Smooth plastic squid ships are a solution that lasts when it takes too much time to render a lot of polygons. Half seen giant black space spiders with a texture taken from a dogs nose (I'm serious, it sniffed the hand scanner) still look awesome because you can't see enough to see the flaws. It's like toy story. They only had the rendering power to make things look like plastic toys and it worked because that's what they did.
The really odd thing with B5 is the main characters were cast mostly with amateurs and the bit parts with masters of the craft, which was a budget thing and sheer luck getting some cast members so cheap. All of the above plus Claudia Christian and Mira Furlan were initially not paid much at all for their roles (Claudia was never paid much and was fired by a producer when she insisted on a raise for S5, leaving a problem for JMS he never really solved). With time JMS gave them enough screen time to shine. With the telemovies it sucked because he couldn't get them cheap anymore so there were less cast members to interact.
OK, misread that and missed the "after" - need to sleep and avoid posting after people wake me up early because they have trouble getting their email at 4am.
The alternative to dark matter is the hubris of thinking we can see absolutely everything. Journalists may be in that space but it doesn't seem that astronomers are. Analogy: you are in a dark room full of people with sparklers, but you know there are some without them because somebody without one just stood on your foot.
I looked into it again and there you go - it turns out some evil pricks are populating the IP region lookup library with IPv6 addresses just so that they can continue with the regional price gouging. However one of the things being strongly considered for widespread implementation is roaming IPv6 addresses so that you keep the address for your phone, laptop or whatever no matter where you are on the planet. With such a thing you can have reliable point to point communication instead of having to rely on someone in the middle like Skype (who very recently cut off all devices that used their older protocol). With such a thing you are not tied to a region and regional blocking for price gouging should not occur, but probably will anyway.
Well more NOx is a bit of a massive downside in that case but that's easy to deal with so long as there is plenty of water around (eg. ships, fixed installations etc). It may suck in L.A., Beijing etc in vehicles but so does everything from combustion if you have a lot in a tight space.
That's one reason I was excited about a process which produces ammonia using less energy.
I'm impressed because you can use it to make so much other stuff and currently it's made at very large scales. A few companies have a stranglehold on agricultural fertilizer since the price of entry is so high.
As for 2, the US nuclear industry has deliberately brought that on itself to prevent competition from outsiders, startups and new technology. They want to continue to build dinosaur plants on the approved list at taxpayers expense and keep everything else out. The most obvious "jump the shark" moment was the money spent on lobbying against Thorium research and the strong opposition to a startup attempting to build civilian reactors based on submarine technology. It's best to ignore 2 and consider what is going on overseas instead.
I have never seen a Climate Change article with a rebuttal attached EVER
It's a science focused site and not a political one, hence the "slant". If you look at the comments on such articles there usually seems to be a vast number of people pushing the political view on climate change instead, so those "members in the forum" do seem to be doing a lot of speaking, even if the editors (not moderators) are putting rebuttals on the summary. Also I disagree that a view of "scientists don't have a fucking clue" is conservative. It's radical. The people expressing it may call themselves conservative to hide that they are pushing a view granddad would see as radical, but that's just camoflage.
In the end if they all have the same cost per installed MW then nuclear wins
Only in a situation with constant know demand. In practice a mix of energy sources gets the job done. Even in a perfect world full of enormous snow covered mountains and a lot of places to build dams hydro would not be enough for everything - when demand goes up a bit you'd need less than what your smallest generator can put out so you'd bring the wind/solar/gas online for just a few more MW.
Comparing abstracted megawatt to megawatt is assuming it's a continuity - implying that you can build a 10MW nuclear plant when you only need 10MW and that you can do it at 1/100 of the price of a 1GW nuclear plant. It doesn't work that way. At small unit sizes wind, solar, natural gas etc have a vast advantage. So long as you have energy requirements that are not constant and predictable they have a place.
Since the thing we are discussing did not come out of a high school project that's a very major flaw and shows either poor editorial control or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Parachutes can't slow things down much on Mars anyway which is why this is a far lesser deal than if it was designed to land on Earth. There's a nice bit on the website for the Xplane game about their Mars simulation stuff that describes it well. Their Mars flyer you can play with is like a U2 that steers like a cow and has to land at supersonic speed since parachutes can't do much to slow it down.
