Yawn.... Go troll elsewhere. I already know where it is coming from and the only thing magic about it is your insistence on commenting about something. Pure Hydrogen is not even a large consumable in the creation of hydrogen per oxide.
Lol.. Way to miss the forest for the trees. Of course the energy costs are large. But not so large that it is cost prohibitive or not competitive. I can buy hydrogen at any welding gas supply store relatively cheaply.
And yes, it's an enclose system. The manufacture of hydrogen which final product would propel a car down the road does not release the same pollutants as burning fossil fuel in a car.
At the rate of deficit spending, quite a few people might already think the money comes from unicorn farts. Or maybe more subtly, they think it comes from the government and never thought past that.
I would say that includes quite a few elected government officials too. It seems that maybe the decline in America's schools has hit harder then we ever could imagine. It's no longer just a "who cares about the farmers, I buy my food at the store" situation.
No, they would be killing American civilians standing for what they believed in. If fired upon, they would be killing those who are trying to kill them.
The difference is that in the US, Us soldiers will not be isolated from US political speech. The revolutionaries will have non-violent people speaking for them and any military force will be exposed to hearing their cause. It will not be like Afghanistan or Iraq where years of hatred has built up or there is some magical cause (remember 9/11). It will be people claiming their government is unjust, unethical, and a tyrant. Most of those soldiers would probably end up siding with the revolutionaries should it come down to it because it is their government too.
Sure they get hydrogen from fossil fuels. but it's an enclosed system and the byproducts are recaptured for other uses. I would say it would deal with the problem of releasing carbon into the atmosphere even if it did not completely ween us from oil.
Plus, with the amount of heat produced by reacting h2o2, you might get a more efficient use by including more water into the system and taking advantage of the expansion of liquid to steam.
It would be nice if an efficient process could be found that would create it through a natural process (h2+o2) and perhaps using solar or wind power to provide energy for the process. Then you could have your own fueling station in your garage.
Not really. Look at the hydrogen and compressed natural gas stations on the west coast. I don't mean to be completely dismissive of your concerns, but I find them overly exaggerated.
If I was to offer a car that could get 300 miles "per charge", that was lower cost then a traditional electric/electric hybrid, the interest in he car alone would be enough for several gas stations to consider installation of h2o2 pumps. This could be even drastically increased if the marketing initially focused delivery vehicles and tax breaks were offered.
Sure, it would take time for it to permeate the landscape, but I don't see this as much different then the jump to CNG or any of the various bio fuels. Especially if the cost was less volatile then petroleum based fuels.
Modifications would be insignificant. Most likely, it would be self contained drop in units or even solar units in the owner's back yard that creates the h2o2. with a 300+ mile range and the exhaust being water and oxygen, it's not any more complicated then current tech trying to achieve the same results.
Yeah, but I guess my point was that the fuel could be cleaner and pretro fuels avoided altogether by using this guys drive train with h2o2. it also gets around the use of battery packs and so on. A much more practical car can be made that is useful to quite a larger audience.
The same way you make gasoline on the fly- you go to a filling station. The only significant difference in this system would be a h2o2 tank instead of an internal combustion engine and a lot further range.
Think of it this way, imagine the h2o2 as 30 tanks of compressed air squeezed into the same space as 1 tank of compressed air. If 1 tank gives you 12 miles, you could have over 300 miles with h2o2.
Yes, I want to go more then a dozen miles before having to refuel or go back to using gasoline.
You seeing no upside is why we are still using gas and oil or trying to kludge together expensive work around to simple solutions. With modern materials, the corrosive aspect is not an issue.
They should scratch the compressed air part and use hydrogen per oxide as a storage medium. You can pump small amounts into an expansion chamber and react it like you would for a jet pack and toggle the pump on and off with the pressure inside the expansion tank that would be used to power the compressed air motor.
Something like that would give much further mileage plus a heat source for winter driving. It's relatively low temp compared with burning gas or diesel, and not much more dangerous if you do not use pure h2o2.
I don't know if I would use last presidential elections as an indicator proxy. Less people got out to vote then in 2008 or 2004. Most likely it was the concept of Mitt being a Mormon and not what people consider a real christian but it's hard to say. Anyways, I doubt it is an accurate identifier of trends.
That would entirely depend on who the president was at the time. I've questioned whether some presidents would preemptively act or wait until damage was done and they were clearly justified in their actions.
I think this is even more complicated now that we have the ability to intercept some missiles and possibly destroy a threat before it hits the US. Many of people have over estimated the capabilities of highly complex systems.
While I understand the wanting to keep something like that quiet, it is public information. I'm not sure it is wrong to have it there even if it is undesirable.
There was no constitutional basis for them not to secede either. There was two schools of thought on it and it was eventually decided by war.
I'm not arguing the merits of the south's claims or why they seceded. I'm saying that given the situation, if Lincoln had not sent troops and supplies to the one fort in South Carolina (Fort Sumter) and instead worked it out, the war never would have happened (at least as we know it). The north caused it to turn from political upheaval to war. South Carolina was by itself at first and after Lincoln enlisted 7000 some more troops, 4 or 5 other states seceded and joined them in their cause. After ignoring pleas to work it out and settle the issue without more bloodshed, more state left the union and joined the south. Some border states left then came back and were sharply divided. The civil war was started by the north.
But even if he did go bankrupt from the CoastJet business failing, should that be broadcast to everyone as soon as they even type in his name into Google? It's completely out of context. He didn't go bankrupt from being sued by patients. He didn't go bankrupt by gambling his money at the casino (although buying into aviation at this stage of the game could be argued as riskier) - the guy is being punished needlessly.While I understand the wanting to keep something like that quiet, it is public information. I'm not sure it is wrong to have it there even if it is undesirable.
If you have read a history book, the north invaded the south. There was no war until Lincoln sent reinforcements to Fort Sumter in which South Carolina attack because it was in their state. That was the start of the war that is known as the civil war.
I bet you knew that and posted your mindless drivel AC in order to vent your feelings.
It was Fort Sumter. Fort Sumner is the one in New Mexico associated with billy the kid.
In the beginning, if Lincoln didn't try to resupply Fort Sumter, South Carolina wouldn't have attacked it. But at this time, only one or two states had seceded. It wasn't until after Lincoln called for an increase in troop strength that we ended up with the numbers of states we consider to be the south or Confederacy.
The civil war was actually started by the north. It wasn't a revolution per se as the states retain a certain amount of sovereignty and they voluntarily joined the union. The south did not want to overthrow the US government, they just did not want to be part of it any more.
So, no.. The civil war was not a revolution, it was a secession.
Slashdot Mirror
Yawn.... Go troll elsewhere. I already know where it is coming from and the only thing magic about it is your insistence on commenting about something. Pure Hydrogen is not even a large consumable in the creation of hydrogen per oxide.
Lol.. Way to miss the forest for the trees. Of course the energy costs are large. But not so large that it is cost prohibitive or not competitive. I can buy hydrogen at any welding gas supply store relatively cheaply.
And yes, it's an enclose system. The manufacture of hydrogen which final product would propel a car down the road does not release the same pollutants as burning fossil fuel in a car.
At the rate of deficit spending, quite a few people might already think the money comes from unicorn farts. Or maybe more subtly, they think it comes from the government and never thought past that.
I would say that includes quite a few elected government officials too. It seems that maybe the decline in America's schools has hit harder then we ever could imagine. It's no longer just a "who cares about the farmers, I buy my food at the store" situation.
No, they would be killing American civilians standing for what they believed in. If fired upon, they would be killing those who are trying to kill them.
The difference is that in the US, Us soldiers will not be isolated from US political speech. The revolutionaries will have non-violent people speaking for them and any military force will be exposed to hearing their cause. It will not be like Afghanistan or Iraq where years of hatred has built up or there is some magical cause (remember 9/11). It will be people claiming their government is unjust, unethical, and a tyrant. Most of those soldiers would probably end up siding with the revolutionaries should it come down to it because it is their government too.
i guess that would depend on how many non-related females have ever kissed you.
Sure they get hydrogen from fossil fuels. but it's an enclosed system and the byproducts are recaptured for other uses. I would say it would deal with the problem of releasing carbon into the atmosphere even if it did not completely ween us from oil.
Plus, with the amount of heat produced by reacting h2o2, you might get a more efficient use by including more water into the system and taking advantage of the expansion of liquid to steam.
It would be nice if an efficient process could be found that would create it through a natural process (h2+o2) and perhaps using solar or wind power to provide energy for the process. Then you could have your own fueling station in your garage.
Not really. Look at the hydrogen and compressed natural gas stations on the west coast. I don't mean to be completely dismissive of your concerns, but I find them overly exaggerated.
If I was to offer a car that could get 300 miles "per charge", that was lower cost then a traditional electric/electric hybrid, the interest in he car alone would be enough for several gas stations to consider installation of h2o2 pumps. This could be even drastically increased if the marketing initially focused delivery vehicles and tax breaks were offered.
Sure, it would take time for it to permeate the landscape, but I don't see this as much different then the jump to CNG or any of the various bio fuels. Especially if the cost was less volatile then petroleum based fuels.
Modifications would be insignificant. Most likely, it would be self contained drop in units or even solar units in the owner's back yard that creates the h2o2. with a 300+ mile range and the exhaust being water and oxygen, it's not any more complicated then current tech trying to achieve the same results.
Yeah, but I guess my point was that the fuel could be cleaner and pretro fuels avoided altogether by using this guys drive train with h2o2. it also gets around the use of battery packs and so on. A much more practical car can be made that is useful to quite a larger audience.
The same way you make gasoline on the fly- you go to a filling station. The only significant difference in this system would be a h2o2 tank instead of an internal combustion engine and a lot further range.
Think of it this way, imagine the h2o2 as 30 tanks of compressed air squeezed into the same space as 1 tank of compressed air. If 1 tank gives you 12 miles, you could have over 300 miles with h2o2.
Why couldn't you re-energize the expansion chamber or even fill a tank that works in tandem with the braking energy?
Yes, I want to go more then a dozen miles before having to refuel or go back to using gasoline.
You seeing no upside is why we are still using gas and oil or trying to kludge together expensive work around to simple solutions. With modern materials, the corrosive aspect is not an issue.
They should scratch the compressed air part and use hydrogen per oxide as a storage medium. You can pump small amounts into an expansion chamber and react it like you would for a jet pack and toggle the pump on and off with the pressure inside the expansion tank that would be used to power the compressed air motor.
Something like that would give much further mileage plus a heat source for winter driving. It's relatively low temp compared with burning gas or diesel, and not much more dangerous if you do not use pure h2o2.
I don't know if I would use last presidential elections as an indicator proxy. Less people got out to vote then in 2008 or 2004. Most likely it was the concept of Mitt being a Mormon and not what people consider a real christian but it's hard to say. Anyways, I doubt it is an accurate identifier of trends.
Let me guess, they will patent it by adding "on a phone" to the end of the description.
That would entirely depend on who the president was at the time. I've questioned whether some presidents would preemptively act or wait until damage was done and they were clearly justified in their actions.
I think this is even more complicated now that we have the ability to intercept some missiles and possibly destroy a threat before it hits the US. Many of people have over estimated the capabilities of highly complex systems.
I guess so. Here is the important part.
While I understand the wanting to keep something like that quiet, it is public information. I'm not sure it is wrong to have it there even if it is undesirable.
That should read 70 some thousand more troops instead of 7000 and the initial battle at Fort Sumter had no casualties.
There was no constitutional basis for them not to secede either. There was two schools of thought on it and it was eventually decided by war.
I'm not arguing the merits of the south's claims or why they seceded. I'm saying that given the situation, if Lincoln had not sent troops and supplies to the one fort in South Carolina (Fort Sumter) and instead worked it out, the war never would have happened (at least as we know it). The north caused it to turn from political upheaval to war. South Carolina was by itself at first and after Lincoln enlisted 7000 some more troops, 4 or 5 other states seceded and joined them in their cause. After ignoring pleas to work it out and settle the issue without more bloodshed, more state left the union and joined the south. Some border states left then came back and were sharply divided. The civil war was started by the north.
I find it useful when doing input on a phone. Most of the stuff I am looking for on the fly like that is listed.
If you have read a history book, the north invaded the south. There was no war until Lincoln sent reinforcements to Fort Sumter in which South Carolina attack because it was in their state. That was the start of the war that is known as the civil war.
I bet you knew that and posted your mindless drivel AC in order to vent your feelings.
Try opening a history book.
It was Fort Sumter. Fort Sumner is the one in New Mexico associated with billy the kid.
In the beginning, if Lincoln didn't try to resupply Fort Sumter, South Carolina wouldn't have attacked it. But at this time, only one or two states had seceded. It wasn't until after Lincoln called for an increase in troop strength that we ended up with the numbers of states we consider to be the south or Confederacy.
The civil war was actually started by the north. It wasn't a revolution per se as the states retain a certain amount of sovereignty and they voluntarily joined the union. The south did not want to overthrow the US government, they just did not want to be part of it any more.
So, no.. The civil war was not a revolution, it was a secession.