Sep 23 2008, 5:37 pm
In response to Xooxer
|
|
Jp
 |
Keep in mind, I'd like these claims tested in much the same way I like the work of the JREF. ;)
|
There I would disagree. I think the JREF has it's purpose in exposing frauds, but I don't think serious research should be left to their hands.
Actually, Randi *was* one of my favorite skeptics, until I started looking into the Sheldrake claims and found Randi pretty much flat-out lying about it. I had read, like everyone else I'm sure, the claims that he's biased from those who failed to win the prize, or those who refused to apply for the million dollars. I always assumed they were just talking junk because they were proven wrong, or refused to apply because they knew they would be humiliated and laughed out of a careeer. But Sheldrake brought up some interesting points about the JREF's Million Dollar Challenge that brings into question the purpose of the challenge itself. My biggest gripe is the fact that Randi gets all the rights to publicize and market the findings, which Sheldrake refuses to allow. By entering, you give up your rights to the technology if it is proven true. That would make me not want to apply, million dollars or not. Anything that would be proven true by JREF would be worth billions. Also, another thing I found is that people tend to see the JREF's challenge as some sort of litmus test against the worthiness of any research. Almost to the point of stifling inquiry. If it's real, they say, then why not apply for the million bucks? Not applying "proves" to most skeptics that it is false, even if the study is being carried out by well-respected universities. These people aren't the ones the JREF needs to go after. Leave the poor researchers alone, and get that witch Brown off the damn T.V. before she hurts more people. | |
Jp wrote:
The simplest way to figure out whether water is being used as a fuel or not is to consider whether it's coming out the other end. If the waste product of one of the 'fuelling' reactions happens to be water, in the quantity that you put in, it's probably not being used as a fuel. What if water is the only thing being put in? It's like that one thing Xooxer posted about the HHO-burning engine. It takes water, takes HHO, burns that, and the HHO being burned turns back into water (I suppose due to other present elements in the environment). I can't explain that, and of course you'll say HHO is the fuel (and indeed it is!) but the car runs on water man! | |
Jp wrote:
What would it mean if the laws of thermodynamics were wrong? There is a chance that everything we know and have used have just been coincidence--that is, perhaps gases don't work the way we think, but our incomplete laws have provided a solid base for testing and application of what we -think- we know. What if he proposed that what mankind knows about thermodynamics isn't, in fact, wrong, but rather incomplete? | |
The thing about that is that it doesn't work without an external power source - probably electricity. So the electricity is the 'fuel', because it's being consumed - if it was well designed, you don't even need to put water in, because the 'output' can just be linked to the 'input'.
| |
we don't need clean-fuel for vehicles - we have these:
  and these:   and these:   we don't need no stinking gas-burning engines! :) | |
digitalmouse wrote:
we don't need no stinking gas-burning engines! :) That gave me another evil idea. Feed cows rubber balloons and then harness the methane they produce when they fart! XD | |
You can actually already get methane gas from cow waste rather easily.
Take a feed tank, attach an air-tight air compression chuck fitting to the side of the tank, fill it with cow crap and water, cover with an air-tight rubber tarp, let ferment, use gas. Burns pretty clean too. | |
then you, sir/madam, should crawl out from under the rock and into daylight! these are the future (or something close to it)!
| |
Slap a JATO on that and I might be interested. Otherwise, it's just a slow-moving target.
Besides, everyone knows the future of transportation is teleportation. ;) | |
Bakasensei wrote:
If I saw one riding by i'd kick it and tip it over. Then you, sir/madam, would be a loser. And odds are it would either be a) too fast for you to hit it in the first place, or b) you'd hurt your foot since most are made with aircraft-aluminium or steel frames. Not to mention it's a trike so 'tipping' it over is a bit harder than you think. :P Seriously though, with gas prices continuing to rise, cycling is a more practical solution for getting around town. And a recumbent makes getting around that much more comfortable and (generally) faster. Don't knock it until you try it! | |
That water burning thing is interesting. If it separates the oxygen from the hydrogen, you can get energy from the burning and the hydrogen itself rather easily.
| |
Ford Europe designed that car though, so we Americans are forced to buy SUVs and other gas guzzlers, especially if you live in a place which requires that sort of thing. My wife just bought a Jeep Cherokee, it gets 19 mpg avg on a good day. Yikes. I have a little kia to offset that though, which helps.
But then we do live in the back woods of the northeast, and is frequently the coldest place in the country. So it's more out of pragmatism than anything. With large snow-falls and horrid temps, and unploughed roads (if only because the plows can't keep up with the snow), you need something with 4 wheel drive. | |
Those things would likely get their drivers killed around here. No offense, but I like to get out of the way when something bigger and faster than me is barreling down, and you just can't jump off a recumbent like you can a normal bike. I also can't stand toe clips, or any fancy foot locking shoes. I want to know I can ditch the bike in an emergency if I need to, like, right before driving over a cliff into a ravine. :P
| |
Seconded. In my area, even the back roads are pretty dangerous; someone ran off a bridge about 6 months ago (and to do that they had to run across the side of the road, AKA where you be riding).
| |
Xooxer wrote:
...I like to get out of the way when something bigger and faster than me is barreling down... Since I am typically faster than most things around me in the city, that's not a big problem. Plus the fact that in Europe, there are usually cycle roads that are separate from the car roads. Several articles I've read also point out that when drivers see velomobiles (like the Leitra) on the road, they give a much wider berth when passing and slow down considerably more. It's a combination of better visibility (looks like a little car) and curiousity. Another unknown fact is that you *do have the right* to the road as much as motor vehicles do in the absence of cycle paths. If you 'take the road' (don't ride in the unsafe edge of the road, but in the right hand car-tire-track) and are visible enough (velomobile body and/or lots of lights and flags), drivers pay attention and give you more respect. I also can't stand toe clips, or any fancy foot locking shoes.... I don't use either systems, and as long as you ride defensively there is rarely a need to worry (I'm more afraid of other cyclists than of cars/trucks, and I probably travel a lot farther and faster than you do during a commute and in heavier traffic). I want to know I can ditch the bike in an emergency if I need to, like, right before driving over a cliff into a ravine. :P The idea is to be aware enough to not get to that point in the first place, but each situation is different. But I see the problem: you don't drive a recumbent trike like a bike - it's apples and oranges beyond the basic components of saddle/pedals/chain. When riding at 20-25 mph you would be better to stay in the saddle because the trike protects you far better than the concrete you would land on if jumping off. I'll happily take a crumpled wheel or scratched paint over road-rash any day. Case in point: my recent trip through Germany where I crashed into a canal. I would have been seriously injured if the body/fairing was not there to keep me safe inside. An unprotected cyclist would have gotten a ride in an ambulance. Regarding the brakes comment by another poster, for anything up to 30mph/50kph I can decelerate within the length of a mid-sized car thanks to the disc brakes I use. Any faster than that and you probably shouldn't be going that fast in traffic in the first place. And of course, no measure of technology can save you from your own stupidity. But a velomobile can at least increase your protection from others. And do it comfortably. Seriously, would you rather cycle on this:  or this:  (or this:)  ? | |