Bartcop | BuzzFlash | Huffington-Post | blah3.com | Eschaton | Today in Iraq
The first election winner in history to declare the results are a fraud!
  Chat | Problems posting? | FAQ | Crooks & Liars | Digby | The-Sideshow | Forum Bloggers



Support the Forum








Click for www.electoral-vote.com




BCForum Bloggers
By Blogrolling.com















Subject: "(Free Energy) The Revolution Will Be Won With Information, Not Guns" First topic | Last topic
Printer-friendly copy | Email this topic to a friend
Top Bartcop Forum Back Room Topic #33616
Show all folders

FreshLaundryWed May-24-06 10:40 AM
Member since May 12th 2002
3527 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list Send this user a message via AOL IM
"(Free Energy) The Revolution Will Be Won With Information, Not Guns"
Edited on Wed May-24-06 10:45 AM by FreshLaundry

          

It is and has always been about power.

Money means nothing to the people that print it - money is another system of control, just like religion, just like fascism, just like capitalism and democracy. Money is only paper (soon to be replaced with 0s and 1s) and ceased to be an actual representation of worth since well before 1913 (the Federal Reserve.)

You don't need to have a bloody revolution to take back the earth:

Step 1: Take one of the already readily available 'free energy' devices - basically super efficient electrolysis machines (standard electrolysis uses up more energy than you get back in the form of burnable hydrogen. New methods have been developed that turn water into HHO using minute amounts electricity; more power out than you put in. Before the dogmatic science enthusiasts start angrily heading for the 'reply' button, please do me the kindness of watching some of the links provided at bottom - thanks.)

Step 2: Make it available to everyone. Post the designs all over the internet and get every Bob and Sue with a tool set and a garage to start building them. Don't leave it to one guy with a patent or anyone that can be easily suicided.

Step 3: Get some popcorn and watch:
* The collapse of the oil companies
* The collapse of the trickle down power structure
* The collapse of the power companies
* The end of dependency
* The end of nationalism
* The end of hunger
* The end of the third world
* The end of materialism
* The return of balance
* The earth begin to heal itself
* Space travel blossoms and humans leave the earth
* The golden age of humanity begins

If Al Gore's movie takes hold I think very soon would be a perfect time to do it. Damn the consequences.

Call me an idealist, but the government (and the middle east) has bought up, squashed, and suicided every single 'free energy' idea that has ever threatened to take hold. Why? Because it is how they maintain power. The entire economy and power structure of the earth is based mainly upon the aquisition of energy. The problem is, we are all squabbling over crude whilst TPTB (the powers that be) know that a) it is destroying the planet and b) we are fighting over something we don't actually need.

The other problem is that scientists and academics are some of the most insecure arrogants on the earth - they are loathe to accept any new ideas unless the idea is already readily accepted, lest they be ridiculed by their collegues. Many academics are secure in the knowledge that they already know everything - facts that do not fall within that worldview tend to be ignored, often violently. Nearly every major step in science and technology throughout history has been an out and out struggle. (4 stages: shock, denial, anger, acceptance - usually followed by, 'yeah, i already knew that.')




Fox News Report
link
Their promotional video
link

Water Car Inventor (Murdered)
The inventor is dead, but his seems to be the same process that the man in the Fox News report above was using...
link

Dr. Steven Greer from the Disclosure Project discusses the future of the earth and the government insiders he has talked to that know about free energy:
link

His organization is working to work with inventors to release this information and technology to the world:
http://www.seaspower.com/

Bryon New Energy / JoeCell / Negatively Charged Water(?)
(Burnable/compressible water?)
link

Water/Fuel Engine, Paul Phantone
link

Charged Water - JoeCell

This is the charging process
link

These guys call it 'etheric energy' (whatever), but the demonstration is still pretty interesting?
link

---
Before you put on your insulting hats, please note that I said nothing about 'orgone energy' or that crap, and please also note that if you want to attack their scientific explanations for why it works (I'm not even sure they really know), you are welcome to do so, but it is a strawman -- I'd rather discuss the results. (Actually, I'd rather you take up enough interest to start trying to build one and let us know how it goes.)

