View Single Post
Old 05-06-2010, 10:16 AM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Golly Ash. There is no end to this. Just for the benefit of our readers here - this is the thing. I need to go back to some basic principles here using a variation to a well worn analogy.

'No-one historically can jump above 2 meters. That is the acknowledged barrier. But one person then comes to the party and advises that by using a rare combination of poles, diet and exercise - they could easily scale 3 meters. That person demonstrates it to a wide audience of experts. He also encourages others to try this. But the vast majority of athletes who see this refuse to try it out for themselves. They simply do not believe it. However, in the fullness of time, one or two agree to try it out and that first claimant goes to inordinate lengths to provide the information and the tools required to measure the experiment. And lo and behold they scale 2.5 meters. And they did this by using those same tools of 'poles' and diet and exercise.

NOW. What happened was this. Those that breached the barrier then proposed that - because there was some variation in the length of the pole that they used, or because they see some imagined variation to the proposed regimen of diet and exercise - and because they did not quite get to a full 3 meters, then they must have 'stumbled' onto NEW principles of success that is entirely extraneous to the conditions that were first required to SCALE THAT BARRIER. Shouldn't they rather be trying to find the 'right' pole length or the 'right' excersise or the right diet? Are they not simply 'falling short' of the 'target' - that new level - that HAS been claimed?

But remember. Prior to this - absolutely NO-ONE had managed to breach the 2 meter level. Using some combination of the pole and that diet - at least took them past that barrier. Significantly past it. A whole half meter. What concerns me and many readers here is that there is some evident anxiety to PROVE that this 2.5 meter jump was NOT based on the previous 'guide' to breach the 2 meter barrier. Why is there any need to claim independent rights to this effect? Why is it now EXCLUSIVELY their own discovery. And why this pressing and continual need to discredit both the original claim and the claimant? Tell me then. What will happen if, say the 'so called SA team' breach their own barrier by - say 40 000% - or better still. What if the SA team actually 'FLY'? Does that make it a new discovery? Or what if Bart reaches a COP>12 - does that make it his discovery? Or what if Gad gets it to FLY? Does that make it Gad's discovery? Or what if the extra energy is channelled to another supply source? Does that make it a different result?

Now. To that first 'hypothetical replicator'. If they are going to 'prove' that this replication is more in the nature of a discovery - and if such is required, then it would not be in their interests to show that they can reach or even exceed 3 meters. They would need to rename their jump from - let's call it - the Highest Jump - to 'The Next Best Thing jump'. But then they can also claim that they have the full scale film to document that event. Since that was absent in the 'first' claim then their's has the merit of being a DEPENDABLE ACCOUNT.

So. Back to the 'replication' which you here deny. Glen et al unarguably used the EXACT SAME CIRCUIT DESIGN. The switch may have been different but the switch is simply the 'peg' holding up the pole at a required height. It is extraneous to the circuit principles. But for that matter, nor does the resistor need to be exactly duplicated. The applied energy does not have to be 24 volts. You see this? The extent to which he breaches the 2 meter barrier may be dependant on those components. But the principle is this. USE THESE BASIC COMPONENTS and subject to variations - which indeed may be subtle or gross - you SHOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE TO BREACH THAT 2 METER BARRIER.

And here's the principle. You can generate enough energy away from a supply source and return this to the supply source to replenish that supply. This is NOT confined to a battery supply source. It does not depend on only one circuit configuration. The potential here is HUGE. It is just that this particular BREACH OF THE UNITY BARRIER requires circuitry to be designed to RETURN THAT ENERGY TO RE-ENERGISE THE SUPPLY.

Now. The next point is this. If one actually calculates the power that is generated or, as mainstream have traditionally seen this, 'dissipated' on that circuit - if one measures the height of that jump - one will find that in fact the actual height or the actual power is even greater than is evidenced as heat on the circuit or as height in that jump. BUT these factors are hard to calculate and difficult to harness. So for now. Let's just concentrate on the heat from the circuit and the height of that jump. Both are greater than convention allows.

And when anyone can disprove that as much or even more energy can be returned back to a supply source to recharge it than was initially delivered, then and only then - will the actual CLAIM be refuted. That is the whole of the claim. It's as simple as that. And indeed as complex.
I professionally am to the point I cannot be associated with this thread because of the misrepresentations, allegations, misinformation, misinterpretations, and baiting for arguing.

I will no longer be posting in this thread but will be available in other Energetic Forum threads for the time being, members and guests can PM me or write to