Stan Meyers

[tkgibbs27]

very interesting stuff.

you can make a kit to hook up to your truck and you can increase you mpgs, i am thinking about trying it.

 

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

http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/meyerhy.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4157/DIY-open ... ll-Car-Kit

 

there's plenty of skepticism about the whole thing, some people say it works and others say it doesn't, but the research i have done.

[Pete M]

The water fuel cell, named by American Stanley Meyer, is a device designed to convert water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen, using less energy than can be obtained by the subsequent combustion of those elements. The device is therefore a perpetual motion machine, and its effectiveness ruled out by the first law of thermodynamics. Meyer's claims about the Water Fuel Cell and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.[1]

 

Yeah, I'd say breaking the laws of physics would make me pretty skeptical. :D

[tkgibbs27]

physics is only limited because of our own knowledge though. anything is possible. people were skeptical about the world being round at one time. i am kind of skeptical about it, but i can't make a complete decision yet because i haven't ever seen it work in person. it would be great if it does work though.

 

when/if i ever get around to doing this, i will let you guys in on whether it does work or not.

[Pete M]

You have that a bit backwards. We are limited by physics. We are always learning of new ways to use physics, but there are certain rules that we call laws, one being the law of conservation of energy. Gasoline has energy stored inside it. Nature put it there and we've figured out how to release it and get usable power. We get the benefit from it because we didn't put the work into getting it in the first place. Think of it as free money you found on the sidewalk. Water has energy inside of it, but it takes energy (electricity in this case) to break the atomic bonds in the water molecules. What is producing this energy? The car aparently. Where is the car getting this energy? From the H and O atoms it's bringing together from the water it split. Even in a perfect world this is a perpetual loop which is like getting change for a dollar and then asking the quarters to be exchanged for a dollar again, etc. There isn't any extra energy there to be converted into motion of the car (let alone that the real world always has parasitic drag on any system that will never allow 100% recovery).

 

Free energy is great and all, but it's not going to come from that guy's designs. Sorry. :( It's a case of too good to be true.

[DirtyComanche]

Wow, what a bunch of BS.

 

Pretty much like EVERY other fuel saving device that you DON'T see implemented on modern vehicles.

[tkgibbs27]

to an extent we are limited by physics. is it possible that we can call something a law before we completely understand it? i think it is. as complex as our brains are there is still plenty we don't understand. we have been known to make mistakes throughout time. someone eventually had come along and showed us differently. rules are meant to be broken and changed anyways. it could all be b/s for all we know. René Descartes talks about that kind of stuff. and solipsism. it's some interesting stuff. there are scientists who have agreed that this is some astonishing work and have seen it first hand. when you take the fossil fuel and turn it into the octane needed to run a vehicle there is a use energy to get it started and you loose energy as it burns up. stan meyers he had created a device to create hydrogen from water, which is another thing nature had created. hydrogen is more flammable than gasoline. so i don't see why you couldn't use energy to split this atomic molecules to create another molecule and use it's energy to be just as efficient, i think it is very possible. i mean you aren't boiling the water, so it'll stay there until evaporation takes place which could be awhile. so you really don't loose your fuel source when you recycle the fuel so you are constantly building up energy even if you are loosing some of it. energy can be created from just about anything, but everything that can create it can loose it as well.

 

they have also developed a vehicle that runs off of compressed air, and actually drive it around, but they still have to resort to using fossil fuels at higher speeds until they are able to figure out how to create the energy needed for the vehicle to move that fast with that source of fuel.

[tkgibbs27]

the kit you can make just simply is supposed to increase mpgs, not convert your entire engine to running strictly off of hho. you would have to do a lot of mods to get your vehicle to run strictly off of hho, which is very possible, stan meyer had converted a dun buggy or some other type of vehicle to strictly run off of hho, and it worked.

[Pete M]

No he didn't. He said he did, which is completely different. Like big foot and those pesky space aliens, I'd need to se it with my own eyes.

You can't break the laws of physics. No one can. They are the laws that govern the entire universe. That's why we call them the laws.

From wiki:

Physical laws are:

 

* True. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.

* Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe.

* Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.

* Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them.

* Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),

* Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations).

They are all listed here:

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

 

The problem with the "water car" concept is that it takes the same amount of energy to convert the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen as you get back when you burn the Hydrogen and get water vapor and heat. You can't get extra anywhere. And if you can't get extra, the car can't move. But if you can split the water up at a factory, and then transfer the Hydrogen to the car, the car can run on that hydrogen. That's been proven. Fuel cells that produce Hydrogen in useful amounts use the stored up energy in gasoline, not water.

 

Oh, and those compressed-air vehicles are in use in India I believe. But the concept works within the laws of physics because the compressor pump at the filling station uses electricity to run the compressor motor, which compresses the air. This compressed air now has stored up energy (like gasoline does) and is transfered to the car's tank. The car can then make use of this stored up energy to run the motor inside. By the way, these cars are made of plastic and glue. Don't expect to see them anytime soon in the US due to safety reasons. Compressed air simply doesn't have much stored up energy inside (at least not at safe pressures) and the vehicles are insanely light. But this is an area where technology can make advances and we might see some here eventually. Maybe new storage containers will be developed that can hold the air at higher pressures? Dunno. Technology moves ever forward. :D

[summerinmaine]

I love this stuff!

 

I'm old enough to remember this from an episode on Science Fiction Theatre, back in the 50s!

 

PT Barnum was right, though his estimate was on the low side! :brows:

[DirtyComanche]

the kit you can make just simply is supposed to increase mpgs, not convert your entire engine to running strictly off of hho. you would have to do a lot of mods to get your vehicle to run strictly off of hho, which is very possible, stan meyer had converted a dun buggy or some other type of vehicle to strictly run off of hho, and it worked.

 

 

There's LOTS of hydrogen powered vehicles out there. I do believe that a large portion of vancouver's bus fleet is hydrogen. There's large carbon fiber tanks mounted on the roof to store it...

 

However, they are not breaking physical laws. That hydrogen was made from water, at the expense of a GREAT deal of energy. In fact, quite a bit MORE than they see as a final production (motion). It's all parasitic loss, it happens EVERY time you convert one form of energy to another. But don't worry, we didn't break the laws of physics there - that energy didn't simply vanish - it just became something usless to us (heat normally).

 

 

When you use an alternator driven by the engine to elctrolize water into hydrogen and oxygen, you're doing exactly what was done to produce the hydrogen for the above busses. However, again it is done AT A LOSS. An alternator is actually fairly efficent (in the range of over 90% IIRC), however the internal combustion engine isn't. It's maybe 30%. Electrolizing water is also not very efficent - it varies greatly on how good the design is. So, what we've done is taken energy from gasoline to drive the engine at a 30% efficenty, which then drives the alternator (the belt drive has a friction loss too) at a 90% efficentcy, and electrolizes water at say a 50% efficentcy. Combined this is .30x.90x.50 = .135 or 13.5% efficentcy. So, for all that gasoline we burned to make this system work we only got 13.5% of that energy back. This is not a gain, it is a LOSS.

 

And if you aren't willing to believe that, too bad.

[jtdesigns]

I guess we could call the myth busters and ask them to check it out...

Plausible?? Maybe,, maybe not. I mean Thomas Edison was a home schooled inventor who after many failures gave us the light bulb among others. The thing about this is does it really bend the conservation of energy??

Take a battery for example, isnt that what he is doing in reverse? Instead of the sulfuric acid acting against lead to produce electricity he is introducing electricity at a disclosed Hz and voltage to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen?

Or as stated electrolysis. I have no clue if it is or not possible, but it pushes me to think about the limits and control of the efficiency to where it becomes self sufficient.. I mean damn free energy or over efficient energy is very dangerous. I can't even begin to think how it would destroy everything in existence. Like a chain reaction..BAD... If it works...as this guy states.. IDK I'd have to see it and test it.

 

The bottom line is the process would have to take very precise measurements to find out if it were over efficient. Can you get hydrogen from water? ummm yes. but at a 101% hummmm I pray not. Now do I hit the submit button?? sure why not...

[tkgibbs27]

i guess they have already tried it? yeah i think there would be some problems the would uprise with free energy. i want to try it myself to see if it works, that's what i am saying, i won't deny that it isn't possible because anything is possible, but i want to try it myself, if it does then that's a plus. if it doesn't well then i can say i at least tried it before i made my decision.

 

i guess he spent over seventeen years doing research and testing this stuff out for efficiency.

[jtdesigns]

You know come to think about it I used to have a water car... It was (if my childhood memories are correct) a buggy just like that guys.. It had this pump and the body was a big pressure tank. You took this lil bike looking hand pump and pumped it up and man did that thing zing...!!! I can't remember if it used just air and I put water in it or you had to put water in it, but it was messy as he!! and fun to run..Man I wish I remembered the name of that thing.. Like air hopper maybe,,,, :hmm:

 

 

Combined this is .30x.90x.50 = .135 or 13.5% efficentcy. So, for all that gasoline we burned to make this system work we only got 13.5% of that energy back. This is not a gain, it is a LOSS.

 

That car did make the hydrogen on board right? That in its self would make it a bit more efficient than pumping stations filling storage tanks..

[DirtyComanche]

Combined this is .30x.90x.50 = .135 or 13.5% efficentcy. So, for all that gasoline we burned to make this system work we only got 13.5% of that energy back. This is not a gain, it is a LOSS.

 

That car did make the hydrogen on board right? That in its self would make it a bit more efficient than pumping stations filling storage tanks..

 

 

NO! NO! NO! The busses I spoke of run on liquid hydrogen that is pumped out of a filling station. It is made in a facility that consumes MASSIVE amounts of electricity to make it. The hydrogen is essentially a battery, as electrical energy is used to make it from the water, and then re-released either as heat in combustion or as electricity in a fuel cell.

 

My point is if you make hydrogen on-board (which is what that math exercise is) you will ALWAYS be opperating at a loss. Hence it is NOT WORTHWHILE. In that example we started with a given amount of energy (100%) and through the process of converting it whittled it down to only 13.5% of what it was. 86.5% of it was wasted in the form of losses, IE it did not do any useful work for us.

[jtdesigns]

Combined this is .30x.90x.50 = .135 or 13.5% efficentcy. So, for all that gasoline we burned to make this system work we only got 13.5% of that energy back. This is not a gain, it is a LOSS.

 

That car did make the hydrogen on board right? That in its self would make it a bit more efficient than pumping stations filling storage tanks..

 

 

NO! NO! NO! The busses I spoke of run on liquid hydrogen that is pumped out of a filling station. It is made in a facility that consumes MASSIVE amounts of electricity to make it. The hydrogen is essentially a battery, as electrical energy is used to make it from the water, and then re-released either as heat in combustion or as electricity in a fuel cell.

 

My point is if you make hydrogen on-board (which is what that math exercise is) you will ALWAYS be opperating at a loss. Hence it is NOT WORTHWHILE. In that example we started with a given amount of energy (100%) and through the process of converting it whittled it down to only 13.5% of what it was. 86.5% of it was wasted in the form of losses, IE it did not do any useful work for us.

 

edit: ok :chillin:

[carnuck]

I'm working on making my big truck ('84 J10) into a combined LPG and electric rig. LPG is $1.65 a gallon here on a year's contract. Electric motor goes onto the tcase to drive the front wheels at the output shaft (with the tcase in neutral) at freeway speeds to save fuel.

[CEThomas]

The guy is right in town :eek: you would have thought the local news would have had something on him as much as they cover the OSU students working on fuel cell cars. And as large as Grove City is, should have ran into the guy at the local Sonic :nuts:

[jtdesigns]

The guy is right in town :eek: you would have thought the local news would have had something on him as much as they cover the OSU students working on fuel cell cars. And as large as Grove City is, should have ran into the guy at the local Sonic :nuts:

 

From what I've read of that dude is he's very quiet and kinda to himself... I guess so if you think you've solved the worlds energy crisis.... In one video he stated "I have been offered billions of dollars by the Arabs just to sit on this" I would hope he told them to kiss his @$$...... :D

[BLHTAZ]

I would love to see water become a viable source of energy, but it will never happen because it would take away the biggest cash cow that our greedy government has. The price of oil is completely attributed to big oil and the government filling their pockets...no other reason. Please don't believe the crap about shortages. :roll:

[summerinmaine]

In one video he stated "I have been offered billions of dollars by the Arabs just to sit on this"

 

 

OMFG Yer killin' me here!!!!! :rotf:

[Pete M]

I would love to see water become a viable source of energy, but it will never happen because it would take away the biggest cash cow that our greedy government has. The price of oil is completely attributed to big oil and the government filling their pockets...no other reason. Please don't believe the crap about shortages. :roll:

 

 

Water is currently not a great source of energy because it takes a lot of electricity to get the H2 and O atoms to split up and is not very cost effective and is very very inefficient. We don't even get our current sources of H2 and O from water. We get it from other chemical reactions. From Wiki:

About four percent of hydrogen gas produced worldwide is created by electrolysis,

 

Please don't let this topic fall into the "big oil" stuff. Like politics and religion, it's another of the no-win topics on the internet. :(

[DirtyComanche]

Water is currently not a great source of energy because it takes a lot of electricity to get the H2 and O atoms to split up and is not very cost effective and is very very inefficient. We don't even get our current sources of H2 and O from water. We get it from other chemical reactions. From Wiki:

About four percent of hydrogen gas produced worldwide is created by electrolysis,

 

 

I bet you're right on the hydrogen production, I had assumed it was produced by electrolysis but it makes more sense that it isn't (I'm thinking acid donors would be far cheaper, just not sustainable.)

[jtdesigns]

I think the best way so far is by a membrane that lets certain molecules pass and others are stripped away. I forget what its called something like isotopic?? membrane ,,, :hmm: Its the way fuel cells work,,, IIRC

[Pete M]

Apparently if a powerplant is used to power the electrolysis, the efficiency can be as low as 25%. :eek:

 

Also, the anode in the electrolysis system needs to be made out of platinum or else the Oxygen will react with the metal in the anode and cause oxidation (their example was if you use iron, it'll turn to rust), which will reduce the effectiveness of the electrolysis.