Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. 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.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 896200
  • *Total Topics: 15779
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 1020293 times)

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1800 on: January 09, 2014, 09:34:05 PM »
power,my friend,in science,lies in the ability to demonstrate something,regardless of what any book says.
Yawn.  Except that you don't understand what "demonstrate" means in that context.  What science is useful for is to falsify things.  You probably think that's what you're doing and you would be wrong in any useful sense.  Try reading Karl Popper sometime my exceptionally stupid friend.

You said that textbooks necessitate batteries that run eternally.  However this is not a thing which can be demonstrated purely empirically.  While there is no set of observations (outside of textbooks) which can be guaranteed to be in textbooks.  More importantly there is no set of observations which is sufficient to demonstrate something occurs for eternity.

Quote
to pivot my point ruthlessly to the public,who are the ones which count here at the end of the day.
Your English still sucks immensely.  By your own logic what the public believes is also irrelevant.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 12:20:04 AM by sarkeizen »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1800 on: January 09, 2014, 09:34:05 PM »

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1801 on: January 10, 2014, 12:35:58 AM »
nah.demonstration is numero uno @sarkeizen.for science that is repeatable by anyone,not just a select few,demos are all powerful.imagine if andrea rossi,s demo was so simple that anyone could repeat.the effect wouldve been monstrous instead of paltry(officialy paltry).anyway,im not here to change science textbooks but just to set the record straight about the karpen device and tell it like it is,an oxygen concentration cell.your harping on what i said about eternity is stupid,until you can prove that you cant observe something eternal,right now in the present moment,your complaint is null and void.many people have seen god @sarkeizen.you wana tell me thats not eternal? Prove it.many have seen the sun,prove that thats not eternal.what the public believes is relevant.half believe in santa claus,because they see santa claus,tv,books,malls etc..they must now see you,unable to uphold kelvin in wikipedia.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1802 on: January 10, 2014, 01:48:24 AM »
demonstration is numero uno @sarkeizen.for science that is repeatable
I don't have a problem with "demonstrating" things.  Just that your usage like most things you type is exceptionally stupid.  You can demonstrate something that adds zero information to a system.  If you add zero information, it's a little stupid to claim that such a thing is science but go ahead argue that something that adds zero information to a system is science.  Please.

Repeatability is important but only insofar as it adds information to a system. You can repeat something as much as you want.  If it doesn't falsify anything then no knowledge is added.  Conversely something may not be repeatable or difficult to repeat and it can still be evidence, it can still add information.
Quote
demos are all powerful.
Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself.  Not me. However powerful they are. They are not necessarily science, unless they add information.  So again they take a back seat to falsifying something.
Quote
imagine if andrea rossi,s demo was so simple that anyone could repeat.the effect wouldve been monstrous instead of paltry
So if the variability in the demo was so high that it had almost no likelihood of adding information.  Sure it could convince people but it would add no information.  So it would not be science - in any useful sense of the term.  It would be fooling people.

When what moves people to do something or believe something diverges from the information in or added to the system all we are left with is a metric of how stupid people are.

Quote
just to set the record straight about the karpen device and tell it like it is
Nope.  You are here to do almost entirely the opposite.  To avoid clear thinking and embrace moronic stupidity.
Quote
,an oxygen concentration cell.
You've never seen the device, it's only been examined partially by a few people.  You can't claim the Karpen cell is any such thing.  You've said that when you say "Karpen cell" you don't actually mean the real device.  So you're not really setting anything straight.  You're actually making things less clear.
Quote
until you can prove that you cant observe something eternal,right now in the present
Wrong question.  It's not that you can't observe something eternal in the present but you can not observe something eternally in a finite period of time.  Are you saying you can?  Please speak up, if so.

Quote
seen the sun,prove that thats not eternal.
I don't need to.  If you recall you *ASSERTED* that something was eternal and I asserted that you can't support your claim.  Which of course I'm correct.

