What would you have had him do in the case of Mizuno though? (I haven't looked much or at all at the replication in question)
As for the MAHG I can't seem to find the group, if you can locate either the post or the group that would be great.
He ran a dummy load test which came to the correct figure, I find it hard to believe that 20 COP times can become underunity, 10 times maybe he's out by an order of magnitude somehow but I can't see how he can be that far out so I'd love to see that post.
On 9/1/06, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, Naudin is not hoaxing - closer to needing a lesson in measuring P-in.BTW - when in the past has Naudin been proven correct, *with independent replication,* on any OU experiment ? I think it would be wise to question every conclusion he has made. Most are lacking.Read George Holtz's post on the 20x power measurement error made by Naudin. It is on the MAHG forum.Don't get me wrong - I admire the effort put in by Naudin and his skill as a builder of a wide assortment of unfinished and *promising* experiments - but his refusal to admit obvious errors and to correct the errors online - as with the MEG and MAHG is irresponsible.And then the biggest objection is that he leaves everything in a cliff-hanging state - why can't he push forward and finish what he has started if there is a hint of OU - as with Mizuno?His M.O over at least a dozen experiments is to show a provocative glimpse of what could be OU, with a well constructed experiment BUT then to abruptly and without explanation - move onto the next glimpse. Peep show science !... not there is anything wrong with drama... or peep shows for that matter <g>Jones----- Original Message -----From: John BerrySent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:01 PMSubject: Re: [Vo]: Re: MAHG at TeslaTech conventionUnless your accusing Naudin of hoaxing it what do you mean no proof!?!
20+ COP, that's pretty straight forward!
And personally I wouldn't question Naudin, he has proven himself numerous times over many years.
That doesn't mean the Hydrogen recombination theory is correct, maybe it is a way to tap vacuum energy (strikes me Aspden might agree having read some of his stuff the other day) and maybe it isn't but how do you know that recombination of hydrogen can't lead to tapping vacuum energy under the right conditions?
Build it and prove him wrong.
Actually the only thing puzzling me is why more than a year after a successful reproducible 20+ COP FE machine which is relatively straight forward to replicate there is no obvious sign of them showing up for sale anytime soon, Ok it creates heat not electricity and even if we assume that turning heat into electricity is bothersome enough to discourage it as the primary energy source for homes why not a really efficient heater?
Tempted to build one myself if someone can suggest an efficient low cost way to turn heat into electricity, anyone know where to get Sterling engines that can do about 1kw? Steam Turbine?
On 9/1/06, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- John Berry wrote:
> Bill Lyne believes much the same [basic
misunderstanding of hydrogen chemistry -in the
explanation]
A google search for Thorsten Ludwig, President of the
German Association for Space Energy (GASE), indicates
that he resides in Berlin, Germany and is a
spokesperson for alternative energy innovations in
Europe.
Recently completing a PhD, his doctoral thesis was on
the Casimir Effect and zero point energy. He has
participated in the Casimir Force colloquia overseas
and is apparently an inspiring speaker with some
credentials...
... making his inane repetition at this conference -
of obvious and glaring fundamental mistakes in the
original Naudin/Moller writeup - all the more
mysterious...
This does not necessarily mean that they haven't found
excess energy [yet there is still little real proof
for that] - it only means there is more high level
ignorance in the field than there should be. One
suspects another "mail order PhD" - ala Bearden.
Repetition of a flawed experiment proves more about
the repeater than the original premise.
Jones
