dr. Best Ultimate Single Chip Two Antennas LRL

[mosha]

patent

Of course, also Edison uses original ideas of Tesla and 1,000 other examples.

From the first moment it is "calculated well" in order that the merits take others.

On mineoro site they explaine the physic prinsibal that these mineoro devices work by, and Alonso make his devices based on this theory, why he dont patent it with any US patent agency and take the merits?

rgards,

Mosha.

[Max]

the snake oil sell continues here...

That's your daily dose !

[Esteban]

Esteban,
There is plenty of inventors that where made famous by their discoveries-and they were not Doctors...
But yes , you need a scientifical explanation for your discovery.I guess this is why you´re here, but you have dificulties in dosing what you want to give for what you want to know
Regards,
Fred.

Of course, also Edison uses original ideas of Tesla and 1,000 other examples.

From the first moment it is "calculated well" in order that the merits take others.

[Fred]

Simple, when such experiments was made by hobbyist, his name and experiments are buried... Only a doctor in Physics emerges! Alonso told a friend this: "If I ventilate the secret, other will to obtain the merit". And he know this, because you must to be doctor or master, and convert it in formulas (but I think we can't, at first sight, due conditions as mineralization and excess of wet in air, wet in air dispersse much the phenomenon, except when very light rain, because micro-drops acts as a "bridge" –this I have observed!!!–).

Esteban,
There is plenty of inventors that where made famous by their discoveries-and they were not Doctors...
But yes , you need a scientifical explanation for your discovery.I guess this is why you´re here, but you have dificulties in dosing what you want to give for what you want to know
Regards,
Fred.

[Esteban]

Spot on the mark!

I'm not very triumphalist like you!

[Esteban]

Hi Esteban,
The early experimenters were not condemned. They did not hide their experiments in secret bunkers, they published them in hobby magazines. Other experimenters continued to modify these designs, and eventually they were improved to the point of being used as a standard technology. This happened to the experiments that you posted from old magazines. We can see this because of modern metal detectors were first experimented with before 1900, and went through many design changes before reaching the sophistication we see today. Not even Alonso could make improvements if he did not see these published articles for his beginning point.

But what would have happened if those same experimenters never published their work? Suppose they hid their secrets so nobody would steal their idea? Then their idea would die when they died. There would be no improvements from others with diverse ideas and new methods to add to the original experiments and make the evolutionary improvements.

I see the "secret technology" "free energy" websites insisting energy from a vacuum is there for free, This is all very secret, and no usable demonstrations are available. Also no free energy is available for use to power cities as a standard technology. I see posts in Geotech about a secret anti-corrosion substance produced by gold DNA, but the person who posted refuses to say where this technology was discovered, or what science supports it. We can see none of this secret gold DNA produced substance is available to protect other metals as a standard technology either. It seems to me that most secret technology which is never explained or demonstrated to be factual or put into practical use is doomed to oblivion.

But maybe I'm wrong about that. You think so? Ok, then show me some examples. I would like to see.

Best wishes,
J_P

Simple, when such experiments was made by hobbyist, his name and experiments are buried... Only a doctor in Physics emerges! Alonso told a friend this: "If I ventilate the secret, other will to obtain the merit". And he know this, because you must to be doctor or master, and convert it in formulas (but I think we can't, at first sight, due conditions as mineralization and excess of wet in air, wet in air dispersse much the phenomenon, except when very light rain, because micro-drops acts as a "bridge" –this I have observed!!!–).

[Theseus]

Hi Esteban,
The early experimenters were not condemned. They did not hide their experiments in secret bunkers, they published them in hobby magazines. Other experimenters continued to modify these designs, and eventually they were improved to the point of being used as a standard technology. This happened to the experiments that you posted from old magazines. We can see this because of modern metal detectors were first experimented with before 1900, and went through many design changes before reaching the sophistication we see today. Not even Alonso could make improvements if he did not see these published articles for his beginning point.

But what would have happened if those same experimenters never published their work? Suppose they hid their secrets so nobody would steal their idea? Then their idea would die when they died. There would be no improvements from others with diverse ideas and new methods to add to the original experiments and make the evolutionary improvements.

I see the "secret technology" "free energy" websites insisting energy from a vacuum is there for free, This is all very secret, and no usable demonstrations are available. Also no free energy is available for use to power cities as a standard technology. I see posts in Geotech about a secret anti-corrosion substance produced by gold DNA, but the person who posted refuses to say where this technology was discovered, or what science supports it. We can see none of this secret gold DNA produced substance is available to protect other metals as a standard technology either. It seems to me that most secret technology which is never explained or demonstrated to be factual or put into practical use is doomed to oblivion.

But maybe I'm wrong about that. You think so? Ok, then show me some examples. I would like to see.

Best wishes,
J_P

Spot on the mark!

[J_Player]

Of course, I think that to experiment is the first step. And, of course, the experimenters just can describes that what happens since his "poor perspective", no relevant for the "scientific community". From the first moment they are condemned by the "wise"...

