Another Winner!

Today Ron is – via Shame-of-Siemens (aka Siemens Stain) – excited about ‘primer fields’. If one believes the link that was provided, one might think that a David Lapoint of CERN has discovered  amazing new phenomena. In fact, Mr Lapoint is unknown at CERN (so why did he imply that he was in the link?) and appears to live in California: some commute! The device shown in the link also bears a close resemblance to Mr Lapoint’s perpetual-motion gadget (patent applied for) which is supposed to extract energy from magnets (yep, the usual story). But it is not only a perpetual motion machine! Lapoint claims that “these charged fields are also great for human, animal, life, etc. Within the 7700 sq.ft. building there is an amazing air quality”.   Note that Ron’s buddy, Searl (see Marquis Who’s Who), makes similar claims for his levitating perpetual-motion machine. But wait, there is even more: ” The spinning magnetic arrays also produce some very interesting benefits for straightening kinked fields within the human body, sore muscles, and other body tissues can be fixed in minutes at times, sometimes in seconds. Larger arrays will work for the whole body”. Jeez, how many more nutters is Ron going to admire in his capacity of ‘Civil List Scientist’? We shall refrain from making metaphorical comments about previous pensioners ‘spinning in their graves': they would have long ago been torn apart by centrifugal (sic) forces.

About these ads

43 Responses to “Another Winner!”

  1. CrackpotwatchWatcher Says:

    Why’s the primer fields theory bullshit?

  2. Ron Denault Says:

    Never mind the crap about perpetual motion…
    You have to admit that some of the visual references are interesting to the point that they should be investigated . Just the idea of the field shape is certainly worth looking into.
    I am a huge fan of Tesla but even he came up with a few strange thoughts, yet we cannot dismiss his work out right seeing the abundance of results he produced.
    Mr. Lapointe may well be incorrect about some or even the majority of his claims but an open scientific mind should still consider what is plausible and investigate not simply dismiss out of hand. Science is not dogma and the discution should never be left up the the “officials” every idea should be looked into.

  3. Jeff Says:

    Take a look at “Observation of Dirac monopoles in a synthetic magnetic field” It is an article published January 2014 on It is an Weekly International Journal of science. The researchers in this article have discovered (with math) what Mr. La point was trying to show on his video. Its a great Read.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      We see no connection between the two; apart from the fact that loonies are always trying to ‘help scientists out’ by hoping to find monopoles, grand unified theories or a solution to the supposed particle/field dichotomy. LaPoint has only one aim, and that is to push his crackpot patents (US8638186, WO2013106104, US2008246361).

      • Devin Hahn Says:

        You know the David claimed to be a plasma physicist, and not a back yard alternator tink-master. Regardless this is still interesting to think about. The one thing I refuse to believe is magic, The double slit experiment conclusion is not a conclusion at all. David suggested a pretty simple explanation.

        • crackpotwatch Says:

          We can find no trace of anyone, with his name, who has a scientific track record in plasma physics. And why do people seem to think that he works at CERN? He resides in California … and appears always to have done so.

  4. Daaammmnnn Says:

    Somebody is determined to dismiss Lapoint without any actual data to counter Lapoint’s claim. Now who’s the crackpot indeed?!!

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      You have got it back to front: if someone comes up with a crackpot notion, it is that person’s responsibility to provide the proof (and it had better be very convincing proof). Youtube vids and patent applications do not count as valid evidence in the scientific world. It is sad for you, and ultimately bad for society, if you cannot understand that.

      • Devin Hahn Says:

        Repeatable physical experiments not proof of concept?

        • crackpotwatch Says:

          What experiments? We can find no trace of any experiments; only a patent application and demonstrations. A demonstration is not an experiment; demonstrations merely illustrate a phenomenon whose existence is already unquestioned. Since his patent claims to produce energy from nowhere, to sanitise air and to unkink muscles, it would have to be a pretty good experiment if he hopes to impress scientists. And if such an experiment were properly written-up and published, any replication would have to be performed by real scientists; not by himself or other members of the lunatic fringe.

  5. Sean Says:

    Lapoint sounds like a doofus with some kooky leaps of conclusions, like I do every time I get stoned. But now and then when stoned I too have an occasional actual good idea and moment of clarity rather than fool myself into thinking it was.

