Stanley Meyer and The Water Car Hoax

[L505]

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.

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.

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.

[sucahyo]

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" .

[alan]

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

[scatterbrained]

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 This is a video of a proffessor explaining exactly how the stan meyers machine works.

[alan]

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 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).