Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 01:56 AM

...
Btw, is this (attached) the Steve Meyer patent you're talking about?

yes.

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 01:56 AM

To just blindly write scam without offering any substantial explanation is just nonsense and should be ignored.

Yes granted, but this applies equally in the opposite respect. To blindly accept what is said and written by either of the Meyer brothers - or anyone else for that matter, myself included - is foolhardy to say the least.  And you have to take into consideration that the plethora of blatant errors in their science and electronics indeed creates concerns over their credibility. So, to the unbiased, clear-minded, the reality of it is that there is more than enough reasonable doubt to at least suggest the possibility of a scam.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 27th, 2013, 01:34 AM

One other thing that came out of the interview, was that Stephen categorically stated that Stan was using tap water in his WFCs. So at least that issue can be finally put to bed.

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 01:56 AM

In his dune buggy clip he lists just about any form of water, although IMO he insinuates that it has to be desalinated, filtered and deionised prior to entering the WFC.
I can't remember exactly where it comes from but he also said that his cell works best using distilled deionised water, so for the sake of performing experiments I think one could (should) use that.
At the end of the day though filling up your car with tap water would of course be the ultimate dream here

See what I mean, one of them is saying one thing, the other brother says something else. :huh: And Busi wonders why we keep going around in circles. The goalposts just keep moving don't they!

Quote from Farrah Day on September 27th, 2013, 04:11 AM

...
See what I mean, one of them is saying one thing, the other brother says something else. :huh: And Busi wonders why we keep going around in circles. The goalposts just keep moving don't they!

Farrah,

you made your point clear. but without some kind of implementation you won´t be the one who does the trick for turning water to fuel. but that´s the goal!

Quote:
"If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward.
Thomas A. Edison, Encyclopaedia Britannica
US inventor (1847 - 1931) "  

while jumping into that discussion I nevertheless directly follow my path for realization for longer than this forum here existes. at the beginning I thought I would find coworkers here for professional workload sharing but that didn´t work up yet.

there was an approach to set up a list of members and regions to cooperate but that was it ... so everybody is on his own all time ... restricted finances, restricted time, restricted competences ... round ... and round ... and round ...

but lot of need to talk :s

besides very rare exceptions people here follow their own ideas but persistently fail to share workload ...

rwgresearch inc. would work another way ...

Quote from Farrah Day on September 27th, 2013, 04:11 AM

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 01:56 AM

To just blindly write scam without offering any substantial explanation is just nonsense and should be ignored.

Yes granted, but this applies equally in the opposite respect. To blindly accept what is said and written by either of the Meyer brothers - or anyone else for that matter, myself included - is foolhardy to say the least.  And you have to take into consideration that the plethora of blatant errors in their science and electronics indeed creates concerns over their credibility. So, to the unbiased, clear-minded, the reality of it is that there is more than enough reasonable doubt to at least suggest the possibility of a scam.

Thanks Farrah, let me just say that from my perspective there's more than enough reasonable facts here suggesting it actually could work, that's how I choose to see it

Quote from Farrah Day on September 27th, 2013, 01:34 AM

One other thing that came out of the interview, was that Stephen categorically stated that Stan was using tap water in his WFCs. So at least that issue can be finally put to bed.

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 01:56 AM

In his dune buggy clip he lists just about any form of water, although IMO he insinuates that it has to be desalinated, filtered and deionised prior to entering the WFC.
I can't remember exactly where it comes from but he also said that his cell works best using distilled deionised water, so for the sake of performing experiments I think one could (should) use that.
At the end of the day though filling up your car with tap water would of course be the ultimate dream here

See what I mean, one of them is saying one thing, the other brother says something else. :huh: And Busi wonders why we keep going around in circles. The goalposts just keep moving don't they!

I wouldn't consider the different kinds of water there are to be a big issue TBH, if I get it to work using deionised water I'll just move on to adapting the whole thing to tap water, which after all is where I want to be.

Quote from bussi04 on September 27th, 2013, 04:56 AM

there was an approach to set up a list of members and regions to cooperate but that was it ... so everybody is on his own all time ... restricted finances, restricted time, restricted competences ... round ... and round ... and round ...

but lot of need to talk :s

besides very rare exceptions people here follow their own ideas but persistently fail to share workload ...

rwgresearch inc. would work another way ...

It all comes down to what we all do for a living, how we spend out free time, what our priorities are, our financial situation, etc etc.
Sure it would be nice to be able to somehow get together and work on the different projects there are, no doubt about that.
I also hear you on the no sharing bit of it all and that's just such a shame, it's still very much each to his own.
One exception here is of course Rav, Gps and Kirk who actually works together on finishing a WFC and they also share their findings here as they go along, that's one good example of what "working together" could be all about.

Quote from bussi04 on September 27th, 2013, 04:56 AM

there was an approach to set up a list of members and regions to cooperate but that was it ... so everybody is on his own all time ... restricted finances, restricted time, restricted competences ... round ... and round ... and round ...

but lot of need to talk :s

besides very rare exceptions people here follow their own ideas but persistently fail to share workload ...

rwgresearch inc. would work another way ...

Its something seen almost on any forum (that i checked). Nice idea's and intentions but the practical outcomes are very slim.

Not much successes that stick and are repeated.

I think it would help if people first try to do the Proof Of Concepts. Keep those simple and cheap, get 3th party confirmation and after publicizing, a whole lot of the projects could be blacklisted. And the promising ones can be chased after.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 27th, 2013, 06:39 AM

It is something seen almost on any forum (that i checked). Nice idea's and intentions but the practical outcomes are very slim.

Not much successes that stick and are repeated.

I think it would help if people first try to do the Proof Of Concepts. Keep those simple and cheap, get 3th party confirmation and after publicizing, a whole lot of the projects could be blacklisted. And the promising ones can be chased after.

I totally agree, poof of concept is the way to go. These can be relatively simple experiments not costing a great deal to set up, which will either support ideas or not. If things seem to bear out, then you move onto the next stage, and so on, all the while building on your new knowledge.

But what I really fail to understand is why some folk jump straight in and start trying to replicate things like gas processors. Surely the right place to start is at the beginning, with the basic WFC - I mean, if you can't get a WFC working what are the chances of getting a gas processor to work and what's the point of if you don't have a working WFC. :huh:

But we do need to discuss things, if only just to throw a few ideas around and see what comes back.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 27th, 2013, 07:24 AM

But what I really fail to understand is why some folk jump straight in and start trying to replicate things like gas processors. Surely the right place to start is at the beginning, with the basic WFC - I mean, if you can't get a WFC working what are the chances of getting a gas processor to work and what's the point of if you don't have a working WFC. :huh:

But we do need to discuss things, if only just to throw a few ideas around and see what comes back.

I totally agree with you on that one.
If the proof of concept regarding the WFC is out there it's simply a matter of time before it powers our cars etc.
I think there has to be a healthy balance between experiments and discussions, the one begets the other which in turn then shows what aspects there are that which needs more attention and so on and so forth.
Theory alone won't get you anywhere.

Agreed.

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 07:54 AM

Theory alone won't get you anywhere.

Oh, it will get you somewhere alright, right down the rabbit hole.  Until you can back up theory with practical application and positive test results, theory is about as useless as the paper it's written on.  Actually worse, since you may spend your time and the time of others chasing ghosts.

The process is really rather easy.  Come up with an idea.  Build the apparatus to highlight the new idea.  Test the new device.  Rule out other factors. Optimize the device according to possibly revised theory.  And lastly show a positive trend that supports the current theory in actual operation.  Where most folks blow it is they forget the theory should work in both directions.  Meaning that if you do the opposite of what the theory suggests, the results should be more negative.  If this later condition isn't supported with data, simply put, your theory isn't matching with reality.  Obviously something else is at play.  So you have two choices:  Revise the theory and test again, or scrap everything and go back to the drawing board.

Let me propose a little hypothetical example.  Suppose we build a electopolished WFC, hook everything up and begin tuning until we see a fair production of gas.  If you stop right there, one would assume lamare's theory is correct.  But suppose I pull those tubes and replace them with identical sized tubes, raw cut from the factory with no electropolishing and they work exactly the same?  Now we MUST re-evaluate the situation, because it was presumed the theory got us to that point, but the evidence no longer supports the theory.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 27th, 2013, 09:58 AM

Agreed.

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 07:54 AM

Theory alone won't get you anywhere.

Oh, it will get you somewhere alright, right down the rabbit hole.  Until you can back up theory with practical application and positive test results, theory is about as useless as the paper it's written on.  Actually worse, since you may spend your time and the time of others chasing ghosts.

