digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Inventor Of Water Powered Car Murdered

easygrowhouseplants.blogspot.c… — Stan Meyer's had spoken repeatedly about how he was being threatened by oil companies, but refused to bow to their wishes of abandoning the project...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Hashiro, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29Direct link
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2358637173689658380&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en
    • 1greenthumb, on 10/12/2007, -41/+31Yes you can check out the direct link, or you can search for Stan Myer's right on Google Video...

      All the tools we need are out there, they are just clouded by big money and big politics, it is time to take a stand and make a difference in this world before all hope is lost.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -54/+10...he was found naked with a bag on his head hanging in his own closet surrounded by animal porn. Clearly murder.

    • Daedalus81, on 10/12/2007, -23/+133Yea, umm, wasn't this guy's invention declared a hoax ages ago?
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -22/+196"All the tools we need are out there, they are just clouded by big money and big politics, it is time to take a stand and make a difference in this world before all hope is lost."

      No, the tools aren't out there. A "water powered car" is really powered by electrolysis, which produces hydrogen -- so "water cars" are really already on the market, we just call them "hydrogen cars" instead.

      Here's the problem: electrolysis takes more energy than you can possibly get from the hydrogen released. So you might be able to make pull a few kWh worth of hydrogen out of a tank of water, but it'll take about 5x as many kWh worth of electricity -- it'd be much more efficient to just use the electricity.

      The water car myth is 70 years old. It needs to die.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuelled_car

      "Water fuelled cars have featured in urban legends at least since the 1930s. The story is usually that a lone inventor invents an engine that runs on water but the idea is suppressed by either the big oil companies or the motor manufacturers in order to safeguard their profits."

      If you believe this *****, I've got a bridge to sell you. And a case of Head-On.
    • Derelict267, on 10/12/2007, -41/+33/sarcasm
      The oil industry was the second shooter on the grassy gnoll, was behind 9/11, killed elvis, and covered up them UFOs

    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -13/+80And yes, this guy specifically was debunked in court:

      "The Water Fuel Cell on the other hand, was 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."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell

      If anyone assassinated Stan Myer, it was probably someone who he'd duped into investing, who was pissed when they realized his "invention" was worthless.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+20If you count what comes out of the tailpipe as "powering" the vehicle, then we all own water-powered cars.

      Because combustion in a gas car is C18H8 + O2 -> CO2 + H2O

      Yep. Water comes out of the tailpipe. So I guess we all have water-powered cars already. I wish mine got 100mpg.
    • cyroxos, on 10/12/2007, -26/+22The guy's invention may be fake, however, the point is still there. We have many, many forms of alternative fuel that are being suppressed by big business. It will take some time for big business to start to profit from these new inventions, once this happens, we will see them on the market.
      It is a shame that it has to be like this, but big corporations really do control the world.
    • treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -27/+13It's true that the "water powered car" ends up using more energy through electrolysis than what is output. But it's still been the case of the last couple of decades that oil companies have gone out of their way to squash these inventions. They tend to just buy the patents off the inventor and hide it away from the public.

      There are numerous new technologies available atm which could ease our dependence on fossil fuels for transportation (anywhere from electrolysis, solar, hydrogen pellets etc).

      But when you have a multi-billion dollar oil industry, shady ***** will always happen. You have the government taking a cut of the fuel, you have car manufacturers probably in the oil company pockets (or at least being "good" and not trying to develop oil-less cars).

      It'll happen eventually, but it will take a billion-dollar individual such as Richard Branson to setup a project, hire a team, develop a car and get public support to make a difference.
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -32/+37"It is a shame that it has to be like this, but big corporations really do control the world."

      And I'm sure in your fantasy world the workers control the means of production, and only take what they need to survive, right?

      Because, you know, communism is a great system and has never failed... Except every time it has been tried.
    • NachoBusiness, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19@treelovinghippie

      "government taking a cut of the fuel"? You mean... paying for the roads we drive on with the gas we purchase to drive on roads? Those bastards! The fuel tax is one of the more fair taxes we have... those $3 billion interstate projects get their funding from somewhere, better that it be from the people using said interstates.
    • MasterChi, on 10/12/2007, -22/+13@ all saying it was false

      http://www.waterfuelcell.org/moreinfo.html

      As you can see the court case was a sham. Not only was the vehicle itself was locked under National Security Review during the time of trial which is why the court couldn't see the vehicle as asked. Also when they tested the fuel cell itself, it worked just fine and then, against stanley's wishes, they placed an "unknown" compound in the tap water and ran the tests again and then submitted those tests to the court with this "unknown" compound, they never submitted the results when it was running on plain tap water as it was originally tested on.

