* Posts by beast666

212 posts • joined 17 Jun 2008

Page:

UK networks have 'no plans' to bring roaming fees back after Brexit

beast666

Re: I'm not British

I live in Scotland.

You don't get it at all.

The UK, especially Scotland will thrive and prosper under the Union flag rather than having our identity crushed under the EU globalist jackboot.

People here want to leave under the WTO deal and who can blame them? The EU is holed below the waterline and she's going down fast.

4
10
beast666

We should not be relying on the EU at all.

The best possible option for the UK is to leave under the WTO deal.

No 'No Deal' or 'Hard Brexit' just Brexit.

11
17
beast666

Re: Who's opinion would you trust most out of this lot?

Anne Marie Waters

0
3
beast666

Moot point. The EU as we know it will not exist in 5-10 years time.

Leavers know this. Smart bunch we are.

2
16

Oh my Tosh, it's only a 100TB small form-factor SSD, SK?

beast666

Jeepers!

1
2

Hands up who HASN'T sued Intel over Spectre, Meltdown chip flaws

beast666

When do I get my design flaw free Skylake X?

13
1

NASA budget shock: Climate studies? GTFO. We're making the Moon great again, says Trump

beast666

Re: I really hate that man

I want to watch the gorilla channel.

4
1
beast666

Re: Outer Space Treaty?

Quit with the postmodern neomarxist twaddle and grow up some.

4
41
beast666

Re: I really hate that man

Whilst you merely display the politics of envy. Sad!

7
31
beast666

Across realtime...

The GEOTUS has vision.

A truly great man.

1
8

It took us less than 30 seconds to find banned 'deepfake' AI smut on the internet

beast666

I think the Clintons and Obama are in more need of an 'interesting defence' right now. Ha ha ha!

Lock her up!

5
29

Iranians resist internet censorship amid deadly street protests

beast666

Islam is on the run

The mullahs and ayatollahs will start to flee soon.

1
8

ALPHABET TOTALLY LOSES ITS SCHMIDT: Exec chairman Eric quits

beast666

The globalists are being taken down one by one.

The storm is coming.

8
8

Tired of despairing of Trump and Brexit? Why not despair about YouTube stars instead?

beast666

Re: Despair over Brexit and Trump?

Well said.

The post-modern neomarxists that inhabit the comments here can now be heard REEEEEEEing as far away as Jerusalem and the DPRK.

And another thing! I really wish they would use the correct term of GEOM instead of the old-fashioned Obama era term POTUS.

0
7

La La La, I can't hear you: FCC responds to net neut concerns

beast666

You guys just don't understand. The GEOTUS WILL NOT STOP until America is great again.

Pai is doing a fine job.

1
7

Tesla launches electric truck it guarantees won't break for a million miles

beast666

The shell game continues...

How much more taxpayer money is he after?

5
5

Universal basic income is a great idea, which is also why it won't happen

beast666

Re: Welcome back Stalin

You are confused and neatly disproved by the observation that ideas like the UBI lead to 100 million deaths in the 20th century.

I start from the position that human suffering is universal and each of us can find meaning if we orient ourselves in the world correctly by paying attention and speaking truth.

Atheists and post-modernists lack the intellectual depth to recognise this orientation even exists and are so doomed to following discredited ideologies of dead men. They are incomplete people.

0
12
beast666

Re: It works..

Star Trek relies on almost limitless cheap energy.

The post-modernists would have us all use 18th century tech windmills to sometimes provide limited expensive energy.

Let that sink in.

4
7
beast666

Re: Welcome back Stalin

Well said Mr Lee. Pay attention and speak truth.

I'm off to clean my room and sort myself out. ;-)

1
8
beast666

Welcome back Stalin

When will these post-modernists realise they won't win?

5
11

Donald Trump's tweets: Are they presidential statements or not?

beast666

God bless the GEOTUS

The storm is coming.

2
3

US judge orders Sci-Hub be excised from the internet

beast666

Re: Sanity check

Loads of their journals are also dedicated to "pal" reviewed climate science mumbo-jumbo with the associated eco-loon community too.

It is indeed outrageous.

Sci-Hub FTW

10
8

Google sued by Gab over Play Store booting

beast666

Google are in big trouble. First Damore and now this.

2
22

German police seize 5,000 Donald Trump-shaped dance biscuits

beast666

My respect for The Donald is further embiggened.

8
0

FYI: Web ad fraud looks really bad. Like, really, really bad. Bigly bad

beast666

Install ad-blockers on the bots.

5
0

PayPal, accused of facilitating neo-Nazi rally, promises to deny hate groups service

beast666

All thugs use collectivism to rule. They start by taking away your individual right to think and apply logic. They have done this in the West via our schools, colleges and media. The left which believes in heavy government control are dominating in all of our societies mega phones. Nazis did exactly that they used national Socialism, which is left wing, also not to be confused with nationalism alone, Ghandi and Mandela were nationalist and so were the anticolonialists. Socialism is a form of collectivism and the agenda for the group can be anything the leaders use and want to keep control and stay in power, Hitler used racism against Jews and violence. The Democrats in the US are doing the same, but in addition they are using immigration etc. The Labour Party in the UK are using Islam, immigration as things that are untouchable regardless if you comment you are an enemy of the collective group and are subjected to ruin with no limits... etc etc...What ordinary people need to do is step back from the hype and listen to each other you will find you have more common ground than you think, we on the ground stand to loose in chaos for some they continue and will continue to live lavishly if we allow it, whilst we fight each other over lies. Even if the rally was far right it was 500 people really not a huge white supremacist movement. The police outnumbered protesters etc 2 to 1,the Police were ordered to step down or vanish just as th e left wing thugs started the violence. Why?

An order by a democrat, a democratic controlled area. Trump is right, he condemned all violence, you may not like his style but he is not the problem the Democrats are, they set this up . Same way people used Tommy's passion and twisted it to mean aggression to tarnish him. The only way to understand the real Trump is to listen to him directly not via the BBC or CNN.

4
11

Largest ever losses fail to dent Tesla's bulging order book

beast666

Re: Only one comment

Not if they spend 30 billion fulfilling the orders. Musk is a conman. SpaceX is cool though.

18
18

The internet may well be the root cause of today's problems… but not in the way you think

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Britain's on the brink of a small-scale nuclear reactor revolution

beast666

Re: £875 per household per year!

The Antarctic ice-mass is increasing. It is at near record highs.

Polar bear numbers are increasing.

I thought the North Pole was supposed to be ice-free in 2015? What happened?

Please look into it some more. You will be aghast when you see how science has been abused by the climate change religion.

9
7
beast666

Dilbert gets it spot on.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14

6
4
beast666

Re: Global temps have been static for nearly 20 years.

@handleocast

You will find the xkcd fiction debunked AND corrected here. Not that I expect you to accept this new correct visualisation gracefully. Meh

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-climate-timeline/

3
8
beast666

Re: £875 per household per year!

Typical aggressive response from an Alarmist who doesn't know the observed data.

Satellite and radiosonde data sets (The most accurate we have) show no warming for this period.

Snide comments show the weakness of your position.

9
16
beast666

Re: £875 per household per year!

How silly.

The climate scam is busted because it is absurd to restrict the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere. It is absurd because:

1) It has little to no effect on climate. The change in temps in the early 20th century is almost identical to the change in temps at the end of that century. This cannot be so if CO2 is the control-knob. Man-made CO2 is not involved in early 20th C temps. This is the attribution problem that CO2 fans cannot resolve.

2) Warm is good for civilisation, cold is disastrous.

3) Restricting CO2 will mean we are purposefully and expensively trying to reduce crop-yields. Most people don't like starving.

4) Cheap energy == modern civilisation != Expensive windmills

8
17
beast666

Where's the evidence this was due to man-made CO2?

"You are uninformed and ignorant."

You lose the argument right there.

9
10
beast666

Re: After Manchester

Best we do something about the ill-informed seekers of truth straight away don't you think.

4
1
beast666

Re: Global temps have been static for nearly 20 years.

The Green fanbois don't like the data it seems.

Can someone explain to me, based on the data given by PG, what year we can expect climate disaster?

6
8
beast666

Re: I hope they succeed ... but! Economics!

Coal-free day.

It is indeed a stunt. It's a con to allow you to think if we just had more windmills and more subsidies to support them then we could be entirely coal free. This is false. Intermittent, low energy-density sources such as wind and solar cannot feasibly meet the baseload requirements of a modern industrial society.

The irony is that we have plenty of wind-free days and that is never reported. We have solar-free periods every night! That is never reported either.