The process is really rather easy.  Come up with an idea.  Build the apparatus to highlight the new idea.  Test the new device.  Rule out other factors. Optimize the device according to possibly revised theory.  And lastly show a positive trend that supports the current theory in actual operation.  Where most folks blow it is they forget the theory should work in both directions.  Meaning that if you do the opposite of what the theory suggests, the results should be more negative.  If this later condition isn't supported with data, simply put, your theory isn't matching with reality.  Obviously something else is at play.  So you have two choices:  Revise the theory and test again, or scrap everything and go back to the drawing board.

Let me propose a little hypothetical example.  Suppose we build a electopolished WFC, hook everything up and begin tuning until we see a fair production of gas.  If you stop right there, one would assume lamare's theory is correct.  But suppose I pull those tubes and replace them with identical sized tubes, raw cut from the factory with no electropolishing and they work exactly the same?  Now we MUST re-evaluate the situation, because it was presumed the theory got us to that point, but the evidence no longer supports the theory.

I agree, they call that the "control" in the experiment.  The WFC sugar pill. :)

I

Quote from Matt Watts on September 27th, 2013, 09:58 AM

Agreed.

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 07:54 AM

Theory alone won't get you anywhere.

Oh, it will get you somewhere alright, right down the rabbit hole.  Until you can back up theory with practical application and positive test results, theory is about as useless as the paper it's written on.  Actually worse, since you may spend your time and the time of others chasing ghosts.

The process is really rather easy.  Come up with an idea.  Build the apparatus to highlight the new idea.  Test the new device.  Rule out other factors. Optimize the device according to possibly revised theory.  And lastly show a positive trend that supports the current theory in actual operation.  Where most folks blow it is they forget the theory should work in both directions.  Meaning that if you do the opposite of what the theory suggests, the results should be more negative.  If this later condition isn't supported with data, simply put, your theory isn't matching with reality.  Obviously something else is at play.  So you have two choices:  Revise the theory and test again, or scrap everything and go back to the drawing board.

Let me propose a little hypothetical example.  Suppose we build a electopolished WFC, hook everything up and begin tuning until we see a fair production of gas.  If you stop right there, one would assume lamare's theory is correct.  But suppose I pull those tubes and replace them with identical sized tubes, raw cut from the factory with no electropolishing and they work exactly the same?  Now we MUST re-evaluate the situation, because it was presumed the theory got us to that point, but the evidence no longer supports the theory.

In that case the only reason to keep the electropolished tubes would be to see how long they can be used without the need to clean or replace them due to wear and tear compared to the no polished versions.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 27th, 2013, 09:58 AM

Let me propose a little hypothetical example.  Suppose we build a electopolished WFC, hook everything up and begin tuning until we see a fair production of gas.  If you stop right there, one would assume lamare's theory is correct.  But suppose I pull those tubes and replace them with identical sized tubes, raw cut from the factory with no electropolishing and they work exactly the same?  Now we MUST re-evaluate the situation, because it was presumed the theory got us to that point, but the evidence no longer supports the theory.

True, but the fair production of gas will be measured against what the rest of the world has come up with, and against the faradaylimits.
Lamare is only right if he finds increased production.

Anything less already gives a reason for re-evaluation.


And overproduction can still come from other influences, yes. Maybe from a better VIC circuit, or the position of the moon.

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 11:44 AM

Quote from Matt Watts on September 27th, 2013, 09:58 AM

Agreed.

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 07:54 AM

Theory alone won't get you anywhere.

Oh, it will get you somewhere alright, right down the rabbit hole.  Until you can back up theory with practical application and positive test results, theory is about as useless as the paper it's written on.  Actually worse, since you may spend your time and the time of others chasing ghosts.

The process is really rather easy.  Come up with an idea.  Build the apparatus to highlight the new idea.  Test the new device.  Rule out other factors. Optimize the device according to possibly revised theory.  And lastly show a positive trend that supports the current theory in actual operation.  Where most folks blow it is they forget the theory should work in both directions.  Meaning that if you do the opposite of what the theory suggests, the results should be more negative.  If this later condition isn't supported with data, simply put, your theory isn't matching with reality.  Obviously something else is at play.  So you have two choices:  Revise the theory and test again, or scrap everything and go back to the drawing board.

Let me propose a little hypothetical example.  Suppose we build a electopolished WFC, hook everything up and begin tuning until we see a fair production of gas.  If you stop right there, one would assume lamare's theory is correct.  But suppose I pull those tubes and replace them with identical sized tubes, raw cut from the factory with no electropolishing and they work exactly the same?  Now we MUST re-evaluate the situation, because it was presumed the theory got us to that point, but the evidence no longer supports the theory.

