It doesn't go directly to Noosa, true (or indeed very far towards Noosa), but when travelling from Melbourne I've always used it before getting onto the Hume Highway... nya
- Sensors to tell when the toilet paper runs out?
- A 'Scorpion in the bowl' alert? (yes, I know it's a cliche, but it does happen)
- A machine to automatically remove the floaters?
- A light indicating the person washed their hands? (a la the simpsons)
Oh well, at least I can cheat playing "I spy" on the Nepean Highway going up to Noosa
"I spy with my little eye, a something 15km northwest of here in the middle of a park. What is it?"
Actually, in this case the energy is (almost) free. A wave travelling to shore will carry with it a certain amount of kinetic energy, which is then dispersed on the beach (That's how sand is made, kinetic force on the rocks). This generator would merely be in place of the beach (or possibly slightly offshore), so the force would be transferred to the turbine instead of the beach.
And that's just the incoming wave.
the backwash/backcurrent/flowback/whatever it's called when the wave retreats from the shore is produced by gravity, and so harnessing the power from that as well (becuase the turbine will turn regardless of which way the air is flowing) poses no problems (gravity ain't gonnna run out on us any time soon!).
End result; Less erosion on beaches, practically free energy sources. (so maybe sand will be a bit coarser in a few hundred years then it would be otherwhise. At least the beaches will be in the same place, not 5 metres higher up)
Anyone notice the site www.loser.com is a link to Al Gore's official election homepage?
Premonition, or just protecting his backside...
Tell me you wouldn't register www.loser.com, then link it to your opponents website to make them seem pety and insecure
Or maybe that's what happened...
True, using X fuels would reduce the emission of any one fuel by X-1/X. However, chances are that the combined emmissions would be more harmful than that of just one.
"But the average impact will be lower, because the bad emmissions will be counter-balanced by the less bad emmissions" I hear you cry?
Why not make the entire fuel out of the least bad (I need some more descriptive language here) components then?
In any case, Solar power would be infinitly cheaper if all houses had Solar Panels installed, so the problem of "electric cars are just as bad as petrol because they get power from the power stations, who pollute". The problem is reducing the weight of the solar panels and cars, or improving the panel's output so that the cars can operate on as little power as possible.
Sounds almost like the sort of Big Brother style government old Adolf was keen on. Mr Hitler would probaly be quite suprised to see a people he described as "ignorant savages, walking on all fours and living in trees" to take a step towards totalarianism.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't go directly to Noosa, true (or indeed very far towards Noosa), but when travelling from Melbourne I've always used it before getting onto the Hume Highway... nya
- Sensors to tell when the toilet paper runs out? - A 'Scorpion in the bowl' alert? (yes, I know it's a cliche, but it does happen) - A machine to automatically remove the floaters? - A light indicating the person washed their hands? (a la the simpsons) Oh well, at least I can cheat playing "I spy" on the Nepean Highway going up to Noosa "I spy with my little eye, a something 15km northwest of here in the middle of a park. What is it?"
Actually, in this case the energy is (almost) free. A wave travelling to shore will carry with it a certain amount of kinetic energy, which is then dispersed on the beach (That's how sand is made, kinetic force on the rocks). This generator would merely be in place of the beach (or possibly slightly offshore), so the force would be transferred to the turbine instead of the beach. And that's just the incoming wave. the backwash/backcurrent/flowback/whatever it's called when the wave retreats from the shore is produced by gravity, and so harnessing the power from that as well (becuase the turbine will turn regardless of which way the air is flowing) poses no problems (gravity ain't gonnna run out on us any time soon!). End result; Less erosion on beaches, practically free energy sources. (so maybe sand will be a bit coarser in a few hundred years then it would be otherwhise. At least the beaches will be in the same place, not 5 metres higher up)
Anyone notice the site www.loser.com is a link to Al Gore's official election homepage? Premonition, or just protecting his backside... Tell me you wouldn't register www.loser.com, then link it to your opponents website to make them seem pety and insecure Or maybe that's what happened...
True, using X fuels would reduce the emission of any one fuel by X-1/X. However, chances are that the combined emmissions would be more harmful than that of just one. "But the average impact will be lower, because the bad emmissions will be counter-balanced by the less bad emmissions" I hear you cry? Why not make the entire fuel out of the least bad (I need some more descriptive language here) components then? In any case, Solar power would be infinitly cheaper if all houses had Solar Panels installed, so the problem of "electric cars are just as bad as petrol because they get power from the power stations, who pollute". The problem is reducing the weight of the solar panels and cars, or improving the panel's output so that the cars can operate on as little power as possible.
Sounds almost like the sort of Big Brother style government old Adolf was keen on. Mr Hitler would probaly be quite suprised to see a people he described as "ignorant savages, walking on all fours and living in trees" to take a step towards totalarianism.