Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Stop polluting the discussion with logic and common sense.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Massless Energy Charger
- Thread starter Anisa
- Start date
Stop polluting the discussion with logic and common sense.
deonb
Active Member
I'm not going to disclose my name to a newbie - especially one with an agenda that doesn't have anything to do with Tesla. Ask me again in a few months if you manage to survive that long without getting yourself banned.
deonb
Active Member
Maybe, just maybe, Model 3 will ship with a Mr. Fusion. It's infinitely more likely.
Any time you think there is some massive oil conspiracy that has so much hold over the political power in the U.S. that they are able to keep a wrap over a device that costs $5 in parts and takes 30 minutes to build that can put them out of business... think about this:
* China is a net importer of oil
* China has no respect for other people's IP
* Why haven't China outfitted themselves with these "free energy" devices? Or flooded Walmart with it?
And don't give me that "There's no money to make from it". Android is free, and it's a $33b business. People always figure out how to monetize free stuff.
deonb
Active Member
The Raytheon reference that you (and Paulo in his blog) are so proud off is the reference between:
US5841327A Electrically switched multiport microwave launcher
that references:
US5502354A Direct current energized pulse generator utilizing autogenous cyclical pulsed abnormal glow discharges
Yeah... except, that reference wasn't added by Raytheon. It's what's called an examiner citation. The patent clerk that examined the patent went and did his own prior art search, and found wording in the two patents that look similar, so he looked into it. Has nothing to do with the actual Raytheon's patent.
As for the ones that were added by the Reagents of UC. Those references come from the sb08 disclosure. It means this is a a listing of any prior art you're aware of. It doesn't mean you approve of it, is based on it, or even used it - just that it's in the same area as your patent and you're aware of it. For that matter, you could have just printed it out and posted it on a wall for people to laugh at, and it would require a sb08 disclosure.
Specifically, if you look at one of the Reagents patents, e.g.
Patent US7119491 - Magnetic and electrostatic confinement of plasma with tuning of electrostatic field
you'll see it lists a huge number of references. More so than what that relatively simple patent could have possibly been based on. So it's obvious what they did was to do a patent search and list everything they could find that sounded remotely in the same area as theirs.
This is actually a pretty dumb thing to do if you are actually an engineer with an invention that you're trying to protect, since you'll be tainting yourself all over the place and make yourself liable for triple damages. However, I guess inside a University it doesn't matter as much. Universities are effectively just diet patent-trolls in this regard.
We know our understanding of the laws of nature is not complete, and probably never will be. When reliably repeatable, independently replicated experimental observations contradict accepted scientific principles, appropriate action is not to discard the data as heresy, but consider the data as an opportunity to learn something new about how nature behaves.
We are all familiar with widely accepted scientific principles which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence.
We are all familiar with widely accepted scientific principles which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I agree! Over 100 years ago an important experiment was done in order to prove the existence of "massless aether". The experiment instead showed that there is no aether and from this point that theory was discarded.
Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You argue the importance of scientific rigor. Ask yourself: what experimental evidence would be required for you to discard your claims?
deonb
Active Member
Ahh. I did not recognize PaulusdB from the other thread. You got me. Good one Paulus!
Theories are attempts to understand observations. Any number of supporting observations do not prove a theory, but a single valid conflicting observation can disprove, or at least define the limit of applicability of a theory.
Thus, obviously, I am not here to defend any theory.
Valid experimental evidence should not be discarded in deference to any particular expected outcome.
Observations which appear to conflict, indicate incomplete understanding.
Thus, obviously, I am not here to defend any theory.
Valid experimental evidence should not be discarded in deference to any particular expected outcome.
Observations which appear to conflict, indicate incomplete understanding.
deonb
Active Member
And for any such observation to be able to prove or disprove a theory, the first thing that must exist is the observation, wouldn't you agree?
When scientists make a discovery they shout it from the rooftops, publish it on YouTube, get peers to review their work, help with replication, win the Nobel price, and get the girl.
Every time a scientists work in relative secrecy like this, it's because they know their work won't hold up to scrutiny. And in such a case what motivates them to continue the farce is always monetary. So follow the money...
... and look at what we have here:
You'll notice they sell all of their "publications" for a huge amount of money each.
Added together it's $860. Notice they don't even sell on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or anywhere else where people can post reviews on their books. They don't want much feedback because without that they can keep getting suckers to buy their stuff. They don't even accept credit cards where you can get your money back once you realized you were scammed.
This is what they're about. They publish crap disguised behind walls of text to poor unsuspecting people who just wish there was some evil conspiracy ongoing in the world that help them to explain their lot in life.
The fame and richest that come from an actual scientific discovery makes the amount of money that these guys can get out of their publications look like pittance. Heck they have enough claims to get them 5 Nobel prizes, which would net them $5 million right there. They would get 100 times that through further research grants, and that doesn't even touch on their patents yet, which would be worth trillions. So the reason these guys try to get $860 a pop out of their followers is... ? Yeah, you guessed it. They're scammers selling snake oil.
Please tell me you didn't send this guys any money. Please!
There, fixed it for you
Seriously, any links to peer reviews and independent verification of the claims would be welcome here.
The text of US5502354 is an independent replication of: 'Electrodynamic Anomalies in Arc Discharge Phenomena', appeared in IEEE Transactions of Plasma Science, PS-5, 159-163 (1977).
A peer review of the experiments described in US5502354 is here:
http://www.aetherometry.com/Reprints/Aspden_Power_from_Space.pdf
If I find something newer with respect to US7053576, I will post it.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I would love to read the F manual. If you would be so kind as to direct me to the manual.
Thank you kindly.
deonb
Active Member
I read it. The patent is a beyond absurd. They published it to try and give legitimacy to their work since some people fall for the fallacy that having a patent means the idea is vetted.
Let's take an example from there - from the description about the first diagram:
"This is simply demonstrated by the apparatus of FIG. 1, in which the distal terminal of the secondary winding 6 of a Tesla coil having a primary winding 4 driven by a vibrator 2 is connected to the input of a full-wave voltage wave divider formed by diodes 8 & 10 and reservoir capacitors 12 & 14 (the same reference numerals are used for similar parts in subsequent Figures)"
So let's take a look at that statement, shall we?
1) Tesla coils don't have "distal terminals". It's not even a term used in electromagnetism - it's a biological term (probably makes sense since Paulo apparently is a biologist so he drew from his vocabulary).
2) A vibrator isn't an electromagnetic device. A resonator is, but this is not what they mean. I challenge you to try and figure out from their patent what they imply by "vibrator" and then look up any device anywhere anywhere in the world that fit such a description.
To drive a Tesla coil you need an A/C voltage source and a high voltage transformer. They have the A/C source obviously with their very official looking power plug on the left...
So I bet what happened is that they bought some or other off the shelve Tesla coil toy and opened it up and saw a high voltage transformer that was vibrating (all A/C mains transformers vibrate at 120 hz due to EMF - the high power/low quality ones very visibly so), so they called the thing a "vibrator" - not having a clue what it really was.
3) full-wave voltage wave divider - not a thing either. Maybe they meant a full wave rectifier / voltage divider, but that requires 4 diodes and 2 resistors, not just 2 diodes. 2 diodes would give you a half wave rectifier - same as 1 diode.
I am sure you can do much better. I look forward to your next paper. /s
Similar threads
