Stephen Meyer Interview Part 3 (4-7-2007)

Stephen Meyer Interview Part 3 (4-7-2007)

JR = James Robey
SM = Stephen Meyer

Transcribed from the recording by machine (OpenAI Whisper, turbo model), with the speakers told apart by machine (pyannote speaker diarisation) and the result read through for obvious faults, but not checked word by word against the audio. Time marks in italics are minutes into the recording. Part 1 is the transcript the old site carried; parts 2 to 6 were transcribed for this archive in September 2026 from the MP3s the old site linked.

JR: (0:00) Hello, and welcome to the Saturday night broadcast from the Kentucky Waterfuel Museum. Today is April 7th, and we have for the third time a very special guest, Stephen Meyer, a widely known waterfuel device inventor, industrial troubleshooter, and general problem solver. Are you with us there, Stephen?

SM: I am. I am. By the way, Happy Easter to all.

JR: Okay, very good. It's very nice to have you back.

SM: Thank you very much.

JR: It's, I have to say, the third one-hour presentation that we have together, and maybe we can get to some of the nitty-gritty here. For instance, in the previous shows, you've mentioned that one of your specialties in your work was jet engines, and I've been meaning to ask you this and haven't got around to it, but I was just reading this past week that one of the major contributors to atmospheric pollution is our jet travel, which is very convenient and allows us to get places quickly and quite necessary at times for business and family emergencies and whatnot. But all of us who travel by jet airplane should be aware of the damage that's being done to the environment as we do so.

And apparently this, the report that I just read said the reason why it is so damaging is because it's directly injecting this pollution into the upper atmosphere, unlike automobiles, which are doing it down lower. I don't know if you're aware of any of this kind of...

SM: Well, it is. The consumption of a jet engine, as you can imagine, is really tremendous on our atmosphere. And what happens is that any time you're doing a combustion process, it is consuming the oxygen. And even a normal car, if you take a normal car that's running at 60 miles an hour for an hour, it will typically consume a million cubic inches of air. And so the consumption rate of our vehicles, being airplanes and cars, is really getting to be an impact on our planet. This was brought out during the 9-11 in New York City when we had the attack, was that for the first time in history, the aviation actually grounded all airplanes in the United States. And the people that were looking at the temperature of the atmosphere and so forth found out that we had a spike in temperature difference when those airplanes were landed. So we did a program up here in Minnesota.

WCCO did a program, their energy project, and they did a program on our engine running, I think it was April 4th of last year. And in that program, they showed the number of flights to the U.S. that we are doing, and it is an incredible amount of consumption of oxygen. So it's not helping. We have two things happening to us. One is that we're putting CO into the atmosphere, and the carbon takes about 100,000 years to cycle through. That to go from the atmosphere back into the ground is about 100,000 years. And at the same time, we're consuming the oxygen, which is what we breathe. And the consequences are that it's interrupting, it could interrupt and does interrupt the biosphere of our planet. But we use the oxygen, we consume that, and then when we exhale, we exhale CO. And then the plants, on the other hand, use the CO to convert back into oxygen.

And if everything's in balance, everything is good. But when it's out of balance, it's not. And right now, we're consuming more of our planet oxygen than ever before. And when I was in high school, the oxygen content of the planet was about 21%. And today, it's moving down towards 18%.

JR: Really? And it's funny, because everyone still uses that 21% figure when they talk about atmospheric oxygen level.

SM: Well, they do. But when you think about the global warming that we're having right now, that ice that's melting, that you have to look at not only is it converting from a solid back into liquid, but it also, when the sun is, instead of being reflected from the planet, it's being absorbed now by the oceans. And then, of course, the water vapor, it condenses and you get water vapor. And then those molecules, the sun provides a UV, and UV is in the same frequency range as the water. So, by itself, it will decompose water, and it's adding the oxygen back into the air. But that's from the ice melting. So, it seems right now that the Earth is trying to regulate itself. When I look at it, as the ice is melting, the land that's underneath the ice is being exposed, and more and more foliage is now showing up.

And I think eventually what will happen is that the more and more of the planet will start to absorb, the plants will start to absorb the CO, and it will be kind of a regulating.

JR: (5:49) And even produce oxygen.

SM: Produces the oxygen. So, there is kind of a regulation going on. And I think the biggest one is like Greenland right now, where it's going to affect the temperature of our planet effectively. When the Great Lakes were frozen, when we had the Ice Age, as the planet was warming up, the liquid from that melt went down the St. Lawrence Seaway into the ocean. And what happened was that cold temperature that dumped into the Atlantic interrupted the, there's a tectonic, not a tectonic belt, but a belt that, a warm water that flows around the continents. And they flow up the United States' east coast and across over to Europe and England and then back down towards Africa.

JR: That's where the Gulf Stream.

SM: It's called the Gulf Stream. Yes, it is a Gulf Stream, but it also goes over to Indonesia and India and then comes back around. Now, what's going to happen if it follows suit that it did on the St. Lawrence Seaway when Greenland is melding its ice, it will interrupt that flow. Effectively, I think at that point they're estimating that Europe is going to go into a deep freeze.

JR: So, that's the basis for the movie The Day After Tomorrow?

SM: Probably. I haven't seen that.

JR: No, you haven't seen it. It's an excellent film.

SM: Really? I'll have a quick look at that.

JR: Quite a good, and really what you just said would give a scientific basis for the supposition of the film that the ocean current reverses in the Atlantic and causes another ice age.

SM: Exactly, exactly. Because Europe won't be warmed up anymore without it, so it's going to go into a deep freeze.

JR: But here's what my question really was, and that is, how can we take existing jet engines, and I suppose they're called a turbine? Is that a turbine?

SM: Turbine, sure.

JR: Okay. Okay. I don't know anything about jet engines. I think there's a burner, and it causes the turbine to spin. Is that the idea? And then?

SM: Yes. Typically, when you start a jet engine, it depends on the design. There's two basic designs. You have one that's made by General Electric, and the other one's made by Pratt & Whitney. Now, Pratt & Whitney uses a dual spool jet engine, and what that means is that on the low-pressure stage, they start turning that low-pressure stage, and it starts drawing in the atmosphere, and then they have burners right behind it. Then once they ignite the burners, the hot gases flow through a turbine, and when it flows through that turbine, it starts to increase speed. So the front low-pressure stage, as it's called, will start to spin up, and as it's spinning up, it's making the combustion better and better, and the gas flows better and better.

But there is a point at which the turbine itself will surpass the low-pressure stage, and then it starts driving the low-pressure stage faster and faster until it gets up to a good thrust that will propel that airplane forward.

JR: Okay. Now, I understand that the Russians came up with a hydrogen jet engine a number of years ago, maybe, what, 25 years ago or something? I don't know if you were aware of that. I remember reading it in a magazine that they had.

SM: Well, it wasn't the Russians. It was the Germans. The Germans had a tremendous war effort going on, and if you go back and look at the scientists, the Borg and all those scientists, they were working in Germany, and they were contributing to scientific advancements of the time.

JR: Are you referring to during World War II?

SM: During World War II.

JR: Okay, no, I'm talking about an actual commercial jetliner that was much more recently. I think the Russians were the first one to have a commercial jetliner, or maybe it was military. I don't know.

SM: Well, they may have. I don't know for sure. I do know this, and I was over in Turkmenistan in 98, and I was in the Karihari Desert. And I was doing some work over there, and this Russian commercial aircraft came in for a landing, and I'd never seen an airplane so big in my life. It was huge. And I wasn't sure how that thing would ever land because it was so big. The Russians like to build big things. There's no doubt about that, I'll tell you.

JR: Well, here's what my question gets down to. I understand that during the time that your brother was publicizing his work and research, he made the statement that every fossil fuel application can be substituted with the oxyhydrogen or hydroxy or whatever you want to call it, the decomposed water gases. Is that something that you see as feasible with your knowledge of jet engines? Can jet air travel right now be retrofitted with burners that utilize hydrogen-oxygen gases instead of the current, what do they use, kerosene or something?

SM: (11:28) Jet engines use a refined fuel. They started off with kerosene, and especially the Germans did. When the Germans designed their first jet engine, it was amazing. And I think the first experimental jet was made over in England, and it was incredible. They got this idea, and they put it together, and they fired this system up. In fact, it ran away on them, and they ran away from the building thinking it was going to explode, and somebody finally shut it down.

JR: So the RPMs ran away, huh?

SM: Yeah. Oh, it was, they were, it scared them because it, it, they set the system up, and they theorized and thought, oh, this ought to work. And so they did it, and when it did, it took off, and it was, it ramps up so fast. Jet engines are very quick-responding types of propulsions.

JR: So do you view them then as being a feasible way to power our world? Should we be using more of them to generate power and so on, or?

SM: Well, we used the jet engine, we used jet engines that were no longer flight quality, flight worthy, if you will. They, they were kind of like jets put in service, and then we, we kept them on the ground and just anchored them on the ground and used them as, to drive generators. We used to put, put in these 25-megawatt peaking stations with the jet engines, and the nice things about them, you could push a button, in four minutes you're up and running, and you were producing the 25-megawatts of energy. Now, I look at the, the, the fuel like this. If I, if I put in my right hand one gallon of gasoline, that consists of about a half a pound to a pound of hydrogen, or between five and five and a half pounds of carbon. And that, that gallon of gasoline would deliver about 32,000 watts of power.

And if, if I have in my left hand one gallon of water, what I see is one pound of hydrogen and seven pounds of oxygen, with equivalency of about the same energy. So, when you look at these two sources of, of energy that can be used, I see the water as being a better source, because it, it's not only supplying the, the hydrogen for it, but it can be supplied the oxygen for it.

JR: Is it even supplying excess oxygen, or just the oxygen needed to burn the hydrogen? There has been a little bit of a dispute about that on one of the groups recently.

SM: Well, you know, you have to look at combustion in the light of the, of the, our atmosphere, if you will. I guess the case in point here would be, if you strike a match, you used to have these safety matches you could strike, and on the tip of the safety match, they would have an oxidizer, and so that when you cause enough friction, why that match would light up. And then what happens is the flame is real bright when it starts, but then the flame settles down to a smaller burn. And then, as you look at that match and burning, the flame burning, what you're seeing there is that the oxygen in our atmosphere is, is wicking its way through the molecules of the air, feeding that match for combustion. And there's only two, two things that really support combustion, and that's oxygen and hydrogen.

So, when you're burning that wood, it, it, it's a cellulose, and there's been, as that tree was growing, it, it took the hydrogen and used that in the process of its growth. So, at that point, when, when that match is burning, it's consuming hydrogen and oxygen. Now, the rate of consumption of oxygen, you can tell by the, by the glow of the, of the flame and the match.

JR: Right, I guess that my question is this. Because we say that, that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, and when you ignite those gases in that proportion, you, you return to the same water that produce those gases, right? But you can't, no, no.

SM: Well, let me explain it this way. First of all, it's the rate of, of burn that's important. If you take oxygen and hydrogen at the right ratio, which is two to one, and it happens to be the right ratio, if you would, everybody that's done electrolysis experiment in school, go through the, the basic steps where they produce the hydrogen and oxygen in a test tube, and then what they do is they take the hydrogen test tube, and then they light a splint, and they put that splint, that lighted splint inside that hydrogen test tubes, and it barks at them. And so you get this real, real bark, and what happens is the hydrogen is going towards our atmosphere, and it burns so fast that you hear this bark. So now the question, the problem is you have to take that speed at which it, in which it will burn and convert to slow it down so it goes into an internal combustion engine.

Because the internal combustion engine basically is a slow burn system.

JR: (17:13) Right, based on the fuel that we've been feeding them. Well, what about getting back to the jet engine? Has it been established that decomposed water can run the current jet engines without a great deal of difficulty? Has it produced the right kind of, I suppose you're looking for heat more than anything else. Is that right?

SM: Well, the way they use water in jet engines right now, they use it for afterburner required. When you see these planes that are being catapult launched off of carriers, for example, they have one of the techniques that they use, they use water to spray into the burners so that they get a greater thrust. So they use an afterburner to help launch that aircraft.

JR: What's the purpose of that water? Is it converting to steam and the expansion of the steam aiding the thrust?

SM: Well, they're increasing the mass. Anytime you increase the mass of the gases coming out of the jet, you'll get a better thrust. The problem is you can't do that for very long because it's not sustainable. So you'll get a burst of thrust and it'll catapult the airplane, but surely you have to switch back over to the regular fuel. Because the jet engine is tuned much like you would tune a car, but the jet nozzles inside of a jet engine have to be set for the type of gas that it's going to produce on the thrust. So in other words, if you're going to use that jet in natural gas, you have to change the nozzles for that particular fuel. If you're going to use kerosene, you have to change it for that. And if you're going to use aviation fuel, you have to use J4, you have to change it for that. So the jet engine has to be set up with the type of fuel it's going to use.

Now, definitely we have the energy. Now, the thing that is, that is the weight of the water. I mean, what's the advantage of water versus gasoline? And effectively, water has, you can use less weight of water than you can gasoline. I mean, theoretically, you could divide the quantity of gasoline you have by about 2.4, and you could come up with what you could do with water.

JR: Really?

SM: With the same energy. So from an airplane standpoint, it would be lighter weight, but you still have to do that. Nobody's really come up with yet an instantaneous conversion if they could do that and it was sustainable.

JR: That was not one of the claims that Stanley had made, that he had tinkered with the conversion of a jet engine.

SM: No, I don't think he, I think he was looking ahead and saying what's possible.

JR: That's what his research center would have been dedicated to, coming up with those.

SM: Yeah, that was what his idea was. He actually had plans drawn up. They were very nice plans. And he had a benefactor that actually they had purchased some land. And they were in the process of putting this center together.

JR: Well, I've seen an aerial, I guess you'd call a view of it, of artist's rendering or something, which has what looks like military airplanes parked around the building. It would actually have had a runway. Isn't that right?

SM: No, I don't think so. Not the place I know. Dan really didn't tell very many people where his land was at the time.

JR: So this isn't the one that the Grove City News had an article saying that...

SM: Oh, I think you're talking about like Fayette County.

JR: They had approved the use of this land for this research center or something.

SM: Yeah, they had actually, they have actually, I think, went through the process because they wanted to work with aircraft and Fayette County Airport was out in the country. And it didn't have very many buildings or things around it. So that was definitely in the cards.

JR: Well, I'll tell you where I saw it. There was actually an investor here locally in the Lexington area who basically gave me all of his packet of literature and whatnot that he got with his investment portfolio. And one of the newsletters that he received had this drawing. It wasn't, of course, a photograph because the buildings didn't exist yet, but the drawing showed large airplanes parked around a facility.

SM: (22:23) Well, there was a time when Stan was working with a guy, I think his name was Rick, Rick, I think it was. And Rick was a, he was a pilot, he was a private pilot, and he was, he'd come down from Alaska, and he had built a Bushmaster aircraft, which he, I think it was a Piper Cub, which he modified, and he put these great big Tundra wheels on it, and he was really into aviation. And I think he did mustered some equipment and aircraft that, in that time, when they were looking at it. Now, Stan, of course, it was not a, he didn't know anything about aircraft.

JR: So he never consulted with you on the application of the oxyhydrogen for jet engine modification.

SM: Well, we talked about some things.

JR: I guess my question really has to do with the fact that you get a certain kind of flame. I didn't know you could convert a jet engine to natural gas until you just mentioned it. But in other words, it is possible to convert them to different fuels just like you can convert any internal combustion engine.

SM: Well, yeah, you can use all, you know, different fuels and formulations and things, but you can't take that airplane, you can't take that, you know, when you take the airplane in the air, you better work. You know, there's, you don't take anything and put it in an aircraft and fly it around without approval from FAA. And so you have, if you modify an airplane, it becomes experimental. That engine has to go through a tremendous amount of development and you have to show and prove that that jet is going to work before it ever goes into any aircraft. and then it has to go through a phase. You can get permission to take an experimental airplane and fly it around the pattern at the airport. In other words, you just take it off and you stay around the airport and if something happens, you land it. But when you're at that stage, you've done a lot of work and that's pretty expensive.

You know, you're talking about some dollars that do things like that.

JR: Oh, yeah.

SM: Now, the aviation like Boeing, for example, just, they're selling their 787s right now because they're getting 25% more efficiency out of their engines than they had before. And they've made tremendous improvements on the jet engines, materials, those blades inside that low-pressure stage, and when they're spinning up to full RPMs, the blade tips themselves are moving around at the speed of sound. And they go through a lot of stresses and they can fly apart. And so, jets, you do a lot of work on a jet engine before you ever put it in an airplane, I'll tell you that.

JR: Yeah. Well, someone has proposed recently, or more than one person has proposed that the internal combustion engine that we all use in our vehicles is not really the best burner for the oxyhydrogen gas that you get from water. It would be far better to use some kind of turbine for all uses. In other words, not a piston engine but a turbine type. Would you agree with that? That burning...

SM: Turbines, turbines are, turbines, when you look at an automobile for, in relation to turbines, they're not very good to start off. You know, what happens is a jet engine, a jet plane, for example, has about 200 and 300 and 400 pounds of thrust. That's not very much thrust, but they move through the air because the plane's designed aerodynamically. But, when you get your car, the 200 pounds is not very much. so they, on cars, they develop the turbine for the automobile and that only works after it gets up to a certain speed. And what they do is they take the exhaust output and run it to a turbine which spins up and compresses the air coming back into the intake and then, at the same time, you have to adjust your fuel so that you'll get the correct blend. Now, on regular cars, if you look at any car, you'll find out that the air intake and the air coming in the car is at 90 degrees.

And the reason for that is when you're driving your car in a certain range, you're ramming the air into your car and it's affecting the fuel mixture. So, what they do is they cause the air intake ductwork to go 90 degrees and what that does is it slows down the air. In other words, a 190 degree bend in a pipe is like reducing 60 feet of a straight piece of pipe. So, their whole idea is to slow that air down so that it'll be brought into the carburetor at a rate and a blend necessary to get good combustion. But if you try to ram it into your engine, you're changing the whole dynamics.

JR: (28:07) So, do you see that perhaps for power generation that I guess you already mentioned that you were using turbines for what did you call it? Peak power generation or something?

SM: Yeah, we used the jet engines for the exhaust from that and they would go into a turbine which would turn a generator and then those generators would line sink to the grid and once they did why then it would produce power. But the jet's purpose was to turn the generator if you will.

JR: So, proposing a small sized turbine running on home generated oxyhydrogen fuel, does that seem feasible to you?

SM: Well, it would work. The only problem is the noise. The noise on those turbines are really it's a high shrill noise and you could put it in a container and you could somehow block that

JR: noise.

SM: But when you wind those things up, they really scream. So you

JR: really have excessive RPMs for most applications, I suppose. If you're not trying to get off the ground, there's really no reason to go that fast, huh?

SM: Well, they're beneficial because they're small in size for what they do. You have a small package in relative terms, but you're producing pretty good power. Up here in Minnesota, I've gone down to these sites that they have that use methane gas. They take the garbage basically and design the way it's put into the ground. and then they siphon off the natural gas and they run it into these engines that turn the generator. Now, they're using three 16 cylinder engines that have pistons about seven inches in diameter to run a 25 megawatt generator. So you're talking three of these great big huge systems to turn that generator when you can take a small jet and do the same thing. it's a lot smaller, but it's more expensive because it's a different type of propulsion device.

JR: Yeah, it's a much more precisely machined built unit, huh?

SM: Oh, exactly. I mean, the motors and things are precisely built, but the jet engines take a high quality maintenance, and the other thing is they don't run as long before a maintenance breakdown. What I see is on these other types of engines that we might be able to get in there and make them run a little longer without going through the maintenance. It's a nightmare as far as I'm concerned. Having three tandem engines running that have 16 pistons each, can you imagine what it's like to repair those things? I mean, they're disastrous as far as I'm concerned.

JR: Yeah, it sounds like a bigger job than I'd want to tackle.

SM: Yeah, it's huge, and I've gone into these places where they have three tandems, three of these units side by side, and they're constantly breaking them down, taking the heads off, cleaning them up.

JR: Well, I suppose the fact that they're getting free fuel maybe justifies the use of those engines for generating electricity.

SM: Well, they get the fuel, but the problem is that they consume so much of the gases. In other words, the landfill, it takes time to produce the gases, and then they use them up, and they use all the gas supply up in four or five hours, and then they shut down. Oh, I see. they have a very short running cycle, so to speak, but they use them during peak, and then what's happening is you get tax credits, so you have other facilities that are really producing the power, like coal and so forth, but they use these jet engines for tax credits, so it works for them.

JR: Sure. Well, that's better than just venting it to the outside without doing anything with it, I suppose.

SM: Well, it does, but you know, the thing is, as our planet warms up, the interesting thing is that on the bottom of the ocean, when it gets really deep down there, there's kind of like a snowball stuff that you would pick it up.

JR: Yeah, I've read about that. It's like a frozen methane, is that it?

SM: Yeah, exactly, and that methane that's down there has a huge supply, and as the oceans warm up, that's another thing, is that that methane is going to be released into our atmosphere.

JR: (33:21) And methane is a greenhouse gas.

SM: Oh, yeah, oh, yeah. See, that's what happened to the Bermuda Triangle. They were losing some ships and things, and they couldn't figure out, you know, what was happening. It changes

JR: the density of the surface water as it bubbles up?

SM: That's exactly right. The methane would bubble up, and then it would change the density of the water, and these heavy ships would be just going along, and all of a sudden, in five minutes, it would sink.

JR: It's a scary thought, isn't it?

SM: Yeah. Well, it's scary, the guys are on those ships, I'll tell you. Yeah.

JR: Well, I mean, even a person who knows how to swim wouldn't fare too well on that, would they? Because if your body is naturally buoyant, or, you know, neutrally buoyant, and then suddenly you find yourself in water that is less dense than you're sinking.

SM: Well, they didn't have very many reports of what happened, so I don't think they made it out.

JR: Yeah, I don't think anybody was able to fight it.

SM: You know, so that was quite a program to figure out what was happening there. So now they're putting in, I think they're putting in sensors so they can tell the ships to stay out of those particular areas.

JR: Yeah, but it is a scary thought to think that we could raise the ocean temperature enough that these massive quantities of methane ice would actually melt, bubble to the surface, and then further change our climate.

SM: Exactly. That's what's going to happen.

JR: But that's why it's so important that we're having this discussion now, because there aren't very many realistic answers being proposed. Everyone talks about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. No one's really talking about an alternative energy solution that involves no use of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases at all, and that's what we're talking about.

SM: Oh, exactly. The thing that I see in this water technology right now, one of the biggest benefits is that if we had a device on every car, the amount of cars in the world, we could actually clean the air up, because the cars themselves would be bringing in the atmosphere, and then we would lower the emissions coming out of the car.

JR: Right, so each car would become an atmosphere cleaning station.

SM: Exactly. If you look at a car, you know, I mentioned before that going 60 miles an hour for one hour, it consumes about a million cubic inches of air, so every car would be adding to the cleaning of the air.

JR: And you know, that totally changes your perception when you're on an eight or ten lane interstate, and it's just completely filled with stopped traffic. And at present, like when I was just driving up to Cincinnati the other day, and I was in that situation, and I think, what a terrible thing we're doing. We've got this world's biggest parking lot air, everyone's engine idling, and we're all destroying the atmosphere as we sit here and stop traffic.

SM: And what a

JR: different situation it would be if all of us were using oxyhydrogen as fuel, and we'd actually be, we'd still be stuck in traffic, but we would not be polluting, instead we would be cleaning the air.

SM: Exactly. The other thing too is that the highway department, they have to start using the technology. We have the technology, and we have the know-how, we have the ability, and what we should be doing is sending information either to each car or have something on the side of the road that they can see that adjusts the speed. In other words, you can get more cars past a given point at a slower speed than you can when you're doing high speed. For example, if you're doing 60 miles an hour, the rule of thumb is you have six cars' distance behind it before you see the other car. It's called a two-second rule. If you want to move a lot of traffic, what you do is you slow the traffic down so that the cars can come closer together, but there's a minimum speed at which you don't want to go below.

What happens in traffic jams is cars in the front are trying to speed up and get away and the cars in the middle are stopped and the ones in the back are stopping. So what they need to do is regulate the speed so that it would adjust automatically. So it would tell the driver, I want you to go to six miles an hour with the idea that I can keep the system going.

JR: Yeah. Well, there's a lot of things that could be done. In fact, there are those who claim that it's not been necessary for us to even be touching the ground for quite some time now, that it was the manufacturer of rubber tires and whatnot that have kept us tied to the ground in our transportation. It's actually been possible for quite some time to have actually left contact with the pavement altogether.

SM: (38:30) I don't know. That's pretty scary. You've got to drive that car and steer it. Once you get a car, once you get a vehicle in the air, I worked on the hovercrafts that were used in Vietnam. And when we designed those systems with the jet engines and whatnot, we would lift that vehicle off the ground and it had a skirt that would go from the vehicle down to the ground and it would capture the air, high-pressure air. But when that vehicle was floating on that column of air, it has very, very low coefficient of friction and you can push it. Two guys can take that thing and push it sideways and it will go down a football field and that's one of the problems with them that once you went to turn them, it took them six miles to turn those things when they first were to develop. So without the friction, without the tires, you would never be able to control our vehicles anyway.

So I think we still needed contact to the ground unless they figure out another way to keep it locked into the freeways.

JR: Well, why don't we go back to a question that you posed on the last show, which was why is snow white? And unfortunately we ran out of time and we weren't able to pursue that question. Now, I went ahead and proposed a couple answers that, you know, but of course that was based on my limited understanding of science. I assumed that the question was actually why is snow white associated with seven dwarves or why is she white? Well, perhaps because she's anemic. But the question actually had to do with why is snow the color white? And one member of a chat group, a Yahoo chat group on hydrogen from water, suggested that you were getting around to the point that it has to do with the frequency at which the ice crystals that make up snow absorb light. Is that it?

SM: The reason for my question was I've been studying this process and I've come along a long way to understanding I think what's happening and that question of why is snow is white to me is very important because it's a key in the puzzle that I haven't been able to find out exactly why it's white, but it's a key component in the puzzle. And let me mention this. I've read a lot of things and people said a lot of things about Stan and stuff. The thing is that when he first did his cell and stuff, it was a pretty exciting time and those guys really saw something different when Dr. Henley and Dr. Lutton and Admiral Griffin. Admiral Griffin, his title was Lord of the Sea, which he was the top guy in England.

JR: In the British Navy, I suppose.

SM: In the British Navy. Dr. Lutton had five fellowships. You know, you get your PhD, but then you go along and you make a contribution.

JR: Now, was he from England also?

SM: From England, yeah. And so was Dr. Henley.

JR: Now, why is it that three distinguished Britons came to the United States and showed an interest in your brother's work and local scientists and leaders in the government were not seemingly as interested? Why is it that, for instance, in England there was a major documentary done on your brother's work and there was never such a documentary done in the United States that I know of?

SM: Well, Stan was rubbing elbows with a lot of really incredible people, scientific people. And I remember the time when Dr. Lutton was down at Stan's place and they were talking about the cell because they had not seen anything like that before and he came over to me and introduced himself. He said, you're kind of quiet. He said, I've got a feeling you know what's going on. And I was so incredible at taking him with this man. I was afraid to say anything because of his abilities and his knowledge.

JR: Wow.

SM: And I didn't think I had a, I didn't think anything I was going to say was, you know, could match something like that.

JR: Well, the old saying is, you know, the more we keep our mouths shut, the wiser we see.

SM: Well, to a point, you know, he was, the thing about Dr. Lutton, I was reading over there that he made some comment about Stan, Stan was trying to get his cargo in. I guess he said something about, well, some lame excuse or something. And I thought to myself, I said, my God, then there was a man that had, of his caliber and his experience and his knowledge, I think he would have rolled up his sleeve and said, hey, Stan, I know you have, it seems like you're having a problem here. Can I help you? And of course, they didn't. You know, they just came down to get the knowledge and leave. It was kind of funny. England was, England has always been on the forefront. And a lot of scientists from Langley Air Force Base and stuff came and talked to Stan, and they were very interested in his technology. I'm not sure what they

JR: (44:11) wanted. He's actually more of a cult figure in Germany and Australia and, you know, other countries. And, I mean, to me, it was very discouraging to go to Grove City, Ohio. And I actually walked down the main street asking people if they knew him. And I went in search of a plaque or a statue or something. And to see that his work has not been remembered by that community where he lived and did all this research, to me, it was quite incredible.

SM: Well, the scientific community is, it's a pretty tough community, you know. They spend most of their time trying to shoot the other guy out of the saddle, so to speak. It's amazing. You get a, a scientist will get up and say, hey, I figured this out and here's why I figured it out. And somebody along the way will look at it and says, ha-ha, I found out that my method's better than yours. And he shoots him down.

JR: Yeah. But, you know, I think that applies to all of us, including your brother. For instance, and, you know, I'm just, I'm being perfectly honest. I've never found, and it's not that I have everything that's been written about Stan Meyer and his sayings and so on. I don't have every video and whatnot, but I've never seen any place where he mentioned the fact that there were others before him. So what you're saying could actually apply as much to him, you, and me, as it does to anyone in the scientific community, that we don't always want to give credit where credit is due to those who came before us.

SM: Well, that's true. And most of the time, people, I think, come down and they look at what you're doing, and then they go away, and pretty soon they kind of like say, well, he's a friend of mine, and then pretty soon they say, well, I did it before he did.

JR: Yeah. You know.

SM: But, you know, the significance of Stan's stuff was really incredible at the time because you've asked some questions, and other people ask questions, and they keep going back to this electrolysis, and did you put any of these material into his device, you know, and to make it a regular electrolysis process? And, of course, the answer to that is no. Stan never put anything in his device other than tap water.

JR: So you're referring to any kind of making an electrolyte solution.

SM: Exactly. Yeah. And there's a reason for that, and the reason for that is that the electrolyte solution limits the voltage level to two volts of sound. You look at Stan's apparatus, each tube is a cell by itself. So how in the world could you expect to get a high output conversion factor of the cell? And so when we were looking at it, we uncovered and looked at it, and it takes about 13 volts, theoretically 13, but it takes about 11 volts to actually pull that electron out of that hydrogen. And so all of these other systems using electrolyte never allow the voltage to get up high.

JR: It takes 13 volts per tube, per cell, per...

SM: No, the thing is, it takes, theoretically calculated, it was 13, but practically it only takes 11 volts to pull the electron out of a hydrogen. That's what all it did. So people that talk about real high voltage systems and things of that nature, people that talk about electrolysis, they're below. You know, chemistry, chemistry is all about heat, and it's either hot or it's cold, but chemistry only works between 1 volt and 10 volts. That's where they work. And so when we started working with our system, we realized, well, if it takes 11 volts to pull out of an electron, why don't we build something that can pull out, use 11 volts to pull it out? So that started us off.

JR: That was... You know, I've never, in all the reading that I've done, in conversations I've had with people, I've never heard mention of 11 volts as being significant. I've generally heard people talking more about the number of thousands of cycles per second to achieve resonance.

SM: Well, your frequency, now, that's a whole different, that's a whole different ballgame. You've, when you design your device, you have to design your device. It's a whole, not a, it's not one part, it's the whole

JR: system that has to be designed. It's just part of the, part of the...

SM: It's just part of the equation.

JR: Yeah, part of the equation.

SM: It's not, you know, the, the, you have to look at the wave guide theory, you know, we started off, we took a bunch of tubes and we cut them off at a certain height. There's a reason for that, because if you look at wave guide theory, you know that you have a frequency, it's like an antenna. You know, Marconi, Marconi was credited with developing the radio, and when Marconi told people that he could transmit a, a long distance, and people said, you are absolutely crazy, and they put him in a nut house. They put him in a nut house. Really? Three years, they said. I didn't know it. Yeah, and then some of his benefactors got together and said, you know, let's see what we can do, so they went up and they got him out, and they said, can you, can you do what you really said you can do it? He said, yeah, I can do it, and so they set up a ship.

They put a ship out in a harbor and put him on land, and he came up with his two devices. He made two devices that matched each other, and one was on the land, and the other one was on the boat, and then what they did was they, they fixed that boat in a such, in a position that nobody could pass information to that boat, nobody, and in those days, they used semaphores. They used flags, and they used light, so they did it during the day, and so they couldn't use light, and then they made sure there was no flags there, so they couldn't use semaphore, and so he took his device, and he clicked it, so to speak, and it created an electrical arc, and then in turn, the electrical arc showed up on the boat, and then they were able to set up a code, and it worked, and they were just incredible. They just could not believe it, that he could transmit at that distance.

Well, what was Marconi's, what was, how could he do it? Well, he found out that the atmosphere has 50 ohms impedance, and so when he designed his antenna, he designed his antenna so it would match the impedance. The signal would get down that wire, and it was matched to 50 ohms and 70 ohms, and it went into the air, and it transmitted, and if you don't match the impedance, you get a reflective wave, and the wave energy that's reflected back is like 90% of what you're trying to push out, so it doesn't work. So the antennas today have a viz wire of 1.1 to 1. That means that, yes, you have a little bit of loss, but the impedance match allows that signal to go into the air, and that's what Marconi's secret was. Every person that's contributed to our improvement on our planet has found something that makes it work, and people don't understand it at the time it happens, you know.

It's like Christopher Columbus in 1942, and I'd read the history, and they'd say, well, he discovered America, and I said, well, there was a lot of people that came before him that knew what the Americas was. What was his thing?

Well, Columbus, what he did was he started talking to a lot of the people that the Navy guys and the people on the boats, and he said, what is it that, why do you go here and not there, and they started, he started to see and sense that the wind would blow easterly, or the wind would blow westerly, and so he would travel down into Africa on the coast, on the west coast, and he found out, he says, holy smokes, the wind is blowing towards the east, and if I go back up into England and stuff, the wind is, well, the wind's going east up north, and then it's going west down south, so what he found out was that it was the trade winds that he could go out and come back, and if you get in a rowboat and you're going to row yourself out into the ocean, you better make sure you can get back, because if the current is flowing on the outward bound, you couldn't row it back to get back, so he realized it was the trade winds, and that's what he should be noted for, not the fact that he did show up in 1942, but that was his secret.

JR: (53:27) And you do mean 1492.

SM: 1492, yeah, I'm sorry.

JR: Yeah, well, that's a very good analogy. In other words, this thing can be done, but it has to be done intelligently.

SM: Exactly.

JR: And that's what caused Marconi and Columbus to do what they did. They were looking at the problem from a fresh viewpoint that others were not, and even though in Marconi's case they attributed his idea to insanity, we all know as we drive to work and listen to the radio that we're better off for his having had that vision of what would be a successful radio.

SM: Oh, yeah, exactly. The transmission of intelligence to the air, you know, and so this device, what we're talking about with this water system is to look at it today in the different eyes. People, you mentioned last time we were on the air, he says, well, you know, McAllister, I think it was, you know, so I'd be glad to look at something, but I've never seen anything more than 100%, and he's absolutely right. There's nothing wrong with what he said.

However, if you study Richard Feynman, you find out that, let's see, Kirchhoff is a good example, where Kirchhoff says if you take a point and you understand all the energy coming into that point, you can understand all the energy that leaves that point, and he made this point by, if you take two amps of current in each wire and bring it to a point, that will some, and you have four amps going out of that point, and that's the point, is that some people only look at one leg, and they look at the two amps coming into that point, but they're not looking at the other point, the other energy input to the system, so they make snap judgments, and that's unfortunate, because it's very limited, and it's very, you know, a guy that really knows what's going on, listens to that kind of stuff, and he says, I'd rather be overeating a sandwich than having a glass of milk, and listen to that guy, you know.

JR: Yeah. Well, now, how does that tie into the snowflake? You've got light waves coming in? Is there a...

SM: Now, the snowflake is a... We're going to have to get a little more time, because I see that we're almost up about five minutes in here, but the snowflake comes in very... It's a key point in this whole process, and I wanted to mention some of the things that we found that really make Stan's device work.

JR: Now, you implied on the previous show that you have something that is actually better than what he had, because, of course, he was constantly improving his technology, and it morphed from one thing to another, really, didn't it, as the years went by?

SM: Well, that's what happens, is that it opens... The more you learn, the more you understand that you don't know, and then when you don't know it, you go after it to find out, so you can learn about it. And then when you learn about that, you find out other questions start arising, and that's what happens. It's a continuum of knowledge that opens up doors and possibilities.

JR: Well, that's why one famous scientist said if he saw anything, it was only because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. So he was acknowledging what you just said, that it's the accumulated knowledge that allows us to take it a step further.

SM: Oh, exactly. That's what the scientists do. One scientist will discover something, and then he'll present it in maybe a technical paper, and that's what they do. That's why I like PhDs, because the PhDs are required to write books, and I just love to devour their books. I've gotten more education by me going out and buying a book for 50 bucks, and the way I look at it, it took a couple million dollars to get that book written. It took the money for him to get his education, and then the publication. And then when I buy the book, I go, whoa, he smokes. That's only 50 bucks.

JR: Okay. Well, we've got about two minutes. What can you tell us about light and snow that makes it significant when it comes to efficiently decomposing water and making a clean burning fuel from it?

SM: Well, I'm hoping that somebody can give me some insight on why snow is white.

JR: That's the key here. Well, I typed in a word search, why is snow white, and up came, I don't remember whether it was answers.com or something, but there's a very interesting paragraph there talking about how light enters the ice crystals, and then it's bounced out at an angle and goes through another one and another, and so you feel like that has relevance to this matter of, in this case, it's photons being passed through frozen water.

SM: (58:44) Now, say that again. And where is it that you're looking at that?

JR: I think, I just typed it in on a Google search, and I think it was answers.com came up with the, there was a number of different, unfortunately, the name Snow White comes up quite a bit, at the Disney film, and so on.

SM: Oh, I see. Okay. And what was it that you typed into Google?

JR: Just on the Google search bar there. And what did you type? I typed in Snow White with a question mark. Okay. And up came a pretty interesting discussion of photons, which, this is what Kevin Satterfield from one of the groups, one of the Yahoo groups had proposed, that you were hinting that the frequency of ice, which this paragraph, it's really quite comprehensive in describing how the ice crystal does have a frequency at which light frequencies, what, enter it and exit? Is that it?

SM: The atoms are subject, they either absorb or they emit different frequencies. And that's the whole, that's the whole thing, is that what frequency is affecting that atom, or what is that atom doing? Like, you know, it's like an LED. He set that up, and there's an action going on there that when the electrons change their valence level, it gives up a photon energy, which we see as a particular color, but that's a frequency. So we get more time. I'll go into that a little bit further because it's important for the direction that we go with this water technology. It's more, there's a little bit more in-depth knowledge that I'm trying to impart that can make this a success. And so we'll just have to get together another time.

JR: No, that sounds great. I'll look forward to it. And I thank you for joining us again. I'm sure it's been enlightening and instructive for any who have been listening live and for those who will do so through the archives. And so we'll look forward to another chat. And anytime, I wish you well and look forward to talking with you again.

SM: Have a happy Easter, everybody. Thank you.

JR: And I'd like to encourage everyone to tune in again for another show. Thank you.