All of Stanley Meyer's Equipment FOUND Including Dune Buggy! (Videos Here)

[Cap-Z-ro]

It might be a good idea if you speak for yourself only.

Only a moron with 27 posts under his belt would enter a thread swinging a dead cat.

OR, this just another support shill showing up to act as a heat sink...and supporting the 'official 9/11 lie' no less.

I suspect the latter to be the case.

Regards...

[MarkE]

    Look at the combustion process closely.  Methane use is simple.  ch4+O2 yields co2 and h20 .  It is called a hydrogen bond replacement- producing excess thermal energy inside a closed vessel.  It causes molecular motion.  Obviously if we had a process on board that took carbon dioxide and water and produced methane and oxygen then shipped it over to the engine and ignited it the car wouldn't move.  This is not what happens in an engine.  The hydrogen combines with oxygen FROM THE ATMOSPHERE.  The carbon combines with oxygen FROM THE ATMOSPHERE.  The temperature rises and nitrogen and oxygen FROM THE ATMOSPHERE combine to form nitrates..    That is why Myer's  buggy ran.  That is why all engines run.  They exploit the energy stored in the oxygen molecules  FROM THE ATMOSPHERE.  The engine simply increases the temperature of the fuel until the atmosphere burns.  The gasoline engine causes a spark to cross a gap.  All this bullshit about crazy temperatures.  The uv from the spark gap is intense.  Intense and at ionizing frequencies.  This "ignites"  the fuel heating process.  The ionized and accelerated electrons cause secondary molecules ionization and hydrogen bonds are broken all over the mixture.  This releases monatomic hydrogen-which forms hydrogen gas which captures ATMOSPHERIC oxygen to form water.  Formation of water is exothermic last I knew.  This heats up the fuel.  Now it becomes easier and easier to thermally ionize molecules and cause exothermic reactions that will not occur at lower temperatures. 

The notion of producing liquid fuels from atmospheric CO₂ and water is alive and well.  The US Navy in fact has an active program to convert atmospheric CO₂ and sea water to liquid fuels using power from nuclear reactors.

ICE and Diesel powered vehicles have lighter fuel tanks because they get their O₂ from the air.  They don't have to carry the O₂ or other oxidizer around with them.  In the case of electrolysis, the needed amount of oxygen is already part of each water molecule.  Extra O₂ from the air doesn't help.  The show stopper problem for water as fuel schemes is not the disadvantage of toting around oxygen that hydrocarbon burning engines take from the air.  The show stopper is the lack of extractable chemical energy in water as it is the "ash" of the hydrogen and oxygen oxidation reduction reaction.

[Rigel4]

The notion of producing liquid fuels from atmospheric CO₂ and water is alive and well.  The US Navy in fact has an active program to convert atmospheric CO₂ and sea water to liquid fuels using power from nuclear reactors.

ICE and Diesel powered vehicles have lighter fuel tanks because they get their O₂ from the air.  They don't have to carry the O₂ or other oxidizer around with them.  In the case of electrolysis, the needed amount of oxygen is already part of each water molecule.  Extra O₂ from the air doesn't help.  The show stopper problem for water as fuel schemes is not the disadvantage of toting around oxygen that hydrocarbon burning engines take from the air.  The show stopper is the lack of extractable chemical energy in water as it is the "ash" of the hydrogen and oxygen oxidation reduction reaction.

Well put.  On a separate note.  Why are we not working on something like SHT that uses a combination of methods both chemical and whatever catalyst/method is required, to create the fuel? Does it matter if it's partially a chemical reaction if it allows more production of gas? I know SHT has its own issues, but I do not understand how they can repeatedly claim such high rates of gas regardless of source. Could Myers have been using a hybrid system?

[Rigel4]

It might be a good idea if you speak for yourself only.

Hey you schrodinger's cat newbie. I only have 20 posts and I agree with you. We do not need ad-hominem attacks regardless of amount of posts. Hold on I gotta check on my cat he's been sick lately.

[MarkE]

Well put.  On a separate note.  Why are we not working on something like SHT that uses a combination of methods both chemical and whatever catalyst/method is required, to create the fuel? Does it matter if it's partially a chemical reaction if it allows more production of gas? I know SHT has its own issues, but I do not understand how they can repeatedly claim such high rates of gas regardless of source. Could Myers have been using a hybrid system?

If only SHT could deliver on their 1kg of H₂ from 1kg of water claims.  Unfortunately they can't.  They get ~118g H₂ gas from 1kg of water like anyone else who uses a metal to reduce the water into a metal oxide and released H₂ gas.

The problem with Stan Meyer is a problem with lack of evidence for an extraordinary claim.