View Single Post
Old 02-02-2010, 02:42 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post

Here is my perspective.

I learned of your circuit from Peter.

I started the thread.

It took off and there were "skeptics".

I jumped in to see what the deal was and built a circuit.

My personal goal was always to get the heat gains in the circuit as claimed by the Quantum article. I wasn't trying to prove any model by doing that. When I got the Textronix, I was using it for my purpose of documenting the results of the circuit experiment and not to prove your model.

You obviously can see that some of the results support your model, that is a side benefit of the result. I'm glad that some of my experiments and Glens and anyone else's help lend support to your model, but that isn't the intention behind those experiments. AND it is important to see that just because that isn't the experimenter's intention, it doesn't give any less support to your model!

Your own circuit build was to support your model, but that is because the purpose of you doing your circuit was to prove your model. I told you long ago that most people in this forum wants to see a circuit and build it and why it works isn't priority. It is a practical thing to be able to have a heater circuit with gains and it can be developed more thoroughly I'm sure.

It still supports your model anyway even if that isn't the circuit builder's intention. You have a lot going for you and congratulations are in order for inspiring such an incredible journey that has taken place here.

There is more to do and learn and having a paper to document the results that references the inspiration as being the Quantum circuit, which in turn was inspired by your model, then all the better!
Aaron, I go on record, even in this thread - I have no quarrel with anyone doing a paper on a replication of the Quantum circuit and leave me out of it. I really dont mind. But don't try and publish this as an anomalous, unexpected, strange and unpredicted phenomenon. It would be less than the truth.

I have never intended to impose a thesis on the unwary. The fact is that if I include my name to the paper without the thesis - it would make no sense. That's actually my only contribution. That's why I joined. If required to then let replication simply prove the quantum claim. A nice package deal. The thesis wins by default.

But that's not the issue. What is being questioned is the need to reference the thesis at all. If Glen publishes this as an anomaly - quite apart from the difficulty that would possibly ensue to publishing it at all - would be that it would establish this as a discovery. I do not know how that will fall in with my patent. I should rather state - with my LAPSED PATENT. I went to some considerable lengths to ensure that this was established and in the public domain that no-one could ever take ownership of what I consider to be a boundless source of energy from Mother Nature herself. It's absurd. The days of exploiting such natural knowledge needs to be put into our history books and the chapter closed.

If Glen can contend this, and he's Glen, known to be a charitable open source team player what happens when the next person does this. Now let's say that someone else sees this advantage - God forbid an exploitive capitalist, (all over the place) or a mere entrepreneur (most of the aspiring world) and they see that Glen can claim this discovery. How small a variation to Glen's circuit would it need for them to also claim a discovery. And how much money will it take to establish that this is a more final claim to a 'DISCOVERY' than Glen's? And which patent will win out in the end? And will ownership go to the United Arab Emirates or to China?

All such claims and counter claims may very well be seen to be absurd. But it's scarey. What if one or any such claims work? I have been trying, as a matter of principle, to establish that the 'discovery part' is over and done. Don't go there. It's not my discovery. It belongs to the world. It's just a source of energy that I believe is in all bound material. If anyone is the discoverer then it's whoever discovered dark matter. That's all it is. I just happen to have located it. I think. I'm reasonably certain that others will come up with their explanations for it. But the discovery part? That's done and dusted. And by many more people than me and more comprehensively and experimentally than I have done.

Regarding any chance of the author's publishing. If they publish as an anomalous independent discovery I'll get all over the place if I can and if I'm not locked out here. If they publish as a replication of the quantum circuit - I would have absolutely no objection. How could I. That's the basis of the experiment described in this thread. More than free to do so or not. But the actual conflict was that I was writing a paper with them. My thesis was always referred to in all prior attempts at writing this. Suddenly I could not do so. I had to explain the thesis in an introduction to a paper. Probably for the first time ever, the authors saw that there was some obscure and incomprehensible explanation of this effect that they had never even considered. I dont want to go into the correspondence. Just know that the attack was merciless and long winded and even now I am still discovering new aspects of their complaints. And all this time I thought that COP>17 was natually linked to my thesis which is linked to my patent. It's been extraordinary. I'm more than happy to withdraw as collaborating author. In fact I have already done so.

Last edited by witsend; 02-02-2010 at 02:55 PM.