Stanley Meyer died suddenly on 21 March 1998 after dining at a restaurant. An autopsy report by the Franklin County, Ohio coroner concluded that Meyer had died of a cerebral aneurysm, but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death
Sorry, can't watch the video now but, is this the guy who claimed he could run his dune buggy on nothing but water, but would never allow anyone to closely inspect said dune buggy, and who has had a website for over a decade full of people from scientists to laymen all dedicated to duplicating his results with no success?
IP: Logged
12:31 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Fuel cells produce water. They do not run on water. You see, allowing 1/2 mole of H2 and 1 mole of O2 to combine and form 1 mole of H2O releases (IIRC) 285.8 KJ of energy. Splitting 1 mole of H2O requires (at least) the same amount.
In other words, show me an internal combustion engine that runs on exhaust fumes....
[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 11-06-2009).]
Was it a fuel cell, or was he claiming to burn water? I don't think Thermodynamics minds the existence of fuel cells. They've been in use for a while.
wasn't burning water, not in a liquid state anyway.. but in a gas state using electrolysis... going by memory I'm pretty sure he didn't have a tank, it was on demand. of course there are people who will say that it wont run an engine because of the laws of thermodynamics. but they seem to forget that the electricity used to make it isn't what is running the engine, but the fuel that the electricity makes from the WATER. I have messed with this before a little, and 2 friends of mine have been working on it for years.
"That water has to first be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen through a method known as electrolysis. That process was discovered back in the 1800s, and it uses more energy than can be gained from it by burning the two components – that’s called the Conservation of Energy law, and it hasn’t yet been repealed. Cars that run “on water” have been re-invented every few years. Recently there was Steven Horvath in Australia, who sold a lot of stock to losers, Henry Garrett in Texas – in 1935 – and Stanley Meyer, who was convicted of fraud in 1996. Andrija Puharich – who also “discovered” Uri Geller! – Archie Blue, Bob Boyce, Carl Cella, Charles H. Garrett, Daniel Dingel, Hector Pierre Vaes, Nakamatsu Yoshiro, Sam Leslie Leach, Stanley Meyer, and scores of others, all came up with this same insane idea, and all fell on their collective nose."
It's astounding that people STILL fall for this. P.T. Barnum was right....
But then again, as the JREF article says: "Incredible! We are apparently immersed in a scientifically-ignorant culture in which the media can’t figure out the simplest of what would have been a grade-school science project for my generation."
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-06-2009).]
IP: Logged
03:04 PM
PFF
System Bot
proff Member
Posts: 7398 From: The bottom of the world Registered: Oct 2004
Stanley Meyer died suddenly on 21 March 1998 after dining at a restaurant. An autopsy report by the Franklin County, Ohio coroner concluded that Meyer had died of a cerebral aneurysm, but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death
Actually, you can run a car on water. This man has done it. He is developing a Humvee for the military that can run both on water and gasoline. This has been verified. Here is the video.
A vehicle will never be run on water alone. Splitting water into O2 and H requires a certain amount of energy, previously mentioned in this thread. In a perfect world you could only get that same amount of energy back by oxidizing the H with the O2, leaving you at a net energy gain of zero. However in the real world there are energy losses that cannot be recouped, meaning that no matter what you will end up with less energy than you started with.
Its basic chemistry/physics.
[This message has been edited by 86FieroCentPa (edited 11-06-2009).]
A vehicle will never be run on water alone. Splitting water into O2 and H requires a certain amount of energy, previously mentioned in this thread. In a perfect world you could only get that same amount of energy back by oxidizing the H with the O2, leaving you at a net energy gain of zero. However in the real world there are energy losses that cannot be recouped, meaning that no matter what you will end up with less energy than you started with.
Its basic chemistry/physics.
did you watch the video above? This guy has been running a test vehicle on it. Granted, its not "pure water" its state is manipulated with electricity, but still.
wasn't burning water, not in a liquid state anyway.. but in a gas state using electrolysis... going by memory I'm pretty sure he didn't have a tank, it was on demand. of course there are people who will say that it wont run an engine because of the laws of thermodynamics. but they seem to forget that the electricity used to make it isn't what is running the engine, but the fuel that the electricity makes from the WATER. I have messed with this before a little, and 2 friends of mine have been working on it for years.
