Where's the kilometre long ice spikes and hydrogen volcanos?

I think they were hoping to get thrust from the hydrogen to propel the bottle like a rocket. Instead it just blew up

Your video, Plastic bottle hydrogen rocket experiment fail, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 23 Badge!

I don't get it. What is the fail exactly?
They sent hydrogen spraying under pressure at a flame. what other result did they expect here??

I think you missed the part about focusing on victims, punishing the guilty, and leaving everyone else alone.

I think you'll find that most people that kill others, are already doing something legally prohibited.
Focus on fixing/dealing-wtih those offending individuals.

I know people just want to "do something"... But leave me, my community, everyone else out of it, please. We didn't do it. Thanks.






side note :
Deadliest school killing in the U.S. was done without a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

The alternative to a gun is not merely 'a stick'.
You should read about the lethality of hydrogen sulfide. (Mixing 2 common household cleaners that you probably have right now)
1 breath can hospitalize. The gas commonly kills whoever is exposed, whoever finds them, and 1st responders, and it raises no alarm.
I would /not/ say that's /less/ harm than a gun.
Now think for a second about how much more damage one of those school shooters could have done with a simple super soaker from wal-mart.

Btw, you're already prohibited from owning a gun if you have mental health issues.
Check out ATF form 4473, and the electronic background check (granted some states don't have good records in the check).

Gun control still has 2 flaws.
1) It doesn't get gangsters/criminals to turn in their guns (essentially the entire 'problem population')
2) It puts non-violent people who have prohibited arms in jail - having done no harm.

With 1/3 of a billion people, something extremely rare will seem common if it's constantly reported.
You would live many many many lifetimes before you ever meet someone who knows someone who was shot.
We live in the least violent era of human history.
I feel very safe.

Since you mention an AR15, here's a stat :
In the U.S., more people die each year falling out of bed (~450), than are killed by all rifles combined (including an ar15 with massive 'clip'). The danger isn't as large as people imagine.

-scheherazade

Well, helium is the product of fusion. However, even if we found some "cheap" or "cold" way to fuse hydrogen into helium, I dont think it would be cheap enough to produce useful amounts. Ie producing enough energy to keep a light bulb on for 300 years will produce 1 balloon full of helium. (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/hera/spectroscopy/snr/fusion_calculation.html)

Great.. but they still use fossil fuels. 50% as much is awesome, but that might just be enough to keep the petroleum companies in control of the world for a few years longer.
...and I'm guessing that the claim they can use "solar" as fuel, means that they can use solar produced hydrogen, like any other fuel cell (not that this is neccesarilly a bad thing.. just not new).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydride_compressor

Looks like this particular setup holds the hydrogen chemically, and only releases it when heated. You're thinking it's just a pressurized cylinder, when it's actually a chemical compound inside.

Like he said in the video, (1:00) you can cut the cylinder in half, light it, and the hydrogen leaking out would make a birthday candle look like a flame thrower. "Smoulder like a cigarette."

It's severely awesome, the hydride "sucks" in hydrogen at low pressures, stores it safely, then pushes the gas out at high pressure if heated. Certainly no MORE dangerous than the petroleum based fuel that our cars run on now. Gasoline certainly vapourizes and explodes when heated.

The description rather misses the point. The electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen requires a good deal of electrical power. It's not free energy--you actually get a good deal less out of it than you put into it. The advantage to hydrogen fuel is that it is energy dense and theoretically storeable and transportable much as fossil fuels are.

The problem, though, is that it is extremely hard to store and transport because it escapes so easy (hydrogen being so tiny). I'd hazard that, left alone, all of the hydrogen would escape from that car's tanks in a matter of days.

There really is no easy solution. If you could effectively store and transport hydrogen, and use nuclear power to create it, that would solve a lot of problems. It would create new ones too.

This is, of course, not to belittle what this man has done. It is a fine engineering project, and it is people like this who will, little by little, refine the techniques and solve the problems that are necessary,

From Reddit:
"This can be explained through the principles of cohesion and adhesion. Water has strong cohesion to itself and strong adhesion to the sponge. Mercury has strong cohesion to itself but weak adhesion to the sponge.

Cohesion arises from attraction between something and itself. Cohesion is strong in water due to the large amount of hydrogen bonding between water molecules, causing water to stick to itself. Cohesion is strong in liquid mercury due to something called metallic bonding between metal cations and delocalized electrons in the liquid metallic liquid, causing the mercury to stick to itself.

Adhesion arises from attraction between something and something else. Since water molecules are polar, they can hydrogen bond with the polyurethane sponge. Mercury's metallic bonding, however, does not interact with the non-metallic sponge. Mercury will, however, adsorb to other metals such as gold or silver and form an amalgam.

Basic mercury clean up kits usually contain metal sulfides, which can react with the metal, disrupting metallic bonding, and permitting other forms of intermolecular forces to facilitate clean up."

I like to make my own stock from my veggie peelings and trimmings, I simmer them with a bay leaf and it ends up working pretty well.

Other times I use Massel veggie stock in a tin - http://www.massel.com.au/products/stock_powder.shtml - it's hard to find ones which don't have either MSG (I don't like the chemically after taste of MSG) or palm oil or trans fats (from Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil for instance) but that one is pretty good.

