A few problems with using solar cars for regular transport:
1. Solar Cars are expen$ive. You would have to shell out a couple hundred thousand dollars for a solar car.
2. They are not safe. Solar cars need to be so light that they would be way to weak to survive a crash.
3. They would be uncomfortable to drive. Most solar cars adopt a low profile for better aerodynamics. This makes it so the driver has to lie down. Also, it would only be a 1 seater.
Solar cars are fun toys for universities, but they cannot provide regular transport. You could not design a solar car that would meet current safety restrictions.To meet current restrictions, it would have to have things like metal crumple zones. The solar panels needed to power something that heavy would be too large. With all of this, the clear answer for future automobiles is either hybrid gas/electric, or hydrogen fuel cells powered by hydrogen from clean nuclear power plants.
Jeez! Is everyone seeing them but me? Out here by Yakima, WA, its not to spectacular. I'm getting about 1 or 2 mediocre meteors every 1 or 2 minutes. This is during the peak time too, 1:30 A.M. PST.
I'm not seeing 70 meteors a minute like the astronomers were saying. Im seeing more like 70 meteors an hour. I see a meteor every 1 to 2 minutes. It's alright, but not worth staying up for. I've seen better meteor showers.
The right cell will be targeted because I assume these buckyballs bond to the antigens unique to cancer cells. Healthy tissue would get a small dose,but it wouldn't cause any damage. Chemotherapy's side effects are much worse than this. People are WAY to paranoid about radiation.
Whats really scary is that smallpox is so contagious that a single Al Qaida terrorist could infect himself and walk around in New York. He could potentialy infect thousands of people.
He was a great visioninary. His designs for his Analytical Engine contained all the major components of a modern computer. It had memory, processing capabilities, input in the form of punched cards, and output in the form of a printer. Computers with the capabilities of the Analytical Engine did not come out untill the 1940's. He was way ahead of his time.
Nanotubes can also be made into self-replicating nanobots. These are tiny robots that we are developing that can go around in our body and cure diseases. They will also be able to build stuff for us, like space elevators.
Nasa has poor, bungled management. They should worry about developing the X-34 to bring launch costs to around $1,000 per pound before they worry about build the ISS. Nasa should focus their full resources on developing cheap access to space. We will never be able to go to Mars or Titan if we pay $10,000 a pound.
In by 2015, before Moores Law runs out, a $1000 desktop will be as smart as we are. Computers, whether silicon, quantum, or molecular dot, will continue to have their clock speeds soar. In our lifetimes, we will see computers that are millions of times smarter than we are.
Our future is to become cyborgs. Otherwise, we will remain stupid, frail creatures with short lifespans. I'm sure if we ever see aliens, they wont be biological, like on star trek, they will be machines
A scramjet could not plow into the Columbia Center at Mach 5. The reason is simple. It would melt. Scramjets operate at very high altitudes, close to space. Thier skin gets so hot that it is made of titanium. If it were to decend out of the near-space environment at 100,000 feet while still going mach 10, the titanium skin would start to get to hot and weaken. The denser air would exert more stress on the frame. The plane would simply disinigrate into little pieces long before it hit the ground.
NASA, a few years ago, spent $500,000,000 on a shuttle mission to figure out if spiders spin their webs right in space. They also have had on on the mating habits of frogs in space. Who cares!
The Aussies just spent 1/500 of the cost of a shuttle mission to develop technology to fly to London in a couple of hours and slash the cost of space travel. What the hell is wrong with NASA?
Sorry, the one(i forgot which) of the laws of thermodynamics prevents hydogen fuel cells from attaining 100% conversion of energy.Some of the energy is lost through heat in the fuel cell.That can be used to heat your house, however.Also you lose energy due to electrical resistance. Still, they can reach almost 100%. We got ones that run at 90% and I bet you could get it to 99%. One thing:You need to use electricity to get hydogen from water, so you lose energy. Or you could crack it from natural gas or gasoline. That still pollutes.If you get it from natural gas, When you crack CH4 you get one molecule of CO2 and 2 of H2. You get the exact same pollution as when you burn it.
Also, the most radioactive isotopes decay quickly. In 10 years, the radioactivity of high level waste has dropped by half. In 500 years, it drops to the level of Uranium ore. All this time it is in foolproof lead containers. The amount of nuclear waste is small. All the nuclear waste ever created would fit into a high school gym. Each plant produces only a few hundred pounds a year.
The reason Chernobyl melted down is that it was a faulty RBMK reactor. When an RBMK reactor heats up, the nuclear reaction gets faster. Heating up a Pressurized Water Reactor causes it to slow down, making it very hard to melt down. Also,Chernobyl had no thick concrete control dome over it. When it melted down, the radioactiviy went everywhere. The domes on U.S. PWR reactors would contain all radiation in a meltdown.
If you lived right next to a power plant, you would get less radiation in one year than you get
from sitting in front of your computer monitor.The real culprit is coal power. Right now, huge piles of coal ash that NEVER decay, not in a billion years, are sitting on the ground. Rainwater is seeping throught them, poisoning our water. Black, carcinogenic clouds of smoke are giving us cancer. That is why we need to get rid of coal.For the past 40 years, nuclear power has silently and cleanly been supplying 30% of our power. We need to quit being raped by OPEC and the natural gas companies and switch to nuclear.
Which do you think realeases more radiation: Coal or nuclear power?Its coal. Nuclear power realeases almost no radiation, while coal power puts 2,000 tons of uranium into the atmosphere, as well as a lot of other toxic stuff. Coal kills thousands a year. The Coal power death toll for the 20th century is around 5 million. Nuke power only killed about a thousand at Chernobl. Nuclear waste is SOLID. If it is glassified, it is easily stored in lead containers in remote areas. Nuke power is the cheapest form of energy we have. Coal leave behind millions of tons of toxic mercury laden waste that seeps into the groundwater
Slashdot Mirror
A few problems with using solar cars for regular transport: 1. Solar Cars are expen$ive. You would have to shell out a couple hundred thousand dollars for a solar car. 2. They are not safe. Solar cars need to be so light that they would be way to weak to survive a crash. 3. They would be uncomfortable to drive. Most solar cars adopt a low profile for better aerodynamics. This makes it so the driver has to lie down. Also, it would only be a 1 seater. Solar cars are fun toys for universities, but they cannot provide regular transport. You could not design a solar car that would meet current safety restrictions.To meet current restrictions, it would have to have things like metal crumple zones. The solar panels needed to power something that heavy would be too large. With all of this, the clear answer for future automobiles is either hybrid gas/electric, or hydrogen fuel cells powered by hydrogen from clean nuclear power plants.
Jeez! Is everyone seeing them but me? Out here by Yakima, WA, its not to spectacular. I'm getting about 1 or 2 mediocre meteors every 1 or 2 minutes. This is during the peak time too, 1:30 A.M. PST.
I'm not seeing 70 meteors a minute like the astronomers were saying. Im seeing more like 70 meteors an hour. I see a meteor every 1 to 2 minutes. It's alright, but not worth staying up for. I've seen better meteor showers.
The right cell will be targeted because I assume these buckyballs bond to the antigens unique to cancer cells. Healthy tissue would get a small dose,but it wouldn't cause any damage. Chemotherapy's side effects are much worse than this. People are WAY to paranoid about radiation.
Whats really scary is that smallpox is so contagious that a single Al Qaida terrorist could infect himself and walk around in New York. He could potentialy infect thousands of people.
He was a great visioninary. His designs for his Analytical Engine contained all the major components of a modern computer. It had memory, processing capabilities, input in the form of punched cards, and output in the form of a printer. Computers with the capabilities of the Analytical Engine did not come out untill the 1940's. He was way ahead of his time.
Fun fact: The first Altair PC to roll off the assembly lines was lost in the mail.
"Hey, Leroy, what does fra-gil-e mean?" "I dunno Cletus. Lets drop it off this building."
Nuke power is very safe. The disposal of the small amount of waste created is not too difficult
Nanotubes can also be made into self-replicating nanobots. These are tiny robots that we are developing that can go around in our body and cure diseases. They will also be able to build stuff for us, like space elevators.
Nasa has poor, bungled management. They should worry about developing the X-34 to bring launch costs to around $1,000 per pound before they worry about build the ISS. Nasa should focus their full resources on developing cheap access to space. We will never be able to go to Mars or Titan if we pay $10,000 a pound.
In by 2015, before Moores Law runs out, a $1000 desktop will be as smart as we are. Computers, whether silicon, quantum, or molecular dot, will continue to have their clock speeds soar. In our lifetimes, we will see computers that are millions of times smarter than we are. Our future is to become cyborgs. Otherwise, we will remain stupid, frail creatures with short lifespans. I'm sure if we ever see aliens, they wont be biological, like on star trek, they will be machines
It could add up to a lot of money for people like us who never go outside.
A scramjet could not plow into the Columbia Center at Mach 5. The reason is simple. It would melt. Scramjets operate at very high altitudes, close to space. Thier skin gets so hot that it is made of titanium. If it were to decend out of the near-space environment at 100,000 feet while still going mach 10, the titanium skin would start to get to hot and weaken. The denser air would exert more stress on the frame. The plane would simply disinigrate into little pieces long before it hit the ground.
NASA, a few years ago, spent $500,000,000 on a shuttle mission to figure out if spiders spin their webs right in space. They also have had on on the mating habits of frogs in space. Who cares! The Aussies just spent 1/500 of the cost of a shuttle mission to develop technology to fly to London in a couple of hours and slash the cost of space travel. What the hell is wrong with NASA?
Sorry, the one(i forgot which) of the laws of thermodynamics prevents hydogen fuel cells from attaining 100% conversion of energy.Some of the energy is lost through heat in the fuel cell.That can be used to heat your house, however.Also you lose energy due to electrical resistance. Still, they can reach almost 100%. We got ones that run at 90% and I bet you could get it to 99%. One thing:You need to use electricity to get hydogen from water, so you lose energy. Or you could crack it from natural gas or gasoline. That still pollutes.If you get it from natural gas, When you crack CH4 you get one molecule of CO2 and 2 of H2. You get the exact same pollution as when you burn it.
Also, the most radioactive isotopes decay quickly. In 10 years, the radioactivity of high level waste has dropped by half. In 500 years, it drops to the level of Uranium ore. All this time it is in foolproof lead containers. The amount of nuclear waste is small. All the nuclear waste ever created would fit into a high school gym. Each plant produces only a few hundred pounds a year. The reason Chernobyl melted down is that it was a faulty RBMK reactor. When an RBMK reactor heats up, the nuclear reaction gets faster. Heating up a Pressurized Water Reactor causes it to slow down, making it very hard to melt down. Also,Chernobyl had no thick concrete control dome over it. When it melted down, the radioactiviy went everywhere. The domes on U.S. PWR reactors would contain all radiation in a meltdown. If you lived right next to a power plant, you would get less radiation in one year than you get from sitting in front of your computer monitor.The real culprit is coal power. Right now, huge piles of coal ash that NEVER decay, not in a billion years, are sitting on the ground. Rainwater is seeping throught them, poisoning our water. Black, carcinogenic clouds of smoke are giving us cancer. That is why we need to get rid of coal.For the past 40 years, nuclear power has silently and cleanly been supplying 30% of our power. We need to quit being raped by OPEC and the natural gas companies and switch to nuclear.
Which do you think realeases more radiation: Coal or nuclear power?Its coal. Nuclear power realeases almost no radiation, while coal power puts 2,000 tons of uranium into the atmosphere, as well as a lot of other toxic stuff. Coal kills thousands a year. The Coal power death toll for the 20th century is around 5 million. Nuke power only killed about a thousand at Chernobl. Nuclear waste is SOLID. If it is glassified, it is easily stored in lead containers in remote areas. Nuke power is the cheapest form of energy we have. Coal leave behind millions of tons of toxic mercury laden waste that seeps into the groundwater