The Pittsburgh Tribune is high on the limited-production of BMW liquified-hydrogen feuled cars, but there are some big caveats not mentioned.

Read the whole thing, as it's high on denying money to the Islamic Middle East, and notes that, except for fossil fuel exports, the entire Arab world has fewer exports than Finland.

But here's the thing about the cars:

The good news out of Munich is that BMW has come up with something that could do a better job than the CIA in defunding al-Qaida.
The BMW Hydrogen 7, available next year in a limited series of a few hundred cars in the United States and other countries, runs on either gasoline or liquefied hydrogen.

"Running in the hydrogen mode, the BMW Hydrogen 7 essentially emits nothing but odorless vapor," reports The Auto Channel. "And unlike fossil fuels and traditional gasoline, hydrogen is available in virtually infinite supply."

A BMW engineer took off his glasses for the press and held them a few inches from the car's exhaust pipe. "See, I can even clean my lenses," he said, wiping the warm steam off with a felt cloth.

The aim, says BMW, is to "create a sustainable future for individual mobility independent of fossil fuels" by way of a technology that "does not in any way mean giving up the dynamics and performance typical of BMW." The Hydrogen 7, with a top speed limited electronically at 143 miles per hour, accelerates from 0-62 mph in 9.5 seconds.

Quicker yet, with a top speed of 185 miles per hour and doing 0-60 mph in 6.0 seconds, is BMW's hydrogen-powered H2R, unveiled two years ago at the Paris Auto Show.

Two days after BMW's Hydrogen 7 announcement, General Motors said its hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars should be on the roads as early as 2011. "This is to re-establish our technological credentials with the American public and the American media," said GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, speaking at the Camp Pendleton military base as the company delivered a hydrogen concept car that will be test-driven by Marines.

In July, Ford began production of a hydrogen engine that will be used in the E-450 shuttle bus in Florida. In January, Ford's F-250 Super Chief was introduced at the 2006 Detroit Auto Show, a concept truck that runs on gasoline, E85 ethanol or hydrogen.

Here's the problem with hydrogen as a "fuel source." It is not, as Steven Den Beste frequently reminds, a "fuel source" at all, like petroleum is. Rather, it a manufactured fuel, not an energy "source" but a converted energy form.

Stick a hole in an oil well and you have ready-to-use energy bubbling up. It'll burn as-is; invest a iiltte chemical energy into it and it will burn a lot better. It's got buttloads of potential energy in it already, thanks to millions of years of geological energy-inejection.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, is not ready-to-use as energy. We have trillions of tons of it, but it's not in a usuable form for energy.

My chemistry is creaky, but atoms want to reduce their potential energy. H2 is a high energy state for hydrogen. It wants to reduce its potential energy by bonding with other atoms into lower energy states. To make H2, you have to add all that energy back that was given up when it bonded to carbon or oxygen or whatever.

There are no H2 mines as there are helium mines.

So, to make H2 into a fuel will require burning other fuel in order to create the necessary energy to liberate H from its low-energy bondings and create higher-energy H2. And it's just a rule that you always use more energy in creating a different form of energy.

So H2 is a net energy drain.

However, that doesn't mean the necessary energy needs to come from oil. Nuclear reactors and coal-burning plants -- and we've got plenty of uranium and coal -- can provide the necessary energy for relatively low costs and produce the liquid hydrogen needed to fuel cars.

Still, we don't seem to be in any hurry to build nuke reactors or coal-burning plants.

And I'd be interested to know a comparison of the explosive power of a ruptured tank of liquified hydrogen as compared to a similar tank of gasoline. I'm guessing it's a hell of a lot worse to have a hydrogen tank blow up than a gasoline tank. Fuel burns when it becomes a gas, and gasoline is only somewhat volatile. A ruptured tank of liquified (and I assume highly refrigerated/pressurized) H2 is going to become a gas in like 1.3 microseconds and all of its fiery power will be instantly available for an explosion.

I'm not sure I like the idea of America's cars being replaced by bombs on wheels.

But it is, I suppose, hopeful. You take your optimism where you can get it.

Thanks to OgreGunner.

Hydrogen Bottle In A Bigger Bottle: Maybe the hydrogen tank can be held inside a bigger bottle containing a gas that desperately wants to bond with hydrogen, resulting in a less-exposive or even inert gas, so, theoretically, most escaping H2 would be immediately converted to some less-flamable compound.

You know that wouldn't work all the time, though. And anyone who wanted to make deliberately make their car into a bomb would just empty out the bigger bottle of gas so that only H2 would be flying out of a ruptured tank.

Posted by: Ace at 12:13 PM | Comments (53)
Post contains 922 words, total size 5 kb.

From the quasi ersatz religion of counterculture transnational "progressivism."

I'd check to see if Andi is fuming about this outrage, but why bother?

Ms. Underestimated nominates her for the most Obnoxious Insipid Bitch of the Year.

The leftist ar-tard thinks John Kasich's milquetoast reminder that one's actions in college follow them throughout their lives "sounds like a threat."

It's very important to these people to believe they matter enough to be threatened/eavesdropped on/persecuted.

They don't. Sorry to burst your bubble.

She's the perfect spokesman for the Stepford Left -- robotic, braindead, bilssfully self-assured about her factory-standard programming as only a Fembot can be.

Via Riehl World View, who doesn't seem to like her much either.

Posted by: Ace at 11:53 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Which, by the way, hasn't even been in business for a year yet.

Sigh.

In happier news, YouTube basically gets its traffic from pure-straight copyright infringement, and, as one guy I spoke to this weekend speculated, the only reason they haven't been sued out the wazoo yet is because they haven't yet had deep pockets.

Well, they soon will. Crazy Google Money.

Don't get me wrong; I like YouTube. I'm just angry to the point of explosive incontence about these jagoffs getting $1.6 Billion dollars for setting up servers allowing idiot high school kids to lip-sync to Justin Timberlake.

Want to make a quick (and I do mean quick) billion dollars?

Get a lot of server space and be prepared to run losses for a year. Create some site that allows teenagers and college students to look at each other and maybe have sex with each other (YouTube, Facebook, Friendster).

Within a year you'll have a billion dollar offer from Google or Yahoo for a business that gets huge traffic and makes not a cent in profits. Sure, it will cost you $300,000+ in tech/server costs for that year, but that's a chump investment for a cool billion.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Call centers have become dens of iniquity, in addition to dens of incompetence:

WHY does it take so long to get through to an Indian call centre? According to the Catholic Church, it's because everyone is too busy chatting up their colleagues — and maybe worse.

The church is so concerned by evidence that call centres are becoming dens of iniquity that it is offering week-long retreats in the hope of turning staff away from a life of sin.

Most centre workers are young, single and on starting salaries much higher than those of doctors or lawyers, so consequently the booming industry has brought about a social revolution.

"Women come to work with condoms in their handbags," said one call centre worker, Alkesh Dua. "Everyone is doing it. You're together all night in this cool, hip atmosphere, and you end up getting intimate."

Employers have tried to offset the monotonous nature of the work itself by creating an informal college campus atmosphere, where there is drinking and partying.

Since many staff work night shifts, after which normal socialising is impossible, office friendships — with accompanying sexual liaisons — have blossomed.

In Bangalore, a call centre hub, the rising number of abortions — up 50 per cent in two years — is blamed on licentious lifestyles.

I've noticed this. I think it's just unprofessional to ask me my Service Tag number, my OS, and what I'm wearing.

In related news, Mark Foley just applied to be Gateway Tech Help technician in Mumbia.

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

Anecdotal as hell, as it's only based on a couple dozen interviews, but interesting nonetheless.

Especially as it comes from the New York Times. (The original story, that is; the above link leads to Blue Crab Boulevard's excerpts.)

