I avoided it because it's a stupid question, and everyone on the planet but YOU seems to 'get it'.
Why don't you use HTML and put others quoted comments in italics and get rid of those 'silly' asterisks? Is it laziness or ignorance?
***This begs the question of why you avoided my question, wherein it was 50mpg and 500mpg and what was the energy density observed?
So, unless we stick to the one LIMITED PROCESS (which you state didn't even include an OBVIOUS extraneous source of 'fuel') That IS THE ONLY THING THAT PROVES YOUR CASE, we are wrong?
I am sorry if you can't make the 'transmutation' between comparable measurements of mpg, bhp, and 'energy density'.
I tried to give you an example that was the simplest and that anyone with even a high school education could understand. And yet you insist on only measuring POWER IN/POWER OUT.
Could it be that his device works, but he 'upped' the power output by using compressed hydrogen? Have they been using compressed hydrogen since the early 1900's or 1968 or whatever date you choose ?
***And as far as these guys are concerned they STOP RIGHT THERE. They test your claim. They verify your claim.
***It does not matter why. They have verified your claim.
If I could get them to 'verify my claim' without asking about the giant hydrogen tank in the trunk, Then I would want them to also 'verify my claim' of a flying car.
I avoided it because it’s a stupid question, and everyone on the planet but YOU seems to ‘get it’.
***Oh, then you’re acknowledging that you’re ‘simply’ a ‘jerk’.
Why don’t you use HTML and put others quoted comments in italics and get rid of those ‘silly’ asterisks? Is it laziness or ignorance?
***It goes back a long ways, when FReepers would complain about ‘lost italians’. Go ahead and check on that Freeper Lore. When my keyboard has HTML keys just like it has CAPS LOCK keys, I will use it.
I avoided it
***You acknowledge avoiding a question. Perhaps that is progress.
Kevmo: 50mpg and 500mpg and what was the energy density observed?
Ucansee: So, unless we stick to the one LIMITED PROCESS
***What? I’m simply trying to get back to apples-to-apples comparison.
(which you state didn’t even include an OBVIOUS extraneous source of ‘fuel’) That IS THE ONLY THING THAT PROVES YOUR CASE, we are wrong?
***You are simply trying to include extraneous things into the system. No one cares how much energy it takes to get gasoline or Hydrogen into the tank. You just accept whatever value is given on a lookup table, and that lookup table has been given the scientific 3rd degree. Duhh.
I am sorry if you can’t make the ‘transmutation’ between comparable measurements of mpg, bhp, and ‘energy density’.
***Then go back to MPG. It’s so easy, it would seem... from your comment.
I tried to give you an example that was the simplest and that anyone with even a high school education could understand. And yet you insist on only measuring POWER IN/POWER OUT.
***Ummmm, because that is what this paper measures.
Could it be that his device works, but he ‘upped’ the power output by using compressed hydrogen? Have they been using compressed hydrogen since the early 1900’s or 1968 or whatever date you choose ?
***Hell no. Such a thing would be CHEMICAL power, and this device is demonstrated to have 10X of ANY Chemical power known.
If I could get them to ‘verify my claim’ without asking about the giant hydrogen tank in the trunk, Then I would want them to also ‘verify my claim’ of a flying car.
***You are simply not following along. You do the calculation with the volume of the item being observed. In this case it looks like a cylinder less than a foot long and less than 6” in diameter, but I might be off by, say, 50% but not an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. You’re trying to say that some unobserved cylinder that’s 10X larger could input energy, and that isn’t what is going on here.
Kevmo:
recall that you have been notified and asked why you put ‘quotes’ around certain terms, if not to be simply sarcastic. You have avoided the question.
Ucansee:
I avoided it because it’s a stupid question, and everyone on the planet but YOU seems to ‘get it’.
***Is it possible to get you to simply be real? Can you acknowledge that the reason you put things in ‘quotes’ is to add an element of sarcasm to the debate? You claim that ‘everyone’ but ME seems to ‘understand’ it, but that is not the case. It is simply a matter of whether or not you are being genuine when you write. When you add ‘quotes’, it generates a sarcasm bifurcation, a way for you to backtrack on what you say by claiming you didn’t ‘mean it’. Such a thing doubles the number of things to address, EACH time you USE them.