Show me wher ethis is? I believe Oil Company R&D and Exploration is privately funded, so that they can retain the rights.
Regardless even if it were it's minscule to what's being put into alternative fuels. The Government is keeping entire companies afloat.
Npe, that's not the way it works. Applying cold isn't going to be enough. It does require some external heat. The current companies working on large scale Sterling engines still plan on wood burning or dung burning to run them. Hardly zero pollution. You still need a greater thermal delta than cold to room temprature.
And their current technical problem, and why they haven't been but into use? Low reliability, blowing that claim out of the water too.
Cite reference please. I can find no reference to the dangers of HCO3, Death by PH level, or the fact that the Apollo 13 astronauts had plenty of Liquid oxygen to make breathable.
The only danger that I am aware of, or can find is displacing oxygen, or increasing the breathing trigger.
You'll note that high concentration can cause all sorts of things, including death. This is because it displaces oxygen. A vacuum will have the same effects, but a vacuum is non toxic. How could it be toxic.
To the parent, who said liquid nitrogen is non toxic, since it follows the same rules of physics that CO2 gas does, it to can displace just as much oxygen, and have the exact same effects. So either Liquid nitrogen is just as toxic, or neither is. In truth neither one is toxic. Lack of oxygen does not correlate to toxicity in the displacing gas.
The same holds true for Argon or any inert gas. As well as many "ert" or reactive gasses.
Yeah but after a couple of years they were so rusted out that the Gross vehicle weight was approx 50% from new.
Taking into account the Swiss Cheese aerodynamics it was a formula for great gas mileage.
Unfortunately the rings after that time gave it a compression only marginally better than no rings at all. Hence poor mileage, and even poorer emissions.
On the other side I drive a 20 year old 944 with 140K Miles that regularly gets 30 MPG at 80 - 85 mph and it is more fun and better looking than any hybrid. And only cost me $3,700 a couple of years ago.
My understanding of some of the problems in areas of Canada is beyond the freeze/thaw problem you discuss. Though that effects it.
I was just speaking with someone in Canada aboutthis two days ago. Part of the problem is an AAR (Alkaline aggregate reaction) wherby the minerals in the water re-combine in the concrete causing it to grow, and increase stress. this combined with the freeze thaw creates the cracks, and it is a particular problem in Cnada based upon the materials used to make the concrete.
therefore, while this might be a solution, it would take long term testing to confirm.
" the aliens send spaceships to destroy every major city on the planet, none of them come to Canada"
Was Johanesburg? Rio? Brasilia? Sao Paulo? Berlin? Lisbon? Tel Aviv? Warsaw? Dublin? Manilla? Lagos? Lima? Karachi?
Thank Jeff that when you take a small mass of radioactive material that gives off lethal amounts of radiation and spread it over a large geographic area you cannot get a lethal exposure.
In other words the background radiation of the debris area was less than the natural background radiation of natural Uranium rich areas like Western Africa, or in fact many parts of Canada, which have higher radiation levels than the debris area.
Well atmosphere and the Van Allen belts which scoot much of the dangerous radiation around us (Earth).
Of course those outside of our atmosphere and Van Allen belts are exposed to massive amounts of radiation, and without protection they would die.
As to radiation from a Nuke in Space.
1. Nuclear reactors don't explode, to explode (i.e. nuclear bomb) requires particular materials in a very specific configuration. A reactor does not meet the requirements. What you would end up with is a large hot radioactive mass.
2. 100 Miles away wouldn't make much of a difference as there is nothing to stop the radiation in the interim (Vacuum of space), so you just loose exposure geometrically as the sphere of radiation expands. Regardless radiation exposure is kind of a binary system (for you geeks) enough to kill you is enough to kill you. Adding more does not kill you more. Since deep space has enough radiation to kill you the addition of more is irrelevant. Unless it is of a type to penetrate the shielding. That type is already emitted by the Sun, and is not particularly emitted in high numbers from runaway reactors.
As to putting massive amounts of radiation into space. Well we have the Sun which is a big massive nuclear reaction dumping huge amounts of radiation. The sun is 1 million times larger than the earth. Therefore any nuclear reaction we put into space by definition is going to be less than 1 millionth the size of the sun, as a reaction 1 millionth the size of the sun would be the size of the entire earth, and any nuclear mass we put up is going to be less than that. In fact it would be less than 1 millionth of 1 millionth the size of the sun. And this puny mass would be in the solar system which is even bigger than the sun (By definition) in fact it's a lot bigger than that, much much bigger. So long as it's outside of orbit of the earth and doesn't come crashing down on East Philadelphia it would be of so little significance it wouldn't matter.
But regardless. whether it's buried in the ground of Gabon, or floating in space it's just a matter of position. It's still floating around in space, and still emitting radiation. Putting it on a deep space probe just moves it from one plce to another.
Because the materials used by reprocessing tend to be things like Pu239. Also used in such things like Fission weapons.
That's the whole issue with Iran right now, not that they are using Nuclear reactors, but what kind of nuclear reactors. They are building reactors that increase the percentage of weapons grade materials.
We hve offered to supply them with lesser grade fuels that could be used in a reactor without a high output of weapons grade material, that would require seperation to yield bomb material. Seperation is very difficult, breeder reactors are very easy.
We've banned re-processing to reduce the amount of highly enriched materials around. Particularly if we place all our materials in one place, if that place is breeched, and they grabbed our current wast products whomever would still need to build a breeder reactor or seperation plant to yield highly enriched materials.
Oil companies could care less if they sell oil, Hydogen, ethanol, fuzzy dice, bottled farts or any other energy source. Their goal is to make money. If this is more efficent at making them money they'll jump on it.
But they are happy enough at the moment because the cheapest most efficient ways to make hydrogen use Fossil Fuels.
Once someone finds a more efficient cheaper way to make hydrogen everyone will jump on it, incluiding the oil comapnies.
Slashdot Mirror
Show me wher ethis is? I believe Oil Company R&D and Exploration is privately funded, so that they can retain the rights. Regardless even if it were it's minscule to what's being put into alternative fuels. The Government is keeping entire companies afloat.
I'm sorry?
"external combustion engines"
"zero-pollution source"
Npe, that's not the way it works. Applying cold isn't going to be enough. It does require some external heat. The current companies working on large scale Sterling engines still plan on wood burning or dung burning to run them. Hardly zero pollution. You still need a greater thermal delta than cold to room temprature.
And their current technical problem, and why they haven't been but into use? Low reliability, blowing that claim out of the water too.
Government give money to oil companies? Since when. They seem to do okay all on their own.
The alternative energy patsy scheemes however get lots of money from the government, because they are so in-efficient they couldn't make any money.
It's on the order of billions of dollars a year.
Ummm which in particular? I saw the one about PH, I asked for references. So which reply are you speaking of.
Cite reference please. I can find no reference to the dangers of HCO3, Death by PH level, or the fact that the Apollo 13 astronauts had plenty of Liquid oxygen to make breathable.
The only danger that I am aware of, or can find is displacing oxygen, or increasing the breathing trigger.
So please cite references
That's okay. You didn't. (Burst my bubble that is)
Carbon dioxide is a non-toxic gas
You'll note that high concentration can cause all sorts of things, including death. This is because it displaces oxygen. A vacuum will have the same effects, but a vacuum is non toxic. How could it be toxic.
To the parent, who said liquid nitrogen is non toxic, since it follows the same rules of physics that CO2 gas does, it to can displace just as much oxygen, and have the exact same effects. So either Liquid nitrogen is just as toxic, or neither is. In truth neither one is toxic. Lack of oxygen does not correlate to toxicity in the displacing gas.
The same holds true for Argon or any inert gas. As well as many "ert" or reactive gasses.
Yeah but after a couple of years they were so rusted out that the Gross vehicle weight was approx 50% from new.
Taking into account the Swiss Cheese aerodynamics it was a formula for great gas mileage.
Unfortunately the rings after that time gave it a compression only marginally better than no rings at all. Hence poor mileage, and even poorer emissions.
On the other side I drive a 20 year old 944 with 140K Miles that regularly gets 30 MPG at 80 - 85 mph and it is more fun and better looking than any hybrid. And only cost me $3,700 a couple of years ago.
Excepting for the fact that CO2 is not toxic.
that a vegan diet was the end of the dinodaurs.
My understanding of some of the problems in areas of Canada is beyond the freeze/thaw problem you discuss. Though that effects it.
I was just speaking with someone in Canada aboutthis two days ago. Part of the problem is an AAR (Alkaline aggregate reaction) wherby the minerals in the water re-combine in the concrete causing it to grow, and increase stress. this combined with the freeze thaw creates the cracks, and it is a particular problem in Cnada based upon the materials used to make the concrete.
therefore, while this might be a solution, it would take long term testing to confirm.
" the aliens send spaceships to destroy every major city on the planet, none of them come to Canada" Was Johanesburg? Rio? Brasilia? Sao Paulo? Berlin? Lisbon? Tel Aviv? Warsaw? Dublin? Manilla? Lagos? Lima? Karachi?
Yeah the EPA won't have a problem with people using Mercury to cool their computers.
I'd pay money just to know that there wasn't a website in the world with a black background and white text.
Maybe it's just because I'm dyslexic, but the only thing harder to read is black background with dark grey text.
got through about 3 pages of posts before I got a headach, and didn't see any "vicious backlash".
"By the time most of the processors fail they are grossly outdated"
Don't tell that to SUN. I think the final failure rate on procs for those orignal Sunblades was > 50%
Dude Bar Monkey 5.0 Kicks ass.
v 5.0
Though, what's with that dudes shirt.
Neil Diamond called, he want's his shirt back.
And it's got a bleeding rubberband "Feedback" device to keep the valves shut.
You'd think they would at least engineer it with proper valves to avoid that.
Speacially after dishing out the extra cash for the "Poland Spring" bottles over the generic.
Completely underwhelming.
What to go with your piece of sh*t car. ;)
How is it less fuel efficient.
747 has been one of the most fuel efficient vehicles for years.
Keep in mind you have to divid efficiency by total # of passengers flown. Smaller planes carry less passengers.
Deuterium is part of some water molecules.
Uranium is dissolved in seawater in solution.
Thank Jeff that when you take a small mass of radioactive material that gives off lethal amounts of radiation and spread it over a large geographic area you cannot get a lethal exposure.
In other words the background radiation of the debris area was less than the natural background radiation of natural Uranium rich areas like Western Africa, or in fact many parts of Canada, which have higher radiation levels than the debris area.
Well atmosphere and the Van Allen belts which scoot much of the dangerous radiation around us (Earth).
Of course those outside of our atmosphere and Van Allen belts are exposed to massive amounts of radiation, and without protection they would die.
As to radiation from a Nuke in Space.
1. Nuclear reactors don't explode, to explode (i.e. nuclear bomb) requires particular materials in a very specific configuration. A reactor does not meet the requirements. What you would end up with is a large hot radioactive mass.
2. 100 Miles away wouldn't make much of a difference as there is nothing to stop the radiation in the interim (Vacuum of space), so you just loose exposure geometrically as the sphere of radiation expands. Regardless radiation exposure is kind of a binary system (for you geeks) enough to kill you is enough to kill you. Adding more does not kill you more. Since deep space has enough radiation to kill you the addition of more is irrelevant. Unless it is of a type to penetrate the shielding. That type is already emitted by the Sun, and is not particularly emitted in high numbers from runaway reactors.
As to putting massive amounts of radiation into space. Well we have the Sun which is a big massive nuclear reaction dumping huge amounts of radiation. The sun is 1 million times larger than the earth. Therefore any nuclear reaction we put into space by definition is going to be less than 1 millionth the size of the sun, as a reaction 1 millionth the size of the sun would be the size of the entire earth, and any nuclear mass we put up is going to be less than that. In fact it would be less than 1 millionth of 1 millionth the size of the sun. And this puny mass would be in the solar system which is even bigger than the sun (By definition) in fact it's a lot bigger than that, much much bigger. So long as it's outside of orbit of the earth and doesn't come crashing down on East Philadelphia it would be of so little significance it wouldn't matter.
But regardless. whether it's buried in the ground of Gabon, or floating in space it's just a matter of position. It's still floating around in space, and still emitting radiation. Putting it on a deep space probe just moves it from one plce to another.
Because the materials used by reprocessing tend to be things like Pu239. Also used in such things like Fission weapons.
That's the whole issue with Iran right now, not that they are using Nuclear reactors, but what kind of nuclear reactors. They are building reactors that increase the percentage of weapons grade materials.
We hve offered to supply them with lesser grade fuels that could be used in a reactor without a high output of weapons grade material, that would require seperation to yield bomb material. Seperation is very difficult, breeder reactors are very easy.
We've banned re-processing to reduce the amount of highly enriched materials around. Particularly if we place all our materials in one place, if that place is breeched, and they grabbed our current wast products whomever would still need to build a breeder reactor or seperation plant to yield highly enriched materials.
Or that from a net standpoint the US is a Carbon sink, not an emitter.
Rather than buying it and making money on it?
Why would they do that?
Oil companies could care less if they sell oil, Hydogen, ethanol, fuzzy dice, bottled farts or any other energy source. Their goal is to make money. If this is more efficent at making them money they'll jump on it.
But they are happy enough at the moment because the cheapest most efficient ways to make hydrogen use Fossil Fuels.
Once someone finds a more efficient cheaper way to make hydrogen everyone will jump on it, incluiding the oil comapnies.
DOH!