Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Boardie Documentary Club Discussion, Vol 1: "Thrive"


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#1 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,142 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:42 PM

Wanted to get some thoughts down while they're fresh in my head, and figured I would start a new thread to discuss china cat's pick, Thrive:



If folks really want to post their thoughts in the original "Club Thread," please say so and I'll let this one sink.

Also, some "study questions" cc posted in the other thread :

what did you think of discussion of Torus? what is your explanation of crop circles? If "camps" aren't designated for purpose proposed in film, what is an alternative explanation? what is your theory regarding declining sperm counts? find anything in video that has been proven to be inaccurate? overall pros/cons of video? would you suggest any additional steps beyond what the producer recommends?


My thoughts to follow...

#2 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,526 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:46 PM

you found this on youtube? :lol:

#3 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,142 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:46 PM

Ganked the link from the original thread...

#4 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,526 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:50 PM

this whole documentary is based on a technology that they never even attempt to prove or explain. that, and the way they go about getting their point across, makes it all very suspect to me. there isnt much else i can say about it...or want to...as the whole discussion is purely academic being that i dont believe a word that guy says.

#5 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:51 PM

might as well copy/paste from other thread:

added to list.

Since capt, vic and i have already seen Thrive, any questions you want to pose to those about to watch it?

what did you think of discussion of Torus? what is your explanation of crop circles? If "camps" aren't designated for purpose proposed in film, what is an alternative explanation? what is your theory regarding declining sperm counts? find anything in video that has been proven to be inaccurate? overall pros/cons of video? would you suggest any additional steps beyond what the producer recommends?


well, i'd definitely want to know more about free energy. seems all they do is suggest that the research is there that proves it is possible without getting into true detail about it. i guess that's what the website is for. i refuse to believe that crop circles are the work of vandals, but i'm open to any explanation even though alien life makes a lot of sense.

if we're gonna get into the declining sperm counts, i'd say that a lot of that is caused by man-made shit like what's in our food, what they're spraying in the skies, etc.

i'm gonna discuss this a lot further when i see what some others have to add about it, and hopefully we can go point by point. i think it's great how the movie is set up step by step the way it is, following the money in a way that takes you places you don't expect to go from the beginning of the movie and offering that we've had technologies that we still haven't used for over 100 years that could have prevented this mess we're in and explaining why we're not using them. very eye-opening.



#6 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,526 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 29 November 2011 - 04:59 PM

and on a side note...i can apply that Torus graphic to my morning shit.

however, i do believe there is enough energy all around us at any given point to power the world on a sub atomic level (maybe smaller...quarks? Mesons?)...its all around us all the time. its just a matter of harnessing it in a safe and cheap way. maybe the technology already exist and was buried by the oil companies like the documentary suggests. but there is no proof of that.

the world of the small prolly goes a lot further than we realize...and the power within that is prolly enormous. i actually believe that if we go infinitely small and infinitely large, we can prolly meet each other at some point around the bend....on the other side of the wagon wheel

#7 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,878 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 05:08 PM

Several devices were shown that use the torus theory to generate power.

The torus description caused me to reflect how when viewing earth that way, we are living Star Trek but can't seem to either find or see out the portholes. However we can travel anywhere through meditation, perhaps a thorough understanding of this torus energy would allow us to take this physical body with us.

Free unlimited safe clean energy would shift the money and power structures of present societies.

Crop circles seem to be like snowflakes, no two are the same. I can think of no reason why there wouldn't be other beings from different worlds, perhaps crop circles are like road signs or graffiti.

Thrive seemed like two separate films combined to make one. I think it could have been stronger as two films as the wrapping it back around was less than smooth.

Declining sperm counts I would attribute to chemicals in foods, medicine, water, air and perhaps clothing. Then again if overpopulation is a true issue it could be due to evolution.

Why would the few want to reduce population? What differentiates lines they wish to propagate and those to be eliminated? What purpose is there to having a population to control when you already have more than you and your descendants could possibly need?

#8 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,142 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 05:30 PM

O queso.

I really think Thrive would have a better chance of swaying minds if the first half hour had been left on the cutting room floor. I don't know if Torus stuff is valid or not. I don't know what makes crop circles, or if we've been visited by ETs, historically, or in the present.

What I do know, or at least believe, is that if you're going to put forward a bunch of "fringe" concepts as truth at the very beginning of a documentary, that you need to do better than "my research has shown," "that's not a theoretical statement, it's literally true," and the like to persuade people. You need to convey well documented facts. And I didn't see any presented at the beginning of Thrive.

One of cc's "study questions" was, "...find anything in video that has been proven to be inaccurate?" In my opinion, it's on Foster & Co., to prove that what they're saying is true. It's not on us, the viewers, to disprove what they're saying.

I don't know enough about "free energy" to form an opinion as to the validity of the concept. I do recall that somewhere in the footage, the idea that there's "infinite energy" in the universe is put forward. I'm wary of anyone claiming the existence of "infinite" anything. Vast? Sure. No problem. But infinite sets off bells for me.

I'm as wary of government as just about anyone out there, though I tend to think it's bad in and of itself, because it always gets too big, too oppressive, and falls into the hands of those who want to control others. But if you're gonna make a case that the government raids people/labs who have the answer to all of our energy problems, steals the technology and it never sees the light of day again, you need to make with less innuendo and more fact to convince me.

Thankfully, after the first half hour, I thought the film improved greatly.

Maybe it's because at that point, he was preaching to the choir...talking about things which I believe to be truths.

Monocultural, corporate, subsidized farming is a dangerous practice. Seed/DNA as intellectual property is a frightening idea to me.

I think that "Big Pharma," is a cancer. Some of what it does is noble, but some of what it does it treacherous. It uses the government to enrich itself, and encroach on the freedom of individual people. And I think it often works to keep people less healthy so that they need what it provides.

The monetary/banking system is a sham. Doesn't matter whether Morgans, Rockefellers, and Rothchilds head up the sham or not. We've been maneuvered into a place where we trade our time, energy and talents for something with no inherent value...which only has value because we're told it does. All of this works to perpetuate and exacerbate what I see to be one of our biggest problems - increasingly unchecked government which is beholden to corporate interests.

I love the idea of "nonviolent nonparticipation." I think if more people started opting out of "the game," and started creating and trading goods and services without the input of "the system," that it would begin to crumble under its own weight.

And any time I hear the name Mises, it makes me smile inside.

I still think that unless it's checked, that power tends to collect in too few hands. I believe that those who accumulate that power use fear and coercion to maintain it. I'm not yet convinced that there's a concrete plan in place for world domination. There may be, but no one's convinced me yet. As I've said before, i don't think it matters. The end result is the same.

Really don't know about the camps. Maybe there's a plan in place to use them for ill purposes. Maybe they'll just fall into that use. Either way, I don't like 'em.

Don't have a theory about sperm counts. I suspect it's environmental/chemical. Don't know if it's intentional. It may just be an unintended consequence of unchecked, unthinking greed.

Other things I would suggest? Learn to do some useful things. To take care of yourselves. I work in a service business which, if things fall apart, won't do anyone any good. But I'm trying hard outside of the office to build a skillset and "assets" which will be useful if they do.

Overall, I think Thrive made some good points, and failed to make some which it might have. It felt kind of rambling and new age to me. I'm not sorry I watched it, but I think there are other, more focused films out there which do the job better.

Whew. Lotsa words.

Thanks cc for getting this together!

#9 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,875 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 04:35 PM

PF just pointed me to this thread - I had posted this in the wrong place.

I need to watch the video again but some things just aren't sitting right with me:

the pseudo-spiritual backdrop is killing me

he claims it is within our power to create a world where it is possible for all to thrive. He moves on to conspiracies claiming that we are not thriving because of govt., corporations, and bankers (Illuminati). But many living creatures aren't thriving and the cause has nothing to do with the Illuminati (animals die in the cold and wilderness--because of droughts and brutal deaths at the hands of other animals, etc.). Isn't the sad reality that some will make it some won't just a cold stark reality of existence?

Gamble's education lends him initial ethos, and that fact that he has spent over 20 years immersed in this study is compelling, but that 20 years should afford him a bit more evidence, shouldn't it? Video's purpose seems to serve more as an introduction to these conspiracies though (and maybe if he had gotten too scientific and detailed he would have lost the mass audience he is trying to reach).

Has he spent 20 years convincing himself that the futurist thinkers (with whom he has surrounded himself) are correct when, in fact, they're not? I was reading up on one of the physicists featured, Nassim Haramein. The internet makes him out as a loon.

Are legitimate ideas and those expressing them being vilified in order to silence them or is this quackery?

Does anyone give credence to the claim that there is a larger conspiracy at work?

Aside from that, I am interested in sacred geometry but no nothing about it.

late night ramblings

#10 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,875 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 04:37 PM

and on a side note...i can apply that Torus graphic to my morning shit.

however, i do believe there is enough energy all around us at any given point to power the world on a sub atomic level (maybe smaller...quarks? Mesons?)...its all around us all the time. its just a matter of harnessing it in a safe and cheap way. maybe the technology already exist and was buried by the oil companies like the documentary suggests. but there is no proof of that.

the world of the small prolly goes a lot further than we realize...and the power within that is prolly enormous. i actually believe that if we go infinitely small and infinitely large, we can prolly meet each other at some point around the bend....on the other side of the wagon wheel


Yeah, it came close to the "I see Jesus is my grilled cheese" argument. Just look hard and enough and you'll find him. "Oh there he is in the cloud." "And over here in my beer foam."

#11 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 04:46 PM

I'm only a few minutes in, but wanted to point out I think it is wrong to separate the idea of survival vs. the idea of thriving. We thrive for survival. I dont think the two are separate in that regard.

I'll review more when I get through this.....

#12 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 04:46 PM

well i wanted to look at the website, where they say all of their references are listed, but my piece of shit work computer has an out of date internet explorer that you need admin access to update, so i can't even view the site.

if someone feels like doing just that, maybe it can shed some light on free energy.

www.thrivemovement.com

#13 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 04:48 PM

I'm only a few minutes in, but wanted to point out I think it is wrong to separate the idea of survival vs. the idea of thriving. We thrive for survival. I dont think the two are separate in that regard.

I'll review more when I get through this.....


i think they mean more survival out of desperation, which is where we're at now, as opposed to thriving, which makes survival a given and far less of a concern.

#14 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,142 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 04:52 PM

i think they mean more survival out of desperation, which is where we're at now, as opposed to thriving, which makes survival a given and far less of a concern.


This.

Subsistence versus something on the continuum of more comfortable than just that...

#15 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:09 PM



#16 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:14 PM

Pretty good documentary. Not much I didnt already know and it really was like watching a 2 doc mash up.


BTW, Stan Meyers, the man who invented how to use water to run a car, mysteriously died.

#17 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,878 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:52 PM

From the fact check section of Thrive's website:

Royal Rife's Cancer Cure and Suppression Fact: Royal Raymond Rife developed a technique called "coordinative resonance" in the 1930's that was apparently able to destroy cancerous tumors as well as viruses. Rife's treatment was tested on 16 terminally ill cancer patients. Within 3 months, they were all successfully cured. Through the efforts of Morris Fishbein, head of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Rife was essentially shut down and ruined, his brilliant and promising work all but forgotten. (read more)
Shawn Montgomery’s documentary film, The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius: The Forgotten Story of Royal Raymond Rife, confirms this information and provides an in-depth view into the life and work of Royal Rife. As Rife explained, “coordinative resonance” works by sending an “electronic frequency through the tissues of the body, that simply devitalizes the bacteria with no harm to normal tissue.” In 1934, at the Scripps Institute in La Jolla, Southern California, Rife conducted clinical trials on sixteen terminally ill cancer patients. Fourteen patients were successfully treated in the first seventy days and the remaining two were pronounced “cured” after three more weeks of treatment. The clinical trials were affiliated with the University of Southern California. A team of medical specialists (including Dr. Milbank Johnson, Chairman of the Special Medical Research Committee of USC; George Fischer of the NY Children’s Hospital; and Dr. Wayland Morrison, the chief medical officer of the Santa Fe Railway) confirmed the findings.

