Horace, Michael, etc. None of you deserve to see anything.
You all cry about this measurement and that AND I specifically asked in response to guru Michaels posting, propose or present the measurement methodology you will accept. Guess what all were silent except for WB whom I took to think it was directed to him. So lets show our color here fellows, knowing the high impedance of this circuit and the obvious lack of a power source, what is your plan? "Outside of a NASA equipped lab"? PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Or is that do it out way so we can claim something. SIck! Sick! -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: "Cold" electricity On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> This is all supposition. No actual power > measurements have been made. > > What? Bullshit. That is nothing less than arrogant > stupidity on your part! OK, show me power measurements that were either posted or on the web site. That does not mean *current* measurements. It does not mean RMS i*V. It means *power* measurements. We are talking about the film clip for which I provided the dialog. However, I haven't seen *any* power measurements so anything you come up with will be a plus. > >> Have you read Bill Beaty's posts? > > Of course. > >>> Eventually - IF nothing else happens first - it > will be possible to focus the light from these LEDs > onto an efficient photocell, and thereby eliminate > ground. > >> Eliminating ground is not the problem. Accurate > power measurement, or self running is the problem. > That will require hooking up the photocells to an > oscillator to drive the system. > > Why do you assume, with such a limited knowledge-base > of what is going one here, that the oscillation is not > lock-in ? I don't have to assume anything. It is up to the claimant to provide evidence. > > >>> That is what will silence all possible doubt. > >> I hope to see a self running system, but of course > don't expect to see it. This looks like a lot of > wishful thinking. > > Yes. It is wishful. Almost all of the efforts we make > here on Vo to advance the state of alternative energy > are wishful. Your efforts towards 'deflation fusion' > are totally wishful. Does that make it wrong ?? Deflation Fusion is a speculation and clearly labeled so in the article title. It is an extended hypothesis justified by references. It could be wrong or right or partially right. That is entirely different from an *experiment* report, and different still from a request for replication. The experiment description is either adequate for replication or not. In this case not. It appears to me to be a waste of time discussing this because there is just not enough information to evaluate anything. I have at least 3 projects in the queue that deserve my time more. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM
