Slashdot Mirror
Man Invents Alternative To Cooking Gas
An anonymous reader writes "Gazan resident Abed Ar-Rahman has revealed what he is claiming as an alternative to cooking gas that he developed since Israel has prevented deliveries of cooking gas to Gaza. He invented a device using chemical substances available in Gaza, which burn when mixed and brought into contact with oxygen. The first component is a metal filter that controls the interaction between 40% of the oxygen in the surrounding air, the inflammable substance and some other substances."
What about Calcium Oxide (CaO), which yields quite a bit of heat when exposed to water?
All you have to do to get CaO is burn limestone, which people have been doing since antiquity.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
...he faced many difficulties in obtaining specific metals such as aluminum that are not allowed into Gaza
Sounds like it might be a form of the Fischer-Tropsch process, a catalyzed chemical reaction in which synthesis gas (syngas), a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. You don't have to end up with liquid products. The catalysts are the things that would be the hardest to get in the Gaza area. You need electricity to run the process, but only intermediatly, to build up the product. The Germans made a lot of progress on this during WWII when their access to petro-products was cut off, yet the demand for POL was still high. The feedstock could be almost any organic material that can be volatilized, not necessiarily syngas, but the catalysts needed and the temperatures/pressures are a booger to work out.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
unless I am reading this wrong the air in gaza would be great for a nitrox dive to 99 feet for 50 minutes.
Which came first? Jerusalem's Grand Mufti in 1948 (al-Husayni) did. While he was in prison at the time for war crimes including his collusion with Hitler, he still had enough influence to have his followers start attacking Jewish settlements and begin the Arab Israeli War when partitioning took place in Palestine. He also was a main lobbyist and negotiator for organizing the Arab countries that declared war on the new state of Israel. He is the one responsible for ordering Palestinians to leave the area for refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank. That is even after the new Israelis recognized their rights to land and living in the area now known as Israel. The Palestinians living in the Israeli side of the partitions were guaranteed to keep all their lands and sources of income by the Israelis. The Arab leaders, including al-Husayni, started the fight and told the Palestinians to move aside while they kicked the Jews into the sea... which of course didn't happen. When they were unsuccessful, Jordan annexed the West Bank portion of the Palestinian homeland outlined in the partitioning treaty, and Egypt took the Gaza strip. And they refused to let the Palestinians stay anywhere outside the refugee camps for the longest time. In some places they were never allowed to live outside the refugee camps... never allowed to become citizens of the countries where the camps existed. Yes, Arab countries treated the Palestinians worse than the Israelis would have. The Israelis would not have done anything other than let the status quo of life as usual happen.
And by the way, there was NO country called Palestine before annexation, and the Palestinians didn't lose anything. They were living in areas claimed by other countries and never had the status (for a couple thousand years) of citizens of a Palestinian state in all that time. Partitioning carved a space out for both sides. But no-one had to move. The choice was their own. And now they have the Gaza strip and the West Bank back. But they still want to fight for something they never had before, simply because the others there are Jews. They should grow up, get control of their emotions like a civilized people, and stop with the bullshit rocket attacks. Then there will be peace. The Israelis, like anyone being beaten by a person who can't contain their own hysteria, can only take getting hit so many times before replying in kind.
So which came first? The Grand Mufti's thugs and prideful Arab countries were the cause of the Palestinian's grief.
All the reading I have done indicated to me that Hamas was elected mainly on the strength that they were not Fatah. The citizenry were tired of the corruption of Fatah, and had one real alternative open to them.
That is not a mandate of the Hamas platform.
emt 377 emt 4
You're actually implying something I didn't say. However I was overly broad, in many cases however you'll find that 'metal shop' and 'rocket factory' are the same thing. Which is why there's a ban on aluminum(they key part in their rockets).
The fundamental problem is the non-violent ones voted in and decided that this is what they wanted. They are reaping what they've sown and with that, it'll end up being them who decide what to do about it. I really wonder what countries in the middle east would do if Israelis started showing up in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc., and started demanding back the land, money and all that which was stolen from them.
Just a finer point of irony, they probably shouldn't have tried assassinating the ex-el-presidente for life in Jordan; it might have gotten them further.
Om, nomnomnom...
If you care to read the Balfour declaration of 1917, stating that the British government "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", you would realize that there was indeed a land called Palestine since 1917. Go back even further, the crusades, where do you think they were headed? Read an accurate history book for a change. And let me enlighten you one last time, Winston Churchill, before the Palestine Royal Commission, said the following: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." In effect, Palestinians are the dogs in your manger, been there for 2000 years give or take. It is interesting to see how you chose to dispose of them.
Hold on now, just because there was an area called "Palestine" doesn't mean that it was a country, much less a sovereign one. For the Allies to use their military and political position to create a new country without the consent of those already living there is morally questionable, but so is any use of force, and one way or another, Israel exists now. Regardless of of how racist Churchill or anyone else was, regardless of how horrible the situation was on all sides (and it was pretty damn horrible), the people living in Israel now need to come to some sort of agreement, and for some elements of the "Palestinian" people to think that resorting to terrorism is a good idea is just idiocy. Would you support the Native Americans if they chose to do the same? I don't particularly like Israel (I oppose religiously-defined governments on principle, and their recent dealings with the palestinians have been horrendous), but all sides need to be seeing what they can do with a bad situation. People are always going to try to take the land and property of other people if they think they can make better use of it, but the answer isn't to turn things into a cycle of endless retribution, it's to try to work out some sort of equitable solution. The palestinians can gain from the existence of the modern infrastructure and government Israel has to offer, and if Israel can overcome its own paranoia and racism, maybe something good could come from it.
Bobb9000 - raised by the wolves,
Oxford education as phrased by the wolves.
The poll you cite was carried out after attacks by Israel that killed 130 people in Gaza. That's 0.00025% of the Gaza population. In contrast, the 9/11 attacks killed 0.0001% of New York citizens.
So, imagine that the 9/11 attacks had killed 2.5 times more people, and then imagine polling New Yorkers immediately after the attacks on their feelings towards the group of people who carried out the attacks. Do you think you would get a different result?
Because Fox is known for its accurate and unbiased reporting? This is the same Fox that ran serious reports with "experts" claiming that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim.