Implosion Tests

[djdsfhakdfhlksdhklf]

Good proof, we see no explosion taking place, pur 1850 - 1 water in gas state comming back to water, as principle, that hho is generoative implosion.

Great for takning orgone together.

[badw0lfvirus]

thats the prettiest cell heartbeat i think ive seen to date.

can I ask what kinda voltage were you using for this test??? wasnt straight AC wall power was it???

Thanks for sharing that :D Brilliant.

[TheOmegaNecro]

Actually. We can directly measure the potential energy emmited by any kind of magnet:

(Can't link here so I linked on your channel)

[TheOmegaNecro]

Now. Let's think outside the box here. What if we built a machine that does not reside within the confines of our physical space? Sweet. Let's build a machine in hyperspace. There's theoretically infinite energy within hyperspace and you can tap that with even a machine without 100% efficiency and still get *infinite energy.* But. It's. Still. Not. A "Free Energy Machine." Because it does *not* create energy out of nothing. It's pulling energy out of hyperspace and converting it to usable energy

[TheOmegaNecro]

Let's speculate you created a machine with 100% efficiency in every part of the machine itself. You still must accommodate for air friction, gravity upon moving parts, and other things that are outside of your control on the earth.

So then you say: "Lets move it to the vacuum of space? Far enough away that gravity and surface friction are negligible.

That's nice. You are as close to 100% as possible. But you're still nowhere near breaking the barrier to "creating free energy."

[TheOmegaNecro]

That's all fine and dandy. However, you are missing the fundamental definition of a "Free Energy Device." A "Free Energy Device" is one which literally creates more usable energy than the total energy put into it. As we increase efficiency with these magnetic bearings, superconducting electrical components, and whatever else you're only moving the efficiency asymptotically towards 100%. This is the limitation of a conventional "Free Energy Device."

[activiafibras]

Youre not imploding anything...what you are really doing is combining hydrogen and oxygen (on an explosion, by the way) to form water, wich occupies less volume than gas, so pressure inside the cilinder decreases and atmospheric pressure pulls piston inwards.

[FreeGlobalEnergy]

Since you have a magneto I want to throw an idea your way. I asked an ex military man if he had ever seen any free energy devices while in service. He immediately told me in an underground warehouse he saw self charging batteries run from a magneto. I was curious if a small electric motor run from the battery could spin the magneto & if the magneto would produce more output than input. I know its supposed to be impossible but so was reaching Mach 1 speeds.

[TheOmegaNecro]

Free energy is impossible because there is absolutely nothing in this universe that is even 100% efficient, let alone 100+% efficient. This is because in every reaction, in every motion of a mechanical part, in every part of any machine energy is lost through friction, heat, the forces required to move the parts of the machine, and plenty of other places I can't even think of.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

1

Per your education it is impossible. Nasa's own website tells that physicists were saying that reaching Mach 1 is impossible. All of their incredible amount of education led them to the conclusion that if there were an engine capable of producing enough power then wind drag would pull the jet back. The faster the the engine the more the drag. Impossible.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

2

They said there is no such engine capable of accomplishing those speeds, a jet would fly apart at Mach 1 & the pilot's brain could not think fast enough to maneuver at those speeds. So what did inventors do? They built an engine to supersede Mach 1 in order to compensate for wind drag, strengthened the jet & added computers to think fast for the pilot.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

3

What you say is impossible is only based upon machines you have available to you, not what Nasa has in secret which is always 30 or more yrs beyond your present awareness. Everything is always said to be impossible. The 1st pace maker filled an entire wall, 1 Dr said he could reduce that machine to the size of a cigarette pack & he was ridiculed by his peers. Why? because it is impossible... But obviously Not !

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

4

Your cell phone today contains 4x the processing power of the most powerful CIA computers of 1960s Impossible right? Everything gets smaller, more powerful yet runs on significantly less electrical current. Calculate the current used to run CIA's computers up against your cell phone. Impossible in 1960s but not now. Today there are printable circuit boards, no more soldering & those use even less current to get the same job done.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

5

Today there are magnetic bearings which eliminate friction at that point. They are called magnet motors but they are not the same as other motors actually propelled or assisted by magnets. Motors are becoming more & more efficient, magnet bearings in a generator or alternator are also more efficient. These are used on some windmills which require far less wind to turn it.

