[witsend (OP)]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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.   []

[witsend (OP)]

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!!! []

[witsend (OP)]

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. 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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.

 

[Mr. Scientist]

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?

[witsend (OP)]

 []Hello Mr. Scientist. []

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.

[Mr. Scientist]

[]Hello Mr. Scientist. []

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!

[Mr. Scientist]

More?

[witsend (OP)]

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?   

[Mr. Scientist]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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

[Mr. Scientist]

I'm more delighted.

[witsend (OP)]

 [] Mr. Scientist.  No end of publications on Sribd.  I shall systematically download them all.  Very intrigued. 

[Mr. Scientist]

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

[Ethos]

  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.

[witsend (OP)]

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?

[Mr. Scientist]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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