William Kristol made the point on FoxNews Sunday that the MSM is treating Christian conservatives as if they're actually "stupid." Which is of course exactly what the New York Times believes. He asked rhetorically if one of 253 Congressmen was a gay chickenhawk, would that really motivate them to change their basic opinions on judges, taxes, and terrorism?

Apparently they're not that stupid after all.

Posted by: Ace at 11:15 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

More crude fauxtography and photoshopping, this time in a DNC post about proudly supporting our troops.

Except the featured soldier isn't American, he's Canadian. And he's been photoshopped to make him look American.

At least to DNC photoshoppers, who apparently have no idea what a real American soldier's uniform is supposed to look like.

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Iran.

I wrote up my thoughts in more detail (shameless link-whoring alert) over at my site, but I wanted to make that point on a blog that gets, you know, read.

The big lesson today is the most obvious one, a lesson most any reader here could have imparted long before we got here. Namely, that any nation that wants nuclear weapons will eventually get them, and will get them by any means necessary.

Over ten years of focused diplomacy on North Korea yielded the exact situation all that blather was intended to prevent. What, did we not talk hard enough? Were the carrots not tasty enough? Not at all.

Those who believed in diplomacy at any price failed to recognize that North Korea wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons in order to put pressure on the international community, it was pursuing nuclear weapons in order to have nuclear weapons. Whatever appeasements North Korea could elicit before today will pale in comparison to what it can gain now that it has the ultimate means of blackmail at its disposal. Because the United States will never go to war against a nuclear-armed North Korea.

The question today is, given the Dave at Garfield Ridge nuclear corollary ("Any nation that wants nuclear weapons will eventually get them, and will get them by any means necessary"), what to do about Iran?

In my mind, Iran is even more of a clear-cut case than North Korea. After all, at least the Norks entertained the prospect of blackmail. Many were fooled by their own intellectual biases into thinking that all Pyongyang wanted was heating oil, civilian reactors, and friendly hugs, and they'd give up nuclear weapons in return for some international affection. Instead, all that was merely a means of stalling until today.

With regard to Iran, however, they're not even asking for hugs. They just want the Bomb, and will do what it takes to get it, however long it takes.

So, knowing that this brand of nuclear diplomacy can't stop a nation from getting what it wants, what are we going to do about Iran? Are we going to stand idly by just like we did with Kim Jong Il and let the Iranians get the Bomb?

I'm not holding my breath.

Guess I Should Have Made My Point Update: The reason why I call out Iran as the big loser is because I'm personally not as equivocal as this post lets on-- I believe that North Korea's actions make it increasingly likely, and perhaps inevitable, that we will go to war against Iran to stop them from becoming a nuclear state.

After all, how could any nation be any more isolated than North Korea, and they *still* got the Bomb. Compared to North Korea, Iran is more open than a 7-11. In the end, I don't see any nation other than the United States and the United Kingdom advocating anything diplomatically or economically serious against Iran. Thus, we'll eventually find ourselves with one option remaining, the military option. It'll be a bad one, for all the reasons Ace has written about here in the past, but my personal opinion is that events overnight make it increasingly likely to be the "least bad" option.

Unless, of course, we're all happily willing to accept a nuclear Iran.

---
This posting was made on my personal computer.

Posted by: Dave From Garfield Ridge at 07:13 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 576 words, total size 3 kb.

Hey, it ain't no Flyin' Car but it's pretty cool. News from the first Rocketbelt Convention.

In April 20, 1961, Harold Graham made history by being the first person to achieve liftoff using a rocketbelt—a rocket-powered "jet pack" that straps on the flyer's back.

1961? Ace weren't even alive back then.

Flying with a rocketbelt is extremely dangerous. The would-be aviator must strap a contraption onto his back that includes two large tanks filled with highly combustible fuel, concentrated "rocket-grade" hydrogen peroxide. The flier turns a motorcyclelike hand throttle that opens a valve and releases nitrogen into the two tanks, which causes the fuel to expand to 5,000 times its size. The fuel is then forced through a catalyst pack and converted to steam that can reach 1,300 degrees, providing enough power to thrust itself and the person wearing it into the air.

1,300 degrees! Better not let your feet flap around too much, Skippy.

Bill Suitor, the most traveled rocket man in history with 1,200 flights (most famously as a stunt double for Sean Connery in Thunderball), describes the challenge of maintaining stability with a rocketbelt as "trying to stand on a big beach ball in the middle of a swimming pool."

He left out the part about consuming a pint of VRV.

For insiders, the highlight of the conference was a new bit of rocketbelt lore. During a talk to 100 people—and just before debuting on the ukulele an original song he wrote

At last the AoS Lifestyle component is revealed.

Graham for the first time told the story of his only crash. He recounted falling 22 feet and landing on his head during a secret demonstration at Cape Canaveral, a mishap that left him unconscious for half an hour. Graham retired from the rocketbelt biz shortly thereafter.

Well, duh.

All would-be rocketbelters practice on a tethered safety line for months before attempting a free flight. And most never make that flight:

To date, only 11 men in history have free-flown a rocketbelt. More men have walked on the moon.

I bet you thought there were more Rocketeers than that, didn't you.

I know I did.

Posted by: Ace at 06:33 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

I've had to shut the old comment system down temporarily because we were getting spam bombed.

New Comments Thingy is still up, of course.

Update: Old comments are trading under a new name, at least until that gets spam-bombed.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:28 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

As the Norks detonate their nuke.

At the moment, this story is just breaking on Fox so details are sketchy.

I'm sure glad that the Foley IM's are dominating the news and are the featured talking point on the Democrat's agenda though. After all, why worry about a potential nuked American city when there is a disgraced, resigned, repudiated Republican to kick around?

It's important to have your priorities straight. Right Mrs. Nancy "Let's Talk about the Existential Evil of Instant Messaging" Pelosi?

UPDATE: Allah has more.

UPDATE 2: As does Mary Katharine Ham.

UPDATE 3: Remember when the Norks aimed a few of their Taepodong-2 missiles at Hawaii earlier this summer? It sort of puts today's news in a little more perspective, doesn't it Chomsky?

UPDATE 4: But don't the Dems claim to be "tougher", "smarter" and "stronger" than President Bush and the GOP on defense issues now? Let's see how they do on missile defense, which is suddenly more relevant than e-mails again:

All of which makes the U.S. political debate over missile defenses worth revisiting, not least because some Democrats are still trying to strangle the program. In the House, John Tierney of Massachusetts this year proposed cutting the Pentagon's missile-defense budget by more than half. His amendment was defeated on the House floor, but it won the support of more than half of his Democratic colleagues, including would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Meanwhile in the Senate, Carl Levin (D., Mich.) offered in June to cut off funds for the ground-based interceptor program that Mr. Bush recently activated in Alaska in anticipation of the North Korean launch. Mr. Levin wants to stop new interceptors from being built, but Senate Republicans wouldn't bring his proposal up for a vote. Mr. Levin has been waging his own private war against missile defenses for a generation, to the point of outflanking Russian objections on the political left...

Virtually none of this would exist had Democrats succeeded over the years in their many attempts to kill missile defenses. Going back to 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy dismissed Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative as a fanciful "Star Wars" program. Ten years later, with President Clinton in office, Democrats starved the program of funds. Republicans made funding defenses part of their Contract with America and spent most of the 1990s battling the Clinton Administration to keep the program alive.

Democrats also made a fetish out of the ABM Treaty, even after the end of the Cold War. Al Gore campaigned to keep it in 2000, promising only to build defenses that would abide by its tight limitations. Senator Biden predicted that dropping out of the treaty to build missile defenses would turn the U.S. into "a kind of bully nation." And Senator John Kerry cautioned that "we must not set aside the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years." Neither logic nor deterrence are the first words that come to mind when we think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Today's Democrats: Strong. Tough. Layered. Nuanced. Global Tested.

Posted by: Ace at 07:24 PM | Comments (118)
Post contains 514 words, total size 4 kb.