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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 1089025 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2385 on: May 21, 2014, 02:57:11 PM »
Instead of standing there and laughing why don't you help me disprove my sweeping statement @markE.help me to crash my own statement mr fellow scientist.
LOL.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2386 on: May 21, 2014, 03:18:07 PM »
so its more rational to ignore a sweeping statement on over 100 batteries of the same class than to tackle it headon?
I am tackling a question head on and it's one you asked me: "What standard of evidence would be sufficient for me to believe in a Maxwell's Demon device".

I must say I had forgotten how much fun it is to watch you squirm.  (You have shifted your argument about four times after asking me this one quesiton).

Thanks for the entertainment! :D  Please keep saying stupid things. :D

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2387 on: May 21, 2014, 03:42:22 PM »
And so it goes dear audience.mr E will stand there laughing and mr sarkeizen will continue evading.meanwhile....my statement gathers more power..the political vaccuum increases.. What,dear audience,fuels a whole class of sealed karpen batteries?anyone?

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2388 on: May 21, 2014, 05:07:49 PM »
So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidence
Just to refresh your memory.   This is the question you asked.  I'm interested in discussing this.  Especially if there's some alternate standard of evidence which is equal or better than my "provide a formal argument...".

You seem to think there is a better standard but I'm hesitant to take advice on hypothesis testing from someone who hasn't completed a first year stats course. 

I'm sure you understand. :D

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2389 on: May 21, 2014, 08:42:32 PM »
Remember how the karpen device and blueprint sparked a massive debate a few years ago when it hit the net mr sarkeizen. That debate still continues to this day,the one guy says its vibration,the other guy says its radiowaves,the other guy says its a 2lot discrepency,karpen himself declares it a 2lot discrepency etc etc. Now my question to you is this; what wouldve happened if the power density of that device was ten times higher,just ten times higher,how would that have,in your opinion, affected the outcome of the debate..

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2390 on: May 21, 2014, 09:11:53 PM »
So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidence
Just to refresh your memory.   This is the question you asked.  I'm interested in discussing this.  Especially if there's some alternate standard of evidence which is equal or better than my "provide a formal argument...".

You seem to think there is a better standard but you can't seem to stay on-topic for more than a single post...and of course you suck at math.

So any chance you're going to tell me what standard of evidence is better than my "provide a formal argument"?

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2391 on: May 21, 2014, 09:45:39 PM »
You don't think that uhmm,maybe,just maybe one or two,or 3 or 4,or 5 or 6 of the 100 karpen relatives statisticaly have a power density of ten times greater @sarkeizen?.........................  Or morE?I'm fascinated with your reaction to my last post btw.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2392 on: May 21, 2014, 09:52:10 PM »
You don't think that uhmm,maybe,just maybe one or two,or 3 or 4,or 5 or 6 of the 100 karpen relatives statisticaly have a power density of ten times greater @sarkeizen?.........................  Or morE?I'm fascinated with your reaction to my last post btw.
Are you no longer willing to talk about a standard of evidence?  That would figure.  Each time you get trapped you change the subject.

Let me know which one it is. :D

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2393 on: May 21, 2014, 10:14:17 PM »
Are you no longer willing to talk about statistics mr sarkeizen. One lowpower gas electrode overpotential cell sparked a massive debate that continues unresolved.what is going to happen with other gas electrode overpotential cells that exceed the karpen power density by miles.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2394 on: May 22, 2014, 12:12:05 AM »
Are you no longer willing to talk about statistics mr sarkeizen.
Are you trying to say that talking about statistics is more important than talking about standards of evidence?




Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2395 on: May 22, 2014, 01:49:04 AM »
statistics become the standard of evidence.have a look here: the one statement on the one overpotential cell sparked massive debate and the outcome remains in political vaccuum ie. unresolved.now the sam e statement on 100 such type devices does the same thing ie.ends in political vaccuum under file 'unresolved'.  Don't you think its beginning to look statisticaly unresolvable @sarkeizen? Why?

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2396 on: May 22, 2014, 02:08:18 AM »
statistics become the standard of evidence.
You know, just once it wouldn't hurt if you attempted to learn something about what you're talking about.  Instead of just making shit up. Statistics is about the analysis and presentation of data.  A standard of evidence is about what evidence is sufficient to accept a hypothesis.

For example:

A P-Value is a statistic representing the probability that say a sample mean would be as extreme as one you have measured.
A standard of evidence is considering a P-value of 0.05 is sufficient to reject the null-hypothesis.

So again, are we talking about statistics or a standard of evidence.  Moron.

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2397 on: May 22, 2014, 09:21:18 AM »
Standard of evidence,,why are scientists that you consult on this issue at home and scientists around here eg markE unable to resolve this issue mr sarkeizen..doesn't that raise alarm bells for you,or suspicion.or at least motive to declare something highly unusual if not evidencial going on here.why can they not tell us when a overpotential differential device is going to run flat mr sarkeizen.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2398 on: May 22, 2014, 12:57:37 PM »
Standard of evidence,,
Please describe the standard which you believe makes a hypothesis highly likely.  This should be a list of criteria, not some moronic narrative.

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2399 on: May 22, 2014, 04:46:23 PM »
1)The first pile sparked debate many many years ago.it continues today,unresolved.2)the other piles have been brought to the threads attention many many months ago,the same problem,unresolved.3)the anti2lot hypothesis about the unresolvedness remains unresolved.4)the piles exist.5) the whole class of piles exist and are still coming into existance.6)there is not a single unusual thing in the first half of the hypothesis,only the 2nd half declaring a 2lot violation.6 reasons to take the hypothesis more serious @sarkeizen.at least more serious,don't you think?