 |
Aardvark
Aardvark Forums
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
And I would like you to cite a source that the PESwiki is pseudo-scientific as it only has professionals, scientists working there...
You cannot cite a source criticising PESwiki because it doesn't exist,
as the encyclopedia indeed receives due diligence
so you can indeed see http://peswiki.com/index.php/Super_Relativity
as an adequately managed link to the proclaimed 'holy grail of physics'
Greetings,
Heebiejeebies |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Magnecule-Generating Process is Over-Unity
Camilo Urbina of Asitec Ltd., a Chilean company, has been looking to implement MagneGas technology. Reveals that the MagneGas generating process produces more energy than it consumes, most likely from an atomic process involved in the formation of the toroid-atom "magnecules".
Responding to
* Featured / Top 100: Waste-to-Energy > MagneGas >
Magnecules of MagneGas Poised to Cleanly Serve World's Energy Needs Domestically - New form of matter described and said to be experimentally verified, by which sewage and other waste can be converted into a burnable fuel. Skeptics do not agree with the claim of new matter, and say there are more efficient energy methods available. (PESN; August 28, 2006)
Feedback Comment by Camilo Urbina
| Quote: | ARICA, CHILE; August 30, 31, 2006 -- I am a regular visitor to PES Network websites, and I just read your article pertaining Dr. Santilli's work.
For background, I must say that I am an associate, shareholder and project manager on a small but fast growing Chilean Company of technological development, through which we have become partners or stockholders of some relatively large companies that we have helped to develop from technological innovation projects. As a constant part of our business consist on identifying breakthrough technologies to solve industrial problems for generating new growth and investment opportunities, we are of course now oriented to developing and or licensing technologies in the field of energy supply.
In the process of gathering and researching new discoveries offering commercial potential, I became aware of Dr. Santilli's work and the magnegas concept. I developed then a personal interest on the subject and researched all of the claims made, thinking on the potential opportunity for licensing the technology for our Chilean Domestic market, specially regarding the fact that we already pay more than US$5 per gallon of gasoline.
My comment about your article pertains specifically to what I think are important issues that were perhaps omitted about Dr. Santilli's work. The main issue is that the commercial efficiency of the process is over 100% in the sense that if you account for the electrical energy input required to produce a certain amount of magnegas, the energy stored in the produced magnegas is roughly at least 160% and up to 200%, and that does not consider the heat production of the process (considering it, efficiency goes up to 300%). Dr. Santilli's theoretical work indicates that the "excess energy" is probably explainable because the strong magnetic field created by the plasma arc, the one that reduces the electronic probable position from a spherical space around the atomic nucleus to a toroidal one, constitutes in itself an intermediate form of atomic fusion that releases more energy than it takes to induce. If you take in consideration this important part of the picture, it results that the magnegas production in the hadronic reactor is actually not only using cheap wastes, but also contributing to create a very cheap fuel for automotive uses. Dr. Santilli also suggest that is possible to build a self sustainable hadronic reactor (meaning that it could employ the same magnegas produced to generate the electricity required for the plasma arc, with a proper and efficient gas turbine), thus making the process run completely outside and independent from the energy grid.
All what I am mentioning is stated by Dr. Santilli, in one or other way, both in colloquial and in strictly scientifically terms, throughout his web publications.
I know that a plain statement about "over unity" is quickly dismissed by mainstream scientifics, but, in this case, Dr. Santilli has developed the theories that explain the apparent "violation" of physical Laws.
I have contacted Dr. Santilli's company (several e-mails with Mrs. Ingargiola) to request pricing and capabilities of the Linear Recyclers and my company is currently developing a market study in order to assess the economical feasibility of employing our city sewage (currently 700 l/s dumped to the sea) with an Hadronic reactor to produce magnegas for Automotive (public transport) and industrial (heating, electricity production) uses. Total investment is around US$6 millions, and it requires that the fleet of vehicles to be retrofitted, but I believe the payback in terms of revenue and less environmental impact, together with the potential carbon bonuses to put on the sale, make this technology absolutely profitable and recommendable from every point of view.
I want to congratulate you on your effort to make these kind of marvelous technologies widely known, and I hope that within the following 12 months I can contact you again with an update of the development of our project.
The 12 months span I think will be enough to have the final engineering design and building project, as the major challenge is not the Magnegas production itself but the recovery of the water for agricultural and industrial purposes, as this is an extreme arid zone. Perhaps the operative plant will take some longer because of this. The current stage of our work is the market study to assess the potential of magnegas sales for automotive and industrial purposes in our area, in order to set the business case for our investor group. The current price of diesel and gasoline is the major force driving our project as our calculations based on the information provided by Magnefuels, corrected by our local energy and human resources costs, sets the variable cost for the gasoline equivalent of Magnegas at really low price that leaves a lot of commercial margin even at half the current prices.
I hope more people get interested in this technology as it really is one of the most mature and scalable I have had the opportunity to study in the Alternative fuels field, with the added advantage that requires a minor and already worldwide available adaptation from the existing internal combustion technology. Certainly a great advantage to the adoption of these technologies, for the developing countries as Chile, is the possibility of having a boost of fresh capital trough the sell of current and projected emission reduction certificates as established by the Kyoto agreement. Magnegas is an excellent way to reduce emissions via the replacement of fossil fuels and recycling of methanogenic wastes.
My Best Regards
Camilo Urbina (Camilo Andrés Urbina Alonso) <curbina {at} 123.cl >
Project Manager
ASITEC Ltd.
Chiguayante 050 Lomas de Miramar
Arica - Chile |
http://pesn.com/2006/08/28/9500230_Santilli_magnecule_MagneGas_fuel/Asitec_feedback.htm
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Just trying to help you save face here, Bruce |
Well *IF* these people ever get some over-unity energy production I'll gladly eat a very large helping of humble pie.
But until then, my face is quite safe thankyou  |
Come on Bruce, eat the truth pie. It's not so hard, just take tiny bites at a time... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe we need to begin from the actual car running on water controversy article:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_benny_cr_080517_suppression_suppress.htm
| Quote: |
“In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!”
-Homer Simpson
There have been many sightings of a so-called over-unity phenomenon. These may vary greatly, according to the contemporary world of physics.But one thing all scientists, and even Homer Simpson agrees upon is the law of Thermodynamics. This one states that the amount of energy/matter that exists within a system cannot be greater or lesser than what we put in earlier.But somehow it seems there were some ‘experiments’ that fell through the cracks. Like the supposed car running on water. Well, I’ve never heard of such a ridicolous thing. Or have I?
In fact I had heard of such a thing. Here’s how it breaks down: water (H2O) doesn’t burn, unless it gets broken down into its parts first.This is simple science. There are already running, fabricated cars running on burnable hydrogen(gas). This approach hasn’t really taken off, because as you know, you have to first use energy to get hydrogen. Whatever chemical, biological or nuclear reaction you use, you first have to put a lot of energy in, to get usable hydrogen(gas).
There is also another burnable gas you can get from water, Oxyhydrogen. Now, this is the good stuff. This is a metastable gas, meaning because it is by definition electrically charged, and it will fall apart, and form water again, if the charges are gone. If you leave it near a magnetic object like some metal placings: gone! If you burn it: gone! Or better, turned back into water.
There are two different ways to seperate water and this last burnable gas. There are also two distinctive verified “car running on just water” stories. One common way to seperate is to use electrolysis with electrodes at each end. This story, since 2001, is about a Australian engineer Joe, that uses his electrolysis fuel cell to power a normal car-engine. He is also getting great mileage. But he says, he doesn’t have to charge the water initially. He made a special coil and the result is a mobile bubbler. The coil is made of thin non-conducting diamagnetic metal tubes, in a circular shape, and using water as a resistor. (Joe Cell) Resist against what? What was this water resisting against? And why did this not jive with the law of Thermodynamics?
On the other hand, a more illusive way to seperate gas from a substance, but nearly as easy, is zapping it with a spark; like a thermal lance, with an arc at the end. When zapped with this arc a ‘plasma’, a sun-like substance, is created at a very high temperature and rearranges the whole molecular state.This zapping since recently also happens with garbage. The result is a bit of rubble and a lot of the same burnable gases you’d get from electrolysis.The first real ‘cars on water’ were using this technology. The E.V. Gray Engine and the Geet Processor both use a spark to superheat into combustibles. Here the exhaust would be water. But you still have to light the spark don’t you? Yes. So what is all the fuss about?
But there is however one problem with how this abundant molecule acts. And also how the subsequent parts, it falls apart in, act. In the first ‘Joe Cell’ example the resisting water could be bubbling by itself. And in the second example, this electrically charged magnetic gas or magnegas in short, gives out more energy when burned, then was needed to light the spark. The verified efficiency rates can go from 160% in normal cases and up to 300% if the heat is accounted for. They even had to make a new, controversial physics theory just to explain the particles, called hadronic mechanics (from Greek hadros heavy). The particles themselves are therefore called magnecules and it already reclassifies the standard model of physics. It does however not point to the reason for this purported over-unity.
But how do the inventors themselves, of all the over-unity devices try to explain their work? They think space is full of electric radiation, that moves through everything. They call it ambient radiation or aether. But this was never measured and cannot function in physics because there is no particle or wave that gives away free energy. In this house we obey the law of thermodynamics.
So these car engines on water(gas) do as a matter of fact seem to be able to display the so called “over-unity” symptoms talked about. And as we always say, in this house we obey the laws of physics. So you can’t sell, distribute, or invest in a technology that cannot possibly exist, now can you? This is in fact the reason why those cars never made it in our homes. Thankfully meanwhile garbage vaporisation (or should we say magnegas-isation) is going full steam ahead. The biggest economic breakthrough there was the inception of ‘hadronic mechanics’ physics, which allowed for this special oxyhydrogen variant to help with garbage reduction and fuel demands in garbage dump-sites near you. (hopefully not too near)
It doesn’t mean that because contemporary physics uses a working model of reality (non-local realism to be really accurate), that there cannot be another, distinguished model of our world that works equally or better (local, mechanical realism). And all of the current ‘non-local’ theories seemed to end in endless problems with particle measurements and definitions. ‘Non-local’ actually just means there are particles at a distance distinctively related with the particle you are measuring. This all boils down to mathmatic principles held by the creators of the atom theory, way back when. The mantra in current physics “No local realistic theory is possible” is even in itself a paradox, for one cannot make such a conclusive metaphysical claim with mere physical experiments. (Duhem P.,"The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory.") Reality is thus big enough for the two of them.
Which brings us right back to the times of Einstein, who died in 1955. He was one of the last great local realists, along with the rest of the pre-dating historic physicians. Back in the day journalists and fans would stalk him for interviews and quotes, anxiously awaiting explanations for how the whole world worked. His theories were more farfetching than anything they had previously read. For it included, postulate after postulate, reasoning behind the sky and the stars, and even light itself. He theorised time passes in 3-dimensional space and even introduced a new fourth dimension, time. The whole of the standard model of physics is still based on his 4 dimensions. He called his theory ‘relativity’ because as a localist, he believed that everything had a relation with the frame you are in.
The last attempt in modern times to explain the world within relativity is the invention of ‘curvature’, wich says that the world and the universe is intrinsically curved. This can be derived from physics and mathmatics, and astronomical evidence even suggests some kind of curvature to space and time.
"But how does this all relate to the smallest forms, the ones we can combust in our cars, your molecules and your magnecules," you may ask. All these over-unity sightings required some kind of electromagnetic theory. But where some current explanations were embedded in old ‘ambient radiation’ theory, this could not be permitted by physicists and quantumphysicists around the world, more specific because of an 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment wich says some things about light, the observer thereof and subsequently does deny any moving ‘aether’, where light itself (http://searchwarp.com/swa95331.htm) is not part of the electromechanics.
Now lets travel back to 2006. A scientist named Mark Fiorentino, publishes his theory on what light really is, on the internet and invents a new electromagnetic dimension in the proces. His theory of a ‘solid not moving’ aether, this space being twisted, and inverted, is his life’s work and he does have some great credentials. He got awards at IBM for being such a great trouble-shooter. As a software-engineer he is familiar with every kind of model. He takes the curvature of space-time and fabricates it into the effective twisted dimension that really does exist, and this 5D accounts for all the nuclear and electromagnetic forces, and gravity. But he only seeks science, not fame so he keeps working on his mechanics, obstaining from publishing such a ‘radical’ local theory in the journals that should by nature publish him.
