Hydrogen gas is generated through one of the chemical processes using metallic waste material and spent acid slurry, which are cheapest and easy available.
To him -- and to society -- the acid and the metallic waste are worthless, and therefore it appears that he is creating cheap energy. However, produciton of these input ingredients themselves incurr an energy cost, one that is significantly greater than the resulting energy stored in the fuel cell. Although society currently places a small economic cost on these input ingredients, don't be fooled: the energetic and environmental costs of the ingredients are just as unappealing -- or even more so -- than conventional energy sources.
Go look up how sulphuric acid is made, and then tell me its kind to the environment...
One major point of the article is that is inefficient to carry around hydrogen as a gas, so carry it around as ethanol, which can yield 4 or 5 hydrogen molecules per molecule of ethanol.
You've been smoking crack! That, or you were fast asleep during your organic chemistry 101. Ethanol is C2H5OH, therefore it contains a total of 6 hydrogen atoms, or 3 molecules of molecular hydrogen (H2) -- assuming that you can access every single hydrogen atom.
In reality, of course, there is a penalty to pay for accessing each hydrogen atom -- being the energy you need to separate it from the carbon atoms which form the backbone of an ethanol molecule (the OH ligand is the only exception). Since this energy exceeds the energy you need to separate a hydrogen atom from its companion in a molecule of hydrogen, ethanol is clearly a less advantageous storage fuel than hydrogen.
So, I really wonder if business week would have carried the same article if the price of oil have not been absolutely rediculous lately.
Indeed. And given the high price of oil, I was wondering whether anyone on/. would be able to spell the word ridiculous with an 'i' rather than an 'e'.
Regrettably, it appears not, and the trend appears to continue for this word to be the favoured device of the Illiterates of Slashdot...
Fuel cells produce electricity, while a biodiesel powered engine produces mechanical energy.
True, but fuel cells need charging; free hydrogen does not exist in the earth's atmosphere, and must be created from the electrolysis of water. If the energy for this electrolysis comes from a standard fossil fuel + steam + turbine, then the fuel cell will be far less efficient than more-direct forms of power.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you appear to be labouring under the misconception that fuel cells are energe generation devices. This isn't the case; they are energy storage devices. They rely on the controlled reaction of hydrogen with oxygen to generate electricity, but the former reagent -- hydrogen -- does not exist on earth in free form. Accordingly, to 'charge up' a fuel cell, one must subject water to the process of electrolysis, splitting it into its component hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is stored in the fuel cell, and allowed to react with atmospheric oxygen when required.
The problem here, of course, is whence cometh the energy to split the water into the hydrogen and oxygen? It must come from conventional power sources, since fuel cells themselves do not generate power -- they only store it. So, the fuel cells you are paying obiesance to in your post could, quite conceivably, be powered by the nuclear reactions you appear to have an aversion to. How, then, are fuel cells safe?
Well golly, "-1 Flamebait". Never achieved that distinction before...
Oh, don't take it personally, friend. Slashdot is crawling with moron moderators, who judge quite reasonable posts -- like yours -- to be flamebait. That's just part and parcel of the wonder that is/.
Regarding my comment, I was just spouting my cynicism regarding the contrast between (a) how engineering (or, for that matter, science) should work, and (b) how it does work. Miles apart much of the time!
Ok, how do they plan on simulating momentum? Try running at full gallop and then stopping dead. Its pretty hard to do in reality. It would be easy on a treadmill that responds in the same way as the tiles above. The act of walking without the feedback that we feel from our momentum might be a little disorienting.
I disagree. If you are running at speed on a treadmill, and stop suddenly, you will fall over in exactly the same way as if you had been running on solid ground. Momentum is relative, and all that matters here is your momentum relative to the surface you are running on.
I don't know what happened the day Kerry saved that man's life and I'm not going to guess.
Well, nor do I, so will have to leave it at that. But there's got to be a better way to run a political campaign than muckracking over somebody's war record? Especially when the one leading the much rakers (Bush) himself dogdged Vietnam.
All I do know is that when he claimed that everybody in Vietnam was a war criminal he was slandering me and everybody on my ship.
Are you sure that's what he said? Or is that what you've been told he said -- or would like to believe he said? As I understand it, he believed the whole war to be a criminal act, which from a certain standpoint it was. But that's different that labelling all individuals who served -- including yourself -- as criminals.
Since all those in the photo were the commanders of other swift boats, it would appear logical to conclude that none of them served on the same boat as Kerry. I suppose reading the caption of a picture has escpaed your capabilities?
These guys saw exactly what Kerry did and didn't do, and tell it in commercials and a book.
These guys also contradict all of the evidence given by those who actually served on the same boat as Kerry. Who are the more credible witnesses here, hmmm?
And don't diss Bush, no one knows if he did coke, and he's smart enough to take a stand on issue.
