[Vo]: Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report
When I was at grammar school and first learnt about water I visualised it as a lot of little molecules of H20, much like individual marbles in a big transparent bag. Later I discovered it was a tad more complicated than that. Some of the marbles had split into H+ and OH-. Mind you, in ordinary water there were very few of these and unless you were interested in chemistry the picture of a bag of marbles was still pretty accurate. Ice was different. Here the shape of the marbles became important and because the molecule was no longer rotating and precessing its motion had been frozen into a giant structure of connected wishbones. A structure which consisted of sheets of crinkly hexagons with connecting struts and ties between the sheets. A structure I visualised as a rather badly behaved graphite. I suppose people looked upon carbon in much the same way. There were two frozen forms, Diamond and graphite. and there was the amorphous form analogous to water only solid rather than liquid, and there were the individual carbon atoms or small amorphous clumps of these atoms which constituted things like soot. So one had an image of water where the liquid was virtually unstructured and the solid was highly structured with no structure in between. It's a bit like a city consisting of enormous skyscrapers and telephone boxes except, of course, that, for water, the differential in structural size is very much greater. It must have come as a delightful surprise for people to discover those intermediate sized structures in Carbon, the buckminterfullerenes to give them their full title. The huge potential of these relatively newly found structures is now slowly being exploited. We now know that, like carbon, liquid water also has a range of intermediate structures between the molecule and the crystal. This can be appreciated by anyone who cares to visit Professor Chaplin's extensive web site. As far as I know there has been little explicit exploitation of these structures. Partly no doubt because they are so dynamic, unlike the fullerenes. One can separate out fullerenes into different sizes and types. One can't do that with water, not physically anyway. One can of course separate them out conceptually in the same way the Jeans separated out molecules of different speed groups when he developed gas dynamics. Now Meyer was implicitly manipulating the high level structures in water. He may have been aware of the energy potential of high level structuring but since he wasn't a scientist or structural research engineer, I rather doubt it. Did he discover how to rip H20 apart? I think he probably did. And if he was outed then it is because others thought so too. [I can't understand why Jones seemed so confident that Meyer wasn't murdered. Whistling to keep his courage up? 8-) ] Normal direct current electrolysis tackles the taking apart of H20 at the most basic level. It's as though on a building site someone comes along and picks up the basic unit wishbones which are going to form the space structure and rips them apart. Simple electrolysis is a brute force and ignorance approach and it's hardly surprising if you are going to have put as much energy in ripping the individual wishbones apart at you get back when they reunite. Simple electrolysis is also the straw man Meyer's purblind critics employed not only to rubbish his discovery but even to get a court judgement against him by a judge who's knowledge of science was clearly inadequate. If one reads up on Meyer it's quite evident that he was NOT employing conventional electrolysis. Meyer's big problem was, he wasn't a scientist and he didn't really understand what he was doing. Consequently, apart from a physical demonstration, he was incapable of persuading ignoramuses and faint hearts (with commendable exceptions) that he had achieved anything. So what was he doing and how did he manage to generate hydrogen and oxygen using less energy than he would have needed using brute force and ignorance electrolysis? Good question. 8-) If you're fabricating a structure using wishbone shaped elements then you necessarily finish up with a collection of struts and ties. By definition the struts are the connections in compression strain (positive strain energy say) and the ties are the elements in tensile strain (negative strain energy say). Without these strains the structure will not hold together. Any large structure contains more energy than the unconnected individual elements from which they were made. Anyone familiar with the statistical technique, Multifactor Analysis of Variance, will recognise the term Interaction AB which is that amount over and above (or below since it can be negative) the sum of A and B. And they will also appreciate that the more factors there are, the more interactions there are. Suppose we have just five factor (or H2O wishbones in our ca
Re: [Vo]: Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report
