Talk:Water fuel cell

Infobox

If you are not happy with a personal infobox, can anyone show me a neutral infobox? I cannot find one. Thank you. --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is about a device, not a person, so a bio-infobox is not the right kind of thing to have. DMacks (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What is non-neutral? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 15:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article forwards from a topic for the person. Where are the alternative infoboxes? --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Infobox templates. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale changes

@User:Big wheels keeps on turning,

You have not discussed a single one of your extensive changes. I've started this thread as an opportunity for you to do so before I report you for violating the 3-revert rule. Could you please provide an explanation for each of the non-trivial changes that you have made. Note that it would also be worth perusing the talk archives for this page (see links above), to ensure that you're not making changes that have been discussed and rejected in the past. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read through them. You obviously have some kind of axe to grind but your modus operandi is clear and it is not honest.

To establish your credibility, show me one proper reference where it states Laughton was to appear at the Ohio court case.

Or perhaps you would care to contact him via the University of London? --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not need to establish my credibility nor my "modus operandi" (see WP:AGF); it is not necessary. Again, please could you list justifications for each of your changes.

With regard to your specific question, my assumption (which is possibly unjustified, given no free copy; however see [1]), is that this is backed up by the referenced article. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Big wheels keeps on turning, some of your proposed changes may well be reasonable, some of them are clear violations of WP:NPOV. When your block expires, I strongly suggest that you get consensus for your desired changes one at a time- start by choosing one factual error, explain the change you want to make on this talk page, with confirming reliable source, and make the change when you have consensus- then move on to the next. It will take longer, but you will be more likely to improve the article. You can see WP:DISPUTE for more advice on dealing with content disagreements. Thanks -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The cited reference says that "The car was a wonderful, if unlikely, dream while it lasted, offering a pollution-free future powered by a limitless source of energy. But the dream was shattered when Meyer was found guilty of fraud after his Water Fuel Cell was tested before an Ohio judge ... One of the experts due to examine the car was Michael Laughton, professor of electrical engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield University, London, but he was not allowed to see it. 'Although Meyer had known about our visit weeks in advance, when we arrived he made some lame excuse about why the car wasn't working, so it was impossible to evaluate it,' said Laughton." This seems to confirm that "His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton... " Yilloslime ^T_C 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Laughton's visit happened in 1990 and was with Admiral Anthony Griffin's group, as documented elsewhere (Electronics World & Wireless World, January 1991).

He had nothing to do with the court case in 1996 as the topic implies. He was not a witness to the court case which were according to the court papers; Michael Leverich, Rick Schneider and Ron Dockweiler.

Please contact him here to confirm for yourself: M.A.Laughton@elec.qmul.ac.uk

http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/department/staff/academic/mal.htm

Please confirm if this is true. --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that you Gaby? Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK ... so, quite rightly, no objections? I'll give it another day and correctly remove it then.

Thank you. --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't quite how it works, Big wheels keeps on turning. Yilloslime has already confirmed that the fact you object to is indeed in the published source; no one is likely to contact Laughton, since the information is already available in the source, and since Wikipedia doesn't permit original research. Is it your claim that this information is not in the published source, and that Yilloslime lied? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I can confirm that Yilloslime quoted the source accurately, which verifies the statements in our article. Guess we can move on now. Abecedare (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sunday Times article does not actual state that Laughton was an expert at the court case. He was not. He was not involved in it.

The Sunday Times article does state that Laughton was allegdly to inspect the car and this is correct. That inspection was as part of the Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin visit in 1991 as refered to in a 1991 edition of Electronics World.

You are miss reading the article adding 2+2 to make 5 according to your POV.

FYI, Tony Edwards was part of the "Infinite Energy" Cold Fusion proponent associated with Jed Rothwell (banned of the Wikipedia Cold Fusion topics) and Eugene F. Mallove. His credibility is not great. He did not have sufficient qualifications to judge such work.

The Times article was part of their stitch up of Meyer. --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You are removing sourced information and adding unsourced information. The fact that some of the unsourced information (that the device worked) is totally bogus is not fully relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am not removing any sources. I am not disputing the controversy around his work.

• Simple fact checking is not "original research".

• The deliberately vague Times article does not state Laughton was a witness to the court case. He was not. You are making a false assumption.

When he claims he was to have inspected the car is during the Griffin Committee's visit. This is accurate and his comments are fair.

Friends, you are also mistaking my intentions. I am not making claims that the device worked. I am merely balancing from its current extremely NPOV state to one that reflects all available sources, including those relating to Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin.

I should point out that Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin was the Third Sea Lord, Controller of the Royal Navy. That is the rank in charge for procurement and matériel in the British Royal Navy (research and commission of new technological developments and weaponry). Further more, was in charge of the British Navy's research into the state of art hydrogen technologies and its potential adoption during the 1970s following the Oil Crisis.

This would make him a reliable source. --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That might - maybe - make him a reliable source for the operations of the Royal Navy and naval warfare in general - but it gives him no qualifications whatever for understanding how the laws of thermodynamics should be applied - or how electrolysis works - which are the principle matters at issue here. However, that's not the issue here.

We need you to cease removing sourced, referenced material and replacing it with unsourced material. Any changes of that nature are controversial in the extreme and should be discussed here first - without a strong consensus, this stuff should NOT go into the article. When something is clearly non-controversial, by all means go ahead and edit it - but when your changes are reverted over and over again - the answer isn't to simply shove it back into the article again and hope that it 'sticks' this time. Trust me - it won't. That's why we have the "three revert rule" - when something has been reverted a couple of times, you MUST NOT put it back in a third time...that's not allowed. When this kind of revert-replace-revert-replace thing happens, you're supposed to back off, come to this talk page and start explaining why your version is better than the original version. We discuss - and hopefully some kind of consensus view emerges. At that point, we all agree to abide by the consensus - whether we personally agree with it or not.

That's how Wikipedia works - and you don't have some special dispensation to ignore that time-honored process. SteveBaker (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rereading the Times article at the digg link posted above (and other archived copies, that are the same content...see /Archive 1 for previous discussions), I'm not 100% sure the Laughton (non-)analysis was specifically done as part of the Ohio court case, or whether it was much earlier (and if the latter, whether it was relied on in the court case). The article definitely mentions it in connection with the case, and intersperses the topics which suggests it's related (vs other discussions clearly outside the scope of the trial), but I guess it could just be "here's more evidence from a different analysis that it's crap" rather than "here is some play-by-play from this specific legal action". If the dispute is really just whether this was part of the case or done at an earlier time, I don't object to moving the statement to one of the other analytical sections rather than the lawsuit section (the actual timing of this analysis with respect to the course case does not have much impact in my mind). However, the only WP:RS we do have at this time about the Laughton analysis does appear to make the connection to the trial, so we need at least some other WP:RS with some other timeframe specified if we want to go against it. DMacks (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole issue with Laughton is really rather irrelevent to the article (which is about this "invention" that proved to be fraudulant). If we're not 100% sure what happened and when then I'd be more than happy to simply delete the two sentences that refer to Laughton and leave it at that:

"In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[3] According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of Energy and the military.[14] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three expert witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the two investors their $25,000.[3]"

We can always come back and fill out the detail if we find more solid references.

Bottom line - the device was found to be nothing special and Meyer proved to be an outright fraud. We don't need to dilute those two facts and give the conspiracy nuts more fodder by adding debatable details about who did or didn't examine the machine and why and when. The conclusion of the court case (and our references to it) are plenty good enough to tell our readers that this machine was fraudulent.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me to remove them. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement about Laughton is well supported by the cited reference. The Sunday Times article says:

One of the experts due to examine the car was Michael Laughton, professor of electrical engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield University, London, but he was not allowed to see it. "Although Meyer had known about our visit weeks in advance, when we arrived he made some lame excuse about why the car wasn't working, so it was impossible to evaluate it," said Laughton.

My reading of the article (which can be accessed here) is that the proposed inspection was in context of the lawsuit, but I can understand that out of abundance of caution, if there is any doubt we should not claim that explicitly. If so, we can move the statements from Lawsuit section or attribute it explicitly to Sunday Times ("A Sunday Times article reported that ..."). However, I don't understand the reason for the proposing deletion simply because the latest true-believer on this page disputes (without evidence) a solidly cited and accurately paraphrased statement. Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you - except that User:DMacks is an experienced and well-respected editor who has credible reasons to believe that the Sunday Times article may have misstated the facts (or perhaps we are mis-reading them). So we aren't just dealing with a disruptive editor here. These two sentences simply aren't important to our article and it's better to simplify it and say nothing than to say something we aren't 100% sure about. That doesn't make User:Big wheels keeps on turning right. All of the other edits (s)he made were entirely incorrect and the edit-warring we saw was unacceptable behavior. Having a debate about these editing matters is the right way to approach this kind of thing - and that's the debate we're having right now. SteveBaker (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell → Water fuel cell — Per WP:COMMONNAME. Water fuel cell was a redirect to the current title for over two years; it's currently a dab for only two pages, which could be easily handled by a hatnote. The current title appears to be due to a misunderstanding of our naming guidelines, which do not require names to be accurate (so the device not actually working is irrelevant) but simply widely-used and succinct. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted water fuel cell from a dab and put it back to a redirect. The term "water fuel cell" is NEVER used to describe any kind of fuel cell so the first meaning in the dab was incorrect. Only the second meaning has a reference - and that is to link it here. Since there is only one use of the term (and even that is incorrect), there is no longer anything to disambiguate. QED. SteveBaker (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Best I can discern the history here, the article itself was originally at Water fuel cell. It was later moved to the Meyer's-named form with the explanation that there was other meaning to the term, and a disambig page was created. It was later converted into a redirect with no explanation/discussion (but also no vocal objection) that I see. There may have even been a page about Meyer himself that got merge/redirected at some point. DMacks (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose:

1. "Water fuel cell" is a meaningless term. A fuel cell extracts energy from combining some fuels without burning to produce electricity. Water has no free energy - therefore none can be extracted from it - and you cannot make a fuel cell using water as the fuel. Contrast with hydrogen fuel cell. Writing an article about something which patent nonsense is not allowed in Wikipedia - and misusing scientific terms is also unacceptable.
2. This is not a real device - it's a fraud - and we must not give it undue emphasis by making it seem like it is. People trying to discover if there is such a thing as a 'water fuel cell' should not properly be directed here - they should find a red-link just as they should if they were to search for 'purple aardvark'. I'd actually argue for removing the water fuel cell redirect for that reason.
3. If it was a real device, it would be called an 'electrolytic cell' not a 'water fuel cell' - so even if you believe Meyer's crazy claims of violating the laws of thermodynamics, 'water fuel cell' would be the incorrect article title and we would be advocating that this become merely a section of the 'electrolytic cell' article. Meyer's was not a scientifically trained man and didn't know the correct term for what he was claiming to have invented - which would be properly called an "Electrolytic cell" because it is claimed to be a new way to split hydrogen from oxygen using electricity - which is what an electrolytic cell does. Meyer's claim is to have invented a way to split water electrolytically using less electrical energy than he got out. That's impossible - but even if it were possible, it would still be an electrolytic cell...albeit an amazingly efficient one!
4. This device isn't mentioned in electrolytic cell because it's:
   1. Fringe theory -- in that no reliable scientific sources accept that it's possible - and mainstream science proves that it's impossible due to Thermodynamics/Perpetual-motion, etc)
   2. Fraudulent -- in at least the legal sense of having been proved to be fraudulent in a court of law

   ...so it's not even a 'real' electrolytic cell and shouldn't be given undue weight per WP:FRINGE.

5. In previous discussions here, the consensus compromise was to call it "Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell" because that's what Stanley Meyer's called it and putting his name in front of the term makes it clear that only he said that!
6. Through various previous merge and deletion debates, we agreed merge a previous article about Stanley Meyer's himself into this article (because this is all that he's notable for) and the consensus to do that rested on retaining his name in the title so that people looking for information about the man would still be able to find it and recognise that they'd reached the correct page.

