Fukushima Reactor Meltdown

[ralis]

@Cat Pillar

You can read up thoroughly on the "Joe Cell" and other topics if you're interested in that stuff. A lot of vague info around, but also some more detailed stuff that I can't find right now.

http://pesn.com/2006/04/27/9600265_Make_Run_Joe_Cell/

http://pesn.com/2006/04/14/9600259_Modified_Joe_Cell/

http://pesn.com/2006/11/01/9500429_Proton_Cell/

 

There was also a Stan Meyer who ran a dune buggy on water. He used a special frequency-altered electrolysis that incorporates zero-point energy or something like that in order to create huge amounts of hydrogen and oxygen with very little electricity. (He vanished/died under unclear circumstances.)

And probably the most prominent owner of a water car is Daniel Dingel in the Philippines. He didn't find a credible supporter for marketing the tech, is sabotaged by powerful interests (like WTO), and said that if he revealed the know-how behind the tech, people would laugh about how obvious and simple it is.

(Usually the 'men in black' only pay you a visit if you start efforts to go into the market with that kind of technology. There are inventor meetings across the USA where they present their cars and other kinds of machines.)

 

A name very known in the area of permanent magnet generators (Bedini Monopole et. al.) that tap the magnetic flux: Tom Bearden. In a nutshell, he says that the current electrical motor technology is intentionally crippled by design, that it uses half of the energy generated in order to continually destroy and rebuild the dipole.

 

Also interesting: The Hutchison Effect. Creating antigravity through electricity and frequency.

 

All kinds of crazy sciences have been around for quite some time while the babies in mainstream science are still fascinated and befuddled by their theoretical quantum physics playground. (It seems to be a socio-psychological thing to enthusiastically focus on the question and not really wanting the answer which would spoil all the fun(ding).)

 

Those technologies are like a synthesis of eastern spiritual arts and modern technology. They don't make the heeeecchhhuuuuuge mistake of completely denying the existence of Yin in all processes in the universe. They only know their high-to-low order energy conversions (while the opposite is right in front of them all the time and everywhere) and the universe eventually dying of overheating. (=entropy)

How does solid plant matter grow, incorporating heat and electromagnetic radiation? Mainstream science is like the science of death and destruction. Which is really no wonder considering the heritage of male-dominance.

 

Viktor Schauberger might also be worth reading up on. He pointed out that there is a trout that stands at a fixed position in a flowing stream of water while barely moving at all. Also, he showed a logging company that they can convey more tree trunks down the hills if they change the linear waterbed into serpentines. They called him crazy, but it worked.

 

 

The 'Joe Cell' is an elaborate scam that doesn't work and never will. There are a number of sites online that will verify this.

 

I have followed Tom Bearden's work for years and his MEG device is not an over unity device. If it were over unity, the device would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Friction and heat are the two factors that no one talks about when discussing these devices.

[Owledge]

The 'Joe Cell' is an elaborate scam that doesn't work and never will. There are a number of sites online that will verify this.

 

I have followed Tom Bearden's work for years and his MEG device is not an over unity device. If it were over unity, the device would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Friction and heat are the two factors that no one talks about when discussing these devices.

Wow, you say you followed it for years, but you show the same blindness that total laymen do. Regarding overunity and friction and heat, I think you mean the FIRST law of thermodynamics. And this law remains unviolated as long as the energy source used (which is currently unacknowledged by mainstream science) is of entropic nature. When negentropic forces come into play, those laws have to go, especially the second one.

 

And regarding the Joe Cell: Can you give me some links where the Joe Cell being a scam is verified? (And I hope you're aware that verification is only possible regarding a scam, not regarding the process, because you can't prove a negative.)

 

By the way, cold fusion is also said to be 'debunked', but that's just the usual convenient claim by mainstream science. The documentation about cold fusion that I've seen so far is quite convincing regarding the debunking being a scam.

[Thunder_Gooch]

I've noticed mostly when I've posted about LFTR technology the response is usually well we have free energy from (insert too good to be true energy source here)

 

The thing is if I invented a free energy source I would be using my machine that made free unlimited energy to make stuff that was energy intensive, and then sell it for a profit.

 

No one in mainstream science is going to take any of these free energy claims seriously, even if it were true.