Chris mentions Paul Brown - by coincidence there was this about him on CBSmarketwatch.com today SPECIAL REPORT Short sellers: The good, the bad and the ugly Some have exposed fraud; others become the scandal themselves SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- In the escalating debate over whether short sellers do more harm than good, the case of Anthony Elgindy neatly gives detractors a bogeyman they can use to drum up support for their cause. On Dec. 19, 2001, an FBI agent ran a search on the agency's confidential National Crime Information Center database and came across criminal history information about Paul Brown, chief executive of a company called Nuclear Solutions. Less than three hours later, Elgindy emailed a message to subscribers of his investment Web sites: "NSOL -- CEO, Dr. Paul Maurice Brown, is a convicted felon ..." In the following days, Elgindy and others put out still more information on the Internet about Brown's alleged criminal record. Over the next month, he shorted shares of the nuclear-waste technology company several times and recommended that his subscribers do the same. From early December 2001 to the end of January 2002, shares of the Nuclear Solutions lost almost half their value. Elgindy's lawyer, borrowing from a common short-sellers refrain, sought to portray his client as a hero for trying to expose "phony companies." To U.S. Attorney Alan Vinegrad, the scheme was "a shocking partnership between an experienced stock manipulator and law-enforcement agents, undertaken for their illicit personal gain." Last year, a jury in Brooklyn agreed and convicted Elgindy of conspiracy, securities fraud and extortion surrounding Nuclear Solutions (NSOL : nuclear solutions inc com NSOL1.21, -0.06, -4.7%) , wasn't a convicted felon after all. An illegal drug possession charge against him was dismissed in 1991, the Wall Street Journal reported. He died in a car crash in April 2002. The Elgindy case does little to help defenders of short sellers, who frequently claim they help keep markets ticking and contribute to accurate share prices by making sure the prices of stocks reflect negative as well as positive information about companies. Elgindy's scheme, and several similar ones described in the grand jury indictments that followed, is at one extreme end of the debate about whether short sellers are good or bad for the markets. On the other end of the spectrum, short-seller advocates like David Rocker want investors and regulators to focus on the supposed benefits that shorts have. "Although there have been occasional instances in which short sellers have been accused of circulating misleading stories, these instances are dwarfed both in number and magnitude by the misleading stories circulated by long holders and the issuers themselves," David Rocker, a leading short seller, told a Congressional hearing in 2003. Rocker cites a long list of frauds and accounting abuses at companies including Enron, Tyco International Ltd. (TYC : Tyco International Ltd CNO23.61, -0.19, -0.8%) , Boston Chicken and Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products that he says were uncovered by short sellers. 'Out of thin air'
Re: [Vo]: Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell Along the same lines, I do not think Park and Zimmerman are "conspiring" to suppress cold fusion . . . <><><><><><> Just what *is* PZ's motivation on the Hydrino list? He has spent countless hours debunking hydrinos & CQM in particular and FE in general. I honestly do not believe he is merely a defender of the faith. He is up to something more sinister, IMO. Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
RE: [Vo]: Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report
Zell, Chris wrote: I wonder about Paul Brown. He warned everyone he was being threatened, discontinued his work - then re-started it later and died in an "accident" soon after. Indeed, the Brown case seems a lot more serious to me. On the other hand, as I recall Brown was known for driving cars recklessly at high speed. Who knows what to make of it? I think the lesson for the guy who comes up with a practical cold fusion reactor is: keep no secrets. Publish everything. If thousands of experts worldwide know what you have done and how to replicate, because you distributed papers worldwide via the Internet, there is no point to killing you or trying to suppress your work. This strategy is described in the thriller movie "Three days of the Condor." This movie centers around a high-level U.S. government conspiracy to invade an oil-rich country in the Middle East on false pretenses. Needless to say, this is a ridiculous & contrived fantasy -- such things could not happen in real life! -- but we can still learn from it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report
I wonder about Paul Brown. He warned everyone he was being threatened, discontinued his work - then re-started it later and died in an "accident" soon after. If tens of thousands die for oil in war, should inventors be off limits? Most of us have enough sense to avoid walking thru crime ridden neighborhoods or carefully walk across busy streets. Do we act the same way about "disruptive technology"? If the NSA monitors "disruptive technology", are we to trust them as regards the definition of what disruptive means? Does it concern terrorism - or things that wreck financial markets by replacing oil? Do we get to openly debate the issue? Does Congress? Do various researchers remain alive as long as they fail to enter the popular realm of credibility? Can they be neutralized by ridicule and rank disbelief? -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]: Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report Oops, meant to say- ...nor was Gene Mallove murdered as part of a conspiracy. Of course he was murdered. Meyer was not even murdered. There was no big conspiracy to silence the enemies of 'Big Oil' in either case - at least there is no evidence of such.
