Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

fruit and veg batteries, and massive crop yields

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

fruit and veg batteries, and massive crop yields

Unread postby duff_beer_dragon » Thu 14 Oct 2004, 09:08:21

Potatoes are of course tubers, but still.......

the potato ( or fruit, etc ) clock

one plus one.........( ie, put one and one together - giant potato batteries for example )

giant organic vegetables

implosion research - massive crop yields


While I am on this topic, I recommend anyone seeking to reduce use of pesticides and other -icides on crops to read up on radionics and it's highly sucessful useage in requiring minuscle amounts of pesticide to treat large-scale areas of any pests - this was all proved and recorded - of course and as usual - before pesticide use became a normal thing in farming.
duff_beer_dragon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: the Village

fruit and veg batteries, and massive crop yields

Unread postby djd » Thu 14 Oct 2004, 10:28:28

The potato clock link seems to be broken, however please be clear that the "potato" battery is more properly referred to as a "zinc/copper" battery, since the electrical energy is obtained by reacting useful pure metals, producing relatively useless compounds. The potato is incidental.

The "giant vegetables" link is short on detail; "massive crop yields" uses some sort of "water energizer". Neither sounds likely to be what is claimed.

From the bit on pesticides: "this was all proved and recorded" . Are citations available? When was the work done and what blinding procedure was used?

Remember that contemporary claims to "radionics" (created circa 100 years ago) included the idea that spraying agricultural chemicals on a photograph of your field and putting the treated photo in a special box was just as efffective as using much larger amounts on the fields directly. Their customers were sure it worked, too.

Do I KNOW that THESE claims are false? No. Have very similar claims turned out to be false many, many times in the past? Yes.

Remember the famous test: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!".
User avatar
djd
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed 06 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

who pays you lackeys?

Unread postby duff_beer_dragon » Thu 14 Oct 2004, 11:43:43

One of you tried that tactic already with the post I put up about the Steam Powered Car -

the link isn't broken.

If you are not in this time, then just do a search for 'potato' and 'clock' - there's tons of pages online about them.

The potato is what powers or gets the electrodes working, it's not incidental it is used in place of what normally powers clock batteries in this case - meaning, that instead of replacing the battery as you normally do if a battery-powered device runs dry, you put the electrodes into another potato.

There is also a fuel-cell battery item on the page link given, it runs the clock from any fluids, such as water.

Again,

the giant vegetables website is not short on detail, but I doubt you even bothered to try it out anyway.

The Implosion Centre website, who also make bio-fuels - it's a very obvious link of the page given, is very clear in what it details, and there are plenty of links in the science&tech. part of the website, and plenty of information on it elsewhere in the site.

So once more you are posting blatant lies as to the links provided and what they actually have on them.

Your "famous test" is merely an aspect of your personal belief system, and also has not been borne out by actual science at all. The best thinking in theoretical physics for example is well aware that the hidden variable in All This is thought, as in conscious-intent.

Your nervous system can go and look up the books and papers with the details about radionics on them - you seem to know they exist. If I cite the ones I am aware of it would be like inviting you to participate in my reality - you can't think clearly so you would crash it by being open to such things as 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!'

Take a look around at the universe, we've explained about 1% of anything.
duff_beer_dragon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: the Village

Unread postby stayathomedad » Thu 14 Oct 2004, 14:45:09

i do not believe that you will change the yield per acre though. if that works what you will do is just change the number of items grown: much less. instead of having 10 heads of cabbage you have just one in the same space, making similar mass.

also, with potatoes you can show that larger ones contain the same number of cells as the smaller ones, so what you end up doing is decresase the number of nutrients per pound
It just gets better every day....
User avatar
stayathomedad
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: wilmington, nc

unsere sinlose arbeit macht frei

Unread postby duff_beer_dragon » Fri 15 Oct 2004, 08:39:19

What link are you talking about there, the one that grows massive sized fruit and veg or the one that uses the Schauberger water purifyers to improve crop growth.

Farmers deal in yields per - whatever measurements apply ; while I appreciate your concern as to oversized cellular structure, those types of concerns might be better thrown towards farming techniques that are known to be un-natural - such as GM or GE crops and seeds, and geneticly engineered doubled-muscle beef cattle, for example.

Essentially you are saying that either natural nutrient feeds or the resonance off imploded water incased in a spiral structure cause cells to over feed rather than grow - think of how people eating in dodgy un-ergonomic environments will be affected then if there is any truth to that. Do you believe in geo-pathic stress and 'sick buildings'?
duff_beer_dragon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: the Village

Unread postby stayathomedad » Fri 15 Oct 2004, 11:32:02

duff: i believe you addressed the last one to me. What I meant to say is that none of that stuff is going to help us. If you grow one of those large plants, it will occupy space right? So if the space it takes is one that ten other plants used to occupy, then you have the same result as before: x pounds of food. and yes those big plants need the same resource as lets say ten of the normal ones. so there is no magic bullet here. you ain't gonna get more stuff just because your plant grows ten times a big, as in yield per acre. just a wash, as I call it.
It just gets better every day....
User avatar
stayathomedad
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: wilmington, nc

re:

Unread postby duff_beer_dragon » Fri 15 Oct 2004, 13:21:52

I see what you mean, but it'd depend on what kind of spacing they are using between the plants - surely when this is being used as measure it has to be comparable? Purely from memory of actual fields or veg. patches - you can indeed grow the same amount of plants in the same amount of space and get bigger fruits or gourds from one lot than you get from the other lot - also depends on if they grow up the way, taller ; or if say you get more densely packed fruit crops or bunches of fruits.
duff_beer_dragon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: the Village

Re: who pays you lackeys?

Unread postby djd » Fri 15 Oct 2004, 14:53:09

duff_beer_dragon wrote:One of you tried that tactic already with the post I put up about the Steam Powered Car -

the link isn't broken.

It was at the time. I tried it again just now and it worked.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:If you are not in this time, then just do a search for 'potato' and 'clock' - there's tons of pages online about them.

The potato is what powers or gets the electrodes working, it's not incidental it is used in place of what normally powers clock batteries in this case - meaning, that instead of replacing the battery as you normally do if a battery-powered device runs dry, you put the electrodes into another potato.

The energy does not come from the potato. It comes from the destruction of at least one of the electrodes, in a chemical reaction which turns a useful pure metal into a less useful compound. You are merely re-extracting some of the energy used to make the metal in the first place. I called the potato "incidental" because any electrolyte will work - you point this out yourself.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:There is also a fuel-cell battery item on the page link given, it runs the clock from any fluids, such as water.

This is deliberately misleading. A fuel cell is a chemical engine which catalyzes the reactiuon between fuel and oxidizer - no part of the fuel cell is consumed in the reaction (as occurs in a battery). No fuel cell runs on water only. It appears that this is simply another battery of the same type as the "potato battery", "lemon battery", "beer battery", etc.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:Again,

the giant vegetables website is not short on detail, but I doubt you even bothered to try it out anyway.

They make many assertions without support, and they say that their product must be used in conjunction with the application of organic (compost) and mineral fertilizers. How much is the productivity gain over fertilization alone?
duff_beer_dragon wrote:The Implosion Centre website, who also make bio-fuels - it's a very obvious link of the page given, is very clear in what it details, and there are plenty of links in the science&tech. part of the website, and plenty of information on it elsewhere in the site.

You didn't post a link to the bio-fuel section, you posted one to the vortex energizer.

They describe what their device is and does, yes. There was even a test. I couldn't find (Google) any documents from the One World Garden Centre, though I did find a phone number. Where are the test documents? How was the test controlled and how was it blinded? These are critical methodological questions.

More quotes from Implosion Research:

"Today’s technology is solely based on explosion." I presume they mean machines, not all technology. There are non-explosive engines - for example, Peltier effect generators have no moving parts.

"... requires an energy expenditure of 1000 kW." kW measure power, not energy. If they want to invoke physics for support, they should be getting it right!

"Most of the energy is lost during an explosive process through frictional resistance, which produces useless waste heat." This is wrong. Please see Carnot's analysis of the theoretical perfect engine which has no friction - yet still produces waste heat. (Carnot 1824)

"The vortex motion, which also causes a drop in temperature and increase in density ..." This is testable. Please see the James Randi Education Foundation, which tests paranormal claims with a US$ 1 million prize offered for a success. I use the word paranormal justifiably, as Implosion Research is claiming to use something other than the accepted laws of physics.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:So once more you are posting blatant lies as to the links provided and what they actually have on them.

Really? Point out these lies. Quote them specifically. Give opposing evidence. Any point you don't answer, you are conceeding that I am right.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:Your "famous test" is merely an aspect of your personal belief system, and also has not been borne out by actual science at all. The best thinking in theoretical physics for example is well aware that the hidden variable in All This is thought, as in conscious-intent.


from http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics ... ables.html

> In 1964, British physicist John Bell later disproved the
> notion that hidden variables affect interactions between
> particles with his well-known Bell's inequalities.

duff_beer_dragon wrote:Your nervous system can go and look up the books and papers with the details about radionics on them - you seem to know they exist. If I cite the ones I am aware of it would be like inviting you to participate in my reality - you can't think clearly so you would crash it by being open to such things as 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!'

I would prefer that my nervous system not go and do things without the rest of my body tagging along.

As for knowing they exist - not particularly, just some Instant Research care of the internet.

To emphasize: "... like inviting you to participate in my reality ...". You truely believe that you live in a different reality than I do? What's the value of G there? If you are not going to admit the existence of a common physical universe with observable laws, then it is literally impossible to arrive at any useful conclusions (This is why I don't like phenomonology). Conversely, if you do in fact believe in a physical universe but you mean that we have different beliefs about how that universe operates, you are likely right.

However, science is a practical business. Example: as of about five years ago, common wisdom held that GaAs (or was it GaN?) wasn't a practical semiconductor because its high defect density would prevent devices fabricated in it from working. Then a few people made working devices. I don't know if the question of how the devices work despite the defects has been answered yet, but from a practical standpoint, it is now much more common appearing in many consumer devices (e.g. blue LEDs). Lesson: theory does not bound practice.

On radionics (this is from a pro-radionics source):

>Abrams' work became controversial when his
> experiments suggested that:
> (1) Disease is a form of imbalance of the electrons
> of the atoms of diseased tissue (rather than cellular
> imbalance), and that disease could therefore be
> studied as a form of radiating energy.
> (2) Radiating energy from diseased tissue may be
> sensed after it has travelled through the body/tissues
> of a healthy person and/or along a wire.

It is reasonably well known that there have been no successes (replicable experiments) yet in paranormal research - which is conducted by some major acadedmic institutions! I mentioned the JREF above - proving point (2) could net you $1M - ask the JREF if it qualifies for the prize, I believe the answer is "yes" - they say theraputic touch qualifies just for being able to detect the "bio-field" (which didn't work). They've also done trials of various "charged water" claims, with the usual test being to distinguish in any way between charged and uncharged waters.

Why do I keep suggesting the JREF? They are a useful centralization of paranormal tests, thay have contacts at major universities qualified in many branches of science, they always design tests so no "personal judgement" is required, and they have the expertiese required to do proper controls (this is not easy). Trial procedures are completely detailed on paper, agreed to by both sides, BEFORE the trial occurs.

duff_beer_dragon wrote:Take a look around at the universe, we've explained about 1% of anything.


You realize that you are claiming, with the 1% figure, to know how much we [humans] don't know. Besides, 1% of the universe is really quite a lot. The amount of the Earth we understand is usually though to be much greater.

However, you seem to think that at least some people do understand radionics. Is this exempt from being something we don't know 99% about?
User avatar
djd
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed 06 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: who pays you lackeys?

Unread postby djd » Fri 15 Oct 2004, 15:15:12

I realize my post above is kind of long. To restate a central point - because I don't like being called a lackey and a liar (and the answer to the question is the University of California at Santa Barbara):

duff_beer_dragon wrote:So once more you are posting blatant lies as to the links provided and what they actually have on them.


Really? Point out these lies. Quote them specifically. Give opposing evidence. Any point you don't answer, you are conceeding that I am right.
User avatar
djd
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed 06 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

everything is under kontrol

Unread postby duff_beer_dragon » Fri 15 Oct 2004, 15:21:49

Well first of all you've obviously gone off and thought long and hard about providing some answer to me here in some desparate discrediting attempt -

you think you are that important, I just post off the top of my head, occaisionally I'll check a fact because if I'm not 100% clear on my memory then I want to make sure what I post is accurate......

yeah so, first thing I notice is that you've chosen to play definition and word games with the 'I called the potato "incidental" because any electrolyte will work - you point this out yourself.' - in other words you are re-stating a variant of the title of my original post, and turning it around to try and make it seem like I as wrong.....

doesn't bode well for the rest of this, let's push on anyway and see if you actually care about finding solutions and sharing information or if you're just trying to look clever in front of someone or other......

ok, I got down as far as when you mentioned 'James Randi' -

mmm, you care.

Image

[url=http://www.rawilson.com/csicon.shtml]Committee for
Surrealist Investigation of
Claims of the Normal
CSICON[/url]
duff_beer_dragon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: the Village

Re: everything is under kontrol

Unread postby djd » Fri 15 Oct 2004, 21:57:17

Are you admitting that everything I said in my FIRST post in the thread (not the long one) is correct? I challenged you (twice, now three times) to pick out exactly what are the "blatent lies" you said were there. You haven't done it yet.

duff_beer_dragon wrote:you think you are that important, I just post off the top of my head, occaisionally I'll check a fact because if I'm not 100% clear on my memory then I want to make sure what I post is accurate......


So, in other words, you called me a lackey and a liar for no reason other than to insult and defame me. Am I wrong about that? What other reason did you have for calling me a lackey? What did I say that was a lie?

duff_beer_dragon wrote:yeah so, first thing I notice is that you've chosen to play definition and word games with the 'I called the potato "incidental" because any electrolyte will work - you point this out yourself.' - in other words you are re-stating a variant of the title of my original post, and turning it around to try and make it seem like I as wrong.....


So you think that your original title "fruit and veg batteries, and massive crop yields" can be restated as "any electrolyte will work" ? They don't seem very close to me.

So, what we agree on, is that the text would have better read "the fact that the potato is a potato is incidental". I had thought at the time that this was clear; on reflection, it is obviously not. That sentence is not crucial to my argument, and at any rate I explained my intended meaning in a previous post. The point remains that the energy is not produced by the potato, but by the destruction of one or more of the metal electrodes. Do you dispute this or do you accept it?

duff_beer_dragon wrote:doesn't bode well for the rest of this, let's push on anyway and see if you actually care about finding solutions


I care about finding actual solutions. Is finding more new oilfields a solution to Peak Oil? As I said in my first post, there have been similar claims made many times in the past, and all were either wrong, or worse, deliberate scams. Thus, I am less willing to accept these claims. Further, I wrote my original post in a nonconfrontational manner, pointing out what I thought were the most obvious problems; rather than answer my points, you abused me verbally. In what way did I lie?
User avatar
djd
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed 06 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

re:

Unread postby duff_beer_dragon » Sat 16 Oct 2004, 09:53:47

Don't waste my time boy,

you go out and find news and links like I do, and you post them.

You want debate? Then you are retarded.
duff_beer_dragon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: the Village

Re: re:

Unread postby djd » Sun 17 Oct 2004, 16:58:38

duff_beer_dragon wrote:Don't waste my time boy,

you go out and find news and links like I do, and you post them.

You want debate? Then you are retarded.


Wanting debate makes me retarded? I thought it made me a pompous jerk.

After I challenged you to point out exactly where I was lying, you did not, and now you say it is a waste of your time.

"Lackey" and "liar", you said. Where is your evidence?

It appears that the most reasonable explanation is the one I already advanced - you were only trying to defame me, and you know I was right but you won't admit it.
User avatar
djd
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed 06 Oct 2004, 03:00:00


Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 guests