Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment
From: fkasner (fkasner_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 08/22/04
- Next message: fkasner: "Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment"
- Previous message: fkasner: "Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment"
- Maybe in reply to: If I told U I'd have 2 kill U: "Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment"
- Next in thread: K. Jones: "Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:49:16 GMT
If I told U I'd have 2 kill U wrote:
> "Don Kelly" <dhky@peeshaw.ca> wrote in message news:<LuzVc.166235$J06.138965@pd7tw2no>...
>
>>"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:7ce4e226.0408201506.5a46e376@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:<41261BE9.54386D3D@tinaja.com>...
>>
>>>>"Fred B. McGalliard" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4125FE68.44264A69@tinaja.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>If I told U I'd have 2 kill U wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don't you think the experts who measured it in his lab from
>>
>> England
>>
>>>>>>>were aware of this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fully agree. We have a lot of experts working on simple systems where
>>
>> fraud
>>
>>>>>is rarely an issue and we still see a lot of really embarrassing
>>
>> mistakes in
>>
>>>>>instrumentation.
>>>>
>>>>The majority of experienced and competent electricial engineers do not
>>>>know how to properly and consistently measure ac current on unusual
>>>>waveforms. Only recently has this even become possible with sanly priced
>>>>instruments. To expect others to routinely be able to do so is absurd.
>>>
>>>Don, that's quite true. Still, consider the remarkable accuracy and
>>>precision that early physicists of the 20th century were able to
>>>obtain through the creative use of existing, and rather limited,
>>>electrical measurement instrumentation. They didn't require
>>>sophisticated digital instrumentation (whose stardardization and
>>>calibration is often even today traced back to time honored standard
>>>references of rather archaic design.
>>>
>>>For example, to how many decimal place was Millikan able to determine
>>>the charge on an electron, while employing instrumentation no more
>>>complex than a simple voltmeter and a stopwatch? From this, IIRC, was
>>>derived the mass of the electron. Not to shabby an accomplishment for
>>>guys working entirely without sophisticated measurement
>>>instrumentation.
>>>
>>>It's not the instrumentation, but the knowledge and insight of the
>>>investigator that makes all the difference. Again, IIRC, true RMS
>>>reading voltmeters and ammeters were introduced around the turn of the
>>>centry (the 20th century) or even earlier. Faraday worked with
>>>instrumentation that was even more crude, and now documented his
>>>experiments can be duplicated by even a highschool student.
>>
>>----------
>>The true rms instruments that you are referring to would be useless in this
>>case. They were strictly low frequency electrodynamic or moving iron
>>devices. In the case of DC + low frequency (less than 100Hz) signals, they
>>would read true rms (including the effect of the DC). They would choke on
>>pulses. The only ones that would be able to handle this might(?) be the old
>>hot wire ammeters and voltmeters. These early experimenters knew the
>>limitations of their equipment (often home built and designed from first
>>principles) and worked within those limitations.
>>--
>>Don Kelly
>>dhky@peeshaw.ca
>>remove the urine to answer
>>
>>
>>>The problem that I see is not found in the instrumentation, but in the
>>>knowledge or lack of it in the investigator. Faraday and Millikan were
>>>both well studied in their respective fields of expertise, and
>>>interested primarily in observing and quantifying a then mysterious
>>>effect that they saw in front of them. Interestingly enough, their
>>>achievements were enormous without profit motivation.
>>>By contrast, when you have a confidence artist like Stan Meyer, who
>>>has no academic qualification whatsoever, no interest in extending the
>>>knowledge of nature by mankind, and who is totally focused/motivated
>>>by personal success and profit, you should expect very little.
>
>
> Screw yourself and you low life ad hominem Mr. CONover.
> Stan Meyer had more honesty in his little finger than your have in
> your lying, deriding, obfuscating little body.
> You NEVER met him and yet you are determined to make an utter fool of
> yourself.
> One of these days one of the numerous successful experimenters besides
> the one already noted will post their results in this worthless
> "science" newsgroup. I doubt they will waste their time very soon
> however because they are too busy actually doing the experiment and
> learning something which all the "experts" here refuse to do.
>
>
>>God
>>
>>>could have handed Meyer the most sophisticated, state of the art
>>>instrumentation suite that ever existed on earth, and Meyer probably
>>>wouldn't likely have even powered it up, not that he needed such
>>>sophistication for the claims that, without experimental
>>>substantiation, we was trying to sell to the public.
>>>
>
> You haven't the foggiest idea who he showed any of his actual data to
> because every single one of them is under nondisclosure agreements.
> Meyer talked to and met more people who knew how to evaluate what he
> was doing than you will ever know. People flew in from all over the
> world when his patents went into issuance. You know nothing about
> Meyer other than what you can dream up in your twisted little "expert"
> mind.
>
>
>>>The bottom line in that Meyer was a small time, petty con-man, more
>>>magician than scientist, who fortunately for many suckers no longer
>>>walk the earth.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Harry C.
>
>
> "This is the devils domain."
> And here you are being the devil's advocate.
> Only the good die young, or get murdered when they invent technology
> that could "end all wars over resources" and stop the need for
> TRILLIONS of dollars in war machinery.
> Good job Harry.
> All you got is ad hominem.
If we needed any proof via literary style that this is the Junior Dummy
under another guise this posts proves it beyond all doubt. The styly is
very much like the last time the Junior Dummy was here and exploded in
profane rage at the scientists in this NG. He feels trapped since he
can't continue making the same claims with no additional proof so he
must scream in rage. Yeah, the Junior Dummy has recuperated sufficiently
to engage in his nonsense screed once again. Sick guy.
FK
- Next message: fkasner: "Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment"
- Previous message: fkasner: "Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment"
- Maybe in reply to: If I told U I'd have 2 kill U: "Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment"
- Next in thread: K. Jones: "Re: Meyer Circuit Experiment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
