Might be a touch undersized, but that's where the idea that you're merely extending the range of the 300 miles worth of batteries you already have comes in.
12 hours@80mph=960 miles, 240 kwh(rounding UP to.25 kWh per mile to add some buffer). Subtract the 65 kwh(margin of error) for the car's battery, leaving 175kWh. 175 kWh/12 hours = 15 kW generator for your 'trucker bombing' self'
What if I drive a little slower? 12 hours@70mph=840 miles, 185 kwh(using.22, slower=more efficient). 120 kWh left after subtracting 65 kWh, 120/12 hours = 10kW generator being enough.
Adding a trailor though will also add to wind and rolling resistance.
Personally, when I've looked at range-extending trailors I picture a hydrocarbon fueled IC engine-generator set, with the trailer somewhat oversized such as to also provide additional cargo space(because long trips are when you want to bring the luggage).
The engine itself varies between a traditional generator to more exotic options like an efficient motorcycle engine, turbine, or recently a Wankel. 1/3rd the weight, relatively tiny, and the poor fuel efficinecy is 'eliminated' when you drive it at a constant RPM(and load).
At about.2 kWh per mile, that's about 16kW@80mph. Let's say the trailer adds 4kW. 27 horsepower is more than enough to keep the car on the road, and the resulting engine can be *tiny*. Heck, you can probably 'get away' with 20 HP as long as you either plug in at night/when stopped or at least leave the generator running.
If that were true they wouldn't back hydrogen, which is inherently superior to battery power in every way.
Cost? Energy density by volume? Efficiency? Cost: Fuel cells are still outrageously expensive Energy density by volume: You have to compress hydrogen to almost 700 bar before it's denser than LiIon. Efficiency: The electricity->LiIon->Motor chain is more efficient than electricity->hydrogen->compression->Fuel Cell->Motor
No, but the local gas station I stop at halfway to my parents house needs one. Otherwise I can't visit home with an overnight stay somewhere.
I tend to live in 'expansive' areas like North Dakota and Alaska, but even I don't consider a fueling station that I need to hit between two locations so far apart that I need to refuel between them (IE 300+ miles apart) as 'local'. As for the Model S - at ~200 miles between charging points, with a charging time of ~40 minutes, you're looking at having a nice rest stop for lunch before being on your way.
My model: 0500 Get on road, drive 3 hours (200 miles on odometer) 0800 Stop for breakfast 0830 Get on road again, 3 hours (400 miles) 1130 Stop for lunch 1200 Start driving, 3 hours (600) 1500 Bathroom Break/exercise stop(jog some), have a snack 1530 3 hours driving (800) 1830 Dinner 1900 You guessed it 3 more hours (1000) 2200 Bed(Parents ~900 miles away, so I get in a little early).
Secondly, Next years Toyota rav ev can make use of the superchargers.
Citation? My check shows that the Toyota Rav EV will use teh J1772 plug, not Tesla's proprietory setup, even though everything else seems to have come from Tesla.
No real links to give, but a number of sources has mentioned that Tesla is willing to license their technology to anybody willing to be 'open'. Presumably that amounts to 'not shutting out Tesla cars while you're using Tesla technology for your charging'.
If only there were a body of professionals in the field of electronics...and if only they came up with a standard that encompassed this sort of thing!
Reviewing your link, I see why Tesla came up with their own charging standard - the design committees seemed to settle on 20 kWh battery packs as 'standard', vs Tesla's 60/85 kWh. Only the latest/beefiest standards meet or exceed a Tesla Supercharger, and considering timelines, Tesla was deploying the chargers while the standards committee was still working on getting an agreement on where to hold the meetings.
They offer the same sort of charging rate as the Supercharger(tm) chargers.
Just fact checking: Level 3 charger - 240kW max (actual capability depends). J1722: 240V@80A: 20kW CHAdeMO: 62.5kW. Tesla supercharger - 100/120kW On the other hand, the Leaf maxes out at 44kW with a DC charger. 6.6kW with the onboard charger, vs 11/22 for the Tesla(single/dual charger option).