Regards

Hi Esteban,
The early experimenters were not condemned. They did not hide their experiments in secret bunkers, they published them in hobby magazines. Other experimenters continued to modify these designs, and eventually they were improved to the point of being used as a standard technology. This happened to the experiments that you posted from old magazines. We can see this because of modern metal detectors were first experimented with before 1900, and went through many design changes before reaching the sophistication we see today. Not even Alonso could make improvements if he did not see these published articles for his beginning point.

But what would have happened if those same experimenters never published their work? Suppose they hid their secrets so nobody would steal their idea? Then their idea would die when they died. There would be no improvements from others with diverse ideas and new methods to add to the original experiments and make the evolutionary improvements.

I see the "secret technology" "free energy" websites insisting energy from a vacuum is there for free, This is all very secret, and no usable demonstrations are available. Also no free energy is available for use to power cities as a standard technology. I see posts in Geotech about a secret anti-corrosion substance produced by gold DNA, but the person who posted refuses to say where this technology was discovered, or what science supports it. We can see none of this secret gold DNA produced substance is available to protect other metals as a standard technology either. It seems to me that most secret technology which is never explained or demonstrated to be factual or put into practical use is doomed to oblivion.

But maybe I'm wrong about that. You think so? Ok, then show me some examples. I would like to see.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Esteban]

Hi Esteban,
The articles you read from old magazines were written to describe projects built by experimenters. These projects were not standard technology at the time, only some experiments that a few people made. This is the same as the kind of experiments that Alonso and you made. Not standard technology... only experimental stuff. The difference is you do not show your experiments and schematics in magazines like other experimenters did. Maybe this is the reason many readers don.t believe.

It always helps when writing in your native language, but you seem to be less handicapped than others whose multi-language skills are not as well developed. We see the modern words you posted like "according to science" or "backed up by science" posted in this forum by the esteemed Dr. hung in many of his posts. And you are also correct when using the modern word "bombastic". This word often comes to mind while reading Dr. hung's posts that are not factual, and contain extraordinary claims that he is not prepared to answer challenges to.

I suppose if extraordinary claims that are said to be "backed up by science" could be actually shown to be factual, {such as showing the reference to the science proof and scientists that are backing it up), then extraordinary claims would not seem so much like bombastic BS.

best wishes,
J_P

Of course, I think that to experiment is the first step. And, of course, the experimenters just can describes that what happens since his "poor perspective", no relevant for the "scientific community". From the first moment they are condemned by the "wise"...

Regards

[Esteban]

Perhaps in some "fringe" areas the scientific community tends to shy away from or ignore certain early discoveries and concepts. However, I believe that is simply a natural process of elimination that takes place as one concept (or theory) is replaced by a better or more efficient one.

One thing I think we can be very certain of, and is a testament to the technology we have in this world today.... That is, if a theory or scientific discovery has real merit; it will not be ignored, rather it will be recognized, developed and utilized to the fullest. We aren't where we are today, by ignoring viable concepts and real technology.

Those concepts and theories which die out and are not heard about again, do so for good reason; generally because they were based on faulty reasoning and wrong assumptions. Others were just plain "pie in the sky" in the first place, and had no chance of being accepted.

Most of the time because most of these persons aren't doctors or recognized autorithies in the matter...

[Max]

Hi Esteban,
The articles you read from old magazines were written to describe projects built by experimenters. These projects were not standard technology at the time, only some experiments that a few people made. This is the same as the kind of experiments that Alonso and you made. Not standard technology... only experimental stuff. The difference is you do not show your experiments and schematics in magazines like other experimenters did. Maybe this is the reason many readers don.t believe.

It always helps when writing in your native language, but you seem to be less handicapped than others whose multi-language skills are not as well developed. We see the modern words you posted like "according to science" or "backed up by science" posted in this forum by the esteemed Dr. hung in many of his posts. And you are also correct when using the modern word "bombastic". This word often comes to mind while reading Dr. hung's posts that are not factual, and contain extraordinary claims that he is not prepared to answer challenges to.

I suppose if extraordinary claims that are said to be "backed up by science" could be actually shown to be factual, {such as showing the reference to the science proof and scientists that are backing it up), then extraordinary claims would not seem so much like bombastic BS.

best wishes,
J_P

The silly stuff is that's not PI !

But he still think so...

what to say... let him think what he want...

Kind regards,
Max

[J_Player]

The same circuit with tubes doesn't was used, only the principle. If you see the MD of 1921, seems a pulse induction via electromechanical vibrator, pulse induction born many years later, but seems ideas was "rediscovered" used modern words, more "bombastic", according to "science" words, for to give credibility... Seems that toward this work of the afficionated (like the MD of 1921) attention don't be payed for the "scientific cimmunity", but the principle is similar to PI.

Hope you can understand what I trying to said... maybe my English doesn't help me...

Hi Esteban,
The articles you read from old magazines were written to describe projects built by experimenters. These projects were not standard technology at the time, only some experiments that a few people made. This is the same as the kind of experiments that Alonso and you made. Not standard technology... only experimental stuff. The difference is you do not show your experiments and schematics in magazines like other experimenters did. Maybe this is the reason many readers don.t believe.

It always helps when writing in your native language, but you seem to be less handicapped than others whose multi-language skills are not as well developed. We see the modern words you posted like "according to science" or "backed up by science" posted in this forum by the esteemed Dr. hung in many of his posts. And you are also correct when using the modern word "bombastic". This word often comes to mind while reading Dr. hung's posts that are not factual, and contain extraordinary claims that he is not prepared to answer challenges to.

I suppose if extraordinary claims that are said to be "backed up by science" could be actually shown to be factual, {such as showing the reference to the science proof and scientists that are backing it up), then extraordinary claims would not seem so much like bombastic BS.

best wishes,
J_P

[Max]

Perhaps in some "fringe" areas the scientific community tends to shy away from or ignore certain early discoveries and concepts. However, I believe that is simply a natural process of elimination that takes place as one concept (or theory) is replaced by a better or more efficient one.

One thing I think we can be very certain of, and is a testament to the technology we have in this world today.... That is, if a theory or scientific discovery has real merit; it will not be ignored, rather it will be recognized, developed and utilized to the fullest. We aren't where we are today, by ignoring viable concepts and real technology.

Those concepts and theories which die out and are not heard about again, do so for good reason; generally because they were based on faulty reasoning and wrong assumptions. Others were just plain "pie in the sky" in the first place, and had no chance of being accepted.

Don't be fooled by that old magazine cover...

I know what's inside the famous double coil MD... and it's not PI as he claims.

But he probably is just making a mistake... he think it's related to PI and it isn't... I told him already... now I'm on his ignore list and so he can't see my posts... god for me , god for him...

It's an IB electric metal detector: no electronics inside it , just electric stuff... and electromechanical... the vibrator he wrote is not some oscillating Palo Alto, but an electromechanical device easy to find in 20's cause used in early cars... and similar things.

Kind regards,
Max

[Theseus]

The same circuit with tubes doesn't was used, only the principle. If you see the MD of 1921, seems a pulse induction via electromechanical vibrator, pulse induction born many years later, but seems ideas was "rediscovered" used modern words, more "bombastic", according to "science" words, for to give credibility... Seems that toward this work of the afficionated (like the MD of 1921) attention don't be payed for the "scientific cimmunity", but the principle is similar to PI.

Hope you can understand what I trying to said... maybe my English doesn't help me...

Perhaps in some "fringe" areas the scientific community tends to shy away from or ignore certain early discoveries and concepts. However, I believe that is simply a natural process of elimination that takes place as one concept (or theory) is replaced by a better or more efficient one.

One thing I think we can be very certain of, and is a testament to the technology we have in this world today.... That is, if a theory or scientific discovery has real merit; it will not be ignored, rather it will be recognized, developed and utilized to the fullest. We aren't where we are today, by ignoring viable concepts and real technology.

Those concepts and theories which die out and are not heard about again, do so for good reason; generally because they were based on faulty reasoning and wrong assumptions. Others were just plain "pie in the sky" in the first place, and had no chance of being accepted.

[Esteban]

Yes, in my previous research concerning these published circuits, I have come across similar schematics. My experience has been that just because schematics like this were published, does not by default make them a lucrative method to use; especially today.

Common sense tells me that if these circuits were around in 1926, and IF they were actually that useful in doing what is claimed, than certainly the theory of operation along with the technology would not have died, but would have been advanced along with all the other electronic and technical devices that evolved in a similar nature. By that I mean we would see these advanced devices in use today. (Actually, the modern-day MDs evolved, probably from something similar to what you posted.)

For instance, say an article was published in the 1900s showing how to talk over a length of two wires utilizing a carbon microphone and a headset consisting of a magnetic transducer. Further assume this device was called the Electromagnetic Telephone. Now over 100 years later, the device must have had some actual merit, because the world literally revolves around the telephone for instant communication. Plus, technology has advanced so that I can carry a telephone in my shirt pocket.

Now let's say someone else published an article in the 1900s extolling the virtues of exposing the human body to certain frequencies and claiming that each malady of the human body would respond to a particular frequency and would be eradicated by the exposure from his frequency device. Let's call this fellow Dr. Fife. Today, over 100 years later, the idea, the device and indeed all traces of the procedure are gone. The idea was bogus; without merit or provable results. In fact, people attempting to treat other people with such devices have been sued and removed from business.

I hope you can understand the analogy I am trying to convey here... and why I am doing it.

The same circuit with tubes doesn't was used, only the principle. If you see the MD of 1921, seems a pulse induction via electromechanical vibrator, pulse induction born many years later, but seems ideas was "rediscovered" used modern words, more "bombastic", according to "science" words, for to give credibility... Seems that toward this work of the afficionated (like the MD of 1921) attention don't be payed for the "scientific cimmunity", but the principle is similar to PI.

Hope you can understand what I trying to said... maybe my English doesn't help me...