MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

J

J. Clarke

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
Nicely explained.

Except that it makes assumptions about the type of fuel cell without
mentioning that that is only one design among many and not necessarily
the most efficient.
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
J. Clarke said:
It's 21 times the price in Venzuela. So what?

Irrelevant random data. Why even bother post this nonsense ?

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
J. Clarke said:
You're the one making the assertion. If you can't back it up then
it's bullshit.


Patently transparent attempt avoid addressing the paucity of massive
hydrogen explosions.

It's the *shock wave* that does the initial damage regardless of what gas
it is.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
J. Clarke said:
Except that it makes assumptions about the type of fuel cell without
mentioning that that is only one design among many and not necessarily
the most efficient.

I suppose you're an expert on those too are you ?

How about you provide some CREDIBLE data that shows better.

Graham
 
J

J. Clarke

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
Irrelevant random data. Why even bother post this nonsense ?

So is the gas price in South Africa so why did you ask about it?
 
J

J. Clarke

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
It's the *shock wave* that does the initial damage regardless of
what
gas it is.

Still evading the issue.
 
J

J. Clarke

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
I suppose you're an expert on those too are you ?

How about you provide some CREDIBLE data that shows better.

No thanks. I'm tired of playing your little game. <plonk>
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
J. Clarke said:
So is the gas price in South Africa so why did you ask about it?

You're just trolling now. Boring. If you can't work out the relevancies
of various things for yourself, don't expect me to do it for you.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
J. Clarke said:
Still evading the issue.

It IS the issue you damn fool. Clearly you're an engineering incompetent.

Graham
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
J. Clarke said:
No thanks. I'm tired of playing your little game. <plonk>

Ah, you mean you didn't have any data. Can't say I'm surprised.

Graham
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Eeyore said:
Gasoline fuel tanks only 'explode' in Hollywood movies. See
Mythbusters attempts to do it.

Jet fuel is harder to ignite than gasoline. Yet a nearly empty jet fuel
tank that exploded brought down TWA 800 with no survivors. How many were
killed on Quantas QF30 ??

But you're right, gas tanks only 'explode' in the movies. Usually they just
spill burning fuel everywhere. As opposed to H2 that goes upward in a large
fireball.

daestrom
 
E

Eeyore

Jan 1, 1970
0
daestrom said:
Jet fuel is harder to ignite than gasoline. Yet a nearly empty jet fuel
tank that exploded brought down TWA 800 with no survivors.

Because the vapours are actually more dangerous than the fuel. You of all people
should know that.

How many were killed on Quantas QF30 ??

None of course but it could have been a close thing if you read the aviation
forums.

But you're right, gas tanks only 'explode' in the movies.

American movies mainly. See 'Ronin' for what really happens. A film worth
watching anyway.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0122690/

Usually they just spill burning fuel everywhere. As opposed to H2 that goes
upward in a large fireball.

But also creates intense shock wave damage.

Graham
 
Top