another Self looped Generator Claim

[Temporal Visitor]

Let's see your website and contributions attempting to help others.

Let's see you show the math to be incorrect. With or without any digits of precision.

The world awaits your efforts.

The God stuff is a turn off for sure, but even worse than God for me is his astounding sixteen significant digits of precision. A front page that is ten feet long is also a red flag.

There is one thing you can say about someone who claims a number or result to sixteen digits of precision: he is almost certainly wrong.

After all, if I tell you that a device is making 0.23537889404232 horsepower, I am telling you that it is NOT making 0.23537889404233 horsepower or 0.23537889404231 horsepower or any other horsepower value. In other words, I am probably wrong, because I don't know the numbers that went into the calculation nearly that precisely, do I. Did I measure the RPM to the millionth of a percent accuracy? Of course not.

[Pirate88179]

Let's see your website and contributions attempting to help others.

Let's see you show the math to be incorrect. With or without any digits of precision.

The world awaits your efforts.

Well, for starters, check out his Youtube channels where he has posted many, many, many videos of some excellent builds and tests.  There is a ton of very useful info over there that has helped many people.  I am but one of them.  He has also built and debunked many fake devices found on Youtube, and elsewhere, saving others from wasting any time or money on those devices.

What have you done and where is it posted?

Bill

[TinselKoala]

I had to go back five pages to see what this kerfluffle was about.

I'll tell you this much, for free. It is a judgement based on years of experience in the field and years of study and formal training.

The result of any calculation cannot be more precise than the _least precise_ value that goes into the calculation. This is the technical issue known as "significant digits" sometimes shortened to "sig digs".  A person who measures a distance with a ruler, accurate to the 32nd of an inch, then translates that measurement to centimeters and spits out all 16 digits from the calculator, is making a _false claim_ right there, because the input measurement is not known to that precision, so the output measurement _cannot_ be any more precise than that.  This is not a matter of my opinion, it is a mathematical fact and is known by all competent experimentalists and engineers.

My +opinion+ is this: When someone cites a number with falsely exaggerated precision, I think two things right away: First, the person is NOT a competent, knowledgeable experimentalist or engineer, since he doesn't know about sig digs or respect them, and Second, the person is trying to dazzle me with numbers, precision, his illusory math prowess, the cost of his calculator... anything but the actual claims being made and the system being measured. I don't dazzle easily, nor do I suffer fools gladly. Don't look me in the eye, shake my hand, and tell me your machine is making 24.67543833656 horsepower, because I will just turn around and walk away, shaking my head sadly.

If you _really_ need more than four or five significant digits to prove your point .... then it's not really much of a point, and I'm not really that interested, because when I work to six or seven digits of precision, as I do sometimes when I make parts on a lathe, I charge money for it, and nobody is paying me to evaluate that fellow's 16-digit calculations or his longwinded theories.

(Thanks for the defence Bill, I need all the help I can get these days.)

So you see, it doesn't really matter that the "math is correct", because even if it IS ... it is still wrong!

[Temporal Visitor]

You sir are one condescending liar.
You write: "because when I work to six or seven digits of precision, as I do sometimes when I make parts on a lathe".
That is hilarious!
Anyone who has "worked in the field" as you claim KNOWS they cannot in reality work to "six or seven digits of precision" on a lathe for several very well known facts you also should have experienced and learned in the field and formal training.
I admit I cannot work to that tolerance. Not even with the best of several CNC machines I OWN.

I prefer to allow you to show how you actually do so, the equipment you OWN and use and measure it with. Prove me wrong and I will apologize for calling you a liar, however the condescending part sticks because it is self evident.

As far as +opinion+ everyone knows everyone has one - and that some are bigger than others, another self evident truth.

None the less I do see you actually do experiment, and that is far more than so many others do it is worthy of respect, but I do not tolerate liars attacking me or my work. I did not come here to fight, but found here your post attacking me and my work which is not cool or a great way to get to know each other. Perhaps you might consider the subject matter presented rather than nitpicking "sig digs".

I had to go back five pages to see what this kerfluffle was about.

I'll tell you this much, for free. It is a judgement based on years of experience in the field and years of study and formal training.

The result of any calculation cannot be more precise than the _least precise_ value that goes into the calculation. This is the technical issue known as "significant digits" sometimes shortened to "sig digs".  A person who measures a distance with a ruler, accurate to the 32nd of an inch, then translates that measurement to centimeters and spits out all 16 digits from the calculator, is making a _false claim_ right there, because the input measurement is not known to that precision, so the output measurement _cannot_ be any more precise than that.  This is not a matter of my opinion, it is a mathematical fact and is known by all competent experimentalists and engineers.

My +opinion+ is this: When someone cites a number with falsely exaggerated precision, I think two things right away: First, the person is NOT a competent, knowledgeable experimentalist or engineer, since he doesn't know about sig digs or respect them, and Second, the person is trying to dazzle me with numbers, precision, his illusory math prowess, the cost of his calculator... anything but the actual claims being made and the system being measured. I don't dazzle easily, nor do I suffer fools gladly. Don't look me in the eye, shake my hand, and tell me your machine is making 24.67543833656 horsepower, because I will just turn around and walk away, shaking my head sadly.

If you _really_ need more than four or five significant digits to prove your point .... then it's not really much of a point, and I'm not really that interested, because when I work to six or seven digits of precision, as I do sometimes when I make parts on a lathe, I charge money for it, and nobody is paying me to evaluate that fellow's 16-digit calculations or his longwinded theories.

(Thanks for the defence Bill, I need all the help I can get these days.)

So you see, it doesn't really matter that the "math is correct", because even if it IS ... it is still wrong!

[TinselKoala]

So how many digits of precision do you work with when you make a part that is 10.005 inches long? How about 10.0005? Can't you work to the ten-thousandth of an inch? Not a very good machinist then, are you. There are SIX SIGNIFICANT DIGITS in the dimension 10.0005, dear sir.

And if you don't believe that I can work to tolerances of greater than one-ten-thousandth of an inch.... you have never honed a cylinder to fit a piston.

I note that you do not understand the issue and you prefer to bloviate and insult instead of face the FACTS.

After you look up Significant Digits, and machining tolerances.... you may apologize. But I doubt if you will. You cannot refute me, though.