If he's willing to get outside review already, then I at least will acknowledge that he is an honest crackpot rather than a snake oil salesmen. And it's always better to actually test the blue sky ideas than it is to dismiss them out of hand.
Oh, there have been any number of people who have put forward various intertialess drives for independant review. You are right, there is a difference between the honest crackpot and the snake oil salesman (thank god, or I might be in real trouble myself), but sometimes tests actually just waste time and resources when the theoretical failures can be defined without actual test.
And my point was that he hasn't actually built anything legitimately testable in a lab yet. The forces are so small that we'll need to fly the puppy to judge it at all. This is different from the solar sail which already know could work by theory and ground based test.
I can build you three or four mechanical variations on the theme that will even stand up to review in the sense that they seem to work perfectly well in the lab, much better than this one does because they'll actually scoot across the airtable, but the reason why they won't work in space are well enough understood that no one is going to waste a bird to send one up.
It's perfectly possible to become an honest crackpot by simply getting a bit of the equations wrong and have that failure perfectly obvious to other people.
You are confusing nonlinearity of acceleration at a given thrust with nonlinearity of the thrust itself.
As a visceral example go ride a bicycle through air. Doubling your thrust will not double your speed, but you will experience directly that you have, indeed, doubled your thrust.
In the best case scenario, i.e. if this guy can solve the little problems such as pressure on the chamber walls, his engine, by his own calculations, does not simply run with nonlinear acceleration with a given thrust, but actually "runs out of juice."
. ..from TFA it sounds like this guy is applying good scientific procedures to his work. ..
The proof that his working model, well, works, are measurements taken at the limit of the ability to measure the effect. This is not good scientific procedure. You are right not to hold your breath.
He notes as a 'problem to be solved' the fact that the faster the engine goes, the less thrust it produces. He also notes how essentially useless this would make the engine for propeling a car, positing only that it could be used make the vehicle hover so a fan could drive it -- so much for the "no moving parts" part. You'll need a conventional motor of some type anyway; and a power source.
He might also be neglecting the reasons why we don't all drive around in hovercraft today. It's a perfectly viable current technology already and fun to play with, but there are some real advantages in being rooted to the ground for ground travel.
Addiction is not constant use - it is the overwhelming NEED (psychological and/or physical) to have an item, action, experience, etc... and the overwhelming loss & emptiness experienced during the interim.
That is the neo-definition, yes, but we used to differentiate between addiction and psychosis, simply because, medically, well, they're different.
There are, however, some socio-political reasons for regarding them as the same.
Just because you use something often doesn't mean it's an addiction.
Just because you use/do something often doesn't imply that there aren't people who become obssesed with that something. Ever talk to a hard core auto racer? Better be conversant about tires and spring rates, because that's likely the only thing in her head.
On the other hand, you ever start to get the impression that there are people obessesed with labeling every obsession as a clinical addiction? Well, that is to say every obsession they don't approve of. One man's clinically addicted obsessive is another man's Isaac Stern.
The DOJ had a roadshow where they went around teaching regional offices how to apply the US PATRIOT act to regular criminals.
I know. I posted about it a few years ago when it was getting started. People were inclined to not believe me. The problem with a situation like this is the mass of people will not believe it until it directly affects them, at which point their political voice has already been transformed into that of a "criminal terrorist."
Fuck the Republicans on this one. They've forgotten the reason we had those laws in the first place.
They have not forgetten the reason. Some of the people actually involved are the raison d'etre for some of those very laws. They remember them quite well and hate them.
. ..they should have a clause that the gathered evidence can only be used to convict for treason/terrorism. That would lessen the likelihood of abuse. ..
Nonsense. It would simply increase the likelihood of expanding the legal meaning of treason/terrorism.
We can tattoo nickels on our skin We'll drain our veins and put honey in We'll buy new fingers two times ten We'll even put pennies in our chins We'll buy a silver set of wings Lay 'em on our backs for the winds And we can buy that diamond ring And just about any other thing With somebody else's money
The mission statement of the copyright act under which I grew up:
"The main object to be desired in expanding copyright protection accorded to music has been to give the composer an adequate return for the value of his composition, and it has been a serious and difficult task to combine the protection of the composer with the protection of the public, and to so frame an act that it would accomplish the double purpose of securing to the composer an adequate return for all use made of his composition and at the same time prevent the formation of oppressive monopolies, which might be founded upon the very rights granted to the composer for the purpose of protecting his interests"
The term was 28 years renewable, giving a maximum of a 56 year monopoly, double the previous time limit. Who knew that I would one day be looking back at those footprints in the woods with nostalgia for a time when copyrights might last more than a century longer and cover every laundry list and office memo?
I also remember being in a Science Museum and one of the exhibits claimed that the best reaction times on their particular exhibit in traditional studies were seasoned Aircraft Pilots.
There was also a study comparing ordinary drivers to racing drivers. Under normal circumstances the reaction times of both groups was the same, but as the speed/pressure went up the ordinary drivers exhibited the expected degradation of reaction times - while the racing drivers reacted faster and faster commensurate with the stimulus.
Training and focus under threat of real pain. IF you want to get better at games, have a friend stand behind you with a cricket bat.
I'll take some of that too. Preferably delivered in a Sadillac Eldorado Pervertable with leopard skin upolstery, great condition except for spots. Just ninety-eight cents a pound.
Slashdot Mirror
If he's willing to get outside review already, then I at least will acknowledge that he is an honest crackpot rather than a snake oil salesmen. And it's always better to actually test the blue sky ideas than it is to dismiss them out of hand.
Oh, there have been any number of people who have put forward various intertialess drives for independant review. You are right, there is a difference between the honest crackpot and the snake oil salesman (thank god, or I might be in real trouble myself), but sometimes tests actually just waste time and resources when the theoretical failures can be defined without actual test.
And my point was that he hasn't actually built anything legitimately testable in a lab yet. The forces are so small that we'll need to fly the puppy to judge it at all. This is different from the solar sail which already know could work by theory and ground based test.
I can build you three or four mechanical variations on the theme that will even stand up to review in the sense that they seem to work perfectly well in the lab, much better than this one does because they'll actually scoot across the airtable, but the reason why they won't work in space are well enough understood that no one is going to waste a bird to send one up.
It's perfectly possible to become an honest crackpot by simply getting a bit of the equations wrong and have that failure perfectly obvious to other people.
KFG
You are confusing nonlinearity of acceleration at a given thrust with nonlinearity of the thrust itself.
As a visceral example go ride a bicycle through air. Doubling your thrust will not double your speed, but you will experience directly that you have, indeed, doubled your thrust.
In the best case scenario, i.e. if this guy can solve the little problems such as pressure on the chamber walls, his engine, by his own calculations, does not simply run with nonlinear acceleration with a given thrust, but actually "runs out of juice."
In the colloquial, it stops working.
KFG
. . .from TFA it sounds like this guy is applying good scientific procedures to his work. . .
The proof that his working model, well, works, are measurements taken at the limit of the ability to measure the effect. This is not good scientific procedure. You are right not to hold your breath.
KFG
He notes as a 'problem to be solved' the fact that the faster the engine goes, the less thrust it produces. He also notes how essentially useless this would make the engine for propeling a car, positing only that it could be used make the vehicle hover so a fan could drive it -- so much for the "no moving parts" part. You'll need a conventional motor of some type anyway; and a power source.
He might also be neglecting the reasons why we don't all drive around in hovercraft today. It's a perfectly viable current technology already and fun to play with, but there are some real advantages in being rooted to the ground for ground travel.
KFG
Alright. How about this definition of addiction?
.
I already acknowledged that definition as the neo-definition.
What I originally described barely resembles psychosis.
I should have said neurosis and psychosis. Mea culpa.
I mentioned no "breaks from reality", only being enslaved to a habit . .
Because you did not mention it does not imply that is not and/or cannot be part of the symptomology.
KFG
Addiction is not constant use - it is the overwhelming NEED (psychological and/or physical) to have an item, action, experience, etc... and the overwhelming loss & emptiness experienced during the interim.
That is the neo-definition, yes, but we used to differentiate between addiction and psychosis, simply because, medically, well, they're different.
There are, however, some socio-political reasons for regarding them as the same.
KFG
Just because you use something often doesn't mean it's an addiction.
Just because you use/do something often doesn't imply that there aren't people who become obssesed with that something. Ever talk to a hard core auto racer? Better be conversant about tires and spring rates, because that's likely the only thing in her head.
On the other hand, you ever start to get the impression that there are people obessesed with labeling every obsession as a clinical addiction? Well, that is to say every obsession they don't approve of. One man's clinically addicted obsessive is another man's Isaac Stern.
KFG
In fact, you could easily hear other conversations. . .
Yeah, in my little home town of 30 years ago we had that problem too, we called it a "Party Line."
KFG
The DOJ had a roadshow where they went around teaching regional offices how to apply the US PATRIOT act to regular criminals.
I know. I posted about it a few years ago when it was getting started. People were inclined to not believe me. The problem with a situation like this is the mass of people will not believe it until it directly affects them, at which point their political voice has already been transformed into that of a "criminal terrorist."
KFG
Perhaps if they were the subjects of the electronic spying they were authorizing, they might think twice.
Oh, they will be, they will be, but if you don't have your second thoughts before the Night of the Long Knives it's too late to think.
KFG
Fuck the Republicans on this one.
They've forgotten the reason we had those laws in the first place.
They have not forgetten the reason. Some of the people actually involved are the raison d'etre for some of those very laws. They remember them quite well and hate them.
KFG
. . .they should have a clause that the gathered evidence can only be used to convict for treason/terrorism. That would lessen the likelihood of abuse. . .
Nonsense. It would simply increase the likelihood of expanding the legal meaning of treason/terrorism.
KFG
Lottery tickets aren't gambling once the jackpot, in dollars, exceeds the odds against.
We call that a Certificate of Deposit.
KFG
How To Make a Fortune Gambling:
1. Buy a lottery ticket
2. Win!
3. Stop buying lottery tickets
KFG
How do they manage to pay for it now?
We can tattoo nickels on our skin
We'll drain our veins and put honey in
We'll buy new fingers two times ten
We'll even put pennies in our chins
We'll buy a silver set of wings
Lay 'em on our backs for the winds
And we can buy that diamond ring
And just about any other thing
With somebody else's money
- Wallflowers
KFG
They want their business model back.
And the moon.
KFG
. . .many breakthroughs are made by scientists just 'doing their job'
And as often as not the breakthrough they make doesn't have anything to do with the job they were working on.
Is anti-aging science or engineering...?
Depends on whether you're working from known principles or working to expand what is known.
KFG
It's hard to find any grown man today who hasn't seen the classic man-flick "Top Gun."
Yeah, I've seen it. 8 to 15 hours a day on two dozen screens at once, for a full month.
Bring up that painful experience why don't you (twitch, twitch)?
KFG
50 pushups.
Yes, but the question is; did he do them?
If the answer is "yes," than he has way too much respect for authority.
KFG
Landing's easy. Under the right circumstances it will just happen all by itself. It's walking away that's hard.
KFG
Yes.
The mission statement of the copyright act under which I grew up:
"The main object to be desired in expanding copyright protection accorded to music has been to give the composer an adequate return for the value of his composition, and it has been a serious and difficult task to combine the protection of the composer with the protection of the public, and to so frame an act that it would accomplish the double purpose of securing to the composer an adequate return for all use made of his composition and at the same time prevent the formation of oppressive monopolies, which might be founded upon the very rights granted to the composer for the purpose of protecting his interests"
The term was 28 years renewable, giving a maximum of a 56 year monopoly, double the previous time limit. Who knew that I would one day be looking back at those footprints in the woods with nostalgia for a time when copyrights might last more than a century longer and cover every laundry list and office memo?
KFG
I also remember being in a Science Museum and one of the exhibits claimed that the best reaction times on their particular exhibit in traditional studies were seasoned Aircraft Pilots.
There was also a study comparing ordinary drivers to racing drivers. Under normal circumstances the reaction times of both groups was the same, but as the speed/pressure went up the ordinary drivers exhibited the expected degradation of reaction times - while the racing drivers reacted faster and faster commensurate with the stimulus.
Training and focus under threat of real pain. IF you want to get better at games, have a friend stand behind you with a cricket bat.
KFG
Coulda been worse. He coulda accused her of being . . .a lawyer!
KFG
In other words, he's accusing her of being . . .a journalist!
KFG
I'll take some of that too. Preferably delivered in a Sadillac Eldorado Pervertable with leopard skin upolstery, great condition except for spots. Just ninety-eight cents a pound.
KFG