Yes, you are right about not liking people who just want to argue and hassle and critize every thing that I say. You are it.
Yes, I want to criticise your methodology. But, I do not want to hassle you about everything for the sake of it- I just made a conscious decision to not let you get away with anything this time. That is why this continues.
I prefer to work with people that cooperate compare and share notes on their builds, show scope shots,
Yes, I do that when something new piques my interest and makes sense. My lab is one of the better equipped ones here.
explain in simple terms what works and what doesn't, for them.
Well here is the clincher. You are immune to even considering any explanations that do not involve your cherished energy from vacuum.
Any attempt to do so and you cry - too complicated, too complicated! Tariel said it was simple - whatever that means.
Yet there is not a single person here who will build a totally exact as possible replication
That is because the device is poorly documented and can be replicated only superficially.
Most importantly its guiding operating principle is missing and you make no effort to postulate a plausible one.
..., and do their best to make it work, as shown. Not one in any forum that I know of at least.
"As shown" refers to these superficial characteristics only.
Anyway, I think you are unfair to the people that had tried to replicate this device superficially in this forum (like you had) when you write that they have not done their best.
So, go ahead blindly give out more instruction for someone else to build,
I don't give instructions blindly. I make suggestions that are guided by some operating principle.
You do not, you just try different parameters and permutations of components without a plausible operating principle to guide you.
so you can continue to critize while doing nothing for this project, but more and more guesses.
You write it as if postulating some operating principle was bad and guiding the build according to it was "nothing".
While winding and soldering wires and tuning frequencies to obtain the highest amplitudes and bulb brightness was "something" good ...but never OU.
That won't work...
Do you know something I don't or can you foresee the future now ?
Did you find an inconsistency in my proposed operating principle or find a proof that your operating principle works for sure ...and by exclusion mine cannot ?
I do want to get back to what Itsu and I were working to research and analyze different aspect of this particular build.
You did a lot of work with Itsu on this device, what have you learned ?
What are you learning now ? Is there a guiding operating principle that you are trying to confirm or deny with his build ?
As talking to you, is wasting my time and efforts, Split tube.
You just resorted to derision when confronted with a component that does not fit your preconceived notions about this device and its superficial appearance.
This is what I was writing about lately. You reject without justification and offer no alternative in return. You don't support you assertions with evidence. That research methodology is fundamentally flawed.
Do you even know what is the function of that aluminum tube ?
Were all the conditions satisfied for it to perform this function when you had tried it?
Did you even know what these conditions are ?
Author
Topic: Akula, Ruslan, Stalker, device discussion and replications. (Read 54920 times)