      Just read the link and learn the case was a sham and his invention worked. Even if it was investors who poisoned him for "lying" why would they steal all his equipment and the dune buggy and such?
    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Urban myth. I first heard this story (just switch the name of inventor) when I was in high school, more than a decade a ago.

      (BTW: What the ***** does this have to do with left wing?)
    • ckedge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8@merreborn: A bridge? Why don't you sell him a water powered car :)
    • slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8How do stories like this get onto main page... several times each?
    • YoJR, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28Dig +1 to HappyScrappy for writing a chemical equation :)
      Dig -1 to HappyScrappy for not balancing said equation :(

    • anitab83, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8This was almost 10 years ago that he was murdered ... how did this get dugg by over 500 people?
    • Sparkbank, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8Okay - first off - everyone knows Wikipedia is edited by everyday folks like you and me. If so, why do some people insist on quoting it like it's an actual encyclopaedia? It's full of errors - hence the spam cops and constant battles for "correct" content. It's flawed - bottom line.

      More on topic - http://hytechapps.com/ - link leads to a small firm in Florida who have taken this so-called "hoax" technology, and instead of focusing on a "disruptive" product like cars, they've focused on welding machines that use the gas produced (which is a restructuring of the H(two)O molecule) into gaseous form. I'm no chemist, but the site, videos and products are quite compelling. Take a gander.

    • Slog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Everybody above me has been dugg down for replying to the first comment. Stop abusing the comment system!
      ...everybody except the first reply.
    • xister, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12Quote: "Because, you know, communism is a great system and has never failed... Except every time it has been tried."
      Except for China... Oh yeah, and Cuba... Ummm- and N. Viet Nam....
    • MadScientist420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I wish people would stop saying "powered by water". I'll quote Homer J Simpson and say "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics"
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I wonder if all the companies on the linked search page are defrauding their investors with crazy "Hydrogen from Water" schemes. Kooks . . . .

      http://search.globalspec.com/Search?query=%22hydrogen%20from%20water%22&n=10&show=total&pg=1

    • rodgerdodger5, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28I have to reply to this one. My dad was a Machinist and did quite a bit of experimentation with running engines (our car, my go-kart and our tractor) on hydrogen generated with electrolysis. He used a 400 amp DC aircraft generator (or alternator?) powered by a V8 engine to produce enough current to make a usable quantity of hydrogen. I personally witnessed engines running on nothing but hydrogen many times. Yes, he was using a gasoline powered generator to make the hydrogen but that is not the point. You could also use the AC that comes out of your walls. Another thing that people don't realize about this is that what comes out of the tailpipe when you burn hydrogen is nothing but water vapor. Also almost any gas engine with a carburetor will run on pure hydrogen with no modification. The other byproduct of the electrolysis is just pure oxygen which could be vented off. You get twice as much hydrogen as oxygen because water is H(2)O. With a DC system, one plate + generates H and the other one - generates O. (I think?) My dad used stacks of electrolysis plates and I think he used the combined product of hydrogen and oxygen gas (which was very potent stuff - I don't remember for sure as it was long ago and he has passed away many years ago and he was a cool Dad and is missed very much). He used to fill balloons with it for me that were VERY loud when lit with strip of newspaper. He also made a VERY cool little metal cutting torch that would run on combined H and O from the electrolysis cell.

      He had a number of problems that could be solved using modern technology. #1 is that hydrogen is explosive. You could solve this by pumping it into a chemical sponge. (this is what United Nuclear is trying to do with their fuel cells - see www.unitednuclear.com) #2, his water in the electrolysis cell would turn to orange muck after a while because he was using stainless steel plates for the electrodes and you (I think?) can get around this by using something like carbon or platinum for the plates. The orange muck was a byproduct of the steel reacting with the water and (maybe?) making iron oxide/rust. I am no chemist and this is all from memory.

      Basically he was trying to invent a fuel cell back in the 80's and his system did take a lot of energy to make the hydrogen. He also had no knowledge of chemistry and was trying to come up with a mechanical solution to the safety issue and also had issues with generating the hydrogen itself... He also made a huge crazy contraption explosion proof piston tank using a giant piston and spring to vent in case of an explosion in the hydrogen generating tank...(this is probably NOT a good way). He was a machinist and this was the only way he knew to try and solve the explosion problem).

      Hydrogen is a very viable fuel to run a gas engine on though. Just put a line with enough hydrogen flowing down the throat of the carb and the engine will start and run just fine on pure hydrogen along. Just water vapor will come out the tailpipe too. It has been too long ago for me to remember if my dad was using just hydrogen from one plate or the combined product of hydrogen and oxygen from both sets of plates. It does take energy to generate the gasses from water it but it is definitely pollution free and much more available than gas.

      If there is even a chance of truth that this guy figured out how do make his electrolysis plates into a capacitor or separate the Hydrogen using less energy then it should be looked into a little bit more and not dismissed as a fraud. Tesla did a lot of experiments with high frequency energy and perhaps this guy actually did stumble onto something. People should never forget that we do not know everything and people criticized almost all of the scientists that made major discoveries in their fields. See this web page for interesting experiments with water capacitors and negative resistance that might aoply. Just from my layman's knowledge, there might be more to this than a fraud or con.

      http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/




    • pingring, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@rodgerdodger5

      The electrolysis process is a very destructive one. In an ionized-water solution (water with a salt), the cathode? is destroyed as part of the reaction. Little can be done to mitigate this, outside of using platinum electrodes. Carbon ones will dissolve over time as well. What Stan Meyer discovered wasn't traditional electrolysis, but rather using high voltage and resonance to "crack" the water apart.

      Traditional electrolysis requires the use of a salt (sodium chloride works well), or acid (like H2SO4) to put free ions in the water. As current moves from the anode to the cathode, the respective H+ and salts move to the charged plates and bubble out of the solution.

      Stanley's invention, rather, was supposed to take a fairly constant amount of current, and pulse it at a high enough frequency to match water's natural resonance. It worked better the more pure water was, and didn't require (or recommend) a salt or acid added in. I tried building the device -- the schematics were readily available online -- but I typically couldn't find the resonant frequency of the water. As such, the yield was low. I did manage to find resonance one time, which worked just as it did in the description. You could see the water level drop over time, power consumption was low, but I was never able to reproduce my results after that. Eventually, I burned the circuit up leaving it on too long, and never bothered to reconstruct it :(
    • UCFartstudntJON, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Wikipedia People???!!!! that is your source? really, wikipedia? Boldly proclaim your vast knowledge and research. What should alarm you is the Lack of viable, credible, research, investigations, reports, etc, where is the Media? Who the Hell are "Three expert witnesses" Fine, it was a giant hoax and we should all just forget about it.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Treelovinmoorn...I know someone who works for Sunoco. She is part of a division that does NOTHING but research non-oil based energy. She gets paid FAR more than people who research oil improvements. Why? Because if her and her co-workers come up with something, Sunoco gets to patent it. And then they get ALL the profits from it, rather than having to share it with Shell, Exxon, Hess, etc. If something like this came along, Sunoco would NOT try to squash it. They would buy the rights for a few million bucks, patent it themselves and make hundreds of billions off it.

      But yes...keep repeating the same old ultra left treehugger ***** that oil companies don't want alternative fuels. Don't let facts EVER get in the way. Yup...every ***** "invention" never sees the lght of day not because it IS *****, but because it is killed by Big Oil. Right.
    • khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ Merreborn...

      "No, the tools aren't out there. A "water powered car" is really powered by electrolysis, which produces hydrogen -- so "water cars" are really already on the market, we just call them "hydrogen cars" instead."

      Umm, did you forget about the oxygen produced? Using oxygen as an ACCELERANT inside a combustion engine.. HYDROGEN and OXYGEN. Hindenburg. Think of ALL THAT ENERGY. Electrolyze with an external power source that recharges rapidly (like an ultracapacitor hooked to an alternator) and what do you have? Water-fueled internal combustion. The by-product will be water (reroute to the tank,) very similar to the water-powered plasma torch. I can CLEARLY see the concept, and it's not violating the second law of thermodynamics because an external power source is required initially. The water will run out, NOT the battery.

      BTW I work in energy routing and alternative energy for electronics, this is VERY feasible.
    • khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ shodanx

      No, the actual design (not all of it is mentioned in wikipedia.. I wonder why?) does not violate the second law - it uses an external and very rapidly-charging (proly ultracapacitor) battery to start the intial reaction.

      He's gotta get a jump somewhere to start this. In reality, nothing we know of violates the second law, we all get a "jump start" either from the sun, great bang, black holes, whatever.

      Sorry, meant to post in thread below me. Sorry, guys.
    • venir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Water powered car through electrolysis.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FBH4_FWBVA
    • HellifIno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I am abusing first comment reply to say this:

      GET OVER IT! This story has been proven false MANY YEARS ago. Why the ***** is ANY attention being given to it here on digg?

      Hello, Snopes?
    • MariNBoris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I think that the water powered car invented by Stan Myer is true. This car would have save all of the consumers a lot of money. The oil companies do not want this type of car to hit the market. It is a fact that the car can run off of water. We all saw it done. It is also being done in Japan. Now why would they waste their time? Why would the oil companies threaten the inventor , if it was not possible? Why did the inventors car and notes on the water powered car all of a sudden missing after his murder? We will never know who killed him or hear anymore about the water powered car. I have a question how much power do oil company have to get away with threats towards an inventor ( an ordinary person just like all of us) who then surprisingly shows up murdered. How far up the chain does the oil companies go? Does the president really want the US to better itself then I think he should make it his objective to pursue what Stan Myer discovered. If he has no interest then you know either he has ties to the oil companies ( which would explain a lot of unanswered question) or he just doesn't care about his people. Either way we are the ones suffering. Unless we all together do something drastic at the same time about it. 5-31-07.
    • WikiYourRights, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Everyone keeps referring to the Wikipedia article:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell#Stanley_Meyer

      But did you actually LOOK at the patents he has? Did you look to actually see what they do and how they do it?

      There is another similar invention using very similar technology. Watch the video here. It is almost exactly the same technology used in Stanley Meyers patents.

      http://hytechapps.com/aquygen

      Here are a more related videos:

      Stan Meyer - Water Fuel Cell - News Story
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIgOn1kRw5s

      Stanley A. Meyer - Teaching Water Power!!!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqRMKrSAAuY

      Stanley Meyer - Water Fuel Injector
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7BAODqqcpQ
  • Kalibr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Weird Story.
    • mgsdeadcell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Kinda like that movie "Antitrust".
    • Obrick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19more like the movie Rain Man
    • shodanx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17more like Dumb and Dumber

      as in Stanley Meyer and his Investors

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell

      I like how he put something like "In jesus we trust" on his fraud demo buggy
      Stanley Meyer's proposed design violated the laws of thermodynamics
      anyone who thinks otherwise has:
      A) not done his homework searching on this guy
      B) is a nut job

      also that guy died from food poisoning at a shody restaurant and it happened like a million years ago, this is not news, this is not even interesting
      this is just a call for nutjobs to come out of the woodwork
      get that off the front page !
  • 1greenthumb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You can also check out this video, it tells the story in a bit more detail...

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3953634519146582505&q=stan+meyer
  • paulyclos, on 10/12/2007, -27/+28It's always about the money isn't it. I totally believe the government would do that.
    • Daedalus81, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29That's fine, but if you think this invention was actually real to the point that it would be efficient then you are retarded.
    • raybury, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Yes, and apparently the Clinton government: His death occured in 1998. Which makes this slightly more timely than the Day-After-Tomorrow island that apparently sank 20 years ago.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The government has the ability to take money from people against their will and imprison them if they do not give it up. They use this approach to make trillions of dollars, so why the hell would they care about a car?
    • Brutus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I don't want to take sides here and of course i make fun of all those conspiracy theory people as much as the next guy... but why is anyone so hysterical about this story and calls it conspiracy crap? Emphasis on conspiracy not on crap.
      I'm not interested enough to google for more info, and from the writing style of the poster this may be all cry wolf and stuff but getting killed for causing someone who makes decent money a major money loss seems more like basic economics than weird guy tongue talking.
  • PopeAmadeus, on 11/14/2007, -23/+21Wow, conspiracy theory at it's best. Next thing you know elvis will be calling your house looking for bigfoot, only to realize it's a wrong number and hang up.
    • Postophagus545, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2yeah? And whats your crazy theory about how Mozart died, eh? Mozart fans are way to *****-faced to notice that he was only human and his death didn't have to be a complex murder with twists and turns.
    • pytro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Please don't be dumb and ask yourself why was he Murdered.
      Is it Conspiracy that you are going to die because of Global Warming?
      What was the main contribution for this Phenomenon?
  • OOTay, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8it really is to bad someone would take another persons life just for trying to help out everyone else.
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16More likely someone took his life 'cause he'd defrauded them out of thousands of dollars. Not exactly "helping", was he?

      "the court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the investors their $25,000"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell
    • SuperGhost, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The Wiki says:

      "Stanley Meyer died after eating at a restaurant on the 21 March 1998. An autopsy report showed the cause of death to be poisoning, leading to widespread popular theories [4] regarding the involvement of oil companies and the United States government in his death."
    • MasterChi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10@merreborn

      Read this link and learn the court case was a sham, and it is all well documented in the actual court documents.

      http://www.waterfuelcell.org/moreinfo.html
    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@masterchi
      Little overboard with the copy/paste function aren't we. I have found Wikipedia to be a generally unbiased source whereas your website (waterfuelcell.org) might be a little biased. Wikipedia backs up the facts with links (the source on the fuel cell site only lists one source). From what Wikipedia says it breaks one of the laws of physics which is pretty hard for anyone other than Superman.
    • OOTay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1alright well my bad then.
  • bmicallef, on 10/12/2007, -15/+20This is an excellent case where an Open Source mindset could have ensured both the proliferation of the technology as well as the decentralization of a "key-man".

    That is to say, if Stan had not been the sole proprietor of this technology, the world could have benefited regardless of his death. Additionally, because there would not have been a single owner, Stan's murder may have never happened, as Stan's death would have not effected the ability for the technology to continue being developed and applied.

    For both Stan and his invention this is truly tragic.
    • sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8Do you think it is possible that there are enough people on digg with the following credentials...:

      1. Believe in Open Source
      2. Have the knowledge to produce such a vehicle
      3. Have the time to collaborate and troubleshoot it

      ...to make this happen?

      In the video, they said that this guy was a college dropout, and didn't know anything about chemistry. Okay, so here's the gauntlet... let it be considered to have been thrown down, and let's ***** or get off the pot on this one.

      I for one would love to have the ability to pull up to any lake and siphon off enough water to run my car. I give a ***** about the energy industry, and the benefits are numerous. Instead of us moaning about how tragic this was, why not take it as an inspiration to re-create his work.

      Food for thought.
    • annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Maybe if his invention had actually worked it would be tragic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3All it did was separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and use the hydrogen as fuel. To separate the water, it takes energy, which you get from some other source. We did this in my 7th grade science class using model train controllers dropped into a container of water, with two smaller containers on top of the water. The positive side of the train controller under one, the negative under the other. One filled with hydrogen, the other with oxygen.

      It's nothing new.
    • MasterChi, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4That wikipedia link doesn't even explain the court case or what happened and whoever said Wiki was the greatest source of information ?

      http://www.waterfuelcell.org/moreinfo.html Read this and learn the whole court case was a sham.
    • ricree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@MasterChi.

      If you are such a big proponent of this, then would you care to explain where the energy is actually coming from? All your site says is some vague statements about electrolysis, which happens to require energy to happen. As others have said, you still need to have an external energy source to get this to work. As far as we can see, it is nothing more than an electric car, and an inefficient one at that.
    • moonshn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ricree

      "would you care to explain where the energy is actually coming from?"

      easy, nuclear.

      We could easily, safely, and cleanly become self sufficient using hydrogen supported by a nuclear infrastructure.
      • cn2zv5oe, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0Agreed, but what does this have to do with the dead charlatan?
  • Jist, on 10/12/2007, -25/+11I read things like this and wonder how people still think that the government would not harm its own citizens. Astonishing.
    • interrogate, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32I wasn't aware the government was in to killing people with worthless inventions...
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Iraq and Katrina pretty much illustrate that many government folks figure its A-OK to screw citizens over as long as you have a "real good reason its too dangerous for them to know" or "are really just too much of a f*ck up to do your job".

    • nonannystate, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27I love it when people use Katrina as a sign of all these federal governmental plots... if all those people had evacuated as they were supposed to, hardly anyone (maybe those left at the hospitals and such) would have died. Hardly anyone died anyway; the final figures weren't even worth of a goddamn headline. And if the job of securing the levees had been done by whom it was supposed to have been done (the local government; the city, the state) then they wouldn't have broken. But noooooo.... A Republican is in the White House so it's the Republicans' fault. I hate Bush with a passion but I have the sense enough to know when to blame him for his idiocy (Patriot Act/Iraq) and when not to (completely natural disasters made worse by idiotic local people). One I will grant you in this one... FEMA chief Brown was just as stupid as Bush. But FEMA STILL doesn't own the responsibility of evacuating people; it's supposed to help re-establish areas AFTER disasters have passed. But in our current utterly welfmare minded state, we need big daddy federal guv to bail us out preemptively of all our foolish local failures. But we still hate the power these governments have... if they're not dominated by liberals. Can't have it both ways.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4No but FEMA owns the responsability of turning away trucks of water and ice because they were not "bureaucrat approved". They own the responsability of keeping private help out of New Orleans. And the government is responsible for the levees failing in the first place.
    • billjackson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@Corrosionx


      Let me politely correct you on your FEMA argument. It was not FEMA that turned any trucks away. It was the Governor and Mayor that turned trucks away. More specifically they turned Red Cross trucks away.

      This is not the place to discuss Katrina. Let me just say, after living through it, pulling people off of roof tops, and finding dead bodies, this Katrina mess started at the local level, got worse at the state level, and was out of control by the time FEMA had the chance to mess it up.

      God Bless.

  • 7ghent, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24Uh, where's the reputable news source that backs up the claim that this guy was murdered?
    Marked inaccurate.
    • nonannystate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Absolutely; this story is such BS. It's inconceivable that so many in this thread believe it. But then again people still fall for phising emails, alien abductions, and the loch ness monster.
  • voidx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11Wasn't this announced on the Jack in the Box commercial?
  • arkmtech, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4Didn't it later come out that that Conoco was somehow linked to Meyer's murder?

    I can't seem to dig up any linkage to it on Google - Perhaps I'm entirely out in left field on this. Help, anyone?
  • Breeder18, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4say nice things about oil, I would smile and be there friend...
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1I, for one, welcome our Ant overlords.
      (--the Simpsons)
  • eSecuris, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9Ok, i know this is wrong but someone has to say it.

    HYDE: "There is no gaz shortage man! It's all fake. The oil companies control everything! Like there's this guy who invented this car that runs on water man! It's got fiber glass air cooled engine and it runs on water!"
    FEZ: "So it is a boat."
    HYDE: "No, it's a car. Only you put water in the gaz tank instead of gaz. And it runs on water man!"
    KELSO: "I never heard of this car. Hey, Jackie's good for gaz money!"
  • yuko511, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Did this car give off water vapor?
  • dagr8tim, on 10/17/2007, -16/+14*puts on his tinfoil hat & buries this article as lame*
  • sicc, on 10/12/2007, -22/+9Woah, this is totally ***** up. I feel almost outraged and violent right now. I seriously feel like rioting or something because I know either big oil or our government had something to do with it, or both.
    Grr
    • Tycho7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I'm thinking the key to your comment lies in the word almost.

      But indeed, Grr...
    • interrogate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6//sarcasm...?
    • nbcivic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I feel as if you're an ignorant idiot
  • AMPoet, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3 Isn't access to clean water a huge problem for most of the world and the growing source of tension even in places like Southern California? If so suddenly having all our cars run on it would kinda suck wouldn't it?
    • paulyclos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Watch the video before commenting please...
      The video says it can run with any type of water clean water, salt water, even as far as snow will work.
    • dcbebop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm sure we could somehow figure out better means of filtration from salt water if this were to come to fruition. Still, paying for desalinized water per gallon would be pennies on the dollar compared to the rediculously inflated crude oil charges.
    • sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Not to mention that you could run a water treatment plant large enough to supply a village on a renewable supply of water. Bad water goes in, and powers the water treatment plant, good water is processed, waste collected. Everyone wins.
    • taotehue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4access to potable water is an issue.
      access to water is not (of course, we could ***** that up)
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wouldn't have to be clean water. You feed it dirty water, it converts the water to hydrogen, burns it off, gives oxygen as a by-product and you get some "dirt" left over.
    • IrwinFletcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Kinda takes all the fun out of pissing in someone's gas tank.
  • Switchnig, on 10/17/2007, -8/+5he was part of the 9/11 conspiracy
  • smokeyjw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26He was a fraud.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Fuel_Cell
  • rc3105, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14seems more likely the result of a disgruntled investor

    :-
  • lampshade, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14If this is the thing I saw before, it was *****. The device used the hydrogen and oxygen from the water to then power the car.... except that the original stuff I saw never explained how you separated the water into hydrogen and oxygen. You need another source of power for the separation. If that second source comes from say plugging in your car, then you would have to make the case that the power coming from your coal burning power plant that is shipped to your house is better than the energy you would get from a tank of gas...


    Anyway, I think this is that same guy in which case he was at best misinformed and at worst a fraud.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Can't chemicals be used to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water . . . seems straight foward. Don't know if its "efficient", but I'm not sure hauling oil around the world is "efficient" either.
    • joshduck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@nfulton: No. Basic high school chemistry will teach you otherwise. Combining hydrogen and oxygen releases energy (exothermic reaction). That's basically why you can burn hydrogen. H + O = H20 + excess energy. Seperating them requires energy input (endothermic). That's why water sits around as water, and doesn't spontaneously turn into hydrogen and oxygen.
  • osearth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3When we live in giant floating cities orbiting Alpha Centaury this will all seem silly
  • krimsen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2http://www.vwho.net/player.php?VE_Path=selfserve1.download.videoegg.com/gid356/cid1161/YM/7Q/1157638705VqoV819PdjNbi29gTW78

    http://hytechapps.com/
  • zardoz73, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6I have little doubt that the US govt./oil companies/old white guys in power would kill a man to keep their hegemony on the global power structure. That said, there are a *lot* of these guys who claim to have created a water- or compost- or whatever-powered vehicle, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (as far as we know, anyway). Just how did that water-powered vehicle convert the water into hydrogen? Probably a normal combustion engine. Or a battery that uses heaps of power.

    He could've been onto something. Or he just wanted venture capital.
  • Derelict267, on 10/17/2007, -6/+16Yay here come the conspiracy theorists i'll get my popcorn
  • sosoez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Even with his patents, he did not demonstrate how to reproduce his results. And he lost when his investors sued him. What about this isn't an obvious scam?
  • blincoln, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"Water-powered cars" use electrolysis or other methods to crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then convert them back into water. It takes *more* energy to do that than to just run the car with whatever you're powering the electrolysis system with. There is no way around that. This is another obvious hoax, like every other "water-powered car" story in history. Marked as inaccurate.
  • nipuL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Murdered in 1998, wow. Way to keep your finger on the pulse digg!!
  • garbs, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3It's sad that this man had to die to protect the pocketbooks of the oil industry. If we keep allowing these things to happen we will never shake the oil dependence that dominates our lives.
    • interrogate, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13He was no threat to the oil industry, as his invention did nothing.
  • Obrick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Did he ever create an actual water-powered car? If not, shouldn't he be called a theorist instead of an actual inventor?
  • interrogate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Do people actually think the government had anything to do with this? He didn't invent anything special, as his car still used electricity at some point.
  • diggless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11water doesn't contain energy, you have to expend energy to create fuel from from it. there is no way to make a water powered car.
    Water doesn't burn, water doesn't do anything but sit there and evaporate. It does contain things that make great fuels, hydrogen and oxygen. But combined in water form there isn't a lot of energy to be reaped from them, its pretty stable.

    that being said, anything is possible, but if it were real why isnt the information out there to recreate any of the results he achieved?
    • egbertelroy, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0I wonder, and I'm a skeptic and have a fundamental understanding of the laws of thermodynamics (common sense)
      If you take H2O - 2 atoms of Hydrogen and 1 atom of Oxygen. Split it out to H2 and O2 (because, obvious to those who can really answer this question, Oxygen atoms tend to join to each other as O2)

      then when you COMBINE the Hydrogen back together with the Oxygen you released in the electrolysis and some more oxygen from the air.. will you get more.. wait.. crap you wont.. nevermind
  • phoenix96, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If this were real it would be hysterical if he was hoaxing and the oil companies killed him thinking it was real. Aaah, gotta love the wacky business world.
  • dicerandom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Great, here come the conspiracy theorists.

    Protip: Since there can be no net energy gain from separating water to get hydrogen and oxygen and then recombining them to get water again the car was not "water powered" and there was no threat to "big oil".

    Also, this is not the same guy who has been on digg over the last month, this happened in 1998.
  • domokun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Finally I can drink something straight out of the tank of my car.
  • darkphan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Uhm, this guy died in 1998 or so... why is this on the front page of digg??
  • digfan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4 Seriously, if a guy back in 1998 could makes this tech, think about what we can do now.
    • webwiz1986, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Provided that he actuality did. Now unless you bought or made one out of a kit, I would have to say
      FAKE!
  • suman78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's also dubious to see there is info on water fuel cell in wkipedia but no info on "Stanley Meyer"

  • hazlett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I have a pretty good ***** detector, built-in, but when I saw the video, Tom Ryan and Gail Hogan, I knew this was a hoax.

    The story ran, of course, no denying that, but Tom Ryan retired from the local news about 20 years ago, and Gail Hogan has not been a newscaster for over 10 years. All that, plus, neither was ever on Channel 6, both were on Channel 4, WCMH. If Stan Meyers (Myers?) is dead it was probably by natural causes and if the car has disappeared perhaps it is with the auto I owned 20 years ago....in a junkyard somewhere, garnering rust and dust.

    Of course, those of you who beleive this stuff will continue to do so, and I realize I am wasting time and electrons telling all this.

    Besides, the card did not run on water but on a hydrogen fuel cell, tecnology still being developed.

    Get real people, get real.........
  • yuko511, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3who cares when it happened there are people who are not aware of it so why shouldn't it be on the front page? there obviously needs to be some information spread about the issue since people are continuing to espouse opposing views. If you are well informed on the issue great for you, but there exist other people separate from you who may not be, so let them.
  • XorLor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If he was trying to help others, then why didn't he share his "secret" with society? I think he should have stuck with his anti-gravity invention.
  • subsonik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I call *****. All it takes is the mention of some for-the-people maverick and death to start talk of corporate conspiracy and governmental collusion. The sources are questionable, spurious even.
  • KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4dun dun and the plot thickens
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@interiot

      What is a nuclear reactor except a perpetual(-enough) motion machine that creates energy by heating water. My point is that everything from steel, to airplanes, to tv was "impossible" at one point.

      I don't know if this guy made a car that burned water. I know that there's better solutions than what we have currently and that much of the world would be better off if we found them.

      There are some rather wealthy folks who would _not_ be better off . . .

  • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5People are SO funny.

    Water Powered Car? Impossible!

    So was sending images through air. So was splitting the atom. Everything is impossible . . . before you do it. We get power for cars in a pretty stupid/inefficient way. We _pump_ oil out of the ground, pull it around the world, "refine it" through a laborious process, then ship the "gas" to stations around the country.

    That's stupid. There are easier, less expensive ways to do move cars around. We should find them.
    • interiot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11There's a big difference between "we don't know if it's possible to do X" and "based on our current understanding of physics, X probably can't be done". Also, given the number of people who have tried to sell or get investment for perpetual motion machines, it's probably best to approach such devices with a healthy dose of skepticism until scientists start confirming that our understanding of physics has recently been updated.
  • rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3fake. this is a weekly occurance. while browsing the cloud i always make sure i digg these down and out.

    • rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1maybe we should get google to remove this ***** so people stop submitting it?
  • McShaken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Here's another claim of a company turning water into fuel... this is dated 12/18/06 as a press release from Google news.

    http://www.hydrocarbononline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=%7B2154BBFA-2C76-4517-BE58-FBFBE5B138B5%7D&VNETCOOKIE=NO
  • midnightdsob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1poisioned! and oddly enough his twin brother, Steve Meyer, is alive to carry on the research!

    http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
    (at the bottom)
    "GOOD NEWS! Steve Meyer, Stan's twin brother lives!! He is into the same
    technology! Why is there only one website on him? WCCO.com News 4/11/06"
  • Jelloyeti, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11You are all so stupid it makes me want to leave digg and never return, maybe I will.

    22 gallons of water to go from LA to NY? It shouldn't take anywhere near that considering the fact that anything capable of deriving energy from water would be a viable perpetual motion machine. Turn H20 into hydrogen, burn hydrogen to produce energy to drive car, hydrogen combustion results in H20. Repeat.

    This has been mentioned, and repeated numerous times in this comment thread. If you really think the oil industry was so afraid of this hoaxer that they had him killed off, then you're stupid. Plain and simple.

    Making a car that runs on water requires an outside energy source to split the oxygen and hydrogen. Put the energy in, and some of it comes back out when you burn the two together. Thermodynamics bitches.
  • lhnz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5HOAX.
  • polypropglop, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12For all you idiotic people who dismiss this genius and his accomplishments, take a look at the PROOF. Here's the actual gun that was left at the crime scene!!

    http://www.hasbro.com/media/media/Super%20Soaker%20Flash%20Flood.jpg

    A wise man once said:
    "Some say knowledge is power, but that is not true. Water is power."
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.