Four years later, a corporation was formed called “Beam Rays Incorporated” (owned by Ben Cullen, Royal Rife, Philip Hoyland, and C.R. Hutchinson) in order to build modern, compact Rife Frequency Instruments that could be widely used in a clinical setting. The new machines, created by engineer Philip Hoyland, were faulty and did not achieve the same results as Rife’s earlier invention. It was reported that AMA agents, including Morris Fishbein, bribed Hoyland to take control of the corporation and undermine the project. In 1939, Hoyland took “Beam Rays Incorporated” to court in an attempt to replace the Board Members. Once the trial began, the AMA launched a campaign against Rife, requiring doctors to return the Rife devices or lose membership in the AMA. After the court case, Rife and the corporation were left penniless and without support from the scientific community.

Source:

The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius: The Forgotten Story of Royal Raymond Rife. A film by Shawn Montgomery. Zero Zero Two Productions.

#18 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,878 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:57 PM

Kimberly Gamble on Suppression of Alternative Cancer Cures Fact: "It’s not just [Royal Raymond] Rife who got shut down. Rene Caisse had an old Indian Ojibway formula that was effective [for treating cancer]. Harry Hoxsey and Max Gerson had natural remedies that worked. But you know if you go in look them up, the AMA makes them sound like complete quacks." - Kimberly Carter Gamble (read more)
Rene Caisse was a Canadian nurse who, in the early 1920s, discovered the health benefits of Essiac, a blend of herbs with cancer fighting properties. Caisse successfully treated dozens of patients but struggled to gain the support of the medical establishment. For more information regarding the various disputes ensuing from attempts by Caisse to legalize the Essiac treatment, see “Challenging the Establishment.”

Harry Hoxsey popularized a cancer cure that his father, a veterinarian, had successfully developed. The Hoxsey treatment is herbal and consists of both a topical paste and an internal tonic. Hoxsey made believers out of skeptics by curing dozens of patients. In 1936, he established the largest independent clinic in the country in Dallas, Texas. Hoxsey was opposed by his local government and arrested over 100 times. The Journal of American Medical Association attacked him viciously. Hoxsey sued the journalists who attempted to expose him as a fraud, and Hoxsey won. A book called When Healing Becomes a Crime was written about Hoxsey’s life story.
More from the fact check section:

In the mid 20th century Dr. Max Gerson developed an alternative dietary therapy that he called the Gerson Therapy. He claimed it could cure cancer and most chronic, degenerative diseases. Gerson published patient results from the dietary therapy in A Cancer Therapy: Results of 50 Cases. Despite several hundred articles (domestic and foreign) confirming the diet’s therapeutic value and effectiveness against tuberculosis, diabetes, and other degenerative diseases, the Amercian Medical Association and the American Cancer Society dismissed Gerson’s work. He was effectively “blacklisted” by the medical establishment (Dr. Max Gerson: Healing the Homeless, 262-263). Through various efforts, Gerson spent a great deal of his career resisting his oppressors. In a letter to the daughter of a patient he had helped, Gerson urged, “I think it would be advisable that you write of your own accord to your Senators and Congressmen to tell them that it is a crime to suppress such an effective cancer treatment” (Dr. Max Gerson: Healing the Homeless, 328).

#19 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 01:34 PM

So, why are some of these technologies and procedures suppressed instead of brought to the main stage?

Just imagine where we would be if we didn't have "controllers" that decide which tech we are allowed to be exposed to on a grand scale and which ones we are not.

To me, the answer is obvious and clear. Just wondering what you other participants believe to be the reasoning behind these actions by "officials".

#20 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,878 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 01:38 PM




As well as power and control.

#21 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 01:41 PM

Clearly. I also believe there is more to it. More in that those who run around talking about "population crisis", "resource depletion", etc....also have a deep cynicism toward the human race and would prefer to destroy, rather than help human "thrive". What is worse, they found themselves in positions of power and are putting their sick minded cynicism toward all of us in play. Eugenics, deliberate toxification, etc....

If you ask me, it is this deep rooted atittude of all knowing arrogance amongst men that is causing most of the problem. Even more than power and control.

It is the real evil we face, it isnt external, it is within us.

#22 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,878 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 01:56 PM

Within each individual or within humanity as members?

#23 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:00 PM

Within the human membership. There are individuals that do great things. To say we are all evil is just not truthful.

But The Evil Ones are really, well, Evil. :funny1:

#24 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,630 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:12 PM

well, I will echo some of what was already mentioned...

The new age backdrop blue screen stuff was too much, it reminded me of:
Posted Image
Sharing production values with Heaven's Gate is never really a good idea!

It would have been more effective to me if he was behind a podium or sitting in a garden instead of flying around in the Torus-o-pod Navigator.

The first 30 minutes or so almost lost me as a viewer. Watch me take this Triangle and make it into the supershape! (here's what you can do, here's what you can do, something something something, with Spirograph :lol: )

Thriving - Hasn't thriving always ebbed and flowed on the planet. I mean, Dinosaurs thrived, now they are gone. Aztecs thrived, now they are gone. Europe thrived, then the black plague and dark ages came.

I am in the crop circles are made by people mind of thought, the better of the makers do research and make amazing geometric patterns, but still made by people.
Ancient Aliens, while compelling to ponder, there is also ancient artwork of demons, monsters, etc... Plus, these ancients earthlings wore war headgear, ritual headgear, etc... so for them to draw images of headgear wearing, humanoid shapes is not far fetched.

Free energy machines - if ONE existed, it would make the creators, investors and people involved in it the richest people on the planet. "but the government took my machine!" - build another! build it in Russia or Brazil! Build it and become the richer than Bill Gates!
That said, I do believe that Oil and Car companies buy and kill off newly developed technologies, as well as that some shady stuff may have happened to the inventors.

When the movie turned to banks, money systems, etc... it really took a turn for the better in my opinion and started to hold my attention a lot more. Banks run the gov. Giant Corporations and Pharma/Drug companies are evil, yep, I agree with all of these things and this was presented well.
All the food items, all the leadership talk, yup, agreed. Bail outs of banks instead of people, outrageous, agreed! How we bought support for the Iraq wars, etc... It would seem though, that he is preaching to the choir as far as the audience who will watch this past/make it through the first 1/2 hour.

also, several times, the host said things like "In my scientific research", but no research was ever presented. He never tested his hypothesis, never designed an experiment to which observe, analyze and make sound conclusions. To me, that is scientific research. The way he used it, I could only assume that he was twisting "I researched a scientist" into 'In my scientific research".

Final Thoughts:
All is all after the first 1/2 hour I was glad I watched. While nothing groundbreaking (to me anyway), it is important to have a reminder every so often of what the banks/gov/food and drug companies are doing, how they are doing it, etc... I really think this could appeal to a much larger market of viewers if the blue screen production values were reigned in. Also, it tried to cover too many specific items, I think it would have benefited without the super shapes and torus at the start.

#25 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:18 PM


That said, I do believe that Oil and Car companies buy and kill off newly developed technologies, as well as that some shady stuff may have happened to the inventors.


Along with the CIA and the military.

#26 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,142 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:40 PM

Here's the thing (or some things), from my perspective, about the notion of legitimate cures for serious diseases being suppressed...

The number of patients they're claiming were cured don't seem anything like a meaningful number, statistically. I have no doubt that diet and nutrition can play a role in fighting cancer, and in reducing the incidence of it.

And the notion that the engineer could be bribed into torpedoing the production at the AMA's behest is kinda absurd to me. They couldn't have come close to paying him more than he stood to make as a shareholder in the company which stood to sell the machines to doctors and hospitals all over the world.

Don't get me wrong, I have a deep mistrust for corporate healthcare. But the Gambles' "facts" - using another documentary as gospel, etc. don't pass the test for me.

#27 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,142 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:42 PM


I'm curious what sort of energy inputs are necessary to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen to make this thing run. If there's a net gain...it consistently puts out more than is put in, then it's a crime that we're not all driving them.

If not, then it's a cool science project, but not proof of any sort of conspiracy.

#28 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,878 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:44 PM

Are humans poisoning their own food and water supplies?

#29 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:45 PM

We'd have to speak to the inventor regarding the process of electrolysis in this instance....oh, wait....

Ok, maybe we could ask the general that works on the star wars project that came to visit the invention.......oh, wait...

Well, I guess someone will have to try and speak out again by building another (I actually know someone who built one, but I'll be damned if i recall the input/output variables in regard to energy.)

One thing is for sure, burning water is clean.

#30 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,142 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:46 PM

Are humans poisoning their own food and water supplies?


I reckon so. Maybe often at sublethal levals, so's we don't die directly from it. But I reckon so.

#31 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,630 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:48 PM

Are humans poisoning their own food and water supplies?


everyday, by driving cars, using toxic chemicals, dumping trash in the ocean, genetically modifying foods, feeding cow by-product to cows, breeding chickens that cannot walk and have no immune system to survive outside the coop, etc...

Edited by wonka, 01 December 2011 - 02:54 PM.


#32 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,142 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 02:54 PM

We'd have to speak to the inventor regarding the process of electrolysis in this instance....oh, wait....

Ok, maybe we could ask the general that works on the star wars project that came to visit the invention.......oh, wait...

Well, I guess someone will have to try and speak out again by building another (I actually know someone who built one, but I'll be damned if i recall the input/output variables in regard to energy.)

One thing is for sure, burning water is clean.


I hear you brehm...it's wicked suspicious. I'm not denying that there's foul play involved. I just don't know for sure if there is.

And burning water is clean as long as the inputs needed to do it are from clean sources. If you use electricity from a coal-powered plant to burn water, I don't know how much better that is than running a gas-powered car.

#33 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,878 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 03:28 PM

Centrifugal force and magnets

#34 Goose

Goose
  • VibeTribe
  • 605 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:12 PM

I'm curious what sort of energy inputs are necessary to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen to make this thing run. If there's a net gain...it consistently puts out more than is put in, then it's a crime that we're not all driving them.

If not, then it's a cool science project, but not proof of any sort of conspiracy.


Right. To make Hydrogen from electricity is nowhere near 100% efficient
as that would be impossible. He'd be better off just using the electricity
to power an electric motor and eliminate the hydrogen step. He was
sued for fraud and lost and had to return investor money because he
couldn't prove, to scientists, that he had managed to break the laws of
physics.

Google "Hydrogen Booster" you can get kits and plans and devices that claim to have the same technology. They are always 100% scams and
are usually tied to multi-level marketing scams. There's your conspiracy.

#35 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:45 PM

Right. To make Hydrogen from electricity is nowhere near 100% efficient
as that would be impossible. He'd be better off just using the electricity
to power an electric motor and eliminate the hydrogen step. He was
sued for fraud and lost and had to return investor money because he
couldn't prove, to scientists, that he had managed to break the laws of
physics.

Google "Hydrogen Booster" you can get kits and plans and devices that claim to have the same technology. They are always 100% scams and
are usually tied to multi-level marketing scams. There's your conspiracy.


In a news report on an Ohio TV station, Meyer demonstrated a dune buggy which he claimed was powered by his water fuel cell. He estimated that only 22 US gallons (83 liters) of water were required to travel from Los Angeles to New York.[8] Furthermore, Meyer claimed to have replaced the spark plugs with "injectors" which introduced a hydrogen/oxygen mixture into the engine cylinders. The water was subjected to an electrical resonance that dissociated it into its basic atomic make-up. The water fuel cell would split the water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which would then be combusted back into water vapor in a conventional internal combustion engine to produce net energy.[3]

Philip Ball, writing in academic journal Nature, characterized Meyer's claims as pseudoscience, noting that "It's not easy to establish how Meyer's car was meant to work, except that it involved a fuel cell that was able to split water using less energy than was released by recombination of the elements ... Crusaders against pseudoscience can rant and rave as much as they like, but in the end they might as well accept that the myth of water as a fuel is never going to go away."[2]

There is no documented proof that the system produces enough hydrogen to run an engine. To date no peer review studies of Meyer's devices have been published in the scientific literature, although his claims have been thoroughly discredited in scientific journals :hmmm:.[2]

[edit] LawsuitIn 1996, Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[3] According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of Energy and the military.[14] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three expert witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the two investors their $25,000.[3]

Call it fraud, call it psuedo-science, call it whatever you like. I've seen this in action with my own eyes. It works whether modern scientists want to have to re-examine the first two laws of thermodynamics or not.

And this isn't the first time this technology has come to the spot light only to be faced with the inability to be equated under the current understandings in the field.

#36 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 05:44 PM

A Battle to Preserve a Visionary’s Bold Failure
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: May 4, 2009
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
LINKEDIN
COMMENTS (52)
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE
REPRINTS
SHARE

In 1901, Nikola Tesla began work on a global system of giant towers meant to relay through the air not only news, stock reports and even pictures but also, unbeknown to investors such as J. Pierpont Morgan, free electricity for one and all.
Enlarge This Image

Dickenson V. Alley/Burndy Library
REMNANTS OF A DREAM Nikola Tesla in a multiple-exposure photo in 1899, as a Tesla coil discharged millions of volts. A science group wants to preserve the remains of his lab. More Photos

#37 bitrush

bitrush
  • VibeTribe
  • 273 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 06:20 PM

Free energy... :lmao::lmao:

#38 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 06:33 PM

Free energy... :lmao::lmao:


:rotf:

#39 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,526 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:08 PM

imagine the technology we would have if people werent motivated by profits. things would actually be efficiant!! oh the horror! :lol:
what would we even do with ourselves if we werent in economic slavery? :rotf:

#40 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,142 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:13 PM

imagine the technology we would have if people werent motivated by profits. things would actually be efficiant!! oh the horror! :lol:
what would we even do with ourselves if we werent in economic slavery? :rotf:


Don't mean to sound like a dope, but is this serious, or tongue in cheek?

#41 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,526 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:16 PM

its seriously sarcastic...take it how you like:gop:

#42 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,142 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:30 PM

I like Monet.

Posted Image

#43 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,878 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 08:33 PM

&

Posted Image

#44 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:26 PM

I can't really say much more than has already been said.

Although, the first half hour really did intrigue me. I wish he would have given more real practical answers instead of just some pie in the sky idea that we should have free energy.

I read something somewhere about it being easier to split the water molecule when it is in the form of urine.

I definitely think there are better solutions than petrochemicals.

His utopian thing at the end was a little far fetched, and seemed like it had a libertarian slant to it... which isn't necessarily bad.

Over-all, it was interesting... but I don't think it's a movie I would recommend to others as it's based more on hypothetical "what-ifs" that have already been asked before. I was hoping it had more real practical suggestions that were new to me.

#45 bitrush

bitrush
  • VibeTribe
  • 273 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:47 PM

I'm curious what sort of energy inputs are necessary to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen to make this thing run. If there's a net gain...it consistently puts out more than is put in, then it's a crime that we're not all driving them.

If not, then it's a cool science project, but not proof of any sort of conspiracy.


http://web.jjay.cuny...NSC/6-react.htm

There is no such thing as free energy...at least not according to the current Laws of Energy. I hope no one here really believes there is a conspiracy to keep this stuff on the down low.

#46 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:53 PM

Having first hand viewing a device that essentially in layman's terms, "burns water", I'm of a different position on that particular matter.

"Free energy" is a catch phrase of simplicity.

#47 bitrush

bitrush
  • VibeTribe
  • 273 posts

Posted 02 December 2011 - 12:02 AM

burns water? Why not make more and sell them?

#48 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 02 December 2011 - 12:05 AM

:gop:

#49 bitrush

bitrush
  • VibeTribe
  • 273 posts

Posted 02 December 2011 - 12:11 AM

"Free energy" is a catch phrase of simplicity.

And thinking there is such a thing as free energy is a sign of stupidity. The Universe is not laughing with you.

#50 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 02 December 2011 - 12:17 AM

:lol:

You're a good one. Reach, breh. Reach.