Comments by "kokofan50" (@kokofan50) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. It was actually the General asking for a flying 30mm rotary cannon.
    326
  2. azmanabdula, because it’s a terrible idea. Hydrogen is a nuisance to store and if even less efficient at storing energy than batteries. Real Engineering even has a video about the problems.
    148
  3. Canadian forces were under the umbrella of the British.
    137
  4. The dampener dampens lateral movement be it earthquake or wind. Also, it looks damn cool.
    73
  5. And you’re going to add a huge cost, probably even worse than batteries.
    56
  6. Standardization and building them en mass. If we can do for nuclear power what Ford did for cars, this wouldn’t be a question.
    24
  7.  @Minuz1  how about we add in clean up costs from normal operations of natural gas plants. Also, the clean up Fukushima is inflated because of stuff like holding hundreds of thousands of gallons of water for a decade because of a teacup’s worth of tritium. That’s barely enough tritium to kill a person if they drank all of it at once.
    22
  8. Not really, they’re just using techniques invented by others, and there are reasons we dont use those techniques.
    19
  9. But only by a couple thousand.
    16
  10.  @paulziech6702  that’s a lie. We have hundreds to thousands of years worth of fuel sitting around in spent fuel rods, and there are alternative fuels that have thousands of years worth of fuel.
    12
  11. Certfied Ass Eater, why should leave? I just stated a fact. China didn’t invent prefabrication and there are reasons we don’t use prefabricated buildings en mass. That doesn’t mean what the Chinese company did wasn’t impressive, but understand why it’s impressive.
    11
  12. The SLAM was a design for a nuclear powered cruise missile
    9
  13. Timothy Stamm, no, Mars’s atmosphere is 1% as thick as Earth’s, so even much faster wind speeds cary a fraction of the of force.
    7
  14. The 76 was just as capable as the 17 pounder had better ergonomics.
    6
  15. Starhopper’s top fell over in 50mph (80kmp) winds. Saying that SpaceX isn’t running this so well because of a minor setback is a little disingenuous.
    6
  16. Looks like you’re badly informed.
    5
  17. You don’t just send a tank. You send the whole unit.
    4
  18. The least evil is nuclear to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels from seawater, and we can use the infrastructure we already have, saving trillions.
    4
  19. Or we could do the faster and more practical thing and use nuclear.
    4
  20. No, mass dampeners have to be able to move because the dampener moves instead of the building.
    3
  21.  @RealEngineering  the compressor was combination of turbo and super charger. The Greg’s planes and automobiles channel here on YouTube has a series in-depth videos on the P-47 including the supercharger. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg
    3
  22. All electric motors have magnets, and this has plenty of those.
    3
  23. All two miles until it breaks down where the Sherman will then drive rings around it.
    3
  24. Orbital rings are better. They don’t require wonder materials, so they’re much cheaper and easier to build. They also have other benefits like connecting different places on Earth.
    3
  25. The short answer is Congress, thus the nickname of senate launch system.
    3
  26. A lot of people will die, which is why we need nuclear instead of the schemes
    3
  27. Nuclear powered ships definitely are.
    3
  28. It's not that great. A lot of the internal space is eaten up by elevators. Elevators are such a big problem that buildings much taller than the Burj Khalifa will mostly be elevators.
    2
  29. The electricity demands alone makes that idea impossible.
    2
  30. We need to deploy the technology we have. Gen. 4 nuclear reactors are just what we need, but the anti-nuclear nuts have spent 50 years holding it up.
    2
  31. I was just talking about sleeping. People have been living in high latitudes for thousands of years with 6 months of light and darkness.
    2
  32. Solar on the moon is idiotic, especially for industrial purposes. Nuclear is the only power source that will work.
    2
  33. matty, that’s a myth. The Germans had a lot of problems with reliability. In fact, they lost more Tigers to break down than enemy action because they were too heavy and over engineered.
    2
  34. No, nuclear is our long term solution.
    2
  35. The 76 was more than capable of destroying any German tank with the right ammo.
    2
  36. At the time it was called a turbo-super charger. He got kinda confused because of the difference in nomenclature
    2
  37. Zoning is important, but we could move to a system more like Japan.
    2
  38. It was a good gun. It was just a little under powered against heavy tanks, but against much more medium tanks and structures it’s a fine gun.
    2
  39. Dawson Toulouse, tank destroys were part of the artillery branch, and they were commonly used in a direct line of fire artillery piece against infantry and structures. You’re probably thinking of the indirect fire role.
    2
  40. The idea that we could just replace coal with solar and wind using enough batteries is just not true. Other than that, very informative video.
    2
  41. If we’re building reactors like that, renewables would only have marginal place in our system.
    2
  42.  @bike-cave-man2527  there aren’t enough batteries in the world to do that, and solar kills 6 times as many people per unit of energy produced.
    2
  43.  @bike-cave-man2527  how about you provide evidence of your claim that there’s enough battery material and manufacturing capacity to do what you’re planning. After all, you’re the one making the positive claim, which means you’re the one responsible for providing the evidence.
    2
  44. Here’s a brilliant idea, we just build nuclear instead. If we’re going to engineer of tax system, we need to fallow principles of engineering. The first rule of engineering is Keep It Simple Stupid. This tax system is anything but simple
    2
  45. The only reason we don’t have a place to put the spent fuel is the people who irrationally hate nuclear to the point they don’t even want to have a place to store spent fuel.
    2
  46. At the time it was called a turbo-super charger. The channel Greg’s Planes and Automobiles has a very in depth series on the P-47, including all of this.
    2
  47. It’s not possible ever. The amount of resources needed exceed the known reserves of numerous resources, not rare ones but common ones like copper.
    2
  48. The most costly, resource intensive, and unreliable way of doing things. Sounds exactly like the way forward.
    2
  49. Leave it California to do things the stupid, hard way, which will probably fail.
    2
  50. No, we don’t. We need a clean power source that is capable of out competing the dirty ones without having to tax them, and we have one, nuclear.
    2