Why does the connection matter? I opted for glasses when I found I could no longer hit the side of a barn with a rifle, but that was the trigger event that showed me that my eyesight was crap and not the entire reason to do something about my eyes. I'm sure it's a similar situation in this case. Someone doing something to push the limits of their vision found that their vision was limited.
The problem is that currently none of them are anywhere close to being as easy. It appears from what little we have about this new process that the hydrogen is coming from brute forcing it out of water with electricity. Once again - you get your hydrogen and then you make your ammonia. Going backwards to get the hydrogen out again is an extra step involving extra losses and ammonia isn't a very good way to store hydrogen anyway.
It is people like you that force every situation to be resolved with some sort of power play because you're utterly unreasonable. Nothing short of a loaded gun against you forehead with a cocked hammer ever makes you stop.
How about you address at least ONE of the points in the AC's post instead of going off into the far side of crazy and snide comments about "You could all be hoping around on Kangaroos for all I know"? That way we'd have some idea of what is going on instead of seeing one side of a conversation between you and a strawman inside your own head.
Of course I knew that, just as it is very clear to you that I was referring to the current situation of ammonia production. It's also probably harder to get the hydrogen out of the ammonia in secondary processes than from hydrocarbons - plus if it's fuel cell usage you do not need to go all the way down to hydrogen gas anyway. How about we treat it like a discussion and not some childish game where you feel a need to score points against others.
You need a LOT more than a few anecdotes or recycled chamber of commerce propaganda to get "empirical reality". You also failed to address how it's possible that the Detroit situation was the fault of unions when GM and Ford are dealing successfully with far more militant unions elsewhere. It just does not make sense. It's the pointless demonization of blaming things on those who cannot shout as loud as others.
I was referring to how the above poster can find out about the relative danger of propane and ammonia and get some real understanding. Got it now?
And yes, I DO know what the article is about and know far more about how much effort is required to make ammonia using current methods than I ever wanted to know (around 1999 I spent about six weeks working all over a fertilizer plant during a shutdown including inside a lot of vessels - and I did some other stuff there at other times). This new process does sound very interesting.
The above poster worked in the USA but you probably didn't read that far before your kneejerk reaction to some "outsider" daring to suggest that things are not perfect in the USA.
As for Detroit - are you kidding? GM and Ford have to deal with far more militant unions overseas in place where they are doing a lot better than in Detroit. Considering trust fund babies like Edsel Ford as the model instead of Henry Ford was what killed Detroit. If you populate management of a large corporation with almost nothing but the members of a single college tennis club you end up with something so inbred with so little talent that failure is inevitable. Detroit is not an example of a failure of unions, capitalism or any ideology - it's the result of decades of nepotism and mismanagement. Also we get into the really stupid bit with blaming unions. If management is unable to get it's shit together and deal with problems related to unions in an environment with very low union membership and very high unemployment then why is it seen as the fault of unions and not as mismanagement? I've never been in a union but I've managed to notice these things. Why haven't you?
Australia. You could all be hoping around on Kangaroos for all I know
Charming. Especially with your "little fools elsewhere in the world that think they know everything about everywhere".
Somebody please mod the GP poster up so readers can see more than Karmashock's knee-jerk reaction to an informative post.
the company has been losing money by continuing to provide health insurance and such for employees who work fewer than 12 hours per month.
Offtopic maybe, but one of the reasons the USA has lost film production jobs to "socialist" places like Canada and Australia is because those health insurance costs to the company do not exist. Instead there's a slight tax markup which is far less you would expect due to not having to waste a lot of cash funnelling it through insurance fat cats before it gets anywhere near the health services.
After someone's worked out a decent design for a pilot plant for the process that question will look a lot less like "I can't buy it at Walmart NOW? Then why waste my time?". For the moment it's just as irrelevant and likely to get at best polite answers from people attempting not to be patronising, although that's going to leave people unaware of how stupid such questions are very early in development of a new technology so I think it's better to be blunt.
Don't guess or ask. LOOK IT UP - materials safety datasheets have been on the net since before there was a web - I used to browse them with Gopher.
However, if done right, ammonia might just be what is needed to make the "hydrogen economy"
No, and for a very good reason. It doesn't come as ammonia. It comes as something like oil or natural gas, then you get hydrogen out of that, and then you make ammonia out of the hydrogen. It's an extra step. You don't want to waste a lot of energy in extra steps when making an energy source.
Slashdot Mirror
Smooth plastic squid ships are a solution that lasts when it takes too much time to render a lot of polygons. Half seen giant black space spiders with a texture taken from a dogs nose (I'm serious, it sniffed the hand scanner) still look awesome because you can't see enough to see the flaws.
It's like toy story. They only had the rendering power to make things look like plastic toys and it worked because that's what they did.
The really odd thing with B5 is the main characters were cast mostly with amateurs and the bit parts with masters of the craft, which was a budget thing and sheer luck getting some cast members so cheap. All of the above plus Claudia Christian and Mira Furlan were initially not paid much at all for their roles (Claudia was never paid much and was fired by a producer when she insisted on a raise for S5, leaving a problem for JMS he never really solved). With time JMS gave them enough screen time to shine. With the telemovies it sucked because he couldn't get them cheap anymore so there were less cast members to interact.
OK, misread that and missed the "after" - need to sleep and avoid posting after people wake me up early because they have trouble getting their email at 4am.
That was half the point of the series. Even Republicans should be able to relate to it if after the "birther" stuff with Obama.
Also WTF is it with the murder fantasy? That's some seriously fucked up shit that you are bullying the kids with there karmashock.
The alternative to dark matter is the hubris of thinking we can see absolutely everything. Journalists may be in that space but it doesn't seem that astronomers are.
Analogy: you are in a dark room full of people with sparklers, but you know there are some without them because somebody without one just stood on your foot.
I looked into it again and there you go - it turns out some evil pricks are populating the IP region lookup library with IPv6 addresses just so that they can continue with the regional price gouging.
However one of the things being strongly considered for widespread implementation is roaming IPv6 addresses so that you keep the address for your phone, laptop or whatever no matter where you are on the planet. With such a thing you can have reliable point to point communication instead of having to rely on someone in the middle like Skype (who very recently cut off all devices that used their older protocol). With such a thing you are not tied to a region and regional blocking for price gouging should not occur, but probably will anyway.
Bring on IPv6 - it breaks region checks from these annoying pricks that insist on placing artificial barriers to aid with regional price gouging.
I'm impressed because you can use it to make so much other stuff and currently it's made at very large scales. A few companies have a stranglehold on agricultural fertilizer since the price of entry is so high.
As for 2, the US nuclear industry has deliberately brought that on itself to prevent competition from outsiders, startups and new technology. They want to continue to build dinosaur plants on the approved list at taxpayers expense and keep everything else out. The most obvious "jump the shark" moment was the money spent on lobbying against Thorium research and the strong opposition to a startup attempting to build civilian reactors based on submarine technology. It's best to ignore 2 and consider what is going on overseas instead.
It's a science focused site and not a political one, hence the "slant". If you look at the comments on such articles there usually seems to be a vast number of people pushing the political view on climate change instead, so those "members in the forum" do seem to be doing a lot of speaking, even if the editors (not moderators) are putting rebuttals on the summary.
Also I disagree that a view of "scientists don't have a fucking clue" is conservative. It's radical. The people expressing it may call themselves conservative to hide that they are pushing a view granddad would see as radical, but that's just camoflage.
Only in a situation with constant know demand. In practice a mix of energy sources gets the job done.
Even in a perfect world full of enormous snow covered mountains and a lot of places to build dams hydro would not be enough for everything - when demand goes up a bit you'd need less than what your smallest generator can put out so you'd bring the wind/solar/gas online for just a few more MW.
Comparing abstracted megawatt to megawatt is assuming it's a continuity - implying that you can build a 10MW nuclear plant when you only need 10MW and that you can do it at 1/100 of the price of a 1GW nuclear plant. It doesn't work that way. At small unit sizes wind, solar, natural gas etc have a vast advantage. So long as you have energy requirements that are not constant and predictable they have a place.
Since the thing we are discussing did not come out of a high school project that's a very major flaw and shows either poor editorial control or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Parachutes can't slow things down much on Mars anyway which is why this is a far lesser deal than if it was designed to land on Earth. There's a nice bit on the website for the Xplane game about their Mars simulation stuff that describes it well. Their Mars flyer you can play with is like a U2 that steers like a cow and has to land at supersonic speed since parachutes can't do much to slow it down.
Why does the connection matter? I opted for glasses when I found I could no longer hit the side of a barn with a rifle, but that was the trigger event that showed me that my eyesight was crap and not the entire reason to do something about my eyes.
I'm sure it's a similar situation in this case. Someone doing something to push the limits of their vision found that their vision was limited.
The problem is that currently none of them are anywhere close to being as easy.
It appears from what little we have about this new process that the hydrogen is coming from brute forcing it out of water with electricity. Once again - you get your hydrogen and then you make your ammonia. Going backwards to get the hydrogen out again is an extra step involving extra losses and ammonia isn't a very good way to store hydrogen anyway.
How about you address at least ONE of the points in the AC's post instead of going off into the far side of crazy and snide comments about "You could all be hoping around on Kangaroos for all I know"?
That way we'd have some idea of what is going on instead of seeing one side of a conversation between you and a strawman inside your own head.
Of course I knew that, just as it is very clear to you that I was referring to the current situation of ammonia production. It's also probably harder to get the hydrogen out of the ammonia in secondary processes than from hydrocarbons - plus if it's fuel cell usage you do not need to go all the way down to hydrogen gas anyway.
How about we treat it like a discussion and not some childish game where you feel a need to score points against others.
You need a LOT more than a few anecdotes or recycled chamber of commerce propaganda to get "empirical reality".
You also failed to address how it's possible that the Detroit situation was the fault of unions when GM and Ford are dealing successfully with far more militant unions elsewhere. It just does not make sense. It's the pointless demonization of blaming things on those who cannot shout as loud as others.
I was referring to how the above poster can find out about the relative danger of propane and ammonia and get some real understanding. Got it now?
And yes, I DO know what the article is about and know far more about how much effort is required to make ammonia using current methods than I ever wanted to know (around 1999 I spent about six weeks working all over a fertilizer plant during a shutdown including inside a lot of vessels - and I did some other stuff there at other times). This new process does sound very interesting.
As for Detroit - are you kidding? GM and Ford have to deal with far more militant unions overseas in place where they are doing a lot better than in Detroit. Considering trust fund babies like Edsel Ford as the model instead of Henry Ford was what killed Detroit. If you populate management of a large corporation with almost nothing but the members of a single college tennis club you end up with something so inbred with so little talent that failure is inevitable. Detroit is not an example of a failure of unions, capitalism or any ideology - it's the result of decades of nepotism and mismanagement.
Also we get into the really stupid bit with blaming unions. If management is unable to get it's shit together and deal with problems related to unions in an environment with very low union membership and very high unemployment then why is it seen as the fault of unions and not as mismanagement?
I've never been in a union but I've managed to notice these things. Why haven't you?
Charming. Especially with your "little fools elsewhere in the world that think they know everything about everywhere".
Somebody please mod the GP poster up so readers can see more than Karmashock's knee-jerk reaction to an informative post.
Offtopic maybe, but one of the reasons the USA has lost film production jobs to "socialist" places like Canada and Australia is because those health insurance costs to the company do not exist. Instead there's a slight tax markup which is far less you would expect due to not having to waste a lot of cash funnelling it through insurance fat cats before it gets anywhere near the health services.
After someone's worked out a decent design for a pilot plant for the process that question will look a lot less like "I can't buy it at Walmart NOW? Then why waste my time?". For the moment it's just as irrelevant and likely to get at best polite answers from people attempting not to be patronising, although that's going to leave people unaware of how stupid such questions are very early in development of a new technology so I think it's better to be blunt.
Here's another way to put it.
You think Anne Rand is bad? Well An Hydrous is far worse, she's rip your eyelids off in a second.
Don't guess or ask. LOOK IT UP - materials safety datasheets have been on the net since before there was a web - I used to browse them with Gopher.
No, and for a very good reason. It doesn't come as ammonia. It comes as something like oil or natural gas, then you get hydrogen out of that, and then you make ammonia out of the hydrogen. It's an extra step. You don't want to waste a lot of energy in extra steps when making an energy source.