There are two proposals in the initial Hyperloop document. One is for a passenger-only version. The other is for a passenger + vehicle version. The passenger-only version's estimate is $6B, while the passenger + vehicle version's estimate is $7,5B.
The estimated ticket price for a seat in the passenger-only version is $20 (amortizing the $6B cost over the number of passengers). No cost for transporting a vehicle is mentioned, but we can attempt to calculate it: if they have to amortize an extra $1,5B and there's 28 passengers per pod, plus 3 vehicles per pod in the extended version (as per the proposal), then each passenger-only pod is earning $560, so the vehicles need to earn an extra $140, so about $50 per vehicle, plus $20 per passenger who comes along with their car. So about $70.
A high speed rail line requires steel rods -- cheaper than pipe, no?
Yes. But the cost of the steel in the track in a high speed rail project is only a tiny fraction of the total costs. BTW, you can double check Musk's tube estimate (I did), they're quite realistic compared to other "large pressuretight steel tube" project costs. He's basically building a pipeline, but instead of pumping oil or water through it, he's shooting people through it.
You could also put it on pylons if you wanted. People don't, in general, because putting it on the ground is way cheaper. There are exceptions to this -- some of the Chinese lines are elevated, I think -- but it's fairly rare.
As per my comment earlier, this is an erroneous comparison. Rail spends 99% of it's time unloaded, then for 1% of its time is loaded very heavily, an order of magnitude higher than the peak loads for Hyperloop. Consequently you have to have dramatically stronger pylons for an elevated rail line. Think monorail pylons, not conventional rail pillars.
we have a perfectly well-known technology (high-speed rail)
Unfortuantely, one of the things we know perfectly well about it is that it's ridiculously expensive. I'm not saying this to be mean, it's just a fact.
* Loadings (weight) on the supports in oil pipelines will be *far, far* higher. * Environmental approval in an oil pipeline will be *far, far* harder, and environmental constraints on construction will be far more severe. * Oil pipelines generally move through wilderness and private land, rather than above already-prepared and already permitted land, and are often built in remote (read: expensive) areas. * Both require the occasional pump or other regularly spaced infrastructure (honestly, an oil pipeline's is more complicated - you have to also maintain its temperature within a certain range, you require a lot more sensors, oil pumps are more expensive than vacuum pumps, etc)
We'll leave the terminals out of this for now. Given that, one would think that an oil pipeline of the same diameter would cost several times as much? Well, let's see, what's the average rate for oil pipeline construction these days. This says $200k per inch per mile, a 3-fold increase in 8 years driven in large part by "new industry regulations and practices to reduce right-of-way and minimize environmental effects" (again, reinforcing that oil pipeline should be far costlier per unit distance to build than hyperloop track). What would an oil pipeline the diameter of hyperloop this cost? $6B each way, or $12B total. Hyperloop's track is expected to cost $4B. How is this not a reasonable estimate? Even if you go with the full cost of an oil pipeline over that difference, despite the orders of magnitude difference in loading and huge difference in environmental regulations and right of way problems that have tripled oil pipeline production costs in recent years, you still end up with a hyperloop track that costs way less than HSR.
Every number in Musk's proposal that I've cross-checked I've come away feeling it's probably realistic. It looks by all standards like they consulted industry experts to come up with their figures. The only way it looks "ridiculous" is when you make inapplicable comparisons like when people claim that the cost per mile would be like the per-mile cost of a rail bridge over a canyon and whatnot.
Even more, the air in the tubes passing through the compressors is going to heat it. Now, you've got a lot of uninsulated surface area for the tube... on the other hand, air at such low pressures is itself a pretty good insulator. I wonder if you'd have a measurable impact on the air temperature? Or, if you wanted to, whether you could *deliberately* (and practically) raise the air temperature (insulated tube, etc)?
If you need to place, power, and maintain, a $100 pump every 5 meters down all of California, it is not actually cheap.
Congratulations, Citizen, I have good news! You don't have to put a pump every 5 meters all down California! Even the *pylons* are, as per the design, 100 meters apart. And the tube is only even *capable* of being opened once every several dozen kilometers. The positioning for the pumps is described as "several locations" (aka, not millions like you're picturing), and the total estimated cost for the pumps for the whole system, at current market rates, is $10m. Two tenths of a percent of the tube construction cost estimate.
There's a few reasons. But the biggest ones involve not having to use new land - not out some sort of idealist reasons, but pure economic practicality. First off, you need right-of-way. This is expensive. Also really ticks off land owners if you have to use eminent domain. These things almost always get tangled up in the courts. For in-town legs it'd be even harder. Secondly, all new projects have to go through a series of impact reviews. If you're building over a highway median, you're in an area that's already passed review - you still have to defend your incremental changes, but you don't have to pass as much of a barrier.
Also, most people overestimate the cost of the columns, comparing them to the cost of rail bridges. Just ignoring that by their very nature rail bridges are generally only built over difficult areas, and are going to be extremely price, It's important to note that one of the key cost-saving measures designed into Hyperloop vs. rail is often overlooked: weight. Hyperloop vehicles are more than an order of magnitude lighter than a passenger train, and only spend a brief period over any given segment; consequently the required structural strength is dramatically lower than for a rail bridge. I did some quick calculations, including tube mass, and found that and Hyperloop loadings should be similar to that of Disney's monorail. So think columns like this, not this.
While I do have criticisms for Hyperloop, I found that a lot of the criticisms levied against it on the net were seriously misguided, using ridiculous cost comparisons (another one is comparing the cost of Hyperloop tunnel boring to that of boring tunnels over an order of magnitude larger). I dug up "comparable" projects for each step of the project, and I really have to say, Hyperloop's numbers don't actually look to be that unrealistic. The keys of right-of-way reuse and low point loadings offer serious cost savings.
That said, I think Musk's positioning of the concept was stupid. By putting it in competition to an already-controversial high speed rail project, he both invited the rage of rail fans (who are used to feeling as if they're under attack), as well as inviting the expectation that it can do everything rail can (including, for example, making many stops along the way). It really is, as it was billed, an intermediary alternative between high speed rail and air travel - in speed, in throughput, in ability to make stops, etc. Consequently he should have proposed the first major project of it to be LA to Vegas. Then he wouldn't have encountered opposition from high speed rail fans, and the route doesn't have much population along the way to service. Plus, he could probably get tons of private backing for such a project, as Vegas is always desperate to better connect itself with customers in California.
I also think that for the current proposal, Musk should have positioned the LA station further into town. He's thinking "airport", and of course you can have local train / bus service to the station wherever it is, but airports are only on the outskirts because they *have* to be, mass transit is really ideally located more in-town. And there's no reason that he can't continue into town - the roads get a bit curvy but there's some nice straight rail lines that they could go over straight into the heart of town, and that'd probably be even easier to get approval for than for over road.
If you think this is like a pneumatic tube, then you know absolutely nothing about this.
Hyperloop is a system involving partially evacuated (not hard vacuum) tubes. The reason is that hard vacuum is much more difficult to achieve and maintain. The very low (but not vacuum) pressures offer little resistance, but do present a problem: you can't allow air to build up in front of the craft. Hyperloop solves this by a system of watercooled battery-powered compressors.
A pneumatic tube is propelled by pressurized air behind the projectile expanding, with lower pressure in front of the projectile. Hyperloop involves nothing of the sort - it involves magnetic accelerator segments for propulsion. Only a few reboosts would be needed over the length of an LA to SF run due to the low air resistance.
If you can find him while he's sleeping, you can make a goblet out of his head without having to make him get a scan.
1) Install "123D Make" on your cell phone 2) Take as many pics as you can from as many angles as you can with the sound off (up to 70) and wait for it to process (and hope it processes well... photogrammetry still isn't a mature tech) 3) If it works well then download the 3d model it produces. 4) Open it in a 3d modeller 5) Fill in any gaps 6) Replace the area that you couldn't image (the back of the head, presumably, assuming he was lying on his back) with someone else's 7) Cut the top off his head and apply a solidify/thickness modifier to turn it into a goblet 8) Upload it to anywhere that prints ceramic (for example iMaterialize not only can print in ceramic, but can even print ceramic in color). 9) Wait a bit for printing and delivery 10) Enjoy!
