In an electric car, close to 100% of the stored energy is used for locomotion (unless maybe you have the heater on).
And the headlights, and the radio, and the bluetooth adapter, and the fans for the climate control system, and the ECU, and the BCU, etc.
Except you have all of those things in a gas powered car too. The alternator puts extra load on the engine to power them as well as charge the battery in a gas powered car. However in a gas powered car, the weight of the gas is lower than the weight of the batteries. So, the energy density is higher. And as the fuel is used, the total weight of it decreases. In an electric car, the batteries weigh the same whether they are fully charged or completely drained. It's not so much about the percentage of stored energy that is used. It's how much energy is produced/exerted vs. how much the source weighs.
from what I know, it wasn't exactly a street legal compression in the engine,
Street legal compression? I've never heard of a state that has limits on compression ratios. Granted, if you get too high using pistons on a naturally aspirated engine, you'll have a hell of a time finding street legal fuel. On the other hand, if it's due to the boost from a turbo, it's a little different. But then catastrophic engine failure is a possibility. Then there are diesel engines that have significantly higher compression ratios by design. I'm not familiar with any states that have laws limiting this. If there are, how is it enforced? I can't imagine a state trooper carrying around the equipment to measure this. Or having the competence to do it.
Here is the scoop on the 70" telescope. Mike Clements purchased a polished but uncoated mirror that is 70" across that was intended for a spy satellite project that was cancelled. A huge uncoated mirror is not a telescope anymore than (car analogy - wait for it...) a V8 engine is a racecar. Building a good performing telescope (collimation tolerances are measured in thousandths of an inch) is a significant task, a huge telescope like this is a major engineering feat. What's more this is a transportable telescope. It is possibly the biggest transportable telescope in the world. This telescope is more powerful than any telescope that existed before 1917 (when the 100" Hooker telescope saw first light).
Successfully silvering the mirror using updated 19th Cedntury mirror coating technology was nifty too.
If I had the only key to the server room and got fired but didn't turn in the key, I would expect retribution of some form, especially if the office had a steel door that took weeks to break down.
What kind of idiot budgets for a server room with a steel door that takes weeks to break down but doesn't include a duplicate key for the security office to hold? Why isn't that idiot the one in jail? What if you lost the key, would you still be OK with being sent to jail for not returning it?
But that's different from with Terry Childs did. He didn't accidentally lose the key. He let everyone know that he still had it and wouldn't return it. Normally I wouldn't side with the company as readily as in this case. They should have never had him (or anyone) be the sole gatekeeper. But Mr. Childs chose to be a complete ass, and probably got exactly what he deserved.
The mine fires are there because there is coal. Not because there are "coal plants".
Most mine fires are "natural".
A natural mine? Mine fires are there because coal is mined for burning. Coal seam fires are a different matter. Even so, it still shows that coal is not as benevolent compared to uranium as many seen to think. When's the last time there was a natural nuclear explosion on this planet?
if everything goes well, it would make India the first country to send a payload to Mars in its first attempt,
That's i really big "If".
The USSR failed on their first 8 attempts starting in 1960. They managed to get some our moon on the ninth attempt five years later, still not successful in getting to Mars though. They managed to make Mars orbit in 1971 after 11 failed attempts. Granted, this was very early in manned space flight. Even so, failure is still a very common outcome for any nation attempting it. The EU made it to orbit in 2004, but the lander did not make it. Between 1988 and 1999, the US had three Mars missions that failed, The USSR/Russia 3, and Japan had one as well. In that 11 year span only the US Mars Global Surveyor and Pathfinder missions were successful.
It's not easy to get there, but I certainly wish India the best of luck doing it on the first try. That would be quite a feat.
but seeing as the proposed SR-72 aircraft is using a common inlet, the severity might be reduced.
There are still two inlets for each engine grouping. They share a common inlet with the turbine and ram/scramjet on either side. So there are still two inlets. One for the combined turbine scramjet on the right side and one inlet for the combined engines on the left. The artists rendition shows this as well. Having a common inlet for both engines would be scarier as you could have one cut out and suddenly create back-pressure in the incoming airstream and screw up the other engine too. With the engines be closer together on the SR-72 (both appear to be under the body) it may help, but at mach 6 who knows.
