ThisWeirdIndividual

Oh god. It's like a youtube comment section in here.

"her derp perpetual motion"

"herp derp fusion engine"

"herp herp sayance is occulting revolutionnary invenchuns because big oil conspiracy"

So fucking tiring.

You have ZERO scientific education. You do not fathom the DEPTH of your ignorance and the HEIGHT of modern scientific knowledge. You don't have the slightest idea about the laws of thermodynamic that mainly makes everything working around you possible and yet you're here calling scientists retards . Holy fuck the ARROGANCE, the filthy lack of self awareness.

You people are so tiring.

Edit: and I missed the part saying the post was 20 days old D:

k_digi

And I assume you're just another turd that 'incorporation' dragged ashore. Picking up 8$ an hour for that baby?

ThisWeirdIndividual

Sure. Have a look at my post history. You'll see that I totally fit the shill profile.

Be serious.

Frenchgeek

Given my light reading on it : It doesn't run on water ; it run on electricity.

In a really inefficient way too : it use a battery to electrolyze water and then use the resulting H2 O2 mix to run a classic gas engine.

From what I know of theses engine ( which is very little ), I'm pretty sure constanly having water in it isn't good.

k_digi

Correct you know very little, it uses very little energy to split the hydrogen from the H2o, so yes you know very little but don't let that get you down you can always learn more and that's the beautiful thing about being alive.

Also don't feel bad about not having much knowledge on something, learning is a gift.

Frenchgeek

The electrolysis of water in standard conditions requires a theoretical minimum of 237 kJ of electrical energy input to dissociate each mole of water, which is the standard Gibbs free energy of formation of water. It also requires energy to overcome the change in entropy of the reaction. Therefore, the process cannot proceed below 286 kJ per mol if no external heat/energy is added.

That also mean you only can get back that amount of energy when exploding it.

Problem : you never can manage a 100% efficiency. So you end up losing energy when electrolysing the water and you add the inherent inefficiency of a gas engine ( around 20%. 60% if you replace the engine with a turbine. ).

Electric engines on the other hand manage 85-90%. Their problem is the low energy density of batteries in general.

So a lithium-ion battery has only half the energy density of compressed hydrogen but with a vastly more efficient engine behind it !

Therefore, that bike can only be really inefficient at best .

k_digi

Yet a sealed 'tin can' that is set to a resonate freq that then has microwaves bounced in a resonate fashion produces 'thrust', so could it be that 'standard conditions' like 'standard science' is backwards and actually retarded pseudo science?

And what is occuring is the electrical freq passed through the h2o is of a certain resonant freq?

Therefore, that bike can be Really efficient at worst.

Frenchgeek

...

So you have no argument against my logic and had to resort to ad hominem against science itself?

Pretty sad since you are trying to use scientific principles to do so, on a network that was created to connect universities originally, with a device that was created thanks to advances in it.

As for your currents "attacks" :

  1. The results haven't been published yet, so the validity of the engine is still somewhat in doubt. Still, there is an hypothesis to explain it right now... It just need testing.

  2. The frequency doesn't matter. The hydrogen-oxygen bonds contain a very specific amount of energy : You cannot create those bonds with any less than that. Or get any more by undoing them. No matter the method used.

k_digi

The results haven't been published ha ha.

That's because no one will publish the white paper its a well know fact.

That's how the current state of the backwards science work, rather than argue ill do as I said to the other fellow let have a bet, we should make proper terms, and then make an offical bet I'm offering a bet to him on the 'em drive' he has a lot of faith in current human science so he is on the verge of a bet with me.

Im happy to do the same with you, but it can't rely on this retarded 'publish corp' issue otherwise no wonder humans are still burning coal.

So I'm happy to take a bet on this if you are confident as you seem?

Frenchgeek

Okay, so I have been reading and re-reading that for more than 15 minutes now and I'm not sure where it come from or what it actually mean.

But please show the sources for your fact. Because you're the only one with it right now, according to google.

Still I don't understand why you use the em-drive as a proof that science isn't always right^* only to claim right after that it doesn't follow the scientific method...

( ^* which is a strange argument : science is merely the result of the scientific method, and the latter only serve as a way to show what ideas of the working the Universe are wrong, and therefore infer the rules of the Universe out of it. It doesn't pretend to be right, only to be less wrong than everything else tested for now. )

Not that I will complain much about you destroying your own argumentation...

Still, we were talking about the limited efficency of a electrolysis powered gas engine over an electric one, as a result of me simply stating the bike doesn't actually run on water.

