Re: Stan Meyer - Autopsy Report

Grimer
Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:28:54 -0700

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 case)

Then apart from the sum of:
      
    A + B + C + D + E

===================================================
we have the sum of the first order interactions: 
    
   AB + AC + AD + AE
      + BC + BD + BE
           + CD + CE 
                + DE

plus the sum of the second order interactions:

    ABC + ABD + ABE
        + BCD + BCE
              + CDE

plus the sum of the third order interactions:

       ABCD + ABCE
            + BCDE

plus the fourth order interaction:

             ABCDE

As the interaction order increases the size of the 
structure it represents increases and the strain 
energy, both positive and negative increased. The 
unit components of these structures will have a 
wide spectrum of stability and in the least stable 
individual base components, wishbones molecules 
will be near breaking point.

One might say, water is a classic case of the whole 
being greater than the sum of the parts.

If one selectively pumps energy into these quasi-
explosive components then they can be broken apart 
with far less energy than that need to break 
isolated molecules of H2O.

Suppose 100 units of energy are required to break 
an isolated water molecule which is not part of a 
structure.

Imagine that same molecule in a structure where it 
so constrained by the rest of the structure that it 
is 90% of the way to breaking apart. Such a 
component will only need 1/10th of the energy for 
fracture and will give up 10/10ths of its energy 
when it recombines as a single molecule.

Like water, nitroglycerin is also a liquid. Its in-
built strain energy can easily be released by brute 
force and ignorance and very little brute force at 
that. When it was first introduced a number of 
appalling catastrophes led to the liquid being 
widely banned. The problem was overcome by mixing 
nitro with inert absorbents such as the kieselguhr, 
a soft, chalk-like, rock. This made is safer cos a 
lot more brute force was needed to release the 
energy albeit only slightly less ignorance. 

Water may be thought of as a very safe explosive 
consisting of an explosive fraction and an inert 
quasi-kieselguhr fraction which makes the liquid 
safe to handle. Furthermore the explosive parts are 
locked away in a strong steel safe. Unless you know 
the combination, unless you know which component is 
near breaking point, and how to focus trigger 
energy there to release the strain energy, then it 
is not going to explode. The heavily strained H2O 
molecules are not going to crack open for you 
whereas with a traditional explosive like dynamite 
or TNT which are locked in wooden desks, all that's 
needed is a jemmy in the form of a detonator. 

With nitro, ignorance of internal structure is no 
bar to releasing the energy, 

In contrast, with water ignorance is fatal to 
getting out more energy than you put in. 
With water knowledge is at a premium and brute 
force is useless. Brute force will not open the 
safe containing the explosives. Only knowledge of 
the combination will do that. 

So how does one find this combination, this recipe, 
this formula which will inch the most heavily 
strained structural components to the tipping 
point. If we were structural engineers operating at 
the atomic level and the structures were static and 
not dynamic then the answer would be easy. In the 
case of a long series of arches for example all one 
needs to do is remove the abutment at one end. The 
arches will the each collapse in turn until the 
other abutment is reached. This progressive 
collapse is the macro equivalent of a detonator's 
shock wave.

If you're not lucky enough to know the combination 
then you do what the drug manufactures do; you do 
what Edison did; you try everything. You keep 
putting coins in the fruit machine until you get 
three bananas.

That is what Stan Meyer did. And from all 
appearances he did find a line of fruit.

Now if I can work out why Meyer might have 
succeeded, and probably did, then a lot of other 
people could have realised that possibility too. 
Not everybody is so stupid as to think that water 
is a collection of independent isolated molecules 
and that one can only get the work out that one 
puts in. 

The energy barons have plenty of scientific 
advisers in their employ who are just as clever as 
the members of this discussion group. If one of us 
can see the solution, then sure as God made little 
green apples, one of them can too.

Which puts Stan's demise in rather a different 
light. If I were an energy oligarch, unconstrained 
by any moral considerations, would I run the risk 
of someone developing something which would 
seriously impact on my wealth and power without 
doing anything about it? 

Would I, hell!

I would remove any plausible threat, if only as an 
insurance. People insure against all kind of remote 
threats. Meyer was that kind of threat, as indeed 
is anyone who reads this post [though I can't 
imagine even the MIB getting away with offing the 
total Vortex membership.  8-)  ]

In an oil baron's shoes I would certainly have 
offed Meyer. Even though I'd know I couldn't hold 
the tide back indefinitely - long enough to see me 
out would do. As for global warning, why should I 
give a damn. As President Reagan put it, 
"What has posterity ever done for me?

Cheers,

Frank