Water What?
I'm really going into the Lion's den with this one and I don't know if this is going to be blogger suicide, but having read so many people's views about these 'Water Cars' I really felt like I had to write this commentary. Before I start, let me just establish my background, and why I feel qualified to criticise the feasibility of the Water Car technology. I have studied basic Chemistry and Nuclear Physics, have an Honors Degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and most importantly have taken a lifelong interest in the evolution of new ideas and technology. If you are the kind of person who promotes these sorts of technologies you'll probably believe that my years at University have only brainwashed me into thinking the way that they want me to think. But no matter what your views, I do encourage you to read this article, if only to get a new perspective. If you want to discuss anything I have written, you can do it at the Stanley Meyer Electrolysis Thread.
Put simply, a Water Car is a vehicle that uses only Water as a catalyst for the production of energyt. The water is dissociated into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and this is then burnt in a combustion engine to drive the vehicle. Since the combustion of Hydrogen in Oxygen produces Water as well as heat, it would mean that the car could consume nothing while producing energy indefinitely. It would consequently violate (among others) the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that you can't make or destroy energy.
Why Water burns
Before I explain how Hydrogen is obtained from Hydrogen, let's first think about how Water can be created from Hydrogen and Oxygen. Hydrogen is a highly flammable gas, which basically means that it has a lot of spare energy. If heat is added to Hydrogen in the presence of Oxygen, it will burn very rapidly. This basically means that the energy "stored" in the Hydrogen molecule is given up and released as heat, light and - in the case of an explosion - even sound. This release of energy is the reason why when you burn a flammable gas, the heat it releases is larger than the heat you used to set the reaction (e.g. from a match). Burning (or Combustion) is a chemical reaction, which means that there are reagents and chemical products. When Hydrogen burns in the presence of Oxygen it forms Water Vapor.
You can think of Water as the depleted form of Hydrogen. It is also possible to reverse this process and split the Hydrogen from the water molecule (i.e. give Hydrogen its energy back). This is done by either adding heat or electricity to the water. To reverse the combustion reaction we need to give back the energy that was released when the hydrogen burned, we need to do this not only to comply with the First Law of Thermodynamics [1], but also simple common sense. Here is a simplification of the First Law of Thermodynamics, as applied to Hydrogen Combustion:
By burning hydrogen we are moving Hydrogen + Oxygen into a different state, specifically Water + Energy. This reaction can be reversed, which means that Water + Energy can create Hydrogen + Oxygen. The 'Energy' term is the same in both reactions, meaning that the amount of energy released during the combustion of Hydrogen is the same as the amount of energy absorbed when Water decomposes into Hydrogen and Oxygen (ie. Energy in the first sentence is the same amount of energy as in the second sentence).
This reversal of the combustion reaction, when performed by passing electrical current through a body of water, is called electrolysis. If that was a little much to get your head around, you wouldn't be the first. Most people don't really understand what the First Law of Thermodynamics is, and they don't realise that claiming to break the First Law of Thermodynamics with a chemical reaction simply doesn't make any sense. If you look closely at the wording of sentences in the above paragraph, you'll notice that it is as much an expression of common sense as scientific theory. The First Law of Thermodynamics, as applied to chemical reactions, is not an abstract scientific proposition, but rather a simplification of what me and you perceive in our day to day lives. Let me now simplify the First Law of Thermodynamics into a simplified analogy:
If it's here, it came from somewhere. If it's not, it didn't come from anywhere.
If you take anything from this article, please let it be the above sentence. Ofcourse, we can't know everything, and it may well be possible to extract energy, or even create it, using some unexplored properties of Matter, Time and Space. But the water car does no such thing. It does not access the inner workings of the Hydrogen Atom nor does it exploit an unknown property of electricity. The most famous purporter of the Water Car is Stanley Meyer, whose miracle electrolysis technology simply involved pulsing electricity through water [2]. Stanley Meyer claimed that his electrolysis technology could produce Hydrogen which, when burnt would create more energy than was initially used to create the hydrogen. Since the energy released from Hydrogen Combustion is the same energy as which is consumed during the seperation of Hydrogen from Water, you should now be able to see that, aside from breaking the Laws of Thermodynamics, this 'Technology' simply doesn't make any sense.
Enter, the Water Car Hoax
So why would someone say that they can make a car that runs on water? The simple answer in today's world is Ignorance. In the early 90s it was still possible to commercialise on this scam, which some people, such as Stanley Meyer with his patented "Water Fuel Cell" capitalised on. Stanley Meyer was found to be guilty of "Gross and egregious Fraud" by an American Court in 1996 [3]. With the refusal of the US Patent Office to grant patents to Devices that create more energy than they consume (which could be used to create Perpetual Motion Machines), it is difficult for Water Car Fraudsters to patent their inventions. The Conviction of Stanley Meyer further reduced public acceptance of the Water Car, but some hardline supporters still exist. Stanley Meyer Died in 1998 from what a coroner concluded to be a cerebral aeurysm, but some conspiracy theories about what actually happened remain [4].
As I said, nowadays the amount of commercialised websites that sell Water Car technology is virtually zero, as any attempt to sell such a technology will inevitably get you sued. Some non-commercial sites and a wealth of community forums still openly support and discuss the validity of the water car, but amongst the scientific community this issue was settled before the dawn of the 1900s. If you want to make up your own mind about the credibility of these websites, the two most common ones are waterfuelcell.org and waterpoweredcar.com.
The Water Car Pseudo-Hoax
One last important issue to cover is what I have, as of now, coined as the Water Car Pseudo-Hoax. This is something that has come up on the internet as well as on TV for the past few decades. Basically, it involves the marketing of a simple hydrogen fuel cell as a miraculous Water Technology. A brilliant example of this is a 2006 FOX News report, which I have included above. The report talks about an inventor who has recently patented a new electrolysis technology which allows his car to run using only Water as a fuel. The report fails to mention that, although water is sort of used as fuel, every ounce of energy coming out of the car comes from electricity, which has to be provided in order for the car to conver the water into into hydrogen (which it then burns as fuel).
Many websites are now cashing in on this idea, such as water4gas.com, which sells "Conversion Kits" that allow your car to run on both Gasoline and Water. Ever wondered why they don't just make them run purely on Water? Well, now you know: Because the energy has to come from somewhere!
Please don't hate me
I don't know whether the average reader will be able to take something from this article, but if you've read this far I am guessing you found it at least a little informative. I don't claim to know tommorow's fuel source, and I look forward to being here when we discover a new way to power our global economy. Having said that, I also want to do my part in helping to rid the world from fraudsters who prey on people who simple haven't had the good fortune of reading an article like this. If you want to discuss anything I've written here, I think a good place would be the Stanley Meyer Electrolysis Thread, so feel free to comment there if there is anything you'd like to discuss with me.
it's cheap
There is a simple version of water electrolizer. Not for running car with water, but to make the engine running more effeciently. Using spoon electrode, a bottle with tube and DC electricity from motor. Electrolyte may be needed depend on your knwledge. It's cheap to make and durable. Many people test this simple version and already believe it's effectiveness.
Here in Indonesia many people start selling this. There are complain, but not because it doesn't work. But it's because it's not made durable, or not enough maintenance information. Since this device is new here, many still have problem with brownish water, water tank overheat, electrode corrotion, etc.
Goverment here is not as rectrictive as in US. A governor even suggest the use of this technology to all it's staff and result in 100 goverment car being installed with this device. Some people provide free learning program and installation too. It is published in TV and newspaper too.
Although the device use the old version of this technology. No one doubt it's effeciency after installing it, except those that have car that have O2 sensor (need altering ECU).
It really can improve mileage and improve power. Yes it is not matured, but it work.
The Hoax Problem
I would split the hoax question:
1) Whats up with Mr. Meyer ?
2) Whats up with all those replicators, wannabe researchers and
guys which run their business on Meyer stuff.
What concerns 2) we have kind of Hoax movement.
I´ve seen lots of the stuff and it´s very painful.
There is no single (what I´ve seen so far) series of documented
experiments which try to verify his claims.
There are millions of mindless replications - which can never work
due to the high degree of tuning and unknown fundamentals.
What concerns Mr. Meyer - I want to see the 10million research project -
And then we know more about the issue.
Right now we build up some Meyer setup - and because of the amount
of unknown variables - we decided to build some high voltage amplifiers
to study the issue from a more scientific point.
All those pulse-transformer setups have a very narrow operating point -
and every change done requires lots of hardware modifications.
I somehow believe that the "Meyer Tube" needs some sort of vibration
mode to perfom - so the first step would be to check out the vibration
modes of the tube - next step would be to reduce power input by fitting
a usable inductor to that water cap - which should lead to an optimized
LC circuit which oscillate an the frequency of the mechanical vibration.
Than ramp up the power, check if some effect.
Perfoming such tests with different tube setups should give some feeling
about the effect.
The earth needs your help!
Hi there, I just wanted to comment on the inverted minded and unloving way nature is treated by man.
I think we should use water as fuel because it is better for mother earths and its all its because of oil companies want more money they greedy and dont want us to use water as fuel because its cheaper then oil and its cleaner as well.
Also, we should be wanting to look at LENR, tesla coils and other new technologies to produce more electricity then we are now.
I blame the universities and all the greedy ignorant people out there for lieing to us and hiding these better technologies so they can make dollar.
Stanley Meyers is a hero that was died because he invented a better energy machine more then big oil company.
We should be helping people like stanley to make cleaner energy rather then wasting time on your outdated science ideas.
From Harry.B
Yeah, I agree. If it wasn't
Yeah, I agree. If it wasn't for those ignorant universities we'd have invented Tesla Coils over 100 years ago.
http://bottleweb.org/jason
It was invented over 100 years ago
Uhh the Tesla Coil was invented in 1891 over 100 years ago...and i don't see what that has to do with making energy. As far as I can tell, it was originally intended for electricity transportation and I cant see the process running in reverse to produce any significant amount of energy.
Also, I don't think that thermodynamics and chemistry are "outdated science ideas"...
Finally LENR appears to have a lot of issues with credibility in terms of the fact that the majority of experiments exhibit no significant energy releases. Are we to pin all our energy hopes on a process that might work 5% of the time, with its mechanisms unknown?
If you had to guess why LENR hasn't taken off would you say due to business/political issues or the fact that it probably doesn't work?
I think that guy was just
I think that guy was just trolling to be honest, no one is that ignorant. And I was joking about the tesla coil thing. Couldn't stop laughing when he said that we should use Tesla Coils instead of 'outdated ideas'. Brilliant.
http://bottleweb.org/jason
I hate skeptics lol
I hate skeptics, but as you chose to put up your picture which is something very exclusive for a skeptic and you specifically asked not to be hated.
The thing is the enthusiast's had this discussion a 1000 times already. It literally took tens of thousands of insults to irritate even a thick skinned person like myself.
I'm projecting this back on you, this is not something you deserve but a clever chunk of engineering the linguists created for us.
Lets start by right out calling you a troll. hehehe That is not very nice now is it? You claim to be looking for evidence. This suggests you are not 100% sure, I even think you would be willing to learn how it works if the information is presented to you. Now from this position you proceed to denounce Stanley Meyer a hoax, Dennis Klein a hoax etc etc everyone is a hoax right? haha
Clear poof of trolling. This has nothing to do with science. In stead of honestly looking for the story behind the topic you decided to make false accusations. Don't get me wrong I'm not offended, this is about your method of acquiring data.
To be honest the people who keep abusing discussion to make negative remarks are really the only reason why there is no easy to find public domain information for you.
This is not a warning or anything but Klein is getting bashed from all directions so he does takes people to court who slander him or his company. Here the judge will review the evidence you supplied.
To cite your favorite author:
"No matter how real something seems, and no matter how real one may perceive something to be, we have no place to ascertain anything as real until it can be proven or suggested to be real beyond any reasonable doubt."
This of course applies to your claim of hoaxes in the same way it applies to inventions.
Lets extend this to the laws of thermodynamics. If you claim they are factual then why isn't there any proof? It's a false positive remember?
Like I would call you a fraud and demand you provide evidence you are not a fraud. Even if you could it wouldn't be a very interesting discussion. It would most definitely not be a productive one.
Scientists use to look for perpetual motion, this was artificially changed into looking for ways to debunk it.
Both are the same study. But when we look closer we see debunking perpetual motion apparently doesn't require any evidence? haha?
In fact it is applied as the main excuse to ignore the actual evidence!
Non of the perpetual motion devices worked because we don't have to look at them? Well you cant have it both ways you cant. no-no ^_^
A invention is something new, not maybe but by definition. So the claim an invention has to follow established believe system contradicts the very definition of the invention.
But say I will attempt to explain one such system to you. Will you then proceed by publicly calling me a hoax?
There are lots of effects involved, in the established paradigm of disapproval you may debunk the first and be done with it?
To explain the fuel savers, the gas is a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen (browns gas) so it replaces part of the air intake. You understand that because it contains more oxygen the petrol burns faster, when burning browns gas the exhaust contains oxygen. Normal combustion ends when there is no more oxygen available.
This is just 2 details you see? Not much room for denial. There is more combustion so there is more power and this power comes from the exhaust gases. It's very obvious? no?
It gets funky where the petroleum doesn't need to be compressed so the injection can take place much later in the cycle. It also burns faster so it can be injected even later then you think.
Here the cylinder can be filled with a lot of uncompressed browns gas, the piston may forcefully suck the gas out of the electrolyser.
Now lets make it even more funky. Brown claimed he got 1860 liters of gas out of each liter of water.
So after filling the cylinder 2/3 with gas we have only a small duration worth of self propagating explosion BUT after that the gas collapses 1860:1 thus creating an IMPLOSION CYCLE! Here the energy comes from the atmosphere.
More fun it gets where the implosion is also endothermic effectively sucking back the heat losses back into the system.
I'm convinced you know what Intellectual property is, I want 10 million euro for my water power plant. For 10 million you get a system far superior to any of the water car systems ever build in fact they can all be combined with my system.
The invention is easily worth a hundred times that. This while killing people can be as cheap as 100 bucks. I don't expect everyone profiting from our enormous petroleum industry to be honest. 4 million Iraqi people are either dead or without a home just for the petroleum. That should provide a frame of reference. It would be naive to think you can beat them in the market. They can do hundreds of things, like buy out every company you ordered materials form or just buy all of your production for a few years then dump your stuff on the market at a lower price. After the stock runs out your customers will say your stuff is to expensive.
Only a multinational could bring this to the market but even those fear their stock drops like a stone after which they will likely suffer a hostile take over.
Are you getting a picture already?
Say you have 100 000 000 000 USD to spend. And I want to destroy your profits in weekly millions. Do you really think you cant stop me? You honestly would just sit there and look how I destroy everything you own? haha? Perhaps you would, you would be an exceptionally bad business man to all of a sudden give up everything you worked so hard for.
To give you an example, the google groups posting isn't a valid source by Wikipedia definitions, the original article was pulled because Meyer was going to take legal action because claimed the journalist didn't have the expertise to review the invention and he even did so without seeing it. Magic?
Meyer also claimed the court jury didn't have the authority to discard the findings from patent office as incompetent.
Only his water fuel cell was reviewed in court, the lame excuse one of the professors mentioned was that Meyer's other inventions where still classified under the national security act. Meyer already obtained patents in other countries (like Canada) so the classification was merely a means of stalling him.
It's like the eyewitnesses who had seen the UFO crash in Roswell got sworn to secrecy for national security reasons. It doesn't fit seeing a landing weather baloon. I'm not even saying the millions of UFO sightings are real. (haha)
I'm saying that national security is national security. It's not used for random nonsense.
But to get back to Wikipedia, for some reason this reference is used to denounce Meyer to be a hoax. If you so much as suggest it is not a valid source you will be jumped by 20 users who will find a consensus of you being a troll and you will be IP blocked.
I mean, I read it in google groups so that has to mean it is true right? LOL! See [WP:RS] it is clearly not a reliable source, the article is not publicly available and it is a copyvio.
Wikipedia is a game people play, it has nothing to do with the truth.
If you don't have 10 million for me then for free you can have a car that doesn't use any fuel.
http://wind-car.go-here.nl
This I specially designed for debunkers. Go 'n give her your best shot Jason. :-) ha-ha
I have a better idea, what about you give me a hand here?
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2#
I'm kind of lazy, just gathering the links is already a lot of work and I haven't even begun doing that really.
I would feel honored if you would validate your credentials with knol and help save the planet :-)
You do have to consider if you want to pollute your resume with this. If you fear doing so perhaps it is better if you wrote your own knols about the topic.
Unlike wikipedia (which might be written by 12 year olds for all we know) Knol can reflect your official training and expertise (or lack there of)
It was fun writing this anyway, hope it helps.
Regards,
-gaby de wilde
Hi Gaby
Thanks for your long reply, it's always nice to get some feedback. I don't really consider myself to be a skeptic. I also wouldn't consider my attitude towards the water car to be skeptical, it's not really something I take very seriously to be honest. I don't have a problem with the idea, and would be delighted if running cars on water was a possibility. The problem with the water car technology is that I am yet to meet someone who supports the technology and also knows at least a little about basic chemistry.
I'm not trolling, I just had a bit of spare time on my hands and wanted to see what happens if you throw science at an idea that has never seen any. I can't say I wasn't curious about how people would respond, but I don't think that's trolling, is it?
No one has ever seen it work, documented it, or provided any reason for why it should work, yet many insist that it does. The water car is a form of faith that insists we don't need to look for a solution to the world's energy problems. It's sweeping a global crisis under the carpet, while cleverly hiding it by insisting that it is against global oil companies. If I invested billions in oil, I'd be pretty happy about water car believers.
The only reason I give this idea so much of my time is because I think it's dangerous to our future, as its acceptance would hinder the development of real technologies that can eventually save the world from this crisis.
http://bottleweb.org/jason
electrolysis
A _WATER_ electrolysis splits up generic water molecules.
If you can change the properties of water by using electrical current - there will be some electrolysis.
What if this change in properties would have some nuclear
output - maybe not of the (usual) radiating type - what if some stimulated acceleration of nuclei would make a nuclei collapse ... this could be the source of the energy needed to split up the molecule neigbours...
As a result - some mass would disappear.
Wherever nuclear power is involved - it would look like "overunity" as long as you cannot observe any changed mass.
You're saying that Stanley
You're saying that Stanley Meyer achieved Cold Fusion with his device. Even if this was possible, it would produce enormous (not to mention uncontrollable) amounts of heat. Meyer reported that his device produced little to no heat when used for extensive periods of time. The output from his machine was simply large amounts of hydrogen, which cannot be the product of a fusion reaction (as hydrogen is the smallest atom, so a fusion reaction results in at least helium).
http://bottleweb.org/jason
Thinking in categories....
Sorry,
Have I used the word fusion ? No. I carefully tried to avoid it - because people always think in categories.
The world and especially the physical world is composed out of building blocks which try to explain our experiments. Often the "things" are explaining each other.
If you find something "new" you need different building blocks, maybe inserting one, change some parts completely as long as everything "matches" again.
There is no world formula.
This weekend I talked with a physician about the gravity shielding phenomenon.
(Some years ago I bet some beers against him - no the institution he is working for
proofed this effect - I won (he still cant believe). It´s quite silent about this topic -
because there are pretty no theories how to match that into the rest of "physics"...
The fact that a theory or an effect isn´t accessable at wikipedia for any human being
is no evidence that it doesn´t exist.
Instead we have the "hoax" community - which knows everything.
I think it´s not scientific to give any comment on that without doing
experiments and verifications...
I'm open to the idea of
I'm open to the idea of nuclear reactions that we have not yet explored, but if not fusion, what? Meyer's device produces electricity, which was supposed to oscillate with the vibrations of water. I don't really see why it is reasonable to suggest that a reaction other than a chemical one could even occur. I'm not saying it's impossible I just don't see why a nuclear reaction would occur from electricity alone, and as far as I'm aware such a thing has never been documented. Furthermore, even if a nuclear reaction did occur, what would it be other than a fusion reaction?
Are you saying a sub-nuclear reaction occurs in Meyer's device? Even if this did happen and the device could produce energy from some unexplained source, it doesn't explain Meyer's claims: That his device produces more hydrogen than the amount of electricity can release through normal electrolysis. The only way it could happen is if his electrolysis method somehow released electric potential from some "other" source.
I appologise if I have come accross as rude, I'm not normally this argumentative about issues to do with technology. The problem I have with this technology isn't that I don't believe it works, it's that no one is able to suggest why it should work, yet so many people insist that it does. It makes no sense to me.
Other than wanting to believe in something amazing, why do people believe that this is possible? And I've asked that question before, but all I get is reasons why it shouldn't be impossible. Just because there's evidence to suggest it's not impossible doesn't mean that pursuing it is a worthwhile endeavor! I could think of many reasons for it's not impossible that santa exists and the moon is made of cheese, that doesn't make it plausible to believe it could be true.
http://bottleweb.org/jason
No smoke without fire...
"Just because there's evidence to suggest it's not impossible doesn't mean that pursuing it is a worthwhile endeavor!"
Depends on - if you only pursue obvious and proven things - you are no inventor nor scientist.
Discovering of high temperature superconductor for example was completely far out.
I´ve read lots of the Meyer papers - and I am quite sure that lots of this is nonsense.
But he is a clever guy if it comes to realize pulse transformers.
I believe Meyer found an effect as described - and tried to build some theory to explain
it - but really failed on that part of the story.'(!!')
Whats interesting on his tube "electrolyzers" is the reported buzz and hum if operated.
Another interesting point is that there are special suggestions - like to use cast metal
outer tube.
This is the reason why I think that torsion waves within the "electrolyzer" tubes play an important
role in the effect. Maybe the electrolysis current is only used to excite the tubes.....
And he needs to modulate the current/pulses as the "effect" starts to compensate the changing density
in the water around the electrodes(tubes)
Keely reported dissociation of water with resonators almost 150 yrs ago, other scientists report strange effects in combination with high energy ultrasonic generators, the presence of water or vapor in a combustion chamber is also something mysterious, not to mention water plasma arcing....
The problem is that most of the people take the Meyer papers too serious - they believe - that
they can replicate his setups by simple building it.
It´s lots of research and open minded experimenting needed - to do such task.
If I would have more time for my experiments - I would do experiments with ultrasonic torsion waves
and high voltage stress. (I built already a transducer bank - but no time for experiments so far)
We know now that lots of theories and calculations of the last 30 yrs in astronomy are a complete Hoax.
But it needed Hubble and lots of other effort to come further.
You have to decide whats interesting for you.
For my part - there has to be a fire somewhere which causes the smoke.
And there is lots of smoke.
Back & White
We have some kind of black&white society, even in physics.
Thats a very interesting phenomenon. On the other hand you
have all the "overunity believers" - which brings us no further
anyway - even discredits new experiments.
It took quite long until the fact that the world is not the center
of the universe - was a fact. People were killed or burned as long
as their theories didn´t comply to the world order.
keep that in mind.
That I do agree with, and I
That I do agree with, and I think it's important to always be a little weary of what we read in the mainstream, and to be open to things proposed by those outside of it (but to be extra weary of them...). Societies tend to resist change, which is a shame but I think it's also a test for every theory; it has to be really good to make it through. At the moment, our society is actively looking for a solution to its problems, so I like to think that when a solution does come along, the need for it will overcome the fear. I like to think that, but we'll have to wait and see.
http://bottleweb.org/jason
Stanley Meyer
Your argument is pointless due to the lack of understanding of the non-electrolysis method Stan patented. The mode of operation you presented is of normal Faraday electrolysis, Stan's is not. For one, the current going through the cell is cause for heating. Stan publicly demonstrated several times, that his device used little or no current. No current, no heat. Secondly, a quick reading of the "Technical Brief" reveals that Stan never claimed to break the laws of thermodynamics with his patented method. Another great document to read is the "Independent Study" of Stan's devices by various qualified people, confirming that his devices worked as described.
Either you have failed your education or your education has failed you. Great men will never ponder how it can't be done.
Thanks for the reply Hairbear
Stan Meyer never publically demonstrated anything and was notorious for his ability to evade scrutiny (1). Let me quote Canadian patent #2,067,735 by Stanley Meyer:
"...the water mixture is subjected to a unipolar pulsed direct current voltage that is tuned to achieve resonance in accordance with the electrical, mass and other characteristics of the mixture as a dielectric in the environment of the combustion zone."
This is little more than an overworded version of "a pulsing current, which oscillates with some properties of the fluid, is passed through water". If zero current is consumed, no energy could be exerted on the water to excite those molecules. Meyer's patent speaks of a peak in voltage, and a resulting low in current. The device is still supposed to consume some energy.
Electrolysis a process by which molecules are split by passing current through them. How is this not electrolysis? Aside from the claim that meyer's technology consumed no current, which I had never heard before, Stan's method involved pulsing an electrical potential. this is a textbook definition of electrolysis.
Stanley meyer never claimed to break the rules of thermoydanmics because the patent office would never issue him with patents if he did so. Any technology which can derive chemical energy from water, with the biproduct being only water, is a clear and blatant violation of the law of conservation of energy and the law of rising entropy.
Open system
I don't mean to be lame but closed systems don't really exist. All combustion engines are open systems because they burn oxygen. For example drinking birds are not perpetual motion devices.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ-zeRCUicw
There are lots of devices powered by temperature changes and/or changes in air pressure like the thermometer or the barometer. hehehe
Here are some old infamous clocks.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&p=6600
How does this relate to my
How does this relate to my last comment? Or are you just commenting on the article in General?
http://bottleweb.org/jason
Post new comment