nature is always a bit more smater than us and one step ahead, look close from the smallest to make the big and it'll make sense. Pay atention of what you got and not what you dream of...instead why dont you inspire people to realize that in the granular interaction we call life , theres no such thing as wasted or burned , is more of a convertion from one state to another. from being rested energy to self propelled matter.the force is more of an interaction and its lenght of actions in time.
@MrSergio1281 Both CMR and Halbach effect do not create a monopole magnet. All they do is to create a one sided bipolar magnet.Depending on their configuration and position they can reduce or redirect the unwanted polarity field while amplifying or concentrating the other . my point here is that de energy input for correlation and de correlation is less then the energy gain by the repelling or attraction force so you can virtual attract or repel by small input twist without violating any law.
@MrSergio1281 Both CMR and Halbach effect do not create a monopole magnet. All they do is to create a one sided bipolar magnet.Depending on their configuration and position they can reduce or redirect the unwanted polarity field while amplifying or concentrating the other . my point here is that de energy input for correlation and de correlation is less then the energy gain by the repelling or attraction force so you can virtual attract or repel by small input twist without violating any law.
@Sidneo14 you are right. A Halbach array is a special arrangement of permanent magnets that augments the magnetic field on one side of the array while cancelling the field to near zero on the other side (wikipedia) .This magnet array seems frighteningly close to a magnetic monopole.
It is impossible to create a usable linear kinetic energy from magnets because of their Dipolar nature they tend to cancel each other .but this doesn't mean one cannot acheave a usable linear kinetic energy by simply cloaking one pole or by correlating an area of magnet to reduce the strength of one polarity in favour of the other .
@Desertphile i would be cautious to do such affirmation before verification /watch?v=bK0Obzaybc8 this interesting video . google cloaking static magnetic field using meta materials .
@Desertphile i would be cautious to do such affirmation before verification watch?v=bK0Obzaybc8 this interesting video . google cloaking static magnetic field using meta materials .
@Desertphile as you can see in the video the energy required for the twist of the magnets is less than the energy gained by the repel force of the magnets . I do not claim over unity can be achieved using this but i think we should be humble in our affirmations there is much more to learn and this is a new interesting behaviour of magnets is a good start .
PS better video here watch?v=m4m81JjZCJo&feature=player_detailpage#t=134s
@Desertphile Nothing is impossible. some things are improbable, assuming our model of reality is a good approximation of the mystery of the universe.
Current understanding of physics does not explain about 80% of the mass in the universe, and like all generations we "know" we have it right this time. we don't.
intuitively, most of us understand that an idea's popularity is not an appropriate measure of its validity. Yet those who question any widely accepted theories are labelled ignorant, cranks or charlatans.
Oh well, I agree with you about that, but I never saw that comment.
Anyone who thinks he can get "something for nothing" without maybe fusion is most likely a schizophrenic whackjob with delusions of government persecution and magical thinking.
The comment *I* was responding to was here closer below where you seem to equivocate in your response when challenged about
mass defect being converted to energy. Whether it is enthalpic or
not does not matter. Energy is mass, mass is energy.
Wait...! You are 58! 58?! And you don't know what the word 'rhetorical' means? LMAO!
That is fucking ridiculous! You should be ashamed of yourself! What the fuck have you been doing all your life that you have somehow managed NOT learn what 'rhetorical' means? Here was I thinking you were just some halfwitted brainwashed grunt or something, but you are 58! Jesus!
This was a great video. I've never seen a perpetual motion machine work - but I can't wrap my mind around why we can't make one work.
To your point, magnetism contains kinetic energy and as such is force - not (electrical) energy itself. I'm with you so far. However, we all know that a properly directed force can be converted into electricity.
So, if you can properly "tune" or direct magnetic lines, I don't understand why we can leverage that force to be turned into work, much like wind.
Aren't you inducing a current, albeit a small one, in the pin by moving it across a stationary magnet? A moving magnetic field (either by moving the magnet or the metal) induces a current in the metal.
Pay close attention 1- It proves that you were mistaken in your equation of how much energy it takes to free hydrogen from oxygen. 2- double-back feed will not cause 'flame to burn forever' but for as long as there is WATER, For someone who so attempts to dispel new knowledge by stating that science says NO you seem to be ignorant of what E=MC2 actually means. The ENERGY is in mass, ie. the mass in this case of HYDROGEN = ENERGY. Now do you see what I mean by shooting you down at every turn?
What is your question; 'HOW' does this prove anything, or 'WHAT' does this prove? Because either you are inferring that television news lies to people - in this case Ralph Robinson of 'action6news' - in which case you are a conspiracy theorist - or you are claiming that hydrogen is not combustible and cannot be released from water, in which case you are ignorant of the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. Which is it, and what do you gain from so wantonly displaying your ignorance here?
@Gunner3210 No your limited beliefs are. Check out Half Past Human Clif High & see projections for "Free" energy coming up in the next year or so. Its here now in numerous forms, only The powers that Be (that obviously have usurped your mind, hopefully temporarily as we need you friend to be totally aware and conscious for the fight to win back the minds of the masses who presently live by TV, Media, Entertainment Ind & Mind Control games that fill their days and night. See The One Percent...
There are so many videos claiming "free energy"...they alway seem to have electrical clamps somewhere...looking rather fishy...I WANT to believe it more than anyone, I just haven't seen any solid evidence, other than fishy videos. If I knew I had free energy, I'd be banging on the studio doors of every TV station within 1000 miles of here, challenging anyone, showing everyone, sharing with all.
You can preach true science till ur blue in the face and these guys will not believe it.
Its like when a kid goes to a magic show and sees him pull a coin from thin air.
Its the same with Free Energy. The Stanley Meyers, or my favorites WITTS & Steorn, show them a magic Free Energy & they are convinced. Never wondering why they only demo these devices for donations, but never build them.
@dljc1979 Your full of it. If you had a means of generating free energy it would be worth BILLIONS. You would be stinking rich & on the news everywhere. Besides if it were possible and some know nothing hack like you could discover it then hundereds of other people would have also. It would be known to the world long ago if it existed.
@Texmurphy51 | you just don't get it do you? lots of free energy methods have already been invented and proved and have been around for a VERY LONG TIME and many of them have been reinvented and advertised over and over and every time they show em they disappear as fast as they appear and the inventors either die suddenly or are falsely imprisoned or just plain vanish, do you think the richest and most powerful people would allow this kind of stuff to be public? live in ignorance you fool..
@Texmurphy51 | there are so many methods for free energy now i couldn't even begin to count them, they are all over youtube for a start!!! hey! get some magnets and some electronics and a few lightbulbs and try it out for yourself loser!!! DON'T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY KNOW IT IS TRUE!!! TRY IT ALL OUT FOR YOURSELF!!!
@dljc1979 Again... If I could do it that easy I would see the dam thing for BILLIONS. There are thousands of inventors working on this with the goal of money in mind. Yet we dont see any device on the market. We only see youtube vids showing this working. Why would people who have created these devices sit on them, rather than selling them,(kits dont count cause they dont have to work).
@Texmurphy51 | "There are thousands of inventors working on this with the goal of money in mind. Yet we dont see any device on the market. We only see youtube vids showing this working" EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! there are plenty of youtube vids advertising this kind of stuff for sale, look around more. look for the advert about the water-hydrogen powered cars being manufactured in japan!!! proper car company!!! THE SUPER RICH OWN & CONTROL EVERYTHING AND THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE!!! GET A CLUE!!!
Your paranoid. If you create a working device then you will become one of these super rich people. I worked for a guy in the 70s who helped develop inventions & i can tell you if you actually could show that ANY of these devices worked, you would have investors killing each other to put money into it. This is what companies like Seorn,(nobody is shutting them down). They get suckers to invest then research continues forever. Open your eyes.
@Texmurphy51 | NOBODY WHO CREATES SOMETHING THAT COULD FUCK WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY SUPER RICH AND SUPER POWERFUL IS ALLOWED TO BECOME RICH!!! THERE IS NO REASON THAT A CORPORATION THAT IS SUPER RICH AND SUPER POWERFUL WOULD ALLOW ANY OF THAT FOR A FUCKING SECOND!!!!!!!!! AND I DIDN'T INVENT ANYTHING!!! TESLA INVENTED IT!!! IT'S A TESLA TURBINE!!! IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR FUCKS KNOWS HOW LONG!!!!!!!!!
@dljc1979 Well Bill Gates was a poor nobody college student who is now one of the Richest men in the world. So for you to say that nobody can become Rich on an invention is stupid.
A Tesla turbine is about 60% eff but does Not create Free Energy so what do you mean?
Did you every notice the more wrong somebody is, the more they YELL.
@Texmurphy51 | YOU ARE NOW JUST BEING OBTUSE AND ASSUMING, YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT YOU CAN THINK WHAT EVER THE FUCK YOU WANT TO THINK WHICH WE BOTH ALREADY KNOW IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO, PAY FOR IT YOU GOD DAMNED FOOL, PAY FOR IT FOR THE REST OF YOUR GOD DAMNED LIFE.
@dljc1979 Look at who is calling me obtuse & assuming. I am simply asking for Proof. You say that these devices are blocked by the Rich. Why would China, whos Gov owns everything, block these devices? China is Energy Hungry & Free energy would feed their people yet not effect the Rich because the Gov controls Everything.
It would only take one person to publish plans for a TRUE Free Energy Device online to break the control of these EVIL RICH. Once plans were it anyone could build it.
@dljc1979 The only think stopping YOU from see the Truth is your Belief and you lack of Education in Science. Your conspiracy theory about the EVIL RICH makes no sense. If thousands posess the knowledge of this device then, again, only one of them has to publish it on the internet & it will go viral. One selfless soul who wants to save the world instead of trying to make money, which you say in impossible since the EVIL RICH will stop him anyway. Where is that person who will publish findings
@dljc1979 If you dont pay for electricity, your either stealing it or have something like solar panels or windmills. You are NOT generating power from magnets in a free energy device.
If you Do have a device as you say then why not publish it online???
You would save the world by breaking the backs of the Oil companies you hate so much.
If your afraid send it to me and I will publish it.
@Texmurphy51 | what is you are not getting here? are you not understanding anything i am saying? I OWN A HOME-BUILT TESLA TURBINE (magnets?!) AND ALL MY ELECTRICITY COMES FROM THAT, SIMPLE, IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT HOW TO FUCKING MAKE ONE JUST LOOK ON THE SITE YOU ARE ON RIGHT NOW!!! THERE ARE SHITLOADS OF VIDEOS TELLING YOU HOW TO DO IT!!! IT'S EASY!!! LOOK FOR YOURSELF YOU DUMB CYNICAL BASTARD!!!!!!!!!
@dljc1979 Have you really watched this video??????
This guy is telling you that MAGNETIC FIELDS DONT CONTAIN ENERGY YOU CAN HARVEST.
IDIOT!!!!!!
This video says what you are telling me is impossible.
You say that you can generate all you own power from NOTHING, yet your too stupid to start a business selling the devices, or sell the idea to investors.
What powers your turbine??? Is it falling water or solar or wind?
If your telling me it runs on nothing then your full of it.
@Texmurphy51 | why do have i have to keep repeating myself? why are so obtusely blind to the words that are right in front of you? do you really need to deny and discount things that you can't deal with based on the slightest of your imperceptions? LAST WORDS ON THE SUBJECT THEN I AM FUCKING YOU OFF: MY TESLA TURBINE DOESN'T USE MAGNETS, FUCK MAGNETS, DON'T ASK ME ABOUT MAGNETS.
@Texmurphy51 ; Haw, good luck getting an honest answer from "dljc1979." He insists that his "Tesla turbine" provides all of his electricity, but he refuses to state what powers the turbine. I suspect it's plugged into the city power grid--- these people really are that stupid.
@Desertphile I keep trying to tell him if he does not want to mfg his Free Energy Tesla Turbine, perhaps he shoud release the plans on line and save the world by solving our energy problems. We could all build one and stop using coal burning power plants.
From what I've read so far about Tesla turbines, they run off of mechanical energy from a moving gas (such as steam). The difference is in using discs instead of blades like a standard turbine, and are more efficient/longer lasting as a result. For example, one site I went to showed images of people collecting solar to heat water into steam in order to power a tesla turbine.
I could be wrong, but I didn't see anything about magnets there.
@Texmurphy51 /watch?v=fJ3juM6vHwg If you are the type of person who thinks that 'pride comes before a fall' then you probably won't watch the clip I send you, in order to preserve your pride. If, on the other hand, you like to learn, you will watch and open your eyes.
@Texmurphy51 What is your question; 'HOW' does this prove anything, or 'WHAT' does this prove? Either you are inferring that television news lies to people - in this case Ralph Robinson of 'action6news' - making you are a conspiracy theorist - or you are claiming that hydrogen is not combustible and/or cannot be released from water, in which case you are ignorant of the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. Which is it, and what do you gain from so wantonly displaying your ignorance here?
@rarosera No TV news just reports what it sees. You telling me you Believe EVERYTHING you see on the TV news? They took this guys word as to what the dune buggy was operating on.
As for Hydrogen, yes you can run a motor with it. His claim however is that it created its own Energy.
Thats BS. You can split water but it takes more energy to split it than it gives back when you burn it.
I again say if this works where is it? Of the hundreds of claims to Free Energy where is one working device?
@rarosera Oh really? How interesting... so tell me, how much energy is needed to 'split it?'
More energy than you can get by burning it again.
There have been countless laboratory experiments using water and may other substances on how much energy it takes to split it & that in recombination. These are done to high accuracy.
NEVER has it been observed that more energy was gained by recombination of chemicals than it took to split them.
@Texmurphy51 So, why is it that you don't give an answer then? I think it's because you don't know the answer, if you did, you would prove yourself right. Instead it sounds like you are just generally guessing based on what you suppose.
@Texmurphy51 Yes, and the earth is flat, isn't it? I mean, that's what you've been told so it must be true... Oh wait, damn, if only it wasn't for copernicus and tesla, huh?
@Texmurphy51 Yes, absolutely I reject it - the parameters used reflect the results - hence why you have such a large margin (40% & 70%). You are using bad science - like co2 = global warming 'science'. There are scientists from Japan, France & Hungary demonstarting that what you are saying is false - and proving Tesla right. What, did you forget about Tesla? The most influential mind on the subject of abundant energy just about written out of history for proving as much.
@Texmurphy51 You are using 'global warming science', which has been totally discredited and everyone knows this, except you. By this I mean that you repeat what you believe is true rather than what you KNOW to be true. But you are right, Tesla didn't claim to generate free energy, instead he proposed to transmit wirelessly free energy 'harnessed' from the atmosphere. You might say it's static, but the lightning bolts that strike the earth at 13 per second don't come from a generator.
@rarosera I see, I use "global warming science" but YOU use, REAL science.
The science I use is the one that developed your computer, cellphone & all the other modern devices that you use.
Static electricity has been explored as a source of energy. There were experiments in the 60s trying to capture it. Lightning is powerful but the energy comes from movement of air so it is generated just as you can get energy from moving water. It does not come out of thin air but from the sun.
@Texmurphy51 You're mistaken there. First comes the invention then the science to demonstrate the principles by which the invention works, so don't put the cart before the horse. Tesla was not a scientist, he was an inventor, he created the aternating current generator by which ALL the things that you claim are the offspring of science came about. He offered to transmit wireless FREE ENERGY 'harnessed' from the atmosphere. True or false?
@Texmurphy51 Aha! So now it's plain for all to see... You are here arguing against something based on your beliefs WITHOUT having informed yourself on the opposing argument. The fact that you didn't know this about Tesla indicates willful ignorance on your behalf. There is no way it would have escaped you that Tesla intended to provide free electricity if you were really interested in learning about free energy. Busted dude! You call others here liars... (cont)
@rarosera How did you gather I dont know about Tesla? I simply asked you to show me the quote from Tesla that you base your claim that he created Free Energy.
Tesla said people could tap into his energy generator for free, NOT that the energy was being generated for free. He wanted to eliminate transmission lines.
Who are these countless inventors who have been killed,(give me a list).
@Texmurphy51 Not just Tesla's notes but his entire FBI sequestered records are online. He wanted to transmit energy wirelessly AND for free - not just free of wires but free as in gratis. And now just for all to see that you are usng the troll tactic of twisting words, here is what I wrote, " Tesla didn't claim to generate free energy, instead he proposed to transmit wirelessly free energy 'harnessed' from the atmosphere." So why did you write that I claimed he created free energy?
@Texmurphy51 By the way, I will continue to shoot you down at every turn for as long as you continue acting like a troll. Here's my next salvo; compile a list of inventors who have patented overunity devices and then disappeared, dropped out of society, committed suicide by shooting themselves several times from behind, been driven off roads, et al at your leisure. NOT compiling such list will indicative that you are a troll (and don't want your bubble burst) or you are mindfully ignorant. Go.
@Texmurphy51 "you have no idea of where the Tesla quotes came from." Thats post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, so well done showing your lack of intelligence. My first comment to you was a link /watch?v=a74uarqap2E - you said hoaxe/conspiracy theory. You have not looked at his patent, you have not seen that HHO generators are available on EBAY! You are a troll, you don't want to burst your bubble, and yes, i will continue to shoot you down, as demonstrated by this response.
@rarosera ."Thats post hoc ergo propter hoc argument" NO
Let me explain this so even YOU can understand it.
1. The Tesla documents are online for everyone to read.
2. I am asking you to point to his documents & show me the quotes to varify the statements you have made about Tesla. Prove to me he said what YOU claim.
Your Refuse to show proof but refer to a meaningless video.
Anyone can attach a device to a car & claim it runs on HHO.
@Texmurphy51 ' "Thats post hoc ergo propter hoc argument" NO.' Correction: YES. If you don't understand HOW your argument is post hoc I'll explain it to you - if you ask politely. I'm lightyears ahead of you pal, your further attempt to 'explain' highlights your lack of understanding of what post hoc ergo propter hoc means. If you did you'd understand that both your request and your ill-fated 'explanation' are redundant.
btw, You have a pathological opinion of the word 'meaningless.'
@Texmurphy51 Now answer the question: why did you write that I said something I didn't? I went on to show that you'd done this, so WHY? Is it because you're stupid or was it simply a mistake? And why do you expect me to illuminate you regarding Tesla's intentions after having refused to investigate whether or not countless inventors have patented 'free energy' devices and then disappeared?
@Texmurphy51 Only an imbecile would require me to repeat AGAIN what it is that you misrepresented - and I know that you are not THAT unintelligent, which leaves only the alternative; that you are dishonest. If you understood what my pointing out that yours is an 'post hoc' argument entails you'd see that both your request and your 'explanation' are redundant. NOW DO SOME RESEARCH INTO HOW MANY iNVENTORS HAVE DISAPPEARED AFTER PATENTING THEIR INVENTION and I will explain. Undestood?
@Texmurphy51 "Of all these hundreds of inventors only one needs to put his work on the internet & ALL WILL KNOW THE AMAZING SECRETS" Yes, so > /watch?v=ilz7zWISfd8 < here's me shooting both you and desertphile down. Don't pretend that you know what the post hoc argument is - if you did you would not have made it. And the reason you are NOT going to research the list you want is that 1- it's not easy to compile (and you like 'easy' tasks), 2 -You know that compiling it would burst your bubble.
@Texmurphy51 "1- how does it prove me wrong?" by showing that you were mistaken.
"E=MC2 does not apply here because there is no loss of mass." Thanks for demonstrating that you do not understand E=MC2.
"Energy is liberated ONLY when mass is lost, this does not happen when burning gas." WHAT does not happen when burning gas, loss of mass of release of energy? It seems like you are saying that burning gas does not liberate energy... is this what you are saying?
@Texmurphy51 "(funny your quoting science that you say in wrong about browns gas)"
Show me where I said this. Why gibber on about 'burning' when you should be talking about 'heat'? We are talking about energy here (that's why I brought up E=MC2 and am yet again using it to prove that you are mistaken, deluded or simply trolling. If you don't know that even chemicals are fundamentally ATOMS and all their properties hence subject to E=MC2 then you are beyond help.)
@Texmurphy51 Explain why you are going on about chemical reactions instead of energy? When the subject at hand is ENERGY trying to change subjects to chemical reactions could well be seen as TROLLING. Now, you know the term 'thermo' as in thermonuclear, thermodynamics, thermostat, well, it refers to the energy we call HEAT. Now, my point: Browns Gas avails the ENERGY - held in state as hydrogen in WATER - releasing/converting it into HEAT (that 'thermo' thing again). Can you refute this?
@Texmurphy51 "Energy is liberated ONLY when mass is lost, this does not happen when burning gas." WHAT does NOT HAPPEN when burning gas? Because what you wrote can only mean either, 'burning gas does not liberate energy (say, in the form of HEAT or LIGHT perhaps?) - or, 'gas burns without losing mass.' So, in case you're confused here is the question again... WHAT does NOT HAPPEN when burning gas?
