T&L Publications

We've certainly seen our share of "slinging" here.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what is being slung either. Farmboys know it when they hear it. And smell it.
How about putting up a reference, a name of inventor, a process, a written traceable paper, a patent, anything but jaw jacking to substantiate any of this psedoscience.
I dare ya!
:p

You've gone a long way toward convincing me, slingshot. That your proposal is worth less than saltwater.
The reply stated, "You can't take an answer? You must attack me and not the proposition I put forth."
If you will go back and read my post(s), it can be easily seen that I attacked your proposition, not any person. I'll repeat again that your messages read like sales copy, with any meaningful technical info virtually absent. The lecture notes just don't cut it.
The question here isn't whether I can take an answer. The question is can you provide one?

That make 24 pieces of hot air,... sling. <p>And still nothing. <p>“You energize Photons”, and decay, entropy, absorbtion, and loss don’t happen in your world? <p>You have a Net gain? <p>Yeah, some where in fantasy land.

O K so you finally convinced me you don't believe a word I have said.<p>You are all right. I am just full of hot air.<p>There really is nothing like this in the entire world.<p>I apologize and will now slink back to my burrow and hibernate.......... till the inventor finishes building the first unit and then I will say<p>Yaaaaaaaaaa Yaaaaaaaaa told you

“The 'black' box that energizes the photons”?
YOU energize them, ehh? With what, sardines or steroids?<p>“Just get the photon to the correct frequency”
They are trained Photons? <p>Give em a bump and they will change state, just for you?<p> Do they have flippers? Do they roll over on command?<p>And NO you wont, you will be back here with more hot air, just like the last time, the time before that, and the time before that. <p>What turnip truck did you think all of us here fell off of?

Since no moderator is available, why not simply ignore, that is, never respond to, anything shit-slinger says?
Although an open minded forum, there's no reason BS like his need be tolerated.
BAN THE BANTER!

GENTLEMEN , GENTLEMEN , PLEASE !
I'm still reading this, hoping for a mite of veracity. But fellows, (S-shot excluded), if it works, there's got to be a physical reason. Either a catalyst, or ( based on energy output ) a nuclear reactor powering it. The output is phenomenal. So, being 'photonic' , and not nuclear, I'd say catalytic. OK, Are there ANY catalytic reactions able to separate hydrogen from oxygen in an electrolytic-type reaction ?<p>The reason I do this is to eliminate remote possibilities, and thus prove this invention as bogus. We already KNOW this, but if S-shot will not apply science, at least we should.
I laugh, because the potential in 1cm^3 of copper has something like 600 trillion tons of force in it, if you separate protons and electrons. But who does that ?
Maybe the aliens who built the pyramids !

The suns power and even UV lasers have been applied in catalatic reactions on water and sea water for many years now. [Cold fusion]<p>The claims that there is a net gain have also been tested, and not yet has these claims been proven to be true. <p>Lots of hot air however, floats these projects.<p>In salt lake city and the university of Chicago they made these very same claims, and failed, and these were legitimate scientists. <p>Then the claim that a UV laser in similar circumstance was also tried, and once again, no net gain of power or any other benefit was had, because there is no magic bullet. <p>The charlatans and even the legitimate scientists know that cold fusion doesn’t work. <p>Huge magnetic chambers are sought to contain the properties of the Deuterium [hydrogen] and huge power lasers split the bond under huge forces of nature, but still the net loss out weighs the net gains. <p>Even with catalatic reactions, more power goes in than comes out. <p>But the UV catalatic method is a great way to make fresh water and separate chemicals, at a NET LOSS. <p>OLD news.

"Since no moderator is available, why not simply ignore, that is, never respond to, anything shit-slinger says?
Although an open minded forum, there's no reason BS like his need be tolerated.
BAN THE BANTER!"<p>
Excuse my laughter! NOne of you is worth the subtile pseudo-scientist.<p>Your "open minded forum" refers to a Vacancy.<p>"Truth! You can't handle the Truth."<p>You won't need to Ban Me. It is my pleasure to leave you in the dust.<p>There are things coming that I know about you would immediately jump on and not even recognize that you should at least travel to look at it before bellowing like a bunch of Bull Seals.<p>It is best to leave you and forget you.<p>I have not one good thing to say about your little set club house.<p>Bye Bye Boys.

FINALLY. THANK YOU !
Now Chris, I'm not contesting anything you've said, BUT, in catalytic reactions you can get 'more' out of the reaction. One, that it takes less input energy (heat) to start the reaction , and second, it can allow the release of energy stored as fuel. So, like burning hydrocarbons, the output energy is actually stored in the fuel , and released in the reaction. A catalytic reaction can allow compounds to 'burn' (not necessarily oxidation) which might not otherwise, and whatever energy was used refining the catalyst isn't lost, because it's a catalyst, and isn't consumed (that much!). So, no magic bullets, but maybe less turns before Jack jumps out of his box!
I applied that here, figuring MAYBE there was a mystery catalyst yet undiscovered which allowed SOMETHING in the seawater to react at room temp. But the lack of Mr.X's proof is proof enough for me.
Ta-ta!

I agree totally,... but in the case of cold fusion and the catalytic action there after, no net gain has ever been had. [so far]<p>As to sling shot, his predictability has been pegged, he returned exactly as I predicted and he is not gone, he will be back and as always, empty hand out stretched and full of more hot air.

If I may be excused (I'll clean it up) ...
I already had something in mind, but that last post to this thread got me chuckling again. It's a saying that was popular during my career as an oilfield roughneck.
Put one hand at the output of the "black box". Defecate in the other hand.
See which hand fills up faster.

It is coming!!

ha ha ah

Chris,

Can you refer me to any book that covers your Edison Versus Tesla theory. It sounds like darn good reading.

Thanks!!