And not wishing to downplay the cultural tradegy, but York Minster burnt down 30 years ago, and apparently the repair bill was 2.25 million quid. (The minster is larger, but less tall).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne…ires-hope-Notre-Dame.html
I read that two rich Frenchmen have already pledged 500 million euros each, which I imagine should cover things. Even accounting for Catholic tastes.
The arch pre-dates tensegral design by at least two thousand years. Which is handy, as it’s rarely a wise move to subject masonry to tensile loads. A gravity dam would be a more apt comparison IMO.
The shape is a factor- a cylinder and a disc have different characteristics when moved rapidly through the atmosphere.
If would be very interesting if this mysterious torque can really overcome the fourth-power increase in moment of inertia (I=0.25pi.r^4) of a disc vs. a cylinder.
Top notch trolling Sir.
Also, what about Lomax? No doubt he’ll be smarting at being left off.
If he has the time between suing all the people he’s been arguing with, that is. “John Does 1-9” LOL.
What is it with Germans, and their heavy metal music?
Don't forget David Hasselhof
Synthestech seem to have gone off the deep end, to say the least.
I looked the illustrations in the report and maybe someone can explain how they extract significant power
__mm_____o Ö
“Can’t we just skip to the part where Melich is the puppet master”
...Was the comment I decided not to post earlier today.
People tend to look at the same evidence and side with whichever picture they personally think is more likely a priori. Those like MY with a more pessimistic view will often take the same information and conclude that the person must be duplicitous rather than misguided.
Well yes, but as you admit, he's not actually taking in the same information. Incapable of it, perhaps.
So how he has the brass balls to declare people like SRI as incompetent, is beyond me.
Dunning-Kruger all over.
(Whether) Q-pulse induced power production is in fact Q-pulse induced experimental error. Their setup is sufficiently complex that there is easy room for honest miscalculation of that even from those expert in calorimetry
You keep saying this THH, although the (studiously ignored) question remains: Why doesn't this measurement error show up during the empty reactor control tests?
Imagine the frustration someone like Godes must go through, while reading the list of "must do's" those like you insist he and his team accomplish, when it has been done already, *and* their work made public, *and* talked about on the net.
For sure... My favourite Mary moment was when he was poopooing (steady on George!) Celani's latest report, by claiming that he should add more knots to his wires. Of course, Celani had already done this, and written about it - in the same report Mary/SOT was dismissing.
...Then after plenty of prompting, he eventually skim-read the report, but yet again somehow missed the reference to the extra knots - Even after being given the exact page number. *Eight times.* (Yes reader, this really happened). After lots of rants and capitalised text, he probably realised he was looking at the notes section (where a reference to the same page number was repeated). Although by then he was refusing to acknowledge the whole debacle.
Classic!
Don't worry, they won't. It's the last thing Godes would like else he would have arranged for it long before now
Mary Yugo: The gift that keeps on giving. Do you realise how easy it is to spot when you're commenting on something without reading the source material?
It's beyond parody. Any normal person would realise how ridiculous they appear and buck their ideas up.
Zeuss:
I'd suggest that instead they spend $200K on independent research to check, test, and improve the SRI instrumentation and calorimetry assumptions.
Huxleys, it seems (to me) that this has already happened. The third SRI report talks about a 'fourth party' contactor who has crunched the differential versions of the calorimetry equations, in order to assess short-term/instantaneous power outputs. Granted that's not quite the same as being paid to verify the original equations, but, I would also think that's an inherent part of that process.
Display MoreThe two issues to tighten from the reports I've seen are:
Uncertainty in power in due to HF stimulus
Uncertainty in TC measurements due to rectified EMI from HF stimulus somewhere in the TC amplification chain.
Both should be pretty easy to measure and prove not an issue (if the claims are real). Both are characteristic problems of the Q pulse.
SRI are expert in calorimetry, and show it from what they discuss, so although there might be some issues there I do not see that as problematic directly.
I'm less sure they are expert in the unusual challenges from Q pulse RFI because there was not enough discussion of this in the reports I've read, and it is a pretty different area from classic calorimetry.
Fair comment, although some things to note:
You would think discrepancies in the input measurement caused by HF weirdnesses would be highlighted during control tests on empty reactors.
It's also very possible to measure the power input upstream of the Qpulse control box. LCC says Brillouin claims this has been done, and whilst it reduces the COP, it also avoids the possibility for arguments. Although it's all unpublished so far...
Some folks here exhibit a great difficulty in attending to facts and issues, preferring instead tangential insults. That alone tells me a great deal. They are upset because what skeptics, including me, write, undermines their not very solidly held beliefs.
This coming from a person who didn’t bother to read the SRI reports, as evidenced by the fact he mistook a press release for the second one several pages back, but still prefers to insult Godes/Brillouin with unevidenced claims of dishonesty.
And remind me of what “facts” you’ve uncovered? That Brillouin spelt the word ‘Hydrogen’ wrong six years ago? That a 90 second YouTube video can propel you into a foul-mouthed apoplexy? That when skim-reading a short email chain you prefer to confirm your own biases, rather than taking 10 seconds to double-check your own idiocy?
Your bufoonery hardly undermines my “beliefs”. To think that someone could prefer their own uneducated opinions over gathering, and putting effort into understanding, the evidence - and then being highly vocal about it - is breathtaking.
This kind of belligerent dumbness amuses at first, until a feeling of pity overtakes me: that there may be more people like you, the end-product of millions of years of evolution*, noisily revelling in their lack of knowledge and reactionary 'thinking'.
Your entire, carefully-honed argument is: “I’m skeptical because I’m a skeptic”... And nothing more.
You are undeserving of reasoned response, and should be thankful that anyone pays enough attention to you to offer an appropriately mocking or insulting reply.
ETA:
* Speaking of which, Darwin's Bulldog; THHuxley, and Darwin's Denier; Kirk Shanahan, the two authorities you appeal to the most, in lieu of actually reading anything, seem suspiciously quiet in this thread.
I wonder why that is?
I'm confused why you sound gleeful when you attack LENR.
Because he gets a little squirt of dopamine every time he labels someone as either a scammer or a gullible dupe.
As for me, I have no problem to accept that M authoritative scientists (not only top electrochemists) have claimed in N peer reviewed journals that they have replicated the Fleischmann and Pons AHE... ...The problem is that I have no reason to believe that they were right.
...Other than a vague sense that there must be some kind of limit to the hubris of a single ego, of course.
From citywire:
“Woodford’s listing of his unquoted stakes in Guernsey is unlikely to unlock any further liquidity for his fund. While the stocks, structured as preferred shares and listed on the exchange’s corporate debt section, are tradeable, the move provides a means for Woodford to keep hold of them rather than sell.”
Sounds like maybe the Guernsey stock exchange have developed an innovative service for the purpose of helping mutual funds circumvent the stuffy rules laid down by the government. Cheeky.
So can you go to the Guernsey stock exchange and buy IH shares?
If it’s the nylon rope thing, it’s unlikely to tell you much: Due to its small size an old-fashioned, exposed kettle element has a pretty high power density, but it’s surface only ever heats up to ~20C above the current water temperature.
If it’s the lack of boiling bubbles, I agree.
Comparing CFers to Evolutionists?
What a crank!
