Young Bangladeshi Scientist's success story Power generation without fuel

[jibbguy]

Its not that the demand for proof is backwards... It is just that some refuse to understand that it goes both ways....

You can't call something a fraud unless you have sure knowledge that it is one. Which of course, 999 out of 1,000 times, they do not. Of course that doesn't stop some people from doing it anyway, lol.

So i just go on the working model that if someone does insist on claiming fraud with no actual knowledge, then they are acting fraudulently themselves.... Or they are perhaps shills; which is equally worthy of dismissal for not being a serious challenge in my book.

Look, these things may or not work. Suppression may or may not be a fact. You can certainly suggest caution, request scientific method be used properly in examining these issues. But using derision and scorn with obvious prejudice... Without any hard data to back you does not raise you above those who are making the claims... It only shows a general unwillingness to hold an honest discussion about it. And that is NOT scientific.     

[pennies_everywhere]

@allcanadian, if it is verifiable it's science.  If it's someone's unverifiable claim it's woo-woo.  If it's rhetoric intended to discredit the painstaking and highly reliable scientific method, it's useless bafflegab.

@pennies_everwhere
What is the Truth when the Truth is unacceptable
The science we know holds true through repetition, that is doing the same things over and over. When people do things that are out of the ordinary very often they achieve extraordinary results which science rarely accepts nor understands.

[pennies_everywhere]

@jibbguy, the only "it" that matters is verifiable experience.  Once we have a wealth of verifiable experience, we have reasonable reliable beliefs.  That is as certain as knowledge can or needs to be.  When we encounter new verifiable experience that runs contrary to beliefs then rational people evolve the beliefs to account for the new, verifiable experience.

We have today countless verifiable experience that CoE holds true.  Kachi, like so many before him, offers zero verifiable evidence that he has a CoE violating gadget.  To any reasonable limit, that establishes his claim as false apriori.

Dismiss logic, reason, and accumulated experience all you like to your own disservice.  If some nut tells you that he has a magic remote control that suspends gravity, will you "keep an open mind" and follow him off the top of a building, or pay attention to the "shills" who tell you that absent reproduceable  evidence to the contrary, that nut's claims are false?

You've once again put the cart squarely before the horse.  It is the burden of the claimant to show that they have followed the scientific method and produce verifiable evidence of their claims.  That means they must supply a reproduceable experiment to support the claim first.  Kachi has not.

People make extraordinary claims without the slightest shred of supporting evidence all the time.  Such nonsense fully deserves the derision it rightly draws.  Acting on established knowledge in the face of no contradictory evidence is not predjudice.  It is simply: sober, rational behavior.

Its not that the demand for proof is backwards... It is just that some refuse to understand that it goes both ways....

You can't call something a fraud unless you have sure knowledge that it is one. Which of course, 999 out of 1,000 times, they do not. Of course that doesn't stop some people from doing it anyway, lol.

So i just go on the working model that if someone does insist on claiming fraud with no actual knowledge, then they are acting fraudulently themselves.... Or they are perhaps shills; which is equally worthy of dismissal for not being a serious challenge in my book.

Look, these things may or not work. Suppression may or may not be a fact. You can certainly suggest caution, request scientific method be used properly in examining these issues. But using derision and scorn with obvious prejudice... Without any hard data to back you does not raise you above those who are making the claims... It only shows a general unwillingness to hold an honest discussion about it. And that is NOT scientific.     

[jibbguy]

Air conditioners and refrigerators have COP greater than one. So do air compressors: The heat generated by the compression, whether it gets wasted or not, is still energy that is added to the potential energy of the compressed air. So excuse many of us if we don't worship the little tin god of "CoE"; since this god is not all-knowing or correct in every circumstance.

When the scientific mainstream refuses to admit something, despite facts to the contrary... Then there is little to discuss; and we can just go on without the dubious blessing of the science-priests. This Bangladesh device is just one of over a dozen that may use the same principals discovered by many others before.... Adams, Johnson, Teal, Gray, Christie, Newman, Bedini, Beardon, Lindemann, Moray.... Even Tesla (...and others). Devices that are not being studied AT ALL by mainstream science (at least openly)... Suppressed to the point that places like this exist so SOMEONE will bother to study them... Whether actively suppressed by those who would lose profit and power if the devices were embraced, or more "benignly" by those who's mindset refuses to accept them.. Either way the result is the same. Yet even here; where science is viewed by many as an unfinished book instead of a "done deal".... Some would have you not study them.

This school of thought would apparently suggest all these inventors must be "frauds" ; simply because they have not been embraced by the mainstream.... Because what proofs they did offer were ignored or treated like pots of gold at the end of a rainbow; rejected because the shape of the pot was wrong.

I say this because to discount this latest one we are discussing in this thread, in such an out-of-hand manner, is to say that all the other ones must be false also. Because if you admit just one of them works as advertised.... Then it becomes very much more difficult to discount the rest without proof (and the denials will then certainly sound less credible).   

No one is asking for unquestioning faith when considering these devices. We leave that to those who will reject anything that was not written about in their college text books

[pennies_everywhere]

jibbguy apparently you do not understand COP and CoE.  There is no conflict between CoE and heat pumps that exhibit COPs far greater than 1.0.  What CoE and the laws of thermodynamics you deride tell us is:

1. We cannot increase the heat of a resevoir without drawing that additional energy from another source.
2. We cannot decrease the entropy of a resevoir, ie we cannot exchange heat in a resevoir of a given temperature so as to create a new lower temperature and a new higher temperature resevoir without drawing external energy from another source.

Both of those statements from the "little tin god of "CoE"" as you so disdainfully deride it, are 100% compatible with operation of heat pumps at COPs many times greater than one.  If you still do not understand this, then I suggest that you improve your science education. 

To put the COP issue into perspective, consider that we can routinely purchase heat pumps with COPs of five or higher. If a COP > 1 represented a gain in energy, then it would be possible to construct a PMM from a heat pump:  use the gradient generated by the pump to operate a Carnot cycle engine that provides the power for the heat pump.  The fact of the matter is that this does not work.  That "little tin god of "CoE"" is to all current understanding in complete control of our world.  That you cite a bunch of crackpots, crooks, and nuts who have all claimed, but failed to demonstrate the PMM they claim merely underscores that reality.

Belief in that for which there is no reproduceable evidence is nothing more than superstition.  Kachi has a box that is far larger than an ordinary UPS capable of doing everything that he demonstrated.  Ergo he has presented NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to support his outlandish claims.

When someone, anyone presents reproduceable evidence that CoE does not hold it will be a watershed day in science.  The myth that science rejects new information is routinely disproved bunk promoted by charlatans and the ignorant.

Air conditioners and refrigerators have COP greater than one. So do air compressors: The heat generated by the compression, whether it gets wasted or not, is still energy that is added to the potential energy of the compressed air. So excuse many of us if we don't worship the little tin god of "CoE"; since this god is not all-knowing or correct in every circumstance.

When the scientific mainstream refuses to admit something, despite facts to the contrary... Then there is little to discuss; and we can just go on without the dubious blessing of the science-priests. This Bangladesh device is just one of over a dozen that may use the same principals discovered by many others before.... Adams, Johnson, Teal, Gray, Christie, Newman, Bedini, Beardon, Lindemann, Moray.... Even Tesla (...and others). Devices that are not being studied AT ALL by mainstream science (at least openly)... Suppressed to the point that places like this exist so SOMEONE will bother to study them... Whether actively suppressed by those who would lose profit and power if the devices were embraced, or more "benignly" by those who's mindset refuses to accept them.. Either way the result is the same. Yet even here; where science is viewed by many as an unfinished book instead of a "done deal".... Some would have you not study them.

This school of thought would apparently suggest all these inventors must be "frauds" ; simply because they have not been embraced by the mainstream.... Because what proofs they did offer were ignored or treated like pots of gold at the end of a rainbow; rejected because the shape of the pot was wrong.

I say this because to discount this latest one we are discussing in this thread, in such an out-of-hand manner, is to say that all the other ones must be false also. Because if you admit just one of them works as advertised.... Then it becomes very much more difficult to discount the rest without proof (and the denials will then certainly sound less credible).   

No one is asking for unquestioning faith when considering these devices. We leave that to those who will reject anything that was not written about in their college text books