Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We could have free unlimited energy on our blue planet.

However, the Elite has been supressing this new science since 1905. They want us to buy their oil. Without their monopoly on energy they will lose their control over us........

Imagine, all the people of the world could have completely free unlimited energy.

There is infinite energy amongst us, the so-called G-Field. The Indians called it Prana, the ancients called it Ether, in Japanese its Ki, Chinese is Chi, Wilhelm Reich called it Orgone etc etc etc.....The Lifeforce.

If you need proof:

The energy content of the G-Field was calculated as:

(1) 1033 cm3 by Sir Oliver Lodge, England
(2) 8.8xl08 volts/cm by Prof. S. Seike Japan
(3) 250 billion Joule/ml by Rene L. Vallee, France.

One Liter of SPACE is about equal to the energy of 5000 Liters of gasoline

We need to get rid of this "Elite" people!

There are tons of alternative fuel idea's, but all the patents are locked and kept from the public.

We will defeat the NWO and have Free Energy for all people.

A New Age has arrived, the Free Energy Age. I cant wait!

Ok, I have a question: If we really are in this New World Order, and the people running it are taking our freedons one by one... then why would they let you speak against them so freely? Because, I mean, it wouldn't be hard to find you by tracking your IP adress, especially for an all-controling government.

Not really, with all the information out on the net. It would just be easier to spread dis info and infect people with the wrong idea's rather than stop information all together. Which is exactly what the elite do.

Ok, so how exactly are we not free? I mean, I feel pretty free. I can jump in my car, go to the near-by Pilot or shell station and get something to drink, or go to Cracker Barrel and have a nice leasurly meal, or I can play a Video Game, or even dig an enourmous hole in my back yard (Which I did like 3 years ago).

Not really about freedom versus quality of living and how it affects your lively hood.

... Ok, so my quality of living is bad because of this NWO?

The quality of western civilization is bad now in terms of how we could live.

OH! So, what could the quality of living be?

Well, first of all we should focus on what happens when civilization goes into reverse.


Quality of Goods and services decrease as the cost increase

Peace will be distrupted by increases in indecency, random violence, and noise

Order increasily erroded

Tyranny and Injustice will reign as delusion as the community devolves into into impotence.

The worst people get rewarded while the best get penalisized
Bureaucracy becomes a liabilty instead of an asset.

Truth vanquished by lies. . .ETC

Basically everything goes into reverse.

Ok, out of curiosity... how does religion fit into this?

In many ways, but you have to understand that religion encompasses things of a more abstract nature. When it's taken litteral, then it stop making sense.


It can be used for control as well, but like I said it's a complex issue that is not understood.

oh... What about public education?

So many things needed to reform, basically.

You are pretty confident in your beliefs... Do you have any proof?

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
You are pretty confident in your beliefs... Do you have any proof?

Proof of a global conspiracy, sure check the 9/11 thread and look at the stuff I posted on fake videos being aired.

Ok.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Whatever you say, I know my theory. I'm just not gonna change focus just so you can ignore evidence as always.




Must have been really sleepy because all you did was offer half baked explanations that did not even explain nothing.

I posted tons of vids to support my claim, your denial or lying. I vote for the later since your response was for me too offer expert analysis of something so obvious.

yStlfBOIBfo

Vs

1D9Kfa2u2J0


Can you explain how this shot contradicts each other?

You mean these videos?

Yeah, there are more, but this should be enough.

Notice how in one video the plane enters from the left and strikes the south tower. While the other has it enter from the right and strike the south tower.

These shots are pretty simliar and that should not be possible.

The End.

Your joking right?

Originally posted by Classic NES



It can be used for control as well, but like I said it's a complex issue that is not understood.

i would say religion being used as a control is one of the more understood concepts...escpecially historically with things such as the spanish inquisition...and no not the monty python version.

but i fail to see religion being used as a control by the alleged NWO given that the western world in particular is more secular now than it has ever been

Originally posted by Classic NES
Now add the CBS bomber and TEcmac and I'm done.


pETIU1mz4fU

iF1zlguWMRY

Impossible contradiction

Plus these are the same shot, and have a completely different approach path and behavior.

Originally posted by jaden101


but i fail to see religion being used as a control by the alleged NWO given that the western world in particular is more secular now than it has ever been


Actually, your right.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Your joking right?

If you honestly believe that slight change in camera angle can result in something like the plane coming on the complete opposite side then I'm done.

They are all viewing from different sides of the building. Not a slight change but different sides.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
They are all viewing from different sides of the building. Not a slight change but different sides.

Even though they are positioned in pretty much the sameway E.G. North tower on the right, South Tower on the left?

How are they completley different side, look at the vid. . .I mean seriously.

Nevermind the Tecmac and CBS shot being the exact same shot.

Ok, here's an explanation to the first 2 videos.

If one plane was coming from behind the south tower, how the hell do both videos feature them skipping across the skyline. One vid should not show the plane as seen.

Maybe if we were comparing Moussaoi and CBS Dive bomber. But, the way the camera is positioned does not explain the CBS replay.

Let alone tecmac and Cbs Dive bomber shot.

My apologies, that was my error, I t wasn't coming from directly behind the south tower, but at an angle between both. This angle would account for it being seen as is in both videos.

Furthermore, just by looking at how the buildings are positioned, you can tell that one camera was looking at it from across Church Street, and the other one was from across Vesey Street.

And I'm still working on the other one.

Except that CBS replay shot has the plane cutting across past the north tower. Your picture doesn't explain where the CBS replay shot came from. Like I said, if it were massoui and dive bomber then sure, but it's not. Also, the Tecmac shot is the same shot, Yet, the plane is completely different approach and behavior?

The CBS replay shot would have a plane perpendicular to where you've labeled your plane or the complete opposite side.

The Telmac shot is closer, lower, and farther to the right.
The CBS shot is farther out, higher, and farther to the left.

The reson that the plane comes from a different angle is that the plane banked to the right as it was passing the south tower, causing you to see it on the other side of the south tower before impact. Also, with the camera positioned differently, the plane was hidden by the North tower when it would have normally come into view.

Here's a quick drawing of the true approch vector. My apologies on the first picture, I wasn't taking the other two into consiteration origionally. Now, the turn would have been done further out, past the view of the first view's camera.

Your plane trajectory now contradicts the massoui shot since one of the camera's you positioned would be facing the front of the plane. Which clearly did not happen in any of the two videos.

Also, the plane in the massoui shot did not pass by the north tower.


No, the Tecmac Shot and CBS dive bomber are clearly positioned in the same place. Omly difference is distance and how the video displayed them. They contradict immensly.

Also, the plane was diving in the CBS shot versus the tecmac where it was climbing.

The turn happened beyond the borders of both of the first videos. I explain that here:

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Now, the turn would have been done further out, past the view of the first view's camera.

I just didn't increase the size of my picture to compensate. It was a simple drawing showing the basic approach vector of the plane.

That's impossible since the massoui shot follows the plane well before it even reaches the towers. Seriously, where do you see the turn?

0g3K50_FvMg

Once again, the plane never crosses pass the north tower in the Al Qaida/ Massoui shot.

You see the buildings on the far left? It turns behind them. The buildings cover the turn.

Originally posted by Classic NES
That's impossible since the massoui shot follows the plane well before it even reaches the towers. Seriously, where do you see the turn?

0g3K50_FvMg

Once again, the plane never crosses pass the north tower in the Al Qaida/ Massoui shot.

it doesn't come in from the extreme left of the picture therefor it must be turning in behind the buildings on the left edge of the screen....unless of course IT FLEW OUT OF THAT BUILDING WHICH HAPPENS TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE CIAFBINSAEVILNESS corp

Wait, so the CBS shot records the turn at the same distance upon impact?

Even though they are so apart?

Originally posted by Classic NES
Wait, so the CBS shot records the turn at the same distance upon impact?

Even though they are so apart?

from the last footage you posted its impossible to tell perspective as to how far away or near to the camera view point the plane is...and from the other 2 shots its impossible to tell distance from the towers or the camera the plane is when it is turning

well i presume through mathematics determining the speed of the plane and time it takes to hit the towers and working back to a common point in time that you could tell but alas maths isn't my forte and i'm not knowlegable on the size of new york so cant determine distance from the building on the left to the tower (of your bottom footage)...

Wasn't talking about speed, i was reffering to the distance the plane comes into view. Also, I have the wrong vid, that's not the CBS replay.

actually re examining the bottom footage you sort of can tell the distance between the plane and the camera decreases as it gets closer to the tower as the size of the plane increases...hence it must be turning

Originally posted by Classic NES
Wasn't talking about speed, i was reffering to the distance the plane comes into view. Also, I have the wrong vid, that's not the CBS replay.

if you're working it out to determine the point in the sky where the plane is in each shot then you need to know the speed...the time it impacts the towers...and work back using an equal time frame for each piece of footage

Okay, my bad I put the wrong vid for comparison. This is the CBS replay vid:

Jwza_88u4Dk

That vid doesn't even show the whole thing.

Originally posted by jaden101
if you're working it out to determine the point in the sky where the plane is in each shot then you need to know the speed...the time it impacts the towers...and work back using an equal time frame for each piece of footage You missed my point, but I got the wrong vid anyway.

Compare the one I just posted to Al Qaida's vid.

QKTg9g21zJs

Here we go

I just want to clarify that the vid that I was using before was the MSNBC vid. I thought it was the CBS replay.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Okay, my bad I put the wrong vid for comparison. This is the CBS replay vid:

Jwza_88u4Dk

the vantage point of that is considerably further to the right and is covering a different area of sky....you dont see how long the plane is turning in on either of the other 2 pieces of footage but on the side on vantage point...as i stated...it doesn't come from the fae left side of the screen...hence it was most definitely turning in from considerably far out the side it impacted...the other 2 pieces simply dont pick up the plane early enough to tell and they are from further to the left than the CBS footage (one more so than the other and one on ground level...the other not)

when i say on the 2 pieces of footage taken from behind the tower...(3 if you count your last piece) you cant tell how far away the plane if from the tower because the plane is essentially coming toward the camera at a far greater speed than it is travelling from right to left on the screen

the footage taken from the side means the plane is travelling toward the tower in what appears to be a straight trajectory because you cant tell easily if its moving toward the camera

same thing applies when you watch formula 1 or indy car racing when the camera is zoomed in down a long straight...the car doesn't appear to be travelling toward the camera at any great speed even though it is

Originally posted by Classic NES
QKTg9g21zJs

Here we go

the altitudes of the planes in the top 2 are identical...the angle of approach appears different because one camera is considerably closer to the tower and considerably further to the left

like i stated...the movement forward toward the camera and sideways as its turning appear different only because of the camera position

not to mention that bottom piece of footage shows an arrow at the far left when the plane isn't even there...attempting to mislead the viewer

Originally posted by jaden101
the altitudes of the planes in the top 2 are identical...the angle of approach appears different because one camera is considerably closer to the tower and considerably further to the left

like i stated...the movement forward toward the camera and sideways as its turning appear different only because of the camera position

not to mention that bottom piece of footage shows an arrow at the far left when the plane isn't even there...attempting to mislead the viewer

Well said.

Originally posted by jaden101
the altitudes of the planes in the top 2 are identical...the angle of approach appears different because one camera is considerably closer to the tower and considerably further to the left



How does that make the plane come from a completely different side? The Al Qaida vid is on a complete different approach than the CBS shot.

Also, the CBS dive bomber still contradicts the Tecmac shot and the Al Qaida one.




Sure if your cynical, it simply shows you where the plane will appear since the video is compressed.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Sure if your cynical, it simply shows you where the plane will appear since the video is compressed.

There is no plane on the extreme left of the bottom video, I have watched that video countless times since this whole debate began, It's just not there. Which means that the plane turned while it was obscured by the buildings.

Originally posted by Classic NES


0g3K50_FvMg



Sigh, the arrow is simply a marker to show you where the plane is in general. The video is compressed So it's generally hard to make out.

Now back to the point, please explain how this vid and the CBS replay add up.

All the videos have to add up not just the top two.

Also, the approach for the top vids do not add up man

iF1zlguWMRY

They only show similar altitude because your lining them up since they are side by side. The distance between the towers are evident in thos two shots.

From the time of 0:00 to 0:14 there is no plane to be seen. When point 0:14 begins you see the plane coming from behind the buildings on the far left. Where did the plane come from you ask? Easy: It turned behind those buildings.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
From the time of 0:00 to 0:14 there is no plane to be seen. When point 0:14 begins you see the plane coming from behind the buildings on the far left. Where did the plane come from you ask? Easy: It turned behind those buildings.

Yes, you pointed that earlier and I accpeted it. Now it's time for you to explain why it contradicts the CBS shot and this time the camera's a not from opposite sides.

Originally posted by Classic NES
How does that make the plane come from a completely different side?




Sure if your cynical, it simply shows you where the plane will appear since the video is compressed.

well if your shooting a video from a different vantage point then it depends on your line of site...i've attached a crude ms paint drawing..the curved blue line being a hypothetical flight path that is similar to the plane...the two dots at the lower end are the vantage points given on the camera...although they may have been further away in relation to the distance the plane started turning....none of the footage show it...the one on the left is the view obviously from across the river

it shows how to one camera you can see the plane on the left hand side of the building...and from another from the right hand side of the building...even if they are both behind the building in relation to the plane

and no...its not a matter of being cynical in the last piece of footage...its a matter of the plane not being where the arrow is pointing...on either of the pieces of footage from that angle

1.No, your simply being cynical sine the arrow still points to the plane. It simply does not indicate a turn.

2. where's the Tecmac angle?

3. When did the CBS replay turn?

Also, you didn't label the towers.

I'll continue this tommorw, good night.

Well, I'm going to eat dinner. I'll see ya tomorrow.

Originally posted by Classic NES
1.No, your simply being cynical sine the arrow still points to the plane. It simply does not indicate a turn.

2. where's the Tecmac angle?

3. When did the CBS replay turn?

1: at the beginning of the footage....it doesn't...it's clear as the nose of your face that the plane doesn't appear from the left hand side of the screen to the left of the building...

2: the dot on the bottom left is the piece of narrated footage with the "9" in the bottom corner





absolute rubbish...the video runs for 13 seconds before the plane appears and it is clearly visible...logic dictates that if its travelling in a straight line and you can easily see it as it emerges from behind the building...then you'd see it as it went behind the building....you cant...which means its turning out of view behind the building



what do you mean when does it turn?...cause if you're implying it doesn't turn then it would have impacted at a completely different position on the tower and at a completely different angle from which it did...hence it had to turn...

