Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
drrbc, OK now you've crossed a line.
1st, In science, we don't make claims of discovery and then challenge the world to prove you wrong. "I made a device that will make a semi truck get 13mpg fully loaded" "Oh Really, what is your proof for that?" "I don't need proof, you have to prove I didn't" (Said no respectable scientist, ever.).
|
Yeah, so what's your point? I never made any claim- until now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
So you telling us to prove why HHO is complete crap by hiring some professor or something is just idiocy on your part.
|
I don't believe I ever asked anyone to prove HHO anything.
But let me go ahead and make my claims, as in 1 through 5 below-
1.) y'all are using the Law of the Conservation of Energy improperly in regards to what Rusty described (that the Law applies to ISOLATED systems only)
2.) Members that discuss certain topics are ridiculed by this same group which cites the Conservation of Energy in flagrant disregard to the conditions the Law is applied.
3.) This group uses this as a "club" to suppress discussion, i.e.- that others less familiar with physics would assume the group was correct, hence removing support for those you badger.
4.) This group is not interested in learning how to apply the Law correctly, as evidenced by instruction given several times in the thread.
5.) And that one can only conclude your reasons for not wanting to learn are selfish and self-serving in nature to say the least.
My reason for wanting to bring in an outside expert was so that you could have a non-biased third party instruct you that you were using the Law of the Conservation of Energy improperly by applying it to an open system.
It was hoped that publicly faced with such an expert, the group would be forced to stop attacking others with science that they apparently do not understand, so that all that will be left for them is name calling, attacking a persons country of origin, or that English is not their primary language. (re: the Tahoe guy "100+mpg" IIRC)
It was through this I hope to expose the group as the common school house bullies that they are with the hopes that they would at least change their venue, if not their ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
2nd. Having re-read all your stuff and been following you all along, you have not said anything that a person can hang their hat on with respect to HHO, you've never put up any facts that can be examined to be true or not, you simply spew non-sense about keeping in mind "Open" vs "Closed" thermodynamic systems, which if they were considered, I'm certain the difference between the 2 analyses open and closed would yield a difference so small as to be insignificant.
|
Whatever, but I think you may be quite surprised about the difference between the systems. One would be a little bit of hydrogen in a bomb calorimeter that is ignited. The other is a little bit of hydrogen crushed and pumped with some U-235 and a Li-6 catalyst at several million degrees. How the hell y'all can miss the difference between the two is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
This has been talked about ad-nausium and here are the key facts as I see it.
1) NASA ...(and it is Very Substantial) required to produce the HHO.
|
Nothing to do with my claims stated above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
YOU go find a thermodynamics professor or chemical/petroleum engineer that will prove your point given the facts and pay him $250 to put his name on it and give us his phone number so we can check his credentials. That would be stepping up to the plate and putting your money where your mouth is.
|
No prob. Give me at least 5 days (in the middle of a work "tour"). This should be worth a giggle or two!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
Please state facts from now on that can be examined, and Rusty Lug Nut is not the guy you want in your corner, his ability to be floored and amazed by unscientific horse hockey knows no bounds. He's the guy you turn to when you don't want simple facts to stand in the way of a really bad idea. If you ask him he probably has a water ionizer under his sink and the plans for an antigravity device he is going to build someday when he gets the time & money together.
|
"Fact" #1- apparently not even
you can wait to disparage someone the group has selected to pick on. For a moment though you had me fooled into thinking you were a reasonable person. That saddens me greatly.
And because
that new development, I'm upping the ante a little bit: If just 3 of my above 5 claims are validated, all of y'all have to write open letters to be published on ecomodder.com admitting to those validated claims, apologizing to those your remarks were directed at, and apologizing to the membership as a whole for collusion to stifle members speech.
And you will also refrain from any posting for a period of 60 days.
If 0/5 are validated
I will write an open letter to the membership apologizing to each of you by name for my acts that could have impugned the character of such fine men. I will also surrender my membership to this site.
BUT
If 5/5 are validated all of you just go away. Forever.
Sound fair?
How about this- are there any members that would like to sign up for the opportunity to "revise and extend" their remarks before we get going?