Fukushima Reactor Meltdown

[Owledge]

@More Pie Guy

It's funny: I tried showing you the mirror and now you think that guy behind the glass is someone else. ;D

 

You are providing reasonable points to answer my question, but nothing else have I done. You say LFTR isn't used because the powers that be want nukes. I say overunity devices aren't allowed into the market because the powers that be want to protect their power.

Nothing special.

 

But I don't understand why you say the focus on free energy technology hinders the introduction of LFTR, since both are blocked by the same powers. And (this should be common wisdom) if the goal is to overthrow power-hungry authority, a soft approach might not help that much.

 

By the way, here's a problem with the fake devices idea:

Yes, you could fake an energy source, like solar panels. But an overunity device costs money to build, too. It would only make sense if the construction cost of the overunity device AND of the fake panels are lower than real solar panels (which one can assume though), because in order to maintain the illusion, you are limited to producing free energy in the amount that is typical for the amount and quality of solar panels you imitate. And only during daytime. (Energy companies find out about people using, say, a gas-powered generator or anything else by checking the meter and how much energy is used and whether that is within expected levels.)

So in effect you are only saving setup costs. (Remember: Solar panels already are free energy devices!)

But the more widespread this is done, the higher the chance that someone finds out.

I mean, imagine someone offers you to install solar panels at your place so you can sell energy to the grid. Costs: $10K. You say, hm, that's a bit expensive; It would take MANY years to pay off.

Then someone comes and offers you the same thing for $2K. What would be your reaction? "OMFG - THAT'S REVOLUTIONARY!"?

Edited June 11, 2011 by Hardyg

[Thunder_Gooch]

The difference in LFTR and overunity is that we've built and demonstrated LFTR as a viable technology. This is the first step in making it happen.

 

Irregardless if overunity has been suppressed or not, it hasn't been demonstrated as a viable technology and you won't be able to get the scientific community behind it until it has.

 

Until over-unity has been thoroughly validated it's worthless and will never be accepted, so it's a lot smarter to focus on a proven technology.

 

I get frustrated sharing info on LFTR only to be met with you can power your car on water or get energy from the vacuum type stories. One is a proven technology and the other isn't. Also it detracts from the credibility of LFTR technology for it to be associated with what mainstream science classifies as quackery or crackpot science.

 

 

If an overunity device is so expensive to build and the power it generated so small, that it would be cheaper to use a real solar panel instead, it isn't much of an overunity device.

 

You seem so convinced that overunity or zero point devices are real, so well build a MEG or something similar and power a small CFL light bulb or something continually.

 

Prove it's not snake oil and build one and show to us, just a suggestion. Once you get a spare working I will be the first person to buy one, me and about 10,000 other people interested in seeing a proof of concept prototype.

 

 

@More Pie Guy

It's funny: I tried showing you the mirror and now you think that guy behind the glass is someone else. ;D

 

You are providing reasonable points to answer my question, but nothing else have I done. You say LFTR isn't used because the powers that be want nukes. I say overunity devices aren't allowed into the market because the powers that be want to protect their power.

Nothing special.

 

But I don't understand why you say the focus on free energy technology hinders the introduction of LFTR, since both are blocked by the same powers. And (this should be common wisdom) if the goal is to overthrow power-hungry authority, a soft approach might not help that much.

 

By the way, here's a problem with the fake devices idea:

Yes, you could fake an energy source, like solar panels. But an overunity device costs money to build, too. It would only make sense if the construction cost of the overunity device AND of the fake panels are lower than real solar panels (which one can assume though), because in order to maintain the illusion, you are limited to producing free energy in the amount that is typical for the amount and quality of solar panels you imitate. And only during daytime. (Energy companies find out about people using, say, a gas-powered generator or anything else by checking the meter and how much energy is used and whether that is within expected levels.)

So in effect you are only saving setup costs. (Remember: Solar panels already are free energy devices!)

But the more widespread this is done, the higher the chance that someone finds out.

I mean, imagine someone offers you to install solar panels at your place so you can sell energy to the grid. Costs: $10K. You say, hm, that's a bit expensive; It would take MANY years to pay off.

Then someone comes and offers you the same thing for $2K. What would be your reaction? "OMFG - THAT'S REVOLUTIONARY!"?

