SELF RUNNING GENERATOR

[pauldude000]

Who's arguing? We are following the usual pattern here. Some credulous person links to a hoax video or three, I explain how it's hoaxed, and I get attacked and insulted for it. Business as usual, it seems.

No, Pauldude.... I think you should work on replicating LifeHack's coil, since you know he's shown PROOF that it works, and I'm a moron/paid troll with no credibility.

I'll be looking forward to your video showing your replication.

Nice try. You cannot read either, apparently. (I will point out that in EVERY posting excepting only the cute fiction style dialog post, that I think the videos are probably fake..... Again.) Nice point though on replicating, lets see yours. The burden of proof of wrongdoing is upon the accuser. You are making a claim that it is fake, while I am reserving judgement until actual evidence is forthcoming and I make no claim whatsoever.


All I have seen from you is egotism, condescension, and arrogance, and if you wonder why the bad reaction to your posts, it is not some paranoid version of persecution it is a lack of respect for what I have seen coming from you. There are many vocal critics I DO respect, due to their attitudes. Yours I do not, due to your attitude. You are not a scientist applying scientific method nor are you utilizing critical thinking. Applied method of critical thinking actually convicts you as being irrational. Look it up.


Concerning revenue towards Youtube vids....


You get paid a fraction of a cent per CLICK through on an ad, not just a view. (Almost none, research google adsense)


You get a PARTIAL fraction of a cent per ad view, and that is only if the watcher actually views the ad and doesn't close the ad asap (90% of everyone).


Your thousand bucks concept just became ten, to maybe a hundred bucks realistically as a few of the total ads do not allow a shutdown.

[Gwandau]

As far as I am concerned, this is the basic criteria for taking any videofilmed invention into consideration:


1. The active components of the construct assembled on transparent glass, plastic or polycarbonate.

2. Experiment performed upon a completely transparent table, at least three feet from ground level.

3. A minimum of three feet visible free spacing around the table.


Any deviation from the above criteria has to be considered as fake.


Gwandau

[tinman]

Nice try. You cannot read either, apparently. (I will point out that in EVERY posting excepting only the cute fiction style dialog post, that I think the videos are probably fake..... Again.) Nice point though on replicating, lets see yours. The burden of proof of wrongdoing is upon the accuser. You are making a claim that it is fake, while I am reserving judgement until actual evidence is forthcoming and I make no claim whatsoever.


All I have seen from you is egotism, condescension, and arrogance, and if you wonder why the bad reaction to your posts, it is not some paranoid version of persecution it is a lack of respect for what I have seen coming from you. There are many vocal critics I DO respect, due to their attitudes. Yours I do not, due to your attitude. You are not a scientist applying scientific method nor are you utilizing critical thinking. Applied method of critical thinking actually convicts you as being irrational. Look it up.


Concerning revenue towards Youtube vids....


You get paid a fraction of a cent per CLICK through on an ad, not just a view. (Almost none, research google adsense)


You get a PARTIAL fraction of a cent per ad view, and that is only if the watcher actually views the ad and doesn't close the ad asap (90% of everyone).


Your thousand bucks concept just became ten, to maybe a hundred bucks realistically as a few of the total ads do not allow a shutdown.

A small heads up on makeing money on youtube via add's.
Here is what i have made since i monetised my youtube account.
$10.59 for 8857 views.
8857/1059 = 8.36 cents per add.
Now if i had a million view's,that would be 1000'000 x .0836 = 83600 cents,which is $836.oo
So TK wasnt far off with makeing some good small change from youtube.

[pauldude000]

A small heads up on makeing money on youtube via add's.
Here is what i have made since i monetised my youtube account.
$10.59 for 8857 views.
8857/1059 = 8.36 cents per add.
Now if i had a million view's,that would be 1000'000 x .0836 = 83600 cents,which is $836.oo
So TK wasnt far off with makeing some good small change from youtube.

Firsthand information is always better than secondhand research.


If it is as you say, then I must retract the statements concerning video monetization and apologize for them due to inaccurate data.


Thank you for bringing this up tinman. It would actually make the ads pay a little for enough hits which changes things.


Still not a huge amount, but with enough videos a substantial quantity could be raised.

[pauldude000]

As far as I am concerned, this is the basic criteria for taking any videofilmed invention into consideration:


1. The active components of the construct assembled on transparent glass, plastic or polycarbonate.

2. Experiment performed upon a completely transparent table, at least three feet from ground level.

3. A minimum of three feet visible free spacing around the table.


Any deviation from the above criteria has to be considered as fake.


Gwandau

I would agree that your specs would be an ideal situation. I wonder about it's practicality though. No one that I know of, and no lab I have seen, has a workbench which fits the criterea. It would have to be specially bought or fabricated, unless someone happened to have, for arguments sake, a clear glass topped dining room table. I have seen clear glass topped coffee tables, but they fail your criterea in that they are less than three feet off of the ground.


However, you DO point out something which needs to be addressed. A formalized means of device demonstration which is better at preventing fakery. Good call.