The shape of the cam has a direct effect on the way the engine operates - racing engines have a more "aggressive" cam profile, to increase volumetric efficiency, i.e. to get more fuel/air into the cylinder, and to get the exhaust out pronto, at the cost of less efficiency outside the "power band".
I'd like to see another design pursued - desmodromic head/cam/valve. Some motocycle riders will be familiar with this - it's a design used on Ducatis for many years.
Instead of using energy-sapping springs to close the valve, it uses an extra camshaft. One cam opens the valve, another shuts it, with a small hairpin-like spring to maintain it closed.
Advantages: less energy used fighting the springs when opening a valve, very aggressive and asymmetric cam profiles can be used, no danger of valve bounce, thus the engine can be designed to rev much higher, or at least produce the highest volumetric efficiency in a given rev range.
Disadvantages: extra energy used running an additional camshaft/s, extra complexity requiring additional maintenance (twice the number of clearances to be adjusted)
I knew an ex-racer (Ducati Desmo 450 single) who claimed that the main or bottom end bearings, or the conrod on a desmo would give out before the top end. The main limitation was that the carburettor efficiency dropped dramatically at higher revs.
And the Copyright Review Board just raised royalty rates, AND allowed a "small broadcaster" rebate/discount system to expire.
Result? Goodbye Live365, goodbye many small, niche broadcasters that I liked to listen to (paid subscriber, me), and goodbye even a small revenue stream for dozens of artists.
Good move CRB, now those artists will get NO money from those broadcasters.
It's uneven, too. The entire Studio Ghibli DVD catalogue at Sanity are still AUD$27.00 each, even the oldest ones. For some reason (I'm looking at you, MadMan), those titles never hit the discount shelves. I'd buy the lot if they were priced realistically - but not $27 each.
I've wondered about that - if you're only allowed to own the physical media, but licence the content, then it follows that faulty/broken media should be replaced with a 1/x priced copy, as long as you hand over the faulty/broken disc.
It's only fair - if I've licenced the content, then you should exchange a faulty or damaged disc for the price of the disc ONLY, and not the content.
My customers complain about the UI colour choices, and they complain about the ribbon. They pay me for advice and I try to be honest. I'll sell them MS Office if that's what they want, but I'll also inform them about other options.
Oh, I still use Microsoft Office - I've just chosen to stick with Office 2003. It meets my needs, and I'm happy with it. I tried 2007, and 2010, and neither made any improvement in productivity. Your mileage may vary, and that's what's nice about being able customise an interface - the toolbars. Your needs are different from mine, and we can both have the way we want it.
Thanks for reminding me - Compaq servers, and Tru64.
I tried to forget that period of my life - I had to migrate a DEC Alpha to Tru64.
Then I had the privilege of installing Win NT 4.0 on the Alpha, so it could run Exchange 5.0
{deep breath} It was the most stable instance of a Windows server + Exchange I've ever seen. Yep, MS server software, plus exchange, running on DEC Alpha hardware. No BSODs, and exchange went down ONCE, when it was upgraded to 5.5. The first thing to crap out was a network adapter. I think it was about 8 or 9 years old when the whole server was retired.
Hear, hear. Google is your friend. It took me all of 10 minutes searching and reading to learn how to customise the toolbar system in MSOffice versions prior to the ribbon, e.g. remove and add toolbar buttons for features as desired, and even create a keyboard shortcut for things in frequent use.
Thus, the features that I use most frequently *are* at my fingertips, and the items I don't use are banished back to their menus. It seems the ribbon was created to pander to those people who weren't able to figure out toolbar customisations. The ribbon is harder to customise, takes up far too much screen real estate in the "full" version, is almost useless in the minimised version, and it took a long time to get used to it.
And while we're at it, Microsoft's UI design team should be sent to a real design school. White, light grey, and dark grey are the colour schemes available in Office 2013, and I had customers complaining that they couldn't see things easily. How did such a design get past testing and QA? The response from the "experts" on answers.microsoft.com was to set the entire computer's colour scheme to "high contrast" - never mind ruining the interface for other programs, sheesh.
