Why Files: Killer Patents & Secret Science Vol. 1

[PhysicsProf]

Bruce DePalma claimed over unity when he reached 6000 rpm on a Faraday-type spinning disk generator.  Whatever happened to him and to his invention? 
I don't think the WhyFiles vid talks about DePalma... Maybe in Vol 2, coming ...
Thanks!

[JimBoot]

I love this take from Elon Musk!
"patents are for the weak... generally used as a blocking technique. They're used like land mines in warfare. They don't actually help advance things; they just stop others from following you."
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/21/why-elon-musk-says-patents-are-for-the-weak.html

[Allcanadian]

I love this take from Elon Musk!
"patents are for the weak... generally used as a blocking technique. They're used like land mines in warfare. They don't actually help advance things; they just stop others from following you."
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/21/why-elon-musk-says-patents-are-for-the-weak.html

That is hilarious coming from Musk the perpetual con artist. You see most his companies cannot even show a profit with massive government subsidies. Most also agree his companies are only worth a fraction of what there evaluated at. Now the U.S. is talking about 200% tariffs on foreign EV's because Tesla cannot even begin to compete with a real car manufacturer like BYD. It was comical listening to Musk whine like a little girl that Tesla would be obliterated if BYD was not stopped.

So in some sense I agree, who needs patents when he can make taxpayers foot much of the bill, the company evaluation is just stupid and he probably paid off half the politicians to remove any competition. But hey he will probably get his 50 billion dollar bonus at the taxpayer and investors expense so he could care less what the ignorant masses think.

I have to wonder who you think your fooling Jim?.

So Musk can make billions and billions of dollars by screwing over everyone including most taxpayers but if someone like myself does not give away a FE technology worth trillions we are a bad person?. I think your reasoning is like a car going over a cliff, on fire, with no tires as your trying to do up your seat belt in said car jim. You don't honestly think Musk got to where he is by being, charitable, do you?. I mean, he implied most of his employees are slackers, fired there ass be email then tried to deny them severance. WTF Jim..

AC

[F6FLT]

Here we go again, with yet another thread for ridiculous conspiracy theories and imaginary secrets to excuse those whose devices or patents don't work, and with criticism of those who create technology that works, by those who haven't done anything useful.
It never ends on this forum, how tiresome. What do you guys who criticize today's science and technology have to show us? When everyone's using your free energy machine, you'll be able to give lessons to the rest of the world, Musk included. For now, you could keep a modest low profile and get to work instead of ranting, don't you think?

[JimBoot]

I have to wonder who you think your fooling Jim?.

So Musk can make billions and billions of dollars by screwing over everyone including most taxpayers but if someone like myself does not give away a FE technology worth trillions we are a bad person?. I think your reasoning is like a car going over a cliff, on fire, with no tires as your trying to do up your seat belt in said car jim. You don't honestly think Musk got to where he is by being, charitable, do you?. I mean, he implied most of his employees are slackers, fired there ass be email then tried to deny them severance. WTF Jim..

AC

I'll analyse the response to your post, highlighting ad hominem attacks, non-sequiturs, and straw man arguments. Here's the breakdown:

Ad hominem attacks:

"That is hilarious coming from Musk the perpetual con artist."
"It was comical listening to Musk whine like a little girl"
"I have to wonder who you think your fooling Jim?" Assuming you meant "you're"

Non-sequiturs:

The discussion about Tesla's profitability and valuation doesn't directly address Musk's stance on patents.
Mentioning U.S. tariffs on foreign EVs is not directly related to the patent discussion.
"So Musk can make billions and billions of dollars by screwing over everyone including most taxpayers but if someone like myself does not give away a FE technology worth trillions we are a bad person?"

Straw man arguments:

"You don't honestly think Musk got to where he is by being, charitable, do you?" - This misrepresents my position, as I didn't claim Musk was charitable.
"So in some sense I agree, who needs patents when he can make taxpayers foot much of the bill" - This misrepresents Musk's argument against patents by implying it's only because of government subsidies.


Your response largely avoids engaging with the actual content of Musk's statement about patents. Instead, it focuses on attacking Musk's character and bringing up unrelated issues about Tesla's business practices and valuation. You also make assumptions about my position and create arguments I didn't make in order to refute them.

