Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[allcanadian]

@Mark

And another man of straw is slain.

LOL, I wasn't aware that this was some kind of competition and if so I was never one for playing childish games. So if you feel compelled to always one up me and you get off on this kind of thing them I'm overjoyed you found some satisfaction in my post as well as your response.


@MH

Sorry but you lost it (and me) when you went into the stuff about the good atoms vs. the defective atoms.  T[/size]hat's whackadoo.

From my perspective I believe wattsup was making reference to free electron scattering in conductors. That is the motive force on an electron by an external magnetic field may cause the electron to step from proton shell to proton shell however it is seldom a direct path (straight line). As such we could say there are good and bad atoms and the good ones would allow the free electron to follow the shortest path from point A to B with the least resistance.


I understand the terminology is a little off beat but the message appears sound in my opinion. To go further, if we had a specific condition in a conductor not unlike Maxwell's demon which could straighten the path of an electron preventing electron scattering then we may have a condition not unlike super-conduction. I believe this was what wattsup was referring to a few pages ago which relates to the post you responded to.


AC

[allcanadian]

@wattsup

Case in point: @tinman posts something and all of a sudden, a term used in not right and pages go by for what? I understood him perfectly when you consider the context. But you guys just took him to the cleaners on that, so why? You will not understand certain things but you are quick to repost your opinions on every other post and in most thread on this forum. Why?

Here in Canada it is referred to as a pissing contest where one boy always feels compelled to pee a little further than the next to prove himself worthy. Oh it's fun at first but obviously after a while it's just lame and I had a few friends like this growing up. The funny thing is these people always felt superior but behind there back everyone thought there behavior was quite ridiculous and all of us would laugh about it. The fundamental problem was they never quite understood when to quit and they always went too far.
Boys will be boys, lol.


I don't really find it annoying at all more so comical, I mean once you understand what they are doing and why how can you not find it humorous?.


AC

[MarkE]

Mark E
whats your limit...[being serious]


here is a recent opinion

Quote Michael McKubre Reviews the Parkhomov Experiment Posted on January 15, 2015 by Frank Acland • 47 Comments Thanks to Sanjeev for posting this link in the replication thread. Michael McKubre, Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International in Palo Alto, Calfornia, is a well known and long-time researcher in the LENR field, and has published an article in Infinite Energy magazine reviewing the recently published Alexander Parkhomov experiment using a Hot Cat-like device. As usual, McKubre provides a thorough analysis of the experiment with great attention to the details of the experimental setup and protocols used. He expresses some concerns with Parkhomov's report — notably the lack of calibration data, but thinks this is an important experiment that deserves to be repeated by Parkhomov and other replicators. He also expresses confidence in Dr. Parkhomov's professional credentials, noting that the University is very reputable, and that he (McKubre) has worked with some of Parkhomov's colleagues over the years. Here is his conclusion:     Quote As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight. Nevertheless the experiment is clearly specified, easily performed, elegant and sufficiently accurate (with relevant calibration). I would recommend that the experiment be attempted by anyone curious and with the facilities to do so safely, exactly as described. Anything else or more runs the risk of teaching us nothing. I await further word from Parkhomov and reports from further replication teams. Parkhomov has really captured the attention of the LENR community. His results, if confirmed, are spectacular, and the experiment is very simple, which is very attractive to people who want to try to replicate. I am sure this experiment will be a driving force among LENR enthusiasts during the next weeks and months, and I expect that we will see more replication efforts of Parkhomov going forward.

[/size]

[/color][/font][/size]

McKubre has over the years said nice things about a whole bunch of claims that never panned out.  I don't think he even criticized Steorn after they wasted two and a half years of his time as one of their 22 hand picked jurors.  If you are unfamiliar with the Steorn fiasco, it's a case study in how long con artists can keep a farce going if they are just brazen enough.  They declared they had working perpetual motion machines and that their problem was they couldn't get any scientists to give them an honest look and report.  McKubre was one of 22 jurors whom Steorn picked to evaluate their claims.  In the end, it turns out that Steorn never gave the jurors a machine or access to a machine to evaluate.  IOW, Steorn blocked the jurors from doing the very thing that Steorn declared they needed the jurors to do.  It was shameless and scandalous.  As far as I know, McKubre has never spoken out concerning Steorn.

In the quote you've cited McKubre ticked off a laundry list of why the experiment data is completely worthless. 

[ramset]

Mark E quote


"COMPLETELY WORTHLESS"
end quote

HHMMmmmm  yeah he really sounds  like he's trying to convey that  point


Quote  Michael McKubre

Parkhomov has really captured the attention of the LENR community. His results, if confirmed, are spectacular, and the experiment is very simple, which is very attractive to people who want to try to replicate. I am sure this experiment will be a driving force among LENR enthusiasts during the next weeks and months, and I expect that we will see more replication efforts of Parkhomov going forward.

end quote

[/size]
your comparing LENR research with steorn is a "spot on" analogy


so pull your wallet out


what's your limit ?


Thx
Chet

[MarkE]

As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight.

No calibration means that no one knows what was actually measured.  IE, the results are worthless.

If you win, I donate $1000. to the charity of your choice.  If I win, you donate $1000. to the charity of my choice.

You win if before Jan 1st, 2016 any accredited university publish results of experiments where they report that they have reproduced Parkomov's set-up and agree that they observe excess output energy versus input above their error bars and attribute that energy to any:  LENR / LANR / CF.  If no such report is forthcoming by Jan 1st, 2016, then I win.  Loser will publish to the winner proof of payment.