quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

Other than Milehigh and TK look what does get mentioned wrt Elisha's test.

Hi Elisha, nice work.
Thanks for posting the results.

Very nice, well done.

It's strange how those with little, can do so much and those with so much, do so little!

Very good job Elisha!

Lumen goes especially far by implying there can't possibly be any reasonable non 2LOT violating reason for what is observed.

I'm with TK and this one you guys are so incredibly sloppy and uncritical with regard to your observations.  I've mentioned before that Philip claims that the effect scales linearly - voltage in series and current in parallel (or he did on his ever-changing page).  Why not do it with multiple valves in series at 100C using a chamber immersed in a sous-vide style boiler?  Right now there is no useful explanation of what is happening at the atomic level, which explains why there is no useful argument as to why this violates 2LOT (lumen and Philip and elisha all make the logical flaw of "argument by ignorance") and this in turn explains why no experiment which validates a 2LOT violation has been.  Therefore there is no reason stated by Philip as to why this arrangement wouldn't work.

[lumen]

Other than Milehigh and TK look what does get mentioned wrt Elisha's test.
Lumen goes especially far by implying there can't possibly be any reasonable non 2LOT violating reason for what is observed.

I'm with TK and this one you guys are so incredibly sloppy and uncritical with regard to your observations.  I've mentioned before that Philip claims that the effect scales linearly - voltage in series and current in parallel (or he did on his ever-changing page).  Why not do it with multiple valves in series at 100C using a chamber immersed in a sous-vide style boiler?  Right now there is no useful explanation of what is happening at the atomic level, which explains why there is no useful argument as to why this violates 2LOT (lumen and Philip and elisha all make the logical flaw of "argument by ignorance") and this in turn explains why no experiment which validates a 2LOT violation has been.  Therefore there is no reason stated by Philip as to why this arrangement wouldn't work.

Wow, so now lets say TK just found the photovoltaic effect, and now sarkeizen says something like "your crazy, it's just voltage induced from the florescent lighting" and now TK agrees and we never have solar cells!

It is very clear that sarkeizen has no concept of how this is working and the proof is in his comment of connecting multiple valves in series to lower the operating temperature.

If he had even a clue of how it worked he would have known that to lower the operating temperature the internal spacing of the valves needs to change. This lowers the barrier so lower energy electrons can traverse.

To say that I imply there can't possibly be any non 2lot violating reason in Elisha's experiment is just over the edge thinking. I was implying that all the arguments given for inconclusive results, could be ruled out with a variation of the same test.

Of course some people here that do not understand why this works, will simply argue that it does not work, but even Elisha's simple test is additional evidence that it does work, and all the talking in world does not provide any evidence that it does not work.

[sarkeizen]

Wow, so now lets say TK just found the photovoltaic effect, and now sarkeizen says something like "your crazy, it's just voltage induced from the florescent lighting" and now TK agrees and we never have solar cells!

(Pssst...you're talking about people - you broke your own rule...again and again and again).

Actually what we're saying is that you always assume that you're making a mistake and try to correct it.  Removing induced voltage from fluorescent lights is trivial or at the very least causing the observed effect to vary w.r.t. the induced voltage would be trivial.

It is very clear that sarkeizen has no concept of how this is working and the proof is in his comment of connecting multiple valves in series to lower the operating temperature.

Actually you're only half right.  The point I'm making is that nobody has a clue.  Philip has provided virtually nothing in the way of a mechanism for this.  If you read, yes you need to learn this skill and you'll find it's quite useful.   You'll find that what I've said is that this contradicts nothing that Philip has said about the mechanism of the $10 experiment.  Which is virtually nothing.

If he had even a clue of how it worked he would have known that to lower the operating temperature the internal spacing of the valves needs to change. This lowers the barrier so lower energy electrons can traverse.