If you are interested in how a JoeCell is constructed there is a lot of information on the web and on video.google.com a man documented the entire process of creating one. It seems very iffy as far as getting consistent good results; I'm more inclined to favor the results shown by the inventors in the first three videos, but I do not discount the uses of the 'negatively charged water (??)' as shown in the JoeCell vid. The first group wants to make a profit and I don't think they'll be handing it out anytime soon. The JoeCell org wants the information to be free.





www.scholarsfor911truth.org

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

You are entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts, secondharmonic, May-24-06 11:05 AM, #1
"over-unity" device?, FreshLaundry, May-24-06 11:12 AM, #2
For engineers: Conference, Apr. 9, 2006, FreshLaundry, May-24-06 12:12 PM, #3
Whew. That made my brain hurt., NeonLX, May-24-06 12:54 PM, #4
What is the size of a particle?, secondharmonic, May-24-06 01:07 PM, #5
As someone with an incomplete engineering background, picosecond, May-24-06 01:24 PM, #6
I'm drunk., FreshLaundry, May-25-06 12:55 AM, #15
      Didn't really need to watch the videos, picosecond, May-26-06 12:01 PM, #22
I misunderstood the JoeCell, FreshLaundry, May-24-06 01:35 PM, #7
Well, I'll tell you what., MadSatyrist, May-24-06 01:42 PM, #8
Dean Kamen, Bushbegone, May-24-06 02:25 PM, #10
      The Stirling engine, KerryW, May-24-06 06:51 PM, #12
      O' Rly?, FreshLaundry, May-25-06 01:37 AM, #16
Currency, Bushbegone, May-24-06 02:19 PM, #9
America: From Freedom to Fascism (Coming Soon!), FreshLaundry, May-24-06 02:27 PM, #11
crackpot index., searust, May-24-06 08:24 PM, #13
none of you, FreshLaundry, May-25-06 12:18 AM, #14
I watched one., KerryW, May-25-06 06:41 AM, #17
Tesla, GangOfOne, May-25-06 06:56 AM, #18
I Loves Me Some Tesla..., monkeyfister, May-29-06 04:38 PM, #25
chill out a bit, RussBLib, May-25-06 07:40 AM, #19
RE: none of you, deucednuisance, May-25-06 08:27 AM, #20
About Feynman, secondharmonic, May-31-06 10:52 AM, #27
Byron New Energy Video, deucednuisance, May-25-06 09:05 AM, #21
Interesting stuff, RussBLib, May-28-06 08:40 AM, #23
Any of you near Salt Lake City, Utah on July 30th?, FreshLaundry, May-29-06 01:02 AM, #24
Water Fuel Cell Dot Org..., monkeyfister, May-29-06 04:53 PM, #26

secondharmonicWed May-24-06 11:05 AM
Member since Apr 30th 2002
15977 posts
Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"You are entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts"
In response to Reply #0


          

and your own definitions is right out.
"Free energy" has already been taken, it already means something definite (available work -- or the enthalpy minus the change in entropy times the temperature, or else the internal energy minus the same quantity), so you have to use another term, sorry.
If I measure an equilibrium (and I have many times) that depends on temperature, pressure, number of counterions and so on, but what I measure in every case is a free energy of formation.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

    
FreshLaundryWed May-24-06 11:12 AM
Member since May 12th 2002
3527 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list Send this user a message via AOL IM
""over-unity" device?"
In response to Reply #1
Edited on Wed May-24-06 11:25 AM by FreshLaundry

          

but even that isn't right.

(And I don't think over-unity goes against the laws of physics because there is a huge amount of energy in every particle - and if you believe Tesla, the fabric of the universe itself has energy.)

Anyway, this isn't my 'opinion', but I understand your complaint with the term - sadly, it is already the rallying cry.
(they mean free, as in, costing nothing (be it energy or money), not free as in available.)

Please do watch some of the vids if you have the time.

(Arthur C. Clark rocketh)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044&q=free+energy



www.scholarsfor911truth.org

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

FreshLaundryWed May-24-06 12:12 PM
Member since May 12th 2002
3527 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list Send this user a message via AOL IM
"For engineers: Conference, Apr. 9, 2006"
In response to Reply #0
Edited on Wed May-24-06 12:48 PM by FreshLaundry

          

Peter Lindemann at a "Free Energy" conference

this goes much deeper into the science. many of these concepts were already solid with tesla. i found it interesting that they are saying that the electrical discharge is NOT electrons - the energy comes from particles smaller than electrons. hmm.

the videos i posted previously are more for the 'wow' factor, not the explanations of how they work.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6183263096342406828&q=free+energy

(please help me understand!)

His earlier video - The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6531378517026122577&q=Lindemann




www.scholarsfor911truth.org

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

    
NeonLXWed May-24-06 12:54 PM
Member since May 21st 2002
4877 posts
Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Whew. That made my brain hurt."
In response to Reply #3


          

Wish I was a whole lot smarter than I am.

I'm trying really hard not to be skeptical here, but that's my nature. You've given me many avenues to pursue however.

AWOL Bush
Miserable Failure
Undesireable Discharge

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

    
secondharmonicWed May-24-06 01:07 PM
Member since Apr 30th 2002
15977 posts
Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"What is the size of a particle?"
In response to Reply #3


          

Quantum mechanics says there is no perfectly good answer. But if you want a good value of the size of its wavepacket you could do worse than say it is h/p p being the particle's momentum. So if you accelerated a proton to a given speed, (say in a cyclotron, and basically you only have the one final speed, pretty much the same for any given charge) it would be 'smaller than an electron'. If you accelerated a big heavy nucleus, well, you might not get the same speed, but dollars to doughnuts you will get a Compton wavelength smaller yet.
So it sounds grand and fantastic, but it isn't.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

    
picosecondWed May-24-06 01:24 PM
Member since Apr 23rd 2002
916 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"As someone with an incomplete engineering background"
In response to Reply #3


          

who follows quacks and frauds as a hobby, here's my two cents: This guy Lindemann is bullshit.

I've read his claims in the past -- he's a big defender of the failed cold fusion experiments back in '89. He holds they delivered results, when no one has ever managed to duplicate those results in a lab. Also, he has no degree and has misrepresented himself as having one in the past.

Cold fusion does have some scientific validity, but the Utah '89 experiment that made cold fusion famous was a failure or fraud, depending on who you believe. Lindemann defends those bad/fraudulent experiments as proof of his theory, and in at least one article I've read he's claimed that no further experiments have been done in that field, which is blatantly false. Every major university in Europe has experimented with it & reported their results, so has the US Dept. of Energy and the Pentagon.

There's also that episode of "MythBusters" that tried some of the free energy stuff and showed it didn't really work.

So IMO, he's a total phony and shouldn't be listened to.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

        
FreshLaundryThu May-25-06 12:55 AM
Member since May 12th 2002
3527 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list Send this user a message via AOL IM
"I'm drunk."
In response to Reply #6


          

Which means, I have no filter right now. Please allow me to apologize in advance.

Let me just say, I have known many people that have believed in something and been suckered by someone that has claimed to cherish their ideals - for instance, us! So many fake democrats have sung our song and you and I both know it - we fell for it - ce la vie. It was bullshit. We now know it. We were fools. We all were. That doesn't make us frauds or assholes. We wanted to belive.

I don't know the history of Lindemann; it wouldn't take me long to figure it out, but the principles he was talking about had nothing to do with cold fusion - perhaps that was something that he grasped on to long ago until he realized that he had been had too - in the video provided he was talking about technologies that have not only been proven and verified by multiple sources, but by researchers that didn't know of eachother and yet reached the same conclusion.

But you wouldn't know that, would you? You didn't actually watch the videos. The reply button was just all too tempting.

I understand your reticence, especially in light of the faking of credentials, if true (will google later. promise. not that you'd do me the same respect in kind) - but let me say that most of those inventors do not have a degree, and nor do I, and yet they all have results that people with degrees seem to shun without reason - why is that?

I appreciate that you follow quacks and frauds as a hobby, but perhaps you are so busy looking for said frauds that you can't see the genius in front of your face. But again, you wouldn't know, you can't even face the evidence, or surely you would have watched the videos to refute them (or you have dial-up, in which case: forgiven).

-FL



www.scholarsfor911truth.org

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

            
picosecondFri May-26-06 12:01 PM
Member since Apr 23rd 2002
916 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Didn't really need to watch the videos"
In response to Reply #15


          

Sorry, didn't feel like I had to. I know the guy's background. Like I said, his degree is fake and he uses proven bad research as a way to back up his claims. What more would I need to know? Are a couple of (possibly interesting) videos going to suddenly change those two little facts?

However fascinating you found this guy's multimedia show, it doesn't change the dubiousness of his claims. You can complain all you want about that, it's the simple truth. The most I'll grant you is that it's possible for even a charlatan to stumble onto a good idea -- but given what I know of this guy, I'm not holding my breath.

