Instead, it works the other way around, as a fan to push air backwards and accelerate the car.
Like any good airfoil, it both pushes behind and pulls forward at the same time.
One simple test the author did for a small rig was to use a treadmill to represent the forward motion from the tailwind. If the propeller is able to spin fast enough to pull the cart forward on the treadmill with no wind, then it can do the same when the treadmill is replaced by a tailwind.
The treadmill test works, so the large-scale test should work as well. To prove it they built the cart and had the NALSA run the test.
So you're saying the North American Land Sailing Association is in the business of rigging official land speed record tests eh?
For Christ's sake, land sails already go 2-3 times faster than the wind using the exact same principles used in these carts. This is not some kind of voodoo physics, it's simply maximizing the available energy.
I'll break it down for you, since you obviously didn't bother to read the article where they already explained it and since I'm such a nice guy:
At a dead stop, the propeller acts like a sail. The wind pushes against it, pushing the cart forward. As the cart moves forward the wheels turn the propeller. The cart continues to accelerate, which in turn spins the prop faster. Well before the cart reaches wind-speed, the propeller is providing a significant amount of pull, which continues to accelerate the cart, which continues to drive the wheels which continues to drive the propeller faster. The cart stops accelerating when drag and wind-speed cancel out the propeller's pull.
Here's the math for you: tail-wind = 10mph, cart speed = 28 mph. 28mph/10mph = 2.8 times wind-speed.
Better?
In case you are interested, the land sailing speed record was set the same day with 126mph in a 40mph cross-wind. That's 3.15 times wind-speed. I can do the math again for you, if you like.
The physics work just fine, and they have for a couple hundred years now. It's the whole reason triangular sails were invented for heaven's sake! The sailing folks have it rough though, so much drag means the world sailing speed record is only about 20% faster than wind speed.
This is just a new application of old, well known and well established physics.
And if that were how it had been accomplished, it would also technically not have been a successful faster-than-the-wind run.
The criteria for success were as follows:
Directly downwind, level surface, steady-state wind, and no energy storage.
To accomplish the first three, they picked a dry river-bed place known for steady winds (and therefore very popular with cart sailers). The last criteria was accomplished by a bracket that prevented any power from being transferred to the wheels by the propeller.
The way it works is as follows:
Up until the cart reaches wind speed, the propeller acts primarily as a sail. The wind pushes against it, which pushes the cart forward. As the cart moves forward, the wheels turn the propeller. The faster the propeller turns, the more it pulls the cart forward, but until it hits windspeed it is still at least partially acting as a sail.
By the time the cart reaches windspeed (relative windspeed of 0) the propeller is turning fast enough pull the cart forward on its own. It is no longer catching any wind from behind.
The cart continues to accelerate until drag and the headwind are able to cancel out the pull generated by the propeller. The cart is at max speed at this point. For the cart in the story, that happened at 2.8 times windspeed.
It's important to note that if the tailwind increases, the cart will be able to go faster, and if it drops the cart will slow down. If the wind shifts the cart will stop pretty quickly if there isn't any clutch on the drive mechanism.
It sounds like free energy, but it isn't. It's just getting the absolute most out of the energy available.
The article specifically mentions heading directly downwind.
With a propeller, which is an airfoil and works on the same principle as the sailboat's 45 degree trick. The reason sailboats can't do it directly downwind is because they can't create an airfoil directly downwind with sails, not because it's impossible to create an airfoil that works directly downwind (it's actually more logical for an airfoil to work directly downwind, rather than crosswind).
Think of it as writing a 50 page essay. You don't just sit down and start thinking "oh I have to write a 50 page essay, look at how much planning i have to do before it"
Good safe practice for separating a process control network from the internet is something like: internet > corporate network > buffer network > process network. Completely separating it is not advisable, because it can actually make it harder to administer and protect (updates, antivirus, etc). It's an option though if you are diligent with sneakernet updates and whatnot.
The network your SCADA system runs on should never, ever have direct access to your corporate network or the internet, your buffer network should never have direct access to the internet, and your corporate network should never have direct access to your process network. Be stingy about what you allow through the firewalls at each layer.
Basically when you need SCADA data outside the process network, you send it to the buffer network, and from there it is accessed from the corporate network. All controls should only be managed from the SCADA network (i.e. don't set something up so that it can be managed from the corporate network).
Separation is key. As others have said, SCADA networks need a lot of open access to the various systems they control in order to function efficiently, so within the network things have to be practically wide open. The only real option is to protect yourself with layers to make it nearly impossible for anything you don't want to access the system.
Consumption taxes hit those who spend their entire paycheck the hardest - ie the poorest members of society.
I've never understood the idea that anyone, poor or no, should not have to pay their fair share. If they need a leg up we can give them a leg up, but why shouldn't they pay their fair share? And for what it's worth, I'm not poor, but I'm at the very bottom of the middle class. It would be really nice if I could cut my tax burden by not buying anything. That would really help my situation out a lot.
I-1098 would apply this tax rate to all income, including capital gains and dividends, and would not permit any deductions for charitable contributions.
I.e. it applies to capital gains income if you live in Washington.
It really is a ridiculous income tax, I'd be totally against it and I don't even make that much money, let alone have a potential multi-billion dollar share sell-off.
Peeling back the layers of hype a bit, however, these kinds of solar cells are horribly inefficient.
That's true, but this is made up for by the fact that you can place them in more places. For example, high-efficiency silicon solar panels can never be used as windows. It is simply not an area available for solar collection even though we generally place windows in areas that get a lot of sunlight. That's because a window is useless if we can't see through it, obviously.
So this is going to generate solar power in areas that currently cannot be practically collected. In that sense, it's infinitely more efficient than current tech.
Also, if this stuff is cheap enough to produce, and it sounds like it should be, you could expand to non-transparent applications. Something like a coating for home siding material to turn the side of your house into a giant solar panel. For these applications too you care more about absorbing the light, so you pack the hexagons tighter and raise efficiency.
So yeah, your efficiency per square foot may be crap, but your square footage can be huge. That's assuming, of course, this stuff ends up being cheap. The manufacturing process should be ultra cheap, but I don't know about producing the solution. It should be a lot cheaper than traditional panels, but will it be cheap enough to make it worth it? That's the question.
It's transparent because the film has a hexagonal structure - extremely thin (and therefore transparent) at the center of the hexagon, thick (and therefore opaque) at the edges of the hexagons. The electricity is generated at the edges, as that is where the light is absorbed and that's where all the electrons are ready to be knocked off their molecules. It's not blocking certain wavelengths and allowing others through (well obviously to some degree it is, but not in the visible spectrum). It's blocking light in certain parts and allowing light through in others.
It's basically going to tint the windows, how much will be determined by how densely the hexagons are packed - more hexagons means more electricity but also a darker tint.
These would be great in windows, but I don't see why it should be limited to windows, since it's a coating that could be applied to all sorts of things.
A covering for housing siding, for example, or attached to roofing sheets. Something like this, if it ends up being cheap (and it should, it's a super simple process to make - the trick was getting the chemical solution right), would have a lot more applications than just in windows.
It's not going to absorb all the light, most of the light getting through is going through the middle of the hexagons, while most of the light being absorbed is at the edge of the hexagons.
I would expect more of a darkening effect than a color change - the edges of the hexagon are basically opaque, so there shouldn't be any light going through them. A portion of the light gets blocked, and of that blocked light a portion gets turned into electricity.
Looking in from the outside they might have some kind of color to them though, as what doesn't get absorbed will be reflected back.
That's what I would expect too. My hope is that, since it is a fairly simple process (just super-tiny water droplets filled with the proper chemical spread out on a sheet) they will be able to produce reasonably efficient solar panels for much less than they cost now. Since they can be created on plastic, I'd like to see it used as some kind of siding. Then you wouldn't have to worry about them being very transparent either (i.e. more densely packed hexagons).
It's impossible to quantify actual damages in these cases. If you went $7 per song, you would have to include each instance of infringement, which could be in the tens of thousands depending on how it was shared, in which case you're actually being harsher than the $60k per song judgment. But there is no way to accurately quantify that, so there must be statutory damages, and they must be significant enough to discourage further infringement.
A $170 fine isn't going to do that, but a $24,000 fine would ($1000 per song). That's not going to be enough for a copy shop that is actually selling copies, though, so the current statutory limits should apply in those cases (see how easy it is to run into problems?).
Remember, the punishment isn't really to keep Jamie Thomas from infringing again, I doubt she would now even if they decided on a $1 penalty. It's to make as many other people think twice about it as possible. You do still have to balance that with fairness against the defendant though, so a compromise of reasonable but still significant is what you want. $2 million for 24 songs is unreasonable, and $170 for 24 songs isn't going to make anybody think twice.
"Lost Sales" should never be a factor for any crime.
Individual instances of infringement I can see (and is actually harsher than lost sales, btw), but not lost sales.
The simple fact of the matter is not-for-profit instances of infringement should have lower statutory damages than for-profit instances.
The original law was designed to cover cases where a copying operation would set up shop somewhere, copy the hell out of a book or CD or whatever and sell it at a cut rate, making thousands of dollars in the process. It was not designed with a mom who's kids shared music with the whole world in mind.
So it needs to be adjusted. Not drastically, just adjusted. Something like $100-$1000 per copyrighted work infringed upon would leave a significant penalty for infringement, which you want in order to prevent others from infringing copyright, while not disproportionately punishing people for a crime that is really way too easy to commit, even accidentally.
Hell, if they did that, I'd even be ok with raising the statutory limits on for-profit copyright infringement! A DVD copy shop should get hit with a $10m fine in my opinion. A woman who shared 24 songs on her computer should not.
they don't lock you up for shoplifting based on how many POUNDS of material you stole. or what its square yardage is. why are people so willing to accept the per-song penalty multiplier?
Stealing an item worth less than $500 is a misdemeanor, stealing an item worth $500 or more is a felony. If you didn't know already, felonies and misdemeanors have significantly different levels of punishment. Furthermore, the punishment is largely based on the value of the items stolen.
Ok, the first link was a software case, and has nothing to do with this case. The second link is a technique whose sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection. This is illegal under the DMCA. Without the DMCA the activity would be perfectly legal.
The drivers in this case would not be used to circumvent copy protection, so the DMCA would not apply.
How, exactly, is reverse engineering (an activity proven legal with much case history) the Kinect illegal?
Slashdot Mirror
Instead, it works the other way around, as a fan to push air backwards and accelerate the car.
Like any good airfoil, it both pushes behind and pulls forward at the same time.
One simple test the author did for a small rig was to use a treadmill to represent the forward motion from the tailwind. If the propeller is able to spin fast enough to pull the cart forward on the treadmill with no wind, then it can do the same when the treadmill is replaced by a tailwind.
The treadmill test works, so the large-scale test should work as well. To prove it they built the cart and had the NALSA run the test.
It happens.
So you're saying the North American Land Sailing Association is in the business of rigging official land speed record tests eh?
For Christ's sake, land sails already go 2-3 times faster than the wind using the exact same principles used in these carts. This is not some kind of voodoo physics, it's simply maximizing the available energy.
I'll break it down for you, since you obviously didn't bother to read the article where they already explained it and since I'm such a nice guy:
At a dead stop, the propeller acts like a sail. The wind pushes against it, pushing the cart forward. As the cart moves forward the wheels turn the propeller. The cart continues to accelerate, which in turn spins the prop faster. Well before the cart reaches wind-speed, the propeller is providing a significant amount of pull, which continues to accelerate the cart, which continues to drive the wheels which continues to drive the propeller faster. The cart stops accelerating when drag and wind-speed cancel out the propeller's pull.
Here's the math for you: tail-wind = 10mph, cart speed = 28 mph. 28mph/10mph = 2.8 times wind-speed.
Better?
In case you are interested, the land sailing speed record was set the same day with 126mph in a 40mph cross-wind. That's 3.15 times wind-speed. I can do the math again for you, if you like.
The physics work just fine, and they have for a couple hundred years now. It's the whole reason triangular sails were invented for heaven's sake! The sailing folks have it rough though, so much drag means the world sailing speed record is only about 20% faster than wind speed.
This is just a new application of old, well known and well established physics.
And if that were how it had been accomplished, it would also technically not have been a successful faster-than-the-wind run.
The criteria for success were as follows:
Directly downwind, level surface, steady-state wind, and no energy storage.
To accomplish the first three, they picked a dry river-bed place known for steady winds (and therefore very popular with cart sailers). The last criteria was accomplished by a bracket that prevented any power from being transferred to the wheels by the propeller.
The way it works is as follows:
Up until the cart reaches wind speed, the propeller acts primarily as a sail. The wind pushes against it, which pushes the cart forward. As the cart moves forward, the wheels turn the propeller. The faster the propeller turns, the more it pulls the cart forward, but until it hits windspeed it is still at least partially acting as a sail.
By the time the cart reaches windspeed (relative windspeed of 0) the propeller is turning fast enough pull the cart forward on its own. It is no longer catching any wind from behind.
The cart continues to accelerate until drag and the headwind are able to cancel out the pull generated by the propeller. The cart is at max speed at this point. For the cart in the story, that happened at 2.8 times windspeed.
It's important to note that if the tailwind increases, the cart will be able to go faster, and if it drops the cart will slow down. If the wind shifts the cart will stop pretty quickly if there isn't any clutch on the drive mechanism.
It sounds like free energy, but it isn't. It's just getting the absolute most out of the energy available.
The article specifically mentions heading directly downwind.
With a propeller, which is an airfoil and works on the same principle as the sailboat's 45 degree trick. The reason sailboats can't do it directly downwind is because they can't create an airfoil directly downwind with sails, not because it's impossible to create an airfoil that works directly downwind (it's actually more logical for an airfoil to work directly downwind, rather than crosswind).
Think of it as writing a 50 page essay. You don't just sit down and start thinking "oh I have to write a 50 page essay, look at how much planning i have to do before it"
I do.
That's why I don't write 50 page essays.
I'm confused, since when are operational engineers managers?
Good safe practice for separating a process control network from the internet is something like: internet > corporate network > buffer network > process network. Completely separating it is not advisable, because it can actually make it harder to administer and protect (updates, antivirus, etc). It's an option though if you are diligent with sneakernet updates and whatnot.
The network your SCADA system runs on should never, ever have direct access to your corporate network or the internet, your buffer network should never have direct access to the internet, and your corporate network should never have direct access to your process network. Be stingy about what you allow through the firewalls at each layer.
Basically when you need SCADA data outside the process network, you send it to the buffer network, and from there it is accessed from the corporate network. All controls should only be managed from the SCADA network (i.e. don't set something up so that it can be managed from the corporate network).
Separation is key. As others have said, SCADA networks need a lot of open access to the various systems they control in order to function efficiently, so within the network things have to be practically wide open. The only real option is to protect yourself with layers to make it nearly impossible for anything you don't want to access the system.
Consumption taxes hit those who spend their entire paycheck the hardest - ie the poorest members of society.
I've never understood the idea that anyone, poor or no, should not have to pay their fair share. If they need a leg up we can give them a leg up, but why shouldn't they pay their fair share? And for what it's worth, I'm not poor, but I'm at the very bottom of the middle class. It would be really nice if I could cut my tax burden by not buying anything. That would really help my situation out a lot.
(unless you count waving the magic wand of waste-free administration, as much beloved by the pumpkin pie in the sky sect)
Hey, that's how I solve most of my problems!
When that doesn't work I close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, and say "la la la la la" over and over.
Last ditch, hail-mary option is to bury my head in the sand. That always takes care of any stubborn problem that makes it this far.
Ahem, from the summary:
I-1098 would apply this tax rate to all income, including capital gains and dividends, and would not permit any deductions for charitable contributions.
I.e. it applies to capital gains income if you live in Washington.
It really is a ridiculous income tax, I'd be totally against it and I don't even make that much money, let alone have a potential multi-billion dollar share sell-off.
Right, never moving to Wisconsin. Check.
Peeling back the layers of hype a bit, however, these kinds of solar cells are horribly inefficient.
That's true, but this is made up for by the fact that you can place them in more places. For example, high-efficiency silicon solar panels can never be used as windows. It is simply not an area available for solar collection even though we generally place windows in areas that get a lot of sunlight. That's because a window is useless if we can't see through it, obviously.
So this is going to generate solar power in areas that currently cannot be practically collected. In that sense, it's infinitely more efficient than current tech.
Also, if this stuff is cheap enough to produce, and it sounds like it should be, you could expand to non-transparent applications. Something like a coating for home siding material to turn the side of your house into a giant solar panel. For these applications too you care more about absorbing the light, so you pack the hexagons tighter and raise efficiency.
So yeah, your efficiency per square foot may be crap, but your square footage can be huge. That's assuming, of course, this stuff ends up being cheap. The manufacturing process should be ultra cheap, but I don't know about producing the solution. It should be a lot cheaper than traditional panels, but will it be cheap enough to make it worth it? That's the question.
It's transparent because the film has a hexagonal structure - extremely thin (and therefore transparent) at the center of the hexagon, thick (and therefore opaque) at the edges of the hexagons. The electricity is generated at the edges, as that is where the light is absorbed and that's where all the electrons are ready to be knocked off their molecules. It's not blocking certain wavelengths and allowing others through (well obviously to some degree it is, but not in the visible spectrum). It's blocking light in certain parts and allowing light through in others.
