|
M_Gargantua posted:legally and funtionally its 100% the presidents call. People in the room have to not allow him to physically give the order for that to change. The people in the CoC could theoretically ignore the order but they drill such that they shouldn't ever really know the difference between a training order and a real order for that exact purpose. It sounds like it might be opsec, but what stops a training order from being actually executed, is it that there's like a training launch code that beep boops at you if you enter it correctly and then there's an actual honest to god sunshine code that beep boops at you and blows something up?
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The article doesn't seem to state at all what's acting as the fuel so something clearly got lost in translation there. Maybe the Al grabs the O from the water, I forgot how to determine whether or not that would fit the bill of what they describe, i.e. the reaction being exothermic. I mean Al loves the gently caress out of oxygen atoms and will readily grab it, I just wonder how you could arrange aluminum atoms in order to get them to rip oxygen away from hydrogen in water without providing any other energy to the reaction, because the bonds between oxygen and hydrogen are extremely strong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Trump went on a rant today at a press conference or whatever that was. He talked about transgender troop in the process. Remember when he went on a twitter rant and talked about transgender troops? Manafort got raided. Soooo.... what happened today?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
TBeats posted:Trump went on a rant today at a press conference or whatever that was. He talked about transgender troop in the process. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
psydude posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...omepage%2Fstory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNSVEumyJk
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
orange juche posted:I mean Al loves the gently caress out of oxygen atoms and will readily grab it, I just wonder how you could arrange aluminum atoms in order to get them to rip oxygen away from hydrogen in water without providing any other energy to the reaction, because the bonds between oxygen and hydrogen are extremely strong. I've been wondering about this as well. That's a hell of bond to just rip apart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:https://twitter.com/wasim_dr/status/895347968429232133 One hundred and forty three loving degrees F with literal burning bushes and conservatives/christians still won't believe in climate change. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
That poo poo has to be explosive as fuuuuck considering how much simple finely powdered aluminum without any nanostructure trickery already loves atmospheric O2 and federal watchlists But considering how energetic that reaction is I absolutely believe they've made what they say they have, fuckin lol at selling it as a hydrogen breakthrough instead of weird slow-burn aluminum though. Also aluminum refining accounts for something like 20% of global electricity demand
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:42
|
|
Duke Chin posted:One hundred and forty three loving degrees F with literal burning bushes and conservatives/christians still won't believe in climate change. It's not real.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:https://twitter.com/wasim_dr/status/895347968429232133 There's a World Cup due in neighboring Qatar in 5 years. They play in summer, but no worries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
TBeats posted:It's not real. conservative & christians? I agree.  (just saw the poo poo below it when I clicked through plus it ruins my lovely burning bush joke god damnit)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:One hundred and forty three loving degrees F with literal burning bushes and conservatives/christians still won't believe in climate change. lol we are so boned as a race
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 01:12
|
|
Duke Chin posted:One hundred and forty three loving degrees F with literal burning bushes and conservatives/christians still won't believe in climate change. Bushes have been bursting into flame in the Middle East for at least like 3k yesrs
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
So we have developed the ever coveted water bomb huh? Sprinkle some aluminum, a match, and buddy you got a warcrime going
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:I've been wondering about this as well. That's a hell of bond to just rip apart. Get thee to the FOOF thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
milk milk lemonade posted:Bushes have been bursting into flame in the Middle East for at least like 3k yesrs
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
milk milk lemonade posted:Bushes have been bursting into flame in the Middle East for at least like 3k yesrs Holy poo poo they're doing it on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
orange juche posted:If you convert 220kW to MJ using E(J) = 1000 × P(kW) × t(s) you get E(J) = 1000*220*240 or 52,800,000 Joules of energy produced just from the hydrogen liberated from the reaction. That's 52.8 MJ/L for the aluminum reaction. It has a higher energy density than either gasoline or diesel, assuming no losses of energy. I was wrong on that calculation by the way, it was a 3 minute reaction not a 4 minute reaction so E(J)=1000*220*180 or 39,600,000 Joules or 39.6MJ. Not as energetic as gasoline or diesel, but still drat energetic. If they were able to capture the full power of the reaction by capturing the thermal energy too you would have E(J)=1000*440*180 or 79.2MJ from the reaction. Assuming you only can harness 50% of the thermal energy released and lose the rest to the process to harness it, you will still have 59.4MJ or better than the gas or diesel reaction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
orange juche posted:I was wrong on that calculation by the way, it was a 3 minute reaction not a 4 minute reaction so E(J)=1000*220*180 or 39,600,000 Joules or 39.6MJ. Not as energetic as gasoline or diesel, but still drat energetic. If they were able to capture the full power of the reaction by capturing the thermal energy too you would have E(J)=1000*440*180 or 79.2MJ from the reaction. Assuming you only can harness 50% of the thermal energy released and lose the rest to the process to harness it, you will still have 59.4MJ or better than the gas or diesel reaction. What if you also turned around and used the hydrogen for energy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Mr_Ruckus posted:What if you also turned around and used the hydrogen for energy? The 39.6MJ is from reacting the hydrogen in a fuel cell to produce electricity. If you harnessed the heat from the cracking of water with a thermocouple or something you would get even more energy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Mr_Ruckus posted:What if you also turned around and used the hydrogen for energy? You could either capture the heat generated in the refinement process and use it to power said process, and produce hydrogen fuel, or perhaps you could create an engine that uses both the heat of the reaction and the resultant hydrogen to create propulsion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Sounds like it could be a pretty good breakthrough if it works as they said. Are there any byproducts from the process other than hydrogen and oxygen? What about from using the hydrogen for energy? If it's the clean source I think it would be, it sounds pretty big. But I'm not a physicist or chemist that understands the details about the process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:ANOTHER loving MILLER
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
TBeats posted:It's not real. Yep. http://www.snopes.com/62-degree-celsius-kuwait-tree-fire/
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
If the president can believe things on twitter than so can I 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Mr_Ruckus posted:Sounds like it could be a pretty good breakthrough if it works as they said. There would be nothing other than aluminum oxide and hydrogen produced, unless the aluminum structure cracks hydrogen and oxygen from water and somehow doesn't bond to the freed oxygen. If it doesn't bond to the aluminum then you basically have cheap energy available as pretty much "just add water".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Mr_Ruckus posted:Sounds like it could be a pretty good breakthrough if it works as they said. I'm impressed by what they've discovered, but remember - energy in = energy out. If it's just a matter of refining aluminium and reducing it to tiny particles, well, it's probably worth doing. If it turns out to get them to that state is massively energy intensive, it becomes less attractive. That's why none of those HHO or whatever they were, HOO? things never worked, because it took more energy to crack the water into hydrogen than you got energy in return. Entropy is a loving bitch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
You're never going to get parity. But for something like a battery, or a device to manufacture rocket fuel on, say, Mars, you don't really need to. You just have to top the threshold where it becomes viable for a certain weight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Someone's a bit too happy on the Like button. https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/895840816601726976
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Or, for something like fossil fuels, where they already exist, you only need to get a better return than pumping it out of the ground, not actually being produced. Which is why I was wondering about the processing cost of the aluminium - mining it is cheap by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
So this whole Korea thing is starting to feel closer to 50/50 rather than 'inconceivable'
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Someone's a bit too happy on the Like button.  Three options:
Honestly, none of the three would surprise me. poo poo, it was removed in the last three minutes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
It's inconceivably stupid and insane
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
http://www.clickhole.com/article/master-diplomat-pundits-have-noted-similarities-be-6469#1,
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Trump's planning to fix global warming with nuclear winter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
uh, so this article in the new zealand herald says that the chinese are now saying if the us strikes first, they'll step in on the nk side http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11902513 it uh it's not good
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
loving dumbass fuckstick trump who gives a rats loving rear end about North Korea you retarded rear end in a top hat
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
gently caress you America you writhing mass of meth mouthed trailer trash uneducated obese shitlords
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
harsh, but fair
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Two Finger posted:uh, so this article in the new zealand herald says that the chinese are now saying if the us strikes first, they'll step in on the nk side They also said if NK launches at Guam they're on their own when the USA retaliates. Basically they said they're not going to back whoever throws the first punch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:53
|
|
