duff_beer_dragon wrote:One of you tried that tactic already with the post I put up about the Steam Powered Car -
the link isn't broken.
It was at the time. I tried it again just now and it worked.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:If you are not in this time, then just do a search for 'potato' and 'clock' - there's tons of pages online about them.
The potato is what powers or gets the electrodes working, it's not incidental it is used in place of what normally powers clock batteries in this case - meaning, that instead of replacing the battery as you normally do if a battery-powered device runs dry, you put the electrodes into another potato.
The energy does not come from the potato. It comes from the destruction of at least one of the electrodes, in a chemical reaction which turns a useful pure metal into a less useful compound. You are merely re-extracting some of the energy used to make the metal in the first place. I called the potato "incidental" because any electrolyte will work - you point this out yourself.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:There is also a fuel-cell battery item on the page link given, it runs the clock from any fluids, such as water.
This is deliberately misleading. A fuel cell is a chemical engine which catalyzes the reactiuon between fuel and oxidizer - no part of the fuel cell is consumed in the reaction (as occurs in a battery). No fuel cell runs on water only. It appears that this is simply another battery of the same type as the "potato battery", "lemon battery", "beer battery", etc.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:Again,
the giant vegetables website is not short on detail, but I doubt you even bothered to try it out anyway.
They make many assertions without support, and they say that their product must be used in conjunction with the application of organic (compost) and mineral fertilizers. How much is the productivity gain over fertilization alone?
duff_beer_dragon wrote:The Implosion Centre website, who also make bio-fuels - it's a very obvious link of the page given, is very clear in what it details, and there are plenty of links in the science&tech. part of the website, and plenty of information on it elsewhere in the site.
You didn't post a link to the bio-fuel section, you posted one to the vortex energizer.
They describe what their device is and does, yes. There was even a test. I couldn't find (Google) any documents from the One World Garden Centre, though I did find a phone number. Where are the test documents? How was the test controlled and how was it blinded? These are critical methodological questions.
More quotes from Implosion Research:
"Today’s technology is solely based on explosion." I presume they mean machines, not all technology. There are non-explosive engines - for example, Peltier effect generators have no moving parts.
"... requires an energy expenditure of 1000 kW." kW measure power, not energy. If they want to invoke physics for support, they should be getting it right!
"Most of the energy is lost during an explosive process through frictional resistance, which produces useless waste heat." This is wrong. Please see Carnot's analysis of the theoretical perfect engine which has no friction - yet still produces waste heat. (Carnot 1824)
"The vortex motion, which also causes a drop in temperature and increase in density ..." This is testable. Please see the James Randi Education Foundation, which tests paranormal claims with a US$ 1 million prize offered for a success. I use the word paranormal justifiably, as Implosion Research is claiming to use something other than the accepted laws of physics.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:So once more you are posting blatant lies as to the links provided and what they actually have on them.
Really? Point out these lies. Quote them specifically. Give opposing evidence. Any point you don't answer, you are conceeding that I am right.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:Your "famous test" is merely an aspect of your personal belief system, and also has not been borne out by actual science at all. The best thinking in theoretical physics for example is well aware that the hidden variable in All This is thought, as in conscious-intent.
from
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics ... ables.html > In 1964, British physicist John Bell later disproved the
> notion that hidden variables affect interactions between
> particles with his well-known Bell's inequalities.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:Your nervous system can go and look up the books and papers with the details about radionics on them - you seem to know they exist. If I cite the ones I am aware of it would be like inviting you to participate in my reality - you can't think clearly so you would crash it by being open to such things as 'If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!'
I would prefer that my nervous system not go and do things without the rest of my body tagging along.
As for knowing they exist - not particularly, just some Instant Research care of the internet.
To emphasize: "... like inviting you to participate in my reality ...". You truely believe that you live in a different reality than I do? What's the value of G there? If you are not going to admit the existence of a common physical universe with observable laws, then it is literally impossible to arrive at any useful conclusions (This is why I don't like phenomonology). Conversely, if you do in fact believe in a physical universe but you mean that we have different beliefs about how that universe operates, you are likely right.
However, science is a practical business. Example: as of about five years ago, common wisdom held that GaAs (or was it GaN?) wasn't a practical semiconductor because its high defect density would prevent devices fabricated in it from working. Then a few people made working devices. I don't know if the question of how the devices work despite the defects has been answered yet, but from a practical standpoint, it is now much more common appearing in many consumer devices (e.g. blue LEDs). Lesson: theory does not bound practice.
On radionics (this is from a pro-radionics source):
>Abrams' work became controversial when his
> experiments suggested that:
> (1) Disease is a form of imbalance of the electrons
> of the atoms of diseased tissue (rather than cellular
> imbalance), and that disease could therefore be
> studied as a form of radiating energy.
> (2) Radiating energy from diseased tissue may be
> sensed after it has travelled through the body/tissues
> of a healthy person and/or along a wire.
It is reasonably well known that there have been no successes (replicable experiments) yet in paranormal research - which is conducted by some major acadedmic institutions! I mentioned the JREF above - proving point (2) could net you $1M - ask the JREF if it qualifies for the prize, I believe the answer is "yes" - they say theraputic touch qualifies just for being able to detect the "bio-field" (which didn't work). They've also done trials of various "charged water" claims, with the usual test being to distinguish in any way between charged and uncharged waters.
Why do I keep suggesting the JREF? They are a useful centralization of paranormal tests, thay have contacts at major universities qualified in many branches of science, they always design tests so no "personal judgement" is required, and they have the expertiese required to do proper controls (this is not easy). Trial procedures are completely detailed on paper, agreed to by both sides, BEFORE the trial occurs.
duff_beer_dragon wrote:Take a look around at the universe, we've explained about 1% of anything.
You realize that you are claiming, with the 1% figure, to know how much we [humans] don't know. Besides, 1% of the universe is really quite a lot. The amount of the Earth we understand is usually though to be much greater.
However, you seem to think that at least some people do understand radionics. Is this exempt from being something we don't know 99% about?