Stephen Meyer Interview Part 4 (4-14-2007)

Stephen Meyer Interview Part 4 (4-14-2007)

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 second April 14th broadcast from the Kentucky Water Fuel Museum. We have with us tonight for the fourth time Stephen Meyer, a very special guest who very graciously helped us out by making repeat appearances on this program to share enlightening information about water fuel technology. And let's see if Stephen's not with us. Are you there?

SM: I'm here. Can you hear me?

JR: Great. Thank you.

SM: How are you doing?

JR: Thank you for being with us again. How are you?

SM: Great. Say, what does YTBA stand for?

JR: YTBA. Yet to be announced.

SM: Oh, okay.

JR: At least I hope that's what it stands for. I hope it doesn't have some other meaning. But, yeah, that's because we have some tentative guests lined up for the coming weeks but haven't confirmed their involvement. Okay. I'm just curious what that was. And the whole thing is rather confusing. What it gets down to is that the blogtalkradio.com website only allows five shows to be viewed by the listening audience as in the archives. And so I decided that some of the information that's contained in previous programs is important enough that it shouldn't be taken out of the public, their ability to listen to these shows. So I decided to start a new show. Since it's free to do these shows, which is quite amazing, I figured that it's probably best to start a new show with a new name every five shows and allow these archived shows to be accessible.

SM: There you go. Okay.

JR: Now, this is a new thing, and they're constantly upgrading their technology. So it's probably going to be possible to merge all of these shows into one archive that is going to be able to be replayed at will in the future. Oh, great. I've asked them to look into doing that, and I think they will. But in the meantime, what you have to do is basically go to blogtalkradio.com and do a search on Waterfuel Museum, and you'll see that there are several programs, each of which has five archived shows from the past. Super. Okay. Great. So in the case of future shows, I do have some guests coming up that everyone should be very interested in hearing from, such as George Wiseman from Eagle Research. Okay. And so we weren't able to coordinate that for next week, but rather for the week after. Okay. But I'm glad to have you with us tonight.

I think we'll probably cover some important ground this evening.

SM: What's George Wiseman's background? Does he have a web address?

JR: Yeah, I believe it's eagleresearch.com. Oh, Eagle Research. And he sells books that he's written about water fuel technology, Brown's Gas especially, even a book telling you how to build a Brown's Gas welder.

SM: Oh, super.

JR: And Water is Fuel is the name of two of his books, I think book one and book two. He actually sells some products, such as a device to tweak the electronic fuel injection system in a vehicle, so that when you're using a hydrogen oxygen booster, you don't have a reading from your oxygen sensor that causes the engine to dump more fuel.

SM: Oh, I got you. Okay.

JR: And so I think he calls it an EFI control device. Anyway, I'll look forward to talking to him in two weeks and finding out some of these things. I don't know a great deal about his background, so it'll be very interesting to hear from him.

SM: Absolutely. I'll do a little research because I'm curious too.

JR: I do know from another interview we did with Chris Patton, the film producer, who actually videotaped interviews with George and use of the Brown's Gas welder and whatnot, he commented on George's having used the Brown's Gas torch to separate gold in the gold mining camps in, I suppose, Canada.

SM: Canada, sure.

JR: Yeah, the properties of the hydrogen oxygen flame were appropriate for separating the gold, I guess, turning it molten and causing it to drip out of the rock or something.

SM: Well, that's interesting, you know, because gold normally is six to quartz. And when you find gold, it is typically embedded in quartz. So you would have to heat it and then have it kind of wick its way out of the quartz.

JR: (5:00) It sounded like that's what they were doing.

SM: Yeah, the only problem you have is that I don't think you can, you know, some of the quartz up in Canada and so forth are, the gold is found in particulates. They look like black sand, if you will. And when you look at the quartz, it's very small and the gold is stuck to that. And so if it's in that form, it's a little bit of a problem because as the gas comes out of the torch, it blows it away. So you have to come up with some methodology to heat it and get the mellowing process without getting the force of the flame pushing it out of the way. But it can be done.

JR: So speaking of gold, what about the use of gold in some of these electrolysis, well, using it for cathode anode or something? Is there any advantage in that?

SM: That's a little expensive. Actually, the electrodes in the processor is very, very important on what's selected. And, you know, when Stan was doing his research on materials, he tried a lot of different things. Like, if you would, for example, use brass tubes, for example, and you would put them in, submerse them in water and put the signals to that, those brass tubes would just absolutely melt away. They would melt down.

JR: And not because of the presence of electrolyte?

SM: No. If you just put it in regular tap water, you know, that, well, what happens is that the voltage actually is pulling out and breaking down the atoms within that alloy. And brass is really easy to break apart.

JR: So it wouldn't have to do with the fact that you'd be using potassium hydroxide or some other caustic.

SM: No, no. You can do it in plain water, you know.

JR: And it would still attack the?

SM: It would still attack the, because the brass is easier, the voltage actually does the work for you, you know. And that's the point of one of the things that I want to bring out is, you know, when they invented the transistor back in the 1950s when Shockley and his crew at Bell Lab was working on the transistor, you know, they had done some research. And there was a scientist up in Chicago, Enrico Fermi, for example, where he was working up in Chicago, and he set up an experiment underneath the stadiums there, the football stadiums in Chicago. And what they were trying to do, they'd been working on trying to split the atom, if you will. And they hadn't done it, and they theorized it. But what they did do, Enrico Fermi, what he did was he was able to do the first split of the atom. And he came up with a proof of concept and feasibility.

And what they had done was they had theorized that radioactive materials like U-235 and U-238, those materials are decaying. And so, and are also very massive elements that you're dealing with. Now, one of the elements is found on Earth. It's found, but it's very rare. Typically, the Earth, back four and a half billion years ago and so forth, we had really hot spots in radioactivity on the planet. And then as the half-life continued on that uranium, it would break down in what they call a half-life, where the radiation intensity would drop in half. And what happens is the radioactive material actually wicks its way down and adjusts itself down to lead. That's the end result of radioactivity. So, but they did have samples. Madam Curie and her husband worked with samples of uranium, and they went through just tons and tons of Earth.

And they finally, after two, three years, was able to get 10 or 15 grams, whatever it was, of this radioactive material. And so, what Fermi was doing was that he was trying to split, come up with a methodology to split that atom, U-235. And what had happened was they had put underneath that stadium, they had huge blocks of beeswax, because they found that beeswax and table salt stops the radiation. And then what they realized was that they were bombarding the uranium with protons and neutrons and electrons. Now, the nice thing about neutrons is that it's not affected. So, like you were talking about gold on an electrode, effectively it's very inert. But there's not very many things that really attack the gold. You can wear it off mechanically, but not too many things. You can electroplate gold.

And so, what Enrico Fermi did was they realized that these protons, or neutrons, I'm sorry, the neutrons that they were shooting at the atoms trying to get it to split was going too fast. It would go right through the atom. And so, they needed some methodology to slow it down. So, they actually used carbon, carbon-block material, and they could actually shoot the neutrons into the carbon. And carbon, what it would do, the molecules would cause it to ricochet within the block of carbon and effectively slow down that neutron. And then what it did was it would slow down enough that when it got to the atom, the atom would have accepted at that point, and it would be like a blanket that covered that atom. And then, shortly thereafter, the atom became very unstable because it had that extra neutron in there. And then, it would start to fall apart.

And that's when Enrico Fermi noticed that he had proof of concept that we could actually split that atom.

JR: (11:57) Does this have any relevance to breaking the water molecule down?

SM: Yes, it does. I'm getting there, I guess. Okay, so the point is this, is that Fermi made his mark in his name to fame, and his name landed in a lot of different places. And one of the places that it landed in was in metallurgy. When you look at metallurgy, they were trying to understand about how the metal was designed and what it consisted of, and what was the bands of the atoms that were in there. And so, he realized that there was a band of electrons within that metal that float. It floats within the metal, and they're kind of free. They just kind of meander back and forth within that metal, and there's a band, and there's a lot of them.

So, going back to the invention of the transistor, where Shockley and his group that worked on it for years, and they knew that this band existed because of Fermi's research, and they were trying to figure, how could we get to those free electrons, you know, in that material? And they tried for a year, about every experiment you can think of, and then finally, there was a mistake. And that mistake was that they had taken silicon. If you remember, on the last time we talked, I was indicating about the transistor radio, where we built those little crystal radios with the catwhisker, and that you could adjust it so you could hear the radio. Well, they knew that it did that, but how, you know, why? How could they get the advantage of that? And what happened was that they were working with germanium, and germanium is a material that has a very low voltage. It's like 0.23 volts.

And they were trying to get to it, and they drilled holes and put probes in and things of that nature. It wasn't having too much success. And then a mistake was made, and that mistake was that an oxide would form on the germanium, and they were cleaning that off with water. And what happened was, at this particular time, they forgot to dry the water off of the germanium. So when they put their probes in, the probes went into the water. And voila, they had a signal show up on their oscilloscope. It was a blip. And they said, What is this? And so they further went into it and found out that some reason, some reason that when the water was on the germanium, they could put the probe in the water, and then in turn would break down through the barrier into the germanium and get to this Fermi layer. And so that's how the transistor was invented.

The fact that the water, the water wasn't really a good final solution because it would evaporate and so forth. So they had to find out now why it did that, and then they were able to analyze the germanium, and they found that there's a junction that the elements within that particular material would form a junction. So by biasing the junction, you could control the flow of the electrons through that material. And so the invention of the transistor was made, and Shockley also developed the silicon transistor, which was a much better type transistor. So let's bring us back in focus to the water fuel cell that Stan and I worked on. We were trying to select a material that would do just that. What I mean by that is that the stainless steel tubes that everyone's using is a very interesting product because it's not made like you would think iron is made. Stainless steel, it consists of chrome.

It's about 18%. It consists of about 8% nickel. The rest, mostly iron. But it's a doping process. And we realized at that point that the doping process of that metal had a lot of symmetry of transistor technology.

JR: (16:59) So in other words, you're using the metal and stainless steel as sort of a transistor?

SM: You can look at it that way. What we realized was that the water that makes contact with the metal sets up a barrier. It's a barrier technology that we realized that was an important part of the cell, as well as the fact that the metal itself has a structure that is more conducive to the water. And so what happened was we realized very quickly that we were on to something because we were trying to get the voltage to the water molecules. We wanted to get, I mentioned before, that hydrogen. You can pull an electron out of a hydrogen atom with about 11 volts to 13 volts, which was much, much higher than you could get from electrolysis. So that's what we were trying to do. We were trying to get that voltage to the hydrogen atom the best way we could and then also control that huge amount of electrons that are available in that metal.

To give you some idea, the size of that metal, the size of a BB, has over 54 quadrillion atoms. Imagine that, 54 quadrillion atoms in the size of a BB. Now, a lot of people have, you know, that I read on the Internet and stuff, that talk about over-unity devices, and they'd say, well, you know, you're getting more out than you're putting in, therefore it's over-unity. But in reality, what's happening is you're actually setting up the condition in that cell with those signals that you're actually pulling out those electrons from that metal, which is aiding in the splitting of that water.

JR: So are you saying that the, what would you call it, the nano structure of the metal?

SM: Well, I'm saying that the barrier that, the barrier that Fermi had found that had these huge amounts of electrons available, you try to break, you know, how do you get it to go over the barrier? And the methodology that Stan came up with that aided that. And so that was our secret at the time, was that we knew that the electrodes were part of the process. And I mentioned before that carbon is neutral and doesn't add to the process of electrolysis. But in this case, when you have your stainless steel tubes, they're actually adding to the process. It's, as I indicated before, it's just not one component. It's the whole structure and all the components within the system that make it work.

And so what effectively you can envision is if you can set up an external signal and put it into the system across those tubes, if you will, if you can set a condition up whereby you can draw those electrons out of that Fermi layer and get them to cross that barrier and get them too close to those water molecules, you're going to get some action. And that's what you see.

JR: But you're implying then that the overunity aspect of it is actually more attributable to the metal that's used rather than to the electrical waveform that's coming from...

SM: No, no. The electrical waveform is very important. It's the whole process.

JR: But it's equally important to have a metal that's capable of transmitting that...

SM: Yeah, to get a product that you can use so that it doesn't break down. I mentioned earlier if you put in brass, it'll eat it up right away. But stainless steel has the ability that it'll cross over that barrier, but it doesn't get destroyed very much, you know. And you can run those tubes for a long time before you actually see, from the naked eye standpoint, that you're using up those products, those electrons.

JR: But there is some decomposition.

SM: There is, but you don't know it very... You know, it's so subtle that you don't really realize it at first. Some people see it. That's where that brown material shows up is part of it.

JR: (22:05) In the water or on the plate?

SM: Well, it's in the water.

JR: Yeah, the water. It seems like nobody's able to do anything in breaking down water without creating a residue, a sludge or whatever you want to call it.

SM: Well, that's coming from the metal.

JR: It is coming from the metal. Well, there are different theories of what... I mean, Dr. Puaric was of the impression that it was actually life forms in the water that are... He supposedly tested it and it showed RNA or DNA, whatever. Well, you don't buy that.

SM: No, I really don't. I really don't. I really don't. What I understand, you know, from my point of view, is that I see and sense that what's happening... I think I understand what's happening to this process so why it's producing the, you know, splitting of the water molecules and producing the gas that we see. And it's more of a barrier technology. And it has a lot of symmetry in how transistors work. And I mentioned before, water is 78% dielectric and the rest is conductive. So that water is not really... The water falls more in tune to a transistor. The word transistor was coined by a fellow that was working with Bell Labs, with Shockley. And, you know, they said, what are we going to call this thing? And the guy said, it's not a short and it's not a resistor. And so that's how he came up with the term transistor. Transistor meaning it's somewhere, a resistance somewhere.

JR: Let's deviate for just a minute. I was conversing with Daniel Dingle, the Philippine water fuel device inventor who had cars running on water for almost 40 years now. And he said that his water fuel device invention is obsolete because he's come up with a new invention that has to do with generating electricity from water. And as best as I recollect his description of it is he said he sets up two capacitors in water in what he calls a reactor, I guess. And he said that there's a chip that is used to bounce current back and forth between these two capacitors. And he said it takes a battery to begin this process. The voltage from a battery will get this, what he called an exciter going. But he says once it gets going, it begins to generate power from the water without any external electrical input.

Just this chip bouncing voltage back and forth between these two capacitors in water supposedly begins to generate electricity from the midst of that water. I mean, can you fathom a working device based on this kind of description?

SM: Well, you know, you have in that water, which is, the water is really saturated. You know, when it's working, when you are actually splitting the water molecules, you have phases of ions and electrons that are moving around in that water. And you would have to pull off the electrons some way to, you know, make it work. But, you know, power generation has to start with voltage. You know, it's the first order function is voltage. Then you have current. And then when you have current, you have a magnetic field. And then you have to look at what the flow of that current is. So in order to generate electrical power, you have to have the charge first. You have to have that first. And then a good quantity of electrons that will leave that device and go through the load that's hooked to that device. So I don't know. It sounds very interesting to me.

But without knowing more about it, I guess it's got my curiosity, but I don't know anything about how it would really do that.

JR: Well, I described it to Patrick Kelly, who's a British guy who has very lovingly typed out and drawn descriptions of a lot of the free energy devices that have come out in the last 100 years or more. And he said, oh, well, there's already two inventors who claim to have, you know, made a device like that, which I was surprised to hear. I hadn't really paid much attention to.

SM: (27:30) Well, you know, what happens, a lot of people, they say, you know, it's like, you know, it's like Stan, when he first came up with his device, you know, a lot of people said, well, they did that way back when. But really, like stainless steel is really a modern-day invention. It wasn't there when the masters on the shoulders of giants, if you will, were doing their experiments. They did not have stainless steel. It's a modern-day product that we have put together. You know, if we were trying to get some product, it wouldn't rust, and it would resist caustic solutions and so forth, and that's how we came up with stainless steel. And stainless steel is also a cold-rolled process. It's not processed like you would think an iron would be in process. And so the structure within that stainless steel is a very interesting structure.

It actually, if you picture a cube and you picture the atom in each corner of the cube, you can start drawing diagonals that would represent triangles within that cube, and those other atoms are halfway between those triangle segments, if you will. So it's very interesting because it will give up those electrons in that Fermi layer. It'll give it up to a point. I think people see that when they use the stainless steel for some period of time, the cell seems to die on them, and then they have to take it out and replace the stainless steel with new tubes and so forth, or the sludge gets so bad that the system starts short-circuiting and not working correctly. So, you know, and that's part of it.

JR: So it can be depleted.

SM: I think so.

JR: What about the magnetic properties of other types of steel, like nickel, iron? Some inventors have suggested that non-magnetic stainless is not the material to be using because you want the magnetic properties of a more iron or...

SM: Well, now, up to a point. Now, the first moving, the first function that moves in this whole system, as far as I'm concerned, is the voltage. But once you... Once the system starts moving at the voltage, then things change. And when it does change, if you have something there that's magnetic at that point, you may capture all of those parts of the atoms and it's not going to go anywhere. You know, if you grab a hold of them, you might not be able to release them with the magnetic fields. And there's a reason for that. And if you study the atoms, you find out that the proton is positive and the neutron, of course, is neutral. And then you have the electrons, which are negative charged. And so what happens there is that as the atom is... As you're pulling the hydrogen away from the oxygen molecule, it takes on a different charge. But the thing of it is, you start exposing the electrons.

And electrons are magnetic. They're very interesting particles because around the electron, if you can look at it this way, you'll see the rings of Saturn, for example. We have rings around the electron itself. And when that electron jumps the valence levels or jumps the shell levels, they give up full-time energy. And that energy is coming from those rings around the energy rings around the electrons. But the electrons itself, they are magnetic. It's the electrons that actually create the magnetic field as the current flows down through the wire. So if you had a magnetic field there, it's very possible you would capture those electrons in a magnetic field and it wouldn't go anywhere. It would just be captured within the field. So I think it has to be looked at. I think it's something that may or may not really help with the performance of the system.

But right now, when I look at it, if you put a strong enough magnetic field it might hinder the processing because of that, because they are magnetic. And you can flip electrons very easily. You can flip them. One's an electron and then the other one will flip and it'll be a positron. And that's how the molecular hydrogen works in water. You know, when that hydrogen, when you create a molecular hydrogen, what happens is it has this electron going around the proton and it's whirling around and it has this magnetic field. And then when it bumps into another molecular hydrogen, the two electrons will share the orbit. They actually don't share the same orbit, but they're offset from one another, but they're within an orbit. The orbits are rather broad. And what happens is the one electron will flip one way and the other electron will stay.

And so as long as they're flipped over 180 degrees, the magnetic fields will create the bond. And so when that happens, then you have diatomic hydrogen and then it lifts out of the water. So the magnetic fields are very important.

JR: (33:39) Well, yeah, because it's been said, and I think correctly, that you can increase the energy of the hydrogen gas that you produce from water if you do flip those electrons to where you have monoatomic.

SM: Well, the bonding between the diatomic hydrogen is really good. That's why it's so strong. See, there's a relationship. There's a relationship between the proton and the electron. You know, theoretically, if you have the proton that's 2,000 times bigger than an electron and it's positively charged, and that electron, it's negative charge, and it's 2,000 as big, so that electron will be sucked in by that proton. But then as it comes into that proton, then something puts the brakes on. And what happens is it's that magnetic field that the electron will increase its magnetic field and finally get a standoff distance, if you will. Now, that ratio is 1,836 to 1, and so that's a pretty good force.

But now what happens is, it's kind of interesting, what happens is that when a molecular hydrogen bumps into another molecular hydrogen and the two electrons flip, they will share the same orbit paths, the same orbit, but they're offset from each other. But what happens is you create the diatomic atom, and all of a sudden the gas expands 1,836 to 1. And so that's why gas is lighter, and it expands. It gets bigger and bigger, and it pops out of the water because it's a gas form now. It's not a molecular.

JR: Well, so when Herman Anderson, I think I sent you his video some time ago wherein he explains that you have to increase the mass density of the hydrogen gas that you're creating in order to use it as a fuel in a car engine. And what you're...

SM: The mass density, okay.

JR: In other words, what you just said about its expansion would explain why it's necessary then to... You have to go back in and try to treat the gas that you've created so that it does become more dense because it is too light.

SM: Well, exactly. That's why the General Motors is putting together the skateboard. The skateboard is a very nice chassis. They're building these chassis, and they've got two very large tanks within that chassis. And what they're going to do is standardize that chassis for the industry, and they're just going to put different bodies on the chassis based on what the car is. If you want to buy a Ford or you want to buy a Buick or something like that, that just changes the body. But the chassis is going to be all the same. And so what's inside those are these two great big tanks. And those tanks are being charged by hydrogen, and they're being charged to 5,000 pounds apiece. Now, the reason for that is that the automobile engine is a mechanical device that has an operating cycle.

And to get the power density into that engine, you have to push it in at high pressure in order to get enough of that gas in there to equal the power density of gasoline. So that's the problem that everybody's working with now is that these high-pressure tanks, it works, but they have to compress the gas. And it's because the gas expands 1,836 to 1.

JR: Yeah, and the fact that the diatomic, or I guess you'd say parahydrogen, is what they're compressing is the weakest form of the gas as far as combustibility is concerned.

SM: Ah, now say that again.

JR: I understand that the compressed hydrogen gas is the weakest form of hydrogen as compared to, for instance, monotomic hydrogen that is able to be produced by, I guess, inducing an electromagnetic field after having already produced the gas from water or simultaneous to producing it. The, I guess what you're calling the molecular structure of the hydrogen gas, instead of allowing it to assume the diatomic parahydrogen, you, at least the way I understand Herman's description of it, you cause that flipping of the, or the reversal of the spin of half of the atoms of hydrogen so that you are maintaining a monoatomic state, which supposedly is four times more powerful than the diatomic parahydrogen. And I think, I mentioned this in my book, this has to do with what's called the activation energy.

SM: (39:30) Okay, explain that to me.

JR: having to do with the, the igniting of the gas in order for it to explode, it has to be broken down initially to the monoatomic state, and that takes energy. So the explosion cannot be as powerful when you're exploding diatomic hydrogen as when you are igniting monoatomic.

SM: Okay, let's, let's take a moment then, let's look at the automobile engine just for a moment. Okay. We are bringing into that automobile engine products, and those products are, is a mixture of a couple things that's very important, but what's brought into that engine is being converted, and for example, gasoline is a liquid carrier of energy which consists of carbon and hydrogen, and and that carbon and hydrogen can be brought in in different configurations. You, that configuration, for example, is like benzene gas. Benzene gas is a gas that's formulated, that six carbon atoms will will form a circle, and when they form that circle, you can attach to that the hydrogen atom, and that atom that's attached to that is a ratio of six C and eight C.

So, so you have six carbon and six hydrogen, and that's what's brought into the engine, and there are quadrillions of those brought into that engine as a liquid, so one of the things you have to do is along with that liquid, you have to atomize it where you're going to bring in the atmosphere, and when you bring in the atmosphere, you're going to have oxygen, which is diatomic, and you're going to have nitrogen, which is diatomic, the carbon and the hydrogen is going to be molecular, and then you're going to bring it into a stop metric ratio of 15 to 1, and that 15 to 1 ratio is related to the atomic weight of the atoms, and then that's pulled into a piston, and when the piston is going down and pulling in the gases, and the liquid at that time, into that piston, and then the valves close, and now that piston is starting to go up. Now, there's four phase changes within that engine.

The first phase change, you have to convert the liquid to a gas, and as the piston comes up, you bump into Boyle's Law, which says that the molecules are ricocheting around within that piston, and it's the area that they're doing, the area where that's happening, it gets hotter and hotter and hotter, and then the liquid, through a mechanical shear, turns back into gases. So what happens is you get this 1,836 to 1 expansion of the liquids, as well as the carbon, and the hydrogen are being broken apart because of this mechanical shear, and the piston going up in an automobile engine is very, very powerful. The reason the car engine is only 12% efficient is that the piston that's going down on the power stroke is taking its energy and coupling it back over to the next piston that's actually starting to do the compression.

So by the time you compress that gas within that piston, you have maybe an 8 to 1 ratio. So when it first came in, it was at 8, and we wind up compressing it, it's down to 1. Now that gas is moving around and boils long, it's moving around and its temperature is going way up. And so what happens is you're lowering the kindling temperature of those gases. And then just before you get to top dead center, why the spark plug will fire, and it will start those gases burning. Now it's the burning of those gases under that compression which gives you, there's an empathy that the pressure will build up, and under that burn pressure will build up, and that piston will be pushed down because the piston goes down in the car, it's pounds per square inch. The piston doesn't really care what it sees, it's just going to push down on the pounds per square inch.

And that's where you get your driving torque from that piston going down and the crankshaft turning. and then after the burn, of course, then the mechanical cycle of the engine actually jettisons that exhaust towards the catalytic converter. Now, the problem is, and always has been in our engines, is that they're not efficient burning devices, and that gas that's being exhausted out, is rich in products that haven't been used. And so that's where you get a lot of hypercarbons, and you get a lot of nitric oxides, and a lot of CO, and a lot of CO2, is because those molecules are trying to get together in different forms why it's under that high pressure, high temperature state. So there's four states within the cylinder that one has to look at, and that's how you develop the pressure. So I don't know, from your previous description, I'm not sure how that system would work.

JR: (46:01) Well, in other words, there is the possibility of increasing the energy value or the energy density of hydrogen gas by deliberately tweaking it as it comes out of an electrolyzer. But I think you commented on this a couple weeks ago when you said that the gas that your brother's device was producing was a very pure gas. In fact, you said the way it burned was evidence that it was invisible.

SM: Exactly. The gas is incredible. I mean, you can't even see it when it's burning. And that's pretty nice. You know, gasoline in itself, you know, if you run it through an instrument that displays all of the different molecules and components within a gas, you find out there's about 2,000 different configurations. You've got to remember that oil is vegetation and its byproducts and those molecules. And carbon is an element in our universe that will latch on to anything. Everything we have, basically, carbon will latch on to.

JR: It sure latched on to my clothes a lot, you know, and the work that I do. What you just said also reminded me of cigarette smoke. You know, they say it has a bunch of chemicals in it that compound the health problems of a smoker because they're not just dealing with one, like, tar.

SM: You know what I tell people when they smoke? When I was a kid, I went down to the science museum in Columbus, Ohio. I must have been about seven, eight years old. And they had these displays there in their little boxes. And they showed what was inside your lungs. And it looks like angel hair. And they showed one that was healthy. Then they showed another one which had tar. And angel hair density was really less. There was not much there. And it had all this black tar type material on it. And they said, well, here's a non-smoker and here's a smoker. And I looked at that and said, man, I'm not going to smoke.

JR: That kept you from smoking, huh?

SM: It did. I mean, I looked at that and I said, you'd be crazy to smoke. And I tell people today, I said, if you didn't smoke, you would have another good ten years. Basically, that's what it is.

JR: Yeah. And yet, all of us who are driving internal combustion engine vehicles are, in a sense, smoking because we may not be taking a direct hit off of the exhaust pipe, but we are spewing all this filth into the atmosphere and we're breathing it and we're making other people breathe it, too.

SM: Yeah. Let me make a point about that. I've been reading and seeing some things that just scare me to death because people said, well, I'll put a gas mask and hook it to the end of the exhaust pipe because I'm using this, the boosters and so forth and so forth, that it's really good gas and let me show you. Well, that's the craziest thing there ever is because you have nitrogen and nitric oxides and all of the carbon and you've got CO2 and CO and you're going to breathe all that stuff in and say it's good for you. That's crazy. And when people do that and the people that are in the know look at that and say, man, no way. And it hurts that this technology, it hurts what we're trying to do because it's, it shows an ignorance on their part and the people looking at it say.

JR: So don't breathe out of an exhaust pipe even if you are using water as fuel.

SM: Well, of course. You would never do that.

JR: Well, you know, I was talking to Fran Giroux earlier today and he mentioned that using a five gas analyzer on his exhaust pipe before the catalytic converter, after it, using a hydrogen booster. he commented that there's still going to be carbon from the cylinder walls, the lubrication.

SM: Oh, exactly. That's where a lot of it comes from is from the oil that's burnt off the sidewalls of the cylinder. You're lubricating that piston as you're going up and down, you know. So that's where a lot of the HC comes from, the hypercarbons, is from the oil and the part of the gasoline that it fractured but it didn't use it, you know. And that's the problem with the dynamics of the car is that when that piston goes all the way up to its compression stroke and then you finally light off that ignition and you're building that pressure, the piston's going down. And so what happens is you're changing the dynamics very, very quickly. And what happens is the piston goes down a certain distance and the flame front that was set up during the initial spark is now diminished because the parameters have changed so much that it can't sustain it.

And that's why they put the, thank God, they put the catalytic converters on the cars 10, 15 years ago because at least they were burning. Imagine what it would be today without those things. It would be, it would be.

JR: (51:31) I had an old, an old fellow, really country type come into the Waterfield Museum and he said, how come we don't put that catalytic converter before the engine instead of after it?

SM: Well, what good would it do?

JR: Well, he was expressing some country wisdom about cracking the gasoline before it goes in instead of having to try to re-burn it after it goes out.

SM: Well, the gasoline is already cracked. I mean, that's what the cracking plants do is they take oil, you get a 55-gallon drum of oil and after it goes through the cracking process, you only get about a quarter, about one-fourth of that barrel of oil actually converts into gasoline. You know, so that's what it does. It goes through what they call the cracking process to create the gasoline. Now, those plants can produce 35 different products if they wanted to. They can go all the way down from beeswax all the way up through fuel oil, gasoline, all the different blends. It goes all the way up to the lighter fluid and cleaning fluid at the top.

JR: In fact, you know, somebody actually made this claim. Again, it was a museum visitor, said that if we did find a substitute for gasoline, it would create this huge surplus of what would end up being a waste product that they wouldn't know how to dispose of it. As they did their refining and produced plastics and produced pharmaceuticals and produced asphalt and all the other spinoffs that come from the refining process, they would end up with this now useless product, gasoline, or what ends up becoming gasoline.

SM: No, they would just, no, you'd use the oil for lubrication. You know, you don't, you just divert, you don't have to take it to a cracking process. You just use the, you refine the oil so that you can use it on rotating machinery, that the need isn't going to disappear. It's just going to be diverted to different areas. And as we buy more cars and build more cars, they need lubrication. Anything that's rotating needs lubrication.

JR: So it wouldn't necessarily result in this, in a byproduct that is presently in great demand but would then be useless. In other words, it's not going to result.

SM: No, you'd just stop making the gasoline, you know, you're going to still make some, but you wouldn't make the large quantity of gasoline, but you'd use the oil for lubrication. So you're not going to, you know, you're going to use the products you have and it's not going to disappear other than the fact when the oil runs out that they have to switch over to synthetic oils, which is what they use in jet engine. They use synthetic oil all the time in jet engine because regular fossil fuel oil breaks down too easily. But so they'll just convert over to a type of oil that they manufacture. But as we go through this phase of moving into the hydrogen industry and phasing off the oil, it'll be a rather kind of, I think, a smooth transition in a way.

I mean, there's going to be some knee-jerk reactions along the way, but overall it's going to be fairly smooth because we'll use what we have, you know.

JR: Well, apparently that's been the model to use what is being supplied.

SM: The important thing I want to make in our discussions on using water as a fuel, and the reason I see a future in this water, and I indicated before, doing things like a Lazy-8 or a Lazy-8 where I look at the product that we're using and then the process it takes to convert to what we need to do and then the actual engine itself, how the engine works. And it's unbelievable, but there is symmetry all the way along the line. So I see this conversion from everything I've studied. I can see it. And so if it's in our psyche and it's in our area, we're going to do it. We'll do it, you know.

JR: Well, it seems that the small guy is the one who's going to be introducing it because the big guy doesn't want something that falls from the sky and that you can collect in a rain barrel outside your house.

SM: Well, actually, Jim, what I see is the same thing that's happened over and over and over and over again. It's what we're doing. Everybody is listening to this program. Everybody is contributing to this process. As I indicated before, I take my hat off to them because that's how the problem is going to be solved. And I guarantee you that we come up with the right process and we have this thing working and we know it works, they're going to shift. I mean, there's going to be time. It takes time. The first oil embargo, what was the most important thing that came out of the first oil embargo back in 73 and 74 was that the automobile industry didn't sell cars. They, you know, the whole market went down. But what they did was they were pretty smart and they automated all of their plants with robots.

They had three to four years to put in robots during that time to make cars cheaper and faster and that's what they did. So when the industry recovered, they were already set with robotics in their plants and that's what happened. So this time around, there's some big shifts and there's a lot of people looking at what us little guys are doing and we're not so little. There was a meeting down in South America and the oil producers were in that meeting and they came out of that meeting and indicated that they were just shaking and shuddering because they didn't know if they were going to have a job the next day of what was happening. When Stan came out and drove his car, there was a shock wave that went through the industry and they didn't know what to do.

But now we've got a little difference and that's because we're running out of the oil in the world and there's major players and consumers of this product and we need to make a paradigm shift and I think we've got a little more people listening to us today. What I've been trying to do in our programs and hope to do is show a little bit more in-depth knowledge of what it is that we're trying to do and not just coming from a point of, well, cause and effect, I'm trying to come from a point where we do the cause and effect but all of a sudden we get an awareness and from that awareness we start looking at directions and then we start looking at goals and then we take those goals.