Gold Produced From Ground Up Beer Bottles

a reply to: randyvs

The old saying if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

IMO the process they describe doesn't add up at all. I really think Doc hit the nail on the head when he said this is just like the philosopher stone scam of old except they are combining some "science" stuff to it. I see that a lot with some of the newer scams they especially like to say its because of a special frequency. Just last year there was a thread about a group claiming they had an invention that could make water wetter that would do away with pesticides and make plants grow 20 or 30% faster. If you guessed that they claimed it was because of some magic frequency they ran the water through you would be right.

I think I will try to see what happened with those hucksters.

originally posted by: Rob48
How then is Burger free to make gold in his little shack without being bumped off by the Vatican cabal?

I am not the Vatican, so I can't answer that. I can give you several theories though. I'm sure you don't really care, your question was just a loaded question.

originally posted by: Rob48
And sorry for misquoting you on the machine. What you actually said was:

Ok, I forgive you.

originally posted by: Rob48
That machine being a standard hammer mill. How many seconds did it take to feed a broken bottle through that machine? How much water? How much electricity. All three of those "expenses" cannot amount to more than a dollar, even with two men doing it. And remember, that single bottle can yield over $100 of gold.

Now you are on the right track, and asking the right questions. All three of those expenses are only the first step. Now add up the rest of the expenses in the following steps, and don't forget to pay the employee(s). One key factor you need to know, is how long it takes to process one bottle of glass.

In the end you will see it all adds up, and the profit is minimal after expenses are paid. You could probably make more profit selling used car parts from a junkyard at the rate he is going.

You keep trying to claim you have some secret insight.

You keep not listening to what I say, and whatever you do listen to, you view it from within a small box.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Just last year there was a thread about a group claiming they had an invention that could make water wetter that would do away with pesticides and make plants grow 20 or 30% faster. If you guessed that they claimed it was because of some magic frequency they ran the water through you would be right.

Yep I remember tha one. And the thing about these scams that
get sensationalized. All you have to do is skim over what it's all
about and wait for the world to change in six months. Because
if these jokers were legit? It would transform the world in possibly
an even shorter amount of time. And the only ones who can get
scammed are those who want to get in on "The ground floor".
So now what do we have in perspective?

If it looks like a duck?

a reply to: randyvs

If it looks like a duck?

It will probably wind up on quackwatch. BTW the Water wetter guys did.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
The two posters who have replied tried saying it was for quicker melting or space issues which I called them out on the BS answers they gave.

That is complete BS. I named 1 good reason for grinding it down. It decreases the time and energy it takes to melt the glass. All you have done is noted that adding the seed material would increase the time and energy, and completely ignored the over all decrease it would have on the entire mixture. You didn't call anything out but your own ignorance.

Read this following paper:
www.ceramics-silikaty.cz...

These results suggest that the pulverization of batch could improve the melting and fining behavior and decrease the melting temperature.

A uniformly-mixed finer batch is considered to provide a larger contact area of the constituent raw materials which facilitates batch reaction.

As I stated I would, I will now name several reasons why pulverizing the glass is best practice. Supported by the source above.

1: They were mixing different types of glass. Grinding it down and mixing it before melting it makes a more uniformed-mixture. If you try to mix it while it is molten you risk the chance of a nonuniform mixture of glass. You will have streaks and blobs of different types of glass, which will cause uneven heating/temperature.

2: Non-uninformed mixtures will cause the electromagnetic radiation exposure to be uneven as well in the microwave process, because of streaks and blobs of different types of glass.

3: The "seed" material they added in also needed to be uniformly mixed with the glass. It is easier and better to do so when its all pulverized to a powder.

4: You reduce the chances of air bubbles getting trapped in the mixture.

5: Reduced energy usage. Mixing the glass while it is pulverized into a powder and cold will take less energy. That is because if you waste your time trying to mix it while it is molten, you will have to keep it molten for longer period of time, wasting more energy.

6: Safety. Risking potential splashes and spills while trying to mix molten glass can be dangerous, start fires, and seriously injure people. It is much safer to do the mixing while pulverized into a powder and cold.

Shall I keep going? There are more...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
If they didn't know they should have said so and that answer would have been fine but they tried to feign knowledge on the subject they so obviously do not posses.

As I have just proven, it is you that obviously does not possess* the required knowledge. Yet you think you are on the topmost pedestal. Pathetic.

This is also a reply to this ignorant post of yours.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Knowing about the properties and capabilities of glass at one time was my bread and butter. It was business to know.

It WAS your bread and butter... WAS business... But no longer is. You obviously were not every good at it if you don't know the basic science behind it, and no longer do it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

It is possible to make water wetter. It's called reduced surface tension, and it can be induced magnetically and electrically, or electromagnetically...

proenv.com...

As the number of passes through the SCED was increased, the surface tension of the
treated water sample decreased by 5.9% and 7.8% from those of the untreated tap water and natural hard
water, respectively.

Read more papers...

scitation.aip.org...
www.sciencedirect.com...

So you were saying?

a reply to: WeAre0ne
That's ionized water, not water.
As soon as you run it through a typical home plumbing system which is grounded to remove electric charge from the pipes, it will come out as regular water, so it won't be any wetter.

But sure if you add electric charges to things you can change their properties, but what you are dealing with in these papers is water with electric charges added, not ordinary water.

Geuss what, adding soap to water will reduce the surface tension even more than adding electric charge. And if you run the soapy water through a home plumbing system, it won't remove the soap, so it will still have reduced surface tension when it comes out of the faucet.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes I know. I've read every paper I posted front to back. I have studied water for years.

I wasn't talking about it moving through grounded pipes though.

And yes, I know the effects of adding detergent to water.

Neat fact, firefighters often have to calculate and deal with "friction loss" in firehoses, so they sometimes add chemicals to reduce friction loss, and be able spray water further distances.

Think about every world changing invention in your lifetime....
Do you remember being asked to fund it?

Changing matter is probably, on the scale of human innovation, 100 times more impressive than controlling data using protocols in a network (i.e the internet) however I don't remember Tim Berners Lee asking for investment from the public.

I can't remember Martin Cooper leaving Motorola and searching for investors when he invented the Cell Phone?

Anything that changes the game is called "disruptive" and investors love disruptive technology.

This is not only a disruptive technology but it produces a output that has an established value...just think about that..it is literally the most attractive investment on Earth but Prof Burger cant find anybody to invest.....no Deer Stalker required.

If you are so well read on water, you will know it is not called friction loss, and it is actually important for all water systems, fire fighters do not represent some kind of bleeding edge where these losses are really that much of a concern.

Liquid flow through pipes is something I have experience with, mainly in my case it is cryogenic gases and liquids which is somewhat similar but also more complicated.

Id like to point out that grinding does not reduce the energy you require to put into the system to melt the glass. It takes physically the same energy to heat and melt 1 kg of glass chunks as it does to melt 1 kg of powder.

All that it does is change the efficiency of the heat transfer, now pedantically this decreases the energy requirement to cool depending upon how you do the cooling. As an example, when you do the opposite and you cool something. if you are in a lagged system, in this case with vacuum jackets, things behave quite close to efficient energy transfer. You can take the mass of the stainless steel that you have and say down to the nearest Joule how much energy you need to remove, and given the cooling will be mainly be phase change of liquid nitrogen (in my case) you can say to the nearest litre how much energy is required.

Heat transfer of this type is all about reducing the waste and loss, if you are in a largely lagged system, the increased surface area makes the process faster, but requires the same energy total.

in a very lossy system, say you are heating using a bunsen or something like that... then yes, efficent heat transfer just means you waste less power, it doesn't ACTUALLY require different amounts of energy put into the glass though.

originally posted by: grubblesnert
Everyone needs to watch the vimeo.com videolink posted by the OP then ask this one question.