Re: [Vo]: Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report
Jones Beene wrote: Stan Meyer was not murdered, most likely. Nor was Gene Mallove. As noted this meant Gene was not murdered by an establishment conspirator, but rather by an ordinary crazed drug addict. The larger problem with all of this talk is that it probably does the whole field of alternative-energy a huge *disservice* to suggest things like this on little or no evidence. I agree. Even if it is true, it does not do us any good talking about it without evidence. It reinforces the notion among the majority of open-minded readers of these posts - or of LENR-CANR and so forth - that the only people who could possibly believe that low level nut-cases like Meyer would attract the attention of the putative PetroMafia are those who will "believe in anything" especially of a "high level conspiracy" nature. True again. BUT, however, the PetroMafia is real and they have suppressed technology. The upcoming movie discussed here, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is a good example. So was the destruction of the public transportation system in Los Angeles in the 1940s, and the bankruptcy of the LUZ Corp. solar thermal generating systems. I would not call these actions "conspiracies" because the corporations that suppressed this technology acted shamelessly and overtly. You might as well say the tobacco companies have been conducting a "conspiracy" to spread cancer, or coal-fired plants conspire to secretly kill 20,000 people per year. It is no conspiracy when you boldly commit crimes in public. Along the same lines, I do not think Park and Zimmerman are "conspiring" to suppress cold fusion and fire anyone in the federal government who supports cold fusion. How can you call the conspiracy when they announced their plans in front of a crowd of a thousand cheering supporters at the APS?!? You might call it a witch hunt, or an academic pogrom. The DoE's de facto policy of attacking cold fusion is also overt. They make no bones about it, and although they do sometimes lie to the public -- claiming they may fund experiments -- it is a gratuitous lie. It is a mere formality. They do not expect anyone to believe it. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf Even if one accepts that there are rogue elements in government (there are), and in a handful of corporations, such as Halliburton - that is far from the pervasive kind of evil it would take to murder someone whose greatest value, under any circumstances, might be as "martyr value" or as "mobilization value". More to the point, Meyer was suppressing himself more effectively than any conspirators could have hoped to accomplish. Meyer was, as I often say, his own worst enemy. This is true of many cold fusion researchers as well. Why molest an enemy who is as assiduously destroying himself? The suggestion of a conspiracy to murder Meyer is ludicrous IMHO. Now if someone took out a real genius of the level of Puthoff, R. Mills, George Miley, Bockris, Mizuno etc - then yes - that would be a huge concern. If these people ever begin to make serious technical progress, and the oil companies become aware of their activity, then I think they may soon be in grave danger. I doubt they will be murdered, but I expect they will be fired on trumped up charges, and their funding cut off. They will be given the kind of treatment being meted out to Taleyarkhan by Nature and the rest of the physics establishment. As things now stand the oil companies are not the least bit concerned about CF as far as I know. As Beene indicated, they are busy fighting global warming researchers, and spreading false rumors about wind energy, such as the notion that it kills significant numbers of birds. Now that we have said all these rotten things about Meyer, I think we should recall that he did impress some smart people, such as Adm. Griffin. I am haunted by the possibility that he may have actually been on to something real. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report
-Original Message- From: Jones Beene There was no big conspiracy to silence the enemies of 'Big Oil' in either case - at least there is no evidence of such. <><><><><> A shiek would not be worth his linen if he did not do all he could to protect his country's interests. You probably doubt the Mossad offed Gerald Bull, too. You're no fun. Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
[Vo]: Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report
Oops, meant to say- ...nor was Gene Mallove murdered as part of a conspiracy. Of course he was murdered. Meyer was not even murdered. There was no big conspiracy to silence the enemies of 'Big Oil' in either case - at least there is no evidence of such.
[Vo]: Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report
This Meyer conspiracy nonsense is kind of a silly waste of time IMHO - even if there were some proof ... (not that there aren't real conspiracies in the world today) Stan Meyer was not murdered, most likely. Nor was Gene Mallove. Meyer had many risk factors for Aneurysm, which is probably what happened. A feeling of "being poisoned" is common among many sudden pathologies which are totally unrelated to food - such as a heart attack. The larger problem with all of this talk is that it probably does the whole field of alternative-energy a huge *disservice* to suggest things like this on little or no evidence. It is the underlying " flawed belief process" more so than the conclusion, which is worrisome. It reinforces the notion among the majority of open-minded readers of these posts - or of LENR-CANR and so forth - that the only people who could possibly believe that low level nut-cases like Meyer would attract the attention of the putative PetroMafia are those who will "believe in anything" especially of a "high level conspiracy" nature. Even if one accepts that there are rogue elements in government (there are), and in a handful of corporations, such as Halliburton - that is far from the pervasive kind of evil it would take to murder someone whose greatest value, under any circumstances, might be as "martyr value" or as "mobilization value". IOW Meyer was nothing more than a marginal inventor, not a scientist in any way, even if he had stumbled on something of value - he could not advance it. He probably did stumble on something, but it will take millions to figure out what. Papp was the same. Joe Newman was a prototype. There are dozens of these fringe characters, not just "cranks" but even further out there - who may deserve some kind of poetic justice for all the false-alarms and scams they have promoted, but do not even remotely concern big corporations, or Sam. IOW - let's say for the sake of argument that there is an active and well-funded PetroMafia operating in the USA, and that it does manage to pull-off a lot of underhanded things - such as to secure drilling rights, intimidate land-owners, keep out labor unions, pay-off or black-mail politicians, discredit ecologists and concerned scientists and so forth - why would they waste time on a nut like Meyer? ... who let's remind ourselves, actually accomplished ZERO of a repeatable nature, and whose death might possibly trigger 'reactionary' funding to scientists operating in that field, who could do something that the paranoid inventor himself could only stumble-on, if he even got that far. The suggestion of a conspiracy to murder Meyer is ludicrous IMHO. Now if someone took out a real genius of the level of Puthoff, R. Mills, George Miley, Bockris, Mizuno etc - then yes - that would be a huge concern. IOW these men are accomplished, influential, "in the know", and capable of sounding a preliminary threat for fossil fuel with a single experiment. Meyer may have gotten lucky, but he was no such threat. Jones