Technically speaking you have no reason to believe you have a clue about what is happening.  That doesn't get in the way of you presuming with an unreasonable degree of confidence which always, to me seems like a habit for the greatest of idiots.  Anyway how do you know that lower temps wouldn't just produce a lower output?  Philip noted a low output at < 400C.  Did you do an experiment at 300C?  Didn't think so. The output doesn't have to be linear (although Philip claimed it was linear).

To say that I imply there can't possibly be any non 2lot violating reason in Elisha's experiment is just over the edge thinking. I was implying that all the arguments given for inconclusive results, could be ruled out with a variation of the same test.

But no argument, test or even the slightest mention of doubt as to why Elisha shouldn't have interpreted it as a 2LOT violation.  Hence you are ARE implying that the experiential result is complete and satisfactory on it's own.  Otherwise isn't it a better use of your time to show ways to make his experiment fail...that is if you actually think there is a REASONABLE NON-2LOT VIOLATING EXPLANATION - but if you don't just score me a point for sussing you out and move on.

This is what I mean (and I assume TK and MileHigh do too).  You need to be self-critical.  Just slapping each others backs accomplishes nothing.

but even Elisha's simple test is additional evidence that it does work

What?  Ok, so either you agree there is a reasonable non-2LOT violating explanation or you don't (you don't but since you whined about being misrepresented just a paragraph above let's humor you).  If you do believe there is:  How can it be *additional evidence* of a 2LOT violation?  Hmmmm? 

[lumen]

(Pssst...you're talking about people - you broke your own rule...again and again and again).

Actually what we're saying is that you always assume that you're making a mistake and try to correct it.  Removing induced voltage from fluorescent lights is trivial or at the very least causing the observed effect to vary w.r.t. the induced voltage would be trivial.Actually you're only half right.  The point I'm making is that nobody has a clue.  Philip has provided virtually nothing in the way of a mechanism for this.  If you read, yes you need to learn this skill and you'll find it's quite useful.   You'll find that what I've said is that this contradicts nothing that Philip has said about the mechanism of the $10 experiment.  Which is virtually nothing.Technically speaking you have no reason to believe you have a clue about what is happening.  That doesn't get in the way of you presuming with an unreasonable degree of confidence which always, to me seems like a habit for the greatest of idiots.  Anyway how do you know that lower temps wouldn't just produce a lower output?  Philip noted a low output at < 400C.  Did you do an experiment at 300C?  Didn't think so. The output doesn't have to be linear (although Philip claimed it was linear).
But no argument, test or even the slightest mention of doubt as to why Elisha shouldn't have interpreted it as a 2LOT violation.  Hence you are ARE implying that the experiential result is complete and satisfactory on it's own.  Otherwise isn't it a better use of your time to show ways to make his experiment fail...that is if you actually think there is a REASONABLE NON-2LOT VIOLATING EXPLANATION - but if you don't just score me a point for sussing you out and move on.

This is what I mean (and I assume TK and MileHigh do too).  You need to be self-critical.  Just slapping each others backs accomplishes nothing.
What?  Ok, so either you agree there is a reasonable non-2LOT violating explanation or you don't (you don't but since you whined about being misrepresented just a paragraph above let's humor you).  If you do believe there is:  How can it be *additional evidence* of a 2LOT violation?  Hmmmm?

So in all your useless spiel, you actually admit that YOU do not understand the mechanism of operation!
Yet, you pretend to wield some authority on why it can't work?

You got to be kidding me.
Come back when you have something.

[sarkeizen]

So in all your useless spiel, you actually admit that YOU do not understand the mechanism of operation!
Yet, you pretend to wield some authority on why it can't work?

You got to be kidding me.
Come back when you have something.

ROFL...

You know lumen I constantly have to remind myself that I'm talking to just one engineer who's a moron.  Otherwise I might start thinking that this is how most engineers think.

So back to your post.  According to you, a what was it? 30 year veteran of engineering it is impossible to state that something can not work without understanding the mechanism involved.   I realize it's kind of your think to post and then run away for a while to soothe your ego or whatever but if you wouldn't mind just posting back and saying simply if this is your position.  I'd appreciate it.