Islam: What the world is dealing with...

[river rat]

Note to self:

Tolerate others opinions...
Be open to other ideas and thoughts...
Free Speech...
10 second rule...
...

...

...


Rive rat, are you stoned out of your gourd????




Ain't nobody talking about the governments; look at the people, the Arab 'street'. Look at Islamic reactions, Muslim reactions, of the people right after 9/11. Look at the Palestinians and the recent election, the landslide for Hamas.

Check out the other thread and READ the words of Irans President.

Read a few books. Connect a few dots.

No I haven't been stoned in a while....if a radical Muslim were here maybe I could get a good stoning

However, you and I both know that there are people who follow Islam, who did NOT take pleasure in the bombing of 9/11.
The same as their radical groups training them too look at us in a resentful light, are we not guilty of them same by profiling all Muslims by what was fed to us on the TV (their Hoorays) on 9/11

 

[Mikeinsmd]

I can attest that River is not stoned out of their gord or drunk or anything. I too don't understand the way it was questioned so I asked for an explanation. I too know that I come off differently when I write versus being in person speaking to someone. Somehow I don't think that is what River meant, I think it just came out wrong.

It's hilarious when you talk to your MPD's....

 

[ylexot]

Fractionation of water -> fuel source.

Nope. It takes energy to break up that water...more energy than you get out of it when you use the hydrogen as a fuel. The reason gas is a good fuel is because nature did a lot of the work for us. Gas releases more energy when burned than it takes to refine it from oil.

When talking energy, you have to look at the entire energy cycle.

 

[sinwagon]

I'm sure there have been cartoons about Jesus and God before.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Nope. It takes energy to break up that water...more energy than you get out of it when you use the hydrogen as a fuel. The reason gas is a good fuel is because nature did a lot of the work for us. Gas releases more energy when burned than it takes to refine it from oil.

When talking energy, you have to look at the entire energy cycle.

You are right. It takes energy to produce hydrogen. You are wrong about gas. Every system of fractionation, whether it is water or petroleum takes energy; more energy than what is obtained by the burning or other conversion of the fractionated products into energy. If gas gave more energy than it took to fractionate it, that would be an energy system that yields more that 100% of the energy put into it. That would mean there is no heat loss or other conversion losses. That is an impossibility in the real world according to physics and thermodynamics.

Fractionation is used as a means to produce a product than can be used easily to produce something else in some sort of reaction whether it is primarily used to release stored energy or for some other reaction.

A barrel of crude oil has a specific number of BTUs that can potentially be released. The refining process uses energy in the form of heat (BTUs) from an external source to heat the crude oil and the vapor then goes through columns for various heights in order to produce the fractionation products from the crude by condensation. Some of the fractionation products are gasoline, kerosene, #2 fuel oil, gas oil, lubricating oils, wax distillate including paraffin (from paraffin based crude), and cylinder stock or bottoms (the grude left over) which can have the wax portion removed and made into micro wax. You can get more products from the crude or products of fractionation through catalyzation or other processes. Each of these has a specific number of BTUs that could be potentially released.

The sum of the BTUs from all the products will be less than the sum of the BTUs of the crude plus the BTUs used in the refining process. So whether it is gasoline, hydrogen, or anything else, the amount of energy needed to produce it is always less than the amount of energy derived from its use.

So it comes down to convenience of distribution, storage, products of combustion, and supply. Oil, while not sounding its death knell yet, is on the decline. Hydrogen is renewable and can be produced at almost any electric power plant. Distribution: with some modification, the oil pipelines could be used to pipe hydrogen. The natural gas pipelines certainly could, probably today. The product of combustion of hydrogen is water. Storage of hydrogen is a bit difficult as is the transfer from mass storage to individual use such as cars and trucks, but the methodology is there since propane and natural gas is used to power vehicles now. The days of self service would probably be over, but that would not be a change for New Jersey.

 

[ylexot]

You are right. It takes energy to produce hydrogen. You are wrong about gas. Every system of fractionation, whether it is water or petroleum takes energy; more energy than what is obtained by the burning or other conversion of the fractionated products into energy. If gas gave more energy than it took to fractionate it, that would be an energy system that yields more that 100% of the energy put into it. That would mean there is no heat loss or other conversion losses. That is an impossibility in the real world according to physics and thermodynamics.

Fractionation is used as a means to produce a product than can be used easily to produce something else in some sort of reaction whether it is primarily used to release stored energy or for some other reaction.

A barrel of crude oil has a specific number of BTUs that can potentially be released. The refining process uses energy in the form of heat (BTUs) from an external source to heat the crude oil and the vapor then goes through columns for various heights in order to produce the fractionation products from the crude by condensation. Some of the fractionation products are gasoline, kerosene, #2 fuel oil, gas oil, lubricating oils, wax distillate including paraffin (from paraffin based crude), and cylinder stock or bottoms (the grude left over) which can have the wax portion removed and made into micro wax. You can get more products from the crude or products of fractionation through catalyzation or other processes. Each of these has a specific number of BTUs that could be potentially released.

The sum of the BTUs from all the products will be less than the sum of the BTUs of the crude plus the BTUs used in the refining process. So whether it is gasoline, hydrogen, or anything else, the amount of energy needed to produce it is always less than the amount of energy derived from its use.

Wrong. Here's why...when gas is burned, the result is not the original form (oil). Oil+some energy -> gas+other stuff, gas+small amount of energy (spark) -> huge amount of energy+other stuff

You need to look at
Energy Return On Energy Inevsted (EROEI). Everything I've found says that the EROEI for oil is ~20-40. I couldn't find numbers for EROEI relating to hydrogen, but I did find this.

The basic problem of hydrogen fuel cells is that the second law of thermodynamics dictates that we will always have to expend more energy deriving the hydrogen than we will receive from the usage of that hydrogen. The common misconception is that hydrogen fuel cells are an alternative energy source when they are not.

In reality, hydrogen fuel cells are a storage battery for energy derived from other sources. In a fuel cell, hydrogen and oxygen are fed to the anode and cathode, respectively, of each cell. Electrons stripped from the hydrogen produce direct current electricity which can be used in a DC electric motor or converted to alternating current.

Because of the second law of thermodynamics, hydrogen fuel cells will always have a bad EROEI. If fossil fuels are used to generate the hydrogen, either through the Methane-Steam method or through Electrolysis of Water, there will be no advantage over using the fossil fuels directly. The use of hydrogen as an intermediate form of energy storage is justified only when there is some reason for not using the primary source directly. For this reason, a hydrogen-based economy must depend on large-scale development of nuclear power or solar electricity.

Sounds kinda familiar...
That page also has many more reasons why hydrogen is

 

[mrweb]

It's the same old crap. The EU nations will hand wring and bend over backwards to ass smooch the Muslims, even going so far as to quash their own liberties to do so.

Everyone will express outrage to pacify them and re-enforce the now normal idea that the barbarians need to do is to set a few fires, behead a few innocent bystanders, blow up a few kids and then they will get nations to cower and kneel.

Why do the Dutch, French and the rest of the EU nations even give a crap?

1. Oil, just like us they know that Saudi Arabia, Iran and the rest try to pass themselves off as governments, responsible and just but in the end they are just puppets to their insurgencies.

2. Muslim infiltration. The EU countries could not care less is outraged Muslims kill themselves and chant "over there" but in recent decades immigration of Muslims into Europe has been huge. Now those countries have large Muslim components. If they don't pamper them the bombs and be headings will start in Copenhagen.

Didn't they do this with the Third Reich? There seem to be a lot of parallels IMO.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Wrong. Here's why...when gas is burned, the result is not the original form (oil). Oil+some energy -> gas+other stuff, gas+small amount of energy (spark) -> huge amount of energy+other stuff

You need to look at
Energy Return On Energy Inevsted (EROEI). Everything I've found says that the EROEI for oil is ~20-40. I couldn't find numbers for EROEI relating to hydrogen, but I did find this. Sounds kinda familiar...
That page also has many more reasons why hydrogen is

The premise of the page you reference violates the laws of physics against perpetual motion or energy. Can't happen. No system can produce more energy than was put into it either potentially or dynamically. So you and that site are wrong.

Hydrogen has it's problems. Water vapor produced could change the environment drastically. It could rain all the time. Excessive cloud cover could cause vegetation to die.

The point is we need to not be dependent on any energy source that we do not control.

 

[ylexot]

The premise of the page you reference violates the laws of physics against perpetual motion or energy. Can't happen. No system can produce more energy than was put into it either potentially or dynamically. So you and that site are wrong.

Only if the start and end points are the same.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Only if the start and end points are the same.

How about if I make it really simple. You can't get something from nothing.

Never mind. You won't get it.

 

[ylexot]

How about if I make it really simple. You can't get something from nothing.

Never mind. You won't get it.

Oh, I absolutely understand thermodynamics. I had several classes on it. It is you that is not understanding. Please define the boundaries of your system.

 

[Lenny]

Fractionation of water -> fuel source.

This it a lot like "...use ethanol from corn to power your car, it's a renewable energy source." They forget to mention that it takes more energy and oil to produce the ethanol than they get out of the ethanol in the first place. How much energy do you get from putting Hydroten and Oxygen together again over and above what it takes to fractionate it in the first place?



OBJECTION: Your honor, the question has been asked and answered.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The system is the earth. We could go larger, but to think smaller is foolish.

There are only a few energy sources that are "free" and even they are running out; solar, wind (generally solar based), and tidal. Even the sun is dying, and the earths rotation seems to be slowing down (no, i can't prove it. might be true might not - I read it on the Internet) and to think in our lifetime is just arrogance. In this case, the system is the solar system.

No, hydrogen is not free nor is alcohol, and I did not say they produce energy over and above what it takes to produce them. Solar and nuclear can be used to produce them. They are renewable. Oil is definitely not renewable nor is natural gas. Pick an alternative. I don't much care what it is. It is a little tough to run a car on coal (also not renewable), but it can be done. I have no dog in the race. I just don't want to be at the mercy of people that do not have the best interest of the United States at heart which is the rest of the world, certainly the Arab world, and most of the Democrats.

 

[ylexot]

The system is the earth. We could go larger, but to think smaller is foolish.

There are only a few energy sources that are "free" and even they are running out; solar, wind (generally solar based), and tidal. Even the sun is dying, and the earths rotation seems to be slowing down (no, i can't prove it. might be true might not - I read it on the Internet) and to think in our lifetime is just arrogance. In this case, the system is the solar system.

Ok, if the Earth is the system boundary, than the only significant energy in and out is light and heat. Within the system, there is kinetic and potential. There are only two options...release the potential energy or convert the kinetic into potential so that it can be converted back into kinetic. Well, there is a third...kinetic to kinetic (i.e. sailing). Oil has chemical potential energy. Think of it as a battery that has already been charged by the sun. Hydrogen is a dead battery that needs to be charged before it can be discharged.

So, why is hydrogen the answer? I prefer nuke and solar myself.

 

[2ndAmendment]

So, why is hydrogen the answer? I prefer nuke and solar myself.

Did you bother to read the rest of my post before you jumped?

A nuclear powered car might be a bit challenging. Solar cars do work, but are of relatively little practical use; so far, one person, can't run at night, no luggage, no air conditioning, no heat. Not my ideal form of transportation.

If you had bothered to read the rest of my post, you would have seen that I think using nuclear or solar to produce hydrogen is probably viable.

Yes, oil has potential energy. Hydrogen has even more potential energy. It is water that is the "dead battery".

 

[ylexot]

Yes, I did read the rest. Pebble bed reactor. Much better solution than hydrogen. It needs work, but it's definitely a better idea that hydrogen. Then again, so is a battery...or a capacitor...or a flywheel...or ethanol...or biodiesel...or just about anything.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Yes, I did read the rest. Pebble bed reactor. Much better solution than hydrogen. It needs work, but it's definitely a better idea that hydrogen. Then again, so is a battery...or a capacitor...or a flywheel...or ethanol...or biodiesel...or just about anything.

Might be tough to get a pebble bed reactor under the hood of a car don't you think?

Are you just for your entertainment? If so, I don't appreciate it.

But good deflection technique, Caught in a miss statement, so change the attack. Are you a lawyer? I remember meeting you once, but don't remember much about it other than your were sitting at the bar.

Hydrogen, as I stated, is not my "golden boy". I really don't care. But we need an alternative to petroleum products for general use as a fuel. It is highly unlikely that we will be driving around with nuclear reactors of any type under the hood.

Oh, and since you seem to be directing and deflecting, the correct word would be "than" and not "that".

It seems you don't like having to expend energy to fractionate water to produce hydrogen, but you mention "battery", that must be charged, "...or a capacitor", that must be charged, "...or a flywheel", that must be spun up, "...or ethanol", which must be distilled, "...or biodiesel" which must be fractionated (as I remember it). So all of your "solutions" also must have energy put into them.

 

[ylexot]

Might be tough to get a pebble bed reactor under the hood of a car don't you think?{/quote]Maybe, maybe not. They are pretty simple and seem like they would scale well.

Are you just for your entertainment? If so, I don't appreciate it.

Nope. I don't do that.

But good deflection technique, Caught in a miss statement, so change the attack. Are you a lawyer? I remember meeting you once, but don't remember much about it other than your were sitting at the bar.

Nope, not a deflection. I admit that I misspoke. Nice of you to be like a lawyer and pick on a technicality. I'll be sure to respond to every single thing you say this time...just so you don't think that I'm "deflecting" your comments.

Hydrogen, as I stated, is not my "golden boy". I really don't care. But we need an alternative to petroleum products for general use as a fuel. It is highly unlikely that we will be driving around with nuclear reactors of any type under the hood.

It's not your "golden boy", but it is "the answer" (what started it all).

Oh, and since you seem to be directing and deflecting, the correct word would be "than" and not "that".

Good job, you caught a rare typo

It seems you don't like having to expend energy to fractionate water to produce hydrogen, but you mention "battery", that must be charged, "...or a capacitor", that must be charged, "...or a flywheel", that must be spun up, "...or ethanol", which must be distilled, "...or biodiesel" which must be fractionated (as I remember it). So all of your "solutions" also must have energy put into them.

And now we are back to the original argument...EROEI. For a given amount of energy out, it takes equal or less energy to "charge" those systems compared to "charging" a hydrogen system. Nature (the sun...aka solar energy) performs part of the "charging" for you for ethanol and biodiesel (and oil for that matter). Batteries, capacitors, and flywheels are probably equal to hyrdogen fuel cells...except we don't need to do billions of dollars and several decades to use them. They're available now, getting better, getting cheaper, getting safer. So, they have a few distinct advantages over hydrogen.

 

[mAlice]

from the movie Swordfish
Stanley: "War? Who are we at war with?"
Gabriel: "Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."

I think I'll watch this movie tonight.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Nope. I don't do that.

Nope, not a deflection. I admit that I misspoke. Nice of you to be like a lawyer and pick on a technicality. I'll be sure to respond to every single thing you say this time...just so you don't think that I'm "deflecting" your comments.

It's not your "golden boy", but it is "the answer" (what started it all).

Good job, you caught a rare typo

And now we are back to the original argument...EROEI. For a given amount of energy out, it takes equal or less energy to "charge" those systems compared to "charging" a hydrogen system. Nature (the sun...aka solar energy) performs part of the "charging" for you for ethanol and biodiesel (and oil for that matter). Batteries, capacitors, and flywheels are probably equal to hyrdogen fuel cells...except we don't need to do billions of dollars and several decades to use them. They're available now, getting better, getting cheaper, getting safer. So, they have a few distinct advantages over hydrogen.

Yes. I did say.

Hydrogen is the answer ... or corn (alcohol). Let them eat oil.

But that does not make hydrogen my "golden boy". I also included corn, which can be burned directly, made into alcohol or bio-diesel.

NASA uses hydrogen fuel cells. http://www.haruth.com/FuelCells.html They did not use flywheels or capacitors. They do use batteries.

Like I have posted several times. I don't care what the alternative is.
We just need something besides a supply that we do not control and is running out whether it runs out in our lifetime or not.

Do your understand the declarative sentence, "I don't care what the alternative is."?