elemental rod

[Motorcoach1]

@ Zorg , Nice to see you here. It's good to meet people from around the world , I'm In the USA. good luck in your reasearch. 

[pauldude000]

@all

First, I want to state that I have no clue about this tech, or whether it has any basis at all for believability.

I am sorry, but from reading this post from front to back, I have a rant that needs posted here......

Groundloop........ come on. I have seen better quality pictures of items in puffy clouds. You cannot make out enough detail to prove ANYTHING from those photo's posted.

I saw the work of a famous debunker, and laughed my butt off. Not at what he was "debunking", but the evident "logic" behind his work. He never once went and inspected for himself any of the phenomena, he worked only from his laboratory with pictures, movies, and his mental blackboard. He thought it a waste of time to investigate such things.

The problem with this, is every real phenomena can be faked.

Because he did not personally investigate anything, all his "logic" was sheer speculation, and had no more basis and solidity as proof of fakery than a proverbial fart in the wind. Speculation is never proof, it is speculation.

This man, doing what he was doing in trying to state others as liers or fakers without any real proof, was the true lier himself. EVEN IF occasionally he was right.

Now I will be the first to state that there ARE MANY scammers out there, trying to pass of garbage as "new O.U. tech". I however will NOT state that all O.U. techs are a joke. I do not have the proof. The only way to GET the proof, is to examine the tech honestly.

Unfortunately there are as many scammers trying to debunk.

Saying that this or that "blob", or this or that "fuzzy outline" truly IS this or that.... Why if that were true, then everybody jump in amazement, as I have seen giant rabbits and alligators sitting in clouds at 25,000 feet. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES. EEEEK!

Watching a video, and examining fuzzy blown up pics from the video, are ANYTHING BUT proof, of any kind.

Somewhat harsh? It may well be. I just know it is true.

Don't try to make something up, just to prove a preconceived notion. If you do OR don't believe a thing, fine, get some real proof either for or against.

Paul Andrulis

[pese]

@paul

possibly you have right.
possibly its "omly" surpressed or buy from industry (as SEIKO (?) )

The inventio is priciply to "catch" positrons and neutrinos with 2 different rods.
(so it was sayd, years ago.
some guy send me this papers, that shown very professional.
se here

www.stormloader.com/members/pese/rod

[pauldude000]

@pese

It may, it may not, I do not know, and cannot state either way. My questions would rise around charge. Protons have charge, but does a neutrino? (If not, then you would still have a charge imbalance of some kind possibly, which could account for charge flow. I can speculate. )

What I have found in most of the items I have researched, is someone quite like Hutchison.

Namely someone tinkering whom has found something, but has no real clue how it works, or why it does the weird things it does, and therefore rarely can reproduce the exact same effect twice, as it was accidental to begin with, or an attempt to recreate what another accomplished without full understanding of the device. This is twice bad if the original inventor had little clue.

These are generally spotted by people whom make B.S. (Bull Manure, not the degree ) up, to explain their device's method of operation. They would be better off stating "I don't have a clue, but it works". Techno-babble loses one's credibility quite quickly. (Speaking as one quite knowledgeable but using technical words in a  nonsense manner.)

Paul Andrulis

[pese]

@pese

It may, it may not, I do not know, and cannot state either way. My questions would rise around charge. Protons have charge, but does a neutrino? (If not, then you would still have a charge imbalance of some kind possibly, which could account for charge flow. I can speculate. )


Paul Andrulis

@Paul,  we all speculate over "unknow" science.
Science that we have half or nothing understand, because
nothing , aor als "part" of the designs are published.
I thin specially an Cooler (Kola) from them is the most
mystery, and nothing heraed afte 1943, (when he is died.
Was he and his knowlges "stolen" from GB- USA or RU-
How is he died?
But ist was an 700 Wat Maschine,
Another from 7,5 KW that workes nearly one year.
Another from 75HP !! For Electric Notor to driv an airpalin (Storch-Fogger).

We know "nothing". The knowledges are "SAVE" covered and it ss not
as sense , for Industry, Working folks, Goverment, Financial buisiness
to make or to have "Free Energy" solong we can "press" out the world
to give oil and other energies that can "selled".

(so -possibly- the knowledges over the  RODs- are "lost" now
Pese

All is possible, we can ony speculate. I will never say.
Tesla car, Clem car, Mazenaue, Coller, Seike, Rods are not working,
from the "at time published physics" its true- it cant work.
But we know all "lows" the will found and develped in future?
The Laws that work on the above inventions? Its to weak that WE know