china's plan to convert coal to hydrogen to methane is about 50 percent energy efficient. For big commercial aircraft, it will be better to use liquid hydrogen directly.
The problem with this is that it's cryogenic with an extremely low boiling point of 20 K (Kelvin). You would have to carry a much heavier tank and insulation for the liquid hydrogen on the aircraft. There's also hydrogen leaks and transport of it to the airport from wherever it is produced.
You would also need to handle boil off of hydrogen while the plane is on the ground and the hazards of handling extreme cryo fluids, which is much more dangerous than handling jet fuel/kerosene. For example, oxygen condenses at 50 K meaning a poorly insulated tank (say due to damage inflicted while conducting maintenance) could be condensing liquid oxygen inside the plane's wing.
Further, there isn't a good reusable tank material for handling liquid hydrogen. Composites weaken over time due to gas pockets in the composite material (and thermal cycling) while metals such as aluminum are subject to hydrogen embrittlement.
I think there would be a huge redesign of aircraft in order to use liquid hydrogen directly. Thicker wings say from a flying wing design would be more fuel efficient.
There would probably also be huge logistics changes. Fuel tanks would probably have to be kept at extreme cryo temperatures indefinitely (including overnight) in order to prevent thermal cycling. You couldn't have the aircraft sit on the tarmac for hours because it would either lose too much fuel due to boil off or require considerable refrigeration power to keep boil off from happening. A traffic jam combined with a hot day and loss of grid power, would be a disaster for an airport.
Meanwhile methane can be converted to normal jet fuel with some additional loss of energy. For example, a coal burning plant/refinery on site of a coal mining operation could produce methane or longer chain hydrocarbons directly.
And at the current state of affairs, the cheapest hydrogen source is methane. Any plan for creating hydrogen from water is going to run into a similar degree of energy loss as that of converting coal and water to methane and syngas.
Of course, he's serious. Here's the points you don't get.
The law in question doesn't make that distinction. Second, who gets to decide who is a qualified employee? You don't want some bribeable bureaucrat or politician deciding, contrary to the intent of the law, that CEOs have protection, but members of labor unions don't. I think we should aspire to be a nation "of laws not men", where the whims and emotions of individual men can be curbed by impartial and fair laws.
Further, why shouldn't CEOs get protection under this law? Fairness should mean equal protection under the law.
My next to final point is that the Eich witch hunt didn't consider the legal consequences of condemning Eich for a lawful, protected activity. Mozilla is now exposed to some degree of legal liability because of this hubbub. Better hope that Eich got paid well for his departure or it's not going to be pretty for Mozilla.
especially when he calls some people subhuman.
Didn't happen. Google around. If he had really called anyone "subhuman" (or even be merely accused of doing so) it'd be all over the internet rather than just an empty accusation in the backwaters of Slashdot.
No it is not, and I already explained why, in the parts you didn't quote.
Your explanation is wrong because a residential area is more than the home or apartment. It's also the green space around those structures.
Public opprobrium.
Has nothing to do with my point.
Safety is in large part a matter of perception. An activity can be safer even if it objectively more risky merely because the risk is understood and accepted. Hiking up Mount Everest is only done by people who accept the risk. And it can be made safe within the expectations and capabilities of those participants.
Hopping into a car drunk is not safe because it's done within the context of much higher expectations of driver behavior and significant risks to third parties. But note that the safe activity above has a higher risk of death than the dangerous activity.
Society (Japanese and elsewhere) has determined that radiation is unusually dangerous - even more so than heavy metal poisoning and hence, is far less willing to expose people to its effects. By making such areas industrial rather than residential, we reduce that perception of danger by reducing exposure to radiation by restricting access to people who can be trained in reducing radiation exposure and who can legally accept the risks of low levels of radiation exposure.
Most urban areas aren't built on land that previously had nuclear power plants, be it residential or otherwise. So this doesn't apply here.
But they are often built on areas that are at least as hazardous such as former industrial areas with high levels of heavy metal and fossil fuel contamination in the soil.