Another nice soup is spring vegetable soup, like this one:
http://www.jamieshomecookingskills.com.au/recipe.php?title=spring-vegetable-bean-soup

Or for the left over split red lentils, these koftesi have almost the same ingredients as the soup but make a quite different meal:
http://vegweb.com/recipes/kirmizi-mercimek-koftesi-red-lentil-burgers

Finally, a hearty soup for carnivores is Scotch broth:
http://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes/lamb-recipes/scotch-broth-with-winter-root-veg

It's interesting you mention Tamari, my Dad uses gravy powder in his veggie soup Strangely, the gravy powder I have is vegan... not sure how that works, but it tastes spot on.

I guess we'll just have to develop hydrogen mining in space and release it on earth, once it gets too low?

The Sagan "hydrogen" line was awesome.

True but the Atheist also holds the "belief" that there is not GOD. So which belief is more correct? For me to get into a biblical debate with you and the atheist sift community would be pointless. It's like the saying you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. So this makes me search the web for other ways to argue the point. Here is 1 of them.

Mathematically speaking evolution falls flat on it face..
Lifted from site: http://www.freewebs.com/proofofgod/whataretheodds.htm



Suppose you take ten pennies and mark them from 1 to 10. Put them in your pocket and give them a good shake. Now try to draw them out in sequence from 1 to 10, putting each coin back in your pocket after each draw.

Your chance of drawing number 1 is 1 to 10.
Your chance of drawing 1 & 2 in succession is 1 in 100.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2 & 3 in succession would be one in a thousand.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2, 3 & 4 in succession would be one in 10,000.

And so on, until your chance of drawing from number 1 to number 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. The object in dealing with so simple a problem is to show how enormously figures multiply against chance.

Sir Fred Hoyle similarly dismisses the notion that life could have started by random processes:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve a Rubik’s cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.

Now, just imagine, if life as we know it had come into existence by a stroke of chance, how much time would it have taken? To quote the biophysicist, Frank Allen:

Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in nature, all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10^160, that is 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10^243) of years.

Proteins are made from long chains called amino-acids. The way those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong way, they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J.B. Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways (10^48). It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule of protein.

But proteins, as chemicals, are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only the infinite mind of God could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it, and made it live.

Science, in attempt to calculate the age of the whole universe, has placed the figure at 50 billion years. Even such a prolonged duration is too short for the necessary proteinous molecule to have come into existence in a random fashion. When one applies the laws of chance to the probability of an event occurring in nature, such as the formation of a single protein molecule from the elements, even if we allow three billion years for the age of the Earth or more, there isn't enough time for the event to occur.

There are several ways in which the age of the Earth may be calculated from the point in time which at which it solidified. The best of all these methods is based on the physical changes in radioactive elements. Because of the steady emission or decay of their electric particles, they are gradually transformed into radio-inactive elements, the transformation of uranium into lead being of special interest to us. It has been established that this rate of transformation remains constant irrespective of extremely high temperatures or intense pressures. In this way we can calculate for how long the process of uranium disintegration has been at work beneath any given rock by examining the lead formed from it. And since uranium has existed beneath the layers of rock on the Earth's surface right from the time of its solidification, we can calculate from its disintegration rate the exact point in time the rock solidified.

In his book, Human Destiny, Le Comte Du nuoy has made an excellent, detailed analysis of this problem:

It is impossible because of the tremendous complexity of the question to lay down the basis for a calculation which would enable one to establish the probability of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.

The volume of the substance necessary for such a probability to take place is beyond all imagination. It would that of a sphere with a radius so great that light would take 10^82 years to cover this distance. The volume is incomparably greater than that of the whole universe including the farthest galaxies, whose light takes only 2x10^6 (two million) years to reach us. In brief, we would have to imagine a volume more than one sextillion, sextillion, sextillion times greater than the Einsteinian universe.

The probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nill. Indeed, if we suppose 500 trillion shakings per second (5x10^14), which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency (wave lengths comprised between 0.4 and 0.8 microns), we find that the time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule (degree of dissymmetry 0.9) in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe (Earth) is about 10^243 billions of years (1 followed by 243 zeros)

But we must not forget that the Earth has only existed for two billion years and that life appeared about one billion years ago, as soon as the Earth had cooled.

Life itself is not even in question but merely one of the substances which constitute living beings. Now, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. We would need much greater figures to "explain" the appearance of a series of similar molecules, the improbability increasing considerably, as we have seen for each new molecule (compound probability), and for each series of identical throws.

If the probability of appearance of a living cell could be expressed mathematically the previous figures would seem negligible. The problem was deliberately simplified in order to increase the probabilities.

Events which, even when we admit very numerous experiments, reactions or shakings per second, need an almost-infinitely longer time than the estimated duration of the Earth in order to have one chance, on an average to manifest themselves can, it would seem, be considered as impossible in the human sense.

It is totally impossible to account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life, its development and progressive evolution, and that, unless the foundations of modern science are overthrown, they are unexplainable.

We are faced by a hiatus in our knowledge. There is a gap between living and non-living matter which we have not been able to bridge.

The laws of chance cannot take into account or explain the fact that the properties of a cell are born out of the coordination of complexity and not out of the chaotic complexity of a mixture of gases. This transmissible, hereditary, continuous coordination entirely escapes our laws of chance.

Rare fluctuations do not explain qualitative facts; they only enable us to conceive that they are not impossible qualitatively.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

It would be impossible for chance to produce enough beneficial mutations—and just the right ones—to accomplish anything worthwhile.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10^50. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), p. 205.