I think you're the kinda guy who REALLY wants to believe in something more. That's great, but don't letyour desire to believe that something bigger & better is possible, blind you to all the phonies and frauds out there who attempt to sucker people by preying on that (very human, and very noble) need.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

    
FreshLaundryWed May-24-06 01:35 PM
Member since May 12th 2002
3527 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list Send this user a message via AOL IM
"I misunderstood the JoeCell"
In response to Reply #3


          


According to this:
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/fejoewatercell.shtml

It actually doesn't consume the water used in the cell. NOT electrolysis and the 'fuel' is not the charged water itself.

Hrm.. It creates a gas with 'implosive' properties?
Very strange.

An engineer tries to dismiss it here and e-y responds:
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/joecellssandelectrolysis25sep05.shtml





www.scholarsfor911truth.org

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

MadSatyristWed May-24-06 01:42 PM
Member since May 14th 2002
10680 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user Add this user to your buddy list
"Well, I'll tell you what."
In response to Reply #0
Edited on Wed May-24-06 01:52 PM by MadSatyrist

          

Put it this way, until one of these miracle workers delivers to you a sealed unit that takes in only water or whatever the miracle substance is, and gives you back free electricity, and you've tested it for a longer period than any battery could supply power, don't invest. Scams involving "free power" have been around ever since the first electric lights, and even before.

Over unity is just the latest catchy phrase to separate people from dollars.

I've seen these announcements a dozen times or more in my life, and not one has ever produced anything like a practical device. And some of these things were announced over 100 years ago!

Oh, and BTW, the HHO guy is a real piece of work. What he's talking about is more properly called "Brown's gas", which is a welding gas, and Brown never claimed he got more power out than he put in, AFAIK.

HOWEVER, a whole bunch of scammers have picked up on the old "monoatomic hydrogen" deal (which isn't monoatomic anything, anyhow)and are, once again, making all sorts of insane claims.

Sigh, and, as nearly as I can tell, there is another character who is burning magnesium to suck the O out of water, and claiming the resultant H2 is "free". As if pure magnesium is found in deposits like coal - if it were, then it would be a practical fuel.

Funny thing is, I'm actually involved in a "cheap power" deal, but the power is solar, the collector is in place everywhere, and we aren't making any miracle claims whatsoever. I'll let you know if we get it working.

********************************************************************

Delusions, errors and lies are like huge, gaudy vessels, the rafters of which are rotten and worm-eaten, and those who embark in them are fated to be shipwrecked. Buddha

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

    
BushbegoneWed May-24-06 02:25 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2004
3681 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Dean Kamen"
In response to Reply #8
Edited on Wed May-24-06 02:28 PM by Bushbegone

          

Dean Kamen was working on something like that, I recall. It wasn't "free energy", I don't believe. I don't know what became of it.

It hasn't revolutionized anything around me yet, but as Bucky Fuller once described, technology has an incubation period. We may not be there commercially.

Ha, found it. Convert your crap to electricity and have a mint julip.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/16/technology/business2_futureboy0216/index.htm

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

        
KerryWWed May-24-06 06:51 PM
Member since Apr 24th 2002
1265 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"The Stirling engine"
In response to Reply #10


          

has been around for 150 years. I've even designed one.


Republicans: Proud Patriots since 01/20/01

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

        
FreshLaundryThu May-25-06 01:37 AM
Member since May 12th 2002
3527 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list Send this user a message via AOL IM
"O' Rly?"
In response to Reply #10


          



Yeah? How does Dean Kamen being involved refute the evidence?

He invented a wheelchair that climbed up stairs - using gyroscopes.
And that Segway sure didn't work, huh? It tipped our boy over, right?


Yes, I was dissapointed that 'Ginger' wasn't something truly revolutionary too, but, f*in hell, give the guy a break - the technology for free energy is out there and has been for ages, sure he is going to try and capitalize on it (while he still can); the thing is, you better hold on to your hat. when it gets hold:

a) transportation (i.e a flight) now has 0 energy cost, except the cost of paying the pilot to safeguard the (nearly automatic) plane and the risk that the corporation took in buying a plane in the first place...

EXCEPT

b) cost of manufacturing now costs 0 energy to create new planes - the only cost is labor and the cost to mine the materials from the ground...

EXCEPT

c) cost of mining materials from the ground is now only the man-hours required to maintain and pilot the equipment, as energy costs are now 0.