Bit by bit, the world is becoming an awesome place.;)
Haha, do you mean Epic Electric Vehicles? That's Chris Anthony's company! They still exist (AFAIK - at least they did when I last checked in 2013), but they're small, as they've been going for "fun rides" market more than the "practical replacement for a gasoline car" market.
I am talking about entropy. Actual entropy, not "let's take an actual scientific concept and pretend it means something that it doesn't" entropy. I'm not making any comments about whether people are going to change DNA any time soon. I'm simply talking about the abuse of scientific terms - entropy being one of the most widely abused. To everyone who's doing it: stop.
Sorry, but thermodynamics is not about how many states there are in any arbitrary system. There's countless states in which you can win money in a casino and only a few (such as paying for chips or inserting money into a slot machine) that they take yours - does this mean that the second law of thermodynamics guarantees that you're going to beat the house? Is winning at the casino an increase in entropy?
Please stop taking scientific terms and making up your own definitions for them. The second law of thermodynamics cannot simply be taken out of context and shoved into whatever other context you want and then claimed to be proof that something is going to happen.
Sardaukar, please stop for a second. People aren't mad at what you have to say. They have a problem with how you're saying it and how you're taking everything way to personally. Try to relax and you'll have a much better time here.:)
Fundamentally, it's an inesacpable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.
So cancerous mutations represent a measurable delta-S that normal cellular processes do not? Do please, tell me more!
It's funny all of the things people try to credit to the second law of thermodynamics that aren't even talking about thermodynamics, as if you can user-define "disorder" any way you wish ("cancer sounds disordrous... so let's say that the second law of thermodynamics means cancer will occur!"). No, the only thing in that regard that's an inescapable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics is that at least some day all humans will be dead, as the universe will have died of heat death.
The day we've won isn't the day when we find a perfect way to kill cancer cells. The day we've won is the day where we find a perfect way to revert cancer cells to normal behavior.
There's more to it. First off, what people think of as "beautiful" vs. "weird" changes with time - as much as we want to think of these things as absolute. And style isn't just "style", it affects for example aerodynamics, cost and utility. "Family cars" have to think about these things more than luxury cars. It's funny, a lot of what people perceive of as aerodynamics on the higher end is purely style and actually hurts the drag coefficient. That's not to say that some luxury brands manage to get decent aerodynamics - some do - but style always takes the front seat. The same happens with utility - manufacturers like these "boxfish" designs because they're very functional without being high drag. But you rarely see them on the higher end because they're not considered particularly stylish. Personally I don't like either - more traditional car styling or that sort of "boxfish" styling. I'll gladly take a longer wheelbase any day to get a better taper (plus the ability to transport long goods), and a more rounded, airplane-like body (even if it means having to choose between A) closer passenger seating, B) somewhat less headroom, or C) a somewhat wider body) in order to get the lower drag coefficient and greatly improved roof and side crush strength.
There's so much more too, that's just scratching the surface. The CFO that Paul brought on board? She was one of the execs fined by the SEC in the Delphi accounting scandal. And lots of people complained about Paul and his CMO's attitudes toward women. Paul, for example, was fond of showing off his "wedding ring trick" to the guys - how if he saw a pretty girl he wanted to pick up how he could put his hand in his pocket, and without it being visible that he was doing anything, take it out with his wedding ring left behind in his pocket. The CMO was worse. He was always trying to pick up his underlings, and even billed strip club visits to the company as "business expenses".
The whole thing was just.... ugh... The moment Paul charmed the Idealab folk, the company was doomed.
The whole story is a tragedy. Because they were getting so close to release (they were literally just a couple months away from shipping their first units and were flush with cash), the majority stakeholders (Idealab) decided to override the founders and bring in a new management team. So they spent a lot of money on this executive search team, which came up with this guy from Detroit, Paul Wilbur, whose previous career in auto firm management consisted of running two consecutive companies into the ground. Its funny, I saw lots of comments on an ASC forum (one of the companies he ran into the ground) where someone posted an article pointing out that Wilbur was now running aptera, to the effect of "Okay, well they're doomed...". Wilbur came in and took a huge salary (which is something you never do with a startup) and brought in all of his friends to management positions, all well compensated. He then stopped plans to ship and ordered a nearly complete redesign of the vehicle trying to make it more "mainstream" and started outsourcing manufacture from their low cost in-house team to larger, much more expensive traditional manufacturers. The "mainstreaming" changes kept reducing performance, which kept ballooning size and weight (people on the Aptera forum often joked about how the car was getting a paunch), causing further redesigns... meanwhile, tensions with the founders grew to the point that Paul considered them insubordinate and fired them all, and we're talking Gordon Gecko style - had security guards take the chief engineer off the premises, had the founder's wife fired while she was in her hospital bed being treated for cancer, etc. And everyone had a gag order to not talk about what happened. But it leaked. Paul spent a lot of effort trying to track down who the leaker was, but the funny thing was, the answer was "almost everyone". There were LOTS of people furious about what he did. Paul tried to manage PR on the Aptera forum with astroturf and sockpuppets, which unsurprisingly backfired.
Eventually it became obvious that the company was in a slow death spiral, and long after the fact, they went on their head. But not before crushing all of the remaining prototypes shells with forklifts.
Aptera's staff moved on. A large chunk of the staff were snapped up by Tesla. The founder, Steve Fambro, went on to found a company that grows organic produce in modular cleanroom units with LED light. Cofounder Chris Anthony extended his Epic Boats company with an EV branch and has been making little opentop speedsters and electric offroaders. The lead designer has done a lot of things since then, including the redesign concept drawings for the Edison 2 (the original X-Prize competitor had to have been one of the ugliest prototypes ever made; the resign is very aptera-esque). Etc. But Aptera is dead.
Shortchanging an EV on power is such a crazy thing to do nowadays. Li-ion provides copious power if you have enough for even a half-decent range, the amount of raw materials in the motor remains small whether it's a powerful motor or not, the motor parts counts remains the same... really the only thing someone who's looking at mass production has to bite the bullet on is the inverter/controller. Someone who's doing true mass production** should see only a couple thousand USD difference in the price between mundane family car performance and effectively supercar performance. Of course, when they're trying to trim every last dollar to help pay for the battery pack...
One of the fun things about electric vehicles is that, opposite of gasoline cars, as you increase EV car power, they actually become slightly more efficient. It has hardly any impact on craft weight, no impact on aero, etc, so your vehicle losses are pretty much constant - and motor losses at cruising speed drop slightly because you have to have lower resistance wires to handle the higher peak powers. So you actually cruise using a tiny bit less power by having a high power motor.
- Note that the "mass production" caveat is important, today's limited production runs mean that EV motors, despite their simplicity, are way more expensive than they really should be. This will change as the numbers go up.
I don't care if others find it ugly, if it suits my hyper-streamlining tastes, it suits me. Most people found the aptera ugly, I was in love with it and was pretty crushed when a detroit management team was brought in and ran it into the ground.
Pretty ugly, imho - I'm a fan of hypo-aerodynamic streamliners, not something that looks like a stretched smart car. But I love that range/price point combo:)
Yes, but they need to make sure that they incentivize it correctly. Having purely a "per gigabyte" cost isn't reasonable. That's only accounting for the capital costs of buying the drives. They also impose wear costs per write and bandwidth costs per seek, and probably come costs for their usage of processing time and ram and the like.
Then there come issues of what sort of uptime / reliability / access times they want to guarantee? Surely they're going to have to distribute a given set of data out in a distributed fashion where any X percent of systems can be down or too slow at a given time and they still get their data back in a reasonable time. But how do you decide how much the system owner gets compensated under different downtime ratios / length of downtime / average access times / peak access times / etc? It'll be a tricky balancing act. Also access times vary from region to region, so certain regions could be more valuable for certain users than others, and some more valuable in general than others. Some people may not want to have their data in certain areas at all. And the system will have to decide when it decides a user to be too unreliable to store a fraction of a given dataset on and to store it on a different system instead. Then there's other things people may want to take into account, such as how green the power is
Technically possible, and a good goal, but quite a complicated challenge to do well.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two proposals in the initial Hyperloop document. One is for a passenger-only version. The other is for a passenger + vehicle version. The passenger-only version's estimate is $6B, while the passenger + vehicle version's estimate is $7,5B.
The estimated ticket price for a seat in the passenger-only version is $20 (amortizing the $6B cost over the number of passengers). No cost for transporting a vehicle is mentioned, but we can attempt to calculate it: if they have to amortize an extra $1,5B and there's 28 passengers per pod, plus 3 vehicles per pod in the extended version (as per the proposal), then each passenger-only pod is earning $560, so the vehicles need to earn an extra $140, so about $50 per vehicle, plus $20 per passenger who comes along with their car. So about $70.
Hmm, apparently Slashdot eats "to the second power" marks also. Hooray for Slashdot's excellent unicode support!
To make the loading difference clear: here's the max loading for a 100 meter span (the spacing of the pillars) for different techs:
* Hyperloop capsule, loaded: 26 tonnes
* HSR train, loaded: Several hundred tonnes (caltrain locomotives alone weigh 190 tonnes)
* Oil pipeline: 332 tonnes (850kg/m * 100m * pi * (2.23m/2))
By spreading the loads out into many smaller, fast moving capsules, Hyperloop greatly reduces its track's required structural strength.
Yes. But the cost of the steel in the track in a high speed rail project is only a tiny fraction of the total costs. BTW, you can double check Musk's tube estimate (I did), they're quite realistic compared to other "large pressuretight steel tube" project costs. He's basically building a pipeline, but instead of pumping oil or water through it, he's shooting people through it.
As per my comment earlier, this is an erroneous comparison. Rail spends 99% of it's time unloaded, then for 1% of its time is loaded very heavily, an order of magnitude higher than the peak loads for Hyperloop. Consequently you have to have dramatically stronger pylons for an elevated rail line. Think monorail pylons, not conventional rail pillars.
Unfortuantely, one of the things we know perfectly well about it is that it's ridiculously expensive. I'm not saying this to be mean, it's just a fact.
Compare this project to an oil pipeline.
* Loadings (weight) on the supports in oil pipelines will be *far, far* higher.
* Environmental approval in an oil pipeline will be *far, far* harder, and environmental constraints on construction will be far more severe.
* Oil pipelines generally move through wilderness and private land, rather than above already-prepared and already permitted land, and are often built in remote (read: expensive) areas.
* Both require the occasional pump or other regularly spaced infrastructure (honestly, an oil pipeline's is more complicated - you have to also maintain its temperature within a certain range, you require a lot more sensors, oil pumps are more expensive than vacuum pumps, etc)
We'll leave the terminals out of this for now. Given that, one would think that an oil pipeline of the same diameter would cost several times as much? Well, let's see, what's the average rate for oil pipeline construction these days. This says $200k per inch per mile, a 3-fold increase in 8 years driven in large part by "new industry regulations and practices to reduce right-of-way and minimize environmental effects" (again, reinforcing that oil pipeline should be far costlier per unit distance to build than hyperloop track). What would an oil pipeline the diameter of hyperloop this cost? $6B each way, or $12B total. Hyperloop's track is expected to cost $4B. How is this not a reasonable estimate? Even if you go with the full cost of an oil pipeline over that difference, despite the orders of magnitude difference in loading and huge difference in environmental regulations and right of way problems that have tripled oil pipeline production costs in recent years, you still end up with a hyperloop track that costs way less than HSR.
Every number in Musk's proposal that I've cross-checked I've come away feeling it's probably realistic. It looks by all standards like they consulted industry experts to come up with their figures. The only way it looks "ridiculous" is when you make inapplicable comparisons like when people claim that the cost per mile would be like the per-mile cost of a rail bridge over a canyon and whatnot.
Even more, the air in the tubes passing through the compressors is going to heat it. Now, you've got a lot of uninsulated surface area for the tube... on the other hand, air at such low pressures is itself a pretty good insulator. I wonder if you'd have a measurable impact on the air temperature? Or, if you wanted to, whether you could *deliberately* (and practically) raise the air temperature (insulated tube, etc)?
Congratulations, Citizen, I have good news! You don't have to put a pump every 5 meters all down California! Even the *pylons* are, as per the design, 100 meters apart. And the tube is only even *capable* of being opened once every several dozen kilometers. The positioning for the pumps is described as "several locations" (aka, not millions like you're picturing), and the total estimated cost for the pumps for the whole system, at current market rates, is $10m. Two tenths of a percent of the tube construction cost estimate.
There's a few reasons. But the biggest ones involve not having to use new land - not out some sort of idealist reasons, but pure economic practicality. First off, you need right-of-way. This is expensive. Also really ticks off land owners if you have to use eminent domain. These things almost always get tangled up in the courts. For in-town legs it'd be even harder. Secondly, all new projects have to go through a series of impact reviews. If you're building over a highway median, you're in an area that's already passed review - you still have to defend your incremental changes, but you don't have to pass as much of a barrier.
Also, most people overestimate the cost of the columns, comparing them to the cost of rail bridges. Just ignoring that by their very nature rail bridges are generally only built over difficult areas, and are going to be extremely price, It's important to note that one of the key cost-saving measures designed into Hyperloop vs. rail is often overlooked: weight. Hyperloop vehicles are more than an order of magnitude lighter than a passenger train, and only spend a brief period over any given segment; consequently the required structural strength is dramatically lower than for a rail bridge. I did some quick calculations, including tube mass, and found that and Hyperloop loadings should be similar to that of Disney's monorail. So think columns like this, not this.
While I do have criticisms for Hyperloop, I found that a lot of the criticisms levied against it on the net were seriously misguided, using ridiculous cost comparisons (another one is comparing the cost of Hyperloop tunnel boring to that of boring tunnels over an order of magnitude larger). I dug up "comparable" projects for each step of the project, and I really have to say, Hyperloop's numbers don't actually look to be that unrealistic. The keys of right-of-way reuse and low point loadings offer serious cost savings.
That said, I think Musk's positioning of the concept was stupid. By putting it in competition to an already-controversial high speed rail project, he both invited the rage of rail fans (who are used to feeling as if they're under attack), as well as inviting the expectation that it can do everything rail can (including, for example, making many stops along the way). It really is, as it was billed, an intermediary alternative between high speed rail and air travel - in speed, in throughput, in ability to make stops, etc. Consequently he should have proposed the first major project of it to be LA to Vegas. Then he wouldn't have encountered opposition from high speed rail fans, and the route doesn't have much population along the way to service. Plus, he could probably get tons of private backing for such a project, as Vegas is always desperate to better connect itself with customers in California.
I also think that for the current proposal, Musk should have positioned the LA station further into town. He's thinking "airport", and of course you can have local train / bus service to the station wherever it is, but airports are only on the outskirts because they *have* to be, mass transit is really ideally located more in-town. And there's no reason that he can't continue into town - the roads get a bit curvy but there's some nice straight rail lines that they could go over straight into the heart of town, and that'd probably be even easier to get approval for than for over road.
If you think this is like a pneumatic tube, then you know absolutely nothing about this.
Hyperloop is a system involving partially evacuated (not hard vacuum) tubes. The reason is that hard vacuum is much more difficult to achieve and maintain. The very low (but not vacuum) pressures offer little resistance, but do present a problem: you can't allow air to build up in front of the craft. Hyperloop solves this by a system of watercooled battery-powered compressors.
A pneumatic tube is propelled by pressurized air behind the projectile expanding, with lower pressure in front of the projectile. Hyperloop involves nothing of the sort - it involves magnetic accelerator segments for propulsion. Only a few reboosts would be needed over the length of an LA to SF run due to the low air resistance.
If you can find him while he's sleeping, you can make a goblet out of his head without having to make him get a scan.
1) Install "123D Make" on your cell phone
2) Take as many pics as you can from as many angles as you can with the sound off (up to 70) and wait for it to process (and hope it processes well... photogrammetry still isn't a mature tech)
3) If it works well then download the 3d model it produces.
4) Open it in a 3d modeller
5) Fill in any gaps
6) Replace the area that you couldn't image (the back of the head, presumably, assuming he was lying on his back) with someone else's
7) Cut the top off his head and apply a solidify/thickness modifier to turn it into a goblet
8) Upload it to anywhere that prints ceramic (for example iMaterialize not only can print in ceramic, but can even print ceramic in color).
9) Wait a bit for printing and delivery
10) Enjoy!
Bit by bit, the world is becoming an awesome place. ;)
Haha, do you mean Epic Electric Vehicles? That's Chris Anthony's company! They still exist (AFAIK - at least they did when I last checked in 2013), but they're small, as they've been going for "fun rides" market more than the "practical replacement for a gasoline car" market.
I am talking about entropy. Actual entropy, not "let's take an actual scientific concept and pretend it means something that it doesn't" entropy. I'm not making any comments about whether people are going to change DNA any time soon. I'm simply talking about the abuse of scientific terms - entropy being one of the most widely abused. To everyone who's doing it: stop.
Sorry, but thermodynamics is not about how many states there are in any arbitrary system. There's countless states in which you can win money in a casino and only a few (such as paying for chips or inserting money into a slot machine) that they take yours - does this mean that the second law of thermodynamics guarantees that you're going to beat the house? Is winning at the casino an increase in entropy?
Please stop taking scientific terms and making up your own definitions for them. The second law of thermodynamics cannot simply be taken out of context and shoved into whatever other context you want and then claimed to be proof that something is going to happen.
Part of normal cell behavior is to die off when an area is too crowded. Your worst case of a "reform" scenario is the best case of a "kill" scenario.
Me too.
Sardaukar, please stop for a second. People aren't mad at what you have to say. They have a problem with how you're saying it and how you're taking everything way to personally. Try to relax and you'll have a much better time here. :)
So cancerous mutations represent a measurable delta-S that normal cellular processes do not? Do please, tell me more!
It's funny all of the things people try to credit to the second law of thermodynamics that aren't even talking about thermodynamics, as if you can user-define "disorder" any way you wish ("cancer sounds disordrous... so let's say that the second law of thermodynamics means cancer will occur!"). No, the only thing in that regard that's an inescapable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics is that at least some day all humans will be dead, as the universe will have died of heat death.
The day we've won isn't the day when we find a perfect way to kill cancer cells. The day we've won is the day where we find a perfect way to revert cancer cells to normal behavior.
There's more to it. First off, what people think of as "beautiful" vs. "weird" changes with time - as much as we want to think of these things as absolute. And style isn't just "style", it affects for example aerodynamics, cost and utility. "Family cars" have to think about these things more than luxury cars. It's funny, a lot of what people perceive of as aerodynamics on the higher end is purely style and actually hurts the drag coefficient. That's not to say that some luxury brands manage to get decent aerodynamics - some do - but style always takes the front seat. The same happens with utility - manufacturers like these "boxfish" designs because they're very functional without being high drag. But you rarely see them on the higher end because they're not considered particularly stylish. Personally I don't like either - more traditional car styling or that sort of "boxfish" styling. I'll gladly take a longer wheelbase any day to get a better taper (plus the ability to transport long goods), and a more rounded, airplane-like body (even if it means having to choose between A) closer passenger seating, B) somewhat less headroom, or C) a somewhat wider body) in order to get the lower drag coefficient and greatly improved roof and side crush strength.
But I appear to be in the minority. :P
There's so much more too, that's just scratching the surface. The CFO that Paul brought on board? She was one of the execs fined by the SEC in the Delphi accounting scandal. And lots of people complained about Paul and his CMO's attitudes toward women. Paul, for example, was fond of showing off his "wedding ring trick" to the guys - how if he saw a pretty girl he wanted to pick up how he could put his hand in his pocket, and without it being visible that he was doing anything, take it out with his wedding ring left behind in his pocket. The CMO was worse. He was always trying to pick up his underlings, and even billed strip club visits to the company as "business expenses".
The whole thing was just.... ugh... The moment Paul charmed the Idealab folk, the company was doomed.
