Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 96 guest(s) and 1 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here


Hot Links

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science


Energy Science



Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs


New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.




Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy


Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
Alternative Energy News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

your response-FANTASTIC! (Score: 1)
by johnboy on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 @ 05:56:05 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
you i like! it is refreshing to say the least that someone on this site speaks up for the open-minded thinker , instead of the usual whining, complaining and finger pointing that goes on here. touche'!

| Parent

Re: Re: 100 miles on 4 ounces of water? (Score: 1)
by aleatha on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 @ 10:22:23 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
A BIG REASON THE STAN MEYERS and browns gas type machines work and are so efficent is that unknown to the designers. (but not to elements in DARPA) hydrogen gas is kept in the reaction zone. this lowers the quanity of electricity needed for electrolysis. see calculations on efficency are based on the hydrogen being immediately bled off to an application. hydrogen in water increases the distance bettween H and O bonds in water making it easier to break. so having multiple plates or such creates an envoirment that is NOT being modeled by conventional electrolysis equations. it is like you add extra electrolyte. BTW this denny klein is useing modified meyers material. he is to demonstrate to the american congress.  the army is going to develop a gas/water hybrid hummer. my guess is meyer's "heart atack" is related to non-cooperation.

| Parent

Re: Re: 100 miles on 4 ounces of water? (Score: 1)
by Ramjet (Conceptualizer@earth.co.un) on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 @ 19:54:26 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Well,Well, I believe sleepyd nailed it right on the head what is self defeating on this web site! For example, dynocat you might want to use the litter box before you read further. An obvious and unnecessary attack, something that is common on these pages. But to the point. Regarding this "water" thing as a fuel. may be true and would be a definite pluss if true but, what if it is not? What do we do? We need to put our minds together and find a solution to our future energy needs! I have an IDEA ! We Humans have a rich and long history that is generally not fully disclosed. For example, there are archeological depictions and oral histories that indicate humans had technology for flight many thousands of years ago. These craft did not run on gas. What was the fuel is the questiion. My IDEA is, lets look carefully into our past. Because, what is going on these pages sure isn't working.

| Parent

Re: Re: 100 miles on 4 ounces of water? (Score: 1)
by Banagor on Thursday, May 25, 2006 @ 00:31:10 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Your little rant forced me to sign up to this site just to reply.

It's nice that you think the revolution is coming, but you're an absolute moron.

Science isn't about hanging out, getting high, and figuring out a groupthink on how to make the world a better place with karmic waves, man. Science is knowing what the hell makes things work, and what doesn't. And science is also questioning each and every single discovery until there are no holes left. Proving something is "science". Anything else is just "wishful thinking".

Your remark about the nuclear bomb is a ridiculously stupid one, I'm sorry to say. It is the remark made by somebody who has absolutely no knowledge of what made the nuclear bomb in the first place, or the process involved. Making the nuclear bomb didn't involve a single guy in his garage claiming, without any verifiable scientific proof mind you, that he had transformed the way we think about the universe. It started mostly with the work of several scientists, each in different fields, thinking and theorizing and putting their theories to incredibly rigorous testing by other scientists who were able to reproduce their experiments. That is science.

The concept of teleportation is an entirely different matter. It also took millions of dollars to do, and for a single particle. The "light moving backwards" experiment also required millions of dollars and we are still not completely sure what exactly happened and are trying to reproduce the experiment in a greater area. We are also talking about incredible amounts of energy expended to produce such results, as is consistent with everything we know about energy and the way particles behave.

You are so absolutely certain that this "new technology" will come to market, but you haven't even read up on the process involved. The DoD being interested doesn't mean squat. The DoD is interested in just about any claim which crops up - 99% which fall flat on their face. The DoD tests "death rays" every single year, and chameleon suits, and other fantastic things which may work in labs under minute conditions at times, but rarely pan out in the field. But it is through experimentation that they discover new things, and then reproduce them time and time again.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to want to wait for any proof at all. You're an idiot and your post reflects that in every way. Calling skeptics "jackasses" when they demand proof and start spouting off scientific FACTS tells everyone that you are a moron. You're going on faith, and they are going on science. Nobody here is saying that if Klein PROVES that he has found something incredible and new, which everyone can test for themselves, that they will crucify him. All that people are saying is "you'll have to disprove a hell of a lot of physics and chemistry to show us something new". So far, nobody has been able to do it, even though there are dozens of such crackpots out there every year who claim to have done it.

People who cite that there are "alternatives" out there are usually lunatics or uneducated sods. It's like the "alternative news" meme - full of crap. There may be "alternatives" in some areas, but facts are facts. There are no "alternative scientific realities" where perpetual motion machines are possible, unless you happen to come from another parallel dimension. And even then, I might still be disinclined to believe you until you can prove to me that scientific laws there are fundamentally different from here. Perhaps, but write the fucking thing up, alright?

I do hope that Klein did create a new gas that can change the world for the better, but he'd only be one of thousands which have claimed this in the last few decades. So far, I haven't seen it. And so far, it isn't the skeptics who were proven wrong and shamed by their outbursts. So far, those shamefaced people have been people like you.

So shut up, read up on things, and keep quiet until you know all the facts. Until then, you're just a loudmouthed idiot.

| Parent


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.