| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:09 am Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
 |
|
On Oct 9, 11:48 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
[quote]knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:52 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:41 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_frm/thread/...
But you DORKS don>t believe in REAL EXPERIMENTS.
That>s the point that you miss entirely. The whole of science is built
on experiments save for the work of the cosmologists since they have no
access to experimental galaxies. But the basic science is supported by
experiment here on Earth. The physical laws we support were established
as proven hypothesis to become theories (the nonscience use of the word
is at odds with the way scientists use it) and the repeated support of
the theories finally lead to them being called laws. No exceptions are
permitted. And when wants to modify them it is up to the claimant to
provide the proof of the moderation or of the limited validity of such
laws. You are not permitted to demand acceptance of such claims by
insisting that the disproof remains with others. The proof for
extraordinary claims falls on the claimant.
FK
The proof is in the simple experiment which you refuse to do.
So far you refuse to do the experiment. You have had more than
ten years and you still are refusing.
No "laws" of physics are broken and NO SUCH CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN MADE
AS SUCH.
Claims to split hydrogen using less energy than you get back
from it violates conservation of energy.
[/quote]
That isn>t what the claims are in the patents.
[quote]No such claim has EVER BEEN MADE.
You get out what you put in.
Put in HH0 + an electron or two and you get out the same things in a
diferent form.
That is standard electrolysis.
[/quote]
"Electrolysis is a general definition for using electrons to separate
water.
Meyer>s "Electrical Polarization Process" is NOVEL
[quote]Meyer claimed he was doing
something special. If he is doing standard electrolysis, then
he did nothing new. If he claims something else, he is claiming
to violate the laws of physics.
Claiming to be vibrating bonds apart violates laws of physics.
No commment?
Claiming to get energy from teh nucleus violates laws.
No comment?
Having smiley faces on electrons violates something.
Lazy, cheap, know it all, "scientist?"[/quote] |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
gabydewilde
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, pv+use...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
[quote]fkas...@sbcglobal.net writes:
That>s the point that you miss entirely. The whole of science is built
on experiments save for the work of the cosmologists since they have no
access to experimental galaxies.
Cosmologists do experiments too. You can>t have science without making a
hypothesis and testing it. *
[/quote]
What about parroting text books indefinitely?
That surely is better than doing the research?
I have doug, don, fred and rabbit man to back up my claim.
We clearly have a greater truth by consensus on our side.
.....maybe not....
_____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Eeyore
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
gabydewilde wrote:
[quote](PV) wrote:
fkas...@sbcglobal.net writes:
That>s the point that you miss entirely. The whole of science is built
on experiments save for the work of the cosmologists since they have no
access to experimental galaxies.
Cosmologists do experiments too. You can>t have science without making a
hypothesis and testing it. *
What about parroting text books indefinitely?
[/quote]
It>s you who>s the parrot here ! Except you>re parroting nonsense.
Graham |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
gabydewilde
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
On Oct 10, 8:42 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]gabydewilde wrote:
(PV) wrote:
fkas...@sbcglobal.net writes:
That>s the point that you miss entirely. The whole of science is built
on experiments save for the work of the cosmologists since they have no
access to experimental galaxies.
Cosmologists do experiments too. You can>t have science without making a
hypothesis and testing it. *
What about parroting text books indefinitely?
It>s you who>s the parrot here ! Except you>re parroting nonsense.
Graham
[/quote]
jajajajaja
lie to me MOAR !
Have you managed to torture Paul Pantone to death already?
http://geetfriends.net
What monsters you are!
Lie to me MOAR petroapologists!
You go>n makes the point for me now.
____
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/stanley-allan-meyer/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/6
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/Yull-Brown/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/9
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/garrett-carburetor/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/5
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
doug
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 11:48 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 10:52 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:41 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_frm/thread/...
But you DORKS don>t believe in REAL EXPERIMENTS.
That>s the point that you miss entirely. The whole of science is built
on experiments save for the work of the cosmologists since they have no
access to experimental galaxies. But the basic science is supported by
experiment here on Earth. The physical laws we support were established
as proven hypothesis to become theories (the nonscience use of the word
is at odds with the way scientists use it) and the repeated support of
the theories finally lead to them being called laws. No exceptions are
permitted. And when wants to modify them it is up to the claimant to
provide the proof of the moderation or of the limited validity of such
laws. You are not permitted to demand acceptance of such claims by
insisting that the disproof remains with others. The proof for
extraordinary claims falls on the claimant.
FK
The proof is in the simple experiment which you refuse to do.
So far you refuse to do the experiment. You have had more than
ten years and you still are refusing.
No "laws" of physics are broken and NO SUCH CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN MADE
AS SUCH.
Claims to split hydrogen using less energy than you get back
from it violates conservation of energy.
No such claim has EVER BEEN MADE.
You get out what you put in.
Put in HH0 + an electron or two and you get out the same things in a
diferent form.
That is standard electrolysis.
"Electrolysis" is a general term for using A x V to do a process.
Meyer claimed he was doing
something special.
And the patent officials agreed under Sec 101
35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
"The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
PAT #4936961
But YOU think the guys in the patent office of "Critical Review" are
morons and don>t know how to read a meter or "let Meyer slip something
into his cell."
[/quote]
Yes, the patent office people are not qualified to make decisions. Look
at all the things that are being patented now. Microsoft patented
the page-up and page-down key. This means that the patent examiner
had never used a computer.
[quote]
If he is doing standard electrolysis,
He wasn>t.
"Cold process."
[/quote]
Why does electrolysis have to be hot.
[quote]
then
he did nothing new.
He did.
And YOU can too if you could follow directions.
[/quote]
I have build the same number of these that you have.
[quote]
If he claims something else, he is claiming
to violate the laws of physics.
His claims are his patents.
[/quote]
If so, there is nothing either new or interesting in them.
[quote]
Claiming to be vibrating bonds apart violates laws of physics.
Cite?
[/quote]
Read any book on chemistry.
[quote]
No commment?
I take time to read before I comment, unlike you.
[/quote]
So how much have you read now?
[quote]
Claiming to get energy from teh nucleus violates laws.
Cite?
[/quote]
See any book on physics.
[quote]
No comment?
You are blind.
Good enough?
[/quote]
So that means you have no ability to make any comment
on the physics.
[quote]
Having smiley faces on electrons violates something.
Lazy, cheap, know it all, "scientist?"
http://www.rense.com/general82/wtr1.htm
http://www.rense.com/general82/wtr2.htm
http://www.rense.com/general82/chall.htm
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer>s Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zettergren@swipnet.se
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$1@client2.news.psi.net>...
For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'. As far as I
know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
'investment'. Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
THE CONSPIRACY).
After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously working
under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
unjust guilty verdict.
As far as I know, Meyer>s home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I>d
stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
records of the trial.
Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
City, county, etc., date(s)??? Possibly an official case name?
Thanks.
[/quote]
You keep posting this as if repeating nonsense will somehow make
it true.
[quote]
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
AT FIRST:
You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don>t understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.
In a nuclear reaction you don>t need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
Stanley Meyers method>s have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.
[/quote]
Claim to violate the laws of physics right here. Also this
claims that his method has nothing to do with his patents.
[quote]
HOW TO?
As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that>s the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It>s a normal RC-circuit.
Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to Ohio!
Ted!
From:
http://www.rense.com/general72/oinvent.htm
History Of 'New Energy'
Invention Suppression Cases
By Gary Vesperman
garyvesperman@yahoo.com
6-19-6
This is the third version of my compilation of specific energy
suppression cases. This time I decided to get serious.
I thoroughly reviewed my own files and a few web sites pertaining to
energy suppression. Deleted were some cases that didn>t appear to be
authentic suppression. I also incorporated some thoughtful comments
that had been emailed to me this last week.
About three days ago, I received an amazingly timely phone call from
Byron Wine in Virginia. For more than three decades he has been
collecting energy information which he posts on his site
byronwine.com. I included some of his very interesting material.
I think that Congress should write, introduce, and pass a bill titled,
"Energy Inventor Protection and Energy Patent Declassification Act of
2006". Included should be 24/7 protection of energy inventors by armed
guards, and declassification of 4000 energy patents unfairly held in
secret by the U.S. Patent Office.
[/quote]
Paranoia is not good for your health.
[quote]
If energy journalist Dr. Eugene Mallove really was murdered by a
pathetic pair of drug addicts, then that doesn>t count as an authentic
suppression case. However, I remember reading that the very next day,
Gene was to drive three hours to Washington to demonstrate a verified
table-top energy device. I can>t find a reference. I would like to
present his slaying as a "coincidence (?)".
Note that during just in the last two months, there have been three
incidents of energy inventors threatened with death by gun-toting
thugs, possibly employed by the oil companies or large banks to squash
competition. Maybe not to worry, however. I and quite a few other
energy researchers have still not been threatened to be "fitted with
cement boots" or whatever.
