Google
 

Aardvark Daily

New Zealand's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 19th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.

Content copyright © 1995 - 2014 to Bruce Simpson (aka Aardvark), the logo was kindly created for Aardvark Daily by the folks at aardvark.co.uk



Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

Debunking Stanley Meyer's claims

July 2008

Stanley Meyer was a scammer who claimed he'd been able to split water into hydrogen and oxygen with such efficiency that he could run an internal combustion engine (ICE) on nothing but water.

These claims, if they were true, would completely destroy our present understanding of energy conservation and the laws of thermodynamics.

So was Stan Meyer actually onto something? Did he really have a clever way to sidestep the laws of physics?

Well if you ask any of the devoted Meyer fan-base they'll swear black and blue that Stan was a genius and that the only reason we're not all driving around in water-powered cars right now is because the oil companies or the government had Meyer killed so as to suppress this invention.

So let's take a close look at Meyer's claims, his designs and the science he claims makes this possible.

Let's also take a look at exactly how Meyer died and whether he really was the victim of a huge conspiracy to ensure the profits of oil-barons and the unfettered power of government.

First up, take a look at these videos:

Key points in those videos:

  • Meyer had no qualifications as a scientist

  • the first cell shown draws half an amp at 110V (55W) but would appear to only produce less than a litre per minute -- no more efficient than an any other electrolysis cell

  • there's a claim that in regular electrolysis, three times as much energy is consumed as is produced in fuel (a 33% efficiency). This is clearly wrong -- it is very easy to achieve efficiencies of twice that with conventional electrolysis cells.

  • there is the misconception that gatting a patent for a device is some kind of proof that it works - which is "patently" untrue. The patent office doesn't test the designs it processes, it is simply a clerical operation where checks are made that the submitted documents meet certain criteria for completeness and correctness. There are a great many patents issued every year for devices that simply do not work.

  • those observers who claim that the cell was producing far more gas than they'd expect appeared to be taking Meyer's word for the amount of electrical energy that was being input. He used his own high-frequency modulator to drive the cells and there appears to be no independent testing to determine whether the power levels he claims were actually the power levels being used.

  • There were no independent scientists or others who were prepared to state categorically that Stan Meyer's technology actually worked as claimed.

The reality is that Stan Meyer was convicted of fraud in 1996 after he was unable to demonstrate his claims to investors or the court after soliciting large sums of money for commercializing his technology.

But what about the science? How did Meyer claim his over-unity hydrogen production system worked?

Here's a link to his patent but I'll summarize it like this:

Meyer claimed that by using a pulsating DC voltage instead of a constant one, he was able to resonate the water molecules in such a way that they split with only a small amount of energy being input. This could be likened to the way an opera singer can shatter a wine-glass by hitting the right note. Resonance means that each successive pulse of energy adds to the previous pulses until "breaking point" is achieved.

Now to anyone with only a modicum of understanding of science (and physics in particular) this sounds pretty plausible. Gosh, if it works on a wine-glass, why wouldn't it work for a water molecule?

Well the problem is that Meyer was using frequencies in the tens of kilohertz range - but water molecules have a resonant frequency of around 22GHz, and only when in vapor form (when in liquid state, the molecules are in such close proximity that very little resonance is observed at any frequency). Obviously Meyer's claims of establishing some kinds of resonance at a frequency that is some six orders of magnitude too low in frequency are a joke.

What Meyer has done is what many scam-artists do with bad-science.

They come up with an idea that has a basis in good science (electrolysis) and then claim to have developed some major breakthrough that extends it into the realm of miracle. To try and make themselves credible, they steal little snippets of science from other areas (such as resonance) and patch it in to what seems (in the eyes of those with a grade-school understanding of science), a credible explanation.

And if you're looking for further proof well ponder this... despite the patent process requiring full disclosure of how a device works, nobody has been able to reproduce Meyer's claims to the extent that they're verifiable by independent scientific testing.

Why is that?

Simple... because bad science doesn't work.

All bad science does is begat more bad science and this is a perfect example

To the scientifically naive, this guy may sound like he knows what he's talking about, but he's as full of BS as Meyer was. But hang on, isn't this guy a PhD? Shouldn't he know what he's talking about?

Well as is so often the case in the world of BS, this guy's credentials are highly questionable.

His "PhD" was apparently bestowed on him by a friend and is in the area of natural medicine.

And if, as he claims, there are companies that have developed this technology to the point where they're running systems on water with enough energy left over to do useful work -- why don't we hear about the? Why hasn't a Nobel prize been awarded for breaking the laws of thermodynamics? And why hasn't the government or the oil companies killed everyone who knows about this?

Yes, BS simply begats more BS I'm afraid.

Quick navigation of this feature:

Please spread the word to save people from wasting their cash and help put these scammers out of business. Link to the first page of this feature and tell your friends about it.


Rank This Aardvark Page

 

Change Font

Sci-Tech headlines

 


Apart from the kind support of the sponsor, Aardvark Daily is largely a labour of love that involves many hours of hard work each month. If you appreciate the content you find here (or even if you don't) then please visit the sponsor and also feel free to gift me a donation using the button above.

Remember, this is purely a gift, you'll get nothing other than a warm fuzzy feeling in return.


Features:

Beware The Alternative Energy Scammers

The Great "Run Your Car On Water" Scam

 

The Missile Man The Missile Man book

Previous Columns

If you were a student today...
The world has changed a lot since I was a student...

Should bureaucrats take Science 101?
It seems that far too many people in positions of power and control have no real idea about essential subjects such as science...

Mars, Earth's ultimate liferaft?
New data about the history of the red planet has been gleaned from the observation of ancient meteorite craters on the surface...

Leaching off open source
I read something rather stunning this morning...

Just when you thought...
Just when you thought things could get any crazier with respect to idiot bureaucrats; they do...

CAA, MFNZ's hired gunslinger
Once again I have been sorely disappointed by the performance of the bureaucracy in this country...

Man on Mars -- will I survive?
I was a young, space-mad kid when man first stepped foot on the moon back in the late 1960s...

Heartbleed - horror or hype?
It's all over the news-wires right now -- the SSL vulnerability that has the potential to expose passwords, credit-card details and a raft of other data to the eyes of evil crackers and villains...

Botnet boom around the corner
Microsoft spends quite a bit of money every year fighting spam...

OMG... life on Mars?
Never use a small word when a diminutive one will suffice...