General > General Technical Chat
Unusual design of a free-flow hydropower station
IanB:
--- Quote from: Hydro on January 02, 2024, 09:06:28 am ---I'll show you the calculation.
You will have the opportunity to disprove it using physics.
--- End quote ---
This is really not how things work. The onus is on you to prove it using your physics.
None of us have any reason to put time into it, since we didn't start the topic and we don't care about it. It is your topic that you started, that you care about. So you have to make the case for it. Posting some kind of wacky, complicated paper is not making a case.
tggzzz:
--- Quote from: Hydro on January 02, 2024, 09:06:28 am ---I'll show you the calculation.
You will have the opportunity to disprove it using physics.
--- End quote ---
If you make extraordinary claims, then you have to provide extraordinary proof.
That's the way it has always been, since it allows competent people to produce competent results. The alternative is competent people wasting all their time refuting rubbish.
Andy Chee:
Given that you live in Pakistan, you may not have heard of the health technology company Theranos who invented the "Edison" fingerprick blood testing machine.
Basically you are doing the same thing as Theranos i.e. you are making claims without proof.
And no, a single theoretical paper (with errors) is not proof.
Hydro:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on January 03, 2024, 10:17:59 am ---
--- Quote from: Hydro on January 02, 2024, 09:06:28 am ---I'll show you the calculation.
You will have the opportunity to disprove it using physics.
--- End quote ---
If you make extraordinary claims, then you have to provide extraordinary proof.
That's the way it has always been, since it allows competent people to produce competent results. The alternative is competent people wasting all their time refuting rubbish.
--- End quote ---
What extraordinary claims have I made?
I showed a working free flow turbine
Why did you decide that evidence needs to be presented this way?
Usually, for this purpose, they refer to physics textbooks or scientific articles.
What am I doing.
What extraordinary do you see in this article?
Are there any objections to the article?
If you consider yourself a competent specialist, then competently refute it.
You can write a scientific article. This is exactly how science works.
soldar:
--- Quote from: IanB on January 03, 2024, 09:35:54 am ---
--- Quote from: Hydro on January 02, 2024, 09:06:28 am ---I'll show you the calculation.
You will have the opportunity to disprove it using physics.
--- End quote ---
This is really not how things work. The onus is on you to prove it using your physics.
None of us have any reason to put time into it, since we didn't start the topic and we don't care about it. It is your topic that you started, that you care about. So you have to make the case for it. Posting some kind of wacky, complicated paper is not making a case.
--- End quote ---
Don Lancaster used to get all sorts of crazy overunity ideas and I remember him saying something to the effect of "Dont, send them to me, don't ask me to prove you wrong, I am not going to spend time on it, maybe even if I tried I could not spot the error, I don't care, it's in there and the fact that I cannot spot it does not make your idea valid, just do not waste my time with overunity ideas."
"If your device seems to give over unity efficiency it is because you are not accounting for all energy input and output. For example, I get from my car 1000 miles to the gallon ... of windshield wiper fluid."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version