> Do you also disagree on how I describe the demonstration > setup as being ridiculous, and not worth of drawing any > positive conclusions from in the way Stirling Allen does?
Andre, As I have previous stated, I am not an electrical engineer. As such it is not my place to pass judgment on your current technical analysis of the South African contraption. However, I noticed that a lot of your analysis is heavily layered with subjective conclusions that, quite frankly, have little to do with your technical analysis, such as your conclusion of Sterling's inability to discern when he is being used, in your words, as a "prostitute". You strike me as being more interested in defending your original conclusions which regrettably includes a strong belief in that Sterling is not terribly bright. Well, maybe Sterling isn't the brightest bulb on the planet, but then maybe he has a few more watts than some of us might think. Frankly, I dunno. Be that as it may, in this particular situation I'm not interested in conclusions pertaining to speculation of the so-called personality faults of Sterling. I see enough of that kind of folly with Mr. Krivit and his attempt to analyze Rossi's quirky behavior. I will repeat once again: My primary concern is that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I wait for more definitive tests to be performed, such as when Sterling presumably gets one of the contraptions in house where definitive testing can then be performed. You may recall that I have also previously stated that I have serious doubts as to whether any so called OU will be discovered. However, my current pessimism could turn out to be completely misplaced. It would be unwise of me to allow my pessimism to overrule what Nature may actually be trying to tell us. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to interest you, and that puzzles me. It's as if to show any more curiosity that what you have currently allowed yourself to indulge in could possibly contradict your current conclusion which seems to be based on a belief in Sterling is an idiot. > Unless I have been missing a lot, this whole magnet motor > thing does not have the scientific support or endorsements > that LENR has, so I find it to be in a completely different > league. I think you may have indeed missed a few things that go on in this list. Granted, LENR makes up a large part of what is discussed here, but LENR is not by any means the only topic of interest. The kind of magnetic related research that Sterling refers to has often been discussed extensively here. BTW, you continue to refer to this particular device as a "magnet motor." That is an incorrect description. It also suggests to me that you haven't been following this particular topic extensively. I can certainly forgive you on that matter because there are many topics on this list that also I do not follow in great detail. I have only so many hours in a day. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
