Kyle Mcallister wrote: > --- "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[email protected]> wrote: >
[snip previously addressed parts] >> On the other hand, if *you* want to test his claims, I'm interested >> in reading about what you've done; your writeups are nearly always >> worth reading and you are apparently an honest experimenter, who is >> not bending the results to fit some theory. > > I try not to be biased. It is easy to do when looking > for something unusual, that would be good, when you > are a person who has so little hope any more that > whenever I do feel it, I try to grab ahold of it. It > isn't possible, it is a chasing after the wind. > >> Inertial propulsion is another instance where for it to be correct, >> Newton and all who followed must have been wrong, confused, >> stupid, or dishonest. This is very, very hard to believe. Far >> easier to believe is that Laithwaite was (fill in the blank) and >> his results are incorrect. > > They need not have been wrong. Newtonian mechanics > still works until you reach velocities where > relativistic effects come into play. Then there are > modifications needed. Again, the Ohm's Law analogy. But inertial propulsion systems proposed here don't work with parts moving at relativistic speeds -- or at any rate nothing I've seen mentioned recently in this group did. But maybe I'm just confused about this. > > Newton, et al., did experiments and saw things that > happened, so they built a theoretical framework around > it that works pretty well. That is not to say there is > not a hidden addition to the home's basic frame. > > Just because something is hard to believe, does not > make it wrong. And from where I am sitting, the risk > to reward ratio is worthy of the pursuit. > >> So, if you want to test it, by all means write up the results, >> they'll be interesting to read. If *you* get a contradictory or >> impossible result, it'll be very interesting to read the >> description of the experiment and try to figure out what led to the >> result, because you are an honest experimenter (or so I believe), >> and by the way I'd believe you before I'd believe a British >> eccentric with a batso theory whether or not he's got a PhD. > > He didn't exactly have a theory. He based most of what > he did on experimentation, which admittedly could have > been misinterpreted. That is mostly what I'm trying to > do. And I'm not going to let any theory, new batso or > old batso, stand in the way of steel, bronze, copper, > and a heaping helping of angular momentum. > >> Yes, for sure, someone should try it; if you can see a way to >> convert the low grade heat generated by all CF experiments to date >> into useable energy output that would be *extremely* interesting. > > Kay... for starters, can anyone say how much was the > best amount of heat produced, what the experiment was, > what is needed to do it, and so on? I don't know. I can't. My impression is that gas phase work has been more reliable than liquid phase work, and has been a lot closer to break-even (if we ignore the cost of compressing the D2O), but I could be totally off base on that. Mizuno's incandescent tungsten experiments may have produced the largest amount of heat per experiment, but they also required a *large* amount of input energy to make them go -- and they seem to be very hard to reproduce. > [ snip some stuff] > >> Think about that. And think about what Johnson >> actually did in the >> following 4 years. And think about Afghanistan. > > I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this, but > AFAICT, Obama is not anti-war. Well, his platform wasn't exactly "Let's ramp up Afghanistan, YEAH!" It was more like "Let's wind down Iraq (and send some of those troops to Afghanistan where they can maybe do some good)" And that message was stacked up against McCain's message which was more like "Let's stay in Iraq as long as we need to, maybe forever, whatever, let's stay, it's cool...", which may have made Obama's message sound better than it was. But 17,000 going to Afghanistan has turned into 19,000 with 2,000 of them coming in fresh, and there are noises like a draft in the offing, and this is beginning to seem a lot like the 1960's all over again. Anyhow that's where I was going with that. > He says a lot. What he > may or may not do, is something else entirely. What he > says changes from day to day. A pragmatist. Like Nixon. (But hopefully less of a psycho than Nixon.) > And to be honest, it > isn't so much Obama I am worried about. It is the > three-ring-circus that is Congress. Both sides. There > was a ton of red behind the latest crap that has been > passed. This really is not democrat vs. republican. It > is far more basic than that. Live and let live, vs., > those who wish to control all. > > --Kyle > > > >
