Free Energy Produced - Einstein Proven Wrong Again

a reply to: mnemeth1

Oh my!

You started this thread in 2010!

Cool.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: mnemeth1

Oh my!

You started this thread in 2010!

And 4 years later still no closer to "free energy"! Just another scam like the Orbo, e-cat, the QEG etc.etc.

a reply to: hellobruce

And you're always relied upon to cheer us all on.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Rob48


You're looking at the Fuel Mass Flow rate, which is not what you think it is:

www.grc.nasa.gov...

The Fuel Volume Flow rate is the amount of liquid (water, gas etc) that passes through an area per unit time. The volume flow rate formula is: Volume flow rate = flow area * flow velocity, which is posted as 1000 cubic centimeters per second.

Why did you link me to a page about jet engines? What relevance does that have?

Oh wait, would it be because you Googled it and that is the second page that comes up, after Wikipedia?



That proves to me that you don't understand what you are reading and are turning to Google for help.

It's quite simple: fuel mass flow rate is the mass of fuel per unit time.

Fuel volume flow rate is the volume of fuel per unit time.

The relationship between the two is the density of the fuel. In this case it is 5 g/cm^3.

So, the fuel volume flow rate of 1000 cm^3/second indicates a mass flow rate of 5000 g/second.

Five kilograms per second, as I stated.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: hellobruce

And you're always relied upon to cheer us all on.

Just posting facts....

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: suicideeddie
a reply to: Rob48
those are lathe motors in the box, attached to grinding wheels? a spot/tap welding rig in the background and a mechanics led lamp on top of the box with an extraction pipe inset and black smoke from the grinded metal, steel judging from the colour of the sparks.

They are testing on a commercial welder, but they aren't using grinding wheels. Here's a better view in a different test case:

Does that seriously look like plasma discharges to you? Does plasma bounce off the walls and fall to the bottom of the container, leaving smoke trails?

They are metal sparks. How much more simply does it need to be spelled out?

and that piddly fart of a pump attached to the table top unit may only handle 50 gms/s by the looks of it
a reply to: Rob48

originally posted by: Nochzwei
and that piddly fart of a pump attached to the table top unit may only handle 50 gms/s by the looks of it
a reply to: Rob48

Well to be fair if it is only a demo unit then it won't need to handle much fuel. My concern is that it is clearly burning the "solid fuel" which is supposed to be a catalyst.

The bright flashes are nothing to do with hydrinos, they are simple combustion as far as I can see.

Randell Mills has reinvented the sparkler.

After reading the first page or 2 of this thread I couldn’t help but think, “Why am I reading this garbage?”. I won’t reply as to the validity of the claims being made regarding hydrinos and BlackLight Power. I’ll let the fact that this is old news that has yet to materialize anything of substance speak for itself. If this is the miracle that will save the world, then where’s the beef? We’re running out of time.

mnemeth1, I believe you made the following statements:

“Anyone that believes space bends is an idiot. Therefore, Einstein was an idiot then and he is still an idiot posthumously today.”

“He's a retard that thought space could bend and led us down the wrong path of science for nearly a century. He's the worst human being to ever walk the face of the earth.”

You also made a few other equally ignorant remarks about science, scientists, and Einstein specifically. I have to wonder why you have such an ugly and preposterous attitude. You seem so angry about things you obviously know nothing about. Get a grip, Man.

I doubt you’ve never read or studied either of Einstein’s Relativity Theories (Special/General), despite the fact that you reject them as utter trash and nonsense. How about Quantum Mechanics? Any formal training there? Perhaps you have better ideas? Please, enlighten and dazzle us with your brilliance. Show us the way. Or are we all too stupid to handle the TRUTH as only you know it?

Recently I posted something in another thread regarding the concept of space. Since you expressed your misguided notion that Einstein believed that “space bends”, I’m going to repeat most of that post here just for your sake in hopes of clearing up your misconception. The following is from the ATS thread, What Exactly is Spacetime? :

-------------
“Over the years our popular literature and media have created a number of misconceptions surrounding certain areas of science. It wasn’t so much a matter of intentionally misleading the public, but more of an attempt to make some very difficult concepts more understandable for the average Joe. Unfortunately, though, these misconceptions have become so ingrained in our perception of reality that it’s nearly impossible for many of us to shake them. Discarding some of these notions is a common problem faced by many undergraduate math and physics students.

There are a couple misconceptions I read and hear all the time that I’d like to try and clear up. I believe the following is consistent with current scientific thinking:

1. The Nature of Space
Space, in and of itself, is only a geometric volume. It has no physical properties or energy to be warped, twisted, stretched, curved, etc. Statements about “curved space”, etc are misleading in that it implies space has some set of physical properties of it’s own. Space is simply the geometric volume which contains the existing energy/mass of the universe. To say that space expands only means that the volume has increased.

2. Space in Terms of General Relativity
How particles and forces influence each other are expressed mathematically as geometric relationships, describing how the particles, etc being measured occupy the volume of space. When GR uses the term “space-time curvature”, it’s describing how gravity influences the matter residing in space and not that space itself has a curvature. GR is strictly a theory of geometry and does not state that space has a fabric or substance or any other physical property. It describes how objects interact with each other by changing their geometric distribution within space-time.”
-------------

So please, mnemeth1, before making reprehensible statements about others and condemning them for their foolish, idiotic ideas, at least have some idea you know what you’re talking about first. Otherwise, it just diminishes your stature and makes you seem silly.

Ciao!

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

sorry mate you must of posted the wrong video, thats a seam welder like this one www.youtube.com...

If space was not bendable, then GPS would not work. GPS takes into account the relativity calculations in order to send the correct position.

Furthermore, if space did not bend, then the big bang would not have taken place. How do you explain the cosmic background radiation then?

The above and the fact that Blacklight power is not commercially available after 4 years since this thread was opened, means that Blacklight power is a scam.

originally posted by: masterp
If space was not bendable, then GPS would not work. GPS takes into account the relativity calculations in order to send the correct position.

Furthermore, if space did not bend, then the big bang would not have taken place. How do you explain the cosmic background radiation then?

The above and the fact that Blacklight power is not commercially available after 4 years since this thread was opened, means that Blacklight power is a scam.

Lol you are totally wrong there mate except for blp.
gps does not take into account anything about or from GR
Big bang and mbr has nothing to do with bending of space

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: masterp
If space was not bendable, then GPS would not work. GPS takes into account the relativity calculations in order to send the correct position.

Furthermore, if space did not bend, then the big bang would not have taken place. How do you explain the cosmic background radiation then?

The above and the fact that Blacklight power is not commercially available after 4 years since this thread was opened, means that Blacklight power is a scam.

gps does not take into account anything about or from GR

You'd better go and correct Wikipedia then.

The C/A code, for civilian use, transmits data at 1.023 million chips per second, whereas the P code, for U.S. military use, transmits at 10.23 million chips per second. The actual internal reference of the satellites is 10.22999999543 MHz to compensate for relativistic effects that make observers on Earth perceive a different time reference with respect to the transmitters in orbit.

Make sure you cite your sources though!

The clocks run faster up there only due to time dilation. Source is me.
Wiki can peddle the gr all they want as far as I am concerned
a reply to: Rob48

originally posted by: Nochzwei
The clocks run faster up there only due to time dilation. Source is me.
a reply to: Rob48

You mean gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity?

What is your non-GR explanation for time dilation, then?

You're not making any sense.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Nochzwei
The clocks run faster up there only due to time dilation. Source is me.
a reply to: Rob48

You mean gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity?

What is your non-GR explanation for time dilation, then?

You're not making any sense.

No time dilation due to orbital vel and altitude

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Nochzwei
The clocks run faster up there only due to time dilation. Source is me.
a reply to: Rob48

You mean gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity?

What is your non-GR explanation for time dilation, then?

You're not making any sense.

No time dilation due to orbital vel and altitude

You mean the velocity and altitude RELATIVE to an observer on the ground?

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Nochzwei
The clocks run faster up there only due to time dilation. Source is me.
a reply to: Rob48

You mean gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity?

What is your non-GR explanation for time dilation, then?

You're not making any sense.

No time dilation due to orbital vel and altitude

You mean the velocity and altitude RELATIVE to an observer on the ground?

In actuality in both the refrence frames

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Well then post up the independent 3rd party validation from primary sources already. Until you have, it's nothin more than yet another hollow claim you credulously swallowed down.

10 Million Dollars!
10 Million Dollars!
If this is a scam someone is out 10 Million Dollars!