I remember hearing Stanley on the Mike Murphy show in the 80's or 90's. Mike was a radio guy who was into conspiracies and ufo's. Mr. Murphy believed also that Stanley was murdered. If it didn't work, why would they feel they had to kill him? I know nothing about engineering, just being devils advocate.
Better answer: He wasn't murdered. Neither Mr. Murphy nor anyone can overcome the laws of chemistry and physics. This is sort of high school level science, so those who believe Mr. Murphy are likely to believe a lot of things outside their knowledge.
The tip-off is that the promoters either never have a scientific explanation of the details, to show why it is or would be possible, or their explanation is incomplete. Or they begin to act squirrelly if reasonable questions are asked. Questionable accomplishments even get significant scientific and industrial notice, before they mysteriously dwindle into obscurity (usually related to odd financial maneuvers of the proponents). An example of this was Andrea Rossi and his cold fusion gadget, the E-Cat. (Here's a good run-down: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/05/rossis-e-cat-expose-of-a-claimed-cold-fusion-device/) We had the E-Cat come up for consideration at my company, but making sense out of it was elusive. My best guess at the time was that the process might have been the stimulation of beta decay in the construction materials, transforming nickel into copper. Alas, no joy.
What if he was channeling power from the Dark Dimension? What if he had a racecage filled with super-hamsters? What if he had an accomplice pull his car with an invisible fishline? If you want to play the "what if?" game (a child's game), I can go on indefinitely. The point is, what he touted is not scientifically possible and he evidently never explained why it could be. It's just another perpetual motion hoax.
His death was attributed to an aneurism, but people think it was poison. Who knows. Did he find a catalyst that could provide the energy needed to make the separation of hydrogen and oxygen practical? If so, he found the holy grail of science, because it would result in limitless inexpensive energy. I am very doubtful that he did.
Yes, catalyst is the wrong word. The substance would need to be used in place of direct energy from a battery but from another compound that would give up energy in order to release the H2. The problem is that Oxygen and hydrogen have one of the strongest affinities known, so finding a compound that would draw the oxygen away to free the hydrogen isn't known.
Oh, there's no problem finding such compounds. All the alkali metals will react the oxygen out of the water molecule (e.g., lithium, which is why I laugh when I see firemen trying to put out a lithium fire with a flood of water). But what would be the point of that? Simpler to burn the energetic compound. But what have you saved?
After thrashing through the periodic table, one ultimately comes to the conclusion that if there weren't hydrocarbon fuels, we would have to synthesize them, because they are so useful and convenient as sources of energy.
I remember hearing Stanley on the Mike Murphy show in the 80's or 90's. Mike was a radio guy who was into conspiracies and ufo's. Mr. Murphy believed also that Stanley was murdered. If it didn't work, why would they feel they had to kill him? I know nothing about engineering, just being devils advocate.
Better answer: He wasn't murdered. Neither Mr. Murphy nor anyone can overcome the laws of chemistry and physics. This is sort of high school level science, so those who believe Mr. Murphy are likely to believe a lot of things outside their knowledge.
I want to argue but your reasoning is solid. Slight of hand.
The tip-off is that the promoters either never have a scientific explanation of the details, to show why it is or would be possible, or their explanation is incomplete. Or they begin to act squirrelly if reasonable questions are asked. Questionable accomplishments even get significant scientific and industrial notice, before they mysteriously dwindle into obscurity (usually related to odd financial maneuvers of the proponents). An example of this was Andrea Rossi and his cold fusion gadget, the E-Cat. (Here's a good run-down: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/05/rossis-e-cat-expose-of-a-claimed-cold-fusion-device/) We had the E-Cat come up for consideration at my company, but making sense out of it was elusive. My best guess at the time was that the process might have been the stimulation of beta decay in the construction materials, transforming nickel into copper. Alas, no joy.
Our understanding of chemistry and physics. What if he discovered something an alien race figured out a long time ago?
What if he was channeling power from the Dark Dimension? What if he had a racecage filled with super-hamsters? What if he had an accomplice pull his car with an invisible fishline? If you want to play the "what if?" game (a child's game), I can go on indefinitely. The point is, what he touted is not scientifically possible and he evidently never explained why it could be. It's just another perpetual motion hoax.
You figured it out! Eureka! Water fueled cars, here we come!
His death was attributed to an aneurism, but people think it was poison. Who knows. Did he find a catalyst that could provide the energy needed to make the separation of hydrogen and oxygen practical? If so, he found the holy grail of science, because it would result in limitless inexpensive energy. I am very doubtful that he did.
Catalysts do not supply energy to a reaction. They only speed up a reaction that would happen anyway.
Yes, catalyst is the wrong word. The substance would need to be used in place of direct energy from a battery but from another compound that would give up energy in order to release the H2. The problem is that Oxygen and hydrogen have one of the strongest affinities known, so finding a compound that would draw the oxygen away to free the hydrogen isn't known.
Oh, there's no problem finding such compounds. All the alkali metals will react the oxygen out of the water molecule (e.g., lithium, which is why I laugh when I see firemen trying to put out a lithium fire with a flood of water). But what would be the point of that? Simpler to burn the energetic compound. But what have you saved?
After thrashing through the periodic table, one ultimately comes to the conclusion that if there weren't hydrocarbon fuels, we would have to synthesize them, because they are so useful and convenient as sources of energy.