[nixietube]

Look at this amazing free energy device:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/03/intel_power_plucking/

Do you see my point?


I also recall hearing about some chaps who wound some large coils in their loft to steal power, not far from a tv transmitter. They were only discovered after investigators were called in to investigate complaints of poor reception. I cant find the link to this, and it was many years ago.

[witsend]

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 it 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.   

[nixietube]

The time of my arrival is irrelevant, as your frothy posts are.

The fact you are no further down the line from the time you started - 10 years ago - speaks volumes. I urge you and any other readers contemplating this endeavour to strip out the supposition, rhetoric and examine the naked truth.


i) You propose a theory. ("   theory:  a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." )

ii) You present a circuit, but are unable to explain how you arrived at the design -or- it's function.

iii) You strongly believe that your circuit is able to tap into one or more undefined energy sources - ( the ones you make up (i) )

iv) You and many others have spent years on this and have not been able to harness the energy for useful work.


You stand steadfast, unable to EVEN CONTEMPLATE the possibility YOU MAY BE WRONG. That is arrogance of the highest order, and has no place anywhere.

Disregard my posts, just as I'll have no care how you spend your time. I'll say it again, sadly I do not believe you have discovered an over unity / free energy device / energy tap, whatever you want to call it, the name is not important. I believe your theory is conjecture, your circut pointless and your methodology flawed.  I think you have been wasting your time, just as I have been in responding to your delusion.


There is no conspiracy of silence. You have failed to attract mainstream research because you have demonstrated nonsense. In my opinion.


The bold words are for you to read a couple times before you hurry to dispatch another post. Look up the meaning of the following words: believe, think, arrogance, pride,  paranoid delusion.

[witsend]

Benv - I am hoping this post will grab your attention.  I want to point out that this forum thread invites the public to 'post their theories'.  Any such attempt should be protected by courtesy and comments should be as critical as required but constructive.  I put it to you that the thin readership here is possibly due to the fact that readers really don't want to be depressed by constant criticism.  And I would remind you that I have been hounded out of this forum before - precisely because there was no restriction placed on the comments of the contributors.  If I am to be subjected to the following comments to protect my good name then I will, again, leave this forum. And I see no difference in the tenor of the contributors here than was evident earlier this year.  If there is to be a serious discussion on new theories and new ideas and new facts, then can you try and 'tame' the aggressions such as are apparent here under.  nixietube is a newcomer and has taken over the attitude and aggressions that were previously flaunted by Sophiecentaur.

I am obliged to answer these posts because it is my good name that is at question.  This is an unfortunate consequence of having a thesis that is in the public domain.  I would expect monitors to rally and keep our names outside of actionable libel suits.  nixietube is flirting with that potential.

In answer to nixietube.

My posts are not frothy.  And your arrival is relevant.  You would, under all circumstances - be expected to familiarise yourself with the thesis before you launch into your dismissive and patronsing advices regarding the proposals.

I have NEVER PROPOSED A THEORY.  LOOK HARD.  LOOK EVERYWHERE.  NO THEORIES ON OFFER.

I am entirely able to explain how I arrived at the design and its function.

I do not believe that my circuit is able to tap into one or more undefined energy sources.  Belief does not come into the question when the facts speak for themselves.

I did not 'make them up'.  Indeed I would love to claim such.  But there you go.  I am not responsible for the knowledge and facts that relate to dark energy and dark matter.

Indeed we have harnessed this energy for useful work.  What do you think the prototype proof of concept shows and the configurations in the applied patent show?  Are you saying that I am lying? 

I do stand steadfast - but in the face of ever more evidence in wider and wider replications of the effect.  Would you prefer it that I and all replicators ignore the experimental evidence in favour of your bigotted denial?

Your emotional state regarding your belief's is neither scientific nor relevant.  I am entirely uninterested in whether you are sad or happy or whether you beleive or don't.  I am only interested in the science.

I have never claimed a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE.  I have argued with the right of editors to reject a submission without first going to review.

I have no intention of re-reading your posts.  Your time would be better spent in reading my answers and familiarising yourself with the paper, the claim and the model.

[nixietube]

Benv - I am hoping this post will grab your attention.  I want to point out that this forum thread invites the public to 'post their theories'.  Any such attempt should be protected

I have NEVER PROPOSED A THEORY.  LOOK HARD.  LOOK EVERYWHERE.  NO THEORIES ON OFFER.

Contradicting yourself in the same post.  [:0]

I am entirely able to explain how I arrived at the design and its function.

Apparently "it is convoluted", your words - not mine,  and as of yet no logical explanation is forthcoming.

I do not believe that my circuit is able to tap into one or more undefined energy sources.  Belief does not come into the question when the facts speak for themselves.

I did not 'make them up'.  Indeed I would love to claim such.  But there you go.  I am not responsible for the knowledge and facts that relate to dark energy and dark matter.

Contradiction. See this post:

Hi again, nixietube.

Definitely tapping into a 'heretofore' unidentified energy source.

Indeed we have harnessed this energy for useful work.  What do you think the prototype proof of concept shows and the configurations in the applied patent show?  Are you saying that I am lying? 

You have clearly stated the current development stage is experimental. In simple terms, either it works, or it does not. You said in another post the resistor fails. Experimental machines that fail, to place 'useful work' into context, are about ase useful as a chocolate teapot.

I do stand steadfast - but in the face of ever more evidence in wider and wider replications of the effect.  Would you prefer it that I and all replicators ignore the experimental evidence in favour of your bigotted denial?

Your emotional state regarding your belief's is neither scientific nor relevant.  I am entirely uninterested in whether you are sad or happy or whether you beleive or don't.  I am only interested in the science.

Here you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the English language. Yes I am sad you have not discovered the means to harness some amazing energy source. I for one don't fancy the idea of more nuclear power plants, fossil fuel emissions and the like. Now I am sad because you do not comprehend why I am sad.  [:-'(]

I have never claimed a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE.  I have argued with the right of editors to reject a submission without first going to review.

I have no intention of re-reading your posts.  Your time would be better spent in reading my answers and familiarising yourself with the paper, the claim and the model.

.. and that is where I get off this treadmill thread.

I am obliged to answer these posts because it is my good name that is at question.  This is an unfortunate consequence of having a thesis that is in the public domain.  I would expect monitors to rally and keep our names outside of actionable libel suits.  nixietube is flirting with that potential.

 []

I stand by my opinions. I do not believe you have discovered an over unity / free energy device / energy tap, whatever you want to call it, the name is not important. I believe your theory is conjecture, your circut pointless and your methodology flawed.  I think you have been wasting your time.

[witsend]

nixietube

A thesis is not a theory - a model is not a theory.  A theory is a theory.  Why do you not know this?  What is wrong with you?

If the explanation is convoluted it does not put it outside my competence to explain.  I have chosen not to explain this to you.  If you read this thread you would see it's already been copiously covered.

The energy source that this circuit taps into IS DEFINED.  It has not been identified in bound amalgams is all.  Identified in whole but not in particular.

We have working prototypes.  We have proof of concept.  THE CIRCUIT WORKS

My english language skills are EXCELLENT.  I have that which is published to prove this.

Since you mistakenly assume that we have not discovered the means to unlock this plentiful energy supply then I suggest you cheer up.  Nothing to feel sad about.

And I'm delighted that you are going to get off this treadmill thread.  Will be very glad to see and hear the last of you.

And I stand by my opinons.  We have definitely proven an energy efficiency on an electric circuit that delivers a COP > 4 and possibly as high as COP > 8.  It is proven with the most sophisticated measuring equipment available.  It is detailed in the paper that has been published protem on Scribd - until the 'review process kicks in with the IEEE'.  The theory is non-existent.  The thesis is proven.  The circuit is useful.  The methodology impeccable.  And all authors - all seven of us - feel we have finally managed to bring proof of concept to mainstream science.

I strongly recommend that you read the paper - if you can read - which seems doubtful in the light of your extraordinary inability to understand my presentations.

And finally - thank you for your input in that last post.  Without it I would not have been able to stress these important facts. 


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.

[Bored chemist]

"My english language skills are EXCELLENT.  I have that which is published to prove this. ".
Proper nouns take capital letters in English. Also, it is perfectly possible to get complete rubbish published, so your assertion isn't valid.
I could go on, but nixietube is doing a grand job at the moment.

BTW, all gramatical errors I have made in this post are included for the sake of irony. :-)

[nixietube]

I could go on, but nixietube is doing a grand job at the moment.

You are too kind BC. I think it is important to refresh our minds with a post from this thread....

The whole discussion is reduced to absurdity I am afraid. You are correct that the only path for the resistive discharge is through the diode and itself.
  It is hard to understand how anyone who can operate the fancy equipment for the test could come up with such incorrect answers. I am beginning to laugh at the meaningless ness of this discussion.

  I return to Union Square Park in 1956 in NYC to the man with the talking coconut. The coconut said that he had a simple switching circuit
that could power the world. The people did not believe the man with the talking coconut but every night he returned and stated that he had a simple switching circuit that could power the world. It was funny then and it is still funny today.

  Sorry Witsend. I cannot stop laughing!!! Sorry to offend but I cannot stop laughing.

The clock on my computer might as well say 10th June 2009. I wish it said 10th June 1999. 

[witsend]

More doggerel for Poor Nixietube

Nix tubular woke in a fright
To discover his brain had took flight
He was left with a hole
As black as black coal
Or the sky in the dead of the night.

He cried in alarm as he said
'I'm sure it was there in my head
I remember I thought
About something I aught
to have taught before going to bed.

But his brain was now sadly far gone
As it looked for some place in the sun
Away from its host
Who was simply a ghost
Of the man whose thinking once shone.

[Ophiolite]

witsend, you seem to have endured quite a bit, both on and off the forum. It is human, when we encounter resistance, to fight back. This is not always the wisest course. May I ask, would you entertain the possibility that there is a conventional explanation for your experimental observations? Or are you solidly committed to the idea that you have a true over unity device?

[witsend]

Hi Ophiolite

Regarding your comment that I may not be that wise to retaliate?  You are no doubt correct - but as you also pointed out - we're all mortal.  The good news for all of us is that Nix Tubular has managed to sit on his hands for about 24 hours.  It amuses me that he chose to quote JerryGG - who has also, apparently left this forum.  JerrGG was not the sanest of contributors - but my own sanity is definitely at question when I put up with all this ad hominem.  But I understand from whence it comes.  Mediocrities don't like to be challenged with new ideas - and when they confront such they try and kill them off with rapid bullet fire.  Fortunately their aresenal empties quick - and their guns misfire - and they usually aim at their own foot.  And frankly - it amuses me to goad them as I have no respect for their want of intellect nor their display of this want.   []  LOL  Hope BenV doesn't get here.

Now - to your question.  If there's a conventional explanation for our experiemental observations it can only be that we've made incorrect measurements.  Then the problem is not with the observations but with the measuring equipment.  If it's attributed to measurement error then I suspect Tektronix themselves will enter the debate and that they'll probably defend those numbers. And I'm also very aware of the extraordinary reputation of their measuring equipment which is to oscilloscopes what Rolls Royce is to cars.  Just unarguably the best of its kind.

If it can be concluded that the measurements are half way correct - then we've definitely crashed through classical constraints determined in our second law of thermodynamics.  And since we all know that there is no such thing as 'free energy' it may well be attributed to some heretofore unknown source of energy.  The only known canditate is Dark Energy - widely attributed to Dark Matter.  Happily my model conforms to this.  The difference is that I've attributed it to the 'glue' of matter, so to speak, exactly in the same way as it's known to be the 'glue' of galaxies.  I've also presumed a far wider range of attributes to the particle than has, thus far, been found within the standard model.  This may or may not be a good thing. 

So - on balance - there is a possibility that there's an abundant source of energy that has, historically, eluded detection other than as assumed to be anomalous and irrelevant.  And this energy source is useable and may very well address some of the pollutant effects of our current systems.  No pun intended.

Else the solid conviction remains that the evidence, those numbers, point to a true over unity potential and a co-efficient of performance in excess of 4. 

 

[nixietube]

The logical fallacy coefficient of this thread is in excess of the claimed over unity potential.


The simple fact remains that witsend takes offence to any post that does not fall in line with his her own views.  He Witsend is the one unleashing the ad hominem abuse. Apparently I am the now the next target because I dare to question. Read the handful of posts I have made in this thread.

It is a simple exercise for the reader to sample any number of posts in this thread, and now in another thread wailing about science loosing its authority, to see this forum is nothing but a soapbox for witsend to preach from.  []


Apparently,

This site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.  It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.

It is not acceptable simply to repost material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread.  If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.


Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.

If you feel another forum user is using insulting language, seek to calm things down, or if that fails, report the matter to the moderators.  Under no circumstances should you seek to trade insults, or make accusatory remarks to that, or any other, forum user.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.msg99453#msg99453



Simple questions have been asked and are unable to be answered. Draw your own conclusions.


Await a frothy retort from witsend below:


edit:  He to Witsend. Thank you for proving my point.

[witsend]

He is the one unleashing the ad hominem abuse. Apparently I am the now the next target because I dare to question. Read the handful of posts I have made in this thread.

Nix tubular  - Who is the 'HE' that unleashes ad hominem?  Now I know you have not read this thread, my magnetic field model nor any google link, and there are just so many of them.  Golly []

Rosemary Ainslie  AKA Witsend.