Talk:Water fuel cell/Archive 3

PLEASE ADD COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

Plausability

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

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

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

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

Perpetual Motion Section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marketing Strategy

I think it would be interesting and informative to have a section on the "marketing strategy" that ultimately got Meyer into trouble. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything but hearsay. The important events occurred in early 90's, before things were routinely on the web, so it makes it more difficult. Any ideas? Prebys (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What trouble? Stanley Meyers was not convicted of anything. He lost a lawsuit and was ordered to repay his investors their money since he would not divulge his methods openly with them. The Judge did not rule that Stanley Meyers' water car didn't run as stated. The judge did not rule that the water fuel cell didn't work. It would be safe to discuss his marketing, yes. Anything else should be backed with actual records from the Court of Records having jurisdiction over the lawsuit. A Simple Freedom of Information query with the court will get a release of all records and should include either a transcript or recording of the hearing(s). Print facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I55ere (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Most people would consider losing a lawsuit and being required to pay investors thousands of dollars "trouble" (I know I would). My request stands. Prebys (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Being required to "Pay" investors would be trouble. Returning an investor's money is not a fine or "Paying" them. Also, being ordered to pay their attorney and court fees is only meeting the terms set forth by the plaintiff in the lawsuit and was a chance that Meyers took by showing up in court to refute the plaintiff's allegations, rather than just settling out of court for some arbitrary amount of money. A civil suit is a win or lose deal. There are no convictions. It is still a matter of record of how the suit was worded, what the plaintiffs wanted, whether or not Meyers was allowed to give testimony, call witnesses, or show that his system worked as claimed or not. Those are facts which can be verified. By not using or obtaining the actual documents and recordings of the proceedings and then diving deeper into "Marketing Practices" only shows a malicious intent to discredit everything about Meyers and destroy his credibility and reputation. Isn't that what an UNBIASED approach is designed to prevent? To gather all the available, verifiable information and and use it to produce an encyclopedia that is ACCURATE, CONCISE and HONEST. We are creating the works that compile the human experience while detailing the knowledge gained; for all to use and to pass on to future generations. Whether Meyers system worked or not will be put through the test of time and future sciences. Galileo and Copernicus were both put through the scientific ringers for putting forth theories that ran against the known science and observations of their day. Before putting your name to an article that will be read and quoted generations from now, it would be in your best interest and the best interest of Wikipedia to state verifiable facts as we know them and as they are recorded.208.242.58.126 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In a US court, the defendant being required to pay the plaintiffs legal fees is unusual, often indicating that the defendant's position is objectively unreasonable. I must it admit, legal fees are sometimes awarded if the result is more genereous to the opposing party than the settlement offer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual about the defendant being required to pay the plaintiffs legal fees. Especially if it is asked for in the judgment, which is filed by the plaintiff and either allowed or denied by the judge. Here is the wording regarding fees taken directly from the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.

     § 31.007.  PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCOUNTING OF OWN 

COSTS. (a) Each party to a suit shall be responsible for accurately recording all costs and fees incurred during the course of a lawsuit, if the judgment is to provide for the adjudication of such costs. If the judgment provides that costs are to be borne by the party by whom such costs were incurred, it shall not be necessary for any of the parties to present a record of court costs to the court in connection with the entry of a judgment. (b) A judge of any court may include in any order or judgment all costs, including the following: (1) fees of the clerk and service fees due the county; (2) fees of the court reporter for the original of stenographic transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the suit; (3) masters, interpreters, and guardians ad litem appointed pursuant to these rules and state statutes; and (4) such other costs and fees as may be permitted by these rules and state statutes. Texas courts are US Courts and asking for reimbursement of fees is the norm, not an exception as you would lead us to believe.208.242.58.126 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unusual. Courts may award such costs, but rarely do. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn’t unusual in the least. It’s downright common. I’m trying to think of a way to say this politely – you’re talking out of your ass. — NRen2k5, 16:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Article in General

Is this an article about the Water Fuel Cell or Stanley Meyers? It opens with an intorduction to the Water Fuel Cell and gives a brief explanation of the construction and then goes into personal data about Stanley Meyers. If every article were to go into the history of lawsuits that popped up around every invention, this whole encyclopedia would read like a law library. I suggest that the Water Fuel Cell article discuss the Water Fuel Cell and state that it was invented by Stanley Meyer, or maybe this article should be simply deleted since it leads to nowhere, or placed on hold until actual data about the workings of a water fuel cell (water capacitor) can be obtained. As the construction section states, "The fuel cell consists of stainless steel plates arranged as a capacitor, with pure water acting as the dielectric." we are actually describing a water capacitor under another name. The fact that water capacitors do exist and their major flaw is breakdown of the dielectric due to an auto-ionizaion process of the highly purified water (Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 93, No. 6, 15 March 2003) should give some credibility to the possibility of the "Water Fuel Cell" existing.I55ere (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC) The Water fueled car, the lawsuit and death are really not relevant to the water fuel cell and its theory of operation. They would be more appropriately placed in an article on the water fueled car with a link to the water fuel cell.I55ere (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by I55ere (talk • contribs)

The Water Fuel Cell is totally uninteresting except for Meyer's claims that you could power a car with it. If there were a Wikipedia article devoted to every obscure patent, it would soon grow to ridiculous size. The court case is the only thing even close to an independent evaluation of the car's (and the fuel cell's) performance, since Meyer never submitted either to outside review. If it were not included, the article would be biased in favor of Meyer's unsupported claims. As for the comment about the water capacitor, the answer is no, it in no way implies you can have superefficient electrolysis, because (as has been explained many, MANY times), electrolysis as required by the water fuel cell would require significant modification to the laws of physics, while water capacitors are pretty well understood. In short, "Fuel Cell+Meyer+water powered car" = "interesting", any one alone = "uninteresting", any two = "incomplete".Prebys (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV

I've reverted Arthur Rubin's changes to the history of Water fuel cells. This edit here places the history back into the article. Removing this newly added "water fuel cell history" section violates WP:NPOV rules. In particular, for this case, it is evidently violated since this entire article, prior to the addition of this section, only focused on Meyers Water Fuel cell. Since an article should try to represent prominent points of views on the subject matter, it is important to disucss the many other water fuel cells. --CyclePat (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This article specifically is about the "water fuel cell" as in the Meyers concept. It is not about "fuel cells" in general, which are (as the article notes) entirely unrelated except in name. DMacks (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The historical section added contains information regarding water fuel cells. The afformentioned statement proves that this article is promoting a POV, which violates Wikipedia's policy listed at WP:NPOV. All terms are properly reference... including the NASA document which specifically mentions the term "Water fuel cell". --CyclePat (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As Dmacks has explained, a wikipedia article is about a subject and not a term. The information you added has nothing to do with the water fuel cell invented by Stanley Meyer, which is the topic of this article. If you wish to write about other water fuel cells, please create another article and a disambiguation page to guide the readers to the article they wish to read. Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Pledger device is a conventional fuel cell that explicitly says it consumes carbon feedstocks for the production of gaseous fuels (which are then used in a conventional fuel cell) and does not appear to be related to any sort of resonance- or other electronically-controlled/driven system for breaking apart water. The Kamoshita, et al patent explciitly says its fuel cells run on oxidant and reductant gases (therefore again it's a normal fuel cell, unrelated to Meyers device). The Brown device (though I can't read the actual patent) sounds again like the water is a vehicle for transporting other items, not the fuel itself. The NASA device document (p6) explicitly states that "In a water electrolysis propulsion system, water stored in a lightweight, low pressure tank is fed to an electrolyzer. The electrolyzer consumes electrical energy to decompose the water into pressurized hydrogen and oxygen", so again it's not a Meyers-esque "water fuel cell" and describes how it is conventional electrolysis (or is that really all Meyers water fuel cell is?). We already have a fuel cell page. DMacks (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Great observations. I think they should be noted along side the information in this article to explain the differences and hence help maintain a NPOV article. --CyclePat (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore do take note of WP:CFORK which specifically dissallows for such content forking. All contributors should work to represent an NPOV article. --CyclePat (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's not the same subject (therefore WP:CFORK explicitly does not apply). It's a similarly-named topic but a different topic, so at best it's a case for disambiguation to keep people from getting confused by unrelated meanings of the same term. DMacks (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sincerelly not convinced that this is "another subject". In fact I'm sincerelly not entirely convinced that there is even enought information to consider it a certain aspect of another subject which would justify a separate article. Accroding to my research it appears that these fuel cells all claim to use water at one point in time. In fact the first one even describes the process on how the water is somehow re-used. The second one clearly states that it used water as the oxidant as "A method of cooling a boiling water fuel cell". The NASA document (p.6) mentions that the feeding of water vapor feed electrolysis. One reason I'm not entirelly convinced is because I do not see the section which should be referenced when you say "it's not a Meyers-esque "water fuel cell"s". In fact, I clearly remember reading Meyers patent and it mentioning the use of water vapors in his patent (something similar to the NASA document). --CyclePat (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the abstract of the NASA Docucment: "Electrolysis propulsion has been recognized over the last several decades as a viable option to meet many satellite and spacecraft propulsion requirements. This technology, however, was never used for in-space missions. In the same time frame, water based fuel cells have flown in a number of missions. These systems have many components similar to electrolysis propulsion systems. Recent advances in component technology include: lightweight tankage, water vapor feed electrolysis, fuel cell technology, and thrust chamber materials for propulsion. Taken together, these developments make propulsion and/or power using electrolysis/fuel cell technology very attractive as separate or integrated systems. A water electrolysis propulsion testbed was constructed and tested in a joint NASA/Hamilton Standard/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories program to demonstrate these technology developments for propulsion. The results from these testbed experiments using a 1-N thruster are presented. A concept to integrate a propulsion system and a fuel cell system into a unitized spacecraft propulsion and power system is outlined." --CyclePat (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Even that abstract fails to indicate anything other than a normal electrolysis (i.e., requires significant input of external power, not a poewr-source itself) or fuel-cell. The Meyers water fuel cell actually claims to use water as the net fuel source (hence the over-unity issue) not just involve water in some way. That's what's different and notable about it. That's why this article exists here on this topic: it's different from other meanings of "fuel cell" and it's citedly-claimed to be different than just normal electrolysis. DMacks (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone answered your question yet? If, yes then put 'tnull | help' in the template . This means u don't ave millions of people answering your question in the same way. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 08:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead specifically says, "The water fuel cell is a device invented by American Stanley Meyer...". This means the subject of the article is a water fuel cell invented by Stanley Meyer. Any other fuel cell, whether it use water or not, is not relative to this article because the subject of this article is Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, not any other fuel cell. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 13:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be an old article..

People are creating more energy from Water Fuel cells.. just go and see www.water4gas.com and many others. They split water in an electrolysor, direct it into the engine and improve the fuel mileage by up to 107% -all without needing to charge the battery every day!

This is not thermodynamics -we are moving into the domain of catalysts! Just like every food chain you ingest has a specific catalyst with a specific shape.. the water responds to the catalyst and splits using less energy than it creates joining..

It doesn't fit normal energy laws, but neither did spliting the atom seem possible so many years ago! If ecperiments in cars are provin got improve the efficiecy of combustion engines with out draining the batties (ie the alternator is charging it with power form the car, and that does not fit any laws -then we need to develop new laws.

Science has come a long way but has still got further to go.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.146.55.124 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's STILL thermodynamics - what is being referred to here is variations on injecting a fine water spray into the cylinders of a conventional gasoline engine to retard the ignition and allow the flame to run more smoothly through the air-fuel mixture. This is an extremely well known technique - and it does improve gas milage - but not by ANYTHING LIKE 100%. 10% maybe. But it has some horrible downsides that are not obvious in just a few hundred miles of driving. Firstly, the water tends to get into the oil - which causes all sorts of corrosion problems - secondly the water condenses out in the exhaust system and rusts that out in no time flat. So while it's a slightly interesting idea - it's useless in practice. You know this because if there was a 'free' way to get a 10% fuel saving, we'd all be using it. The idea of cracking water with electricity and then burning the hydrogen flat out doesn't work.

But hey - if you DO believe that you can get a 107% improvement then do this for me: Go out and buy a MINI Cooper - which does about 50mpg and costs $18,000 - with a 107% improvement, it'll do over 100mpg. This will result in a car that will easily win the $10 million DARPA prize that was announced a few days ago. Dunno how much the 'electrolysis' system will go for - let's be really pessimistic and assume it'll cost you $80,000. There you go - a $9,900,000 profit - guaranteed. Now - wouldn't you think that if it was that easy - DARPA would have aimed a little higher - or BMW/MINI would have entered a car with this system? It is a measure of my absolute certainty that this work that I'm not converting my MINI and entering the contest...yep - I'm prepared to turn down $9,900,000 - I'm that certain that this is a completely, utterly bogus claim. Now - if you believe in this claim - perhaps you'd explain why you aren't rushing out to do just that? SteveBaker (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made a 'electrolyzer' fuel cell and connected it to my car and it works perfectly. It has increased fuel savings by increasing fuel mileage by 40%. The 107% figure is overstated. The engine also has more power. Basically the unit is connected to a fuel injected system through the air intake. On a modern car, the car's computer will automatically adjust timing for the changed air/fuel ratio. The output gas from the elecrolyzer is not water vapour but a combustable gas. The gas flow is controlled by a combination of vacuum feedback and electronic circuitry to match the accelerator position. There are now many kits appearing on the internet, some with money back guarantee. One reason why we are not all using them is because of government legislation. Fuel for cars is government controlled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.163.29 (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to morph the topic. Meyer didn't claim that his device increased gas mileage. He claimed it would allow you to run your car on water. There's a difference. There's already a separate article on (supposed) hydrogen fuel enhancement. Please take this discussion there.Prebys (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Final recommendation: Actually Presbys, I believe you are being impolite. The anonymous IP brings up a valid example, as I too have done with my previous edit within the article that added different patents of "water fuel cells". These other patents substantiate the idea that the term "water fuel cell" should not simply focus on Meyer's invention. Doing this, as per the status quo, is called a POV per WP:NPOV and is not permitted here on Wikipedia. That means we a problem! It should be resolved. Aside: I would like to point out that relying entirely on one or two sources (That is the Patents by Meyers) is seemingly a biased POV. Furthermore, "Water fuel cell" is a termed used in many different circumstances. Attempting to withhold this fact is not only wrong or frustrating but seriously violates Wikipedia's policies. Finally, I see another problem: Just about as serious, if not worse than putting in our own WP:OR, there are un-sourced statements which claim that that Meyers invention (ONE of many different types of fuel cells) is a violation of the thermal dynamic laws. Please provide sources. I think that if everyone worked together on one "water fuel cell" article this could turn into a full featured article listing the numerous facts. Some of us obviously have what appears to be "expert knowledge" on the subject. If so, why not add this information within the article highlighting the differences between a regular fuel cell, water fuel cell, Meyers water fuel cell, etc... and most importantly the references? I therefore recommend this article be expanded in a collaborative manner to include not only Meyers invention but other very relevant "Water fuel cells". --CyclePat (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have solved one of our issues by adding the etymology section. --CyclePat (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything that talks about "fuel cells" or "water fuel cells", except in the context of Meyers' device, is off-topic. It's not "POV" to talk about only one topic in an encyclopedia that is explicitly organized by topic. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Etymology" section added by CyclePat was just a coatrack to include unrelated content that had been deleted earlier. I have added a disambiguation link explaining the scope of this article and linking to Fuel Cell for now. If the page, Water Fuel Cell (disambiguation), is created linking to alternate encyclopedic articles on the topic, we can change the disamb. link. Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What does an essay from WP:COATRACK have to do with this? I am putting the well sourced information back in, since I sincerely do not understand this explanation. In fact the information which I returned to the article was summarized in 1 sentence to conform to the "minority" point of view per WP:NPOV... this is specifically dealt with in WP:DUE whereas

• "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." or,
• "NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page"

