How big....

Status
Not open for further replies.

junior

Spaceman
Originally posted by Unforgiven

They are not. Star Trek writers just took NC of airplanes and added an extra C to make it look cool. Nobody knows what it stands for. There is not explanation, at least not a canon one.

??

I've always seen it written as 'Naval Construction Code'.

*shrug*

Oh, well.
 

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by Madman
he seems to believe that its the best ship ever, because it has four engines?! u could make a car with four engines! it would not be the best car ever, and if u made it wrong, it wouldnt go anywhere! (forces canceling each other out!)

I would have to disagree... That would be the best car ever.

TC
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Originally posted by dacis2
what do you use, fuel cells? then it would be perfect
Eeek why? Fuel cells suck.

The big proponnents of fuel cells are environmentalists, which makes sense, because fuel cells pollute less than gasoline engines, but there are a few problems.

First and foremost, they don't go vroom. Cars today are fun because something violent is going on under the hood. Explosives are burning and making noise, and machinery is moving, and it's all very visceral and entertaining. Taking that away would make automobiles lifeless, and nearly kill the sports car.

Secondly, fuel cells pollute. This is one of the tragic problems with today's fuel cells. They still release so-called "harmful" compounds into the air. Now, whether you believe in global warming and all that or not, it seems silly in any case to take all the fun out of our cars for an incomplete solution.

The perfect choice for cars would of course be hydrogen-powere internal-combustion engines. these engines produce equal horsepower and excitement to their gasoline counterparts, while releasing 0 harmful emissions. BMW has a V-12 that can run on Hydrogen, producing well over 400 horsepower.

Hydrogen is equally as safe to put in your tank as gasoline, requires no massive retooling of automobile production lines, can be retrofitted to older gasoline cars, and can run cheaply. Hydrogen can be produced using water and either solar or nuclear power, providing cheap, effective horsepower.

Hydrogen engines offer a lot of perks. More horsepower and torque as a result of larger engines being available. All engines would be emissions legal, and fuel would be cheap. Big honking fuel-guzzling big-block monsters would rule the streets again. Everyone could afford to own a performance car, or a larger car than they do now, and be "saving the planet" at the same time.

I think it's important that we all avoid latching onto the fuel cell idea because it offers few perks, and has drawbacks, as opposed to hydrogen combustion, which is win/win all the way.

BMW and BP, I believe, are working together to create hydrogen-pumping infrastructure for these cars of the future, which should show up in showrooms within 10 years. Let's hope they're popular.
 

TC

SubCrid
The gathering of hydrogen for modern fuel cells is not efficient and therefore causes at least as much pollution as standard cars, generally. In fact, the most common method of gathering hydrogen is through the burning of fossil fuels.

TC
 

Meson

Swabbie
Banned
Using batteries and electrolysis would make things a lot faster, and all you need would be water. The only polutants would be heat, oxygen, and excess water.
 

TC

SubCrid
because batteries are magically filled with electricity without producing pollutants.

TC
 

Madman

Vice Admiral
erm problem :D sure hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but theres a lil shortage on the earth, cos it can escape and besides, any matches lit, and area hydrogen goes bye bye!

secondly creation from nuclear reactors or water, the energy required to split a water molecule, more than accounts for the energy gained, its about 5 times as much, hence u need a lotta power to make a lot less power :rolleyes: this can only be described as not good and the nuclear reactor, well. nuclear fission involves the splitting of uranium which is 238 as its mass, sooo u need a fair bit of splitting, including the extremely stable helium atom to get hydrogen, pray tell, wheres the power?, hydrogen engines in space, when using the engine maybe once a week, and covering vast areas in between, are all well and good. but on the earth, a hydrogen engine simply isnt acceptable,

and finally the number one reason that ur suggestion is silly!

u said we cant use fuel cells cos they release greenhouse gasses, well, what do u think water vapour is? u got it! a greenhouse gas!

good avoidance of the problem ;)
 

junior

Spaceman
Originally posted by Madman
erm problem :D sure hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but theres a lil shortage on the earth, cos it can escape and besides, any matches lit, and area hydrogen goes bye bye!

As opposed to gasoline, which is a perfectly safe substance?
My old scoutmaster once told me a story about a demonstration he saw in his youth. Someone took a gasoline can, emptied it, and then set it on a platform with a long plank leading from the opening on the can to a lit candle. It sat there for a minute or so, and then a huge fireball shot up from the candle to the empty gas can.

Originally posted by Madman
u said we cant use fuel cells cos they release greenhouse gasses, well, what do u think water vapour is?

Um...
Steam?
The same stuff that eventually comes right back down at is in the form of rain?
I give up. What is it?
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Originally posted by Madman
erm problem :D sure hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but theres a lil shortage on the earth, cos it can escape
Well it's a good thing we have an abundance of water on the planet then, from which we can extract hydrogen for use. Guess it's not such a problem after all.
Originally posted by Madman
u said we cant use fuel cells cos they release greenhouse gasses, well, what do u think water vapour is? u got it! a greenhouse gas!
Are you fucking retarded?
 

Madman

Vice Admiral
HELLO! are u stupid! you cant extract hydrogen from water, it requires more energy than the combustion of hydrogen HOW STUPID CAN U GET!

no im not retarded, water vapour is a greenhouse gas, ask a chemistry teacher, ask a geography teacher, ASK JEEVES!
 

junior

Spaceman
Originally posted by Madman
no im not retarded, water vapour is a greenhouse gas, ask a chemistry teacher, ask a geography teacher, ASK JEEVES!

True, rain clouds (i.e. water vapor) due tend to trap heat, but they also tend to dissipate rather rapidly in the form of rain, as opposed to things such as carbon monoxide, which from my rather incomplete understanding of greenhouse gases, stay up there for a longer period of time.
 

Madman

Vice Admiral
carbon monoxide is caused due to incomplete combustion of alkenes and alkanes, simeple solution, make efficient engines, ur point tho is valid, water vapour is less of a problem than CO but, the person who said fuel cells were crap proposed a hydrogen engine, because it had no harmful emissions, water vapour in large amounts can be harmful to the environment, as it is a greenhouse gas
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
While watervapor does return to earth, it IS a greenhouse gas, infact it accounts for a large percentage of the greenhouse effect on earth, but it comes down as rain CO2 does not, thus making it better...
 

Saturnyne

Vice Admiral
The main problem with water vapor is that it's hot. In great amounts, it might mess with local climates and might kill plants and insects, and some animals. Otherwise, it's completely harmless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top