Ares IV Revelation

Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:
William Mook wrote:


And yet you've repeatedly faield to demonstrate. Just sad.

Not as sad as your total ignorance on the subject Scottie.

Fine. Then enlighten me with a demonstration.

A demonstration of what exactly?

I'm sorry, Bill, but I can't even take you seriously as a low-level
crank anymore. Once you declared yourself to be a "leader in the
aerospace industry," you pegged my whackjob-o-meter.

wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:
William Mook wrote:


And yet you've repeatedly faield to demonstrate. Just sad.

Not as sad as your total ignorance on the subject Scottie.

Fine. Then enlighten me with a demonstration.

A demonstration of what exactly?

I'm sorry, Bill, but I can't even take you seriously as a low-level
crank anymore. Once you declared yourself to be a "leader in the
aerospace industry," you pegged my whackjob-o-meter.

No, the trouble is Scott, is that you are a nutjob that likes to twist
things out of context to support your warped world view. lol. One can
clearly make forward looking statements attempting to lead a group of
people in a specific direction. One can even say they hope to provide
leadership by those statements. This is what I have done. You have
elected to warp what was said in a most unsavory and unsatisfying way.
Fortunately, what you say do and think -per usual- has little bearing
on the reality of the situation.

Good day.
William

wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:

You don't know that. Get back with me when you've proved that an array
of MEMs rockets can't be vastly reduced.

EERRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing. It's *your* proposal. Thus it's
up to *you* to prove the concept.

Sorry, twist as you might, you're the one who claims to know for sure
that noise cannot be reduced in arrays of MEMS based rocket engines.
So, its up to you to demonstrate that fact or shut up.

Clearly the whole process called "science" has driven right on by you
without so much as leaving a skidmark.

Ouch! If it were only true Scottie, then you could sleep soundly at
night! haha..

Plainly I understand the workins of science far better than you Scottie
lol. Obviously I have given you references to ongoing research,
references to existing methods of noise reduction, and my thinking that
went into my hypothesis that guides my current research - namely that I
believe a 20db reduction in noise might be possible with MEMs engine
arrays - when compared to conventional un'silienced' engines of the
same total thrust.

Surely, your comments have not been based in reason, or rational
thought, or careful analysis. Clearly you care little for science,
even while you accuse me of not understanding science. Obviously, you
have asked for my research results, and have denigrated any pointer I
provided or any discussion I offered - without reference to reality or
what was being said.

Plainly you have trouble with forward looking statements I make wherein
I explain my hopes and dreams as they relate to the commercial
motivation I have in supporting this particular bit of research.
Obviously you have trouble with my integrative vision regarding this
technology - wherein a propulsive skin can simultaneously be viewed as
a collection of trust producers or points in a flow field - creating an
entirely new concept - 'propulsive skin' -

These more visionary statements are rooted deeply in the hypothesis I'm
testing, and the underlying science. Plainly, you cannot see that.
That obviously makes me a better scientist than you. And the results
are clear. I surely have led several successful scientific research
and development products. I plainly have created new products and
processes. I clearly have brought some of those to market
successfully. And obviously I have fulfilled my vision on more than
one occasion.

You clearly have not done any of these things.



If you think up an idea... it's up to *you* to prove that it's valid.

Bull**** Scott!

Science starts with a careful analysis of what is. I have clearly done
that in this case. You plainly have not done that in your opposition.

Based on that careful analysis a hypothesis is formed. I have done
that and explained that in detail.

Informed by that idea - that hypothesis - research goals are
formulated. I have done that and explained my research goals.

Based on the goals of research a research program is formulated and
carried out. I am doing that now. I have offered to share that with
you should you be so kind as to sign a NDA/NCA. Failing that, wait for
my patents to appear.

At this point the science is done. I add another step, which you
clearly have trouble with. Forward looking visionary statements about
what the scientific research might be good for. You obviously do not
understand how science and business relate. This is understandable.
You are clearly neither a good business man nor a good scientist,
whilst I am obviously both.

So, I will give you another explanation how that works Scottie.
See,based on the results of my research various product concepts and
business models will be explored and if any appear to be 'low hanging
fruit' those businesses will be funded and that fruit will be picked
and profits realized.

It's not up to someone else to prove it's not valid.

Now now - this is where you've gotten yourself into a twist. I have
explained my hypothesis and the goals of my research. You have
attempted to twist these statements into some sort of statement of
result. I have avoided that. You have attempted to twist my
explanations into something they are not. I have given the factual
basis that informed my hypothesis and you have ignorantly rejected
them, and I have given detailed technical reasoning and you have
twisted that.

1) Existing research results with MEMs based engines suggest
arrays of MEMs engines might be built.

2) Hypothesis - can arrays of MEMs engines be assembled into a
propulsive skin exhibiting properties that collectively exceed the
performance of single engines? If so, what performance would be 'low
hanging fruit'?

Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:

I'm sorry, Bill, but I can't even take you seriously as a low-level
crank anymore. Once you declared yourself to be a "leader in the
aerospace industry," you pegged my whackjob-o-meter.

No, the trouble is Scott, is that you are a nutjob that likes to twist
things out of context to support your warped world view. lol. One can
clearly make forward looking statements attempting to lead a group of
people in a specific direction. One can even say they hope to provide
leadership by those statements. This is what I have done. You have
elected to warp what was said in a most unsavory and unsatisfying way.


"Your hypothesis here is that anyone who rises to the level of
leadership and asserts that leadership must be insane."


You went straight to 11 on that one, Bill.



Fortunately, what you say do and think -per usual- has little bearing
on the reality of the situation.

Good day.
William

Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:

You don't know that. Get back with me when you've proved that an array
of MEMs rockets can't be vastly reduced.

EERRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing. It's *your* proposal. Thus it's
up to *you* to prove the concept.

Sorry, twist as you might, you're the one who claims to know for sure
that noise cannot be reduced in arrays of MEMS based rocket engines.
So, its up to you to demonstrate that fact or shut up.

Clearly the whole process called "science" has driven right on by you
without so much as leaving a skidmark.

Ouch! If it were only true Scottie, then you could sleep soundly at
night! haha..


Sorry, Aerospace Leader Bill, but you cannot be taken seriously enough
to even debate anymore. You've fallen to the Guth level of
whackadoodleness.

wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:

You don't know that. Get back with me when you've proved that an array
of MEMs rockets can't be vastly reduced.

EERRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing. It's *your* proposal. Thus it's
up to *you* to prove the concept.

Sorry, twist as you might, you're the one who claims to know for sure
that noise cannot be reduced in arrays of MEMS based rocket engines.
So, its up to you to demonstrate that fact or shut up.

Clearly the whole process called "science" has driven right on by you
without so much as leaving a skidmark.

Ouch! If it were only true Scottie, then you could sleep soundly at
night! haha..


Sorry, Aerospace Leader Bill,

See how Scottie twists things into lies? In response to statements he
made I admitted that I made forward looking remarks that were intended
to provide leadership to the aerospace community, urging research
centers to explore MEMs arrays thinking of them generally as propulsive
skins. I admitted I hope to provide leadership when pressed. In
response to these statements, which were really quite humble, Scott
comes off the wall wrongly claiming I've declared myself as a leader of
the aerospace community. Scott knows I didn't do this, but lacking any
substantive claims to press on with, he is perfectly content to make
**** up and treat his own bull**** as if it merited some sort of
thought.

Fact is, when one starts thinking generally about MEMs rocket engine
arrays spread across the entire surface of an aircraft or space vehicle
- with size, mass flow, temperature, surface shape, angle of nozzle to
surface - all variable and in functional relation to one another - the
concept of 'propulsive skin' comes up. Anyone who takes a class in
airflow - subsonic or supersonic - understands the signficance of this.
Flow fields can come OUT of a lifting surface,and with arrays of
intakes, flow fields can go IN to lifting surfaces. This is HUGE. Its
a new science, and one worthy of SOME thought. And I urge anyone in
the aerospace community to think for just a minute about what this all
means.

Now, this is the statement I made - and of which I said, I hope I can
inspire large numbers of aerospace folk to begin thinking along these
lines. Why? Because I would like to see there be a general consensus
emerge in the aerospace community that reductions in momentum cost can
be cut in half every 3 years over the next 10 years - resulting in a
1000 fold reduction in the cost of momentum - just as Moore inspired
the solid state physics community to take on a challenge of reducing
transistor costs in circuits - I would like to inspire the aerospace
community to latch on to lowered momentum cost as the goal for the next
decade in an effort to achieve this 1000 fold reduction in cost of
momentum - and from there flows reduction in cost of air travel and
space travel.

I am HOPEFUL that my comments will be read seriously by those in the
aerospace community and provide SOME leadership there. This all is
QUITE different than Scotte with his insane ranting would have you
believe. Best put him to bed with a pill and tuck him in.

but you cannot be taken seriously enough
to even debate anymore.

Scottie if you followed logical and rational rules of debate perhaps
you'd learn a thing or two. Sadly, you do not. Clearly you are
nothing but a foul mouthed buffoon who cares little to nothing for
reality - plainly all you are interested in is winning arguments on
usenet. That makes you TFC - Troll First Class.

You've fallen to the Guth level of
whackadoodleness.

Haha.. try again Scottie - Here let me help. Sit in a comfortable
chair. Close your eyes. Take a deep breath. Then, say softly, with
deep conviction and with deep seriousness in your voice "You've fallen
to the Guth level of whakadoodleness" three times. take another deep
breath - now pick up that hand mirror and stare at it intently.

Then, you'll get it right.

hahahaha..

Scottie Scottie Scottie - the only thing I believe is that you and Guth
and others like you all form the same class of object - whackadoodle or
not - you render these usenet communication channels totally and
absolutely useless. People have to spend so much damned time scrolling
through your bile that the tidbits of information that are buried there
seem hardly worth it.

Gawd you ALWAYS tell people to killfile this person killfile that
person - but you don't killfile a damned person. I pray for the day
you killfile me so I won't have to see your constant unadulterated
bull****. But you don't. You don't killfile me. Why is that? The
truth doesn't need defense. So, why take all this time and energy
attacking me, calling me names?

The killfile mechanism is a good one - use it. Make eveyrone happier-
and leave you with so much more free time with which to do the things
you LOVE in life. lol.

Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:

You don't know that. Get back with me when you've proved that an array
of MEMs rockets can't be vastly reduced.

EERRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing. It's *your* proposal. Thus it's
up to *you* to prove the concept.

Sorry, twist as you might, you're the one who claims to know for sure
that noise cannot be reduced in arrays of MEMS based rocket engines.
So, its up to you to demonstrate that fact or shut up.

Clearly the whole process called "science" has driven right on by you
without so much as leaving a skidmark.

Ouch! If it were only true Scottie, then you could sleep soundly at
night! haha..


Sorry, Aerospace Leader Bill,

See how Scottie twists things into lies? In response to statements he
made I admitted that I made forward looking remarks that were intended
to provide leadership to the aerospace community, urging research
centers to explore MEMs arrays thinking of them generally as propulsive
skins.

"Your hypothesis here is that anyone who rises to the level of
leadership in the aeropsace community deserves ridicule."
and
"Your hypothesis here is that anyone who rises to the level of
leadership and asserts that leadership must be insane."

A flat-out "admission" by Aerospace Leader Bill that he is a Leader In
The Aerospace Community Who Is Asserting That Leadership.


Scott
comes off the wall wrongly claiming I've declared myself as a leader of
the aerospace community. Scott knows I didn't do this

Sadly, Google disagrees.