Stalins Organ Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 We all knew it already (well most of us!) but at last one company promoting it comes clean!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Stalin's Organist, Are you familiar with Robert Anton Wilson's coined expression sombunall? It stands for "some but not all" and is very useful for cases such as this one. The mere fact one technical approach doesn't work doesn't automatically rule out others. You may recall Edison went through hundreds of filament material tests before he found one that worked. There are, as the saying goes, many ways to skin a cat. Not every electrolysis problem needs to be solved with brute force. There are other ways to get the job done, but you won't find them them as long as you have a toolbox with nothing in it but a hammer. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 The mere fact one technical approach doesn't work doesn't automatically rule out others. True. Instead it's the fact that they don't work, either, that rules the other ones out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Another Kettlerian Grail 'chosen poorly'... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted September 30, 2008 Author Share Posted September 30, 2008 True. Instead it's the fact that they don't work, either, that rules the other ones out. Car to put a useless hydrogen generation system in - $5k Useless hydrogen generation system $1k (?) Jon's comment - priceless 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Suggest you all read Jean Manning's article on the state of such tech in the current issue (#71) of ATLANTIS RISING. Believe it's still available at Borders & B&N. Here, BTW, is an entire science you seem wholly unaware of. It's called sympathetic vibration, and the book's called UNIVERSAL LAWS NEVER BEFORE REVEALED: Understanding and Using the Science of Sympathetic Vibration, by energy researcher and experimenter Dale Pond. From PESWiki, here's an overview of the matter, together with a link to a Dale Pond interview on John Worrell Keely. http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Sympathetic_vibratory_physics And if you think Keely's accomplishments were a figment of someone's imagination, I refer you to what SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN had to say on the matter. http://keelynet.com/keely/snell1.txt Suggest you also take a look on page 5 here, for it specifically talks about a 1960s vintage test in which the breakdown of water through sound was stunning demonstrated and confirmed Keely's earlier conclusions. http://amasci.com/freenrg/h2oblast.html I quote the paragraph A Barium Titanate ultrasonic transducer was fixed to the bottom of a quartz tube which was closed at the bottom and open at the top. Pure water was poured into the tube and the water column was "tuned" so that a standing wave was produced at 40,000 CPS (cycles per second). The transducer was powered by a 700 Watt power amplifier which was driven by an ultrasonic frequency generator. Because of the large amount of power put into the column of water a certain amount of evaporation took place at a constant rate when the transducer was energized. Therefore, to maintain a standing wave in the water column a feedback device caused the frequency to be raised as the water evaporated and the temperature changed. As a test, Dr. X decided to run through the experiment with only water in the tube to insure that a standing wave was maintained as the water evaporated and the frequency rose higher and higher. When the experiment was started everything worked beautifully. Dr. X took periodic readings of his instrumentation and was assured that the standing wave was being maintained. Suddenly, with no warning whatever the water disappeared from the open quartz tube. He looked up thinking to see the water splashed on the ceiling when to his amazement a clean hole went right through the ceiling. The hole was the same size as the inside of the quartz tube. Further investigation showed the hole continued on through the roof also! Dr. X checked his notebook and found the last frequency entry to be Page 5 41,300 CPS. It was shortly after this that the water disappeared. Because of the time interval between the last reading and the disappearing water, the frequency sent to the transducer was higher than the last reading and Dr. X said it could well have been very close to 42,800 CPS, the Keely dissociation frequency. (11) This obviously dangerous event caused Dr. X to dismantle the equipment and try some other approach to his problem. This experiment points the way to the use of our modern technology in conjunction with Keely's laws of dissociation to change matter into energy without the use of radioactive materials or extremely expensive atomic accelerators. The next paragraph says Keely accidentally disassociated water in 1866 using vibrational methods. Seems to me that if he could do it in 1866 with the tech base of the day, we ought to be able to do that or better in 2008. I reiterate: "Frying" water with electricity to split it is a brute force approach, whereas "tickling" it with vibratory methods will get you the same result, but for a tiny fraction of the energy your brute force approach would otherwise require. This IS how you can do the seemingly impossible. If you read what's at the links, this man publicly, time and again did many "impossible things," to include antigravity. I close with a short article which describes some of Keely's antigravity/mass reduction work and happily has zoomable pictures of some of his devices. http://www.antigravitytechnology.net/john_worrell_keely.html Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 Bollocks - it takes a fixed amount to seperate water into hydrogen and oxygen at standard temp & pressure - 237.1kJ/mole - and it makes not a single bit of difference whether the energy comes from electricity, vibration or heat. I expect lawsuits and more tretractions as this scam gets exposed.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris London Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 There are other ways to get the job done, but you won't find them them as long as you have a toolbox with nothing in it but a hammer. define the job? you seem to be confusing technique and task if the task is breaking the hydrogen oxygen bond of water that task is fixed... the method will not change the task. what is the energy potential in that bond? any method must deliver that energy to the bond... the task doesn't change Boris London 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris London Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 I reiterate: "Frying" water with electricity to split it is a brute force approach, whereas "tickling" it with vibratory methods will get you the same result, but for a tiny fraction of the energy your brute force approach would otherwise require. This IS how you can do the seemingly impossible. If you read what's at the links, this man publicly, time and again did many "impossible things," to include antigravity. "tickling" the bond apart could for the sake of argument be the most efficient way of breaking the bond but the net energy gain recovered from recreating it will never exceed zero... comparing the efficiencies of two methods does not alter the task... or the energy stored in the bond... or the energy released upon recreating it thermodynamics Boris London 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 "tickling" the bond apart could for the sake of argument be the most efficient way of breaking the bond but the net energy gain recovered from recreating it will never exceed zero... comparing the efficiencies of two methods does not alter the task... or the energy stored in the bond... or the energy released upon recreating it thermodynamics Boris London The Natural Laws mean nothing in this.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Cool! Dr. X showed up! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 bah! forget kettlerian "tickling" electrolysis - this is value for money quality piston return spring "effectively increases your revs, horsepower, and peak torque!" for only $14.99 per cylinder (plus fitting) Product Information | Additional Reviews by Ron Larson Date Added: 06/15/2006 The reviewers of these Piston Return Springs continually state how well they work in car engines ... Well, I installed them in my Harley Sportster. Of course, I needed to only buy 2. Anyway, since I am using forged high compression pistons, there seems to be alot more resistance in the engine. These 'KaleCoAuto' Piston Return Springs was exactly what was needed to free up some of that excessive internal tension that high compression pistons are notorious for. As an ex-military pilot, I have friends at NASA. You can bet, I will be introducing this item to there Aerospace Engineering Team ... I have a vision that these Piston Return Springs will be commonplace in Zero-Atmosphere Thrust Motors. Rating: [5 of 5 Stars] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Cool! Dr. X showed up! Is that Dr X (and Professor Gangrene) of Action Man fame or Doctor X the mystery-horror film with tongue-in-cheek comedic elements with adult themes such as murder, rape, cannibalism, and prostitution (along with anti-gravity ultrasonic transducers) interwoven into the story? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.