David Noble

Stanley Meyer: fraud or genius?

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

By David Noble – Writer for End the Lie

Originally published in the Sovereign Independent

Imagine running your car on water, after more than 20 years of research Stanley Mayer claimed to have done what was previously thought impossible, turn water into hydrogen fuel and drive his dune buggy on water straight from the tap.

I first heard about this from a friend in Ohio who knew Stanley Mayer personally and said he had even seen the dune buggy itself.

I was told that he replaced the spark plugs with “injectors” to spray a fine mist into the engine cylinders, which were electrified at a resonant frequency. The fuel cell would split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would com-bust back into water vapour in a conventional hydrogen engine to produce net energy.

Mayer during his research had many highs and humiliating defeats. He was hailed as a visionary and a genius but was also sued and declared a fraud.

He was born in Columbus’ East Side and joined the military after briefly attended Ohio State University. His research into running a car on water began in 1975, a year after the end of the Arab oil embargo, which had triggered high gas prices, gas-pump lines and anxiety.

Despite claims that Mayer was a fraud it seems many people were desperate to stop his work as Charlie Hughes recalled “I had been playing outside when the driveway suddenly filled with limousines. Men in turbans stepped out. In “stern, thick accents,” they asked for Meyer. “I remember, because I was not allowed in my own house that day.”

They left briskly. Charlie was about to go inside when the driveway filled again, this time with military vehicles. “Army brass,” he recalled.

At dinner that night, Meyer told them: “The Arabs wanted to offer me $250 million to stop today. “You and this lovely family can live in peace and prosperity the rest of your days.” They had told him.

The Army officials, meanwhile, had questioned Meyer about what the foreigners wanted, thinking that a deal might have been struck, Charlie recalled Meyer telling the family.

Stanley Meyer’s bizarre death at age 57 ended work that, if proved valid, could have brought about the downfall of the big oil giants that have such a strangle hold on us today. Stanley Allen Meyer, his brother and two Belgian investors raised glasses in the Grove City Cracker Barrel on March 20, 1998. He took a sip of cranberry juice. Then he grabbed his neck, bolted out the door, dropped to his knees and vomited violently.

“I ran outside and asked him, ‘What’s wrong?’ “his brother, Stephen Meyer, recalled. “He said, ‘They poisoned me.’ That was his dying declaration.” If Stephen Meyer was shocked at his twin brother’s collapse and death, he was equally amazed at the Belgians’ response the next day.

“I told them that Stan had died and they never said a word,” he recalled, “absolutely nothing, no condolences, no questions.

“I never, ever had a trust of those two men ever again.”

Stanley Meyers death sparked a three-month investigation that completely fascinated both the police and residents of Grove City; a fascination that still lasts to this day.

Was Stanley Mayer a fraud or a genius who was silenced to protect the interests of the big oil giants? I will leave that to the reader to make up their own minds.

75 Responses to Stanley Meyer: fraud or genius?

  1. slim March 20, 2013 at 7:08 PM

    Rudolf Diesel was on his way to the world fair in London to introduce a form of bio fuel when he disappeared crossing the English Channel. Stanley Meyer had some kind of solution to expensive and polluting hydrocarbon fuel. The sooner we get this knowledge to the masses, the sooner the rich oil barons and their political servants in the government can grovel for spare change from the rest of us.

  2. n/a August 22, 2013 at 8:26 AM

    The SOONER this form of alternative tech is researched properly, made use of and made available to the greater general public, the sooner the guilty parties for these activities can be silenced and brought to justice, not that it would really happen. As they would only bribe people in the right places.

    SHAME to the governments that take a backseat and not bother to react not to mention rather attempting to do intensive research that would benefit this “over sized” ball we like to call earth, our temp “fleshly accommodation” space.

  3. chuck August 30, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    Don’t forget what happened to Tucker by big auto business

    • spooner August 31, 2013 at 1:15 AM

      Do not forget that some nimwhit out there is being used by some “dip crack” to protect their “over sized” wallet. In the world we live in today, to many people believe ONLY in the “me, myself and i”, not to forget their alter ego’s they face in the morning when they look in the mirror.

      IF it were possible to one day successfully be able to have “energy sources”, that is SAFE to mother nature, and be able to FREELY exploit and make use of, perhaps then also we would be able to safe a LOT MORE people a LOT more money!!

  4. Dan Meyers October 19, 2013 at 7:45 PM

    Remember, Meyers was convicted of FRAUD in 1996 by an Ohio court and required to pay back his two biggest investors. Certainly with the Saudis offering $250,000,000 he should have had enough to build a working unit. Stanley Meyers was a fraud. He was not killed. He died of a bad heart which was proven conclusively through a month long medical investigation and autopsy facilitated by the FBI. Meyers did say in his dying words “I’ve been poisoned!” so this is why such a thorough inquiry was made. Here are some other FACTS to write in your Stanley Meyer’s Research Book:

    • Meyer had no qualifications as a scientist

    • The first cell demonstrated draws half an amp at 110V (55W) but would appear to only produce less than a litre per minute — no more efficient than an any other electrolysis cell.

    • There’s a claim that in regular electrolysis, three times as much energy is consumed as is produced in fuel (a 33% efficiency). This is clearly wrong — it is very easy to achieve efficiencies of twice that with conventional electrolysis cells.

    • There is the misconception that gatting a patent for a device is some kind of proof that it works – which is “patently” untrue. The patent office doesn’t test the designs it processes, it is simply a clerical operation where checks are made that the submitted documents meet certain criteria for completeness and correctness. There are a great many patents issued every year for devices that simply do not work. Perpetual energy machine patents are issued on a regular basis yet NONE of them have proven effective under scientific scrutiny.

