Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Plasma Torch Waste-to-Energy

Expand Messages
  • pulsed_ignition
    Lenny, I am happy to see you have changed your mind about my statements regarding the reality and usefulness of Plasma - this is one of my goals. Warm Regards,
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 1 7:21 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Lenny, I am happy to see you have changed your mind about my
      statements regarding the reality and usefulness of Plasma - this is
      one of my goals.

      Warm Regards,
      Chris

      --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "gumsh0e" <gumsh0e@y...> wrote:
      > Chris, the issue was never whether plasma (either as a state of
      > matter or as a means of remediating waste) was sciene fiction or
      > not.

      From post 2047 <gumsh0e@y...> wrote:

      There are a few obvious gullible non-technical folk on the
      list who may have the mistaken belief that you wouldn't have gotten a
      patent unless you could prove that your invention actually worked, or
      are easily impressed by scientific sounding catch phrases
      like "pulsed plasma" and "AC flashover". Such people are vulnerable
      to all sorts of scams.
      Lenny
    • gumsh0e
      ... holds ... project, ... That s a heavily qualified disavowal. Claims for devices that defy the laws of physics (but don t) are a dime a dozen. My goal is to
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 1 2:40 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "pulsed_ignition"
        <Hypercom59@a...> wrote:
        > Four or five years ago I realized OU was a myth - but science
        holds
        > the answers. As I told Dr. Greer just after his disclosure
        project,
        > OU is not a scientific explanation for what is happening within
        > Plasma systems. I told him basically this, My device produces more
        > energy than is allowed by science, so the rules will need to be
        > rewritten.

        That's a heavily qualified disavowal. Claims for devices that defy
        the laws of physics (but don't) are a dime a dozen.



        My goal is to get people interested in Plasma - it seems
        > like your goal is otherwise. Dr Kanerev from Russia has claimed
        8000%
        > more gas production than electrolysis. I call that a scientific
        > discovery, not overunity.

        I call it self-delusion.

        >
        > As for fusion, my neutron counter detected a burst of neutrons on
        a
        > run with deuterium. You should know Dense Plasma Focus is well
        known
        > to trigger fusion, so what is so hard to believe. It is also
        called
        > for in the patent claims.

        Detecting neutrons isn't for do-it-yourselfers, or even for some
        academics. Several teams working on cold fusion have made claims for
        having detected neutrons only to later recant. More than likely,
        what you saw wasn't neutrons, but the effects of RF signals
        emanating from your contraption that affected an op amp or got
        picked up by an inadequately shielded cable.

        The dense plasma focus proponents claim to have achieve a billion
        degrees K with their device but they only produce teeny tiny plasma
        threads. Those kinds of temperatures in your device would vaporize
        it. That's one of many reasons why your claim is hard to believe.


        >
        > My contraption, as you call it - reforms oil into hydrogen better
        > than "any" Plasma Technology on this Planet. What I am Claiming is
        > simple - my plasma is HOTTER, Energy Efficient, requires less
        > peripheral hardware and it is different from all other Plasma's -
        so
        > different it must be classified as a new Plasma Technology. How
        > different is it? My plasma system is so different, it produces
        almost
        > pure hydrogen from oil while current Plasma technology produces
        > mostly CO and Methane with about 10% hydrogen, as the article
        > indicates.

        Blah, blah blah. Save it for the "qualified investors".


        >
        > Let us please, let the market decide if my claims are valid, but
        > sophisticated investors can see it for themselves prior to taking
        > multiple markets by storm.

        Agreed.

        Lenny
      • gumsh0e
        ... is ... My views about the reality of plasma as a state of matter is unchanged. I ve always believed it exists. My views about the usefulness of plasma are
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 1 2:56 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "pulsed_ignition"
          <Hypercom59@a...> wrote:
          > Lenny, I am happy to see you have changed your mind about my
          > statements regarding the reality and usefulness of Plasma - this
          is
          > one of my goals.
          >
          > Warm Regards,
          > Chris

          My views about the reality of plasma as a state of matter is
          unchanged. I've always believed it exists. My views about the
          usefulness of plasma are also unchanged. I believe there are a lot
          of companies out there that have yet to show a profit when applying
          plasma technology for remediating waste. That isn't to say that it
          will or won't happen eventually for niche markets like eliminating
          PCBs or nerve gas (far less than the multi-billions you claim the
          market can support), but there are lots of existing technologies
          available for remediating waste, including good old-fashioned
          combustion. Producing hydrogen is all well and good if there is an
          infrastructure and a demand to take advantage of. The existing
          plasma companies that claim to be able to produce hydrogen have a
          product that is looking for a market. None exists and one may not
          exist for decades.

          My views about weaving technical jargon into pseudoscience to make
          unverified claims for tabletop fusion, efficiencies that violate
          scientific principles, etc. are also unchanged.

          Lenny.


          >
          > --- In All-Energy@yahoogroups.com, "gumsh0e" <gumsh0e@y...> wrote:
          > > Chris, the issue was never whether plasma (either as a state of
          > > matter or as a means of remediating waste) was sciene fiction or
          > > not.
          >
          > From post 2047 <gumsh0e@y...> wrote:
          >
          > There are a few obvious gullible non-technical folk on the
          > list who may have the mistaken belief that you wouldn't have
          gotten a
          > patent unless you could prove that your invention actually worked,
          or
          > are easily impressed by scientific sounding catch phrases
          > like "pulsed plasma" and "AC flashover". Such people are vulnerable
          > to all sorts of scams.
          > Lenny
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.