Jump to content

Talk:Water fuel cell/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Water fuel cell

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.193.218.207 (talk) at 04:55, 8 January 2007 (punctuation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

This claim violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. It is not physically possible to create energy, only to transfer it from one form to another. This water fuel cell is a hoax.

no, this is about over unity where energy is tapped from a near infinite source - Infowarrior 22:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you mean over unity, where energy is created from nothing, breaking the first and second laws of thermodynamics. — Omegatron 02:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Over unity does not require that the energy source be created from nothing. It can also be described as extracting undiscovered energy from the environment. The difference is discussed in the perpetual motion wiki. Infowarrior 08:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

>> It is more efficient than other electrolysis devices that do the same thing.

Doing what? Even I am more efficient at doing nothing than other electrolysis devices.

>> no gas bubbles

...okay, maybe I am not the best example.

>> Unlike conventional electrolysis, it doesn't use a large amount of electricity nor does it release a lot of waste heat.

This also applies to a brick.

>> In conventional electrolysis devices three times more energy is consumed than is produced.

Electrolysis devices do not produce energy.

>> The Water Fuel Cell appears to produce several times more energy than it consumes.

Not to me.

>> Scientists witnessed and confirmed that it worked.

That a combustion engine ran on hydrogen?

>> [...] it didn't always work [...] It failed to work [...] always works, but didn't always function [...]

You lost me there. So does it always work or not? (that's a rhetorical question)

>> Meyer's water car may simply need further development and fine tuning to function dependably.

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

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

cleaned up links:

Femto 18:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

my opinion is that the best way to fight pseudoscience on wikipedia (and the internet) is to keep the articles and show in the article why the idea is wrong. don't delete or censor. they view that as a confirmation that their idea is right and the conspiracy is suppressing it.  :-) some people don't want wp to have lots of debunking articles, but i don't understand why. providing unbiased info that everyone can agree on is one of its strong points. - Omegatron 18:27, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding free energy, that page is explicitly about free energy in thermodynamics, and there is already very similar content at free energy suppression. Regarding this article, I hope I showed due restraint on redacting it and kept an equal amount of factual content from both sides. Your sentence about conservation of energy is all the debunking that is needed so far. After all, unbiased-ness is two-sided. Femto 20:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

This is Patented

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

I call bullshit and I take objection to calling it "science". So the US patent law is your only defense and proof? You wouldn't happen to be able to provide a link to the published proceedings of the patent clerk's evaluation and its scientific reasonings? No? A review of positive experimental results from other independent scientists? If findings under US law are important, why was that little 'detail' removed regarding the court ruling against Meyer because he just could not demonstrate his device to work? If you call it science, apply scientific measure. The assertions and twisted half-truths in this article don't even come close to Wikipedia's credibility standards. Femto 11:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Phew. I'm glad someone else is watching this article besides me. This stuff ends up at hydrogen car, too. I plan to update the article with a description from the actual patents, though several patents are inter-related and it's some work to read through them. It looks like just a standard electrolysis setup with some weird magnetic dust pumping thing attached... — Omegatron 13:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I call bullshit on your ignorance of patent law. Any devices that goes through the US patent process must have all of its components tested and the device demonstrated in front of official witnesses that are competent to evalutate the device. I do not believe that patent clerk evaluation process on the Meyer device exists freely on the internet and you will have to pay money to get the full file or request it from the US patent office. - Infowarrior 22:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Infowarrior, welcome to the Real World. Patents are granted, especially in the US but not exclusively, to anyone filing for anything. Verification is all but nonexistent, and assigning a ludicrous patent is fairly common, as long as the "inventor" pays up. Patenting is not the same as peer reviewing. The very concept of a water fuel cell is so utterly laughable that I am surprised there are people actually discussing its feasibility. Perpetual motion has been discredited since the dawn of modern science, and it is quite sad that the general public has not yet catched up with that. --Orzetto 13:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Right, I'm not an expert about patent laws. Neither seem you. The assertion of the requirement of witnesses is simply untrue. Quote http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/utility.htm "Thus, in the usual case where the mode of operation alleged can be readily understood and conforms to the known laws of physics and chemistry, operativeness is not questioned, and no further evidence is required."
Also quote [1] "When a properly claimed invention meets at least one stated objective, utility under § 101 is clearly shown." and "To violate § 101 the claimed device must be totally incapable of achieving a useful result." (emphasis mine) It's claimed to be a new form of electrolysis device, and in accordance with one asserted utility it makes bubbles when current is applied. Thus the patent is granted.—This absolutely does not prove in any way, and especially not in any scientific way, the veracity of all the other patented claims. Femto 20:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
"Today, the utility requirement is the lowest bar and is easily met." - Utility (patent)
Not to mention that his patents don't talk about overunity or anything. He simply claims an electrolysis device or a "gas generator" or a "pulse generator". He doesn't claim that the electrolysis device uses less energy than a conventional electrolysis device (and the lawsuit found that it was nothing more than a conventional electrolysis device).
He does have some weird things, though, like sending magnetic dust through a coil of pipe to generate electricity (??) or using a hollow-cored electromagnet to propel gases infused with magnetic dust (which would just attract the dust, not propel it). So maybe he just got a patent on the electrolysis part? — Omegatron 21:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, I mean examiners, not witnesses. Patent examiners are engineers, biotechnologists, etc and are competent to understand the material in the patent and evaluate the claims. If any of the claims in a patent cannot be verified then the patent is rejected. Meyer had to bring in his equipment for demonstration at the patent office for the examiners. He tells the story of how one the examiners was very skeptic until the invention was running and putting of huge volumes of hydrogen gas, to which the examiner began running and shouting frantically for everyone to put out their cigarettes or any fires. The information you are talking about Femto regards definition of 'specific utility' and 'usefulness' which means a patent much state that it has a 'use' or 'purpose'; "A statement of specific utility should fully and clearly explain why the applicant believes the invention is useful. Such statements will usually explain the purpose of or how the invention may be used (e.g., a compound is believed to be useful in the treatment of a particular disorder). Regardless of the form of statement of specific utility, it must enable one ordinarily skilled in the art to understand why the applicant believes the claimed invention is useful." [2] This has nothing to do with verifying the claims.Infowarrior 05:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
What now? If § 101/112 has nothing to do with verifying claims, pray tell what else are we talking about? The link says "However, as the Federal Circuit has stated, "[t]o violate § 101 the claimed device must be totally incapable of achieving a useful result." (8) If an invention is only partially successful in achieving a useful result, a rejection of the claimed invention as a whole based on a "lack of utility" is not appropriate. (9)" [ref.8 "Knapp v. Anderson, 477 F.2d 588, 590, 177 USPQ 688, 690 (CCPA 1973)" ; ref.9 "See, e.g., Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. At 534-35, 148 USPQ at 695-96"]
The specific utility is that it's some sort of electrolysis device. This is verified so far, and no further examination is necessary. People have successfully sued to get patents granted because of one credible claim, even though another was found incredible. If I invent a new broom with a twist, it will get patented simply because of the new shape of the handle, regardless of whether I also claim a utility that the bristles emit invisible pink healing rays with every sweep. It lies neither in the responsibility nor in the competence of patent offices to determine beyond all scientific doubt whether invisible pink healing rays do or cannot exist.
As for the 'scientific' quality of patents, quote http://www.forbes.com/global/2000/0529/0311090a.html "Given that patent examiners start with salaries as low as $28,000, we can scarcely expect a lot of Einsteins to apply for the job. Their workload has swelled in recent years, turnover is high and greenhorns end up deciding issues that would stump seasoned experts." — According to our patents, we already have perpetual motion, superluminal communication, infinite information density, you name it. "Must have all of its components tested" my foot. And that doesn't even say anything about claims based upon unproven (or principally unprovable) theories and twisted, pseudoscientific ramblings.
Any person ordinarily skilled in the art and competent to evaluate the device would determine that it violates the known fundamental scientific principles. Simply feed the burned exhaust back into it, and you have a perpetual motion machine with free energy out of nothing. It's impossible to disprove any existence of undiscovered principles. The burden of proof lies with the advocates to show that 1. first of all, it's not a fraud and really works, 2. what happens cannot be explained with conventional theories, 3. working models for free examination by other scientists exist, and their findings have been published and reviewed, for a start. Dubious patent examinations or testimonies from influenced witnesses are circumstantial evidence at most. All evidence together so far only amounts to plus minus zero at best, not enough to be presented as "science" under Wikipedia's policies.
Quote perpetual motion: "This sort of "invention" has become common enough that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. One reason for this concern is that a few "inventors" have waved a patent in front of potential investors, who may believe that said patent proves the machine works. The USPTO has granted a few patents for motors that are claimed to run without net energy input. These patents were issued because it was not obvious from the patent that a perpetual motion machine was being claimed." Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Femto 13:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
His claims don't involve overunity or perpetual motion, anyway. He just claims
  • "an apparatus for obtaining the release of a gas mixture including hydrogen and other dissolved gases entrapped in water"
  • "A method of obtaining the release of a gas mixture including hydrogen and oxygen and other dissolved gases formerly entrapped in water"
  • "A method of obtaining the release of energy from a gas mixture including hydrogen and oxygen"
  • "A hydrogen gas generator system for converting water into hydrogen and oxygen gasses, in combination with a magnetic particle accelerator for voltage/current electrical potential generation"
  • "A start-up/shut/down circuit for activating and deactivating a non-ionic hydrogen generator burner system on demand"
  • "A hydrogen gas burner for the mixture of hydrogen gas with ambient air and non-combustible gasses."
  • "System and apparatus for the controlled intermixing of a volatile hydrogen gas with oxygen and other non-combustible gasses in a combustion system."
  • "An electrical pulse generator comprising a series of electromagnets spatially positioned about the outer circumference of a disc-like base and a second series of complimentary electromagnets positioned about an inner position on said disc"
Just because he demonstrated electrolysis or the burning of hydrogen doesn't mean his claims of breaking the laws of physics have been validated by the patent office. — Omegatron 13:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Patents

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

Pictures

I uploaded some pictures from the patents.

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

possible copyvio

Parts of this article look like they were taken (indirectly, no doubt) from this Keelynet file: [3] (The section starting with "Reprinted in part from an article in "ELECTRONICS WORLD + WIRELESS WORLD" January 1991"). Although it is copied all over the net already, and says "There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS on duplicating, publishing or distributing the files on KeelyNet except where noted!", they don't demonstrate their permission to reprint the magazine article.

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

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

Then what happened to the water after it was used up? Where did it go? — Omegatron 23:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I assume the recombined water from the engine would be led back into the fuel tank, resulting in a small loss over time from gas line leaks, that is, into the atmosphere.

Laughably POV

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

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

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

As noted above, one point in successfully applying for a patent to wave around is not to claim perpetual motion. This does in no way affect the factual accuracy of it having to be an overunity device. Science is as science does, submitting something to a journal does not make it any more credible. And whining about the establishment is a sure sign of scientific crackpottery, as anybody of said establishment will tell you. Femto 19:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he never used the words "perpetual motion", but he did claim to create a device that converts water into water with a net surplus of energy, and uses the word "overunity". Close enough. — Omegatron 19:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Overunity ≠ Perpetual Motion — 216.86.122.152 07:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It has to be by general definition. Femto 11:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
They are called the "Laws of Thermodynamics" for a reason. God may get to violate them, but no human can or ever will. If the reaction product (exhaust) is the same as the initial reagent (fuel) and a net gain of engery is released by the reaction, then the system can be closed by running the exhaust back into the fuel tank and you would never run out of fuel eh? It would run perpetually, no? Now, about that bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn... Thomas52 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article seems to exhibit a subtle anti water fuel cell bias. As such, I felt the NPOV tag was appropriate. Also, I would question whether the pseudo science template at the top is appropriate. It would be better IMO to Incorporated the contents of the template into the article. Having the template at the top comes across as Wikipedia taking a position on the workability of the water fuel cell concept rather then remaining neutral. Also, the inventor of the water fuel cell passed away under circumstances his supporters claim are suspicious. As such their are conspiracy claims that powerful people wanted to suppress his technology. This info should be mentioned in an NPOV manor. --Cab88 13:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you the think the anti water fuel cell bias is only subtle, we perhaps should emphasize it a bit. In fields of science and engineering an encyclopedia has to present the scholarly consensus. The scholarly consensus on over-unity is rather clear. This approach is part of our policy and has been re-affirmed in recent RFAr cases. --Pjacobi 13:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence—of encyclopedic, scientific, or of any other quality whatsoever—that a working device like this does, did, or even can, exist. Yes, a Pseudoscience label is appropriate for anything that is generally and seriously doubted to be science, until after proven otherwise. Yes, Wikipedia must take a clear position pro mainstream science as not to turn into a platform for crackpot speculations and conspiracy theories. See Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, especially the part about "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." Femto 14:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You must be a fool if you cant believe what is displayed documented and proven repeatedly

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

Bless you. Femto 11:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
So you've built one, I presume. May I see it? — Omegatron 18:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was quite a rag, irvnca.pacbell.net :-/ "If you dont believe in it you must think the world is still flat"? My tactile sense fails me... ---CH 11:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
To speak quite honestly, I would love to see this machine you've built. I don't think you would find many people in the common public who wouldn't like to see it. Please, before harm comes to you, post some real plans on the Internet or tell someone outside of your ring how it works. Please. If you are truly serious, you hold the key to the future. However, if you're a fraud, well... good luck.
A little off-topic, but is anybody else tired of the whole "Galileo" thing? Sir John Sack-and-Sugar 05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw man

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

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

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

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

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

The thing is, it would appear that "it" has been cleverly redefined so that "it" is the perpetual motion machine. While the patent is listed, I can't find anything corresponding to the patent in the acutal article. Therefore, the entire description is not according to Meyer's explanations so deleting it would mean that someone else would just put it back. Hackwrench 22:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Meyer's device claims to perform a thermodynamic cycle with a net gain, no less. I repeat, this makes it a "first order perpetual motion device" by general definition (if it actually runs perpetually is irrelevant to this). Edit the description of the alleged inner workings as appropriate, as long as they're not presented as verified content. The perpetual motion note remains in the article, we must not deceive about this simple fact. Femto 12:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen him use the phrase "thermodynamic cycle" anywhere. Mind pointing to where he makes the claim you suggest? To clarify, I do not see that the system is returned to its initial state. Hackwrench 15:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
See below. Femto

Bond weakening

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

The chemical bond cannot be "weakened", it takes (takes!, not releases) always the same energy to separate one. The claim of some magical bond breakdown and subsequent (repeatable!) release of energy makes this device even more so a perpetual motion machine. Femto 12:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What prevents it from being weakened? The article says that there is energy in the bond? Where does that energy go? Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems, and only state that energy becomes unusable, not destroyed.Hackwrench 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
A bond doesn't result from something like a substance that can be 'weakened', 'broken', or somehow 'shaken loose', but from electromagnetic forces whose closed integral of entropy will always result in zero. That is, the path of change does not matter, the enthalpy of formation for any physical chemical reaction remains the same. Femto 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Except the enthalpy of formation changes when pressure changes, which is what the vibration would seem to change. Hackwrench 18:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The intermediate steps and pressures are irrelevant. Reduce the enthalpies of the reaction products from before and after to an arbitrary standard state, and the fact remains that the energy which they contain is magically created out of nowhere. Femto 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
But wouldn't decreased pressure make it easier for energy to either enter or leave the system? Hackwrench 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Examining my thought processes, matter flows from areas of high to low pressure. The 42Khz pulse indicates a change in pressure, thus indicating that this is not a closed system
Sure, if you look only at arbitrary parts of the sum, something is bound to fall out of the equation. But this is useless for an energy analysis of the whole.
Consider the simplest case: Some hydrogen, oxygen, a combustion engine with a generator, the fuel cell — all in a sealed box, a closed system sure enough. Let the gases burn to power the generator, whose exhaust will be water. Only a fraction of this generated power will suffice to run the fuel cell (this is exactly what Meyer claims). The water is split into hydrogen and oxygen again. The box is right back where it started, but for a magically created surplus waste heat. It has the potential to bring the interior of the box to infinite temperatures. A clear cut first order perpetual motion machine, there is no way around, no matter how you look at the parts. Femto 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I should hope we all understand basic thermodynamics. I believe the implication here is that there is another source of energy in the system that is unknown or neglected in descriptions. For instance, there might be some nuclear reaction going on unnoticed, providing power, or the hydrogen is unknowingly being converted into hydrinos, or the engine is tapping into the ubiquitous zero point energy.
As Beaty says, 'A true "perpetual motion machine" is impossible, but a machine which taps an unknown energy source is not.'
But the simple fact of the matter is that Meyer didn't claim any of this. In his patents he claimed conventional electrolysis and an engine that uses hydrogen for fuel. Nothing new there. Then he claimed to be able to produce net energy from such a system to power a car, which violates our current understanding of physics, didn't provide an explanation of how it worked, couldn't reproduce it in controlled conditions, and was found guilty of fraud. It's our job to report on these facts neutrally and not insert our personal speculation about what may or may not have actually powered a device that may or may not have been a hoax.
The article does need some work, though. There's speculation from both sides, which needs to be removed, and it needs more quotes and references about what Meyer actually did or didn't say and do. — Omegatron 14:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
One can explain with verifiability why the device that is described cannot function, but not beyond wild speculations why it 'mightn't not malfunction'. The ironic thing is, if we grant the benefit of doubt that there may be an undiscovered and unexplainable free energy phenomenon, not only would it make the patents worthless, there'd be even less encyclopedic evidence than before that a working device like this could have ever existed. Femto 12:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Undocumented

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

Simple arithmetic, there'd be more energy in what comes out than in what goes in. Since energy can't be created or destroyed, something must be not accounted for, anywhere in the process. The "cycle" does not refer to a cyclic process, but to any change in a system with a start point and an end point. It doesn't have to return to its initial state for something to go missing.
The fuel cell with all inputs and outputs would be a closed system whose energy balance does not add up, thus it's in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. The very mode of operation implies it. Femto 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Except the only way to tell if more energy is coming out that going in is if the inputs and outputs are documented. Are they? You say the very mode of operation implies it, but implications are unusual things. It seems to me that you are seeing implications where they do not exist. Hackwrench 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It's Meyer's implication, not mine, that his device can put energy into a substance without putting energy into a substance. Femto 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Enumeration

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

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

Why Perpetual Motion?

