The Brnbrade Coil/Overunity?

[supersam]

darren,
just leave it alone.  have you checked out the sims in the milkovic thread? i think you can actually make it work in wm2d.

lol
sam

[chrisC]

Hi Darren:

I'm kinda of disappointed that you seemed rather ungracious to this young lad for disclosing his findings. He was excited and wanted to show us what anomalies he found, albeit 'slow' in coming forth with a circuit diagram.

He never claimed he made a stand-alone TPU and he was clear he's continuing his experimentation. There is no need to do this, surely? After all, knowledge is relative. Can you claim to understand everything that SM disclosed? Is this not part of experiments?

Chill out. Get some sleep and hopefully help us out some more! Thanks.

Cheers

chrisC

[wattsup]

Hey you guys, quit shouting! I'm trying to sleep...z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z

[Earl]

Hi Daren, hi All,

I allow myself a few comments, that speak for themselves.

On January 7, 1610, one year after he had made his first telescope, examining the planet Jupiter through his instrument he saw three little stars near it. He noted them down, taking their exact positions. The next night he looked again, and Jupiter was on the other side of the three little stars. If the sky with the stars set in their places was moving around the earth, as the old astronomers argued, this was not impossible, except for the astonishing fact that according to the plan the three little stars were on the wrong side of Jupiter. That Galileo could not understand. He waited in a fever of impatience for the next night, but it was cloudy. On January 10 he could see again, and this time there were only two stars and they were on the other side. On the 11th there were two again; on the 12th, three as at first; and on the 13th, four. After that no more appeared.

What Galileo had seen was the four moons of Jupiter, moving around it, as our moon moves around the earth. This he at once realized. It was a wonderful sight to him, for he had been saying for some time that our moon moved about the earth. But people would not believe it, for they were strong for the old theory. Now he could say, "Come, and I will show you with my telescope how another one of the planets, Jupiter, has four moons which swing around it as our moon swings around our earth." He did say so.

News of the discovery spread far and wide. But how hard it was for people to believe it! Some said that Galileo had bewitched the telescope. Others refused to look through it. One man said that if he saw the moons of Jupiter himself, he would not believe in them, as their existence was contrary to the principles of common sense!

Of course, in modern history things have changed.  In 1903 in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, two brothers flew a short distance in a litlle test.  This in spite of all the learned professors with all their filled blackboards proving very scientifically that heavier-than-air flight was totally impossible.  Because humans were much more enlightened in 1903 than in the middle ages, the local newspaper refused to send any reporter to the test and never sent any reporter in the next ten years either.  Five years passed.  Hardly any Americans believed.  Ten years passed, still hardly any Americans believed.  The Wright brothers in desperation went to England and France where people watched and listened and believed.

Well, I am sure that in 2007 people are more enlightened than in the middle ages.  We all know that the learned people teach us stars are thermonuclear reactions.  The only problem is that astronomers have seen one star go through its entire thermonuclear life of billions of years in only FIVE months.  UUuuuppppsssss.  Better sweep that one under the rug.

Not only did scientists refuse to look into Galileo's telescope, many refused to look at Roetgen's X-ray tube.  Is is not wonderful how times have changed in 2007?

It can very well be that Brnbrade has made mistakes, bad connections, or whatever.  However, as a true scientist he has told us what he did as well as his observations.  Now we have to either ignore him or to follow the scientific method.  That means peer review.  In other words, some of us will invest time and efforts to reproduce.  Whether the results are positive, or negative, as in the case of Bearden's MEG, is of little importance.  What is important is to follow the scientific method no matter how incredulous or preposterous his results appear to be.  To do otherwise would be to repeat the doubters of Galileo and Roetgen showing their primitive, self-made devices.

And last, but not least an ancedote:
The famous theoretical physicist, Nobel prize winner Lev Landau, was known for his sharp tongue and condescending attitude to people who were below his intellectual level. Many physicists strived for presenting their work at Landau's seminar. If Landau, to whom his numerous pupils usually referred as Dau, liked the work, he would allow the applicant to give a talk at his seminar. Otherwise he would destroy the hapless applicant's hopes with a derisive comment.

There was in the USSR a physicist by the name of Pines. He was an expert in X-rays applications. Once Professor Pines submitted a paper to Landau in which he offered a proof that certain bodies, if stretched, would, contrary to expectations, also expand (rather than shrink) sideways. Even though such a phenomenon was never observed, it would not contradict any known laws of Physics. When Landau took a look at the topic of Pines' paper, he, without bothering to read Pines' arguments thoroughly. dismissed them out of hand and wrote on the Pines' manuscript. "Pines, if you swap e and i in your name, that will be the only physical body that expands sideways when stretched." (The famous theoretician was wrong, as several years later bodies that expand sideways when stretched were discovered experimentally).

Regards, Earl

[gn0stik]

clap clap clap....yawn.

First, scientific method requires rigorous documentation. A few simple questions need to be answered. Data, not just this is what I did and this is what happened, is required.

If you don't have the instrumentation, refer to the first part, rigorous documentation, so others can build accurately and replicate.

This is so that when others don't get the same results, the claimant cannot come back and say, oh, you did this, wrong, or you did that wrong.... that's why it does not work....ad infinitum.

I neither disbelieve, nor believe, I have asked simple questions and been labeled an attacker, when I have defended him in other threads.

You will note, the same thing happened to otto, before ronotte got sick of it all and drove to his house to work with him and document.

The same thing happened to macedonia cd. Finally we ignored him because he did not document.

So, you speak of scientific method as if you actually think it applies here. Well, then if you believe in scientific method, join us in asking for our questions answered by the claimant, not by you. Not assumptions, or photo analyses. Statements of fact. We need a schematic from brnbrade, or a confirmation that what you wrote down is exactly correct.

We must first have a common platform to test, same dimensions same materials, same wire gauges, same input, same output. Ideally, same measuring equipment, but that is unlikely.

And we need to document it like roberto did the ecd. What change causes what results change. If you want scientific method, than that is why I was applauding at the beginning of this post. Inspiration comes later. We do not need blind belief or faith, we need data. I was yawing because I'm tired of the blind fan boy bullshit. I will not replicate until there is enough info to do so. I don't want to end up one of those guys who gets burned out by trying things over and over without enough info to start in the first place, and then prematurely regarding all my experiments as failures. Self defeating behavior is a form of insanity.

The instructions we have thus far are insufficient. Nobody is attacking anyone, just asking for the whole story. Simple questions are easy to answer. But so far they have been sidestepped by the only person who should be comping at the bit to answer them.

If I stumbled on a secret of the universe, I would fully document BEFORE I POSTED. I would be prepared for the questions and I would answer them as fast as I could. I thought anyone would do the same thing.

People are not eating him alive(as predicted) because they want to disprove it. They are doing it because they want it to be true. They want the data shown to be plain and inscrutable.

I have to tell you, that I take exception to people who ask the questions I am asking, however, are not willing to replicate. I am. I just will not waste the money or the time, or the emotional energy on something that, as I see it now, is doomed to fail.

By the way... stars work on fusion, not fission(thermonuclear), and fusion can be a quick process in a low density star, say, 100 jupiters or so. They go red quickly. Nothing new there. It has never been thought that stars worked via fission.

@EM, look closer, there is a black wire down there connecting via some kind of black terminal block to the red wire. Those coils are powered. The wire is NOT disconnected.


Our desire for world saving technology must not allow us to believe in fairy tales. First we must have the fairies in a cage. If I'm behaving like Dau, then so be it. I'd be ecstatic to be wrong. I'm sure he would too.

Regards,
Rich.

See, I can make long posts too.