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."
This would be neat if true -- a garbage disposal sized obvject providing 40 days of cooking gas for 40 NIS, but just reading alerts every single "perpetual motion" bullshit detector in my head -- the 40% figure, the secret ingredients, etc.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
You know what they have a lot of in Gaza which will burn nice and hot? Solid state rocket fuel.
I can't imagine cooking without gas.
Heating food without gas? I just can't fathom this.
Flamebait for sure.
The entire coastline of Gaza is barricaded by Israel, and has been so for a very long time. Not only that, but anything coming into or going out of Gaza, whether by land or sea, is controlled by Israel. (The only exception to this would be things smuggled back and forth via tunnels, etc., between Gaza and Egypt.
Just make sure not to mention the daily rocket and mortar attacks that Hamas perpetrates on the Israelis on a daily basis, or else people might not take you seriously.
Just because you border the sea, doesn't mean FedEx delivers. Be serious.
It's widely known Palestine is considered slightly more than a 4th world nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza (just look for the words "import materials")
While I suffer some shame at resorting to wikipedia, no other sources are given as much credit, on /., to being impartial and correct. Neither of which, wikipedia, deserves. If you could point out somewhere this is contradicted, I would be very interested.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
While I congratulate him for his invention, he could have used dung from the millions of sheep and camels in the region to make biogas. As a matter of fact these folks are already doing it.
I hear waste from humans works too. The trouble with it being the stench and the potential for Hepatitis A spread.
He can always gas them.
Hmmm... I am 100% certain that deliveries by sea are restricted by Isreal also. Come to think if it, I am 100% certain Isreal security forces can even prevent fishermen from going out.
I am sure that some shipments are allowed into Gaza, but I am also sure that the difficulty of doing so (both in and out, they have to sell stuff to buy stuff you know) is causing shortages.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128625
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/29/mideast/mideast.php
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1228728125788
If Israel doesn't want you moving goods into Gaza, you are going to find it very difficult to do so...
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp
Four Palestinians are killed for every dead Israeli. If this isn't systematic genocide and Gaza isn't a ghetto for Arabs then please enlighten me.
...he faced many difficulties in obtaining specific metals such as aluminum that are not allowed into Gaza
He added that he spent 3,000 Jordanian dinars developing the device, and stressed that he faced many difficulties in obtaining specific metals such as aluminum that are not allowed into Gaza.
Oh, wait...
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.
In other news, man invents leaflet-burning stove.
unless I am reading this wrong the air in gaza would be great for a nitrox dive to 99 feet for 50 minutes.
The egyptians, jordanians and syrians who assured the palestinians that they would kick israels ass, and then failed miserably to do so.
If Israel (and US) wanted to be serious, why don't start by respecting the result of the Palestinian election, and acknowledge that hamas won it. They have tried your way, but you turn your head away.
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.
Nazi-like? Are you ignorant or stupid?
Nazi's used humans for experimentation. Nazis put people in rail cars so full that people suffocated. Nazis had people in camps where they starved them to the point that they looked like walking skeletons. Nazis cooked live humans to commit genocide. Nazis used chemicals to gas people to death. Nazis used human skin for lamp shades. Nazis used human hair for pillows.
How in the nimble-f*ck do you come up with "Nazi-like tactics"?
Seriously, you are offensive as a human being. Keeping people who want to blow themselves up out of your territory is not "nazi-like". Should we put out a welcome mat with pre-made bomb belts for AQ in the USA?
Equating Nazis with Israel (or for that matter the morons who equate them with GWB) is ignorant at best. At worst, it is an equivocation based in hatred of Jews in general.
And no, I'm not a Jew. I just find this type of statement disgusting.
Read this post: A Brief Politically Incorrect But Truthful History.
You have no logical argument stating anyone stole any land from a Palestinian. Unless of course you want to point that accusation at Jordan or Egypt. You don't have any argument. Your statement is pure bullshit.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Interesting phrasing, because it seeks to exploit commmon knowledge that the occupations come first, prima facia. However, that question is leading.
The true question is did attacks upon Israel from the West Bank and Gaza precede or follow Israeli control? And the unequivocal answer is the attacks preceded Israeli control.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
You might have a point if the United States military controlled Mexican airspace, seaspace, all borders, and prohibited the import of metals and oil into Mexico. And in that hypothetical situation, some small number of Mexicans chose to fire rockets into Texas. Does that make collective punishment right? And to switch the players around - if Texas were under the military control of Mexico, and its ports blockaded, and some Americans fired rockets across the border, would it be still right for the Mexicans to punish all Texans?
So, every single individual in a nation is responsible for the actions of all other individuals? The Germans said the same thing in WWII occupied France - if a resistance cell killed German soldiers, the soldiers would round up all of the people from the nearest village and execute some (or all) of them.
Why was collective punishment wrong when carried out by Germans 60-odd years ago, but right when carried out by Israelis now?
I'm surprised that on Slashdot of all places, with its Libertarian-leaning politics, I'm having to actually argue that treating half-a-million people as one homogenous group is a bad idea.
Do you think that Americans would vote differently in the same situation? If an American city were controlled by a foreign military force, and during incursions foreign soldiers had killed hundreds of civilians over the years? That entire extended families had been wiped out by shell fire that was just "a mistake"? Do you really think the American public would vote for a moderate leadership under those conditions?
From my limited view:
If a Greenman attacked a Purpleman because he is a Purpleman. That's Racism, and other criminal acts. Yes?
If a Greenman kills a Purpleman because he is a Purpleman but with no intent to destroy all Purplemen. That's Racism and Murder. Yes?
If a Greenman kills, or plans to kills, many Purplemen because he is a Purpleman. That's Racism and mass murder, or the plotting there of. Yes?
If a Greenman kills or plans to kill every/most Purplemen in a region or the world. That's Geneocide, or the plotting there of. Yes?
So...
If Greenmen attacked Purplemen because the Greenmen were angry because of the situation that the [Purplemen and Greenmen forefathers] put them in and cannot make peace with themselves, thier forefathers, and thier neighbors(Purplemen) then when/if the Purplemen retaliate against the Greenmen attack(s) and possibly 'innocent' Greenmen (hurt/killed) that were anywhere near the Greenmen that probably attacked the Purplemen is that Genocide? No. It means they are fighting and there was possibly 'innocent' Greenmen were hurt/killed.
If in that situation for every four Greenman and there is one Purpleman that is killed in the [Greenman attack and the corrosponding Purpleman retaliation] isn't Peace, even a bitter one, better? Unless the Greenmen are planning to continue no matter the cost, and/or genocide of the Purplemen is really the intent.
But lo!, then the Bluemen come along and say "That is not a fair fight!! The Greenmen used rocks, and sticks, but the Purplemen used swords and wore armor!" So what?
Stop picking fights with the big kid in the schoolyard if he's happy to leave well enough alone, and eyes won't be blackened and noses won't be bloody. Sure, get lucky in the fight once in a while but "WHY?!", especially if the the little kid in the playground is trying to make the big kid get the little kid's kitten out of the tree that the little boy's grand-father scared into the tree in the first place, and then get the big kid to chop down the tree for the little boy so that his kitten can never get stuck in the tree again?
The Greenmen don't have to forgive, they don't have to forget - do the best with the cards they are delt! Perhaps diverting the energies of War to the energies of Peace, Education, and infrastructure would give a better chance at change? Yes? Maybe?
Perhaps the Greenmen know education and infrastructure is EXPENSIVE to make work. It's EXPENSIVE to make a good life starting from scratch; but it has to start some where. But sadly, it's cheaper to go to blame others, and make War with the Purplemen and hope that something magical would happen when it's all over that it'll be better for the Greenmen. In the end, nothing changes.
*sigh*
It really doesn't matter even because everyone has to switch colors for the next fight and start the process over...
1. Greenmen fight Purplemen!
2. Purplemen fight Greenmen!
3. * magic happens!(or doesn't...) *
4. Greymen profit!
5. Goto 1
~Aahzimandious
--------------------
PS: Vote for me for "World Dictator and Evil Overlord!" I PROMISE it will be a much better and happier World! The firing squads will continue until everyone is Happy! Are you Happy? Yes/No?
--------------------
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.
We do respect the result of their election. The result was the Gaza strip being run by terrorists, which we're not keen on giving money too. If the Gaza strip wasn't so reliant on handouts, they might not care about our lack of recognition. However, they are so reliant.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
The irony is that most people who are classified as Palestinians have never been to Palestine and neither have their ancestors - ie they're genetically diverse and not at all a "people group".
The "Palestine" people are mostly just Arabs from Egypt, SA, Jordan, and the other surrounding Arab countries who were slow to revert from nomadic lifestyles - basically, Arab gypsies. They were a nuisance to the Arab states, and Israel provided a seemingly convenient (in that they could use them against the Jews) place to get rid of them.
The actual "Palestinians" are mostly integrated amongst Israelis; if it wasn't for the media's focus on the Palestinians as a group, they likely wouldn't even be identifiable as anything other than "naturalized secular Arab-Israeli" by this point.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
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 Kingdom of Israel was a result of an invasion from Egypt by former slaves who at the time may or may not be considered Jews. At least Moses had his troubles convincing them not to worship golden calfs while he was away picking up the latest news from God ... The Philistines were there when they first arrived.
send + more == money?