Checking everything, it looks like you would only max out your leaf's charging capacity with a CHAdeMO connection, but while it and J1772 both count as 'level 3' because they're DC and over the capability of level 1 & 2 AC charging, they're not up to Tesla's standards. Right now Teslas Model S vehicles are the most capable of fast-charging in terms of miles of charge per hour. Given their relatively huge battery packs, this makes sense.
She's 61 years old and now has the benefit of prenatal care/birth control and she can get a gender change with insurance should she decide to grow a dick. This whole thing is a catastrophe. The net result to the middle class (actually, anyone that is single earning over $47K) is getting to pay more than twice the premium for similar coverage.
More seriously, part of Obamacare was getting rid of all sorts of weird carveouts. Consider that birth control and hormone replacement therapy are very similar. There are actually medical reasons to give a women male hormones other than transition- it's extremely rare, yes, but isn't that what insurance is for? If the adjusters are doing their job, they'll realize that the odds of your partner having another child rounds to zero and charge appropriately. But if the wierdest thing happens, she's covered. I'll note that there's still lots of wiggle room here for oddites.
Roughly speaking, is it cheaper to provide coverage than it is to handle the paperwork to carve out the exemption? Does it really save money creating seperate formula/prescription lists for females and males?
The only way I could see that is if the 2k products each has at least 10 options and the average order is like 10k items at an average price of $100 per.
Of course, with purchases that big you'd generally be holding parties and/or sending personal reps to the purchasers.
1. Near as I can tell, it's approximately 10 seconds of 'active' wear per hour of time-keeping. With a 48 hour reserve, that's approximately 4 minutes a day of 'active wear' to keep the watch 'fully' charged. source 2. Watch winders are often hideously priced, but should only be necessary if you keep self-winding watches like women keep shoes. If you have one, no problem, with 2 you're still fine if you alternate.
That being said, I'd imaging power requirements for something apple would be higher than simply keeping time, so you might need somebody very active.
Yeah, considering how I'd do it, I'd probably go with at most a 4 year examination - 40% for this year, 30-20-10 for the previous years. Short of building an actual game simulator like EA did, I'd probably look at median scoring, yards run/passed and such, then look at other team's averages, and whether other teams performed better/worse than their average, and by how much. For example, is team X better at blocking pass plays? Does team Y get most of it's yardage from passing, meaning it's at a disadvantage against X? Also, look at teams that both X & Y have played recently and weight those more.
For example, if it's found that teams playing X only average 84% of the yards they get normally, maybe we should estimate Y's yardage at 84% of it's average. Stuff like that.
The point is that if you're going to make EVs and hybrids be artificially noisier you need to do the same for modern IC cars, because they're all about equally quiet.
The unsafe young males are not taken out of the pool. The young women and the slow-driving young males are, they buy the manufacturer-sponsored insurance.
Ah, that makes sense. As for the older cars bit - I'm talking about 'the free coverage has expired' old, not 'requires extra maintenance' old. I think the age was 4 years old.
And why are people willing to do a bit of work on their vehicles not a good demographic to insure? For that matter, it's always in my interest to insure somebody so long as they can make the premiums I charge. Competition with other insurance companies gives me a reason to cut my rates, which is where I need to subdivide my potential customers so I can tell who's most likely to make claims. It's a minor but important distinction in my mind. It's not that any one sub-group is so much 'bad' as 'doesn't qualify for the lowest rates I charge'.
The tables are not messed up. The new cars with X years insurance are very small cars that have little appeal to the young males who are likely to be in accidents.
The problem with this little statement is that I said 'EQUIVALENT used cars' for a reason. I know they're shitboxes. Thing is that you can get older shitboxes and still insure them for about the same or less than a new car. You have a point that the manufacturer can likely fix/replace the car for less than the insurance company, but they're covering liability as well, which means paying medical bills and fixing competitor's cars.
This takes the safest drivers out of the pool for generic car insurance, which obviously makes that even more expensive.
I think I'm missing the context here, because 'young males' are not the safest demographic group by far.
Most tranquilizers don't actually knock you out. Besides, the dart is simply for my convenience while I relocate the subjects to the lab. Once there I administer the counter after securing them.
Now that you mention it, as far as PETA is concerned, I would announce I was experimenting on animals WHOLESALE scale....just to lure them into the killing zone of the ambush...claymores and willy pete FTW!
Naw, I shoot them with tranquilizer darts before hauling them off to my illegal mad-science lab. Normally it takes about three days before they start begging me to do my testing on animals.
They are fairly endemic in small numbers and transmitted by the mother in the womb.
That assumes the mother has worms, doesn't it? My parents acted as 'breeders' for a little while - though how much of a business you can call it with ONE breeding female who sleeps on the bed when she's not sleeping with the puppies I don't know.
The interesting part of it was watching her housetrain her puppies. She knew they weren't supposed to do that in the house, she taught them not to a lot quicker than humans can.
You know what's really funny? Modern IC cars are so quiet that they did a study - for most conventional vehicles, not hybrids or EVs, road noise is the dominant factor. IE tire noise on the road, gravel crunching, all that. The EVs and hybrids they tested were identical on a Db level.
As speeds increase it simply shifts to wind noise - the engine being loud enough to be a signficant factor is actually the exception and generally indicates an ill-maintained defective vehicle.
Anyways, a driverless car can probably do away with the warning sounds for the most part, it should be aware enough that it doesn't back into people.
You mention trains, because they're 'much simpler to predict'. There is some truth to this, same with drone aircraft - fewer obstacles to worry about, orders of magnitude less clutter.
Thing is, an AI train system still has to worry about things next to the rails, because they might intersect with the train by the time the train gets there. There's still 'random events in an open terrain' to worry about, it's just that the possible AI responses are much more limited - increase throttle, decrease throttle, brake, or even just maintain.
Consider Wiredlogic's proposal: 'At night in clear weather'. I'd actually modify it a bit: Only in clear weather on uncongested highways and designated access roads to staging areas located right off the highways.
The idea is that the trucks travel known routes, normally away from pedestrians, on relatively clear areas. Only a step more complicated than the AI manning the locomotive. In-city routes would still be human manned, though as you stop bugs and develop more techniques/capabilities, the range of robotic vehicles will spread.
This reminded me: Who will buy the insurance? For example, in the UK apparently the actuary tables are messed up enough when it comes to young teens that it's often cheaper to buy a new car where the manufacturer covers the first X years of insurance than it is to buy an equivalent used car and insure it.
It might not work in the regulatory framework of the USA as it currently stands, but if you drop insurance costs to roughly 1/10th of what they are now, combined with no more variable driver records, I could see the costs of 'insurance' being covered by the car maker as a feature.
I think we're almost to the point of saying 'screw the breath-tester, install an auto-drive system on a drunk's vehicle' point. But then there's all sorts of legal issues to work out there as well. We've seen some pushback on giving people DUIs for being drunk while asleep in the backseat of the bar parking lot, how would you handle a drunk person asleep in a self-driving car that's driving him home(because he's not driving) that doesn't have a bypass mode for manual operation?
For that matter, what will many jurisdictions do as they lose the revenue from traffic violations? Speeding should be right out(I imagine that the AI will follow the speed limit and if I'm reading/playing a game I don't really care about getting there faster anymore), plus if they screw up the timing on a red light so badly that a self driving car with reaction times measured in the milliseconds still ends up 'running the red', you don't just have some random person's word that they either didn't run the redlight or it was impossible to NOT run the red light. Depending on the setup, the car company can present logs(including possibly video), AI decision chains, and other information that would end up costing the department far more money than they gain.
Honking is an interesting sub-division. I wonder if they'll enable the cars to auto-honk? Heck, that leads to the idea of using honks as a sort of broadcast announcement to other self-driving cars - a sort of warning system for things like 'There's an accident around me, be aware!' that has the cars slow down and increase following distance. Have some sort of flow control system so it's rebroadcast no more than 5 times, and it doesn't even have to be audible to humans.
Slashdot Mirror
.2 kWh per mile@80mph = 16kWh or roughly ~20 hp.
Might be a touch undersized, but that's where the idea that you're merely extending the range of the 300 miles worth of batteries you already have comes in.
12 hours@80mph=960 miles, 240 kwh(rounding UP to .25 kWh per mile to add some buffer). Subtract the 65 kwh(margin of error) for the car's battery, leaving 175kWh. 175 kWh/12 hours = 15 kW generator for your 'trucker bombing' self'
What if I drive a little slower? .22, slower=more efficient). 120 kWh left after subtracting 65 kWh, 120/12 hours = 10kW generator being enough.
12 hours@70mph=840 miles, 185 kwh(using
Adding a trailor though will also add to wind and rolling resistance.
Personally, when I've looked at range-extending trailors I picture a hydrocarbon fueled IC engine-generator set, with the trailer somewhat oversized such as to also provide additional cargo space(because long trips are when you want to bring the luggage).
The engine itself varies between a traditional generator to more exotic options like an efficient motorcycle engine, turbine, or recently a Wankel. 1/3rd the weight, relatively tiny, and the poor fuel efficinecy is 'eliminated' when you drive it at a constant RPM(and load).
At about .2 kWh per mile, that's about 16kW@80mph. Let's say the trailer adds 4kW. 27 horsepower is more than enough to keep the car on the road, and the resulting engine can be *tiny*. Heck, you can probably 'get away' with 20 HP as long as you either plug in at night/when stopped or at least leave the generator running.
If that were true they wouldn't back hydrogen, which is inherently superior to battery power in every way.
Cost? Energy density by volume? Efficiency?
Cost: Fuel cells are still outrageously expensive
Energy density by volume: You have to compress hydrogen to almost 700 bar before it's denser than LiIon.
Efficiency: The electricity->LiIon->Motor chain is more efficient than electricity->hydrogen->compression->Fuel Cell->Motor
No, but the local gas station I stop at halfway to my parents house needs one. Otherwise I can't visit home with an overnight stay somewhere.
I tend to live in 'expansive' areas like North Dakota and Alaska, but even I don't consider a fueling station that I need to hit between two locations so far apart that I need to refuel between them (IE 300+ miles apart) as 'local'. As for the Model S - at ~200 miles between charging points, with a charging time of ~40 minutes, you're looking at having a nice rest stop for lunch before being on your way.
My model:
0500 Get on road, drive 3 hours (200 miles on odometer)
0800 Stop for breakfast
0830 Get on road again, 3 hours (400 miles)
1130 Stop for lunch
1200 Start driving, 3 hours (600)
1500 Bathroom Break/exercise stop(jog some), have a snack
1530 3 hours driving (800)
1830 Dinner
1900 You guessed it 3 more hours (1000)
2200 Bed(Parents ~900 miles away, so I get in a little early).
Secondly, Next years Toyota rav ev can make use of the superchargers.
Citation? My check shows that the Toyota Rav EV will use teh J1772 plug, not Tesla's proprietory setup, even though everything else seems to have come from Tesla.
No real links to give, but a number of sources has mentioned that Tesla is willing to license their technology to anybody willing to be 'open'. Presumably that amounts to 'not shutting out Tesla cars while you're using Tesla technology for your charging'.
IBM compatible comes to mind.
If only there were a body of professionals in the field of electronics...and if only they came up with a standard that encompassed this sort of thing!
Reviewing your link, I see why Tesla came up with their own charging standard - the design committees seemed to settle on 20 kWh battery packs as 'standard', vs Tesla's 60/85 kWh. Only the latest/beefiest standards meet or exceed a Tesla Supercharger, and considering timelines, Tesla was deploying the chargers while the standards committee was still working on getting an agreement on where to hold the meetings.
They offer the same sort of charging rate as the Supercharger(tm) chargers.
Just fact checking:
Level 3 charger - 240kW max (actual capability depends).
J1722: 240V@80A: 20kW
CHAdeMO: 62.5kW.
Tesla supercharger - 100/120kW
On the other hand, the Leaf maxes out at 44kW with a DC charger. 6.6kW with the onboard charger, vs 11/22 for the Tesla(single/dual charger option).
Checking everything, it looks like you would only max out your leaf's charging capacity with a CHAdeMO connection, but while it and J1772 both count as 'level 3' because they're DC and over the capability of level 1 & 2 AC charging, they're not up to Tesla's standards.
Right now Teslas Model S vehicles are the most capable of fast-charging in terms of miles of charge per hour. Given their relatively huge battery packs, this makes sense.
She's 61 years old and now has the benefit of prenatal care/birth control and she can get a gender change with insurance should she decide to grow a dick. This whole thing is a catastrophe. The net result to the middle class (actually, anyone that is single earning over $47K) is getting to pay more than twice the premium for similar coverage.
Given that the oldest mother on record is 73, she has a few years of 'possible' left. ;)
More seriously, part of Obamacare was getting rid of all sorts of weird carveouts. Consider that birth control and hormone replacement therapy are very similar. There are actually medical reasons to give a women male hormones other than transition- it's extremely rare, yes, but isn't that what insurance is for? If the adjusters are doing their job, they'll realize that the odds of your partner having another child rounds to zero and charge appropriately. But if the wierdest thing happens, she's covered. I'll note that there's still lots of wiggle room here for oddites.
Roughly speaking, is it cheaper to provide coverage than it is to handle the paperwork to carve out the exemption? Does it really save money creating seperate formula/prescription lists for females and males?
Keep in mind that for every Sweden there's an Italy.
Fraud isn't quite corruption, for example taking bribes is a seperate issue from fraud, though often highly related.
But yes, I'd be shocked if the corruption cost is 'only' 120B Euro for Italy alone.
Ummm... Wow.
The only way I could see that is if the 2k products each has at least 10 options and the average order is like 10k items at an average price of $100 per.
Of course, with purchases that big you'd generally be holding parties and/or sending personal reps to the purchasers.
1. Near as I can tell, it's approximately 10 seconds of 'active' wear per hour of time-keeping. With a 48 hour reserve, that's approximately 4 minutes a day of 'active wear' to keep the watch 'fully' charged. source
2. Watch winders are often hideously priced, but should only be necessary if you keep self-winding watches like women keep shoes. If you have one, no problem, with 2 you're still fine if you alternate.
That being said, I'd imaging power requirements for something apple would be higher than simply keeping time, so you might need somebody very active.
Yeah, considering how I'd do it, I'd probably go with at most a 4 year examination - 40% for this year, 30-20-10 for the previous years. Short of building an actual game simulator like EA did, I'd probably look at median scoring, yards run/passed and such, then look at other team's averages, and whether other teams performed better/worse than their average, and by how much. For example, is team X better at blocking pass plays? Does team Y get most of it's yardage from passing, meaning it's at a disadvantage against X? Also, look at teams that both X & Y have played recently and weight those more.
For example, if it's found that teams playing X only average 84% of the yards they get normally, maybe we should estimate Y's yardage at 84% of it's average. Stuff like that.
The point is that if you're going to make EVs and hybrids be artificially noisier you need to do the same for modern IC cars, because they're all about equally quiet.
Just anecdotal from trying a number at the showroom. Replacing the mufflers with louder pipes is one of the most common 'upgrades'.
The unsafe young males are not taken out of the pool. The young women and the slow-driving young males are, they buy the manufacturer-sponsored insurance.
Ah, that makes sense. As for the older cars bit - I'm talking about 'the free coverage has expired' old, not 'requires extra maintenance' old. I think the age was 4 years old.
And why are people willing to do a bit of work on their vehicles not a good demographic to insure? For that matter, it's always in my interest to insure somebody so long as they can make the premiums I charge. Competition with other insurance companies gives me a reason to cut my rates, which is where I need to subdivide my potential customers so I can tell who's most likely to make claims. It's a minor but important distinction in my mind. It's not that any one sub-group is so much 'bad' as 'doesn't qualify for the lowest rates I charge'.
The tables are not messed up. The new cars with X years insurance are very small cars that have little appeal to the young males who are likely to be in accidents.
The problem with this little statement is that I said 'EQUIVALENT used cars' for a reason. I know they're shitboxes. Thing is that you can get older shitboxes and still insure them for about the same or less than a new car. You have a point that the manufacturer can likely fix/replace the car for less than the insurance company, but they're covering liability as well, which means paying medical bills and fixing competitor's cars.
This takes the safest drivers out of the pool for generic car insurance, which obviously makes that even more expensive.
I think I'm missing the context here, because 'young males' are not the safest demographic group by far.
Most tranquilizers don't actually knock you out. Besides, the dart is simply for my convenience while I relocate the subjects to the lab. Once there I administer the counter after securing them.