Quote
what the public believes is relevant.
Not to the point that was being discussed.  You claimed that what was in textbooks was irrelevant.  However most things in most textbooks are believed by at least one person.  So if textbooks are irrelevant than so are most peoples opinions.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1802 on: January 10, 2014, 01:48:24 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1803 on: January 10, 2014, 02:11:08 PM »
A) no need to add info as it supports given info.you have to show why kelvin statement is needed to satisfy entropy requirements here with the given info and demo.as wikipedia said,an entropy requirement can overwhelm a temperature requirement.im going to stick to that statement and use it and abuse it at my free disposal until you can show otherwise.so basicly youre screwed in theory too never mind demos.in fact,you have to prove that kelvin statement about temperature is needed in any ambient pressure gas concentration cell. B)see above C)see above D)nope E)you dont need to see karpen,s effort.you can replicate it,my point all along.and you can use wikipedia statement on that one too:entropy requirements overwhelm temperature requirements,no need for kelvin again.unless you can show it in theory? F)my statement was that textbooks predict and support something eternal.whats that got to do with observing it?you need to observe the textbook thats all.G)see above.H)yes but still,if half the population of scientists see that your unable to defend kelvin then it might or might not be entertaining.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1804 on: January 10, 2014, 03:47:14 PM »
A) no need to add info as it supports given info
You can not support a hypothesis without adding information.  You also can not add information without falsifying something.  You don't understand what those terms mean.  Do you? :D
Quote
im going to stick to that statement and use it and abuse it at my free disposal until you can show otherwise.
So?  People act stupid all the time.  I don't feel terribly inclined to stop them.  I engaged your statement about textbooks because it was likely wrong and likely resolvable - assuming the other person is debating honestly and not being an obstructionist asshole.

By admitting you will "abuse" something you are admitting you are unethical.  Thanks for discrediting yourself. :D :D :D 
Quote
B)see above
You can do an experiment without proper randomization and get the same incorrect result.  Are you arguing that somehow this makes the statement more likely to be true?  If not then, of course repeating an experiment is not as important as adding information.  Since you can repeat and add no information but you can add information without repeating. QED.   Congratulations, one more thing you are stupid about.
Quote
D)nope
Actually yeah, you just said that you will happily abuse the information.  You also have said that you don't care if experiments are done poorly (which is just another way of saying they add no information).  So I think you have proved my point for me.  You are here to push a particular idea, not to subject your ideas to any sort of rigor.  You ran away from something as simple as looking something up in a textbook.  You simply had no ability to construct a logical argument.  Dude, face it.  You are all about ignorance, not knowledge.
Quote
you have to prove
Nothing.  I have exactly one premise.  That you can't support your statement about textbooks.  So far you've done nothing but prove me right. :D :D
Quote
E)you dont need to see karpen,s effort.you can replicate it
*ROFL* How do you replicate something that hasn't been observed?

Quote
F)my statement was that textbooks predict and support something eternal.whats that got to do with observing it?
:D :D You are the one who brought up observing something. :D :D You said that instead of looking up something in a textbook I just need to build it. :D :D  However since your thesis was a) about textbooks and b) about something that would run an ipod eternally.  You would realize that no number of observations of any kind would support that statement.  Hence all "challenges to build" do not necessarily add any information.  This is why they suck and why your understanding of experimental design sucks. :D :D :D :D

Quote
you need to observe the textbook thats all
I doubt that's true.  As you say, the textbook won't have: "Here is how you build an eternal battery" in them.  So we will end up with you avoiding making a logical argument for probably just as long.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 08:53:36 PM by sarkeizen »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1804 on: January 10, 2014, 03:47:14 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1805 on: January 11, 2014, 05:13:49 AM »
Hi All,


Emeritus Professor of Physics, Steven E Jones has most kindly volunteered to test, with a team he will assemble, a pentode Sebby as described in the $10 experiment, and later I hope he will also do the same for the purpose built 10W Sebithenco.


His public help is most appreciated as to date others who have successfully tested have not been prepared to be put under the spotlight for fear of repercussions and of being attacked by ranting skeptics like.......... we all know who, on this thread at least. lol


Regards
Phil

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1806 on: January 11, 2014, 05:44:41 AM »
Emeritus Professor of Physics, Steven E Jones has most kindly volunteered to test, with a team he will assemble, a pentode Sebby as described in the $10 experiment, and later I hope he will also do the same for the purpose built 10W Sebithenco.
So he's taken time out from his busy schedule of saying that 9/11 was an inside job and historical revisionism?

