Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81922
  • *Latest: bobdring

  • *Total Posts: 490750
  • *Total Topics: 14441
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 221
  • *Total: 225

Facebook

Author Topic: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR  (Read 55966 times)

Offline crazycut06

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2013, 01:42:51 AM »
Zzzzzzz.... Why are people arguing on oviously faked presentation.... :'(

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2013, 01:42:51 AM »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13522
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2013, 10:53:03 AM »
Who's arguing? We are following the usual pattern here. Some credulous person links to a hoax video or three, I explain how it's hoaxed, and I get attacked and insulted for it. Business as usual, it seems.

Quote
Maybe I should write books and get rich! (ROFL)

No, Pauldude.... I think you should work on replicating LifeHack's coil, since you know he's shown PROOF that it works, and I'm a moron/paid troll with no credibility.

I'll be looking forward to your video showing your replication.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13522
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2013, 11:09:07 AM »
Quote
"Your concept of money in this real world is at best ridiculous. At a miniscule fraction of a cent per view, I am sure he is making tons of pennies. Why, in ten years the average individuals making advertisement revenues on youtube could probably qualify to open a bank account!"
One of the videos linked above has nearly 800,000 views, and altogether his faked videos have well over a million views. Let's see.... if he gets a tenth of a cent per view..... whir click..... that makes a thousand dollars right there. In just a couple of months.

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1461
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2013, 12:19:42 PM »
Hi TK
never give up the pursuit of truth. Many people respect you and know how smart you are.
Its not easy being a truth seeker, skeptic or myth buster.
I am always in awe of your abilities and appreciate you comments, evaluation and humor.
I know I am not in your good books at the moment but I will always hold you in high esteem and respect you.
Give me a call sometime on Skype sometime I will take you on a tour of the facility up here and an insight into some of the projects we are looking at, your input would be valuable.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13522
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2013, 05:34:43 AM »
Thanks Mark.

As far as my "good books" go, my only complaint/criticism is with the handling and representation of the Wayne Travis affair. If you are working for him as a consultant, paid or expenses-paid, and under NDA, fine, let it be so, especially the NDA part. But he is using you and your good name in an attempt to gain legitimacy and credibility for his scheme. He has been touting you not as a "mere" consultant in possible verification methods, but rather as an independent validator whose judgement will be quite literally a stamp of skeptical approval --- what I have called elsewhere a Papal "imprimatur / nihil obstat" kind of endorsement. (It seems that many other people like Ainslie and Tseung are also treating you like some veritable force of nature, able to repeal physical law just by inspecting their devices. I think I've counted four in the past month alone. You must be busier than a longtailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.) However the fact that you are, in any sense, on Travis's payroll, even just for travel expenses, means that you cannot be considered independent or objective, IMHO. I think that it would be a service to your public if you were clear, on each project, just where your funding is coming from. You don't need to be specific, just categorical: Self-funded, Prospective Investor-funded, Advertiser-funded, Claimant-funded. Or something like that. This would help those of us who are interested in such matters to evaluate whether or not there might be a perception of conflict-of-interest.

In the matter of Wayne Travis....The veracity of claims does not depend on how large a cult is, or how illustrious its members might be. As far as I can tell, Travis has completely bamboozled you into giving him a year or more of extra viability with his cult's fantastic projects. A truly independent and skeptical investigator, visiting Travis for the purpose of determining whether he is a fraud or not, might not have been so lenient even after the first visit and especially after the second one. Now, as you no doubt are aware, he has toned down the "overunity" rhetoric on his website and is finally speaking of inputs and outputs.... when for many months on this forum he claimed that there was NO input of any kind to his system. Of course he has also "invented" three or four other distinct systems that do.... what now? Do they run themselves, with no input and no exhaust, making 30 kW usable output power? Why not, then, show one of those in a YT video, instead of showing the latest +award winning+ stack of clear tubes with water levels inside them? I'll tell you why right up front: his claims are bogus, his energy producing devices and self runners don't, and he is trying to "cloud-engineer" his problems away by having his fan-base compete for his monetary prizes in trite "challenge" competitions that are completely beside the point. Why award money for a plastic see thru single ZED of the old design, when the current system is "nearly solid state, flat-packable like Ikea furniture" and has even gone to rotary Zeds and z3ds, whatever they are? Red-herring misdirection from real issues, paying a sycophant for his support efforts, that is why. And you are lending your good name to his shenanigans, by not coming down hard and fast upon him with every tool in a true skeptic's arsenal.