Gary Vesperman Henderson, Nevada
[/quote]
The stuff posted below is total crap and it is a waste of bandwidth
to leave it in a reply. I am just astonished at how much credit
for supression the laws of physics are getting. Free energy does
not work, there is nothing to surpress. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Lancaster
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
doug wrote:
[quote]
Note that during just in the last two months, there have been three
incidents of energy inventors threatened with death by gun-toting
thugs, possibly employed by the oil companies or large banks to squash
competition.
[/quote]
But far more likely by individuals who have had their life savings
stolen through an outright scam.
--
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 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Eeyore
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
doug wrote:
[quote]Don Lancaster wrote:
doug wrote:
Note that during just in the last two months, there have been three
incidents of energy inventors threatened with death by gun-toting
thugs, possibly employed by the oil companies or large banks to squash
competition.
But far more likely by individuals who have had their life savings
stolen through an outright scam.
Snipping junk is a good idea but this snip left the impression that
I posted this paranoid crap. This is all a fraud and my commeents in
the thread were pointing that out.
[/quote]
I noticed that. Don needs to pay more attention to getting attributions
correct.
Graham |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
doug
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
Don Lancaster wrote:
[quote]doug wrote:
Note that during just in the last two months, there have been three
incidents of energy inventors threatened with death by gun-toting
thugs, possibly employed by the oil companies or large banks to squash
competition.
But far more likely by individuals who have had their life savings
stolen through an outright scam.
Snipping junk is a good idea but this snip left the impression that[/quote]
I posted this paranoid crap. This is all a fraud and my commeents in
the thread were pointing that out. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:31 am Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
On Oct 10, 4:33 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:41 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_frm/thread/...
But you DORKS don>t believe in REAL EXPERIMENTS.
That>s the point that you miss entirely. The whole of science is built
on experiments save for the work of the cosmologists since they have no
access to experimental galaxies. But the basic science is supported by
experiment here on Earth. The physical laws we support were established
as proven hypothesis to become theories (the nonscience use of the word
is at odds with the way scientists use it) and the repeated support of
the theories finally lead to them being called laws. No exceptions are
permitted. And when wants to modify them it is up to the claimant to
provide the proof of the moderation or of the limited validity of such
laws. You are not permitted to demand acceptance of such claims by
insisting that the disproof remains with others. The proof for
extraordinary claims falls on the claimant.
FK
The proof is in the simple experiment which you refuse to do.
No "laws" of physics are broken and NO SUCH CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN MADE
AS SUCH.
Lazy, cheap, know it all, "scientist?"
On the contrary, Junior Dummy. Those who make spectacular claims that
appear to be impossible in terms of the fundamentals of science ("high
voltage" alone is needed not energy to produce results for Meyers
machine) are required by the world to produce the proof and not just
demand that others produce the proof.
[/quote]
NEVER CLAIMED HIGH VOLTAGE "ALONE."
"Milli-amps."
[quote]But you foolishly believe that you
can continue to con others by insisting that you don>t have to prove the
claims and others are just required to prove it for you. However in your
case, since you have never built Meyer>s machine as you keep promising
to do, you are clearly incapable of support this charade.
FK
[/quote]
You don>t know what has been built and who built it.
YOU ALSO COULD PROVE ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT MEYER>S PROCESS DOESN>T
WORK AS TED DESCRIBED.
YOU could build the tank circuit in your sleep you are so smart BUT
YOU WON>T.
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer>s Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zettergren@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$1@client2.news.psi.net>...
[quote]For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'. As far as I
know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
'investment'. Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
THE CONSPIRACY).
After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously working
under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
unjust guilty verdict.
As far as I know, Meyer>s home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I>d
stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
records of the trial.
Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
City, county, etc., date(s)??? Possibly an official case name?
Thanks.
[/quote]
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
AT FIRST:
You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don>t understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.
In a nuclear reaction you don>t need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
Stanley Meyers method>s have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.
HOW TO?
As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that>s the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It>s a normal RC-circuit.
Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to Ohio!
Ted! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:06 am Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
On Oct 9, 9:15 am, pv+use...@pobox.com (PV) wrote:
[quote]fkas...@sbcglobal.net writes:
That>s the point that you miss entirely. The whole of science is built
on experiments save for the work of the cosmologists since they have no
access to experimental galaxies.
Cosmologists do experiments too. You can>t have science without making a
hypothesis and testing it. *
--
[/quote]
The Electric Universe
http://www.thunderbolts.info/online_videos.htm |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Fred Kasner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 4:41 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_frm/thread/...
But you DORKS don>t believe in REAL EXPERIMENTS.
That>s the point that you miss entirely. The whole of science is built
on experiments save for the work of the cosmologists since they have no
access to experimental galaxies. But the basic science is supported by
experiment here on Earth. The physical laws we support were established
as proven hypothesis to become theories (the nonscience use of the word
is at odds with the way scientists use it) and the repeated support of
the theories finally lead to them being called laws. No exceptions are
permitted. And when wants to modify them it is up to the claimant to
provide the proof of the moderation or of the limited validity of such
laws. You are not permitted to demand acceptance of such claims by
insisting that the disproof remains with others. The proof for
extraordinary claims falls on the claimant.
FK
The proof is in the simple experiment which you refuse to do.
No "laws" of physics are broken and NO SUCH CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN MADE
AS SUCH.
Lazy, cheap, know it all, "scientist?"
[/quote]
On the contrary, Junior Dummy. Those who make spectacular claims that
appear to be impossible in terms of the fundamentals of science ("high
voltage" alone is needed not energy to produce results for Meyers
machine) are required by the world to produce the proof and not just
demand that others produce the proof. But you foolishly believe that you
can continue to con others by insisting that you don>t have to prove the
claims and others are just required to prove it for you. However in your
case, since you have never built Meyer>s machine as you keep promising
to do, you are clearly incapable of support this charade.
FK |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Fred Kasner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 10:52 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 4:41 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_frm/thread/...
But you DORKS don>t believe in REAL EXPERIMENTS.
That>s the point that you miss entirely. The whole of science is built
on experiments save for the work of the cosmologists since they have no
access to experimental galaxies. But the basic science is supported by
experiment here on Earth. The physical laws we support were established
as proven hypothesis to become theories (the nonscience use of the word
is at odds with the way scientists use it) and the repeated support of
the theories finally lead to them being called laws. No exceptions are
permitted. And when wants to modify them it is up to the claimant to
provide the proof of the moderation or of the limited validity of such
laws. You are not permitted to demand acceptance of such claims by
insisting that the disproof remains with others. The proof for
extraordinary claims falls on the claimant.
FK
The proof is in the simple experiment which you refuse to do.
So far you refuse to do the experiment. You have had more than
ten years and you still are refusing.
No "laws" of physics are broken and NO SUCH CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN MADE
AS SUCH.
Claims to split hydrogen using less energy than you get back
from it violates conservation of energy.
No such claim has EVER BEEN MADE.
You get out what you put in.
Put in HH0 + an electron or two and you get out the same things in a
diferent form.
Claiming to be vibrating bonds apart violates laws of physics.
Claiming to get energy from teh nucleus violates laws.
Having smiley faces on electrons violates something.
Lazy, cheap, know it all, "scientist?"
[/quote]
Now let>s see that again: "Put in HHO + an electron or two and you get
out the same things in a diferent (sic) form."
But you claim this ia not a chemical change but what you describe is
what chemists call a chemical change. Also there is no such thing as HHO
since there are not enough eelctrons available for a hydrogen atom to
fomr two bonds. Also "put in an electron or two" constitutes an electric
current. Yet you keep insisting there is no electric current involved.
Carelessly stupid of you. You have just destroyed your whole claim by
lack of consistency.
Game over, Junior Dummy.
FK |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Fred Kasner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
PV wrote:
[quote]fkasner@sbcglobal.net writes:
That>s the point that you miss entirely. The whole of science is built
on experiments save for the work of the cosmologists since they have no
access to experimental galaxies.
Cosmologists do experiments too. You can>t have science without making a
hypothesis and testing it. *
[/quote]
Most of the processes that cosmologists focus on are of such large
extent in terms of matter and energy that a comparable terrestrial
experiment is generally not available.
FK |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
gabydewilde
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
On Oct 11, 1:39 am, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]
Carelessly stupid of you. You have just destroyed your whole claim by
lack of consistency.
Game over, Junior Dummy.
[/quote]
blablabla |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PV
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: Water Explosions Using Voltage |
|
|
fkasner@sbcglobal.net writes:
[quote]Most of the processes that cosmologists focus on are of such large
extent in terms of matter and energy that a comparable terrestrial
experiment is generally not available.
[/quote]
I>m thinking mostly of observational experiments, but there are direct ones
possible too. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
