I had to look that word up, "succinct." But to be quite frank I am not sure what you are asking about hidden energy being stored someplace. For me I don't see anything hidden, ionized oxygen atoms have more energy content than O2 or ground state oxygen atoms. The ionized oxygen atoms have a short life around .74 seconds, but that is plenty of time when the gas speeds inside of the intake system of a car is around 32ft/sec at idle to get the ionized oxygen atoms in the combustion chamber for the reaction before they decay back to the ground state.

The job of the electron extraction circuit is to consume any electrons that where stripped off so they can not stablelize the ionized atoms on their way to the combustion chamber. The EEC is a screen mesh placed just after the GP, it is pulsed with a positive field, and the negetive electrons complete the circuit thus lighting the bulb. For the EEC is just a screen hanging inline of the air stream just after the GP, it is not grounded to anything. I guess I can get back to you on this one when I get the circuit built and put an amp meter between the bulb and the mesh screen, and also check the voltage.

I am sorry I don't seem to be able to answer your question, but I will put it on the back burner to be answered latter if I find the answer to your question, okay?

#### Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,070
h2opower,

For me I don't see anything hidden, ionized oxygen atoms have more energy content than O2 or ground state oxygen atoms.
It is going to require energy to ionize those O2 atoms.

The job of the electron extraction circuit is to consume any electrons that where stripped off so they can not stablelize the ionized atoms on their way to the combustion chamber.
Once the electrons are "stripped" off the ionized O2 atoms, the O2 is not ionized any more. So it appears to be a exercise in ionizing and deionizing O2. I don't see any energy boost from doing that.

I am sorry I don't seem to be able to answer your question, but I will put it on the back burner to be answered latter if I find the answer to your question, okay?

Ratch

#### hugtug

Joined Sep 8, 2009
5
h2opower doesn't understand basic electronics and for whatever reason Stan Meyer didn't either. Or he understood electronics partially but not fully. I have some faith Stan actually had a working device, similar to how an Atheist still has some faith that there is a almighty personal God.. but almost zero percent.

Electrons are not consumed in a light bulb in the electron extraction circuit. Electrons hit the light bulb and slow down like how they hit a resistor. The electrons are not burnt off or extracted in the lightbulb.

Stan either purposely lied about the electrons being "consumed", or he didn't understand what was going on, or he found a way to get the electrons placed elsewhere (in earth ground, or in the engine metal). They are not burnt off by a light bulb as we would burn wood in a fire.

If people understood basic electronics it would help a lot.

I don't even have electronics education myself, and it was still easy for me to find out that light bulbs do not burn off electrons.

#### hugtug

Joined Sep 8, 2009
5
h2opower,
Once the electrons are "stripped" off the ionized O2 atoms, the O2 is not ionized any more. So it appears to be a exercise in ionizing and deionizing O2. I don't see any energy boost from doing that.
When electrons are stripped it increases the energy level of oxygen atom because they are unstable and looking to latch on to other stuff. Problem is that it takes energy to pop electrons off the oxygen. Supposedly the magic energy comes from an electron cascade effect, or from "God".

Unstable oxygen atoms (not really atoms) are looking for other electrons. What happens when you light this unstable atom on fire. Supposedly a powerful fuel.

Mass is also reduced, and a mass reduction equals unstable energy (as in the atomic bomb).. E equals MC squared.

The problem is that the electrons that were "stripped" have to go somewhere, and it takes energy to pop electrons off (strip them). In Stan's circuit he claims the electrons are "consumed" which is bullshoot. Electrons are not burnt off in a light bulb. They are attracted to other unstable places but they are not burnt off. Light bulbs just resist the flow and slow down the movement of the electron vibration/current flow.

Maybe somehow the electrons go to the engine metal or earth ground, or the clouds, or the air (electrons floating in the air, an "electron exhaust"). But that is a crackpot hypothesis that I just came up with because I have no proof or way of explaining Stan meyer. And that's the problem: people try to fill in the blanks because Stan didn't explain his device thoroughly in an understandable manner at all.

Again, I have a slim faith that somehow Stan was able to move the electrons elsewhere (probably not "Burn them off"), but... my faith in stan is not so great. My faith isn't great because of Stan's big mistake in his patent where he says electrons are consumed. Electrons are not magically eaten up by a light bulb, only a child would think so. Then again maybe he found a way to "Burn off electrons" but if so he didn't explain it anywhere so Occam's Razor applies: he meant that the electrons went elsewhere (where is the question), or he didn't understand what he was talking about and was just making sh*t up as he went.

Last edited:

#### beenthere

Joined Apr 20, 2004
15,819
Our point is, has been, and will be that there is no slightest bit of science in Stan Meyer's writings. The crud presently shown off as being related to Stan's circuits are even worse, as they are obviously unable to produce results in any way like those claimed by the patents.

Ionizing an atom makes it more likely to react chemically. Having removed a shell electron or three does not mean that reaction will be more energetic. Work was done to strip off the electrons. That energy is not completely made up by the resulting reaction -
When electrons are stripped it increases the energy level of oxygen atom because they are unstable and looking to latch on to other stuff. Problem is that it takes energy to pop electrons off the oxygen. Supposedly the magic energy comes from an electron cascade effect, or from "God".
Prayer would be more likely to help than using any of Meyer's devices.

Last edited:

#### Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,070
hugtug,

The net current through the filament of a light bulb has to be the same as the net current through the wires, otherwise the charge carriers wouild bunch up, which they don't. The charge carriers lose energy when they pass through a resistor, because they transfer their energy to the ionic cores of the resistor atoms and make them vibrate faster. This raises the resistor temperature and dissipates heat as lost energy. Since voltage is energy density per charge, voltage also drops across a resistor since the same number of charge carriers has less energy after going through a resistor.

Ratch

#### hugtug

Joined Sep 8, 2009
5
Ionizing an atom makes it more likely to react chemically. Having removed a shell electron or three does not mean that reaction will be more energetic.
It is a free radical and they tend to be more.... violent, reactive, ... capable of causing disruption, and possibly some kind of dangerous release of energy like lightning. Problem is, lightning gets energy from the sun.. the wind moving the clouds (wind from sun) so as you say it takes more energy than you get. This is what people have been trying to tell h2opower for several weeks now, but he doesn't listen much since he has a lot of faith in Stan.

Work was done to strip off the electrons. That energy is not completely made up by the resulting reaction - Prayer would be more likely to help than using any of Meyer's devices.
That's been my view for several years, but I still have 0.0001 percent hope.

#### hugtug

Joined Sep 8, 2009
5
hugtug,

The net current through the filament of a light bulb has to be the same as the net current through the wires, otherwise the charge carriers wouild bunch up, which they don't. The charge carriers lose energy when they pass through a resistor, because they transfer their energy to the ionic cores of the resistor atoms and make them vibrate faster. This raises the resistor temperature and dissipates heat as lost energy. Since voltage is energy density per charge, voltage also drops across a resistor since the same number of charge carriers has less energy after going through a resistor.

Ratch
Yes.

Energy is consumed, not electron particles with a mass.

Mass (electrons) are not destroyed in the light bulb.

h2opower and others seem to think that a light bulb "burns off electrons" instead of the light bulb simply using some energy.

The goal of the Stan Meyer electron extraction circuit is to get rid of the electrons so that the oxygen atoms are now unstable, missing electrons. I don't think it's possible to destroy electrons in a light bulb, because there are none on the market that do that. It's possible Stan meant something else when he mentioned consumption, such as the electrons going to some other place (wherever that is), but he doesn't explain where. Stan says that "electrons are consumed" by the light bulb. A big error. Electrons are not eaten up or destroyed.

His circuit is closed at the other end in the same place it began: the gas processor (gas resonant cavity). I don't see where these electrons would "disappear" or be "consumed" after the light bulb in the circuit below. All I see is a light bulb consuming some energy (NOT electrons!).

The circuit is here:
http://www.esmhome.org/library/stan-meyer/eec.jpg

So, the idea of "electron extraction" doesn't make any sense. Where would the electrons disappear to, unless he found some way to put them in the air, the engine metal, the gas cavity metal, or send them to earth ground. Looks like the electrons just end up in a closed circle, they are not "extracted" from what I see. Are they bunched up in coils, are they bunched up in the gas resonant cavity metal.. where do they go to... Stan doesn't explain any of it.

Here's a crackpot theory of mine: Stan is simply extracting energy from the electrons in oxygen, and then sending them back to where they came from: oxygen. This slows the electrons in oxygen down, and makes oxygen cooler in temperature (or something). It breaks the current laws of thermodynamics, as we are not supposed to be able to extract heat from our surroundings unless there is energy added (i.e. how refridgerators work).

The energy would be coming from the laser lights or the L.E.D.'s anyway. So if you knocked some electrons loose with l.e.d.'s or lasers, and those electrons bopped into the circuit with the coils and the light bulb and the diodes, could you extract any energy or would you simply be using up the energy you added with the lasers and l.e.d's? Normally a scientist would immediately say "of course you can't extract energy due to the laws of...". However do think about it carefully in case Stan was on to something. There is 0.00001 percent hope that his circuit actually did something novel. For example was his circuit actually a way to take energy from electrons in atoms, then send those electrons back to their original positions in the atoms ( or place them elsewhere, but I don't know where... that's the problem with Stan's circuit).

One question would be: what reason does the electron have to move through the circuit? Why is it attracted into the circuit and bopped out the other end after going through the light bulb? And would the answer be: the positive end of the circuit is unstable oxygen atom which is missing electrons.. which leads me to a depressing thought that the energy added by the l.e.d.'s and lasers is all you'll get out of the circuit anyway. Unless there is some other activity going on that I missed.

The purpose of the electron extraction circuit is unclear. Is it rather an electron energy extraction circuit, if that's even possible, to reduce the energy of an electron that was previously in an atom? Or does it take electrons and move them from one gas to another (strip from oxygen, and expel it into the air.. ionizing and cleaning up our air.. but for what reason would the electron move through the circuit if it's not attracted to another gas? ANd Stan didn't say anything about where the electrons eventually ended up, so.. that's my biggest gripe.)

Last edited:

#### beenthere

Joined Apr 20, 2004
15,819
With respect, this is becoming very like an attempt at a dialog to draw us (or me) into some sort of agreement that there is some substance to Stan Meyer's work. This is not the case. Nothing the man ever published was anything but a scam. The bafflegab used in his patents and "memos" is designed to conceal the fact that there is really nothing there.

The circuit fragment you posted up is a good indication of this. Most of the terminology is simply bizarre. It makes no sense, but by design. That nobody can understand it may make it appear that Meyer was a real genius, and so is not constrained to using sensible terminology. His device operates on such different principles that he has to use the language oddly to be able to express himself.

Then he goes and blows it by never assigning a component value to anything. Or by explaining the circuit operation in magical terms. There is certainly no electronics there.

I might agree with part of your statement -
However do think about it carefully in case Stan was on to something. There is 0.00001 percent hope that his circuit actually did something novel. For example was his circuit actually a way to take energy from electrons in atoms, then send those electrons back to their original positions in the atoms, electrons now drained of energy, and therefore cooling the atom down or something like that.
- but not that Meyer actually has discovered some previously unknown facet of chemistry and physics.

Quite simply, Meyer was onto greed. He knew that people wanted to be able to save money they were spending on gasoline. He cooked up a scam to part the credulous and some of their money. That is the sum and total of Meyer's contribution to human knowledge - a further proof of P. T. Barnum's observation that "there's one born every minute".

Let me ask you about some expansion on part of the above -
For example was his circuit actually a way to take energy from electrons in atoms, then send those electrons back to their original positions in the atoms, electrons now drained of energy, and therefore cooling the atom down or something like that.
Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you have some conception of how one may "take energy from electrons", or "send those electrons back to their original positions in the atoms"? I find no meaning whatsoever in that thought. What is that energy, how is it liberated from any electron, how does one determine which atom of what substance to return the electron to? Why is it at all important to do so?

There is a 100% probability that Meyer and anybody who touts his stuff is a scam artist. I assure you that I have thought about this quite carefully.

#### hugtug

Joined Sep 8, 2009
5
Quote from Stan Meyer

"
[SIZE=+1]Hydrogen Gas Gun[/SIZE]
The Electron Extraction Circuit removes, captures, and consumes the "dislodged" eelctrons (from the gas atoms) to cause the gas atoms to go into and reach "Critical State", forming highly energized combustiblegas atoms having missing electrons. Resistive values (R4, R6, R7) and dielectric constant of gas (Rg) and isolated ground (W) prevents "electron-flow" or "electron deflection" from occurring within the circuit during pulsing operations (at resonant frequency) and, therefore, keeps the gas atoms in critical state by not allowing electron replacement to occur or take place between the moving gas atoms. The "dislodged" negative charged electrons are "destroyed" or "consumed" in the form of heat when Amp Consuming Device (S) such as a light bulb) is positively electrically energized during alternate pulsing operations."

This is what makes no sense. He claims the electrons are destroyed. Therefore he is saying that the electrons are actually being lost entirely, matter is being destroyed. E=mc2

Essentially he is saying he's figured out a way to turn a light bulb into a matter destroying device.. because the electrons have no where to go and can only decay into nothing.

Normally light bulbs do not destroy electrons. Does his novel circuit cause the electrons to decay and disappear. Even if he had figured out a way to destroy electrons, would this damage our lakes, oceans, and drinking water. At one point stan later claimed we'd need to recharge the water exhaust by the Sun, so I guess he thought that somehow photons could produce the electrons he previously destroyed.

Electron decay:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312325

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

#### beenthere

Joined Apr 20, 2004
15,819
I told you and everybody else that Meyer was a scam artist.

What is your motivation for pursuing this subject? This is not about to turn into some dialog, I assure you.

#### h2opower

Joined Aug 30, 2009
45
It is simular to this in opperation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQvXrxrqshk except the air is moving through the camber at 32ft./sec. or more as the RPMs raise. This set-up is missing the LED's and EEC screen mesh grid. But it is showing the basic's of the Gas Processor, thought everyone here would have figured that one out by now

#### beenthere

Joined Apr 20, 2004
15,819
You apparently don't get it. All science can do is say that Stanley Meyer was a liar and scam artist. Science can't explain Meyer's circuits, as they do not and never were intended to work.

Indeed, we have figured it out -
Quite simply, Meyer was onto greed. He knew that people wanted to be able to save money they were spending on gasoline. He cooked up a scam to part the credulous and some of their money. That is the sum and total of Meyer's contribution to human knowledge - a further proof of P. T. Barnum's observation that "there's one born every minute".

Status
Not open for further replies.