It's not going to get colder. You might want to study thermodynamics a bit!
To turn water into hydrogen + oxygen takes energy input.
Look, it's this simple: Hydrogen + Oxygen = Water + Energy; therefor Water + Energy = Hydrogen + Oxygen.
As I said, a catalyst lowers the activation energy of a reaction. Think of it like an electric mold, a molecule shaped such that its charge structure attracts but also stretches another molecule. So the hydrogen pulls further from the oxygen, but no reaction occurs with the catalyst. Because of this stretch, the bonds are weakened, and lower levels of energy can break them.
Now, if you reduce the reaction energy enough, those bonds will break by themselves. This won't happen at absolute zero, ever; because combining these things releases energy, it stands to reason that breaking them for free and then recombining them would forever derive an endless source of energy. That won't happen. You're going to have to put energy into it. Reducing the reaction energy to below ambient thermal energy is sufficient to cause the molecule to fracture by consuming the environmental heat--for example, in the case of 2H2O2 into 2H2O and O2, although that releases heat on reaction (which fuels continued reaction).
If not, you need to add more energy. Electricity, heat, whatever. If it absorbs electricity, you won't have enough heat output from burning to drive the electrodes to split the molecules indefinitely--or else, it will also absorb heat and require more power as it cools down to continue the reaction, eventually freezing. One way or the other, you'll eventually run out of power in the closed loop system.
That's why you use philosophical groups like the EFF, with sane business practices. Like, even if you are fighting for your beliefs, a civil rights victory is not enough: make those bastards pay the ENTIRE cost of your legal fees. The EFF operates on a philosophical basis where they would like to take on cases such as this, but in order to survive they must be selective; however, if they do take on a case, it is well and proper that they not only set society straight on the issue, but also demand compensation for their time and resources from those who are abusive and guilty of using the legal system as a high entry barrier battleground that they can gain an automatic victory in by virtue of being bigger, rather than correct.
If the catalyst were to lower the activation energy to, for example, the amount of energy present in water at 219 kelvin (around 4 degrees), then refrigerated water would simply fizz off when exposed to the catalyst. Water kept colder than the standard 4 degrees in the fridge--say 3.5 degrees--would remain water until some external force applied heat.
Of course we get the other obvious problem here. When you burn hydrogen and oxygen, you get water and heat; when you reverse this process, obviously, you will require energy input (likely heat, sometimes electricity). So the thing will probably get colder until it passes 4 degrees, then cease reacting.
This means if you use it for, say, a car, then you will want to run the exhaust system directly through the fuel (water) tank from the inside, through a heat exchanger, to keep the water warm by reclaiming waste heat. It also means your major commodity fuel is stored heat energy. It also means that as you burn this off, you're going to get colder despite any reclamation system: your car will eventually need to settle and warm up. The car won't work in cold weather. And so on.
More importantly, the amount of energy you get out per unit is equal to the energy lost in that split: to raise the temperature of an engine to a few hundred degrees, you have to drop the temperature of an equivalent mass of water by that amount. If you're running electric through hydrogen fuel cells, same deal: to generate 300kW of power, you're sucking heat out of that thing at a rate of 300kW load (equivalent to an absolutely 100% efficiency 300kW refrigerator!). If you're doing electrical hydrolysis supported by catalyst, you still have the same problem: it won't self-power any better with or without the catalyst, because you need to power the electrodes as well as the engine.
Yes, but you can engineer roads that are both more conducive to motor vehicle traffic and more conducive to bicycle traffic than most US roads. Much of Europe has roads that pass all forms of traffic--car, bicycle, pedestrian--much better than American infrastructure. I grant that a pure motor vehicle infrastructure would pass motor vehicles better--see the M5 or I-95 for examples--but our general city infrastructure is poor at passing motor vehicles, pedestrians, and human powered vehicles, and even is poor at passing motor vehicles if we give them exclusivisity (i.e. ban all pedestrians and bicycles). In many places, efforts to improve the roadway with the goal of developing an integrated and complete transportation model with a focus not only on supporting alternate modes of transportation but also on improving general personal motor vehicle transportation would be completely possible and could quite feasibly improve roadways for all users.
