Talk:Water fuel cell/Archive 1

Questions?
I want to know where Stanley Meyer's body is right now, I want to know exactally what his cause of death was. I want to know what his brother Steve's reaction was, he's an inventor too and is interested in his brother's technology. Who was with Stanley Meyer when he died? What happened to the resturaunt? What resturaunt was it? Were the staff of the resturaunt interviewed? Were any suspects arrested? What did the police do? If the cause of death was poisoning, what type of poisoning was it? Who owns his inventions now? Where is the VW buggie of his located? Where is the engine of the VW buggie? Did he leave a will? Who inherited his money and posessions? If he was poisoned, was it accidental or was it intentional? If it was intentional, who is the murderer? Why is no one continuing the research of Stanley Meyer? Is it that people are too afraid?

Many people are afraid of what would happen if we no longer need to rely on oil/petroleum, the world's economies would collapse, that would have adverse reactions on many people, obviously, but why are people scared of that? Change must happen, and will happen, wether you like it or not, things will have to evolve. You either evolve too, or your left behind. BP is the only major petroleum company that does not import oil from the middle east, and they have expanded into solar technology. If I had money to invest, I'd invest it in BP, they are evolving as they need to, albeit a bit late. Other companies like ExxonMobil and Shell suffer from short-sightedness, oil is quick and easy money, aparently. It is bad business to be short-sighted!!! Even if you didn't care about your own home (Earth) and it's health, surely you are a good businessperson. By being short-sighted your money will forever remain unrenewable!! One day you will not have as much as you once had! Perhaps you should also care about things like corruption, bribary, murder, greed, extortion! Have a think about why these are crimes in the first place!! Your not meant to stick your hand into an open fire, it's common sense, just as your not meant to bribe someone, not meant to kill another person, the negative moral, legal and physical implications of this are obvious. If I could say anything to those who make the decisions in oil companies, I'd say this...

--If you do not cease your shot-sightedness, you, your families, your children's and they're children's power, money, health and ability to live will vanish. You will become the most inferior form of life to ever exist, as you do not evolve at the rate which you should. You will have partaken in the actual extinction of animal and plant species, which will one day include human beings. If you think you are smart or clever by making so much money so quickly, you are wrong, anyone can do that. All the money in the world will never buy you what you truly need, and if all your love and cares are devoted to money, you will forever be known as ignorant to your potential as a human being. If your thoughts after reading/hearing this have now turned to indifference and you do not care about the above, you need help. If you do care, what are you waiting for?--

Sorry to deviate for a few minutes there, but if someone could answer my questions I would greatly apreciate it. No one has anything to fear. People, not governments or corporations control the world, what we do determines what they do, they are at the whim of our actions, if people can rally together, you have nothing to fear. Nick carson 13:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron, I understand your position, but when we allow negativity and and denial to rule our thoughts, we cannot see the other side of the coin. Please try to flip your mind for at least half the time and just maybe, the unbelievable becomes believable.... yb

p.s. Do you actually think that everyone's chief motivation is money? --74.135.182.73 08:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Another thing that screams hoax with the 'water fuel cell' seems to be some of Stanley Meyer's behavior. He apperently turned down a billion dollars from an unknown arab, saying "no, this technology is for the people." but then he keeps the workings totally secret... why keep the workings a secret if you are not out to make money off of it, and its for the benefit of the people? And, what happend to all his research and 'working' models after his death? Did they just suddenly vanish? If you want to see a working application of water as some sort of energy source, look at Bruce Crower steam engine which he calls the "six-stroke engine".

- This is how it works, it takes more energy to turn it into the HHO gas than what you get from it. The energy naturally comes from a carbon/nuclear source. The End.


 * Stanley Meyer's letter to New Energy News about the false claims of legal defeat can be found here (copyrighted)

This claim violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. It is not physically possible to create energy, only to transfer it from one form to another. This water fuel cell is a hoax.
 * no, this is about over unity where energy is tapped from a near infinite source - Infowarrior 22:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you mean over unity, where energy is created from nothing, breaking the first and second laws of thermodynamics. — Omegatron 02:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Over unity does not require that the energy source be created from nothing. It can also be described as extracting undiscovered energy from the environment.  The difference is discussed in the perpetual motion wiki. Infowarrior 08:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Aww. Omegatron, I was just about to put a 'disputed' tag on it, when you read my thoughts. Doesn't keep me from commenting anyway. :)

>> It is more efficient than other electrolysis devices that do the same thing.
 * Doing what? Even I am more efficient at doing nothing than other electrolysis devices.

>> no gas bubbles
 * ...okay, maybe I am not the best example.

>> Unlike conventional electrolysis, it doesn't use a large amount of electricity nor does it release a lot of waste heat.
 * This also applies to a brick.

>> In conventional electrolysis devices three times more energy is consumed than is produced.
 * Electrolysis devices do not produce energy.

>> The Water Fuel Cell appears to produce several times more energy than it consumes.
 * Not to me.

>> Scientists witnessed and confirmed that it worked.
 * That a combustion engine ran on hydrogen?

>> [...] it didn't always work [...] It failed to work [...] always works, but didn't always function [...]
 * You lost me there. So does it always work or not? (that's a rhetorical question)

>> Meyer's water car may simply need further development and fine tuning to function dependably.
 * I really don't think so. Femto 14:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to do with the page. My opinion is to present it as a device that people claim works, and then show why it doesn't really work, rather than just deleting it or something.  But I have no idea how to word it. - Omegatron 14:25, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Definitely, I don't think we need too much details about the alleged inner workings, but the whole thing happened and it needs an article. There won't be much left though.

cleaned up links: Femto 18:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "FREE ENERGY" AS SEEN ON BRITISH T.V. was about a 1995 TV show that "puts across the clear message that "free energy" is on the way". Well, we're still waiting for it, what does this tell us? Also removed it from free energy along with some pseudo-science.
 * Stanley Meyer Water Fuel Cell diagrams on a tinkerer's site who didn't get them to work yet-DEAD LINK
 * Energy Revolution, visited Nov. 1, 2001 dead link


 * my opinion is that the best way to fight pseudoscience on wikipedia (and the internet) is to keep the articles and show in the article why the idea is wrong. don't delete or censor.  they view that as a confirmation that their idea is right and the conspiracy is suppressing it.  :-)  some people don't want wp to have lots of debunking articles, but i don't understand why.  providing unbiased info that everyone can agree on is one of its strong points.  - Omegatron 18:27, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding free energy, that page is explicitly about free energy in thermodynamics, and there is already very similar content at free energy suppression. Regarding this article, I hope I showed due restraint on redacting it and kept an equal amount of factual content from both sides. Your sentence about conservation of energy is all the debunking that is needed so far. After all, unbiased-ness is two-sided. Femto 20:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed there are articles in more urgent need of a cleanup tag. Good enough I'd say. Femto 21:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I bet this guy committed suicide by poisoning for a chance at (nutjob) history books 216.113.96.31 02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Patented
Obtaining a US patent from the patent office is not easy. Whoever said that a patent does nothing more than give exclusive rights to the assignee is wrong. Patents require that claims are made on what an invention accomplishes. If the claims cannot be verified then a patent cannot be issued. Since the water fuel cell passed US patent law it has been verified to accomplish what it claims. No hoax, no wacky professor, just sound, obsersvable, verfied science.


 * I call bullshit and I take objection to calling it "science". So the US patent law is your only defense and proof? You wouldn't happen to be able to provide a link to the published proceedings of the patent clerk's evaluation and its scientific reasonings? No? A review of positive experimental results from other independent scientists? If findings under US law are important, why was that little 'detail' removed regarding the court ruling against Meyer because he just could not demonstrate his device to work? If you call it science, apply scientific measure. The assertions and twisted half-truths in this article don't even come close to Wikipedia's credibility standards. Femto 11:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Phew. I'm glad someone else is watching this article besides me.  This stuff ends up at hydrogen car, too.  I plan to update the article with a description from the actual patents, though several patents are inter-related and it's some work to read through them.  It looks like just a standard electrolysis setup with some weird magnetic dust pumping thing attached...  — Omegatron 13:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I call bullshit on your ignorance of patent law. Any devices that goes through the US patent process must have all of its components tested and the device demonstrated in front of official witnesses that are competent to evalutate the device.  I do not believe that patent clerk evaluation process on the Meyer device exists freely on the internet and you will have to pay money to get the full file or request it from the US patent office. - Infowarrior 22:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Infowarrior, welcome to the Real World. Patents are granted, especially in the US but not exclusively, to anyone filing for anything. Verification is all but nonexistent, and assigning a ludicrous patent is fairly common, as long as the "inventor" pays up. Patenting is not the same as peer reviewing. The very concept of a water fuel cell is so utterly laughable that I am surprised there are people actually discussing its feasibility. Perpetual motion has been discredited since the dawn of modern science, and it is quite sad that the general public has not yet catched up with that. --Orzetto 13:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, I'm not an expert about patent laws. Neither seem you. The assertion of the requirement of witnesses is simply untrue. Quote http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/utility.htm "Thus, in the usual case where the mode of operation alleged can be readily understood and conforms to the known laws of physics and chemistry, operativeness is not questioned, and no further evidence is required."


 * Also quote "When a properly claimed invention meets at least one stated objective, utility under § 101 is clearly shown." and "To violate § 101 the claimed device must be totally incapable of achieving a useful result." (emphasis mine) It's claimed to be a new form of electrolysis device, and in accordance with one asserted utility it makes bubbles when current is applied. Thus the patent is granted.&mdash;This absolutely does not prove in any way, and especially not in any scientific way, the veracity of all the other patented claims. Femto 20:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Today, the utility requirement is the lowest bar and is easily met." - Utility (patent)
 * Not to mention that his patents don't talk about overunity or anything. He simply claims an electrolysis device or a "gas generator" or a "pulse generator".  He doesn't claim that the electrolysis device uses less energy than a conventional electrolysis device (and the lawsuit found that it was nothing more than a conventional electrolysis device).
 * He does have some weird things, though, like sending magnetic dust through a coil of pipe to generate electricity (??) or using a hollow-cored electromagnet to propel gases infused with magnetic dust (which would just attract the dust, not propel it). So maybe he just got a patent on the electrolysis part?  — Omegatron 21:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I mean examiners, not witnesses. Patent examiners are engineers, biotechnologists, etc and are competent to understand the material in the patent and evaluate the claims.  If any of the claims in a patent cannot be verified then the patent is rejected.  Meyer had to bring in his equipment for demonstration at the patent office for the examiners.  He tells the story of how one the examiners was very skeptic until the invention was running and putting of huge volumes of hydrogen gas, to which the examiner began running and shouting frantically for everyone to put out their cigarettes or any fires.  The information you are talking about Femto regards definition of 'specific utility' and 'usefulness' which means a patent much state that it has a 'use' or 'purpose'; "A statement of specific utility should fully and clearly explain why the applicant believes the invention is useful. Such statements will usually explain the purpose of or how the invention may be used (e.g., a compound is believed to be useful in the treatment of a particular disorder). Regardless of the form of statement of specific utility, it must enable one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand why the applicant believes the claimed invention is useful."   This has nothing to do with verifying the claims.Infowarrior 05:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What now? If § 101/112 has nothing to do with verifying claims, pray tell what else are we talking about? The link says "However, as the Federal Circuit has stated, "[t]o violate § 101 the claimed device must be totally incapable of achieving a useful result ." (8) If an invention is only partially successful in achieving a useful result, a rejection of the claimed invention as a whole based on a "lack of utility" is not appropriate. (9)" [ref.8 "Knapp v. Anderson, 477 F.2d 588, 590, 177 USPQ 688, 690 (CCPA 1973)" ; ref.9 "See, e.g., Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. At 534-35, 148 USPQ at 695-96"]


 * The specific utility is that it's some sort of electrolysis device. This is verified so far, and no further examination is necessary. People have successfully sued to get patents granted because of one credible claim, even though another was found incredible. If I invent a new broom with a twist, it will get patented simply because of the new shape of the handle, regardless of whether I also claim a utility that the bristles emit invisible pink healing rays with every sweep. It lies neither in the responsibility nor in the competence of patent offices to determine beyond all scientific doubt whether invisible pink healing rays do or cannot exist.


 * As for the 'scientific' quality of patents, quote http://www.forbes.com/global/2000/0529/0311090a.html "Given that patent examiners start with salaries as low as $28,000, we can scarcely expect a lot of Einsteins to apply for the job. Their workload has swelled in recent years, turnover is high and greenhorns end up deciding issues that would stump seasoned experts." &mdash; According to our patents, we already have perpetual motion, superluminal communication, infinite information density, you name it. "Must have all of its components tested" my foot. And that doesn't even say anything about claims based upon unproven (or principally unprovable) theories and twisted, pseudoscientific ramblings.


 * Any person ordinarily skilled in the art and competent to evaluate the device would determine that it violates the known fundamental scientific principles. Simply feed the burned exhaust back into it, and you have a perpetual motion machine with free energy out of nothing. It's impossible to disprove any existence of undiscovered principles. The burden of proof lies with the advocates to show that 1. first of all, it's not a fraud and really works, 2. what happens cannot be explained with conventional theories, 3. working models for free examination by other scientists exist, and their findings have been published and reviewed, for a start. Dubious patent examinations or testimonies from influenced witnesses are circumstantial evidence at most. All evidence together so far only amounts to plus minus zero at best, not enough to be presented as "science" under Wikipedia's policies.


 * Quote perpetual motion: "This sort of "invention" has become common enough that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. One reason for this concern is that a few "inventors" have waved a patent in front of potential investors, who may believe that said patent proves the machine works.  The USPTO has granted a few patents for motors that are claimed to run without net energy input. These patents were issued because it was not obvious from the patent that a perpetual motion machine was being claimed." Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Femto 13:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * His claims don't involve overunity or perpetual motion, anyway. He just claims
 * "an apparatus for obtaining the release of a gas mixture including hydrogen and other dissolved gases entrapped in water"
 * "A method of obtaining the release of a gas mixture including hydrogen and oxygen and other dissolved gases formerly entrapped in water"
 * "A method of obtaining the release of energy from a gas mixture including hydrogen and oxygen"
 * "A hydrogen gas generator system for converting water into hydrogen and oxygen gasses, in combination with a magnetic particle accelerator for voltage/current electrical potential generation"
 * "A start-up/shut/down circuit for activating and deactivating a non-ionic hydrogen generator burner system on demand"
 * "A hydrogen gas burner for the mixture of hydrogen gas with ambient air and non-combustible gasses."
 * "System and apparatus for the controlled intermixing of a volatile hydrogen gas with oxygen and other non-combustible gasses in a combustion system."
 * "An electrical pulse generator comprising a series of electromagnets spatially positioned about the outer circumference of a disc-like base and a second series of complimentary electromagnets positioned about an inner position on said disc"
 * Just because he demonstrated electrolysis or the burning of hydrogen doesn't mean his claims of breaking the laws of physics have been validated by the patent office. — Omegatron 13:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Patents
Here's some Stanley patents. Several of these are related to the electrolysis thing:


 * Process and apparatus for the production of fuel gas and the enhanced release of thermal energy from such gas
 * Method for the production of a fuel gas
 * Controlled process for the production of thermal energy from gases and apparatus useful therefore
 * Gas generator voltage control circuit
 * Electrical pulse generator
 * Gas electrical hydrogen generator
 * Start-up/shut-down for a hydrogen gas burner
 * Hydrogen gas burner
 * Hydrogen gas injector system for internal combustion engine


 * Light-guide lens
 * Multi-stage solar storage system
 * Solar heating system

Pictures
I uploaded some pictures from the patents.

The latest patent has the best pictures. — Omegatron 03:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

possible copyvio
Parts of this article look like they were taken (indirectly, no doubt) from this Keelynet file: (The section starting with "Reprinted  in  part  from  an  article  in  "ELECTRONICS  WORLD + WIRELESS WORLD" January 1991"). Although it is copied all over the net already, and says "There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS on duplicating, publishing or distributing the files on KeelyNet except where noted!", they don't demonstrate their permission to reprint the magazine article.

It doesn't look like a big deal but we should rewrite anything that appears to be copied directly from the magazine, just in case. — Omegatron 17:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Meyer never claimed that the Water fuel cell was a perpetual motion machine. Even if it worked, the water in the tank would be used up, thereby stopping the car, like in any gas powered car. He did say that it would make fuel free as in $0, because water is free from a river. He did not say it created free energy from nothing, as this would break the laws of physics. His invention was very similar to a hydrogen fuel cell, perhaps a variation that didn't work properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.49.228 (talk • contribs)


 * Then what happened to the water after it was used up? Where did it go? — Omegatron 23:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume the recombined water from the engine would be led back into the fuel tank, resulting in a small loss over time from gas line leaks, that is, into the atmosphere.

Laughably POV
I'm unsure how it would have been much more visibly biased for this article to come right out and call the man a crackpot. It is also true, as stated above, that this was never claimed as a "perpetual motion" machine. But then again, he goes against Wikipedia's hallowed, biased groupthink, so who cares about factual accuracy, right?

I also had to laugh at the reference to him not having submitted to journals. Given that he wasn't considered a scientist in the first place, it's unlikely that the in crowd would have been willing to accept anything submitted by him even if he'd tried.

Being a resource that "anyone can edit" in the case of an article about someone like Mr Meyer just means that it gets dictated by whichever establishment bigots are able to bleat the loudest. There are cases where Wikipedia truly is a sick joke, and this is one of them. Petrus4 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As noted above, one point in successfully applying for a patent to wave around is not to claim perpetual motion. This does in no way affect the factual accuracy of it having to be an overunity device. Science is as science does, submitting something to a journal does not make it any more credible. And whining about the establishment is a sure sign of scientific crackpottery, as anybody of said establishment will tell you. Femto 19:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe he never used the words "perpetual motion", but he did claim to create a device that converts water into water with a net surplus of energy, and uses the word "overunity". Close enough. — Omegatron 19:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Overunity ≠ Perpetual Motion — 216.86.122.152 07:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It has to be by general definition. Femto 11:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They are called the "Laws of Thermodynamics" for a reason. God may get to violate them, but no human can or ever will. If the reaction product (exhaust) is the same as the initial reagent (fuel) and a net gain of engery is released by the reaction, then the system can be closed by running the exhaust back into the fuel tank and you would never run out of fuel eh? It would run perpetually, no? Now, about that bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn... Thomas52 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You must be a fool if you cant believe what is displayed documented and proven repeatedly
Stanley was and forever will be a genius in a much higher class than the cookie cutter physicists that seem to be arguing his point. We as a species do not fully understand the greater workings of physics and thermo-dynamics, as both of these sciences are young. It is more likely that our generation would stand and utter anger at what it sees as improbable, rather than to attempt the experiment for themselves...reminds me of what they told Galileo. Here is the long and the short of it....The patents were granted, the plans can be reproduced with the same outcomes...the government paid for his services, and then he was murdered... failures and frauds do not experience these things... My suggestion is that unless you yourself have witnessed the capabilities as I have with my own eyes and tactile sense, or you attempt the experiments as Meyers has presented them that you keep your quasi intellectual unsubstantiation to yourself... If you dont know for sure dont act like you do. Also, it is the general innability to understand or to comment in lay-terms that makes most scientists(like my father) incappable of understanding simple obvious concepts, which is why it takes a man who did not graduate high school and who does not know that there might be a "law of physics" that might thwart his efforts, to carry out such a feat...ignorance can be bliss when the planned outcome can be achieved... Once again if you dont believe in it you must think the world is still flat...this is not the easter bunny, this is proven action carried out by someone who wanted to help the planet so prattle on all you like about what is and is not possible, it doesntmake you the end all be all of information and or correctness, as a matter of fact it makes you a naysayer to actual scientific findings... His legacy will live on, as myself and a group of investors and engineers are continuing his work using his prior patents....and hey guess what...they work imagine that.... once again just like to say, you can claim to be smart read a million books and still not get anything right.... so hah on you... and if you take the time to comment on my writing skills, that just means your as much of an idiot as I think you are....If you would like to see a better world, and believe in REALITY (wow what a concept) than you will see clear through my rant and support the ongoing work Mr.Meyers left us with... without us the world will not be free from tyranny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.143.246.108 (talk • contribs). (aka the irvnca.pacbell.net anon)


 * Bless you. Femto 11:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So you've built one, I presume. May I see it? — Omegatron 18:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you built one Omegatron? You make alot of claims about it. Do you really, really know how it works and know for sure that it does not work? What if it does work but does something that you were never explained that it does and that something actually does fall under the laws of physics?Myronmhouse 08:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was quite a rag, irvnca.pacbell.net :-/ "If you dont believe in it you must think the world is still flat"? My tactile sense fails me...  ---CH 11:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To speak quite honestly, I would love to see this machine you've built. I don't think you would find many people in the common public who wouldn't like to see it.  Please, before harm comes to you, post some real plans on the Internet or tell someone outside of your ring how it works.  Please.  If you are truly serious, you hold the key to the future.  However, if you're a fraud, well... good luck.
 * A little off-topic, but is anybody else tired of the whole "Galileo" thing? Sir John Sack-and-Sugar 05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw man
It seems to me that this article comes up with a completely different explanation for why it would work than Stanly Meyer's and attacks that instead. At any rate sources for the explanation as given are not presented. Hackwrench 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * His patent — Omegatron 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you find any description of "why it would work" that is not according to Meyer's explanations, correct it or delete it. What the article does, with all due neutrality that is appropriate to a factual encyclopedia, is to give an explanation of "why it would not work".


 * You have no idea if this thing works or not.

The source that you request is the current scientific understanding that is documented in the linked articles such as first law of thermodynamics, perpetual motion, electrolysis, energy, chemical bond, etc. This scientific understanding has been, and still continually is, validated and tested on the abovementioned "REALITY" by millions of people, over and over again.

To invalidate it all, have some number of independent scientists examine a working model that simply feeds its exhaust back and thus must verifiably create more energy than it consumes. It should be easy and convincing enough. Anybody? No? Then these theories have no place as 'neutral' facts in this article. Femto 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is, it would appear that "it" has been cleverly redefined so that "it" is the perpetual motion machine. While the patent is listed, I can't find anything corresponding to the patent in the acutal article. Therefore, the entire description is not according to Meyer's explanations so deleting it would mean that someone else would just put it back. Hackwrench 22:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Meyer's device claims to perform a thermodynamic cycle with a net gain, no less. I repeat, this makes it a "first order perpetual motion device" by general definition (if it actually runs perpetually is irrelevant to this). Edit the description of the alleged inner workings as appropriate, as long as they're not presented as verified content. The perpetual motion note remains in the article, we must not deceive about this simple fact. Femto 12:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen him use the phrase "thermodynamic cycle" anywhere. Mind pointing to where he makes the claim you suggest? To clarify, I do not see that the system is returned to its initial state. Hackwrench 15:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See below. Femto

Bond weakening
As the bond is weakened, energy is released. What keeps that energy from further weakening the bond? Hackwrench 03:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The chemical bond cannot be "weakened", it takes (takes!, not releases) always the same energy to separate one. The claim of some magical bond breakdown and subsequent (repeatable!) release of energy makes this device even more so a perpetual motion machine. Femto 12:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What prevents it from being weakened? The article says that there is energy in the bond? Where does that energy go? Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, and only state that energy becomes unusable, not destroyed.Hackwrench 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A bond doesn't result from something like a substance that can be 'weakened', 'broken', or somehow 'shaken loose', but from electromagnetic forces whose closed integral of entropy will always result in zero. That is, the path of change does not matter, the enthalpy of formation for any physical chemical reaction remains the same. Femto 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Except the enthalpy of formation changes when pressure changes, which is what the vibration would seem to change. Hackwrench 18:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The intermediate steps and pressures are irrelevant. Reduce the enthalpies of the reaction products from before and after to an arbitrary standard state, and the fact remains that the energy which they contain is magically created out of nowhere. Femto 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't decreased pressure make it easier for energy to either enter or leave the system? Hackwrench 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Examining my thought processes, matter flows from areas of high to low pressure. The 42Khz pulse indicates a change in pressure, thus indicating that this is not a closed system


 * Sure, if you look only at arbitrary parts of the sum, something is bound to fall out of the equation. But this is useless for an energy analysis of the whole.


 * Consider the simplest case: Some hydrogen, oxygen, a combustion engine with a generator, the fuel cell — all in a sealed box, a closed system sure enough. Let the gases burn to power the generator, whose exhaust will be water. Only a fraction of this generated power will suffice to run the fuel cell (this is exactly what Meyer claims). The water is split into hydrogen and oxygen again. The box is right back where it started, but for a magically created surplus waste heat. It has the potential to bring the interior of the box to infinite temperatures. A clear cut first order perpetual motion machine, there is no way around, no matter how you look at the parts. Femto 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I should hope we all understand basic thermodynamics. I believe the implication here is that there is another source of energy in the system that is unknown or neglected in descriptions.  For instance, there might be some nuclear reaction going on unnoticed, providing power, or the hydrogen is unknowingly being converted into hydrinos, or the engine is tapping into the ubiquitous zero point energy.
 * As Beaty says, 'A true "perpetual motion machine" is impossible, but a machine which taps an unknown energy source is not.'
 * But the simple fact of the matter is that Meyer didn't claim any of this. In his patents he claimed conventional electrolysis and an engine that uses hydrogen for fuel.  Nothing new there.  Then he claimed to be able to produce net energy from such a system to power a car, which violates our current understanding of physics, didn't provide an explanation of how it worked, couldn't reproduce it in controlled conditions, and was found guilty of fraud.  It's our job to report on these facts neutrally and not insert our personal speculation about what may or may not have actually powered a device that may or may not have been a hoax.
 * The article does need some work, though. There's speculation from both sides, which needs to be removed, and it needs more quotes and references about what Meyer actually did or didn't say and do. — Omegatron 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One can explain with verifiability why the device that is described cannot function, but not beyond wild speculations why it 'mightn't not malfunction'. The ironic thing is, if we grant the benefit of doubt that there may be an undiscovered and unexplainable free energy phenomenon, not only would it make the patents worthless, there'd be even less encyclopedic evidence than before that a working device like this could have ever existed. Femto 12:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Undocumented
If it's undocumented, how can you tell if it's in violation of the second law of thermodynamics? Hackwrench 15:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Simple arithmetic, there'd be more energy in what comes out than in what goes in. Since energy can't be created or destroyed, something must be not accounted for, anywhere in the process. The "cycle" does not refer to a cyclic process, but to any change in a system with a start point and an end point. It doesn't have to return to its initial state for something to go missing.


 * The fuel cell with all inputs and outputs would be a closed system whose energy balance does not add up, thus it's in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. The very mode of operation implies it. Femto 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Except the only way to tell if more energy is coming out that going in is if the inputs and outputs are documented. Are they? You say the very mode of operation implies it, but implications are unusual things. It seems to me that you are seeing implications where they do not exist. Hackwrench 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's Meyer's implication, not mine, that his device can put energy into a substance without putting energy into a substance. Femto 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Enumeration
More to the point, the article fails to enumerate the steps that the materials in question theoreticaly go through, no matter which theory is applied. Hackwrench 15:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well It would be slightly hard to enumerate on something which does not exist anymore. He is dead and his devices were destroyed (I presume).

Why Perpetual Motion?
I don't understand why the water fuel cell is considered a perpetual motion machine. Isn't the water itself a fuel? Does't the water as it's electrical bonds are broken release and burn the hydrogen as a fuel? Is it physics and thermodynamic law that states that the electrical bond is greater than any potential energy released? Isn't it just possible that there are a few people that are born over the centuries that can discover forces and methods previously unknown or undiscovered that changes science as we understand it. I think it is very likely that this man was murdered for what he knew, and what he did or could have achieved. It's very sad and quite pathetic considering the state of the world we live in, the tremendous damage we have done and continue to do that there was no one in our government with enough courage and integrity to protect this man. Maybe many of the inventions he created did not and could not work, but his mind should not have been wasted. He could have at bare minimum impoved the efficiency of existing technologies and perhaps saved our world.

65.111.76.4 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what issue you're addressing here. Could you clear it up for me? Sir John Sack-and-Sugar 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm addressing the perpetual motion statement. If water is fuel and fuel is absorbed (burned) during the process and a new device is used to break the chemical bonds to release the fuel that takes less energy than the potential fuel released, that is not perpetual motion.

Example: It takes a great deal of energy to turn corn into ethanol, however, there is more potential energy in the ethanol than the initial energy to create it. The corn itself becomes the fuel and is consumed in the process.

In the process of the water hydrogen generator, it may be possible to release more hydrogen as potential energy than the original energy it took to precipitate it.

Josepepper 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between your corn/ethanol example and the water/hydrogen fueled car is that after the car uses up energy, the waste is the exact same as the fuel. When you use ethanol, the waste is not corn. As obsurd as I sounded with that last sentence, it's true. The waste of Stan Meyer's machine can be reused as its own fuel, thus creating a perpetual motion device. --Elheber 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I gather, nowhere was it said by Meyers that this was a perpetual motion device. Somebody on this talk page did come up with a way to make it perpetual motion (assuming the thing worked in the first place). All you would have to do is pipe the exaust back into the fuel tank, since the exaust is water anyway. You would lose some, but that's the closest to "perpetual" I can think of.
 * The truth as we know it is that making water into hydrogen and oxygen takes more energy than it would produce, which is the case with some fuels we have now, I suppose. Maybe he found a way to do it better.  It's doubtful, but I guess it isn't completely impossible. Sir John Sack-and-Sugar 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dismissive response: No matter what Meyer said, this is a perpetual motion machine. He did not use the actual denomination because it would have freaked investors he wanted to swindle. Water is not a fuel. Two thirds of the Earth's surface are water and they never caught fire. Breaking bonds takes up energy, it never releases it. Water is one of the best studied compounds and its properties are very well understood. Meyer was just a quack and a bad one at that. The possibility of this thing working is equal to that of finding a closed path that only goes downhill. Also, spare the conspiracy theories please, and rather read a book on thermodynamics or chemistry.
 * That's it and I will not change my attitude until someone actually comes up with a prototype of this thing functioning as described in controlled conditions.

If you watch the Google Video link, I believe he claims to break water apart with less energy than electrolysis, though I don't remember exactly and can't watch it now. If that's what he says, then it's not a perpetual motion machine per se, but it is breaking one of the laws of thermodynamics. But of course, if it inputs water and outputs water, and produces net energy, then it really would be a perpetual motion device, though he never called it such. — Omegatron 12:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't perpetual motion... Meyer himself is on file quoting that the buggy required 22 Gallons of water to get from one coast of the US to the other. Sfacets 01:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If it "breaks water" into oxygen and hydrogen and then burns them producing more energy that was needed it is perpetuum mobile fair and square. Just put the exaust pipe into the fuel tank abakharev 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There would still be wastage through evaporation... the engine would eventually stop... Sfacets 10:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And until it stops, it would turn water into water with a net energy gain. Thermodynamic efficiency over 100% is perpetual motion by general definition. Femto 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perpetual motion implies that it wouldn't stop. (perpetual) - the amount of energy consumed would be equal or less than the energy emitted. This isn't the case here, with the inventor himself saying that "only a few bottles of water" would be needed for a journey. This implies that the water is a fuel source, and that the motor itself is not a perpetual motion machine.

If it were perpetual motion, only a fixed amount of water would be needed. Sfacets 17:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It exhausts water vapor. Connect the exhaust back to the input and you won't even need to fill it up. — Omegatron 19:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, this is not perpetual motion. You still need an external energy source (in this case, a negative energy source or "sink") to condense the water into a liquid state. A machine doesn't qualify as perpetual motion if it requires a resource from its operating environment to function (in this case, a heat sink). So what if it recycles its fuel? If energy exchange with the environment is required to do so, it ain't perpetual motion.
 * Now, one could validly argue that condensation implies an energy loss, which would mean that the machine would be producing more energy than it consumes to be able to produce water vapor rather than liquid exhaust.
 * I would like to revert or modify the statement that was recently added, but not before some additional discussion. -Amatulic 20:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You still need an external energy source (in this case, a negative energy source or "sink")
 * Think about what you just said for more than a few seconds, and you'll understand. — Omegatron 16:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The gases that come out have more energy than the water plus the electricity that go in. Thermodynamic overunity is claimed. It's that simple. The fact cannot be obfuscated by arbitrarily dividing the system into subparts or by redefining your own concept of what science calls perpetual motion.


 * As for those 22 gallons. The produced hydrogen is burned in a combustion engine. Burned, as in conventional chemistry, no magic involved, right? There's 9.2 kg hydrogen in 83 L water. Meyer claims to get about 4800 km out of it? BMW's Hydrogen 7 car goes 24 km on 1 kg hydrogen. Future green cars are projected to be able to drive some 60 km per 1 kg hydrogen.


 * So he was able to tune an old dune buggy to perform eight times better than a modern, specifically designed fuel efficient hydrogen car. He could have marketed such an engine much more easily than the fuel cell, one wonders why he didn't. Or he just made up some numbers to bait investors. What's more likely? Femto 13:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can affirm that the Water Fuel cell is a perpetual motion machine, since using it one can in principle build a machine which produces unlimited energy for free (and yes, I do have expertise in the area). But my opinion is not really needed, since the inventor's own claims speak for themself : "This, he claimed, opened the way for a car which would "run on water", powered simply by a car battery. The car would even run for ever since the energy needed to continue the "fracturing" was so low that the battery could be recharged: from the engine's dynamo." You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, CyclePat 06:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 83 liters, use 83 liters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 83&amp;nbsp;liters.[?]
 * Please provide citations for all of the s.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * In RFC-reviewing the article, the only sentence that stuck out, that I'd remove, is in the introduction. Not only it doesn't add much, it actually detracts from the article as an unhelpful and unnecessary example. Also, the intro isn't a place for such examples really, which are usually expansions of the main theme. The remaining text is quite adequate to make the point. The intro would be better to simply read:
 * "The operation of the fuel cell, as described by Meyer, would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Energy would not be conserved, making the device a type of perpetual motion machine. As a result, the cell and its actual operation have met with much skepticism from established scientists."
 * Other than that, was there any other problem? FT2 (Talk 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is fair. The arguments of the advocates of the device are stated, and full references are given to their outside documentation, including the patents. Everything said in the article is verifiable in the sense used in WP. The material in quotes does not have to be verified here, just that it was said. The fact that the device violates the laws of theremodyamics is correct and verifiable. It can be claimed that other physical principles prevail in this system, but not that the 2nd law isn't violated. If anything, the POV of the article is favorable to the device, not unfavorable. Additional protests of the proponents of this device are POV pushing in the most classic sense. Their claims are stated more fully than is often done for such material. The references are sufficient that those interested in further discussion can find it.  Contrary to the peer-review bot, only reasonable "fact" qys need be answered, and in stating an accepted physical law it is a sufficient answer to refer to the WP presentation of physical principles, which are theselves verified.


 * The only thing I would change is

(Patents should not be seen as implying a peer review has taken place, and do not imply the findings have been confirmed and reproduced by independent parties.) This should not be in the article itself. Although it is desirable to inform readers about the less-than-perfect validity of patents as evidence, it should be a footnote. Iwould furthermore exclude the part about peer review and say only patents do not imply the findings have been confirmed and reproduced by independent parties. Patents are examined, although the standards are different and intended to be different than those used for journal articles. DGG 04:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(A court of law should not be seen as implying a peer review has taken place, and do not imply the findings have been un-confirmed and not-reproduced by independent parties.)24.193.218.207 13:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote canvassing spam
Just thought I'd point out that I was brought here by this diff. [ælfæks] 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

hmm
So, there was this big monsterous debate, and yet the article has not changed one bit. More references, yet zero citations.


 * Unless citations are added in a timely fashion, I strongly urge that this article be recommended for WP:CSD specifically in consideration of the following policy infractions: WP:CITE, and WP:V. This article especially lack WP:PR, or citations of WP:PR. If this article is not to be recommended for WP:CSD, all information that lacks specific citation, strictly in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:V, should be removed immediately. Discussion of such material is what the "discussion page is for", and by having such material within the actual article diminished the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of scientific information. To protect the image of Wikipedia as a source of WP:V, WP:CITE, and in general as a WP:PR source of 3'rd party information, all information not in compliance with said policy infractions should be immediately removed.24.193.218.207 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know what this person is talking about? I see lots of refs and cites. Sounds like another wikilawer to me. Maury 20:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is bordering on disruption. So you posted this exact same piece for the third time now. If you're no longer interested in continuing a sensible discussion just say so. Femto 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To 24.193.218.207: Read up on WikiLawyering, and then stop it. You clearly don't know how articles develop in this project. An article on a notable topic, with most of it adequately cited, will not be removed just because you perceive some unspecific infractions that go against your personal POV. -Amatulic 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the poll/debate finished? --CyclePat 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Question by user:Cmp44
Regarding Stanely Meyer's death-- According to the corner's report he died of a triple cerebal aneursym. He was not poisoned. There was a brief investigation into his death as a result of his statement of thinking he had been poisoned. He did not have a will. His family inherited his posessions and inventions, including the water fuel car. The car never worked! I know this knowledge from reading the autopsy report and being a family member.


 * The previous message was unsigned by user:Cmp44, Please sign your posts in the future and place comments at the bottom. Your observations are great. If you feal this way, please publish them in a peer reviewable way. Such information doesn't belong here at wikipedia and can be deleted on cite per general concensus of wikipedian elaborated in wikipedia's policy WP:OR. You best aquaint yourself with these procedures, including WP:CITE prior to contributing to wikipedia. The autopsy report must have a reference. If so, please give us the name of the coroner, the dates, the proper reference so a guy from Canada can pick up the phone and make a phone call to order the document or know where to go to read it. That is called verifiabilty and another rules per WP:V. Thank you for you feedback. --CyclePat 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just amazed that there are still people defending water as a fuel...it's laugable.
If what goes into the tank is water - and what comes out of the exhaust is water - then you can take what comes out of the exhaust and stuff it back into the tank and you have a perpetual motion machine. That's clearly ruled out by the laws of thermodynamics. So if we're going to believe in this concept then we have to assume that one of the longest standing, least successfully challenged, most reliable law in all of physics is being broken somehow. It seems to me that if this were even remotely possible, there would be one heck of a lot of scientists lining up to prove it to the world. The heck with free energy - this would totally overturn everything we know about science.

It's as Carl Sagan was fond of saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The idea of extracting energy from water requires overturning the very bedrock of everything that science has done for us. The evidence to make us believe it must be just as extraordinary. Why are these mysterious inventors who claim to have working water fuelled cars not driving them everywhere where people can see them? Why would we be messing around with hybrid cars at all? They clearly aren't being supressed by mysterious government agencies because we're able to see their web sites - read about them on Wikipedia.

Truly, even if the oil companies wanted to surpress the technology - surely one car company somewhere in the world would think to license the technology and make an utter killing by selling a car that runs on water. Even if the oft-stated claim that the US economy would collapse if we had free energy were true (seems unlikely since the US is a net energy importer) - why wouldn't some acutely energy-starved country leap on these discoveries? The Japanese have no native energy sources whatever - why wouldn't they be licensing all of this supposedly clever technology?

It just makes no sense at all.

Sadly, the science behind this is really well known and understood. The fact is that there is almost no chemical energy left in a water molecule - that's why water is so common here on earth. If there was a way to extract energy from it, we'd find it sitting around in that yet lower energy state. Sure, there are any number of ways to put energy into water to boost it to a higher energy state (eg by heating it up - boiling it - splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen with electricity or by chemical means) - but the first law of Thermodynamics tells us that when we extract energy back out again, at the very best, we only get back whatever we put in. But since no machine is ever 100% efficient, you'll actually get less out than you put in. So you can't get energy out of water - it's just not possible. It's not necessary to carefully examine every new crackpot device that comes along - just by knowing the energy state of its inputs and outputs we can determine whether it's claimed to be a complicated kind of perpetual motion machine (which we know can't work) - or whether it's working by some other means than it claims (in which case it's a fraud).

Why do people persist in believing it's possible? Well, a combination of woefully inadequate science training and wishful thinking makes for a very large group of people who wish this could happen. Add to that a small number of con-artists see a way to take advantage of that by sucking money out of investors. Many of them get caught and dragged through the courts on fraud charges - sadly, many others do not.

SteveBaker 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of us understand the physics, Steve. But the physics isn't the point. Perhaps the physics is wrong. So somebody claims to have a time machine, an anti-grav device, a warp drive, a genuine self-cleaning cat litterbox-- whatever. Should we just blank all articles regarding them, including news accounts, patents, court cases, etc, etc? Or perhaps the physics is misunderstood and somebody found a way to get a little power out of water using deuterium fusion ala the cold fusion devices, and just misunderstood their own invention. I doubt it, but at least this wouldn't violate any laws of thermo. The real question is what do we do about articles written about questionable claims or other stuff on wikipedia. We have articles on Mormonism, Scientology, the miracles at Lourdes, and so on. I'd just as soon believe in water-powered cars, and would give you equal odds. We also have articles on famous frauds that are known to be, and acknowledged by all, to be frauds. What do you suggest we do with THEM? S  B Harris 22:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure we should have articles about them - but they need to be based on properly peer-reviewed scientific literature - not just the inventor's own claims or some sensationalised news story. In the absence of such evidence for these claims, Wikipedia has a duty explain what well-known, peer-reviewed science has to say about these claims (which is clearly that they violate the laws of thermodynamics and are therefore bogus).  We can present a bazillion references showing the laws of thermodynamics...but where is the science showing that these laws can be circumvented or are wrong?  Instead we have a long list of US patents - some crackpot conspiracy theory web sites and a couple of news items.  None of those come close to being credible sources by Wikipedia standards.
 * The fact that they were able to obtain patents proves nothing - I have half a dozen patents to my name - I know how easy they are to obtain. Two totally unrelated patents that I submitted on the same day accidentally had their diagrams swapped in the patent attorneys office - both passed without question in the US and throughout Europe!
 * Web sites that simultaneously claim that the water powered car works and that one of the World Trade center towers was blown up by the government in order to cover up the existance of that car...yeah...right.
 * A YouTube 'Fox News' video 'proving' that the car works. (Check out the other video that comes up with those search criteria - it clearly shows the 110v compressor that they guy evidently used to pre-charge the hydrogen tank before the demo).
 * An article in Wireless World...OK...not the greatest source in the world - and it's not Peer Reviewed - but maybe it might lend some credence were it not for the last three paragraphs that makes it very clear that they are not convinced that the demo showed anything.
 * No - we need more proof than that. Where is the article in "Nature"  saying "First law of Thermodynamics has to be repealed because the Water Fuel Cell works!"...there isn't one - and there won't be one because these so-called inventors generally refuse to allow people to reproduce their findings.  The way to get scientific credibility is to have other people to whom you have no connection reproduce your findings.  Note what happens when they are forced to allow close inspection by scientists appointed by the courts...a $25,000 fine for Meyers, Franch (proven to have used nothing more than green food colouring in his 'gasoline pill'), Enrich - went to jail for fraud...there are many others.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Right now I don't see any evidence whatever showing that some new physical principle has been invented - and lots and lots of solid science that shows that they can't possibly work. SteveBaker 22:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, but (playing devil's advocate here) everything you rightly say about patents also applies to courts and magazine journalism. Yet these are all citable wikipedia sources. However, your own (perfectly correct) reasoning that this car violates the laws of thermodynamics, is NOT. It is rather POV and (worse) OR, as in violation of WP:NOR. That's a flaw in Wikipedia, and one I've been pointing out for years. Sensationalism sells, and there are lots of published references for crackpot ideas, IF they tickle the public's fancy. By contrast, good old fashioned grumpy scientific skepticism (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), does NOT sell, and therefore often DOES NOT GENERATE citable published references. So no, you won't get any tests on the water-powered car in NATURE. Or even on TV's MythBusters (unless you're lucky). So for Wikipedia purposes, you're SOL. That means Sure Out of Luck. Now, you may object to this Wikipedia policy. Whenever I run across somebody who does, I suggest they go to Jimbo Wales' talk page, and bug him. If you do that enough, you may find yourself banned as being disruptive of this perfect place. You see, on Wikipedia, there is no TRUTH; there is only citability. Did nobody tell you that? There is also no Carl Sagan--- just Jimbo and his lawyers. Who do not do a good imitation of Carl.  S  B Harris 23:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. You can cite a patent as proof that the guy has the patent.  It's a verifyable source in that sense.  But you can't cite the patent as proof that what's in the patent actually works...that would be ludicrous.  Similarly, you can't cite magazine articles unless they are authoritative.  Peer reviewed magazines are OK - Nature is OK - Practical Wireless isn't.  Similarly with books - you can't cite self-published books.  As for my claims over the Laws of Thermodynamics - I see what you are saying - but this is a hard line to determine.  I can say that  an airplane crash followed after it's engines failed and gravity pulled it to the ground.  If you insist on a citation saying that gravity can do that, I'd have to go back and quote something Newton wrote about gravitation.  You wouldn't demand that I find a source saying specifically that airplanes are pulled to earth because of gravity.  Similarly in this case, we have the first law of thermodynamics that clearly states that you can't have free energy.  Sure it doesn't make a long, long list of ways that free energy cannot be obtained - but does that justify me in writing an article that says "energy can be created by the power of human thought" or "energy can be created out of thin air by tap-dancing purple leopards when the moon is full and there is an 'R' in the month"?   I don't have to find a specific document diaproving any of those things because the first law has the full generality of those things nicely covered by saying (in effect) "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch".   It should suffice to give a link to article on the first law (with references of course) and leave it at that.  The contrary position is to demand that the proponents of these technologies come up with acceptable proof of their own - but what do we then do if (as in this case) they fail to do so?   We could take the article to WP:AfD and get it deleted by virtue of lack of adequate references - but that's not going to help our readers when they come to Wikipedia to find out about this "Water fuel cell" thingy they've read about.   We must do better for our readers - and I think we can...but if you expect us to find properly peer-reviewed articles debunking each and every crackpot idea that comes up - you are deluding yourself - those things don't exist because serious scientists can just point to the laws of Thermodynamics - chisled in granite letters 50 feet high - and say "Look!".  If these things worked then there would be amble evidence that they do - and there just isn't.  (And actually, there was a water fuelled car on Mythbusters...I'll leave you to guess what the conclusion was!) SteveBaker 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "As for my claims over the Laws of Thermodynamics - I see what you are saying - but this is a hard line to determine. I can say that an airplane crash followed after it's engines failed and gravity pulled it to the ground.  If you insist on a citation saying that gravity can do that, I'd have to go back and quote something Newton wrote about gravitation.  You wouldn't demand that I find a source saying specifically that airplanes are pulled to earth because of gravity." Answer: Wrongo! If I wanted to wikilawyer it, that's exactly what I'd demand of you, and you wouldn't be able to provide it, and THEN you'd be stuck. Just as you are with this article. Don't sit there and argue with me on this point, when the evidence that this kind of thing happens is right in front of your face, as regards this very piece. I'm trying to EXPLAIN in terms of Wikipedia policy why you're having trouble here, and the problem is that you refuse to believe me, because it's so *&&%ing outrageous. Well, not my problem. Feel free not to believe me. But stop bitching and moaning that you're making no progress in getting this article to say what you want it to say. Okay? Just fix it yourself (WP:SOFIXIT) and see what happens.  S  B Harris 00:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote Citing sources: "Gaming the cite system, that is, demanding blatantly excessive citations or accepting citations only from an unreasonably narrow source, for the apparent purpose of making a point or gaming the system is not an appropriate use of this policy." - I don't deny that it's happening - only that it shouldn't be happening. As to the issue of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, that too is well-established Wikipedia policy.  To quote Reliable sources: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"...pretty much my precise point here.  Right now this article doesn't have any credible references on either side of the debate...none, zip, nada.  To quote Reliable sources again: "(1) The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. (2) Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred. (3) Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.".  It's going to be tough for the Water fuel cell 'believers' to come up with credible references - but there is a reason for that.  For the disbelievers, evidence is going to be of a rather general nature - although it can be exceedingly credible (It's hard to argue with the likes of Carnot and Gibbs).  The disbelievers are not trying to prove an extraordinary claim though - so standards of evidence are correspondingly lower.  As for "Just Fix It" - that's not a bad idea when there is widespread agreement - but there is little point in doing that before some sort of consensus is reached - it'll just start a painful round of revert warring.  But it's possible to write Wikipedia articles where two sides of the debate are irreconcilable - we just have to state both sides of the argument and present the evidence in the form of references.  I'll think about what can be written.  SteveBaker 05:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had experiences on Wikipedia with this kind of behavior, and I later found out that the person perpetuating it was a paid PR professional. There are people who are experts in doctoring consent on Wikipedia, and it may be possible that they are contributing to this very forum.  In my case, someone was making it appear as if the majority of contributors were demanding a source more reputable than the USPTO.  You will also notice a number of replies that are verging on ridiculous, this is a tactic that is used to help discredit the discussion as a whole, if someone were to run into comments like "this car will cause water vapor pollution and constant rainy weather" they are highly likely to just turn the page.  So the 'idiots' you may be dealing with are most likely very smart people with very sophisticated means.  All in all, Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.72.49 (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

How About that Poll
That poll is still active.24.193.218.207 05:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Portion of Patent Disclaimed
"The portion of the term of this patent subsequent to June 26, 2007 has been disclaimed." what does this mean? from patent #5,149,407( 1st on list in article ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.72.49 (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Bad energy tracking
From the videos I have seen of Meyer's water energy, he claims to be using some sort of high frequency electrical source. The vagueness of this aside, there is energy in the wattage of the converter, but there is also energy content in the electromagnetic waves he is using. If he is honest about his electricity bill, he will find that the cannot have what he claims. Furthermore, his device as shown produces a dangerous mix of hydrogen and oxygen gases which would blow away a building and also be useless in a hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell. He seems to claim to have formed H-H-O, an impossible chemical for a variety of reasons. He shows himself using this as a blow torch as the H-H-O rearranges to HOH. As a self-contained reactant with a zero-order kinetic function, this stuff would explode and not be dependent on the presence of air. His seemingly surprising observation that the blowtorch tip is cool shows his ignorance. Many other torches show the same effect as the expanding gases leaving the torch tip cool the tip through expansioin cooling. Meyer's "idea" is so rank with problems and bad science, not to mention violating the laws of thermodynamics in impossible ways, I do not it is wonderful - I say it is a hoax. Does anyone really think a scientific ignoramous is going to produce something which employs a quantum effect that cannot even be detected even if it did exist? Not likely and not happening here. This is just another example of how gullible people can be. Military officers, even science educated, are not trained to debunk these pie-in-the-sky wishes. It is nice to keep an open mind, but do not be so open that your brain falls out. If water was this kind of an energy source, we would have begun exploiting it many years ago. His device is just too simple to be so subtly sophisticated. The water hammer heat source is another example of a scientifically ignorant person re-discovering an obvious effect and pretending to have a novel item because it is so differently, novelly or stupidly designed. Then they pat themselves on the back about what great inventors they are, but, sniff, no one wants to listen to them - it's a conspiracy, sob.......

There's no free lunch.

Capt. Higley —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.118.91.100 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Well said. It is abundantly clear that water simply doesn't have significant amounts of energy to give - so the idea of extracting energy from it is doomed from the outset.  We simply don't need to look 'inside the black box' of these inventions.  If they take water in, split it into something else (Hydrogen and Oxygen or this mythical HHO stuff) - then burn the results to obtain water again - then any net energy gain would result in a perpetual motion machine - and those are completely debunked.  So it's not that it doesn't work - or that it needs perfecting, it (and anything like it) simply cannot work.  The laws of physics don't permit it - no matter how clever you are with oscillators, magnets, quantum effects or any other weirdness like that. SteveBaker 04:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They have been using water torches for years using almost the same circuitry. They send in a low voltage and a relativly low amperage to plates submerged in water. Oxyhydrogen gas is produced and used to perform welding, smoothing of glass, etc etc. This gas is not a myth and resulting water vaper from the flame is also not a myth. I don't know where you are getting your ideas but they are wrong. As far as the WFC is concerned it may or may not produce enough oxyhydrogen gas to run a car, that i do not know but it certainly produces gas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.204.212 (talk)


 * And the energy released as heat from the torch is much less than what went into the plates to make the gas. To put this in perspective, look at the image here. That's a really big power supply driving a really tiny torch. The question is whether or not you can make heat from electrolyzed water, which is all you're talking about here, the question is whether or not that heat has greater energy than what was put into it. It does not.
 * Nor do you want it to. Conservation of energy is not some sort of arbitrary "law" that exists "just because". It's a fundamental statement about the way the universe looks. If this law didn't exist, and it doesn't have to, the universe would look very different. Very different, like "will not support life". Maury 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your (unsigned) definition of oxyhydrogen gas is different than ours. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody (I hope) is arguing that you cannot connect up a suitably large power source, use it to electrolyse water - then burn the resulting hydrogen to make a gas torch. Clearly that's possible - and it's done routinely in a variety of industrial settings.


 * I don't even mind if you try to feed the resulting gas into an internal combustion engine (although why you'd want to is something of a mystery). The problem is the amount of energy you put into the electrolysis cell versus what you get back when you burn the resulting gas. The non-believers (of which I am one) claim that the energy you get out MUST be less than you put in because if it's not less then you have a perpetual motion machine and a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.  Proponents have to either claim that it DOES produce more energy (which puts them 180 degrees away from all modern scientific understanding by denying one of the most well established physical laws) - or they have to agree that it does not (in which case, this whole debate is kinda pointless because if you get less out than you put in, you might just as well use an electric motor and cut out all of the messing around with water).  I don't particularly care what you call the gas you get - Browns gas, oxyhydrogen, a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen - I don't even particularly care what weird combination of H's and O's you claim to have in the resulting gas (although I strongly suspect it's nothing more exotic than H2's and O2's).  Whatever, I really don't care.  My concern is to make it completely, crystal clear that whatever weird shit you do to get the gas out of the water is not winning you anything.   Great for welding no doubt...hopeless as a source of clean energy (or any energy whatever for that matter).  SteveBaker 19:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me why I am wrong.
I am an undergraduate scientist in the Honors College and the College of Engineering at the University of South Florida. I try to remain as unbiased as possible in my search for truth.

Quantum Mechanics requires that there be an energetic oscillation between atoms in polyatomic molecules; otherwise, the equations fail. If one were to resonate with this oscillation energy, it could be harnessed and become useful energy. In the case of water, it is theoretically possible to apply a dielectric force in resonance with the oscillatory frequency until the oscillation becomes great enough to break the covalent bond. Thus, under optimal conditions, you would get more energy out in the form of the potential energy of Hydrogen/Oxygen gas than you put in as electricity. The equation would look something like this: (Initial Oscillation Energy) + (Input Electrical Energy) = (Potential energy in the form of Hydrogen/Oxygen gas).

Since my edit was reverted, I assume someone found something wrong with this theory. This interests me greatly since the multiple PhDs that looked at it said that, as far as they could tell, it should work. Please tell me what it is that you found. I would surely like to know so that I don't use information that is known to be incorrect.

Please don't take this as being hostile in any way. I am open-minded to any information that anyone wants to present; although, I always approach it with some level of skepticism.


 * Well, all that's necessary for removal is that there isn't a WP:RS, but I'll explain why it's wrong, anyway.
 * "Conventional" QM would have your equation being:
 * 2(Excited H2O) + (Input Electrical Energy (A)) → 2 H2 + O2 + (output energy (B))
 * (normal combustion) 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O + energy (C)
 * (H2O) + energy (D) → (Excited H2O)


 * The second law of thermodynamics leads to $$A+2D\leq B+C$$, so that we don't have a perpetual motion machine. There is no objection to $$A > B+C$$.
 * Zero-point energy theory leads to similar equations, with the RHS of the first equation being 2(sub-zero-point H2) + (sub-zero-point) O2, which leads to the same sort of analysis. It might be possible to derive energy from the zero-point energy of substances, but that requires producing substances with that zero-point energy reduced.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of sources. I'll try to put some in next time I contribute. I don't think I made my idea clear enough. What I'm trying to say is this:


 * 2 H2O(Natural Excitation Energy(A)) + (Input Electrical Energy (B)) → 2 H2 + O2
 * (normal combustion) 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O (No Excitation) + (Energy (A + B))

The excitation may return only if the H2O is acted upon by some external force (which will probably occur nearly instantly). A better way to look at it would be that of energy potential. Water molecules naturally have this oscillation energy. As the atoms in a molecule are bouncing closer to each other and further apart from each other, the potential reaches its' maximum at the closest and farthest distances between the atoms and the kinetic energy reaches a maximum at the median. As the electrical force is applied in resonance with the oscillation, the potential is raised in a step function format. Eventually, the potential exceeds the strength of the covalent bond which means that the covalent bond has been broken. The potential is now at its' maximum state. Since higher potential tends to move toward lower potential, when combustion occurs, the atoms will exert a force until they reach a level of zero potential. Since it started with some level of potential and it has eventually reached a level of zero potential, there is a net loss of energy from the water molecule and a net gain to the system.


 * That I can accept, but there's little indication that the "Natural Excitation Energy" can be other than thermal, which cannot be removed. (In other words, the "No Excitation" state requires a change in the laws of physics.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I had gotten to the part that involved recombination of the gases through combustion when I had the PhDs look at it. I know at least that it will separate the H2O with higher efficiency than previously possible with conventional electrolysis. A lot of the theories on the Water Fuel Cell are very rough at the moment. Hopefully that will change as I am investing thousands of dollars in researching it in an attempt to replicate it and study it meticulously.


 * I think you will find that if you try to shake a water molecule apart by resonance, then the device that is creating the exciting electric field will have to emit a photon which is absorbed by the molecule. In other words, the thing exciting the resonance will consume energy equal to that which is apparently created by the water.  But having said that, I feel that you are mixing up classical and quantum ideas; you can't gradually feed energy into a chemical bond in the same way you can a pendulum. Man with two legs 11:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Water fuel cell into Water-fuelled car
Please discuss this over at Talk:Water-fuelled car. SteveBaker 03:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent claims about Professor Michael Laughton
The "construction" section cites an article from Wireless World in 1991 reporting that Laughton and two others were impressed by the invention. However the "Lawsuit" section cites a 1996 Sunday Times article which to my mind implies that Laughton had not seen a working machine. There seems, at least, to be an inconsistency here. Any ideas how to resolve it? LeContexte 09:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Meyer redirect??
WTF.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.78.179.26 (talk • contribs) 12:59, April 21, 2007 (UTC)

The Sunday Times (UK) article
The article itself does not appear to be available from the newspaper's own online archive, which only appears to go back to around 2000. What we have here is a newsgroup posting that claims to be a copy of the actual news article. The New Energy News summary-article listed in "External links" supports that the article exists. The symmary, and Meyer's own rebuttal of it (also listed in "External links"), align well with the newsgroup copy of the article. DMacks 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I was wondering! Perhaps a POV? --CyclePat2 04:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have verified that the reference "End of road for car that ran on Water", The Sunday Times, 1 December, 1996 exists, and is correctly and completely quoted at the Google Groups link. The article appeared on page 12 of the Features section of The Sunday Times (London, England), and I accessed it through Access World News. By the way, this source specifically refers to Meyer's invention as "Water Fell Cell", so there is no synthesis violation in the naming of this article either. Abecedare 04:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (comment refactored) Could you please provide a direct link to the source and place this in the citation at the end? (Easybib will help you format your citation. Pick the database section.) Could you also please provide the name of the author, when you accessed the document, what section, what edition, what city you accessed it from, what database subscrition service, who's database you accessed from (ei.:Library), what keywords where used, etc. Take the following citation as an example of what our citation would look like: "Last, First M. "End of Road for Car That Ran on Water." The Sunday Times 1 Dec. 1996, (Please add Edition ed., sec. (please add Section): 12-13. Access World News. News Bank Inc. (please add Library with Subscription), (please add City Accessed From). 16 May 2007. Keyword: water fuel cell. (url from database)" --CyclePat 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reformatted the citation using and filled in all the fields, including author (Tony Edwards), publisher and page number (page 12 of the Features section).
 * There is no direct link available to the article, since Access World News is a subscription service. However I have verified that the google posting quotes the article accurately. With the complete citation information in the article, anyone is now free to verify for themselves that the Sunday Times article says what is claimed - just as WP:V requires. Abecedare 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for citation. I was hopping to subscribe to the database service you are talking about and I would like to verify the source for myself. I would probably require 1 of 3 things to find the article 1) either the keywords use for the search, the pathway or the url which was used. Could you please provide one of the above and place it in the citation? Thank you. --CyclePat2 04:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation provides all the information you, or anyone else, needs for finding the article. But in any case, here is the detailed can't-miss recipe for locating it using "Access World News": once you subscribe to the database just browse down to "The World" -> "Europe/UK" -> "UK and Ireland" -> "England" -> "Sunday Times, The (London,England)" and look up the "1996/12/01" issue. You'll find this article listed under "Features" (122 out of 237). Abecedare 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What Would Tesla Do?
FYI, a system such as this would not need to violate any laws of thermodynamics... Please study Tesla before making such an unintentionally narrow sighted remark. I personally believe that Tesla was a lot more intelligent than anyone here regarding dipoles and AC power, and he was thoroughly convinced that under certain conditions of dipole / AC interaction power could be channeled directly from the potential of the "active medium" (aka the space/time continuum). When you consider that each of the trillions of water molecules in these cells are dipoles, and that it involves high voltage pulsed AC for maximum efficiency, I do not see why the possibility of a moderately large number of randomly spaced Tesla "Active Medium" energy inductions into the cell would be "laughable". This is especially true when you consider the brute force probabilities given the insanely large number of dipoles in a very controlled cross section of space/time. If you want some idea of how much potential energy is in the space/time continuum itself just consider this fact: the mere act of warping it is enough to move stars and galaxies. That said, I am not saying that this is necessarily the case here (I really do not know if the thing "works"), and I also would say that you should never be gulled into giving someone money based on the claim that they have accomplished this. All I ask is that you please gain a better understanding of the multitude of possible sources for energy in the universe before claiming that a set of observable results would automatically break the law of conservation. --Electrostatic1 12:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * er... but it does violate the first law. If it worked, you could use it to make a perpetual motion machine.  Man with two legs 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Entropy times temperature is a unit of energy other than enthalpy; what if the extra energy comes from the entropy of the water? Noah Seidman 18:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My brain is starting to hurt, but that sounds to me like a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Man with two legs 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it would not be perpetual... It would hasten the eventual "heat death" of the universe.. Which would be more than adequate to stop it.... It's not electrolysis, it's a trillion tiny catalysts inside a Rapidly Fluctuating Magnetic Field, the effect of which is to prevent perfect symmetry in the oscillations... The lack of perfect symmetry Demands an energy outlet, or it Would break the laws of thermodynamics. Please keep in mind, I am not the one who came up with this theory.. He was a much smarter man than I. And as for the second law, Heaviside curled EM energy flow components are Much more concentrated and well organized than mere chemical potential... p.s. There is also a guy using much the same technology where the energy is manifesting directly as heat and not as chemical potential. (suposedly) --Electrostatic1 08:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything that attempts to suck energy for useful work from its surroundings without exploiting a temperature difference is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind and is against the second law of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics are as general as that. There are no loopholes.  It is possible that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, but that begs the very big question of why nobody has noticed before during some of the thousands of relevant experiments that have been carried out over the last one or two centuries. Man with two legs 10:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Anything that attempts to suck energy for useful work from its surroundings without exploiting a temperature difference is a perpetual motion". Not quite true. It's not drawing it from it's "surroundings" but from the fabric of space/time... Just as nuclear energy doesn't draw energy from it's surroundings, but from the fabric of matter. --Electrostatic1 06:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
I do not think the following sentence is original research.

"Theoretically, as per claimed operation, a car running on a water fuel cell could achieve perpetual motion by venting the exhaust pipe (containing water vapor) into the fuel tank (containing water)."

I propose that we remove the original research tag.


 * I merged this sentence into the first paragraph. I still believe the original research tag can be removed.
 * The combination of the merger, and the sentence restructuring, makes the removal of the original research tag reasonable. Therefore I have removed the original research tag.