What a bizarre notion -- supporting someone because they 'took a stand', even though it goes against your stance. I'm sure Hitler doesn't command your respect, but he took a stand on many issues, hmmm?
Volunteered... hm... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long? Over a year, yeah. Okay, I understand now.
Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.
Do you foam at the mouth and masturbate whenever you type something against Republicans? Get a life, loser.
No, I fondle the huge wads of money littering my desk, a mere fraction of my immense wealth, as I conjure up new ways to diss the poor old GOP. I'm so phenomenally successful, and good looking to boot, that I don't need to get a life -- life just presents itself to me, pre-wrapped and lightly perfumed, ready for me to pick and choose my delights.
Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry (the website pointed to by the 'Kerry' link) is the organization running attack ads on US television, attempting to besmirch Kerry's war record. The adverts include the catchphrase 'I served with Kerry', which is stretching the truth a bit -- not a single vet in the adverts actually served alongside Kerry, they were merely in Vietnam at the same time.
This brought to you by the Republican party, the political group led by an imbecile cokehead who didn't even have the balls to turn up to his cushy National Guard posting. I have little sympathy for their copyright complaint...
When did it become acceptable for countries to send professional teams to what is supposedly an amateur competition? By what mechanism does, for instance, the USA get to send NBA stars as its basketball team? How widespread has this practice become?
I have been thinking of going to defcon for the last lil while, and maybe will be able to next year. The trip would also need to include my g/f, she knows a bit about computers, but not a whole lot. In your opinion, would there be enough for her to do there, or should she venture other places?
If she's Ceren, go for it. Otherwise, don't bother.
US soldiers (god bless everyone of them) dye all the time for people they don't even know
No, that was 50 years ago, when the USA wasn't bent over by corrupt politicians and corporations and repeatedly fucked up the arse. Nowadays, US soldiers invade other countries in senseless acts of agression, bomb wedding parties and torture people in prisons. I'm not going to forget any of that in a hurry, matey.
Slashdot Mirror
How does he make the hydrogen? To quote:
To him -- and to society -- the acid and the metallic waste are worthless, and therefore it appears that he is creating cheap energy. However, produciton of these input ingredients themselves incurr an energy cost, one that is significantly greater than the resulting energy stored in the fuel cell. Although society currently places a small economic cost on these input ingredients, don't be fooled: the energetic and environmental costs of the ingredients are just as unappealing -- or even more so -- than conventional energy sources.
Go look up how sulphuric acid is made, and then tell me its kind to the environment...
One major point of the article is that is inefficient to carry around hydrogen as a gas, so carry it around as ethanol, which can yield 4 or 5 hydrogen molecules per molecule of ethanol.
You've been smoking crack! That, or you were fast asleep during your organic chemistry 101. Ethanol is C2H5OH, therefore it contains a total of 6 hydrogen atoms, or 3 molecules of molecular hydrogen (H2) -- assuming that you can access every single hydrogen atom.
In reality, of course, there is a penalty to pay for accessing each hydrogen atom -- being the energy you need to separate it from the carbon atoms which form the backbone of an ethanol molecule (the OH ligand is the only exception). Since this energy exceeds the energy you need to separate a hydrogen atom from its companion in a molecule of hydrogen, ethanol is clearly a less advantageous storage fuel than hydrogen.
Where's your daddy?
With cheese. Watch France, my son...
Just a thought - but in north Africa and the middle East you find many desert regions right next to the ocean.
'Next to' being 500 miles or more. I refer the right honourable gentleman to an atlas.
So, I really wonder if business week would have carried the same article if the price of oil have not been absolutely rediculous lately.
Indeed. And given the high price of oil, I was wondering whether anyone on /. would be able to spell the word ridiculous with an 'i' rather than an 'e'.
Regrettably, it appears not, and the trend appears to continue for this word to be the favoured device of the Illiterates of Slashdot...
Fuel cells produce electricity, while a biodiesel powered engine produces mechanical energy.
True, but fuel cells need charging; free hydrogen does not exist in the earth's atmosphere, and must be created from the electrolysis of water. If the energy for this electrolysis comes from a standard fossil fuel + steam + turbine, then the fuel cell will be far less efficient than more-direct forms of power.
Answer: electricity, water
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you appear to be labouring under the misconception that fuel cells are energe generation devices. This isn't the case; they are energy storage devices. They rely on the controlled reaction of hydrogen with oxygen to generate electricity, but the former reagent -- hydrogen -- does not exist on earth in free form. Accordingly, to 'charge up' a fuel cell, one must subject water to the process of electrolysis, splitting it into its component hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is stored in the fuel cell, and allowed to react with atmospheric oxygen when required.
The problem here, of course, is whence cometh the energy to split the water into the hydrogen and oxygen? It must come from conventional power sources, since fuel cells themselves do not generate power -- they only store it. So, the fuel cells you are paying obiesance to in your post could, quite conceivably, be powered by the nuclear reactions you appear to have an aversion to. How, then, are fuel cells safe?
Well golly, "-1 Flamebait". Never achieved that distinction before...
Oh, don't take it personally, friend. Slashdot is crawling with moron moderators, who judge quite reasonable posts -- like yours -- to be flamebait. That's just part and parcel of the wonder that is /.
Regarding my comment, I was just spouting my cynicism regarding the contrast between (a) how engineering (or, for that matter, science) should work, and (b) how it does work. Miles apart much of the time!
I thought that was what engineering is all about.
Not familiar with the Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster, are we?
Convict: A computer virus killed my family's PC! Now I'll kill you!
Shouldn't the last bit be 'Prepare to die!'?
When I was in 4th grade [yes yes, dating myself I know]
'Dating yourself'? That's a good way of putting it. 'Masturbation' always sounds so damn clinical...
They're called "Native Americans" you shithead! Now who's being racist?
What, Native Americans in India? You fucktard!
It's interesting how many idiots like yourself take issue with my sig. And, also, how often they themselves are racist.
But some game controllers and pads just don't seem to fit in your hand, and sometimes they slip and slide, making you miss the action.
Damn, coffee all over my keyboard. I curse my British upbringing...
And, um, no. Vietnam Vets Against Kerry is not brought to you by the Republican Party
Eating your words now, you revolting little crapweasel?
Ok, how do they plan on simulating momentum? Try running at full gallop and then stopping dead. Its pretty hard to do in reality. It would be easy on a treadmill that responds in the same way as the tiles above. The act of walking without the feedback that we feel from our momentum might be a little disorienting.
I disagree. If you are running at speed on a treadmill, and stop suddenly, you will fall over in exactly the same way as if you had been running on solid ground. Momentum is relative, and all that matters here is your momentum relative to the surface you are running on.
I don't know what happened the day Kerry saved that man's life and I'm not going to guess.
Well, nor do I, so will have to leave it at that. But there's got to be a better way to run a political campaign than muckracking over somebody's war record? Especially when the one leading the much rakers (Bush) himself dogdged Vietnam.
All I do know is that when he claimed that everybody in Vietnam was a war criminal he was slandering me and everybody on my ship.
Are you sure that's what he said? Or is that what you've been told he said -- or would like to believe he said? As I understand it, he believed the whole war to be a criminal act, which from a certain standpoint it was. But that's different that labelling all individuals who served -- including yourself -- as criminals.
Since all those in the photo were the commanders of other swift boats, it would appear logical to conclude that none of them served on the same boat as Kerry. I suppose reading the caption of a picture has escpaed your capabilities?
These guys saw exactly what Kerry did and didn't do, and tell it in commercials and a book.
These guys also contradict all of the evidence given by those who actually served on the same boat as Kerry. Who are the more credible witnesses here, hmmm?
And don't diss Bush, no one knows if he did coke, and he's smart enough to take a stand on issue.
What a bizarre notion -- supporting someone because they 'took a stand', even though it goes against your stance. I'm sure Hitler doesn't command your respect, but he took a stand on many issues, hmmm?
Volunteered ... hm ... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long? Over a year, yeah. Okay, I understand now.
Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.
How long were you there, my friend?
Do you foam at the mouth and masturbate whenever you type something against Republicans? Get a life, loser.
No, I fondle the huge wads of money littering my desk, a mere fraction of my immense wealth, as I conjure up new ways to diss the poor old GOP. I'm so phenomenally successful, and good looking to boot, that I don't need to get a life -- life just presents itself to me, pre-wrapped and lightly perfumed, ready for me to pick and choose my delights.
Your point...?
This brought to you by the Republican party, the political group led by an imbecile cokehead who didn't even have the balls to turn up to his cushy National Guard posting. I have little sympathy for their copyright complaint...
When did it become acceptable for countries to send professional teams to what is supposedly an amateur competition? By what mechanism does, for instance, the USA get to send NBA stars as its basketball team? How widespread has this practice become?
I have been thinking of going to defcon for the last lil while, and maybe will be able to next year. The trip would also need to include my g/f, she knows a bit about computers, but not a whole lot. In your opinion, would there be enough for her to do there, or should she venture other places?
If she's Ceren , go for it. Otherwise, don't bother.
My bad, I didn't read the article, and I assumed the GP meant the Earth-Sun L1 point.
US soldiers (god bless everyone of them) dye all the time for people they don't even know
No, that was 50 years ago, when the USA wasn't bent over by corrupt politicians and corporations and repeatedly fucked up the arse. Nowadays, US soldiers invade other countries in senseless acts of agression, bomb wedding parties and torture people in prisons. I'm not going to forget any of that in a hurry, matey.