So you will problably consider this as science still not telling you why, but as far as I'm concerned, I have given you a good explanation on how that bike "run on water" ( for a generous enough definition of it ) and why it isn't a revolutionary idea or a practical one.

You may want to yet again move the discussion to another failing of science in your eyes, but this thread has been answered.

Unless you have a good reason to believe my logic on the bike is fundamentally wrong, of course.

k_digi

Your logic on the bike is fundamentally wrong and I will bet you as such, im willing to say in less than 3 years these devices will be commonplace although not necessarily needed.

So they are my terms, If you want to bet you are correct lets decide on terms and both put some crypto currency to an official betting service that will hold the funds and release them to the winner.

So you can make counter terms now if you like.

k_digi

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-says-emdrive-does-work-it-may-have-also-created-star-trek-warp-drive-1499098

Drive was tested in a vacuum, and has been tested again.

The cylinder is sealed, it is not proton trust, no mass, you are incorrect sorry.

You will have to reassess your faith in that pseuo science.

Rasta_lance

lmao at the peopel that think they know all about science and whats possible in here. Let me tell all you scientist something. Your science only knows about the pyhysical stuff you can see and touch. When it comes to new ways of using energy you guys are retarded. its the only way to describe it. Science thinks they know the best energy and dadadadadada no, the best energy isnt oil r solar or gas or anything we use(huh). There are multiple ways to get energy and this and magnetic engines are both ways that if science was truely "scientific" we would be using. The people in charge of what is studied and funded in the science community are blocking advancement in these areas so it is up to an individual to come up with answers for themselvs. THese people who are not encouraging mainstream science to look into this stuff will get whats coming to them. They have definitly commited crimes against humanity as shown by every environmental issue we have that could have been prevented.

k_digi

I agree with this broadly, especially the criminal nature aspect, I think in the future ( nearer than people may think) these people will be prosecuted.

Of course, most of 'science' community are victims, but few very clearly understand what is possible.

Lumidaub

Because there is no evidence that or how it does. Experience has shown that these kinds of claims are scams (or at least the inventor lying to themselves).

k_digi

Well actually nope I have evidence against your faith there :

The 'impossible' EM Drive does something 'impossible'

http://io9.com/new-test-suggests-nasas-impossible-em-drive-will-work-1701188933

The original inventor had all sorts of struggling against the faith based pseudo science you seem to believe in.

So why can your faith accept the EM drive now but still not accept another type of 'drive' ?

Is it that the science faith leaders will only accept so many new vectors?

Or is there a ritual the new people have to go though? Im trying actually to understand.

Lumidaub

I cannot claim to understand the EM drive, I'm not an engineer, I have limited knowledge in any technology.

But, as the artice states, the EM drive has been shown to work, meaning it's been tested under controlled circumstances. The water bike has not. We only have its inventor claiming it works.

Have scientists investigate the motor, try to find out how it works, test it under controlled circumstances. Then we can talk.

BTW, notice how nobody is celebrating the EM drive as the solution to all problems or anything like that or even saying "yes it definitely works".

See the headline on your article: "New Test Suggests ". It doesn't prove .

Scientists are still very skeptical and continue to test it, while keeping in mind both the possibility that our understanding of some scientific law is wrong AND the possibility that the tests are just plainly giving false positives.

k_digi

Well we are already 'talking' and you have suggested it's 'fake' based on your science faith.

However that faith has been tested by the EM drive, so how do you know what to believe in?

I guess we need to try to find out more about the magic inside the 'water bike' ?

Lumidaub

Please note that you are talking to multiple people, I haven't said that it's "fake", although I tend to agree with that assessment.

My "faith" has been tested? How exactly? It just shows that either the tests are wrong or we haven't understood something yet.

Also, I don't "believe" in anything in the sense that you mean. I "accept as true" based on what seems reasonable to me and what doesn't contradict anything else.

find out more about the magic inside the 'water bike' ?

Yes. That is exactly what we should do. Except it's not on us to go looking for the evidence, it's up to the inventor to provide it (or at least provide the motor for testing).

k_digi

What do you think it is that we 'don't understand' ?

Or do you simply not believe in the EM drive 'magic' ?

Lumidaub

I don't "think we don't understand" something, I just keep in mind the fact that there are things we do not know yet and the possibility that we may be misunderstanding something about (a) law(s) of physics or that the tests they are running are returniung false positives.

Or do you simply not believe in the EM drive 'magic' ?

Huh?