SELF RUNNING GENERATOR

[Pirate88179]

Nice try. You cannot read either, apparently. (I will point out that in EVERY posting excepting only the cute fiction style dialog post, that I think the videos are probably fake..... Again.) Nice point though on replicating, lets see yours. The burden of proof of wrongdoing is upon the accuser. You are making a claim that it is fake, while I am reserving judgement until actual evidence is forthcoming and I make no claim whatsoever.


All I have seen from you is egotism, condescension, and arrogance, and if you wonder why the bad reaction to your posts, it is not some paranoid version of persecution it is a lack of respect for what I have seen coming from you. There are many vocal critics I DO respect, due to their attitudes. Yours I do not, due to your attitude. You are not a scientist applying scientific method nor are you utilizing critical thinking. Applied method of critical thinking actually convicts you as being irrational. Look it up.


Concerning revenue towards Youtube vids....


You get paid a fraction of a cent per CLICK through on an ad, not just a view. (Almost none, research google adsense)


You get a PARTIAL fraction of a cent per ad view, and that is only if the watcher actually views the ad and doesn't close the ad asap (90% of everyone).


Your thousand bucks concept just became ten, to maybe a hundred bucks realistically as a few of the total ads do not allow a shutdown.

This is not correct.

I just monetized my video channel on Youtube a few months ago and, I am now up to almost $100.00 for my videos.....none of which have over 50,000 views. (since I have monetized)  If I hit 1,000,000 views on any of them, I could afford some very nice science equipment.

You should do more researching before posting something incorrect as fact.

Also, I would put TK's skills up against anyone on this site.  I can not name another that has done more replications, or debunking, than TK.  His debunking of scams and fakery (a Milo word) has saved our members a lot of money in both time and materials in an attempt to replicate something that was never real to begin with.

I, for one, greatly appreciate what he has contributed to this site, and to our efforts here.

I also disagree that it is TK that HAS to supply the proof that this obvious fake is fake.  When one posts a video making extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on them to prove it beyond doubt.  The fellow making these videos is KNOWN for making fakes.  That fact alone should be enough to make one a bit dubious about any of his recent claims.

Bill

ETA:  I see that you have admitted to being wrong in an above post about the money for Youtube videos.  So, we can ignore that part of my post.

[TinselKoala]

Nice try. You cannot read either, apparently. (I will point out that in EVERY posting excepting only the cute fiction style dialog post, that I think the videos are probably fake..... Again.) Nice point though on replicating, lets see yours. The burden of proof of wrongdoing is upon the accuser. You are making a claim that it is fake, while I am reserving judgement until actual evidence is forthcoming and I make no claim whatsoever.

1. I have given you the links to the videos of my replications. Can't you read? Now... where are your replications?
2. "He might well be faking them, but you guys look like absolute morons to me. " No claim whatsoever? Yet you attack those of us who KNOW that the videos are fakes by insulting us?

I've shown how the videos can be easily faked. NOBODY has shown how they can be real, especially not LifeHack. Your objections about "claims" and burden of proof are specious.

All I have seen from you is egotism, condescension, and arrogance, and if you wonder why the bad reaction to your posts, it is not some paranoid version of persecution it is a lack of respect for what I have seen coming from you. There are many vocal critics I DO respect, due to their attitudes. Yours I do not, due to your attitude. You are not a scientist applying scientific method nor are you utilizing critical thinking. Applied method of critical thinking actually convicts you as being irrational. Look it up.

You cannot support these claims with facts, either. What I see in 80 percent of posts here on this forum does not deserve respectful consideration, and when people continue posting belief in fakes that have long ago been debunked.... they are fully deserving of condescension and arrogant correction -- especially when these ignorant people choose to toss insults around. For your information I actually am a scientist, I have expensive pieces of fake vellum to prove it, and I challenge you to illustrate just where I do not apply the scientific method or where I fail to use critical thinking.  You don't like my "egotism and arrogance".... but you are the one calling people irrational morons, without being able to justify your insults. Go ahead and prove that "applied critical thinking convicts me as being irrational." You cannot.

Someone shows me something that is _impossible_ under current understanding of physics but is EASILY DONE by fakery. I put forth the hypothesis that the effect can be faked in such and such a manner. I perform experiments trying to disprove my fakery hypothesis but cannot: the effects are in fact easy to fake and are in fact impossible to achieve by normal means such as wireless power transmitters. I perform experiments and I publish my results, including enough detail for anyone who cares to , to reproduce my experiments and my results. And I've done this same kind of thing many times and my YT channel is full of video illustrations of my work. If you don't think this is an application of the scientific method, then you are reading the wrong Wiki or something.

Where is your record of experimentation, I'd like to take a look at what you've done and how you do it.

Concerning revenue towards Youtube vids....

You get paid a fraction of a cent per CLICK through on an ad, not just a view. (Almost none, research google adsense)

You get a PARTIAL fraction of a cent per ad view, and that is only if the watcher actually views the ad and doesn't close the ad asap (90% of everyone).

Your thousand bucks concept just became ten, to maybe a hundred bucks realistically as a few of the total ads do not allow a shutdown.

And you have already learned that your statements on this matter here are false.

[pauldude000]

This is not correct.

I just monetized my video channel on Youtube a few months ago and, I am now up to almost $100.00 for my videos.....none of which have over 50,000 views. (since I have monetized)  If I hit 1,000,000 views on any of them, I could afford some very nice science equipment.

You should do more researching before posting something incorrect as fact.

