As to the 'signal generator is always running in the background' claim look at this message 318 on overunity.com where Stiffler replies (also fig S1 and S2 at http://67.76.235.52/DrStiffler/ce4.asp lack any signal generator connection or plate of any type to couple to):
>So the signal generator >was always running in the background ? > >Also in this figure 14 case ? >What did energize the coil-core combination then ? >Just some 60 Hz "noise" from the ground wire ? Stiffler: Getting somewhat concerned about what you do not understand, or do not want to. Where in this diagram do you see a parasitic plate or a signal generator. Please stop trying to change or put works in my mouth because I will not just jump to the end. On 11/2/07, Horace Heffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 1, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > > No! you are squirming to dodge the question of- did someone > > intentionally insult the guy needlessly. > > Hey, people insult me all the time. Just ask me. Does that mean I > should sue for defamation? > > Something taken as an insult doesn't necessarily constitute libel or > defamation. No one has called Ron a con man. Many have criticized > his work. That is an inherent part of the scientific process. This > is a scientific list. People have also criticized his behavior. > When a person decides to behave far outside the norm for a group they > have to expect criticism and insults. That is in fact normative > group behavior. It is in fact *unreasonable* to not expect such a > response to violating the norms. A person with common sense should > *expect* such a response. It comes with the territory double where > claims of free energy or over unity operation are concerned. We have > to assume Ron is not an idiot and thus *expected* the responses he > has received. The question in the minds of many then is why has he > acted as he has, is acting as he is? This is and has been a > reasonable thing to ask - why is he acting this way? What's the > payoff? > > > > > > It may not have been you personally, but do NOT try to frame this > > as an "innocent question" type of thing. It went way beyond that. > > Ron states through Jones Beene: > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > To: Vortex Members On 11/1/2007 > From: Dr. Ronald R. Stiffler > > Although Free Speech is on of the foundations that built our America and > still to some degree prevails, there is a fine line between Criticism, > Slander and Defamation. > > I still maintain the 'Choice' on how, when and by what means to > release Part or Complete Information on any or all devices or > Research I have or am Performing. I do not march to the Vortex Drum > or any other, I can be as Coy, Sly and Arrogant as I wish, just as > you may and are displaying. > > For those of you in the US, rest assured that I no longer consider > any of this to be constructive in any way and feel it has crossed the > line. It does show the True Colors of You All. > > Rest assured my work is not going away, it will not be removed from the > Internet or My Web Site, It will not be buried. > > I am so against a Litigious Society, yet often it has a side that is the > only way to receive redress in cases such as this. > > The same people that advise me on the legality of my work are most > excited to assist me in this endeavor. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > end quote of letter from Ron through Jones Beene > > This looks like a threat of lawsuit. If there is no answer from Ron > as to whether this is a threat of lawsuit then it seems we should > take it as such. If so then I agree with Stephan that this is way > over the line. As far as I know, no one here has tried to stop Ron > from either experimenting or posting, despite his implying that is > the case: "My work is not going away, it will not be removed from the > Internet or My Web Site, It will not be buried." Criticism is not a > suppression of freedom of speech. Now it is *Ron* who is attempting > to steal our first amendment rights by suppressing our criticism. > > Here is another bizarre and notable behavior. Ron complains his web > site has been denial of service "attacked". Yet he still keeps huge > amounts of text and photos all in one giant string of data, > copyrights it, and threatens legal action if his copyright is > violated. Every time anyone needs to look at some small aspect of > Ron's work they have to snooze idly while the huge glut of data is > loaded by their browser from Ron's site. When Ron internationally > announces new material is on his web site he should *expect* it to > get jammed. It appears to be at least in part his fault. Whether > someone is out to get him or not, keeping his stuff all in one long > string is a disservice to his readers and to himself. One has to > wonder if he has a motive for such inexplicable