Sorry, you're projecting. It's always easy to come up with rebuttals when you haven't thought much about them.
Projection would mean that I'm displaying the flaws which I claim I see in you. So where am I doing that? Also it's absurd to claim that I'm not thinking merely because your posts are so easy to rebut. Sure, it's not very challenging to rebut these posts, but that doesn't mean that I don't think about them or find more challenging things to consider elsewhere.
People are for the most part indoors when they sleep at home too.
But not when they do other home-related activities such as play outside.
If it's not safe for people to sleep indoors for ~8 hours a day, it's not safe for people to work indoors for ~8 hours a day (plus commute time on top)
Who said it wasn't safe to sleep for eight hours in such a place? The point is that society, Japanese or otherwise, cares more about environmental exposure to radiation and pollutants when it involves residential areas rather than industrial areas.
But upholding the Constitution is an implicit part of the Pledge of Allegiance since you are pledging allegiance to the Republic of the US - which is defined by the US Constitution and in addition pledging liberty and justice for all (which again is provided in the framework of the US Constitution).
And there are a lot of people - naturalized citizens and employees of the federal government who explicitly take an oath to uphold the US Constitution against enemies "foreign and domestic".
Finally, I think most people who claim that the US Supreme Court is the only word on the US Constitution do so because their side won something. I see plenty of complaints about the constitutionality of corporate personhood and the FISA secret court system even though the US Supreme Court has graced those things with approval.
When it is your sacred constitutional principle which is being ignored by the US Supreme Court, then you'll be more sensitive to your responsibilities in the matter than when that principle isn't currently under threat.
The story is about how a researcher can't replicate the results of an extraordinary scientific claim. The original poster was saying in effect that it was self-evident that it wouldn't be possible to replicate the scientific claim.
Land is renewable too since it doesn't actually go away. It's not that much effort to clean it after a radioactive accident if you want to use the land for something other than residences - especially if you plan to put a nuclear plant back on the same site again.
Given the risk we should be designing for safety in the most extreme event possible.
As long as that extreme is reasonable to design for. You're not going to be able to do much design for a direct asteroid strike or a deliberate pinpoint nuclear attack, for example.
Yes and there are plenty who will tell us "global warming doesn't exist and even if if existed (which it does not) it wouldn't be caused by humans anyway. Besides the climate have been warmer previously and some change isn't that bad."
And there are plenty of people who will trot out their favorite non sequitur whenever they can.
People (science deniers) are always talking about how scientists are only interested in their grants and saying what the popular opinion is to get more grants.
So there are three unscientific fallacies present in this sentence. There's the construction of a straw man and connotative labeling of that straw man with "science deniers". Then there's the assumption that coming up with one anecdote actually demolishes that straw man.
The truth is that you can't make a name for yourself in science (and thus get money) by supporting the popular opinion. You only win a Nobel Prize by challenging the status quo and messing up everyone's preconceived notions.
The more common way IMHO is to simply do something new. Glancing through the list of Nobel prizes in physics, I getting on average around one Nobel prize per year (some years they give out more than one prize) awarded for doing new things rather than challenging the status quo.
Indeed, upholding is broader than interpretation since in the latter case, you don't actually have to do anything, if you decide something is incompatible with the US Constitution.
I work with a group that does high altitude experimental unmanned balloon launches to 100k feet (about 30 km). The air pressure up there is 1% of Earth's. You do have to worry about heat dissipation up there for precisely the above reason.
Another reason not to count on atmosphere convection to cool you is because Mars's atmosphere varies a lot in pressure dependent on season and elevation. You only get 1% pressure at the lowest and warmest locations (in other words, the best conditions) on Mars.
The only reason you have to move your head around with a side mirror is because they are placed very close to where your peripheral vision ends.
I imagine he was speaking of being able to move your head a little more and check the blind spot on that side.
The blind spot will still be there, but it'll be pushed out to 2-3 lanes away, making it irrelevant.
Except when you're changing lanes. And we'll see if the blind spot is still there or not. A lot of cars taper in front, meaning there isn't a mount point for such a camera.
The raping of the world economy, the financial crisis, the reduction of wages in the western world, the intentional creation of a new lower class of poor people - all of that is out in the open, no conspiracy at all.
So you're saying that conspiracies aren't conspiracies, if nobody tries to keep them secret? Ok, then the climate change conspiracy isn't, but only on that basis.
I blew that by getting the wrong energy content of a cubic meter of natural gas. It's more like 16-17 billion cubic meters of natural gas. That's 150,000 trips of such LNG carriers which sounds a lot more reasonable. Let's say that one ship could do a round trip from North America to Europe and back in two weeks or 25 trips a year. Then that's a need for about 6,000 ships. Wikipedia notes that new ship construction is up to 260,000 cubic meters, which would drop the ship count to under 3,000.
There are currently 357 LNG carriers of any sort (according the Wikipedia link in the previous page) in the general category worldwide. There are currently 4,000 oil supertankers worldwide. So this would be a substantial increase in large ship traffic particularly since it would just be servicing a particular region.
Looking at this report (figure 1 on page 2), I estimate that the EU consumed about 16-17 million cubic meters of natural gas. In comparison, the average LNG carrier now under production moves about 120 thousand cubic meters of natural gas. So it's around 150 trips of such LNG carriers from wherever to support the EU's needs.
Slashdot Mirror
china's plan to convert coal to hydrogen to methane is about 50 percent energy efficient. For big commercial aircraft, it will be better to use liquid hydrogen directly.
The problem with this is that it's cryogenic with an extremely low boiling point of 20 K (Kelvin). You would have to carry a much heavier tank and insulation for the liquid hydrogen on the aircraft. There's also hydrogen leaks and transport of it to the airport from wherever it is produced.
You would also need to handle boil off of hydrogen while the plane is on the ground and the hazards of handling extreme cryo fluids, which is much more dangerous than handling jet fuel/kerosene. For example, oxygen condenses at 50 K meaning a poorly insulated tank (say due to damage inflicted while conducting maintenance) could be condensing liquid oxygen inside the plane's wing.
Further, there isn't a good reusable tank material for handling liquid hydrogen. Composites weaken over time due to gas pockets in the composite material (and thermal cycling) while metals such as aluminum are subject to hydrogen embrittlement.
I think there would be a huge redesign of aircraft in order to use liquid hydrogen directly. Thicker wings say from a flying wing design would be more fuel efficient.
There would probably also be huge logistics changes. Fuel tanks would probably have to be kept at extreme cryo temperatures indefinitely (including overnight) in order to prevent thermal cycling. You couldn't have the aircraft sit on the tarmac for hours because it would either lose too much fuel due to boil off or require considerable refrigeration power to keep boil off from happening. A traffic jam combined with a hot day and loss of grid power, would be a disaster for an airport.
Meanwhile methane can be converted to normal jet fuel with some additional loss of energy. For example, a coal burning plant/refinery on site of a coal mining operation could produce methane or longer chain hydrocarbons directly.
And at the current state of affairs, the cheapest hydrogen source is methane. Any plan for creating hydrogen from water is going to run into a similar degree of energy loss as that of converting coal and water to methane and syngas.
Want to do the count, CEOs vs soldiers?
The US government doesn't have to follow California law. Mozilla does.
The law in question doesn't make that distinction. Second, who gets to decide who is a qualified employee? You don't want some bribeable bureaucrat or politician deciding, contrary to the intent of the law, that CEOs have protection, but members of labor unions don't. I think we should aspire to be a nation "of laws not men", where the whims and emotions of individual men can be curbed by impartial and fair laws.
Further, why shouldn't CEOs get protection under this law? Fairness should mean equal protection under the law.
My next to final point is that the Eich witch hunt didn't consider the legal consequences of condemning Eich for a lawful, protected activity. Mozilla is now exposed to some degree of legal liability because of this hubbub. Better hope that Eich got paid well for his departure or it's not going to be pretty for Mozilla.
especially when he calls some people subhuman.
Didn't happen. Google around. If he had really called anyone "subhuman" (or even be merely accused of doing so) it'd be all over the internet rather than just an empty accusation in the backwaters of Slashdot.
No it is not, and I already explained why, in the parts you didn't quote.
Your explanation is wrong because a residential area is more than the home or apartment. It's also the green space around those structures.
Public opprobrium.
Has nothing to do with my point.
Safety is in large part a matter of perception. An activity can be safer even if it objectively more risky merely because the risk is understood and accepted. Hiking up Mount Everest is only done by people who accept the risk. And it can be made safe within the expectations and capabilities of those participants.
Hopping into a car drunk is not safe because it's done within the context of much higher expectations of driver behavior and significant risks to third parties. But note that the safe activity above has a higher risk of death than the dangerous activity.
Society (Japanese and elsewhere) has determined that radiation is unusually dangerous - even more so than heavy metal poisoning and hence, is far less willing to expose people to its effects. By making such areas industrial rather than residential, we reduce that perception of danger by reducing exposure to radiation by restricting access to people who can be trained in reducing radiation exposure and who can legally accept the risks of low levels of radiation exposure.
Most urban areas aren't built on land that previously had nuclear power plants, be it residential or otherwise. So this doesn't apply here.
But they are often built on areas that are at least as hazardous such as former industrial areas with high levels of heavy metal and fossil fuel contamination in the soil.
Sorry, you're projecting. It's always easy to come up with rebuttals when you haven't thought much about them.
Projection would mean that I'm displaying the flaws which I claim I see in you. So where am I doing that? Also it's absurd to claim that I'm not thinking merely because your posts are so easy to rebut. Sure, it's not very challenging to rebut these posts, but that doesn't mean that I don't think about them or find more challenging things to consider elsewhere.
Playing outside is not a home-related activity.
It is a residential area activity.
On the other hand, if you living in a concrete jungle of high rise apartments and condos, there is no outside to play in.
Playgrounds. Most urban areas have them.
Well, if it's safe to sleep inside, then we can build residences after all.
Public opprobrium.
And my point was that they still care about it enough that many businesses and industries won't be economical.
Then land will be cheaper for those that are still economical.
Sorry, but it's pretty clear you haven't thought about this. It shouldn't be this easy to come up with rebuttals to your assertions.
People are for the most part indoors when they sleep at home too.
But not when they do other home-related activities such as play outside.
If it's not safe for people to sleep indoors for ~8 hours a day, it's not safe for people to work indoors for ~8 hours a day (plus commute time on top)
Who said it wasn't safe to sleep for eight hours in such a place? The point is that society, Japanese or otherwise, cares more about environmental exposure to radiation and pollutants when it involves residential areas rather than industrial areas.
I should have specified US citizens.
But upholding the Constitution is an implicit part of the Pledge of Allegiance since you are pledging allegiance to the Republic of the US - which is defined by the US Constitution and in addition pledging liberty and justice for all (which again is provided in the framework of the US Constitution).
And there are a lot of people - naturalized citizens and employees of the federal government who explicitly take an oath to uphold the US Constitution against enemies "foreign and domestic".
Finally, I think most people who claim that the US Supreme Court is the only word on the US Constitution do so because their side won something. I see plenty of complaints about the constitutionality of corporate personhood and the FISA secret court system even though the US Supreme Court has graced those things with approval.
When it is your sacred constitutional principle which is being ignored by the US Supreme Court, then you'll be more sensitive to your responsibilities in the matter than when that principle isn't currently under threat.
And perhaps you shouldn't be grilling your colon on the barbeque anyway for other reasons than PAH exposure.
The statement was and is true.
The story is about how a researcher can't replicate the results of an extraordinary scientific claim. The original poster was saying in effect that it was self-evident that it wouldn't be possible to replicate the scientific claim.
Any business that involves human labor is at risk. Many working people spend just as much if not more of their waking hours at work than at home.
Not at all. They would be for the most part working indoors and there would be no kids.
Land is renewable too since it doesn't actually go away. It's not that much effort to clean it after a radioactive accident if you want to use the land for something other than residences - especially if you plan to put a nuclear plant back on the same site again.
Given the risk we should be designing for safety in the most extreme event possible.
As long as that extreme is reasonable to design for. You're not going to be able to do much design for a direct asteroid strike or a deliberate pinpoint nuclear attack, for example.
It's not about sources. The original post is saying the claim is self-evident.
Because it's an idiom for saying that the claim was self-evidently false.
Yes and there are plenty who will tell us "global warming doesn't exist and even if if existed (which it does not) it wouldn't be caused by humans anyway. Besides the climate have been warmer previously and some change isn't that bad."
And there are plenty of people who will trot out their favorite non sequitur whenever they can.
People (science deniers) are always talking about how scientists are only interested in their grants and saying what the popular opinion is to get more grants.
So there are three unscientific fallacies present in this sentence. There's the construction of a straw man and connotative labeling of that straw man with "science deniers". Then there's the assumption that coming up with one anecdote actually demolishes that straw man.
The truth is that you can't make a name for yourself in science (and thus get money) by supporting the popular opinion. You only win a Nobel Prize by challenging the status quo and messing up everyone's preconceived notions.
The more common way IMHO is to simply do something new. Glancing through the list of Nobel prizes in physics, I getting on average around one Nobel prize per year (some years they give out more than one prize) awarded for doing new things rather than challenging the status quo.
but cannot track a 777 over the ocean
I guess you had to be there.
Indeed, upholding is broader than interpretation since in the latter case, you don't actually have to do anything, if you decide something is incompatible with the US Constitution.
Guess who is the Constitutionally appointed authority on the Constitution?
We all are. US Supreme Court Justices, for example, aren't the only people who swear to uphold the US Constitution.
I work with a group that does high altitude experimental unmanned balloon launches to 100k feet (about 30 km). The air pressure up there is 1% of Earth's. You do have to worry about heat dissipation up there for precisely the above reason.
Another reason not to count on atmosphere convection to cool you is because Mars's atmosphere varies a lot in pressure dependent on season and elevation. You only get 1% pressure at the lowest and warmest locations (in other words, the best conditions) on Mars.
The only reason you have to move your head around with a side mirror is because they are placed very close to where your peripheral vision ends.
I imagine he was speaking of being able to move your head a little more and check the blind spot on that side.
The blind spot will still be there, but it'll be pushed out to 2-3 lanes away, making it irrelevant.
Except when you're changing lanes. And we'll see if the blind spot is still there or not. A lot of cars taper in front, meaning there isn't a mount point for such a camera.
Shazzam!
Is that what happens when you run into something while adjusting the zoom on your side camera?
The raping of the world economy, the financial crisis, the reduction of wages in the western world, the intentional creation of a new lower class of poor people - all of that is out in the open, no conspiracy at all.
So you're saying that conspiracies aren't conspiracies, if nobody tries to keep them secret? Ok, then the climate change conspiracy isn't, but only on that basis.
I blew that by getting the wrong energy content of a cubic meter of natural gas. It's more like 16-17 billion cubic meters of natural gas. That's 150,000 trips of such LNG carriers which sounds a lot more reasonable. Let's say that one ship could do a round trip from North America to Europe and back in two weeks or 25 trips a year. Then that's a need for about 6,000 ships. Wikipedia notes that new ship construction is up to 260,000 cubic meters, which would drop the ship count to under 3,000.
There are currently 357 LNG carriers of any sort (according the Wikipedia link in the previous page) in the general category worldwide. There are currently 4,000 oil supertankers worldwide. So this would be a substantial increase in large ship traffic particularly since it would just be servicing a particular region.
How about ships instead? There are LNG carriers.
Looking at this report (figure 1 on page 2), I estimate that the EU consumed about 16-17 million cubic meters of natural gas. In comparison, the average LNG carrier now under production moves about 120 thousand cubic meters of natural gas. So it's around 150 trips of such LNG carriers from wherever to support the EU's needs.