[WorldAwareness2525]

6

If the motor continues to eliminate drag & alternators continue to eliminate drag both using less electricity yet gaining output aren't we going to cross over the limitations we strictly set as fundamental laws? haven't we already crossed that threshold a long time ago but all this is so slowly integrated into society that we barely notice? Do we need to back up & carefully analyze all of history to study everything said to defy particular laws, a mindset of self limitations up to present?

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

7

The Very 1st usage of the word Free Energy referred to radiant energy. Heat energy that for instance radiates from an electric motor when the motor's purpose is to power something & not designed to heat a room therefore the radiant heat is Free Energy & can be used for other things. The term has been used for centuries in science literature but some have attempted to remove the word Free Energy yet not all physicists agree with this decision.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

8

The term today by many in the field of physics now refer to Free Energy as energy that is created & on this planet is impossible, but to the average person Free Energy is loosely referred to as fuel they get free of charge such as the solar energy that enters a solar panel. It took energy to build the panel & the sun produces the solar fuel & it's that solar fuel which is monetarily free, therefore by those terms the Solar panel is a free energy device

[WorldAwareness2525]

9

As you never have to mine, refine or fill the solar panel with fuel, at present time you never have to pay someone for the use of solar fuel & you never have to pay tax on solar fuel... Yet. Just like everything miniaturizes & gains in power so has the solar panel in the lab. The once huge single roof panel now fits in the palm of your hand, just as powerful & much cheaper to make, this is truly a Free Energy device & further advancement they will run off star & moonlight, all with 0 friction

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

10

Something everybody overlooks is when you see a magnet motor where a current is applied then output is greater than input, Defies laws Right? No, not when you have magnets assisting with rotation. Science does this all the time, it remains impossible until a meter can be designed to measure magnetic force. The force assists in rotation therefore calculates into energy input. None of those motors are defying physics unless outright fakes.

[TheOmegaNecro]

@WorldAwareness2525

At the present moment we are theorizing that "Free Energy" is simply impossible. Not that something is doing it and we can't explain it. The closest thing you have to an actual rebuttal is NASA's old theory on passing Mach 1. Other than that you are misconstruing the idea of a "Free Energy Device." Think about it this way. We are breaking down the very fundamental building blocks of the universe as we know it and finding *what they are made of *!

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

11

Many articles for 70yrs read, Scientists say Bee defies the laws of physics or Scientists say it is impossible for the bee to fly. The basis was on heavy body weight vs small wing size. Nothing would calculate to account for this. It was not until science had a specific tool, digital photography, that could catch every phase of wing movement before it could then be determined that this complicated movement of the wings moved more air. Now bee flight is scientifically possible

[TheOmegaNecro]

@WorldAwareness2525

Again, that's nice. But no one was saying "Bee flight is impossible," They were simply stating that it is a particular oddity in nature, and they simply could not explain it. It was only that the general public heard this statement that the notion that a bee's flight is impossible came into creation. But even so. The bee IS PHYSICALLY FLYING. Scientists could simply not explain it at the time. It's not like the situation with "Free Energy Machines" now.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

Sorry but you are wrong, it's simply 1 topic you missed all your life. In 2005 researchers at Cal Tech finally solved the mystery of bee flight. For decades it was a problem scientists could not solve. In 1934, esteemed French entomologist August Magnan wrote in Le vol des insectes that, with the help of his lab assistant, he had deduced that bee flight contradicted the principles of aerodynamics and should, therefore, be impossible. Search the term then study the history

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

Google: BBC - BBC One Programmes - Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds ...

May 14, 2010 ... The confusion started over 70 years ago when a French entomologist calculated that bee flight was aerodynamically impossible. ...

[TheOmegaNecro]

@WorldAwareness2525

Great. Your wording is better than mine. This ONE instance where something thought to be impossible which turns out to be possible is still completely irrelevant.

A: We knew it must be possible since the bee was, in fact, flying.

B This is a bee. Not a machine that creates energy out of nothing.

