Thread for naysayers, nitpickers, and shills

[tim123]

'Shill': noun:
"an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others."

It's clear to me that the technically competent experimenters who like clear answers are not shills...

The shills are the people who apparently believe all the mistaken, deluded, and sometimes fraudulent claims, and then constantly cheer-lead for them, despite a total lack of evidence...

If this thread is an attempt to divert technical investigation, and the inevitable criticism, of Luc's as yet undefined 'reactive' effect, then I don't suppose it'll work. If I can be bothered to ask Luc any questions - which he only ignores anyway - then I'll do it on the main topic - not this one.

Regards, Tim

[Hoppy]

'Shill': noun:
"an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others."

It's clear to me that the technically competent experimenters who like clear answers are not shills...

The shills are the people who apparently believe all the mistaken, deluded, and sometimes fraudulent claims, and then constantly cheer-lead for them, despite a total lack of evidence...

If this thread is an attempt to divert technical investigation, and the inevitable criticism, of Luc's as yet undefined 'reactive' effect, then I don't suppose it'll work. If I can be bothered to ask Luc any questions - which he only ignores anyway - then I'll do it on the main topic - not this one.

Regards, Tim

Valid point about shills. I think the captain needs to remove shills from the title of this thread.

[Cap-Z-ro]

The problem with this type of thread is that the naysayers, nitpickers and shills will have to keep copying over all those 'iffy' self-running video's for eyeball analysis, so I can't see how having to do this will tempt them over to this thread. "


Didn't I not just say just that, with these words in the preamble opening up this thread ?

[This thread was put up for the express purpose of debunking all free energy devices presented on ou.com...thereby protecting the gullible from being fleeced or wasting their time on things placed in their path to keep them busy on fruitless pursuits.

BUT...there are a number of reasons why this concept will not 'fly'.]

Surely you should know better that to try to paint me as a delusional fool...especially in such an obvious fashion.

Apparently not it seems.

Any participation in that model would constitute a tacit admission of being a naysayer, nitpicker, or a shill...hello ?

TechStuf, with whom I have a standing disagreement on a particular issue with, but who technical knowledge I respect seemed to have no problem grasping the meaning and of my words and the intent  of this thread...no so however, for some others who instead predictably somehow found fly paper in the thread.

Instead, the unspoken intention of this thread was to shed some light on the various distraction tactics (alluded to by TechStuf) employed by those who fit the naysayers, nitpickers, and shills, profile.



"Its much better to have a face-to-face discussion about issues arising."

According to past behavior, this ALWAYS amounts to conflict and confrontation and an exit by the builder, and no expansion of discussion...as planned.



" Those that have the confidence to post self-running videos, or tell the naysayers, nitpickers and shills that they are badly misguided by their conventional electrical education, or suggest that a discussion between parties having opposing views or beliefs is disrupting progress, should also have the confidence to fight their corner,"


'Those' you refer to are not here to fight...only to share.

Why not simply open your own thread to debunk their ideas and save us gullible hayseeders from being duped ?

The answer is of course, nobody will attend that party...and nobody will be there to fight or badger before the crowd.

This lot is easily identified by their lack of contribution to the development a particular concept...they never offer help, only criticism and conflict.



" C'mon man, which side are you on, or are you just sitting in the middle contributing very little and throwing stones to aggravate and disrupt progress??

Projecting ones social infirmities onto a perceived is the lowest and most desperate form of debate...and a subconscious admission of defeat.




Is everybody in yet ? Apparently not yet.


Quote from Tim:

" 'Shill': noun:
"an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others."

Pretending that I am not referencing 'shills' paid by 'the powers that be' to suppress free energy tech belies an attempt prevent me bringing awareness to that activity, don't you think ?



" It's clear to me that the technically competent experimenters who like clear answers are not shills..."


What 'experimenters' ?  All I am seeing so far are the 'naysayers, nitpickers, and shills'.

Personally speaking, when I am "experimenting" I actually do an 'experiment'...until then, I'm just talking about experimenting.




" The shills are the people who apparently believe all the mistaken, deluded, and sometimes fraudulent claims, and then constantly cheer-lead for them, despite a total lack of evidence..."


Really now ?  Thats very odd indeed, because I see people contributing ideas and sharing their thoughts.

If you are referring to Chet/Ramset...I see nothing wrong or counterproductive with his optimism and enthusiasm.



" If this thread is an attempt to divert technical investigation, and the inevitable criticism, of Luc's as yet undefined 'reactive' effect, then I don't suppose it'll work. If I can be bothered to ask Luc any questions - which he only ignores anyway - then I'll do it on the main topic - not this one."


I am a pretty good judge of horse flesh...and Luc is being open and honest (sharing)

If Luc is ignoring your questions, I'm quite certain he has a valid reason.

To persist with incessant repetitive questions under those conditions you've stated is disruptive and an annoyance to anyone who wishes to follow the natural progression of the subject.


Apologies to Tinman...error corrected

[Farmhand]

This thread was put up for the express purpose of debunking all free energy devices presented on ou.com...thereby protecting the gullible from being fleeced or wasting their time on things placed in their path to keep them busy on fruitless pursuits.

BUT...there are a number of reasons why this concept will not 'fly'.

No audience to perform in front of to show how clever they are.

Because nobody here has the attention span to stay focused long enough to comprehend the long winded rhetoric.

If left alone for any length  of time, people tend to inspire each others thought process through the free flow of ideas and open unfettered discussion...which could very well lead to accessible free energy technology = freedom from global slavery.

After this thread fades into oblivion...every time somebody offers up their ideas, it would be very revealing if someone would immediately post up a thread for the debunkers...separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Or how ever you want to look at it.

My guess is that there would be very little activity there, and even less views.

Regards...

The part in bold kind of implies that there are people who actually want to debunk all free energy devices, that is simply not true, we want more free energy, at least I do, but I don't do replications much, I usually try to get the same effects as people show in a different way.

Anyway I think more than anything there is some confusion of terms, and things get over complicated.

I think you've confused Tinman with Tim, different people.

It is true, a shill is a magicians assistant or a conman's assistant, nothing to do with a skeptic.

The experiments in question are very similar to many experiments already done by a few of us, we don;t always video tape everything unless it seems interesting or useful. Useful is good even if not OU, sometimes a means to an end.

I and others have shown video's of the acceleration under load and short circuit, which Luc promoted, I did it with two different setups and without high impedance coils, one setup with fairly dramatic results, I have also shown videos of transformer experiments akin to the so called (delayed Lenz transformer effect) with reduced input under load (from a battery) with home made switching circuits and transformers using basically the same effect but done differently. With the batteries in the transformer experiments showing a reduced load on them when the output is loaded, the battery voltage is seen to rise under output loading.

Acceleration under load short clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFWin-crxQY

Longer clip. Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV_dm8COKBY

Transformer effects. Transformer has grounded neutral like the grid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxde9qga79c

With 12 volt input Tesla coil AC generator and Tesla coil output transformer in resonance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYc6nN8MWAM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRzQ_CO9vnw

Others have done quite accurate replications and seen the much the same results and causes I did.

Maybe I'll drive that transformer from the grid for my experiment, not sure yet.

..



 

[tim123]

If Luc is ignoring your questions, I'm quite certain he has a valid reason.

I asked him for the full specifications for the motor he was using. (And the generator too, but he hasn't 'shared' that yet...)

It took 3 goes, and many weeks, before he finally relented, and revealed the fact that it contained it's own capacitor.

That fact should have been in the very first video. That it wasn't, is *at best* a serious omission - because it affects his results - a lot.

So no, he really did not have a valid reason.

Regards, Tim