I don't have the time to go pursuing this myself at the moment, but I find this very interesting. When you guys get your own kits running, I'd love to see how you did, what you did to tune it, and what effects of fuel efficiency and mpg you get.

It seems to me its taking advantage of a current inefficiency in the motor setup involving the alternator. I'm quite sure its not violating any thermodynamic laws... that takes a bit of sophisticated jimmying.

A simple reply to radu_rd2:

You are right that the law of energy conservation has to respected. You're not "creating energy."

Stanley Myer did do something special. He bends, or rather straight up violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Now, since Newton first put out this law, there have been many extrapolations on it and different things related to it. There is plenty of valid science based around it. But its important to note, that the 2nd law isn't fundamental law, its an experimental law. That is to say there isn't a underlying law of nature that the 2nd law is derived from, but rather it just has been shown to be true through repeated experiments. Its relatively unique that its called a "law" when really its more of "theory." Point being, it can be proven wrong (in that its not a law and there are exceptions to the rule, naturally for most experiments its proven to be true).

This is where it gets a little bit complicated...

Now that said, the portion of the law that we are looking at is the entropy (i.e. temperature energy). The energy dynamic that Stanley Myer created was to use the natural resonate frequency of water (i.e. the natural way water moves) to create an incredibly efficient hydrolysis. Instead using brute force to split the water using traditional methods, he used a more delicate (and arguably more powerful) method taking advantage of the innate energy in the system.

How does this violate the second law? He's using the entropy energy in the water and converting it into working energy. This is similar to Maxwell's demon. I've tried to explain this the simplest way I know how. Its kinda off-topic but I just dislike ignorance being spread, especially when I can step in and try to clear things up. If you disagree with me, that is fine, but try and think about what I've said.

I realize this flies in the face of traditional physics, and many a physicist will turn red in the face telling you why this can't be... but *shrug*. This always happens in the scientific community when something contradictory is discovered. I see how it could work, talked with physicists and NASA engineers who have actually seen it work. The reason I have a relatively good understanding of this process is because I actually talked to an engineer who talked with Stanley Myers extensively before he died. Stanley did take some secrets to the grave, such as the set of frequencies he used, what catalysts, etc. so it hasn't been 100% reproduced since.

 

First, it wasn't Newton who laid out this law (he had been dead for 100 years).

Second, no real system (or 'sophisticated jimmying' as you put it) has even been "officially" shown to violate this law. We now know tons more physics than before, with quantum physics and whatnot. My main reasons for believing so strongly in it is this: 1) I'm guessing that if it wasn't true, the more advanced physics of the 20th century would have yielded a theoretical path to showing it is not true (which could have yielded an actual experiment showing this). and 2) it's been laid out for hundreds of years and no-one showed it to be false - so of course I am skeptical..

Until the clear details of his system can be laid out, I am very skeptical of this. The only thing about it you've said is "The energy dynamic that Stanley Myer created was to use the natural resonate frequency of water (i.e. the natural way water moves) to create an incredibly efficient hydrolysis.". That doesn't mean a whole lot does it? I am not arguing against you, maybe he did do something special, and if so I am sure it could be explained by physics. But until we know the details of it, I'd rather not believe in it..

Finally, there is a real feeling from a lot of people in this thread that "traditional" physicists/scientists are narrow-minded, close-minded and/or even stupid, and their work of hundreds of years can easily be proven wrong by some guy in his garage. Opposition from scientists does certainly NOT always happen when something contradictory is discovered. Just remember that we would be nowhere without the "traditional" physics. Your house, your computer, your car, everything around you is due to "traditional physics", yet you are very quick to deem them wrong.

 

Bullfrog nailed this one. GM even produced an electric only car. Getting your hands on one was impossible and many people never knew they existed. They only leased very few and when they decided it wasnt beneficial to them, they cut off all leases, took the vehicles backl, and destroyed them. I think it was called the E1?

All the alternative fuel stuff and fuel cells and running your car on basically anything is out there. Noone is ready to mass-produce yet because its not beneficial to them to do so right now.

 

Yeah Ericy, it was called the E1. If you've seen "Who killed the Electric Car?" they put into light some rather odd dealings that the car manufacturers did. (Of course its rather bias, but still very good information)

radu_rd2:

Got me on the Newton comment... got a whole jumble of laws in my head that I haven't used in a long time heh. Newtonian and non... There have been plenty of equations and theories that have come since, but the source for the 2nd law was Clausius. I'm not disrespecting physicists. Yes, I realize a lot of technological advances were made due to physics... myself I've learned physics up to and into the quantum level. For every major advancement or change in science, there were the nay-sayers and plenty resistance to it.

Regarding the "law" versus "theory" bit, experimental laws can hold for hundreds of years before a deeper understanding proves that there are exceptions. There have been several theoretical paths to show that the 2nd law was not absolute, such as the aforementioned "Maxwell's demon", which was put forward in the 1800s (and in itself is a topic for much scientific debate).

Stanley Myer wasn't some guy working out of his garage... he was actually a rather brilliant scientist. I tried to described the process as simply as I could. What I said was:

"The energy dynamic that Stanley Myer created was to use the natural resonate frequency of water (i.e. the natural way water moves) to create an incredibly efficient hydrolysis."

This actually really does mean a whole lot. "natural resonate frequency of water" all materials have a resonate frequency "natural way water moves" is the entropy energy innate in the system "incredibly efficient hydrolysis" means that he put less energy into the system to cause the hydrolysis than what it would normally take, effectually meaning when he burns the hydrogen and oxygen he'll get more energy than what he put it in. Where did this additional energy come from? Entropy, Temperature energy, "natural way water moves".

Far as the specifics of his system... I really don't have the time to write it all out. I hope that I can just leave it as that.

 

but did he actually complete the expirement, burn the hydrogen and oxygen? before dieing..

 

What are you talking about Newton?

Yes Patreezy, he had a Volkwagen dunebuggy running strictly on water.

Stanley Meyer did not "break" any laws of thermodynamics, he simply found a way "around" them. There is no magic, the laws still apply. He used, as you said, the natural resonance of water to help his electrolysis process, thus making it much more effecient. He did the same thing scientists have been doing for years, except he could do it effecient enough to make it feasible. The "key" that nobody has ever been able to replicate, was calculate this resonance frequency, and maintain it. I watched a documentary on this once, if I remember right, the biggest problem was that as the temperature of the cell would change, this frequency would change, so the machine would be out of resonance, and stop producing gas. So, Stanley created a procesor which would dynamically adjust the frequency to keep the system in resonance, and the system would keep making gas.

The problem I see with this "HHO gas" thing is that it is doing nothing more than simple electrolysis, which we already know and have proved is not effecient. Is the argument that this process is all of a sudden effecient beacuse we're using the alternator's power?
I believe this is possible, and believe in Stanley Meyer's work, but I'm just becoming a bit skeptical on this "half water half gas $50 kit" thing..

 

I pretty much agree with you, only in science when you find an exception to the law, its not longer a law. Laws have to be infallible.

That documentary was fairly accurate. The reason why the temperature changes is partially because its using entropy in the process, causing a decrease in temperature. Using converting entropy energy into working energy (that is harvesting innate random energy) is what breaks/bends/goes around the 2nd law. That's where most opposing scientists ground their argument in.

Far as the HHO goes, I was rather skeptical about it when I first hard about it. I discounted just as you are, thinking its just normal hydrolysis and not that noteworthy. Whats interesting is that it seems that people are making some mpg gains, so that's interesting. Where it is coming from exactly, not sure. I assume its some sort of dynamic between the alternator and the engine... that there is waste from the engine that the alternator can harvest in electricity, turning the electricity into HHO, then burning the HHO in the engine for efficiency gain.

 

One way HHO can help was already mentioned: when mixed with gasoline in small amounts, HHO increases the knock resistance of the mixture, and that can be helpful in increasing mpg if you modify your engine (advance timing, increase compression, whatever).

Gotcha on everything else, maybe he did invent something that works, too bad he didn't publish all the details.. I doubt there is anything on the market right now that reproduces his results.

 

^^Sadly, no, and there probably will not be for a very long time. You can research this a bit, he had a Volkswagen dunebuggy running strictly on water. He had I believe 25 patents for different parts on the car, including his own "injectors."


I guess I can see how this could produce some gains, but 50% mpg increase seems like a lot.. If it works though, I'd do it.

Can anyone post any explanations or technical articles on HOW this process works? I can't find anything on google except advertisements.

 

There's no technical writeup down on how and why this works? Anyone?