Talk:Water fuel cell/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Plausability

For some reason the article is blocked from editing. There are a couple of factors that ought to be mentioned. Firstly, you can't take 2+2 and make 5. When energy was first an increasing problem in the U.S., there were many perpetual motion suggestions, which attempted to do this. One was a wind-up car, that would wind the car when it went down a hill. This would work only if the car goes down more hills than up. There was a car with a windmill on top, which would charge a battery that would make the car go. The problem was that it would take more energy to make the windmill turn than one would get from the windmill.

Likewise, if you have a device that takes water apart and then burns it, putting it together again, you don't get more energy putting it together than you expended taking it apart.

That said, some of the devices for sale suggest that they work in conjunction with a gasoline engine. It would be possible to use exhaust heat to heat a thermocouple, that would in turn create electrolysis of water. The resulting gases could be dumped into the air intake to create a fuel for the car. It would probably take major engineering to extract much heat from the exhaust in this way, and the amount of electricity produced would likely be scant. But in a small way, it would work.

The stationary systems seen on You Tube probably use electricity from the grid to electrolize water, which is then used to fuel a welding torch. This does not use water as a fuel, but as a medium, the energy having come from the outlet in the wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.112.152 (—talk) 18:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

" ...it would take more energy to make the windmill turn than one would get from the windmill."

Interesting proposal. lol Gdewilde (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Perpetual Motion Section?

It's clear to people with some background in physics that this device would constitute a perpetual motion if it operates as advertised, but some of the edit conflicts and discussions show that this isn't so obvious to a lay audience. I've tried to clarify the wording of the introduction, but is it worth having a short section explaining why this is a perpetual motion machine? Prebys (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. The water fuel cell is not a perpetual motion machine because it still requires fuel (water). It is not creating excess energy out of nothing, nor is it breaking the laws of thermodynamics. It is simply releasing stored chemical energy from an unconventional and unexpected fuel source - in the same way that a gasoline explosion takes a small amount of energy (spark) and releases tremendous amounts of energy, or a nuclear reaction takes a (relatively) small amount of initial energy and releases a tremendous explosion. Therefore the water fuel cell should not be accused of being just another perpetual motion machine in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfedgar1 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The water fuel cell is far from being a perpetual motion machine. The fact is the article discusses a different form of electrolysis which still uses outside energy. The perpetual motion comes from linking it to the car. Forget about the car and discuss the water fuel cell itself. The big claim is that the water fuel cell creates gas in excess of Faraday's maximum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.242.58.126 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The first law of thermal dynamics simply states, “The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.” Layman's terms, energy can be added to a system by heating it and the net gain takes into account that some of the heat is lost to the environment via convection, conduction or radiation. I fail to see where this statement means that energy already present in the system cannot be used. Surely, the combustion of gasoline releases more energy than the spark (heat) imparted to the mixture. It would therefore stand to reason that water can release more energy than what we put into it. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. Heat cannot flow from cold to hot (duh). Heat cannot be generated and dispersed without heating something else. I cannot put a lit match on an ice cube without heating the ice cube and I cannot extract 100% work from heat as some must go towards heating the surroundings. Nowhere does this state that heat released has to equal the heat put in. Again, the spark plug produces very little heat energy compared to the heat energy gasoline releases. Perpetual Motion basically means a system that runs forever by recycling spent energy without requiring any outside assistance or replenishment of fuel. (A closed loop or closed system) That being said, the water fuel cell does not violate the first law of thermodynamics any more than gasoline does. Electrolysis is an act of changing water’s state from a liquid to its component gases. No more than that. Consider refining crude oil to gasoline via catalytic cracking. Neither electrolysis nor catalytic cracking substantially adds any energy to the resultant chemical byproducts, and yet both processes require energy. Burning straight hydrogen releases far more energy than burning gasoline. If this were not true, then using thermodynamics, explain why straight hydrogen burns hotter (more energy) than gasoline. Both are basically the same chemical process. As for perpetual motion, this is not a closed system. The hypothetical running the exhaust back to the fuel tank is not being done, it could not be done. Here lies the basic misunderstanding of engineering that lets the perpetual motion argument perpetuate itself. Let me make an example....A 4.2l I.C.E. does not require 4.2l of gasoline on every intake stroke. A major portion of the intake is air. The exhaust is the byproduct of combusting gasoline with the oxygen in the air (water vapor, CO2, Nitrogen and trace amounts of chemicals used as detergents). The volume of exhaust is greater than the volume of intake due to expansion of the gases and gasoline due to the heat released by the gasoline. The system could never be enclosed as we use it today. The same holds true for hydrogen and oxygen produced via electrolysis. The gas mixture is not fed into the engine at 4.2l per intake stroke, but mixed with a greater volume of air. It only requires about 4% hydrogen in air to combust. The mixture from hydrolysis is already a stoichiometric mixture, which means that it is already mixed at the proper ratios for chemical reaction to take place. A spark is added and BAM, heat is created. More heat than gasoline produces. The air is heated and expands, driving the piston down and voila, the I.C.E. is running. The exhaust is water vapor and air. The volume and temperature of exhaust is greater than intake due to expansion and combustion. The exhaust is then vented to a lower/cooler state. I fail to see how the above process is perpetual motion. Where is the violation of thermodynamics? There is no closing of the loop and any mention of it is pure speculation on the part of the author, and in so doing, would create a conflict with the laws of thermodynamics and perpetual motion. The open atmosphere is a heat sink and is an active participant in the process. This is not against the laws of thermodynamics, but reinforces them as I have put forth and does not produce perpetual motion since the fuel (in the form of water) must be replenished.

So, are you saying that (1) the mixture of the stoichiometric gas with air is necessary for combustion, or (2) the water obtained from combustion is somehow different than the water in the "fuel" tank. If neither of those is correct, it's a perpetual motion machine.

(1) is untrue. (2) violates known laws of chemistry, but not the laws of thermodynamics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed above that you state that hydrogen has more energy than gasoline because it burns hotter. This is false per unit volume. It's probably true per unit fuel weight. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is so false, then why is hydrogen used in torches and welding aparatus that produce heat around 2000° C?Oxyhydrogen and not gasoline? It looks like i55ere is making a credible point.208.242.58.126 (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That it burns hotter suggests that it release more energy per unit combustion volume, but even that isn't necessarily the case. Perhaps per unit combustion product weight (not fuel weight)? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Water contains 2.5x the energy of gasoline gallon for gallon. Subsequently, water also weighs more than gasoline gallon for gallon, so what is your point? Where did I say that the air was necessary for the combustion? It is taken into the cylinder and the heat expands it, or does not heat cause a gas to expand? How does burning hydrogen with the oxygen violate the laws of chemistry? Water is electrolyzed into its component gases (which is the fuel)and as such it is no longer water and free to go if you decide to let it. By adding a spark, the hydrogen and oxygen recombine and make water. How is that a violation of chemistry when it is the exact reaction that is demonstrated in beginning chemistry classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I55ere (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Water contains 2.5x the energy of gasoline gallon for gallon" is objectively false, unless you're tryting to say that water masses 2.5 x gasoline gallon for gallon, and you're referring to the mass-energy. And I don't think we're saying that Stan designed a perpetual motion machine. What we're saying is that if Stan's machine worked, it could be converted to a perpetual motion machine, absent the existance of "denatured water" (water with a lesser self-energy than standard water). The difference seems minor to me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When I state water contains 2.5x the energy of gasoline, I am refering to atomic mass units of hydrogen contained in 1 us gallon of water versus atomic mass units of hydrogen contained in 1 us gallon of gasoline. I use the us gallon as it is a standard unit of measurement for transporting a liquid, and as such my statements fit within that parameter. Burning Hydrogen within an I.C.E. and creating water is not new. Check out Idaho Department of Energy website and the results of their experiments with using hydrogen as a fuel. By simply putting both gases from electrolysis into the cylinder, the stoichiometric gas is already available and would burn whether or not the air was present. There is nothing wrong with either statement. Using the heat to expand the gases of our atmosphere also does not contradict any laws of chemistry or thermodynamics. How does either reaction prevent that expansion from exerting pressure upon a piston within an I.C.E.? As I stated, to close the loop is impossible as this would result in conflicts with thermodynamics and create a perpetual motion machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I55ere (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing accurate in either statement. Please refrain from including the incorrect 2.5x in the future.

Furthermore, there is nothing physically preventing the loop from being closed, which would then clearly violate the laws of thermodynamics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry for not stating my accuracy, I’ll be precise now…… A water molecule is composed of two (2) hydrogen atoms and one (1) oxygen atom. Atomic Mass Units: Hydrogen Atom: 1 Electron (E) = 1 Proton (P) – 1 Mu Hydrogen Oxygen Atom: 8E = 8P – 8 Mu Oxygen Atomic Mass Ratio of Water: (2H x 1Mu) + (1 Oxy. x 8Mu) = 10 Mu’s Therefore: 2H Mu’s / 10 Mu’s = 20% One US gallon of water weighs 8.345 lbs x .20 = 1.669 lbs. of Hydrogen. A gasoline molecule is composed of (8) hydrogen atoms and ten (10) carbon atoms. Atomic Mass Units: Hydrogen Atom: 1 Electron (E) = 1 Proton (P) – 1 Mu Hydrogen Carbon Atom: 6E = 6P – 6 Mu Carbon Atomic mass ratio of gasoline: (8H x 1Mu) + (10C x 6Mu) = 68 Mu’s Therefore: 8H Mu’s / 68 Mu’s = 11.7% One US gallon of gasoline weighs 5.61 lbs x 0.117 = 0.656 lbs of Hydrogen Whereby: 1.669 lbs Hydrogen in one US gallon of water / 0.656 lbs Hydrogen in one US gallon of gasoline = 2.544 times more hydrogen in water than gasoline. Water / gallon = 57,000 BTU’s approximately Gasoline / gallon = 22,800 BTU’s approximately 57K / 22.8K = 2.5 which equates to gallon for gallon, water has 2.5x the energy of gasoline. Unless, you are also for rewriting the Periodic Table of the Elements. I have purposely left out the Neutrons as they do not contain a charge nor deflect or change the orbital spin-velocity of an atom’s electrons and only increase the surface area of the nucleus. As I've previously stated, closing the loop creates a PMM but it does so by removing the atmosphere from being used as a heat sink and goes against the physical engineering of the I.C.E., just as stopping the intake and exhaust would prevent any I.C.E. from running on hydrogen, gasoline, diesel, or any other fuel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I55ere (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Water may contain 2.5x the mass of hydrogen atoms per volume compared to gasoline, but the hydrogen is in a different form, one that is less energetic (more oxidized) in the water. You need to analyze the energy of molecules, not falsely assume that all molecules' hydrogen atoms are equivalent. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the "atmosphere as a heat sink" reduces the efficiency of the device; if it's "over-unity" not taking the atmosphere into account, as claimed, it's even more "over-unity" when converted to a closed system. Although, if the "inventor" made the same energy calculations that I55ere has been making, the "over-unity" claim may just be a mistake. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering all molecular hydrogen atoms to be equivalent in terms of potential energy release is more than merely a "false assumption"; it's an indication of complete ignorance of the basic principles of chemistry.Prebys (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who was completely ignorant of basic principles of chemistry could have came up with the figures I55ere did and put it so plainly out for everyone to see. There is obviously alot of thought going into this. It might not be exaxtly the correct thought, but definetely not worthy of such a curt and rude dismissal.208.242.58.126 (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't find it likely that I55ere has a basic knowledge of chemistry, as some of the figures are wrong, and most of the rest meaningless or irrelevant. Please knock it off, anon supporter of I55ere. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who does long calculations to get the mass of Hydrogen, but completely ignores the molecular binding energy misunderstands basic chemistry. I'm sorry if that's "curt and rude", but it also happens to be accurate.Prebys (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Prebys, Please, Do not degrade this discussion to innuendos and insults. I have stated my case and backed it up with calculations with the full intent of shedding some light on the current dilemma with assigning this a PMM label. It is not my intent to create a forum, but open up some discussion on this matter and shed some light on the "Not perpetual motion" thought process. If only 1 in 1,000,000 people share my view, then 300 people in the US do and 6,000 people worldwide have the same idea. More than likely 1 in 500 people have no clue what we are even talking about and that translates to 600,000 people in the US and 12,000,000 people worldwide. The "ignorant" label is far from accurate and degrades this encyclopedia project as a whole. If my assumptions and calculations are wrong then state it, correct it, but for the sake of the other 12 million, keep it civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I55ere (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I am not considering the hydrogen in any state other than as an ortho / para gas after it has been released from the oxygen in the water molecule by electrolysis. It would be the same hydrogen if I released its valent bond with carbon in gasoline. The problems are not with using hydrogen as a fuel. There is nothing over unity being claimed with using hydrogen to run an I.C.E. That has been done and the records can be verified with the U.S. Department Of Energy. I have yet to find any verifiable evidence that hydrogen produced from electrolysis of water is an element that is substantially different from hydrogen that is in gasoline, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid or any other hydrogen compound. No matter where it comes from, it is still hydrogen and always will be. So in no certain terms, yes, hydrogen is the same no matter what molecule it occupies. It is the properties of the molecule as a whole that determines how the hydrogen acts with regard to combustion or more specifically its reaction with oxygen, but no matter how you stack it, the product of combining hydrogen with oxygen is water. Any other chemicals / elements in the mix will either produce acids, bases or salts. Matter cannot be destroyed and hydrogen will always be hydrogen.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by I55ere (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC) I just had a palm to forehead moment, let me clarify a few things. When I stated water contains 2.5x the energy of gasoline and did the math I left out a few items. H2 has 3x the energy content by mass c.f. of gasoline. Gasoline has 4x the energy content by volume c.f. of H2. The reason I used the US gallon as my figure was that water is being carried in the container. Not H2. The amount of hydrogen within the container of water is greater that the exact same container holding gasoline. That should be one issue cleared up. The fact that an I.C.E. can run on Hydrogen is well established and documented by the US Dept. of Energy and numerous other institutions including auto manufacturers themselves. The exhaust is water vapor. There is no capturing the exhaust and recirculating it to the fuel tank as that would render the I.C.E. inoperable. The water fuel cell is Stanley Meyers' claim to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water, on demand, in excess of Faraday's maximum. We are talking apples and oranges here. Apples are that an I.C.E. can run on hydrogen (True) Oranges are that the water fuel cell produces hydrogen on demand, in excess of Faraday's maximum (unfounded as of this writing) thereby eliminating the need for a separate hydrogen tank, but using an ordinary tankful of water to supply the water fuel cell as it separates the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The output is not 2.5x the energy of gasoline, but the tank is carrying the hydrogen mass equivalent of 2.5 tanks of gasoline. I hope that clarifies this issue. If there were some way to close the system, then a problem of perpetual motion does exist, but as I have stated numerous times, air is an important factor in this process and referring back to the 4.2l engine... using gasoline as a fuel it is sucking air at a rate over 200 c.f.m. and it's unlikely a containment system could be built that will hold a sufficient volume of air to act as a heat sink with anywhere near the efficiency of just leaving the system open. The oxygen produced could be sent to the cylinder for combustion or vented to the atmosphere and then the air would also be necessary for the combustion process; either way, the engine will run. The engine has to operate as it was designed, in reference to intake and exhaust, only the form of hydrogen delivery has changed from gasoline to straight hydrogen. So, as far as an I.C.E. running on hydrogen? Yes. The water fuel cell being a PMM? No. ([1]} The article should only carry a link to the water fueled car and focus specifically on the water fuel cell and how it converts water to hydrogen and oxygen. The jury is still out on whether it works as claimed, but there are arguments on both sides of the fence on why it should or shouldn't.I55ere 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by I55ere (talk • contribs)

You're still missing the basic problem. It takes energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. You get some of that energy back when you burn the Hydrogen and Oxygen (which again produces water). In a perfectly efficient world, you would get all of it, but no more. In the real world, some is lost, and if you're simply burning it in an ICE, you'll never exceed the Carnot efficiency, which is substantially below 100%. If you could somehow get more energy out of burning the Hydrogen and Oxygen than it took to produce the electrolysis, then you've started with water, ended with the amount of water plus excess energy. If you can't understand why that implies perpetual motion, I really don't know how to make it any simpler.Prebys (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that, sorry if I'm being a pain in the butt. I also understand the implications for perpetual motion that arise from it. That is the reason I keep throwing out the open loop with regards to intake and exhaust. Without them being open, and yes, I do see the picture of there being no physical reason as to why the loop cannot be closed except to say that the ICE would not run at all and perpetual motion would not be factor, because then nothing would work. Suffice it to say that the ICE can run on hydrogen as it is currently designed and electrolysis can be done. Both are true statements for which I can provide ample credible sourcing. If the Water Fuel Cell operates on a principle other than conventional electrolysis, then we need to rethink perpetual motion. People are performing electrolysis at rates in excess of Faraday's maximum and there still may be credibility to Meyers' claims. As I've stated before, there is argument on both sides of the fence, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for your consideration. I'll keep an eye out for any "real" results as far as the electrolysis is concerned.I55ere (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to combustion, water does NOT have 2½× the energy of gasoline. It has absolutely zero energy.

Storage issues aside, it takes more energy to produce hydrogen from water than you get back by burning said hydrogen, even in perfect conditions. The “water fuel cell” process consumes energy rather than producing it.

I’ll even go so far as to say the “water fuel cell” is unworkable and a scam. Although it’s based on some sound principles, it doesn’t serve its intended purpose and anybody with a high-school level understanding of chemistry or physics can tell you that. Meyer, Klein, Newman et al are modern examples of charlatans. — NRen2k5, 16:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the posts, "Palm to forehead moment" you would discover that I stated 1 gal water has 2.5x more hydrogen atoms than 1 gal of gasoline. The energy content of the hydrogen is also put to rest with respects volume and mass as compared to gasoline.

And your use of that reasons shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic chemistry. The chemical energy content of hydrogen in water is ZERO because it has already been bonded with oxygen. — NRen2k5, 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not if the hydrogen has been released from the oxygen via electrolysis. Are you dense? I tried to be brief and took the liberty of assuming that most readers would understand that or figure it out for themselves, but I thought wrong. Try to keep up, we have hashed through this stuff already.I55ere (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not well enough, because you still don't understand. It takes energy to split the hydrogen from the oxygen with electrolysis. More energy (much more) than byrning the hydrogen gives you. Here, let me take it down to a gradeschool level for you, by making a mechanical analogy to this chemical situation: Imagine you want to harness the kinetic energy of a falling 5 lb weight, which is sitting on the ground. You first have to lift that weight. It takes the same amount of energy to lift the weight as dropping it will give you. So it’s not a method of generating energy, though it is a method of storing it. Same goes for the water fuel cell. And the problem is, in all ways (energy density, efficiency and power) it’s worse than existing battery and capacitor technology. — NRen2k5, 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Water Fuel Cell is a mis-nomer. It is actually a water capacitor. "Fuel cell" was probably derived from the term used to describe a fuel tank in automobiles and not a fuel cell which turns H2 and O into electricity. By Meyer's own wording, it is a water capacitor. They do work and are proven. Their major flaw is that highly purified water becomes conductive due to the auto-ionization process HOH→ H+ + OH-. (P.W. Atkins, Physical Chemistry, 6Th Ed. Oxford University Press, NY 1998)

No, the major flaw is the inefficiency of the electrolysis process. You don’t get more energy than you put in to the process. You get a lot less. — NRen2k5, 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the water capacitor at this point. Do you know what that even is?I55ere (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. To put it bluntly, a worthless piece of junk. — NRen2k5, 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A little more than just a "High School Chemistry" text book. That the water mixed with 51% methanol by mass will disassociate at 10°C in ≤ 1ms at 2kV/cm (power supplied by a Marx generator) (Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 93, No. 6, 15 March 2003) A little more than "High School level Physics" suggests its possibility.

And then you end up with more than just hydrogen and oxygen. — NRen2k5, 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And what might that be oh mighty chemistry god? Please, enlighten us all so that we may forever be gracious that you chose this moment to speak with the masses.(Sarcasm mine)I55ere (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know. Are you insisting that the alcohol just vanishes into the ether? — NRen2k5, 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just laying out the experiment as it was done. The alcohol was added because the experiments were conducted from -20° to +10°C and kept the water from freezing. The fact still remains that water will breakdown as described without alcohol in the mix and at higher temperatures. So answer me this...Do capacitors store current or voltage? Can they be charged to maximum with high voltage or low voltage and high current?I55ere (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I’m going to stop responding to your obvious attempts at diversion, other than to point them out. — NRen2k5, 18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In light of these facts, and Meyer's use of tap water, I wouldn't call it "unworkable." Its stated purpose was to "produce hydrogen on demand through the disassociation of the water molecule" The only point to prove or disprove is can hydrogen be made on demand via a water capacitor?I55ere (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would call it unworkable, seeing as the facts demonstrate exactly that. — NRen2k5, 10:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. You said water has 2.5 times the energy of gasoline and then tried to justify this statement by counting Hydrogen atoms (and conveniently ignoring chemical thermodynamics entirely). Googling a bunch of terms you don't understand doesn't bring anything useful to the conversation. A water capacitor is just an ordinary capacitor that uses water as a dielectric. If you put too much voltage on a water capacitor, the H and O will dissociate. This is called ELECTROLYSIS, and it's a well understood phenomenon which conserves energy. You keep trying to come up with a way Meyer's device can work based on known laws of physics and chemistry and the simple fact is it can't, so either it's new physics or it's a fraud. Since no one else has succeeding in making it work, the most parsimonious explanation would be fraud.Prebys (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I did say water contained 2.5x the energy and later corrected my error. You are very quick to jump at anything that does not fit neatly into your personal views. Now you are talking BS. ELECTROLYSIS is done via amperage, not voltage. The dissociation of the water molecule via voltage, while reducing amperage is the whole key to "The Water Fuel Cell." I am not just Googling terms and throwing them out as you would lead everyone to believe. If that is how you operate.... What I just put forth comes from Oxford University and Sandia National Laboratory. I don't see any list of Nobel Prizes behind your name. You only post to discredit anything that could prove this system when there is ample evidence that Meyer's theories might have some basis in sound science and physics. I have not seen you put anything here that was not just lip service to someone else' post or general obstruction to people making any alternate suggestions about this article. There is evidence that this system did work and you can only mention a lawsuit, without putting up any records or transcripts, as your sole basis that this was fraud. "Water molecules are broken down into hydrogen and oxygen gas atoms in a CAPACITIVE CELL by a polarization and resonance process dependent upon the dielectric properties of water and water molecules. The gas atoms are thereafter ionized or otherwise energized and thermally combusted to release a degree of energy greater than that of combustion of the gas in ambient air." (emphasis mine). This is the exact wording from the abstract of patent 5149407. If that does not describe what happens when a water capacitor breaks down, then put up a credible explanation that does, and reference it.I55ere (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, did you just cite a patent as proof that something works? Are you out of your Vulcan mind?! — NRen2k5, 10:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not citing the patent as proof that this works. I'm quoting the abstract from the patent. If you have any experience at all with capacitors, you would know what is being described here. You would also know that water capacitors exist. I am asserting that what Meyer called a fuel cell may have in fact been a water capacitor.I55ere (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And overlooking the plain fact that it’s junk. — NRen2k5, 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, "my personal views" happen to be the laws of physics. Look, I'll talk slowly and use simple words. It takes voltage to produce current through water. voltage times current equals power, and power integrated over time equals energy (go to the library and check out a physics textbook if you don't believe me). This energy will be related to the amount of Hydrogen release by the binding energy of the water molecules. This is where the thermodynamics of chemistry enters in (you know, the subject you keep trying to dodge). In a perfect world, you would get all of this energy back when you burned the hydrogen (which, as we've tried to convince you, gives you back water). So even in a perfect world, you could never gain energy from the process. You seem to think that the energy required to electrolyze water is some sort of "detail", and there might be some trick to get around it, but that can't happen without changing the laws of physics (or, as you call them, "my personal views"). But why argue? It would be trivial for you to win this argument. The designs are really simple and all available on the web. If you're so sure this thing works, just build the damn thing and get famous. But somehow that never ever happens, does it? Why do you suppose that is? Wake up, Meyer died ten years ago, leaving behind a supposedly working car and a full set of drawings, and in those ten years, NO ONE has succeeded in making this work. And do you know what, ten years from now, this article will still be here, people like you will still be claiming this works, and blaming "big oil" for suppressing the technology, and we still won't have cars that run on water. So either put up or shut up. This is quickly losing its entertainment value.Prebys (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never said that burning hydrogen doesn't produce water. You don't need to convince anyone of that. Read the physics and chemistry books instead of looking at them in the library. Do something called Research and post your findings with references as I have. Voltage does not produce Current and voltage times current = Watts or a convenient measurement of power. In the "ideal world" you spout off so much about it takes approx 53 Amp hours at 1.4 Volts to produce 1 mole of hydrogen from water by electrolysis. That is the product of research and not lip service. This whole Wikipedia is based on different points of view coming to consensus, but you'd rather shut everyone down who thinks otherwise. It's convenient to throw out conspiracy theories and "Big Oil" to get people to back off and I'm not even going there. We sent men to the moon on the power of water, but that seems to escape you too.I55ere (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It’s clear who is the one here that’s only believing what he wants to believe.… — NRen2k5, 10:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess Ohm's Law would be a little far fetched to believe if I wanted to, huh? (Sarcasm mine) The Amps, Volts and amount of gas produced comes directly from Faraday's maximum. (Try the math if you know how? Don't forget Gibb's free energy) If you think Wikipedia is not as I described...feel free to reference it to me where it states otherwise. If all you can do is peanut gallery and provide smart remarks then you really need a life.I55ere (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. — NRen2k5, 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ToucheI55ere (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term "Water Capacitor" in the article (other than in direct quotations from the inventor) is exceedingly tricky.

One has to be careful in use of terminology when you start talking about it as a "Water Capacitor" - a capacitor (for our purposes) is essentially a way of storing and later releasing energy - like a battery - in fact the line between what is a battery and what is a capacitor is very blurry - so I'm going to say "capacitor/battery" from now on. ANY device that takes in electricity - stores the energy in some unspecified manner - and later emits electricity is in some senses a capacitor/battery. Connect a water pump to a storage tank and use that to feed a water-wheel with a car generator on it - and you have a "capacitor/battery" in which the energy is stored as gravitational potential energy in the water tank.

You could certainly use a device like the Meyer gizmo as a capacitor/battery: Use the incoming electricity to electrolyse water into H2 and O2 - store the H2 someplace - then later turn the H2 + O2 back into water in a true-fuelcell (like the ones the space shuttle uses) - or in an internal combustion engine (as Meyers essentially proposed) - and use that to turn a generator to make electricity. Voila! You have an energy storage device that could certainly be called a "battery" - and therefore (by a stretch) could be called a "capacitor". HOWEVER - if that is all this device is then it's an insanely complicated and highly inefficient capacitor/battery. We have vastly cheaper/lighter/more-efficient designs for batteries and capacitors that we've known about for a hundred years.

The problem here is that there is some confusion about use of the term "water capacitor" - whether the device works by 'capacitative means' (whatever that implies?!?) or whether it employs capacitors in it's internal design (which it almost certainly does) or whether the device as a whole is acting like a capacitor (which it arguably is). So use of this term has to be VERY carefully considered when explaining what's claimed in the article.

The real underlying difficulty here is that if the device claims to be merely a complicated energy storage device (in which - by necessity - less energy comes out of the device than goes into it) - then it's hardly worthy of further consideration - it's a piece of useless engineering. If, however, it is claimed that by burning the hydrogen, you get enough energy to (say) run a car AND enough energy left over to regenerate hydrogen and keep the device running for as long as water is supplied to it - THEN you have a perpetual motion machine and we know with utter certainty that such things come from the minds of deranged idiots and charlatens and they DON'T WORK...EVER. So no matter what - this gizmo isn't any use as a capacitor/battery. If it has any useful purpose then it is (perhaps) as a somewhat more efficient source of hydrogen from electricity for welding and other purposes.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. The whole notion of a "hydrogen economy" is based on using hydrogen as a means of storing otherwise intermittent energy, such as wind or solar. Whether or not that turns out to be practical, no one questions that it is grounded in solid science. Colloquially, such a method of energy storage might be (but seldom is) termed a "capacitor", in that it stores energy; however, in this context, the whole confusion seems to have arisen from description of the device ("steel plates arranged as a capacitor"), and some excitement about the fact that actual water capacitors (that is, electrical capacitors with low conductivity water as the dielectric) produced H and O when they break down (which some posters seem to feel requires no input energy). This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that using water as a dielectric is a pretty cheap way to make high voltage capacitors, which can be used to make cool things like Marx generators, leading to really nifty, but totally unrelated, YouTube videos. Mix in a little ignorance about chemistry and physics, and voila - perpetual motion.Prebys (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What a load of crap... Anyone working with electronic circuits can clearly tell the difference between a capacitor and a battery. As far as ignoring energy input goes... Do not put words where they don't exist. Nowhere have I ignored energy input and have even gone as far as putting the energy required for ELECTROLYSIS in layman's terms . Tell me, please, just what is a Marx generator, and how is a water capacitor used to make one? I stated that a Marx generator was used to charge a water capacitor to breakdown in the experiments that were reported in the Journal of Applied Physics. Its quite obvious that your research medium is YouTube as that is the only thing that remotely resembles a reference in this discussion. I think that I'll head over to YouTube and see how development of Marx generators and water capacitors is going....ROFL. If you took the time to read my original post, you would notice that I said, "Neither electrolysis nor catalytic cracking substantially adds any energy to the resultant chemical byproducts, and yet both processes require energy." I also posted to put up a credible reason why this might not be perpetual motion, not debate the workings of the WFC. Yes, Electrolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen and burning hydrogen produces water. Guess what???? If you perform electrolysis on the water again....it will produce hydrogen and oxygen again and if you burn it it will produce water...ad infinitum. That is not perpetual motion any more than digging a hole and filling it in only to repeat the process is. If anything demonstrates a clear ignorance of chemistry, it is your failure to recognize that fact.I55ere (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You never posted a credible reason why it might not be perpetual motion. (The original inventor never referred to a Marx generator, as far as I can tell; that must be your contribution....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I55ere has admitted both that it takes energy to separate water into H and O and that burning the H and O again produce water. In spite of that, we seem to have a process which starts with water, extracts net energy, and ends with the same amount of water we started with, and yet he continues to argue that it's not perpetual motion. This is just getting sillyPrebys (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to post my original text again so that you can read it? If the loop must remain open, then it would not be perpetual motion. The only hinge to this door is if the water fuel cell operates as advertised. I mentioned the Marx generator in reference to an experiment that was outlined in the Journal of Applied Physics and not as a part of Meyer's patent or claims. You can beat the point forever that if you recycled the exhaust then it would be perpetual motion, I do not deny that at all. Once again, Electrolysis can be done (FACT) engines can run on hydrogen (FACT) the exhaust of an engine running on hydrogen is water (FACT) water can be electrolyzed (FACT)....So, If I plug an electolyzer in at home and run my car on the hydrogen, collect the exhaust and put it back into the electrolyte is that perpetual motion? Not hardly since I'm taking energy from the grid. Now let's say my engine is hooked up to a generator that supplements the energy from the grid... is that perpetual motion? Nope, uh-uh. Now let's substitute the car's alternator for the grid and the battery is assisting the alternator. For arguments sake, let's say I only drive in the daytime and the battery is rated at 100 Amp hours but it is only supplying 1 amp to assist the electrolysis. Theoretically, I can run my car for 100 hrs before I need a recharge, right? I could top of my battery with a solar cell when the car is parked outside and extend my driving time for the life of the battery. So, for the $50 price of a battery and $25 for a solar charger I can run my car for 3 yrs. Is that perpetual motion?I55ere (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with that is that you've just described a solar powered car...not a water powered car. In your example, the power required from the battery to split enough hydrogen to run the ICE would run the battery down spectacularly fast - within minutes probably. It would require a huge number of solar panels to recharge it continuously as you're driving along. If you had that many solar panels then you could build a vastly more efficient car by simply connecting them up to an electric motor! All of the nonsense with electrolysis and ICE only adds a ton of inefficiency to the process. We know that an ICE cannot be more than about 65% efficient and an electric motor can be 85% efficient - so in order for Meyer's machine to do better than a simple solar powered electric car, the electrolysis stage has to produce more energy than it consumes...and that's something that we know is impossible. But Meyers claim didn't involve solar panels recharging the battery - he claimed the ICE could do that using a conventional alternator! SteveBaker (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why others are being so patient with you. In your car example one source of energy - the sun - is being used to charge a battery. There is no net gain. The "water fuel cell" is claiming to generate a net gain. It follows that it is a perpetual motion machine and violates the laws of thermodynamics. LeContexte (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

“Now let's substitute the car's alternator for the grid and the battery is assisting the alternator. For arguments sake, let's say I only drive in the daytime and the battery is rated at 100 Amp hours but it is only supplying 1 amp to assist the electrolysis. Theoretically, I can run my car for 100 hrs before I need a recharge, right? I could top of my battery with a solar cell when the car is parked outside and extend my driving time for the life of the battery. So, for the $50 price of a battery and $25 for a solar charger I can run my car for 3 yrs. Is that perpetual motion?”

Nope, basically a very inefficient way of powering a car from the battery. Ignoring for a second that a car battery can’t separate hydrogen fast enough to run the engine. If you could get it to work at all, you’d have a car that would be very slow and won’t get very far. — NRen2k5, 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether you (I55ere) are willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant of the fact that there's a big difference between driving electrolysis with and without external power. Yes, you could run a car in this way with external power; yes you could run a car this way with a battery, yes you could run a car this way with solar cells; As NRen says, it would be a very inefficient way to do things (although it could make some sense with solar cells, as a way to store energy). But Meyer's car (supposedely) doesn't have external power, doesn't have a significant battery pack, and doesn't have solar cells, so we're back to a trivial violation of conservation of energy. Your last desperate plea "If the loop must stay open.." doesn't make any sense. The car (supposedly) burns hydrogen in an ordinary internal combustion engine, which produces water vapor as exhaust. Now you seem to want to invent a magic reason why this water can't be used again just so you can claim this isn't perpetual motion. I've tried to be patient here, but the fact is you've shown you don't understand physics, you don't understand chemistry, and you should probably stop talking as if you did. Face it, Meyer was a fraud and the technology doesn't work.Prebys (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes the Meyers claim be considered to be "perpetual motion" is that if what he claimed were true then you COULD operate it as a perpetual motion machine...which means that the claim must be untrue. Whether you actually DO operate it that way doesn't matter a damn. If you walk up to your new car - pour X liters of water into the tank and use Y amp-hours of electricity to charge the battery - then drive around for a while and wind up having Z liters of water in the tank and produced (X-Z) liters of water from the exhaust ...AND... the battery still has Y amp-hours of electricity stored within it - then you have a machine that's just as impossible as a perpetual motion machine.

For a water powered car to work, the exhaust would have to be some substance composed only of hydrogen and oxygen yet which has a lower binding energy than water - but there is not (nor cannot ever be) such a substance and Meyers never claimed that there was. It is, however, perfectly possible (at least in principle) to build a car that extracts it's power from a battery and merely uses water as an intermediary "working fluid". That's analogous to a steam engine which uses wood or coal as it's energy source and uses water as the intermediary "working fluid".

A machine that takes it's power from a battery and merely uses water as a working fluid is "an electric car" - and it would inevitably be much less efficient than simply using electric motors because it's a "heat engine" and such things have fundamental limits to their efficiency. Even if the hydrolysis cell were 100% efficient, the subsequent reacting of hydrogen with oxygen brings the efficiency well below that of modern electric motors.

The phrase "Perpetual motion machine" that we're using in the article is merely shorthand for "Machine that violates the first law of Thermodynamics in a manner that can theoretically be proven by connecting it's outputs to it's inputs and seeing that it can run forever without any new energy inputs"...which Meyer's machine undoubtedly claims to do. SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I55sre said: "Anyone working with electronic circuits can clearly tell the difference between a capacitor and a battery" - yes at the level of an electronic circuit - but in general there is a definite blurring of the line between the two. Here [2] for example is a recent case of people replacing batteries with capacitors to perform a very similar job. SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When Meyer said capacitor, he did not have the benefit of an article written in 2008 so I will always assume that he meant capacitor in the electronic circuits sense. As far as the perpetual motion goes, SteveBaker, I 100% agree with you. My leaving the loop open was playing Devil's Advocate and this whole lengthy discussion could have been avoided had I been a little more clear with my first posting and the feedback so eloquently stated. Thank You.I55ere (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than say "perpetual motion machine" - then I think "over unity device" (meaning something with a claimed efficiency in excess of 100%) would be a better term to use in the article since that avoids the whole open-loop/closed-loop debate and cuts right to the chase with the 1st law of thermodynamics. (Although, of course, if you had an over-unity device, using it to make perpetual motion would typically be child's play). SteveBaker (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What you say is true in principle, but con men have made a lot of money substituting "over unity" for "perpetual motion", so I think it weakens the point. However, since Wikipedia redirects over unity to perpetual motion anyway (as it should), if you feel like rewording the intro in this way, go ahead.Prebys (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In the following lead paragraph there is a simple mistake that seems to be overlooked by some here, and contributing to a lot of discussion: "The water fuel cell is a device invented by American Stanley Allen Meyer, which he claimed could convert water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen, using less energy than can be obtained by the subsequent combustion of those elements, a process that results the reconstitution of the water molecules." This should read: "A process that results in the reconstitution of some of the water molecules." I believe this mistake is contributing to this piece's proclaiming Stanly Meyers invention being a "perpetual motion machine." I see no reference that Stanley Meyer claimed that all of the oxidized (burned) hydrogen would return after being consumed,(perpetual motion) however in the process of burning hydrogen, it is well known that some molecules of oxygen and hydrogen recombine to produce water vapor as part of the exhaust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.5.59 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument! It shows that you understand nothing of the problem that the first law of thermodynamics and the issue of perpetual motion poses for Meyer's claims. You're saying that this machine not only produces more energy than it consumes - but also emits uncombusted hydrogen gas as a byproduct! That makes it even more of violation of the first law than it would be if all of the hydrogen were consumed!

Even if what you say were true, consider this thought experiment: If what you say is true then I could attach (say) a true hydrogen fuel cell to the exhaust of Meyer's car and by converting ALL of the waste hydrogen back into water, extract yet more energy. This additional fuel cell - plus the water that the car would 'naturally' produce would thus produce exactly enough water as a byproduct to refill the tank. This trivial addition to Meyer's machine would produce yet more energy and would DEMONSTRABLY be a perpetual motion machine.

The problem is not that Meyers machine is a perpetual motion machine per-se (it's not - he let the exhaust water dribble onto the ground) - it's that if the machine worked as he claimed then it would be trivially easy to convert it into a perpetual motion machine. Since perpetual motion is impossible - so is any machine that could easily be converted into a perpetual motion machine. But we talk of "perpetual motion" merely as a convenient shorthand for "a machine that violates the first law of thermodynamics" - and even an unmodified Meyer's machine does that...forget the internal combustion engine - just the electrolytic cell itself constitutes a violation of that fundamental physical law.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, again: when burning hydrogen, such as when it is used for welding, it is well known that not all of the hydrogen is burned. Apparently within the the burning hydrogen, most but not all of the hydrogen is destroyed in the process, as SOME (very important to read the word: SOME) molecules of hydrogen and oxygen bond within the flame, producing a little water vapor along with the greater hydrogen/oxygen consuming flame. Therefore perpetual motion or the laws of thermodynamics are not in question, and this reference needs to be removed as collecting the water produced from this flame is only collecting a part of the hydrogen and oxygen which has not burned.

Also, I am not saying that "it produces more energy than it consumes" but rather it produces more energy in burning hydrogen than it consumes in producing hydrogen from water. Again; not a perpetual motion machine, you must continue to add water as a fuel to keep the process working, and the limited water mist of unburned hydrogen/oxygen that develops would be inconsequential, or of such diminished return as to again, deny the label: "perpetual motion machine." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobadi (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me you're aware that 2H₂ + O₂ → 2H₂O ... Oli Filth^(talk) 08:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And your point is..? (are you talking to me?)Bobadi (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is; H₂O is the only output from burning H₂ in O₂; you end up with exactly the amount you started with, and the enthalpy change is well-defined and well-measured. Therefore, everything you said above is meaningless. Oli Filth^(talk) 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now. You are right, and I am wrong. I had a faulty understanding of the concept of burning hydrogen. As I now understand it; hydrogen is not being consumed by changing into the energy of heat and light, but heat and light are being emitted by the action of Hydrogen and Oxygen combining to form water. Thank you for your correction. My apologies to all, and I am withdrawing my concern. Perhaps this fundamental laypersons explanation or similitude could be added to make a better understanding for those who like myself; do not have a strong enough chemistry/physics background to realize the issue. This is after all "the peoples" encyclopedia, and I am sure it would go far to end a lot of discussion. 12.72.31.213 (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been hashed out countless times. A car that runs (chemically) on water violates both the first and second laws of thermodynamics and can be considered a perpetual motion machine - period.Prebys (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This does not take into account the advent of a more efficient electro chemical process as being described here. Bobadi (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, meaningless. You can't get more efficient than 100%, and the energy released from a 100%-efficient process is the standard enthalpy change of reaction, which is the same in both directions. Oli Filth^(talk) 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Being "more efficient than 100%" is precisely what the first law of thermodynamics prohibits. The second law says that you can only be exactly 100% efficient at the absolute zero of temperature - and the third law says that you can't ever cool a system to the absolute zero of temperature - so you can't even be 100% efficient. The laws of thermodynamics are real spoil-sports when it comes to free energy. SteveBaker (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

While I concede the major point, I never expected or expressed knowingly the idea of 100% efficiency, I simply had followed a train of thought that was unfortunately for me; flawed at the very beginning. However failing to achieve Meyer's goal of a water fueled engine, perhaps he has stumbled upon a method of gas extraction from water that is more efficient then plain electrolysis? 12.72.31.213 (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps he discovered a wonderful new hair tonic. The evidence for both is about the same. Remember, Meyer claimed to have a car which ran on water. This is not explained by more efficient electrolysis, or any sort of electrolysis. It's only explained by outright fraud. Now since he never allowed anyone to examine the car, outright fraud is pretty easy to believe. Why are so many people reluctant to do so?Prebys (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree in so much as: if anything he did was in any way valid or valuable, then a slightly more efficient way to do electrolysis would have to be it. It's not entirely impossible that he found a way to squeak a few percent more efficiency from a standard electrolysis cell. Our best present technology is nowhere near the theoretical best efficiency - so there is room for improvement.

HOWEVER - I don't think he managed to do even that much. Meyers (and all of his followers since then) are betting on some fancy alternating current waveform to gain this claimed greater efficiency - and even if it were true, that has one utterly, overwhelmingly bad downside: With conventional DC electrolysis, you get hydrogen bubbling off one electrode and oxygen off of the other - so the gasses are nicely and automatically separated for you - and by capturing the bubbles coming off each electrode separately - you have a stream of nearly pure hydrogen coming off one side - and a stream of nearly pure oxygen coming off the other. But in Meyer's contraption, the current flips from positive to negative thousands of times a second - so for (say) 1000th of a second there is hydrogen bubbling off one electrode and oxygen off the other - but in the next 1000th of a second, it's the other way around. Hence the hydrogen and oxygen will both appear at both sets of electrodes - all mixed up together.

Since in most applications of water electrolysis, you only want the hydrogen, it's MUCH better to suffer a little inefficiency in order to get that separation of gasses almost for free. If you subsequently had to separate out the mixed oxygen and hydrogen from a Meyers cell - the energy and complexity costs of doing that would completely invalidate any benefits from a realistic increase in efficiency. Worse still, a nice 2:1 molar mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is horribly unstable - it's extremely explosive and will blow up at the slightest opportunity!! So you really don't want to keep the stuff hanging around in big storage tanks anywhere! Meyers must have been aware of this - so all of his applications for his 'mixed gas' generating system entailed immediately burning the two gasses together very soon after they were produced.

Sadly, this is not a good use for electrolysis because quite frankly, what ever you were planning on powering with the hydrogen and oxygen could probably have been powered by the electricity that you were using to produce those gasses. Hence, even if his cell were amazingly efficient, because the recombination process in an internal combustion engine is so horribly inefficient - he'd have been much better off just driving his car from the battery using simple electric motors - which is precisely what modern electric cars do.

Over in the talk page of the Water Fuelled Car article (Talk:Water-fuelled_car#How_much_hydrogen?), I did some careful analysis of a very popular video clip of Meyer's device - my conclusions from looking at the pressure gauge on the output of his electrolysis cell are that it took 5 seconds to produce a 1 psi pressure increase in a very small reaction vessel. When you crunch the numbers, you find that he would have needed to produce about 13,000 times as much gas to power a 25mpg car at 30mph. When you see just how vigerously his cell is bubbling, it looks rather impressive - but then you try to imagine something producing ten thousand times as much gas as that - you pretty soon realize that the dream of a car fuelled by the results of small-scale electrolysis is a complete non-starter - the laws of thermodynamics not withstanding! Far from being close to being able to do this - he was so amazingly far away from doing it that there is really no chance that he'd somehow stumbled onto something incredible.

This should come as no surprise - the guy didn't even finish high school. At his subsequent fraud trial, the cell was tested and found to be nothing particularly amazing in terms of gas production - certainly no more efficient than a typical modern DC electrolysis cell. So while it's still just possible to claim that the man was some kind of genius, that seems highly unlikely. It's overwhelmingly clear that he was indeed a liar, a cheat and a fraud - as the courts found when they tried him and found him guilty of defrauding his investors.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again: I agree that water cannot be used as an independent fuel source for power, and that it takes power to convert water to its gasses. However I am bothered by several things in your last reply:

1. I do not see any "overwhelmingly bad downside" to hydrogen gas being drawn off with oxygen. It appears to me that it should be fairly easy to safely separate hydrogen gas from oxygen with the use of a long column resembling a tall, vertically upright cannon barrel. Hydrogen, being the lightest element would elevate to the top to be drawn off. Any accidental ignition could be safely directed to the top as well, and out of harm’s way.
2. The video apparently shows a vigorous bubbling of gasses with little current flow, along with very little waste heat being generated. (This of course would have to be independently tested.)
3. I have yet to read the results of the fraud trial as there seems to be little more then an article from a newspaper regarding it. Do you have a credible source describing the testing at trial proving the invention was a fraud? Could it be that the trial only documented that it would be impossible for this device to use water as an independant fuel source? (That seems to be the main point of the trial.)
4. I am not convinced that Meyers was knowingly trying to defraud. It appears to me that he may have been delusional himself, as he acted extremely paranoid, and hearsay tells us that his last words were that he believed himself to be poisoned by those he felt were trying to destroy his work.

Best regards, Bobadi (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to answer each of your points:

1. I believe (without evidence) that it would take an exceedingly long time for hydrogen and oxygen gasses to separate out under gravity - and given my calculations over on Talk:Water fuelled car, this machine would have to produce NINE LITERS of gas per second - so there is almost no time for gravity to perform any useful separation - a tower like that would have to separate out and refill nine liters of gas every single second - and gravity simply isn't a powerful enough force to do that so quickly.
2. On your second point, whilst the videos might make it look like there is vigorous bubbling - if you look carefully at the surface of the liquid, there are hardly any bubbles appearing at all. Furthermore (as I pointed out over on Talk:Water fuelled car), there is a point in one of the many video's of Meyer's device where you can clearly see a pressure gauge attached to the top of the electrolytic cell - the pressure creeps up by about one PSI every five seconds. We can estimate the volume of the gas-filled space at the top of the cylinder and thereby make some 'back of envelope' calculations to see roughly how much gas it produces - and the answer is that it's FAR from being "vigorous" - it is in fact completely pathetic...less than one ten thousandth the amount of gas production needed to drive a typical car at 30mph! It's perfectly possible that it doesn't get hot because there are several gallons of water there and only a tiny fraction of that is being electrolysed. It would take a hell of a lot of electricity to heat up all of those gallons of water appreciably. So the heat released probably IS heating up this huge volume of water - but very slowly. It truly is a totally unimpressive demo when you sit down and look carefully at what's being shown instead of listening to the idiot commentator blathering on about how wonderful it all is. I encourage everyone to follow through what I wrote on Talk:Water fuelled car because you can look at the video - see exactly what I saw - duplicate my calculations and thereby be utterly convinced that this electrolysis cell is really a piece of junk.
3. I have not read the trial transcripts - they do not seem to be easily available either online or offline. The findings are a matter of record though - Meyer WAS found guilty of defrauding investors. I just don't have any details. The water hydrolysis unit clearly does "work" - in that it performs electrolysis of water - so he can't have been found guilty on that score alone. It's just not clear how efficient it is. But Meyers didn't stop there - he claimed (and frequently demonstrated) an actual VW-bug-based 'Dune buggy' supposedly being powered by his device - and THAT is how he defrauded his investors.
4. If you are prepared to admit that his device was not some kind of magical "over unity" free energy source - then the Dune Buggy demonstration simply could not have worked...period. So Meyers MUST have quite deliberately faked those demonstrations - and for what other reason than to extract HUGE amounts of money from investors. There is no possible way he could have believed that his machine was really working because he had to have gone into the dune buggy and set up whatever fakery was going on. The dune buggy has been filmed driving around - which means that he definitely - and knowingly - cheated somehow. There is no other reasonable explanation. Most likely it's that buggy still ran on gasoline and he'd simply hidden the gasoline tank, fuel pump and fuel lines inside the body of the car somehow. He'd only have needed a half gallon of gasoline for short demonstrations - and that would be easy to hide (for example) in the tubular roll-cage of the buggy. That's hardly rocket-science - and it would easily explain what happened. Some slightly more charitable people have claimed that Meyers left the fuel cell running for a long time - generating stored oxyhydrogen in a cylinder somewhere - then only drove the buggy for short runs before the oxyhydrogen ran out. However, my calculations for the efficiency of Meyer's cell say that he'd have to have been parked for 10,000 times as long as the demonstration took - which is really not likely to have gone without notice! Also, storing large enough quantities of 2:1 molar mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen under enough pressure to fit into a small cylinder would have caused frequent and massive explosions! So I don't believe that's an explanation we can live with. I think he just had a sneaky gasoline supply hidden somewhere under the buggy.

No - there is no way out of this - Meyers either disproved the first law of thermodynamics - or he simply must have been a liar, a cheat and a con-man. There is no middle ground here. Given that - why should we believe the claim that he was poisoned? We don't even know for sure that he said that he was poisoned - we only have the word of the people around him at the time - none of whom could be described as "neutral" witnesses. I do know this though - my father died of the same thing that the coroner said Meyers died of - and for my father, it was FAR too quick for him to utter any memorable last words. It was all over in 10 seconds - for most of which time he was doubled over and in too much pain to talk. I'd be rather surprised if Meyers said anything whatever in his last moments. But as I've explained elsewhere - the coroner would most certainly have had to be in on the plot to kill Meyers - and there is no reasonable way to link him to Belgian terrorists or Arab assassins. He'd been a coroner for a long time before Meyer's died - and continued to be one long afterwards. What did he have to gain by lying? How could the killers have been sure that Meyer's body would be taken to that one specific coroner? It's just not credible that they could cover up a poisoning with such a blatent and obvious set of symptoms from the victim.

SteveBaker (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Especially when you consider the fact that the hearsay about Meyer's last words was entered in the Coroner's report, so in the consiracists' ever more complex picture, the Coroner becomes both a key player in the plot and the chief whistle-blower. Of course, even if Meyer said that, it really proves nothing. Do you know what it feels like to be fatally poisened or die from an aneurysm? Neither do I. Until you've experienced both, it's unlikely you'd immediately be able to tell the difference.Prebys (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't know these claimed last words were in the coroner's report! I agree - that pretty much proves that the coroner was not suppressing any murder. Wow! Well, then I think that pretty much wraps up any lingering doubt. The consequences of an aneurism (literally a major artery that ruptures causing massive internal bleeding and almost instant death) would be impossible to fake with a poison - so if we have know that the coroner wasn't hiding anything then we know for sure that Meyers wasn't murdered.

QED

Where did you find the text of the coroner's report? I'd like to read it if possible.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a highlighted excerpt from the report in this article from the Columbus Dispatch (which I assume is reasonably credible?).Prebys (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Truth

Stanley Meyer was on to something. Even though he was not a qualified scientist and did not understand fully what he was achieving, his inventions were evolving. Who knows what would be achieved to this day if he were still alive. There are some very smart people out there that are using their influence in the wrong way. Like the smartest of lawyers they can manipulate the truth and confuse you. Take the case of Robert Lazar. Who are we to believe? No one has ever seen God. But lots of people believe there is one. From a young age this mindset has been etched into our brain. But is it true..... Humanity is flawed with opposing views, right or wrong. If only we could have the absolute right view and agree on everything. Luckily for Meyer, his theories went public and now hundreds of people around the world are continuing his research. It has been proven that his 'electrolyzer' fuel cell does produce molecular gases different than that of the standard science lesson electrolysis experiment of two electrodes in a slightly alkaline water solution producing oxygen from one electrode and hydrogen from the other. Stanley Meyer's discovery has allowed that one day a small device like some sort of fuel injector may be invented that inputs in pure water and converts it to a hybrid hydrogen/oxygen gas and outputs it into a conventional engine, continuing Stanley's theory that you can run a car on water. Thats all he wanted to prove. He nearly got there. Free fuel!...... now what government would want that unless they can make money from it..... and they will..... one day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.137.77 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but Wikipedia has enough problems without such obvious trolling.Prebys (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You might make a decent philosopher but you're weak in the area of science. Meyer's cell produces exactly the same gases as a high school electrolysis experiment, if it's filled with water. If an electrolyte like salt or baking soda is added, then sure, you get different gases: Now instead of hydrogen and oxygen, you have hydrogen, oxygen, and some useless, hazardous byproducts like lye. The rest of what you're saying is wishful thinking. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

More likely, Stanley Meyer was on to something. But that doesn't help edit the article, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You are the type of negative people that halt the world from advancement. Instead of trying to help people you put them down. At least they are trying. A little encouragement goes a long way. In reference to the fuel cell, there should be scientific data of the gases it produces and volume. There should be a reference between the difference between Stanley Meyer's Fuel Cell and an electrolysis cell. This is what wiki is about. It is an object that has different components to a standard electrolysis cell. This should all be explained. Also examples should be given of people who are using his fuel cell in their cars. There are a number of variations of his fuel cell that are on the market around the world and they work. He should be acknowledged for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.140.65 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is happy to accept factual statements supported by reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(sarcastically) Is that why we such reliable sources for oh so ever "factuallity" that this "invention" (to which we have trouble properly defining) is IN FACT a violation of thermal dynamics laws. Indeed... Bravo... (sarcastically) Thank goodness we only accept factual statments supported by Reliable sources --CyclePat (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The components are explained. In a standard chemistry electrolysis experiment the oxygen and hydrogen are obtained in separate columns. In Stanley Meyer's Fuel cell they are produced in the same column. Whether or not the gases in Stanley Meyer's fuel cell are different, this should be scientifically proven and references cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.140.65 (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the reference of "allowing the device to run as a perpetual motion machine and thereby violating the first law of thermodynamics" should be removed because this device is designed as an add on to the ICE engine to run as a hybrid in conjunction with currently available fuels. Has the perpetural motion statement been quoted from Stanley Meyer? Or is it something other people have interpreted? Also when you search for Stanley Meyer, a bio should come up of himself. Not the Water Fuel Cell. The water fuel cell should be a separate keyword. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.140.65 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to hand it to you, at least you didn't use the tired Wright Brothers comparison I've seen a dozen times already.

It's difficult to obtain scientific data on Meyer's device, because he's been dead for a decade and as far as we know his prototypes have been destroyed. Any attempt by us to reproduce his device would be original research, which is a wiki-no-no, so no, this is not "what Wiki is all about". And I haven't seen any objective, verifiable tests from anybody who has reproduced his device. Just vague claims.

As for variations of his fuel cell working, that depends on how you define "work". If by "work", you mean producing hydrogen, then of course they work. If by "work", you mean they deliver on their promises of improved gas mileage, then no.

When people assert that they've found a miracle gas saver, I make one simple request of them: measure your fuel consumption in the most reliable way possible - with your odometer and the meter on the gas station's pump. Oddly enough, they never get back to me. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this for proof of Stan Meyers water cell working http://youtube.com/user/H2earth I am in the process of creating a water cell. I will be using some of Stan's work for it. I know a person that had a car running on "Browns Gas", HHO, whatever you want to call it. I know it is possible because I have seen it, if you haven't then look harder. It really isn't too hard to find proof. Why are you so against this?..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbsclassics (talk • contribs) 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your idea of "proof" is pretty weak! What we have in that video is a shot of a cylinder of some sort of liquid with bubbles rising through it. Then a slow pan across three instruments showing some kinds of readings then more shots of tangles of cables and some electrical components. What does this prove?

We're not told what the instruments are connected to, the video is far too blurry to see what range settings they are on. We don't know whether it's measuring the input or some kind of output. Even if I'm prepared to believe that this is an electrolysis cell and that the instruments are measuring the voltage, current and waveform that's driving it, all that this shows is that when you pass electricity through water you get hydrogen and oxygen coming out which is a fact that's been extremely well-known to science for about 150 years. The video in no way answers the key question which is whether you get ENOUGH of hydrogen out to power some kind of electrical generator that would produce enough power to recoup the energy it took to produce that hydrolysis in the first place. That video wouldn't even be evidence if we took it completely at face value (which I certainly wouldn't). SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You think a YouTube video proves something? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh wow! And I thought "I saw it on TV so it must be real" was stupid. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration panel ruling over Pseudoscience and published theories.

I thought I should copy over from WP:Fringe theories the following information from the Arbitration panel:

• Appropriate sources Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

...which means that the theories of Stanley Meyer may not be represented as scientific theories in Wikipedia until they have been published in reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals - which they clearly have not. Supporters of Meyer's theories and believers in this fringe theory should therefore desist from continuing to add information that could be construed as indicating that Meyer's ideas are valid scientific theories.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You raise a perfectly valid point. I agree. Thank you. There is of course a level of subjectivity when evaluating what may be construed as "indicating that Meyer's ideas are valid scientific theories". If, for example, the New York Times has an article which states that Dr. So & So believes this device could work, then personally, of course only if we meet all the other wikipedia criteria such as having a properly balanced WP:NPOV article, properly referenced and cited, I would like to see the inclusion of that information. --CyclePat (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations

(Moved this section to the bottom of the page: Please add all new sections at the bottom.)

The very first citation of sources indicating that Stan Meyer had been found guilty of fraud in court does not point to a first-hand source; it points to a group discussion on Google where an article from a British newspaper is cited, The TimesOnline. If this was an actual court case--and I assume it is--shouldn't we be able to cite the abstract of the case in an American court archive instead? Surely someone out there can do better than this (not me; I haven't got the time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.9.4.11 (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. I asked this same question several months ago and got nothing. I made a stab at finding the court records, but it happened before these records were routinely stored on line. I'm considering writing to the district court (Franklin County, OH, IIRC) for a pet project I'm working on and will post whatever I find out.Prebys (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did some searching today and came up with nothing. Even the Times article is not online - they have only provided online archives up to 1985. SteveBaker (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I also did some resaerch earlier this year. Came up blank except what 3rd party websites have to offer. The best bet would be info straight from the Court of record.I55ere (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I too would be interested in a transcript of the trial. If all else fails, is anyone interested in getting together to order an official transcript "on behalf of Wikipedia". I'dd be willing to chip in 20$ to see an official transcript. Maybe we could even put forward a proposal to Wikimedia to sponsor a good part of the transcript. Whowever receives the original, would need to scan the documents, including all receipts and the courts official signatures and seals... The document could even be "republished" to wikisource or (have the scanned pages on Wikimedia) under GFDL, because the transcriber and his or her work would have been for hire so he or she could write the document for Wikimedia. --CyclePat (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

...by far one of the worst articles written.

(Discussion moved from top of page) SteveBaker (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is by far one of the worst articles written. Whoever is mongering this article from improving is simply narrow-minded.

We greatly value any input you might have that would improve the article - but there are certain norms of behavior that we require in order to keep this web site functioning smoothly:

1. Please sign your remarks on discussion/talk pages with "~~~~" so we know who wrote what.
2. Please add your comments at the BOTTOM of the page.
3. You're going to have to be more specific about what you think is wrong with the article if you want us to fix it.
4. You can fix it yourself (this IS Wikipedia after all).
5. BUT...whatever is changed must be in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Which probably means that you should read WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTE and WP:REF.
6. Oh - and if you go around calling fellow editors "narrow-minded" you are going to need to brush up on the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA guidelines too.

Before you start changing the article into a massively anti-mainstream-science diatribe about how Stanley Meyer was a great American hero/inventor who was murdered by the oil barons and never got credit for saving the world by inventing a water fuelled car that was suppressed by Detroit car makers/the US government/Big Oil/Arab terrorists. We've heard these stories before and they simply don't stand up to the cold light of verifiable fact checking.

The demonstrqable truth (substantiated with actual references in the article) is that Stanley Meyer was a convicted fraud. He faked his demonstrations in order to get money from gullible investors. His car not only didn't work but couldn't possibly have ever worked. Far from being suppressed, his ideas were widely reported - if suppression was the goal of 'Big Oil' then they did a pretty pathetic job of it. There was an autopsy to determine the cause of his death - and there was no sign of foul play.

13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It would violate the second law of thermodynamics not the first.

The first law deals with variation of the internal energy (heating or cooling),i.e. DU=Q-W, it is the second that says that it's impossible to transform energy entirely in work let alone to get more work than the used energy.

That's for the article to make sense in this particular statement. But what Stanley Meyer did (or didn't) through resonance does not necessarily violates the second law either because he could be using some unknown kind of energy. For example, without considering the nuclear energy, one could say that nuclear reactors would violate the second law too.Prof.Maque (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the process violates both the first and second laws. Because it involves ordinary burning of hydrogen, the cycle begins and ends with water (i.e. in the same state, DU=0) while extracting energy (W>0), thus violating the first law. On the other hand, we have an electrolysis cycle and a burning cycle ultimately decreasing entropy, violating the second law.Prebys (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that both laws are violated - but it seems to me that the first is the more significant. Our page on the first law states this definition:

The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.

Which (as Prof.Maque correctly says) is: dU=Q-W.

The car (if it worked) would show no change to the internal energy of the "system" (here defined as the car, it's fuel and it's exhaust) - so dU is (at best) zero. No external energy is added to heat the system, so Q==0. Hence the total amount of work done must be zero (W==0). So the car can't move. What actually happens is that the battery that drives the electrolyser runs down and the motor doesn't have enough spare power to recharge it - so in truth, dU is negative and Q is zero - so W is greater than zero - the car drives along until the battery goes dead - then dU is back to zero and the car stops.

Saying that the first law would be violated if the car worked is enough for an article like this where we really don't have to go into that level of detail. If we're being absolute sticklers for the very last dregs of truth then we could say that both first and second laws are being violated...but IMHO, it's terribly wrong to say that the second law is the only thing that's being broken. SteveBaker (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Anyway, I think that maybe there is a chance that, through resonance, he discovered a less consuming energy process for electrolysis of water. I mean, many people maybe are not even trying to replicate his electrolysis because of the laws of thermodynamics and it could be a new form of energy for which there is no theory about yet. Prof.Maque (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does 'resonance' mean in this context? A common pattern for discussions any kind of scam is to introduce a new buzz word, that generally accepted science doesn't use in that context to confuse people with only a passing knowledge of the science involved. Lets face it, you can't take a high school science project, add a buzz word, and create a new form of energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.164.127 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of the water-fuelled-car 'apologists' have claimed that whilst the water fuel cell doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics, that somehow a much more efficient water hydrolysis unit had been discovered. This is kinda plausible - using different voltages, frequencies, waveforms..."resonance"...magic - maybe you can improve the efficiency of hydrolysis far beyond the knowledge of current hydrolysis experts. Maybe..just maybe...that's true.

But (and it's a huge BUT) the laws of thermodynamics show that you can never get more energy out than you put in. So the energy in the hydrogen that you get out of the process will ALWAYS be less than the energy you put in as electricity...ALWAYS. So taking electricity, using that to make hydrogen and burning the hydrogen to drive an engine that turns an alternator to recharge the battery will definitely result in a machine in which the battery discharges - albeit slowly if your magical "resonance" thing works. Certainly there won't be any energy left over to drive the car along the road!

In reality the internal combustion engine is vastly less than 100% efficient - so it hardly matters how efficient the the hydrolysis unit is - it's got to be WAY more than 100% efficient just to keep the engine running. So - what you have (even with "resonance" and some kind of quasi-magical 99.999%-efficient electrolysis) is a car that's basically powered by electricity from the battery. If that's your goal - then just make an electric car. But cutting out the horribly inefficient internal combustion engine, the horribly inefficient generator, the battery that wastes energy as heat as it charges AND the somewhat inefficient hydrolysis unit - you get a vastly superior result.

So, NO!!! It doesn't matter a damn whether Meyer was some kind of a genius with an amazing near-unity hydrolysis technology - he was still a liar and a cheat with his investors and the general public. The only way he can have done what he claimed would be to have shattered the whole of physics and chemistry and invented a perpetual motion machine that broke at least two of the laws of thermodynamics...and we know that didn't happen.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm constantly amazed at how much effort people will go to to explain a "result" for which there's never been any evidence in the first place. If someone claims to rewrite the laws of physics (as Meyer did), the burden of proof is 100% on them, and that requires a lot more than a YouTube video. Meyer never allowed independent verification of his claims or offered one shred of evidence. Add to that the fact that his claims were found to be fraudulent in court, and life is too short to spend a moment of time pondering any explanation but the obvious one: that Meyer was a liar and a conman.Prebys (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the intro to read that it violates both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, although frankly once the first law has been violated, it's not clear the second has any meaning anyway.Prebys (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither law need be considered violated if the source of energy for electrolysis was derived from "vacuum energy" or "zero point energy" (different names for the same thing) since they do not represent extraction from a thermal resevior. Unfortunately at this point it is nearly impossible to assess that possibility; additionally the blanket use of this explanation by those claiming designs of over-unity type devises rather cheapens genuine efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.212.99 (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If either vacuum or zero point energy were real energy sources AND if Stanley Meyer had been claiming to use them - then you might just maybe be right. But in truth, neither of those supposed energy sources are actually real - and in any case Meyer didn't claim that. He said very clearly that the power for driving his miracle electrolyser came from a perfectly normal car battery. If he'd cracked some mysterious free energy source - why the heck would he have have bothered fritzing around with electrolysis, hydrogen and internal combustion? If you can make vacuum energy work then you use it to power an electric motor - period. No, Meyers' claim was that his electrolysis process produced more energy in the form of hydrogen than it consumed - and that's a violation of thermodynamics however you slice it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'll bet Tom Bearden would invoke ZPE to explain Meyer's Fuel Cell (not to mention the Aharonov-Bohm Effect, Parity Violation, quaternions, and curved space-time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prebys (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quaternions...Hehehehe!

1. (x,y,z,w)
2. ?
3. Free energy
4. PROFIT!

(See Also: Underpants Gnomes) SteveBaker (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

RM unreferenced claims challenged per Wikipedia's Guidelines and Policies

These claims are contested and challenged. They require referencing. Per WP:OR,

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material. Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research;"

Per WP:VER, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." An inline citation follows the guidelines of WP:CITE, which also states "The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue." and then elaborated how to maintain a reference section (which could be built using http://www.easybib.com). The following claims have been removed per the aforementioned challenge: --FR Soliloquy (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Challenge #1

--02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (Difference/Change) : Material Removed : "Meyer's device consists of stainless steel plates arranged as a capacitor, with pure water acting as the dielectric. A rising staircase of direct current pulses is sent through the plates at roughly 42 kHz, which is claimed to play a role in the water molecules breaking apart with less directly applied energy than is required by standard electrolysis." Reason: Lacking proper inline reference Solution: Please provide proper referenc per WP:CITE.

There is full detail in the patents, including a reproduction of the actual circuit diagram as written by Meyers. The patents are linked in the References section. The logical conclusion of what you want is that nearly every sentence in the article is a ref to several/all of the patents, which is not reasonable. As WP:CITE, which is a guideline not policy, says: "the examples are suggestions only. Each case must be dealt with on its merits." The WP:VER policy says (talking about the requirement for inline citations): "Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable when they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions," DMacks (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I will nowsoon (after revising the rest of the article) revert you edit per WP:OR it is your responsibility to please provide proper referencing which follow WP:CITE guidelines amd indicate the exact page numbers. --FR Soliloquy (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Challenge #2

--02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (Difference/Change) Material challenged/removed : ": there is no evidence that any of these devices operate as claimed." Reason: RM POV which is unsourced. Original reasearch of Wikipedia article Water-fuelled car that all the devices, and that includes future ones, do not work. Solution: Please provide reliable reference.

Long commentary in references.

I have removed the following from the <ref> tag on the Action 6 news reference. Discussion of whether this is or is not a valid reference does not belong inside the article. We should discuss this here and either cleanly allow or cleanly disallow (and remove) the reference in the article:

(Note: 4.5 Mb Windows Media Video File. Direct link: <http://befreetech.com/media/stan_meyers_bb.wmv>)

Annotation: This is a NEWS broadcast video which consists of coverage of Stan Meyer's invention on "Action 6 News". The stations call letters are based on the fact that "Tom Ryan" is listed within the Wikipedia article WSYX. The reliability and verifiability of the original source should still however be checked. The name of the republisher was found via a WHOIS search at WHOIS.net. Accordingly, the website's last update was found via a GoDaddy.com's WHOIS search. befreetech.com appears to be a commercial website which, in this case, may not meet wikipedia's standards for reliable information. This website is not "authoratative".

(Actually, that entire reference is a total mess. We need to get it into a clean 'cite' format - but I can't even find the video it's referring to. I'm inclined to delete the whole thing - except that it seems like a reasonably important reference.)

SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I'm going to highlight the things I want to keep (that means I agree with some changes). I was actually thinking the same thing. That we should perhaps delete the entire reference... but again, it is quite important. Which is why, I put so much time into adding an annotation which follows the format of an annotated bibliography. Given the fact that Wikipedia's guidelines recommend that we provide "If you don't know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly." (WP:CITE) we should do just that. In fact, you may or may not have noticed that :

(Note: 4.5 Mb Windows Media Video File. Direct link: <http://befreetech.com/media/stan_meyers_bb.wmv>)

Annotation: This is a NEWS broadcast video which consists of coverage of Stan Meyer's invention on "Action 6 News". The stations call letters are based on the fact that "Tom Ryan" is listed within the Wikipedia article WSYX.

Says where we got the video. In fact the url directly links to the video. (See policy WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT regarding this)

When I indicated "The reliability and verifiability of the original source should still however be checked." I was refering to the WSYX code... because currently there is no real reference that indicates that Mr. Tom Ryan worked for that call sign. What we have is a synthesis or WP:OR (which I did with common sense). It goes like this...

Tom Ryan makes news reports for Action 6 News (According to the Wikipedia article)(not referenced by the way), This chanel is WSYX (according to wikipedia

Tom Ryan is in a news report from Action 6 News

Conclusion: This report is most likely from chanel WSYX

This Original research needs to be clearly explained so that anyone seaching this information understands that there is a possibility of a falicity within our logic... and that perhaps Tom Ryan made this News report for Action 6 News under another Chanel?

Also, we need to explain how we obtained the website's last update, which was found via a GoDaddy.com's WHOIS search. This is important because this information is not listed on the website itself and requires a seperate reference. (A reference within a reference) --FR Soliloquy (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing though - the long explanation about how we decide whether the reference meets Wikipedia standards or not does not belong in the article. Either it meets guidelines or it doesn't. If it doesn't - delete it. If it does then we don't need to explain why - that stuff stays in the Talk: page. We need to replace it with a simple {{cite media...}} entry with as many of the fields filled out as possible. SteveBaker (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Meyer's Video On You Tube...Judge For Yourself!

[3]

I found this very interesting video of Stanley Meyer on You Tube. This is part1 of a two part series on his invention and eventual demise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watergasoline (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's is an AMAZINGLY bad piece of journalism! "It's easy enough to get hydrogen out of water - but this is TAP WATER!"...Hehehe...actually, pure water doesn't electrolyse at all well - it needs exactly the kinds of impurities that tap water contains if you want to hydrolyse it. "Water is the worlds most abundant source of hydrogen - a fuel that's more powerful than oil.". I'd like to go on record as saying that "CO₂ is the worlds most abundant source of diamonds". That's EXACTLY as true - and exactly as bloody stupid. Thanks for posting that - I needed a good laugh! SteveBaker (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure clown but making diamonds does costs a lot of energy. Gdewilde (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite. So does making hydrogen from water. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Gdewilde rebuttal makes my point most eloquently! SteveBaker (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2 guys who poisoned Stanley Meyer came from Belgium. Gdewilde (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? Noah Seidman (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

He was one of them? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gdewilde - you have to understand that there is no point whatever in you tossing in these random statements without at least SOME kind of evidence. We can't say this in the article without proof. On the face of it, we'd have to ask how the heck two guys from Belgium would get involved in some bizarre energy suppression thing. Belgium isn't an energy producer why would Belgians want to kill some American nut job when the courts had already done an excellent job of stopping him in his tracks by convicting him of fraud.

The claims I've seen have all said it was Arabs...that at least is fractionally believable because they might just maybe have a motive. But even then - Meyer was subjected to an autopsy - which proved conclusively that he died of an aortic aneurism (my father died from that exact thing BTW). That's a very easy condition to diagnose in an autopsy because a major artery ruptures and the internal bleeding is vast and sudden. Hence there is really no possibility that the guy who did the autopsy could have made a mistake - a belly full of blood is hard to misdiagnose and it's not something that a drug could cause without vast and very noticable side-effects. The way Meyers is described to have died is eerily similar to the way my father went...it pretty much had to have been an aneurism. If there is anything to this nonsense about Meyers being murdered then that guy who did the autopsy had to have been involved. He's a guy who had been doing that job in an established, respectable position for many years before - and has been for many years after. What made him side with these Arabic/Belgian murderers? It's really not a very credible story - in fact, it's totally laugable - this is utterly typical of all of the other posts you've made to every other fringe energy topic you post to...there are random accusations and claims and ZERO evidence. It's quite pointless. SteveBaker (talk)

RM Unreferenced claims

I have removed the following unreferenced claim. Reason: We are missing the proper format for WP:CITE and the referenced patents are not specifically mentioned, let alone properly formated to include the correct page number. material removed:

• Meyer named his device the "water fuel cell" but it is not a true fuel cell; it should correctly be termed an "electrolytic cell", as it is claimed to produce hydrogen from water and not the other way around.

I reverted your change that referenced the European patent office document. The Euro patent office didn't choose the title of the patent - Meyers did that himself. Once again: Patents ONLY tell you that the author of the patent claimed something - they do not in ANY way imply that some government agency agrees with them. So all the title of this patent shows is what we already know - that Meyers called it a fuel cell. It DOES NOT show that the European patent office agreed with him.

Yes! The title of the patent is Meyer's creation. I also agree regarding the peer-review issues of patents being published by the government. (However, it is still a perfectly viable source and should not be ignored.) No. The title of the patent does not mention the term "water fuel cell:. --CyclePat (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your desire for an alternative reference here. But let's consider carefully what we're doing in this section. Meyers named his device "The Water Fuel Cell" - but the scientific and common meaning of the term "Fuel Cell" is something quite utterly different from what Meyers claimed. Even if we believe everything Meyers claimed about his device - it is still true that he mis-named it. This section of the article is there to explain that confusion so that any reader seeking information about "fuel cells" or about "electrolytic cells" doesn't get mixed up about which is which.

Actually, there is no evidence or references that currently prove that Meyers named his device "Water Fuel Cell". The only information I'm certain about is that "The 961 Patent descibes the use of a "water fuel cell assembly"". The 961 patent is titled "Method for the product of a fuel gas"". It appears as though, we're going at this all the wrong way... whereas this article should be, and appears to be heading in the direction of a biography, it appears as though you wish to maintain as strong POV for some device which is claimed TTo within 1 of Meyers' 33 various different patents. The reason I say POV, is because, again, it's lacking references... (Please read WP:SUBSTANTIATE). Unless a better, well referenced description is provided for this device, currently, I see this as also leaning towards a type of Original Research. Also, to date, I haven't seen any verifiable information that indicates Meyer's missed named his device. Maybe it the rest of the world that miss-named the term fuel cell? Maybe the rest of the world stold the name from Meyers? Again, please substantiate with a good reference your statement that he "miss-spelt" it.

I also ask you to please explore what is the definition of this device. Perhaps you could help contribute a good, referenced description. (Don't worry about properly formating all the references right away, we'll work on that together!) ANyways, I just wanted to say tht it appears as though the article is currently promoting, again, a WP:POV... that this device is mis-named. If this is such a prominent POV, then we should be able to include it. All I ask is that we have a reference. If this is impossible, I'm willing I think some etymological section for the term "fuel cell" may also work... and there we could go into details on what a modern day fuel cell is (per the Webster dictionary, etc...). Again, we can't go right out and say "IT's not a Fuel Cell"... that is a type of Original Research and I shall point out the obvious WP:PSTS. (The reason I haven't removed the information, is because I think it's important to have it. I trust you, and believe you when you say it's not a real fuel cell. It's just, how can we word this? It would be best if we could somehow avoid WP:OR, provide proper references, and most importantly letting the reader decide for themself.) --CyclePat (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That being our goal, the facts we need to establish are:

1. What is the definition of the term "fuel cell"? (For which a dictionary is about the only reference I could imagine)
2. Does the Meyers device meet that definition? (That is self-evident from our prior statements that are referenced to what Meyers claimed in patents and elsewhere).

I partially agree with point 1. Yes! We should establish a definition for fuel cell... but I don't agree that the dictionary is the only reference... Meyer patent claims should be properly elaborated prior to doing this. Then we could ditch it out on how to letting the reader decide for themself.

I don't really agree with point 2. We lack proper references per WP:CITE. And I don't think "WE" should be doing a comparison. We should let the readers decide and only state the facts. --CyclePat (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally - I'm not sure we need to reference the meaning of English words - but some people seem to think that's important. The definition of "fuel cell" is something like "a device to convert fuel into electricity without combustion taking place" - Meyers himself never claimed his device did that - he claimed to use electricity to convert water into fuel (which would later be burned by some other means - such as an internal combustion engine)...that's the exact opposite of a fuel cell. None the less, he called his device a fuel cell - but I presume that is because he did not have any kind of scientific training and therefore did not understand the meaning of the term. However, it's very important that we tell our readers that the term "fuel cell" does not take on it's common meaning when Meyers uses it to refer to his electrolysis device - and for that we need to define the true meaning of the term and explain that Meyers made a minor mistake by misnaming his device.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Assumption can sometimes be wrong. We need strong facts. I think, we need to show the dates of when Meyers created the claims for his patent... and then we need to show the dates for when the defintion of fuel cell was created. My hypothesis is that at the time in 1986, the term Fuel Cell did not have the same meaning. But again, References my friend.... We need references. --CyclePat (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You are making my head hurt. I don't know why you are taking this simple statement so hard! Look - we don't need to find a reference to say that the word "dog" refers to certain canine mammals. We don't have to have every single word that we wish to use tagged with a little number in square brackets. That's NOT what Wikipedia referencing is all about. Referencing is about proof of debatable facts. The term "fuel cell" has been around since it was invented in 1840 or so (see Fuel Cell) - it was a "fuel cell" that exploded on Apollo 13 in April 1970 - so for sure the term (and the object that the term referred to) was in common usage WAY before Meyers got into his hair-brained schemes for water-powered cars by the late 1970's.

"Fuel cell" has a perfectly well-defined meaning like "dog" or "cat"...you can look it up in most dictionaries these days. Now - if someone chooses to call their legless, hairless, cold-blooded, forked tongued, venomous pet a "Dog" do we REALLY need references to prove that they've somehow misnamed their pet snake? All we need is to show that the person really did use that term for that object - we don't need to find a peer reviewed scientific journal that says "Dogs have legs". Our article is FULL of references to Meyer's own writings about his "Water Fuel Cell"...heck, it's the title of the article for chrissakes!

The term "Fuel cell" is a relatively common English term that's been around for 170 years. What Meyers claimed to have invented is simply not one of those. He never said it converted fuel into electricity - he was very, very clear on that point. It used electricity to convert water into some kind of oxygen/hydrogen mixture...that's not a fuel cell...just as a "snake" isn't a "dog". The problem is that he (evidently) didn't know what a "Fuel Cell" was - probably because he never finished high school. Because his writings call the damned thing a "fuel cell" at every turn - and you admit that he calls it that in at least one of his patents - we are under an OBLIGATION to our readership to explain that he quite simply mis-used a common English word. We MUST do that in order to dispel the idea in our readers' mind that we're somehow talking about a fuel cell. That's all we need to do here. To do that, we don't need any more references than we already have because Wikipedia is quite happy to allow use to us basic English vocabulary in the normal manner without further explanation...let alone references. This is becoming a ridiculous debate - please end it here. SteveBaker (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, the early work was done in Germany, so it was probably "Brennstoffzelle" for a while, but certainly the English term "fuel cell" dates back almost that long :) Prebys (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Our Fuel cell article credits Schönbein (evidently German) with the invention in 1838 - but the reference that article gives for that fact actually points to a page that says that Sir William Grove demonstrated the first ever fuel cell in Paris 1839 and in London the year later...so 1840 is about right. Anyway - whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to over do this, but, if you are unfamiliar with fuel cells and water electrolysis it might be worth doing some research. Publicly hypothesizing about something already in the literature, such as the known historic development of fuel cells, just gives these jokers :) a chance to rib you while they make an important point. You want very basic things cited. Once you have done the research you could then provide what you find to be a valid reference (perhaps an introductory general chemistry text) if you still feel citation is necessary.--OMCV (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Term water fuel cell

I understand line citation is expected in legal work however in science people are expected to be able to search documents themselves (especially now that documents can be electronically searched). This is important because even though the contentious section cites a patent (legal document) its interest is only in identifying the first use of the term "water fuel cell". The term "water fuel cell" would be associated with Stanley Mayer for the rest of his life. This term did not remain only a legal term. It was heavily used by Mayer's when dealing with the popular media and likely in his other business activities. The term ascribes a device which performs a physical phenomenon which puts the term under the jurisdiction of science even if Mayer never had any science training or contributions to the scientific community. The next time you want line citations for a patent just state it here and I'll find them. I'm not sure I'll use the right format but you said you would help with that.--OMCV (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question in the edit details: Meyers description of water fuel cell ... This is vague because we do not have a description. (Or we didn't at the time... I think I may have just added one... but it's not sufficient enough for a comparative analysis. And again... we should not be comparing. We must only demonstrate what a fuel cell is and what Meyer claims his fuel cell is, otherwise (see above debate regarding WP:OR, [[[WP:SUBSTANTIATE]], and let the facts speak for themself). Now for the term "Water fuel cell". You may notice that Pat 961 only uses it once. I think we are pushing a POV. Unless you can find some other sources, I'm actually quite reluctant to put this in. You've indicated though, that Meyer has used the term with the popular media. Hence, it shouldn't be so hard to find some sources right? I think, in this case, since we are talking about the etymology of a word, it would be quite appropriate to use reputable media sources. p.s.:: Sorry about the line cites. I agree, next time I will ask it here on the talk page. Of comfort, you may notice that I have tried doing the line cites. I only found 1 occurrence of the the term Water fuel cell? Maybe you could point out the second occurrence? --CyclePat (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about one bad edit earlier but its a cluster to edit with a lot of repeating words. In any case I added a sentence that highlights the difference between the legal and popular use. This is supported by youtube clips which should be fine for citing popular use. Just for the future edits, my search of the patent found "fuel cell" used on 6 pages (usually multiple times on each page). The term "water fuel cell" was used 2 times by what I found. I added the line citation for the missing water fuel cell reference. I took out one sentence because it seemed slightly off topic. In any case the passage is now painfully technical (in terms of law and science) when it could be succinct (if only we could stipulate a few things) but it still works for me.--OMCV (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(Bad word). I think I inadvertently revert some important changes you did regarding the second occurrence of the term. Sorry. I need a brake, would you be so kind to consider putting them back in for me. I'm sorry about that again. --CyclePat (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep : Problem solved. --CyclePat (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of the misuse of the term "fuel cell" in the article has gone way past the "noteworthy" point. It's worth noting in passing and then moving on. The convoluted discussion about nomenclature detracts from the much more important point that - regardless of what you call the device - there is precisely zero evidence it ever worked.Prebys (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I was feeling the same thing. But, I was wondering when someone would bring up the issue of WP:CFORK from the main article fuel cell..., I mean WP:Notability (What? Oh! You meant notability! Anyways) We obviously have some sort of POV to promote here regarding Meyers fuel cell... which frankly is a noteworthy part of his life. What ever he called the device, it's name should be properly clarified. As for the misuse of the term "fuel cell"... who says the term was misused. We still don't have any reliable source that states this. We can only have a comparative analysis which allows for people to decide for themself. Currently, I think we're getting closer to this but I don't quite see it in the article. You may have inferred this through the facts though... and that essentially our article and our use of the term "Water fuel cell" is perhaps ill founded because Meyer never really used the term that much (in his pater 961 anyways, and probably all his legal works)... but anyways. As for your important claim that the device was never tested, or "zero evidence it ever worked". Perhaps we could try finding a references. If I had access to the court documents that's where I would start. I would accept a citation from the court transcript or some other reliable source. --CyclePat (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. The question you are asking is... do we really want to go into details about the definition of a fuel cell so readers can decide for themself? No matter the case, the sentence which describes this issue is currently a type of WP:SYN which needs to be removed. Either we removed it now, or we removed it later after we've defined the "common meaning" of a fuel cell. Doesn't matter... it needs to be removed per WP:OR. --CyclePat (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the whole discussion of the definition dates back to an old thread (probably now archived), where supporters were trying to introduce all sorts of completely unrelated "fuel cells" as evidence of the plausibility of Meyer's claims. It's still probably worth mentioning that this device is completely unrelated the standard use of the term, but not worth belaboring the point. The term "water capacitor" in the description of the device caused similar confusion (water capacitors are simply ordinary capacitors that use low conductivity water as a dielectric).Prebys (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

CyclePat you seem to be very familiar with the law but not very familiar with patents or science.

I'm not in patent law but I know a few people who are. Scientifically speaking a patent shows nothing more than someone paid for a patent. A patent applicant is there own lexicographer and can define words as they like as long as they don't violate existing definitions. Obviously this is an example where that statute should have been applied but wasn't. A reason for this would be is a patent agents primary concern is to identify the petitioners legal right to the claims. There are statutes to exclude fictions but they are much weaker than excluding a patent on preexisting art. As a result it is sometimes easier, due to legal loop holes, to allow a patent for product that will never be built. The water fuel cell is an example of a product that will never be built. Most people outside the sciences/law intersection don't understand this. Yet for these reasons patents are not considered scientific evidence of physical phenomenon. As for looking to the courts for legal decision of science that's ridiculous. They would only be concerned once money or physical harm was involved. Finally patent must be "...enabled for someone of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce..." That means patent aren't written for the lay person. Things common to "art"s like western blots and fuel cells need not be defined even if the lay person lacks an understanding of them. CyclePat I expect you would not contend that you are a lay person concerning the subject of fuel cells. If you are lay person then you (and the wikipedia audience in general) are unqualified to interpenetrate the claims in patents related to fuel cells or even to determine if the provided interpretation is original research or simple stating the obvious. Interpreting patents is for those of "ordinary skill" or in other words the realm of a specific science. A good legal system knows when to differ to the experts. Wikipedia has provisions for this, WP:FRINGE clearly lays out that the mainstream scientific view is to be regarded as the neutral position. So when those trained in the field agree a patent is gibberish and assert a concise explanation is best it would be worth listening.--OMCV (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank very much OMCV. I'm having trouble understanding your comments. I can't tell if you're trying to comment on Wikipedia in general or on "my skills". Nevertheless, you may wish to look at WP:CIV#Engaging in incivility which states "Comment on the actions and not the editor." Anyways, no problem because I can tell you have good intentions in trying to debate something. I think I now understand what you're trying to do... You want to support that one sentence which nicelly summarizes the POV that Meyer's Fuel cell was not a conventional fuel cell. Right? It's a good attempt. Because you have me wondering about key-point #2. Nevertheless, please consider this: Whereas you state:

1. "the Wikipedia audience in general) are unqualified to interpenetrate[SIC] the claims in patents related to fuel cells or even to determine if the provided interpretation is original research or simple stating the obvious." (To which I agree. Our job is to report that facts as they are per WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V, etc.)
2. "Interpreting patents is for those of "ordinary skill" or in other words the realm of a specific science." (I reserve my agreement. That's because, I'm not sure what expertise is required to properly interpret a patent. What skills are required to work at the filling office? What criteria are needed to pass the patent application process?" Also, a note of warning, Wikipedia's editors may not "interpret" fact per WP:SYN (with the WP:PSTS exception). Even if this fact is, what you and I (We) believe to be the "mainstream scientific" POV we still require a reference. Per WP:NOR, and even that WP:FRINGE guideline, we still need verifiable information which is well cited. Who is trained in the field? Who agrees a patent is gibberish? Who asserts a concise explanation? Sure I'm listening! Do we have any references or not? --CyclePat (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Look we don't need to make a huge deal out of this. All I'm asking for is ONE line in the article that says "even though Meyers called it a 'fuel cell' - that's not what it is". That's a very small thing to ask - but it's critically important because we absolutely do not want high school students who are tasked with writing about what a fuel cell is to start writing about the Meyer's device - and that's what'll happen if we don't fix this. To fail to specifically and simply state that "THIS IS NOT A FUEL CELL" would be a SERIOUS error of omission - and one that we absolutely cannot make.

It's utterly irrelevent what the patent does or does not call it. Google turns up over a quarter of a million hits for "water fuel cell Meyers"' and 1.9 million for just "fuel cell Meyers". Therefore, AFAICT, Meyers' and all of his followers call the damned thing either a 'water fuel cell' or a 'fuel cell' and they don't often bother with the 'water' qualifier - which is dangerously confusing. Hence the title of this article "Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell" is an attempt to clarify that it's only his name for it - not what it actually is. So EITHER we have the statement I want somewhere prominently in the article - OR if (as various editors are bizarrely insisting) the term "fuel cell" is not verifiably used as the name of the device then we have to figure out what the damned thing is REALLY called, rename the article and remove all references to the term from within the article and throughout Wikipedia. One way or the other - I don't particularly care which (but 1.9 million ghits say it should stay as it is) - but let's do it ASAP. SteveBaker (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi SteveBaker. Thank you very much for your reply. There are really two issues you raise (with quite a few dissagreements on my behalf). I'm glad to see we're all working to provide proper references. Nevertheless, I was forced to revert your most recent edit because it removed an important, well sourced element from the article.

In fact, your aformentioned statment "...Meyers'[SIC] and all of his followers call the... thing either a 'water fuel cell' or a 'fuel cell'..." even substantiates how important this POV really is. I agree with the google search, I think this could help resolve this issue. Could you please provide a link and reference for the search string? I disagree that WE at Wikipedia need to "figure out what the ... thing is really called...". We are only required to report the most prominent of WP:POV; in our case the term "fuel cell" and "water fuel cell". I trust you understand why I the term "fuel cell" (more often used in Meyer's legal work) and the term "water fuel cell" (more often used as the popular term) are virtually and important POVs. With its current inclusion, the version of the article reflects this debate and lets the reader try and decide for himself which term is most appropriate. If we fail to include the term "fuel cell" (per Meyer's Patent) I believe we are doing a disservice to readers as well as violating WP:NPOV. Also, at the current stage, because of this dilema, I don't see the merits for changing the current name of the article or removing references to the term. (Unless you wish to discuss the idea of a WP:CFORK to Meyer's biography or the the article Fuel cell).

As for the second issue, I too would like to have that statement, which is now dubed Original research, prominently displayed within the article. That's why it's been left in the article with a tag called "Originial research?". Have you considered my aformentioned recomendation regarding the inclusion of the proper definition of the term "fuel cell"? Unless there is some sort of reference to support the statement, it doesn't meet wikipedia's standards for inclusion. The original reseach I'm talking about is the following sentence: "What can be inferred from the description of Meyer's water fuel cell does not coincide with the general definition of a fuel cell." I still disagree with it's inclusion (per the aformentioned debate). Further to that debate I would like to add, "everything and anything could be compared and not coincide with the other thing." The most important part is to know which qualified or unqualified person came up with the inference. (Again, please see my previously posted solutions). I believe we should be taking care of this issue ASAP, however I fail to see how a "ghit" count will resolve this issue. The google search I believe is irelevant to this second issue; though I believe it can help the aformentioned first issue.

Lastly, I disagree with the statement that this patent's content "is utterly irrelevent". If it is, we have some serious problems considering it's currently our most prominently, most reliable "primary source" of information. I also have another issue which I wish like to discuss with you in private regarding your edit summary. --CyclePat (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

CyclePat maybe you should considering shifting you attention to the Fuel Cell page. As of yet they do not have a well cited definition and I bet they would appreciate your assistance. Personally I edit pages I know something about so I again ask you to educate yourself about this subject.--OMCV (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi OMCV. Thank you for your suggestion. I will read up on the fuel cell article... however this may not help the situation. Becoming an expert in the article "Fuel cell" will not help. That's because, prior to SteveBaker's comment I had mentioned something about WP:SYN but most importantly... WP:PSTS. It states, and I believe this is how we may resolve the second issue, "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." My problem, which no one has really addressed, is : Are we analysing and making an interpretive claim about the information or are we simply stating ("making descriptive claims")? I tend to believe the earlier one. --CyclePat (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So the rule you are citing doesn't take the full scope of this situation. The goal is to translate Meyer's use of words into common scientific language. Since Meyer's never left a dictionary for his lexicon this translation requires some interpretation (a word which has multiple definition) to make a descriptive claim in proper scientific language (and common usage as well). When I say interpretation the word has a different meaning than the one used in your rule. There are no ascribed meanings or synthesis in stating that "at no know point in Meyer's work did he ever use the term Fuel Cell correctly", this is stating main stream facts.--OMCV (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to SteveBaker's version, because it's just silly to waste so much space talking about this issue. If we go into this kind of detail every time there is some question about etymology, Wikipedia will quickly become ridiculous. If CyclePat feels more detail is need, please try to be reasonable about it.Prebys (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've revert your edit. Space is not a valid argument. I disagree. Wikipedia has ample amounts of space to talk about various important subjects. This is not a question of etymology as much as it is a question of properly providing equal Points of views for this article and defining the subject matter. I disagree. Wikipedia will not become ridiculous if we respect its principals, policies and guidelines. I also believe it's a little more civil to refer to me in the first person and not the third. I would like to finish with two quotes. The first is from David Hume who said "Nothing is more dangerous to reason than the flights of the imagination, and nothing has been the occasion of more mistakes among philosophers." As for being reasonable, I couldn’t say it better then Gertrude Stein who indicated... "The whole duty of man consists in being reasonable and just... I am reasonable because I know the difference between understanding and not understanding and I am just because I have no opinion about things I don’t understand."[4] or this one which may apply to all the referencing I'm still asking for... Wilbur Wright, who stated "...it was reasonable to suppose that man might also fly... We accordingly decided to write to the Smithsonian Institution and inquire for the best books relating to the subject.... Contrary to our previous impression, we found that men of the very highest standing in the profession of science and invention had attempted to solve the problem... But one by one, they had been compelled to confess themselves beaten, and had discontinued their efforts. In studying their failures we found many points of interest to us."[5]--CyclePat (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We are merely clarifying the use of a term in the English language - there is no fact being stated here beyond the meaning of a common English word in relation to the entire body of the article that's already telling us (with copious references) what the device does (or is claimed to do). What is being said here is akin to saying that this device (which we've already described in some detail) isn't a fish. Do I need to prove that it's not a fish? No - of course I don't. Do I have to find a reference to the "fact" that it's not a fish? No - it's really, really obvious and Wikipedia does not require references for the meaning of common English words. This is as true of the word "Fuel Cell" as it is of "Fish". The meaning of that term is "something that generates electricity from fuel without combustion" - and if anyone doesn't understand that meaning then they can click on the link and get to our article about fuel cells...that's why we have links. If the definition of every term required a reference then every link would require a reference too - and it doesn't. Even the late, great(?) Meyers himself never claimed that it made electricity from fuel - he always claimed (as our article clearly states - and references) that he was talking about a device that makes fuel from electricity..the complete opposite meaning to "fuel cell". He made a SIMPLE mistake - or maybe he did it to deliberately confuse - or maybe it was all a part of his scheme to defraud investors...I don't know - and for the purposes of this particular sentence of the article, I really don't care because we aren't going to speculate on why he got it wrong. We are writing an encyclopaedia - our use of the English language has to be precise. Either we need to stop calling it a "fuel cell" (and rename the article) or we need to explain why we're describing a "cat" using the word "fish"...we don't have to reference that, we aren't making up any new information in that sentence so WP:SYN doesn't apply - it's not a 'neutrality' issue because both pro-Meyer and anti-Meyer people can agree that the device was not intended to produce electricity from fuel - but rather the other way around...so NPOV doesn't have any bearing on it either. This is a simple sentence that is utterly non-controversial and merely clarifies an otherwise confusing point. SteveBaker (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we have two issues here and that this may become confusing if our debate continues in this manner. I have highlighted my concerns. I disagree Steve. I think the inclusion of the regular definition can and should be included within this article to resolve our original research issue/problem. The link is not sufficient and making a comparison is a violation of WP:SYN. I also disagree... not every term on Wikipedia requires a definition because not every term has the same issues as this article. Again, this is my proposal to get rid of the original research section. If you have a better idea, again "I'm listening!" I disagree... the name is "fuel cell" and that's that, per the aforementioned "ghits" someone mentioned and Meyer's own patent application. I agree, "we need to explain why we're describing a "cat" using the word "fish"..." I still think WP:SYN applies. In continuing with your example there is an grave error... "We" should not be describing a "cat" using the word "fish", but rather "We" should be stating "who" describes a "cat" using the word "fish". Then we should be describing who (I assume the Majority of the POV) describes a "cat" using the word "cat". NPOV does apply because "We" have really nothing to describe and must avoid a synthesis. As for the other issue, we must try to promote significant POVs. Promoting Meyer's description of the device is conforming to the terms; both "fuel cell" (in his 961 patent) and "water fuel cell" seems important. This is important to the article and I'm not changing my mind on this. The recent revert by Presby, actually removed that description, which is why I put it back. I ask you, how is it possible for an average educated person to conclude that a fuel cell is in fact different then Meyer's Water fuel cell? Do we not need to have a proper description? One last time... we should let the reader decide! --CyclePat (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We certainly can't leave it to the reader to decide. The reader came here in order to find some information - leaving him to decide is the exact opposite of why we're here.

Here (I think) is the heart of your problem: You said "we need to explain why we're describing a "cat" using the word "fish"..." - and that's categorically NOT what I want to do. I wish to simply say that "Meyers described his cat using the word fish". That's a big difference - and it's why all of your other complaints are irrelevent. Let's take this one point at a time - and tell me at which point you disagree with me:

1. Meyers and most of his followers mostly called the device a "fuel cell". Google hits show that - but we have plenty of references - but this archive of Meyer's own papers contains 20 original documents written by Meyer...by my count, 18 out of the 20 papers call the device a "Fuel Cell". There is absolutely no doubt whatever that this is the name Meyer's used for the device. That is why this article is named what it is named.ut
2. The definition of the common English term "Fuel cell" in Wiktionary is "An electrochemical device in which the intrinsic chemical free energy of fuel and oxidant is catalytically converted to direct current energy." (this is hard to deny - because you can go here and see. But Wiktionary is not alone - here are the definitions from over a dozen other online sources:

   • A device that converts the energy of a fuel directly to electricity and heat, without combustion. [6]
   • A technology that produces electricity through a chemical reaction similar to that found in a battery. [7]
   • An electrochemical engine (no moving parts) that converts the chemical energy of a fuel such as hydrogen, and an oxidant, such as oxygen, directly to electricity. ...[8]
   • A device similar to a battery in which fuels such as hydrogen gas or methane can be combined directly with oxygen to produce electricity and very little heat. (See battery and cell.) [9]
   • A device for generating electricity by the chemical combination a fuel and oxygen. [10]
   • a device that produces electricity through an electrochemical process, usually from hydrogen and oxygen. [http:hydrogen.pnl.gov/cocoon/morf/hydrogen/article/852]
   • A fuel cell operates like a battery. But unlike a battery, a fuel cell does not run down or require recharging. It will produce energy in the form of electricity and heat as long as fuel is supplied. A fuel cell consists of two electrodes sandwiched around an electrolyte. ...[11]
   • A device that produces electricity with high efficiency (little heat) by using a fuel and a chemical which reacts with it (an oxidizer) at two separate electrical terminals. An electric current is thereby produced. [12]
   • A type of battery, starting to be used in some vehicles in a bid to reduce emissions. Fuel cells produce electricity, heat and water by combining hydrogen and oxygen - no harmful emissions if the fuel source is hydrogen. Top [13]
   • An electrochemical cell in which the reactants are supplied on a continuing basis. [14]
   • In this device, electrons are removed from hydrogen atoms to form an electric current; the hydrogen ions combine with oxygen to form water. [15]
   • A device that converts the chemical energy of a fuel and an oxidant directly into electricity. The principal components of a fuel cell include electrodes catalytically activated for the fuel (anode) and the oxidant (cathode), and an electrolyte to conduct ions between two electrodes; thereby ...[16]
   • A catalyst that creates electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen into water. [17]
   • a device that generates electrical power by electrochemically combining hydrogen and oxygen gases to produce water and heat; the energy released is tapped by electrodes as electric current; this technology is considered "green" ie environment friendly [18]
   • A device that converts the energy of a fuel, (hydrogen, natural gas, methanol, gasoline, etc.) and an oxidant (air or oxygen) into useable electricity. [19]

   I think it's very safe to say that the English word refers clearly and cleanly to something that consumes chemical fuels of one kind or another and produces electricity. Not one source that I could find had any other definition or explanation UNLESS they were talking about Meyer's device.

3. Meyers claimed that his device consumed electricity and produced hydrogen/oxygen. He says this over and over again - but here (in his own words) is his description entitled "WATER FUEL CELL": "The Hydrogen Fracturing Process dissociates the water molecule by way of voltage stimulation". In [20] he says "The WFC Hydrogen Gas Management (GMS) System not only economically produces "Hydrogen - Fuel" on demand from water...". The article is again entitled 'Water Fuel Cell' - and I think it's safe (even for the most extreme Wikilawyer) to assume that 'WFC' is an acronym for 'Water Fuel Cell'.

So - if you agree with (1), (2) and (3) (and it's going to be REALLY hard to deny that given my copious referencing above)...then how can any sane person deny that Meyers misnamed his device? Truly - it's beyond belief that anyone would do that. Yet here we are - half a dozen pages and god knows how many hours of wasted effort convincing you of just about the most trivially bloody obvious fact imaginable.

The only thing I can imagine you are left clinging to - is this: By some bizarre logic, you are saying that taking the exact words written over and over in a dozen documents - by the hand of the very person we're writing about - and comparing these exact words to the exact words used in more than a dozen dictionary definitions...that this is somehow a "Synthesis" or a "Non-neutral point of view"?

Is it NPOV? - No. Dictionaries (lots of them - not just isolated ones) are unanimous in agreement on what a Fuel Cell is. I can't be non-neutral in quoting bucketloads of about the most neutral possible sources. Quoting documents written by the man himself is really impossible to take as an anti-Meyers "POV" - you might conceivably argue that I'm being pro-Meyers - but the point of the exercise is to show that he misused the term and that's hardly a pro-Meyers' stance! I'm not even picking and choosing - out of 20 personal documents on the waterpoweredcar site - all but two of them contain the exact same things. So - what am I saying that's biassed or one-sided?

Is it SYN? - No. How can you conceivably write ANYTHING about ANYTHING if you can't compare thing A to thing B and show that they are in fact complete opposites? When the very words say the exact opposite of each other. That's precisely like claiming that:

"Joe claims his pet lives in water, has no legs, fur or whiskers and he tells us that it is a "cat". In fact cats almost always have legs, fur, whiskers and a deep hatred of water so Joe misuses the word "cat" - his pet is really a "fish"."

That's not a synthesis - that's a justaposition of things that are not deniable providing that the meaning of "cat" is well defined and that we have proof that both Joes pet did indeed have those characteristics, and that he did indeed claim that it was a "cat". So no, you are WAY off the mark in claiming that this is OR or synthesis. I'm merely stating three undeniable facts.

You ask "how is it possible for an average educated person to conclude that a fuel cell is in fact different then Meyer's Water fuel cell?" - I simply cannot believe you are saying that! How any person can deny a stack of 16 dictionary definitions and the very words of Meyer's himself! Please - which of the three numbered points above can you conceivably deny? Meyers was an ill-educated fraud...oh - wait - you need evidence of that? Watch the video:

• [21] - it says that he didn't even finish highschool. That - by any definition is "ill-educated"
• [22] - it says that an Ohio court found him guilty of defrauding his investors. That is the definition of "fraud".

But in article space, I can afford to be generous - I simply need to write that his use of the term is incorrect - without any mention of why or how he ended up screwing up the nomenclature.

Well, if you want to push this crazy theory ANY further, I think you should institute a consensus 'vote' or ask for an editor review or some other line of escalation. You're going to lose - but doing this with revert-wars isn't going to end well. SteveBaker (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello SteveBaker. First off, thank you fot taking the time to continue working together on resolving this issue. With empathy, I really really do want to see it your way. I still disagree with some if not many of your statement. (I'll tell which ones exactly... but I was hoping to keep this as a brief and a statment that it's just not working. I'm going to reread your statement and give you a proper answer, but in short: You bring up some very convincing points. If I was writting an essay in University, it would be an entirelly different set of circumstances... however this is not a university essay whereas I could apply some basic philosophy which avoids sophisms. There are many variables that could come into the picture (I need to look at your references you provided). For example, was Meyer talking about the same device... He does have 33 different patents. That just one example. Originally, prior to starting out this article, there was not even a reference for the term "water fuel cell". Now we have one! I think we're still moving forward. It's Wikipedia and in short... we require references. Even if I agreed to this, which I don't, there are still many issues. It trully makes me sad that we dissagree on this. I'll look giving you further if you wish, but in short, there are just too many possibilities for error if we do a Synthesis. Next thing you know, we may find out Meyer's was talking about one of his other patent and not the 961. something else. (Of course, chances are in your favour!). Oh yes! Before I come back, probably not until monday to give a full answer, I just wanted to quote a section from NPOV which states, "You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources." Please do the same... list Meyer's claims, list the definition of fuel cell, list meyer's background education, and cite your sources. --CyclePat (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to get me very, very angry with you - you're succeeding. You don't have time to read and properly reply to my VERY carefully reasoned argument - yet you have the time to throw more random accusations around. Read what I wrote - and actually reply to it. If you are unable to - then give up this ridiculous push to keep out the simplest, clearest statement you could imagine - it's getting ridiculous. SteveBaker (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So Godwin's Law comes to pass. When Hitler is mentioned it means a conversation has gone on too long. Folks need to "institute a consensus 'vote' or ask for an editor review or some other line of escalation." otherwise this matter should be closed.--OMCV (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's a vote, then I vote to lock that &#&% section until the end of time. It's fine!Prebys (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Joe claims his pet lives in water, has no legs, fur or whiskers and he tells us that it is a "cat". "

This would be enough. You don't have to assume insanity on behalf of the reader. I'm pretty sure those people are all editors.

"Joe claims his pet lives in water, has no legs, fur or whiskers and he tells us that it is a "cat", most people don't know the cat fish, they always think it violates the laws of biodynamics. "

See? Gdewilde (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Catfish got whiskers. Nice analogy, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they do have whikers... or at least they have something that looks like whiskers....

Break for editing

I do not agree with the 2nd sentence of your following statement : "I wish to simply say that "Meyers described his cat using the word fish". That's a big difference - and it's why all of your other complaints are irrelevent." However, I do agree with the first. True, it okay to say that Meyer's' described his terminology differently but it's better to have a reliable source that says this. For example, In fact we can say his definition doesn't coincide with many things, which any regular educated person can determine... in fact, there is very much in our world that does coincide... even two identical Ipods can technically be different. That is a philosphy anyone can figure out. But once we start saying that his definition closelly resembles an electrolosis cell I think we are stepping into original research. Hydrogen, can be produced in many ways. My brother once told me about how we can do it with bacterias... and supposedly there's many other chemical ways! But to help speedy the process of this section of the debate, I will concede. For key point #1.

1. The device, as you say, is called a "fuel cell". I believe more often then less, it is a called fuel cell and not a "water fuel cell", but I think the article currently makes this issue quite clear. (So despite the fact that I may have an issue with the name of the article being called water fuel cell vs. fuel cell, I think there is no real issue)
2. Hard facts are hard to denny. There is no dennial of the proper definition of the term "fuel cell" by other dictionnaries.

So - I do agree with (1), (2) and (3), but I dissagree on how it's beeing presented. Yes! You may summarize source material, so long as you don't change its meaning! Otherwise it's a synthesis; What I fear, is that by indicating this device closelly resembles an electrolytic cell, is that we not only summarizing Meyer's definition but change its meaning. If we change the meaning, then it important to either have a reference to prove it's not original research. To avoid an analytical phase, see my previous recommendation, whereas we would only state the facts and try to conform to WP:PSTS. I must however concede, I do like the way the article is currently. (But you must also remember, we've been discussing this for how long now! Perhaps I've come to accept the article or perhaps I've been assimilated into understanding!) Finally, here's the bad part... the claims regarding a resemblance to the electrolytic cell... Who says it resembles this? This isn't really a matter of win or loose, it's a matter of what is the correct thing to have in our article. I too don't want to spend to much more time on this. Perhaps, we should think about a particular poll question regarding this matter? --CyclePat (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets make a section & article about water capacitors

Main article: Water capacitor

A water capacitor is a capacitor using water as it's dielectric medium. They are used in high power applications like pulse X ray or high power lasers. They have various unique properties like their ability for self-healing, the ability to act like a fuse i.e. the water "boils" and disconnects the circuit. But even using high purity water (to reduce the conductivity) they only work for a very short time before they short. (see Permittivity)

"A pulsed power system composing of a Marx generator and a water capacitor has been used for a long time, and is a mature technology"[23]

The z machine uses banks of Marx generators to create all kinds of anomalous effects like free energy.[24]

I feel it should first be an article then be part of this page, (be~it in a far less elaborate way) I think the Marx generator alone shows it is a real component, that component would be something real we can include in the article. Of course I didn't find sources for the properties but it's far more likely to find documentation on using a water capacitor as a water based fuse or for high-power power-supply. We might even get lucky and find real documentation that describes the dielectric breakdown from usage. But doing that on the Meyer article it would be original research? Or not? This page should of course have a link and/or a few lines IMHO.

I feel it reduces the need for original research. Lets give the reader an idea of the material? I'm not going to convince myself I know what Meyer was doing. What I can do is collect information on the topic and present it in such a way that some one who does have the knowledge can go do something useful (read another article)

Oh, this is by no means intended to lend credibility to the Meyer cell. I feel the reader and the editor should at least be able to figure out what the components are? A page about water condensators should allow us to differentiate between Meyer speak and actual scientific wordings.

I mean the water fuel cell is more of a water capacitor as a fuel cell? no?

Any thoughts?

(draft:User:Gdewilde/Water capacitor plz edit) Gdewilde (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that the "water capacitor" meets notability requirements for inclusion in wikipedia as a stand alone article. Googling, I'm not seeing too many hits and most appear non-reliable. I haven't put much effort into it, but I don't see any evidence that the term has a consistent meaning (i.e. joe uses the term to refer to one thing, will jim calls his unrelated device the same thing), or that capacitors using water as a dielectric actual exist. Yilloslime (t) 17:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed someone, perhaps you Gdewilde, had put a link in our article about water capacitors. I removed this link not only because it was red but because of preciselly the issue raised by Yilloslime. Personally, I see nothing currently stopping you from starting an article on "water capacitors" and if it ends up talking more or only about Meyers device, then we'll deal with WP:CFORK later on. p.s.: I think this article has come a good ways in the last few edits. Thank you everyone. --CyclePat (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Water Capacitors are well understood and their breakdown is well documented. Try looking at the Journal of Applied Physics Vol. 93 No.6 dated 15 March 2003I55ere (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

deleted Stanley Meyer's patents and Stanley Meyer's papers

[deletion of papers and patents]

• U.S. patent 5,149,407: Process and apparatus for the production of fuel gas and the enhanced release of thermal energy from such gas
• U.S. patent 4,936,961: Method for the production of a fuel gas
• U.S. patent 4,826,581: Controlled process for the production of thermal energy from gases and apparatus useful therefore
• U.S. patent 4,798,661: Gas generator voltage control circuit
• U.S. patent 4,613,779: Electrical pulse generator
• U.S. patent 4,613,304: Gas electrical hydrogen generator
• U.S. patent 4,465,455: Start-up/shut-down for a hydrogen gas burner
• U.S. patent 4,421,474: Hydrogen gas burner
• U.S. patent 4,389,981: Hydrogen gas injector system for internal combustion engine

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdewilde (talk • contribs) 20:25, July 16, 2008

And Why? --CyclePat (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How much hydrogen?

I did some calculations on the efficiency of Stanley Meyer's contraption over on the Water fuelled car talk page. Read this: Talk:Water-fuelled_car#How_much_hydrogen.3F. It shows (unless I screwed up my math) that the devices that Meyers demonstrated to the media produced 13 thousand times too little hydrogen to power a typical car at 30mph. I find this extremely compelling - but it would be nice for someone who is a Meyer supporter to double-check my numbers - because if you can't, I just blew the Meyers claim out of the water (so to speak). SteveBaker (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Previous section is trash.

Troll or nut? Somebody archive or remove that pile of stinking crap from the talk page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyonthesubway (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you can calibrate Hawk by his statement (above) "I am sure that When Columbus said the earth was round that people like this guy spoke up about the laws of that time.". I respect SteveBaker and OMCV's efforts, but suspect they are wasted.Prebys (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth at least attempting to explain the science to potential editors of the article - unless we all understand where we're all coming from, we won't be able to produce an article that passes consensus. It's certainly annoying to have to reply to people like this - but because this is an encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit - we have to deal with this kind of thing or we'll just have edit wars in article space - and we REALLY don't want that to happen. Wikipedia has plenty of disk space - we don't have to arbitarily curtail this kind of discussion - if you don't need to read it - don't read it. Removing such discussion is actually wasteful of disk space because all of the old versions are retained. SteveBaker (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. It just gets frustrating sometimes. In fact, when I first heard the Wikipedia concept, I was sure that people like Hawk would completely dominate, making it totally useless. The reality has turned out much better. One of the very few cases in my life where I've been too cynical.Prebys (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here read this,

http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/Griffin.pdf

Gdewilde (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, thats hydrogen as fuel. NOT water as fuel! You might as well say hydroelectric dams are using water as fuel rather than gravity as the source of energy. Noah Seidman (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's water as fuel. The whole thing is about Meyer's "Fuel Cell". There's even a section where the author attempts to explain why it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. I first read the website as "theoNionproject", and assumed it was a joke. Sadly, it wasn't.Prebys (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, that guy is not a scientist. His bio at the end of that document says that he spent 40-some years as the executive officer of various naval vessels and subsequently has managed some ship building companies. Retired Admirals get those kinds of jobs because the company that hires them correctly assumes that the "old boy network" will result in more lucrative navy shipbuilding contracts. That gives him ZERO scientific qualifications. He's been a manager for all of his career (Hint: That's practically the definition of the word "Admiral"). He probably knows a lot about how to order people around - but ZERO about energy, thermodynamics, hydrogen production and anything else we care about here. As for the document itself: Before he goes over the edge into la-la-land, he starts off essentially saying: "We're running out of fossil fuels - we should run our ships on hydrogen - but if we use electrolysis we'll have to put in more energy than we get out." - Hooray! Yes! You're right Mr Admiral guy! But then, instead of writing about how it will therefore be important for the Navy to build power plants to power our bulk hydrogen generation facilities, he goes off into la-la-land and starts babbling on about zero point energy using diagrams of atoms with neat electron orbitals that would have been appropriate 100 years ago. But that's not unexpected because he's not a scientist and he's used to having people salute him and say "Sir! Yes Sir!" and not to have people lying to him about their inventions. Since we are not permitted to place undue weight on the comments of fringe theorists - we may feel free to ignore this document and any comments the guy may have about Meyer's machines - because he has no relevant qualifications and has not been widely published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. SteveBaker (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the type. I worked for a while on the ill-fated Supercollider. Because it was such a large project, they brought in some retired admirals to manage some key components. Their idiocy was legendary.Prebys (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether he reads it or not, I advised him to read our previous discussions. This stuff has been hashed through. I have experimented and built the contraption. SteveBaker's measurements are spot on the mark. The article is progressing very well. The hardest point to come across is that this is electrolysis and not some new discovery. The articles on electrolysis and thermal dynamics are well written, but may be too technical for the average reader to comprehend when directed to them via links. Attempting the math could well be trying to write Chinese (coming from someone who neither speaks, reads, nor writes Chinese). Remember, most magazines and newspapers are written at the eighth grade level. That is the target group for these "great discoveries". Thermal dynamics and electrolysis need to be explained at that level. I'm by no means suggesting rewriting the articles, but perhaps a well written, off-site web page written by well known celeb/scientists (Steve Nye, Mr. Wizard, Myth Busters) could do alot to ease the congestion, then readers could be directed their site via links in the article for clarification. With a better understanding of the sciences, a look at the WP articles would be better understood and received with less hostility and belief that this is just a giant conspiracy.I55ere (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)