Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Forum Guidelines, Agreements, and Suggestions > OUR Award - Current Status > Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions

2024-11-30, 06:50:26
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Author Topic: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions (Read 15217 times)

PhysicsProf	Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « on: 2012-02-04, 05:36:36 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	Here are the current conditions for the OUR Award: Quote This is currently under development, but will include the following: 1) Any person submitting an application for the OUR award must outline in sufficient detail that they have performed adequate measurements to merit their claim and application. This includes both electrical and mechanical devices. The measurements and methods must be included with the application. The device must be able to produce a continuous output power of 15W (minimum) over and above the total amount of power applied to the device as an input source of power. If and when it is deemed that the applicant's submitted measurements are credible, the applicant will either submit the prototype for testing by OUR, or provide all the details necessary to replicate the device in question. 2) If this person is either unwilling or unable to properly perform the required measurements, OUR may partake in the additional measurements on an adequate replication (or an applicant-submitted prototype) themselves using their own test equipment, in order to determine the merit of the application. 3) If the device is self-sustaining while producing a continuous excess output power of 15W (minimum), and can be properly demonstrated as such, either in person, or with an applicant-submitted prototype, the OUR Award will be granted to the applicant. Alternatively, the applicant may submit to OUR all the details necessary to replicate the device in question. 4) In the event the application is successful and the OUR Award is to be granted, the applicant must first agree to publicly open-source the full details of the submitted device before the Award is offered. the OUR team. Last Edit: 2010-12-27, 17:47:04 by poynt99 IMO the requirement of "self-sustaining" is not necessary, as long as measurements by the OUR team demonstrate that output energy is significantly greater than input energy, by at least 15 Watts. I would also add "heat-producing" to electrical and mechanical devices, and reduce what appears to be some redundancy (in the previous point 3.) Here's my recommendation for the OUR Award conditions -- comments welcomed. I would also encourage further contributions to the OUR award; I offer an additional $200 to the pool, making my contribution $500 at this time. This brings the prize to $2,000, and I hope others will raise the ante. .99 -- I understand the prize will be granted by YOU to the awardee, from monies funneled to you -- is this correct? or do we send monies directly to the winning inventor? Quote Conditions for the OUR award: 1) Any person submitting an application for the OUR award must outline in sufficient detail that they have performed adequate measurements to merit their claim and application. This includes electrical, mechanical and heat-producing devices. The measurements and methods must be included with the application. The device must be able to produce a continuous output power of 15W (minimum) over and above the total amount of power applied to the device as an input source of power. If and when it is deemed that the applicant's submitted measurements are credible, the applicant will either submit the prototype for testing by OUR, or provide all the details necessary to replicate the device in question. The working device must be replicable. 2) Two OUR team members (agreed upon by the applicant) will make additional measurements on an adequate replication (or an applicant-submitted prototype) themselves using their own test equipment, in order to determine the merit of the application, at no cost to the applicant. 3) In the event the application is successful and the OUR Award is to be granted, the applicant must first agree to publicly open-source the full details of the submitted device (within thirty days of the completion of the OUR tests) -- then the Award will be granted. the OUR team.

exnihiloest	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #1 on: 2012-02-04, 08:53:02 »
Group: Guest	The fact that the device is self-sustaining can be the only evidence of overunity. Measurements are only a method used by the researchers in order to know that they are on the right way. Nevertheless the past is full of not self-sustaining devices for which the "inventors" pretended that their measurements shown overunity, while their protocol (or method or apparatus...) was wrong and consequently not one operational machine could be built. Steorn is one of the most famous, now Ainslie, and also Physicsprof (http://pesn.com/2011/05/27/9501835_Steven_E_Jones_demonstrates_overunity_circuit/). In the mentionned cases, among many others, it is regrettable that the authors have not tried to loop their device, because their fail would have been instructive, showing them their mistake. The evidence of an extraordinary claim must be at the highest level. So I humbly recommend to not change the award conditions, which are straightforward, beyond any doubt, and the best ones that I saw in the field.

Chet K	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #2 on: 2012-02-04, 12:58:41 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4045	Ex I have complete respect for your opinion,I want you to give this a good think.... You fellows for the most part have been playing with electricity ,very easy to "LOOP" We are talking about a water heater here,I don't feel we should hve to design a prime mover to show OU? Heating water is one of the most well documented events known to man. An OU event will be profoundly obvious ? Chet

poynt99	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #3 on: 2012-02-04, 13:46:30 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012-02-04, 05:36:36 Here are the current conditions for the OUR Award: IMO the requirement of "self-sustaining" is not necessary, as long as measurements by the OUR team demonstrate that output energy is significantly greater than input energy, by at least 15 Watts. I would also add "heat-producing" to electrical and mechanical devices, Item 3) regarding "self-sustaining" was intended as an option, not a requirement, hence the "If". So I'd like to keep it there. Quote and reduce what appears to be some redundancy (in the previous point 3.) Item 4) was included because a submission for the award does not necessarily mean it was done openly to the public with all the details. It is quite possible that an applicant may want to keep their design info private pending the outcome of the tests. IF the tests prove to support the claim, then the details will be made public as per the terms and conditions. So I'd like to keep item 4) as well, just to be absolutely clear. Quote Here's my recommendation for the OUR Award conditions -- comments welcomed. I would also encourage further contributions to the OUR award; I offer an additional $200 to the pool, making my contribution $500 at this time. This brings the prize to $2,000, and I hope others will raise the ante. Thank you Professor. Quote .99 -- I understand the prize will be granted by YOU to the awardee, from monies funneled to you -- is this correct? or do we send monies directly to the winning inventor? I think the best approach is to funnel all the monies through OUR. Thank you for the recommendations, I'm going to incorporate some as per the following: 1) Any person submitting an application for the OUR award must outline in sufficient detail that they have performed adequate measurements to merit their claim and application. This includes electrical, mechanical and heat-producing devices. The measurements and methods must be included with the application. The device must be able to produce a continuous output power of 15W (minimum) over and above the total amount of power applied to the device as an input source of power. If and when it is deemed that the applicant's submitted measurements are credible, the applicant will either submit the prototype for testing by OUR, or provide all the details necessary to replicate the device in question. The working device must be replicable. 2) OUR will make additional measurements on an adequate replication (or an applicant-submitted prototype) themselves using their own test equipment, in order to determine the merit of the application, at no cost to the applicant. 3) If the device operates in a self-sustaining mode while producing a continuous excess output power of 15W (minimum), and can be properly demonstrated as such, either in person, or with an applicant-submitted prototype, the OUR Award will be granted to the applicant. Alternatively, the applicant may submit to OUR all the details necessary to replicate the device in question. 4) In the event the application is successful and the OUR Award is to be granted, the applicant must first agree to publicly open-source the full details of the submitted device (within thirty days of the completion of the OUR tests) -- then the Award will be granted. the OUR team. Last Edit: 2012-02-04, 06:46:30 by poynt99 & PhysicsProf .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

poynt99	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #4 on: 2012-02-04, 13:57:24 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	I'd like some opinion on this: Should an applicant be permitted to apply for the OUR Award if they have already applied for and/or received an award at any other forum or organization? .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Farrah Day	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #5 on: 2012-02-04, 14:06:44 »
Group: Guest	Quote We are talking about a water heater here,I don't feel we should hve to design a prime mover to show OU? Heating water is one of the most well documented events known to man. An OU event will be profoundly obvious Chet, what you would see as profoundly obvious, others, including myself, would not. From the start you have seen the Savic/Sonic boiler as an obvious OU device, while I along with others have not. I see nothing 'obviously OU' about it and certainly there is yet to be any evidence of OU... from anywhere or anyone. In fact it's all gone rather quiet... as predicted. Not even an utterance from the Prof who has had the device for a while now. I do however tend to agree that it would be more difficult to create a self-sustaining energy loop with the boiler due to the electrical-heat energy conversion that takes place, which would effectively have to be converted back to electrical energy. That said, there are ways. And when figures of 20x OU are banded about, then the devices should cope with a little energy re-conversion loss. But ultimately the self-sustaining device would be the best evidence possible, so, like Exn (particularly given just how difficult accurate Pin/Pout measurements can be to make) I'm in favour of things being left the way they are. Which brings me to the Physics Prof. I'm a little confused here, Prof, as you yourself are claiming up to 20x OU yourself with a JT. Surely if this is correct, your set up should be self-sustaining and... Bob's your uncle, you've won the award! So what am I missing here?

gyula	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #6 on: 2012-02-04, 21:01:53 »
Group: Tech Wizard Hero Member Posts: 1196	Quote from: poynt99 on 2012-02-04, 13:57:24 I'd like some opinion on this: Should an applicant be permitted to apply for the OUR Award if they have already applied for and/or received an award at any other forum or organization? .99 Yes, but still the device should meet the OUR award requirements. Such person who shows openly such a device deserves all the money possible. Gyula

PhysicsProf	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #7 on: 2012-02-04, 21:48:39 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	Thank you for incorporating important changes, .99 -- I see we are in agreement with the conditions for the award: Quote I think the best approach is to funnel all the monies through OUR. Thank you for the recommendations, I'm going to incorporate some as per the following: 1) Any person submitting an application for the OUR award must outline in sufficient detail that they have performed adequate measurements to merit their claim and application. This includes electrical, mechanical and heat-producing devices. The measurements and methods must be included with the application. The device must be able to produce a continuous output power of 15W (minimum) over and above the total amount of power applied to the device as an input source of power. If and when it is deemed that the applicant's submitted measurements are credible, the applicant will either submit the prototype for testing by OUR, or provide all the details necessary to replicate the device in question. The working device must be replicable. 2) OUR will make additional measurements on an adequate replication (or an applicant-submitted prototype) themselves using their own test equipment, in order to determine the merit of the application, at no cost to the applicant. 3) If the device operates in a self-sustaining mode while producing a continuous excess output power of 15W (minimum), and can be properly demonstrated as such, either in person, or with an applicant-submitted prototype, the OUR Award will be granted to the applicant. Alternatively, the applicant may submit to OUR all the details necessary to replicate the device in question. 4) In the event the application is successful and the OUR Award is to be granted, the applicant must first agree to publicly open-source the full details of the submitted device (within thirty days of the completion of the OUR tests) -- then the Award will be granted. the OUR team. Last Edit: 2012-02-04, 06:46:30 by poynt99 & PhysicsProf And I agree with gyula that an inventor should be able to apply for the various rewards simultaneously; open-source is a condition for all three of the awards (that I'm aware of): Quote from: gyula on 2012-02-04, 21:01:53 Yes, but still the device should meet the OUR award requirements. Such person who shows openly such a device deserves all the money possible. Gyula

Mookie	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #8 on: 2012-02-04, 21:54:33 »
Group: Guest	In my opinion, receiving awards from several entities for the same accomplishment provides for a wider recognition, acknowledgement and endorsement of that achievement. It happens all the time in many walks of life. Mookie

PhysicsProf	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #9 on: 2012-02-04, 21:55:45 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012-02-04, 14:06:44 [snip] Which brings me to the Physics Prof. I'm a little confused here, Prof, as you yourself are claiming up to 20x OU yourself with a JT. Surely if this is correct, your set up should be self-sustaining and... Bob's your uncle, you've won the award! So what am I missing here? Excuse me -- where did I "CLAIM" OU with a JT? You are confused! (It appears exn was also confused on this point). I claimed "evidence for" based on repeated Tektronix 3032 integrated-power measurements; but I did not claim more than "evidence for". In particular, I have not claimed OU. I had to correct Sterling on this point already -- and the title of his article on the low-power device was changed at my insistence to: Quote Dr. Steven E. Jones' circuit gives evidence for 8x overunity And this wording in Sterling's article further clarifies: Quote Professor Jones has developed a variation of the 'Joule Thief' circuit and has shown evidence that its output is eight times greater than the input as measured by a state-of-the-art oscilloscope. He is open sourcing his solid state design to help speed its development... After further testing -- particularly using large capacitors for the input energy AND for collecting output energy -- I noted (at OU.com IIRC) these tests did NOT confirm the "evidence for" obtained using the Tek 3032; and that the power output from the JT-device was so low that I would be turning my personal attention to other devices. I hope that clarifies the matter. This experience is one more reason for requiring testing in independent labs, and for using more than one analysis method.

giantkiller	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #10 on: 2012-02-05, 05:23:05 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1593 Frequency equals matter...	How long is continuous? This has been a duping point before... If I can boil 8oz of water in 2 seconds with a 9 volt battery and the battery is not depleated would this be a winner? Because the battery could die after (30) 8oz glasses of water. Quote from: poynt99 on 2012-02-04, 13:46:30 Item 3) regarding "self-sustaining" was intended as an option, not a requirement, hence the "If". So I'd like to keep it there. Item 4) was included because a submission for the award does not necessarily mean it was done openly to the public with all the details. It is quite possible that an applicant may want to keep their design info private pending the outcome of the tests. IF the tests prove to support the claim, then the details will be made public as per the terms and conditions. So I'd like to keep item 4) as well, just to be absolutely clear. Thank you Professor. I think the best approach is to funnel all the monies through OUR. Thank you for the recommendations, I'm going to incorporate some as per the following: 1) Any person submitting an application for the OUR award must outline in sufficient detail that they have performed adequate measurements to merit their claim and application. This includes electrical, mechanical and heat-producing devices. The measurements and methods must be included with the application. The device must be able to produce a continuous output power of 15W (minimum) over and above the total amount of power applied to the device as an input source of power. If and when it is deemed that the applicant's submitted measurements are credible, the applicant will either submit the prototype for testing by OUR, or provide all the details necessary to replicate the device in question. The working device must be replicable. 2) OUR will make additional measurements on an adequate replication (or an applicant-submitted prototype) themselves using their own test equipment, in order to determine the merit of the application, at no cost to the applicant. 3) If the device operates in a self-sustaining mode while producing a continuous excess output power of 15W (minimum), and can be properly demonstrated as such, either in person, or with an applicant-submitted prototype, the OUR Award will be granted to the applicant. Alternatively, the applicant may submit to OUR all the details necessary to replicate the device in question. 4) In the event the application is successful and the OUR Award is to be granted, the applicant must first agree to publicly open-source the full details of the submitted device (within thirty days of the completion of the OUR tests) -- then the Award will be granted. the OUR team. Last Edit: 2012-02-04, 06:46:30 by poynt99 & PhysicsProf .99 --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

PhysicsProf	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #11 on: 2012-02-05, 06:58:03 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	GK asks, Quote If I can boil 8oz of water in 2 seconds with a 9 volt battery and the battery is not depleated would this be a winner? You have to provide more information -- what was the INPUT POWER during these 2 seconds, and how did you measure it? Just saying "the battery is not depleted" does not constitute a sufficient, quantitative MEASUREMENT of the input power.

Chet K	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #12 on: 2012-02-05, 07:10:55 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4045	GK There is Data available for this [energy required to heat water] . A few minutes with google and you will have an answer ,regarding heating 240 oz [30 8 oz glasses] of water to boil with a 9 volt battery. [start temp would be a biggy] Well I just l;ike they way that sounds ,and I believe that would be worth much more investigation. THX Chet PS Farrah, So you call this quiet?? Good.................

Farrah Day	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #13 on: 2012-02-05, 09:44:32 »
Group: Guest	Quote Excuse me -- where did I "CLAIM" OU with a JT? You are confused! (It appears exn was also confused on this point). Ok, Prof, so basically you jumped the gun by informing Sterling of 'evidence' of 20x OU, and then you later found this to be not the case. And now, Sterling, refuses to remove the article... Right? Quote Retired Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones is working on a simple overunity circuit that he has seen go as high as 20 times overunity; So in essence, that article by Sterling, like so many others, is a load of old hogwash. You'll appreciate that I'm just trying to get things clear in my mind about this, as the article is clearly very misleading - and now it appears completely unfounded. I guess if nothing else this illustrates just how difficult Pin/Pout measurements are to make accurately - particularly if professors can make these kind of mistakes. So how is it looking with the Sonic Boiler?

exnihiloest	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #14 on: 2012-02-05, 11:02:19 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: ramset on 2012-02-04, 12:58:41 ... You fellows for the most part have been playing with electricity ,very easy to "LOOP" We are talking about a water heater here,I don't feel we should hve to design a prime mover to show OU? Heating water is one of the most well documented events known to man. ... I agree that it is more difficult than electricity, nevertheless it depends on the cop. For example a COP of 1300% has been given for the Milkovic's double pendulum. Although it is a mechanical device, it would be very easy to loop it if it had really such a huge COP. In any way the goal of "overunity" is to get free energy. If the device can't be looped, energy would not be free, and this is particularly true when the device produces only thermal energy, which is a degraded energy whose has only interest if the COP is enough to convert it into usefull work, otherwise this energy would be of the same kind than the natural thermal energy which is still free: our environment on earth is at around 293 K above the absolute zero, even in deep space it is 2.7K, it is a low but real and inextinguishable energy.

exnihiloest	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #15 on: 2012-02-05, 12:05:06 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012-02-05, 09:44:32 Ok, Prof, so basically you jumped the gun by informing Sterling of 'evidence' of 20x OU, and then you later found this to be not the case. And now, Sterling, refuses to remove the article... Right? So in essence, that article by Sterling, like so many others, is a load of old hogwash. You'll appreciate that I'm just trying to get things clear in my mind about this, as the article is clearly very misleading - and now it appears completely unfounded. ... Almost all free energy articles are of this kind. The sites promoting free energy matter, either for money or by a kind of ideology, keep all claims of FE devices even those having be dismissed for miscellaneous reasons, because they have nothing else to present. "Errare humanum est", so we have not to reproach anyone for mistakes. Nevertheless when a doctor kills his patient, he can be sued if he didn't respect the recommended methodology, if he was negligent, if he violated the deontology... and so on. The minimum deontology in FE research could be to not claim overunity while a selfsustaining device is not yet presented and not yet duplicated by third party. This requirement is interesting also for the inventor himself: if his idea of a device is bad and he tries to make it selfsustaining, this will reveal him his mistake before he fires everyone with absurd claims. So instead of giving a price for an overunity device, which is a bit useless because in any way the author will get considerably more glory and money elsewhere, an anti-price of the worst OU researcher would be a good thing . I must emphasize that the goal would not be to mock someone who would have bad ideas and failed, because it is normal in research to hypothesize wrong things and to not win at each time, but to point these braggarts, unskilled or pretentious, who affirmed prematurely they got OU and alert the media, before having asked others for a duplication and without showing a selfsustaining device.

BEP	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #16 on: 2012-02-05, 13:17:38 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012-02-04, 21:55:45 Excuse me -- where did I "CLAIM" OU with a JT? .......... This experience is one more reason for requiring testing in independent labs, and for using more than one analysis method. Evidence is information that helps form a conclusion. Somehow offering of your evidence was considered a claim of having proof? Proof is factual information that verifies a conclusion. Please forgive them PhysicsProf. The level of word usage would be confusing to most. Some uses of the word 'evidence' may be considered synonymous with the word 'proof'. For me, this experience was good reason to limit openness of conversations due to the hair-trigger many people and automated systems are on to defend the public from anti-truth. Basically, it isn't safe to even suggest possible evidence of OU or even something that may be construed as a mention of such evidence or proof. Editors of the policies governing this award should keep this in mind. Just making an attempt to claim this prize, even when you are fully prepared to back your claim, is no better than shooting yourself in the foot. The know-it-alls and SkepticBots will drown any further attempt at communication you make. I would urge anyone thinking they qualify for such awards to take the project through the point of multiple, independent and unannounced replication before applying. Regrads, (Not a Typo!) WW

Farrah Day	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #17 on: 2012-02-05, 14:55:14 »
Group: Guest	Quote Please forgive them PhysicsProf. The level of word usage would be confusing to most. Some uses of the word 'evidence' may be considered synonymous with the word 'proof'. No need to apologise for me, WW. I can make my own apologies... if necessary. Besides, which ever way you want to play with words, it does not detract from the fact that the article by S.A., is total hogwash, and hence extremely misleading, and so would be better removed altogether. Quote Retired Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones is working on a simple overunity circuit that he has seen go as high as 20 times overunity; Note: 'he has seen to go as high as 20x overunity' $:-\$ Fair enough, the Prof, has since took a few steps back after newer findings. But frankly, what is beyond me is why anyone would want to involve that numpty, S.A., with anything vaguely scientific? I mean, apart from being obviously clueless about the sciences, Allan, clearly has his own agenda and won't let the truth or facts get in the way. Remember Fast Freddy!! If you want your credibility to take a real knock, then an article by Sterling Allan is the way to go.

BEP	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #18 on: 2012-02-05, 15:39:42 »
Group: Guest	Farrah Day, I can't disagree with you when it comes to most I've read from S.A. Yet another reason why I suggest folks do there own confirmations quietly before announcing anything out of the ordinary. WW

giantkiller	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #19 on: 2012-02-05, 17:07:42 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1593 Frequency equals matter...	Very constructive! It's pleasant to see positive forward momentum. Any recant by S.A. would alert the [near the wells] of ignorance. --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

poynt99	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #20 on: 2012-02-05, 17:18:41 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	I don't expect we'll see a recant from the RATS of S.A. for as long as R.A. is alive! .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

PhysicsProf	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #21 on: 2012-02-05, 18:11:30 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	Agree with you on both points WW (and others) -- important lessons have been learned. You notice I haven't been saying much lately publicly.... .99 -- did you mean "RANTS" or "RATS"?

poynt99	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #22 on: 2012-02-05, 18:22:51 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012-02-05, 18:11:30 .99 -- did you mean "RANTS" or "RATS"? RATS = Rosemary Ainslie Team of Scientists .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Farrah Day	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #23 on: 2012-02-05, 21:54:31 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012-02-05, 15:39:42 Farrah Day, I can't disagree with you when it comes to most I've read from S.A. Yet another reason why I suggest folks do there own confirmations quietly before announcing anything out of the ordinary. WW @WW and Prof. Whilst it may often seem like I'm just out to be public enemy No.1, this is really not the case. Truth and real facts are - and have always been - most important to me. Mistakes happen, and like Exn, said, 'To Err is Human'. But we do always need to make the distinction between, human error, human ignorance, human stupidity, and indeed... human charlatans. Sterling, promoted the now, infamous, Fast Freddy's super-dooper electrolysis bullshit, with apparently no qualms about the folk that were being duped. Now to my mind this is a serious character flaw (to say the least). http://pesn.com/2011/06/06/9501839_Freddy_Launches_Universal_HHO_Gas_Kit/ Incidentally, nothing I ever post should be taken personally, afterall, I converse only with cyberspace entities.

PhysicsProf	Re: Recommended changes to the OUR Award conditions « Reply #24 on: 2012-02-05, 23:37:40 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	Ah, I understand .99 - thanks. Also, I think I understand you also Farrah Day... time and experiments will tell regarding our research and I'll leave it at that.

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-30, 06:50:26

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2