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 Members: 83987
  • *Latest: zacmag

  • *Total Posts: 892779
  • *Total Topics: 15669
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 968094 times)

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2400 on: May 22, 2014, 05:24:28 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.
So according to you:

1) Anything at all which people debated a long time ago and people debate today means the premise is highly likely to be true.
2) Anything at all which people talk about on this thread but have not definitively disproved in this thread is highly likely to be true.
3) Anything at all which challenges some law of science is highly likely to be true.
4) Anything at all which someone claims has been built and claims to operate in some way absolutely validates any and all claims about their operation.
5) Is just another case of 4)
6) Anything at all involving a hypothesis where some part is not unusual is highly likely to be true.

Is this correct?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2400 on: May 22, 2014, 05:24:28 PM »

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2401 on: May 22, 2014, 11:20:03 PM »
No sarkeizen: 1)any simple battery in existance which people debated a long time ago and still debate today means usuality won't do and unusual more likely true.2)anything related to number 1 which was discussed on this thread many months ago but was not number 1 but created the same political vaccuum as number 1 means unusual more likely true.3)anything which sensibly challenges an already challenged law to fill the political vaccuum created by 1 and 2 is more likely to be likely.4)anything related to and including number 1 that someone has built and claims to fill the political void of number 1 more than likely should be listened to.5)is just another 4.6) anything which has a half usual hypothesis to fill the unusual political vaccuum created by number 1 is likely to be unusualy usual,ie.a match for number 1 and its effect.   This is correct.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2402 on: May 22, 2014, 11:50:40 PM »
any simple battery in existance
In what sense are you using the term "exist"?  Do you mean a) It has been built and works in exactly the way profitis in his illucid imagination believe it does or b) someone somewhere built something and claims that it works in some particular way?
Quote
means usuality won't do and unusual more likely true
Please re-write this part in English. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2402 on: May 22, 2014, 11:50:40 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2403 on: May 23, 2014, 12:36:35 AM »
I mean a piece of gold and a piece of plat shoved into electrolyte in presence of air and sealed off.this created a political vaccuum extending 70years and going on today.means there is no usual explanation.an unusual one necessary mr sarkeizen.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2404 on: May 23, 2014, 01:02:30 AM »
I mean a piece of gold and a piece of plat shoved into electrolyte in presence of air and sealed off.
So if something like that had been built but nobody who was debating it knew that. Your principle "If it exists and people have been debating it for a long time makes it highly-likely to be true." would still be true.  Right?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2404 on: May 23, 2014, 01:02:30 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2405 on: May 23, 2014, 02:44:44 AM »
Everyone who was debating it knew it mr sarkeizen.if they didn't know then ofcourse it wouldn't apply because then a piece of enriched uranium shoved in a closed box couldve done same and there wouldve been no debate to begin with.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2406 on: May 23, 2014, 03:17:52 AM »
then a piece of enriched uranium shoved in a closed box couldve done same and there wouldve been no debate to begin with.
But people can debate something that hasn't been built.  Right?  Clearly if people had Karpen's design, or notes or had talked to him about the subject or just out-of-the-blue and entirely independently thought such a thing might work.  They could still debate it.  Virtually any aspect of science where true equipoise exists there is debate as to the outcome.   Many of these debates last a very long time.  Just off the top of my head I can think of over 100 such debates in my field alone.

So a debate on the subject is possible even if something hasn't been built.  Right?  However according to you the existence of such debate does not increase the probability of the hypothesis being true.  Right?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2406 on: May 23, 2014, 03:17:52 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2407 on: May 23, 2014, 03:53:04 AM »
Why debate a piece of gold and plat shoved in electrolyte under air and then come to absolute zero consensus conclusion,after 70years @sarkeizen? Why is the subject of the 70year and ongoing debate:'what is fueling the thing' unresolved when galvanic science was and  now is even more fullblown understood? What is fueling the thing @sarkeizen?

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2408 on: May 23, 2014, 04:16:05 AM »
Why debate a piece of gold and plat shoved in electrolyte under air and then come to absolute zero consensus conclusion
So you agree you can debate something for a very long time that has never been built.  Right? Good.  Moving on then...

Now what if someone had, as you say built a device that had "a piece of gold and a piece of platinum shoved into electrolyte in the presence of air and sealed off" and the people debating it knew someone built it but, what if that was ALL they knew.  That is, all that they knew is that someone somewhere claimed to have built such a thing.

Does your rule still apply?  Does the longstanding debate still make your hypothesis highly likely?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2408 on: May 23, 2014, 04:16:05 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2409 on: May 23, 2014, 06:22:06 AM »
Come to the new thread mr sarkeizen.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2410 on: May 23, 2014, 06:43:21 AM »
that WASN'T ALL THEY KNEW
So, in other words what?  No, it wouldn't make the hypothesis highly likely?  Good to know.

So according to you.  The hypothesis gets more likely if a device has been built and there's a long debate but it's not enough that there's debate and it's not enough that the device has been built and it's also not enough that they know the device has been built.   Therefore you are hiding something about your standard of evidence.

So clearly you think the probability of a hypothesis goes up if some kind of information is communicated to the debaters.  How about you tell me what exactly that is?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2410 on: May 23, 2014, 06:43:21 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2411 on: May 23, 2014, 08:02:18 AM »
the probability goes way up if you go to the other thread @sarkeizen.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2412 on: May 23, 2014, 01:42:55 PM »
that WASN'T ALL THEY KNEW
Again clearly you think the probability of a hypothesis goes up ONLY if some SPECIFIC information is communicated to the debaters.  How about you tell me what information has to be communicated to the debaters in order for the probability of the hypothesis to be very high?

This doesn't make your standard bad per se...I mean if someone arguing that a medical drug works and knows that there exists fifteen high-quality double-blind placebo controlled large-N studies.   Then sure the probability of their hypothesis being correct becomes very high but a) That would be the case regardless of if someone were opposing the idea or not and b) it seems exceptionally stupid to leave out such a crucial bit of information about how you're judging evidence.

Offline Philip Hardcastle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2413 on: May 23, 2014, 01:51:38 PM »
@sarkeizen, profitis has transferred the discussion on Karpen to the thread called KARPEN PILE.


Please post there on Karpen cells, and leave this thread to quentron.


Thanks

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2414 on: May 23, 2014, 02:07:34 PM »
Please post there on Karpen cells
Dearest Phillip,

I'm not even posting about Karpen Piles here. If you read the thread you can see I'm talking about standards of evidence and I have actively eschewed talking about Karpen Piles as I am a mathematician not an electrochemist.  The overarching purpose of such a discussion is to judge the evidence for Quenco.  Perhaps the reason that we spend time using profits's pet (stupid) idea as an example is the dearth of posts useful to this end about Quenco.

Please, now that you consider me someone worthy of being addressed by name (albeit in a way rather suspiciously similar to profitis).  Feel free to jump in with your own ideas about hypothesis testing.

Thanks,

sarkeizen.

 

OneLink