It's insane that the OP was practically jizzing himself over the idea he could actually shoot someone.
OP here, projecting much? Or were you referring to the AC who created a scenario of a spree shooter getting to shoot at passing cars for an apparently extended period of time?
Also, "awful dystopia"? How do you extract that from a post that amounts to a single line? The AC I replied to did describe an awful dystopia, though I've lived that, somewhat. It took a while to catch the DC Snipers, for example.
So please, explain how a spree shooter being shot, whether by a civilian, police officer, or military member is dystopian. The spree shooter operating unopposed is dystopian.
Libertarian beliefs do NOT let you just be a danger to others willy-nilly. As you said, self defense is absolute. Personally, I even extend that to shit like pollution, though not being immediate, pollution would be more a matter for the courts. And no, I wouldn't allow games like "we don't know if the client's lung cancer is from my spewing PM2.5 all over or whether it was a naturally occuring one".
There's plenty of examples of competition driving both prices down and service up in the real world, though yes, cartels and price fixings are indeed at least occasional problems. That's what a moderate amount of regulation, and some serious work on preventing regulatory capture(where regulations are used to prevent competition, not encourage it) comes in.
I'm retired military, I stood up and took an oath. It might expose me to more risk, but if I can take the shot, the few seconds of me aiming and firing is more likely to save life than I am to be confused for the shooter.
Of course, once the shooter is neutralized, I'm putting the gun away.
While being mistaken for the shooter and being shot myself is possible, it is unlikely. It happens to police officers only a few times a decade, after all, and there's been maybe ONE non-officer self defense shooter shot. Several have been arrested, but I view that as an acceptable outcome. Shooting somebody, even in self defense, is a serious matter, after all.
For all the thought libertarians put I to self defense, it isn't actually a violent philosophy. The workers shouldn't attack factory owners, and factory owners shouldn't be hiring the Pinkertons to commit violence against the workers.
I'm not shooting him because he's violated the law. Note that I said 'plug's, IE shoot, not kill him. If he survives, he can stand trial for his crimes.
I'm shooting him to stop him from being an immediate lethal threat to me and others. The same reason the cops would most likely shoot him - him being an active spree shooter.
Ask six libertarians for their answer on something, get at least a dozen answers. Or even six socialists for that matter, much the same.
Hell, as me for something and I can generally come up with at least three myself. The philosophically ideal answer, the real world answer, the practical answer, the "corrective" answer, and the achievable answer.;)
Ideal: The way it would be in my ideal libertarian society Real World: Not everybody are libertarian gods. This adds controls for failings Practical: No longer starting from a magical libertarian starting point. Even more failings, trends from the past Corrective: Society has taken a very wrong turn. In order to reach a more libertarian ideal, corrective measures are needed for a time(fixing the welfare state. No, I'm not a madman who'd cut everybody off all at once) Achievable: Libertarians are a minority. We'll take what we can get, like lowered amounts of regulation, legalized marijuana as opposed to all drugs, etc...
Libertarian wants to shoot his gun at passing vehicles, "'cuz muh Libertarianism."
Shortcut the whole thing. Me, one of the people in said cars, a libertarian myself, plugs the damn fool for being a deliberate danger to myself and others.
Actually, I like to think that words have meaning. I say just the opposite, as a libertarian, I see many that call themselves libertarian who are actually confused anarchists.
As such, I have to acknowledge their presence. But I am a very unusual libertarian, I've gone so deep into the philosophy that I've come out the other end in some ways.
That said, if workers want to organize, as a libertarian I view that as their right. Though I do indeed say that the company can subsequently chose to fire the union if they want. If the workers are strong enough, that will kill the company, but it is all about balance. If the workers form the union right, they can keep it such that firing them, the union, is more hassle than its worth, while still winning more benefits.
Even if it is, I figure that a macro that is 90% effective but allows 100 times the reviews to be made would actually result in more justice/fairness/released persons than them having to do all the reviews manually.
Second of all, who in their right mind would plead down to a drug crime? They carry additional penalties versus other crimes that follows you for the rest of your life. Ineligible for financial aid to better yourself after getting out of prison. Nobody is going to hire someone with a drug conviction, they would much rather hire someone convicted of a violent crime like assault!
That depends on the business, I'd think? Also, so many drug users out there that, especially in places like California, that a drug bust only isn't going to be seen as a big deal.
It's actually pretty standard for a judge to look at the whole situation when passing sentence, so them looking at the whole situation for rendering relief makes sense as well.
The sentence is limited to the actual charge and what congress set as the penalty, of course.
I have an issues with this because, by all my research, you are wrong on this. You have failed to provide a citation proving this, I have failed to find a citation proving this. The math is NOT "right above". You have posted no math that I can see. Indeed, I keep encountering statements in documents that air core transformers can sometimes be preferred in order to prevent Hysteresis and Eddy loses, otherwise known as "iron losses". Air core works better at higher frequencies, Hmm.. I wonder what EV inductive chargers use... Ah yes, highfrequencies. 85 kHz seems common, though some are much higher.
2. Coupling factor, as shown by my and your sources, is somewhat independent from the core material used. An iron core transformer CAN be less efficient than an air core transformer. YOUR citations show this.
You will never be as efficient when you terminate your charging system with a transformer (air core or iron core, although iron is more efficient) as compared to a hard-wired connector. Just not going to happen.
What do you meant terminate? The transformer is necessary regardless of connector -whether inductive or hard wired. You're going to need to match wall voltage to what the battery needs, and the best way to do that is with a transformer. It's also hardly the "end" of the circuit. You're still going to need to transform the power from AC to DC, for example, and likely are going to want to smooth it out.
Combined with your insistence that iron-core transformers are always more efficient than Air Core and other issues like seemingly being totally ignorant of the effects of frequency on transformer design, the general necessity to match wall voltage to battery voltage through the use of a transformer, etc... I don't believe that you are actually an EE. You're making too many basic mistakes about physics. If you are an EE, you're probably a very specialized one that doesn't deal with the same issues that will come up in designing an inductive charger for EVs.
I've also told you a couple times what you need to do to convince me. 1. Citations, Sources. I'm not taking your word on this stuff. Note that most of my posts are littered with citations. The one time you tried, you linked to sources that agreed with me! 2. Reasoning that goes beyond the transformer/inductive loop. As I've said, I'm looking at the complete system, not just the loop.
For example, what is your response to this? Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Transportation Efficiency Group Average efficiency, level 2(240V) charge: 86.4%, level 1(120V): 83.7%. Interestingly, temperature can change the charge efficiency by more than 2%! Then the DOE chimes in, with a wireless charging system that is 90% efficient. Plugless power, is getting 84-90%
The quoted official, Momentum Dynamics, it might be important to note that they've been targeting bus charging - 200kW. So, if the technology scales well, that could be part of their claiming high efficiency.
What's up with wireless EV charging - has an interesting writeup of what's going on under the hood. Though it mostly focuses on the cost, which can be cheaper for wireless? Interesting.
Because the original article that I said was wrong - that you too offense of - made that very claim. That it was more efficient than a connector. And that is flat out wrong.
You're strawmanning the original article and taking the quote out of context.
You quoted the "just as efficient" part frequently as well, so it looked like you were arguing that they had to be less efficient, thus my arguing against you, as my position is that they can be AS efficient, IE equal. At least within manufacturing tolerances.
Let me repeat the original quote:
Wireless EV charging is just as efficient — or more efficient — than plugging in. Most people think they have to plug in an electric car to get the most efficient charging possible, but that’s not true. No charging method is 100% efficient. Conventional chargers are typically 88% to 95% efficient. Wireless charging is right in the middle of that range at 90% to 93% efficiency. That means it does as good a job of transferring electricity from the charger to a car’s battery as most conventional charging equipment that uses a cord.
You're claiming that the article, using this quote, claimed that wireless charging is more efficient than wired.
"Just as or more" is a statement of "equal or greater than". Not the "greater than" that you have been arguing is the claim. Ergo, you have been attacking a straw man. I am under no obligation to defend strawmen.
Let's look at the other claims in the quote: Most people think you need to plug in for most efficient charging: True, look at this thread. No charging method is 100% efficient - True Conventional chargers 88-95% - Seems reasonable enough, specifying conventional to me means real world and measured. Matches with other site figures. Inductive chargers are 90-93% - Again, reasonable, inductive isn't as common as wired, and is a premium option(so less like to have cheap bottom efficiency examples). His figures match with those quoted elsewhere. Does as good of a job - interpretation, but reasonable. 2% isn't a large amount, and as the ranges overlap, one would need to test specific stations against each other when they're this close.
Nice goal-post move...
Well, yeah, I managed to get them right back to where they started after you drug them all over the field, didn't I?
I'll remind you of my original statement: "I'd be careful with presuming that there's extra inefficiency with inductive charging."
That isn't a claim that inductive is better than wired. I merely said that you can't automatically say that it is worse.
Take any charger, add a wireless transformer system to the output - and you've made it quite a bit less efficient. Provably so.
And you once more go for the goalpost move/red herring. *squints* are you sure that you are an EE? I mean, of course this is going to cost efficiency. However, it is utterly irrelevant.
I haven't been talking about charger with added inductive connection. I've been talking about inductive chargers where the inductive component is an integral part of the system, part of the design goal from the beginning.
I mean, from post one I've talked about how the inductive coil can substitute for a major component that is present in wired chargers. Just tacking on the induction coil instead of a wired connector isn't going to get you maximum system efficiency because now you're doubling up on the transformers, and as you said, they're not 100% efficient. But then, neither is a power cord. As an EE this should be obvious to you.
The charging system for an EV starts with electricity at the wall and includes components from there all the way to components inside the car connected to the battery. All have impacts on efficiency.
Great. How do you determine whether the vote has a correct outcome?
Well, I'd start with reading my whole post before replying, because this is only like one of three questions you ask that are answered later in the same post. In some cases by the very next line.
Why ask when the question is already answered?
As for design flaw - that is a whacked sensor. I did mention firing people out of a cannon at that point...
The idea is that crash tendency is noticed.
Well, I said "hope" for a reason. It is a very scary situation to be minimized if possible.
About the only defense against defective sensors that are all returning the same nonsense, short of turning the aircraft into a mess of redundant sensors, would be to include a wider variety of sensor sanity checking. For your example at Balotesi, it sounds like the copilot wasn't paying attention to his attitude indicator. I also can't help but think that GPS might help in some cases as well, as acting like a lawn dart isn't good. While you really need airspeed data for good flight, which is different than ground speed, but if we're talking sanity checking.... It doesnt have to substitute, merely indicate fault, and that you're heading for rapid unscheduled disassembly with the ground.
That California DEMOCRATS, because they've run the place for years, have less common sense than you'd find in a cheeseburger.
Not to say the Republicans would be any better, but...
I always believe that you get the best results with a proper mix of both, such that they have to cooperate and the worst excesses of either can be controlled by the other.
If it wasn't nearly 100% democrat control, this receipt thing would probably be subsumed over fighting over the budget of larger ticket items.
One thought I had is that $1M in gross receipts, in California, is relatively nothing. A plumber running his own business would probably be able to clear that, running on hand written receipts done on carbon paper out of a clipbook.
Remember, "gross income" isn't profit. It's literally how much money they pull in before paying ANYTHING. It's before they pay for supplies, wages, rent, utilities, etc...
Somebody running a coffee shack that sells a little under 500 $6 coffees a day would bust the limit.
I was keeping my response simple, but for "flight critical" sensors the general idea is to have at least 3 and use a voting system. For sensors that are 99.X% reliable, the odds that two will be out such that they are throwing the same erroneous value(or at least within error margins) is quite low. Though there are differences between 'simple' sensors that report back a simple voltage or resistance where determining a fault can be difficult, and complex ones like radar, GPS, that are more likely to tell the system they have a problem. The vanes here are simple sensors.
Though with the MCAS it was supposed to assist, not be critical, thus 1 vane being enough. Pilots were supposed to be able to override with just more stick application. That assessment is being challenged, and the 2 vane + alarm thing is Boeing hoping to avoid having to avoid installing another sensor for proper 3 sensor + voting reliability, as the extra sensor will be expensive.
3 good sensors: all good 2 good sensors: all good(less redundancy) 2 good sensors, 1 whack - get fixed after landing 1 good, 1 whack - system unreliable, turn off. Consider landing early. 1 good - 2 whack(different values) - system unreliable, turn off, consider landing early 1 good - 2 whack(same values) - hope you notice before crash/fire. Turn off system. Seriously consider landing early. Last good sensor may or may not be usable(does it have an output you can use?). Consider firing maintainers as it is likely at least one was whack when you took off. 0 good - 2 whack(same values) - same as previous, really. Without minor hope of good sensor being useable. 3 whack - same as previous. Consider firing maintenance department out of a cannon.
Because the sensors are physical devices, and are this subject to all physical device problems. They can break, corrode, be bent by a physical impact, etc...
They're regularly inspected, which is about the best you can do.
Show me for a transformer how you can get a K value (coupling factor) of 1.
Why would I need to? I've never asserted that. I suggest that you stop strawmanning me and keep to arguments that I have actually made. I cited, from your source mind you, a maximum k factor a bit above 0.95. I'll thus remind you. Page 8 of the pdf you cited.
You need to go back to your books, apparently. Permeability is a factor of electric field strength, not transformer efficiency. The primary use of iron cores, from my boning up on the subject for this conversation, is to make transformers more compact, and require less copper(copper being expensive compared to steel). Where with inductive chargers, larger is a large part of the point! Indeed, a great deal of effort goes into optimizing cores to lower losses from eddy currents and other effects. The losses from the core(minute in air cores) dominates in transformers not under load. Losses under load are from coil resistance, but that can be minimized by using larger gauge wire. Which shouldn't be hard if you're using large gauge wire because your coil has a huge diameter anyways and you're pumping many amps/watts.
If there is a transformer, it WILL be lossy. If there is resistance, it WILL be lossy. It will never be as efficient - laws of physics and such. I would assume a STEM person would understand that...
Problem is that I do understand that. Go ahead, cite me stating that transformers with a perfect coupling exist. Closest you'll come is my stating that 1.00 is a 'theoretical ideal', which means that it doesn't exist. Ergo, as my arguments take that into account, your attempting to use that to rebut my arguments is water off a duck's back. The problem you are having is that apparently you don't understand the argument. You're arguing spherical cows, I'm citing studies using data collected from dairies and cattle ranches. See the issue?
All I said is that inductive chargers can be as efficient as wired chargers because the open air coil system can substitute for a traditional iron core transformer in the charging system, making it more or less an even trade, efficiency wise. Basically, if a wired charger has 1 traditional transformer in it to convert wall voltage to battery charging voltage, a similar wireless charger can have 0 traditional transformers and 1 inductive transporting transformer doing double duty.
Yes, the inductive coil system is going to be massively larger than an iron core transformer of the same efficiency, but it has additional functions as well. Oh well.
I'll simplify:
True or False. Measured from wall to battery, modern inductive chargers for electric battery vehicles are in the same efficiency range as modern wired chargers. While wired chargers might have a higher theoretical maximum efficiency than wireless, in practice it comes down to the specific chargers in question, where the efficiency of the inductive may be equal to or even higher than the wired. Even if it is less than that of the wired, it is unlikely to be by more than a few percent.
Well, I'm glad that you're finally trying. However, you still have problems of non-applicability, and have introduced spherical cow problems. To be blunt, in theory, there's no difference between theory and reality. In reality there is. Oh, and I'm quite up on my physics, and they don't say that I'm wrong. I may not be an EE, but I'm still STEM. So you can drop the credentials fallacy.
Next, I'll point out that you're strawmanning my(and my cited article)on the actual efficiency. The article, and I, have at most said "as efficient or possibly more". You immediately dropped the "as efficient" to argue against more efficient. To meet "possibly more", all you'd need to do is find a fairly inefficient corded charger. A cheap one, not properly optimized for efficiency.
All I've been arguing is "as efficient".
Still, you might want to read your links to make sure they say what you mean. For example, your first link says this:
But, ferromagnetic materials like steel as core of transformer, suffers from hysteresis loss, eddy current losses. Also it faces problem of getting saturated after certain level of magnetization. But these can be avoided in air core transformer as ferromagnetic core is absent in this transformer.
Looks to me like they're saying the opposite of what you're asserting. In specific circumstances, air core transformers can be more efficient than steel core. Thank you for providing more proof for my position.
Second link, continuing on from slide 5, at slide 8 they mention that increasing the dimensions of the transformer increases the coupling factor, and I can clearly see the charts showing a factor above 0.95, where 1 would be a theoretical ideal coupler ratio.
Given that one of the points I've made is that inefficiency is noted on the wiki page for under 100 watt applications, presumably with a coil around an inch across, while EV class induction coils bust the 5kW where it isn't a problem anymore, and are closer to a couple feet...
So congratulations, citation 2 also supports that a nice large open core induction coil can realistically be efficient enough for the cited charger efficiencies. You'd almost think that the businesses designing them put engineering work in.
Still, let's look at what wikipedia says about magnetic cores.
In some cases the losses are undesirable and with very strong fields saturation can be a problem, and an 'air core' is used. A former may still be used; a piece of material, such as plastic or a composite, that may not have any significant magnetic permeability but which simply holds the coils of wires in place.
What is this in reference to? Losses from eddy currents, hysteresis, and high field strengths causing saturation. What might we be seeing at 5kW and up? Why might we NOT want losses?Sounds like a potential application for an air core to me.
Citation 3 is really irrelevant. It isn't even a good explanation of coupling factor for laymen.
Noticeably lacking from your citations is that iron core is always better than air core.
Also, I reject your contention of misaligned coils, as quite a lot of development work was done to prevent that little problem.
Notice that I'm posting, not theoretical stuff, but actual produced hardware, documentation about inductive EV chargers, not theoretical stuff.
Oh, and I just noticed. You're attacking a strawman. I didn't say that an air core transformer is more efficient than steel core. If that was true, we wouldn't use steel cores. Though some of that is about cost too. I'm looking
Weather models are totally different because they're past the macroscopic level and into the turbulent details.
Indeed. That's one of the things my ocean studies teacher is trying to impress into the class. Weather is what is happening in one place at one time. Climate is the average of all that.
Predicting a single human's actions is hard. Predicting the actions of a group is easier.
More efficient? That's a lie. Flat out. They are not even as efficient. Even your own numbers say so.
Then cite them. Prove your assertion with evidence. At this point you're committing the fallacy of "proof by assertion". IE that you'll prove your argument right if you merely say it enough times.
And I don't think you realize that the losses of the inductive charging portion is in addition to the losses of the charger in the first place. It's an additional loss...
Prove it. Everything I've seen shows that they're looking at "wall to battery" efficiency. Wired chargers have losses as well. It could very well be that inductie chargers are covering up, efficiency wise, by being substantially more expensive, but I've done the research.
Inductive chargers are integrated. It isn't charger + inductive coil, it's an inductive charger. It's a complete integrated charging system(assuming it is efficiently designed).
Though it is good that we've identified where the difference in thought comes from. Problem is, I believe you're wrong because you haven't actually cited any evidence.
Let me guess, you're not an electrical engineer, are you?
Back to ad hominem attacks are we?
Let me guess, you're not an electrical engineer either, and as you apparently aren't willing to do research, like what I actually DID, I may not be an electrical engineer, but I've taken classes in electronics and I'm perfectly able to read and interpret studies and technical documents, you're talking out of your ass?
Stop and think: what is more efficient - power via high-tension line, or power via broadcast energy?
Red herring fallacy. What is efficient for transporting electricity over hundreds of miles in the hundreds of kV isn't necessarily efficient for transporting electricity over something like 6".
In addition, because we are looking at chargers, which have to alter and maintain specific voltages, amperages, not to mention converting AC into DC, there's quite a bit of electronics involved. That is where the savings are seen.
Plus, consider, the inductive element is like 6" of travel. How many feet of power power cord are we typically looking at? Probably 9 feet or more?
Finally, consider that I'm showing citations of 90% or more efficiency. The difference between 90% and 92% isn't all that great, and can be justified through things like system convenience and life. If you end up having to replace the power cable more often than the inductive unit, whether due to wear, weathering, accident, theft*, or vandalism**, you may find yourself having to do a cost analysis to determine which is more economical. Well, you need to do that anyways, but that comes down to having to bust out the spreadsheets on specific proposals that are deeper than we're going here anyways.
TLDR: Stop attempting argumentative fallacies on me and debate properly and we might get somewhere.
*Damn copper thieves feeding their meth habits.... **A properly buried inductive unit should experience less vandalism than an open air cable.
I wonder if the music labels still consider anything over 56k to be "high speed", as any internet connection capable of streaming acceptable video at SDTV resolutions, much less HDTV, makes downloading audio, which is generally about 1% of a video stream, trivial.
Even with just a megabit connection, I could download months worth of audio traffic in a single day.
But then, music labels still haven't figured out: 1. They need to make buying music from them convenient. 2. They can't charge prices higher than video content producers.
It's crazy that buying the soundtrack to a movie often costs more than the movie.
It's because there isn't a wire connecting the charger directly to the car. Instead you do indeed have lots of loops of wire that aren't actually touching each other, like in the transformer that would otherwise be present.
Slashdot Mirror
It's insane that the OP was practically jizzing himself over the idea he could actually shoot someone.
OP here, projecting much? Or were you referring to the AC who created a scenario of a spree shooter getting to shoot at passing cars for an apparently extended period of time?
Also, "awful dystopia"? How do you extract that from a post that amounts to a single line? The AC I replied to did describe an awful dystopia, though I've lived that, somewhat. It took a while to catch the DC Snipers, for example.
So please, explain how a spree shooter being shot, whether by a civilian, police officer, or military member is dystopian. The spree shooter operating unopposed is dystopian.
Libertarian beliefs do NOT let you just be a danger to others willy-nilly. As you said, self defense is absolute. Personally, I even extend that to shit like pollution, though not being immediate, pollution would be more a matter for the courts. And no, I wouldn't allow games like "we don't know if the client's lung cancer is from my spewing PM2.5 all over or whether it was a naturally occuring one".
There's plenty of examples of competition driving both prices down and service up in the real world, though yes, cartels and price fixings are indeed at least occasional problems. That's what a moderate amount of regulation, and some serious work on preventing regulatory capture(where regulations are used to prevent competition, not encourage it) comes in.
I'm retired military, I stood up and took an oath. It might expose me to more risk, but if I can take the shot, the few seconds of me aiming and firing is more likely to save life than I am to be confused for the shooter.
Of course, once the shooter is neutralized, I'm putting the gun away.
While being mistaken for the shooter and being shot myself is possible, it is unlikely. It happens to police officers only a few times a decade, after all, and there's been maybe ONE non-officer self defense shooter shot. Several have been arrested, but I view that as an acceptable outcome. Shooting somebody, even in self defense, is a serious matter, after all.
For all the thought libertarians put I to self defense, it isn't actually a violent philosophy. The workers shouldn't attack factory owners, and factory owners shouldn't be hiring the Pinkertons to commit violence against the workers.
Destruction makes everybody poorer.
I'm not shooting him because he's violated the law. Note that I said 'plug's, IE shoot, not kill him. If he survives, he can stand trial for his crimes.
I'm shooting him to stop him from being an immediate lethal threat to me and others. The same reason the cops would most likely shoot him - him being an active spree shooter.
Ask six libertarians for their answer on something, get at least a dozen answers. Or even six socialists for that matter, much the same.
Hell, as me for something and I can generally come up with at least three myself. The philosophically ideal answer, the real world answer, the practical answer, the "corrective" answer, and the achievable answer. ;)
Ideal: The way it would be in my ideal libertarian society
Real World: Not everybody are libertarian gods. This adds controls for failings
Practical: No longer starting from a magical libertarian starting point. Even more failings, trends from the past
Corrective: Society has taken a very wrong turn. In order to reach a more libertarian ideal, corrective measures are needed for a time(fixing the welfare state. No, I'm not a madman who'd cut everybody off all at once)
Achievable: Libertarians are a minority. We'll take what we can get, like lowered amounts of regulation, legalized marijuana as opposed to all drugs, etc...
Libertarian wants to shoot his gun at passing vehicles, "'cuz muh Libertarianism."
Shortcut the whole thing. Me, one of the people in said cars, a libertarian myself, plugs the damn fool for being a deliberate danger to myself and others.
Actually, I like to think that words have meaning. I say just the opposite, as a libertarian, I see many that call themselves libertarian who are actually confused anarchists.
As such, I have to acknowledge their presence. But I am a very unusual libertarian, I've gone so deep into the philosophy that I've come out the other end in some ways.
That said, if workers want to organize, as a libertarian I view that as their right. Though I do indeed say that the company can subsequently chose to fire the union if they want. If the workers are strong enough, that will kill the company, but it is all about balance. If the workers form the union right, they can keep it such that firing them, the union, is more hassle than its worth, while still winning more benefits.
Even if it is, I figure that a macro that is 90% effective but allows 100 times the reviews to be made would actually result in more justice/fairness/released persons than them having to do all the reviews manually.
Second of all, who in their right mind would plead down to a drug crime? They carry additional penalties versus other crimes that follows you for the rest of your life. Ineligible for financial aid to better yourself after getting out of prison. Nobody is going to hire someone with a drug conviction, they would much rather hire someone convicted of a violent crime like assault!
That depends on the business, I'd think? Also, so many drug users out there that, especially in places like California, that a drug bust only isn't going to be seen as a big deal.
It's actually pretty standard for a judge to look at the whole situation when passing sentence, so them looking at the whole situation for rendering relief makes sense as well.
The sentence is limited to the actual charge and what congress set as the penalty, of course.
I don't know why you have an issue with this.
I have an issues with this because, by all my research, you are wrong on this. You have failed to provide a citation proving this, I have failed to find a citation proving this. The math is NOT "right above". You have posted no math that I can see. Indeed, I keep encountering statements in documents that air core transformers can sometimes be preferred in order to prevent Hysteresis and Eddy loses, otherwise known as "iron losses". Air core works better at higher frequencies, Hmm.. I wonder what EV inductive chargers use... Ah yes, high frequencies. 85 kHz seems common, though some are much higher.
2. Coupling factor, as shown by my and your sources, is somewhat independent from the core material used. An iron core transformer CAN be less efficient than an air core transformer. YOUR citations show this.
You will never be as efficient when you terminate your charging system with a transformer (air core or iron core, although iron is more efficient) as compared to a hard-wired connector. Just not going to happen.
What do you meant terminate? The transformer is necessary regardless of connector -whether inductive or hard wired. You're going to need to match wall voltage to what the battery needs, and the best way to do that is with a transformer. It's also hardly the "end" of the circuit. You're still going to need to transform the power from AC to DC, for example, and likely are going to want to smooth it out.
Combined with your insistence that iron-core transformers are always more efficient than Air Core and other issues like seemingly being totally ignorant of the effects of frequency on transformer design, the general necessity to match wall voltage to battery voltage through the use of a transformer, etc... I don't believe that you are actually an EE. You're making too many basic mistakes about physics. If you are an EE, you're probably a very specialized one that doesn't deal with the same issues that will come up in designing an inductive charger for EVs.
I've also told you a couple times what you need to do to convince me.
1. Citations, Sources. I'm not taking your word on this stuff. Note that most of my posts are littered with citations. The one time you tried, you linked to sources that agreed with me!
2. Reasoning that goes beyond the transformer/inductive loop. As I've said, I'm looking at the complete system, not just the loop.
For example, what is your response to this?
Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Transportation Efficiency Group
Average efficiency, level 2(240V) charge: 86.4%, level 1(120V): 83.7%.
Interestingly, temperature can change the charge efficiency by more than 2%!
Then the DOE chimes in, with a wireless charging system that is 90% efficient.
Plugless power, is getting 84-90%
The quoted official, Momentum Dynamics, it might be important to note that they've been targeting bus charging - 200kW. So, if the technology scales well, that could be part of their claiming high efficiency.
What's up with wireless EV charging - has an interesting writeup of what's going on under the hood. Though it mostly focuses on the cost, which can be cheaper for wireless? Interesting.
One reason f
Because the original article that I said was wrong - that you too offense of - made that very claim. That it was more efficient than a connector. And that is flat out wrong.
You're strawmanning the original article and taking the quote out of context.
You quoted the "just as efficient" part frequently as well, so it looked like you were arguing that they had to be less efficient, thus my arguing against you, as my position is that they can be AS efficient, IE equal. At least within manufacturing tolerances.
Let me repeat the original quote:
Wireless EV charging is just as efficient — or more efficient — than plugging in. Most people think they have to plug in an electric car to get the most efficient charging possible, but that’s not true. No charging method is 100% efficient. Conventional chargers are typically 88% to 95% efficient. Wireless charging is right in the middle of that range at 90% to 93% efficiency. That means it does as good a job of transferring electricity from the charger to a car’s battery as most conventional charging equipment that uses a cord.
You're claiming that the article, using this quote, claimed that wireless charging is more efficient than wired.
"Just as or more" is a statement of "equal or greater than". Not the "greater than" that you have been arguing is the claim. Ergo, you have been attacking a straw man. I am under no obligation to defend strawmen.
Let's look at the other claims in the quote:
Most people think you need to plug in for most efficient charging: True, look at this thread.
No charging method is 100% efficient - True
Conventional chargers 88-95% - Seems reasonable enough, specifying conventional to me means real world and measured. Matches with other site figures.
Inductive chargers are 90-93% - Again, reasonable, inductive isn't as common as wired, and is a premium option(so less like to have cheap bottom efficiency examples). His figures match with those quoted elsewhere.
Does as good of a job - interpretation, but reasonable. 2% isn't a large amount, and as the ranges overlap, one would need to test specific stations against each other when they're this close.
Nice goal-post move...
Well, yeah, I managed to get them right back to where they started after you drug them all over the field, didn't I?
I'll remind you of my original statement: "I'd be careful with presuming that there's extra inefficiency with inductive charging."
That isn't a claim that inductive is better than wired. I merely said that you can't automatically say that it is worse.
Take any charger, add a wireless transformer system to the output - and you've made it quite a bit less efficient. Provably so.
And you once more go for the goalpost move/red herring. *squints* are you sure that you are an EE? I mean, of course this is going to cost efficiency. However, it is utterly irrelevant.
I haven't been talking about charger with added inductive connection. I've been talking about inductive chargers where the inductive component is an integral part of the system, part of the design goal from the beginning.
I mean, from post one I've talked about how the inductive coil can substitute for a major component that is present in wired chargers. Just tacking on the induction coil instead of a wired connector isn't going to get you maximum system efficiency because now you're doubling up on the transformers, and as you said, they're not 100% efficient. But then, neither is a power cord. As an EE this should be obvious to you.
The charging system for an EV starts with electricity at the wall and includes components from there all the way to components inside the car connected to the battery. All have impacts on efficiency.
Great. How do you determine whether the vote has a correct outcome?
Well, I'd start with reading my whole post before replying, because this is only like one of three questions you ask that are answered later in the same post. In some cases by the very next line.
Why ask when the question is already answered?
As for design flaw - that is a whacked sensor. I did mention firing people out of a cannon at that point...
The idea is that crash tendency is noticed.
Well, I said "hope" for a reason. It is a very scary situation to be minimized if possible.
About the only defense against defective sensors that are all returning the same nonsense, short of turning the aircraft into a mess of redundant sensors, would be to include a wider variety of sensor sanity checking. For your example at Balotesi, it sounds like the copilot wasn't paying attention to his attitude indicator. I also can't help but think that GPS might help in some cases as well, as acting like a lawn dart isn't good. While you really need airspeed data for good flight, which is different than ground speed, but if we're talking sanity checking.... It doesnt have to substitute, merely indicate fault, and that you're heading for rapid unscheduled disassembly with the ground.
That California DEMOCRATS, because they've run the place for years, have less common sense than you'd find in a cheeseburger.
Not to say the Republicans would be any better, but...
I always believe that you get the best results with a proper mix of both, such that they have to cooperate and the worst excesses of either can be controlled by the other.
If it wasn't nearly 100% democrat control, this receipt thing would probably be subsumed over fighting over the budget of larger ticket items.
One thought I had is that $1M in gross receipts, in California, is relatively nothing. A plumber running his own business would probably be able to clear that, running on hand written receipts done on carbon paper out of a clipbook.
Remember, "gross income" isn't profit. It's literally how much money they pull in before paying ANYTHING. It's before they pay for supplies, wages, rent, utilities, etc...
Somebody running a coffee shack that sells a little under 500 $6 coffees a day would bust the limit.
If the crashes were due to software bug, ouch. Didn't the LION flight take off with a known defective AoA sensor though?
I was keeping my response simple, but for "flight critical" sensors the general idea is to have at least 3 and use a voting system. For sensors that are 99.X% reliable, the odds that two will be out such that they are throwing the same erroneous value(or at least within error margins) is quite low. Though there are differences between 'simple' sensors that report back a simple voltage or resistance where determining a fault can be difficult, and complex ones like radar, GPS, that are more likely to tell the system they have a problem. The vanes here are simple sensors.
Though with the MCAS it was supposed to assist, not be critical, thus 1 vane being enough. Pilots were supposed to be able to override with just more stick application. That assessment is being challenged, and the 2 vane + alarm thing is Boeing hoping to avoid having to avoid installing another sensor for proper 3 sensor + voting reliability, as the extra sensor will be expensive.
3 good sensors: all good
2 good sensors: all good(less redundancy)
2 good sensors, 1 whack - get fixed after landing
1 good, 1 whack - system unreliable, turn off. Consider landing early.
1 good - 2 whack(different values) - system unreliable, turn off, consider landing early
1 good - 2 whack(same values) - hope you notice before crash/fire. Turn off system. Seriously consider landing early. Last good sensor may or may not be usable(does it have an output you can use?). Consider firing maintainers as it is likely at least one was whack when you took off.
0 good - 2 whack(same values) - same as previous, really. Without minor hope of good sensor being useable.
3 whack - same as previous. Consider firing maintenance department out of a cannon.
Because the sensors are physical devices, and are this subject to all physical device problems. They can break, corrode, be bent by a physical impact, etc...
They're regularly inspected, which is about the best you can do.
Show me for a transformer how you can get a K value (coupling factor) of 1.
Why would I need to? I've never asserted that. I suggest that you stop strawmanning me and keep to arguments that I have actually made. I cited, from your source mind you, a maximum k factor a bit above 0.95. I'll thus remind you. Page 8 of the pdf you cited.
You need to go back to your books, apparently. Permeability is a factor of electric field strength, not transformer efficiency. The primary use of iron cores, from my boning up on the subject for this conversation, is to make transformers more compact, and require less copper(copper being expensive compared to steel). Where with inductive chargers, larger is a large part of the point! Indeed, a great deal of effort goes into optimizing cores to lower losses from eddy currents and other effects. The losses from the core(minute in air cores) dominates in transformers not under load. Losses under load are from coil resistance, but that can be minimized by using larger gauge wire. Which shouldn't be hard if you're using large gauge wire because your coil has a huge diameter anyways and you're pumping many amps/watts.
If there is a transformer, it WILL be lossy. If there is resistance, it WILL be lossy. It will never be as efficient - laws of physics and such. I would assume a STEM person would understand that...
Problem is that I do understand that. Go ahead, cite me stating that transformers with a perfect coupling exist. Closest you'll come is my stating that 1.00 is a 'theoretical ideal', which means that it doesn't exist. Ergo, as my arguments take that into account, your attempting to use that to rebut my arguments is water off a duck's back. The problem you are having is that apparently you don't understand the argument. You're arguing spherical cows, I'm citing studies using data collected from dairies and cattle ranches. See the issue?
All I said is that inductive chargers can be as efficient as wired chargers because the open air coil system can substitute for a traditional iron core transformer in the charging system, making it more or less an even trade, efficiency wise. Basically, if a wired charger has 1 traditional transformer in it to convert wall voltage to battery charging voltage, a similar wireless charger can have 0 traditional transformers and 1 inductive transporting transformer doing double duty.
Yes, the inductive coil system is going to be massively larger than an iron core transformer of the same efficiency, but it has additional functions as well. Oh well.
I'll simplify:
True or False. Measured from wall to battery, modern inductive chargers for electric battery vehicles are in the same efficiency range as modern wired chargers. While wired chargers might have a higher theoretical maximum efficiency than wireless, in practice it comes down to the specific chargers in question, where the efficiency of the inductive may be equal to or even higher than the wired. Even if it is less than that of the wired, it is unlikely to be by more than a few percent.
Well, I'm glad that you're finally trying. However, you still have problems of non-applicability, and have introduced spherical cow problems. To be blunt, in theory, there's no difference between theory and reality. In reality there is. Oh, and I'm quite up on my physics, and they don't say that I'm wrong. I may not be an EE, but I'm still STEM. So you can drop the credentials fallacy.
Next, I'll point out that you're strawmanning my(and my cited article)on the actual efficiency. The article, and I, have at most said "as efficient or possibly more". You immediately dropped the "as efficient" to argue against more efficient. To meet "possibly more", all you'd need to do is find a fairly inefficient corded charger. A cheap one, not properly optimized for efficiency.
All I've been arguing is "as efficient".
Still, you might want to read your links to make sure they say what you mean. For example, your first link says this:
But, ferromagnetic materials like steel as core of transformer, suffers from hysteresis loss, eddy current losses. Also it faces problem of getting saturated after certain level of magnetization. But these can be avoided in air core transformer as ferromagnetic core is absent in this transformer.
Looks to me like they're saying the opposite of what you're asserting. In specific circumstances, air core transformers can be more efficient than steel core. Thank you for providing more proof for my position.
Second link, continuing on from slide 5, at slide 8 they mention that increasing the dimensions of the transformer increases the coupling factor, and I can clearly see the charts showing a factor above 0.95, where 1 would be a theoretical ideal coupler ratio.
Given that one of the points I've made is that inefficiency is noted on the wiki page for under 100 watt applications, presumably with a coil around an inch across, while EV class induction coils bust the 5kW where it isn't a problem anymore, and are closer to a couple feet...
So congratulations, citation 2 also supports that a nice large open core induction coil can realistically be efficient enough for the cited charger efficiencies. You'd almost think that the businesses designing them put engineering work in.
Still, let's look at what wikipedia says about magnetic cores.
In some cases the losses are undesirable and with very strong fields saturation can be a problem, and an 'air core' is used. A former may still be used; a piece of material, such as plastic or a composite, that may not have any significant magnetic permeability but which simply holds the coils of wires in place.
What is this in reference to? Losses from eddy currents, hysteresis, and high field strengths causing saturation. What might we be seeing at 5kW and up? Why might we NOT want losses?Sounds like a potential application for an air core to me.
Citation 3 is really irrelevant. It isn't even a good explanation of coupling factor for laymen.
Noticeably lacking from your citations is that iron core is always better than air core.
Also, I reject your contention of misaligned coils, as quite a lot of development work was done to prevent that little problem.
SAE International -93% efficiency, grid to battery.
Notice that I'm posting, not theoretical stuff, but actual produced hardware, documentation about inductive EV chargers, not theoretical stuff.
Oh, and I just noticed. You're attacking a strawman. I didn't say that an air core transformer is more efficient than steel core. If that was true, we wouldn't use steel cores. Though some of that is about cost too. I'm looking
Weather models are totally different because they're past the macroscopic level and into the turbulent details.
Indeed. That's one of the things my ocean studies teacher is trying to impress into the class. Weather is what is happening in one place at one time. Climate is the average of all that.
Predicting a single human's actions is hard. Predicting the actions of a group is easier.
More efficient? That's a lie. Flat out. They are not even as efficient. Even your own numbers say so.
Then cite them. Prove your assertion with evidence. At this point you're committing the fallacy of "proof by assertion". IE that you'll prove your argument right if you merely say it enough times.
Meanwhile, well:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vi...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
https://insideevs.com/momentum...
https://www.businesswire.com/n...
And I don't think you realize that the losses of the inductive charging portion is in addition to the losses of the charger in the first place. It's an additional loss...
Prove it. Everything I've seen shows that they're looking at "wall to battery" efficiency. Wired chargers have losses as well. It could very well be that inductie chargers are covering up, efficiency wise, by being substantially more expensive, but I've done the research.
Inductive chargers are integrated. It isn't charger + inductive coil, it's an inductive charger. It's a complete integrated charging system(assuming it is efficiently designed).
Though it is good that we've identified where the difference in thought comes from. Problem is, I believe you're wrong because you haven't actually cited any evidence.
Let me guess, you're not an electrical engineer, are you?
Back to ad hominem attacks are we?
Let me guess, you're not an electrical engineer either, and as you apparently aren't willing to do research, like what I actually DID, I may not be an electrical engineer, but I've taken classes in electronics and I'm perfectly able to read and interpret studies and technical documents, you're talking out of your ass?
Stop and think: what is more efficient - power via high-tension line, or power via broadcast energy?
Red herring fallacy. What is efficient for transporting electricity over hundreds of miles in the hundreds of kV isn't necessarily efficient for transporting electricity over something like 6".
In addition, because we are looking at chargers, which have to alter and maintain specific voltages, amperages, not to mention converting AC into DC, there's quite a bit of electronics involved. That is where the savings are seen.
Plus, consider, the inductive element is like 6" of travel. How many feet of power power cord are we typically looking at? Probably 9 feet or more?
Finally, consider that I'm showing citations of 90% or more efficiency. The difference between 90% and 92% isn't all that great, and can be justified through things like system convenience and life. If you end up having to replace the power cable more often than the inductive unit, whether due to wear, weathering, accident, theft*, or vandalism**, you may find yourself having to do a cost analysis to determine which is more economical. Well, you need to do that anyways, but that comes down to having to bust out the spreadsheets on specific proposals that are deeper than we're going here anyways.
TLDR: Stop attempting argumentative fallacies on me and debate properly and we might get somewhere.
*Damn copper thieves feeding their meth habits....
**A properly buried inductive unit should experience less vandalism than an open air cable.
I wonder if the music labels still consider anything over 56k to be "high speed", as any internet connection capable of streaming acceptable video at SDTV resolutions, much less HDTV, makes downloading audio, which is generally about 1% of a video stream, trivial.
Even with just a megabit connection, I could download months worth of audio traffic in a single day.
But then, music labels still haven't figured out:
1. They need to make buying music from them convenient.
2. They can't charge prices higher than video content producers.
It's crazy that buying the soundtrack to a movie often costs more than the movie.
It's because there isn't a wire connecting the charger directly to the car. Instead you do indeed have lots of loops of wire that aren't actually touching each other, like in the transformer that would otherwise be present.