So TNT is no better then gunpowder? What is so special with this guys gunpowder?
The energy of explosion of TNT is 3.9 MJ/kg while black powder has 2.8 MJ/kg. Black powder is low-explosive. It rather burns quickly than explodes so it is usually not used as an explosive. However, large amounts of black powder (especially well packed) can explode and the effects can be comparable to TNT (but never equal to).
Modern wars are fought mainly between irregulars armed with AK-47 and mortars. No, it won't revolutionize these conflicts and it doesn't matter against partisants.
The aurora activity is subsiding and there is little probabilility of northern lights at middle lattitudes. However, the sunspots were huge and it is likely they will be still somewhat active in two weeks after they transit over the far side of the sun. Check link
I simply do not think it is right for the government to say, "Thou shalt use GSM!" to the exclusion of all other technologies. Protecting the rights of individuals to choose the technology that suits them best instead of commanding one from above is morally superior, whether it leads to fragmentation or not.
Yes, it would be better if everybody drove on the side of the road he wishes and the voltage in the plug was different in each town.
It's not about state ownership. It's about regulation.
Electricity for recharge is almost free but you need to spend some time for recharge and most importantly rechargable batteries have finite life-cycle. With Li-Ions you lose much of the capacity after 500 charges. Therefore, one recharge price is price_per_battery/number_of_recharge_cycles. With $200 per battery and current battery life you get 40c per 2-3h of battery work. So fuel cell refill that gives you 10h of work for $2 might be competetive (it depends how durable the fuel cells are)
Uranium is not very radioactive and is pretty abundant in Earth's crust (a few ppms). Even U-235 which is several times more radioactive than natural uranium will not make any significant contamination if dispersed. If the chain reaction has never started, the reactor is very safe.
This interesting technology could potentially lead to some better new-age energy sources
Doubtful. It can only work as a rechargable source of energy not a primary source. But it will emit gamma rays which are very difficult to screen and require huge layers of lead or other metals as a screen so it cannot work as a portable energy storage. Actually, nuclear decay powered devices do exist (Plutonium-238 is very effective because it emits almost entirely alpha rays) but they are very expensive and their application are limitted (space probes, for example). They are not rechargable, though.
Slashdot Mirror
The energy of explosion of TNT is 3.9 MJ/kg while black powder has 2.8 MJ/kg. Black powder is low-explosive. It rather burns quickly than explodes so it is usually not used as an explosive. However, large amounts of black powder (especially well packed) can explode and the effects can be comparable to TNT (but never equal to).
According to this site the flare seems to be well above X20 and, therefore, the strongest ever recorded.
Check http://www.sec.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html
Modern wars are fought mainly between irregulars armed with AK-47 and mortars. No, it won't revolutionize these conflicts and it doesn't matter against partisants.
The aurora activity is subsiding and there is little probabilility of northern lights at middle lattitudes. However, the sunspots were huge and it is likely they will be still somewhat active in two weeks after they transit over the far side of the sun. Check link
Yes, it would be better if everybody drove on the side of the road he wishes and the voltage in the plug was different in each town.
It's not about state ownership. It's about regulation.
Then I could perform relaxing channel surfing on recorded video.
Electricity for recharge is almost free but you need to spend some time for recharge and most importantly rechargable batteries have finite life-cycle. With Li-Ions you lose much of the capacity after 500 charges. Therefore, one recharge price is price_per_battery/number_of_recharge_cycles. With $200 per battery and current battery life you get 40c per 2-3h of battery work. So fuel cell refill that gives you 10h of work for $2 might be competetive (it depends how durable the fuel cells are)
It's called "The Theory of Comparative Advantage" link. It may hurt individuals but it is good in general.
Uranium is not very radioactive and is pretty abundant in Earth's crust (a few ppms). Even U-235 which is several times more radioactive than natural uranium will not make any significant contamination if dispersed. If the chain reaction has never started, the reactor is very safe.
Doubtful. It can only work as a rechargable source of energy not a primary source. But it will emit gamma rays which are very difficult to screen and require huge layers of lead or other metals as a screen so it cannot work as a portable energy storage. Actually, nuclear decay powered devices do exist (Plutonium-238 is very effective because it emits almost entirely alpha rays) but they are very expensive and their application are limitted (space probes, for example). They are not rechargable, though.