So far, it looks like Sluggy Freelance (http://www.sluggy.com/) may be the oldest comic strip (posted here at least) that is still running. It started August 19, 1997, and is still updating 3-5 times a week. Given that it used to update 7 times a week, a conservative estimate for the number of strips is ~19.5*52*4 = ~4000 strips! And the quality (at least of the art) is dramatically improved since the start.
Another favorite old comic of mine is Schlock Mercenary (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/). It's been around since June of 2000, updated 7 days a week, and it's never missed an update (~6100 strips!). Howard Taylor's art and story work has gotten excellent, and the quality is consistently high.
And, of course, PVP and Penny Arcade have both been around since 1998.
Replace "talkers" with "crying babies" and your statement is no less true. Shall we ban babies on flights as well?
Yes, please!!
...
If you can't or won't control your kids, please keep them at home until they can maintain themselves in public.
Right, because one can just 'control' kids. It's not like they're thinking, breathing, humans with wills separate from their parents. I mean, I know I always carry a roll of duct tape with me just in case a kid has a meltdown. That way I can just shut them up for the comfort of everyone around me. I also think that because any kid can occasionally cry or melt down, all parents with kids should be banned from going out in public until the kids are at least 10. I think that sounds fair.
Or, maybe, just realize that the parent is probably more upset by the kind crying than you are. And no doubt trying to do their best to comfort them. Maybe the kid was sick. Or had an earache from the change in the cabin pressure. Or any number of such things. Things completely outside the control of the parent. Kids aren't always rational,
Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA than when the DNC rammed Obamacare (is that "racist") through, without even reading it ("must vote for it, to see what is in it"). So far, Oregon spend 300 million to enroll 44 people, good FUCKING use of tax dollars.
And, just to remind you, Hillary, and Company supported the wars. And saying she didn't know GWB was lying, that is just remember, her Husband was President and knew all about Saddam and OBL, so she SHOULD have known. But then again "What difference does it make!!!!!"
Okay. Time for some fact checking. First, the full quote from Nancy Pelosi (not just the part that Michele Bachmann used and made famous) was:
”We’ll have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Nancy Pelosi claims that she was saying that the American people wouldn’t see all the advantages of HCR until after it was passed, not that Congress had no idea what it said. I personally read it as her saying that during the debate in congress there were so many people saying false things about the healthcare law that not all of the benefits (or drawbacks) would be recognized by the public until they were enacted in law.
Second, Oregon has roughly 30,000 paper health care applications waiting for approval. Additionally at least 70,000 more people have signed up for Medicaid in response to informational letters the government sent out to eligible citizens. Given that the uninsured population of Oregon is roughly 500,000, I'd say those numbers are a pretty good indication that the program is both wanted and needed.The fact that the website is broken is a travesty, particularly given the amount of money (more like $150 million, according to the paper) paid to Oracle to get it to work.
However, the fact that a private contractor failed to construct a website does not mean the law is bad. It means we need better private contractors. Hopefully Oregon will figure out how to deal with Oracle and either get their money back, a working website, or both (the same could be said for the federal health exchange website).
Finally, as to your last point. You're saying that former President Bill Clinton was up to date on the most recently collected highly classified intelligence about Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and WMDs. And that he told his wife all about it. You do remember that the war in afghanistan started a year after he left office, and the war in Iraq started two years after he left office? Things can change a lot in a year, especially when an event like 9/11 shifts the focus of the intelligence community. I think you're overestimating the power and knowledge of former presidents.
And remember, if two car travelling at 50 MPH have a head on collision, the force on each driver is 50MPH then adjusted fro mass differences.
I'm going to be a little pedantic here, but I'm a physicist. You don't mean force. The FORCE on each car is the same (I won't talk about drivers, because you've got all the safety features to consider). The ACCELERATION on each car is different. In fact, the acceleration ratio is equal to the inverse mass ratio.
As fascinating as it is scientifically, we've got blood transfusions more or less figured out. I'm curious if they'll figure out how to do the reverse, blood to skin. Right now, skin grafts are a rather painful processes, and it's hard to get enough skin for them. Going the other way seems like it would be much more useful.