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

65.111.76.4 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Josepepper 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

From what I gather, nowhere was it said by Meyers that this was a perpetual motion device. Somebody on this talk page did come up with a way to make it perpetual motion (assuming the thing worked in the first place). All you would have to do is pipe the exaust back into the fuel tank, since the exaust is water anyway. You would lose some, but that's the closest to "perpetual" I can think of.

The truth as we know it is that making water into hydrogen and oxygen takes more energy than it would produce, which is the case with some fuels we have now, I suppose. Maybe he found a way to do it better. It's doubtful, but I guess it isn't completely impossible. Sir John Sack-and-Sugar 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Dismissive response: No matter what Meyer said, this is a perpetual motion machine. He did not use the actual denomination because it would have freaked investors he wanted to swindle. Water is not a fuel. Two thirds of the Earth's surface are water and they never caught fire. Breaking bonds takes up energy, it never releases it. Water is one of the best studied compounds and its properties are very well understood. Meyer was just a quack and a bad one at that. The possibility of this thing working is equal to that of finding a closed path that only goes downhill. Also, spare the conspiracy theories please, and rather read a book on thermodynamics or chemistry.
That's it and I will not change my attitude until someone actually comes up with a prototype of this thing functioning as described in controlled conditions.

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

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

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

There would still be wastage through evaporation... the engine would eventually stop... Sfacets 10:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
And until it stops, it would turn water into water with a net energy gain. Thermodynamic efficiency over 100% is perpetual motion by general definition. Femto 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Perpetual motion implies that it wouldn't stop. (perpetual) - the amount of energy consumed would be equal or less than the energy emitted. This isn't the case here, with the inventor himself saying that "only a few bottles of water" would be needed for a journey. This implies that the water is a fuel source, and that the motor itself is not a perpetual motion machine.

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

It exhausts water vapor. Connect the exhaust back to the input and you won't even need to fill it up. — Omegatron 19:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, this is not perpetual motion. You still need an external energy source (in this case, a negative energy source or "sink") to condense the water into a liquid state. A machine doesn't qualify as perpetual motion if it requires a resource from its operating environment to function (in this case, a heat sink). So what if it recycles its fuel? If energy exchange with the environment is required to do so, it ain't perpetual motion.
Now, one could validly argue that condensation implies an energy loss, which would mean that the machine would be producing more energy than it consumes to be able to produce water vapor rather than liquid exhaust.
I would like to revert or modify the statement that was recently added, but not before some additional discussion. -Amatulic 20:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You still need an external energy source (in this case, a negative energy source or "sink")
Think about what you just said for more than a few seconds, and you'll understand. — Omegatron 16:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The gases that come out have more energy than the water plus the electricity that go in. Thermodynamic overunity is claimed. It's that simple. The fact cannot be obfuscated by arbitrarily dividing the system into subparts or by redefining your own concept of what science calls perpetual motion.
As for those 22 gallons. The produced hydrogen is burned in a combustion engine. Burned, as in conventional chemistry, no magic involved, right? There's 9.2 kg hydrogen in 83 L water. Meyer claims to get about 4800 km out of it? BMW's Hydrogen 7 car goes 24 km on 1 kg hydrogen. Future green cars are projected to be able to drive some 60 km per 1 kg hydrogen.
So he was able to tune an old dune buggy to perform eight times better than a modern, specifically designed fuel efficient hydrogen car. He could have marketed such an engine much more easily than the fuel cell, one wonders why he didn't. Or he just made up some numbers to bait investors. What's more likely? Femto 13:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


I can affirm that the Water Fuel cell is a perpetual motion machine, since using it one can in principle build a machine which produces unlimited energy for free (and yes, I do have expertise in the area). But my opinion is not really needed, since the inventor's own claims speak for themself [1] :

"This, he claimed, opened the way for a car which would "run on water", powered simply by a car battery. The car would even run for ever since the energy needed to continue the "fracturing" was so low that the battery could be recharged: from the engine's dynamo."

  1. ^ "End of road for car that ran on Water", The Sunday Times, 1 December, 1996

    2. which is a prototypical example of a perpetual motion machine. You will note that these claims were made in a court case (so presumably under oath) and are cited by a reliabe source The Sunday Times. So in my opinion we don't need the "expert-subject" template any more. Abecedare 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


    The inventor's claim isn't enough to justify affirming that this is perpetual motion. Inclusion is based on verifiable facts, and what is in question here is both 1) wether the machine actually did what it was meant to and 2) Is in fact a Perpetual Motion machine in the strictest meaning of the term. If it is anything else then we cannot write here that it is. According to WP reliable sources media sources cannot be used to verify scientific claims. Therefore a specialist in the area is needed to acertain wether the machine is in fact perpetual motion or not. Sfacets 22:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    Oh now I understand your question (hopefully!). Let me attempt an answer:
    1. If "Water fuel cell" (WFC) did what it was claimed to, then it would be a perpetual motion machine (PMM).
    2. No truly PMM is known to exist; and if one did the very well established and well tested laws of thermodynamics would have to be rewritten (which is not to say that that is absolutely impossible, but rather that such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary proof) - so it is a priori unlikely that the WFC is a PMM
    3. Furthermore Meyer's claims are dubious given the court findings.
    Therefore we should not say that WFC is a PMM, but rather something like "WFC is an example of a claimed PMM" - we can look at pages of other claimed PMMs linked through History of perpetual motion machines or Category:Perpetual_motion_machines to pick an appropriate wording. Does that answer your query ? Abecedare 23:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    Sfacets, see my edit on the main page. Is this what you were thinking of ? Abecedare 23:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

    Difference between traditional fuels being burned and Stan's engine?

    I would really like to say, that I dont think that this is a hoax. Lets consider, an atomic bomb, or any nuclear reaction in which massive energy is released. Isnt the process of detonating an atomic bomb just releasing the energy? Dont you get more energy out than what you put in. Thats what I believe that Meyer was doing with his device, he just found a way to resonate water to a point and release the hydrogen and oxygen. Not everything has been discovered yet, so there is still room for new laws, and new technologies, that might contradict the present beliefs. There are reasons why people dedicate their lives to certain technologies, like Meyer, to better peoples lives. And as soon as someone comes out with a technology that might rid the world of oil dependencies the companies, and the government quickly try to make it out to be a hoax so they can still get their money. ITguru 10:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

    There is a very distinct difference between what happens in the nuclear reaction, and what is claimed by this device. In a nuclear reaction the material is "used up" in the process and goes from one state to another more stable state with the energy originally contained within the atoms being released and available to do work. Once the reaction is over, you can't do it again with the same material. This is why you only have to put a little bit in to get it started, because the remaining energy comes from within the system and is then GONE from the system when the reaction is over.
    In the case of Stan Meyer's device, it was supposed to start with water, and then end with water. This is impossible if it is also supposed to be releasing energy which is then used to perform work. This is why it violates conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics, and why it is conclusively a hoax until he (or someone else, now) can find where the "extra" energy is coming from. Charlie Wiederhold 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

    moving this one to Hoax ?

    Similar Hoaxes

    More recently, Denny Klein sold to FOX26 News in Clearwater, Florida, via their excited reporter Craig Patrick a similar technology. This also was exposed as a [[4]HOAX]. Maybe its better this one joints the endless list on Hoax. Mion 21:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

    Only appears over unity

    Wet stainless steel won't act as a galvanic cell under normal conditions, that's why it's "stainless." By pulsing it with high voltage, the array acts as a battery and some of it is converted to chemical energy. To verify that is what is happening, the array would be weighed dry before, and after running for a long time, drained and weighed again. The solution would be analyzed before and after, to see if some of the metal had been oxidized into the solution. 209.214.19.217 20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)David Nix

    Interesting... — Omegatron 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    If this was the case, the fuel used in the system would be the steel, not the water. You would eventually have to replace the oxidised metal for the reation to continue. This would be fine, except that steel is so non-reactive, I seriously doubt any energy released by its oxidation makes up for the severe deficit in the water-to-hydrogen-to-water-again convertion. Also, we have to work in cost efficiancy for this to be worthwhile: steel is much more expensive, pound for pound, than gas. For it to be able to replace gas as a fuel, a pound of steel would have to produce much, much more energy (cleanly and efficiantly) than a pound of gas to make up for its higher price. This is all moot, however, since steel, and in particular stainless steel, is so inert that it is highly unlikely that any useful amount of energy could be created from it. You're basically saying the car runs on rusting metal. 65.169.36.168 19:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. That is what he's saying. It would explainhow some people can claim to be drawing net energy when it's physically impossible to be drawing it from the water. Maybe they're mistaking one effect for another. — Omegatron 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    Have you guys heared of Daniel Dingel?

    This asian named Daniel Dingel claims he invented a water engine. http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage1247.html http://www.wasserauto.de/html/inquirer_article.html What do you guys think?

    You guys don't seem to know a whole lot about this.

    The water fuel cell has been attempted (with alleged success) by many people, not just this Stan Meyer fellow. The Joe Cell is an adequate example, though not if you have an EFI engine or value your car electronics. A small company called Magdrive seems to have achieved much more stable results, and their product is currently available for retail purchase (along with installation instructions that supposedly don't even void your car's engine warranty). The man who runs Magdrive actually has a car that runs on it and passed his state's safety and emissions inspection. Then there's Daniel Dingel who sold his technology to the Honda corporation. Your silly elementary-school knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics is a severe disservice to this allegedly NPOV project. There is an energy imput, as there is with any fuel system. The difference, however, lies in the fact that it takes more energy to burn gasoline than it does to split hydrogen from oxygen. Search your library or the internet for a simple child's experiment that does this. I'm sure you can find one that probably uses a 9-volt battery. Also, I believe a place called Byron New Energy is promoting a similar product, as well as open blueprints to anyone who wants to try. There should definitely be a lot more information on this topic before it can be considered even close to complete. Even if you don't agree with the results, there should at least be mention of this multitude of experiments, particularly those purchase by major companies and currently undergoing NASA observations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.244.185.213 (talk • contribs) .

    I agree that we should cover the other people who perpetuate this hoax, like Byron and Dingel. We can't let the others get away with ripping off gullible people like Stanley did.  ;-) — Omegatron 12:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll bite. It takes energy to burn gasoline? Femto 12:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Re: This edit

    Huh? Are you trying to say it's unknown whether its efficiency is worse than conventional electrolysis until properly measured (which is trivial), or that overunity isn't perpetual motion but only a form of good efficiency (which is rubbish)? Femto 12:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    Representatives on behalf of the company have sent a cease and desist letter to the Wikimedia Foundation office after unsuccessful attempts by its lawyer Kent Forbes to change the content of the article. Please do not comment on legal threats either in the article or talk space. Thanks.--Brad Patrick 16:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    "The company"? — Omegatron 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    May we know from what precise activity we are ceasing and desisting? Man with two legs 19:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    Another user (not Brad Patrick) has cleared this up for me. The key points for our purposes seem to be:
    1. BP is dealing with this specific matter and everyone else should leave him to it,
    2. We shouldn't read anything much into the rather confusing message he left (I am working to avoid a repetition of such incidents in the future).
    3. Anyone curious to learn more about general issues of this kind should contact some legally enlightened user by means other than WP.
    Hope that's clear. Enough. ---CH 09:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    If this Kent Forbes lawyer of some unknown company wants the content of the article changed, let him get an account and make edits. I suspect "unsuccessful" in this case means that he failed to get off his ass and make some actual contribution to the article. And he certainly can't prevent public discourse about any legal issue unless the participants in the discussion are themselves somehow involved in a lawsuit. -Amatulic 21:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    This page is perfect

    Specifically considering the new additions to the second paragraph, this page is clear and accurate. The Stan Meyers cell is a clear violator of the first law of thermodynamics. Contrary to popular belief this is a good thing.

    Here the simple facts: 1) Violates the 1'st law of thermodynamics 2) consistent with the 2'nd law of thermodynamics 3) A perpetual motion machine 4) Entropically driven, not thermodynamically driven

    These are basis people, so please disregard all other theories you may have. This is the science, and the second paragraph of the article now is consistent with physical law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.218.207 (talk • contribs).

    It's rather bold to insert a paragraph of complete bollocks and then praise yourself for writing the perfect page. Consistent with physical law? The breakdown of water requires energy and is not an entropic reaction. Neither is the reaction irreversible, that's the whole point of this exercise, isn't it. Femto 11:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    Why is it not, because your little prick says so? Read the definition of an entropic reaction, and read the definition of the second law of thermodynamics. While your at it, read the definition of an irreversible reacton. Yes the breakdown of water requires energy, but the subsequent reaction is entropic. While your at it read the definition of "voltage breakdown".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.218.207 (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
    Sure, let's decide this by whose prick is bigger! I know it's only your jealousy speaking, so I don't take offense. Anyway, you will familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks and stop abusing maintenance tags.
    Well, let's suppose a physicist explained it to me, as you suggested in your edit summaries. He'd say those definitions describe a scientific model in which every last bit of entropy change is accounted for, a model consistent within itself and with the real world as proven by countless experiments.
    Whatever you're trying to say here, those definitions which you cite don't support your point, plain and simple. So, the breakdown of water is endothermic but that's irrelevant because if we only ignore that energy there's a magical overunity entropy reaction that invalidates Hess's law which follows from the first law that says exactly the opposite but if we only ignore that too that's fine with the second, and ...Hunh? Femto 13:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

    Lets compare to a well known other entropic reaction. A nuclear explosion (gun style. The energy input into the system is the explosive technology used to shoot one uranium piece into the other. The only energy into the system is the explosive material, whereas the energy out is much more as a result of the subsequently following entropic reaction. This reaction is especially irreversible. I am in no way suggesting that the water fuel cell is nuclear; not in any way, I am just using this as a analogy of energy in versus energy out in entropic reactions. 24.193.218.207 01:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    The difference between real physics and the fuel cell is that 'energy in' versus 'energy out' doesn't add up for the latter. This cannot be explained by any type of reactions inbetween. Femto 11:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    What I am suggesting is that the energy input into the water fuel cell is the energy required to charge a capacitor to voltage breakdown magnitude. At this voltage the resistance of the water drops according to voltage breakdown theory, and the voltage across the capacitor induced current flow through the water according to ohms law. This is an irreversible reaction because there is no such things as inverse-voltage breakdown, hence the reaction is entropic. 24.193.218.207 01:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    Voltage breakdown means that just enough free charge carriers are created so that the electric potential difference can neutralize (as in, the flow of charge ceases). That's different from electrolysis. A water molecule doesn't just fall apart. It has to be forced, by expending energy on it, and this amount is fixed. New bonds of higher energy (as in creating stable diatomic gases) only form if you add the difference. What you claim is that you can make something keep rolling up the hill by giving it a slight kick. There is no activation energy for the electrolysis of water since it is an endergonic reaction as a whole. Femto 11:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    No one ever said that the water fuel cell is an electrolysis cell. It uses pure distilled water as a dielectric material. Also, voltage breakdown cannot be achieve in conductive water, voltage breakdown only occurs in insulators.

    Take a look at the following journal article in the Physics Review Online. It deals with the voltage breakdown of water, and related Electric field intesity to temporal pulse width. Also, it seems that the Electric field intensity, required to induce voltage breakdown, is inversely proportional the the area of the capacitor.

    http://prola.aps.org/searchabstract/PRSTAB/v9/i7/e070401?qid=6c2b69a56089f36a&qseq=1&show=25

    Lets look at some physics equations. At the point of voltage breakdown the resistance of water, across the points of newly generated free charge, drops very low according to voltage breakdown theory. Across these two points, the voltage stored in the capacitor reacts with the water in accordance with ohms law inducing a current flow!!!. Ohms Law, Ohms Law, Ohms Law. If you have 200,000 volts stored in the capacitor and the resistance of water, which is usually extremely high, drops to 100 Ohms, all of a sudden there is 2000 amps of current flowing between the plates in the newly generated free charge. The total energy into the system is the amount required to charge the capacitor to voltage breakdown threshold, which is strictly in accorance with traditional physical law. The charging of a capacitor is as follows. First calcular the capacitance, C = epsilon * area/distance between the plates. The enrgy required to charge a capacitor to 200,000 volts is as follows: E = 1/2 C * V^2. Lets say when voltage breakdown occurs the resistance between two points drops to 100 ohms, the current flow will be 2000 amps given 200,000 volts across the capacitor. The total power delivered to the water is 4,000,000 watts, which is 4,000 kW. Lets say the capcitor is 100 micro farradays; the energy required to charge the capacitor is 1/2 (100*10^-6) * 200,000^2 = 2,000,000 joules, which is 2,000 kilojoules; to make power and energy relatable lets say that the power delivered to the capacitor is done in 1 second therefore the energy applied is 2,000/1 = 2,000 kilowatts. It seems to be the case that the power required to charge the capcitor in 1 second, is 1/2 the power delivered to the "newly charged water particles" resulting from breakdown. Lets get these equations checked out by the physics department of wikipedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.4.94.72 (talk • contribs).

    Yes, a capacitor stores energy in form of an electric field, and when you hit the dielectric strength limit some energy from this field is transferred into potential and kinetic energy of electrons. Traditional physical law, that's nice. After this, your conclusions are getting strange.
    Current and power are not conservative quantities. The time over which the energy flow is applied is completely arbitrary. Redo your equations with energy instead of power and you'll see what's wrong. Femto 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

    Well, lets see, the energy to charge a capacitor to a particular voltage is E = 1/2 C * V^2. The energy delivered to the water, at the point of voltage breakdown, is Voltage * Current * Time. Obviously the energy equation to charge the capapcitor is correct, is the energy delivered to the water calculation incorrect?

    I check my equations and corrected some errors, and orders of magnitude. Same results, please re-read the equations. The 100 microfarraday capacitor will be charged to 200,000 volts, by storing 2,000 kJ over 1 second. In turn, the 200,000 volts reduces a path in the water, temporarily, to 100 ohms by means of voltage breakdown. The current flow through this path will be 2,000 amps, therefore the power delivered to the water will be 4,000 kW. The power is applied over the period of 1 second, therefore the total energy delivered by the 4,000 kW is 4,000 kJ. The reason the power is delivered over 1 second, is because the time it took the capacitor to charge is 1 second, given the way frequency signals behave, 1/2 the time is spent charging then the other half discharing, therefore the capacitor charges for 1 second, the discharges for the next second.

    The relation between power and energy is simply time. Power delivered over a period of time is energy, therefore power is directly proportional to energy. My equations are right on, unless I used a wrong equation, and if so please show the exact correction that should be made.

    Simply show me where the equations are wrong, and I will shut up. I wont say another word what so ever. I will leave this page in peace.

    Here are a few of the errors in your analysis:

    1. Where did you get the values R=100 , discharge time second? Is water an ohmic conductor ?
    2. The calculation of energy stored in capacitor is correct. However energy released through discharge should be calculated by the integral since the voltage across the capacitor plates changes as it discharges.
    3. Also check whether your analysis conserves charge: Charge stored by capacitor Q = C*V = 20 Coulombs. Charge "released" on discharge (following your incorrect analysis) = = 2000 Coulombs !

    So if what you said was indeed true, you have just shown that both the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of charge are violated simply by discharging a capacitor through water. This would be worthy of at least two Nobel Prize in Physics.
    A few wikipedia related issues:

    1. This (article or talk page) is not a place for original research and wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Please get your analysis published in a peer-reviewed, reputable scientific journal (consider APS or IEEE journals for this topic) and then we would be happy to cite you.
    2. If instead you have questions regarding the subject post them on Reference Desk
    3. Please sign your posts by appending four tildas an the end of your messages on Talk pages.

    Abecedare 05:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    The energy into the capacitor, and the energy released into the water is only part of the reaction. The rest is governed by the Gibbs equation, given a constant temperature, and an endothermic parameter to balance the increasingly enthalpy from the consumption of the energy in the capacitor. The result is all of the energy in the capacitor goes directly into increasing entropy, and zero is wated on increasing enthalpy. Now I've said my peace. Good luck tolerating the other people that don't actually use equations, I can feel your pain with regard to them. Also, good luck dealing with vandals. 24.193.218.207 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    Other people

    There are other people hawking the same "water-powered car" hoax, in a variety of forms. Should we cover them in this article, too?

    Actually, we should probably create a separate article Water-powered car to cover all of these?

    Oh, if only the damn oil company conspiracy would stop preventing us from breaking the laws of physics! *Shakes angry fist* — Omegatron 17:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    There already is the Water fuelled car article, which incidentally is still in need of specific examples like these. Femto 19:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    Potential Problems of the concept

    First problem (which, in an environmental point of view, still is in all ways better that the traditional gasoline) is that it's releasing water vapor. The problem lies in the fact that instead of smog, the large cities will now be overwelmed by this water vapor and plugde in constant raining state. To that problem is a very easy and useful solution, and it's called: condensation. Instead of letting the water go out an exaust pipe, the water vapor could run, like in a still, in series of pipes to turn back the vapor to liquid water, and return it to the water tank, to be used again and again.

    The second problem is, according to me, the largest problem this kind of engine have to face: water freezes. In colder parts of the world, we'd have to find to way, either by adding to the water some kind of anti-freeze that wouldn't ruin the electolysis process or find a way to heat/insulate the water tank without emptying the car's batteries.

    Of course.. those are based on personnal observations... as I said throughout this short text.

    I feel like I'm Dealing with Idiots

    Electrolysis requires electrolyte (salt), as per the wikipedia page electrolysis. Read the 1'st and 2'nd laws of electrolysis. The water fuel cell uses distilled water, which is pure water without any electrolyte. It must be explicity stated that the water fuel cell is not an electrolyzer specifically because of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.218.207 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

    The feeling is mutual, anonymous coward. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfacets (talk • contribs) 13:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
    • I don't see your sources that says that you need pure water. In fact, I don't see your sources that says that Water fuel cell uses electronlysis (perhaps WP:OR). Youtube, the 2nd and 3rd reference in the article, has a video where you can use any type of water. If we state that "the water fuel cell is not an electrolyzer specifically because of this," with what you have just said that would be a violation of WP:OR. Please use more sources and verifiable sources. In fact, we only have 2 official references for this article. Finally Template:Civil0 --CyclePat 01:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Like youtube is a more exact source... BTW I've seen that exact video on youtube too because water car is a subject that interests me a lot, and that video WASNT about eletrolysis of water.. YES they used any normal sea water but put inside some kind of metal alloy that reacts with the salt and split the water in HHO (a gaz)... you have to put more and more metal for the process to continue... THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM WATER ELECTROLYSIS, which IS a process where you need PURE DISTILLED WATER and an electrolyte which is a chemical that ease the electrolysis process (make it use less electricity for more HHO released)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yvanddivans (talk • contribs) 2007-01-03 05:03:13 (UTC)
    Stop. You are perpetuating stereotypes. There is no relation what so ever between the water fuel cell and HHO, Brown's Gas, Rhodes Gas, or Oxy-Hydrogen. The Water fuel cell uses distilled water, whereas the other gases are produced via electrolysis, and require electrolyte. Simply stop and don't make comments. I understand that people may have the urge to support the water fuel cell, but do not do so unless you have a scientific argument. If you make an opinionated statement it makes the technology continue to look bad. There are people working really hard to squash stereotypes and create thermodynamically sound theories, so please do not impeed this progress by giving the un-scintifically educated the amunition they need to attack the water fuel cell.24.193.218.207 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    The water fuel cell releases a type of Oxy-Hydrogen, plain and simple. The previous comment introduces HHO, and this causes unjustifiable ambiguity. 24.193.218.207 04:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

    A Situation is as Follows

    Femto's, Megatron, and other additions to this article are in violation of WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, and are potentially in conflict of interest. Their additions are obviously opinions, because without citation, statements can only be opinion. I would like to offically protest the information on this page as lacking WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:PR, and a variety of other infractions. I move that this article be suggested for WP:RFO because of the latter Wikipedia Policy infractions. This is a serious situation that this article is grossly perpetuating stereotypes that are based on information from un-scientific sources (ie. YouTube). The single other source is of a paraphrase from a news article, and is not the actual news article itself. News articles are not verifiable sources. There is not a single WP:V in this article, there are no Scienfic Journal Articles mentioned to support the violation of the 1'st law of thermodynamics. Wikipedia is not a place for opinions, it is a place for third party references. Unless scientific journal articles are cited in the references section, this article must be posted for WP:CSD.

    This is a scientific/physics/engineering article that mentions no scienfic sources. This article is a discrade to Wikipedia Policies and its allowance to remain in its current state, without proper citation according to WP:CITE, should not be tolerated.

    24.193.218.207 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

    I second that proposition. I am no expert on the subject. I am actually the editor that found that information on Youtube. To date, assided from the aleged patents (which I haven't checked), it is the best used reference in the article. All we need to do is add sources. Note however that News article can be used but we should have some more reliable sources. Could someone please add some more sources. I like to believe in including information in wikipedia but if it is not well cited it should be removed (as per wiki procedures and rules). For example, presently I have no clue of what the device really is? I know that there are other water fuel cells that exist for "home" power units in the basement. (I forget the source). I know that we are concentrating on a car, which doesn't appear to have a properly cited fact for the issue of thermal dynamics. Personally, I see what may be many assumptions, opinions, original research or maybe facts (which aren't cited). Conclusion: the problem here is citations. I don't major reasons to bring this further. Any information that is not properly cited should be removed. Nevertheless, let us not be to harsh on the implementation. Any information that is removed should be dully discussed and placed on this discusion. --CyclePat 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    Death

    I see no evidence that Stanley Meyer was poisoned, other than somebody else's claim that he ran out of a restraunt supposedly claiming to be poisoned, then collapsed and died. Apparently the only thing we know is that he had had a sudden death after eating. Common enough. Without autopsy, or some reference to same, this is not even poor evidence. It is no evidence. SBHarris 08:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    A Major Blunder

    A major scemantical blunder has been made by User:Femto. He specifically states that "In concept, the function of the fuel cell violates the first law of thermodynamics". It is impossible for a technology to violate the first law of thermodynamics. Since violation of the first law of thermodynamics is immpossible, it cannot be stated that some violates the first law of thermodynamics; Any mainstream scientist that reads such a statement will immediately notice the scemantical error. The statement should read, "In concept, the function of the fuel cell appears to be in contradiction with the first law of thermodynamics".

    In addition, it cannot be directly stated that a system violates, or is in contradition with the first law of thermodynamics because that entails that a thermodynamic analysis exists to prove the claim. No such thermodynamic analysis exists, therefore the statement is purely conjecture based on opinions. The statement specifically lacks WP:V, and WP:PR, therefore the statement must have the proper "tone" in accordance with something that is not certain. For something to be certain it must have WP:CITE to establish WP:V. By implying, by means of tone, that this statement is certain, the scientific crediblity of Wikipedia is in jeopardy, therefore to remedy this situation the latter schematical structure change should be immediately implemented.

    Unless citations are added in a timely fashion, I strongly urder that this article be recommended for WP:CSD specifically in consideration of the following policy infractions: WP:CITE, and WP:V. This article especially lack WP:PR, or citations of WP:PR. If this article is not to be recommended for WP:CSD, all information that lacks specific citation, strictly in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:V, should be removed immediately. Discussion of such material is what the "discussion page is for", and by having such material within the actual article diminished the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of scientific information. To protect the image of Wikipedia as a source of WP:V, WP:CITE, and in general as a WP:PR source of 3'rd party information, all information not in compliance with said policy infractions should be immediately removed.
    The following is my opinion: This article is a gross perpetuation of prevailing stereotypes. Individuals that claim violation of the first law are comitting a scemantical errror such as the one latter described. Individuals that attack this technology do not use citation, and do not provide thermodynamic analysis; they are mearly stating opinions. There is not one mainstream scientific source of information about this technology, therefore any conclusion, that is made, is unjustified. The justification of an opinion is done via verifiability by a third party source, and because there are no scientific third party sources no opinions can be rationally made that this technology. For an opinion to be rational it must be justified, and unjustified opinions are therefore an inherent sign of irrationality. Science, being a rational practice, should only be dialogued rationally, without conjecture, without opinions, and most definitely without the biased tone. This article is a gross example of something that is unscientific, completely lacking justification, and blatently a piece of stereotypical perpetuation.
    Typically I would not do such a personal statement, but this article has been strongly protected by the following administrators: User:Femto, and User:Omegatron. This needs to be said on behalf of the scientific community. This article is a stereotypical perpetuation specifically because it lacks WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:PR, and a host of other infractions. The bullship attempts of User:Femto, and User:Omegatron to edit this article only hight their lack of physical and thermodynamic understanding. They are the opitomy of individuals that perpetuate any stereotype that they hear. User:Femto specifically has commited the scematical error listed above, and User:Omegatron has not corrected the error. This article has no administration by scientifically proficient individuals, and even though this article may be appropriate for the "hoax category" it is still belongs in the "physics category" requiring oversign of persons having scientific aptitude. User:Femto, and User:omegatron have at least no thermodynamic aptitude, otherwise they would have caught their major scemantical blunder, and would have possibly prevented this very public rant.

    24.193.218.207 04:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_fuel_cell/Archive_3&oldid=99258725"