Talk:Water fuel cell/Archive 4

request section renamed

This section is currently called "media coverage", I would like to rename it into something that describes the section better. All sources in the article are from the media really. Any ideas for a name? Meyer technology? Energy from water? Oxyhydrogen on the cheap? Thanks, Gdewilde (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps split it? -- Gdewilde (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say leave it alone. Media coverage should have less weight than more scientific research. There's a big difference between entertainment and science. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Meyer's cell get hot?

I note that we've reintroduced the part of the article where those three guys were shown the device (but not allowed to examine it) and exclaimed about how wonderful they thought it was. One oft-reported statmeent is that everyone is amazed that Meyer's cell doesn't get hot.

The cell in that video appears to be about a meter tall and 10cm in cross-section - so we're looking at about 10 liters of water inside. The specific volumetric heat of water is 4.18 so it takes 4.18 Joules of energy to raise one cc by one degree C. That would mean that it would take 418,000 Joules to raise the entire container by one degree C. That's about 120 watt/hrs...neglecting the energy required to heat the glass, electrodes, etc.

The claim on the video was that the cell was running on half an amp of electrical power at 12 volts. That's 6 watts. So it would take 20 hours for the water to increase by one degree centigrade...and that's assuming that ALL of the electrical energy was heating up the water and none being expended on electrolysing the water. It also assumes that over the cylinder is perfectly insulated and no heat is being lost into the room.

So there is no surprise AT ALL that the cylinder didn't appear to heat up. That's a completely non-notable fact. Hence I'm going to remove the comment because it's misleading. It makes it appear that Meyer's cell is magical in some way...when it's really not.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are doing original research again. The reason why they are amazed it doesn't get hot is obvious directly related to the amount of gas the cell produces. Any other motivation to say something like that indeed doesn't exist. Gdewilde (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

“ While there have been many attempts to replicate the results of the system, none so far has claimed to do so. Also, there is no documented proof that the system produces enough oxyhydrogen to run an engine. To date there has not been a scientific peer review by the established scientific community done to establish workability on the claimed theories. ”

.

Your comment doesn't suffice as such either Steve. Sorry... Gdewilde (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it notable and relevant and special that this device was expected to get hot and that it didn't get hot? Note that doing "obvious" handling of given data is borderline-at-best WP:SYN. Basic math (unit conversions, etc.) is explicitly neither OR nor required to be cited. Up until stating how unlikely the guys would be to notice the small temperature change, it's all just unit conversions. DMacks (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can show that Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of Engineering at Queen Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr. Keith Hindley, a UK researchchemist have made obvious mistakes then we should describe those next to their claims. Gdewilde (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they made a mistake. They said it didn't get hot - and they were right. It's just not notable that they said that. If I wrote "They made a mistake" then that would be (a) a lie and (b) unreferenceable.

The article said that the people involved with the demonstration were saying that the cell doesn't get hot. My question is: "Why is this considered a notable fact?". It doesn't seem to me at all surprising that it doesn't get hot. It doesn't turn purple, sprout wings and fly away either - but we aren't mentioning that. The only reason this information would be notable enough to put into this encyclopedia would be if one might EXPECT the cell to get hot. If I wrote "The liquid in the cell does not turn purple" (which is true, and can be referenced by linking to the video of the cell operating and clearly NOT turning purple) - then that would be a violation of Wikipedias guidelines because not turning purple when you would not ordinarily expect it to turn purple - is a non-notable fact (although it is true). Introducing the statement to the article would be bad because it would lead the average reader to wonder WHY the liquid isn't turning purple and lead him/her to wonder whether water usually turns purple during electrolysis.

It is equally obvious that the water shouldn't get hot - and saying so leads our reader to suspect that water usually does get hot during electrolysis...which is misinformation. It's obvious that it won't get hot because there is a lot of water to heat up and very little energy going into the cell - so this is not amazing. Hence, I can safely remove this non-notable information from the article...which I did.

I have not put OR into the article - I'm not even using OR as justification for removing the information. I'm merely coming to this talk page - as a matter of politeness - to back up my editorial decision to remove some non-notable information by laying out some basic math. I do this specifically in order that nobody else should come along and claim that the absence of a surprising thing is somehow notable.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, electrolysis cells do get hot when they are operated. All the inefficiency manifest themselves as heat. This is thermodynamics in action (second law by my count). An observer wouldn't necessarily be able to measure this heat with their hand. This is due to many variables in cell design but in part because of water's large specific heat. It would take accurate calorimetric readings, quantifications the electricity added and hydrogen produced. Any observer would still be talking Mayer's word for how everything is working unless they were qualified to run the experiments themselves. So an off handed statement isn't worth anything other than the damage it does to the guys credibility.--OMCV (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

They can (indeed MUST) accumulate heat - and so does Meyer's - I don't doubt that for a moment. But there were about 10 liters of water being zapped with half an amp at 12 volts - some of which is actually doing work splitting up water molecules - so it's obvious that the temperature is going to climb VERY slowly - if at all. And indeed - if the numbers I gave are anything like correct, it would never get even warm to the touch because it would take days to accumulate enough heat to feel noticably warm to the touch - and in all likelyhood, it would lose heat as fast as it gained it. SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OMCV, please read the transcript from Griffin's lecture[[1]], thanks. --Gdewilde (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Steve I hadn't read everything, I didn't see the conditions were specified. I see the foil is back. What point should should the reader be looking for as they peruse the text you recommend Gdewilde?--OMCV (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks OMCV, where it is suggested to ionise water vapor with laser. Do CTRL+F and type "ionise". Basically "laser ionized water vapor". like Water vapor absorption of carbon dioxide laser radiation - Applied Optics. 15, 2480-2488 (1976) Gdewilde (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets see... a random PDF from a free energy conspiracy web site? Terrible source, remove it.Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, as usual, they neglect that any sort of resonant pumping or ionization takes energy...sure, the food in the microwave gets hot, but you gotta supply a few hundred watts of mains current. Lasers can supply a lot of focused energy, but you have to add energy to do that (via electicity or a chemical reaction), and the lasing itself is

horribly inefficient. Any time you try to create a net gain of energy, you fail due to not accounting for some input. DMacks (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I though I was looking for their laughable conception of chemistry as displayed in Figures 5 through 9. I must admit I couldn't read the text of Figure 9 but I expect it is just as wrong as a the others. I always thought real science was rather difficult to read but fabricated ramblings are even harder to follow. This stuff isn't grounded in anything resembling main stream chemistry. Further more the atomic and chemical models used were never part of chemistry although they do in some ways resemble the models used to teach high school chemistry. It appears the author of the work are grifting from the chemistry lexicon and symbology to develop their fiction. Scams work best when they are built on partial truths with convincing sounding language. So I must admit that I still don't know what you're interested in. Ionizing any molecule with a laser is simple enough for example Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization is common in Mass Spec. But what does that have to do with anything being discussed here? DMack made a the connection for you but he shouldn't have had to. While I know Steve enjoys arguing with you I'm not convinced you should be wasting anyones time here. I realize you are likely young but you have to show the capacity to learn.--OMCV (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Meyers did drift off into theorizing about laser-driven water ionization and such after he'd been convicted of fraud with his water fuel cell - but that's not the subject of this article. (And it was all a similar load of old BS anyway - his papers on the subject are more or less just random science words thrown together in random order.) The basic fuel cell - the one he's famous for - the one all the wannabe's on YouTube are crazy about - is just electrolysis...no lasers...no sharks with lasers on their heads...just a bunch of copper tubes in a big jar of water with some unnecessary circuitry to generate an A/C waveform. All else was showmanship. SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for psychoanalysing me on this talk page OMCV but I'm afraid the talk page is not designated to this purpose. As for your reason, I cant smell how much sense things make to you, this is why I asked you to read it. Does that make sense?

I agree with Steve, Steve is right, the article is suppose to describe the Water Fuel Cell, this is hard enough as it is. We should do so in a wp:neutral point of view, allow the facts to speak for themselves.

We have an article full of debunkery, lets give the reader an idea what is being debunked in the article as in stan's files, seminars and other Marketing materials.

