> In the case of the Prius, the battery is used within a certain power/speed > ranges (up to about 15 mph), then it switches to gas.
No. It uses the battery and/or the gas engine at any speed, depending on load and the state of the battery charge. In my Prius (2007), you can summon up a display that shows where the power is going/ coming from. It's constantly varying: sometimes you're driving under electric power (even at high speeds, if you're going slightly downhill), sometimes under gas (and sometimes with some of the gas engine output going to charge the battery), and sometimes the gas engine is off and the battery is getting charged from the wheels (like going down a steep downhill). If you go to any Prius forum, you can find out more.
But your general point, that a hybrid's battery is less stressed than a full EV, may be true.
No, I was not assuming they run from a battery; I was just using the fact that LEDs can run off of batteries to show how little power they use. As for the AC-DC converter itself, I guess you can tell how much energy it's wasting (as heat) by touching it. Most modern ones don't waste much.
Speaking of wasteful, do you know how many electrons had to go out of their way for you to write that post? And then how many were used to display your post on all the slash-dotters of the world! For crying out loud, you should conserve. Maybe if you left out the vowels, you could use fwr chrctrs, and the Arctic Ocean ice wouldn't melt so fast!
Ok, 0.26 watts. Let's pretend you never have to charge your phone (or you got a new charger and forgot to unplug the new one). There are about 8766 hours/ year. (This takes into account that one out of four years is a leap year.) So that charger is using about 2200 watt hours/ year, or about 2k. The average price for electricity in the US is 12 cents/ kw-hour (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state). So we're talking 25 cents per year to keep this charger plugged in.
That same NPR article says the average American household uses about 900 kw-h/month, or 900,000 watt-hours. A quarter of a watt = 187 watt-hours/ month, or about 0.02% of the average monthly use. Putting this differently, you'd need 50 plugged-in chargers in your home to amount to even 1% of your electricity use.
An apartment that has another living space above and below, and on three sides? So heat transfer takes place through only one wall of the six (counting ceiling and floor as "walls"). I can imagine his AC not having to do much, especially if he lives in a moderate climate, like parts of California.
What is this distinction you're making between being "on" or "running" on the one hand, and "working" on the other?
I suppose the microwave has a LED display that shows the time (or shows nothing if you didn't set the clock after the last power outage), but we can run wristwatch LEDs for a couple years on a tiny battery, so I don't think that's using much juice. Likewise the LED display on our oven. Maybe a land line phone would use a tiny bit of electricity for an LED too, but I long ago traded that in for a cell phone, which doesn't appear to use up much battery juice on standby. (Yes, the office where I work still has a land line phone with an LED display. Again, I can't imagine the LED and accompanying electronics is using much electricity.) As for something with a remote: most cars now have a remote, since you can click a button on your key from several feet away and get them to do something. Does that use up your car's battery very fast? Ever leave your car at the airport parking lot and come back a week or two later? My car's battery seems to be none the worse for the wear. (Yes, a car's battery is pretty big, but _no noticeable effect_.) And so on.
If we are a computer simulation, that might explain why it took a day to simulate the heavens and the earth, and to get past the surface of last scattering; another day to simulate the formation of elements heavier than Hydrogen and Helium via supernova, and allow the elements to cool enough to form molecular clouds; another day to simulate the formation of planets and the beginning of life; and so forth. As each stage became more complicated, the simulation was taking longer in computer time to model shorter periods of time in the simulation. Probably six days of computer time to simulate all of it. At that point the simulation had enough computing power, in the form of sentient beings, to go simulating itself, and so the computer could rest.
"allow non-specialists to read specialized works (such as scientific papers and legal documents). But the specialist/intended target are the major market so this is rare." Being part of that specialist target myself, I'm afraid you're right. Google has a special search database for people like me, scholar.google.com; but they're constantly making it harder to find. It used to appear as a link at the top of a google search page, then it was relegated to a drop-down, now it's not even there any more. Guess they didn't make enough $ off of it.
I am basically in agreement with rockmuelle. But to put (what I think is) his argument slightly differently, there is no such thing as an exact model, because the categories that you would want to mark in a model are inherently fuzzy. Library catalogers knew this decades (a century?) ago; they were trying to create a model, embodied in their card catalogs, of the information in books. But the inter-cataloger agreement was (from my observations) far from exact. A century later, and it's no different--and I suspect it never will be. Categorization, whether done by man or machine, is still fuzzy.
And if I've misrepresented rockmuelle, or misunderstood your question, qpqp, it's because I don't have an exact model of what you're saying.
I assume you're channeling the story about the professor who claimed in a lecture that there were languages that used double negatives to mean a negative (Spanish), and languages that used double negatives to mean a positive ("I have to do that--I can't not do it"), but no languages that used double positives to mean a negative. And the voice comes from the back of the room, "Yeah, right."
"And ending sentences with a preposition is exactly what every Germanic language has, dones and always will do. Because it's not a preposition, it's a component of a complex verb." Sometimes, but not always (at least not in English). For example, "What did you saw off the branch with __?" saw+off is a verb-particle combination, but the "with NP" is just a prepositional phrase.
"reasonably correct English": You're missing the point: there is no such thing as correct/ incorrect English (at least for native speakers). There is such a thing as standard English, but it is no more _correct_ than driving on the right-hand side of the road.
Nonsense, my good sir. An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him; the moment he opens his mouth, he makes some other Englishman despise him.
There are even places where English completely disappears. In America, they haven't spoken it for years.
"celestial bodies that are moving in a manner consistent with an asteroid": and if it's moving relative to the stellar background, but not in a way that's consistent with an asteroid? I suppose that would mean it's a comet. But it would be interesting if it were something else...
Slashdot Mirror
You need to take your meds. That or your tinfoil hat is crooked.
You mean like, my voice is my passport?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
> In the case of the Prius, the battery is used within a certain power/speed
> ranges (up to about 15 mph), then it switches to gas.
No. It uses the battery and/or the gas engine at any speed, depending on load and the state of the battery charge. In my Prius (2007), you can summon up a display that shows where the power is going/ coming from. It's constantly varying: sometimes you're driving under electric power (even at high speeds, if you're going slightly downhill), sometimes under gas (and sometimes with some of the gas engine output going to charge the battery), and sometimes the gas engine is off and the battery is getting charged from the wheels (like going down a steep downhill). If you go to any Prius forum, you can find out more.
But your general point, that a hybrid's battery is less stressed than a full EV, may be true.
No, I was not assuming they run from a battery; I was just using the fact that LEDs can run off of batteries to show how little power they use. As for the AC-DC converter itself, I guess you can tell how much energy it's wasting (as heat) by touching it. Most modern ones don't waste much.
Speaking of wasteful, do you know how many electrons had to go out of their way for you to write that post? And then how many were used to display your post on all the slash-dotters of the world! For crying out loud, you should conserve. Maybe if you left out the vowels, you could use fwr chrctrs, and the Arctic Ocean ice wouldn't melt so fast!
Ok, 0.26 watts. Let's pretend you never have to charge your phone (or you got a new charger and forgot to unplug the new one). There are about 8766 hours/ year. (This takes into account that one out of four years is a leap year.) So that charger is using about 2200 watt hours/ year, or about 2k. The average price for electricity in the US is 12 cents/ kw-hour (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state). So we're talking 25 cents per year to keep this charger plugged in.
That same NPR article says the average American household uses about 900 kw-h/month, or 900,000 watt-hours. A quarter of a watt = 187 watt-hours/ month, or about 0.02% of the average monthly use. Putting this differently, you'd need 50 plugged-in chargers in your home to amount to even 1% of your electricity use.
An apartment that has another living space above and below, and on three sides? So heat transfer takes place through only one wall of the six (counting ceiling and floor as "walls"). I can imagine his AC not having to do much, especially if he lives in a moderate climate, like parts of California.
What is this distinction you're making between being "on" or "running" on the one hand, and "working" on the other?
I suppose the microwave has a LED display that shows the time (or shows nothing if you didn't set the clock after the last power outage), but we can run wristwatch LEDs for a couple years on a tiny battery, so I don't think that's using much juice. Likewise the LED display on our oven. Maybe a land line phone would use a tiny bit of electricity for an LED too, but I long ago traded that in for a cell phone, which doesn't appear to use up much battery juice on standby. (Yes, the office where I work still has a land line phone with an LED display. Again, I can't imagine the LED and accompanying electronics is using much electricity.) As for something with a remote: most cars now have a remote, since you can click a button on your key from several feet away and get them to do something. Does that use up your car's battery very fast? Ever leave your car at the airport parking lot and come back a week or two later? My car's battery seems to be none the worse for the wear. (Yes, a car's battery is pretty big, but _no noticeable effect_.) And so on.
Better yet, saw (with a hand saw, of course) and split your own firewood; it'll warm you twice, the saying goes.
If we are a computer simulation, that might explain why it took a day to simulate the heavens and the earth, and to get past the surface of last scattering; another day to simulate the formation of elements heavier than Hydrogen and Helium via supernova, and allow the elements to cool enough to form molecular clouds; another day to simulate the formation of planets and the beginning of life; and so forth. As each stage became more complicated, the simulation was taking longer in computer time to model shorter periods of time in the simulation. Probably six days of computer time to simulate all of it. At that point the simulation had enough computing power, in the form of sentient beings, to go simulating itself, and so the computer could rest.
I find crowbars are not sentient, so stalking up on them is not too difficult. Keeping a large supply of them, otoh, can be hard.
In some universes. I hope to be in one of the universes where the LHC forgot to pay its electric bill, and gets shut down.
"allow non-specialists to read specialized works (such as scientific papers and legal documents). But the specialist/intended target are the major market so this is rare." Being part of that specialist target myself, I'm afraid you're right. Google has a special search database for people like me, scholar.google.com; but they're constantly making it harder to find. It used to appear as a link at the top of a google search page, then it was relegated to a drop-down, now it's not even there any more. Guess they didn't make enough $ off of it.
I am basically in agreement with rockmuelle. But to put (what I think is) his argument slightly differently, there is no such thing as an exact model, because the categories that you would want to mark in a model are inherently fuzzy. Library catalogers knew this decades (a century?) ago; they were trying to create a model, embodied in their card catalogs, of the information in books. But the inter-cataloger agreement was (from my observations) far from exact. A century later, and it's no different--and I suspect it never will be. Categorization, whether done by man or machine, is still fuzzy.
And if I've misrepresented rockmuelle, or misunderstood your question, qpqp, it's because I don't have an exact model of what you're saying.
And they would have had that if Doc Emmet Brown hadn't hoodwinked them.
You need to take your medications.
"...what then determines proper use?" Who sayeth that there be such a thing? Of a truth, thou dost not speak it.
Chaucer's been blogging of late: http://houseoffame.blogspot.co...
No, their write.
I assume you're channeling the story about the professor who claimed in a lecture that there were languages that used double negatives to mean a negative (Spanish), and languages that used double negatives to mean a positive ("I have to do that--I can't not do it"), but no languages that used double positives to mean a negative. And the voice comes from the back of the room, "Yeah, right."
"And ending sentences with a preposition is exactly what every Germanic language has, dones and always will do. Because it's not a preposition, it's a component of a complex verb." Sometimes, but not always (at least not in English). For example, "What did you saw off the branch with __?" saw+off is a verb-particle combination, but the "with NP" is just a prepositional phrase.
"reasonably correct English": You're missing the point: there is no such thing as correct/ incorrect English (at least for native speakers). There is such a thing as standard English, but it is no more _correct_ than driving on the right-hand side of the road.
FORTRAN is a counterexample. It has evolved, and it therefore must be fit. For something. I'm sure. I just can't remember what.
Nonsense, my good sir. An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him; the moment he opens his mouth, he makes some other Englishman despise him.
There are even places where English completely disappears. In America, they haven't spoken it for years.
"celestial bodies that are moving in a manner consistent with an asteroid": and if it's moving relative to the stellar background, but not in a way that's consistent with an asteroid? I suppose that would mean it's a comet. But it would be interesting if it were something else...