Energy Solutions THEY don't want you to know about

just commenting so i dont lose the thread. We definetly are way behind the times in the usage of energy expended on travel. But all those refinery powered vehicles mean jobs and taxes, plus taxes from the jobs themselves. Any wonder big government and big business domt want this in public hands?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

tom bearden has a patent for MEG

motionless electromagnetic generator

if you feed it to google, and then hit the wiki link thats near the top...

you get a hit piece, its a debunk job...

they do not mention the patent on the wiki page at all

so google motionless electromagnetic generator patent instead

WOW, they got one... its number 6,362,718

(tried to post a link to the patent search... guess youll have to do it yerself (sigh))

i had to look a couple of times before i could find it at the uspto site, but i did find it, and whaddaya know, they took the PICTURES out.

but mr bearden really has a patent for this device, it really was demonstrated is what that means right?

i cant send in a picture of my lightsaber and get a patent RIGHT? they make me turn it on at least once to show that it works right?

happened a good 10 years ago, nothing going on since, mr bearden talks about money and the UN and the destruction of a demonstrator... also claims that a mere 12 million is holding him back

I DONT BUY THAT FOR A SECOND

if your device has already been demonstrated, patented, and has a COP potential of 5.0, then the money guys will take interest right?

well they did, thats who destroyed beardens last working demonstrator.

IT STINKS, read up on it

theres a LOT of cool stuff in this category
THANKS OP

but i like to bring up bearden becasue he REALLY REALLY has a US PATENT

for something that we will NEVER SEE

called a "motionless electromagnetic generator"

here come the debunkers to remind us that bearden is a thumbsucker.... HE HAS A PATENT

Originally posted by Grimpachi
From what I understand about cars that run on water (that is assuming there are any) is the only byproduct that would be created by it would be oxygen. The other argument I heard being made is there isn’t enough fresh water. 1st that would be false overall but second is if you can run an engine on water then you can run desalinization plants on water as well. Stan Myers is the most well-known but there is a lot of information out there that makes a strong case for it being a hoax.

The car that runs on compressed air and the trash to fuel stations is not in anyway hoaxes.

Plenty of water when the by product is O2 and H2O. We just recycle the water we put in, capture a little rain water and use solar panels to split the water into H2 and O2. We will need the 10$k device that splits water on demand.

So simple that people can do it at home and are but no one will build one for us to drive because then they become targets for hell being unleashed on them by TPTB. What is got to happen is Joe Sixpack starts driving one and tell his neighbor how, as long as he just drives one without announcing to the world what is being used for energy. Enough people do that and the game is over. So far I HAVEN"T done it so slam me for not but I want to build one. One day I will but for now it is enough to know NIssan of North America built the first one for MTSU in Murfreesboro, TN. It is also important to note Al Gore ignored it while reading from the hockey stick graph he used to make himself very wealthy.

reply to post by uwascallywabbit


No a patent does not mean you have demonstrated your device at all. Where did you get that impression?

Tom Bearden is a fraud and a huckster, and like you said if he really had a working device 12 million wouldn't even be a concern.

But I mostly just commented to let you know that no the patent office does not make you show a working device, and there are patents issued on all sorts of hypothetical and or goofball ideas all the time.

For instance there's also issued patents on John Titor's claimed method of time travel as well so do you think that's real too?
John TItor's device patented

reply to post by roguetechie


More importantly, if "TPTB" are allegedly supressing all this stuff, how come a crank like Bearden and hoaxer like Titor get their "ideas" patent-protected?

reply to post by roguetechie


wow thanks for the patent tip, im gonna keep reading up on that as i have a few ideas myself...

but when it comes to alternative or free energy, im still very much a believer

the word free is a bit of a misnomer, dont get hung up on it..

also perpetual motion is a big hang up for some who flatly state that it is not possible.

ok what about short term perpetual? like in the vid im posting a link to here

these magnet designs arent really FREE or FOREVER (we use the magnets and in a few thousand years they will stop working)..

but i dig this guys innovative solution to the drag issue..

watch the vid

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by uwascallywabbit
here come the debunkers to remind us that bearden is a thumbsucker.... HE HAS A PATENT

Great. Take that patent and go build yourself a MEG then. Once it's done, hook up your house to the generator and get off the grid.

Just like Bearden has done....oh, hang on....he hasn't. He's still on the grid like everyone else.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by uwascallywabbit
here come the debunkers to remind us that bearden is a thumbsucker.... HE HAS A PATENT

Great. Take that patent and go build yourself a MEG then. Once it's done, hook up your house to the generator and get off the grid.

Just like Bearden has done....oh, hang on....he hasn't. He's still on the grid like everyone else.

So you have been to Beardens house and have seen first hand he is on the grid? Or are you just prevaricating to try and bolster your belief?

reply to post by hawkiye


Have you?

