Water Fuel Cell

The water fuel cell, named by American Stanley Meyer, is a device claimed to convert water into its component elements, hydrogen and oxygen (water electrolysis – 2H2O → 2H2 + O2), using less energy than that present in the elements’ bond itself. The water fuel cell could reportedly produce several times more energy than it consumes. In practice, an engine would be connected to a cell and, through the combustion process, convert the hydrogen back into water (2H2 + O2 → 2H2O). At least one car prototype reportedly powered by a water fuel cell has been assembled.[1]

Meyer’s claims about the Water Fuel Cell and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by a Ohio court in 1996.[2] Similar devices have been promoted by others; see Water-fuelled car.

The operation of the fuel cell, as described by Meyer, would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Energy would not be conserved, making the device a type of perpetual motion machine. In other words, a car running on a water fuel cell could achieve perpetual motion simply by venting the exhaust pipe (containing water vapour) into the fuel tank (containing water). As a result, the cell and its actual operation (when not met with outright dismissal) is seen with much skepticism from established scientists.
Stanley Meyer was granted patents in the United States and abroad starting in 1989. (However, patents do not imply a peer review has taken place, nor that the findings have been confirmed and reproduced by independent parties.)

The fuel cell 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. The mechanism of this reaction is undocumented.
Meyer presented his fuel cell device to Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of Engineering at Queen Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr. Keith Hindley, a UK research chemist.[3] According to the witnesses, the Meyer cell remained remarkably cold, even after hours of gas production as his system appeared to operate on much smaller current than conventional electrolysis would require. The witnesses also stated:
After hours of discussion between ourselves, we concluded that Stan Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method for splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical electrolysis. Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established.[3]

Its name not withstanding, the water fuel cell is not a true fuel cell. It would be an electrolytic cell, as it is claimed to produce hydrogen from water and not the opposite. [4]

Meyer’s water-fueled car
It Runs on Water is a video with Stanley Meyer demonstrating the water fuel cell in a car.[5] Meyer claimed that he could run a 1.6 liter Volkswagen dune buggy on water instead of gasoline.[2] He replaced the spark plugs with “injectors” to spray a fine mist into the engine cylinders, which he claimed were electrified at a resonant frequency. The fuel cell would split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would be combusted back into water vapor in a conventional hydrogen engine to produce net energy.[citation needed] Meyer demonstrated his vehicle for his city’s local station Action 6 News and estimated that only 83 liters (22 US gallons) of water was required to travel from Los Angeles to New York.

In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. According to The Times, Meyer claimed in court that his invention “opened the way for a car which would ‘run on water’, powered simply by a car battery.”[2] The car would even run perpetually without fuel since the energy needed to continue the “fracturing” was low enough for the engine’s dynamo to recharge the car’s battery.[2] His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a “lame excuse” on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[2] The Water Fuel Cell on the other hand, was examined by three expert witnesses in court who found that there “was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis”.[2]

On the basis of the evidence the court found Meyer guilty of “gross and egregious fraud” and ordered to repay the investors their $25,000.[2]

Stanley Meyer died at the age of 57 after eating at a restaurant on 21 March 1998.[citation needed] An autopsy report by Franklin County coroner William R. Adrion showed the cause of death to be a cerebral aneurysm. Conspiracy theories persist, however, that he was poisoned, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death.[6]



6 Responses to “Water Fuel Cell”

  1. 1 Mr. Johnston
    June 9, 2007 at 2:37 am

    Your report is incomplete about Mr. Stanley Meyer.The
    following was posted on aboutexperts.com but for some reason has been removed.It is also available here.

    Also I would like to site this 2003 study at Iwate university in Japan involving electrolysis using plasma.
    “Confirmation of anomalous hydrogen generation by plasma electrolysis”
    Overunity and breaking of thermodynamics laws is real and has been documented by professionals.

    “Although only a few observations of excess hydrogen gas production have been made, production is sometimes 80 times higher than normal Faradic electrolysis gas production.”

    Mr. Meyers information:
    However, in their 1 December 1996 issue , the London Sunday Times published an article entitled “End of Road for Car that Ran on Water” by Tony Edwards. It upheld the court case, stating that three “Expert Witnesses” were not impressed and decided that the WFC was simply using conventional electrolysis. It stated Stan Meyer was found guilty of “gross and egregious fraud” and was ordered to repay the investors their $25,000. It implied that Michael Laughton, professor of electrical engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield University, London was due to examine the car, but was not allowed to see it. However, not mentioned was that this occurred in 1990 and that the WFC Water Fuel injector tech-base was still under U.S. National Security Review as in accordance to U.S. Patent Law and not available for public viewing. Also not mentioned were the many WFC Patents, verified laboratory and university testing that supports the bases of WFC technology nor the WFC appeal filing to dismiss Judge Corzine ruling due to Judicial default and other relevant information.[2]

    On 18 October 1995, a pretrial deposition hearing to inspect the WFC Dealership demonstration units (Variable-plate Electrical Polarization Process (VIC) Fuel Cell and Rotary Pulse Voltage Frequecy Generator Tubular-Array Fuel Cell) was held in the office of the plaintiff’s attorney, Robert Judkins. Present were the plaintiff’s, their attorneys, plaintiffs expert witness, Michael Leverich (Electronics Engineer), Stan Meyer, Dr. Russel Fowler, WFC witness and defense attorneys Judge Roger Hurley and James Detling, as well as a deposition recorder. During the deposition, Attorney Judkins attempted to have the WFC dismantled prior to implementing proper test procedures, which Stan Meyer refused. Michael Leverich confirmed that his initial measurements of the WFC Fuel Cells showed that it operated exactly as the WFC documentation stated it should, as so recorded on WFC Deposition Video Tape. However, he then added a unknown white substance (powder) for additional testing. Stan objected to this, since the WFC Fuel Cell uses plain tap water and does not require a chemical additive. The plaintiffs also admitted that, during their observances at WFC Dealship Seminars, tap water was always used without any chemicals added to the water. Despite Stan’s objection, plaintiff measurements were taken of this chemicallized water-bath and recorded. This illegal act of tampering with WFC Evidence of Records was witnessed by WFC Cameraman, Dr. Russ Fowler, and all others who attended Plaintiffs Deposition To-Test.[3]

    In 1996, Stan Meyer gave oral testimony before the court demonstrating the WFC Fuel Cell “Mode of Operability” by using the Voltage Intensifier Circuit (VIC) to produce voltage of opposite polarity to separate and disassociate the water molecule into its component gases, hydrogen & oxygen. However, the court audio sound recording equipment seemed to malfunction and was switched off. Judge Corzine said proceedings should continue without it. This was a violation of judicial protocol, since the recording system is used to verify testimony given during the trial and as such becomes “Evidence of Records.” After his oral testimony, Stan expected Attorney/Judge Hurley to start bringing forth WFC witnesses and counter arguements. Instead, Attorney/Judge Hurley spoke up, stated he had to leave for a pre-planned vacation and said that there was no more testimony to be given and waived the right of the defendant to give a case summary of the WFC facts brought before the court. Stan Meyer immediately stated he would protest and Judge Corzine ended the hearing. Stan wrote a “Request to Retract” fax-letter to the Sunday Times on 2 December 1996. He attached WFC documentation on the filing with the Disciplinary Counsel. He further stated that Judge Corzine had no right to turn off the court audio sound recording equipment, nor to rule against U.S. Patents, or overrule Government and University lab reports in the public domain concerning the mode of operability of the WFC Technology. Furthermore, Stan pointed out that no US Federal “Cease and Desist” order has ever been issued against WFC since the WFC Technology has been fully legalized under US Patent Security Law 35 USC 101 and other US Federal regulatory Acts. His final statement was that “WFC is here to stay” in contradiction to the Sunday Times statement.[4]

    Also after Mr. Meyers death where did all his equipment go including his dune buggy converted to run on hydrogen?
    Why didn’t it all go to his twin brother to continue his work?
    Because it was seized by the Federal government.

  2. 2 kaosad
    July 8, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    “…He further stated that Judge Corzine had no right to turn off the court audio sound recording equipment, nor to rule against U.S. Patents, or overrule Government and University lab reports in the public domain concerning the mode of operability of the WFC Technology…”

    University lab reports in the public domain? As far as I know, no one knows how ro replicate it.

    It is best not to believe all this inaccurate text.

  3. 3 Art
    July 3, 2011 at 7:19 am

    I spent many hours with Stanley Meyer from 1994 to 1997 and we discussed many aspects of his Water Fuel Cell a name that he chose because there was more flexibility in acceptance to the undefined fuel cell by the US Patent Office.

    In reference to the investor law suit, I was with Stan when he got the news and he found it very humorous since he never kept any of his demonstration units together and the state appointed experts only looked at the broken down parts and made their determination of just a standard Electrolysis system. Stan said of course their right that part is nothing special.

    About a month ago I started communicating with a researcher who wanted to know of my conversations with Stan. This past week he duplicated the unit that the court ruled not viable and it made volumes of hydrogen.

    There is no electrolysis in the Meyer breakdown process the tubes are used to pass a small current through the water to line the molecules in their positive and negative orientations. Then through a series of 81 fiber optic cables a single laser is mechanically pulsed and breaks down the molecules by destroying their covalent bond..

    As was stated in the BBC video separating the two gasses normally creates a great deal of heat and the Meyer fuel cell stays cool. He found that the cell can run for hours and never even get warm. There never should have been any question that WFC functioned very efficiently. The researcher has noticed at least two people have followed him around his town since he informed me of his results and he found audio transmitter and a portable GPS locator hidden in his car.

