Yes - except oil is a battery which was pre-charged for us over millions of years, whereas hydrogen produced by electrolysis is a battery which we have to charge.
Doesn't it depend on how much energy is stored in the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms? Is it more than the energy required to split the molecule? If I remember correctly, normally the answer is no, but adding the right catalyst can change that. If it requires X amount of energy to split the molecule, and the 2 Hydrogen atoms have 2X energy, then you have energy left over to drive your car.
The problem is that when you "use" hydrogen to create electricity, the hydrogen recombines with oxygen to become water once again. So let me use some fictional numbers here to demonstrate why your suggestion is impossible:
1. Assume it takes 1 joule of energy to split a water molecule. 2. Assume you get back 2 joules of energy when you "use" the hydrogen. 3. You now have the same water molecule you started with, and a surplus of 1 joule of energy.
Where did that energy come from? It'd be one hell of a magic trick if you could pull it off! That's why no process which splits water will ever generate more energy than it consumes.
I mean, the process works with splitting the atom. It doesn't require a nuclear bomb worth of energy to split an atom...splitting an atom leaves a whole lot of excess energy.
Yes, but when you split an atom you're actually destroying that atom. Once the process is complete you don't have the same atom you started with - instead the atom is gone, and you have a surplus of energy.
And for the other type of nuclear reaction - fusion - you actually fuse two hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, so you end up with a different form of matter than what you started with. THAT is where the energy comes from.
In what universe is wikipedia a better source of information than the BBC and the Guardian?
You didn't cite the BBC nor the Guardian - you simply asserted that "no-one pointed out any specific flaws". I proved you wrong by linking to an article which shows MANY "specific flaws", and suggested you expand the diversity of your reading material. Where you go from here is your call. Good luck!
Loads of (right-wing) people said it was rubbish but no-one pointed out any specific flaws which I think is pretty telling.
Do you actually believe that, or are you just willing to say anything, no matter how obviously nonfactual, in order to support your opinions?
In any event, your statement is ridiculous. I suggest you increase the diversity of your news sources. PRAVDA and Al-Jazeera aren't the end-all and be-all of news reporting, you know.
Only if you don't count Iraqis as people. They have lost around 1 million CIVILIANS, which is actually a lot more (per day) than when Saddam was in power.
Heh. Yes, the magic casualty figures. It's like the fisherman's story, where the size of the fish gets bigger with every telling. 5 years down the road I'm sure I'll be hearing that Iraq lost ONE TRILLION PEOPLEZ!!!
Seriously, get a grip. I know bashing the US is popular these days, but that's no reason to make yourself look like an idiot.
You obviously don't pay much attention to the news.
No, I just don't pay much attention to assclowns who make unsubstantiated accusations. If you provide some credible and/or verifiable information to back up your blathering, then we can talk. Until then, you're only so much line-noise.
The first item is only a short term fix, so thirdly, Congressional Democrats should encourage research and development in to new technologies and energy sources.
I'm not sure how you managed to miss that. Maybe you need to slow down while reading?
Oh, and if you're thinking of whining about him not going into detail on exactly what kind of "new technologies and energy sources" we should be developing, don't bother - that wasn't the purpose of his comment, and such a complaint would be utterly purposeless.
When the reality is that we HAVE the technologies, we just have dont the legal and market forces setup in this country to allow it to happen.
You're preaching to the choir. Start beating up hippies, and maybe we'll see some progress.
And if he was telling the truth he still would be committing a war of aggression.
As opposed to a war of pacifism?
New rule: anyone who uses the phrase "war of aggression" automatically forfeits any right to comment on foreign policy in general, and war in particular.
Unless there is some real harm from the action, I say go for it.
Well, it's certainly not harmful to Bush!
Think about it: after 7 years of being in power and being rabidly but informally accused of every crime under the sun, the only "official" accusations against him are made by a well known lunatic in an after-hours reading into the congressional record.
I'd say that's a commendation of Bush, rather than a condemnation. If that's the worst his enemies can come up with then he's either covered his ass amazingly well, or the accusations against him are 99% bullshit.
I'm leaning toward the latter, btw. The vast majority of the things he's been accused of really ARE bullshit. He's certainly not the greatest president in the history of the US, but the guy has been demonizied beyond any semblance of reality.
Frankly, I find the whole thing rather amusing. It's like watching a bunch of the fat ugly losers in highschool hanging out in a corner of the cafeteria and talking about how horrible and disgusting the Captain of the football team is.
So, who comes out ahead is only clear if you limit it to physics. When you bring vehicle design and crash dynamics in, I don't think it can be easily dismissed.
Absolutely - I was only addressing his claim, not attempting to create a comprehensive model of vehicle crash dynamics. I thought I had made this abundantly clear when I stated:
Granted, that's a very simplistic model, but it does clearly show the absurdity of your argument
The reason I think it's self-serving, because you're basically arguing that you deserve to have more money, while making yourself feel just fine about taking it from the poor.
lol
Yes, I often roll bums for their change. I steal their bottles of Listerine, too.
Thanks for the laugh - it's been a long day at work, and I needed something to lighten my spirits. And on that note, I'm leaving this discussion. You're more than welcome to go on believing whatever you want.
but maybe your all knowingness and non-nonsense approach to my babble has forgotten the hundreds of thousands of Iranians that we helped massacre by providing Saddam Hussein with chemical warfare in the gulf wars?
I see. So Iran is funding Hezbollah in it's attempt to take over Lebanon, is killing Iraqi civilians by the thousands, and is funding terrorism against Israelis, all because the US HELPED Iraq 30 years ago.
And now they're even more pissed off because the US fought AGAINST Iraq....
What can I say, your logic is impeccable. If only other people were so smart, oh what a wonderful world this would be!
What we are saying is that we - the civilized part of the world - have in general behaved in a pretty barbaric manner ourselves towards that region and shown limitless bias in the support of zionism and other bizarre ideologies.
You mean we defended a people who had almost been exterminated by Nazism and have ever since been under constant assault from the Muslim hordes? Gee, imagine that. What evil bastards we are. Let's just stand aside and let Ahmadenijad finish what Hitler started!
No, we are not responsible for the lunacy in the middle east. We may have taken part in it on occasion in order to protect friends and our own interests, but all of our "interference" compared to what they've done to each other is the equivalent of pissing in the ocean. Only utter morons insist on focusing on western involvement while ignoring the thousands of years of constant barbarism, oppression, and open warfare that have constantly plagued the middle east.
Moreover, your isolationist ideas are naive in the extreme. The US also funded the Afghan insurgency. Does that mean that they're responsible for the rise of the Taliban? Would it have been better to ignore the plight of the Afghans and allow them to be conquered and massacred by Russians?
What about the people of Iraq? If the US had not supported them in their war against Iran, they would have fallen under the religious dictatorship of the Iranian Mullahs. Would that have been better than Saddam's reign? How much more suffering and harm would have been caused by Iranian supremacy in the region?
What exactly is your solution? To me it sounds as if you're simply blaming the western world for the sake of complaining. I find many people like you on university campuses all over North America - rebels without a clue, slinging blame and criticizing the western way of life while enjoying the prosperity it provides and without offering a single solution to any of the "problems" which they highlight. So what would you have us do, exactly? Have all nations isolate themselves, and never again interact with anyone outside their borders, lest they accidentally anger some maniac?...
Well????...
Let me know when you come up with something other than the usual bitching and whining.
Each person can decide for himself/herself which is the bigger waste of money, but the chances of something positive coming from the ISS is considerably greater in my opinion.
Well, you know what they say about opinions....
I have nothing against the ISS - I think it's a worthwhile scientific endeavour, and a marvellous and inspirational example of human ingenuity - but I can't say I much appreciate your blatant trolling. Nor do I agree with your pessimism. I'm not sure why you sop badly want the Iraqi people to continue to suffer, but please, keep your opinions to yourself from now on.
And those people do not understand crash dynamics very well. If 5000lb SUV hits 1500lb CAR, unless the car is pinned, it will move with the force of the SUV, which is better than a much heavier vehicle that will resist that movement more.
What??
I'm thinking you need to go back to physics class.
Let's assume that, as you say, the small car "moves with the force of the SUV". Let's assume that both vehicles are travelling at 100 km/h, and hit head on. The end result? Your small car is now travelling BACKWARDS at 25km/h, while the SUV is continuing on it's original path at 25km/h. That means that the occupants of the SUV have experienced a decelleration of 75km/h, while you, in the same period of time, have experienced a deceleration of 125km/h.
Who do you think comes out ahead in that scenario?
Granted, that's a very simplistic model, but it does clearly show the absurdity of your argument...
I find it amusing because; without the extra 500kg x speed squared of momentum your car probably doesn't need a thousand pounds of airbags/crumple zones and an extra liter or two of engine to lug 'em around to keep the occupants safe.
Don't be silly. That's like saying that if only all firearms were small-calibre, nobody would need a bulletproof vest.
Statistics are available for vehicle-accident fatalities, so you can feel free to look them up. If I remember correctly, the fatality rate has declined something like 50% since the 80's. Now, while that may be at least partly due to the increased use of simple safety devices like seatbelts, you can also look at more recent statistics to determine the effect of more complex safety devices. For instance, vehicle accident deaths in the US have declined something like 15% since the mid-90's, and serious injuries have declined about 30%.
I'm pulling these statistics from memory, so you may want to verify them, but I'm sure they're fairly accurate. In any event, there's no way you can deny that the 500kg's of safety equipment have significantly contributed to increased survivability in motor-vehicle accidents.
Wow, an anecdotal account. I see yours and recount with a person who had 2 blowouts at different times and ended up in the divider both times.
It may be anecdotal, but he's perfectly correct - most blowouts do not result in a crash.
I've had two blowouts personally - one while flying along at 160 km/h, the other while doing a mere 60 km/h, and neither time did my vehicle do anything unexpected. I simply pulled over, changed my tire, and continued on my way.
Of course, if you have insights on how the thousands of years of history relate directly to yesterday's news, please don't let my ignorance stop you.
Well, let's see:
A raving lunatic of a politician, working on behalf of his religious puppet-masters, is currently supporting the killing of thousands of Iraqi's and hundreds of Americans in Iraq.
He's directly responsible for the funding and training of terrorist factions which are attempting to take over Lebanon (and have had considerable success).
As a side note, he also regularly threatens to kill all the Jews, and continues to fund organizations which target Israeli civilians. And now he's developing a nuclear program.
Yes, you're absolutely right, the whole thing stems directly from the creation of Israel by the UN / England back in the 1940's. How could I have been so blind!
PS: try to discipline yourself a little in responses. You don't have to embody the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory every time you reply to one of us simple folk on the interwebs you know.
Frankly, if you don't want to be treated like an idiot, don't act like an idiot. I don't put up with incompetence and ignorance in any other aspect of my life, so why should this place be any different?
Actually, the main problem I have with your line of argument is the sheer racism which it betrays. It seems that in your world, only Jews and westerners can ever do anything wrong. If any other people are doing anything wrong, well, then it must somehow be our fault too, of course!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes - except oil is a battery which was pre-charged for us over millions of years, whereas hydrogen produced by electrolysis is a battery which we have to charge.
The problem is that when you "use" hydrogen to create electricity, the hydrogen recombines with oxygen to become water once again. So let me use some fictional numbers here to demonstrate why your suggestion is impossible:
1. Assume it takes 1 joule of energy to split a water molecule.
2. Assume you get back 2 joules of energy when you "use" the hydrogen.
3. You now have the same water molecule you started with, and a surplus of 1 joule of energy.
Where did that energy come from? It'd be one hell of a magic trick if you could pull it off! That's why no process which splits water will ever generate more energy than it consumes.
Yes, but when you split an atom you're actually destroying that atom. Once the process is complete you don't have the same atom you started with - instead the atom is gone, and you have a surplus of energy.
And for the other type of nuclear reaction - fusion - you actually fuse two hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, so you end up with a different form of matter than what you started with. THAT is where the energy comes from.
See the difference?
You didn't cite the BBC nor the Guardian - you simply asserted that "no-one pointed out any specific flaws". I proved you wrong by linking to an article which shows MANY "specific flaws", and suggested you expand the diversity of your reading material. Where you go from here is your call. Good luck!
Do you actually believe that, or are you just willing to say anything, no matter how obviously nonfactual, in order to support your opinions?
In any event, your statement is ridiculous. I suggest you increase the diversity of your news sources. PRAVDA and Al-Jazeera aren't the end-all and be-all of news reporting, you know.
Here, I'll get you started.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the rather ridiculous John Hopkins "study". Thanks for reiterating my point.
Heh. Yes, the magic casualty figures. It's like the fisherman's story, where the size of the fish gets bigger with every telling. 5 years down the road I'm sure I'll be hearing that Iraq lost ONE TRILLION PEOPLEZ!!!
Seriously, get a grip. I know bashing the US is popular these days, but that's no reason to make yourself look like an idiot.
No, I just don't pay much attention to assclowns who make unsubstantiated accusations. If you provide some credible and/or verifiable information to back up your blathering, then we can talk. Until then, you're only so much line-noise.
The fact that you're wrong means that you're not right. Failing to cite sources only compounds the problem.
Congratulations, you've found the "ignore me forever because I'm a fucking idiot" button! Thanks for playing!
ok:
The first item is only a short term fix, so thirdly, Congressional Democrats should encourage research and development in to new technologies and energy sources.
I'm not sure how you managed to miss that. Maybe you need to slow down while reading?
Oh, and if you're thinking of whining about him not going into detail on exactly what kind of "new technologies and energy sources" we should be developing, don't bother - that wasn't the purpose of his comment, and such a complaint would be utterly purposeless.
You're preaching to the choir. Start beating up hippies, and maybe we'll see some progress.
Actually, I heard Nelson:
"Ha Ha!"
As opposed to a war of pacifism?
New rule: anyone who uses the phrase "war of aggression" automatically forfeits any right to comment on foreign policy in general, and war in particular.
Well, yes, thanks, I'll just take your word on all of that, instead of reading the Rockefeller report.
Seriously, who modded this troll "insightful"?
Well, it's certainly not harmful to Bush!
Think about it: after 7 years of being in power and being rabidly but informally accused of every crime under the sun, the only "official" accusations against him are made by a well known lunatic in an after-hours reading into the congressional record.
I'd say that's a commendation of Bush, rather than a condemnation. If that's the worst his enemies can come up with then he's either covered his ass amazingly well, or the accusations against him are 99% bullshit.
I'm leaning toward the latter, btw. The vast majority of the things he's been accused of really ARE bullshit. He's certainly not the greatest president in the history of the US, but the guy has been demonizied beyond any semblance of reality.
Frankly, I find the whole thing rather amusing. It's like watching a bunch of the fat ugly losers in highschool hanging out in a corner of the cafeteria and talking about how horrible and disgusting the Captain of the football team is.
Like the time he voted to ban CIA mind control satellites and chemtrails?
His constituents must be some very
Either you have some serious comprehension issues, or you didn't read his comment, since he clearly DID mention what you say he didn't.
His comment is by far the most interesting thing I've read in this entire thread. I'd gladly mod him up if I had the points.
If we had some ham, we could make a ham and cheese sandwich
Absolutely - I was only addressing his claim, not attempting to create a comprehensive model of vehicle crash dynamics. I thought I had made this abundantly clear when I stated:
Granted, that's a very simplistic model, but it does clearly show the absurdity of your argument
lol
Yes, I often roll bums for their change. I steal their bottles of Listerine, too.
Thanks for the laugh - it's been a long day at work, and I needed something to lighten my spirits. And on that note, I'm leaving this discussion. You're more than welcome to go on believing whatever you want.
I see. So Iran is funding Hezbollah in it's attempt to take over Lebanon, is killing Iraqi civilians by the thousands, and is funding terrorism against Israelis, all because the US HELPED Iraq 30 years ago.
And now they're even more pissed off because the US fought AGAINST Iraq.
What can I say, your logic is impeccable. If only other people were so smart, oh what a wonderful world this would be!
You mean we defended a people who had almost been exterminated by Nazism and have ever since been under constant assault from the Muslim hordes? Gee, imagine that. What evil bastards we are. Let's just stand aside and let Ahmadenijad finish what Hitler started!
No, we are not responsible for the lunacy in the middle east. We may have taken part in it on occasion in order to protect friends and our own interests, but all of our "interference" compared to what they've done to each other is the equivalent of pissing in the ocean. Only utter morons insist on focusing on western involvement while ignoring the thousands of years of constant barbarism, oppression, and open warfare that have constantly plagued the middle east.
Moreover, your isolationist ideas are naive in the extreme. The US also funded the Afghan insurgency. Does that mean that they're responsible for the rise of the Taliban? Would it have been better to ignore the plight of the Afghans and allow them to be conquered and massacred by Russians?
What about the people of Iraq? If the US had not supported them in their war against Iran, they would have fallen under the religious dictatorship of the Iranian Mullahs. Would that have been better than Saddam's reign? How much more suffering and harm would have been caused by Iranian supremacy in the region?
What exactly is your solution? To me it sounds as if you're simply blaming the western world for the sake of complaining. I find many people like you on university campuses all over North America - rebels without a clue, slinging blame and criticizing the western way of life while enjoying the prosperity it provides and without offering a single solution to any of the "problems" which they highlight. So what would you have us do, exactly? Have all nations isolate themselves, and never again interact with anyone outside their borders, lest they accidentally anger some maniac?
Well????
Let me know when you come up with something other than the usual bitching and whining.
Well, you know what they say about opinions
I have nothing against the ISS - I think it's a worthwhile scientific endeavour, and a marvellous and inspirational example of human ingenuity - but I can't say I much appreciate your blatant trolling. Nor do I agree with your pessimism. I'm not sure why you sop badly want the Iraqi people to continue to suffer, but please, keep your opinions to yourself from now on.
What??
I'm thinking you need to go back to physics class.
Let's assume that, as you say, the small car "moves with the force of the SUV". Let's assume that both vehicles are travelling at 100 km/h, and hit head on. The end result? Your small car is now travelling BACKWARDS at 25km/h, while the SUV is continuing on it's original path at 25km/h. That means that the occupants of the SUV have experienced a decelleration of 75km/h, while you, in the same period of time, have experienced a deceleration of 125km/h.
Who do you think comes out ahead in that scenario?
Granted, that's a very simplistic model, but it does clearly show the absurdity of your argument
Don't be silly. That's like saying that if only all firearms were small-calibre, nobody would need a bulletproof vest.
Statistics are available for vehicle-accident fatalities, so you can feel free to look them up. If I remember correctly, the fatality rate has declined something like 50% since the 80's. Now, while that may be at least partly due to the increased use of simple safety devices like seatbelts, you can also look at more recent statistics to determine the effect of more complex safety devices. For instance, vehicle accident deaths in the US have declined something like 15% since the mid-90's, and serious injuries have declined about 30%.
I'm pulling these statistics from memory, so you may want to verify them, but I'm sure they're fairly accurate. In any event, there's no way you can deny that the 500kg's of safety equipment have significantly contributed to increased survivability in motor-vehicle accidents.
It may be anecdotal, but he's perfectly correct - most blowouts do not result in a crash.
I've had two blowouts personally - one while flying along at 160 km/h, the other while doing a mere 60 km/h, and neither time did my vehicle do anything unexpected. I simply pulled over, changed my tire, and continued on my way.
Well, let's see:
A raving lunatic of a politician, working on behalf of his religious puppet-masters, is currently supporting the killing of thousands of Iraqi's and hundreds of Americans in Iraq.
He's directly responsible for the funding and training of terrorist factions which are attempting to take over Lebanon (and have had considerable success).
As a side note, he also regularly threatens to kill all the Jews, and continues to fund organizations which target Israeli civilians. And now he's developing a nuclear program.
Yes, you're absolutely right, the whole thing stems directly from the creation of Israel by the UN / England back in the 1940's. How could I have been so blind!
Frankly, if you don't want to be treated like an idiot, don't act like an idiot. I don't put up with incompetence and ignorance in any other aspect of my life, so why should this place be any different?
Actually, the main problem I have with your line of argument is the sheer racism which it betrays. It seems that in your world, only Jews and westerners can ever do anything wrong. If any other people are doing anything wrong, well, then it must somehow be our fault too, of course!