Skip to content
Stan’s Legacy
Sign in

Proof

The evidence, and who gave it

Meyer's claim was seen by people with reputations to lose: a former Controller of the Royal Navy, a dean of engineering, a research chemist, an engine company's technologists. This page gathers what they wrote, with their credentials in front of it, beside the laboratory reports, the patents, the press, and what others made of it since. Every card links the document it comes from.

Every line here is taken from a document the archive holds, and each card says who wrote it. The 1995 report is Meyer's own binder — compiled and published by him — and what it holds includes third parties' work; the class on each card is the honest label.

Who looked

Witnessed demonstrations

People with something to lose who watched the cell run and wrote down what they saw.

  • The Griffin committee at Grove City

    Professor Michael Laughton, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, Dr Keith Hindley · 1990, printed January 1991

    A demonstration cell with two parallel-plate excitors in tap water produced far more gas than simple electrolysis could account for, at milliamp currents and with no heating of the cell. Hindley's account is printed in full, and the magazine then asks the questions it raises.

  • Perkins Technology's bench demonstration

    Downes, Purkins and Graham of Perkins Technology, with Admiral Griffin · 8 October 1992

    Water dissociated by pulsed voltage from about 10 volts, current under a milliamp, vessel at room temperature, the gas lit with a match melting stainless wire. Perkins decided to support the technology subject to proof of concept, and named the programme Project TACO.

  • Griffin's own account, to the marine industry

    Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin · September 1993

    To the Southampton Institute at Warsash: the 1980 apparatus he had by then seen four times, nine concentric stainless cylinders in tap water, ten watts in, gas at ten pounds per square inch within ten seconds, a flame that cuts stainless wire, and the vessel cold throughout.

  • The Perkins decision meeting

    Perkins Technology and Admiral Griffin · 28 February 1993

    The note that weighs whether to proceed sets the case plainly: no running engine had been seen on three visits, and many UK scientists held the technology breached thermodynamics; against that, the bench demonstrations, the DTI report's open verdict, a Sussex University breadboard said to have produced hydrogen from Meyer's circuitry, and Meyer's readiness to demonstrate publicly in Britain.

Laboratory reports and tests

Analyses of the gas, the water and the steel, and the witnessed collection tests, as filed in Meyer's 1995 report.

  • Gas, water and steel analysed

    Independent laboratories, filed by Meyer · In the 1995 report

    Laboratory analyses of the gas the cell produced, the water it ran on, and the stainless steel of the cell itself, eight pages.

  • Affidavits and witnessed water-collection tests

    Sworn witnesses, filed by Meyer · In the 1995 report

    Sworn statements, and the witnessed collection, sampling and ignition of gas from natural and from distilled water, eleven pages.

  • Patent validation and energy calculations

    Meyer, WFC Memo 420-DA · In the 1995 report

    The amp-inhibiting circuit and the 8XA pulsing circuit with gas-yield figures set against conventional electrolysis, and the voltage dissociation of the water molecule expressed in kilocalories per hour against the rotary pulse-voltage alternator figures. Meyer's own numbers, presented as such.

  • The test units, photographed

    Filed by Meyer · In the 1995 report

    The variable plate-spacing unit, the tubular-array water fuel cell and the rotary pulse-voltage frequency control unit, as exhibits.

Papers Meyer filed beside his own

Physics by others that Meyer put in the 1995 report as bearing on his: what it says, and who said it.

  • Electrically induced explosions in water

    Gary L. Johnson, Kansas State University · In the 1995 report

    A 2 µF capacitor charged to 1 to 10 kV and discharged into a water column: below a threshold the water is a resistance and the circuit an overdamped RLC; past it the water explodes, louder than the equivalent gunpowder, and the remaining droplets are cool to the touch, so the explosion is not evidently thermal. Johnson's argument is that such experiments "need to be carefully reported and then replicated".

  • Powerful water-plasma explosions

    Azevedo, Peter Graneau and Millet of Northeastern University, with Neal Graneau of King's College London · Physics Letters A, 1986

    Current pulses of up to 25 kA discharged into water; the strongest explosion gave a 1.6 kg projectile an impulse of 7 N·s, and the impulses scaled with the electrodynamic action integral rather than with steam pressure. Peer-reviewed physics, filed by Meyer as bearing on the energy in a water arc.

  • A critical review of free-energy claims

    Patrick G. Bailey and Toby Grotz, 28th IECEC · 1993

    A conference review of the claims then being made for zero-point and over-unity devices, reprinted with permission, together with Ken MacNeill's account of the secrecy order a patent applicant can receive under Title 35. Not about Meyer in particular; filed for the ground it maps.

  • Phenomena of free energy in nature and technology

    Dr Ing. Jacob Huber, Kehrsatz, Switzerland, in raum&zeit · January 1991

    Huber's argument that energy conversion is possible in open systems, taking lightning as the example, translated from raum&zeit 49/91. Filed by Meyer alongside the Griffin and Perkins papers that make the same open-system point about the first and second laws.

What the patent offices granted

The claims examiners allowed, in the United States, Canada, Europe and beyond.

  • The patents

    United States, Canadian, European, Australian and world patent offices · 1980 to 1992

    Griffin told the marine industry that most of Meyer's patents were filed under the clause of the US regulations that requires a claim to be demonstrated before it is granted; that is his statement, and the patents are here to read in full. The Patent Office's own correspondence on property rights is in the 1995 report.

Contemporary press

What was printed at the time, by people who were there.

  • Electronics World, January 1991

    Frank Ogden, with Keith Hindley's eyewitness account · January 1991

    The UK team's account in a trade magazine that also prints the questions it raises: what the cell does that electrolysis cannot, and what would have to be true for that.

  • The Grove City Record

    Marcia Thompson · 31 July 1991

    The local paper on the nations "polarizing to the technology", in Meyer's words, and doors opening worldwide.

Later assessments and replications

What others made of it afterwards.

  • The German Association of Vacuum Field Energy

    Dr Hans Nieper; relayed by Dr Russell Fowler of WFC · December 1996 and January 1997

    Nieper's letter points Meyer to the association's brochures 33 and 34, in which he says he refers to the tested overunity effect of the technology. Three weeks later WFC's Fowler told the distributors it had been "scientifically verified" and enclosed the letter as the evidence. The brochures themselves are not held here.

  • A Practical Guide to Free-Energy Devices

    Patrick J. Kelly · 2007 to 2020

    Kelly's survey gives Meyer's water injection system its own section, prints six of the patents in an appendix, and counts Meyer among the three who "each produced ten times the Faraday results". It also records Dave Lawton's replication of the demonstration cell in Wales, which many others then repeated.

  • The 1997 symposium paper

    Stanley A. Meyer, at the Fourth International Symposium on New Energy · 1997

    Meyer's own paper to the Academy for New Energy, alongside Mallove and McAlister: a perspective view on water as fuel.

If you hold a document that belongs here — a laboratory report, a letter, a test record — it can be offered through your contributions, and a keeper will look.