Holcomb Energy Systems - the Holy Grail may have arrived

[JenkoRun]

No bi, you're participating to reinforce your own bias that higher output than input is not possible, it doesn't matter what we or anyone presents you with as you will go out of your way to find a reason why it cannot work, your behavior over the years has shown that you're not interested in determining the legitimacy or experimenting with these devices.

I don't know what is driving you to behave like this and frankly I don't care, give it a rest already. Progress is made by people who challenge the accepted norm and you behave as part of the crowd that pushes back against the alternative for no reason except to reinforce your own conventional beliefs, dogma, the kind of behavior I have little tolerance for.

You're not contributing to analysis or development of new principles and machines by "keeping it real" as you claim, you're just here to put down new ideas, if you honestly believe yourself to be helpful your words don't support it.

"especially when it defied known laws of physics."

And that right there is why you won't be able to ever accept these machines work, those "laws" only exist in artificial systems, they have no basis in reality. Considering something as simple as a mere Stirling engine can throw the "law" of conservation out the window with ease I see no reason to entertain the nonsense of these sacred laws of physics.

Until you're ready to consider and perform experiments that do not comply with your dogmatic laws you will never understand the machines that do not operate on them, all you will see are "scams" because that is what you want to believe.

I don't intend to engage in extended conversation over this with you, I'll just give you a pointer to get started with:
3907375565.jpg
Stirling engine > heat 1 side > thermally insulate the other > measure performance.
Next
Stirling engine > heat both sides > measure performance.

"To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial." -Arthur Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation) 1819

[bistander]

No bi, you're participating to reinforce your own bias that higher output than input is not possible, it doesn't matter what we or anyone presents you with as you will go out of your way to find a reason why it cannot work, your behavior over the years has shown that you're not interested in determining the legitimacy or experimenting with these devices.

I don't know what is driving you to behave like this and frankly I don't care, give it a rest already. Progress is made by people who challenge the accepted norm and you behave as part of the crowd that pushes back against the alternative for no reason except to reinforce your own conventional beliefs, dogma, the kind of behavior I have little tolerance for.

You're not contributing to analysis or development of new principles and machines by "keeping it real" as you claim, you're just here to put down new ideas, if you honestly believe yourself to be helpful your words don't support it.

"especially when it defied known laws of physics."

And that right there is why you won't be able to ever accept these machines work, those "laws" only exist in artificial systems, they have no basis in reality. Considering something as simple as a mere Stirling engine can throw the "law" of conservation out the window with ease I see no reason to entertain the nonsense of these sacred laws of physics.

Until you're ready to consider and perform experiments that do not comply with your dogmatic laws you will never understand the machines that do not operate on them, all you will see are "scams" because that is what you want to believe.

I don't intend to engage in extended conversation over this with you, I'll just give you a pointer to get started with:
3907375565.jpg
Stirling engine > heat 1 side > thermally insulate the other > measure performance.
Next
Stirling engine > heat both sides > measure performance.

"To truth only a brief celebration of victory is allowed between the two long periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as trivial." -Arthur Schopenhauer, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation) 1819

Come on now. You say:

And that right there is why you won't be able to ever accept these machines work, those "laws" only exist in artificial systems, they have no basis in reality.

Reality? Better check what that is.

Simple: Prove more real power output than power input. Stirling engine is not an example. Got any others?

Show me proof and I'll gladly change my mind about a few things.

Until you're ready to consider and perform experiments that do not comply with your dogmatic laws you will never understand the machines that do not operate on them, all you will see are "scams" because that is what you want to believe.

I'm ready to consider, and have been for a long time. I see scams because that is what they are, or mistakes made by honest experimenters, whom I attempt to correct.

How much money and damage was done by Holcomb? When, if he had listened to someone like me, he would have realized reactive power vs real power. I tried. I even spoke Astra's CEO when he announced the Holcomb deal. But believers, or scammers, won't listen to reason.

What machine do you have that doesn't operate on the laws of physics? Dogmatic? Tell about it. I'm open minded. Show me proof and I'll gladly change my mind about a few things.
bi

[JenkoRun]

Dogmatic? Tell about it. I'm open minded. Show me proof and I'll gladly change my mind about a few things.
bi

Prove it, I've already given you a starting point to produce your own proof.
Perform the experiment, run the tests, measure the results, compare with conventional (cold sink) arrangements that are claimed to be required.

If you refuse to even do that when you have the capacity to do so you're in no position to tell me "I'll gladly change my mind about a few things." when you don't perform experiments because you don't expect them to mean anything.

Bring back results, I won't be replying to you until you do.

[bistander]

Prove it, I've already given you a starting point to produce your own proof.
Perform the experiment, run the tests, measure the results, compare with conventional (cold sink) arrangements that are claimed to be required.

If you refuse to even do that when you have the capacity to do so you're in no position to tell me "I'll gladly change my mind about a few things." when you don't perform experiments because you don't expect them to mean anything.

Bring back results, I won't be replying to you until you do.

Stirling engine > heat 1 side > thermally insulate the other > measure performance. Next
Stirling engine > heat both sides > measure performance.

How in the world does that provide a measure of overunity? Both cases will be under unity (efficiency less than 100%). So what's the point? Stirling engines are well known and thoroughly explained in scientific literature. You do your experiment and explain it. Show me. Prove overunity. Otherwise I can live without your replies very nicely.
bi

ps. Before I leave, I make a legitimate offer. Post your Stirling engine experiment in full detail with full data along with your logic and conclusions, and I'll attempt to help you understand why it does not break any "dogmatic" laws.