Why, If you can produce a minimum of 200 ounces of gold ( and are currently producing gold) with "kitchen microwave ovens" would you want OR need backers and/or investors?

Why not keep this to yourself, produce your gold, buy your own industrial microwaves and other desired equipment?

200 x 1200-1300 dollars an ounce will by a lot of stuff.

This question along with the other elements of this video leave me thinking this is not legit.

Exactly what I'm thinking. The video is an insult of human intelligence; daylight scam in progress.

If I can produce physical gold (and even platinum) by myself, I can buy whatever commercial-grade equipment in no time.

Unfortunately, the sheeple always got slaughtered before understanding the truth.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

I don't know why I am even replying anymore you have clearly demonstrated you are full of it however your recent post is so full of holes I just had to.

That is complete BS. I named 1 good reason for grinding it down. It decreases the time and energy it takes to melt the glass. All you have done is noted that adding the seed material would increase the time and energy, and completely ignored the over all decrease it would have on the entire mixture. You didn't call anything out but your own ignorance.

Nope you didn't name any good reasons. This poster went into detail explaining why.

As I stated I would, I will now name several reasons why pulverizing the glass is best practice. Supported by the source above.

1: They were mixing different types of glass. Grinding it down and mixing it before melting it makes a more uniformed-mixture. If you try to mix it while it is molten you risk the chance of a nonuniform mixture of glass. You will have streaks and blobs of different types of glass, which will cause uneven heating/temperature.

They were using beer bottles. Are you saying it is too hard to use the same type of beer bottles? Do you even know why glass has different colors? I explained earlier in the thread although it wasn't direct, but you should have caught on. There are nine different types of glass all beer bottles are the same type of glass.

2: Non-uninformed mixtures will cause the electromagnetic radiation exposure to be uneven as well in the microwave process, because of streaks and blobs of different types of glass.

It is the same type of glass. I already explained. Explain how the "electromagnetic radiation" will be uneven. They are not adding leaded glass to the mixture.

3: The "seed" material they added in also needed to be uniformly mixed with the glass. It is easier and better to do so when its all pulverized to a powder.

You are now completely full of [snip] here is a screen shot of them adding the seed material.

The glass is already molten and there is no mixing the seed ore.

4: You reduce the chances of air bubbles getting trapped in the mixture.

What the hell are you going on about. They are not making window pane. When glass is made even window pane removing air bubbles is about a week long process.

5: Reduced energy usage. Mixing the glass while it is pulverized into a powder and cold will take less energy. That is because if you waste your time trying to mix it while it is molten, you will have to keep it molten for longer period of time, wasting more energy.

As explained to you it takes the same amount of energy. On top of that they are compacting it all into a crucible if they were laying it flat it would take less time, but they are not doing that. You still haven't explained why it needs to be stirred and even if it did it would be faster than grinding it.

6: Safety. Risking potential splashes and spills while trying to mix molten glass can be dangerous, start fires, and seriously injure people. It is much safer to do the mixing while pulverized into a powder and cold.

So this looks like someone concerned with safety to you?

Tennis shoes, shorts, no socks even and using pliers to pour molten glass into a bucket of cold water.

Shall I keep going? There are more...

Please do because you haven't come up with a single one that makes sense yet. I will give you some advice though. Before you start spouting off about the properties and types of glass you should do a search to find out what they are. In this day and age ignorance of such things is wilful.

As I have just proven, it is you that obviously does not possess* the required knowledge. Yet you think you are on the topmost pedestal. Pathetic.

The only thing you have proven is that you have no idea what you are talking about. The paper you claim backs your position is talking about large quantities of glass obviously for a manufacturing process to produce glass. If you are claiming the point is air bubbles I have news for you that takes time. A lot of time far longer than what the yahoos in the video are doing.

You have proven you can't even BS us without glaring mistakes.

It WAS your bread and butter... WAS business... But no longer is. You obviously were not every good at it if you don't know the basic science behind it, and no longer do it.

lol. I no longer do it because for all intents and purposes I retired at 38 from licencing my patent and product to companies that specialize in glass. I wouldn't call myself rich, but I am sure as hell not poor and the money coming in allows me to put fools in their place on here at my leisure while playing the stock market. In another year or two I will refine my patent so I can renew it and therefore relicense it. I don't know what your scale of good is at something but I am pretty happy.

Lets put it this way if I thought this wasn't a scam I would be there looking to invest far more than 25K but I am not a fool.

I must correct my post, I didn't mean you can calculate the number of litres of energy, what i mean is that you can calculate the number of litres of LN2 assuming primary cooling is phase change, and that gives you exactly the amount of energy you want to remove from the system.

Anyway sorry for that

originally posted by: ErosA433
If you are so well read on water, you will know it is not called friction loss, and it is actually important for all water systems, fire fighters do not represent some kind of bleeding edge where these losses are really that much of a concern.

You are wrong. It is called friction loss.

en.wikipedia.org...

Friction loss is the loss of energy or “head” that occurs in pipe flow due to viscous effects generated by the surface of the pipe.[1] Friction Loss is considered as a "major loss" and it is not to be confused with “minor loss” which includes energy lost due to obstructions.

For firefighters it is a very important thing to know...

fireengineeriq.com...

So within your first sentence you have already discredited yourself.

originally posted by: ErosA433
Id like to point out that grinding does not reduce the energy you require to put into the system to melt the glass. It takes physically the same energy to heat and melt 1 kg of glass chunks as it does to melt 1 kg of powder.

I just posted a paper that proves you wrong.

proenv.com...

It does take more energy to heat chunks of glass compared to powdered glass. Maybe you should brush up on your physics, and or attempt to read the paper and sources I posted.

You are right that in a perfect world it takes the same energy to heat chunky glass as it does pulverized glass, if you have 100% energy transfer efficiency. However, because of air pockets between the chunks of glass, you end up wasting energy heating the air. And because there are less contact points between the glass pieces, and reduced surface area, a lot of energy is lost when trying to heat chunky glass.

When it is pulverized, there are less air pockets, less air that is heated which means less energy goes into heating the air pockets, and more energy goes into the glass. Also the increased surface area, and contact points, mean the heat is transferred between the glass better. Overall less energy is used.

So again, I think you need to take a physics class. Learn about inefficiencies.

My sources > your lack of sources.

your sources really dont prove anything what you just claimed, the friction loss is actually what id call conductance, Hazen-Williams loss, or head drop. That said my experience hands on is with cryogenics. This is important for changing pipe id, or passing high pressure fluid through a pipe. The smaller the pipe or the longer the pipe, the higher the pressure drop will be along the length. It is analogous with electrical flow. We for example have an extremely long line as a vent line... due to the flow requirements, and pressure drop it has to be sized accordingly. This is the same for pressure relief or bust discs where the flow requirements dictate what cross section of pipe/device you require.

This is likely a difference in terminology, but like i said, the extremes of the system are not that far in a water hose... yes it is high pressure... but we use high pressure system that operates at about 250PSI over a length of about 300meters... this is more extreme and an intense calculation than a fire hose.

Also that paper says exactly what I said, so thanks for that. The paper talks about heat exchangers. It is well known that Heat exchange is more effective with a high surface area, this is exactly what I said. I suggest you look up specific heat capacity as it is basic physics that you seem to not understand. The application of electric fields is to remove ions and particulates that spoil the heat transfer by blocking pipes and.... reducing the surface area available. So cheers, maybe you should learn to read and comprehend. Rather than skimming something and saying "AHA!"

Heat transfer is more efficient, yes, bulk heat energy required = same.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I don't know why I am even replying anymore you have clearly demonstrated you are full of it however your recent post is so full of holes I just had to.

I have constantly proven that the only one full of it is you all. Everything I have said is solid. Any sane person reading this topic with a clear mind will see I have been walking circles around you and your replies.

All of you have been prejudice, not knowing my background in science, so you all assume without even reading or researching my words that I am wrong. You are attempting to find holes in my words, and the only holes you find are the ones your lack of knowledge creates in your mind because of your lack of knowledge.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Nope you didn't name any good reasons. This poster went into detail explaining why.

Actually, that person you just put your faith in is completely wrong, and lacks basic understanding of energy transfer inefficiency and losses. He thinks we live in a perfect world where everything is 100% efficient. My last post pretty much discredits everything he said. And everything you said. And I posted a source.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
They were using beer bottles. Are you saying it is too hard to use the same type of beer bottles? Do you even know why glass has different colors? I explained earlier in the thread although it wasn't direct, but you should have caught on. There are nine different types of glass all beer bottles are the same type of glass.

The are mixing grown, green, clear glass from all around the world. They want it to be mixed equally, not chucks of brown here, chunks of green, and chunks of clear in their mixture, they want it all uniformly mixed. For reasons I stated already.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
It is the same type of glass. I already explained. Explain how the "electromagnetic radiation" will be uneven. They are not adding leaded glass to the mixture.

They are different color glasses (brown, green, clear) and the color causes it to react differently to electromagnetic radiation, and they need the reactions to be uniform throughout the material. The tint that is added to beer bottles is to block electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet wavelength from reaching the beer and spoiling it. This tint also has an effect on the electromagnetic radiation from the microwave. They need the mixture to be uniform so that the electromagnetic radiation is uniformly passing through the material.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
You are now completely full of [snip] here is a screen shot of them adding the seed material.

The glass is already molten and there is no mixing the seed ore.

They add different material to the glass in different steps, not just one. The part of the video you show is just one step, that doesn't appear to need to be uniformly mixed, however the other material they use is added to the pulverized glass does need to be uniformly mixed. I guess that part of the video is not clear.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
What the hell are you going on about. They are not making window pane. When glass is made even window pane removing air bubbles is about a week long process.

I said it REDUCES air bubbles. I didn't claim they need to be completely removed. They don't want large air bubbles or even a large number of air bubbles in the mixture because it will affect the way the electromagnetic radiation passes through the material, and produce unwanted energy waste and side effects to the overall process.

We are talking about subatomic reactions here. Air bubbles will just get in the way. The glass and seed ore needs to be touching... air bubbles cause the material to not touch.

Are you even using your mind? Or are you just running your mouth?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
As explained to you it takes the same amount of energy.

You didn't even understand this time...

If you mix while it is molten, you have to keep the flame going to keep it molten while you mix. If you mix before it is molten, you don't have to have the flame going... Less energy.

Also again, as explained, in a perfect world with 100% efficiency, melting chunky glass will take the same energy as melting pulverized glass, but this is not a perfect world. Air filled spaces between the glass will cause more energy to have to be input into the system, compared to if there were not air spaces. The air spaces cause inefficiency.

gold from crushed beer bottles? no.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
You still haven't explained why it needs to be stirred and even if it did it would be faster than grinding it.

I already explained. Read above. We are talking about subatomic / atomic scale reactions. Air bubbles will reduce the efficiency of the entire process, and reduce / affect energy transfer. Also, uniform mixtures of different tinted glass will have an effect on the electromagnetic radiation exposure and spread.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
So this looks like someone concerned with safety to you?

Tennis shoes, shorts, no socks even and using pliers to pour molten glass into a bucket of cold water.

You are right, they need expand their safety measures.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Please do because you haven't come up with a single one that makes sense yet. I will give you some advice though. Before you start spouting off about the properties and types of glass you should do a search to find out what they are. In this day and age ignorance of such things is wilful.

Actually, all my reasons are sound. Your lack of knowledge limits your ability to understand my sound reasoning and logic.

My helpful advice to you. Stop thinking you know more than everyone when obviously you know next to nothing.