View Single Post
Old 07-07-2009, 07:02 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,756
@ Tk

Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
I see you're having fun answering hard questions. But why don't you answer my easy ones?

1) Did any of your patent APPLICATIONS result in the actual granting of PATENTS, and if so, where are the patent documents available?

2) Was the circuit published in the Quantum article used to generate the data in that article and in the EIT paper, or not?

3) Can you assure us that the energy balance calculations in the article and the paper do NOT suffer from the "duty cycle" problem that I have identified? I mean "assure" not "assert." I'd like to see some original data from the experiment and exact details of calculations. After all, the claim is COP>17. Surely something that robust can survive a little scrutiny.

4) Do you (or other readers) realize that if the data was generated with the Quantum circuit, the energy balance conclusions are Wrong, and so--all theoretical speculation based upon them are, at best, unsupported by evidence..???

Easy questions, straightforward. And all of them are critical this "discussion."

How many minutes would it take you to modify your the Quantum magazine article to match the one in the paper? I would guess it would take less time than it does for you to keep posting about what is wrong or different with the Quantum article. Rosemary already said to use the one in the paper.

Whether or not the Quantum article needs to be retracted, corrected, etc... is something suitable for a different conversation - and a patent or application status is irrelevant. What about working circuits that are never patented. They're not valid or don't work because they're not patented? She is right here in this thread telling you exactly what circuit to use. Why not use it? She is obviously staking her reputation on this circuit and that carries more weight than trivial nonsense like patent status.

Do you realize how many patents are granted that have devices that don't work? I'm not saying Rosemary's circuit doesn't work, just that a patent is not a requirement to have a valid circuit.

There is a US patent on a PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE FROM GOD - go look it up if you don't believe me. So according to your logic, that patent is granted so it must work right?

The Czec govt is about the only one that I know that requires that something has to work in order to be given a patent - the pyramid shape razor blade sharpener is one example because it was proven to work. But again, still irrelevant.

The self-oscillation has been said to increase the efficiency but is not necessary but in either case, Rosemary's circuit went into self-oscillation and yours didn't so you can't say you replicated it. And because you can't, doesn't mean it is Rosemary's fault. You haven't even used the same mosfet.

There have been people that couldn't get the wheel to spin on a Bedini SG circuit and then they blame John. Go figure...

Bedini always said "Don't change it until it works" meaning do it like the inventor says - Rosemary said use the circuit in the paper - then once it works, then change components and do other modifications but not before.

All your questions are NOT critical to this discussion or purpose of this thread. Again, Rosemary said use the circuit in the paper.
Aaron Murakami