 

 

LFTR on the other hand isn't some pie in the sky technology, we've built them and know the design and concept is sound and functional. We just need enough people aware about it, and pissed off enough to make a big enough ruckus to get the ball rolling. We could cheaply generate synthetic gasoline alternatives using the incredibly cheap electricity made by LFTR. We've got the energy problem solved for thousands of years and I am sure we can get fusion or some other source working by then.

[ralis]

Wow, you say you followed it for years, but you show the same blindness that total laymen do. Regarding overunity and friction and heat, I think you mean the FIRST law of thermodynamics. And this law remains unviolated as long as the energy source used (which is currently unacknowledged by mainstream science) is of entropic nature. When negentropic forces come into play, those laws have to go, especially the second one.

 

And regarding the Joe Cell: Can you give me some links where the Joe Cell being a scam is verified? (And I hope you're aware that verification is only possible regarding a scam, not regarding the process, because you can't prove a negative.)

 

By the way, cold fusion is also said to be 'debunked', but that's just the usual convenient claim by mainstream science. The documentation about cold fusion that I've seen so far is quite convincing regarding the debunking being a scam.

 

I am not blind and not a layman. A friend of mine who is an engineer is a very good friend of Bearden's and he told me personally that the MEG device will never work!

[Owledge]

@More Pie Guy

Yes, obviously there are pro's and con's with this approach. Pro is that it is closer to the current system and thus easier to put into action, con is that due to this it will simply fit into the existing power structures and thus bring no impulse for a change.

 

I am not blind and not a layman. A friend of mine who is an engineer is a very good friend of Bearden's and he told me personally that the MEG device will never work!

You must realize that this says virtually nothing by itself.

Do you think Bearden only considers people good friends when they accept everything he says? Of course not.

Please, since you seem to have a good connection there, it should be possible to provide some more details about this. E.g. what does Bearden say about that friend's statement? Oh, and here's a good one: Does that engineer believe in Chi?

Edited June 10, 2011 by Hardyg

[Machin Shin]

 

 

There was also a Stan Meyer who ran a dune buggy on water. He used a special frequency-altered electrolysis that incorporates zero-point energy or something like that in order to create huge amounts of hydrogen and oxygen with very little electricity. (He vanished/died under unclear circumstances.)

 

I hear some yamantaka mantra. Do you?

 

A friend of mine has looked into this technology. The simple idea is to split the water using electrolysis. The product of the electrolysis is hydrogen and oxygen gas. Then the gas is pulled into a ionizer via vacuum pressure that the combustion chamber produces. The ionizer has a large voltage and uses the voltage potential to strip electrons from the gas. The ionized gas is then injected into the combustion chambers of the engine. The gas is unstable due to it being ionized and contains more joules per calorie than the hydrocarbons that are commercially used. Simply stated it's highly energetic gas that wants to explode.

 

The ionizer is very similar in design to the ion thrusters that some satellites use. Check in my personal practice page for the link to the NASA tutorials on ion thrusters. It uses a bifilar coil to create the electric field that ionizes the gas and the engine creates the vacuum during the downstroke.

 

That's the simple of it, and it's very complex.

 

The problem is that the engine uses drinking water....or maybe gatorade.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Machin Shin

[Owledge]

But what you describe must be something different than what I was thinking about, which is attributed to Stan Meyer if I'm not completely mistaken. Basically it is a transparent cylinder with several metal rods in it, and when electricity (low wattage) is supplied, it begins to electrolyze the water like crazy. After a few seconds, all you see are bubbles.

 

What you describe doesn't seem to make much sense because of all the electricity you need for the electrolysis AND the ionizer. It was a dune buggy, without huge space for batteries. And the buggy would consume roughly 1.5 litres of water on 100 km. (22 gallons from LA to NY)

 

Here's the media report about him:

Edited June 10, 2011 by Hardyg

[ralis]

@More Pie Guy

Yes, obviously there are pro's and con's with this approach. Pro is that it is closer to the current system and thus easier to put into action, con is that due to this it will simply fit into the existing power structures and thus bring no impulse for a change.

 

 

You must realize that this says virtually nothing by itself.

Do you think Bearden only considers people good friends when they accept everything he says? Of course not.

Please, since you seem to have a good connection there, it should be possible to provide some more details about this. E.g. what does Bearden say about that friend's statement? Oh, and here's a good one: Does that engineer believe in Chi?

