Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (126401)	12/5/2009 12:37:12 AM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 543020

As I said a first good read. The basis for awarding a hydrogen energy grant, no. But the geochemistry of the interior planet is very reducing, though. After all, a 5700 degK ball of hot iron and nickel metal is about as good a reducing agent as I can think of... I can't say I was shocked that there was hydrogen seen in the bore hole. I've personally watched my son's knowledge base explode as a result of his reading of Wiki. I give him the same speech - yes, it is a good read to get an initial understanding of the situation but, I'd look for some backup if it's too wacky. Especially if it is something that is currently "hip" or "trendy". The temperature of melting iron, or vaporization energy of water are pretty likely to be accurate. The writing might have some problems, but I'm more interested in the facts. Those in my experience seem to hold up under close inspection. I sort of agree about Encyclopedia Britannica being "faint praise", but I tell you... If more people read it, they'd believe a lot less BS and at least be prepared to be informed.