Edited June 11, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[Owledge]

The difference in LFTR and overunity is that we've built and demonstrated LFTR as a viable technology. This is the first step in making it happen.

 

Irregardless if overunity has been suppressed or not, it hasn't been demonstrated as a viable technology and you won't be able to get the scientific community behind it until it has.

 

Until over-unity has been thoroughly validated it's worthless and will never be accepted, so it's a lot smarter to focus on a proven technology.

You are mixing up things here. LFTR isn't accepted by the scientific community because it's been demonstrated as viable. It is viable because it has been accepted by the scientific community. And it's the same with overunity devices. I mean, the best example is that current patent law forbids to patent something that violates current scientific views. The German version is expecially funny in its syntax, because it states that devices that violate the laws of nature cannot be patented. Funny, because this implies that they work. Otherwise they couldn't violate those laws.

 

I get frustrated sharing info on LFTR only to be met with you can power your car on water or get energy from the vacuum type stories. One is a proven technology and the other isn't. Also it detracts from the credibility of LFTR technology for it to be associated with what mainstream science classifies as quackery or crackpot science.

Now why would a "proven, verified" technology be classified as quackery? This line of thought is what starts division, when people see something as harmful that is too far for their own mindset, although in the same direction.

Do you have so little confidence in LFTR tech that you feel it threatened by quackery?

 

You seem so convinced that overunity or zero point devices are real, so well build a MEG or something similar and power a small CFL light bulb or something continually.

 

Prove it's not snake oil and build one and show to us, just a suggestion. Once you get a spare working I will be the first person to buy one, me and about 10,000 other people interested in seeing a proof of concept prototype.

There seem to be a few people on youtube building those devices. But it's not like Lego, you know. It takes some physics and engineering know-how, and who has the budget to build a series of them and then give them out to whoever is interested? Many inventors still hope that their effort and creativity might pay out some day, and don't want to just give it away. Do you have an idea how much it costs to develop a prototype? Seriously, who could successfully develop a working overunity device and then has the money to produce them en masse as demo items? Only people with a LOT of money could do that, and they don't because they're rightfully afraid that they could lose everything. What you suggest would amount to kicking a rottweiler in the face and hoping that the kick wasn't so hard that the dog will actually bite you.

 

By the way, funny irony regarding you mentioning LFTR being associated with quackery, and now you implicitly slander snake oil, which is a proven and time-tested remedy for many ailments like arthritis. Think about that. You are fighting what is a part of yourself.

[Thunder_Gooch]

Overunity may exist, and it may be repressed. As it stands now though, until someone can mass produce demo units that actually work it's going to remain snake oil, quackery, crackpot science in the eyes of the scientific community.

 

Until that changes LFTR technology offers a way to solve our energy problems safely with verified technology.

 

LFTR technology for the most part is unknown, know one has ever heard of it. They don't teach about it in any classes in any graduate schools or PhD programs. We built and tested LFTR and they ran fine, but they were of no use to the weapons program.

 

The LFTR community is trying to get the word out saying hey guys, we've got a solution to all our energy problems!

We've known about it since the 50's and 60's and we've built LFTRs before. It can safely fix our energy problems for thousands of years till we figure something better out.

 

Trying to get that message out is hindered by people associating or advocating what mainstream science considers crackpot science, over unity and free zeropoint energy or whatever. Sure it may exist, but it hasn't been verified and proven like LFTR has.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are mixing up things here. LFTR isn't accepted by the scientific community because it's been demonstrated as viable. It is viable because it has been accepted by the scientific community. And it's the same with overunity devices. I mean, the best example is that current patent law forbids to patent something that violates current scientific views. The German version is expecially funny in its syntax, because it states that devices that violate the laws of nature cannot be patented. Funny, because this implies that they work. Otherwise they couldn't violate those laws.

 

 

Now why would a "proven, verified" technology be classified as quackery? This line of thought is what starts division, when people see something as harmful that is too far for their own mindset, although in the same direction.

Do you have so little confidence in LFTR tech that you feel it threatened by quackery?

 

 

There seem to be a few people on youtube building those devices. But it's not like Lego, you know. It takes some physics and engineering know-how, and who has the budget to build a series of them and then give them out to whoever is interested? Many inventors still hope that their effort and creativity might pay out some day, and don't want to just give it away. Do you have an idea how much it costs to develop a prototype? Seriously, who could successfully develop a working overunity device and then has the money to produce them en masse as demo items? Only people with a LOT of money could do that, and they don't because they're rightfully afraid that they could lose everything. What you suggest would amount to kicking a rottweiler in the face and hoping that the kick wasn't so hard that the dog will actually bite you.

 

By the way, funny irony regarding you mentioning LFTR being associated with quackery, and now you implicitly slander snake oil, which is a proven and time-tested remedy for many ailments like arthritis. Think about that. You are fighting what is a part of yourself.

[Owledge]

The LFTR community is trying to get the word out saying hey guys, we've got a solution to all our energy problems!

 

...

 

Trying to get that message out is hindered by people associating or advocating what mainstream science considers crackpot science, over unity and free zeropoint energy or whatever. Sure it may exist, but it hasn't been verified and proven like LFTR has.

You still haven't given any explanation for this strange claim. Right now you are just blaming someone else for your favorite's failure, which is really lame, especially because the goals are the same.

[Thunder_Gooch]

What strange claim do you want an explanation for?

 

LFTR technology is largely unknown to both the general population, and most scientists, but we did validate the tech and we've built and tested LFTRs before.

 

The LFTR community is tying to make the technology known to more people, scientists included.

 

For the most part it is a forgotten technology.

 

Overunity devices on the other hand have never been validated, and will never be accepted by the mainstream scientific community until they are.

 

Associating LFTR technology with overunity or anything else deemed to be crackpot science even if it turns out to be real and legit at this point in time stands only to hinder it's acceptance greatly.

 

You still haven't given any explanation for this strange claim. Right now you are just blaming someone else for your favorite's failure, which is really lame, especially because the goals are the same.

Edited June 11, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[Owledge]

Associating LFTR technology with overunity or anything else deemed to be crackpot science even if it turns out to be real and legit at this point in time stands only to hinder it's acceptance greatly.

Oh now I get it. Your first phrasing of it was actually less of a riddle than this one.

You expect all the people that try to inform about overunity technology to change that focus and advocate LFTR instead?

Because the abovequoted second try at what you regard as an explanation claims that for some reason (that is still missing an explanation) some people might associate LFTR tech with overunity tech, although it is not, and furthermore the very fact that some people instantly favor advocating overunity tech over LFTR tech should actually have the opposite effect.

Maybe you can clarify why you think this association between the two might occur.

 

Overunity devices on the other hand have never been validated, and will never be accepted by the mainstream scientific community until they are.

This implies that a validation of overunity technology has to occur outside of the mainstream scientific community, which is a circle joke, since what is to be validated is that technology's base in (mainstream) scientific principles. You should see the contradiction in that statement and be able to conclude that the solution has to be to initiate a change of the view on natural laws in the mainstream scientific community.

Are you familiar with the term "Catch-22"?

Edited June 11, 2011 by Hardyg

[Thunder_Gooch]

some people instantly favor advocating overunity tech over LFTR tech

 

If such a device could be built on a low budget something like a MEG, and shown to work then independently verified hundreds of times over, it would revolutionize everything.

 

For whatever reason this isn't happening.

 

The facts are this, we have LFTR a technology we have already built and validated, that can solve all our energy problems safely for thousands of years. Overunity hasn't been validated yet, for whatever reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This implies that a validation of overunity technology has to occur outside of the mainstream scientific community, which is a circle joke, since what is to be validated is that technology's base in (mainstream) scientific principles. You should see the contradiction in that statement and be able to conclude that the solution has to be to initiate a change of the view on natural laws in the mainstream scientific community.

Are you familiar with the term "Catch-22"?

 

If I had a functional MEG just powerful enough to light a low wattage compact florescent bulb or small motor or something, and could prove it actually worked. I could start traveling and letting hundreds of scientists and engineers see what I had built. If I could convince just two people, and convince them to build more prototypes and convince 2 more each, it could start a tidal wave.

 

So far... no one on earth has done this that I am aware off. The parts for a small MEG don't look like they would break the bank, and if they could just power something small with just a proof of concept, it looks like enthusiasts everywhere would be building them and selling them on ebay.

 

I want to believe, but the free energy community is much like the spiritual community. It is filled with nuts, liars and frauds. That is why most people don't take either the free energy community or the spiritual community seriously.

[Owledge]

If such a device could be built on a low budget something like a MEG, and shown to work then independently verified hundreds of times over, it would revolutionize everything.

who is independent when judging technology that would revolutionize everything?

 

If I had a functional MEG just powerful enough to light a low wattage compact florescent bulb or small motor or something, and could prove it actually worked. I could start traveling and letting hundreds of scientists and engineers see what I had built. If I could convince just two people, and convince them to build more prototypes and convince 2 more each, it could start a tidal wave.

Yes, as I said, most of them still want to personally benefit from it. They don't realize that probably the only way is community and unity. It would take a kind of guerilla-distribution of demo devices. Only what is known everywhere is strong enough to persist.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Hardyg

[Thunder_Gooch]

who is independent when judging technology that would revolutionize everything?

 

 

Let's use a technology called called E-cat as an example.

 

It's being examined in a one year research program at the University of Bologna in Italy.

 

It is probably a scam like all the others but hopefully they will let major universities examine the technology.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece

[Owledge]

The Washington Times article even mentions what I'm trying to tell you. Back then with Pons & Fleischmann, the problem wasn't that it wasn't 'independently' verified. The problem was that 'dependent' science refused to verify it. The process had been proven to work, but those who were supposed to do the same intentionally acted like amateurs and did everything wrong that they could, or they just didn't care to follow instructions because they didn'T believe in it anyway.

So, as I said, forget that focus on verifying anything. People's thinking and mindset has to change, otherwise nothing will.

 

I did some research on various free energy technologies, and it was always the same. It was shown to work, experts were baffled, they didn't have any explanation why ir works or where an error should have been made, but the bigger the verification process got, the more resistance was built up.

 

Hopefully by now you have realized how well that allpies to LFTR technology, too. I mean, man, you said it yourself! It is verified, even in mainstream science, but politics rule.

 

By the way, cold fusion like the one mentioned in the article is far less revolutionary than 'energy from nothing', because you need a fuel that is converted into another product. It's simply very efficient.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Hardyg

[Thunder_Gooch]

The thing is if I can cheaply build an unlimited fuel free energy source like a MEG or some other Zero point energy device, I could get rich and keep it secret, then after I had enough to move out of the usa and retire I could travel to meet scientists and produce demo units.

 

That isn't happening. The only logical explanation is that inventors are too stupid to use the electricity to profit, or the devices if they work as advertised cost too much to build to get much energy from.

 

I want to believe.

 

 

The Washington Times article even mentions what I'm trying to tell you. Back then with Pons & Fleischmann, the problem wasn't that it wasn't 'independently' verified. The problem was that 'dependent' science refused to verify it. The process had been proven to work, but those who were supposed to do the same intentionally acted like amateurs and did everything wrong that they could, or they just didn't care to follow instructions because they didn'T believe in it anyway.

So, as I said, forget that focus on verifying anything. People's thinking and mindset has to change, otherwise nothing will.

 

I did some research on various free energy technologies, and it was always the same. It was shown to work, experts were baffled, they didn't have any explanation why ir works or where an error should have been made, but the bigger the verification process got, the more resistance was built up.

 

Hopefully by now you have realized how well that allpies to LFTR technology, too. I mean, man, you said it yourself! It is verified, even in mainstream science, but politics rule.

 

By the way, cold fusion like the one mentioned in the article is far less revolutionary than 'energy from nothing', because you need a fuel that is converted into another product. It's simply very efficient.

[Owledge]

The thing is if I can cheaply build an unlimited fuel free energy source like a MEG or some other Zero point energy device, I could get rich and keep it secret, then after I had enough to move out of the usa and retire I could travel to meet scientists and produce demo units.

 

That isn't happening. The only logical explanation is that inventors are too stupid to use the electricity to profit, or the devices if they work as advertised cost too much to build to get much energy from.

 

I want to believe.

Doesn't look like that. Do you realize that you are repeating the same thing over and over without actually responding to my points about your ideas, all the while (which I already said in previous posts) you yourself realize political and generally systemic obstacles and resistance when it is about your LFTR favorite?

Realize it already: You cannot get rich using overunity energy devices, especially not in the USA who have confiscated technology like that decades ago and thus know very well what's going on.

You should really try and challenge the system every now and then and see what happens. I mean, you live in a highly capitalist country where having a Ron Paul bumpersticker on your car makes you a potential homegrown terrorist. And you think you can make money by conjuring up wealth out of nowhere? This is really naive. As naive as e.g. thinking if you had a machine that can create gold out of nowhere, you could simply tell everybody that you are successful at the stock exchange or won the lottery or something and then get rich selling the gold.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Hardyg

[Thunder_Gooch]

I bought hydrogen once because it was cheaper than helium for a project that involved large balloons. That is just one example of a product that requires lots of electricity to produce and is in demand. Oxygen gas as well. You can realize a good profit just from selling hydrogen and oxygen gas made via electrolysis. If you could heat your business and home as well as get free electricity (free transportation if you have a plug in hybrid) and sell electricity you could make a lot of money just doing that, if you kept it secret there is no reason it wouldn't work.

 

Yes there is likely to be major political resistance to LFTR, but we know for a fact and have verified it can solve our problems for thousands of years. We will run out of uranium in 40 years or so, and oil in about that much. We have to do something or we will collapse into chaos.

 

The LFTR community is working hard to get the word out. I myself am trying to put together a campaign for people to contact their representatives and major news networks to get this issue more attention. I plan on making youtube video's and creating a donation site to get advertisements in newspapers and magazines etc.

 

Overunity as much as you keep going on and on about it, has never once been demoed working that it hasn't turned out to be a fraud. There are plans for them but no one has been able to make one work, mostly you say because the inventors are too greedy to give out their secrets. I am sorry but personally I think it's hogwash. Show me the money then I might change my mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't look like that. Do you realize that you are repeating the same thing over and over without actually responding to my points about your ideas, all the while (which I already said in previous posts) you yourself realize political and generally systemic obstacles and resistance when it is about your LFTR favorite?

Realize it already: You cannot get rich using overunity energy devices, especially not in the USA who have confiscated technology like that decades ago and thus know very well what's going on.

You should really try and challenge the system every now and then and see what happens. I mean, you live in a highly capitalist country where having a Ron Paul bumpersticker on your car makes you a potential homegrown terrorist. And you think you can make money by conjuring up wealth out of nowhere? This is really naive. As naive as e.g. thinking if you had a machine that can create gold out of nowhere, you could simply tell everybody that you are successful at the stock exchange or won the lottery or something and then get rich selling the gold.

Edited June 11, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[Owledge]

...

You can realize a good profit just from selling hydrogen and oxygen gas made via electrolysis. If you could heat your business and home as well as get free electricity (free transportation if you have a plug in hybrid) and sell electricity you could make a lot of money just doing that, if you kept it secret there is no reason it wouldn't work.

I have provided you with plenty of reasons, but you prefer to just ignore them. Are you even capable of reasoning, or can you only state your beliefs?

 

We have to do something or we will collapse into anarchy.

Actually, anarchy requires a certain mindset... mature, self-determined people and a lot of effort to make it work. In your energy-crisis scenario what is much more likely to happen is what history shows usually happens in great crises (just look at the Great Depression): tyranny. Because the majority of people (those who make 'soft tyranny' work in the first place) are weakened by the crisis and having lived in a control structure for so long, when they are a lot more on their own, they look up to a great authoritative leader to make things nice again.

Anarchy can only work if people respect others and don't look up to power.

 

Overunity as much as you keep going on and on about it, has never once been demoed working that it hasn't turned out to be a fraud. There are plans for them but no one has been able to make one work, mostly you say because the inventors are too greedy to give out their secrets. I am sorry but personally I think it's hogwash. Show me the money then I might change my mind.

Man, where's your sense of compassion? I didn't say the inventors are greedy, but they have invested so much - sometimes their whole life - in it. Thus to me it is understandable that they have trouble just giving it all away.

 

How many cases would you say you studied? And who eventually said they were fraudulent? Did those 'authorities' explain it in an understandable way?

You still associate authority and truth a lot, instead of developing your own, independent sense of truth.

Actually, you know little about logic and verification of truth, because your claim that all devices have been shown to be fraudulent would require you to know about really all of them, which is virtually impossible to be sure of. Such absolutes usually indicate a rigid belief sytem, and so does only giving output without letting in other people's statements in order to examine them and respond on that basis.

And ironically, exactly the kind of naivete that you show (getting rich with unlimited free energy) is what made many overunity inventors fail in their endeavor, and Bearden mentioned that in the testimonial, too.

 

Stop being afraid of a world without LFTR! It leads to fanaticism.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Hardyg

[Thunder_Gooch]

I am just trying to be rational here, I've never seen or heard of an over unity device that wasn't a fraud.

Remember steorn's orbo? Fraud.

 

Just about every free energy device that has been put to the test turned out to be a fraud, or didn't work.

 

Now you can dream up crazy conspiracy theories for why there aren't plans for functional prototypes being shared or home brew devices powering homes and businesses all day but frankly it's getting old man. And it's a little silly I think to be honest.

 

I am willing to entertain that maybe these technologies are being suppressed, even so it's irrelevant.

 

The facts are, we haven't seen any free energy proven repeatedly to work, and been independently reviewed to work.

 

Even if they aren't being independently reviewed because they are being suppressed by the government, or corporations, or Illuminati or lizard people is irrelevant.

 

 

We do have a technology that was proven to work that solves our energy problems for thousands of years. All we have to do is make everyone aware of it, get people angry enough to yell at their representatives every day, and protest in droves and eventually we will have it.

 

 

Free energy, over unity, ZPE or whatever else is most likely just fraud, I don't care who you have lecturing on how real it is, until they get their heads out of the sand and deliver some functional demo units in mass to engineers and scientists world wide it's BS as far as I am concerned.

Edited June 11, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[Owledge]

You know, there are still people who think that Chi is hogwash, who will also state that its existence has never been proven, who will talk exactly like you. They will claim that everything people on TTB say about Chi is delusional.

Of course they will not know that in China is has been proven scientifically and there are even checks that energy healers have to pass in order to make sure their 'juice' is powerful before they are allowed to work in certain institutions.

 

Psychologically speaking...

Your use of the terms "crazy conspiracy theories, illuminati and lizard people" is a very obvious sign that you are happily entertaining a sterotype in order to avoid having to deal with it seriously and sincerely open. Mocking is disrespectful, and in your case you don't really listen to what I say, but you create your own idea of me and then battle with that, because then you can feel like a winner. But it's a battle with yourself.

I begin to see why you have such a hard time doing PR work for LFTR.

 

By the way, in the past it was also proven that the Earth is flat. The royal authorities verified that. And apart from that, it was ridiculous to believe it is spherical. Most people didn't even need an authority figure to tell them that.

 

Ah, well... things take time. Sometimes a lot.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Hardyg

[Thunder_Gooch]

I've seen a lot of good evidence to support a belief in chi such as the investigation of John Chang, as well as the Harvard studies of tummo practitioners, as well as studies I've read that document infrared, infrasonic and electrostatic emissions from practitioners hands during chi emission. Chi also is something that anyone given correct training can perceive in deep meditation, I didn't really believe in it till an experience I had in 2005.

 

What I see from you is a very excited person who has watched all these documentaries on free energy and is convinced it is real. Ok. So build one yourself and prove it to be real. Right except you lack the engineering expertise to build one, and the correct plans to build a real functional unit.

 

Basically my thoughts are put your money where your mouth is.

 

LFTR on the other hand, we actually built them before, and we know for a fact they work. Even if over unity, Zero point energy, or whatever is real it hasn't been proven like LFTR. Until it has it's worthless.

 

 

 

 

 

You know, there are still people who think that Chi is hogwash, who will also state that its existence has never been proven, who will talk exactly like you. They will claim that everything people on TTB say about Chi is delusional.

Of course they will not know that in China is has been proven scientifically and there are even checks that energy healers have to pass in order to make sure their 'juice' is powerful before they are allowed to work in certain institutions.

 

Psychologically speaking...

Your use of the terms "crazy conspiracy theories, illuminati and lizard people" is a very obvious sign that you are happily entertaining a sterotype in order to avoid having to deal with it seriously and sincerely open. Mocking is disrespectful, and in your case you don't really listen to what I say, but you create your own idea of me and then battle with that, because then you can feel like a winner. But it's a battle with yourself.

I begin to see why you have such a hard time doing PR work for LFTR.

 

By the way, in the past it was also proven that the Earth is flat. The royal authorities verified that. And apart from that, it was ridiculous to believe it is spherical. Most people didn't even need an authority figure to tell them that.

 

Ah, well... things take time. Sometimes a lot.

Edited June 11, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[Owledge]

OK. The thing is that our imagination is very important for bringing about change, and seeing further into the future can work, but many people abandon thoughts like that, thus it is a self-fulfilling failure.

Of course smaller steps forward have a higher chance of succeeding than greater ones. Nevertheless, I think the whole spectrum is important. Looking farther ahead is a more difficult endeavor, thus we should support those people instead of treating their effort like it's worthless. Everything hinges on what we choose to believe.

If today suddenly 5 billion people started believing that antigravity airtravel is realistic in the near future, we would have it very soon. It is our self-defeating thought patterns that limit our abilities. I suspect that personal growth can only happen if someone aspires to be better than right now, and the same would apply to the world's growth.

 

So that's my message to you: Don't alienate people farther ahead on the same path.

 

An anecdote to this: I once considered joining a young political party about privacy, IT security and people's rights. I went to some regulars' tables. Eventually I was very disappointed because my activity of handing out info CDs to people (like waiters) in order to inform them about the things I have researched - also concerning people's liberties and all that - was met with childish disrespect from the party members at the regulars' table. My stuff was too far ahead for them and maybe that triggered feelings of inferiority or irrelevancy. That made it very clear to me that I was not at the right place, and thus that regional division of the party didn't get support through my active involvement any more.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Hardyg

[goldisheavy]

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

 

I watched these videos with great interest. Thank you for posting these. It's kind of surprising that I learn interesting stuff like this on a spiritual forum. Maybe I should visit a physics forum to learn something interesting about spirituality.

[Thunder_Gooch]

I watched these videos with great interest. Thank you for posting these. It's kind of surprising that I learn interesting stuff like this on a spiritual forum. Maybe I should visit a physics forum to learn something interesting about spirituality.

 

 

thanks

 

I plan on making a youtube video eventually I am in the process of vetting my information with more knowledgeable people. I also want to make a site to help people email their elected officials about it, and the major news networks, and magazines. So far my fact list and I am fairly certain it is accurate is this:

 

* We built and ran prototype Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) a form of molten salt reactor during the 60's. We have built LFTRs before.

 

* Alvin Weinberg the man who invented and held the patents for our existing light water reactors (LWR) spent the rest of his career advocating the use of LFTR technology for it's safety and other advantages over LWR technology. Eventually he was fired for this advocacy even though he invented the LWR.

 

* Once the development of a full scale LFTR design is completed and mass production started we expect a LFTR would be much cheaper to produce than a Light Water Reactor (LWR) we use today. The fuel to run a LFTR would be much more abundant and vastly cheaper than the uranium fuel used in today's light water reactors.

 

* There is 4 times as much thorium as uranium on the planet, and we have thousands of years worth of thorium fuel available just in the USA. It is a waste product from neodymium rare earth mining. Some mines produce enough thorium as waste to meet the power demands of the entire earth for a year, in just one year of mining for neodymium.

 

* Existing LWRs use less than 1% of the mined uranium as fuel, what can't be used for fuel is depleted uranium or radioactive waste. In an existing 1000 MW light water reactor, starting with 250 tons of natural uranium per year, 215 of that is discarded as nuclear waste (depleted uranium), the other 35 tons of enriched uranium (containing 1.15 tons of uranium 235) is used as fuel, after it has been burned as fuel the 35 tons of nuclear waste must be stored for 10,000 or more years in a facility like Yucca mountain.