 

 

Exactly, why doesn't Bearden have the MEG in full production now if it is the answer to all our energy problems? Is it one of a conspiracy problem? Patent problem? Faulty theoretical work?

 

The problem with these devices is that none have been proven to be work in field testing. If you are going to write as if these devices are viable, then the proof must be obtained by you, with accurate field tests and repeatable data. The onus is on you.

 

Any accusations by you that I am just another skeptical layman who knows nothing, are emotional attacks and only divert the conversation away from the real issues.

 

I just read Bearden's article on research at Los Alamos in which he claims that Dr. Victor Klimov has proven that overunity is valid and Bearden goes on to state that the research is finished and never needs proven again. However, that is not what the research states. The research was conducted to find a way to increase solar panel efficiency. The research team make no claims for overunity whatsoever.

 

Bearden is making absolute claims where none exist. That is not the mark of a good researcher.

 

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042011.htm

 

http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/15709

Edited June 10, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

The situation is becoming worse!

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1265833

[Owledge]

Any accusations by you that I am just another skeptical layman who knows nothing, are emotional attacks and only divert the conversation away from the real issues.

I didn't say you are a layman, I didn't say you know nothing, and I requested more detailed info. So where is the emotional influence?

 

Exactly, why doesn't Bearden have the MEG in full production now if it is the answer to all our energy problems? Is it one of a conspiracy problem? Patent problem? Faulty theoretical work?

When you said you followed Bearden's work for years, that must have been stalker-style, not research-style. Funny, I have only occasionally done info-research, and I know these things.

For example, he explained in detail the difficulties of entering the market with this technology in a Disclosure Project Witness Testimonial video. It also deals with many other aspects of Free Energy tech.

 

Since I've recently uploaded it anyway, here's the link to the video:

Bearden testimonial

Edited June 10, 2011 by Hardyg

[Thunder_Gooch]

If anyone were able to generate unlimited free energy from some device that was affordable to build at home they could easily become rich from selling the electricity and or using it to produce energy intensive products.

 

They wouldn't need to convince anyone, they could fund the production of the devices themselves and prove them in the field and get rich doing it.

 

It will probably take a few billion to get a reactor design for a LFTR ready, and into mass production, but if we could do that our energy problems would be solved for several thousand years.

[templetao]

There is a way to prevent ur body from absorbing the radiation from this disaster. You see the only reason your body absorbs it in the first place is because its compound is so close to that of calcium your body picks it up by mistake thinking its calcium. So a way to prevent this from happening is to have a high calcium diet. Also make sure that if you do have a high calcium diet that you drink alot of water. High calcium and low water intake is what makes kidney stones.

[Owledge]

@More Pie Guy

You please watch the video, too. Your statements indicate that it can clarify many things for you.

 

And about the production of energy-intensive products: Have you any idea about all the regulations that apply to that? When you run a commercial business, you can't just take anything you like as a resource for production of goods that you sell to people.

And in regards to energy, with that carbon tax scheme going on, it has become even more complex.

 

Most people don't realize that they live in a very tight control grid, because they never challenge it. It's the same as with friends. You get to know people a lot better in hardships.

[Machin Shin]

Basically it is a transparent cylinder with several metal rods in it, and when electricity (low wattage) is supplied, it begins to electrolyze the water like crazy. After a few seconds, all you see are bubbles.

 

That's the fuel tank. The ionizers which are the rods use the voltage potential to split H₂O into H⁺ and O₂. By creating a E field that has alot of voltage the fuel can be electrolyzed. Not moving that field around lowers the amount of watts consumed. Thinking about voltage like this is not conventional. It is unorthodox.

 

The excited gas is then pulled into the combustion chamber by the vacuum that is created after it is combusted.

 

I will have to talk with my friend and look at the patents again. Thanks for making me remember.

[ralis]

@More Pie Guy

You please watch the video, too. Your statements indicate that it can clarify many things for you.

 

And about the production of energy-intensive products: Have you any idea about all the regulations that apply to that? When you run a commercial business, you can't just take anything you like as a resource for production of goods that you sell to people.

And in regards to energy, with that carbon tax scheme going on, it has become even more complex.

