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