Proof meyrs Car did produce Hydrogen without any electrolytes

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.

I understand what you are saying

So we can come to the conclusion that Stanley meyrs did indeed make his a electrolizer that made just as much as hydrogen with his system than others has done with theirs?

We can come to the same conclusion but will our experiments lead to the same results as Stan claimed to get?