Hey maybe your friends can help you evolve your wooden Lambo door hinges into working metal production pieces?
I don't care what some local news station mis-covered. I care about the laws of thermodynamics which have been thoroughly understood since at least 1859.
I don't care what some local news station mis-covered. I care about the laws of thermodynamics which have been thoroughly understood since at least 1859.
they also claim to understand evolution from the 19th century, yet it continues to be filled with holes. They didn't understand nutrition and vitamins until the early 20 century. You never think there are breakthroughs? If this guy really has a contract to develop a Humvee for the military, there must be something tangible there. Other wise they could just get a guy like you on the forum to say "that's not possible, don't waste our time". According to the report, he is working with an auto manufacturer, the government, and some others on design and contract. I seriously doubt they would be signing up with this guy if there was nothing to it.
Just apply some logic. Might want to keep an open mind somewhat. The fact his welding invention can what it does, which no other can do, says something is remarkable right there. Do you know any other welding torch you can touch with your hand, and still apply to melt compounds?
We know hydrogene cars work, Honda has one that emits water. I don't see why this guy couldn't have come up with a better system to develop hydrogen fuels.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 11-06-2009).]
IP: Logged
07:33 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
I'm not getting the relevance of the 2nd Law of Thermo. Of course it takes more energy to get the hydrogen via electrolysis, but do you know how much energy goes into producing 1 gallon of gasoline? A whole lot more than you get out of a gallon. But that's not the point. The point is gasoline is a convenient usable form of energy storage. So yes he will need some form of energy added to his system to get the hydrogen to run the vehicle, but that doesn't invalidate it as a concept. Your extra energy may not come from gasoline or the electrolysis, so it may be a more convenient way to convert water into a usable fuel.
An electrolysis setup that uses house current to generate the hydrogen over night takes advantage of the economies of scale of local power plants, instead of burning only gasoline to provide all of the power.
You're not grasping this difference between "Laws" and "Theories". I can't explain to you on the nuclear level how thermodynamics works but someone can. I do see uses for an improved electrolysis method.
-Have a station creating HHO from water, which then could be compressed and used in a vechicle, much akin to propane. This is simply using H2O/HHO as a storage medium for energy. A fuel cell could also be created. However, this system is not run off of H20, it would need an outside power source.
-A type of hybrid could be created I suppose. Use the tradional fuel source to propel the vehicle and make some HHO to be oxidized later. At best this might extend the range of a vechicle. But a net power gain would be impossible again due to the laws of thermodynamics.
-What you will not ever see is an engine that you fuel up with H20 and exhausts the very same. It would be impossible to even break even on such a system, let alone propel a vehicle.
EDIT// Formula 88 made a vaild point while I was typing the very same. It might have potential as a storage medium for energy. That is not free energy from H20, which is what this is sensationalized to represent
[This message has been edited by 86FieroCentPa (edited 11-06-2009).]
I'm not getting the relevance of the 2nd Law of Thermo. Of course it takes more energy to get the hydrogen via electrolysis, but do you know how much energy goes into producing 1 gallon of gasoline? A whole lot more than you get out of a gallon. But that's not the point. The point is gasoline is a convenient usable form of energy storage. So yes he will need some form of energy added to his system to get the hydrogen to run the vehicle, but that doesn't invalidate it as a concept. Your extra energy may not come from gasoline or the electrolysis, so it may be a more convenient way to convert water into a usable fuel.
An electrolysis setup that uses house current to generate the hydrogen over night takes advantage of the economies of scale of local power plants, instead of burning only gasoline to provide all of the power.
thats a very good point.
IP: Logged
08:24 PM
darkhorizon Member
Posts: 12279 From: Flint Michigan Registered: Jan 2006
Another approach (that has been proven to work) is (again) using water as a medium for, not the source of, energy: http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/ That was discussed on here a while back I believe.
IP: Logged
08:44 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Scientists have combined refuelling your car and relieving yourself by creating a new catalyst that can extract hydrogen from urine.
The catalyst could not only fuel the hydrogen-powered cars of the future, but could also help clean up municipal wastewater, physorg.com reported on Monday.
Gerardine Botte of Ohio University uses an electrolytic approach to produce hydrogen from urine — the most abundant waste on earth — at a fraction of the cost of producing hydrogen from water.
Urine’s major constituent is urea, which incorporates four hydrogen atoms per molecule — importantly, less tightly bonded than the hydrogen atoms in water molecules.
Botte uses electrolysis to break the molecule apart, developing an inexpensive nickel-based electrode to efficiently oxidise the urea.
To break the molecule down, a voltage of 0.37V needs to be applied across the cell, which is much less than the 1.23V needed to split water.
“During the electrochemical process the urea gets adsorbed on to the nickel electrode surface, which passes the electrons needed to break up the molecule,” Botte told Chemistry World journal.
Notice how much voltage is actually needed to split the molecules.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-06-2009).]
Dont know if you guys saw this, but this man was working on a cure for cancer, and found this by accident. He had found a way to make salt water combustible. If this technology is perfected, it opens up a whole new level of possibilities.
Wow...ignorance of science in the general populace astounds me.
Otherwise intelligent people believing in things that just don't exist the way they think they do. I'm astonished.
Just to humour some people here, let's make some assumptions and carry through some basic chemistry.
Say this was a "fuel cell" of some sort utilizing hydrogen (in the form H2(g)) and oxygen (in the form O2(g)). Now, water is H2O(l). So somehow we need to take 2 liquid water molecules and get 2 H2(g) molecules and 1 O2(g) molecule. Let's see how that's done:
2 H2O(l) + energy --> 2 H2(g) + O2(g)
Now this doesn't tell the whole story. The whole story is that you're actually producing half-reactions at two separate electrodes. And this introduces all sorts of cool chemical effects, like incomplete reactions and fun stuff like that. Meaning you're actually putting in more energy than is ideal to get a given amount of H2(g) and O2(g). (See this article for details.)
Now, let's burn that hydrogen (in the presence of that oxygen) to generate power:
2 H2(g) + O2(g) --> 2 H2O(l) + energy
Does anybody see the issue here? In a perfect world, sure that'd work fine. Again, you get incomplete reactions and all sorts of other funky things when you mix this with ambient air. Remember ambient air is 78% nitrogen gas (N2(g)). That's why cars emit nasties like the various NOx family gases. That fools with the reaction too...further decreasing efficiency.
Without some sort of energy input, it's simply physically impossible for water to power anything. There's just not enough energy in it...and no viable way to get the energy out. That is unless you add some in the form of heat. That's how steam engines work. But as for pouring tap water into your gas tank and running your engine. GFL.
Now...I can think of one or two ways to power things with CO2. For example, if you use solid magnesium fuel and gaseous CO2, you get heat energy out in the flow stream. That can be utilized. Perhaps this guy was utilizing some other fuel that mixes with water (magnesium?) to produce heat. Problem with magnesium is that you get an explosive hydrogen gas byproduct.
RANT
And this whole HHO or "Brown's Gas" thing. Can we just drop it? HHO can not physically exist, the proper chemical formula is H2O. "Brown's gas" is actually a combustible mixture of H2 and O2 it is not HHO or any such nonsense. And if you're producing H2 and O2 through electrolysis, you're better off using that electricity to directly power your vehicle as already proven.
END RANT
IP: Logged
10:16 PM
riley Member
Posts: 965 From: Saskatoon, SK, Canada Registered: Feb 2004
People, People, People, have you not learned anything? What we know now is ALL there is to know. There will never be anything more to learn. Everything is already known.
The scientific ignorance in this thread is appalling! Don't let facts or basic science dissuade you from your *beliefs* or wishful thinking though...
"How much gas is needed to reduce fuel consumption by 40%?
Well the first thing is to work out how much energy it requires to keep an average vehicle cruising at(say) 65mph. According to this source it takes around 20HP to cruse at that speed.
Let's convert that to electrical energy by multiplying by 746 (the number of watts in a horsepower). We get 14,920, or roughly 15KW.
Now, if we want to replace 40% of that power with energy from HHO gas, we'll need to use at least 15KW x 0.4 which comes to 6,000 watts (6KW).
If we assume that the electrolysis cell which converts electricity into HHO gas is 100% efficient (which it certainly isn't) then that means we'll need a massive 6000W/12V or 500 amps of current to make that much gas.
Suddenly those 30A wires are looking rather inadequate aren't they?
What's more, since the average car's alternator can only deliver about 80A of current, this means the battery would have to deliver the other 520A and (in the case of even a good 80AH unit) would be flat in under 10 minutes.
Of course these simple calculations ignore the fact that electrolysis cells are not 100% efficient and the even more important fact that the average internal combustion engine is only around 30% efficient -- so even if we delivered 6KW of HHO gas to the engine it would only produce under 2KW of actual power.
With these inefficiencies taken into account we'd actually need a staggering 1,500A of electrical current to generate the necessary HHO gas to reduce our fuel input by 40%.
So clearly the math doesn't add up. There's just no way you can extract enough electrical energy from your car's automotive system to create the gas volumes needed to create any meaningful amount of energy. "
Doubtless this "HHO" or "Browns Gas" nonsense will persist, as it has in other similar threads here, so I'll reiterate: Please don't let your ignorance of basic science or physics or your wishful thinking dissuade you from your fantasy.
Why doesn't anybody just look up the patent, which he said he was granted?
I'm sure somebody can find it...
5,293,857 Hydrogen gas fuel and management system for an internal combustion engine utilizing hydrogen gas fuel 5,149,407 Process and apparatus for the production of fuel gas and the enhanced release of thermal energy from such gas 4,936,961 Method for the production of a fuel gas 4,826,581 Controlled process for the production of thermal energy from gases and apparatus useful therefore 4,798,661 Gas generator voltage control circuit 4,613,779 Electrical pulse generator 4,613,304 Gas electrical hydrogen generator 4,465,455 Start-up/shut-down for a hydrogen gas burner 4,421,474 Hydrogen gas burner 4,389,981 Hydrogen gas injector system for internal combustion engine 4,275,950 Light-guide lens 4,265,224 Multi-stage solar storage system 3,970,070 Solar heating system
I posess an actual copy of a United States patent for a perpetual motion machine based on the flow of magnetic flux. The magnets are available and the patent gives excellent instructions for building. The patent was granted in 1979 and I got my copy in 1983. Is my house powered with free energy? Does my car run on magnets instead of gas? Would the USA issue a bogus patent? Are there really people out there taking advantage of the total ignorance of some people to deliberately deceive?
I assume that is why water is not used on electrical fires, the electricty releases the latent energy and the fire feeds back through the hose and the water tanker blows up.
I posess an actual copy of a United States patent for a perpetual motion machine based on the flow of magnetic flux. The magnets are available and the patent gives excellent instructions for building. The patent was granted in 1979 and I got my copy in 1983. Is my house powered with free energy? Does my car run on magnets instead of gas? Would the USA issue a bogus patent? Are there really people out there taking advantage of the total ignorance of some people to deliberately deceive?
I assume that is why water is not used on electrical fires, the electricty releases the latent energy and the fire feeds back through the hose and the water tanker blows up.
Very perceptive of you! The USPTO dropped the requirement for working models way back in 1880. The number of "speculative" patents has grown exponentially every year since then. Holding a United States patent is NOT proof of feasibility, proof of concept or claimed function. Stanley A. Meyer is but one of a huge number of dreamers and scammers that simply managed to convince a patent examiner of the novelty of their claims. It's actually getting worse every day:
YIPPEE! The starship Enterprise is FINALLY real !!
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-07-2009).]
I will give some credit to the "browns gas" injection type systems. I do believe they have the ability to increase the efficiency of a gas combustion.
one of my friends started out running a lawn mower engine with it, now he has 5 or 6 of them that will idle his chevy 350 in his pickup. he's getting something like 50mpg. one of these days I'll have to get some pics or something.. but no one will believe me anyway
one of my friends started out running a lawn mower engine with it, now he has 5 or 6 of them that will idle his chevy 350 in his pickup. he's getting something like 50mpg. one of these days I'll have to get some pics or something.. but no one will believe me anyway
Could you please tell me what element on the periodic table is represented by the symbol in your avatar? Mind you, that's a fairly standard high school level science question....
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-07-2009).]
Could you please tell me what element on the periodic table is represented by the symbol in your avatar? Mind you, that's a fairly standard high school level science question....
can you? and why? trying to say I just dont know what I'm talking about? I didn't even say anything I did myself. have you done anything with it? I mean other than doing math and fun things like that...
[This message has been edited by AJ7 (edited 11-07-2009).]
Big oil took care of him 