The whole story is a tragedy. Because they were getting so close to release (they were literally just a couple months away from shipping their first units and were flush with cash), the majority stakeholders (Idealab) decided to override the founders and bring in a new management team. So they spent a lot of money on this executive search team, which came up with this guy from Detroit, Paul Wilbur, whose previous career in auto firm management consisted of running two consecutive companies into the ground. Its funny, I saw lots of comments on an ASC forum (one of the companies he ran into the ground) where someone posted an article pointing out that Wilbur was now running aptera, to the effect of "Okay, well they're doomed...". Wilbur came in and took a huge salary (which is something you never do with a startup) and brought in all of his friends to management positions, all well compensated. He then stopped plans to ship and ordered a nearly complete redesign of the vehicle trying to make it more "mainstream" and started outsourcing manufacture from their low cost in-house team to larger, much more expensive traditional manufacturers. The "mainstreaming" changes kept reducing performance, which kept ballooning size and weight (people on the Aptera forum often joked about how the car was getting a paunch), causing further redesigns... meanwhile, tensions with the founders grew to the point that Paul considered them insubordinate and fired them all, and we're talking Gordon Gecko style - had security guards take the chief engineer off the premises, had the founder's wife fired while she was in her hospital bed being treated for cancer, etc. And everyone had a gag order to not talk about what happened. But it leaked. Paul spent a lot of effort trying to track down who the leaker was, but the funny thing was, the answer was "almost everyone". There were LOTS of people furious about what he did. Paul tried to manage PR on the Aptera forum with astroturf and sockpuppets, which unsurprisingly backfired.
Eventually it became obvious that the company was in a slow death spiral, and long after the fact, they went on their head. But not before crushing all of the remaining prototypes shells with forklifts.
Aptera's staff moved on. A large chunk of the staff were snapped up by Tesla. The founder, Steve Fambro, went on to found a company that grows organic produce in modular cleanroom units with LED light. Cofounder Chris Anthony extended his Epic Boats company with an EV branch and has been making little opentop speedsters and electric offroaders. The lead designer has done a lot of things since then, including the redesign concept drawings for the Edison 2 (the original X-Prize competitor had to have been one of the ugliest prototypes ever made; the resign is very aptera-esque). Etc. But Aptera is dead.
Shortchanging an EV on power is such a crazy thing to do nowadays. Li-ion provides copious power if you have enough for even a half-decent range, the amount of raw materials in the motor remains small whether it's a powerful motor or not, the motor parts counts remains the same... really the only thing someone who's looking at mass production has to bite the bullet on is the inverter/controller. Someone who's doing true mass production** should see only a couple thousand USD difference in the price between mundane family car performance and effectively supercar performance. Of course, when they're trying to trim every last dollar to help pay for the battery pack...
One of the fun things about electric vehicles is that, opposite of gasoline cars, as you increase EV car power, they actually become slightly more efficient. It has hardly any impact on craft weight, no impact on aero, etc, so your vehicle losses are pretty much constant - and motor losses at cruising speed drop slightly because you have to have lower resistance wires to handle the higher peak powers. So you actually cruise using a tiny bit less power by having a high power motor.
- Note that the "mass production" caveat is important, today's limited production runs mean that EV motors, despite their simplicity, are way more expensive than they really should be. This will change as the numbers go up.
I don't care if others find it ugly, if it suits my hyper-streamlining tastes, it suits me. Most people found the aptera ugly, I was in love with it and was pretty crushed when a detroit management team was brought in and ran it into the ground.
Pretty ugly, imho - I'm a fan of hypo-aerodynamic streamliners, not something that looks like a stretched smart car. But I love that range/price point combo :)
Very very cool. Will definitely try it out. :)
Have you ever considered haloperidol?
Yes, but they need to make sure that they incentivize it correctly. Having purely a "per gigabyte" cost isn't reasonable. That's only accounting for the capital costs of buying the drives. They also impose wear costs per write and bandwidth costs per seek, and probably come costs for their usage of processing time and ram and the like.
Then there come issues of what sort of uptime / reliability / access times they want to guarantee? Surely they're going to have to distribute a given set of data out in a distributed fashion where any X percent of systems can be down or too slow at a given time and they still get their data back in a reasonable time. But how do you decide how much the system owner gets compensated under different downtime ratios / length of downtime / average access times / peak access times / etc? It'll be a tricky balancing act. Also access times vary from region to region, so certain regions could be more valuable for certain users than others, and some more valuable in general than others. Some people may not want to have their data in certain areas at all. And the system will have to decide when it decides a user to be too unreliable to store a fraction of a given dataset on and to store it on a different system instead. Then there's other things people may want to take into account, such as how green the power is
Technically possible, and a good goal, but quite a complicated challenge to do well.