SELF RUNNING GENERATOR

[crazycut06]

Zzzzzzz.... Why are people arguing on oviously faked presentation....

[TinselKoala]

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.

Maybe I should write books and get rich! (ROFL)

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.

[TinselKoala]

"Your concept of money in this real world is at best ridiculous. At a miniscule fraction of a cent per view, I am sure he is making tons of pennies. Why, in ten years the average individuals making advertisement revenues on youtube could probably qualify to open a bank account!"

One of the videos linked above has nearly 800,000 views, and altogether his faked videos have well over a million views. Let's see.... if he gets a tenth of a cent per view..... whir click..... that makes a thousand dollars right there. In just a couple of months.

[markdansie]

Hi TK
never give up the pursuit of truth. Many people respect you and know how smart you are.
Its not easy being a truth seeker, skeptic or myth buster.
I am always in awe of your abilities and appreciate you comments, evaluation and humor.
I know I am not in your good books at the moment but I will always hold you in high esteem and respect you.
Give me a call sometime on Skype sometime I will take you on a tour of the facility up here and an insight into some of the projects we are looking at, your input would be valuable.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie

[TinselKoala]

Thanks Mark.

As far as my "good books" go, my only complaint/criticism is with the handling and representation of the Wayne Travis affair. If you are working for him as a consultant, paid or expenses-paid, and under NDA, fine, let it be so, especially the NDA part. But he is using you and your good name in an attempt to gain legitimacy and credibility for his scheme. He has been touting you not as a "mere" consultant in possible verification methods, but rather as an independent validator whose judgement will be quite literally a stamp of skeptical approval --- what I have called elsewhere a Papal "imprimatur / nihil obstat" kind of endorsement. (It seems that many other people like Ainslie and Tseung are also treating you like some veritable force of nature, able to repeal physical law just by inspecting their devices. I think I've counted four in the past month alone. You must be busier than a longtailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.) However the fact that you are, in any sense, on Travis's payroll, even just for travel expenses, means that you cannot be considered independent or objective, IMHO. I think that it would be a service to your public if you were clear, on each project, just where your funding is coming from. You don't need to be specific, just categorical: Self-funded, Prospective Investor-funded, Advertiser-funded, Claimant-funded. Or something like that. This would help those of us who are interested in such matters to evaluate whether or not there might be a perception of conflict-of-interest.

In the matter of Wayne Travis....The veracity of claims does not depend on how large a cult is, or how illustrious its members might be. As far as I can tell, Travis has completely bamboozled you into giving him a year or more of extra viability with his cult's fantastic projects. A truly independent and skeptical investigator, visiting Travis for the purpose of determining whether he is a fraud or not, might not have been so lenient even after the first visit and especially after the second one. Now, as you no doubt are aware, he has toned down the "overunity" rhetoric on his website and is finally speaking of inputs and outputs.... when for many months on this forum he claimed that there was NO input of any kind to his system. Of course he has also "invented" three or four other distinct systems that do.... what now? Do they run themselves, with no input and no exhaust, making 30 kW usable output power? Why not, then, show one of those in a YT video, instead of showing the latest +award winning+ stack of clear tubes with water levels inside them? I'll tell you why right up front: his claims are bogus, his energy producing devices and self runners don't, and he is trying to "cloud-engineer" his problems away by having his fan-base compete for his monetary prizes in trite "challenge" competitions that are completely beside the point. Why award money for a plastic see thru single ZED of the old design, when the current system is "nearly solid state, flat-packable like Ikea furniture" and has even gone to rotary Zeds and z3ds, whatever they are? Red-herring misdirection from real issues, paying a sycophant for his support efforts, that is why. And you are lending your good name to his shenanigans, by not coming down hard and fast upon him with every tool in a true skeptic's arsenal.

In the matter of Rosemary Ainslie: I PM'd you some time ago with information about my comprehensive Ainslie database. She too is trying to attract your attention, as well as trying to get an interview with Hendershot on the SmartScarecrow show. I wish that you _would_ drop everything less interesting and apply yourself to Ainslie in full. It would be great if you would visit her and see her apparatus and have her run an experiment for you the next time you are in Cape Town. But you really should do your homework first, by reading her manuscripts, understanding their history, and reviewing my database of Ainslie material. There are many discrepancies and misrepresentations in her work and it would be interesting to hear her asked about them on SS by someone who knew the material. The Ainslie affair is important, more so than many of the other things you've investigated, because of the rank pseudoscientism she exhibits and the bad feelings she and her affair have caused in several forums over the past ten or twelve years. She's made many promises and claims about the behaviour of her apparatus over the past two years here in this forum, and she should be called on these claims and given the opportunity to demonstrate them in her apparatus herself, in front of independent knowledgeable reviewers. And there should be a definitive and comprehensive report from the reviewers about her and her apparatus and its performance and the measurements it generates -- and the reasons for them. Poynt99 and MileHigh and Picowatt and several others have analyzed the circuit's behaviour extensively theoretically and in simulation, and FuzzyTomcat and I and others have done extensive work with hardware, and most of this work is archived in my database and elsewhere. My Tar Baby replication of Ainslie's claimed circuit is available for side-by-side realtime comparison with Ainslie's apparatus itself by a qualified operator, and I also have a .99-designed "Altoid" pocket demonstrator that runs on its 2 Farad capacitor only for several minutes, quite long enough for good scope measurements to be made, and makes the same "negative mean power product" that is at the heart of Ainslie's claims.

For the benefit of Ainslie's sycophants, I repeat here again: I am encouraging you, Mark Dansie, to visit Rosemary Ainslie if you can, and investigate thoroughly her claims and the performance of her apparatus. There are some specific and easily-performed tests that she has promised but never delivered, and many of us would like to see the video records and instrumental results of those tests, performed by her or under her direction, using her own apparatus. Having the results reported by someone trustworthy would be an added benefit.

ETA: I'm repeating this here because Ainslie has, in the past, accused me quite insultingly of trying to _suppress_ information and to discourage independent investigation of her claims, which is a typical Ainslie misrepresentation and is far from the truth. I want everyone who can spare the time and money to examine her work, look carefully at the history and the actual data, both coming from her and from her coworkers and the skeptical replicators, and come to their own conclusions and report them.



Unfortunately I'm not able to travel at the moment, and I'm allergic to Skype and other forms of telephonic communication, but thanks for your kind offer anyway.