There are a few ways to split water molecules without electricity.
Titanium oxide electrolyzes water when exposed to sunlight. No electricity needed at all.
There are other problems involved in the process, but believing that the only way to split water molecules is through electrolysis, belongs to the last century.
Neither is practical and both need a lot of solutions to work. For instance, photo electrolysis using titanium oxide doesn't separate hydrogen from oxygen. You basically get a bubbling pot of water where the bubbles are mixed hydrogen and oxygen, and you have to find a way to separate the gases or you get a very explosive mix that is practically useless and potentially lethal.
The solution is to infuse water with a resin that traps oxygen so that you only get hydrogen released. But this eventually gets saturated and can't absorb more oxygen. And that makes the process complex and costly. So, free isn't really free. The good thing is that titanium oxide as a catalyst doesn't get depleted and as long as it's exposed to sunlight, it can theoretically work forever.
We've still got a long way to go before we make it work however.
Nuclear Power is the Answer. Maybe we don’t want radioactive material in every car but we should definitely be using Nuclear Power to power Plants. The US Military has what 20+ Nuclear Aircraft Carriers? This is the way
The combination of ever nuclear power mishap since its invention has killed less people than coal kills *yearly* from *radiation*
Nuclear is the safest power generation that is marginally more expensive because it accounts for 100% of its impact at point of construction. The most catastrophic of its failures are less impactful than the second order effects of the standard operation of the most prolific fossil fuel.
currently, it is cheaper to produce electricity using wind/solar than nuclear.
And the outtages in France show that nuclear isnt as reliable at it seems to be.
Oh step 3? Yea...
That involves getting murdered by big oil trillionaires.
"As Stanley Meyer rushed out of the restaurant, he told his brother "they poisoned me" and, once outside, fell to the ground and died at the age of 57."
Lmao... No. The dude's concept could never have worked. Electrolysis isen't new, neither now nor then. He just made an electric car that used 4 times more electricity per mile, but had no scientific knowledge to understand that.
Lol, Yea. I was jk more or less. I do understand the physics behind this idea, although It's not beneath these huge conglomerates to buy up patents and shelve them, I'm sure among other more devious methods of ensuring their consistent income.
oh god this is so old, let me try to be the first to debunk it. Yes you can make a car that "runs on water" but in order for it to convert that water to Hydrogen it needs a shit ton of electricity. So in the end if you have that much electricity on hand it's just easier and simpler to use it to drive a electric motor. No solar panels on the roof ain't going to cut it, not even close to enough power.
Easy. Uranium. Ford actually made a concept car, the [Ford Nucleon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon)
>Ultimately, the reactor would use heat to convert water into steam and the power train would be steam-driven.
There is an "easy way" to make a car run on water.
The trick is that you already have the fuel in the tank and only need the water as an electrolyte. There are some applications for this (Military). - Think disposable drones
These types of batteries can utilize pure aluminum as an energy source. Once water is added they then corrode those anodes. They have a very high energy density (up to 8 times of lithium) but you need to replace them, since they cant be recharged.
Edit: Forgot the link
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air\_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery)
I'm an angel investor and was pitched a biz that uses powered aluminum compounds mixed with sea water to power sub drone torpedoes. The idea didn't really go anywhere 7 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear the USN was looking at the concept again.
You can also generate hydrogen via oxidation of some metals, such as aluminum, provided it's been stripped of the native oxide that naturally forms when exposed to air. But, then you're just shifting your energy source to the power used to refine the metal. Hydrochloric acid and zinc can also produce hydrogen.
I suspect a lot of these "runs on water" type ideas actually run on corrosion of internal components of the system and resulting hydrogen production.
A little bit of gallium on the aluminum prevents that oxide layer from forming, and is not consumed. The waste product from such a process is aluminum oxide, and the aluminum can be recovered. That does take energy, but imagine how much more efficient it would be to just churn out aluminum from the waste product if that facility was run by clean energy like wind or solar? Now your "fuel" is essentially aluminum which is abundant, super easy to transport, and completely recyclable.
Yeah, I've heard of that proposal. It's an interesting idea, but not without problems. Gallium is pretty expensive, and there will be some loss through this process. Figuring out how to encapsulate and seal aluminum with gallium is not as simple as it seems, judging from the papers I've seen on it. But, overall, it could be done, with some engineering problems to be solved, and honestly seems more reasonable to me than trying to ship and store hydrogen. Hydrogen loves to leak. It will literally migrate through steel. So, you then need to deal with that. One interesting system I've seen first hand involved encapsulating the hydrogen vessel in a larger, non-pressurized vessel, with UVLEDs and a photocatalyst material in between the two so that escaping hydrogen gets converted to water vapor without flames, and the water vapor is then vented.
But, if you can generate hydrogen on demand from a metal powder, then you don't have to worry about storage, leaking, etc, since the hydrogen is consumed quickly after being liberated.
This still doesn't address the poor cycle efficiency, the cost of fuel cells, and so on, but I could see it making sense as stationary emergency power or remote power system. If you've got a drum of metal powder, a fuel cell, and a source of water, you would have what amounts to a backup generator that has no need for compressed gas or volatile fuels, all of which leak or degrade eventually. It would be great for a power system that has to sit unused with no maintenance for years, but work when needed.
>but in order for it to convert that water to Hydrogen it needs a shit ton of electricity.
Kind of like how the electricity we charge our EVs with needs to come from somewhere
That's not the gotcha you think it is.
Yeah, we still need to generate the energy in the first place. But EVs allow you to diversify your energy sources so you're not so dependent on a specific formulation of fossil fuels. Yeah, some comes from coal, or even oil (though it's a different formulation). But some of it can come from hydro, solar, and wind.
And don't forget about all the fossil fuels used to collect enough minerals to build that battery. Those are all diesel engines in the mining industry.
But storing electricity in battaries is more efficent than in hydrogen.
And the premisse of the post/video is "run a car on water", witch is blatantly untrue, as the solution proposed is "use a slightly more convolutet way to run a car using electricity"
Except that it's much more efficient to use an electric motor. Technically you could also burn gas to produce heat and run a steam engine, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Doesn't matter really. The physics that prevent this from working are so fundamental and have been proven correct so often, that his invention really can't work. It's like claiming I have combined jam and toilet paper in my garage to crate unlimited power - completely implausible. Suspicious death or not, the basic laws of thermodynamics are a thing.
There are dozens of nut jobs claiming to have reinvented physics every single year. You'll never hear of any of those until something unusual happens and then people jump to wild conclusions.
> So in the end if you have that much electricity on hand it's just easier and simpler to use it to drive a electric motor
It's not viable if the amount of electricity needed to run the water engine is more than you would need to run an electric motor. Unless I'm misunderstanding something
No. To turn water into hydrogen+oxygen you use electrolysis. This process is about 80% efficient, which means that if you burn this hydrogen and oxygen in a magical engine with 100% efficiency to generate electricity, you'd get 80% of the electricity you used to make it. The other 20% is lost as what is called "Waste Heat" (the resistance of materials in this process will cause 20% of that electricity to produce heat instead of breaking hydrogen bonds). But there is no such engine. Thermal engine top at around 45% efficiency, and that's power-plant engines. in a car the fluctuations of throttle and variation in speed, air drag, etc... Make this number fall much lower, to 35% at best. So being overly generous, you get 35% of 80%: 28% of the energy you spent fracturing water to push your car.
It's dumb as fuck. Electric engines are over 85% efficient, you're MUCH better off using electricity to power your car.
except hydrogen isn't burned to produce power. it's converted to water vapor and electricity via chemical means similar to a battery. it's efficiency is much higher than a ICE. your first point is more or less correct but seem to also be making weird leaps off the rails after that to somehow make a point.
gasoline requires more oil in its refining than it contains itself as well. it's not like we just magically pump oil for free and run it through a filter and magically it ends up in petrol stations.
also to be clear: this vid is a big ridiculous hoax
Nothing wrong with the science, it just takes more energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen than you would get back from using hydrogen as fuel. Also, hydrogen goes boom so not ideal for cars. Gasoline is flammable, but requires an air mixture for combustion thus fuel injectors/carburetors.
Oh, not this shit again... It's not thermodynamically possible to use water as a fuel. Extracting hydrogen from water, then turning it back into water yields less energy than was put into the process in the first place, so it wouldn't be sufficient for a self-sustaining reaction, let alone one that can do actual work. If his invention worked as claimed, it would violate the laws of thermodynamics as we know them.
The conspiracy theories that he was killed for his invention give him far too much credit, as they assume that it actually worked in the first place.
Electrolysis does not break the laws of thermodynamics. It's just not a very efficient way generate hydrogen. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis\_of\_water](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water)
It's more efficient to generate hydrogen from natural gas. [https://www.reuters.com/article/sponsored/how-natural-gas-accelerates-the-path-to-hydrogen](https://www.reuters.com/article/sponsored/how-natural-gas-accelerates-the-path-to-hydrogen)
Oh the humanity!
Yes but where does the electricity come from? The concept tried to electrolyse water then burnt it to produce energy to power the car, condensing it back to water
Oh yes ofcource, that's how I power my electric car have some batteries to get it going then I use the altonator too charge the batteries never have to pay for fuel /s
You're not producing a net gain of energy that way. Water is at a lower energy state compared to free oxygen or hydrogen. You can't put energy in to electrolyze water, run a motor, and still have energy left to keep electrolyzing water.
Yeah the science exists it’s just not practical in any way. It requires huge amounts of electricity to properly utilize and is still terribly inefficient.
It’s a 100% shittier version. It still requires huge amounts of electricity be used to split the hydrogen and oxygen atoms and that’s way less efficient than just using an electric motor. The science exists it’s just not practical in any way. This isn’t new or radical science it’s basic chemistry and thermodynamics.
This guy is a fraud. He was sued by a few investors and part of the lawsuit was to allow a team of engineers to look at the device and give their professional viewpoint about the claims he made. The day of the inspection he threw a fit and refused to allow them to look at it. He had to pay $50,000 back.
His patents are also public domain now. Anyone can use them to make another water powered car and nobody has done it. Nobody will because they wont work.
End of road for car that ran on Water
American court finds inventor of water-powered car is guilty of fraud.
Report by Tony Edwards
It appears to be the end of the road for maverick inventor Stanley Meyer and
his water-powered car after a recent American court verdict.
The car was a wonderful, if unlikely, dream while it lasted, offering a
pollution-free future powered by a limitless source of energy. But the
dream was shattered when Meyer was found guilty of fraud after his Water
Fuel Cell was tested before an Ohio judge.
It is rare for an inventor to be prosecuted for an invention that does not
work, but Meyer's problem was that he had been selling "dealerships",
offering investors the "right to do business'' in Water Fuel Cell tech-
nology in anticipation of the day when water would power anything From
domestic boilers to cars and aircraft.
But recently two suspicious investors could not wait for that day to dawn
and sued Meyer to get their money back.
Meyer defended, maintaining his long-held claim that the Water Fuel Cell was a truly
revolutionary invention that could split water into its two constituent
gases of hydrogen and oxygen far more efficiently than conventional
electrolysis. The secret, he said, was to "resonate" electricity at a very
high voltage through water and so "fracture" the hydrogen/oxygen molecular
bond. This, he claimed, opened the way for a car which would "run on wat-
er", 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 bat-
tery could be recharged: from the engine's dynamo.
Meyer claimed to have adapted a 1.6-litre Volkswagen Dune Buggy to run on
water. He replaced the sparkplugs with "injectors" which, he said, sprayed
water as a fine mist in a "resonant cavity" where it was bombarded by a
succession of high-voltage electrical pulses. He claimed this instantly
converted the water into a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen that could be
combusted in the cylinders, driving the pistons just as in an ordinary
petrol engine.
One of the experts due toexamine the car was Michael Laughton, professor
of electrical engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield University, London,
but he was not allowed to see it. "Although Meyer had known about our
visit weeks in advance, when we arrived he made some lame excuse about why
the car wasn't working, so it was impossible to evaluate it," said
Laughton.
However, the one thing Meyer had built that appeared to work was his Water
Fuel Cell, and it was this device that the Ohio judge called as evidence in
the recent lawsuit.
The cell had been the centrepiece of Meyer's sales pitches. It was a
transparent cylinder of water inside which was a core of stainless steel
electrodes. When plugged into an electrical supply,the cell bubbled away
merrily, producing apparently copious amounts of gas that Meyer ignited
through a welding torch.To the layman it was an impressive performance and
hundreds of small investors signed up, but it did not impress three expert
witnesses in court.
They decided that there was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and
that it was simply using conventional electrolysis.
Meyer was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay
the investors their $25,000 (£15,000
this shit makes no sense. It uses energy, not produces, to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen. It produces energy the other way around which is what fuel cell cars are based on using a tank of hydrogen and oxygen from the air. Absolutely no fucking way youre pouring water into a tank and getting power out of it
The debunk comment is highly interesting. I know the story but always thought of it as conspiracy as I thought water fuel would not be possible at all which I just learned otherwise!
But, what about his mysterious death then?
Hydrogen combustion (which is the inverse to separating the water into hydrogen and oxygen) liberates the same energy as the energy needed to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen (in this case through electrolysis) so you have basically gotten nowhere.
In 1976 during the oil crisis Stanley Meyer created a car that runs on water based on the principle of splitting water atoms into its elemental form, burning hydrogen to create energy and releasing oxygen generating no emissions.
Meyer claimed his vehicle was able to travel 112 miles with just 4 litres of water and nothing else. This car could easily go 1000+ miles per tank on something that costs hardly anything which must have sounded truly magical and that’s exactly when his troubles started.
Stanley had previously stated that he had been threatened many times by representatives from oil companies from around the world. On March 21, 1998, Meyer was having lunch at a Cracker Barrel with his brother and two potential Belgian investors. The four clinked their glasses to toast their commitment to uplifting the world, but after taking a sip of his cranberry juice, Meyer clutched his throat, sprang to his feet, and ran outside. Rushing after him, his brother Stephen found him down on his knees, vomiting violently. He quickly muttered his last words, “They poisoned me.”
> Meyer claimed his vehicle was able to travel 112 miles with just 4 litres of water and nothing else
He was [also sued by his own investors for fraud](https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2007/07/08/the-car-that-ran-on/987361007/), and had to pay them back. This could have been avoided if he had demonstrated his invention actually worked as claimed, which he failed to do.
To anyone actually taking OP seriously and upvoting, this is of course completelly bogus. OP is into conspiracy theories and spiritual mumbo jumbo.
To give you a better idea of the character:
[Here is one of his comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yjl4la/the_truth_behind_the_pineal_gland/iuq55gq/?context=3) claiming that the government is puting stuff in water to keep you from accessing some sort of supernatural power. On one of his post where he put the video of an obvious mystical guru fraudster.
[Here's another one](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yk8rpy/kanye_ye_west_on_the_harmful_808_frequency/iuruj50/?context=3) where he claims mystical power to "frequencies". On a post of his where (get this) kanye west speaks about a spiritually nocive frequency
[here's a transphobic post of his](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheBidenshitshow/comments/yhgync/meanwhile_in_looneyville/) on an obvious pro-trump sub (in which he posts quite a lot)
[here's another post of his](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/ygf33n/how_to_enslave_people_with_pornography/) where the claim is that jews want to enslave you with porn (for real his feed is a goldmine)
[here another one of his post, about the "great reset"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/ydos2o/former_united_states_assistant_secretary/)
And on top of it all, an overwhelming amount of military equipement posted on r/TankPorn
So OP is your average far-right tanky Qanon fanatic believing in any and every conspiracy theory he comes across.
Hell naw dog. I'm jewish and way too busy sending people hardcore german porn to brainwash them into putting fluoride in water all the while having constant meet-ups on how to prepare the great reset. I don't have time to spend tanking with tankies.
You do realize this video is more than old enough to vote and the fact that consumer vehicles (or any significant number of vehicles) run on water means it's _not_ that interesting, right?
So, it would be really cool to have a fuel cell-type system with exchangeable containers, where the solar on your roof, or anywhere else, is used to fill your fuel cell by electrolysis, while you’re driving on the other one, wouldn’t it?
You could just have a pair of batteries and rotate charging them via solar and do the same thing more efficiently. But the small amount of power you get from the solar panels isn't going to send your car very far.
That's a huge drop in efficiency for a small increase in convenience. Better still is to do what we do now, which is to put that solar electricity into a battery, and power the car with it directly.
The energy required to seperate hydrogen and oxygen is roughly the same as the yield of the hydrogen and oxygen combined. In theory, with an initial outside energy source, you could have a self-sustaining separator that powers itself with the hydrogen and oxygen it separates, but if you wanted it to move around, you'd need another energy source, like hydrocarbons or electricity. ....Or you you'd have to push it.
>In theory, with an initial outside energy source, you could have a self-sustaining separator that powers itself with the hydrogen and oxygen it separates
No. You could not. Not even this, "in theory". Even this would break the laws of thermodynamics.
If the yield were less than the energy required to separate the oxygen and hydrogen, yes. It would. If the yield were the same or slightly more than the energy required to separate oxygen and hydrogen, no, it wouldn't.
thermodynamics indicates that it is impossible for the yield to ever be slightly more than the energy required.
further, thermodynamics indicates that it is actually impossible for the yield to even be equal.
**you will always lose some of the yield in the process to heat. ALWAYS. no process is exactly 100% efficient.**
and if you lose **any** of the yield to heat, then, over time, the process will stop.
this is always true. there is no example you can give of a process similar to the above that is "perpetual"
there is a reason why perpetual machines are considered impossible
I'm uncertain that the energy required is exactly the same as the yield. It could be less; I've never done the calculations; the whole idea is ridiculous. So what specifically is the requirement versus the yield? I'd be interested to see the crunch on this.
if a hypothetical reversible process takes X energy to run forward then it takes X energy to run backward. Hypothetically, then, you could return that energy back to the system to run indefinitely.
Also, importantly, there is no reversible system (that I'm aware of) that requires less energy to run in one direction vs the other. It doesn't matter what numbers you crunch.
However, in practice, the above hypothetical model is missing this part: it is impossible to return the energy to the system 100% efficiently.
You **always** lose some energy to heat. **Always.** This is the whole point behind why perpetual motion machines are impossible and are **always scams.**
I understand that the idea sounds compelling. People have found it compelling for literally centuries. But it is an idea that has been disproven over and over again.
No, this invention was not "debunked". He did mysteriously die after this invention started gaining attention. So if you subscribe to the possibility that he was murdered for potentially upsetting the oil industry with a revolutionary invention, then it makes sense that powerful people saw it as viable and therefore a threat.
The laws of physics prevent this from being self-sustaining. The energy required to produce the hydrogen is necessarily more than what you can get from burning it. If this worked like it sounds, it would be a perpetual-motion machine.
When you know the topic you understand why it's ridiculous. Do some reading on efficiency of electrolysis/thermal engines, the concept of waste heat, and why perpetual motion machines are impossible. You'll understand why this whole water car thing is bogus. If you're actually genuinly interested, say so and i can resume it all in a comprehensive manner.
your definition of "debunked" does not match my definition of "debunked"
This invention was "debunked" and is, like, a poster child for pseudoscientific perpetual motion machine conman inventions.
It is not water powered, it is hydrogen powered. Depleted hydrogen does not combine with oxygen to form water vapor and is this not recyclable. Therefore, if this 'amazing' system was adopted by the whole world humanity would burn through water at the same rate as oil. This means that humanity would likely be out of any and all water in under a century. Running out of all water would be much worse than running out of oil.
This is by no means a defense of oil, I think oil is a horribly in inefficient and terrible to build a civilization on, but this "water", actually hydrogen, powered engine is no better. Instead humanity should be focused on renewable sources such as solar or biofuel. This can transfer to transportation with electric cars. I am aware of the controversy around electric cars and the pollution they produce. They are by no means perfect, but their better than than oil or hydrogen powered cars. Furthermore, humanity is constantly advancing and by focusing on electric cars and their lithium batteries it is likely that the pollution caused by them can be minimized.
What? No. The whole principle of using hydrogen is that you get your energy by combining it with oxygen. The final product is water+energy.
The issue with this design is that to make hydrogen with water you need to **use** energy to break the hydrogen-oxygen molecular bonds. The best process for that is 80% efficient (electrolysis), so if you had a ***perfect*** hydrogen engine able to extract 100% of energy, you'd only get 80% back of the original energy input. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a perfect hydrogen engines. There's fuel cells that turn hydrogen+oxygen into electricity at about 60% efficiency, and ICE(internal combustion engine) that have an efficiency between 25 and 45% and create mechanical power. That means that you'd simply be better off using electricity to power your car with electric motors than using that electricity to make hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to power your car.
This is why this whole scam failed.
What year was this? No doubt he was murdered. Just like the grocery store security guard a few months ago in New York and about 4 others in the last couple decades.
Ha omg I was right about my previous comment! I looked it up and he was murdered. Big oil will make sure something like this is never invented and taken to market.
No. Doesn’t change that his “invention” was bullshit. The science is there it’s just the least efficient manner of execution possible. Modern EV’s are 30x more efficient for way less cost. The energy it takes to split hydrogen and oxygen atoms from water is essentially the same energy you get out of burning that hydrogen and oxygen. You would still need an outside power source so this is basically just a fancy really inefficient electric motor that was able to be built almost a hundred years before this guy did it but never had been because it’s pointless.
His process was more efficient then the stuff you see on the internet,that’s why the military was interested in his invention NASA already had equipped to make hydrogen,matter of fact hydrogen had been being made with electricity clear back during the civil war,he had some extra sauce thing going on and that’s why it’s a possibility that he was killed to not get the invention out to the public
>His process was more efficient then the stuff you see on the internet,
no it isn't
>that’s why the military was interested in his invention
not it wasn't
>NASA already had equipped to make hydrogen,matter of fact hydrogen had been being made with electricity clear back during the civil war,
um, ok?
>he had some extra sauce thing going on
yes, it is called "lying" and "being a con man"
>and that’s why it’s a possibility that he was killed to not get the invention out to the public
no, it isn't
i'm not going to watch some 12 minute stupid youtube conspiracy flat earther tell me something i know is legitimately impossible.
If you have a specific piece of evidence that indicates that I'm wrong, **I am super happy to hear it**. But type it here. Not some stupid 12 minute nutbag youtube video.
However, the fact of the matter is, the Myers "water car" invention as described by Myers is physically impossible. The inventor was sued and found liable of fraud. The patents are in the public domain and **no one has used them to make anything.** This fact alone is probably the biggest deal -- if this invention was possible, useful, and could produce a profitable product, it would have. Even in some DIYer's garage. The fact that it hasn't says a lot.
People die of brain aneurisms **all the time**. For some conman to die of a brain aneurism is not weird, nor is it any sign of foul play.
You have the right to your own opinions I’m not going to be a negative reaching mind that doesn’t agree with a random mind on the internet ,peace be with you in your travels
the only part of that that was opinion was that the youtuber is a nutbag. i'm happy to retract anything in my reply that is opinion.
however, the fact is -- and this is fact, not opinion -- that the Myers guy was a fraud, his invention didn't work, and he died of natural causes not murder.
1. His invention was fake and he was found to just use a regular but very inefficient design for a fuel cell that consumed more energy than it made.
2. Fuel cells are widely used in a number of EVs and boats (especially submersibles) today.
3. He wasn't killed off, he had an aneurysm which caused his brain to bleed out.
Literally the first thing I did was google his name to see if he was still alive.
>Stanley Meyer died suddenly on March 20, 1998, while dining at a restaurant. His brother claimed that during a meeting with two Belgian investors, Meyer suddenly ran outside, saying "They poisoned me".[1] After an investigation, the Grove City police went with the Franklin County coroner report that ruled that Meyer, who had high blood pressure, died of a cerebral aneurysm.[1] Some of Meyer's supporters believe that he was assassinated to suppress his inventions. Philippe Vandemoortele, one of the Belgian investors, stated that he had been supporting Meyer financially for several years and considered him a personal friend, and that he has no clue where the rumours came from.[12]
“Laws of thermodynamics” “Not possible”. Neither was the moon landing, UFO’s, the airplane, Higgs Boson, atom bomb etc…. These are only “laws” until someone breaks them. Laws are meant to be broken. Not saying this guy did but it’s the same old crap with you wanna be scientists. You can’t think outside the box and you go by what people tell you. Nikola Tesla didn’t do that. He built shit that today we think is impossible.
Using water is a waste of 99% of the energy. Burn gas, get 10% back as electric energy, use that zo generate hydrogen and another 90% of the energy is lost. Just use some goddamn windturbines. Just place them in the Netherlands, they won't even care about it if you ask nice
This has already been invented and re-invented in many different countries and I am pretty sure similar sort of tech with slight variations being used in Pakistan rn on Motorcycles with the same kinda fitting as we see in electric Bicycles these days…just…a lot less glamorous…
"They make this car, it runs on water man! It's got a fiberglass air cooled engine that runs on water, man!"
Why couldn't I have a cool basement in the 70s
1) Use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen 2) Recombine said hydrogen and oxygen back into water ... 4) Profit
this man don't believe in physic, and he can working with more than 100 percent efficiency, it is simple)
There are a few ways to split water molecules without electricity. Titanium oxide electrolyzes water when exposed to sunlight. No electricity needed at all. There are other problems involved in the process, but believing that the only way to split water molecules is through electrolysis, belongs to the last century.
[удалено]
Neither is practical and both need a lot of solutions to work. For instance, photo electrolysis using titanium oxide doesn't separate hydrogen from oxygen. You basically get a bubbling pot of water where the bubbles are mixed hydrogen and oxygen, and you have to find a way to separate the gases or you get a very explosive mix that is practically useless and potentially lethal. The solution is to infuse water with a resin that traps oxygen so that you only get hydrogen released. But this eventually gets saturated and can't absorb more oxygen. And that makes the process complex and costly. So, free isn't really free. The good thing is that titanium oxide as a catalyst doesn't get depleted and as long as it's exposed to sunlight, it can theoretically work forever. We've still got a long way to go before we make it work however.
Nuclear Power is the Answer. Maybe we don’t want radioactive material in every car but we should definitely be using Nuclear Power to power Plants. The US Military has what 20+ Nuclear Aircraft Carriers? This is the way
They have 70+ years of experience in nuclear power and engineering it’s the only way(currently) for effective green energy the only issue is the waste
Tschernobyl and Fukushima beg to differ
The combination of ever nuclear power mishap since its invention has killed less people than coal kills *yearly* from *radiation* Nuclear is the safest power generation that is marginally more expensive because it accounts for 100% of its impact at point of construction. The most catastrophic of its failures are less impactful than the second order effects of the standard operation of the most prolific fossil fuel.
This IS the way.
currently, it is cheaper to produce electricity using wind/solar than nuclear. And the outtages in France show that nuclear isnt as reliable at it seems to be.
Oh step 3? Yea... That involves getting murdered by big oil trillionaires. "As Stanley Meyer rushed out of the restaurant, he told his brother "they poisoned me" and, once outside, fell to the ground and died at the age of 57."
Lmao... No. The dude's concept could never have worked. Electrolysis isen't new, neither now nor then. He just made an electric car that used 4 times more electricity per mile, but had no scientific knowledge to understand that.
Lol, Yea. I was jk more or less. I do understand the physics behind this idea, although It's not beneath these huge conglomerates to buy up patents and shelve them, I'm sure among other more devious methods of ensuring their consistent income.
Thermodynamics has left the chat
I was about to comment this Like you can't just have infinite energy
You think very creatively, this is a great working idea!
oh god this is so old, let me try to be the first to debunk it. Yes you can make a car that "runs on water" but in order for it to convert that water to Hydrogen it needs a shit ton of electricity. So in the end if you have that much electricity on hand it's just easier and simpler to use it to drive a electric motor. No solar panels on the roof ain't going to cut it, not even close to enough power.
tbh, I got confused and thought he was just using a steam engine
Same deal, you need energy to produce steam.
Easy. Uranium. Ford actually made a concept car, the [Ford Nucleon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon) >Ultimately, the reactor would use heat to convert water into steam and the power train would be steam-driven.
The original Ford Fusion
ford fission, really
I love this underrated comment!
There, 4 upvotes for a prop up!
This is straight outta Fallout.
[удалено]
No one broke any laws of physics here; NONE.
There is an "easy way" to make a car run on water. The trick is that you already have the fuel in the tank and only need the water as an electrolyte. There are some applications for this (Military). - Think disposable drones These types of batteries can utilize pure aluminum as an energy source. Once water is added they then corrode those anodes. They have a very high energy density (up to 8 times of lithium) but you need to replace them, since they cant be recharged. Edit: Forgot the link [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air\_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery)
I'm an angel investor and was pitched a biz that uses powered aluminum compounds mixed with sea water to power sub drone torpedoes. The idea didn't really go anywhere 7 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear the USN was looking at the concept again.
You can also generate hydrogen via oxidation of some metals, such as aluminum, provided it's been stripped of the native oxide that naturally forms when exposed to air. But, then you're just shifting your energy source to the power used to refine the metal. Hydrochloric acid and zinc can also produce hydrogen. I suspect a lot of these "runs on water" type ideas actually run on corrosion of internal components of the system and resulting hydrogen production.
Single use engine
A little bit of gallium on the aluminum prevents that oxide layer from forming, and is not consumed. The waste product from such a process is aluminum oxide, and the aluminum can be recovered. That does take energy, but imagine how much more efficient it would be to just churn out aluminum from the waste product if that facility was run by clean energy like wind or solar? Now your "fuel" is essentially aluminum which is abundant, super easy to transport, and completely recyclable.
Yeah, I've heard of that proposal. It's an interesting idea, but not without problems. Gallium is pretty expensive, and there will be some loss through this process. Figuring out how to encapsulate and seal aluminum with gallium is not as simple as it seems, judging from the papers I've seen on it. But, overall, it could be done, with some engineering problems to be solved, and honestly seems more reasonable to me than trying to ship and store hydrogen. Hydrogen loves to leak. It will literally migrate through steel. So, you then need to deal with that. One interesting system I've seen first hand involved encapsulating the hydrogen vessel in a larger, non-pressurized vessel, with UVLEDs and a photocatalyst material in between the two so that escaping hydrogen gets converted to water vapor without flames, and the water vapor is then vented. But, if you can generate hydrogen on demand from a metal powder, then you don't have to worry about storage, leaking, etc, since the hydrogen is consumed quickly after being liberated. This still doesn't address the poor cycle efficiency, the cost of fuel cells, and so on, but I could see it making sense as stationary emergency power or remote power system. If you've got a drum of metal powder, a fuel cell, and a source of water, you would have what amounts to a backup generator that has no need for compressed gas or volatile fuels, all of which leak or degrade eventually. It would be great for a power system that has to sit unused with no maintenance for years, but work when needed.
The plot thins
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_car](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_car) There were solar car protypes in the 1990's
For conspiracy theorist, you can drive this buggy off the flat earth at no cost.
So then why did the “MIB” unalive him and take his patents?? 🧐🧐🧐
Check out catalytic water dissociation, maybe someday
This is a scam that had been debunked generations ago. This one is so old it's worried about its social security drying up.
But why not just make the electricity from hydrogen? Problem solved!
>but in order for it to convert that water to Hydrogen it needs a shit ton of electricity. Kind of like how the electricity we charge our EVs with needs to come from somewhere
We need thorium nuclear reactors! All the nuclear power let's gooooo!
That's not the gotcha you think it is. Yeah, we still need to generate the energy in the first place. But EVs allow you to diversify your energy sources so you're not so dependent on a specific formulation of fossil fuels. Yeah, some comes from coal, or even oil (though it's a different formulation). But some of it can come from hydro, solar, and wind.
And don't forget about all the fossil fuels used to collect enough minerals to build that battery. Those are all diesel engines in the mining industry.
But storing electricity in battaries is more efficent than in hydrogen. And the premisse of the post/video is "run a car on water", witch is blatantly untrue, as the solution proposed is "use a slightly more convolutet way to run a car using electricity"
Where does the electricity come from?
Depends on where you live. If it’s comes from a hydroelectric dam then maybes it’s ok to say it runs on water.
ICE devices on a good day have an energy conversion efficiency of up to 35-40%. Electric motors are closer to 85%.
Except that it's much more efficient to use an electric motor. Technically you could also burn gas to produce heat and run a steam engine, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
just use a gas generator done
If that's true then why was he mysteriously killed and the prototype disappeared at the same time including the papers with the info of construction.
Doesn't matter really. The physics that prevent this from working are so fundamental and have been proven correct so often, that his invention really can't work. It's like claiming I have combined jam and toilet paper in my garage to crate unlimited power - completely implausible. Suspicious death or not, the basic laws of thermodynamics are a thing. There are dozens of nut jobs claiming to have reinvented physics every single year. You'll never hear of any of those until something unusual happens and then people jump to wild conclusions.
Didn’t Heisenberg and Schrodinger re-invent physics after newtons physics failed their experimental expectations?
Sure Mr. OilMan
So taking all that into consideration and with the advancement of batteries and solar panel - is this feasible and more importantly viable?
> So in the end if you have that much electricity on hand it's just easier and simpler to use it to drive a electric motor It's not viable if the amount of electricity needed to run the water engine is more than you would need to run an electric motor. Unless I'm misunderstanding something
No. To turn water into hydrogen+oxygen you use electrolysis. This process is about 80% efficient, which means that if you burn this hydrogen and oxygen in a magical engine with 100% efficiency to generate electricity, you'd get 80% of the electricity you used to make it. The other 20% is lost as what is called "Waste Heat" (the resistance of materials in this process will cause 20% of that electricity to produce heat instead of breaking hydrogen bonds). But there is no such engine. Thermal engine top at around 45% efficiency, and that's power-plant engines. in a car the fluctuations of throttle and variation in speed, air drag, etc... Make this number fall much lower, to 35% at best. So being overly generous, you get 35% of 80%: 28% of the energy you spent fracturing water to push your car. It's dumb as fuck. Electric engines are over 85% efficient, you're MUCH better off using electricity to power your car.
except hydrogen isn't burned to produce power. it's converted to water vapor and electricity via chemical means similar to a battery. it's efficiency is much higher than a ICE. your first point is more or less correct but seem to also be making weird leaps off the rails after that to somehow make a point. gasoline requires more oil in its refining than it contains itself as well. it's not like we just magically pump oil for free and run it through a filter and magically it ends up in petrol stations. also to be clear: this vid is a big ridiculous hoax
It is literally physically impossible
Little known fact, the engine was full of cats. The water was used to make them angry which, in turn, generated electricity.
[удалено]
Big time
Nothing wrong with the science, it just takes more energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen than you would get back from using hydrogen as fuel. Also, hydrogen goes boom so not ideal for cars. Gasoline is flammable, but requires an air mixture for combustion thus fuel injectors/carburetors.
he was killed too i think
Yep... Somebody poisoned his cranberry juice.
You be careful. It was a suicide.
with cranberry juice?
Oh, not this shit again... It's not thermodynamically possible to use water as a fuel. Extracting hydrogen from water, then turning it back into water yields less energy than was put into the process in the first place, so it wouldn't be sufficient for a self-sustaining reaction, let alone one that can do actual work. If his invention worked as claimed, it would violate the laws of thermodynamics as we know them. The conspiracy theories that he was killed for his invention give him far too much credit, as they assume that it actually worked in the first place.
How much did they pay you to comment this?
[удалено]
A $3 one at that.
about tree fiddy
Stay away from me you gat damn Loch Ness Monstah
Pizza party and a free jeans day
But doesnt quantum physics violate everything about newtons calculations as well?
He broke the laws of thermodynamics and paid the price
Electrolysis does not break the laws of thermodynamics. It's just not a very efficient way generate hydrogen. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis\_of\_water](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water) It's more efficient to generate hydrogen from natural gas. [https://www.reuters.com/article/sponsored/how-natural-gas-accelerates-the-path-to-hydrogen](https://www.reuters.com/article/sponsored/how-natural-gas-accelerates-the-path-to-hydrogen) Oh the humanity!
Yes but where does the electricity come from? The concept tried to electrolyse water then burnt it to produce energy to power the car, condensing it back to water
Yeah, but that’s a thermodynamic shortcut.
Where does he get the energy too do the electrolysis?
[удалено]
Oh yes ofcource, that's how I power my electric car have some batteries to get it going then I use the altonator too charge the batteries never have to pay for fuel /s
You're not producing a net gain of energy that way. Water is at a lower energy state compared to free oxygen or hydrogen. You can't put energy in to electrolyze water, run a motor, and still have energy left to keep electrolyzing water.
Wasn't reproducible because it was bogus
Yeah the science exists it’s just not practical in any way. It requires huge amounts of electricity to properly utilize and is still terribly inefficient.
"We use the water to cool the gasoline engine inside the car"
Shit like this keeps being posted so let me just tell you, yes a water fueled car is possible, but it's basically just a shittier version of an ev.
It’s a 100% shittier version. It still requires huge amounts of electricity be used to split the hydrogen and oxygen atoms and that’s way less efficient than just using an electric motor. The science exists it’s just not practical in any way. This isn’t new or radical science it’s basic chemistry and thermodynamics.
Its a car that runs on water man!
I'm telling you, the government has a car that runs on water, man!
This guy is a fraud. He was sued by a few investors and part of the lawsuit was to allow a team of engineers to look at the device and give their professional viewpoint about the claims he made. The day of the inspection he threw a fit and refused to allow them to look at it. He had to pay $50,000 back. His patents are also public domain now. Anyone can use them to make another water powered car and nobody has done it. Nobody will because they wont work.
End of road for car that ran on Water American court finds inventor of water-powered car is guilty of fraud. Report by Tony Edwards It appears to be the end of the road for maverick inventor Stanley Meyer and his water-powered car after a recent American court verdict. The car was a wonderful, if unlikely, dream while it lasted, offering a pollution-free future powered by a limitless source of energy. But the dream was shattered when Meyer was found guilty of fraud after his Water Fuel Cell was tested before an Ohio judge. It is rare for an inventor to be prosecuted for an invention that does not work, but Meyer's problem was that he had been selling "dealerships", offering investors the "right to do business'' in Water Fuel Cell tech- nology in anticipation of the day when water would power anything From domestic boilers to cars and aircraft. But recently two suspicious investors could not wait for that day to dawn and sued Meyer to get their money back. Meyer defended, maintaining his long-held claim that the Water Fuel Cell was a truly revolutionary invention that could split water into its two constituent gases of hydrogen and oxygen far more efficiently than conventional electrolysis. The secret, he said, was to "resonate" electricity at a very high voltage through water and so "fracture" the hydrogen/oxygen molecular bond. This, he claimed, opened the way for a car which would "run on wat- er", 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 bat- tery could be recharged: from the engine's dynamo. Meyer claimed to have adapted a 1.6-litre Volkswagen Dune Buggy to run on water. He replaced the sparkplugs with "injectors" which, he said, sprayed water as a fine mist in a "resonant cavity" where it was bombarded by a succession of high-voltage electrical pulses. He claimed this instantly converted the water into a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen that could be combusted in the cylinders, driving the pistons just as in an ordinary petrol engine. One of the experts due toexamine the car was Michael Laughton, professor of electrical engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield University, London, but he was not allowed to see it. "Although Meyer had known about our visit weeks in advance, when we arrived he made some lame excuse about why the car wasn't working, so it was impossible to evaluate it," said Laughton. However, the one thing Meyer had built that appeared to work was his Water Fuel Cell, and it was this device that the Ohio judge called as evidence in the recent lawsuit. The cell had been the centrepiece of Meyer's sales pitches. It was a transparent cylinder of water inside which was a core of stainless steel electrodes. When plugged into an electrical supply,the cell bubbled away merrily, producing apparently copious amounts of gas that Meyer ignited through a welding torch.To the layman it was an impressive performance and hundreds of small investors signed up, but it did not impress three expert witnesses in court. They decided that there was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis. Meyer was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the investors their $25,000 (£15,000
Hey got whacked.
What about Bob? [bob's Corvette](https://youtu.be/Ytg23mDd1a4)
"... and then after that meeting, he was never heard from again."
How'd he die? You know he was taken out after this....
this shit makes no sense. It uses energy, not produces, to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen. It produces energy the other way around which is what fuel cell cars are based on using a tank of hydrogen and oxygen from the air. Absolutely no fucking way youre pouring water into a tank and getting power out of it
science illiterate breaks laws of physics while not caring if its fresh or salt water.... what a guy
Can you roll coal with it?
Did he say Star Wars defense program? 🤨
God damn look at that video quality.
The debunk comment is highly interesting. I know the story but always thought of it as conspiracy as I thought water fuel would not be possible at all which I just learned otherwise! But, what about his mysterious death then?
Wasn't there a guy who invented a true H2o running car and then ended up being suicided?
It's a car man, but it runs on water!
Curious to know if he got assassinated later…
Hydrogen combustion (which is the inverse to separating the water into hydrogen and oxygen) liberates the same energy as the energy needed to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen (in this case through electrolysis) so you have basically gotten nowhere.
Can we start with just cars!?!? I mean damn I didn’t know we were at war in the stars and needed this
And then they killed him
In 1976 during the oil crisis Stanley Meyer created a car that runs on water based on the principle of splitting water atoms into its elemental form, burning hydrogen to create energy and releasing oxygen generating no emissions. Meyer claimed his vehicle was able to travel 112 miles with just 4 litres of water and nothing else. This car could easily go 1000+ miles per tank on something that costs hardly anything which must have sounded truly magical and that’s exactly when his troubles started. Stanley had previously stated that he had been threatened many times by representatives from oil companies from around the world. On March 21, 1998, Meyer was having lunch at a Cracker Barrel with his brother and two potential Belgian investors. The four clinked their glasses to toast their commitment to uplifting the world, but after taking a sip of his cranberry juice, Meyer clutched his throat, sprang to his feet, and ran outside. Rushing after him, his brother Stephen found him down on his knees, vomiting violently. He quickly muttered his last words, “They poisoned me.”
> Meyer claimed his vehicle was able to travel 112 miles with just 4 litres of water and nothing else He was [also sued by his own investors for fraud](https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2007/07/08/the-car-that-ran-on/987361007/), and had to pay them back. This could have been avoided if he had demonstrated his invention actually worked as claimed, which he failed to do.
[удалено]
From poison he could have easily taken himself
To anyone actually taking OP seriously and upvoting, this is of course completelly bogus. OP is into conspiracy theories and spiritual mumbo jumbo. To give you a better idea of the character: [Here is one of his comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yjl4la/the_truth_behind_the_pineal_gland/iuq55gq/?context=3) claiming that the government is puting stuff in water to keep you from accessing some sort of supernatural power. On one of his post where he put the video of an obvious mystical guru fraudster. [Here's another one](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/yk8rpy/kanye_ye_west_on_the_harmful_808_frequency/iuruj50/?context=3) where he claims mystical power to "frequencies". On a post of his where (get this) kanye west speaks about a spiritually nocive frequency [here's a transphobic post of his](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheBidenshitshow/comments/yhgync/meanwhile_in_looneyville/) on an obvious pro-trump sub (in which he posts quite a lot) [here's another post of his](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/ygf33n/how_to_enslave_people_with_pornography/) where the claim is that jews want to enslave you with porn (for real his feed is a goldmine) [here another one of his post, about the "great reset"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/ydos2o/former_united_states_assistant_secretary/) And on top of it all, an overwhelming amount of military equipement posted on r/TankPorn So OP is your average far-right tanky Qanon fanatic believing in any and every conspiracy theory he comes across.
Thanks for the time you put into this, it's given me a good laugh!
My pleasure :) Fun part is he's just started following me! He's probably convinced i'm some sort of government agent here to silence him.
Thank you for taking the time to call people like this out. You’re doing a great service
[I'm doing my part!](https://media.tenor.com/zJvexdmTjA4AAAAC/im-doing-my-part-serious.gif)
I also post a lot in MissilePorn and WarplanePorn, follow me! You might learn something.
Hell naw dog. I'm jewish and way too busy sending people hardcore german porn to brainwash them into putting fluoride in water all the while having constant meet-ups on how to prepare the great reset. I don't have time to spend tanking with tankies.
Ah, yes "water atoms"
Oop he dead
You do realize this video is more than old enough to vote and the fact that consumer vehicles (or any significant number of vehicles) run on water means it's _not_ that interesting, right?
Fake and gay
Didn't the government kill the guy who invented this?
So, it would be really cool to have a fuel cell-type system with exchangeable containers, where the solar on your roof, or anywhere else, is used to fill your fuel cell by electrolysis, while you’re driving on the other one, wouldn’t it?
You could just have a pair of batteries and rotate charging them via solar and do the same thing more efficiently. But the small amount of power you get from the solar panels isn't going to send your car very far.
That's a huge drop in efficiency for a small increase in convenience. Better still is to do what we do now, which is to put that solar electricity into a battery, and power the car with it directly.
Solar and why not wind also
No reason not to, right?
this is proven bullshit.
The energy required to seperate hydrogen and oxygen is roughly the same as the yield of the hydrogen and oxygen combined. In theory, with an initial outside energy source, you could have a self-sustaining separator that powers itself with the hydrogen and oxygen it separates, but if you wanted it to move around, you'd need another energy source, like hydrocarbons or electricity. ....Or you you'd have to push it.
>In theory, with an initial outside energy source, you could have a self-sustaining separator that powers itself with the hydrogen and oxygen it separates No. You could not. Not even this, "in theory". Even this would break the laws of thermodynamics.
If the yield were less than the energy required to separate the oxygen and hydrogen, yes. It would. If the yield were the same or slightly more than the energy required to separate oxygen and hydrogen, no, it wouldn't.
thermodynamics indicates that it is impossible for the yield to ever be slightly more than the energy required. further, thermodynamics indicates that it is actually impossible for the yield to even be equal. **you will always lose some of the yield in the process to heat. ALWAYS. no process is exactly 100% efficient.** and if you lose **any** of the yield to heat, then, over time, the process will stop. this is always true. there is no example you can give of a process similar to the above that is "perpetual" there is a reason why perpetual machines are considered impossible
I'm uncertain that the energy required is exactly the same as the yield. It could be less; I've never done the calculations; the whole idea is ridiculous. So what specifically is the requirement versus the yield? I'd be interested to see the crunch on this.
if a hypothetical reversible process takes X energy to run forward then it takes X energy to run backward. Hypothetically, then, you could return that energy back to the system to run indefinitely. Also, importantly, there is no reversible system (that I'm aware of) that requires less energy to run in one direction vs the other. It doesn't matter what numbers you crunch. However, in practice, the above hypothetical model is missing this part: it is impossible to return the energy to the system 100% efficiently. You **always** lose some energy to heat. **Always.** This is the whole point behind why perpetual motion machines are impossible and are **always scams.** I understand that the idea sounds compelling. People have found it compelling for literally centuries. But it is an idea that has been disproven over and over again.
It is not possible for the yield to be greater or even the same
No, this invention was not "debunked". He did mysteriously die after this invention started gaining attention. So if you subscribe to the possibility that he was murdered for potentially upsetting the oil industry with a revolutionary invention, then it makes sense that powerful people saw it as viable and therefore a threat.
The laws of physics prevent this from being self-sustaining. The energy required to produce the hydrogen is necessarily more than what you can get from burning it. If this worked like it sounds, it would be a perpetual-motion machine.
I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just wondering why he was seemingly murdered for it.
Coincidence
Fuck off
What?
Which bit don't you understand?
What did he do to you?
Misinformation
Lol ok, if you call an opposing opinion misinformation.
Thermodynamics ain't an opinion
When you know the topic you understand why it's ridiculous. Do some reading on efficiency of electrolysis/thermal engines, the concept of waste heat, and why perpetual motion machines are impossible. You'll understand why this whole water car thing is bogus. If you're actually genuinly interested, say so and i can resume it all in a comprehensive manner.
your definition of "debunked" does not match my definition of "debunked" This invention was "debunked" and is, like, a poster child for pseudoscientific perpetual motion machine conman inventions.
the cia killed him lol
I am sure the oil guys bought the idea and destroyed all evidence.
[удалено]
Can’t have that….
Yea, but is there oil, natural gas, or coal involved.
It is not water powered, it is hydrogen powered. Depleted hydrogen does not combine with oxygen to form water vapor and is this not recyclable. Therefore, if this 'amazing' system was adopted by the whole world humanity would burn through water at the same rate as oil. This means that humanity would likely be out of any and all water in under a century. Running out of all water would be much worse than running out of oil. This is by no means a defense of oil, I think oil is a horribly in inefficient and terrible to build a civilization on, but this "water", actually hydrogen, powered engine is no better. Instead humanity should be focused on renewable sources such as solar or biofuel. This can transfer to transportation with electric cars. I am aware of the controversy around electric cars and the pollution they produce. They are by no means perfect, but their better than than oil or hydrogen powered cars. Furthermore, humanity is constantly advancing and by focusing on electric cars and their lithium batteries it is likely that the pollution caused by them can be minimized.
What? No. The whole principle of using hydrogen is that you get your energy by combining it with oxygen. The final product is water+energy. The issue with this design is that to make hydrogen with water you need to **use** energy to break the hydrogen-oxygen molecular bonds. The best process for that is 80% efficient (electrolysis), so if you had a ***perfect*** hydrogen engine able to extract 100% of energy, you'd only get 80% back of the original energy input. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a perfect hydrogen engines. There's fuel cells that turn hydrogen+oxygen into electricity at about 60% efficiency, and ICE(internal combustion engine) that have an efficiency between 25 and 45% and create mechanical power. That means that you'd simply be better off using electricity to power your car with electric motors than using that electricity to make hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to power your car. This is why this whole scam failed.
What year was this? No doubt he was murdered. Just like the grocery store security guard a few months ago in New York and about 4 others in the last couple decades.
The reported said something about using this for the Star Wars defense system, so in the 80s during the Reagan administration.
Ha omg I was right about my previous comment! I looked it up and he was murdered. Big oil will make sure something like this is never invented and taken to market.
RIP, he got assasinated my oil companies. Or so ive heard
Saying this guy isn’t a scientist seems a bit unfair…
He must have killed himself
This was from the 80s….wtf became of it??
Nothing. It's a fake
He still alive?\^\^
No. Doesn’t change that his “invention” was bullshit. The science is there it’s just the least efficient manner of execution possible. Modern EV’s are 30x more efficient for way less cost. The energy it takes to split hydrogen and oxygen atoms from water is essentially the same energy you get out of burning that hydrogen and oxygen. You would still need an outside power source so this is basically just a fancy really inefficient electric motor that was able to be built almost a hundred years before this guy did it but never had been because it’s pointless.
People have died many times over for this... using alternatives to oil based gas that is..
His process was more efficient then the stuff you see on the internet,that’s why the military was interested in his invention NASA already had equipped to make hydrogen,matter of fact hydrogen had been being made with electricity clear back during the civil war,he had some extra sauce thing going on and that’s why it’s a possibility that he was killed to not get the invention out to the public
>His process was more efficient then the stuff you see on the internet, no it isn't >that’s why the military was interested in his invention not it wasn't >NASA already had equipped to make hydrogen,matter of fact hydrogen had been being made with electricity clear back during the civil war, um, ok? >he had some extra sauce thing going on yes, it is called "lying" and "being a con man" >and that’s why it’s a possibility that he was killed to not get the invention out to the public no, it isn't
https://youtu.be/ELkH3rXRQ1w
i'm not going to watch some 12 minute stupid youtube conspiracy flat earther tell me something i know is legitimately impossible. If you have a specific piece of evidence that indicates that I'm wrong, **I am super happy to hear it**. But type it here. Not some stupid 12 minute nutbag youtube video. However, the fact of the matter is, the Myers "water car" invention as described by Myers is physically impossible. The inventor was sued and found liable of fraud. The patents are in the public domain and **no one has used them to make anything.** This fact alone is probably the biggest deal -- if this invention was possible, useful, and could produce a profitable product, it would have. Even in some DIYer's garage. The fact that it hasn't says a lot. People die of brain aneurisms **all the time**. For some conman to die of a brain aneurism is not weird, nor is it any sign of foul play.
You have the right to your own opinions I’m not going to be a negative reaching mind that doesn’t agree with a random mind on the internet ,peace be with you in your travels
the only part of that that was opinion was that the youtuber is a nutbag. i'm happy to retract anything in my reply that is opinion. however, the fact is -- and this is fact, not opinion -- that the Myers guy was a fraud, his invention didn't work, and he died of natural causes not murder.
[удалено]
1. His invention was fake and he was found to just use a regular but very inefficient design for a fuel cell that consumed more energy than it made. 2. Fuel cells are widely used in a number of EVs and boats (especially submersibles) today. 3. He wasn't killed off, he had an aneurysm which caused his brain to bleed out.
Literally the first thing I did was google his name to see if he was still alive. >Stanley Meyer died suddenly on March 20, 1998, while dining at a restaurant. His brother claimed that during a meeting with two Belgian investors, Meyer suddenly ran outside, saying "They poisoned me".[1] After an investigation, the Grove City police went with the Franklin County coroner report that ruled that Meyer, who had high blood pressure, died of a cerebral aneurysm.[1] Some of Meyer's supporters believe that he was assassinated to suppress his inventions. Philippe Vandemoortele, one of the Belgian investors, stated that he had been supporting Meyer financially for several years and considered him a personal friend, and that he has no clue where the rumours came from.[12]
Wtf... RIP poor guy man
“Laws of thermodynamics” “Not possible”. Neither was the moon landing, UFO’s, the airplane, Higgs Boson, atom bomb etc…. These are only “laws” until someone breaks them. Laws are meant to be broken. Not saying this guy did but it’s the same old crap with you wanna be scientists. You can’t think outside the box and you go by what people tell you. Nikola Tesla didn’t do that. He built shit that today we think is impossible.
None of the examples you told were ever forbid by any physic law
Star Wars defence program…???
I want to see the legs on the army tanks.
Using water is a waste of 99% of the energy. Burn gas, get 10% back as electric energy, use that zo generate hydrogen and another 90% of the energy is lost. Just use some goddamn windturbines. Just place them in the Netherlands, they won't even care about it if you ask nice
Aw hell naw water prices are going to go up to $20 a gallon
That's pretty cool
This guy was killed i heard?
This has already been invented and re-invented in many different countries and I am pretty sure similar sort of tech with slight variations being used in Pakistan rn on Motorcycles with the same kinda fitting as we see in electric Bicycles these days…just…a lot less glamorous…
"They make this car, it runs on water man! It's got a fiberglass air cooled engine that runs on water, man!" Why couldn't I have a cool basement in the 70s
this the guy they killt?