Seeker

If anyone is having login or browser problems please send me a PM.

Missing from the story is that Klaus intended to file a lawsuit to recover the $19.99 that each of his party had paid for the return flight.

As Kip says - totally fake. No downdraft and, I don't care who you are, if there's a helicopter hovering 6 feet above you - YOU'RE LOOKING UP!

That and the fact that not a single one of 6 dudes is looking up at the massive helicopter hovering 6 feet above their heads!

Just a reminder - this thread is non-aviation and also non-political. I realize that line is somewhat blurry at times but gender and trans issues definitely fall into the political category.

Come on. Really? I'd get a t-shirt with that as a quote if true.

Best eclipse joke I heard: The Sun was doing an impersonation of Justin Trudeau doing black-face!

Your first article is from 2017 - research stage, looking for partners. No takers and no project. Even with current energy prices it's s no-go. So, yeah, it works but isn't economical. Your second article actually refers to a couple of large commercial projects - no word on whether they are economic or virtual signaling. Your third article refers to the concept but, alas, no projects. My point stands - it's not an economically viable. BTW, I'm not arguing against doing research or looking for new ideas. I'm simply saying this particular project did not lead us where we want to be and I'd be surprised if it produced much value.

Yeah, don't know if I'd call it "bold". Centrally heating a number of buildings from a single main heating plant has been around since forever. If anything I'd call it "derivative". You are correct in that a modern system might be made better than this version but don't forget that everything else has improved too. Natural gas heating systems have gone from 75% efficiency to 95% or 98%. Insulation, heat recovery systems, argon filled windows - all improved. I'd be willing to bet that a modern gas furnace in a modern home would cost significantly less to build and run than any hot water system. If you really want efficiency you'd build homes with in-floor radiant heating electrically powered from the nearby modular nuclear plant. One more point - if the system was so bold and forward-looking how many similar projects have been built since? The article has this interesting statement: "at one point welcomed guests from around the world to show off the groundbreaking technology. The international visitors wanted to see first-hand how energy from the hot summer sun could be collected and stored and then released in a harsh Canadian winter to heat the community's houses." Great. So how many of those international visitors went back home and built similar systems? Zero, as far as I can tell. Why? Because it wasn't economical at all.

It's not just about maintenance. Take a look at the actual costs; $15 million for the initial installation and services 52 homes for 25 years. By my math that works out to $1000/month per home. The system certainly didn't save any money. The article states that the system provides for 90% of the heat with natural gas providing the rest so the true cost is even higher. Did it produce less greenhouse gas? Maybe, but you'd need to figure out how much was produced in the production and installation of the hugely complicated system. The article above says that the homes were significantly more insulated and airtight than standard home construction and they are 1500-1700 sq feet which is smaller than the average. With this in mind the heating cost should be significantly less than the average. So, the state-of-the-art system managed to heat 52 homes are greater cost than a regular heating system. But, it was a research project, right? So now it could be rebuilt to be more efficient and lower cost, right? I wouldn't bet on it.

I'm certainly no expert on this but my recollection is that when the anchor is dropped that you need 4 to 5 times the lateral distance to depth. Not only this but the anchor is not dropped while the ship is moving as you overrun it which causes all sorts of problems. Basically you need to know which way the current is flowing, position the ship so that it's facing up current, stop it and release the anchor. You can't just throw it out at any time - this would be the equivalent of a car getting in trouble and just grabbing and setting the emer brake and saying "Well, it will come to a stop eventually".

I don't know the answer but I found this: https://www.webmd.com/brain/are-smelling-salts-safe

The signs are obvious. For those buying tickets - consider carefully.

When I get my BBQ propane tank filled at Costco it cost about $12. When I get my tank filled at a local gas station it costs about $20. When I swap tanks at the Sobey's it costs about $30. When you swap batteries not only do you need to pay for the energy in the battery but also the facility to perform the swap, the upkeep, maintenance and replacement for a pool of batteries. And, don't forget - the profit for the company providing the service. I would guess that the total cost would be 400% higher than charging at home. Battery swapping might be possible but in the video it mentions that it's mostly taxis that have gotten onboard. Like most places I would assume the taxi fleet has settled in on one type of vehicle therefore only one type of battery to swap. Can you imagine trying to start such a business where there are 40 different types of batteries? Of course I've never even heard of a vehicle in NA that is setup for this.