Radio Frequencies Help Burn Salt Water: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Forget the conspiracy about his death. Stan Meyer IS the conspiracy.

A little reading on his notes revealed that his "invention" is truly a fraud. He claimed that he had found the resonance frequency of the water molecule. Guess what? That's how microwave oven works!

As for energy "stored" in the H2O molecule, there is no such a thing. To cleave both bonds in H-O-H you need about 918 kJ/mol (kilojoules per mole). This will break H2O into 2 H atoms and one O atom. Then H atoms will pair up into the lower energy H2 molecules, and O atoms will pair up into the lower energy O2 molecules, the extra energy dissipating into heat. Then when you burn H2 and O2 back into water, the energy available is now the heat of combustion for H2+0.5O2, about 286 kJ/mol. In other words, of the original 918 kJ/mol energy put in to break the H-O bonds in water, only 286 kJ/mol is released during the burning of H2. The rest have all dissipated before the burning stage.

Why go through all this trouble and waste 70% of the energy? It would be much easier and more efficient by simply using the battery to drive the car instead of using it to break up water and burn water to drive the car.
 
An exchange with A28 in a recent series of posts.

achilles28:
>Food poisoning.

Me:
>Uhhh...No.
>An autopsy report by Franklin County coroner
>William R. Adrion showed the cause of death
>to be a cerebral aneurysm

achilles28:
>As far as his death comment, that was already corrected in
>earlier in the thread.

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

achilles28:
>Its in the article, genius.

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

Me:
>Uhhh... What's in the article?

achilles28:
>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


OK "Genius". Explain to me where in this article that was written in 1991, it references Stanley's death which happened in 1998.

You claim an "earlier correction", but in truth you NEVER corrected it. Now you are trying to say it was corrected 7 years before it happened. ROFLAO.

Moron.

JB
 
Quote from achilles28:

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
More...

LMAO !! What a putz!!!!

1-Stan Meyer was killed by a brain aneurysm, as reported by a coroner. The only dispute is from the tin foil hatterz, who say he was poisoned. Is this your ( not you're) idea of intelligent reasoning?

2- Your pathetic attempt at lying about your "correction" is noted. Read what you wrote again - you said " Stan died of apparent food poisoning at age 57. The time and place is disputed." What? To say that he died of apparent food poisoning is HARDLY an admission that the cause of his death is disputed. Weak....

3- Your "bad memory" is clearly in reference to the fact that you were unsure about who he met with in England without checking your source. Who cares if you remember or not, it was already in the article. But how much of a loser ARE you to try and use this as an excuse about how you "forgot" that there was some dispute about the circumstances of Stan's death? This about as low as one can get, and the mark of someone who knows he's a loser and trying to cover his ass with bullshit.

4- Ha ha - backpedaling? Hell no, I'm NOT beckpedaling, I'm merely giving you the oppurtunity to explain yourself. If anything, I think you're (not your) a sicker individual than I've even put down here in this thread. So I'll ask again - since I was supposedly so wrong about your motivation for posting a preemptive smear job, why don't you set the record straight then?

5- Spam? LMAO !! So, what was your first post in the thread? Can we call that a spam job too? Look at your posts - how many of them have quotes from your angelfire website. I guess we should call this spam also. And where do I claim that the work of others is my own? I usually give the links, but sometimes I forget. Who cares? Are you truly pinning your argument on this? You must be a truly pathetic moron to get your knickers ina twist about this. I guess we should all give you the grammar police title from here on.

6- constructive - how about my last post yesterday, could that be considered constructive? In it I said that indeed, it appeared that Stan may have figured out a way to split water using less power than other previous methods. So I gave him props for that. But his car has never been examined - that's where the "lame excuse" quote came from. The Brits looked at his WFC and thought it was good - they said this. But when they wanted to see his car run, Stan backed out and gave his "lame excuse". But if it really does work, others would be able to give specs on it, such as how many watts go in to split the water up, how much HHO comes out, and how much work can this amount of HHO do. Very simple things to figure out, and I asked if anyone has any data.

You should go to the Wiki discussion page and read some of the very interesting posts there for both Stan's deal and for the water fuel car. Due to the inefficencies of a typical car, it seems as if the WFC would have to consume only 10-15% energy as it releases.

Pretty far fetched, but a cool idea....
 
Quote from Turok:

An exchange with A28 in a recent series of posts.

achilles28:
>Food poisoning..... Now you are trying to say it was corrected 7 years before it happened. ROFLAO.

Moron.

JB
More...


WHOOOOOSH!
 
Quote from Haroki:

LMAO !! What a putz!!!!

1-Stan Meyer was killed by a brain aneurysm, as reported by a coroner. The only dispute is from the tin foil hatterz, who say he was poisoned. Is this your ( not you're) idea of intelligent reasoning?

2- Your pathetic attempt at lying about your "correction" is noted. Read what you wrote again - you said " Stan died of apparent food poisoning at age 57. The time and place is disputed." What? To say that he died of apparent food poisoning is HARDLY an admission that the cause of his death is disputed. Weak....

3- Your "bad memory" is clearly in reference to the fact that you were unsure about who he met with in England without checking your source. Who cares if you remember or not, it was already in the article. But how much of a loser ARE you to try and use this as an excuse about how you "forgot" that there was some dispute about the circumstances of Stan's death? This about as low as one can get, and the mark of someone who knows he's a loser and trying to cover his ass with bullshit.

4- Ha ha - backpedaling? Hell no, I'm NOT beckpedaling, I'm merely giving you the oppurtunity to explain yourself. If anything, I think you're (not your) a sicker individual than I've even put down here in this thread. So I'll ask again - since I was supposedly so wrong about your motivation for posting a preemptive smear job, why don't you set the record straight then?

5- Spam? LMAO !! So, what was your first post in the thread? Can we call that a spam job too? Look at your posts - how many of them have quotes from your angelfire website. I guess we should call this spam also. And where do I claim that the work of others is my own? I usually give the links, but sometimes I forget. Who cares? Are you truly pinning your argument on this? You must be a truly pathetic moron to get your knickers ina twist about this. I guess we should all give you the grammar police title from here on.

6- constructive - how about my last post yesterday, could that be considered constructive? In it I said that indeed, it appeared that Stan may have figured out a way to split water using less power than other previous methods. So I gave him props for that. But his car has never been examined - that's where the "lame excuse" quote came from. The Brits looked at his WFC and thought it was good - they said this. But when they wanted to see his car run, Stan backed out and gave his "lame excuse". But if it really does work, others would be able to give specs on it, such as how many watts go in to split the water up, how much HHO comes out, and how much work can this amount of HHO do. Very simple things to figure out, and I asked if anyone has any data.

You should go to the Wiki discussion page and read some of the very interesting posts there for both Stan's deal and for the water fuel car. Due to the inefficencies of a typical car, it seems as if the WFC would have to consume only 10-15% energy as it releases.

Pretty far fetched, but a cool idea....
More...


Some of us have discernment, Haroki.

Cry and sling shit as much as you like.

I am not lying. And yes, his death IS disputed by family and friends. Look it up.

Whining about a 'call out' that-never-was just shows how big of a pussy you really are.

Your juvenile tirades just underscore the obvious.

Go grind that axe somewhere else, m'kay?
 
Quote from achilles28:

Some of us have discernment, Haroki.

Cry and sling shit as much as you like.

I am not lying. And yes, his death IS disputed by family and friends. Look it up.

Whining about a 'call out' that-never-was just shows how big of a pussy you really are.

Your juvenile tirades just underscore the obvious.

Go grind that axe somewhere else, m'kay?
More...

What a coward you are. We've all discerned THAT.

Just cuz I don't back down and say what I think about your sick self, you use it as a way to avoid answering q's about the validity of Meyer's water car.

Let's just see how the moonbat's mind works -

1- you assert he was killed. What makes you believe that? Cuz his car works.
2- the coroner's report says otherwise. What makes you belive that is wrong? Cuz his family and friends say he was poisoned.
3- His car was never inspected by an independent lab. What makes you think his car actually worked? Cuz the Brits said his fuel cell was a great invention, and so we should listen to what they have to say.
4- but they also said that he didn't let them inspect his car and gave some lame excuse why. Why don't you believe them? The Brits are a-holes and we shouldn't listen to them.
5- but every inventor that said that their car worked has been proven to be a hoax. How can you still believe in this? Cuz big oil suppresses it.
6- So why do you still believe his car worked as claimed? Cuz he was killed......


This is a perfext example of moonbat circular logic. If you don't see this, then either the dumbest SOB here, or a monumental liar.

But all that's really not for you to be concerned with-just ignore it.

Instead, how about some answers to my previous post?

6- constructive - how about my last post yesterday, could that be considered constructive? In it I said that indeed, it appeared that Stan may have figured out a way to split water using less power than other previous methods. So I gave him props for that. But his car has never been examined - that's where the "lame excuse" quote came from. The Brits looked at his WFC and thought it was good - they said this. But when they wanted to see his car run, Stan backed out and gave his "lame excuse". But if it really does work, others would be able to give specs on it, such as how many watts go in to split the water up, how much HHO comes out, and how much work can this amount of HHO do. Very simple things to figure out, and I asked if anyone has any data.

You should go to the Wiki discussion page and read some of the very interesting posts there for both Stan's deal and for the water fuel car. Due to the inefficencies of a typical car, it seems as if the WFC would have to consume only 10-15% energy as it releases.

Pretty far fetched, but a cool idea....

Anything to say?
 
Ive got something to say-how did this thread turn into a slanging match about a man and his invention, that likely has no particular relevance to this guys , current invention?

So what if meyer was a kook/genius, and he was /wasn't murdered, kinda off topic dont you think?
 
Quote from achilles28:

Neither do I. But it certainly is exciting :)

There was an American gentlemen back in the 70's who received a lot of press - apparently he discovered a way to split water using high energy pulses that produced more than injected (= free energy).

There are news clips floating around the net of him driving his dune buggy on water!

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.

And jet engines are most advanced propulsion systems humans have developed in 60 years. Nothings changed since since the end of WW2?!?!?

Don't think so.


Anyhow, this discovery and the American guys sound very similar. Interesting indeed.
More...

Acro - this was the 4th post in the thread

Goes to show that A28 is a psycho
 
"We've all discerned THAT."

Another klown speaking as if she was appointed by the "we" collective as spokeswoman...

Quote from Haroqueen:

What a coward you are. We've all discerned THAT.

Just cuz I don't back down and say what I think about your sick self, you use it as a way to avoid answering q's about the validity of Meyer's water car.

Let's just see how the moonbat's mind works -

1- you assert he was killed. What makes you believe that? Cuz his car works.
2- the coroner's report says otherwise. What makes you belive that is wrong? Cuz his family and friends say he was poisoned.
3- His car was never inspected by an independent lab. What makes you think his car actually worked? Cuz the Brits said his fuel cell was a great invention, and so we should listen to what they have to say.
4- but they also said that he didn't let them inspect his car and gave some lame excuse why. Why don't you believe them? The Brits are a-holes and we shouldn't listen to them.
5- but every inventor that said that their car worked has been proven to be a hoax. How can you still believe in this? Cuz big oil suppresses it.
6- So why do you still believe his car worked as claimed? Cuz he was killed......


This is a perfext example of moonbat circular logic. If you don't see this, then either the dumbest SOB here, or a monumental liar.

But all that's really not for you to be concerned with-just ignore it.

Instead, how about some answers to my previous post?

6- constructive - how about my last post yesterday, could that be considered constructive? In it I said that indeed, it appeared that Stan may have figured out a way to split water using less power than other previous methods. So I gave him props for that. But his car has never been examined - that's where the "lame excuse" quote came from. The Brits looked at his WFC and thought it was good - they said this. But when they wanted to see his car run, Stan backed out and gave his "lame excuse". But if it really does work, others would be able to give specs on it, such as how many watts go in to split the water up, how much HHO comes out, and how much work can this amount of HHO do. Very simple things to figure out, and I asked if anyone has any data.

You should go to the Wiki discussion page and read some of the very interesting posts there for both Stan's deal and for the water fuel car. Due to the inefficencies of a typical car, it seems as if the WFC would have to consume only 10-15% energy as it releases.

Pretty far fetched, but a cool idea....

Anything to say?
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top