ch19079 Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Br...s/WaterFuel.wmv saw this on another site. the link is to a news clip of a man and his invention. it really does seem to good to be true. here is a link to their website: Hydrogen Technology Applications Inc. http://www.hytechapps.com/presentation/#page=1
The Poojer Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 what does this have to do with the sabres???????? http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Br...s/WaterFuel.wmv saw this on another site. the link is to a news clip of a man and his invention. it really does seem to good to be true. here is a link to their website: Hydrogen Technology Applications Inc. http://www.hytechapps.com/presentation/#page=1 691813[/snapback]
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 it really does seem to good to be true. 691813[/snapback] Because it is. I just read the "scientific paper" this is based on...it's a bigger load of absolute horseshit than most horses could generate.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Because it is. I just read the "scientific paper" this is based on...it's a bigger load of absolute horseshit than most horses could generate. 691886[/snapback] Maybe... Maybe... But, you sound like the "scientific community" (of its time of course) "charting the heavens" trying to figure out that pesky longitude problem... I guess it is the way you come off...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 15, 2006 Posted May 15, 2006 Because it is. I just read the "scientific paper" this is based on...it's a bigger load of absolute horseshit than most horses could generate. Link?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Maybe... Maybe... But, you sound like the "scientific community" (of its time of course) "charting the heavens" trying to figure out that pesky longitude problem... I guess it is the way you come off... 691907[/snapback] I know... But it's not just bad science. It's demonstrably wrong science. "Isodual quantization"? The crap reads like Larouche's Eulerian indictment of "the pagan followers of Isaac Newton".
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Grassy ass. 691936[/snapback] Or you can try these. But they're less substantial.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 I know... But it's not just bad science. It's demonstrably wrong science. "Isodual quantization"? The crap reads like Larouche's Eulerian indictment of "the pagan followers of Isaac Newton". 691938[/snapback]
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 I'm more of a "seeing is believing" kind of guy. I'll wait for reproducibility, unlike that whole "cold fusion" fiasco in 1989.
SDS Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 I'm more of a "seeing is believing" kind of guy. I'll wait for reproducibility, unlike that whole "cold fusion" fiasco in 1989. 691953[/snapback] my favorite Far Side (one of them at least) was the one with temperture probe sitting in the guy's coffee as he pronounced the success of his cold fusion experiment!
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 my favorite Far Side (one of them at least) was the one with temperture probe sitting in the guy's coffee as he pronounced the success of his cold fusion experiment! I still remember that cartoon to this day! Although I don't think it was a Far Side cartoon.
sweet baboo Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 i'm a little too blitzed right now to figure out what the hell the article is talking about, but surprisingly the journal article is in press...however the international journal of hydrogen energy has a very low impact factor...in 2003, it had an impact factor of 1,344 whereas the journal of impotence research got a 3,063 rating yeah, boners are important, but more important than clean renewable energy? i'll check out the science tomorrow
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 691948[/snapback] You want to know how bad his science is? Equation 3.2 in this paper, changes the relativistic gravitational tensor by a term k x t (ignore the "mu-nu" subscripts, those basically just signify vectors), and follows it with "where k is a constant depending on teh selected unit whose value here is irrelevent." So, in other words, relativity, being wrong, needs to be changed by a term whose "value is irrelevent". Great...let me just set the value of k to zero...and equation 3.2 becomes the "incorrect" equation 3.1...and thus, we prove the value of k is relevant. Which pretty much destroys his entire theoretical basis... There's a reason this guy only publishes in his own journals. Because he can't publish anywhere else.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 You want to know how bad his science is? Equation 3.2 in this paper, changes the relativistic gravitational tensor by a term k x t (ignore the "mu-nu" subscripts, those basically just signify vectors), and follows it with "where k is a constant depending on teh selected unit whose value here is irrelevent." So, in other words, relativity, being wrong, needs to be changed by a term whose "value is irrelevent". Great...let me just set the value of k to zero...and equation 3.2 becomes the "incorrect" equation 3.1...and thus, we prove the value of k is relevant. Which pretty much destroys his entire theoretical basis... There's a reason this guy only publishes in his own journals. Because he can't publish anywhere else. 692012[/snapback] I love this guy's CV, too..."Jointly, Santilli held the chair of ’Professor of Nuclear Physics’ at the famous A. Avogadro Institute in Turin, Italy." Yeah, he held the chair when he was an undergrad. Reason being, the Avogadro Institute, as far as I can tell, is a "social action" group, not a science institute.
Just Jack Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 I love this guy's CV, too..."Jointly, Santilli held the chair of ’Professor of Nuclear Physics’ at the famous A. Avogadro Institute in Turin, Italy." Yeah, he held the chair when he was an undergrad. Reason being, the Avogadro Institute, as far as I can tell, is a "social action" group, not a science institute. 692013[/snapback] But... but... it sounds impressive.
Gary M Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 You want to know how bad his science is? Equation 3.2 in this paper, changes the relativistic gravitational tensor by a term k x t (ignore the "mu-nu" subscripts, those basically just signify vectors), and follows it with "where k is a constant depending on teh selected unit whose value here is irrelevent." So, in other words, relativity, being wrong, needs to be changed by a term whose "value is irrelevent". Great...let me just set the value of k to zero...and equation 3.2 becomes the "incorrect" equation 3.1...and thus, we prove the value of k is relevant. Which pretty much destroys his entire theoretical basis... There's a reason this guy only publishes in his own journals. Because he can't publish anywhere else. 692012[/snapback] Trying to read the lin .... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Recommended Posts