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.


113 Responses to “Another Winner!”

  1. CrackpotwatchWatcher Says:

    Why’s the primer fields theory bullshit?

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Because it is contrary to the law of conservation of energy. Anybody who claims to have contravened the latter is either a fool or a crook. One sure sign, these days, that a claim is not kosher is that it is made only in Youtube clips or patents.

      • CrackpotwatchWatcher Says:

        Where does he say it contradicts that law?

        • crackpotwatch Says:

          In his patent, he claims to extract energy from magnets. That is impossible.

          • Lloyd Welch Says:

            OKkkkkkk, What are generators doing?

            • crackpotwatch Says:

              They are converting kinetic energy to electrical energy. Magnets are just an intermediary; their fields force unbound electrons to move through wires. And, before you suggest it, there is no way in which some ‘clever’ arrangement of magnets alone can be made to produce kinetic energy. That way lies madness; last stop on the track from Stupidville.

  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.

    • Rancid Says:

      Any reasonable physicist would publish their work regarding something so contrary to the laws governing electromagnetism and the law of conservation of energy. A “physicist” which states that there exist large magnetic monopoles without any empirically verifiable evidence is full of it. Moreover, what is with all of his claims about God this and God that? What physicist, in their right mind, would participate in producing these demonstrations with God as their only reference? I’m not even convinced that the video footage of the plasma chamber is even real; it looks as though it could be computer generated. As Jacob mentioned above, where is the math? What physicist makes such huge claims without any mathematics? Can someone describe what a “primer field” is exactly? Is it a vector field or a scalar field? What use is it to us at all?

  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!

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      He is a crackpot. That is his fault … not ours.

    • Rancid Says:

      What are the “truths” here? That God likes bowl shaped magnets? I don’t understand. La Point put himself and his ideas out for public discourse. Criticism regarding his work does not constitute as a “smearing campaign”.

  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.

  14. Cycle Says:

    Wow… “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”… except the entire alternating current concept upon which our modern society is based and AC induction motors (against the strident opposition of Edison, who wanted DC), and fluorescent bulbs (which he was making a full 40 years before they were commercialized), and radio (the Supreme Court nullified Marconi’s patent in 1943, awarding the invention of radio to Tesla), and remote control (remember Tesla’s remote-controlled boat in 1898?), and lasers, just to name a few.

    But then, you’re a crackpot who isn’t “prepared to waste any more time on the sort of person who thinks that Tesla made any contribution to the history of science”.


    • crackpotwatch Says:

      You have been misled by the ‘Tesla industry’. From where do you get your information? Newspapers, ‘popular science’ books, Tesla biographies written by non-scientists, the internet (aka disinformation superhighway)? Hardly anything in scientific history happened in the manner portrayed by popular sources. Radar, for instance was not a WW2 British invention: it was patented and demonstrated by a German long before WW1 (sic). The history of radio dates back to the 18th century. People like Tesla, Edison, Marconi, Sinclair etc., were just idea-thieves; ‘re-packaging’ known scientific phenomena for personal profit. Such carpet-baggers never make original discoveries and, if ‘society’ depended upon them, we would still live in the dark ages. Please try to understand that there are things that you just do not know about and you therefore cannot make intelligent comments.

  15. Cycle Says:

    The “Tesla Industry”. LOL

    Gotta watch those conspiracy theories, Crackpot.

    I didn’t say anything about radar, now did I?

    How exactly did radio “date back to the 18th century” when it wasn’t until 1873 that Maxwell showed that electromagnetic waves could propagate through free space, and the first intentional transmission of a radio wave was by David Edward Hughes around 1880 (although it was little more than the on-off transmission of static via spark gap and at the time was considered to be induction rather than radio wave propagation)? By your estimation, we were rocking out to Kasey Kasem a full 100 years prior to the first radio transmission! Ya nut.

    So according to you, building upon what others had discovered (and in the name of profit! ) is “idea thievery”. No room for improvement upon those original concepts, no room for variations from those original concepts… if it’s “for personal profit” all that profit should go to the idea’s originator, eh? So actual high-frequency transmission of radio waves, an improvement upon spark-gap transmission, is “idea thievery” to you. Loon.

    I note you didn’t address Tesla’s original discovery of the laser, nor his remote controlled boat, nor three phase AC power, nor induction motors. Why did you run away from what I wrote, and instead attempted to evade by throwing up the strawman of “radar”?

    If we lived by your rules, the profit motive for improvement upon original ideas would be removed, and we’d *truly* live in the “dark ages”.

    Perhaps that’s why is merely a circus where sane folks come to watch you crackpots entertain us. LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Radar was just an example. And it is not a conspiracy theory if it is backed up by generally agreed documentary proof. ‘Little-known’ does not always equate to ‘suppressed’. Again you show your ‘received ignorance’: it is possible to observe something without knowing (at that time) what it was. It was noted in the 18th century that, when a Leyden jar was discharged in one location, other remote ones would discharge themselves for no apparent reason. You also missed out Lodge, and the pivotal role of Hertz, in your potted history. Would I be correct in thinking that you are an electrical engineer? Your spiel sounds very much like Electricity-101, and electrical engineers are notoriously pro-pseudoscience. Everybody builds on previous work; that is not the same as taking credit for the entire discovery. I did not address Tesla’s other inventions because they were either stolen or non-existent. Take the case of X-rays, which you forgot: as soon as Roentgen announced his discovery, Tesla went straight to the newspapers and claimed that he had already discovered them. Note that Tesla never published anything like a scientific paper, so he quickly cobbled together some ‘laboratory notes’ as his only support. Unfortunately, he went too far and also claimed to have transmuted metals with X-rays. If he had been more restrained he might have got away with the lie. As for the laser, where is the proof? And why would he find the laser before the maser? Did he also invent the magnetron? No, in Tesla you have only a disreputable showman who stole ideas from Feraris, Wheatstone, etc., and whose idea of ‘scientific publication’ was to tell tall stories to popular-science magazines and newspapers. Everyone had almost forgotten him until the idiots of the internet turned him into the ‘Einstein of Pseudoscience’. Perhaps when you next claim priority for Tesla, you could cite the scientific journal where he staked his claim. We have no problem with the profit motive. In fact, one of us is planning to profit from Tesla by exposing him once and for all. By the way, why could such a ‘genius’ not comprehend that the Moon rotates? Oooh, is that a straw man argument? Some might call it a smoking gun re scientific incompetence.

  16. Cycle Says:

    Radar was your attempt at evading the technologies which Tesla brought forth that fundamentally changed our world, which you’ve thus far *still* failed to refute… fluorescent lamps, lasers, three-phase AC power and induction motors.

    And you thus far *still* evaded addressing those topics. Be getting right on that, won’t you? Or do you deny that society changed forever due to 3-phase AC power and induction motors that are used in any building with ventilation requirements, not to mention in heavier industries.

    Your gambit failed, so you’ve now launched into a long tirade against Tesla in your attempt at damage control. That fails as well. Strawmen arguments never hold up when shone in the light of reality… all such an activity accomplishes is to show how truly delusional and biased the constructor of those straw men are.

    Again you show your outright cowardice in refusing to simply admit that Tesla greatly contributed to the history of science, so much so that he fundamentally changed the way our world works.

    As regards your “Leyden” (properly spelled Leiden, after the city in which is was first invented in 1745) jar experiment in which the remote jars spontaneously self-discharged, while I’m certain you’re just enough of a crackpot to believe it, I notice you’ve not provided any identifying characteristics such as who carried out the experiments, where they were carried out, etc. Be getting right on that, so we can laugh all the more at your buffoonery.

    As regards your “You also missed out Lodge, and the pivotal role of Hertz, in your potted history.” attempt at redirection away from your absolute refusal to acknowledge that Tesla contributed greatly to modern society and to the history of science, are you referring to Oliver Lodge, “Almost the Father of Radio”? The man who gave lectures based upon Hertz’s work, who used the idea of the Length Contraction Hypothesis (the idea of his friend George Francis Fitzgerald, who published it a full 4 years before Lodge did)?

    “idea-thieves” indeed. You show just how fragile your whackadoodle arguments are when you on one hand vilify Tesla for improving radio transmission from spark gap to actual high frequency transmission and deny his major contributions to science and society, while on the other hand you mention Lodge as someone to be held up as an example, when he was using the ideas of others and was later *credited* for the idea by Lorentz, yet never said a word to dispel Lorentz’s misconception of his having first published the Length Contraction Hypothesis.

    As for Hertz, he was working from Maxwell’s proofs, published more than 20 years earlier. By that time, David Edward Hughes had already transmitted using spark gap. Hertz didn’t present his “proof” of transverse free space electromagnetic waves until 1888, a full 8 years after Hughes had already transmitted *and* developed his transmitter and receiver into a rudimentary means of communication. All Hertz did during the time that Hughes was actually building and improving his transmitter was to produce an analysis of Maxwell’s equations while he was at Kiel.

    “I did not address Tesla’s other inventions because they were either stolen or non-existent.”

    3-phase power was “stolen or non-existent”? Induction motors was “stolen or non-existent”? You’re more than stretching the truth, you’re desperately lying to try to sustain your unsustainable point. It’s not working.

    “Take the case of X-rays, which you forgot: as soon as Roentgen announced his discovery, Tesla went straight to the newspapers and claimed that he had already discovered them.”

    Rontgen (the proper spelling of his name) was credited with the discovery of x-rays not because he actually discovered them, but merely because he was the first to write extensively about them. He was not the first to observe their effects. Remember William Crookes, who invented the vacuum tube which *produced* the x-rays? Remember his associate Johann Hittorf?

    Remember Ivan Pulyui, who was working with what later became known as x-rays from as far back as 1877, whereas Rontgen was credited with their “discovery” in 1895?

    And of course, I never said Tesla discovered x-rays, that’s merely more of your evasion and attempting to smear Tesla. Of course, Tesla *did* invent his own vacuum tube to research what later became known as x-rays. And of course, he also took x-ray images of none other than Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), having the Tesla coils to drive his vacuum tube to such high voltages that he could take a full body x-ray at much higher resolutions than anyone else was able to. And your historical revisionism is laughable… Tesla sent his images to Rontgen (who congratulated Tesla on his excellent x-ray photographs), credited Rontgen with the discovery, and congratulated him on it. You loon. LOL

    Doh!… you didn’t know about the Mark Twain x-ray… taken a full month prior to Rontgen being credited with “discovering” x-rays, did you? Kind of hard to deny that, given how famous Mark Twain was and is. You loon. LOL

    “Unfortunately, he went too far and also claimed to have transmuted metals with X-rays.”

    Are you referring to his claim of having transmuted thorium to radium, perhaps? Yeah, that’s not hard to do. And Tesla did it as part of his study of what later became known as x-rays. So your own evidence now speaks against you. You’re not very good at this, are you? LOL

    “As for the laser, where is the proof?”

    You didn’t read the Times article that reported Tesla saying the new invention “will send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 250 miles…”. You probably also didn’t read Tesla’s 1937 paper entitled “New Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-Dispersive Energy Through Natural Media”. Gee… concentrated non-dispersive energy… now that sounds familiar… a coherent beam of concentrated energy. LOL

    “By the way, why could such a ‘genius’ not comprehend that the Moon rotates? ”
    “The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this sychronous rotation.”

    Doh! Seems Tesla’s kicked your kooky ass all over tonight. Best you get some sleep and consider what you’re going to do with the rest of your wasted life, now that you’ve been exposed as a loon. LOL

    Seems your ‘received ignorance’ is showing through. Please try to understand that there are things that you just do not know about and you therefore cannot make intelligent comments. LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Oh, where to begin? You are obviously used to arguing in non-academic milieu where claims are made without having to provide concrete references. So we shall post the irrefutable proof of what we claim when you do the same. It is easy to say that Tesla did this-and-that and cite only secondary sources compiled by other Tesla worshippers. That is, to historians of science, nowhere near adequate. So, this exchange will be over unless your next riposte cites independent primary sources. This will be nigh impossible, because one of us has collected every known document concerning Tesla (including the many sloppy biographies) and they do not exist. But, for the moment, addressing your weak points: the reason for mentioning Radar was that the documentary facts contradict the ‘standard history’ which was written by the winners. We could just as easily have used the jet engine as an example (also an 18th century invention by the way). We can show that Watson-Watt lied about beginning to research Radar only when asked to (in fact he was originally asked to consider a death-ray); he was already trying to catch up with the German inventor, and it is all ‘spelled-out’ in the patent literature. Got it now? Your general approach is called ‘begging the question’. That does not mean, as stupid people think, that one is ‘asking to get called-out’. It is instead an expression from formal logic, and means that one is trying to prove that something is true by assuming that it is already true. So you cannot praise Tesla for ‘giving us the 20th century’ on the basis of his inventions without first proving that they were in fact his inventions. So first prove those ‘facts’ before trying to use them as an overwhelming argument. You will otherwise sound merely like a creationist using ‘god did it’ to stifle skeptical objections. Meanwhile, ‘Leyden’ is the usual spelling, so that was a pathetic gambit. Given the inventor’s name, it is not surprising that they preferred to affix the town’s name. On the subject of names, X-rays were invented by Röntgen, not Rontgen. We could not be bothered to add the umlaut first time around. Now, you obviously do not know this, but when Germans cannot use the umlaut with o, they use ‘oe’ instead: hence Roentgen. You see now how your ignorance comes back to bite you in every way? We know exactly who made the LEYDEN jar discharge observations (he was more famous in another field) and we know exactly where the work was reported. We shall give references when you do the same for Tesla’s supposed priority in invention. Rotary and linear induction motors were patented in 1860. Yes, before there was any source to run them: that is the mark of true inventive genius. We are glad to see that you admit that Tesla lied about inventing X-rays. Do you have access to all of the scientific papers of all of those working on rays at the time? We do, their names are like those of old friends, but Tesla – as usual – pops up from nowhere to try to steal their thunder. Suspicious! As for the transmutation claim. Crookes himself, of course, was fooled by an alchemist and laughed at; so what chance did Tesla have? The transmutations, in both cases, were silver to gold (perhaps one lie inspired the other). We cannot find Röntgen’s congratulatory letter to Tesla in his papers. Is your source perhaps a Tesla source? Ditto the Mark Twain claim? As an obvious layman, you perhaps do not know that discoveries get talked about before the scientific paper gets published. It is very easy to ‘steal a march’ if one is dishonest. We were going to give another example there, but you would call it a straw man. Re the laser: are you really trying to claim that his crackpot ‘death-ray’ lies to journalists are proof that he possessed a laser? That is so pathetic that we wonder why we are trying to treat you as a worthy adversary. It is embarrassing even to respond to that, but you probably do not know that the newspapers of that time were full of similar death-ray claims. This did nothing but expose Tesla as being just one crank among many. We are also wondering now why you are striving to prove not only that a) Tesla was stupid b) you are lacking in physical insight and c) internet-sourced information is misleading. We would call that a ‘hat-trick’ for us. Oh, you still do not get it? Tesla once wrote three(!) articles in succession ‘proving’ that the Moon does not rotate. Not ‘does not appear to rotate’ but really does not rotate. That is truly unmitigated and inexcusable stupidity. Oh, go away and think about it, and come back only when you fully understand the situation. And do not forget, if your next communication does not begin with references to acceptable documentary proof of Tesla’s ‘genius’, it will be rejected. And please feel free to complain about us as being ‘closed-minded physicists’. That will surely boost our Alexa rating.

  17. Cycle Says:

    And now you’ll launch into an even longer tirade… because when you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance or baffle them with your bullshit, bury them with your screed. It’s the way of the kook. And you kooks never learn. LOL
    Remainder of drivelfest deleted.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      We warned you to start off with proper references, whereupon we would have responded in kind. Instead you regurgitated all of the old nonsense straight from Tesla-central, larded with internet-links. In what demented world is an internet link an original source? Well, some of us have real scientific work to get on with, rather than worshiping an ersatz version of science with tinpot heroes. Just watch out for a very critical Tesla biography a few years from now. Meanwhile, learn to distinguish science from pseudoscience: Tesla’s death-ray was a laser? Hilarious on so many levels.

  18. Cycle Says:

    Bwahahaaa! You ran away. Now I’ll make your conversation (which has been duly recorded) make the rounds in the scientific community… so if you happen to see people laughing at you, at least you’ll know why. LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Good. We were hoping for that response. There is no such thing as bad publicity, although it will mean speeding-up the preparation of that anti-Tesla book. Of course, the mistake that you are making is to assume that ‘the scientific community’ will be on your side. ‘Electrical engineers’ might well be … but they are not scientists and still use 19th-century ways of thinking about electricity (which confuses them). Physicists in particular are already rather annoyed (when they think about it) at having to use his name when referring to the eponymous coil and unit. Oh, by the way, do you know the old joke about California and trail-mix?
      PS: Here is an original reference for you – Johnson, G.L. (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University), IEEE Power Engineering Review, 1992 12(1) 20. It describes the efforts of the well-known pseudoscientific conmen, Moray, Bearden and Tesla to produce energy from nowhere. This drivel would never have got into a physics journal, and this reference alone demonstrates that the entire electrical engineering profession must be flaky. Trail-mix again.

  19. Cycle Says:

    Bwahaha! Three replies proving you to be delusional and at odds with scientific reality (NASA patent on Casimir Effect ZPE extraction, shockwave-induced nuclear transmutation, and your outright lies about Tesla), and you snipped all three out. But you and I both know the truth, don’t we? And so does everyone else reading the email updates. LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      This is because you are still not complying with our requirement of original scientific papers. Court decisions and patent applications do not count. Also, you may think that mentioning NASA validates a concept, but it does not. NASA wasted millions of dollars on the non-existent ‘Podkletnov effect’. Physicists said that it was nonsense from the outset. NASA is now wasting money on the Fetta nonsense. Exactly the same concept (Emdrive) was backed by the UK government: it went nowhere (pun intended), and the inventor’s company is now deeply in debt, in spite of generous funding. NASA is also playing around with LENR (aka cold fusion). Try to get your head around the idea that your heroes are scientifically incompetent and have more money than sense. We are still laughing at your belief that Tesla’s non-existent death-ray was a laser. Tesla lied just for the sake of lying; he admitted that himself. Hey, what do you think of his claim that geniuses can read in the dark … using the light shining from their own eyes, LOL. Just face up to the fact that you have hitched your wagon to a dead horse and stop bothering us.

      • Pete Ridley Says:

        I see that NASA has an interest in the unscientific EMdrive concept –

        • crackpotwatch Says:

          NASA, contrary to popular opinion, is just not very good at scientific research. It memorably killed seven people by failing to test the properties of rubber, it launched a defective (Hubble) telescope due to incorrectly performing elementary optical checks and wasted money on trying to reproduce an effect (Podkletnov) which physicists had immediately ridiculed. It failed. HM government has already thrown money at the Emdrive, but the inventor’s company is now deeply in debt. It is the existence of bodies which have ‘more money than sense’ that keeps the lunatic fringe going because a minute investment, for them, is a life-changing amount to an unscrupulous individual. NASA is also currently wasting money on cold-fusion research.

  20. Cycle Says:

    Not even the “original scientific paper” from NASA scientists, which got them a patent showing that they have accomplished “Apparent Endless Extraction of Energy from the Vacuum by Cyclic Manipulation of Casimir Cavity Dimensions”, eh?

    You’re delusional. Your apparent hatred of Tesla has clouded your ability to perceive reality. The fact that you don’t want anyone to know you’re delusional is why you’re now forced to snip out all the evidence of your delusion. And now you’re begging to be left alone with your delusions. LOL

    Say it with me now… “NASA is now doing (and has patented) what Bearden, Moray and (you claim) Tesla were purported to be doing, which is high-level irrefutable proof that is full of reality-denying loons”. LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Oh that old thing; you really are outside the loop aren’t you? Robert Forward was imaginative, but he was not stupid. To him, that sort of paper was just a thought-experiment; not to be taken seriously. He also proposed a ‘feasible’ antigravity machine (American Journal of Physics, 1963, 31, 166) and a Casimir space-drive (Foundations of Physics, 2003, 34, 477). I suppose that you also take those ‘insider jokes’ to be real as well. There has been no fundamental breakthrough in physics for nearly 100 years. Do you really think that a mere engineering company like NASA is going to provide one? Some of its engineers (plus others at Boeing) still discuss the Dean Drive!

  21. Cycle Says:

    “To him, that sort of paper was just a thought-experiment; not to be taken seriously.”
    Blah, blah, blah

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      You are the very model of the archetypal internet-victim, overloaded with data and unable to distinguish between what is real and what is not. For instance, your quaint belief that gravitational waves have been detected. You are too easily impressed by superficial aspects and do not appreciate that scientists (especially physicists) require higher standards of proof than do laymen. The Higgs boson is not a breakthrough, merely confirmation of a relatively old theory. You should be more impressed by the fact that the theory re-introduces a sort of aether and threatens the basis of special relativity. We were rather looking forward to the results of your badmouthing us in ‘the scientific community’, although you are more at home in the pseudoscientific world. Lambertson, what a joke.

  22. Cycle Says:

    It must be especially burdensome on your fragile psyche to have to keep snipping out the fact-based evidence of your delusional state… but it’s great entertainment for the sane folk. LOL

    Clipped again … because you never come up with anything new.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      As an outsider, you are basing all of your conclusions on ‘names’ and ‘reputation’, and not upon reproducible experimental data. That can be very treacherous. Scientists, although it is not generally realized by laymen, are in the same position as actors. That is, they are ‘only as good as their last role’. So it is irrelevant what Lambertson did the rest of the time: if he turns up at a crackpot conference and spouts nonsense about free energy (perpetual motion), and I have a video of him doing just that, then he is a crackpot. And here is a strange thing about ZPE: there are dozens of engineers and amateurs who claim to be exploiting it. However, if one contacts the physicists who specialize in that topic, they say that there is probably no way of extracting it and it might not even resemble conventional energy. After all, energy possesses its own gravitational field so, given the huge energy-density claimed for ZPE, why does a vacuum not have a detectable gravitational field? A scientific misconception is like a virus: the scientific community is immune but, when it infects an unprepared mind like yours, it spreads far and wide.

  23. Cycle Says:

    To the contrary, I’m basing my conclusions upon results… Lambertson *demonstrated* a working unit. There are photos and videos of him doing so. Just as Emmens *demonstrated* his process of shockwave-induced nuclear transmutation by selling to the US Assay Office for *years* the end product of that process. Just as Tesla *demonstrated* his 3-phase AC power, induction motors, radio, fluorescent bulbs and remote control.

    Snipped for reason of usual pro-Tesla rhetoric and playground insults.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      So where is Lambertson’s working perpetual-motion machine now? Where is Emmens’ gold-making process being used? It was believed-in only temporarily by Crookes, who also believed in ghosts and could not explain properly the behavior of his own radiometer! Wheatstone’s patent on rotary and linear(!) induction motors was filed when Tesla was a child (and the basic circuit of ‘his’ coil could already be found in encyclopedias). You really are wasting your time by trying to prop up Tesla by using the lies and delusions of other conmen and incompetents.

  24. Cycle Says:

    More of your selective snipping to sustain the illusion that you know more than the heavy hitters of physics and quantum mechanics… of course, the more you do that, the more the scientific community comes to realize just how intellectually dishonest and delusional you are. LOL

    “So where is Lambertson’s working perpetual-motion machine now?”

    Haven’t you heard? NASA is using a take on Lambertson’s cermet technology as a possible means of deep space propulsion.

    Doh! You forgot about the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center testing of cermet as a means of space propulsion, didn’t you? That makes you look rather foolish.

    The International Academy of Astronautics is also studying something similar, making you look all the more foolish..

    Snipped again for amateur psychology (which more closely described the comment-maker) and for still not getting the point

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      We have been snipping all but the first section in order to permit reply: in what sense is that selective? Your brand of argument may fool other people, but it will not work here. Our comments about Lambertson applied specifically to his ‘free energy’ claims – as well you know – and not to his ceramic research. By referring to ‘deep-space propulsion’, you try to make it sound as if it might be some sort of magical propulsion technique (perpetual-motionists always believe in antigravity as well), rather than a conventional method. One of us did some research on linings for ram-jets and knows – like the rest of us – whereof he speaks. The same person is working on a book concerning the crackpot propulsion concepts which have seeped into the engineering industry. Someone was recently awarded an MSc for work on a concept (and not even an original one) which was contrary to Newton’s third law. One of the supervising professors had worked for NASA. No surprise there; NASA squandered millions on trying to reproduce an effect (Podkletnov) which physicists had immediately deemed an artifact. So you cannot present any so-called evidence of which we have not already heard. Let us spell out, as simply as possible, what is at issue here. Non-physicists have drifted so far away from reality that pseudoscience has become quite normal. One stark pattern of behavior is that, for example, the physicist says, “your machine cannot work, it is contrary to Newton’s third law”. The engineer says, “My machine works, therefore Newton’s third law has been circumvented”. The bottom line is that the engineers’ inventions do not in fact work: they sometimes appear to work, but only because of the engineer’s misunderstanding of certain unfamiliar phenomena (which were unfortunately omitted from his Physics-101 course). Now, your problem is that you are on the wrong side of the divide. Quite apart from your Tesla-worship, which immediately puts you into the crackpot camp, you also take the claims of engineers to be gospel. It really is quite dismaying that companies like NASA and Boeing do not understand physics, but a forthcoming book will prove it. Think of Feynman’s devastating demonstration: who would a reasonable person trust after that. a physicist or an engineer? We think that perhaps you do not have enough crackpot-links, so here is a doorway to a whole lot more,
      Look at all those glorious Tesla-praising sources, not to mention all of the other loonies. By the way, do you think that Tesla really invented a ‘gyroscopic space-drive’, or has that been foisted on him by fans who did not think that his own claims were sufficiently stupid? Please begin your next comment with an answer to that question or the comment will not even be accepted.

  25. Cycle Says:

    You snipped and ran again, kook…. even though I addressed your kooky ‘Tesla gyroscopic space warp drive’ question. Your dishonest debating tactics are now known far and wide in the scientific community… it wouldn’t surprise me if it somehow affected your future, now that it’s known that you’re in denial of reality, dishonest, and attempting to smear past researchers to build yourself up. What member of the scientific community wants to work with someone who’ll later smear their good name? No one.

    As for the Searl Effect… the photos of that huge machine suspended in mid-air isn’t enough for you, taken by an independent photographer? How about the video footage from the BBC? The research by scientists at the Russian Academy of Science, Moscow who successfully replicated it? A paper published in the Journal Foundations of Physics Letters, in August 2001, Volume 14, Issue 4 showing that the principles of general relativity can be used to explain the principles of the MEG? You’re delusional and rejecting everything that doesn’t fit in with your wrote college inculcation. LOL

    “By the way, do you think that Tesla really invented a ‘gyroscopic space-drive’,”

    I never said anything about a “gyroscopic space-drive” from Tesla, you loon. I’ve restricted my arguments to those technologies which he demonstrated, got patents for, and which are now a common part of modern life. But your attempt at diversion is noted. LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      We are condescending to reply to this crackpot so that rational readers of our blog can see what sort of person we are dealing with. He is obviously someone who believes every unsubstantiated bit of ‘scientific’ news which gets posted on the disinformation superhighway and is a sucker who falls for every conman going back, for instance, to the Nazi-era loon, Coler and his perpetual-motion machine. In fact, Mr ‘cycle’ is such a fool that Ron should make him a Fellow. We have let through small samples of his hilarious ranting, as they show him up quite starkly for the fool that he is. Again, Ron should make him a Fellow, because they both believe the lies of the petty criminal and investment fraudster, John Searl. Just for the record, Mr Cycle, Searl’s own son has admitted that the UFO photographs were faked, there is no photographic evidence from the BBC (although they may have mentioned him in the ‘nuts & sluts’ section of news broadcasts) and the Russian ‘work’ has been disowned by the head of the institute where it was supposedly performed. And then, to cap it all, he tries to back it all up by referring to Ron’s own nonsense. Do you see, dear readers, how the lunatics are attempting to take over the asylum? We already know that the ‘great and good’ cannot distinguish pseudoscience from science: that is why Ron has a Civil-List pension and Penderghastly has a Hauksbee Medal. By the way, our reason for asking about the gyroscopic space-drive, which is now routinely tacked onto Tesla’s other non-existent accomplishments, was to test Mr Cycle’s ‘boggle-factor’. Well done, Mr Cycle, there is yet hope for you. But here is some advice for you: ask yourself whether there is really any good evidence for Tesla’s supposed priority in anything. Throughout his showman-life, he cultivated journalists … and they repaid him by distorting public perceptions (as they always do) right up to the present day.

  26. Cycle Says:

    And of course, the European Space Agency verified the Searl Effect from 2000 onward, from more than 250 experiments:

    Doh! Loon didn’t know about the ESA verifying Searl’s work, did he? LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      We are again letting through just one detail of Mr Cycle’s obsessive rant, just to demonstrate the dubious quality of his argumentation (and why the rest of his mindless gutter abuse gets deleted). He claims that the link proves that ESA confirmed the Searl Effect. Just one little detail escapes him: that link has nothing to do with Searl. Although it is not mentioned there, they were actually trying to confirm something called the Podkletnov Effect, which sane physicists (including Nobel prize-winner Professor Sir Andre Geim FRS – since you respect titles and degrees so much Mr Cycle) said was an artefact from the get-go. NASA also wasted millions on it, before agreeing that it did not exist. Note the date on the ESA report, and the ‘if confirmed’ comment. Well that was nearly a decade ago, and it obviously was not confirmed. So Mr Cycle: an obsolete report about the wrong effect. You really are trying to play way way out of your league.

  27. Cycle Says:

    The Podkletnov Effect and the Searl Effect are essentially the same, they both utilize rotating magnetic fields for their effect, the *same* effect, trading gravitational mass for inertial mass through the intermediary magnetic field, in accordance with general relativity. Loon.

    Oh look… *another* guy who’s built a working replica, this time utilizing ferromagnetic fluid:

    Just how long are you going to deny reality, Loon?

    Get to refuting, Loon:

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      As usual, we have let through just a small part of a long and demented rant by a deeply-disturbed individual. The Podkletnov and Searl ‘effects’ are the same only to the extent that they are both non-existent. The Podkletnov result was an experimental artifact that was misinterpreted by an incompetent experimenter (his ‘day-job’ was the formulation of enamel paints). NASA was unable to reproduce the ‘effect’, even after spending millions on it. The Searl machine, which nobody but Searl ever saw, was just a lie for extracting money from gullible investors. Do you not know that the main feature of the SEG is that it is supposed to be a perpetual-motion machine? Levitation and cancer-curing are just routine add-ons in the lunatic fringe. As for those rubbish links: you think that such papers (which cannot get into reputable journals) support Searl, etc. The view taken by rational human beings is that any mention of Searl, in particular, entirely undermines the credibility of a writer. Check out our posts on ‘The Searl Index’. We often wondered what sort of person lapped-up pseudoscience without once engaging their brain. Thank you for letting us know.

  28. Cycle Says:


    NASA validates ‘impossible’ Space Drive
    “As reported, this happened last year when a Chinese team built its own EmDrive and confirmed that it produced 720 mN (about 72 grams) of thrust, enough for a practical satellite thruster.”
    “This paper describes the eight-day August 2013 test campaign designed to investigate and demonstrate viability of using classical magnetoplasmadynamics to obtain a propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.”

    From my quote above:
    “they both utilize rotating magnetic fields for their effect, the *same* effect, trading gravitational mass for inertial mass through the intermediary magnetic field, in accordance with general relativity. Loon.”

    “Approximately 30-50 micro-Newtons of thrust were recorded from an electric propulsion test article consisting primarily of a radio frequency (RF) resonant cavity excited at approximately 935 megahertz.”

    Tested by NASA, verified by a third party.

    Seems even NASA thinks you’re a loon, Loon. LOL

    And and even larger portion of the scientific community laughs uproariously at your bumbling ineptitude.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      As we have pointed out before, the mistake that you are making is to believe that NASA is some sort of arbiter of scientific fact. It is not. The entire history of American space research has been comical, to say the least. For instance, Goddard once thought that gyroscopes could truly levitate, before wising-up, Fritz Zwicky originally did not believe that rockets would work in space, and Jack Parsons spent most of his time on devil-worship before blowing himself up. NASA’s record is not good: it killed 7 people because it did not understand the properties of rubber, it launched an ineffective Hubble telescope because it failed to carry out schoolboy-level optical checks and it lost a Mars probe because one team was working in feet and another was working in metres. We recently mentioned a forthcoming book: that book begins by pointing out that a masters degree was recently earned for designing a completely fatuous ‘space-drive’. The thesis was overseen and approved by an engineering professor who had worked on NASA projects. The ridiculous ‘Cannae’ device is indeed as stupid as the Emdrive. In fact, the patents of Fetta and Shawyer – the idiots behind those inventions – refer to each other. Shawyer’s company is now deeply in debt, in spite of backing from the UK government, and the same thing will happen to Fetta. One would think that NASA would have learned its lesson after the Podkletnov fiasco. So, to sum up, rather than thinking that all of your dubious references somehow prove your point, you should instead be worrying that America is losing its way in the world, science-wise. The one good sign is that Chinese engineers seem to be just as incompetent.

  29. Cycle Says:

    Here, a grade-school explanation of just how groundbreaking the Podkletnov discovery was…

    It led to a new interpretation of the Fine Structure Constant and discovered the velocity of the Transitional Quantum State, which led to a comprehensive explanation of why the frequency of emitted photons doesn’t match that of any atomic state, reveals information about physical systems which are fundamental to Planck’s constant, as well as allowing the calculation of the radii of all atomic elements and their corresponding intensities of spectral emissions, as well as allowing prediction of emitted photon energy, facilitates the unraveling of the Compton Wave without abstract mathematical treatment, and solves the problem of meshing Relativity with Quantum Mechanics without the hoop-jumping that you supposed brainiacs are forced to endure.

    Now just how did an electrical engineer (Frank Znidarsic, who worked with Podkletnov) manage to out-think all you supposed “experts” and come up with all that from what you goobers claim was a failed experiment (that wasn’t failed at all, given how many successful replications I’ve provided references to, which you’ve attempted to whitewash, censor or dismiss)? LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Are you serious: one crackpot supports another crackpot. Jeez, who would have guessed. The loony-tunes never get it, do they? Scientific investigation requires the adherence to strict procedural rules in order to avoid coming to silly conclusions. When the loonies learn those rules perhaps they will be allowed to play with the ‘brainiacs’. Until then, they are just annoying background noise. They certainly entertain the simple-minded, as your communications attest.

  30. Cycle Says:

    “The ridiculous ‘Cannae’ device is indeed as stupid as the Emdrive.”

    Except the EmDrive has been proven to work, and verified by a third party test. Seems you’re yet again denying any reality that wasn’t pounded into your thick skull via your wrote college inculcation. Loon. LOL

    “Are you serious: one crackpot supports another crackpot. Jeez, who would have guessed.”

    I understand, you found that simple high-school math too much for you to grok, so you dismiss it out of hand rather than exploring whether it has any merit by actually applying it and its mathematics to real-world problems. So as you sit there picking lint out of your belly button and picking your nose as you play at being an “expert” in the field, there are those out in the real world who are figuring these things out… and you’re just angry that you can’t for the life of you grasp any of it. Loon. LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      It has not been proved to work: all of the experimenters are incompetent and fail to realize that subtle vibrational effects can easily produce spurious ‘forces’ in the micro-Newton range. The only proof that we physicists would accept would be a permanent off-set of a ballistic pendulum. None of the crackpot inventors, from Dean to Kidd, have ever used that method. They always use some sort of glorified weighing machine. It is easy to get any reading that one wants from such devices … if one knows how. As for the theoretical ‘basis’, have you even looked at the patents? The inventors have fallen for a concealed version of the hydrostatic paradox. Shawyer’s calculations were confirmed by a Dr Paris. Do you think that it is significant that he was given a 1% share in the company? He claims that it was not a bribe, because he did not get the share until after he had published the calculations. Jeez, that makes all the difference. Wake up, this is the real world: incompetence and chicanery on the part of engineers with dollar-signs in their eyes!

  31. Kristian Factora Says:

    I watch the Primer Field New Theory and the person must be respected for the Scientific Method and not to ce considered immediately as a crackpot..because his experiments can be useful in further research and made some significant insightful ideas rather than sticking to the old views with so many questionable question, I support this guy and it’s okay if you critisize him being a crackpot because he is more useful in human advancement rather than those people who just mind other things and and considered the truth with a close minded perception

  32. Cycle Says:

    “It has not been proved to work”
    Except by NASA and the Chinese. And all those working examples I provided, which you cowardly snipped out and dismissed because to do otherwise would prove you’re delusional and denying reality. LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      We have told you before: do not bother us unless you have new evidence. Five-year old unconfirmed results and dubious theories do not count. None of the known laws of physics have been repealed. We shall tell you so if they are.

  33. David John Barnett Says:

    I find it sad that non-scientists don’t understand the process of science. The quacks and those who think they see farther because they stand on the shoulders of giants don’t know what they don’t know. Journals are the “gatekeepers” of knowledge and even they can fail to conduct peer reviews. Peer reviews are rarely as anonymous as people think, but they are the best method we have to find out where an article fits in the state of the art in the journal’s field. Crackpotwatch is essential and honest as it tries to show people how their thinking is warped by also honest but misleading logic.
    Maybe people should read Feynman’s QED A Strange Theory of Light and Matter. They will get an idea of what a graduate student must go through in mathematics in order to begin working in that science. Like Crackpotwatch might say, otherwise you can’t even begin to understand physics because your mental tools are not up to the task, and they don’t mean that as an insult.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      And the situation is worse than you might think. It is indeed true that pure physics departments and courses are rapidly disappearing, to be replaced by inadequate (but more profitable) vocational subjects such as ‘sports science’. This is the inevitable consequence of dumbing-down university entry requirements and introducing student loans: few graduates will shine as academics (who are poorly paid anyway) so they try to attract the attention of ‘silly money’ from football, the ‘entertainment industry’, etc., in order to have a better chance of getting out of debt. The US has always had that system, which probably explains why there are engineers at NASA, Boeing and Lockheed right now who clearly do not understand even Newton’s laws, let alone quantum chromodynamics. What the West needs is a shock from a foreign power: when Russia was the first nation to launch a satellite, the US went into a panic and physics enrollment shot up. So come on, North Korea, put a man on Mars pronto.

  34. Spence Says:

    Hey, my problem with the whole deal is the lack of experimental documentation so I can run the thing in my lab. Is he selling the thing? Is it cheap? If so, we could buy one… no. no. I visited his site, has some prophet speaking for him (just heard from David…) Hey, maybe I’ll build one (simple design really) and use it for my thesis?
    BTW I’m a philosopher, a physicist, and open minded, but I hate liars and can spot scam easy… NO DOCUMENTATION!!!

    Would still like to repeat the footage though, if nothing else than to impress a girl 🙂

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Why not simply check out his patents? You would not be breaking any laws if you made it just for personal use. You will probably be particularly impressed by the health-giving claims which the patent makes – keep your strength up … 😉

  35. EH Williams Says:

    FYI – David LaPoint went to HS in Albuquerque, NM and did not attend college. He is not a physicist. It’s amazing how many people latch on to pseudoscientific theories they see on the web especially if there are pretty pictures attached. These followers seem to have no apparent understanding of basic scientific methodology or the importance of it, but I have discovered it is futile to attempt to reason with them. Once they decide they like an idea or a personality, they stick with it/them. A rational argument does not influence irrational people. So I don’t bother wasting my time trying to reason with them. End of my input on this subject. I will not reply further.

  36. Sound Maze (@soundmazedj) Says:

    Ken Wheeler solved magnetism once and for all. I posted here earlier but for some reason the comment wasn’t approved.

    Let’s try this again


    • crackpotwatch Says:

      And that link is not going to be posted this time either. We do not spread pseudoscientific nonsense. We want to deprive crackpots of the ‘oxygen of publicity’, even if the remainder of the internet fails to do that. In fact, we are with Caligula on that matter and, if they ‘all had but one neck’, we would happily throttle them. Cranks have nothing to teach science about electromagnetism and, indeed, any physicist will stop reading Wheeler-style books as soon as he sees any mention of ‘over-unity’, Tesla, Reich or the other notorious loony-tunes. We are sorry that you that cannot understand how the world really works, or appreciate how careful experimentation has given us that knowledge. But hey, most of the population cannot understand science, so go and try to guide them into a new Dark Age.

  37. Sound Maze (@soundmazedj) Says:

    You didn’t say anything in your response. Sheer rhetoric. No critical thinking. If I had a nickel for the dumb things physicists say. Kill yourself. Die in a fire. LOL

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      We do not deign to exchange points of view with those who ‘have not paid their scientific dues’; life is too short for that. You have already demonstrated the level of your scientific argumentation, so we have clearly not missed anything substantive. You are no longer in Kansas, that is for sure.

  38. Sound Maze (@soundmazedj) Says:

    Actually I am in Kansas. We should grab lunch and chat. Follow me on twitter or something.

  39. Sound Maze (@soundmazedj) Says:

    Cute. You could also follow me on Soundcloud /jason4edm Also, why don’t you entertain us and describe what a “field” is.. you can think about how to respond while listening to music that only someone of my intellect would appreciate.

  40. Sound Maze (@soundmazedj) Says:

    Big new discovery “confuses” science and what they THOUGHT they knew about “superconductivity” but 100% VALIDATES all Ken Wheeler said on Magnetism

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Amateurs always imagine that theory is more important than experiment, because that is all that they can manage. One should also not confuse the ‘man bites dog’ rhetoric of ‘science journalists’ with what is really happening in a given field. There exists in fact a much more surprising superconductor: one which can operate in certain Earth environments without requiring artificial cooling. It is a substance that has been known since antiquity. It is a simple molecule containing only 2 atoms. Why not have Wheeler use his theory to work out what it is. If a theory does not have predictive value, what use is it?

  41. Harry Hab Says:

    Arggh, science journo’s: “Scientists have —bippidibappidity boob— then previously thought. The —shoowap shoowah— may one day lead to a cure of cancer.”

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      “Tonight’s discussion: Is the Earth Flat? We welcome a studio full of flat-Earthers and, for balance, a spokesman from the local university (blinking in the bright lights and totally unprepared to explicate their well-honed paradoxes)”

  42. Dr Hpar Says:

    crackpotwatch did you ever once think they are lying to the public in lamestream which has been proven over and over again? they dont want the public to know the truth because they are evil control freaks. lamestream includes institutional brainwashing “higher education”. a great example is the current maxwell equations. they even lied about albert einstein who stole all of his ideas from his first wife.

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Well, you sound very ‘internet-educated’; all of the usual drivel at your finger-tips. Real science is self-consistent and models reality very well. Unfortunately, it is also often very counter-intuitive and that upsets the simple-minded. You refer to Maxwell equations; there is only one equation if one uses Clifford algebra and the displacement current – which seems to upset many people – is then not an issue. Re Einstein: we suppose that you are referring to the fact that he added her surname to his own on some papers. He thought that he was legally obliged to do so. Any foreigner who works in Switzerland is surprised to find his wife’s surname (if he is married) hyphenated to his own by the government. Einstein did not want to upset the Swiss, and so used the hyphenated form on papers. There was no need to.

  43. john Says:

    Terrella Experiments this is what David LaPoint recreated nothing more or less.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: