| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location:
south Melbourne/KL
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 16:54
 
|
 |
|
damn that bourke engine. ive opened 4 different browsers just to find out WTF it is
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 16:56
|
|
I particularly like the self professed "experts" they rely on - the fact that they have no qualifications or even one iotum of scientific grounding somehow makes them credible. 
I wish these fucking oxygen thieves were in the Twin Towers when the planes crashed into them. Or on Apollo 11, but somehow with the module failing to get off the surface of the moon. I'm sure there's a big party up there on the moon - Elvis is up there and Azaria is his sex slave......somehow 15000 CIA employees have been silenced and have never felt the urge to tell all..... 
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 16:58
|
|
it's likely you won't find much.
because of the oil war, "They" have been supressing this new technology that has been patented and so anyone who makes a webpage about it must take down their page or face being terminated with extreme predjudice by the MIB...
fwiw, an american lawyer got his son to patent a method of pushing someone on a swing.. to show how silly the US Patent system is...
theoretically, if someone uses this patented method to push you on the swing, they may have to pay royalties 
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 17:04
|
|
| Quote: |
In the 1960s, Joseph Papp built the highly regarded Papp engine. It could run on a 15-cents-an-hour secret combination of expandable gases. Instead of burning fuel, this engine used electricity to expand the gas in hermetically sealed cylinders. The first prototype was a simple ninety-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications, with Volvo pistons attached to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders.
The engine worked perfectly, with an output of three-hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about $25 to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. Amid his accusations of media suppression, the idea has gotten nowhere.
|
| Quote: |
In 1932, Russell Bourke designed an engine with only two moving parts. He connected two pistons to a refined "Scotch Yoke" crankshaft and came up with an engine that was superior in most respects to any competitive engine. His design burned any cheap carbon-based fuel, and delivered great mileage and performance. Article after article was published acclaiming his engine, but once again, to no avail. The Bourke Engine Documentary is the revealing book the inventor assembled just before his death.
|
and one of my favs.. typical bloody aussies
| Quote: |
The Demise of a Little Black Box
More information came in the form of an article in the Melbourne Age (July 13, 1993, p. 5) introducing an "ozone safe induction" system — a little black box that was added to your engine and would cut fuel usage by up to two-thirds, with a corresponding reduction in pollution.
Oz Smart Technologies was the name of the firm, and Mike Holland was the inventor. I talked to Mike about his supposed breakthrough. "Yeah," he told me, "the U.S. military just flew in some generals and stuff, and they want to buy it. And Nissan just offered me five million dollars. But I want to develop it in Australia."
Did it work? Apparently so. The Environmental Protection Agency, along with scientists from Swinburne University who'd done the testing, told Mike off the record that it was the best design of its kind that they'd ever seen.
But the media continued to consider the device a bit of a hoax. And Mike Holland's company simply does not exist anymore. Yep. They just disappeared.
My research today tells me that Mike Holland's invention was probably of the improved-fuel-efficiency variety, simply burning fuel in a more efficient manner — nothing terribly difficult.
Other well-known developments are of the "car running on water" kind, usually involving electrical current running through the water to extract and then burn the hydrogen.
Some of the more interesting of these involve the use of magnets, sometimes tuned to exact frequencies that take energy from the ambient atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 17:06
|
|
| Quote: |
A Water-Powered Lawnmower Bites the Dust
My next encounter with the suppression phenomenon happened about a year later. It involved a female friend of mine who said that a man she knew had invented a lawnmower that ran on water.
Skeptical but excited, I said I wanted to meet this man.
My friend got back to me a few days later, very upset. It turns out that the water-powered lawnmower's inventor had recently opened his front door to a shotgun blast in the face.
For the six months prior to his death, this inventor had been solidly drinking, ever since he'd come home to his family one day with a million or so dollars and the announcement that he didn't want to discuss his engines again.
|
i wonder if this was the Blinker Fluid chick??
| Quote: |
Archie Blue, an inventor from Christchurch, New Zealand, developed a car that runs purely on water by the extraction of hydrogen. An alleged offer of $500 million from "Arab interests" was not enough to convince him to sell, but nevertheless he has been unable to take his engine to the marketplace
|
[Updated on: Sat, 22 October 2005 17:07]
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location:
south Melbourne/KL
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 17:06
|
|
| oldcorollas wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 02:58 |
fwiw, an american lawyer got his son to patent a method of pushing someone on a swing.. to show how silly the US Patent system is...
theoretically, if someone uses this patented method to push you on the swing, they may have to pay royalties
|
got any reference for that?? i wanna read more about it 
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 17:30
|
|
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/neta html/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,368,227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,3 68,227
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.html
| Quote: |
Lastly, it should be noted that because pulling alternately on one chain and then the other resembles in some measure the movements one would use to swing from vines in a dense jungle forest, the swinging method of the present invention may be referred to by the present inventor and his sister as "Tarzan" swinging. The user may even choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described, which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required.
Licenses are available from the inventor upon request.
* * * * *
|
[Updated on: Sat, 22 October 2005 17:40]
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location:
south Melbourne/KL
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 17:37
|
|
i want to patent something now. i wonder if heel and toe downshifting is patented yet. oh wait, not worth it. manufacturers are heading towards tiptronic nowadays 
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location:
south Melbourne/KL
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 17:49
|
|
cant figure out. if i wanted a hug i'll advertise on ebay 
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 22:41
|
|
from the crazy patents section stew!
Hands free towel carrying system.
lmao its called a cracking a fat!this is an old trick for carrying a towel hands free!
or
Toy gas fired missile and launcher assembly
A toy gas-fired missile and launcher assembly whose missile is composed of a soft head and a tail extending therefrom formed by a piston. The piston is telescoped into the barrel of a launcher having a closed end on which is mounted an electrically-activated ignitor, the air space between the end of the piston and the closed end of the barrel defining a combustion chamber. Joined to the barrel and communicating with the chamber therein is a gas intake tube having a normally-closed inlet valve. To operate the assembly, the operator places the inlet tube with its valve open adjacent his anal region from which a colonic gas is discharged. The piston is then withdrawn to a degree producing a negative pressure to inhale the gas into the combustion chamber to intermix with the air therein to create a combustible mixture. The ignitor is then activated to explode the mixture in the chamber and fire the missile into space.
mick
|
|
|
Banned by his request
Location:
moved to tamworth
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sat, 22 October 2005 22:55
|
|
or
Paddle Wheel Plane.
or make one invention out of two!
Protective underwear with malodorous flatus filter with Electrostatical Enhancement.
this one could be used at the gay mardi gra!Non-lethal cock fighting system.
this one would be handy for tacking people for laps in the racecars. Vehicle mounted toilet seat,just mount it instead of passanger seat.
Mouthguard made at least partially from an edible candy.i can just picture it,mike tyson stops mid fight and says to his opponet"yum mine taste like blueberry,whats your one taste like"lmao
Power Operated Separable Beds and Support Therefore.yep she would be really impressed after sex when you not only fall straight to sleep,but you also press the button to get the hell away.be good for escaping ugly chicks.
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sun, 23 October 2005 03:09
|
|
| b1gb3n wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 03:06 |
| oldcorollas wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 02:58 |
fwiw, an american lawyer got his son to patent a method of pushing someone on a swing.. to show how silly the US Patent system is...
theoretically, if someone uses this patented method to push you on the swing, they may have to pay royalties
|
got any reference for that?? i wanna read more about it
|
A guy in Melbourne got a patent for the wheel two years back, had it for about three months before someone realised and it aws cancelled. It is in a book I have on the Ignobel prizes as a notable mention.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sun, 23 October 2005 04:25
|
|
to prove how flawed the US patent system is some folks have managed to:
-patent a method of making peanut-butter-and-jam sandwiches
-patent a wheel
...
And to prove that the system is run by complete idiots, some greedy quasi-scientist managed to patent:
... a system for a "method of compensating a manager" that involved several steps of calculating a proper compensation based on performance criteria and then transferring payment to the manager...
and there's no actual physical invention attached to this, just a business "method" ...
(more info on the abovementioned patent application: <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510191 6522254>)
the upshot of this is that in the US, you could patent a method for adding numbers to produce larger numbers (e.g. 2+2=4)...
If this is really the case, then it should now be possible - in the USA - to patent the business method of filing spurious patents and then using them to blackmail companies that actually produce things into paying you to leave them alone.
At least in australia, you have to have a physical invention (e.g. a device that does X), be able to withstand scrutiny that no-one else has invented such a device (e.g. no prior art). This stops people trying to patent software and meaningless vapourware inventions... until our govenment tries to align our patent system with the USA system as part of the free trade agreement.
See here for info on supporters for patent reform <http://www.pubpat.org/> in the USA.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
melbourne
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sun, 23 October 2005 06:13
|
|
|
microsoft patented the double click
|
|
|
Location:
Land of Oz
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sun, 23 October 2005 11:49
|
|
Hi,
I love conspiracy theories. Not so much the theories themselves, but to witness the polarised views of the two opposing sides. One side has the gullible beleivers and the other side has the head-in-the-sand non-beleivers. Both, in their own way are fanatical and amusing.
I like to flit between the two camps to ensure my fanaticism is spread evenly. 
Now, I just saw a documentary on "faked moon landing" and it was very interesting. But, what I don't get is, if it was all faked then it would of taken thousands of people to be in the "know". How do you stop all those people from talking. Also, any transmissions would not be coming from the moon and therefore Parkes, Joderall Bank and the countless other radio telescopes would not of picked up anything, unless they bullshitted and were in on the scam.
Why can't they just point Hubble at the moon and take a few close up pics? Hubble is certainly powerful enough to see if there's any debri and lunar modules and stuff like that left behind. Even Palomar might be able to spot something - I think it spotted the tracks made by Lunakhood (or whatever it was called).
Damn, if I was in Sydney I'd get out my telescopes and have a squizz!
Hmmm, I'm going to have to ponder on this one for a bit.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
Location:
perth
Registered:
October 2005
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sun, 23 October 2005 12:17
|
|
|
im with river with this. ppl allways want to think thay know somthing more than joe avarage
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane / Gold Coast
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sun, 23 October 2005 13:38
|
|
| river wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 21:49 |
Now, I just saw a documentary on "faked moon landing" and it was very interesting. But, what I don't get is, if it was all faked then it would of taken thousands of people to be in the "know". How do you stop all those people from talking. Also, any transmissions would not be coming from the moon and therefore Parkes, Joderall Bank and the countless other radio telescopes would not of picked up anything, unless they bullshitted and were in on the scam.
Why can't they just point Hubble at the moon and take a few close up pics? Hubble is certainly powerful enough to see if there's any debri and lunar modules and stuff like that left behind. Even Palomar might be able to spot something - I think it spotted the tracks made by Lunakhood (or whatever it was called).
|
Hubble isn't powerful enough to see any of the Apollo gear left on the Moon. On one of the other forums I visit it was worked out (laws of optics were used) that you'd need a telescope about 1.8km across on the top of a mountain to be powerful enough to make out the lander and so on.
The other problem with using the Hubble is that the Moon would be far too bright for it, it's meant to only peek into very dark areas and so the reflected light of the Moon's surface would damage the sensitive receptors in it.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sun, 23 October 2005 23:06
|
|
NASA has made plans to launch a moon orbiter to survey the lunar suface in great detail. They stated that the resolution would be enough to pick out all the lunar landing sites (down to about 1 metre).
See here.
Like Bill said, Hubble's just not strong enough.
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sun, 23 October 2005 23:29
|
|
PROOF mofo's :
|
|
|
Location:
Land of Oz
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Sun, 23 October 2005 23:46
|
|
Hi,
| gianttomato wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 09:06 |
Like Bill said, Hubble's just not strong enough.
|
I guess that means my Celestron 14 isn't going to see much also.
seeyuzz
river
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Mon, 24 October 2005 00:04
|
|
Definitely not, and my bodgy home built 8" Newtonian will be worse again.
River do you do any photography with your Celestron? Did you get all the autotracking stuff they come with?
Ed, I see it all now. Now I understand why the flag was flapping around, with it being so close to the airconditioning duct and all.....
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Mon, 24 October 2005 00:18
|
|
| Bill Sherwood wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 23:38 |
The other problem with using the Hubble is that the Moon would be far too bright for it, it's meant to only peek into very dark areas and so the reflected light of the Moon's surface would damage the sensitive receptors in it.
|
So couldn't you point it at the moon when it's dark?
I guess it still wouldn't have the resolution to pick stuff up. Although you say it'd take a telescope 1.8kms across on a mountain... but Hubble is in space, so it doesn't have to worry about that pesky atmosphere. This thing can see into deep space, surely it can pick out a few landing sites on a moon that orbits us.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Mon, 24 October 2005 00:39
|
|
You certainly could, but then you are wholly reliant on the reflected light from the earth's surface ("earthshine"). Makes for a long exposure time (read lots of accurate tracking and time not researching important stuff just to make an image that will surely be discredited by the same crackpots that want the proof).
Anyway, it doesn't get over the fact that it can't resolve down to 1-2 metres over a distance of roughly 400000 km.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: LOL@ conspiracy theorists :D
|
Mon, 24 October 2005 00:42
|
|
yeah, but hubble picks up pictures of what galaxies are doing (or were doing an arseload of years ago).
And those galaxies hubble is looking at are eleventy billion times bigger than a moon landing site
|
|
|
