Of course they will. I'm under no illusions about recycling - it isn't going to happen. I was just arguing that there won't be many *to* throw away. Consider a typical house as having, say 7 rooms (bedroom, bedroom, lounge, kitchen, hallway, hallway, bathroom). And assume the manufacturer's estimated normal usage life of seven years. That's one bulb per year on average, for a house. Not a huge volume of the daily waste.
The level of mercury in those bulbs is really minimal. Not a hazard to users, even if the occasional bulb does break. You'd need to break an unrealistic number of bulbs to reach a dangerous level of exposure. I'm not sure about the impact in landfill, but then, I don't imagine people will throw many away. Each bulb lasts many years.
Brand loyalty. With the incandescents, bulbs are basically interchangeable - it doesn't matter who made it. No difference at all. This is not true of CFLs, so when you find a brand or even model that works well, buy them in future.
I would suggest a failsafe valve - in the event of loss of control and inability to maintain safe altitude, release the gas in some way. Even just release the entire envelope to float off into the stratosphere. The mechanical section would come crashing to the ground, but you'd avoid potentially landing the bag-o-boom in a populated area.
I've done both too. Hydrogen doesn't 'boom' exactly. It's more of a pop-FWOOSH! The initial bursting of the balloon disperses it a little, so what you get is really a very poorly-done fuel-air explosion. Hydrox, on the other hand... that stuff is fun.
It's always been this way. Law is expensive. Lawyer costs, court costs, transport, time off work. Even when the case is open-and-shut, it'll cost a small fortune to fight. This isn't new: It goes back as far as law does. Call it the cynic's golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
You came here hoping someone would offer you the legal magic bullet - some way that lets you bypass all the expensive bits in between where you are now and where you legally should be. But there isn't one. This isn't even a politically important case, so you can't expect any activist group to come to your aid with money and experts. Basically, you're screwed. You really only have two options:
1. Accept it. Let them have your video.
2. Get MAD. Spend your savings and go through some legal hell. You'll win, easily, but all you will win is petty revenge. The victory will hurt more than just giving up. With a bit of luck you might be able to get them to cover some of the legal costs, but don't count on that even covering all the expenses.
The very reason that lookup ability is valuable to some users is why it is a problem to others. Yes, it allows you to look up your date and run a quick check - but at the same time, it also lets your company you hope to work for run a check on you, and turn you down if they judge your personal life less than perfectly wholesome.
True. Just as there is a difference between a fine hand-painted portrait and a photograph. Some people might find the former more pleasing to experience, but it is still the less accurate representation.
For taking out the nasty bastards, I think micro-drones may be the way to go once the technology is perfected. Maybe ten centimeters long, with a minute of flight time at great speed, and a small explosive payload. You only need to get one covert operative somewhere within a kilometer of your target. Launch, guide it to skim the rooftops and kamikaze the target right between the eyes. By the time the security forces have figured out where the drone was launched from, the operative will be making his way to safety on whatever means of transport is hardest to lock down in a hurry.
I don't know if that particular story is true, but pigeons have been the standard animal for visual perception research. There was also an effort to train them to spot life-rafts in the ocean - their retinas are better than any camera, and come with brain very suited to image processing, so if the idea had worked out a couple of pigeons in inverted domes slung underneath a plane could survey a vast area of ocean for survivers after a shipwreck much faster than sending human spotters on planes which must fly at much lower altitude.
My little one-kilojoule capacitor bank for exploding fruit is quite capable of crashing a mobile phone placed nearby with the mini-EMP it produces. A problem that ruined a few recordings before I got a camera with a zoom. The Z machine must be quite a bit worse in that regard. Anyone with an electronic medical implant would have to be excluded from the demonstrations.
It combusts in almost any ratio. Watch the Hindenburg burn. But it only *explodes* in a narrow ratio. That is why the Hindenburg just burned, rather than leaving a crater.
I once filled a balloon with 2:1 hydrogen/oxygen mix, and applied a candle-on-a-very-long-stick. It's great fun. Not much of a flash, but one really loud bang.
It wouldn't do a great deal for oil dependence, either. Oil is too expensive to make grid power, that comes mostly from coal and gas. Fusion would be great for reducing carbon emissions and the environmental damage from coal mines, and helping Europe with their dependance upon Russian gas, but it's not going to put petrol in the tank. Not without major advances in electric car technology, which is right now still in the 'just barely viable' stage.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Yes, I would.
Of course they will. I'm under no illusions about recycling - it isn't going to happen. I was just arguing that there won't be many *to* throw away. Consider a typical house as having, say 7 rooms (bedroom, bedroom, lounge, kitchen, hallway, hallway, bathroom). And assume the manufacturer's estimated normal usage life of seven years. That's one bulb per year on average, for a house. Not a huge volume of the daily waste.
The level of mercury in those bulbs is really minimal. Not a hazard to users, even if the occasional bulb does break. You'd need to break an unrealistic number of bulbs to reach a dangerous level of exposure. I'm not sure about the impact in landfill, but then, I don't imagine people will throw many away. Each bulb lasts many years.
Brand loyalty. With the incandescents, bulbs are basically interchangeable - it doesn't matter who made it. No difference at all. This is not true of CFLs, so when you find a brand or even model that works well, buy them in future.
ECHO REPLY
I would suggest a failsafe valve - in the event of loss of control and inability to maintain safe altitude, release the gas in some way. Even just release the entire envelope to float off into the stratosphere. The mechanical section would come crashing to the ground, but you'd avoid potentially landing the bag-o-boom in a populated area.
I've done both too. Hydrogen doesn't 'boom' exactly. It's more of a pop-FWOOSH! The initial bursting of the balloon disperses it a little, so what you get is really a very poorly-done fuel-air explosion. Hydrox, on the other hand... that stuff is fun.
The worst part is that it's probably the most scientific show on American television.
The important question is not 'is it dangerous?'
The question that sellers of balloon ask is 'could I get sued over this?'
It's always been this way. Law is expensive. Lawyer costs, court costs, transport, time off work. Even when the case is open-and-shut, it'll cost a small fortune to fight. This isn't new: It goes back as far as law does. Call it the cynic's golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
You came here hoping someone would offer you the legal magic bullet - some way that lets you bypass all the expensive bits in between where you are now and where you legally should be. But there isn't one. This isn't even a politically important case, so you can't expect any activist group to come to your aid with money and experts. Basically, you're screwed. You really only have two options:
1. Accept it. Let them have your video.
2. Get MAD. Spend your savings and go through some legal hell. You'll win, easily, but all you will win is petty revenge. The victory will hurt more than just giving up. With a bit of luck you might be able to get them to cover some of the legal costs, but don't count on that even covering all the expenses.
The very reason that lookup ability is valuable to some users is why it is a problem to others. Yes, it allows you to look up your date and run a quick check - but at the same time, it also lets your company you hope to work for run a check on you, and turn you down if they judge your personal life less than perfectly wholesome.
True. Just as there is a difference between a fine hand-painted portrait and a photograph. Some people might find the former more pleasing to experience, but it is still the less accurate representation.
Oh, the internet is experienceing a surge of Rule 34 on ponies right now. Message boards are clogged with it.
And device not taken outdoors. Can't GPS lock through a ceiling.
Wrong article.
For taking out the nasty bastards, I think micro-drones may be the way to go once the technology is perfected. Maybe ten centimeters long, with a minute of flight time at great speed, and a small explosive payload. You only need to get one covert operative somewhere within a kilometer of your target. Launch, guide it to skim the rooftops and kamikaze the target right between the eyes. By the time the security forces have figured out where the drone was launched from, the operative will be making his way to safety on whatever means of transport is hardest to lock down in a hurry.
I don't know if that particular story is true, but pigeons have been the standard animal for visual perception research. There was also an effort to train them to spot life-rafts in the ocean - their retinas are better than any camera, and come with brain very suited to image processing, so if the idea had worked out a couple of pigeons in inverted domes slung underneath a plane could survey a vast area of ocean for survivers after a shipwreck much faster than sending human spotters on planes which must fly at much lower altitude.
There is a convenient EEG though - if it's going to trigger a seizure, the EEG should be able to detect it coming and shut off the displays.
But every time you suggest it, an angry mob will declare you are a freedom-hateing communist.
My little one-kilojoule capacitor bank for exploding fruit is quite capable of crashing a mobile phone placed nearby with the mini-EMP it produces. A problem that ruined a few recordings before I got a camera with a zoom. The Z machine must be quite a bit worse in that regard. Anyone with an electronic medical implant would have to be excluded from the demonstrations.
I gather it doesn't do that any more. All those sparks were wasted energy, after some efficiency upgrades it stopped making them.
Russia still had the biggest though. Not that it was much use - a bomb that heavy would pose serious difficulties just getting to a target.
It combusts in almost any ratio. Watch the Hindenburg burn. But it only *explodes* in a narrow ratio. That is why the Hindenburg just burned, rather than leaving a crater.
I once filled a balloon with 2:1 hydrogen/oxygen mix, and applied a candle-on-a-very-long-stick. It's great fun. Not much of a flash, but one really loud bang.
Somewhere, Zeno is crawling out of his grave, and he looks angry.
It wouldn't do a great deal for oil dependence, either. Oil is too expensive to make grid power, that comes mostly from coal and gas. Fusion would be great for reducing carbon emissions and the environmental damage from coal mines, and helping Europe with their dependance upon Russian gas, but it's not going to put petrol in the tank. Not without major advances in electric car technology, which is right now still in the 'just barely viable' stage.