[TheOmegaNecro]

@WorldAwareness2525

If we have not found a single way to supercede the First Law of Thermodynamics now, then it will probably stand for much longer. And in my opinion, only be usurped when we can actually break out of this dimension and tap into the very hyperspace which our universe spawned from.

[TheOmegaNecro]

@WorldAwareness2525

However let me clear up *one more time*. I am talking about creating a machine which has over 100% efficiency! NOT a machine that produces infinite or supremely cheap energy. THOSE machines are *entirely* possible, In fact I myself have seen some truly awe-inspiring machines which create untold amounts of energy.

[TheOmegaNecro]

@WorldAwareness2525

But these machines are not creating energy out of nothing, simply converting mass amounts of energy into mass amounts of usable energy. So don't look back in 50 years and snicker that you were right when in reality you are still wrong.

[TheOmegaNecro]

@WorldAwareness2525

And with that, good sir. I bid you adieu. I have more important things to do than argue with an ill-educated conspiracy theorist over the impossibilities of a Free Energy Machine.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

A

You call it quits pretty quickly. I want to make it very clear that I don't twist the meaning of Free Energy. I looked up when the term was first coined & the term Definition: Gibbs free energy is a thermodynamic property that was defined in 1876 by Josiah Willard Gibbs & his original meaning of the word is nothing like your modern day interpretation of the word at all.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

B

After many years of monitoring heated debates I wondered why the two minds were at odds. I realized that there is a language barrier of some sort between inventors & physicists. Inventors don't know all of the proper terminology & Physicists have no capability of simplifying their terms much like listening to woman describing a doo hickey but after a few yrs I figured out where the language barrier was with people in my FreeGlobalEnery channel

[WorldAwareness2525]

C

The language barrier is in the different interpretations of the word Free Energy. Once I understood the modern physicists interpretation which is not the same interpretation as in 1876 then I could fully comprehend what you are explaining but if your going to make comments at all on such non mainstream science channels then you should be prepared to clarify your specific interpretation of Free Energy.

[TheOmegaNecro]

Clarify my interpretation of Free Energy? Have you even read my comments?

I was going to quote my definition of free energy here. But I stated it too many times to even fit. So please. Look up. And tell me again that I didn't state quite. explicitly. unambiguously. and irreverently clearly my position on what free energy is.

Secondly. I know more about Gibbs Free energy than you can possibly know. I have studied it in great detail, and it has much more to do with chemical reactions than machines

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

D

But seriously, if you had a machine that tapped into a source of energy that powered your car & house for your lifetime. Never paid a penny for that fuel then if someone asked you if that was a free energy device then you would say no? If they asked if you ever have to fill it with fuel or pay a penny for fuel then you say no but if it is not a free energy device then just exactly what would you call such a machine since it is monetarily free energy?

[TheOmegaNecro]

In a very base sense you can call it a "Free Energy Machine." But in physics land, in math land, and in reality it is not a "Free Energy Device." It's simply converting one kind of energy into another kind of energy at little to no cost. Simple as that.

What would I call it? I would call it free energy, because I do not care to have this entire argument with every ill-educated naysayer conspiracy theorist who is dying to tell me otherwise.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

LOL

Well there you go. That was rather my point. My oldest brother liked to study the dictionary & increase his verbal skills but he found that none of his friends understood a single word he said, every sentence that came out of his mouth received the reply, "What?" "What did you say?" "What does that mean?" so he had to reduce his verbal skills so the average person could understand him which I think today is 5th grade level

[TheOmegaNecro]

That's great. I did the same. I do the same. But more importantly, I'm educated on the things of which I speak. So before you go telling anyone about some newfangled free energy machine, pick up a college textbook and read some hard, fact-based science so you don't come off sounding ignorant to someone who knows what they are talking about.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

A-1

You keep touching on the word conspiracy theorist in a derogatory manner. Are you aware of the meaning of conspiracy & the word theory? Do you know how often courts sentence people for things like Conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to murder etc etc etc. Once you fully comprehend the dictionary term you will quickly understand that people conspire all the time.

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

A-2

if someone conspired to trap you in a ponzi scheme & you suspected it prior to investing money then you now created a conspiracy theory because you haven't proven it yet but once it hits the court & evidence is revealed then it becomes a conspiracy fact. Tom Brokaw said in an interview that most of the conspiracy theories turned out to be true

[WorldAwareness2525]

@TheOmegaNecro

A-3

What about the conspiracy theories that don't pan out? Lets say you plan to rob a bank & I wonder into your basement & see blueprints for banks, lots of weapons & black ski masks so I announce to the public that OmegaNecro is planning to hit the 5 major banks & list the banks by name. You then decide to cancel the bank jobs due to the publicity so where does that leave me in the public eye when my conspiracy theory doesn't pan out?

[TheOmegaNecro]

That is where you are neglecting to read my entire comment. Not once have I simply said: "Conspiracy theorist." I have always said. "ill-educated conspiracy theorist." And that makes all the difference. Conspiracy theorists have their place in the world, and I'm not saying otherwise. What I am, however, saying is that an ill-educated conspiracy theorist is like being an uneducated teacher. Teachers are great. Uneducated or ill-educated teachers do more damage than good.

[similarvoid]

Wow great! Finally I see a "old thought experiment" on the Joe Cell executed. Thanks for sharing this demonstrative video!

[frankwillissa]

actuallyoon another look at this it appears to a rarely known effect known in laymans terms as "boiling". not the bubbles rising to the top in. thanks fuckingnewguy for correcting me on that.

[fuckingnewguy]

This is a great video that does in fact show the implosion dynamic that has been debated by many for a long time now. I bet the piston would move even farther if there was a built in one way check valve for the air flow, just like in a real engine. I can't tell if the piston is completely hollow or capped on the end.

[frankwillissa]

looks like Electrolysis 101.

[fuckingnewguy]

Electrolysis 101 does not include implosions you dumb ass. These bubbles are comming from a stage 3 Joe cell! You should know what you are talking about before you make degrading off hand comments.  You are jack ass and I bet you here that alot.

[Teslatez]

theory says that once charged with cosmic power, the cell runs without electrolisys... is it right man? im getting mine working... but i need some explanations.

[mensmaximus]

Well I was talking to a quarter million listeners on a phone in radio show this week, telling them about my friend's insistence on Implosive technology as a savior of this explosive technological world, via Schauberger. How realistic was I in saying this? His site is waternature dot com.

[DoctorAwesome]

Implosion technology is interesting, but we should watch out considering that the Nazi's first thought of it in WW2, so perhaps it comes with some kind of... negative connotations.

Although I am quite intrigued by the ideas.

The first machines made were using fans and an "implosive" shape which the air traveled.

Think... two gears, the left one is turning clockwise and the right is turning counter clockwise.

[KnightChatX]

The world heavily realies on the explosive/explosion technologies and less of the Implosive technologies, but implosive is good for underwater turbine generators, compressors, and air.

[bejakitus]

lol people have to do more research before they ask funny things

[bejakitus]

hehhehe thats great.

one of the best experiments ive seen on here so far

[cfootball10]

is this your cell

[mikkoanttilainen]

the remainder is cooled as volume per molecule increases. for the rest of the negative pressure, atmosphere helps here easing in the piston. enough of the total volume decrease, resulting in an equilibrium of volume, heat and pressure. a portion of steam turns to liquid, another portion remains gaseous. question remains whether insulated system would end up with decreased volume.

[fuckingnewguy]

Dude, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[mikkoanttilainen]

no insulation > heat escapes immediately through thin walls via radiation, rather than remaining there for the gas to use it for expansion. assume remaining vibration energy of h2o has a 30% absolute increase (100K) prior to some of it collapses to liquid.

[mikkoanttilainen]

if its really 2H2+O2 (both gas) the result (H2O gas ( steam)) should take exactly 1/2 the space the reactants had plus minus any expansion due to excess heat. lets say the volume was 10% of reactant gases > outcome should equal 95% of the original volume not counting expansion of gas due to excess heat.

[psammons]

Very nice joe cell, cool pulsating.

I see that there is water droplets on the walls. When the H2+O burns in a closed system it turns into H20 right, thus taking up less room. So it 'appears' to implode. I wonder if you put in more gas if it would push it out?

[stonedfenix]

does oxidizing hydrogen cause the implosion? or is this the famed brown gas? I see water droplets tho. anyways nice stage 3 joe cell, pulsates really nice.