Stanley Meyer and The Water Car Hoax

[Jason_85]

   The standing wave field created by infrared radiation from the sun and the magma core of the Earth is the scource I suspect.   Water has a great affinity for this wavelength.  What I believe and this is not experimentally confirmed is that the hydrogen to oxygen bond is vibrated apart with an increase in amplitude of this wavelength.  Better stated concentration of the ambient infrared wave emmission overcomes the static molecular bond.

I think I understand what you're saying, please correct me if I'm wrong. The effect of infrared radiation on water is the same as heating it (to my understanding), and the water bond does not break  until water reaches about 2000 degrees Celcus. If a standing wave was produced which could collect enough infra red radiation (I assume this is what you meant by the standing wave field?) to heat water molecules to a kinetic energy high enough to dissociate the water, it would get very hot if infra-red was used.

I don't see how this could be the case when Stanley Meyer's super electrolysis technology was reported not to heat water significantly after long periods of usage. Also, collecting energy in this way would would be a negative entropy reaction, which would violate the third law of thermodynamics. The third law of thermodynamics is fundamental in our understanding of the world and can be mathematically derived from some very basic universal "axioms"i or assumptions from very simple observable evidence. Breaking this law would require a complete rewrite of the physical model of the universe. I'm not saying it's impossible (I think no one should ever say that), but I find it hard to be convinced that such a thing is possible with a technology that has never been experimentally verified (nor does it seem to be based on scientific theory, at least from Meyer's reports).

[valveman]

You are the typical brainwashed University Kid that probably doesn't even know how to use a Screwdriver.
I am a retired Electronic Technician I have dealt with Engineers all of my life.
I had my fill of them. Forget about the B.S. that is being taught,have an open mind and look at the results.I don't care what Qualifications you have on Paper, its not worth the ink that it was written with.Besides if you have Money I can buy any Degree out of the U.S.A.
Meyer is not the only one that drove a Car on a mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen, you know.
Anyway you are not alone and I feel sorry for all of you.You just can't accept the facts that some of what you were taught in the university is bogus. I would consider it a waist of my time to go any further.
professor

Engineer envy!

Your comments are very childish.  Maybe if you studied harder, you could have been an Engineer as well!

[professor]

I was not taking about Fuel Cells and you constantly deny the facts that Meyers and others have proven their unique technology to work .
You acknowledge others but do not go any further.You criticize but provide no basis of your criticism. Tell us  in your own words WHY it can not work!
None of this standard cockatiel mumbo Jumbo that you have been drilled to accept in whatever University you have attended.
It shows that you have not done your homework.Give us your OWN thoughts, based on your personal knowledge none of the rhetoric.
No Insult intended but  I was 22 at one time and I thought I had the world by its tail "WRONG Thinking" Grow up and come back in about 40 Years or so. You are waisting  our Time. If you simply wish to just argue because of self esteem then this is not the forum for you to do it. Go somewhere else you have nothing to contribute and you do not wish to learn. You seem  know it all .
Professor

Lovely, and yes you're right Meyer wasn't the only one who drove a car on Hydrogen (Meyer didn't run anything on Hydrogen). Fuel Cell Technology has been a heavy field of reasearch over the past few decade, with many advances. However, none have managed to elude both the laws of thermodynamics and any scientific scrutnity the way that Meyer's Super Electrolysis technology did. But even fuel cells rarely use Hydrogen as a fuel, it is usually used as a storage device (i.e. electricity is used to create hydrogen, the hydrogen is stored in tanks, and burned on demand). It's more of a batter than a fuel.

Meyer's super electrolysis engine didn't run on Hydrogen, it simply used it as a carrier with water as a catalyst. The machine ran on nothing, hence my problem with it.

I'm trying. Hence I'm here, but to be honest I'm not convinced. Would you be? Other than the responses by sparks I've been greeted by little more than complaining and insults. I'm honestly trying to get a new perspective and this technology does interest me (that's why I'm here). Obviously I don't believe it to work, but everyone has their bias, the best we can do is discuss it together and hopefully get a new perspective.

[professor]

Is that the best remark you can come up with ? Another Jason perhaps?
Show us then what you know ! Contribute your Knowledge, talk is cheap.
Did it ever occur to you that People choose their own Destiny?
I could have studied harder but engineering is not my lifestyle.
We all choose what we like best,I am sure you did.
Besides I am a free Thinker I would never be able to cope with the rhetoric of the educational System.
I do not blame the Teachers though, they have an curriculum to follow given to them indirectly from those that wish to suppress
those technologies. Wake up!
Professor

Engineer envy!

Your comments are very childish.  Maybe if you studied harder, you could have been an Engineer as well!

[Jason_85]

Ok let's take it one step at a time,

I was not taking about Fuel Cells and you constantly deny the facts that Meyers and others have proven their unique technology to work .

I knew what you were talking about. Meyer failed to provide evidence that his technology ever worked, when asked to do so by a board of scientists as well as the Ohio Court which found him guilty of fraud. I see no reason to believe that Stanley Meyer ever demonstrated his technology with success.

You acknowledge others but do not go any further.You criticize but provide no basis of your criticism. Tell us  in your own words WHY it can not work!

Ok, I am currently at University, this does not make me stupid. In regards to what you said, well I wrote an entire article about why I think Stanley Meyer's technology can't work, I provided references and everything is backed up by laws based on overwhelming scientific conjecture. I used no theories or ideas that had not been studied exhaustively for the past century. Where is your evidence? Why do you think the technology SHOULD work despite the evidence that I provided?

None of this standard cockatiel mumbo Jumbo that you have been drilled to accept in whatever University you have attended.

Mate, I don't know what you think we do at Engineering school, but this is pretty basic stuff. I didn't get this drilled into me, it's a mix of common sense and year 12 chemistry.

It shows that you have not done your homework.Give us your OWN thoughts, based on your personal knowledge none of the rhetoric.

I never read a single article, which provided sound scientific reasoning, for why Stanley Meyer's technology did not work. I know there are plenty, but I haven't read them. I already know what they're going to say; the exact same thing I have said.

If I thought people could fly, I would probably calling "we don't have wings!" rhetoric as well. Why Stanley Meyer's engine doesn't work may sound like rhetoric to those who don't understand it, but it's little more than common sense to those who do.

No Insult intended but  I was 22 at one time and I thought I had the world by its tail "WRONG Thinking" Grow up and come back in about 40 Years or so.

Maturity has little to do with age. Give it some thought.

Professor

You know you have to go to university for a long time to get a title like that?