After three years of trying I've finally given up. I hope her new boyfriend treats her better than the last one--he was an asshole. I'll just hang myself, then I can haunt my place myself!
Well science uses submerged steel rods to regulate molten steel when making the stuff. Steel is made by plunging a steel rod into a furnace filled with high-carbon-content iron ore. This rod has coolant pumped through it, and is used to inject 99% pure oxygen into the furnace. This injection causes the carbon in the iron to ignite and burn, which raises the temperature immensely. Eventually the liquid metal is nice and hot and well tended and well reacted and mixed with all the alloying materials added to it, and the steel rod is pulled from the molten mess.
Yes, eventually. The idea is that since it's magnetic (through the virtue of spinning), it's affected by magnetic fields. Since the sun is magnetic (and god damn BIG), it's going to affect the object orbiting it.
We know the core rotates, and we know the earth orbits the sun. No sane physicist (or grade schooler that took third grade science) is going to argue that spinning molten metal is magically frictionless--lubricated by being molten, maybe (at pressure it could be a SOLID core, but if it spins there is a molten layer or at least gravel--but metal gravel would eventually mash together and weld from heat and pressure, and besides we've done testing with P-waves and S-waves and fancy science to determine that there's a large liquid core), but lubrication is not frictionless.
We don't really have materials to safely handle that sort of well.
It's called steel. You pump a liquid coolant at high pressure through a steel lance to keep the temperature down below the melting point, and run the coolant through a mechanically cooled heat sink. Cool the cold side of the system with a big tower (boiling water) or a big surface ground sink (-10C, but needs massive surface area so a tower is going to work better).
Nickel-iron fission, right? Sigh... the whole thing is a big spinning metal magnet orbiting another big spinning metal magnet. The torque created rotates the core. Don't you think a spinning core would produce a lot of heat from friction?
No not clutchless, I mean actually matching revs so you don't burn your clutch as you let off. Double clutch if you want. Either way. I wasn't willing to go clutchless with that engine, as I've had a 130HP engine kick a gear stick back into my wrist and I didn't want a 400HP engine to do that at 6000RPM.
Near red line in the first three gears, that engine could totally skid the rear wheels if you let off.
I can't drive an automatic safely, because I can't compensate for the transmission doing stupid shit. My 2008 Chevy Cobalt spent 7 full seconds at 6250RPM climbing up a hill accelerating slowly, in 4th gear, before downshifting. It also tended to upshift immediately if you backed off the gas, then delay down shifting--which caused problems on the highway in heavy traffic if the next lane to the right was moving 10mph faster and you tried to merge (I floored it and couldn't gain speed).
I've come off the highway at 20mph floored it, and not matched speed with 40mph traffic at the end of a merge lane and so had to hard brake to stop. Didn't like that. Worse, in heavy expressway traffic merging was a pain because the car always went into the highest gear. Stuff would happen like I'd pick an opening that's considerably wide, signal, accelerate up to the rear of the next car ahead of me and then back off while the opening comes up; then I back off the gas so I don't rear end the dude ahead of me, merge over, and floor it to match speed with traffic. PROBLEM: When I back off, I'm in 4th (overdrive), and the car refuses to downshift. I can't accelerate, and the 3 car length opening quickly becomes some guy slamming on his brake to avoid rear-ending me.
I refuse to drive automatics. I bought a manual transmission and it took me an hour to get home 6 miles away... 10 minutes of which was figuring out how to turn the engine on. Taught myself to drive it. Read books, read web sites. I've tried the handbrake thing but it's terminally complicated and involves too much ridiculous crap--the handbrake is for parking and I haven't learned nor do I care to feather it, just like the clutch is very coarse grained and I can't use my left foot to control the brake (not enough fine control) and don't care to. I can even shift clutchless, but don't care to--bumping the synchros is no fun (works, but pointless), and even if you get it you have to go straight into gear or shifts in engine or road speed will have you grinding gears. I try to rev match it right when I'm shifting into a gear to reduce stress on the clutch and avoid disrupting the vehicle dynamic, but that's about it.
And now I do my daily commute to work on 24 gears all manual without a clutch.
Everybody hates it because I'm the only person that can drive a clutch. They figured I'd have burned it out or mangled it by now.
I've done it on a steep hill (standing to pedal on 700c x 32 wheels with 30 teeth up front and 32 in the back, and still struggling). My Mazda3 can do it, though I haven't tried to stand on my clutch. I move from the brake to the gas smoothly. There's no rollback.
Okay smart guy, explain how I messed up a rev match if I got the skidding to stop by pushing the gas, and then a sharp release again caused skidding, without disengaging the clutch again. The base speed was 50mph, third gear. Yes, I'm that guy, the one that screws something up once and immediately tries again to see if fire is indeed hot... I still grab cast iron frying pans without thinking about it, multiple times a day sometimes. My reflexes got good enough to not suffer severe burns, problem solved.
No, he said that shutting off your engine won't cause you to lose control. I simply backed off my engine (in a low enough gear) and it provided enough braking force without the brakes to put me into a rear wheel slide.
Dude you have a 450 gigawatt nuclear fucking power plant! You can handle a couple pumps! You could put a god damn LASER on top the plant and FLASH EVAPORATE an incoming tidal wave and not even blink!
It's useless if there's other cars on the highway or curves where you have to brake. Also where do I put my foot? Lean on the accelerator some? It doesn't make sense to me, ever.
My foot starts on the brake, and on the clutch. I move my foot from the brake to the gas as I engage the clutch, which holds the car steady (you can stand on a hill this way, but it will wear your clutch). In less than one second, power is smoothly applied as I finish engaging the clutch.
We bailed them out. The federal loan program is a 100% guaranteed continuous bail-out for the student loan industry. If a bank does take a student loan, and the student defaults, the government covers it and then tries to recover the money for itself. The banks of course get their money anyway so they don't care.
The student loan program is the exact accountability we used for the housing industry: when they failed, we handed them free money and told them it was all going to be fine.
There are OTHER factors in the US that aren't present in other countries.
Also, your arguments (1) and (2) are flawed. The insurance company wants to pay out as little money as possible to keep premiums lower and attract more customers. The insurance company is a business with high volume and thus strong negotiation power, and with vicious personal stake in using that power to push down health care prices. Health care providers are small and individual (hint: doctors are not employees of a hospital; they rent equipment and space).
The UK just stopped subsidizing college and their system instantly collapsed because college tuition fees are so high that nobody can afford it. The amount of money going into subsidies was massive compared to the actual cost of higher education. Apparently "Free" is relative, and your idea of "costs" seems to ignore any costs in taxes and government money. If it's invisible it doesn't exist?
Well, I have a coworker of my age who got through a local university 3 years ago with her Bachelor's degree. She is looking at that exact same university's price and making very strange and frightened faces at the cost of tuition. Full time went from $12,500 per year to a $22,000 per year cost.
I used to pay $86/credit at the local community college, but it's now $204/credit. Each semester there's also $150-$450 of fees assessed (some classes assess a $200 additional fee--anything with computers assesses a $100 "Technology" fee that used to be like $10 and any science lab classes assess a $50 "Lab fee" that used to be $10).
The local art college now gives Bachelor's Degrees in liberal arts for a base price (tuition only, not including fees or materials) of $192,000. Down the street is a music conservatory--basically a massive upscale art college, the kind of thing that's like the Yale and Harvard and MIT of art. This $192k tuition for 4 years is for a base level school that churns out degrees, whereas the music conservatory churns out actual careers (by the time you leave, you HAVE worked in the industry--it's a requirement, you have performed, you have apprenticed, and you have created demand for yourself) and is of course more expensive--though they won't tell me HOW expensive (and it's impossible to get into).
Jesus christ, a quarter million for an art degree.
There are plenty of ways to get a degree for $45k around here... well, $60k now I guess. Community college into a general university. The community colleges only go to 200 level classes, though; and taking the 100 and 200 level classes at subsidized local universities will cost you 2-4 times as much as taking those same classes at the community college. Both are subsidized with government money.
Public universities raised tuition more than 35% and private schools 27% between 1995 and 2005 AFTER adjusting for inflation. That means for 10% inflation, we adjust the 2005 price down by 10% and then compare that to the 1995 price, and it's still a third higher.
SHUTTING OFF YOUR ENGINE WILL NOT CAUSE YOU TO LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR CAR. You'll somewhat slowly come to a stop. You won't "endo". You won't flip over and crash in a ball of fire. Your wheels won't even lock up.
I owned a 2004 Pontiac GTO at one point and, coming from a 1995 Chevy Cavalier, decided to slow down by shifting from fifth to third and rev matching, then completely releasing the accelerator.
TOKYO DRIFT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!
There was this loud screeching and my car wiggled with every nudge of the steering wheel, it was like floating. The rear tires had completely lost traction on dry, black pave. That fuckin' V8 engine had enough negative torque with the throttle closed to skid my back wheels!
I used cruise control but found it ungodly difficult and dangerous by default, but that's going through winding back roads at 25mph (speed limit). It's unnerving and just... not responsive to conditions. What is the point of cruise control when your foot is resting on the gas pedal?
I've also done 100+ mile trips (one way) in that car, cruise control was not helpful and I shut the god damn thing off. It takes significantly more driver concentration to manage the cruise control system--backing off my gas is effective to control road speed in reaction to an increase of hazards (including an increase in driver concentration needs due to more free-moving road hazards), whereas with cruise control I have to tap the brake, and then a moment later when I've settled I have to re-activate cruise control. I'll stick to letting my foot nudge and back off as a reflex, it's less like a flashy show of computer panel button mashing and more of just letting comfort and experience play.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not going to get colder. You might want to study thermodynamics a bit!
To turn water into hydrogen + oxygen takes energy input.
Look, it's this simple: Hydrogen + Oxygen = Water + Energy; therefor Water + Energy = Hydrogen + Oxygen.
As I said, a catalyst lowers the activation energy of a reaction. Think of it like an electric mold, a molecule shaped such that its charge structure attracts but also stretches another molecule. So the hydrogen pulls further from the oxygen, but no reaction occurs with the catalyst. Because of this stretch, the bonds are weakened, and lower levels of energy can break them.
Now, if you reduce the reaction energy enough, those bonds will break by themselves. This won't happen at absolute zero, ever; because combining these things releases energy, it stands to reason that breaking them for free and then recombining them would forever derive an endless source of energy. That won't happen. You're going to have to put energy into it. Reducing the reaction energy to below ambient thermal energy is sufficient to cause the molecule to fracture by consuming the environmental heat--for example, in the case of 2H2O2 into 2H2O and O2, although that releases heat on reaction (which fuels continued reaction).
If not, you need to add more energy. Electricity, heat, whatever. If it absorbs electricity, you won't have enough heat output from burning to drive the electrodes to split the molecules indefinitely--or else, it will also absorb heat and require more power as it cools down to continue the reaction, eventually freezing. One way or the other, you'll eventually run out of power in the closed loop system.
That's why you use philosophical groups like the EFF, with sane business practices. Like, even if you are fighting for your beliefs, a civil rights victory is not enough: make those bastards pay the ENTIRE cost of your legal fees. The EFF operates on a philosophical basis where they would like to take on cases such as this, but in order to survive they must be selective; however, if they do take on a case, it is well and proper that they not only set society straight on the issue, but also demand compensation for their time and resources from those who are abusive and guilty of using the legal system as a high entry barrier battleground that they can gain an automatic victory in by virtue of being bigger, rather than correct.
Not exactly.
If the catalyst were to lower the activation energy to, for example, the amount of energy present in water at 219 kelvin (around 4 degrees), then refrigerated water would simply fizz off when exposed to the catalyst. Water kept colder than the standard 4 degrees in the fridge--say 3.5 degrees--would remain water until some external force applied heat.
Of course we get the other obvious problem here. When you burn hydrogen and oxygen, you get water and heat; when you reverse this process, obviously, you will require energy input (likely heat, sometimes electricity). So the thing will probably get colder until it passes 4 degrees, then cease reacting.
This means if you use it for, say, a car, then you will want to run the exhaust system directly through the fuel (water) tank from the inside, through a heat exchanger, to keep the water warm by reclaiming waste heat. It also means your major commodity fuel is stored heat energy. It also means that as you burn this off, you're going to get colder despite any reclamation system: your car will eventually need to settle and warm up. The car won't work in cold weather. And so on.
More importantly, the amount of energy you get out per unit is equal to the energy lost in that split: to raise the temperature of an engine to a few hundred degrees, you have to drop the temperature of an equivalent mass of water by that amount. If you're running electric through hydrogen fuel cells, same deal: to generate 300kW of power, you're sucking heat out of that thing at a rate of 300kW load (equivalent to an absolutely 100% efficiency 300kW refrigerator!). If you're doing electrical hydrolysis supported by catalyst, you still have the same problem: it won't self-power any better with or without the catalyst, because you need to power the electrodes as well as the engine.
Water is not a magic solution to anything.
Yes, but you can engineer roads that are both more conducive to motor vehicle traffic and more conducive to bicycle traffic than most US roads. Much of Europe has roads that pass all forms of traffic--car, bicycle, pedestrian--much better than American infrastructure. I grant that a pure motor vehicle infrastructure would pass motor vehicles better--see the M5 or I-95 for examples--but our general city infrastructure is poor at passing motor vehicles, pedestrians, and human powered vehicles, and even is poor at passing motor vehicles if we give them exclusivisity (i.e. ban all pedestrians and bicycles). In many places, efforts to improve the roadway with the goal of developing an integrated and complete transportation model with a focus not only on supporting alternate modes of transportation but also on improving general personal motor vehicle transportation would be completely possible and could quite feasibly improve roadways for all users.
What about to accommodate the Bicycle?
After three years of trying I've finally given up. I hope her new boyfriend treats her better than the last one--he was an asshole. I'll just hang myself, then I can haunt my place myself!
Well science uses submerged steel rods to regulate molten steel when making the stuff. Steel is made by plunging a steel rod into a furnace filled with high-carbon-content iron ore. This rod has coolant pumped through it, and is used to inject 99% pure oxygen into the furnace. This injection causes the carbon in the iron to ignite and burn, which raises the temperature immensely. Eventually the liquid metal is nice and hot and well tended and well reacted and mixed with all the alloying materials added to it, and the steel rod is pulled from the molten mess.
Yes, eventually. The idea is that since it's magnetic (through the virtue of spinning), it's affected by magnetic fields. Since the sun is magnetic (and god damn BIG), it's going to affect the object orbiting it.
We know the core rotates, and we know the earth orbits the sun. No sane physicist (or grade schooler that took third grade science) is going to argue that spinning molten metal is magically frictionless--lubricated by being molten, maybe (at pressure it could be a SOLID core, but if it spins there is a molten layer or at least gravel--but metal gravel would eventually mash together and weld from heat and pressure, and besides we've done testing with P-waves and S-waves and fancy science to determine that there's a large liquid core), but lubrication is not frictionless.
In short: there IS friction.
We don't really have materials to safely handle that sort of well.
It's called steel. You pump a liquid coolant at high pressure through a steel lance to keep the temperature down below the melting point, and run the coolant through a mechanically cooled heat sink. Cool the cold side of the system with a big tower (boiling water) or a big surface ground sink (-10C, but needs massive surface area so a tower is going to work better).
Nickel-iron fission, right? Sigh ... the whole thing is a big spinning metal magnet orbiting another big spinning metal magnet. The torque created rotates the core. Don't you think a spinning core would produce a lot of heat from friction?
No not clutchless, I mean actually matching revs so you don't burn your clutch as you let off. Double clutch if you want. Either way. I wasn't willing to go clutchless with that engine, as I've had a 130HP engine kick a gear stick back into my wrist and I didn't want a 400HP engine to do that at 6000RPM.
Near red line in the first three gears, that engine could totally skid the rear wheels if you let off.
I can't drive an automatic safely, because I can't compensate for the transmission doing stupid shit. My 2008 Chevy Cobalt spent 7 full seconds at 6250RPM climbing up a hill accelerating slowly, in 4th gear, before downshifting. It also tended to upshift immediately if you backed off the gas, then delay down shifting--which caused problems on the highway in heavy traffic if the next lane to the right was moving 10mph faster and you tried to merge (I floored it and couldn't gain speed).
I've come off the highway at 20mph floored it, and not matched speed with 40mph traffic at the end of a merge lane and so had to hard brake to stop. Didn't like that. Worse, in heavy expressway traffic merging was a pain because the car always went into the highest gear. Stuff would happen like I'd pick an opening that's considerably wide, signal, accelerate up to the rear of the next car ahead of me and then back off while the opening comes up; then I back off the gas so I don't rear end the dude ahead of me, merge over, and floor it to match speed with traffic. PROBLEM: When I back off, I'm in 4th (overdrive), and the car refuses to downshift. I can't accelerate, and the 3 car length opening quickly becomes some guy slamming on his brake to avoid rear-ending me.
I refuse to drive automatics. I bought a manual transmission and it took me an hour to get home 6 miles away... 10 minutes of which was figuring out how to turn the engine on. Taught myself to drive it. Read books, read web sites. I've tried the handbrake thing but it's terminally complicated and involves too much ridiculous crap--the handbrake is for parking and I haven't learned nor do I care to feather it, just like the clutch is very coarse grained and I can't use my left foot to control the brake (not enough fine control) and don't care to. I can even shift clutchless, but don't care to--bumping the synchros is no fun (works, but pointless), and even if you get it you have to go straight into gear or shifts in engine or road speed will have you grinding gears. I try to rev match it right when I'm shifting into a gear to reduce stress on the clutch and avoid disrupting the vehicle dynamic, but that's about it.
And now I do my daily commute to work on 24 gears all manual without a clutch.
Everybody hates it because I'm the only person that can drive a clutch. They figured I'd have burned it out or mangled it by now.
The engine would grenade. We're talking about shifting into a gear going 15,000RPM instead of 6,000RPM.
I've done it on a steep hill (standing to pedal on 700c x 32 wheels with 30 teeth up front and 32 in the back, and still struggling). My Mazda3 can do it, though I haven't tried to stand on my clutch. I move from the brake to the gas smoothly. There's no rollback.
Okay smart guy, explain how I messed up a rev match if I got the skidding to stop by pushing the gas, and then a sharp release again caused skidding, without disengaging the clutch again. The base speed was 50mph, third gear. Yes, I'm that guy, the one that screws something up once and immediately tries again to see if fire is indeed hot... I still grab cast iron frying pans without thinking about it, multiple times a day sometimes. My reflexes got good enough to not suffer severe burns, problem solved.
No, he said that shutting off your engine won't cause you to lose control. I simply backed off my engine (in a low enough gear) and it provided enough braking force without the brakes to put me into a rear wheel slide.
Read the quoted line.
Dude you have a 450 gigawatt nuclear fucking power plant! You can handle a couple pumps! You could put a god damn LASER on top the plant and FLASH EVAPORATE an incoming tidal wave and not even blink!
It's useless if there's other cars on the highway or curves where you have to brake. Also where do I put my foot? Lean on the accelerator some? It doesn't make sense to me, ever.
My foot starts on the brake, and on the clutch. I move my foot from the brake to the gas as I engage the clutch, which holds the car steady (you can stand on a hill this way, but it will wear your clutch). In less than one second, power is smoothly applied as I finish engaging the clutch.
We bailed them out. The federal loan program is a 100% guaranteed continuous bail-out for the student loan industry. If a bank does take a student loan, and the student defaults, the government covers it and then tries to recover the money for itself. The banks of course get their money anyway so they don't care.
The student loan program is the exact accountability we used for the housing industry: when they failed, we handed them free money and told them it was all going to be fine.
There are OTHER factors in the US that aren't present in other countries.
Also, your arguments (1) and (2) are flawed. The insurance company wants to pay out as little money as possible to keep premiums lower and attract more customers. The insurance company is a business with high volume and thus strong negotiation power, and with vicious personal stake in using that power to push down health care prices. Health care providers are small and individual (hint: doctors are not employees of a hospital; they rent equipment and space).
The UK just stopped subsidizing college and their system instantly collapsed because college tuition fees are so high that nobody can afford it. The amount of money going into subsidies was massive compared to the actual cost of higher education. Apparently "Free" is relative, and your idea of "costs" seems to ignore any costs in taxes and government money. If it's invisible it doesn't exist?
Well, I have a coworker of my age who got through a local university 3 years ago with her Bachelor's degree. She is looking at that exact same university's price and making very strange and frightened faces at the cost of tuition. Full time went from $12,500 per year to a $22,000 per year cost.
I used to pay $86/credit at the local community college, but it's now $204/credit. Each semester there's also $150-$450 of fees assessed (some classes assess a $200 additional fee--anything with computers assesses a $100 "Technology" fee that used to be like $10 and any science lab classes assess a $50 "Lab fee" that used to be $10).
The local art college now gives Bachelor's Degrees in liberal arts for a base price (tuition only, not including fees or materials) of $192,000. Down the street is a music conservatory--basically a massive upscale art college, the kind of thing that's like the Yale and Harvard and MIT of art. This $192k tuition for 4 years is for a base level school that churns out degrees, whereas the music conservatory churns out actual careers (by the time you leave, you HAVE worked in the industry--it's a requirement, you have performed, you have apprenticed, and you have created demand for yourself) and is of course more expensive--though they won't tell me HOW expensive (and it's impossible to get into).
Jesus christ, a quarter million for an art degree.
There are plenty of ways to get a degree for $45k around here... well, $60k now I guess. Community college into a general university. The community colleges only go to 200 level classes, though; and taking the 100 and 200 level classes at subsidized local universities will cost you 2-4 times as much as taking those same classes at the community college. Both are subsidized with government money.
Public universities raised tuition more than 35% and private schools 27% between 1995 and 2005 AFTER adjusting for inflation. That means for 10% inflation, we adjust the 2005 price down by 10% and then compare that to the 1995 price, and it's still a third higher.
SHUTTING OFF YOUR ENGINE WILL NOT CAUSE YOU TO LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR CAR. You'll somewhat slowly come to a stop. You won't "endo". You won't flip over and crash in a ball of fire. Your wheels won't even lock up.
I owned a 2004 Pontiac GTO at one point and, coming from a 1995 Chevy Cavalier, decided to slow down by shifting from fifth to third and rev matching, then completely releasing the accelerator.
TOKYO DRIFT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!
There was this loud screeching and my car wiggled with every nudge of the steering wheel, it was like floating. The rear tires had completely lost traction on dry, black pave. That fuckin' V8 engine had enough negative torque with the throttle closed to skid my back wheels!
Have fun shutting your engine off.
I used cruise control but found it ungodly difficult and dangerous by default, but that's going through winding back roads at 25mph (speed limit). It's unnerving and just ... not responsive to conditions. What is the point of cruise control when your foot is resting on the gas pedal?
I've also done 100+ mile trips (one way) in that car, cruise control was not helpful and I shut the god damn thing off. It takes significantly more driver concentration to manage the cruise control system--backing off my gas is effective to control road speed in reaction to an increase of hazards (including an increase in driver concentration needs due to more free-moving road hazards), whereas with cruise control I have to tap the brake, and then a moment later when I've settled I have to re-activate cruise control. I'll stick to letting my foot nudge and back off as a reflex, it's less like a flashy show of computer panel button mashing and more of just letting comfort and experience play.
... why are you using the handbrake for that?