There is however a light at the end of the tunnel. Mr. Fiorentino is currently using the so called ‘invariance mechanics’ to mathmatically determine his 5th dimension and to answer the unanswered question from e=mc², the speed of light. (“Energy equals mass times speed of light/squared”). This is a breakthrough not thought of since Einstein’s e=mc² itself. The paper will be out by the end of 2008. The entire 300-page equivalent “Super Relativity’, the book, will come out in the end of 2009.
Let us hope that the world can come together in recognizing there is no free energy flying around, but the answer lies in the fact of a matter that we are all connected in this solid ‘5D’ world, where our better understanding of it gives open access to all sorts of exciting hopes and possibilities. |
Remember take tiny bites...
Don't eat the whole thing at once
Greetings,
HeebieJeebies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BTMO
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 783
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HeebieJeebies wrote: | They are all avoiding it with the same 80-foot pole that BTMO is using.
The 'car running on water' does have some sort of a 'stigma'
Everybody even remotely interested would have to learn new things
Not like BTMO |
You don't really get it, do you?
Point us to *real* science, tested and vetted and repeated by *real* scientists, and you have an argument - and a very convincing one.
But continually pointing to websites that contain more adverts than content, by simply cutting and pasting screeds of semi-scientific mumbo-jumbo and backing up your arguments with links to peripherally relevant wikipedia (!!) articles just doesn't do it for me, or anyone else able to think critically about what is placed in front of them.
Show us real, repeatable, verifiable science.
Then we'll talk.
The material you have presented so far isn't even internally consistent, let alone capable of standing up to critical review.
For example, there is always a claim of suppression - yet many of those websites have been running for years! One would have thought the authorities, or big oil or whoever the current boogey man is would have done something about them by now.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rizowz
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I love the fact that in the HHO scammers article, there are google-sponsored ads about converting your car to run on water! Haha regardless of whether you have control over these ads, the site comes across as more than a bit hyprocritical.
BTMO - You obviously haven't looked at the basics of how an 'orgone accumulator aka 'Joe Cell' work at all - They don't create hydrogen gas (intentionally) - you hook them up to an earth point on your car e.g. a bolt etc. So there you go, do some research on how they 'supposedly' work. I for one believe after researching the theory behind 'charging' the water in one using an anode and cathode etc sounds remarkably like electrolysis. However, there is no connection into the engine's intake.
For a non-believer such as myself, this sounds like absolute BS! I just don't want you to be confused between a joe cell and an electrolysis 'hydrogen booster device, both look the same. I have seen several interviews etc of Joe, and he actually is a grade-A fruitloop. I actually purchased that $12 trademe auction for running your car on water as I'm a skeptic and want to see for myself. He puts across several "woah" factors to convince people there are mystery forces etc and then goes on to babble his theories. As an automotive engineer, I laugh when he shows people how crazy it is that an HT lead can jump a spark to a 'rubber' radiator hose. Likewise he will touch a panel of the car, jump the spark to it and ask why he isn't getting zapped? Hahahaha.
I may actually build one of these joe cells one day for fun, but until then it goes in the BS folder.
Stan Meyer's 'hydrolysis' system, however, I'm a little more positive about. Whilst at this stage still a skeptic, I will be making one shortly as I generally don't believe until I see. When I've tested it out I will either invite Bruce and BTMO over to my place in Auckland to see it, or I'll jump on the bandwagon and rubbish any water-fuel claims. I can see a definate logic behind the high voltage, high frequency, low current setup. And whilst I accept he was convicted of fraud I have also read his appeal, and read the 'supposed' circumstances surrounding the whole thing.
I for one don't particularly follow wacked-out conspiracy theories about oil companies suppressing technologies etc etc, but I do try to keep an open mind. It stands to reason that if one cubic ft of water contains 1300+ cubic ft of hydrogen gas and 700+/- cu.ft of oxygen, and there IS a way to release that from the H2) with low current draw, then there must be a way to harness it. I'm not talking perpetual motion or over-unity.
I'm even planning to build one of these hydrogen-booster jam jar pieces of rubbish this weekend, I tend to agree with the basics of V=IxR etc etc, however with a catalyst and vacuum applied to the water, we'll see what happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: Not only electrolysis |
|
|
thank you, rizowz for your elaborated view on the matter
It had some definite advances to BTMO's *small* world view, as it implies there IS at least something that is worth investigating...
You are however somewhat lost, in my humble view, on the energy intake and outtake...
This would imply you don't attach ANY credibility to the following remarks:
The engine runs cool instead of hot (what is the heat doing? Efficiency!) (also see the co-called perpetuum mobile clocks that actually just work on heat (using H20). When you stick it in a fridge; the clock runs slower
The Joe Cell gets lighter when it's bubbling
(What is the gravity doing? Efficiency!) see gravity-EMS relation
Oxyhydrogen combustion is very similar to lightning in the sky
(Not regular gasoline combustion? Efficiency!)
I don't know Stan Meyers' invention but I do know the joe cell. And it's not a surprise mr. Joe himself gets a little religious when he can' even explain his stuff properly.
Thank god there's now SR
for everyone to enjoy
Greetings,
HBJB
Last edited by HeebieJeebies on Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I for one believe after researching the theory behind 'charging' the water in one using an anode and cathode etc sounds remarkably like electrolysis. However, there is no connection into the engine's intake. |
Haven't you seen the pvc oxyhydrogen fuel line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oly884
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
HeebieJeebies-
What differentiates the scams from the non-scams? How do we know which one is not a scam? None of them show us peer-reviews, scientific studies showing power output and input, nothing.
And 'they'll more likely be genuine' if they are free? You are not very convincing at getting your point across. How about some links to known and working 'joe cell' plans, the free, non-scam ones?
May I also ask what your qualifications/background is to suggest that this will work?
Just so you know, I have a BS in chemical engineering with many years of experience in environmental and mechanical engineering.
I have also noticed that you have yet to produce one single peer-reviewed paper that analyzes the 'joe cell'. What you have produced are heavily biased web pages and videos that, at no point, adequately address most, if not all, of the questions surrounding the 'joe cell'. Why is it so difficult to present us with papers and studies (peer reviewed)? Really, a yahoo group is a source? www.joeceldevices.com isn't biased? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wwwilson
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:20 am Post subject: Re: The Great Run you car on Water Scam |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | | Purple_worm wrote: | | But, using your agrument that the more power you need from your alternator, the more resistance it has to turning by the engine and hearing the engine slow down when you trun the lights on, I don't feel will happen when the engine runs a say at 1000--rpm, or even 2200 rpm (about 65 mph). I think the extra 5 amps needed from the alternator for electrolysis will be insignificant. |
I'm sorry but you'll need a *lot* more than 5 amps to create any meaningful amount of hydrogen/oxygen with electrolysis.
Using Ohms law, 5A x 12V = 60W.
60W is less than ONE TENTH of a horsepower.
So, even assuming that your electrolysis process was 100% efficient (which it isn't) and that your car's engine ran at its theoretical maximum efficiency (which it doesn't), you'd actually only be able to generate an extra 0.025 HP from that amount of gas.
Do you really think that's going to halve your fuel consumption?
If we assume that the average modern vehicle requires about 20HP to cruise at 65mph (Cite) then we can calculate that this is equal to almost 15KW of power.
15KW at 12V requires a current of 1,250 amps -- far more than *any* car's alternator can provide (most are rated at 80A or so).
So right there and then we have proven you can't convert a regular car to run on water using electrolysis, it's alternator is an order of magnitude too weak.
But what about that "halve your fuel consumption" claim?
Well if we were to half our fuel consumption, we'd need to get the other half from the hydrogen/oxygen liberated through electrolysis.
That means (even assuming 100% efficiency of the electrolysis cell) we'd still need an astonishing 625A from our alternator -- still almost EIGHT times more than it can actually deliver.
But it's far worse than that...
The amount of energy required to split the water may be 7.5KW and therefore the theoretical maximum energy we can recover is 7.5KW but the average otto-cycle (car) engine is only about 25% efficient. That means to make it work, we'd need to generate four times as much gas as you'd think.
Now we actually need 30KW of energy (2,500A @ 12V) to halve our fuel consumption. And let's not forget that the 30KW of energy would be over and above that the engine normally has to put out (because now it's got to not only push the car along but also generate all that electricity). So we find we actually need yet *more* hydrogen/oxygen gas and thus we'll burn more gasoline.
So you see, when you do the very simple math, these bogus claims from the scammers simply don't even come close to adding up -- in fact your gs mileage will go DOWN not up. |
I'm working on a test right now that should only use 1 amp per 1000 RPM to genrate HO using A high voltage coil to generate the charge. Pulsing the charge through the water at 24000 - 56000 times a minute.
By the way what happend with your Ultimate Water Bomb? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
1st assesment: possibility.
There is already some kind of water variant coming out of a 'plasma arc'
This seems to be combustible. If this HHO is indeed combustible, and has many isotopes, it could be very well that brownsgas (OH-) is one of them; also being a magnecule. This is already peer-reviewed and I also now believe it is this out-in-the-open scientific literature (hadronic mechanics)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0112066
http://www.hadronicpress.com
that have spawned not only all the HHO non-scams/scams, but also Segway inventor Dean Kamen's 'vapor compression distiller' an amazingly usefull toxic water purifier.
http://gizmodo.com/370698/colbert-first-vid-of-dean-kamens-miracle-water-distiller
2nd assesment: The Geet Processor/EV Gray engine are a previously unexplainable invention, using a plasma arc.
These have been reproduced and the actual plans from the inventor are available here
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/naudin-pantone.pdf
Do you really this scientist trying to reproduce experiments is biased?
Naudin-Doing this (nuclear transmutation)
This is his website. He supports this only by working replications. Why should this be biased then?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/
3rd assesment: not only these hadronics were necessary to explain this car on water, the thermodynamics we're all over the place...
4th and final assesment: So before this, none of this could be explained properly even by the best engineers. Ofcourse in the end there can be only one correct theory...
Greetings,
Heebiejeebies
Last edited by HeebieJeebies on Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: BUT WAIT! there's a completely different other one |
|
|
BUT WAIT! there's a completely different other one
This is ofcourse all discluding the most common 'HHO application' the one with the concentric diamagnetic non-conducting metal sheets.
I don't think this 'joe cell' is too hard to build... any plans that coincide on all the free websites i mentioned are more likely to be correct i mean...
just remember: wear gloves, keep everything clean to keep everything distilled.
use proper materials
use proper plans
try this for somewhat professional peer-reviewed linkage
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=joe+cell&go=Go
that's all |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oly884
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HeebieJeebies wrote: |
Do you really this scientist trying to reproduce experiments is biased?
Naudin-Doing this (nuclear transmutation)
This is his website. Why should this be biased then?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/
|
Well, considering the first thing you see on his website is 'the quest for over-unity' tells me that he's going to be much more apt to be bias.
Once again, you are not being convincing, you are simply providing links to websites that have either a clear bias, or have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Lastly, please provide proof that HHO is produced by these devices as well. I'll put good money down that damn near all the hydrogen and oxygen generated forms h2 and o2 before you can get even close to the combustion chamber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oly884 wrote: | | HeebieJeebies wrote: |
Do you really this scientist trying to reproduce experiments is biased?
Naudin-Doing this (nuclear transmutation)
This is his website. Why should this be biased then?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/
|
Well, considering the first thing you see on his website is 'the quest for over-unity' tells me that he's going to be much more apt to be bias.
Once again, you are not being convincing, you are simply providing links to websites that have either a clear bias, or have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Lastly, please provide proof that HHO is produced by these devices as well. I'll put good money down that damn near all the hydrogen and oxygen generated forms h2 and o2 before you can get even close to the combustion chamber. |
You are denying that his succesful replication of an MIT experiment makes him logical rather than biased?
these websites are full of additional scientific information, rid of bland weird-sounding logic, so any purported bias should be in any case further investigated.
I have done so and I have found no bias, except they're all saying that there's new possibilities, in science and in physics. It can't be that everybody is bitchin that 'not everything can be explained by science' for no good reason |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you want to know more about the university side about plasma and gasoline engines search for the patents and information on the
MIT Plasma Fuel Reformer
the Gliding Arc Fuel Reformer
This is the closest they've gotten to the car on water
now just replace the gasoline/diesel fuel by h20 and we're off to the races |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6093
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: Re: The Great Run you car on Water Scam |
|
|
| wwwilson wrote: |
I'm working on a test right now that should only use 1 amp per 1000 RPM to genrate HO using A high voltage coil to generate the charge. Pulsing the charge through the water at 24000 - 56000 times a minute. |
Please don't forget to take into account that your average digital multimeter does not give accurate readings of pulsed current or voltage.
It is *very* easy to "measure" power levels that are nothing like the *actual* powers involved.
Also remember that when you're running high frequencies with highly capacitive and/or inductive loads there will be a phase shift between the voltage and current readings that will also skew the reported powers involved (it's called power-factor).
Just about every "over unity" system I've seen that claims to be producing more power than it draws falls foul of either the phase-shift or the failure of the measuring equipment to cope with non-sinsoudial waveforms.
| Quote: | | By the way what happend with your Ultimate Water Bomb? |
I believe it's probably a little imprudent to complete that little experiment at a time when you can get locked up for simply sneezing like a terrorist or sympathizer  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6093
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rizowz wrote: | | I love the fact that in the HHO scammers article, there are google-sponsored ads about converting your car to run on water! Haha regardless of whether you have control over these ads, the site comes across as more than a bit hyprocritical. |
No, the irony is that it's these ads that effectively help pay for the publication of material that proves they're just a scam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
anything claiming to be revolutionary when in fact it's just a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29
is indeed a scam.
The only real one is where you have to use the sciences cavity QED and super relativity to explain them
The magnecule's thermodynamics and those of the Joe cell are indeed only explainable through Cavity QED and super relativity at this point...
Greetings,
Heebiejeebies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember, all of this is brought to you from the nice folks at
T.O.E. certified |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6093
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gosh HeebieJeebies, you almost need your own thread here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rizowz
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HeebieJeebies wrote: | | Quote: | | I for one believe after researching the theory behind 'charging' the water in one using an anode and cathode etc sounds remarkably like electrolysis. However, there is no connection into the engine's intake. |
Haven't you seen the pvc oxyhydrogen fuel line? |
yep there's certainly a pvc line, but it runs simply to a bolt. not to an inlet hose or anything that actually gets sucked in through the intake valves, just to a grounding point. In one of the several 'joe cell' vids with the actual joe in it along with the hippies from Byron Free Energy or whatever they call themselves, they've got the clear hose running to the stud that the air filter housing screws down to on a carburettor. In other video's it's a similar scenario, at no point is the joe cell 'plumbed' to the engine intake at all. Theoretically all this 'frequency' nonsense is what causes the engine to run. I find it humbly amusing when he explains to people who lack much knowledge in automotive areas many examples of these 'mystical' occurences which can be explained quite easily. Some things he does say however have some merit, so I wont discount this whole 'zero-point energy' thing just yet. One would be a fool to do such a thing.
I'm sure one day the laws of gravity will be re-written or atleast modified. There is so much we don't know about the universe, I figure that just because all our 'natural' laws have been theorised and then proved, it doesn't mean there wont be changes or alternatives to them in the future.
Where exactly am I 'lost' on the energy intake and out take? I've done extensive research on the Joe cell, it doesn't make 'logical' sense but I in no way will hold that against it. What does count against it are many of joe's other 'ideas', they are quite easy to explain with conventional reasoning.
Stan Meyer's ideas to the best of my knowledge are similar to the 'hydrostar' system, creating a mix of oxy and para hydrogen. The hydrostar plans out there are alledged to work rather poorly, and I guess one may conclude that they probably are. I'm not about to discount any of this stuff until I've done it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Theoretically all this 'frequency' nonsense is what causes the engine to run
|
a more accurate depicture would be energy transferance...
You do know we are talking about magnecules here, not molecules...
A magnecule is hold together by 'something' other than covalence.
(http://www.hadronicpress.com)
for that little something see http://www.superrelativity.org
The energy/matter in a system has to be the same so if it has to go through a carburator stud, I don't care. In the joe cell example we're actually talking about running a gasoline engine on electricity. http://www.thejoecell.com You cannot forget that.
In the geet processor it's an engine all by itself...
Last edited by HeebieJeebies on Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6093
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HeebieJeebies wrote: | | Quote: | Theoretically all this 'frequency' nonsense is what causes the engine to run
|
a more accurate depicture would be energy transferance...
You do know we are talking about magnecules here, not molecules... |
Sorry, you're still talking psuedo-science here.
As I said.. get back to me when you can demonstrate the claims that are "almost there"
Until it works -- it doesn't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do you mean by 'demonstrate that it works"? then
you've got
youtube videos
unconnected testimonials
websites
proven scientific theories
What do you want more?
books?
digital doesn't cut it for you , Bruce? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6093
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HeebieJeebies wrote: | What do you mean by 'demonstrate that it works"? then
you've got
youtube videos |
Yeah, and I've seen Starwars too.. doesn't mean it's real.
| Quote: | | unconnected testimonials |
From pseudo-scientists and fan-boys who really don't know anything other than than the faux-science they're endorsing?
And there are also websites that contest the claims -- they can't both be right.
| Quote: | | proven scientific theories |
If it's proven then it's no longer just a theory... but it's not proven is it?
| Quote: | | What do you want more? |
Yeah, I want independently peer reviewed scientific papers from credible and qualified sources with *real* degrees and experience in physics and chemistry.
I write books... I could say anything I want in a book but it wouldn't make it true would it?
| Quote: | | digital doesn't cut it for you , Bruce? |
I just want good, old fashioned peer review of the kind you need to get your papers published in any reputable scientific journal.
Can you come up with something that simple? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If it's proven then it's no longer just a theory... but it's not proven is it? |
yes both Quantum Electrodynamics and SR are proven as to their validity and measurability... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And there are also websites that contest the claims -- they can't both be right. |
Oh so you do know of any large-scale investigations that deny both "the geet processor" and "correct Joe Cells"
Please do share!!
Otherwise you might just as well be blowing pseudo-scientific wind out of your own *ss
Last edited by HeebieJeebies on Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Yeah, I want independently peer reviewed scientific papers from credible and qualified sources with *real* degrees and experience in physics and chemistry. |
again see http://www.hadronicpress.com
not to burst your bubble or anything but the main thing about HHO and magnecules has already been peer-reviewed
just search hadronic mechanics
Google scholar: http://scholar.google.be/scholar?hl=nl&lr=&q=magnecule&btnG=Zoeken
or try web-of-science |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6093
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HeebieJeebies wrote: | | Quote: | | And there are also websites that contest the claims -- they can't both be right. |
Oh so you do know of any large-scale investigations that deny both "the geet processor" and "correct Joe Cells"
Please do share!! |
Well I *do* know that The US National Academy of Sciences and the American Chemical Society said this:
"magnecules" violate quantum electrodynamics
So if you acknowledge the theories of quantum electrodynamics, you can't also embrace the concept of magnecules can you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HeebieJeebies
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | | HeebieJeebies wrote: | | Quote: | | And there are also websites that contest the claims -- they can't both be right. |
Oh so you do know of any large-scale investigations that deny both "the geet processor" and "correct Joe Cells"
Please do share!! |
Well I *do* know that The US National Academy of Sciences and the American Chemical Society said this:
"magnecules" violate quantum electrodynamics
So if you acknowledge the theories of quantum electrodynamics, you can't also embrace the concept of magnecules can you? |
Do you know that all theories are said to have a fault of not being a theory of everything , and thus faulty in some sense.
The only fully correct theory would per definition be a theory of everything (Qm+GR)
There was still no hope for any theory of everything
Until 2006-2008 when super relativity came out... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
