Man,solar panels are getting cheap

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/12V-200W-Solar-Panel-Kit-Home-Generator-Caravan-Camping-Power-Mono-Charging-PWN-/331639809484?hash=item4d3745e5cc:g:eZ0AAOSwDuJW0L51

Brad:

Only in your opinion MH.

No, I am telling you with absolute certainty that you are dead wrong.  I know what I am talking about.

No MH. I am just putting an end to your bullshit and inability to know where resonant systems exist and produce the required outcome--EG,the ICE engine.

Total nonsense because I never made any claims about being an expert in engines and otherwise what you are suggesting in that statement is just bullshit spinning.

So at this point in time,myself(and everyone else here except you) have posted both the correct scientific terms,and also answers in my own words.

You clearly haven't done that at all.  The two questions were posed such that I won't comment except to say if you are right or wrong.  The questions will be answered later and only then will you be able to see how wrong you were.  All that you have to do is demonstrate competence in your own words and as of now you can't do it.

And so far i am right--you have been the only one here that has been wrong. We have proven this beyond doubt--the ICE saga,and your failed attempt at defining the top speed of a car

What's highlighted above is you making a complete and utter idiot of yourself and everybody knows it.  Everybody has enough common sense to know that you measure a car's top speed on level ground.  So you know this too and you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative in pathetic attempt to say I am wrong, or, you are so lacking in common sense and common everyday understanding that it's a wonder you can even tie your own shoes.  It's truly embarrassing for everyone to read your nonsense about the top speed of the car.  If you had any common sense and self-respect you would stop it right now.

How can anybody take you seriously or want to debate with you when you drone on about my "mistake" about the top speed of a car?  It is truly, truly embarrassing for all concerned to read what you say about this.

wonder how much you chopped and joined all that googling to make it fit your need;s

More embarrassing stuff for all where you unabashedly show how morally bankrupt you can be and how low you will stoop and how you will say _anything_.

well you havnt posted a god darn thing that is correct yet

You are still in your reality distortion zone and showing the whole world that you don't give a damn about compromising your own personal integrity in the worst way possible.  I don't think you can go any lower and you are advertising to the world that you can't be trusted one bit.  You can go haywire.

You see MH,you are small fry in regards to the path i am trying to take at the moment,and the things i am trying to bring forward. You were left behind way back when--and thats a long way back.

The Napoleon of single-transistor circuits.  How is your design of the iPhone 7 coming along?

MileHigh

Brad:







The Napoleon of single-transistor circuits. 

MileHigh

No, I am telling you with absolute certainty that you are dead wrong.  I know what I am talking about.

Like with the ICEs,top speed of a car determination,the sewing machine?.
20 minutes on google is all you needed to defy physics

Total nonsense because I never made any claims about being an expert in engines and otherwise what you are suggesting in that statement is just bullshit spinning.

If you are no expert,then how do you make a claim like this?-->No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever

You clearly haven't done that at all.  The two questions were posed such that I won't comment except to say if you are right or wrong.  The questions will be answered later and only then will you be able to see how wrong you were.  All that you have to do is demonstrate competence in your own words and as of now you can't do it.

You are going on the assumption that you are correct,and that is yet to be proven.
When you post your answers,then we(myself,smOKy,Mags) will debate with you on your answers,and then decide if they are correct.  Im sorry MH,but you just dont get to decide whether you are correct or not--we all do. We will then see if your answers resemble those that we have already supplied.

What's highlighted above is you making a complete and utter idiot of yourself and everybody knows it.  Everybody has enough common sense to know that you measure a car's top speed on level ground.

Says who?.--you? 
How many cars drive only on level ground?
How many race cars drive on level ground?
Sorry MH,but once again you are wrong. In order for your determination to be 100% correct in all circumstances,you must include the gravitational force-you know,the scientific method,and not the petrol heads method-->this is what you yourself have insisted in.

 

So you know this too and you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative in pathetic attempt to say I am wrong, or, you are so lacking in common sense and common everyday understanding that it's a wonder you can even tie your own shoes.

Your pathetic MH
First you want the scientific method,and then you can just change to the rev head method as you please. Your all over the show like a headless chook.

It's truly embarrassing for everyone to read your nonsense about the top speed of the car.  If you had any common sense and self-respect you would stop it right now.

Nope.
What you can do,is stop picking and choosing when you want to use the scientific method,or the general method--not chop and change as you please to suit your needs.

How can anybody take you seriously or want to debate with you when you drone on about my "mistake" about the top speed of a car?  It is truly, truly embarrassing for all concerned to read what you say about this.

I;d say more so embarrassing for you MH,as you know im right.
And what about the torque of the engine,as HP is not torque. I mean,i could have a car that has less HP but far more torque,that has a higher top speed than a car with more HP but less torque.
Fact is MH,you missed quite a bit in that attempt to show us your stuff lol.

More embarrassing stuff for all where you unabashedly show how morally bankrupt you can be and how low you will stoop and how you will say _anything_.

Says the man that called me a liar.
I say what needs to be said--and you have had it coming MH. People here really are done with your negative attitude,and incorrect bullshit. So i decided to put a stop to it by correcting your incorrectness.

You are still in your reality distortion zone and showing the whole world that you don't give a damn about compromising your own personal integrity in the worst way possible.  I don't think you can go any lower and you are advertising to the world that you can't be trusted one bit.  You can go haywire.

You really dont like being proven wrong--do you MH.
Love ya work though--trying to switch your mistakes over to some one else.
Do you not realize that it is all here on this thread,and that people cane read for them self what has taken place.

Repost something i have gotten wrong on this thread MH=--and i dont mean your yet to be proven wrong questions on the wine glass.

How is your design of the iPhone 7 coming along?

I think it hit resonance while talking to my wife,and the components couldnt handle the power surge.

 author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg477533#msg477533 date=1458227054]

MileHigh

Remember you commented that a Joule Thief needed a variable base resistor?

Think you got me mixed up with some one else again,as i said i design my JTs (and the likes) to run with the least amount of resistance as possible.

 

I asked you why and asked you to explain and you avoided the question and never responded.

As above.

It's because you in fact can't write out a few comprehensible paragraphs discussing electronics in a serious manner to back up your claim about the need for a variable base resistor on a standard Joule Thief.  So you have some serious limitations.

MH
Can you please repost said claim,along with post number?.

One more time, all that you are doing is compromising your integrity and showing that when push comes to shove, you can't be trusted one bit.

As i said,can you please find said post,

What do you think after reading me for six years?

That you dont know as much as i thought you did.


Brad

Brad:

If you are no expert,then how do you make a claim like this?-->No, an ICE doesn't resonate in any way, shape or form whatsoever

Guess what?  After that I acknowledged that Helmholtz resonators can be used on the air intake and the exhaust.  So how many times are you going to repeat that?  An ICE itself excluding the intake and exhaust doesn't make use of resonance.

Im sorry MH,but you just dont get to decide whether you are correct or not--we all do. We will then see if your answers resemble those that we have already supplied.

In this particular case I can.  The only answers that count are the ones that you state in your own words because that demonstrates that you understand.  Mass Google pasting is not an answer, period.

How many cars drive only on level ground?
How many race cars drive on level ground?
Sorry MH,but once again you are wrong.

Stop making a complete fool of yourself.

MileHigh

  MH:
  Better to look for what Tesla was talking about. Quantum theory is not the same thing. Nor will it ever explain WHERE the extra energy is coming from, nor will our text books, or what we heard in school. 
   FE is not based on the quantum theory, but on tapping the Aether. As Tesla mentioned many many times.

  MH:
  Better to look for what Tesla was talking about. Quantum theory is not the same thing. Nor will it ever explain WHERE the extra energy is coming from, nor will our text books, or what we heard in school. 
   FE is not based on the quantum theory, but on tapping the Aether. As Tesla mentioned many many times.

Nick:

Many times I have asked free energy researchers to set up a controlled experiment that shows getting extra energy from coils and they have never responded.  The same question could be posed about magnetism or tapping the alleged aether and you could expect a similar response.  Can you set up a controlled experiment to back up your claim?  Can you demonstrate the existence of the alleged aether?

I have often read people that claim to know Tesla's writings saying that he never talked about getting any energy from the aether or from magnetism, so they would challenge you on that statement.  Your toaster doesn't run on blind faith, it runs on brute force power.

MileHigh

Please explain where the energy comes from when a magnet is passed by a coil.  You can't!  Neither can current science, so they invent an answer. Which is wrong. But, The Answer  "is blowing in the wind".

You are trapped in a belief system.  The energy that you get out of the coil comes from the mechanical work it takes to move the magnet past the coil - it's not a freebie, and it is all explainable.