The Skunk Works has been working with Aerojet Rocketdyne for the past seven years to develop a method to integrate an off-the-shelf turbine with a scramjet to power the aircraft from standstill to Mach 6 plus
From Nov 2:
the SR-72. Using a new hypersonic engine design that combines turbines and ramjets the company says that the unmanned SR-72 will be twice as fast as its predecessor with a cruising speed of Mach 6.
Three days ago they needed a scramjet to hit mach 6 cruise. Then they were able to do it with a ramjet by the next day. A scramjet is a variant of a ramjet. But where a ramjet slows the air below supersonic for combustion, a scramjet does not. So it's a pretty important distinction. However mach 6 is also around the max speed was for an aircraft using a standard ramjet, not the cruising speed.
I wonder how bad or frequent an unstart will be with a mach 6 aircraft. It's probably good that it will be unmanned as a pilot many not be able to remain conscious, or even survive one at hypersonic speeds. I'm sure with all of the advances in computing speeds this would be trivial to do on an SR-71 at mach 3 today. But I have to wonder how far mach 6 will push things.
Is this one going to have to lose something like 5% of its fuel load on takeoff and climb operations (in order to allow for thermal and external pressure variances between takeoff and operation)?
"This is what an airplane's supposed to be; Ugly on the ground, Leaks like a sieve, And up around mach one, The seals all expand, She dries up, leans into the wind, And flies like a bat out of hell."
"a Jedi's strength flows from the Force." while training Luke (a statement he would repeat in Return of the Jedi); Yoda also explains that "you must feel the Force around you." During their battle in Cloud City, Darth Vader tells Luke "The Force is with you, young Skywalker, but you are not a Jedi yet." Finally, Luke says "May the Force be with you" at the end of the movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_(Star_Wars)
That's all well and good in a galaxy far, far away where the laws of physics are significantly different than this on. Where laser guns (or what ever they are) travel slower than a rifle round in this one. I suppose that explains whey they can travel at light speed though. RAF/all pilots in this galaxy are not Jedi, nor do they have any midichlorians to "feel" the world around them.
How many square kilometers of land have been made completely uninhabitable for the next 200 years or so as a result of coal power?
A lot. Not only for discarded waste, but mine fires. Centralia, Pennsylvania has been burning since 1962 and will be burning for the next 1000 years by most estimates. Then there are other mine fires all over the planet. It does look like there may be some success with extinguishing these on the horizon. But regardless, they are devastating to the local ecosystem and have all of the problems with burning coal for energy,but with none of the energy.
The news showed the rifle, it looked like an AR-15/M-16 derivative. That program was created to provide a military rifle for antipersonnel use. Not for personal defense, not for hunting. I would argue that makes it qualify as an assault rifle.
You can argue it all you like, but it's not. Standard issue military rifles like the M16 use fairly light ammunition. In part because it's easier to carry it, and more of it. And because it's not necessarily better to outright kill your opponent in warfare. Most traditional military's do not like to leave their wounded. So you make them much less effective if you wound your opponent rather than kill them. If you kill half of a 100 man group, the other 50 will still be firing at you. If you wound 50 instead, then more resources will be diverted to treat the wounded. If you take away the automatic functionality of these weapons, you seriously degrade their usefulness.
They pack much less punch than many hunting rifles. An M16 fires a NATO 5.56 round. The bullet is the same size as a.22 caliber round at 60 grain and has a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps and impacts at about 1300 ft/lbs. A.30 06 uses a 7.62 mm bullet. It's 125 to 220 gr. It travels at 2800 fps and hits with over twice the impact at 2800 ft/lbs. A.30 06 also has a longer effective range and accurate at a longer range too.A.30-30 is not much different. Even a.308 packs more punch.
