Dear Anonymous Coward: When a heat engine operates between given temperatures, Carnot is the most efficient possible cycle. End of story. Otto, Diesel, Rankine, Stirling, the various gas turbines etc are all less efficient than Carnot. Easily seen from T-S (Temperature-Entropy) diagrams.
"gasoline burns at a higher temperature than diesel fuel" A meaningless statement. Gasoline has a higher CV than diesel, but the temperature after combustion (burning) depends on both the starting temperature and the CV of the fuel. Before combustion in the Diesel cycle the fuel/air mix is hotter than that in the Otto cycle. After combustion, the burnt gases in the Diesel are hotter than those in the Otto cycle.
"a large coal plant will operate at a higher efficiency than a small diesel engine". Yes. Well anyhow maybe more efficient than my 4HP "firefighter". But not much more efficient.
The various gas turbines are nice cycles. But I suspect the maximum operating temperature of any of them is too low to beat a large Diesel.
"in which case 1000C is extremely hard to manage in something the size of a normal motor."
I have not seen details of the size and weight (power density) of this electric generator. And it will also need an electric motor if it's going into an automobile. OTOH a temperature of 1000C is not so hard to manage (with e.g. ceramics) if the stresses are not high.
"your(sic) not comparing apples to apples here". Good point.
You quote me:: "You get exclusivity by putting your name and web address as an integral part on your creations"
and respond: "That you would even mention this indicates that you are, evidently, taking copyright as an axiomatic given. Without copyright, your name on your creation means absolutely zip, since anybody can simply remove it."
About me. I am a fabric artist. My website address is an integral part of my fabric designs. I do not bother with copyright. I suppose it would be possible to remove that part of my design (the www address). And sell it.
But consider; in the absence of copyright laws, why would someone bother to remove my address? What web address would they replace it with? And if they are in the business of mass production, I would imagine their best business policy would be to ask for my permission. That way they might do a deal to obtain access to my more recent creations. Because art is a matter of style. If my designs became fashionable then new designs would earn me (and my manufacturer) lots of money. If somebody copied the designs and sold them, I could contract out production to a third party, and sell direct from my website. They could not win, because they would always be behind me in production of new designs. And everything they sold that carried my design would point new customers to my web site. But then, you know all that.
Back to you. Despite my challenge that:
"It would help my analysis if you had mentioned at least the type of copyright you hold. (painting, fashion, etc)."
You chose not to provide your name or even your art form.
Your name appears to be a corruption of the word "market"
I believe you are a shill. Because only the big marketing companies have a need to push your narrative.
My suggestion for what it is worth is this: Get in your Porsche. Drive home and enjoy your Malibu beach house. And start thinking of a new racket. The copyright racket is dying fast.
Where Max.Eth = maximum theoretical thermal efficiency. Tlow = sink temperature (exhaust temp in K or R.) Thi. = Max cycle temp (just after explosion/injection finishes)
So what you are saying is a mechanics explanation. There is nothing theoretical in my figures. The temperature inside the cylinder easily exceeds 1000C. What I have stated is the physical law that governs the theoretical maximum efficiency. Carnot applies to all heat engines. In a diesel, because of its design, the maximum theoretical thermal efficiency is higher than any other heat engine, including the solid oxide Fuel cell (unless it is chemical electricity). And that is only because no other engine (at least, of which I am aware) has a higher cycle temperature.
Interestingly, this (Carnot) is the reason that a diesel has a higher thermal efficiency than a coal fired power station. That is because the maximum continuous temperature at which creep is not a problem is around 700C. And steam boilers and turbines, unlike a diesel cylinder, must tolerate that temperature on a continuous basis.
It would help my analysis if you had mentioned at least the type of copyright you hold. (painting, fashion, etc).
But the general answer is, the "big corporates" rely on copyright for their existence. Without copyright there are just a large number of small, competing manufacturers and/or distributors. You, as a creative artist could pick and choose who would manufacture your work.
You get exclusivity by putting your name and web address as an integral part on your creations. As a creative person you can only benefit from this publicity and visits to your website (unless you are a "one shot" creator.)
And good luck with protecting your (existing) copyright if one of the "big corporates" does steal your creation. There are quite a few highly publicized cases where corporates spent quite a lot of money defending their stealing of copyright.
"and that's how it's supposed to be". Well those copyright laws came about because the "big corporates" sponsored them by a process that economists call "regulatory capture" (see Wikipedia). It wasn't God who made that law.
I think that the single most important thing for human evolution is to maximize the individual's "liberty" where "liberty is the freedom to do everything which injures no one else" (rights of man 1789).
Enacting laws that limit an individual's liberty on the grounds that "they might injure someone else" is the slippery slope to perdition. We could use that reasoning to ban cars, fast food, electricity, sex....
Just legalize the lot. And let Darwin have his way. I am happy to help my brother if he asks, but I am not his keeper.
The world has changed in the last twenty years. Online control by voter polling of our representatives' legislative acts has become a technical possibility. We can now go beyond the village and state level. We could set up a system whereby everybody would only need access to the Internet to securely vote.
No matter how many laws or constitutional changes we manage to have enacted, none would have such political impact as simply enacting an amendment allowing voters to repeal unwanted legislation.
Points 1&2&3&4 Well the banks manage online banking OK. I haven't noticed the extra odd $million in my account recently.. Just use their system with an accessible vote history on each account. And make the name-encrypted database available to everyone, and also use open source software where possible, but especially to tally the vote database.
Point 5. If people take so little interest, they probably don't even vote for representatives. So no loss.
Point 6. What, with guns and stuff? Maybe in countries that have gun control. I wouldn't
want to be one of those "special people who go round people's houses and make sure they vote the right way" in the USA.
I alway thought we went to representative democracy because taking a poll over the whole of the US was impractical back in the 1700s. Silly me! It's obvious now. The scaling problem was not the reason.
There are three factors that must converge to make it economically sensible to go solar electric. 1). Grid parity. This is when the amortized cost of power from the solar electric system costs less than power off the local grid. 2). When the cost per KWH per year stops dropping so rapidly. A corollary of Moore's law applies. 3). Storage. We need a low cost & efficient power storage system. Flywheel, hydro, battery, even hydrolysis. Lightweight batteries or hydrogen fuel cells that could be swapped into the car would be best. At the current technology curve, it should be here within a decade in the sunny parts of the world.
Vote buying as you suggest might be possible in rare instances. For instance there are problems with scale. In a tiny community of a few hundred it might work. However i cannot envision how vote buying in a population of tens or hundreds of thousands (or more) could be managed without the process becoming known and prosecuted.
I was not condoning the MPAA. Just illuminating their logic. After that incident, it is quite clear that they break the law (privacy invasion by dissimulation) and so are a "criminal organization",
And whatever happens, a few more people will buy the licensed product, and a few more entertainers will trust the MPAA or RIAA with distribution of their valuable copyright material.
Only if we reduce CO2 emissions from fuel to zero, and maybe not even then if stories of positive feedback on tundra swamps are accurate. But hey, look at the bright side, those little old ladies won't need heaters!
But then, why is global warming so bad? Sea level rises? Ask the Dutch to build us Dykes. Little old ladies die of heatstroke? Buy them aircon. Food production diminishes because farmland turns to desert? What about the wastes of Siberia and Canada that become fertile farmland? Also CO2 acts as a fertilizer AND reduces a plant's need for water. Or as a last resort, try hydroponics.
Could not agree more. Like in Switzerland, where citizens can directly vote issues they feel important.
Computer security of voting is a design problem. Each citizen should have a login account (like a bank account) where current and past issues are listed. In this way he can see what votes have been registered in his name. Also he could download the database containing votes and encrypted users) and score the votes. Even the software should be open source.
If our financial system works online, so can our democracy (without appointing dictator-representatives),
One of our Australian Prime Ministers (Bob Hawke) said "Don't try to make laws that you can't realistically enforce".
I do not believe that privacy laws on images can be enforced. And if they were, the information would still be available to the rich and powerful and hackers.
I do not believe we should have income tax either. Henry George suggested the way that I believe that government should be funded.
If you do not want others to access your genetic material, then do not shed it anywhere. And perhaps you should be honest with sex partners. If you play around it always comes out. Ask Assange.
You use the Anonymous Coward to post. If you are doing that to hide your opinions from government agencies, it probably will not work, unless you are at an anonymous computer and were not observed by any webcam going near the location of that computer. And you would also have to hide your syntax. There will probably be a science that identifies people by the individual's syntax within a few years. And other things I haven't thought of.
Sometime in the future an AI will integrate all that info and you will be exposed.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Anonymous Coward: When a heat engine operates between given temperatures, Carnot is the most efficient possible cycle. End of story. Otto, Diesel, Rankine, Stirling, the various gas turbines etc are all less efficient than Carnot. Easily seen from T-S (Temperature-Entropy) diagrams.
"gasoline burns at a higher temperature than diesel fuel" A meaningless statement. Gasoline has a higher CV than diesel, but the temperature after combustion (burning) depends on both the starting temperature and the CV of the fuel. Before combustion in the Diesel cycle the fuel/air mix is hotter than that in the Otto cycle. After combustion, the burnt gases in the Diesel are hotter than those in the Otto cycle.
"a large coal plant will operate at a higher efficiency than a small diesel engine". Yes. Well anyhow maybe more efficient than my 4HP "firefighter". But not much more efficient.
The various gas turbines are nice cycles. But I suspect the maximum operating temperature of any of them is too low to beat a large Diesel.
Maximum spark temperature is about 500C not 50,000C
see e.g. http://rb-aa.bosch.com/aa-th/en/static/produkte/zuendkerzen/zuendkerzenkunde/waermewerte.htm
"in which case 1000C is extremely hard to manage in something the size of a normal motor."
I have not seen details of the size and weight (power density) of this electric generator. And it will also need an electric motor if it's going into an automobile. OTOH a temperature of 1000C is not so hard to manage (with e.g. ceramics) if the stresses are not high.
"your(sic) not comparing apples to apples here". Good point.
Dear Mark-t,
I must say. your comment is obscure.
You quote me:: "You get exclusivity by putting your name and web address as an integral part on your creations"
and respond: "That you would even mention this indicates that you are, evidently, taking copyright as an axiomatic given. Without copyright, your name on your creation means absolutely zip, since anybody can simply remove it."
About me. I am a fabric artist. My website address is an integral part of my fabric designs. I do not bother with copyright. I suppose it would be possible to remove that part of my design (the www address). And sell it.
But consider; in the absence of copyright laws, why would someone bother to remove my address? What web address would they replace it with? And if they are in the business of mass production, I would imagine their best business policy would be to ask for my permission. That way they might do a deal to obtain access to my more recent creations. Because art is a matter of style. If my designs became fashionable then new designs would earn me (and my manufacturer) lots of money. If somebody copied the designs and sold them, I could contract out production to a third party, and sell direct from my website. They could not win, because they would always be behind me in production of new designs. And everything they sold that carried my design would point new customers to my web site. But then, you know all that.
Back to you. Despite my challenge that:
"It would help my analysis if you had mentioned at least the type of copyright you hold. (painting, fashion, etc)."
You chose not to provide your name or even your art form.
Your name appears to be a corruption of the word "market"
I believe you are a shill. Because only the big marketing companies have a need to push your narrative.
My suggestion for what it is worth is this: Get in your Porsche. Drive home and enjoy your Malibu beach house. And start thinking of a new racket. The copyright racket is dying fast.
Working from memories a few decades old...
Carnot applies. Max.Eth = 1 - Tlow/Thi
Where Max.Eth = maximum theoretical thermal efficiency.
Tlow = sink temperature (exhaust temp in K or R.)
Thi. = Max cycle temp (just after explosion/injection finishes)
So what you are saying is a mechanics explanation. There is nothing theoretical in my figures. The temperature inside the cylinder easily exceeds 1000C. What I have stated is the physical law that governs the theoretical maximum efficiency. Carnot applies to all heat engines. In a diesel, because of its design, the maximum theoretical thermal efficiency is higher than any other heat engine, including the solid oxide Fuel cell (unless it is chemical electricity). And that is only because no other engine (at least, of which I am aware) has a higher cycle temperature.
Interestingly, this (Carnot) is the reason that a diesel has a higher thermal efficiency than a coal fired power station. That is because the maximum continuous temperature at which creep is not a problem is around 700C. And steam boilers and turbines, unlike a diesel cylinder, must tolerate that temperature on a continuous basis.
"Your diesel runs significantly less than 1000 deg C. most run at ~550C or less."
For instance look at figures 5 and 6. http://www.engineering-4e.com/diesel.pdf
Maximum cycle temperatures for a diesel are shown as between 1500K and 2100K which is 1200C to 1800C
On a theoretic basis, that is what gives a diesel such a high thermal efficiency.
"they operate close to 1000 degrees C, and they don't like being bounced around. Dealing with that kind of temperature in a car is a problem."
Gosh. You mean my diesel cycle runs at less than 1000 deg C?
It would help my analysis if you had mentioned at least the type of copyright you hold. (painting, fashion, etc).
But the general answer is, the "big corporates" rely on copyright for their existence. Without copyright there are just a large number of small, competing manufacturers and/or distributors. You, as a creative artist could pick and choose who would manufacture your work.
You get exclusivity by putting your name and web address as an integral part on your creations. As a creative person you can only benefit from this publicity and visits to your website (unless you are a "one shot" creator.)
And good luck with protecting your (existing) copyright if one of the "big corporates" does steal your creation. There are quite a few highly publicized cases where corporates spent quite a lot of money defending their stealing of copyright.
"and that's how it's supposed to be". Well those copyright laws came about because the "big corporates" sponsored them by a process that economists call "regulatory capture" (see Wikipedia). It wasn't God who made that law.
I think that the single most important thing for human evolution is to maximize the individual's "liberty" where "liberty is the freedom to do everything which injures no one else" (rights of man 1789).
Enacting laws that limit an individual's liberty on the grounds that "they might injure someone else" is the slippery slope to perdition. We could use that reasoning to ban cars, fast food, electricity, sex....
Just legalize the lot. And let Darwin have his way. I am happy to help my brother if he asks, but I am not his keeper.
The world has changed in the last twenty years. Online control by voter polling of our representatives' legislative acts has become a technical possibility. We can now go beyond the village and state level. We could set up a system whereby everybody would only need access to the Internet to securely vote.
No matter how many laws or constitutional changes we manage to have enacted, none would have such political impact as simply enacting an amendment allowing voters to repeal unwanted legislation.
" those interests coincided with the people using the machine"
You mean the people withdrawing money got extra payouts?
It's not so much who supplies the machine. It's does matter who operates it.
Rather a neat way to make an employment application.
I mod you up to 5
You post problems, but answers are obvious.
Points 1&2&3&4 Well the banks manage online banking OK. I haven't noticed the extra odd $million in my account recently.. Just use their system with an accessible vote history on each account. And make the name-encrypted database available to everyone, and also use open source software where possible, but especially to tally the vote database.
Point 5. If people take so little interest, they probably don't even vote for representatives. So no loss.
Point 6. What, with guns and stuff? Maybe in countries that have gun control. I wouldn't
want to be one of those "special people who go round people's houses and make sure they vote the right way" in the USA.
I alway thought we went to representative democracy because taking a poll over the whole of the US was impractical back in the 1700s. Silly me! It's obvious now. The scaling problem was not the reason.
"doesn't really want to vote on every single bill.."
Only those that will affect him.
"vocal minorities"
Just set a minimum count of votes (say 20% of eligible voters) that must be cast for an issue before the representative must vote as requested.
You, sir (or madam) are a pessimist.
Hurry up already!
Whether he stole anything is the issue.
There are three factors that must converge to make it economically sensible to go solar electric.
1). Grid parity. This is when the amortized cost of power from the solar electric system costs less than power off the local grid.
2). When the cost per KWH per year stops dropping so rapidly. A corollary of Moore's law applies.
3). Storage. We need a low cost & efficient power storage system. Flywheel, hydro, battery, even hydrolysis. Lightweight batteries or hydrogen fuel cells that could be swapped into the car would be best.
At the current technology curve, it should be here within a decade in the sunny parts of the world.
Vote buying as you suggest might be possible in rare instances. For instance there are problems with scale. In a tiny community of a few hundred it might work. However i cannot envision how vote buying in a population of tens or hundreds of thousands (or more) could be managed without the process becoming known and prosecuted.
No it doesn't. It takes about five years. And given sufficient water, you can grow most anything in fertilized sand.
Ask an Agricultural scientist. That was my father's profession, and I was a farmer.
I was not condoning the MPAA. Just illuminating their logic. After that incident, it is quite clear that they break the law (privacy invasion by dissimulation) and so are a "criminal organization",
And whatever happens, a few more people will buy the licensed product, and a few more entertainers will trust the MPAA or RIAA with distribution of their valuable copyright material.
"but at least it will stop global warming"
Only if we reduce CO2 emissions from fuel to zero, and maybe not even then if stories of positive feedback on tundra swamps are accurate. But hey, look at the bright side, those little old ladies won't need heaters!
But then, why is global warming so bad? Sea level rises? Ask the Dutch to build us Dykes. Little old ladies die of heatstroke? Buy them aircon. Food production diminishes because farmland turns to desert? What about the wastes of Siberia and Canada that become fertile farmland? Also CO2 acts as a fertilizer AND reduces a plant's need for water. Or as a last resort, try hydroponics.
"and want to vote issues, not parties"
Could not agree more. Like in Switzerland, where citizens can directly vote issues they feel important.
Computer security of voting is a design problem. Each citizen should have a login account (like a bank account) where current and past issues are listed. In this way he can see what votes have been registered in his name. Also he could download the database containing votes and encrypted users) and score the votes. Even the software should be open source.
If our financial system works online, so can our democracy (without appointing dictator-representatives),
One of our Australian Prime Ministers (Bob Hawke) said "Don't try to make laws that you can't realistically enforce".
I do not believe that privacy laws on images can be enforced. And if they were, the information would still be available to the rich and powerful and hackers.
I do not believe we should have income tax either. Henry George suggested the way that I believe that government should be funded.
If you do not want others to access your genetic material, then do not shed it anywhere. And perhaps you should be honest with sex partners. If you play around it always comes out. Ask Assange.
You use the Anonymous Coward to post. If you are doing that to hide your opinions from government agencies, it probably will not work, unless you are at an anonymous computer and were not observed by any webcam going near the location of that computer. And you would also have to hide your syntax. There will probably be a science that identifies people by the individual's syntax within a few years. And other things I haven't thought of.
Sometime in the future an AI will integrate all that info and you will be exposed.