Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forbidden Technology :

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Forbidden Technology :

    Water engine.

    "L E X - T A L I O N I S"

    #2
    Water torch.

    "L E X - T A L I O N I S"

    Comment


      #3
      "L E X - T A L I O N I S"

      Comment


        #4
        The news media says it's a scam. I'm not smart enough to judge either way, but I do know that 99% of the time the media and government lie about everything.



        "L E X - T A L I O N I S"

        Comment


          #5
          Bob Lazar (of Area 51 fame) on the subject of the hydrogen car.

          "L E X - T A L I O N I S"

          Comment


            #6
            Interesting: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/...ontroversy.htm

            Geet controversy v. fact -- sound concept

            April 15, 2002
            On Saturday I sent out a notice of the Geet technology that improves a car's gas mileage by 2-3 times while also producing cleaner emissions.

            After sending that out, a friend brought to my attention that the Geet is not without its controversy (see message by Joel Skousen below).

            I then called my friend Welton Myers back, who had told me about the technology, and asked him about this. We spoke at length. I wish you could each listen to this brilliant inventor (who is also pursuing a number of other fascinating alternative energy developments as well).

            In essence, he replied that the problem is not with the core concepts, but with various people who are implementing the technology. He himself, many years ago, converted several cars and has always seen at least some improvement -- sometimes as high as three times the efficiency. He also shared with me some of the reasons the device advertised at geet.com doesn't always work as well as it could.

            Even though many working models are in circulation right now, the technology is still in its development stages, and there are bugs to be worked out; and sometimes the greatest obstacles are not technology but the egos and premature enthusiasm of the people who are promoting these things.

            There are two main schools that promote this technology. Each is a little different from the other. They of course know of each other and even cooperate sometimes.

            Paul Pantone does the Geet, featured at www.geet.com "His main problem," said Welt, "is that he does not control his drinking problem. He's great man when he's sober." Paul's team runs a 40-hour training course in Idaho for individuals, mainly mechanics, who wish to learn how to install the units.

            The other main organization promoting this technology, the one that Welt prefers, is Dennis Lee's United Community Services of America. See
            http://www.ucsofa.com/engine_modifications.htm
            This organization has even more controversy surrounding it, most of which has been cleared, but they do a better job with the engine conversion kits (not called Geet).

            My friend Welt is an authorized dealer for UCSofA, and invites interested individuals to schedule a training class through him. The week-long course takes place in New Jersey and runs a couple of times each month. He's mainly interested in getting people who could not just be trained to install the units, but to actually teach classes locally to train other mechanics in the procedure.

            Welt has some additional ideas on how to improve the performance of these conversions, that are not currently implemented in either school. If you plan on pursuing this with either school, I would strongly recommend that you get in touch with Welt.

            Feel free to call him in New York. Welton Myers 716-328-4253.

            You can tell him I sent you.

            Sterling D. Allan
            435-283-6340


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Joel Skousen" <[email protected]>
            To: "Sterling D. Allan" <[email protected]>
            Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 1:50 PM
            Subject: Re: alt. energy > Geet adaptor for automobiles


            > Be careful with promoting this stuff, Sterling. It is mostly bogus. See
            > the following URL: http://www.phact.org/e/z/geet.htm
            >
            > and in particular, the following accurate analysis, which matches what I
            > observed when I checked it out:
            >
            > Joel Skousen
            >
            >
            > The scoop on Pantone's engine:
            >
            > 1. Nothing special about the engine itself. A plain ol' lawnmower engine
            > would work fine.
            > 2. Principle: Run the engine on fumes rather than injecting liquid gasoline.
            > Only the fumes ignite anyway. The evaporation of liquid in a normal engine
            > merely helps keep valves from overheating, but is wasteful. So that basic
            > premise is solid. The approach does in fact increase mileage.
            > 3. Preheating the fuel vapors with exhaust heat helps increase the tendency
            > to combust. No problem.
            > 4. The jar containing the gasoline where the fumes are drawn off can contain
            > mayonnaise or anything else, matters not. Those materials are non-volatile
            > and stay in the jar. The only purpose is to spoof people into thinking that
            > they are being consumed.
            > 5. All the talk about magnetic effects and other wild extraneous claims are
            > to mask the simplicity. Such claims must be obscure enough that people not
            > understand them, or the promoter would reduce himself to pedestrian levels
            > and sacrifice people's presumption that they need him in any way to produce
            > the same effect themselves.
            >
            > The GEET system works by pre-heating a fuel/crap mixture to the point
            > where all the hydrocarbons are vaporized. As long as the mixture has
            > enough combustible material in it, it will burn. Not very well, but
            > it will burn. Dilute a gallon of gasoline with a gallon of water,
            > and you cut the maximum theoretical efficiency of the engine in terms
            > of energy per gallon of mix in half.
            >
            > The exhaust is so "clean" because it's so diluted with steam and
            > other stuff that doesn't affect an NOx, HC, or CO meter. Just try to
            > get the "clean-burning" fuel to power the vehicle sufficiently to
            > drive, or try to get the fuel that actually allows you to drive to
            > burn cleanly. The promotors like to claim that the GEET engine will
            > run on water, Coke, and coffee, but they fail to tell you that you
            > need some gasoline in there as well.
            >
            > Just how much gasoline? Well, that depends whether you want the
            > engine to barely stumble over while you stick an EGA probe up the
            > tailpipe, or whether you want to get usable power out of the engine.
            > If you are pitching to a gullible audience, idle a rough-running
            > lawn mower on a 50/50 mix of water and gasoline while you measure
            > exhaust HC, then drive a Geo Metro on a 90/10 gas/water mix and tell
            > them you can't sell it because of Big Oil but you'll sell them the
            > plans, and you'll have the saps drooling and reaching for their
            > wallets.
            >
            > Properly measured, on a miles per gallon of GASOLINE, the GEET does
            > worse on a water mix than on straight gasoline. Anybody who tells
            > you othewise without providing detailed experimental results is a
            > liar. Anybody who does provide detailed experimental results is still
            > a liar, and would present them in an SAE paper if they were accurate.
            > A geek engineer would sell his own grandmother to make such an impact
            > on society.
            >
            > To run an engine on water and/or to significantly improve fuel
            > economy over that of a well-tuned modern engine would make somebody
            > world famous overnight and rich beyond their wildest dreams. There's
            > a reason Paul Pantone makes his money selling plans to this "Earth
            > shattering technology" rather than changing the world himself, and
            > it has nothing to do with sinister forces trying to protect the
            > interests of Big Oil.
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Sterling D. Allan" <[email protected]>
            > To: "Remnant Saints Special Alerts newsletter" <[email protected]>
            > Cc: "Greater Things Newsletter" <[email protected]>; "Patriot
            > Saints Newsletter" <[email protected]>; "Greater Things --
            > Christian Newsletter" <[email protected]>; "Sterling's Friends"
            > <[email protected]>; "Sterling's Newsletter"
            > <[email protected]>; "American Patriot Friend Network egroup"
            > <[email protected]>; "God Bless America egroup"
            > <[email protected]>; "David's Outcasts"
            > <[email protected]>
            > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 11:41 AM
            > Subject: alt. energy > Geet adaptor for automobiles
            >
            >
            > > Here is a must see/do site for converting to more energy efficient and
            > less
            > > polluting alternatives for your car. A brilliant friend of mine put me
            > onto
            > > this. I've added a link to it from
            > > http://www.remnantsaints.com/AlternativeUtilities/
            > >
            > > You can get 2-3 times efficiency on your automobile fuel consumption, and
            > > clean up the environment at the same time.
            > >
            > > The wife of in this duo team also apparently has some fascinating health
            > > information as well.
            > >
            > > http://www.geet.com

            Feedback from JJ Dewey

            (see JJWritings.com )

            ----- Original Message ----- From: "J J Dewey" <[email protected]>
            To: "Sterling D. Allan" <[email protected]>
            Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 12:37 PM
            Subject: Dennis Lee


            > Sterling,
            >
            > Here's a post I made concerning Dennis Lee about two years ago.
            >
            > I see that the products (including minerals) of Better Technology has come
            > up on the list. They are an interesting and controversial company. A
            > couple months ago one of our customers invited us to a seminar where a guy
            > was to present to us new discoveries in Tesla technology that would lead to
            > free energy. They were excited about the company and were investing some
            > money which they believed would make the a bundle.
            >
            > I have always been interested in Tesla so I invited my friend Wayne to go
            > with me and we attended the seminar.
            >
            > The founder of the company, Dennis Lee, did most of the talking and showed
            > us technology, which if valid could revolutionize the world. He started
            > out by showing us a modified engine that would run on water. His guys
            > started it and it sputtered for a few moments and the backfired. He then
            > complained that it usually worked fine, but that the engine must have been
            > sabotaged by one of his enemies.
            >
            > Then he showed us other discoveries he made, but what made me a little
            > uneasy is that he would pause about every ten minutes and tell us how he
            > had given his life to Jesus. Now I have no problem with anyone dedicating
            > their life to God, but I have found through experience that when this
            > aspect of a persons life seems to be over emphasized in a non religious
            > situation that it is often done for effect to promote some hidden agenda.
            >
            > He went through some interesting technology but his master plan revolved
            > around a system of generating free electricity. He presented a scheme that
            > called for some to invest now so the company could have enough money to go
            > into production. After things got going the first investors would wind up
            > getting free energy for life whereas those who came along later would pay
            > considerable money.
            >
            > My instinct here was that I would lose my shirt if I invested with this guy
            > and Wayne felt the same way. We were both skeptical about the inventions.
            > I felt like the guy was on to a few things, but did not have them perfected
            > yet.
            >
            > Anyway I hadn't heard anything about this company since until a few days
            > ago the people who invited us to the meeting came in our office again.
            > They were very angry and disappointed at the company and were suing in an
            > attempt to get their money back.
            >
            > Now I see that the company is selling a number of avant guard sounding
            > products on the web and I'm still suspicious. Sterling's reply:

            I think what we have in Dennis is the same kind of stuff we get with televangelists.

            They are showman and know how to entertain, based on sound principles; but the upshot is their integrity is lacking and their show is taken over by sensation. What began as a sincere effort becomes a charlatan parade.

            Comment


              #7
              Water is of course 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen and in the first video he even said that there was more oxygen in the exhaust than in the intake. They are separating the hydrogen and oxygen and burning the hydrogen, The guy managed to do what many have done in high school chemistry class but he MIGHT have managed to do it without an electric current.

              So what?

              Comment


                #8
                In the later video it mentions Tesla and his plan to broadcast electricity thru the air and it is claimed that his backers backed out when they realized that they couldn't meter it.

                Do we really want to get zapped whenever we walk outside? Do we really have the right to expect the power company to just give us the electricity?

                Comment


                  #9
                  These kooks probably demand vast sums from the energy companies and when they don't get it they claim they are being oppressed.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ydrogen-house/

                    "Mike Strizki has not paid an electric, oil or gas bill—nor has he spent a nickel to fill up his Mercury Sable—in nearly two years. Instead, the 51-year-old civil engineer makes all the fuel he needs using a system he built in the capacious garage of his home, which employs photovoltaic (PV) panels to turn sunlight into electricity that is harnessed in turn to extract hydrogen from tap water.

                    Although the device cost $500,000 to construct..."

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Talon



                      WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING "FORBIDDEN" TECHNOLOGY, IF SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO PUT IT ON THE INTERNET ALL WILLY-NILLY????
                      Go Space Force!!!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        It's been a long time since high school chemistry but if I remember right the problem with using hydrogen from water is that it takes more energy to separate it than you get from the hydrogen. If one of these guys figured out how to improve on the efficiency then maybe it can lead to something but until then it's just guys selling something to suckers that isn't worth anything.
                        Last edited by Woods Devil; 05-02-2016, 07:15 PM.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Starlite

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite

                          "Starlite is a material claimed to be able to withstand and insulate from extreme heat. It was invented by amateur chemist Maurice Ward (1933–2011) during the 1970s and 1980s, and received much publicity in 1993 thanks to coverage on the science and technology show Tomorrow's World. The name Starlite was coined by Ward's granddaughter Kimberly.

                          Despite interest from NASA and other major technological companies, Ward never revealed the composition of Starlite, which is still unknown. Ward once mentioned that his close family knows the fabrication process, but after his death neither his wife nor any of his four daughters have produced any sample to demonstrate that they know the process."


                          "L E X - T A L I O N I S"

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Woods Devil View Post
                            It's been a long time since high school chemistry but if I remember right the problem with using hydrogen from water is that it takes more energy to separate it than you get from the hydrogen. If one of these guys figured out how to improve on the efficiency then maybe it can lead to something but until then it's just guys selling something to suckers that isn't worth anything.
                            I have some memory of investigating and finding out that the small amount of water vapour retards the ignition creating better torque - or some feckin thing. The point being you can't run your car on water but a bit of water in the diesel is okay.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Talon View Post
                              Starlite

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite

                              "Starlite is a material claimed to be able to withstand and insulate from extreme heat. It was invented by amateur chemist Maurice Ward (1933–2011) during the 1970s and 1980s, and received much publicity in 1993 thanks to coverage on the science and technology show Tomorrow's World. The name Starlite was coined by Ward's granddaughter Kimberly.

                              Despite interest from NASA and other major technological companies, Ward never revealed the composition of Starlite, which is still unknown. Ward once mentioned that his close family knows the fabrication process, but after his death neither his wife nor any of his four daughters have produced any sample to demonstrate that they know the process."


                              A skeptics inquiries revealed that most if not all of Ward's claims were bullshit.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X