Re: What about Bude Tunnel?
94 posts • joined 12 May 2008
HOTOL had three main problems.
1 - they wanted full liquifaction of the air, which meant they ended up using waaay more hydrogen than they could burn. SABRE doesn't cool the air down that much, but even then there's spill-over in air-breathing mode.
2 - having the engine at the back led to problems as the centre of mass and centre of lift shifted through the flight profile. This is why SKYLON's engines are on nacelles.
3 - HOTOL had a launch sled which turned out to be a massive pain in the arse. Skylon doesn't.
Also, there are also advances in materials technology that help the design to close as well,
A couple of weeks ago El-Reg's RSS feeds stopped working for me - I eventually tracked the problem down to the above.
I've manually removed it from the file locally so it's working for me now, but I thought I'd post this in case others are afflicted by the same problem.
As a back of the envelope calculation, a 2cm ice cube will take approx 3kJ to melt from a freezer temperature of -20C, once you include latent heat of fusion. The same size soapstone, although three times the mass, only takes ~500J to raise to 0C.
I'm fairly sure you can get ice cubes in flexible plastic that will cool drinks without diluting them, but that wouldn't be pretentious enough - which is the real point here. It's not about how you like your drink, it's about affectation.
Time for the standard fuel cell rant.
The problem is FCV's horrible grid-to-wheel efficiency.
Compared to a BEV, which just needs to account for grid distribution and the round-trip efficiency of the battery, the losses incurred by producing the hydrogen, compressing (or liquefying) it, distribution, and storage all result in FCVs using between 3-5x as much electricity as a comparable BEV - hence 3-5x the CO2 emissions (given the same energy generation mix - in fact it would be even worse because clean energy sources are currently a limited resource).
And that assumes you're getting your hydrogen from electrolysis. Commercial hydrogen is produced from natural gas, releasing CO2 in the process. If you run the numbers on this, it can be shown that FCVs emit more carbon than a traditional ICE car.
This is my guess too. Four satellites in elliptical geosynchronous orbits, tracing out the same analemma over Japan, so one of them is always at or near zenith.
If you've ever tried to find a building by its street address in Japan, you'll know why everyone has GPS on their phone.
There are no street names - instead each block has a number, and each house on that block. Except that the numbers are not sequential. With just an address it can be nigh impossible to find somewhere in an unfamiliar area, short of just wandering around and hoping.
Dabbs touches on this briefly at the end of the article, but this is really the biggest problem with Bitcoin qua currency - even accounting for its vast impracticality.
Simply because it's based on a limited commodity, Bitcoin is strongly deflationary. It's like the gold standard of the turn of the 20th century - there's a reason we invented fiat currency! It's no coincidence that Bitcoin appeals to the same Austrian-economics right wing libertarian cretins as a return to the gold standard.
But I digress. Those of us that grew up in the 70s (or Germans who are permanently terrified of a return to Weimar economics - i.e. the paymasters of the ECB) are taught that inflation is a axiomatically bad thing. This is, of course, bollocks. Moderate inflation is a good thing - there's an argument that our inflation targets should be closer to 4%, not the 2% we have now.
Deflation is crippling - just ask Japan. During deflation, the best thing you can do with your money is sit on it. Investment and spending collapses, and your country enters a prolonged depression.
And if we think we have trouble with an oligarchic elite now, the problem would be so much worse without inflation there to erode inherited wealth.
In short, Bitcoin economics is awful on every level. It's almost as if it has been designed to undermine the ability of governments to control the supply of money and to heighten the power of entrenched wealth (and let's not forget all that lovely potential for tax evasion). And we, the techies, blindly buy into this agenda because it's shiny and new, and has "crypto" in the name, and we think being free from government influence is great when actually it's the only thing keeping the plutocratic wolves from the door.
I think I've still got mine in a drawer somewhere - don't know if it still works though. I coded up a very simple drawing program to entertain myself in boring lessons, and the program function was excellent for cheating in exams, as the "program" slot could be used to store useful formulae instead :)
Because the bill that established the ACA included its own dedicated funding. Same with Medicare, same with Social Security - they are not affected by the shutdown.
The debt ceiling, on the other hand, is entirely another kettle of fish. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/08/a-very-simple-timeline-for-the-debt-ceiling-crisis/
"It's one of the "difficult" bits of relativity: even if you and I are travelling in opposite directions at 55 percent of the speed of light, the sum is 100 percent, not 110 percent"
actually, .55c +.55c = .84c
see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_theory_of_relativity
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019