Stan Meyer's Water Powered Dune Buggy

Fruit Monkey

Don't stare at it eat it! P-1 In trainning
Oct 4, 2004
5,416
0
216
Intransit
#1
Im so impressed with this. I am going to actually try it and im not the first. http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage4468.html

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

This is totally amazing and simple a shit to do. I know I can blow up my entire town and don't want to either. Anyone else amazed by this? I mean if good ole stan did it why can't you or I?

There are towns now being built around this technology.

I'm really blown away about this.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=fuel+cell+technology

http://www.fuelcells.org/
 

bigrrrr

Registered User
Nov 23, 2007
16
0
0
#2
interesting stuff.. but its probably bs.

has this been on mythbusters yet?
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,627
9,651
848
#3
most "water cars" use more power than they make, BUT i have not completely reaserched this guys system so i cant say that yet, i hope its true because i would do it in a second , if it works, i have an exta 2k floating around that i would be more than happy to dump into something like this
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,541
13,853
608
Idaho
#5
You couldn't get me to click those links. I don't want to turn up dead at some restaurant.

They are watching.
 

nostrilthump

not hump...THUMP!
May 13, 2007
531
0
101
texas
#6
There's a big difference between WATER fuel-cells and HYDROGEN fuel-cells.
Water fuel-cells separate hydrogen and oxygen particles and then burn it in a combustion engine.
Hydrogen fuel-cells require actual hydrogen fuel to be converted into electricity and the byproduct is water.
At least that's the way I understand it, so far.
 
R

Retard Sex

Guest
#7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell

Apparently ol' Stanley was sued by investors for fraud and they won because some experts said there was "nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". Also, the autopsy didn't conclude that he was poisoned, just that he had a cerebral aneurysm.

Despite proof of mpg or determining how fast a water powered car (or dune buggy in this case) could go, it does seem like he actually was able to run the thing on water.
 

R.BuddDwyer

Registered User
Feb 2, 2006
591
0
166
Philly
#8
I swear I thought of this idea without any knowledge of its already being implemented, using electrolysis to get hydrogen. Well after ol' Stan, no one's rippin me off hoo hoo.

Fuck the investors. Most inventions aren't completely new technologies; its the evolution or cobbling together of existing ones.

GOD I want to try this out. How fucking unbelieveable would it be to fucking use your garden hose to fill your car or Christ, you could probably even piss in it.
 

BCH

Doesn't need your acknowledgement on Twitter
Wackbag Staff
Jun 9, 2005
9,519
235
513
New York
#9
Ummmmm. Electrolysis is one of the principle methods used to make hydrogen currently. The problem lies in the fact that it takes more energy to split the molecules of water than the hydrogen gathered can create in return. The electricity used to do this has to come from some other technology umm I don't know let's say a coal burning power plant. The only hope for electrolysis as a means of making enough hydrogen to run cars on would be if they bolted electrolysis plants directly to new nuclear power plants. Nuke power is cheap and carbon free. We'd all be driving Nuclear powered cars basically. It's better to think of hydrogen as an energy transport medium rather than a source of energy per se' because it takes energy to get it. Steam reformation of natural gas is another way to get Hydrogen but it also has it's drawbacks like the need for natural gas.


Edit: You could like fill your entire yard with Solar panels and make enough hydrogen to run one car probably 30 to 40 miles a day.

The type of breakthrough Stan Meyer was claiming to have achieved was that he somehow figured out how to electrolysize water using far less energy or no energy at all. This violates the laws of physics as the bonds that make up a water molecule take a certain amount of energy to break apart.

Let's review the video, we see a dune buggy drive about 1/4 mile ostensibly on hydrogen gained from on board electrolysis of water.

People claim to have invented all manner of "Free Energy" machines. wacky magic Flywheels, water fuel cells, perpetual motion machines and the like. It's like light without heat. It's like getting energy out without putting any in. When the thing's debunked, it's usually because "The Government doesn't want you to know about it MAN!!!!!!" but truth is, the universe doesn't work that way. A high school educated tinkerer doesn't subvert laws of physical chemistry with things found around the house.
 

jackjack

Registered User
May 12, 2007
4,994
0
0
Daytona Beach
#10
Ummmmm. Electrolysis is one of the principle methods used to make hydrogen currently. The problem lies in the fact that it takes more energy to split the molecules of water than the hydrogen gathered can create in return.
Let's be even more accurate here.
It takes exactly as much energy to break H20 into hydrogen and oxygen as is released when combining H and O into H2O.

Generating the energy needed and delivering the final product of hydrogen fuel to a car is where the inefficiencies come in, and they exceed the cost of burning hydrocarbons directly in an engine.

There's no conspiracy going on, there's just no way to beat oil/gasoline yet.

I'm surprised Professor Anthony went along with that nonsense about the water car. He knows better.
 

LiLJimmysHog

Professional negative prick
Dec 18, 2005
1,228
186
498
#11
Mythbusters tested one of these setups a while back. The connected it to an engine like they were instructed. And what do you know....nothing happened.

This is kinda like the magical carburator that achieves 300 miles per gallon and the oil companies made sure that it would never get released. Or the Chevy that some guy bought new in 1965 and got 100 miles per gallon, and General Motors and oil company reps showed up at his home and told him the car was sold by mistake and he could not have it. Everyone wants to believe in a conspiracy.
 

MonkeyTits

Registered User
Jun 20, 2005
1,035
0
0
#12
Mythbusters tested one of these setups a while back. The connected it to an engine like they were instructed. And what do you know....nothing happened.

This is kinda like the magical carburator that achieves 300 miles per gallon and the oil companies made sure that it would never get released. Or the Chevy that some guy bought new in 1965 and got 100 miles per gallon, and General Motors and oil company reps showed up at his home and told him the car was sold by mistake and he could not have it. Everyone wants to believe in a conspiracy.
Well believing the conspiracy is easier than learning the science to understand about 99% of everything everyone wants to talk about, right?
 

weeniewawa

it's a man, baby!!!
May 21, 2005
12,076
1,267
593
Hell,California
#13
the main problem with the whole process is hydrogen storage. if you could make it fast enough to use it that's one thing but that's not possible yet. hydrogen needs to be stored at like 3000 psi to be used. a tank. if enough to hold enough to be usefull would weigh more than a big rig.
 

CougarHunter

Lying causes cat piss smell.
Mar 2, 2006
10,594
2,574
566
KC Metro
#14
If I had this technology, I wouldn't tell a damn person and just keep it for myself. No sense in ending up dead when I can just have free energy for myself for the rest of my life. Fuck the rest of ya's.
 

kvuo

Registered User
Oct 21, 2004
284
0
0
Vancouver, Worshingtun
#15
Thank you BCH... I can't believe people still fall for this crap..




Hey I got one!!! WHY NOT TAKE THE OUTPUT OF AN ELECTRIC GENERATOR, FEED IT TO A MOTOR, THAT DRIVES THE GENERATOR!!@???!11//???ONE!11!! COMPLETELY FREE POWER!


CUZ THE GOVT AND OIL COMPANIES WOULD KILL U!!\
 

R.BuddDwyer

Registered User
Feb 2, 2006
591
0
166
Philly
#16
Haha, when I was little I thought I could invent a car that had a giant magnet hanging in front of it, like the ol' a carrot on a stick in front of a horse, that would pull the car forever.
 

R.BuddDwyer

Registered User
Feb 2, 2006
591
0
166
Philly
#17
Couldn't you make it a hydrogen engine/oxygen engine hybrid to make use of the oxygen that's otherwise just exhaust?
 

RobeSoup&Tears

Get 'em while they're hot
Aug 16, 2005
22,775
1,570
643
Riverdale, New York
#18
I'll be the first to say miss Fruit Monkey...he was the Bessst.

Careful with this info Sir, they're watching...they're aaaalways watching.

 

BullsLawDan

She A Great Big Fat Person?
Feb 9, 2006
3,823
2
0
NY
#20
Couldn't you make it a hydrogen engine/oxygen engine hybrid to make use of the oxygen that's otherwise just exhaust?
To do what? Oxygen doesn't burn. It is the other side of the fire triangle.

At best, pumping the pure oxygen back into the engine would increase power (and hopefully therefore efficiency) over using just straight air - Like a permanent NOx bottle on the engine.

However, efficiency would still not (and can never) exceed 100%, which is what would be needed for this all to work.


P.S. - Conspiracy theorists: Look at the financials of the Big Three automakers. You really think they have a miracle technology and they're getting paid to sit on it by "big oil" or someone else? Then why the fuck aren't they making any money?
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,256
37,346
628
In a porn tree
#21
The best "free energy" scammer is a guy named Dennis Lee...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVJRukhMIjs&feature=related[/media]

He's been running around the country for over 30 years hawking his 100 mpg carburetor, a 150% efficient heat pump, and a free electricity generator. He doesn't sell products, he lets "investors" buy into dealerships which will sell his inventions... when they're ready... real soon... next year, or maybe the year after that.

He claimed to have a working free electricity generator in his garage.

After a slew of lawsuits and arrest warrants in several different states, he was forced to declare bankruptcy. One of the debts he listed in his bankruptcy papers... unpaid residential gas and utility bills. :icon_lol:
 

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
34,674
2,022
458
Northern VA
#22
To do what? Oxygen doesn't burn. It is the other side of the fire triangle.

At best, pumping the pure oxygen back into the engine would increase power (and hopefully therefore efficiency) over using just straight air - Like a permanent NOx bottle on the engine.

However, efficiency would still not (and can never) exceed 100%, which is what would be needed for this all to work.


P.S. - Conspiracy theorists: Look at the financials of the Big Three automakers. You really think they have a miracle technology and they're getting paid to sit on it by "big oil" or someone else? Then why the fuck aren't they making any money?
Oxygen doesn't burn huh? Do you know why oxygen containers have to be isolated from ANY heat/flame source?

Do you know what one half of the shuttles fuel is...hint...its the OXIDIZER.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,256
37,346
628
In a porn tree
#23
Oxygen doesn't burn huh? Do you know why oxygen containers have to be isolated from ANY heat/flame source?

Do you know what one half of the shuttles fuel is...hint...its the OXIDIZER.
Oxygen doesn't burn by itself... it makes other flammable substances burn faster/more effeciently.
 

BullsLawDan

She A Great Big Fat Person?
Feb 9, 2006
3,823
2
0
NY
#24
Oxygen doesn't burn huh? Do you know why oxygen containers have to be isolated from ANY heat/flame source?
Because oxygen is an accelerant, not a fuel.

Do you know what one half of the shuttles fuel is...hint...its the OXIDIZER.
Yes, and the other part is the part that burns: The fuel.

In any fire there are three parts: Fuel, Heat, Oxygen. Oxygen =/= fuel.

I direct you to the United States Department of Energy's "Ask a Scientist" webpage, in conjunction with Argonne National Laboratory.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03291.htm

The Website said:
Oxygen is a strong or hi-energy oxidizer, true,
but it is an oxidizer, so it is not a fuel, so they do not call it flammable.
...
The question is one of definition. For combustion or burning to
occur you need two things -- a fuel and an oxidizing agent. By
definition, the fuel burns in the oxidizing agent. Both fuel and
oxidizing agent are chemically changed but (by definition) only the fuel
"burns".
For example carbon (in the form of charcoal) is a fuel and
will react with oxygen (oxidizing agent) to form a new compound, carbon
dioxide.
What did we learn today? When you take a demeaning or know-it-all "duh" tone in a post, it's best if you actually know what the fuck you are talking about.



Anyway, didn't mean to hijack the thread. As you were! :action-sm