Archer Quinn takes his ball and leaves the playing field

[fletcher]

Naaah .. Archer Quinn aka kevin thomas just discovered for himself the ...


First Law of FE Reasearch.

[... this way you are guaranteed that people will actually build your device rather than just discuss it merits].

Claim to have made a successful working device [but destroyed it etc] - give vague details [important to not give specific detail that might trap you later] - claim it breaks or circumvents some known laws of physics - get people replicating your device & asking lots of questions - hold out on drawings & answers - abuse the sceptics who question the science [this is necessary] - feign rage & indignation - claim everyone is a moron & spit the dummy - quickly disappear into the eather taking your toys - hope someone else can actually finish a replication attempt by themselves & nut out the last 10% that will get it to work [the bit you can't figure out] - when one is pronounced to actually work step back into the limelight congratulating them as the second person in history to have achieved it after you.

A SO predictable & unfortunately common story - human nature at its finest - integrity zero.

[konduct]

Well...I just have to say...I hope you guys are pleased with yourselves by finding all the faults within Mr. Quinn. You've successfully pointed out all of his apparent weaknesses. Spelling, language, general communication skills.
So if you guys are so good at finding weaknesses, why haven't you spent your energy on finding weaknesses in the methods of producing energy?
Don't we look for different avenues of positive energy production and research? Focus on the strengths and avoid the weaknesses right?
So, how does your morally superior stance on communication skills help the energy problem?
How did it help Mr. Quinn? Did you focus on his strengths? Or did you just want to make yourselves right since he's so easy to make wrong with his bad grammar and all?
He is a little incoherent. Did anybody make an honest effort to help eliminate the communication gaps? Or did you just widen them farther? Did anyone help, or did we all just act like douchebags to "purge the idiot from our presence"?

I'm just asking rhetorically of course. Something to think about...for all the people who say they want to help, some have a funny way of showing it. I have navigated through Quinn's "ramblings" and have found some very interesting perspectives on various experiments that I haven't heard before. So...keep knocking the people who are making their best effort to contribute, and see where it gets us all.

Oh yeah...way to go again Stefan by letting your "contributors" run off someone else again. Good job. Way to keep up the moral in the community...attack anyone who knocks on the gates...Thanks for that contribution ... douche bags.

[g4macdad]

Quinn acted like an agent of a big energy company, it's as if he purposely tried to make alt.energy sound CRAZY!

However, if he was the inventor of that thermal accelerator venturi feedback device as he claims then he does deserve some credit.

Ever see the Newman video? He has a mullet and a silk shirt showing his chest hair, and his EV is a pickup truck.

Agent of a big energy company.......? Suspicious to say the least!

[jratcliff]

Konduct wrote the following:

>>Well...I just have to say...I hope you guys are pleased with yourselves by finding all the faults within Mr. Quinn.

Yes, I am pleased, thanks for noticing.

>>You've successfully pointed out all of his apparent weaknesses. Spelling, language, general communication skills.

I am impressed at your skills of observation in recognizing and acknowledging my skills of observation.

>>So if you guys are so good at finding weaknesses, why haven't you spent your energy on finding weaknesses in the methods of producing energy?

Finding weaknesses in fraudulent claims of OU proponents is, in fact, spending energy in an effort to find methods of producing energy.  It takes a lot of hard work, critical thinking skills, time and patience to read and follow these threads and ultimately reach conclusions about the efficacy surrounding the proposals presented by various FE proponents.

As you may, or may not, be aware free-energy, or over-unity if you will, is not generally considered to be 'possible'.  Over the course of centuries of effort there has not yet been one single easily reproducible and demonstrable technology,machine, device, or invention in all of that time.  Universally all attempts at replication of every patent, drawing, sketch, explanation, or video has resulted in a complete and utter failure.  In fact the only thing that keeps the dream of an over-unity device alive is the mythology surrounding it.  In fact, the only tangible 'thing' you can point to in FE is the mythology that has evolved around the various proponents of these devices which ingloriously fail to work.

Yes, it takes a lot of energy to wade through the piles of crap and nonsense which is peddled in these forums.  And, God bless the patient souls like Clanzer who actually takes the time and trouble to *build* these devices.  In my own case, in addition to monitoring the evolving myth surrounding these claims, I have made clear that I will be the first to purchase a working device once it becomes available at Walmart for $29.95.

If that's not commitment I don't know what is.  Sometimes I think the largest part of the market for neodymium magnets in the world is comprised of 'free-energy' researchers.

>>Don't we look for different avenues of positive energy production and research?

Yes, we do.

>>Focus on the strengths and avoid the weaknesses right?

Yes, we do.  Did you happen to notice that Archer Quinn has some 'weaknesses'?

>>So, how does your morally superior stance on communication skills help the energy problem?