In that case the only reason to keep the electropolished tubes would be to see how long they can be used without the need to clean or replace them due to wear and tear compared to the no polished versions.

I remember Russ stating one reason this forum was formed, "to prove or disprove Meyer's technology".
 Well, two years later, we have not done either. I believe there is something to this technology, I think it will work, we just need to find common ground with each other, show a little compassion for each other, all put our heads together and figure this out. All of us in this thread and I mean all of you here, have great minds, wonderful reasoning and thinking ability, Rav, Gps and Kirk included. "Youal" [Texan coming out in me] should consider yourselves hero's.
So with that being said lets share what we have thus far, Bussi had opened a thread a while back and shared some of his findings, if we could all do this, I just know we will find the answers.
Wish there were a way to keep these threads closed except to the author of the thread, maybe this would help get the ball rolling again. What say you everyone?:D
Any other ideas?
PS: this is not meant to step on any ones toe's, so please don't take it that way.

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 27th, 2013, 04:46 PM

Wish there were a way to keep these threads closed except to the author of the thread, maybe this would help get the ball rolling again. What say you everyone?:D
Any other ideas?
PS: this is not meant to step on any ones toe's, so please don't take it that way.

Sounds radical, but you could have a point when you give the creator of the thread the possibility to edit the posts. Then he/she can get the essence of what they think the thread needs and remove the less important contributions.

So in that way i would say lets do a trial run somewhere on this forum.
-------------------------
If i let this idea work further in my mind.....

You then also may need to limit the open thread making..cause someone like me would then open a more talkative thread, and others would also feel the need to open one own threads, cause that's where some extra editing power lies then.

Positive is that one gets leaner threads when once in a while a thread-owner prunes the busches and puts the thread on its rails again.

Negative is that the forum-owners then also can say: "hey, we gave you this thread to maintain..now we see its all over the place, start editing more. Or you get no threads of your own again.

And childish negative can be: "you deleted me, now i will delete your contribution in my thread..."

To have threads only open for the owner makes it impossible to get contributions from other forum readers, and you want those as a thread starter.

Well those are my 2 cents on it. :)

[Whomever deletes this won't be my bestfriend anymore]

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 27th, 2013, 04:46 PM

Wish there were a way to keep these threads closed except to the author of the thread, maybe this would help get the ball rolling again. What say you everyone?:D
Any other ideas?
PS: this is not meant to step on any ones toe's, so please don't take it that way.

there is an easy way I learned from Tecstatic:

open an author-only thread and a second one for replies.

after a short introduction time people are disciplined to only reply at the second thread.
that way the first thread stays under author´s full control :-)

simple but efficient ...


i.e.

"Steve Meyer (AO)" stands for author only
"Steve Meyer (RP)" stands for replies and discussion

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 27th, 2013, 05:06 PM

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 27th, 2013, 04:46 PM

Wish there were a way to keep these threads closed except to the author of the thread, maybe this would help get the ball rolling again. What say you everyone?:D
Any other ideas?
PS: this is not meant to step on any ones toe's, so please don't take it that way.

Sounds radical, but you could have a point when you give the creator of the thread the possibility to edit the posts. Then he/she can get the essence of what they think the thread needs and remove the less important contributions.

So in that way i would say lets do a trial run somewhere on this forum.
-------------------------
If i let this idea work further in my mind.....

I like it but it should be , not delet just order of priority or relevance to achieveing goal of thread,  for exmapl some would be made revelant content and other would not be deleted just made comments, this ways we may actually get to the end point

dan


You then also may need to limit the open thread making..cause someone like me would then open a more talkative thread, and others would also feel the need to open one own threads, cause that's where some extra editing power lies then.

Positive is that one gets leaner threads when once in a while a thread-owner prunes the busches and puts the thread on its rails again.

Negative is that the forum-owners then also can say: "hey, we gave you this thread to maintain..now we see its all over the place, start editing more. Or you get no threads of your own again.

And childish negative can be: "you deleted me, now i will delete your contribution in my thread..."

To have threads only open for the owner makes it impossible to get contributions from other forum readers, and you want those as a thread starter.

Well those are my 2 cents on it. :)

[Whomever deletes this won't be my bestfriend anymore]