It is only perpetual motion if you can extract the power necessary to maintain the motion from the motion itself. So while you are busy doimg 1000km/s how do you propose to do that with known or even believed to be possible engineering? Yeah thats right the real world intervened and its just not possible because and as it stands the EM drive is not a perpetual motion machine. For it to be a perpetual motion device it would need to produce orders of magnitudes more thrust per watt of input energy. You have to stop assuming the universe is a frictionless vacuum.
The point being you could have thousands of experiments that show Newtonian dynamics is correct, and use that as a reason to reject an experiment that shows it is not correct as a mistake in your experiment, rather than the fact Newtonian dynamics is not the whole picture/incorrect and can be violated if you know what you are doing.
There are millions of experiments that show Newtonian dynamics are correct, unfortunately they are not correct and have been superseded by special relativity.
Only if you can somehow make a device to convert the motion into electricity with basically close to zero losses, which is well outside current or even believed to be possible engineering. You are making a classical physicists mistake of assuming a lot of real world effects can be put to zero when they can't. Basically at the moment it is impossible with the known devices to build a machine that could generate enough power from the generated motion to keep the device moving. That is q is still way less than one and hence it is not a perpetual motion machine.
I would also note that for all we know the device is converting dark energy into dark matter and flinging it out the back. Before you say it is not, given *nobody* has the foggiest clue what either dark matter or dark energy is you simply can't say it does not. That would instantly get around your conservation of momentum objections.
Finally repeatable observations trump *ALL* theories *ALWAYS*, and that includes consevation of momentum, as well as conservation of energy. I would readily conceed that the device needs more testing before I am willing to accept it works, but given the history of all experiments showing it working to this point it would be foolish to dismiss it out of hand. Also if it is really not working, it would be very informative to know where the current experiments are going wrong, and certainly worth the money to find out.
IKO shingle's for sale in the UK are marketed as a DIY replacement for sheds and other garden buildings. There is some use in log cabins I think, but nobody in their right mind would use it for a house. At least not in the UK.
Pay attention to the picture of the earth with some little black dots on it. That area of the dots is enough to meet the worlds 18TW total energy needs from solar.
The idea that there is not enough solar energy to meet the worlds total energy needs is just ignorant.
Because like the rest of their houses they are generally not built to last. They use asphalt shingles which is basically cut up flat roofing material. Something that would only be considered for a shed or garage in Europe.
It's probably a got something to do with the rapid build out of America during colonization. Remember ~40% of housing in the UK was built before the second world war and generally we expect the house we live in to be there long after we are dead and buried which as far as I can make out is not the case in the USA. We go for traditional brick built will stand a couple hundred years at least houses.
True but a slate or terracotta roof can last hundreds of years with a bit of maintenance to fix loose tiles. My slate roof is nearly 70 years old now and still going strong. Should easily last another 70 and certainly till I am dead and buried.
So twice as long as slate or terracotta? Heck those solar tiles must be going to last hundreds if not thousands of years. Or is this twice as long as whatever junk is used in the USA which seems to be a lot of asphalt tiles, something which would only be deemed fit for a shed or garage in Europe.
On the other hand a 30% efficient edit would probably be just fine to fix say the well known defects that causes Cystic Fibrosis. In fact Wikipedia tells me that there has been a functional repair in culture of the CFTR gene by CRISPR/Cas9. It also tells me that the most common mutiation of the CFTR gene accounts for 2/3 of all CF case world wide an 90% in the USA.
I am sure that a whole range of autosomal recessive diseases (aka ones where a single functioning copy of the gene is sufficient to suffer no or massively reduced symptoms) could be "cured" with a 30% efficient gene editing rate.
Dam you can't edit posts in slashdot. I should have done a minutes googling but his eldest daughter Ivanka Trump converted when she married a Jewish man. Again an obligatory wikipedia article for you.
You can convert.It's not common but that does not mean that it is not possible. If one of his daughters where to have marry a practising Jewish man she may well have converted to Judaism. Obligatory wikipedia article on the subject.
Noise *IS* polution. The social costs of traffic noise in EU are more than 40 billion Euro per year. One in five Europeans is regularly exposed to sound levels at night that could significantly damage health. The idea that the USA is significantly different from this is absurd.
Finally we have technology that can reduce this pollution and for the sake of a small minority who want to continue to use the potentially lethal (and yes I know a case where a pedestrian stepped out into the road without looking and knocked a cyclist off their bike killing them) idea of using traffic noise as a proxy for determining whether it is safe to to step out in the road we have to make the lives of tens of millions of people worse.
For several reasons. Firstly using road noise as a means to determine whether it is safe to step out into the road is insanely dumb and will/does kill people already, as there are millions of journeys on roads that are already in effect silent. Here is a link to where a pedestrian step out into the road leading to the death of a cyclist.
So in the first instance if you are using traffic noise as a proxy for determining whether it is safe to step out into the road your are a complete sociopath in my view and frankly if an EV runs you down serves you right.
In the second instance there are serious health effects from noise and therefore deliberately increasing that for the benefit of a small minority for a use case as we have detailed above is unacceptable in the first place makes things doubly unacceptable. The social costs of traffic noise in EU22 are more than â40 billion per year with one in five Europeans is regularly exposed to sound levels at night that could significantly damage health. I am sure that there are similar costs to traffic noise in the USA as well. That is the idea that Europe is special in the case is absurd.
In the third instance there are a number of cars with internal combustion engines that are quieter than EV's already and they don't have to produce noise, which makes a nonsense of the regulation anyway.
In short artificial engine noise is utterly unacceptable in my view.
I would add that Gaddafi after seeing what happened in Iraqi decided to own up to a whole bunch of WMD that we basically didn't have a clue about and allowed them to be removed. It is highly unlikely this would have happened without the Iraqi invasion.
The problem with the invasion of Iraqi was not the invasion itself but the utter lack of post invasion planning by Bush and his fellow bunch of morons.
The stupid thing is that coal is dying in the USA for exactly the same reason it died in the UK; natural gas. In the UK it came out the North Sea, in the USA it is coming from fraking. It would be utterly stupid to try and roll back from this and go back to coal. It would make energy more expensive not less.
The other thing is that simply switching from coal to gas you lower your CO2 emissions (burning methane produces less CO2 per Joule of energy released), the tonnes of uranium (burn a million tonnes of coal and if uranium is present at 1 part per million in the coal then a tonne of uranium goes into the atmosphere), all that acid raid producing sulphur.
Reopening coal mines is simply not going to happen ever. Heck even China has realized that coal is not a good idea and is looking to migrate away.
The law there is however in contravention of the rules they agreed to when joining the EEC/EU. And while the taxes if collected in line with the EU rules would only make a small difference to Irelands net contribution to the EU it would make a difference and it would be in favour of the rest of the EU. I tell you what you can just send me 5 EUR because it's not much so it does not matter.
The back taxes are only back till the point where the investigation was lauched plus statute of limitations. If Apple failed to make contingencies in case they lost the case that would be stupid of them. Here in the UK Her Majesties Revenue and Customs can at any point decide to investigate you tax affairs going back 7 years and if you have not been doing it right demand the extra tax plus interest. Why you think Apple should be held to a different standard is beyond me.
Nice but that assumes a whole bunch of frictionless and 100% efficient technologies that simply don't exist in the real world. Right now you somehow have to generate 80W of power from 1.2mN of thrust and no known engineering can actually do that so while theoretically you could argue that you might be able to produce a perpetual motion machine you in reality can't.
I think requiring energy is a defining characteristic of a perpetual motion machine. You somehow have to convert the motion of the machine to power with a sufficiently high efficiency to match the power require to produce that motion. If you can get 80W of power from such a small amount of thrust please let me know because you have some physics breaking engineering there:)
Slashdot Mirror
It is only perpetual motion if you can extract the power necessary to maintain the motion from the motion itself. So while you are busy doimg 1000km/s how do you propose to do that with known or even believed to be possible engineering? Yeah thats right the real world intervened and its just not possible because and as it stands the EM drive is not a perpetual motion machine. For it to be a perpetual motion device it would need to produce orders of magnitudes more thrust per watt of input energy. You have to stop assuming the universe is a frictionless vacuum.
The point being you could have thousands of experiments that show Newtonian dynamics is correct, and use that as a reason to reject an experiment that shows it is not correct as a mistake in your experiment, rather than the fact Newtonian dynamics is not the whole picture/incorrect and can be violated if you know what you are doing.
There are millions of experiments that show Newtonian dynamics are correct, unfortunately they are not correct and have been superseded by special relativity.
Only if you can somehow make a device to convert the motion into electricity with basically close to zero losses, which is well outside current or even believed to be possible engineering. You are making a classical physicists mistake of assuming a lot of real world effects can be put to zero when they can't. Basically at the moment it is impossible with the known devices to build a machine that could generate enough power from the generated motion to keep the device moving. That is q is still way less than one and hence it is not a perpetual motion machine.
I would also note that for all we know the device is converting dark energy into dark matter and flinging it out the back. Before you say it is not, given *nobody* has the foggiest clue what either dark matter or dark energy is you simply can't say it does not. That would instantly get around your conservation of momentum objections.
Finally repeatable observations trump *ALL* theories *ALWAYS*, and that includes consevation of momentum, as well as conservation of energy. I would readily conceed that the device needs more testing before I am willing to accept it works, but given the history of all experiments showing it working to this point it would be foolish to dismiss it out of hand. Also if it is really not working, it would be very informative to know where the current experiments are going wrong, and certainly worth the money to find out.
IKO shingle's for sale in the UK are marketed as a DIY replacement for sheds and other garden buildings. There is some use in log cabins I think, but nobody in their right mind would use it for a house. At least not in the UK.
Take a look at this wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Pay attention to the picture of the earth with some little black dots on it. That area of the dots is enough to meet the worlds 18TW total energy needs from solar.
The idea that there is not enough solar energy to meet the worlds total energy needs is just ignorant.
Because like the rest of their houses they are generally not built to last. They use asphalt shingles which is basically cut up flat roofing material. Something that would only be considered for a shed or garage in Europe.
It's probably a got something to do with the rapid build out of America during colonization. Remember ~40% of housing in the UK was built before the second world war and generally we expect the house we live in to be there long after we are dead and buried which as far as I can make out is not the case in the USA. We go for traditional brick built will stand a couple hundred years at least houses.
True but a slate or terracotta roof can last hundreds of years with a bit of maintenance to fix loose tiles. My slate roof is nearly 70 years old now and still going strong. Should easily last another 70 and certainly till I am dead and buried.
So twice as long as slate or terracotta? Heck those solar tiles must be going to last hundreds if not thousands of years. Or is this twice as long as whatever junk is used in the USA which seems to be a lot of asphalt tiles, something which would only be deemed fit for a shed or garage in Europe.
Most likely the Irish...
I would look to defend the English Channel with land based missiles. Why risk a plane?
On the other hand a 30% efficient edit would probably be just fine to fix say the well known defects that causes Cystic Fibrosis. In fact Wikipedia tells me that there has been a functional repair in culture of the CFTR gene by CRISPR/Cas9. It also tells me that the most common mutiation of the CFTR gene accounts for 2/3 of all CF case world wide an 90% in the USA.
I am sure that a whole range of autosomal recessive diseases (aka ones where a single functioning copy of the gene is sufficient to suffer no or massively reduced symptoms) could be "cured" with a 30% efficient gene editing rate.
Dam you can't edit posts in slashdot. I should have done a minutes googling but his eldest daughter Ivanka Trump converted when she married a Jewish man. Again an obligatory wikipedia article for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You can convert.It's not common but that does not mean that it is not possible. If one of his daughters where to have marry a practising Jewish man she may well have converted to Judaism. Obligatory wikipedia article on the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Noise *IS* polution. The social costs of traffic noise in EU are more than 40 billion Euro per year. One in five Europeans is regularly exposed to sound levels at night that could significantly damage health. The idea that the USA is significantly different from this is absurd.
Finally we have technology that can reduce this pollution and for the sake of a small minority who want to continue to use the potentially lethal (and yes I know a case where a pedestrian stepped out into the road without looking and knocked a cyclist off their bike killing them) idea of using traffic noise as a proxy for determining whether it is safe to to step out in the road we have to make the lives of tens of millions of people worse.
For several reasons. Firstly using road noise as a means to determine whether it is safe to step out into the road is insanely dumb and will/does kill people already, as there are millions of journeys on roads that are already in effect silent. Here is a link to where a pedestrian step out into the road leading to the death of a cyclist.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/n...
So in the first instance if you are using traffic noise as a proxy for determining whether it is safe to step out into the road your are a complete sociopath in my view and frankly if an EV runs you down serves you right.
In the second instance there are serious health effects from noise and therefore deliberately increasing that for the benefit of a small minority for a use case as we have detailed above is unacceptable in the first place makes things doubly unacceptable. The social costs of traffic noise in EU22 are more than â40 billion per year with one in five Europeans is regularly exposed to sound levels at night that could significantly damage health. I am sure that there are similar costs to traffic noise in the USA as well. That is the idea that Europe is special in the case is absurd.
In the third instance there are a number of cars with internal combustion engines that are quieter than EV's already and they don't have to produce noise, which makes a nonsense of the regulation anyway.
In short artificial engine noise is utterly unacceptable in my view.
Which is why this cheap appears on gas cars too then?
I would add that Gaddafi after seeing what happened in Iraqi decided to own up to a whole bunch of WMD that we basically didn't have a clue about and allowed them to be removed. It is highly unlikely this would have happened without the Iraqi invasion.
The problem with the invasion of Iraqi was not the invasion itself but the utter lack of post invasion planning by Bush and his fellow bunch of morons.
Actually the latest analysis is that it is April 2017, The December 2017 was a mistake.
The stupid thing is that coal is dying in the USA for exactly the same reason it died in the UK; natural gas. In the UK it came out the North Sea, in the USA it is coming from fraking. It would be utterly stupid to try and roll back from this and go back to coal. It would make energy more expensive not less.
The other thing is that simply switching from coal to gas you lower your CO2 emissions (burning methane produces less CO2 per Joule of energy released), the tonnes of uranium (burn a million tonnes of coal and if uranium is present at 1 part per million in the coal then a tonne of uranium goes into the atmosphere), all that acid raid producing sulphur.
Reopening coal mines is simply not going to happen ever. Heck even China has realized that coal is not a good idea and is looking to migrate away.
The law there is however in contravention of the rules they agreed to when joining the EEC/EU. And while the taxes if collected in line with the EU rules would only make a small difference to Irelands net contribution to the EU it would make a difference and it would be in favour of the rest of the EU. I tell you what you can just send me 5 EUR because it's not much so it does not matter.
The back taxes are only back till the point where the investigation was lauched plus statute of limitations. If Apple failed to make contingencies in case they lost the case that would be stupid of them. Here in the UK Her Majesties Revenue and Customs can at any point decide to investigate you tax affairs going back 7 years and if you have not been doing it right demand the extra tax plus interest. Why you think Apple should be held to a different standard is beyond me.
Because if Ireland was correctly collecting the taxes they would be paying more into the EU coffers and getting less from them.
Nice but that assumes a whole bunch of frictionless and 100% efficient technologies that simply don't exist in the real world. Right now you somehow have to generate 80W of power from 1.2mN of thrust and no known engineering can actually do that so while theoretically you could argue that you might be able to produce a perpetual motion machine you in reality can't.
I think requiring energy is a defining characteristic of a perpetual motion machine. You somehow have to convert the motion of the machine to power with a sufficiently high efficiency to match the power require to produce that motion. If you can get 80W of power from such a small amount of thrust please let me know because you have some physics breaking engineering there :)