Overunity.com Archives

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

Dude you are in the wrong place.  Don't waste board space with your nay sayer fucktardedness.  If you want to be convinced, go do some research, and don't come back unless you have something nice or useful to say.

"basic Chemistry and Nuclear Physics, have an Honors Degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering"
Umm, ok. How old are you?

"whose miracle electrolysis technology simply involved pulsing electricity through water "
You sure? Maybe study Stanley Meyer a bit more...

Do you have any experience in hydroxy/HHO? You understand there is more going on than just transfer of heat and thermodynamics?

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

Quote from: Farlander on September 16, 2008, 10:01:35 PM
Dude you are in the wrong place.  Don't waste board space with your nay sayer fucktardedness.  If you want to be convinced, go do some research, and don't come back unless you have something nice or useful to say.

That is truly sad to think a brite person like yourself is just trying to sit around and prove other peoples designs don't work. Now that you have learned the established versions of how things work you should be applying them to something useful in the way of a project for yourself. Tesla wasn't excepted very well either but yet we have no problem using his inventions while calling him a nut.

Whether it's sad or not it's plane fact. Do you think any FE believer would waste a second reading what a nay sayer has to say. People have other things to do than read the philosophy of a skeptic, like doing actual research. What does he think he can accomplish, "convert" people to skepticism ?  ;D

Jason,

I read it completely. I'm sorry I did. The thoughts you provide are hardly original.

As I sit this early morning, with my first cup of java, I can only compare your thoughts to one thing:

In the kitchen we have a squawking cockatiel. The same song every morning - the same useless rant and repetition of the song yesterday and before. He sets in his cage, squawks, eats, defecates... Nothing will ever happen for him unless he gets out. I'm sure for him almost nothing exists outside of his cage.

Question what you've been taught. Question the obvious. You might find a way out of that cage someday.

Hello all,

GOD forgive him, he doesnt know what he is wrighting.

Otto

Members are here trying to make things work, doesnt have to be anything to do with stan meyers work. They are here doing something productive for this world, whatever the outcome, good or bad, it could be useful for other things.

How about creating a forum dedicated to bashing? you can discuss to your hearts content. With that kind of attitude, you will fail even before you started.

I suggest you keep your sceptism to yourself. Dont stand in front of the man whos trying to do something good.

What have you done?

hi guys,
Thanks for the enthusiasm! A few years ago I spoke with a man who researched Meyer's work quite intensely, and I spoke with him for several weeks about the technology. As you can imagine I was quite skeptical about, it's difficult to go through 4 years of standardised engineering and have an open mind with things like this, this is probably a short coming, one that I can appreciate most of you don't have.

He gave me a instruction guide for Meyer's super electrolysis machine, which I found at first quite difficult to understand. I have studied little electronics, both through University and casually so it took me a while to get my head around the circuitry. I did eventually though, and to my best understanding the device is simply a pulsed electrolysis machine. Anyway, I was never particularly convinced, and have found very little reliable information on the internet about how this super electrolysis should actually work.

Before you criticise me of spreading hate, please take a look at your own words. I can appreciate that our views differ greatly on this topic, but there's no reason we can't have a discussion about it. Also, just because I spent 4 years studying maths and physics, doesn't make me stupid. I don't really know why you would think such a thing. I think it's quite immature to be saying something like to be honest, I would never criticise someone for their academic background, everyone has the right and ability to learn about these things, right?

I'm 22 by the way, someone asked what my age was. I have just started studying a Masters in Sustainable Resource Management. I take a great interest in furthering the way we consume energy, and hope one day to help the world get out of this mess. At the same time I think that ideas such as the Water Car are simply holding the world back. Disagree with me? That's fine, but please be reasonable about it and let me know why you feel this way, instead of criticising me for having a degree or being 22.

Jason.

And if you disagree with something I've said, why not tell me why? I didn't start this thread for a fight, I love to learn and I've thrown my views out there, so let me know what specifically you don't agree with and, more importantly, why. It's all about learning right?

     @Jason

    The highfrequency emwaves that Meyer used act as a catalyst in the electrochemical disassociaton of water.   The response of the mass fields employed to the exposure to the hf pulses and ambient emwave patterns are what "fuels" the reaction.  A tiny bit of gain from the field repeated millions of times a second instead of the slow motion 60hertz field radiations.

Thanks sparks. Ok so you're saying that the EM current from the Meyer's electrolyser is not actually providing the power to disassociate the water? But then where is the power coming from? There is a difference in energy state between oxygen/Hydrogen (O2+2H2) and Water (2H2O), so what energy source is providing this difference?

   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.

Quote from: professor on September 17, 2008, 01:52:35 AM
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

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.

Quote from: BEP on September 17, 2008, 07:17:59 AM
Jason,

I read it completely. I'm sorry I did. The thoughts you provide are hardly original.

As I sit this early morning, with my first cup of java, I can only compare your thoughts to one thing:

In the kitchen we have a squawking cockatiel. The same song every morning - the same useless rant and repetition of the song yesterday and before. He sets in his cage, squawks, eats, defecates... Nothing will ever happen for him unless he gets out. I'm sure for him almost nothing exists outside of his cage.

Question what you've been taught. Question the obvious. You might find a way out of that cage someday.

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.

Quote from: sparks on September 17, 2008, 09:52:45 AM
   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).

Quote from: professor on September 17, 2008, 01:52:35 AM
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!

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

Quote from: Jason_85 on September 17, 2008, 12:24:07 PM
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.

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

Quote from: valveman on September 17, 2008, 03:24:52 PM

Engineer envy!

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

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

Quote from: professor on September 17, 2008, 04:00:14 PMI 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.

Quote from: professor on September 17, 2008, 04:00:14 PM
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?

Quote from: professor on September 17, 2008, 04:00:14 PMNone 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.

Quote from: professor on September 17, 2008, 04:00:14 PMIt 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.

Quote from: professor on September 17, 2008, 04:00:14 PMNo 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.

Quote from: professor on September 17, 2008, 04:00:14 PM
Professor

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

Stefan if you are reading this please make it so that people can't change the topic! this gets really annoying!  :D

Quote from: FreeEnergy on September 17, 2008, 04:27:48 PM
Stefan if you are reading this please make it so that people can't change the topic! this gets really annoying!  :D

<subtely takes away book titled "Top 100 hilarious jokes about Electrical Technicians">

I seriously dont understand why OP is even posting in this forum.

The guys are here because they believe rules can be broken. They dont go to your forum convincing you.

If you dont believe in something, well then dont, just dont drag everyone down to your level.

Like I said, keep your skeptism to yourself. If ever, water fuel become possible I hope you dont change your mind.  ::)

Quote from: Chris31 on September 17, 2008, 04:47:33 PM
I seriously dont understand why OP is even posting in this forum.

The guys are here because they believe rules can be broken. They dont go to your forum convincing you.

If you dont believe in something, well then dont, just dont drag everyone down to your level.

Like I said, keep your skeptism to yourself. If ever, water fuel become possible I hope you dont change your mind.  ::)

To be honest I expected a different response from people. People here don't seem open to new ideas at all, I don't see why what I have said should be so threatening if you truly believe what you believe based on solid reasoning. I don't want to fight with people so if you want me to leave just say so I won't come back, it would be a little dissapointing though.

Since you have nothing to contribute PLEASE GO come back in a few years when you will drive a Car powered by Water!

 

Quote from: Jason_85 on September 17, 2008, 05:09:53 PM
To be honest I expected a different response from people. People here don't seem open to new ideas at all, I don't see why what I have said should be so threatening if you truly believe what you believe based on solid reasoning. I don't want to fight with people so if you want me to leave just say so I won't come back, it would be a little dissapointing though.

FREE ENERGY

Sorry I guess you were referring to  my postings.
I was not aware of that Policy, now being informed I will adhere to it.
Thanks for pointing this out.
professor

Quote from: FreeEnergy on September 17, 2008, 04:27:48 PM
Stefan if you are reading this please make it so that people can't change the topic! this gets really annoying!  :D

Think about this for a minute....

Is it possible to run a vehicle efficiently on water?   Yes, no doubt.   Einstein knew it and any real physist knows it is possible (and will be utilized someday).
Did Stan Meyer run a car on water?   Maybe.       But until you have seen a real working replication (in person), which none of you have (most likely) ...  The answer might as well be No.
Anyone can claim anything they want, but in the world of proof and science, a technology needs to be replicated multiple times to be accepted (believed).....   Everything else pure speculation.


Stan Meyer's buggy and equipment are all for sale right now, even.

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=136&sid=fabaa50fa39977fdc9df18092519a0ec

Someone is trying to make as much as they can off this stuff ... 80k - 2mil?

How much could they get if they demonstrated the technology working..   50 million + ?      Why don't they show it working in a video?    Think about it.

@ Professor
[quote author=professor link=topic=5571.m
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.sg126708#msg126708 date=1221630755]
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. 
professor

[/quote]
Hey Professor,
When you get involved communicating with "Naysayers",you will receive only dumb arguments and a bunch of rhetoric
making it impossible to respond to. Everything what can not be seen or proven due to its removal from the
consumer market can not be proven.
This is exactly what these people are waiting for, to report back to their dubious employers,thus
being their only purpose to frequent these forums, to listen read and report what the automatic scanning  of the internet's censorship system may have overlooked. This is my Opinion, formed after reading this article.
Gustav Pese

@Jason_85

You're OK. Education is something you should be proud of. And ( that goes for most of the skeptics here) - keep an open mind!

Why all those hostile posts - I don't know. It looks like some people here hate science and it's achievements.... They can't stand any critique, or questions about their beliefs... A common "religious" stuff... Delusional Fanatics...

I advise them, as a sign of protest, don't use anything which came out of a scientific progress.... Instead, just use FE devices, there are plenty... With all this FE all around you'll be just fine!

Quote
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

This is a typical post.  An ultimate BS. ;D

I assume The Professor is driving a car using the Meyer's "technique". That would explain all the hate & the fanaticism....

I drive a car which runs on Hydrogen and 0xygen (there may be some Carbon present, I think..).

My car uses the same principle like all other vehicles on our planet (several hundred millions). Meyer's type car is a special one. In fact, it's unique. It's just a legend.... It would be great if you could prove it?

If you can do better, please, just do it. For the sake of Humanity.

Quote from: Jason_85 on September 17, 2008, 05:09:53 PM
To be honest I expected a different response from people. People here don't seem open to new ideas at all, I don't see why what I have said should be so threatening if you truly believe what you believe based on solid reasoning. I don't want to fight with people so if you want me to leave just say so I won't come back, it would be a little dissapointing though.

Because your post is not productive in here. We can talk as much as we want about it not being possible, but is that going to achieve anything? NO.

If you are so correct, the owner of this site might as well close down the forum, delete all the post and forget all about the experiments.

If a car can run on 50% water, dont you think thats a good start? according to you thats not even possible?

As the original antagonist, I offer this new sentiment.  Jason, you're alright, I envy you for being a student of Meyers, but please remember that the forces in control are bending us all towards a conventional, in the box mentality, ESPECIALLY when it comes to nuclear power, which many see as the end-all be-all of power generation.

I differ in my opinion about how the process works.  The water molecule is separated by an extremely high voltage field, or electrical difference potential in scientific terms, which does not actually consume any current.  The water stays cool.  Just like two opposite magnets attract, two electrodes will attract an oppositely charged atom.  That's why hydrogen only forms on the negative electrode.  Hydrogen is H+ when donating it's electron to the O atom.  The pulsing serves two purposes -- two restrict current, and resonate.

Hi Newbie 123
Meyers is dead You can not afford to buy his Dune Buggy there is noone on this forum that is presenting this Technology on a silver Platter (I am still hoping for that to happen... Lol) But there is an alternative Buy a Ticket and fly to the Philippines and visit Daniel Dingle.
a  BMW Team  and others did so ,or fly to Shri Lanka ,all of these Inventors are still alive and keeping a low Profile for obvious reasons..
I know that there are more both in New Zealand and Australia  which feel intimidated and stay away from the mainstream media.
Anyway I believe  meyers and the others if you don't its your Loss.
professor

Quote from: newbie123 on September 17, 2008, 05:34:46 PM
Think about this for a minute....
Is it possible to run a vehicle efficiently on water?   Yes, no doubt.   Einstein knew it and any real physist knows it is possible (and will be utilized someday).
Did Stan Meyer run a car on water?   Maybe.       But until you have seen a real working replication (in person), which none of you have (most likely) ...  The answer might as well be No.
Anyone can claim anything they want, but in the world of proof and science, a technology needs to be replicated multiple times to be accepted (believed).....   Everything else pure speculation.


Stan Meyer's buggy and equipment are all for sale right now, even.

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=136&sid=fabaa50fa39977fdc9df18092519a0ec

Someone is trying to make as much as they can off this stuff ... 80k - 2mil?

How much could they get if they demonstrated the technology working..   50 million + ?      Why don't they show it working in a video?    Think about it.

Spinner you really live up to your Name.(German translation)
professor

Quote from: spinner on September 17, 2008, 05:54:58 PM
@Jason_85

You're OK. Education is something you should be proud of. And ( that goes for most of the skeptics here) - keep an open mind!

Why all those hostile posts - I don't know. It looks like some people here hate science and it's achievements.... They can't stand any critique, or questions about their beliefs... A common "religious" stuff... Delusional Fanatics...

I advise them, as a sign of protest, don't use anything which came out of a scientific progress.... Instead, just use FE devices, there are plenty... With all this FE all around you'll be just fine!
This is a typical post.  An ultimate BS. ;D

I assume The Professor is driving a car using the Meyer's "technique". That would explain all the hate & the fanaticism....

I drive a car which runs on Hydrogen and 0xygen (there may be some Carbon present, I think..).

My car uses the same principle like all other vehicles on our planet (several hundred millions). Meyer's type car is a special one. In fact, it's unique. It's just a legend.... It would be great if you could prove it?

If you can do better, please, just do it. For the sake of Humanity.

Thanks for the helpful responses, thats exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for when I came here! I know it's hard to create a productive discussion with someone who disagrees with what you believe in, so kudos to all of you who were nice and gave me your view on the technology. I would like to stay but people like professor don't really make it easy, which is a shame really. If there is anything you want to discuss with me, about what I've said or why, there's a forum at the site where I keep my blog, and I'll check back there regularly:

Forum on Stanley Meyer's Super Electrolysis (http://bottleweb.org/environmental-forum/renewable-fuels-technologies/stanley-meyer-s-super-electrolyser)

All the best guys and thanks for an interesting chat!

    @jason

    Your mention of negative entrophy is interesting.   To assume that nature is incapable of ordering anything is where a problem arises.  It is assumed that the bricks falling off the back of a pickup truck will be in a less state of order than before they fell.  Go back a little further and look at the mechanism used to stack the bricks.  Most order necessary to fill the least amount of space.  Gravity comes to mind as well as crystallization.  As well as all chemical reactions.   Fusion-blackhole gravitational fields-novas.   Radiation is not a direct consequence of having more energy in less space.   
      The infrared wave field I referred to is radiant energy.  The electromagnetic waves produced according to Planck's blackbody radiation theory.   I believe that these waves can be mixed with lower frequency emwaves and imposed on mass fields that converts the emwave energy into kinetic energy.  The intrinsic electrostatic molecular charges now becoming oscillations.  Enough to break hydrogen bonds?  Maybe enough to pin down hydrogen ions long enough for the oh ions to move along.

Hi Pese
I fully agree with your analogy..
What upsets me so much is that there are people that claim of having all kinds of  Qualifications,we have to take this for granted and believe what they say,yet they don't take Meyers or Dingle for granted despite all of the evidence, Hippocrates.
By the way Meyers had no Degree and accomplished more than all of you thatare bragging about your degrees.
Did Tesla hold any Degrees? I could Name a few more .... I rest my Case. 
With all of those highly educated people on this forum, has anyone of you figured out Meyers or Dingles technology and if so why have you not replicated it? Don't get me wrong I never said that an education is not Important but there is always someone that takes it out of Context and writes his own version distorting  the meaning of another Members post. Not intelligent for someone that boasts it to be.
I know what I know  I don't feel insecure and I do not need to brag or boast about my Education or Knowledge.
I think either Jason was looking for browny points  and had hoped for us to confirm his  Assay without doing much of his own homework. He confirmed but never elaborated about Dingle,or he is testing us to see if anyone of us has some real Information  to pass on or he just simply wanted to arouse us.You do'nt throw rocks when you are in a China Shop. Not a smart Idea by any standards!
professor

 

Quote from: pese on September 17, 2008, 05:46:06 PM
@ ProfessorHey Professor,
When you get involved communicating with "Naysayers",you will receive only dumb arguments and a bunch of rhetoric
making it impossible to respond to. Everything what can not be seen or proven due to its removal from the
consumer market can not be proven.
This is exactly what these people are waiting for, to report back to their dubious employers,thus
being their only purpose to frequent these forums, to listen read and report what the automatic scanning  of the internet's censorship system may have overlooked. This is my Opinion, formed after reading this article.
Gustav Pese

Yea you fucker get the fuck outa here.  Fuckin brown nosin college pansy.  You're degree ain't worth shit except how to drink beer and party.  I've learned more about electronics and electricity in the last 6 months on my own study than you did 4 years and $100k later.  You goddamn neo fascist, 

Hey Sparks,
Excellent summation.  Are you proposing to combine pulsed DC with radiant energy to derive a wave, one that oscillates at the frequency of, let's say, water?  Isn't that all a magnet really is anyway, converting radiant energy into kinetic?  Aren't flux fields radiant energy, or distortions in it, like difference potentials?  Cool

This has got out of hand, jason meant no harm here as he only wanted input.

I made a deep post on his forum for all to read, i feel as if jason took attention to it while the researchers didn't even bother with reading it.

My question to you is. Would you rather see a video of a car that ran on water, or would you rather someone tell you how to run a car on water but not show proof?

Or, do you want to have the cake, and eat it to.

I suggest for everyone to get alone as this technology as it is not meant for you to understand it, things aren't always as they appear. This technology lacks the respect it deserves.

What if someone proves all wrong? what if the skeptics then becomes believers and the researchers then become in denial? then what?

Ok..  The problem here is "Faith" in a technology ..   This is exactly what you have (like it or not)  if you've never seen a (new and amazing, revolutionary) technology such as Stan Meyer's 1700 percent efficiency water splitter, or his water cracking spark plugs work for yourself, and you believe in it.   Faith in a technology (theory) and the proof of a technology are two different things.

I'm not trying to debunk Stan Meyer...   I never saw his demo units working in person, with measurements taken.  I don't know if it worked or not....


