Menu Bar
slage123's Comments
Re: Jesse Ventura on Fox and Friends
I actually didn't want to link this because I was afraid the discussion would degrade into a truther debate.
As far as the thermite is concerned: 1) There is an incomplete chain of custody on the samples, they could have come from anywhere. 2) The chemicals in thermite are present in the building and should be in the dust, one report concluded the possible presence of thermite but didn't explain why he came to that conclusion when no one else did. 3) There is no proof that the chemicals were present in the right proportions.
As far as the thermite is concerned: 1) There is an incomplete chain of custody on the samples, they could have come from anywhere. 2) The chemicals in thermite are present in the building and should be in the dust, one report concluded the possible presence of thermite but didn't explain why he came to that conclusion when no one else did. 3) There is no proof that the chemicals were present in the right proportions.
By: slage123
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
I think child birth rate is one of those things that's hard wired into everyone and if you understand it you can help guild it. I in no way understand all the variables but generally you can lower the population growth rate by: improving child mortality rates, improving health care, and improving the quality of living.
Population rates by country:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/countrycompare/pg/1a.html
If you look at Germany they have a 0 population growth rate (the population isn't growing and isn't shrinking) and is ranked 177 (rank is from most to least) in child mortality rates. If you look at the US, we have a .92 population growth rate and are ranked 158 in child mortality rate. Now this is an incredible over simplification and I'm cherry picking, but the two figures are significantly linked.
So how do you begin to solve a future overpopulation problem, start by investing in health care and provide that health care to everyone even if they can't afford it. While it may cost you more in the short term the long term benefits (at least in my opinion) out way that cost. I'm also fairly sure you'll be able to make your money back because the GDP will grow quicker.
If you have 20 minutes to kill this is a really good TEDtalk on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUwS1uAdUcI
This is the website he talks about near the end of the video: http://www.gapminder.org/
Population rates by country:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/countrycompare/pg/1a.html
If you look at Germany they have a 0 population growth rate (the population isn't growing and isn't shrinking) and is ranked 177 (rank is from most to least) in child mortality rates. If you look at the US, we have a .92 population growth rate and are ranked 158 in child mortality rate. Now this is an incredible over simplification and I'm cherry picking, but the two figures are significantly linked.
So how do you begin to solve a future overpopulation problem, start by investing in health care and provide that health care to everyone even if they can't afford it. While it may cost you more in the short term the long term benefits (at least in my opinion) out way that cost. I'm also fairly sure you'll be able to make your money back because the GDP will grow quicker.
If you have 20 minutes to kill this is a really good TEDtalk on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUwS1uAdUcI
This is the website he talks about near the end of the video: http://www.gapminder.org/
By: slage123
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
Breathing is nowhere near the scale that is being talked about, cow belches definitely (methane is a much more powerful green house gas) but not breathing by at least a factor of magnitude.
When you're talking about the global scale little things can have large impacts. If you were to turn up the heat by a fraction of a degree, you would melt more ice, which would uncover rock/ice, which would absorb more energy from the sun than ice (most of the light gets reflected away), which makes the world hotter, which makes more ice melt,... This is also why it's so difficult to make models of the distant future, but that's why there are thousands of people working on the problem and a lot of super computers assigned to the task.
The sun does go through a cycle of activity; however that doesn't account for amount of warming we're seeing and doesn't account for the type of warming that is being seen. I'd recommend this guy’s videos (thanks loqi): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&feature=channel_page
But then again I'm just a mechanical engineer so I'm a bit out of my element. Give me a power plant or fuel cell question and I'd be a lot happier.
When you're talking about the global scale little things can have large impacts. If you were to turn up the heat by a fraction of a degree, you would melt more ice, which would uncover rock/ice, which would absorb more energy from the sun than ice (most of the light gets reflected away), which makes the world hotter, which makes more ice melt,... This is also why it's so difficult to make models of the distant future, but that's why there are thousands of people working on the problem and a lot of super computers assigned to the task.
The sun does go through a cycle of activity; however that doesn't account for amount of warming we're seeing and doesn't account for the type of warming that is being seen. I'd recommend this guy’s videos (thanks loqi): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&feature=channel_page
But then again I'm just a mechanical engineer so I'm a bit out of my element. Give me a power plant or fuel cell question and I'd be a lot happier.
By: slage123
Re: Triumph the Insult Dog: Republicans vs Global Warming
"Why not read what the UN is writing?"
That's actually a really good starting place <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm>, it's actually one of the more optimistic reports out there. Although with any long-cast predictions it's difficult to take into account the full effect of feedback loops.
That's actually a really good starting place <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm>, it's actually one of the more optimistic reports out there. Although with any long-cast predictions it's difficult to take into account the full effect of feedback loops.
By: slage123
Re: Richard Dawkins Oklahoma Intro
I didn't see him making fun of scientists. I saw him making fun of a politician, the movie expelled, and creationists that try to present their views of as science. I could be wrong of course since I skipped through the video a bit, he used the same slide show when he first heard that the Oklahoma politician was trying to stop him from talking at that university.
By: slage123
Re: Cafferty File: Churchgoers Support Torture
Data from a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 14-21, 2009, among 742 American adults. Other religious groups are not reported due to small sample sizes.
Question wording: Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156
http://people-press.org/report/510/public-remains-divided-over-use-of-torture
Question wording: Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156
http://people-press.org/report/510/public-remains-divided-over-use-of-torture
By: slage123
Re: Extreme mobility snake robot for rescuing
A friend of mine was working on something like this for the military to be used as a surveillance camera that can put itself in place. If anyone asks you didn't here that from me though.
By: slage123
Re: Fuel Cells
You can store hydrogen as a gas up to 10000 psi (680 atm) but even at that level hydrogen only contains 4.7 megajoules/liter, gasoline contains 34 megajoules/liter. If you store hydrogen as a liquid you can get hydrogen up to 8.4 MJ/liter (liquefied natural gas is around 25 MJ/liter). In a liquid state hydrogen needs to be at about 200psi @ 33K, which is a hell of a lot higher than natural gas (around atmospheric @ 110K). BMW is currently going down the liquid hydrogen path, if you put a cup of coffee into their hydrogen fuel tank it would be boiling hot a year later (that's not me exaggerating either).
There is a lot of stored energy in compressing that much gas, but it shouldn't really make up for the difference in volumetric energy densities. I could do the math if you really want me to but that would require thinking, so I don't really want to do it.
If you were to go by mass hydrogen has almost 3 times the energy density of gasoline (33 kWh/kg vs 12 kWh/kg), which makes it a great rocket fuel.
Personally I really like what I'm hearing about solid state hydrogen storage, but a lot of it is in the early stages of development you shouldn't expect anything for a few years.
There is a lot of stored energy in compressing that much gas, but it shouldn't really make up for the difference in volumetric energy densities. I could do the math if you really want me to but that would require thinking, so I don't really want to do it.
If you were to go by mass hydrogen has almost 3 times the energy density of gasoline (33 kWh/kg vs 12 kWh/kg), which makes it a great rocket fuel.
Personally I really like what I'm hearing about solid state hydrogen storage, but a lot of it is in the early stages of development you shouldn't expect anything for a few years.
By: slage123
Re: Fuel Cells
Nuclear energy doesn't produce CO2 and we need to replace the existing nuclear power plants now. You can either make modern nuclear reactors or build more coal power plants, the other renewables just aren't up to the task of replacing the big power producers yet. When/if the renewables ever become economical the same techniques for producing H2 with nuclear can be used with renewable.
It's really a race to see who can solve all the problems the quickest. Battery technology suffers from long charge times, are really heavy, and they die eventually. Hydrogen technology suffers from people thinking it's a mini nuke (it's safer than gas btw), technical problems with the fuel cells, and storage/distribution. They both need CO2 free power to be completely viable, but right now nuclear is the only thing that fits the bill.
It's really a race to see who can solve all the problems the quickest. Battery technology suffers from long charge times, are really heavy, and they die eventually. Hydrogen technology suffers from people thinking it's a mini nuke (it's safer than gas btw), technical problems with the fuel cells, and storage/distribution. They both need CO2 free power to be completely viable, but right now nuclear is the only thing that fits the bill.
By: slage123
Re: Fuel Cells
The next generation of nuclear power plants are designed around producing hydrogen. When you heat up the water the process is more efficient. Of course it takes 10 years to make a nuclear power plant.
I've also seen some promising research into some new catalysis, but I don't expect them to be out for at least a number of years(if they work).
I've also seen some promising research into some new catalysis, but I don't expect them to be out for at least a number of years(if they work).
By: slage123
Re: Fuel Cells
You can already do that with natural gas tankers. Also you really want to localize the production on H2, so you don't need ship it around the world -> no need for tanker ships.
Currently most transport is done with cryogenic trucks, but then you have all the waste from compressing a gas, making sure it says cold... It'd be really nice to pipe the stuff around but H2 isn't an easy thing to pipe around.
What's really interesting is the shift within engineering towards fuel cells and renewable energy sources in general. I think we're going to see a lot of advancement within the next 10 years, but that's just my somewhat bias and optimistic opinion.
Currently most transport is done with cryogenic trucks, but then you have all the waste from compressing a gas, making sure it says cold... It'd be really nice to pipe the stuff around but H2 isn't an easy thing to pipe around.
What's really interesting is the shift within engineering towards fuel cells and renewable energy sources in general. I think we're going to see a lot of advancement within the next 10 years, but that's just my somewhat bias and optimistic opinion.
By: slage123
Re: Fuel Cells
There are quite a few problems to still overcome but the technology is coming along.
The GM team is currently testing their prototype in different locations to ensure their engine will work any where a gas engine will. If you think how large of a range of conditions gas engines operate, this is no small task. When I spoke with the GM team they had just returned form 2 months in the Mojave desert.
Although then there is always the production and distribution of H2.
The GM team is currently testing their prototype in different locations to ensure their engine will work any where a gas engine will. If you think how large of a range of conditions gas engines operate, this is no small task. When I spoke with the GM team they had just returned form 2 months in the Mojave desert.
Although then there is always the production and distribution of H2.
By: slage123
Re: Daily Show: Tea Party Tyranny
It was never my intention to get into an argument of what should or shouldn't be taught in a classroom. I was actually working under the assumption that we share a similar opinion on the subject. Using that assumption I was trying to illustrate when we could agree that a compromise would be bad. I really should have found a less controversial/argued to death example.
I don't even know if I was trying to argue anything else, maybe just that we should always try for a consensus but good luck getting one when politics is involved.
I don't even know if I was trying to argue anything else, maybe just that we should always try for a consensus but good luck getting one when politics is involved.
By: slage123
You can never know anything 100% but as far as science is concerned there was no thermite. Although if you actually try to imagine the logistical challenges of rigging a building as large as the WTC to it's very implausible.