<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
John Winterflood wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:48E1068B.3040509@cyllene.uwa.edu.au" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
Dr Stiffler wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:48DD4D7A.30300@embarqmail.com" type="cite"> ...
but no 'One' with
credentials that will be accepted by the current community will come
out and state the results. <br>
</blockquote>
Hi Dr Stiffler,<br>
<br>
I don't believe you need credentials to publish your results to the
scientific community - particularly if the result is exciting and the
apparatus is simple enough to build and replicate. Nature doesn't lie
and the truth will out. In order to be believed you just have to
appear scrupulously honest and open in describing your methods and
results, and to be seen to have taken every possible precaution to
prevent being fooled by some unusual quirk.</blockquote>
<font color="#cc0000">I am not sure I can agree and under stand what
you are saying.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48E1068B.3040509@cyllene.uwa.edu.au" type="cite">
Scientists time is
precious and they don't like wasting it chasing down someone else's
oversights or mistakes - they have enough trouble chasing down their
own. They also don't want to do someone else's investigative work for
them - they have plenty of great ideas of their own to investigate. So
it is important to finish the job - test it until you have a definitive
result - don't present it half-baked for someone else to finish.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#cc0000">So are you saying that collaboration is no longer
possible and that if you have something it is up to you to figure it
out to fruition?<br>
<br>
I do not feel that the community I am a part of is operated in this
way. No one expects someone else to take a suggestion without direction
and make a careerer out of it, but I have always felt that a Scientist
was open to new and interesting things? But id I am taking what you are
saying out of context I an sorry for the mis-understanding as I have
never believed that discovery was a one on one path. Idea, solve it
and them we all look and comment? Sorry I do not agree with this
direction. <br>
</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48E1068B.3040509@cyllene.uwa.edu.au" type="cite">Of
course particular scientists or particular research groups very
quickly get a name for themselves depending on whether their work is
rigorous and careful, or shoddy and slapdash - and so the results of
some groups are accepted and treated with more respect than others.
But as far as I am aware the work of unknown authors would be judged on
an equal basis regardless of their qualifications or affiliations, and
simply from the information in the writeup. It is wise to have as many
friends with knowledge in the field as possible to critique it
thoroughly and try include to answers for all likely criticisms before
attempting to have it refereed for a journal.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#cc0000">Wise to have friends? Sir if I have friends I
expect feedback, good or bad and theire comment which may indeed take a
moment of their time to look into and assess. To do this they need to
look further than the finalization of a Hypothesis or development of a
Theory.<br>
<br>
I am sure I mis-understood what you were trying to say (I hope) because
I do not believe it is "A go it alone" process. If this were the way it
was done we would not be as advanced as we are today in the Sciences.<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:48E1068B.3040509@cyllene.uwa.edu.au" type="cite"><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48DD4D7A.30300@embarqmail.com" type="cite"> Keith
Nagel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:GCEDLFMCJPKGDEANLEPOMEPPDDAA.NewCandleAdmin@ipdiscover.com"
type="cite">
<pre>... What I am ultimately looking for is the most
light output for the least current. </pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Are you talking apparent visible brightness (ie lumens) here Keith, or
real wattage? If it is wattage then I have always been under the
impression that infra-red LEDs were far more efficient than visibles,
and have always used them for position (shadow) sensors etc. But they
are still not very efficient - typically less than 50% I think. I also
believe that laser LEDs are quite a bit more efficient than normal LEDs
- but I am sorry that I have no hard data or figures and power
efficiency figures seem very hard to find.<br>
If you simply want an LED to look bright to the eye, then I believe it
is possible to flash it at some rate high enough rate to appear
steadily on to the eye but with a small duty cycle ratio. In this case
the eye responds to the *peak* brightness rather than to the average
and so appears considerably brighter than if it was run on DC with the
same average intensity. Again sadly this is only hearsay and I have no
hard data.<br>
Wikipedia has some good info on LEDs and claims "The highest efficiency
high-power white LED is claimed by Philips Lumileds Lighting Co. with a
luminous efficacy of 115 lm/W" - but lumens have never interested me!<br>
<br>
Dr Stiffler wrote:
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:48DD4D7A.30300@embarqmail.com" type="cite"> You
really need to look at ESEG, just a simple test
could prove worth
while. Really if only someone would put pencil to paper and see what
the field density is like 30cm from a 1W Exciter and attempt to answer
how it can charge 1kF to 140+ volts in under 60 sec. ... </blockquote>
Just wondering if you really meant 1000 Farads of capacitance at 140
volts!? I'm sure you
appreciate that by conventional calculation it should take or order 3
years to charge this from a 1 W exciter (regardless of
distance and field density)?<br>
<br>
J.
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
NewCandle mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NewCandle@ipdiscover.com">NewCandle@ipdiscover.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com">http://ipdiscover.com/mailman/listinfo/newcandle_ipdiscover.com</a>
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.1/1688 - Release Date: 9/24/2008 6:29 AM
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
************************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged
or otherwise protected from disclosure. It is solely intended for the
person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, then
reading, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of all or parts of
this e-mail or associated attachments is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately
by replying to this message and delete this e-mail and any attachments
permanently from your system.
NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
All parties under a non-disclosure agreement with Dr. Ronald Stiffler
and/or Stiffler Scientific are hereby notified that the contents in
this e-mail and any attachments hereto are covered under one or more
non-disclosure agreements and restrictions as set forth therein.
************************************************************************
</pre>
</body>
</html>