Unfortunately the two overlap so much they are virtually indistinguishable. They have essentially taken over the Republican party at this point, and never miss an opportunity to thump a Bible in public.
Good job linking to Wikipedia, though. "The neutrality of this article is disputed." - no shit... =Smidge=
There is a very active, vocal, influential and dedicated group of people who honestly, truly, 100% believe that the word of the Bible and faith in the Christian God will solve ALL of society's problems. In their view, society as a whole is morally corrupt and the only way to fix it is to push their own "superior" morals onto society and "save" them. Nothing is sacred in their pursuit of their agendas.
These people are called Neo-Conservatives.
Anything that gets in their way must be discredited, marginalized or outright destroyed. Science poses the single greatest threat to their core agenda (enforcing Christianity) because it erodes the ignorance required to maintain such strong convictions. Evolution is a direct threat to what makes God so influential - it explains life itself, something only God is "qualified" to deal with. Other hot-button issues include drugs, sex education and abortion... all of these have perfectly sensible, empirical solutions that the "Moral Right" refuse to entertain purely on principle. (And anyone who says otherwise gets labeled a "Liberal" - the Neocon's personal swear-word)
This is not to say it's some big huge conspiracy. Some, even most, of the ID proponents are otherwise good people who just believe in ID more out of ignorance than deliberately attempting to squash science. They are stuck in a "us verses them" mentality, so they side with the people who align more closely to their own beliefs rather than find a middle ground. However, it's no accident that there's a lot of politics behind what should otherwise be a purely science vs. superstition issue.
To be perfectly blunt, Neo-conservatism is the all American version of Islamic fascism. The only real difference is Neocons use immense political and economic influence to push their agenda while the Islamic fascists use direct violence. Neocons have also been a lot more successful at it. =Smidge=
To say that "they change to become resistant" is misleading, because you are suggesting a single bacteria changes within the span of it's own life cycle to become resistant. To be more accurate, any given culture DOES contain multiple, slight variations that make some bacteria more resistant than others. However, it it the evolution opponents who write this off as "all possible variations already exist" - which is equally false. The variations within a single culture are the results of non-lethal mutations between generations.
----
Here's a simple experiment anyone that is half-competent with science-y things can do.
Take a single bacteria and cultivate it.
Take a any two individual bacteria from that culture and cultivate them separately. Take a third bacteria from this original culture and sequence its DNA for future comparison.
Continue to re-sample each culture and start a new culture, keeping the descendants of the original "split" separate.
After some number of generations, sample and sequence the DNA from each descendant colony. Compare them against each other and the sequence from the original culture.
I predict they will all be different. The fact that both cultures are ultimately descended from a SINGLE bacteria eliminates the possibility that all of these unique DNA sequences existed simultaneously, and the fact that they are different proves that non-lethal mutations have been occurring over time.
As an extra bonus, I also predict that the cultures will have different reactions to the same antibiotic.
As an extra extra bonus, if we continue to develop these two lines of ancestry I predict they will eventually diverge enough in genetic makeup that they can be considered a new species of bacteria. Tada! Macroevolution is the cumulative effect of microevolution!
Console manufacturers make their money on game sales, not consoles. It's nice that Nintendo actually DOES make money on a console sale, last I heard, but the games are still the primary income.
There is virtually no incentive to deliberately short the supply. Every day a person who wants a Wii can't find one is another day they might break down and buy something else. The more consoles you can get into the homes the more likely you are to attract better games and make more money. They want to sell you that console ASAP, because then you're going to buy their games and are much less likely to buy another console to buy somebody else's games. =Smidge=
So I have a box full of pingpong balls and.50 calibre lead shot. I remove most or all the pingpong balls. Now the density of the mixture has increased even though I have not "replenished" anything.
In the case of Venus, you can substitute lighter gasses (Hydrogen, Nitrogen, etc) with heavier gasses (carbon and sulfur compounds). =Smidge=
Nevermind! I watched the video again and he did mention how it makes process steam for use in turbines. I guess I just didn't remember that part. My bad!
I remember that, and was interested in the concept... but nowhere in his presentation did he mention how you actually extract energy from the reaction. I'd think that's an important piece of the puzzle...
Cool, what happens when disgruntled brown people put a car full of diesel and fertilizer on the tracks?
A lot less than if they fly a plane full of fuel into a building. Also, if they put it there too early the track sensors will detect the obstruction and the train will slow down/stop before it gets there. They would have to get the truck onto the track before the train gets there and after the train is too close to do an emergency stop (say, 1.5 miles). Traveling at 5 miles per minute, they would have a window of opportunity of about 18 seconds...
Incidentally, this will never fly in the USA...not because it isn't useful, but because the current rail monopolies would lose money. If you have were to create a maglev track there is no reason you couldn't use the same easements to put freight lines in, and that means no more 'i can charge whatever i want as long as it's cheaper than trucking companies'.
Well, I'm not talking about Maglevs, just to clarify that point.
Second, 'I can charge whatever I want as long as it's cheaper than trucking companies' is contradictory, since your highest price is still bound by an outside influence. That's hardly a monopoly, even if it technically IS a monopoly.
That said, and this is a difficult thing to admit, but this might actually be best done at the federal level with portions leased out to the private sector under strict contracts. I know it'll never happen, but the job is too big for a single private company and having multiple contractors independently developing different parts of the system would be a nightmare. =Smidge=
1) RADAR can see more than 100 yards. Several miles, actually, in the flat and almost baren plains where you are likely to encounter herds of large animals. This, plus the other sensor technologies used, means you would have little trouble avoiding them.
Maintaining a fence along the tracks is pretty trivial compared to maintaining the track itself. How much does a 4' high chain-link fence cost? Nothing compared to the rest of the system.
What about the existing rail systems that stretch across the country? It's not like this country isn't already wrapped in steel ribbon. In fact, unlike most of the metro rails on the coasts, most of the trans-continental rails can likely be upgraded, being mostly straight and in the middle of nowhere. That also solves your land acquisition problem.
2) What do you think they do now? They bus/taxi/drive their car to a local airport, take a plane to a major airport, then to their destination city (or nearest major airport and another connecting flight) then taxi/bus/rental car to their ultimate destination. The idea is to eliminate plane rides, not have a train stop in every neighborhood in the country.
You would also have multiple lines servicing different areas, much like you currently have multiple hops on some flights even within the country. For example, one line running up the eastern coast, one up the western coast, and one, maybe two running between them. Traditional rail systems can fill in the gaps between outlaying cities and central hubs. There's plenty of them.
3) Well apparently they had no trouble in Europe making said overpasses. 3.5 to 4% slopes too, which is better than most slower trains. Work out the physics, you say? For what? How steep an incline it can have before it jumps the tracks? 4% (0.5 inches per foot) isn't gonna do shit.
Let's use a 2% slope. Let's say to need 20 feet elevation difference to safely pass. 20 feet divided by 0.02 = 1000 feet. Up and down for 2000 feet of ramp which is a little over 1/3rd of a mile. Whoopty do.
Traveling at 300MPH (440 feet/sec) you'll cover that 1000 feet in 2.27 seconds. 2.27 seconds to travel up 20 feet gives 8.8 feet per second vertical velocity (up AND down on either side). Acceleration due to gravity is 32 feet/sec^2 - four times what the profile of the ramp physically allows - so the train isn't going to leave the tracks. For reference, that's about as fast as a passenger elevator in a ten story building. Give the overpass some nice transitions, make it a half-mile total length, and it'll be barely noticeable.
I'm not forgetting about gravity, you're forgetting to read the rest of that paragraph:
This was first proven by Samuel Earnshaw in 1842. It is usually referenced to magnetic fields, but originally applied to electrostatic fields, and, in fact, applies to any classical inverse-square law force or combination of forces (such as magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields).
Emphasis mine.
In short, unless there is a mechanical limit somewhere, or a means to vary the field strength, or an inertial stabilization (spinning) the thing will twist, topple and slide any way it can to jam itself up. Go ahead and try it. =Smidge=
1) Ground tracking RADAR tracking would be very sufficient to avoid herds of animals, which would be about the only major problem. How often are large animals hit by trains? The French TGV trains (which travel 200MPH normally, 357MPH official record) don't seem to have much of a problem: There have been 5 incidents with animal strikes since it went into operation in 1981. Do you suppose there's just no wildlife in France?
Maybe you should read up on how these things are operated.
2) From TOWNS? I wouldn't bother. This is best suited to long-haul express lines between larger city hubs (even then, technically bypassing them rather than going THROUGH them). Also, if your argument is "how would you pick up passengers" then obviously the train isn't going to be traveling at 300MPH through the station.
3) Have you ever seen an overpass for a train? They don't have the same slopes as an overpass for a car, so yes they would be long. Maybe you can imagine the road going over or under the tracks instead of the other way around? =Smidge=
The whole point of levetation was to reduce friction. You put the thing on wheels, you add friction. This added friction will be present until it is spinning fast enough to achieve stable levitation. You keep mentioning Inductrack, which as I said is not at all magical. It is irrelevant how the thing is levitated once it's in motion (that's the easy part), the problem is getting it to that state and keeping it there. Inductrack does jack squat unless things are moving.
With talk of "giant" devices, how strong a wind will you need to get that thing going? Inertia is a bitch.
After some googling I found this: "The MaglLev is able to utilize winds with starting speeds as low as 1.5 meters per second (m/s), and cut-in speeds of 3 m/s, the chief of Zhongke Energy was quoted as saying at the exhibition."
They already have designs that beat that performance. =Smidge=
Inductrack doesn't work in a static configuration either, so there is absolutely nothing new there. It's certainly not magic.
The problem is this IS a static configuration. At least it must be considered as such unless it can be guaranteed that a minimum wind will be present 100% of the time. Below a certain threshhold, you will either need a system that can support a static condition or supply energy to the structure to keep it spinning just enough to prevent collapse. =Smidge=
Earnshaw's theorem probably has something to do with it.
In a nutshell, it's impossible to levitate something statically using only static magnetic fields. You will either need dynamic feedback (electromagnets, power required), mechanical constraints (friction) or rotational stabilization (tricky to get right so you can't rely on wind power to do it, also requires power)
The only other option is diamagnetic materials, but the magnetic fields you would need to levitate something that massive using only diamagnetic effects would be ungodly strong and probably pose a severe hazard to anything nearby, with noticeable effects hundreds or maybe thousands of feet away. =Smidge=
The advantage is speed. A maglev train is essentially a plane without wings, so speeds of 300+MPH are not unreasonable right now. In theory, though, a Maglev can reach the 500+MPH of a commercial jet.
Of course, the French TVG is also about that fast, so that advantage no longer really holds much weight until the technology improves. Maglev right now is pretty much a "bright shiny thing" to make the public all doe-eyed so they don't mind the pork as much. (Much like the "Hydrogen Economy")
You might not have noticed, but America is a pretty big country. If you want to cross it, you have three options: Plane (~500MPH), Train (~80MPH) or car/bus (~60MPH). Assuming you're not making the trip for the scenery, the choice is pretty much a no-brainer.
A fast train, ~300MPH, would make trans-continental travel easier. Even if it took twice as long, it would still be same-day travel and I'd prefer to take a high speed train than an aircraft (unless I *had* to get there in 6 hours). If a viable Maglev train could cover the distance at the same speed as the jet, though, then there is no advantage to flying at all. =Smidge=
While I am a supporter of nuclear power, I do have some misgivings about this device.
For example, you know those large canisters they use to ship nuclear material in? The kind they repeatedly test by hitting them with high-speed freight trains? How much nuclear material do they hold? Compare that to how much material these "hot tub" sized units hold. Are they at least as strong?
The description of the device seems to sidestep around the issue of regulating the nuclear reaction between the manufacturing and installation times. I assume they aren't going to build them until they're ordered, but it would still be several days at best before it's hooked up and I see nothing preventing the nuclear reaction from running during that time.
Can someone explain to me how using uranium hydride makes it "cleaner, producing only a tiny fraction of the waste produced by other types of reactors" ? I'm not a nuclear scientist, but fission products are fission products any way you slice it...
The site specifically says it doesn't use water. What does it use? How do you get the energy out of this thing? I'm assuming it only produces thermal energy, and converting it to mechanical/electrical power is a problem for the client. That's fine, but how does one effectively extract heat from this unit?
Also, naming the device after a book set in a dystopian future which describes the destruction of Earth from a botched scientific experiment strikes me as a tad disingenuous... =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately the two overlap so much they are virtually indistinguishable. They have essentially taken over the Republican party at this point, and never miss an opportunity to thump a Bible in public.
Good job linking to Wikipedia, though. "The neutrality of this article is disputed." - no shit...
=Smidge=
The problem is this:
There is a very active, vocal, influential and dedicated group of people who honestly, truly, 100% believe that the word of the Bible and faith in the Christian God will solve ALL of society's problems. In their view, society as a whole is morally corrupt and the only way to fix it is to push their own "superior" morals onto society and "save" them. Nothing is sacred in their pursuit of their agendas.
