Another perfect example of hypocrisy- No quotes. See, you do the same thing as everyone does - we copy and paste. If the quotes are in the original article, then they're in the post. And to think a guy that doesn't know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE trying to give grammar/plagarism lessons... LMAO...
This is not the first time an invention of such extraordinary level has been claimed. Look at how many times people have claimed turning water into gasoline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_pill It wouldn't surprise me that this one also turns out to be a fraud.
Feel better to get that off your chest, Big Guy? For someone who doesn't even register on Haroki's radar, I seemed to draw quite a reaction. Haven't I? Everyone can see right through your thinly-veiled, pious bullshit. After crowning yourself champion of 'good character' and 'fair play', you turn around and spew slanderous lies and contemptuous innuendo every step of the way. Until today, I respected you as someone who sought the truth and played fair. I was wrong. If the results of your haphazard psychoanalysis prove anything - its that you're full of shit. You haven't a clue about me. But thanks for showing YOUR true colors. Bye Forest.
Everyone can see what an ass you've made of yourself. Please, please go away. Find another thread to spam with your asinine rants.
It already has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell "In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. According to The Times, Meyer claimed in court that his invention "opened the way for a car which would 'run on water', powered simply by a car battery." The car would even run perpetually without fuel since the energy needed to continue the "fracturing" was low enough for the engine's dynamo to recharge the car's battery. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed. 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". On the basis of the evidence the court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay the investors their $25,000." Uhhh...No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell "Stanley Meyer died at the age of 57 after eating at a restaurant on 21 March 1998. An autopsy report by Franklin County coroner William R. Adrion showed the cause of death to be a cerebral aneurysm"
Except! Several UK Scientist and the US Patent Board previously found Meyers had developed something revolutionary: "In a demonstration made before Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of Engineering at Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr Keith Hindley, a UK research chemist. Meyer's cell, developed at the inventor's home in Grove City, Ohio, produced far more hydrogen/oxygen mixture than could have been expected by simple electrolysis... "After hours of discussion between ourselves, we concluded that Stan Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method for splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical electrolysis. Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established." "The basic WFC was subjected to three years of testing. This raises the granted patents to the level of independent, critical, scientific and engineering confirmation that the devices actually perform as claimed." http://www.angelfire.com/sd/paulkemble/stan4.html At best, its inconclusive based on independent testing. Not as cut and dried as you position it. Not at all. As far as his death comment, that was already corrected in earlier in the thread.