It's doolally-rational!!
Discussion
It really annoys me too, hideous advert. I don't know what they're on about with the jet engines. The reason why jet engines and missiles and stuff are mounted under the wing is because the airflow over the top of the wing is much more critical for lift and you don't want to disrupt it.
Witchfinder said:
It made me want to boot the telly. Going on about how hydrogen cars have no emissions. Technically correct, but creating the hydrogen is about 5 times as polluting as burning petrol.
Wankers.
I suppose it depends on the method used to generate the hydrogen.
If we switched all power generation to nuclear power, and then all cars to fuel cells, it is theoretically possible we could have virtually a zero CO2 economy.
JagLover said:
If we switched all power generation to nuclear power, and then all cars to fuel cells, it is theoretically possible we could have virtually a zero CO2 economy.
Yep - an eminently sensible suggestion for long-term environmental planning, yet one which will never happen as it represents the only time where the lentilists and the oil companies will ever agree!!! And between those two groups you've got more lobbying power than George Bush's golf club dinner circle!
Pigeon said:
. The reason why jet engines and missiles and stuff are mounted under the wing is because the airflow over the top of the wing is much more critical for lift and you don't want to disrupt it.
Wonder why they do want to put the engines above the wing then - seems a bit odd.
Didn't Jags & Lightnings have missiles & / or fuel tanks mounted above the wings?
Rooster said:I know
I havent got a clue what 'Los Angeles' looks or sounds like, but whenever he posts, I always imagine him as being the guy who does the Honda voiceovers.
but LA is a scot!
but it's still how I imagine him. Maybe he's picked up a little mellifluety.Pigeon said:
It really annoys me too, hideous advert. I don't know what they're on about with the jet engines. The reason why jet engines and missiles and stuff are mounted under the wing is because the airflow over the top of the wing is much more critical for lift and you don't want to disrupt it.
There is a mid sized airliner already with overwing engines, Jaguar initially had overwing missiles and the Lightning had overwing tanks so it is doable. Can't see why it would be better though
TeamD said:
creating the hydrogen is about 5 times as polluting as burning petrol.
How does that work then?
I don't know exactly how it works, but electrolysis of water creates hydrogen. However, the energy cost is enormous. The only "clean" way to do it, as JagLover kindly pointed out, would be to use nuclear. However, I'm not keen on the idea of using nuclear power so extensively unless we have no other choice.
I think if you believe what the creddible non panic inducing experts say, we have no choice not only if we want to meet the kyoto treaty but also if we don't want to 
the planet for all, our power to come from nuclear or renewable very soon, and as renewable is still crap nuclear seems to be the only quick sensible choice!
but oops I seem to have forgotten USA and China so were bu99ered anyhow! I say enjoy it why we can, and don't appose any nuclear program in this country and shoot the idiots that are against wind farms etc!
the planet for all, our power to come from nuclear or renewable very soon, and as renewable is still crap nuclear seems to be the only quick sensible choice! but oops I seem to have forgotten USA and China so were bu99ered anyhow! I say enjoy it why we can, and don't appose any nuclear program in this country and shoot the idiots that are against wind farms etc!
juk said:
. The reason why jet engines and missiles and stuff are mounted under the wing is because the airflow over the top of the wing is much more critical for lift and you don't want to disrupt it.
Wonder why they do want to put the engines above the wing then - seems a bit odd.
Didn't Jags & Lightnings have missiles & / or fuel tanks mounted above the wings?
For one thing the air will be travelling a bit quicker, so you'll get a bit of free "thrust". But largely it's concerned with noise "footprint" (less if engine above the wing - reflected upwards), with fuselage height-above-ground (you never see a little bizjet with integral stairwell with underwing engines), and with production compromises. But it does result in more cabin noise than under-wing, and looks unusual (and I guess unsightly), so it's not really "taken off" for passenger jets.
apache said:
I think we've reached that point already, Nuclear Power has come a long way and needs to be discussed in a grown up way without the green hysteria
Let's face it, the greens are simply miserable Luddites with no grasp of reality. Or of how many windmills it takes to power a city. Or of how many people need to get to work. Or of what it's like to have a job...
A treadmill powered by greens would be an idea
Free electricity, and it keeps them out of the way.LoL - greens AND chav's - lets not forget THAT free resource!
Nuclear power DOES have it's risks, and it creates some horrible waste-products. BUT: Why not plough more investment into nuclear fusion? It's totally clean, more efficient than fission, and the requisite elements are hydrogen isotopes (albeit not very common ones).
Nuclear power DOES have it's risks, and it creates some horrible waste-products. BUT: Why not plough more investment into nuclear fusion? It's totally clean, more efficient than fission, and the requisite elements are hydrogen isotopes (albeit not very common ones).
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff