Stanley Meyer replication with low input power

[canufi]

If stan was just taking the hydrogen and oxygen produced by the cell and using only these two products feeding them into the cylinder than it would be a dismal failure.  Atmospheric gasses are coming into the equation here.  These gasses are not coming into the intake at zero degrees kelvin. They too have mass to convert to energy.

There is no question that hydrogen mixed with regular air will run an engine. That's irrelevant to the real question, which is: how is the Energy conserved according to the laws of thermodynamics, with Stan's devices. Just because hydrogen runs an engine, doesn't mean that you get any energy out of water. Stan's claim was that the energy in water comes from the Sun - this is not currently understood science and may be complete quackery and crackpot.

Just stating that E=MC2 doesn't help.  Just because lakes and rivers absorb sunlight, doesn't mean you can utilize this energy - the lakes and rivers will produce a bit of hydrogen into the surroundings if the water breaks down in the lakes. That energy is not available in a water fuel cell, it's already been used up in the lake and river.

Once again we are back to actually understanding how Stan's device magically stole energy from the sun, which no one can explain. All I see is hand waving and gobblydegook along with doublespeak.

[sparks]

  There is no violation of thermal dynamics in this case at all.   Hydrogen and Oxygen leave water splitter.  Taking and transporting thermal energy to the cylinder.  In the reaction chamber (cylinder) are added more gas along with it's thermal energy.  A reaction occurs that causes thermal energy of the gasses involved to convert to radiant energy.  The radiant energy is then used to do work.  The byproducts of the reaction are then returned to the atmosphere where electromagnetic radiation energy from the Sun is converted to thermal energy to be transported to the cylinder again and again and again.  Why do Stan's producers run cool?  Because the gas is leaving the solution.  Heat pumps run less in more out all the time.  Now imagine if instead of radiating the heat (the designed purpose) you use it to feed some secondary endothermic reaction.  Then you take the products of this endothermic reaction and burn them in an exothermic reaction.  The 2nd law of thermal dynamics tells us that this exothermic reaction will never be enough to supply the endothermic reaction in a closed loop.  Of course it won't.  There will be all sorts of losses as energy of the system is bound to radiate and not stay in the system.  It excludes perpectual motion and overunity and all that.  Which is obvious to a child.  The heat pump is an energy collector.  It creates the condition for energy to flow into the system in the evaporator.  It then takes this increased energy flux and makes it flow out of the system in the condensor.  It is not a perpectual motion machine it's a frigging pump.   Molecular vibrations or thermal energy do not go away until you cool molecules down to 0 degree's kelvin.  Stan's car is going to run until he can't extract any heat from the incoming gasses.

[canufi]

  There is no violation of thermal dynamics in this case at all.

LOL LOL LOL LOL

Obviously you are not familiar with the thermal dynamics laws, which state you cannot just take energy from a room temp substance and move it to another equal room temp substance unless you expend energy.   Hot flows to cold. Hot does not flow to an equal temp substance.  You're obviously also not familiar with the idea that it takes just as much energy to break a molecular bond, as the energy you get back when you burn a substance and create that bond.

A heat pump uses up energy in order to move heat, that's why there is a pump involved. Fridges work the same way.

Indeed if Stan's water fuel cell became frozen cold during the process, it would prove he was stealing temperature (energy) from water.

Since the water stays the exact same temp, he isn't stealing temperature from the water.

All this talk about radiant energy is complete stupidity.  Radiant energy was first described by Tesla as energy from cosmic waves and the sun, it's not energy from some magic God, it's just sun energy. Then scientists figured out that tesla's radiant energy was electromagnetic waves from the sun.

The term zero point energy and radiant energy are meaningless terms used by crackpots when the laws of thermodynamics are being violated.

In the case of Brownian motion, it's not stealing energy from Zero point energy or from Radiant energy.  Brownian motion is run by temperature energy (molecules  hitting an object)

I'm not saying Stan's car didn't work, I'm saying that most of you people haven't a bloody clue! You use filler terms like zero point energy or radiant energy, just like Christians who use God as a filler term to describe something they don't understand.  Where does the energy come from? It comes from God!  Why did the kid with a disease become healed? Because of God!  Zero point energy and Radiant Energy is the new "god of the gaps".  When you don't understand something, just bring in "god" or "zero point energy", so that you don't have to think any more.  I don't understand evolution, therefore God did it.

[forest]

canufi

You are wrong about radiant energy because you don't see something which should be obvious. Something which was a mystery for centuries. You said that radiant energy is coming from our sun and it's true but only partially. Sun is the closest star but most of radiant energy comes from cosmic background , from all stars in universe.

It is in form of different frequencies and not visible to us on Earth surface , mostly filtered out by our magnetosphere but as you know from Newton laws there must be equal and opposite reaction and this energy cannot just dissapear.

[NerzhDishual]

Hi Theorists,

Sorry for disturbing.

For my part, I have noticed that a lot of inventors are claiming to run
Internal Combustion Engine on 'HHO' (or similar? 'gas') only.
This 'gas' being produced by low input power.

Strange enough, all the inventors use different methods.

IMO, the only questions are:
Is it real?
If it is (and I 'believe' it is) what about trying a replication of one of 
these devices? I did, without success. For the moment? 
-----------------
A witty *non* Scientist guy invented the steam Engine.
Then, a patented Scientist (Sadi Carnot) came and designed a theory.
This distinguished scientist did not invent anything save his theory.

Now, of course -guys- you do what you want with your (obvious) intelligence and knowledge.
But, what about experimenting and even inventing instead of theorizing?

Very Best from Brest
Jean