So...strong oppose...this is a very bad idea indeed and needs to go down in flames! SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate for a moment... "Water fuel cell" is no more meaningless as an article title than (for instance) "Perpetual motion machine". Both are impossible! Equally, calling it "Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell" wouldn't fix the title-feasibility mapping that you object to. I don't believe the article title should hinge on whether such a thing exists, merely on whether the term is used. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 13:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Perpetual motion machines are impossible only because they don't work - many people have designed them, only to find that they failed. Water fuel cell is actually a meaningless thing - even in principle - and nobody (not even Stanley Meyer) has even attempted to do so. Meyer's attempted to build an over-unity electrolytic cell - and was too dumb to know the correct name for it. We shouldn't perpetuate his error by inflating the term to more than something he dreamed up - hence the title of this article. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Yilloslime ^T_C 14:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Ditto. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, all three of you are opposing based on precisely the misunderstanding of our naming guidelines which I mentioned in the proposal? Are you aware that the arguments used would apply equally to every other fraud / quack science subject on Wikipedia, none of which have an absurd constructed title? (Cold fusion, for instance.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you read my arguments. Cold fusion is indeed a great example. It is the correct term for a hypothetical fusion cell that operates at low temperatures - which is what it would have been had it ever worked. The fact that it didn't work doesn't matter so much - the name is still correct. However, in the case of the Meyers cell, even if it had worked, it wouldn't be called a 'water fuel cell' by anyone other than Meyers himself because he simply didn't understand the terminology. It would have been called something like "The Meyers electrolytic cell" (or possibly "The Meyers electrolytic process"). It's wouldn't be a 'fuel cell' even if it ever worked because a fuel cell generates electricity from chemical processes - which is the precise OPPOSITE of what the Meyer's device claimed to do (use electricity to create a chemical change - vis the splitting of water). If Meyers had invented a flying car but had mistakenly called it "The Meyers "submarine" - would we be suggesting redirecting or dabbing "submarine" to point at the article? No! We'd either call it "flying car" or we'd say "The Meyers 'submarine'". That's what's going on here. I understand perfectly what you suggested in the proposal - I simply don't agree with your premise. SteveBaker (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed read your arguments. #1 is irrelevant, as articles are not titled according to "correctness" but according to common use. #2 violates WP:NPOV as it implies that the purpose of Wikipedia is to debunk junk science rather than describe it neutrally. #3 is original research, as we are supposed to use the names that others use for subjects rather than inventing our own based on our knowledge of the underlying science. #4 is irrelevant, because having the words "fuel cell" in the title is not intended to imply that the device is a functional electrochemical cell. #5 falls under #3, because it is unlikely that the term in most common use for the subject has the author's name attached in that format. #6 is not the correct way to disambiguate readers, and the logic behind inserting someone's name into an article title because he isn't notable enough to be independently described is false. So your arguments don't really have any appeal to our naming conventions, but instead are primarily weighted towards the fringe view that Wikipedia should go out of its way to emphasis the scepticism of junk science at the expense of neutrality and style. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Support per Chris' response above. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no such thing as a "water fuel cell", and it is claimed not to be a Electrolytic cell but something completely different. There is a person called Stanley Meyer who says that he has made one. All designs seem to be based from the design of this person and claim to do the same thing. None of the copies actually to work like an actual water "fuel cell" would work. This is not a "fuel cell". --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  Again, filed under "arguments against the common name which have absolutely nothing to do with our naming guidelines". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but your argument for renaming seems to be that "Water fuel cell" is "common usage", therefore per WP:COMMONNAME that's what we should call this article, right? The problem with that argument is that "Water fuel cell" is not in common usage. Some crackpot may have built an electrolytic cell in his garage and decided to call his contraption a "water fuel cell," but that doesn't make it common usage. Furthermore, this page isn't about electrolytic cell or hydrogen fuel cells in general, it's about one specific contraption--Stan Meyer's contraption--so the present name makes much more sense. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, please find sources that talk about "water fuel cell" without prefixing it with "Stanley Meyer's", or that aren't a specific reference to Meyer's "Water Fuel Cell technology (note the caps, it's a noun) "Meyer holds some 25 patents on various devices involved in what he calls Water Fuel Cell technology"Smothsonian. Note how books specialized in fuel cells don't list any "water fuel cell" anywhere because such a thing doesn't exist [2][3]. And, of course, in free energy circles it's not known as just as any random "water fuel cell", it is always known as Meyer's water fuel cell (or Stan Meyer's or Stanley Meyer's), so that would be its common name. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If the common name uses capitals as a proper noun then great, let's move it there. Every argument in opposition to that is tinged with a heavy tone of "we must not let our users be deceived!!!", as if we have to treat our readers as so stupid as to require disclaimers in article titles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean moving it to Water Fuel Cell? (it already redirects here). Wouldn't that be confusing with the non-capitalized name? Seriously, I don't see the problem here, the free energy websites have no problem calling it "Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell" and similar names, it's not like we are using a made up name that nobody has heard of before.

Also, we are not talking about a generic fuel cell that happens to work with water, we are talking about a perpetual motion machine that consumes no fuel (all input water is outputted as water vapour, an actual fuel cell has fuel as input and it has energy and waste as output). Meyer named the technology "Water Fuel Cell", but it's not actually that, it's no wonder that free energy websites feel the need to specify Meyer's.

Also, sources that don't use "Meyer's". --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that no device which would most accurately be called a "water fuel cell" actually exists, there is no ambiguity here. That is why both water fuel cell and Water Fuel Cell are uncontroversial redirects to this article. The point is that for the term "water fuel cell", the primary topic is this junk science subject. Therefore, there is no need to insert random pieces of additional disambiguation, such as the main proponent's name, into the article title. This is all covered by our naming conventions. Insisting that the article not be at water fuel cell because it isn't actually a fuel cell is absurd, and the "precedent" that SteveBaker imagined above is in fact already set in both the naming guidelines and broadly across the naming of practically all of our articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

looking at the history of the first redirect, it's not an uncontroversial redirect. It's a long-time disambiguation page that has been recently made into a redirect, provoking a revert, a speedy deletion tag and a message on the talk page. The "Stanley Meyer's" part is not a random disambiguation since it's used in the sources. You need to show sources for the common usage that you are claiming, and are trying to use a succint name that the sources don't use. No sources -> no name change --Enric Naval (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So far as I can see, none of the article's present sources use "Meyer's water fuel cell" in preference to "water fuel cell" (the only one which uses "Stan Meyer's Water Fuel Cell", title case, is the "waterpoweredcar.com" link, hardly a reliable independent source). It seems absurd to request that sources be found which never juxtapose "Meyer's" with "water fuel cell", as putting the two together is as much a matter of indicating possession as coining a name. And the construction "Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell", the present title, is not used at all. I'm not given to believing that anecdotal "free energy circles" use a term which isn't used in any of the current sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are four sources on the article that are not US patents (self-published) or free-energy websites (not reliable?) or the PESwiki (wiki):

• focuses on his "water fuel cell" invention. Columbus Dispatch
• it involved a fuel cell that was able to split water using less energy than was released by recombination of the elements. and on the sidebar Meyer's 'water fuel cell'Nature
• Water Fuel Cell (note the caps) Sunday Times
• Meyer's invention Action 6 News (wmv video)

The linked free-energy websites do use the term:

• Water Fuel Cell (...) Stan Meyer Cell Builder in India (...) Stan Meyer’s Water Fuel Cell waterpoweredcar.com
• Stanley Meyers water fuel cell. but also water fuel cell in the same paragraph waterfuelcell.org
• Water Fuel Cell New Energy News

--Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly; the sources use a variety of different titles, but the common part is "water fuel cell". Whether to capitalise it or not is certainly a good question (I'm trending towards believing that this is the case, as it's the self-coined name for the device), but there doesn't appear to be a strong argument that the current title is the most common name for the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, but for a different reason. The term "Water fuel cell" is commonly used by many of the redacted people who claim to have an engine that runs on water. Just because Wikipedia doesn't have anything on any of the other redacted people, doesn't make this the most common name for this concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  If there are no other notable uses for the term, then there is no ambiguity. Unspecified anecdotal concepts unlikely to ever have articles here are not notable other uses. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Laws of thermodynamics

Meyer's system did not violate any laws they just took energy from an open system called the universe. It just shows there is excess energy present that not everyone is aware of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.239.168 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No - that's not true. If it worked the way he claimed, it would have violated the laws of thermodynamics. This has been discussed here a million times and the answer is always the same. Furthermore, if I may direct your attention to the banner at the very top of this page, this is not an appropriate place to have this kind of discussion. You could ask whether this is possible on: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science where there are a number of competent physicist who can explain to you why what you suggest is impossible. But here is not the place. Please let it end at that. SteveBaker (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical explanation

I have added a part about my own theoretic explaination. It was removed within 4 minutes because it was "fringe science". Come on, guys, you're awfully good if you can conclude that this fast. Now I don't mean wikipedia to say my theory is correct, so I added it as an "alleged theory". Seems fair enough to me. This is an encyclopedia and IMHO that means it cannot conclude itself which theory is correct and which not. IMHO the fact that someone claims to have formulated a theoritical explanation, based on the work of a professor and that someone holds a Masters Degree on the subject at hand, is relevant to be mentioned in this article, regardless of wether or not you want to label it as "off", "fringe" or whatever. This is an article about Stans WFC and a published theory about this should be mentioned, IMHO. So, please at least have the decency to leave the references to the relevant articles in there. Thanks in advance. Arend Lammertink, MSc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.69.42.253 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"my own theoretic explaination"? Seems like that says all we really need to know here (see WP:RS vs WP:NOT). If the fundamentals of physics as they are generally understood (and as clearly cited in this article in specific relation/application to the topic at hand) say one thing and someone says "no no, it's not that way at all", that's pretty much the definition of WP:FRINGE--don't even need to read a single detail of it or its support. Rather, the burden is on the proposer to get the idea published in a reliable/reputable third-party source (again, WP:RS/WP:V policy). DMacks (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I better spend my time building a working prototype then :D L4m4re (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically, we've got bogus articles from unreliable sources supporting this "theory". As is the norm for con artists, these authors/inventors/theorists (criminals), point to an academic source as their "evidence" and hope that the reader isn't able to understand that the academic source doesn't support their conclusions in the least. That's why we use reliable sources throughout. Now, as far as working inventions go, there aren't any. None, zero, zilch, nada. As for your own expertise (masters degree) - great. Use it. Get your ideas published in a peer reviewed journal and we'll cite them here. Until then, they're out - and that's not negotiable. We've been doing it this way since the start, and we're now the world's #1 information source. In fact, the main criticism against Wikipedia is that it isn't reliable enough - and we're not going to overcome this problem by publishing poorly sourced crap. I hope you understand. Rklawton (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To put a finer point on it "either all three inventors were incredible frauds, or my theory explains how they did it." is a false dichotomy...they could have just been mistaken or your theory could be mistaken. But...didn't a court even rule that for the Meyer's case is was fraud? DMacks (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying I said it all ok for WP and I don't want to either. I just tried to add the point that someone who at least has some credentials claims there is an alternative explanation, based on proper science. And since when do judges know anyhting about Electrical Engineering? L4m4re (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, we'll see what comes out. This is not fringe science. It is basically straight forward electrical engineering, wether you like it or not. And Turtur is a reliable source. He's a professor, for crying out loud! And this is not a perpetuum mobile, to. You got that wrong, it's using an energy source you can't see. Everyone agrees you can put a solar cell into the sunlight and tapp of energy, so why oh why is using a different kind of solar cell to tap the electric field which is an enegy source suddenly impossible? But, enough for now. We'll meet again later once this stuff is really out in the open. Cause that's what's going to happen no matter what. L4m4re (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Brutal inaccuracy

How is it a "perpetual motion" engine about this when you use both initial electricity from a pre-charged battery and one that is continually recharged from both the energy of the momentum of a rolling car (kinetic energy)(through it's dynamo). A momentum that is getting fed by a known external power source/fuel: the burning of hydrogen, getting more than the electricity needed to perform electrolysis from the burning of a external energy source: the water containing the hydrogen that is being burned, as well as the momentum and kinetic energy of the car once it is in motion??? This is the most in(s)ane and asinine screamingly obvious attempt at diverting humanitys attention away from doing new research I've ever seen.Nunamiut (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And considering:

• http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
• http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/science-technology/diy-convert-your-car-to-use-hydrogen-today/
• http://www.drycellkits.com/

And probably several thousand pages on working versions of the invention.

Learn some science. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about the working versions of this invention that you mention; what reliable sources verify that a working version has been built? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hydrogen is not an external fuel source because the energy to make it isn't coming from the water, it's coming from the car's electrical system. You do not get more energy from the electrolysis than you put into it. And the car's momentum is not free energy either. You need to burn fuel to build that momentum. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As HerbalGerbil says, the car used water as fuel, as its waste product is also water. It has to spend energy to split the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. When it burns the hydrogen to make water it will produce the same amount of energy as the amount needed to create it in the first place (because of the first law, you can't create or destroy energy, you can only transform it) and you won't be able to recover all the energy spent (because of thermal losses due to the second law). And the car can't recharge its battery indefinitely via solenoids and magnets because of the same reason (the first law says the energy recovered from the movement can't be greater than the energy spent to move it, and the second law says that you won't be able to recover 100% of that energy). Meyer never kept the car running long enough to show that he was really violating those laws. The energy necessary to move the car along that period of time was consistent with the amount of energy stored in a big battery inside the car.

(comment: any process that violates the laws of thermodynamics can potentially be exploited to build a perpetual motion machine. Any machine that actually violates those laws is a perpetual motion machine in the sense that you can feed its output to its input so its keep running forever with no external input of energy. If Meyer's car worked as advertised then you could connect the exhaust tube to a condensator, and recover most of the water to keep it running without re-fueling. And the energy spent moving the car could be used instead to cool the exhaust and recover 100% of water. And anyways, any process that consummes a matter and then outputs the exact same matter and still manages to produce energy is violating the first law in the first place.....) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are working versions (in vehicles) displayed all over the net, there are a hundred videos on youtube, I have friends who are auto engineers and auto engine repair people who install the hydrogen producing fuel units in their cars all over the place. I'm sorry, but the cat is out of the box on this one. Government cant stop it. It's all over the place.
Here is one example:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRCnSQA37Zs

Nunamiut (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no working versions of a water fuel cell that produce more energy than consumed. There are, however, numerous con artists willing to scam people out of their money, and that's probably what you are seeing on the internet. Rklawton (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that your "friends" are actually improving fuel efficiency on the cars they work on? Furthermore, if there is an improvement, how do you know it's because of the hydrogen, and not because of other things like changing the burn ratio? Sure, you can tweak gas mileage on a car easily enough, but it tends to come at the cost of performance, engine lifespan, pollution, or all of the above. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean youtube videos when I said reliable sources, I mean... you know... reliable sources. As you can see from the discussion above, a working model would be an amazing scientific breakthrough- I'm sure at least several serious science journals would have published the details. Youtube videos, though... I don't think I would have too much trouble creating a YouTube video showing that I can power my television by plugging it into the cat, but that wouldn't make it true- videos are unfortunately easy to fake. Your confidence that there are working models, to me, indicates that you must have a better source of information than YouTube, since you have been on the internet long enough to know how unreliable unsourced information is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 05:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree - YouTube "science" videos not only could be faked - they ARE faked...regularly. Take (for example) the "Water balls" thing - these people claim that by adding a few simple household chemicals to water, you can get it to turn into these perfectly round 1/2" beads...for example. There are dozens of movies submitted by people claiming to do this - every single one of them is utterly bogus. Not one of the many 'recipies' for doing this actually works.

Given that track record, the probability of any convincing 'new breakthrough' being reported solely on YouTube is zero. When there is a peer-reviewed article in 'Nature' - I'll believe it...not before. Fortunately, that's also the standard for Wikipedia. For controversial statements of a scientific nature, especially those that go against mainstream science and violate fundamental principles (such as the way that Meyer's contraption violates the laws of thermodynamics) - we require the strongest sources. So - when there is a paper in 'Nature', we'll write about it. YouTube videos are laughable - they count for nothing - actually, less than nothing. If something is claimed by some crackpot inventor, I'm skeptical. When half a dozen YouTube videos show up - and nothing else is reported about it - then I'm convinced it's crap because the people who make those fake science videos love nothing more than to convince gullible people that untrue things are true.

Meyer's machine (if it had worked) would indeed have been perpetual motion. The car (it is claimed) does the following:

1. Uses electricity from a battery to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
2. Burns that hydrogen in an internal combustion engine to produce four kinds of energy:
   1. Heat (the car still needs a radiator to dissipate that heat).
   2. Sound (we can hear it making a noise as it runs).
   3. Kinetic energy (the car rolls along the road).
   4. Sufficient electrical energy to keep the battery charged.
3. The combustion of hydrogen (either in air taken into the car's air intake - or in the oxygen produced by electrolysis) produces water - which comes out of the exhaust pipe.

Now - if we take the additional step of connecting the output of the exhaust pipe back into the water "fuel" tank then every molecule of water that was split by electrolysis is converted back into water in the engine. Hence, the water tank would never run dry.

The claim is that enough electricity is produced by the engine to keep the battery charged.

Hence, the car would run forever without running out of either electricity or water. So this is a perpetual motion machine "of the first kind" - one that produces energy (kinetic, acoustic and heat) from nothing.

Since the laws of thermodynamics preclude this as a possibility - and those laws are probably the most solid piece of science we have - it is much MUCH more likely that Meyers was a lying, cheating, fraudulant bastard than it is that every scientist since Rudolf Clausius has been wrong!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you are claiming to produce a car that runs on water - you'd better have a lot of very serious scientists (a) examining the car in great detail and (b) reproducing that experiment and writing up the results in "Nature". Meyers didn't do that - he produced a couple of easily faked videos and showed the car to a couple of gullible journalists on a slow news day - then parlayed that into a means of convincing gullible investors to part with tens of thousands of dollars. The man was a thief.

SteveBaker (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)