Author Topic: Cavitation. The key to overunity? (Read 136557 times)

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #360 on:** December 28, 2008, 10:52:02 PM »

"When Pirate took a walk with my cavitation information and started this thread, he also took the responsibility to read and understand the information which he has failed to do. There is that nautical theme again." Quote From TheBuzz

Excuse me but here you go again! Your cavitation information? I started a new topic because you hijacked Captainpecan's topic with this nonsense. I have read all of your "information" so called, and see no evidence of your theory being correct. But, I have also stated that even though I do not see any connection at this time, I reserved judgment until all of the facts are in.

When you grow up and get over yourself a little, maybe then we can have a decent discussion on these ideas. I have reached out and listened to your presentation, and others, and maybe have even learned a few things along the way. But, to say again that "Pirate took a walk with my cavitation information" is totally bogus and you know it. How could I take your information when I have said many times that I think your information is not correct? Did you not notice the"?" in the topic title? Did you not notice my posting the first post that says I don't subscribe to this theory?
How the heck is that taking your information? I have not stopped anyone from posting here have I? I gave you many examples of devices that work without cavitation as did others and yet you choose to ignore these posts. Fine. That is your choice. But to say that no one here has posted anything that refutes your theory is laughable to anyone that can read.

As I said, if you change your attitude, maybe we can all have an intelligent conversation. If you can't, then I feel bad for you.

Paul has asked you to do a simple experiment that would show that you are correct or incorrect and yet, you say no one has challenged your theory.

If you don't like what I am posting, please feel free to start your own topic and continue your abuse over there.

Bill

madddann · « **Reply #361 on:** December 28, 2008, 10:54:23 PM »

Oh guys, i think we are in the same boat, we are here to learn from each other and from nature, it's the only way known to me that would make better progress...

@TheBuzz

It would be great if you would at least try to clarify the process of cavitation - what do you think is really going on in there. I know, this could make "the skeptics" go wild and bury you, perhaps it's your decision what to do... looks like we really need a moderated thread or another forum at this point.
I'm more after the vortex thing, but i think it's closely related to cavitation.

Dann

PaulLowrance · « **Reply #362 on:** December 29, 2008, 04:53:00 AM »

Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 28, 2008, 10:52:02 PM

Paul has asked you to do a simple experiment that would show that you are correct or incorrect and yet, you say no one has challenged your theory.

If you don't like what I am posting, please feel free to start your own topic and continue your abuse over there.

Bill

So far TheBuzz (Prometheus) has ignored my suggestion of using a $15 Geiger counter to test his theory. When will everyone begin to catch on as to what's happening to the "free energy" community. Several years ago I encouraged Stefan to begin detailed IP tracking. It's always the same thing, just a different theme. A new username. The same people. The end result's are always the same, which is a huge waste of everyone's time. They have no interest in making money, so people should take a guess what their goal is. Anyhow, again -->

Here's one for $15
http://cgi.ebay.com/Victoreen-CDV-715-1A-Radiation-Detector-Geiger-Counter_W0QQitemZ160306325904QQcmdZViewItemQQptZBI_Security_Fire_Protection?hash=item160306325904&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2|65%3A15|39%3A1|240%3A1318

Here's another for $15
http://cgi.ebay.com/Victoreen-Instrument-Geiger-Counter-CDV-717-Model-1_W0QQitemZ190259748656QQcmdZViewItemQQptZBI_Security_Fire_Protection?hash=item190259748656&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2|65%3A15|39%3A1|240%3A1318

PL

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #363 on:** December 29, 2008, 05:43:30 AM »

Quote from: TheBuzz on December 29, 2008, 05:36:21 AM

I don't work for you Paul and I have better things to do than silly experiments for you. Why don't you do your own experiments in your own thread as suggested.

According to Paul, anyone that is not in it for profit is suspect? Wow... I'm glad most of us don't think like that. Our hobby is searching for free energy, apparently you have a problem with that?

This thread is about the cavitation link to free energy devices and that link has been well established.

Slight correction there. This thread is about IF cavitation is linked to free energy devices and that link has not been well established, or even established at all in my opinion. That is what we are discussing here. The jury is still out.

Bill

maw2432 · « **Reply #364 on:** December 29, 2008, 05:59:06 AM »

@ Buzz

Thanks for the links. Nice to get everthing listed like you put together.

Bill

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #365 on:** December 29, 2008, 06:00:34 AM »

Well, I started this topic so I guess that makes me the jury. And, it is still out. Many devices have been listed that produce free energy without cavitation. Maybe you call them receivers. I don't as all free energy devices are receivers so that point is moot. All energy comes from somewhere so, therefore all devices are receivers, not just all of the ones that don't fit your theory.

I did not name "The Young Effect", Mr. Young did. You really need to get your facts straight prior to posting...please. I suggested the name as a possible option. It was his choice.

I say again, please start your own topic and quit abusing folks here. This is my second request.

Bill

Grumpy · « **Reply #366 on:** December 29, 2008, 06:11:54 AM »

So far, no one has proved that cavitation is not responsible for anomalous energy output from various devices.

We need to come up with some way to prove it.

PaulLowrance · « **Reply #367 on:** December 29, 2008, 06:42:17 AM »

Why would TheBuzz say my suggestion of testing for gamma radiation is "silly" ? If there's nuclear cavitation, and you don't have thick shielding, then there's going to be gamma rays.

If a $15 Geiger counter was purchased, then we could quickly see if there's nuclear cavitation. If none was detected, then it means cavitation is *not* the cause of the "free energy."

PL

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #368 on:** December 29, 2008, 06:43:27 AM »

@ Buzz:

Interesting retort. But you miss some basic facts. Yes, I agree with you (wow) about the crystal radio using the transmitter's power to work...free energy to the guy with the radio but, you and I both know where the energy comes from.

And as far as not knowing the difference between an energy receiver and an energy converter, maybe you should rethink this a bit. A device can not convert energy unless it receives it first. See? This is very simple and basic but you overlook it for some reason. The atom bomb that you refer to so often could not and would not work without the plutonium energy already existing in the core prior to critical mass.

As far as me trying to get you banned goes......you did it yourself before and I am sure you will do it again on your own. You certainly don't need my help as you have proved before.

I can't produce evidence to prove a negative you above all should know that. You tell me one energy device that is not a receiver of energy and then we can talk cavitation or not. I don't think one exists. This is just a cop out for the defects in your interesting theory. It is a good theory, don't get me wrong. I just don't like absolutes where everything is everything and nothing is nothing. Absolutes are never true. (wait, that is an absolute) See what I mean?

I mentioned the earth battery several times but you would say that is a receiver. (I agree) The diodes that Paul mentioned you say are receivers. (again, I agree) Solar power, you say is receiver. (agree again) So, I ask you to name anything on the planet, or in the universe, that is NOT a receiver of energy and I say you can't.

So, I guess that is that. Pretty simple really.

Bill

PaulLowrance · « **Reply #369 on:** December 29, 2008, 06:52:14 AM »

Quote from: TheBuzz on December 29, 2008, 06:20:14 AM

So far, until someone posts a validated free energy device that is not a receiver, all of them appear to use cavitation to convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass.

So far my diode array is the *only* published "free energy" device that includes every detail, part numbers, how to replicate, that would produce "free energy." So, just out of curiousity, what "validated free energy" machines have you validated?

Nuclear fusion emits gamma rays. It requires special shielding to prevent gamma rays from exiting. It just seems highly unlikely these unshielded machines are bombarding these people with gamma radiation. The fact that for example Thanes is still alive is pretty much a guarantee his machine is not producing nuclear cavitation.

For anyone who's interested in testing this cavitation theory can get a Geiger counter for $15. Please see a previous post that contains the eBay links.

PL

PaulLowrance · « **Reply #370 on:** December 29, 2008, 07:12:42 AM »

Quote from: TheBuzz on December 29, 2008, 06:58:37 AM

What Paul is trying to bait me into is producing a nuclear fusion device so that the government can justify arresting me or placing me under a secrecy order. Sorry Paul, while I was born in the morning, it wasn't this morning. It is an old suppression trick they use - nice try.

Huh? LOL, that's funny. No, I'm trying to get you to test your theory. Also, I'm trying to save the time of legitimate researchers. BTW, students and professors at Universities are working on nuclear fusion. It's not illegal, and they're not in jail. So it's a bit silly to say that by me asking you to test for gamma radiation is some attempt to get you put in jail.

Don't get me wrong, nuclear cavitation is great field, but researcher should *in the very least* learn quantum physics, or at least some basic nuclear physics. For example, I spent two years learning semiconductor physics and mathematics for my diode array research. Working on nuclear cavitation technology is far far far beyond my task of fabrication semiconductor chips.

PL

PaulLowrance · « **Reply #371 on:** December 29, 2008, 07:25:01 AM »

Here it is. Jean-Louis Naudin tested his Tom Bearden replication of the MEG for gamma radiation, and found none. Here's the quote -->

http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm
Quote from Jean-Louis Naudin,
"With a gamma counter : No gamma radiation has yet been detected"

I have not verified the Jean-Louis Naudin MEG, but if it works, then IMO the "free energy" would come from ambient thermal energy.

PL

sparks · « **Reply #372 on:** December 29, 2008, 03:54:48 PM »

Is a hole in a semiconductor or the hole in the valence shells of copper gold silver etc. considered a cavity? The holes are massless but respond to voltage gradients. Do the holes move before the electrons when voltage is first applied to a diode or copper conductor? Is it possible to move the holes in the wire without moving the electrons? Can we charge a capacitor by just moving the holes? Can the movement of the holes exceed the speed of light? Do the holes coalesce within a reversed biased diode to make a bigger hole?

PaulLowrance · « **Reply #373 on:** December 29, 2008, 05:05:13 PM »

Quote from: TheBuzz on December 29, 2008, 08:11:07 AM

Paul, I did not cite the MEG and to my knowledge the MEG did not ever produce OU and I certainly never claimed that the MEG did a Fe56 to Fe54 transmute.

Paul, I don't know where your imaginary MEG argument came from but it has nothing to do with my theory to my knowledge but my knowledge of Beardens MEG is zero. Bearden in my mind has no credibility - he is an ex-navel intel agent. If anything he ever wrote had any value, someone would have taken the information in one of his books and put it to good use producing a free energy device. To my knowledge it has not happened. Where are they?

Next - it is my understanding that in order to run an accelerator, you need a license. I would assume universities have the necessary license and so the students are naturally not be in jail. Once again, your argument seems baseless and devoid of fact, scientific or otherwise.

While I do trust much of what Naudin says, he is but one person and fallible. Notice he didn't include the accelerator coil in his Meyer replication schematic but it is visible in the photo? What up?

Now if your idea is so good, why don't you go buy a bunch of diodes or manufacture a chip and get rich selling energy?

Last (and it would be nice if it were the last I heard of your baseless misquotes), I could care less about conventional physics since conventional physics has more holes in it than swiss cheese just like your most recent mis-statement regarding the MEG.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever gotten Bedini's pulse motor to run OU for an extended period of time either, but I don't know what I don't know.

So why don't you build a MEG, make it run OU, buy a counter and prove me wrong. It is not my job to prove myself wrong but would gladly admit it if I were. It is just about the science with me, not some false ego driven need to be right.

I actually wish you could prove me wrong. The Methernitha is a device that was highly validated. The Gray tube is another. Please post a highly validated free energy device that was not a receiver that did not use cavitation to convert mass into the atomic energy contained within mass.

Bottom line, they will all use acceleration or cavitation to produce the same result.

This needs quoting since TheBuzz (Prometheus), via email, threatened to delete all of his posts.

I'm a huge fan of "free energy." I just want to offer tests to either prove or disprove theories & devices that would waste a lot of legitimate research time.

For the sake of people who would get caught up into this nuclear cavitation theory, and waste a lot of good time, lets provide information so people can make a good decision -->

* TheBuzz (Prometheus) was offered to test his theory by using a Geiger counter. Prometheus's replied back that such a test is silly, even though he claims such devices are powered by nuclear cavitation.

* Prometheus discredits the MEG, even though Naudin claims to have successfully replicated the MEG.

* Naudin's Geiger counter measurements on the MEG showed no radiation.

* Prometheus's claims that I misquoted Naudin, even though I directly copied and pasted the words that are on Naudin's website --> "With a gamma counter : No gamma radiation has yet been detected"

PL

Grumpy · « **Reply #374 on:** December 29, 2008, 05:55:37 PM »

The diode array as an energy source is not so good. Kinda like solar - the energy is free but you can't collect much of it.

Rather than argue, you can change your attitude and we will all be better for it.

How can you produce your own thermal noise by cavitation of some medium and then collect more energy?

Does the diode array have a receiving antenna or collector to help it catch more thermal noise?

What is "thermal noise" in the first place? Does it have a longitudinal component?

================================================================

The MEG uses magnetic current - which Bearden either never mentions or doesn't know they exist. See, Maxwell left that out of his theory and this is why "zero point" exist at all. Add magnetic current and ZP goes away, but you gain much more. There will be no gamma emission, but might detect something with a beta detector, especially if his core leaked, but I doubt it, it would not be a true particle anyway - just an induced charge.

================================================================

Some of your views on transmutation need to be updated. Walter Russell transmuted flourine in a well-known and well-documented experiment - I don't recall this producing any radiation.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Cavitation. The key to overunity? (Read 136557 times)

Pirate88179

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

madddann

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

PaulLowrance

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

Pirate88179

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

maw2432

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

Pirate88179

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

Grumpy

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

PaulLowrance

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

Pirate88179

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

PaulLowrance

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

PaulLowrance

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

PaulLowrance

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

sparks

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

PaulLowrance

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?

Grumpy

Re: Cavitation. The key to overunity?