These people are called Neo-Conservatives.
Anything that gets in their way must be discredited, marginalized or outright destroyed. Science poses the single greatest threat to their core agenda (enforcing Christianity) because it erodes the ignorance required to maintain such strong convictions. Evolution is a direct threat to what makes God so influential - it explains life itself, something only God is "qualified" to deal with. Other hot-button issues include drugs, sex education and abortion... all of these have perfectly sensible, empirical solutions that the "Moral Right" refuse to entertain purely on principle. (And anyone who says otherwise gets labeled a "Liberal" - the Neocon's personal swear-word)
This is not to say it's some big huge conspiracy. Some, even most, of the ID proponents are otherwise good people who just believe in ID more out of ignorance than deliberately attempting to squash science. They are stuck in a "us verses them" mentality, so they side with the people who align more closely to their own beliefs rather than find a middle ground. However, it's no accident that there's a lot of politics behind what should otherwise be a purely science vs. superstition issue.
To be perfectly blunt, Neo-conservatism is the all American version of Islamic fascism. The only real difference is Neocons use immense political and economic influence to push their agenda while the Islamic fascists use direct violence. Neocons have also been a lot more successful at it.
=Smidge=
To say that "they change to become resistant" is misleading, because you are suggesting a single bacteria changes within the span of it's own life cycle to become resistant. To be more accurate, any given culture DOES contain multiple, slight variations that make some bacteria more resistant than others. However, it it the evolution opponents who write this off as "all possible variations already exist" - which is equally false. The variations within a single culture are the results of non-lethal mutations between generations.
----
Here's a simple experiment anyone that is half-competent with science-y things can do.
Take a single bacteria and cultivate it.
Take a any two individual bacteria from that culture and cultivate them separately. Take a third bacteria from this original culture and sequence its DNA for future comparison.
Continue to re-sample each culture and start a new culture, keeping the descendants of the original "split" separate.
After some number of generations, sample and sequence the DNA from each descendant colony. Compare them against each other and the sequence from the original culture.
I predict they will all be different. The fact that both cultures are ultimately descended from a SINGLE bacteria eliminates the possibility that all of these unique DNA sequences existed simultaneously, and the fact that they are different proves that non-lethal mutations have been occurring over time.
As an extra bonus, I also predict that the cultures will have different reactions to the same antibiotic.
As an extra extra bonus, if we continue to develop these two lines of ancestry I predict they will eventually diverge enough in genetic makeup that they can be considered a new species of bacteria. Tada! Macroevolution is the cumulative effect of microevolution!
Science. It works, bitches.
=Smidge=
The fallacy there is thinking financial loss is the ONLY aspect of botnet operation. Botnets cause a lot more damage than what fraud and spam cost.
A better analogy would be investigating a serial arsonist and discovering a link to a recent rash of burglary incidents in the process.
=Smidge=
Console manufacturers make their money on game sales, not consoles. It's nice that Nintendo actually DOES make money on a console sale, last I heard, but the games are still the primary income.
There is virtually no incentive to deliberately short the supply. Every day a person who wants a Wii can't find one is another day they might break down and buy something else. The more consoles you can get into the homes the more likely you are to attract better games and make more money. They want to sell you that console ASAP, because then you're going to buy their games and are much less likely to buy another console to buy somebody else's games.
=Smidge=
So I have a box full of pingpong balls and .50 calibre lead shot. I remove most or all the pingpong balls. Now the density of the mixture has increased even though I have not "replenished" anything.
In the case of Venus, you can substitute lighter gasses (Hydrogen, Nitrogen, etc) with heavier gasses (carbon and sulfur compounds).
=Smidge=
Have you been drinking enough Malk?
=Smidge=
Hydro power isn't viable where there is no abundant water source and natural basins to store large quantities of water.
Solar power isn't viable in areas that don't get a lot of sunlight (too far north/south of the equator)
Wind power isn't viable in areas where there isn't consistent wind currents.
Tidal power isn't viable inland.
Geothermal power isn't viable in areas where the earth's crust is particularly thick.
=Smidge=
Nevermind! I watched the video again and he did mention how it makes process steam for use in turbines. I guess I just didn't remember that part. My bad!
=Smidge=
I remember that, and was interested in the concept... but nowhere in his presentation did he mention how you actually extract energy from the reaction. I'd think that's an important piece of the puzzle...
=Smidge=
A lot less than if they fly a plane full of fuel into a building. Also, if they put it there too early the track sensors will detect the obstruction and the train will slow down/stop before it gets there. They would have to get the truck onto the track before the train gets there and after the train is too close to do an emergency stop (say, 1.5 miles). Traveling at 5 miles per minute, they would have a window of opportunity of about 18 seconds...
Well, I'm not talking about Maglevs, just to clarify that point.
Second, 'I can charge whatever I want as long as it's cheaper than trucking companies' is contradictory, since your highest price is still bound by an outside influence. That's hardly a monopoly, even if it technically IS a monopoly.
That said, and this is a difficult thing to admit, but this might actually be best done at the federal level with portions leased out to the private sector under strict contracts. I know it'll never happen, but the job is too big for a single private company and having multiple contractors independently developing different parts of the system would be a nightmare.
=Smidge=
1) RADAR can see more than 100 yards. Several miles, actually, in the flat and almost baren plains where you are likely to encounter herds of large animals. This, plus the other sensor technologies used, means you would have little trouble avoiding them.
Maintaining a fence along the tracks is pretty trivial compared to maintaining the track itself. How much does a 4' high chain-link fence cost? Nothing compared to the rest of the system.
What about the existing rail systems that stretch across the country? It's not like this country isn't already wrapped in steel ribbon. In fact, unlike most of the metro rails on the coasts, most of the trans-continental rails can likely be upgraded, being mostly straight and in the middle of nowhere. That also solves your land acquisition problem.
2) What do you think they do now? They bus/taxi/drive their car to a local airport, take a plane to a major airport, then to their destination city (or nearest major airport and another connecting flight) then taxi/bus/rental car to their ultimate destination. The idea is to eliminate plane rides, not have a train stop in every neighborhood in the country.
You would also have multiple lines servicing different areas, much like you currently have multiple hops on some flights even within the country. For example, one line running up the eastern coast, one up the western coast, and one, maybe two running between them. Traditional rail systems can fill in the gaps between outlaying cities and central hubs. There's plenty of them.
3) Well apparently they had no trouble in Europe making said overpasses. 3.5 to 4% slopes too, which is better than most slower trains. Work out the physics, you say? For what? How steep an incline it can have before it jumps the tracks? 4% (0.5 inches per foot) isn't gonna do shit.
Let's use a 2% slope. Let's say to need 20 feet elevation difference to safely pass. 20 feet divided by 0.02 = 1000 feet. Up and down for 2000 feet of ramp which is a little over 1/3rd of a mile. Whoopty do.
Traveling at 300MPH (440 feet/sec) you'll cover that 1000 feet in 2.27 seconds. 2.27 seconds to travel up 20 feet gives 8.8 feet per second vertical velocity (up AND down on either side). Acceleration due to gravity is 32 feet/sec^2 - four times what the profile of the ramp physically allows - so the train isn't going to leave the tracks. For reference, that's about as fast as a passenger elevator in a ten story building. Give the overpass some nice transitions, make it a half-mile total length, and it'll be barely noticeable.
There. Physics done.
=Smidge=
Emphasis mine.
In short, unless there is a mechanical limit somewhere, or a means to vary the field strength, or an inertial stabilization (spinning) the thing will twist, topple and slide any way it can to jam itself up. Go ahead and try it.
=Smidge=
1) Ground tracking RADAR tracking would be very sufficient to avoid herds of animals, which would be about the only major problem. How often are large animals hit by trains? The French TGV trains (which travel 200MPH normally, 357MPH official record) don't seem to have much of a problem: There have been 5 incidents with animal strikes since it went into operation in 1981. Do you suppose there's just no wildlife in France?
Maybe you should read up on how these things are operated.
2) From TOWNS? I wouldn't bother. This is best suited to long-haul express lines between larger city hubs (even then, technically bypassing them rather than going THROUGH them). Also, if your argument is "how would you pick up passengers" then obviously the train isn't going to be traveling at 300MPH through the station.
3) Have you ever seen an overpass for a train? They don't have the same slopes as an overpass for a car, so yes they would be long. Maybe you can imagine the road going over or under the tracks instead of the other way around?
=Smidge=
The whole point of levetation was to reduce friction. You put the thing on wheels, you add friction. This added friction will be present until it is spinning fast enough to achieve stable levitation. You keep mentioning Inductrack, which as I said is not at all magical. It is irrelevant how the thing is levitated once it's in motion (that's the easy part), the problem is getting it to that state and keeping it there. Inductrack does jack squat unless things are moving.
With talk of "giant" devices, how strong a wind will you need to get that thing going? Inertia is a bitch.
After some googling I found this: "The MaglLev is able to utilize winds with starting speeds as low as 1.5 meters per second (m/s), and cut-in speeds of 3 m/s, the chief of Zhongke Energy was quoted as saying at the exhibition."
They already have designs that beat that performance.
=Smidge=
1) RADAR. It's really handy.
2) Don't route the train through towns.
3) Build overpasses, not grade crossings.
=Smidge=
Inductrack doesn't work in a static configuration either, so there is absolutely nothing new there. It's certainly not magic.
The problem is this IS a static configuration. At least it must be considered as such unless it can be guaranteed that a minimum wind will be present 100% of the time. Below a certain threshhold, you will either need a system that can support a static condition or supply energy to the structure to keep it spinning just enough to prevent collapse.
=Smidge=
Over really short distances at insanely high G forces along perfectly straight, level and parallel tracks.
In other words, not in any sense that makes them at all practical for everyday use and/or meaningful distances.
=Smidge=
It's neigh impossible to hijack a train and crash it into, say, a national landmark, bridge or government building.
=Smidge=
Diamagnetism. Superconductors are "perfect" diamagnetic materials.
=Smidge=
Earnshaw's theorem probably has something to do with it.
In a nutshell, it's impossible to levitate something statically using only static magnetic fields. You will either need dynamic feedback (electromagnets, power required), mechanical constraints (friction) or rotational stabilization (tricky to get right so you can't rely on wind power to do it, also requires power)
The only other option is diamagnetic materials, but the magnetic fields you would need to levitate something that massive using only diamagnetic effects would be ungodly strong and probably pose a severe hazard to anything nearby, with noticeable effects hundreds or maybe thousands of feet away.
=Smidge=
The advantage is speed. A maglev train is essentially a plane without wings, so speeds of 300+MPH are not unreasonable right now. In theory, though, a Maglev can reach the 500+MPH of a commercial jet.
Of course, the French TVG is also about that fast, so that advantage no longer really holds much weight until the technology improves. Maglev right now is pretty much a "bright shiny thing" to make the public all doe-eyed so they don't mind the pork as much. (Much like the "Hydrogen Economy")
You might not have noticed, but America is a pretty big country. If you want to cross it, you have three options: Plane (~500MPH), Train (~80MPH) or car/bus (~60MPH). Assuming you're not making the trip for the scenery, the choice is pretty much a no-brainer.
A fast train, ~300MPH, would make trans-continental travel easier. Even if it took twice as long, it would still be same-day travel and I'd prefer to take a high speed train than an aircraft (unless I *had* to get there in 6 hours). If a viable Maglev train could cover the distance at the same speed as the jet, though, then there is no advantage to flying at all.
=Smidge=
Way to ruin a joke... :p
=Smidge=
I've decided that EA couldn't code themselves out of a black box.
Well it certainly seems they can't code themselves out of an Orange Box...
=Smidge=
While I am a supporter of nuclear power, I do have some misgivings about this device.
For example, you know those large canisters they use to ship nuclear material in? The kind they repeatedly test by hitting them with high-speed freight trains? How much nuclear material do they hold? Compare that to how much material these "hot tub" sized units hold. Are they at least as strong?
The description of the device seems to sidestep around the issue of regulating the nuclear reaction between the manufacturing and installation times. I assume they aren't going to build them until they're ordered, but it would still be several days at best before it's hooked up and I see nothing preventing the nuclear reaction from running during that time.
Can someone explain to me how using uranium hydride makes it "cleaner, producing only a tiny fraction of the waste produced by other types of reactors" ? I'm not a nuclear scientist, but fission products are fission products any way you slice it...
The site specifically says it doesn't use water. What does it use? How do you get the energy out of this thing? I'm assuming it only produces thermal energy, and converting it to mechanical/electrical power is a problem for the client. That's fine, but how does one effectively extract heat from this unit?
Also, naming the device after a book set in a dystopian future which describes the destruction of Earth from a botched scientific experiment strikes me as a tad disingenuous...
=Smidge=