Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [free_energy] MEG

Expand Messages
  • Autymn D. C.
    From: michaelcamer, michaelcamer@yahoo.com ... very doubtful ... YOU place magnetic material over the poles of a magnet and see the strength of any
    Message 1 of 98 , Jul 1, 2002
      From: michaelcamer, michaelcamer@...

      >mention that Aut was actually incorrect when she made use of a keeper
      very doubtful
      >as a material to redirect a magnetic field. No material in of itself
      >redirects magnetic field lines. Rather, a magnetic field causes
      >magnetism to occur within materials that can be magnetized. The way
      YOU place magnetic material over the poles of a magnet and see the
      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
      horseshoe magnet.

      -Aut
    • lyshypdexatia
      ... It does when you want to claim what s right or wrong. ... how closely and where are the pictures? ... Yes, and those with greater logical reasoning ability
      Message 98 of 98 , Aug 15, 2003
        --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.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,
        > his observations closely match those predicted by modeling based on
        > standard, accepted physical principles.

        how closely and where are the pictures?

        > So which of the following conclusions do you think more likely:
        >
        > 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.

        Yes, and those with greater logical reasoning ability realise that likelihood, or
        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.

        -Aut
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.