Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2009
     
    Posted By: evolvealreadyBut developing a free energy machine is not like picking the winning lottery numbers in your local or national lottery. It's like buying a ticket for a lottery that evidence says does not exist--and then winning.
    I get several notices that I have won such lotteries every week. Are you going to rain on my parade by saying they are suspect?
    •  
      CommentAuthorping1400
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2009
     
    :-)
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2009
     
    Did anyone ever seriously look to see if Ireland has tax credits that could make an intentionally doomed failure potentially profitable for wealthy investors?
    That's one of the few credible reasons I've heard postulated for explaining why the investors appear to be silent. Another is that they are so computer-illiterate that they never heard of the Steorn forum. Or perhaps they were banned? :-)
  1.  
    Perhapsas a condition of the investment they signed an "NDA" type doc barring visiting the website
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2009
     
    Or the smiling investor is Tom Cruise.
  2.  
    Posted By: loremanWell I sat in a restaurant in Melbourne a week ago and watched the black swans sail serenely past on the lake. This was completely unexpected (but very pleasant).

    So how could you ever tell that energy was "newly created" energy and hadn't come from somewhere else?


    See? Cuts right to the quick, that loreman does.

    You have hit upon the whole issue of the scientific method as falsification of hypotheses, bullet-proof experimentation, properly designed control experiments, and full accounting of energy balances and power fluxes.
    Say I've got a system that looks like it makes more energy out than in. The null hypothesis should always be that it isn't doing that at all, and THIS is the hypothesis that experimentation should be trying to disprove. So one sets up careful control experiments and seeks to account for all possible sources of artifact, in addition to refining data collection and interpretation. Only when all attempts to disprove the null have failed, could we ever be justified in claiming that the energy might have been "newly created". And still, it might not be so, as we might have missed something in our bullet-proofing.

    This is very different from the way most FE "researchers" (including apparently Steorn) proceed. They try to prove their hypotheses directly, by setting up confirmatory "experiments" (demos actually) and failing to perform necessary control experiments. To say nothing of introducing confounding variables and butchering the math and/or the dynamic analysis.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThicket
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2009
     
    Getting back to the original "Smiling Investor" I had a completely different interpretation. I imagine someone who put some money in years ago and realizes that it's lost. When he chats with Crank, he smiles and says "You don't believe they have anything do you?"

    It's similar to if I was a Vikings fan and the Packers were coming to play. I might say to someone "You don't believe the Packers are going to win do you?"

    Crank's interpretation is seen through her prejudices. We've seen her 'interpretations' before when she posted about the Dublin University presentation on free-energy by a professor. Shortly thereafter we actually had a video of the presentation and she got it badly wrong. Up to that point I thought that Crank's observations had some balance and credibility. The absurdly blatant false comments she made on the content of the professor's talk showed a cognitive dysfuntion in what she hears, and what she thinks she hears.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGrimer
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2009
     
    I believe he was smiling because he has seen what they have.
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2009
     
    Posted By: GrimerI believe he was smiling because he has seen what they have.

    Schadenfreude?
    •  
      CommentAuthorGrimer
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2009
     
    Posted By: aber0der
    Posted By: GrimerI believe he was smiling because he has seen what they have.

    Schadenfreude?

    No.
  3.  
    Posted By: GrimerI believe he was smiling because he has seen what they have.
    He may be smiling because he saw what they showed him, but he is a guy who invested in a FE company, so I have little faith in his discernment.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2009
     
    "See? Cuts right to the quick, that loreman does."

    Thanks, but sometimes cuts off the quick and all, leaving bloody mess

    -but to me with a high school physics education, this seems to be an obvious point. If new energy had a "flavour" (where's Vibrator? I'll bet he will say it must) there'd be no problem. But of course you're right, and this forum has many posters for whom the null hypothesis is the obvious starting point, whereas the other forum is full of....smiling investors.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2009
     
    Posted By: GrimerI believe he was smiling because he has seen what they have.

    I had just the opposite interpretation. I agree with thicket, I thought the smile could have been a wish that he had not invested.
    •  
      CommentAuthorping1400
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2009
     
    Well, there is investors and investors.

    Some invested millions for less than 2% of the Steorn shares, a serious investment.
    Others invested a few thousand for a gamble, just to be able to name themselves Steorn 'investor'.
    And yet others got their shares for free as part of a management agreement.

    which one was laughing?
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2009
     
    Posted By: GrimerI believe he was smiling because he has seen what they have.
    He too invested to cry, so all he could do was smile at the absurdity of it all.
    • CommentAuthorcwatters
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2009
     
    Posted By: joshsDid anyone ever seriously look to see if Ireland has tax credits that could make an intentionally doomed failure potentially profitable for wealthy investors?


    Many countries have Business Expansion Schemes whereby you get tax relief for investing in certain types of business. The problem is getting your investment back as well.
  4.  
    You opinion is more credible than I thought; it's a common method of making a profit. I believe you can achieve the effect you suggest with a scheme investing in the arts.
  5.  
    Posted By: timetrumpetYou opinion is more credible than I thought; it's a common method of making a profit. I believe you can achieve the effect you suggest with a scheme investing in thearts.


    Basically all of Uwe Boll's films follow this principle.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeOct 27th 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    Posted By: timetrumpetYou opinion is more credible than I thought; it's a common method of making a profit. I believe you can achieve the effect you suggest with a scheme investing in thearts.


    Basically all of Uwe Boll's films follow this principle.

    Yes, the world's worst film maker. His films always lose money and his investors are always happy.

    The UK film industry was like this until they changed the rules - we made some of the worst films in the world for about 10 years - the loopholes meant that a straight to DVD film could make a packet in tax write offs for rich investors.

    Ireland had all sorts of complex investment schemes in place for years - especially for investment in "technology" firms. To think that a canny investor could put money into loss making firms and still be up isn't totally unrealistic.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeOct 27th 2009
     
    I believe he was smiling because he has seen what they have.
    Or maybe it was a grimace and not a smile.