In the matter of Rosemary Ainslie: I PM'd you some time ago with information about my comprehensive Ainslie database. She too is trying to attract your attention, as well as trying to get an interview with Hendershot on the SmartScarecrow show. I wish that you _would_ drop everything less interesting and apply yourself to Ainslie in full. It would be great if you would visit her and see her apparatus and have her run an experiment for you the next time you are in Cape Town. But you really should do your homework first, by reading her manuscripts, understanding their history, and reviewing my database of Ainslie material. There are many discrepancies and misrepresentations in her work and it would be interesting to hear her asked about them on SS by someone who knew the material. The Ainslie affair is important, more so than many of the other things you've investigated, because of the rank pseudoscientism she exhibits and the bad feelings she and her affair have caused in several forums over the past ten or twelve years. She's made many promises and claims about the behaviour of her apparatus over the past two years here in this forum, and she should be called on these claims and given the opportunity to demonstrate them in her apparatus herself, in front of independent knowledgeable reviewers. And there should be a definitive and comprehensive report from the reviewers about her and her apparatus and its performance and the measurements it generates -- and the reasons for them. Poynt99 and MileHigh and Picowatt and several others have analyzed the circuit's behaviour extensively theoretically and in simulation, and FuzzyTomcat and I and others have done extensive work with hardware, and most of this work is archived in my database and elsewhere. My Tar Baby replication of Ainslie's claimed circuit is available for side-by-side realtime comparison with Ainslie's apparatus itself by a qualified operator, and I also have a .99-designed "Altoid" pocket demonstrator that runs on its 2 Farad capacitor only for several minutes, quite long enough for good scope measurements to be made, and makes the same "negative mean power product" that is at the heart of Ainslie's claims.

For the benefit of Ainslie's sycophants, I repeat here again: I am encouraging you, Mark Dansie, to visit Rosemary Ainslie if you can, and investigate thoroughly her claims and the performance of her apparatus. There are some specific and easily-performed tests that she has promised but never delivered, and many of us would like to see the video records and instrumental results of those tests, performed by her or under her direction, using her own apparatus. Having the results reported by someone trustworthy would be an added benefit.

ETA: I'm repeating this here because Ainslie has, in the past, accused me quite insultingly of trying to _suppress_ information and to discourage independent investigation of her claims, which is a typical Ainslie misrepresentation and is far from the truth. I want everyone who can spare the time and money to examine her work, look carefully at the history and the actual data, both coming from her and from her coworkers and the skeptical replicators, and come to their own conclusions and report them.



Unfortunately I'm not able to travel at the moment, and I'm allergic to Skype and other forms of telephonic communication, but thanks for your kind offer anyway.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2013, 05:34:43 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2013, 08:12:25 AM »
Who's arguing? We are following the usual pattern here. Some credulous person links to a hoax video or three, I explain how it's hoaxed, and I get attacked and insulted for it. Business as usual, it seems.

No, Pauldude.... I think you should work on replicating LifeHack's coil, since you know he's shown PROOF that it works, and I'm a moron/paid troll with no credibility.

I'll be looking forward to your video showing your replication.


Nice try. You cannot read either, apparently. (I will point out that in EVERY posting excepting only the cute fiction style dialog post, that I think the videos are probably fake..... Again.) Nice point though on replicating, lets see yours. The burden of proof of wrongdoing is upon the accuser. You are making a claim that it is fake, while I am reserving judgement until actual evidence is forthcoming and I make no claim whatsoever.


All I have seen from you is egotism, condescension, and arrogance, and if you wonder why the bad reaction to your posts, it is not some paranoid version of persecution it is a lack of respect for what I have seen coming from you. There are many vocal critics I DO respect, due to their attitudes. Yours I do not, due to your attitude. You are not a scientist applying scientific method nor are you utilizing critical thinking. Applied method of critical thinking actually convicts you as being irrational. Look it up.


Concerning revenue towards Youtube vids....


You get paid a fraction of a cent per CLICK through on an ad, not just a view. (Almost none, research google adsense)


You get a PARTIAL fraction of a cent per ad view, and that is only if the watcher actually views the ad and doesn't close the ad asap (90% of everyone).


Your thousand bucks concept just became ten, to maybe a hundred bucks realistically as a few of the total ads do not allow a shutdown.

Offline Gwandau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2013, 09:30:32 PM »
As far as I am concerned, this is the basic criteria for taking any videofilmed invention into consideration:
 

1. The active components of the construct assembled on transparent glass, plastic or polycarbonate.
 
2. Experiment performed upon a completely transparent table, at least three feet from ground level.
 
3. A minimum of three feet visible free spacing around the table.
 
 
Any deviation from the above criteria has to be considered as fake.
 

Gwandau

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2013, 09:30:32 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2013, 12:11:10 AM »

Nice try. You cannot read either, apparently. (I will point out that in EVERY posting excepting only the cute fiction style dialog post, that I think the videos are probably fake..... Again.) Nice point though on replicating, lets see yours. The burden of proof of wrongdoing is upon the accuser. You are making a claim that it is fake, while I am reserving judgement until actual evidence is forthcoming and I make no claim whatsoever.


All I have seen from you is egotism, condescension, and arrogance, and if you wonder why the bad reaction to your posts, it is not some paranoid version of persecution it is a lack of respect for what I have seen coming from you. There are many vocal critics I DO respect, due to their attitudes. Yours I do not, due to your attitude. You are not a scientist applying scientific method nor are you utilizing critical thinking. Applied method of critical thinking actually convicts you as being irrational. Look it up.


Concerning revenue towards Youtube vids....


You get paid a fraction of a cent per CLICK through on an ad, not just a view. (Almost none, research google adsense)


You get a PARTIAL fraction of a cent per ad view, and that is only if the watcher actually views the ad and doesn't close the ad asap (90% of everyone).


Your thousand bucks concept just became ten, to maybe a hundred bucks realistically as a few of the total ads do not allow a shutdown.
A small heads up on makeing money on youtube via add's.
Here is what i have made since i monetised my youtube account.
$10.59 for 8857 views.
8857/1059 = 8.36 cents per add.
Now if i had a million view's,that would be 1000'000 x .0836 = 83600 cents,which is $836.oo
So TK wasnt far off with makeing some good small change from youtube.

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2013, 12:58:26 AM »
A small heads up on makeing money on youtube via add's.
Here is what i have made since i monetised my youtube account.
$10.59 for 8857 views.
8857/1059 = 8.36 cents per add.
Now if i had a million view's,that would be 1000'000 x .0836 = 83600 cents,which is $836.oo
So TK wasnt far off with makeing some good small change from youtube.


Firsthand information is always better than secondhand research.


If it is as you say, then I must retract the statements concerning video monetization and apologize for them due to inaccurate data.


Thank you for bringing this up tinman. It would actually make the ads pay a little for enough hits which changes things.


Still not a huge amount, but with enough videos a substantial quantity could be raised.


Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2013, 01:15:04 AM »
As far as I am concerned, this is the basic criteria for taking any videofilmed invention into consideration:
 

1. The active components of the construct assembled on transparent glass, plastic or polycarbonate.
 
2. Experiment performed upon a completely transparent table, at least three feet from ground level.
 
3. A minimum of three feet visible free spacing around the table.
 
 
Any deviation from the above criteria has to be considered as fake.
 

Gwandau


I would agree that your specs would be an ideal situation. I wonder about it's practicality though. No one that I know of, and no lab I have seen, has a workbench which fits the criterea. It would have to be specially bought or fabricated, unless someone happened to have, for arguments sake, a clear glass topped dining room table. I have seen clear glass topped coffee tables, but they fail your criterea in that they are less than three feet off of the ground.


However, you DO point out something which needs to be addressed. A formalized means of device demonstration which is better at preventing fakery. Good call.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2013, 01:15:04 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8362
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2013, 05:08:53 AM »

Nice try. You cannot read either, apparently. (I will point out that in EVERY posting excepting only the cute fiction style dialog post, that I think the videos are probably fake..... Again.) Nice point though on replicating, lets see yours. The burden of proof of wrongdoing is upon the accuser. You are making a claim that it is fake, while I am reserving judgement until actual evidence is forthcoming and I make no claim whatsoever.


All I have seen from you is egotism, condescension, and arrogance, and if you wonder why the bad reaction to your posts, it is not some paranoid version of persecution it is a lack of respect for what I have seen coming from you. There are many vocal critics I DO respect, due to their attitudes. Yours I do not, due to your attitude. You are not a scientist applying scientific method nor are you utilizing critical thinking. Applied method of critical thinking actually convicts you as being irrational. Look it up.


Concerning revenue towards Youtube vids....


You get paid a fraction of a cent per CLICK through on an ad, not just a view. (Almost none, research google adsense)


You get a PARTIAL fraction of a cent per ad view, and that is only if the watcher actually views the ad and doesn't close the ad asap (90% of everyone).


Your thousand bucks concept just became ten, to maybe a hundred bucks realistically as a few of the total ads do not allow a shutdown.

This is not correct.

I just monetized my video channel on Youtube a few months ago and, I am now up to almost $100.00 for my videos.....none of which have over 50,000 views. (since I have monetized)  If I hit 1,000,000 views on any of them, I could afford some very nice science equipment.

You should do more researching before posting something incorrect as fact.

Also, I would put TK's skills up against anyone on this site.  I can not name another that has done more replications, or debunking, than TK.  His debunking of scams and fakery (a Milo word) has saved our members a lot of money in both time and materials in an attempt to replicate something that was never real to begin with.

I, for one, greatly appreciate what he has contributed to this site, and to our efforts here.

I also disagree that it is TK that HAS to supply the proof that this obvious fake is fake.  When one posts a video making extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on them to prove it beyond doubt.  The fellow making these videos is KNOWN for making fakes.  That fact alone should be enough to make one a bit dubious about any of his recent claims.

Bill

ETA:  I see that you have admitted to being wrong in an above post about the money for Youtube videos.  So, we can ignore that part of my post.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13522
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2013, 08:37:16 AM »

Nice try. You cannot read either, apparently. (I will point out that in EVERY posting excepting only the cute fiction style dialog post, that I think the videos are probably fake..... Again.) Nice point though on replicating, lets see yours. The burden of proof of wrongdoing is upon the accuser. You are making a claim that it is fake, while I am reserving judgement until actual evidence is forthcoming and I make no claim whatsoever.


1. I have given you the links to the videos of my replications. Can't you read? Now... where are your replications?
2. "He might well be faking them, but you guys look like absolute morons to me. " No claim whatsoever? Yet you attack those of us who KNOW that the videos are fakes by insulting us?

I've shown how the videos can be easily faked. NOBODY has shown how they can be real, especially not LifeHack. Your objections about "claims" and burden of proof are specious.

Quote
All I have seen from you is egotism, condescension, and arrogance, and if you wonder why the bad reaction to your posts, it is not some paranoid version of persecution it is a lack of respect for what I have seen coming from you. There are many vocal critics I DO respect, due to their attitudes. Yours I do not, due to your attitude. You are not a scientist applying scientific method nor are you utilizing critical thinking. Applied method of critical thinking actually convicts you as being irrational. Look it up.
You cannot support these claims with facts, either. What I see in 80 percent of posts here on this forum does not deserve respectful consideration, and when people continue posting belief in fakes that have long ago been debunked.... they are fully deserving of condescension and arrogant correction -- especially when these ignorant people choose to toss insults around. For your information I actually am a scientist, I have expensive pieces of fake vellum to prove it, and I challenge you to illustrate just where I do not apply the scientific method or where I fail to use critical thinking.  You don't like my "egotism and arrogance".... but you are the one calling people irrational morons, without being able to justify your insults. Go ahead and prove that "applied critical thinking convicts me as being irrational." You cannot.

Someone shows me something that is _impossible_ under current understanding of physics but is EASILY DONE by fakery. I put forth the hypothesis that the effect can be faked in such and such a manner. I perform experiments trying to disprove my fakery hypothesis but cannot: the effects are in fact easy to fake and are in fact impossible to achieve by normal means such as wireless power transmitters. I perform experiments and I publish my results, including enough detail for anyone who cares to , to reproduce my experiments and my results. And I've done this same kind of thing many times and my YT channel is full of video illustrations of my work. If you don't think this is an application of the scientific method, then you are reading the wrong Wiki or something.

Where is your record of experimentation, I'd like to take a look at what you've done and how you do it.

Quote
Concerning revenue towards Youtube vids....

You get paid a fraction of a cent per CLICK through on an ad, not just a view. (Almost none, research google adsense)

You get a PARTIAL fraction of a cent per ad view, and that is only if the watcher actually views the ad and doesn't close the ad asap (90% of everyone).

Your thousand bucks concept just became ten, to maybe a hundred bucks realistically as a few of the total ads do not allow a shutdown.

And you have already learned that your statements on this matter here are false.


Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2013, 02:36:18 PM »
This is not correct.

I just monetized my video channel on Youtube a few months ago and, I am now up to almost $100.00 for my videos.....none of which have over 50,000 views. (since I have monetized)  If I hit 1,000,000 views on any of them, I could afford some very nice science equipment.

You should do more researching before posting something incorrect as fact.

Also, I would put TK's skills up against anyone on this site.  I can not name another that has done more replications, or debunking, than TK.  His debunking of scams and fakery (a Milo word) has saved our members a lot of money in both time and materials in an attempt to replicate something that was never real to begin with.

I, for one, greatly appreciate what he has contributed to this site, and to our efforts here.

I also disagree that it is TK that HAS to supply the proof that this obvious fake is fake.  When one posts a video making extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on them to prove it beyond doubt.  The fellow making these videos is KNOWN for making fakes.  That fact alone should be enough to make one a bit dubious about any of his recent claims.

Bill

ETA:  I see that you have admitted to being wrong in an above post about the money for Youtube videos.  So, we can ignore that part of my post.


I agree with you on many points. However, there is one point which you put forth which is an outright, though common, fallacy. "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof" is pure hogwash invented by mentally lazy men either unwilling or incapable of doing their self-chosen profession. It is nothing more than a cop-out.  Even if it were true, then it would apply only to scientists making scientific claims.


However in REAL science there is only a postulate, hypothesis, laws, or theory. ALL of the previous scientifically are to be borne up with data determined by scientific method as applied by critical thought, not just some.


Notice in the previous paragraph I neither used "claim", "proof", nor did I use "evidence". Neither are scientific terms, as they are in fact legal terminology. These legal terms are only used when a scientist wishes A.) to become lazy and ignore the postulate, hypothesis, or theory presented and B.) to bypass science in the process.


Now, as far as TK...... Too bad. If he wishes to be a jerk, he can expect a jerk's reward. It is not what he is doing, it is how he is doing it, and if he wishes to promote himself as intelligent he can act accordingly. Yes, I am being quite blunt. I do not have a problem with what he is doing.


I have a problem with his attitude and the manner with which he treats others. The end does not justify the means.

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2013, 03:32:41 PM »
1. I have given you the links to the videos of my replications. Can't you read? Now... where are your replications?
2. "He might well be faking them, but you guys look like absolute morons to me. " No claim whatsoever? Yet you attack those of us who KNOW that the videos are fakes by insulting us?

I've shown how the videos can be easily faked. NOBODY has shown how they can be real, especially not LifeHack. Your objections about "claims" and burden of proof are specious.
You cannot support these claims with facts, either. What I see in 80 percent of posts here on this forum does not deserve respectful consideration, and when people continue posting belief in fakes that have long ago been debunked.... they are fully deserving of condescension and arrogant correction -- especially when these ignorant people choose to toss insults around. For your information I actually am a scientist, I have expensive pieces of fake vellum to prove it, and I challenge you to illustrate just where I do not apply the scientific method or where I fail to use critical thinking.  You don't like my "egotism and arrogance".... but you are the one calling people irrational morons, without being able to justify your insults. Go ahead and prove that "applied critical thinking convicts me as being irrational." You cannot.

Someone shows me something that is _impossible_ under current understanding of physics but is EASILY DONE by fakery. I put forth the hypothesis that the effect can be faked in such and such a manner. I perform experiments trying to disprove my fakery hypothesis but cannot: the effects are in fact easy to fake and are in fact impossible to achieve by normal means such as wireless power transmitters. I perform experiments and I publish my results, including enough detail for anyone who cares to , to reproduce my experiments and my results. And I've done this same kind of thing many times and my YT channel is full of video illustrations of my work. If you don't think this is an application of the scientific method, then you are reading the wrong Wiki or something.

Where is your record of experimentation, I'd like to take a look at what you've done and how you do it.

And you have already learned that your statements on this matter here are false.


You say you are a scientist? GREAT! Then do some science, and quit trying to be a judge, jury, and prosecuting attorney. Who really cares about Lifehack and the other Hutichison's of the world. I mean REALLY? It is a Youtube video, keep this in perspective.


Quote
What I see in 80 percent of posts here on this forum does not deserve respectful consideration, and when people continue posting belief in fakes that have long ago been debunked.... they are fully deserving of condescension and arrogant correction --


That is pure unadulterated horse****. It is nothing more than mere arrogance on your part. That "piece of fake vellum" you possess is not a licence to do anything. It is a piece of paper which states that you supposedly were trained in some field of study. Possession of one such is not a statement of intelligence, either superior OR mediocre. The ends do not justify the means.


Are you practicing science or religion? Science itself needs no defense, as it is merely a field of study of the natural world. Many people postulate many things, and either reality reflects their concepts or it does not. The scientific method is used to determine whether reality actually reflects what was conceived. Critical thought processes are used to determine whether the original thought processes and corresponding logic was rational. There is no such critter as a "claim", grand or otherwise, just starting hypothesis based upon postulates, possibly leading to a theory.


Show me first (since you have stated you are a scientist) where abusiveness, arrogance, or any other negative attitude is promoted or warranted by science....... Show me how such things have ANYTHING to do with science.


Then, and only then, will I state you were either being a scientist, are justified by science itself, or are promoting science or scientific principles by doing such things.


Ouch.


Neither science nor your "fake piece of vellum", as you put it, are either shield or justification for your actions or attitudes.


Deal with it.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline NRGgeek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2013, 08:41:29 AM »
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but the coil of copper is a direct short across the leads to the motor which would make it impossible to carry a positive charge on one side and a negative return on the other... Unless of coarse that strange reaction between copper and neodymium is coming into play and depleting the electron flow of the copper in the center of the coil... which would explain why there's always something connected at that point. It may be BS or there may be something to it, either way the person who commented on the "Big Oil" companies was a true under statement. Anyone releasing a product generating enough electricity to power a city block or larger will be discredited by the news media and laid to rest by the oil and utility companies. No body gives a damn about doing the right thing. It's all about making billions off of fossil fuels.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: SELF RUNNING GENERATOR
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2013, 08:41:29 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: