At 06:24 PM 12/20/2012, James Bowery wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
At 05:06 PM 12/20/2012, James Bowery wrote:
Induction heating would require a visible device nearby. If "Lucky
Saint" is sincerely attempting to help the world by releasing this
technology, as he has presumably attempted by disclosing the
fabrication technique, then it would be a small additional effort to
post a video of a beaker of water containing the boiling device,
with the beaker elevated on some sort of stand that would not
plausibly contain an induction heater.
Faking that video would be difficult enough to motivate a "Russ"
type of fellow, who has access to the requisite resources, to
proceed to replicate the recipe.
Aw, c'mon. That level of fake would be trivial. Sure, the video
might be made so that it would be difficult. But it would still be
quite possible with video editing software.
Look, it's a lot of work to replicate something like this. I would
*not* invest that work unless:
You aren't a "Russ" kind of guy, though, are you?
Actually, I am. It's a lot of work, though, so I pick my battles.
He's put quite a bit of work into replicating the Papp piston all
with even less direct information about how to build one.
Yeah. So far, though, he hasn't done the most obvious things to
measure what is actually going on. And it is not apparently a
replication. It's a resemblance, which can be very different.
Am I advising people to go out and build this device based on the
current or even the proposed video "evidence"?
I didn't think so. Are you? I was pointing out that the evidence you
suggested would not sensibly make much difference. There are some
simple things that would. If someone reputable, for example, made the
video, it could make a big difference.
We've already seen faked videos that got, as an example, Sterling
Allen going. I think we are starting to get a little wiser.
Allen exposed what he found that showed the videos were faked. That
increased Allen's credibility, and he's done the same thing with
other situations.
Naudin's MAHG replication, however, totally trashed his reputation,
or should have. Really. Awful. What did he do when his gross
calculation error was exposed?
Nothing. The web site still sits there with the blatant error, and he
simply stonewalled the criticism. And then the naive look at the
site, don't notice the error, and believe his results were "amazing."
Obviously, there must be a conspiracy to suppress free energy.
Come to think of it, though, Allen never followed up on his MAHG
page.... maybe he'll notice this and do something about it.
http://pesn.com/2005/06/26/9600116_Naudin_MAHG/