If you want oxymoronic: Electrolysis requires electrolyte. Using water as a dielectric medium as I've described here:user:gdewilde/Water capacitor is something entirely different. I suppose a combination with laser is just another oxymoron OMCV? Meyer talked about those injectors remember?

I think it is important that we get the thing we are debunking right, this will avoid the article looking like it was written by idiots.

My opinion is irrelevant, I'm just adding what there is to find and trying to bring the article forward. You can wave the diploma leaflet and you deserve it as you worked hard for it, however water Capacitors can be destroyed like any capacitor. This fact wont change because you like it to change. I thought if capacitors are rocket science to you then ionising the air with laser must be way beyond the pink clouds down lala land over the hill etc. Apparently not, I can live with that.

You also know water capacitors can only be used for a very limited time then they short out? Please help us find enough information about water capacitors to debunk the claims. The article is suppose to describe things in a side by side fashion. Burning people at the stake because of claims of witchcraft alone is not good science IMHO. We can do better. Gdewilde (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gdewilde: Aside from dragging this simple explanation far off topic, you have breached the WP:3RR rule. With luck no admins will notice and you'll avoid a block...but please don't make matters any worse by reverting again. I went to CONSIDERABLE lengths to explain why I'm removing this non-notable information. You have come up with not one word to contradict my statement. Please cease reverting my changes immediately - and let's discuss why you think this information is so very important to the article. SteveBaker (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically no electrolyte is required for electrolysis it just works better with electrolyte. You might also like to know that water resistance (or the measure of how dielectric it is) is also the measure of its purity (free of ions) with 18 MΩ•cm being really pure, see deionized water.

I have a hard time trying to figure out what you are saying so I'm going to try to put it plainly.

You say that some documents (not sure which) are claiming

1. That water can be put between two oppositely charged plates to form what you call a water capacitor.
2. This water can be shot with a laser to ionize the water.
3. ???

I'm not sure where to go from here. I can see a lot of energy thrown at this water. This appears to be jargon to confuse investors. It is important for you to know that laser ionized matter will find its way to a less excited state as soon as possible. For example the inside of a mass spec (something I mentioned earlier) is under a strong vacuum to first allow ions to fly unperturbed (guided by magnets) but the vacuum also prevents the ions from giving their energy and charge to the atmosphere as they seek a lower energy state. When matter is shot with a laser much of it can ionize but a most of those ionize recombine to the lowest energy state possible releasing heat in the process. In the case of water it will mostly ionize into H+ and OH- which then recombine into H2O. I suspect you will claim that the laser and "water capacitor" work in conjunction. Honestly this doesn't matter if you consider that of the energy that goes into a laser at most 30% comes out (really optimistic). The transfer of that energy to water will be really low. Honestly this is laughable if you weren't trying to promote a scam. My assumption of your bad faith is that you have been changing the headers to wesley words. I was checking out "knol" and found this. Frankly I at this point I think you are a pathological liar. I take back what I said about you being young.--OMCV (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

OMCV, please deal with content[[2]]

If you feel I'm doing something wrong explain what is wrong. I'm not planing on reverting anything without explaining for it. I want the historical facts on the page for as far those are available. Please assist finding sources rather then deleting them if you can.

I thought theguyonthesubway didn't like the other quote or that it didn't create the right context, so I deleted the other one. This one is rather harsh don't you think? Thats why I called it that anyway, it didn't refer to anyone working at the article.

Hope that explains it,

Gdewilde (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see you guys are finding one thing after another to pick at but there are people doing it so keep picking all you want. When we are driving around on water then you will see what we are talking about.

As for the miracle of water is that you have not found the answer as to why it makes so much energy.

I guess you high minded types can't see the simple things in life and have to make it seem so complicated that you get lost in your threories and calculations.

I read where one of you was trying to figure out why it did not get hot and you had all these calculations and etc. What a waste of time. They have battery chargers that pulse the charge and that is what keeps the batteries from getting so hot. It is because they do not have a continuous flow of current. It is pulsing 50% on and 50% off in fast series of pulses, much like Stanley Meyer's WFC does.

You have that high voltage with that low current go in constant and it will get real hot. But by pulsing it you do not give it a chance to get hot before the current is turned off.

You guys are differently the wrong people to be writing about Stanley Meyer's Water Fuel Cell. You are closed minded and biased as all get out. Your stuck in a box of laws and theories and you just plain are rude all the time. You have not even tried to build this yourselves and you know nothing of electronics apparently. Sure you are good at laying out a page in text with heading and subheadings but that is about all as you have no common sense. You make fun of all the things I say and what others say also.

You question fuel from water? What do you think electrolysis is? It is fuel from water. You just takes more to get it is all than Meyer's method. What about Denny Klein? Yul Brown? They also are getting fuel from water but it takes a lot more energy than Meyer's does to make it is all. So water is converted to a gaseous fuel. So is gasoline. You do not burn the liquid in the gasoline, you burn the vapors only and not very efficiently at that. Just because you can not understand something does not mean it is not so. There is a guy in the Philippines that has had a car that runs strictly on water since the 70's and all the automakers and everyone else brushed him off.

That does not mean it is not so. It just means that they are denying the truth because they are stuck in their status quo. So it looks like you are also. Make the machine first then see is it works or not? Do not sabotage it so you can claim it does not work also. That is how big business and the FDA and other agencies work. They rig the tests to fail whatever they want to stop such as Stevia Extracts and etc. Do a honest replication such as Ravi did. Go from there.

Then you can be a authority on Stanley Meyers!

HawkNo1 (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Klein, and Yull Brown have nothing to do with this topic. Noah Seidman (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

HawkNo1's last post (pasted into two places for no especially good reason) contains a number of Personal Attacks. I have affixed an appropriate complaint tag to his talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

user:HawkNo1 is correct in his complaints about things. Gdewilde (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There isnt a thing in here about improving the article. I suggest it be deleted.Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

No good reason was given for deleting the most important part of the article.[[3]]

The part where the witnesses are clearly stating the device worked for hours, and you pretend this is about the part where it was observed to stay cool while working for several hours. This isn't a miracle because he wouldn't have gotten a patent on ordinary electrolysis so you really already knew this.

Here is a small one:[4] and [5][6][7][8] etc It stays cool because it stays cool. And it works because it works. Thats enough original research for me.

I even had something that looked a lot like a credible cite, then user:SteveBaker came along and deleted the most significant parts of it. Discuss he says, but he really means wp:original research it. Unless there is a valid reason to remove the part where the witnesses claim the device worked for hours. I cant imagine one and I haven't seen one jet, I did see other false accusations.

Please assume good faith, no original research and act civil please. tnx Gdewilde (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources listed are appropriate. I would point out this video as a better proof of an alternative energy source [9], or perhaps a demonstration of why youtube is not a good source.Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you say talks about the content, you are again talking about my contributions in general thus complaining about me actually working at the article while all of you want to vandalise it.

No good reason was given for changing the citation:[10]. The witnesses claim the device worked for several hours..Gdewilde (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad Sources

Theres a few sources that I'd like to nominate for removal from the article.

Anything from www.padrak.com www.waterpoweredcar.com These two sites are no more reuptable than a random blog.

www.thorionproject.com This one I dont consider a reputable source, but would hear your opinions. I'm not sure a random PDF republished by them is a good source. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the last remaining reference to "Sir Admiral Griffin", since we've established he's a non-notable source, and that was the only www.theorionproject.com link. The www.padrak.com links appear to mostly be letters written by Meyer, so unless you think they're mis-transcribed, it's probably OK. The main www.waterpoweredcar.com link is the video of the news report, which should be kept if only to show how totally clueless the media is about this sort of thing. The www.waterpoweredcar.com link also appears as an external reference, which is OK, although a disclaimer might be appropriate.Prebys (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Since we established he is a non-notable source", what do you mean here? [[11]] "Griffin has no technical qualifications, and is talking bollocks".

I see you are an expert in the area of bollocks talking? lol

A witness is a witness, The article should make it clear the witnesses are not 100% scientists. This is important because it lends unreasonable credibility to their observation. It's a lie to cherry-pick scientists from the observers. It was not a scientific investigation.