behavior. > > It seems to me Stephan's question is the one needing an answer > Jones. I ask too, is this a threat to sue anyone on vortex? If so, > then Ron should explicitly state whom and why. > > > > > > > And as for your juvenile repetition of "are we there > > yet" ...Rightly or wrongly - he believes that the frivolous > > question-after-question on the same issue were adequately answered > > numerous times, and that the continuous harping and insinuation at > > that point- goes to his honesty or capability. > > > Hey, my honesty and capability is often questioned. That doesn't > mean (a) I shouldn't expect it, considering I'm a member of the free > energy lunatic fringe, (b) that I should threaten to or actually sue > anyone, (c) feel bad, or (d) stop anything I'm doing. As long as he > is claiming over unity devices Ron should expect extreme scrutiny. > > > > > > He said from day one that he eliminated ground looping and AM - and > > to re-ask the same question twenty times since, then does give the > > insinuation that you think that he is lying or incapable ... Either > > accept his word, or move on to something else. > > > We should never accept anyone's word for experimental proof of > anything scientific. Without replication and peer review it is not > established science, and thus open to critique and even derision. > Throughout history perpetual motion claimers in particular have been > subject to this. Calling it "free energy" doesn't change a thing. > Scrutiny is essential and a service to the community. Besides, I > would not be surprised that even 8th graders would question your > above remark. You have a wire running to a device. It works with > the wire but not without it. What remains without the wire is > therefore not a self powering device! Question the function of the > wire. Duh! You then build a different gadget with a battery. It > works with the battery, but not without. What remains without the > battery is not self powering device (so far). Question the role of > the battery. Duh! You insult my intelligence by insinuating I > should not be critical of this, that I or anyone should either accept > Ron's word (or yours), or move on to something else. > > > > > > > Geeze... get real. Are you so out to lunch on petty details that > > you cannot see the forest for the trees? He does not owe you a > > detailed accounting of how he eliminated these issues - > > If he's threatening a defamation suit then that's the least he > owes. Where is the proof Ron has eliminated the issues? Where's > the slightest evidence of slander or defamation? As long as he or > you repeat claims of the colossal achievement of free energy, > perpetual motion in effect, you can both expect criticism. In fact, > Jones, it is partially *your* outlandish unsupported claims that have > stirred up a skeptastrophe. All this strange behavior forces me to > wonder if it is not a skeptastrophe that is in fact the main > objective, except I just can't figure out why that would be > desirable. What would be the payoff? It all makes no sense. > > > > > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> Jones Beene wrote: > >>> Stephen, > >>> > >>> I don't know where you come from, but in Texas (so I have been > >>> told) if you call someone a "con man" you better hope that you > >>> are a better shot than he is... > > > Nobody's called anybody a con man. > > > >> You didn't answer the question, Jones. Your response amounts to > >> saying insulting someone will make them mad, and people in Texas > >> carry guns. > >> Is Ron seriously threatening to sue us all? Please answer the > >> question. > >>>> Jones Beene wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> To: Vortex Members On 11/1/2007 > >>>>> From: Dr. Ronald R. Stiffler > >>>> > >>>>> [ ... ] > >>>> > >>>>> I am so against a Litigious Society, yet often it has a side > >>>>> that is the > >>>>> only way to receive redress in cases such as this. > >>>>> > >>>>> The same people that advise me on the legality of my work are > >>>>> most excited to assist me in this endeavor. > >>>> > >>>> Is Ron threatening to sue us all for questioning his circuit and > >>>> objecting to his methods??? > >>>> > >>>> That has REALLY "crossed the line". > > > > > On Nov 1, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > > > On 11/1/07, William Beaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I wrote my message about "cold reception" the day before. I see > >> that a > >> day later Ron has gotten angry and left the overunity.com forum. > > > > He's back and claiming that you called him a "con-artist". > > Such a claim itself could be libel. Does this mean Bill Beaty should > threaten a law suit? Probably not. Anyone got a spare shotgun? I'm > lookin' to depart the Dime Box, but I'm afraid I'll get shot in the > back. 8^) > > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > >
