You don't see a non-replaceable battery as an issue for you. Right at the start you say you expect your phone to be a maximum age of one year old while in your possession. So, you don't ever have a phone that is out of warranty. Of course you are not going to see a problem with the battery (it is bad business to have parts go bad on your products while it is under warranty, because then you have to replace them). I, on the other hand, try not to waste my money. So, I have had my current phone (Nexus 5) for over a year and a half and will continue to use it until it breaks. It is more than fast enough to run any app I need to run. The screen is big enough and has a high enough resolution. I don't see what feature would come out that would necessitate that I buy a new phone. Though, I do at some point expect to have to spend $50 on a new battery. I guess you are willing to pay $600 per year to be "cool" or "fashionable" by having the latest device (or you are part of the 1% of users who actually needs the new features that come out), but for most people it is just a yearly, or bi-yearly tax that you have to pay to apple.
In the example in the article, they are using wind generated electricity to make the fuel. So, the process is...
Electricity -> Synthetic Diesel Fuel -> Combustion -> Power (to wheels of car)
While for an electric car...
Electricity -> Battery Charge -> Battery Discharge -> Electric Motor -> Power (to wheels of car)
So, for the Electricity ->... -> Power efficiency, on the Roadster Tesla claims to be at 86% efficiency (they call it plug to wheel efficiency). Compare that to the Electricity ->... -> Power efficiency of the synthetic fuel which I am assuming to be between 10% and 20% ( 70% efficiency for creating fuel * 35% combustion efficiency * probably about 90% mechanical efficiency for transmission and differential).
I am not trying to say that there won't be a place for this technology. I just think that in most circumstances electric cars will be a much better option.
** A normally fueled car usually has a well-to-wheels efficiency of around 14%, so as far as actual energy efficiency goes, this fuel is doing pretty well. It just looks bad next to the high efficiency of electric cars.
It is pretty much guaranteed that charging an electric car takes less energy than this. Internal combustion engines are only ~35% efficient, so even if the process of creating the fuel is 100% efficient (which it is not, it is probably in the ideal case about 50% efficient), you would still need 3x the energy to create the fuel.
Hydrogen is actually a terrible fuel. Because it is always a gas at any reasonable temperature, it is either extremely bulky, or expensive and dangerous to store (high pressure).
Charging batteries is usually very efficient, so this process is probably significantly less efficient. Also, batteries discharge very efficiently, while an Internal Combustion Engine is usually around 35% efficient. I would guess that overall in the ideal case it would be on the order of 10-20% efficient (or less), compared to the roughly 90% efficiency of batteries. But, it is only a guess.
The reason why diesel engines have problems with NOx emissions is because the high temperatures and pressures in diesel fuel cause the nitrogen in the air to react with oxygen. Nitrogen is not normally a component in diesel fuel.
Along the same lines, cars burning this fuel would probably still have NOx emissions.
I was just commenting on your incorrect view on physics. Yes, torque alone does not matter. The number that does matter is the 0-60, which was 3.2 seconds (for the P85D), 5.9 seconds (for 2012 base) or 5.4 (for the 2013 base). But, according to you that also does not matter. That the only thing that matters is the range. You move from one argument to another, and whenever one argument gets shot down you try another. You are biased against the car (or, more likely, electrics in general) and no matter what I say you will find something else to hate. I could bring up the supercharger network which is being constantly expanded. Or that most people drive less than 30 miles per day. But, you would just move on to your next argument, probably saying that they rank at the bottom because they don't have a trailer hitch. I am done feeding the trolls.
From reading your comments, I am about 50% sure that you are a troll, but I can't let a comment with such terrible physics interpretation stand without a response. Torque is a force. Force is not energy. Energy comes from work. Work is force times distance. So, you can have as much torque as you want, but if it is not moving no energy is being expended. To follow your tree example, the branches on the tree support enormous torque. But, they are not moving so do not produce energy. I would respond to your other points, but honestly didn't think it would be worthwhile trying to understand what you were saying after I realized you have zero grasp of physics.
But, it seems that a low of people are arguing that Glass should be illegal to wear while driving. Is it better to have to look down at your dash to view your navigation than to have it displayed in the corner of your vision? Or, is the argument that it CAN be used improperly (watching youtube, facebook, etc.) so it should be illegal? If that is the argument, then we should ban all guns because they can be used improperly (to kill innocent people).
This thing will be expensive enough without shipping up armor and some sort of guns for shooting down missiles. So, a cruise missile could probably blow it to smithereens.
Ethanol from sugarcane has an 8:1 energy balance (8 units of energy out for every 1 unit of energy put in). Ethanol from corn was below or less than 1:1, but I think it now has a (barely) positive energy balance due to advances in technology and economies of scale. I think I read that biodiesel was between 2 and 3, but I am sure that depends on what plant you are getting the oil from.
Oil can be used to make electricity. So can coal, natural gas, sunlight, biomass, flowing water, and wind. When was the last time you saw a wind powered car driving down the road (though this one is pretty neat). Or a coal powered car? Nuclear powered? We do have natural gas powered vehicles, but how difficult would it be for you to use it in your car? We have a glut in natural gas right now, and it provides about 30% of our power. So, those Tesla owners are (on average) powering 30% of their car on natural gas (made in the USA), and the rest on coal, nuclear, or the others I mentioned above (all made in the USA). So, you go ahead and keep financing terrorists and the countries that support them by propping up oil prices. And you can also keep threatening our national security by keeping us reliant on other countries for our energy. I will get an electric car. And I will be confident in my ability to use it regardless of who we go to war with because it uses the most flexible fuel source... all of them.
From Wikipedia, Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. So, the fact that a group of people can result in deviant outcomes that would not result from the individuals alone seems to indicate that a "group" (or company) can be evil (or more evil) while the individuals may not be (or be less evil).
The anti-gay factions were the ones who got the Fed into it. They passed DOMA which specifically said that the federal government would not recognize gay marriage which was legal in the state. If the Fed were staying out of it, they would have recognized any marriage which the state recognized (this is how it traditionally worked - the states defined marriage).
Top tier gas has a higher octane rating (Premium is usually 93, Mid-grade is usually 91, Regular is 89), which means that it requires higher temperatures and pressures to spontaneously combust (spontaneous combustion is bad for engines and results in the "knock" sound). While you might be correct that the gas does not actually have any more octane in it (ethanol increases the octane rating), you are wrong in saying that octane has nothing to do with top tier gas.
Also, as a sidenote, refineries do not actually produce midgrade gasoline. Midgrade is just a mixture of premium and regular gasoline.
High octane-rated fuel does not spontaneously combust (or actually requires higher temperatures and pressures to spontaneously combust). Spontaneous combustion means all the fuel (essentially) ignites at once, which causes the "knock" sound. Instead, you want the fuel to ignite sequentially. How this happens in a gasoline engine is that the spark from the spark plug ignites some fuel and the flame front travels out from that point throughout the cylinder. So, while it is true that you do want slower combustion, the higher octane rated fuel does not actually burn slower than lower octane rated fuel. You are just trying to prevent the fuel from burning real quickly (spontaneous combustion).
I would just like to point out that the only thing that the IRS did was to take a long time and ask a lot of questions. 501(c)4 organisations can self-designate themselves, so they can go ahead and act like they are a 501(c)4 until the IRS actually denies them. And if they are denied, they would just have to pay back taxes and declare their donors. But, the election is over now, so if they were denied now no one cares anymore who donated to who.
And, if their consciences were clear and their motives were pure, then they wouldn't need to worry about eventually being denied because they wouldn't be. The problem is that most of them were planning on, and did, spend money on politics. I think the whole lot of them should be put in jail (my tax money subsidized their politicking), instead of being lauded on Faux News as "victims". This whole "scandal" is just political manipulation by the Republicans (who do you know of any political affiliation who doesn't like to hate on the IRS) and all of the sheeple like you are falling for it. The real problem is that during this time period the number of 501(c)4 applications doubled (and that doesn't even count the organizations who self-designated) while the IRS budget and workforce was cut.
So, basically, the Republicans have this political philosophy of "starve the beast" (keep government responsibilities the same but cut its budget) but scream when the lack of funds results in government being less effective (at least to their constituents - they are fine when it just affects poor people). And they want to try to project it as some grand conspiracy instead of recognizing it as some overworked government employees trying to be more efficient (god forbid the government actually try to be efficient - then Repubs couldn't get up on their soapbox and preach about how much better the private sector is).
Slashdot Mirror
So, sell the fake horns for $3,000. Problem solved. You're welcome.
You don't see a non-replaceable battery as an issue for you . Right at the start you say you expect your phone to be a maximum age of one year old while in your possession. So, you don't ever have a phone that is out of warranty. Of course you are not going to see a problem with the battery (it is bad business to have parts go bad on your products while it is under warranty, because then you have to replace them). I, on the other hand, try not to waste my money. So, I have had my current phone (Nexus 5) for over a year and a half and will continue to use it until it breaks. It is more than fast enough to run any app I need to run. The screen is big enough and has a high enough resolution. I don't see what feature would come out that would necessitate that I buy a new phone. Though, I do at some point expect to have to spend $50 on a new battery. I guess you are willing to pay $600 per year to be "cool" or "fashionable" by having the latest device (or you are part of the 1% of users who actually needs the new features that come out), but for most people it is just a yearly, or bi-yearly tax that you have to pay to apple.
.
In the example in the article, they are using wind generated electricity to make the fuel. So, the process is...
Electricity -> Synthetic Diesel Fuel -> Combustion -> Power (to wheels of car)
While for an electric car...
Electricity -> Battery Charge -> Battery Discharge -> Electric Motor -> Power (to wheels of car)
So, for the Electricity -> ... -> Power efficiency, on the Roadster Tesla claims to be at 86% efficiency (they call it plug to wheel efficiency). Compare that to the Electricity -> ... -> Power efficiency of the synthetic fuel which I am assuming to be between 10% and 20% ( 70% efficiency for creating fuel * 35% combustion efficiency * probably about 90% mechanical efficiency for transmission and differential).
I am not trying to say that there won't be a place for this technology. I just think that in most circumstances electric cars will be a much better option.
** A normally fueled car usually has a well-to-wheels efficiency of around 14%, so as far as actual energy efficiency goes, this fuel is doing pretty well. It just looks bad next to the high efficiency of electric cars.
It is pretty much guaranteed that charging an electric car takes less energy than this. Internal combustion engines are only ~35% efficient, so even if the process of creating the fuel is 100% efficient (which it is not, it is probably in the ideal case about 50% efficient), you would still need 3x the energy to create the fuel.
Hydrogen is actually a terrible fuel. Because it is always a gas at any reasonable temperature, it is either extremely bulky, or expensive and dangerous to store (high pressure).
Charging batteries is usually very efficient, so this process is probably significantly less efficient. Also, batteries discharge very efficiently, while an Internal Combustion Engine is usually around 35% efficient. I would guess that overall in the ideal case it would be on the order of 10-20% efficient (or less), compared to the roughly 90% efficiency of batteries. But, it is only a guess.
Diesel Fuel + Oxygen -> CO2 + H2O + Energy
So, I would assume the opposite would be...
CO2 + H2O + Energy -> Diesel Fuel + Oxygen
The reason why diesel engines have problems with NOx emissions is because the high temperatures and pressures in diesel fuel cause the nitrogen in the air to react with oxygen. Nitrogen is not normally a component in diesel fuel.
Along the same lines, cars burning this fuel would probably still have NOx emissions.
I was just commenting on your incorrect view on physics. Yes, torque alone does not matter. The number that does matter is the 0-60, which was 3.2 seconds (for the P85D), 5.9 seconds (for 2012 base) or 5.4 (for the 2013 base). But, according to you that also does not matter. That the only thing that matters is the range. You move from one argument to another, and whenever one argument gets shot down you try another. You are biased against the car (or, more likely, electrics in general) and no matter what I say you will find something else to hate. I could bring up the supercharger network which is being constantly expanded. Or that most people drive less than 30 miles per day. But, you would just move on to your next argument, probably saying that they rank at the bottom because they don't have a trailer hitch. I am done feeding the trolls.
From reading your comments, I am about 50% sure that you are a troll, but I can't let a comment with such terrible physics interpretation stand without a response. Torque is a force. Force is not energy. Energy comes from work. Work is force times distance. So, you can have as much torque as you want, but if it is not moving no energy is being expended. To follow your tree example, the branches on the tree support enormous torque. But, they are not moving so do not produce energy. I would respond to your other points, but honestly didn't think it would be worthwhile trying to understand what you were saying after I realized you have zero grasp of physics.
But, it seems that a low of people are arguing that Glass should be illegal to wear while driving. Is it better to have to look down at your dash to view your navigation than to have it displayed in the corner of your vision? Or, is the argument that it CAN be used improperly (watching youtube, facebook, etc.) so it should be illegal? If that is the argument, then we should ban all guns because they can be used improperly (to kill innocent people).
Can you not do GPS navigation with google glass? Are GPS units (with screens) illegal in California?
The $20 part is so you can pay $900 for the $600 phone over the two years.
$20 * 12 months * 2 years = $480
Am I missing something?
This thing will be expensive enough without shipping up armor and some sort of guns for shooting down missiles. So, a cruise missile could probably blow it to smithereens.
Should they be allowed to collect it if they don't decrypt it?
Ethanol from sugarcane has an 8:1 energy balance (8 units of energy out for every 1 unit of energy put in). Ethanol from corn was below or less than 1:1, but I think it now has a (barely) positive energy balance due to advances in technology and economies of scale. I think I read that biodiesel was between 2 and 3, but I am sure that depends on what plant you are getting the oil from.
Oil can be used to make electricity. So can coal, natural gas, sunlight, biomass, flowing water, and wind. When was the last time you saw a wind powered car driving down the road (though this one is pretty neat). Or a coal powered car? Nuclear powered? We do have natural gas powered vehicles, but how difficult would it be for you to use it in your car? We have a glut in natural gas right now, and it provides about 30% of our power. So, those Tesla owners are (on average) powering 30% of their car on natural gas (made in the USA), and the rest on coal, nuclear, or the others I mentioned above (all made in the USA). So, you go ahead and keep financing terrorists and the countries that support them by propping up oil prices. And you can also keep threatening our national security by keeping us reliant on other countries for our energy. I will get an electric car. And I will be confident in my ability to use it regardless of who we go to war with because it uses the most flexible fuel source... all of them.
From Wikipedia, Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. So, the fact that a group of people can result in deviant outcomes that would not result from the individuals alone seems to indicate that a "group" (or company) can be evil (or more evil) while the individuals may not be (or be less evil).
The anti-gay factions were the ones who got the Fed into it. They passed DOMA which specifically said that the federal government would not recognize gay marriage which was legal in the state. If the Fed were staying out of it, they would have recognized any marriage which the state recognized (this is how it traditionally worked - the states defined marriage).
Top tier gas has a higher octane rating (Premium is usually 93, Mid-grade is usually 91, Regular is 89), which means that it requires higher temperatures and pressures to spontaneously combust (spontaneous combustion is bad for engines and results in the "knock" sound). While you might be correct that the gas does not actually have any more octane in it (ethanol increases the octane rating), you are wrong in saying that octane has nothing to do with top tier gas.
Also, as a sidenote, refineries do not actually produce midgrade gasoline. Midgrade is just a mixture of premium and regular gasoline.
High octane-rated fuel does not spontaneously combust (or actually requires higher temperatures and pressures to spontaneously combust). Spontaneous combustion means all the fuel (essentially) ignites at once, which causes the "knock" sound. Instead, you want the fuel to ignite sequentially. How this happens in a gasoline engine is that the spark from the spark plug ignites some fuel and the flame front travels out from that point throughout the cylinder. So, while it is true that you do want slower combustion, the higher octane rated fuel does not actually burn slower than lower octane rated fuel. You are just trying to prevent the fuel from burning real quickly (spontaneous combustion).
Except most people will charge at night when it is *not* during peak load.
Driverless Car - Surfing the internet and looking at Google Ads while *not* driving.
I would just like to point out that the only thing that the IRS did was to take a long time and ask a lot of questions. 501(c)4 organisations can self-designate themselves, so they can go ahead and act like they are a 501(c)4 until the IRS actually denies them. And if they are denied, they would just have to pay back taxes and declare their donors. But, the election is over now, so if they were denied now no one cares anymore who donated to who.
And, if their consciences were clear and their motives were pure, then they wouldn't need to worry about eventually being denied because they wouldn't be. The problem is that most of them were planning on, and did, spend money on politics. I think the whole lot of them should be put in jail (my tax money subsidized their politicking), instead of being lauded on Faux News as "victims". This whole "scandal" is just political manipulation by the Republicans (who do you know of any political affiliation who doesn't like to hate on the IRS) and all of the sheeple like you are falling for it. The real problem is that during this time period the number of 501(c)4 applications doubled (and that doesn't even count the organizations who self-designated) while the IRS budget and workforce was cut.
So, basically, the Republicans have this political philosophy of "starve the beast" (keep government responsibilities the same but cut its budget) but scream when the lack of funds results in government being less effective (at least to their constituents - they are fine when it just affects poor people). And they want to try to project it as some grand conspiracy instead of recognizing it as some overworked government employees trying to be more efficient (god forbid the government actually try to be efficient - then Repubs couldn't get up on their soapbox and preach about how much better the private sector is).
3^3 = 27 which is a factor of 27
6^3 = 216 = 27 * 8 (or 3^3 * 2^3) so is a factor of 27
3^5 = 243 = 27 * 9 (or 3^3 * 3^2) so is a factor of 27
Either you are completely wrong or I have complete forgotten how to do math.