 

* In contrast thorium does not need to be refined or fabricated into rods and theoretically all of the thorium can be used as fuel. In a 1000 MW liquid fluoride thorium reactor, 1 ton of natural thorium would be used per year as fuel, it would not need to be refined like uranium, after it was burned up in the reactor 83% (0.83 tons) of the waste would be valuable and could be sold for important medical and scientific purposes, the remaining 17% (0.17 tons) would need to be stored for only 300 years.

 

* A LFTR can generate Plutonium-238. It is very valuable, and NASA desperately needs it for space probes and it and has many other scientific uses. The LFTR can also generate valuable isotopes needed for medical purposes such as cancer treatment.

 

* Transuranic waste (plutonium, americium, and curium etc.) represents the largest environmental concern in nuclear waste. A LFTR would generate thousands of times less transuranic waste than a current LWR. In fact, a LFTR can even recycle transuranic waste from existing nuclear LWR reactors, and use it as fuel. This is a much better solution than burying it. The waste produced by a LFTR is radioactive for 300 years vs 10,000 years with waste from an existing LWR.

 

* LFTRs operate at normal atmospheric pressure unlike the light water reactors we use today, also they cannot melt down. Should the reactor overheat, lose power, or in the event of some catastrophe/natural disaster, a plug at the bottom of the reactor made of frozen salt, heats up and melts, the entire reactor contents empty into a passively cooled tank. It will save itself with no human intervention whatsoever.

 

* LFTR cannot easily be used to make material for nuclear weapons. While it is true that the thorium fuel cycle generates fissile uranium 233, no one has ever attempted to make a nuclear weapon with uranium 233. It is extremely radioactive and would make it nearly impossible for humans to handle the bomb, not to mention the bomb electronics would be destroyed by it's extreme radioactivity.

 

* The cost per megawatt hour with LFTR would be much cheaper than with existing light water reactors. We could safely solve our energy crisis using LFTR, with the help of fuel cell and electric plug in hybrids we could make great inroads to independence from fossil fuels.

 

* Existing LWRs require huge amounts of fresh water to operate and must be placed by areas where water is available. LFTRs don't need water and can be placed virtually anywhere they are needed. The waste heat from LFTRs can be used to desalinate sea water, almost for free.

 

* LFTR offers almost all the benefits of fusion technology with technology we've built before.

Edited June 12, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[ralis]

thanks

 

I plan on making a youtube video eventually I am in the process of vetting my information with more knowledgeable people. I also want to make a site to help people email their elected officials about it, and the major news networks, and magazines. So far my fact list and I am fairly certain it is accurate is this:

 

Thanks for bringing me up to speed on LFTR! If R&D and implementation were put into this technology, as opposed to the endless money pit of fusion research, the world would be a far better place.

Edited June 12, 2011 by ralis

[Thunder_Gooch]

Thanks for bringing me up to speed on LFTR! If R&D and implementation were put into this technology, as opposed to the endless money pit of fusion research, the world would be a far better place.

 

 

To date we have wasted 1.2+ trillion dollars on the war on terror since 2001. Just a fraction of that money would have been plenty to make the USA completely energy independent using LFTR technology. It is absolutely absurd if you ask me.

[goldisheavy]

To date we have wasted 1.2+ trillion dollars on the war on terror since 2001. Just a fraction of that money would have been plenty to make the USA completely energy independent using LFTR technology. It is absolutely absurd if you ask me.

 

This is the kind of stuff that makes my blood boil when I think about it. You called it "absurd?" How about criminal?

Edited June 12, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Thunder_Gooch]

This is the kind of stuff that makes my blood boil when I think about it. You called it "absurd?" How about criminal?

 

 

Yes it is criminal, we've killed hundreds of thousands of civilians over the course of the war just in iraq not counting Afghanistan. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

 

 

But something else to think about.

 

Everything you buy, takes energy, lots of it. From harvesting the raw resources, to manufacturing, to distribution. Energy is required at every step of the process. If we had incredibly cheap energy both electrical and for transportation we could reduce the cost to manufacture everything drastically.

 

It would mean that everyone everywhere would be able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than we do today, and we could get cheap energy to the developing world to help them get out of poverty.

 

Oh and we wouldn't have to go and kill hundreds of thousands of innocents to take their oil.

 

Just my $0.02

Edited June 12, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy