Search

Create an account	Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10

	Mission Statement Modules · Home · Forum · LATEST COMMENTS · Special Sections · SUPPORT ZPEnergy · Advertising · AvantGo · Books · Downloads · Events · Feedback · Link to us · Private Messages · Search · Stories Archive · Submit News · Surveys · Top 10 · Topics · Web Links · Your Account Who's Online There are currently, 184 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online. You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here Events Hot Links Aetherometry American Antigravity Closeminded Science EarthTech ECW E-Cat World Innoplaza Integrity Research Institute New Energy Movement New Energy Times Panacea-BOCAF RexResearch Science Hobbyist T. Bearden Mirror Site USPTO Want to Know Other Info-Sources NE News Sites AER_Network E-Cat World NexusNewsfeed ZPE NE Discussion Groups Energetic Forum EMediaPress Energy Science Forum Free_Energy FB Group The KeelyNet Blog OverUnity Research Sarfatti_Physics Tesla Science Foundation (FB) Vortex (old Interact) Magazine Sites Electrifying Times (FB) ExtraOrdinary Technology IE Magazine New Energy Times Interesting Links		The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register Re: More questions on Edison observations (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Thursday, October 09, 2003 @ 12:38:33 UTC I believe you may be looking at the technology rights issues in the wrong light. Both technologies were demonstrated to UFCT shareholders because UFCT shareholders were to benefit financially from both technologies. If you are telling me that UFCT shareholders were lead to believe that UFCT would receive revenue from both technologies in 2002 and 2003 that would be correct based on my understanding as well. By holding rights to revenue from both technologies, combined with UFCT’s contract with GWE, UFCT can generate generous earnings for us shareholders with little overhead cost and risk. I don’t believe it was a matter of the solar technology being downplayed; it was more a matter of being able to also benefit from a more exciting technology as well. Related to what I observed during the operational demonstrations, there was simply nothing in the gcell that could have been consumed. Within the gcell, there were only three items that I believe could possibly degrade over time. There is a flexible membrane with a heavy catalyst coating and two sheets of carbon material that are used to facilitate the transfer of electricity to or from the membrane. There were no other components within the cells that could possibly degrade or be consumed as a fuel. With the exception of the catalyst, I have enough experience with the other materials used in the construction of the gcells to know that they could not be consumed as fuel within the process. Furthermore, upon opening the gcells after extended operation, there were no visible changes in any of the materials. As far as the voltage and amperage readings go related to the Edison gcells, during the startup, you can easily monitor both voltage and amperage going into the stacks. Each cell stabilized at slightly less at around 1.6v. It did not matter if only one gcell stack was fired up or three stacks were linked together and fired up at the same time, there was never more than 15amps drawn. During startup, the gcell stacks immediately begin consuming less voltage and amperage and when startup was complete, the batteries used to start the stacks are removed. Within five minutes after startup, the gcell stacks were producing 1.6v each on their own and the stacks were drawing “0” amps. Again, the same post-startup "0" voltage and amperage inputs were observed, regardless of whether one stack was fired up, or if three stacks were linked together and fired up at the same time. I was allowed to observe several different well thought out tests that made it easy to understand that I was indeed observing what I thought I was observing, and validate unequivocally in my mind that the apparent observations were factual. Based on the data I personally collected and analyzed, it was apparent that the amount of amperage present in the gcells after startup represents less that one percent of the energy contained in the resulting gases. In my opinion, something very significant is going on in the gcells. Related to the ecells, we tested the system with a 10kw load for an extended period of time. If the coolant is turned off, the ecells stacks become very hot immediately. They would not allow the ecells to operate without coolant for more than a few seconds. However, with the coolant circulating at the above load, the coolant exiting the ecell stacks never exceed 205 degrees. I was told that was the optimum operating temperature. I won’t go into much more detail about this than to tell you that the heat from the ecells is recovered and used to improve the performance of the gcells. The less than one percent ratio I described above was calculated at this operating temperature. Lower operating temperatures reduce gcell performance somewhat, but I do not view that as problematic since the ecells consume much less gas when less amperage is generated. The water/gas exiting the gcells stayed consistently under 110 degrees. Hope this helps bring more facts to light. I’m not asking you or anyone else to believe what I've told you, or to believe in Genesis. I think you and everyone else should keep an open mind and make a point of seriously looking into these products when they are available. Anthony Marchetti, UFCT Shareholder | Parent Re: More questions on Edison observations by Anonymous on Thursday, October 09, 2003 @ 14:51:21 UTC Re: More questions on Edison observations by Anonymous on Thursday, October 09, 2003 @ 16:15:54 UTC Re: Great Discussion by Anonymous on Thursday, October 09, 2003 @ 16:32:35 UTC Re: Great Discussion by Anonymous on Friday, October 10, 2003 @ 06:36:22 UTC

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice. Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.