Quote
for fear of repercussions and of being attacked by ranting skeptics like.......... we all know who, on this thread at least.
Seriously?  Do you think an actual physicist is afraid of me, or anything like me?  Again what's more rational that people are not convinced by the evidence or they fear the secret society of 2LOT enforcers.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1806 on: January 11, 2014, 05:44:41 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1807 on: January 11, 2014, 07:13:00 AM »
well then you have a loooot of explaining to do @sarkeizen.the cell diagrammed below has truly massive power for a concentration cell.around 1volt and 10-30milliamps/cm2.a few of these stacked in series will power your ipod eternaly,or until your ipod breaks.professor jones may build this one if he chooses.blackened or sponge palladium is the anode.blackened or sponge silver the cathode.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1808 on: January 11, 2014, 07:23:25 AM »
.a few of these stacked in series will power your ipod eternaly,
Sadly we only have your word on this.  You said yourself that the textbook won't say that (unless you were lying there too).  So you need to make a formal logical argument.  Otherwise you lose.  As you can not support your point.

This would be the place in an argument where I might actually get interested.  However you haven't yet shown any capacity at making a logical argument. In fact so far you are the worst thinker I've met on OU.  Which includes lumen...so what I expect is more dodges and evasions.

I just realized that SEJ already believes in OU and has his own OU device out for years.  Doesn't that kind of make it unlikely that he's going to tell Philip he's crazy?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1808 on: January 11, 2014, 07:23:25 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1809 on: January 11, 2014, 07:43:52 AM »
at those power levels its really no longer important @sarkeizen.either that energy is coming from a kelvin bust or an unknown.i,l stick with kelvin bust until somebody can point out the unknown.or until somebody can show that kelvin statement is required for its functioning on paper.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1810 on: January 11, 2014, 07:46:01 AM »
at those power levels
The one's you imagined?...again formal logical argument stemming from a textbook cite which results in necessitating eternal operation or you've lost.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1810 on: January 11, 2014, 07:46:01 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1811 on: January 11, 2014, 08:14:34 AM »
imagined? Try it yourself :-). potent power.i doubt you will listen to logical arguments.you didnt even listen to wikipedias logic: cycle 1(on):electrochemical entropy overwhelming pressure,temperature entropy.cycle 2)(off)pressure,temperature entropy are all thats left.where does kelvin statement fit in here?2 totaly seperate entropy requirements.one system.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1812 on: January 11, 2014, 04:46:17 PM »
imagined? Try it yourself :-)
I can't observe something lasting eternally. So there no experiment to try.
Quote
i doubt you will listen to logical arguments.
Awww it's so cute when you try to make yourself more stupid.  So the only out you have now is to doubt my requirement without even trying.  Awesome!  I guess that's what you have to do when you're desperate not to lose the argument. :D :D :D

But lets examine the actual evidence...what was the last thing I asked for?...A textbook cite.  You spent months and months desperately trying to avoid doing that thing.  The second you did, I stopped making that the focus of my posts.  So you have no reason to doubt whatsoever.

If you have offered something you *think* is a formal argument.  Then the problem is likely that you are simply incorrect.   It's not like you've shown much ability to determine the difference between logic and it's opposite.   i.e. You can't see how no number of purely empirical observations can demonstrate something operating eternally.

In all this I wonder: "Why all the rush?" is your cite fake?  I guess I'll know when the textbook comes in.

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1813 on: January 11, 2014, 05:36:30 PM »
youre screwed.the above cell is a gas concentration cell of the wikipedia type thus we,l explain it in gas concentration cell language for you: cycle 1)electrochemical entropy requirement overwhelms temperature/pressure entropy requirement.cycle 2)temperature/pressure entropy requirement takes over.again i ask you,where does kelvin statement fit here in this gas concentration cell cycle..@sarkeizen

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #1814 on: January 12, 2014, 12:21:21 AM »
youre screwed.
Are you hitting on me?
Quote
the above cell is a gas concentration cell of the wikipedia type thus
You don't provide a cite or a formal logical argument.  It's the same problem. You said "textbooks necessitate the existence and ability to build a cell that lasts eternally".  Now that either means that they clearly and unambiguously state "Oh hey here's how you build a cell that lasts forever" OR you cite a portion of a textbook and then provide a formal logical argument.

Anything else means the textbooks DON'T necessitate it.  In which case you lose.
Your not providing the only information which will make your point means that you can not substantiate your point.  In which case I win.

Take your time, keep trying to squirm out of the trap.  It won't change.   Now if you want you can always just say: "Hey I want to *change* my hypothesis" and lose that argument and then  argue one that you think is more important or stronger or better.  Whatever but I'm not going to bother starting a new conversation with someone who can't admit they are wrong.

At some point in life you need to learn this.  Might as well be now.

Also considering your change of subject.  I'm starting to think that when I get this textbook and turn to the indicated page I won't see the quote.  Pretty sad if you have to just keep lying about things.

 

OneLink