I think the quantum confusion may have come from the famous wave/particle duality experiment involving the two 45 degree mirrors - I forget who did it. Although how you shrink mirrors to this scale and embed them on a substrate, I'm not so sure.
IIRC the hubble debacle wasn't all that stupid. The mirror was tested thoroughly, it was the testing apparatus that was screwed - and even that was only down to a fleck of paint under one of the bolts holding the thing in place. I wouldn't bet my house on it though, I'm probably wrong. A costly mistake nonetheless.
Although it obviously does, money shouldn't really come into it. I reckon a pretty good start could have been made with the cash wasted on the recent iraq war. Considering that was all about oil (and by extension - energy), it would have been an attempt to serve the same purpose anyway. Getting the panels over there is clearly tough, but getting the energy back again would be a piece of piss.
It doesn't. I think the idea is that the CO2 in the nut shells was fixed by the tree during the growing season - so when they're burnt again, only the same amount of CO2 will be released. As opposed to digging up Coal or Oil which was fixed possibly 1000's of years ago, and won't return by the same process for another 1000.
Doesn't make much sense to me; I've always figured massive solar power farms on the moon would solve all of this. How hard can it actually be?
you accuse me of spouting 'pet environmental theories', but I think you missed the point. I'm fully aware how much ammonia is produced naturally and the relative insignificance of the atmospheric effect this system would have. Not quite so for the marine organisms nearby if a larger amout of the ammonia were re-absorbed at surface level.
I did read the article, it never mentioned whether the gas would be released or re-absorbed. did you bother to read the article *or* my post? No.
I don't know who made you so angry. Maybe you're a victim of brutal anal molestation - but again, I suppose 'I'm guessing'.
Chill bwana.
Don't get me wrong - even if it's not completely clean, getting away from complete dependence on oil companies has to be a good thing. I suppose what I was getting at was the effect of localised re-absorbtion of ammonia at surface level. And it's possible role in encouraging the growth of algae, and increasing toxicity, at what I presume would have to be a fairly coastal location. Will somebody *please* think of the plankton!
The article wasn't clear whether the ammonia is re-absorbed or released into the atmosphere. I'm guessing it would have to be released, otherwise it'd be some kind of perpetual energy system. Assuming that's true - surely this system is just the same as burning fossil fuels? except it's releasing nitrogen based nasties instead of carbon based ones. Or am I misguided again?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the quantum confusion may have come from the famous wave/particle duality experiment involving the two 45 degree mirrors - I forget who did it. Although how you shrink mirrors to this scale and embed them on a substrate, I'm not so sure.
Spot on.
Why watch any BBC when you only get to see Miriam on Sky? Damn, that girl's fine!
what? did I miss something?
A Zero-G "finale" actually exists on the highly reputable movie "The Uranus Experiment". If that's not informative, I don't know what is.
IIRC the hubble debacle wasn't all that stupid. The mirror was tested thoroughly, it was the testing apparatus that was screwed - and even that was only down to a fleck of paint under one of the bolts holding the thing in place. I wouldn't bet my house on it though, I'm probably wrong. A costly mistake nonetheless.
Although it obviously does, money shouldn't really come into it. I reckon a pretty good start could have been made with the cash wasted on the recent iraq war. Considering that was all about oil (and by extension - energy), it would have been an attempt to serve the same purpose anyway. Getting the panels over there is clearly tough, but getting the energy back again would be a piece of piss.
It doesn't. I think the idea is that the CO2 in the nut shells was fixed by the tree during the growing season - so when they're burnt again, only the same amount of CO2 will be released. As opposed to digging up Coal or Oil which was fixed possibly 1000's of years ago, and won't return by the same process for another 1000. Doesn't make much sense to me; I've always figured massive solar power farms on the moon would solve all of this. How hard can it actually be?
come on! he hardly touched the fag.
Yo mamma's so fat she's got smaller fat women orbiting around her.
you accuse me of spouting 'pet environmental theories', but I think you missed the point. I'm fully aware how much ammonia is produced naturally and the relative insignificance of the atmospheric effect this system would have. Not quite so for the marine organisms nearby if a larger amout of the ammonia were re-absorbed at surface level. I did read the article, it never mentioned whether the gas would be released or re-absorbed. did you bother to read the article *or* my post? No. I don't know who made you so angry. Maybe you're a victim of brutal anal molestation - but again, I suppose 'I'm guessing'. Chill bwana.
Don't get me wrong - even if it's not completely clean, getting away from complete dependence on oil companies has to be a good thing. I suppose what I was getting at was the effect of localised re-absorbtion of ammonia at surface level. And it's possible role in encouraging the growth of algae, and increasing toxicity, at what I presume would have to be a fairly coastal location. Will somebody *please* think of the plankton!
The article wasn't clear whether the ammonia is re-absorbed or released into the atmosphere. I'm guessing it would have to be released, otherwise it'd be some kind of perpetual energy system. Assuming that's true - surely this system is just the same as burning fossil fuels? except it's releasing nitrogen based nasties instead of carbon based ones. Or am I misguided again?
Eh? who told you that? If they've ever been referred to collectively, its as the 'Oxbridge' colleges.