Free Energy Blog:2014:09:10

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:07 pm.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Free Energy Blog posts from Wednesday, September 10, 2014


Image:Collage labeled 95x95.jpg
Latest: There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1] > There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2] - Latest include: Free Energy Blog:2016:02:13Free Energy Blog:2016:02:13Free Energy Blog:2016:02:11Free Energy Blog:2016:02:11Free Energy Blog:2016:02:11Free Energy Blog:2016:02:08Free Energy Blog:2016:02:02Blog:Index (PESWiki Bullet updated February 13, 2015 23:15 GMT)

Blog Archive

Next Day

Free Energy Blog:2014:09:11

Brillouin ~100x OU
Image:Mike-McKubre Fran-Tanzella SRI 300.jpg

'Free Energy Blog:2014:09:10'

Relevance: Directory:Cold Fusion > Directory:Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC)

Posted with permission of Brillouin:

: From: Dan Kuang

: To: sterlingda

: Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:32 AM

: Subject: Question about the actual power gain in Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube boiler

: Hello,

: I have read that the COP of the Brillouin HHT (hydrogen hot tube) boiler is expected to be 100, where the input power is 300 W and the output is 30 kW of thermal power. Do you know the actual power gain in the HHT system?

: Dan

- - - -

: From: reg [of]

: To: Sterling Allan

: Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2014 9:29 PM

: Subject: Re: Fw: Question about the actual power gain in Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube boiler

: Not sure if the system will be stable at a gain of 100 yet. We are still solving other problems in that product / process design.

- - - -

: From: Sterling Allan

: To: reg

: Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2014 9:12 PM

: Subject: Re: Fw: Question about the actual power gain in Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube boiler

: Okay if I post this brief dialogue. We've not heard any Brillouin news for quite a few months.

: Anything else you can tell us?

: Sterling

- - - -

: From: Robert Godes

: To: Sterling Allan

: Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 6:05 PM

: Subject: Re: Fw: Question about the actual power gain in Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube boiler

: Sorry. It took so long to respond. Lots going on and we just got to discussing this. The answer is YES

: Best regards,

: Robert E. Godes

: President and Chief Technology Officer

: Brillouin Energy Corp.

Postscript. Inasmuch as the post prior to this pertains to 9/11, I should mention a conversation I had with Mike McKubre as we were walking back to the SRI International lobby after the tour of the Brillouin test set-up a few months ago. He remarked that because NIST prostituted themselves in covering up for the government in their report explaining how building 7 could come down by office fires alone that they have taken a huge hit in credibility among the scientific community. They are no longer viewed as the pillar of metrology that they were set up to be and for decades were revered to be. Scientists are looking elsewhere.

Meanwhile, NIST (in Boulder, according to my Dad, who still lectures there at an annual meeting) got a major facelift with a huge influx of funds (aka payoff). It's all a facade.

-- SilverThunder 04:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking for 9/11 guest: both

[[Image:Ambulance_survived_wtc1_sq.jpg|right|frame|Look at this ambulance on the sidewalk, after two 110-story buildings have been destroyed. It's higher than the rubble around it. There is no way that the domolition-only model could be true, even if it drove in after the collapse of the first building. How could it drive in after a 110 story building collapsed 30 feet away? That rubble had to have been from the building it's parked next to and it should be several stories deep, if demolition was the only method for bringing the building down. ]

'Free Energy Blog:2014:09:10'

Relevance: Directory:Conspiracy > Directory:9/11 Conspiracy

For my radio show on September 11, I've been looking for a guest who is knowledgeable about both the demolition and the dustification models. Unfortunately, these two camps usually are at odds with one another, calling each other names -- disinformation agents, etc. Who would be a good spokesman to address both of these well?

In particular, I would like to find someone who has a good rebuttal to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth FAQ #3: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?.

A couple of weeks ago, I tried to see if my friend, Directory:Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones, would do the 9/11 interview with me on this subject, but he backed out, citing the above AE911Truth article as what he prefers to cite in response to questions about the "dustification" line of thought put forth by Dr. Judy Woods, who pegs Steve as a disinfo agent [wrongfully, and unfortunately, I think]. For example, the footage she shows of him taking a vote about not calling LENR "cold fusion" was actually a sentiment adopted by Martin Fleishmann himself near the end of his life, preferring "LENR", saying it probably isn't "fusion" after all, but some other anomalous heat (still significant) phenomenon.

Then, I tried to get Jeremy Rys to come on the show with me to talk about this, but he also backed out, not seeing the hard evidence for the dustification model compared to the demolition model [not willing to consider the possibility that both might be in play], also emotionally upset because of death threats he received when he came out against Dr. Judy Wood's model.

I was threatened with a lawsuit by Dr. Judy Woods, herself, when I posted my arguments in favor of her model, because she wants to be the sole spokesperson of her model.

Crazy political stuff that has nothing to do with science. Own worst enemy stuff.

In my view, the evidence points solidly to both phenomenon having been in play: demolition and dustification. Nether model alone satisfies all the data.

The demolition (not dustification) camp ignores things like:

It wasn't just buildings 1, 2 and 7 that went down that day. Building 3 was completely down to the ground level most of Building 4 was gone down to the ground at least half of 6 -- in an oval shape through the middle of it was gone, down to the ground.

The ambulance seen in front of WTC 1 or 2 on the sidewalk, covered in dust, not smashed, not buried in rubble from two 110 story buildings that just "fell" in its vicinity, with sidewalk visible (covered in dust).

You can see the chunks of material going to dust as they fall.

Misshapen beams that resemble the Hutchison effect.

The category 3 hurricane Irene offshore that the news all but ignored.

The correlating Magnetometer readings.

The toasted metal effect.

The dustification (not demolition) camp ignores things like:

The squibs you can see ejecting from the building in advance of its fall.

The many explosions that were heard by hundreds of witnesses.

The sliced beams that match cutter charge work.

It seems to me that it was both, not one or the other. And we should stop squabbling and join together to more effectively expose this crime of the millennium.


(Sept. 10, 3:30 pm MDT)

I talked to Nancy Lazaryan, John Hutchison's wife, and she agreed to come on my show tomorrow with me to talk about this. She said John has shied away from talking about 9/11 because he doesn't like how awake people tend to want to blame him for what happened.

Be sure to tune in. Nancy brings a fresh perspective to this that explains how the buildings turned to dust. Has to do with resonance on the subatomic level. And the black ops have been playing with this stuff much longer than John has. See, for example, Preston Nickols -- predated John.

Template: 1607

-- SilverThunder

Previous Day

Free Energy Blog:2014:09:09