I don't own a Toyota, so I'm not familiar with that system. Only just recently in this comment branch has it been explicitly stated (by green1) that the vehicles are keyless. What I'm familiar with are actual mechanical switches that connect and disconnect power to certain subsystems, and they're usually attached to a lock cylinder that is operated by a key, just as you describe.
There are serious safety issues posed by using what amounts to a digital computer input going high for "turning the car on and off." How engineers could justify making a choice like that, I'm not sure. But it's not the direction I would have gone.
I see. I'm familiar with ignition switches that actually apply or remove power to specific systems, rather than an input to a computer. Thank you for clarifying that, it definitely makes a difference.
I think you're hitting the nail on the head, actually, though your comment might be better placed elsewhere. On a similar note, some of the best drivers I've ever met are the ones that drive the widest range of vehicles - from farm tractors, to cars, to tractor-trailers. In order to maintain control of all these different vehicles, you've gotta be on your game. Inattentiveness/laziness on any of those vehicles will lead to an accident or a death.
But you'd have to know what it does, and then trust it to work as expected. If it were to disconnect the batteries, would it also remove the power of power-assisted steering and/or brakes? Headlights or hazard lights?
That circuit would also introduce more expense, more wiring points, and therefore more points of failure. If someone thought it was fun to hit the e-stop while the car was under load (going up a steep hill), and it failed (contacts welded together) after the 99th time of that kind of practice, who would be at fault? Does that qualify as operator abuse? How would that/could that be logged?
I wrote this farther down and I'll copy and paste it here: I work with industrial controls for a living, and while I understand the necessity of e-stops in an industrial situation, those situations are not encountered by the public - the operator requires extensive safety training of that machine first and foremost. Just like you wouldn't expect your 5-year old to operate your table saw with no prior training, you cannot expect an e-stop button to solve the problems that a mentally incompetent operator can bring to the table.
Drivers already have a way to disable their vehicle - the ignition switch. Whether or not they think about using it is a training/human issue. Providing one or 10 local emergency stops does not change the fact that it is a training/human issue.
Another commenter brought up the e-stop idea, and I have to disagree from a consumer's vantage point: A large mushroom operator placed in visual range of the driver is, IMHO, going to cause paranoia or at the very least uncertainty about when to use it. I work with industrial controls for a living, and while I understand the necessity of e-stops in an industrial situation, those situations are not encountered by the public - the operator requires extensive safety training of that machine first and foremost. Just like you wouldn't expect your 5-year old to operate your table saw with no prior training, you cannot expect an e-stop button to solve the problems that a mentally incompetent operator can bring to the table.
Drivers already have a way to disable their vehicle - the ignition switch. Whether or not they think about using it is a training/human issue. Providing one or 10 local emergency stops does not change the fact that it is a training/human issue.
True drunks don't care about convenience. If they're so inclined, they will duct tape some shit to the armrest to hold their beverage; if not, they will drive with one hand. Make no mistake, that is a human issue and it needs to have human solutions.
In this case, say there was a design flaw which made some sensor boxes partially short out, just enough to shift the accelerator pedal range from 0-100 to 80-100 say. In that case, the central computer would be receiving believable signals that the pedal was pressed down, even though the driver was doing nothing.
Extremely unlikely. Since the throttle position sensor is nothing more than a potentiometer, it's always "partially short[ed] out." Potentiometers fail in the zero and infinite ohm positions, either of which would throw a fault in the ECM for the resistance being out of range.
Home electric car conversions require nothing of the sort, but most that build their own electric cars install them for safety. Just like those who build their own gasoline cars, everyone has their own kill switch. That doesn't mean the general public will use them with any greater frequency than they use the ignition switch to shut the engine off in an emergency.
On the contrary, I believe installing a large red mushroom operator in plain sight of the driver would induce a feeling of paranoia, to the point where they would hate to drive the car. IMHO, it would not be a positive selling point.
Wake up, Rip Van Winkle. It's not the 1970s anymore - while you were sleeping, innovation and technology has brought us advancements in wind and solar that are a far cry from what you remember.
See all these? Each marker represents a wind farm. Not necessarily a single wind turbine, but a group of turbines.
It's not a con. It's not a lie. This energy does work today, it may even power your computer so you can read Slashdot whether you realize it or not.
I'm really not that dense. But you do have options when it comes to road trips - gasoline rental cars. For the amount of money you would save by not buying gasoline the rest of the year, you would have more than enough to rent a gasoline car for a few days several times a year.
You would probably make the argument that the money you save by not buying gas would go towards the new electric car's monthly payment, in which case I would ask how you can justify buying a new gasoline car (making new gasoline car payments), and also buying gas.
How much would you save? I have no idea. Depends on how much you spend on gasoline now. But here's some worst-case scenario numbers for you:
To charge the Leaf, it takes: 120 volts * 15 amp draw (on a 20 amp circuit) = 1800W/h * 8 hour charge time = 14.4 kW/h....Assuming 12 cents per kW/h, that's $1.73 a day, * 30 days = $52 a month.
So, if you spend more than $52 per month on gasoline, and as I stated before, if you drive less than 100 miles per day in your commute, this car could work for you. If your electricity costs more, substitute in the proper amount and do the math.
We have to go to the POTUS for that? Wow. You would think the people discovering the problem would notify the manufacturers of the equipment involved, and the manufacturers would notify the end-user. That's how it's worked for years, and it works. The relationships between government users and equipment manufacturers is *tight.* Perhaps the channels of communication could use some streamlining, but I don't understand why the POTUS has to be made into a link in that chain.
Also, it would be fantastic if
security researchers detect stuxnet_two_the_revenge out there and it has infected numerous machines, but not yet hit it's intended target.
I think the scrutiny required of finding a virus before it blows its wad into major systems would be overwhelming. No one would know what they were looking for until it was too late. I think the better way to prevent that scenario is to have a "clean room" approach - any computer that gets attached to critical infrastructure at any point in its lifetime cannot face any other network whatsoever. It would help isolate problems before they got out of control, and it would help eliminate sloppy human errors.
It used exploits in Windows to be sure, but the development of this virus depended on much more than just some Windows exploits. A great deal of research and energy went into creating Stuxnet - that same research could be put towards finding exploits in virtually any SCADA system, or any OS. As we all know, the exploits are out there in _nix or Win or OS/X... it's just that no one has had the ambition to search for them yet.
Stuxnet was not introduced to a nuclear processing facility directly from the internet. Very few idiots in the world would connect major infrastructure directly to the internet. Stuxnet required being installed on thousands of computers directly from the internet, where it did espionage to determine if that computer WAS part of the intended target, and once it reported back that it was, it received files that it would later try to install on a Siemens PLC network. Stuxnet required a "go-between" laptop - a machine that was on the internet part of the time, and on a Siemens PLC network part of the time. That's the only reason why it was successful.
The problem with shutting down the gateways into the US is that by the time you realize you've got a problem and you shut it down, it's too late - your systems are infected. The only way to be sure is to shut down the gateways indefinitely, and that'll go over like a lead balloon.
Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to make a fucking battery from bare minerals?
Lead acid? I would bet it costs less than 10% of the price of a new battery. Anything more and it wouldn't be profitable. Obviously it's profitable, you can by all types and sizes on a shelf at Wal-Mart. In case you didn't browse that section today, that's around $6.
Other chemistries are new, and have R&D costs to go with them. Suppliers are few. Raw materials come from other countries. They're inherently more expensive... this year. Just like with any emerging technology (like the flat-screen TV you park your ass in front of every day), the price will come down as supply and competition increases.
The problem is that a standard household receptacle simply cannot handle replenishing the energy you consume by driving. The "nonsense" you refer to is there for a reason, usually safety: if you were to try to draw as much amperage as your car could take, the circuit breaker in your breaker box would trip; if you bypassed it, the copper wires in your wall would literally melt. Even at the single-phase 240v 30a rate, it will still take several hours to replenish the energy consumed by driving.
Now, if you worked at an office building or a factory where three-phase 480v was available, you could probably charge your car in an hour or maybe a little more, assuming the battery could remove the heat fast enough. Why can't you get that power at your residence? Ask the utilities providers, many of which are still stuck with an infrastructure that was developed in the 1950s. That's why we talk about how the grid "won't take it," and "the last mile" is usually the worst, just like in the communications field.
(You may be able to get that high voltage power if you live in a large apartment building, btw...)
The traffic in DC grinds to a halt twice a day, every day (sometimes more). It probably has more to do with the horrible infrastructure and the imbeciles of bygone planning committees than it does with the POTUS going somewhere.
If someone filled your gasoline car while you slept every night, would you really have to worry about stopping somewhere during your commute to fill up?
Let me pose the question another way: Do you drive more than 100 miles round-trip every day? If not, then an electric car could work for you.
Battery technology is ancient, and IMHO more R&D goes into battery chemistry than it does for any other part of the battery. When most people think of a "car battery," they envision a 50 lb. box of lead with two posts on top. The only thing separating the sulfuric acid from the cold is a thin layer of plastic. It doesn't have to be that way.
Imagine a 120-volt battery where each cell is monitored and charged by an individual piece of hardware; a battery that has it's own heating and ventilation system, insulated from the cold. It takes energy to keep a battery warm, couldn't that energy come from the battery? (It also gives off some heat during charging just from the chemical reaction, but I'm talking about when it's parked and not charging.) I postulate that the energy consumed creating heat to keep a well-insulated battery warm and at peak efficiency would more than offset the energy loss due to the cold weather.
I think I would've given you modpoints if I had any. I was thinking along the same lines you were, though I don't know if I'd agree that it would necessarily be impractical.
give your parents a smack sometime (unless they are no longer around.. then maybe just give yourself a smack so as not to be an asshat!) and ask them why they decided to raise you to be afraid of everyone else.
FTFY.
I have no problems defending myself on land, air, or sea. I would rather take the risk of being blown up by a bomb while living in a free country then having no risks whatsoever while living in... whatever this form of government is. I mean, I thought this was America. I've been told there once was a time where you handed someone cash and got on an airplane. Half the people flying probably carried pocket knives or water or some other item that is restricted these days.
the idea of getting into a flying metal bullet and being propelled through the air at hundreds of kilometers per hour with a hundred+ other people
I find it amusing that a hundred years ago, the overwhelming majority of people would have agreed THIS was the "bad idea."
As the guy below me mentions, you can remove all the parasitic friction associated with transmissions and bearings and universal joints and constant velocity joints. Also, automobiles are a fairly direct (even if not truly parallel) representation of the issues faced: a large mass that needs lots of energy to be accelerated, and once moving at speed, requires much less energy to remain moving.
Many car manufacturers brag about how much horsepower an engine has, but really, the only time you use anything close to that amount of energy is on acceleration. With speed limits, that amounts to about 10 seconds of 90% power usage, and the rest of the time cruising uses 25% of the total power capacity. Guess what? Batteries and a small 30 horsepower generator fit that bill really, really well. It takes much less fuel to run a 30 HP diesel continuously than it does to accelerate a 100 HP diesel. Even with multiple stops and starts, over the average drive cycle the engine will have no problem replenishing the batteries.
IMHO, this is truly the way to go when it comes to serial hybrids.
It wasn't only Mercedes. In the mid to late 70s just after the oil crisis, GM tried converting their 5.7L gas engine into a diesel and selling them in the 1/2 ton pickups and even Cadillacs, IIRC. They were difficult to start, especially for the "get in and turn the key" crowd, and prone to reliability issues as well. This diesel learning curve that car manufacturers went through put a sour taste in American mouths, one that still lingers and that American car manufacturers are not likely to forget any time soon.
Disagree. Many of my friends (people younger than 30) don't realize there's a problem. They truly believe this is how it's supposed to work, and don't question authority.
On second thought, I know people older than 30 who don't question authority, either.
So it turns out you can be ignorant at any age. I'll add ignorant to the running list of stupid, complacent, apathetic, and weak.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't own a Toyota, so I'm not familiar with that system. Only just recently in this comment branch has it been explicitly stated (by green1) that the vehicles are keyless. What I'm familiar with are actual mechanical switches that connect and disconnect power to certain subsystems, and they're usually attached to a lock cylinder that is operated by a key, just as you describe.
There are serious safety issues posed by using what amounts to a digital computer input going high for "turning the car on and off." How engineers could justify making a choice like that, I'm not sure. But it's not the direction I would have gone.
I see. I'm familiar with ignition switches that actually apply or remove power to specific systems, rather than an input to a computer. Thank you for clarifying that, it definitely makes a difference.
I think you're hitting the nail on the head, actually, though your comment might be better placed elsewhere. On a similar note, some of the best drivers I've ever met are the ones that drive the widest range of vehicles - from farm tractors, to cars, to tractor-trailers. In order to maintain control of all these different vehicles, you've gotta be on your game. Inattentiveness/laziness on any of those vehicles will lead to an accident or a death.
But you'd have to know what it does, and then trust it to work as expected. If it were to disconnect the batteries, would it also remove the power of power-assisted steering and/or brakes? Headlights or hazard lights?
That circuit would also introduce more expense, more wiring points, and therefore more points of failure. If someone thought it was fun to hit the e-stop while the car was under load (going up a steep hill), and it failed (contacts welded together) after the 99th time of that kind of practice, who would be at fault? Does that qualify as operator abuse? How would that/could that be logged?
I wrote this farther down and I'll copy and paste it here:
I work with industrial controls for a living, and while I understand the necessity of e-stops in an industrial situation, those situations are not encountered by the public - the operator requires extensive safety training of that machine first and foremost. Just like you wouldn't expect your 5-year old to operate your table saw with no prior training, you cannot expect an e-stop button to solve the problems that a mentally incompetent operator can bring to the table. Drivers already have a way to disable their vehicle - the ignition switch. Whether or not they think about using it is a training/human issue. Providing one or 10 local emergency stops does not change the fact that it is a training/human issue.
Another commenter brought up the e-stop idea, and I have to disagree from a consumer's vantage point: A large mushroom operator placed in visual range of the driver is, IMHO, going to cause paranoia or at the very least uncertainty about when to use it. I work with industrial controls for a living, and while I understand the necessity of e-stops in an industrial situation, those situations are not encountered by the public - the operator requires extensive safety training of that machine first and foremost. Just like you wouldn't expect your 5-year old to operate your table saw with no prior training, you cannot expect an e-stop button to solve the problems that a mentally incompetent operator can bring to the table.
Drivers already have a way to disable their vehicle - the ignition switch. Whether or not they think about using it is a training/human issue. Providing one or 10 local emergency stops does not change the fact that it is a training/human issue.
True drunks don't care about convenience. If they're so inclined, they will duct tape some shit to the armrest to hold their beverage; if not, they will drive with one hand. Make no mistake, that is a human issue and it needs to have human solutions.
In this case, say there was a design flaw which made some sensor boxes partially short out, just enough to shift the accelerator pedal range from 0-100 to 80-100 say. In that case, the central computer would be receiving believable signals that the pedal was pressed down, even though the driver was doing nothing.
Extremely unlikely. Since the throttle position sensor is nothing more than a potentiometer, it's always "partially short[ed] out." Potentiometers fail in the zero and infinite ohm positions, either of which would throw a fault in the ECM for the resistance being out of range.
Home electric car conversions require nothing of the sort, but most that build their own electric cars install them for safety. Just like those who build their own gasoline cars, everyone has their own kill switch. That doesn't mean the general public will use them with any greater frequency than they use the ignition switch to shut the engine off in an emergency.
On the contrary, I believe installing a large red mushroom operator in plain sight of the driver would induce a feeling of paranoia, to the point where they would hate to drive the car. IMHO, it would not be a positive selling point.
Perhaps they were turned off due to "maintenance," AKA manipulating supply in order to increase demand.
Wake up, Rip Van Winkle. It's not the 1970s anymore - while you were sleeping, innovation and technology has brought us advancements in wind and solar that are a far cry from what you remember.
See all these? Each marker represents a wind farm. Not necessarily a single wind turbine, but a group of turbines.
It's not a con. It's not a lie. This energy does work today, it may even power your computer so you can read Slashdot whether you realize it or not.
I'm really not that dense. But you do have options when it comes to road trips - gasoline rental cars. For the amount of money you would save by not buying gasoline the rest of the year, you would have more than enough to rent a gasoline car for a few days several times a year.
...Assuming 12 cents per kW/h, that's $1.73 a day, * 30 days = $52 a month.
You would probably make the argument that the money you save by not buying gas would go towards the new electric car's monthly payment, in which case I would ask how you can justify buying a new gasoline car (making new gasoline car payments), and also buying gas.
How much would you save? I have no idea. Depends on how much you spend on gasoline now. But here's some worst-case scenario numbers for you:
To charge the Leaf, it takes: 120 volts * 15 amp draw (on a 20 amp circuit) = 1800W/h * 8 hour charge time = 14.4 kW/h.
So, if you spend more than $52 per month on gasoline, and as I stated before, if you drive less than 100 miles per day in your commute, this car could work for you. If your electricity costs more, substitute in the proper amount and do the math.
Also, it would be fantastic if
security researchers detect stuxnet_two_the_revenge out there and it has infected numerous machines, but not yet hit it's intended target.
I think the scrutiny required of finding a virus before it blows its wad into major systems would be overwhelming. No one would know what they were looking for until it was too late. I think the better way to prevent that scenario is to have a "clean room" approach - any computer that gets attached to critical infrastructure at any point in its lifetime cannot face any other network whatsoever. It would help isolate problems before they got out of control, and it would help eliminate sloppy human errors.
I think you need to read the whitepaper on Stuxnet.
It used exploits in Windows to be sure, but the development of this virus depended on much more than just some Windows exploits. A great deal of research and energy went into creating Stuxnet - that same research could be put towards finding exploits in virtually any SCADA system, or any OS. As we all know, the exploits are out there in _nix or Win or OS/X... it's just that no one has had the ambition to search for them yet.
Stuxnet was not introduced to a nuclear processing facility directly from the internet. Very few idiots in the world would connect major infrastructure directly to the internet. Stuxnet required being installed on thousands of computers directly from the internet, where it did espionage to determine if that computer WAS part of the intended target, and once it reported back that it was, it received files that it would later try to install on a Siemens PLC network. Stuxnet required a "go-between" laptop - a machine that was on the internet part of the time, and on a Siemens PLC network part of the time. That's the only reason why it was successful.
The problem with shutting down the gateways into the US is that by the time you realize you've got a problem and you shut it down, it's too late - your systems are infected. The only way to be sure is to shut down the gateways indefinitely, and that'll go over like a lead balloon.
Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to make a fucking battery from bare minerals?
Lead acid? I would bet it costs less than 10% of the price of a new battery. Anything more and it wouldn't be profitable. Obviously it's profitable, you can by all types and sizes on a shelf at Wal-Mart. In case you didn't browse that section today, that's around $6.
Other chemistries are new, and have R&D costs to go with them. Suppliers are few. Raw materials come from other countries. They're inherently more expensive... this year. Just like with any emerging technology (like the flat-screen TV you park your ass in front of every day), the price will come down as supply and competition increases.
The problem is that a standard household receptacle simply cannot handle replenishing the energy you consume by driving. The "nonsense" you refer to is there for a reason, usually safety: if you were to try to draw as much amperage as your car could take, the circuit breaker in your breaker box would trip; if you bypassed it, the copper wires in your wall would literally melt. Even at the single-phase 240v 30a rate, it will still take several hours to replenish the energy consumed by driving.
Now, if you worked at an office building or a factory where three-phase 480v was available, you could probably charge your car in an hour or maybe a little more, assuming the battery could remove the heat fast enough. Why can't you get that power at your residence? Ask the utilities providers, many of which are still stuck with an infrastructure that was developed in the 1950s. That's why we talk about how the grid "won't take it," and "the last mile" is usually the worst, just like in the communications field.
(You may be able to get that high voltage power if you live in a large apartment building, btw...)
The traffic in DC grinds to a halt twice a day, every day (sometimes more). It probably has more to do with the horrible infrastructure and the imbeciles of bygone planning committees than it does with the POTUS going somewhere.
If someone filled your gasoline car while you slept every night, would you really have to worry about stopping somewhere during your commute to fill up?
Let me pose the question another way: Do you drive more than 100 miles round-trip every day? If not, then an electric car could work for you.
So do I, and I'm not nearly as worried.
Battery technology is ancient, and IMHO more R&D goes into battery chemistry than it does for any other part of the battery. When most people think of a "car battery," they envision a 50 lb. box of lead with two posts on top. The only thing separating the sulfuric acid from the cold is a thin layer of plastic. It doesn't have to be that way.
Imagine a 120-volt battery where each cell is monitored and charged by an individual piece of hardware; a battery that has it's own heating and ventilation system, insulated from the cold. It takes energy to keep a battery warm, couldn't that energy come from the battery? (It also gives off some heat during charging just from the chemical reaction, but I'm talking about when it's parked and not charging.) I postulate that the energy consumed creating heat to keep a well-insulated battery warm and at peak efficiency would more than offset the energy loss due to the cold weather.
if there is a problem, everyone is going to panic and 'annoucements' will do SHIT-all to help us, those panicy screaming passengers.
Only the idiot panicy screaming passenger. How many of them would open the rear door after the plane had ditched in an attempt to get out?
I think I would've given you modpoints if I had any. I was thinking along the same lines you were, though I don't know if I'd agree that it would necessarily be impractical.
give your parents a smack sometime (unless they are no longer around.. then maybe just give yourself a smack so as not to be an asshat!) and ask them why they decided to raise you to be afraid of everyone else.
FTFY.
... whatever this form of government is. I mean, I thought this was America. I've been told there once was a time where you handed someone cash and got on an airplane. Half the people flying probably carried pocket knives or water or some other item that is restricted these days.
I have no problems defending myself on land, air, or sea. I would rather take the risk of being blown up by a bomb while living in a free country then having no risks whatsoever while living in
the idea of getting into a flying metal bullet and being propelled through the air at hundreds of kilometers per hour with a hundred+ other people
I find it amusing that a hundred years ago, the overwhelming majority of people would have agreed THIS was the "bad idea."
As the guy below me mentions, you can remove all the parasitic friction associated with transmissions and bearings and universal joints and constant velocity joints. Also, automobiles are a fairly direct (even if not truly parallel) representation of the issues faced: a large mass that needs lots of energy to be accelerated, and once moving at speed, requires much less energy to remain moving.
Many car manufacturers brag about how much horsepower an engine has, but really, the only time you use anything close to that amount of energy is on acceleration. With speed limits, that amounts to about 10 seconds of 90% power usage, and the rest of the time cruising uses 25% of the total power capacity. Guess what? Batteries and a small 30 horsepower generator fit that bill really, really well. It takes much less fuel to run a 30 HP diesel continuously than it does to accelerate a 100 HP diesel. Even with multiple stops and starts, over the average drive cycle the engine will have no problem replenishing the batteries.
IMHO, this is truly the way to go when it comes to serial hybrids.
It wasn't only Mercedes. In the mid to late 70s just after the oil crisis, GM tried converting their 5.7L gas engine into a diesel and selling them in the 1/2 ton pickups and even Cadillacs, IIRC. They were difficult to start, especially for the "get in and turn the key" crowd, and prone to reliability issues as well. This diesel learning curve that car manufacturers went through put a sour taste in American mouths, one that still lingers and that American car manufacturers are not likely to forget any time soon.
Luckily, someone did a rewrite.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/spirit_rewrite_unknown_author.png
Disagree. Many of my friends (people younger than 30) don't realize there's a problem. They truly believe this is how it's supposed to work, and don't question authority.
On second thought, I know people older than 30 who don't question authority, either.
So it turns out you can be ignorant at any age. I'll add ignorant to the running list of stupid, complacent, apathetic, and weak.