What is the use of the new DC ?

I am not sure agitation is the goal.  The electrodes are resonant.
They may be toroidal electrodes instead of linear.  I don't have any
data.  If the electrodes vibrate, the vibration might not be the
whole story.  There are things going on here of which I am not
aware.

This "Sully DC" is supposedly applied to electrolysis equipment to
solve an efficiency problem.  Maybe somebody should try to contact
the inventor directly, and get some answers.  Any volunteers?

A view of electrolysis may be simple (as the mainstream view) or
complex (if you want to know everything).  When a molecule of water
dissociates into a molecule of hydrogen and an atom of oxygen, is
there some sort of vibration as the molecule splits?  Is the
dissociation into hydrogen and oxygen changed when more dissociated
free atoms are in the vicinity?  Obviously the free atoms nearby have
an electrostatic effect in the valence bands.  When atoms combine
into molecules, is there some sort of vibration as they come together?
(think beyond the thermal photon emitted or absorbed, to the heavy
nuclei gyrating around before and after the thermal photon event)

If you hit an operating electrolysis cell with RF, is there a
frequency that couples well with the process to increase the
efficiency of the process?  Is there another frequency that can
prevent re-association of hydrogen atoms into hydrogen molecules
after the water molecules are dissociated?  Is there another
frequency you could use that would increase the likelihood of H3O
molecules forming (or a polymeric matrix of H2O which stores extra H
atoms), which would be able to release single H atoms at a later time?

If we forget about the Oxygen and just use hydrogen, there is a lot
of energy in the 2H > H2 to H2 > 2H cycle.  Maybe the best way to
electrolyze is to use this cycle rather than the oxygen cycle.  Are
there any easy ways to electrolyze H2?

Remember the cold fusion idea depends on a matrix storing hydrogen
vibrating in a resonance that forces the free nuclei together.  This
resonance has a frequency.

One can ask hundreds of questions.  One could spend a lifetime
researching the answers.  Of course, it would be nice to know the
answers.  I choose to spend what little time I have in life
researching other things (Sprain motor, box wine, pizza, popcorn, how
to pay the mortgage, etc.).

Tom Schum

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "velakand" <davidivad@...> wrote:
>
> If agitation is the goal, it would be better to just apply a square
> wave to the electrodes. Fully on <> Fully off.  The "sdc" method
only
> varies the spatial distribution of the current within the
electrolyte
> in a "see saw" manner, where most of the variation is at the ends
> of the electrodes, becoming progressively weaker towards the
centre,
> where it doesn't vary at all.
>
> The variation also depends upon the resistance along the length of
> the electrodes ... with very low resistance electrodes it is
> identical to plain old D.C.
>
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm guessing that at the system level, including the power
supply,
> > agitation can lead to more stable dynamics in the electrolyzer,
> which
> > reduces the power supply's need for flexibility.  This makes a
more
> > efficient power supply design possible since the load variations
> (in
> > the electrolyzer) are less.
> >
> > The result could be that overall, the system efficiency as a
whole
> is
> > improved even though a small amount of energy is used to agitate
> the
> > electrodes in the electrolyzer.
> >
> > By the way, what is the practical efficiency of modern industrial
> > electrolyzers?
> >
> > Tom Schum
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "mintowheel" <mintowheel@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Moral of the story: Wayne speaks correctly -- agitating an
> > > electrolyzer (either by shaking or heating) can definitely
speed
> up
> > > the splitting of water, but should not have much effect on the
> energy
> > > efficiency.  Agitation will allow the reaction to reach
> completion in
> > > a shorter amount of time, but will require a larger power input,
> > > requiring the same total energy input (power integrated over
> time) per
> > > unit of hydrogen product.
> > >
> > > Leo C.
> >
>

Smart Car Coming to US in 2008 Launch by DaimlerChrysler

< http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1151818384.news >

Economy ??
  This little car will probably cost $25,000 because it will be
considered the "in" thing to drive ! and to recoup the design costs.

   While a brand new Chevrolet Aveo
that retails for $12,695 (with AC) But believe it or not I was quoted a
price by my local Chevrolet dealer of $7,400 + tax and tag for a new one
with 5 speed and Air Conditioning.
  GM is having a very hard time getting rid of all models of 2006s and is
giving them away.
  This car in a road test by Car and Driver Magazine was said to be high
quality made in Korea for Chevrolet and actually got the 35 MPG EPA
mileage in the road test and had a top speed of 110 MPH !
   $18,000 less than the smart car will buy a lot of gas !
Contact Maroone Chevrolet in Miami if you are interested (no I am not a
car salesman)

Click scroll down
Chevrolet Aveo f
Address:http://www.gmcanada.com/english/showroom/chev_aveo.html

Daimler Chrysler Smart Car picture

Address:http://www.pkshiu.com/gallery/smartcars.html

Sure, I am replying to myself.  When an intelligent conversation is
going on, it should not matter who is talking.  The same goes for
inane conversations, and rants generally...

On the frequency of water, here is a little from Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance technology:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/nmrche.html#c2

"NMR spectroscopy has contributed enormously to chemical knowledge. A
wide range of techniques has been used with a range of magnetic
fields including high-field superconducting magnets. NMR frequencies
from 60 to 800 MHz have been used for hydrogens, compared to the
range of about 15 to 80 MHz for medical magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI)."

With the Sully device these frequencies can be directly applied at
the site of the electrolysis activity.  No, I don't have any idea
what difference it might make, but I would not be surprised to see it
make some sort of measurable difference.

Extend this thinking to cold fusion and maybe there could be a
breakthru.

Tom Schum

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@...>
wrote:
>
> I am not sure agitation is the goal.  The electrodes are resonant.
> They may be toroidal electrodes instead of linear.  I don't have
any
> data.  If the electrodes vibrate, the vibration might not be the
> whole story.  There are things going on here of which I am not
> aware.
>
> This "Sully DC" is supposedly applied to electrolysis equipment to
> solve an efficiency problem.  Maybe somebody should try to contact
> the inventor directly, and get some answers.  Any volunteers?
>
> A view of electrolysis may be simple (as the mainstream view) or
> complex (if you want to know everything).  When a molecule of water
> dissociates into a molecule of hydrogen and an atom of oxygen, is
> there some sort of vibration as the molecule splits?  Is the
> dissociation into hydrogen and oxygen changed when more dissociated
> free atoms are in the vicinity?  Obviously the free atoms nearby
have
> an electrostatic effect in the valence bands.  When atoms combine
> into molecules, is there some sort of vibration as they come
together?
> (think beyond the thermal photon emitted or absorbed, to the heavy
> nuclei gyrating around before and after the thermal photon event)
>
> If you hit an operating electrolysis cell with RF, is there a
> frequency that couples well with the process to increase the
> efficiency of the process?  Is there another frequency that can
> prevent re-association of hydrogen atoms into hydrogen molecules
> after the water molecules are dissociated?  Is there another
> frequency you could use that would increase the likelihood of H3O
> molecules forming (or a polymeric matrix of H2O which stores extra
H
> atoms), which would be able to release single H atoms at a later
time?
>
> If we forget about the Oxygen and just use hydrogen, there is a lot
> of energy in the 2H > H2 to H2 > 2H cycle.  Maybe the best way to
> electrolyze is to use this cycle rather than the oxygen cycle.  Are
> there any easy ways to electrolyze H2?
>
> Remember the cold fusion idea depends on a matrix storing hydrogen
> vibrating in a resonance that forces the free nuclei together.
This
> resonance has a frequency.
>
> One can ask hundreds of questions.  One could spend a lifetime
> researching the answers.  Of course, it would be nice to know the
> answers.  I choose to spend what little time I have in life
> researching other things (Sprain motor, box wine, pizza, popcorn,
how
> to pay the mortgage, etc.).
>
> Tom Schum
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "velakand" <davidivad@> wrote:
> >
> > If agitation is the goal, it would be better to just apply a
square
> > wave to the electrodes. Fully on <> Fully off.  The "sdc" method
> only
> > varies the spatial distribution of the current within the
> electrolyte
> > in a "see saw" manner, where most of the variation is at the ends
> > of the electrodes, becoming progressively weaker towards the
> centre,
> > where it doesn't vary at all.
> >
> > The variation also depends upon the resistance along the length
of
> > the electrodes ... with very low resistance electrodes it is
> > identical to plain old D.C.
> >
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm guessing that at the system level, including the power
> supply,
> > > agitation can lead to more stable dynamics in the electrolyzer,
> > which
> > > reduces the power supply's need for flexibility.  This makes a
> more
> > > efficient power supply design possible since the load
variations
> > (in
> > > the electrolyzer) are less.
> > >
> > > The result could be that overall, the system efficiency as a
> whole
> > is
> > > improved even though a small amount of energy is used to
agitate
> > the
> > > electrodes in the electrolyzer.
> > >
> > > By the way, what is the practical efficiency of modern
industrial
> > > electrolyzers?
> > >
> > > Tom Schum
> > >
> > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "mintowheel" <mintowheel@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Moral of the story: Wayne speaks correctly -- agitating an
> > > > electrolyzer (either by shaking or heating) can definitely
> speed
> > up
> > > > the splitting of water, but should not have much effect on
the
> > energy
> > > > efficiency.  Agitation will allow the reaction to reach
> > completion in
> > > > a shorter amount of time, but will require a larger power
input,
> > > > requiring the same total energy input (power integrated over
> > time) per
> > > > unit of hydrogen product.
> > > >
> > > > Leo C.
> > >
> >
>

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@...>
wrote:
>
> Sure, I am replying to myself.  When an intelligent conversation is
> going on, it should not matter who is talking.  The same goes for
> inane conversations, and rants generally...
>
> On the frequency of water, here is a little from Nuclear Magnetic
> Resonance technology:
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/nmrche.html#c2
>
> "NMR spectroscopy has contributed enormously to chemical knowledge.
>A
> wide range of techniques has been used with a range of magnetic
> fields including high-field superconducting magnets. NMR
>frequencies
> from 60 to 800 MHz have been used for hydrogens, compared to the
> range of about 15 to 80 MHz for medical magnetic resonance imaging
> (MRI)."
>
> With the Sully device these frequencies can be directly applied at
> the site of the electrolysis activity.

Not ONLY using the "sully device".  These frequencies can be "applied
at the site of electrolysis activity" simply by driving any ordinary
electrolysis cell with a waveform, of any shape you like, at any d.c.
offset.  For example, I can't see that a square wave oscillating
between zero and positive would be any different to a "sully d.c." at
the same frequency.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "velakand" <davidivad@...> wrote:
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sure, I am replying to myself.  When an intelligent conversation is
> > going on, it should not matter who is talking.  The same goes for
> > inane conversations, and rants generally...
> >
> > On the frequency of water, here is a little from Nuclear Magnetic
> > Resonance technology:
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/nmrche.html#c2
> >
> > "NMR spectroscopy has contributed enormously to chemical knowledge.
> >A
> > wide range of techniques has been used with a range of magnetic
> > fields including high-field superconducting magnets. NMR
> >frequencies
> > from 60 to 800 MHz have been used for hydrogens, compared to the
> > range of about 15 to 80 MHz for medical magnetic resonance imaging
> > (MRI)."
> >
> > With the Sully device these frequencies can be directly applied at
> > the site of the electrolysis activity.
>
> Not ONLY using the "sully device".  These frequencies can be "applied
> at the site of electrolysis activity" simply by driving any ordinary
> electrolysis cell with a waveform, of any shape you like, at any d.c.
> offset.  For example, I can't see that a square wave oscillating
> between zero and positive would be any different to a "sully d.c." at
> the same frequency.
>


I guess it wouldn't shake the wires like the current reversal in the
Sully thing, but anyway at 60+ MHz there'd be no shaking at all.

But applying AC for electrolysis is usually not good, due to impedance
matching issues. There's more good stuff on electrolysis here:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

"velakand" wrote in message:

> For example, I can't see that a square wave oscillating
> between zero and positive would be any different to a
>"sully d.c." at the same frequency.

Interesting, and wonderful, how different people "see" the same thing
differently.

For me, I can't see why it ("Sully DC") *wouldn't* make a difference.

I have read replies from apparently educated/credentialed persons expressing
that science says it would make no difference.  I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. 
Being "credentialed" means nothing if you are not on-goingly learning - it is
one of the joys of life.  The only "pain" experienced with this learning is if
one chooses to focus his whole being on the facts of ago - *getting his/her
identity from them*.

Now, for those that say it makes no difference ("Sully DC"), I must point out
that spintronics dictates that it does make a difference - with little doubt -
as spintronics (and the associated science) is the basis of much current
technology - including the hard drive you are reading this message from.

(Electrons have spin.  Thus, direction of travel is, without doubt,
significant.)

The only real "debate" is how these difference(s) manifest - and for the
purposes of this forum - the "resulting process efficiency".  It would therefore
seem wise to focus on this, without negative conjecture, but with experiment and
proposals for discovery.


Regards,
K. Jay Rogozinsky




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

spintronics...
Whaat drugs are you on?

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "K. Jay Rogozinsky"
<et.jayr@...> wrote:
>
> "velakand" wrote in message:
>
> For me, I can't see why it ("Sully DC") *wouldn't* make a
difference.
>
> I have read replies from apparently educated/credentialed persons
expressing that science says it would make no difference.  I'm
sorry, but I beg to differ.
> Now, for those that say it makes no difference ("Sully DC"), I
must point out that spintronics dictates that it does make a
difference - with little doubt - as spintronics (and the associated
science) is the basis of much current technology - including the
hard drive you are reading this message from.
>
> (Electrons have spin.  Thus, direction of travel is, without
doubt, significant.)
>
> The only real "debate" is how these difference(s) manifest - and
for the purposes of this forum - the "resulting process
efficiency".  It would therefore seem wise to focus on this, without
negative conjecture, but with experiment and proposals for discovery.
>
>
> Regards,
> K. Jay Rogozinsky
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Here is a link to get started in spintronics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spintronics

Again, just the tip of the iceberg, insignificant to the captain of
the Titanic but perhaps important to others.

Tom Schum

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "waynegage2000" <waynegage@...>
wrote:
>
> spintronics...
> Whaat drugs are you on?
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "K. Jay Rogozinsky"
> <et.jayr@> wrote:
> >
> > "velakand" wrote in message:
> >
> > For me, I can't see why it ("Sully DC") *wouldn't* make a
> difference.
> >
> > I have read replies from apparently educated/credentialed persons
> expressing that science says it would make no difference.  I'm
> sorry, but I beg to differ.
> > Now, for those that say it makes no difference ("Sully DC"), I
> must point out that spintronics dictates that it does make a
> difference - with little doubt - as spintronics (and the associated
> science) is the basis of much current technology - including the
> hard drive you are reading this message from.
> >
> > (Electrons have spin.  Thus, direction of travel is, without
> doubt, significant.)
> >
> > The only real "debate" is how these difference(s) manifest - and
> for the purposes of this forum - the "resulting process
> efficiency".  It would therefore seem wise to focus on this,
without
> negative conjecture, but with experiment and proposals for
discovery.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > K. Jay Rogozinsky
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

The AC I am talking about is superimposed on the DC bias of the
electrolyzer and never reverse-biases the electrolyzer.  This is more
in keeping with the "Sully DC" concept.  If the amplitude is too high,
the electrolyzer will go into AC operation, which would be bad.

The high frequencies I referred to in the link are only the tip of the
iceberg, probably far from the best frequencies for any useful system,
maybe even dangerous.

The patent seems to cover the application of high frequencies to
electrolysis generally.

Tom Schum

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@...> wrote:
>
>
> But applying AC for electrolysis is usually not good, due to impedance
> matching issues. There's more good stuff on electrolysis here:
> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
>

The basic spintronic effect is summarized in the link:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007A735-759A-1CDD-
B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=2
Quoted from the second webpage in the article: "In a ferromagnet,
such as iron or cobalt, the spins of certain electrons on neighboring
atoms tend to line up. In a strongly magnetized piece of iron, this
alignment extends throughout much of the metal. When a current passes
through the ferromagnet, electrons of one spin direction tend to be
obstructed. The result is a spin-polarized current in which all the
electron spins point in the other direction."

This is a case where electric current is running through the core of
the electromagnet axially.  Yet another reason to have enameled
mumetal wire in that core.

Pretty interesting stuff, this "spintronics".  I never heard of it
before, and already people have been making money with it for years,
no hokum involved.

I need to get out more.

So, if the alternating magnetic field in the vicinity of the resonant
electrodes is at a frequency that "hits" the electrolysis process
right, there might be a big payoff.  Also, there is no need for both
electrodes to resonate at the same frequency.  Depending on which gas
is expected where, it appears that different resonance frequencies
would be preferred on each electrode (while still preserving the DC
bias needed for the basic electrolysis process of course).  You can't
do that by applying a square wave to a non-resonant electrolyzer.  If
you apply the same square wave (or better yet, pulses) to a resonant
electrolyzer, the stimulus could be used to resonate each electrode
at a different frequency, as needed for maximum efficiency.  Separate
resonance drive to each electrode would probably be more expedient
for research purposes, however.

Anybody looking for a research grant?  Maybe this is something to use
in the grant application.  This kind of research ought to cost a lot
of money, and one could spend years doing it.

Tom Schum

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@...>
wrote:
>
> Here is a link to get started in spintronics:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spintronics
>
> Again, just the tip of the iceberg, insignificant to the captain of
> the Titanic but perhaps important to others.
>
> Tom Schum
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "waynegage2000" <waynegage@>
> wrote:
> >
> > spintronics...
> > Whaat drugs are you on?
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "K. Jay Rogozinsky"
> > <et.jayr@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "velakand" wrote in message:
> > >
> > > For me, I can't see why it ("Sully DC") *wouldn't* make a
> > difference.
> > >
> > > I have read replies from apparently educated/credentialed
persons
> > expressing that science says it would make no difference.  I'm
> > sorry, but I beg to differ.
> > > Now, for those that say it makes no difference ("Sully DC"), I
> > must point out that spintronics dictates that it does make a
> > difference - with little doubt - as spintronics (and the
associated
> > science) is the basis of much current technology - including the
> > hard drive you are reading this message from.
> > >
> > > (Electrons have spin.  Thus, direction of travel is, without
> > doubt, significant.)
> > >
> > > The only real "debate" is how these difference(s) manifest -
and
> > for the purposes of this forum - the "resulting process
> > efficiency".  It would therefore seem wise to focus on this,
> without
> > negative conjecture, but with experiment and proposals for
> discovery.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > K. Jay Rogozinsky
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

Big Three Automakers Pledge to Double Production of Flexible Fuel
Vehicles

< http://www.alternate-energy.net/N/news.php?detail=n1152051591.news >










Get your daily alternative energy news

Alternate Energy Resource Network
   1000+ news sources-resources
         updated daily

http://www.alternate-energy.net






Next Generation Grid
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid/


Tomorrow-energy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy/


Alternative Energy Politics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics/

People have fiddled with the waveform sent to an electrlyzer over and
over again, looking for "resonance" and other ideas to change the
conversion energy. All have failed. While I'm not saying EVERY
possible waveshape has been tried, over all the frequencies, even
quantum mechanics suggests that there's nothing to be gained by
imposing an AC signal onto the electrolyzer.

OBTW, there is no need to reverse the current direction to have real,
honest to God AC applied to the current. Varying the voltage
periodically, even if it never reverses, means that AC is being
applied. Add up the vectors.

The only thing that I think is new with this latest gadget is using
the reversing current to shake the wire electrodes, thereby shedding
the bubbles more quickly. This could improve the electrolyzer's gas
output at the expense of increasing its power input.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@...> wrote:
>
> The AC I am talking about is superimposed on the DC bias of the
> electrolyzer and never reverse-biases the electrolyzer.  This is more
> in keeping with the "Sully DC" concept.  If the amplitude is too high,
> the electrolyzer will go into AC operation, which would be bad.
>
> The high frequencies I referred to in the link are only the tip of the
> iceberg, probably far from the best frequencies for any useful system,
> maybe even dangerous.
>
> The patent seems to cover the application of high frequencies to
> electrolysis generally.
>
> Tom Schum
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But applying AC for electrolysis is usually not good, due to impedance
> > matching issues. There's more good stuff on electrolysis here:
> > http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
> >
>

When you apply a potential across pure water, doesn't it take a small
amount of time for the water molecules to swivel into alignment with
the electric field?

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@...> wrote:
>
> People have fiddled with the waveform sent to an electrlyzer over
and
> over again, looking for "resonance" and other ideas to change the
> conversion energy. All have failed. While I'm not saying EVERY
> possible waveshape has been tried, over all the frequencies, even
> quantum mechanics suggests that there's nothing to be gained by
> imposing an AC signal onto the electrolyzer.
>
> OBTW, there is no need to reverse the current direction to have
real,
> honest to God AC applied to the current. Varying the voltage
> periodically, even if it never reverses, means that AC is being
> applied. Add up the vectors.
>
> The only thing that I think is new with this latest gadget is using
> the reversing current to shake the wire electrodes, thereby shedding
> the bubbles more quickly. This could improve the electrolyzer's gas
> output at the expense of increasing its power input.
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@>
wrote:
> >
> > The AC I am talking about is superimposed on the DC bias of the
> > electrolyzer and never reverse-biases the electrolyzer.  This is
more
> > in keeping with the "Sully DC" concept.  If the amplitude is too
high,
> > the electrolyzer will go into AC operation, which would be bad.
> >
> > The high frequencies I referred to in the link are only the tip
of the
> > iceberg, probably far from the best frequencies for any useful
system,
> > maybe even dangerous.
> >
> > The patent seems to cover the application of high frequencies to
> > electrolysis generally.
> >
> > Tom Schum
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > But applying AC for electrolysis is usually not good, due to
impedance
> > > matching issues. There's more good stuff on electrolysis here:
> > > http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
> > >
> >
>

Water Fuel Experimenter and Team Threatened
Posted by: "Branden Lander" spud_kull_spirit@...   spud_kull_spirit
Wed Jul 5, 2006 3:49 pm (PST)

Water Fuel Experimenter and Team Threatened Ken Rasmussen's research team has
been working on a process that turns out to have similarities to the
super-efficient electrolysis process being developed by Professor Kanarev.
Rasmussen's work ceased after a member of the team was threatened at gunpoint.
by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2006


VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, USA -- On May 16, a technician who was one of a team
of garage experimenters investigating a hydrogen-on-demand technology was run
off the road near a rural intersection and accosted by four white, middle-aged
males in black suits, carrying Glocks and Mac tens. The assailants were driving
a late model, black Lincoln Town Car.

This comes just one month after Bill Williams was similarly threatened because
of his alleged experimentation with running a vehicle on a Joe cell.

The victim in this latest incident is an associate of New Energy Congress
member, Ken Rasmussen, who had been working together with him on the project.
Rasmussen also runs an alternative energy news service at
http://www.commutefaster.com/Energy.html

A week before the incident, Rasmussen learned of the work being done by
Professor Kanarev in Russia. Both use a pulsed signal, and both were seeing
similar performance rates. Kanarev holds multiple patents, and is widely
published. A day before the incident, a person who was interested in funding the
project of Rasmussen et al., and who had been trying to reach him since
November, had finally made contact.

Rasmussen reported the incident for the first time publicly in his news today.
He said, "As editor of this page, my life has now been threatened by 2 loaded
guns pointed in the face of a good friend."

"Using information which could only have been obtained by monitoring digital
cell phones and e-mail, the assailants portrayed to the victim that they had
total control over his personal life, and was told to remain silent and to not
talk to government authorities." He was told that if he did not comply, a family
member would be killed. The assailants produced extensive details about this
target family member. The threat also included himself, his family and all
associates if he did not stop work on the process immediately. The threats made
actually applied broadly to anyone working on overunity.

"I'm breaking the story to warn others who might be involved in similar
technologies," said Rasmussen.

Obeying the threats made to him, the person threatened has stopped all work on
the project. "When happy people start acting silent and paranoid, friends get
suspicious," said Rasmussen, who waited to publish this account until the
necessary measures had been taken to protect the lives of those directly
threatened in the incident.

At the time of the assault, Rasmussen had been in discussion with several
pre-screened, suitable investors, who were waiting on Rasmussen's team to fix a
final detail before attending a live demonstration.

Rasmussen addressed them publicly in today's report, saying: "For any of my
previous business contacts reading this, please excuse the delay. Our lives have
been directly threatened if we were to complete the item we were intending to
demonstrate for you. All progress is stopped" . . . for now.

"Enormous amounts of personal information thrown in our face behind the guns
proved to me NONE of the prospective investors had anything to do with the
violence we experienced. These thugs knew things I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW. Their boss
has digital cell phone tapping technology at the very least. Other details were
probably obtained by wire tapping neighbors and friend's phones too."

In closing, Rasmussen said, "We have this kind warning to fellow experimenters
who try to challenge the conventional physics being taught to students around
the world. Challenge the system, the system that says oil is god, and there are
paid mafia goons all over the world who will stop you for a few measly dollars.
We know, because we met their guns face to face. Please continue your noble
research, but PLEASE PLEASE watch your backside."

Rasmussen's words to the assailants were that if anyone were harmed, the plans
for this technology would be plastered all over the Internet. He believes that
cowering to bullies is not good policy.

# # #
SOURCES

http://www.commutefaster.com/Energy.html - June 2, 2006 (back-up)
http://www.commutefaster.com/klooz.html - Report of assault. (back-up)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Editing input provided by Mary-Sue Haliburton




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but has anyone built and
successfully tested the GEET engine (pantone's engine)?

I actually met the guy, he seemed nice enough.  He even ran a
lawnmower mockup of his engine for us off of soda (although it could
have been a gas/soda mix) he claimed it was soda in any case.  And I
was about 13 at the time, so 8 years ago, and I didn't think enough at
the time to ask him more questions and study the engine he had in more
detail.

Here are some plans for it:

http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/articles/geet/geet.htm

I would have tried it myself, but I don't have the extra moola right now.

Josh Bissell

Hello

I am new to the list and I have an interest in any of the various
transmissions, hydraulic pressure, or fuel carb systems that have been
invented in the past 100+ years which a real everyday person uses to
increase MPG in their car or truck.

Please reply posting specifics, and contact information, as I want to
proceed to having MPG increases soon, not just talk about it.

I have a nice little 4 cylinder automobile I could adapt to some
technology, if I can find something which is off the shelf, somewhat
easy, and proven in your life, right now, today.

Thanks

Mark

According to a local story on the news here in tennessee the smart car
will be under 15 grand.

Still too darn small though.  Even for 69 mpg....

On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 17:24 -0400, ranger116@... wrote:
>
> Economy ??
> This little car will probably cost $25,000 because it will be
> considered the "in" thing to drive ! and to recoup the design costs.
>
> While a brand new Chevrolet Aveo
> that retails for $12,695 (with AC) But believe it or not I was quoted
> a
> price by my local Chevrolet dealer of $7,400 + tax and tag for a new
> one
> with 5 speed and Air Conditioning.
> GM is having a very hard time getting rid of all models of 2006s and
> is
> giving them away.
> This car in a road test by Car and Driver Magazine was said to be high
> quality made in Korea for Chevrolet and actually got the 35 MPG EPA
> mileage in the road test and had a top speed of 110 MPH !
> $18,000 less than the smart car will buy a lot of gas !
> Contact Maroone Chevrolet in Miami if you are interested (no I am not
> a
> car salesman)
>
> Click scroll down
> Chevrolet Aveo f
> Address:http://www.gmcanada.com/english/showroom/chev_aveo.html
>
> Daimler Chrysler Smart Car picture
>
> Address:http://www.pkshiu.com/gallery/smartcars.html
>
>
>
>
>

Very interesting stuff,

Tesla transverse and longitudinal electric waves
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-721789270445596549&q=tesla

Tesla longitudinal electricity
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6461713170757457294&q=tesla

THE REAL STORY ABOUT COLD FUSION.

I did not write this story to say that Cold Fusion was not real, but
if you think that cold fusion is not real then the hoax is on you. I
said that low-energy-nuclear-reaction is not Cold Fusion and that
Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann are not the founders of Cold
Fusion.

I was simply telling the world because I want the real founders'
names recognized there. The real founders are:

-- Carl Saggon of cosmo was the keys to Cold Fusion.
-- Arthur C. Clarke was the seer of Cold Fusion.
-- Dr. Mallove was the holder of Cold Fusion.
-- Reginald J.C. Jackson, the builder of Cold Fusion.

Just as Mr. Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction writer, futurist and
founder of Infinite Energy Magazine says: "It seems very promising
to me that nuclear reactions may occur at room temperatures. I'm
quite convinced there's something in this."

Statements like this prompts an obvious question: If nuclear fusion
can be demonstrated in anyone's basement workshop for a few thousand
dollars, and could revolutionize society - why haven't we heard
about it?

We have! On March 23, 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann
announced their discovery of "cold fusion." It was the most heavily
hyped science story of the decade, but the awed excitement quickly
evaporated amid accusations of fraud and incompetence. When it was
over, Pons and Fleischmann were humiliated by the scientific
establishment; their reputations ruined, they fled from their
laboratory and dropped out of sight. "Cold fusion" and "hoax" became
synonymous in most people's minds, and today, everyone knows that
the idea has been discredited.

Or has it? In fact, despite the scandal, laboratories in at least
eight countries are still spending millions on cold fusion research.
During the past nine years this work has yielded a huge body of
evidence, while remaining virtually unknown - because most academic
journals adamantly refuse to publish papers on it. At most, the
story of cold fusion represents a colossal conspiracy of denial. At
least, it is one of the strangest untold stories in 20th-century
science.

This is why just a few real scientists have studied real cold fusion
on earth. It takes a real mind to find the truth, not just go by
what someone tells you, or that its ok to study, nor that cold
fusion is more than just(light in a jar); its more than that. This
is why people say, "stay away from cold fusion." They say that
because they don't want you to see the truth about cold fusion. That
cold fusion is the power of life. The real embarrassment is that a
few small-minded scitentists can take a system as powerful and
beautiful as cold fusion and say that you can place it inside a jar
or a paper cup. Just like my mentor Carl Saggon said, "You can't put
the formula of time and space in a shoe." Cold fusion is not a joke,
its the power of life and I must say so.

A word of WARNING right up front: This is potentially VERY DANGEROUS
work and must not be done without maximum, safety precautions and
supervision by those thoroughly versed in laboratory safety! It
involves high-temperatures, high-voltages, explosive mixtures of
oxygen and hydrogen, caustic solutions, and steam generation that if
improperly contained could cause a deadly explosion. These are just
the beginning hazards. This is unknown territory. Drs. Ohmori and
Mizuno measured the transmutation of elements in this experiment.
Thus, until further notice, and despite your possible skepticism
about their claim of transmutation, this work must be considered, by
definition, nuclear experimentation. With that said, we encourage
every thoughtful group who can do this experiment attempt it safely.
Infinite Energy, Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. and Vultures Inc. take
no responsibility for the known or unknown radiation or any other
hazards that are associated with this experiment.

*********************************************************************
******

It you think that cold fusion is a joke, the hoax is on you.

REGINALD JC,JACKSON
CHAIRMAN
VULTURES INC.
bonepicker939@...

I have contacted JL Naudin to ask him pointed questions about the real
performance of the MEG. So far it hardly works as a transformer much
less an energy generating device [AS EXPECTED].

Dans un e-mail dat� du 30/06/2006 01:30:37 Paris, Madrid,
george_adamsky@... a �crit :

     Dear Sir: an inquiry....
     (1) A photo appears at http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm
referred to as a photo of "[your] MEG replication model." Does this
show the MEG device actually lighting an electric bulb, or is this
only a simulation of what the device should do?
     (2) Is the electric light bulb shown in the photo being powered by
the device, or by another source of power not seen to be evident in
the photo?
     Thank you for your kind attention to these two questions.
     George Adamsky

Jean-Louis Naudin answers

Today, I can say about my MEG replication that :
- the Bearden's MEG works as claimed in his paper,
- I have been able to replicate the output waves presented in his
paper and in his patent,
- the "apparent" COP that I have measured is fully in line with the claim

Differents measurement methods and equipments have been already used :
- A full calibrated Tektronix THS720P digital oscilloscope in 2000,
- A PM3215 2x50 Mhz Philips analog scope with 1/10 corrected probes in
2002,
- A Fluke 123 digital oscilloscope with a current clamp CIE CA-60 in 2003.
The results are still same... The probes calibration have been checked
and re-checked each time before and after the measurements. All the
measurements that I have done on the MEG are reals... I have used high
tech equipement fully calibrated ( at the tests date ), so the
measured values are corrects.

Unfortunatelly, I have not yet succeeded in the closed loop and in
spite of the "apparent" power measured, the RLoad resistor doesn't
heat up too much, it is only a bit warm. I think that it still remain
a possibility of a measurement artifact ( not a measurement error ).
... A COP >>1 will be fully confirmed only with a closed loop and a
self-running device...

------------------------------------

SO AFTER MANY YEARS OF FOOLING AROUND  NOBODY HAS GOTTEN EVEN BREAK
EVEN POWER OUTPUT FROM THE MEG. I'd bet that it has an efficiency of
less than 20%

http://www.hugg.com/story/New-Energy-Movement-Theme-Song-by-Shawn-Gallaway-1/

--


"Feel free" – 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail

We all know by now as a fact, that magnetism is needed, one way or
another, to produce electricity. If not in the use of physical
magnets as in AC and DC then in atomic particle magnets inside the
current. About voltages and currents we already know a lot,
otherwise we were not capable of making such ingenious devices we
have right now.
Yet, magnetism is poorly understood, no matter what Quantum
Mechanics tells us, otherwise we probably should have had devices
working on magnetism like the ones we already have on electricity.
My suggestion would than be: approach magnetism as we did with
electricity. Let us try to make equivalents for resistors
(shielding), capacitators (temporary varying strength storage one
way magnets), diodes (one way magnets) and so on. (Let's make things
better, sounds familiar?). If this were possible, I'm sure we could
have major breakthroughs in various fields of research.
I think it would already be a big breakthrough when we were to
succeed in the simple on and off switching of a magnet, without the
aid of electricity, without repositioning it and without loosing the
yet unidentified force within a magnet.

So I am very curious if somebody could tell, if there are already
devices doing what is described.

THE REAL STORY ABOUT COLD FUSION.

I did not write this story to say that Cold Fusion was not real, but
if you think that cold fusion is not real then the hoax is on you. I
said that low-energy-nuclear-reaction is not Cold Fusion and that
Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann are not the founders of Cold
Fusion.

I was simply telling the world because I want the real founders'
names recognized there. The real founders are:

-- Carl Saggon of cosmo was the keys to Cold Fusion.
-- Arthur C. Clarke was the seer of Cold Fusion.
-- Dr. Mallove was the holder of Cold Fusion.
-- Reginald J.C. Jackson, the builder of Cold Fusion.

Just as Mr. Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction writer, futurist and
founder of Infinite Energy Magazine says: "It seems very promising
to me that nuclear reactions may occur at room temperatures. I'm
quite convinced there's something in this."

Statements like this prompts an obvious question: If nuclear fusion
can be demonstrated in anyone's basement workshop for a few thousand
dollars, and could revolutionize society - why haven't we heard
about it?

We have! On March 23, 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann
announced their discovery of "cold fusion." It was the most heavily
hyped science story of the decade, but the awed excitement quickly
evaporated amid accusations of fraud and incompetence. When it was
over, Pons and Fleischmann were humiliated by the scientific
establishment; their reputations ruined, they fled from their
laboratory and dropped out of sight. "Cold fusion" and "hoax" became
synonymous in most people's minds, and today, everyone knows that
the idea has been discredited.

Or has it? In fact, despite the scandal, laboratories in at least
eight countries are still spending millions on cold fusion research.
During the past nine years this work has yielded a huge body of
evidence, while remaining virtually unknown - because most academic
journals adamantly refuse to publish papers on it. At most, the
story of cold fusion represents a colossal conspiracy of denial. At
least, it is one of the strangest untold stories in 20th-century
science.

This is why just a few real scientists have studied real cold fusion
on earth. It takes a real mind to find the truth, not just go by
what someone tells you, or that its ok to study, nor that cold
fusion is more than just(light in a jar); its more than that. This
is why people say, "stay away from cold fusion." They say that
because they don't want you to see the truth about cold fusion. That
cold fusion is the power of life. The real embarrassment is that a
few small-minded scitentists can take a system as powerful and
beautiful as cold fusion and say that you can place it inside a jar
or a paper cup. Just like my mentor Carl Saggon said, "You can't put
the formula of time and space in a shoe." Cold fusion is not a joke,
its the power of life and I must say so.

A word of WARNING right up front: This is potentially VERY DANGEROUS
work and must not be done without maximum, safety precautions and
supervision by those thoroughly versed in laboratory safety! It
involves high-temperatures, high-voltages, explosive mixtures of
oxygen and hydrogen, caustic solutions, and steam generation that if
improperly contained could cause a deadly explosion. These are just
the beginning hazards. This is unknown territory. Drs. Ohmori and
Mizuno measured the transmutation of elements in this experiment.
Thus, until further notice, and despite your possible skepticism
about their claim of transmutation, this work must be considered, by
definition, nuclear experimentation. With that said, we encourage
every thoughtful group who can do this experiment attempt it safely.
Infinite Energy, Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. and Vultures Inc. take
no responsibility for the known or unknown radiation or any other
hazards that are associated with this experiment.

*********************************************************************
******

It you think that cold fusion is a joke, the hoax is on you.

REGINALD JC,JACKSON
CHAIRMAN
VULTURES INC.
bonepicker939@...

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "tomkar" <tomkar@...> wrote:
>
> Water Fuel Experimenter and Team Threatened
> Posted by: "Branden Lander" spud_kull_spirit@...   spud_kull_spirit
> Wed Jul 5, 2006 3:49 pm (PST)
>
> Water Fuel Experimenter and Team Threatened Ken Rasmussen's research
team has been working on a process that turns out to have similarities
to the super-efficient electrolysis process being developed by
Professor Kanarev. Rasmussen's work ceased after a member of the team
was threatened at gunpoint.
> by Sterling D. Allan
> Pure Energy Systems News
> Copyright © 2006
>
>
> VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, USA -- On May 16, a technician who was
one of a team of garage experimenters investigating a
hydrogen-on-demand technology was run off the road near a rural
intersection and accosted by four white, middle-aged males in black
suits, carrying Glocks and Mac tens. The assailants were driving a
late model, black Lincoln Town Car.
>

Nope, right there you have enough info. to see it isn't real.

The REAL MIBs don't carry Glocks, they carry clocks. Black overalls,
maybe, but the suits are history. Lincoln Town Cars? Eh, not even close.

It's a sad day when the suppression teams are down to civvies and
can't do nothin' but ring doorbells and run (sometimes, at best,
leaving the burning bag of dog poop for the free energy inventor to
stomp on).

Sorry, tomkar, but this is just SO fake!

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "markhaugsten" <markhaugsten@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I am new to the list and I have an interest in any of the various
> transmissions, hydraulic pressure, or fuel carb systems that have been
> invented in the past 100+ years which a real everyday person uses to
> increase MPG in their car or truck.
>
> Please reply posting specifics, and contact information, as I want to
> proceed to having MPG increases soon, not just talk about it.
>
> I have a nice little 4 cylinder automobile I could adapt to some
> technology, if I can find something which is off the shelf, somewhat
> easy, and proven in your life, right now, today.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
>

Most likely way to do this, at the expense of performance, is to
decrease the numerical final drive ratio of the vehicle. If you now
have 3.11 gears, change to 2.73 or so. Final drive ratios are picked
as a compromise between performance and economy, and if performance
isn't important you can almost certainly save gas by changing that ratio.

Likewise, shifting to higher gears sooner will help slow the engine
down and let it run more efficiently (higher load, lower speed).
There's not much you can do with the engine itself, though, to
increase fuel economy. Advance the ignition timing to the point where
you ALMOST get ping, but not quite. Slow down the idle speed. Most of
this stuff you can't do on modern, computer controlled engines due to
emissions laws.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "andreas buechel" <eas34@...> wrote:
>
>
http://www.hugg.com/story/New-Energy-Movement-Theme-Song-by-Shawn-Gallaway-1/
>
> --

Lame. Folksy whining about "keeping the energy moving" and stuff. We
need power chords, feedback and plenty of cow bell.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "sanderpupae" <s.sinttruye@...> wrote:
>
> Very interesting stuff,
>
> Tesla transverse and longitudinal electric waves
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-721789270445596549&q=tesla
>
> Tesla longitudinal electricity
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6461713170757457294&q=tesla
>

Too bad these guys don't understand what they're really seeing. In
that first video they confuse LC resonance frequency with propogation
speed down a wire. In the second one they just don't seem to get how
high voltage, high frequency AC can feel near the skin.

Challenge to them: If Tesla "longitudinal" waves travel faster than
light, then use them to send information, even a single bit, faster
than light. Bet they can't do that.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "xingu1306" <xingu1306@...> wrote:
>
> We all know by now as a fact, that magnetism is needed, one way or
> another, to produce electricity. If not in the use of physical
> magnets as in AC and DC then in atomic particle magnets inside the
> current. About voltages and currents we already know a lot,
> otherwise we were not capable of making such ingenious devices we
> have right now.
> Yet, magnetism is poorly understood, no matter what Quantum
> Mechanics tells us, otherwise we probably should have had devices
> working on magnetism like the ones we already have on electricity.

No, because magnetism IS well understood we know that it is a poor
analogy. Magnetism is a pseudo force caused by different charge
densities, often caused by Relativistic shifts due to charge carrier
drift speeds.

> My suggestion would than be: approach magnetism as we did with
> electricity. Let us try to make equivalents for resistors
> (shielding), capacitators (temporary varying strength storage one
> way magnets), diodes (one way magnets) and so on. (Let's make things
> better, sounds familiar?). If this were possible, I'm sure we could
> have major breakthroughs in various fields of research.

If this were possible? That's the point -- it's not. You should take
some time to learn about physics as it was figured out in the last
century. Magnetism is NOT all that complicated, it's just confusing
unless you understand the nuances of Relativity.

> I think it would already be a big breakthrough when we were to
> succeed in the simple on and off switching of a magnet, without the
> aid of electricity, without repositioning it and without loosing the
> yet unidentified force within a magnet.
>

That "unidentified force" is electrostatic interaction (attraction and
repulsion). Nothing myserious, and unless you know of an energy free
way to move oribitals and spin properties of charge carriers you can't
build your energy free magnet switch.

> So I am very curious if somebody could tell, if there are already
> devices doing what is described.
>

Read and learn:

http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~dnj/teaching/160mag/160mag.htm
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/rel_el_mag.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html