quentron.com

[TinselKoala]

It's statements like that TK that make me wonder why you REALLY are here.

I'm REALLY here because I'm hoping that someday, somebody might actually show some valid _evidence_ that supports their claims of overunity outputs. Like real data from valid experiments, properly performed to test a well-formulated potentially falsifiable hypothesis. So far, this has been as rare as hen's teeth.
A secondary reason is that I hope to be able to help people to accomplish that end, by directing them out of blind alleys, by helping them use and interpret their test equipment properly, sometimes even by attempting "replications" myself, if the work fits with my education and skillset and doesn't cost too much. It's kind of like a busman's holiday, since I was engaged professionally in that kind of work for many years, and still sometimes do it for money, when I can drag myself away from looking at this website.
When people start disrespecting and insulting me, though, after it has become evident that they can't show data that supports their claims, or they refuse to formulate proper hypotheses to test.... I feel free to engage in a little pointed mockery, in the hope that the person will "show me the sausages" or admit he doesn't have any to show. But really, this never affects the claimants except to make them stomp their feet and turn blue, but it does emphasize to the observers that there may be problems with the claims.

Why are you REALLY here? For the Lulz?

[sarkeizen]

Why are you REALLY here? For the Lulz?

I know I'm here for the arguing and watching how people convince themselves of something crazy or preserve their belief in something crazy.

Some things I've learned...

-There's an almost palpable shift when people argue "defensively".  They no longer define their terms.  Often try to change the subject.  This may not mean they are right or wrong but it does tell me that they're not confident.
-People have a tendency toward complex systems rather than simple ones.   Rather than attempting to find the simplest case where some effect happens, some idea is correct, etc.. they try to create some very complex system.
-People have some weird biases. For example, here "building things" is some badge of honor.  If you aren't in some workshop attempting to create something that probably won't work then you are something less than those who aren't.  Another one is what I call the "tinkering" bias.  The idea that things "almost work" you just need to find a slightly better X.  Which to me says "the problem is largely solved" however given the subject matter of this board that seems ludicrous.

[profitis]

lol @sarkeizen.building things is a bias? Its your fault you dont own a pair platinum pants.

[Hope]

I know I'm here for the arguing and watching how people convince themselves of something crazy or preserve their belief in something crazy.

Some things I've learned...

-There's an almost palpable shift when people argue "defensively".  They no longer define their terms.  Often try to change the subject.  This may not mean they are right or wrong but it does tell me that they're not confident.
-People have a tendency toward complex systems rather than simple ones.   Rather than attempting to find the simplest case where some effect happens, some idea is correct, etc.. they try to create some very complex system.
-People have some weird biases. For example, here "building things" is some badge of honor.  If you aren't in some workshop attempting to create something that probably won't work then you are something less than those who aren't.  Another one is what I call the "tinkering" bias.  The idea that things "almost work" you just need to find a slightly better X.  Which to me says "the problem is largely solved" however given the subject matter of this board that seems ludicrous.

Agreed,  revision and increasing circuits does not necessarily refine a device.   Nature usually is our best example of how to do some process in the most efficient way.  Suggest you protype the device Phil and work through the revisions until theory becomes proof.

[Hope]

I'm REALLY here because I'm hoping that someday, somebody might actually show some valid _evidence_ that supports their claims of overunity outputs. Like real data from valid experiments, properly performed to test a well-formulated potentially falsifiable hypothesis. So far, this has been as rare as hen's teeth.
A secondary reason is that I hope to be able to help people to accomplish that end, by directing them out of blind alleys, by helping them use and interpret their test equipment properly, sometimes even by attempting "replications" myself, if the work fits with my education and skillset and doesn't cost too much. It's kind of like a busman's holiday, since I was engaged professionally in that kind of work for many years, and still sometimes do it for money, when I can drag myself away from looking at this website.
When people start disrespecting and insulting me, though, after it has become evident that they can't show data that supports their claims, or they refuse to formulate proper hypotheses to test.... I feel free to engage in a little pointed mockery, in the hope that the person will "show me the sausages" or admit he doesn't have any to show. But really, this never affects the claimants except to make them stomp their feet and turn blue, but it does emphasize to the observers that there may be problems with the claims.

Why are you REALLY here? For the Lulz?

And you have many efforts to your credit, we appreciate your earnest work.


Let's remember that others are not walking in our shoes and do not have the knowledge we have gained with years of this desire driving us to the present education.   Thank you for coming to this topic and sharing your views TK.