    • Those observers who claim that the cell was producing far more gas than they’d expect appeared to be taking Meyer’s word for the amount of electrical energy that was being input. He used his own high-frequency modulator to drive the cells and there appears to be no independent testing to determine whether the power levels he claims were actually the power levels being used.

    • There were no independent scientists or others who were prepared to state categorically that Stan Meyer’s technology actually worked as claimed.

    • me November 15, 2013 at 10:47 PM

      @Dan Meyers..

      I take that you now also wanna lay claim that you are the next “Albert Einstein”..?

      IF all else.. KEEP your negative blabber to yourself..!!

    • rick December 9, 2013 at 3:55 PM

      wow, what a tard.

    • Tyler Monson January 21, 2014 at 2:56 AM

      Nice “facts” that you copied and pasted of some website, you are so smart.

    • Kyle Rodd February 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM

      How would he be able to create a working unit if he sold the patent for it to the Saudis?

    • ScaryTurbanWearingSpaceAlienArabJew August 8, 2014 at 6:20 AM

      Awesome work dismantling this horsesh*t Dan.

    • fred November 22, 2014 at 9:33 AM

      “Meyer had no qualifications as a scientist” LOL. And who sir, gives out these qualifications? If you respond with “universities” your a moron.

  5. Anonymous November 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

    That last Guy is a dick.

  6. C. Polly December 4, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    In retrospect, I have lived for a long time hearing all the myths and conspiracies, but none as ever impressed me. This is no different. I spent 20 plus years in the military and the intelligence world. He may have, I do not know.
    I can see the probabilities. Needless of the fact, I wish his idea was workable. Not to hurt the oil companies, or the Arabs, nor to save the environment. I wish it would work for these 2 reasons.
    1… So I can stop paying fuel taxes to the IDIOTS in D.C.

    2… SO I can stop paying for all these FOOLS who whine incessantly at the grand conspiracy of big oil, and the global warming tree huggers who make tons of money in their investment accounts and retirement portfolios on the oil futures markets…..

    • Tyler Monson January 21, 2014 at 3:01 AM

      Good thing you just care about the money you will save and shutting up “tree huggers.” Sorry that some people actually care about the future of our earth you dumb POS

      • fred November 22, 2014 at 9:41 AM

        Theory that unscientifically turned into fact is nothing more than religion. Don’t slam someone because they don’t share your religious belief. Slam them when you provide scientific evidence that oil will destroy the Earth.

        • Jesse May 24, 2015 at 7:47 AM

          Up to 2,500 barrels (105,000 gallons) of petroleum, according to latest estimates, gushed onto San Refugio State Beach and into the Pacific about 20 miles (32 km) west of Santa Barbara on Tuesday when an underground pipeline that runs along the coastal highway inexplicably burst.

  7. Kem December 8, 2013 at 4:01 PM

    So Meyers was not a “real scienstist”? Gee I didn’t know one had to be a scientist to come up with a better mousetrap. Seems I recall a couple of guys named Orville and Wilbur that were bicycle repairmen, but came up with an idea that all said was impossible. Meyers did an on air interview on WTVN radio with Steve Cannon in ’90. He said he was going into production with his invention, and it was going to cost about $3500 to convert a car over to his system.
    How can anyone be so naive as to think that everyone who comes up with ideas that step on big business toes just seem to die, or go insane, or just stop working on their inventions. Tucker was a good example, or remember the Lunstrom metal house?
    I tend to believe that the goverment would bump someone off faster then corrupt big business would if inventions like this get too popular. Every car in the country running on tap water? The government would lose billions in fuel tax. Besides, big oil still has plenty of products to sell based on oil. But no fuel sales would hurt some.
    Check out a guy named Ogle that came up with a 100 mpg 351 Ford. He took reporters with him on a trip from Texas to Arizona and let them witness the working car. Ogle,a mechanic that wouldn’t touch drugs suddenly died of an overdose. Imagine that…
    Check out the Tucker movie starring Jeff Bridges. Martin Landau’s character tells Tucker he built the car too good and would be out of business in a week. Tucker says”isn’t that the idea, to build a better mousetrap”? At which Landau’s character responds with the words which describe what happened to Stanley Meyers, “not when you’re the mouse”. So true, so sad.

    • Navneet A Pandit January 23, 2014 at 3:42 AM

      Hi Ken, Keep up the spirit pal! I would recommand you to read John Bedini of Idaho and his Friend Peter Lindemann. also read the E.V Gray saga a similar tragedy…
      Best Regards,
      from India.

    • Anonymous March 23, 2014 at 12:27 AM

      Fraud. However, with the French auto maker producing and selling their little auto as well as the HHO converters you can add to your present auto for a small $ 200-300 usd or make your own boosting mileage by 20-30%, his concepts were valid.

      • Savvy March 23, 2014 at 10:28 AM

        To Jim.
        With re-structured water, stans expt is possible

    • Anonymous March 23, 2014 at 12:27 AM

      Fraud. However, with the French auto maker producing and selling their little auto as well as the HHO converters you can add to your present auto for a small $ 200-300 usd or make your own boosting mileage by 20-30%, his concepts were valid.

    • Tom October 17, 2014 at 6:22 PM

      I too want this fraudulent claim by Stan Meyer to be over and done. He never delivered on the “conversion of any car for $3500.” He never let any qualified engineers examine the engine in the dune buggy. He was bullshitting, pure and simple.

  8. George D. Todorov December 21, 2013 at 10:22 AM

    30 years ago did build a device which did separated the water into HHO gas. I used it to melt a golden ring i had. I have a few pieces of it as a proof. I never used it to power a car. This gas is very very dangerous. If you rase the pressure it will explode. In my case the spark entered the separator through the tubes and exploded. I was lucky it didn’t killed me. And I stoped playing with it. I don’t think it uses less energy than it gives. I can build it again, if somebody pay for it.

    • AverySays April 2, 2014 at 1:38 PM

      “I have a few pieces of it as a proof.”

      Proof in what universe?
      Proof would be a working prototype.

    • Stanm January 30, 2015 at 1:50 PM

      How much for you to build one? i realize this thread is old, but if you still can let me know

      • Antonio April 28, 2015 at 6:30 AM

        His comment is old, yours is new so here it is: in Italy we call those “microflames”, its nothing more than a water torch, every jeweller, studio, factory and school that teach jewellery making has one or more than one. Its nothing more than an electrolytic cell for the production of oxyhydrogen. The whole concept its known for over a century. Surprisingly when i worked outside of Italy the jewellers did not use them…
        If you dont believe it “Mario di Maio” its a well known company that produces them for the industry, its one of the many names that produces them.
        Claims that they are expensive or that contain platinum are not true, i paid the equivalent of 200$ for the second hand one i have in my own studio, and i can assure you has absolutely no platinum in it.
        Efficient its not, given that it uses electricity to develop the gas and its more energy that you put in than what comes out… but it definitely is convenient and cheap to run when you compare to having to buy and store tanks of gas for soldering.
        Water torches are different than what Stanley Meyer built, the basic principle is similar but he claims to be able split water in an extremely efficient way, much more than a simple electrolytic cell… that its true or not i couldnt say, what i know is that many came to solutions more efficient than gasoline (theres no need to have over 100% return in energy, just more return than gasoline) from a very long time and “somehow” we still pay big bucks to fill our cars with the stuff, anybody can decide on their own why.

        Anyhow water torches can be built to be extremely safe, what Mr Todorov has built probably had no system to prevent flashbacks, likely not even a simple bubbler…

  9. Savvy December 24, 2013 at 7:27 AM

    Looks like stan was telling the truth

  10. Hattra January 12, 2014 at 3:17 PM

    Arabs? Wearing turbans? Sihks wear turbans and they come from India, which doesn’t have any significant oil interests. Whole story is is a load of s**t

    • Anonymous February 22, 2015 at 12:43 AM

      Would you be able to tell an Arab vs a Sikh or a Shiite? I know I couldn’t. So Charlie not knowing the difference does not prove that anything was bull shit!

  11. Navneet A Pandit January 23, 2014 at 3:23 AM

    The world is mostly of Nay sayers…but the truth is out already..its just time to see what strikes and how ..!
    All the naysayres must learn Science and when i say Science I really mean that they should study on their own with out refering acedemic teachings… that will show a world of difference of how they all have been made to run in circles..
    Meyer was and will always be remebered for enlightning the Truth.

  12. Navneet A Pandit January 23, 2014 at 3:34 AM

    I Think Einstein is a mind block in a way..
    How i wish Physics would develop beyond Einstein preachings..!
    Electromagnetism developed the most even before the ‘discovery’ of electron.
    Quantum Physics and Relativity altogether debunked Aetheric Physics.. Tesla for example is the Father for the True Nature of Electromagnetism and perhaps Gravity as well.
    I have personally replicated the Meyer Patents and evolved with some ideas of my own.. its only the when and if and only if the Mankind really is blessed to put it to use.

  13. Jim Wilson February 1, 2014 at 6:34 PM

    Stan Meyer was wrong, and his idea is thermodynamically impossible, and can be proved not to work with math. It takes more energy to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get out of it due to the need to add energy to break intermolecular hydrogen bonds prior to the covalent hydrogen-oxygen bonds being separable. Hydrogen bonding of water molecules occurs as they cool, meaning when water the bonds form energy is not released. All the energy that went into breaking the h-bonds is then wasted. This is not a conspiracy but simply a fact. If you don’t like it quit crying over some conspiracy and go build a working one (but learn how the physical processes work first or you will waste a lot of money).

    • Anonymous March 27, 2014 at 1:20 PM

      Anything is possible but if you set boundaries then your achevements will be narrowed.

    • Ranga April 13, 2014 at 11:54 PM

      This is obviously predominantly a believers website! The water powered car is a nice story people love to believe. I wish it was true, I hate paying for gas! Unfortunately we will never see one.

    • Aj January 16, 2015 at 12:58 PM

      the invention is not about just electrolysis water its about breaking the water molecules with its resonant frequency its possible if you can find the right frequency of water

  14. Dave March 29, 2014 at 11:09 AM

    Give it up, there will always be a certain brain structure that is eager to believe every conspiracy theory they hear. Some of them will actually test the machine STanley designed( or any other similar scam that pops up every so often) and find out for themselves it was ALWAYS a hoax. These people will learn and disappear and maybe post a blog about it somewhere. Then a few years will pass and this same crap will pop up again and a whole new generation of ignorant conspiracy theorists will hop on board in the name of enlightenment….and repeat the process.\
    Ignorance is the only perpetual motion machine.

    • Savvy March 29, 2014 at 3:23 PM

      It is possible with restructured water, as I mentioned b4. However caution is to be exercised with hho, since under certain conditions, it is prone to self compression ignition. But, how would you know this, since I don’t think, you have invented anything more than a fart

      • ScaryTurbanWearingSpaceAlienArabJew August 8, 2014 at 6:27 AM

        Ah yes, of course. Restructured water. I would ask you to define this term, but you would simply decompose your pseudoscientific red herring of a term into a school of smaller, equally meaningless red herrings.

        “Oh yes, restructured water is simply a product of modulating the intrinsic capacity of oxyhydrogenated Brown’s gas. What’s that? You don’t understand what I just said because I just pulled 90% of these words out of my ass? Well what have you ever invented, you turban-wearing, government-boot-licking, oil-drilling naysayer?!”

        And to this I shall have no response, because of course you are right; my Arab overlords have charged me with a secret plot to destroy all environmentally friendly perpetual motion devices before they see the light of day.

        • Ranga August 8, 2014 at 11:54 PM

          Haha! Couldn’t have said it better myself. People who still believe in the water powered car are similar to those folks in the flat earth society!
          How about us naysayers get together and offer a $20 000 prize for someone who can provide a realistic demonstration of a water powered car actually working.
          The test I propose is as follows.
          At least 3000km lapping a race track refuelling of course from a garden hose witnessed by scientists, motoring journalists, sceptics and the inventors themselves.
          At every refuelling stop all present must drink at least 1half litre of what comes out of the hose. (Only water of course!)
          Finally the inventors would be made to stand in a closed garage with the car running for half an hour.
          This will be perfectly safe as the only exhaust from burning hydrogen is water as we all know. It would be just like being in a sauna.
          Imagine if it did pass the test!
          Investors would be lining up and the inventors would become millionaires overnight.
          Sceptics would be silenced forever.
          The world energy crisis would be solved.
          We could even get our 20 grand back and more by investing in the company!
          Strange Stan never came up with a demonstration like this!

        • Savvy August 17, 2014 at 9:49 PM

          Lol, you pulled surprising little out of your ass there mate

          • Ranga August 17, 2014 at 11:43 PM

            Didn’t the late great Stan say it would run on any kind of water even sea water? The only thing Stan was really good at was talking like a used,car salesman! He must have been brilliant as he is still fooling the not so savvy today!

          • Savvy August 18, 2014 at 6:03 AM

            That’s a good point, but then it makes me wonder, why was he poisoned

  15. Steven April 8, 2014 at 4:21 PM

    Focus less on the inventions and more on greedy parasitic capitalism.

  16. Ranga April 13, 2014 at 1:53 AM

    Has anyone you know and trust ever driven a water powered car across the USA filling up from garden hoses and streams the whole way? I can’t believe there are still air heads out there who believe in it. Death threats from the oil industry? Thats a story people love to believe! Mabe if it actually worked. If the water powered car actually worked millions of them would being made now. No car maker would pass up a money making opportunity that good. Get your heads out of the sand folks! There never was a water powered car and there never will be.

    • Savvy April 13, 2014 at 10:18 PM

      Water thru a garden hose or stream water isn’t actually atomically restructured water. So your point is moot, as far as I am concerned

      • Ranga April 13, 2014 at 11:47 PM

        My point is like most great free energy devices nobody credible ever has witnessed them working in a real life situation. This is because none of them actually do work. The inventors are very evasive when asked to allow their devices to be independently tested but this never stops the masses from becoming believers.
        I’ll eat humble pie the day I actually witness a convincing demonstration with my own eyes but somehow I dont thats very likely!!

        • Rockie September 24, 2014 at 4:19 PM

          Ever hear of Nicola Tesla? Do a little research before you open your big mouth. They didn’t kill him but those in power like J.P. Morgan made sure he became obsolete to the world after he invented clean, free, energy. That was one hundred years ago.

          • Ranga September 25, 2014 at 2:53 AM

            Yes I have read all about Nicola Tesla. A great inventor who came up with some good things however he never produced a working model of a free energy device! Every week on you tube another great inventor comes along with something based on some secret plans of Nocola Tesla’s. None of these have ever been seen working anywhere else but on a you tube video! As with water powered cars none have ever stood up to independent scrutiny.
            I am a qualified engineer who has worked in power stations and chemical plants an also studied engines and electric motors. In both lab tests and real life working situations I see plenty of proof that Newton’s laws do apply. I havn’t seen a scrap of
            evidence that proves a free energy device to work.
            To quote Richard Dawkins “keep your mind open but not so open that your brains fall out”

        • WeAreFarmers April 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM

          Why is it you spend your time on here bashing every person who has an opinion to voice. You’re like a basher on a stock message board who tries to bring down a stock just so he can short it. No reason to be here other than some unknown reason or motive. Maybe we do know why you are here. You were paid to be here. Obviously you aren’t the brightest and your gibberish is just gibberish. Either you were paid to be here or some other reason. Stanley Meyer was trying to do something good for humanity. You do know that the higher powers can bribe and corrupt judges/prosecutors to bring fraud allegations to Mr. Meyer right? Or are you just that stupid. To an untrained eye, one might just brush off your comments, but I can tell you have another motive that trying to protect us from false information.

        • RangaIsStupid April 24, 2015 at 2:14 PM

          Im very angry u fart. I just noticed your tactics and wanted to waste my time to call you out. You must have this page bookmarked. U turd.

    • WeAreFarmers April 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM

      Why is it you spend your time on here bashing every person who has an opinion to voice. You’re like a basher on a stock message board who tries to bring down a stock just so he can short it. No reason to be here other than some unknown reason or motive. Maybe we do know why you are here. You were paid to be here. Obviously you aren’t the brightest and your gibberish is just gibberish. Either you were paid to be here or some other reason. Stanley Meyer was trying to do something good for humanity. You do know that the higher powers can bribe and corrupt judges/prosecutors to bring fraud allegations to Mr. Meyer right? Or are you just that stupid. To an untrained eye, one might just brush off your comments, but I can tell you have another motive that trying to protect us from false information.

  17. Daniel Donatelli April 14, 2014 at 2:22 AM

    A Car in US Get 20 MG
    The Same Car in Germany Gets 45 mpg

    Your Getting Worked People and you still arguing about the basics

    The fact you can have a hydrogen car and fuel it like you do gasoline from a station is well known

    That Station can make hydrogen on the spot and store it ready for you to buy at half the price and with out poisioning the air you have to breath.

    You have demand demand change as you the ones loosing out.

  18. Daniel Donatelli April 14, 2014 at 2:26 AM


    This is a out line of basic ready to buy hydrogen car running on metal hydride tan fueling at a solar station just same as Germany is already using and running % of the country on.

    Hydrogen Holden Commodore this was provided by secure supplies
    Hydrogen Powered Commodore

    fig. 1. The Commodore after it’s first Hydrogen road test.
    While I have an interest in cars, it is not an all-encompassing interest, just one of many interests. I am actually very narrow minded with cars- I am really only interested in one brand, Holden! I suppose it is because I grew up with Holdens. They were always big, comfortable, reliable and uniquely Australian. Another interest I have is alternative fuels. I believe that one day we will either run out or not be able to afford petroleum fuels, meaning that hundreds of millions of petrol driven cars could be rendered useless to their owners unless we can convert them to operate on a new, sustainable fuel.
    Converting a car to run on Hydrogen is a passion that I have had since I was quite young. The idea of being self-reliant and creating my own hydrogen fuel from water through electrolysis and then powering my car on it, no longer relying on petrol companies has always been a dream. I also like the fact that a vehicle running on hydrogen emits mainly steam from the exhaust. Assuming the power used to obtain the hydrogen is produced in an environmentally friendly manner, cars powered by hydrogen actually improve the surrounding air quality, because pollutants in the air are burnt inside the engine and no new pollutants are produced. This is why hydrogen powered internal combustion cars are sometimes called “minus emission vehicles”.
    fig.2. the exhaust is mainly harmless steam
    In 2003 my father handed over the keys to his 1980 Holden VC commodore, the goal was to “do it up”. I decided that the VC would become my first attempt at a hydrogen conversion.
    The plan
    While the VC was 26 years old, the aim was that the conversion could be applied to almost any petrol driven car, including modern fuel-injected types. The conversion also needed to be as safe as possible and with minimal tendency to ‘ping’ (pre-ignite the hydrogen fuel). The car was also to be a ‘dual fuel’ conversion, meaning it could switch between hydrogen and petrol.
    While cars have previously been converted by introducing hydrogen into the air intake, this method is flawed as it creates a large volume of mixed hydrogen and air inside the intake manifold. Due to the extremely high flame speed of hydrogen, this is dangerous for the engine, as any pre-ignition event could cause a very large “backfire” inside the manifold, frightening everyone nearby and damaging the engine. Pre-ignition is one of the main problems with hydrogen, as the flame speed is faster than that of any hydrocarbon fuel, if the ignition timing is not set at top dead centre right through the rev range, the flame front inside the cylinder will burn back through the still partially open intake valves and ignite any fuel/air mix inside the manifold. This is not the only thing that can cause backfiring, even before it is ignited the hydrogen can self-ignite when entering the cylinders, just from contact with a “hot spot” inside the cylinder. This is one reason why it was decided to use a sequentially injected system on the car. This would involve using specially made “gas” fuel injectors, one for each cylinder, and each “firing” just before it’s corresponding intake valve opens. In addition, the ignition timing would need to be able to be altered from inside the cabin both when tuning the car, and when changing between hydrogen and petrol fuel. Compressed hydrogen would be used, initially obtained from a local gas supplier.. Two “E” size cylinders fit in the boot easily and these are filled to just over 2000 psi giving a range of around 30km just enough for testing purposes.
    The conversion
    The first part of the conversion involved extensive modification of the ignition system. The existing ignition system on a VC is a conventional one for 1980; a distributor, reluctor system, using a single coil and a rotor button to distribute the high tension to each of the six spark plugs. Timing is controlled by weights inside the distributor that, by centrifugal force, rotate the reluctor assembly, advancing the timing as rpm increases. This works well when running on petrol, however to run on hydrogen, there needs to be no ignition advance. Additionally, the sequential fuel injection system needs to know the position of the engine at all times to enable the correct injector to fire at the right time, and this engine, being a carburetor engine, has no sensors to determine engine position. This meant removing most of the existing ignition system, retaining the distributor and reluctor only as an engine position sensor. The centrifugal weights were clamped so they could not move, and an optical sensor was fitted to the distributor case. The only function of the rotor button now is to trigger the optical sensor.
    fig. 3. Modified distributor. Arrow indicates optical sensor.
    This optical sensor now gives a reference signal, and the existing reluctor provides the six “firing points” needed to determine the position of the engine. These signals are fed into a “sequencer box”, which drives six separate ignition coils. This consists of a PCB containing logic circuitry, which drives two, 3 channel coil driver devices, pictured in fig.4. This also provides the signals used to drive the fuel injection system.
    fig. 4. sequencer box which drives the six coils
    fig. 5. the six ignition coils can be seen here.
    The ignition advance is controlled by a PIC based controller inside the cabin, which has two pre-set programs- one firing at T.D.C across the rev range for hydrogen fuel, and one giving the advance curve needed for petrol operation. These programs can be changed with the push of a button.

    fig. 6. the PIC based device used for ignition timing control.
    Next, the fuel injection system was constructed. The fuel injectors were ordered from a company in the U.S.A. They are specially designed for gaseous fuels, and can be used with hydrogen, compressed natural gas (C.N.G) and propane. They are rated at 80 psi input pressure for hydrogen, and are “peak and hold” type injectors, meaning they need a special type of driver which delivers full (6 amps) current initially to open the injector, then reduces the current to 1 amp to hold the injector open for the rest of it’s “open” cycle. A special mounting bracket was fabricated to accommodate the fuel injectors, along with the fuel rail, which was salvaged from a later model Commodore that featured fuel injection.
    fig. 7. two of the fuel injectors and fuel rail.
    Ports for the fuel injectors were machined from brass plumbing fittings and ¼” copper tubes carry the hydrogen from the fuel injectors, through the intake manifold and to within 2 cm of the intake valves. What this means is that, because the injector will only fire when it’s intake valve opens, there is minimal mixing of hydrogen and air within the intake manifold, which minimizes the extent of any pre-ignition event.
    fig. 8. here the ¼”tubes carrying hydrogen fuel can be seen.
    The injection system is controlled by a potentiometer which is connected to the throttle cable; when the throttle is depressed, the potentiometer reduces the voltage supplied to a voltage controlled oscillator (V.C.O), and this reduces the frequency of the square wave output of the V.C.O. The cable is an additional throttle cable which works in parallel with the original throttle cable.
    fig. 9. potentiometer attached to throttle cable. Mounted to firewall.
    This V.C.O signal is fed to the injection control box, which consists of flip-flops and counters. When an injector is fired, a flip-flop is set and stays set until it’s counter has received 128 pulses from the V.C.O, when the flip-flop is reset and the injector is turned off. If the V.C.O frequency is reduced (throttle pedal depressed), those 128 pulses take longer to occur and so the injector stays open longer. This is how throttling is accomplished. Fine tuning of the V.C.O is possible using the controls inside the car and this allows for idle speed and throttle range adjustment.
    fig. 10. peak and hold injector driver and control box.
    fig. 11. injection control box with cover removed.
    Solenoid valves are used to turn the petrol and hydrogen supplies on and off when necessary.. These are operated from the fuel selection switch in the cabin.
    fig. 12. V.C.O box in centre console.
    The hydrogen fuel cylinders are mounted laterally in the boot in special brackets, which hold the cylinders securely. The regulators mount directly to the cylinders and are two stage regulators, set at 80 psi. 10 mm I.D hose carries the hydrogen up to the fuel rail under the bonnet.
    fig. 12. cylinders mounted in boot.
    fig. 13. dual stage regulator.

    The VC was test driven on hydrogen and after some adjustment of fuel injection timing it performed well. As expected the power was approx 80% of that when running on petrol. The VC was driven at over 110 km/h and on flat roads achieved 13-15 km per cylinder of Hydrogen. When the engine is hot and under heavy acceleration, some pre-ignition is still occasionally apparent, however it is not severe and the future planned is to add a water injection system which should solve this entirely. A further plan is to test the car on C.N.G as this is currently the most feasible alternative fuel in this country, and the idea of filling the car with C.N.G at home is appealing.
    fig. 14. first test run on hydrogen fuel.
    This project took almost three years to complete due mainly to other commitments and projects happening along the way. It was a learning process and it has paved the way to creating a fairly economical conversion system which, in the future, can be utilised to convert other, newer vehicles. On the subject of cost, here are some figures for the higher cost items in Australian dollars;-
    6x gas injectors: $1200peak and hold driver: $4002x ignition coil drivers: $4006x ignition coils: $3602x dual stage hydrogen regulators: $800
    total $3160
    All other major parts for the conversion were designed and constructed by the author, so the main cost here was time, however the remaining parts / materials cost would be no more than another $1000, so the total cost of the project was approx $4160.
    As mentioned earlier, while the conversion was primarily designed for use with hydrogen fuel, it is equally suited to operation on C.N.G, a fuel which is plentiful in Australia. Unfortunately, it seems Australia is a country of governments whom are reluctant to embrace change, presenting a big challenge to any new or developing technology. While other countries encourage the use of C.N.G in cars, it is an unknown fuel in this country, and while there are hydrogen refueling stations in the U.S to encourage research and improvement of these types of cars, the Australian government has just decided to offer a $2000 rebate to anyone converting their car to liquid propane gas just because petrol prices have gone up!… An abhorrent waste of money, which could be spent with a view beyond the next election. For these reasons, some specialized parts (i.e. the injectors) were impossible to obtain locally, as there is no automotive hydrogen or C.N.G industry here.
    However, when we do finally move away from petroleum fuels and hydrogen does become readily available, this type of conversion will mean motorists will be able to continue driving their internal combustion vehicles, and all of the energy and materials put into their manufacture will not be wasted.

    Special notes about this

    He changes the accelerator to digital

    He is using tanks,
    he does not use restricted air intake but he should
    w\he could remove tanks and make hydrogen on demand joing with air intake ionizer

    This clearly show it works fine and all parts are off the shelf and affordable.

    DO not believe the bs you being fed and the gas price you paying

  19. Fredthesleeppinggiant May 8, 2014 at 10:04 PM

    well it is good to conspire about what we hear. i personally believe that cars powered by water is possible.
    Most articles mentioned that the ideas are tested on existing engine designs which are specifically for combustible fuel hence making it unsustainable for such inventions to be included in the design. what i suggest is that inventors should came up with a completely new engine design that would only process water to run a vehicle, and this can be fitted into existing vehicle bodies.
    As they say “NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE TO THE ONE WHO BELIEVES” therefore if we believe that it exists then i know we will STUMBLE upon the idea.

  20. Roy Hepburn July 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM

    where cought i purchase Stanley Hydrogen Kit?

  21. lakawak August 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM

    Why do you say his work “if proved valid…” when it was proven to be jus the OPPOSITE of that. There is no discussion on this. IT was proven to be a fraud. So trying to argue otherwise is like arguing that 2+2=5.

  22. Brian November 11, 2014 at 1:23 PM

    It could run faster if it was fusion-powered. http://youtu.be/u8n7j5k-_G8

  23. Tony Catalioto December 10, 2014 at 2:36 PM

    Look up Tom Ogle. He developed and proved a car can travel 100miles to the gallon. During this time Scientist working for Shell Oil took Mr. Ogle’s design and improved the mileage to 149mpg.Shell also published the information in a hand book. I hope you lookup this information and take note of the year this technology was buried. You will be surprised!

    • Ranga December 13, 2014 at 11:58 PM

      Water powered cars, 100mpg carburettors, free enrergy motors, quantum energy generators! All complete fantasy!
      I know there are hundreds of articles claiming these things work.
      none of them have ever passed an indipendent test. If they actually did work they would be rediculously easy to prove.
      You will see loads of you tube clips but you will never see any of these things work in real life because none of them actually do work!
      The auto industry has invested billions on developing cars which do have 2 to 3 times the fuel efficiency of your average american clunker from the 70s. Do you really believe they would ignore an invention as incredible as a carburettor which would give an old clunker 100mpg fuel economy?
      Tom Ogle had a serious drug and gambeling addictions. I havnt seen anything to convince me that his magic carburettor actually worked. Just another dreamer or conman like Stan Meyer.

      • WeAreFarmers April 24, 2015 at 11:58 AM

        Why is it you spend your time on here bashing every person who has an opinion to voice. You’re like a basher on a stock message board who tries to bring down a stock just so he can short it. No reason to be here other than some unknown reason or motive. Maybe we do know why you are here. You were paid to be here. Obviously you aren’t the brightest and your gibberish is just gibberish. Either you were paid to be here or some other reason. Stanley Meyer was trying to do something good for humanity. You do know that the higher powers can bribe and corrupt judges/prosecutors to bring fraud allegations to Mr. Meyer right? Or are you just that stupid. To an untrained eye, one might just brush off your comments, but I can tell you have another motive that trying to protect us from false information.

      • Antonio April 28, 2015 at 7:43 AM

        There are many things better than gasoline, the fact they arent used had nothing to do with working or not… The auto industry engineers have to work on gasoline engines, period… they often build prototypes using other solutions and keep them at that concept car level, they arent all ignorant of other possibilities, they are simply not convenient for them.
        Think Stirling engines: the Swedish and Norvegian navy use them on their boats and submarines, they work and are more efficient than a diesel… yet your average tanker wont use them…
        Its not what works and doesnt work its what convenient to build or not, and often convenience takes in account the wallets of a few.
        On the other hand nothing we do has no consequences, even if we found a way to pluck energy out of thin air like an “all you can eat buffet” at one point the bill will come, its up to us to figure out how expensive thats gonna be… nothing is ever completely free. Gasoline was a throwaway byproduct of oil refinement to obtain kerosene back in the day, some smart guys like Rockefeller saw an avenue to use that waste as fuel, Ford used it in his cars because it was cheap waste, only in 1909-10 gasoline became the main reason to refine crude oil… they never thought it would have impacted nature to this point, thats the failure of it.

        You people will keep arguing and insulting eachother forever, in the meantime the same big guys keep getting richer. Plans for this stuff are all over the place, it doesnt take a genius to build them, so put them together. People like Ranga will change their mind when they see it with their own eyes.
        I wonder how someone goes yelling about conspiracies and all these “bad people” when they dont admit that everybody has the right to believe what they prefer based on what they know.
        If youre not able to have a discussion without calling eachother names you arent much different than the big powers or the scammers you despise so much and are just limiting helpful exchanges of information for everybody else

  24. Floretta Denooyer December 15, 2014 at 10:34 AM

    What i do not realize is in fact how you’re not actually a lot more smartly-liked than you may be right now. You are so intelligent. You already know therefore considerably in relation to this subject, produced me for my part consider it from a lot of varied angles. Its like men and women aren’t interested except it’s one thing to do with Woman gaga! Your own stuffs great. Always deal with it up!

  25. Chrisis December 20, 2014 at 6:14 PM

    Before debating, look at two main things: “human nature” and “human history”. I would say that up to certain extend, both “parties” have a valid point of view. I’m an inventor myself (not a millionaire yet :)) and driven by the same basic human nature: money. I would like to make lots of money from my inventions, but with an invention like the one in topics, honestly, I would secretly test it to perfection, making sure that any person can fabricate it and than I’ll try to give it to humanity for free and at once, to surprise those who oppose “free energy” or the “money grabbers”. I wouldn’t want not even fame.
    One big issue with this scenario: The social impact it can be huge in negative way: global economy going into chaos because of jobs loss in many industries oil and transport related resulting in riots and eventually war. If I will be that “inventor”, because of the “human nature”, instead of the “Word savior”I’ll be the most hated person on earth for what I caused. Even if we are there or near there about FREE ENERGY, my conclusion is this: WE ARE NOT READY YET.

    • Savvy December 20, 2014 at 10:34 PM

      If you invent something like this, you will end up like Stanley whether you give it away for free or not.
      On another note lets take a good look at free energy. Free energy is not a feature of our universe as
      energy = work done x time or energy = kw x time. so unless you stop time, you will not get free energy in a million years.

  26. John Doe January 3, 2015 at 12:51 AM

    I have a mild interest in this. I don’t understand most of what I just read but after reading this thread of comments I did notice this: Ranga is an angry person who spends way too much time on here for someone who thinks its all bull plop. He/she obviously has some alterior motive on this issue or otherwise wouldn’t be so obsessed.

  27. Ranga January 4, 2015 at 12:07 AM

    I’m not an angry person with an alterior motive at all. If you know something is a fraud or hoax telling the world about it is being helpful to people.
    I am totally in favor of alternative energy systems which actually work like solar, wind, water wheels hybrid technology and fully support any new idea that has some substance however I have no time for fraudsters who try and make money out of an invention which will never work and believe these people deserve to be taken down with a bit of informed sarcasm!

    • WeAreFarmers April 24, 2015 at 11:58 AM


      Why is it you spend your time on here bashing every person who has an opinion to voice. You’re like a basher on a stock message board who tries to bring down a stock just so he can short it. No reason to be here other than some unknown reason or motive. Maybe we do know why you are here. You were paid to be here. Obviously you aren’t the brightest and your gibberish is just gibberish. Either you were paid to be here or some other reason. Stanley Meyer was trying to do something good for humanity. You do know that the higher powers can bribe and corrupt judges/prosecutors to bring fraud allegations to Mr. Meyer right? Or are you just that stupid. To an untrained eye, one might just brush off your comments, but I can tell you have another motive that trying to protect us from false information.

      • Ranga April 24, 2015 at 12:20 PM

        Wow! I’ve obviously made you really angry. You’ve replied 4 time. I’m very sorry! Go right ahead and invest your money in the latest free energy device. I think it’s the Quantum Energy Generator! You are obviously far more intelligent than me!

        • RangaIsStupid April 24, 2015 at 2:13 PM

          Im very angry u fart. I just noticed your tactics and wanted to waste my time to call you out. You must have this page bookmarked. U turd.

    • RangaIsStupid April 24, 2015 at 2:14 PM

      Im very angry u fart. I just noticed your tactics and wanted to waste my time to call you out. You must have this page bookmarked. U turd.

      • Ranga April 24, 2015 at 2:27 PM

        Insulting your opponent is very considered very poor tactics in a debate!

  28. Aj January 17, 2015 at 4:02 AM

    any thing is possible. new discoverys and new inventions have taken fuel cells to another stage, theres so many kinds of fuel cells from hydrogen to enzymes have been discovered. its not really very far for a water fuel cell. every technology have developed into something better for example phone became mobile phone but for 110 years combation engine technology have never changed why? electric and hydrogen cars been around for many years why no government is really interested in adopting? i believe dr andrija puharich and stanley meyer resonant frequency generator really works

  29. Opticr January 29, 2015 at 9:35 PM

    Ranga, of course powering an auto with water is possible, as dissociation produces hydrogen and oxygen which can then be burned in an ICE as Donatelli detailed in ad nausem. But, (always a fly in the ointment of true believers in free energy) as you have pointed out, an exterior source of energy is required as the dissociation and recombination has a net energy loss…..maybe a huge solar concentrating umbrella with zero wind resistance and a concentrating PV panel, with a big enough hydrogen storage capacity so the car would run at night……riiiiiiight, that would work…..

    Please, however, don’t quote Richard Dawkins….he’s an idiot.

  30. Dean Mitchener January 31, 2015 at 9:05 AM

    I agree with John Doe about Ranga, so much smoke generally means some fire. I have read most of the comments here and agree that traditional scientists will tend not to believe that the net energy from Stanley’s water cell was efficient. Well that assumes that folks are emulating his design correctly and that there is nothing strange about water.

    We know water behaves differently to all other substances and doesn’t behave as our modern science predicts it should. It is bipolar and expands when most others contract. There are many more differences that make water uniquely special.

    It is a well known fact that Stanley did not release his completed design. His patents were flawed by design but enough for legal challenges. For arguments sake, no one here has mentioned using lasers in his design which those of us who took this seriously a few years ago, know he used.

  31. Rick June 4, 2015 at 7:48 PM

    I am not a believer that at this time there is any way known publicly to cost effectively separate hydrogen and oxygen from water using electrolysis. However I am not about to say it will and can never happen. As much as some people love to believe science of every type has been fully discovered and is totally correct at this time never to be found wanting are as ignorant or more so than some that believe all these things are possible. The people that pull out the flat earth society to ridicule those they feel ignorant was indeed first espoused by the people of science at the time. It took people thinking outside the box at the time to say the earth was a sphere. When flight was first discussed there were some in science that postulated that if one rose to high in a balloon one would be cast into space because they would be higher than gravity, the reason they never saw birds beyond a certain height. Nearly everything science has ever known has over time been fine tuned and changed as time changes and knowledge increases.
    Another thing I don’t understand is why it is so important for people to write on a site they disagree with and feel the people posting too ignorant to waste time with, yet seem to take great pride in taking the time to belittle and pump up their own self importance and how intelligent they want others to feel they are.
    I do not claim anything other than being willing to listen and read others thoughts on things like energy production. After all it was not that long ago it was considered foolish to consider nuclear power obtainable because the cost of the power need to split the atom was far greater than any return could be expected. Before the development of heavy water and some other things it seemed impossible. I am old enough to have seen enough of what was considered impossible happen. Landing on the moon, a manned space station, a machine that can boil water in seconds. As I was taught years ago never say never :)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>