> =A0 =A0 The correct conclusion should be: =A0 he could'n get it to work.

That's close to no conclusion at all.
ie that would apply to anything that didn't "work" for whatever reason.
If a process that is said to be reproducible by a competent person
with due care NEVER proves to work for anyone who tried it, something
is wrong. What that something is is to be determined and may vary
between cases. Or may not.

If people are going to suggest that perpetual motion machines, which
is what this is as described so far, are easily constructed, eminently
practical and worth spending any sort of serious time on at all, then
they should provide some sort of support for their statements and
ideally a reference to a website which competently fills these
requirements.

This is because the vastly overwhelming majority of such claims to
date are rubbish at best and malicious rubbish in too many cases. This
is not to say that real cases that break the "laws of physics" do not
exist but, so far, no clear, easily constructed, consistently
reproducible and "well enough" understood "over unity" device has ever
been demonstrated publicly. Not ever.

There have been numerous devices which claim to work but whose
demonstrations are non public, and many which have been publicly
"demonstrated" but which fail to be able to be replicated by people
"familiar with the art" (or by anyone else).

A large number of devices are based on explanations which rely on the
violation of "the laws of physics", which laws are otherwise found to
be consistently observed in all other known instances., This does not
mean that all such "laws of physics" do not have exceptions - just
that the fact that none such are known in any other cases except this
one should lead to extreme caution in subsequent assessments.

In addition to the above, where gullible or technically incompetent
people genuinely draw false conclusions, there are the many many many
cases where charlatans seek to take advantage of gullible or
technically ill informed people.

Simple statements like "it really does work" and "you should be more
open minded", if offered without good support. tend to mislead the
technically ill informed AND assist those who prey on them.

So - if you wish to make statements in support of systems that "break
the laws of physics", please provide good references to sites or
information which clearly demonstrate that these are plausible. Better
still, please send links to sources of dimensioned plans for systems
that are guaranteed to work if built competently. (I'll have Joe build
me one).

I recently saw a company in Indonesia advertising Cobra Oil for sale.
Really. (Photo somewhere). Liable to be invaluable in most over-unity
devices advertised to date. Those that demonstrably don't need such
I'd be genuinely interested in meeting.


            Russell

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.