Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84218
  • *Latest: RhineX

  • *Total Posts: 897395
  • *Total Topics: 15816
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 24
  • *Total: 25

Author Topic: a new kind of visible radiant energy?  (Read 265379 times)

Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #180 on: August 30, 2010, 11:59:07 AM »
Hi All,

I have been reading this thread with some interest, having been cross-pollinated to it from EF.  I am going to share a few observations, voice an idea, and allow you all to draw whatever conclusion comes to you. 

First, the idea:  I posit that our model of an electron, or any subatomic particle, is not quite right.  We represent them as point charges with spheres or dots;  I am of the opinion that with a microscope capable of resolving such small items, we would see them looking more like globular clusters of stars.

Next, Dave's device creates a rotating magnetic field... a relatively weak but fast one.  Here are the relevant videos which allow visualization of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onuHOufJoeY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uDiofHpSMo
 
Can someone put a thin film of ferrofluid on top of the working device, in a glass pan or so, and see what happens?

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #180 on: August 30, 2010, 11:59:07 AM »

Offline david lambright

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #181 on: August 30, 2010, 12:26:21 PM »
hi everyone...jesus, your device might come today!.....jetijs, yours wii be there soon...guys, when you get the device, dont expect it to shoot green sparks, lol....just look at it, i have found if there more people looking at the device, the ones who see it right off can help by their description of what they see....hold it up, turn it slowly, do not try too hard, kindof let yuor eyes relax....the words people are using to describe this....looks like heat, a bubble or film, and like a lens...take your time, it will manifest...also my newest device!!...i made the ferro fluid core device using a clear vinyl tube, about 2" diameter.... the tube is 1/4" vinyl, coupled with a short piece of just larger tube....i filled the tube with ferro fluid, not very easy, wear gloves, it was messy but worth it....i could not get all the air out, i left a 1mm bubble in it...i do not think is affects the orbital path....20 or 30 wraps of copper wire and energized first one way, then flip the battery and do it again.....very quick, so that the wires do not get hot.....this device really does the lens thing good...is is just as smokey2 said, you gotta see it for yourself.....david

Offline david lambright

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #182 on: August 30, 2010, 12:38:12 PM »
gravity block...i would be honored to send you a device, but it will be the oxide core model, if that would be alright...it will be my pleasure to build one like the one i built for jetijs!...PM me with an address, and i will put you on the list!....david

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #182 on: August 30, 2010, 12:38:12 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline DreamThinkBuild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #183 on: August 30, 2010, 03:25:30 PM »
Hi All,

Some of what you are describing sounds like what Pier Luigi Ighina was working on.

http://www.svpvril.com/ighina/magatom.html

"...
When observing an atom under an atomic microscope, he defined 4 fundamental laws:


1) The light atoms, when they excite the observed atoms, give part of their motion to the latter.

2) The observed atoms absorb part of the motion of the light atoms to speed up theirs.

3) In order to excite an atom, you need it to get in touch with an atom of higher motion; the atom with the highest motion will attract the one with the lowest motion.

4) The higher the atoms motion, the more luminous it will be and vice-versa.
..."

I'm wondering if #3 is what is causing the Aluminum to attract? If you could excite the Aluminum atoms to a higher motion then it would be more likely to attract those with a lower motion? The glimmer effect could be part #4 when exciting the surrounding atoms to a higher motion.

I could be all wrong in the thinking of this but the implications of the Lambright effect are amazing.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #184 on: August 30, 2010, 04:32:53 PM »
Hi All,

I have been reading this thread with some interest, having been cross-pollinated to it from EF.  I am going to share a few observations, voice an idea, and allow you all to draw whatever conclusion comes to you. 

First, the idea:  I posit that our model of an electron, or any subatomic particle, is not quite right.  We represent them as point charges with spheres or dots;  I am of the opinion that with a microscope capable of resolving such small items, we would see them looking more like globular clusters of stars.

Next, Dave's device creates a rotating magnetic field... a relatively weak but fast one.  Here are the relevant videos which allow visualization of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onuHOufJoeY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uDiofHpSMo
 
Can someone put a thin film of ferrofluid on top of the working device, in a glass pan or so, and see what happens?

Cheers,
Twinbeard
Hello Twinbeard and most welcome to our discussion.  Some very appropriate links.  Many thanks for that.

They have actually photographed pictures of atoms - believe it or not.  It looks like nested eggs held in cottonwool - or morning mist.  Extraordinary photograph - but I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it.  Just have the picture of it welded on my mind.

I think Dave or someone with a rig will need to do that thin film of ferrofluid that you recommended.  I must say I'd also like to know the outcome.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #184 on: August 30, 2010, 04:32:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3279
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #185 on: August 30, 2010, 05:05:21 PM »
@David:  I sent you a PM

@All:  Here's a video of my replication of the Baker's Device, YouTube - Baker's device 

I used the nylon fibers found inside a CAT 5 cable.  All I need to do now is to add a mirror to the nylon string to reflect the laser light, then seal it up so there are no air currents to affect the experiments.  I also need 4 ring magnets so the combined forces of the earth's magnetic field and those of the doughnut magnets almost cancel each other out so it will rotate quite freely and be the most sensitive.  This setup detected a magnet from 4 feet away without the nulling magnets in place.  It didn't take very long to assemble this apparatus and it was easy to build.

GB
« Last Edit: August 30, 2010, 05:52:49 PM by gravityblock »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #186 on: August 30, 2010, 05:09:38 PM »
Hi Sm0ky.  It constantly amazes me that mathematicians can determine things like the Casimir effect - and even more amazing - an accurate description of the periodic table - without ever being able to actually climb into an atomic structure and study it.  All branches of physics and it's multiple achievements are an enduring tribute to our scientific community and our Greats amongst them - and not to be belittled.  I'm very aware of this.

My interest - however - is still with outstanding questions.  You mention that it's possible to fire an electon into a proton.  Perhaps in our particle accelerators - and then under extreme velocities.  But my own understanding of this is that - under usual conditions - the electron is ultimately repelled - the closer it gets.  I'm more than open to correction here - as most of my knowledge of physics is gleaned from layman's literature.  And to verify this I'd need to look up a reference and I really haven't the interest or time.  But I've added this to my ever growing 'to do' list.

What I really wanted to do was to list some of the questions that I understood are still outstanding.  Here goes - to the best of my knowledge we do not know why the electron is precisely 1836 times smaller than a proton - yet has the identical but opposite charge.  Why the electron does not nosedive to the proton is still out there.  Partially explained as it's having a 'like' charge to some of the proposed quarks - which again is based on theoretical suppositions.  Nothing wrong with theory.  Just very difficult to prove.  Then there's the outstanding question related to the forces themselves.  No-one knows how they work - only that they do.  And right now the structure of the universe is somewhat topical as they've been obliged to propose an overriding universal expansion to override the 'attraction' of the gravitational force.  This analysis is based on measurements related to the red shift - but there are gross inherent contradictions that relate to empirical evidence - especially as this relates to the collision of galaxies.  But over and above all of this is the fact that neither classical and quantum gravity explain the mystery related to our galaxial masses that really should unravel and yet they don't.  This question is NOT answered by universal expansion.  It is only answered by the existence of some force that heretofore has not been factored in to our physics studies.  And it's getting a hard time amongst all academics.  There is still just a fringe group of astrophysicsts who acknowledge the evidence here.  When one considers that this problem has been put out there some 80 years ago, it shows the evident reluctance of mainstream to entertain new questions let alone new answers to those questions.  And finally is the outstanding question related to locality.  The simple fact is that paird particles can adjust their positions simultaneously at faster than light speeds.  This begs the final barrier that superluminal velocity is indeed possible.  This point is seldom referenced by mainstream and - like dark energy - it's only referenced in whispers.  LOL

Which, again, is why forums such as this rock.  I'm reasonably sure that we all prefer questions to standardised answers.  Clearly - until mainstream will revise those creeds related to thermodynamic laws then - we all definitely have the edge on them.  And more to the point is that we're all prepared to both ask the questions and find the answers.  Maybe not with the same flair and panache and technical rectitudes - but it still puts us streets ahead.  LOL.  We're leaning hard on those paradigms.  Very nice.

 ;D

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #186 on: August 30, 2010, 05:09:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #187 on: August 30, 2010, 05:15:54 PM »
@David:  I sent you a PM

@All:  Here's a video of my replication of the Baker's Device, YouTube - Baker's device 

I used the nylon fibers found inside a CAT 5 cable.  All I need to do now is to add a mirror to the nylon string to reflect the laser light, then seal it up so there are no air currents to affect the experiments.  I also need 4 ring magnets to null out gravity so it will be the most sensitve.  This setup detected a magnet from 4 feet away without the nulling magnets in place.  It didn't take very long to assemble this apparatus and it was easy to build.

GB

Well done GB.  It'll be nice to see measurements of Dave's rig when you get it.  Really well done. 

kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline cletushowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #188 on: August 30, 2010, 05:17:24 PM »
Im trying to lock myself down like howard hughes
im a little too far over life itself right now
anyways smoky your real close to the ac
battery with aternating the caps between the coils
wit the power mangment control system
each cap can be released in order
as the others fill now i need to figure out how to fill
these caps from the moray cell .

2. The triangle was not very usefull mainly its because combined two shapes
if you change the bottom from a square to triangle
you see you can only have four triangles
then fill in the polarity of those four
you have the polarity of the flying triangle
now smoky if you can pulse the polarity
with the caps you can controll the gravity in
one triangle by pulsing the three caps
in the four different orders in sequence

3 the ability to seperate like hutchesion
does is the reverse of explosion
einstien stated a the flame cannot be controlled
I discovered the flame can be controlled
its thru the joe cell your creating a vacume
in the cylinder and imploding if you was the electricity
between the piston and spark plug in the vacume
pulling tge piston towards the plug
instid of the fire between the plug you get movement
something tesla could not do control
the sparks its thru direction by
imploding or moving the particles together
to eminiate the spark
4 the glimmer vibration sorry probly have the terms wrong
is when the oscilatio. Of the current is not correct there is
a vibration emmited a pulse this pulse is a strange effect
from what I can tell its just lost energy
not directed when i corrected the flow
of energy the pulse went away
basicaly it would be 1 or more of the energy
not in how do you say when colors dont match you shirt and pants
the clash i guess when energy dont match the cause that
vibration of not having the right color star between it
out phase i guess might explain it better
I dont beleive this thread has limits
because its the structure of everything.
5 oh so implosion pulls and aligns the attomic
particles they stay there till modified we
do everything the hard way heat cool pressure
hutchesion is controling more or less releasing tje implosion
of the center magnetic feild holding the structure together
this seperates the piston in joes car
allows it to go back around
then he inserts energy to pull it together
joe im shure did not understand
he was doing hutchesions experiment controlled and at high
speed but i think hutchesion did or does
he shows something in his notes about the stainless
car that runs free maybee hes the one emailing me
in a private email anyways I would like to build that joe cell
I think between it and spark phasing the capacitors we can set
america free from oil and paying for electricity
I put the demostrations on my
happy birthday post sorry some things I just cant solve sobber
its impossible have to slow the brain down enough to be paitient
then when im paitient I can usualy finish what I understand
but cant do maybee i should try these
electrical diodes and stuf drunk beings I cant build them sober
oh this is so frustrating not being able to build electrical boards

Im thinking this may help a full pipe is a
full ion flow a half pipe still flow ions but thru air
im thinking that the half pipes should
pick up the radiation from the granite
salt container then the top should not be cut
but maybey also even soldered to a v
so take daves pipes but leave a peice at the top
not cut in half so half the pipe is radiant and a portion
is circling that potion should now be useable one way or another
either direct or a secondary wire around it
oh i did something stupid i wound a fluorecent
with wire did you know you can get energy from
those tubes so i dont have a tesla tower but if i did
i could show you that lost vibration
picked up by the flourescent in air can be
harnessed by the wire around the light
i guess thats picking up the radiant waves it was a bitch to wind a
spriral florescent it didnt make as much as i wanted
proble because i used thermistat wire instid of
magnet wire well I gave you a lot hop it helps 
 
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #188 on: August 30, 2010, 05:17:24 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline cletushowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #189 on: August 30, 2010, 06:44:07 PM »
@rosemary
you dontderstand everything is different ech time i see it its like they cut peices from my side so im not ignoring you but did not have your response to answer your question im now frustrated but ill do it anyways.
your question
What I really wanted to do was to list some of the questions that I understood are still outstanding.  Here goes - to the best of my knowledge we do not know why the electron is precisely 1836 times smaller than a proton - yet has the identical but opposite charge?

the answer= 1836 =1+8=9 3 6 teslas 369 rev 18 there not exact smae there 1 off the 8


 Why the electron does not nosedive to the proton is still out there.?
answer the proton and neutron cannot colide due to the 1 added to the system once this is done polarity is always seperated 3691888 after the 1 everything is always positive or double energy its ciclin back thru the 8 the 369 cirlcles back thru the 369


  Partially explained as it's having a 'like' charge to some of the proposed quarks - which again is based on theoretical suppositions.  Nothing wrong with theory.  Just very difficult to prove.  Then there's the outstanding question related to the forces themselves.  No-one knows how they work - only that they do.  And right now the structure of the universe is somewhat topical as they've been obliged to propose an overriding universal expansion to override the 'attraction' of the gravitational force. ?
Gravity is expanding the plasma earths sea of glass is expanding as gravit increases the green house gas the water is suspended longer as the sea turns to salt crystals the green house energy is then vibrated between the plasma and the earth this is the end result the sea crystals hold all the water in space.
 This analysis is based on measurements related to the red shift - but there are gross inherent contradictions that relate to empirical evidence - especially as this relates to the collision of galaxies.  But over and above all of this is the fact that neither classical and quantum gravity explain the mystery related to our galaxial masses that really should unravel and yet they don't.  This question is NOT answered by universal expansion.?
you dont see the loops its not expanding or contracting its apearse to be based on the time and energy you evaluate it at the earth is constantly sending rocks to space why the grand canyon
does not build it own giant dam where did the dirt go the rocks I know it hard for you to get
but its the same result as coral castle but when the energy level is increased to a point the rocks build so much energy the shoot to space dislodge with energy when enough sediment is loose the rocks has more energy the the resistance it goes this happens at nigh due to temperature of air coller then the rocks and energy.

It is only answered by the existence of some force that heretofore has not been factored in to our physics studies.  And it's getting a hard time amongst all academics.  There is still just a fringe group of astrophysicsts who acknowledge the evidence here.  When one considers that this problem has been put out there some 80 years ago, it shows the evident reluctance of mainstream to entertain new questions let alone new answers to those questions.  And finally is the outstanding question related to locality.  The simple fact is that paird particles can adjust their positions simultaneously at faster than light speeds.  This begs the final barrier that superluminal velocity is indeed possible.  This point is seldom referenced by mainstream and - like dark energy - it's only referenced in whispers. dark energy is a joke a new scientific term to get more funding its all the same frequency whether you store it in a battery oil coal natural gas hydrogen a specialy formulated composite of shit that you calcuate converts the energy better its still all the same thing frequency split uvc to uvb tovc to lead all the way to silicon you have the plasma yes I have the formula no I dont have a lab yes they did split lead frequency clear to silicon so theres better solar times 10 your just going to buy there slowest computer first everyone is thats the going green scam unless we bust it first with good will and better intention people then getting rich.
in fact well all get rich because we will all stop paying iran just work together.

Which, again, is why forums such as this rock.  I'm reasonably sure that we all prefer questions to standardised answers.  Clearly - until mainstream will revise those creeds related to thermodynamic laws then - we all definitely have the edge on them.  And more to the point is that we're all prepared to both ask the questions and find the answers.  Maybe not with the same flair and panache and technical rectitudes - but it still puts us streets ahead.  LOL.  We're leaning hard on those paradigms.  Very nice.

 

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline david lambright

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 211
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #190 on: August 30, 2010, 10:53:55 PM »
hi everyone!....i just wanted to say thanks again to everyone who takes the time, out of their lives, to read this thread and post ANY ideas about this...and the replicators.....well there are no words that are adequate.....i have said this all before but, if this is nothing, it will fall apart....but if it is as i have been saying, it will continue to grow just as it has been doing.......TODAY IS THE DAY OF DISCOVERY......david

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #190 on: August 30, 2010, 10:53:55 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #191 on: August 30, 2010, 11:04:55 PM »
Hello Twinbeard and most welcome to our discussion.  Some very appropriate links.  Many thanks for that.

Hi Rosemary.  Its a pleasure to meet you.  Fabulous work you are doing!

They have actually photographed pictures of atoms - believe it or not.  It looks like nested eggs held in cottonwool - or morning mist.  Extraordinary photograph - but I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it.  Just have the picture of it welded on my mind.

I would love to see it.  Google Images cannot come up with a actual picture of an electron for me, which is what I was intending on referring to... not an entire atom.  If you find such an image, please let me know.  The thought was that the electron it itself comprised of many smaller quark type aetheric particles.

I think Dave or someone with a rig will need to do that thin film of ferrofluid that you recommended.  I must say I'd also like to know the outcome.

I'm just curious what the extent of the B field looks like, given that the flux, by my estimation, should not be able to escape what amounts to a toroidal core, yet the particular geometry of this device may be creating really interesting eddies.

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Offline cletushowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #192 on: August 31, 2010, 12:56:09 AM »
Not only did the goverment finish my flying triangle they
fucking landed it in fresno where i grew up
you could at least show it to me
damit 
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1175026/pg1

Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #193 on: August 31, 2010, 03:16:13 AM »
@Rosemary

   I believe Jeanna over in the joule thief thread posted pictures of an atom.  The surface of which is a series of triangular static lines encasing whirling circles.  Looks like little pyramids encasing spheres. A pyramid is a cool geometric shape it can encompass a circle with the circle meeting the pyramid surface at 5 points.  One in the middle of the base.   And 4 more at pi diistance from the ground to the touch on the four faces.   The pinnacle of the pyramid forms an axis for the encased sphere while the walls  and floor of the pyramid form a 3 dimensional support system for the encased ball of minimal contact.  You can put a sphere inside a square also but the pyramid is more interesting.  Any expansion or contraction of the sphere would be converted to moving the pinnacle of the pyramid up and down.  More or less converting the stress put on the sides of the pyramid into motion at the pinnacle. A little expansion of the sphere creates alot of movement at the pinnacle.
   @ all

     We are down wind of Leo and the two of us are heading towards a supercluster of galaxies beyond what is known as the Great Attractor.  The gravity from this dense cluster of matter is pulling the entire Milkyway there.  Since gravity is pretty quick way faster than the speed of light we can assume that this cluster of galaxies is still there even though slowass light is taking forever to get here.  The young cluster of galaxies we are seeing most probably exist as a super blackhole by now long ago gobbling up the hot matter and cooling it down considerably.  Gravity is an accelerating force.  It accelerates stuff aound here a 32feet per second unless you take the moon into account which slows this acceleration down.  Gravity like movement is a relative thing.  The more mass in a given field the more gravity.  To counter all this mother nature in all her wisdom produced antigravity.  This manifests in like charges being repelled.  There is no positive and negative there is just more or less electricity in a substance. The proton is assigned a positive charge.  Why because it has less mass density.  It is quite large compared to the electron yet it has equal charge effect.  This is because it has less mass density.  If it had the same mass density as an electron it would have the same charge state as an electron and would repel the electron.   A blackhole does not gobble up another blackhole.  We see a blackhole gobbling up the less dense matter surrounding the blackhole at the center of each and every star but blackholes are relavent to blackholes.  Once they have stripped the hot stuff it leaves the core of the star which is at the same mass density as the big black hole.  The two black holes then begin to accelerate away from each other on their way to creating new galaxies somewhere else in time and space.  There has to be antigravity or the big bang has to be repeating itself over and over and over again changing just a little bit every time.  Imploding and exploding so damn fast that all we see is minute changes dictated by whatever force is controlling the whole creator frequency.  Of the two sceanarios I would go with antigravity.  At least on the 7th day when the creator takes a snooze.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #194 on: August 31, 2010, 03:35:27 AM »
  @smokey

    The electromagnetic stimulation of radioactive decay can make anything radioactive by decreasing the angular velocity of electrons in the 1s orbital.  They have found this out and can now take radioactive waste and electromagnetically stimulate it until it drops below radiation levels of that you would find in a smoke detector.  What the problem is is control.  When a guy can whip up a device put it in his garage and change his human waste into enough energy to power the neighborhood they loose control.  They no longer have us working night and day paying electric bills and fuel bills and taxes on fuel and taxes on electricity and taxes levied on stuff we make and stuff we do.  We are free to go out and change salt water to fresh change a desert into a farmland change packaging and all our waste into fertilizers and raw materials to rebuild our infrastructures and new structures.  A world of so much there is no need for wars or depletion of natural rescources that cause wars.  I dont know about you but this is no longer a matter of if is it  possible it is a matter of who is in the way of building such a world and why.

Sparks - this is just such a nice post.  Definitely needs framing.  Here's my vision.  I see us carrying a convenient little golf ball sized sphere in our pockets.  Its a simple acryllic material embedding a free floating magnetic monopole - postioned between two fixed metal plates - and a switch which releases the clasp to let that magnetic monopole spin.  Then - when we want some tea - or when we want to cook our stew - we flip that switch and simply toss that little number into the water and wait for it boil.   ;D

Got to be an improvement on all that wiring that keeps us grid locked.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosie


 

OneLink