RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.  THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.<br>
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added.  This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons. www.richplanet.net community built on miniBB / RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added. This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons.
/

HIDDEN TECHNOLOGY

 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  88  89  90  91  92  ...  97  98  »» 
wensam
Member
#1336 | Posted: 16 Mar 2013 14:29
Reply 
JOE, Hi
Iv watched Les Brown at some length now, he is very interesting, his experiments fascinating, especially the dangerous ones.
Thanks, all info welcome.

p.s. doesn't he sound like Anthony Hopkins!
Joe
Member
#1337 | Posted: 17 Mar 2013 13:11
Reply 
ImOverHere:
This guy goes through all of America's black project aircraft. The one that intrested me was the aircraft that was electrostatically charged, it created it's own gravity well.

Interesting stuff:-

Yes, it is interesting to watch again, I remember it a few years back. I don't think he is directly involved with any of the technology he shows and talks about, just an enthusiast.
skipman
Member
#1338 | Posted: 11 Jul 2013 20:19
Reply 
When a nuclear fuel rod is used for the first time,only 5% is used before a build up of isotopes stops the nuclear reactions from working. Leaving you with an unusable, nasty as hell rod, that still has 95% of its fuel still untapped.

What if there was a technology available that could take out those nasty isotopes and allow the rod to be used a further twenty times leaving you with a totally exhausted and environmentally safe rod?

Not being a nuclear physicist,I have no idea if this process is viable,but what if it is?

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/busted.html
dreamkatcher
Member
#1339 | Posted: 18 Jul 2013 17:05
Reply 
skipman
Member
#1340 | Posted: 26 Jul 2013 17:00
Reply 
do you remember a while back there was a claim from a young female archeologist,that she had found previously undiscovered pyramids using google earth.

The older wiser,male archeologists said she was mistaken,stating that they were wind blown,sand covered geology. I hope they like humble pie.

http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/long-lost-pyramids-found-130715.htm#mkc pgn=rssnws1

Makes you wonder about same claims about the strange objects on Mars,discovered by amateurs.
skipman
Member
#1341 | Posted: 26 Jul 2013 17:09
Reply 
We thinks that with today's technology,that we have surpassed all the things our ancestors achieved. Well not quite,we still cannot agree on how they built the pyramids.
When it comes to gold and silver plating,we still cannot match their skill.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2013/acs-presspac-july-24-2013/ ancient-technology-for-metal-coatings-2000-years-ago-cant-be-mat.html
Joe
Member
#1342 | Posted: 5 Oct 2013 20:43 | Edited by: Joe
Reply 
"Free Energy Nitinol Heat Machines invented in the early 1970 ."

I found this video interesting (URL), I remember seeing these material years ago (did not know it by name) it will bend, stretch, shrink back to normal size and they said it was going to revolutionise the world - so where is it now, after all this time?

Was "Nitinol" taken from the "Roswell Crash"? The uses of "Nitinol" is endless - it could also have been used in the cosmetic industry - for errectile dysfunction!
skipman
Member
#1343 | Posted: 5 Oct 2013 22:02
Reply 
Nice find Joe.
skipman
Member
#1344 | Posted: 13 Nov 2013 21:34
Reply 
This one is for Nordsee: Do you think think think is genuine?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-11/du-wdc110713.php
skipman
Member
#1345 | Posted: 24 Nov 2013 22:27
Reply 
skipman
Member
#1346 | Posted: 22 Dec 2013 21:09
Reply 
I do love these lists,there are a couple that I did not know about.

http://listverse.com/2013/04/12/10-mysteries-that-hint-at-forgotten-advanced-civiliza tions/
Hagbard Celine
Member
#1347 | Posted: 27 Dec 2013 05:38
Reply 
I don't get this. If the heat is coming from the candle, why not just burn the candle on its own? Does the flower pots make any difference?