We are still waiting for the scientific investigation remember? Gdewilde (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave off for a moment whether or not he's notable. The link is to a unverifiable PDF on a website of dubious quality. I suggest removing it on that basis alone. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I`m looking at this from an outside POV and I want to simply ask, do the references, which are proposed for removal, contain information which may be usefull to the article? If so, prior to removing, can you please post a copy of the reference here on the talk page so editors will be able to try and find a better source or use the source as a basic reading. --CyclePat (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why leave any reference to sources that are biased, just plain wrong, or of questionable quality? Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pat, you can always look at the old versions of the page to see the sources. You might know that already but I thought I would suggest it.--OMCV (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Broken citation

I commented out a broken citation under the page protection. Please accept my apology if the edit is inappropriate, but it was a named citation reference pointing to a citation which was since deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert?

This deletion needs to be reverted,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&diff=prev&oldid=230619361

Meyer presented his fuel cell device to Professor Michael Laughton, Dean, Dr. Keith Hindley, and Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, executive officer in the Royal Navy. The transcript from his lecture was not the source of his presence. Gdewilde (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

italics or non italics

Both Ball citations should either to be in italics or non italics. Gdewilde (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Cleanup

I propose we also archive the current talk page and going forward follow guidlines a bit more closely. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

I'm going to delete text that isnt about improvements to the article, going forward.

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing comments

I propose moving the text to the user's talk page, and the discussion can continue there.

I have no problem educating folks, but the talk page shouldnt be a platform for editors' opinions.

Thoughts? Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and acknowledge I'm part of the problem. Thanks for being the voice of reason.--OMCV (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive away. The current set of discussions do not add any value to the article and detract from useful contributions.I55ere (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is actually auto-archived...when a section isn't edited after X days, it gets moved by MiszaBot. However, we had had X=60 days. I don't think we've ever had anything close to that old that still mattered enough to be kept on the main talk page, so I set X=14 days. Maybe we should let the material auto-archive (in a few days' time) instead of doing it manually, and just get on with new stuff below it? DMacks (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned block

"Meyer claims the Times article wrongly implies that the U.S. Patent Office has not the ability to rule on the technical merits of issued U.S. Patents, as so granted to inventor, Stanley A. Meyer, under 35 USC 101[21] and that the article wrongly implies that the Plaintiff's three experts had the necessary scientific background to properly evaluate the various stages of the tech-development of the WFC technology.[20]"

This makes no sense, in context and the references are out of order. I suggest we remove it? Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Assides from the bad grammar. What`s wrong with this fact... If we mention the Times article, I think it`s only fair that we can mention this. --CyclePat (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok! I see that the letter, regarding reference 20, is from someone`s personal website. The source is perhaps lacking some authoritativaty. Have you bothered sending the website owner an email regarding origins of the letter? This would meet WP:V if he sent you a copy / scanned .jpg (notarized from the courts and or signed by Meyers). --CyclePat (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOURCES. I doubt this is an exceptional claim. Simply, an email from the website owner with the origin of the letter is probably sufficient to prove that the website does have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --CyclePat (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I was saying is that I dont know what times article it refers to, I suspect that paragraph is all that remins from an older block? Read the entire section top to bottom, or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 03:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Times article" is almost certainly the one that we link as the google-groups archived copy. It's ref #2 at this time. DMacks (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Online Debate voice debate.

I notice a few of us are online at around the same time.[12] I was wondering what it would be like if we had instant messaging or voice chat. Actually, after I though about that, I then wondered... what would we talk about? Maybe we could plan some sort of formal debate? (get it recorded too and then put it here wikimedia commons with a link on the talk page). Of course we'dd need to put asside our Wikipedia WP:NPOV editor hats and temporarily pick a side, but I think it would be interesting to have such a debate and could even be productive for this article. (Debaters should prepare proper references) --CyclePat (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The WP Chemistry working group regularly schedules IRC discussions, with full transcripts posted. Pretty easy to do. DMacks (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Break for editing

You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I no longer support the ideal that water can be used as a fuel. I am only producing that Meyers could have discovered a more efficient form of electrolysis, and that the gases produced from it can be safely and easily acquired, not that water can by itself power a car. Nor am I claiming that he was poisoned. I am only taking his belief that he was poisoned as evidence of his paranoia, evidence only of his belief that he actually found a new form of energy, not that he actually did so. Was he a fraud? I am still not sure, even though I believe him to be mistaken in thinking that water can be used as a fuel.

I never saw a film of the vehicle actually moving, only one of it sitting at idle. I believed only enough gas was being produced by his apparatus to allow this engine to achieve a very lean burning, low rpm idle. They never revved up the engine, and I suspected this was because it was not generating enough gas to do so. Is there a film of it moving? I would like to see it. Also; are your calculations taking into account that 2:1 hydrogen oxygen would leave a more hydrogen that could be carbureted with outside air/oxygen to produce a larger volume of explosive gas mixture then what was being generated in the apparatus?12.72.30.254 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Never saw a film of the vehicle moving?!?!? You can't have looked very hard. When I googled "stanley meyer water powered car" I got loads of videos. For example, here is a news clip from his website. It shows a video of a dune buggy, supposedly running on water, which says "water powered car" on the side, topped of by Meyer saying - you guessed it - that it runs on water. There really isn't any wiggle room left. I can believe that some of these guys who claim they can increase gas mileage are just self-deluded, but Meyer's said that his car ran on water. You can't "accidentally" do that. He was lying, pure and simple. Why is it you're so desperate to believe that he wasn't?Prebys (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there are a number of videos of it moving - and reports from journalists who saw it moving, rode in it AND (just to be really clear that this is the same dune buggy) were told by Meyer that it was running on water at the time. The video of the buggy parked, idling, with the water fuel cell on the ground next to it is (if anything) more interesting. It's the very same cell design as the one I measured the performance of by carefully analysing a video of it running. It produces 13,000 times too little gas to run a typical car engine at 30mph. There is no way on earth that an idling car uses 13,000 times less fuel per second than one running at 30mph. It's more like three times less (most cars idle at around 800 rpm - and at 30mph in 4th gear they're turning about 2400 rpm - and gas consumption is roughly proportional to rpm in most engines...especially old ones like the VW bug engine in the buggy)...so he was DEFINITELY cheating in that video too. Look at the skinny little hose running between the "fuel cell" and the car - even with the engine idling and therefore only needing 3 liters of oxyhydrogen per second...do you really think you'd maintain that flow rate in that skinny little rubber hose?

If you need more evidence from that same video with the stationary dune buggy - ask yourself this. Why are the two guys putting their hands at the ends of the exhaust pipes and repeatedly remarking on how cool the exhaust gasses are? If you were to drive an engine with pure 2:1 molar H2/O2 mixture, the ONLY product coming out of the exhaust would be pure, distilled water. If it were coming out as a gas - it would be steam and there is no way they'd be putting their hands that close to it without getting rather nastily scaulded...hence it would have to be liquid water. So how come they can feel any exhaust gasses coming out AT ALL?!?! There should be nothing more than a fine dribble of water - and the level of the water in the fuel cell should be dropping at the exact same rate. Come to think of it, why does the buggy even need exhaust pipes?

Sadly, the bozos surrounding Meyer were simply too stupid and too un-critical to figure this kind of thing out. Meyers clearly hadn't thought about it either or he'd have faked it more convincingly. I begin to suspect the buggy is running on propane gas or something like that. That would avoid the exhaust smelling of gasoline and would also produce a thin, fairly convincing dribble of water on the outlet and exhaust gasses that would be safe to breathe (that's why the fork-lift trucks they run around inside warehouses are run on propane).

You ask "Also; are your calculations taking into account that 2:1 hydrogen oxygen would leave a more hydrogen that could be carbureted with outside air/oxygen to produce a larger volume of explosive gas mixture then what was being generated in the apparatus?" - that's not a true statement - so I didn't "take account of it". When you electrolyse water, you get EXACTLY the right proportion of hydrogen to oxygen to burn both gasses completely and get water back at the end - because all you did was to pull the water molecules apart, shake them up a bit and put them right back together again. There is twice the "molar" quantity of hydrogen as oxygen (that means "twice the number of atoms") because the formula for water is H2O...two hydrogen atoms for each oxygen. Hydrogen is very light though - so it's not twice by weight - it's about 1/9th by weight because an oxygen atom weighs 18 times as much as a hydrogen atom. So - yes, my calculations take all of that into account.

