Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:36 pm
So you're the rat.
No, I don't think I've ever been the one reporting you. I just understand why your stuff gets deleted. You retort to facts that don't work in your favour with ad hominem complaints that you don't like the person who told you about them.
Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:36 pm
No, actually you're trying to twist the thread into some weird direction based on your own personal links and opinions, rather than follow the intent of the thread, which has been stated, namely, the physics ain't there for your windmill games, Cysco.
Well let's recap and see if that is true.
You provided a link to an article and one short quote from it. I read that article and it seemed to me that it had some failings. I don't see any reason why the failings of that article in full shouldn't be part of the discussion that links to it.
But within the tiny fraction you quoted were some questionable claims. A tenfold increase in wind and solar above the levels of output they presently offer is clearly not impossible because we have plenty of space to create ten times as many of those devices as we presently use. No laws laws of physics need alteration for that to be true, these are laws of geometry. The same way that the guy blithely comments that aviation engines are near their physical limits which is blatantly untrue and you can google scramjets and hypersonic travel to see that for yourself. The claim that goal specific funding rarely brings about important new discoveries is a misreading of history.
Then later you invoked the competition to build a hydro-electric power station at Niagara as if this is what spurred the invention of hydro electric power. Of course it was not, hydro power was a decades old invention by then. Nevertheless, that competition is of the sort that agencies such as DARPA and ARPA-E routinely run. Your opposition to government agencies doing a thing when private money is not seems ideological.
You also invoked a number of inventions you would like to see instead of the ones ARPA-E promotes. I gave you links to the plausible versions that aren't based on cartoons of ARPA-E doing that sort of thing. You could have checked their website for yourself and seen that they are doing what you want done. Whether that would have made you demand other, less possible stuff for ideological reasons, or actually change your mind is moot.
I gave you a couple more links again to two of the ten radical new nuclear designs that ARPA-E is funding because you just ignored the content of all the links I gave you previously. You seem to despise researched facts and prefer truthiness. You responded yet again (incorrectly) that I have some utra-leftie agenda against nuclear power (I am in favour of nuclear power: modern reactor designs are safe and reliable, they only suck because of the cost overruns).
And then you just quoted off some right wing blog the absurd complaint that anyone who uses nasty old facts against your right wing opinions is a dirty treacherous lefty being obtuse.
That was you derailing your own thread. All my contributions have been directly responding to things you linked or wrote.
Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:36 pm
I should report you to the authorities and have your ass thrown off my thread.
Be my guest.
Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:36 pm
By retaining perspective you will observe that you are just a contributor here, like everyone else, fancy pants.
You forget who started this thread, and who has the say of intent.
If you want to be the mod of your own forum, make your own forum. If you just want a place to lie without consequence, stay in bed.