sci.energy.hydrogen

knews4u2chew@ wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > knews4u2c...@ wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > knews4u2c...@ wrote:
> > > > > Ever read this?
> >
> > > > > 35 . 114 Models, specimens.
> >
> > > > > "The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
> > > > > convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
> > > > > invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
> > > > > Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
> > > > > ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
> >
> > > > *** MAY require ****
> >
> > > > They *** DIDN'T ***
> >
> Yes they did.

No they DID NOT. It couldn't have been demonstrated as you suggest anyway since it
doesn't work as Meyer claims.

Have you even read his patent ? I have. It makes no 'overunity' claims AT ALL. It
just claims to be an electrolytic device for production of hydrogen and oxygen
**WHICH IT IS** just like any other one. In short there is NOTHING special about it
at all.

SHOW OTHERWISE or SHUT UP !

Graham