But, IMO, we have way too may people talking about Stan Meyer like he's their cousin, and claim to know the technology inside and out, swear it works..   Giving us amazing and speculative theories ...   But provide no evidence..  just useless ramblings....    And chances are  they've never seen a working replication in their life.  C'mon now guys.  Am I the only one tired of this crap?

Quote from: Jason_85 on September 17, 2008, 05:09:53 PM
To be honest I expected a different response from people. People here don't seem open to new ideas at all, I don't see why what I have said should be so threatening if you truly believe what you believe based on solid reasoning. I don't want to fight with people so if you want me to leave just say so I won't come back, it would be a little dissapointing though.

Jason,

I can't pretend to know your true intentions in posting here, but at the very least I would say you are naÃÆ'Ã,¯ve to think responses would â€Ã...“convince youâ€Ã,. 

This site is dedicated to OVERUNITY and secondarily Free Energy, both of which are either impossible or unlikely according to classical education.

Your thread title was provocative, â€Ã...“Stanley Meyer and The Water Car Hoaxâ€Ã, and the article you provide certainly isn’t based on your personal, first hand witnessing of anything. 

You come here asking for people to prove that SM’s car wasn’t a hoax, when you know very well for that proof to be possible, someone would have to be able to replicate the SM car, demonstrate, measure, and have the proof of secondary replications.  Since we all know that hasn’t happened, and you very well knew that before ever posting, what was the point other than to start a flame war?

As mentioned by others, this site is dedicated to theory and experiment which go beyond conventional science.  That DOES NOT mean these fine minds ignore what is taught in schools, it only means that we understand that there are tremendous gaps in classical physics and quantum physics and there are quantifiable observations (many repeatable) of properties and processes that cannot be fully explained.

So, again, did you really come here asking for people to convince you, with real evidence, that OU/FE is possible?  That is unrealistic. 

There are only 2 realistic possible results: 
1)   You won’t be convinced quickly and will leave feeling superior because obviously there has been no provable OU/FE to date
2)   This group can somehow point out the limits of current science and at least open your mind to possibilities beyond what you have been taught

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. 

Word of advice: look around this site, and others like it.  Everyone here isn't a crackpot.  The next generation of technology might just come from collaboration on the Internet.

Enough, I’m done.  Good luck.  And to the rest of you, I watch and hope for your efforts every day.

Regards,
jeffc

Quote from: Jason_85 on September 17, 2008, 07:54:36 PM
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.

Quote from: professor on September 17, 2008, 04:12:37 PM
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.

Quote from: jeffc on September 18, 2008, 05:35:29 AM

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.

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

Quote from: utilitarian on September 18, 2008, 09:02:11 AM
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

@Farlander


      I am doing alot of research into collection of infrared emwaves.  A company is developing infrared antennae mats with micro antennaes to resonate with the waves directly.  The collection is at 80% efficiency but I believe that the technology is geared towards near infrared wavelengths found in industrial processes with high heat losses.  My idea is to store the waveenergy in formation of a magnetically manipulated low temperature plazma.  This plazma can then be transported and disintegrated at point of use.
Or beamed over as needed.  Something like canning radio waves. 

   As to the electolysis of water.  Tesla developed a capacitor that is a coil of wire with specific geometric design.  I believe it is the most efficient use of the input energy in that it's capacitance is a byproduct of current going elsewhere to do other work.  I am not familar enough with Myers work but would imagine that activating the entire coil geometry into capacitive coupling with the water molecules can't hurt. .  Another thing about water is it's ionization constant.  It is falling apart on it's own already.  Pinning down the naturally occuring ions and driving off the oh-rads allows for hydrogen to hydrogen co-valent bonds to occur.  Now the oh- is an agent to destabilize the water molecule.  Something like an avalanche effect.  Don't take this all to heart there are many that have devoted their lives to the study of water.  I was involved with electrocoagulation of suspended solids using aluminum ion generation to destabilize van der wall charges of particles demonstrating brownian motion.  Basically a water dust filter.  Machine worked but the cost of electricity to operate and degas the fluid was more than the cost of aluminum sulphate presently employed by wastewater folks.  It produced a little bit of hydrogen that you could pop once in a while.  Maybe I should go back and use pulse energy!

You don,t offer a man 1 Million or 1 Billion  Dollars if he is a fake.
You don,t send out Government Agents to intimidate someone that can't be taken serious!
I suppose he fooled all of the other independent Scientific Institutions as well ?. 
Do you think Mayers would have spent all of his Money and Efforts, just so we can argue about it ?
I suppose he was not killed  by poison?
Did he fool the Newsmedia as well ?.
I seem to remember that he had foreign Car Manufacturers looking and confirming his Technology.

Do I believe in the Iraq War ,  9/11  or the Haarp ?
According to some of you I should not, because I was not there, I  only saw and heard what the News Media presented us.
As far as Jason is concerned ,sometimes one has to use extraordinary measures to get a Point across.
I hold  no Grudge against Jason I do not know him. He stirred up a lot of controversy amongst  and between other Members
I wished this had never happened. I came here to learn and contribute but when attacked by Name calling I will respond .
My argument and my thoughts where between Jason and myself , not agreeing with what I said to Jason is one thing but to attack me for what I believe in makes you no better than me. The only difference is,that we are supposed to believe in the technology call it Meyers or Dingle or at least I hope so.   
A scenario  like this leads only to a bitterness and results in a  long lasting resentment that leaves me with the thought do I really want to share any more?
professor

Quote from: newbie123 on September 17, 2008, 11:11:11 PM
Ok..  The problem here is "Faith" in a technology ..   This is exactly what you have (like it or not)  if you've never seen a (new and amazing, revolutionary) technology such as Stan Meyer's 1700 percent efficiency water splitter, or his water cracking spark plugs work for yourself, and you believe in it.   Faith in a technology (theory) and the proof of a technology are two different things.

I'm not trying to debunk Stan Meyer...   I never saw his demo units working in person, with measurements taken.  I don't know if it worked or not....


But, IMO, we have way too may people talking about Stan Meyer like he's their cousin, and claim to know the technology inside and out, swear it works..   Giving us amazing and speculative theories ...   But provide no evidence..  just useless ramblings....    And chances are  they've never seen a working replication in their life.  C'mon now guys.  Am I the only one tired of this crap?

@Jason
Don't forget, there's not much to gain from starting a conspiracy about a water car.  There is a lot to gain however from making people think it's not possible.

@Sparks
The Hydrostar water fuel cell has a donut coil sitting inside the top of it.  The flux field of the coil may align the h2o molecule to facilitate dissociation.  I presume that a coil with proper shape and proximity to the cell could induce an effect, but I don't understand it nor have I tested this.

@All
You know it's funny hearing from people like jason85, as an engineer of 20+ years I remember being young and cocky, I was also dumb as a post LOL. My 5 years of education in engineering was not even a warm up for the amount of knowledge I gained from the people in this forum and the documentation researched in the FE forums. I just talked to a person in a forum who believed that it was impossible to power a load with one wire, which I have been doing for a few years now.LOL It is like T.H.Moray once said---"you cannot prove anything to anyone who cannot prove the matter for themselves"
jason85 will believe what he believes and there is no amount of proof you can offer him," what is the truth when the truth is unacceptable"--T.H.Moray ----again ;D Damn he was one smart man!

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,

May I use my water powered flame thrower?

@valveman

QuoteI 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.

Now that's a really good point ;D, maybe the most relevant point posted in this thread as it gets to the very heart of the matter. To believe something without proof is called faith---but to believe in nothing because no proof has been offered could be called delusion. Where do you think we would be if man had no faith in himself, no faith that he could improve his life and the lives of those around him? Faith that if he would pursue his dreams no matter how highly improbable they may be he might succeed. The only people who have contributed to the evolution of technology have been people who "believed" they would succeed when everyone around them believed they would fail. The problem is you will never know for certain unless you try----a familiar theme throught history. ;)

Quote from: allcanadian on September 18, 2008, 11:40:26 PM
@valvemanNow that's a really good point ;D, maybe the most relevant point posted in this thread as it gets to the very heart of the matter. To believe something without proof is called faith---but to believe in nothing because no proof has been offered could be called delusion. Where do you think we would be if man had no faith in himself, no faith that he could improve his life and the lives of those around him? Faith that if he would pursue his dreams no matter how highly improbable they may be he might succeed. The only people who have contributed to the evolution of technology have been people who "believed" they would succeed when everyone around them believed they would fail. The problem is you will never know for certain unless you try----a familiar theme throught history. ;)

Very well stated, AC.

Regards, Larry

Quote from: allcanadian on September 18, 2008, 11:40:26 PM
@valvemanNow that's a really good point ;D, maybe the most relevant point posted in this thread as it gets to the very heart of the matter. To believe something without proof is called faith---but to believe in nothing because no proof has been offered could be called delusion. Where do you think we would be if man had no faith in himself, no faith that he could improve his life and the lives of those around him? Faith that if he would pursue his dreams no matter how highly improbable they may be he might succeed. The only people who have contributed to the evolution of technology have been people who "believed" they would succeed when everyone around them believed they would fail. The problem is you will never know for certain unless you try----a familiar theme throught history. ;)

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.

Everything is impossible until some one does it ,then it is still impossible until many people are doing it.Then it becomes the next big discovery by those with the upper hand of recourses to make it public in the news. It's rather foolish to raise crow and not expect to have to eat it if that is all you have raised.
  In a free world meaning your free to chose your ideas which is very much lacking when you get down to it since some people take freedom to mean they can impose their ideas onto others who chose a different idea The original poster seams to be looking to get a rise out of anyone who will listen and it looks like the only ones who will engage him are those who do not agree with him.
   Freedom must also include the right to engage if so desired. I will not reward a bad child as this reinforces bad behavior. The world of technology did not get to where it is today because of personality types such as his. He is not an exlporer .

Quote from: newbie123 on September 19, 2008, 01:06:28 AM

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!)

Quote from: vonwolf on September 18, 2008, 11:51:51 AM
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"....

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

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.

OOOPs

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

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

Quote from: valveman on September 18, 2008, 08:59:15 PM
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,

Quote from: professor on September 19, 2008, 09:32:57 PM
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

Telling me to contribute in a positive way?  Do you really think you have?  Man your a typical A$$H*%E
You think your opinion is the only one that counts.  You know I'd like to continue with this battle of wits but you're out of ammunition! 
I don't suffer fools.  Your a moron!    Now go back to your trailer and shut the hell up already!  You make no sense!

Quote from: vonwolf on September 19, 2008, 11:49:54 AM
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.



    Hi spinner;
  I did not claim this %1700 efficient electrolysis or perpetual motion and (thermodynamical sense) would somehow indicate the use of heat transfer? This is where I get confused. The word thermaldynamics is thrown around quite loosely in the discussion of why this is imposable, all processes seem to be lumped together? Electrolysis is not a thermal reaction.

I've read the Meyer patents and built a simple electrolyzer.  Hydrogen production occurred but at a cost of a lot of power.  Next I built a PWM with gate timing.  This did not seem to produce the effect of greater hydrogen production.  I used many frequencies including the 44Khz range that is suggested.  There is a theory that Meyer found the resonance point of water.  To date, seems no one has been able to find it.  Some suggest using high voltage at low current.  Yes that is fine as long as you remember high voltage and low current still translates to lots of power due to P=VI.  Who knows if anyone will be successful.  People keep trying.

Any Bob Boyce 101 plate cell replications going on?  His cell seems extremely efficient, and according to quite a few people gets 200 percent faraday with straight DC (no fancy circuits!) ..

Watcky and Wouter,  http://waterfuelforall.com/forum/index.php?topic=423.0

His cell produces 12 liters a min at this time. I can tell you that you that they have not yet got 200% from pure DC, maybe later? hrmmm.....

Quote from: Spewing on September 21, 2008, 12:04:25 AM
Watcky and Wouter,  http://waterfuelforall.com/forum/index.php?topic=423.0

His cell produces 12 liters a min at this time. I can tell you that you that they have not yet got 200% from pure DC, maybe later? hrmmm.....

That is very impressive and the design clean.  He is not using pure DC.  There is still ripple in his output and has been greatly diminished by the filter capacitors.  I don't think it matters much since the ripple would be fairly small compared to the voltage.  I don't know how much hydrigen is required to run the average car.  Anyone know?

   I caught this on the internet looking at some crop circle patterns.  Please note the molecular 3dimage at the end.  I think it is the way water bonds due to the polarization of the molecules.  You see the hydrogen bond angle all over this thing.  If we vibrate this properly I can see the hydrogens shaking off the matrix while the higher density oxygens stay at home.  It could also be a matrix of  h3+ions  the most abundant form of matter in the Universe.  This could be some kind of fuel to synthesize.     
       
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KoR2t-iM9k&NR=1

I would like to make a point about skeptics, skepticism to a point can be a healthy thing but you should understand where this path leads.Take a look at this website and read the posts for a while and you will get the picture.---http://forums.randi.org/
These guys must be the most self rightious, egostical bafoons I have ever had the displeasure of talking with. They are hard core skeptics who believe reason and logic must dictate everything as such they cannot imagine how "there" logic could be flawed in any way,so they continually degrade and humiliate each other. In essence there logic concludes that 99.99% of the people on this planet are misguided, delusional or stupid relative to them. But there logic has a flaw, the individual, there logic cannot explain the wright brothers airplane, goddards rockets or Teslas alternating current. Because at that time all these technologies were "unproven" to the skeptics the key word being "unproven", the skeptic needs concrete proof before he will believe anything as such he believes almost nothing which is why I have yet to hear of any true skeptic accomplish anything that could be regarded as beneficial to society in any way.
I usually simply ignore the skeptics as they have absolutely nothing to offer me in the way of understanding, they come to degrade and humiliate to make themselves feel superior----that is there nature.

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.

     We need skeptics.  Keeps everything honest including our own thought processes.  I am convinced that energy can be elicited from mass.
It is done everytime we replace hydrogen on a carbon chain with oxygen.  Tesla describes a capacitor whose charging is a byproduct of current flow.  Not a direct consequence just a byproduct.  The coil's impedance is matched to it's capacitance and the current flowing through this field travel's unhindered on to do work down the line.  The subsequent discharge of this capacitor coil results in HORSEPOWER gain not just current or voltage gain,  power gain.  How can this be?  The current passing through the coil causes alignment of the emwave energy radiated by the mass of the copper in the coil to mix constructively.  These emwaves are being continously emitted by mass but seldom amount to constructive hetrodyning.  The coil/cap produces an intense standing wave field whose electrostatic effect can result in energy flows in systems far removed from the capacitor.  High cycling of the system results in high net gain from the mass emwave energy. 

Quote from: wizardofmars on September 24, 2008, 01:28:47 PM
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

Quote from: wizardofmars on September 24, 2008, 01:28:47 PM
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.

Quote from: Jason_85 on September 16, 2008, 08:03:44 PM
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 (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 (http://bottleweb.org/jason/water-car-hoax)

Get lost!

@wizardofmars

QuoteWhat 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----

QuoteScience
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 ;D

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

@heairbear
Bill Beaty has an excellent site and I have been visiting it for years, I really like this quote in the link you posted.

QuoteN. Tesla (brushless AC motor)
An AC motor which lacks brushes was thought to be an instance of a Perpetual Motion Machine.

I have done extensive research into the history of the AC motor and found it disturbing that both the scientific and engineering communities could act in such an disgraceful manner towards AC technologies at the time .I think many professionals today see new technologies as a threat, and in some ways it does question there intellect. As if to say --- if you are so smart why didn't you see this new technolgy coming? and why do you not understand it? It would be a huge blow to there ego's since most of them are egomaniacs to begin with.LOL

Hi Allcanadian
Just ignore him, he has been doing the same mindless thing to me on other posts.
He is a useless troll.
On the Stanley Meyer subject, has anyone looked at this Website and in particular the Stack?
Interesting! I am constructing mine the same way for a  good reason.
professor

Quote from: allcanadian on September 25, 2008, 01:47:33 PM
@wizardofmarsLOL, 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---- 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 ;D

Quote from: allcanadian on September 25, 2008, 01:47:33 PM
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.

The difference in this case is that all of these backyard inventors hyped their technologies, roped in investors and then they are somehow 'lost' before they are made available. It's always the same pattern whether it is Dennis Lee, Steorn, Archer Quinn or whoever - it goes back centuries to Bessler. Nobody is ever able to recreate their experiments or technology.

Real science doesn't work that way. Even people working on projects for years find there are others working in parallel. The whole 'perpetual motion' field hasn't had a single workable breakthrough ever!

wizardofmars,

No doubt that some inventors have made up elaborate suppression stories to defend their work/scams.     But chances are some are true as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Suppression

I added the link that was missed in my previous post
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Water_Fueled_Car_-_Sri_Lanka

Quote from: professor on September 25, 2008, 04:53:40 PM
Hi Allcanadian
Just ignore him, he has been doing the same mindless thing to me on other posts.
He is a useless troll.
On the Stanley Meyer subject, has anyone looked at this Website and in particular the Stack?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Water_Fueled_Car_-_Sri_Lanka
Interesting! I am constructing mine the same way for a  good reason.
professor

Quote from: newbie123 on September 26, 2008, 06:01:01 PM
wizardofmars,

No doubt that some inventors have made up elaborate suppression stories to defend their work/scams.     But chances are some are true as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression

I'm fully familiar with the Free Energy suppression theory. Note what the article says - Free energy suppression is a conspiracy theory ...

The chances are approaching zero that any perpetual motion schemes or the like will hold water, and the suppression theory is even less credible. This has become especially obvious in the past few years when legitimate attempts to solve the current energy crisis and create more energy efficient means of transportation are booming all around the world. Any special interest group trying to 'suppress' discoveries would certainly have their hands full. And yet still inventors are making claims but failing to deliver proof.

Quote from: jeffc on September 24, 2008, 03:25:09 PM
@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

Jeff

Thanks for your thoughtful posting. For your info, it's a field I've been studying for 20+ years. Many years ago I believed all this nonsense - my grandmother filled my head full of Erik von Daniken, Lobsang Rampa, Kirlian aura's and Carlos Castaneda among others bogus mystical and pseudoscience topics. I was literally a subscriber to many of these ideas. It took me years to figure out how to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I have to disagree about the content of this board. It seems to me that overunity.com is all about the wildest kind of pseudoscience. Just a survey of the front page right now would tell you that. We have several old chestnuts (Tesla, Steven Marks, Meyer, Bedini), aliens, cancer cures, the New World Order, chemtrails, water cars, flying cars, HHO etc etc. About the only pseudoscience topic I don't see listed is Bigfoot.

