John, doesn't Bill's great advice below make any sense to you? "don't suspect weirdness and certainly don't leap to accept its reality unless there really is no other possible explanation. If you do, you'll waste your life chasing the 99% crap, and never manage to see past the illusory weirdness to the rare genuine anomalies hidden behind it."
If/when it eventually sinks in you may want to take back some of your harsh words, as he was being very nice and helpful to you actually. Great post, Bill! Michel 2009/6/24 John Berry <[email protected]> > > 1: Teslas Radiant Receiver > I did not pick up on the fact that it was a positive charge that the plate > "collected", the Barbat patent suggested otherwise and it seems I didn't > notice. > Never the less he does specify that a capacitor with unusually high quality > must be used. > Of course this does not change anything because it is still the electrons > that breach the dielectric, it does however give me an idea... > Good work BTW, Kudos on the experiments. >> >> > ATGroup found these cold electrons in the TMB or Thermal Magnetic Battery. >> > (I think I can dig up the web page of the TMB for any interested) >> >> Yeah, sounds like THAT's the one I was after. > > Not sure what you mean. > Did you mention the TMB or were you thinking of it? > Or is that sarcasm? >> >> > While his theory seems probably entirely wrong it has been replicated by >> > several including JLN and others with success: >> > http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/index.htm >> >> Ah, I knew about this one, but didn't know that JLN had tried it out. >> Valle' isn't the usual crop of self-deluders, and I think this is one of >> the rare claims that's actually worth testing. >> >> >> >> > Boyd Bushman in US patent 5,929,732 shows a magnetic device that projects a >> >> The trouble with most of these: they're crap. >> >> You build them and they don't work as advertised. Perhaps you made a >> mistake, but you'll probably never find the problem without help from the >> original inventor. Or perhaps something was intentinoally left out of the >> patent. Or much more likely, perhaps the inventor was dishonestly fooling >> himself or actually insane, and the patent is purely for vanity. If the >> rule for orthodox reality is "99% of everything is crap," then the rule >> for alt-science inventions is similar, but the percentage is far closer to >> 1. (You won't discover this fact unless you spend some time actually >> trying out a bunch of alt-science devices, and encountering continuous >> failures or just a string of mistakes and delusions. One becomes cynical >> after enough of these events.) >> >> I find that it's nearly worthless talking about such untested devices >> UNLESS YOU YOURSELF have got one of them to work, or you're in direct >> contact with such a person. > > I think you need to consider another possibility. > That the level of crap may be far lower than you expect and the mistake is in > assuming that extraordinary devices that break conventional rules work by > conventional means. > Replicating a device fails so often because only the mundane understood part > has good odds of being satisfactorily replicated. > Add to this innocent changes people make and the success rate is low but not > zero. > But there are very real successful replications of things sometimes. > By finding a strong thread of correlation however can confirm even the most > spotty evidence. >> >> Don't waste your own time pretending that they're real, since almost >> always they're not. > > > Nice about you being all knowing and everything. > Please recognize you just shared an opinion, it may be right or wrong but it > is only an opinion. >> >> To converse about them, it's a good idea to preface >> every statement with this: "It's pure speculation, and probably just one >> in an unending string of hoaxes or errors, but..." (Do that for awhile, >> and you'll develop the habit of remaining silent until you've had a chance >> to test the stuff personally. A genuine anomaly is rare, worth >> widely publicizing, while crying wolf must be avoided.) > > > If a number of devices (7-12) all show the same design element and the > same anomaly and few if any others share that same design element then > assuming these devices are not all linked to the same researchers or group > then would it not seem that quite a coincidence has taken place? > Again take a single thread of cotton you can break it, try twisting 12 > strands together and you will have a much harder job. > If you look at any subject with a skeptical or resigned or overly critical > mindset you will always find evidence for it not working, > relationships/love/women, money etc... > You will come to the conclusion that everything is scams or lies. >> >> >> >> > Another example is seen in this video: >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltnlviCqu70 (watch the next 2 from him >> >> A high electrolysis current, routed through grubby supermagnets touched >> lightly against alligator clips? That's a forumla for random noise and >> corroded contacts. Measurment results then are like seeing animal shapes >> in the clouds. He's making lots of "spot welder" type sparks, not HV >> sparks. He says "what was that?" Hasn't he ever seen the tiny "sparks" >> of molten metal spat out whenever you touch a corroded screwdriver across >> battery terminals > > Yeah, I get that it's not perfect, there is plenty of room for this to be > something like that as you say, but it still seems odd. > If this is a poor contact elsewhere why is the sparking always somewhere in > the middle of the magnets but not the same place? > And while we only have his comments to go on here how come once we see a > spark indicating current flow does it seem that it was only momentary? > And why did it only spark in one direction of current flow? was that magnet > forming a faulty diode somewhere? > Sure a mundane answer seems totally plausible but not definite if we have > an anomaly that fits the bill. > By it's self we would just rule this off as some odd technical issue no > doubt, but given the fact that this looks like the electrical version of Paul > Pantones electrical plasma pinch and the others listed it must be considered > that maybe he did get an anomaly especially when an > alternate explanation isn't crystal clear. >> >> >> >> > So just to recap we have 7 accounts listed above of electrons flowing along >> >> I'd say zero accounts, since neither you nor I have yet verified any of >> them. > > > As I said, if the only evidence that someone accepts is themselves having > done a think then far fewer things become possible or known. > There are of course 7, actually in all including Pantone which is a slightly > different subject I think the count is at 12. > And that is just for the magnet-electron connection. > You may choose to disbelieve any account that you have not personally tested > but these accounts do exist and they are evidence, not proof but evidence. > I might be of a different opinion but I could understand if by default you > gave them a low value each. > However it is simply incorrect to ignore entirely their existence, it is > infact a crime against logic and truth to pretend that evidence has no value > whatsoever simply on your say so and not all of the evidence I have presented > is so easily discounted. > You have become an absolute close minded skeptic, unwilling to even consider > evidence because of your disillusionment. >> >> Being one step removed from an experimenter is VERY NOT OK > > > Being 1 step removed from a skeptic is very not ok IMO. >> >> , since most >> amateurs aren't trying to learn the truth, but instead are looking for >> evidence to support their agendas, while rejecting counterevidence. The >> guy in the above video is making just that mistake. Unless we know >> differently, the same is probably true about all the other reports as >> well. > > Again you have totally ignored slightly harder to disprove evidence. (the > link about the graphene) > I could ask you how come the only devices I have found with such a > configuration all mysteriously have the same anomaly (often not the main > point of the invention). > What the odds of this being the case are since the anomaly is not very widely > reported otherwise. > But because you conveniently do not recognize any of the evidence as existing > then this odd coincidence disappears. > You have rejected all of the evidence without apparently weighing it's merits. > > >> >> Orthodox science does suppress threatening discoveries, but more >> often the "discoveries" simply aren't real. > > > How the hell would you know? > Again that is an opinion you are stating not a fact. > >> >> Of course the sorts of >> experiment reports you discuss are very useful if you have lots of time >> and looking for anomalies to verify. But until this is done, these >> reports are almost the same as rumors and urban legends. Don't say "I >> heard that someone tried it and it worked." Wait until you can say "I >> personally tried it, and here are all the gory details in great quantity." >> >> > Patrick Flanagan in US Patent 4,743,275 'Electron field generator' >> > describes >> > a capacitor with a dielectric dopped with tiny metal particles, the entire >> >> It's quite clearly a negative ion generator, even with description of >> health benefits and precipitation of air pollution, just as all neg ion >> generators do. With AC, you have capacitance currents and don't need any >> conductive path, so ion-spitting coronas develops on sharp points of >> suspended metal particles. Normal ion wind DOES fill a space almost >> immediately, it self-repels and seeks out distant walls, that's how neg >> ion generators always behave. > > This works faster. > And secondly while you can ionize a plasma without any exposed > metal/conductor you won't leave it with a net charge. > The metal particles are encased in a dielectric, >> >> >> >> > Bill's web page(s) on ball lightening gains more and more weight as people >> > add their report, apparently about 5% of the population have seen ball >> > lightening about the same % that have seen lightening up close. >> >> BL Eyewitness reports are very different than amateur alt-science >> experimenter reports, since BL eyewitnesses aren't intentionally looking >> for weird events, and they aren't out to prove their own personal >> theories. >> >> If you strenuously apply yourself to search for weirdness, you'll see it >> everywhere, but it's all just orthodox phenomena filtered through mistakes >> in perception. > > > It is ALL is it? > God being a god must be cool. > >> >> So, don't suspect weirdness and certainly don't leap to >> accept its reality unless there really is no other possible explanation. > > > Most anything can be "Debunked" if you are biased, any improbability is more > probably that the "impossible which is ALL fake". >> >> If you do, you'll waste your life chasing the 99% crap, and never manage >> to see past the illusory weirdness to the rare genuine anomalies hidden >> behind it. > > > I could quote back to you things you have written in the all too distant past. > The skeptic objects to something fearing it may be false but the greater risk > is in ignoring something that may be true and is extraordinary, which carries > the greater cost? > I have heard you say something to that effect. >> >> > Also it would be worth noting that most fully "respectible" scientists >> > would >> > not think about these possibilities, try the experiments or report on them >> > if they did so anyone who does report results is going to be more likely >> > either an amateur or a professional who not well respected. >> >> Try the experiments. Don't talk here. Go try them, then start a web page >> and post the results so they won't just vanish as usual. > > I have learnt something. > No matter how much you may wish you were good at something or could enjoy it, > if you are not cut out for something and are making no progress and hating it > and doing everything poorly and generally not even doing it then you should > instead focus your energies onto something that you can proceed with and have > passion for instead because when you have something you can burn the midnight > oil for and push past failure that is something you will do good at, it is > always possible to hire someone to do things you are no good at. >> >> >> The last ones I did are here: >> >> Tesla's death ray on your lab bench: the 'air threads' effect, >> accelerated nanoparticles at one atmosphere pressure >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLG8gKb-lyk >> >> X-rays where none should be? Ah, that's because we can have >> vacuum where none should be! AC high voltage will spontaneously >> create high-vacuum regions if the e-field is high enough to create >> corona discharge in bubbles within dielectric. > > One I know was only 5v, the other one was also low voltage but I don't have > specifics. > One was someone who I contacted through email. > The other was a foreign, I am pretty sure German website. > There is no apparent link between them. > Both had twisted wire. > I have tried to find the website again but without success, However I was > able to find some of it on other also foreign websites, it is info I have > never seen in English. > Both have wire twisted together tightly at 90 degrees. > I know the inspiration for the first one was something other than the website > in question. > Anyway let's face it, you are not interested in logical assessment of > evidence only outright calling it all non-existent. > Your argument is not based on logic but opinion and emotion. You are putting > yourself in the way of possible progress. > Therefore it is clear you are now some class of Skeptic (even if you do > believe these things are possible you out of hand ignore any claim unless is > is essentially already proven) and therefore I find no interest in > communicating with someone who's only objective is to attack or squash > something to "save" everyone from futile effort since you know it's all > rubbish anyway. >
