Filed under: Emerging Technologies, Etc.
Conspiracy? Stan Meyer and the Mysterious, Elusive Electrolyzer
Ever hear the name Stan Meyer? About eight thousand conspiracy theorists just nodded their heads. Stan invented a water electrolyzer - nothing new there - however, according to Stan anyway, his actually works on demand. The above video (c. 1990) shows him driving a VW-powered dune buggy running on nothing but water. Peruse YouTube for related videos, and you'll find he's been actually pretty well documented, but surprisingly unpublicized.
His method of electrolysis breaks the H2 from the O into their respective gases, both which are then sent to the modified fuel injectors and combusted in a regular old ICE. The only exhaust is more water vapor, which can be left to the atmosphere, or recycled back into the system. Of course, as I said, there have been many people to make electrolyzers that do that very thing, but not in the copious quantities that Stan's machine is said to.
When sifting through his notes and patent materials (.zip file available here), he apparently found the resonance frequency of water and tuned his electrolyzer with an oscillator to that frequency, vastly boosting the efficiency of the device, and making it an actually viable source of fuel, since you don't have to put so much more energy into it than you're getting out of it. No, this is not a free energy system, since energy from water is actually consumed, and water must be refilled, but the vastly more combustible gas produced nets much greater mpg of water than any means of burning gasoline.
Unfortunately, Mr. Meyer is no longer around to tell us about his invention - let alone sell us his proposed DIY kit for $1,500 - because he was poisoned. His brother, however, has continued his research to the best of his ability and posted Stan's notes and patent info. Stan was not a trained scientist or engineer, so his notes use terms not accepted by the scientific or engineering community, and they can be hard to decipher. I'm sure that if you can make sense of his research, prove theories correct, and build a working prototype, the world as a whole would really appreciate it. Post your comments, findings, thoughts and discussions for all to hear.
[Source: Water Powered Car, YouTube]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 13)
AES 10:19AM (5/29/2007)
"No, this is not a free energy system, since energy from water is actually consumed, and water must be refilled"
VS.
"electrolysis breaks the H2 from the O into their respective gases, both which are then sent to the modified fuel injectors and combusted in a regular old ICE. The only exhaust is more water vapor"
PLEASE, this concept is, and always has been, a laughable farce of a scam. Water IS NOT consumed - lest you violate the conservation of matter and energy.
H20 + e- -> H2 + O2
H2 + O2 -> H20 + e-
Reply
jonwilhelm 9:45PM (9/11/2008)
your conversion is wrong. "H20 + e- -> H2 + O2
H2 + O2 -> H20 + e-" this is not the right reaction the correct one is this. 2H2O2 and what we know water as is H2O so that means 2H2O2 is broken down into 2 molecules like H2O + H2O = 2H2O2. then you add energy into the reaction whether its sun light, electricty, or even laser. which can give you different effects. the use of electricty the reaction would look like this reverse process and the process that now days hydrogen cars use. the first one is the easy one H2 + O -> energy or you can invert that and get H2O + energy -> H2 + O. i hope this helps people.
Tim 10:26AM (5/29/2007)
What a dream. Add small amounts of electricity to water, maybe throw in some ultrasound and get back huge amounts of hydrogen on demand. I did say what a dream, right? Kind of like warp faster than light travel, Star Trek style transporters and unlimited free power from the void. Beam me up Scotty!
Reply
pkuhl 11:11AM (5/29/2007)
You would need a large battery to do this. As long as you have the large battery, you might as well skip all the low efficiency combustion engine and low efficiency electrolysis and instead drive a high efficiency electric motor and come out... way.... ahead.
There's no way he invented a battery large enough to split enough water to drive a car across the country, especially since he says nothing about the battery.
Sounds like total bs to me. This is a free energy fantasy.
http://www.efcf.com/e/reports/E17.pdf
Reply
Dev 11:53AM (6/16/2009)
Not neccessarily true. it is possible to conduct an electrolysis experiment in a school chemistry lab. any high school student has probably tried it, and it does not require the vast amounts of energy that you suggest.
Andrew C. Cole 2:06PM (5/29/2007)
Naysayers coming out of the woodwork. How typical. Stanly Meyer may have been a fraud, but a closer look at his story makes you wonder. His work is being continued by others who wonder. http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/
This is a link to a forum where many share ideas in hydrolysis experiments.
Reply
GreyFlcn 2:31PM (5/29/2007)
Fuel Cells are a fraud in general.
For instance, imagine if you substitute in a fuel cell instead of the combustion engine.
Electric Battery -> Hydrogen -> Fuel Cell -> Electricity
How in the world is that going to be more energy effecient than
Electric Battery -> Electricity
Reply
Lucas 12:08PM (7/04/2008)
Stan Myers had a special electrolyte. He found its frequency made the electricity going in the same frequency and this caused it to produce no heat. It also made it where for every penny of electricity put in, 18 cents of hyrdrogen was produced
L505 2:20AM (11/21/2008)
"Fuel Cells are a fraud in general.
...
How in the world is that going to be more energy effecient than
Electric Battery -> Electricity"
Gee, maybe a person with an IQ above 100 can figure out quickly that a large battery is not very practical, compared to say some water in the river that can be scooped up with a plastic cup, ever 200 miles on his road trip?
Yeah, those visualizations of someone hauling a 500 pound battery in a 1000 pound car.. make a lot of practical sense. Compared to say using water, something that is available everywhere - and just using a battery to initiate the process.
One more thing:
Lighting a match, or "blowing up fuel" is magical fraud and a scam. One would have to put more energy into the spark plug than he ever got out of the gas. One would have to put more energy into the spark to light a match than he would EVER get out of the burning would match. Always remember that.
Lighting "matches" and "spark plugs" are frauds and they do not exist. Stores that sell matches or spark plugs, should indeed be fined and their owners should be put in prison. You cannot "spark" a bit of gas with some magic and expect to gain more energy out of the gas than you put in with the spark. The spark would have to put in MORE energy than you got out of the gas. Morons!
Der Alte 2:34PM (5/29/2007)
And to add insult to injury....lets just suppose he found some magic way to power the car with water as he claims. Is water all that abundant a resource? How many people live in a community with summer time watering restrictions? While we have plentiful and cheap water now, turning into a transportation fuel will make scare supply in some areas even scarcer. Now if it still worked with sea water, then he might be on to something.
Of course, that is if you accept all the claims at face value, which I don't. As the other posters mentioned, this idea has problems at other levels too. The more alternatives people try to come up with, the more sense electric cars make.
Reply
A.Brien 4:46PM (5/29/2007)
This water car works and there is abouth 100 other cars that works good in the phillipine builded since 1968. Water decomposition and re-composition is the best energy scource. Gm or chrysler or honda should make a fuel cell car power by on-board electrolysis and re-circulate the water exhaust back to the tank. The only secret is how to separate water molecules efficiently then you win the jack pot of the best power scource, almost pure electricity or pure explosion like the sun, LOL.
Reply
Nick Bowers 9:02PM (5/29/2007)
Heres to all the naysayers. Since when is water not abundent? 70% or so of the earth is covered in it. And Stan's engine's only exhaust is...you guessed it, water. And with a little thing called destilling you can turn SALT water into NORMAL water. If he wasn't on to somthing why is it he was poisoned. Not to mention, this water powered car actualy moves...FASTish. Unlike electric cars that go half the speed of smell and only for acouple miles.
Reply
Chris M 7:01PM (8/30/2008)
Stan was onto something, all right, he found a really clever way to extract money from gullible fools. He wasn't poisoned, he died of a ruptured cerebral aneurism, an ordinary natural cause of death. The poisoning rumour has no basis in fact, the conspiracy nuts promoting it have not examined the body or done any toxicology tests, they have no evidence at all. Of course, the inconvenient fact that they have no evidence doesn't stop the determined conspiracy mongers, they just claim the lack of evidence proves there is a coverup!
LOL!
Joseph 9:38PM (5/29/2007)
This may not be as much of a fraud as many poeple, including myself, might think.
He claimed the Dune Buggy could go from New York to Los Angelos on 22 gallons of water. Or in other words, about 130 mpg. At a slow speed, like 45mph lets say, in a light dune buggy is perfectly reasonable.
His process of creating hydrogen from water would've needed to be about 90% efficient or so for it to be around the ballpark of 130 mpg of water. I've heard of water to hydrogen electrolysis being about 70% efficient. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
But of course, is it really ethical to transform water into fuel? I think not, and that is why this cannot happen.
P.S. Conspiracy theorists, car companies aren't hiding the water car from us. Everyone would would want a "water car" so don't you think they'd sell it if they had it.
Reply
Chris M 9:26PM (8/30/2008)
There is one thing missing from your analysis, and that is all the electrical energy needed to electrolyze the water. A well made electrolyzer gets about 60% efficiency, a homebrew electrolyzer much less, but for sake of argument, let's assume 90% efficiency. With a typical gas engine efficiency of 15%, and an alternator at 90%, the electrical output of the alternator would at best be only 12% of the electrical input to the electrolyzer - and that is assuming that ALL of the power from the engine goes to the alternator! Even with your hypothetical "90% efficient" electrolyser, it would still require over 8 times more energy for electrolysis than the total energy output of the engine!
Clev Jons 1:50PM (9/10/2008)
Hello Joseph;
I see your point.
The auto companies have billions of dollars in the current infrastructure and will not change till it no longer makes money for them. There are companies like GM and Daimler (and some other European companies) that have working Hydrogen vehicles. They do not use HHO gas but liquid Hydrogen. I can't afford a $100,000 (or more) Hydrogen car, Most people can't. Where would I go to fill the Hydrogen tank without breaking the bank? So why change the manufacturing over to that which would making so little money.
When the electrolyzer is perfected these companies will most likely use them. But when will the units generate 10,000 liters of gas per hour? The best one can hope for is to supplement their gasoline engine with HHO to save on gasoline.
The more HHO gas used the more one needs to retard the timing to prevent backfires, as, HHO gas expansion rate is greater than that of gasoline vapor when burned.
I understand one can't use HHO with vehicles that have an computer. Something to do with the oxygen sensor and the computer dumping more fuel to compensate. Tell me if you know, please.
Djof 9:48PM (5/29/2007)
Sounds like HHO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OO_WrdvvIk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_gas
Reply
mark 6:45AM (5/30/2007)
I'm sorry, but claiming they are naysayers is incorrect. The truth is they are sceptics, on the basis of known science. There is little available energy in water. There is a minimum amount of energy required to seperate hydrogen from oxygen in water molecules. This minimum amount is a theoretical minimum, that cannot be achieved in practice. The amount of energy you can potentially get back from recombining the Hydrogen with oxygen is the same as the amount of energy required to split it.
Now, that said, amazing breakthroughs have been made in our understanding of physics before. But there are practical reasons why we know this is not try. If Mr Meyer has been able to run an engine on water, that produces enough power to re-split that water, why isn't he doing something more useful with the energy? For example, build 1000 of these 100Kw engines, and set up a power plant, powering millions of homes, with little to no cost.
He doesn't, because it doesn't work. I'm 100% confident if it did work, we'd have definitive proof by now. Of course conspiracy theorists love vehement opposition, and love defying this kind of logic.
Reply
L505 2:33AM (11/21/2008)
As a skeptic, I am disappointed that people would believe lighting "matches" and then "burning wood magically" could ever be possible. Every time I go to a store and I see a box of "matches" I call the county police station and report them for fraud.
One cannot just put a minimal amount of effort into lighting a match, and expect anything to provide more energy than they put in with the initial spark. It is absolute fraud.
With regards to the Oil under the ground.. one would have to spend more money extracting the oil than he would EVER gain out of the oil once it was extracted. Trust me. It takes more energy to transport the oil from one tube to the other, than you will EVER gain burning the oil with these so called "sparks". These "sparks" that people speak of are the same fraudulent "sparks" that people talk about in love affairs. These fraudulent "sparks" are the same fraud that people talk about in those stores where they say man invented fire. I have news for you: there is no fire. There is no such thing. It is a myth. No one can PROVE that fire exists - we only hear myths about these ridiculous "sparks" and "fire" which no one has ever seen. Absolute frauds.
What is a simpler more reasonable explanation, according to Occams razor?
1. The "sparks", magical blue unexplainable blasts of energy, which trickle and twinkle (what pseudoscience, pull-lease) actually exist.
2. Someone made up "sparks" in a love story and sparks are a scam.
The answer, is obviously number 2, folks. Sparks, are a fraud. The way people describe sparks, and fire, is exactly the same way that fraudulent con artists describe their love affairs. To think that something "bright, orange, and lovely" can just "magically occur after a small spark is added", and to think that you could get more energy from a "spark" than you put in... I tell you, kids, you are a bunch of f**king frauds.
"spark plugs" are frauds and they do not exist. Stores that sell matches or spark plugs, should indeed be fined and their owners should be put in prison. You cannot "spark" a bit of gas with some magic and expect to gain more energy out of the gas than you put in with the spark. The spark would have to put in MORE energy than you got out of the gas. Morons!
mark 2:41AM (11/23/2008)
Wow, I think you missed the "on the basis of known science". There is no magic in burning wood - we know how the energy gets there (trees absorb energy from the sun using chlorophyll), same with oil (Basically a very long running biomass reactor from organisms that also derived their energy from the sun, or other organisms). There are well established reasons why we can get more energy out of these sources than it takes to harvest them (generally that some other naturally provided process is putting the energy in instead of us).
We also know how energy gets into hydrogen - especially since most sources of hydrogen are ones that we have designed. If you can find a source of hydrogen, that comes naturally rather than being produced you've hit a gold mine. But so far I've only seen examples of hydrogen sources that are created by us putting energy in - Therein lies the massive difference between using wood as fuel or oil as fuel.
I do agree however, that any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic to someone who doesn't understand it - So perhaps I just need a better explanation of the whole "net energy positive electrolysis and then oxidizing of hydrogen" process because my current understanding is mistaken.