Drax was converted from burning coal to subsidised wood-pellets at great expense. These are shipped from the US at great expense. The CO2 emissions for this are ignored because of the false belief that new forests reclaim the carbon. In Germany there is outrage that old forests are being slaughtered to fuel power stations that are supposedly Green.

We need to exploit all the shale-gas we can and build more super-critical coal fired power stations.

Cheap energy allows our modern civilisation. Renewable (really replaceable) energy cannot ever be cheap, it will downgrade everyone's living standards to the point of disaster.

14
5
beast666

£875 per household per year!

Scrap the Climate Change Act. CO2 is not a pollutant.

15% of the world's record food production last year can be directly attributed to increased CO2 allowing plants to thrive. This is a good thing.

Global temps have been static for nearly 20 years.

The climate change scam is busted.

14
45

Emissions cheating detection shines light on black box code

beast666

Just make the emission regulations reasonable and not ever tightened to satisfy the current liberal eco-loons.

CO2 is not a pollutant. Recognising this would have avoided this whole saga.

10
25

New York Attorney General settles with Bluetooth lock maker over insecurity claims

beast666

Get real.

"When working inside dangerous machinery, it's normal for the staff inside to take the keys to turn the device with them, to avoid it being inadvertently turned on with them inside. The SafeTech keys are built to do this without needing to have multiple locks and keys hanging off a worker's belt."

Like you'd get inside dangerous machinery prevented from being turned on by a bluetooth key!

11
2

Intel's Optane in PCs is as good as it will get for years, says analyst

beast666

Errm... Great!

4
0

Manchester pulls £750 public crucifixion offer

beast666

Jesus!

7
0

Parliamentary Trump-off? Pro-Donald petition passes 100k signatures

beast666

Re: The Solomon Islands

Big John hands out a pwning again! Well done Sir.

3
2

Trump decides Breitbart chair Bannon knows more about natsec than actual professionals

beast666

Re: It will be yet another war soon

Well said Big John.

2
9

Chinese boffins: We're testing an 'impossible' EM Drive IN SPAAAACE

beast666

Re: Anybody able to do the math for me?

IslandPlaya agrees. It doesn't work. Bunch of crackpots.

0
1

Climate change bust up: We'll launch our own damn satellites if Trump pulls plug – Gov Brown

beast666

Huzzah!

The gravy train is nearing the buffers!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/14/how-a-department-resists-a-businessman/

2
5

The future often starts as a toy, so don't shun toy VR this Christmas

beast666
Thumb Up

Re: I'd save some money back...

Visit the Callanish Stones next year in the Outer Hebrides. Dark skies like you wouldn't believe. Golden beaches. Stunning scenery. Wildlife...

and then have some VR fun to enhance all that!

Please checkout vrcreations.biz ;-)

0
0

Three certainties in life: Death, taxes and the speed of light – wait no, maybe not that last one

beast666

Re: Creates more problems than it solves?

McCulloch is a crackpot.

0
0

USS Zumwalt gets Panama tug job after yet another breakdown

beast666

Re: Scotty?

Scotty died you insensitive clod.

0
0

Leaked paper suggests EM Drive tested by NASA actually works

beast666
FAIL

It's a scam.

If this is the actual paper that is supposed to come out in December I can see why it wasn't published in a physics journal. There are a plethora of things wrong with it. So let's start.

In part B they claim a TM212 mode but I'm not exactly sure how they know how to deduce that and how they know how to tune to that mode. Even in their section about tuning they describe how they think the are in resonance but this doesn't mean they know if they are in some particular mode. I'm not an expert in cavities but it seems to be they should have consulted someone who is. They then claim that there are no analytical solutions for a truncated cone, which is not true at all, see here. So right off the bat their understanding of cavities is called into question. They also don't say if their frustum inside is a vacuum, which I think is important if you're going to set up an electric field inside.

They say they put the RF amp on the torsion arm itself. This doesn't seem like a wise choice if they want to reduce all possible systematics.

In their vacuum campaign section they discuss simulated thermal effects but don't say what they used for this simulation. What model did they use, what assumptions were there, etc. If there is a standard piece of software they don't say this either.

In their force measurement procedure section they have a very convoluted and confusing way of measuring force which I don't think matches with their earlier model. One simple way they could have done it is take data with their optical setup then fit it with their earlier thermal model. If they got something significantly above their background model then they might be able to say more. But what they seem to do is record some time series data, what look like pulses, and fit parts of it to linear models to find different parts of some pulse they are looking for. That is a very undergraduate way to do this. They are - from my reading of this confusing method - simply fitting different parts of a pulse to determine what part of the pulse describes a calibration versus other pulses from something else, like a purported thrust. There exists technology that was developed in the 1980s that allows you do do these measurements much easier than they are doing, with much cleaner and clearer results, called NIM, but for some reason they are using this dubious method which likely won't give clear discrimination between signals.

Then they describe different configurations and their effects. The only thing I have to say about this is that it's not clear to me they couldn't have moved electronics outside of the testing area. I've worked with high voltage electronics in a very precise and sensitive test setup before an all of our data acquisition and power supply electronics were easily placed outside the test area, using the technology I mentioned before.

After that they describe force measurement uncertainty, which is great because they didn't have that before. They describe the uncertainties on their measurement and calibration devices. That is fine but these constitute random errors, not systematic errors. The only systematics they talk about are the seismic contributions, for which they quote a number without saying how they arrived at it. They say this is controlled by not doing tests on windy days but that doesn't account for everything since seismic activity, especially from the ocean, can occur without the wind. So it's unclear where they get this number from and if it's at all accurate. This is very dubious. They also cannot control for all low frequency vibration with one method either. Different frequency ranges are usually damped out with different methods. They then say their thermal baseline model contributes some uncertainty, which is true, but then they go and give a "conservative value", which strongly implies they pulled this out of a hat and didn't actually analyze anything to arrive at that number. So I call into question that value. Table 1 tabulates measurement (random) errors then adds them. It looks they quadratically add them, which is correct, but if you worked it out then they did some necessary rounding and didn't keep with the rules for significant figures. They classify seismic and thermal errors as measurement errors, but they are not. If seismic and thermal errors give a continuous shift in your measurements then they should be counted as systematic errors. The authors seem to not understand this.

Their force measurements in table 2 don't seem consistent with what you'd expect to see with increasing power. This says to me there are systematics which they did not account for. In this table they assign an uncertainty to the measured valued which is the one previously discussed. If they has taken data properly and did a proper analysis, the result from that analysis (which should including fitting to their earlier described model) would give different uncertainties for each result. This is standard practice and this is why error analyses are usually done at the end of studies, not in the beginning or middle.

After, they attempt to make some null thrust tests in which they attempt to show that if the z-axis (think in cylindrical coordinates) if parallel to the torsion beam it should show no "thrust". The beam clearly is displaced but since they claim it is not "impulsive" that it is not a true "thrust" signal. This is incredibly disingenuous since it is clear from their plot that something happens with the RF is turned on. The whole idea of impulsive signals doesn't seem correct either since it says to me that they turned they RF on, saw what they wanted to see them turned it off right away. For example in figure 13, would that upward going slow continue to infinity? Probably not. But it's not clear from these plots what the real behavior is.

They then to go on to describe sources of error. At first glance this is great, but upon further reading it looks like an error analysis I would have received from one of my undergraduate students. They are all good sources of error but not a single one was quantified or studied in any detail. At best they simply state in a few sentences why this or that is not important but don't actually back it up with any numbers, which would be proper procedure. This is a huge mark against them and this alone should call into doubt all of their results. But...

They did absolutely no controls. A null test and calibration pulses are not controls. A control lacks the factor being tested (NdT's Cosmos explains this very nicely, episode 5 I think). For that to have been done they would have needed to test several different cavity types: no cavity, rectangular cavity, and most importantly they should have tested a regular cylindrical cavity since this is closest to a frustum. Only then should they have done their frustum measurements. Based on this, their poor treatment of systematics, and their lack of a good method to analyze data (there are no statistical tests mentioned throughout), none of their results should be trusted or given much weight.

They finally go into and start talking about quantum mechanics and how different interpretations could apply (QM doesn't apply here). They also talk about debunked crackpot ideas like Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), and the Quantum Vacuum Plasma which is complete and utter crankery to anyone who has sat in a half semester of quantum field theory.

tl;dr: It's no wonder why they couldn't get this published in a physics journal. Their experimental and data analysis method are at best at the level of an advanced undergraduate, and they have absolutely zero knowledge of any advanced concepts in physics, which they demonstrate in their discussion section at the end.

This paper should absolutely not be taken as evidence of a working emdrive. And so it remains pathological science.

25
1

Page:

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018