Wrong again. Your misapplication of second law would relegate all systems to closed and would destroy the definition of the second law. You don't get to do that without a little peer review - good luck that one.
No, what I said did not 'destroy the definition of the second law' at all. Unfortunately your familiar with it is so poor that you failed to understand what I'm saying.
An example would be the Planet Earth. It is not a closed system because it receives a lot of energy, with low entropy, from the Sun and emits a lot of high entropy energy. Now you cannot call the planet closed, but you can consider a closed system if you include the energy (in the form of photons) absorbed and emitted by the Earth too. Then you have a quantity which has constant quantities like energy, which you do need for a closed system.
Just as a kettle turns a quantity of low entropy electric energy into a quantity of high entropy thermal energy, the Earth turns the low entropy photons from the Sun into high entropy thermal radiation photons. Humans and other life on Earth use this low entropy energy to build complex molecules up from simpler ones (like plants photosynthesising). The second law applies when you include the energy/material which flows through the Earth in some given unit of time. My kettle example was precisely the same on a smaller scale.
Similarly, when you consider the entropy of a vehicle
and a container of water
you can measure the entropy change after you've fused that water. It's a closed system. The fuel starts with lots of energy and low entropy and ends with less energy and high entropy. The second law has been obeyed.
In the Sun, where vast quantities of hydrogen are fused into various light elements (depending on the particular cycle you pick) the individual protons are low entropy while things like lithium, helium, carbon and oxygen are higher in entropy and lower in energy.
If you have a system which is
decreasing in entropy, like the Earth does, then it doesn't mean you have broken the second law, it means that you are ignoring some other object which is providing a low entropy input by which the first object is lowering its entropy. When you include that in your consideration (ie include the Sun in your consideration of the Earth) you find the second law applies.
A car fueled by water, with a tank of water strapped to it, is a closed system. If you claim it isn't, why is a car with a tank of petrol strapped to it closed?
I didn't claim to to have replicated the ultrasonic water heater, I gave a plausible explanation of how it worked and why second law did not apply to the misplaced definition of efficiency. That is my basic argument and what this argument is all about..
And, as I've explained with examples multiple times, your explanation is neither plausible or right. I've explained how the definition of 'efficiency' can be applied each and every time.
You don't get to do that without a little peer review - good luck that one.
Ah yes, that peer review I've already had on my published work and which you have not given you've got nothing to show for all those many hours and years you've spent on these things?
f you wanted to educate yourself on the subject, the inventor will talk to you on the phone for 30 minutes for $200 dollars.
Ah, you got burned by paying through the nose to talk to someone lying about their work and now you want to try to convince yourself you weren't a sucker.
Or, you can cling to your wilful ignorance and continue to express the magical thoughts of belief of disbelief. All that will get you into is in "hot water".
So the fact I've said I'll happily admit I'm wrong if you can provide some evidence, some independent verification, an explicit demonstration of this technology backed up by a reputable third party, yet you offer
NOTHING means I'm engaging in wilful ignorance? You, a loud mouth proponent of this stuff, can't provide evidence its valid when asked just shows
there is no evidence. You've supposedly known about this for years, if not decades, and in all that time you've not come across one bit of evidence which would be considered worthy of journal publication? So how am I going to find such things if you haven't?
Tell me, if you cannot provide evidence which meets basic scientific methodology standards, why should anyone following scientific methods listen to you?
If I claimed I could fly, would you believe me? Would you be close minded for saying "Come on, that's a big claim. You're going to have to provide some evidence for that!" ? Of course not. Yet you practice a double standard when people ask you for evidence.
EDIT - BTW, if want to to publicly dismiss the term sonofusion, I would suggest you write a paper on that and publish it with proof.
I don't claim its wrong, I claim that its not in violation of the 2nd law and noone has yet managed to develop it to the point where you can pour water into a car and it runs like a petrol driven car.
And again, you tell me to publish stuff to show you're wrong when you don't have published material showing you're right. Complete hypocrisy.