If they were only rolling out a 1 milibit per second connection, I doubt it would be good for much of anything. That's 56 million times slower than an old 56k modem. A 1 Mbs (megabit per second) would be better, but still slow, and a 1 MBs would be an even better. If the plan really was for a 1 mbs connection we lost nothing by having the FCC shut it down. Or maybe someone just needs to pay more attention to their prefixes.
Does anyone have a citation for an actual peer-reviewed article on this? Because I'm not particularly inclined to believe this random article from somewhere just on its own . . . and it doesn't seem to include a citation to anything.
You can be very precise in your measurement and your measurement can still be very wrong.
For example, if I had an extremely precise height measuring system (a super ruler) and I measured my height to be 82.23535cm, and later found out that I had mis-calibrated the system and my height was actually 182.23535cm . . . well, my previous measurement was still very precise. However, it was not accurate. That's the difference.
So, the conclusion is that no matter how good your instruments and observational techniques, if your calibration is wrong, or if you interpret the data wrong, you get very precise inaccurate numbers.
You need to look into that. The prius gets ~45mpg in the city (fueleconomy.gov has it rated as 48mpg city and 45mpg highway). I won't dispute your other claims, since I haven't driven a civic or a fit (or a prius for that matter), but the mileage certainly favors the prius (and insights get even better mileage than Priuses. My little insight gets 50-55mpg around town) . . .
Now, I admit to not having RTFA. But math intensive? From the summary it sounds like they are using the intensive math of addition and subtraction.
Count up. Count down. And add together!
My favorite undergraduate physics texts (as a physics and math B.A.):
Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker
- Great intro book (very basic). I still go back to it as a great intro level reference.
Classical Mechanics by John R. Taylor
- A very good book covering all of the 'basics' of Classical Mechanics. This is basically an introductory treatment of some of the higher level concepts of classical mechanics, including air resistance, the lagrangian and hamiltonian, rotational frames of reference, etc.
Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths
- Probably *the* standard text for 3rd year undergraduate E&M. A very well written, readable introduction to higher level E&M concepts.
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths
- Not as standard as his electrodynamics book, but still a very good introduction to quantum mechanics, from the schrodinger equation and particle in a box through time dependent perturbation theory and more.
An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie
- A very broad treatment of almost everything you could ever think of in astrophysics. I'd personally consider it a must have reference for astrophysicists, but I'm not one, so take that with a grain of salt. The second edition may be worth shelling out the extra cash, because a *lot* has changed in astrophysics in the last 15 years (for example, WMAP, to name just one of the many important experiments that have changed our view of the cosmos)
In addition to these textbooks, as others have already mentioned, there are the Feynman lectures, which many people take as gospel. They're good, but in my opinion they don't beat a good textbook devoted to the topic, like the ones I've listed above.
Other books that I don't think are quite as good, but you might consider, depending on your needs:
Modern Physics by Serway, Moses, and Moyer
- Not a great text, but I haven't encountered *any* good modern physics texts. Really, I'd say you're better off ignoring this, and going straight to quantum.
Solid State Physics by Hook and Hall
- A fine solid state text. Not the standard one by any means, but I find it fairly readable and easy to follow.
An Introduction to Thermal Physics by Schroeder
- I don't have much experience with thermal physics texts. This one was adequate.
None of the above texts are graduate level, but no doubt you'll have to buy the appropriate graduate level texts as you take the classes. Between all of them, if you understand the material, you'll have a more than adequate background in physics to start your degree. Cherry pick as best fits your needs.
It seems rather stupid to me. Sure, we can correlate a whole bunch of data. And we can collect a whole bunch of data. But that's not going to give us the predictive power that scientific models give us.
Take for example, the orbit of the earth around the sun. Suppose we collected a whole bunch of data on the orbit of the earth around the sun. Sure, we'd be able to predict what the orbit is going to be, based on past data. But it gives us no other insight. Whereas, when we use the theory of gravity (and rotational motion and conservation of angular momentum etc . ..) to predict that the earth orbits the sun, and how it does so, that gives us insight.
Because we can now turn to, say, Jupiter and the sun. Even if there is no data collected on how Jupiter orbits the sun, we can use the predictive power of our theories, that we have tested on the earth-sun system, to say how Jupiter is going to orbit.
That's a simple example, but you can imagine much more complicated situations. If we simply have correlation, we may be able to say that X is going to do Y based on previous behavior, but if I ask you how something new and unexpected is going to behave, we can get no answer until we take data . . . because we don't know *why* anything happens. And that's why we're never going to replace theories with statistical analysis of data.
There's a place for both. Obviously, just statistics can be very successful (google, for example), but, at least in science, it's not sufficient.
Can't the H2 tunnel in through the center of one of the hexagons (I mean minimum of the potential energy surface)? Or am I talking stupid now..
Not in any significant quantity. If you mean tunneling in a quantum mechanical sense . . . I don't have any actual numbers, but I'm going to go out on a limb here. I've never seen any mention in the literature (and H2 storage in similar materials has been my research for the past year or two) of such a thing happening. I'm sure it's possible, but I think the probability of getting 1 H2 in there is rather low, let alone enough to achieve the pressures they're talking about.
What you have to realize is that the distance across one of the C6 or C5 rings is on the order of 1nm. And the bond length of H2 is on the order of.1nm. So, it's going to get *really* close to the carbons to do that. Some recent calculations I ran (suspect, as they used DFT, which is notoriously bad for hydrogen . . . but we're thinking of doing some work with the H2 inside C60 samples that have been synthesized recently) suggested that there's a repulsive potential for H2 near the C6 or C5 ring on the order of ~100 times of the attractive potential the hydrogen experiences in crystaline C60 (when you just let it seep in).
That's a very large (and thick, compared to the size of the H2) potential barrier to overcome, and so the probability that the wavefunction will exist on the other side . . . is likely pretty low. I don't have any numbers on it, but I wouldn't bet on ever having it happen in a high enough quantity to be observable, let alone useful.
First off, the type of loading described in the parent isn't what's going on here. We don't have gas trapped in pores in crystaline C60 in between buckyballs, we actually have H2 stuck inside a buckyball cage. Which you can only get in there during synthesis. This isn't gas adsorption. And right now, we only know how to stick 1 H2 inside a buckyball cage during synthesis. Not the insane pressures they talk about in the article. Those are probably a *long* way off.
Second, the kinetics for loading H2 in C60 are very slow. It takes hours to load at room temperature, and even then it only loads to 1 H2 per C60 (see FitzGerald et al, Phys. Rev. B, 2002), which, in terms of loading by weight, is . . . low. 1 C is ~6x as massive as an H2. So, 1 C60 is ~360x as massive as an H2. So, you have a loading of . . . 1/360th by weight. Nowhere near the DOE standard of ~10% by weight that is the goal right now.
Hydrogen doesn't go in or out of the cage of a buckyball. That's why you have to put it in there during synthesis. Which is the whole problem with this idea. No one can do that yet, except with a single H2.
I suppose it's possible that with such a high pressure, you might get some leakage, but at least with the single H2 in buckyball samples, it's perfectly stable.
Oops. Wasn't logged in. So no one will see the previous comment, I'm sure.
Wrong. What you are describing is how you load hydrogen into the pores between buckyballs in a C60 crystal. What this article describes is theory based on hydrogen loaded inside a single buckyball cage. Due to the pore size (basically it's a C6/C5 ring, depending on where you are on the buckyball), you can't load hydrogen into the cage of a buckyball.
To get hydrogen inside a buckyball, you actually have to synthesize the buckyball with hydrogen in there (at least, at this point. No one has a better way to do it). This has been done for a single hydrogen molecule. Being able to do it for the pressures they are talking about . . . is nowhere on the horizon.
The gas adsorption method that you describe is typical, but it's not what we're talking about in the case. It was shown a while back (FitzGerald et al, Phys. Rev. B, 65, 2002) that the kinetics of the situation are just absurd. It takes hours to reach an equilibrium loading situation at room temperature, and even that is only about 1 H2 per C60 (I'll let you do the math, but 1 C is ~ 6 times as massive as an H2, so the loading by volume . . . is very low). C60 through traditional gas adsorption has no potential to store hydrogen for commercial purposes. These days, much attention is being focused on metal organic frameworks (MOFs), which operate by similar methods, but hold much more C60 by weight (~10% for the best) . . . the problem is the binding energies are still so low that they don't hold hydrogen at room temperature very well at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I did say posted here :)
So far, it looks like Sluggy Freelance (http://www.sluggy.com/) may be the oldest comic strip (posted here at least) that is still running. It started August 19, 1997, and is still updating 3-5 times a week. Given that it used to update 7 times a week, a conservative estimate for the number of strips is ~19.5*52*4 = ~4000 strips! And the quality (at least of the art) is dramatically improved since the start. Another favorite old comic of mine is Schlock Mercenary (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/). It's been around since June of 2000, updated 7 days a week, and it's never missed an update (~6100 strips!). Howard Taylor's art and story work has gotten excellent, and the quality is consistently high. And, of course, PVP and Penny Arcade have both been around since 1998.
