Wow, that article is eerily similar to what's been described.
This one uses the so-called "microwave auditory effect": a beam of microwaves is turned into sound by the interaction with your head. Nobody else can hear it unless they are in the beam as well.
There are health risks, he notes. But the biggest issue from the microwave weapon is not the radiation. It's the risk of brain damage from the high-intensity shockwave created by the microwave pulse.
But if it does prove hazardous, that does not mean an end to weapons research in this area: a device that delivered a lethal shockwave inside the target's skull might make an effective death ray.
Such a device had apparently already been built and tested by the US. The interesting thing to me is that the sound comes from a shockwave of the beam interacting with the body of whoever is in the beam; it's not a hallucinatory effect of the brain damage. That would mean that interactions with other objects (including microphones) in the path of the beam could also result in recordable sound, which would explain the recordings that are being analyzed.
The US sounds pretty convinced that the Cubans didn't do it - and Trump has no love for Cuba. I'd wager that the US intelligence has recordings of Cuban officials in private being confused as heck about what's going on and scrambling to figure it out, or something similar.
If Cuba didn't do it, then it's someone who wants to throw a wrench into recently-warmed Cuban-American relations.
The Associated Press has obtained a recording of what some U.S. Embassy workers heard in Havana in a series of unnerving incidents later deemed to be deliberate attacks.
The recordings from Havana have been sent for analysis to the U.S. Navy, which has advanced capabilities for analyzing acoustic signals, and to the intelligence services, the AP has learned.
Yet the AP has reviewed several recordings from Havana taken under different circumstances, and all have variations of the same high-pitched sound. Individuals who have heard the noise in Havana confirm the recordings are generally consistent with what they heard.
“That’s the sound,” one of them said.
The recording being released by the AP has been digitally enhanced to increase volume and reduce background noise, but has not been otherwise altered.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the US figures out exactly how the attack works, but don't disclose the fact. If the US says "We've confirmed it and have reproduced a weapon which causes these symptoms", then every government on Earth will attempt to do the same.
There was zero precedent for people being killed by bullets until the gun was invented and used to shoot people.
In many ways, what is described strongly resembles ultrasound except that ultrasound reflects from density gradients (and thus, for example, the skull). A signal with multiple carriers however sounds like a more interesting possibility, as then you can get harmonics between the two waves at frequencies which are much better transmitted into the body. You'd also get second and third and so forth harmonics, which is exactly the sort of pattern you see in the embassy recording believed to be of the attack.
That would be a bizarre pathogen indeed that can make you hear a sound - which can be and has been recorded - in a specific part of the room, disappearing whenever you move just slightly but reappearing when you pass back through that spot. And which only affects workers of the US embassy in Cuba, having never been recorded to infect anyone else, anywhere else, ever.
There's no question that it's a baffling case, but pathogens don't pass muster. I waver between "another type of EM radiation, for which the sound is just an incidental side effect" and "a multispectral ultrasonic audio signal, for which what is heard (and what does the damage) is harmonics between the channels rather than the carriers". But at this point, who bloody knows.
Global warming is real, but a 30 foot sea level rise by 2100 is not. The article's source was this article, but note right off the bat: "It would be a steady climb, with sea levels taking centuries to rise this far." Not by 2100. Sea level rises in response to climate forcing take time, they don't happen the instant that the atmosphere gets hotter. And it's a curve that accelerates with time (most of the rise is backloaded). It can take much of a millennium for sea levels to adjust to new atmospheric conditions.
For 2100, you're only looking at somewhere around 2m, give or take (up from previous ~1m estimates, which have been shown to underestimate accelerating rates of land ice loss). That said, the important thing is not the "2m higher on a typical day" aspect, but the "2m higher on top of storm surges" aspect.
Well, then, since you feel qualified to weigh in on the amount of rocky mass recycled from the icy crust, off the top of your head you should be able to tell us the mass flux from impactors and space dust at Europa. What is it?
Because I guarantee you, people who study these things don't need to google it.
Only in your own special world is (a) the BMW 330i the least expensive entry-level sports sedan you could have chosen
Then pick a different one. The Model 3 wins by $10-$15k (US/EU) over 5 years, without counting subsidies. Show me your entry level sedan that's $10-15k cheaper over 5 years. This should be an amusing comparison, both on performance and features.;)
I meant exactly what I wrote. New generation is a mix of natural gas, solar, and wind. Of that mix, solar is the fastest growing, having gone from almost nothing at the start of the decade to the largest component (by installed capacity) in 2016 (there was a small dip in Q1 2017, but it was still huge). Now, to be fair, NG has higher capacity factors. But (ignoring the Q1 blip), it's clear what the long-term trend is. Wind is roughly holding its own, while solar is steadily eating up NG's share.
Because diminished battery capacity means performance of electric car is impacted?
Words do not take on whatever meaning you intend them to have; they have specific meanings. You said current; this is true. Now you're talking about capacity (energy). This is not true; Teslas heat when charging, and heat when in operation, so the available energy is the same.
*Current* affects acceleration, and that's what you talked about. If that's not the word you meant, use the right one.
Nope. Tesla packs are climate controlled. They have no "potential damage for heat" in the summer (or the winter for that matter). As for lower current in the winter, of course (it lets the pack get cold because that does no damage; it can be set to be heated, or just heat up on its own) - but on a car that does 0-60 in 4,8 seconds (Motor Trend measurement), I think it can spare some amps (on wintery roads at that).;) As if gasoline and diesel cars perform at their max in frigid weather. On a really cold day you're lucky if you can get a diesel to start at all (Teslas always maintain a minimum temperature). Oh, and speaking of winter weather: EVs can preheat/precool. Including in enclosed spaces or right next to buildings, where carbon monoxide buildup would be dangerous. With no idling (noise, wear). Without draining a tank that you have to go to a gas station to fill, while standing outside in said bad weather. It's such a convenience that almost everyone does it. With the side effect that it melts ice and snow off your windshield, so no scraping either.
Losses in charging/discharging Model S and X are about 80%. Should be a bit less for Model 3, probably around 85%, but we haven't confirmed yet with a Kill-A-Watt. Model S and X are induction, so average about 85% drivetrain efficiency. Model 3 is PM, so probably 90-95% average (there's a big efficiency difference between Model 3 and Model S, beyond just Crr/m/CdA; it's one of the most notable changes). I'm not sure what your point of this is, however. A modern combined cycle natural gas plant is around 60% efficient and the grid around 94% efficient. Meanwhile, a gasoline engine at its peak is about 35% efficient, but averages around 20% efficient. And we're not even counting the energy to produce the gasoline (which continues to grow over time).
Not to mention the barrier of entry being twice that of a better performing ICE 4 banger.
Hahahaha;) Sorry, but the Model 3 LR is as fast as a BWM 340i. The SR is as fast as a 330i. And this is before Tesla even breaks out the performance package; that should push it into the 3-4s 0-60 range. Meanwhile, the Model 3s are each $5k *cheaper* than their same-performing competitors, and save about $1k a year in the US / $2k a year in the EU. So over 5 years, $10k cheaper in the US, $15k cheaper in the EU, *not* counting incentives.
demand for electricity will expand greatly meaning you're just filling the... energy vacuum with another sector.
Almost all new energy going onto the grid in the US (and in most countries in the developed world) is a mix of wind, solar, and natural gas. Solar is the fastest growing component of these three. Coal is dying, and quickly. They're even starting to close plants that are A) large, and B) surprisingly young; it's no longer just the small, old plants that are being killed off.
