RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQESites logClaimsSourcesResearch notes

2026-10-09 Stan's Legacy (stanslegacy.com), "The Stanley Meyer Archive"

Investigator (Step I), first run. Fetched by curl (site allows scripted access); page copies in research/pages/ (stanslegacy-.html/.txt, sl-.html/.txt).

Who runs it, and what stake it has: an advocacy and preservation archive of Meyer's work, run by people who support him (the site has a marketplace and workshops). Its own transcriptions of court and probate records are useful, but it chooses and frames them. Pages the site wrote are secondary. Documents it reproduces, such as Meyer's 1995 binder and the court dockets, are primary only as far as the transcription is faithful. Meyer's own documents carry his stake as patent holder and seller of dealerships.

Pages read

1. "WFC Public Notice to Inform" (Meyer's own account, dated 20 Dec 1996; page posted 28 Nov 2022)

URL: https://stanslegacy.com/documents/wfc-public-notice-to-inform [web] This is Meyer's own account of the lawsuits, i.e. the inventor's own work (priority 1), and he is an interested party. Key points: - Franklin County Common Pleas case 93CVH08-5477, filed 4 Aug 1993 by Richard (Rick) Schneider, Bill Brooks and John Gilvesy over a dealership contract. (The 2007 Columbus Dispatch reports a 1994 settlement in which Brooks's money was returned.) - Fayette County Common Pleas case CVH 930292, filed 21 Sep 1993 by Forrest Harper and Richard Willis, WFC dealers who said they bought their dealerships "because of fraudulent statements". In an 11 Nov 1993 letter to the court, Meyer counterclaimed $333,929 compensatory and $279,250 punitive damages. - On 18 Oct 1995 a pre-trial deposition inspected the demonstration units ("Variable-plate Electrical Polarization Process (VIC) Fuel Cell and Rotary Pulse Voltage Frequency Generator Tubular-Array Fuel Cell") in the office of plaintiffs' attorney Robert Judkins. - The trial ran 1-2 Feb 1996 and 8-10 May 1996 before Judge William Corzine III. Meyer says Swedish electrical engineer Mathias Johanson, a WFC expert witness, was never called. He also says the judge switched off the court's audio recording during his VIC demonstration, and that WFC filed a judicial-misconduct complaint with the Ohio Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel. - Meyer's summary of the ruling: "Judge Corzine ruled that WFC did not have an amperage inhibiting circuit, did not have a Voltage Intensifier Circuit (VIC) and therefore the WFC water splitting process was only electrolysis." Meyer's reply was that "independent scientific verification (Government and University Labs, Worldwide)" existed. - Garnishment of $40,515.72 (2 Oct 1996). - Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin is called a "strong supporter". Meyer says a British Maritime Charitable Foundation seminar (House of Lords, 1996) was cancelled. - He wrote a "Request to Retract" to the Sunday Times on 2 Dec 1996 about Tony Edwards' article of 1 Dec 1996.

2. "Fayette County CVH19930292: the docket" (archive's transcription of the court's online record, read 22 Sep 2026)

URL: https://stanslegacy.com/documents/fayette-county-cvh19930292-the-docket [web] This is a court record (priority 4). The case is Willis and Harper v. Meyer, Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, Washington Court House, Ohio. Docket entries as transcribed: - Complaint filed 21 Sep 1993. Meyer's demand for a change of venue and a jury trial (27 Jan 1994) was not granted. - 21 Apr 1995: the plaintiffs asked to inspect and test the demonstration device. Meyer moved for a protective order (18 May). A stipulation and protective order was entered on 27 Oct 1995. - Trial sittings on 1-2 Feb and May 1996. Oral decision 7 Aug 1996. Decision transcript filed 11 Sep 1996. Final Judgment Entry (judgment for plaintiffs) on 24 Sep 1996, Min 116/166-168. - Defence counsel Roger L. Hurley and James S. Detling withdrew (motion 29 Jul, entry 9 Aug 1996). After that Meyer filed for himself (pro se). - Meyer's motion was overruled on 3 Sep 1996. His request for a new trial or dismissal, with an affidavit of Dr Russell E. Fowler, was filed on 4 Sep 1996, the day after. - Garnishment was executed through National City Bank: $35,337.42 + $5,178.30 = $40,515.72. Judgment satisfied on 6 Mar 1997. Case total $41,754.29. - 18 Jun 2014: notice of destruction of exhibits and depositions. The videotapes, poster boards, the depositions of Willis, Harper and Meyer, and exhibits 1-11 and A6-A37 are gone. - What survives: the decision transcript (filed 11 Sep 1996) and the Final Judgment Entry should remain in the court's journal (Min 116/166-168). They would give the court's actual findings, including the "gross and egregious fraud" wording, and the expert evidence. Not yet obtained.

3. "Proof" page (the archive's list of witnesses and tests)

URL: https://stanslegacy.com/proof [web] It lists, with the archive's own framing: - Griffin, Laughton and Hindley at Grove City (Oct 1990), printed in Electronics World, Jan 1991 (see the worldradiohistory note). - Perkins Technology Ltd (Peterborough) bench test on 8 Oct 1992: "dissociation observed to begin at about 10 volts ... The maximum observed current was less than 1 milliamp. The glass vessel ... remained at room temperature throughout." Perkins decided "fully to support SM and his WFC technology, subject to 'proof of concept' and costing" (Project TACO). - A DTI-sponsored report (Department of Trade and Industry, UK) by Queen Mary and Westfield College, early 1992. - Griffin's lecture "Water as Fuel", Southampton Institute, Warsash, Sep 1993. - Hans Nieper's letter of 14 Dec 1996 refers to "the tested overunity effect". - Tibor Nagypál's correspondence; a Dublin Institute of Technology explanation; Patrick Kelly's guide. - Most of these documents sit inside Meyer's "WFC International Independent Test-Evaluation Report" (1 Jan 1995), a binder Meyer compiled himself. It is not in the project folder.

4. Documents from the 1995 binder (scans transcribed by the archive)

  • Perkins visit and Project TACO, 6-8 Oct 1992. https://stanslegacy.com/documents/perkins-visit-and-project-taco Present: T.W.E. Downes (MD), G. Purkins and Dr M. Graham of Perkins Technology Ltd, with Griffin. Meyer showed a video of the dune buggy and gave them the Technical Brief (Memos 420-425DA). The "proof of concept" was to be a VW engine like the buggy's, run at Peterborough (Phase 1), then a 6.3544M marine diesel from the Thames ferry 'Brunel' (Phase 2).
  • Perkins meeting with Griffin, 28 Feb 1993. https://stanslegacy.com/documents/perkins-technology-meeting Factors against: a $125k deposit, $147.374k in total, and a "no redress" clause. And: "On none of the 3 occasions, October 1990, August 1992 and October 1992, when UK experts visited Ohio, was there a practical demonstration of a running internal combustion engine fuelled by water." Also: "A substantial number of UK scientists and engineers regard WFC technology as in breach of the first and second laws of thermodynamics." Factors in favour: "Sussex University has succeeded in producing hydrogen from a breadboard rig based on Meyer's circuitry." And item 12: the DTI-sponsored report by Queen Mary and Westfield College "were unable to reconcile Meyer's WFC descriptions ... with currently established scientific doctrine and literature. However they left open the possibility that WFC might prove to be an altogether new development." Items 7-8 repeat Meyer's own statements: over $200m of deposits including Pratt & Whitney, and the USAF at Wright-Patterson negotiating a jet conversion. Their source is Meyer.
  • Nagypál correspondence, Vienna, 4 Jun 1991. https://stanslegacy.com/documents/nagypal-correspondence Nagypál built a model with plane-parallel plates (3 in x 2 in, 1.6 mm gap), 12 V raised to about 600 V square-wave bursts, about 0.8 H chokes and about 10 nF cell capacitance. It drew about 20 mA and produced "about 0.5-1 cubic centimeter gas" per minute. He writes that he "can't reproduce" Meyer's waveforms and that "it works in another way", yet he also writes "your theory works", and claims "relative effectivity is about 300%" against his own "ionic technology" (10-12 W). In the same letter he offers himself as WFC distributor for Austria and Hungary, which makes him an interested party. This is the source of the newsletter's "Your theory works" quote (claims.md). The numbers can now be checked: 0.5-1 cc/min of gas is a very small output.
  • Electronics World article (Jan 1991): see 2026-10-09-worldradiohistory.md.
  • Also saved, not yet read in full: affidavits and witnessed water-collection tests (pp.48-58; first is the affidavit of Robert L. Queen, Materials Joining Consultants, Columbus, on analysis of the T-304 stainless steel tubing), laboratory reports on gas and materials (pp.40-47, including a 1983 patent-validation summary by patent attorney Anthony D. Cennamo), energy calculations (pp.59-60; Meyer's EPP voltage dissociation table, measured with a TIF 1000 clamp ammeter and a Micronta 22-210 voltmeter), the Dublin Institute of Technology explanation (pp.81-95; Rea O'Neill, Industrial Liaison Office), Griffin's "Water as Fuel" (Southampton 1993, pp.113-128), a Fowler memo of 16 Jan 1997, and the archive's timeline.

5. "Franklin County Probate 457686: the estate of Stanley A. Meyer"

URL: https://stanslegacy.com/documents/franklin-county-probate-457686-the-estate [web] Probate record as transcribed (priority 4): - Estate administered without a will, from 24 Mar 1998 to 11 Jan 2001. Administrator Alphonse P. Cincione, Columbus attorney. The widow, Marilyn Meyer, waived administration. Date of death in the probate record: 21 Mar 1998 (the Dispatch says 20 Mar). - Inventory $268,388.85, amended to $306,608.04; no real estate. - 30 Apr 1998: ADS Systems hired "to search for information on decedent" in his computer. - 8 May 1998: approval to maintain "the patents in Canada". - 15 Sep 1999: "Water Fuel Cell: Valuation of Sole Proprietorship as of March 21, 1998" was filed. It is in the court file, not online. - The widow applied to buy the assets (Nov 1999). A magistrate's decision followed on 10 Feb 2000. - 5 May 2000: transfer of the "83 DuneBuggy". - Creditor Melvin Kramer filed a claim (457686 A) and sued (99 CV 006575). Porter Wright Morris & Arthur sued the administrator (99 CV 006793).

6. Other pages fetched

  • "Fuel for fraud or vice versa?", a summary of the Sunday Times article of 1 Dec 1996 "courtesy of Mark Goldes".
  • "What the encyclopedias cite": the archive judges that most published retellings rest on the two Columbus Dispatch pieces.
  • Death-certificate page: it only points to a YouTube reading of the coroner's verdict (uwantsun, 2020).

How this bears on the claims

  • Claims 1 and 3, and Meyer's stated outside confirmation: the binder holds the only third-party bench observations found so far (Perkins 1992, Nagypál 1991, Griffin 1990/1993). Each gives voltage and current in qualitative terms or as single readings. None gives gas volume per unit of energy input, except Nagypál (0.5-1 cc/min).
  • Perkins' own note says no water-fuelled engine was ever shown to UK visitors on three visits.
  • The court record (historical record) gives the plaintiffs' names, the case number, the trial dates, the amount paid, and the destruction of the exhibits.