Information icon.svg Please vote in the 2017 board of trustees election. The cabal thanks you for your service.


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

We can't delete this! My hilarious joke will be lost to eternity! Lurker 11:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I vote keep. The elements are funny (especially the "gas"es!), and back up chemistry, which is a science, which we are defending against the Huckabee/Schlafly hordes. Someday we should have articles on all 150 or so of them! humanUser talk:Human 12:06, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Is it a question of voting "keep" or of explaining how they fit into: 1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people. 2. Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. ?--Bobbing up 12:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)
I thought my second sentence explained my vote in exactly that fashion. The "vote keep" part is for clarity for those just skimming. To do (1.) we also sometimes need to explain the real science, and elements are, um, elementary. Except for quintessence, which is bullshit. PS, how about a clear explanation for the addition of the template? Simply adding the template is the equivalent of just typing "delete"... humanUser talk:Human 12:33, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Well in that case we might as well start writing a science encyclopedia. There is no aspect of the physical world, and no scientific discipline, whose inclusion couldn't be justified on that basis.--Bobbing up 12:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)
And if we want to write them, especially if we make them funny, why shouldn't we? It's a nice break between refuting crazy people and laughing at CP. I still await a reason to remove this article that is not a sweeping generalization. humanUser talk:Human 13:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Can't it just be moved to the Fun space? Sterilexx 13:04, 1 February 2008 (EST) PS Human--There're only 117 of them. Sterilexx 13:04, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I don't see any reason to move to "fun". And ther are really only about 97 or so - we made the rest up according to the Good Lord's nucleic assembly formulae. I said "150" to allow for such articles as "unobtainium" (which is in "fun" where it belongs). Anyhoo, I am still waiting for a simple cogent statement of why we should not have an article on hydrogen (or any other element). Simply slapping "mission" on an article without starting a discussion stating a reason is not very useful, IMHO. We have lots of science articles, partly because we like writing them, and partly because they sometimes "support" our attacks on non-science.
Should we also delete gas giant? Big bang? humanUser talk:Human 13:16, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Save me!

I think we should table this discussion!

I would have thought the template was self explanatory. But I'm removing removed the ones I placed. Good luck with your elements. :-) --Bobbing up 03:55, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Hydrogen economy and perpetual motion[edit]

No, hydrogen is not perpetual motion. It is true that it isn't free energy and it must come from somewhere else and at a further energy cost. But it is far from perpetual motion. Besides, hydrogen IS a good idea, if it can be implemented well:

  • for once, the idea is that the energy used to get hydrogen is obtained away from the cities so that the cities are less polluted.
  • a case can be made that for the health of the whole planet the place where pollution happens is irrelevant, but a large hydrogen production plant would be able to reduce pollution per energy unit to much lower levels than a moving vehicle (your car) can.
  • finally, in some tens of years hydrogen should be a by product of fourth generation nuclear power plants and some years after of nuclear fusion plants at virtually no environmental cost. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 13:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Hydrogen fuel is not perpetual motion, but the "hydrogen economy" is. If it's possible to siphon waste hydrogen off of nuclear power cores, so much the better -- it's essentially a bonus. But there is no way to make hydrogen as an energy source viable without a source of free hydrogen; you're still stuck as using hydrogen as a storage compound only. EVDebs 16:07, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
And I still fail to see how it relates to perpetual motion. Or is your point that people fail to see that hydrogen must be created somehow and it costs more energy to create than it contains, and consider it a miracle source of free energy? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 16:29, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Precisely. EVDebs 16:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, ok then. "Perpetual motion" IS still wrong, but I guess it's better to use it to more easily educate the masses. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 16:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
The current version is much clearer, I think. You gotta love confabulative projects! ħumanUser talk:Human 17:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Energy balance[edit]

While it clearly takes more energy to produce hydrogen from water than is contained in the produced hydrogen; I'm not sure about Hydrogen refactored from natural gas (which I think most is). Of course you're starting off with a product which is already pretty energy dense, but I think it's a different issue and there are also far more more pollution concerns.--Bobbing up 17:52, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

These are semantics. I mean, obviously to produce 1 kJ worth of hydrogen you need MORE than 1 kJ worth of natural gas, but the process itself is much less than that. The downside is that you consume that natural gas to produced hydrogen instead of using it for "useful" applications such as providing energy to your car. Otherwise, you would have falsified the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is surely possible, but quite unlikely. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 18:00, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
And long term (or even short term) it seems silly to convert methane to hydrogen to use as a portable fuel. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Unless, possibly, in so doing you can avoid the production of CO2 which the use of methane as a fuel (nearly?) always causes. If you could do that then if the 'energy out' to 'energy in' is high enough it might be worth it. Seems unlikely to me though but then I'm no expert. To me it seems that the use of hydrogen is just another way of assuaging guilt about production of CO2, rather in the same way that users of electric cars think they're saving the planet (just where does their electricity come from?) Weirdbeard 03:54, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Yah, but what happens to the carbon in CH4? We gonna make synthetic diamonds with it? Pencils? How do we keep it from mixing with dioxides and making everything clammy outside again? Hehe.... By the way, at least electric and hybrid cars tend to be small/light - thus more efficient. That's a good thing. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:58, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Simple, we stick it in a nuclear reactor and turn it into boron :-) Weirdbeard 04:07, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Oh yeah, I forgot that! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:58, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

This is the biggest problem with refactoring - it produces good clean hydrogen and nasty carbon monoxide. What do you do with the carbon monoxide? The majority of the hydrogen presently used come from this process which makes hydrogen a bit of a joke as a "clean" fuel. --Bobbing up 07:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Hindenberg airship[edit]

I know it is a 1930s disaster - but could it have its own page, given the number of theories - see the WP page [1] for a list. (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)