Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Hidden Science & Advanced Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-11-2013, 06:41 PM   #141
inversedivinity
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,755
Likes: 13 (10 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Yes I agree.

This thread is actually a parody.

I am claiming 'magical' free energy does not exist but energy available freely or for little or no cost is available and has been surpressed. I also agree its been surpressed for about 100 years and I can quote examples. Tesla being one of them. Running diesel engines on vegetable oil being another - how did we 'forget' that the diesel engine invented to run on peanut oil could not be run on veggie oil for 100 years, only in the last decade have we 'remembered'. There is also the extremely long lasting (everlasting) lightbulb and water powered cars.

My point is that science wins the argument against 'free energy' and 'everlasting lightbulbs' using terminology and ridicule. Nothing lasts for ever and you can't create energy from nothing. These 'misnomers' have been used to deny and ridicule real science and inventions and prevent proper debate and investigation for the last 100 years.

Also, the fact I don't believe in 'magical free energy' does not mean I do not believe in magic or supernatural either, its just the idea of creating energy from nothing that I disagree with.

There is no free lunch. But I already stated that myself in this thread. If we want to harness zero point energy and turn it into mechanical energy we can work with it will probably require a elaborate process which requires resources. Scaling such a thing up would also take even more resources.

Yea sure the vacuum energy is there and it may be free but turning that into mechanical energy is a mechanical process where the parts may degrade over time and that you would need maintenance and operating of such equipment.
__________________
"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is" John Von Neumann
inversedivinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2013, 12:24 AM   #142
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inversedivinity View Post
There is no free lunch. But I already stated that myself in this thread. If we want to harness zero point energy and turn it into mechanical energy we can work with it will probably require a elaborate process which requires resources. Scaling such a thing up would also take even more resources.

Yea sure the vacuum energy is there and it may be free but turning that into mechanical energy is a mechanical process where the parts may degrade over time and that you would need maintenance and operating of such equipment.
Not always true but that seems to be the trend.

Green energy is much more expensive.

Solar energy which said to be free and applicable today is more expensive than fossil fuel right now.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2013, 07:26 PM   #143
skittlez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: infinity
Posts: 132
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

if tax was proportional, energy would be as good as free, if the govt never privitized it...
skittlez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2013, 08:38 PM   #144
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inversedivinity View Post
There is no free lunch. But I already stated that myself in this thread. If we want to harness zero point energy and turn it into mechanical energy we can work with it will probably require a elaborate process which requires resources. Scaling such a thing up would also take even more resources.

Yea sure the vacuum energy is there and it may be free but turning that into mechanical energy is a mechanical process where the parts may degrade over time and that you would need maintenance and operating of such equipment.
But thats the lie isn't it, the brainwashing at work. Certain things are possible but are over ruled as impossible. If you argue hard enough people begrudgingly agree there are exceptions but start arguing from an economics perspective. The economic model changes from 'if it could be done it would have been done' to 'best if we don't, put a lot of people out of work' The words communism and anarchist crop up. Not the the good anarchy but the bad mad max anarchy.

There are free lunches and virtually free lunches, its true resources and mechanical costs play a role but there are surprisingly cheap things that can be done. A car that runs on water or a lightbulb that lasts 100 years.

The monopoly is maintained by linking high efficiency and over unity machines with perpetual motion, the definition of which is so absurd it negates its purpose. Just because a system demonstrates a higher output than that perceived to be at work doesn't mean it inherrently has to last forever. They are two seperate things the latter being absurd. But for the public, they represent the same concept and are ridiculed and accepted as impossible. The anomiles and great ideas that actually work are just ignored.

The result is a despicable system, where we pay a fortune to destroy our planet.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2013, 08:09 PM   #145
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

It hasn't taken much to distort greatly our present situation.

Lets start with batteries.

A major point against electric cars are batteries. They are not sold due to limited range and 8 hour charging times. The fact is, although it is not the accepted view. Pulse charging batteries results in faster charging times and they accept more power. GM did the 'definitive' study in 1971 and concluded pulse charging had no benefits. For more than 40 years the technology has mainly laid idle and the theory of recharging taught as being true and fundamental. It is not true. If faster charging, deeper batteries had been available since the 1970' battery vehicles would have had a better chance.

I spoke to an EX BBC R&D engineer who worked designing the E.N.G equipment back in the 70's. He told me the engineer on the team responsible for the batteries proved to them pulse charging was more efficient so they used it on the equipment. NASA studied it and the study showed it was beneficial. I'm sure its been used by engineers that know better since the 1970's, but the general prevailing view is that batteries cannot be fast charged, science has studied, peer reviewed and proven, beyond as much doubt as
possible, that it is a fact. Now the opposite is gradually being accepted as true.

Long lasting lightbulbs

Quote:
What Is a Bulb-Miser?

A Bulb-Miser is the featured product of Bulb Miser, Inc. Or, it WAS their featured product. Bulb-Miser, Inc. went belly-up some time ago. Their product was a “temperature compensating thermistor” that served to preserve the life of incandescent light bulbs. You can read an old advertisement for the Bulb-Miser light bulb life extender here. It was developed during NASA’s Apollo program so that electrical surges wouldn’t damage the Saturn launch vehicle.

Link - http://www.understandwebsites.com/bu...ernatives.html
If manufacturers had implemented the idea the cost would have been a fraction of the retail cost of the product. But of course they would have sold loads of them and then only sold a few. According to the theory of economics, if such a device was possible thats exactly what would have happened, because it would be so profitable in the initial rush. Hence, because no long lasting lightbulbs are on the market, they are not possible.

NASA was very interested in Stan Meyers device.

Stan Meyers invented something he called a water splitter. He apparently, drove a car across USA on water. In other words he produced enough water based fuel onboard, on demand to fuel a car. He took on investors got sued for being a fraud, the judge ruled against the inventor because the expert witness testimony testified that the device was standard electrolysis.

Its a fraud because it is not a water splitter it is a standard electrolysis device.

So the inventor, drove a car using standard electrolysis across the states using only water as fuel.

Show me the peer reviews that prove his device does not work.

Show me the proof that he deceived everybody by having extra batteries or hydrogen tanks onboard to produce enough fuel.

There are no peer reviews. There is no proof of deception.

So apparently, Stan Meyers drove a car, powered on water, using on board, on demand, standard electrolysis device. I thought that was against the laws of physics?

Supposedly, a water powered car will not work because the alternator cannot create enough to current to generate enough on demand hydrogen. So put an extra car battery or two in the boot and hook them up in addition to the alternator to supplement the power, charge them daily as required.

Its not as hassle free but its cheap and pollution free. Long charge times? Well its only two batteries but with pulse charging is it really a long time. Why not use a bank of phone batteries like the Tesla for quicker chrge times or a couple of standard lead acid car batteries, enough to part supply the current required for 200 or 300 miles. Say the batteries need 4 hours to recharge
100% for a few pounds (£2 or £3). Wouldn't suit everybody, but I would have one. I would have a low range electric car as a second car or if it was the only car use the money saved on petrol for a hire car or train on occasional longer journeys. Few solar panels in the garden charging a bank of batteries in the garage that you plug into at night and you could drive on sunshine. How
much would that cost? Buy a car made like the Ford Soya bean car and it wouldn't rust.

Thats if devices like Stan Meyer's don't work. Until there is a peer review to tell me otherwise, I think his device does work, I think there are many variants and ways to run a car on water. But 4 strokes are not the best engines for hydrogen the best engine to run on hydrogen is rotary, but the fuel consumption is higher. Extra batteries onboard start getting less desireable. Best removing the engine or reducing it to a generating device and using an electric motor for drive, higher efficiency and higher torque. Simpler design much better power to weight. Cheap too. Not much to go wrong, one moving part which is a metal bar. A small diesel engine as a generator with a good filter fast charging my batteries. Sure I got to put in oil, diesel or vegetable but no plugging in at night.

Where does the extra electrical energy come from?

I know. But its simpler to put one big filter on a power station, where the the generator runs at constant rpm than it is to design filters for millions of cars. A heavily filtered power station and millions of non polluting cars is better than millions of polluting cars. Trust me. But we have to burn more fossils? Yes I know but there's an answer to that too. Generate more power locally through natural resources, rivers, wave, wind, geothermal, educate consumers to be more efficient, build better houses and heating systems, believe me, maybe I will start a thread on it, there are other ways.

What about a 'free lunch'

Hydrosonic Pump

Nasa found this interesting too. They helped the company design stronger bearings. The Hydrosonic Pump appears to be a true 'free lunch' of course its not magic, it won't last forever, its a machine.

Its another device that appears to benefit from the phenomena of resonance.

Quote:
Hydrosonic Pump

ShockWave Power

During the past several years of intensive research, Hydro Dynamics has studied the production of shock waves for the purpose of transforming fluids. Early prototypes, consisting of a rotor spinning inside a housing, were able to significantly increase the temperature of water flowing through the device. This result indicated that it was possible to harness the power of cavitation. This controlled cavitation generates shock waves, which convert mechanical energy into heat energy.

