I do have a debit card.
It's not recommended that a debit card be used for on line purchases as there is no way to recover the funds if there is a problem. Once the money is gone, it's gone.
Credit card purchases have their own built in warantee.
Omelet expounded:
That depends. My debit card is a MasterCard, and it has all the protection of a credit card. And I've had to use that protection in the past, so I know it works.
Ok, that's good info, thanks! My debit card is a visa.
I'll have to talk to my bank. I am new to debit cards.
Mine is has the visa logo also. Any debit cards with a major credit card logo have the same perks as a credit without all the downfalls. or that's the way it works around here anyway. definitely check with your bank - but if you have the logo - you should be fine.
rae
Thanks again. :-)
I have managed to pay off all of my credit card debt and am trying to totally avoid using them at all. Interest rates are usery!
Before I retired I was a lawyer, and did some research concerning this.
The federal law that provides the protection for credit cards covered only credit cards.
I think the very similar protections given with debit cards, even those bearing a credit card logo, are given by the issuing institution, not by the law.
I believe that with using the credit card, the credit card companies hold a certain amount that has been charged against the merchant, rather than paying everything to the merchant right away, so it is fairly easy for the credit card company to return your money from this withholding, when a charge is shown to be invalid.
I don't know what the current procedure is with debit cards, but if recovery is under the control of the issuing bank, they may be more reluctant to make a final determination in your favor, if they don't have that cushion of money due the merchant, and they may not have the massive staff that the credit card companies maintain to deal with such situations.
I don't personally know anyone who has not gotten their money back from a debit card transaction, who deserved it. But at the same time, most of the people I know don't use a debit card (other than the ATM component).
As long as one can fully pay off what one charges on the credit card, I see no advantage to the debit card. In fact, since the debit card releases your money immediately, while the credit card usually has a rather substantial period before your payment is due, you can earn a little interest on your money by using the credit card (hardly enough to get rich on, though).
So I rema> Omelet expounded:
"Not@home" expounded:
I will check with my bank tomorrow when they're open and post here what they say.
Ann expounded:
Ok, I checked with my bank (actually a federal credit union). They use the dispute reconciliation system set up by MasterCard, which is the credit card company that issues the debit cards. The credit union is responsible monetarily for reimbursing, etc. but MC 'polices' the process, so the same protection is extended to the debit card holder as a credit card holder. At least that is how it was explained to me. I don't really care who backs it up, as long as it is backed up - and it has been for me.
That sounds nice but it costs significantly more to extract hydrogen fro= m =
water then to produce it any other way. The most economical way at prese= nt =
to produce hydrogen on a massive scale is steam reforming of the methane= =
in natural gas or coal gas in which the gas is combined with superheated= =
steam, releasing hydrogen and carbon dioxide. CH4+2H2O=3D4H2+CO2 if I go= t my =
chemistry right. This is the Bush hydrogen initiative. No improvement in= =
carbon dioxide emissions, but it would be a boon for the natural gas and= =
coal industries. And that's the real point of it.
Lorenzo L. Love
to be controlled by all that the coward fears. To be led by a fool is to= =
be led by the opportunists who control the fool. To be led by a thief is= =
to offer up your most precious treasures to be stolen. To be led by a li= ar =
is to ask to be lied to. To be led by a tyrant is to sell yourself and =
those you love into slavery." Octavia Butler
If you are planing on using the Citric Acid Cycle
H2 + O2 is a great source for energy but I don't think you want a pressurized cylinder of it under the back seat of your car. If H2 could be produced as needed, it may be safe (depending on the process). Electric cars powered by central power stations across a grid would, to me, make the most sense for daily needs. This would allow CO2 scrubbing of smoke stacks to eliminate CO2 from being returned to the atmosphere and allow the use of bio-mass for fuel.
Fossil fuel is the enemy.
- Billy Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)
not citric acid, not electron transport. use first stage of light reaction in photosynthesis. H2O + photon ->2 H+ and electrons and O
I am th>If you are planing on using the Citric Acid Cycle
2 H2O + 2 NADP+ + 2 ADP + 2 Pi + light --> 2 NADPH + 2 H+ + 2 ATP + O2 ? That is a mess of wet chemistry, you have in mind guy/girl. Another way would be, by definition an acid releases H2 when it comes in contact with a metal (yeah, there are a few exotics, but hyronium donors do) but then there is the problem of all that acid sloshing around in the vehicle. Seems to me, photovoltaic and a battery would be more practical. Even more practical would be the electric plug in vehicle. For the real hard core, we could go back to the Stanely Steamers. Then Frag could just dry out some pasture pastries, toss 'em in the burner, and sail off down the road. No fossil fuel. Might smell a little funky though.
I think I have a recent article around here, some where, on H2 storage. Lemme git back to ya.
- Billy Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)
electrical plugs just put off the problem. somebody somewhere gotta burn something to make the electricity. if they are making hydrogen from water, fine, if it is nuclear less than ideal.
platinum is typically used to catalyze the splitting of water, used with an electrical current in an ionic but not necessarily acidic environment. Ingrid
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:35:35 -0700, Billy Rose wrote: Even more practical would be the electric plug in vehicle.
True, but then you can use bio-mass and your not burning fossil fuel. Additionally, you have the option of scrubbing the smoke stack to sequester the CO2 and reduce the over all amount in the atmosphere.
About as far as you can get from ideal, IMHO. In 30 - 40 years, fusion reactors should be viable with lots of safe, clean energy. Why mess up the planet for a 40 year fix, when it creates more problems than it solves?
The April '07 issue of Scientific American addresses the issue of hydrogen storage. The choices are (1) compressed hyrdogen, (2) liquid hydrogen (Ever see the demonstration where they dip a rose into liquid helium? Same kinda deal) (3) reversible "hydrogen metal hydrides" (they generate H+ in response to heat and a catalyst and, they need to be removed to recharge) and (4) "hydrogen adsorbents" that work like sponges (don't need to be removed to recharge but research just beginning).
Unfortunately, the full article isn't available on line without a subscription but you could find it at the library and, the graphics are very helpful in helping understand the problems involved.
- Billy Coloribus gustibus n> Even more practical would be the electric plug in vehicle.
>Hmmm .... My 2 cents.
My thinking goes likes this.
I like my modern technological life. I like my computers, cars, lights, HBO and modern medical techniques. I refuse to live in a cave. Street maybe, if I keep spending the way I am :) Solar and wind energy together is too expensive for the small amount of electricity one receives. In order to get large amounts of energy one has to destroy something to get it: be it coal, nuclear, Fusion is just a dream a false hope, wood or any other agricultural source. If one (ok the world) uses agricultural sources, bread will be twenty dollars a loaf, greater starvation among the populated world.
Coal, CO2 scrubbers still leaves toxic waste in our land fills. Hydrogen, needs electricity to extract from water. Bio-mass - Agicultural, kiss all forest good-by, not just the rain forest.
If .... If and only if they can make them safe and put its waste in outer space, are the breeder nuclear reactors. "The old saying - Is anything safe? NO".
The only way to have a clean, healthy earth for everyone on this planet, IS POPULATION REDUCTION. ie: make bombs not babies (ok, ok, forget the reverse pun of the sixty's vietnam) just stop breeding like humans.
However, not sure of the future. My next truck will have an E85 engine. I have read some where that all one has to do is combine 85 gallons of ethanal with 15 gallons of regular gas. Buy a still, I have the 10 acres of land to raise corn and have 6 acres of woods (energy source for the still).
Its all about me, let the world starve. Conservation is a lost cause without population reduction. I am single with no kids. With no social life one has the time to do the things listed above.
So I agree with the original poster: Home Gardening "is" Becoming Even More Imperative.
Enjoy Life ......... Dan.
Uh, nice string of pronouncements Dan. Usually it is nice if you can give them a little authority, names, places, logic based on an acceptable premise. You know, something like that would have been nice, instead of coming down the mountain with your clay tablets. (Yeah, I know, sarcastic, people have told me that.
Keep your technology but Americans presently use 25% of the worlds energy. That will change. We can look forward to a diminished way of life. Sorry Dave. (Jeeze, I sound like Hal, the computer) The alternative is to send out the troops with bayonets fixed and subjugate the world. Since we are not alone in the nuclear club, some of those suckers may not want to go down easily. How do you feel about trying to swim in the non-radioactive end of the pool?
Presently, wind, photovoltaic, and hydro power (including tides) is too little and more expensive than fossil fuel (if you don't count the social impact of global warming i.e. our extinction). Someone must have forgotten to tell the international consortium that is constructing a fusion reactor in France that Dave said it couldn't be done. Scrubbing smoke stacks with water and calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 gives you calcium carbonate and water. Chalk, Dave, chalk doesn't sound so polluting, does it?
We are already over producing food (look at you waistline) and demographics say that the population of the planet should drop to replacement levels by 2050. Western Europe has been encouraging it's citizens to have more babies because the indigenous populations are declining. Pretty much the same deal for all industrialized nations.
There is even a new nut being introduced into Africa as a crop that grows well on dry marginally useful agricultural land that is 40% oil. We can keep our forests. Need to plant more actually. Maybe you will have to do without quite so much beef. That's all.
Great way to live, with the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. Thanks, but no. Fission can be buffed, tweaked, and polished but it is just too freaking dangerous. That argument aside, how are you going to transfer the energy down, by microwaves and fry migratory birds?
See above. Large families only make sense in in subsistence farming.
You haven't been reading this new group long, have you? Corn is grown with natural gas and petroleum. It is not efficient unless you are an oil company but not for consumers.
A Cassandra in the wilderness, wandering in a hopeless quest, fade to black, the lights come up and everybody stands and goes home. Quite a martyr syndrome you have there Dave.
You really need to lighten up there Dave. Ya know. Girls really like guys that can make them laugh.
I will. Thanks Dave. You really should read a book about this stuff some day. Life is a tight rope, but it's doable.
- Billy Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)
A quick question. Is there a possibility of using waste from nuclear plants as fuel for fusion plants?
No. Fusion uses deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). Two deuterium under extremely high pressure and heat to fuse together to become a molecule of helium. Two deuterium atoms have more mass than a single helium atom and according to the famous equation, E=m(CxC), the difference in mass is converted to energy. If the magnetic containment field for a fusion reactor were to collapse, the reactants would hit the wall of the containment building, cool, and become harmless. I believe there is some issue with tritium (another isotope of hydrogen) but it is of a minor concern when compared to fission reactions.
- Billy Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)
Ahem, that should have read as, "Two deuterium under extremely high pressure and heat to fuse together to become an ATOM of helium."
OK, everybody back to sleep.
- Billy Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.