I realize posting is unlikely to convince someone who is of this worldview. Having said that, better to light one candle in the dark than to curse the darkness. For every hundred people who refuse any criticism, perhaps one reader sees the light.

Wiz

I agree this site is polluted with the "wildest kind of pseudoscience" and that's unfortunate.

Quote from: wizardofmars on September 26, 2008, 08:23:29 PM
Jeff

Thanks for your thoughtful posting. For your info, it's a field I've been studying for 20+ years. Many years ago I believed all this nonsense - my grandmother filled my head full of Erik von Daniken, Lobsang Rampa, Kirlian aura's and Carlos Castaneda among others bogus mystical and pseudoscience topics. I was literally a subscriber to many of these ideas. It took me years to figure out how to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I have to disagree about the content of this board. It seems to me that overunity.com is all about the wildest kind of pseudoscience. Just a survey of the front page right now would tell you that. We have several old chestnuts (Tesla, Steven Marks, Meyer, Bedini), aliens, cancer cures, the New World Order, chemtrails, water cars, flying cars, HHO etc etc. About the only pseudoscience topic I don't see listed is Bigfoot.

I realize posting is unlikely to convince someone who is of this worldview. Having said that, better to light one candle in the dark than to curse the darkness. For every hundred people who refuse any criticism, perhaps one reader sees the light.

Wiz

Very fair response Wiz.  I would agree as I said before that I also find some topics quite silly.  And I can understand specifically your history in belief about all of the supposed OU/FE devices that have conveniently disappeared over the years.  Those things I view with suspicion as well.  But I still do think that there are many topics with a very sane group participating, and that any serious efforts aren't really undermined by aliens, or wild new fantasies about our alien overlords, or even bigfoot  ;D

My main thought in responding to your post is that when a new person like Jason comes to this site, and makes the challenge he does â€ââ,¬Å" to prove the not provable.  And he immediately finds the answer he wants in some responses â€ââ,¬Å" namely that everything here is rubbish, then we don’t give some efforts here a fair representation.

In any case, I mostly observe and try to keep an eye on things that appear to have real experimentation as opposed to just theory play.  Also, I will admit to reading the more outlandish topics from time to time, just out of pure entertainment.

Anyway, I’m neither a skeptic or believer.  But, we need a variety of opinions here to keep things in some sort of balance.  I hope to see you more here and thanks for a proper discussion.

Regards,
jeffc

Quote from: wizardofmars on September 26, 2008, 08:23:29 PM
.....I have to disagree about the content of this board. It seems to me that overunity.com is all about the wildest kind of pseudoscience. Just a survey of the front page right now would tell you that. We have several old chestnuts (Tesla, Steven Marks, Meyer, Bedini), aliens, cancer cures, the New World Order, chemtrails, water cars, flying cars, HHO etc etc. About the only pseudoscience topic I don't see listed is Bigfoot.

I realize posting is unlikely to convince someone who is of this worldview. Having said that, better to light one candle in the dark than to curse the darkness. For every hundred people who refuse any criticism, perhaps one reader sees the light.
Wiz

"...better to light one candle in the dark than to curse the darkness..."

Excellent! Thanks! And the same for the rest of your evaluation....

Quote from: newbie123 on September 26, 2008, 10:51:54 PM
I agree this site is polluted with the "wildest kind of pseudoscience" and that's unfortunate.

Truth... I'm a member on this site since the yahoo's, and a "pseudoscience" is the main thing which comes to my mind whenever a think about all of this....
It was always a mistery to me, why all the  top 'FE' people/researchers  think that the "rest" of the technically viable people (some 99,99% of the classically trained technicians,..engineers,..science teachers,.. doctors ...) could be so dumb not to recognise a 'FE'....?
Strange....

I value all of your opinions... What do you consider this car in the video? Does it really work or is it a scam? Nothing ever came of this vehicle but I would have loved to see it and how it was built.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syc2Z9I_C8A

     Ask any scientist if water doesn't have any intrinsic energy.
Nasa knows water is a fuel.  Plants split water using electromagnetic wave energy so why is it so hard to believe that dc currents are the only thing that can bust a hydrogen to oxygen bond?  I don't see plants spinning up generators burning themselves to get hydrogen from water.  Unreal how far science is behind nature.  You want to build a better mouse trap better start studying a cat.  You want to split water start studying chlorophyll.

Quote from: sparks on September 27, 2008, 09:55:33 AM
Plants split water using electromagnetic wave energy .... Unreal how far science is behind nature. 

Why would you even state that 'science is so far behind nature'. Nature has had million of years to evolve these mechanisms. Human science has barely been around for thousands of years. Any scientist will acknowledge we don't know everything about biology, physics, astrology etc.

And plants don't use 'electomagnetic wave energy' for photocatalysis - they use manganese clusters powered by sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.  You can read some work of actual scientists at Princeton working on biosolar along these lines at http://www.princeton.edu/~catalase/home.html.

The photocatalytic reaction you refer to is the subject of much research and some of it has already resulted in patents  e.g. USPTO 6,316,653 Highly reactive, stable tetramanganese-oxo cubane complexes, their synthesis and their use as a functional catalyst for in vitro O2 production...These catalysts may be used for the oxidation of water to oxygen and hydrogen peroxide and may also be used to catalyze the oxidation of chloride and simple chloride compounds to chlorine gas.

Quote from: HeairBear on September 27, 2008, 08:54:12 AM
I value all of your opinions... What do you consider this car in the video? Does it really work or is it a scam? Nothing ever came of this vehicle but I would have loved to see it and how it was built.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syc2Z9I_C8A

I would have guessed the first demo is effectively a flywheel (it runs down over time). The technology of the second demo in the car is not explained but my gut reaction is that it is probably an outright scam. My guess is lead acid batteries hidden in the rear. A quick look at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Surge_Motor_Technology_by_Troy_Reed confirms the same thing and points out that you can see the vehicle is tilting backwards in the video as if there is a heavy weight in the rear. It also claims (yet again) that millions were invested in this project and nothing ever came of it. It's a typical scenario for any scam promoter. Note these videos are over ten years old.

As an amusing aside, the PESWiki pages claims Reed's family was involved in prime bank scams. That's ironic because there are posters on overunity.com who believe in the same nonsense such as NESARA. It shows there is a very low threshold for evidence in both areas.

Quote from: spinner on September 27, 2008, 04:50:16 AM

Truth... I'm a member on this site since the yahoo's, and a "pseudoscience" is the main thing which comes to my mind whenever a think about all of this....
It was always a mistery to me, why all the  top 'FE' people/researchers  think that the "rest" of the technically viable people (some 99,99% of the classically trained technicians,..engineers,..science teachers,.. doctors ...) could be so dumb not to recognise a 'FE'....?

Here is what a real 'alternative energy' forum looks like. Real people discussing real technology you can use today. I don't see aliens, NESARA, water cars, cancer cures and all the other BS on this site.

http://www.solarpowerforum.net/forumVB/

    @ Wizardofamars

            Sunlight is electromagnetic wave energy. 

man
you are dense ,you debunk everything without giving it any thought.
The heavy Generator is in the trunk of the Car what you see up front is the Electric Motor which is driven by the Generator
Any Kid could have figured that out. Get it? Please go away!
professor

Quote from: wizardofmars on September 27, 2008, 11:45:26 AM
I would have guessed the first demo is effectively a flywheel (it runs down over time). The technology of the second demo in the car is not explained but my gut reaction is that it is probably an outright scam. My guess is lead acid batteries hidden in the rear. A quick look at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Surge_Motor_Technology_by_Troy_Reed confirms the same thing and points out that you can see the vehicle is tilting backwards in the video as if there is a heavy weight in the rear. It also claims (yet again) that millions were invested in this project and nothing ever came of it. It's a typical scenario for any scam promoter. Note these videos are over ten years old.

As an amusing aside, the PESWiki pages claims Reed's family was involved in prime bank scams. That's ironic because there are posters on overunity.com who believe in the same nonsense such as NESARA. It shows there is a very low threshold for evidence in both areas.

     Anyway you look at this energy pollution problem you can lay it at the door of the oil industry.  Their reluctance to convert to hydrogen as a fuel due to their investment in sludge harvesting has cost the world big time.  While they dumped trillions into oil exploration technology and kissing every politicians ass that ruled the real estate over an oil reserve they could have been setting up hydrogen gas distribution systems.  Fucking retards!!!  Meanwhile we elect people from Texas who are so hookedup with the industry they send young men to die protecting "private contractors" pumping sludge.  Now the regime is gonna bailout moneylenders who enslave the population pretending they have what it takes to make life better for you.  Again fucking retards.  Take the 700billion and start trading hydrogen all over the world and fuck the old world order.  I'll buy stock in a company that is gonna produce something other than pollution and lies.  Cease the oil companies assets pending a global lawsuit for polluting the planet.  These people are at best  negligent.   There's a whole bunch of billions for the hydrogen industry startup funds.

Quote from: wizardofmars on September 27, 2008, 11:53:56 AM
Here is what a real 'alternative energy' forum looks like. Real people discussing real technology you can use today. I don't see aliens, NESARA, water cars, cancer cures and all the other BS on this site.

http://www.solarpowerforum.net/forumVB/

If this site upsets your delicate constitution then you should vote with your feet and simply leave. I don't get it, why are you here?

Quote from: sparks on September 27, 2008, 03:26:56 PM
     Anyway you look at this energy pollution problem you can lay it at the door of the oil industry.  Their reluctance to convert to hydrogen as a fuel due to their investment in sludge harvesting has cost the world big time.While they dumped trillions into oil exploration technology and kissing every politicians ass that ruled the real estate over an oil reserve they could have been setting up hydrogen gas distribution systems. 

If the oil industry is dragging its feet, can't others jump in and set up a hydrogen fuel network?  It looks as if that is happening in California (http://www.fuelcellpartnership.org/index.html), at least.

ETA:  Apparently BP, Chevron, and Shell are already participating in the program I linked to above. 

Quote from: wizardofmars on September 27, 2008, 11:33:48 AM
Any scientist will acknowledge we don't know everything about biology, physics, astrology etc.

LOL :D, I'm pretty sure you meant to say "cosmology" rather than "astrology". I can hardly see you giving any credence to astrology.

Also, I don't think Meyer was a hoax. Everything I've read about him and all that I've seen of him and his work leads me to believe he was a good man.

Quote from: Yucca on September 27, 2008, 03:57:49 PM
LOL :D, I'm pretty sure you meant to say "cosmology" rather than "astrology". I can hardly see you giving any credence to astrology.

Oops!  :o :o

Quote
Also, I don't think Meyer was a hoax. Everything I've read about him and all that I've seen of him and his work leads me to believe he was a good man.

I'm not so sure. Why on earth did Meyer sell 'dealerships' to investors (for which he was later prosecuted for fraud) before perfecting his invention? That's straight out of the Dennis Lee scam handbook.

I don't disagree there are plenty of deluded inventors out there, but self delusion only lasts so long once money starts to come into it.

Quote from: professor on September 27, 2008, 03:18:26 PM

The heavy Generator is in the trunk of the Car what you see up front is the Electric Motor which is driven by the Generator

Does he say that in the video? I didn't hear it and neither did the poster on PESwiki. If his magical generator is in the trunk, why doesn't he show it?

Sure, there could be a magical generator in the trunk. There could also be a stack of lead acid batteries. What's more likely?

Quote from: wizardofmars on September 27, 2008, 04:22:08 PM
I'm not so sure. Why on earth did Meyer sell 'dealerships' to investors (for which he was later prosecuted for fraud)? That's straight out of the Dennis Lee scam handbook.

Prosecution for fraud... well it's an easy way to discredit/ostracise someone. If someone is jeopordising the profits of a large corporation then said corporation will use any trick in the book to stop that. I'm sure the grounds for prosecution were that he was trying to franchise something that the prosecuter said did not exist and was all baloney, then some PHD would have been brought in to explain about Faradays law in electrolysis etc.

Slightly off topic but... you should note that the managers and CEOs of the massive financial companies that have failed to meet their obligations with regard to options and derivatives contracts have not been tried for fraud, instead there is talk of the American public paying their debts off for them. If you're so concerned about fraud then you must consider this to be diabolical, or do you think those CEOs are better people than Meyer and are out to help us all?

No he did not say that in the Video because he has not aware that he has to address Morons like you .
Did you see the Generator any where else? Perhaps on the Passenger seat? I suppose the electric Motor was really a Combustion Engine eh?
Get a Life!
professor

Quote from: wizardofmars on September 27, 2008, 04:25:43 PM
Does he say that in the video? I didn't hear it and neither did the poster on PESwiki. If his magical generator is in the trunk, why doesn't he show it?

Sure, there could be a magical generator in the trunk. There could also be a stack of lead acid batteries. What's more likely?

Quote from: wizardofmars on September 26, 2008, 08:23:29 PM
Just a survey of the front page right now would tell you that. We have several old chestnuts (Tesla, Steven Marks, Meyer, Bedini), aliens, cancer cures, the New World Order, chemtrails, water cars, flying cars, HHO etc etc. About the only pseudoscience topic I don't see listed is Bigfoot.

I dont even understand why you spend so much time in this forum if you dont believe in anything. I supposed you go to church every sunday morning even if dont believe in god?  ::)

Meyer being prosecuted for fraud does not mean anything. Anyone with power can decide what to do with him and the public will believe it.

Was there any evidence that his invention does not work? did you actually see it?

@Madsen

        I can remember far back as 1968 the scientific community warning of energy shortages and pollution stemming from fossil fuel reliance.  Of course these warnings always came along with the solution: population control.  Vast deserts throughout the world could be collecting solar power which then could be used to synthesize fuel. Infrared radiation collection could be happening on demand right in our back yards or back seats.   We don't need to drill down for geothermal we got oceans of warm water collecting solar energy day and night.
The energy companies have had their chance and fuckedup. They won't do anything unless it is going to return profit.  This energy crisis can not be left in the hands of the private sector anymore..   We need to wakeup and demand of our governing bodies a global alliance to get this energy crisis resolved NOW.
     E=mc2  still stands and you don't have to use uranium or some other shit to make it happen. 

E=mc2  still stands and you don't have to use uranium or some other shit to make it happen.

Aye men to that one ta hell with nuclear if it is our future we are preached and harped on to worry about then are future should not be forced to dispose of nuclear wastes that will kill all life it comes into contact with!!! Either your for the future or against the future.

Bring on the future

You rock Sparks.  From the first post of yours I read I've been impressed.  Well done.

Wizardofmars, why don't you strap yourself to a dinosaur bone burning rocket and head to the planet where you can be magical.

Quote from: Yucca on September 27, 2008, 04:36:52 PM
Prosecution for fraud... well it's an easy way to discredit/ostracise someone. If someone is jeopordising the profits of a large corporation then said corporation will use any trick in the book to stop that. I'm sure the grounds for prosecution were that he was trying to franchise something that the prosecuter said did not exist and was all baloney, then some PHD would have been brought in to explain about Faradays law in electrolysis etc.

In Meyer's case he took money from mom and pop investors and sold them 'dealerships', then got prosecuted for fraud. Large corporations had nothing to do with it.

Like I said earlier, it is straight out of the Dennis Lee scam playbook. Unless of course anyone here believes Dennis Lee has something? It wouldn't surprise me.

As to why I hang out here now and then - better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

   This whole issue boils down to electron intrinsic energy.  I don't know what got these little devils cruising around at  186,000 miles a second but we should be greatful that they are.  Some of the valence electrons in a conductor atom are barely bothering to come back towards the neucleus.  We stress the string with a little bit more voltage not current and away they go.  While they are free at last we get more energy then it took to cut the umbelical cord to the neucleus.  Very good return on investment.

Quote from: wizardofmars on October 09, 2008, 06:56:38 PM
In Meyer's case he took money from mom and pop investors and sold them 'dealerships', then got prosecuted for fraud. Large corporations had nothing to do with it.

Like I said earlier, it is straight out of the Dennis Lee scam playbook. Unless of course anyone here believes Dennis Lee has something? It wouldn't surprise me.

As to why I hang out here now and then - better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

Just because some investors lost faith and backed out of a deal made with Myers does not totaly invalidate all of his work. The man is dead I have no idea why but people do die. He's not hideing out trying perpetuate some lie he's dead please try to move on.
   The fact that some Judge didn't understand his work does not invalidate all of his lifes work either I can't think of any time the goverment got it right and from other post's on this fourm I don't think there is alot of faith in the goverment. I don't think the Judicial system is going to come out with any scientific breakthrough's any time soon and it no suprise to me that a bunch of Lawers could find some expert's to agree with them.

Copied from another forum posted by drakk626...

35 FACTS ABOUT STANLEY MEYER:INVENTOR OF THE WATER FUEL CELL

1. Born 1941 Died March 21st, 1998 at age 57

2. Invented the Water Fuel Cell

3. One part of the Water Fuel Cell was a machine that split the hydrogen from water (H2O)

and was able to be attached to any motor and make any car essentially run off of water.

4. His wife is named Marilyn Meyer.

5. He had a twin brother named Stephen Meyer

6. He was a very paranoid man but not crazy.

7. He was a devoted Christian.

8. He was a United States patriot.

9. Before becoming a full time inventor he worked for a company called New Technology and he was making millions of dollars already from making truck parts.

10. He never graduated from College.

11. He invented the Water Fuel Cell in his garage.


12.He believed in a Global Conspiracy and a One World Government Organization that suppressed this type of technology so that Huge Corporations could continue making money off of regular citizens.

13. He knew that the Water Fuel Cell could never be released by a big corporation which is probably the easiest way this technology could have been released to the mass market.

14. He felt that any big corporation with this type of technology on their supply line could be taken over by the government simply because the government is allowed to take over any corporation that the feel could be a national security threat.

15. He knew that only an independent company could release this technology on to the market because although an independent company might not have as much money to spend on releasing this technology, an independent company is still protected by certain laws from government take over.

16. Many scientists examined his inventions and although his claims were scientifically impossible, the scientists that examined them could not disprove that they were doing what they were doing they way Stanley Meyer had explained. In other words the Water Fuel Cell worked.

17. He lost a court battle over one of his inventions. Stanley was ordered to show proof that the Dune buggy which is shown in several videos actually worked they way he claimed. When he failed to make it work he was successfully sued by car dealerships for gross and egregious fraud. He never gave up his quest.

18. He was invited to a Geneva Convention sometime in the early 90s and right before he was to go up on stage before dozens of nations of the world he was stopped and not allowed to display or explain the Water Fuel Cell.

19. At some point during the 90s he was contacted by certain Arab oil families and offered over one billion dollars to sell his invention to them. He refused.

20. After there offer was turned down, the Arabs told Stanley that he would never succeed in releasing the Water Fuel Cell. When Stanley asked why they believed that, they responded "Because the American People Will Never Stand Behind You".

21. Stanley spent the last years of his life traveling the world and meeting with many credible scientists to discuss the Water Fuel Cell and to find a safe way to release the technology to the entire world.

22. Stanley had complete legal blue prints drawn up for a research center where he could create any machine designed around the Water Fuel Cell technology for any system needed.

23. Some of the ideas he envisioned the Water Fuel Cell being perfect for were automobiles, military aircraft and vehicles, spaceships and deep space exploration, airplanes and for powering homes.

24. This technology is viewed as revolutionary because of its potential ability to make Oil companies and Electric companies basically useless. Saving the people billions upon billions of dollars and stopping wars.

25. He met with many Pentagon officials about not only different ways the Water Fuel Cell could be used for military purposes, but about the importance of it to the National Security of the United States.

26. Stanley was given government contracts and later found out that the Water Fuel Cell technology was basically stolen by the government and being used without his consent.

27. Stanley Meyer was granted dozens of patents involved with the Water Fuel Cell. How many?? He realized that he would never be allowed to patent the Water Fuel Cell in its entirety but that he would have to patent each individual component of the Water Fuel Cell that when put together would create the Water Fuel Cell.

28. In the last weeks of his life he had secured a contract with the military to fund what was probably his research center estimated at around 50 million dollars.

29. It was rumored that hours before his death he had a toast of cranberry juice with NATO officials after signing this contract.

30. He later went to eat dinner at a crowded restaurant where in the middle of his meal he jumped up out of his chair and publicly yelled that he had been poisoned then ran out to the parking lot where he died in front of his twin brother.

31. Its easy to speculate that he was indeed poisoned, reasons being to suppress his technology after he had just signed a contract with the military. A contract that possibly unknown to Stanley had loopholes that somehow made all of Stanley Meyers technology and research now belong to the government.

32. Since his death its been reported that all of his research including the infamous dune buggy were indeed confiscated by government officials. recently found and for sale!

33. The official autopsy report claims that Stanley Meyer died of a ruptured brain aneurysm.

34. Also included in the official autopsy the writer made some bizarre comments regarding the events leading up to his Stanley s death. He had written what appeared to be his own personal beliefs about the events leading up to Stanleys death writing that "supposedly" Stanley had just toasted with NATO officials.

35. The fact that the writer of the autopsy report decided to include his own personal thoughts wich essentially argued what other claimed many feel is an unprofessional and suspicious thing to do. Making the final autopsy report diagnosis suspect. Stanley might indeed have been poisoned.

OK, wizard... The car is for sale and currently the bid is about 75 grand. If the right person buys this car and all the research materials and so on, this argument will be put to rest. I can't wait!

Quote from: HeairBear on October 10, 2008, 12:08:17 AM
OK, wizard... The car is for sale and currently the bid is about 75 grand. If the right person buys this car and all the research materials and so on, this argument will be put to rest. I can't wait!

Is the car confirmed running on water? I hope the orginal car have not been modfied in anyway, it may be sold with the vital part missing :-\

     The problem with studying Meyers work is that his patent has everything but the kitchen sink in there.  He was listening to an attorney not publishing a scientific paper.  I think his fuel cell produces ionized hydrogen bonded to hydroxide ions in a gas state.  h+_(oh)- .  This occurs all the time but in an aqueous state.  The charge energy breaks the intermolecular bonds first and foremost which allows water to behave as a gas which it should be if you look at the molecular weight of water compared to carbon dioxide for example.

The reason most people think Stanley Meyers is a fraud is because they cannot concieve how he did what he did, It is not Mr.Meyers fault his critics are ignorant to the facts. I think it's time to shed some light on the subject ;D, I made this post in another forum a while ago.

QuoteHydroxy Cells:
Let's start with a simple experiment, take two 4" x 4" stainless steel plates and put them in a container of water. Connect some insulated wires to these plates then connect a 12 volt source battery to the two wires. You will see gas form on both plates and the moment the battery is disconnected the gas formation slowly stops. Most people would conclude that the gas formation is based on the current flow following Faraday's Laws concerning electrolysis but this is nothing more than an illusion. Let's do another simple experiment, connect the battery to the cell very quickly as before then quickly disconnect the battery and connect an LED or small light across the same hydroxy cell(make sure polarity is right for LED). You will find the LED will light for a second or more and this has no effect on the gas production. This is because the hydroxy cell acts like a battery or capacitor, the energy you put in is still there in the form of an electric field and can be recovered. Now think about the qualities of this reaction, current moved through the cell producing an electric field which produced the gasses but the cell does not act like a capacitor nor a battery as the charge on the cell quickly dissipates. The hydroxy cell acts just like an electrolytic capacitor with the polarity reversed---a leaky capacitor. It would seem obvious that the faster the cell was charged then discharged into a load (frequency) the more efficient the process would be because the current flow is nothing more than wasted energy leaking through the capacitance. The electric field produces the gas and the current maintains the electric field in a conventional cell but there is a better way. Charge the cell quickly producing an electric field then discharge the electric field into a load or storage device. I have built many devices utilizing this principal and it works perfectly well. Also if you start looking at various patents for this process you will see it is there but is usually hidden in the form of a resonant action. That is a cell is pulsed resonantly each discharge of the cell adding with the next input charge in series to increase the electric field exponentially.

To the critics----
You never thought of that did you? That is because like many others you judge without facts, you believe that if you cannot figure something out nobody can. I wish I had your confidence, I would imagine my life would be sheer bliss and I could stop doing all these silly pointless experiments and thinking for myself. LOL

   @ac  He was using a pulsed series resonant circuit and a water capacitor as the c in the circuit.   Anybody who has seen Tesla's ozone machine will see an immediate similarity.  Tesla was after water purification.  SM was after hho gas.  Same shit different ions.  I'd love to see the price of a barrel of sludge after GE or Westinghouse comes out with an industrial hho synthesiser.  If I was a leader of an opec nation I'd be investing in this technology instead of bigger guns to drive off the wolves at the door.  Lots of sunshine in the deserts to power pumps to irrigate the whole mideast.

Quote from: HeairBear on October 10, 2008, 12:08:17 AM
Copied from another forum posted by drakk626...

35 FACTS ABOUT STANLEY MEYER:INVENTOR OF THE WATER FUEL CELL

What is the actual source for these 'facts'? One of them was clearly wrong (the 'confiscated' dune buggy is apparently on eBay) and most of the others sound like the worst sort of paranoid conspiracy theory.

Are you just like everyone else on this forum - spouting 'facts' you read in some other person's post?

Quote from: allcanadian on October 10, 2008, 02:30:28 PM
The reason most people think Stanley Meyers is a fraud is because they cannot concieve how he did what he did, It is not Mr.Meyers fault his critics are ignorant to the facts.

No. The reason skeptics think Meyers is a fraud is because Meyers was prosecuted for fraud. He sold 'dealerships' in his technology without having a working model. That's Fraud 101. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer#Lawsuit

In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[3] According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of energy and the military.[20] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the two investors their $25,000.[3]

QuoteHis "water fuel cell" was later examined by three witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis".

My statement still stands LOL

QuoteThe reason most people think Stanley Meyers is a fraud is because they cannot concieve how he did what he did, It is not Mr.Meyers fault his critics are ignorant to the facts.

Examined by three witnesses -- three half-wits with impecable credentials I imagine.
There is a simple truth here, if the consumption of goods and services ever subsides (oil and gas in this case) the economy will collapse. You can see this in many economies right now, the US consumers have stopped buying shit and no amount of government intervention will change there minds, only they can. What if tomorrow the news agencies announced free energy for all that anyone can build? Gas/oil,electrical utility and motor vehicle stocks tumble overnight---massive unemployment due to layoffs and bankrupcy---billions of dollars of loans are defaulted on ---- Trillions of dollars of capital assets are now worthless ect..... . People in general are like sheep, they see there buddy start running and they all follow suit without justification in most cases, no government in there right mind would sit back and let this happen.

    Using the cell as a capacitor in a resonant circuit pulsed with  high frequency dc square waves is the most efficient use of input energy.  Throwing straight dc across plates is just plain inefficient and destructive to the electrodes.   There are a couple of ways our ancestors would start a fire.  Rub sticks together and give themselves blisters.  Or smack two rocks together to get a spark and laugh at the idiots rubbing the sticks together.  I hope SM is still laughing!

Quote from: wizardofmars on October 10, 2008, 05:55:29 PM
No. The reason skeptics think Meyers is a fraud is because Meyers was prosecuted for fraud. He sold 'dealerships' in his technology without having a working model. That's Fraud 101. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer#Lawsuit

In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[3] According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of energy and the military.[20] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the two investors their $25,000.[3]

How many time can you bring this up? Some one wanted out and sued him, big deal it hapens in buisness alll the time it does not invalidate all of Stanley Myers work just that the investors got back thier $25 grand big deal!
  How many Of these "Experts" did the Goverment Bring out against Charles Darwin? Attorneys will allways find experts to say just what they need to say thats thier job. Give it a break.

wizardofma

You seem to be a knowlegable skeptic so I will ask you this seeings I have not studied meyers work. What do you Know of Tesla, Mooray, and leedkalin from what I have been reading it seems like these men had something signifigant but were either ignored or called quacks because their work didn't agree with the electron theory of electricity. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy I don't believe the government is smart enough to pull that off but I would call it human greed that did those ideas in.

For the pseudo-skeptics:
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/ForumPDFs/International%20Independent%20Test%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf

@alan

    Nice document.  I included a link here to a post about plasma as I understand it from research.  Meyers ionization of the gas using lazer excitation  (also doable with ultraviolet) causes the brief formation of a plasma as electrons are drawn to this inertial field from the water in the combustion chamber.   This plasma concentrates the water born electron energy into it's inertial frame.  Subsequent disintegration of the plasma releases a time compressed flow of energy.

                         http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1310.msg132016#msg132016 (http:// http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1310.msg132016#msg132016)

Quote from: spinner on September 19, 2008, 07:50:52 AM
First, claim of "1700% efficient electrolysis" (this is nonse in a thermodynamical sense) is exactly the same as claiming Perpetual Motion.

Even if the device were only 90 percent efficient or 70 percent efficient, it would still be worth pursuing since small amounts of wind power or solar power could be used, along with batteries to supply the required voltage. Even if the device were 50 percent efficient, this may be more useful than Oil which will be 0 percent efficient when oil runs out, and we have wind/solar/alcohol power to help us tap into the 50 percent efficient water energy.

When someone traps Wind with a windmill, what efficiency is this? 100 percent? 90 percent?  The fact that the windmill will eventually wear down is besides the point - that does not really matter. So what is wind efficiency?  If Stan Meyer was tapping in to the atomic movements and atomic energy (an atomic wind per say) then what efficiency would this be? His engine would still wear down and one would still have to replace the oil, pistons, etc.  That is not a perpetual motion machine.

Are not windmills perpetual motion machines, when they are spinning? And theoretically if one could trap the wind power and store it in a battery for when the wind was not blowing, could not one perpetually move the windmill using that saved power?  Of course the wind mill parts will eventually wear down, just as a piston/rings will wear down, as will oil.

Quote from: spinner on September 19, 2008, 07:50:52 AM
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...

You know part of the energy trapped by a wind mill could be stored and used to turn the wind mill when the wind was not strong, and we could then make the wind mill a perpetual motion machine. Fact is, wind is perpetual and is always here. Take the Wind to trial and put it in jail.  Atomic "winds" may also exist, in order to keep molecules moving.  The wind analogy is bad, but accept the point.  Tesla considered the River analogy.. I consider the wind analogy.

Quote from: spinner on September 19, 2008, 07:50:52 AM
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...).

A simple atomic bomb is not possible. It would solve all the wars if it was possible, because someone would simply invent the atomic bomb and that country would be feared by everyone. If this so called atomic bomb really existed, it would allow one country to do serious damage to the earth. Therefore the atomic bomb is not possible. Plus, overnight everyone would simply produce an atomic bomb and the world would be immediately destroyed because everyone would literally produce their own atomic bomb overnight in their backyards up in their treehouse with their sons and daughters (with a simple screwdriver and nothing else).

Wait, wait. What am I thinking. Holy crap, the atomic bomb does exist, and no one blew up the entire world yet, nor did it change the world overnight (maybe it took a few months/years, and it did change the world make no mistake.. but it was not instant). And no, kids did not end up building atomic bombs in their tree houses (with only a screw driver) as predicted.

I say all this as an extreme skeptic myself of Stan. I do not like the fact that he peddled his technology with the "Lord" since many scam artists use the Lord to promote their frauds. However, his body language in the lectures/videos is very honest looking and he does not appear to be lying or trying to deceive.

Missing Explanation of Stan's Electron Recycling

Stan appears to have the electron trapped in the water before it gets to the Cathode, according to his theory - i.e. a free floating electron from the broken bond that shared it. The electron does not make it to the cathode in time since the system is shut off before the electron has a chance. Regular electrolysis does nothing like that with the free floating electron. This free floating electron is then absorbed by the Hydrogen to produce the gas. Again, regular electrolysis does not work this way - and many miss this extremely important point in Stan's theory. In regular electrolysis the electron is gotten from the power running the system, and the free floating electron is wasted. Regular electrolysis again does not allow this free floating electron to be used for the hydrogen, it instead gets wasted at the cathode (consumed).  I repeat it because no one seems to make a big point of this on the internet. Out of all the reading I have done, very few have caught on to this extremely important point. However, that is Stan Meyer's theory and I have no idea if the theory of the free floating electron works in practice.

Even if Stan Meyer was a fraud - this idea of trapping the free floating electron that was on its way to the cathode (but did not get there due to the circuit stopping it), well, it is still a great idea! i.e. someone could come up with another independent invention that used this idea, AFAIK, even if Stan never really made use of this in his possible fraud devices. That would be hard to believe, that we could make use of some of Stans theories and ideas even if his actual car was a fraud?  Usually the people have a theory that is completely wrong and their device is also a fraud. In our case, was Stan on to something with his theories and his car was a fraud? Seems backwards. It does not make sense that he would have fraudulently made a car if he had his theories correct - unless he ran out of time and had to show something. Most people are attacking his theories AND his cars. I am  congratulating his theory and I am worried if his car was a fraud, but even if it was a fraud, there are some ideas to be gotten from the theory, "even if".

Now if the car was NOT a fraud, that is a big bonus. It would mean Stan showed not just in theory, but in practice how one can utilize a free floating electron after switching water's covalent bond off, using Voltage to perform work on the atoms/ionic atoms to then trap that electron and Recycle the Electron that we THOUGHT we had to take away. The key here, that I see, is recycling the electron - and yet everyone on the internet researching Stan has rarely ever made any big point about the recycling of the electron. The oxygen negative ionic atom repels the free floating electron in Stan's process when the system is shut off, whereas in regular electrolysis the free floating electron has to find its way to the cathode since it is sucked there since the system power is still on. Stan turned the power off. Big important point.


Trapping an Atomic Wind, a Bad Analogy

This recycling of the electron could be the atomic wind that is required to be tapped into in order for the system to work, similar to a windmill. 

Perpetual motion machine?
No, because the water powered engines will still have wearable parts, lubrication oil that needs to be replaced, etc. Why cannot the water be redirected back into the system over and over again? because the exhaust is hot and will cause the engine to overheat. The exhaust could be recycled as steam, but then why do our existing engines not make use of the steam too? Turbo chargers do just that, actually. That would make the system more complex though.

Why do plants we eat eventually turn back into plants over time, when carbon is burned and the carbon dioxide finds its way back into the plants? perpetual motion? Put plants on trial.

I still Think The Important Point is Electron Recycling in the Fluid

Again, even if Stand did not build a legitimate electron recycling car - can we still make use of his electron recycling theories?  yes, and yet no one else seems to catch on to this.  Unless someone can prove me wrong regarding how recycling the free electron is different than regular electrolysis! All reading material and text seems to point to the fact that the electron is not recycled in regular electrolysis. This would indeed be the important point to bring up in the court of law when they said "nothing different than regular electrolysis", and I wonder if it was brought up. This would also explain why the system remained cool to the touch.

If anyone of you manage to get more power to your electrolysis cell, you may better be use them to power your home just like what David Gray did while replicating Nikola Tesla work :). If you really want to apply it to the car, remove the HHO generator, remove the engine and replace it with some efficient AC motor and have 90mph electric car that can be driven in months without recharging battery like Nikola Tesla electric car do.

If anyone succeed increasing water electrolysis efficiency using high frequency electrolysis, share it to medical world too. They still researching a better way to cure cancer using still un-understood John Worrel Keely and Nikola Tesla technology. Share it like medical researcher like Kanzius who found how to ignite salt water using device build to cure people.

And also good luck for anyone trying to achieve low temperature plasma electrolysis :).

Don't get discourage of using "non existant in current education 100 years old technology" :).

Radio frequency hydrogen and oxygen generator, Walter Eugene Wyles.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=uAmbAAAAEBAJ&dq=971517

excuse me for not reading all 13 pages, but did anyone post this video? By the responses I'm seeing I'm thinking not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HjIyxEvAYM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HjIyxEvAYM) This is a video of a proffessor explaining exactly how the stan meyers machine works.

Quote from: scatterbrained on November 19, 2008, 10:06:06 PM
excuse me for not reading all 13 pages, but did anyone post this video? By the responses I'm seeing I'm thinking not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HjIyxEvAYM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HjIyxEvAYM) This is a video of a proffessor explaining exactly how the stan meyers machine works.

He is no doctor, professor or whatever and he doesn't understand Meyers work.
You can learn more from Stanley Meyer presentation video's (on p2p), and most from his tech brief (google and you'll find it).

   Have you guys studied  hydrogen fuel cell technology.  It seems they use platinum to ionize hydrogen gas.  Then a barrier that only allows the hydrogen ions to pass through toward the electronegative oxygen on the other side of the barrier.
Meanwhile the electrons are made to pass through the load circuit to drive the motor to rejoin with the hydrogen ions.  Now this is where it gets kinda fuzzy.  They detonate the hydrogen oxygen to get water to go out the tail pipe.  Why don't they just recycle the hydrogen gas back to the catalyzing side of the cell?  Use the electronegative charge of the oxygen behind a second barrier and shuttle the hydrogen back through a small compressor.  My guess is that the platinum needs to be heated.  If that is the case maybe they need a better catalyst like an xray or uv lazer.