What about this rejected X prize application?

Zzap212 wrote:

How can you possibly rationalize a statement like that? Blastwave pulse jets have been developed, you can build one yourself. You can find fully fuctional units on the internet, you can even find a go-cart using a lockwood valveless pulse jet(basically the same thing)


http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/lhkart.shtml
http://www.blastwavejet.com/

At least do some research before you blast valid technologies in defense of "conceptual" physics. Don't get me wrong I hope GCT can pull it off, but I know for a fact they are way behind discraft.

i don't think discraft has done any work at all on their ship, i'm pretty sure theirs is one of the applications just for publicity. their conceptual design is just fine, but as they have no actual ship or team working on a ship (there's no way they could keep a project like this secret now), they're really nothing at all.

You're probably right. I was just making the point that they are working with proven technology, not antimater or gravity manipulators like GCT. If discraft would be down with Cloud 9, I would gladly go into business with them.

I have devised a room temperature superconductor, for postively charged ions, not electrons, and nobody cares. I've also elucidated what causes criminal behavior and how to fix it, and guess what? Ditto. Please do not presume that great inventions are obvious to anyone with wits. Frankly, most people are happy without a wit in their head.

The quoted author included.

See?

Ever hear the phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'

a room temperature for positive ions..... i can't think of it off the top of my head but i'm pretty sure you can do that with fairly simple chemical means. it might not be a superconductor, but it's easy to move ions in solution.

I may be wrong but do you even need a conductor at all to move charged ions? They'll flow through the air or through a vacuum as well. I'm pretty sure that you'd call that an ion drive, just like the ones NASA is currently testing and flying. I would think a simple vacuum tube would act as a 'superconductor' for charged ions. I also don't see any use for it even if it's something else. How many devices even use charged ions, either positive or negative in a way that a superconductor is desired?

This positively charged ion conductor, sounds an awful lot like the guy who was selling 'solar powered clothes dryers' in magazines for $10 plus shipping and handling. He sent people a $2 clothesline. The criminal behavior bit is what sounds extraordinary to me. Actually the implication in there that criminal behavior has a single cause is pretty funny. Also pretty much irrelevant here, unless it's a nothing more than a form of baloney indicator.

well, there is at least one thing involving ions that both involves electricity and is common. it's called a battery. of course, i doubt a superconductor, unless it's the wire hooked up to the battery, would do anything one way or another, but i suppose it's possible.

A definition of superconductivity from UTexas - "An electronic state of matter characterized by zero resistance, perfect diamagnetism, and long-range quantum mechanical order."

TerraMars nailed it - TogetherinParis might think that s/he has invented a superconducter for 'postively charge ions', but my guess has instead has produced a battery that creates enough potential to overcome the resistance inate in a circuit. Hook up a multimeter, and it reads zero resistance since the voltage drop is zero. Not really superconducting since you still have resistance, but if you ask TogetherinParis, s/he could probably send you a worn out Engergizer for $10 that demonstrates the effect. A true superconductor does not need outside chemical energy injected into the system.

TIP - what are your qualifications such that we might believe you would be able to tell the difference?