Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: witsend on 09/12/2009 05:29:12
-
Guys - not sure what the readership will be to this thread. But I just want to detail a few things. I had a demo that developed anomalous heat signatures on a resistive load. Crashed through the unity barrier and exprimentally evident. Couldn't get a single academic to attend a demonstration of the circuit. So I took it to industry. 5 public companies accredited the results. One of the 5 offered our local university a bursary award to take the study further. Offer was declined and the claim to have exceeded unity - continued to be ignored by our learned and revered. MTN Sciencentre asked for the demo to show it to an international group of scientists at a conference. Not one person from the conference attended that 5 day demo. Tried to get it published in a reviewed magazine. Could only get it into a technical journal. Tried again 6 years later and was rejected without review by IET. Accepted for review at the IEEE but rejected by reviewers on consensus with the added comment that it may not be represented.
I posted on the naked science forum and was hounded by several contributors who went to some trouble to describe my delusions. I was invited and joined a second forum whose contributors tried to replicate the experiment. Couple were successful. We went to the trouble to write a paper and I posted a link on the previous thread in this forum to advise the thread contributors. Not one person has commented on the submitted paper, the evidence of the full replicated experiment, the significance of the result, nor the possible outcome of the submission. This, notwithstanding the extraordinary outcry that any such claim could ever be taken seriously or even be half way correct.
So here we have a forum and a thread, apparently designated to 'new theories' where - having posted a new theory I'm hounded out of the house, and when the results or replication are positive - not one comment for or against that open source replication effort. Extraordinary. It speaks to the kind of contributor here who is only, apparently, inclined to victimise any contributor who dare, in good faith, present a seminally new idea. Not good, guys. Not good at all. Plenty to say before replication. Now nothing? Is it only required that initiating contributors acknowledge that they were wrong? Are the attackers appropriate in ignoring the evidence? And why is no-one that interested. These tests turn classical physics on its head? Why this extraordinary lack of interest? I'm intrigued. It seems that 'new ideas' thread is a misnomer - designed to subject the unsuspecting to a full on attack from mainstream bigots who reflect academic bigotry with the added flair for discouraging original thought. [???] [???] [???]
-
And let me name some of those contributors. Sophiecentaur was the most vocal. Jerrgg another. Then there was Vern. And Rosie? Such malicious comments. Bored Chemist? What do you all say now that it's been replicated. Is this still further evidence of my delusions????
-
"What do you all say now that it's been replicated."
Please provide evidence supporting this assertion.
In any event it has nothing to do with the authority of science. If it turns out that you are right and we are wrong then science still wins.
I look forward to your demonstration of the breach of the law of conservation of energy. If you win a Nobel for this I will send you my real name so you can take the piss during your acceptance speech. It will be a small price to pay for the end of all possible eeergy crises.
However, you should remember my first post in this matter; until you feed the input from the output and take away the battery you don't have an overunity device and your claim is false. In that case you are bringing my name and others into disrepute without cause. If I were using my real name here that would be libel.
-
Hi Bored chemitst
I am entirely satified that there are no nobel prizes in the offing. The replicated test paper is in the posted link. It may not be there for long as the IEEE may ask us to withdraw it so check it out while you can. And no, I do not anticipate an acceptance speech, sadly and I really don't want to 'take the piss'. I'm just so angry that I spent so long on this forum fighting a lonely corner - when all that I repeatedly asked is that someone would try and replicate. Just look back at what was written here. Such decided antagonistic arrogance. Not appropriate to good science let alone to the mission statements here.
But regarding OU claims - I do this with utmost hesitation - but it does seem to be repeatedly evident. We even reference it in the paper. The heat anomalies are only evident in conjunction with a distinctive harmonic. It seems to be part of the resonant pattern. Lose the harmonic and the battery loses it's charge. But that harmonic is mostly there - which keeps the battery pretty well charged. On these last tests Fuzzy (the experimenter) is losing microwatts for at least 8 watts in heat dissipated. And the numbers get better and better. If you want to check out the thread it's at energeticforum.com/renewable-energy
But I'm just ranting. I got short shrift here and faught a really lonely corner for a long time. Very disheartening Bored chemist. A little more curiosity, courtesy and tolerance - and there wouldn't be all that anger. Vindication is only sweet without all that bitter after taste. As it is - it just makes me furious to remember what I went through. And it's hardly a tribute to how a thread should be conducted. And I'm not that keen on finding out your name. I'd hate to be a target for anyone with a litigious appetite.
EDIT Sorry I forgot to post the link. Herewith
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
edit correction microvolts to microwatts.
-
By the way - let's get to a definition of over unity. My analysis is that it is evident when the dissipated energy is evident without a loss to the supply. My thesis requires the primary current flow to come from a battery. Can't change this. You guys keep saying that I should replace the battery with a capacitor. It wont' work when the battery needs to remain the primary current flow source - and then it needs to resonate with the resistor. I gave you this analogy before. It's like saying 'I see you've got arms. But can you fly?' I'm hoping that someone here will try and understand the model which calls for a redefinition of the properties of current. And no electric circuit - in terms of that model - can operate as a closed system.
I hope this point is now understood. It's exhausting trying to cover the same points over and over. I do not hold to clsssical explanations regarding current flow. If I did I would not be able to challenge their energy constraints.
-
By the way. If science is to advance then they should ALWAYS be prepared to look at experimental evidence. For some reason which I simply cannot understand - they saw fit to ignore the experimental evidence in support of this claim. That's hardly scientific. Still no guarantee that they'll pass the paper on for review or that it will be accepted for publication. But this time, unlike previous, they'll have the public to answer to as the technolegy has been widely circulated on the internet the hope being that the public will also want some accountability for continued rejection. So. Mainstream science has already eroded its authority by ignoring experimental evidence in the first instance. More to come, if they only review under public requirement which I suspect will be the case. And they can only salvage their authority by denying these claims. The problem here is that they'll need to refute the efficiency of the Tektronix measuring equipment that was used - and the multiple claims that are now evident throughout the internet. Was surprised to see the extent of interest here.
-
I have looked around and followed where you've been. Just be happy if you feel that you have something that works. There is plenty of room to increase the efficiency of electronic circuits.
When you claim, "over unity" you turn everybody off. It doesn't happen. You should instead claim, "greatest efficiency ever" and you might stir some interest.
-
I have looked around and followed where you've been. Just be happy if you feel that you have something that works. There is plenty of room to increase the efficiency of electronic circuits.
When you claim, "over unity" you turn everybody off. It doesn't happen. You should instead claim, "greatest efficiency ever" and you might stir some interest.
Very true
-
Hi Vern. Not sure that 'over unity' does not happen. We've got COP>4 at a conservative reckoning and 3 tests where there was zero delivery from the battery. It's the 'just does not happen' bit that gets me down. How do you justify that in the light of the results we're getting. And why should I want to change the facts simply to make the experimental results more appealing. Surely the evidence should stand on its own?
-
Is it just me or is this "By the way - let's get to a definition of over unity." a cop out?
There is only one definition and nobody has met it.
As I have said repeatedly, if it's really over unity then you can get it to power itself.
So, I'm still waiting for you to do that.
-
Is it just me or is this "By the way - let's get to a definition of over unity." a cop out?
There is only one definition and nobody has met it.
As I have said repeatedly, if it's really over unity then you can get it to power itself.
So, I'm still waiting for you to do that.
LOL Bored chemist. I'd forgotten how tedious you are. Give me your definition of OU preferably as it accords to some accredited source and I'll see what I can do to explain things here.
-
Also - you and Vern are clearly mainstream scientists with mainstream training? It's amusing to see typical mainstream reaction. Vern pretends he sees nothing ananomalous in a co-efficient of performance in excess of 1. He also makes a determined effort to ignore the results in that paper that show zero discharge from the supply. He needs to skip past the 'mesh current' analysis that not only show signature waveforms that are anamolous but they also defy Kirchhoff's Law. Then he makes no reference to his multiple posts on multiple threads where he dismisses the possibility of the circuit producing COP greater anything at all. And all such comments made with that dismissive arrogant certainty that comes with a mainstream mindset indulging in mainstream bigotry.
Then we have you Bored chemist. You read the paper - clearly have little if any idea as to what is bing presented - you pretend to know best - try to advise us as to how we should do waveform analysis and power integration analysis which clearly is not part of your training skills - then you take a stab at a comment - that best implies insufficiencies in the paper - and then you post this 'YAWN' for public consumption.
Nice. Really nice. An appropriate reaction from the archaic mindset. I'm still battling to find constructive input from contributors on this thread. Thus far I see nothing but sad attempts at assumed superiority. Where is the genuine and appropriate surprise and interest. Must one upturn known paradigms just for you guys to explain that you knew this all along? How curious. Why then did you not endorse my previous claim - while there were still no replications?
EDIT - BenV - I apologise for this vitriolic thread. But I'd remind you that no-one came to my rescue - and I posted on this forum in good faith that there was some real and genuine interest in new science and new theories. If there is no real interest why this forum topic? Or is it that the contributors - historically - were only those who used us poor victims as fodder for their egos? Perhaps this can now change? Perhaps there are those readers who are more constructive if less contributive? Just wish I knew. I'm glad that Sophicentaur is not as active.
-
It has been awhile since I was accused of being a mainstream physicist. [:)] But I have to own up to mainstream training.
-
It has been awhile since I was accused of being a mainstream physicist. [:)] But I have to own up to mainstream training.
LOL Vern. I was expecting you to put up a fight here. I thought I was sparring and find that I'm only shadow boxing?
-
I can't convince you of anything. I can't find common ground from which to build a foundation.
-
Look, it's really easy to tell if anyone who claims to have an over unity device is crazy or not. If someone claims to have an over unity device and that person is not a billionaire then that person is crazy.
-
Look, it's really easy to tell if anyone who claims to have an over unity device is crazy or not. If someone claims to have an over unity device and that person is not a billionaire then that person is crazy.
I'm not sure that I can agree with you PhysBang. But this is no longer my claim. It's getting replicated all over the place. Did you even read the first post here? It points out how impossible it is to bring this to mainstream - through the simple convenience of the entire academic world refusing to look at the experiment. So tell me how one attracts funds for research without academic sanction - unless one wants to face a court case for defrauding the public. And then - what can one do when, for example, the IET don't even forward a paper for review. Or when the IEEE advise me that I may not resubmit a paper on this topic?
We've defied that instruction - and have represented a paper. It's available for view on the link below. We now want to see if there's any curiosity in mainstream, outside of academia - that may want to see either the test or the paper - or even both. Check out the progress. It's on a thread in the energetic forum - on alternate energy. And there's enough proof to fill a decent library.
But if you, like mainstream, refuse to read the paper or look at the evidence - then my question is this. Which side of this argument is lunatic? I would have thought science is progressed by experimental evidence. Not by a blind adherence to some man made limitation on the transfer of energy. The more so as no-one actually knows what energy is. They only know how to measure it.
-
I think his point may be that it could be considered crazy to develop a free energy device, and not capitalize on it!
-
The only free energy device I have seen is a wire link across an electricity meter.
-
Is it just me or is this "By the way - let's get to a definition of over unity." a cop out?
There is only one definition and nobody has met it.
As I have said repeatedly, if it's really over unity then you can get it to power itself.
So, I'm still waiting for you to do that.
LOL Bored chemist. I'd forgotten how tedious you are. Give me your definition of OU preferably as it accords to some accredited source and I'll see what I can do to explain things here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Not the greatest authority in the world but not a bad one.
And BTW re.
"Then we have you Bored chemist. You read the paper - clearly have little if any idea as to what is bing presented - you pretend to know best - try to advise us as to how we should do waveform analysis and power integration analysis which clearly is not part of your training skills - then you take a stab at a comment - that best implies insufficiencies in the paper - and then you post this 'YAWN' for public consumption.
Nice. Really nice. An appropriate reaction from the archaic mindset. I'm still battling to find constructive input from contributors on this thread. Thus far I see nothing but sad attempts at assumed superiority. "
Did you understand my post?
You may not be using the right sort of meter so your results are suspect.
Rather than actually checking on this you tell me that I have a mainstream mindset. Fair enough, it is mainstream to point out errors.
That's science for you.
Checked the crest factor yet?
-
Vern - your inability to find common ground? Let me give you something to hang your hat on. According to Michio Kaku - Richard Ellis - Sean Caroll - Dan Bauer - Dark energy and dark matter make up 96% of the universe. Michio Kaku - on record - states 'Every text book on the planet says that the universe is made out of atoms and sub atomic particles. Well. All those text books are wrong.' My model suggests 'dark energy' is also responsible for the bound condition of atoms. Inductive components in the switching circuit compromises that 'bound energy' and liberates it as an alternate current flow. This - in resonance with the supply - is the source of the extra energy to the circuit.
I might add that the search for this particle has eliminated Brown Dwarfs (collapsed stars) M.A.C.H.O's (Massive Compact Halo Objects), and axions. The only possible contender is a WIMP (Weakly interacting massive particle) but not yet detected. The consensus is that there are no candidates within the standard model of particle physics. Nor have they found the particle despite massive searches led by fermilab - in the Sudan Mine - abandoned iron ore mine somewhere in America - and almost half a mile deep. They're using pucks of gremanium silicates to get some thermal evidence. After 4 years? ZERO EVIDENCE OF THE PARTICLE. Cold and entirely invisible.
-
BenV - I'm not capitalising on it. But the guys at energetic forum are making some hefty inroads here. But they're restricted to private funding because mainstream WONT ACKNOWLEDGE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS. I'm trying to get mainstream science to check out the experimental evidence. Is that so crazy? Does one not speak up when one has an exciting find? Do we need to muffle the facts to allow our academics to hold to their 'belief structures' as it relates to Thermodynamic Laws? Is this attempt at 'spreading the news' to be considered impolite - or somewhat irrelevant? Not sure why it generates all this antagonism. [::)]
-
And Bored chemist. I am NOT ABOUT TO CHECK OUT PERPETUAL MOTION. That's your call. I do not have a perpetual motion device. It is NOWHERE in my claim - nor ever will be. AGAIN. NO ELECTRIC CIRCUIT DEVICE THAT PRODUCES WORK CAN BE CONSIDERED A CLOSED SYSTEM. ALWAYS THERE IS DISSIPATION OF ENERGY. Unless, of course, you can explain that this is not true. So how can you expect me to produce a closed system? Therefore WHY DO YOU KEEP ON ABOUT PERPETUAL MOTION? When I claim perpetual motion then indeed you can use this argument.
WE DO, however, have a device that indicates an overunity condition - being that the energy from the supply is oftentimes measured as zero - while wattage is measured to be dissipated as heat from the inductive/conductive circuit components. Mostly, however, we conservatively measure a COP>8. That's 800% greater than is allowed in terms of classical physics. So. Go figger!!! [::)]
-
And Guys - just one last point. The measurements in this last published test were extrapolated from a TDS3054C TEKTRONIX Digital Phosphorous Oscilloscope. In South Africa I believe their commercial value is in the region of R200 000.00 NEVER have we based measured evidence on the results of true RMS meters. Nowhere is this referenced in any paper or presentation that I have made. This equipment was kindly availed to us by Tektronix - and it is capable of generating 10 000 samples per screen shot across 4 channels -simultaneously - to enable power integration measurements. Have any of you even referenced the link to the paper? And where does this obsession with a Fluke true RMS meter come into the equation. Nowhere mentioned unless it's to check battery voltage.
-
It's your obsession- you mentioned it prominently in your report. I assumed that you mentioned it for a reason- it seems I was mistaken.
You asked me for a definition of over unity and I gave you one. Then you said you were not going to check it out.
Not a good start for someone saying we are not doing science properly.
Incidentaly, if you areally have made an over unity device then I can connect a steam engine to it and run that forever.
In effect you have claimed to make a perpetual motion machine- but you haven't realised this.
That's why I keep saying that you have not got an over unity machine.
They (pm and ou)ammount to the same thing.
-
Golly Bored chemist. I have NEVER claimed an over unity result in the paper. NOWHERE AND NO HOW. You are claiming something that is entirely incorrect. I have, however, hinted that it appears to be evident in three test results where there is an apparent zero net discharge from the battery evident in both the measurement across the batteries and/or in the analysis of power delivered by the battery. That - I believe is an over unity result. But I did not reference the term. You are ENTIRELY FALISIFYING THE FACTS. This OBSESSION as you refer to it - is not mine. But it does seem to be yours. NOWHERE DOES THE TERM FEATURE PROMINENTLY OR OTHERWISE - IN OUR REPORT.
You are either intellectually challenged or your cannot or will not read the respresentations in that paper or you cannot understand the paper, or you have run out of argument and rely on the thin justification of some delusions related to the delivery of energy in a closed system electric circuit. I'm happy to answer this point as often as you raise it. But essentially you are lying - or - to put it euphemistically - you are distorting the facts.
-
Also - you and Vern are clearly mainstream scientists with mainstream training? It's amusing to see typical mainstream reaction. Vern pretends he sees nothing ananomalous in a co-efficient of performance in excess of 1. He also makes a determined effort to ignore the results in that paper that show zero discharge from the supply. He needs to skip past the 'mesh current' analysis that not only show signature waveforms that are anamolous but they also defy Kirchhoff's Law. Then he makes no reference to his multiple posts on multiple threads where he dismisses the possibility of the circuit producing COP greater anything at all. And all such comments made with that dismissive arrogant certainty that comes with a mainstream mindset indulging in mainstream bigotry.
Then we have you Bored chemist. You read the paper - clearly have little if any idea as to what is bing presented - you pretend to know best - try to advise us as to how we should do waveform analysis and power integration analysis which clearly is not part of your training skills - then you take a stab at a comment - that best implies insufficiencies in the paper - and then you post this 'YAWN' for public consumption.
Nice. Really nice. An appropriate reaction from the archaic mindset. I'm still battling to find constructive input from contributors on this thread. Thus far I see nothing but sad attempts at assumed superiority. Where is the genuine and appropriate surprise and interest. Must one upturn known paradigms just for you guys to explain that you knew this all along? How curious. Why then did you not endorse my previous claim - while there were still no replications?
EDIT - BenV - I apologise for this vitriolic thread. But I'd remind you that no-one came to my rescue - and I posted on this forum in good faith that there was some real and genuine interest in new science and new theories. If there is no real interest why this forum topic? Or is it that the contributors - historically - were only those who used us poor victims as fodder for their egos? Perhaps this can now change? Perhaps there are those readers who are more constructive if less contributive? Just wish I knew. I'm glad that Sophicentaur is not as active.
Ah.. now i remember where I've seen this arguement. You wouldn't be by any chance DRZion?
-
[;D]Hello Mr. Scientist. [;D]
I keep checking out your link and see a rather strange earnest fellow - pretending to sing under water - and telling us that we're a 'shining light'? Also see a strange lady shrouded in all kinds of billious material that wafts around the place with a life of its own. Then the only reference to DrZion seems to be a gentleman who recommends breast augmentation for ladies - and seems to have done some startling work on that lady that floats around the place with that gentleman. Then there are all those bubbles. Apparently an inexhaustible supply of wind - that, from what I can see, mostly come from the mouth of the gentleman while he sings?...if that is singing?
Not entirely sure of the relevance of all this? But delighted to view whatever you recommend. I would prefer some good music though. It may give this thread some interest. LOL.
-
[;D]Hello Mr. Scientist. [;D]
I keep checking out your link and see a rather strange earnest fellow - pretending to sing under water - and telling us that we're a 'shining light'? Also see a strange lady shrouded in all kinds of billious material that wafts around the place with a life of its own. Then the only reference to DrZion seems to be a gentleman who recommends breast augmentation for ladies - and seems to have done some startling work on that lady that floats around the place with that gentleman. Then there are all those bubbles. Apparently an inexhaustible supply of wind - that, from what I can see, mostly come from the mouth of the gentleman while he sings?...if that is singing?
Not entirely sure of the relevance of all this? But delighted to view whatever you recommend. I would prefer some good music though. It may give this thread some interest. LOL.
You want music...? You can have it!
-
More?
-
Hi Mr. Scientist
Love MEATLOAF and loved Total Eclipse of the Heart. Really nice choices. Thanks for that. I'd love to know the relevance of DRZion? And I'd quite like to know your interest in this thread - assuming there is any?
-
Hi Mr. Scientist
Love MEATLOAF and loved Total Eclipse of the Heart. Really nice choices. Thanks for that. I'd love to know the relevance of DRZion? And I'd quite like to know your interest in this thread - assuming there is any?
My interest is equally the same magnanimity i choose to reply in any thread.
-
My interest is equally the same magnanimity i choose to reply in any thread.
Well. Delighted to be the recipient of some of that magnanimity. Especially when it comes with such impecccable taste in music. Thanks Mr. Scientist.
BTW - I'm not DRZion - but I may be the 'zipon lady'? LOL
-
I'm more delighted. :)
-
[;D] Mr. Scientist. No end of publications on Sribd. I shall systematically download them all. Very intrigued.
-
If you aren't being disingeneous, then i will hopefully direct your attention greatly more towards the time theory. It's years of work, which is a configuration in itself of a grand unifiation of the mind, but not of the physical nature of the universe - but i do not hold true to an absolute solipsistic nature of the universe, as you may find through reading :)
-
And why should I want to change the facts simply to make the experimental results more appealing. Surely the evidence should stand on its own?
It's called diplomacy and creating a draw of support with which to sell an idea. I am assuming that, these qualities are the very reason you're spending time here at the forum. If not, then you're wasting valuable time doing so. Make better use of the opportunity, you might get the support you're looking for.
-
Hi Mr. Scientist
I saw that. It's had a huge number of downloads. Will start there. And I'm not being being disengenious. Always fascinated by new theories. My printer isn't working for some reason. But I've asked a friend to print this. Will need to wait until tomorrow. I wish you guys would post to make it easy reading off the net. Unless there's a trick I can do to make the paper legible off this monitor?
-
If there is anything in the book you need to know, do not hesitate to ask. I will not make a fool of true questions. :)
-
Hi Ethos. I'm not diplomat and I'm not a salesman. And I have no idea why I'm posting on this thread - or even why I started it. To begin with I just felt angry. Now I don't. But our paper is published and that used to take up my time. And now I have time on my hands. I suppose I just wanted to quarrel with someone. But it was a brutal attack that I was subjected to. At leat I have the dubious satisfaction of the 'last word' but it hardly compensates. Really all I'm doing is questioning the moral authority of any scientist who does not look at experimental evidence. And I know this happens. I've just been through it. Extraordinary.
But I guess it's understandable. People are people and scratch them you'll usually find a bigot. We're all way too fond of our opinions rather than the facts in support of those opinions. Fortunately I'm an exception to the rule? LOL
-
If there is anything in the book you need to know, do not hesitate to ask. I will not make a fool of true questions. :)
Thanks Mr. Scientist.
-
You're welcome. Physics is not easy - not even for the most intellectual! :)
-
Even I still need to understand the very basics :)
-
Mr. Scientist - just for the record - I have my own strange model that predicted this effect on the circuit that I referred to. But, unlike yours, my model remains entirely incomprehensible to all. My son points out that the number of people who understand it increases in inverse proportion to the number of people who read it. Rather rude. LOL
But I shall wrap my mind around your model when I can get a printed copy of it. And will get back to you. Such fun. I love theorists and their theories. There's a plethora of such on this forum. Most of them are shrouded in math - which leaves me entirely in the dark. If yours follows this trend then I shall be obliged to give up. Vern has an interesting take. Attributes all to electrons. But he's hopelessly wrong. JerryGG - used to post here - dominated the threads with multiple versions all subjected to multiple revisions. Did it with such energy I felt I needed to take cover. Could never understand a word of it. He was the most vociferous in his objections to my experiment. Found it highly offensive. I found his objections offensive. So we're quits.
-
"Golly Bored chemist. I have NEVER claimed an over unity result in the paper."
No you claimed it in another thread.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0
Had you forgotten about that, or are you hoping to mislead people into thinking that I'm putting words in your mouth?
Are you now disowning that claim?
-
Golly Bored chemist. I have just tried that link. Unless I'm doing something wrong - it simply goes back to a post in this thread. I am referring to a PAPER where you insist that I 'stress' over unity. I do not. You are either prevaricating, or you are mistaken. The first speaks to your motives, the second to your understandings. I'm not sure which is more compromised.
Regarding your rude reference to my work on grizelda's thread - when one makes a prediction as a required consequence to a proposed thesis - and that consequence is tested, measured and found to be correct - then the thesis is normally considered to be a full blown or partial theory depending on the test and the thesis itself. Or is this only true if it proposed and tested by mainstream science - and the results also then conform to mainstream's requirement in term of thermodynamic laws?
In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular.
-
Guys this is a draft of a report that may explain what was intended in this experiment. Hope it helps to clarify things.
Rosemary
TECHNOLOGICAL EXPLANATION
It is impossible to determine the actual properties of electric current flow. Some experts attribute this to the flow of electrons that move against each other in a kind of cascading domino reaction. Yet others simply refer to the flow of ‘charge’. But neither school has been able to categorically state what ‘moves’ and electric current is invisible in normal circuit conditions. Science is a field that deals in precise measurements. And, while the properties of a current may not be known, it’s effects are measurable. So, light a light and we can measure both the light intensity and the amount of energy delivered to generate that light intensity. In broad terms this is known as an energy equivalence. And in terms of this example – it means that if you have delivered 100 watts of energy – then you cannot, under any circumstances, get more than 100 watts of ‘brightness’ from that light. This equivalence is generally referred to as ‘unity’ and the mathematical understanding is that unity cannot be exceeded.
This ‘equivalence’ is required and defined in the Laws of Thermodynamics. These have been modified through the centuries since Newton first proposed them – but the single theme that dominates all interpretations is that you can never get back more than you put in. Under no circumstances can you get a brighter brightness in any lamp – than the units of energy delivered to light that lamp. No element on any stove can give off more heat than the amount of energy delivered to generate that heat. And so it goes.
So how then does one explain a circuit where a battery supply source barely loses its energy while it cooks a load resistor or an element that is placed in series with that supply? This, in effect is what was claimed in a widely accredited experiment published in Quantum Magazine in October 2002. And this is also what has now been replicated by Glen Lettenmaier in 2009 – the details of which experiment are available on Scribd – an internet publication for open source contributors. It is also widely replicated by numerous experimenters and posted throughout the internet. In effect, these experimentalists are proving, demonstrably and repeatably, that it is possible to deliver a great deal more energy than was ever first supplied. That light can shine at least four times brighter. That stove can get four times hotter – than the energy that was applied to light the light – heat the stove. In effect there may be a requirement to include a new particle into Thermodynamic Laws. And this evidence is spreading like a heat rash across the globe. All those academics trained by each other throughout all those centuries – appear to have simply got it wrong.
But that is only true if the measurements stand up to scrutiny. Fortunately Tektronix availed some of these experimentalists with the use of really sophisticated measuring equipment. As mentioned by contributors to the energetic forum blog on alternate energy, ‘argue these numbers and you must take up your quarrel with God’. To add to the required measurements’ proof and proficiency, photographs were taken of the equipment – films were made concurrently and careful attention was paid to all possible sources of ‘distortion’ of measurement. These factors were systematically eliminated in a series of 13 tests – culminating with empirical and absolute proof of concept. Indeed it is possible to exceed the constraints determined by our learned and revered. In fact there seems to be some real potential to access this energy with a zero loss of energy to the supply source.
Open source has now done what open source does best. It first argued the evidence in a series of postings on two dominating blogs including overunity.com and energeticforum.com. Then it prepared a paper for review and has now submitted this to the IEEE – the world’s leading professional association for the advancement of technology. It has again taken the evidence to the experts to judge it for themselves. And all this brings the 2002 publication to full circle. And where that first publication was ignored by our academia – a second was rejected out of hand, a third was rejected after review, the hope now is that this last application will be more seriously considered for publication. But there is a persistent concern that the publication will yet again be refused on the grounds of its apparent contradiction of the almost ‘holy’ laws of Thermodynamics.
So it is that, for the first time, Open Source are also looking to the media to make the knowledge of the invention available to the public and to engage the public in that review process. This is not intended to antagonise the reviewers but is proposed as a means whereby our academics can be reminded of the need for accountability. A refusal to accept a paper based on ‘improbability’ is not a valid basis of rejection. This time, perhaps the public themselves can require our academics to explain where these experimentalists have got it wrong – or if they’ve got it wrong. Frankly Open Source have lost confidence in the impartiality of academics when considering experiments that also breach Thermodynamic Laws. The argument proposed by academics themselves is that science is only ever progressed on experimental evidence. Therefore is it required that the paper detailing these experiments be properly evaluated and that the public be fully advised of these findings.
The actual question is how does this circuit breach these barriers? It was configured deliberately and predicted to crash through those unity barriers. But how? Here an unlikely series of events were brought into play that led RA to the conclusion that circuits could be configured to deliver far greater efficiency than classically proposed. RA read Garry Zukov’s book ‘The Dancing Wu Li Masters. She was fascinated by the subject but had never been trained in physics and, more to the point was also not trained in math. Some physicists are on record as saying that God Himself is a mathematician. But the actual requirement in a study of physics is not only the math but the symmetries that are a kind of short cut to a description of particles and particle interactions. And through a series of patterns RA was able to establish a reasonable approximation of the actual properties of stable particles. These patterns were then more fully developed into a magnetic field model that concluded, broadly, that all matter was made up of composites of a single fundamental bipolar particle that she proposed could be called a zipon.
Of interest is that, in a field, these particles are seen to be a kind of controlling force – fundamental to all the forces, that then organise matter into four distinct divisions each measured as a gravitational, electromagnetic or nuclear force. Also in terms of that model this particle’s universal pervasiveness is closely akin to dark matter that is seen to bind our galaxies. In this same way it also binds amalgams of matter to create our visible planet. In essence, the atoms that are bound into identifiable objects are actually bound by these invisible fields of particles. The fields are plastic in nature and can move through space, and in time. And they do this. They organise themselves around matter in any way required to promote their intrinsic need to find a balance, or a condition of net zero charge.
As these concepts relate to the transfer of electric energy, the model required a slight departure from conventional understanding of current flow. She proposed that current flow comprises the movement of these magnetic fields as strings through closed circuits. When a source was not able to find a state of balance then that imbalance is measured as potential difference. In other words, a measurable voltage imbalance was the measure of the imbalance in the fields of zipons. And this potential difference could be diminished if those zipons could also find a path through an electric circuit which would then alter their spin and reduce that source imbalance. The flow of those strings of zipons comprises electric current flow. But the zipons that come from that source will also return to that source, subject to the availability of a path through the circuitry.
And when they flow, or while they forge this path through electric circuitry, they also induce a corresponding imbalance in the inductive components of that circuit. This is widely known. It is seen as ‘stored’ energy. But the difference to convention and this model is subtle. This stored energy establishes an imbalance in the circuit material – in that resistor or that element. Being imbalanced these fields also require an established state of balance. And given a chance to re-establish this balance, a chance to reduce this experienced and measurable potential difference, then they, in turn induce a second flow of current, in anti-phase to the first flow of current. So, provided that there is a path available in the circuit, it too can return its extruded fields back to it’s own supply source being the resistor or the element itself. In other words there are two sources of energy in every one cycle of current flow through a closed circuit. The one is induced from the supply source, the other is induced from the resistor in series with that supply. Both have independent supply or energy sources and both are able to reduce their potential difference provided that some circuit path is made available to do this.
The availability of the path is in the circuit design itself. Here the source battery induces the first current path cycle, clockwise. Then that flow is interrupted by opening the switch and ‘taking away’ the required closed path. But simultaneously there is a new path opened for the second cycle where the resistor transfers its energy onto a second path - anticlockwise. At speed, or at fast frequencies, the two cycles are able to resonate against each other, like a swing that is first pushed in one direction and then in the other. And the net result is that the energy that is applied from the source is then returned to the source. The energy that is applied from the circuit is returned to the circuit. But in both cases that energy is simply strings of zipons that are trying to get back to their respective sources in order to diminish their experienced imbalance or their measured potential differences. So under these special circuit conditions there is not only a conservation of energy, being the zipons themselves which return to their respective sources, but there is also a conservation of charge in the supply which is then continually recharged during the second cycle of the switched circuit.
But what then explains the ‘heat’ that is measured to be dissipated at the source. Here, again in line with observation but possibly not in line with classical thought, it is proposed that the zipons that are not extruded from the material of the circuit components, remain in the material, in the inductive wire itself. But the essential symmetry of their fields has been broken through the extrusion of some of its fields. This break results in a state of chaos that excites these fields into a cascade of zipons that recongregate within that material – in their attempt to regain that state of balance.
It is further proposed that the size of the zipons relates to its velocity. In a field they are cold and fast and small and entirely undetectable. But break those symmetries, and in a precise and inverse proportionate ratio the zipons become hot and slow and manifest. This, in turn results in some of those zipons decaying into photons and then radiating away from the resistive material itself. This results in the systematic degradation of the bound state of the resistor which is seen as material fatigue.
-
Golly Bored chemist. I have just tried that link. Unless I'm doing something wrong - it simply goes back to a post in this thread.
No, it does not. It goes to another thread called "A circuit that produces overunity results".
Do you see the subtle implication there that you are talking about an overunity system?
While I'm at it "I am referring to a PAPER where you insist that I 'stress' over unity."
No, I said you stressed the importance of the true RMS reading of a meter in that paper.
Two points about this.
"Regarding your rude reference to my work on grizelda's thread - when one makes a prediction as a required consequence to a proposed thesis - and that consequence is tested, measured and found to be correct - then the thesis is normally considered to be a full blown or partial theory depending on the test and the thesis itself. "
The finding of something that is consistent with your idea doesn't prove it. If I believe in Santa Claus and I get presents that doesn't prove he exists.
secondly, it is still impossible to prove a scientific theory so you remain both wrong and arrogant. Of course you might think I'm arrogant too, but at least I'm not claiming to have single handedly rewritten the laws of physics.
Also, this "In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular. "
is a blatant strawman.
I never said that, so I don't have to answer for it.
On the other hand you might like to explain why you have accused me of taking such a silly stance.
-
Bored chemist, [;D]
It's hardly a 'subtle implication'. I used that as a thread title with sledgehammer emphasis. It was intended to be controversial - but is no less than the truth. The circuit is indeed measured to dissipate energy while the supply source battery voltage climbs rather than otherwise. Jusst check out the thread at energeticforum.com. But - here's the thing. This thread is intended to question when our academics lose their authority. My applications to academics are the only actual REPORTS that I have made in earnest. You will notice that this final paper that we have submitted - DOES NOT REFER TO OVER UNITY. Therefore is your consstant complaint about this tedious, boring, irrelevant and misleading.
The finding of something that was PREDICTED in terms of a field model - may be considered as proof of that field model. Unless of course you can propose where a source of energy has come into play to account for the co-efficient in excess of 8 or more than 800%. Or where classical science proposes that it is possible to dissipate energy at no loss of energy from a battery supply.
I get it that you are not claiming that you have singlehandedly rewritten the laws of physics. I on the other hand am. I'm not sure how one is meant to point out a discovery. Presumably you would prefer it that I do not mention this at all. Or would you prefer it that I pretend that someone else devised the model? Or perhaps - to keep you happy I should deny any such thesis. Not sure how to say it except as it is. I proposed a model. It predicted an anomalous result. That result became apparent. It is now repeatedly evident therefore no longer anomalous. It makes me think that the proposals in that model may be correct. Sorry. No other way I know of to say this. Unless, as mentioned, you can explain those extraordinary results in terms of classical paradigms. If you can then you stand alone among all physicists.
I have never said that you have taken a silly stance. I've accused you of prevarication - and a lot of other things. Silliness never came into it. In as much as you will not take congniscance of the facts that are now evident in this experiment then I think that your opinion is largely irrelevant - silly or otherwise. But feel free to indulge it. I also suspect that you struggle with these concepts and that speaks somewhat to your natural aptitudes or lack of them. But that's your problem. Not mine.
-
I also suspect that you struggle with these concepts and that speaks somewhat to your natural aptitudes or lack of them. But that's your problem. Not mine
Actually, it kind of is. The responsibility is on the scientist to explain properly, clearly & well so that people can understand. If you can't, you won't get much support for quite a while, no matter how good your evidence is.
-
I also suspect that you struggle with these concepts and that speaks somewhat to your natural aptitudes or lack of them. But that's your problem. Not mine
Actually, it kind of is. The responsibility is on the scientist to explain properly, clearly & well so that people can understand. If you can't, you won't get much support for quite a while, no matter how good your evidence is.
Hi glovesforfoxes. I cannot expect anyone to understand the model unless they first read it. But the model is not the subject of this thread. I'm just trying to remind you all that academics have not yet reviewed the evidence nor attended a demonstration nor tried to replicate the experiment. And - I wonder if they will not lose their moral authority if this persists - especially in the light of the replications now going on all over the place.
-
But you should not expect people to take you seriously when you say that you have an over unity device and you are not a billionaire. It's really quite simple.
-
Physbang - I really don't want to go over this yet again - so am posting and earlier reply on another thread and I really don't mind if you don't take the claim seriously.
Hi again, nixietube.
Definitely tapping into a 'heretofore' unidentified energy source.
Have spent many years trying to get academic accreditation. Have also experimented on more significant wattages using utiltiy supply sources through bridge rectifiers. But have never developed it for my own home uses as it's beyond my competence. Have only just got replication now evident by experimentalists in Canada - Oregon USA - and Spain. The USA experimentalist is developing it with private funding for commercial use - as we speak. I believe the other two are also looking to commercialise. Research funding required for instutional studies will only probably be available when and if our paper gets reviewed and published. Until then there is not likely to be serious mainstream involvement unless, possibly, if the media bring this technology to our public's attention.
When and if this paper gets reviewed there will be the distinct possibility that the technology will get the required research funding. Until this is published all applications run the danger of being considered fraudulent and there are real litigation risks in the offing. This would certainly prevent public funding - which is required to get the research completed for the technology to get it to a an expoitable condition. That is the real difficulty that is being experienced.
My own interest in this technology is theoretical. I think the proposed circuit is a good means to expose the energy potential - but the model itsef points to far more efficient means of harnessing this energy potential.
-
Do you really think that you can rewrite physics?
Apart from anything else, to do that you need to show what's wrong with the current version.
Perhaps you could start with that.
Keep the explanations in reserve for later. Just tell us what current physics gets wrong.
Of course, if you are right then your ideas will become part of science so it will never have lost it's authority.
Presumably you will then start another thread where you claim that you never said it did.
In the meantime, perhaps you could explain why you posted that nonsense about "In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular. "
-
Hi glovesforfoxes. I cannot expect anyone to understand the model unless they first read it. But the model is not the subject of this thread. I'm just trying to remind you all that academics have not yet reviewed the evidence nor attended a demonstration nor tried to replicate the experiment. And - I wonder if they will not lose their moral authority if this persists - especially in the light of the replications now going on all over the place.
Hi [:)]
That's fine, & of course scientists must look at evidence - it's what science is based on! I can't say I have read the paper, I doubt I would understand it.
If academics have not reviewed it, then it is not a failure of science, or even scientists: it is a failure in communication of people. Scientists are trusted to know about their field of expertise, because they spend their lives researching it! Just as I trust a chef to make me a nice dinner..
Scientists have no real moral authority. A scientist might be an authority figure, but it is the failure of both the scientist and the people who listen if they accept everything uncritically. It seems you're prescribing too much weight for my liking for scientists to get everything right all of the time - in other words, you expect too much. A chef will sometimes ruin a meal, and a scientist will sometimes ruin the truth..
The wonderful thing about science is that is constantly adapting. Scientists are scientists for the very reason that they are interested in the truth. They can misunderstand the truth, but they are still committed to the truth.
-
Regarding your rude reference to my work on grizelda's thread - when one makes a prediction as a required consequence to a proposed thesis - and that consequence is tested, measured and found to be correct - then the thesis is normally considered to be a full blown or partial theory depending on the test and the thesis itself. Or is this only true if it proposed and tested by mainstream science - and the results also then conform to mainstream's requirement in term of thermodynamic laws?
In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular.
Bored chemist - this is the context of my comment regarding your attitude. Out of context it is meaningless. Do you read these posts? Or do you just take a stab at my meaning?
What I tried to say is that science is progressed by experimental evidence evaluated in the context of explanations. If we refuse to consider explanations - predicted or otherwise, then we would not have scientific disciplines. Instead we would have belief structures.
-
Bored chemist
In truth there's no need to re-write physics. I was possibly being a little grandiose. All I'm proposing is that dark energy and dark matter are responsible for all bound amalgams. In other words disassociated atoms are at their lowest energy levels. Combine atoms into an amalgam and you introduce energy. That's the energy that I see that we use - that is also underlying the electromagnetic, gravitational and nuclear forces. And that energy is malleable - or useable - or exploitable - and that's what we get when we induce electric current flow - is all. So. I immodestly propose a modest little particle as being the source of all energy. It's not so much a re-write as a new take.
But nothing wrong with known physics. Plenty wrong with the academic review process. And - in the unlikely event that the model is ever to be considered a fair representation of reality - then we've got something that will address our need for clean and abundant energy. That's exciting. What I resent is the apparent need to apologise for these insights as they clearly offend everybody. Can't help it if I'm right. Sorry if I'm wrong. But I'd prefer the facts assessed rather than my credentials. I'm an unlikely harbinger of these things. But there you go. It was me that proposed this. Hopefully our mainstream will appropriate the idea as their own - eventually. I just want to see the technologies progressed. We all should. It's good news - whoever they proposer - and however it comes out in our academies.
And let's hope that scientists do re-evaluate their paradigms - as glovesforfoxes proposes. Thus far I have seen ZERO evidence of this.
-
To believe unknown/undefined energy sources do not exist is arrogant. Just as it is arrogant to assume one is correct in a (questionable) position.
To run my colours up the mast here, at this point I have only a passing interest in your ideas. The challenge, if I can call it that, is to identify your error(s) and get you to accept them. Sadly I do not believe you have discovered an over unity / free energy device, whatever you want to call it, the name is not important.
Spend more time on (2) in my earlier post, and a little less time on the new theory. Start again, this time assuming all your prior work is flawed. Question everything. If you still arrive at the same conclusions, then cut down on the supposition, educate yourself, and approach people for help with the question.. "What is going on here?" followed by: " I do not understand what is going on in my circuit. "Posted by nixietube on another thread.
Here's an example of that typical mindset. I find it HUGELY offensive. So here's my answer
nixietube - hello again.
There are no self-respecting physicists alive today who do not subscribe to dark energy and dark matter. This is - nonetheless - considered to be a new energy source from a yet to be identified particle. it is known to comprise 96% of the known universe - is detectable through gravitational lensing - it is cold - entirely invisible to light and it responds to gravity. Its distribution is throughout the universe but is clustered at galaxies and is considered to be the 'missing mass' required to explain why our galaxies don't unravel. Notwithstanding which the most informed of electrical engineer that I know - seldom realise the significance of this. It is a newly identified energy source that has not been fully explained. And its particle does not conform to standard models. And it is thought to contribute 10 times more mass to a galaxy than is evident in its light.
Now to tackle your post. That you find it arrogant to deny new energy sources, or that you find it arrogant to assume to have found new energy sources, either way - is fatuously irrelevant. Where did arrogance come into the equation with the discovery of dark matter? Or lack of arrogance, or excessive pride, or humility, or shock or horror at the presumptions, at these prescriptive requirements? Why is the emotion relevant? The question is not whether I see your point but do you see mine? When has science required this ridiculous dance - this skirting of the truth in order to protect the fragile egos of its members. What absurdities you propose. We must now first come to you - nixietube - and ask you to please explain a measurable event - lest we antagonise or affront those strange sensibilities that detect the abence or presence of pride and arrogance. We must not point out that it was required and predicted in terms of a prior field model, but rather allow you - nixietube to assess the evidence.
Tell me who here is being arrogant? That you require this diplomatic denial of the facts speaks volumes to the mindset that I am determined to confront. I will not ask 'what is going on here?' Why should I? I know. Nor will I say 'I do not understand what is going on in my circuit' because it would be a lie designed to pander to your ego and not to the truth. Science has NOTHING to do with diplomacy - and it has everything to do with the truth.
And you come to this argument 10 years after it was first launched. Because you're a late comer I must now defer all further analysis and evidence while you familiarise yourself with the details of that argument? And this to give you opportunity to confirm your unscientific assessment that 'sadly' you do not believe that we have discovered an over unity / free enegy device'. As I have neither claimed this nor see it, I agree with the latter. I deny the former and the evidence is in my favour.
And I might add - whether you are sad or happy is immaterial. And what science has ever been based on 'belief'. The two terms are mutually exclusive. You are very free with your advice. I suggest you keep it to yourself unless you can make it relevant.
-
Did anyone else spot this?
http://xkcd.com/675/
-
Did anyone else spot this?
http://xkcd.com/675/
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Frevolutionary.png&hash=e4608ddf7ee792bcfcb486711ac6e2df)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHahahhaahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHA
Perfect. I genuinely laughed so much a colleague came to check I was OK.
-
nixietube - I've now reported you to a monitor. If this is the best you can come up with in lieu of discussion then what are you doing on this forum?
-
What did he do wrong, exactly? It seems you're being a bit over sensitive. [???]
-
I would agree - Over-sensitivity is rampant in these last few posts.
-
I just about laughed my socks off when I saw that cartoon freshly published this morning (at least from my time zone's point of view). I guess it's a coincidence, but I do wonder if XKCD's author gets inspiration from threads like this. In any event the timing was near perfect.
BTW, Witsend, did you report me too?
Will you if I cite this page
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
and say that I think you tick boxes 1,3,4,5,6,9,11,12,13?
BTW, this, "In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular. "
in any context, still makes no sense.
What I did was ask you to clarify you paper and to check on whether one aspect of it might derive from using a meter outside it's range of aplication, rather than from a breakdown of the laws of physics as we know them.
Seriously, which do you think is more likely and do you think that asking such question is unscientific?
I have reviewed enough papers, and had enough of my own reviewed, to know that those are exactly the sort of questions that get asked.
It's not a matter of "does your explanation fit the observed data?" it's a matter of " does your explanation fit all the observed data, including that published before and does it, in some sense, add to that?"
There's also the logical glitch (no matter what the context) that "the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation" doesn't make sense because that never could have been a scientific observation.
-
LOL @ the xkcd cartoon
Guess you'll have to report me too witsend
-
Bored chemist, Mididus_Scientia, glovesforfoxes and JimBbob. Have reported you all. Not that it makes a blind bit of difference. Seems like I need to fight my corner here. And patently I'm on my own. LOL
Here's the link. Read the paper and come up with some constructive criticism - if you can. We'd all be much obliged. I'd love to know which, if any of you, actually understand the writing. And I'm prepared to put money on it that none of you have read it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
Have fun guys.
[;D] [:)]
By the way - sorry to read that you've got health issues JB. Hopefully they're abating.
second edit. Bored chemist - I'd answer your post if it were half way relevant.
-
Witsend - having read through the more recent posts on this thread, it certainly seems that you're giving as good as you get. I appreciate that you feel attacked, but if you respond with ad hominem attacks then you don't really have a leg to stand on when reporting people.
-
Hi BenV. I never really expected you to rally. But it would have been a nice ? [;D]
Truth is I don't really mind. It gets me down when Bored chemist becomes excessively repetitive. And as for Nixietube? I've composed my own little exercise in doggerel to give him his dues. But keep it coming guys. You know what they say about advertising? I thought we could seriously discuss the inadequacies of review process to represent mainstream - but it seems that serious discussion is definitely not topical. Relevance to science has nothing to do with relevance to this forum.
And far be it from me to question the authority of JimBoy and Madidus_Scientia. That's some serious weight in posting numbers guys. Am deeply impressed.
[;D] [:o]
Here's my tribute to Nixietube in case anyone missed it.
This master of science and such
Has a brain that's in need of a crutch
He buries his qualms
In a waving of arms
Because his logic's just not up to much.
-
It gets me down when Bored chemist becomes excessively repetitive.
But perhaps he feels that you're not answering his questions - hence why it's repetitive. I doubt he's overwhelmed by it either.
And as for Nixietube? I've composed my own little exercise in doggerel to give him his dues.
...
Here's my tribute to Nixietube in case anyone missed it.
This master of science and such
Has a brain that's in need of a crutch
He buries his qualms
In a waving of arms
Because his logic's just not up to much.
You don't think that this is hurtful and unneccesary? Why should I rally round and support you doing things like that?
-
Hi again BenV
I thought I'd let Nixitube get a feel for wit. His own is so seriously lacking. But if you'd prefer it that I desist I will. If you need a guage as to 'hurt feelings? consider his own contributions. Or is it only required that I modify my own while he's freed from any required constraints? That's not fair.
But I hear you. It's not constructive. Sorry guys. I'll hold back.
[;D] [:X]
-
It gets me down when Bored chemist becomes excessively repetitive.
But perhaps he feels that you're not answering his questions - hence why it's repetitive. I doubt he's overwhelmed by it either.
Got it in one.
-
Look witsend. I'm all for minority views. I'm a vegan & polyamorist (search google if you want definitions) in a Western society. If you take a look at my recent posts you'll see I argue passionately for veganism. I understand the cases are somewhat different, but you can have constructive conversations about unpopular opinions & viewpoints if you wish on this forum.
There is a certain way to go about expressing them. Your attitude does not encourage debate - it encourages flaming. You do not go into debates with compassion & understanding in your mind, & it is to your, your argument, & other people's detriment. People won't respect your point of view, no matter how logical, clever, or consistant it is if you express it with a flavouring of insults. So even if you're not fussed about being polite for the sake of it, you're still not impressing anyone by reporting slight slights against you. You gotta take it with a pinch of salt. If you want a productive conversation about the disadvantages of the method of submission of papers, then talk about that. Even your very title is automatically putting people on the defensive: "WHEN SCIENCE LOSES IT'S AUTHORITY"
You're automatically starting witht the assumption scientists here (or anywhere in the world) assume they are authorities, & but the very spirit of science is to reject arguments from authority. I would argue that any scientist that says "I'm an authority on X therefore I am right about X" solely on the basis that they are an authority has gone astray from the main purpose of science. You're not looking for the truth when you do that.
Now, if you desist from doing stuff like this & try to cultivate a more civilised attitude, I'm sure people better qualified to understand what you're saying will listen to you.
-
Glovesforfoxes - Arguing for proclivities or food preferences is hardly the same thing as arguing the foundational constructs of physics. And I am entirely satisfied that any challenge of the latter brings out the beast in the man. Here's my proof. A thread was started on overunity.com titled 'claimed overunity device of Rosemary Ainslie'. I did not know of this thread and my name, my character, the published Quantum paper, my family - ALL - came under the most vicious attack that has ever been known in the history of that forum. And I neither contributed nor knew of this happening. In fact - I subsequently applied for membership and now hold the curious distinction of being the first person in the history of these forums - to have been banned without ever contributing. It was EXTRAORDINARY. Nothing to do with me. Nothing to do with my attitude. I simply had the temerity of posting the Quantum article and my magnetic field model on the internet. So don't tell me what attitude to take. I've been obsequeious, tactful, apologetic, polite, defensive, name it. I've tried it. There is nothing about about my attitude that ignites this anger. It is the claim itself. The Laws of Thermodynamics have become a belief system rather than a reasoned argument - and it is defended by mainstream with the vim and vigour that is usually attributed to fanatics.
So. Get it that the antagonism here is simply to do with the fact that I'm challenging a belief structure that is as profound as a religious conviction. But that's usually how new ideas begin. I'm in good company. And I really don't mind that there's this constant attack. It's only on this thread. Overunity.com eventually accepted me as a member - and I now hold the curious disctinction of also being a monitor. Attitudes change. And if I need to endure the rather toothless criticisms of some mindless contributors to get there - that's fine. There's a reading public who are more measured and discerning than most of us who write here. And truth will out. Reason will prevail. That's just the way of things.
-
Witsend,
Might I suggest you read, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
I believe you would find it helpful.
-
witsend, were you in my local supermarket this morning shouting at the cheese?
-
Glovesforfoxes - Arguing for proclivities or food preferences is hardly the same thing as arguing the foundational constructs of physics.
It's not the same, but it is not just about mere preference. It is an issue of social justice, which is far more important than understanding the fundamental laws of physics. There are things more important than learning more truth when the things you already know point to something in desperate need of change - I'm sure you can appreciate that [;)] both are concerned with challenging commonly held beliefs - in fact, eating meat is such a big part of some people's fundamental identity to them that families have excluded members.
Your claim itself might not incite anger. People might be attached to the idea if it's seen as a fundamental part of physics, in the same way evolutionary fact is seen as to biology. That means they take the claim as an almost personal attack on science, but.. Even so, I cannot see which other attitudes you have taken. Only your attitude here. Your attitude earlier is understandable, but wrong because it's rude & as a consequence of that automatically making that about the people rather than the evidence you have. Checking back through this thread, it's certainly you who has thrown around the first insults this time 'round.
No doubt truth will out in the end. I lean towards the established laws of Thermodynamics, since it is a law, & scientists don't make laws lightly. There are also many people who study the subject who are fairly intelligent & question in their own right. None of that means you are wrong - if I don't understand something, I agree with what the most people agree with simply because it's very hard to fool a lot of people (as in, millions) at once without someone noticing. Maybe you are that someone that noticed, maybe you aren't. No doubt we will see over the next 50 years time.
This is continuing to detract from the science. I will not respond any more about your conduct - I have said all I need to. If you feel I'm wrong in some way, state it here where & why I am & people can make their own minds up about it. Hopefully you can have a productive discussion with the physicists here now [:)]
-
witsend, were you in my local supermarket this morning shouting at the cheese?
Now now, can we all be a little more civil please?
-
witsend, were you in my local supermarket this morning shouting at the cheese?
Now now, can we all be a little more civil please?
Please remove my posts if you feel they are inappropriate.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg290920#msg290920
-
Hi Glovesforfoxes,
What is rude about questioning the authority of those scientists who claim the importance and significance of experimental proof - yet will not look at an experiment that disproves their own theories? I am not talking lightly. In 10 years despite application by myself, my co-authors - industry, including names such as ABB Research, North Carolina, BP South Africa, Sasol South Africa, and many, many others, they refuse to acknowledge the carefully collated data from numerous experiments that categorically prove a breach of thermodynamic laws? It gets worse. Sasol offered our local university a bursary award to take the study further. It was politely refused. And these learned and revered have flatly refused to attend a demonstration that gives this evidence.
These are the expert academicians who determine the acceptability or otherwise of papers for publication in the reviewed journals that they own. They nominate the required measurement protocols. We use those protocols. Yet they will not evaluate the paper? Do you seriously propose that there is some way that one can discuss the merits of the case when the case is not heard? Is there a court in any democratic country that prejudges a case prior to trial? Is there any blueprint for such prejudicial actions that can be sanctioned by any moral authority anywhere in the world? Personally I doubt it. Yet these electrical engineers flatly refuse to evaluate the experiment. Nor will they take it publication to allow mainstream to evaluate for themselves. Don't tell me what is wrong with my attitude. Look rather to what is right in their attitude.
-
Witsend,
Might I suggest you read, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
I believe you would find it helpful.
Hello geezer. I have many many friends. Just check out energeticforum.com. I have a host of friends on the internet that I haven't even met but have much to say about both me and my experiemnt. I also have friends on overunity.com. I have a full social life - but spend way too much time on this thread and, possibly at my keyboard. I do not want to earn such friendship on the basis of some articifical manipulative learned skill - but on the basis of mutual respect and enjoyment of each others point of view. This thread is different. It is designed to challenge and invite comment on the extraordinary mindset of our bigotted academic electrical engineers. If I bump into more bigots here then - indeed - they are part of that criticism. Definitely requires discussion.
edit [;D]
-
witsend, were you in my local supermarket this morning shouting at the cheese?
No. I was the lady who reported you for trolling.
-
witsend, were you in my local supermarket this morning shouting at the cheese?
No. I was the lady who reported you for trolling.
After shouting at the cheese? I am sure I heard the words... unlimited.. potential...energy...vast scale...re-write....rules...physics....no...common sense...
-
OK. Enough everyone. If you want to participate in a bar room brawl, I suggest you all head for the nearest bar.
This thread is going nowhere. Please explain why I should not lock it right now?
-
Geezer I thoroughly agree. We have had enough. [;D]
By the way - I found Nix Tubular lurking in the vicinity and was obliged to report him for lurking. YET AGAIN
Here's the evidence
MOD EDIT - RUDE AND UNNECCESARY LINK REMOVED
Have fun guys. And if I've haven't done justice to your good looks Nixie sweetheart - blame the camera - or the light. You now have honourary mention on my troll file. The day will come when I hope of publish this. LOL.
-
Geezer didn't realise that you were able to lock threads. Feel free - but it would be a shame. It has an extraordinary viewership - and in my experience all such adverse threads, given time, come back into line. Quite apart from which that's Nix's object. He wants this thread killed. I want to engage in a discussion about the relucatance of mainstream to seriously discuss their obligations to report on all experimental findings that are not anomalous. And experiments that are repeatable are definitely not anomalous.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
-
Witsend, I have asked you to be civil, you have completely failed to do so.
Nixie, the same.
Thread locked.