Stanley Meyer and The Water Car Hoax

[spinner]

Almost everyone here wants FE/Alternative energy research to be a credible (and respected) field...

Why is it not respected, other than possible suppression (which sometimes occurs, imo)?

It's because most of you guys are really "extremists"..    With almost anything, from environmentalists, to religious ppl, to gun people, to scientists, abortion people, etc, etc...

There's two sides of a spectrum there's the  "you're nuts" side     ..  the middle area (the norm)  ..  And the other "you're nuts'" side.    And the extreme ends of the spectrum get no respect (from the rest of the spectrum).

Is a physicist who thinks all physical laws are set in stone, and will never be broken ever in the next 1000 years, more ignorant than someone who believes in every FE suppression story, and OU inventor video they've seen? No, they're both delusional, right?

With a little more skepticism, and science, maybe FE/OU research will get the respect it deserves, and less people like the OP.

Good, healthy thinking... Thanks to all the other posters with similar, realistic aspect.
The truth is, allmost everything we know comes from a scientific progress troughout centuries.... It is not an ultimate truth, far from this.

But it is the best what we, humans,  can come up with at the moment... And scientists are aware of this...
If one can do better, please, just do it...

Wrt. S.Meyer's claims - like it was mentioned, there are patents available. So far, not even one sucessfull replication. Did he held back some crucial information? Maybe. Was it a hoax? Possible....

(post from a newcomer - Hi, vonwolf!)

Hi Jason

  I am very interested in this technology and would like to try and explain my understanding of it and why you might be getting such a negative reaction from others.

   First off your title of this thread could be a put off to many who believe in this technology and have put a great deal of effort in research and development, to call it a Â"ScamÂ" is calling every one gullible  and less intelligent than you putting everyone on the defense of there work
.
   Second most opposing views first throw the First Law of ThermodynamicsÂ' out there and completely dismiss the effort. The 1st law of thermal dynamics or the Â"Conservation of EnergyÂ" really does not apply here, water fuel does not claim to create or destroy energy it is merely trying to use the energy that is present in the elements making up water.

   Water fuel, as IÂ'm sure you are aware is trying to separate water in to its base elements of hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis. A relatively small amount of square pulsed electricity is used to achieve this; it then converts the elements into thermal energy with the induction of electricity as a spark. There is a great deal of energy in all mater if you subscribe to relativity (e=mc2) so the energy is clearly present. There also is no claim of Perpetual Motion as the fuel Â"waterÂ" will eventually run out. The trick is to make the production and storage of the needed electricity.

     To simply say this impossible is narrow minded and counter productive. The energy is there, the ability to disassociate water into its basic elements is present and the process of becoming more efficient is an ongoing endeavor.

    IÂ'm sorry my first post I so long winded but I just waned to get my thoughts out, I hope this is taken in the spirit of open debate.
  Vonwolf

This is one of a typical views about the "Meyer's technology".

First, claim of "1700% efficient electrolysis" (this is nonse in a thermodynamical sense) is exactly the same as claiming Perpetual Motion.

You know, part of an energy "produced" would sustain electrolysis while the rest would be available.. If water dissasociation and HH/O recombination could be held in a "closed cycle apparathus", no additional water (except an initial quantity) would be needed...

With electrolysis, there is a conversion of electricity to molecular (potential) energy. So, no Einsteinian E/m conversion. A simple oxidation is not a nuclear energy mechanism. I'm sure you understand that such concept, if working, would solve all the energy problems on Earth (while producing new ones...).
Searching for a "Big-Bang" answers / LHC with Higg's stuf, hot fusion, ... and many of todays scientifical goals would become not so urgent/important...

Of course, saying there's a "CoP" of 17, pointing to the source of 'OU' and having a device vigorously tested would be better...

Meyer's technique was exposed at least a few times (court order tests). It never showed anything unusual.
As I remember (articles from that time), not even one credible pearson ever peeked under the Meyer's buggy hood. And (mentioned before) - no one ever reproduced anything close to the claims in his patent...

So there's a lot of room for speculations. And even for a fantastic conspiracy theories.
Mr. Meyer has passed away, and the truth died with him.

It's up to you people to decide what might be possible, or what is simply a wishfull thinking....

But all the theories and talk is rather worthless unless you produce a physical proof.
And this real, physical proof is the most problematic part of inventing "FE"....

[vonwolf]

This is one of a typical views about the "Meyer's technology".

First, claim of "1700% efficient electrolysis" (this is nonse in a thermodynamical sense) is exactly the same as claiming Perpetual Motion.

You know, part of an energy "produced" would sustain electrolysis while the rest would be available.. If water dissasociation and HH/O recombination could be held in a "closed cycle apparathus", no additional water (except an initial quantity) would be needed...

With electrolysis, there is a conversion of electricity to molecular (potential) energy. So, no Einsteinian E/m conversion. A simple oxidation is not a nuclear energy mechanism. I'm sure you understand that such concept, if working, would solve all the energy problems on Earth (while producing new ones...).

Hey Spinner

     I did not intend to come across as a â€Ã...“Stan Myersâ€Ã, advocate or to present myself as an Expert, far from it. I only have a High School education no PHD no Engineering Degree and I actually know very little of Stan’s work.

    I know there is nothing going on here at the atomic level; I was merely trying to point out that there is energy inherent in each molecule that could explain why there is â€Ã...“possiblyâ€Ã, more energy in burning hydrogen and oxygen than it takes to separate the molecules by way of electrolysis. I’m sure this idea is simplistic but I am just trying to understand this technology hopefully enough to make it practical for me, maybe get a generator going. I’ll leave the car for some one more qualified than I.

   I assure you I am not dogmatic about any part of this subject, Stan could have been brilliant a nut a conman or any combination of the 3 I have no idea. I will keep a open mind though and hope that something will come of all this.

    Maybe when the next Hurricane blows all the power out around here I’ll be able to crank up the old generator with all the water in my yard.. I won’t hold my breath though.. 


     Vonwolf

[rbisys2]

QUOTE >I never read a single article, which provided sound scientific reasoning, for why Stanley Meyer's technology did not work. <

You can argue all you want about whether or not............................., BUT,
You know that video of Meyer' s dune buggy driving around the parking lot?, well I met the guy that
was driving it while Meyer video taped it.
Seems it was his paper boy.  I met him at a local fast food place and he is (now called up) a truck driver stopping for lunch.

It was quite by accident that we got talking and the subject turned to energy and he asked if I had heard of Meyer.  He said the technology does work and that Meyer's did the cross country trip solely on hydro.

He said Meyer asked him him to wear the helmet for safety, but I think it was to protect his identity.

So you can argue all you want, but  I'm satisfied that Meyer was ligit and without a degree.

[rbisys2]

OOOPs

Sorry, I meant that I don't have a degree.

[professor]

Now that Jason has left on his own reconnaissance and all went peaceful it seems that there is always another Jason.
Valveman You have not answered  all of my post only thus convenient to you, while ignoring the rest. Typical!
Answer me then: Do you believe in 911, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War , the existance of HAARP and  even the Vietnam War .
Or perhaps you deny that Einstein and Tesla ever existed, because it sounds like you are not old enough to have met them personally.
If you do, Oh Boy you must have gotten around ! Please do me a favour ,shut up and don't start another flame war. Contribute to the Forum in a positive Way. What I am trying to say is that your reply is simply stupid.
Professor

Frankly all this stuff about poisoning, being offered millions or even billions and threatened by MIB is just hearsay.  No proof of this.  If indeed it happened, that would be tragic.  I deal in absolutes "proof" not conjecture.  To believe something without proof is called faith in religion and conspirasy theorism.  You are welcome not to agree.

Bring on the flames, I have my flame suit on,