This is a verified new technology that is free to use.
www.habtec.com
3 Chinese factories have been asked to produce proof of physics devices for general sale so that entrepreneurs can do due diligence ahead of becoming HABTEC builders. I had hoped the Chinese companies would have already (by 20th August) provided their price, but alas I am still waiting for a final quote.
It is easy for anyone to build a HABTEC from scratch at home, the materials are tungsten and molybdenum foil, mica and emitter paint, the only difficulty is getting access to a high vacuum pump and emitter coatings (other than standard Ba/Sr Carbonate Transene Co. paint).
My wish, in giving this technology to the World for free, is to have as many people as possible get involved in a grass roots amateur driven revolution that will abate the use of coal.
I have turned down offers from a chief scientist of an Australian tech company (who carried out independent proof of concept test), and a leading University to discuss forming a JV, I am not interested in making a penny from HABTEC, but I will from IMP.....for phones.............soon.
Cheers
Who has verified the technology? When did they verify it? What procedure did they use to verify it? Where is the data from the experiments?
This should be great news for operators of e-cat power plants. They have lots of waist heat to spare that could be converted with the habtech.
Is there a good reference design and list of equipment/materials to be published? What kind of vacuum pump is needed? Is a normal household phallus pump sufficient or is a special make/spec required? It would also help if you post detailed instructions for hobbyists to replicate the reference design.
Thanks and good luck.
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on August 20, 2014, 07:13:01 PM
This is a verified new technology that is...
...likely neither new nor verified.
Quote
It is easy for anyone to build a HABTEC from scratch at home
doubtful.
Quote
My wish, in giving this technology to the World for free
What exactly have you given? A vague set of instructions with no reason to believe that they work.
QuoteI have turned down offers from a chief scientist of an Australian tech company
A title which frequently sounds more impressive than it is.
Quote(who carried out independent proof of concept test)
Which we will never get to see.
Quote
and a leading University to discuss forming a JV
You turned down a "discussion". Is that supposed to be impressive?
Quote
, I am not interested in making a penny from HABTEC
Since you haven't made any money off any of your other crackpot ideas I'd say this is called "going with your strengths".
I suspect some people somewhere else are expecting an act of kapellophagy.
QuotePosted By: PJH on Jun 4th 2014 I will feel obligated to consume said Akubra if I cannot provide to you verifiable proof of a working device in contradiction to 2LOT, please state what excuse you will use on the 20th August not to eat your yet to be nominated hat?
Maybe in his mind he thinks he can provide the proof. He may think that the plans on his web site are enough.
Quote from: MarkE on August 21, 2014, 06:49:54 AM
Maybe in his mind he thinks he can provide the proof. He may think that the plans on his web site are enough.
Mark I am not going to engage in your pointless posts, or those of that weirdo Sarcastic, other than to say I have posted a $10,000 dollar reward if my claims are not met with the device that you can buy for a few hundred dollars (no money comes to me).
I see no point in posting the names of professors who wish their names to be held in confidence to prove to you that I am not delusional.
Nor do I see any point in posting proof of operation on YT, as you and others will ignore it or otherwise claim it invalid / rigged.
The only way to get a physics breakthrough widely accepted is for anyone to be able to make one and see it work.
It is an exceptional claim and it requires exceptional proof to be accepted by scientists, only you doing the test will convince you, and the same for others until such time as the number of people that know that it works is sufficient to get the more sceptical to stop their incessant chant that laws cannot be broken.
ALL BREAKTHROUGH DISCOVERIES OVERTURN THE POSITIONS OF SCEPTICS, AND ALL REQUIRE A MASSIVE PUSH TO BE RECOGNISED.
However noting that people are too complacent to bother to build a small device, as described, I decided to get a mass produced device made.
Please feel free to buy a device from the Chinese, and make the claim for the $10,000 if it does not work.
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on August 21, 2014, 06:24:00 PM
Mark I am not going to engage in your pointless posts, or those of that weirdo Sarcastic, other than to say I have posted a $10,000 dollar reward if my claims are not met with the device that you can buy for a few hundred dollars (no money comes to me).
Mr. Hardcastle, I offered a speculation as to why you have not "eaten your hat" as you promised to do back in June if by Aug. 20 you had failed to disprove the Second Law.
Quote
I see no point in posting the names of professors who wish their names to be held in confidence to prove to you that I am not delusional.
That reads as though you confirm my speculation: You believe you have proof, and so feel you have no obligation to "eat your hat". Am I wrong?
Quote
Nor do I see any point in posting proof of operation on YT, as you and others will ignore it or otherwise claim it invalid / rigged.
The only way to get a physics breakthrough widely accepted is for anyone to be able to make one and see it work.
Is this a new idea for you? If you held that view in June, then surely you recognized that you would need a working demonstration by Aug. 20th in order for others to believe that you had delivered proof.
Quote
It is an exceptional claim and it requires exceptional proof to be accepted by scientists, only you doing the test will convince you, and the same for others until such time as the number of people that know that it works is sufficient to get the more sceptical to stop their incessant chant that laws cannot be broken.
ALL BREAKTHROUGH DISCOVERIES OVERTURN THE POSITIONS OF SCEPTICS, AND ALL REQUIRE A MASSIVE PUSH TO BE RECOGNISED.
That may be true. However, you came up with the bet holding that belief. You knew what you needed to deliver in order to convince skeptics. What have you delivered that you feel satisfies the bet?
Quote
However noting that people are too complacent to bother to build a small device, as described, I decided to get a mass produced device made.
Please feel free to buy a device from the Chinese, and make the claim for the $10,000 if it does not work.
QuotePosted By: PJH on Jun 4th 2014 I will feel obligated to consume said Akubra if I cannot provide to you verifiable proof of a working device in contradiction to 2LOT, please state what excuse you will use on the 20th August not to eat your yet to be nominated hat?
According to the quote, when you made your bet, you said: "if
I cannot provide
to you verifiable proof of a working devices in contradiction to 2LOT".
Who do you think you have provided the verifiable proof to? Who has received these working devices? If it was not the skeptics you challenged, then surely you can understand why your word has been challenged.
To put it another way: What evidence have you provided of your claims since you made the bet in June?
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on August 21, 2014, 06:24:00 PM
Mark I am not going to engage in your pointless posts, or those of that weirdo Sarcastic
Apparently I still bother you enough for you to earn a namecall. Must be doing something right.
QuoteI have posted a $10,000 dollar reward if my claims are not met with the device that you can buy for a few hundred dollars (no money comes to me).
So let me get this straight. You've never really come through on anything you've claimed and you have a reputation of reneging on bets on some parts of the internet. The $10K isn't in escrow, there is no well defined criteria and you have a way of interpreting things which borders on delusional.
Quote
I see no point in posting the names of professors who wish their names to be held in confidence to prove to you that I am not delusional.
QuoteNor do I see any point in posting proof of operation on YT, as you and others will ignore it or otherwise claim it invalid / rigged.
You could take that $10K and pay for a third-party tester chosen by the skeptics.
QuoteThe only way to get a physics breakthrough widely accepted is for anyone to be able to make one and see it work.
This is completely untrue and stupid.
QuoteIt is an exceptional claim and it requires exceptional proof to be accepted by scientists, only you doing the test will convince you
Absolutely wrong, and probably wrong about MarkE as well. I regularly evaluate things in peer reviewed journals and consider them to be well supported. Relativity had some critics one of them being Einstein himself this is why you fail at science. You have no capacity to consider yourself wrong. Every failure of yours gives you the choice: "Believe I've been a total moron for years" ooooor "It's almost working". It's not hard to see why you keep choosing the later.
Quoteand the same for others until such time as the number of people that know that it works is sufficient to get the more sceptical to stop their incessant chant that laws cannot be broken.
Why are you treating science like a popularity contest. If a million morons all say it works. They're still a million morons. If a billion people do the utterly crappy error-prone and IQ lowering $10 experiment of yours and get a positive result. Then that still doesn't mean anything in objective terms. You expect people who are not trained to do experiments performing an experiment with little value to be wrong more than right.
Quote
ALL BREAKTHROUGH DISCOVERIES OVERTURN THE POSITIONS OF SCEPTICS, AND ALL REQUIRE A MASSIVE PUSH TO BE RECOGNISED.
I think this counts as raving nonsense. How was relativity accepted? Not through a "massive push" or having every moron in a garage build a "relativity device". It was first through the adoption of the mathematical model, then experimental results and then meeting large scale predictions. Some might call the discovery of helicobacter pylori as a cause of cancer would be a "breakthrough discovery". How did it get accepted. Again, it was a case of research building up.
Quote
Please feel free to buy a device from the Chinese, and make the claim for the $10,000 if it does not work.
...and amuse me greatly by watching the $10K never appear.
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on August 20, 2014, 07:13:01 PM
This is a verified new technology that is free to use.
www.habtec.com
3 Chinese factories have been asked to produce proof of physics devices for general sale so that entrepreneurs can do due diligence ahead of becoming HABTEC builders. I had hoped the Chinese companies would have already (by 20th August) provided their price, but alas I am still waiting for a final quote.
Given that it's all open source, can you name the China fabs - could be useful for people to contact them, it might spur them on a little?
I can't see a reason why this info can't be shared?
Quote
My wish, in giving this technology to the World for free, is to have as many people as possible get involved in a grass roots amateur driven revolution that will abate the use of coal.
Surely, if a self confessed expert can't show the world a working unit, amateurs aren't going to drive this forward!
Post a picture or the actual construction diagrams - these must have been supplied to the 3 China fabs for assy, right?
Quote
I have turned down offers from a chief scientist of an Australian tech company (who carried out independent proof of concept test), and a leading University to discuss forming a JV, I am not interested in making a penny from HABTEC, but I will from IMP.....for phones.............soon.
Why not make money from it, you can then choose where it goes - 3rd world, Ferrari's, bigger home etc.
You hold the patent (if it's granted) so you can choose.
Letting, ultimately, big business sell the device means that, in the end, a few big companies will get all the Ferrari's!
Open sourcing so the little man can make it himself won't work, a big company has the buying power, skills and distribution channels to make it a worthless exercise to make it yourself. They will also guarantee its operation, sell the mirrors etc.
Quote
Cheers
Thanks.
People who welsh on bets, redefine terms on the fly, and fail time and time again to produce evidence of their claims, and then blame their failures on others... are snivelling weasels, good only for amusement and as examples for small children of how not to behave in public.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 21, 2014, 07:47:05 PM
People who welsh on bets, redefine terms on the fly, and fail time and time again to produce evidence of their claims, and then blame their failures on others... are snivelling weasels, good only for amusement and as examples for small children of how not to behave in public.
You should setup a competition - ask the readers to try and disprove your comment above, if they can they win $10k. You can fund the prize-pot from that Habtec you'll be sending back ;D
Shouldn't Philip Hardcastle be the one who has to back up his claims? Renaming the Quackco/Semithankyou is not enough to seed confidence. He promised a working device and verifiable proof but came up with another round of fluffy postulations. He should at least eat his 'Akubra Cattlefriend' hat, as promised.
I did not fail to provide proof, did fail to get the Chinese to build devices by 20th, agreed, but who would have thought they would be so slow?
I do however accept the hat eating challenge needs to be put on firmer ground, so I have added that as a condition of the $10,000 challenge.
Also added an offer to pay a fee to any USA university that is prepared to issues a test certificate.
Now that is the end of my generosity, if you guys want to call me names rather than taking the challenge, so be it.
I will not post here again, anyone wanting to talk to me can do so through the habtec.com contact page.
In time every detail people can want will be posted to the site, soooon
Details of uploaded vids to YT will eventually be linked on a page, including me eating hat, not.
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on August 22, 2014, 12:09:27 AM
I did not fail to provide proof, did fail to get the Chinese to build devices by 20th, agreed, but who would have thought they would be so slow?
Then where is the proof that you have provided?
Quote
I do however accept the hat eating challenge needs to be put on firmer ground, so I have added that as a condition of the $10,000 challenge.
The time for the bet you created in June is done. If you have the proof you said that you would you had best show it or it will seem that you are welching on the bet. If you make yourself look untrustworthy on the one bet, it isn't likely people are going to trust you on this new $10,000. bet that you propose.
Quote
Also added an offer to pay a fee to any USA university that is prepared to issues a test certificate.
Is that something on your web site? What are the details or your offer?
Quote
Now that is the end of my generosity, if you guys want to call me names rather than taking the challenge, so be it.
You made a bet with a time limit that you selected. The time limit is up. By all appearances you have lost that bet and are unwilling to cover your end. There are two honorable outs here: Deliver proof that you won the bet, or live up to your end of the bet that you made. If you take an out that is not honorable you do that to yourself.
Quote
I will not post here again, anyone wanting to talk to me can do so through the habtec.com contact page.
In time every detail people can want will be posted to the site, soooon
Details of uploaded vids to YT will eventually be linked on a page, including me eating hat, not.
This sounds an awful lot like you are welching on
your bet.
This is strange. Mr. Hardcastle states on his website that there is some controversy as to whether if others perform some non-specific tests on some devices and get some non-specific results he should eat a hat. If the quote that celsus posted is correct, then Mr. Hardcastle was due to eat a hat when he did not produce proof to the person he addressed.
QuoteSome people are suggesting that if they do the test and it does not perform as specified that I owe them an Akubra Hat eating, I disagree with their logic as I have proved the physics, not my fault if the people who already know it works do not want there names thrown in to the feeding frenzy that exists in the society of rabid skeptics. However if someone buys a device then on top of the offer of $10,000, I will also consume 50gm of my Akubra hat, video uploaded to YT. Additionally if any USA university is prepared to certify the device I will pay them a fee provided that they will sign a certificate after they preform the test. I wanted a Prof at ANU to do the test on a supplied device, and so certify the physics, but he (Steve) said it was not necessary as he already believed it to be so from the statements provided to him by an independent professional (name withheld). So people can take my offer, or not, but I only eat my hat when I actually fail, so buy a device and test it before you say I should eat Akubra.
QuotePosted By: PJH on Jun 4th 2014 I will feel obligated to consume said Akubra if I cannot provide to you verifiable proof of a working device in contradiction to 2LOT, please state what excuse you will use on the 20th August not to eat your yet to be nominated hat?
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on August 22, 2014, 12:09:27 AM
I did not fail to provide proof, did fail to get the Chinese to build devices by 20th, agreed, but who would have thought they would be so slow?
According to you the only thing that will prove things is if people have a device in their hands. That was not possible by the 20th as promised ergo I think it's pretty clear that even under your OWN crazy standards. You are in contradiction and apparently to some people that means you should eat your hat.
Quote
I do however accept the hat eating challenge needs to be put on firmer ground, so I have added that as a condition of the $10,000 challenge.
The $10K challenge is idiotic. You have provided no test criteria and no success criteria.
Quote
Also added an offer to pay a fee to any USA university that is prepared to issues a test certificate.
Or you could HIRE an independent group to TEST IT as chosen by skeptics or some representative group of skeptics (i.e. JRF). For probably less than $10K if the test is as simple as you imply (that anyone could do it and demonstrate your utter failure) and PUBLICIZE the result. Seriously this is done ALL THE TIME. Why wouldn't you just do that? It is orders of magnitude more POWERFUL to do that. This all makes me think you actually don't have the money to pay up.
QuoteNow that is the end of my generosity,
You have provided exactly nothing.
Show of hands...is there ANYONE who really believes Philip here anymore?
On that last vile comment, I quit.
Website scrubbed.
It is not my sole responsibility to try and do good for the climate.
Goodbye.
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on August 22, 2014, 03:20:35 PM
On that last vile comment, I quit.
Website scrubbed.
It is not my sole responsibility to try and do good for the climate.
Goodbye.
To be fair, you have been promising to show something for more than five years and never provided anything of value.
Or to be exact: You failed so many times that the non-result we see now is what everyone has expected.
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on August 22, 2014, 03:20:35 PM
On that last vile comment, I quit.
Website scrubbed.
It is not my sole responsibility to try and do good for the climate.
Goodbye.
Do as you choose. It's a bit stunning that because you feel wronged by a handful of people here you declare that you will deny seven billions others your supposed life changing discovery. What is even more stunning is that you feel wronged that people challenge you based on your own undelivered claims and promises. For those of us who believe you have been badly mistaken all along your announcement has no more impact than the numerous bombastic announcements that you have made before and come to naught.
Quote from: Philip Hardcastle on August 22, 2014, 03:20:35 PM
On that last vile comment, I quit.
Website scrubbed.
It is not my sole responsibility to try and do good for the climate.
Goodbye.
You may as well post those construction diagrams and the names of the 3 fabs now, I guess?
Or isn't there any?
The Habstec website was changed. The owner of the website was treaten by free energy supressor. Damn! They will do all sorts of evil things to prevent free energy to spread in the world. They have no pity on poor people. They only care about making money. :(
The remnant of the website is; habtec.com. The text does not seem to clearly support what NEO-X is saying. By the way
"Habtec" was a poor choice of names for a new company as there plenty of companies around the world already using that
name, operating in similar businesses. It seems if this new company was a great success that it would almost guarantee
lawsuits and problems in the future. I not sure why people do this.
:S:MarkSCoffman
It may be just as well. If Mr. Hardcastle could not handle the questions and criticisms here, then he would probably be much more upset by industry review.
Quote from: MarkE on August 23, 2014, 12:58:31 PM
It may be just as well. If Mr. Hardcastle could not handle the questions and criticisms here, then he would probably be much more upset by industry review.
It's now pretty clear that it's all been bull$hit.
If it worked then why on earth would you reject partnerships and joint ventures to take to market?
It was touted as 'open source' so if you don't partner with larger businesses then they will go and make it themselves and cut you out.
If PH really thinks he has something (which I don't, given his recent outburst) then he must be insane to crap-out on the project because of a few sceptics. Alternatively, it could be the best thing he ever does!
Quote from: Madebymonkeys on August 23, 2014, 07:12:03 PM
It's now pretty clear that it's all been bull$hit.
If it worked then why on earth would you reject partnerships and joint ventures to take to market?
It was touted as 'open source' so if you don't partner with larger businesses then they will go and make it themselves and cut you out.
If PH really thinks he has something (which I don't, given his recent outburst) then he must be insane to crap-out on the project because of a few sceptics. Alternatively, it could be the best thing he ever does!
He seems very volatile.
I believe Philip's concept is viable. He spent much energy and time trying to develop a high tech version that would solve the worlds energy problems and faced many skeptics and problems and was so criticized here for his failures.
Now Philip was attempting to GIVE AWAY a low tech and easily built solution that may have been useful to many in this forum.
Again he is faced with criticism and negativity for giving away an easily built device that falls totally within the open source rules of this forum and is possibly the best free energy solution of any of the threads in this forum.
His website now states that he will no longer waste his time on others, and will use his time for his self.
So, was the criticism for his work in the past, or for his new low tech approach that may have shown different results?
I guess going by some logic, one could say if you fail many times then you can never succeed, though the rule to success is if you fail then get up and try again.
Quote from: lumen on August 24, 2014, 12:35:23 PM
I believe Philip's concept is viable. He spent much energy and time trying to develop a high tech version that would solve the worlds energy problems and faced many skeptics and problems and was so criticized here for his failures.
Now Philip was attempting to GIVE AWAY a low tech and easily built solution that may have been useful to many in this forum.
Again he is faced with criticism and negativity for giving away an easily built device that falls totally within the open source rules of this forum and is possibly the best free energy solution of any of the threads in this forum.
His website now states that he will no longer waste his time on others, and will use his time for his self.
So, was the criticism for his work in the past, or for his new low tech approach that may have shown different results?
I guess going by some logic, one could say if you fail many times then you can never succeed, though the rule to success is if you fail then get up and try again.
The criticism of the past few days focused on him apparently welching on a bet he made in June. Mr. Hardcastle did not dispute the quote in post #4 by celsus. Mr. Hardcastle has not provided the proof that was the subject of the bet. I call that a loss. Mr. Hardcastle is upset that others see it that way as well.
Mr. Hardcastle has over the years made various claims that by leveraging thermionic principles he could break the Second Law of Thermodynamics. His various concepts have been heavily criticized as unworkable. Mr. Hardcastle expresses his opinion that he claims is shared by experts who he says refuse to be identified that an experiment with a vacuum tube in an oven validates his claims of a Second Law violation. Those experiments are at least three years old. They have been criticized heavily as well.
Mr. Hardcastle's latest efforts seem related to the three year old vacuum tube experiments.
Over the time that I have been familiar with Mr. Hardcastle's claims to Second Law violations I have never seen where Mr. Hardcastle has set-out an idea and then defined a test that could falsify the null version of his idea. IOW I have never seen him establish a means that could prove his Second Law violation claims even in the extremely unlikely case that they might be true.
The decision to pull the plug on his web site was Mr. Hardcastle's. He has done similar things at least several times before. IMO, Mr. Hardcastle puts himself in a difficult position: He has multiple times now: made extraordinary claims, promised proof of his claims, failed to provide proof of his extraordinary claims, gone off in a huff. It is very hard for meto take a person who conducts themselves in such a way seriously.
Quote from: MarkE on August 24, 2014, 01:14:36 PMHe has done similar things at least several times before. IMO, Mr. Hardcastle puts himself in a difficult position: He has multiple times now: made extraordinary claims, promised proof of his claims, failed to provide proof of his extraordinary claims, gone off in a huff. It is very hard for meto take a person who conducts themselves in such a way seriously.
I may add: He has set a very specific deadline every time and he has failed to keep this deadline every time. Without exception.
Quote from: lumen on August 24, 2014, 12:35:23 PM
I believe Philip's concept is viable. He spent much energy and time trying to develop a high tech version that would solve the worlds energy problems and faced many skeptics and problems and was so criticized here for his failures.
Now Philip was attempting to GIVE AWAY a low tech and easily built solution that may have been useful to many in this forum.
Again he is faced with criticism and negativity for giving away an easily built device that falls totally within the open source rules of this forum and is possibly the best free energy solution of any of the threads in this forum.
His website now states that he will no longer waste his time on others, and will use his time for his self.
So, was the criticism for his work in the past, or for his new low tech approach that may have shown different results?
I guess going by some logic, one could say if you fail many times then you can never succeed, though the rule to success is if you fail then get up and try again.
There was, at least (to me), a glimmer of hope in his idea (there are many high efficiency thermionic generators documented even as close as this year...they do depend on a temp differential though!) but his reaction to criticism speaks loud. To me, again, it seems like he is full of crap and cannot and has not been able to demonstrate a 2LOT violation. Instead, I think he has managed to spend a lot of time and money recreating experiments, done many times, which rely on a temperature differential...probably due to measurement errors or blunders.
If the above is inaccurate, I would love to hear PH's side of the story.
Oh, and if PH is listening, do the world (and your family) a favour, let us see how to build a unit before Samsung does it!
Lumen did you get a photoshot of the tungsten/molybdenum/SrCO3 device from the website?
Quote from: profitis on August 25, 2014, 02:55:43 AM
Lumen did you get a photoshot of the tungsten/molybdenum/SrCO3 device from the website?
No, I saw it there and thought I could wait for more information.
It appeared to be a simple device that could have been easily build and verified with a bit more information.
I suppose someone will continue on if Philip really threw in the towel.
At least I know who has the screen shots, right?
Quote from: lumen on August 25, 2014, 11:19:36 AM
No, I saw it there and thought I could wait for more information.
It appeared to be a simple device that could have been easily build and verified with a bit more information.
I suppose someone will continue on if Philip really threw in the towel.
At least I know who has the screen shots, right?
The Wayback machine doesn't have a recent archive although if you check your internet cache on your machine it should have the images stored in there.
I am working from an ipad so it's not that simple!
I saved the page in the attached pdf because I was really sure Phil would alter or delete the site.
Great @celcus.saved for posterity.those who are aquainted with thermionics will know what to do here
Yes, they will recognize that heating a material enough to overcome its work function reduces towards zero the additional work that has to be done to pass current between two electrodes separated by a vacuum.
Quote from: lumen on August 24, 2014, 12:35:23 PM
I believe Philip's concept is viable.
Why exactly?
Quote
He spent much energy and time trying to develop a high tech version that would solve the worlds energy problems and faced many skeptics and problems and was so criticized here for his failures.
He was criticized for making ridiculous claims about his ability to deliver the alleged technology...and being an enormous, gaping, world-consuming asshole. He was the Galactus of assholes.
Quote
Again he is faced with criticism and negativity for giving away an easily built device that falls totally within the open source rules of this forum
Giving away, charging or creating a free-energy rectal suppository all of those things are worthy of the same criticism. However if my "negativity" is as Philip often implied the reason he packed up shop then I feel rather justified that my efforts have succeeded in removing one small tiny brown stain from the internet.
Quote
and is possibly the best free energy solution of any of the threads in this forum.
Agreed. Philip's could easily be the best idea on this forum. However I rather suspect that most of the ideas on this forum - having to do with free energy - are utter crap.
Quote
I guess going by some logic, one could say if you fail many times then you can never succeed,
More specifically. If you fail many times AT THE SAME THING WITHOUT ANY IMPROVEMENT WHATSOEVER then you should at least start increasing the probability that your idea is complete crap. Philip never once doubted his own idea, no matter how many times he failed.
Quote
though the rule to success is if you fail then get up and try again.
You can write 2 + 2 = 5 as many times as you like. It neither makes it true nor improves your ability to realize the answer is four.