Alright, I'm going to pose a question here: New york is filled with hundreds of thousands of people. If there were no planes hitting the towers where are the outcrys of the people who witnessed the attack. There had to be many people who were looking at the towers at the time. It's a national landmark, and there would have been tourists taking pictures of it, videotapeing it, and everything. Where are their accounts of this tragedy?

Also: If you look at the explosion it is an enourmous fireball which engulfs several stories of the building. To create that kind of an explosion it would take either a bomb with atleast half the force of a Nuke or Hundreds of smaller bombs. Both of which would be nearly impossible to conceal, and when people found even one bomb they would have scattered.

Originally posted by jaden101



1 at the beginning of the footage....it doesn't...it's clear as the nose of your face that the plane doesn't appear from the left hand side of the screen to the left of the building...


Let's just get this straight, I already agree that it did not appear from the left hand side in the Al Qaida shot. It turned and appeared, this was pointed to me earlier. The arrow simply indicates where the plane is IMO. If you disagree, that's fine and all. But, I don't see how that's foul play. Besides there is nothing that indicates that Genghis6199 did it to mislead





No, I'm asking for the vantage point for this:

pETIU1mz4fU









Or the video is fake, now once again tell me when it turns.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Alright, I'm going to pose a question here: New york is filled with hundreds of thousands of people. If there were no planes hitting the towers where are the outcrys of the people who witnessed the attack. There had to be many people who were looking at the towers at the time. It's a national landmark, and there would have been tourists taking pictures of it, videotapeing it, and everything. Where are their accounts of this tragedy?

Also: If you look at the explosion it is an enourmous fireball which engulfs several stories of the building. To create that kind of an explosion it would take either a bomb with atleast half the force of a Nuke or Hundreds of smaller bombs. Both of which would be nearly impossible to conceal, and when people found even one bomb they would have scattered.

I never said that there was no plane, just that the video's are fake.

Originally posted by Classic NES
Let's just get this straight, I already agree that it did not appear from the left hand side in the Al Qaida shot. It turned and appeared, this was pointed to me earlier. The arrow simply indicates where the plane is IMO. If you disagree, that's fine and all. But, I don't see how that's foul play. Besides there is nothing that indicates that Genghis6199 did it to mislead





No, I'm asking for the vantage point for this:

pETIU1mz4fU


well if it hits the tower straight on...as it did...with its wings tilted...as it did...and was coming in from the right hand side of the screen as u look at it...as it was...then it must've been turning...thats called physics








Or the video is fake, now once again tell me when it turns.

Originally posted by Classic NES
I never said that there was no plane, just that the video's are fake.

Wait... What? So if there was a plane why make fake videos? Where is the logic in your argument?

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Wait... What? So if there was a plane why make fake videos? Where is the logic in your argument?

To cover something up IMO.

@ Jaden

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/T-4CBS.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/T-4CBS.jpg


Here we go, the difference is only 6 degree's yet we know the plane in the dive bomber shot never crosses across the North Tower based upon the approach.

iF1zlguWMRY

My mistake, I mean't the CBS divebomber never passes the North Tower at the same altitude as the CBS replay. Because the plane in the replay goes underneath the North Towers impact zone before it vanishes behind the building while the CBS dive bomber approaches the building well above the impact zone and only dives when it gets near the South Tower.

For the shots to be the same, we would have to see the plane from the space between the two towers in the dive bomber shot. We definetly do not, it's a fake.

the implication of the video is that the plane is flying in a straight line toward the towers...surely you understand that if you can clearly see the plane coming out from behind the building...then if it was flying in a straight line the towers should thus be the same distance from the camera as it goes behind the building and thus you should be able to see it..you dont see it...hence it didn't come from the left hand side of the screen as the arrow tries to imply...hence it was turning

not to mention the size difference of the plane as it emerges from behind the building...compared to when it hits the WTC..it gets bigger...meaning it is coming toward the camera...meaning its turning

Originally posted by Classic NES
My mistake, I mean't the CBS divebomber never passes the North Tower at the same altitude as the CBS replay. Because the plane in the replay goes underneath the North Towers impact zone before it vanishes behind the building while the CBS dive bomber approaches the building well above the impact zone and only dives when it gets near the South Tower.

For the shots to be the same, we would have to see the plane from the space between the two towers in the dive bomber shot. We definetly do not, it's a fake.

the shots are taken from different angles...if something is coming head on...it doesn't move much left to right...its not really hard to understand

Originally posted by jaden101
the implication of the video is that the plane is flying in a straight line toward the towers...surely you understand that if you can clearly see the plane coming out from behind the building...then if it was flying in a straight line the towers should thus be the same distance from the camera as it goes behind the building and thus you should be able to see it..you dont see it...hence it didn't come from the left hand side of the screen as the arrow tries to imply...hence it was turning

not to mention the size difference of the plane as it emerges from behind the building...compared to when it hits the WTC..it gets bigger...meaning it is coming toward the camera...meaning its turning

Okay, I agree'd it was turning. Can we move on to, since we both agree the plane was turning?

Originally posted by jaden101
the shots are taken from different angles...if something is coming head on...it doesn't move much left to right...its not really hard to understand

Nah, the shots are taken from slightly different angles and your not getting it. The plane is much higher in the "Dive Bomber" shot upon impact versus the replay where it's well below the impact zone as it passes behind the building. Why doesn't the "Dive Bomber" show the plane passing by the gap between buildings and why is it so high?

Also, where is the vantage point for the Tecmac/PBS shot, jaden?

Originally posted by Classic NES
To cover something up IMO.

@ Jaden

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/T-4CBS.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/T-4CBS.jpg


Here we go, the difference is only 6 degree's yet we know the plane in the dive bomber shot never crosses across the North Tower based upon the approach.

iF1zlguWMRY

Cover what? If there was an actual plane hitting the towers what is the use in fakes?

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Your joking right?

Did you come to a thread about a conspiracy theory just to make fun of the guy airing his beliefs? That's pretty intolerant and antagonistic, my man.

To each his own, though.

No, The proof he showed, however was... deniable

It's debatable until we've finished, mane. Once again, I don't know what the purpose of fake videos are, but the videos are fake. Maybe if I study these fake videos or the people who endorse them I can find something solid.

Or, maybe you are so determined to belive that they are fake you refuse to see the facts that have been presented to you.

Originally posted by Classic NES
To cover something up IMO.

@ Jaden

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/T-4CBS.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/T-4CBS.jpg


Here we go, the difference is only 6 degree's yet we know the plane in the dive bomber shot never crosses across the North Tower based upon the approach.

iF1zlguWMRY

The difference is clearly more than 6 degrees. Also, you are thinking in 2 dimentions, wheras the world is in 3 dimentions. The CBS replay camera is further back than the divebomber which adds to the diference in the view that the camera sees. Furthermore, the view in the dive bomber is a section of the turn, wheras the view in the replay is during the further out "Streight line".

Now, it is already obvious that you will not accept this so I shall step out of this debate.

However, before I take my leave I will pose you with one final question: Who is truly being cynical in this debate? The one who believes that the government in power (Or atleast this one) has the best intrests in mind, or the one who believes that they are "purposefully causing western civilization to have a lower quality of living than we can."

Good day, and I wish you luck in future debates.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Or, maybe you are so determined to belive that they are fake you refuse to see the facts that have been presented to you.



If I wasn't into facts I would never concede any points E.G. the turn in the Al Qaida shot.




That maybe possible, but the point I'm illustrating is that the angles are not too different.




Guess you missed the point. My focus was mostly on the behavior of the plane and the fact that it's diving and is much higher upon impact then the replay shot. This is obvious, because the plane is well above the impact zone of the North Tower during the dive bomber shot versus the Replay shot.

Furthermore, the plane in the CBS replay never turns. So, how did it get into that position? If you argue that it turned when it was behind the building, then can you please explain why the impact times between the Moussoui shot is much longer than the time it takes for the CBS replay "Plane" to impact when it goes behind the towers and supposedly turns. And, while your at it, why the plane ascend well above the impact zone, and then descend before impact?

yStlfBOIBfo&NR

Infact, when did the plane fly so high in the Al Qaida shot?

Also, while your at it, can you tell me where the vantage point for Tecmac is?







Nah, I never said that the Government is responsible for the decline of Western Civilization. I have commented that Government is not neccessarily evil. Rather, when criminals work within and use the machanations of Government to their advantage are enemies of peace.

Good Luck to you as well.

cold fusion is the future

Wow, Amazing! I am away for a week and this thread has turned into some 9-11 blablayadayada topic.

Well done disinfo agents, you once again have fooled the people! You are great!

Back on topic, Nikola Tesla invented free energy back in 1905. His major moneyman Morgan immediately backed down when he found out Tesla was going to give this world free electricity.

Tesla found a new investor. That new investor mysteriously died in one of the world first recorded automobile accidents! His name was George Taylor Fulford, died in 1905.

Now the "electric magician" Tesla had no more funds to get this new technology out there............what a shame.

You can understand that the Morgans, Rockefellers and more Illuminati Elite buddies were once again laughing their way to the banks, with their complete monoply on energy.

Free energy will soon be reality in just what 30-40 years....

alot of free energy is bullshit. Mostly easier said then done, or takes more energy then it puts out.

Originally posted by mosesgunner
alot of free energy is bullshit. Mostly easier said then done, or takes more energy then it puts out.

That is simply not true!

Quoted from "The Manual of Free Energy Devices and System"

"The subject of free energy and perpetual motion has received much undue criticism and misrepresentation over the past years. If we consider the entire picture, all motion is perpetual! Motion and energy may disperse or transform, but will always remain in a perpetually energized state within the complete system. Consider the "free energy" hydro-electric plants. Water from a lake powers generators and flows on down the river. The lake though is constantly replenished by springs, run-off, etc. Essentially, the sun is responsible for keeping this system "perpetual." The sun may burn out but the total energy-mass remains constant within the cycling universal system. Vacuum is charge flux without mass, containing a high electrical potential of approximately 200,000,000 volts relative to pure zero charge. Within an ordinary electrical circuit, the ground has a valued zero charge with respect to something else with the same absolute potential, but actually has a non-zero absolute potential relative to the vacuum. Present theory explains that we can create a difference in potential "within" the parts of a system only by displaying electro charge mass. By pumping the electrical mass between potentials we can only get back the work that we put into the system. Orthodox science has confused charge and charged mass, ignoring scalar electrostatic waves. (Note that "ignor-ance" is the operative word here). Recalling that the vacuum's charge flux is massless, any charge flow would be scalar and normally incapable of doing any work (change of momentum - requires mass movement, -F = ma + v(dm/dt). By electromagnetically oscillating the true ground vacuum potential, we create an added resonating electrical potential difference between that part of the circuit and the normal rate ground voltage of the rest of the system. Maintaining the correct harmonic vacuum oscillation will produce the excess potential needed during the negative half-cycle to sustain the work load. As can be seen, we have not produced energy from anywhere, but merely diverted and juggled the inate high potential of the energized vacuum!"

Another important quote from "The Manual of Free Energy Devices and System":

"The energy content of the G-Field was calculated as:

(1) 1033 cm3 by Sir Oliver Lodge, England
(2) 8.8xl08 volts/cm by Prof. S. Seike Japan
(3) 250 billion Joule/ml by Rene L. Vallee, France.

One Liter of SPACE is about equal to the energy of 5000 Liters of gasoline"

Another quote from "The Manual of Free Energy Devices and System":

"The beautiful point about free energy is that because it is freely available to everyone, anyone can set up their own research project with a minimum amount of money, a lot of patience and a lot to time. It is not necessay to have a multibillion dollar accelerator, a national laboratory or even a large industrial laboratory."

Last but not least, quote by Nikola Tesla:

"Mankind is able to extract unlimited power at any place."

I really wonder why the disinfo agents havent showed up in this topic yet. I would really try to see you debunk these Truths i have posted!

Please post!!! The Elite is suppresing these new scientific discoveries for more than 102 years now!

Originally posted by Katsu
I really wonder why the disinfo agents havent showed up in this topic yet. I would really try to see you debunk these Truths i have posted!



this...yet no more than half a page ago you posted this



either the "disinfo agents" have posted or they haven't...try and make up your mind

i like your logic however

it basically consists of the following argument

"free energy hasn't been made a reality...therefor someone must be stopping it...therefor it must be the illuminati"

nice "truths" you've got there sherlock

read this info coming from a CIA scientist who met with david icke.

''When i asked him why he used his genius to advance the agenda, he opened his shirt and on his chest was a see through sachet similar to those used for shampoo. The CIA calls them 'patches' and inside i could see an orangey gold liquid. He said that he joined the CIA in belief that he was serving his country, but he soon realised that they did not want his knowledge to help humaity. The idea was to control them. When he began to rebel against the misuse of his work, he left home one morning and rememberes nothing else untill he woke up on a medical type table. When he began to focus, he noticed the patch on his chest. They had manipulated his body to need thsi drug the patch contained and if it wasnt replaces every 72 hours he would die a very painful death.

large numbers of brilliant scientists who could be setting the world free from poverty and hunger are in the same situation. This CIA scientist told me about the microchipped agenda and much else besides. He arranged to meet me to expose what was being planned, not least because he had no idea how long they would allow him to live.

Before he talked about the microchipped agenda, he told me many other secrets kept from the public. He said the cure for cancer has been known for decades but they didnt want the public to be cured so they would not realise this information. They were making far more money drugging the dying and treating the symptoms than they ever would curing the disease.

They have also been alarmed by the explosion in the human population, hence the plan for a mass cull of the lower races.

The scientist said the technology ecisted to create abundant growth in deserts without water by stimulating the energy fields of the plants. At its optimum, it was like watching a time lapse photograph, so fast did it grow. This would eliminate humger by itself if it were made available.

The scientist also said that the technology to give us all the power and warmth we need without pollution or utility bills - free energy has been known for decades. i am aware of this from people ive met who are producing these systems but cant get them into production. The elite control the patent offics, the money and the major companies required to mass produce them,. Imagine a piece of kit in your home giving you warmth and power every day without cost. Again this technology uses the pool of unseen vibrating energy all around us and turns it into usable power. All this technology would be ours today if it were not being suppresed by the illuminati cabal.

name?

photographic evidence of this "patch"?

another example of how the CIA is an evil and wicked organization.Until that organization is abolished,there is no hope for makind.

Originally posted by jaden101
name?

photographic evidence of this "patch"?

i think he wanted to remain anomynous

course he did

would'nt you?

why speak out then...even if you're telling the truth...if there's no evidence of it in the public domain...there's no point as nothing will come of it...you're merely putting yourself in danger with no chance of any reward from it

planting the seed is sometimes good enough. if many other scientists come out and say the same thing(and im sure many have) then there will come a time where people have to sit up and take notice of whats being said

Originally posted by Deano
planting the seed is sometimes good enough. if many other scientists come out and say the same thing(and im sure many have) then there will come a time where people have to sit up and take notice of whats being said

not really good enough is it...especially the "and i'm sure many have) part

the only thing that isnt good is my memory. im sure i can look into other scientists accounts of world events

Originally posted by Deano
the only thing that isnt good is my memory. im sure i can look into other scientists accounts of world events

so you find it valid evidence that icke interviewed an anonymous person who showed an alleged patch yet provided no evidence of either...come on...a photo of the patch without showing anything else would have sufficied at least some evidence

but no...

maybe there was a reason they coudlnt take a pic. im assuming it was a brief meeting and it didnt cross there mind.

yeah...i guess it wouldn't cross my mind that if i was going to oust a conspiracy then i might need some hard evidence

Originally posted by jaden101
i like your logic however

it basically consists of the following argument

"free energy hasn't been made a reality...therefor someone must be stopping it...therefor it must be the illuminati"

nice "truths" you've got there sherlock

Nikola Tesla invented free energy, ready to share it with the world in 1905, the elite stopped funding him as soon as they found out about that "evil" little plan of Tesla. His new moneyman George Fulford died in the same year............coincidence?

The Elite was behind it, make up your own mind:


Who funded Tesla from Wikipedia.com

"Nikola Tesla began planning the Wardenclyffe Tower facility ca. 1898, and in 1901, construction began on the land near Long Island Sound. Architect Stanford White designed the Wardenclyffe facility main building. The tower was designed by W.D. Crow, an associate of White. Funding for Tesla's project was provided by influential industrialists and other venture capitalists. The project was initially backed by the wealthy J. P. Morgan (he had a substantial investment in the facility, initially investing $150,000)."


Who stopped funding Tesla after he discovered free energy and ready to give it to the world in 1905 from Wikipedia.com

"A few years later, George Westinghouse and J. P. Morgan stopped funding Tesla's research when Tesla showed him that he could offer free electricity to the whole world by simply "ramming a stick in the earth in your backyard". Westinghouse said he would go bankrupt if that happened."


Who was the main instigator behind this unexpected halt of funding Truth in 1905 Truth from Wikipedia.com

"Morgan also encouraged other investors to avoid the project. In May 1905, Tesla's patents on alternating current motors and other methods of power transmission expired, halting royalty payments and causing a severe reduction of funding to the Wardenclyffe Tower."


Who was Tesla's new moneyman and how did he die according to his great grandson Benjamin Fulford in Forbes Magazine, Japan

"FULFORD: My great grandfather was G.T. Fulford. He was one of the richest men in the world - George Taylor Fulford. You can find him on Wikipedia. He was one of the richest men on Earth, and he was the largest single shareholder in General Electric.

He was going to finance Nikola Tesla, but he was murdered by the Rockefellers in 1905. It was made to look like a car accident."


Did this new moneyman, G. Fulford, actually exist in 1905 and did he actually die in 1905, the year Tesla wanted to give us free energy from Wikepedia.com

"George Taylor Fulford is reported to be the first Canadian automobile accident on record. He was on a trip in Newton, Massachusetts with his business associate W. T. Hanson and their wives, when the chauffeur-driven car the men were riding in was sideswiped by a streetcar. Fulford died two days later, on October 15, 1905, at age fifty-three."


Tesla never found new investors again to get this free energy thingy going..........

So now we have seen that the Elite funded Tesla, stopped funding him in 1905 and his to be moneyman died in the worlds first recorded automobile accident. Convenient.

Elite 1 - Mankind - 0 yet again

The Elite in this case were The Rockefellers and Rothschild's agent J.P. Morgan, well known Elite "nice guys". The Rockefellers, Morgans and Rothschilds are three well known "illuminati" "the group" "the brother of the snake" bloodlines. These Elite guys have no fixed name, but to know what we speak of they are called "The Illuminati".

This "Elite" is stopping our progress as mankind by supressing the knowledge of the most important scientific discovery of all time!

Extensive research on these Elite Illuminati bloodline guys is available online or to be found in books (things you can read), research it for yourself, i could tell you all about it, but you have to find out for yourself. You are your own greatest Teacher! Not CNN, MTV or The New York Times!!!

you also posted a bit about not needing much money to research it so why would funding be an issue??

Originally posted by jaden101
you also posted a bit about not needing much money to research it so why would funding be an issue??

You still need the equipment to make use of all the free energy that is around us. That equipment costs money, you know $$$.

When some guy in history gave the western world free water did it not cost money to implement this new system in and around our houses?

Are you familiar with the buy and seller system? Do you think Tesla could afford all of that by himself? Hahahahah you have proved your stupidity! Thank you.

either it costs money or it doesn't...dont change your mind within a day

Originally posted by jaden101
either it costs money or it doesn't...dont change your mind within a day

Yes the world is black and white! There exists no red, yellow, green and blue, this is jadens conclusion on life.

It doesnt cost much money to get your OWN system. It does costs money to be able to implement it on the entire planet.

After its implemented, it will provide FREE UNLIMTED ENERGY FOR ALL ETERNITY.

to quote schecter

derp derp derpity derp

i'll be expecting a check in the mail

done...which prison are you in...i know they keep transferring you cause of the death threats from other prisoners...they dont like your sort after all

Tom Bearden, "WHY FREE ENERGY IS POSSIBLE" in PEGASUS, VOL. @, Ed. 1, January 1984, ASGFE.

Question: "Operation of such a G-Field or Tachyon Field energy converter would be in violation of the scientific fact
that a perpetuum mobile is clearly impossible. Any comments?"
Answer: This applied only to so-called "closed systems" in our technology, like turbines, combustion engines, steam
engines, etc.
Nature shows that the movement of electrons around the atomic nuclear, planets around the suns, etc. are indeed all
genuine "Perpetuum mobiles" since they represent "open systems," interacting with various fields of electrical,
gravitational etc. nature.
Examples of Perpetuum Mobile Actions are, among others: A) the Bessler Wheel (1712 to 1717), B) The Foucalt
Pendulum (France) both are powered by the rotation of the earth. "The earlier, original concept of perpetual motion
refers merely to any device that does work in excess of its energy input. This does not exclude an unseen energy source
(such as the G-Field!) as the input to a perpetual motion device. It is this that separates practical perpetual motion
from the laws of thermodynamics!"
Quoted from: Earth Rotation as a Source of Free Energy" by Martin Ruderfer, published in PROCEEDINGS of
the First International Symposium of Non-Conventional Energy Technology, October 23-24, 1981, University of
Toronto, Canada.
Question: "Why are permanent magnets so important in connection with design of G-Field converters?"
Answer: Permanent magnets act as "cosmic energy pumps" or "gravitational diodes." The space energy or G-Field
can be concentrated, focused, magnified and compacted by strong magnetic fields. The development of very strong
magnets, so-called "Super-Magnets' (NIB's) made from exotic alloys, makes G-Field converters and generators possible.

FREE ENERGY?
at thre prices im paying i think someone is holding it to ransom

Originally posted by superr
FREE ENERGY?
at thre prices im paying i think someone is holding it to ransom

Yes FREE ENERGY! FREE UNLIMITED INFINITE ENERGY!

Quoted from Cosmic Energy Machines by Lee Tseung:

'We have effectively solved the World Energy Crisis. Oil is no longer a strategic material and there is no need to go to war over it. World Peace is one step closer. Modern Wealth will be the quality and quantity of Meaningful Economic Activities. Such Activities are infinite. The World can embark on the path leading to the Wisdom Society. Ignorance and Poverty will be history."

The Truth is out there.........only certain elite people who happen to own a lot of Oil are ****ing up our evolution......our progress as humanbeings!

I say to HELL with them! Wake up people! One Love!

People, check this awesome video: a motor powered solely by using magnets. Free Energy at work

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jYcjjSfiNNE

Now all we need is some OILcompanies to invest

Originally posted by Katsu


Now all we need is some OILcompanies to invest

why does it need oil company investment?...i thought you said it was cheap to implement

not to mention even if it was free to produce (which it wouldn't be as it would still require mining for hard magnetic substances such as lodestone) and generator manufacture....and maintainence...

it still wouldn't be free to consume

not to mention the majority of oil is consumed not in energy production but in chemical production

here's another interesting stat for energy that oil produces

1 cubic mile of oil produces the same energy in a year as the following put together

4 three gorges dams producing electricity at max capacity for 50 years
104 coal power fire stations at max for 50 years
52 nuclear power plants at max for 50 years
32,850 wind turbines producing for 50 years
91,250,000 solar panels producing at max for 50 years

how do you propose that magnetically produced energy compensates for that?

would you have each home having its own mini magnetic power source or would you build central power stations?

Originally posted by jaden101
why does it need oil company investment?...i thought you said it was cheap to implement

Its relatively cheap to implement but who is going to pay for it? An inventor who has no money?

Originally posted by jaden101
not to mention even if it was free to produce (which it wouldn't be as it would still require mining for hard magnetic substances such as lodestone) and generator manufacture....and maintainence...

it still wouldn't be free to consume

The power generated in this vid i posted is just one of many types of free energy out there. The truly awesome ones are electromagnetic and antigravity which both will provide infinite energy. All you need is a device to extract this energy and from there on costs will be little to none! Still we need someone to pay for implementation. Oil companies HELLO?!?!?

Originally posted by jaden101
not to mention the majority of oil is consumed not in energy production but in chemical production

here's another interesting stat for energy that oil produces

1 cubic mile of oil produces the same energy in a year as the following put together

4 three gorges dams producing electricity at max capacity for 50 years
104 coal power fire stations at max for 50 years
52 nuclear power plants at max for 50 years
32,850 wind turbines producing for 50 years
91,250,000 solar panels producing at max for 50 years

Oil is fun and finite, peanuts really when compared to the infinite G-field: The energy content of the G-Field was calculated as:

(1) 1033 cm3 by Sir Oliver Lodge, England
(2) 8.8xl08 volts/cm by Prof. S. Seike Japan
(3) 250 billion Joule/ml by Rene L. Vallee, France.

Originally posted by Katsu
Its relatively cheap to implement but who is going to pay for it? An inventor who has no money?



The power generated in this vid i posted is just one of many types of free energy out there. The truly awesome ones are electromagnetic and antigravity which both will provide infinite energy. All you need is a device to extract this energy and from there on costs will be little to none! Still we need someone to pay for implementation. Oil companies HELLO?!?!?



Oil is fun and finite, peanuts really when compared to the infinite G-field: The energy content of the G-Field was calculated as:

(1) 1033 cm3 by Sir Oliver Lodge, England
(2) 8.8xl08 volts/cm by Prof. S. Seike Japan
(3) 250 billion Joule/ml by Rene L. Vallee, France.

the only information i could find on G-field generation of electricity was highly inefficient...roughly the output voltage was double the input

the biggest irony is that the whole concept of G potential is derived from einstein's equivalence principle...someone you always deride as being outdated and westerized science compared with Tesla

here's a few articles showing G-field potential as described by Einstein's G-field energy hypothesis being in contradiction with the best tested hypotheses of Wave continuity

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0407/0407084v2.pdf

Originally posted by jaden101
the biggest irony is that the whole concept of G potential is derived from einstein's equivalence principle...someone you always deride as being outdated and westerized science compared with Tesla

Einstein was a nice guy with some great idea's. Still his theory of relativity was only true as far as when the first order of reality is concerned. I have talked about this before on another thread (secret weapons of the usa i believe).

Einsteins theory was not totally wrong, but definitely incomplete. We can speak of superrelativity now!

Lets show you people why energy is infinite:

1.0. Energy is either finite or infinite in nature.
1.1. If energy is finite it should originate and terminate.
1.2. If energy is infinite it should perpetuate.
1.3. If energy is infinite it must contain infinite potentials.
1.4. If energy is finite it must not contain infinite potentials.
1.5. Energy does not terminate.
1.6. Energy perpetuates. (conservation of energy)
1.7. Energy does contain infinite potentials. (6)
1.71. All energy demonstrates infinite potentials. (i.e. mathematics, indestructibility, continuity)
1.8. Energy is therefore infinite in nature and does not originate or terminate.
1.9. Creation is impossible as all energy merely changes form.

This proof is one of many which can be formulated to demonstrate energy and infinite potential. Everything is energy. Energy is neither created NOR destroyed.

This is the Atomic Vortex Theorem of Energy Motion.

P.S. when you start to think really deeply about this......there would be no death nor life either

We are One! The Buddha was right when he told us this 2500 years ago!!

you're basically trying to complicate the 2nd law of thermodynamics and while you are right that energy is neither created or destroyed in a closed system...if we're talking no energy being used up at all then the earth is not a closed system...therefor the energy potential of the earth's resources IS finite...and even more so in our technological ability to harness energy being limited

now i'm not saying that we currently make the best use of potential energy sources on the earth but talk of harnessing theoretical G-field energy that has only shown small scale ineffectiveness in it's power output is essentially pointless...there is already much better (from an existing and easily implemented technological stand point) source of energy to harness...and if we go beyond earth into the wider solar system then there really is only 1 source of energy that will be constant within an essentially infinite timescale (compared with human existance)....the sun

work on harnessing massive amounts G-field energy is entirely hypothetical because it states that it requires the harnessing of a frequency of electromagnetic energy that cant even be detected

while you are right that Einstein's work is now outdated it was the basis for further research which has been going on since

Loop quantum gravity
causal dynamical triangulation
quantum einstein gravity
quantum graphity
internal relativity

G-field and the principle of equivalence are essentially opposed and there is more and stronger evidence for the principle of equivalence being more plausible beginning as early as the Michelson Morley experiments in the 1880's

Holy shit.

This thread is confusing the hell out of me.

not really that difficult doing that though is it?...

Jaden, everything is immersed in gravitational fields. All objects around us, including ourselves, are attracted by the sun, the moon and the stars, basically everything in existence and vice versa.

Movements of such objects will have energy exchanges. All you need is an invention which taps into these gravitational energy exchanges and tada you have an infinite source of energy!

Another source of infinite energy besides gravitational energy is electron motion energy. There are electrons present in all atoms. These negatively charged particles are rotating around the nucleus, this gives rise to magnetic fields. We could also tap into these fields for yet another inexhaustible form of energy!

The law of conservation of energy is never violated!

About the G-Field, this is not just theory, it has been proven to exist! Willam Hooper proved its existence....read quote

"HOOPER, William : Motional Electric Field ~ The Motional E-Field is akin to gravity in that it cannot be shielded. It is a source for unlimited free energy from the earth's G-field, and anti-gravity. Hooper discovered and proved its existence in the 1970s; since then it has been carefully ignored by most mainstream scientists. Here are his book & patents, & commentaries by Frances Gibson & others."

Download his book and patents here:

http://www.rexresearch.com/zip/hooper.zip

i'm well aware of the structure of the atom and harnessing the energy created by the electron jumping from one shell to another is effectively what we are doing with magnetism...the problem is that hard magnetic substances such as lodestone are even more finite than fossil fuels in terms of quantity...soft magnetism that requires electricity to be put in (electromagnetism)to the system are not efficient and thus pointless




in a closed system yes...but only the universe as a whole is a closed system...the earth is not as it gains and loses energy to space continuously...the problem is that we lose more energy than we can harness because external energy sources like the sun aren't harnessed enough



physics "proof" is almost always theoretical....most people do not deny the existence of dark matter but it's never been shown...the same is applicable to the G-field as the frequency in which it exists is outwith the ability of us to detect and thus also harness as a power source

not forgetting, as i mentioned, that the theoretical existence of the G-field is in direct opposition to more scientifically robust and tested theories

by the way....it's good to have a civil debate with you Katsu...i think we may have started off on the wrong foot in the 9/11 threads

Jaden, Magnetism, Electricity and Electromagnetism are related to electron motions. Almost every object in existence is made up of atoms and molecules. They all send, reflect and absorb electromagnetic, magnetic, electric energies all of the time. We only need inventions which tap into these energy exchanges.

The law of conservation of energy only works in a closed system where there is no external energy coming or going. In reality however we are immersed in electron and gravitational energy fields.

Or are you saying we are not immersed in gravitational and electron motion energy fields?

Wouldnt that go against all of classical physics as we know it? Newtons Laws of Motion state otherwise!

People watch this, itsa simple explanation.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7365305906535911834&q=free+energy+the+race+to+zero+point&total=17&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

EDIT wrong link, im sorry

meet archer quinn, your friendly neighborhood rapist and mad scientist. http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/05/archer-quinn-documenting-his-free-energy-project-descent-into-m/

serial killer version of ron jeremy anyone?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
meet archer quinn, your friendly neighborhood rapist and mad scientist. http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/05/archer-quinn-documenting-his-free-energy-project-descent-into-m/

serial killer version of ron jeremy anyone?

Ha! Ignorant one has arrived, i welcome thee!

If you cannot understand whats being said in here you better STAY OUT and GET BACK TO WATCHING MTV 24/7 MY DUMB FRIEND!

Read enlightening quote ignorant one by the Wright Brothers, c. 1900.

"Man will not be able to fly for at least another 50 years"

Originally posted by jaden101
by the way....it's good to have a civil debate with you Katsu...i think we may have started off on the wrong foot in the 9/11 threads



Does civil debating also include replying when people ask you a question?

Please answer my question: are you saying we are not immersed in gravitational and electron motion energy fields?

Originally posted by Katsu
Does civil debating also include replying when people ask you a question?

Please answer my question: are you saying we are not immersed in gravitational and electron motion energy fields?

I have no idea...i'm not a physicist

Originally posted by jaden101
I have no idea...i'm not a physicist

Me neither!

What i do know is that Newton's General Gravitational Law = all masses attract each other. Now if we were not immersed in gravitational energy fields, classical physics is wrong.

Where masses attract, energy exchanges occur. Tapping into these exchanges will provide us with infinite energy.

The devices/inventions which tap into these energies already exist!

gravity is a relatively weak force in relation to others though...it's only cause of huge mass that gravity becomes a major force

not to mention that the gravitational force or dark matter is not known because it's not detectable itself...well it is only in the sense that known matter cant account for all gravitational force in the universe

Originally posted by jaden101
gravity is a relatively weak force in relation to others though...it's only cause of huge mass that gravity becomes a major force

Well, all bodies in this universe are exchanging these energies as we speak! The sun attracts the Earth and vice versa. Jupiter is doing Mars and Mars is doing it with Saturn. Its a great party of energy exchanging!

Or do you feel Jupiter does not have enough mass? Care if i dropped Jupiter on your head?

Originally posted by Katsu
Well, all bodies in this universe are exchanging these energies as we speak! The sun attracts the Earth and vice versa. Jupiter is doing Mars and Mars is doing it with Saturn. Its a great party of energy exchanging!

Or do you feel Jupiter does not have enough mass? Care if i dropped Jupiter on your head?

it's all relative though...the mass of jupiter in relation to a neutron star is tiny

nut again....the objects we can detect are only supposed to be accountable for 4% of the total energy density in the universe...dark matter is 22% and emits little or no electromagnetic energy (meaning it's useless as an energy source) and the rest is dark energy which again is only theoretical as it cant be detected or utilised

say we were to harness just the energy of the earth's rotation...how would we do it?....

Car running on WATER unveiled in Japan!

WOW! It also runs on tea and soda! All we now need is some OILcompanies to invest!

How much more proof does one need! Free energy!

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=8304856&ch=4226714&src=news

Originally posted by Katsu
Car running on WATER unveiled in Japan!

WOW! It also runs on tea and soda! All we now need is some OILcompanies to invest!

How much more proof does one need! Free energy!

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=8304856&ch=4226714&src=news

subesquently found that the car actually runs by use of a metal hydride which is consumed as it converts the water into hydrogen...making it a metal hydride powered car...rather than a water powered car

Actually its energy comes from burning the elements hydrogen AND oxygen.

It runs on water. Its not a hydrogen car! Difference is hydrogen is produced onboard.

you cant get more energy out splitting water than into hydrogen and oxygen than it takes to split it in the 1st place without using a sacrificial anode

and why would you want to invent a car that burns hydrogen and oxygen to form water...just to split the water back into hydrogen and oxygen anyway

so the only way it's possible is by the electrolysis of water...which takes more energy than it gives out...making it pointless

MUwhahhahahhaha Useless!

The law of conservation of energy only applies to PHYSICS!

This car splits water using CHEMISTRY!

Or are you saying we cannot explode dynamite because all we did was light a fuse?!!?!?!?!?

MWuahahhahahahahah Chemistry is not Physics Jaden, better get back to studying!

the law of the conservation of energy applies to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes...a system is not neccerarily confined to physics...it's highly prevalent in the study of thermodynamics in chemistry

and as i already said...it's IMPOSSIBLE to get more energy from splitting water than it takes to split the water in the 1st place without the use of electrolysis...and then it takes more to power the electrolysis reaction anyway

the manufacturers themselves say they use a "membrane electrode assembly"...in other words...a sacrificial anode and an electrolysis reaction

hence it's not powered on water...it's powered on electricity...and ironically it takes far more energy to produce that electricity to split the water into hydrogen for the car to burn than it would simply powering it on hydrogen

it seem it's your understanding of physics and chemistry that it flawed....not mine...and not for the 1st time either

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=120&a=7157

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/8ee0acb80e943e21?hl=endc310437cd1cee1e7&

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070910/full/news070910-13.html

i know how to make everlasting free energy to run a car. the car would use pushing and pulling forces on stable objects (using a stretched spring) to push the car. if u STEAL THIS IDEA UR IN TROUBLE. ecleast i know that yous will belive and understand the idea.

Hydrogen + Oxygen = Water

The simple statement that water is made from hydrogen and oxygen doesn't give us a very clear picture of what really goes into the creation of a molecule of water. A quick look at the chemical equation for the formation of water tells us more.

2H2 + O2 = 2H2O

It takes two molecules of the diatomic hydrogen gas, combined with one molecule of the diatomic oxygen gas to produce two molecules of water. In other words the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen is 2:1, the ratio of hydrogen to water is 1:1, and the ratio of oxygen to water is 1:2.

There's something more though that doesn't show up in the equation. Energy. The formation of water from it's elements produces, in addition to water, a tremendous amount of energy, 572 kJ to be exact.

2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + ENERGY

This is an example of an exothermic reaction, a reaction that produces energy. It is also an example of what is called a combustion reaction, where a substance (in this case hydrogen gas) is combined with oxygen. You are probably familiar with this reaction through two tragic examples of the unleashed energy of the combustion reaction of hydrogen, the Hindenburg, and the spaceshuttle Challenger.

Hydrogen Fuel?

Yes - hydrogen is a good, clean fuel, producing only water as a by-product. Unfortunately it produces so much energy that it can get out of control, resulting in an explosion. But let's forget about that explosive part for a minute and think about the possibilities - Hydrogen as a New Clean Fuel - it could be the end of the energy crisis - but where would we get the hydrogen?

Can we create Hydrogen from Water?

Oh Yes! It's the same chemical reaction, but run in reverse:
2H2O + ENERGY = 2H2 + O2

Notice now that the requirement is for energy to be ADDED TO the reactants. This is an example of an Endothermic reaction. This means that we could use Water as a Fuel! IF (and this is a big if) we could find an easy way to convert the water to hydrogen and oxygen, then the hydrogen could be used as a clean fuel.

One way to convert Water to Hydrogen and Oxygen is through the process of Electrolysis - using electricity as the source of energy to drive the reaction. Let's take a look at what that might look like:


IMAGE SOURCE: "Chemistry in Context" Wm C Brown Publishers, Dubuque Iowa, 2nd edition, A project of the American Chemical Society, ed: A. Truman Schwartz et al., 1997, Chapter 5 "The Wonder of Water"

Isn't this rather circular?

Using Energy to break water to form hydrogen to combine oxygen to form Energy - in this way is rather circular. In fact, because of the laws of thermodynamics, you can't break even in this exchange of energy. However, there exist better ways to disassemble water - namely using CATALYSIS.


IMAGE SOURCE: "Chemistry in Context" Wm C Brown Publishers, Dubuque Iowa, 2nd edition, A project of the American Chemical Society, ed: A. Truman Schwartz et al., 1997, Chapter 5 "The Wonder of Water"

What does a catalyst do?

A catalyst is a chemical compound that acts to speed up a reaction, but in the process is not itself changed. Therefore the catalyst, at the end of the reaction, is free to act again to assist another reactant through the reaction.

Catalysts work by lowering the energy barrier between the reactants and the products. In this case:

2H2O + ENERGY = 2H2 + O2

where it normally takes a tremendous amount of energy to convert reactants to products - the addition of a catalyst can decrease the amount of energy required and therefore speed the reaction up!

2H2O + CATALYST+ energy = 2H2 + O2 + CATALYST

Does this catalyst really exist?

Sort of...... Have you ever wondered how a plant uses water and carbon dioxide to create glucose and oxygen? This too is an endothermic reaction, an energy producing reaction run in reverse. Normally we would think of using glucose as a fuel, through oxidation we could produce carbon dioxide, water and energy - In fact this is what OUR bodies do to provide us with the energy we need for maintaining all of our bodily functions including THINKING!

Glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (O2) = Water (H20) + Carbon Dioxide (CO2) + ENERGY

To run the reaction in reverse, the plant utilizes a catalyst - CHLOROPHYLL - and the energy from the SUN to aid in the decomposition of water. While the chlorophyllic reaction does produce diatomic oxygen gas, it does not produce the hydrogen in a gaseous form. The hydrogen released from the water is used for the formation of glucose.

Could we use such a catalyst for converting Water and Sunlight into Fuel?

Scientists often use Nature as a model for the development of new compounds. One such development, which has been studied extensively in this regard, is a molecule known as Rubippy. The structure of Rubippy is shown below. It is similar in structure to the chlorophyll molecule having a metal center (in chlorophyll it's a magnesium ion, in rubippy it's a ruthenium ion) and an attached system of organic rings (in chlorophyll its a porphyrin derivative, in rubippy its a pyridine derivative).


IMAGE SOURCE: "Chemistry in Context" Wm C Brown Publishers, Dubuque Iowa, 2nd edition, A project of the American Chemical Society, ed: A. Truman Schwartz et al., 1997, Chapter 5 "The Wonder of Water"

Acting as "relay" channel for the transfer of electrons, Rubippy has shown some potential to do just that - convert water and sunlight into a clean, seemingly inexhaustible, source of energy. However, while rubippy has shown promise in this regard, it is not a commercially viable enterprise because of it's high cost, instability, and low efficiency.

If Scientists were able to get Rubippy to work, or created a viable alternative, what would we do about the explosion potential of using Hydrogen Fuel?

Good question! Would you believe that it is possible to do the combustion of hydrogen without letting the oxygen and hydrogen come in contact? This can happen in a FUEL CELL. A fuel cell is like a battery - It utilizes a chemical reaction to produce electricity. A drawing of a hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell is shown below:


IMAGE SOURCE: "Chemistry in Context" Wm C Brown Publishers, Dubuque Iowa, 2nd edition, A project of the American Chemical Society, ed: A. Truman Schwartz et al., 1997, Chapter 5 "The Wonder of Water"

The kind of fuel cell shown here are routinely used in the space program. If this technology ever becomes viably available to the common person, the estimated cost of a fuel-cell hydrogen powered car would be less than half that of your current gas-mobile. In addition, it would be simpler, require less maintenance, and be environmentally friendly!




Selected by the SciLinks program, a service of National Science Teachers Association. Copyright 1999 - 2002

* CHEMISTRY of WATER

* Structure

* Properties


CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PURPOSE SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS PARTICIPANTS

H20 - The Mystery, Art, and Science of Water
Chris Witcombe and Sang Hwang
Sweet Briar College

SOURCE: http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/chemistryelectrolysis.html

That Japanese car running on water is so cool! Whne your out of water but happen to need to pee, you will also have new fuel. It runs on anything liquid.

Awesome!

Now all we need is some OIL companies to invest!

if i was you i really wouldn't take science lessons from an art historian

not to mention it's based on Ruthenium which is extremely rare and hugely expensive to produde and you would practically have to destroy half the planet in order to obtain a decent enough quantity

then there's the issue of it being extremely unstable and unreliable

Stop disinfoing this thread Jaden. The truth is out there and in this thread!

Cars that run on water exist. This technology has existed for quite some time.

As i have said many times before....we need some OILcompanies to invest in this technology.

Oww wait, would that mean OILcompanies would run out of business?!!? We cant have that now can we, my fellow OILcompanies. We will have to ridicule this technology and suppress it like theres no tomorrow.

stop talking bollocks and i'll stop calling you out on it...every car that claims to run on water has some undeclared mechanism that means it takes more energy to split the water than it gets from the water...you know it and i know it...you claim to know alot about physics...clearly you know jack shit about anything

Originally posted by jaden101
you claim to know alot about physics...clearly you know jack shit about anything

The rules of Physics dont apply here. Its Chemistry.

You fail.

hahahaha...the rules of physics dont apply?...the rules of physics always apply...you ultra fail...and what's best is that you know it too but are still desperately trying to pretend you're right so you dont lose face....