People who know everything and find ad hoc explanations for everything cannot be wrong. They are omniscient. It is these useless people who reinterpret scientific theories in any way, who tell us that scientists are idiots because academic formatted and that an incoherent diagram, but well drawn in a pretty image that appeals to children, will work, even before they build it, measure it and thus prove it, which they are unable to do.

Now how much time did it take for you to write that?

I guess this is a carefully made attempt to discredit me, with a lot of effort put into it. Tells or proves really nothing, but gives an impression. A bit of false added also though, like no one has ever said that scientists are idiots. But impression is not complete without a bit of false, and impression is what matters. No one will anyway care to read what i actually told, because one needs to read previous posts for that. Instead they read the last post that you wrote, and make conclusions from that, which is more convenient.

It is important yes, if you don't know how to explain it, try to explain it to children. And if you can do it so that children understand, then everyone will. If you are able to explain something that way, then you have really something to say.

Please would you instead write something constructive about the topic of the thread? You found that there is some bifilar coil model in LTspice, which you didn't really much study, but ok, thank you for telling us that there is one. Can you perhaps contribute a bit more to the common effort here, which is researching overunity, where can it occur, and how to measure whether there is any. Or perhaps say nothing if there is nothing you can contribute with. No one is interested in this personal argument, it's absolutely unnecessary to write such things, and gives no useful information for no one here. I proposed you to do that in private if you want to argue, but you didn't respond.

I'll wait for his verdict.

You don't have to wait for anything, you can replicate his experiment. If you say wait, it doesn't really make sense to say that, if you also don't decide for how long. A month, two months, a year, two years, twenty years?

You can also show that MEG or Kapanaze doesn't work. This is more difficult though, as with both there even don't seem to be the description of the central part, it's like a black box or something. If true, such things cannot be proven wrong, but then cannot be accepted at the first place. All i have seen, was that Kapanaze demonstrated his device, having a small box which he didn't say what was inside it, there could been a radioisotope generator inside it.

Take care of your priorities and let me take care of mine.

I have never told you what to do. Let me take care of what i do then please, and don't offend me all the time. I'm talking to thousands of people, i'm responsible for every single thing i say, you don't need to worry that it's too good for me. Actually for me it's only bad, there is nothing good for me, including no good hope. I don't know how it is about you, at least you could get some good equipment.

Do you speak in general or about our field in FE?
If in general, it's sad and I sympathize with you.

Then what do you expect in our time of science and technology? It's death.

F6FLT

About this thread, bifilar pancake coil experiments didn't show overunity until now, but we have intriguing results with the TK duplication of the "Partzman bifilar transformer". For me TK has enough skills to be able to confirm or invalidate the results. I'll wait for his verdict. I have too many other ideas to test right now.

Strange isn't it?... everyone has speculated that nothing can change for so long and then apparently it does. I would submit that the problem was never about physics or science or some equations but a mental problem. A problem reconciling the fact that there is infinitely more that we do not understand than we could possibly understand. An admission that we are not gods nor are there gods and we are simply beings not unlike any number of other being with a great deal to learn. There in lies the trick and if we believe we have nothing left to learn then the probability of learning anything new tends towards zero.

My theory is very different than most, I assume I am wrong in some way about almost everything. In a world full of people who may believe they could not possibly be wrong about anything I always assume I am wrong in some way. Do you see how that works?... in my world there is an infinite number of new possibilities, not wrong or right but possibilities. While in many others world what is must be as it is and they will not and cannot learn anything new. New, new thoughts, new theories, new innovations will dictate the future not not some misguided bs based on antiquated beliefs. The greatest minds in our history laid the foundation of science based on this belief and so must we.

I mean if all the greatest minds in our history thought they knew everything then why bother looking for a new discovery?. Obviously, if they thought they knew everything then there would be nothing left to discover and yet there was. Do you see the contradiction in reasoning?, a contradiction, a flaw in reasoning on the most basic level. The fact is that everything will change and we will learn an infinite number of new things as we evolve because we have around 30,000 years of proof which tells us this is in fact the case.

So the fact that you or anyone else has somehow changed there mind or learned something new because of new knowledge should come as no surprise. It should have been obvious that this is normal. What is abnormal is thinking nothing can change knowing that it always does despite all our irrational beliefs.

...
I mean if all the greatest minds in our history thought they knew everything then why bother looking for a new discovery?
...

The difference between great minds and ordinary minds is precisely that the former know their limits, they know that they do not know everything, but they also know that they know certain things.
Only ordinary minds think they would face a new discovery simply because they would observe something they didn't know or don't understand.

A theory is only necessary if new facts need to be explained, or if a more general theory can replace specific theories.
But when something seems new, the first thing to do is to check if what you have is really new.

So there are two things to check:
1) Is the fact that we seem to be observing real? And here with TK's experience, it is clear that any measurement bias must be eliminated before asserting it.
2) Is the fact that we are observing new? The less competent you are, and the less you can say it, because you are unable to explain the fact not because the explanation does not exist, but because you ignore it.
If you do not have sufficient scientific skills, you will be unable to make the link with known theories, and if you are also affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect, you will not understand that this missing knowledge can exist; too confident and unaware of your limitations, you will invent absurd theories to explain what is already known (most FE theories are of this type).
A great mind is modest, self-conscious, and cautious, it does not theorize without really very good reasons.

they also know that they know certain things.

Yes they know some things, but most importantly they also can think. Think analytically, model things in their mind, one should learn that as well, the same as one learns other things. Without that thinking ability there really is no hope that one can make new discoveries, all who did most likely had such thinking ability. Some writer once said, it looks like that all think that everyone can write a book, they don't realize that there is a lot to learn to write a book, to do it anyhow well, that is.

No i don't think that i know everything, i know that there is a lot more that i don't know than what i know. Naturally, i cannot think otherwise, because as i see the world around me and think about it, i see how much i don't know. Like you are in nature, every blade of grass has life in it, which we don't really understand. Not to talk insects or birds or animals. Not to talk the immense number of stars above our head. So much unknown, and so much wonderful, far beyond our ability to understand. Makes you feel humble, right?

...Like you are in nature, every blade of grass has life in it, which we don't really understand. Not to talk insects or birds or animals. Not to talk the immense number of stars above our head. So much unknown, and so much wonderful, far beyond our ability to understand. Makes you feel humble, right?

For me humility is a feeling that has been instilled in us by millennia of religions as a necessary attitude towards gods: "God you are great, we are pathetic". It is not an attitude that we should have towards Nature (nor with a hypothetical god but it is another story). Nature is blind, it has no intention, we emerged at random from its set of laws, we are aware of it, and now it is we who want to play with it.
I don't feel "humble", modesty is enough.  Look at human progress since the time of the caves. I only see the riddles of nature. Understanding or solving them is one of life's interests, for everyone at their own level and also for the best of us when they discover new things and thus increase knowledge for posterity. This does not mean that we would be happier, but that we can be more aware of our condition, more in control of our future.
Moreover, we don't know what we're going to find along the way, which is considerably less annoying than thinking that everything is fixed by divine dogmas, in fact enacted by archaic prophets who have never spoken except in the name of their superstitions.
When I see "the immense number of stars above our head", I regret that we can't access them now, but I tell myself that it's perfectly within the realm of the possible, just a question of time.