Stanley Meyer free energy superstar murdered


Daily Brain Freeze – Stanley Meyer was an independent inventor and former NASA employee who designed and built a motor that ran completely on water, highlighting his technology with a water-powered dune buggy.

gfgHis revolutionary car was recorded many times on film and Television. Meyer was recognized by national and international organizations, and was elected inventor of the year in “Who’s Who of America” in 1993.

Meyer also received substantial support from Canada, England, and Sweden. His focus on water as fuel began in 1975, a year after the end of the Arab oil embargo, which had triggered high gas prices, gas-pump lines and anxiety.

It’s concept
is that the atomic composition of water makes it a perfect fuel source. The water molecule is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, and when the water molecule is separated into its component elements (H and O) and oxidized as fuel, the resulting energy is two and a half times more powerful than gasoline, and the emissions are little more then water vapor.

All previous research was problematic in how to deconstitute water economically. Traditional methods of separating the water molecule resulted in failure. To power a car, these methods would not propel a car very far; the car’s electrical system could not recharge from the process quickly enough, the result being a quickly drained battery. After thirty years of research, Meyer discovered a workable method of on-board hydrogen electrolysis, creating a motor which performed at an efficiency of 100 miles per gallon but using water.

#Stanley Meyer SuperStarMeyer was told the military wanted to use this technology in tanks and jeeps. He had patents, and was ready for production. He also said he had been offered a billion dollars from an Arab to shelf his idea, but he declined the offer.

    Meyer died suddenly on March 27, 1998, aged 57, at a local restaurant. Meyer ran out yelling that he had been poisoned, he had died shortly after.


Stephen Meyer recalls the events of that evening — “Stanley 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?’ ” Stephen recalled. “He shouted, ‘They poisoned me!’ That was his dying declaration.”

Stanley Meyer’s bizarre death at age 57 ended work that, if proved valid, could have ended reliance on fossil fuels.People who knew him say his work drew worldwide attention: mysterious visitors from overseas, government spying and lucrative buyout offers.

Meyers death (March 21, 1998) sparked a three-month investigation that consumed and fascinated Grove City police, but in the end, the coroner’s report listed the cause of death as a brain aneurysm.

Meyer’s death was laced with all sorts of stories of conspiracy, cloak-and-dagger stories,” said Grove City Police Lt. Steve Robinette, lead detective on the case.

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.”

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and please share!


15 comments on “Stanley Meyer free energy superstar murdered
  1. mustafa sezgin says:

    I think the laws of science can be improved. Technology is moving. Parallel to this, new laws may also be issued. Meyer. He may have found a different law. It is also possible to throw HHO in a known way, either by electrolysis or by heating.
    If you add a small amount of hydrogen in normal gasoline, the combustion efficiency increases. Torque rises in the car. It’s burning less fuel. With only 24 W of electric power. You can reduce fuel consumption by 20%.
    My idea is to generate H2 from water and apply it to the 4-cycle motor, it can develop electric cells from water and make electric motor instead of motor. Electric motors yield 2 times more than propeller motors ..

    Bence bilim kanunları daha da gelişebilir. Teknoloji ilerliyor. Buna paralel olarak yeni kanunlar da çıkabilir. Meyer. Farklı bir kanun bulmuşta olabilir. Bilinen yöntemle HHO yu atırmak ya elektroliz ya ısı töntemi ile de olabiliyor.
    Normal benzin içerisine az miktar Hidrojen katarsanız yanma verimi artıyor. Araçta tork yükseliyor. Daha az yakıt yakıyor. Sadece 24 W elektrik erjisi ile. %20 yakıt tüketimi azaltabiliyorsunuz.
    Benim düşüncem sudan H2 üretip 4 zamanlı motora uygulamaktansa , sudan elektrik elde edilecek hücreleri geliştirip patlar motor yerine elektrik motoru kıllanılabilir. Elektrik motorlarında verim patlar motorlara göre 2 katı..

  2. Catman says:

    One known concept that is being danced around here is catalytic action. The activation energy for any reaction may be reached in a more or less efficient way, with the right catalyst the required activation energy is lowered. There is no violation of the second law because a complete accounting including entropic factors will show a highly efficient input of energy to transform H20 into its constituents at a higher energy state which can then react yielding energy to return to the lower energy state in the combined form water.

  3. Joe dman says:

    Has “60 Minutes” ever done a story about Stan?

  4. Scott says:

    I am writing a book about this topic. I am not a scientist or a believer or disbeliever. I simply want to find the facts and tell the story. Please email me your comments and I am particularly interested in those that had first-hand experience with the “water car”. Thank you.

  5. Digels says:

    Laws of nature cannot be broken. But forces, going there and back, with impact 0 (zero) over all, can be be directed and bundled. Then they have impact. Stanley has found something like that.

  6. Deepthinker says:

    I don’t understand how this breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Separating water is not creating energy it is simply processing the fuel into a useable state. Crude is not in a natural usable state. Is refining oil or removing it from the ground breaking the 2nd law also? Yet all mainstream, nonthinking people immediately bring up the 2nd law and act like they know it all as soon as its brought up. Almost as if they were conditioned under hypnosis to do so. Oh yeah that’s what television does to people. Watch The Men Who Built America on history channel. Even though they sugar coat it you can see the lengths the men who control industry will go through to maintain their position. They also state plainly that these men who were bitter rivals eventually started working together against the people to keep their power and inhibit competition and a level playing field. Yet its all crazy conspiracy theory to the mindless drones. At the end they talk about how in their old age they spent their fortunes on “philanthropy”. Yeah right. All those nonprofits they started are all for the purpose of mind controlling the public so they would never again get together and demand the monopoly men be held accountable.

    • Steven says:

      Exactly and why I included this conspiracy. I have found the same with formally educated people especially government employed people who are hired based on their ability to do and think dependently, to have tunnel vision. And in their world this is breaking the law of thermodynamics simply cause they are told this by their superiors whom they completely trust. But a free thinker looks at them and thinks “really” lol…. But yes your right, it does not beak any laws, nor does science even begin to know all the laws but this one is simple, as there is tens of thousands of ways to separate molecules, and each way is either more or less efficient then another way, for example, does direct current separate them better or worse then AC, does fast jolts of energy work better or worse then a slow stream of energy, chemicals can also change the rate of change, so can the mineral content in the water, is it high in sodium or iron, which works best? What about introduction a magnetic charge into the mix, everything you do will change the efficiency of separation. There is nothing that says it takes more energy to separate then it can make. Even heat will change the result so its a remarkably ignorant thing to claim when there are infinite variables.

    • arvin says:

      The thing is that water in its natural state is not a high energy compound. Think about it, when you burn HHO, you produce water and RELEASE energy… So to go the other way around u have to put in the same amount of energy. So this is a cycle – it can’t output energy to drive the car and make its own fuel again.

      Oil, however is already in a high-energy state, hence why even crude oil is flammable. When you refine crude oil, all your doing is isolating one the compounds in it – which already has energy. And when u burn petrol, you produce C02 and H20, and they are released into the atmosphere – they don’t then get recycled back into the exact same amount of petrol that u start with – doing this would also break the law of thermodynamics.

      Please note that I don’t doubt ‘free-energy’ could be possible. It has been proven mathematically that you can get ‘something’ for ‘nothing’ (search up the banak-tarski theorem). However, achieving this will probably require many centuries more of research and more funding into science as it will probably be quantum mechanical in nature.

      • Deepthinker says:

        Not everything works in a perfect equal cycle. It takes more energy to evaporate water than is released when it condenses. I don’t think just because traditional electrolysis is inefficient everyone should be discouraged from trying to find a different way to break the compound. Using Tesla coils and resonant frequency seems like a plausible prospect to me. There hasn’t really been a breakthrough in electrical generation since Tesla. He believed everyone could have free power and I believe he knew how to deliver it but he was at the mercy of the bankers who just invested a fortune in the already outdated electrical distribution system.

      • Elan says:

        The Banach-Tarski paradox depends on axioms of choice in set theory. So the volumes and cuts described have no correspondence to physical reality. The fact that these results are not engineer-able has absolutely nothing to do with lacking technology and everything to do with the difference between the geometry of the physical world and many of geometries that are possible under mathematical frameworks.

    • Elan says:

      Your comparison between the refinement of crude oil to usable fuel and Meyer’s claims is flawed. Tons of energy is put into refining crude. As an example, at the bottom of a distillation column (one of the units used in the process), there is typically a reboiler that uses some kind of fuel. So, the separation of the components that comprise crude into various products is heat-intensive. Also, as materials flow through the pipes and units throughout the plant, there are associated pumping costs; again energy in, products out. Nothing here is free (1st law of thermodymics). In fact, it can be demonstrated that efficiency is always < 100% (2nd law of thermodynamics. Meyer, on the other hand, has a device that is purported to output more energy than is put in (violating both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics). To be specific, the device used electrolysis, a well-established demonstrable process wherein a direct electric current (DC) is used to drive an otherwise non-spontaneous chemical reaction (paraphrased from "A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state." ( In contrast, a non-spontaneous process will not occur without energy input, indeed the energy input is always greater than the work accomplished. Put simply, water is very happy to be H-O-H because it is totally chilled out in that state. It's not gonna' form H2 without a certain amount of energy input. Now if you put a fire up its ass (in the anology this involves an electrical current), it will indeed form H2 can be burned to generate heat, and in turn work. But an electrical current is energy input. The claims of super-efficient electrolysis are WOULD require a violation of both the first and second law of thermodynamics. Now, I don't want to debate whether are not such a thing is possible. I just wish to establish that it would be required for Meyer's claims to be true. I have a degree in chemical engineering so I had to learn a lot of thermodynamics. I am not saying this to pull general rank, but only with respect to my knowledge of the thermodynamics and its claims. I know a perpetual motion machine when I see it. Now, again that doesn't mean that the laws of thermodynamics are necessarily true. It just means that, if they are, this device is fake. But if you think that all the scientists (degree'd ones anyway) are all wet, then why should it matter to you that Meyer's device violates their b.s. theories? If you think that fringe science is the real science, why concern yourself with their objections to what you believe to be real and substantiated? Why not go for the gold, so to speak? The gold I refer to is the holy grail of perpetual motion. Don't sell yourself short. If this device works, it is nothing less than that holy grail.

  7. Alex Smith says:

    Stan Meyer was probably the most thorough water fuel inventor and his designs simply work. I purchased my own Stan Meyer circuit at . As usual, if a regular citizen attempts to use something simple yet effective, they are poisoned like Stan Meyer in Cracker Barrel. Eventually the technology will come out – threats and suppression from a greedy, control obsessed murderous government will not work forever…

    • Steven says:

      Like all things of science there are hundreds of ways to make something work or not work, remember there are infinite variables, additives, various types of electricity, and various strength pulses and frequencies, which all affect the performance in some way thus the importance of the processor circuit, which would also be nice if it could be tunable. You should also keep finding ways to improve on it cause this is still in the infancy stage and you are a pioneer in this now. This reality also makes it ridiculous for anyone to make a conclusion that this won’t work, skeptics are not scientists. They are only the inhibitors of science. I hope your successful in your project, and I hope you will send me the results when you are I’d love to witness it.

  8. World should Change to Hydrogen on Demand here is the Diy Guide open source.

Leave a Reply