Yes, please!!
If you can't or won't control your kids, please keep them at home until they can maintain themselves in public.
Right, because one can just 'control' kids. It's not like they're thinking, breathing, humans with wills separate from their parents. I mean, I know I always carry a roll of duct tape with me just in case a kid has a meltdown. That way I can just shut them up for the comfort of everyone around me. I also think that because any kid can occasionally cry or melt down, all parents with kids should be banned from going out in public until the kids are at least 10. I think that sounds fair.
Or, maybe, just realize that the parent is probably more upset by the kind crying than you are. And no doubt trying to do their best to comfort them. Maybe the kid was sick. Or had an earache from the change in the cabin pressure. Or any number of such things. Things completely outside the control of the parent. Kids aren't always rational,
Here's some nice perspective: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/09/15/dear-parents-you-need-to-control-your-kids-sincerely-non-parents/
Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA than when the DNC rammed Obamacare (is that "racist") through, without even reading it ("must vote for it, to see what is in it"). So far, Oregon spend 300 million to enroll 44 people, good FUCKING use of tax dollars.
And, just to remind you, Hillary, and Company supported the wars. And saying she didn't know GWB was lying, that is just remember, her Husband was President and knew all about Saddam and OBL, so she SHOULD have known. But then again "What difference does it make!!!!!"
Okay. Time for some fact checking. First, the full quote from Nancy Pelosi (not just the part that Michele Bachmann used and made famous) was: ”We’ll have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Nancy Pelosi claims that she was saying that the American people wouldn’t see all the advantages of HCR until after it was passed, not that Congress had no idea what it said. I personally read it as her saying that during the debate in congress there were so many people saying false things about the healthcare law that not all of the benefits (or drawbacks) would be recognized by the public until they were enacted in law.
Second, Oregon has roughly 30,000 paper health care applications waiting for approval. Additionally at least 70,000 more people have signed up for Medicaid in response to informational letters the government sent out to eligible citizens. Given that the uninsured population of Oregon is roughly 500,000, I'd say those numbers are a pretty good indication that the program is both wanted and needed.The fact that the website is broken is a travesty, particularly given the amount of money (more like $150 million, according to the paper) paid to Oracle to get it to work.
However, the fact that a private contractor failed to construct a website does not mean the law is bad. It means we need better private contractors. Hopefully Oregon will figure out how to deal with Oracle and either get their money back, a working website, or both (the same could be said for the federal health exchange website).
Finally, as to your last point. You're saying that former President Bill Clinton was up to date on the most recently collected highly classified intelligence about Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and WMDs. And that he told his wife all about it. You do remember that the war in afghanistan started a year after he left office, and the war in Iraq started two years after he left office? Things can change a lot in a year, especially when an event like 9/11 shifts the focus of the intelligence community. I think you're overestimating the power and knowledge of former presidents.
Some sources: http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/12/oregons_health_exchange_woes_s_1.html http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-healthcare-exchange-website-never-worked-no-subscribers-130601969--sector.html http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/12/30000_cover_oregon_enrollment.html http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/15/republican-party-texas/texas-gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/
And remember, if two car travelling at 50 MPH have a head on collision, the force on each driver is 50MPH then adjusted fro mass differences.
I'm going to be a little pedantic here, but I'm a physicist. You don't mean force. The FORCE on each car is the same (I won't talk about drivers, because you've got all the safety features to consider). The ACCELERATION on each car is different. In fact, the acceleration ratio is equal to the inverse mass ratio.
As fascinating as it is scientifically, we've got blood transfusions more or less figured out. I'm curious if they'll figure out how to do the reverse, blood to skin. Right now, skin grafts are a rather painful processes, and it's hard to get enough skin for them. Going the other way seems like it would be much more useful.
If they were only rolling out a 1 milibit per second connection, I doubt it would be good for much of anything. That's 56 million times slower than an old 56k modem. A 1 Mbs (megabit per second) would be better, but still slow, and a 1 MBs would be an even better. If the plan really was for a 1 mbs connection we lost nothing by having the FCC shut it down. Or maybe someone just needs to pay more attention to their prefixes.
what? the part where you cant even remove their logo at all so you basically advertise for them regardless unless you get a case?
Right, unlike Dell, HP, Lenovo Lenovo, Acer (Acer . . . .
Does anyone have a citation for an actual peer-reviewed article on this? Because I'm not particularly inclined to believe this random article from somewhere just on its own . . . and it doesn't seem to include a citation to anything.
Precision != Accuracy
You can be very precise in your measurement and your measurement can still be very wrong.
For example, if I had an extremely precise height measuring system (a super ruler) and I measured my height to be 82.23535cm, and later found out that I had mis-calibrated the system and my height was actually 182.23535cm . . . well, my previous measurement was still very precise. However, it was not accurate. That's the difference.
So, the conclusion is that no matter how good your instruments and observational techniques, if your calibration is wrong, or if you interpret the data wrong, you get very precise inaccurate numbers.
you can get a car that gets better mileage
Gets better mileage?
You need to look into that. The prius gets ~45mpg in the city (fueleconomy.gov has it rated as 48mpg city and 45mpg highway). I won't dispute your other claims, since I haven't driven a civic or a fit (or a prius for that matter), but the mileage certainly favors the prius (and insights get even better mileage than Priuses. My little insight gets 50-55mpg around town) . . .
Now, I admit to not having RTFA. But math intensive? From the summary it sounds like they are using the intensive math of addition and subtraction. Count up. Count down. And add together!
My favorite undergraduate physics texts (as a physics and math B.A.):
Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker - Great intro book (very basic). I still go back to it as a great intro level reference.
Classical Mechanics by John R. Taylor - A very good book covering all of the 'basics' of Classical Mechanics. This is basically an introductory treatment of some of the higher level concepts of classical mechanics, including air resistance, the lagrangian and hamiltonian, rotational frames of reference, etc.
Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths - Probably *the* standard text for 3rd year undergraduate E&M. A very well written, readable introduction to higher level E&M concepts.
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths - Not as standard as his electrodynamics book, but still a very good introduction to quantum mechanics, from the schrodinger equation and particle in a box through time dependent perturbation theory and more.
An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie - A very broad treatment of almost everything you could ever think of in astrophysics. I'd personally consider it a must have reference for astrophysicists, but I'm not one, so take that with a grain of salt. The second edition may be worth shelling out the extra cash, because a *lot* has changed in astrophysics in the last 15 years (for example, WMAP, to name just one of the many important experiments that have changed our view of the cosmos)
In addition to these textbooks, as others have already mentioned, there are the Feynman lectures, which many people take as gospel. They're good, but in my opinion they don't beat a good textbook devoted to the topic, like the ones I've listed above.
Other books that I don't think are quite as good, but you might consider, depending on your needs: Modern Physics by Serway, Moses, and Moyer - Not a great text, but I haven't encountered *any* good modern physics texts. Really, I'd say you're better off ignoring this, and going straight to quantum.
Solid State Physics by Hook and Hall - A fine solid state text. Not the standard one by any means, but I find it fairly readable and easy to follow.
An Introduction to Thermal Physics by Schroeder - I don't have much experience with thermal physics texts. This one was adequate.
None of the above texts are graduate level, but no doubt you'll have to buy the appropriate graduate level texts as you take the classes. Between all of them, if you understand the material, you'll have a more than adequate background in physics to start your degree. Cherry pick as best fits your needs.
It seems rather stupid to me. Sure, we can correlate a whole bunch of data. And we can collect a whole bunch of data. But that's not going to give us the predictive power that scientific models give us.
.) to predict that the earth orbits the sun, and how it does so, that gives us insight.
Take for example, the orbit of the earth around the sun. Suppose we collected a whole bunch of data on the orbit of the earth around the sun. Sure, we'd be able to predict what the orbit is going to be, based on past data. But it gives us no other insight. Whereas, when we use the theory of gravity (and rotational motion and conservation of angular momentum etc . .
Because we can now turn to, say, Jupiter and the sun. Even if there is no data collected on how Jupiter orbits the sun, we can use the predictive power of our theories, that we have tested on the earth-sun system, to say how Jupiter is going to orbit.
That's a simple example, but you can imagine much more complicated situations. If we simply have correlation, we may be able to say that X is going to do Y based on previous behavior, but if I ask you how something new and unexpected is going to behave, we can get no answer until we take data . . . because we don't know *why* anything happens. And that's why we're never going to replace theories with statistical analysis of data.
There's a place for both. Obviously, just statistics can be very successful (google, for example), but, at least in science, it's not sufficient.
Not in any significant quantity. If you mean tunneling in a quantum mechanical sense . . . I don't have any actual numbers, but I'm going to go out on a limb here. I've never seen any mention in the literature (and H2 storage in similar materials has been my research for the past year or two) of such a thing happening. I'm sure it's possible, but I think the probability of getting 1 H2 in there is rather low, let alone enough to achieve the pressures they're talking about.Can't the H2 tunnel in through the center of one of the hexagons (I mean minimum of the potential energy surface)? Or am I talking stupid now..
What you have to realize is that the distance across one of the C6 or C5 rings is on the order of 1nm. And the bond length of H2 is on the order of
That's a very large (and thick, compared to the size of the H2) potential barrier to overcome, and so the probability that the wavefunction will exist on the other side . . . is likely pretty low. I don't have any numbers on it, but I wouldn't bet on ever having it happen in a high enough quantity to be observable, let alone useful.
First off, the type of loading described in the parent isn't what's going on here. We don't have gas trapped in pores in crystaline C60 in between buckyballs, we actually have H2 stuck inside a buckyball cage. Which you can only get in there during synthesis. This isn't gas adsorption. And right now, we only know how to stick 1 H2 inside a buckyball cage during synthesis. Not the insane pressures they talk about in the article. Those are probably a *long* way off. Second, the kinetics for loading H2 in C60 are very slow. It takes hours to load at room temperature, and even then it only loads to 1 H2 per C60 (see FitzGerald et al, Phys. Rev. B, 2002), which, in terms of loading by weight, is . . . low. 1 C is ~6x as massive as an H2. So, 1 C60 is ~360x as massive as an H2. So, you have a loading of . . . 1/360th by weight. Nowhere near the DOE standard of ~10% by weight that is the goal right now.
Hydrogen doesn't go in or out of the cage of a buckyball. That's why you have to put it in there during synthesis. Which is the whole problem with this idea. No one can do that yet, except with a single H2. I suppose it's possible that with such a high pressure, you might get some leakage, but at least with the single H2 in buckyball samples, it's perfectly stable.
Oops. Wasn't logged in. So no one will see the previous comment, I'm sure. Wrong. What you are describing is how you load hydrogen into the pores between buckyballs in a C60 crystal. What this article describes is theory based on hydrogen loaded inside a single buckyball cage. Due to the pore size (basically it's a C6/C5 ring, depending on where you are on the buckyball), you can't load hydrogen into the cage of a buckyball. To get hydrogen inside a buckyball, you actually have to synthesize the buckyball with hydrogen in there (at least, at this point. No one has a better way to do it). This has been done for a single hydrogen molecule. Being able to do it for the pressures they are talking about . . . is nowhere on the horizon. The gas adsorption method that you describe is typical, but it's not what we're talking about in the case. It was shown a while back (FitzGerald et al, Phys. Rev. B, 65, 2002) that the kinetics of the situation are just absurd. It takes hours to reach an equilibrium loading situation at room temperature, and even that is only about 1 H2 per C60 (I'll let you do the math, but 1 C is ~ 6 times as massive as an H2, so the loading by volume . . . is very low). C60 through traditional gas adsorption has no potential to store hydrogen for commercial purposes. These days, much attention is being focused on metal organic frameworks (MOFs), which operate by similar methods, but hold much more C60 by weight (~10% for the best) . . . the problem is the binding energies are still so low that they don't hold hydrogen at room temperature very well at all.