Hot Fusion, Cold Fusion or Chemical Energy?

Don't forget his Electrical Particle Generator...

CA1213671A - Electrical particle generator - Google Patents

This article from 2020, by Pepijn van Erp, has more information about the "Belgian Investors".

Stanley Meyer, the inventor of the water-powered car, was not killed by Belgian investors - Pepijn van Erp

Soon after Meyer's sudden death in 1998, rumours started. Were the Belgian investors he was dining with on that fatal evening actually killers send to poison…

www.pepijnvanerp.nl

It seems they couldn't have killed Stan, because they said so.

Eugene Mallove wrote this obituary in IE:

Quote from collection at Rexresearch

Infinite Energy 19: 50-51 (1998)

Stanley Meyer, Water-Fuel Cell Inventor & Promoter, Dies Suddenly

by Eugene Mallove

Stanley A. Meyer, the controversial Ohio inventor who had claimed his technology could produce a hydrogen-oxygen mixture with a minimal energy input (compared with conventional electrolysis) died on March 21, 1998. He had gained a world-wide following of adherents and people who had invested in his activities --- Water Fuel Cell (Grove City, OH). He was famous for his claimed "water fueled car" which was exhibited symbolically in the BBC/CBC 1994 documentary on cold fusion, "Too Close to the Sun".

There were also those who were initially curious about Meyer's work, such as the editor of this magazine, the late Christopher Tinsley of the UK, and the late Admiral of the British Navy, Sir Anthony Griffin, but who became frustrated by being unable --- or, more to the point, not allowed --- to confirm (or reject finally) Meyer's claims.

I have absolutely NO DOUBT today that Stanley Meyer was his own worst enemy. IF --- and a very big IF --- he had discovered the technological process that he had said he had, there is no way that a reasonable, straightforward marketing strategy would have failed to make his technology quickly spread worldwide. He could have become very influential and very rich.

There remains a very strong suspicion that he had no such process, even though he conducted a demonstration (before this writer and another engineer at the Meyer lab in 1993) of the production of copious hydrogen/oxygen gas from what visually seemed like a small input power. But Meyer was exceedingly paranoid and he flatly refused reasonable requests by us and others to test the performance --- the input/out power ratio, even with the proviso that we did not have to "look into his black box" of electronics feeding his rather simply constructed stainless steel electrode, alternating current and voltage cell. The last such refusal --- this one in public and recorded on video tape --- was at the ANE meeting in Denver CO in 1997. Then Meyer loudly and falsely protested to me that he would "lose his patent rights" if he were to release anything but complete, integrated systems --- such as a water-fueled vehicle. Excuses, excuses, excuses...

In 1996, Meyer lost a long-lasting Ohio civil court battle accusing him of "egregious fraud" against a former associate. As was Meyer's custom, he ascribed this and other alleged assaults on him to various conspiracies. To television cameras he suggested that he had been offered huge sums of money to "suppress this technology", but that he had refused those sums. One had the impression that he really believed that there were conspiracies against him. That is a tragedy, a very compounded tragedy if he had actually come up with something novel and useful that he was hiding.

This is a very complex human and scientific story that we shall want to cover in greater detail in a future issue of Infinite Energy. There are other processes and inventions that suggest that splitting water molecules with much greater efficiency than with conventional electrolysis may be possible. Certainly there are other novelties within water --- "cold fusion" to be sure --- that really do produce prodigious quantities of energy, but not in the mode Meyer claimed. For now, here are some of the facts surrounding Meyer's death:

He was apparently eating dinner at a Grove City OH restaurant, when it is reported that he jumped up from the table, yelled that he'd been poisoned", and rushed out into the parking lot, where he collapsed and died. It has been reported by Meyer's associates that Meyer had just secured funding for a $50 million research center near Grove City, but there is no way to confirm or reject this at the moment.

Display More

Whatever magic Stanley Meyer had found to get his results, it seems like the infamous "Joe", in Australia, had found it too.

