Voltage vs Potential
knews4...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 03:37:40 +0200
Let's go even further here. Voltage and potential are two different
entities -
any measured voltage is arrived at in conventional instrumentation via
the LOSS
occurring in the instrument and difference in potentials thus
occuring.
The instrument consumes power in the reading of the voltage, and the
voltage is a vector
difference arrived at by that consumption.
Potential on the other hand can exist whether or not there is loss. It
can be pure, and
non mass-loss-related, as can be seen in scalar potentials present
particularly in
electrostatic phenomena. Conventional voltage requires a vector as
well, while scalar
potentials exist in non-vector states, just as in Maxwell's equations
of over a century
ago, and just as they exist in Feynman's descriptions ("The Strange
Theory of Light and
Matter").
Since it has already been described by various people, including
Feynman in his Quantum
Electrodynamics lectures and texts, that charge and mass are not one
and the same thing ,
the possibility that something entirely outside the scope of
Kanserman's (despite his
insistence that he is God and knows everything ever needed to know
about reality)
conceptualizations is taking place between the plates of the Meyer
water cell, where a
fluctuating electrostatic potential is being applied,
in the plates of an electrostatic device - a water capacitor, and
where there are the
nuclei and electron shells of the dielectric subject to those
fluctuations in potential
without the flow of charge-carrying masses until conduction, when the
cell is immediately
shut down. It is designed to operate on potential, and not EM vector
voltages. It is
actually designed to stop operation when those vectors begin to appear
in the cell.
It is difficult for people so impressed by what they have gained due
to their
exploitation of what they were told about reality and are now
teaching others to
conceive of the literal possibility that there are processes in nature
which have been
going on for many millenia all around them of which they are totally
ignorant. It is an
embarassing situation for someone who has built up years of image and
self-esteem based
on that image others have become convinced of which provide a status
around them making
them filled with a certain sense of superiority they think they have
- which they must
relinquish in order to expand their knowledge, and doing it publicly
in an NG they have
been literally running like a little club of self-congrat- ulation and
support is even
humiliating to such a group, I would imagine, particularly after
having spent years here
embarassing and making fun of others who have come here to talk about
these things, but
the fact is that what they are saying about reality, and their totally
uneducated,
egotistical negative and discrediting conjecture about these things
which have yet to be
fully investigated and understood, their foundational focus on the
essential physical
aspects of many phenomena, are based on theory, conclusions, and
postulations having been
proven years ago insufficient to describe many, many natural
processes.
I can guarantee that there are phenomena which these people are
absolutely sure of their
understanding of and take for granted which hold operations they have
never even heard
of, let alone considered, or understood , and this is obviated by
their refusal to even
posit any possibility outside what they now know - a serious,
egotistical, easy trap for
any scientist, particularly if he has acquired a certain "importance"
or "position" due
to what he already thinks he knows, to fall into, yet millions of them
already have in
history. The status quo of every generation is filled with them. To
believe that this
generation of scientists is suddenly free from such self-deception is
a grievous a
mistake as the last time it happened.
Our basic, fundamental understanding, our primary matrix via which we
interpret the world
around us, is mistaken and flawed, and has been proven to be so for
years, and to cling
to the science which maintains those mistakes and flaws is not the
real goal of the
search for truth, but a hindrance to it.
We can count on interpretations of reality which are in focus with
what is now supported
by rigorous testing to take our perceptions of the physical world to
another level of
understanding much deeper than what has brought us to this place, but
those who have done
their jobs so well using that which is no longer complete, but now
only partially
certain, must, as real human beings dedicated to the truth instead of
simply their egos,
admit their limitations and continue on their journey towards that
reality, because, as
those assuming authority due to their knowledge, the harm they can do
by refusing to make
that admission is too great a price for the rest of the world, and our
children, to pay
for their surperfluous egotism.
I believe that a guy from Ohio named Stan Meyer was one who left his
ego aside to gain
the truth about that reality for the sake of us all. I am certain that
between the plates
of that water cell are phenomena which transcend the limitations of
those here who would
challenge Meyer's sincerity and understanding on mere opinions based
on their own
limitations, and one day we will know more about reality because Stan
Meyer literally
gave his life trying to help us do exactly that.
Ohannon
Let's back up instead of "going even further". You are absolutely
wrong!
A potential difference is measured in volts. A voltage is just a
convenient way of referring to a potential difference - shorter
expression. You have totally missed the concept of a potential
difference. You have little idea what a potential difference and an
electromotive force (also measured in volts) is at all. Since an emf
is
almost always generated in an electrochemical cell or in a conductor
passing through a magnetic field the internal resistance of the device
makes it difficult to determine the emf produced. But not impossible.
This potential difference can be measured in ways that lead to an
infinitesmal error from the internal resistance voltage drop. And so
the
emf (measured in volts) can be readily determined. The standard cells
that used to be used with potentiometers had emf that were measurable
to
the fifth decimal place when kept at a constant temperature and
greater
precision was usually not readily available due to the Johnson noise
limit. "Voltage" is NOT what you claim it is. And as for your
insistence
about scalars you had better study some vector analysis before you go
off half cocked about what the nature of fields and potentials are.
FK
From: engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)
Date: 14 Aug 1999 08:07:19 GMT
Fred Kasner (fka...@enteract.com) wrote:
: The Grand Dummy is further demonstrating his ignorance. A field
cannot
: be a scalar as it is defined as a vector!
Apart from, erm, scalar fields.
: A potential is the gradient of
: a field.
Last time I looked, electric field was the gradient of potential.
: You can invent all the new terms you want but it is impossible
: to change the definitions of the terms as they are given.
Indeed.
Ian
I'm afraid you'll have to look to Mr. Johnston's response to your
erroneously derived claim about scalar fields below, Kanserman.
Since anything a "Layman" (and you're the clergy? God help us all -
I'm wearing three sets of underwear here from now on, just in case)
says is wrong, and you're always right, you'll of course claim that
I'm a
mentally challenged idiot not worthy of paying attention to, so,
please,
read Mr. Johnston's correction of your baloney, written albeit
somewhat
cryptically, so as not to embarass "God in his throne" for his
egotistical
boner.
What was that again - "scalar fields CANNOT exist?"
That's what I thought you said.
OHannon
michael Hannon wrote:
> Kanserman is openly showing his pathetically archaic knowledge of electricity.
>
> One simple question for anyone who has even a modicum of knowledge about
> subatomic quantum physics:
>
> When a fluctualting substantial scalar POTENTIAL and field is applied to the
> electrons and nucles of an atom, do the electrons react to it, and correspondingly,
> does the NUCLEUS react as well?
> Anyone here ever heard of MRI?
>
> Could it be that someone Kanserman has accused here of knowing "almost no science" is
> actually discussing something which is actually beyond the working knowledge
> Kanserman is using, which he has mistakenly convinced himself,
> through blatant pure self-righteous malicious egotism, makes him such an authority
> on science that he can insult and attempt to humiliate anyone he feels like,
> with no consequences for his actions, simply because he holds himself as someone
> beyond reproach, while he reproaches others and their knowledge he doesn't even know,
> often for kicks?
> Does Kanserman know that charge and potential are separate entities?
> Should Kanserman at least make a cursory attempt to refresh his working knowledge of
> charge and potential ?
> Of course he should.
> Will he?
> Absolutely not -
> Haven't we all learned here by now that Kanserman is God, his viewpoint is
> immutable, eternal, universal truth (no matter what the latest text on subjects may
> say to the contrary), and that we will all have to "pay the price" of his insults and
> other attacks for saying anything he doesn't understand or agree with?
>
> Is Kanserman using his position, vocabulary,
> and trust in them to abuse someone here?
> Sure reminds me of a priest I saw on 60 Minutes.