It helps weed the wheat from the chaff.  It applies logic, reason, and critical thinking skills when evaluating claims of the improbable; if not the impossible.  Logic dictates that if hobbiests and inventors have been tinkering with gravity wheels and magnet motors for centuries and, in all of that time, not a single person has ever been able to produce an easily replicable device, then it is rather dubious to accept the claims of someone like Archer Quinn at face value.  Look at Clanzer on these forums as an example.  He doesn't curse.  He doesn't rant and rave.   All he does it build intersting gizmos and post the videos, blue-prints, sketches, drawings, and explanations online for everyone to see and share.  The first time Clanzer reproduces an OU effect you know that many people here will take it seriously because he has earned that right through his dedicated efforts.

Let us all say it together, "I know Clazner, Clazner is a friend of mine, and let me assure you that Archer Quinn (not even his real name) is no Clazner."

>>How did it help Mr. Quinn?

I am hoping that it helped him towards a moment of introspection and reflection.  I am hoping that it helped him realize some of the mistakes he has made in communicating his ideas, and given him some direction on how he might improve int he future.  I am here only to help because, from where I am standing, Archer Quinn definitely could benefit from some professional help.

>>Did you focus on his strengths?

Yes.  Please read previous posts on this forum where I praised him for his open-source attitude and willingness to engage the community directly.  Of course, this was before he developed a penchant for cursing everyone out and calling Sir Isaac Newton, or anyone who has learned from him, a fool.

Let's take a case in point.

Here is a link to Archer Quinn's website where he explains basic physics.  It is entitled 'Physics 102'.  http://www.surphzup.com/gpage.html

Now, compare and contrast, here is a link to Principia Mathematica by Sir Isaac Newton.  http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath;cc=umhistmath;rgn=full%20text;idno=AAT3201.0001.001;didno=AAT3201.0001.001;view=pdf;seq=00000023

Now, I want to be fair and all, but I have to be honest that when I read these two side by side, I have to wonder which one of the two is really the idiotic fool that Sir Archer Quinn claims?  (I decided I could give Archer Quinn an imaginary Knighthood since that isn't his real name anyway.)

>> Or did you just want to make yourselves right since he's so easy to make wrong with his bad grammar and all?

I am sorry to say this but I do believe that it is fair to asses the relative intelligence of an individual by how they write.  When someone appears to be a barely functioning semi-illiterate foul mouthed buffoon in their online discourse then I think it is fair to judge the rest of the claims they make against that impression.  So, you are saying that if someone is unable to express themselves in a way that demonstrates even a high-school education that I should take them seriously when they attack Isaac Newton as a fool and an idiot?  When did I enter bizarro land and how do I get out?

>>He is a little incoherent.

You are too kind.

>> Did anybody make an honest effort to help eliminate the communication gaps?

Yes, several forum member had private email conversations with Archer and even made an effort to correct his horrific spelling and grammar when they cross posted his commentary online.  Far greater an effort than I would ever make, so kudos to those brave members of our tiny community.

>>Or did you just widen them farther?

I too privately emailed Sir Archer Quinn with personal advice in an effort to shorten the communication gap.  Unfortunately it appears that the sincere efforts of our forum members were unable to make a dent in the opinion of Mr. Quinn.

>> Did anyone help, or did we all just act like douchebags to "purge the idiot from our presence"?

Many people helped.  He purged himself in a furious flame-out of unprovoked profanity and misplaced anger.


>>I'm just asking rhetorically of course.

Uh-oh.  So all of this was rhetorical questioning?  Pardon me for answering anyway.

Brother John
www.jratcliffscarab.blogspot.com

[konduct]

***Yes, I am pleased, thanks for noticing.
~~ Is this evolving into another "Be a Bigger Dummy" game? An obviously sarcastic question with an equally sarcastic answer. Interesting.

***I am impressed at your skills of observation in recognizing and acknowledging my skills of observation.
~~ Helen Keller could have made those observations. I wouldn't include it on my resume.

***Finding weaknesses in fraudulent claims of OU proponents is, in fact, spending energy in an effort to find methods of producing energy.  It takes a lot of hard work, critical thinking skills, time and patience to read and follow these threads and ultimately reach conclusions about the efficacy surrounding the proposals presented by various FE proponents.
~~ And who exactly is truly qualified to do this job? Who really knows every truth there is? Conclusions? Was there any significant experimental investigation done or just theoretical observation based on what you couldn't even decipher from this so called mad man?

***As you may, or may not, be aware free-energy, or over-unity if you will, is not generally considered to be 'possible'.  Over the course of centuries of effort there has not yet been one single easily reproducible and demonstrable technology,machine, device, or invention in all of that time.  Universally all attempts at replication of every patent, drawing, sketch, explanation, or video has resulted in a complete and utter failure.  In fact the only thing that keeps the dream of an over-unity device alive is the mythology surrounding it.  In fact, the only tangible 'thing' you can point to in FE is the mythology that has evolved around the various proponents of these devices which ingloriously fail to work.

***Yes, it takes a lot of energy to wade through the piles of crap and nonsense which is peddled in these forums.  And, God bless the patient souls like Clanzer who actually takes the time and trouble to *build* these devices.  In my own case, in addition to monitoring the evolving myth surrounding these claims, I have made clear that I will be the first to purchase a working device once it becomes available at Walmart for $29.95.
~~ Yeah...you and the rest of the non productive sheep all want one from Walmart. To hell with how it may actually work right? Interesting.

***If that's not commitment I don't know what is.  Sometimes I think the largest part of the market for neodymium magnets in the world is comprised of 'free-energy' researchers.
~~ No, you probably don't know.

***Yes, we do.
***Yes, we do.  Did you happen to notice that Archer Quinn has some 'weaknesses'?
~~ Yeah ... so did Ms. Keller

***It helps weed the wheat from the chaff.  It applies logic, reason, and critical thinking skills when evaluating claims of the improbable; if not the impossible.  Logic dictates that if hobbiests and inventors have been tinkering with gravity wheels and magnet motors for centuries and, in all of that time, not a single person has ever been able to produce an easily replicable device, then it is rather dubious to accept the claims of someone like Archer Quinn at face value.  Look at Clanzer on these forums as an example.  He doesn't curse.  He doesn't rant and rave.   All he does it build intersting gizmos and post the videos, blue-prints, sketches, drawings, and explanations online for everyone to see and share.  The first time Clanzer reproduces an OU effect you know that many people here will take it seriously because he has earned that right through his dedicated efforts.

***Let us all say it together, "I know Clazner, Clazner is a friend of mine, and let me assure you that Archer Quinn (not even his real name) is no Clazner."
~~ Here we find a common ground and or logic. Clanzer is able to operate with integrity, class, and objectiveness beyond anyone I know including myself. I highly respect him for the simple fact that he is a builder...he gets his hands dirty...as do I. That is dedication. I may be the crude version of Clanzer since I try and accomplish the same goals, however I lack some of the wisdom that helps maintain a more civilized tone.  Or maybe I just choose my own tone based on my own free will. And maybe, just maybe, Archer Quinn could be a very crude version of a Neo Newtonian...maybe?

***I am hoping that it helped him towards a moment of introspection and reflection.  I am hoping that it helped him realize some of the mistakes he has made in communicating his ideas, and given him some direction on how he might improve int he future.  I am here only to help because, from where I am standing, Archer Quinn definitely could benefit from some professional help.
~~ His problems don't effect me other than needing simple solutions to suit the pupose.

***Yes.  Please read previous posts on this forum where I praised him for his open-source attitude and willingness to engage the community directly.  Of course, this was before he developed a penchant for cursing everyone out and calling Sir Isaac Newton, or anyone who has learned from him, a fool.
~~ Would that praise be appreciated at this point with regard to the context of this thread?

***Let's take a case in point.
***Here is a link to Archer Quinn's website where he explains basic physics.  It is entitled 'Physics 102'.  http://www.surphzup.com/gpage.html
***Now, compare and contrast, here is a link to Principia Mathematica by Sir Isaac Newton.  http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath;cc=umhistmath;rgn=full%20text;idno=AAT3201.0001.001;didno=AAT3201.0001.001;view=pdf;seq=00000023
~~ No comment.

***Now, I want to be fair and all, but I have to be honest that when I read these two side by side, I have to wonder which one of the two is really the idiotic fool that Sir Archer Quinn claims?  (I decided I could give Archer Quinn an imaginary Knighthood since that isn't his real name anyway.)
***I am sorry to say this but I do believe that it is fair to asses the relative intelligence of an individual by how they write.  One someone appears to be a barely functioning semi-illiterate foul mouthed buffoon in their online discourse then I think it is fair to just the rest of the claims they make against it.
~~ No comment.
***You are too kind.
***Yes, several forum member had private email conversations with Archer and even made an effort to correct his horrific spelling and grammar when they cross posted his commentary online.  Far greater an effort than I would ever make, so kudos to those brave members of our tiny community.
***I too privately emailed Sir Archer Quinn with personal advice in an effort to shorten the communication gap.  Unfortunately it appears that the sincere efforts of our forum members were unable to make a dent in the opinion of Mr. Quinn.
~~ No comment.
***Many people helped.  He purged himself in a furious flame-out of unprovoked profanity and misplaced anger.
~~ Anger that was, in my opinion, resulting from the presence of excess criticism and or overly condescending remarks
***Uh-oh.  So all of this was rhetorical questioning?  Pardon me for answering anyway.
~~ Yes it was...again, something Ms. Keller would have noticed. Pardon my reciprocal sarcasm.

Brother John
www.jratcliffscarab.blogspot.com