Many of the other scary "assault weapons" are pretty dismal compared to a hunting rifle. The short barrel of the 9mm sub machine guns are barely over 1100 fps and impact at under 400 ft/ lbs. So once you take away their advantage of automatic fire, they become much less effective and are banned because of perception more than anything. "It's scary looking and appears to be similar to what the military uses, so it must be the same thing"
Nothing that most civilians can buy qualifies as an "assault rifle". I believe a weapon has to be fully or scheduled automatic to qualify as an assault rifle. Generally the media calls them "assault weapons". Which has no real meaning other than someone thinks it a big scary looking firearm of some sort.
I have been saying for the longest time, terrorists don't need to get on the plane. Now they just need to blow them selves up getting into the security line. What then is TSA going to do? It's a cat and mouse game and unfortunately the TSA isn't going to win
I've been saying the same. I'm happy the number of casualties was as low as it was. But I find it surprising that someone with (what I assume is) a semi-automatic rifle only killed 1 person and injured 6 on a Friday at LAX. I suppose it could have been a bolt action SKS or something.
Sounds like he picked something that, while impressive in its stats on paper, was worn out and close to end-of-life. If he totaled it out or got it confiscated he wasn't exactly going to cry over it.
It was a CL55 AMG with 115,000 miles on it. That's barely broken in. It doesn't specify what he did to it, but said he spent $9K to "trick it out". The picture of him standing in front of it shows it is a 2nd generation. So it is no older than 1999. Not exactly a worn out beater.
Slashdot Mirror
Pittsburgh ok but what's in the grand canyon?
The Colorado river?
In an electric car, close to 100% of the stored energy is used for locomotion (unless maybe you have the heater on).
And the headlights, and the radio, and the bluetooth adapter, and the fans for the climate control system, and the ECU, and the BCU, etc.
Except you have all of those things in a gas powered car too. The alternator puts extra load on the engine to power them as well as charge the battery in a gas powered car. However in a gas powered car, the weight of the gas is lower than the weight of the batteries. So, the energy density is higher. And as the fuel is used, the total weight of it decreases. In an electric car, the batteries weigh the same whether they are fully charged or completely drained. It's not so much about the percentage of stored energy that is used. It's how much energy is produced/exerted vs. how much the source weighs.
from what I know, it wasn't exactly a street legal compression in the engine,
Street legal compression? I've never heard of a state that has limits on compression ratios. Granted, if you get too high using pistons on a naturally aspirated engine, you'll have a hell of a time finding street legal fuel. On the other hand, if it's due to the boost from a turbo, it's a little different. But then catastrophic engine failure is a possibility. Then there are diesel engines that have significantly higher compression ratios by design. I'm not familiar with any states that have laws limiting this. If there are, how is it enforced? I can't imagine a state trooper carrying around the equipment to measure this. Or having the competence to do it.
Here is the scoop on the 70" telescope. Mike Clements purchased a polished but uncoated mirror that is 70" across that was intended for a spy satellite project that was cancelled. A huge uncoated mirror is not a telescope anymore than (car analogy - wait for it...) a V8 engine is a racecar. Building a good performing telescope (collimation tolerances are measured in thousandths of an inch) is a significant task, a huge telescope like this is a major engineering feat. What's more this is a transportable telescope. It is possibly the biggest transportable telescope in the world. This telescope is more powerful than any telescope that existed before 1917 (when the 100" Hooker telescope saw first light).
Successfully silvering the mirror using updated 19th Cedntury mirror coating technology was nifty too.
From another site: Clements began began building a steel structure to house the mirror in 2012. He did it without formal training in telescope construction or welding and without any blueprints. "He's got nothing on paper," said Clements' friend, Steve Dodds. "He did make a model out of popsicle sticks." Clements finished the telescope and in late September, he said he put a reflective coating on the mirror with a weed sprayer.
This will exactly meat the requested specifications,
As long as it's not beef.
If I had the only key to the server room and got fired but didn't turn in the key, I would expect retribution of some form, especially if the office had a steel door that took weeks to break down.
What kind of idiot budgets for a server room with a steel door that takes weeks to break down but doesn't include a duplicate key for the security office to hold? Why isn't that idiot the one in jail? What if you lost the key, would you still be OK with being sent to jail for not returning it?
But that's different from with Terry Childs did. He didn't accidentally lose the key. He let everyone know that he still had it and wouldn't return it. Normally I wouldn't side with the company as readily as in this case. They should have never had him (or anyone) be the sole gatekeeper. But Mr. Childs chose to be a complete ass, and probably got exactly what he deserved.
Indeed. But so did Japan and the EU. The US still had a Mars failure in 1999 and Russia in 1996 after all of those years of first hand experience.
The mine fires are there because there is coal. Not because there are "coal plants". Most mine fires are "natural".
A natural mine? Mine fires are there because coal is mined for burning. Coal seam fires are a different matter. Even so, it still shows that coal is not as benevolent compared to uranium as many seen to think. When's the last time there was a natural nuclear explosion on this planet?
They managed to get some our moon on the ninth attempt
I meant; "They managed to get some pictures of our moon..."
if everything goes well, it would make India the first country to send a payload to Mars in its first attempt,
That's i really big "If".
The USSR failed on their first 8 attempts starting in 1960. They managed to get some our moon on the ninth attempt five years later, still not successful in getting to Mars though. They managed to make Mars orbit in 1971 after 11 failed attempts. Granted, this was very early in manned space flight. Even so, failure is still a very common outcome for any nation attempting it. The EU made it to orbit in 2004, but the lander did not make it. Between 1988 and 1999, the US had three Mars missions that failed, The USSR/Russia 3, and Japan had one as well. In that 11 year span only the US Mars Global Surveyor and Pathfinder missions were successful.
It's not easy to get there, but I certainly wish India the best of luck doing it on the first try. That would be quite a feat.
but seeing as the proposed SR-72 aircraft is using a common inlet, the severity might be reduced.
There are still two inlets for each engine grouping. They share a common inlet with the turbine and ram/scramjet on either side. So there are still two inlets. One for the combined turbine scramjet on the right side and one inlet for the combined engines on the left. The artists rendition shows this as well. Having a common inlet for both engines would be scarier as you could have one cut out and suddenly create back-pressure in the incoming airstream and screw up the other engine too. With the engines be closer together on the SR-72 (both appear to be under the body) it may help, but at mach 6 who knows.
The Skunk Works has been working with Aerojet Rocketdyne for the past seven years to develop a method to integrate an off-the-shelf turbine with a scramjet to power the aircraft from standstill to Mach 6 plus
From Nov 2:
the SR-72. Using a new hypersonic engine design that combines turbines and ramjets the company says that the unmanned SR-72 will be twice as fast as its predecessor with a cruising speed of Mach 6.
Three days ago they needed a scramjet to hit mach 6 cruise. Then they were able to do it with a ramjet by the next day. A scramjet is a variant of a ramjet. But where a ramjet slows the air below supersonic for combustion, a scramjet does not. So it's a pretty important distinction. However mach 6 is also around the max speed was for an aircraft using a standard ramjet, not the cruising speed.
I wonder how bad or frequent an unstart will be with a mach 6 aircraft. It's probably good that it will be unmanned as a pilot many not be able to remain conscious, or even survive one at hypersonic speeds. I'm sure with all of the advances in computing speeds this would be trivial to do on an SR-71 at mach 3 today. But I have to wonder how far mach 6 will push things.
Is this one going to have to lose something like 5% of its fuel load on takeoff and climb operations (in order to allow for thermal and external pressure variances between takeoff and operation)?
"This is what an airplane's supposed to be; Ugly on the ground, Leaks like a sieve, And up around mach one, The seals all expand, She dries up, leans into the wind, And flies like a bat out of hell."
-Tommy Lee Jones, Space Cowboys
That was hydrogen.
Helium was from the huge manatee
"a Jedi's strength flows from the Force." while training Luke (a statement he would repeat in Return of the Jedi); Yoda also explains that "you must feel the Force around you." During their battle in Cloud City, Darth Vader tells Luke "The Force is with you, young Skywalker, but you are not a Jedi yet." Finally, Luke says "May the Force be with you" at the end of the movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_(Star_Wars)
That's all well and good in a galaxy far, far away where the laws of physics are significantly different than this on. Where laser guns (or what ever they are) travel slower than a rifle round in this one. I suppose that explains whey they can travel at light speed though. RAF/all pilots in this galaxy are not Jedi, nor do they have any midichlorians to "feel" the world around them.
