M-1A1 Not Invincible?

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:25 pm

Kashluk wrote:Of course, people should be allowed to have luxury things as well but this means we have to invent a cheap, non-polluting and highly available fuel for those vehicles to consume.

Excuse my ignorance but what's wrong with LPG? Until oil runs out that is...
What about CNG?

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:56 pm

I doubt 426 hemi runs on either one of those.

But a good point, nevertheless... Maybe a better choice of words for me would've been: "(...) this means we have to invent and include cheap, non-polluting and highly available fuel(-systems) for those vehicles".

Most of the cars running on less-polluting etc. fuel look like shit and have really low engine power. Then again BMW and Mercedes have cars running on hydrogen.... but hydrogen isn't highly available, or at least I haven't seen a "hyd station" at any highway.

MurPHy · Post by **MurPHy** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 10:12 pm

Most of the cars running on less-polluting etc. fuel look like shit and have really low engine power. Then again BMW and Mercedes have cars running on hydrogen.... but hydrogen isn't highly available, or at least I haven't seen a "hyd station" at any highway.

There's a few "hydro" stations in europe, but they are just part of an experiment, or so I hear. Nothing mainstream yet. We might have a working, economically viable, alternative fuel source to oil in 2050 maybe?

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 10:53 pm

If this technology works as well as they claim, we might not have to ever develop an alternative to oil.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:25 am

Doyle wrote:If this technology works as well as they claim, we might not have to ever develop an alternative to oil.

That's an interesting article, but I still don't see why we're not looking into cleaner alternatives. After all, if your vehicle is running on a synthetic version of gasoline, it still has the vices of a gasoline engine. While this would indeed be a renewable resource and would remove one of the negative factors of dependance on oil it's certainly no panacea.

The only thing that's really killing the idea of an electric car right now is the batteries they run on. What needs to happen is that we improve batteries so that electric vehicles don't have to sit around plugged in constantly, sucking expensive juice from your wall socket. With an improvement of battery technology we'd also need to set up things like solar collection stations, many of which could be in orbit or in those vast, sunbaked deserts in Saharan Africa, the Southwestern US of A, etc., etc.

For the economically minded, I'll paraphrase a classic line from The Graduate: "Batteries. There's a great future in batteries."

I would like to point out that electricity isn't necessarily as clean and environmentally friendly as some would like to think. Take a look at the ways that electricity is generated in, and we see lots of coal being burned to do it. Reliance on solar power -- which is about as close to an unlimited supply of energy as we'll ever find, not to mention that it doesn't have the risks associated w/nuclear power -- would go a long way toward cleaning up the environment. Simply relying on electricity isn't the boon that many would have us think it is.

Along with the technological aspects of various forms of fuels, we also have to consider the economic ones. Namely, if you reduce or eliminate the reliance on coal, you're putting coal miners out of business. If you reduce or eliminate reliance on oil, you're throwing the economy of quite a few nations in the shitter. Something also needs to be done about this before we go galloping off and leave ourselves in a position that's just as riddled with wars, famine and poverty and other inequities as the status quo.

OTB

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 1:48 am

Cold Fusion would be cool. But im thinking on inventing another system to generate energy, magnetically compressing atoms until they begin emiting all fotons they have. IÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´m just waiting to become a genius and get my phD in nuclear physics.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 2:10 am

Grey Fil wrote:But im thinking on inventing another system to generate energy, magnetically compressing atoms until they begin emiting all fotons they have.

That's stupid. I bet you have no understanding of nuclear chemistry whatsoever.

Radoteur · Post by **Radoteur** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:42 am

If I understood that article correctly, then the energy from the waste isn't really more efficient than from the ground crude oil. As in, it isn't better than ground oil, but it is a good way to get rid of some of our waste and make something useful. The major factor that makes it profitable is that usually they have to pay money to get rid of the waste, but now they can make some money off of it.
Of course, I read it way back when it came out on paper and didn't bother reading it again.

That's a fun article, though.

Also, about the solar energy bit, I remember reading somewhere or seeing pictures of a giant tower shaped in a tube that would be a solar power plant. Basically it's a giant flat greenhouse on the ground and a giant tunnel going upward with fans inside of the tunnel. Apparently, the sun would heat up the air inside the greenhouse, making it warm and making it rise. The rising air would turn the turbines, creating electricity. I guess they were having problems with it, though, because for it to be worthwhile, the giant tunnel would have to be taller than the tallest building in the world. Maybe I'll try and find the article if anyone is interested.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 2:30 pm

globalsecurity.org wrote:The Abrams has been using Depleted Uranium (DU) armor since 1988. In 1996, a design change to the armor package was made by the Army and cut-in to production by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) via Change Request XMPP-2083 in Oct 96 and effective with Job #1 M1A2 Phase II AUT. The use of DU armor is a primary feature that distinguishes the Abrams tank from numerous other commonly accepted equipment employed by the military and industry. The current use of the depleted uranium (DU) armor package on the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) Heavy Armor System has been re-evaluated to determine whether the environmental impacts of its continued use remain insignificant, taking into consideration the current use of the tank and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) reduction in allowable radiation exposure from 500 mrem/year to 100 mrem/year for tank and maintenance crews (individual members of the public).

A bit late, but late is better than never. Right?

Like I said, DU armor on the M1A1 is no secret, and hasn't been for a long time.

Here's a link if you're interested.

OTB

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 3:00 pm

What's the big fuss about the DU armor? Just put some lead somewhere between the DU and the crew, and everyone's happy!

Then again, lead is cheap but refitting each fuggin tank probably isn't.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:13 pm

The problem with solar power is mainly the batteries. Storing energy, which supply is not regular (at least on these altitudes... It might shine or it might shine not - for 6 months), is really important. But without efficient and dependable batteries were screwed. They must be small enough too, so they won't eat too much storage space.

Of course solar power works well, say somewhere in the equator? It requires a constant feed of sunlight, which you have in such places, but still the batteries are problematic.

The price is one thing too, but that'll go down as soon as it will go more mainstream.

Windpower... Well that's another story, but it's even less reliable than solar power. Waterpower on the other hand... Dams are a great source of energy and they're clean too, but building them usually causes a macro-scale ecological catastrophe, so that's not good either.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:49 pm

The ocean-tide power plants seem like they would really suck for the immediate crustaceans and stuff, but I doubt there's much widespread ecological impact related to it, though not too much power can be garnered.

I'm just sorta crossing my fingers for cold fusion. People don't realize this because of ignorance, but cold fusion is actually theoretically safer than our fission plants. (though I think we should have more of those too.)

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:55 pm

Yeah, cold fusion rocks. I can't really preach for it though (since I don't know too much about it) but from what I've heard it sounds splendid.

Solar power ain't that bad, really. Most people have negative views of it, but (1) it's cheap compared to other forms of power; (2) per area / unit cost, it powers a lot more than people think; (3) it costs little to maintain; (4) no really bad side effects. Plus, we can afford it.

Windpower, on the other hand, ain't bad either, but we can't depend on it. The other problem with wind power is, it's expensive and requires a lot of space.

Dam/tidal power rocks though - it's pretty much the same case as solar.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:01 pm

No Kashluk is correct when he stated that it causes ecological disasters. And yes of course cold fusion is "splendid". We start up the beast, feed it a continuous supply of fuel (only slightly radioactive) and PRESTO, you get a shitload more energy out of it than you put in, and the only waste is water.

I'm all about harnessing the power of E=mc^2.

Maybe I should start a thread with my design blueprints for my little nuke reactor I've been thinking up? It's theoretically sound, I assure you. Actually I would post it but I'm afraid JJ might have another bout of PMS and lock it

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Mon Dec 01, 2003 8:57 pm

Franz_Schubert wrote:I'm just sorta crossing my fingers for cold fusion. People don't realize this because of ignorance, but cold fusion is actually theoretically safer than our fission plants. (though I think we should have more of those too.)

may it be because cold fusion is almost impossible?

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 2:49 am

Cold fusion is a theoretical possibility only, but nobody knows if it ever will be practical.

Another method nearer to reality (but not by much) is anti-matter- matter anhialition. Particles of anti-matter react with the corresponding particle of matter and destroy each other generating fotons (energy).
The big problems are how to generate and store the anti-matter and how to control the reaction.

The big hope for nuclear energy in the coming years is nuclear fusion, the fuel is plentiful (hidrogen)and easy to manipulate and there have been good advances in the reaction control process. It is also very clean in that it leaves little radioactive material with a very short half-life. In case of an accident it would not cause serious fallout nor contaminate for long the area of the disaster.

Dams are dam good in that they are reliable, relativly cheap sources of energy, and the ecological changes associated with them are not really disasters altough they may be disastrous for some ecosystems. Explaining with an example: A dam in a desert may radically alter the flora and fauna in the area and even cause extintion of species but it will not cause a wasteland. Just substitute one ecosystem with another. The dams will also fill up with silt and become useless after some decades, depending on the case from 20 or 30 years to several centuries. Dams are good but they can not be "planted" everywhere.

Solar, wind and tide generators have severe drawbacks. They are either not constant, usable in very restricted areas only and require heavy investment in instalation and maintenance. They may become excelent COMPLEMENTARY sources of energy in the near future but until the problem of energy storage is solved they can not become reliable sources.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:07 pm

LOL he thinks matter/anti-matter reactions are more feasible than cold fusion. Cold fusion is an impossibility? Hmm, you must know something the nuclear physicists in Japan (who have already broken even) don't know.

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 4:04 pm

They did? The only experience with positive results I know of was a fiasco some years ago that was impossible to reproduce and was attributed to some error. Do you have any link to artikle on the web?

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:16 pm

Never take anything for impossible. History proved humanity was most of the time wrong. The fiasco you are talking about I believe happened in 1987 I think, or maybe 89. It was actually some impostors trying to sell BS.

The project is very well active.

http://www.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/nuc/03/nuc ... stract.pdf

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 2:03 am

The projects are active but they are the ones with the biggest problems ahead to solve IMO, they are the ones who still work almost exclusively on paper.