>
> OHannon
>
> Fred Kasner wrote:
>
> > This joker who understands almost no science at all is still claiming
> > that the reaction in the Meyer apparatus is nuclear. He still wants a
> > high voltage (he still doesn't understand what voltage is that it is an
> > amount of energy per unit charge.) You can't get any energy out of a
> > "voltage" without the passage of charge and that is an electric current.
> > So JW, for any energetic change to occur there has to be both potential
> > difference (voltage) and a current. Your claim that a change can occur
> > with only a potential difference is absolut nonsense. The terms have
> > precise definitions and all the true believers in the world can't change
> > those definitions in order to get the energy to break water bonds with
> > only a potential difference.
> >
> > FK
> >
> > H2OPWRD wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <qfHs3.367$Zi4.5688@client>, feie...@utrc1.utc.com (John
> > > Feiereisen) writes:
> > >
> > > >In <37B3329E...@All.Org>, Nonnaho <NoBr...@All.Org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>michael Hannon wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I reaffirm your position, JW.
> > > >>> I have read the account of that trial, and know all about what the
> > > >plaintiff's
> > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > >
> > > >> Would this happen to be Stanley Meyer's account of the trial or an
> > > >independent
> > > >> party's account of the trial? I think this is a fair question. Can you
> > > >( or
> > > >> anyone else ) please post a link ( or the text ) to this information so we
> > > >can
> > > >> ready it ourselves.
> > > >
> > > >Last fall I had a long telephone conversation with Judge William
> > > >Corzine (the presiding judge) regarding the Meyer trial.
> > >
> > > But you do not have a transcript of the case. You have no tape recorded
> > > transcript from which to get a true transcript of those events. You have not
> > > heard Meyer's technical expert's testimony. You have the word of one person who
> > > would not recuse themself when related to one of the parties to the action.
> > >
> > > >Meyer's
> > > >account has about as much basis in reality as Michael's account of the
> > > >thermodynamics of Tesla turbines, Brown's gas, etc.
> > >
> > > Do your own research here people. John has no experience with any of these
> > > technologies. Great science John.
> > > >
> > > >If you had successfully scammed $1.2-$1.5 million from a bunch of
> > > >chumps and had recently been found guilty of "gross and egregious
> > > >fraud" and ordered to repay a couple of those chumps their
> > > >'investment', you'd try to save off a mass exodus of 'investors',
> > > >wouldn't you?
> > >
> > > "Gross and egregious" got him a $1 dollar punitive damage fine. HAHA
> > > Most of his backers were those in his hometown who knew exactly what was going
> > > on because unlike you John they were there. If not for the fact that one of the
> > > conspirators told someone that he had rights that the backer knew Stan would
> > > never release he may have lost something more. Stan Meyer was doing all his
> > > work in a small town where everyone knew him. If he were a conving little kid
> > > everyone would have known it. He was known for his integrity and his intellect.
> > >
> > > >Seeing that they all fell for a water-powered car scam,
> > > >they'll fall for anything. Sabotage and corruption! Yeah, that's the
> > > >ticket! The plaintiff's expert witnesses sabotaged Meyer's cell and
> > > >the judge was corrupt! Meyer's investors relax and wait for Meyer to
> > > >bring the technology to the marketplace. Meyer died last year -- it's
> > > >going to be a long wait.
> > >
> > > Gets longer when inventors die that's for sure. Gives the thiefs more time to
> > > work on their own systems and causes wasted life on patents as well.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >IIRC, Michael and JW have both claimed that Meyer appealed the verdict
> > > >or filed an appeal, but Judge Corzine laughed and said that was not
> > > >the case.
> > >
> > > Filed a complaint for Judicial misconduct I believe.
> > >
> > > .One thing that Judge Corzine said that really sticks out in
> > > >my mind is that Meyer, his 'expert' witnesses, and his 'investors' all
> > > >suffered a remarkable 'disconnect' with reality.
> > >
> > > Which relaity is that. The reality of zero point energy not found in any text
> > > books or the thourough examination of just how much enegy exists in the water,
> > > the ambient air, and ther electrical charges going into a system of
> > > transformation into combustion energy?
> > > Again you have no basis other than the opinion of a judge seated under protest
> > > who totally ignores qualified expert testimony regarding the operation of
> > > Meyer's cell. Meyer's process is not standard electrolysis under any
> > > definition other than the one that rquires "electrical input" into the process.
> > > He used tap water and no electolyte.
> > >
> > > JW
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >John
> > > >
> > > ps. Remember this post?
> > >
> > > John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn$1...@client2.news.psi.net>...
> > > >For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
> > > >equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
> > > >legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
> > > >and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
> > > >"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
> > > >to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
> > > >
> > > >Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
> > > >and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
> > > >egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'. As far as I
> > > >know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
> > > >'investment'. Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
> > > >he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
> > > >THE CONSPIRACY).
> > > >
> > > >After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
> > > >to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
> > > >spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
> > > >It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
> > > >device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously working
> > > >under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
> > > >unjust guilty verdict.
> > > >
> > > >As far as I know, Meyer's home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
> > > >court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
> > > >passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
> > > >off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
> > > >minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I'd
> > > >stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
> > > >records of the trial.
> > > >
> > > >Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
> > > >City, county, etc., date(s)??? Possibly an official case name?
> > > >
> > > >Thanks.
> > > >
> > >
> > > VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
> > >
> > > Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
> > > so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
> > >
> > > The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
> > > Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
> > >
> > > The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
> > > 1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
> > > Chillicothe, Ohio.
> > >
> > > By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
> > >
> > > AT FIRST:
> > >
> > > You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
> > > nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
> > > to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
> > >
> > > In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
> > > making the water conductive.
> > >
> > > In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
> > > voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
> > > on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
> > >
> > > Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
> > > reactions.
> > >
> > > HOW TO?
> > >
> > > As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
> > >
> > > If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
> > > It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
> > > Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
> > > step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
> > > with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
> > >
> > > The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
> > > with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
> > > diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
> > > Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
> > >
> > > The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
> > > frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.
> > >
> > > Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
> > > the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
> > > same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
> > > energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
> > > to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
> > >
> > > Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
> > > producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
> > > hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
> > > this experiment will really surprise you.
> > >
> > > For even less current you can make some experiment with a
> > > centertapped puls-transformer.
> > >
> > > Have a nice trip to Ohio!
> > >
> > > Ted!
> > >
> > > Did you ever do the experiment?
> > > I didn't think so.
> > >
> > > JW
> > >
> > > "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
> > > Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
> > > --- George Washington
Uncle Al
>
> From: michael Hannon <big.b...@planet.nl>
> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 03:37:40 +0200
[snip crap]
> It is an
> embarassing situation for someone who has built up years of image and
> self-esteem based
> on that image others have become convinced of which provide a status
> around them making
> them filled with a certain sense of superiority they think they have
> - which they must
> relinquish in order to expand their knowledge, and doing it publicly
> in an NG they have
> been literally running like a little club of self-congrat- ulation and
> support is even
> humiliating to such a group,
[snip rest of crap]
After all that shit at least a semicolon was required.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
gabydewilde
> From: michael Hannon <big.boo...@planet.nl>
If you look even closer you can see it was intentional.
> From: engs0...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)
> Date: 14 Aug 1999 08:07:19 GMT
>
> > > > In article <qfHs3.367$Zi4.5688@client>, feier...@utrc1.utc.com (John
> > > > Feiereisen) writes:
> > > > John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mk...@client2.news.psi.net>...
zzbu...@netscape.net
>
> Let's go even further here. Voltage and potential are two different
> entities -
> any measured voltage is arrived at in conventional instrumentation via
> the LOSS
> occurring in the instrument and difference in potentials thus
> occuring.
> The instrument consumes power in the reading of the voltage, and the
> voltage is a vector
> difference arrived at by that consumption.
> Potential on the other hand can exist whether or not there is loss. It
> non mass-loss-related, as can be seen in scalar potentials present
> particularly in
> electrostatic phenomena.
That;s true, But;s its also why the people who undestand
voltage AND amperage AND power, AND magnetism, AND potential, have
also the transcended the usual idiot Physics of votage, and moved
to
the higher plane of adaptive Pv Cells, Optical Computers, HDTV, CD,
DVD,
RISC++, C++, parallel processors, Holograms, Post Neandtheral
Magnets,
Laser-guided Lasers, Masers, Fiber optics, Post GM Robotics, E-
libraries, E-books,
E-publishing, On-Line-Publishing, Post Ford Batteries, Autonomous
vehicles,
GPS, and Neo Wind Energy.
> From: engs0...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)
> Date: 14 Aug 1999 08:07:19 GMT
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don Lancaster
Not to mention "Godzilla versus the Night Nurses".
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
knews4...@yahoo.com
Meyer's "Electrical Polarization Process" is a "cold process."
knews4...@yahoo.com
Cold electricity, volts, and nuclear change.
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cold+electricity&aq=1&oq=%22cold+el
>
> Meyer's "Electrical Polarization Process" is a "cold process."
Which means it is low level electrolysis. If it were nuclear it
would be very hot from radiation. If it were dielectric effects
it would be hot from that.
gdewilde
> [snip]
http://world.std.com/~mica/ex37sumd.gif
bwhahahaha
AZ Nomad
>>>
big snip
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>Not to mention "Godzilla versus the Night Nurses".
you needed to quote 285 lines? I suspect you could have managed with
quoting half as much!
Don Lancaster
You are surely not suggesting that Godzilla versus the Night Nurses is
equivalent to 285 lines of not even wrong bogus bullshit.
gabydewilde
> [snip]
Don't you like Pigeons Donny boy?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2820881147635394164
Eeyore
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> From: michael Hannon <big.b...@planet.nl>
> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 03:37:40 +0200
>
> Let's go even further here. Voltage and potential are two different
> entities -
Bollocks
Eeyore
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Meyer's "Electrical Polarization Process" is a FRAUD
Eeyore
Eeyore
gdewilde wrote:
WTF is THAT supposed to be ? Something from Star Trek ? The dilithium
crystals will never take it Captain !
Graham
Eeyore
AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:26:56 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
> >>>
> big snip
>
> >Not to mention "Godzilla versus the Night Nurses".
>
> you needed to quote 285 lines? I suspect you could have managed with
> quoting half as much!
Bettter still, no lines at all.
Graham
gabydewilde
wrote:
> gdewilde wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 3:13 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
>
> >http://world.std.com/~mica/ex37sumd.gif
>
> > bwhahahaha
>
> WTF is THAT supposed to be ?
Hello Rabbit man,
Are you trying to say you cant read a graph?
This perhaps?
http://www.blacklightpower.com/images/waterbath_reactors.jpg
> Something from Star Trek ? The dilithium
> crystals will never take it Captain !
>
At ease rabbit patrol, I think we can bring things down to your nivue
soon enough.
http://www.eagle-research.com/fuelsav/hyzajmov.html
So if your corporate fleet has 100 cars in it you can already mobilise
125 cars for the same flush of petroleum.
Or are you going to explore the galaxy at 3 quarter impulse?
You cant debunk this officer rabbit man.
http://www.solarelectricalvehicles.com/images/img-escape.jpg
Look what BMW is doing,
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=713180535&channel=219241163
Hydrogen combustion?
But what about the fuul cell propaganda?
They must have forgotten about the federation of petrowarmongers? Look
at that? It sure seems we are not going to roll over and die on your
command?
http://knol.google.com/k///1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
How will you lie yourself out of this one rabbit man?
The extremist Terror Bunny insurgents did it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrWZ2vNvhCw
This one is still an all time classic
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/739125/rabbit_hand_shadow_puppet/
HAHAHAHAHA
Don Lancaster
>
>
> But what about the fuul cell propaganda?
>
Fuel cells today are not remotely as efficient as an ICE.
The ICE efficiency is presently increasing much FASTER.
Fuel cells are falling further and further behind.
It ain't even close.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf
Eeyore
gabydewilde wrote:
> At ease rabbit patrol, I think we can bring things down to your nivue
> soon enough.
>
> http://www.eagle-research.com/fuelsav/hyzajmov.html
>
> So if your corporate fleet has 100 cars in it you can already mobilise
> 125 cars for the same flush of petroleum.
In days of old your ilk were called alchemists who tried to turn 'base
metals' into gold amongst other strange ideas.
Didn't work then. Your idea won't work now.
Graham
gabydewilde
wrote:
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm
"Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in
transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth,
in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet
physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia
accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when
they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed
to gold. "
Here are the videos again rabbit man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrWZ2vNvhCw
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/739125/rabbit_hand_shadow_puppet/
Eeyore
Don Lancaster wrote:
> gabydewilde wrote:
> >
> > But what about the fuul cell propaganda?
>
> Fuel cells today are not remotely as efficient as an ICE.
> The ICE efficiency is presently increasing much FASTER.
With co-generation (heat for onboard services and electrical power from
the exhaust stack) large modern marine diesels are now getting close to
70% thermal efficiency.
"High-efficiency waste heat recovery
An important feature of the first ship installation of the 14RT-flex96C
is the high-efficiency waste heat recovery system. It contributes major
savings in fuel consumption and reductions in exhaust gas emissions.
Exhaust gases of the ship’s main engine pass through an exhaust-gas
economiser to generate steam for a turbine-driven generator. The
turbogenerator set also includes an exhaust-gas power turbine driven by
a portion of the exhaust gases diverted from the main flow through the
engine’s turbochargers.
This high-efficiency waste heat recovery plant can provide an electrical
output of up to about 12% of the main engine power. The generated
electricity is supplied to the ship’s main switchboard and employed in a
shaft motor to assist in ship propulsion. A portion of the steam from
the exhaust economiser is utilised in shipboard heating services.
Energy recovery is maximised by adapting the engine to the lower air
intake temperatures that are available by drawing intake air from
outside the ship (ambient air) instead of from the ship’s engine room.
The engine turbochargers are matched for the lower air intake
temperatures thereby increasing the exhaust energy without affecting the
air flow through the engine. There is thus no increase in the thermal
loading of the engine and there is no adverse effect on engine
reliability."
http://www.wartsila.com/,en,press,0,tradepressrelease,8F51527F-00A3-4C5F-ABEA-B543789ACA1B,26EE6684-06C9-48B3-920A-3B238B7C302A,,.htm
" With a 42.7 MJ/kg fuel, the efficiency is 22.1 MJ/kg / 42.7 MJ/kg =
51.7% "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wärtsilä-Sulzer_RTA96-C#Efficiency
Add this to the 12% electricity retreived from exhaust gases gives ~ 64%
efficiency but ignores the contribution from the additional hot water
supply.
MAN do some good stuff too !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAN_AG
" MAN Diesel designs and builds turn-key power stations. On-shore or as
power barges, using modular designs. In this way, each power plant can
be extended step-by-step to keep pace with increasing power demand. In
combined heat and power mode (CHP) they generate both electrical power
and thermal energy and so overall energy utilisation levels as high as
95%. Our experts in application engineering and project management are
the key to achieving very short construction times: from zero to 280 MW
power output in 17 months. "
http://www.mandiesel.com/category_000082.html
Graham
Eeyore
gabydewilde wrote:
> On Nov 29, 5:12 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > gabydewilde wrote:
> > > At ease rabbit patrol, I think we can bring things down to your nivue
> > > soon enough.
> >
> > >http://www.eagle-research.com/fuelsav/hyzajmov.html
> >
> > > So if your corporate fleet has 100 cars in it you can already mobilise
> > > 125 cars for the same flush of petroleum.
> >
> > In days of old your ilk were called alchemists who tried to turn 'base
> > metals' into gold amongst other strange ideas.
> >
> > Didn't work then. Your idea won't work now.
>
> http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm
> "Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in
> transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth,
> in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet
> physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia
> accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when
> they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed
> to gold. "
Using a nuclear reactor. And NO, the entire lead shielding didn't turn into
gold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation
Nuclear can do it because it can 'smash' atoms.
Graham
gdewilde
> http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/ColdElectricity.pdf
>
> Cold electricity, volts, and nuclear change.
People do some funky stuff with that.
Here is some youtube stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cold%20electricity
Stiffler is doing a great job researching it.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dr+Stiffler&search_sort=video_date_uploaded
You can also find him on overunity.com
To toss in some moar links,
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/coldelectricityvideo.shtml
This is also good.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6461713170757457294
gabydewilde
wrote:
< In days of old your ilk were called alchemists who tried to turn
'base metals' into gold amongst other strange ideas. Didn't work then.
Your idea won't work now.
Then after I edukkated rabbit man he wrote:
< Nuclear can do it because it can 'smash' atoms.
You forgot the last part:
"Your ideas will work."
FAIL ARE YOU. YOU FAILARE RABBIT PERSON!
How will you lie yourself out of this one rabbit man?
On Nov 29, 11:53 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> gdewilde wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 3:13 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
:> >http://world.std.com/~mica/ex37sumd.gif
:> > bwhahahaha
:> WTF is THAT supposed to be ?
Are you trying to say you cant read a graph?
This perhaps?
http://www.blacklightpower.com/images/waterbath_reactors.jpg
:> Something from Star Trek ? The dilithium
:> crystals will never take it Captain !
At ease rabbit patrol, I think we can bring things down to your nivue
soon enough.
http://www.eagle-research.com/fuelsav/hyzajmov.html
So if your corporate fleet has 100 cars in it you can already mobilise
125 cars for the same flush of petroleum.
Or are you going to explore the galaxy at 3 quarter impulse?
Benj
> Fuel cells today are not remotely as efficient as an ICE.
> The ICE efficiency is presently increasing much FASTER.
> Fuel cells are falling further and further behind.
> It ain't even close.
I dunno. Given that my Geo Metro easily approaches 60 MPG highway and
today everyone is touting tiny cars that average maybe a little over
30 MPG as being the saviors of the world AND a friend of mine drives a
gigantic old Cadillac the easily gets 27 MPG highway (compare to
"modern" "smart car") I'd say that ICE are falling further and further
behind. And these are the auto guys who want BILLIONS of tax dollars
so they can "develop" an energy efficient car? I'd say they can do
the "research" in the GM records department and use the billions for a
large parties at some resort with massages and pedicures for
executives all around!
How can you tell when auto executives are lying? Their lips are
moving!
Eeyore
Benj wrote:
> Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
> > Fuel cells today are not remotely as efficient as an ICE.
> > The ICE efficiency is presently increasing much FASTER.
> > Fuel cells are falling further and further behind.
> > It ain't even close.
>
> I dunno. Given that my Geo Metro easily approaches 60 MPG highway and
> today everyone is touting tiny cars that average maybe a little over
> 30 MPG as being the saviors of the world AND a friend of mine drives a
> gigantic old Cadillac the easily gets 27 MPG highway (compare to
> "modern" "smart car") I'd say that ICE are falling further and further
> behind.
It's probably the demand for ever increasing engine sizes and electrical
goodies doing it. Plus you won't buy diesels.
European cars don't have this problem. About half of all new car sales
here now are diesels, usually turbo'd. Some are pretty responsive. You can
even get a diesel Jaguar.
Some small European diesels can manage ~ 80 mpg (UK).
Graham
Fred Kasner
> the LOSS
> occurring in the instrument and difference in potentials thus
> occuring.
> The instrument consumes power in the reading of the voltage, and the
> voltage is a vector
> difference arrived at by that consumption.
> Potential on the other hand can exist whether or not there is loss. It
> non mass-loss-related, as can be seen in scalar potentials present
> particularly in
>>> So JW, for any energetic change to occur there has to be both potential
>>> difference (voltage) and a current. Your claim that a change can occur
>>> with only a potential difference is absolut nonsense. The terms have
>>> precise definitions and all the true believers in the world can't change
>>> those definitions in order to get the energy to break water bonds with
>>> only a potential difference.
>>>
>>> FK
>>>
>>> H2OPWRD wrote:
>>>> Feiereisen) writes:
True that I had forgotten about the thing called a scalar field and so
was wrong about that one item. The rest of the matter is pure nonsense
on your part, JW, the Junior Dummy. Ohannon was hopelessly wrong almost
all the time. In your case you are hopelessly wrong all the time since
you quote others who have been discredited repeatedly. You still do not
understand what a potential difference is and keep claiming that those
who say a potential difference is an energy are correct. That makes you
totally wrong also.
FK
Fred Kasner
>>>>> Feiereisen) writes:
Sheer nonsense. A volt is unit of potential or potential difference.
Hence a "voltage" is some other name for a potential or a potential
difference.
FK
Don Lancaster
gabydewilde
Eeyore
Fred Kasner wrote:
> gabydewilde wrote:
>
> >>>>> Did you ever do the experiment?
> >>>>> I didn't think so.
> >>>>> JW
>
> Sheer nonsense. A volt is unit of potential or potential difference.
> Hence a "voltage" is some other name for a potential or a potential
> difference.
"The volt (symbol: V) is the SI derived unit of electric potential difference or
electromotive force, commonly known as voltage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volt
Been a while since I've seen the term EMF as opposed to PD !
Graham
Benj
> > Sheer nonsense. A volt is unit of potential or potential difference.
> > Hence a "voltage" is some other name for a potential or a potential
> > difference.
> "The volt (symbol: V) is the SI derived unit of electric potential difference or
> electromotive force, commonly known as voltage."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volt
> Been a while since I've seen the term EMF as opposed to PD !
Usually EMF is used by physicists probably with a tip of the hat for
historical reasons.
And there is subtlety here that you all are missing. A potential
[which is a potential difference measured from infinity to the point
in question] or "potential difference" is a field quantity derived
from fields. As far as I know "EMF" is a synonym for potential
difference and is likewise a field quantity though an older term.
Voltage on the other hand often implies a CIRCUIT quantity. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage
While circuit quantities CAN be identical with field quantities, they
are more restrictive. Circuit quantities imply the ability to define
terminals upon which the given "voltage" can be defined. Thus, in free
space one tends to discuss "potential differences" or EMFs, while
voltages are reserved for situations where circuit conditions are
met.
And there is MUCH more than this. Namely that a potential difference
is derived from the scalar potential and such a difference represents
the "EMF". While an EMF can be measured in the SI units of volts,
that is not the only unit that can be used. There are also Abvolts and
Statvolts. And dig. Note that electrostatic fields are conservative.
This means that such a field CANNOT generate a steady current.
Electric circuits that utilize steady currents MUST have non-
conservative fields present! Such non-conservative fields are usually
present in batteries and other such devices. Since the fields external
to the batteries are conservative this allows one to describe the
circuits in terms of field potential differences once circuit
conditions are met.
Thus, one can use the SI units "volts" to describe potential
differences as well as EMF in circuits, but one has to be a bit
careful about it.
You guys need to read those "freshman physics texts" that you are
always telling me that I need to read...
gabydewilde
> On Nov 29, 5:48 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Fred Kasner wrote:
> > > Sheer nonsense.
Look everyone, it's the Fred professor.
I'm not the one who spend public funding on failure hear.
And to borrow your reasoning:
FAIL = FRAUD
> > > A volt is unit of potential or potential difference.
Ow, so you are actually measuring moar ass one thing at a time.
Thats quite ironic.
I have to conclude there is potential everywhere.
So there is still hoop for you!
Isn't that potentially exiting?
> > > Hence a "voltage" is some other name for a potential or a potential
> > > difference.
You seem to confuse 2 sings hear.
I do apericate the comfort of every day routine, the securty of the
familar, the tranquility, repetition.
