quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

Ok, yttrium wins because it is less toxic,  but why is it ok to push barium into our bodies as enema and flat out deny it for QUENCO?

Welcome to about the level of research done in free energy fourms.  Barium is toxic however what you use in a LGI series is Barium Sulfate which is insoluble in water and so considerably more safe.  IIRC you refine Barite to make both metallic barium and barium sulfate.

[Philip Hardcastle]

Hi All,


I see silly things being said by fools that parade and pretend to be knowledgeable, note when one says 100nA/cm2 max the other does not disagree, this is a classic example of bad intent, a genuine sceptic would question the postings of other sceptics when they make such a claim, but a troll will deliberately allow other trolls to say stupid things providing they are of a negative bias.


Anyway rather than letting these idiots stifle science with their BS I thought I could use some of my spare time to start a theory page. 

http://quentron.com/theory.html


Please be patient, it is a work in progress and it will take some time to finish, however by the time Quenco is publicly demonstrated early next year you can have the benefit of understanding in basic terms how it works. If I make a silly error let me know, I do not proof read and self editing is notorious for not seeing typo's.

[sarkeizen]

note when one says 100nA/cm2 max the other does not disagree, this is a classic example of bad intent, a genuine sceptic would question the postings of other sceptics when they make such a claim, but a troll will deliberately allow other trolls to say stupid things providing they are of a negative bias.

Wow, Phil two posts past the "last post of the year" you must really be riled up but how can that be when you have real operating quencos?  You could doubt that I have a left hand, you could say that having a left hand would violate the law of hands but you know what.  Actually having a left hand tends to makes me laugh at such statements rather than get riled (of course you'll probably now claim that you weren't but hey).  So it makes me wonder if what you have is significantly more tenuous than my left hand.

At least this time you didn't say "this will really, really be my last post of the year".  You could use some of that wisdom in your Quenco project.

Anyway, what are you talking about?  I see Hollander talking about violating 2LOT and a maximum 100nA/cm2. MBM asks for a reference on the 100nA/cm2 limit and I ask for papers about violating 2LOT with thermionic emissions.

Exactly HOW are we NOT being skeptical about Hollander's claims?   Maybe you'll save face by REALLY making this your last post this year.

[Qwert]

If I make a silly error let me know, I do not proof read and self editing is notorious for not seeing typo's.

You make ONLY silly errors.

[sarkeizen]

http://quentron.com/theory.html

Can anyone explain to me why any of this is actually useful to the discussion.

Yeah, tunneling.  The point is what is the THEORY that lets you violate 2LOT.  What's happening at the atomic level that lets this happen?  Instead all we see is "some magic fairy dust makes this happen" and then "it's been proved".

The actual important parts of the theory are NOWHERE.  Now the people here who suck at physics will probably respond with "You can't expect him to give you everything!" but those of us who don't would realize that he hasn't given up anything that isn't widely known.   The point of contention, to anyone with a brain would be the THINGS WHICH PHIL ASSERTS BUT THE REST OF SCIENCE DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE.   Talking about anything else is just jibber jabber.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that Phil has given us nothing other than an argument from authority.