studiot

Unfortunately for you, "stream of consciousness" is not the way the Universe works. So it cannot be the way Science works. Stream is great for such activities as enjoying a sunset, painting a sunset, writing music about a sunset, ................ But it is no good for Science. Imagine what would happen if Lewis Hamilton drove around the track thinking about what he would have for dinner, his girlfriend, next week's episode of Eastenders etc etc.........

And thank you for coming back to complete the thread and reply, so many don't bother. Keep you chem(etc) questions coming. +1

Thank you for presenting this. It seems a fine example of all the hard work that goes into infilling our knowledge between major breakthroughs. Most Science is actually like this, lacking the glamour of the big breakthrough but totally necessary supporting work. I particularly like the colour pcitures, I'm glad to see they are finally making their way into papers. Perhaps you have more of the same up your sleeve? +1

If that is true I apologise unreservedly to whomsoever posted it because I missed it the first time and I still can't find it.

Nor would I expect it to be. Is it then in the rules that an OP may not change their mind and admit they were wrong about something? Oh I forgot, he had used up all his current allocation immediately before closure. So this was not a possible course of action for him. How is this a discussion when no one is prepared to address the only question in my opening post ? Is it somehow also against the rules to offer the OP a better course of action? No of course not. I was not even aware there was any. But please note that I have not said that the thread should not eventually have been closed, only that I could see a way of helping overcome one of the obstacles he identified, notably that of the resources required for a large scale implementation.

Tell the Police.

The simplest way would be in my opinion asking this guy to tell you what he's talking about. I agree the question is too vague as it stands. +1 'Wet' as a technical term means the liquid spread irrreversibly as a surface layer over some surface. So for instance beads of mercury will stand on glass and be moved bodily along, leaving no residue behind. Mercury does not wet glass. Water on the other hand may form beads but these will be smeared out when one tries to move them. Water wets glass. But water does not wet water. Water is miscible with water. Beware the idea that wetting is to do with polar or non polar liquids. Water is a polar liquid. Oil is a non polar liquid, which smears out readily and coats a sheet of glass. The description 'wetting the glass' is using the verb to describe the process. You respondent may be talking about something quite different however in respect of water. google 'wetting and flocculation' for more details. But best, as Koti said, was to ask what he was on about.

I don't need to, the rules here require you to show us that you are right. As far as I can tell you wish to use Pascal's principle to create a reactionless device. The success of each of these aims depends in part on your understanding of 'Pascal's principle' and 'reactionless', neither of which is actually simple. Sadly, you stubbornly refuse to acknopwledge that anyone else knows anything about fluid mechanics and thus don't listen to them, instead constantly issuing challenges and worse. Producing an apparently reactionless device using proper fluid mechanics is actually quite easy. Why do you think a helium balloon rises in the atmosphere? But you have to abandon Pascal to explain it. Equally you need to take notice of your own notes from Brown University, which spell out quite clearly when and how Pascal's Principle applies and when it does not. A final question If I fill a bottle (partly or fully) with a liquid and transport that bottle, standing in my bag alongside me in a train, Do I consider the fluid mechanics of the liquid to be fluid statics or fluid dynamics? Two simple questions designed to help you and promote understanding.

Not sure I understand the connection ?

Will you employ messers Dunning and Kruger as assistants?

In all fairness I meant to do this before. +1 for what is really a good and thoughtful Physics question.

Sometimes pandering creates a monster... does ^ (not) ^ a reactionless device deserve five pages? +1

Glad you liked it. That was the simplest one I could think of. On the other hand the Weierstrass function has the notable property of being continuous everywhere, but differentiable nowhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weierstrass_function

Really or just sometimes? What kind of point sharp centre is in this ball? Perhaps you would like to expand on this as things are really more complicated.

useful advice. Thank you. +1

Would you like to explain further, ?

+1

Affirmative. No I think that the fact that we are able to openly discuss the matter shows there is no overt or covert censorial policy.

I am certainly not suggesting censorship afoot. I am also pretty sure the OP is another pipe dream. So thank you for all the responses so far, but will no one care to discuss the question I presented at the end of my opening post? The context of this is that yesterday I saw three threads polluted with meaningless word salad and the continuation of a thread of complete drivel about fluid mechanics, which has been allowed to run to 5 pages now. At the same time a couple of new members with genuine technical queries seem to have got lost in the noise.

Reported.

A function with a corner or cusp such as y = mod(x) (The modulus function)

You start by writing down the reaction equations making sure you include the states at start and finish. This is because state change involves energy change. This is likely where you are missing something. So let us see you equation cycle, as hypervalent iodine says.

Short, sweet, and too the point +1 I think you are missing something vital in dividing thought processes into rational and irrational. Neither of these are complete without some sort of target/goal/motivational thought. Goals and goal setting is also part of the picture, it is neither rational nor irrational to have goals, but without them, nothing would be achieved because both rational and irrational processes are types of means to approach those goals. For instance in your example, hunger is a motivator. Moving to better grazing, catching prey or scavenging are all rational processes to allay that hunger. beecee's examples are motivators - neither rational nor irrational.

I must say I was disappointed with both the premature closure of this thread on power generation and the immediately adverse and even hostile reception a new member received. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118572-i-offer-the-innovation-green-technology-of-generation-of-the-electric-power-by-means-of-a-new-renewable-energy-resource/?tab=comments#comment-1099130 I say premature closure because I have just looked at the thread for the first time and it is already closed. So I have no opportunity to offer some encouragement and perhaps a way forward to the new member. Any schoolboy with would be able to build a conventional model generator, perhaps powered by a hamster on a treadmill, for just his pocket money. So should we not be asking; " Can you build a small scale demonstration?" Pretty well every project starts with such a pilot.