 

Most people don't realize that they live in a very tight control grid, because they never challenge it. It's the same as with friends. You get to know people a lot better in hardships.

 

That would not be difficult here in the U.S.

[Thunder_Gooch]

I want to believe man really I do. It's just if his MEG could really do what he says, then he should keep his mouth shut and become rich from mass producing hydrogen and oxygen, selling power back to the grid, opening steel factories and smelting metals all at no energy cost.

 

If I could produce free energy I could easily become rich so could they, so could anyone.

 

 

 

@More Pie Guy

You please watch the video, too. Your statements indicate that it can clarify many things for you.

 

And about the production of energy-intensive products: Have you any idea about all the regulations that apply to that? When you run a commercial business, you can't just take anything you like as a resource for production of goods that you sell to people.

And in regards to energy, with that carbon tax scheme going on, it has become even more complex.

 

Most people don't realize that they live in a very tight control grid, because they never challenge it. It's the same as with friends. You get to know people a lot better in hardships.

Edited June 10, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[ralis]

I just watched the video and didn't like the editing of the interview with Bearden. He started to talk about James Clerk Maxwell's work and that is where it was edited.

 

A change in current technology would be great. Devices such as the MEG could be used in one house, neighborhoods etc. which would decentralize the power grid. However, I am not seeing it happening on any scale. If the MEG worked as advertised, funding for production on any scale would be no problem. I just don't buy the conspiracy theories.

 

'Global Scaling' is another one of these flimsy theories that has accomplished nothing. Several of the promoters just went to prison for investment fraud.

 

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.raum-energie-forschung.de/&ei=C3yMSeblGYGStQOwrsWOCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DGlobal%2Bscaling%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1B3GGGL_enUS286US287%26pwst%3D1

Edited June 10, 2011 by ralis

[Owledge]

I still see a huge disconnectedness from reality here.

In order to put energy into the powergrid for selling it, for doing it privately there has to be a program that supports that, and those programs are technology-specific, like running a photovoltaic system. And if you do it commercially, you still would have to sell to an energy company running the grid, which is the competition(!). And where the energy companies are in goverment hand, you can bet that industry lobbyism is strong enough to prevent your plans. You have to realize that you generating unlimited amounts of energy and selling it (or even when giving it away freely), is like a death threat to an energy company. And due to the system of market competition, trying to survive basically means striving for total dominance.

I want to mention at this point that some time ago someone did a psychological examination of the behavior of corporations as if they were people. The conclusion: highly psychotic, psychopathic and sociopathic.

 

I mean seriously... in business, people watch their competition. You think you could start an energy company with revolutionary technology? ...

"Hi, I sell electricity! Wanna buy?"

- "Where do you get it from?"

"I generate if myself."

- "From what?"

"I don't want to tell."

-- "Hi! Your government here. You know, there are energy laws. You can't just run a nuclear reactor in your basement."

"I don't run a nuclear reactor."

-- "We need to check what you are doing in your basement, whether it is legal."

 

Man! I thought by now people would have a basic understanding of how powerstructures work.

 

 

About the solar panel stuff: That one article might not provide all the info Bearden relies on, but you're right, it could be a misinterpretation. Depends on what others found out in their exeriments. I mean, even if one photon frees several electrons, you would still need a process that uses one electron to create several photons. I'm not sure whether that is implied and whether a process like that exists. Art least the article about Klimov doesn't say that an additional electron is magically created out of nothing, but simply that an additional one is excited.

Also, when he talks about how free energy weapons would revolutionize warfare, the way he sees it - everybody having huge power - it might be a little short-sighted. I think it would end conventional armed warfare. Like nuclear weapons, it would represent a defense, an ultimate scare. Thus, warfare would change towards covert ops (deception, cyber warfare, sabotage) where the origin of the hostility is difficult to determine.

On the other hand ... Which non-nuke-country engages in covert warfare against a nuke-country? I only see nuke-countries doing that to nuke- and non-nuke-countries.

In an ideal case, it could instead lead to a kind of forced world peace. You know, a bit like in "The Day the Earth Stood Still".

I'd say from the forced ways towards world peace, every single person being super-powerful would be much better than one central authority with complete dominance, because then everybody would have to learn responsible action and considering consequences.

