Quote from: ramset on July 29, 2008, 10:38:28 AM
Dopey check post *1088    Chet

Yes...Post 1088 is a perfect example.  It goes on at great length about a complicated theory of something or other and uses a large number of non-traditional terms (diodes slamming shut and compressing things... ) and vague gibberish trying to explain something that the writer obviously does not understand.  Nowhere does it answer any of the basic simple practical questions I've asked.

What is the whole contraption intended to do?  Does it do it?  How well, in objective, measurable terms?  Does it do anything that normal, standard physics cannot explain on first principles?  If so, what?

Without solid answers to those questions being sought and discussed, the tendency is toward a ring-around-the-rosy parade of endless meaningless gibberish explanations that don't even warrant being called theories.  I'm sure it's fun to pretend and play, but will it get anyone any closer to providing answers to real-world energy problems...that is the question.  I have no opinion as yet, other than to say that what I've read on the thread so far does not address any of the basic scientific issues or questions.

Have I missed something?

...Thanks Xbox, musta missed that one. Tried with electrolyte, more volume and or pressurized air yet? 
Our circuit won't be ready till tomorrow, I am working on something that I'll publish (when it's finished) but I'd sure like to see the results of my questions.
Thanks
D

Quote from: Dread on July 29, 2008, 12:10:19 PM
...Thanks Xbox, musta missed that one. Tried with electrolyte, more volume and or pressurized air yet? 
Our circuit won't be ready till tomorrow, I am working on something that I'll publish (when it's finished) but I'd sure like to see the results of my questions.
Thanks
D

I didnt think to try it with electrolyte....but it sounds like fun!!!

I am making a pressure tube now.....

What is the whole contraption intended to do?  Does it do it?  How well, in objective, measurable terms?  Does it do anything that normal, standard physics cannot explain on first principles?  If so, what?

To carry on a wee bit more in a scientific logical progression...

Only if the answer to the first question is "Something very surprising  or potentially useful" need the second question be asked.  The third question need only be asked if the answer to the second question is "yes".  Then, and only then, the tough and expensive part comes, as the third question generally takes time, effort, clear thought, critical thinking and decent equipment to answer.  If the objective measurement phase yield positive results, we know the contraption does something useful and/or surprising and does it well (and repeatably).  We have numbers now.  We can start thinking about economics/applications/engineering, etc. 

The last two questions are the important ones in terms of any real "breakthoughs" in energy science.  It seems that in this thread and in general throughout the whole overunity/free energy realm, people immediately assume that something inexplicable by normal physics is occuring way before they ask and answer the first three questions.  Then, without benefit of any objective measurements or controlled testing of any kind, they leap to explaining in great complicated theories based on assumed answers of "yes" and "we don't really know" to the last two questions.

Maybe it's me that has it backward.  Maybe it's supposed to be that you should start by seeing anything that surprises you and immediately deciding that it must be a phenomenon inexplicable by standard physics, even if you don't know yet exactly what it is or why it surprises you.

You assume then since it is mysterious and surprising to you, that it must be extremely useful and contain the answer to most of the world's major pressing problems.  Yet you still can't say what exactly it does or how well it does it.  All efforts at quantifying or measuring or isolating any particular effect are lost quickly in a barrage of details about how to construct a device to "replicate" an unmeasured functional performance.

How does anyone ever know when they have successfully replicated anything here?  Without knowing the answers to the first three questions, it's just not possible to "replicate".  You have to know what it is you are trying to achieve replication of.  That's where this thread has me shaking my head and wondering.  But by all means, carry on...let not the skeptical newbie's stark questions deflect you from your progress toward...uhhh...well...whatever it is you are hoping to find!   

Quote from: xbox hacker on July 29, 2008, 12:13:50 PM
I didnt think to try it with electrolyte....but it sounds like fun!!!

I am making a pressure tube now.....

xbox hacker,
Good work!  Give this a whirl.  Make a solution of colloidal copper as your electrolyte using simple electrolysis and distilled water.

Go to Home Depot and get a foot of number 12 copper wire and remove the plastic coating and make your electrodes from that.  This is a high enough grade of copper to perform this experiment.  In no way are colloids of this grade of copper fit for human consumption, in other words do not drink.

IndianaBoys