In fact the etymology section does just this and is commonly used in articles. Take for example Mass spectrometry‎ or Etymology (itself). Also, "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past." The etymology section does this and I put it to you that it's removal is not warranted under WP:COATRACK. --CyclePat (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing off-topic with POV. If you are not satisfied with the multiple explanations given to you on this page, please feel free to open and RFC on the topic. I would strongly advise you against edit-warring and simply re-inserting your ~3KB of off-topic content for the 5th (?) time. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with you that WP:COATRACK was not an appropriate essay to link to; since your edits are simply off-topic and not biased. My apologies. Abecedare (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay! I've taken a step back to look at the article apple. I'm not sure if that's the best example because it doesn't include an etymology section but it has given me an idea of what you mean by off-topic. To for example Apple Macintosh (computer) vs. Apple (the fruit). (b.t.w.: with this example, I think you are right to say it may be off topic since Applec computer doesn't talk about the fruit.) So I looked some more... and found the article Golf which has an etymology section. This didn't really help in supporting my above final recommendation and help with the idea that we should have a disambiguation page. However, I would like to point out that ther "TERM" "water fuel cell", just like the term "apple" could have an etymology section related to other facts, ideas or as you say "off-topic" issues. Just as electric bicycle I'm not entirelly convinced with my method and will look into this issue in the next few days. --CyclePat (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was clearly conceived to be about Meyer's "water fuel cell", and not other devices for (supposedly) extracting energy from water, let alone unique applications of ordinary electrolysis, such as the NASA propulsion system. Since you obviously feel strongly about this, the best advice would be to for you to write a "water fuel cell" disambiguation" page, where you could gather anything else to which the term might apply.Prebys (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

<deindent after ec>
CyclePat, I agree with most of what you say in your apple/golf post. My view:

• An "Etymology" section describes the origin of a term, or origin of a particular use of the term. Since Meyer's water fuel cell is the topic of this article, in order to add an etymology section we would need some sources that explain how Meyer ended up using "Water Fuel Cell" as the name for his product. AFAIK such sources do not exist, nor are likely to.
• In some cases when there is a raging controversy on use of a term, we can write a wikipedia article on the term and usage itself, for example, Gay and India's First War of Independence (term). Note that the subject of both these articles is the term itself; the topic that the terms refer to are covered in homosexuality, and Indian Rebellion of 1857 respectively. Again as far as I know, there is not a single source on the term "Water Fuel cell", which would justify creating an article Water fuel cell (term).
• There are innumerable cases where the same term is used for distinct subjects. WP:Disambiguation is designed exactly for this purpose and we can create a disambiguation page for "Water Fuel cell". The only question is what other pages such a disamb. page should link to since I am not certain that the Brown device or the one described in the NASA document merit wikipedia article of their own. My current judgement is that they'll fail the notability requirements, but I am ready to change my mind, if we can find multiple secondary sources that refer to either of those devices.

Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should follow the example of The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman and title this page "Stan Meyers' Water Fuel Cell" or something similar. That will make it clear that this article is specifically about Meyers' work. Then, we can decide how to disambig/redirect the term "Water Fuel Cell". — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the article lithium ion battery and have decided that this article requires a small blurb stating that Meyers Water fuel cell should not be confused with other fuel cells. This point is trully non negotiable and required if we want to have a disambiguation. --99.240.196.9 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good points on both the article's name and a disclaimer within the article itself.I55ere (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Water Powered Car

I notice that "water powered car" redirects to this page. In fact, this is just one of many cars that have supposedly run on water over the years, dating back at least to the 1935 "Garrett Water Carburetor" [3] - even earlier if you count magic pills that supposedly turned water into gasoline.[4] If I don't hear any objections, I'll expand the Water Powered Car page and remove the redirection. Prebys (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be better to redirect it to Water-fuelled car and improve that article. Abecedare (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the redirect myself. Will leave the article improvement to you :) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I would have missed the "water-fuelled car" article and started from scratch. Good thing I posted this first.Prebys (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrections necessary

There is a lot of bad information in this article. A perpetual motion machine is a machine that continues to create motion indefinitely without adding fuel (which is obviously impossible). The water fuel cell is not a perpetual motion machine. It is no different than any other engine which burns fuel, except that the fuel for the electrolysis for the machine is free and everywhere. By the current logic of the article, an ordinary gasoline engine must also be a perpetual motion machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.49.182 (talk)

A "perpetual motion machine" need not involve motion nor itself produce energy. The formal term is probably an "over-unity device": one that allows production of more energy (in total) than it consumes (in all forms together). As is explained in the article and rehashed many times on this talk page, the Meyers cell, if it were to operate as claimed, would involve the use of water as a fuel to produce energy, along with material that could be converted back into water with the production of more energy. Please don't continue this discussion until you have read all the times before it's been had here. No reason to waste everyone's time with idle speculation and wishful thinking. DMacks (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Because these comments are often made by anonymous users, I suspect many are sock-puppets for a single user. Nevertheless, I've tried to slightly reword the intro yet again to satisfy the slower students.Prebys (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A machine which could turn electricity and water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burn the hydrogen with the oxygen (which would produce water that you could run back out of the exhaust and into the tank) to drive the car AND keep the battery charged would indeed run perpetually because neither water nor electricity is being consumed. Hence, this (if it really worked as claimed) would be a perpetual motion machine. There is no getting away from that - so this aspect of the article is not "bad information" - it's completely correct in that regard. It doesn't "burn" water as a fuel - it uses it as a working fluid - much like a steam engine would. There isn't any energy left in water to extract - it's already in it's lowest energy state. The only way to turn the water into something (hydrogen) that you can burn is to put energy into it in the form of electricity. The very best you can possibly hope to do when you burn the hydrogen is to get back the energy you put in as electricity. However, you'd need to use 100% of that electricity to recharge your battery - or it'll run down and you'll have basically built a very inefficient electric car. But that assumes 100% efficiency in your electrolyser and in your internal combustion engine and in your generator...and it leaves no power left to actually move the car. This set of very simple facts have been tested and understood exceedingly well over hundreds of years. What this means that it is quite utterly impossible to build a real, working, water powered car no matter how smart you are and no matter what exotic approaches you take. The energy you seek simply isn't there in the water to start with - so there is no energy to extract. SteveBaker (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration panel ruling over Pseudoscience and published theories.

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

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

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

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

Renamed...

This confusion about 'true' fuel cells has to stop. Even if this device operated as claimed, it would not be a 'fuel cell' in the conventional meaning of the term. Per previous suggestion, I'm being bold and renaming it to Stanley Meyers' water fuel cell which makes it clear that we choose the meaning of the term that Meyer's used. This is also a good thing because Stanley Meyers links here and someone seeking information about the man himself would be confused to be dumped into an article about fuel cells. This way - everyone should be happy.

The 'Water Fuel Cell' article is now a disambiguation article that links to both here and to Fuel cell.

The dozen or so places that linked to Water fuel cell now link here directly - and they all make much more sense as a result.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thumbs up! — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved the talk archive via cut&paste rather than using the Move tab. As a result, the old location is blanked but not completely removed. Oops. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Kudos! Hopefully, this will lower the noise level... a bit, anyway.Prebys (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good jobI55ere (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Patents

Hi I am a new user to Wiki, so I hope I am posting this suggestion correctly.

Everone attempting to flex their scientific muscle below need to take several steps backwards. It is clearly incorrect to state that the water fuel cell and other Meyer technologies were falsely claimed.

The biggest disappointment in the article is that it fails to mention the patents (which are even listed further down the article!!!) that Meyer applied for and was SUCCESSFULLY granted. The fact he did not prove his inventions in court are therefore somewhat irrelevant in terms of whether his claims were valid. Does a patent (arguably one of the highest levels of validity) not give a decent amount of confidence to the idea that his inventions were credible, and literally did what described to do??

I feel a rewording of the few feeble lines, which rob Meyer of his lifelong works credibility needs to take place. Reference to his successful patents and at least even ground needs to be conveyed, that there is as much of a chance if not more that his technology was real, rather than a hoax which this article conveys citing US court cases- which has nothing to do with the science or the validity of the technology.

Take GM's latest hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which uses the exact technology pioneered by Meyer for example. The same principles apply with this, and although it has moved away from the internal combustion hydrogen engine, the self sustainment of the vehicle and its 'mobile powerstation' concept is proof that Meyers technology of getting a larger output of energy (in the form of hydrogen) than what is input (small amounts of electrical charge) is very very real.

The technology will reveal itself in time and I believe Meyer will finally then get his due credit. Pity it is all under wraps now, controlled and regulated. And funny that hydrogen fuel cell technology will be introduced by car manufacturers in collabortation will oil companies who never intended to slip from their perch. Their powerful grip and financial control on the world will remain.......

--DGM Ward (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)--DGM Ward (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Take GM's latest hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which uses the exact technology pioneered by Meyer for example." False. If it were the same technology, GM would have to ask Meyer's heirs for permission.

And a patent is no proof that the technology works as stated, only that that particular method of operation is covered by the patent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

While powerful in courts of law, patents are powerless against the Laws of thermodynamics. Yilloslime (t) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Word to the wise: Don't feed the troll.Prebys (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• The water fuel cell was definitely incorrectly claimed - what was claimed is impossible.
• Patents are not “arguably one of the highest levels of validity”. They barely even validate that the “inventor” was the first to come up with the idea. They're a legal tool to protect the inventor's interests. As such, they prove nothing about the invention. Court judgments trump patents.
• If the technology worked, then it would have been a trivial matter for Meyer to prove it in a court of law. He was asked to do exactly that and he refused, which has everything to do with the validity of his technology.
• The “water fuel cell” is not a fuel cell. It’s an electrolysis cell. A real fuel cell produces electrical energy from fuel, not vice-versa. The GM hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is not self-sustaining and it is not fuelled by water. It has absolutely nothing to do with Meyer’s work.
• The “water fuel cell” “technology” has already revealed itself – as a fraud. It only continues to be popular because, as P.T. Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” — NRen2k5^(TALK), 12:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Patents prove virtually nothing. The average time spent by a patent examiner in approving a patent is 7 minutes. This is only barely enough time to read the text and fill out the paperwork for a typical patent. Worse still, recognise that that 7 minute average includes patents that take entire teams of patent officers weeks to decide...so a good number of them are accepted with no more than a cusory glance. You say that a patent is arguably one of the highest levels of validity - well, I'm sorry - but you are WILDLY off the mark there. A patent proves only that the inventor filed a patent...nothing else. I have about a dozen patents to my name. One of them (made when I was just out of college) is complete junk - it patents ideas that were very well known at the time - it passed without comment. Two other patents that I filed were screwed up by my patent lawyer who exchanged the diagrams from one patent with those of the other - resulting in two completely meaningless documents. Both were granted world-wide patent protection. No, trust me - patents don't count for anything whatever - they serve merely as legal protection in the event that the idea IS workable and someone infringes on it. SteveBaker (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you have any doubt that patents are meaningless, note that a couple of years ago, someone finally managed to patent this idea, which most of us "invented" by the age of 12.Prebys (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually built one of those machines from a couple of Lego Technics motors as a demonstration when my son "invented" that...I think he was maybe 8 years old at the time. Because simple DC electric motors make great generators, you can connect the cable from one Lego motor to that of another. Lo and behold, when you turn one motor, the other one turns...no batteries, nothing! It's kinda magical when you see it work - you turn one motor and the other one seems to follow what you do exactly (of course it doesn't QUITE manage to mimic what you do - it always lags a bit). So - if you connect the two motors through a common axle and start them spinning - what happens? Nothing of course. They barely spin after you stop turning them with your finger. Far from perpetual motion - you get "No motion". It's truly amazing that even the overworked US patent system let that one slip through - but if the author wrapped it up with enough obfuscational language, you could see how that could happen. SteveBaker (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the patent, there's no obfuscation at all. It's one of the clearest patent descriptions I've ever seen. My guess is someone did it on a bet. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out the wiggle room that allowed it to be patented. All I could come up with was, whereas the abstract states

"Once the system has started it is not necessary for the battery to supply power. The battery can then be disconnected."

it doesn't actually say it will continue running after you do that. After all, it's not "necessary" for the device to continue running. That, or the patent officer was just a moron. Whatever the case, I'm actually glad it's there, because it's handy to prove just exactly how little a patent means in these matters.Prebys (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quaternions...Hehehehe!

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

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

RM unreferenced claims challenged per Wikipedia's Guidelines and Policies

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

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

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

Challenge #1

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

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

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

Challenge #2

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

Long commentary in references.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Ryan is in a news report from Action 6 News

Conclusion: This report is most likely from chanel WSYX

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

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

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

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

[5]

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

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

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

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

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

RM Unreferenced claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Term water fuel cell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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