Link - http://www.rexresearch.com/griggs/griggs.htm

Who says a water powered car has to convert water to pure hydrogen and oxygen anyway. HHO gas is used in cutting metal, what if the device creates enough HHO, does that need as much energy as pure hydrogen electrolysis. What about a device that uses an additive to the water to create another hydrocarbon basd gas that will burn as fuel? Engines will burn on any hydrocarbon based gas, its not just petrol. They have used heavy oil, heat it up to a gas and feed it in to an engine. They used the heat from the exhaust to heat the oil. To get it going, the used a blowtorch, heat the chamber up while the 'engine' was warming up and once at operating temp the heat from the exhaust was enough. They were adding a bit extra to get it going, to get useful work out of it once it was going.

Quote:
Hornsby-Akroyd oil engine
Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsby-Akroyd_oil_engine


Please look at these for info -

Quote:
It Runs On Water - Channel4 documentary in 1990's
Featuring Stan Meyers and Hydrosonic Pump among others
Quote:
Howard Johnson - Magnetic motors.

Link - http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...Howard_Johnson
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2013, 02:47 AM   #146
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Electric Car battery usually lithium. Lithium is prone to overcharging. Pulse or quick charging is dangerous for lithium. So do not be surprise if there will be exploding car during charging in the future. Just like exploding cellphone right now.

No one can replicate Stanley Meyer yet. Many ignore the required strict control over many parameter.

A generator powered electric car would be a better option. The generator can be small with 100cc engine or something. Run with free energy if you can.

Researcher time & resource are wasted to pursue useless technology like fuel cell or fake cold fusion.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2013, 06:57 AM   #147
j35p3r4d0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: the dream pyramid
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 19 (15 Posts)
Default

Energy is free when you don't pay for it. That's what the 'free' means.

It doesn't necessarily violate any physical law, but there exists phenomena enough for some things that are not properly understood (by some) to work quite well.
j35p3r4d0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 10:18 PM   #148
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by j35p3r4d0 View Post
Energy is free when you don't pay for it. That's what the 'free' means.

It doesn't necessarily violate any physical law, but there exists phenomena enough for some things that are not properly understood (by some) to work quite well.
That's exactly what I have tried to show in this thread and there's lots of energy everywhere (mostly from the sun)

Natural phenomena is the answer to Maxwell's Demon as I have tried to show on other thread. The hydrosonic pump and Stan Meyers work using the natural phenomena of resonance in my opinion. Its just such things were not envisioned possible when they wrote the laws, unless of course Maxwell was trying to tell us he knew otherwise.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 10:38 PM   #149
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
Electric Car battery usually lithium. Lithium is prone to overcharging. Pulse or quick charging is dangerous for lithium. So do not be surprise if there will be exploding car during charging in the future. Just like exploding cellphone right now.
Ok but my point was, lead acid batteries can be charged quicker than is generally accepted due to a flawed GM study and one of the major disadvantages against electric cars back in the 1970's was the battery charge times.

I read a white paper by a battery company, British (can't remember who), that said they had fast charged and discharged their batteries for a cycle of 500 times, taken them apart and inspected the plates and saw no damage. They did not use pulse charging, standard charging at higher rates.

You can fast charge lead acid with little damage, maybe back in the 1950's you couldn't but you could in the 80's or 90's and probably earlier in the 70's to. If 1970's electric vehicles had a range of 40-50 miles but recharged in 1 hour, they would have been a lot more popular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
No one can replicate Stanley Meyer yet. Many ignore the required strict control over many parameter.
Unfortunately not. No peer reviews to say what he claimed is not true. Nasa liked it. I've seen some very good attempts, people over at Panacea university have worked out it has acoustic properties, it looks like they are on the right rack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
A generator powered electric car would be a better option. The generator can be small with 100cc engine or something. Run with free energy if you can.
Agreed and entirely feasible with todays technology. The Renault Kangoo EV came with a small 50cc engine on board, connected to rear axle so if you run out of battery, the engine get you home at reduced speeds. You could not use it to charge the batteries. You could make that engine a diesel that runs on veggie oil grown by a local source.

We could not buy it in UK, not sold here, no second hand models on the market for me. Maybe I should move to France.

Its not difficult to solve the problems but everybody is so brainwashed against the truth and the manufacturers mostly manage to achieve getting it spectacularly wrong and still sell the product and convince everyone its not possible or feasible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
Researcher time & resource are wasted to pursue useless technology like fuel cell or fake cold fusion.
If I had the spare cash, I would spend my time converting my car to electric, but I don't have that luxury so researching is the next best thing, its mostly free.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 12:49 AM   #150
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Ok but my point was, lead acid batteries can be charged quicker than is generally accepted due to a flawed GM study and one of the major disadvantages against electric cars back in the 1970's was the battery charge times.

I read a white paper by a battery company, British (can't remember who), that said they had fast charged and discharged their batteries for a cycle of 500 times, taken them apart and inspected the plates and saw no damage. They did not use pulse charging, standard charging at higher rates.

You can fast charge lead acid with little damage, maybe back in the 1950's you couldn't but you could in the 80's or 90's and probably earlier in the 70's to. If 1970's electric vehicles had a range of 40-50 miles but recharged in 1 hour, they would have been a lot more popular.
Different battery do different reaction.

Engine Starter battery is more common today. To allow high current output burst, the plates are designed very thin to allow more plate in small container. Thin plate will easily warped when charged at fast rate using normal method.


I think I have charger that charge much faster than conventional charger, even at lower current consumption, with less heating too. My own version of radiant charger.



Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Unfortunately not. No peer reviews to say what he claimed is not true. Nasa liked it. I've seen some very good attempts, people over at Panacea university have worked out it has acoustic properties, it looks like they are on the right rack.
No, I believe that Panacea is in the wrong track. They would fail because they ignore the neccesary requirement for resonance method.



Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Agreed and entirely feasible with todays technology. The Renault Kangoo EV came with a small 50cc engine on board, connected to rear axle so if you run out of battery, the engine get you home at reduced speeds. You could not use it to charge the batteries. You could make that engine a diesel that runs on veggie oil grown by a local source.

We could not buy it in UK, not sold here, no second hand models on the market for me. Maybe I should move to France.
WHat I mean is the motor is used as generator, to generate electricity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
If I had the spare cash, I would spend my time converting my car to electric, but I don't have that luxury so researching is the next best thing, its mostly free.
You have to invest on radiant charger first, and when you do, do not use sealed or lithium. Use only deep cycle lead acid battery.

Lithium can be easily damaged / inflated by radiant charger, from my personal experience.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 08:51 AM   #151
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
No, I believe that Panacea is in the wrong track. They would fail because they ignore the neccesary requirement for resonance method.
When I last looked they were cutting slots into the tubes to acoustically tune the tubes/rods to the container to establish resonance. What requirement do you think they are missing out?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
WHat I mean is the motor is used as generator, to generate electricity.
Yes I know, that would be a good idea because of practicality. Renault got it wrong in my opinion. I agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
You have to invest on radiant charger first, and when you do, do not use sealed or lithium. Use only deep cycle lead acid battery.

Lithium can be easily damaged / inflated by radiant charger, from my personal experience.
Yes I have seen them advertised and I would use lead acid due to cost. Installed either at the front of the car in engine bay and/or inside chassis backbone. Like 'Sundancer' Electric car

Quote:
February 1972 issue of Mechanix Illustrated

Link - http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/tag/esb-sundancer/

Last edited by pi3141; 07-12-2013 at 08:51 AM.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 10:16 PM   #152
kickmuck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 523
Likes: 24 (11 Posts)
Default

Even if there is no such thing as free energy ..Surely minimum effort for maximum output should be looked into.

If this machine could create enough energy to power my house by me just going out and giving it a push every now and then i would like to have one in my garden.

Obviously i have no idea what i am talking about. Just raising the question that if there was some kind of contraption that i could wind up, for even say 30 mins on an exercise bike to get something rotating that would power all my shit for a day, would this even be possible?

Taking in consideration of any extreme measures.
kickmuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2013, 01:31 AM   #153
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
When I last looked they were cutting slots into the tubes to acoustically tune the tubes/rods to the container to establish resonance. What requirement do you think they are missing out?
Many people already done that and still fail.

Do they have tube with controlled pressure, water level and water salinity? I don't hear any.

Many people also assume they can use digital signal, when sine wave signal are mentioned in some patent.

Even the most successfull one still can not run an engine with solely HHO.

And why no one use the trick to add ionized air in HHO output? Even when it is given special section in Meyer Technical Brief file and there is patent solely for that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Yes I have seen them advertised and I would use lead acid due to cost. Installed either at the front of the car in engine bay and/or inside chassis backbone. Like 'Sundancer' Electric car
Learn to make radiant charger too, or you can try my stingo.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kickmuck View Post
If this machine could create enough energy to power my house by me just going out and giving it a push every now and then i would like to have one in my garden.
If it is something replicable and already replicated, I beleive people would love to try. There are a lot of people willing to spent some serious money just to get glimpse of energy independence, other than solar.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants

Last edited by sucahyo; 09-12-2013 at 01:33 AM.
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2013, 02:26 AM   #154
kickmuck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 523
Likes: 24 (11 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
If it is something replicable and already replicated, I beleive people would love to try. There are a lot of people willing to spent some serious money just to get glimpse of energy independence, other than solar.
Surely some greedy entrepreneur is willing to invest in a one time sales gizmo that will make them filthy rich, make a few scientists and engineers legends and for people to live happily ever after with infinite, off the grid energy.

Last edited by kickmuck; 09-12-2013 at 02:30 AM.
kickmuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2013, 02:56 AM   #155
kickmuck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 523
Likes: 24 (11 Posts)
Default

http://digg.com/video/mit-actually-reinvented-the-wheel

All this technology and we get a bike that can decide if you need help riding up a hill when what we need is technology to power our damn fridges!!
kickmuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 10:00 PM   #156
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickmuck View Post
Even if there is no such thing as free energy ..Surely minimum effort for maximum output should be looked into.
Yes that's correct, someone should do a thread on it. I would make the title, free energy doesn't exist but cheap energy is abundant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickmuck View Post
If this machine could create enough energy to power my house by me just going out and giving it a push every now and then i would like to have one in my garden.
Fantastic, I hadn't seen that.

Very typical that the 'engineer' concludes the bearings won't last forever, that's not how he phrases it. The fact that it self turns and therefore defies a theory is now irrelevant. The fact that the metal will rust and the frictional forces on the bearings mean they will break down before the end of time proves its a fake, it will only be a perpetual motion wheel for 100 years or so.

This is the brainwashing. So what if it don't last an eternity, I'm only going to live 100 years at best. If it gives me cheap free energy all my life but requires a bit of repair work occasionally, it is useful. These things do exist but they will only admit to it if you build an example 5 store high and pay a monkey to dance on top. (they didn't show the monkey in the video - he had a day off)

Even then its no good because it won't last forever. If it did last forever you would technically be 14 billions short of eternity, because the big bang happened 14 billion years ago, so technically you would not qualify for a complete eternity you would be 14 billion years short.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickmuck View Post
Obviously i have no idea what i am talking about. Just raising the question that if there was some kind of contraption that i could wind up, for even say 30 mins on an exercise bike to get something rotating that would power all my shit for a day, would this even be possible?

Taking in consideration of any extreme measures.
Well, you could spend 30 mins a day tending to a crop grown in a plot that you could squeeze vegetable oil out of to power a motor driven generator.

You could have solar panels on the roof and earth heated under floor heating, they require a little maintenance.

Something from nothing, like this gravity wheel require huge proportions to work, there are often draw backs to systems. I do not think we will find one solution. We need to diversify our energy policy and individuals need to do the same.

Fit a few solar panels charging batteries and wire them via the fuse board to fridge freezer. Fit an earth heated under floor heating system. Fit LED light bulbs.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2019, 03:50 AM   #157
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Bump
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2019, 08:07 AM   #158
thermion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 922 (603 Posts)
Default

Seems you've done a lot of research on alternative energy and bumped some old threads.

Have you achieved anything?

Thanks.

thermion
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2019, 12:25 PM   #159
zArk[ie]
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 91
Likes: 34 (30 Posts)
Default

pons and fleischmann did cold fusion / sort of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYPn0NkMQMM

but during and after pons and fleischmann were not into nukes but water

however i think it ended up in the locked off fringes because mainstream scientific method couldnt explain the reaction.

Bokris is solid also (but of course destroyed as well)

Last edited by zArk[ie]; 29-01-2019 at 12:26 PM.
zArk[ie] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2019, 09:55 PM   #160
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermion View Post
Seems you've done a lot of research on alternative energy and bumped some old threads.

Have you achieved anything?

Thanks.

thermion
Well I haven't just bumped my own threads, I've bumped the biggest threads in terms of views or replies so they don't get lost in the back pages when the forum goes read only. I think it might also be worth copying some OP's over to the new forum to get that one going. Might suggest it in the new forum thread.

Last edited by pi3141; 29-01-2019 at 10:14 PM.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.