LETTER FROM WATER FUEL CELL (REGARDING STANLEY MEYER'S WATER FUEL CELL PROJECT)
Note from Dineh Torres, NEN Publications Director and writer:
We received the following letter from Stanley Meyer in complaint of an article published in the December 1996 issue of New Energy News. This NEN "article" was a four sentence summary of a newspaper article published in the London Sunday Times (which was sent to us by Mark Goldes, he did not write any of it). There were no comments made by NEN about the content of the Times article. However, I do apologize fully for the title of the article. The master copy of that issue is being changed and subsequent copies will be printed with the title "Legal Problems for WFC ."
As far as the other points that Meyer mentions in his letter, the summary in NEN made no implications concerning the veracity or market- ability of his Water Fuel Cell technology, since it was merely a summary of a news item. In fact, the Times' mention of "expert witnesses" was printed in quotation marks because we do know how expert some witnesses can be, from our own Cold Fusion experiences. We had no indication of any appeal being made by Meyer, any court order that had been made, any patentability questions, or about any independent test evaluations, because we have not received information about any of this from Meyer's WFC company until now. A complete copy of the WFC Public Notice (12 pages) will be made available to anyone requesting it and sending a Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope ($.55 postage) to the NEN office. In the Public Notice, WFC explains the entire issue.
We are truly sorry that Mr. Meyer has taken such offence at our summary, and we note here that the information that WFC has just sent to NEN indicates that WFC has issued a formal complaint against the London Sunday Times concerning the article. NEN and the Institute for New Energy do not wish to denigrate any serious inventor or scientist who is working on New Energy solutions, and we will continue to do all we can to support their efforts. To that end we need the input of these researchers so we can more exactly represent their endeavors. Our best wishes to Mr. Meyer and his company in their legal problems and in their continued research and development of the Water Fuel Cell.
[the following letter reproduced as received]
RE: Article titled "Fuel For Fraud or Vice Versa"
Courtesy of Mark Goldes
Contents for December 1996 issue
Subject: WFC Notice To Retract
We are enclosing: WFC technical Supplemental Report (issue No. 11A, pages 1 thru 12), titled WFC setting Industry Standard denoting WFC "Mode of Operability" to cause "Particle oscillation as an energy generator" by way of pulsating electrical stress to instantly convert water droplets into thermal explosive energy (gtnt) and subscribed therein many independent governmental and university laboratories test-reports confirming WFC technology of Inventions; WFC Public Notice To Inform (pages 1 thru 12), Supreme Court of Ohio Disciplinary Counsel filing of events denoting therein WFC charges of judicial default by presiding Judge, Corzine, in preventing WFC Evidence of Records to be submitted to the Fayette County Court by switching off the court audio sound recording equipment; The German Association of Vacuum Field Energy correspondence letter to WFC by Dr. H.A. Nieper ... stating "I refer to the tested overunity effect of your (WFC) technology" ... "We will present there (Expo 2000 World exhibition, Hannover, Germany) the modalities of the conversion of Vacuum Field Energy on which your (WFC) procedure is based on"; and a copy of New Energy News article titled "Fuel For Fraud or Vice Versa," page 17, as per WFC Evidence of Records; and that,
WFC Major Complaints Against Mark Goldes Article
1) that the article was unbalance as it did not mention the fact that WFC is appealing against the decision of the presiding Judge on the grounds of judicial default; and that,
2) that the article wrongly implies that the court order WFC to stop developing the Water Fuel Injection System; and that,
3) that the article wrongly implies that the WFC technology of inventions has no technological merit of truth; and that,
4) that the article wrongly implies that the Sunday Times Journalist, Tony Edwards, has the technical expertise in the field of physics and chemistry background to properly evaluate WFC tech-base; and that,
5) that the article wrongly implies that no independent test evaluation reports confirming the "Mode of Operability" of WFC technology exist in the scientific community, worldwide; and that,
6) that the article wrongly implies that the U.S. Patent Office has not the ability to rule on the technical merits of issued U.S. Patents, as so granted to inventor, Stanley A. Meyer, under 35 USC 101 ... as so duly noted in context as so subscribed in attached WFC documents titled WFC Public Notice To Inform as in reference to WFC Technical Supplemental Report; and that,
7) that the article wrongly implies that the Plaintiff's three experts had the necessary scientific background to properly evaluate the various stages of the tech-development of the WFC technology; and that,
8) that the article wrongly implies that WFC process of particle oscillation as an energy generator by way of pulsating electrical stress to cause instant conversion of water droplets into thermal explosive energy (gtnt) is nothing more than conventional electrolysis; and that,
WFC Notice To Retract and WFC Cease & Desist Order Hereby Given
Due to the New Energy News article above distorted and unbalance bias statements, WFC hereby demand that The New Energy News Editor, Hal Fox, print an article in the next issue of the New Energy News with regard to the confirmation of WFC tech-base by the many independent Governmental and University testing laboratories, worldwide, as herein so duly noted... demon- strating the "Mode of Operability of using water as a new fuel source, as so subscribed in above attached WFC Technical Supplemental Report ... as so further elucidated by the enclosed attached German Association of Vacuum Field Energy letter to WFC by Dr. H.A. Neiper confirming the tested overunity effect of WFC technology, as herein to be included therein WFC charges of judicial default as so outlined above against the presiding judge; as herein WFC Notice To Comply is herein given; and that,
[Picture is given of the WFC Burner Nozzle Assembly]
One of Mr. Meyer's WFC systems as shown in his New Release, aviable from WFC, Inc.
It is hereby to be noted that above said WFC documents were in the public domain prior to the publishing date of said New Energy News article. Concealing information to promote public deception is punishable both by fine and imprisonment, or both, as so specified under U.S. Federal Security Laws To Inform. FedEx tracking No. 2092559394.
Respectfully Submitted For Compliance,
Stanley A. Meyer, Inventor
Water Fuel Cell, 3792 Broadway
Grove City, Ohio 43123
Return to the INE Main Page
Mar. 17, 1997.