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Have you?

I am not the one making claims about his house you are! So either answer the question or quit trolling with ridiculous statements...

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Have you?

I am not the one making claims about his house you are! So either answer the question or quit trolling with ridiculous statements...

Talking of making claims unsupported by evidence, why exactly do you believe this guy again?

Originally posted by hawkiye
So you have been to Beardens house and have seen first hand he is on the grid? Or are you just prevaricating to try and bolster your belief?

I do know he does not have a single working MEG - he has admitted as much. The MEG has never worked as an overunity device.

So if he is disconnected from the grid, he's sitting in the dark. Which I wouldn't put past him, as he's barking mad.

"prevaricating to try and bolster your belief?" - what does this even mean?

Originally posted by nightbringr
Each and every one of these devices has been debunked.

A good start for understanding why they will not work would be the wikipedia entries on perpetual motion machines, and water fueled cars. Perpetual motion defies the very laws of physics, and converting water to hydrogen and oxygen, as needed to power hydrogen cars uses more power then is released in the process.

Nonsense. The Ford motor Company had a water/hydrogen powered car in the 60's ( looking for the article, hard to find)

Perhaps you'd like to look at the history of hydrogen power cars from 1807 to 1986? www.hydrogencarsnow.com...

Or Water power cars? en.wikipedia.org... and ezinearticles.com...

or how about this Hydrogen On Demand website ? www.hho2u.com...

Yes, I linked the article on Wikipedia about water fueled cars. It does not debunk this notion at all as you claim.

Granted hydrogen from water on demand is harder to achieve than using hydrogen in it's gas form but many companies are researching and building hydrogen fueled cars now. To claim that this is "debunked" simply isn't true.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Or Water power cars? en.wikipedia.org... and ezinearticles.com...

Yes, I linked the article on Wikipedia about water fueled cars. It does not debunk this notion at all as you claim.

It does. You should read it:

The process of electrolysis, discussed below, would split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but it takes as much energy to take apart a water molecule as was released when the hydrogen was oxidized to form water. In fact, some energy would be lost in converting water to hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen because some heat would always be produced in the conversions. Releasing chemical energy from water, in excess or in equal proportion to the energy required to facilitate such production, would therefore violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics.[5][6][7][8]

How is that not debunking? It then lists some of the well known "water-powered" scams from the last few decades.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

The process of electrolysis, discussed below, would split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but it takes as much energy to take apart a water molecule as was released when the hydrogen was oxidized to form water. In fact, some energy would be lost in converting water to hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen because some heat would always be produced in the conversions. Releasing chemical energy from water, in excess or in equal proportion to the energy required to facilitate such production, would therefore violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics.[5][6][7][8]

How is that not debunking? It then lists some of the well known "water-powered" scams from the last few decades.

They are picking on electrolysis Only and using that for a basis to debunk all forms of separating hydrogen from water. The article doesn't tell you there are many ways to get hydrogen from water, many more efficient than electrolysis and much cheaper too. That article is purposefully misleading. If you don't believe me, look into it.. also, contact many of the national and global car manufacturers and ask them why they are researching hydrogen cars if this is so not doable...

Also, go back in my links and research these cars that actually ran on water/hydrogen - these cars worked, and the inventors didn't have the best high tech equipment always or the funding - they certainly weren't worried about such nonsense.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Also, go back in my links and research these cars that actually ran on water/hydrogen

Cars can run on hydrogen, but not on water. None of the links prove otherwise.

Sure they can. Ever heard of the steam engine? :-) Point is you may not be able to use water with a conventional gasoline engine, but there are engines that run on water.

Actually they even have compressed air powered cars now some that have gone as fast as 80 miles per hour. I'm looking forward to seeing that technology get better.

As in my other threads.. i'm not interested in what doesn't work - I'm interested in what can be made to work cheaply for the masses. I own a 48 volt 20 AH electric bike. Cost pennies to charge. I get a 20 mile range ride at speeds of 30 miles per hour without peddling the bike at all. This is easily enough for riding around town each day to do a few errands. No drivers license or insurance needed in the USA. So far this is the best choice for personal transportation but I'm looking for something better and cheaper so I'll keep exploring the possibilities.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Steam engines do not run on water

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Steam engines do not run on water

Water is the fuel in a steam engine. It is converted to steam to do useable work inside the engine. Water is the fuel therefore a steam car runs on water. Steam is still water you know, it's just in a gaseous form instead of liquid.The engine only changes waters physical properties, it doesn't change it's chemical composition.

Besides, I posted that to make fun of his obvious oversight. I jest. There are cars that run on steam but they are not very efficient at all, and thus are not practical.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Water is the fuel in a steam engine.

No. It isn't. The steam is the engine's working fluid.

The fuel is whatever you are combusting, eg coal.