DEBATE THREAD

[psychopath]

Hello Da,

The idea of the thread is to bring what might happen in other threads to a place people can look at or ignore.  The whole point is to avoid the clutter in other threads.  So far it's doing a good job.

Omni has said this isn't peer review so you have to wonder why is he attempting to make a case here.  I wonder.  The proper place to make the case the SMOT violates CoE would be in a scientific publication.  Why does he argue here and not before his peers?  One guess is they wouldn't be his peers.  The real truth is (whether he's their equal or not) is they would tear his argument to pieces.

The real reason no publication would publish Omni is that his absurd point has no basis in reality.  If he's a professor he could easily publish his idea where he teaches.  I've read papers at different universities.

The sad truth is Omni is a fraud.  The good news is he's not asking for money. 



Bach, bach, bach-it-i bach.  No hair, just feathers!



Bessler007

You have so much fath in mainstream science. What you do not realise, is that mainstream science ignores many things out of the ordinary, because it threatens what they have worked for their whole lives.

When Einstein published his papers, some scientists simply denied it, the refused to even look at his work. The wright brothers were "crackpots". Galileo was supressed. There is no secret conspiracy, the oil companies don't care about your youtube videos, this happens naturally, many people resist new things. People want to make sense of the world, so they dismiss unusual things.

This has decreased over the years, but it is still here.

We do not know if the smot is not overunity, and we do not know if a looped smot is possible or not. And there is nothing wrong with this, we don't have to make something up just because we can't explain it, since that is religion, not science. Just because you have failed to do it doesn't make it "impossible".

[PolyMatrix]

Been looking around the net and Joined the Joe's Cell free energy device group  on yahoo and there is not one person that says it does not work. There are many saying that it does work! Fuel line to engine is disconected and the engine is running!

Now if ever there was proof of a new energy source that would be it.

[PolyMatrix]

Here is an example of the emails I am getting from this group.

Hi Patrick,

I thought that was clear, but I guess I was wrong. What is happening is that the aetheric energy creates standing waves along the metal at nodes which are exactly 1.89475" long. So as long as your tubes are cut to any multiple of this length a resonant condition is set up to maximize the energy output. Much like a radio antenna.

All the central tubes in a cell will still be cut to the same length, but precisely at one of these odd lengths.

The canister needs to be long enough to accommodate a water depth at the next length up the chart. The water acts just like another length of tubing and will also exhibit the same nodal lengths.

The tubes need to be spaced about .61" off the canister bottom. And the optimum tube spacing would be .61" as well, but this is somewhat impractical without rolling tubes as BW did in his cell.

The one cell that I modified, essentially went to stage 3 without ANY charging, which is exactly what Dave Lowrance predicted it would do. The man is amazing! I do think however that the water should be prepped first to maximize the cells output.

I'm sorry if I missed your email about JC advances. Possibly I never got it, because I generally pay attention to any email that you send.

My document in both JCFED and JC2 titled "Assembling and Charging a Joe Cell" basicly covers my technique for "prepping" water. All it really discusses that's new is the fact that it's nearly impossible to charge water in a standard JC because of the gap spacing, so I simply suggest people build a small flat plate electrolysis cell to prep water for the JC. With plate spacing around 1/8" is easy to generate the H & O necessary to strip all disolved iron out of the water. Once this is done and the water filtered, than most any JC will go right to stage 3. This process along with passivating both cells with strong Phosphoric acid eliminates the brown scum problem and should allow the cell to hold stage 3 for a long time.

It's also important to get the tube polarities set properly, whether this is accomplished through dowseing, or testing of the cells residual voltage is unimportant, but it definitely needs to be done. I've been meaning to write up a short document regarding how to do this with the voltages, but haven't gotten to it yet. It can be a little tricky!

I've found that simply carrying a stage 3 cell inside the car will give a decent shandy mode operation, even without a transfer tube or even electrical connections. However I don't know how long the stage 3 will last! Possibly a cell built to the lengths specified here will hold stage 3 forever, but that needs to be tested. A cell not set up to these lengths should probably be given a 1 minute charge from the car battery before driving each morning. It's important to not leave the battery connected for too long as this can kill the cell.

The real problem that most people will run into is how the the engine computer responds to the cell, and different cars will have different responses. My 86 Accord got a performance boost of possibly as much as 25%, but saw no mileage improvement. So it's really going to be important to work with the O2 or MAP sensors to spoof the computer.

In summarizing, I think people need to follow through on all these steps to really optimize their cells. I'd like it if someone would roll a set of tubes to this larger gap size, because it could be the path to a true stage 4 cell. But that's only conjecture on my part.

Now all we need to do is get to work on the cell / engine interface and reliable gasless operation.

Bernie
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Kelly
To: Bernie
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Joe Cell info

Hi Bernie,

I had already archived your similar post to watercar. I don't understand what you are saying in your post. I am always happy to upgrade any document with new information. In passing, I didn't get any reply to my person-to-person e-mail to you asking what Joe Cell advances had been made which gave reliable shandy operation, and that information would definitely warrant a document upgrade.

Can you explain your table to me? Does:

1 x = 1.894745
2 x = 3.7949
3 x = 5.684235

mean a 1" diameter s/s tube 1.89" tall surrounded by a 2" diameter s/s tube 3.79" tall, both surrounded by a 3" diameter s/s tube 5.68" tall ? If that is the case, then the inner tubes would presumably be totally submerged.

If that is not the case, then are you saying that for a set of four or five concentric s/s tubes, then 3.79" tall is a particularly good height for the whole set of tubes ? If so, to what does the "2 x" in the first column refer ?

Sorry to be slow on the uptake here, but I bet that most people reading it won't have understood it either.

As I write this, rain is pounding on the window beside me and a gale is blowing. Have people in cold, wet climates had any sustained shandy success with a Joe Cell? I am glad to hear of advances in this field as there is clearly great potential in the system.

All the best,

Patrick

Bernie <bernieheere@ peak.org> wrote:
Patrick,

I just released the following to the Joe cell groups, and thought maybe you might want to incorporate it into your JC information. I'm hoping others will step up and test other lengths, but I was quite impressed with the one length that I tested.

I recently asked Dave Lowrance to evaluate Joe cells for me, and after some analysis and testing of one, he has come up with the following:

Tube sets cut to any of the following lengths should be optimum:

Inches
1 x = 1.894745
2 x = 3.7949
3 x = 5.684235
4 x = 7.5898
5 x = 9.473725
6 x = 11.36847
7 x = 13.263215
8 x = 15.1796

Along with this is a recommended bottom spacing for the pack off the bottom
SS of .61" and a recommendation that the water height be set to the next
length up the chart.

I cut a set to the 2x length set the bottom spacing to the .61 distance and
filled the water to the 3x spacing. I filled the cell with raw (unprepped)
water and let it sit overnight. When I applied power the cell went to stage
3 immediately. This cell is assembled in a $12.95 Wal Mart canister.

Incidently, along with this is a suggestion that the optimum tube spacing
should be the .61" as well, so obviously the .5" tube spacing is at best a
compromise. BTW, according to Peter Stevens, Joe has also
stated that the gap should be bigger than .5. Obviously this tube spacing
would require rolling custom tubes.

Bernie

[bw]

hi anus-bus,
how much money does the energy cartel pay someone like you to call people who are working on this stuff stupid?  does it pay more if you can get them to give up?  is there a bonus for that?  do you get free vacations or anything if you get more than one to throw in the towel so to speak?  just curious.   one other question.
is this really worth selling your soul for?  think about it please before you do more harm.  free energy is everywhere and many devices like joe's cell, steve mark's tpu, al's magnet wheel that accelerates to over 4000 rpm's and holds that rpm, just to mention a few are here now and being tested and improved upon.  i believe this will be the year that energy giants are overwhelmed because of these forums.  for the last 100+ years they could buy and squash almost every new development because inventors would patent and sell their idea.   now we share on forums like this.

bw

[Bessler007]

I went to Gaby's site a couple of times with the same results.  Any browser I had open on any desktop (4 of them) with all the tabs opened would magically close for me.

I am going to look at your link, Gaby, when I can get a high octane browser that can handle what's there.  In the meantime why don't you open a thread here with your ideas.


Bessler007