What are you paying your hosting service for? Labor, the initial cost of the servers, and the power needed to run the joint. We can take the power out of the equation and give the pay back to the people, where it belongs.


This is not a fantasy.
And it will present itself soon whether you accept it or not.

But whilst we debate the intricacies and minutiae of democratic politics, i sometimes wonder if the windmills are pointed in the wrong direction is all.

I do wonder.



www.scholarsfor911truth.org

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

BushbegoneWed May-24-06 02:19 PM
Member since Sep 28th 2004
3681 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Currency"
In response to Reply #0


          

I think it would be very difficult for us to get back our right to issue US currency. The Federal Reserve is entrenched and possibly violent. I wouldn't want to try and take away their control of our currency even though we are obliged by the Constitution. I believe the FED to be un-Constitutional.

Our currency is less free than free energy.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

    
FreshLaundryWed May-24-06 02:27 PM
Member since May 12th 2002
3527 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list Send this user a message via AOL IM
"America: From Freedom to Fascism (Coming Soon!)"
In response to Reply #9


          

Yup.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/





www.scholarsfor911truth.org

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

searustWed May-24-06 08:24 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2006
187 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"crackpot index."
In response to Reply #0
Edited on Wed May-24-06 08:25 PM by searust

          

The Crackpot Index

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

I am counting up the points now.....

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

    
FreshLaundryThu May-25-06 12:18 AM
Member since May 12th 2002
3527 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list Send this user a message via AOL IM
"none of you"
In response to Reply #13


          

actually watched any of the videos.
you just insult it.

same with the 9/11 bullshit - you can find me in the backroom if you'd care to review any of that material. but you won't.

i post, i get insulted, noone references anything i've actually talked about. i wonder if some of you think that you've won the argument because i didn't respond. i wonder if you know that i actually won because i didn't... the facts speak louder than i. sadly, you didn't reference the facts, you ignored them, so you've really no substantive comment at all. sad, that. you've probably more to say than anyone else - i don't care about the believers - their minds are already won; i want the cynics, the arrogants, the scientists, the deciders - sigh, what a waste.







www.scholarsfor911truth.org

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

        
KerryWThu May-25-06 06:41 AM
Member since Apr 24th 2002
1265 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"I watched one."
In response to Reply #14


          

It was too dark to see anything, and I don't have a sound card on this computer, so I couldn't hear anything, either.

I also read The Joe Energy Cell by Ken Adachi.

Observations:

There isn't enough information to build one.
Dimensions are critical, but not specified.
Materials are critical, but most are not specified.
Many reasons are given why MINE might not work, including the proximity of skeptical people.
Special water is required that most people don't have available. (Although I have a basement full of it)
If this thing REALLY worked, everybody he knows would have one. Shortly thereafter, everybody THEY know would have one. Soon, everybody I know would have one. Yet, after 10 years, NOBODY has one. Why is that?

Conclusion:

Even if he is right, and the rest of the world wrong, it doesn't do me (or you) any good. Now, if there were a working model somewhere in, say, New England, I would be happy to go look at it and talk to the builder. But somehow, I doubt that there is.



Republicans: Proud Patriots since 01/20/01

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

        
GangOfOneThu May-25-06 06:56 AM
Member since Sep 18th 2002
2976 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Tesla"
In response to Reply #14


          

FL -- I just finished watching a documentary about Tesla (also reading his biography) and I found it helpful in understanding some of the terminologies used in this thread. It seems Tesla was also an idealist, as you are, and wanted to provide all the people on this planet with free energy. He would have succeeded, I have no doubt, if it weren't for the militaristic ambitions of our (and others) government.

Thomas Edison, being the egotist that he was, did his best to make Tesla look like a crazy man. But my house is not wired for Edison's direct current electricity, it's using Tesla's alternating current. Ah, the irony. (Edison, IMO, was an asshat.)

Anyway, I wanted to thank you for your post and the links, and I thought you might enjoy the documentary on Tesla. Near the end, one of the engineers who are offering their views and insights, comments that all these "little" inventions and scientific advancements that have been and are occurring now are the fugue before a major breakthrough in human spiritual and technological evolution. I do hope that's true, because free men can't continue to exist if we are all beholding to corporations for our energy needs. I fear we will become the Free Energy in the form of slavery.

