Once you have a fire like that start up - what you really want is for the flames to get strong enough to do a significant amount of damage.

What you don't want is an insurance adjuster saying, "We can just fix that" because it will never be the same, ever - Your best option is replacement of destroyed property. (In this case the car and the trailer.

And, hey, they almost got a new pickup truck as well.

I found it absolutely awesome that I could watch this live streaming from JPL on my computer at work, in Australia in great quality... and it started up instantly and never missed a beat.

The interwebs be coming into their own people... into their own!

And yeay NASA! Fricken skycranes on Mars people... SKY FRICKEN CRANES on another planet.

Science and engineering rocks!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@spawnflagger and @bmacs27
This wiki is one of the things I consult often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Common_energy_densities


Regardless of how effective you make burning wood, it will NEVER be as energetic as the same volume of gas or petrol. And if gas/petrol/coal engines are out of reach financially, burning wood for electricity most likely will be as well. Though, spawn pointed out perhaps it supplying a regular stream of electricity of very little energy makes up for the lack of conductivity of poor communities. I don't tend to share that opinion and think that their standard of living will only be greatly improved with access to very large amounts of cheap energy; the difference between starting up a camp fire and an actual power plant. Helping a poor society charge connected devices isn't what catapults counties into the first world, having an infrastructure of energy is.
And ya, they are using a TEGs for electrical generation. It provides the lion share of energy to the fan that is helping aid complete combustion for the smoke reduction. This is why it is such a poor electrical device, TEGs are horrible in the efficiency department. You could get far more electrical output via some type of steam device burning wood than this; which would more than likely benefit an entire town via its considerable electrical output (for the third world). But it should be known before hand that wood burning is dirty business. Even if you engaged in catalytic conversion of carbon monoxide, burning wood on a large scale for electrical generation would have similar effects to the health of a community as a coal fire plant; perhaps worse because it would be located much closer to the population than coal fire plants usually are.
And to be fair to this thing, I think it is pretty cool...but for the first world. Unless they are literally handing these out in the third world, it will do them no benefit, and the money they spend handing these out...they could be installing a power distribution system with an actual power plant and improve their well being by orders of magnitude.


Now this I disagree with. They are right that most third world countries are using wood cooking fires anyway. So simply the smoke and emission savings over that are worthwhile. The electrical generation is a nice side benefit, and many of those countries are seeing the proliferation of small electrical devices, e.g. cell phones and leds. I think it's a device that could greatly improve the lives of people in less developed communities (especially the home stove version).

@spawnflagger and @bmacs27

This wiki is one of the things I consult often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Common_energy_densities

Regardless of how effective you make burning wood, it will NEVER be as energetic as the same volume of gas or petrol. And if gas/petrol/coal engines are out of reach financially, burning wood for electricity most likely will be as well. Though, spawn pointed out perhaps it supplying a regular stream of electricity of very little energy makes up for the lack of conductivity of poor communities. I don't tend to share that opinion and think that their standard of living will only be greatly improved with access to very large amounts of cheap energy; the difference between starting up a camp fire and an actual power plant. Helping a poor society charge connected devices isn't what catapults counties into the first world, having an infrastructure of energy is.

And ya, they are using a TEGs for electrical generation. It provides the lion share of energy to the fan that is helping aid complete combustion for the smoke reduction. This is why it is such a poor electrical device, TEGs are horrible in the efficiency department. You could get far more electrical output via some type of steam device burning wood than this; which would more than likely benefit an entire town via its considerable electrical output (for the third world). But it should be known before hand that wood burning is dirty business. Even if you engaged in catalytic conversion of carbon monoxide, burning wood on a large scale for electrical generation would have similar effects to the health of a community as a coal fire plant; perhaps worse because it would be located much closer to the population than coal fire plants usually are.

And to be fair to this thing, I think it is pretty cool...but for the first world. Unless they are literally handing these out in the third world, it will do them no benefit, and the money they spend handing these out...they could be installing a power distribution system with an actual power plant and improve their well being by orders of magnitude.

You might want to try Adblock Plus. It works like a charm for me. Eliminating an enormous amount of ads when going around the internet. Hands down my favorite add on. http://adblockplus.org/en/ >> ^paul4dirt:

still there +_+

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

OK thanks for the screenshot. It's like playing whack-a-mole with these asshats.>> ^paul4dirt:

@dag http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvandijk/7206161004/in/photostream this was one. sounds start, starts with a popup like this. (this is one for a dutch supermarket branche but there were others before)
if i click it it minimizes to a small screen somewhere in the right panel but the sound continues. EXTREMELY annoying.

>> ^dag:

Screen shot if possible, please. That shouldn't be happening either.>> ^paul4dirt:
i now get a popup-ish one that immediately starts playing sound and is hard to close (you first have to close the popup and then look for the video in it's non popup state and stop the sound... very annoying.
got it a couple times now (here but also on other website), already spoke to the complaints department of the company the ad was for (mediamarkt, a dutch company) cause i found it so ridiculously annoying



I get this one, too.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Screen shot if possible, please. That shouldn't be happening either.>> ^paul4dirt:

i now get a popup-ish one that immediately starts playing sound and is hard to close (you first have to close the popup and then look for the video in it's non popup state and stop the sound... very annoying.
got it a couple times now (here but also on other website), already spoke to the complaints department of the company the ad was for (mediamarkt, a dutch company) cause i found it so ridiculously annoying

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Jonny it may have come to that. I've given this particular advertiser plenty of chances and they continue to let us down. Believe me - I'll be naming and shaming if we're gone.>> ^jonny:

ewww... looks like a background ad. Impossible to get rid of.... unless you resize the window to hide it.

@dag, it's your site, but I've always been of the opinion that when I pay for a service to do a particular thing, and the service fails to do that, I take my business elsewhere. I understand your options may be limited, but perhaps the threat of losing business plus widespread shaming may get their attention.

My nephew-in-law is doing a start-up. I shared this with him immediately!

In reply to this comment by radx:
http://runningastartup.tumblr.com/

I know, I know... nerd humour. Still funny though.

It's always amusing when Prog-Lib-Dytes start eating each other.

Yeah, it's weird. His douchebaggery slipped under my radar, maybe because I tended to agree with his critiques and observations.

Well - there's a list of others I can give you who are all equally huge d-bags. Just run down the roster of so-called 'journalists' MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, the AP, NYT, USA Today, FOX... And hey - while we're at it throw in the roster of psuedo-journalists posuers on all the blogs & websites. Not to mention all the politicians who play revolving-door journalists. Basically every news outlet you care to name is staffed to the man with 99.9999% smarmy, arrogant, closed-minded, self-important douches who think the world revolves around them and who are so biased and agenda driven that they cannot be trusted to recite a farm report or the local weather - let alone national news.

Olberman was perhaps one of the most exaggerated of the lot, but not by much. And Bill Maher (a staple of the Videosift) is only two hairs and some air away from Olberman. Intellectually they are the same person. News isn't news anymore. It's become increasingly thinly disguised propoganda, and I don't trust a single word of it.

Case in point. This morning I was highly amused to be flipping channels as the Morning "News" shows started up. ABC, CBS, NBC... EERY SINGLE ONE of them started with the exact same thing... Obama's "Job Report" and how things were looking fantastic. I literally just kept rotating through all three channels without stopping, and it was almost the EXACT same words being parroted at the exact same time with the exact same interpretation. They didn't question anything. They just recited Obama's press release flack on it. They ignored the fact that non-working Americans are at an all-time high. They ignored the fact that jobs were only HALF of what was 'projected'. Nope. Just three completely identical, laughably positive "120,000 new jobs!" stories all being repeated almost verbatim. That isn't news. That is propoganda - and it's creepy just how in lock-step these mental midgets are.

No doubt ADSR would produce some great science, but it wouldn't address chemistry issues, or any other important issue any better than a LFTR project. It seems to me that it just introduces large amounts of extra complexity and cost. Particle accelerators are big unreliable machines, hence the need for 3 of them for redundancy and they could well reduce safety if something goes wrong. They are not even particularly suited to breeding, as they produce protons which as the name suggests are charged and so need to be very high energy to hit a nucleus and cause fission. The cynic in me says the whole idea was cooked up by the nuclear energy industry to ensure costs could be kept high, and so turn them and their friends in other energy industries a bigger profit (or even just a profit?). My understanding is also that between the various stockpiles of fissile we have, and high breeding ratios from early LFTRs startup fuel should not be a big issue.

I wish you all the best in your learning, I can think of few endeavors more worthy of changing your life's direction >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Spacedog79:
The ADSR or "Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactor" is unfortunately a massive waste of time. Why not build a properly configured LFTR reactor and it does just the same thing and you don't need to build 3 large particle accelerators to do it.

I agree in one sense, but in another, the chemistry of the LFTR might prove impossible to solve (though this is hardly even a fear atm), so divesting in a "less" effective way to fission isn't a complete waste. Also, you could use this just to breed thorium which would be handy if you hand thousands of thorium generators to start up (you need a good deal of U233 to start the reaction as Thorium is only fertile, not fissionable). This also would be a good way to burn up waste before we get a highly functional LFTR's with the ability to siphon in fission products. In the end, no road should be left uncharted when the end result maybe the salvation of the energy crisis and a life like star trek
I play to dedicate most of my laymen efforts over the next couple of months in learning more about fission for use in determining if I want to drop my life for what is it now and pursue nuclear physics. Pretty sharp turn from where I am now, but I almost feel morally compelled to do so.

>> ^Spacedog79:

The ADSR or "Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactor" is unfortunately a massive waste of time. Why not build a properly configured LFTR reactor and it does just the same thing and you don't need to build 3 large particle accelerators to do it.


I agree in one sense, but in another, the chemistry of the LFTR might prove impossible to solve (though this is hardly even a fear atm), so divesting in a "less" effective way to fission isn't a complete waste. Also, you could use this just to breed thorium which would be handy if you had thousands of thorium generators to start up (you need a good deal of U233 to start the reaction as Thorium is only fertile, not fissionable). This also would be a good way to burn up waste before we get a highly functional LFTR's with the ability to siphon in fission products. In the end, no road should be left uncharted when the end result maybe the salvation of the energy crisis and a life like star trek

I plan to dedicate most of my laymen efforts over the next couple of months in learning more about fission for use in determining if I want to drop my life for what is it now and pursue nuclear physics. Pretty sharp turn from where I am now, but I almost feel morally compelled to do so.

I say we start up a movement of reporting every single piece of christian related material reported and banned as religious hate speech. Think people will notice that?