Stanley Meyer and The Water Car Hoax

[jeffc]

Jason

Interesting article. I appreciate your attempt to apply rationality and skepticism while remaining civil. Pity you can't stick around.

What you really need to understand any of the pseudoscience discussed here is a course in psychology and anthropology. As noted above, this is really more an exercise in the human ability for self delusion and groupthink than it is physics. Actual scientific education and knowledge is generally shunned as the responses to your post clearly demonstrated.

The ultimate proof is the complete lack of success for any of the perpetual motion schemes endlessly discussed here.

And as for the poster who claimed people like Meyer have 'nothing to gain' from such a hoax - you forget Meyer raised millions of dollars from investors and sold 'dealerships' for his water car, in much the same mode as Dennis Lee and legions of scam artists before him. He certainly had everything to gain from a hoax.

@wizardofmars,

I cannot agree with your overgeneralization of those on this site.  I would question how many of the topics you have actually spent time reading in detail.  Your Newbie status might be an indicator, or it may not.

But in any case, I believe a more fair observation of the discussions on this site would show quite a variety of backgrounds and knowledge represented.  There are those from mechanical and electrical engineering backgrounds, also chemical engineering.  There have also been those with true science background, traditional training, currently employed in commercial labs. 

When you talk about delusion and groupthink, I would suggest you expand your observation group and rethink, as I would propose your conclusion lacks proper evidence and justification â€ââ,¬Å" and is hence just an opinion and not scientific.

My observation has been that there are many points of view represented here.  And while the overall theme may, in some opinions, be impossible, that it is exactly this kind of mix of believers, non-believers, science and engineering explorers that can leverage the Internet to discover new technologies.
 
Also, you should recognize that many of the projects undertaken here are along similar paths as traditional mainstream scientific research.  Hydrogen, HHO, and related topics are examples also being done at universities and in commercial entities.  So while you have pointed out â€Ã...“perpetual motionâ€Ã, as a topic that can demonstrate no success (and I assume you imply it is without scientific basis), that is only one of many, many types of projects discussed here.

On the other hand, I am not saying that anyone sensible should just blindly believe what they read here.  Some of the topics just blow my mind and I find them absolutely silly.  Others degrade into childish name calling and insults that just belittle the whole concept of the site.

I would suggest that before you draw more conclusions and jump into one side of an argument or the other (as you have done with Jason’s case), that you spend a little more time evaluating the situation to give a more accurate representation of what happens here, and also to have a better informed opinion before you express it.

Regards,
jeffc

[Spewing]

Jason

Interesting article. I appreciate your attempt to apply rationality and skepticism while remaining civil. Pity you can't stick around.

What you really need to understand any of the pseudoscience discussed here is a course in psychology and anthropology. As noted above, this is really more an exercise in the human ability for self delusion and groupthink than it is physics. Actual scientific education and knowledge is generally shunned as the responses to your post clearly demonstrated.

The ultimate proof is the complete lack of success for any of the perpetual motion schemes endlessly discussed here.

And as for the poster who claimed people like Meyer have 'nothing to gain' from such a hoax - you forget Meyer raised millions of dollars from investors and sold 'dealerships' for his water car, in much the same mode as Dennis Lee and legions of scam artists before him. He certainly had everything to gain from a hoax.

Meyer was a good man!

I strongly feel that in your life time, you will get your chance to see this technology! I think that many does not understand what stanley went threw to protect his work. Even people that has seen the car in person and has held the devices in their hands are still puzzled. When they stop talking about Vic and voltages then i will agree they then know how the car works. I can say with enough common sense, one does not need to see stans setup.

However, i am going to test running a car directly on water using a very fine mist of heated water sprayed into the ambient air into the cylinder, and that water may carry a bit of hydroxy for octane. I can show you a 37 series plate cell running on 100 milliamps and show you how flammable it really is. The cell is a dry stack series cell with a water pump, the water carries the hydrogen gas even in a stream. This can also be fitted into the injection system to improve the octane if needed. However i strongly feel that a diesel will run on water if you just get the engine hot. Anyhow, i will know soon even if it dont work, i will post my results. But this is not something you can do very quickly. So we will ride the weight train. Meanwhile if this method sets of any alerts, such as high water prices, or even taxing water lol, you'll know something is changing.

If i was to show you this water fuel i can do, you cant sit there and say it is not water fuel, as it is very much indeed explosive! A few parts on the engine may need to operate a bit differently, but its definitely a fuel and there is no denying it! The fuel is liquid and flammable. Unlike what your use to seeing on the internet. So yes, what you see in this method is a fuel, not a gas, the hydrogen is trapped into the water and is extracted on the combustion stroke. I feel as if a diesel would have no need to run on water containing trapped hydroxy, as it will change over without only using pure water.

call me crazy lol. anyhow, we all should be civil as i understand i may misunderstand.   

If this method was to work,,,, it would not be perpetual motion as the water will run out.

[Reformator]

Hello,

I just finished writing an article on the "Water Car", and am interested what you guys have to say about it. I've invited people from other forums to comment and I am interested to see what people have to say about it. I've opened up a discussion topic for it here: http://bottleweb.org/environmental-forum/renewable-fuels-technologies/stanley-meyer-s-super-electrolyser it should be interesting what the different views on this are.

Although I am obviously a skeptic I do welcome any and all views on this matter, especially if they are supported by evidence! Anyway the article itself is here, let me know what you think:

http://bottleweb.org/jason/water-car-hoax

Get lost!

[allcanadian]

@wizardofmars

What you really need to understand any of the pseudoscience discussed here is a course in psychology and anthropology. As noted above, this is really more an exercise in the human ability for self delusion and groupthink than it is physics. Actual scientific education and knowledge is generally shunned as the responses to your post clearly demonstrated.
The ultimate proof is the complete lack of success for any of the perpetual motion schemes endlessly discussed here.

LOL, you are one funny character, when you speak of pseudoscience you should first understand what "science" is. Science is the pusuit of fact through experiment, this could also include debate of the issues including very abstract issues which to the layman may seem a little left field. This forum fits that criteria very well as both debate and experiment occur, as for the subject matter in any science that is irrelevant.Here is the definition----

Science
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Then you quote an ultimate lack of success as proof, as proof of what? I have colleagues in the field of engineering who have been working over 20 years on one single project, the physics say there project will work but a bunch of calculations on some papers is not reality, in reality developing new technology takes a great deal of time and effort, something I am guessing you know nothing about. Maybe you should get your facts straight before posting to avoid this nonsense in the future

[HeairBear]

This is one of my favorite pages. A list of ridiculed inventors and scientists. All of them are accepted today.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html