Jstar 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Unfortunately not in the near future JMC. Its currently running 24/7 sputtering bits for some telecom companies. :( You couldn't get a engine block in there, but you could probably get a rocker cover or exhaust manifold in there. It could then be coated with a stealth fighter coating to achieve an invisible field for your car! What bo**ox am I talking???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
potatonet 0 Posted June 7, 2006 yeah this stuff is interesting to deal with I can say that much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrbeige 0 Posted June 7, 2006 I'm sure I read in the "blarb" about the Joe Cell that you couldn't use it on a engine with any type of electronic controller? Something to do with the charging of the water system and hence the engine buggering about with it, which would explain why the engines in the videos are all carburettur (sp?) based?? In which case can you use your Corrado at all?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JMC 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Unfortunately not in the near future JMC. Its currently running 24/7 sputtering bits for some telecom companies. :( You couldn't get a engine block in there, but you could probably get a rocker cover or exhaust manifold in there. It could then be coated with a stealth fighter coating to achieve an invisible field for your car! What bo**ox am I talking???? Never mind, given the way the morons around here drive (too many Chelsea tractors) I thought my car already had an invisible coating, Jstar. :lol: :lol: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jstar 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Mrbeige. I haven't read up on our famous Mr Joe Cell but from a practical point of view I'd go along with what your saying. I'd use a carburettor. The less electrics the better with a mass of +- fields. Or at least heavily insulate the electrics from the fields. Potatonet. You'll have to meter all you fields especially your liquids as they may be prone to discharge slightly and effect your set up. The parts I deal with discharge about 2KV a minute and can even reverse polatity for bizzare reasons. Another thing to think about is static fields. It sounds like your taking on a total nightmare. Personally I'd give up and go and fit NOS but then I'm lazy :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
potatonet 0 Posted June 7, 2006 right but NOS isnt cheap like water. we do worry about static fields and all types of electric fields... if you produce a large enough electric field 25kW you can make the cell float. oh and to get around the EM field you have to put Z..... something diodes on everything so they dont go past 15V. I think I can just put one of these diodes on the main coming from the battery and I should be ok. the diodes are not affected by the EM field produced. but currently we are going to use a carburated system and run it like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
double-6s 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Hang on...... I'm confused...... It was invented in 1830 by an englishman called joe who was from australia? Sounds like a load of old horse sh*t to me to be fair. All theory. Absolutely no proof whatsoever. Government agencies. Come on Mulder, you can't expect me to believe any of this....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
saysomestuff 0 Posted June 7, 2006 I know some of you are being a bit tongue in cheek but even so, I'm not sure that this thread warrants this much abuse. There have been thousands of scientific discoveries/inventions throughout our history that flew in the face of "real" physics and traditional science and we acccept hundreds of things everyday that we can't see. Just chill FFS, the guy wants to try something so let him try it. I don't believe for a second that we've reached the pinnacle of any kind of propulsion technology, that would be stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
potatonet 0 Posted June 7, 2006 thank you saysomestuff, Browns gas is Helionon (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JoesCell2/message/447) - Walter Russell has a name for this gas unlike modern science. The name of this gas is Helionon the last element of the forth octave. Every thing that exists in the world has an opposite. So now you know that Browns gas is really Helionon, and it is the opposite of Hydrogen. You can see it plan as day with the bang test, so anyone that says that this is regular electrolyses is wrong. -- Nick (Apr 20, 2006) first designed in 1830 by sir william grove Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dinkus 10 Posted June 7, 2006 They're called Zenner Diodes and are used for restricting voltage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
potatonet 0 Posted June 7, 2006 thank you dinkus Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MysticBlueStorm 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Right - you said you weren't responding to this thread any more until you had the video ready, so, bye for now.............. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
potatonet 0 Posted June 7, 2006 who knows what the latest VW engine was that was carburated? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bcstudent 0 Posted June 7, 2006 They're called Zenner Diodes and are used for restricting voltage. I'm sure Clarence Zener will forgive your typo, even if I won't :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bcstudent 0 Posted June 7, 2006 it just made me a little more willing to talk when people started to see what I was getting at. We've been seeing what you're getting at since the start, but we're still gonna need to see some evidence real soon :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JMC 0 Posted June 7, 2006 it just made me a little more willing to talk when people started to see what I was getting at. We've been seeing what you're getting at since the start, but we're still gonna need to see some evidence real soon :) Ideally a little more than a video of a few bubbles of hydrogen going pop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bcstudent 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Damn straight, I'm not accepting anything less than a fully funded trip to California to witness a floating car in action. Yeah! Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
potatonet 0 Posted June 7, 2006 =-) dont worry, Im still at work here, its 3:30 I dont leave till 4:30 perhaps 5... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
potatonet 0 Posted June 7, 2006 its hard to make the car float guys, and when it does float it doesnt float that much and if you want the whole car to float then you have to put the cell at the center of gravity, I dont know how to make them float Im just restating what has been told to me. but once again its still floating Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bcstudent 0 Posted June 7, 2006 its hard to make the car float guys, and when it does float it doesnt float that much and if you want the whole car to float then you have to put the cell at the center of gravity, I dont know how to make them float Im just restating what has been told to me. but once again its still floating Like my last manager used to say (far too often): 'don't bring me problems, bring me solutions' :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coolrado 0 Posted June 7, 2006 you mentioned in this system that the pistons would in effect be pulled by an implosion rather than pushed by an explosion, surely the bearing caps on the end of the con rods are not designed to work in this way, the forces during normal running would mainly be compressing the con rod not stretching it and putting a lot of strain on the bearing cap? a lot of very good inventions and discoveries have been made in peoples garden sheds and garages :dorky: , i'm not going to start to pretend i know what the hell you are going on about but i'm glad youre actually experimenting with something rather than just sitting on your arse dismissing theories. fair enough nothing may have been convincingly proved yet, but it also has'nt been disproved. good luck with your h-bomb :onfire: powered corrado, i will be interested to see the results whether they are good or bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris VR6nos 0 Posted June 7, 2006 I always liked this picture I also believe in 'Ball Lightening' and other things that are wierd, i have an open mind but perpetual free energy has been proven to be undoable sadly. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
potatonet 0 Posted June 8, 2006 paranoia paranoia everybody's coming to get me.... the next post you are about to read is just following a logical train of thought, I am not stating this as a conspiracy theory. I like how JMC's link dissapeared from the last page magically, the one that had a link to the theory being proven by einstien, the one that said it was a "bomb" in physics. Mr. Wilhelm Reich here is that link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich if you read this: n 1940, Reich wrote to Albert Einstein saying he had a scientific discovery he wanted to discuss, and on January 13, 1941, he went to visit Einstein in Princeton. They talked for five hours, and Einstein agreed to test an orgone accumulator, which Reich had made out of a Faraday cage made of galvanized steel and insulated by wood and paper on the outside. Einstein agreed with Reich that if, as Reich suggested, an object's temperature could be raised without an apparent heating source, it would be "a bomb" in physics. Reich supplied the device during their second meeting, and Einstein performed the experiment in his basement, which involved taking the temperature atop, inside, and near the device. He also stripped the device down to its Faraday cage to compare temperatures. Over the course of a week, in both cases, Einstein observed a rise in temperature, and confirmed Reich's finding in a published letter. Since Einstein could offer no explanation for the finding, Reich concluded that the heat was the result of a novel form of energy — orgone energy — that had accumulated inside the Faraday cage. One of Einstein's colleagues at Princeton, the Polish physicist Leopold Infeld, interpreted the phenomenon as resulting from thermal convection currents, though he failed to provide an experimental demonstration of his contention. Einstein concurred that the experiment could be explained by convection. Over the next three years of correspondence, Reich and Einstein disagreed on the interpretation of the experiment. The entire correspondence between Reich and Einstein was published by Reich's press as The Einstein Affair in 1953. In 2001, the Canadian researchers Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa reproduced the experiment, introducing controls intended to rule out the possibility of convection as an explanation. A similar experiment was independently carried out by the alternative energy activist and journalist Eugene Mallove. Here it links to Mallove: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Mallove His alternative energy research included studying the reproduction and subsequent improvement of Wilhelm Reich's Orgone Motor by Dr. Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa, as well as the anomalous evolution of heat in the Reich-Einstein experiment. He was among the scientists and engineers who confirmed the output of excess electric energy from tuned pulsed plasmas in vacuum arc discharges. Eugene Mallove was murdered May 14, 2004 in Norwich, Connecticut, while cleaning a recently vacated rental property owned by his parents, the home he grew up in. Although the nature of Mallove's work led to some conspiracy theories regarding the homicide, police suspected robbery was the motive. On June 3, 2005 Norwich police arrested a local man, Gary McAvoy, in connection with the shooting. Scapegoat I believe http://www.pureenergysystems.com/obitua ... neMallove/ yeah those 2 guys really look like crack addicts to me.... not Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris VR6nos 0 Posted June 8, 2006 Potato, you seem to be taking this all a bit too seriously, here take a look at this:- What does it remind you off? Tell me about your Mother! Click here to find out. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites