The same could be said of many respected scientists in truth. I believe that both JLN and Stiffler have generally good intentions, neither are perfect. The degree to which anyone is an expert or amateur varies greatly by both subject and is highly relative.
To attack so broadly is in bad taste. Personally I don't find you to have a high degree of intellectual honesty or at least insight. Why? because you tried to pretend that evidence is not evidence. A court of law has rules of evidence that can invalidate something as evidence in that system too however the truth that it is evidence does not change and even the judge would not pretend that it does. I must further challenge you in that I don't believe you can actually genuinely believe that either of these men are crooks, calling them crooks means you believe they are criminals and that their scientific work is a guise to defraud people of money or other valuables. Do you honestly believe that is a remote possibility? Next you claim that they are not willing to measure an energy balance correctly. Well neither tend to make foolish mistakes, I have seen graphs of voltage and current measurements showing that they are considering power factors. I do not know what mistakes you believe they do make or how you believe they should do things differently but not all suggestions pan out as practical or possible in an experiment. Finally as for debate it is very understandable that when you are one person and you attract a lot of skeptical criticism of various levels of validity that you just choose to not engage especially since skeptics are extraordinarily intellectually dishonest mostly as their aim is to disbelieve and attack, but even if they delighted in it there would easily be too much for one person to do and perform experiments. Also Stiffler demoed the effect in a video and the pulse effect could not be the result of error, you would seem willing to accuse him of lying (with no motive). JLN however has no apparent reason to pretend this works if it does not at least none we know of. He has not published this device on his website but has with another gone to the expense and efforts of patenting it, a process generally rather useless unless you believe something works. And what a coincidence, we have someone not in any way connected to these other to patenting what looks to be the identical effect, Imris Pavel. Is this perfect evidence? No. Is this evidence that should be ignored because it isn't perfect evidence? No. Are papers printed in Nature "perfect" evidence? No. Are they wrong sometimes? Yes If I presented this idea and none of this evidence existed you could very well dismiss it and should, but as this evidence does exist then it gives the idea a degree of weight, a weight that is too great to ignore unless your intent is to dissmiss something before it gains more evidence. I am not claiming this evidence ads up to proof, some even argue proof (of anything) is technically impossible. Will you ignore anything without proof? No, all that is needed is evidence and evidence it does plainly have. Even if evidence is of such a poor quality as you seem to think, if there is a strong degree of correlation even untrustworthy sources can form a strong case. As there is neither any realistic possibility of motivation or conspiracy this is the case here. It builds a strong enough case in conjunction with the evidence for electron ejection that it seems more likely than not that there is something here as the only other possibility is mass coincidence or conspiracy (Starting with Tesla). Of course both Stiffler and JLN have made novel genuine scientific demonstrations I don't believe you would argue with that and neither appear to be primarily motivated by money. Of course if you would let me leave this part of it alone I can present the case for electron ejection. On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com>wrote: > Of course no form of evidence is perfect, but some are less perfect > than others. From my personal experience with Naudin and Stiffler, > they have both shown that they are not capable, or not willing, to > measure an energy balance correctly, plus they refuse to engage in a > scientific debate. They are either badly deluded amateurs, or crooks, > but you would have to be a scientist yourself to appreciate this. > > Michel > > 2009/6/23 John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> > > > > Let me have another crack at that, I rushed and the quality of the email > paid the price. > > > > -------- > > > > You are making a mistake. > > > > You have followed the line of thought that some forms of evidence have > value and others don't but in truth all forms of evidence can have value and > no form of evidence is perfect. > > > > Of course a patent can have scientific value but if it has value to a > scientist who is disinterested is another matter again. > > > > The patents are evidence that something like this may have worked, that > someone considered it worthwhile patenting. > > > > In the case of the patent on which Jean Louis Naudin is a coinventor it > states he/they replicated Hiddink and got success though less than they > expected so they patented an improved version. > > > > That is evidence, not proof but evidence unless you care more about games > than truth. > > > > Using a standard of evidence that can not generally be obtained/achieved > is a very effective way of closing of science from any progress it does not > wish to see made. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> No, you make a mistake. > >> > >> You have followed the line of thought that some forms of evidence have > value and others don't but in truth all forms of evidence can have value and > no form of evidence is perfect. > >> > >> Of course a patent can have scientific value bit if it has value to > scientist who are disinterested in another matter again. > >> > >> The patents are evidence that something like this may have worked, that > someone considered it worthwhile patenting. > >> In the case of the JLN patent it states they replicated Hiddink and got > success though less than they expected so they patented an improved version. > >> > >> That is evidence, not proof but evidence unless you care more about > games than truth. > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Michel Jullian <michelj...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I meant full refs of the scientific papers, or at least links to well > >>> documented experiments by serious experimenters. Patents have no > >>> scientific value of course, you can claim any impossible thing and get > >>> a patent for it. > >>> > >>> Michel > >>> > >>> 2009/6/23 John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com>: > >>> > The former will take more time, but the latter have already been > given. > >>> > > >>> > Stiffler replication | variant > >>> > "JLN Patent" replication | variant > >>> > Edwin Gray > >>> > Imris Pavel > >>> > and probably Testatika > >>> > > >>> > A list of course is not much use, I have however already detailed > these in 2 > >>> > posts so far... > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Michel Jullian < > michelj...@gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Refs please. > >>> >> > >>> >> Michel > >>> >> > >>> >> 2009/6/23 John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com>: > >>> >> > >>> >> > Given the evidence that both of these effects exist, both the > electron > >>> >> > being > >>> >> > ejected and arcs creating excess energy... > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > > >
