And insinuating hidden agendas because persons who knew how to do the experiments and had much experience could not see what the Claimant was seeing or claiming.
Without ever showing any real proof or working people through it to help?
...
And the better we get at this working together with experienced people that recognize errors and also with 100% transparency so no man can yell “that’s wrong “without proof
Hi Ramset. I know that people who have little understanding of electronics and physics can be easily fooled
by the many unsupported claims being made out there, but often times here when people who do have formal
training or otherwise a reasonably good understanding of electronics and physics point out that some claim is either quite
suspect or clearly not supported by what has been shown, people who have little understanding of such things and therefore no
real idea of what they are talking about start going on claiming that anyone who has expressed doubts based on
sound understanding and experience are trying to 'cover up over unity', or they are 'just too blind to see the truth', etc.
Don't you think it is more than a little absurd that many people who have no real understanding about what they are talking
about are often telling people here who do understand what they are talking about that they are wrong or just trying to block
over unity devices, etc.?
Please understand there is a quite a difference between someone speaking from real knowledge and experience and saying that a
specific claim being made is suspect or not supported by what has been shown, or pointing out specifically where someone is making an error,
and someone who just makes blanket dismissals of all OU claims. People should be clear about this distinction. Someone
with actual knowledge and experience pointing out that certain specific claims are suspect or not supported by what is shown
is not a blanket dismissal. It is just pointing out that the claim could well be incorrect, but not necessarily so. Just that what has been
shown either has obvious errors or potential errors or otherwise is lacking in regards to the claim being made (or implied), so those things
would have to be properly addressed before any reasonable evaluation can be made.
RF's implied performance claims were just not reasonably supported by what was actually shown.
Guessing at output power and suggesting or implying it is OU when what is shown actually appears to
quite possibly be within a normal operating performance range (i.e., non OU), is obviously a suspect claim.
People who have some real understanding of such things are justified in pointing out such obvious lacking or
suspect claims. Now, if a person making such a claim shows that they are reasonable and makes reasonable attempts
to address any problems pointed out with their claim or assumptions, and they can then show that something
unusual does appear to be going on, then great. Let's investigate further and see what is going on! However, if the
person making the claim responds with excuses and insults and a lot of other nonsense, then chances are that person
either has serious issues or they have other motivations and are not really interested in trying to get to the truth of the matter.
Hope that people can understand the distinction and can understand the value of having people around with
real knowledge and experience of what they are talking about providing feedback on claims or assumptions
that are being made. Without that, this forum will become just another energetic forum where unfounded claims are
often taken as gospel by many, and anyone who expresses doubts, no matter how reasonable those doubts may be,
are attacked or banned.
All the best...