Kandle Heeter: URL
Joe
Member
#1348 | Posted: 27 Dec 2013 12:38 | Edited by: Joe
Reply 
Hagbard Celine:
I don't get this. If the heat is coming from the candle, why not just burn the candle on its own? Does the flower pots make any difference?

It sounds a bit like the old storage heaters I used to have in my flat, big heavy things and they had bricks inside which kept the heat radiating from a much wider area; maybe those flower pots work on the same principle, but on a smaller scale, (a pity there is no regulator).

How it Works:


URL
nordsee220
Member
#1349 | Posted: 27 Dec 2013 19:50 | Edited by: nordsee220
Reply 
skipman:
This one is for Nordsee: Do you think think think is genuine?http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-11/du-wdc110713.php

Sorry! I just found this posting. Bored shitless whilst Marion watches a documentary about people shagging each other in a village or burning one another's places down. It's called Emmerdale...

Right. I see nothing wrong with collecting radio waves per se but there is a thing called the inverse square law. What that says is that power density diminishes logarithmically as you move away from the source. So the amount of power available if you double your distance from the transmitter is one quarter. At ten times the distance it's one hundredth and so on.
What I'm saying is the power transmitted by a wireless router is so little anyway, a few milliwatts, at any distance of even a few metres the amount of power is minute.
The sun sends out all manner of frequencies, not just visible light and its power density on earth is much more abundant.
You can't get something for nothing so you can't capture more power than a device sends out.
Something that concerns me is the writer talks about the amount of power in volts. That's completely incorrect. Power is in Watts or energy in Joules. (Actually "power" is measured as energy transforms from one state into another and one Watt is one Joule per second but that's another subject.)
IMHO if people writing pseudo scientific articles can't get their units right, their output is questionable at the very least.

From Tesla's viewpoint, if a Wardencliffe tower could radiate say a million Watts of 'energy' then the maximum that could be captured would be whatever power density exists at the receiving point. Look at it like ripples on water if you drop in a stone. You couldn't possibly catch all of the ripples in a bucket unless your bucket was as big as the pond. Most would miss it completely and radio waves do exactly the same. You can only capture those that are physically within the confines of the receiving aerial.
nordsee220
Member
#1350 | Posted: 27 Dec 2013 19:58 | Edited by: nordsee220
Reply 
Hagbard Celine:
I don't get this. If the heat is coming from the candle, why not just burn the candle on its own? Does the flower pots make any difference?Kandle Heeter: URL

See my answer to skippy above.

Ye canna get mare than ye put in. One candle can't develop more heat than one candle power. If you shield it, you insulate it.
What you MAY be able to do is increase the flame's efficiency. Remember the towers? Yellow flames are cooler than blue flames. They're oxygen starved.
Burn the wax in a more efficient manner and you'll get more heat, less noxious fumes but candles are designed to burn inefficiently precisely to give a yellow flame and light similar in colour to sunlight, helping us to see.

Notice also how the devices are called "Kandle Heeters"? Not "Candle Heaters". A clever marketing ploy that uses a play on words to avoid legal action perhaps?

Personally I reckon you'd be better off with fork 'andles.....Ron....

Storage heater were one of the electricity industry's biggest cons. They work by heating bricks overnight on a cheaper tarriff. You get no more heat out than you put in PLUS if the weather gets milder, or you decide to go out, you've already burnt the electricity. Tough titty!
 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  88  89  90  91  92  ...  97  98  »» 
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Image Link  URL Link 

   
» Username  » Password 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please enter your login/password details upon posting a message, or sign up first
TO JOIN THIS FORUM: WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
We may be considering adding new members on a "block basis". We will collect new member requests and then introduce a new batch. The new memebrs will be identifiable by a prefix in their username as a "new member". Anyone considered to be trolling or causing trouble will be immedialtey removed. To be put on the list please email richard@richplanet.net AND GIVE YOUR US NAME, A USERNAME, PASSWORD. I would imagine a new batch of new members will be added in January 2012.
 

Forums are powered by miniBB®