@rarosera The answer is obvious. Energy of course is liberated when burning anything so the other choice is MASS. Mass is NOT lost in a normal chemical reaction.
I should not have to explain this.
You are just digging a deeper hole by arguing this & saying your proving me wrong.
Pack it up, get go online & read some basic Physics, then Nuclear Physics so you can understand the relationship between mass & energy.
@Texmurphy51 "Energy (...) is liberated when burning anything" so when Browns Gas - derived from water - is burning the energy liberated is that of water, no matter how circuitously. Clearly the energy released by flame or explosion derives from WATER. Now, if the amount of energy spent to liberate that energy from water is LESS than the energy gained, then you have OVERUNITY, aka 'free energy,'. And your theories (like Newton's) will be re-written to match the data, vindicating Tesla.
@Texmurphy51 Do you understand now? That's to say that if releasing HHO from water takes miliamps, and the spark needed to ignite it in a chamber is negligible compared to the energy released from the hydrogen, which can be converted into more electrical power than used to release the hydrogen - then what do you have... ? Go to wikipedia, look up spark-ignition engine and notice that hydrogen is one of the accepted fuels. Now will you accept that you might have been mistaken?
We were discussion your ignorent statement that the Energy from burning hydrogen was coming from its MASS.
You claim of overunity is simple to disprove.
You only need to take a small gas generator & run it on hydrogen, Take its output & power your "Browns Gas Generator", feed that gas into the generator.
Your generator should run, generate enough gas to keep running while powering some light bulbs.
@Texmurphy51 You wrote - "Energy is liberated ONLY when mass is lost," you then wrote "Energy of course is liberated when burning anything" - SOOOO... If Browns Gas burns, and burning liberates energy, then burning browns gas liberates energy (logic 101). If somehow, as you claim, this liberation of energy does not consume mass then you have a magical liberation of energy. You are saying some magical reaction allows BG to liberate energy without losing its mass. Or is this just your bad english?
@Texmurphy51 "take a small gas generator & run it on hydrogen," Nooooo.... 'take a small BROWNS GAS generator'... blah balh ' Why feed hydrogen when you can feed WATER? In fact, why not TRY something that works 'as directed by those who know from experience' instead of adding or altering things, being surprised that they then don't work, and not even imagining that perhaps the things you added and altered STOP it from working.
@Texmurphy51 "For some reason it NEVER WORKS." It never works because you are feeding hydrogen to a generator that's designed to be fed by water. This is not intended to offend now but It seems that your brain is not working properly. Inescapable things are somehow escaping you. Are you ingesting fluoride? This is a genuine question, really NOT intended to offend (I'm just trying to understand and perhaps bring your awareness to something).
"Anyone can attach a device to a car & claim it runs on HHO" Yes, just like anyone can claim that a device attached to a car that runs on HHO is a hoax. People CAN do and say anything they like, what's most frightening to some is when what is being said is true and what is done demonstrable. That's why centuries ago interested parties - like you - persecuted those who said the Earth was round.
@Texmurphy51 (cont...) declare that if they really DID have a free energy device they would be billionaires - and then argue about the fact that there have been countless inventors mysteriously killed or disappeared after having publically demonstrated their free energy devices - even when some of these inventors have been on NATIONAL TELEVISION NEWS. You know what that makes you? A TROLL. Well, enjoy your ignoarnce dude and enjoy the fact that you are free to do as you're ordered.
@Texmurphy51 When you say "why is he selling Experimental Energy kits in his website" - who exactly DO YOU MEAN by 'he'? Do you think the guy in the VIDEO is selling kits?
You don't see the point of posting that vid linked to a website selling 'Experiemntal Energy Kits'? You really don't. This is what I meant by the inescapable somehow managing to escape you (which means that you don't 'get' things everyone else gets). I bet you do ingest fluoride, don't you? That's why your IQ is so low.
@Texmurphy51 Yes, IQ so low that you have not realised that the link to a website has nothing to do with the guy in the video clip, or dragons den. FLUORIDE IQ.
@Texmurphy51 You see what I mean about your low IQ? Of course not, the questin is rhetorical, if you DID see I woulnd't have to point out that the world doesn't run according to what you do or don't believe.
@rarosera "the world doesn't run according to what you do or don't believe"
Maybe you better take you own advice here.
Your reference to my IQ is the action of a Super Troll. Why dont you argue with FACTS instead of stupid comments.
"the questin is rhetorical"
How is the question rhetorical. I simply am pointing out that after 3 years the product is NOT on the Market & now there are Experimental Kits. This is a sure indication that it was a FAILURE.
@Texmurphy51 It really is fun arguing with someone as deluded as you, although it is a bit like having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, but hey ho, we all have our vices...
So 1- You do not know what the word 'rhetorical' means. 2- You do not know of anything that was ever developed and remained 'not on the market' for 3 years or more and some time later came on the market - cos if you do that's another dead argument about 'sure indicators of failure'.
@Texmurphy51 Pointing out a FACT about your low IQ is not trolling, you continuously show low IQ grasp of the english language i.e. not knowing what the word 'rhetorical' means and thus demonstrating your stupidity by attempting to find something to answer, showing both that you are not bright enough to look the word up and are unaware that you are unaware of what it means, like a basic moron. Definition of MORON; a person affected with mild mental retardation, 2: a very stupid person
@Texmurphy51 None of what you say has any impact or importance whatsoever becase, as you have demonstrated, at the age of 58 you do not know the meanings of the words 'created,' 'rhetorical,' 'related to,' sure indicator,' 'dead argument'. aswell as demonstrating that you do not fully understanding that E-MC2 is not some kind of 'reaction' (as you state) but a physics maxim (you prob don't know what a 'maxim' is either). Now, should I go on?
@Texmurphy51 And still, even though there is nothing wrong with my english, and after having pointed it out TWICE you still fail to realise that there is no such thing as 'an E=MC2 reaction.' E=MC2 is a formula (or maxim), not a 'reaction' you can carry on arguing with me about this or you can get a little bit of re-education by listening to Einstein explain it himself /watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U and then, when you have watched and learned, you can apologise, cretin.
@Texmurphy51 "... I didnt say E=MC2 was a REACTION. That was YOU." Noooo... again your ridiculously poor knowledge of english lets you down. The quote you might have hoped to use to demonstrate if what you are saying is true is, "If you don't know that even chemicals are fundamentally ATOMS and all their properties hence subject to E=MC2 then you are beyond help." You didn't quote me because it demonstrates that you are lying, as 'SUBJECT TO' does not mean 'REACTION OF.' Duh! Halfwit.
If you burn Hydrogen it is a Chemical Reaction. YOU were the one that said it gave off extra energy in Browns Gas because E=MC2. An obvious mistake to anyone who understands Physics but you only NOW know your error because I pointed it out. Your attempt to backpedal your way out of this gross error.
No amount of Troll name calling will help, you only dig youself deeper.
Again YOU said a chemical reaction was powered by E=MC2.
@Texmurphy51 No. My 'quote' is NOT on another discussion, if it was you would have cut/pasted onto here, like this; "@Texmurphy51 So, now that you've learned from wikipedia that NASA uses 'cracked water' (sic) have you learned anything about your original opinion on 'the water powered car'? /watch?v=S44eRCr-O7o" You haven't quoted me because you can't, it was merely yet another stupid 'interpretation' arrived at through your singularly strange english. And look up '(sic)' moron.
@Texmurphy51 So, now not only have I proven you wrong to the extent that you are forced to abandon your so-called argument, but I have also shown anyone reading this that you don't own a dictionary - and if you do, you don't know how to use it, AND that you are dishonest, resorting to fabricating things in an attempt to support your untenable position. Bravo! You know what that means now? It means 'checkmate' again.
@rstevewarmorycom There is no measurable mass loss in chemical reactions. The energy that is produced in chemical reactions is due only to the change in the enthalpy of the system
@Texmurphy51 All he did was play it down as to size, and it is staggeringly small, but it is there! The rest of the authors on that page agreed that even binding energy represents mass. And yes, even when you raise an object in a gravitational field, it ALSO GAINS mass with respect to the reference frame!! Mass/energy and space/time are all interrelated in this way. The U of California spent a lot of time and money making sure that I had this down cold in my Physics curriculum.
@rstevewarmorycom I was NEVER arguing against the video. You didnt read my exchange.
My argument was with someone who said HHO got its "Free Energy" from an E=MC2 reaction so that buring it in an engine created more energy than it takes to create the gas.
This is the claim of Stanley Meyers, or my favorites W.I.T.T.S among others who say that their engines run on No Fuel.
Evey true scientist know that it take electricity to create a magnetic field. A magnetic field is a force that repels, electricity attracts. You can't have a magnetic field with without energy, ergo the magnetic field is the energy (applied force) which electricity creates. It has nothing to do with gravity, which is another, different kind of force.
Ive seen a few "free energy" videos out there and I feel your pain Desertphile. I had a go at debunking a few of them but its like playing whack-a-mole the idiots just keep coming back. The main thing I think people strugle with is not understanding the difference between force and energy. Magnets carry forces. That carried force can be used to transfer energy from something acting upon the magnet to something else within the magnetic field.
it depends upon what you classify as energy, after all energy is just a word that holds the sentiment of of a perceived function or state. in science the further we explore the more our base theories shift to meet the findings, it doesn't mean that they were incorrect its just that all theories are subjective representations of our limited perceptions the only absolute truth is the universal theory and no one has found that yet
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But there are very powerfull forces that want to supress the technology,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,take part in the revolution!
A Little Imagination, little Research, Faith and Valla Suddently you open your eyes and see the world very differently:-) Free ENERGI EXISTS, and what we have today could be improved on if they let it!!!? We know that there are severall country's which have allready started Free energi projects, and a couple of them in Europe. The big wind turbines are not selling good!!? is that maybe because people are waking up to the fact that there are much better and realible Free Energi Sources out there
@Desertphile You are like the man who i can not remember in the us who said that we have invented all that was possible for human's to invent!!!?
Everything is possible in this world if human's put their mind to it, and for free energi you dont even have to research much to see and understand that "" FREE ENERGI EXISTS "" It will be the last time i answer your comment, because you have your idea's and Hopefully the rest of the fri word have theirs too, or maybe we all go down into the HOLL!!!
@Ebdan88 ; "Everything is possible in this world if human's put their mind to it....."
No. There is no such thing as "free energy" because 1 is less than 2. "Free energy" is a mathematical impossibility. I wish it were possible, but the universe forbids it.
@Desertphile actually, its not impossible. to the mainstream it is, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics was written way before we had modern advances and information on systems.
u really need to study T Townsend Brown and J. Searl technology. free energy is just basically a proof of the 1st law. IN AN OPEN SYSTEM, AN OBJECT IN MOTION WILL STAY IN MOTION. there is NO degradation in its energy at all. thats a type of free energy
@Desertphile if you gently push a ball in open space, then you will expel a very small bit of energy in the push, but that ball will continue at that unchanging speed in a straight line through the universe, which is inherently more energy than the initial source push. thats exactly what OVER unity means. a gain in unity
@Desertphile ok, so lets view the universe like a pool table......
a 'mass' is travelling along in a striaght constant line at a certain speed. now what happens when it runs into another simlar object? if it had no inherent energy then it would just stop.... but instead it IMPARTS its ENERGY onto the other object, sending it moving in a direction/inflection with the same energy (no loss)..... just like a cue ball hitting another ball. it imparts energy! so, ur wrong. there HAS to be energy. sry
@Desertphile it requires no energy to remain in motion. but it HAS a dormant energy inherent. thats like 10th grade physics. should you be messing around in this field if you cant understand the 101 stuff? no offense to you.
@Desertphile just like how an object sitting on the ground on earth is not moving (kinetic energy), but it does have POTENTIAL energy. if the earth it was laying on wasnt there, it would continue downwards. gravity is too weak to suck it into the earth, but weak does not mean negligable
I think trying to explain how magnets don't use energy to non scientists is almost impossible. They don't really distinguish between Energy, Force, Power, Momentum or understand which of those words apply to magnetic fields, or gravity for that matter.
I think it was something to do with Ed Leedskalnin who discovered a form of antgravity (local gravity affect). Not that I am trying to piss you off but how is magnetism and electricity different? And what has this video to do with gravity?
there is an experiment that shows a closed magnetic loop within a coil will perform work (hold a raised bar in the loop) continously and perpetually hold an electric charge that is applied to it for infinity ( until the loop is broken). When the loop is broken the voltage released will light a light bulb, showing that it did indeed store energy - just a magnet no other source of power. Magnets are a permanent source of energy (required to do work) aligned much the same way as permanent batteries
heres one for you! we get a whole gang of very large and powerfull neos together and we set them in a jig we set 2 of the 7 neo magnets on a piston and have the other 5 facing the 2 on the piston! since we have like polarties facing each other the feild will repel..NOW we sandwich a stoutly wound electromagnet inbetween our repeling feild observing polarity of the electromagnet.
This has been flagged as spam show
- This is a nice Video - but ...
- If you want to get the Magnetic-Generator Plans
- Go to Google and search for "Best Magnetic Generator Review"
- Click the First result (Skip the Advertisements)
subhankarwork 1 month ago
nature is always a bit more smater than us and one step ahead, look close from the smallest to make the big and it'll make sense. Pay atention of what you got and not what you dream of...instead why dont you inspire people to realize that in the granular interaction we call life , theres no such thing as wasted or burned , is more of a convertion from one state to another. from being rested energy to self propelled matter.the force is more of an interaction and its lenght of actions in time.
chukaz1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSergio1281 Both CMR and Halbach effect do not create a monopole magnet. All they do is to create a one sided bipolar magnet.Depending on their configuration and position they can reduce or redirect the unwanted polarity field while amplifying or concentrating the other . my point here is that de energy input for correlation and de correlation is less then the energy gain by the repelling or attraction force so you can virtual attract or repel by small input twist without violating any law.
sidneo14 3 months ago
@MrSergio1281 Both CMR and Halbach effect do not create a monopole magnet. All they do is to create a one sided bipolar magnet.Depending on their configuration and position they can reduce or redirect the unwanted polarity field while amplifying or concentrating the other . my point here is that de energy input for correlation and de correlation is less then the energy gain by the repelling or attraction force so you can virtual attract or repel by small input twist without violating any law.
sidneo14 3 months ago
@Sidneo14 you are right. A Halbach array is a special arrangement of permanent magnets that augments the magnetic field on one side of the array while cancelling the field to near zero on the other side (wikipedia) .This magnet array seems frighteningly close to a magnetic monopole.
MrSergio1281 3 months ago
It is impossible to create a usable linear kinetic energy from magnets because of their Dipolar nature they tend to cancel each other .but this doesn't mean one cannot acheave a usable linear kinetic energy by simply cloaking one pole or by correlating an area of magnet to reduce the strength of one polarity in favour of the other .
sidneo14 3 months ago
@sidneo14 ; That's also impossible, unfortunately.
Desertphile 3 months ago
@Desertphile i would be cautious to do such affirmation before verification /watch?v=bK0Obzaybc8 this interesting video . google cloaking static magnetic field using meta materials .
sorry for the lack of ref in my previous posts.
sidneo14 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Desertphile i would be cautious to do such affirmation before verification watch?v=bK0Obzaybc8 this interesting video . google cloaking static magnetic field using meta materials .
sorry for the lack of ref in my previous posts.
sidneo14 3 months ago
@Desertphile as you can see in the video the energy required for the twist of the magnets is less than the energy gained by the repel force of the magnets . I do not claim over unity can be achieved using this but i think we should be humble in our affirmations there is much more to learn and this is a new interesting behaviour of magnets is a good start .
PS better video here watch?v=m4m81JjZCJo&feature=player_detailpage#t=134s
sidneo14 3 months ago
@Desertphile Nothing is impossible. some things are improbable, assuming our model of reality is a good approximation of the mystery of the universe.
Current understanding of physics does not explain about 80% of the mass in the universe, and like all generations we "know" we have it right this time. we don't.
superdiza 1 week ago
Magnetic force vs. magnetic potential
intuitively, most of us understand that an idea's popularity is not an appropriate measure of its validity. Yet those who question any widely accepted theories are labelled ignorant, cranks or charlatans.
sidneo14 3 months ago
Oh well, I agree with you about that, but I never saw that comment.
Anyone who thinks he can get "something for nothing" without maybe fusion is most likely a schizophrenic whackjob with delusions of government persecution and magical thinking.
The comment *I* was responding to was here closer below where you seem to equivocate in your response when challenged about
mass defect being converted to energy. Whether it is enthalpic or
not does not matter. Energy is mass, mass is energy.
rstevewarmorycom 6 months ago 2
@rstevewarmorycom even fusion is giving something up, you are turning a fraction of matter into energy
Xero555000 4 months ago
@Xero555000 Sure, but the thread was the (disputed) fact
that CHEMICAL reactions do that TOO, just in a tinier way.
The electrical bonding energy turns to heat. In nuclear
reactions it's the energy contained by nuclear forces that do
work on the reaction products and produce heat when the
strong nuclear force no longer binds them. It's actually the
repulsion of un-moderated protons against each other that
cause the nuclear explosion!! In other words, a nuclear
bomb is an electrostatic bomb!!
rstevewarmorycom 4 months ago
How do you tell which pole is N and which is S?
MaterSammichMan 7 months ago
@MaterSammichMan Hang it on a string, or float it in water and the "North"
pole will point North. The "North" pole of a magnet is the "north-SEEKING"
pole, the earth's North pole is actually a magnetic South pole. The North
pole was called that before anyone noticed magnets, so the magnets
ends were named poles and named after what pole of the earth they SEEK.
rstevewarmorycom 4 months ago
@MaterSammichMan Hang it on a string, or float it in water and the "North"
pole will point North. The "North" pole of a magnet is the "north-SEEKING"
pole, the earth's North pole is actually a magnetic South pole. The North
pole was called that before anyone noticed magnets, so the magnets
ends were named poles and named after what pole of the earth they SEEK.
rstevewarmorycom 4 months ago
Wait...! You are 58! 58?! And you don't know what the word 'rhetorical' means? LMAO!
That is fucking ridiculous! You should be ashamed of yourself! What the fuck have you been doing all your life that you have somehow managed NOT learn what 'rhetorical' means? Here was I thinking you were just some halfwitted brainwashed grunt or something, but you are 58! Jesus!
rarosera 7 months ago
This was a great video. I've never seen a perpetual motion machine work - but I can't wrap my mind around why we can't make one work.
To your point, magnetism contains kinetic energy and as such is force - not (electrical) energy itself. I'm with you so far. However, we all know that a properly directed force can be converted into electricity.
So, if you can properly "tune" or direct magnetic lines, I don't understand why we can leverage that force to be turned into work, much like wind.
floridacoder 8 months ago
@floridacoder No, no, no. Take a physics course, you have it
all confused. A magnetic field or any field is like a spring. You
can only get out what you put in. It is NOT a SOURCE of power.
A magnet can only push back at you, it can never just start
pushing out of the blue when it didn't before. If you could make
THAT happen without doing work, then you'd have "free-energy"
but you can't. When you turn on an electromagnet it develops
its "push" field from the energy lost by the circuit.
rstevewarmorycom 4 months ago
@floridacoder Wind is moving matter, it isn't a field. It is matter
that a field (pressure) has done work to. The math ALWAYS
works out that the energy you can get out equals what you
put in, when you subtract waste heat from conversion
limitations. When you turn on an electromagnet, the field
produced can't do more work than the work done to make it.
rstevewarmorycom 4 months ago
Aren't you inducing a current, albeit a small one, in the pin by moving it across a stationary magnet? A moving magnetic field (either by moving the magnet or the metal) induces a current in the metal.
christo930 8 months ago
Pay close attention 1- It proves that you were mistaken in your equation of how much energy it takes to free hydrogen from oxygen. 2- double-back feed will not cause 'flame to burn forever' but for as long as there is WATER, For someone who so attempts to dispel new knowledge by stating that science says NO you seem to be ignorant of what E=MC2 actually means. The ENERGY is in mass, ie. the mass in this case of HYDROGEN = ENERGY. Now do you see what I mean by shooting you down at every turn?
rarosera 8 months ago
What is your question; 'HOW' does this prove anything, or 'WHAT' does this prove? Because either you are inferring that television news lies to people - in this case Ralph Robinson of 'action6news' - in which case you are a conspiracy theorist - or you are claiming that hydrogen is not combustible and cannot be released from water, in which case you are ignorant of the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. Which is it, and what do you gain from so wantonly displaying your ignorance here?
rarosera 8 months ago
Free energy is total bullshit.
Gunner3210 9 months ago
@Gunner3210 No your limited beliefs are. Check out Half Past Human Clif High & see projections for "Free" energy coming up in the next year or so. Its here now in numerous forms, only The powers that Be (that obviously have usurped your mind, hopefully temporarily as we need you friend to be totally aware and conscious for the fight to win back the minds of the masses who presently live by TV, Media, Entertainment Ind & Mind Control games that fill their days and night. See The One Percent...
TheresNoTimeLikeNow 8 months ago
thank you! i learn a lot from your videos. i dont see why people insult you.
TabbytabtabOmega 9 months ago
There are so many videos claiming "free energy"...they alway seem to have electrical clamps somewhere...looking rather fishy...I WANT to believe it more than anyone, I just haven't seen any solid evidence, other than fishy videos. If I knew I had free energy, I'd be banging on the studio doors of every TV station within 1000 miles of here, challenging anyone, showing everyone, sharing with all.
dannon2010 9 months ago
Please dedicate a video to the idea that some type of "Excess Power Cycle" just might be possible and how you think it might work and look.
youguys100 10 months ago
You can preach true science till ur blue in the face and these guys will not believe it.
Its like when a kid goes to a magic show and sees him pull a coin from thin air.
Its the same with Free Energy. The Stanley Meyers, or my favorites WITTS & Steorn, show them a magic Free Energy & they are convinced. Never wondering why they only demo these devices for donations, but never build them.
I do like your science video.
Texmurphy51 11 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | you keep paying for your energy and i'll stick with my home-built free-energy tesla turbine..
dljc1979 10 months ago
@dljc1979 Your full of it. If you had a means of generating free energy it would be worth BILLIONS. You would be stinking rich & on the news everywhere. Besides if it were possible and some know nothing hack like you could discover it then hundereds of other people would have also. It would be known to the world long ago if it existed.
Your full of it.
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | you just don't get it do you? lots of free energy methods have already been invented and proved and have been around for a VERY LONG TIME and many of them have been reinvented and advertised over and over and every time they show em they disappear as fast as they appear and the inventors either die suddenly or are falsely imprisoned or just plain vanish, do you think the richest and most powerful people would allow this kind of stuff to be public? live in ignorance you fool..
dljc1979 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | there are so many methods for free energy now i couldn't even begin to count them, they are all over youtube for a start!!! hey! get some magnets and some electronics and a few lightbulbs and try it out for yourself loser!!! DON'T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY KNOW IT IS TRUE!!! TRY IT ALL OUT FOR YOURSELF!!!
dljc1979 10 months ago
@dljc1979 Again... If I could do it that easy I would see the dam thing for BILLIONS. There are thousands of inventors working on this with the goal of money in mind. Yet we dont see any device on the market. We only see youtube vids showing this working. Why would people who have created these devices sit on them, rather than selling them,(kits dont count cause they dont have to work).
I again say your full of it.
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | "There are thousands of inventors working on this with the goal of money in mind. Yet we dont see any device on the market. We only see youtube vids showing this working" EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! there are plenty of youtube vids advertising this kind of stuff for sale, look around more. look for the advert about the water-hydrogen powered cars being manufactured in japan!!! proper car company!!! THE SUPER RICH OWN & CONTROL EVERYTHING AND THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE!!! GET A CLUE!!!
dljc1979 10 months ago
@dljc1979
Your paranoid. If you create a working device then you will become one of these super rich people. I worked for a guy in the 70s who helped develop inventions & i can tell you if you actually could show that ANY of these devices worked, you would have investors killing each other to put money into it. This is what companies like Seorn,(nobody is shutting them down). They get suckers to invest then research continues forever. Open your eyes.
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | NOBODY WHO CREATES SOMETHING THAT COULD FUCK WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY SUPER RICH AND SUPER POWERFUL IS ALLOWED TO BECOME RICH!!! THERE IS NO REASON THAT A CORPORATION THAT IS SUPER RICH AND SUPER POWERFUL WOULD ALLOW ANY OF THAT FOR A FUCKING SECOND!!!!!!!!! AND I DIDN'T INVENT ANYTHING!!! TESLA INVENTED IT!!! IT'S A TESLA TURBINE!!! IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR FUCKS KNOWS HOW LONG!!!!!!!!!
dljc1979 10 months ago
@dljc1979 Well Bill Gates was a poor nobody college student who is now one of the Richest men in the world. So for you to say that nobody can become Rich on an invention is stupid.
A Tesla turbine is about 60% eff but does Not create Free Energy so what do you mean?
Did you every notice the more wrong somebody is, the more they YELL.
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | YOU ARE NOW JUST BEING OBTUSE AND ASSUMING, YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT YOU CAN THINK WHAT EVER THE FUCK YOU WANT TO THINK WHICH WE BOTH ALREADY KNOW IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO, PAY FOR IT YOU GOD DAMNED FOOL, PAY FOR IT FOR THE REST OF YOUR GOD DAMNED LIFE.
dljc1979 10 months ago
@dljc1979 Look at who is calling me obtuse & assuming. I am simply asking for Proof. You say that these devices are blocked by the Rich. Why would China, whos Gov owns everything, block these devices? China is Energy Hungry & Free energy would feed their people yet not effect the Rich because the Gov controls Everything.
It would only take one person to publish plans for a TRUE Free Energy Device online to break the control of these EVIL RICH. Once plans were it anyone could build it.
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | the only thing stopping you seeing the proof is YOU so go and look and build you worthless soulless SHIT.
dljc1979 10 months ago
@dljc1979 The only think stopping YOU from see the Truth is your Belief and you lack of Education in Science. Your conspiracy theory about the EVIL RICH makes no sense. If thousands posess the knowledge of this device then, again, only one of them has to publish it on the internet & it will go viral. One selfless soul who wants to save the world instead of trying to make money, which you say in impossible since the EVIL RICH will stop him anyway. Where is that person who will publish findings
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | I OWN AND USE A SELF-BUILT TESLA TURBINE AND I LEARNT ABOUT IT FROM VIDEOS (PLURAL!) ON THE VERY SITE WE ARE ON RIGHT NOW, END OF!!!
dljc1979 10 months ago
@dljc1979 Thats fine you build a Tesla Turbine, but does it make the claimed FREE ENERGY????????????
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | you fucking loser.. I DON'T PAY FOR ELECTRICITY.. IS THAT FREE ENOUGH FOR YOU?!?!?!?!?
dljc1979 9 months ago
@dljc1979 If you dont pay for electricity, your either stealing it or have something like solar panels or windmills. You are NOT generating power from magnets in a free energy device.
If you Do have a device as you say then why not publish it online???
You would save the world by breaking the backs of the Oil companies you hate so much.
If your afraid send it to me and I will publish it.
There is NO EXCUSE, PUT UP OR SHUT UP>
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | what is you are not getting here? are you not understanding anything i am saying? I OWN A HOME-BUILT TESLA TURBINE (magnets?!) AND ALL MY ELECTRICITY COMES FROM THAT, SIMPLE, IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT HOW TO FUCKING MAKE ONE JUST LOOK ON THE SITE YOU ARE ON RIGHT NOW!!! THERE ARE SHITLOADS OF VIDEOS TELLING YOU HOW TO DO IT!!! IT'S EASY!!! LOOK FOR YOURSELF YOU DUMB CYNICAL BASTARD!!!!!!!!!
dljc1979 9 months ago
@dljc1979 Have you really watched this video??????
This guy is telling you that MAGNETIC FIELDS DONT CONTAIN ENERGY YOU CAN HARVEST.
IDIOT!!!!!!
This video says what you are telling me is impossible.
You say that you can generate all you own power from NOTHING, yet your too stupid to start a business selling the devices, or sell the idea to investors.
What powers your turbine??? Is it falling water or solar or wind?
If your telling me it runs on nothing then your full of it.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 | why do have i have to keep repeating myself? why are so obtusely blind to the words that are right in front of you? do you really need to deny and discount things that you can't deal with based on the slightest of your imperceptions? LAST WORDS ON THE SUBJECT THEN I AM FUCKING YOU OFF: MY TESLA TURBINE DOESN'T USE MAGNETS, FUCK MAGNETS, DON'T ASK ME ABOUT MAGNETS.
dljc1979 9 months ago
@dljc1979 I think you keep repeating yourself because your not reading what I write.
I will ask you again.... What power source does your Tesla Turbine run on?
Look at my last post. I asked you, does it run on water, solar, wind??????
What is its source of energy? What turns the shaft?
I cant make it any more simple than that.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@dljc1979 ; "why do have i have to keep repeating myself?"
So answer the question already. What powers your "Tesla turbine?"
Desertphile 9 months ago
@Desertphile | i use the water-power design, i was being a cunt to texmurphy51 on purpose, i enjoyed it.
dljc1979 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 ; Haw, good luck getting an honest answer from "dljc1979." He insists that his "Tesla turbine" provides all of his electricity, but he refuses to state what powers the turbine. I suspect it's plugged into the city power grid--- these people really are that stupid.
Desertphile 9 months ago
@Desertphile I keep trying to tell him if he does not want to mfg his Free Energy Tesla Turbine, perhaps he shoud release the plans on line and save the world by solving our energy problems. We could all build one and stop using coal burning power plants.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 ; Well hell, for all we know his Tesla Turbine runs off coal. He refused to say what it runs off of. Maybe it runs off puppy bloody.
Desertphile 9 months ago
@Desertphile I think that its the Ghost of Tesla that powers his Turbine.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51
From what I've read so far about Tesla turbines, they run off of mechanical energy from a moving gas (such as steam). The difference is in using discs instead of blades like a standard turbine, and are more efficient/longer lasting as a result. For example, one site I went to showed images of people collecting solar to heat water into steam in order to power a tesla turbine.
I could be wrong, but I didn't see anything about magnets there.
dad200710 9 months ago
@dad200710 Tesla turbines dont run with magnets. This Video is about magnets.
My initial remark was about free energy and magnets to address this video.
I then got a response from dijc 1979 about how he powers his house on Free Energy, Tesla turbine
I told him he was full of it if he said the energy came out of thin air.
He then said about free energy "get some magnets and some electronics and a few lightbulbs and try it out for yourself"
The discussion went from there,
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 /watch?v=fJ3juM6vHwg If you are the type of person who thinks that 'pride comes before a fall' then you probably won't watch the clip I send you, in order to preserve your pride. If, on the other hand, you like to learn, you will watch and open your eyes.
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera I have seen this video a few times before.
Let me ask you... How does this prove anything to you?
Your taking this man at his word that he is able to produce hydrogen as a fuel from nothing but water.
If this really worked why is it not being produced? Did the oil companies kill everyone involved?
Look at the videos by Mylow. He had a big following of people who believe his motor was real until he released hi res video.
He was caught, there was a fine fishing line turning his motor
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 What is your question; 'HOW' does this prove anything, or 'WHAT' does this prove? Either you are inferring that television news lies to people - in this case Ralph Robinson of 'action6news' - making you are a conspiracy theorist - or you are claiming that hydrogen is not combustible and/or cannot be released from water, in which case you are ignorant of the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. Which is it, and what do you gain from so wantonly displaying your ignorance here?
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera No TV news just reports what it sees. You telling me you Believe EVERYTHING you see on the TV news? They took this guys word as to what the dune buggy was operating on.
As for Hydrogen, yes you can run a motor with it. His claim however is that it created its own Energy.
Thats BS. You can split water but it takes more energy to split it than it gives back when you burn it.
I again say if this works where is it? Of the hundreds of claims to Free Energy where is one working device?
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "You can split water but it takes more energy to split it than it gives back when you burn it."
Oh really? How interesting... so tell me, how much energy is needed to 'split it?'
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera Oh really? How interesting... so tell me, how much energy is needed to 'split it?'
More energy than you can get by burning it again.
There have been countless laboratory experiments using water and may other substances on how much energy it takes to split it & that in recombination. These are done to high accuracy.
NEVER has it been observed that more energy was gained by recombination of chemicals than it took to split them.
Try it yourself
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 So, why is it that you don't give an answer then? I think it's because you don't know the answer, if you did, you would prove yourself right. Instead it sounds like you are just generally guessing based on what you suppose.
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera
2 H2O(l) → 2 H2(g) + O2(g); E0 = +1.229 V
Energy effeciency of water electrolysis varies between 40% & 70%.
Even if it was 100% you would only get back the energy it took to split the water.
Its like lifting a weight in gravity. You can only get back the amount of energy it took to lift that weight, minus losses.
You cant get something for nothing.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Yes, and the earth is flat, isn't it? I mean, that's what you've been told so it must be true... Oh wait, damn, if only it wasn't for copernicus and tesla, huh?
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera Ok so first you ask me how much energy is involve, I tell you then you simply reject it .
Probably because you cant understand it.
Your analogy is incorrect. The flat earth was believed by the common people, (like you).
The scientists of the time, copernicus & others were the ones who showed the earth was round.
Same with perpetual motion. Non scientific experimenters have tried it many times.
Copernician like science comes along and shows it is not possible.
Think about it.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Yes, absolutely I reject it - the parameters used reflect the results - hence why you have such a large margin (40% & 70%). You are using bad science - like co2 = global warming 'science'. There are scientists from Japan, France & Hungary demonstarting that what you are saying is false - and proving Tesla right. What, did you forget about Tesla? The most influential mind on the subject of abundant energy just about written out of history for proving as much.
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera If I am using bad Science then show me where you are getting your...
GOOD SCIENCE from.
An experiment must be replicated to be valid, not just some guy in a garage with a claim.
Also, where did you get the idea that Tesla claimed to generate Free Energy?
His experiments were to transmit energy to other sites without wire.
His only mention of free energy was Radiant Energy system, a plate in open air that charged capacitors.
Tesla thought it was cosmic rays, it probably was static.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 You are using 'global warming science', which has been totally discredited and everyone knows this, except you. By this I mean that you repeat what you believe is true rather than what you KNOW to be true. But you are right, Tesla didn't claim to generate free energy, instead he proposed to transmit wirelessly free energy 'harnessed' from the atmosphere. You might say it's static, but the lightning bolts that strike the earth at 13 per second don't come from a generator.
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera I see, I use "global warming science" but YOU use, REAL science.
The science I use is the one that developed your computer, cellphone & all the other modern devices that you use.
Static electricity has been explored as a source of energy. There were experiments in the 60s trying to capture it. Lightning is powerful but the energy comes from movement of air so it is generated just as you can get energy from moving water. It does not come out of thin air but from the sun.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 You're mistaken there. First comes the invention then the science to demonstrate the principles by which the invention works, so don't put the cart before the horse. Tesla was not a scientist, he was an inventor, he created the aternating current generator by which ALL the things that you claim are the offspring of science came about. He offered to transmit wireless FREE ENERGY 'harnessed' from the atmosphere. True or false?
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera sez "First comes the invention then the science to demonstrate the principles by which the invention works" Reall???
The Theory of the Laser came before it was invented, same with the atomic bomb & countless others.
These inventions did NOT create theory but were created by Scientific Theory.
As for Tesla's statement,
If he really planned to gather "Free Energy" out of the atmosphere in large quantities then he was wrong on how much could be captured.
Show me the quote
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Aha! So now it's plain for all to see... You are here arguing against something based on your beliefs WITHOUT having informed yourself on the opposing argument. The fact that you didn't know this about Tesla indicates willful ignorance on your behalf. There is no way it would have escaped you that Tesla intended to provide free electricity if you were really interested in learning about free energy. Busted dude! You call others here liars... (cont)
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera How did you gather I dont know about Tesla? I simply asked you to show me the quote from Tesla that you base your claim that he created Free Energy.
Tesla said people could tap into his energy generator for free, NOT that the energy was being generated for free. He wanted to eliminate transmission lines.
Who are these countless inventors who have been killed,(give me a list).
They were probaby killed by people they scammed.
You realize Tesla's notes are online???
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Not just Tesla's notes but his entire FBI sequestered records are online. He wanted to transmit energy wirelessly AND for free - not just free of wires but free as in gratis. And now just for all to see that you are usng the troll tactic of twisting words, here is what I wrote, " Tesla didn't claim to generate free energy, instead he proposed to transmit wirelessly free energy 'harnessed' from the atmosphere." So why did you write that I claimed he created free energy?
rarosera 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 By the way, I will continue to shoot you down at every turn for as long as you continue acting like a troll. Here's my next salvo; compile a list of inventors who have patented overunity devices and then disappeared, dropped out of society, committed suicide by shooting themselves several times from behind, been driven off roads, et al at your leisure. NOT compiling such list will indicative that you are a troll (and don't want your bubble burst) or you are mindfully ignorant. Go.
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera sez "I will continue to shoot you down at every turn"
In you mind, you have missed so far & shown you have no idea of where the Tesla quotes came from.
Your made the claim of killed inventors so YOU make the list. Not me.
If you KNOW that these inventors were killed than you would already have a list, (in you mind at least)
I doubt that is true so you simply have heard of the death of a couple of these guys coupled to a conspiricy theory & ASSUMED that many were killed.
Grow Up
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "you have no idea of where the Tesla quotes came from." Thats post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, so well done showing your lack of intelligence. My first comment to you was a link /watch?v=a74uarqap2E - you said hoaxe/conspiracy theory. You have not looked at his patent, you have not seen that HHO generators are available on EBAY! You are a troll, you don't want to burst your bubble, and yes, i will continue to shoot you down, as demonstrated by this response.
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera ."Thats post hoc ergo propter hoc argument" NO
Let me explain this so even YOU can understand it.
1. The Tesla documents are online for everyone to read.
2. I am asking you to point to his documents & show me the quotes to varify the statements you have made about Tesla. Prove to me he said what YOU claim.
Your Refuse to show proof but refer to a meaningless video.
Anyone can attach a device to a car & claim it runs on HHO.
See the Fred Wells truck, another proven hoax
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 ' "Thats post hoc ergo propter hoc argument" NO.' Correction: YES. If you don't understand HOW your argument is post hoc I'll explain it to you - if you ask politely. I'm lightyears ahead of you pal, your further attempt to 'explain' highlights your lack of understanding of what post hoc ergo propter hoc means. If you did you'd understand that both your request and your ill-fated 'explanation' are redundant.
btw, You have a pathological opinion of the word 'meaningless.'
rarosera 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Now answer the question: why did you write that I said something I didn't? I went on to show that you'd done this, so WHY? Is it because you're stupid or was it simply a mistake? And why do you expect me to illuminate you regarding Tesla's intentions after having refused to investigate whether or not countless inventors have patented 'free energy' devices and then disappeared?
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera
1) What did I accuse you of saying that you didnt say?
2) I dont want you to illuminate me on Tesla's inventions. I want you to prove your claims as I did with how much energy it takes to split water.
3) I am again asking you to give me a list of these "countless inventors who have disappeared"
You make these claims without any PROOF.
Did you look at the Fred Wells truck video???
This is another example of a free energy Hoax.
Stop making an ass of yourself & put up or shut up
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Only an imbecile would require me to repeat AGAIN what it is that you misrepresented - and I know that you are not THAT unintelligent, which leaves only the alternative; that you are dishonest. If you understood what my pointing out that yours is an 'post hoc' argument entails you'd see that both your request and your 'explanation' are redundant. NOW DO SOME RESEARCH INTO HOW MANY iNVENTORS HAVE DISAPPEARED AFTER PATENTING THEIR INVENTION and I will explain. Undestood?
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera I DIDNT MAKE THE CLAIM SO I AM NOT GOING TO DO ANY RESEARCH ON INVENTORS.
If you actually know,(and I doubt if you do), of a list of inventors then produce it or drop the lie.
Post hoc..stop trying to look smart by working phrases you dont understand into the argument.
Of all these hundreds of inventors only one needs to put his work on the internet & ALL WILL KNOW THE AMAZING SECRETS.
Are they that selfish to not save the WORLD????????
How about that Fred Wells video?
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Of all these hundreds of inventors only one needs to put his work on the internet & ALL WILL KNOW THE AMAZING SECRETS" Yes, so > /watch?v=ilz7zWISfd8 < here's me shooting both you and desertphile down. Don't pretend that you know what the post hoc argument is - if you did you would not have made it. And the reason you are NOT going to research the list you want is that 1- it's not easy to compile (and you like 'easy' tasks), 2 -You know that compiling it would burst your bubble.
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera How does this video prove Free Energy?
If the browns gas generator produces more energy then it consumes then ...
1) take the generated gas & run it into an electrical generator.
2) feed this generator back into the brown gas generator.
3) if it makes Free Energy then it should produce more browns gas then it takes to power itself.
4) you should be able to disconnect it from the power grid & a flame will burn forever.
How do YOU know the # of dead inventors if you never made a list?
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@rarosera
1- how does it prove me wrong?
2- since the flame produces water & the earth is covered with water it will never run out of water.
Ha Ha LOL
E=MC2 does not apply here because there is no loss of mass, this is a chemical reaction, not nuclear.
You show your lack of understand basic Physics.
Energy is liberated ONLY when mass is lost, this does not happen when burning gas.
Ha Ha I cant believe you said that, then tell me your shooting me down, Ha Ha Ha.
No wonder you believe this shit.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "1- how does it prove me wrong?" by showing that you were mistaken.
"E=MC2 does not apply here because there is no loss of mass." Thanks for demonstrating that you do not understand E=MC2.
"Energy is liberated ONLY when mass is lost, this does not happen when burning gas." WHAT does not happen when burning gas, loss of mass of release of energy? It seems like you are saying that burning gas does not liberate energy... is this what you are saying?
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera "... is this what you are saying?"
No I am saying burning is a Chemical Reaction & has nothing to do with E=MC2, (funny your quoting science that you say in wrong about browns gas)
NO mass is lost in a chemical reaction, only in a nuclear reaction, Fission or Fusion.
Fission like that in a power plant, Fusion like an atomic bomb or on the sun.
4 hydrogen become 1 helium with ENERGY & loss of mass, E=MC2
You should have taken Physics in HS instead of Art.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "(funny your quoting science that you say in wrong about browns gas)"
Show me where I said this. Why gibber on about 'burning' when you should be talking about 'heat'? We are talking about energy here (that's why I brought up E=MC2 and am yet again using it to prove that you are mistaken, deluded or simply trolling. If you don't know that even chemicals are fundamentally ATOMS and all their properties hence subject to E=MC2 then you are beyond help.)
rarosera 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Explain why you are going on about chemical reactions instead of energy? When the subject at hand is ENERGY trying to change subjects to chemical reactions could well be seen as TROLLING. Now, you know the term 'thermo' as in thermonuclear, thermodynamics, thermostat, well, it refers to the energy we call HEAT. Now, my point: Browns Gas avails the ENERGY - held in state as hydrogen in WATER - releasing/converting it into HEAT (that 'thermo' thing again). Can you refute this?
rarosera 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Energy is liberated ONLY when mass is lost, this does not happen when burning gas." WHAT does NOT HAPPEN when burning gas? Because what you wrote can only mean either, 'burning gas does not liberate energy (say, in the form of HEAT or LIGHT perhaps?) - or, 'gas burns without losing mass.' So, in case you're confused here is the question again... WHAT does NOT HAPPEN when burning gas?
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera The answer is obvious. Energy of course is liberated when burning anything so the other choice is MASS. Mass is NOT lost in a normal chemical reaction.
I should not have to explain this.
You are just digging a deeper hole by arguing this & saying your proving me wrong.
Pack it up, get go online & read some basic Physics, then Nuclear Physics so you can understand the relationship between mass & energy.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Energy (...) is liberated when burning anything" so when Browns Gas - derived from water - is burning the energy liberated is that of water, no matter how circuitously. Clearly the energy released by flame or explosion derives from WATER. Now, if the amount of energy spent to liberate that energy from water is LESS than the energy gained, then you have OVERUNITY, aka 'free energy,'. And your theories (like Newton's) will be re-written to match the data, vindicating Tesla.
rarosera 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Do you understand now? That's to say that if releasing HHO from water takes miliamps, and the spark needed to ignite it in a chamber is negligible compared to the energy released from the hydrogen, which can be converted into more electrical power than used to release the hydrogen - then what do you have... ? Go to wikipedia, look up spark-ignition engine and notice that hydrogen is one of the accepted fuels. Now will you accept that you might have been mistaken?
rarosera 8 months ago
@rarosera You have just said a lot about NOTHING.
We were discussion your ignorent statement that the Energy from burning hydrogen was coming from its MASS.
You claim of overunity is simple to disprove.
You only need to take a small gas generator & run it on hydrogen, Take its output & power your "Browns Gas Generator", feed that gas into the generator.
Your generator should run, generate enough gas to keep running while powering some light bulbs.
For some reason it NEVER WORKS.
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 You wrote - "Energy is liberated ONLY when mass is lost," you then wrote "Energy of course is liberated when burning anything" - SOOOO... If Browns Gas burns, and burning liberates energy, then burning browns gas liberates energy (logic 101). If somehow, as you claim, this liberation of energy does not consume mass then you have a magical liberation of energy. You are saying some magical reaction allows BG to liberate energy without losing its mass. Or is this just your bad english?
rarosera 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "take a small gas generator & run it on hydrogen," Nooooo.... 'take a small BROWNS GAS generator'... blah balh ' Why feed hydrogen when you can feed WATER? In fact, why not TRY something that works 'as directed by those who know from experience' instead of adding or altering things, being surprised that they then don't work, and not even imagining that perhaps the things you added and altered STOP it from working.
rarosera 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "For some reason it NEVER WORKS." It never works because you are feeding hydrogen to a generator that's designed to be fed by water. This is not intended to offend now but It seems that your brain is not working properly. Inescapable things are somehow escaping you. Are you ingesting fluoride? This is a genuine question, really NOT intended to offend (I'm just trying to understand and perhaps bring your awareness to something).
rarosera 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Anyone can attach a device to a car & claim it runs on HHO" Yes, just like anyone can claim that a device attached to a car that runs on HHO is a hoax. People CAN do and say anything they like, what's most frightening to some is when what is being said is true and what is done demonstrable. That's why centuries ago interested parties - like you - persecuted those who said the Earth was round.
rarosera 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 (cont...) declare that if they really DID have a free energy device they would be billionaires - and then argue about the fact that there have been countless inventors mysteriously killed or disappeared after having publically demonstrated their free energy devices - even when some of these inventors have been on NATIONAL TELEVISION NEWS. You know what that makes you? A TROLL. Well, enjoy your ignoarnce dude and enjoy the fact that you are free to do as you're ordered.
rarosera 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 /watch?v=aaiGTsbyKNU enjoy.
rarosera 7 months ago
@rarosera I cant Believe you fell for this BS.
If this invention works & had a deal with a major power mfg & others, why is he selling Experimental Energy kits in his website.
Ha Ha Ha, you actually BELIEVE this???
His claim in the video was OVER UNITY by a vast amount.
On his website the claim is SAVINGS of 30% - 50% on you power bill
ITs a sham, all he is going to do is give you power saving tips like, replace incandescent bulbs with fluor.
You probably bought the Sham Wow too HA Ha
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 When you say "why is he selling Experimental Energy kits in his website" - who exactly DO YOU MEAN by 'he'? Do you think the guy in the VIDEO is selling kits?
You don't see the point of posting that vid linked to a website selling 'Experiemntal Energy Kits'? You really don't. This is what I meant by the inescapable somehow managing to escape you (which means that you don't 'get' things everyone else gets). I bet you do ingest fluoride, don't you? That's why your IQ is so low.
rarosera 7 months ago
@rarosera You say my IQ is low?
This is coming from a guy who is sucker enough to fall for this. Ha Ha.
The point of selling Experimental Kits is because its a LEGAL way to sham people.
As long as he does not claim the product works, but is an experimental kit he can get away with it.
All the so called Free Energy people use this trick. Either that or plans.
The video show the guy getting Big Money Backing , IF IT WORKS.
Looks like he is now selling kits, guess it didnt work.
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Yes, IQ so low that you have not realised that the link to a website has nothing to do with the guy in the video clip, or dragons den. FLUORIDE IQ.
rarosera 7 months ago
@rarosera Who put the link up has nothing to do with this.
This video is from Dec 2008, this device DOES NOT WORK.
It is a sham, thats why the Experimental Kits are coming out.
You live in a fantacy world on this stuff.
There are dozens of these devices out there & they all turn out to be a sham.
Most are measurement errors of input vs output power.
Dont you think this device would be on market already?
Ha ha I cant believe youl
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 You see what I mean about your low IQ? Of course not, the questin is rhetorical, if you DID see I woulnd't have to point out that the world doesn't run according to what you do or don't believe.
rarosera 7 months ago
@rarosera "the world doesn't run according to what you do or don't believe"
Maybe you better take you own advice here.
Your reference to my IQ is the action of a Super Troll. Why dont you argue with FACTS instead of stupid comments.
"the questin is rhetorical"
How is the question rhetorical. I simply am pointing out that after 3 years the product is NOT on the Market & now there are Experimental Kits. This is a sure indication that it was a FAILURE.
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 It really is fun arguing with someone as deluded as you, although it is a bit like having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, but hey ho, we all have our vices...
So 1- You do not know what the word 'rhetorical' means. 2- You do not know of anything that was ever developed and remained 'not on the market' for 3 years or more and some time later came on the market - cos if you do that's another dead argument about 'sure indicators of failure'.
rarosera 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Pointing out a FACT about your low IQ is not trolling, you continuously show low IQ grasp of the english language i.e. not knowing what the word 'rhetorical' means and thus demonstrating your stupidity by attempting to find something to answer, showing both that you are not bright enough to look the word up and are unaware that you are unaware of what it means, like a basic moron. Definition of MORON; a person affected with mild mental retardation, 2: a very stupid person
rarosera 7 months ago
@rarosera "Definition of MORON; a person affected with mild mental retardation, 2: a very stupid person"
If I recall you are the one who thought that the buring of Hydrogen, a chemical Reaction was related to
E=MC2. Ha Ha, ( i still cant stop laughting at this)
You also think Stan Myers car ran on water, not based on any facts presented but simply because he was featured in a local newscast.
I hope someone besides just me is reading your rants & getting a good laugh. HA HA HA.
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 None of what you say has any impact or importance whatsoever becase, as you have demonstrated, at the age of 58 you do not know the meanings of the words 'created,' 'rhetorical,' 'related to,' sure indicator,' 'dead argument'. aswell as demonstrating that you do not fully understanding that E-MC2 is not some kind of 'reaction' (as you state) but a physics maxim (you prob don't know what a 'maxim' is either). Now, should I go on?
rarosera 7 months ago
@rarosera I see your trying to cover you ignorance of Physics by posting shit on me,(trolling).
It will not work, trying to point out my supposed misuse of words is nothing.
You however thought burning browns gas was an E=MC2 reaction. Ha Ha LOL
Anyone who wants to see more of your ignorant rants see
watch?v=ilz7zWISfd8&lc=s8Jo2sBKT4Rc5WiEPagztFJURqHzqtMFUvZZUBUbTLQ&feature=inbox
Your record speaks for itself, you are nothing but a Troll with no facts of proof.
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 And still, even though there is nothing wrong with my english, and after having pointed it out TWICE you still fail to realise that there is no such thing as 'an E=MC2 reaction.' E=MC2 is a formula (or maxim), not a 'reaction' you can carry on arguing with me about this or you can get a little bit of re-education by listening to Einstein explain it himself /watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U and then, when you have watched and learned, you can apologise, cretin.
rarosera 7 months ago
@rarosera Maybe you should reread our posts. I didnt say E=MC2 was a REACTION. That was YOU.
I am just repeating it & pointing out your mistake.
You now come along & try to make it like it is my mistake when YOU were the one Trolling me with the BS.
I am glad that you finally watched a video about Einstein & have a better understand of his work.
NOT saying that burning Hydrogen was a E=mc2 reaction. Ha Ha I still cant believe you said that.
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "... I didnt say E=MC2 was a REACTION. That was YOU." Noooo... again your ridiculously poor knowledge of english lets you down. The quote you might have hoped to use to demonstrate if what you are saying is true is, "If you don't know that even chemicals are fundamentally ATOMS and all their properties hence subject to E=MC2 then you are beyond help." You didn't quote me because it demonstrates that you are lying, as 'SUBJECT TO' does not mean 'REACTION OF.' Duh! Halfwit.
rarosera 7 months ago
@rarosera In /watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U on Browns gas..
If you burn Hydrogen it is a Chemical Reaction. YOU were the one that said it gave off extra energy in Browns Gas because E=MC2. An obvious mistake to anyone who understands Physics but you only NOW know your error because I pointed it out. Your attempt to backpedal your way out of this gross error.
No amount of Troll name calling will help, you only dig youself deeper.
Again YOU said a chemical reaction was powered by E=MC2.
Man up and admit it
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Show the quote.
rarosera 7 months ago
@rarosera
Your quote is in another video on Browns Gas as you well know.
Even if I showed the quote you would lie about it as you have about everything else.
I am glad I was able to take you to school & teach you a little about Physics.
You now know the difference between a chemical REACTION & a nuclear REACTION.
You see E=MC2 represents what happens in a nuclear Reaction.
Your like arguing with a child because of your lack of comprehension.
You have last word. Show us your stupidity
I
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 No. My 'quote' is NOT on another discussion, if it was you would have cut/pasted onto here, like this; "@Texmurphy51 So, now that you've learned from wikipedia that NASA uses 'cracked water' (sic) have you learned anything about your original opinion on 'the water powered car'? /watch?v=S44eRCr-O7o" You haven't quoted me because you can't, it was merely yet another stupid 'interpretation' arrived at through your singularly strange english. And look up '(sic)' moron.
rarosera 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 So, now not only have I proven you wrong to the extent that you are forced to abandon your so-called argument, but I have also shown anyone reading this that you don't own a dictionary - and if you do, you don't know how to use it, AND that you are dishonest, resorting to fabricating things in an attempt to support your untenable position. Bravo! You know what that means now? It means 'checkmate' again.
rarosera 7 months ago
No, when you burn anything, the energy comes from the bonding energy difference
between the reactants and the products, and that energy loss ACTUALLY reduces
the mass of the products!!! The mass loss is extremely tiny, but it HAS been measured
as EXACTLY equal to the mass-energy E=MC squared of the lost mass.
rstevewarmorycom 6 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom There is no measurable mass loss in chemical reactions. The energy that is produced in chemical reactions is due only to the change in the enthalpy of the system
Show your References.
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 No. Being a physicist, I know you're wrong, here's a DOE article
online for you to learn about it: Google lost mass chemical reactions and click
the first Newton article at ANL Argonne National Labs from the DOE about
what is called "defect mass".
rstevewarmorycom 6 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom
The quote I posted you came from Greg (Roberto Gregorius)
on the very site you are telling me to visit.
Check it again...
newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03534.htm
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 All he did was play it down as to size, and it is staggeringly small, but it is there! The rest of the authors on that page agreed that even binding energy represents mass. And yes, even when you raise an object in a gravitational field, it ALSO GAINS mass with respect to the reference frame!! Mass/energy and space/time are all interrelated in this way. The U of California spent a lot of time and money making sure that I had this down cold in my Physics curriculum.
rstevewarmorycom 6 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom Ok I will buy that but that does not mean we have cold fusion here with the so called HHO.
No Free Energy. as claimed because it is a simple chemical reaction not Hydrogen converting to Helium.
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Of course not, I never saw a comment to that effect. He said:
"Magnetism is a force, not a form of energy". He is correcting those who would
misinterpret physics toward a "free energy" notion. Some won't get the distinction
between a field's force and a useful exertion of force through distance (energy),
but he didn't blow the explanation.
rstevewarmorycom 6 months ago
@rstevewarmorycom I was NEVER arguing against the video. You didnt read my exchange.
My argument was with someone who said HHO got its "Free Energy" from an E=MC2 reaction so that buring it in an engine created more energy than it takes to create the gas.
This is the claim of Stanley Meyers, or my favorites W.I.T.T.S among others who say that their engines run on No Fuel.
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
@dljc1979 /watch?v=aaiGTsbyKNU - Enjoy!
rarosera 7 months ago
Evey true scientist know that it take electricity to create a magnetic field. A magnetic field is a force that repels, electricity attracts. You can't have a magnetic field with without energy, ergo the magnetic field is the energy (applied force) which electricity creates. It has nothing to do with gravity, which is another, different kind of force.
SecretsCircle 11 months ago
look up Stanley Meyers and quit sniffing mold that you find behind your toilet its giving you brain damage
alexalexalex993 11 months ago
@alexalexalex993 ; "look up Stanley Meyers"
Yeah. If his brain had not exploded he'd be in prison now for fraud.
Desertphile 11 months ago
good energy
punknol 1 year ago
Ive seen a few "free energy" videos out there and I feel your pain Desertphile. I had a go at debunking a few of them but its like playing whack-a-mole the idiots just keep coming back. The main thing I think people strugle with is not understanding the difference between force and energy. Magnets carry forces. That carried force can be used to transfer energy from something acting upon the magnet to something else within the magnetic field.
kal9001 1 year ago
Booooooooooooooring
superCaleb97 1 year ago
I AGREE WITH guineapiggyman YOU SHOULD LEAVE YOUTUBE AND WORK IN SOME JUNKYARD TILL YOUR BRAIN GETS A SHOCK !
GUYS GET OUT OF HERE WASTE OF TIME 1
radhe1234u 1 year ago
@radhe1234u ; If you see anything wrong in this video, be sure to point it out. Thank you in advance, and, er, good luck with that!
Desertphile 1 year ago
lol so stupid
victor070 1 year ago
it depends upon what you classify as energy, after all energy is just a word that holds the sentiment of of a perceived function or state. in science the further we explore the more our base theories shift to meet the findings, it doesn't mean that they were incorrect its just that all theories are subjective representations of our limited perceptions the only absolute truth is the universal theory and no one has found that yet
boosomentity 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But there are very powerfull forces that want to supress the technology,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,take part in the revolution!
fittingciobb 1 year ago
So, heat causes frequencies. What are a magnets frequencies?
q7spiz 1 year ago
@q7spiz ; Huh?
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile The specific frequencies in the field around magnetite.
q7spiz 1 year ago
A Little Imagination, little Research, Faith and Valla Suddently you open your eyes and see the world very differently:-) Free ENERGI EXISTS, and what we have today could be improved on if they let it!!!? We know that there are severall country's which have allready started Free energi projects, and a couple of them in Europe. The big wind turbines are not selling good!!? is that maybe because people are waking up to the fact that there are much better and realible Free Energi Sources out there
Ebdan88 1 year ago
@Ebdan88 ; No, "free energy" does not exist: it is impossible.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile You are like the man who i can not remember in the us who said that we have invented all that was possible for human's to invent!!!?
Everything is possible in this world if human's put their mind to it, and for free energi you dont even have to research much to see and understand that "" FREE ENERGI EXISTS "" It will be the last time i answer your comment, because you have your idea's and Hopefully the rest of the fri word have theirs too, or maybe we all go down into the HOLL!!!
Ebdan88 1 year ago
@Ebdan88 ; "Everything is possible in this world if human's put their mind to it....."
No. There is no such thing as "free energy" because 1 is less than 2. "Free energy" is a mathematical impossibility. I wish it were possible, but the universe forbids it.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile actually, its not impossible. to the mainstream it is, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics was written way before we had modern advances and information on systems.
u really need to study T Townsend Brown and J. Searl technology. free energy is just basically a proof of the 1st law. IN AN OPEN SYSTEM, AN OBJECT IN MOTION WILL STAY IN MOTION. there is NO degradation in its energy at all. thats a type of free energy
guineapiggyman 1 year ago
@Desertphile if you gently push a ball in open space, then you will expel a very small bit of energy in the push, but that ball will continue at that unchanging speed in a straight line through the universe, which is inherently more energy than the initial source push. thats exactly what OVER unity means. a gain in unity
guineapiggyman 1 year ago
@guineapiggyman ; You are being silly. A body in motion uses exactly zero energy to remain in motion. Sheeeish.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@Desertphile ok, so lets view the universe like a pool table......
a 'mass' is travelling along in a striaght constant line at a certain speed. now what happens when it runs into another simlar object? if it had no inherent energy then it would just stop.... but instead it IMPARTS its ENERGY onto the other object, sending it moving in a direction/inflection with the same energy (no loss)..... just like a cue ball hitting another ball. it imparts energy! so, ur wrong. there HAS to be energy. sry
guineapiggyman 1 year ago
@Desertphile it requires no energy to remain in motion. but it HAS a dormant energy inherent. thats like 10th grade physics. should you be messing around in this field if you cant understand the 101 stuff? no offense to you.
guineapiggyman 1 year ago
@Desertphile just like how an object sitting on the ground on earth is not moving (kinetic energy), but it does have POTENTIAL energy. if the earth it was laying on wasnt there, it would continue downwards. gravity is too weak to suck it into the earth, but weak does not mean negligable
guineapiggyman 1 year ago
I think trying to explain how magnets don't use energy to non scientists is almost impossible. They don't really distinguish between Energy, Force, Power, Momentum or understand which of those words apply to magnetic fields, or gravity for that matter.
chrisofnottingham 1 year ago
Great video BTW as far as it goes...
MattBlytheTheOne 1 year ago
I think it was something to do with Ed Leedskalnin who discovered a form of antgravity (local gravity affect). Not that I am trying to piss you off but how is magnetism and electricity different? And what has this video to do with gravity?
MattBlytheTheOne 1 year ago
there is an experiment that shows a closed magnetic loop within a coil will perform work (hold a raised bar in the loop) continously and perpetually hold an electric charge that is applied to it for infinity ( until the loop is broken). When the loop is broken the voltage released will light a light bulb, showing that it did indeed store energy - just a magnet no other source of power. Magnets are a permanent source of energy (required to do work) aligned much the same way as permanent batteries
MattBlytheTheOne 1 year ago
heres one for you! we get a whole gang of very large and powerfull neos together and we set them in a jig we set 2 of the 7 neo magnets on a piston and have the other 5 facing the 2 on the piston! since we have like polarties facing each other the feild will repel..NOW we sandwich a stoutly wound electromagnet inbetween our repeling feild observing polarity of the electromagnet.
sdfab 1 year ago