Chas Campbell free power motor

[Dingus Mungus]

Humbugger please explain to us how cavitation in refrence to sonochemistry works.
You know, with convential physics...


~Dingus Mungus

[Humbugger]

LOL! All hail humbugger...
WOW if only someone would have come sooner to warn me!
Now I'm free to watch dancing with the stars like most Americans...



Do you really believe your the first skeptic goon to show up here???

You must be dense... LOL!

There are lots of silly FOS guru's running around here, and their theories are crap, that much I agree with. Overunity on the other hand, has been achieved in over a dozen technologies. All overunity means is more output than user input. We've been over this before and Stephan has also explained it to you... So of course the science community claims there are no overunity devices. Every time a new OU device is discovered, once we understand where the excess FREE energy is coming from, the total FE devices number returns to zero again. Hence we're hunting for CoP>1 or the "holy grail" which is excess energy that can not be explained.

I hope you at least consider doing some experiments if you plan on hanging around for any prolonged ammount of time.

~Dingus Mungus

Please suggest an area you would choose to begin experimenting in.  My expertise is in power and control electronics; 40 years commercial product design and government R&D labs.  I'd like to play with something I have some belief will actually work and which has a well-stated theory of operation behind it.  I have found nothing here so far that excites me enough to start playing with hardware.  Show me the way!

[Humbugger]

Humbugger please explain to us how cavitation in refrence to sonochemistry works.
You know, with convential physics...


~Dingus Mungus

I can't, can you?  I have never claimed to be a physicist.  I am, as I said an electronic product design veteran of 40 years.  I am good at spotting BS in that area.  I know it's one of the areas of research involving so-called cold fusion.  There are lots of things I don't know, and I have no problem admitting that freely. 

I guess that's part of what ticks me off so much when people full of BS gather huge followings while speaking pure gibberish and lead the naive experimenters down garden paths to nowhere over and over and over.  I mean, doesn't anyone else here see this recurring pattern?  Shouldn't there be some effort to point out the similarities and pitfalls?  Am I a goon because I'm not a panting naive believer?

People misunderstand my skepticism.  I'm not ripping into the mysterious areas where there are far-out but possible future developments.  I'm bombarding those threads where I find it clear and obvious that the "inventor" is deluding himself and others and clearly using bad math or bad terminology in conjunction with an obviously unworkable idea, yet, amazingly, gathering eager believers and replicators despite it all. 

Mehess was a perfect example.  His whole deal was based on this insane time/energy/power shell game where he had convinced himself that he could get more energy out of a spring than he put into it.  He fooled himself into believing without doing good measurements or good math.  His only stated principal was that his clock mechanism gave him such a long time to gather the rewinding energy that (no matter how tiny a rate of energy recovery he got out of his pendulum/magnet/coil) he would, of course, be able to rewind the spring because he had 31 days to gather the little pulses and only had to spend one big pulse for ten seconds each month! 

He proceeded to announce to the world, without taking the time to do the math or finish building the unit, that he had achieved OU and that it was, using his amazing principal of unwinding a spring real slow and winding it real fast, he had solved the world's energy problems once and for all. 

That was it...no other operating principal...no other stated secret advantage, real or imagined.  He proceeded, measuring his recovered energy in "volts per minute" and making all kinds of obvious thought-blunders right in public.  Everybody encouraged him on and on.  People, including Stefan, egged him on despite the obviousness of his errors.

It's just the kind of thing I couldn't sit there and watch without saying something.

[Dingus Mungus]

Please suggest an area you would choose to begin experimenting in.  My expertise is in power and control electronics; 40 years commercial product design and government R&D labs.  I'd like to play with something I have some belief will actually work and which has a well-stated theory of operation behind it.  I have found nothing here so far that excites me enough to start playing with hardware.  Show me the way!

Hmmmmmmmm... You could be a very useful member than... The trick is knowing we only know what we've actually experimented with the rest is assumed in most cases. My best example of this is that Ohms law only applys to some circuit designs accurately, but in some rare cases old complicated faraday's law is required. This inconsistancy shows me that we don't fully understand electricity. Anyone who has studied TEM vrs LMD wave dynamics would know there is still much to learn. Perhaps you'd be best suited to help us further research Longitudinal or scalar wave research. There is much research already available related to the unconventional effects of these wave types, but not a real conventional understanding nor a vast ammount of public research available. Please look in to it if interested, as I would understand it this is a topic that may change your views on the current subject of debate. Also I would suggest the rotoverter as I plan to begin work on that soon. I have no way to confirm the claims as of yet, but based on the activity surrounding the device I can only assume its given efficiency calculations are mostly legit. I only say mostly, as some of the replicators may not posess the propper measuring equipment, and a few people are claiming OU now.

As for cavitaion effects in sonochemistry question... It was a trick question... No one has propperly explained it yet. If you or I could explain it in full, we would win a nobel prize.

Definitely be a skeptic... Its healthy for the mind. BUT you don't want to be the assumption troll. I've had to change my mind on several devices once I took the time to further analyze them, and sometimes its better to give a guru enough rope to hang themselves by not speaking up untill its blatently obvious. Otherwise people will assume you're only here to distract and flame others work while not doing any of your own.

I hope you consider joining one of the projects here,
~Dingus Mungus

[Dingus Mungus]

Humbugger please explain to us how cavitation in refrence to sonochemistry works.
You know, with convential physics...


~Dingus Mungus

I can't, can you?  I have never claimed to be a physicist.  I am, as I said an electronic product design veteran of 40 years.  I am good at spotting BS in that area.  I know it's one of the areas of research involving so-called cold fusion.  There are lots of things I don't know, and I have no problem admitting that freely. 

I guess that's part of what ticks me off so much when people full of BS gather huge followings while speaking pure gibberish and lead the naive experimenters down garden paths to nowhere over and over and over.  I mean, doesn't anyone else here see this recurring pattern?  Shouldn't there be some effort to point out the similarities and pitfalls?  Am I a goon because I'm not a panting naive believer?

LOL! Wow this post changed dramaticly...

EDIT:
Actually search for "VANDUGEGS" that guy is definitely a scammer... Maybe you can help us chase off the known jokers who are actually asking people for money. When will these dummies learn they need to fund their own "unconventional" research.