Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[OUman]

I really don't understand why they are so ignorant as to attempt to slow down this research process.
Larry

Larry, the research process is accelerated, not slowed down, when knowledge is added that allows the researcher to avoid blind alleys and to learn by others' previous mistakes. De Palma's didn't work. Tewari's didn't work. Adams' didn't work, etc etc. So the rational scientific approach is to learn from their failures and to use that knowledge to speed up the current work. Do you not agree?

The problem is with your definition of didn't work, which is something like A: 'Hey, I've got something that works',  B:  No, what you are trying to do is impossible because I said so and therefore was a failure regardless of your test results!

My definition of "didn't work" is nothing like that. It does not in any way rely on any preconception about whether it's "impossible" or not. The results do not depend on that at all. It goes like this:

1 - Experimenter claims "I have designed a machine that gives more power out than you put in"
2 - Experimenter builds demonstration machine
3 - Experimenter conducts tests and the measurements show much less power out that goes in.
4 - Experimenter explains that when he's eventually "improved the efficiency" it will work as claimed.

Optionally, replace 3/4 with:

3a - Experimenter conducts tests and the measurements are inconclusive because they are swamped by measurement inaccuracy.
4a - Experimenter explains that when he's managed to get the right measurement tools he's confident the results will support his claim.

If you can provide an example in which the measurements do actually support the claim, then please share it with us.

[OUman]

Who's gonna be the first to say it? I thought your argument was about Relativity, mainly SR.
But Quantum mechanics is a totally different animal, one Einstein did not believe in, one which contradicts SR.

Yes, you're right Aether, sorry, I got a bit carried away. We're quite a way off topic anyhow because these coil-and-magnet contraptions don't need relativity and quantum mechanics for an explanation: conventional electromagnetic theory fully describes them all.

(Actually I don't think it's correct to say that QM contradicts SR - I think it would be more accurate to say that they haven't yet been reconciled into a self-consistent model)

[OUman]

A RECENT ARTICLE REQUEST TO TYLER HAMILTON AT THE TORONTO STAR
IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED I CAN SUPPLY ALL THE DOCUMENTS AS PROOF.
Thane

Hey, Thane, dusting off your old GST thing? Or was it BST?

(later)...

CHUMPS AT THE PUMPS

Thane, how do you reconcile your attempt to fight gas tax with your drive towards saving the planet? Surely the one most effective thing that could be done to cut back on oil dependency and reduce carbon emissions would be to double the price of gasoline. Just watch the market react with conservation measures such as more use of public transit and switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Note also that, based on past experience in the USA, any relief on gas taxes simply makes the oil companies richer because they just raise their prices to absorb the cut in taxes - the end price staying the same.

[JustMe]

(Actually I don't think it's correct to say that QM contradicts SR - I think it would be more accurate to say that they haven't yet been reconciled into a self-consistent model)

Which is not to be confused with producing "wishy-washy self-inconsistent alternatives".  Self-inconsistant alternatives in proper science are bold! Clear! Progressive! Er...consistently self-inconsistent!

Until things are clear, they're not. There is no reason for anyone to abandon the experiments evolving here until it can be determined with certainty whether these observations can translate into a better mousetrap. Not one.

[OUman]

(Actually I don't think it's correct to say that QM contradicts SR - I think it would be more accurate to say that they haven't yet been reconciled into a self-consistent model)

Which is not to be confused with producing "wishy-washy self-inconsistent alternatives".  Self-inconsistant alternatives in proper science are bold! Clear! Progressive! Er...consistently self-inconsistent!

Until things are clear, they're not. There is no reason for anyone to abandon the experiments evolving here until it can be determined with certainty whether these observations can translate into a better mousetrap. Not one.

Well, the difference is the "wishy-washy" part.