What are you talking about? It's been decades since you have had to redesign an engine for natural gas (and back then "redesign" meant replacing the valve seats). In fact, it's simple enough nowadays, the typical way to do it is to take a gasoline car, add the appropriate injectors to the manifold for natural gas, add a controller for said injectors (and possibly a spark controller as well), add tanks, then connect it all up.
Just because it can run, doesn't mean it is running optimally. Anything less than 16:1 compression ratio for methane is just a waste. The same goes for any other high octane fuel. If you're going to use it, your engine aught to be designed to make proper use of it.
That's because he didn't have an E85 pickup. He had a "flex-fuel" pickup, meaning it didn't have the compression ratio to make the higher octane E85 worthwhile.
If you factor in the ability to run higher compression due to the higher octane, the loss in efficiency is basically canceled out. Ethanol is only less efficient because those engines still need to be able to run on gasoline.
Corn ethanol as a fuel is nothing but a way for corn farmers to destroy excess crop and keep the market from getting flooded. There is way too little positive output for the amount of energy that goes into processing for it to be an effective fuel source. The only real value to corn ethanol is as an anti-knocking additive once leaded gasoline was outlawed.
Diesel engines like fuel that burns easily. Where gasoline engines rate fuel based off their resistance to autoignition in comparison to octane, diesel engines rate fuel based off their willingness to autoignite in comparison to cetane. Basically, that which makes fuel good for a gasoline engine makes it bad for a diesel. Gas turbines suffer the same issue, but in a gas turbine, all you have to do is lengthen the combustion chamber. In a diesel, either you run very low RPM, or you waste a significant portion of your fuel as it continues to combust long after it exits the cylinder.
Also, most older diesels actually do premix the fuel/air. They just don't do so in the cylinder.
Though the knock resistance is higher because of the lower energy. So if you have a high compression engine that "requires" 91 or higher, and you have a choice of 87 "pure" or ~95 E85, you may see better mileage and performance from the "lower energy" E85.
If you have a high compression engine that requires (and actually requires, not just "requires") 91 or higher, using 87 octane fuel will cause the EFI computer to go into protection mode, running very rich to prevent knocking, and your economy and performance will both go to shit. It will probably also throw a check engine light. On an older carburated engine, you will simply knock and damage the engine.
In any engine with a decent EFI computer and fuel pump, high compression or not, running E85 will result in a boost in performance. Ethanol burns at a much lower stoichiometric ratio than gasoline. The oxygen sensor will detect lean operation, and will allow more fuel flow to compensate. The carburated engine will behave the same, but you will have to re-tune the mixture manually. While the ethanol has a lower energy density, there will be considerably more inside the cylinder to combust, so the total energy content within the cylinder will be higher. This is the primary reason why dragsters run ethanol, methanol, or nitromethane.
Just as S-glass and E-glass have different properties, you can get all sorts of different behavior out of carbon fiber, based off the polymer precursor and cooking process. The ultimate strengths of some forms of carbon fiber are well over 6GPa.
So a point source of light can be resolved down to an infinitely small size? Why isn't that used as the acuity test?
No. A point source can be seen down to an infinitely small size, so long as its intensity is sufficient, but that infinitely small point source cannot be resolved.
The human eye does not resolve the image. The brain does.
Actually, both do. The density of the individual rod and cone cells in the retina produces an ultimate resolving power of the eye, under various conditions. The brain then computes its own composite image, that can be of higher power than that produced by either eye individually.
I don't believe that is an accurate description of human vision, anyway. I tested, and I can resolve a single pixel (stuck green on a bad LCD) at less than 1/10th the "minimum" you list, and my vision is worse than 20/20.
That's a different measure. The standard visual acuity test is supposed to see at what distance you can distinguish one stuck pixel from two side by side. You're not resolving any details of that subpixel, you're just seeing it as a point source. If you look into the night sky, just because you can see a star doesn't mean you can determine its size. However, poor example doesn't disprove the point. Human vision is more complex than the standard visual acuity text, and other tests show you in fact can resolve below that limit. If we haven't yet hit the resolving limit, then there is still room for growth in output devices, even if those output devices are merely interpolating up from much lower resolution content.
:). Yea, good riddance to those days... May they never return...
I'm using one right now, next to another one the same size, and a 15" UXGA, and a 16" WUXGA, and a 20" UXGA, and a 24" WUXGA,... Just because you get new ones doesn't mean you have to stop using the old ones.
This display is only around 100DPI. Even using the "20/20 vision" measurement of 1 arcminute resolution, that means you're still going to see benefit all the way out to three feet. Do understand that 20/20 vision is only the value everyone with healthy eyes should be able to achieve, while the limit for human sight is somewhere closer to 20/10. I personally have roughly 20/13, measured during an eye exam just a few months ago, which would move that distance out past four feet for me.
The standard visual acuity test is intended to be used on high contrast, high resolution, monochromatic print. It doesn't directly apply to a display with geometrically independent colored subpixels. The standard visual acuity test is only one measurement, and other test have found the resolving limit in certain circumstances to be down around just a few arcseconds.
For the record, yes, you can hear the difference between a tube amp and a solid state amp. The tube amp will be "warmer", meaning it will distort the audio in a manner some find pleasing. The solid state amp won't do this, and will instead require those effects to be simulated in a DSP.
But really, if they have to make at least X cars, and they're not making one more, why is he telling people not buy them? They're still making the exact same number. If some people listen to him and don't buy them, doesn't that just mean they'll sit on the lot longer and sold for even less?
Presumably as a PR stunt to bring attention to the regulatory issue.
If such power existed and could be voluntarily willed, a military power would already be manipulating it to their gains. Rest assured there has been enormous amounts of time and resources devoted towards specifically this purpose.
The "dark ages" really only existed in Europe and the reaches of the Roman Catholic church. Are you suggesting Europeans are responsible for all scientific invention in the world?
You don't have to transcode to H264. The M2TS already contains H264 (or much less commonly, VC-1). If you want H264 in an MP4, all you have to do is remux, and that's only going to take a few minutes.
No, my confusion was when he stated 45 minutes for a rip, I assumed he was talking Bluray, and not DVD. DVD, on any halfway modern drive, should only take about 10 minutes to rip.
I think a lot of people fail to realize that it's not just a display an inch away from their eye. You really have to use a reflex display at least once to grasp their purpose.
There is no such thing as a "private cloud", as the term "cloud" specifically refers to services managed by an external party, on that external party's servers. If they're your own IT staff and hardware, well then it's just your own data center.
I know it is popular to make fun of the cloud hype on Slashdot, but IT as a managed services has real value
Managed IT services are perfectly fine. Calling it "the cloud" is buying into a buzzword that exists for no reason but to generate hype over a business model that has been around for decades.
Rippers don't produce MKV files. Rippers produce M2TS files, as that's what's on the disc. You have to remux to get MKV. You have to remux again to get MP4. Neither of which should take hours, but only as long as it takes for your hard drive to read out ~30GB, and write back that ~30GB. Generally, that should be under five minutes.
It's only a long process because the drive recognizes the disc as copyrighted content, and then goes into low speed mode to intentionally make ripping the content a painful process, under the guise that it quiets the drive during media playback. Or, you just have a slow 2x drive. In any case, it only takes ~45 minutes, as you say, and you only ever have to do it once.
Slashdot Mirror
It's always bothered me how often you see carbon fiber parts with a plain weave of arbitrary orientation as the top layer.
What are you talking about? It's been decades since you have had to redesign an engine for natural gas (and back then "redesign" meant replacing the valve seats). In fact, it's simple enough nowadays, the typical way to do it is to take a gasoline car, add the appropriate injectors to the manifold for natural gas, add a controller for said injectors (and possibly a spark controller as well), add tanks, then connect it all up.
Just because it can run, doesn't mean it is running optimally. Anything less than 16:1 compression ratio for methane is just a waste. The same goes for any other high octane fuel. If you're going to use it, your engine aught to be designed to make proper use of it.
That's because he didn't have an E85 pickup. He had a "flex-fuel" pickup, meaning it didn't have the compression ratio to make the higher octane E85 worthwhile.
If you factor in the ability to run higher compression due to the higher octane, the loss in efficiency is basically canceled out. Ethanol is only less efficient because those engines still need to be able to run on gasoline.
Corn ethanol as a fuel is nothing but a way for corn farmers to destroy excess crop and keep the market from getting flooded. There is way too little positive output for the amount of energy that goes into processing for it to be an effective fuel source. The only real value to corn ethanol is as an anti-knocking additive once leaded gasoline was outlawed.
Diesel engines like fuel that burns easily. Where gasoline engines rate fuel based off their resistance to autoignition in comparison to octane, diesel engines rate fuel based off their willingness to autoignite in comparison to cetane. Basically, that which makes fuel good for a gasoline engine makes it bad for a diesel. Gas turbines suffer the same issue, but in a gas turbine, all you have to do is lengthen the combustion chamber. In a diesel, either you run very low RPM, or you waste a significant portion of your fuel as it continues to combust long after it exits the cylinder.
Also, most older diesels actually do premix the fuel/air. They just don't do so in the cylinder.
Though the knock resistance is higher because of the lower energy. So if you have a high compression engine that "requires" 91 or higher, and you have a choice of 87 "pure" or ~95 E85, you may see better mileage and performance from the "lower energy" E85.
If you have a high compression engine that requires (and actually requires, not just "requires") 91 or higher, using 87 octane fuel will cause the EFI computer to go into protection mode, running very rich to prevent knocking, and your economy and performance will both go to shit. It will probably also throw a check engine light. On an older carburated engine, you will simply knock and damage the engine.
In any engine with a decent EFI computer and fuel pump, high compression or not, running E85 will result in a boost in performance. Ethanol burns at a much lower stoichiometric ratio than gasoline. The oxygen sensor will detect lean operation, and will allow more fuel flow to compensate. The carburated engine will behave the same, but you will have to re-tune the mixture manually. While the ethanol has a lower energy density, there will be considerably more inside the cylinder to combust, so the total energy content within the cylinder will be higher. This is the primary reason why dragsters run ethanol, methanol, or nitromethane.
Just as S-glass and E-glass have different properties, you can get all sorts of different behavior out of carbon fiber, based off the polymer precursor and cooking process. The ultimate strengths of some forms of carbon fiber are well over 6GPa.
So a point source of light can be resolved down to an infinitely small size? Why isn't that used as the acuity test?
No. A point source can be seen down to an infinitely small size, so long as its intensity is sufficient, but that infinitely small point source cannot be resolved.
The human eye does not resolve the image. The brain does.
Actually, both do. The density of the individual rod and cone cells in the retina produces an ultimate resolving power of the eye, under various conditions. The brain then computes its own composite image, that can be of higher power than that produced by either eye individually.
I don't believe that is an accurate description of human vision, anyway. I tested, and I can resolve a single pixel (stuck green on a bad LCD) at less than 1/10th the "minimum" you list, and my vision is worse than 20/20.
That's a different measure. The standard visual acuity test is supposed to see at what distance you can distinguish one stuck pixel from two side by side. You're not resolving any details of that subpixel, you're just seeing it as a point source. If you look into the night sky, just because you can see a star doesn't mean you can determine its size. However, poor example doesn't disprove the point. Human vision is more complex than the standard visual acuity text, and other tests show you in fact can resolve below that limit. If we haven't yet hit the resolving limit, then there is still room for growth in output devices, even if those output devices are merely interpolating up from much lower resolution content.
:). Yea, good riddance to those days... May they never return...
I'm using one right now, next to another one the same size, and a 15" UXGA, and a 16" WUXGA, and a 20" UXGA, and a 24" WUXGA,... Just because you get new ones doesn't mean you have to stop using the old ones.
This display is only around 100DPI. Even using the "20/20 vision" measurement of 1 arcminute resolution, that means you're still going to see benefit all the way out to three feet. Do understand that 20/20 vision is only the value everyone with healthy eyes should be able to achieve, while the limit for human sight is somewhere closer to 20/10. I personally have roughly 20/13, measured during an eye exam just a few months ago, which would move that distance out past four feet for me.
The standard visual acuity test is intended to be used on high contrast, high resolution, monochromatic print. It doesn't directly apply to a display with geometrically independent colored subpixels. The standard visual acuity test is only one measurement, and other test have found the resolving limit in certain circumstances to be down around just a few arcseconds.
For the record, yes, you can hear the difference between a tube amp and a solid state amp. The tube amp will be "warmer", meaning it will distort the audio in a manner some find pleasing. The solid state amp won't do this, and will instead require those effects to be simulated in a DSP.
But really, if they have to make at least X cars, and they're not making one more, why is he telling people not buy them? They're still making the exact same number. If some people listen to him and don't buy them, doesn't that just mean they'll sit on the lot longer and sold for even less?
Presumably as a PR stunt to bring attention to the regulatory issue.
Re: Why make a journalist suffer
Just throw them away and buy new ones!
Journalists?
I'm absolutely positive you'd look more like a superhero (or at least special) wearing them on top of your jeans.
If such power existed and could be voluntarily willed, a military power would already be manipulating it to their gains. Rest assured there has been enormous amounts of time and resources devoted towards specifically this purpose.
The "dark ages" really only existed in Europe and the reaches of the Roman Catholic church. Are you suggesting Europeans are responsible for all scientific invention in the world?
Huh? Watts are already "per time". A 4.6kW bulb is what you find on outdoor spotlights.
Well... 160mph anyway... All you need to do is open a vent, and there will be plenty of convection to keep that coil cool.
You'd usually want to transcode a blu-ray from h264 to lower-bitrate h264 too, as a simple remux is about fifty gig.
Well, 25-30GB anyway, and you'd only want to do that if planning to use it on a mobile device where storage limits are a concern...
You don't have to transcode to H264. The M2TS already contains H264 (or much less commonly, VC-1). If you want H264 in an MP4, all you have to do is remux, and that's only going to take a few minutes.
No, my confusion was when he stated 45 minutes for a rip, I assumed he was talking Bluray, and not DVD. DVD, on any halfway modern drive, should only take about 10 minutes to rip.
I think a lot of people fail to realize that it's not just a display an inch away from their eye. You really have to use a reflex display at least once to grasp their purpose.
There is no such thing as a "private cloud", as the term "cloud" specifically refers to services managed by an external party, on that external party's servers. If they're your own IT staff and hardware, well then it's just your own data center.
I know it is popular to make fun of the cloud hype on Slashdot, but IT as a managed services has real value
Managed IT services are perfectly fine. Calling it "the cloud" is buying into a buzzword that exists for no reason but to generate hype over a business model that has been around for decades.
Rippers don't produce MKV files. Rippers produce M2TS files, as that's what's on the disc. You have to remux to get MKV. You have to remux again to get MP4. Neither of which should take hours, but only as long as it takes for your hard drive to read out ~30GB, and write back that ~30GB. Generally, that should be under five minutes.
It's only a long process because the drive recognizes the disc as copyrighted content, and then goes into low speed mode to intentionally make ripping the content a painful process, under the guise that it quiets the drive during media playback. Or, you just have a slow 2x drive. In any case, it only takes ~45 minutes, as you say, and you only ever have to do it once.