Oh, and one more comment: the topic of discussion is a price comparison. And on that front, it's not like the Tesla and BMW are "close", and if the comparison had been done against a slightly poorer performing car of the same size, the poorer-performing car would come out on top in the price comparison. The Tesla crushes the BMW in the price comparison. $5k before tax credits, and then ~$1k per year in the US, ~$2k per year in Europe. So over, say, 5 years, that's the Tesla winning by $10K in the US, $15k in the EU. So by all means, go ahead and substitute in a poorer performing car.
BTW - if you want the simple reason as to why I chose a Model 3 to compare with (since you seem to object to me doing a comparison of entry-level sedans rather than economy cars), the short of it is: because that's the EV I have interest in. If you want a comparison of, say, an E-Golf, a Leaf, an Ioniq, a Zoe, a Focus Electric, an iMiEV, a Smart ForTwo electric, etc, etc with an ICE equivalent.... find someone who's a fan of one of those cars.
Or, you know, you could just google it. There's about a dozen different ways to recycle li-ion battery packs. And if you were a recycler, would you rather one small, dense object of a low value metal per vehicle, or a large, lower density object containing higher value minerals per vehicle? It's a no brainer from a financial perspective. What, you have to use a forklift? Gee, like that's a showstopper to a scrapyard.
I have no clue what "governments own numbers" you're referring to, but wind in the US (concentrated in the midwest, a region that extends into central Canada) is $32-62/MWh (aka, 3,2-6,2 cents per kWh). And dropping.
The limiting factor is that, as mentioned, it has to be paired with peaking and/or storage (with a particular emphasis on responsive peaking). But that comes along with a megacharger regardless, since you have to store power for such rapid discharges.
As I'm sure you know, there are electric vehicle subsidies across Europe and Asia as well [wikipedia.org]. So I'm not sure of your point
Read what I was replying to. The person was talking about subsidies ending in the US. But China and the EU are just as important markets to Tesla, and their subsidies are unrelated to what the US does.
, why did Tesla's stock drop like a brick [latimes.com] when the U.S. Congress announced its intent to end the subsidies?)
Huh, funny, because two weeks later the drop was almost erased.
The subsidies are going away either way. It's only a matter of timing. If the subsidy is repealed, they disappear Q1 2018. Otherwise, they likely get halved Q2-Q3, quartered Q4-Q1, then disappear.
As to your broader thesis, were it really true that EVs are less expensive both off the lot and over their useful life, they would be selling like hotcakes
Perhaps the problem might be people dismissing them as, to quote, "rainbows and unicorns" and concern trolling about them. Naaaaah.
The most glaring issue seems to be your premise that the proper peer comparison is BMW rather than one of many other more cost-effective ICE vehicles
Yes, sure, let's compare a car that Motor Trend measures at 4,8s 0-60 and handling better than a BMW with, say, a Yaris. Because that's totally a realistic, fair comparison. Totally. You're totally being fair
Just taking as true your claim that Tesla comes out on top (while squeezing my eyes shut and trying to pretend I didn't notice that the Tesla base model you're comparing doesn't even have power seats
And the BMW doesn't even come with a nav standard - you have to buy a $2750 options package for it. Either you didn't look at the options comparison, or you're deliberately trying to skew the conversation by only mentioning one side (something I distinctly did not do - I compared stats on everything, whether EV friendly or not)
but is a purely theoretical advantage for someone who isn't shopping for that level of finish in the first place
The average new car in the US sells for $34k. Not everyone is looking for a used econobox.
And I'm going to take a wild guess that you can't use any other EV to make this kind of comparison since all the rest are sustainably priced rather than effectively a loss leader like the Model 3.
There is no such thing as a "500k per year loss leader" in the autom
The problem with gasoline vehicles is that they have a random amount of fuel in their tank at any point in time. Some will be almost full, some will be almost empty. EVs start each day with a "full tank".
Typical degradation on Tesla packs is about 4% in the first year and under 1% in each subsequent year. There are Teslas out there with hundreds of thousands of miles on them.
The drivetrain problem was a defective mount with too tight tolerances. And Tesla replaced all the drive units for free. The cost of service (which includes an 8 year unlimited mileage warranty on the powertrain) is included in the vehicle price, so it's not something that you get to add onto the end as a service cost to the owner.
So, I clicked on the comments section thinking, "A private company launching the highest payload rocket since the Saturn V, with game-changing launch costs even without reuse, designed to land on barges and landing pads, and rather than risking a super-expensive satellite on the maiden launch, they're doing it in the most hilarious manner possible, at the CEO's expense? There's no way anyone is going to be turning this into a negative!"
Hello Slashdot. Thanks for finding new ways to disappoint.
When you say "build quality", what aspect do you refer to? If you refer to reliability, Consumer Reports ranks the Model S "above average", the Model X "below average" (heavily dinged on the falcon wing doors), and expects the Model 3 to be "average" at the time of its launch. They're pretty much the authorities in this regard.
And I'm sorry, but some of BMW's engineering these days is humorously bad.
Slashdot Mirror
"Very little I should think" - Fail
Wow, that article is eerily similar to what's been described.
Such a device had apparently already been built and tested by the US. The interesting thing to me is that the sound comes from a shockwave of the beam interacting with the body of whoever is in the beam; it's not a hallucinatory effect of the brain damage. That would mean that interactions with other objects (including microphones) in the path of the beam could also result in recordable sound, which would explain the recordings that are being analyzed.
The US sounds pretty convinced that the Cubans didn't do it - and Trump has no love for Cuba. I'd wager that the US intelligence has recordings of Cuban officials in private being confused as heck about what's going on and scrambling to figure it out, or something similar.
If Cuba didn't do it, then it's someone who wants to throw a wrench into recently-warmed Cuban-American relations.
That's not at how the AP described it.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the US figures out exactly how the attack works, but don't disclose the fact. If the US says "We've confirmed it and have reproduced a weapon which causes these symptoms", then every government on Earth will attempt to do the same.
I've considered that possibility, and it's always struck me as realistic. But it would also require that this be wrong.
There was zero precedent for people being killed by bullets until the gun was invented and used to shoot people.
In many ways, what is described strongly resembles ultrasound except that ultrasound reflects from density gradients (and thus, for example, the skull). A signal with multiple carriers however sounds like a more interesting possibility, as then you can get harmonics between the two waves at frequencies which are much better transmitted into the body. You'd also get second and third and so forth harmonics, which is exactly the sort of pattern you see in the embassy recording believed to be of the attack.
But that's just a hypothesis.
That would be a bizarre pathogen indeed that can make you hear a sound - which can be and has been recorded - in a specific part of the room, disappearing whenever you move just slightly but reappearing when you pass back through that spot. And which only affects workers of the US embassy in Cuba, having never been recorded to infect anyone else, anywhere else, ever.
There's no question that it's a baffling case, but pathogens don't pass muster. I waver between "another type of EM radiation, for which the sound is just an incidental side effect" and "a multispectral ultrasonic audio signal, for which what is heard (and what does the damage) is harmonics between the channels rather than the carriers". But at this point, who bloody knows.
Global warming is real, but a 30 foot sea level rise by 2100 is not. The article's source was this article, but note right off the bat: "It would be a steady climb, with sea levels taking centuries to rise this far." Not by 2100. Sea level rises in response to climate forcing take time, they don't happen the instant that the atmosphere gets hotter. And it's a curve that accelerates with time (most of the rise is backloaded). It can take much of a millennium for sea levels to adjust to new atmospheric conditions.
For 2100, you're only looking at somewhere around 2m, give or take (up from previous ~1m estimates, which have been shown to underestimate accelerating rates of land ice loss). That said, the important thing is not the "2m higher on a typical day" aspect, but the "2m higher on top of storm surges" aspect.
Well, then, since you feel qualified to weigh in on the amount of rocky mass recycled from the icy crust, off the top of your head you should be able to tell us the mass flux from impactors and space dust at Europa. What is it?
Because I guarantee you, people who study these things don't need to google it.
Then pick a different one. The Model 3 wins by $10-$15k (US/EU) over 5 years, without counting subsidies. Show me your entry level sedan that's $10-15k cheaper over 5 years. This should be an amusing comparison, both on performance and features. ;)
I meant exactly what I wrote. New generation is a mix of natural gas, solar, and wind. Of that mix, solar is the fastest growing, having gone from almost nothing at the start of the decade to the largest component (by installed capacity) in 2016 (there was a small dip in Q1 2017, but it was still huge). Now, to be fair, NG has higher capacity factors. But (ignoring the Q1 blip), it's clear what the long-term trend is. Wind is roughly holding its own, while solar is steadily eating up NG's share.
Words do not take on whatever meaning you intend them to have; they have specific meanings. You said current; this is true. Now you're talking about capacity (energy). This is not true; Teslas heat when charging, and heat when in operation, so the available energy is the same.
*Current* affects acceleration, and that's what you talked about. If that's not the word you meant, use the right one.
Nope. Tesla packs are climate controlled. They have no "potential damage for heat" in the summer (or the winter for that matter). As for lower current in the winter, of course (it lets the pack get cold because that does no damage; it can be set to be heated, or just heat up on its own) - but on a car that does 0-60 in 4,8 seconds (Motor Trend measurement), I think it can spare some amps (on wintery roads at that). ;) As if gasoline and diesel cars perform at their max in frigid weather. On a really cold day you're lucky if you can get a diesel to start at all (Teslas always maintain a minimum temperature). Oh, and speaking of winter weather: EVs can preheat/precool. Including in enclosed spaces or right next to buildings, where carbon monoxide buildup would be dangerous. With no idling (noise, wear). Without draining a tank that you have to go to a gas station to fill, while standing outside in said bad weather. It's such a convenience that almost everyone does it. With the side effect that it melts ice and snow off your windshield, so no scraping either.
Losses in charging/discharging Model S and X are about 80%. Should be a bit less for Model 3, probably around 85%, but we haven't confirmed yet with a Kill-A-Watt. Model S and X are induction, so average about 85% drivetrain efficiency. Model 3 is PM, so probably 90-95% average (there's a big efficiency difference between Model 3 and Model S, beyond just Crr/m/CdA; it's one of the most notable changes). I'm not sure what your point of this is, however. A modern combined cycle natural gas plant is around 60% efficient and the grid around 94% efficient. Meanwhile, a gasoline engine at its peak is about 35% efficient, but averages around 20% efficient. And we're not even counting the energy to produce the gasoline (which continues to grow over time).
Hahahaha ;) Sorry, but the Model 3 LR is as fast as a BWM 340i. The SR is as fast as a 330i. And this is before Tesla even breaks out the performance package; that should push it into the 3-4s 0-60 range. Meanwhile, the Model 3s are each $5k *cheaper* than their same-performing competitors, and save about $1k a year in the US / $2k a year in the EU. So over 5 years, $10k cheaper in the US, $15k cheaper in the EU, *not* counting incentives.
Almost all new energy going onto the grid in the US (and in most countries in the developed world) is a mix of wind, solar, and natural gas. Solar is the fastest growing component of these three. Coal is dying, and quickly. They're even starting to close plants that are A) large, and B) surprisingly young; it's no longer just the small, old plants that are being killed off.
You want me to compare an econobox with an entry-level sports sedan. Sorry, but that's idiotic.
Oh, and one more comment: the topic of discussion is a price comparison. And on that front, it's not like the Tesla and BMW are "close", and if the comparison had been done against a slightly poorer performing car of the same size, the poorer-performing car would come out on top in the price comparison. The Tesla crushes the BMW in the price comparison. $5k before tax credits, and then ~$1k per year in the US, ~$2k per year in Europe. So over, say, 5 years, that's the Tesla winning by $10K in the US, $15k in the EU. So by all means, go ahead and substitute in a poorer performing car.
