NASA Admits Blacklight and E-CAT Are Real Deal !!!

reply to post by wilburn


E-Cat is an overunity device and hard for NASA to ignore.

Not too sure but Blacklight might be UV that can cause artificial radiation and thus
make charges available for a current. I do not know if Hydrogen is involved but sure
it is in the E-Cat in the form of Atomic Hydrogen reactions at the source of power.
Both reactions are documented in surveys by Lyne in his papers and books.

The reason no one explains the process is that Tesla has been ignored and
the energy of the universe, see the big bang and entropy says we are winding
down like old age and Tesla found a free energy source, in particles of high
kinetic energy must be captured in various ways.

Lyne prepossess the capture of the Tesla energy by the separated Hydrogen
Atom from the H2 Hydrogen gas in his furnace giving greater heat output than
the E-Cat. Thus the formula for the Lyne Atomic Hydrogen Furnace:

H2 + 103 cal/mole => 2H + KE from Tesla's 50X SOL particles => H2 + 109,000 cal/ mole

As the only explanation given so far by Lyne for the gas H2 being separated by
a small amount of energy and recombining with a thermodynamic increase transformed
from energetic, KE being Kinetic Energy, from what Lyne said Tesla found as Primary
Solar Rays. I would understand this as the fifty times the speed of light particles Tesla
once said he discovered. Tesla might have calculated the capacitance of the Earth and
knowing the Aurora Borealis electrostatic vibration encirclement as brush discharges
once calculated the voltage on the Sun but much of this is not forthcoming by any
scientist. There are other over unity devices.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by wilburn

 

E-Cat is an overunity device and hard for NASA to ignore.

Not too sure but Blacklight might be UV that can cause artificial radiation and thus
make charges available for a current. I do not know if Hydrogen is involved but sure
it is in the E-Cat in the form of Atomic Hydrogen reactions at the source of power.
Both reactions are documented in surveys by Lyne in his papers and books.

The reason no one explains the process is that Tesla has been ignored and
the energy of the universe, see the big bang and entropy says we are winding
down like old age and Tesla found a free energy source, in particles of high
kinetic energy must be captured in various ways.

Lyne prepossess the capture of the Tesla energy by the separated Hydrogen
Atom from the H2 Hydrogen gas in his furnace giving greater heat output than
the E-Cat. Thus the formula for the Lyne Atomic Hydrogen Furnace:

H2 + 103 cal/mole => 2H + KE from Tesla's 50X SOL particles => H2 + 109,000 cal/ mole

As the only explanation given so far by Lyne for the gas H2 being separated by
a small amount of energy and recombining with a thermodynamic increase transformed
from energetic, KE being Kinetic Energy, from what Lyne said Tesla found as Primary
Solar Rays. I would understand this as the fifty times the speed of light particles Tesla
once said he discovered. Tesla might have calculated the capacitance of the Earth and
knowing the Aurora Borealis electrostatic vibration encirclement as brush discharges
once calculated the voltage on the Sun but much of this is not forthcoming by any
scientist. There are other over unity devices.

Thank you for a clear and valuable explanation.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Moduli

 

The kind of nuclear reaction where you put in less energy than you need to overcome the potential barrier in the nucleus. In other words the kind where you get something for free.

A logical approach to LENR is unraveling the forces involved in resisting the fusion of the nucleus, and neutralizing them as opposed to overpowering them.

THIS is one of the most intelligent things I have ever heard pretty much anywhere.

Originally posted by subject1145

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Moduli

 

The kind of nuclear reaction where you put in less energy than you need to overcome the potential barrier in the nucleus. In other words the kind where you get something for free.

A logical approach to LENR is unraveling the forces involved in resisting the fusion of the nucleus, and neutralizing them as opposed to overpowering them.

THIS is one of the most intelligent things I have ever heard pretty much anywhere.

We've understood the nuclear forces at least as long as I've been alive, you can even get undergraduate level textbooks on nuclear physics now, it's a pretty well understood topic. The part about "neutralizing" them doesn't make any sense...

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Aim64C

 

And no matter if it is something they think it is, or if it's elves farting energy from another dimension, so long as someone figures out a working theory to explain the data, the problem will be solved.

Actually did he mention that the Rosi Catalyst was interdimentional elves farting on tuning forks to produce frequency harmonics to induce the reaction.

Until the catalyst is known and the exact way the effect was achieved we should consider it interesting and not blow it out of the water with comments like this.

reply to post by Moduli

Maybe you can explain why every single other high energy theoretical or nuclear or particle physicist thinks this is hilariously stupid? Or maybe all those lunches I had with top physicists I had where we made fun of things like this didn't happen? In my entire carrier I have never met *one* physicist who works in those fields who hasn't thought this is laughably stupid.

But hey, I guess that's just proof we're all paid off by the oil companies, TPTB, and the reptilians to suppress this technology that only some people on an internet forum with no formal training in physics can truly appreciate!

Maybe since you and your cohorts are so smart, you can solve the anomalous heat that has been found consistently and inconsistently in cold fusion/lenr studies.

Just explain it and everyone can put it to rest.

I'd be glad if you did.

I personally don't care one way or the other, I just think a proper explanation is due, considering NASA, the Navy, and a number of researchers all over the world (especially Japan) are getting excess heat from their experiments.

We're all waiting for you.

Explain the riddle.

reply to post by Vandettas


They are telling us this stuff exists every day just not putting all the pieces together for us. They have achieved room temperature semi conductors and nano materials, this goes beyond current regular physics. If some nano material like graphine was used in these experiments I would not discount the results. Just because someone does not understand it yet, does not make the possibilities any less real.

Originally posted by boncho
Maybe since you and your cohorts are so smart, you can solve the anomalous heat that has been found consistently and inconsistently in cold fusion/lenr studies.

Yes, that's exactly how the burden of proof works, exactly.

I personally don't care one way or the other, I just think a proper explanation is due, considering NASA, the Navy, and a number of researchers all over the world (especially Japan) are getting excess heat from their experiments.

Again, no reproducible experiments have been done. None. Not one. There have only been claims that someone did it and, coincidentally, they claim to get exactly the results they claim they're supposed to get. (Aside from the fact that you need to show way way way more than some random heat to claim anything nuclear was going on).

We're all waiting for you.

To actually demonstrate a working model for actual scientists? Yes, we are all waiting.

reply to post by Moduli


Until you can state exactly what the device consists of please stop. We have been regaled the wonders of graphine on this site and many others, as well as rumor of room temperature semi-conduction. As I have stated previously we don't know what was used. There are endless possibilities.

If you claim to be an expert on quantum physics (which no one currently understands) I will be forced to laugh at you. Discoveries that were "Never Possible" before have became possible with greater understanding. Please try to keep an open mind that there really are things you don't understand, even if you are an expert in your respective field of particle physics.

reply to post by Moduli




You're a student right?

It makes sense now.

Sweet, another boncho-infested E-cat thread.

Just found an interesting related article that i thought i would share...

It is about the attitudes of different types of E-Cat observers. I am pretty sure boncho would fall into category 1.
www.e-catworld.com...

Me? I am probably a mix between 5,6 and 7.

Don´t feed the trolls guys... i know it´s hard

reply to post by Moduli

Again, no reproducible experiments have been done. None. Not one.

Can you give us your thoughts on these?

reply to post by Moduli

We've understood the nuclear forces at least as long as I've been alive, you can even get undergraduate level textbooks on nuclear physics now, it's a pretty well understood topic.

We can describe nuclear forces in a mathematical context, but that's not really the same as understanding them.

I can mathematically describe the distribution of personality archetypes relative to each other within a room of randomly 'generated' individuals. That doesn't mean I understand how that distribution comes to be through the interaction of those individuals.

Projects like CERN exist to find the smaller, more fundamental particles and forces that are proposed to be critical in the formation of the more complex forces such as electromagnetism - which is not really well understood, either.

I've spent years (lifetimes in terms of average human learning curves) studying electronics and the forces governing it. It all boils down to a game of unraveling how a piece you once considered fundamental is actually the interaction of several underlying mechanisms. "Wheels within wheels" - as one might say. While electromagnetism is considered a fundamental force - it has several different particles (both real and virtual) that are responsible for its emergence within a system.

The part about "neutralizing" them doesn't make any sense...

I suppose it wouldn't to someone who thinks so little of the world as to believe it to be anything but a mystery.

I'll give you an example, then. Water is an electrical insulator. Pure water does not conduct electricity until a voltage potential of around several kilovolts is present. At which point, the water will suddenly conduct electricity with a concussive flash of light. This is, likely, because the water molecule is bipolar. Under a high enough voltage potential, it causes the molecules to suddenly align and form a conducting path - tearing the water molecules apart before the hydrogen and oxygen bond once more.

Alternatively, adding sodium-chloride to the water will allow it to conduct water quite freely through a wide range of voltages and currents.

Similarly, in the earlier example with graphine, strain upon the crystalline structure was able to induce a phenomena whereby electrons behaved as though they were under a 300 Tesla electromagnetic field strength/density. The list of places with that kind of magnetic field is limited to neutron stars, black holes, and other mind-bogglingly intense regions. Clearly, if one were working with purely the known functions of electromagnetism - the "going theory" would be that you needed incomprehensible amounts of energy to trigger the subject phenomena in graphine. This is, obviously, not the case.

In a mildly related field - it has been described, according to existing models; how electrons, neutrons, and other fermions can behave as bosons under intense magnetic field strengths (present in neutron stars and black holes).

With knowledge of the fact that we have managed to induce quantized states in valence shells via straining graphine... one must wonder if it is possible to induce similar boson behavior through the manipulation of crystalline structures and meta-materials.

Your reasoning is one-dimensional, here. You are talking about classic models of fusion that require the ablation of electron clouds and crushing of the nucleus. A process that requires immense amounts of energy because of the difficulty in controlling where a nucleus is going to be and when. The math is based more around the probability of reactions within the system as opposed to individual reactions.

This is why you don't really understand what is being talked about. The heart of LENR is being able to induce fusion in a low population with net energy being harnessed. The very concept requires precise control over subatomic interactions that is simply unprecedented and has very little math to guide the field. We know of the existence of many subatomic particles within those systems because of high-energy experiments with colliders. The goal is to generate and utilize them on much lower energy scales.

Which is why we have a lot of stumbling around in the dark going on.

I'll admit, you're trainable. You'll make a nice manager at a nuclear reactor of some sort, somewhere. But you're not really cut out for academia; going off of what's been displayed so far.

reply to post by Moduli
What is this weird notice about reptilians and co? All I asked for was your professional opinion on this topic. But thanks for trying.

This conversation doesn't need to die down, it's very interesting. I'm not going to make any attempts at "shots in the dark" concerning topics I only have an inchoate understanding for. I simply enjoy reading the posts by Moduli, they are the only thing worth paying meaningful attention to.

reply to post by sythrox


That is where you are incorrect.

There is a considerable difference between a conscious skeptic and a dogmatic ignoramus.

It is most unfortunate that the many fields of scientific study have been propagated largely upon the dogmatic principle. The term "study" has been used to replace the word "train" at universities in order to make the average person feel more intelligent than they are really capable of becoming. People are trained how to interpret and respond to a specific stimulus as opposed to taught how to utilize analytical skills along with problem solving.

They make great workers. They can read gauges, push the right buttons on calculators, and occasionally do something as crazy as solve a discrete, never-before-seen problem with the system they are familiar with utilizing. They are knowledgeable, but not what one would consider intelligent. They don't just use the words: "can't" - they live by them. Why? Because it's the way they were taught. The bounds of their knowledge do not extend very far beyond the limits of their instruction.

The intelligent person doesn't live by the words: "can't." The intelligent person is analytical, seeks to understand why something is not possible, and solves the problem.

It is quizzical why we measure our own intelligence differently than that of animals. For an animal to be considered intelligent - it must be able to solve varying degrees of problems, showing that it understands the environment and can link two or more observations together to create a solution to overcome a limitation. ... For humans, we simply have to regurgitate the dogmatically correct answers onto a sheet of paper.

