0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
It has been awhile since I was accused of being a mainstream physicist.  But I have to own up to mainstream training.
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.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/12/2009 19:15:29Is 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.
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.
Hi Mr. ScientistLove 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.
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?
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.
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 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