    He not have any idea what to do with any of it, but youd have to be an angry antagonist to not at least appreciate the elegance of some of these field theories. Particularly ring formations, and supernovae.

    He obviously stil has no idea how or why such fields arise, but broken clocks and.all that.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Stare at any arc discharge for long enough, and one will start to see things; especially if magnets are in the vicinity. The vids have zero information content, and his patents are demented. It is an exaggeration to call it field theory.

  6. Hank Wilson Says:

    David Lapoint, he had already been paid off even before he launched his series parts 1 thru 3. David, he knew that there would not be parts 4-7 primer field out on the world wide public webb. Anyways, I got it all and nothing else need to be published or presented. Oh David, there was one little segment that you did not cover concerning the double slit uncertainty principle…I got it-dear Dr. Lapoint….no more interference from me…lol. They had to shut him down, because even the most ignorant can understand the foundamentals of the strong forces…lol, yup, we gotta now.

  7. vivi Says:

    I find you outrageous and downright rude. Mr La Point has something you don’t and now you have time to smear rather than seek out whatever is incomplete within yourself so you share with others seeking completeness and will never arrive because you are not looking within – you are looking without. Stop the smearing campaigns and learn truths no matter where it comes from. You identify personally by posting like this. All of you!

  8. Jason Says:

    This reads like an attack piece as it mentions things other than the subject at hand. Sure this guy might have some wild ideas but there could be an element of truth here that bears more research. Electric Universe theory of cosmology (see Thunderbolts Project youtube page for Space News section on how establishment views are being tested by the day).

    When you have Hawking etc coming out questioning black holes etc in the mainstream media it never seems to cross this authors mind that accepted views can sometimes be upended completely. Of course the earth is flat you idiots! Look around you!

    People like crackpotwatch have a mental disorder and are a disgrace to what science is all about. People like him have the hubris to say things like “we don’t have time to review the actual implications because it violates our accepted views!” lmaooo

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Crackpots always say things like that. We are tired of listening to them. Go write an article for one of the many crackpot-run journals which are spreading the real disinformation.

      • Jason Says:

        What is your major malfunction? You’ve presented nothing furthering your case. You are so closed minded you do not even listen. You are a nutcase.

  9. Jason Says:

    Who is preaching nonsense and who is not? The truth about anything unproven is subjective. The true nature of deception is when “qualified and educated individuals”, who stand in positions of power and influence, lead us to believe in unproven facts.

    Determining whether or not an argument is substantial is based upon the questions that remain after the conclusions are derived. Theoretically, the more questions that can be answered, the closer we are to the truth in our assumptions. In any proposal or theory we must consider all of the evidence and not just some of it.

    Being led to believe that science is unbiased in its linear view of human history is equally absurd as believing in the 6000-year-old creation story espoused by fundamentalists. Although it may not appear on the surface, the scientific bias is obvious because of ignored evidence that conflicts with their linear view.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Yep, nutters say that too. Our aim is to present the same brick-wall indifference to crackpots, that crackpots present to accepted explanations.

      • Jason Says:

        Except the difference is they explain why they disagree and present the accepted explanations. You fail to do so. You do not even take the time to get what is being conveyed. You are the one that comes across like a zealot.

      • Jason Says:

        All you’ve done in each and ever comment is engage in meaningless rhetoric and instead of taking the time to refute the opposition you make your position look weaker by resulting to such tactics. It only further entrenches the opposition. It solves nothing and makes me wonder why you even spend the time to run the site. I see elements of psychopathy and narcissism as well in your commentary.

        • Jason Says:

          every* resorting*

          • crackpotwatch Says:

            Looking around, we find that the Amazon Dr Fisher has had lengthy arguments with Dr Evans’s hangers-on in the past. Check out his reviews and comments at

        • crackpotwatch Says:

          The nutters are not interested in dialogue. If they want to be listened to, they should follow the example of real scientists. Posting videos on Youtube, setting up web-sites or making claims in chat rooms does not count as any sort of scientific activity. Some scientists may do all of those things, but that is not the sum of the proof of what they believe. You are lucky that our scientists even deign to reply to you.

  10. Michael Monterey Says:

    Dear CrackpotWatch & CPWatcher et al. The fact that the maths are as yet unavailable to substantiate and completely explain the universe and all the enormous pre-“Big Bang” intergalactic currents full of impossibly ancient galactic clusters & super-clusters does not mean that they are BS. It does mean that the universe is in “perpetual motion” and infinitely self-refreshing with energetic activity that defies the currently popular SM misunderstandings about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. How could that be? For one, since vortical motion, spin, rotation, energy, etc., are inseparably interdependent & interactive, it looks very likely that the vast spaces of “dark” energy between the inconceivably vast currents of super-clusters and in the centers of galactic vortices act as the EM source and transformer recycling & grounding our slower, lower-frequency cosmic circuit (visible-detectable field phenomena). If so, then there is no reason to imagine that the energetic effects of magnets (metallic, cosmic, etc.) can not be used for useful effects in power generation devices designed to tap the higher frequency source level energy (from which our slow electron-positron pairs and quantum floam “precipitate”). NOTE: As fans of the current SM science, I’m sure you’ve seen the many articles on experiments confirming those phenomena. Likewise, though Lapoint is clearly not producing the ideal theoretical writings & maths, his lab bench micro-galactic EM-plasma fields, nuclear “particle” array analogs, etc., are not BS. I have yet to study his patents, but he’s clearly onto something of value. For one thing, his experiments relate to the fact that any consideration of advanced energy physics for power generation that ignores the immense fields of interacting EM energy we live in (and call “the universe” and/or reality) is clearly not advanced enough. BTW, for a great critique and thorough history of the development of real pseudo-science and modern myth-making, I highly recommend reading both “Not Even Wrong” and “The Big Bang Never Happened” among other great works on the derailment & stagnation of Standard Model theoretical physics & cosmology. If you can’t stand to have the huge limitations and abundant anomalies of the current SM physics+cosmology myths questioned, then I guess you won’t like any of those works or anything else I or any “recognized” degreed yet outside-the-box scientist might discuss with you.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Our point of view is that one should not even begin to believe in so-called anomalies until one has mastered everything that is already known. That is, ‘known’ in the sense of being properly documented, experimented upon and subjected to rigorous scientific discussion. Unfortunately there exists a certain class of person who thinks that the mere act of questioning established fact, without good reason, automatically makes him look intelligent and particularly insightful. We have good reason to believe that engineers at NASA and Boeing cannot understand such basic concepts as Newton’s third law. What chance is there that laymen have any better insight into more complicated matters?

  11. TIMMIT Says:

    What are your credentials and could you proof them?
    In which science did you do your phd and where?

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      You have not been paying attention: there is more than one us. Half of us have degrees (including doctoral) in physics and metallurgy. As we are only pointing out where pseudoscientists fall short of proper scientific behaviour, and are not pushing a theory of own own, the other details are irrelevant. To put it in simple terms for you: if someone told you that 2+2=5, you would want to know where he studied mathematics. If someone tells you that 2+2=4, you do not ask. We are the ones who are saying that 2+2=4; we do not have to justify that ‘claim’any more than you would feel obliged so to do. We are also very busy with real work, and do not want to be distracted by the sorts of dirty tricks that denizens of the lunatic fringe like to employ.

  12. Dr. Roger Simmons Says:

    Most people, who are considered ultimately to be a ‘Genius’ are at first considered to be ‘Crackpots’.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Very true. That is, of course, one aspect of the so-called demarcation problem: or, how to distinguish science from pseudoscience. Philosophers have great difficulties with it and talk themselves to a standstill … as usual. Physicists are always sure which is which. It is more a question of how something is claimed, rather than what is claimed, that marks out the crackpot. The latter always tries to avoid engagement with equals in the field and appeals directly to the general public. He always wants others to prove him wrong, rather than striving harder to prove himself right. The most damning sign is when he tries to sell how-to books, construction plans or shares in a company set up to exploit the unproven idea. One could say, as in other walks of life, that the best plan is to follow the money-trail. Or one could just calculate his Baez number.

  13. Ted Says:

    So because some one does not have a degree or knows all the terminology, or does not have the money to continue, no one else who has an expertise in the field will not even take a look at some ones work? How do we know that every thing science has proven is right? If one person made an error, and every one else follows his work and uses the same flawed model comes up with the same answer who is it still right? If it is the only way you know how to explain it how do you prove it wrong? I’m sorry, but we are all humans and we all make mistakes. If there were no mistakes than all sciences would agree, and we would not have to have different sciences to explain the micro and macro. I’m sorry, but even prove fact should always be open for review. Calling some one a crackpot because they do not have the access to the funding or equipment is just in poor taste. I think it is pretty crappy that no scientist has the balls to double check any theories that have been proven or disproved, and just blindly accepts the static quo. The only thing that truly tells me as that you can not think for yourself and are limited by what you were taught. Now here is a reason for you to call me a crackpot…. How is perpetual motion not possible? The earth has been spinning for thousands if not billions of years and shows no signs of slowing, yet we have solar friction, friction from the atmosphere as well as friction from a jet stream the is flowing in the opposite direction. Now these frictions, even on a miniscule scale would eventually slow down the earth, or any other rotating body with similar conditions. Yes I know space is a frictionless environment, but our planet has a buffer in between it and space called an atmosphere. There are many thing in the universe that are unexplained, crap there are many things on this planet that are unexplained, and if you fail to look into someones work, or recommend some one take a look at because they have not proven enough of it you are either closed minded or are covering up something that you are being told to keep under wraps, and are hindering the advancement of man kind. Like I said, not everyone has the time, money, know how or equipment to fully prove their point. Science is not perfect, nothing created by man is, or have you forgotten that. To err is human and to think that you or science could not be wrong is the biggest error of all shows the your ego has taken over where you brain used to be.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Thank you for that excellent precis of ‘what all crackpots say’. It has been pointed out that, if one had a time machine, one could go back to meet Aristotle and – using objects easily available to him – demonstrate the principle of the electric motor. Crackpots never come anywhere near providing that same degree of proof. Aristotle could be left to play with the ‘toy'; and change the rest of history. The devices proffered by crackpots work only when they are personally involved. We suggest that you read about the history of perpetual-motion claims; in particular, concentrate on how deluded/open-minded people like yourself were fooled. Do not feel bad about it; just 40 years ago, some scientists (including the editor of Nature) were convinced that Geller could bend spoons using his mind. Some idiots still believe that. By the way, the Earth is slowing down; why else do you think that they keep extending audible time-signals every decade or so? Try to see the beauty of the laws of thermodynamics.

      • Ted Says:

        “It has been pointed out that, if one had a time machine, one could go back to meet Aristotle and – using objects easily available to him – demonstrate the principle of the electric motor. Crackpots never come anywhere near providing that same degree of proof. Aristotle could be left to play with the ‘toy'; and change the rest of history.” Now wait, that is speculation, there is no proof of that, we do not have a time machine, there is no proof. You can not say the Aristotle would get, you just assume he would get it. Just because everyone does not know every facet of some thing does not make the a crackpot. Just like you stated that some scientist were fooled by the bending spoons hoax. This partially proves that science can be wrong. If science claims to know everything than there is a problem, all laws should be open to debate, because we can not with any certainty know that we have all the variables involved with anything, they only thing we have are know variables. An unknown can not be proven or disproved until it is know with solid concrete evidence. Einstein and Tesla and Edison all thought outside the box and with out any of the we would not be where we are today. Many discredit Tesla, but without him we would not have the A/C electricity we use everyday. I will agree that laws do give a fundamental understanding, of how things work, but they only take into account the known. With out pushing these boundaries we are only limiting our understanding. There are many things throughout history that we knew at one time, that we have found to be not quite right. With our modern advancements it should be easier to model possible out comes, but the computers are only limited to the information or equations we plug into them. If we all stay in a predefined box there will never be any breakthroughs, like graphine. I guess that means that only crackpots can run cars on water, and the Navy is full of crackpots because they are going to be running ships on seawater. I never said perpetual motion is or is not possible, just that we should not discredit it. Forget it, I’m just a dumb butt, and nothing in science has ever been proven wrong, so there is no reason to question anything.

        • crackpotwatch Says:

          You have obviously misunderstood the Aristotle fantasy. The point was that it was direct proof, that something unusual was occurring, even if Aristotle might have chosen to attribute it to ‘magic’. One can also demonstrate the existence of atoms by using a drop of oil and a pool of water, but that demonstration also requires that the watcher be familiar with a lot of other physical principles. That is why the primitive motor is such a good choice. As for the rest, we are not prepared to waste any more time on the sort of person who thinks that Tesla made any contribution to the history of science. There are plenty of idiots who hold the same views as yourself. Go find them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: