Actually it is not stored at 1 Bar pressure. Hydrogen is stored in pressurized tanks. So the volume in the table is not relevant. However weight is. There is a reason why Hydrogen is an attractive fuel.
Sorry perhaps you do not understand how to read energy density table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Notice by weight Hydrogen has the highest of any chemical energy.
Perhaps you if you want to comment here you should look some stuff up.
Who debunked Hydrogen? Oh Musk (who committed billions to batteries) gave a few possible issues.
Hydrogen may not be ready but it is a fantastic fuel with the highest energy density and burns to produce water.
Now lets not write it off because it is not in the current model Tesla.
Who are these economists who predicted this? the problem is not too much success but too many illegal aliens and drug addicts. Giving them money will not solve the problem. Try feeding the staving pigeons and see what happens, problem solved? No just more pigeons who are now dependent on you feeding them.
Actually taking companies money to "give to the poor." is like a wife taking all the money to invest in her husbands business and giving it to the poor.
Now the family is broke, has no income and the poor have spent the money and are no better off.
Batteries are weaker or have less storage at low temperature. Typically a Li-Po battery will work to about 14 degrees F (But reduced capacity as it gets colder.) and some batteries don't want to be charged below 32. If you use a LifePo4 type I think they go a lot lower like about -20 F but still the actual amount of energy you get out goes down with temperature. Also there are high temperature limits for charging which is where thermal management comes in (i.e. don't charge if too hot). Not sure you need any thermal management on the cold side except that your power runs out sooner. Same is true with Lead Acid batteries in cars but they go down a bit lower fortunately for those who live in very cold places, still the same capacity loss issue at cold temperatures.
Surely a small upgrade would be to put accurate (2cm) GPS onto these bird scooters and then auto fine someones account if they don't follow the rules. In fact the city should require this kind of technology. Probably not possible everywhere (since there is the urban canyon effect throwing accuracy off in places) but should work in a lot of places there.
As for the homeless, I really cannot see the relevance to the rest of what is going on. People are homeless, stop and feel sorry for them?
You mean ice? there is no water in liquid form on Mars and if it did exist it would very soon be gone. Due to the low pressure the boiling point of water on Mars is very low so it would evaporate very very quickly.
Level of assumptions is bigger than that. It is assumed (with zero evidence) that where there is liquid water there is life.
Why assume something like this? Mainly because liquid water is a requirement for life and it is rare to find liquid water. So the possibility of finding life due to water is a zero, however those that think so do not make good headlines. Scientists who are willing to say ohhh water so possibly life make better headlines.
Yes a lot of FUD here. Ancillary services like frequency keeping is great but it has limited value and all this efficiency talk makes it sound magical. There was reasons why the batteries help and why they were even wanted, so that is what they are doing. Great marketing is all.
Great so we don't need to make any decisions, the state makes them for us now? I bet you love living in the "free" state of communist California where you can decide to green good for you juice or dark green.
Lets see what happens, history is the best judge. If you think Trump is not very good at this, you must believe Obama is downright terrible as he made or left the messes that Trump now has to solve. Including this one.
They were already preparing to build nukes, the were never honest the deal was broken before it started. Did you see the intel from Israel?
How the US deals with them should be correct, we would be stupid (were being stupid) to let enemies get Nukes if we can stop them. Only someone sick in the head would let that happen (by the way this is what happened prior to WWII with Germany.) They burn our flags chant death to America etc. They announce themselves as our enemy.
For some sort of insanity people want to let our enemies get Nukes. How long have we heard crying that Trump was going to cause a nuclear war with North Korea?
Now we are going to get the same crying about Iran for a while from the same people. I say go ahead and cry, but fortunately as good or bad as trump is he is not all FUD (like Obama wrt Iran and this whole sh*t deal we just canned. It was a sham to make people feel good.)
So you have proof? or is this based on a Musk rant. Is it possible that Teslas are already a very safe care (without AP.) Yes so you cannot do a straight comparison. Also owners of Teslas are rich, and as racist (or something similar) that it may seem to say so rich people tend to drive responsibly compared to the average population. Not the average number of street races and running from cops etc. Also you use autopilot on the boring bits where you are driving straight and roads are good etc. Also many other factors which make your statistical proof fairly meaningless. Maybe MUCH SAFER is good marketing and true in the mind of Musk but more difficult to prove that just comparing with the average road death rate.
Like the it'l be fine according to our timing analysis. Also love, we have ONLY had 1 blow up so far like this so you can see the risk margins are so incredibly tiny. Just wondering if this is a bit like their approach to autopilot in Tesla cars also. Timing analysis shows that if the driver would have been able to survive if....
Actually this sounds like how a lot of corporations have been treating people for years. I wonder if there will be anyway to tell the difference between human run corporations and AI run corporations.
So all the creatures/plants that go extinct are fictitious? Don't bother with your life finds a way line that is from a Hollywood movie (where most people learn about science now days of course)
Supports the theory, see this is the problem. Of course carbon dioxide is a green house gas and it has an impact, the problem is not the theory but the conclusions which is not supported by 95% and even more important the solution (assuming one is required.)
Everyone supports a theory that can be reproduced in a lab, but that the earths climate is drastically impacted is a totally different thing, this is a conclusion.
Have you heard of climate gate? or is that just an inconvenient truth?
There is a difference between pro-gress and progressive which is progressives don't care about progress as much as forcing the world to believe, obey and agree (with them.) People if you feel hatred rising in you because I post something you don't agree with then be suspicious that the progressive thinking has started to control your thoughts.
You know if we went back ten years and looked at the predictions looking forward, by now the polar icecaps would have melted and the oceans would have risen etc etc. They keep on changing the goal posts to just around the corner but to be honest they seem to be getting a bit more believable because they are talking about 100 years into the future instead of 10. But why if they were wrong last time will they be right this time. I know you have all sorts of data that 'proves' stuff. But that is not really science, that is guess work based on some facts. Even in science the proof is in the pudding and any scientist who claims that are certain about this kind of stuff is either dreaming, deluded or so full of their own computer model that they would believe anything. How do computer models work and how are they calibrated? It is a big set of guesses assumptions with a few facts thrown in that prove nothing.
Anyway your 95% crap got me on a rant sorry. It is just the kind of false proof that people offer without knowing what it really means, another statistic without meaning but stated to intimidate those who disagree with the progressive agenda.
When you say pro-gress are you sure you don't mean progressives?
I am all for lower emissions if they help, but the left has made it a war and manipulated both science and facts. Please quote 97% of climate scientists agree. Which is a discredited number but still widely quoted because the science is now irrelevant. It has become part of the progressives agenda, so they don't want to hear from science that disagrees with their conclusion (not very scientific to do that imho.) and because my post questions the accepted progressive view it will be marked troll and modded down, yawn.
There is a difference between investing and gambling. I think short investment would be 3 months kind of time in which case you are mostly interested in news cycles. But if you don't want the share price to go off the edge of a cliff then you probably want to know that the company has some sort of strong fundamental reasons for investing in it. PE ratio is not the only fundamental but it does show a huge comparative picture of how the share compares to other investment opportunities. This understanding the fundamentals is Warren Buffet kind of investing, you may think he is not the best investor in the world but he has had a lot of success.
Don't worry they can beat a confession out of him now. Seriously do you think he would not be able to find an alibi for however many rapes and murders if he was innocent. They don't just have the DNA here. More scary is witness testimony where it is basically he said she said. DNA may be a little off sometimes but it will rarely work out to the only evidence once they find who it is and investigate.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it is not stored at 1 Bar pressure. Hydrogen is stored in pressurized tanks. So the volume in the table is not relevant. However weight is. There is a reason why Hydrogen is an attractive fuel.
Sorry perhaps you do not understand how to read energy density table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Notice by weight Hydrogen has the highest of any chemical energy. Perhaps you if you want to comment here you should look some stuff up.
Who debunked Hydrogen? Oh Musk (who committed billions to batteries) gave a few possible issues. Hydrogen may not be ready but it is a fantastic fuel with the highest energy density and burns to produce water. Now lets not write it off because it is not in the current model Tesla.
Who are these economists who predicted this? the problem is not too much success but too many illegal aliens and drug addicts. Giving them money will not solve the problem. Try feeding the staving pigeons and see what happens, problem solved? No just more pigeons who are now dependent on you feeding them.
You forgot to mention the streets are not lined with illegal aliens on drugs.
Actually taking companies money to "give to the poor." is like a wife taking all the money to invest in her husbands business and giving it to the poor.
Now the family is broke, has no income and the poor have spent the money and are no better off.
Batteries are weaker or have less storage at low temperature. Typically a Li-Po battery will work to about 14 degrees F (But reduced capacity as it gets colder.) and some batteries don't want to be charged below 32. If you use a LifePo4 type I think they go a lot lower like about -20 F but still the actual amount of energy you get out goes down with temperature. Also there are high temperature limits for charging which is where thermal management comes in (i.e. don't charge if too hot). Not sure you need any thermal management on the cold side except that your power runs out sooner. Same is true with Lead Acid batteries in cars but they go down a bit lower fortunately for those who live in very cold places, still the same capacity loss issue at cold temperatures.
Surely a small upgrade would be to put accurate (2cm) GPS onto these bird scooters and then auto fine someones account if they don't follow the rules. In fact the city should require this kind of technology. Probably not possible everywhere (since there is the urban canyon effect throwing accuracy off in places) but should work in a lot of places there.
As for the homeless, I really cannot see the relevance to the rest of what is going on. People are homeless, stop and feel sorry for them?
You mean ice? there is no water in liquid form on Mars and if it did exist it would very soon be gone. Due to the low pressure the boiling point of water on Mars is very low so it would evaporate very very quickly.
Level of assumptions is bigger than that. It is assumed (with zero evidence) that where there is liquid water there is life.
Why assume something like this? Mainly because liquid water is a requirement for life and it is rare to find liquid water. So the possibility of finding life due to water is a zero, however those that think so do not make good headlines. Scientists who are willing to say ohhh water so possibly life make better headlines.
Yes a lot of FUD here. Ancillary services like frequency keeping is great but it has limited value and all this efficiency talk makes it sound magical. There was reasons why the batteries help and why they were even wanted, so that is what they are doing. Great marketing is all.
Have you heard of a safe. If you are operating in cash what is the bank for?
Great so we don't need to make any decisions, the state makes them for us now? I bet you love living in the "free" state of communist California where you can decide to green good for you juice or dark green.
Lets see what happens, history is the best judge. If you think Trump is not very good at this, you must believe Obama is downright terrible as he made or left the messes that Trump now has to solve. Including this one.
You are so funny. Israel told the truth, Iran lied we are being played by .... Israel. Man you need to wake up and smell what you are shoveling.
They were already preparing to build nukes, the were never honest the deal was broken before it started. Did you see the intel from Israel?
How the US deals with them should be correct, we would be stupid (were being stupid) to let enemies get Nukes if we can stop them. Only someone sick in the head would let that happen (by the way this is what happened prior to WWII with Germany.) They burn our flags chant death to America etc. They announce themselves as our enemy.
For some sort of insanity people want to let our enemies get Nukes. How long have we heard crying that Trump was going to cause a nuclear war with North Korea?
Now we are going to get the same crying about Iran for a while from the same people. I say go ahead and cry, but fortunately as good or bad as trump is he is not all FUD (like Obama wrt Iran and this whole sh*t deal we just canned. It was a sham to make people feel good.)
So you have proof? or is this based on a Musk rant. Is it possible that Teslas are already a very safe care (without AP.) Yes so you cannot do a straight comparison. Also owners of Teslas are rich, and as racist (or something similar) that it may seem to say so rich people tend to drive responsibly compared to the average population. Not the average number of street races and running from cops etc. Also you use autopilot on the boring bits where you are driving straight and roads are good etc. Also many other factors which make your statistical proof fairly meaningless. Maybe MUCH SAFER is good marketing and true in the mind of Musk but more difficult to prove that just comparing with the average road death rate.
Big claims, I take you have proof?
Like the it'l be fine according to our timing analysis. Also love, we have ONLY had 1 blow up so far like this so you can see the risk margins are so incredibly tiny. Just wondering if this is a bit like their approach to autopilot in Tesla cars also. Timing analysis shows that if the driver would have been able to survive if ....
Actually this sounds like how a lot of corporations have been treating people for years. I wonder if there will be anyway to tell the difference between human run corporations and AI run corporations.
So all the creatures/plants that go extinct are fictitious? Don't bother with your life finds a way line that is from a Hollywood movie (where most people learn about science now days of course)
Supports the theory, see this is the problem. Of course carbon dioxide is a green house gas and it has an impact, the problem is not the theory but the conclusions which is not supported by 95% and even more important the solution (assuming one is required.)
Everyone supports a theory that can be reproduced in a lab, but that the earths climate is drastically impacted is a totally different thing, this is a conclusion.
Have you heard of climate gate? or is that just an inconvenient truth?
There is a difference between pro-gress and progressive which is progressives don't care about progress as much as forcing the world to believe, obey and agree (with them.) People if you feel hatred rising in you because I post something you don't agree with then be suspicious that the progressive thinking has started to control your thoughts.
You know if we went back ten years and looked at the predictions looking forward, by now the polar icecaps would have melted and the oceans would have risen etc etc. They keep on changing the goal posts to just around the corner but to be honest they seem to be getting a bit more believable because they are talking about 100 years into the future instead of 10. But why if they were wrong last time will they be right this time. I know you have all sorts of data that 'proves' stuff. But that is not really science, that is guess work based on some facts. Even in science the proof is in the pudding and any scientist who claims that are certain about this kind of stuff is either dreaming, deluded or so full of their own computer model that they would believe anything. How do computer models work and how are they calibrated? It is a big set of guesses assumptions with a few facts thrown in that prove nothing.
Anyway your 95% crap got me on a rant sorry. It is just the kind of false proof that people offer without knowing what it really means, another statistic without meaning but stated to intimidate those who disagree with the progressive agenda.
When you say pro-gress are you sure you don't mean progressives?
I am all for lower emissions if they help, but the left has made it a war and manipulated both science and facts.
Please quote 97% of climate scientists agree. Which is a discredited number but still widely quoted because the science is now irrelevant. It has become part of the progressives agenda, so they don't want to hear from science that disagrees with their conclusion (not very scientific to do that imho.) and because my post questions the accepted progressive view it will be marked troll and modded down, yawn.
There is a difference between investing and gambling. I think short investment would be 3 months kind of time in which case you are mostly interested in news cycles. But if you don't want the share price to go off the edge of a cliff then you probably want to know that the company has some sort of strong fundamental reasons for investing in it. PE ratio is not the only fundamental but it does show a huge comparative picture of how the share compares to other investment opportunities. This understanding the fundamentals is Warren Buffet kind of investing, you may think he is not the best investor in the world but he has had a lot of success.
Don't worry they can beat a confession out of him now. Seriously do you think he would not be able to find an alibi for however many rapes and murders if he was innocent. They don't just have the DNA here. More scary is witness testimony where it is basically he said she said. DNA may be a little off sometimes but it will rarely work out to the only evidence once they find who it is and investigate.