The chemistry is better than alchemy!

[Tagor]

These are not rules! I'm just quoting things that have no value in scientific reasoning ...

And everything we can read on this forum put both feet in it ...

nothing prevents you from raising the level of this forum !!

for the moment it is off to a bad start

[Gregconstruct]

These are not rules! I'm just quoting things that have no value in scientific reasoning ...

And everything we can read on this forum put both feet in it ...

nothing prevents you from raising the level of this forum !!

for the moment it is off to a bad start

I don't think he wants to! Not even the means!
It seems to me that the furniture is very frustrated ...
I don't think he has many people who want to listen to him in life so he tries to impose that good word on us ...
People like that often end up taking a hand in the face or a foot in the ass !!!

[Tagor]

For culture, I recommend that you document yourself on the experience of Michelson and Morley, relating to what we called at the time Ether ... It is probably the most beautiful of the negative experiences ever carried out. .

by what scientific miracle an experiment supposed to show a variation in the speed of light, and which, at the time, showed nothing convincing ...

she would have demonstrated, (splash I take the rabbit out of my hat!) ...
that the speed of light is a constant!

this is a notorious flaw in reasoning!

if there was an example to cite it was certainly not this one!

this clearly shows that you do not practice your own advice!

moreover the experiment of morlay was reproduced by showing a variation of the speed in question, it is the example
type of rotten proof and subject to controversy ... that's a shame for a lesson giver!

[Gregconstruct]

Go my Tagor !!! You are hot there !!!

[jonule]

Oh ... I'm sorry for Witten and Hawking so ...
What shouldn't you hear ... Is it because they never published a video on youtube that you say that?

if you don't link to your quotes, we may not understand everything.
I had to understand for my part: the bigger ones are already behind (Tesla, etc ...), I mean it was fundamental research NOT oriented towards industry, I don't know if you see what I mean. . brief.

moreover you did not respond to my advancements: let's go together rather than each on his own ... and to reassure you: your pendulum works perfectly! that's not the problem, but frankly reductive to place it anywhere anytime ("what's wrong with my pendulum? I'm inconsistent? ) ...

take a little logic if you like:
if meyer = crook then comode = obscurantist

why crook? he didn't make any money and died assassinated, was working on cold fusion ... not logical what you say ;-)

youtube is great for quickly viewing and sharing something, it's a revolution for showing others, video is better than pictures / diagrams etc most of the time.

besides I think that you are kidding us by telling us about the discourse of the method ... we did it to you! -)
you speak of a reasoning which includes as acquired unchecked errors ("accepted notions"): it is a way of doing, not THE way of doing. proof (as you like): how was penicilin discovered? by chance, by mixing it all up, and a good deal of observation!
your way of doing things is dogmatic and above all VERY VERY slow .............. we risk limiting ourselves to pencil sharpening if you know what I mean!
you may have to go through this, but not everyone is like you, it must be admitted, even if their results do not relate to the same field.

chemistry has its rules based on the same admitted observations, which is why it has its limits! in addition it is also based on the physics of molecules ...
ditto when you quote "Einstein himself said god does not play dice ...": it's a quote, not your way of explaining it. Besides, Einstein has been criticized for HIS way of explaining things.

If a guy shows up and says "I invented a cold fusion engine", throw stones at him, because he's an idiot ... He may have invented something superunitary, but he has no right to say it's cold fusion!

completely agree with you we are, not so naive all the same on the other hand I will add: you admit that the superunity is "maybe" possible therefore, but in what way?

to finish I take your other quote: "Knowledge is the conclusions that can be reached thanks to this method. (science)" to which I instead place my quote: knowledge is what is acquired from experience.
one can speak of experimental protocol in science and of experiment, but it is a particular notion which encompasses just a part of the "real" experiment: it is a little reductive.

those that you say you deserve by patents and videos are not there to do the work you have to do, to seek, but they are there to "bring the good word": it is a natural way of doing things, which takes over. I agree that there are some bogus sources of information in this area, and there is indeed someone or something working on it ...

we are not here to revolutionize but to share; what do you want to revolutionize?

Comode asks himself questions, doesn't know how to answer them, he wants information but is not very polite ... I would say: you have to let him continue in his process, but it's a little political ...

[Tagor]

Go my Tagor !!! You are hot there !!!

no no, there will be no 3rd round
because I give up immediately, not out of ko, but weariness

[Gregconstruct]

Go my Tagor !!! You are hot there !!!

no no, there will be no 3rd round
because I give up immediately, not out of ko, but weariness

Yes I understand. But I think he forfeited!

[coucou789456]

comode said

As we know, neither in chemistry nor in physics, resonance can reduce the energy necessary for a system to go from state A to state B.

he must not have read the patents well or else he is stopped only on the terms which shocked his intellect (it is stopped on the first page on the resonance, for him, he is right therefore not worth the trouble of 'go further)

and yet, resonance works: all he has to do is go to JL Naudin's website to find out. http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm
it is said that the cathode is insulated with adhesive tape, so it is not the direct current that causes the reaction

to finish, I read with difficulty and not without a certain animosity all the answers because thearrogance de Comode made me shudder. put him in the power of a country, he would very quickly become a paranoid dictator ....
it's sir "I'm right" and you are wrong. We don't need to try to show him otherwise, he will always have an additional argument to oppose us.

jeff

ps: but by the way, what did he do on the forum ?

[Other]

Hello

For the pentone, nothing to say except on the illuminated who believe that water is a fuel there or it is only a recuperator of lost energy ...

I had not read this post.
You're right, water is not a fuel in water doping. Nothing proves that we recover the energy from the exhaust, we use the heat, but according to the exhaust temperature measurements and the yields obtained it is not sufficient as energy taken from the exhaust
There is something else, probably, just an improvement in the diesel and combustion cycle, that's all.
Even a saving of 35% of fuel we are still very far from a good performance for a heat engine we still have more than 50% of heat loss in our engines

To find out how to establish real scientific reasoning, start by obtaining Descartes' book: "Discourse on Method", which even if it is no longer suitable today remains an excellent basis.

In all circumstances, only reasoning based on substantiated argument can be scientifically accepted, involving only concepts accepted in the same way.

Something admitted must be verifiable, either by direct observation or by indirect observation, which then implies that it can be demonstrated that the indirect observation carried out cannot result from a phenomenon other than that which the we seek to observe.

With this reasoning it means, you little do-it-yourselfers in the backyard, let the scientists do it, and use what the scientists produce for you.
Where I agree (direct observation) ..
You refuel at the stopper, you roll a 500 to 600km and you refuel at the stopper, it's the only language I know ..

Little DIYers do this for fun, for conviction
But here it is a forum from everyone, not one forum of scientists who seek to demonstrate with theories.
Do not think that even small handymen with reduced equipment and technology work at Taton and that the improvement of a process is the result of chance.
The way of working of these enthusiasts is completely different, it more down to earth them and based on the observation, the measurements, the tests and the long is painful tests, the reproducibility of the tests.
Example in a water doping test with different water.
Slightly acidic water, distilled water, ferruginous water, tap water, it takes months of testing to make a deduction
Proving beyond any doubt that just the water makes you pass the efficiency from 30% to 34% on tests of 300km made on days with different weather conditions .. (a small variation of 4% even if we are already at 30% savings requires several checks or checks a 120 liters of diesel and many hours on the road)
In addition it is necessary to provide Scientific explanations? to be credible? Personally, whether I am believed or not, it concerns me very little, which interests me on this forum is to communicate with others. this reduces the time to do the tests.

Often the analysis is done either by comparison, or by elimination
The results obtained are not attributed to luck, but to patience and perseverance.

Andre

[wirbelwind262]

Hello !
dresser says:
Quote:
As we know, neither in chemistry nor in physics, resonance can reduce the energy necessary for a system to go from state A to state B.

> and sonoluminescence, what is it then?
you have to explain that to me ....
Good luck !