To parallel the problem of LENR with a test of animal intelligence, we'll use a simple suspended treat. In a room - there is a treat for the animal, as well as a platform that can be moved by that animal. In order to be considered capable of using two step problem solving, the animal must be able to recognize its ability to stand upon the platform to gain height, and that the platform can be moved into a location that will allow it to reach the treat.

LENR is the treat. We prance and jump all we want to, but cannot seem to reach it. Thus, it becomes a "pie in the sky." This becomes a dogmatic principle: "you can't reach it." This is stated in spite of the fact that the room is full of platforms both discovered and undiscovered. Some are tall enough, but not movable... others are movable, but not tall enough. The ignoramus maintains that the treat is impossible to reach. The intelligent person maintains that the correct methods and tools will allow the treat to be seized.

That is why Moduli is a fool. A knowledgeable fool, perhaps; but a fool just the same. Until he demonstrates the ability to utilize the knowledge he has acquired for the purposes of problem-solving, that judgment of his intellectual capacity will remain.

And I am perfectly qualified to make such a judgment. While he, and other children, were busy making fart noises with their armpits; children like myself were being cultured to think on our own. We started with the simple problems - world hunger, legal and ethical issues surrounding organ donation (supply versus demand), world energy needs/deficits, etc. We learned to think as individuals and as a team.

Of course, we neglected some of the practical sides of problem solving... such as having to resolve a means of washing dishes with zero water pressure in the building on a busy night while remaining within health department regulatory standards... impromptu.

More relevant to the discussion - another specially selected individual within that same group is now a nuclear engineer. He's one of the few people I genuinely consider smarter than myself (at the very least, in a more practical sense) - thus, I hold him in high regard. Apparently, it was rather mutual - as he would tell people that if anyone could solve the problem of "cold fusion" - it would be me.

I don't take the topic lightly. I take the challenge seriously because I understand the sheer magnitude of the obstacle and the reward on the other side. It may very well be that my generation will be the first to really experience a world with the engineering capability to study subatomic behavior with enough precision to develop a model for LENR (for our children and grand-children to complete it).

Like I said - if we find it before then (such as if this guy's e-cat thing works as advertised), it's almost purely out of educated shots in the dark. But to call it "laughably stupid" is, well, laughably stupid.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Moduli

 

We've understood the nuclear forces at least as long as I've been alive, you can even get undergraduate level textbooks on nuclear physics now, it's a pretty well understood topic.

We can describe nuclear forces in a mathematical context, but that's not really the same as understanding them.

I can mathematically describe the distribution of personality archetypes relative to each other within a room of randomly 'generated' individuals. That doesn't mean I understand how that distribution comes to be through the interaction of those individuals.

Projects like CERN exist to find the smaller, more fundamental particles and forces that are proposed to be critical in the formation of the more complex forces such as electromagnetism - which is not really well understood, either.

Electromagnetism is damn well understood---if any force is, it is. There's a squillion 'alternate' particle theories, but so far, down to very small space scales and high energy scales, the E&M Lagrangian stays unblemished, with no experimental evidence against it. We got that one right. There is no third photon polarization, no photon mass or evidence of higher order fields or something beyond charge.

Everything else is a zoo.

reply to post by Aim64C


My only question is... Where are sign-ups?

reply to post by mbkennel

Electromagnetism is damn well understood

Described. The word you are looking for is described.

Electromagnetism is what brought about the quantum mechanical era where physics became probabilistic instead of deterministic. The double-slit experiment highlights the dual nature of light and all identifiable energies.

Further - the question of why light propagates at the speed it does... and it serves as a speed limit that cannot be surpassed using classical methods, has remained unanswered.

Perhaps you consider electromagnetism sufficiently understood, but I contend that standpoint to be dogmatic and fairly ignorant of the difference between description of a force and understanding of a force.

If you understand something, you can trouble-shoot the system to the limitations of its functional elements. Any time you "just do this and make it work" demonstrates a gap in one's understanding of a device or phenomena.

My standards for considering something "understood" are quite high. When you can't answer fundamentals, I tend to get quite skeptical about the claim that something is understood.