So true about losing the manic experimental compulsion that keeps us up
till the wee hours day after day. This lose of blind drive, for me anyway,
is not so much the result of simply getting older (I hope!) but rather the
result of accumulated experiences. After a while I found myself moving in
ever tighter circles looking for the answer to a device that actually
worked. I am now finding it difficult to concentrate on any one promising
direction - not from lack of wanting to work, but more from lack of
confidence in any given claim.
A few years ago I looked into Meyer's claims and work. I was impressed by
the concept and the apparent supportive data (patents, etc.) I had the
opportunity to construct a simple setup to explore the resonant water
cracking effect more closely. The result of these incomplete tests were -
yes, you can break water down into its component parts but the efficiency
level was not as Meyer claimed. Perhaps Meyer had an ace up his sleave that
he showed nobody, but my experience with his concept is that it is very
easy to show an apparent low energy consumption while employing his process.
To illustrate this further: I have a friend who is no fool when it comes to
electrical engineering. I set up my little experiment for him to pass
judgement on, with ammeters connected for current measurements in the
circuit. I also had a standard electrolysis setup for comparison. The
results were that my friend was extremely impressed that the Meyer circuit
was capable of producing a relatively similar gas flow, compared to the
standard electrolysis setup, with considerably less apparent input power.
This was of great interest to me as I felt I had replicated the response
Meyer claimed he was getting from witnesses to his system. I then proceeded
to show my friend how he could be fooled by the current readings and that
the actual power consumed in cracking the water was not just a product of
the supply voltage and the measured current. Meyer employed an inductor in
his circuit to achieve the appropriate frequency/voltage in the system. The
voltage pulses applied across the water can be very high, and it is this
voltage that must be used in determining power consumed in the cracking
process. The higher the voltage pulses across the water, the lower will be
the current readings for a given gas flow rate. With pulses on the order
of close to a couple of thousand volts across the water electrodes the
current can be very small - yet the power consumed may remain quite high,
eg: 2KV @ 0.1 Amps average = 200 Watts. If you were looking at the supply
voltage of, say, 20 Volts and multiplied that by the 0.1 Amps average you
would get a false power calculation of only 2 Watts input! How easy it is
to be fooled by apparently convincing demonstrations. Without wanting to
sound cynical here, I must say also how easy it is to push a magicians
trick to the point of people (even the educated) handing you capital
investment for your demonstrations.
This reminds me of a demonstration I saw at the '94 symposium on new energy
at Denver. A fellow, can't remember his name, was demonstrating his
motor/generator setup to a large group of interested people. It consisted
of a disk rotor fitted with magnets and was powered by a D.C. motor
connected directly to the drive shaft. There were a number of coils fixed
around the rotor, induced by the rotor magnets, designed to output to a
lightbulb load. He switch on the drive motor and allowed the rotor to come
to maximum RPM (around 3000). At this point he switched on the load to the
pickup coils. Amazingly, the lightbulb lit up AND the rotor picked up
considerable additional speed. As he increased the load, the rotor would
speed up further. He claimed this to be an amazing example of free energy
extraction at work! I had seen this effect many times in the past while
working with this kind of motor/generator arrangement and knew the cause of
the rotor speeding up when placed under load. It is simply magnetic
decoupling, between the magnets and the coils, which effectively frees the
rotor as the coils are loaded. The effect can be enhanced with the addition
of capacitors across the output coils. I explained all this to the
demonstrator quite clearly, but he seemed unhappy to accept my position and
asked me not to tell anyone about the secret of his machine! Now I don't
believe this fellow was fraudulently trying to trick people. He was
genuinely of the opinion that he had discovered something of great value to
the free energy movement. The problem was that so did most of the people
who were witness to his demonstration and wordy claims. The point: Seeing
is not believing. Hearing is not believing. Understanding is the only safe
path through the dark woods.
Hey Jerry, what project would you work on given the time and resorces?
Regards, Bill.
At 23:16 15/08/98 -0500, Jerry W. Decker wrote:
>Hi RYB (no name)!
>
>You write about Stan Meyer;
>> It is much easier NOW to collect infos about his 'fuel process'
>> than it will be in the yar 2050 !
>
>Meyer made an interesting case with his 'fractioning process' yet
>despite all his claims no one was ever able to buy a working device from
>him or gain sufficient technical information to independently validate
>his claims. Isn't that peculiar?
>
>Despite all the 'documents collected' written by and about any given
>free energy researcher, Keely, Tesla, Hubbard, Moray, Hendershot,
>whoever, no one to my knowledge has been able to piece together the
>puzzle of how to duplicate even the basic claims.
>
>There just can't be that much smoke and NO FIRE somewhere in all the
>rhetoric. The pattern is there, but with holes that we need to fill in.
>
>You also write;
>> So why debase those that disagree with your personal views?
>> JNaudin is taking the right approach-constructing such devices..
>
>Agreed, IMO people shouldn't follow any single researcher, rather to
>combine all of them and look for correlations that might have been
>described using different terminology. KeelyNet is based on that
>approach as you will see in the files, unfortunately, nothing has come
>of it YET.
>
>As to Naudin, he is doing the right thing and it would be wonderful to
>have the time and money to spend doing experiments and variations of
>them hoping for that breakthrough re-discovery. Unfortunately, many of
>us work, don't have the money or facilities to do such experiments or
>aren't so ambitious as we once were.
>
>On a personal note, my challenge has been on of getting organized and
>just DOING IT...I have the electronics tools and background with some
>knowledge of machining and prototype as in fabrication, which BTW, I
>love to do, but I can't seem to lock onto a single project, to start and
>finish it.
>
>An insight that was shared with me years ago. When I took a course in
>electronics at a local college, we had a very bright teacher, about 45,
>who was an electronics engineer on sabbatical from TI. He and I talked
>about some of the alt tech science and he didn't think much of it,
>though was somewhat intrigued by certain claims.
>
>One day I happened to visit his office and he showed me a piece of steel
>plate which he had been welding. It consisted of this metal plate with
>a clean beaded track. He couldn't stop gushing about it as if it were a
>work of art.
>
>I was somewhat aghast that he, with his electronics knowledge and
>ability, would be so taken with such a simple piece of work and asked
>him why all the fuss.
>
>He said, "Young man, you will find as life goes on that once you have
>worked in a field for a period, you will no longer find it as
>fascinating as you once did. You see, I MADE THIS BEAD in my welding
>class and to me it is a beautiful thing, as simple as it is. I've never
>welded before because I ate, breathed and slept electronics so never had
>time for such things. When you work in electronics as your job, day in
>and day out, the last thing you want to do is bring it home with you.
>That is when you relax and try other things, other experiences."
>
>He warned that I too would experience this as my life progressed. That
>has been so, where in my younger years I would stay up days at a time
>studying or working on a project or experiment, I now have to put screws
>on my fingers to force myself to even begin a physical experiment. This
>MUST change, otherwise my sole contribution to posterity will be a
>collection of files and something called KeelyNet.
>
>It's easy to post files, make commentaries and dialogue, but to DO THE
>PHYSICAL WORK, based on some research (which fortunately the files and
>dialogue contribute to) and just build it to see what will happen, is
>quite a different animal.
>
>At this point, I'm convinced we (certain contacts and I) have the keys
>to free energy, gravity control and even rejuvenation, but we don't have
>the funding to combine our forces in a single equipped facility with
>sufficient financial security to allow each of the team to drop their
>current jobs and work fulltime to the discoveries we think are
>inevitable.
>
>Nothing would please me more than to be involved in the discovery and
>release of JUST ONE working overunity circuit that spurs research
>efforts all over the world.
>
>Time marches on, make a living, pay your bills, try to keep some
>semblance of friends and family, enjoy life and squeeze in what you can
>in alt science. I won't give up and I hope no one else does either,
>just knowing that planets and electrons orbit by some mysterious force
>certainly tells me there is something we are missing and SHOULD be able
>to tap.
>--
> Jerry Wayne Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
> http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
> Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
> KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@dallastexas.net>
> with the body text: leave keelynet
> WWW based join and leave forms and KeelyNet list archives
> are at http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>