> > "The volt (symbol: V)
The V is reserved for the vendeta.
> is the SI derived unit of electric potential difference or
> Usually EMF
The usual, the familiar.
> is used by physicists probably with a tip of the hat for
> historical reasons.
Like the men of the church, everything has to be discovered and pear
reviewered by a physician.
But when we look at the facts, nothing was and it never will.
For dogma is their comfort zone.
For those who are willing to listen there is always the annunciation
of truth.
> And there is subtlety here that you all are missing.
Nihilist?
> A potential
> [which is a potential difference measured from infinity to the point
> in question] or "potential difference" is a field quantity derived
> from fields. As far as I know "EMF" is a synonym for potential
> difference and is likewise a field quantity though an older term.
Yes, it's from the days when electric cars dominated the roads,
civilians owned airships and telegraphs worked on earth batteries.
Long long long before robots like the Fred professor climbed onto the
stage in order to scream at everyone and firmly grab them by their
money. Or shall we say "financial potential" and "took charge
thereof"?
> Circuit quantities imply the ability to define
> terminals upon which the given "voltage" can be defined. Thus, in free
> space one tends to discuss "potential differences" or EMFs, while
> voltages are reserved for situations where circuit conditions are
> met.
Ohms lawyering is nice if you are using direct current, a bit like
Faraday lawyering is nice if thy are attempting to electrucut a bucket
of dirty water on the back of a chunk of dead tree.
> And there is MUCH more than this. Namely that a potential difference
> is derived from the scalar potential and such a difference represents
> the "EMF".
O noes! The unacceptable scientists is talking about skaalaars again!
help!
> While an EMF can be measured in the SI units of volts,
> that is not the only unit that can be used. There are also Abvolts and
> Statvolts. And dig. Note that electrostatic fields are conservative.
I've never tried to have a conversation with one.
> This means that such a field CANNOT generate a steady current.
> Electric circuits that utilize steady currents MUST have non-
> conservative fields present! Such non-conservative fields are usually
> present in batteries and other such devices. Since the fields external
> to the batteries are conservative this allows one to describe the
> circuits in terms of field potential differences once circuit
> conditions are met.
>
> Thus, one can use the SI units "volts" to describe potential
> differences as well as EMF in circuits, but one has to be a bit
> careful about it.
Yes, be careful Fred professor, back EMF can be really really
dangerous.
I think it's best for you to stay away from it.
> You guys need to read those "freshman physics texts" that you are
> always telling me that I need to read...
I think he is to old now to learn about the conversation flaws.
Back EMF is equal and opposite to the indukted elektron motive force
per electric law.
What you put in also comes out.
The stuff the Fred Professor is doing boils down to calculating
potential by subtracting one potential from another potential.
Like wealth is defined by how much moar money one has.
potential wealth of course. Money has not a static value.
Think of it like a humidity stock index with all the potential
readings movin up and down.
The universe is like one big circus. And the closed system clowns are
the act of the century. Specially where they claim closing your eyes
makes the rest of the world disappear.
Hobbyists and engineers don't exist, if they claim to have discovered
something they should submit it for pear review. And no journal will
touch it.
Hurray we defeated all innovation! Hurray the clowns say.
You now have sensors and systems of surveillance, cohersing your
conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Whos
to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than
others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told,
if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror. I
know why you did it. I know you are afraid. Who wouldn't be, war,
terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to
corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the
best of you....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elh8RP4d4Z0&feature=PlayList&p=703453F130029486&index=0&playnext=1
hahahahahaha
Eeyore
gabydewilde wrote:
OH SHUT UP !
We're fed up with your folksy garbage in SCIENCE groups.
I'm considering an abuse report for breach of charter.
Graham.
% Information related to '84.104.0.0 - 84.104.255.255'
inetnum: 84.104.0.0 - 84.104.255.255
netname: QUICKNET-CABLE-0405
descr: Multikabel QuickNet
country: NL
admin-c: HMQN1-RIPE
tech-c: HMQN1-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: MULTIKABEL-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
role: Hostmaster Quicknet Nederland
address: Alkmaar
phone: +31 72 5186900
fax-no: +31 72 5186900
e-mail: ab...@multikabel.nl
nic-hdl: HMQN1-RIPE
admin-c: RD263-RIPE
tech-c: NS302-RIPE
tech-c: RD263-RIPE
tech-c: LD2545-RIPE
tech-c: RG1620-RIPE
tech-c: CdB65-RIPE
remarks:
remarks: --------------------------------------------------------
remarks: * Please report Internet Abuse to:ab...@multikabel.nl *
remarks: * *************************************************** *
remarks: *All abuse reports sent other addresses will be ignored*
remarks: --------------------------------------------------------
remarks: IP-/NEWS-Peering requests/questions: pee...@quicknet.nl
remarks: --------------------------------------------------------
remarks:
remarks: --------------------------------------------------------
remarks: I am only Network/RIPE Administrators at Multikabel N.V.
remarks: and the IP's you see are in use by customers, so:
remarks:
remarks: - "I" did *not* hack your computer
remarks: - "I" did *not* sent you spam or any virus
remarks: - "I" will *not* read or reply to your abuse complaints
remarks:
remarks: If a customer has sent you one of the above items. send
remarks: an abuse notification ONLY to: ab...@multikabel.nl
remarks: --------------------------------------------------------
remarks:
mnt-by: MULTIKABEL-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
gabydewilde
wrote:
> gabydewilde wrote:
>
> OH SHUT UP !
>
> We're fed up with your folksy garbage in SCIENCE groups.
>
> I'm considering an abuse report for breach of charter.
>
If we look at voltage as if mass
and we look at amperage as flow
A rolling cart is not work.
Pushing a cart up to speed is the work.
Then surely the increase in flow is the work
Amperage therefore denotes the losses.
Like a flowing river with a water wheel in it.
Furthermore,
Attractive forces do not exist, there are only pushing forces.
Gravity can be easily explained by looking at the earth as a giant
shield.
The Æther flows though the shield but part if it is blocked.
This explains Johannes Diderik van der Waals's forces.
It explains Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder's force.
It explains zero point energy, quantum flux, stardust, radiation,
light or what ever you want to call it Rabbit man.
You lost all sense of reasonable debate but feel the need to respond
to everything. Calling it alchemy, folksy garbage, etc
I would call it but-hurt and FAIL
The stuff the Fred Professor is doing boils down to calculating
potential by subtracting one potential from another potential.
I'm just pointing out what a moron he is.
Now look:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=s7224SYAAAAJ5K0LYNtJwffPTd4R9yGHotLKDVz8Emy8HwLHXYoqw6OHKHMFrw1YNkR7LvH9Wwo
This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups
Terms Of Use.
Technically you don't exist rabbit man.
But lets look at you, I gave you a link to this pretty picture.
http://world.std.com/~mica/ex37sumd.gif
You respond:
" WTF is THAT supposed to be ? Something from Star Trek ? The
dilithium crystals will never take it Captain ! "
It's the folksy garbage of cold fusion Rabbit man.
Feel like crying about it?
Boo whoo? yes?
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
"The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into
materials and the science and engineering the lattice-assisted nuclear
reactions"
boo whooo rabbit man??
Or how about this perk.
376 miles per Gallon.
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/introduction-to-the-water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/15#H3-Popular-counter-reasoning
Royal Dutch shell is moar than worthy of reference here. It shows you
disbelievers and liars there is moar between heaven and earth.
I give you a link showing plasma reactions by voltage alone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elh8RP4d4Z0&feature=PlayList&p=703453F130029486&index=0&playnext=1
Finally some real scientists. One stated he discovered a 40% fuel
enhancing spark plug for Ford long long ago.
Think of it like a humidity stock index with all the potential
readings movin up and down.
The universe is like one big circus. And the closed system clowns are
the act of the century. Specially where they claim closing your eyes
makes the rest of the world disappear.
Current flows from the negative side, the geo-north pole is a south
pole, gravity comes from the other end and closed systems just don't
exist.
Hobbyists and engineers don't exist either, if they claim to have
discovered something they should submit it for pear review. And no
journal will touch it.
Hurray we defeated all innovation! Hurray the clowns say.
You now have sensors and systems of surveillance, cohersing your
conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Whos
to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than
others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told,
if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror. I
know why you did it. I know you are afraid. Who wouldn't be, war,
terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to
corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the
best of you....
ha - ha - ha - Rabbit man.
You lying-spamming-rodent? eh?
On Nov 29, 5:48 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> gabydewilde wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 5:12 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > gabydewilde wrote:
> > > > At ease rabbit patrol, I think we can bring things down to your nivue
> > > > soon enough.
>
> > > >http://www.eagle-research.com/fuelsav/hyzajmov.html
>
> > > > So if your corporate fleet has 100 cars in it you can already mobilise
> > > > 125 cars for the same flush of petroleum.
>
> > > In days of old your ilk were called alchemists who tried to turn 'base
> > > metals' into gold amongst other strange ideas.
>
> > > Didn't work then. Your idea won't work now.
>
> >http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm
> > "Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in
> > transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth,
> > in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet
> > physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia
> > accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when
> > they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed
> > to gold. "
>
> Using a nuclear reactor. And NO, the entire lead shielding didn't turn into
> gold.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation
>
> Nuclear can do it because it can 'smash' atoms.
>
> Graham
On Nov 29, 5:12 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> gabydewilde wrote:
> > At ease rabbit patrol, I think we can bring things down to your nivue
> > soon enough.
>
> >http://www.eagle-research.com/fuelsav/hyzajmov.html
>
> > So if your corporate fleet has 100 cars in it you can already mobilise
> > 125 cars for the same flush of petroleum.
>
> In days of old your ilk were called alchemists who tried to turn 'base
> metals' into gold amongst other strange ideas.
>
> Didn't work then. Your idea won't work now.
>
> Graham
On Nov 29, 11:54 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:53 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> gdewilde wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 3:13 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
> > > [snip]
>
> >http://world.std.com/~mica/ex37sumd.gif
>
> > bwhahahaha
>
> WTF is THAT supposed to be ? Something from Star Trek ? The dilithium
> crystals will never take it Captain !
>
> Graham
On Nov 29, 11:50 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Cold electricity, volts, and nuclear change.
>
> Bwahahahahahaha
On Nov 29, 11:50 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Meyer's "Electrical Polarization Process" is a FRAUD
Hear rabbit man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrWZ2vNvhCw
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/739125/rabbit_hand_shadow_puppet/
Offended?
Claude Hopper
>>>> Feiereisen) writes:
>>>>
>>>> I didn't think so.
>>>>
>>>> JW
>>>>
>>>> Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
>>>> --- George Washington
Philosophy and physics do not go good together.
--
Claude Hopper :)
? ? ¥
Don Lancaster
>>>>> quote of usual not even wrong misguided bullshit <<<<<<
> Philosophy and physics do not go good together.
>
>
Fortunately, the above was neither.
gabydewilde
> >>>>> quote of usual not even wrong misguided bullshit <<<<<<
You don't like pigeons donny?
knews4...@yahoo.com
<economy snip>
>
> True that I had forgotten about the thing called a scalar field and so
> was wrong about that one item. The rest of the matter is pure nonsense
> on your part, JW, the Junior Dummy. Ohannon was hopelessly wrong almost
> all the time.
>In your case you are hopelessly wrong all the time since
> you quote others who have been discredited repeatedly. You still do not
> understand what a potential difference is and keep claiming that those
> who say a potential difference is an energy are correct. That makes you
> totally wrong also.
> FK
I never said that.
Meyer never said that.
It is a "physical force that can be made (very efficiently) to do work
without being consumed."
Meyer was granted his patents under sec 101 Critical Review FOR
PROVING JUST THAT.
doug
Remember that nowhere in any of the sales and fraud literature put out
by Meyer was there ever a measure of efficiency of his process. Not
by Meyer, nor by anyone else. There were lots of nice claims about
"lots" of gas etc, but there are no measurements. This is standard
procedure for frauds because the truth shows the fraud. Making gas
from electrolysis is easy to do. Useful energy conversion is impossible.
gabydewilde
>[snip]
You lie a lot dougma.
doug
gabydewilde wrote:
That is a big statement on your part with no proof.
Just as you have no proof of all your crank claims.
Fred Kasner
The above comment is hopeless nonsense. Terms like "force ... being
consumed" are hopelessly meaningless.
FK
Fred Kasner
Since potentiometers went out of style for measuring emf's the term is
not usually used. However when doing calculations involving motors and
generators the conceptof the back emf is quite useful in calculating the
current that flows in the machine internal wiring. Since chemists don't
do much with standard cells and potentiometers any more the term of emf
is not used often.
FK
Fred Kasner
It may be funny to you but since it is intentional nonsense it is not
amusing to those of us who understand the limitations of the person
purveying it.
FK
Fred Kasner
Asbolutely middle ages attempt to apply Aristotle to natural phenomena.
Action at a distance requires a pushing force even if invisible? Come
on, Galileo laid that to rest even before Newton, Huygens, and Leibniz
finished it off. Hopeless nonsense on your part.
FK
Fred Kasner
The old business about my error about scalar fields is that: old
business. It serves no purpose in repeating it since I admitted the
error almost a decade ago. But the attempt to make repeated claims by JW
and Ohannon acceptable when they have been defeated as fallacious many
times in the past is worse than pedantry it is stupidity.
FK
hhc...@yahoo.com
Fred, in actuality in physicics or precision electrical measurements,
potentiometers are not out of style even today. In fact, in an
electrical standards/calibration lab, this is how precision voltage/
potential measurement are made in accordance with NIST standard. Fred,
I believe that I am preaching to the choir because I am quite sure
that you now the drill to measure an unknown potential to state-of-the-
art precision and acuracy. Still, this is possibly informational for
the newbies on the group.
The first step is to subject your voltage sample to NIST certificatin
to NIST. In turn, in comarison with international standards, they
certify your primary voltage source to at least four dignit beyond the
decimal point, so our 1.5 volt comparison standard is certified to
produce a potential of 1.7854 volts.
So, scientist know what the potential of the standard cell is. Then to
measure the voltage of an unknown voltage soure, we employ what is
known as a balanced bridge circuit to balance the voltage/potential
between the unknown voltage with that of our standard cell, at which
point no current is drawn from either. After the measurment you
simply apply Ohm's law to certify the linearity of the
potentionmeters. I believe that even the crackpots would agree that
the calibration of a potentiometer can be easily verified.
Fred, please don't expend your energy on thes ignorant idiots, unless
it give you some humor. Hell, this is why I read these newsgroup. I
try to teach readers about basic physics, and you do the same in
chemistry. I guess were are mostly out of a similar mold.
Harry C.
Eeyore
gabydewilde wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > gabydewilde wrote:
> >
> > OH SHUT UP !
> >
> > We're fed up with your folksy garbage in SCIENCE groups.
> >
> > I'm considering an abuse report for breach of charter.
>
> If we look at voltage as if mass
BUT IT ISN'T YOU COMPLETE MORON !
That's why we have dimensional analysis to check against such absurd constructs.
" Dimensional analysis is a conceptual tool often applied in physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics and statistics to understand
physical situations involving a mix of different kinds of physical quantities. It is routinely used by physical scientists and
engineers to check the plausibility of derived equations and computations. It is also used to form reasonable hypotheses about complex
physical situations that can be tested by experiment or by more developed theories of the phenomena. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
I leanrt this when I was 17 or maybe even 16 ! Without it you're dead in physics.
Graham
Eeyore
Fred Kasner wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Fred Kasner wrote:
> >> gabydewilde wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> Did you ever do the experiment?
> >>>>>>> I didn't think so.
> >>>>>>> JW
> >> Sheer nonsense. A volt is unit of potential or potential difference.
> >> Hence a "voltage" is some other name for a potential or a potential
> >> difference.
> >
> > "The volt (symbol: V) is the SI derived unit of electric potential difference or
> > electromotive force, commonly known as voltage."
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volt
> >
> > Been a while since I've seen the term EMF as opposed to PD !
>
> Since potentiometers went out of style for measuring emf's the term is
> not usually used. However when doing calculations involving motors and
> generators the conceptof the back emf is quite useful in calculating the
> current that flows in the machine internal wiring. Since chemists don't
> do much with standard cells and potentiometers any more the term of emf
> is not used often.
Yes, I would also say 'back emf' in such motor / generator situations because it is
indeed 'electromotive'. Funny, never really stopped to think about it like that
before.
Graham
Eeyore
gabydewilde wrote:
He certainly doesn't like you together with your nonsensical garbage and
since your brain must be about the size of a pigeon's, then you can draw
your own conclusions !.
Graham
Eeyore
gabydewilde wrote:
You make things up.
Is your age >12 ?
If so, your parents should demand a refund from the Dutch Government for
failure to educate you.
Graham
Benj
[Snip bunch of total mouth-running crap]
> The stuff the Fred Professor is doing boils down to calculating
> potential by subtracting one potential from another potential.
Knowing how to subtract two numbers is way too advanced for water-
genius
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elh8RP4d4Z0&feature=PlayList&p=703453F...
More "water as a fuel" garbage.
> hahahahahaha
[He laughs insanely as Nurse Ratched pulls him off the ward PC.]
Fred Kasner
The real problem with bridge or potentiometer measurements is the
constancy of the standard cell. The cell that is less sensitive to
temperature change is also a little less reliable than the best standard
cells. However with time the cells will change even if treated gently
and then one has to do something like send them back to the manufacturer
to calibrate them against their NIST certified standard cell. Another
way to standardize the cell is to use the cell to calibrate a voltage
that can be used then to measure the voltage drop across a certified
standard resistor. Resistors generally remain quite constant if encased
in sealed container. Only time I ever had a problem with a resistor
changing was in my high precision calorimeter when one of the platinum
resistors (a calibration heater) suddenly changed from 801.000 ohms to
823.010 ohms. Never could figure that one out. Wasn't change in contact
resistance at the connection to the external circuit. I suspect that one
of the wires inside the platinum case developed a change. But it stayed
constant for years and I didn't want to open the Pt case to get at the
wires because that would have meant rebuilding the whole heater coil
from scratch. It was a fun instrument. Took days for it to come to
thermal equilibrium and then the whole experiment took less than a half
hour - measuring temperature changes to the nearest microdegree for
dilutions of solutions that developed only a few calories of enthalpy
change. Used a White Double Potentiometer to make the measurements of
the EMF produced in a 400 junction thermel. Nobody in his right mind
would do such work today.
FK
knews4...@yahoo.com
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 12:48 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > <economy snip>
>
> >>True that I had forgotten about the thing called a scalar field and so
> >>was wrong about that one item. The rest of the matter is pure nonsense
> >>on your part, JW, the Junior Dummy. Ohannon was hopelessly wrong almost
> >>all the time.
>
> > Sure Freddy.
>
> >>In your case you are hopelessly wrong all the time since
> >>you quote others who have been discredited repeatedly. You still do not
> >>understand what a potential difference is and keep claiming that those
> >>who say a potential difference is an energy are correct. That makes you
> >>totally wrong also.
> >>FK
>
> > I never said that.
> > Meyer never said that.
> > It is a "physical force that can be made (very efficiently) to do work
> > without being consumed."
> > Meyer was granted his patents under sec 101 Critical Review FOR
> > PROVING JUST THAT.
>
> Remember that nowhere in any of the sales and fraud literature put out
> by Meyer was there ever a measure of efficiency of his process.
All one has to do after they see his cell operate at pressure is 1
question.
Can I put a say 5hp gas fire ECE on this cell, run a 12v alternator
that powers the cell and make more gas than I need to run the gen set?
Do the calculation in btu's of the HHO coming from the cell down to
run the 5hp motor.
It isn't rocket science.
Meyer's process is voltage dependent. The water is bi-polar and can b
"stretched and vibrated" to the limit of the 1 or 2 orbital electrons
ability to hold on and are liberated and recaptured by another circuit
or combined with contaminants the the water.
Build a cell with about 144sq/in of stainless 304 tubing and match the
inductance to it's capacitance.
Then get it to make about 7 lbs of back pressure in 30 or 40 seconds.
If you don't think one can run a 5hp motor to push an alternator to
run the cell on about 40 or 50 watts and have gas or power to spare
you are wrong.
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/ForumPDFs/International%20Independent%20Test%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf
>Not
> by Meyer, nor by anyone else. There were lots of nice claims about
> "lots" of gas etc, but there are no measurements. This is standard
> procedure for frauds because the truth shows the fraud. Making gas
> from electrolysis is easy to do. Useful energy conversion is impossible.
Watch the long Meyer videos everywhere you can.
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=878
Meyer's used milli-amps and high voltage. He vibrated and stretched
the molecule apart with scaler waves of voltage (pressure-potential-
opposite attraction FORCE) without frying electrons and making waste
heat.
You will NEVER get it unless you try it yourself.
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
Eeyore
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Can I put a say 5hp gas fire ECE on this cell, run a 12v alternator
> that powers the cell and make more gas than I need to run the gen set?
> Do the calculation in btu's of the HHO coming from the cell down to
> run the 5hp motor.
Don't use words you can't understand.
There is no such thing as HHO btw.
Graham
Eeyore
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The water is bi-polar
Ar a rough guess I'd say it's more likely that applies to you.
Graham
doug
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
Meyer did not do that because the answer would have been NO and then
the Meyer fraud would have been obvious to anyone. No one else has
succeeded at this either.
> Do the calculation in btu's of the HHO coming from the cell down to
> run the 5hp motor.
> It isn't rocket science.
> Meyer's process is voltage dependent. The water is bi-polar and can b
> "stretched and vibrated" to the limit of the 1 or 2 orbital electrons
> ability to hold on and are liberated and recaptured by another circuit
> or combined with contaminants the the water.
You do not know any physics or you would understand how much voltage
it takes to do that across a cell of the size Meyer used. It is about
one billion volts. And doing this is very lossy.
> Build a cell with about 144sq/in of stainless 304 tubing and match the
> inductance to it's capacitance.
> Then get it to make about 7 lbs of back pressure in 30 or 40 seconds.
> If you don't think one can run a 5hp motor to push an alternator to
> run the cell on about 40 or 50 watts and have gas or power to spare
> you are wrong.
You really have no clue how much poweer is needed to run a 5HP motor.
That is nearly 4000 watts. That is a lot of hydrogen and a lot of
input power to the Meyer cell.
> http://www.waterfuelcell.org/ForumPDFs/International%20Independent%20Test%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf
This report is a good laugh for reading. There are no measurements of
efficiency in it. It is Meyer's fraudlent sales literature. If you
believe there are efficiency measurements here point them out. I saw
none.
>
>
>>Not
>>by Meyer, nor by anyone else. There were lots of nice claims about
>>"lots" of gas etc, but there are no measurements. This is standard
>>procedure for frauds because the truth shows the fraud. Making gas
>>from electrolysis is easy to do. Useful energy conversion is impossible.
>
>
> Watch the long Meyer videos everywhere you can.
> http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=878
> Meyer's used milli-amps and high voltage. He vibrated and stretched
> the molecule apart with scaler waves of voltage (pressure-potential-
> opposite attraction FORCE) without frying electrons and making waste
> heat.
Only if the laws of physics are wrong.
> You will NEVER get it unless you try it yourself.
The laws of physics do not change with my looking at a cell.
If you really believe in this, send me a cell to test for you.
I have offered to do it for free but you have refused.
Don Lancaster
They clearly have the basis for a class action suit.
Bill Ward
Shorted turn?
Bill Ward
And the answer is "no", else we'd be knee deep in gensets running on water
alone.
<snip>
Bill Ward
>
>
> knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Can I put a say 5hp gas fire ECE on this cell, run a 12v alternator that
>> powers the cell and make more gas than I need to run the gen set? Do the
>> calculation in btu's of the HHO coming from the cell down to run the 5hp
>> motor.
>
> Don't use words you can't understand.
He wouldn't have much to say.
gabydewilde
>
> Asbolutely middle ages attempt to apply Aristotle to natural phenomena.
Hurray Fred.
> Action at a distance requires a pushing force even if invisible?
Invisible? huh what? The imaginary attraction forces and aktion over
distance - those are the invisible component Fred. And they don't make
any sense either. Circus Terra where the horizon is the limit.
Oxhams razors remember? Your straw is much shorter than mine. You know
what it means.
Look everyone the emperor is nekked! Look over your data sheets,
finally it all makes perfect sense! Are you not happy Fred? Why not?
Split the atom they say, oh they are such smart men. It's only a
matter of time and they will split the sun from it's shadow.
Hobbyists and engineers don't exist, if they claim to have
discovered something they should submit it for pear review. And no
journal will touch it.
Hurray we defeated all innovation! Hurray the clowns say.
You now have sensors and systems of surveillance, cohersing your
conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Whos
to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than
others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told,
if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror. I
know why you did it. I know you are afraid. Who wouldn't be, war,
terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to
corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the
best of you....
But the workings of the Æther is such minor discovery.
Here Fred Kasner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt3smrXkVpE
Learn and shiver.
______________
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
Fred Kasner
Graham he doesn't even know how to describe water. Water is a dipole. JW
may be bipolar but H2O is not.
FK
Fred Kasner
More inability to use the language of science on JW's part. You cannot
consume work. You can convert it heat or to potential energy but you
can't consume it. It is not like matter that can be consumed by
conversion to energy.
FK
Fred Kasner
Not likely a shorted turn (btw, t was wound non-inductively) as that
would have made the resistance decrease. It increased.
FK
Fred Kasner
Aether theory was discredited early in the 20th century. You are beating
a dead horse to try and revive it.
FK
Bill Ward
Unshorted turn? ;-)
gabydewilde
> You are beating a dead horse to try and revive it.
You are indeed much like a dead horse.
gabydewilde
gabydewilde
gabydewilde
Benj
> Aether theory was discredited early in the 20th century. You are beating
> a dead horse to try and revive it.
> FK
Bzzzt. Wrong. Sorry Fred, but Aether theory was NOT "discredited". It
was simply ignored. You can join Uncle Al, in bleating that no aether
drift is the same as "no aether" but then you'll be as ignorant as he
is. No alternative theory was ever devised to provide an explanation
for the properties of "empty" space, even by Einstein. What was
discredited in the 20th Century was the old "action at a distance"
theory. Such theories defy causality. If two events happen at the same
time there is no causal relationship between them. Hence "action at a
distance" is bunk because causality is observed to be a natural law in
the Earth. But don't worry, "modern" faith-based physics needs no
"explanation" of anything. Simultaneous events are no problem.
"Unknowable" quantities worry nobody. And waves propagating through no
medium is seen as no contradiction at all. All of the universe
governed only by "chance" is no problem.
And you have the arrogance and nerve to laugh at some of the greatest
thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries? Shame on you.
Fred Kasner
You sound hopelessly confused about the fundamentals of physics.
FK
Fred Kasner
Sounds like you have caught on to something. However it appears to be as
vacant as your mind.
FK
Benj
> You sound hopelessly confused about the fundamentals of physics.
> FK
I only sound confused to someone refusing to use their brain. I'd say
go read a freshman physics text, but they are as hopelessly in error
as you are. You say, that empty space is "nothing at all", yet we
know that empty space has properties. You say that empty space
transmits waves which has to mean that "nothing at all" is vibrating.
Oh I get it. When a wave compression comes along it creates a little
more "nothing at all" and when a rarefaction is going by it is a
little less "nothing at all". Sure, that makes sense....NOT! And all
the properties of empty space come from subtle variations of greater
or lesser degrees of "nothing at all"?
And you have the arrogance and nerve to assert that *I* am "hopelessly
confused about the fundamentals of physics"?
Shame on you! I hope you aren't passing this nonsense on to young
people.
Don Lancaster
>
> And you have the arrogance and nerve to assert that *I* am "hopelessly
> confused about the fundamentals of physics"?
Correct.
You are hopelessly confused about the fundamentals of physics.
gabydewilde
In 1776 Count Alessandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta was studying
atmospheric electricity. Volta also argued that overruling
observations with believe systems would eventually lead us back to the
Pagan period.
Thus Volta successfully disproved Fred's system of discrediting good
science.
The Fred professor most likely consumed millions worth of public
funding but to this very day he didn't produce a single productive
means of energy production for the public to consume.
What computer programmers call: "Epic fail"
In stead of helping the poor people of this world who are dieing from
suffocation and economic collapse he will spend his time bothering
those who actually care.
potential - potential = potential
Doe you really believe in this Fred? Howabout the Easter bunny? Or
Santa? The tooth farry?
Furhtermore-still,
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf
"Prof. Melvin Miles applied for DoE funding to perform an up-to-date
cold fusion research project, which would extend and build upon his
years of research at the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center. [2-9]
Miles is one of the world's top electrochemists and he retired from
China Lake as a Distinguished Fellow. He is now a professor at the
University of La Vern. The DoE flatly rejected his application,
without even submitting it to a peer-review process. The rejection was
based on the usual collection of false beliefs."
http://knol.google.com/k//Yull-Brown/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/9
After witnessing a demonstration the DOE invented numerous lies to
debunk the means of cleaning up nuclear waste for 3 months afterwhich
their final conclusion was that they had seen nothing.
Safe to say it was a bit strange after all the denial.
What about Henry Moray Fred? You don't know him either? The Moray
valve? Don't remember?
____________________
http://knol.google.com/k//water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
Don Lancaster
> You say, that empty space is "nothing at all", yet we
>> know that empty space has properties. You say that empty space
>> transmits waves which has to mean that "nothing at all" is vibrating.
>> Oh I get it. When a wave compression comes along it creates a little
>> more "nothing at all" and when a rarefaction is going by it is a
>> little less "nothing at all".
That only applies if the aether is phlogstinated.
gabydewilde
Fred Kasner
You are incapable of reading and attributing comments to the person who
made them. You will not find anything from that referred to empty space
as "nothing at all". However that is what empty means. There is no
evidence whatsoever for anything called the "aether" or "ether". It was
an invention without evidence since early experimenters could not
believe that energy could be propagated without a medium for its
transmission. However, contrary to your belief, such can occur. You are
hopelessly locked into Aristotelian physics. It is not necessary that
electromagnetic radiation must vibrate a medium. How does one get around
this "problem" as you see it? Hint: wave - particle duality. If you need
the radiation to pass through empty space just consider the wave in its
particle property and it passes through a empty space medium free.
Now get back to those physics texts that, in your ignorance, you
proclaim to be wrong.
FK
Fred Kasner
> gabydewilde wrote:
>> You say, that empty space is "nothing at all", yet we
>>> know that empty space has properties. You say that empty space
>>> transmits waves which has to mean that "nothing at all" is vibrating.
>>> Oh I get it. When a wave compression comes along it creates a little
>>> more "nothing at all" and when a rarefaction is going by it is a
>>> little less "nothing at all".
>
> That only applies if the aether is phlogstinated.
>
>
But you also must take into account its caloric content. That well known
fluid that so many seem to believe was debunked by Benjamin Thompson
(AKA as Count Rumford.)
FK