Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Nicola Tesla, Yull Brown, Stanley Allan Meyer, Dad Garret, P

gdewilde@gmail.com · Guest

On Oct 8, 9:49 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]"gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:
"gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:
September 8, 1935, Charles H. Garrett sun of Dad Garrett operated his
engine continuously for more than forty-eight hours.

Pathe' News filmed the car driving along Garland Road with the driver
stopping at White Rock Lake to fill the fuel tank with water

Ever considered there were TWO tanks ? One for water for publicity and a
hidden one with gasoline to actually make it go ?

What good psycho analysis.

Thank you.

Yes, this is definitely a possibility Rabbit man.

You bet it is !

[/quote]
Have you considered the possibility it is real?

Would you have sentenced Aristotle to death?

Would you have locked up Galileo?

Would you have condemned aviation?

I know some people argue the scientific method dictates one should
come up with results or shut up.

But before anyone can come up with the results they need to do a lot
of work, before this work can be accomplished the inventor basically
has to do something that doesn>t make sense by definition.

Edison made quite a few light bulbs that absolutely didn>t work.

Even from the perspective a water powered auto is not possible one
could still attempt to accomplish the work.

We are not working from a clean sheet at all.

If you look at how much people condemn the mere idea and I mean with
strong disapproval you should be able to see the discussion about the
topic was made impossible. I can post as much links as I like, I can
cite a million professors people will curse me and litter what ever
chat I try to have about the topic.

The professors must be crank, the chemist must have lost it etc etc

I>m sure this much you can see?

So assuming such effort could be made, and I mean effort towards
physically disproving the many inventors.

Do you think anyone would be interested either way?

Say Graham has a moment of enlightenment and creates cold fusion using
10 cent worth of kitchen items. Would it matter if this happened in
1700, in 1800 or in 2100?

You would be treated just the same, scientists would ridicule you
until you either die from misery or decide to shut up about it. If you
have thick skin you will be man handled, beaten up, your lab set on
fire and in the end you will be assassinated.

People say Tesla was nuts, a loon, crazy etc etc but at the same time
we are all using his alternating current and his radio technology.

If that isn>t a credible inventors resume then nothing ever will be
you see?

He powered his car with 2 rods made up of baked and compressed
elements. When everyone agreed he was using black magic he took the
box out of the car and he didn>t look back.

Professor nakamats invented the floppy disk. He holds over 3200
patents.

Why would he not be a credible inventor?

I>m sure he doesn>t live up to Tesla but why isn>t the person with the
most inventions a credible source for a hydrogen generator?

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&p=6132

If his work is not credible to you, then what do you expect? Should
God come down to earth and beg you on his knees? Something tells me
you will debunk God if he would do that. hahaha

Those who build a working Joe Cell have all been told to shut up about
it. Bill Williams has been playing with his car engine and sharing
everything he found since he was 14 or something. Then one day he just
stopped talking about his hobby and vanished? He didn>t have anything
for sale and he had a dozen videos online showing goofy experiments.
He didn>t care about the results, he was just playing!

In his last video he was like: "wow, I disconnected the power and it
keeps running!"

When asked what happened he stated he was ordered to stop his
experiments. Why would he lie? Why would a person give up on his
hobby? He was not the only one who build a working Joe cell. He was
just replicating things. Non of the claims came from him.

I>m sure you are familiar with this conversation
http://groups.google.de/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/86420899b49ac4dc

In the watercar group I found this posting.

From: "Tad Johnson" <h2opowered@... To: <watercar@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:39 AM Subject: [watercar]

Meyer Experiment Recap

For those of you who were not here, or have not watched the Keelynet
boards and such I will revamp my entire history of Meyer experiments.

In 1996 I was an amateur electronics hobbyist. I had been interested
in electrolysis and hydrogen study for many years prior, but this year
I was watching the sci.hydrogen news group to become more educated on
hydrogen in general. During that year I met a man who was good friends
with Stanley Meyer and regularly went to visit him in Ohio. John lived
here in California, and had also invested some money in the Water
07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
of 25951 Page 2 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/
20771 Fuel cell project of Meyers'. I became friends with this man and
became more interested in the Stanley Meyer system. As I became more
adept at electronic design and troubleshooting I began to want to try
and duplicate the Stanley Meyer process of breaking water with high
voltage at resonance.

During that year and onward a couple years I was able to ask John
questions which he would then ask Stanley, and would then feed the
answer back to me. You see, Stan was not willing to just talk to
anyone about the process let alone give away any secrets of the
process that were not mentioned already in the patents. So I had to
ask these questions through John who was good friends with Stanley.

My first few circuits worked but the cell would not make any hydrogen,
especially under the conditions that Stanley and his patents said they
would. The problem is that I would tune the cell like he said and yet
no gas would be produced. It took three years of tinkering to finally
figure out what I was doing wrong, and it was a big blunder. The
answer to what I was doing wrong came to me through the sci.hydrogen
group by a man who lived in Sweden and had already duplicated the
Meyer experiments based on his patents. His name was Ted Zettergren,
and he was an inventor who helped other inventors file patents and
market products. He posted on exactly what he did and how the system
worked. To my knowledge he was one of the first of three people who
duplicated the Meyer experiments successfully.

After Stan was killed I had no information other than Ted>s to go by,
but it was all I needed, or anyone else needs to duplicate the Meyer>s
process. 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages :
Message 20771 of 25951 Page 3 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
energy2000/message/20771 The process is achieved by the following:

1. Pulsing circuit or power supply capable of producing 600+ Volts @
20Khz+ @ 100uA+. My system was a simple, off the shelf inverter with
an input of 12VDC and an output of 1200VAC @ 20Khz @ 1mA. I then took
this circuit and modified the circuit to run at 42.5-43.0Khz. This was
an off-the-shelf inverter sold by Fry>s electronics. It is a neon
power supply with a very small bobbin core transformer. Anyone can buy
this circuit or one just like it and modify it to run within the specs
I gave you. The hard part is obtaining resonance which takes years of
electronics expertise to do.

2. A small electrolysis cell with the ability to vary distance between
conductors.

3. 2 - Chokes, one adjustable, one fixed.

4. One high voltage diode to go in-line with the cathode of the power
supply output.

5. Inductance Meter, Capacitance meter, frequency counter/
Oscilloscope, and high voltage probe.

The key to the Meyer process is resonance, and without resonance the
system produces no gas. At 12watts you see why no gas is produced
without resonance. This is a standard LC resonant circuit in which you
MUST (!) match Capacitive reactance with Inductive reactance. This
then creates an LC resonant circuit in which the two legs of the power
supply match in frequency exactly. A Ham calc make the calculation of
resonance easy once you know the capacitance of the cell and the
frequency you are driving it at. Once you have your inductance
calculated you then buy the proper chokes 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo!
Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771 of 25951 Page 4 of
6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771 that fall
within the inductance range needed. The adjustable one needs
(obviously) to be tunable within a small range, so that when the cell
temperature changes and causes the capacitance of the cell to change,
then the inductance can also be changed to keep the cell in resonance.
If you cell has the ability to vary distance between conductors, then
you simply change the distance and thus change the capacitance of the
cell rather than changing the inductance. You must vary one of the
other though. I have found since then that the capacitance of the cell
can be changed and works just as well as the inductors being adjusted.
You don>t use ANY electrolyte, you don>t want ANY amperage at all,
only voltage @ resonance. REPEAT, YOU DON>T NEED ANY CURRENT FLOW,
ONLY VOLTAGE!

What I found frustrating is that the cell temperature would change and
the system would stop making gas. In order to keep the system making
gas you constantly have to keep the cell in resonance, and thus you
really need the system to be controlled by a processor, that
constantly checks frequency on both legs and then adjusts inductance
to keep the cell in resonance. This is why Stanley move to the other
patents where the spark plus type of electrolysis chamber was used
instead of a large cell.

With the cell running at 1200Volts @ 1mA @ 42.8Khz I found I could
make 200LP/H of gas. Do the math and you will find that this is
impossible given our current understanding of electrolysis. If you
scale this equation up you will find that you can make over 20,000LP/H
of gas for 1200Watts. This is easily enough to run most any Internal
combustion engine. The only problem has been keeping the cell in tune.
An alternator will easily produce 3000 watts of power, so this is
easily enough to power the car on 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups :
energy2000 Messages : Message 20771 of 25951 Page 5 of 6http://
groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771 this system alone.
This is how the Volkswagen Buggy was running around on water only. The
car has to wait a minute or two before he stored enough gas to run the
car, then once it was started and running it would make enough gas to
run the car at up to 60MPH. I never saw this car run personally, but I
have two people that went to two showings and both said it worked and
they verified there was no gasoline on board.

3 Years ago I sent Stefan and others this experimental data and never
heard back form anyone, nor did anyone ever repeat my experiment. To
this date I know of only Ted, Me, and one other person who has
duplicated this experiment and done so successfully. The third person
is a PHD on the east coast of the U.S. who is in contact with
Stanley>s widow. Stanley>s brother now takes care of all water fuel
cell business and claims he will start it up again and make sure it
makes it to market this time. But I have not heard from them in years
now. Stefan easily has the electronics experience to duplicate this
process and also solve the issue of keeping the cell in resonance. I
probably do as well at this point but I am not going to do it alone.
It takes allot of electronics expertise and hard work to solve this
problem of cell tuning.

Whew, my fingers are tired.......

Tad

Simple: H2o(l) - H2(g) + O2(g) - H2O(g) Yahoo! Groups Links

After that I found this one:

http://groups.google.de/group/se.vetenskap.diverse/browse_thread/thread/83892aa8348f5e9f/e36ef75e4262f4bf?hl=de&lnk=st&q=#e36ef75e4262f4bf

Here is a machine translation.

===================The report can be ordered from NUTEK (former STU). The reason that
alternative fuels are not allowed is what I understand the
government>s commitment to guarantee the energy sector to guarantee
energy supplies in times of crisis. Offering means that the state may
pay the energy sector in option causes the energy sector profit
reduction. If you look more carefully at the options, the you find
that you can not do anything without huge resistance. Want to build a
wind farm, you must have close to 30 different permits from different
authorities. Water Court prevents you to use the water, etc. When it
was discovered that it could burn cheap peat from their own land
politicians solved the problem of classify peat as a mineral. There is
no shortage of imagination our politicians when it comes to discourage
individual initiative and it finally puts an end to it all is rate.
Would petrol companies have bug and stop charging for its product, you
can be confident that the tax immediately would be increased to a
level so that the price for the customer became about the past.

m.v.h.
ted
==================
Which was in response to this:

==================Thomas Palm <Thomas.P...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in the Post
<Xns93CF69726A0CBThomasPalmchell...@212.83.64.229> ...

[quote]"Ted Zettergren" <ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se> wrote in
News: 01c35c65 $ 1fff8e80 $ 3b7497d4 @ tedz:

You are poorly informed Kaj. As I wrote in a previous speech:
"The industry in Sweden are forced to emit hydrogen in the atmosphere in
Instead of
Use it for vehicle fuel. According NUTEK>s investigation dnr 81-3174
Would amount sufficient to run a million cars. So why
Produce something that already exists. "

Do you have any suggestions on where to find that the report or on
other
Hold few details about the task. A rough indication that it is very
Unlikely given the value of all the energy you are talking about. There is a considerable
Part of Sweden>s energy consumption which would be placed in the form of hydrogen.
What industry is what accounts for this and why does not already
today
To be on hydrogen?
==================[/quote]
There are hundreds of stories like this.

Yull Brown ran away from Australia when it was getting to hot.

Then he was killed in the US.

[quote]But this would mean the Garrett>s would have endangered their successful career
as
inventors.

Cite their successful careers as inventors then. How many of these 'inventions'
actually went into production ?
[/quote]
Oh, but if you don>t believe Tesla can beat the law book the Garretts
will never be credible. You can read their radio patent, it seems
advanced enough for them to just about anything the electric law
allows them to.

I>m documenting the Garrett>s because they tried, if it works is not
really important. I like to have as much information on the topic as
possible. Ignoring even a little bit is dishonest in my opinion. So I
worked many thousands of hours documenting this information. All you
have to do is read the digests. I confess nothing is finished, there
is lots of information on the topic.

But I>m doing it for free, as in free lunch, free wily and free mason.
All I expect in return is assault and ridicule. I>ve been listening to
that all my life. It>s not very impressive.

I even designed a fuel-less car specially for the debunkers.

http://wind-car.go-here.nl/

Moar ass the tin foil hat argument I didn>t hear thus far.

Magnetic perpetual motion devices are to easy to debunk, I work and I
work and after lots of work my documentation cant possibly be less
complicated by now.

You know what the debunkers say after all my effort?

"it cant be that simple, if it was that simple people would have
figured it out already"

I have reduced the explanation to holding 2 magnets in your hands and
paying attention to the truth. So, enough of that. Now it will be
waterauto>s, at least here I get an army of scientists who back my
arguments.

Here is Yull Brown
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/Yull-Brown/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/9#view

Here is Stanly Allan Meyer
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/stanley-allan-meyer/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/6

If you would be honest this should already be enough documentation.

Faraday was an experimentalist FOR f ck SAKE. Where did you get the
idea you can use experiments to refute all future experiments? From
the book of law again?

Non of the experiments are correct because Faraday who didn>t have any
formal education did some experiments?

Think about it,

by spewing at the researchers one will discover the superior truth?

Non of the perpetual motion devices ever need investigation because
they are all not real because non of them work?

Seems the research is mandatory to come to that last conclusion.

Without investigation you nevah get to claim non of them work because
the establishment never looked at any of them? hahahaha???

I>m not saying all claims are real, I>m saying the circular reasoning
doesn>t allow for factual evidence.

God is real because the bible says he is real?

Yes? Are you that kind of person?

[quote]It also has a rational conflict with the various explosions
in their workshop.

I don>t think explosions prove anything other than incompetence.
[/quote]
Of course, one can interpret things in many ways but if you refuse to
look at the context then the conclusions are nothing but wishful
thinking.

Sure, you can accuse me of wishful thinking.

But what is your goal?

The economy is going RIP, I think it would be cool to just get rid of
it.

Everyone is brainwashed anyway, so the rich will become moar wealthy
from it in the long run. They shouldn>t whine about coins when their
workers are about to suffer massive death.

You have any idea how many days worth of food there is the moment
supplies stop? Do you think it will be enough to build alternative
means by then? We will discuss the waterauto sitting in front of our
wigwam trying to keep warm without food?

I think you wishful thinking works towards that picture.

Yull Brown managed to power cars on his gas alone, he didn>t use an
efficient electolyser. Meyer made browns gas at 1200 V and 10 mA

It will kill the whole petroleum tax industry.

Paul Pantone only invented a fuel saving apparatus. 5 times the
mileage was already enough to get rid of him.

This is what we need
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8045542117971466961

April 18, 2007 Judge Royal Hansen denies Paul Pantone his right of
choice of counsel. http://paul-pantone-court-recordings.go-here.nl/Pantone_Court_2007_04_18.mp3

He doesn>t get a lawyer because he is incompetent.

He was already tortured beyond imagination in 2005.

His own doctor stated he is allergic to penicillin, so they keep
giving him that. His own doctor is overruled because he would have a
financial interest in Pantone.

Now they want to force medicate him with a psycho cocktail so that he
can become competent enough to be convicted. BUT he can get 6 months
as the maximum sentence.

A few hundred people paid Pantone for lectures. This is what he was
convicted for, the students didn>t get a cent in return. What they did
get was the bill from the legal hoax. They would have to release him
in 2005. He did 4 times the 6 month sentence. Convicted for teaching
people something that doesn>t exist the court claims.

He was initially arrested for not showing up for his court case. The
assigned legal counsel claimed he didn>t answer the phone, but Paul
has phone records showing he used the phone lots of times that day.
Both to call and to get called.

Even if Pantone was the most fantastic liar in human history that
doesn>t change the fact that MIT has a patent for the plasmatron.

A device practically the same as the GEET engine.

[quote]The point is, that the hard well-proven laws of physics mean that their idea is
bunkum. If you>d actually studied science this fact would be second nature to
you. Therefore it HAD to be fraud. The hidden tank is the simplest explanation.
[/quote]
I know that is what the bookie says. You get to debunk the MIT
plasmatron, the professors are much to scared to continue their work
on it. In stead of making it better they are making it smaller. I>m
not that stupid. Pantone>s plasma reactor tube is at least 10 times as
big.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3kueRyzvlY

1997:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/ed2b54b8c87e5729
On Feb 22 1997, 10:00 am, r...@aol.com (RAJ) wrote:
[quote]Over-Unity Hydrogen Production? Nuclear Energy?
[snip]
The increasing coverage of the patented (#5,435,274 - others pending)
AquaFuel and COH2 discoveries in science, engineering, environmental trade
journals, newspapers, and TV
[snip]
The AquaFuel process appears to mirror image MIT’s work on theplasmatron(See Plasma Reformer-Fuel Cell Systems For Decentralized Power
Applications International Journal of Hydrogen Energy -January 1997) where
various hydrocarbons are subjected to an electric arc and reformed into H
and CO.
[snip]
This could well be one of the
biggest breakthroughs in new energy technology of the past seven years!"
is right on target. We look forward to the promise of accelerated
research and results coverage of carbon arc technology in future issues of
Infinite Energy Magazine. For those who don>t yet subscribe but are
interested to see several carbon-arc patents on gas production, experiment
data, and various analysis I suggest a subscription starting with back
issues #9 and #10. Subscription information can be found at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell. AquaFuel Inventor
Bill Richardson can be contacted at phone: 407-723-1163 or fax:
407-723-4114.
[snip]
[/quote]
2001:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/3c43c274e0837766
On Aug 27 2001, 3:57 pm, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
[quote]ContentsDirect from Elsevier Science
=====================================
Journal: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
ISSN : 0360-3199
Volume : 26
Issue : 10
Date : Oct-2001

Visit the journal athttp://www.elsevier.nl/locate/jnlnr/00485
[snip]
pp 1115-1121
Emissions reductions using hydrogen from plasmatron fuel converters
L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, J. Heywood

[/quote]
2003:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/851174199f68ac42
On May 28 2003, 4:52 am, Tim M <gringo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]This is a paper on Plasma Reformation of our favorite element
http://www.psfc.mit.edu/plasmatech/Plasmatron.pdf written by
L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn and A. Rabinovich @ MIT

This issue of e-lab includes an analysis of a hydrogen bus it doesn>t
look to encouraging
http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/e-lab/july-sep00/july-sep00.html

A press release on a plasma reformation device Alexander Rabinovich
calls theplasmatron
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/1997/plasmatron.htmland a paper on the
same
http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library/02ja/02JA030/02JA030_full.pdf
and an other
http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library/00JA/00JA039/00JA039_full.pdf

A very cool paper on the physical limits of portable power storage
http://aries.www.media.mit.edu/people/aries/portable-power/power.html

MIT researchers inch toward photosynthesis in a beaker
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/nocera.html

Tim M.
[/quote]
A bus? haha?
http://www.google.com/search?q=plasmatron+bus

A fuel recycler would be a useful addon for a hydrogen fuel savings
technology.

5% petroleum would cut the cost by 95%, engines are made to burn
petroleum making them run 100% on hydrogen would reduce the life span
of the motor.

____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

dedanoe · Guest

save this text as "virus.exe" and run it from your pc for president!

gabydewilde · Guest

On Oct 8, 7:48 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
[quote]gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:

If you look at how much people condemn the mere idea and I mean with
strong disapproval you should be able to see the discussion about the
topic was made impossible. I can post as much links as I like, I can
cite a million professors people will curse me and litter what ever
chat I try to have about the topic.

The professors must be crank, the chemist must have lost it etc etc

If the claim is to violate the laws of physics, the comments are true
and the people will be seen as cranks. Proof is necessary for
these claims of new magic.

[/quote]
Well, you are free to show your credentials for remote viewing,
Faraday, Nicola Tesla, Yull Brown, Stanley Allan Meyer, Dad Garret,
Paul Pantone, Bill Williams, Ted Zettergren, Nakamats, Alexander
Rabinovich,L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, J. Heywood and Bill
Richardson all build things and based their conclusions on real world
contraptions.

For you to theorise your preconceaved superiority is just not sanity.

[quote]Say Graham has a moment of enlightenment and creates cold fusion using
10 cent worth of kitchen items. Would it matter if this happened in
1700, in 1800 or in 2100?

You would be treated just the same, scientists would ridicule you
until you either die from misery or decide to shut up about it. If you
have thick skin you will be man handled, beaten up, your lab set on
fire and in the end you will be assassinated.

If anyone invented cold fusion, the world would be all over it in
a hurry.
[/quote]
You are looking at it right now and you are not all over it, you are
in full denial.

You think the bookie has everything the gallaxy has to offer in it.

[quote]Look at how much interest came out from the bad work
done by Pons and Fleishman.
[/quote]
haha? Pons and Fleishman?

They left the US because people openly talked about physically geting
rid of them. The scientists didn>t even leave the room anymore. It was
time for them to RUN AWAY and hide. They never could finish their
work, your kind of divine preception of all possible research outcomes
is exactly that what prevented them from doing the actual research.

Pons and Fleishman were immediately ridiculed out of the profession in
the same manner as many who have made revolutionary scientific
discoveries throughout history. The high temperature plasma physics
crowd, funded to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars, were
particularly vicious. The physics establishment declared that such a
result was not permitted by their models, mostly because it failed to
produce a cesspool of nuclear waste, and therefore not possible. Never
allowing for the possibility that they or their models might not know
everything, the High Priests of Science declared Pons and Fleishman
crackpots, the government and the media bought it, and that little bit
of unpleasantness was quickly put behind the scientific establishment.
Or so they thought.

Pons and Fleishmann>s research was immediately declared to be faulty
and they were blacklisted from the scientific community. Academic
journals declared that their results violated the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, which sets limits on how heat can be converted into
energy. The U.S. Department of Energy released a report saying that
the cold fusion
experiment did present some unexplained phenomena, but it did not
warrant any additional funding.

Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The
announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights.
Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the
length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to
protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of
the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments.
Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years
and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the
experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of
positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a
backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of
power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature
and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it
was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched
immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used
de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of
people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the
scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had
tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not
active.

Pons and Fleishman discovered cold fusion which was quickly followed
by verification of the results from several nationally recognized
research labs as well as academic papers on bosun theorey that
completely explained the observed the phenomena.

I repeate, 17 years ago, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann captured
the imagination of the world with their announcement of fusion at room
temperature. When duplicating the effect turned out to be difficult,
the whirlwind of positive publicity quickly turned with a vengeance
into a firestorm of negative publicity and ridicule, which continues
to this day.

Despite the ridicule, there has remained a dedicated and growing core
of scientists who have not only replicated room-temperature fusion,
but also have improved on its performance and have broadened the
number of methods for achieving it. In the midst of this academic
pariah movement, Dr. Martin Fleischmann has continued his research,
and regularly presents at conferences.

A couple of years back in Britain, he tried to retire, but could not
stay away from his experimentation.

After its recent formation in California, the company D2Fusion has
extended an invitation to Dr, Fleischmann to work with them as a
senior research advisor, with the objective of bringing a commercial
application of the technology to market. A California-based solid
state fusion energy firm with engineering centers in Silicon Valley
and Los Alamos, New Mexico, D2Fusion is a subsidiary of Solar Energy
Limited (OTCBB:SLRE).

On Thursday (March 23rd), the seventeenth anniversary of the original
announcement of cold fusion, the company announced that they will tap
Dr. Fleischmann>s experience and expertise to produce prototypes of
solid-state fusion-heating modules for homes and industry.

David Kubiak, Communications Director for D2Fusion, expects that in a
little more than a year the company will have a production prototype
ready. Although the number and scale of potential applications is wide
and diverse, they would like first to target the home-heating market.

Another market sector they are looking at is independent heaters for
cars. As more hybrid technologies and fuel cells are introduced,
engines will no longer be reliable sources of passenger compartment
heat in cold climes. Kubiak said winter automotive heating makes
serious BTU demands on these sophisticated engines that they cannot
efficiently respond to, especially in idle mode. Their technology
could address that shortfall and cover this ever widening market
niche.

Also, they have been eyeing the WhisperGen device, presently on its
maiden voyage in the London area with about 400 test installations.
That system has their attention because it can use a wide variety of
sources for input heat to generate electricity output. The WhisperGen
is a Stirling engine technology, also called an "external combustion
engine", inasmuch as the heat source operates from outside of the
engine to effect the turning of components within it.

Kubiak says that the strategy for going to a home application at first
is to garner grass-root support, which should help to unravel some of
the entrenched political and scientific opposition to the technology.
It>s kind of hard to argue against the feasibility of a technology if
it is already at work heating and powering homes.

The company website anticipates that eventually the commercialization
of D2Fusion technology will have almost unimaginable economic, social
and political impact on the world.

Fleischmann will actually be leading one of three labs at D2Fusion,
each approaching the phenomenon from a slightly different angle.
Fleischmann>s lab will be pursuing an electrochemical approach.
Another will be using the palladium-carbon catalytic process, and a
third lab will be researching the glow discharge process, which uses a
gas environment, rather than a liquid medium. The three will be in
friendly competition with one another, Kubiak said.

The principal player at D2Fusion is Russ George, who has actually
rubbed shoulders occasionally with Fleischmann down through the years,
as both of them have been pursuing the cold fusion technology with a
variety of techniques. More recently, George worked with Dr. Yoshiaki
Arata at Osaka University utilizing nanoscale palladium particles to
quantum vault the Coulomb barrier -- the classical electromagnetic
plus-plus charge repulsion that allegedly precludes the type of fusion
that is being observed.

Kubiak said that the sporadic reproducibility of most cold fusion
techniques still plagues many researchers in the field, as the metal
materials seem to be particularly temperamental. One batch will work,
while the next will not. While that might frustrate impatient
scientists who want to see instant impeccable reproducibility from new
discoveries, it does not deter the cold fusion community. "Once you
see it work, you realize a new frontier is opening and you>re hooked,"
he said.

A company press release explains that, in brief, "cold” fusion
involves the fusion of two nuclei of deuterium or heavy hydrogen into
a single helium atom, accompanied only by a burst of heat. Unlike
"thermonuclear hot fusion" that requires the plasma-inducing inferno
temperatures of the sun or a hydrogen bomb, solid-state fusion
reactions can be produced at normal temperatures in certain hydrogen-
loving metals without unleashing hot fusion>s dangerous radiation.

Many experimental reports suggest the importance of nano-scale
reaction sites and the occurrence of coherent quantum electrodynamic
(QED) states that circumvent the strong mutual repulsion of positively
charged deuterium nuclei. The QED features are markedly similar to
processes now familiar in solid-state physics, such as
superconductivity, and have led the company to conclude that "solid-
state fusion" is a more accurate and fruitful characterization of the
field than the term “cold fusion”

Before his historic work at Utah University with his associate Dr.
Stanley Pons, Professor Fleischmann taught electrochemistry at the
University of Southampton, Britain>s equivalent to MIT. There he was
named a Fellow of the Royal Society, and served as Council president
of the International Society of Electrochemistry.

Initially inspired by Alfred Coehn>s groundbreaking work on proton
conduction in the late 1920s, Dr. Fleischmann labored privately and
tirelessly in the early eighties to deepen his understanding of
quantum electrodynamics, which, he believed, should allow low-
temperature coherent fusion phenomena. After his demonstration of this
effect in Utah and the March '89 announcement, he continued his QED
work – in obscurity as far as the media was concerned, but with
excellent backing. First, Toyota>s research and development institute
funded his efforts in France, and subsequently he worked in Italy with
the support of several prestigious Italian energy labs.

At D2Fusion, Prof. Fleischmann will work in conjunction with Dr.
Thomas Passell, the firm>s CTO and a former manager in the Electric
Power Research Institute>s Nuclear Power Division, who directed the
North American power industry>s investigations of "cold fusion"
phenomena for five years. Fleischmann will also aid and consult with
top Los Alamos physicists at D2Fusion>s New Mexico R&D laboratory.

D2Fusion CEO Russ George notes, "Dr. Fleischmann>s genius inspired a
generation of audacious researchers, and there are now thousands of
scientific reports confirming the reality, safety and stunning promise
of solid-state fusion energy. Aided by his insight and most recent
discoveries, we believe it is time to start delivering that potential
to the world.

"True, our theoretical grasp of all the processes in play remains
imperfect, but neither can we fully explain the workings of aspirin,
acupuncture or high-temperature superconductivity. Unresolved
questions about their mechanisms have not stopped us from enjoying
their respective benefits, which are pale indeed compared to what
solid-state fusion offers. We are now certain that heat generation
from this process is copious, safe, inexpensive and reproducible, and
in terms of commercialization that seems like a perfect place to
start."

[quote]People say Tesla was nuts, a loon, crazy etc etc but at the same time
we are all using his alternating current and his radio technology.

If that isn>t a credible inventors resume then nothing ever will be
you see?

He powered his car with 2 rods made up of baked and compressed
elements. When everyone agreed he was using black magic he took the
box out of the car and he didn>t look back.

Professor nakamats invented the floppy disk. He holds over 3200
patents.

This was 1995. Nothing has come of it.
[/quote]
Oh, but his public statement is that he is "waiting for the world to
be ready for it"

You are clearly not "ready for it" jet.

[quote]If his work is not credible to you, then what do you expect? Should
God come down to earth and beg you on his knees? Something tells me
you will debunk God if he would do that. hahaha

Those who build a working Joe Cell have all been told to shut up about
it. Bill Williams has been playing with his car engine and sharing
everything he found since he was 14 or something. Then one day he just
stopped talking about his hobby and vanished? He didn>t have anything
for sale and he had a dozen videos online showing goofy experiments.
He didn>t care about the results, he was just playing!

He found out it did not work and went on to something else.

[/quote]
It was his hobby, he didn>t care if it worked or not. He was just
playing.

Lets not pretend you are an expert on the joy of experimentation.

You are not.

[quote]In his last video he was like: "wow, I disconnected the power and it
keeps running!"

Videos are proof only that he coulc make a video.

[/quote]
Google group postings are only proof you can write a google group
posting.

[quote]Probably his wife told him to stop wasting his time and her money.
[/quote]
Nice, you are trying on the tin foil hat here?

[quote]Snip the stuff below since it shows more bad lab work with
unsubstatiated claims.
[/quote]
What do you mean? Does the quantity of quality information scare your?

Tesla was not good enough lets forget about Yull Brown, Stanley Allan
Meyer, Dad Garret, Paul Pantone, Bill Williams, Ted Zettergren,
Nakamats, Alexander Rabinovich,L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich,
J. Heywood and Bill Richardson?

Nice try but it>s not very convincing now it is.

[quote] There are no real measurents,
[/quote]
You are now trying to badge-debunk real world demonstration with your
uninformed opinion?

[quote]only vague assumptions.
[/quote]
The way you keep repeating the same preconceaved arguments is quite
revealing.

This was the spot where it became to much for you?

I>m sure you are familiar with this conversation
http://groups.google.de/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/86420899b49ac4dc

In the watercar group I found this posting. btw, it was not written by
me Don Lancaster.

From: "Tad Johnson" <h2opowered@... To: <watercar@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:39 AM Subject: [watercar]

Meyer Experiment Recap

For those of you who were not here, or have not watched the Keelynet
boards and such I will revamp my entire history of Meyer experiments.

In 1996 I was an amateur electronics hobbyist. I had been interested
in electrolysis and hydrogen study for many years prior, but this year
I was watching the sci.hydrogen news group to become more educated on
hydrogen in general. During that year I met a man who was good friends
with Stanley Meyer and regularly went to visit him in Ohio. John lived
here in California, and had also invested some money in the Water
07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
of 25951 Page 2 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/
20771 Fuel cell project of Meyers'. I became friends with this man and
became more interested in the Stanley Meyer system. As I became more
adept at electronic design and troubleshooting I began to want to try
and duplicate the Stanley Meyer process of breaking water with high
voltage at resonance.

During that year and onward a couple years I was able to ask John
questions which he would then ask Stanley, and would then feed the
answer back to me. You see, Stan was not willing to just talk to
anyone about the process let alone give away any secrets of the
process that were not mentioned already in the patents. So I had to
ask these questions through John who was good friends with Stanley.

My first few circuits worked but the cell would not make any hydrogen,
especially under the conditions that Stanley and his patents said they
would. The problem is that I would tune the cell like he said and yet
no gas would be produced. It took three years of tinkering to finally
figure out what I was doing wrong, and it was a big blunder. The
answer to what I was doing wrong came to me through the sci.hydrogen
group by a man who lived in Sweden and had already duplicated the
Meyer experiments based on his patents. His name was Ted Zettergren,
and he was an inventor who helped other inventors file patents and
market products. He posted on exactly what he did and how the system
worked. To my knowledge he was one of the first of three people who
duplicated the Meyer experiments successfully.

After Stan was killed I had no information other than Ted>s to go by,
but it was all I needed, or anyone else needs to duplicate the Meyer>s
process. 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages :
Message 20771 of 25951 Page 3 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
energy2000/message/20771 The process is achieved by the following:

1. Pulsing circuit or power supply capable of producing 600+ Volts @
20Khz+ @ 100uA+. My system was a simple, off the shelf inverter with
an input of 12VDC and an output of 1200VAC @ 20Khz @ 1mA. I then took
this circuit and modified the circuit to run at 42.5-43.0Khz. This was
an off-the-shelf inverter sold by Fry>s electronics. It is a neon
power supply with a very small bobbin core transformer. Anyone can buy
this circuit or one just like it and modify it to run within the specs
I gave you. The hard part is obtaining resonance which takes years of
electronics expertise to do.

2. A small electrolysis cell with the ability to vary distance between
conductors.

3. 2 - Chokes, one adjustable, one fixed.

4. One high voltage diode to go in-line with the cathode of the power
supply output.

5. Inductance Meter, Capacitance meter, frequency counter/
Oscilloscope, and high voltage probe.

The key to the Meyer process is resonance, and without resonance the
system produces no gas. At 12watts you see why no gas is produced
without resonance. This is a standard LC resonant circuit in which you
MUST (!) match Capacitive reactance with Inductive reactance. This
then creates an LC resonant circuit in which the two legs of the power
supply match in frequency exactly. A Ham calc make the calculation of
resonance easy once you know the capacitance of the cell and the
frequency you are driving it at. Once you have your inductance
calculated you then buy the proper chokes 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo!
Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771 of 25951 Page 4 of
6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771 that fall
within the inductance range needed. The adjustable one needs
(obviously) to be tunable within a small range, so that when the cell
temperature changes and causes the capacitance of the cell to change,
then the inductance can also be changed to keep the cell in resonance.
If you cell has the ability to vary distance between conductors, then
you simply change the distance and thus change the capacitance of the
cell rather than changing the inductance. You must vary one of the
other though. I have found since then that the capacitance of the cell
can be changed and works just as well as the inductors being adjusted.
You don>t use ANY electrolyte, you don>t want ANY amperage at all,
only voltage @ resonance. REPEAT, YOU DON>T NEED ANY CURRENT FLOW,
ONLY VOLTAGE!

What I found frustrating is that the cell temperature would change and
the system would stop making gas. In order to keep the system making
gas you constantly have to keep the cell in resonance, and thus you
really need the system to be controlled by a processor, that
constantly checks frequency on both legs and then adjusts inductance
to keep the cell in resonance. This is why Stanley move to the other
patents where the spark plus type of electrolysis chamber was used
instead of a large cell.

With the cell running at 1200Volts @ 1mA @ 42.8Khz I found I could
make 200LP/H of gas. Do the math and you will find that this is
impossible given our current understanding of electrolysis. If you
scale this equation up you will find that you can make over 20,000LP/H
of gas for 1200Watts. This is easily enough to run most any Internal
combustion engine. The only problem has been keeping the cell in tune.
An alternator will easily produce 3000 watts of power, so this is
easily enough to power the car on 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups :
energy2000 Messages : Message 20771 of 25951 Page 5 of 6http://
groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771 this system alone.
This is how the Volkswagen Buggy was running around on water only. The
car has to wait a minute or two before he stored enough gas to run the
car, then once it was started and running it would make enough gas to
run the car at up to 60MPH. I never saw this car run personally, but I
have two people that went to two showings and both said it worked and
they verified there was no gasoline on board.

3 Years ago I sent Stefan and others this experimental data and never
heard back form anyone, nor did anyone ever repeat my experiment. To
this date I know of only Ted, Me, and one other person who has
duplicated this experiment and done so successfully. The third person
is a PHD on the east coast of the U.S. who is in contact with
Stanley>s widow. Stanley>s brother now takes care of all water fuel
cell business and claims he will start it up again and make sure it
makes it to market this time. But I have not heard from them in years
now. Stefan easily has the electronics experience to duplicate this
process and also solve the issue of keeping the cell in resonance. I
probably do as well at this point but I am not going to do it alone.
It takes allot of electronics expertise and hard work to solve this
problem of cell tuning.

Whew, my fingers are tired.......

Tad

Simple: H2o(l) - H2(g) + O2(g) - H2O(g) Yahoo! Groups Links

After that I found this one:

http://groups.google.de/group/se.vetenskap.diverse/browse_thread/thread/83892aa8348f5e9f/e36ef75e4262f4bf?hl=de&lnk=st&q=#e36ef75e4262f4bf

Here is a machine translation.

===================The report can be ordered from NUTEK (former STU). The reason that
alternative fuels are not allowed is what I understand the
government>s commitment to guarantee the energy sector to guarantee
energy supplies in times of crisis. Offering means that the state may
pay the energy sector in option causes the energy sector profit
reduction. If you look more carefully at the options, the you find
that you can not do anything without huge resistance. Want to build a
wind farm, you must have close to 30 different permits from different
authorities. Water Court prevents you to use the water, etc. When it
was discovered that it could burn cheap peat from their own land
politicians solved the problem of classify peat as a mineral. There is
no shortage of imagination our politicians when it comes to discourage
individual initiative and it finally puts an end to it all is rate.
Would petrol companies have bug and stop charging for its product, you
can be confident that the tax immediately would be increased to a
level so that the price for the customer became about the past.

m.v.h.
ted
==================
Which was in response to this:

==================Thomas Palm <Thomas.P...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in the Post
<Xns93CF69726A0CBThomasPalmchell...@212.83.64.229> ...

[quote]"Ted Zettergren" <ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se> wrote in
News: 01c35c65 $ 1fff8e80 $ 3b7497d4 @ tedz:

You are poorly informed Kaj. As I wrote in a previous speech:
"The industry in Sweden are forced to emit hydrogen in the atmosphere in
Instead of
Use it for vehicle fuel. According NUTEK>s investigation dnr 81-3174
Would amount sufficient to run a million cars. So why
Produce something that already exists. "

Do you have any suggestions on where to find that the report or on
other
Hold few details about the task. A rough indication that it is very
Unlikely given the value of all the energy you are talking about. There is a considerable
Part of Sweden>s energy consumption which would be placed in the form of hydrogen.
What industry is what accounts for this and why does not already
today
To be on hydrogen?
==================[/quote]
There are hundreds of stories like this.

Yull Brown ran away from Australia when it was getting to hot.

Then he was killed in the US.

[quote]But this would mean the Garrett>s would have endangered their successful career
as
inventors.

Cite their successful careers as inventors then. How many of these 'inventions'
actually went into production ?
[/quote]
Oh, but if you don>t believe Tesla can beat the law book the Garretts
will never be credible. You can read their radio patent, it seems
advanced enough for them to just about anything the electric law
allows them to.

I>m documenting the Garrett>s because they tried, if it works is not
really important. I like to have as much information on the topic as
possible. Ignoring even a little bit is dishonest in my opinion. So I
worked many thousands of hours documenting this information. All you
have to do is read the digests. I confess nothing is finished, there
is lots of information on the topic.

But I>m doing it for free, as in free lunch, free wily and free mason.
All I expect in return is assault and ridicule. I>ve been listening to
that all my life. It>s not very impressive.

I even designed a fuel-less car specially for the debunkers.

http://wind-car.go-here.nl/

Moar ass the tin foil hat argument I didn>t hear thus far.

Magnetic perpetual motion devices are to easy to debunk, I work and I
work and after lots of work my documentation cant possibly be less
complicated by now.

You know what the debunkers say after all my effort?

"it cant be that simple, if it was that simple people would have
figured it out already"

I have reduced the explanation to holding 2 magnets in your hands and
paying attention to the truth. So, enough of that. Now it will be
waterauto>s, at least here I get an army of scientists who back my
arguments.

Here is Yull Brown
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/Yull-Brown/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/9#view

Here is Stanly Allan Meyer
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/stanley-allan-meyer/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/6

If you would be honest this should already be enough documentation.

Faraday was an experimentalist FOR f ck SAKE. Where did you get the
idea you can use experiments to refute all future experiments? From
the book of law again?

Non of the experiments are correct because Faraday who didn>t have any
formal education did some experiments?

Think about it,

by spewing at the researchers one will discover the superior truth?

Non of the perpetual motion devices ever need investigation because
they are all not real because non of them work?

Seems the research is mandatory to come to that last conclusion.

Without investigation you nevah get to claim non of them work because
the establishment never looked at any of them? hahahaha???

I>m not saying all claims are real, I>m saying the circular reasoning
doesn>t allow for factual evidence.

God is real because the bible says he is real?

Yes? Are you that kind of person?

[quote]It also has a rational conflict with the various explosions
in their workshop.

I don>t think explosions prove anything other than incompetence.
[/quote]
Of course, one can interpret things in many ways but if you refuse to
look at the context then the conclusions are nothing but wishful
thinking.

Sure, you can accuse me of wishful thinking.

But what is your goal?

The economy is going RIP, I think it would be cool to just get rid of
it.

Everyone is brainwashed anyway, so the rich will become moar wealthy
from it in the long run. They shouldn>t whine about coins when their
workers are about to suffer massive death.

You have any idea how many days worth of food there is the moment
supplies stop? Do you think it will be enough to build alternative
means by then? We will discuss the waterauto sitting in front of our
wigwam trying to keep warm without food?

I think you wishful thinking works towards that picture.

Yull Brown managed to power cars on his gas alone, he didn>t use an
efficient electolyser. Meyer made browns gas at 1200 V and 10 mA

It will kill the whole petroleum tax industry.

Paul Pantone only invented a fuel saving apparatus. 5 times the
mileage was already enough to get rid of him.

This is what we need
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8045542117971466961

April 18, 2007 Judge Royal Hansen denies Paul Pantone his right of
choice of counsel. http://paul-pantone-court-recordings.go-here.nl/Pantone_Court_2007_04_18.mp3

He doesn>t get a lawyer because he is incompetent.

He was already tortured beyond imagination in 2005.

His own doctor stated he is allergic to penicillin, so they keep
giving him that. His own doctor is overruled because he would have a
financial interest in Pantone.

Now they want to force medicate him with a psycho cocktail so that he
can become competent enough to be convicted. BUT he can get 6 months
as the maximum sentence.

A few hundred people paid Pantone for lectures. This is what he was
convicted for, the students didn>t get a cent in return. What they did
get was the bill from the legal hoax. They would have to release him
in 2005. He did 4 times the 6 month sentence. Convicted for teaching
people something that doesn>t exist the court claims.

He was initially arrested for not showing up for his court case. The
assigned legal counsel claimed he didn>t answer the phone, but Paul
has phone records showing he used the phone lots of times that day.
Both to call and to get called.

Even if Pantone was the most fantastic liar in human history that
doesn>t change the fact that MIT has a patent for the plasmatron.

A device practically the same as the GEET engine.

[quote]The point is, that the hard well-proven laws of physics mean that their idea is
bunkum. If you>d actually studied science this fact would be second nature to
you. Therefore it HAD to be fraud. The hidden tank is the simplest explanation.
[/quote]
I know that is what the bookie says. You get to debunk the MIT
plasmatron, the professors are much to scared to continue their work
on it. In stead of making it better they are making it smaller. I>m
not that stupid. Pantone>s plasma reactor tube is at least 10 times as
big.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3kueRyzvlY

1997:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/ed2b54b8c87e5729
On Feb 22 1997, 10:00 am, r...@aol.com (RAJ) wrote:
[quote]Over-Unity Hydrogen Production? Nuclear Energy?
[snip]
The increasing coverage of the patented (#5,435,274 - others pending)
AquaFuel and COH2 discoveries in science, engineering, environmental trade
journals, newspapers, and TV
[snip]
The AquaFuel process appears to mirror image MIT’s work on theplasmatron(See Plasma Reformer-Fuel Cell Systems For Decentralized Power
Applications International Journal of Hydrogen Energy -January 1997) where
various hydrocarbons are subjected to an electric arc and reformed into H
and CO.
[snip]
This could well be one of the
biggest breakthroughs in new energy technology of the past seven years!"
is right on target. We look forward to the promise of accelerated
research and results coverage of carbon arc technology in future issues of
Infinite Energy Magazine. For those who don>t yet subscribe but are
interested to see several carbon-arc patents on gas production, experiment
data, and various analysis I suggest a subscription starting with back
issues #9 and #10. Subscription information can be found at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JedRothwell. AquaFuel Inventor
Bill Richardson can be contacted at phone: 407-723-1163 or fax:
407-723-4114.
[snip]
[/quote]
2001:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/3c43c274e0837766
On Aug 27 2001, 3:57 pm, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
[quote]ContentsDirect from Elsevier Science
=====================================
Journal: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
ISSN : 0360-3199
Volume : 26
Issue : 10
Date : Oct-2001

Visit the journal athttp://www.elsevier.nl/locate/jnlnr/00485
[snip]
pp 1115-1121
Emissions reductions using hydrogen from plasmatron fuel converters
L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, J. Heywood

[/quote]
2003:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/851174199f68ac42
On May 28 2003, 4:52 am, Tim M <gringo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]This is a paper on Plasma Reformation of our favorite element
http://www.psfc.mit.edu/plasmatech/Plasmatron.pdf written by
L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn and A. Rabinovich @ MIT

This issue of e-lab includes an analysis of a hydrogen bus it doesn>t
look to encouraging
http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/e-lab/july-sep00/july-sep00.html

A press release on a plasma reformation device Alexander Rabinovich
calls theplasmatron
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/1997/plasmatron.htmland a paper on the
same
http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library/02ja/02JA030/02JA030_full.pdf
and an other
http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library/00JA/00JA039/00JA039_full.pdf

A very cool paper on the physical limits of portable power storage
http://aries.www.media.mit.edu/people/aries/portable-power/power.html

MIT researchers inch toward photosynthesis in a beaker
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/nocera.html

Tim M.
[/quote]
A bus? haha?
http://www.google.com/search?q=plasmatron+bus

A fuel recycler would be a useful addon for a hydrogen fuel savings
technology.

5% petroleum would cut the cost by 95%, engines are made to burn
petroleum making them run 100% on hydrogen would reduce the life span
of the motor.

____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

Don Lancaster · Guest

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]
In 1996 I was an amateur electronics hobbyist.
[/quote]
I think I found your problem.

In that time frame, useful instruments of reasonable cost were simply
not available. Your work was thus, by definition, bogus.

--
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: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU>s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

doug · Guest

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:

[quote]On Oct 8, 9:49 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:

"gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

"gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:

"gdewi...@gmail.com" wrote:

September 8, 1935, Charles H. Garrett sun of Dad Garrett operated his
engine continuously for more than forty-eight hours.

Pathe' News filmed the car driving along Garland Road with the driver
stopping at White Rock Lake to fill the fuel tank with water

Ever considered there were TWO tanks ? One for water for publicity and a
hidden one with gasoline to actually make it go ?

What good psycho analysis.

Thank you.

Yes, this is definitely a possibility Rabbit man.

You bet it is !

Have you considered the possibility it is real?

Would you have sentenced Aristotle to death?

Would you have locked up Galileo?

Would you have condemned aviation?

I know some people argue the scientific method dictates one should
come up with results or shut up.

But before anyone can come up with the results they need to do a lot
of work, before this work can be accomplished the inventor basically
has to do something that doesn>t make sense by definition.

Edison made quite a few light bulbs that absolutely didn>t work.

Even from the perspective a water powered auto is not possible one
could still attempt to accomplish the work.

We are not working from a clean sheet at all.
[/quote]
No, we need to respect the laws of physics.
[quote]
If you look at how much people condemn the mere idea and I mean with
strong disapproval you should be able to see the discussion about the
topic was made impossible. I can post as much links as I like, I can
cite a million professors people will curse me and litter what ever
chat I try to have about the topic.

The professors must be crank, the chemist must have lost it etc etc
[/quote]
If the claim is to violate the laws of physics, the comments are true
and the people will be seen as cranks. Proof is necessary for
these claims of new magic.
[quote]
I>m sure this much you can see?

So assuming such effort could be made, and I mean effort towards
physically disproving the many inventors.

Do you think anyone would be interested either way?

Say Graham has a moment of enlightenment and creates cold fusion using
10 cent worth of kitchen items. Would it matter if this happened in
1700, in 1800 or in 2100?

You would be treated just the same, scientists would ridicule you
until you either die from misery or decide to shut up about it. If you
have thick skin you will be man handled, beaten up, your lab set on
fire and in the end you will be assassinated.
[/quote]
If anyone invented cold fusion, the world would be all over it in
a hurry. Look at how much interest came out from the bad work
done by Pons and Fleishman. Their setup did not work but it started
a lot of money flowing into the field. People now realize that
it all was just bad lab work.
[quote]
People say Tesla was nuts, a loon, crazy etc etc but at the same time
we are all using his alternating current and his radio technology.

If that isn>t a credible inventors resume then nothing ever will be
you see?

He powered his car with 2 rods made up of baked and compressed
elements. When everyone agreed he was using black magic he took the
box out of the car and he didn>t look back.

Professor nakamats invented the floppy disk. He holds over 3200
patents.

Why would he not be a credible inventor?

I>m sure he doesn>t live up to Tesla but why isn>t the person with the
most inventions a credible source for a hydrogen generator?

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&p=6132
[/quote]
This was 1995. Nothing has come of it. Even in the patent he only
claims efficiency up to 95%. This means any hydrogen powered
car runs off the battery. You would be much better off just using an
electric motor.
[quote]
If his work is not credible to you, then what do you expect? Should
God come down to earth and beg you on his knees? Something tells me
you will debunk God if he would do that. hahaha

Those who build a working Joe Cell have all been told to shut up about
it. Bill Williams has been playing with his car engine and sharing
everything he found since he was 14 or something. Then one day he just
stopped talking about his hobby and vanished? He didn>t have anything
for sale and he had a dozen videos online showing goofy experiments.
He didn>t care about the results, he was just playing!
[/quote]
He found out it did not work and went on to something else.
[quote]
In his last video he was like: "wow, I disconnected the power and it
keeps running!"
[/quote]
Videos are proof only that he coulc make a video.
[quote]
When asked what happened he stated he was ordered to stop his
experiments. Why would he lie? Why would a person give up on his
hobby? He was not the only one who build a working Joe cell. He was
just replicating things. Non of the claims came from him.
[/quote]
Probably his wife told him to stop wasting his time and her money.
[quote]
I>m sure you are familiar with this conversation
http://groups.google.de/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/86420899b49ac4dc

In the watercar group I found this posting.
[/quote]
Snip the stuff below since it shows more bad lab work with
unsubstatiated claims. There are no real measurents, only
vague assumptions.
[quote]
//blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress[/quote]

doug · Guest

gabydewilde wrote:

[quote]On Oct 8, 7:48 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:

gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:

If you look at how much people condemn the mere idea and I mean with
strong disapproval you should be able to see the discussion about the
topic was made impossible. I can post as much links as I like, I can
cite a million professors people will curse me and litter what ever
chat I try to have about the topic.

The professors must be crank, the chemist must have lost it etc etc

If the claim is to violate the laws of physics, the comments are true
and the people will be seen as cranks. Proof is necessary for
these claims of new magic.

Well, you are free to show your credentials for remote viewing,
Faraday, Nicola Tesla, Yull Brown, Stanley Allan Meyer, Dad Garret,
Paul Pantone, Bill Williams, Ted Zettergren, Nakamats, Alexander
Rabinovich,L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, J. Heywood and Bill
Richardson all build things and based their conclusions on real world
contraptions.

I do not know why you put Faraday in with a group of cranks.[/quote]
Tesla had some good ideas early but went very weird near the end. Brown
is presenting something that does not exist. Meyer is presenting
something that does not work. All the cranks have their specialties.
None of the group above is doing anything useful.

[quote]For you to theorise your preconceaved superiority is just not sanity.
[/quote]
Assuming the laws of physics are subject to change by an admiral
is not sanity.
[quote]

Say Graham has a moment of enlightenment and creates cold fusion using
10 cent worth of kitchen items. Would it matter if this happened in
1700, in 1800 or in 2100?

You would be treated just the same, scientists would ridicule you
until you either die from misery or decide to shut up about it. If you
have thick skin you will be man handled, beaten up, your lab set on
fire and in the end you will be assassinated.

If anyone invented cold fusion, the world would be all over it in
a hurry.

You are looking at it right now and you are not all over it, you are
in full denial.
[/quote]
That is because it did not work.
[quote]
You think the bookie has everything the gallaxy has to offer in it.

Look at how much interest came out from the bad work
done by Pons and Fleishman.

haha? Pons and Fleishman?

They left the US because people openly talked about physically geting
rid of them. The scientists didn>t even leave the room anymore. It was
time for them to RUN AWAY and hide. They never could finish their
work, your kind of divine preception of all possible research outcomes
is exactly that what prevented them from doing the actual research.

They were looked down on because they were wrong.[/quote]

[quote]Pons and Fleishman were immediately ridiculed out of the profession in
the same manner as many who have made revolutionary scientific
discoveries throughout history. The high temperature plasma physics
crowd, funded to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars, were
particularly vicious. The physics establishment declared that such a
result was not permitted by their models, mostly because it failed to
produce a cesspool of nuclear waste, and therefore not possible. Never
allowing for the possibility that they or their models might not know
everything, the High Priests of Science declared Pons and Fleishman
crackpots, the government and the media bought it, and that little bit
of unpleasantness was quickly put behind the scientific establishment.
Or so they thought.

Pons and Fleishmann>s research was immediately declared to be faulty
and they were blacklisted from the scientific community. Academic
journals declared that their results violated the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, which sets limits on how heat can be converted into
energy. The U.S. Department of Energy released a report saying that
the cold fusion
experiment did present some unexplained phenomena, but it did not
warrant any additional funding.

Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The
announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights.
Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the
length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to
protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of
the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments.
Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years
and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the
experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of
positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a
backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of
power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature
and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it
was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched
immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used
de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of
people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the
scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had
tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not
active.

Pons and Fleishman discovered cold fusion which was quickly followed
by verification of the results from several nationally recognized
research labs as well as academic papers on bosun theorey that
completely explained the observed the phenomena.

I repeate, 17 years ago, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann captured
the imagination of the world with their announcement of fusion at room
temperature. When duplicating the effect turned out to be difficult,
the whirlwind of positive publicity quickly turned with a vengeance
into a firestorm of negative publicity and ridicule, which continues
to this day.

Despite the ridicule, there has remained a dedicated and growing core
of scientists who have not only replicated room-temperature fusion,
but also have improved on its performance and have broadened the
number of methods for achieving it. In the midst of this academic
pariah movement, Dr. Martin Fleischmann has continued his research,
and regularly presents at conferences.

A couple of years back in Britain, he tried to retire, but could not
stay away from his experimentation.

After its recent formation in California, the company D2Fusion has
extended an invitation to Dr, Fleischmann to work with them as a
senior research advisor, with the objective of bringing a commercial
application of the technology to market. A California-based solid
state fusion energy firm with engineering centers in Silicon Valley
and Los Alamos, New Mexico, D2Fusion is a subsidiary of Solar Energy
Limited (OTCBB:SLRE).

On Thursday (March 23rd), the seventeenth anniversary of the original
announcement of cold fusion, the company announced that they will tap
Dr. Fleischmann>s experience and expertise to produce prototypes of
solid-state fusion-heating modules for homes and industry.

David Kubiak, Communications Director for D2Fusion, expects that in a
little more than a year the company will have a production prototype
ready. Although the number and scale of potential applications is wide
and diverse, they would like first to target the home-heating market.

Another market sector they are looking at is independent heaters for
cars. As more hybrid technologies and fuel cells are introduced,
engines will no longer be reliable sources of passenger compartment
heat in cold climes. Kubiak said winter automotive heating makes
serious BTU demands on these sophisticated engines that they cannot
efficiently respond to, especially in idle mode. Their technology
could address that shortfall and cover this ever widening market
niche.

Also, they have been eyeing the WhisperGen device, presently on its
maiden voyage in the London area with about 400 test installations.
That system has their attention because it can use a wide variety of
sources for input heat to generate electricity output. The WhisperGen
is a Stirling engine technology, also called an "external combustion
engine", inasmuch as the heat source operates from outside of the
engine to effect the turning of components within it.

Kubiak says that the strategy for going to a home application at first
is to garner grass-root support, which should help to unravel some of
the entrenched political and scientific opposition to the technology.
It>s kind of hard to argue against the feasibility of a technology if
it is already at work heating and powering homes.

The company website anticipates that eventually the commercialization
of D2Fusion technology will have almost unimaginable economic, social
and political impact on the world.

Fleischmann will actually be leading one of three labs at D2Fusion,
each approaching the phenomenon from a slightly different angle.
Fleischmann>s lab will be pursuing an electrochemical approach.
Another will be using the palladium-carbon catalytic process, and a
third lab will be researching the glow discharge process, which uses a
gas environment, rather than a liquid medium. The three will be in
friendly competition with one another, Kubiak said.

The principal player at D2Fusion is Russ George, who has actually
rubbed shoulders occasionally with Fleischmann down through the years,
as both of them have been pursuing the cold fusion technology with a
variety of techniques. More recently, George worked with Dr. Yoshiaki
Arata at Osaka University utilizing nanoscale palladium particles to
quantum vault the Coulomb barrier -- the classical electromagnetic
plus-plus charge repulsion that allegedly precludes the type of fusion
that is being observed.
[/quote]
So a cold fusion supporter is supporting a cold fusion supporter.
Where can I buy one of these devices?
[quote]
Kubiak said that the sporadic reproducibility of most cold fusion
techniques still plagues many researchers in the field, as the metal
materials seem to be particularly temperamental. One batch will work,
while the next will not. While that might frustrate impatient
scientists who want to see instant impeccable reproducibility from new
discoveries, it does not deter the cold fusion community. "Once you
see it work, you realize a new frontier is opening and you>re hooked,"
he said.

A company press release explains that, in brief, "cold” fusion
involves the fusion of two nuclei of deuterium or heavy hydrogen into
a single helium atom, accompanied only by a burst of heat. Unlike
"thermonuclear hot fusion" that requires the plasma-inducing inferno
temperatures of the sun or a hydrogen bomb, solid-state fusion
reactions can be produced at normal temperatures in certain hydrogen-
loving metals without unleashing hot fusion>s dangerous radiation.

Thereby demonstrating it is not fusion. The energy difference between[/quote]
hydrogen and helium is independent of how you got there. The proof
that they were not seeing fusion is that they are still alive. The
radiation would be deadly.

[quote]Many experimental reports suggest the importance of nano-scale
reaction sites and the occurrence of coherent quantum electrodynamic
(QED) states that circumvent the strong mutual repulsion of positively
charged deuterium nuclei. The QED features are markedly similar to
processes now familiar in solid-state physics, such as
superconductivity, and have led the company to conclude that "solid-
state fusion" is a more accurate and fruitful characterization of the
field than the term “cold fusion”

Before his historic work at Utah University with his associate Dr.
Stanley Pons, Professor Fleischmann taught electrochemistry at the
University of Southampton, Britain>s equivalent to MIT. There he was
named a Fellow of the Royal Society, and served as Council president
of the International Society of Electrochemistry.

Initially inspired by Alfred Coehn>s groundbreaking work on proton
conduction in the late 1920s, Dr. Fleischmann labored privately and
tirelessly in the early eighties to deepen his understanding of
quantum electrodynamics, which, he believed, should allow low-
temperature coherent fusion phenomena. After his demonstration of this
effect in Utah and the March '89 announcement, he continued his QED
work – in obscurity as far as the media was concerned, but with
excellent backing. First, Toyota>s research and development institute
funded his efforts in France, and subsequently he worked in Italy with
the support of several prestigious Italian energy labs.

At D2Fusion, Prof. Fleischmann will work in conjunction with Dr.
Thomas Passell, the firm>s CTO and a former manager in the Electric
Power Research Institute>s Nuclear Power Division, who directed the
North American power industry>s investigations of "cold fusion"
phenomena for five years. Fleischmann will also aid and consult with
top Los Alamos physicists at D2Fusion>s New Mexico R&D laboratory.

D2Fusion CEO Russ George notes, "Dr. Fleischmann>s genius inspired a
generation of audacious researchers, and there are now thousands of
scientific reports confirming the reality, safety and stunning promise
of solid-state fusion energy. Aided by his insight and most recent
discoveries, we believe it is time to start delivering that potential
to the world.

"True, our theoretical grasp of all the processes in play remains
imperfect, but neither can we fully explain the workings of aspirin,
acupuncture or high-temperature superconductivity. Unresolved
questions about their mechanisms have not stopped us from enjoying
their respective benefits, which are pale indeed compared to what
solid-state fusion offers. We are now certain that heat generation
from this process is copious, safe, inexpensive and reproducible, and
in terms of commercialization that seems like a perfect place to
start."

People say Tesla was nuts, a loon, crazy etc etc but at the same time
we are all using his alternating current and his radio technology.

If that isn>t a credible inventors resume then nothing ever will be
you see?

He powered his car with 2 rods made up of baked and compressed
elements. When everyone agreed he was using black magic he took the
box out of the car and he didn>t look back.

Professor nakamats invented the floppy disk. He holds over 3200
patents.

This was 1995. Nothing has come of it.

Oh, but his public statement is that he is "waiting for the world to
be ready for it"

You are clearly not "ready for it" jet.

Read the patent. There is nothing there to offer. He just offers[/quote]
a way to generate hydrogen and he is not even claiming 100%
efficiency. He just shows how to waste electricity making hydrogen.
[quote]
If his work is not credible to you, then what do you expect? Should
God come down to earth and beg you on his knees? Something tells me
you will debunk God if he would do that. hahaha

Those who build a working Joe Cell have all been told to shut up about
it. Bill Williams has been playing with his car engine and sharing
everything he found since he was 14 or something. Then one day he just
stopped talking about his hobby and vanished? He didn>t have anything
for sale and he had a dozen videos online showing goofy experiments.
He didn>t care about the results, he was just playing!

He found out it did not work and went on to something else.

It was his hobby, he didn>t care if it worked or not. He was just
playing.
[/quote]
And now he is playing with something else. It does not work.
[quote]
Lets not pretend you are an expert on the joy of experimentation.

You are not.
[/quote]
Well, actually I am.
[quote]

In his last video he was like: "wow, I disconnected the power and it
keeps running!"

Videos are proof only that he coulc make a video.

Google group postings are only proof you can write a google group
posting.

Probably his wife told him to stop wasting his time and her money.

Nice, you are trying on the tin foil hat here?

Where can I buy a working useful version of what he built?

Snip the stuff below since it shows more bad lab work with
unsubstatiated claims.

What do you mean? Does the quantity of quality information scare your?
[/quote]
No, it is the quality that is bad. You are good for quantity.
[quote]
Tesla was not good enough lets forget about Yull Brown, Stanley Allan
Meyer, Dad Garret, Paul Pantone, Bill Williams, Ted Zettergren,
Nakamats, Alexander Rabinovich,L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich,
J. Heywood and Bill Richardson?

Lets see again, meyer was a convicted fraud, Brown is pushing something[/quote]
that does not exist etc.

[quote]Nice try but it>s not very convincing now it is.

There are no real measurents,

You are now trying to badge-debunk real world demonstration with your
uninformed opinion?

only vague assumptions.

The way you keep repeating the same preconceaved arguments is quite


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com