Stanley Meyer and The Water Car Hoax

[Chris31]

I know it's hard to create a productive discussion with someone who disagrees with what you believe in

Its extremely difficult to convince someone who does not believe. The only person who can convince you is yourself. Folks here are not spending alot of their time, effort and money just so they can convince you. Most does their experiment for themselves.

We have not seen meyers car, and I can bet most of us would not believe it until we see it for real. The diference between you and us is that we will try to do the experiment and see it for ourselves.

I suggest you read all the thread, and decide from there. I dont think anyone in here have time or patience to spoonfeed you so you can become one of the believer. But then again it make no difference as you have already decided it is not possible because of what you have read in the text book.

Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against you, it really make no difference to me what you think. The fact is, you are posting in the wrong group. This thread can go on, I can even bet the more we fail the more it make you feel better.

We did not knock on your door selling you anything. So it is best that you keep your things to yourself, you are not helping anyone in here. They already know the basic laws you are talking about and they are here discussing how to break that law.

If you cant help dont mess the others.

...nothing personal, just my 2c.

[valveman]

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!


Your not a free thinker.  A free thinker is open to other ideas and opinions.  If someone does not agree completely with what you believe you insult them.  You paint everyone with the same brush i.e. if your an Engineer then all you schooling is worthless.  What a load of crap!  You don't know me or the original poster but according to you, we are tainted because of higher learning.  I admit I don't know everything and am willing to keep an open mind until I prove otherwise.  Stop being such a F*&%$&g Jerk!

Your nothing more than a bully!

BTW:  Controversy still exists on Myers water car!.  Funny how no one has been able to replicate it even with all the available patents.  I'm not saying It does not work, I'm just saying no one has been able to replicate it.

[utilitarian]

I’m typically quiet on this site, but you seem to be an intelligent guy and for some reason I feel like trying to get you to open your mind a little.  Physics is only a hobby for me, my profession is computer engineering, so I can’t speak to things with authority like many here who have spent many years trying to break the rules. 

But I can tell you, I’ve got some great friends in Silicon Valley, and they tell me that classical and quantum physics don’t explain many things they deal with on a daily basis so they’ve had to write their own rule book of nature in some cases. 

Anyway, I remember my arrogant physics professors, (I did 2 years aerospace as well), and my arrogant computer and calc professors.  PHDs all of them, and each were famous and we had to buy their text books for our classes.  They knew everything.  They were so smart. 

I was a computer wiz and my prof wanted to fail me for not doing things his way, even though I proved time and time again that he was wrong.  Dangerous, true.  I prevailed by going over his head and proving my case to the dean.  I received an A and came away with a valuable lesson â€ââ,¬Å" learn from everyone, but don’t forget to question and try to find a better way. 

This is a common theme from all OU/FE proponents, and there is certainly an essence of truth there.  Sure, there are gaps in the known laws of physics, and physicists have been wrong from time to time.  But it does not follow that just because some people have been wrong about some things and that some things are not explained that FE is possible.

Jason, I think if nothing else this board is a good demonstration of the power of groupthink and how easy it is to revise history.  You could change the subject of this message board to something silly like unassisted human flight, and the sentiment could remain the same, given enough true believers.  For example, I could go on about how it is theoretically possible for me to flap my arms and achieve flight, and I could trot out a story about a guy who allegedly did this but was killed by the CIA for his knowledge.  And of course there would be skeptics who would come in and say that flapping your arms will never result in flight, and we would all tell them to open their minds.  We would all fuss about the best way to hold your palms, and we could videotape various failed experiments, each allegedly taking us closer to the holy grail of unassisted human flight, and so forth.  It would be exactly the same.

[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€Ã...“Scamâ€Ã, 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 Thermodynamics’ out there and completely dismiss the effort. The 1st law of thermal dynamics or the â€Ã...“Conservation of Energyâ€Ã, 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 I’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€Ã...“waterâ€Ã, 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.

    I’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

[jeffc]

This is a common theme from all OU/FE proponents, and there is certainly an essence of truth there.  Sure, there are gaps in the known laws of physics, and physicists have been wrong from time to time.  But it does not follow that just because some people have been wrong about some things and that some things are not explained that FE is possible.

Jason, I think if nothing else this board is a good demonstration of the power of groupthink and how easy it is to revise history.  You could change the subject of this message board to something silly like unassisted human flight, and the sentiment could remain the same, given enough true believers.  For example, I could go on about how it is theoretically possible for me to flap my arms and achieve flight, and I could trot out a story about a guy who allegedly did this but was killed by the CIA for his knowledge.  And of course there would be skeptics who would come in and say that flapping your arms will never result in flight, and we would all tell them to open their minds.  We would all fuss about the best way to hold your palms, and we could videotape various failed experiments, each allegedly taking us closer to the holy grail of unassisted human flight, and so forth.  It would be exactly the same.

utilitarian,
I wouldn't classify myself as an "OU/FE proponent", as I made no argument that OU/FE is real.  I mearly pointed out that coming to a web site where people are attempting to achieve things that have never been achieved, and challenging them to prove these things can be done is illogical.

My comment about the gaps in science was not meant as an attempt to prove anything.  Perhaps I should have been more clear so as not to draw criticism from those who attempt to defeat hopeful comments on this site.  My intention was that exploring gaps in knowledge are what science is all about. So in the many areas explored on this and other sites, like magnetism, gravity, harmonics, etc, observations can be made, anomalies identified, perhaps efficiencies gained. 

I think your example of a human trying to fly by flapping their wings, while it might be an entertaining read, is a poor example as it does not (my opinion) reflect the quality of work being done on many topics here.  Do some topics seem silly?  Sure, some do.  Others not so much.  Many topics are just explorations of concepts without making outrageous claims.  The guys attempting to utilize combustion of water in an engine being one of many examples on this site.  I think your hypothetical example for Jason was not fairly representative of the totality of content here. 

In any case, I have seen enough of your postings to know you may be a skeptic, but it seems you are fair and willing to communicate and pose questions in a reasonable way.  This is unlike others on the site from either â€Ã...“sideâ€Ã, of the argument who resort to personal attacks. 

Regards,
jeffc