Stanley worked for NASA space program at one point.
Not a good sign, really.
.. links to patents ...
Patents does not mean that inventions is useable or even work at all. In no way patents could be a proof of invention. You could literally write any garbage in patent application and if you pay patent fee, if that garbage laid out in application according patent office rules and nobody else filed same patent you will be given a patent.
his design also had a resonant cavity or shockwave cavitation chambers,
It absolutely does not matter, really, how you provide energy to destroy H2O molecule bonds. If the reason of bonds destruction is cavitation, shockwave or whatever, then, you should spend at least same energy to create that cavitation, shockwave or whatever. You just add some intermediate step in energy utilisation and so add some losses on conversions. Breaking water through cavitation, shockwave or whatever initiated by electricity will be just less effective than direct electrolisys.
Theoretically, you could take some additional energy inducing some kind of, say, cold fusion in water, but there are at least two problems: at first, all LENR experiments including "classic" cold fusion show that you spend more energy to force reaction than you will get from it. Second, you need heavy water, D2O, not regular one. And heavy water is very expensive, there are no any sense to run a car on deuterium-oxygen mix because a songle trip to supermarket will cost you much more than all gas that you will burn in lifetime.
Things are not work by magic. Everything is connected and if you have to provide some energy to some process, you have to source it somewhere. If there is no any additional process that could be a source of additional energy in your device,you have to provide all of it.
Even more interesting is cavitation bubble collapse in saltwater. The collapse causes coulombic explosions as the pressure crushes sodium and potassium ions in the saltwater. If you put 1 energy unit in to create the cavitation, you can get 18 units back.
The main emphasis is on the ability of cavitation to produce additional energy to produce free heat energy, as well as radiation-nuclear energy. Moreover, this
thermal energy is not destructive, but useful.
“Cavitation Engine,” that the company said describes the first commercially viable system capable of harnessing the power of cavitation to produce energy at a fraction of the cost of using conventional technology. The Cavitation Engine incorporates CES proprietary impact chamber design in a scalable steam generation system which generates superheat steam for less energy than fossil-fueled boilers.
Cavitation, the process of vaporization, bubble generation, and bubble implosion in a flowing liquid, is used as the underlying process within the Cavitation Engine. The engine uses mechanical energy to convert water into steam via the process of cavitation and subsequent bubble collapse. Modified automotive fuel injectors are used to accelerate water saturated with cavitation nano-bubbles at a specially designed impact target. During the collision, enormous hydraulic pressures collapse the bubbles within the injection volume. These vapor bubbles have the ability to focus intense energy. The resulting heat contributes to the creation of superheat steam.
Cavitation is interesting process, but none of claims of excess energy was reproduced. You could write anything, but unless there is independent confirmations of experiment with obvious excess energy, it is all crap.
Stanley worked for NASA space program at one point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell
His patent, Gas electrical hydrogen generator:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4613304
It mentions a particle accelerator.
From what I remember, his design also had a resonant cavity or shockwave cavitation chambers, somewhat similar to the Tesla earthquake machine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation
His patent, Resonant cavity for a hydrogen generator:
https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0103656A3/en?inventor=Stanley+A.+Meyer
Note: non-electrolysis method of splitting H2O
List of Stanley's patents:
https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Stanley+A.+Meyer
Not a good sign, really.
Patents does not mean that inventions is useable or even work at all. In no way patents could be a proof of invention. You could literally write any garbage in patent application and if you pay patent fee, if that garbage laid out in application according patent office rules and nobody else filed same patent you will be given a patent.
It absolutely does not matter, really, how you provide energy to destroy H2O molecule bonds. If the reason of bonds destruction is cavitation, shockwave or whatever, then, you should spend at least same energy to create that cavitation, shockwave or whatever. You just add some intermediate step in energy utilisation and so add some losses on conversions. Breaking water through cavitation, shockwave or whatever initiated by electricity will be just less effective than direct electrolisys.
Theoretically, you could take some additional energy inducing some kind of, say, cold fusion in water, but there are at least two problems: at first, all LENR experiments including "classic" cold fusion show that you spend more energy to force reaction than you will get from it. Second, you need heavy water, D2O, not regular one. And heavy water is very expensive, there are no any sense to run a car on deuterium-oxygen mix because a songle trip to supermarket will cost you much more than all gas that you will burn in lifetime.
Things are not work by magic. Everything is connected and if you have to provide some energy to some process, you have to source it somewhere. If there is no any additional process that could be a source of additional energy in your device,you have to provide all of it.
I'm not a physics major but cavitation is pretty interesting nonetheless.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21598/is-there-more-energy-in-the-collapse-of-a-cavitation-bubble-than-the-energy-requ
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4c17/9bb62e643957a01497672647f7804859e1a6.pdf
https://www.achrnews.com/articles/130064-patent-filed-for-invention-that-makes-steam-using-cavitation
Cavitation is interesting process, but none of claims of excess energy was reproduced. You could write anything, but unless there is independent confirmations of experiment with obvious excess energy, it is all crap.