Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
Another perfect example of hypocrisy-
No quotes. See, you do the same thing as everyone does - we copy and paste. If the quotes are in the original article, then they're in the post.
And to think a guy that doesn't know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE trying to give grammar/plagarism lessons...
LMAO...
This is not the first time an invention of such extraordinary level has been claimed. Look at how many times people have claimed turning water into gasoline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_pill
It wouldn't surprise me that this one also turns out to be a fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_pill
It wouldn't surprise me that this one also turns out to be a fraud.
Quote from Haroki:
And why's that?
Achilles is a troll - go back and review the posts...
Turok makes a joke about Meyers getting poisoned in a way that recalls the way that Russian guy in England getting radiation poisoning a while back, and also clearly refers to the fact that these numbskulls find a conspiracy theory in everything they find. He also refers to the fact that some of these dummies actually post the totally insane belief - jokingly or not, it's hard to tell with these moonbats - that they think that there's some kind of disinformation campaign being run by the "bigoil/central bankers cartel" to disseminate counter information - and that I'm one of them. Ridiculous....
Anyways, I find it funny and make a post referring to these goofballs - never referring to anyone by name, since Turok and I have had these joke exchanges before, and MOST IMPORTANTLY cuz I wanted to read along and see what the thread was all about and see if there's anything to it, and I didn't want to disrupt the thread. It's an interesting subject.
But Achilles, in his trollish zeal, and cuz he's feeling like I'm calling HIM a CT'er - which I didn't - and because of my comment to Turok, he goes on the attack and makes a derogatory post about me personally. And so, I find him about as useful as tits on a boar hog, and make it known. And for this I'm supposed to be the bad guy?
The real issue here is that libby libs don't really have an interest in making THINGS better. They have an interest in making THEMSELVES feel better by being for all these alternative ways of doing things because on the surface, they seem to be like a good idea. And so, they can get some respect and praise from others that make them FEEL better about themselves, since they're carrying around so much guilt. But upon deeper inspection - like your very correct posts about how there's no free lunch, energy wise, they are exposed as frauds. And when that happens, we see the kind of preemptive post against me like the one the Achilles made cuz he's clearly afraid of facing the possibility that I might call him on this. He was wrong, but in the minds of these guilt ridden idiots, they need to go on the offensive to preempt any questions that might crop up.
But anyways - your posts are the more accurate ones - there's no free lunch as far as energy is concerned. For example, electric cars ARE doable, but it trades one problem - pollution/the political ramifications of relying on oil for another. Namely how do we produce MORE electricity to run these electric cars? Gas turbines produce pollution, and rely on oil, so that's out. Hydroelectric is a great way, but the tree huggers won't let us build more dams. Same with nuclear - tree huggers. Wind - too iffy, never consistent. Tidal - maybe doable, but on the scale neede to make a significant impact on energy needs, might have an impact on the coastal ecology.
And as far as HHO goes, I still have no clear data on either side. It looks like it takes more energy for the electrolysis than the gas gives back.
So, let's call a truce, eh? You guys discuss this all you want. I'll leave you alone. We wouldn't want to see Achilles cry....
Feel better to get that off your chest, Big Guy?
For someone who doesn't even register on Haroki's radar, I seemed to draw quite a reaction. Haven't I?
Everyone can see right through your thinly-veiled, pious bullshit.
After crowning yourself champion of 'good character' and 'fair play', you turn around and spew slanderous lies and contemptuous innuendo every step of the way.
Until today, I respected you as someone who sought the truth and played fair.
I was wrong.
If the results of your haphazard psychoanalysis prove anything - its that you're full of shit.
You haven't a clue about me.
But thanks for showing YOUR true colors.
Bye Forest.
Back On Topic.
Sorry about that guys.
Sorry about that guys.
Everyone can see what an ass you've made of yourself.
Please, please go away.
Find another thread to spam with your asinine rants.
Okay. Now back on Topic.....
It already has:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell
"In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by investors to
whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do
business in Water Fuel Cell technology. According to The
Times, Meyer claimed in court that his invention "opened
the way for a car which would 'run on water', powered
simply by a car battery." The car would even run perpetually
without fuel since the energy needed to continue the
"fracturing" was low enough for the engine's dynamo to
recharge the car's battery. His car was due to be examined
by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical
Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of
the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what
Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of
examination and did not allow the test to proceed. The Water
Fuel Cell, on the other hand, was examined by three expert
witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing
revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using
conventional electrolysis".
On the basis of the evidence the court found Meyer guilty
of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the
investors their $25,000."
Uhhh...No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell
"Stanley Meyer died at the age of 57 after eating at a
restaurant on 21 March 1998. An autopsy
report by Franklin County coroner William R. Adrion showed
the cause of death to be a cerebral aneurysm"
Except! Several UK Scientist and the US Patent Board previously found Meyers had developed something revolutionary:
"In a demonstration made before Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of Engineering at Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr Keith Hindley, a UK research chemist. Meyer's cell, developed at the inventor's home in Grove City, Ohio, produced far more hydrogen/oxygen mixture than could have been expected by simple electrolysis...
"After hours of discussion between ourselves, we concluded that Stan Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method for splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical electrolysis. Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established."
"The basic WFC was subjected to three years of testing. This raises the granted patents to the level of independent, critical, scientific and engineering confirmation that the devices actually perform as claimed."
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/paulkemble/stan4.html
At best, its inconclusive based on independent testing. Not as cut and dried as you position it. Not at all.
As far as his death comment, that was already corrected in earlier in the thread.
"In a demonstration made before Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of Engineering at Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr Keith Hindley, a UK research chemist. Meyer's cell, developed at the inventor's home in Grove City, Ohio, produced far more hydrogen/oxygen mixture than could have been expected by simple electrolysis...
"After hours of discussion between ourselves, we concluded that Stan Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method for splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical electrolysis. Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established."
"The basic WFC was subjected to three years of testing. This raises the granted patents to the level of independent, critical, scientific and engineering confirmation that the devices actually perform as claimed."
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/paulkemble/stan4.html
At best, its inconclusive based on independent testing. Not as cut and dried as you position it. Not at all.
As far as his death comment, that was already corrected in earlier in the thread.