Exactly. With rare exceptions (such as kid's entry-level bikes), motorbikes have a manual clutch and a foot-operated sequential shift gearbox. It's one of the first things you learn, i.e. how to coordinate throttle, clutch, and gears to be in the right gear at the right time.
Except that riding a motorcycle generally takes more concentration, more engagement with the vehicle itself, so those skills will be lacking unless you've actually spent some time on a motorbike, and the vast majority of cagers have not been trained to ride a motorbike. They're just not used to that level of engagement with the vehicle and the process of driving.
EVERYONE should be required to undertake training on a motorbike before getting a licence. A pipe dream, but there'd be a lot less accidents.
I don't pay money to experts and automatically follow their advice. I pay them to provide me with information that I need to make my decision.
As I stated, it was a kind of proto-reality show, so yes it was a bit of a waste of time. Worth it for the look inside the Morgan factory, though.
They were being advised to do things that would have detracted from the allure of their product, probably leading to a reduction in orders, and an eventual loss of profitability. Perhaps the company management at the time held a broader view than the consultant? Anyway, I can't remember much else about the show.
There was a TV show some years ago - a proto-reality show - where a management consultant was brought into a company to upgrade their processes, in a bid to improve profitability.
Morgan was one of the companies visited by this smarmy git and his TV crew. Now, the Morgan production line is, well, antiquated. The cars (at the time) were largely hand-built, using hand tools, even hand-powered tools. The visiting expert tried to convince them to automate some of the manufacturing to increase production volume, and to start using cheaper materials to reduce costs. They flat-out said "no", and you could see the expert fail to understand their reasoning. Their orderbook was full for a number of years, they were happy with what they were doing, and the way they were doing it. The expert just couldn't comprehend why they didn't want to change.
And now they're going electric. Who owns Morgan now?
Oh, yeah. As long as users refuse to upgrade *cough*digital cinema*cough*, there'll be jaw-dropping amongst the community.
Still using 2.6.13 under Fedora. Apparently we users (projectionists) aren't to be trusted with our own equipment, so no root access, and we get an upgrade every three years or so, whenever we scream loud enough and promise to pay for it.
To their credit, the "upgrade" includes a calibration of sound+vision, so there's that.
I'm sure that coming into contact with the tip of a wind turbine would kill or seriously damage you, but there's evidence that some animals aren't actually colliding with the blades. Some post-mortem studies (of bats IIRC) showed evidence of ruptured lungs (but no blunt-force trauma), implying that the animals were killed by entering the zone of low pressure behind the leading edge.
"For x million, we'll put your name on these yuuuuuuge blades!"
Of course the ignorant fool won't realise that his name will only be easily visible if the thing's *not* working. Hopefully the blades will rotate fast enough to make the name hard to read.
Not having looked at the actual grant, or a sample grant application, I can see why those in charge of processing grant applications would want submissions to be highly structured, formal, and consistent.
How many applications are expected? If you can't at least pre-process them electronically to identify the first round of refusals (e.g. for not meeting one or another requirement, or not using enough jargon), then a person has to eyeball them, and that costs money that would be better spent elsewhere.
If I had to process many different formats by eye, I wouldn't be a happy bureaucrat.
OTOH, why not move the whole process to a html form?
There's a show on the ABC in Australia, "The Gruen Transfer" about marketing and advertising. Host, 2 regulars from the industry, and 2 guests.
Of the 2 regulars, one (Todd Sampson) gets it. He knows, and acknowledges that it's a pile of smoke and mirrors designed to funnel money into the pockets of marketing gurus, with a side-effect of maybe increasing a product's sales.
The other (Russel Howcroft) has drunk the kool-aid. He believes that extensive, expensive marketing is the only reason that products sell. He quotes research conducted by marketing organisations to support his statements.
I get approached by marketing people acting on behalf of newspapers (outside my district) , seeking my advertising $$$. NEVER have they managed to figure out that I don't service their district. They seem to think that even if advertising convinced someone to choose me over the local competition, it would be profitable for me to drive an hour to get to a customer in their district, and drive an hour to get back to base.
I'm glad you at least clicked on the link, but you've been selective. The article:
"A human body usually contains a negative caloric value, meaning that energy is required to combust it. This is a result of the high water content; all water must be vaporized which requires a very large amount of thermal energy. A 68 kg (150 lbs) body which contains 65% water will require 100 MJ of thermal energy before any combustion will take place. 100 MJ is approximately equivalent to 32 m3 (105 ft3) of natural gas, or 3 liters of fuel oil (0.8 US gallons). Additional energy is necessary to make up for the heat capacity ("preheating") of the furnace, fuel burned for emissions control, and heat losses through the insulation and in the flue gases. As a result, cremators are most often heated by burners fueled by natural gas. LPG (propane/butane) or fuel oil may be used where natural gas is not available. These burners can range in power from 150 kW (0.5 MMBTU/h) to over 400 kW (1.5 MMBTU/h). Cremators heated by electricity also exist in India, where electric heating elements bring about cremation without the direct application of flame to the body. If electrical furnaces are used â" between 0.13 and 0.18 megajoules for each body. Or about 100kg wood per body."
It says you'll use (the equivalent of) 3 litres of fuel oil BEFORE combustion takes place. That 3 litres is to vaporise the water in the corpse before the rest of it is able to burn.
Anyway, the point is made in the first paragraph - the process takes more energy than it provides.
Accumulated mercury and other heavy metals don't magically go away during cremation, and every animal contributes a load of pathogens to the environment when it dies - humans and some farmed animals also contribute the residues of prescription drugs. These are not insurmountable problems - hopefully the designers will address these issues.
Slashdot Mirror
The shape of the cam has a direct effect on the way the engine operates - racing engines have a more "aggressive" cam profile, to increase volumetric efficiency, i.e. to get more fuel/air into the cylinder, and to get the exhaust out pronto, at the cost of less efficiency outside the "power band".
I'd like to see another design pursued - desmodromic head/cam/valve. Some motocycle riders will be familiar with this - it's a design used on Ducatis for many years.
Instead of using energy-sapping springs to close the valve, it uses an extra camshaft. One cam opens the valve, another shuts it, with a small hairpin-like spring to maintain it closed.
Advantages: less energy used fighting the springs when opening a valve, very aggressive and asymmetric cam profiles can be used, no danger of valve bounce, thus the engine can be designed to rev much higher, or at least produce the highest volumetric efficiency in a given rev range.
Disadvantages: extra energy used running an additional camshaft/s, extra complexity requiring additional maintenance (twice the number of clearances to be adjusted)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I knew an ex-racer (Ducati Desmo 450 single) who claimed that the main or bottom end bearings, or the conrod on a desmo would give out before the top end. The main limitation was that the carburettor efficiency dropped dramatically at higher revs.
And the Copyright Review Board just raised royalty rates, AND allowed a "small broadcaster" rebate/discount system to expire.
Result? Goodbye Live365, goodbye many small, niche broadcasters that I liked to listen to (paid subscriber, me), and goodbye even a small revenue stream for dozens of artists.
Good move CRB, now those artists will get NO money from those broadcasters.
It's uneven, too. The entire Studio Ghibli DVD catalogue at Sanity are still AUD$27.00 each, even the oldest ones. For some reason (I'm looking at you, MadMan), those titles never hit the discount shelves. I'd buy the lot if they were priced realistically - but not $27 each.
I've wondered about that - if you're only allowed to own the physical media, but licence the content, then it follows that faulty/broken media should be replaced with a 1/x priced copy, as long as you hand over the faulty/broken disc.
It's only fair - if I've licenced the content, then you should exchange a faulty or damaged disc for the price of the disc ONLY, and not the content.
Oh, and his niece Rachel.
My customers complain about the UI colour choices, and they complain about the ribbon. They pay me for advice and I try to be honest. I'll sell them MS Office if that's what they want, but I'll also inform them about other options.
Oh, I still use Microsoft Office - I've just chosen to stick with Office 2003. It meets my needs, and I'm happy with it. I tried 2007, and 2010, and neither made any improvement in productivity. Your mileage may vary, and that's what's nice about being able customise an interface - the toolbars. Your needs are different from mine, and we can both have the way we want it.
Thanks for reminding me - Compaq servers, and Tru64.
I tried to forget that period of my life - I had to migrate a DEC Alpha to Tru64.
Then I had the privilege of installing Win NT 4.0 on the Alpha, so it could run Exchange 5.0
{deep breath} It was the most stable instance of a Windows server + Exchange I've ever seen. Yep, MS server software, plus exchange, running on DEC Alpha hardware. No BSODs, and exchange went down ONCE, when it was upgraded to 5.5. The first thing to crap out was a network adapter. I think it was about 8 or 9 years old when the whole server was retired.
Hear, hear. Google is your friend. It took me all of 10 minutes searching and reading to learn how to customise the toolbar system in MSOffice versions prior to the ribbon, e.g. remove and add toolbar buttons for features as desired, and even create a keyboard shortcut for things in frequent use.
Thus, the features that I use most frequently *are* at my fingertips, and the items I don't use are banished back to their menus. It seems the ribbon was created to pander to those people who weren't able to figure out toolbar customisations. The ribbon is harder to customise, takes up far too much screen real estate in the "full" version, is almost useless in the minimised version, and it took a long time to get used to it.
And while we're at it, Microsoft's UI design team should be sent to a real design school. White, light grey, and dark grey are the colour schemes available in Office 2013, and I had customers complaining that they couldn't see things easily. How did such a design get past testing and QA? The response from the "experts" on answers.microsoft.com was to set the entire computer's colour scheme to "high contrast" - never mind ruining the interface for other programs, sheesh.
Exactly. With rare exceptions (such as kid's entry-level bikes), motorbikes have a manual clutch and a foot-operated sequential shift gearbox. It's one of the first things you learn, i.e. how to coordinate throttle, clutch, and gears to be in the right gear at the right time.
Except that riding a motorcycle generally takes more concentration, more engagement with the vehicle itself, so those skills will be lacking unless you've actually spent some time on a motorbike, and the vast majority of cagers have not been trained to ride a motorbike. They're just not used to that level of engagement with the vehicle and the process of driving.
EVERYONE should be required to undertake training on a motorbike before getting a licence. A pipe dream, but there'd be a lot less accidents.
I don't pay money to experts and automatically follow their advice. I pay them to provide me with information that I need to make my decision.
As I stated, it was a kind of proto-reality show, so yes it was a bit of a waste of time. Worth it for the look inside the Morgan factory, though.
They were being advised to do things that would have detracted from the allure of their product, probably leading to a reduction in orders, and an eventual loss of profitability. Perhaps the company management at the time held a broader view than the consultant? Anyway, I can't remember much else about the show.
No, it was more of a comment on how they've changed from being kind of "set in their ways", to "embracing the new".
Thanks - you've filled in the blanks for me.
There was a TV show some years ago - a proto-reality show - where a management consultant was brought into a company to upgrade their processes, in a bid to improve profitability.
Morgan was one of the companies visited by this smarmy git and his TV crew. Now, the Morgan production line is, well, antiquated. The cars (at the time) were largely hand-built, using hand tools, even hand-powered tools. The visiting expert tried to convince them to automate some of the manufacturing to increase production volume, and to start using cheaper materials to reduce costs. They flat-out said "no", and you could see the expert fail to understand their reasoning. Their orderbook was full for a number of years, they were happy with what they were doing, and the way they were doing it. The expert just couldn't comprehend why they didn't want to change.
And now they're going electric. Who owns Morgan now?
Natural disaster? REACT reacts.
Needs a training video.
Oh, yeah. As long as users refuse to upgrade *cough*digital cinema*cough*, there'll be jaw-dropping amongst the community.
Still using 2.6.13 under Fedora. Apparently we users (projectionists) aren't to be trusted with our own equipment, so no root access, and we get an upgrade every three years or so, whenever we scream loud enough and promise to pay for it.
To their credit, the "upgrade" includes a calibration of sound+vision, so there's that.
I'm sure that coming into contact with the tip of a wind turbine would kill or seriously damage you, but there's evidence that some animals aren't actually colliding with the blades. Some post-mortem studies (of bats IIRC) showed evidence of ruptured lungs (but no blunt-force trauma), implying that the animals were killed by entering the zone of low pressure behind the leading edge.
Well, you could offer the naming rights to Trump.
"For x million, we'll put your name on these yuuuuuuge blades!"
Of course the ignorant fool won't realise that his name will only be easily visible if the thing's *not* working. Hopefully the blades will rotate fast enough to make the name hard to read.
Not having looked at the actual grant, or a sample grant application, I can see why those in charge of processing grant applications would want submissions to be highly structured, formal, and consistent.
How many applications are expected? If you can't at least pre-process them electronically to identify the first round of refusals (e.g. for not meeting one or another requirement, or not using enough jargon), then a person has to eyeball them, and that costs money that would be better spent elsewhere.
If I had to process many different formats by eye, I wouldn't be a happy bureaucrat.
OTOH, why not move the whole process to a html form?
There's a show on the ABC in Australia, "The Gruen Transfer" about marketing and advertising. Host, 2 regulars from the industry, and 2 guests.
Of the 2 regulars, one (Todd Sampson) gets it. He knows, and acknowledges that it's a pile of smoke and mirrors designed to funnel money into the pockets of marketing gurus, with a side-effect of maybe increasing a product's sales.
The other (Russel Howcroft) has drunk the kool-aid. He believes that extensive, expensive marketing is the only reason that products sell. He quotes research conducted by marketing organisations to support his statements.
I get approached by marketing people acting on behalf of newspapers (outside my district) , seeking my advertising $$$. NEVER have they managed to figure out that I don't service their district. They seem to think that even if advertising convinced someone to choose me over the local competition, it would be profitable for me to drive an hour to get to a customer in their district, and drive an hour to get back to base.
#Whatsamatteryou
#gottanorespect
#whattathinkayoudo
#whyyoulookasosad
#itsanotsobad
#itsaniceaplace
#ahshutuppayourface
Hell, play that as the soundtrack. Over and over.
Perhaps a recording of question time in Parliament?
A speech from RMS?
The speaking clock?
The shipping news?
More like:
"saw it on TV
bought it on the phone
when it got it home
it was a piece of crap"
I'm glad you at least clicked on the link, but you've been selective. The article:
"A human body usually contains a negative caloric value, meaning that energy is required to combust it. This is a result of the high water content; all water must be vaporized which requires a very large amount of thermal energy.
A 68 kg (150 lbs) body which contains 65% water will require 100 MJ of thermal energy before any combustion will take place. 100 MJ is approximately equivalent to 32 m3 (105 ft3) of natural gas, or 3 liters of fuel oil (0.8 US gallons). Additional energy is necessary to make up for the heat capacity ("preheating") of the furnace, fuel burned for emissions control, and heat losses through the insulation and in the flue gases.
As a result, cremators are most often heated by burners fueled by natural gas. LPG (propane/butane) or fuel oil may be used where natural gas is not available. These burners can range in power from 150 kW (0.5 MMBTU/h) to over 400 kW (1.5 MMBTU/h).
Cremators heated by electricity also exist in India, where electric heating elements bring about cremation without the direct application of flame to the body.
If electrical furnaces are used â" between 0.13 and 0.18 megajoules for each body. Or about 100kg wood per body."
It says you'll use (the equivalent of) 3 litres of fuel oil BEFORE combustion takes place. That 3 litres is to vaporise the water in the corpse before the rest of it is able to burn.
Anyway, the point is made in the first paragraph - the process takes more energy than it provides.
Accumulated mercury and other heavy metals don't magically go away during cremation, and every animal contributes a load of pathogens to the environment when it dies - humans and some farmed animals also contribute the residues of prescription drugs. These are not insurmountable problems - hopefully the designers will address these issues.
Here's a thought - put the corpses through an industrial grinder to reduce them to slop, then dispose of the slop way out in the ocean.
Result? A reduction of atmospheric CO2 from algal blooms. Win-win, I say.