http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

http://tinyurl.com/2hwxqh

I always imagined he would be a dailymail man. Is that a pair of combis in
the background I see?

Darren

On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

http://tinyurl.com/2hwxqh

It's overpriced by a factor of 10.




--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
Electrical for Visio http://www.electrical.sandrila.co.uk/

On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

http://tinyurl.com/2hwxqh

I always imagined he would be a dailymail man. Is that a pair of combis in
the background I see?

Darren

"Ecowatts says the device will cost between £1,500 and £2,000, in line
with the price of traditional systems."

LOL So that's a 20 year payback. Nothing new there then. )

On 2007-09-17 21:48:50 +0100, EricP said:

On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

http://tinyurl.com/2hwxqh

I

always imagined he would be a dailymail man. Is that a pair of combis in
the background I see?

Darren

"Ecowatts says the device will cost between £1,500 and £2,000, in line
with the price of traditional systems."

LOL So that's a 20 year payback. Nothing new there then. )



It does seem to have more than a passing similarity to electromagnetic
water conditioners......

On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

Seems to be about 5 years too late as a story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/ncell18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/18/ixhome.html

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-09-17 21:48:50 +0100, EricP said:

On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

http://tinyurl.com/2hwxqh

I

always imagined he would be a dailymail man. Is that a pair of
combis in the background I see?

Darren

"Ecowatts says the device will cost between £1,500 and £2,000, in
line with the price of traditional systems."

LOL So that's a 20 year payback. Nothing new there then. )



It does seem to have more than a passing similarity to electromagnetic
water conditioners......

And magnetic fuel consumption improvers...........

Snak oil is alive & well it seems.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

Seems to be about 5 years too late as a story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/ncell18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/18/ixhome.html

No. It is now out of the lab and now ready for production. At £1,500 to
£2,000 initially, it is the price of a quality gas boiler. And will cost
half of what? Of what electricity cost to heat the house? If half of what
gas is then this is a breakthrough. Then if a gas powered Stirling unit is
used to generate the electricity, then maybe even cheaper to run, like 1/8
to 1/4 of current gas costs.

On 2007-09-17 23:02:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

Seems

to be about 5 years too late as a story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/ncell18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/18/ixhome.html

No.

It is now out of the lab and now ready for production. At £1,500 to
£2,000 initially, it is the price of a quality gas boiler. And will
cost half of what? Of what electricity cost to heat the house? If half
of what gas is then this is a breakthrough. Then if a gas powered
Stirling unit is used to generate the electricity, then maybe even
cheaper to run, like 1/8 to 1/4 of current gas costs.

There's one born every minute.


Let's see if there's a money back guarantee.....

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-17 23:02:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

Seems

to be about 5 years too late as a story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/ncell18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/18/ixhome.html

No.

It is now out of the lab and now ready for production. At £1,500 to
£2,000 initially, it is the price of a quality gas boiler. And will cost
half of what? Of what electricity cost to heat the house? If half of
what gas is then this is a breakthrough. Then if a gas powered Stirling
unit is used to generate the electricity, then maybe even cheaper to run,
like 1/8 to 1/4 of current gas costs.

There's one born every minute.

They claim 200% out. So a 3kW heater will give 9kW out. About the same as
gas to run.

Let's see if there's a money back guarantee.....

Or part and service backup with friendly staff and music while you wait on
the phone.

It was on breakfast TV an the man held it up. Richard & Judy next!

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:02:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

No. It is now out of the lab and now ready for production.

It's the most arrant ********, the Daily Mule believes in it and _you_
believe in it.

What more convincing argument do you want?

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:02:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

No. It is now out of the lab and now ready for production.

It's the most arrant ********, the Daily Mule believes in it and _you_
believe in it.

It seems a few unis do as well. It will still be cheaper to heat via gas
with current prices, even if they cut 2/3 of heating by lecky. But is is
small and maintenance free.

Snak oil is alive & well it seems.

Yup.

Quoting from the Telegraph article of 18th May 2003:
....
According to Prof Smith, if there is a flaw in the company's claims,
it lies in the measurement of the amount of electrical energy pumped
into the cell. It is possible that, as sparks pass between the
electrodes, there is an energy surge which would not be picked up by
the instruments measuring the electrical input.

Prof Smith said: "This needs to be very carefully checked, as there
could be far more energy going in than the makers think."
....
"According to the Gardner Watts team, it will take about six months to
carry out tests putting the reality of the effect beyond all doubt."

-------------------

So after 4.5 years they still haven't got independent conclusive proof
energy out exceeds energy in.

More likely they keep chewing through "partners" as each gets
suspicious of being required to test only in one prescribed manner -
and new and more gullible partners are sought out.

And yes, those can be found in universities - just encourage an expert
to work outside their exact field of expertise - and they can be
hoodwinked too.

It seems a few unis do as well.

Universities don't "believe" in anything. A few individuals working
for a university have expressed interest - none have said they have
conclusive proof.

It's noticeable comparing the older Telegraph report and the recent
Daily Mail report that all the partners are different.

"Proof" - particularly in terms of university research are
independently verifiable and repeatable results published in a
respected peer-reviewed journal.

Years roll by and this doesn't happen.

As MH says - snake oil.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-17 23:02:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

Seems

to be about 5 years too late as a story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/ncell18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/18/ixhome.html

No.

It is now out of the lab and now ready for production. At £1,500 to
£2,000 initially, it is the price of a quality gas boiler. And will
cost half of what? Of what electricity cost to heat the house? If half
of what gas is then this is a breakthrough. Then if a gas powered
Stirling unit is used to generate the electricity, then maybe even
cheaper to run, like 1/8 to 1/4 of current gas costs.

There's one born every minute.

They claim 200% out. So a 3kW heater will give 9kW out. About the same
as gas to run.

Let's see if there's a money back guarantee.....

Or part and service backup with friendly staff and music while you wait on
the phone.

It was on breakfast TV an the man held it up. Richard & Judy next!


If you get 200% more energy out than you put in, then all you have to do is
connect the output to the input and all your energy is free. Can I have my
£20,000 cheque now please? (Of course you will never see this post because
of a conspiracy by the oil companies, George Bush and the Dalai Lama, who
are keeping the technology secret as aprt of a grand plan to sell beach huts
in Greenland).

Andy

wrote in message
ps.com...

It seems a few unis do as well.

Universities don't "believe" in anything. A few individuals working
for a university have expressed interest - none have said they have
conclusive proof.

It's noticeable comparing the older Telegraph report and the recent
Daily Mail report that all the partners are different.

"Proof" - particularly in terms of university research are
independently verifiable and repeatable results published in a
respected peer-reviewed journal.

Years roll by and this doesn't happen.

As MH says - snake oil.

On the face of it it does appear to be about the simplest thing to test you
could imagine. You really only have to measure two things, the amount of
electricity going in and the temperature increase in X litres of water in
the device. Multiply that by the specific heat of water and see if you have
more joules coming out than going in. A morning's work for any semi
competent physicist.
--
Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines

On the face of it it does appear to be about the simplest thing to test you
could imagine. You really only have to measure two things, the amount of
electricity going in and the temperature increase in X litres of water in
the device. Multiply that by the specific heat of water and see if you have
more joules coming out than going in. A morning's work for any semi
competent physicist.

To re-quote my earlier post:

"According to Prof Smith, if there is a flaw in the company's claims,
it lies in the measurement of the amount of electrical energy pumped
into the cell. It is possible that, as sparks pass between the
electrodes, there is an energy surge which would not be picked up by
the instruments measuring the electrical input."

wrote in message
ups.com...

On the face of it it does appear to be about the simplest thing to test
you
could imagine. You really only have to measure two things, the amount of
electricity going in and the temperature increase in X litres of water in
the device. Multiply that by the specific heat of water and see if you
have
more joules coming out than going in. A morning's work for any semi
competent physicist.

To re-quote my earlier post:

"According to Prof Smith, if there is a flaw in the company's claims,
it lies in the measurement of the amount of electrical energy pumped
into the cell. It is possible that, as sparks pass between the
electrodes, there is an energy surge which would not be picked up by
the instruments measuring the electrical input."

I'm not sure what he's on about because if there's a meter measuring the
kWhs going in properly the electrodes inside the gadget can do what they
like. It ain't rocket science. The electricity board seem to manage it in
every house in the country without too much hassle.
--
Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines

I'm not sure what he's on about because if there's a meter measuring the
kWhs going in properly the electrodes inside the gadget can do what they
like. It ain't rocket science. The electricity board seem to manage it in
every house in the country without too much hassle.

Every instrument will have a limited bandwidth of some kind.

Traditional electricity meters I think would be unlikely to register
short (20us) pulses. Even the most sophisticated instruments may have
difficulties in registering isolated pulses of 1ns duration. However
lots of them should register on most instruments - though possibly
with poor accuracy.

Given the claims for the device are so unusual, it requires scrutiny
by a wide range of expertise - even more so as the inventors don't
have any verifiable theory (or theory at all) to back their claims.

Given the history of perpetual motion machines (and this could be
considered as one) - the focus of attention should be on what the
original experimenters have missed.

On 18 Sep, 12:14, "Dave Baker" wrote:

I'm not sure what he's on about because if there's a meter measuring the
kWhs going in properly the electrodes inside the gadget can do what they
like. It ain't rocket science.

Actually it's harder than you might think. Measuring errors here are
what tripped up Fleischmann & Pons.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 18 Sep, 12:14, "Dave Baker" wrote:

I'm not sure what he's on about because if there's a meter measuring the
kWhs going in properly the electrodes inside the gadget can do what they
like. It ain't rocket science.

Actually it's harder than you might think. Measuring errors here are
what tripped up Fleischmann & Pons.

Agreed, but then Flieschmann and Pons cells were meant/claimed to deliver
less than a watt of heat, and often people were looking for fluctuations of
less than 1% of the input power. I can see those measurements being hard to
make.

This particular brand of mongoose-snack lubricant is meant to deliver house
warming levels of heat, I guess in the multi kilowatt range. It would seem
fairly easy to derive an experiment that used, say, two batteries (with
inverters as one to power a conventional immersion heater, another to power
the device, and measure the time taken to heat one domestic immersion tank
to a given temperature, versus the resulting use of energy.

In addition to measurement errors the possibility that a chemical reaction
is occurring - that will end whenever the secret supply of 'catalyst' is
exhausted - within about n days of the cheque clearing your bank account,
where n is a small number.

Andy

wrote in message
oups.com...

Snak oil is alive & well it seems.

Yup.

Quoting from the Telegraph article of 18th May 2003:
...
According to Prof Smith, if there is a flaw in the company's claims,
it lies in the measurement of the amount of electrical energy pumped
into the cell. It is possible that, as sparks pass between the
electrodes, there is an energy surge which would not be picked up by
the instruments measuring the electrical input.

Prof Smith said: "This needs to be very carefully checked, as there
could be far more energy going in than the makers think."
...
"According to the Gardner Watts team, it will take about six months to
carry out tests putting the reality of the effect beyond all doubt."

-------------------

So after 4.5 years they still haven't got independent conclusive proof
energy out exceeds energy in.

More likely they keep chewing through "partners" as each gets
suspicious of being required to test only in one prescribed manner -
and new and more gullible partners are sought out.

And yes, those can be found in universities - just encourage an expert
to work outside their exact field of expertise - and they can be
hoodwinked too.

It is easy to test, and they have working model, and that is to connect it
up to a cylinder of water and measure time, temps and power sued, etc. Even
you could do that.

"Andy McKenzie" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-17 23:02:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

Seems

to be about 5 years too late as a story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/ncell18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/18/ixhome.html

No.

It is now out of the lab and now ready for production. At £1,500 to
£2,000 initially, it is the price of a quality gas boiler. And will
cost half of what? Of what electricity cost to heat the house? If half
of what gas is then this is a breakthrough. Then if a gas powered
Stirling unit is used to generate the electricity, then maybe even
cheaper to run, like 1/8 to 1/4 of current gas costs.

There's one born every minute.

They claim 200% out. So a 3kW heater will give 9kW out. About the same
as gas to run.

Let's see if there's a money back guarantee.....

Or part and service backup with friendly staff and music while you wait
on the phone.

It was on breakfast TV an the man held it up. Richard & Judy next!


If you get 200% more energy out than you put in, then all you have to do
is connect the output to the input and all your energy is free.

But it creates "heat" from electricity. The heat would nee to be changed
into another energy state - electricity, which runs it. That may be
possible via an efficient Stirling engine, however they are only running at
50% efficiency.

wrote in message
ps.com...

Given the history of perpetual motion machines (and this could be
considered as one) - the focus of attention should be on what the
original experimenters have missed.

This is not a perpetual motion machine. One of those take the output and
puts it back into the input (create more out than going in). This is "free
energy". All they need do is simple tests to see if it does what they say.
It "appears" it does. The point is that they don't know what is going on.
That is the complex testing - to see "how" it works, not if "it" works.

wrote in message
ps.com...

It seems a few unis do as well.

Universities don't "believe" in anything. A few individuals working
for a university have expressed interest - none have said they have
conclusive proof.

The mail report said:


"Jim Lyons, of the University of York, independently evaluated the system.
He said: 'Let's be honest, people are generally pretty sceptical about this
kind of thing. Our team was happy to take on the evaluation, even if to
prove it didn't work.

'But this is a very efficient replacement for the traditional immersion
heater. We have examined this interesting technology and when we got the rig
operating, we were getting 150 to 200 per cent more energy out than we put
in, without trying too hard.
People are sceptical - but somehow it works

'We are still not clear about the science involved here, because the physics
and chemistry are very different-to everything that has gone before. Our
challenge now is to study the science and how it works.' "


Note:
Jim Lyons, of the University of York, independently evaluated the system. He
said....

"We have examined this interesting technology and when we got the rig
operating, we were getting 150 to 200 per cent more energy out than we put
in, without trying too hard. "

If that is an exact quote, then that seems like it does what the inventors
claim.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
'But this is a very efficient replacement for the traditional immersion
heater. We have examined this interesting technology and when we got the
rig operating, we were getting 150 to 200 per cent more energy out than
we put in, without trying too hard. People are sceptical - but somehow
it works

With an immersion heater pretty well all the input energy is converted to
heat. If it isn't - where does it go? So if this device reduces the energy
required to heat water by such a massive amount it's just re-invented the
most basic laws of physics. And only prats like you could believe such a
thing.

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Andy McKenzie" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-17 23:02:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 07 19:06:17 GMT, (dmc) wrote:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=19 65

Seems

to be about 5 years too late as a story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/ncell18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/18/ixhome.html

No.

It is now out of the lab and now ready for production. At £1,500 to
£2,000 initially, it is the price of a quality gas boiler. And will
cost half of what? Of what electricity cost to heat the house? If
half of what gas is then this is a breakthrough. Then if a gas
powered Stirling unit is used to generate the electricity, then maybe
even cheaper to run, like 1/8 to 1/4 of current gas costs.

There's one born every minute.

They claim 200% out. So a 3kW heater will give 9kW out. About the same
as gas to run.

Let's see if there's a money back guarantee.....

Or part and service backup with friendly staff and music while you wait
on the phone.

It was on breakfast TV an the man held it up. Richard & Judy next!


If you get 200% more energy out than you put in, then all you have to do
is connect the output to the input and all your energy is free.

But it creates "heat" from electricity. The heat would nee to be changed
into another energy state - electricity, which runs it. That may be
possible via an efficient Stirling engine, however they are only running
at 50% efficiency.

Well given that this is all theory - I was going to use my theoretically
possible 90% efficient heat engine (the one that invoves heating a working
fluid to 5000 degrees). Anyway, we only need a 51% efficient engine or a
201% efficient magic whoopee cell and we are away. Unfortunately the
efficiency of this magical device is dropping fast - when it was last
'announced'
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...8/ncell18.xml]
in 2003 it was generating 3 to 26 times the output as input, so generation
would have been easy.
I predict that by the time it gets to market it will have the same
efficiency as Screwfix item 31397, at just 200 times the cost.

Andy

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Note:
Jim Lyons, of the University of York, independently evaluated the system. He
said....

"We have examined this interesting technology and when we got the rig
operating, we were getting 150 to 200 per cent more energy out than we put
in, without trying too hard. "

If that is an exact quote, then that seems like it does what the inventors
claim.

http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2007/09...ace-your-bets/ makes for
some interesting reading about this. As does the entry for Jim Lyons on
http://www.scimednet.org/testimonies.htm

What we really need is someway of using one to charge your prius. I'm sure
it's just around the corner.

Darren

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
'But this is a very efficient replacement for the traditional immersion
heater. We have examined this interesting technology and when we got the
rig operating, we were getting 150 to 200 per cent more energy out than
we put in, without trying too hard. People are sceptical - but somehow
it works

With

Please eff off you are a total idiot.

"dmc" wrote in message ...

What we really need is someway of using one to charge your prius. I'm sure
it's just around the corner.

I do like constructive thinking.

On 18 Sep, 03:19, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:02:14 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

No. It is now out of the lab and now ready for production.

It's the most arrant ********, the Daily Mule believes in it and _you_
believe in it.


Yes; poor old Dribble is poorly endowed in the brain department and is
easily decieved.

A little while back he was advocating the Irish snake oil under his
alter-ego, Water Systems, on another forum.

http://www.screwfix.com/talk/thread....1 0902#610902

Steorn had arranged a public demo of their device at the Science
Museum recently ISTR. It was cancelled after technical difficulties; I
think that's a euphemism for the Laws of Physics.

Beware of Irish snake oil.

On 2007-09-18 19:52:18 +0100, (dmc) said:

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Note:
Jim Lyons, of the University of York, independently evaluated the system. He
said....

"We have examined this interesting technology and when we got the rig
operating, we were getting 150 to 200 per cent more energy out than we put
in, without trying too hard. "

If that is an exact quote, then that seems like it does what the inventors
claim.

http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2007/09...ace-your-bets/ makes for
some interesting reading about this. As does the entry for Jim Lyons on
http://www.scimednet.org/testimonies.htm

What we really need is someway of using one to charge your prius. I'm sure
it's just around the corner.

Darren

I doubt it. In the repair shop more like.....

On 18 Sep, 20:08, Andy Hall wrote:


It uses a thermal store.

http://www.ecowatts.co.uk/

A Dribblism, if ever I saw one!

"Onetap" wrote in message
oups.com...

Yes; poor old Dribble is poorly endowed
in the brain department and is easily decieved.

A little while back he was advocating the Irish snake oil under his
alter-ego, Water Systems, on another forum.

It is not me.

http://www.screwfix.com/talk/thread....1 0902#610902

Steorn had arranged a public demo of their device at the Science
Museum recently ISTR. It was cancelled after technical difficulties; I
think that's a euphemism for the Laws of Physics.

On-tap-on-the-head, did a wheel fall off?

Beware of Irish snake oil.

Or Guinness.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:06:08 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

This is not a perpetual motion machine. One of those take the output and
puts it back into the input (create more out than going in). This is "free
energy".

So that's alright then. Thanks for clearing it up.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:06:08 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

This is not a perpetual motion machine. One of those take the output and
puts it back into the input (create more out than going in). This is
"free
energy".

So that's alright then. Thanks for clearing it up.

A pleasure.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is easy to test, and they have working model, and that is to connect
it up to a cylinder of water and measure time, temps and power sued,
etc. Even you could do that.


Sued? Did someone say "Sued"?

Jim Lyons: "My research area is in the field of non-locality of
Consciousness."

He's real BTW

http://www.york.ac.uk/enterprise/eio/about.cfm?page=392

So why didn't they ask someone in the department of Physics?

Andy

On 18 Sep, 20:25, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Onetap" wrote in message

oups.com...

Yes; poor old Dribble is poorly endowed
in the brain department and is easily decieved.

A little while back he was advocating the Irish snake oil under his
alter-ego, Water Systems, on another forum.

It is not me.

It is Dr. Drivel.

He drones on about two combis, thermal stores, warm air heating and
the dangers of unvented water systems at the slightest opportunity.

Plus, he is easily mislead by implausible claims of 100% efficient
machines.

There cannot be two individuals that stupid, so I (and many others)
have concluded that Water Systems is one of Drivel's many egos.

"Onetap" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 18 Sep, 20:25, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Onetap" wrote in message

oups.com...

Yes; poor old Dribble is poorly endowed
in the brain department and is easily decieved.

A little while back he was advocating the Irish snake oil under his
alter-ego, Water Systems, on another forum.

It is not me.

It is Dr. Drivel.

He drones

On-tap-on-the-head, it is not me. This guy has style though. Boy are you
dumb!!!

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...

Jim Lyons: "My research area is in the field of non-locality of
Consciousness."

He's real BTW

http://www.york.ac.uk/enterprise/eio/about.cfm?page=392

So why didn't they ask someone in the department of Physics?

I don't know as I don't know the internal working of that uni. He is in the
...."University of York's Enterprise and Innovation Office.". I'm sure they
would know who to get to test it at the uni.

Andy Champ wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

It is easy to test, and they have working model, and that is to
connect it up to a cylinder of water and measure time, temps and power
sued, etc. Even you could do that.


Sued? Did someone say "Sued"?

Jim Lyons: "My research area is in the field of non-locality of
Consciousness."

He's real BTW

http://www.york.ac.uk/enterprise/eio/about.cfm?page=392

So why didn't they ask someone in the department of Physics?

Andy
They can make money at real things ..