You also say: "I am only producing that Meyers could have discovered a more efficient form of electrolysis," - there was evidence at Meyer's trial that his device was no more efficient than a traditional electrolytic cell. My measurements based on the video suggest that it's actually a lot less efficient. As for "the gases produced from it can be safely and easily acquired" - again, no. When you apply a DIRECT current (DC) to an electrolytic cell, you get oxygen bubbling off one electrode and hydrogen bubbling off the other. This is pretty safe - you can collect the two gasses separately - and without oxygen being present, hydrogen is very safe to handle. However, crazy as Meyers was - he claimed that his ALTERNATING current (AC) system was 'fracturing' the liquid in some quasi-magical fashion. In an AC cell, the hydrogen and oxygen gasses come off first one electrode, then the other - back and forth as fast as the current is oscillating. The net result is that you get a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen coming off both electrodes - and the resulting gas is insanely explosive..."remember the Hindenberg"! So, no - you can't cling to a belief that Meyers produced a better or even a safer method of electrolysis.

There is no dodging this one. Meyers was a fraud and a cheat and a liar...and he stole money from innocent investors - exactly as the courts said. He was an incompetent scientist and couldn't even fake a simple demonstration effectively. The only reason anyone took notice of him is because (a) people WANTED to believe him and (b) he looked great on the evening news on a slow news day - so the journalists were happy not to investigate his claims too carefully.

So - there is really not much left to be said in his favor.

Do you want to hear about his twin brother Stephen Meyers? He's carrying on his brother's "great work" even as we speak.

Anyone interested in starting a brand new urban legend? I'm thinking of telling gullible people that "Stanley Meyers didn't really die and it was actually Stephen who was killed by mistake by the Arab/Belgian terrorist alliance - Stanley took his brother's name to avoid being targetted again - and also to dodge the legal system in his earlier fraud case."...it makes great reading don't you think? I think it could be all over the nut-job web pages within a week. When someone tells you it's true - please remember you heard it here first!  :-)

SteveBaker (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Desperate? LOL. Now I have to wonder just who is more paranoid, Myers or you. Thanks for the site, I will check it out when I am on a faster connection, but speaking about desperation, you sound a little that way yourself. I mean if he at some point became a fraud, that does not necessarily conclude that he did not find a better method of electrolysis, which is all I am really interested in trying to determine at this point. If it is a better method, could it possibly become a more efficient way to store electrical energy for certain uses? I think this is important to determine one way or the other, and is why I asked if your calculations included the extra hydrogen that could be mixed with air/oxygen to make up a greater volume of explosive gas, which I ask again. Come to think of it, I believe air consists of only around 20% oxygen, so if the gas that Myers was producing on its own was 1/3 oxygen, would it not be needing far less volume to produce the same explosive force as what normally runs a gasoline engine? This reminds me of the old use of direct current and the limited transmission of power that Edison tried to foist on us by constantly and nefariously ridiculing the inventor of Alternating Current: Tesla. Over long distance Tesla's high voltage AC is the only way to go, could it be (speculation) that through water, the same kind of efficiency applies in electrolysis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.28.252 (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - my calculations take into account absolutely everything. The PERFECT mix of oxygen and hydrogen is what the Meyer's cell produced - and I give him full credit for that in my calculations. You need EXACTLY one oxygen atom for every two hydrogen atoms - no more and no less (Please remember that chemical formula for water!!! It's H2O - not H3O or H1O or HO6 or something - you need PRECISELY 2H's and one O per water molecule - and that's what you get when you electrolyse H2O). Adding more oxygen would make the hydrogen burn less well - adding more hydrogen would result in incomplete combustion. Nope - I took that fully into account - there are no clever tricks.

Your analogy with Tesla and Edison is a good one - except that in this case DC happens to be the clear winner because AC produces mixed-up oxyhydrogen and when stored in any quantity is a major disaster waiting to happen! Tesla was wrong about other things that Edison was right about...we don't use AC to run flashlights or computer chips or MP3 players or...anything that has one of those "wall wart" power supplies that converts AC to DC. AC wins for long distance transmission - but we'd arguably have been better off with DC power coming out of our wall outlets. SteveBaker (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that electrolysing water to extract hydrogen and then storing the hydrogen would be a good way to store electricity and use it in vehicles -- yes -- for sure, yes. See Hydrogen economy for example. But (and it's a BIG but...) Meyers was all wrong about how to do it:

• It's all about "energy density" - how to store the most energy in the least space and at the least weight for the car. Why store the oxygen as well as the hydrogen when there is more than enough oxygen floating around in the air? Indeed, "real" hydrogen powered cars do indeed get their hydrogen from big factory-sized power plants that use electricity to electrolyse water (although some other chemical routes are also used). However, they don't use Meyer's stupid Alternating Current based system because then they'd have to separate out the H2's from the O2's - which is probably difficult, expensive and insanely dangerous. Remember - the oxyhydrogen gas they'd be handling in massive quantities would be highly explosive and would go BANG at the slightest spark. A car that hauls around oxyhydrogen would have to carry 9 times as much weight in it's tank as one carrying hydrogen alone. So this is quite simple a non-starter. Any electricity-to-hydrogen production system is going to use Direct Current (DC) electrolysis in which the hydrogen can easily be collected in a very pure form - and the oxygen can either be vented to atmosphere (quite safely) or collected and sold for industrial purposes. AC-based systems like Meyer's are a joke...and they'd still be a joke even if they were more efficient than DC - which they are not.

• You don't burn hydrogen with oxygen in a horribly inefficient internal combustion engine - you use a "true" fuel cell - one that takes oxygen from the air and hydrogen from the gas tank and produces water and electricity cleanly, quietly and MUCH more efficiently than an internal combustion engine. The resulting electricity can then be used to drive electric motors just like an electric car - making "hydrogen/electric hybrid" cars a very natural thing to build. Much more efficient.

• Currently - we can store energy in the form of electricity in batteries that are lighter and take less space than a hydrogen gas tank - they are also safer in the event of a crash. So storing hydrogen doesn't YET make sense. But both hydrogen storage and battery technologies are racing ahead and it's not yet clear which one will win. Hydrogen may end up being stored by allowing it to be absorbed into metal hydride structures...but that too is an experimental technique.

But for sure - for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN - nothing that Meyers did is of any value whatever. Practically every car company on the planet has a hydrogen-powered demonstration unit - not one of them uses oxyhydrogen because nobody is suicidal enough to drive such a thing!

SteveBaker (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, perhaps a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing for me. It makes sense that h2o does not have any extra hydrogen to combine with air and burn, and that it completes itself fully from water to gas, or from gas to water. What threw me is the ancient method of generating hydrogen gas, used during the civil war I believe, that of passing steam through a white hot pipe, from what I surmised was a "burning" of one hydrogen with one oxygen leaving the remaining hydrogen to exit the pipe (obviously at a cooler end.) This must be a wrong assumption as well, I now know, but that leaves me with no idea how this method extracts hydrogen at all. 12.72.31.141 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused on this topic. It takes a lot more heat than a "white hot pipe" to separate water into H and O (more like the heat of a fusion reactor). I believe what you're referring to is steam reforming, wherein steam reacts with Methane producing H2 (good) and C02 (bad). It's a very common and inexpensive way to make Hydrogen, but the fact it requires Methane and produces C02 cancels out the environmental benefits associated with a Hydrogen economy. There's nothing mysterious about Meyer's process. It's just ordinary electrolysis, which has been around since the 18th century and was quantitatively understood by Faraday. Meyer's only "contribution" is the addition of a complex, pulsed waveform in the driving circuit. This has no effect whatsoever on the electrolysis, but it serves to confuse power measurements made by people who don't know what they're doing. Luckily for Meyer, there is no shortage of such people.Prebys (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep - that method of converting methane plus water into hydrogen plus CO2 is still used - whether it's OK for the environment or not depends on where you get your methane from. Lots of farmers are using cow poop to generate methane - and if you use that methane to generate hydrogen, you're still "carbon neutral". The problem with the steam reforming technique is if the methane comes from fossil fuel resources - then you have a very 'dirty' process and any claim for using the resulting hydrogen in an ecologically correct way is a delusion.

The 'complex waveform' of Meyer's electrolysis scheme has the nasty side-effect of failing to separate out the hydrogen and oxygen as DC electrolysis does "for free" - and that sharply limits it's applicability. Since you can't safely store 2:1 molar mixtures of oxygen and hydrogen because it's so explosive - the only things you could use a Meyer's cell for is in situations where you plan to immediately use the stuff for something. But there aren't many applications where you want to use all that electricity just to produce a hydrogen flame. There are some extremely small niche applications where a hydrogen flame is used for welding in situations where you don't want carbon to be present...but that's really about it...and even then, people generally just buy cylinders of hydrogen produced in a factory someplace. For powering a car - you're better off using the electricity to drive some electric motors and not messing around with all of that other nonsense.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was confused, thanks to all for removing some false information I have been harboring. I still would like to see Meyers invention side by side next to a normal DC electrolysis device, both powered by the same amount of current, to determine if one was more efficient then the other. Yes I know it is easier to use the DC for separation of the gasses, however I see no reason it could not be safely separated by gravity in an upright "cannon like" barrel as I suggested before. Given hydrogen being the lightest gas, it should separate from oxygen, and any accidental ignition could be safely directed upwards out of harm's way. That is if it turned out to actually be more efficient, as was mentioned before; the very many but fine bubbles in Meyers device may give only the illusion of efficiency, whereas the larger DC bubbles could be fewer, but deliver the same, or even more hydrogen. 12.72.32.76 (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly be interesting to see the Meyer's cell compete head-to-head with a regular DC cell. I wonder how easy it would be to control for electrode shape and proximity? But it would be an illuminating test. I still disagree with your idea of separating hydrogen and oxygen in a long vertical column - it might work - but my 'gut feel' is that it would probably happen unbelievably slowly. I'm no chemist though - you could easily be right. Electrolysis#Electrolysis_of_water and Electrolysis of water both say that electrolysis (presumably, the DC kind) is between 50% and 80% efficient and that the theoretical maximum efficiency is between 80% and 94%. So there is certainly room for improvement. A lot of the variability comes from what's dissolved into the water. Absolutely pure distilled water doesn't electrolyze hardly at all because it doesn't conduct electricity. But dissolve a tiny amount of salt into it and the reaction goes a lot easier because the water can be (literally) a million times more conductive! So probably, knowing that, we have practical DC mechanisms that are up in the 70% efficiency range - with a theoretical 94% - providing you dissolve just the right amount of 'stuff' in with the water and have just the right shape of electrodes...that kind of thing. One thing I recall from high school chemistry classes is that when a bubble of oxygen or hydrogen forms on the electrode, it insulates the electrode from the water - so electrolysis stops in the region where the bubbles are. You could probably help that along by circulating the water rapidly to speed up the movement of the bubbles off of the surface of the electrode. You can also electrolyze steam - which is reputed to be even more efficient. I don't see anything in serious scientific literature about using AC - but because efficiency of these big industrial processes is so critical, it's hard to believe that nobody tried a bunch of AC tests. If AC worked better - I'm almost 100% certain we'd be using it - and we're not.

Oh now this is funny, I used to dream about just these kind of devices, something like a blender rotating its electrolysis plates rapidly in solution. I thought about steam, and what effect might it have under vacuum and microwave energies. I thought about capacitor like coiled plates limiting the amount of water between plates (limiting electrical resistance)or grids of fine wire mesh plates stacked together for the same result, all of this under my misconception that water could be used as a fuel. Still it would be beneficial and fun to find a more effiecent method of electrolysis. Bobadi (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

SteveBaker (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I read this guys version of Stanley Meyer's Water Fuel Cell and almost puked.

When gas is setting there waiting to be burned and it takes a spark to ignite it is it still not full of energy before it is burned? Same with H2O or Water. Water is pure energy waiting to be utilized. Stanley Meyer's made a capacitor which he used water in. A capacitor is just like a battery and stores energy in and of itself. It leaks energy much faster than a battery does though. In a Lead acid battery it produces hydrogen itself but at such low amounts that it is not that unsafe. They still warn of explosion from it. Well Stanley Meyer's in his capacitor had a side affect of producing a lot of hydrogen and oxygen. It broke the bonds of the H2O to produce 2 very flammable gases and pound for pound water is much more energy than gasoline and evaporates at a much higher temperature than gasoline so it can expand to be much more power and energy than gasoline yet you do not deny that gasoline is energy waiting to be used correct? So is water!

What I read from this guy who posted this stuff is a bunch of croak. He never even saw the videos of all the people out there making HHO using the Stanley Meyer Methods. There are some using electrolysis also but they lose efficiency in using electrolytes and that is still electrolysis. Stanley Meyer's setup is like a battery making hydrogen and oxygen in the process but much more of it. There is no over unity here.

The energy has always been stored in the water. Stanley Meyer just found a very easy way to tap into it. He got killed for it. I am saying he was assassinated. They did not want us to not have to relying on oil and so forth. They want us at their mercy. We ahve to rely on their fossil fuels.

Stanley kept this to himself pretty much and in doing so he was killed. If he would have shared his knowledge openly to the whole world as we now can do over the Internet then there would be no use in killing him as everyone would be doing it and making HHO and running their combustion engines and jet engines on it.

If anything if you have not noticed but the electronics supplies need and the Stainless Steel supplies have been getting more and more scarce these days. Someone with a lot of power is already trying to keep this from happening and this guy that wrote the first article is part of that machine. Water is energy. It is a miracle in fact. It is a solid, as gas, a liquid, it can make explosive gases in Hydrogen and Oxygen and it can be used to put out a fire. It is the most universal solvent known to mankind. It provides our bodies with life as we can not live without it. It is the most abundant resource of this planet. All life needs it and it did not evolve. It was made for use and it is being used all the time. Which shows all of us that there is a divine creator and he does have a name. Psalms 83:18 KJV or Darby Translation or Young's Literal Translation and many other translations. His name in English is Jehovah.

I ran into the Patents of Stanley Meyer: USP # 4,936,961; USP # 4,826,581; USP # 4,798,661; USP # 4,613,304; USP # 4,465,455; USP # 4,421,474; USP # 4,389,981; Canadian Patent # 2,067,735; WO 9207861A1 (which was hard to find.)

It also led me to new patents by a Dennis Klein: USP # 6,689,259 B1; USP # 6,866,756 B2; US Patent Application # 2006/0075683 A1

This is something that the US Government will not want you to have. So I am never one to deny anyone anything that is legal. It is not illegal to look up patents. So here is the web page to go to so as to get this for free just by typing in the numbers for most of these patents. On the patent applications you need to leave out the slash and etc. Canadian Patents are not covered here also and neither is the WO patent. [13]

Joe Hawkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkNo1 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: editor has altered above content after I had made the following reply DMacks (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your whole explanation becomes total nonsense starting in the third sentence. Water is not "a compact form of hydrogen and oxygen molecules", it's an entirely different chemical that has less energy. You may have noticed that hydrogen and oxygen burn to produce water and a lot of energy? That tells you that the water that results has less energy than the hydrogen and oxygen that burned (that energy got released by the burning). You would have to re-add all that energy in order to get back to "loose" hydrogen and oxygen. You can't burn the hydrogen in water because it's already burned. You can't roll the contents of an ashtray and light them again. DMacks (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK Joe - please - I beg of you - read my careful response to what you said. I've gone to great pains to answer you point by point. Don't just skip over what I'm telling you.

Let me take you through this step-by-step. You asked:

• When gas is setting there waiting to be burned and it takes a spark to ignite it is it still not full of energy before it is burned?

Yes, you are 100% correct...and that energy is released when you burn it (that is the heat and light that comes from the combustion process). When you burn hydrogen in oxygen you get lots of energy liberated (which you could use to drive a car, I suppose) and you get plain old water. So the water you get at the end of that process no longer contains that energy - right? The energy "came out of the gas" and turned into heat and light and that powered your car (or whatever). Now the energy has gone - and all you have left is water. Try to hold that thought in your head for one more paragraph!

• Same with H2O or Water. Water is pure energy waiting to be utilized.

No, you are 100% incorrect. Because (as I just explained) water is what you end up with after you liberate that energy from the hydrogen and oxygen gasses. So water is like the ashes in a fireplace after you've burned something. It's what's left over when all of the energy is gone. That's why you need to put energy INTO the water to turn it back into a gas. Water itself has essentially no energy left.

This seemingly obvious/simple mistake is at the heart of every single energy-from-water enthusiasts' thinking.

• Stanley Meyer's made a capacitor which he used water in.

Stanley Meyer CLAIMED a whole lot of things. Almost all of which don't cut it under close examination. He had very little education having left school before graduating highschool - so he often used the wrong words for a bunch of things - the CORRECT term for what he built is an "Electrolytic Cell" - it's not a "fuel cell" and it's not a "capacitor" or a "battery". Using the wrong names for things doesn't make him a bad engineer - but it can be confusing. So let's try to ignore what he called things and stick to what they actually do.

• A capacitor is just like a battery and stores energy in and of itself. It leaks energy much faster than a battery does though.

Yeah - there is a fine line between what is a battery and what's a capacitor. But this is irrelevent because nothing Meyer's built could be correctly described as either a battery or a capacitor.

• In a Lead acid battery it produces hydrogen itself but at such low amounts that it is not that unsafe. They still warn of explosion from it.

Well...be careful. The battery doesn't "produce hydrogen itself" - when you CHARGE a lead acid battery, the water that's in the acid electrolyses and you get hydrogen and oxygen - just like you do in an electrolysis cell. So don't go away with the idea that "batteries produce hydrogen" - that's not true - it's "battery chargers" that do that. But don't take my word for it - read our article Lead_acid_battery#Exploding_batteries.

• Well Stanley Meyer's in his capacitor had a side affect of producing a lot of hydrogen and oxygen. It broke the bonds of the H2O to produce 2 very flammable gases...

OK - well his electrolysis cell (to use the right name) did produce hydrogen and oxygen. Electricity fed into the cell supplied the energy to break those bonds. By pumping a lot of electrical energy into that tired old energyless water, you can split it into hydrogen and oxygen. Those gasses are now "charged" with the energy you fed into them. The energy came from the electricity though - not from the water.

• ...pound for pound water is much more energy than gasoline...

No - hydrogen gas has pound for pound about 3.5 times more energy than gasoline. Water has no energy whatever.

• ...and evaporates at a much higher temperature than gasoline so it can expand to be much more power and energy than gasoline...

Water evaporates at any temperature - so does gasoline. In the vacuum of space, even ice will evaporate (although we call that 'sublimation'. But I think this is irrelevent. You are probably thinking of "evaporation" as the conversion of water into hydrogen and oxygen - but that's not what happens. As water evaporates, it remains as water vapor - just like those big fluffy clouds up in the sky that evaporated from the oceans. So no - water vapor doesn't have any more energy than water in a bucket. The only way to get to the energetic hydrogen/oxygen gasses is to pump energy into the water to split up the molecules. You take two water molecules H2O + H2O - you add an enormous amount of energy from somewhere - and you get H2 + H2 + O2 - two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen. That's NOT evaporation...that's electrolysis. This is VERY important.

• yet you do not deny that gasoline is energy waiting to be used correct?

Gasoline is a very different matter. The molecules of gasoline are stuffed full of energy - just like hydrogen - that's why the stuff burns so easily. All it takes to get gasoline burning in air is a spark - it's just BURSTING with raw energy waiting to be released. Once the gasoline has burned - all of the energy is released and all you have left is some water and some carbon dioxide. Both water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) have no energy left in them...it's all been released as heat and light - just like with hydrogen.

• So is water!

No! Really, NO! You can use a spark or a flame or a fuse or whatever and you'll NEVER get water to burst into flames (Hint: That's why firemen put water onto a fire to extinguish it!) You've first got to split it up into hydrogen and oxygen - and to do THAT you've got to stuff a lot of energy into it somehow. Energy doesn't just appear out of nowhere - you can put it into water to break the bonds and create energetic hydrogen and oxygen - and you can take energy out of the hydrogen and oxygen and get boring old zero-energy water back again. You don't get something for nothing - that's the fundamental principle behind the first law of thermodynamics...and that's the reason why there can never be "free energy". Sad, but true.

• What I read from this guy who posted this stuff is a bunch of croak. He never even saw the videos of all the people out there making HHO using the Stanley Meyer Methods.

You mean me? Yes, sure I've seen all of those videos. There is NOTHING amazing or impossible about splitting up water using electrolysis - people have known how to do it for 150 years. I've done it myself. All you need is a 9 volt battery connected up to a couple of nails and stuck in a cup of water (it works better if there is a little salt in the water). You'll see hydrogen bubbling off of one nail and oxygen coming off the other. I have NO argument with that. It's not "Stanley Meyer Methods" - it's good old-fashioned electrolysis - invented by William Nicholson and Anthony Carlisle in about 1800. Calling the resulting H2 and O2 gasses "HHO" or "Oxyhydrogen" or "Browns Gas" or "Knell Gas" is just another example of Meyer's using the wrong words for things. Hydrogen and oxygen - that's what all of those people are producing. I don't care what you call it - that's what you get.

• There are some using electrolysis also but they lose efficiency in using electrolytes and that is still electrolysis. Stanley Meyer's setup is like a battery making hydrogen and oxygen in the process but much more of it. There is no over unity here.

Indeed - all that you say here is true. But if there is no "over unity" then why do you get so excited about it? If it's not "over unity" then here is what you have:

1. A battery containing X amount of electrical energy.
2. An electrolysis cell that takes X amount of electrical energy, breaks up the zero-energy water molecules and produces some hydrogen and oxygen gas which has a little less than X amount of chemical energy (because no process is ever 100% efficient).
3. A car engine that burns the hydrogen and oxygen, liberating quite a lot less than X heat energy - and turning that into mechanical kinetic energy in terms of rotating the crankshaft of the engine. That kinetic energy is probably about a quarter of X now because there is lots of wasted heat, noise, frictional losses, etc.
4. A generator on the car that uses maybe 5% of the energy that the engine produces to recharge our battery. The remaining energy from the car engine propels the car along the road.
5. The generator is consuming 5% of the mechanical energy (which is only 1/4th of X) and produces electricity - but it's not perfectly efficient - so maybe only 1% of X is used to recharge the battery.

And that's the problem. We took X amount of energy out of the car battery to do our electrolysis - but we only put maybe 1% of X back into the battery at the end. So the battery runs down pretty quickly and it's "game over".

What you have here is a very inefficient battery-powered car. The water and the electrolysis and all of the Meyer bullshit was irrelevent. All it did was waste energy. You'd have been MUCH better off taking the energy from the battery and driving an electric motor. That way, maybe 85% of X would have been used to drive the car...and the battery would still go dead in about the same amount of time.

What Meyers claimed was "over unity" - he claimed that he could put X amount of energy into the water and get (his numbers vary) between 100 X and 1000 X worth of hydrogen out at the end. But that's bullshit - it's impossible. All of these "demonstrations" you see on YouTube or whatever are simple, ordinary, non-amazing electrolysis - which works - but it pretty damned useless because if it's not "over unity" then you're better off using a battery and electric motors.

I've looked VERY carefully at Meyer's own videos. I calculated the amount of Hydrogen and Oxygen his "water fuel cell" produces - and the truth - the utter, demonstrable TRUTH is that it makes about 13,000 times too little to drive a car. It's not even CLOSE to producing the NINE LITERS of hydrogen and oxygen you need PER SECOND to drive a car at 30mph.

• The energy has always been stored in the water. Stanley Meyer just found a very easy way to tap into it.

No - there is no energy in water - Meyer made a simple electrolytic cell - as I did in the 1970's in high school. He puts energy INTO the water - then takes it back out again at the end. Nothing amazing at all.

• He got killed for it. I am saying he was assassinated.