(but seriously, how do you know whats wrong with your dog if you don't take him to the vet first?)
Because it's a recurring issue? Because you've seen it before on different dogs?
Now that you mention it, as far as PETA is concerned, I would announce I was experimenting on animals WHOLESALE scale....just to lure them into the killing zone of the ambush...claymores and willy pete FTW!
Naw, I shoot them with tranquilizer darts before hauling them off to my illegal mad-science lab. Normally it takes about three days before they start begging me to do my testing on animals.
They are fairly endemic in small numbers and transmitted by the mother in the womb.
That assumes the mother has worms, doesn't it? My parents acted as 'breeders' for a little while - though how much of a business you can call it with ONE breeding female who sleeps on the bed when she's not sleeping with the puppies I don't know.
The interesting part of it was watching her housetrain her puppies. She knew they weren't supposed to do that in the house, she taught them not to a lot quicker than humans can.
People who buy Harleys will continue to do so.
Just a nitpick but Harleys are actually fairly quiet stock. It's the aftermarket pipes that remove the muffler system that make them loud.
You know what's really funny? Modern IC cars are so quiet that they did a study - for most conventional vehicles, not hybrids or EVs, road noise is the dominant factor. IE tire noise on the road, gravel crunching, all that. The EVs and hybrids they tested were identical on a Db level.
As speeds increase it simply shifts to wind noise - the engine being loud enough to be a signficant factor is actually the exception and generally indicates an ill-maintained defective vehicle.
Anyways, a driverless car can probably do away with the warning sounds for the most part, it should be aware enough that it doesn't back into people.
You mention trains, because they're 'much simpler to predict'. There is some truth to this, same with drone aircraft - fewer obstacles to worry about, orders of magnitude less clutter.
Thing is, an AI train system still has to worry about things next to the rails, because they might intersect with the train by the time the train gets there. There's still 'random events in an open terrain' to worry about, it's just that the possible AI responses are much more limited - increase throttle, decrease throttle, brake, or even just maintain.
Consider Wiredlogic's proposal: 'At night in clear weather'. I'd actually modify it a bit: Only in clear weather on uncongested highways and designated access roads to staging areas located right off the highways.
The idea is that the trucks travel known routes, normally away from pedestrians, on relatively clear areas. Only a step more complicated than the AI manning the locomotive. In-city routes would still be human manned, though as you stop bugs and develop more techniques/capabilities, the range of robotic vehicles will spread.
Insurance rates will also be far lower.
This reminded me: Who will buy the insurance? For example, in the UK apparently the actuary tables are messed up enough when it comes to young teens that it's often cheaper to buy a new car where the manufacturer covers the first X years of insurance than it is to buy an equivalent used car and insure it.
It might not work in the regulatory framework of the USA as it currently stands, but if you drop insurance costs to roughly 1/10th of what they are now, combined with no more variable driver records, I could see the costs of 'insurance' being covered by the car maker as a feature.
I think we're almost to the point of saying 'screw the breath-tester, install an auto-drive system on a drunk's vehicle' point. But then there's all sorts of legal issues to work out there as well. We've seen some pushback on giving people DUIs for being drunk while asleep in the backseat of the bar parking lot, how would you handle a drunk person asleep in a self-driving car that's driving him home(because he's not driving) that doesn't have a bypass mode for manual operation?
For that matter, what will many jurisdictions do as they lose the revenue from traffic violations? Speeding should be right out(I imagine that the AI will follow the speed limit and if I'm reading/playing a game I don't really care about getting there faster anymore), plus if they screw up the timing on a red light so badly that a self driving car with reaction times measured in the milliseconds still ends up 'running the red', you don't just have some random person's word that they either didn't run the redlight or it was impossible to NOT run the red light. Depending on the setup, the car company can present logs(including possibly video), AI decision chains, and other information that would end up costing the department far more money than they gain.
Honking is an interesting sub-division. I wonder if they'll enable the cars to auto-honk? Heck, that leads to the idea of using honks as a sort of broadcast announcement to other self-driving cars - a sort of warning system for things like 'There's an accident around me, be aware!' that has the cars slow down and increase following distance. Have some sort of flow control system so it's rebroadcast no more than 5 times, and it doesn't even have to be audible to humans.