Tags for this video have been changed from 'Triton, Indiegogo, Scam, Debunked, Oxygen' to 'Triton, Indiegogo, Scam, Debunked, Oxygen, Thunderfoot' - edited by eric3579

I wonder what the effect of plastic particles will be on them. I was thinking they may be screwed by the sheer amount, but maybe the low metabolic rates may do something about that?

It's a neat creature, and one that can survive in the growing oxygen free zones in the ocean.

Maybe life has found a way with this thing. =)

I actually did this as my high school chemistry project. I used 70% rubbing alcohol, 90% rubbing alcohol, and pure ether (don't try that at home, kids). You can get a number of different effects, only some of which were seen here.

As I recall, there were 5 distinct effects I noticed.
First, and most exciting, the jet. This was just a 2-6 foot jet of flame out the top, I surmised it was caused by low oxygen inside the glass making for a poor partial burn inside until the pressure pushes out enough unburnt vapor to burn outside. Depending on the fuel (both vapor level and fuel type), this could last up to 10 seconds.
There's a 'neck burn', where the flame hovers just inside the neck and just burns there, apparently in equilibrium, like an oil lamp.
There's the fire ball, which is just as it sounds, a round ball of fire, usually hovering in the top 1/3 of the bottle, sometimes bouncing up and down, but always centered.
There's the flash, where the entire interior flashes repeatedly, as seen in this video. This can end much more violently than it did here, 'pinging' the bottle loudly as the flashes get more powerful. When this happened with ether, we stopped, afraid we were making a glass bomb surrounded by high school kids.
Finally was the fire plane, also seen in this video, which can ascend, descend, or hover in place. This was my favorite effect, especially when it hovered and lasted up to 30 seconds long.

Good times, good times....FIRE GOOD.

What the fuck is wrong with this woman? How does she get into politics? I'd say that people stupider than she is voted her in, except there can't be that many people stupider than her. Bloody brainless oxygen thief.

Thanks

There's actually a bit more to the chemistry of smelting than he mentions. It's not only the higher temperatures that are important, carbon monoxide is used to extract the base metal from the ore (which is usually an oxide).

If he's been relying on ancient sources, they may well have not mentioned the chemistry since oxidation and reduction were only really properly described in the 18th century (oxygen was discovered in 1772) and not all historians have a good grounding in chemistry.

*ban
BDM Oxygen Plant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paSVXoAAIgE

Jesus @enoch, I get that you're annoyed by feminists at the moment, but fuck me, surely you can find some videos that aren't narrated by complete oxygen thieves?

Look, here's the actual video of the protest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0

No commentary is needed.

As was mentioned above, the cost of the fuel is a non-starter. Currently SpaceX uses a Kerosene / Liquid Oxygen fuel mix.

After the anomaly (the space industries way of saying accident) in June SpaceX did a complete vehicle review. They are now using a more advanced technique to cool the LOX which means for a denser LOX liquid in their tanks, which ultimately means they have more oxidizer on board for their flights now.

Coupled with the LOX improvements they have made upgrades to the engines which means 30% greater efficiency. Basically the horsepower per engine has increased.

This means they can get their payloads to orbit plus have more then enough fuel left over in stage 1 to return it to land.

The greatest efficiency comes from returning the stage(s) and then reusing them in future launches (not proven yet). ALL launchers (u.s, soviet, indian, ESA, Japan, etc) ditch ALL of their hardware into the ocean when getting payload to orbit. Bye, bye multi million dollars worth of engines and hardware.

If SpaceX can turn that scenario on its head and reuse those stages and MORE importantly the engines they will cut their costs per launch by a substantial amount. Ultimately that means cheaper per pound cost to get material into orbit.

All of the media uses the word "explosion" when describing the June anomaly which is funny because there was never an ignition of onboard fuels.

The LOX tanks have smaller Helium tanks inside them. The helium is released during launch. The helium rises in the LOX quickly, expands and pressurizes the tank to ensure the LOX is "squeezed" into the pipes in order to keep up with the turbo pumps.

One of the struts holding a helium tank inside the LOX tank failed. The helium tank shot up and blew threw the top of the LOX tank and took a good part of the top of the stack off. The engines actually fired for a few seconds after the anomaly and then sputtered out. The rest of the vehicle at this point is still fairly intact.

Without proper structural integrity the vehicle started to veer off course, dynamic pressures built up and the vehicle was essentially ripped apart by those forces.

At 3:20 the Helium tank rips off its struts. At 3:27 the remainder of the vehicle disintegrates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNymhcTtSQ

SpaceX mentioned that in June, the dragon capsule continued to relay telemetry until it smacked into the ocean. If the Dragon had better software onboard it would have detected the anomaly and recovered with chutes. Elon said that software would be active on Dragons from now on.

I'm just guessing, but I'm fairly sure the fuel is a relatively small part of the cost of any space vehicle. Isn't it just liquid hydrogen and oxygen? They wouldn't be using solid fuel for landing, which these days is often some treated rubber or aluminum oxide, so also fairly cheap...

...cheap that is, when compared to just tossing the pressure tanks, pumps, high pressure-high temperature lines, multiple moveable nozzles, mixing/reaction chambers, computers to run it all, redundant safety features, guidance, frame, skin, etc. that make up the fragile vehicle that can't be dropped by parachute or other passive means and still be reusable.

New, just released ocean temperature data has shown a dramatic increase in temperatures in the Northern Pacific, and a dramatic decrease in surface temperatures in the Northern Atlantic. As I understand it, those readings are not consistent with normal 'El Nino' patterns. Could this be the beginning of the end of thermohaline circulation? If that happens we'll be facing unavoidable, unpredictable, worldwide, disastrous climate change in short order.
Without the current created by the thermohaline circulations, the oceans die. Equatorial waters become much hotter...fast...and arctic and Antarctic waters become much colder...fast. Ocean organisms can't live through that kind of change, not in any sizeable way anyway. Without the oceans, the entire food web dissolves and we die.
On top of that, without the currents bringing oxygen to the lower oceans, they become anoxic. The bacteria that live in those deep waters will feed on the dead sea life and create toxic gases (hydrogen sulfide) which have, in the past, completed the extinction events by wiping out nearly all life. Once that starts, it's unstoppable and is the end. Let's hope these readings are just an over active El Nino.

What we do today has little to no effect for 50-100 years. That makes us at least 50 years too late to solve this problem, and we are still exacerbating it rather than solving it to this day.
We're hosed.
If you plan on having children in this climate, you are a child abuser IMO, and are adding to the problem with that one action more than almost any other action normal people perform. Your children will most likely not survive to old age, and absolutely won't experience the same quality of life you have.

Larry Wilmore once said that Stephen Colbert inhales oxygen and exhales funny.

That pretty much fits this.

Please don't say it gives off Nitrogen in the same sentence where it gives off Arsenic and Sulfur. Makes it sound like Nitrogen is bad for you.

The air everyone reading this is breathing -who isn't on bottled oxygen- is over 75% Nitrogen. It is by far the most plentiful gas on the planet. It's why filling your tires with Nitrogen is more or less a gimmick.

It may be that they can get more oxygen from the air than we can from water, or at least if you keep the gills wet then some oxygen will dissolve into the water on the gills. I'm guessing if the gills dry out they would probably die pretty quickly. But ye, I'm just guessing.

Or maybe we tackle this from 180 degrees.

As opposed to what is happening, or how likely, we may find common ground on what it is we should actually be doing.

I've already made the suggestion of electric vehicles and fission, fusion or renewables in place of coal as the road away from emissions. Specifically improving li-ion batteries as Tesla is doing is a major step. Researching sodium-oxygen batteries would be even better as they can hold 4-5 times the power and have cheaper materials and recent results have us close to making them viable, so I'd like to see gov money directed there.

For power solar and wind are currently only cost-competitive because the scale is small enough that we get away with treating coal plants like giant batteries covering our baseline. They simply aren't cost effective to scale up for base load yet, and not likely to be for another 10-20 years. We can have a lot of nuclear plants built in that time. With electric cars coming into the picture, we're also going to need that extra electric capacity. I again would strongly encourage more gov money going into French style large scale nuclear power deployment. China's already doing it, even they've had enough of their current coal literally blocking the sun in the sky on them and nuclear is part of their clean air push. We should be encouraging that and following suit out this way.

I also wasn't kidding about Lockheed-Martin's fusion research. A lot of new ideas are out there for fusion confinement plans and Lockheed has publicly declared their intentions to have a demonstration reactor in 5 years time. I'm hopeful, and if that pans out, the roll out of truly cheap and clean power will start in the next decade for the sole reason that fusion under cuts coal for price.

Part of me reason for these measures versus more drastic ones is we need to keep our economies growing because regardless of what we do the next 30 years, the oceans will continue rising that entire time and the mitigation measures we're going to gradually be spending more and more on are gonna required us to have the money to do them.

If anybody's got better suggestions I'm all ears.