Correct you know very little, it uses very little energy to split the hydrogen from the H2o, so yes you know very little but don't let that get you down you can always learn more and that's the beautiful thing about being alive.
Also don't feel bad about not having much knowledge on something, learning is a gift.
That also mean you only can get back that amount of energy when exploding it.
Problem : you never can manage a 100% efficiency. So you end up losing energy when electrolysing the water and you add the inherent inefficiency of a gas engine ( around 20%. 60% if you replace the engine with a turbine. ).
Electric engines on the other hand manage 85-90%. Their problem is the low energy density of batteries in general.
So a lithium-ion battery has only half the energy density of compressed hydrogen but with a vastly more efficient engine behind it!
Therefore, that bike can only be really inefficient at best.
Yet a sealed 'tin can' that is set to a resonate freq that then has microwaves bounced in a resonate fashion produces 'thrust', so could it be that 'standard conditions' like 'standard science' is backwards and actually retarded pseudo science?
And what is occuring is the electrical freq passed through the h2o is of a certain resonant freq?
Therefore, that bike can be Really efficient at worst.
So you have no argument against my logic and had to resort to ad hominem against science itself?
Pretty sad since you are trying to use scientific principles to do so, on a network that was created to connect universities originally, with a device that was created thanks to advances in it.
As for your currents "attacks" :
The results haven't been published yet, so the validity of the engine is still somewhat in doubt. Still, there is an hypothesis to explain it right now... It just need testing.
The frequency doesn't matter. The hydrogen-oxygen bonds contain a very specific amount of energy : You cannot create those bonds with any less than that. Or get any more by undoing them. No matter the method used.
That's because no one will publish the white paper its a well know fact.
That's how the current state of the backwards science work, rather than argue ill do as I said to the other fellow let have a bet, we should make proper terms, and then make an offical bet I'm offering a bet to him on the 'em drive' he has a lot of faith in current human science so he is on the verge of a bet with me.
Im happy to do the same with you, but it can't rely on this retarded 'publish corp' issue otherwise no wonder humans are still burning coal.
So I'm happy to take a bet on this if you are confident as you seem?
Okay, so I have been reading and re-reading that for more than 15 minutes now and I'm not sure where it come from or what it actually mean.
But please show the sources for your fact. Because you're the only one with it right now, according to google.
Still I don't understand why you use the em-drive as a proof that science isn't always right^* only to claim right after that it doesn't follow the scientific method...
( ^* which is a strange argument : science is merely the result of the scientific method, and the latter only serve as a way to show what ideas of the working the Universe are wrong, and therefore infer the rules of the Universe out of it. It doesn't pretend to be right, only to be less wrong than everything else tested for now. )
Not that I will complain much about you destroying your own argumentation...
Still, we were talking about the limited efficency of a electrolysis powered gas engine over an electric one, as a result of me simply stating the bike doesn't actually run on water.
So you will problably consider this as science still not telling you why, but as far as I'm concerned, I have given you a good explanation on how that bike "run on water" ( for a generous enough definition of it ) and why it isn't a revolutionary idea or a practical one.
You may want to yet again move the discussion to another failing of science in your eyes, but this thread has been answered.
Unless you have a good reason to believe my logic on the bike is fundamentally wrong, of course.
Your logic on the bike is fundamentally wrong and I will bet you as such, im willing to say in less than 3 years these devices will be commonplace although not necessarily needed.
So they are my terms, If you want to bet you are correct lets decide on terms and both put some crypto currency to an official betting service that will hold the funds and release them to the winner.
view the rest of the comments →
Frenchgeek ago
Given my light reading on it : It doesn't run on water ; it run on electricity.
In a really inefficient way too : it use a battery to electrolyze water and then use the resulting H2 O2 mix to run a classic gas engine.
From what I know of theses engine ( which is very little ), I'm pretty sure constanly having water in it isn't good.
k_digi ago
Correct you know very little, it uses very little energy to split the hydrogen from the H2o, so yes you know very little but don't let that get you down you can always learn more and that's the beautiful thing about being alive.
Also don't feel bad about not having much knowledge on something, learning is a gift.
Frenchgeek ago
The electrolysis of water in standard conditions requires a theoretical minimum of 237 kJ of electrical energy input to dissociate each mole of water, which is the standard Gibbs free energy of formation of water. It also requires energy to overcome the change in entropy of the reaction. Therefore, the process cannot proceed below 286 kJ per mol if no external heat/energy is added.
That also mean you only can get back that amount of energy when exploding it.
Problem : you never can manage a 100% efficiency. So you end up losing energy when electrolysing the water and you add the inherent inefficiency of a gas engine ( around 20%. 60% if you replace the engine with a turbine. ).
Electric engines on the other hand manage 85-90%. Their problem is the low energy density of batteries in general.
So a lithium-ion battery has only half the energy density of compressed hydrogen but with a vastly more efficient engine behind it!
Therefore, that bike can only be really inefficient at best.
k_digi ago
Yet a sealed 'tin can' that is set to a resonate freq that then has microwaves bounced in a resonate fashion produces 'thrust', so could it be that 'standard conditions' like 'standard science' is backwards and actually retarded pseudo science?
And what is occuring is the electrical freq passed through the h2o is of a certain resonant freq?
Therefore, that bike can be Really efficient at worst.
Frenchgeek ago
...
So you have no argument against my logic and had to resort to ad hominem against science itself?
Pretty sad since you are trying to use scientific principles to do so, on a network that was created to connect universities originally, with a device that was created thanks to advances in it.
As for your currents "attacks" :
The results haven't been published yet, so the validity of the engine is still somewhat in doubt. Still, there is an hypothesis to explain it right now... It just need testing.
The frequency doesn't matter. The hydrogen-oxygen bonds contain a very specific amount of energy : You cannot create those bonds with any less than that. Or get any more by undoing them. No matter the method used.
k_digi ago
The results haven't been published ha ha.
That's because no one will publish the white paper its a well know fact.
That's how the current state of the backwards science work, rather than argue ill do as I said to the other fellow let have a bet, we should make proper terms, and then make an offical bet I'm offering a bet to him on the 'em drive' he has a lot of faith in current human science so he is on the verge of a bet with me.
Im happy to do the same with you, but it can't rely on this retarded 'publish corp' issue otherwise no wonder humans are still burning coal.
So I'm happy to take a bet on this if you are confident as you seem?
Frenchgeek ago
Okay, so I have been reading and re-reading that for more than 15 minutes now and I'm not sure where it come from or what it actually mean.
But please show the sources for your fact. Because you're the only one with it right now, according to google.
Still I don't understand why you use the em-drive as a proof that science isn't always right^* only to claim right after that it doesn't follow the scientific method...
( ^* which is a strange argument : science is merely the result of the scientific method, and the latter only serve as a way to show what ideas of the working the Universe are wrong, and therefore infer the rules of the Universe out of it. It doesn't pretend to be right, only to be less wrong than everything else tested for now. )
Not that I will complain much about you destroying your own argumentation...
Still, we were talking about the limited efficency of a electrolysis powered gas engine over an electric one, as a result of me simply stating the bike doesn't actually run on water.
So you will problably consider this as science still not telling you why, but as far as I'm concerned, I have given you a good explanation on how that bike "run on water" ( for a generous enough definition of it ) and why it isn't a revolutionary idea or a practical one.
You may want to yet again move the discussion to another failing of science in your eyes, but this thread has been answered.
Unless you have a good reason to believe my logic on the bike is fundamentally wrong, of course.
k_digi ago
Your logic on the bike is fundamentally wrong and I will bet you as such, im willing to say in less than 3 years these devices will be commonplace although not necessarily needed.
So they are my terms, If you want to bet you are correct lets decide on terms and both put some crypto currency to an official betting service that will hold the funds and release them to the winner.
So you can make counter terms now if you like.