PowerStroker wrote:

---

I've heard of that one. Many have tried, but nobody has been able to duplicate his results. His patents are published for all to see, but it doesn't work because it violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Nobody has ever made a perpetual motion machine, and Stanley died of an aneurism.

An engine can run on hydrogen sure. And hydrogen can be extracted from water using electrolysis. But the energy used by the engine to create the electricity to extract the hydrogen is done at a slight net loss - always. No amount of tweaking voltages, amperages, or duty cycles can change this reality. Stanley's false demonstrations are accomplished by using the 12v starting battery to subsidize these losses. Once that battery is depleted though, the demonstration is over.

"Hydrogen generators" have existed for a long time, and the gullible have been putting them on their cars for years to "reduce the amount of gasoline needed." The reason car makers don't equip vehicles from the factory with them is the exact reason Stanley's car never actually worked in the manner he claimed, they know better, and it's not some conspiracy.

It would be so nice if it worked, but it doesn't.

 

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Tuesday 22nd of August 2023 12:08:04 AM

---

 Good points and good info I hadn't seen. As far as perpetual goes, so there is a loss? If the loss doesn't outweigh the gain, the gain is good? H20, 2 hydrogen, 1 oxy. 2 Hyd burns, oxy is good for us. No pollution from that part, some using batteries, charging from regular grid. How about solar and batts to separate it? I don't have the answers but believe there is possibilities. The guy in Africa was recent, month or so, see if I can find it.

Hey PowerStroker, we already know you're lacking in automotive skill -- let's not add comprehension to the list!

Nobody (including Stanley) ever said anything about making a perpetual motion vehicle -- that is just some BS you added in to distract from your inablilty to understand what you're looking at. 

I'm sure Stanley left out the secret sauce to his invention in the patent because he knew it would just be stolen!

There was also a guy back in the 70's that made a carburetor that got almost 60 miles to the gallon! Beating even the economy seen in modern day vehicles with half the cylinders! I think he's dead too...

All the stuff they are putting on vehicles today from turbo's, direct injection, VVT, EGR and changing everything up every few years serves only ONE purpose! To keep people buying new cars!

Fords has gone one step further by figuring out how to make a new car with low miles become worthless a short time after the warranty period -- if not while it's STILL under warranty... they just kick the car, or re-program it to a more disctructive pattern that masks the orignial complaint until it's out of warranty! See - https://autotrend.activeboard.com/t67508894/fords-notorious-dps6-dry-clutch-automatic-shifted-transmissi/

And now I am seeing it in their EcoBoost vehicles like the 2017 Escapes with the 1.6L popping head gaskets at 70k miles... It's not even a joke anymore... but if you buy a new Ford you're going to be the joke and some partisan union hack like yourself will get the last laugh... because you work for Fords you know damn well they do this stuff on purpose! It's why you drive a Honda, isn't it?

Secret sauce? Oh I need to hear this.

The 1.6 can't be fixed with a head gasket, it needs a short block, and so does the 1.5. And yeah, it's one of the reasons I drive a Honda.

A perpetual motion MACHINE is impossible. Things traveling through space until another force acts upon them is just basic physics.

The 1.5 and 1.6 have a design flaw in the original short blocks. Slapping in a new head gasket isn't a fix, the updated short block is. And in the case of the 2.0 they get a long block for some reason but I'm not really sure why.

The root cause is the relief cut the original ones had between the cylinder walls. Thermal expansion and contraction causes the cylinders to move slightly side to side which rubs away at the head gasket until they start pouring coolant into the cylinders. The updated short block on the 1.5 and 1.6 have a drilled passage instead, which solves the problem. The 2.0 had the same design flaw, but apparently there was also an update to the cylinder head so those get long blocks. I'll be doing a 2.0 next week actually.

PowerStroker wrote:

---

If we could move to a hydrogen fuel cell based transportation system that would be great - IF the electricity used to produce the hydrogen comes from a clean source like wind or solar.

The Stanley Meyer model of burning the hydrogen in an engine to run an alternator to create the electricity needed to harvest more hydrogen from water to run the engine will always be done at a net loss and won't ever work. His illusion was accomplished by draining the vehicle's 12v starting battery to temporarily subsidize the net loss, and I have to believe he knew as much.

---

 Now that's interesting his "hiding" using the battery, which will deplete of course unless there is an alternative source. Solar probably. Me, I love solar always have. Not perfect, disposal, lithium, cobalt mines etc for batts. But lets think on it. I didn't post this to talk perpetual motion or thermo-dynamics but the possibility of an alternate fuel, one that burns relatively clean. I agree he had to know, but he was off to a start anyway. We can finish it, replace the loss in a "renewable manner", solar, think wind is out on a slow car.

I been reading hydrogen power on and off. There are people on utube that have done it. Old pickup trucks, looks like a rack of mason jars behind the window. I'll find some. I just believe it is possible. Just after WW2 a man ran an old jeep on water/hydrogen.

Couldn't find that African guy recently, was a headline somewhere and I didn't follow it. 

If Meyers really could split water molecules with 1/2 amp that's 90% the battle. Now replace the loss in a better way? Yes?

Shawnee_B wrote:

---

 There is no space! It's flat and under a dome. Even Homer Simpson showed you that.

---

 

Riiiiiiiighhhhttt...