[JimBoot]

Here we go again, with yet another thread for ridiculous conspiracy theories and imaginary secrets to excuse those whose devices or patents don't work, and with criticism of those who create technology that works, by those who haven't done anything useful.
It never ends on this forum, how tiresome. What do you guys who criticize today's science and technology have to show us? When everyone's using your free energy machine, you'll be able to give lessons to the rest of the world, Musk included. For now, you could keep a modest low profile and get to work instead of ranting, don't you think?

The purpose of this thread was to discuss the content of the video. I'm not sure how your comment relates to that.

[F6FLT]

The purpose of this thread was to discuss the content of the video. I'm not sure how your comment relates to that.

As for the straw man and non sequitur fallacies, I agree with you and appreciate it when you point them out. On forums, and even in political speeches, half of all arguments today are sophisms. You absolutely must avoid them when you express yourself here, because they are logical fallacies; you don't even have to respond to them on the merits, because if it's wrong in form, the argument is irrelevant.
As for personal attacks, I would be more nuanced. We need to distinguish between cases where the person being attacked is one of the participants in the discussion, in which case it's done to invalidate what he or she is saying but without arguing about what he or she is saying, so it really is a personal attack, and cases where the person is a public figure like Musk, where the criticism is acceptable, since he or she is the object of the debate because of his or her public actions. But of course if you were to criticize him without mentioning any facts or by talking about his private life, you'd also come close to making a personal attack, as in the 1st case.

As far as the purpose of this thread is concerned, I have to consider that the video is just a pretext. "Killer Patents" or "Secret Science" are the ridiculous terms used in all the conspiracy theories about free energy. The video's authors say it themselves:
"The Why Files is a channel for people who are fascinated (obsessed) with mysteries, myths, legends and conspiracies."
This is not the purpose of the forum. I don't understand why we continue to feed these tall tales here for people "obsessed" with "conspiracies", even if it were to condemn them.

[JimBoot]

As far as the purpose of this thread is concerned, I have to consider that the video is just a pretext. "Killer Patents" or "Secret Science" are the ridiculous terms used in all the conspiracy theories about free energy. The video's authors say it themselves:
"The Why Files is a channel for people who are fascinated (obsessed) with mysteries, myths, legends and conspiracies."
This is not the purpose of the forum. I don't understand why we continue to feed these tall tales here for people "obsessed" with "conspiracies", even if it were to condemn them.

I learned a couple of things from the video that I was unaware of previously. There was also good advice from the creator for would be inventors. I don't understand how someone can be so sure of the contents of a video without watching it. I feel the contents were worthy of discussion on this forum.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

As for the straw man and non sequitur fallacies, I agree with you and appreciate it when you point them out. On forums, and even in political speeches, half of all arguments today are sophism. You absolutely must avoid them when you express yourself here, because they are logical fallacies; you don't even have to respond to them on the merits, because if it's wrong in form, the argument is irrelevant.

Interesting but you just committed a sophism and a fallacy as well which is kind of ironic.

Your argument is deceptive implying if an argument is wrong in form it is irrelevant which is a fallacy fallacy. You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

I think this thing were doing is probably the biggest problem with FE in general. Most think these inventors are crackpots because they don't act or talk like everyone else. However in some sense this is literally why they can do what they do. Like the idiot savant who can do any math problem in there head so fast it makes everyone else look mentally challenged. Are they crackpots and what they do a hoax?. I mean they could make most look stupid all day long without even trying. Should we be looking for hidden microphones or batteries?.

AC

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
Interesting but you just committed a sophism and a fallacy as well which is kind of ironic.

Your argument is deceptive implying if an argument is wrong in form it is irrelevant which is a fallacy fallacy. You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
...

What you're saying is false, and what I'm saying is not a sophism but a basic element of rhetoric that you should know before talking about it.

When an argument is false in form, it's effectively irrelevant, i.e. it can't be conclusive about what it's asserting, i.e. you can't tell whether the assertion in substance is correct or not. It may be correct, but not according to the argumentation provided.

You make a lot of rhetorical digressions, especially against scientists, and very few of them are of any value. Your comments are rational only in appearance, and your ignorance of rhetorical logic is blatant.

[Allcanadian]

What you're saying is false, and what I'm saying is not a sophism but a basic element of rhetoric that you should know before talking about it.

When an argument is false in form, it's effectively irrelevant, i.e. it can't be conclusive about what it's asserting, i.e. you can't tell whether the assertion in substance is correct or not. It may be correct, but not according to the argumentation provided.

You have simply repeated what you claimed prior and it's still a fallacy fallacy. You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

Repeating something over and over does not make it any more true only repetitive.

AC