Well this is it, folks, pack your bags, shills, it's al

It has never gone beyond a meme anyway tbqh famalam

>>8502708
>thundercuck
fuck off retard

>>8502718
>Cuck posting

Post discarded.

>>8502718
>>>/pol/

>>8502718
What's bad about thunderfoot?

File: lol.png (32KB, 577x688px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 577x688px

>>8502820
He's a leftist whiny bitch, ridiculising himself every time he tries politics (and he does try a lot).
He went full retard with Brexit and Trump, posting alarmist video about the 100% scientifcally accurate prediction of the total collapse of UK economy in a few days.

>>8502820
Some folks just get mad at him because he sometimes he voices opinions on things outside of science.

I don't know if I always agree with him, but he does try to qualify his opinions with some sort of evidence-based thinking so I really don't see what the big deal is.

>>8502868
He doesn't get to the point, he repeats himself, he overstates his case, and he gloats.

It's not about the evidence with him, it's about the feeling of convincing yourself you've won an argument without listening to the rebuttal.

His videos are at least ten times longer than they need to be to make his case. He's not being thorough, he just pads it that much. Then assholes post them as a reference and say, "Here's my argument. Now you can't reply unless you've watched this half-hour video, because then you won't have listened to my argument."

>>8502854
>leftist
like half of his videos are bitching about feminism

id say hes just slightly autistic

>>8502708
TL;DR
He doesn't 'bust' it, he just repeats himself for 30 minutes that the current output is small. He's the type of person that would have ridiculed airplanes after the first prototype

>>8502930
But the argument is that the output is too small to not be a mistake?

>>8502930
How did people recieve airplanes at first?

>>8502950
meme

>>8502950
Lots of them said they weren't possible until they were shown them working. Then lots of people said they were never going to be useful.

I agree with:
>He's the type of person that would have ridiculed airplanes after the first prototype
He shows this attitude with Solar Roadways, shitting on the earliest implementation as proof that the idea itself is bad.

Even so, the Microwave Electro-Magnetic Emission drive is more of an N-ray than an airplane. It remains vanishingly unlikely that it works through any new physics or will ever have a practical use. The argument here against it is solid, although you only need about 2 minutes to make it in full, not a 30-minute video.

>>8502942
so it does work but it was made on a kitchen table

File: asshole.jpg (52KB, 625x390px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 625x390px

>>8502708
ThunderCunt does it again, wow, subscribed, liked and saved to bookmark.

>>8502930

Sorry but the EM drive video is well argued and buries the memedrive once and for all.

>>8503052
No, that the effect is so small as to barely be above experimental noise. Or in other words, it only exists in the delusional minds of cranks.

>Ha! See you aren't arguing in good faith, you've already made up your mind

Yep, I'd made up my mind within 30 minutes of first reading about it. It's a crock of shit peddled by people who have literally no idea about even the most basic physics. As Thundercunt says, when going from testing in atmosphere to testing in a vacuum they lost about 99% of the supposed effect, when you look at the graphs of the """thrust""", the """thrust""" lingers after the RF generator is switched off. When testing it, if you rotate the """drive""" by 90 degrees you have a """thrust""" that acts in the same direction as before.

This basically the furore that the Pioneer anomaly created among the "scientific" fringe. All sorts of crept out of the woodwork claiming all sorts from aliens to modifications to GR to a completely new theory of gravity....in the end it was a thermal effect, this too in time will turn out to be a thermal effect. Screen cap this.

File: Screen cap this.jpg (9KB, 99x15px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 99x15px

>>8503082
Ok

File: how to hang yourself.jpg (216KB, 500x858px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 500x858px

>>8502930
>He doesn't 'bust' it, he just repeats himself for 30 minutes that the current output is small.
Besides the fact that the measured thrust is insignificant, he provides several arguments to show that the drive a dumb idea and its inventor's claims are bullshit, including fundamental problems like the pathetic energy efficiency due to how little momentum photons have and the heat the drive generates as a consequence

>>8503036
>He shows this attitude with Solar Roadways
>shows why using any glass as road surface is an inane idea because it's too soft
>shows why the idea of replacing large road networks is ridiculously expensive and infeasible
>shows that using LEDs for street markings is a dumb idea because they are invisible at an angle in sunlight
>shows that the power output can barely power said LEDs
>shows why putting solar panels flat on the ground (and sometimes under cars) will always be inferior to solar panels on rooftops that track the movement of the sun
>shows that Solar Roadways can't even pay for themselves
>unironically comparing Solar Roadways to airplanes
I hope this post is bait.

>>8503092
AYYYY

>>8503036
> Solar Roadways
You better be b8ing m8.

>>8503036
>Solar Roadways
A retarded concept with zero point.
>people said the same thing about airplanes
No they didn't. They might've said that they wouldn't work, but they never denied that transcontinental flying machines would be incredibly useful.

>>8503100
:D thank you anon

>>8503115
>solar roads
>battery cars
>inductive/wireless charging
surely you're a retarded cuck from pol?

>>8503140
confirmed for never been on /pol/
The trends on /pol/ are
>Nuclear everything, solar is retarded
>Musk is a shill and an embezzler
>battery cars are shit, batteries are shit
>automated cars are shit
>AI is bullshit
>not one thread on "wireless charging"

>>8503140

Why not put the solar panels next to the road? Or even above the road? The roads will be cheaper because they don't need to be a solar panel, and the solar panels will be cheaper because they don't have to let a car drive over them. The energy efficiency will be greater because they can track the sun. You can still have all the inductive charging if you wish.

Even if solar roads work as advertised (they won't), they are still are retarded way to go about the issue.

>>8503195
its about simplifying the installation and maintenance
if you get it all done at once the human labor costs ( the most expesive part atm and in the future ) does down considerably

Yes the road failed; the idea is godlike

>>8503192
yeah i hate pol
>nuclear investment in this political atmosphere
good luck with that; solar and storage is still the better option ( until the nuclear battery and nuclear waste refurb is feasible )
>Musk is anything but a work hard god
yeah because oil and gas doesn't get the largest subsidies of any industry - being an idiot sad
>automated cars are shit
yeah say that to the plug and play 10-30k packages being installed in every semi in the country; cars and trucks are gone, say good bye

oh well never take part in a hive mind

Thunderbutt misses the point completely in this vid, despite the stupid claims made by the original designer of the device, NASA only checked out whether or not it made thrusts at all (and it did), that paper wasn't meant to discover the maximum possible thrust at all, and he treats it like it is.

It's like throwing gasoline on the ground and lighting it with a match and then saying that you'll never get a combustion rocket to space.

File: a.png (36KB, 608x609px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 608x609px

>>8503259
>not wanting to harness the power of the atom
What's wrong with you?

>>8503276
i'm not against nuclear - if it weren't for the fucking cheap japs we'd be living in a great climate for nuclear development... besides trump

democracies operate on the interest of the people, and not buying nuclear developments is a low hanging fruit for brownie points

>>8503276
besides the only real issue we have with 'energy' is storage and grid stabilization. We can already upregulate production very easily.

Fusion energy will impact how we can generate exotic catalysts - that's pretty much it.

File: chart.png (52KB, 818x469px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 818x469px

>>8502854

>>8503036
See, things can fly, we've witnessed that, but we haven't witnessed anything breaking the laws of physics. So, there isn't any reason to "listen and believe" that the Microwave Cone™ would, besides a bunch of spurious claims and zero evidence.

>>8503331
>but we haven't witnessed anything breaking the laws of physics

Except the time when, you know. The velocity of a stars orbit in a galaxy did not appear to depend on its distance from the centre. Thankfully someone discovered """dark matter""" to explain the discrepancy, eh?

>>8503284
That's because a shitty nuclear plant built between 1967 and 1971 got BTFO by a tsunami in a region they should've planned for tsunami to occur. Nothing to do with the risks of nuclear power itself. Not to mention, fossil fuels (collectively) have killed and injured far, far more people than nuclear power ever has (that includes nuclear bombs).

>>8503343
Shut up, Wilbur, go and calibrate my telescope.

File: 20130601_USC718.png (44KB, 290x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 290x480px

>>8503276
>not wanting to harness the power of the atom
>What's wrong with you?

Natural gas is cheaper.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21578690-thanks-cheap-natural-gas-americas-nuclear-renaissance-hold-fracked

>>8503348
It is also far more toxic and has a far lesser energy density. :^)

>>8502708

I have no issue with this epic buttfucking of the memedrive but then again I don't think his autistic rant about the first proof of concept test device is going to help science progress in this meme field.

I say slap one on a small satellite and send it in an orbit, if it works it works, if it doesn't, then we can meme it out of existence.

>>8503350
It's also much more abundant and doesn't require billion-dollar nuclear plants to get energy out of it.

>>8503353
It is also poisoning our atmosphere and ecosystem, whilst choking our children.

Please wont someone thinking of the lemurs, clown-fishes and children?

>>8503100
>>He shows this attitude with Solar Roadways
All you had to do was quote the whole sentence...
>>He shows this attitude with Solar Roadways, shitting on the earliest implementation as proof that the idea itself is bad.
...and yet you choose to be garbage.

>>shows why using any glass as road surface is an inane idea because it's too soft
He shows why a coffee pot is too soft, by rubbing a chunk of pavement on it. He made an excellent case for why we shouldn't make tires out of coffee pots.

However, there's no reason you have to use soda-lime glass rather than something like pure silica glass, just as planes don't have to be made of spruce and canvas.

We're already starting to see much more practical designs than Solar Roadways, thin glue-down sheets that you put on top of conventional pavement.

>LEDs for street markings
Has literally nothing to do with solar power on roads, and is strictly limited to the Solar Roadways sales pitch.

>shows why putting solar panels flat on the ground (and sometimes under cars) will always be inferior
The unstated assumption being that solar panels will always be expensive and therefore we'll need to maximize their value rather than minimize the cost of installing them and the land reserved for their exclusive use. In reality, the cost of solar panels has been dropping dramatically over time and, since they can be made from ubiquitous materials, can produce the energy needed for their own manufacture from raw materials, and their production can be automated to an arbitrary extent, can be expected to continue to fall without limit. To see the ultimate potential, we have the practical example in nature of the leaf, which is produced entirely without human attention or expenditure, all over the world from nothing but immediately-local materials and sunlight.

>solar panels on rooftops that track the movement of the sun
THAT IS NOT HOW ROOFS WORK

>>8503346

What about the time we found out the universe was expanding at an accelerated rate? What a horror that might have been. But, never fear. It's all """dark energy""".

>>8503361
>In reality, the cost of solar panels has been dropping dramatically over time
How much of that drop in price is due to massive government subsidies?

>>8503362
That's it, Wilbur, I'm failing you.

>>8503353
It is also incapable of progressing our species to interplanetary capabilities and is thus a technological dead-end.

>>8503375
Nothing is capable of that you nimrod

>>8503377
>Nothing.
Are you that fucking stupid? Nuclear fission certainly is, nuclear fusion more so.

>>8503276
damn, petrol is so caloric, I should stop drinking it

>>8503362
Wow you are the first person to propose modified newtonian dynamics!!!!!

>>8503365
>How much of that drop in price is due to massive government subsidies?
Are you kidding me with this shit? I didn't say the price, I said the cost. It's semiconductor fabrication. The cost of production is dropping as we gain more technical sophistication.

>>8503375
Natural gas is very useful for progressing to interplanetary capabilities because it makes excellent rocket fuel. SpaceX's next generation reusable rocket will run on natural gas.

>>8503403
>he thinks we'll ever achieve fusion
Do you also believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy?
I bet you actually think space elevators are going to be built one day and that the singularity will actually happen.

>>8503413
Are you australian by any chance?

>>8503416
No, but fusion is a likelihood. You do know, you haven't made an argument, right? All you've done is attack me and attack other people, nice stuff.

>>8502708
Wow i'm glad it works, Soon i'll be orbiting the sun in my Suzuki swift

>>8503421
>You do know, you haven't made an argument, right?
I'd just be wasting my time. It's like trying to convince a young earth creationist that he's being fucking retarded.

>>8503436
>Proceeds to ad hom more, not to mention ad hoc.
Nice swan, you're really doing yourself proud. Not to mention, nice projection.

>>8503441
>he thinks any insult counts as an ad hominem
fucking brainlets i swear to god

>>8503450
>Literally defined as personal attack, literal definition of an insult too.
An insult is a poor man's ad hom, you raging moron. Though, I'll give you props for not falling for my bait to attack my literary style. Kudos.

>>8503457
>Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

>you're a faggot
not ad hom
>you're wrong because you're a faggot
ad hom

>>8503464
>Muh semantics.
Shit, I forgot minor technicalities mattered in an informal argument. Oh wait, they don't. :^)

>>8503464
>BTFO by >>8503475.

>>8502930
I havent watched the video, and have only skimmed the results from a paper, but talking with a coworker the figures I got were somewhere around 100W for 100μN of thrust. At that point, I'd wager some other kind of variable affecting the result, and it appears that even the publication states so. This isn't the first time it's been tested either, I seem to recall some uni publishing then later retracting the result stating that there was thrust. Sorry I can't provide any sources, I'm rather tired.

>>8503512
I think the most risible aspect of the whole thing are the 'inventors' claims:
>Hover cars
>Space flight
>Free energy
>Solving global warming
Fucking kek.

>>8503036
>shitting on the earliest implementation as proof that the idea itself is bad.
Theres no way you get around the massive inefficiency that is the solar roadways. There is literally nothing you could do to ever make that garbage work.

Do you think the fucking water well bullshit that pulls water out of the air and condenses it in the ground works too?

>>8503523
With meme magic anything can work, anon.

>>8503512
This isn't exactly new

An Ion drive was invented that would effectively accelerate Xenon particles and propel itself off the thrust generated by shitting these things out its rear. Very efficient but it takes forever to accelerate and ultimately unusable for current human space exploration efforts

This EM drive is the same shit except it uses photons instead of ions which means it can draw its fuel source from the sun and shit photons and accelerate off the photons. which means its fuel source is for all intents and purposes infinite

>>8503529
Isn't the thrust too large for it to only be a photon drive?

Granted, the rest could all just be error.

>>8503518
Up until the discussion with my buddy I was unaware that there was a man pushing this thing to market in a utterly ridiculous way. It would honestly make a better heat source during the winter than a method to levitate a single quarter.
>Tfw 56kW heater levitating a single coin.
>>8503529
Xdrive and other accelerators actually proved to produce thrust. It was relatively noteworthy and beyond the scopes of noise.

>>8503534
I dunno, what kind of force can you bounce off of with just photons?

>>8503538
Watch the video, he addresses this.

>>8503537
>Xdrive
I meant Ion thrusters.

>>8503272
Gotta get those views somehow. Also, the way Thunderfuck talks makes him sound like a massive arsehole.

>>8503544
That's because he is.

>>8503541
Could you just try and explain how he addressees this?
I'd honestly pay more attention to the man if he made a text blog.

>>8503556
Not that guy but he talks about the Crookes Radiomater around 25:00

>>8503564
were these tests not conducted in a vacuum? I'll go to bed laughing my ass off if they put what is basically a 100W heater and did not account for convection.

>>8503570
Both and still came back with about ten micronewtons. Which, I would say, is well within a margin of error.

>>8503572
Fair enough. I'll try and give it a good read tomorrow, in the meantime let's try and see how many people gobble it up without a tiny bit of skepticism.

>>8502708
Lame as fuck in his delivery as usual. He should really learn how to present an argument coherently. Does he actually write a script for his videos? He'd realize how retarded he sounds with that much repetition.

There is basically 30 seconds of content in this video. And although I agree that this whole thing is bullshit (99.9999% chance), he misses the point completely by trying to pretend it's to lift things into space. If it worked as claimed, it'd still be amazing, because you could move satellites around without propellants, which are inherently a finite resource over the lifespan of a satellite. It doesn't take much to steer a satellite in free fall or a probe in outer space.

>>8503577
Everyone who likes to virtue signal about how 'scientific current' they are.

>>8503036
>shitting on the earliest implementation as proof that the idea itself is bad.

The latest implementation would not be a solar roadway at all. It would be a normal solar array which is as efficient as possible instead of trying to be a road for no reason. There's no improvement you could make to solar roadways that wouldn't make normal solar farms even better.

>>8503361
>can be expected to continue to fall without limit.

You realize this would result in them being free right?

And it doesn't matter if solar roadways get cheaper, what matters is will they ever be cheaper than asphalt? Hell fucking no.

>>8502708
>it breaks Newton's third law
>therefore it cannot exist!
I have abbreviated the video for you. The faggot just denies by calling everyone involved either stupid or lying.

>>8503036
I don't like solar roadways simply because it seems like a waste to drive on solar panels. You're causing wear and dirtying your solar panels, and why?

>>8503641
>Clearly didn't watch the video.
Thank you for confirming that, retard.

>>8502708
>80 micronewtons
You mean like from the toilet?

>>8503646
Then explain the video, fatguy.

>>8503259
>Musk is anything but a work hard god
He's also a salesman who vastly overestimates his intelligence in many fields, as he readily likes to demonstrate: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/elon-musk-says-he-is-closing-to-solving.html

Empirical results trump any theoretical arguments about impossibility.

It's probably garbage but I'm content to wait on the results. I'm guessing the folks at NASA aren't total idiots.

>>8503100
Found thunderfoot shilling himself

>>8503903

Pretty much. I got excited when the NASA paper came out, but only because it means the meme drive hasn't been BTFO yet.

>>8503416
>I bet you actually think space elevators are going to be built one day
that might conceivably happen
>and that the singularity will actually happen.
it absolutely will

>>8502854
kill yourself back to /pol/

>>8504126
Space elevator is unlikely for the reason a transatlantic bridge is unlikely. Feasible, but not worth the effort.

>Singularity
Ill defined AI benchmark. Nobody will notice until some hack of a modern historian claims it occurred thirty years ago.

File: 1472142853858.jpg (97KB, 592x888px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 592x888px

>>8504217
>Ill defined AI benchmark.

So, if "blown to bits" is an ill defined expression, that means its okay to tap dance in a minefield?

>>8504332
You're going to get 300 years of
>Kinda like the singularity, but not good enough
and then people will claim that 2016 was the singularity because the internet overpowered television.

>>8503903

Yes

I can make a theory for how a pig can fly. I can also make a model on it with all the fancy math.

It doesn't change the fact that pigs can't fly.

>>8502942
Then just increase the output and efficiency. That's not something Thunderf00t even bothered to discuss or mention. Refusing to look into the potential of a technology because its first generation is shit is a pretty weak move for a tech person.

>>8504360
Here's the thing: he's not a tech person. He's a scientist, not an engineer.

>>8504417
and his assumptions are incorrect and uniformed.

>the thrust is way lower than we can detect (FALSE)
>it must be noise or heat
>other scientists that aren't me are literal retards or charlatans
He keeps repeating debunked shit.

>>8503903
Read up on the causes behind the challenger and Columbia disasters. NASA of the 50s, 60s and 70s did amazing things; modern NASA is just normal people and just as retarded at times.

what a fucking faggot.
half the video he talks about how small the thrust is, which is a fucking retarded argument.If the EM drive works it's possibly using effects not known before. The first steam engine wasn't effective either.
This point just makes him look like an absolute retard.

>>8503637
>And it doesn't matter if solar roadways get cheaper, what matters is will they ever be cheaper than asphalt? Hell fucking no.
Ever? Forever is a long time.

Asphalt can't pay for itself. In principle, a sufficiently sophisticated machine could use sunlight and local materials to expand/reproduce and maintain itself, like a plant, while also storing and supplying electricity, serving as a road surface, and providing other useful functions.

In the nearer term, a higher quality surface might be more durable, and therefore reduce the need for road maintenance and result in a lower overall cost, while the cost of incorporating solar collection into this higher-quality surfacing material might be less than the value of the electricity over its life.

>>8502820
HE'S A BIG GUY

>>8502820
He's a communist.

>>8504677
disgusting

>>8504357
You probably just forgot to account for dark gravity in your equations

>>8504357
and yet if you put a pig into a dense enough atmosphere for it to be neutrally buoyant or nearly so, the pig can swim-fly.

>>8504475
>rubber O-ring on SRB was out of tolerance (too cold) due to the weather
>probably would have been okay if they waited for the sun to warm up a little bit
>problem was brought up, but considered acceptable risk
>hindsight is 20/20
Challenger turned NASA into risk averse pussys.

>>8503512
Well yeah its a tiny thrust. But the point is that the thrust is there. It could be another effect in play as you say but the point is, as of our current understanding of physics, that effect shouldn't be there. It's going to be interesting to see some further tests done on this but at the moment a lot of people are speculating either way whether the thing really works or not. The truth is there is no concrete evidence that would suggest anything either way. We'll just have to wait for some further tests to be done

>>8504672
4u ;)

>>8504332
That necklace looks incredibly uncomfortable.

File: figure19[1].gif (26KB, 500x317px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x317px

>>8505021
>It's going to be interesting to see some further tests done on this but at the moment a lot of people are speculating either way whether the thing really works or not.
I couldn't agree more. I did read some of it today, and interesting as it is, it seems that the researchers could have easily acquired more data points than they did. Also, I find it a bit interesting that the 60W produced more thrust than the 80W test. If there is one thing that I find lacking(and I haven't read all of it yet, keep getting dragged onto other things to do) is a detailed description of the test rig and the possible factors that could affect the measurement.

>>8503326
>unlabeled axes
this is a board for science

Did anybody weigh the damn thing before and after the tests?

>>8502854
That's a graph of the euro not the pound

>>8506141

Yes

>>8502708
>NASA says drive working and worth it to use even in this half-assed miniature form made by one person in his garage
>some bitching nu-male from youtube says it wont work
Hmm, who to believe...

>>8505106
>Those tiny error bars
>Measurements all over the place
>Only measured 6 times per power level
Kek, how do you get error bars the size of 5micro newtons when your measurements range from 40 to 130 on a rig that was made on a kitchen table with items from home depot.
You don't get that level of precision with that garage scientist mentality.

How did this ever pass peer review? They clearly have no idea how big their error bars should be. This paper should have been rejected as soon as they saw this image.


> 60W produced more thrust than the 80W test
more proof that they have no clue how big their error bars should be.

>>8503353
>It's also much more abundant
Is that why they have to resort to techniques like fracking.

>>8506186
Can't wait for the next year when Science's Witnesses believers will be BTFO with practical test in space and will make science great again.