But Joe became tired of the whole circus...

Quote from Stan Meyer's patent, via Alan Smith

Processes have been proposed for many years in which controlled energy producing reactions of atomic particles are expected to occur under "cold" conditions. [See. e.q.. Rafelski, J. and Jones, S.E., "Cold Nuclear Fusion," Scientific American, July, 1987, page 84]. The process and apparatus described herein are considered variations to and improvements in processes by which energy is derived from excited atomic components in a controllable manner.

I guess most people here will recognise the reference to this article.

Although the Rafelski & Jones piece was referring to "Muon catalysed fusion", it is a good reminder that the term "Cold Nuclear Fusion" was already in circulation prior to the infamous Pons & Fleischmann press conference.

Note that as soon as a concept exists in people's minds, even if it is a vague and unproven one, it will continue to influence future thought patterns. Remember the paper on Stage Magic, and people's inability to discover solutions to tricks?

Wasn't there a part of the P&F press conference where one of them said something to the effect of "the excess heat is higher than can be produced chemically, so it must be nuclear. We cannot think what else it could be" ?

There is certainly a strong resemblance between the circuit in this 2021 patent by McKane Lee and the lower part of the circuit in the 1987 Stan Meyer patent.

By the way, Stanley Meyer published a 222 page "Technical Brief" on his water fuel cell,

It is possible to find scans & OCR'ed versions online.

There is a 9.4mb PDF scan available here.

And there is a 3.9mb part-OCR version on the viXra.org archive.

Neither are dated, but they must have been written at some time between 1994 and 1998 (google books places it in 1995).

The viXra version has the addition of some pages by a guy in the UK who was attempting to replicate the device.

Stanley Meyer's descriptions of how the WFC actually operated depart a bit from "conventional science" with regards to some terminology, and concepts. It is difficult to know whether this was deliberate obfuscation, or an indication of how he really thought the WFC worked.

Quote from Frogfall

Eugene Mallove wrote this obituary in IE:

Gene had more problems with Meyer than he described here. There were some dreadful incidents. He was being charitable to Meyer in this obituary.

Person 1: "Don't speak ill of the dead. Say only good things."

Person 2: "He's dead. That's good."

All controversy around his character aside, I think he was just doing so called “HHO” which I prefer to call water EVOs, in one of the many possible ways. All the electronic convolution Meyer made to appear as the key can be replaced by other mechanical or resonant means as has been done by others. Moray B King’s review paper on this topic provides a good overview across many of the claimants.

Quote from JedRothwell

Gene had more problems with Meyer than he described here. There were some dreadful incidents. He was being charitable to Meyer in this obituary.

I'm sure Meyer would have been a difficult person to deal with. But, of course, that doesn't mean that his "technology" was necessarily fraudulent and ineffective. Some his technobabble explanations, and his claims that he was given the idea for the technology by God, might have had more to do with concealing a real lack of theoretical understanding for what was happening in his cells, and to hide any genuine prior art which might have invalidated his patent applications.

I do find the lack of experimental back-story to the inventions slightly intriguing. Ideas rarely, if at all, arise out of nowhere. There is usually a trail of vaguely related discoveries, experiments, and devices, preceding any "new" idea. But the old US "first to invent" patent system (as opposed to "first to file", as operated in other countries) could encourage paranoia.

The "court case", that Gene Mallove mentioned, was also far from straightforward. I've not been able to find a fully non-partisan account of the events, but it appears to have been something of a shambles. There is a 2008 Usenet Newsgroup thread archived here, where someone has pasted details from the case - and none of the claims or counter-claims seem to have been fully resolved.

This presentation of Moray B King addresses the commonalities between the many claimants.

Mayer is talked about in many instances but at 39:47 timestamp is discussed in particular.

Quote from Frogfall

I'm sure Meyer would have been a difficult person to deal with. But, of course, that doesn't mean that his "technology" was necessarily fraudulent and ineffective.

Meyer was so hostile and paranoid, it was impossible for anyone to work with him. His claims could not be verified. Gene was very diplomatic and he leaned over backward to be nice to Meyer, and to help him, but it was in vain. Meyer blew him off. He was his own worst enemy. Several cold fusion researchers are also their own worst enemies.

Quote from Curbina

This presentation of Moray B King

Sorry, but I would not trust a single statement by MBK.

Quote from Frogfall

Sorry, but I would not trust a single statement by MBK.

Can you elaborate?

Quote from Curbina

Can you elaborate?

Well I can – but I don’t want to go into all the reasons here.

If you just want to hear someone present superficial pieces on other people’s work, with no sign of any real investigation, or understanding, but with plenty of tangential speculation - and the inevitable conclusion that “this stuff looks weird – maybe it is ZPE” - then fine. I’m sure MBK has his audience, but that doesn’t have to include me.

Actually, I first came upon MBK nearly 20 years ago, when picking up a copy of his book on T Henry Moray. The book was quite a disappointment (to put it mildly), and it prompted me to ignore Henry Moray’s work for the next 17 years - as probably being fraudulent. And who knows, maybe that was the purpose of the book.

Quote from Frogfall

If you just want to hear someone present superficial pieces on other people’s work, with no sign of any real investigation, or understanding, but with plenty of tangential speculation - and the inevitable conclusion that “this stuff looks weird – maybe it is ZPE” - then fine. I’m sure MBK has his audience, but that doesn’t have to include me.

That is one way to look at "Water The key to new energy". To a carpenter everything can be fixed with a hammer. MBK is clearly a ZPE guy, the hammer for him is ZPE. MBK provides references for stuff that might be "hot fusion, cold fusion" or something like hydrino energy or might be his favorite, ZPE. It could also be an unknown such as dark energy or dark matter.

The book seems like a collection of weird stuff. Each of these researchers including Stanley Meyer invent a wild theory to explain their research. If only theories and no models are offered, then where is the real investigation? How does one relate and understand all the supposed examples? It seems like speculation and lots of tangents.

Understanding comes with models (math, predictions, experiments and interpretation). ZPE created the worst prediction in the history of science for the expansion constant in the cosmological equation. Yet it seems fundamental to an explanation of the observation of quantum tunneling and other things like Hawking radiation. Unfortunately, when something is wrong, but seems fundamental, most people don't look for a solution, rather they attack any alternative explanation as speculation. The skeptic approach is greater harm than good for this kind of problem.

Suppose that both dark energy and dark matter are real. Then space is not empty. What if vacuum fluctuations result from interaction with dark energy and dark matter? What if entropy has physical substance as dark energy?

First, one needs to displace terms and start with specifics. A Matsumoto blackhole produces massive radiation, m_c. So, no dark energy rather m_c and entropy has a physical substance, m_c. So, a cluster of neutrons "ferments" and goes supernova to produce m_c and what Matsumoto calls itons. So, the one-to-one mapping is matter = nucleons before fermentation, itons = dark matter and dark energy is m_c. So, kinetic energy is the relative motion of mass. If the exchange of m_c is in equilibrium then gravitational, electric and magnetic fields are static. If the exchange results in net gain in m_c on a mass, then the mass accelerates or gets hotter etc.

If one were seriously desirous of understanding the topic of this string, one would want to seriously examine a model like that I suggest. If you need the math, predictions, experiments and interpretation, then ask questions about the pdfs with that information provided in the string which includes in its title electron-gravity.

Do you mean this contraption?

https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/Zero_Point_Module

Quote from Edo

Do you mean this contraption?

https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/Zero_Point_Module

Yes, that would be fair if ZPE exists. If rather dark energy and dark matter exists, then Meyers device captures and converts entropy/dark energy back to kinetic energy/relative mass. There would not be an infinite amount of ZPE.