Lawsuit

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. According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of energy and the military.The Water Fuel Cell however, was 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.

Meyer claims the Times article wrongly implies that the U.S. Patent Office has not the ability to rule on the technical merits of issued U.S. Patents, as so granted to inventor, Stanley A. Meyer, under 35 USC 101 and that the article wrongly implies that the Plaintiff's three experts had the necessary scientific background to properly evaluate the various stages of the tech-development of the WFC technology.

I owe this research to Gentlemansteve. I sucspected this as a fraud and thanks for the link

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

The problem is that wikipedia is not the best source as anyone can make any claims they want to on it.

What is not explained is that the expert witnesses never looked for themselves at Stan's system. So there claim that his system was nothing but normal electrolysis was not based on any scientific inquiry. During the time (1996) no other method for the disassociation for H2O was discovered. In 2008, Rustum Roy published his findings in successfully breaking down hydrogen and oxygen using radio frequency waves. In this study he mentions Meyer's work favorably.
top link:
http://www.rustumroy.com/recent_publications.htm

Keep in mind that the two investors were not the only ones Meyers had. In fact just before his death two years following this lawsuit Meyer's received a 50 Million dollar grant, which unfortunately he was only able to pay for dinner with it before his untimely death.

I hope we can use the Info we have to create a desired effect. Steve has helped me in understanding Stanley Meyrs work.

Thanks for the link and hope people can come to an Intelligent conclusion if What they read is the truth or not.

This is how I see it. There are a lot of guys trying to make their own points online that have no real vested interests in the outcome. I am still working on my degree and I get into arguments with a friend who has his degree in bio-chemistry about chemistry. Whenever usually if its a point worth arguing it sends me into the sea of the internet looking for valid resources, and in dealing with these projects have helped me prove my point to my educated colleague time and again.

I approached my chem teacher (he only has a masters) about the idea of using alternating currents. He made strange statements about the water not being effected and how super high temperatures would result if the water were to share electrons. I'm positive that Rustum Roy's article shows that this isn't the case.

Don't be afraid to question authority. In the military I learned that not everyone with a higher rank than you really knows what he's talking about. I'm pretty religious though I try to keep dialog of the two separate, but there is a relating principle when dealing with nay-sayers of our work to use hydrogen.

James 2:18 - Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Many will say we are wrong, many will say don't waste our time, but when we ask for proof, where is it? They don't have it and they want us to take it on blind faith and give up.

We don't have a perfect working knowledge of the HHO technology, but we have enough evidences to suggest its validity. That alone is worth scientific inquiry.

The truth is out there. People know about electrolysis but refuse to think there can be a better way of doing it. The laws of physics suggest that you can not get more energy out than you put in. But I have always ask. What kind of energy is more sufficient. I believe if you use one type of energy to get a more sufficient type of energy then the more sufficient energy will perform the work at a more efficient way. We see that all the time. We have gas or petroleum but know Hydrogen would be a more efficient way of transportation so if we can get one type of fuel that is more efficient than the way I see it that more efficient energy source will perform better and you will get more energy out because it is a more efficient energy than the energy you put in that what came out.

That could be true also (I think along those lines too), but here is also another explanation is that the measurements of work in Watts is not being measured for the amount of work that goes into electrolysis especially if the answer lies within frequency. Frequency is not part of any equation for measuring current and power usage.

Rustum Roy makes this statement in his paper -Observations of polarised RF radiation catalysis of dissociation of H2O–NaCl solutions

"While most textbooks of thermodynamics and phase
diagrams ignore any variables excepting P and T, it is, of
course, well known that electric E and magnetic H fields
are equally fundamental intensive variables. But these
variables have largely been ignored by mainstream
science, being regarded as de minimis, partly because
of confusions in terminology and partly because of the
imprecise use of the understanding of the kinetics of
phase changes in condensed matter as distinct from
molecular behaviour."

I wonder if also if people take in effect that the properties of water can be changed by changing the pressure on the water. If you vacuum the air out of a cylinder that has water in it, it will change the properties of the water to boil faster. There is a lot people do not take in effect when doing calculations. We know water will break down into HHO faster when the water is Hot and close to boiling so if you vacuum the air from a cylinder that has water in it, it will take less energy to break the water back down to HHO.

Well there is still work in operating the vacuum. So the question is this: Does the energy to produce the vacuum effect out weigh the change in the energy output enough to justify it?

We have to be careful that when we publish anything that we do it ethically, not asserting our theories as fact until we have tested them.

What Rustum Roy is talking about is is how we don't even consider frequency in electrical applications at all.



This wheel demonstrates Ohm's Law. As you notice that in order to get Voltage, amps, watts, or whatever frequency is not part of any of those calculations.
So this leaves a big hole in calculations for energy conservation. The biggest critics of what we are trying to do with water cite the law of thermodynamics as if our systems are contrary to them. It's important to note that these systems will not violate the law of thermodynamics.

When measuring how long a battery lasts its in amps to hour such as: Typical automotive battery: 70 amp-hours @ 3.5 A

Also when they charge money for your electricity they charge you by the kilowatt hour. No one charges you for frequency, batteries don't drain faster when hooked up to a DC to AC converter unless you change voltage, watts, amps, or the resistance.

I'm going to re-post a portion of my last comment in the electrical section.

Proof meyrs Car did produce Hydrogen without any electrolytes. First I will say you need to read between the lines. Take notice to what the three witnesses says. They say that Stans electrolyzer was no different than normal electrolysis. So to me that points to the fact that his electrolyzer was making hydrogen just as good as people who made hydrogen with high amps. You have to relies that stan didn't use high amps to produce hydrogen and he used high voltage and used no electrolytes in his electrolyzer. So that tells me that his cell made just as much hydrogen as people who did it with high amps and with electrolytes.

That is my proof Steve. It is how you look at it that tells you that Stan did indeed build something and worked just like he claimed it to.


Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Stanley Meyer)
Jump to: navigation, search
Perpetual motion machine:
Stanley Meyer's Water fuel cell
Disciplines Physics and engineering
Core Tenets The device is designed to produce hydrogen and oxygen, from water using electricity, by a method other than water electrolysis.
Year Proposed 1989
Original Proponents Stanley Meyer
Theory violation First law of thermodynamics
Stanley Meyer's Water fuel cell is reportedly a perpetual motion machine. Such machines violate the known laws of physics. Claims of the development of such devices are considered pseudoscience by most scientists.
For other water fueled devices, see Water-fueled car. For fuel cells in general, see Fuel cell.

The water fuel cell is an invention by American Stanley Allen Meyer. He claimed that an automobile retrofitted with the device could use water as fuel instead of gasoline. The fuel cell purportedly split water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen, which were then burned to generate power, a process that reconstitutes the water molecules. According to Meyer, the device required less energy to perform electrolysis than the minimum energy requirement predicted or measured by conventional science. Also, if the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine. Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.
Contents

* 1 The term "fuel cell"
* 2 Media coverage
* 3 Lawsuit
* 4 Later designs
* 5 Meyer's death
* 6 See also
* 7 References
* 8 External links

The term "fuel cell"
The circuit

Throughout his patents[4][5][6] and marketing material,[7][8][9] Meyer uses the terms "fuel cell" or "water fuel cell" to refer to the portion of his device in which electricity is passed through water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Meyer's use of the term in this sense is contrary to its usual meaning in science and engineering, in which such cells are conventionally called "electrolytic cells".Furthermore, the term fuel cell is usually reserved for cells which produce electricity from a chemical redox reaction, whereas Meyer's fuel cell consumed electricity,

One of Meyer's patents describes the use of a "water fuel cell assembly'" and portrays some images which allegedly demonstrate a "fuel cell water capacitor". According to the patent, in this case "...the term 'fuel cell' refers to a single unit of the invention comprising a water capacitor cell... that produces the fuel gas in accordance with the method of the invention."

[edit] Media coverage
The water fuel cell

In a news report on an Ohio TV station, Meyer claimed to demonstrate a dune buggy powered by his water fuel cell. He estimated that only 22 US gallons (83 liters) of water were required to travel from Los Angeles to New York.[8] Meyer also claimed to have replaced the spark plugs with "injectors" to spray a fine mist of water into the engine cylinders, which he claimed were subjected to an electrical resonance. The water fuel cell would split the water mist into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would then be combusted back into water vapor in a conventional internal combustion engine to produce net energy.

Philip Ball, writing in academic journal Nature, characterized Meyer's claims as pseudoscience, noting that "It's not easy to establish how Meyer's car was meant to work, except that it involved a fuel cell that was able to split water using less energy than was released by recombination of the elements … Crusaders against pseudoscience can rant and rave as much as they like, but in the end they might as well accept that the myth of water as a fuel is never going to go away."

While there have been many attempts to replicate the results of the system, nobody so far has claimed to have succeeded. Also, there is no documented proof that the system produces enough hydrogen to run an engine. To date no peer review studies of Meyer's claims or devices have been published in the scientific literature.

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. According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of Energy and the military. 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 him to repay the two investors their $25,000.

Later designs

This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Friday, 14 November 2008.

An ungranted Canadian patent application from 1998 describes a miniaturized "water fuel cell" which would be contained within the dimensions of a common spark plug. Included within the patent application are methods to perform "laser-priming" of the gases produced by the fuel cell, which are then mixed in the combustion chamber at the pre-ignition stage with ionized ambient air and non-combustible gases. This process Meyer claimed resulted in the production of free radical forms of hydrogen and oxygen and thus improved combustion.

"...when water is subjected to a resonance condition water molecules expand and distend; electrons are ejected from the water molecule and absorbed by ionized gases; and the water molecule, thus destabilized, breaks down into it's elemental components of hydrogen (2H) and oxygen (O) in the combustion zone."

Meyer also indicated that the water was subject to a unipolar pulsed direct current (DC) voltage that is tuned to achieve resonance in the environment of the combustion zone.[18] The device is suited for retrofitting of conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) automobiles and aircrafts.

It is not stated within the patent where the energy required for the ionization of the "ambient air" gases is originating.

Meyer's death

See also: Free energy suppression

Stanley Meyer died suddenly on 21 March 1998 after sipping from his drink while 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.