    If you have look at the web sites with all the creative electric solutions to make electrolysis operate the fuel cell they have no relevancy as to how the Meyer Fuel Cell worked. The Meyer Water Fuel Cell worked on an unmodified car alternator.. There was no need for voltage since the water breakdown was accomplished with a pulsing laser.

    When water breakdowns the solids in it are left over. Stans attempted improvements in his system were driven by the idea to create the hydrogen just in time for injection into the motor cylinder with all solids being vaporized when the hydrogen was ignited. I do not believe he reached his goal but he had moved his work to Washington Court House, OH so I only had a couple of phone conversations. My own interest in the technology was solved by the original WFC.

    I told Stanley Meyer several times that going after the transportation industry was challenging the very strong Oil Companies and OPEC which could get him killed. Stanley Meyer stood up in a restaurant in front of many witnesses and said I have been poisoned. Dr Adrian first confirmed that it was poison and then listed it as a brain aneurism. The fact that all of Stanley Meyers research samples and his dune buggy demonstration car were taken the next morning says people expected that he was going to die that night.

    • 4 Zed
      September 14, 2011 at 1:32 pm

      Hi Art,

      As an individual, I am very interested in Stans work. I have a degree in Electronic Engineering and have been in the IT feild for some time. Is there any way to contact you?

      I see only one major problem with Stan’s invention though and that is the freezing of water during the winter seasons and cold countries.

      • 5 Art Johnson
        September 17, 2011 at 4:34 am

        A couple of months ago ZED I would have been happy to talk with anyone willing to listen and I had one researcher verify that his fuel cell worked only to say his car had been bugged with audio and GPS locators and i have not heard from him since. The other researcher was going to try several lasers and get back to me in three weeks. It has been 8 weeks and no response from him now.

        At the moment I have a lot of concern for the two researchers as well as for my own safety. My reason for coming online was because of the miss information about the water fuel cell and the various patent additions from Stans work in 1986 to 1992 when Stan discovered the way to make his fuel cell efficiency optimal with a pulsing laser. Stan was a perfectionist and an avid environmentalist so he was not satisfied with the working fuel cell because of the solids in the water participated out.

        I was involved with a coal mining company and they have water retaining ponds that have to evaporate because that water is an environmental problem. I called Stan and asked if the fuel cell would work on that type of water. He said he saw no reason why it would not. I said we could make some money cleaning up those ponds. His response was what are you going to do with the hydrogen? My mistake was saying just turn it loose in the air. I got a major chewing out for being wasteful and environmentally insensitive. The man I knew was honest and direct.

        I have had a conversation with a government agent who confirmed that ATF raided Stans home the morning after his death with a warrant for producing and storing large quantities of explosive gas. They took everything but it is unlikely they got any assembled fuel cells even on the dune buggy. Stan was the most paranoid man I ever knew when it came to someone duplicating his work so he never left anything assembled. Without the laser system being in place no one at that time would have looked for it or knew what it was for if they found it.

        In one of Stans supplement patent applications he put a heating loop in the water to prevent freezing. I do not know if he tested water with antifreeze, but since it would run on muddy water I suspect that would also work. For his dune buggy tests he used new water from the tap so it would not have time to freeze sitting on top of a hot engine.

        I am also disturbed that some drawings from the original patents for the Meyer fuel cell in the UK documentary that I have referenced before do not all show up in any of my searches. The WFC was
        declared a national security issue by the Navy so there is a lot of flexibility in what the government can

  4. 6 Art
    October 8, 2011 at 12:00 am

    Part of the problem with Stanley Meyer information is he was issued his first patent in 1986 and supplemented his process as he worked with creating enough hydroxy to make his first due buggy licensed in OHIO as “WATER CAR” a success. While the car would start it would not run for more than a few minutes. It was not a success but was the source of his electric and injection processes patents.

    The Water Fuel Cell that was granted a patent in 1993 was a totally new system to produce hydroxy gas in quantities sufficient to maintain 17 pounds of gas pressure. The Dune Buggy that system was installed on used a standard VW carburetor and a standard alternator and was controlled by a 5″x5″ x8″ box. Everything else on that dune buggy was designed to mislead anyone trying to duplicate the Meyer system.

    Stans Oldsmobile and that dune buggy both ran on that system and have never been found. I also know both vehicles were never left operable so their possession likely resulted in no information.

    The last time I talked to Stan he had not solved his injector system because he told me he would get back to me when he finished. He was killed a month later and I left the Ohio area.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Stefan Rosty Founded TruthBooth22.04.07

  • 477,264 hitz

“Virtual Insanity”

That's not nature's way Well that's what they said yesterday There's nothing left to do but pray I think it's time I found a new religion Waoh - it's so insane To synthesize another strain There's something in these Futures that we have to be told. JAMIROQUAI

RSS Genuine Islam

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

trashcontentz (by day)

May 2007
« Apr   Jun »

trashcontentz (by month)


RSS 9-11 News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS RationalReality.com

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Selves and Others

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS المؤلف: احمد صبحي منصور


%d bloggers like this: