(rusty engine bolt results in the entire car becoming unstable).
Well, I'd imagine since this process is heat sensitive, you wouldn't be using it on parts that may become hot like the engine itself.
As for the rest, there's a reason I said 'downsides'. Still, we're doing some amazing stuff with other options. For example, despite it being vibration central, we can keep bolts from loosening in the engine itself. Most of the problems can be worked around.
Right now all of the panels/pieces that automotive would look to replace with this have lots of spot/mig welds on them, so those areas would be much weaker after the fastening work was done.
Not to downplay your area of expertise, but note that you said 'right now'. Right now these pieces have lots of welds on them, but that's because it's the best option with current technology. There are alternative attachment methods. Bolts, screws, epoxy, slots, etc... Each has their own advantages and downsides.
Or they could just have the weld spots be thicker to accept the weld/lowered strength, while the majority of the part/panel is thinner.
How would it go if electric cars had been first, and then gas came along?
Electric cars actually preceded gasoline cars. Limited range is what doomed them, back in the day when electric, gasoline, steam, and diesel were all competing.
Unless the unreliable hardware is your power source.
That's why you put your failovers in different data centers. If you spread the load over 5 different data centers, with 20% extra capacity, losing one isn't a big deal.
Especially if you go with some of the more modern plans that let you scale within moments.
I think that the best option would probably be a helium heat jacket between the plasma and the rest of the structure. The helium becomes super-heated by transitioning the structure, then is piped to the turbines.
By utilizing helium you can utilize a much wider temperature range(for efficiency) without crazy-high pressures.
Actually, she's an extreme democrat; most democrats at least occasionally see legislation that they don't like and approve of some limitations on government power.
Feinstein has only one hammer in her toolbox - every problem is to be addressed by the government.
Having reread the article, it seems a pretty standard coverage of a draft proposal set. Sure, they propose a 'multi-faceted' rating, but later they mention one of the approved things is allowing half-star ratings. So the stars will still be around.
As for Tesla's safety, well, they actually ARE doing something that the other manufacturers can't effectively do - not have an engine in their vehicle.
Conventional auto manufacturers spend a lot of work on controlling where the engine goes in a crash. With a Tesla, they have a huge 'ideal' area available as a crush zone compared to the conventional in the form of their 'frunk'. Then add in where the weight of the vehicle is (abnormally low and centered).
That being said, Musk still didn't skimp on the safety measures. In the fatal accident I remember, it involved a car thief stealing the vehicle from a dealership and hitting speeds over 100mph downtown. He clipped something, lost control, and the resulting ping-pong balling ended up with the car ripped in half with the back half of the vehicle wedged a story and a half or so UP between a church and another building. Even then, he was still intact enough to resuscitate, only dying in surgery in the hospital.
An earlier accident had the driver colliding with two concrete barriers, busting through one, hitting a tree(still estimated at ~70 mph), and walking away.
The only other cars really designed to keep the driver alive in such scenarios are race cars, and they do that by things like not actually having doors(weak spots) while being equipped with 5 point harnesses, helmets, and roll cages.
I agree that they need to toughen and expand the standards to reach any given score occasionally, but I think that more than a 1 star move is perhaps too much, because it can lead to confusion over why a 2017 model 2 star model is safer than a 2016 4 star model. It's better that the 2017 stays a 4 star if it adequately improves it's safety, or drops to a 3 if it doesn't.
On the other hand, this can lead to either widening the scale or doing updates more often.
That being said, I don't know if it'd be fair to set the standards so that only the Tesla Model S gets a 4 start and everybody else is stuck at 3 or less. From everything I've read, that car is insanely protective of it's passengers. We're talking about passengers walking away from accidents that would have been fatal in most other vehicles.
She's a frequent offender over on my gun boards as well. Having examined her record, I would actually rate her as a Fascist. There is rarely an expansion of government power that she doesn't support. She's pretty far over on the 'statist' side of the spectrum.
It seems a little too easy to remove disease by just deleting the part of the animal that the disease uses.
It depends on the path the disease is using. Think about blood type receptors and immune system response. IE this technique will probably work great on some diseases, and not at all on others.
Hardly anybody, but in reality rich rabid fans of the act. But yes, one problem I see with the system is that it would create a sort of mad rush breaking unpredictably as once people start buying, 'everybody' who was holding off rushes in.
Personally, I think something like a month-long dutch auction would work better - log in anytime during the month, put in your bid - X Seats @Y each. At the end of the month, all the high bidders get their seats at the price bid by the lowest winner, or sometimes $1 over the highest losing bidder. Doesn't matter much.
That way, any potential scalpers know that their targets(rich people willing to pay a lot for a ticket), had plenty of time to get a ticket from the official ticket seller. Their target market would then shift to the late-comers who weren't initially going to come, or found out about the concert too late. At the very least, it would reduce the market for the scalpers to the point that they're not doing things like buying the majority of concert tickets.
I'd hope that electric vehicles are exempt, although it's likely their numbers are so small as to not really be much of a factor. I'm really hoping that some serious strides are made in bringing more inexpensive and reasonable performing electric cars to market.
It'd probably have the same effect on electric cars as California's making it's multi-passenger lanes also alternate-fuel/hybrid lanes. You had people buying luxury hybrids because it was like a lane pass instead of for it's fuel efficiency.
Are you talking about my proposal, or the current situation?
Under my proposal, if you want 14 connected seats, pick a big enough seating area and put your bid in. Either you get all 14 seats or you get none, but at least you know that everybody that got seats paid more than you.
The case situation where the lowest winning bidder wanted 14 seats when only 10 were available can be handled by flexing the 10% 'held for a later time' margin a bit. Either you increase it and the people wanting to buy the seats don't get them(but you get to charge everybody else a bit more), or they get them and you don't have quite as many seats left for late buyers.
If I buy 100 tickets at first-day prices under your scheme, what's to stop me still charging more than I paid for them to the people who've missed out now all the other tickets have been sold?
The fact that 99.999999% of potential attendees can't afford the tickets in the first place, much less your profit margin added on top?
Now, you buying on the 3rd day when prices have dropped to, say, 25% of their original value, and you existing to sell tickets to people who decide to attend late, that makes sense.
Which is why I prefer the 'dutch auction' approach for classes of seats. You put in a bid, perhaps a couple of 'fail over' bids where you're willing to pay more for better seats, but if not, here's what I'm willing to pay for the nose bleeds.
That removes the time crunch. As a Scalper, you don't even know if you're going to get seats until the auction ends, and everybody had a chance to bid for their seats, so the price set is probably pretty close, and again, only leaves you with the customers who didn't remember to apply in time. To which I respond - hold back about 10% of the seats for late-comers. Now, you can buy those tickets, and hope there's enough 'come laters' willing to pay your increased margins, but it's risky, especially with my public 'sell any non-filled seats at fire sale prices once the pre-show starts' policy, which means that locals without travel costs are more likely to not pay your inflated rates in exchange for simply getting in a bit late. I have the feeling that these types are precisely the 'poor/young' crowd some bands want in their audience. They're even local!
Finally, I don't have to remove ALL potential for profit, merely enough that it's more hassle than it's worth. As the mark-up they can sustain drops, their profitability does.
I've seen scalpers hawking tickets for below face value because they over-guessed the price people would be willing to pay.
Because I'm fine with the capitalist system, I'm for holding 'dutch auctions'. IE a section of seating is sold by people putting in what they're *willing* to pay, then the system sells that lot of seats for the lowest winning bid price (IE if there's 1k bids on 100 seats, the 100th highest bidder sets the price over the 101st, and the #1 bidder is probably not paying anything near what he bid). Keep about 10% of the seats back to catch late-comers, as you hand out tickets early enough to make travel plans.
Whether you charge ~10% more for the held back seats, because late-comers are willing to pay more on average, or keep the same price can be 'studied'.
This leaves minimal room for scalpers, as the people willing to pay more got their seats.
Step 2, to help ensure a full concert and get some of their poorer/younger fans in, well, these aren't the types who would be traveling anyways. So: 1. Hand out tickets as prizes in radio competitions and such. 2. Sell any remaining 10% tickets, back at their original prices, at the door. 3. Advertise that once the pre-show starts, all *pre-existing* tickets are now invalid and sell any unclaimed spots at reduced fire sale prices(actual percentage starting at 90% and decreasing). You'll be nice and re-assign anybody who shows up with a ticket an open spot if their original one was resold, in case of late arrivals. The important part is that there's no profit margin for buying from a scalper, and margins for profit for them are minimal - rather than being able to raise rates, there's a good chance that they'd be stuck with an unsellable ticket, that the attraction can effectively sell again.
I can just imagine how often a 300 year old dog is going to piss on the carpet. Look, maybe dogs and cats have a 20 year lifespan for a reason?
The 'simplest' way to start increasing the lifespan of our pets would be to look at the status of the grand/great-grandparents. If they're still alive, that's a plus. If they're still alive and not had any serious medical issues, that's a double-plus(or more). Besides the other requirements(such as having a good personality), this should get you trending on longer lifespans, without crazy medical issues. Inheritable conditions like hip problems should be a disqualifier.
Hmm... 2/3rds majority is necessary to override a veto. For a full house, that's 290 votes 'needed' to override a veto. It's actually a bit less if only the same reps vote on the override - 281 for the first vote if the same representatives vote again(a few abstainers are usual).
Except for partisian solidarity, another 39 votes doesn't seem that much
I see that the Tesla battery pack weighs 1,200 pounds. Reducing weight greatly improves efficiency, handling, braking, and acceleration, meaning lighter weight is all around better. It seems a bit wasteful of weight and materials to have 7,000 metal casings around 7,000 tiny batteries, connected with thousands of connections, rather far fewer larger cells. I'm surprised they don't use perhaps 24 or 100 larger cells instead, thereby eliminating thousands of unnecessary casings and connections.
There are a number of reasons. 1. 18650 cells are the cheapest per kWh, significantly so. 2. The smaller cell size helps with thermal management. It's easier to deal with the heat from using the batteries the smaller they are. There have been problems with airlines that use larger cells with them catching fire. 3. Power capability is actually higher with smaller cells. For a car with the acceleration of a Model-S, this is important. 4. Due to the amount of R&D into the cell, which is the most common LiIon cell in the world, weight and volume wise it's at least as energy dense as anything else, extra casing or not. 5. The connections aren't actually that big of a deal, most of the batteries are simply end-to-end.
But bear in mind my driving occasionally includes a 12 mile stretch of twisty country lanes that leave the brakes smoking.
That would do it. What can I say, it was a forum post, the 'under normal usage' should have been implied. People do not normally smoke their brakes that often.
Granted I don't know much about cars, but don't eletric cars still need winter tires, aren't there still moving parts that needs oil, etc?
You only need winter tires if you're in a location that experiences winter. Even then, for most of the USA good quality all-seasons* are more than sufficient. You still need to replace them though.
Yes, there's generally still 'lots' of oil in an electric vehicle. However, the reason engine oil needs to be replaced so often is heat and contamination. The heat breaks down the oil eventually, and the byproducts of combustion contaminate it, which is why you need a filter.
The oil in a properly operating EV never gets that hot though, and is thus treated more like gear oil - so it's like the oil in your transmission, gear boxes, etc... Which is generally changed out far less often.
Regular maintenance items an EV needs: Tires, wipers, wiper fluid, cabin air filter, lights, etc... Regular maintenance that an EV doesn't need: Engine oil, coolant, brake pads*, air filter, spark plugs, etc... Maintenance that's more expensive on an EV: Replacing the battery, but costs are coming down 'quickly'.
*EVs still have brake pads, but regenerative braking cuts their usage enough that a pad designed to last around a decade for a regular vehicle lasts the lifetime of an EV.
*Disclaimer: ~2" of snow and today I had to push a woman in a tiny car who had gotten stuck in the middle of the road because she was driving on half-worn 'all seasons' that were 90% summer tire.
Slashdot Mirror
(rusty engine bolt results in the entire car becoming unstable).
Well, I'd imagine since this process is heat sensitive, you wouldn't be using it on parts that may become hot like the engine itself.
As for the rest, there's a reason I said 'downsides'. Still, we're doing some amazing stuff with other options. For example, despite it being vibration central, we can keep bolts from loosening in the engine itself. Most of the problems can be worked around.
Right now all of the panels/pieces that automotive would look to replace with this have lots of spot/mig welds on them, so those areas would be much weaker after the fastening work was done.
Not to downplay your area of expertise, but note that you said 'right now'. Right now these pieces have lots of welds on them, but that's because it's the best option with current technology. There are alternative attachment methods. Bolts, screws, epoxy, slots, etc... Each has their own advantages and downsides.
Or they could just have the weld spots be thicker to accept the weld/lowered strength, while the majority of the part/panel is thinner.
How would it go if electric cars had been first, and then gas came along?
Electric cars actually preceded gasoline cars. Limited range is what doomed them, back in the day when electric, gasoline, steam, and diesel were all competing.
Unless the unreliable hardware is your power source.
That's why you put your failovers in different data centers. If you spread the load over 5 different data centers, with 20% extra capacity, losing one isn't a big deal.
Especially if you go with some of the more modern plans that let you scale within moments.
I think that the best option would probably be a helium heat jacket between the plasma and the rest of the structure. The helium becomes super-heated by transitioning the structure, then is piped to the turbines.
By utilizing helium you can utilize a much wider temperature range(for efficiency) without crazy-high pressures.
Actually, she's an extreme democrat; most democrats at least occasionally see legislation that they don't like and approve of some limitations on government power.
Feinstein has only one hammer in her toolbox - every problem is to be addressed by the government.
Having reread the article, it seems a pretty standard coverage of a draft proposal set. Sure, they propose a 'multi-faceted' rating, but later they mention one of the approved things is allowing half-star ratings. So the stars will still be around.
As for Tesla's safety, well, they actually ARE doing something that the other manufacturers can't effectively do - not have an engine in their vehicle.
Conventional auto manufacturers spend a lot of work on controlling where the engine goes in a crash. With a Tesla, they have a huge 'ideal' area available as a crush zone compared to the conventional in the form of their 'frunk'. Then add in where the weight of the vehicle is (abnormally low and centered).
That being said, Musk still didn't skimp on the safety measures. In the fatal accident I remember, it involved a car thief stealing the vehicle from a dealership and hitting speeds over 100mph downtown. He clipped something, lost control, and the resulting ping-pong balling ended up with the car ripped in half with the back half of the vehicle wedged a story and a half or so UP between a church and another building. Even then, he was still intact enough to resuscitate, only dying in surgery in the hospital.
An earlier accident had the driver colliding with two concrete barriers, busting through one, hitting a tree(still estimated at ~70 mph), and walking away.
The only other cars really designed to keep the driver alive in such scenarios are race cars, and they do that by things like not actually having doors(weak spots) while being equipped with 5 point harnesses, helmets, and roll cages.
I agree that they need to toughen and expand the standards to reach any given score occasionally, but I think that more than a 1 star move is perhaps too much, because it can lead to confusion over why a 2017 model 2 star model is safer than a 2016 4 star model. It's better that the 2017 stays a 4 star if it adequately improves it's safety, or drops to a 3 if it doesn't.
On the other hand, this can lead to either widening the scale or doing updates more often.
That being said, I don't know if it'd be fair to set the standards so that only the Tesla Model S gets a 4 start and everybody else is stuck at 3 or less. From everything I've read, that car is insanely protective of it's passengers. We're talking about passengers walking away from accidents that would have been fatal in most other vehicles.
She's a frequent offender over on my gun boards as well. Having examined her record, I would actually rate her as a Fascist. There is rarely an expansion of government power that she doesn't support. She's pretty far over on the 'statist' side of the spectrum.
It seems a little too easy to remove disease by just deleting the part of the animal that the disease uses.
It depends on the path the disease is using. Think about blood type receptors and immune system response. IE this technique will probably work great on some diseases, and not at all on others.
Hardly anybody, but in reality rich rabid fans of the act. But yes, one problem I see with the system is that it would create a sort of mad rush breaking unpredictably as once people start buying, 'everybody' who was holding off rushes in.
Personally, I think something like a month-long dutch auction would work better - log in anytime during the month, put in your bid - X Seats @Y each. At the end of the month, all the high bidders get their seats at the price bid by the lowest winner, or sometimes $1 over the highest losing bidder. Doesn't matter much.
That way, any potential scalpers know that their targets(rich people willing to pay a lot for a ticket), had plenty of time to get a ticket from the official ticket seller. Their target market would then shift to the late-comers who weren't initially going to come, or found out about the concert too late. At the very least, it would reduce the market for the scalpers to the point that they're not doing things like buying the majority of concert tickets.
I'd hope that electric vehicles are exempt, although it's likely their numbers are so small as to not really be much of a factor. I'm really hoping that some serious strides are made in bringing more inexpensive and reasonable performing electric cars to market.
It'd probably have the same effect on electric cars as California's making it's multi-passenger lanes also alternate-fuel/hybrid lanes. You had people buying luxury hybrids because it was like a lane pass instead of for it's fuel efficiency.
Are you talking about my proposal, or the current situation?
Under my proposal, if you want 14 connected seats, pick a big enough seating area and put your bid in. Either you get all 14 seats or you get none, but at least you know that everybody that got seats paid more than you.
The case situation where the lowest winning bidder wanted 14 seats when only 10 were available can be handled by flexing the 10% 'held for a later time' margin a bit. Either you increase it and the people wanting to buy the seats don't get them(but you get to charge everybody else a bit more), or they get them and you don't have quite as many seats left for late buyers.
If I buy 100 tickets at first-day prices under your scheme, what's to stop me still charging more than I paid for them to the people who've missed out now all the other tickets have been sold?
The fact that 99.999999% of potential attendees can't afford the tickets in the first place, much less your profit margin added on top?
Now, you buying on the 3rd day when prices have dropped to, say, 25% of their original value, and you existing to sell tickets to people who decide to attend late, that makes sense.
Which is why I prefer the 'dutch auction' approach for classes of seats. You put in a bid, perhaps a couple of 'fail over' bids where you're willing to pay more for better seats, but if not, here's what I'm willing to pay for the nose bleeds.
That removes the time crunch. As a Scalper, you don't even know if you're going to get seats until the auction ends, and everybody had a chance to bid for their seats, so the price set is probably pretty close, and again, only leaves you with the customers who didn't remember to apply in time. To which I respond - hold back about 10% of the seats for late-comers. Now, you can buy those tickets, and hope there's enough 'come laters' willing to pay your increased margins, but it's risky, especially with my public 'sell any non-filled seats at fire sale prices once the pre-show starts' policy, which means that locals without travel costs are more likely to not pay your inflated rates in exchange for simply getting in a bit late. I have the feeling that these types are precisely the 'poor/young' crowd some bands want in their audience. They're even local!
Finally, I don't have to remove ALL potential for profit, merely enough that it's more hassle than it's worth. As the mark-up they can sustain drops, their profitability does.
I've seen scalpers hawking tickets for below face value because they over-guessed the price people would be willing to pay.
Because I'm fine with the capitalist system, I'm for holding 'dutch auctions'. IE a section of seating is sold by people putting in what they're *willing* to pay, then the system sells that lot of seats for the lowest winning bid price (IE if there's 1k bids on 100 seats, the 100th highest bidder sets the price over the 101st, and the #1 bidder is probably not paying anything near what he bid). Keep about 10% of the seats back to catch late-comers, as you hand out tickets early enough to make travel plans.
Whether you charge ~10% more for the held back seats, because late-comers are willing to pay more on average, or keep the same price can be 'studied'.
This leaves minimal room for scalpers, as the people willing to pay more got their seats.
Step 2, to help ensure a full concert and get some of their poorer/younger fans in, well, these aren't the types who would be traveling anyways.
So:
1. Hand out tickets as prizes in radio competitions and such.
2. Sell any remaining 10% tickets, back at their original prices, at the door.
3. Advertise that once the pre-show starts, all *pre-existing* tickets are now invalid and sell any unclaimed spots at reduced fire sale prices(actual percentage starting at 90% and decreasing). You'll be nice and re-assign anybody who shows up with a ticket an open spot if their original one was resold, in case of late arrivals. The important part is that there's no profit margin for buying from a scalper, and margins for profit for them are minimal - rather than being able to raise rates, there's a good chance that they'd be stuck with an unsellable ticket, that the attraction can effectively sell again.
This might indeed be what's happening. Don't forget that Ticketmaster, the biggest online seller of tickets, also owns the biggest scalping site.
Who's to say that they don't just sell large numbers of tickets directly to their subsidiary company?
Sounds like they're more building a competitor for the Tesla Roadster, which isn't even in production(right now).
I can just imagine how often a 300 year old dog is going to piss on the carpet. Look, maybe dogs and cats have a 20 year lifespan for a reason?
The 'simplest' way to start increasing the lifespan of our pets would be to look at the status of the grand/great-grandparents. If they're still alive, that's a plus. If they're still alive and not had any serious medical issues, that's a double-plus(or more). Besides the other requirements(such as having a good personality), this should get you trending on longer lifespans, without crazy medical issues. Inheritable conditions like hip problems should be a disqualifier.
Sounds like she had a stroke.
714 km a shot doesn't seem too terrible. Plus, at some point you might as well start curving it because you don't want to go too fast.
Hmm... 2/3rds majority is necessary to override a veto. For a full house, that's 290 votes 'needed' to override a veto. It's actually a bit less if only the same reps vote on the override - 281 for the first vote if the same representatives vote again(a few abstainers are usual).
Except for partisian solidarity, another 39 votes doesn't seem that much
I see that the Tesla battery pack weighs 1,200 pounds. Reducing weight greatly improves efficiency, handling, braking, and acceleration, meaning lighter weight is all around better. It seems a bit wasteful of weight and materials to have 7,000 metal casings around 7,000 tiny batteries, connected with thousands of connections, rather far fewer larger cells. I'm surprised they don't use perhaps 24 or 100 larger cells instead, thereby eliminating thousands of unnecessary casings and connections.
There are a number of reasons.
1. 18650 cells are the cheapest per kWh, significantly so.
2. The smaller cell size helps with thermal management. It's easier to deal with the heat from using the batteries the smaller they are. There have been problems with airlines that use larger cells with them catching fire.
3. Power capability is actually higher with smaller cells. For a car with the acceleration of a Model-S, this is important.
4. Due to the amount of R&D into the cell, which is the most common LiIon cell in the world, weight and volume wise it's at least as energy dense as anything else, extra casing or not.
5. The connections aren't actually that big of a deal, most of the batteries are simply end-to-end.
But bear in mind my driving occasionally includes a 12 mile stretch of twisty country lanes that leave the brakes smoking.
That would do it. What can I say, it was a forum post, the 'under normal usage' should have been implied. People do not normally smoke their brakes that often.
Yeah, we had more than 2" already before Halloween, it's just that we got a fresh 2" today.
Granted I don't know much about cars, but don't eletric cars still need winter tires, aren't there still moving parts that needs oil, etc?
You only need winter tires if you're in a location that experiences winter. Even then, for most of the USA good quality all-seasons* are more than sufficient. You still need to replace them though.
Yes, there's generally still 'lots' of oil in an electric vehicle. However, the reason engine oil needs to be replaced so often is heat and contamination. The heat breaks down the oil eventually, and the byproducts of combustion contaminate it, which is why you need a filter.
The oil in a properly operating EV never gets that hot though, and is thus treated more like gear oil - so it's like the oil in your transmission, gear boxes, etc... Which is generally changed out far less often.
Regular maintenance items an EV needs: Tires, wipers, wiper fluid, cabin air filter, lights, etc...
Regular maintenance that an EV doesn't need: Engine oil, coolant, brake pads*, air filter, spark plugs, etc...
Maintenance that's more expensive on an EV: Replacing the battery, but costs are coming down 'quickly'.
*EVs still have brake pads, but regenerative braking cuts their usage enough that a pad designed to last around a decade for a regular vehicle lasts the lifetime of an EV.
*Disclaimer: ~2" of snow and today I had to push a woman in a tiny car who had gotten stuck in the middle of the road because she was driving on half-worn 'all seasons' that were 90% summer tire.