It's basically going to tint the windows, how much will be determined by how densely the hexagons are packed - more hexagons means more electricity but also a darker tint.
These would be great in windows, but I don't see why it should be limited to windows, since it's a coating that could be applied to all sorts of things.
A covering for housing siding, for example, or attached to roofing sheets. Something like this, if it ends up being cheap (and it should, it's a super simple process to make - the trick was getting the chemical solution right), would have a lot more applications than just in windows.
Cross your fingers, I say.
It's not going to absorb all the light, most of the light getting through is going through the middle of the hexagons, while most of the light being absorbed is at the edge of the hexagons.
I would expect more of a darkening effect than a color change - the edges of the hexagon are basically opaque, so there shouldn't be any light going through them. A portion of the light gets blocked, and of that blocked light a portion gets turned into electricity.
Looking in from the outside they might have some kind of color to them though, as what doesn't get absorbed will be reflected back.
That's what I would expect too. My hope is that, since it is a fairly simple process (just super-tiny water droplets filled with the proper chemical spread out on a sheet) they will be able to produce reasonably efficient solar panels for much less than they cost now. Since they can be created on plastic, I'd like to see it used as some kind of siding. Then you wouldn't have to worry about them being very transparent either (i.e. more densely packed hexagons).
Either way, it's very cool.
It's impossible to quantify actual damages in these cases. If you went $7 per song, you would have to include each instance of infringement, which could be in the tens of thousands depending on how it was shared, in which case you're actually being harsher than the $60k per song judgment. But there is no way to accurately quantify that, so there must be statutory damages, and they must be significant enough to discourage further infringement.
A $170 fine isn't going to do that, but a $24,000 fine would ($1000 per song). That's not going to be enough for a copy shop that is actually selling copies, though, so the current statutory limits should apply in those cases (see how easy it is to run into problems?).
Remember, the punishment isn't really to keep Jamie Thomas from infringing again, I doubt she would now even if they decided on a $1 penalty. It's to make as many other people think twice about it as possible. You do still have to balance that with fairness against the defendant though, so a compromise of reasonable but still significant is what you want. $2 million for 24 songs is unreasonable, and $170 for 24 songs isn't going to make anybody think twice.
"Lost Sales" should never be a factor for any crime.
Individual instances of infringement I can see (and is actually harsher than lost sales, btw), but not lost sales.
The simple fact of the matter is not-for-profit instances of infringement should have lower statutory damages than for-profit instances.
The original law was designed to cover cases where a copying operation would set up shop somewhere, copy the hell out of a book or CD or whatever and sell it at a cut rate, making thousands of dollars in the process. It was not designed with a mom who's kids shared music with the whole world in mind.
So it needs to be adjusted. Not drastically, just adjusted. Something like $100-$1000 per copyrighted work infringed upon would leave a significant penalty for infringement, which you want in order to prevent others from infringing copyright, while not disproportionately punishing people for a crime that is really way too easy to commit, even accidentally.
Hell, if they did that, I'd even be ok with raising the statutory limits on for-profit copyright infringement! A DVD copy shop should get hit with a $10m fine in my opinion. A woman who shared 24 songs on her computer should not.
No, it's much much worse than theft.
*choke*
It was generally commissioned by private collectors.
Public consumption of art skyrocketed with the invention of copyright.
they don't lock you up for shoplifting based on how many POUNDS of material you stole. or what its square yardage is. why are people so willing to accept the per-song penalty multiplier?
Stealing an item worth less than $500 is a misdemeanor, stealing an item worth $500 or more is a felony. If you didn't know already, felonies and misdemeanors have significantly different levels of punishment. Furthermore, the punishment is largely based on the value of the items stolen.
Depends, if it's from a used car lot you're out $10k-$30, a Lamborghini dealer though could easily hit the multi-million mark.
That and a little jail time and you are good to go.
But obviously, sharing a song is so much more egregious than stealing a crime. It deserves a $60k per song punishment, easy.
*gag*
Basically, if the end result is that you can copy something you couldn't copy before, it's probably illegal.
Otherwise, go for it.
Ok, the first link was a software case, and has nothing to do with this case. The second link is a technique whose sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection. This is illegal under the DMCA. Without the DMCA the activity would be perfectly legal.
The drivers in this case would not be used to circumvent copy protection, so the DMCA would not apply.
How, exactly, is reverse engineering (an activity proven legal with much case history) the Kinect illegal?