Newman Machine Changes the Weather.

[utilitarian]

i guess no one is giving you the attention your after in the other threads so you drifted in here?.

How uncalled for!  I am a scientist and only seek the truth. I care nothing for attention, except to the extent that it draws attention on my work and allows others to assist in an open source effort.

You guys are just mad because all your device does is spin a magnet around and change the weather.  My device is also electro-magnetic, changes the weather, but also makes coffee.

I will publish the plans for my device, to allow others to replicate it, just as soon as I manage to take it apart and see how it's made.

[Feynman]

I think utilitarian has a good point which is this: 

1) tests must have a control
2) must have predictable observable results which can be readily duplicated.
3) results must have statistical significance (not result of random chance within a certain bound of confidence)

If those factors are in place , then as far as I'm concerned it's worth experimenting.

[david wells]

to Feynman , I have been testing this since 1994 . It is hard to imagine a control for this . You can't have two weather systems .
   As for duplication , it gets repeatable results . The settings generate repeatable results . If you set it to reduce rain , it reduces rain . If set to increase rain , it increases rain . It works without fail .
   It mainly adjusts precipitation . The force involved is something new . I have seen it do some strange things . It puts a charge in water that enables mild steel to be heat treated . I have A36 steel hardened to 50 Rockwell C with tensil strength of 200,000 psi . There is no carbon in A36 so you can't heat treat it . The machine will charge the  water and the steel gets hard and strong.
   Ripley said , "Believe it or not"  You will have to see it work . When it gets established and is as common as the telephone , you can say you were a skeptic when you first heard of it .
   I didn't invent this . I discovered it . I looked at it for 6 months before I was sure it worked .
   Have you looked at Mollers Atomic Hydrogen Generator ? It's on google . This is the closest to free energy I have seen so far .     David Wells

[utilitarian]

to Feynman , I have been testing this since 1994 . It is hard to imagine a control for this . 

If you cannot imagine a control for a scientific experiment, then you are no scientist.  Have you never heard of double-blind?

Take a box.  Put the machine in the box and hide it somewhere, so you cannot see it or hear it.  Find two friends.  On random days, have one friend either turn the machine on or not turn the machine on.  Have him keep that fact secret.  The person turning on the machine on certain days cannot know which days you will actually be making observations.

You and the other friend will then observe and make notes on whether the weather is changing or not.

At the end of the trial period, you will compare and see how many times you thought the weather was changing when the machine was actually turned off.

See, not hard?  It took me all of 2 minutes to think this up.  In how many years, you have never considered performing this honest scientific experiment?

EDIT:

With a proper double blind, you can basically test for all possibilities:

1.  Machine may be on or off.
2.  You either predict a specific change or predict no change
3.  The weather changes as predicted, changes against prediction, or does not change at all

So that is 2x2x3, or 12 total possibilities of what can happen.  You will need a reasonable statistical sample, perhaps 30 days of daily data.  A high accuracy percentage will go a long way to supporting your claims.

Have you considered that the reason no one takes you seriously is because you have not done a serious test?

[b0rg13]

to Feynman , I have been testing this since 1994 . It is hard to imagine a control for this . 

If you cannot imagine a control for a scientific experiment, then you are no scientist.  Have you never heard of double-blind?

Take a box.  Put the machine in the box and hide it somewhere, so you cannot see it or hear it.  Find two friends.  On random days, have one friend either turn the machine on or not turn the machine on.  Have him keep that fact secret.  The person turning on the machine on certain days cannot know which days you will actually be making observations.

You and the other friend will then observe and make notes on whether the weather is changing or not.

At the end of the trial period, you will compare and see how many times you thought the weather was changing when the machine was actually turned off.

See, not hard?  It took me all of 2 minutes to think this up.  In how many years, you have never considered performing this honest scientific experiment?

EDIT:

With a proper double blind, you can basically test for all possibilities:

1.  Machine may be on or off.
2.  You either predict a specific change or predict no change
3.  The weather changes as predicted, changes against prediction, or does not change at all

So that is 2x2x3, or 12 total possibilities of what can happen.  You will need a reasonable statistical sample, perhaps 30 days of daily data.  A high accuracy percentage will go a long way to supporting your claims.

Have you considered that the reason no one takes you seriously is because you have not done a serious test?

how come no one is taking him seriously?, just because you say so ?.,, a few posts up you said you were going to pull apart your coffee maker and tell us how it works ?, did you perform the same tests on your coffee maker that your saying David should do on his machine useing two friends that you thought up ?,...im curious about your coffee maker btw, does it really make coffee or are you putting coffee in it and just saying it does ?,.. hmmmmm.