Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A2:
>At best, its inconclusive based on independent testing.
>Not as cut and dried as you position it. Not at all.

Only if you count "some guy's" website or an un-credentialed/referenced magazine article author as equal weight against experts under oath in a court of law.

Let's let a court scrutinize "some guy's" credentials and if approved let's put him under oath and hear what he has to say. Until then he's "some guy" with a website.


>As far as his death comment, that was already corrected in
>earlier in the thread.

Would you mind referencing the post where this was corrected?
Thanks.

JB
 
Quote from Turok:


Only if you count "some guy's" website or an un-credentialed/referenced magazine article author as equal weight against experts under oath in a court of law.
More...

A graphic copy of the magazine article is referenced here:

http://www.angelfire.com/sd/paulkemble/stan4.html


Are you accusing Wireless World of libel? And printing false testimony on behalf of prominent individuals?????

Seems a little far fetched, doesn't it?



Quote from Turok:

Let's let a court scrutinize "some guy's" credentials and if approved let's put him under oath and hear what he has to say. Until then he's "some guy" with a website.
More...

Its in the article, genius.
 
A2:
>Are you accusing Wireless World of libel? ...

Perhaps you should check the definition of "libel". LOL And to answer your question directly, "no, I am not accusing Wireless World of libel".

...>And printing false testimony on
>behalf of prominent individuals?????

Uhhh...on behalf of what "prominent individuals"?

>Seems a little far fetched, doesn't it?

What seems far fetched to me is believing that a magazine article carries the same weight as statements by credentialed individuals under oath.

>Its in the article, genius.

Uhhh... What's in the article?

JB
 
Quote from achilles28:

Obviously I'm not one of them.

So go look for it.
More...

achilles28
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 1058

09-11-07 08:40 PM

After performing a demonstration for the Queen of England and some Military Heavyweights - who agreed he had unlocked H20 free energy - the guy was killed at his inaugural dinner for a American Research Facility in his honor.

Food poisoning.


achilles28
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 1058

09-12-07 08:23 AM

Stan died of apparent food poisoning at 57. The time and place is disputed.

So this is supposed to be a "correction"?

What a friggin liar......
 
Quote from achilles28:

Feel better to get that off your chest, Big Guy? :D


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. :)
More...

I guess you missed the fact that this post was to Madison, not you.

Ok, so you disagree with my opinion about why you would make a derogatory post towards my Copy/Paste jobs that I'm supposedly "famous" for. Fine.

Care to explain why then?








Crickets chirping.....
 
Quote from achilles28:

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
More...

Well, I'll just say this - it looks like he may have had a "novel way" of electrolysis. The patents prove this. The lawsuit against him say that his claims about "free energy" were false, however.

Towards the end of the article it mentions some concerns about whether or not it actually produces more power than it consumes. It says that these questions remain unanswered. Maybe due to patent laws? Or is he just another hoax inventor?

I'm sure that others, by now, have built more of these WFC's. Has anyone ever published the data? It would be VERY easy to prove as a workable system if it was true.

So, any data?
 
Seems to me all he is doing is converting the energy stored in the water as hydrogen. That takes energy, so how can it be a net gain in output? I would like to see some data on energy expended and the output.


PS Homerun, thanks for posting this. I find it very interesting, just don't understand how it could be economically feasible.

PPS. You're right about electric engines being powerful. Afterall that's what locomotives use.
 
Quote from Turok:

A2:
>Are you accusing Wireless World of libel? ...

Perhaps you should check the definition of "libel". LOL And to answer your question directly, "no, I am not accusing Wireless World of libel".

...>And printing false testimony on
>behalf of prominent individuals?????

Uhhh...on behalf of what "prominent individuals"?

>Seems a little far fetched, doesn't it?

What seems far fetched to me is believing that a magazine article carries the same weight as statements by credentialed individuals under oath.

>Its in the article, genius.

Uhhh... What's in the article?

JB
More...


Play stupid all you want. The article is right there in black-and-white for all to see.

http://www.angelfire.com/sd/paulkemble/stan4.html
 
Quote from Haroki:


Stan died of apparent food poisoning at 57. The time and place is disputed.

So this is supposed to be a "correction"?

What a friggin liar......
More...


The facts surrounding Stan Meyers death are contested. Prove it otherwise (you won't).

My correction came Long Before your pathetic ass began whining about it. Why? Because I avoid posting rumor and innuendo (and correct myself if done so).

If you had actually read the post, it was prefaced with an admission of bad memory. Not surprisingly, you left that key bit of info out.

Backpedaling on that Page#7 hissy fit was the smartest thing you could have done. Frankly, it was embarrassing. Between your pseudo Freudian guesswork and pansy ass attempts at redemption, you look like a tired little fool trying to make good on hot air and empty hubris. Others have noted this.

Your spam jobs are a matter of public record (use the search function). Yes, in-the-not-so-long-ago past, you routinely passed off the work of others as your own rants. Again, not surprising given the quality of character demonstrated here.

If you haven't anything constructive to contribute, then myself and others would be most happy if you kept quiet.

I'm giving you the last word. Feel free to start a new thread defaming all you like.

See ya
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top