Slashdot Mirror
Car Glass Rules Could Impair Cell, GPS and Radio Signals In CA
An anonymous reader writes "The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just passed a new regulation that requires glazed glass in automobiles that is supposed to reduce the need to use air conditioning. The catch is that the same properties that block electromagnetic sunlight radiation also block lower frequency electromagnetic radio waves. That means radios, satellite radios, GPS, garage door openers, and cell phones will be severely degraded. Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning.'"
Passengers can also use cell phones, you know. Some people carpool. Also, I don't know about you, but I like to listen to the radio while driving.
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
Never owned an Oldsmobile then? Many of them have the FM antenna embedded in the windshield glass.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
Low-E glass was introduced in 1979. I.e., any patents that may have been around for it at the time no longer exist.
There probably are "newer, better" types of Low-E glass that are still patented, but Low-E glass in general is not.
Mr. Wizard... why is this place called the Cave of Hopelessness?
Actually, I worked in military communications, and have *built* AM/FM transmitters and antennas, as well as cellular networks. I can tell you from experience that while they work on different frequencies, it's entirely possible to connect an appropriate antenna to a wiring harness to bring the signal inside what's effectively a Faraday cage.
I turn my cell phone off when I'm driving, actually. Probably has something to do with that military background, and that desire to have all of my focus on driving when I get behind the wheel. *shrugs*
See above. And you must have lived a very sheltered life to have not come in contact with cars that have in-dash navigation systems....
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
No. It blocks mostly in the non visible wavelengths. You won't have any trouble seeing through the car windows.
Solar radiation, or solar energy, is made up of three components: ultraviolet radiation, visible light and near-infrared radiation. Near-infrared radiation makes up 53 percent of the solar spectrum, visible light 44 percent, and ultraviolet 3 percent.
So if you block 80% of the infrared and you are blocking 60% of the total energy you are only blocking something like 20% of the visible light.
and see the nice little FAQ they have. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/coolcarsfaq.pdf Will my GPS still work? Yes. Many automobile manufacturers currently equip their vehicles with external antennas to ensure proper functioning of factory installed GPS devices. For aftermarket GPS devices, deletion windows, or areas without reflective coatings, will be created in the windshield and the location of these windows noted in the owner’s manual. ARB tests showed that placing the GPS device or the external antenna within the deletion window allows the device to operate as effectively as in a car with no reflective glass.
Indeed
Basically:
The ideal warm-weather windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, reflects near-IR, and transmits mid/far-IR.
The ideal cold-weather windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, transmits near-IR, and reflects mid/far-IR.
The ideal general-purpose windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, reflects near-IR, and reflects mid/far-IR.
UV: Generally bad. Not much heat (and needed for vitamin D synthesis) but causes skin cancer and ages many (if not most) materials.
Visible: What you can see. Obviously, you want as much of this as you can.
Near-IR: A significant amount of solar energy that you can't see but will still heat up your car significantly.
Mid/far-IR: Heat radiating from surfaces on Earth (i.e., the inside of your car losing heat)
Mr. Wizard... why is this place called the Cave of Hopelessness?
No, they weren't. Stop lying.
Studies have found that there is no statistical difference in forclosure rate between CRA-regulated banks and unregulated banks. Notably, the investment banks that sell credit-default swaps are not covered by the CRA. Banks were making many subprime loans, including ones with predatory terms (which increases forclosure rate), for profit, not because of the CRA.
The parent is correct, but a bit terse. I thought I'd elaborate a bit:
"Federal Reserve Board data shows that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."
- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
The stats don't back up the idea that any public institution or law bears the brunt of the responsibility for problematic lending.
It also doesn't make much sense. Take the fingers pointed at the CRA. It didn't force banks to make risky loans. They could deny an application based on income, credit rating, or any other relevant factors. What it *did* force them to avoid was "red-lining": denying loans based on the current living location (used as a proxy for the applicant's race). A person's race and living location might have some correlation with risk of defaulting, but as we all know here on slashdot, correlation is not causation, and a responsible financial institution would deal with the more directly relevant information: an individual's income/asset information and their credit history.
Here's some other links:
http://www.ptmortgage.com/blog/2008/10/01/pointing-fingers-was-it-cra-and-minority-lending-that-caused-the-mortgage-mess/
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=73500
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html
http://www.ccc.unc.edu/news/news.021809.php
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Commentary/2000/1100.htm
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls564.htm
Wikipedia also has a summary.
Tweet, tweet.
Since you have to pay for the glass up front, but can distribute the cost of the fuel over the entire 12 years, you have to take interest into account when determining the ROI. Specifically, you would need to save about $290 over 12 years, minimum, to break even on a $250 up-front investment at the extremely conservative savings-account return of 1.30% APR.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
My VW has special glass that prevents the interior from
heating up and it works *great*. Park the thing on blacktop
all day in the hot summer sun and the interior barely gets
warm at all. Orders of magnitude more comfortable than cars
with regular glass. I assume the glass is low-e although VW
didn't describe it as such.
The glass is no darker than normal factory tinted glass.
The garage door opener remote works fine.
For those of you whining about the heavy hand of government,
there are many far worse problems than requiring decent
glass in cars. Many of these problems are discussed in
slashdot so you ought to be aware of them.
> we do not have thermostatic regulators on cars that vary
> the work of the compressors
Maybe yours doesn't but mine does.
What about market failures. The insurance industry is always rife with them, for instance flood insurance, or, as you point out, health insurance. The FDIC (another insurance system) is even heralded by conservatives as the most successful government run program in existence.
The USPS can take any random sheet of paper across the country to a specific person for less than the price of a coke, with door-to-door service.
The federal government also does well busting up trusts.
But you're clearly right, free-markets* always** exist*** and work****
* Enjoy your cheap tainted meat!
** Microsoft is clearly on it's last legs.
*** Recall the horrors of the "company store"? WalMart would love to pay it's employees in WalMart script.
**** Remember when a poorly regulated free market destroyed the US economy? It was last year. See also, 1987.
Government control is bad, unregulated markets are bad. I don't understand how anyone can believe that free-markets are always the answer any more than people believe government is always the answer. At least the religious right has a history of dogmatically believing in things that evidence has disproved. Why so many libertarian FSM-touting people persist on this board, I'll never understand. Pure capitalism imploded before pure communism did. The countries that are currently doing well have a mixture of capitalism and socialism, a little heavier on the socialism than the US. But obviously, we must push to one extreme!
Your ad here. Ask me how!