BTW - if you want the simple reason as to why I chose a Model 3 to compare with (since you seem to object to me doing a comparison of entry-level sedans rather than economy cars), the short of it is: because that's the EV I have interest in. If you want a comparison of, say, an E-Golf, a Leaf, an Ioniq, a Zoe, a Focus Electric, an iMiEV, a Smart ForTwo electric, etc, etc with an ICE equivalent.... find someone who's a fan of one of those cars.
Or, you know, you could just google it. There's about a dozen different ways to recycle li-ion battery packs. And if you were a recycler, would you rather one small, dense object of a low value metal per vehicle, or a large, lower density object containing higher value minerals per vehicle? It's a no brainer from a financial perspective. What, you have to use a forklift? Gee, like that's a showstopper to a scrapyard.
I have no clue what "governments own numbers" you're referring to, but wind in the US (concentrated in the midwest, a region that extends into central Canada) is $32-62/MWh (aka, 3,2-6,2 cents per kWh). And dropping.
The limiting factor is that, as mentioned, it has to be paired with peaking and/or storage (with a particular emphasis on responsive peaking). But that comes along with a megacharger regardless, since you have to store power for such rapid discharges.
Read what I was replying to. The person was talking about subsidies ending in the US. But China and the EU are just as important markets to Tesla, and their subsidies are unrelated to what the US does.
Huh, funny, because two weeks later the drop was almost erased.
The subsidies are going away either way. It's only a matter of timing. If the subsidy is repealed, they disappear Q1 2018. Otherwise, they likely get halved Q2-Q3, quartered Q4-Q1, then disappear.
Perhaps the problem might be people dismissing them as, to quote, "rainbows and unicorns" and concern trolling about them. Naaaaah.
Yes, sure, let's compare a car that Motor Trend measures at 4,8s 0-60 and handling better than a BMW with, say, a Yaris. Because that's totally a realistic, fair comparison. Totally. You're totally being fair
And the BMW doesn't even come with a nav standard - you have to buy a $2750 options package for it. Either you didn't look at the options comparison, or you're deliberately trying to skew the conversation by only mentioning one side (something I distinctly did not do - I compared stats on everything, whether EV friendly or not)
The average new car in the US sells for $34k. Not everyone is looking for a used econobox.
There is no such thing as a "500k per year loss leader" in the autom
The problem with gasoline vehicles is that they have a random amount of fuel in their tank at any point in time. Some will be almost full, some will be almost empty. EVs start each day with a "full tank".
Typical degradation on Tesla packs is about 4% in the first year and under 1% in each subsequent year. There are Teslas out there with hundreds of thousands of miles on them.
The drivetrain problem was a defective mount with too tight tolerances. And Tesla replaced all the drive units for free. The cost of service (which includes an 8 year unlimited mileage warranty on the powertrain) is included in the vehicle price, so it's not something that you get to add onto the end as a service cost to the owner.
So, I clicked on the comments section thinking, "A private company launching the highest payload rocket since the Saturn V, with game-changing launch costs even without reuse, designed to land on barges and landing pads, and rather than risking a super-expensive satellite on the maiden launch, they're doing it in the most hilarious manner possible, at the CEO's expense? There's no way anyone is going to be turning this into a negative!"
Hello Slashdot. Thanks for finding new ways to disappoint.
When you say "build quality", what aspect do you refer to? If you refer to reliability, Consumer Reports ranks the Model S "above average", the Model X "below average" (heavily dinged on the falcon wing doors), and expects the Model 3 to be "average" at the time of its launch. They're pretty much the authorities in this regard.
And I'm sorry, but some of BMW's engineering these days is humorously bad.
Indeed. Nobody is going to throw away a giant box of nickel, cobalt, lithium and copper. People aren't in the habit of throwing away money.