Oh, come on - get real. The autopsy said he died of an aneurism. No big mystery there. Stanley's twin brother Steve Meyer is "carrying on his brother's work" - why hasn't he been assassinated? In your crazy world, the government went to all that trouble to kill Stanley Meyer - and cover it up by somehow "fixing" the autopsy - and yet they didn't think to deal with Steve Meyer who was standing not 10 feet away when it happened? Why kill Meyers anyway? He'd already been proven a fraud - there was no way his invention would make it to market. And in any case, Meyers crackpot theories are all over the internet - in publically readable patents - what did assassinating him achieve? Why bother when the information is all "out there" anyway? This is just bullshit...a typical conspiracy theory, plain and simple.

• Stanley kept this to himself pretty much and in doing so he was killed. If he would have shared his knowledge openly to the whole world as we now can do over the Internet then there would be no use in killing him as everyone would be doing it and making HHO and running their combustion engines and jet engines on it.

Excuse me?!?!?!? There are a bazillion videos made during his life - there was an entire television documentary about him - he had patents that anyone could go and read - published on demand by the government. He wrote countless papers about this stuff. He CERTAINLY didn't keep anything to himself - that's why killing him would be pointless. He shared this "knowledge" as widely as possible in order to attract investors. Those investors are the ones we should be crying for - they lost everything to a fraudster.

• If anything if you have not noticed but the electronics supplies need and the Stainless Steel supplies have been getting more and more scarce these days.

WHAT! Geez - you are seriously confused. What supplies - what steel - tell me EXACTLY what parts and I guarantee I'll find an easy supply of them online. Stainless steel is EVERYWHERE...it's not in short supply...steel manufacturers are going out of business because we're being flooded with steel from overseas! But Meyer's design didn't even use steel - watch the video referenced in our article - you can see that he used common copper plumbing tubing in a glass vessel. You can see him "running his dune buggy" from that. No stainless steel required...just copper pipes that you can pick up in any Home Depot store. This is just ridiculous...you've been taken in by the conspiracy nuts - none of this stands up to actual examination.

• Someone with a lot of power is already trying to keep this from happening and this guy that wrote the first article is part of that machine.

No - a lot of people are not listening to the voice of reason because it's not as exciting as this world of intrigue and mystery. It's a pain in the butt to have to economise on gas and recycle and replace our light bulbs with CFL's...it's much more comfortable to imagine that limitless free energy can be extracted from one of the most common substances on earth. Well, YOU may live in that world - but out here in the real world, there are no quick fixes. There is just solid science, rationalism and reason.

• Water is energy. It is a miracle in fact. It is a solid, as gas, a liquid, it can make explosive gases in Hydrogen and Oxygen and it can be used to put out a fire. It is the most universal solvent known to mankind. It provides our bodies with life as we can not live without it. It is the most abundant resource of this planet. All life needs it and it did not evolve.

Water isn't energy. But I guess you could say it's a miracle - it's useful stuff - it makes life possible - but it's NOT a source of free energy - it's what you get left over AFTER you've taken away all of the energy. That's actually why it's so abundant. Things that have energy in them (like hydrogen and gasoline) tend to give up that energy and then sit around as substances that don't change into anything else very easily. Hydrogen makes water - so we have a lot of water. Carbon makes carbon dioxide - and (sadly) that's why we have a lot of that.

• It was made for use and it is being used all the time. Which shows all of us that there is a divine creator and he does have a name. Psalms 83:18 KJV or Darby Translation or Young's Literal Translation and many other translations. His name in English is Jehovah.

Whatever.

• I ran into the Patents of Stanley Meyer: USP # 4,936,961; USP # 4,826,581; USP # 4,798,661; USP # 4,613,304; USP # 4,465,455; USP # 4,421,474; USP # 4,389,981; Canadian Patent # 2,067,735; WO 9207861A1 (which was hard to find.) It also led me to new patents by a Dennis Klein: USP # 6,689,259 B1; USP # 6,866,756 B2; US Patent Application # 2006/0075683 A1

Patents really prove nothing. You can patent almost anything - the patent offices of the US and Europe are so overworked that they don't have time to check anything much - so getting a patent proves nothing.

• This is something that the US Government will not want you to have.

I never understand the logic of that statement. Why wouldn't they want us to have it? If they didn't then why did they let those patents get published? There is a law out there that allows them to take any patent they like and lock it away so nobody can see it simply because they say it's a matter of national defense. Why didn't they do that?

The matter of Stanley Meyer is very simple. He took a high school science experiment that we've known about for 200 years - he made it look cool and he faked a demo in order to take money from gullible investors. In a world of energy crises, people were gullible enough to believe him and to ignore the underlying science. The legal system eventually caught up with him and he was found guilty. Then he died of natural causes. It's not such a wonderful story - but it's true. The evidence is overwhelming.

Please, look carefully at my calculations - repeat them yourself. Ask yourself how that demonstration of the dune buggy engine running from one electrolytic cell could possibly be real - then the veil will be lifted from your eyes and you'll see reality...dull, boring reality...with gas at $4 a gallon and the most fundamental law of physics telling you that there is not a damned thing you can do about it.

SteveBaker (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First off I want to point out that they where only errors that I did not catch. I was fixing them before you even posted this. In fact it was after I fixed them that I noticed your post below.

Second as for Water breaking Thermodynamics laws. Those are not laws stuck in constants. They are theory's and all laws can be broken by the one who created all things. I am sure that When Columbus said the earth was round that people like this guy spoke up about the laws of that time.

Water is a miracle and it breaks a lot of laws then. What happens when you touch both wires going into your telephone from outside. Not much. But what happens if you are in a bath tub and drop the phone into the tub with you? You can get electrocuted can you not? In electronics I was taught that water amplifies electricity over 1,000 times. So how can that be?

There is no over unity here and Thermodynamics deals with the temperature properties of water, not it's electrical properties per say. Well we are talking electrical properties here not Temperature properties and what happens when it is heated up. Besides that Thermodynamics are theories that are still being changed today with absolute zero exploration in different materials and so forth.

There is so much we do not know that to think it is impossible because some geeks a couple hundred years ago says so is ludicrous to say the least. We are finding more and more that creation has many surprises in store for us. Man keeps trying to produce what is already made better by creation. For example Kevlar and Carbon Fiber and Spectra. The South American Orb Spider produces web material that far surpasses these man made fibers. Yet man wants to be better than creation. Always trying to do better. The problem is that they are just manipulating what is already here from our creator. They have not made anything better per say than was already here. If anything mankind has poisoned himself in attempting to do so is all. They can not make anything from nothing as our creator did. So to cry that this law or that law was broken is ludicrous because you are going to see a lot of laws broken soon.

Our Creator provides for all of us and we are in need of a safe alternative energy source and it has been setting here all this time virtually untapped. The planets surface is mostly this energy source and you are worrying about grammar errors I may make? Big deal! The point is that Meyer's tapped into it efficiently and was killed for doing so. Mankind needs it now and our creator is letting it be tapped into now. Quit crying and take advantage of it. This is the next new technology that the US can be on the forefront of or we can bury our heads in a hole and wait until all the other countries are far more advanced than us. You want to be a ostrich? Go ahead and be one.

I am making my own machine like Meyer's for myself. I want out of this dependence of Oil and Energy from all these greedy suppliers you may even work for going by your criticism of my grammar. I never was good in English, I was always good in math!

I did not take electronics for nothing. My dad who was both a mechanic and electronics tech and did appliance repairs also. He was a jack of all trades and he told me that everything has it's own frequency. I was a kid then and that was many years ago. He repaired TV's with a Ham Radio Operator friend of his at nights while he worked at his and his dad Gas Station during the day. I know for a fact that what he says is true. You find the frequency of a virus and you can kill it. You find the right frequency of a radio station and you can listen to it.

I am a musician also and you find the right frequency and you can blow someones ear drums. You can kill people with the right frequency even. So what makes you think you can not break the bonds of H2O with the right frequency? They have a guy now who cures cancer with colloidal gold and the right radio wave frequency and it was also found that if you add salt to water it will burst into flames and we have a whole ocean full of salt water. But that defies your laws of Thermodynamics right? Wrong. Your laws are theories only just like Evolution is only a theory and not a fact.

I can watch TV on disaster types of movies and they talk about asteroids as planet killers like those that made the dinosaurs extinct. It killed all life on earth for thousands and thousands of years which is a fact and that is the real truth. So who restarted whole animals out of nothing again? Our creator. Mankind was created as we are just as those new animals back then where. How come you do not see monkeys turning into men now? It never happened is why.

People think science is the answer and that laws and theories are the all to everything. All the laws they think are laws are created by our creator. And we have not even touched on them. Science has only touched on things already here for a few hundred years or so. Laws and properties that man has figured out so far are still finding things that do not go with the laws we think exist. You are in need of humility to understand that things are not as you where taught in the box they call Higher Education or Universities or Colleges or just plain schools. So to think you understand all there is to understand of Laws and Properties of certain things is ludicrous. Mankind can not even duplicate the processes of a blade of grass much less make laws that can not be changed or broken.

A true meek person is one teachable. You close your mind by believing in only the laws of physic or Thermodynamics and you are no longer teachable. Common sense shows that this is possible as a car battery makes hydrogen and again a battery is the same as a capacitor and Meyer's made a capacitor that makes hydrogen and makes more electricity out than in. It tapped into the most abundant miracle known to mankind, water! Without it we all die! All life does. Everything is dependent on it from the creator so why not energy also? Why not make a clean source of energy from the same life giving substance? Quit looking at a miracle as a curse. Once we are energy independent the sky is the limits. Mankind can focus on other things. No more wars over oil and energy. We can work at being family again. We can make the deserts blossom from the exhaust of the HHO combustion power plants and etc. Fresh water will be completely abundant and the air will have more moisture in it which means more rains for dry desert areas.

From my knowledge of the Scriptures in the Bible, Life is changing real soon. Those ruining or destroying the earth will be ruined or destroyed according to Revelations 11:18 and this was written 2000 years ago. God or Jehovah or Yahweh as the Hebrews call him is going to bring about that destruction and if you read the bible his son Jesus gave us signs of when that time would be. We are seeing those signs more and more so as the day and hour draws more and more closer. What the bible holds out is a hope though for a better life afterward. Death will be done away with as Rev. 21:1-4 shows and there will be no more sickness or sorrow or pain or suffering. Mankind will have the tent of God residing with them on earth. He will teach us better ways.

I personally have always known water was the answer. It is the only way we can have clean energy without ruining the earth. It is the simplest way to have clean energy and Stanley Meyer's will be resurrected then and he can show us that way if we do not figure it out now and use it. People already have it figured out though and it is all over the Internet.

Science is not all that, it is just the manipulation of creation and the Creator can reveal to mankind things as it is needed. We have just touched the surface of what is really here for us to learn. So do not be surprised if anything breaks your little mankind figured out laws. If you want to be around to see some more giant breakthrough's in real technology then you need to bury your face in the scriptures and learn the real truth that will set you free. It might help you get rid of that closed mind also! Being Meek in the Scriptures means teachable and not weak as everyone misinterprets.

So please do not shut this down as false because it does not fit your puppet masters versions of Science. They are all so greedy and trying to keep everyone in that box. Learn the truth from the scriptures! Build your own HHO generator. Experiment until you get it right then say it does not work? Nothing is impossible, you just have to find the right way to make it possible! Pray.

Take care, HawkNo1 (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Science is the objective, rational study of reality, based on evidence and reproducible testing, and with the foundation that there is consistency, patterns, and predictability in how things interact. It's not based on emotion, things you "just know" to be true, things that you "remember" a certain way, supernatural interactions, mis-use of terminology, or anything that contradicts reality. You are going against I think every single one of those principles of science. You're welcome to subscribe to whatever religion or holy scripture you like (as are others...always remember that a belief is just that: a belief, not a proof). None of that has any place in science articles unless you have specific citations from reliable sources that support such a connection. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now let's get back to writing a well-referenced encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Want to buy some oceanfront property in Kansas? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 10:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawk, Steve did a service by responding to you in extreme detail. After reading your response it doesn't appear that you have read what he said. It would be fair if you read that response (at no point has your English been attacked). Humble your self and learn something[14]. Going to school (on all levels) takes a lot of humility, its hard to be told that you don't know enough and/or your current ideas are wrong all in an effort to better understand the world. If you have specific points we'll deal with them but this isn't the place to discuss your perceived conflicts between science and scripture.--OMCV (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

While science and religion can coexist, faith is not conducive with the scientific method. A prayer cannot dictate the outcome of an experiment, but you can use prayer as motivation to conduct experiments. When conducting your experiments follow a rigorous method to establish easy duplication. With duplicability comes verifiability. You cannot convince other people to believe you, you must show them evidence using a rational train of thought and then people with logically understand you. Noah Seidman (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(This is getting a bit off-topic but...) Well, actually - if a literally omnipotent god existed - as most religions will claim - then prayer could indeed alter the outcome of an experiment. If god can do anything - then if he/she/it likes your prayer for some bizarre reason, he can instantly change the laws of physics so your experiment comes out right - and edit your (and everyone else's) memories, textbooks and everything else to make it seem like things were always like that. You'd have no way to know. Religion is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If it's true then there is utterly NOTHING that you can reliably say about ANYTHING. So you might as well assume it's false and get on with life. SteveBaker (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see you guys are finding one thing after another to pick at but there are people doing it so keep picking all you want. When we are driving around on water then you will see what we are talking about.

As for the miracle of water is that you have not found the answer as to why it makes so much energy.

I guess you high minded types can't see the simple things in life and have to make it seem so complicated that you get lost in your threories and calculations.

I read where one of you was trying to figure out why it did not get hot and you had all these calculations and etc. What a waste of time. They have battery chargers that pulse the charge and that is what keeps the batteries from getting so hot. It is because they do not have a continuous flow of current. It is pulsing 50% on and 50% off in fast series of pulses, much like Stanley Meyer's WFC does.

You have that high voltage with that low current go in constant and it will get real hot. But by pulsing it you do not give it a chance to get hot before the current is turned off.

You guys are differently the wrong people to be writing about Stanley Meyer's Water Fuel Cell. You are closed minded and biased as all get out. Your stuck in a box of laws and theories and you just plain are rude all the time. You have not even tried to build this yourselves and you know nothing of electronics apparently. Sure you are good at laying out a page in text with heading and subheadings but that is about all as you have no common sense. You make fun of all the things I say and what others say also.

You question fuel from water? What do you think electrolysis is? It is fuel from water. You just takes more to get it is all than Meyer's method. What about Denny Klein? Yul Brown? They also are getting fuel from water but it takes a lot more energy than Meyer's does to make it is all. So water is converted to a gaseous fuel. So is gasoline. You do not burn the liquid in the gasoline, you burn the vapors only and not very efficiently at that. Just because you can not understand something does not mean it is not so. There is a guy in the Philippines that has had a car that runs strictly on water since the 70's and all the automakers and everyone else brushed him off.

That does not mean it is not so. It just means that they are denying the truth because they are stuck in their status quo. So it looks like you are also. Make the machine first then see is it works or not? Do not sabotage it so you can claim it does not work also. That is how big business and the FDA and other agencies work. They rig the tests to fail whatever they want to stop such as Stevia Extracts and etc. Do a honest replication such as Ravi did. Go from there.

Then you can be a authority on Stanley Meyers!

HawkNo1 (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

user:HawkNo1, this has been hashed through numerous times. SteveBaker did a wonderful job explaining this to me and has gone over the top to help you understand also. I have ran his calculations and they are correct. He was even observant enough to calculate the output of Meyers' "Fuel Cell." Even if water could be split at 100% efficiency, the internal combustion engine is far from 100% efficient due to waste heat, vibration, etc. Please read the archived discussions on perpetual motion. I have built these cells myself and am confident when I tell you that the output will help an engine idle, when they are using an external power source, but nowhere near produce at a level that sustains combustion and electrolisys. Through manipulation of electrolytes, current and voltage there can be gains made in efficiency, but not enough to completely run an ICE by itself via its own alternator and battery.I55ere (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To SteveBaker 01:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC):

Btw. Stanley Meyers used 6 skinny little rubber hoses in his dune car. ref: http://www.hydropowercar.com/content.php?article.18 84.227.43.13 (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a nice day.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gdewilde Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, just when I though we where going to have an interesting IRC chat or something. --CyclePat (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)