Author Topic: Is water a battery? (Read 12664 times)

phantomcow2 · « **on:** October 08, 2007, 03:38:11 AM »

One of the arguments I hear people make about why the Stan Meyer fuel cell is not a really legit solution to anything is that you can only get the energy you put in, out. So if you're putting 6 watts of electrical energy, the best you are ever going to get is 6 watts of chemical energy out. Is this true? Is the fuel cell simply converting electrical energy into chemical?

strapped9 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 08, 2007, 03:50:04 AM »

From what I hear, best case scenario is same in as out. thats at 100% efficiency. however, some seem to get over 300% out. Thats the overunity we are all after here. Check out ravi's work. Incredible!

phantomcow2 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 08, 2007, 04:03:36 AM »

It is incredible. My only thought is that there is energy already inside of the water; potential energy. And that you are just inputting the energy IN to extract the already existent potential energy in the water. I really don't know. I'm making a meyer fuel cell right now (just soldered my circuit today!), and I need to better reply to people when they question me!.

sanmankl · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2007, 09:31:03 AM »

Hi all,

Not sure if this constitute "a battery". I ran my ss plate cells for a minute and when I switch off the circuit, the LED that is tied to the drain of my mosfet lights up for more than a minute. When I measure the voltage across the cell (no power applied), it reads around 1.3V.

So, it look's like cell does retain some charge.

cheers, cp

Evil Roy Slade · « **Reply #4 on:** November 14, 2007, 02:06:00 PM »

Quote from: phantomcow2 on October 08, 2007, 04:03:36 AM

It is incredible. My only thought is that there is energy already inside of the water; potential energy. And that you are just inputting the energy IN to extract the already existent potential energy in the water. I really don't know. I'm making a meyer fuel cell right now (just soldered my circuit today!), and I need to better reply to people when they question me!.

The Stanley Meyer fuel cell uses conventional electrolysis to extract hydrogen from water. The electricity to do this comes from a battery, Unfortunately the power produced by an engine using hydrogen is not enough to recharge the source battery. Therefore...its useless! May as well run an electric motor direct from the battery!
Go ahead and build your very own SM cell if you want....but prepare to be disappointed.

hartiberlin · « **Reply #5 on:** November 14, 2007, 04:16:28 PM »

@Evil Roy Slade
are you only here to put negativity into the forum ?

It was proven, that Stanley Meyer had an overunity process
running and could generate at least 5 to 10 times more HHO
gas than Faraday law predicts from normal electrolysis.

Lately user Ravi has acomplished the same.

Evil Roy Slade · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2007, 12:20:48 AM »

Quote from: hartiberlin on November 14, 2007, 04:16:28 PM

@Evil Roy Slade
are you only here to put negativity into the forum ?

It was proven, that Stanley Meyer had an overunity process
running and could generate at least 5 to 10 times more HHO
gas than Faraday law predicts from normal electrolysis.

Lately user Ravi has acomplished the same.

I am here to hopefully provide some reality.

I have great respect for the people here who put so much time and effort into their work. However when I know it's in pursuit of a proven unattainable goal I feel obligated to say something. As an Electronics, Mechanical and Software Engineer (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology) for 25 years I reckon I know a thing or two.

As administrator you can tell me to go away and I will, no problem for me.

Please direct me to the proof of Stanley Meyer's process from an independant source.
And perhaps the same for user Ravi.

I assume you have seen this: http://www.waterfuelcell.org/moreinfo.html

sanmankl · « **Reply #7 on:** November 16, 2007, 03:45:40 PM »

Hello Stefan,

Being a lurker in a lot of forums on FE, I have seen my fair share of people who will see differently.

I'm a "doer", hates do do the maths, calculations and the theories so I take the approach of trying it out, building it, get it to work and then see if I can improve on it? What drives me is the hope of going OU but I will settle for less like in the case of hydroxy, if I can't get enough gas to run an engine, I'll make it into a booster. Believe me, I have built stuff that is junk due to my inexperience and lack of know-how but I think I am persistant enough not to be deterred by setbacks and failures.

There may be others that will say I'm wasting my time but I see it as part of the education process. So, if you are new and want to try it out, please do so. This is part of the fun.

I have almost zero knowledge of electronics (plus lots of other stuff as well, still learning

) when I started out in my quest but today, I think I can say I've come quite a long way in terms of knowledge and I enjoyed as much as I did with failures and successes.

Keep the faith.

Cheers, cp

Farrah Day · « **Reply #8 on:** November 16, 2007, 05:27:40 PM »

Just stuck my nose in to have a look.

Evil Roy Slade... unusual name... didn't your mother like the look of you?

Now, surely a supposedly intelligent electronics software engineer (of 25 years), who 'knows a thing or two', would at least be up to speed with the progress that has been made on replicating Meyers wfc's, before saying something stupid. Guess not!

With your qualifications you really should have had something constructive to say... else why even bother. We've all heard it a hundred times before.

Best then to leave us to waste our time... and you just stick to 'your' reality.

Best wishes, Farrah Day.

hartiberlin · « **Reply #9 on:** November 16, 2007, 08:16:01 PM »

Quote from: Evil Roy Slade on November 15, 2007, 12:20:48 AM

Quote from: hartiberlin on November 14, 2007, 04:16:28 PM
@Evil Roy Slade
are you only here to put negativity into the forum ?

It was proven, that Stanley Meyer had an overunity process
running and could generate at least 5 to 10 times more HHO
gas than Faraday law predicts from normal electrolysis.

Lately user Ravi has acomplished the same.
I am here to hopefully provide some reality.

I have great respect for the people here who put so much time and effort into their work. However when I know it's in pursuit of a proven unattainable goal I feel obligated to say something. As an Electronics, Mechanical and Software Engineer (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology) for 25 years I reckon I know a thing or two.

As administrator you can tell me to go away and I will, no problem for me.

Please direct me to the proof of Stanley Meyer's process from an independant source.
And perhaps the same for user Ravi.

I assume you have seen this: http://www.waterfuelcell.org/moreinfo.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5afwEcZ3Ok

http://www.youtube.com/user/raviwfc

gaby de wilde · « **Reply #10 on:** November 16, 2007, 10:27:33 PM »

Quote from: Evil Roy Slade on November 15, 2007, 12:20:48 AM

Please direct me to the proof of Stanley Meyer's process from an independant source.

Should just say that, we don't want to hear how much you love free energy researchers. Show us the love mr Evil.

The patent was granted under 101. There you have the independent source.

Any questions?

you try a google search? here
http://www.google.com/search?q=Stanley+Meyer+101

Seems very clear to me. Only takes like 15 seconds to figure out it's real. But how it works.... yes.... that's a different question. We are all waiting for you to figure out how it works for us. lol

If you can charge a battery you can also destroy it. A battery uses surprisingly little electricity for it's operation. I hear people worked with electrolysers the size of spark plugs. Say we charge that with a pulse 50 000 volt at 0.0001 A The whole content of the cell vaporises into the unstable browns gas soup massive in volume, burning this generates a thermolysis effect making it explode smoothly with a more constant force in stead of a punch. The gas then implodes 1:1850 which is also significant. Mixing a little bit of browns gas with conventional gasoline also allows it to explode more smoothly, having a much longer power stroke, burning cleaner and cooler. You even get extra power from the lack of exhaust gasses.

Then you can recharge the battery using what ever means available to you. You can steal your fuel at work by hiding it in your laptop :-)

readyakira · « **Reply #11 on:** November 17, 2007, 12:08:12 AM »

Quote from: phantomcow2 on October 08, 2007, 03:38:11 AM

One of the arguments I hear people make about why the Stan Meyer fuel cell is not a really legit solution to anything is that you can only get the energy you put in, out. So if you're putting 6 watts of electrical energy, the best you are ever going to get is 6 watts of chemical energy out.

I think the argument to energy in and out can be made like this: They claim petrols are more efficient because nature has put in most of the energy with sun and pressure and what-not over a long period of time. But what they seem to leave out is the energy that was put into forming the water on the planet in the first place. If you break it down hydrogen has a ton of energy in it's singular form. Oxygen has amazing properties in it's atomic form as well. It takes combustion to form water from those atoms right? The isn't it possible that some of that energy was absorbed into the resulting water molecule, and you are simply using some of that hidden energy along with other surrounding energies ie: magnetism, heat etc, to perform the splitting back into basic elements? Has anyone thought about the possibility of a form of inertia being a factor in the pulse systems working? I mean (and my science backround is very limited although I was always good at it) Isn't there a basic law that states something to the effect "something set into motion stays in motion until another force stops or alters it"?

In closing there are people out there doing amazing things combining all kinds of new technologies to make all kinds of previously impossible things happen. Heck there are videos of people burning water, curing cancer with Radio waves, making magnetic motors that run on their own power. It's funny really to think of all the things being done by turning energies on and off, or moving them side to side or pulsing them. I don't find anything wrong with believing these things exist. If you can put the same energy into something as you can get out of it, then isn't it possible to recycle that energy and use it again? Seems like all you have to do is figure out the combination to use for maximum efficiency.

Evil Roy Slade · « **Reply #12 on:** November 17, 2007, 01:04:48 AM »

Quote from: Farrah Day on November 16, 2007, 05:27:40 PM

Best then to leave us to waste our time... and you just stick to 'your' reality.

That's the only statement I can agree with.

A sure way to keep a train on track is to stop it going off track. I have tried to do just that in this forum but obviously have failed dismally.

I have always been polite, never attacked posters personally nor called their motives into question.
The bad science behind 'claims' is the only thing I attack.

I sincerely wish all you people the best of luck.

@Administrator
Please deregister me.

ERS

gaby de wilde · « **Reply #13 on:** November 17, 2007, 01:47:01 AM »

Quote from: Evil Roy Slade on November 17, 2007, 01:04:48 AM

A sure way to keep a train on track is to stop it going off track. I have tried to do just that

You had a closed down and finalised opinion before your first post. The patent was filled under 101 so your claims are nonsense.

everyone who has investigated this technology has already heard your hands~off explanation a billion times. Most of the discussions are taken off track by endlessly chanting COE mantra's. You should go to www.einsteinhoax.com and read yourself up on that topic.

I understand Einsteinhoax has existed for a long time, you had all the time in the world to proof CoE. The people there are waiting for your detailed explanation. The hydrogen researcher cant do anything with it.

You are wrong about being unable to find independent confirmation. The patent was filled under 101 after the display of a working model.

That is the reality Mr Evil, or not?

Farrah Day · « **Reply #14 on:** November 17, 2007, 09:58:54 PM »

Hi Mr Amos

You might see me as a bit of an enigma as, yes, I do beat up on old Stan pretty badly, but that's not to say I'm not interested in the concept or open to exploring the possibilities of a wfc. Indeed, as I've said all along, if Meyer did run a dune buggy on water, then he was indeed genuine and no fraud, but his patents don't come to his defence as they are incredibly flawed, and hence meaningless.

Now all I want to do is try to figure out the fundamental operation of such a device - understand the real science behind it - to see if it can be made to work as Meyer stated.

However, my real issue with Stan has always been the 'bollocks' he talks. If he was not sure how things work, or why... which he obviously wasn't, why try to bullshit your way through. If he had a working unit but did not understand the science behind it, fair enough, that can be worked out later... no problem. But, no. Instead he loses all credibility by talking utter nonsense and leading any interested and/or gullible parties on a road to nowhere. To be honest, if taken as gospel, Meyers patents can be a real hindrance to progress. Why would he do all that???

That is my real issue with old Stan, and hence my attitude. That said, I think I've made my point now and will endeavour to ease up on my old punchbag!

I think you have to find a happy medium.

Just look on this thread, you've got Gaby on one end of the scale, who seems to think a patent is proof and so that's that, 'Stan is our Saviour!', and Mr Evil on the other end of the scale, mind completely closed to new science and technology. Neither one of them has likely done any hands-on research, experimentation or evaluation in this area in order to have an informed opinion.

I fall somewhere in between, broadly educated with a backgound in science and an interest in new technology. Open to new ideas, but not gullible enough to take things on face value.

Farrah Day.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Is water a battery? (Read 12664 times)

phantomcow2

Is water a battery?

strapped9

Re: Is water a battery?

phantomcow2

Re: Is water a battery?

sanmankl

Re: Is water a battery?

Evil Roy Slade

Re: Is water a battery?

hartiberlin

Re: Is water a battery?

Evil Roy Slade

Re: Is water a battery?

sanmankl

Re: Is water a battery?

Farrah Day

Re: Is water a battery?

hartiberlin

Re: Is water a battery?

gaby de wilde

Re: Is water a battery?

readyakira

Re: Is water a battery?

Evil Roy Slade

Re: Is water a battery?

gaby de wilde

Re: Is water a battery?

Farrah Day

Re: Is water a battery?