Even if these so called 80 engineers did create a theoretically viable alternative to burning fossil fuels, they probably are not at all practical to use in a consumer application. How do you contain a fusion or fission reaction inside a reactor the size of an automobile and still guarantee that it will be safe during a collision? These reactions also require a large amount of energy to kick start the process. There are many brilliant inventions that will never work because they are either not marketable or they are not practical. Also, I highly doubt you understand exactly how Stanley Meyer's invention works. A bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering does not allow you to understand high level theoretical nuclear physics.

The thing about conspiracy theories - when you start to see things from the point of view of the people who believe in them, and then talk about it, you sound just as crazy as they do.

Stanley Meyer's fuel cell did not work. You cannot split water without inputting energy, where does that energy come from?

There are other options for fuel besides gasoline, but because fossil fuels are still so readily available, these other options have not yet become economically viable. This could be a good thing in the long run, because it allows more time for alternative, renewable energy systems to mature and grow in efficiency. We will eventually have to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies and nuclear power sources, but it will still be quite a while.

EDIT: It doesn't matter how large or small the water droplets and static field (this term is meaningless, it has to be a type of static field, such as magnetic or electric) is, you cannot get more energy out of combustion than you spend on electrolysis (or any other means of splitting a molecule, you have to put in energy to break chemical bonds). Statements like "someone I know" and "I'm told" tend to invalidate your position. Nobody to date has broken the laws of thermodynamics, and there are not 250 unique ways to split a water molecule.

There's a little thing called "conservation of energy." Ever heard of it? None of these things you're talking about obey this principle and are therefore impossible. It's about as true as a perpetual motion machine.

Really, you understand how it works? Perhaps you can explain it to Dr. Philip Ball (who has a PhD in physics), because he seems to be pretty convinced it's BS. http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070914/f...

It's rumored that somewhere in the ballpark of 80 engineers have been killed for inventing something that would make gasoline obsolete or increase gas mileage by a large amount. I looked into one of them named Stanley Meyer. It took me a lot of time, but I eventually was able to obtain his patents, schematics, and photographs of a system that powered a prototype buggy which used water as fuel. I know his invention was not a scam because I understand exactly how it works, and it is brilliant. In addition, I met an engineer living today who's invented another device that can use nothing but water and he can apply it to power plants, air craft carriers, etc, although I'm not sure about automobiles. He has to be careful out of fear of loosing his life because he's received death threats from the oil cartels. Their lawyers work keep him from being able to move forward with any kind of project. Why is this allowed? How is this solved?