 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Hi John posted by john curl on August 25, 2003 at 20:16:24:
""Fleishman and Pons are still working scientists""JCAh, yes...but would you buy a used car from them...especially if they claimed it got 54 million miles to the gallon (of water?).
Imagine the response from the rest of the scientific community if they said "gee, now we really have cold fusion...trust us"
How many centuries do you think it would take before another paper they write on cold fusion would even get looked at, nevermind published??
John...you forgot Politnekov...he claims that he has discovered antigravity. Something called a politnekov gravity shield..a spinning disk of superconducting material that seems to reduce the weight of any object suspended above the spinning disk by two percent..Of course, in the five or ten years since he claimed it, scientists from around the world have been unable to produce even a hint of the effect he said he measured..So, who do we believe...All the other scientists from around the world, with their millions of dollars of re-testing the setup politnekov published(NASA included, with 1.5 million)....or politnekov??? Why don't you invest some money in the scheme, John???Surely you trust he has discovered antigravity??
How much money do you have invested in cold fusion there John???
What about free energy John...That guy had a PhD...Did you get in on the ground floor???
""Anyone see a pattern here""JC
They should, John...
The pattern is: it is not very smart to believe everything that is told to you by someone who is, or claims to be a scientist, physicist, engineer, designer, doctor, professor, lawyer, used car salesman, (name the profession there John) without so much as a questioning glance???
More of the pattern: anyone who claims that e/m field theory is as they say in an article printed for a select readership, with the intent of that article clearly stated within (let's play for the gallery), when half the theory and premises and conclusions are incorrectly pulled from various subsections of e/m theory...should be looked on with reservation...as some of the worlds smartest e/m field theorists laugh at the mis-steps. I notice you have never answered any of the questions I posed of the article..of course, you can't, can you..
And even more of the pattern: Anyone who claims that they have 30 years of experience, so their word is gospel....regardless of the foolishness of their attitude, or the ridiculous dismissal of nobel prize winning theory....should be considered suspect. The fact that you swerve the dialogue to "you're being mean to me" every time it gets too technical is not lost to all here.
And more: When someone claims to have measured an effect, then makes money selling you something that avoids that effect, and yet nobody in the entire friggen world has been able to either duplicate or scientifically support their claims....they should be considered suspect.
Let's talk pattern here John...
Every time, without exception, that I have raised a technical point or discussion of a technical nature with you, you run and hide, yelling over your back "Boo hoo, you are being mean to me, to hawksford, to van de hull, to Jon," That's the third time you've invoked that in this thread alone..
Be a grownup, John..Either discuss the technical issues, or state the obvious fact that you don't understand them. Cmon, now, John..You can do it...everybody sees what's going on here..
It's not a crime to not know there, John..Everybody does it at one time or another..
At least Peter is engaging the technical side of what I talk about..I'm not sure if he is correct that the energy levels are significant for what I've been saying, but he's not running away like you are.. He may prove me wrong..and that's OK. But he's certainly discussing it, which is what I was hoping for.
You...You seem to be a waste of a moniker..I have remained open to the possibility that what people tell me about you is simply slanted and biased...but you do nothing to prove them wrong.
Hope you re-discover the technical side of the world, John. It would be nice to see you not turn tail and hide when technical details show up.
Cheers, John
Follow Ups:
What, does he own a cable company? Or write articles? Who is he?Should I just accept with blind faith whatever it is he said he measured? How? what did he measure??
If he has discovered some kind of micro-diode-current-thingy, that's incredible!
Why is it none of the big equipment manufacturers like HP, Tektronix, IBM ever mention the effect in any of their nanovolt and picovolt measurement equipment, you know, the 10 digit accuracy stuff that can damn near measure you farting in another county.. They've had twenty years to incorporate those findings in the most advanced measurement equipment in the world..
Perhaps you should give them a call? Tell them about your 30 years as a designer..Then they'll believe you. I know I would..
Cheers, John
you seem to have a definite opinion about John Curl. My opinion about you is that you are behaving abominably.I find your attitude offensive. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth, trying to have it both ways. On the one hand you are saying that Van den Hul should be written off because the effect he found was never found by "big equipment manufacturers like HP, Tektronix, IBM" blah, blah, blah. And yet you expect us to believe a bunch of *your* techno-babble about Seebeck and Peltier, which I'm willing to bet was also never found by "big equipment manufacturers like HP, Tektronix, IBM".
I think you are a big blowhard trying to impress people with your "knowledge" about the world of superconductors at (I guess) Brookhaven. Well, in my book there is a big difference between your theory and Van den Hul's. His has been corroborated by thousands of customers and dozens of reviewers. Your is apparently some off-the-cuff nonsense with no backing whatsoever, of any type. Who cares about that? Not me.
Furthermore, your attacks on Van den Hul are ridiculous. The fact that he sells cables does in no way nullify his findings. That is akin to saying Edison's theory of the phonograph should be discarded because he sold them. If by some miracle it turns out that you have stumbled onto something valid with your thermo-electric effects, you *should* sell a cable based on those theories. More power to you. In the meantime, I find your "theory" to be a big yawn.
Charles Hansen
""I think you are a big blowhard trying to impress people with your "knowledge" about the world of superconductors""CHI reviewed the entire thread...and can't seem to find anything about superconductors...what are you talking about??
I make no apologies for where I work or what my experience is, nor my knowledge..
And still state "for the record", none of those facts should be considered as reasons to blindly believe any hypothesis I propose. I continue to request dialogue and challenges to what I've proposed..
I do not consider "bullshit" to be an adequate challenge at a technical or intellectual level. Nor deflection of the discussion towards bashing me.
Note of course, I didn't deny the "blowhard" description..:-) And I'm not big (yet), but those big mac's ain't helpin. Nor the Denali Moose tracks.
Cheers, John
""On the one hand you are saying that Van den Hul should be written off because the effect he found was never found by "big equipment manufacturers like HP, Tektronix, IBM" blah, blah, blah.""CHNo, no, no.. I have asked why it is the big manufacturers have not used, nor concerned themselves with an effect that was found by VdH 20 years ago. On which should be affecting the measurement technology on the leading edge..
""And yet you expect us to believe a bunch of *your* techno-babble about Seebeck and Peltier, which I'm willing to bet was also never found by "big equipment manufacturers like HP, Tektronix, IBM".""CHActually, the King of Sweden gave medals to some guys for finding the effect I speak of..
And, the effect I speak of is in constant use by Omega instruments in their entire product line. You should peruse their catalogs (boy, have they got some) to see the extremes they go to in order to maintain accuracy of their product against bot peltier and seebeck.
And why are you deflecting the issue here? running interference?? As I've stated quite a few times here, I have only proposed the effects as a possible solution to the measurements being reported.
So, if your gonna post your opinion, tell the truth instead. The truth being (go ahead, review the posts):
I am proposing a strange combination of known effects to explain the distortion being measured...
I am discussing levels of possible effect with Peter.
I have stated Peter might find me incorrect, which I state again, is OK.
Peter at the moment feels the effect may be at the levels necessary, and I have questioned that feeling (even though it's supporting my hypothesis.)
And, I have said outright, the statements and theories of all supposed guru's, salesmen, scientists, engineers (included because I'm one) must be questioned, and gave some classic examples of higher level guys who, even thought they had Phd's, were wrong.
You, in your "buddy buddy" post, have neglected to mention the fact that I have invited technical discussion of my hypothesis. Hello!! I'm inviting criticism and discussion of my hypothesis!!! Are you there? Can you read this? That would appear to be an entirely new concept to you as well.
""Well, in my book there is a big difference between your theory and Van den Hul's.""CH
I totally agree..My theory is being tossed up here with the intent of discussing it, modifying it, learning it, it's level of interaction, if any. That includes tossing it out if it indeed fails to explain what it is being used for.
Curl, and apparently you also, are revering VdH's theory, placing it abov reproach.. While, at the same time, you come up with this gem:
""His has been corroborated by thousands of customers and dozens of reviewers.""CH
I note with interest that you did not say that the theory has been corroborated by anybody with a high level of technical background. So who has duplicated his result? You failed to provide that information..
""Your is apparently some off-the-cuff nonsense with no backing whatsoever, of any type""CH
That is the way all good theories start. And all bad theories..Course, peltier and seebeck theory is adequate backing, don't you think?
The difference you are missing is the step in the middle, where the theory is hashed out, re-worked, used to provide predictions, and then tests devised to confirm or deny those prediction.
That is how science progresses Charles..not the bellicose "Phd, 30 years, nonsense..
I've no ties to my hypothesis..it's either right or wrong. but I toss it up for all to discuss. That's the way it works.. Not some "pay no attention to the man behind that curtain".
""Furthermore, your attacks on Van den Hul are ridiculous. The fact that he sells cables does in no way nullify his findings""CH
AHA. So he sells cables, and has a vested interest in maintaining an edge over others, which he does so with his theory and results.
Where have you been, Charles??? As I posted to Jon Risch with respect to blue jeans cables and their tests..Yes, they indeed have a vested interest in the outcome of their tests, but that does not necessary nullify the validity of their results..AND I stated that Jon WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in that the vested interests are to be concerned with.
So Charles, you call pointing out a conflict of interest w/r to VdH an attack here, while you allow the exact same thing Jon Risch stated about blue jeans cable to go right on by?? Talk about selective vision.
""That is akin to saying Edison's theory of the phonograph should be discarded because he sold them.""CH
Geeze, Charles....not only did he have a theory, he clearly demonstrated it and sold it..
Why not use a far more fitting example here Charles?? Try free energy. It's being hawked, sold, and yet it has never been duplicated by anybody anywhere..Like the gravity shield..But, investors are buying into it..
""If by some miracle it turns out that you have stumbled onto something valid with your thermo-electric effects, you *should* sell a cable based on those theories""CH
Hmmmm. not interested. And, quite impossible to patent, as posting it in the public domain makes that impossible..
So, I do not, and cannot have a vested interest in this theory of mine..I've only posted it as a possible mechanism for distortion.
""In the meantime, I find your "theory" to be a big yawn.""CH
You are also entitled to your opinion..
I find your unimaginative attempt at distorting the entire history of the thread to be a yawn..But, it was fun reading fiction..
You are also welcome to participate in a technical discussion of the theory if you wish..as is everbody. Even Curl, the one I first proposed the theory to, hoping for a technical discussion..
Cheers, John
PS.."you seem to have a definite opinion about John Curl""CH
No, I have an opinion about the content of his posts..I do not know him, nor will I accept the rather low opinions of him others have provided me..My opinion of him will be formed on his behaviour towards me.
""My opinion about you is that you are behaving abominably""CH
Again, your opinion...but you really should review all the posts before you glibly toss garbage up here.
My example of cold fusion and free energy and gravity shields was introduced solely to show that a title, or an education, or experience in some instances, does not make what is said gospel.It was provided with the intent of stating that all results, theories, hypothesis, pronouncements, should be questioned.
Not discarded, but questioned..
So do not erroneously assume that it was mentioned to categorize VdH's results as fraud or nonsense...but to question all..
That is how I view skin theory, grain boundary collisions, micro-diodes...that is also how I view my own hypotheses..with a questioning eye..
As to Edison...bad example..He provided a product, that of converting acoustic waves into physical modulation on a storage media..easily seen..easily tested, easily done in different ways, like flat disks. His technique fell into disfavor because each cylinder had to be recorded one at a time, and he had a hand in deciding what was to be recorded. At least the disks could be stamped. (imagine singing a tune a million times?)
VdH has measurements that have never been duplicated by the big boys, and after 20 years..never even considered as viable or valid..
I've not stated he is a fraud or charlatan..just that the big boys don't seem to even see the necessity.
It is possible his test was confounded by something the big boys have addressed, I wouldn't know..But, I would certainly question..
As for my theory being a big yawn? Most of this techno crap is a big yawn to the vast majority of the population. That's the downfall to being a geek..
Cheers, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