Also, I would put TK's skills up against anyone on this site.  I can not name another that has done more replications, or debunking, than TK.  His debunking of scams and fakery (a Milo word) has saved our members a lot of money in both time and materials in an attempt to replicate something that was never real to begin with.

I, for one, greatly appreciate what he has contributed to this site, and to our efforts here.

I also disagree that it is TK that HAS to supply the proof that this obvious fake is fake.  When one posts a video making extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on them to prove it beyond doubt.  The fellow making these videos is KNOWN for making fakes.  That fact alone should be enough to make one a bit dubious about any of his recent claims.

Bill

ETA:  I see that you have admitted to being wrong in an above post about the money for Youtube videos.  So, we can ignore that part of my post.

I agree with you on many points. However, there is one point which you put forth which is an outright, though common, fallacy. "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof" is pure hogwash invented by mentally lazy men either unwilling or incapable of doing their self-chosen profession. It is nothing more than a cop-out.  Even if it were true, then it would apply only to scientists making scientific claims.


However in REAL science there is only a postulate, hypothesis, laws, or theory. ALL of the previous scientifically are to be borne up with data determined by scientific method as applied by critical thought, not just some.


Notice in the previous paragraph I neither used "claim", "proof", nor did I use "evidence". Neither are scientific terms, as they are in fact legal terminology. These legal terms are only used when a scientist wishes A.) to become lazy and ignore the postulate, hypothesis, or theory presented and B.) to bypass science in the process.


Now, as far as TK...... Too bad. If he wishes to be a jerk, he can expect a jerk's reward. It is not what he is doing, it is how he is doing it, and if he wishes to promote himself as intelligent he can act accordingly. Yes, I am being quite blunt. I do not have a problem with what he is doing.


I have a problem with his attitude and the manner with which he treats others. The end does not justify the means.

[pauldude000]

1. I have given you the links to the videos of my replications. Can't you read? Now... where are your replications?
2. "He might well be faking them, but you guys look like absolute morons to me. " No claim whatsoever? Yet you attack those of us who KNOW that the videos are fakes by insulting us?

I've shown how the videos can be easily faked. NOBODY has shown how they can be real, especially not LifeHack. Your objections about "claims" and burden of proof are specious.
You cannot support these claims with facts, either. What I see in 80 percent of posts here on this forum does not deserve respectful consideration, and when people continue posting belief in fakes that have long ago been debunked.... they are fully deserving of condescension and arrogant correction -- especially when these ignorant people choose to toss insults around. For your information I actually am a scientist, I have expensive pieces of fake vellum to prove it, and I challenge you to illustrate just where I do not apply the scientific method or where I fail to use critical thinking.  You don't like my "egotism and arrogance".... but you are the one calling people irrational morons, without being able to justify your insults. Go ahead and prove that "applied critical thinking convicts me as being irrational." You cannot.

Someone shows me something that is _impossible_ under current understanding of physics but is EASILY DONE by fakery. I put forth the hypothesis that the effect can be faked in such and such a manner. I perform experiments trying to disprove my fakery hypothesis but cannot: the effects are in fact easy to fake and are in fact impossible to achieve by normal means such as wireless power transmitters. I perform experiments and I publish my results, including enough detail for anyone who cares to , to reproduce my experiments and my results. And I've done this same kind of thing many times and my YT channel is full of video illustrations of my work. If you don't think this is an application of the scientific method, then you are reading the wrong Wiki or something.

Where is your record of experimentation, I'd like to take a look at what you've done and how you do it.

And you have already learned that your statements on this matter here are false.

You say you are a scientist? GREAT! Then do some science, and quit trying to be a judge, jury, and prosecuting attorney. Who really cares about Lifehack and the other Hutichison's of the world. I mean REALLY? It is a Youtube video, keep this in perspective.

What I see in 80 percent of posts here on this forum does not deserve respectful consideration, and when people continue posting belief in fakes that have long ago been debunked.... they are fully deserving of condescension and arrogant correction --

That is pure unadulterated horse****. It is nothing more than mere arrogance on your part. That "piece of fake vellum" you possess is not a licence to do anything. It is a piece of paper which states that you supposedly were trained in some field of study. Possession of one such is not a statement of intelligence, either superior OR mediocre. The ends do not justify the means.


Are you practicing science or religion? Science itself needs no defense, as it is merely a field of study of the natural world. Many people postulate many things, and either reality reflects their concepts or it does not. The scientific method is used to determine whether reality actually reflects what was conceived. Critical thought processes are used to determine whether the original thought processes and corresponding logic was rational. There is no such critter as a "claim", grand or otherwise, just starting hypothesis based upon postulates, possibly leading to a theory.


Show me first (since you have stated you are a scientist) where abusiveness, arrogance, or any other negative attitude is promoted or warranted by science....... Show me how such things have ANYTHING to do with science.


Then, and only then, will I state you were either being a scientist, are justified by science itself, or are promoting science or scientific principles by doing such things.


Ouch.


Neither science nor your "fake piece of vellum", as you put it, are either shield or justification for your actions or attitudes.


Deal with it.

[NRGgeek]

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but the coil of copper is a direct short across the leads to the motor which would make it impossible to carry a positive charge on one side and a negative return on the other... Unless of coarse that strange reaction between copper and neodymium is coming into play and depleting the electron flow of the copper in the center of the coil... which would explain why there's always something connected at that point. It may be BS or there may be something to it, either way the person who commented on the "Big Oil" companies was a true under statement. Anyone releasing a product generating enough electricity to power a city block or larger will be discredited by the news media and laid to rest by the oil and utility companies. No body gives a damn about doing the right thing. It's all about making billions off of fossil fuels.