 

 

Oh by the way, I know someone who did build a new type of generator and showed it to competent experts and they were befuddled that the device put out more electrical energy than it consumed. I don't think the claims of devices being verified by experts are just made up. ... And even if the experts were deceived by wrong measurement methods, it would imply that they are actually incompetent and thus not qualified to prove or disprove anything.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Hardyg

[Oolong Rabbit]

If anyone were able to generate unlimited free energy from some device that was affordable to build at home they could easily become rich from selling the electricity and or using it to produce energy intensive products.

 

Maybe, if they didn't accidentally "fall" out the window of their highrise first.

 

Energy Invention Suppression Cases

 

Call me a conspiracy theorist, and I will call you naive. If people think the powers that be will murder millions in the middle east to protect "their" oil, what do you think they would do to an inventor that threatened the status quo? Unfortunately, the world is run by demonic beings.

[Owledge]

Unfortunately, the world is run by demonic beings.

Maybe a better word than "run" would be "stalled". When things run, they move, they're alive. 'Evil' people are embodying a huge degree of deep fear, and fear causes stagnation. --> The world is run by love and stalled by fear.

A personal theory of mine is that the whole material existence depends on fear. So some people might be ready to transcend this state, but others aren't. They are afraid of getting rid of life as they know it; they still have learning to accomplish. Thus, they are afraid of loving people, because those might prematurely end their precious universe.

[Thunder_Gooch]

I still believe if you you had a machine to make unlimited free energy, you could get into the business of making some product that required large amounts of energy to manufacture. Keep your mouth shut about it and become rich.

 

Selling energy back to the grid, I see no reason you couldn't start small with a few solar panels and a contract to sell power back to your local utility, then expand with fake panels that looked real or old broken panels that no one wanted. Producing power from your free energy device to the tune of approximately what you would if the panels were real/functional when the sun was shining. I seriously doubt if you acted smart about it they would come raid you.

 

If the MEG is real, why is no one is building these or other similar devices so you can buy and test yourself without having to start from scratch.

 

Sure you can buy a cd-rom with tons of plans off ebay, but that isn't the same as a functional unit delivered to your door.

 

I want to believe one day we will have cold fusion or free zeropoint energy or whatever else, but until then we actually have a safe solution to our energy problems and it's called a liquid fluoride thorium reactor.

The way I see it all this talk of amazing free energy devices is really holding LFTR back. It is a technology we've built and know to work just fine, and we have thousands of years worth of CHEAP fuel, it produces almost no waste and can recycle existing nuclear waste as fuel, and it can't melt down.

 

This is an actual technology the scientific community would have no problem getting behind LFTR it's a proven technology, unlike zeropoint, MEG, water powered cars, cold fusion or whatever else. We just need to get enough people screaming loudly enough and television commercials, and our elected officials aware we actually have a solution to the energy crisis.

Edited June 11, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[Owledge]

I don't think LFTR technology really works. I mean, if it did, wouldn't it be in use everywhere today?

[Thunder_Gooch]

I don't think LFTR technology really works. I mean, if it did, wouldn't it be in use everywhere today?

 

We did build and test them in the 50's and 60's. You couldn't make uranium 235 or plutonium 239 which is needed for weapons with LFTR so we went with the light water reactor because we wanted bombs. When the time came for civilian power generation Alvin M. Weinberg, the guy that invented and held the patents for the light water reactor got on his soap box and said we need to use a liquid fluoride thorium reactor design, for all the reasons I've stated, and they forced him out of his position at Oak Ridge National Laboratory because the powers that be chose to use the LWR for it's production of weapons grade material instead.

 

So we aren't using it today because we can't use them to make bombs with is basically the short answer.

 

LFTR is superior in every respect to LWR technology, except you can't make weapons grade material with it.

 

http://energyfromthorium.com/

 

I actually took the time to redo this video with an interview with Kirk Sorensen a nuclear and aerospace engineer, who used to work for nasa from the energy from thorium website. I condensed the video as much as possible. If you would like you can watch my videos here: I trimmed it down from 1 hour, to 30 minutes.

 

1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0HkG674w-s

 

2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icCM77d529g

 

3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiMTPMzFk1g

Edited June 11, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[Birch]

"and those programs are technology-specific,"

 

Not 'business-model' specific (as well)...

 

No. Of course not :-)

[Thunder_Gooch]