Comment on Students’ Leaf Blower Suppressor To Hit Retail
mosiacmango@lemm.ee 1 month agoAre you saying novel mechanical engineering designs are impossible? That the mechanism of a leaf blower is so near perfection, that a well funded team of 4 mechanical engineering students could not, without VIOLATING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, have simply found a better mechanism?
I agree with your “show me the numbers” critique, but I find your complete disregard of what may be a better answer without any data at all to be equally foolhardy.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I am saying every single one of these claims have never wound up being actually true since they go against the very nature of physics. Yet people perpetuate the claims and defend them without the supporting data.
mosiacmango@lemm.ee 1 month ago
This is an incredibly wild statement when you have no data on the device’s construction or operation.
Youre complaining about a lack of data then making wild assumptions about it with no data.
Not exactly good science here, mate.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It’s a wild statement to claim it doesn’t reduce power when even increasing the length of the discharge tube would affect its performance, and they’ve added a good 8”.
The fact that they purposely omitted data that they have is extremely concerning, it’s not a bold claim say it’s obviously false. It’s bold to claim something like that that goes against what we already know about physics.
I am sorry you are eating up this “marketing”, it’s why products like this are even sold, it’s hilarious, the amount of people defending this asinine claim is honestly quite shocking, especially on a community like this.
Uhh… I’m not the one making claims that goes against common knowledge of aerodynamics and then not providing that data. So sure, wanting someone to prove their claim makes me bad at scientific method…?? Maybe the people defending bullshit claims are the ones you should be calling out, oh wait that you yourself. Give you head a fucking shake lmfao.
KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee 1 month ago
You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Every blame where they omit the actual data to support the claim is never fully true. Provide the CFM testing data they must have to even make that claim.
There is no valid reason to omit that data unless to mislead.
KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Unfortunately I don’t agree.
Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope. Showing the support for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.