I gave you my honest opinion, I won't try and convert you to it. So, what is the evidence for electron ejection?
Michel 2009/6/23 John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com>: > The same could be said of many respected scientists in truth. > > I believe that both JLN and Stiffler have generally good intentions, neither > are perfect. > The degree to which anyone is an expert or amateur varies greatly by both > subject and is highly relative. > > To attack so broadly is in bad taste. > > Personally I don't find you to have a high degree of intellectual honesty or > at least insight. > > Why? because you tried to pretend that evidence is not evidence. > A court of law has rules of evidence that can invalidate something as > evidence in that system too however the truth that it is evidence does not > change and even the judge would not pretend that it does. > > I must further challenge you in that I don't believe you can actually > genuinely believe that either of these men are crooks, calling them crooks > means you believe they are criminals and that their scientific work is a > guise to defraud people of money or other valuables. > > Do you honestly believe that is a remote possibility? > > Next you claim that they are not willing to measure an energy balance > correctly. > Well neither tend to make foolish mistakes, I have seen graphs of voltage > and current measurements showing that they are considering power factors. > I do not know what mistakes you believe they do make or how you believe they > should do things differently but not all suggestions pan out as practical or > possible in an experiment. > > Finally as for debate it is very understandable that when you are one person > and you attract a lot of skeptical criticism of various levels of validity > that you just choose to not engage especially since skeptics are > extraordinarily intellectually dishonest mostly as their aim is to > disbelieve and attack, but even if they delighted in it there would easily > be too much for one person to do and perform experiments. > > Also Stiffler demoed the effect in a video and the pulse effect could not be > the result of error, you would seem willing to accuse him of lying (with no > motive). > > JLN however has no apparent reason to pretend this works if it does not at > least none we know of. > He has not published this device on his website but has with another gone to > the expense and efforts of patenting it, a process generally rather useless > unless you believe something works. > > And what a coincidence, we have someone not in any way connected to these > other to patenting what looks to be the identical effect, Imris Pavel. > > Is this perfect evidence? No. > Is this evidence that should be ignored because it isn't perfect evidence? > No. > Are papers printed in Nature "perfect" evidence? No. > Are they wrong sometimes? Yes > > If I presented this idea and none of this evidence existed you could very > well dismiss it and should, but as this evidence does exist then it gives > the idea a degree of weight, a weight that is too great to ignore unless > your intent is to dissmiss something before it gains more evidence. > > I am not claiming this evidence ads up to proof, some even argue proof (of > anything) is technically impossible. > Will you ignore anything without proof? > > No, all that is needed is evidence and evidence it does plainly have. > > Even if evidence is of such a poor quality as you seem to think, if there is > a strong degree of correlation even untrustworthy sources can form a strong > case. > As there is neither any realistic possibility of motivation or conspiracy > this is the case here. > > It builds a strong enough case in conjunction with the evidence for electron > ejection that it seems more likely than not that there is something here as > the only other possibility is mass coincidence or conspiracy (Starting with > Tesla). > > Of course both Stiffler and JLN have made novel genuine scientific > demonstrations I don't believe you would argue with that and neither appear > to be primarily motivated by money. > > Of course if you would let me leave this part of it alone I can present the > case for electron ejection. > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Of course no form of evidence is perfect, but some are less perfect >> than others. From my personal experience with Naudin and Stiffler, >> they have both shown that they are not capable, or not willing, to >> measure an energy balance correctly, plus they refuse to engage in a >> scientific debate. They are either badly deluded amateurs, or crooks, >> but you would have to be a scientist yourself to appreciate this. >> >> Michel >> >> 2009/6/23 John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> >> > >> > Let me have another crack at that, I rushed and the quality of the email >> > paid the price. >> > >> > -------- >> > >> > You are making a mistake. >> > >> > You have followed the line of thought that some forms of evidence have >> > value and others don't but in truth all forms of evidence can have value >> > and >> > no form of evidence is perfect. >> > >> > Of course a patent can have scientific value but if it has value to a >> > scientist who is disinterested is another matter again. >> > >> > The patents are evidence that something like this may have worked, that >> > someone considered it worthwhile patenting. >> > >> > In the case of the patent on which Jean Louis Naudin is a coinventor it >> > states he/they replicated Hiddink and got success though less than they >> > expected so they patented an improved version. >> > >> > That is evidence, not proof but evidence unless you care more about >> > games than truth. >> > >> > Using a standard of evidence that can not generally be obtained/achieved >> > is a very effective way of closing of science from any progress it does not >> > wish to see made. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> No, you make a mistake. >> >> >> >> You have followed the line of thought that some forms of evidence have >> >> value and others don't but in truth all forms of evidence can have value >> >> and >> >> no form of evidence is perfect. >> >> >> >> Of course a patent can have scientific value bit if it has value to >> >> scientist who are disinterested in another matter again. >> >> >> >> The patents are evidence that something like this may have worked, that >> >> someone considered it worthwhile patenting. >> >> In the case of the JLN patent it states they replicated Hiddink and got >> >> success though less than they expected so they patented an improved >> >> version. >> >> >> >> That is evidence, not proof but evidence unless you care more about >> >> games than truth. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I meant full refs of the scientific papers, or at least links to well >> >>> documented experiments by serious experimenters. Patents have no >> >>> scientific value of course, you can claim any impossible thing and get >> >>> a patent for it. >> >>> >> >>> Michel >> >>> >> >>> 2009/6/23 John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com>: >> >>> > The former will take more time, but the latter have already been >> >>> > given. >> >>> > >> >>> > Stiffler replication | variant >> >>> > "JLN Patent" replication | variant >> >>> > Edwin Gray >> >>> > Imris Pavel >> >>> > and probably Testatika >> >>> > >> >>> > A list of course is not much use, I have however already detailed >> >>> > these in 2 >> >>> > posts so far... >> >>> > >> >>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Michel Jullian >> >>> > <michelj...@gmail.com> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Refs please. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Michel >> >>> >> >> >>> >> 2009/6/23 John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Given the evidence that both of these effects exist, both the >> >>> >> > electron >> >>> >> > being >> >>> >> > ejected and arcs creating excess energy... >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >
