Can Sound Waves Boil water at overunity efficiency with specific frequency of sound?

[Uno Hoo]

Listen, dummy, you have NO idea about the qualifications of the people you are talking to here. Be we can clearly see what qualifications YOU do NOT have!

Personally, I spent years working at what was then THE most prestigious research organization in the world before retiring a few years back. And I don't give a hoot if you believe me or not - so don't even bother trying to go there.

Water is an "infinite source of energy" only as long as there is water and the hydrogen it contains undergoes nuclear fusion - something we've yet to achieve beyond the break-even point as a source of usable power. It's something that WILL be achieved some day but still appears far off for now.

But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the claims of "free energy" or over-unity devices or perpetual motion machine. You've once again firmly planted your foot squarely in your mouth with no means to extricate it gracefully.

So I continue to maintain that you are no more than an undereducated, confused woo-woo.

I have been noticing that you-you call people woo-woo as much as you can, but you do not ever give any detail-detail about how their thinking is wrong-wrong.

We would all be enthralled if you-you would provide your detailed explanation-explanation about exactly- ( EXACTLY) how and why the thread subject process is bogus-bogus. Maybe it is. But you owe us your generosity to explain in detail how it, specifically, is wrong-wrong.

Since you had the misfortune to be the victim of over-education, why can't you be merciful and throw us under-educated dummies enough dry crumbs from your over-filled brain to explain in specific detail how the thread subject process is bogus-bogus?

Do you-you just hate us woo-woos so much that you don't want to even try to teach us anything specific-specific?

 

[ElvisLive]

Listen, dummy, you have NO idea about the qualifications of the people you are talking to here. Be we can clearly see what qualifications YOU do NOT have!

Personally, I spent years working at what was then THE most prestigious research organization in the world before retiring a few years back. And I don't give a hoot if you believe me or not - so don't even bother trying to go there.

Water is an "infinite source of energy" only as long as there is water and the hydrogen it contains undergoes nuclear fusion - something we've yet to achieve beyond the break-even point as a source of usable power. It's something that WILL be achieved some day but still appears far off for now.

But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the claims of "free energy" or over-unity devices or perpetual motion machine. You've once again firmly planted your foot squarely in your mouth with no means to extricate it gracefully.

So I continue to maintain that you are no more than an undereducated, confused woo-woo.

Actually I can see your qualifications or lack therein in everything you write.

As far as believing you, that would be a magical thought and unlike you, I do not engage in them.

• Knowledge is experience.

• A belief is accepting something as true though you have no experience of it. - a magical thought.

• A disbelief is rejecting something that may be true or experience may be had. - A magical thought.

You make the assumption that you know everything or that science knows everything. This of course is a magical thought to the fourth power.

Here is what thought integrity and the sanity that springs forth from that integrity sounds like.

"There are things that I know and things that I do not know. I do not know what I do not know."

Now, you made an insulting claim regarding the second law and got you ass handed to you. Then you make this conflicting statement:

Water is an "infinite source of energy" only as long as there is water and the hydrogen it contains undergoes nuclear fusion - something we've yet to achieve beyond the break-even point as a source of usable power. It's something that WILL be achieved some day but still appears far off for now.

So apparently in your little world, it will only be possible when you and apparently people you know do it. This of course takes us back to my observation that your damaged id based ego is not science.

And lastly, you used quote marks around "infinite source of energy" however I have not used that term and do not recall you writing that in regard to my post. While I am not here to teach you to literacy, quote marks mean something. Don't ever misquote me again.

Water cannot be an "infinite source of energy" since the mass is converted into the atomic energy contained in the mass. Pay attention, your slip is showing and you have doo doo on your face genius.

 

[Read-Only]

I have been noticing that you-you call people woo-woo as much as you can, but you do not ever give any detail-detail about how their thinking is wrong-wrong.

We would all be enthralled if you-you would provide your detailed explanation-explanation about exactly- ( EXACTLY) how and why the thread subject process is bogus-bogus. Maybe it is. But you owe us your generosity to explain in detail how it, specifically, is wrong-wrong.

Since you had the misfortune to be the victim of over-education, why can't you be merciful and throw us under-educated dummies enough dry crumbs from your over-filled brain to explain in specific detail how the thread subject process is bogus-bogus?

Do you-you just hate us woo-woos so much that you don't want to even try to teach us anything specific-specific?

Back up a notch there and pay a little more attention, OK? I've clearly stated the reasons why all this is sheer woo-wooism: it violates things like thermodynamics. Is that not specific enough for you? And once an idea has been disproven by a single violation, is there really any point in taking it any further?

 

[Read-Only]

Actually I can see your qualifications or lack therein in everything you write.

As far as believing you, that would be a magical thought and unlike you, I do not engage in them.

• Knowledge is experience.

• A belief is accepting something as true though you have no experience of it. - a magical thought.

• A disbelief is rejecting something that may be true or experience may be had. - A magical thought.

You make the assumption that you know everything or that science knows everything. This of course is a magical thought to the fourth power.

Here is what thought integrity and the sanity that springs forth from that integrity sounds like.

"There are things that I know and things that I do not know. I do not know what I do not know."

Now, you made an insulting claim regarding the second law and got you ass handed to you. Then you make this conflicting statement:



So apparently in your little world, it will only be possible when you and apparently people you know do it. This of course takes us back to my observation that your damaged id based ego is not science.

And lastly, you used quote marks around "infinite source of energy" however I have not used that term and do not recall you writing that in regard to my post. While I am not here to teach you to literacy, quote marks mean something. Don't ever misquote me again.

Water cannot be an "infinite source of energy" since the mass is converted into the atomic energy contained in the mass. Pay attention, your slip is showing and you have doo doo on your face genius.

What an absolute boor you are. And as to the quotation, you actually said, "...water is an external fuel source..." which is quite literally exchangeable with "infinite source of energy." So much for your reading comprehension and your comment about misquoting you.

As to the rest of your post, I won't even bother acknowledging that garbage.

But feel free to keep on posting half-nonsense while you can because I've got a strong suspicion that your time here will not be very long.

 

[ElvisLive]

In his zealous race to make a fool of himself one again, he must have skimmed right over this H2 to H1 transmute method of free energy production I posted:

Now for example, we can take H2 gas, run it through a cathode laser accelerator that uses very little power and produce H1 gas. The H1 gas can be placed in an insulated resonant cavity and will self resonate at 14.20 ghz. We call that a hydrogen maser atomic clock.

Now if we took that a step further and added some UV laser and a high voltage source through a needle point we have something that resembles a miniature sun. As long as there is no neutron source available it remains sub critical and is a free energy device in the sense that we are now converting mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass and we are able to extract more power than we put in.

In reality, you don't even need the laser, just place it in a copper vessel and hit it with a plasma electrode. > 1000% OU heat output.

I also notice he did not have a response as to how the second law applies as he claimed. Just more huffing and puffing and insults.

Hey when I was eight years old, my grandparents used to take me to the cape where they worked on the Apollo Project, that doesn't make me an astronaut. We get to stand in our shoes no matter where we are. You also proved my point that you could not admit you are wrong.

We get the respect we earn and you know nothing about me either so that makes us even since I could care less who you are. I don't place any value on people that make false claims, insults and turn science into a pissing match. No wonder you have a damaged ego.

 

[ElvisLive]

@ Uno Hoo

You can go OU with hydrogen production several ways and I would be willing to share that with you elsewhere since this is not fertile ground for science. It is a "steer reviewed" bond cleavage process and called a homolytic fission or heterolytic fission depending on how the electrons sort out and is easy to replicate.

It ties right into the H2 transmute process but it is kept quiet for economic reasons. PM me if you are interested.

 

[ElvisLive]

A Shocking New Pump
.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff2000/ip3.htm

Apparently there is some strange filter that does not allow me to post a link - How weird. Add a www to the front end and if posting a link to NASA gets me banned, I could care less at this point.

The person that makes that pump claims > 100% efficiency. That would be the pump I cited on youtube for which I was called a number of names by read-only.

 

[leopold]

You also proved my point that you could not admit you are wrong.

actually read-only can indeed admit when he is wrong when it's obvious he is.

 

[leopold]

The person that makes that pump claims > 100% efficiency. That would be the pump I cited on youtube for which I was called a number of names by read-only.

notice the word claims.

i have yet to see ANY process that is greater than 100% efficient.

 

[ElvisLive]

notice the word claims.

i have yet to see ANY process that is greater than 100% efficient.

Well maybe you need to get out more.

As far as read-only admitting he is wrong, that has not been my experience.

He started by claiming the second law proves I am wrong and his pedantic banter filled with baseless insults was uncalled for.

Nope. You've done nothing here but expose the fact that you are a lowly woo-woo who doesn't even know the first thing about the second law of thermodynamics.

People have been trying to beat that law forever - with free energy, over-unity and perpetual motion. And all they have ever accomplished (beside the con artists that stole other people's money) is wasting their time, resources and money on such silly ideas.

And you fit right in with the worst of them!

Then after I explained that it is not a closed system and so the second law does not apply, rather than apologize, he continues to spew his belligerence and ignorance with things like this:

Back up a notch there and pay a little more attention, OK? I've clearly stated the reasons why all this is sheer woo-wooism: it violates things like thermodynamics. Is that not specific enough for you? And once an idea has been disproven by a single violation, is there really any point in taking it any further?

The problem is, it has not been "disproven" since it did not apply in the first place.

Then, he makes this false claim to try and slip around his initial false claim:

Water is an "infinite source of energy" only as long as there is water and the hydrogen it contains undergoes nuclear fusion - something we've yet to achieve beyond the break-even point as a source of usable power. It's something that WILL be achieved some day but still appears far off for now.

I hate to break it to him but when I Google SONOFUSION, I get 10,500 hits. Apparently he didn't get the memo. Maybe not so far off... in the past..

No, instead he threatens to ban me when he finds himself looking at himself in the mirror of my justice.

It is OK to be ignorant, we all make mistakes and it is OK to be belligerent, sometimes a person needs a good bitch slap like read-only. However, when a person is as belligerent and ignorant as read-only has been, the other people will always perceive that as an injustice because it is.

People that go around being abusive do not admit they are wrong. They are abusive to hide the fact that they are wrong and it is a control tactic. It only works on other dependtards.

But science being what it has become due to magical thinking tends to ban the person that is holding up real science and regard the person that is holding up the magical thinking of belief and disbelief.

I didn't come here to get something, it is clear this site has nothing to offer me. I noticed someone acting like a punk while I was surfing the web and decided to take a moment to smooth out his karma.

Sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant.

 

[leopold]

Well maybe you need to get out more.

i've been "getting out" for the past 55 or so years and the only process that i've seen that even approached 100% efficiency was super conducting materials.
i've seen exactly zero processes that have greater than 100% efficiency.

 

[ElvisLive]

Maybe it has something to do with where you go when you get out. I walk out my front door every day but that does not mean I take a trip to China.

Being old does not make us smart, just old. George Bush (take your pick) is older and has the IQ of a chimp. In fact, Chimpy has a degree in economics and look where we are at the end of eight years.

rohnermachine.com has a nice collection of videos and has replicated the Papp engine.

I would hold that up as a nice example since Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman killed a man and seriously injured several others at Caltech when he pulled the power plug on the device while it was being demonstrated after he magically thought it was a fraud.

He never cleared up the record either but it is ironic that he would get a prize from a dead explosive inventor isn't it? Life is filled with irony but irony is created from truth and so is intelligence.

 

[leopold]

rohnermachine.com has a nice collection of videos and has replicated the Papp engine.

the very fact that this engine needs periodic "recharging" proves it isn't greater than 100% efficient. as a matter of fact it proves conclusively that it is less than 100% efficient.

 

[ElvisLive]

the very fact that this engine needs periodic "recharging" proves it isn't greater than 100% efficient. as a matter of fact it proves conclusively that it is less than 100% efficient.

Not exactly. It proves two things:

1. The engine can do more work than the work required to produce the engine and the fuel which makes it greater than 100% efficient.

2. You failed to read what I wrote and base your argument on that information. Instead you based your argument on a magical thought.

Your definition of 100% would be impossible because energy does not magically come from nowhere and at no time did I state it did.

It takes energy to mine metals, transport them, melt them, form them, etc. into a Papp engine. It takes fuel that is converted into the atomic energy contained within the mass and in the end, using this and other methods and devices, it is possible to produce more energy than consumed using stable mass as an atomic energy source.

So you can play word games or you can read what I wrote and do the math based on that. What you can't do is change my argument and base your math on your own BS.

When you are in a hole, stop digging.

 

[leopold]

Not exactly.

yes, exactly.

It proves two things:

1. The engine can do more work than the work required to produce the engine and the fuel which makes it greater than 100% efficient.

not if you have to put energy into it by "recharging" it.
furthermore "producing the engine" has nothing whatsoever to do with efficiency.

2. You failed to read what I wrote and base your argument on that information. Instead you based your argument on a magical thought.

okay.

 

[ElvisLive]

yes, exactly.

not if you have to put energy into it by "recharging" it.
furthermore "producing the engine" has nothing whatsoever to do with efficiency.

okay.

You are trying to use a technique to destroy truth that is commonly used against this argument and here is how it works:

I argue that mass can be converted into the atomic energy contained in the mass and using that as a fuel source, more work can be produced than it took release the atomic energy in the mass.

Then usually the next argument is thermodynamics but that one goes down in flames when confronted with the reality that it is not a closed system (a closed mind perhaps) and there is an external fuel source so the second law does not apply.

Usually you get banned or fired for holding up that bit of reality which is brute force suppression and control by magical thinking dependtards.

Next they try to switch things around and confuse anyone that is listening since most of them have been reaction conditioned or programmed to come to a false conclusion anyway. That is where we stand presently.

Notice how he has attempted to flip the argument, make a slight modification and is now agreeing with me?


He claims it is not 100% efficient because it needs a small amount of gas every 40,000 miles.

I said thermodynamics does not apply since an external fuel source is supplied and it is not a closed system.


The work required to produce the gas and even the engine MUST BE included to arrive at a efficiency measurement but he claims it does not matter.


Do you see how he is confused or is a tool attempting to confuse you?

The amount of work energy produced is greater than he amount of work required to produce it and that is >100% efficiency.

The difference between the 2000 gallons of gas that it takes to run my car 40,000 miles and the few ounces of gas it takes to run that car 40,000 miles with a Papp engine is the difference between a chemical reaction and an atomic reaction.

Whether it is a conscious act, a function of ignorance or mind control, anyone living in reality can follow these posts and do the math and it is not complicated. People are complicated.

 

[MacGyver1968]

I'm not quite understanding how exactly what's going on in this engine. Could you explain it to me, Elvis? (in simple terms, please )

Thanks,

Mac

 

[Read-Only]

A Shocking New Pump
.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff2000/ip3.htm

Apparently there is some strange filter that does not allow me to post a link - How weird. Add a www to the front end and if posting a link to NASA gets me banned, I could care less at this point.

The person that makes that pump claims > 100% efficiency. That would be the pump I cited on youtube for which I was called a number of names by read-only.

Pure balderdash and poppycock! Please show us where ANYONE at that company claims the pump produces greater than 100% efficiency.:bugeye:

That pump is being used in a number of ordinary industrial applications. But it what YOU claim was possible, it would be used for producing energy alone - since an efficiency number higher than 100% would be an energy-producing device.

One of only two things apply here - either you do not understand technology or you are a liar! Which is it? And we are waiting for proof of your claim, also.

 

[leopold]

The amount of work energy produced is greater than he amount of work required to produce it and that is >100% efficiency.

well alrighty then!
go build your miracle engine that produces more energy that it uses and sell the surplus and make millions.

by golly you're a genius!!!!

 

[ElvisLive]

Pure balderdash and poppycock! Please show us where ANYONE at that company claims the pump produces greater than 100% efficiency.:bugeye:

That pump is being used in a number of ordinary industrial applications. But it what YOU claim was possible, it would be used for producing energy alone - since an efficiency number higher than 100% would be an energy-producing device.

One of only two things apply here - either you do not understand technology or you are a liar! Which is it? And we are waiting for proof of your claim, also.

Liar? WTF is your mental problem?

It is your funeral, you had less than zero credibility before making that stupid post.

Read em and weep:

FUELLESS HEATER NO FUEL NO GAS NO WOOD NO GREEN HOUSE GASES
youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw

You need to clear up your false claims and lies and until you do, I really have nothing for you but this simple question:

How is that someone that claims to be educated and claims to have worked at a lab where research is done can't Google the name of the inventor or the company or even pick the phone and give him a call? Can't find Google.com? Do you need someone to research the phone number for you?

Why don't you take a stab at it on your own at whitepages.com - If it goes over your head, get a different big person to help you out. I'm too busy for the likes of you.