Re: [free_energy] MEG
- From: michaelcamer, michaelcamer@...
>mention that Aut was actually incorrect when she made use of a keepervery doubtful
>as a material to redirect a magnetic field. No material in of itselfYOU place magnetic material over the poles of a magnet and see the
>redirects magnetic field lines. Rather, a magnetic field causes
>magnetism to occur within materials that can be magnetized. The way
strength of any field outside the material! What do you think a keeper
is for?? It's to prevent flux leakage that will demagnetise the
- --- In email@example.com, Phil Karn <yahoo1@k...> wrote:
> Sorry, but this statement doesn't parse, much less make logical sense.It does when you want to claim what's right or wrong.
> up. Furthermore, with the exception of Naudin's output current figures,how closely and where are the pictures?
> his observations closely match those predicted by modeling based on
> standard, accepted physical principles.
> So which of the following conclusions do you think more likely:Yes, and those with greater logical reasoning ability realise that likelihood, or
> Conclusion 1: The MEG outputs substantially more energy than it
> consumes, contrary to fundamental physical principles based on hundreds
> of years of experimental verification by literally millions of people
> and devices, and contrary to the personal experience of many experienced
> electronics engineers and technicians (including myself) that feeding 35
> watts to a 5 watt air cooled carbon composition resistor would quickly
> produce smoke.
> Conclusion 2: Naudin is simply mistaken in his output current
> measurements. The MEG is just an ordinary transformer.
> To anyone with even a modicum of logical reasoning ability, conclusion
> #2 is the only responsible choice.
probability, is indeterminate when the scenario has any number of conditions,
known and unknown which are not controlled by said experiments. The only
responsible choice is to not arrive at a conclusion until Naudin actually
measures for any extra energy from the resistor. In RoTL I even point out the
important fact that determinism renders statistical conclusions irrelevant and
false, so oft-invoked guidelines like Occam's Razor based on such subjective
likelihood don't work.