I guess that's one way to get people to use the Metro touch interface.
How many square kilometers of land have been made completely uninhabitable for the next 200 years or so as a result of coal power?
A lot. Not only for discarded waste, but mine fires. Centralia, Pennsylvania has been burning since 1962 and will be burning for the next 1000 years by most estimates. Then there are other mine fires all over the planet. It does look like there may be some success with extinguishing these on the horizon. But regardless, they are devastating to the local ecosystem and have all of the problems with burning coal for energy ,but with none of the energy.
The news showed the rifle, it looked like an AR-15/M-16 derivative. That program was created to provide a military rifle for antipersonnel use. Not for personal defense, not for hunting. I would argue that makes it qualify as an assault rifle.
You can argue it all you like, but it's not. Standard issue military rifles like the M16 use fairly light ammunition. In part because it's easier to carry it, and more of it. And because it's not necessarily better to outright kill your opponent in warfare. Most traditional military's do not like to leave their wounded. So you make them much less effective if you wound your opponent rather than kill them. If you kill half of a 100 man group, the other 50 will still be firing at you. If you wound 50 instead, then more resources will be diverted to treat the wounded. If you take away the automatic functionality of these weapons, you seriously degrade their usefulness.
They pack much less punch than many hunting rifles. An M16 fires a NATO 5.56 round. The bullet is the same size as a .22 caliber round at 60 grain and has a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps and impacts at about 1300 ft/lbs. A .30 06 uses a 7.62 mm bullet. It's 125 to 220 gr. It travels at 2800 fps and hits with over twice the impact at 2800 ft/lbs. A .30 06 also has a longer effective range and accurate at a longer range too.A .30-30 is not much different. Even a .308 packs more punch.
Many of the other scary "assault weapons" are pretty dismal compared to a hunting rifle. The short barrel of the 9mm sub machine guns are barely over 1100 fps and impact at under 400 ft/ lbs. So once you take away their advantage of automatic fire, they become much less effective and are banned because of perception more than anything. "It's scary looking and appears to be similar to what the military uses, so it must be the same thing"
The SKS is not, nor ever was, an "assault rifle".
Nothing that most civilians can buy qualifies as an "assault rifle". I believe a weapon has to be fully or scheduled automatic to qualify as an assault rifle. Generally the media calls them "assault weapons". Which has no real meaning other than someone thinks it a big scary looking firearm of some sort.
Flying out of LAX always makes me want to shoot someone, too. (Too soon?)
Interesting. Usually the drive to the airport to drop off my rental car makes me feel that way.
I have been saying for the longest time, terrorists don't need to get on the plane. Now they just need to blow them selves up getting into the security line. What then is TSA going to do? It's a cat and mouse game and unfortunately the TSA isn't going to win
I've been saying the same. I'm happy the number of casualties was as low as it was. But I find it surprising that someone with (what I assume is) a semi-automatic rifle only killed 1 person and injured 6 on a Friday at LAX. I suppose it could have been a bolt action SKS or something.
Says all those people who like to speed. As soon as you or someone you love gets killed or injured by a speeder, your tune will change.
I don't know about changing your tune once you are dead, but you certainly can't carry one.
That's how Orson Welles got from job to job in NY
Sounds like he picked something that, while impressive in its stats on paper, was worn out and close to end-of-life. If he totaled it out or got it confiscated he wasn't exactly going to cry over it.
It was a CL55 AMG with 115,000 miles on it. That's barely broken in. It doesn't specify what he did to it, but said he spent $9K to "trick it out". The picture of him standing in front of it shows it is a 2nd generation. So it is no older than 1999. Not exactly a worn out beater.
I know my post sounds naive
Only to the extent that you believe the US government exists for the benefit of its citizens.
Oh, well that makes me feel better. I think I'll go assume the fetal position in the corner of a closet now. ;-)