[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > Nick Palmer wrote: > >>> From John Berry's "we can do what ever we want if we just get the old > >>> rocks > >> out of our head" message:- > >> > >> <<Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't > >> possible trumps the evidence I'll never know>> Quite so. Tell Paul... > >> > >> Paul Lowrance has come up with a theory that if he exploits a certain > >> phenomenon he will get free energy from ambient heat. He has no > >> evidence that he can do this - only his belief in his theory. > > > > It's also something which is discussed in sophomore EE classes FWIW. I > > don't think Paul realizes that. > > > I think Paul's[I] aware of it. ;-) Sorry, but I really fail to see the > logic in assuming --> I could not possible see something that a world of > EE's have not seen. If we follow that line of thinking then we assume > no single person will ever discover anything. It's easy to place such > faith in the science community, but that's just not realistic. > > For example, my conversations with EE's on a forum discovered that > nearly all EE's have an incomplete understanding of real random noise. > Most do not understand that true noise has no upper crest limit. I > debated this with several EE's on a forum until they saw their error > when I broke the problem down in simple frequency spectrum and phase angle. > > Another example is every EE I've ever talked to thinks **all** real > resistance has thermal noise. This is not true. Radiation resistance > for instance has no known thermal noise. I can hand you an wide BW > antenna consisting of thick metal tubing that has several thousand ohms > radiation resistance, but the only thermal noise you'll find on the > antenna is due to the resistance of the metal itself, which is > infinitesimally small compared to the radiation resistance. One EE > disbelieved me so much that he still thinks that a 50 ohm antenna given > the BW range will have the amount of thermal noise in accordance to --> > V = sqrt(4 K T R dF)-- it simply does not. > > > > > > >> He has been irritating people on this forum for quite some time. He > >> maybe does not realise that he is not the first type to come on here > >> with some idea that they believe is brilliant that the whole of the > >> rest of humanity has not spotted. They normally stick around for a > >> while, get their ideas repeatedly shot full of holes by most of the > >> good minds on here > > > > Actually we're supposed to exercise a bit of restraint on this list and > > not shoot too many holes in theories even if they look like easy > > targets. At least, that's my understanding of the Vortex rules -- it's > > supposed to be a safe place to air ideas which are not fully baked, and > > criticism is supposed to be constructive, if possible, rather than > > destructive. > > > Holes, says Nick? I'm still waiting for anyone to point out even a > single hole in my claims. Please, by all means, someone point out the > hole(s). I'm not running away with my tail between my legs. I challenge > anyone! If I'm wrong then man I'll admit it in a heartbeat. > > > > > > > It's hard sometimes, when people come in with totally goofy > > misconceptions and a condescending and insulting attitude toward anyone > > who's actually invested the time and effort to understand some small > > piece of modern physics, but whatever ... most of the regulars here are > > at least polite about it when someone disagrees with them. > > > Some would say that's passive aggressive Stephen A. Lawrence. People > will wonder if you were referring to someone in particular, namely one > Paul Lowrance, lol. People will wonder who you thought had "totally > goofy misconceptions and a condescending and insulting attitude ..." > > Please let me know if you ever want to debate the idea that your passive > aggressive ways of life is better than my direct ways of life. You name > the forum of your liking or we can do it in person. Just perhaps, just > perhaps society is wrong on this. Just perhaps society is slowly > changing toward my methodology where people are upfront and honest, and > drop the passive aggressive tactics, silent jabs, etc. etc. What you > call "insulting" I call honesty and speaking my mind. On occasion you > have said you're sorry if that hurts my feelings. That's just it my > brother. Please understand it does not hurt my feelings when you speak > your mind. Sure, society has programmed you otherwise. It is indeed a > rough and dog eat dog world out there. > > > > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance
I for one am tired of people avoiding the main discussion. ... Talking about ad hominem. Notice my tech talk above on various issues from radiation resistance not have thermal noise to real noise not having an upper crest limit. Stephen A. Lawrence, I really think we should take our ad hominem discussion in private and then post the results, because IMHO it's really sad when all you'll reply to is personal statements and then accuse me of resorting to ad hominem. Read the past posts and see who is avoiding the substance. That's why I always recommend people spend time doing some self-contemplation each night before retiring to bed.
Again, this is yet another plea to get back on topic and forget about our philosophical difference. Just please accept what I've stated so many times already, which is do not place any personal attacks in to my statements. What I say is backed by very little negative emotions, as they are statements I truly believe in.
Regards, Paul Lowrance
