But your whole argument is based on the idea that you can use energy to produce acceleration (delta-v) and then use that increased speed to generate more energy. But you can't! And that is the reason PM is impossible.
In other words, it's your bogus assumptions that defy physics, not the EM drive.
If the reactionless drive is assumed to produce thrust based on the power input only
Just like a rocket or ion drive. And just like a rocket or ion drive, the thrust will drop to zero as soon as the power supply runs out. There is nothing "perpetual" about it.
The only difference is that the rocket and ion drive are losing mass, while the EM drive supposedly isn't, and there is no known way for that to happen.
The thing almost certainly only works if that thrust is used to move it - if you try and capture any of it to drive a turbine, the space-craft will stand still.
If you have an engine that produces one newton per 10W of input power, then move it 20 meters a second, you can extract 20W from this.
At 200m/s, 200W. Leaving 10 (or 190W) of free energy output after you subtract the first.
That assumes that you can supply the 10W indefinitely. But you can't: eventually the power supply (batteries, fuel, nuke, etc) will run out and acceleration will cease.
The net kinetic energy gained will be at most the potential energy stored in the power supply. In practice, it will be less than that due to inefficiencies.
Does that mean the male brain is superior, being an evolved version of the female brain with more bits acting in concert to handle more-demanding intellectual problems; or that it is inferior, being a hobbled version with bits weakened and disconnected so as to interfere with cognition?
then we can't discount the fact that they don't get cancer.
We can on the basis that their claim of extraordinary long life is total fucking bullshit. They don't live any longer than anybody else: it's a institutional fantasy of their culture.
Raw material essentially costs what it takes to extract it.
How much does it cost DeBeers to extract a $50,000 diamond? Practically nothing. But that doesn't matter as long as there are rich people willing to shell out that kind of money, and there always will be.
The phrase "return to" usually means "get back to something that once existed". That is clearly not appropriate here, since "free market economics" is a fantasy that has never existed and never will.
The 0.01% are in the same system with the rest of us, whether they like it or not.
Except that they typically also own vast amounts of property, gold, art and other things that are not subject to currency variation, which they can use to trade among themselves. They can also pay for whatever servants they need by providing room and board on their property, just like the kings and barons of old.
You can see this in any "developing nation" today, where the big shots live in extreme luxury while their people live a hand-to-mouth existence in desperate poverty.
As long as it is inside around 25 degrees and not particular humid I switch the AC off... regardless of country or temperature.
Oh really? Have you ever lived in central India, northern Brazil or the Gulf Emirates? Even a moderately comfortable environment there involves huge amounts of coal-generated electricity for air conditioning. Replacing that with solar would be a big win.
I'm getting tired about the dumbness of the/. crowd.
Then get the fuck out of here. We're tired of you, too.
Or, amend building codes to require all new commercial construction (apartments, office towers, factories, malls etc.) to cover the roof and at least one wall with solar panels. If would add only a small amount to the construction cost and would probably pay for itself in 2 or 3 years. After that, free energy with no carbon footprint.
There are more humans employed today than at any other time in history.
That's because there are more humans than any time in history. However, the percentage of those humans earning a living wage has been going down, and will continue to go down.
Slashdot Mirror
But once you have enough trust you can just tell people it's moving faster, and they will believe you.
And if you start to doubt it, they will be able to convince you, etc.
Sounds like a trust circle to me.
But your whole argument is based on the idea that you can use energy
to produce acceleration (delta-v) and then use that increased speed to generate more energy.
But you can't!
And that is the reason PM is impossible.
In other words, it's your bogus assumptions that defy physics, not the EM drive.
If the reactionless drive is assumed to produce thrust based on the power input only
Just like a rocket or ion drive.
And just like a rocket or ion drive, the thrust will drop to zero as soon as the power supply runs out.
There is nothing "perpetual" about it.
The only difference is that the rocket and ion drive are losing mass, while the EM drive supposedly isn't, and there is no known way for that to happen.
The thing almost certainly only works if that thrust is used to move it - if you try and capture any of it to drive a turbine, the space-craft will stand still.
Exactly - queazocotal and mbone are idiots.
If you have an engine that produces one newton per 10W of input power, then move it 20 meters a second, you can extract 20W from this. At 200m/s, 200W. Leaving 10 (or 190W) of free energy output after you subtract the first.
That assumes that you can supply the 10W indefinitely.
But you can't: eventually the power supply (batteries, fuel, nuke, etc) will run out and acceleration will cease.
The net kinetic energy gained will be at most the potential energy stored in the power supply.
In practice, it will be less than that due to inefficiencies.
Does that mean the male brain is superior, being an evolved version of the female brain with more bits acting in concert to handle more-demanding intellectual problems; or that it is inferior, being a hobbled version with bits weakened and disconnected so as to interfere with cognition?
Yes.
Thing Explainer is a one-page joke.
I wonder if that figure includes all the suicides since November 8th.
Trump, despite his many faults, has been choosing people who are honorable and accomplished,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Like that dignbat Carson, you mean?
then we can't discount the fact that they don't get cancer.
We can on the basis that their claim of extraordinary long life is total fucking bullshit.
They don't live any longer than anybody else: it's a institutional fantasy of their culture.
Raw material essentially costs what it takes to extract it.
How much does it cost DeBeers to extract a $50,000 diamond? Practically nothing.
But that doesn't matter as long as there are rich people willing to shell out that kind of money, and there always will be.
The WPA actually did do a lot of useful non-union work
FTFY.
Government employee unions would never allow that now.
If anything under population will be a problem (not enough youngins to take care of the old farts).
That is a temporary problem that will solve itself as the old farts die off.
and we have quite some indicators that it may not be
Such as?
We've reached a point where AI in medical diagnosis is more accurate then human doctors.
Only in a handful of very specialized diagnoses.
We are nowhere near to being able to replace a GP, let alone a specialist.
. It is time to return to free market economics.
The phrase "return to" usually means "get back to something that once existed".
That is clearly not appropriate here, since "free market economics" is a fantasy that has never existed and never will.
The 0.01% are in the same system with the rest of us, whether they like it or not.
Except that they typically also own vast amounts of property, gold, art and other things that are not subject to currency variation, which they can use to trade among themselves.
They can also pay for whatever servants they need by providing room and board on their property, just like the kings and barons of old.
You can see this in any "developing nation" today, where the big shots live in extreme luxury while their people live a hand-to-mouth existence in desperate poverty.
Any government that tries to force standard of living reduction will be voted out of office. This is essentially what happened with Obama
Uh, he's still in office, with the highest presidential approval rating in 20 years.
if you are trying to convince me of the science behind CAGW,
Actually, nobody gives a flying fuck what an idiot like you thinks.
India is water deficient a problem Global Warming could fix.
WTF?
That makes no sense at all. Higher temperatures cause droughts, not more rains.
India should be putting in clean coal plants
Too bad there is no such thing.
As long as it is inside around 25 degrees and not particular humid I switch the AC off ... regardless of country or temperature.
Oh really?
Have you ever lived in central India, northern Brazil or the Gulf Emirates?
Even a moderately comfortable environment there involves huge amounts of coal-generated electricity for air conditioning.
Replacing that with solar would be a big win.
I'm getting tired about the dumbness of the /. crowd.
Then get the fuck out of here. We're tired of you, too.
Or, amend building codes to require all new commercial construction
(apartments, office towers, factories, malls etc.) to cover the roof and at least one wall with solar panels.
If would add only a small amount to the construction cost and would probably pay for itself in 2 or 3 years.
After that, free energy with no carbon footprint.
Twoever?
Radiation is forever.
There are more humans employed today than at any other time in history.
That's because there are more humans than any time in history. However, the percentage of those humans earning a living wage has been going down, and will continue to go down.