use water as fuel does it work??

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Jefferis on July 29, 2008 at 9:24am

Jeff,

There is a big difference between magnetism and electronically charged magnets. Creatures have been using magnetism to get about for a long time. Gravity is one form of magnetism that is not electronically charged. The magnetism referred to the the Stanley Meyer patents are not visable changes, rather on the molecular scale. The point in my posting this information is to solicit someone to put it into practice or completely eliminate it as a possibility. You under estimate the power and persistence of those who do not want this technoology implemented (if it really has scientific merits). The US Department of Energy recently wrote that it had a desire to study the Stanley Meyer patents lending some credibility to the prospect.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff Smoley on July 29, 2008 at 11:18am

Please explain the difference in your first statement.
Gravity is NOT a form of magnetism. Not even in Einstein's Unified Field Theory.
Until you actually break up the molecule, you haven't done anything to it. I understand science and engineering. I did that as my profession for 28 years. I don't care what the USDE is doing. We even had a US senator who wanted to pass a law changing the value of pi to an even number. If our government understood what is needed to get out of this situation we wouldn't be on this forum, now would we?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joe Jefferis on July 30, 2008 at 7:49pm

Magnetism is an invisible force that enables certain objects to pull other things toward them or to push them away. Not all objects with magnetism are electrically charged. I use the gravitational pull as an example. Earth has an invisible force pulling it toward the larger mass of the sun. Mr. Meyer supposedly found an element that had magnetism for the hydrogen atoms in the H2O compound. This magnetism organized the atoms in such a manner it destabilized the molecule to the point where little external force, electricity, was need to split the molecule. Please consider what nonsense your statement "until you break up the molecule, you haven't done anything" is in this context. If you can "organize" the molecule before breaking it up, it may actually be easier to break it up.

For centuries everybody knew for certain that the world was flat and only outcasts had other notions.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff Smoley on July 31, 2008 at 9:16am

"Mr. Meyer supposedly found an element that had magnetism for the hydrogen atoms in the H2O compound."

This is nonsense. The hydrogen in water is not magnetic, period. Magnetism is well understood. No different source of magnetism can effect a non-magnetic substance. We know all the possible elements from 1 Hydrogen to the upper trans-uranium elements, including their properties. You can't find a new element inside those known, there are no holes.
Magnetism does not require an electric charge, it is only needed in an electromagnet, where the current flow creates the magnetism. It is the same magnetism as found in non-electromagnetic materials. People didn't "know" the world was flat, they "believed" it was flat. BIG difference.
What would you be "organizing" in a water molecule? Do you understand electron bonding?
Also note a big difference between magnetism and gravity: Gravity can't be used to push anything way. At least not yet. I do leave room for new knowledge & technology.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on July 31, 2008 at 9:19am

U can lead a Horse...

Permalink Reply by Joe Jefferis on July 31, 2008 at 4:03pm

You know OR believe this is nonsense just like the people who knew OR believed the world to be flat. It pleases me that you leave room for new knowlege. I wrote magnetism is an invisable force to pull OR push, not push AND pull. Will you believe OR do you know gravity as an example of a pulling force? The new knowlege you may need to consider is that hydrogen in water just may be drawn to another element (I can't resist repeating your astute emphasis technique) PERIOD. My goal is to get someone to seriously consider the material and explore the possibilities. Educate me on electron bonds as you know OR believe to know it OR as it is presently understood. I'm asking you to avoid the politically expedient tact to quickly dismantle the claims without study as if they pose some sort of threat to mankind. My goal is to get someone to study the information, not debate me - I'm not a scientist OR even attempting to pose as someone with a interest in knowing about molecular bonding. I am a capitalist who wants the USA to remain the world's leader and stop ongoing transfer of wealth and power to those who wish me harm. What is your motivation?

Permalink Reply by DubleDeuce on July 31, 2008 at 5:59pm

NOPE! To prevent schemes like the "Welfare Queen" phenomenon (one person makes multiple applications for welfare benefit's using the SAME 5 kids as bait) from happening, you must be a living, breathing, son of a gun from Cal-Tech to get the loot. Also, unless you are involved in some dreary business of being put upon by your government, you are expected to show up for your prize.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on July 31, 2008 at 2:05pm

'an Bumblebees can't fly...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff Smoley on July 31, 2008 at 2:31pm

They can and physics can prove it. What was urban legend 50 years ago doesn't apply. All it took was one person to dissect a bee and find the leverage boosting structures between the wings and muscles.
Even if HHO works to some degree in diesels, that is soon to be eclipsed by a new invention mentioned on this site: A ceramic multi-fueled diesel Wankel engine. Much lighter in weight than a conventional diesel, more torque, smoother running etc. Add that to the new Li-Ion batteries that have a 10x power density over current technology, and the lightweight flat in-wheel electric motors and you can have a diesel electric vehicle that can get well over 100 MPG (even in a large truck) and be more reliable than present systems.
That is how I used to make a living, putting disparate technology together to create a better solution for my clients. Anyone want to start a car company?
Anyone know how to say "up yours" in Arabic? Would be the name of the first model we produce :-)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joe Jefferis on July 28, 2008 at 4:58pm

Thanks for the update on the Japanese. Did you see my posting on the Stanley Meyer patents? They are public domain property as of April 2007 and the Japanese seem to have got smart quickly and used the available "old" American technology. It is controversial as you can see rueters had to run an opposing perspective story. Too much is invested in keeping the status quo, but the cat is out of the bag now.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert Olivier on July 31, 2008 at 5:10pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer

Regarding Mr Meyer, please read the beginning of the article:

Thus, if the device operated as claimed, the combustion cycle would start and end in the same state while extracting usable energy, thereby violating both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine. Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.[2]

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James Tracy on July 28, 2008 at 2:53am

agreed, and water is a big issue that really needs addressed "before" it gets out of hand.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last