I hope you enjoy the video as much as I did. I'll be walking around all day now thinking about What Could Have Been. Searust should watch it, too, and rethink his little point system for determining crackpots.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5834867580747017149&q=tesla

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

            
monkeyfisterMon May-29-06 04:38 PM
Member since Dec 28th 2002
7543 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"I Loves Me Some Tesla..."
In response to Reply #18


          


I've been an admirer of his work for quite some time. That Google video was really good, Gang... Thank you!


and to Fresh Laundry: I think you're great. Your writing, and posts challenge me in many ways. Thanks to you, too!




Tony B.

Draft Code:


SUPPORT M&S ONE-STOP
FAILURE
Terrorist Sympathizer

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

        
RussBLibThu May-25-06 07:40 AM
Member since May 06th 2002
11525 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"chill out a bit"
In response to Reply #14


          

My work computer won't allow me to view most of these videos. My home computer is still battling these stupid cable modems, so my activity is spotty. We're on the verge of switching to DSL from Road Runner. Toss in visiting family, looking over new homes, and I haven't had time to focus on practically anything. Haven't even had time to be depressed!

But, that's just me. Can't speak for others.

KPFT Pacifica Radio Houston 90.1 FM
http://houston.kpft.org/site/PageServer
http://mediamatters.org/
http://motherjones.com/
http://www.democracynow.org/
If Bartcop Forum goes down, go here...
http://carbondate.proboards33.com/index.cgi?

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

        
deucednuisanceThu May-25-06 08:27 AM
Member since May 14th 2002
1279 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"RE: none of you"
In response to Reply #14


          

I think, now that you've sobered up, you should re-read Pico's first reply.

It's spot on point, and contains neither insult, nor attack, but simply conclusions based on his observations, and verifiable facts.

You do yourself and us a disservice by reading all reply as attack.

Skepticism is a Virtue

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

    
secondharmonicWed May-31-06 10:52 AM
Member since Apr 30th 2002
15977 posts
Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"About Feynman"
In response to Reply #13
Edited on Wed May-31-06 10:54 AM by secondharmonic

          

Well anyway about his version of the 'polaron'. Ya see, ahem, he adduced a variational/path integral field theory for Froehlich's polaron which really when you look at it, makes more sense for a *very disordered* lattice. IOW, it makes more sense in the context of a 'solvent', with an instantaneous quasilattice, than it does for a real honest-to-God ionic lattice. Then there's the 'frequency parameter' . Evenutally through the 70's people got less and less interested in the pure polaron theory because the frequency was more and more just a fitting parameter and not dictated by theory -- and ANY frequency was pretty much observable, the density of states of free electrons in almost any material being so low that you could not pick out a specially enhanced lattice frequency. So there was that little epistemological objection. Then the fact that he obtained a 'dissociation energy' after he specifically introduced a Harmonic Oscillator model was a trifle embarrassing, since, of course H.O.'s don't dissociate. So enter 2nu who corrected these deficiencies and maintained the strengths of Feynman's model. 1) by employing the actual dipole moment of the solvent in the coupling constant expression instead of the 'ionic charge' we completely eliminate the lattice frequency from the formula! 2) By using a Drude/Morse Oscillator model hybrid the epistemological objection about Dissociation energy is obviated and of course a solvent system is closer to the disordered system for which the Path Integral method is more apropos anyway. 3) The combined model now PROVIDES the "lattice mode" coupling frequency, once one has the requisite high frequency dielectric constant, or, having MOLECULAR FREQUENCIES, one predicts the dielectric constants. Thus, for say water, using the OH stretch frequency 3400 cm^-1, one obtains the effective h.f. epsilon of 2.1, which is close to the highest frequency reported in monomolecular water/ (or monomolecular alcohol) hydrocarbon solutions, or in water by so-called inelastic Rayleigh scattering. Using the more 'intermolecular' librational frequency of 800 cm^-1 we obtain the 'classical' h.f. dielectric constant of ~4.8. We could have worked this in reverse, and thus obtained the 'lattice frequency' from the theory, employing only the experimental values of these h.f. dielectric constants at their respective frequency ranges.
I do not know if Feynman ever considered the motion of a 'free electron' in solvent and thus was led to this, to my mind, improvement of his theory. If so, he certainly never published it.

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

deucednuisanceThu May-25-06 09:05 AM
Member since May 14th 2002
1279 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Byron New Energy Video"
In response to Reply #0


          

OK, I watched that one.

First, references to secret knowledge and religous "truth" being "real science" as opposed to "materialism aren't going to help me be convinced, especially since we're dealing with combustion engines, which are mighty materialistic. Some actual description of materials and methods would be a lot more useful.

Second, what's with the balloons? What the heck does that prove?

Third, at no point do we see the source of the water, including the many shots of "ordinary garden hoses". We just see a clear liquid coming out of the business end. What are they connected to at the other end?

Fourth, Perry Freaking Ferrell? The lead singer for Jane's Addiction?

Fifth, what is "negatively charged water"? How does one procure it? Clip never says.

Here's what I think is going on. I've seen that blue flame before. That's alcohol. Tasteless, odorless, dissolves in water. I noticed it was the same color in the backfire early in the clip. That's what happens when you pour fuel down the throat of a carbeurator and then try to start the engine: It isn't properly atomised, and Boom, preignition from compression, rather than ignition = backfire.

Notice that he's only working on carbuerated engines, rather than fuel injected engines. Why? It's a clue to the balloon "experiments".

I'm willing to bet that the "water" is about a 50/50 alcohol/water mix. The popping of the balloon atomizes the solution enough that the alcohol can be ignited by the lighter. Same for the engines, pouring the liquid into the running engines allows the carb to atomize it, and the water doesn't drown the engine like it would if water was in the gas tank, because it's dissolved in the alcohol, and it just turns to steam in the piston, which is a trick that folks have used for years to add gas milage, simple water injection, in say, the throttle body of a fuel injected engine.

What are the engines running on before the introduction of the various liquids into the carbs? He doesn't say. Betcha it's alcohol in the tanks.

There are so many jump cuts in the video that there isn't a single reliable instance of "I have something, here" and "look what it's doing, there!" The video equivalent of sleight-of-hand, as it were.

In sum, there's nothing that convinces me of anything on that clip, and it reeks of scam.

My qualifications? 7 years as a mechanic, owner of several crappy cheap carb-engine cars that I shot plenty of ether into to get them started, amateur magician, specialising in card tricks.

Skepticism is a Virtue

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

RussBLibSun May-28-06 08:40 AM
Member since May 06th 2002
11525 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Interesting stuff"
In response to Reply #0


          

Quote:

Originally posted by FreshLaundry

Fox News Report
link
Their promotional video
link

Water Car Inventor (Murdered)
The inventor is dead, but his seems to be the same process that the man in the Fox News report above was using...
link

Dr. Steven Greer from the Disclosure Project discusses the future of the earth and the government insiders he has talked to that know about free energy:
link

His organization is working to work with inventors to release this information and technology to the world:
http://www.seaspower.com/

Bryon New Energy / JoeCell / Negatively Charged Water(?)
(Burnable/compressible water?)
link

Water/Fuel Engine, Paul Phantone
link

Charged Water - JoeCell

This is the charging process
link

These guys call it 'etheric energy' (whatever), but the demonstration is still pretty interesting?
link


Pretty interesting stuff. I'd heard of a water-powered car before but IIRC the reason given at the time that it wouldn't work is that retro-fitting cars would be too expensive. That was probably bullshit, but that was also before the internet. Research is a bit easier now, but you do have to wade through the kooks.

Check this out: http://waterpoweredcar.com/ Lots of good stuff here.(BTW, it appears that the name is Stanley Meyer and not Stanley Meyers.)

Those last few links appear nonsensical to me. It's hard to even make out what they're doing. Cranking up an engine? So what? Oh, it runs faster this time? Oooo. The explanations are incomplete and haphazard. And electricity being conducted by water? Really?!?! No!! (/sarcasm)

Water truly is a miracle substance. Even with all of our "advanced" science, there is obviously so much about water and life on this planet that we still don't understand. And I've no doubt that those industries that rely on petrochemicals would feel threatened by the new water technology.

Interestingly enough, my company is giving a presentation on our latest hydrogen-power progress on June 6. I have secured a seat at the seminar. There will allegedly be time available for a Q&A session. I think I just might mention Stanley Meyer's name and his water-powered ideas and see what reaction I get. We are spending enormous sums on hydrogen power research, but we are still extracting said hydrogen from fossil fuels, which, to me, is just insanity. Sure, my company's livelihood could be threatened by this, but who's to say that the first big company to embrace it might become fabulously wealthy by creating and selling the transition kits, or boosters, or could secure a place in history as being the most foresighted, or whatever.


KPFT Pacifica Radio Houston 90.1 FM
http://houston.kpft.org/site/PageServer
http://mediamatters.org/
http://motherjones.com/
http://www.democracynow.org/
If Bartcop Forum goes down, go here...
http://carbondate.proboards33.com/index.cgi?

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

FreshLaundryMon May-29-06 01:02 AM
Member since May 12th 2002
3527 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list Send this user a message via AOL IM
"Any of you near Salt Lake City, Utah on July 30th?"
In response to Reply #0


          

http://pureenergysystems.com/academy/JoeCell2006/

In Preparation for the Seminar

* http://JoeCellHydra.com - Joe Cell replication project. Includes blueprints, instructions, video links. (http://PESWiki.com)
* If you have a vehicle running on a Joe cell, either exclusively, or as an assist, you are welcome to bring it to the seminar and demonstrate it. We would appreciate having prior knowledge, but unannounced appearances will be welcome.
* The first part of the workshop, showing how to build a Joe Cell, will be most likely be held in the lecture hall. The install and vehicle running portion will be held in the parking lot. Be prepared with rain gear in the case of rainy weather.
* Peter Stevens explains the process of charging a Joe Cell - 20 min video.
* Peter Stevens Interview ~1993-1994 (3AW Melbourne Victoria Australia)

Tickets

Reserve your tickets early. Seating is limited.

* $50.00 per person, purchased prior to July 15
* $75.00 at the door.

Venue
(tentative)
Miller Free Enterprise Center
Salt Lake Community College
9750 South 300 West
Sandy, Utah 84070

---

I didn't realize how recent this 'explosion' of JoeCell hype is, all because Bill Williams claimed to have recreated the technology and was threatened by government thugs last month, April 2006. Guess people are sick of being pushed around:
http://pesn.com/2006/04/13/9600257_Bill_Williams_threatened/

I'm quite proud of the internet community. God bless em. Hope they get the technology spread far and wide before anyone can stop them.

Researching the JoeCell has taken me on a very peculiar path, one which even a mild skeptic probably would have abandoned right from the start. I posted the links to those videos, but didn't know much about the JoeCell except what was there (and it turns out I misinterpretted what I saw in the Byron Free Energy vid. I thought that the engine was running on the hydrogen consumed from the water, it wasn't, no water or gas is consumed at all. The Cell only uses a 'blind plug', basically just a chunk of metal which you connect to the engine block, and yet somehow causes implosions inside your pistons, enough to run the engine without fuel. Sound weird? It gets weirder.)

- I researched further so that I could reply to deuced and was taken aback with all the 'orgone' business and the 'negatively charged water' (some people even sing to their Cells and there are a host of things that Cells 'don't like' and can cause them to become discharged or unstable) - I had to then follow where that research took me. It all sounds like a cult of bunkum. And yet, I believe the results of the people that have created a JoeCell; I don't think it is a camera trick or anything like that. I've seen other videos where people purposefully take great pains to document the entire process of JoeCell creation. You use regular tap water, btw, not 'special water' - you just have to treat it ('charge it') first, through a process of very brief and low amp zaps in the cell, sometimes connecting the negative lead first, leaving it on, and then arcing the positive.

The claims from people that have gotten the JoeCell to work strain crediblity, and yet if these folks really were trying to pull off a hoax and make it sound reasonable - I seriously doubt they would be making most of these claims. I also doubt they would be giving away the plans on the internet and encouraging people to build their own, even helping them achieve that end however possible.


I think we'll start seeing more and more people pull this thing off - we'll have more videos and more demonstrations - give it a few months. For now, though, I'm going to watch that yahoo group with much interest.




www.scholarsfor911truth.org

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

monkeyfisterMon May-29-06 04:53 PM
Member since Dec 28th 2002
7543 posts
Send email to this user Send a private message to this user View this user's profile Add this user to your buddy list
"Water Fuel Cell Dot Org..."
In response to Reply #0


          


http://www.waterfuelcell.org/


Based on the late Stanely Meyer's work. The movies and interviews seem to speak for themselves. I very much want to believe this technology works. It will obviously require corporate interest, and big legal battles against Big Oil to get it to market. I'm not about to sign over venture capital checks, but, I'll support the idea, as I think we all can accept that, soon, we'll have a lot more sea water than we want or need.



Tony B.

Draft Code:


SUPPORT M&S ONE-STOP
FAILURE
Terrorist Sympathizer

  

Alert | IP Printer Friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | | Top

Top Bartcop Forum Back Room Topic #33616First topic | Last topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1
Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com