M Malevolent
O Oligarchic
N Nazified
S Succubal
A Anti-Neutraceutical
N Nonvegetarian
T Treachetourial
O Organo-assassins

The following address should be on every death to eco-terroristists' organization's, "Raze This Motherfucker", hit list:

World Headquarters Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63167. Phone: 314/694-1000

Everyone who works for this corporation should be considered complicit in the undoing of species-

Monsanto is the reason bees are disappearing worldwide-
Monsanto is the reason heath care is unaffordable-
Monsanto is the reason gasoline no longer lubricates rubber and composites in combustion engines-
Monsanto is responsible for the disappearance of heirloom variety seed banks the world over-(hybrids notwithstanding, their originating variants tucked-away in bunkers)
Monsanto is a poisonous cabal of eugenicists, working to help other cunts reduce the world population through systematic, experimental means, with the world's sentients as her guinea pigs.

Someone needs to mail them some anthrax powder mixed with ricin, to get that full effect.

That bus has an internal combustion engine, ma'am. Everywhere you go is powered by Satan.

Satan looks stacked.

>> ^Trancecoach:

You mean people DIE when they combust incinerants to fuel a steel box while driving at speeds excessive of 120 MPH?!? My, my -- and I guess next you're gonna tell me that bull riding, supercross, or BASE jumping are dangerous!
No sympathy for the bloke who chooses to drive 200 MPH in a f &king circle.


Thats a little harsh don't you think? Disregarding what he was doing or why he was doing it, he still could have been saved with a modicum of effort from a few people. You should at least have sympathy for someone who had to sit there and slowly choke to death while he watched everyone else sit there and watch him die.

KnivesOut is correct, yet keep in mind that "clean coal" does next to nothing to reduce the amount of CO2 released from coal combustion. It also does nothing about the dangers of mining coal, as mentioned by Sagemind, and does nothing about reducing the contamination of the environment via mining.

@Sagemind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal "Historically, the term has been used to refer to technologies for reducing emissions of ash, sulfur, and heavy metals from coal combustion."

>> ^jqpublick:

I think it's more likely that this system extends the drive time of whatever battery cells he has installed in the thing. It's not that he's getting free energy, it's just that at 40 the system is going fast enough that even though there's a net loss, the additional energy stored in the batteries gives a longer running time. I think that's just about all that there is here.
>> ^rkone:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Agreed. I'd downvote the video if I could. People, if you're in doubt, think of it this way - if the fan could generate more power than the loss of pushing it, then you could just keep adding more fans until it becomes a perpetual motion machine..



Problem, nothing happens at 40 miles an hour in physics for a decrease wind resistance and drag. If anything, the faster you go, the more of a problem wind becomes. There is no possible way that this is extending his drive time. This is exactly equal to holding your hand out the window. If you could turn that blockage into electricity, it will always be less energy than the amount of momentum it sapped via drag. Or else ALL CARS WOULD ALREADY DO THIS! The reason you don't is because it doesn't work.

A simple instance where something like this IS used is the emergency ram air turbine for jumbo jets. When there is a complete loss of power, a ram air turbine drops down to generate emergency power for the hydraulic systems. This increases drag, but it is so small that it isn't a problem. But it is also why air planes don't have windmills on them, anything you use to block the wind is slowing you down more than any recoverable amount of energy via electric conservation of kinetic energy. This is physics 101, entropy, it's a bitch!

Now, if he compressed the incoming air, added a combustion chamber with kerosene or gasoline, then he would have himself a turbine engine for his car, but now, he just has a lesson in why physics is hard.

>> ^Sniper007:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The red ball is likely the heat glow of the object it hit, which doesn't mean an explosion, but incandescence. Lightning itself is glowing because of the incandescent effect of 30,000K temperatures on the gasses of the air + the refraction of air itself. Many of the objects in an around our houses are very rich in carbon, and carbon glows red, orange and yellow depending on the temperature. Add in the very white effect of lightning at close range and wallah, you got yourself a pretty red/white "explosion". That is my guess!

Isn't the "incandescent effect of a 30,000k temperaturre object" one portion of what comprises an "explosion"? Or to phrase it another way, if that wasn't an explosion, then what is? It seems like it was a rapid expansion of air which produced a burst of light and sound... AKA an explosion(?)


Absolutely correct, I used sloppy language, I meant it wasn't combustion (such is the meaning of explosion when we normally talk about it). Thunder is most surely the result of an explosion of air expanded by plasma. Good catch!

>> ^Fantomas:

>> ^Reefie:
>> ^Fantomas:
What the hell was that?

Just a wild guess, I'd suggest lightning?
When freeze-framing you can definitely see the lightning bolt, but the resulting fireball looks like it hit something combustible.


Just hitting a tree can result in a fireball, which I think is the case here.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^Fantomas:
What the hell was that?

Just a wild guess, I'd suggest lightning?
When freeze-framing you can definitely see the lightning bolt, but the resulting fireball looks like it hit something combustible.

>> ^Kalle:

One serious question that bothers me is.. why isnt it possible to use gravity as an energy source?
Would such a machine be a perpetual motion machine?


Gravity is REALLY weak. Like 36 orders of magnitude less than the electromagnetic force. 36 orders of magnitude is massive...larger the the total number of stars in the known universe. For instance, a fridge magnet is defeating the ENTIRE gravitational force of the earth AND the sun. Gravity makes for a great way to bind the macro-universe together, but it is shit as an energy source.

Also, gravity has only one polarity...and it doesn't turn off. So for the EM force, we have 2 poles that can be switched around via electrical current to make lots of different energy related things. But for gravity, you just have one ground state, and once you are there you need to input energy to get away from that ground state...no way around that. However, what has been done and is done in certain areas is to have a closed system where you apply energy at certain time and store that energy for later. The example most commonly used is in dams, where the will pump a large volume of water back up stream (potential energy) and store it (a gravity battery if you will) and release it as a later time when demand is high. This is always a loss based way to make energy; your going to spend more pumping it back up (heat loss and other losses including evaporation) than you will when you get it back...so it is just a way to cause demand shifting towards other hours with additional entropy.

You have 4 fundamental forces to draw energy from; and 3 of those are the only practical ones. Strong (nuclear) force, the EM force, and the gravitational force (the weak force is actually the force that powers the earths core, but isn't useful to use in power generation for a similar reason gravity isn't).

The EM force is what we use in internal combustion engines and electrical motors. Chemical reactions are rearrangements of the electron structures of molecules, which makes gasoline engines possible via liquid to gas expansion pressures. Generators deal with EM fields, polarity and current which is what drives thermal reactors like coal or can drive a car with a motor via conversation of stored electrical energy(just a backwards generator). Nuclear reactors deal with the strong (nuclear) force, and combine that with kinetic/thermodynamic forces of same flavor as coal and other thermal plants.

Even gravity isn't perpetual, the orbits of ALL celestial bodies are unstable. Gravity is thought and reasonably well satisfied to travel in waves. These waves cause turbulence in what would seem calm orbits, slowly breaking them down over time...drawing them closer and closer together. Eventually, all orbits will cause ejection or collision.


As to what energy is best, I personally believe in the power of the strong force, as does the sun . When you are talking about the 4 forces and their ability to make energy for us, the strong force is 6 orders of magnitude greater than other chemical reactions we can make. The EM force is not to much weaker than the strong force, but the practical application of chemical reactions limits us to the electron cloud, making fuels for chemical reactions less energetic by a million to a billion times vs strong force fuels. Now, only fission has been shown to work for energy production currently, but I doubt that will be true forever. If you want LOTS of energy without much waste, you want strong force energy, period. That and the weak force are the 2 prime movers of sustained life on this planet. While the chemistry is what is hard at work DOING life, the strong and weak force provide the energy to sustain that chemistry. Without it, there are no winds, there is no heat in the sky nor from the core, no EM shield from that core. Just a cold, lifeless hunk of metals and gases floating in the weak gravitational force.

Sorry for the rant, energy is my most favorite current subject



(edit, corrected some typos and bad grammar)

"At high speeds this precooler cools the hot, ram compressed air leading to an unusually high pressure ratio within the engine. The compressed air is subsequently fed into the rocket combustion chamber where it is ignited with stored liquid hydrogen. The high pressure ratio allows the engine to continue to provide high thrust at very high speeds and altitudes. The low temperature of the air permits light alloy construction to be employed which gives a very lightweight engine — essential for reaching orbit." —WikiPedia

If we had videosift back when the internal combustion engine was invented, it would have been slaughtered as being too expensive and impractical compared to a horse.

>> ^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.

excatly... tobacco grown naturally is far less risky than a manufactured cigarette... the poison they put on the cigs during processing turns radioactive when combusted.

and as for this being an anti-pot argument? There are several smokeless methods, none of which affect the pulmonary system negatively. So, next argument.

What's that? illegaldrugsareallbadthinkofthechildren??

Oh, ok ill shut up. Good point.

Fucking Terrorist DEA