I can attest that it is not thermal. It works in a vacuum. It works in a Faraday cage and it works when you reverse the device (the thrust reverses).
from what i recall , it does not defy the laws of physics , it uses a traveling em wave to crate "grip" to the static universal em background field , this method provides thrust from input power by creating a traveling wave that is out of phase to the external one causing motion , like swimming through the background field using the background field to displace it like a phase drive motor , just that its too easy to miss in the maths
The problem is that theoretically, there is no "background field" to "grip". You appear to be proposing a "universal aether" or maybe "phlogiston". Those aren't exactly groundbreaking ideas.
According to theory the quantum vacuum has virtual particles in it, but that doesn't make it a "fabric" to grip or push against.
I am interested to see what kind of thrust they DO claim to have gotten this time. And I am also curious why they chose to use a lower-power source, rather than trying to replicate the original experiments.
Also remember that the context here was that I pointed out why the people Jane's disagreeing with might claim to have studied something for years, even though their absurd conclusions might suggest otherwise to students of the Constitution like Jane Q. Public.
I doubt the average reasonable person would, on reading the original comment this is about, conclude that it referred to "other people".
And make no mistake, this bill is written by corporate lobbyists, which to me is enough to disqualify it entirely.
I've read the bill, and it looks completely reasonable to me. I don't much care who wrote it; I only care about what's in it.
(Certainly who wrote it might cause enough alarm to justify actually reading it, but it isn't excuse to damn it without reading it.)
Remember, an earlier draft of this bill forbade government agencies from using scientific "models".
No, it didn't. It merely required whatever models are used to be made public.
Do you believe the EPA should not be able to restrict the high-pressure injection of toxic chemicals into the aquifer because the information isn't "public"?
We agree on many things, but this isn't one of them.
The EPA clearly (at least at present) has jurisdiction over polluted groundwater. That's the kind of thing it was created for.
Industry is not "allowed" to pollute groundwater just because its use of the pollutant is a "trade secret". That's not how it works. This is about the basis of regulations. If the public and "reasonably reproducible" science says (thin air example) isofurans above 20ppb are harmful to health, they can be regulated.
That means they could not be released into groundwater, "trade secret" or not. (Not that I am any fan of EPA... I have had far too much experience with it to think it is our friend.)
Look, I'm a big fan of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning too, but when you have corporations with vested interests in keeping information away from the public, forcing the government to only be able to act on information that's public will only let them run further amok.
That's really not how it is written. I suggest you read the actual bill.
Ad-hominem? Where? Do you even know what that term means?
Yes, indeed. Apparently better than you do. It still applies even when the argument is implied rather than stated explicitly.
I know who you are, and I understood the context of your comment just fine, even if other readers here don't. Hey, there's a word for you: context. Do you even know what the term means?
What they'd fail to realize, of course, is that compulsively stuffing their brains full of conspiracy theory nonsense isn't the same as "studying".
Of course, there will also always be those who claim any skepticism or examination of facts outside the mainstream "official" story is "conspiracy theory". Despite the fact that skeptics have in fact routed out skullduggery and real conspiracy a rather alarming number of times throughout history, and despite the fact that they have not studied those issues themselves.
Or those who don't realize that many individuals acting to the same purpose, in all good will and without coordination, can have the effect of conspiracy even where there is none.
I know you haven't been a student of the Constitution or its history. I have been. You can call that "conspiracy theory" all you like but that doesn't make it so.
Unless you are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence (which would surprise me not at all). The latter was, indeed, a grand conspiracy.
Take your ad-hominem and shove it right up there where the sun doesn't shine. Because that's where it came from, and that's where it properly belongs.
This article in Discover magazine about Jack Bitterly's* desire to use new flywheel technologies to power automobiles, is what got me excited about choosing engineering as a college major.
Have you even imagined what permitting such a thing is like? You could only do it in the country, and only where the lay of the land permits it.
I wasn't exactly proposing to use it in an apartment. It was just some thoughts about what is possible, not what is practical everywhere.
It's more practical than a large weight and can be built anywhere unlike pumped hydro (which needs hilly terrain and space for a reservoir).
Not necessarily. It's possible to do pumped hydro in the ocean, pretty much anywhere on a continental shelf: pour a (BIG) cylinder of reinforced concrete, and pump water out of it.
It's hardly compact, though.
There's other options too, a flywheel for example could be more practical than lifting a weight (similar idea but much more compact).
A long time ago, there were some experimental buses in Sweden which used a specially-designed flywheel in a vacuum can, with magnetic bearings, to store energy rather than batteries. This is practical for a mobile system because the stored rotational energy can be used to directly drive generators.
In contrast to the steam-engine flywheels of days gone by, the Swedish bus flywheels were thicker toward the middle because of their reportedly extreme rotational speed.
Trouble is you need very large tanks of water, or to seperate them a long way. For instance a house might use 2 kWh overnight, that's about 7 MJ.
It isn't intended to be your primary source. Just as with other pumped systems, it's a supplement which stores during periods of excess and supplements during periods of shortage (or higher expense... some systems are now charging more for peak-period usage).
Pumped storage wasn't available UNTIL a couple of decades ago. I worked for an engineering company designing one and it was groundbreaking for its day.
I don't really care what he wrote. He remained a slave owner which says everything that needs to be said about his opinions on the matter. Jefferson was a remarkable man but also a very flawed one.
Spoken like someone who truly doesn't understand history, or even the recent past, for that matter.
30 years ago, if you told someone that gay marriage would be legal in many states, as likely as not they'd have looked at you like you were completely crazy.
And yet Washington and Jefferson owned slaves until the day they died so clearly they didn't really believe that even if they said so. Actions speak much louder than words. Yes I'm viewing it with modern day viewpoints but the fact remains that they had the choice to free their slaves and I'm quite sure they were aware of that at the time and chose against it.
I really have no choice but to say WHOOSH!
First off, they were products of their day. They weren't born today, and it is unrealistic to expect them to live like someone born today.
But second, and more important: they realized the political reality of their day. If they wanted a Constitution that states would ratify, they had to bow to the realities of their day. It's that simple.
And third, even more important than the first two: they created a country in which slavery could be abolished. They laid the groundwork.
If you read your history, you will learn that Jefferson abhorred slavery, but he thought that trying to free them all at once would lead to economic upheaval and disaster. While you may not like the fact that he kept them, he did have reason for thinking that way, and he may even have been right.
The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine
