| Stan Meyer and water fuel cell |
| Friday, 15 August 2008 22:23 | |||||||||||
Page 1 of 2
Grove City resident Stanley Meyer an invention that could do what physicists say is impossible -- turn tap water into hydrogen fuel to run a car engine. He held more than 20 patents at the time of his death in 1998 at age 57. His invention and his death continue to be debated today.
Meyer has demonstrated his fuel cell device before Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of Engineering at Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr Keith Hindley, a UK research chemist. According to the witnesses, the most startling aspect of the Meyer cell was that it remained cold, even after hours of gas production as his system appeared to operate on mere milliamperes, rather than the amperes that conventional electrolysis would require. The witnesses also stated:
Water fueled Car
It Runs on Water is a video with Stanley Meyer demonstrating the water fuel cell in a car. Meyer claimed that he could run a 1.6 liter Volkswagen Dune Buggy on water instead of gasoline. He replaced the spark plugs with "injectors" to spray a fine mist into the engine cylinders, which he claimed were electrified at a resonant frequency. The fuel cell would split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would combust back into water vapor in a conventional hydrogen engine to produce net energy. Estimates made showed that only 22 US gallons (83 L) of water were required to travel from one US coast to the other. Meyer also demonstrated his vehicle for his city's local news station Action 6 News. A video of the buggie in action can be
Fraud charges It failed to work during a required demonstration of the water-fueled car in a 1990 court case. An Ohio court found Stanley Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" in a case brought against him by disgruntled investors. The court decided that the centerpiece of the car, his water fuel cell, was a conventional electrolysis device, and he was ordered to repay the investors $25,000. However, in their 1 December 1996 issue , the London Sunday Times published an article entitled "End of Road for Car that Ran on Water" by Tony Edwards. It upheld the court case, stating that three "Expert Witnesses" were not impressed and decided that the WFC was simply using conventional electrolysis. It stated Stan Meyer was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and was ordered to repay the investors their $25,000. It implied that Michael Laughton, professor of electrical engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield University, London was due to examine the car, but was not allowed to see it. However, not mentioned was that this occurred in 1990 and that the WFC Water Fuel injector tech-base was still under U.S. National Security Review as in accordance to U.S. Patent Law and not available for public viewing. Also not mentioned were the many WFC Patents, verified laboratory and university testing that supports the bases of WFC technology nor the WFC appeal filing to dismiss Judge Corzine ruling due to Judicial default and other relevant information. On 18 October 1995, a pretrial deposition hearing to inspect the WFC Dealership demonstration units (Variable-plate Electrical Polarization Process (VIC) Fuel Cell and Rotary Pulse Voltage Frequecy Generator Tubular-Array Fuel Cell) was held in the office of the plaintiff's attorney, Robert Judkins. Present were the plaintiff's, their attorneys, plaintiffs expert witness, Michael Leverich (Electronics Engineer), Stan Meyer, Dr. Russel Fowler, WFC witness and defense attorneys Judge Roger Hurley and James Detling, as well as a deposition recorder. During the deposition, Attorney Judkins attempted to have the WFC dismantled prior to implementing proper test procedures, which Stan Meyer refused. Michael Leverich confirmed that his initial measurements of the WFC Fuel Cells showed that it operated exactly as the WFC documentation stated it should, as so recorded on WFC Deposition Video Tape. However, he then added a unknown white substance (powder) for additional testing. Stan objected to this, since the WFC Fuel Cell uses plain tap water and does not require a chemical additive. The plaintiffs also admitted that, during their observances at WFC Dealship Seminars, tap water was always used without any chemicals added to the water. Despite Stan's objection, plaintiff measurements were taken of this chemicallized water-bath and recorded. This illegal act of tampering with WFC Evidence of Records was witnessed by WFC Cameraman, Dr. Russ Fowler, and all others who attended Plaintiffs Deposition To-Test. In 1996, Stan Meyer gave oral testimony before the court demonstrating the WFC Fuel Cell "Mode of Operability" by using the Voltage Intensifier Circuit (VIC) to produce voltage of opposite polarity to separate and disassociate the water molecule into its component gases, hydrogen & oxygen. However, the court audio sound recording equipment seemed to malfunction and was switched off. Judge Corzine said proceedings should continue without it. This was a violation of judicial protocol, since the recording system is used to verify testimony given during the trial and as such becomes "Evidence of Records." After his oral testimony, Stan expected Attorney/Judge Hurley to start bringing forth WFC witnesses and counter arguements. Instead, Attorney/Judge Hurley spoke up, stated he had to leave for a pre-planned vacation and said that there was no more testimony to be given and waived the right of the defendant to give a case summary of the WFC facts brought before the court. Stan Meyer immediately stated he would protest and Judge Corzine ended the hearing. Stan wrote a "Request to Retract" fax-letter to the Sunday Times on 2 December 1996. He attached WFC documentation on the filing with the Disciplinary Counsel. He further stated that Judge Corzine had no right to turn off the court audio sound recording equipment, nor to rule against U.S. Patents, or overrule Government and University lab reports in the public domain concerning the mode of operability of the WFC Technology. Furthermore, Stan pointed out that no US Federal "Cease and Desist" order has ever been issued against WFC since the WFC Technology has been fully legalized under US Patent Security Law 35 USC 101 and other US Federal regulatory Acts. His final statement was that "WFC is here to stay" in contradiction to the Sunday Times statement. GAS GUN
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26
3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved." |
