I'm skeptical of these motors...

[Hoppy]

And that's just it, it can't really be tested very well. So I don't see the point in bothering with that claim. Do you have _any_ idea of _any_ test that adheres to _general_ scientific principles, even if not a "conventional" one, that might work?

Afraid not Mike.

Hoppy

[mike3]

Afraid not Mike.

Hoppy

So then I guess there's no bother. How else do you propose to ensure what you are looking at is actually result, and not just delusion? Scientific _methods_, by the way, should _not_ be confused with scientific _theory_.

[WilbyInebriated]

So then I guess there's no bother. How else do you propose to ensure what you are looking at is actually result, and not just delusion? Scientific _methods_, by the way, should _not_ be confused with scientific _theory_.

more pathological skepticism...

1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.

"The phenomenon you have observed is impossible, crazy stuff.  We know of no mechanism which could explain your results, so we have grave suspicions about the accuracy your report.  There is no room for your results in modern theory, so they simply cannot exist.  You are obviously the victim of errors, hoaxers, or self-delusion.  We need not publish your paper, and any attempts at replicating your results    would be a waste of time.  Your requests for funding are misguided, and should be turned down."


5.  Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.

"Your ideas are obviously garbage.  What, try to replicate your evidence?  I wouldn't soil my hands.  And besides, it would be a terrible waste of time and money, since there's no question about the outcome."

see http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt

[mike3]

more pathological skepticism...

1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.

"The phenomenon you have observed is impossible, crazy stuff.  We know of no mechanism which could explain your results, so we have grave suspicions about the accuracy your report.  There is no room for your results in modern theory, so they simply cannot exist.  You are obviously the victim of errors, hoaxers, or self-delusion.  We need not publish your paper, and any attempts at replicating your results    would be a waste of time.  Your requests for funding are misguided, and should be turned down."

The issue here is not a lack of mechanism, or a contradiction with theory, but ultimately a lack of *proof* that the device creates effects that are not attributable to misinterpreted mundane phenomena or experimental bias. For example, one critique I mentioned had to do with an observation of an artifact of lead-acid batteries that may fool an inexperienced experimenter into thinking that the device is generating energy when in fact it is not. One possible test that might eliminate this would be to try out a different type of battery. Does the effect persist or disappear? Look, if good repeatable proof could be found of an effect that is not just experimental bias or incompetence on the part of the experimenter then it doesn't matter if it contradicts orthodox theory -- so much worse for orthodox theory! Time to get a new paradigm. The problem is that lack of proof, however. Why bother replicating an experiment that is methodologically flawed?

5.  Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.

"Your ideas are obviously garbage.  What, try to replicate your evidence?  I wouldn't soil my hands.  And besides, it would be a terrible waste of time and money, since there's no question about the outcome."

see http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt

Did you even read any of the critiques I mentioned? Where are they just blowing it off w/o making any examination of the claim?
For example:
http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden.htm (Get it? "PHACT"? "FACT"??! HAHAHA!)

Here they discuss experimental procedures Naudin _did not follow_, experimental Methods designed to eliminate known sources of bias:
"Don't forget the possibility of capacitive coupling to the probe or its leads. Since the MEG output is pretty high voltage at 25-30 kHz and scopes generally have unbalanced inputs with high input Z, it wouldn't take too many pF of stray capacitance between the MEG output circuit and the probe leads to muck up the measurement.
If such be the case, the interference should lead the MEG output voltage in phase.
In order to check for this, you would need to move the output wire from the clamp as above while leaving it just outside the clamp and keeping the position of the output wiring relative to the probe leads unchanged- and then see if you get a zero reading.
Taking accurate electrical measurements is part of what I do for a living, and seeing the kind of sheer sloppiness Naudin habitually indulges is just plain irritating. Makes me want to go "Move over Rover and let a real tech take over"."

This is a well-known source of ERROR, and one _must_ eliminate it from one's experiment! If Naudin is not taking care with the experiments then the results of them are not trustworthy! How is that so difficult to understand??? It is experimental ERRORS like this that are the problem here. Bedini motors, MEGs, you name it, if they aren't doing good Experiments what's the point?

Another thing that is getting me miffed is that I'm getting contrary information here. One guy here seems to be admitting the device is not over-unity, which therefore would seem to be an admission it is not useful for anything and is not something revolutionary.