Talk:Water fuel cell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

equinox Zero-point_energy and Stan Meyer fule cell

ref [7] is called "marketing material" the video seems to be from a program called "equinox" titled "It Runs on Water " aired in (1995) in uk my point is to call it "marketing material" is miss representation of the footage as the program did not only feature Meyer fule cell see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinox_%28television%29 and http://water2burn.blogspot.co.uk/2006/02/it-runs-on-water-transcript-from.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.125.242 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article should be deleted

There is nothing notable about Stanley Meyer, or his so-called "invention" (read: scam). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.47.8 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it pretty clear it's a scam.KaturianKaturian 00:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure it's a scam, but it's a noteable scam. Rklawton (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but the problem is you are basically saying patent has been issued over a fraud, So there is something wrong in this position.

The same "tactic" can be found in other language... Yes there is a patent, but that doesn't work ... non-sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.255.149.23 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a scam nor a fraud. The cell did work. It was a novel process. The patents were allowed only after demonstration. Where Meyer's failed was in his business model and handling of bad investors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.124 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might want to study up on patents. Contrary to popular belief, you do not need to show something works to receive a patent, and the only case in which you're required to show a model is a perpetual motion machine. Meyer's patent was simply for an electrolysis cell driven by a pulsed waveform. That in itself is not a perpetual motion machine (and would also not allow a car to run on water). The entire existence of the patent is something of a red herring in this discussion KaturianKaturian 20:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
To understand how this was all framed, you need to look closer into the background of who Tony Edwards and his colaborators were and what their history with Meyer was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.124 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I studied this at University. Incidentally the basic idea is sound, IF one of the electrodes is made from a high Z ie high work function material like lithium magnesium bismuth alloy or something similar so the device extracts energy from the reactive metal. The patents did tangentially mention this but it wasn't really well known until someone actually tested different materials. LiMgBi3 with traces of chromium and iron seems to be the formula and actually made some BiMg (couldn't readily get Li metal) to test the hypothesis, only to find that other materials were needed. AlMgBi3 may also work and could explain why at a glance the special electrode(s) looked like regular steel, the high voltage pulses overcoming material's inherent surface resistance caused by surface oxidation of Al2O3. Meyer may have been the first to use this specific combination but there are references going back to the early 1900s in battery electrode manufacture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.111.195.1 (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I teach Physics at university, so trust me when I say, no, this is not possible. But this is not the place to have this discussion anyway.KaturianKaturian 01:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC) KaturianKaturian 01:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

People said a man could not go to the moon and back. Those people were not invited to develop the project. Why? because the were sceptical. Nothing gets done with those people. Those who deni, this is possible, and its developed are the same people who never advance human standard of living. Inventors like Stanly Meyers fuel cell and Nicola Teslar discovered alternating current. He ushered in the age of discovery to give the world free energy. Westinghouse funder could not put a meter and so destroyed his labs and work also discredited him. You will not find him as an inventor because he was categorize as a humanitarian. Funny who wrote history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B0C5:A3AB:68E5:7F22:E2A6:131B (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Stanly Meyers an "inventor" is a bit of a stretch. The technology already existed, and the claims were fraudulent. He discredited himself in his own court case, there was no need for any other companies to get involved. He was not the first, he was not the last, and really the only thing to note here is that he was given many opportunities to prove himself, and refused each time. Garfie489 (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual Motion Machine?

How is this perpetual motion. I may be mis-understanding but if you introduce air from outside the engine you are adding energy to the system. So if you split the water into oxygen and hydrogen, then react them separately into water using outside air the extra oxygen and hydrogen is taken from the outside air. Recap incase I was unclear. Known: Water split into hydrogen and oxygen Hydrogen and oxygen burned to produce water Assume(area of confusion): Hydrogen and oxygen burned in mixture of outside air, resulting in adding energy to the system Therefore how is it “perpetual motion”? 68.53.41.186 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major practical problem: air does not contain hydrogen. If "hydrogen can react using the oxygen from the outside air" and "oxygen can react using the hydrogen from the outside air", then air itself could just burn because it would contain simultaneously both oxygen and hydrogen. DMacks (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (

talk) (contribs) 23:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell → Water fuel cell – This should be a completely uncontroversial move as the target already redirects here, but as a result of a train-wreck RM over a decade ago we're in an awkward spot here. Titles are not endorsements; by far the most common use of this term is to refer to this particular design. Whether it works or not is irrelevant; the sole concern is how it fits into our naming conventions, and the shorter title is the right one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_fuel_cell&oldid=1209275413"