If you take the heat out of the exhaust, you'll reduce the pressure of the gas and thereby slow down the flow.
By that logic, a narrower exhaust pipe would increase pressure and flow rate, thereby increasing the power output of the engine. So maximum power would be made by building all car exhausts out of 3/16 ID brake line. This obviously doesn't happen, so there's got to be more to it than that.
I know power output drops on a regular engine if you remove the exhaust completely, but if I understand correctly, it's simply that the exhaust has to be tuned to the displacement and output of the engine. That's why funny cars have an 18" length of straight pipe for each cylinder to make maximum power.
So one of these gizmos would slightly alter the tuning, and you'd have to tweak it to maximize power output again.
Although that's to do with volumetric efficiency, not thermodynamic efficiency. Essentially meaning a crappy exhaust will reduce the volume of the air-fuel charge in the cylinder, reducing power output, but also reducing fuel usage.
So I don't think it would alter thermodynamic efficiency at all, but you may lose power due to less fuel getting in the engine in the first place, if you're not careful with exhaust tuning.
Well, I'll be honest...I looked it up on acronymfinder.com.
But I usually do that with acronyms, even when I know what they mean in context, so I can find the most bizarre, twisted meaning of the sentence, and see if it's worth a "+1 Funny".....
If you're taking heat away before said heat moves the piston down, then yes, you're reducing the efficiency, and therefore power output.
If you're taking heat out of the upper radiator hose, or the exhaust pipe, both of which are just dumped out to the atmosphere, anyway, then it really is waste heat, and you're not reducing the efficiency of anything. Recover enough heat, and you might be able to do with a smaller radiator and cooling fan, though, which, while it wouldn't increase the efficiency of the engine, it would reduce both the engine load for cooling, and the weight of the car slightly, so have the same effect as an increase in power.
2. My Internet connection sucks rocks (but somehow it still loads a two-minute Youtube video in 10 seconds and never drops network connections). Odd.
Then how, exactly does it freeze up watching flash videos? It either buffers, or it doesn't. You claimed earlier that it was buffering, but not saying it, but now you claim it loads completely in 10 seconds. Which is it?
Besides, you could still be getting connection resets or dropped packets that don't affect normal error-correcting TCP connections, but could screw up a finicky flash player.
3. My iMac is infected with malware.
You say that like it's an impossibility. Don't rule it out. Likely? Not really. Possible? Certainly.
5. I'm using the latest version of Adobe Flash available, which is "old/insecure/unsupported/third-party" and "currently trying to infect your computer with crapware, thereby sucking rocks."
When the next version of flash player comes out, because a security hole will be found in the current one, then it the current one will be considered insecure. But it's the exact same code that people are currently using, and is considered secure. That means it's also insecure now, just not too many people realize it.
No, this is the inviolate "It works for me, all my clients, and all my customers, which numbers in the high hundreds, possibly thousands of machines, but they're all properly maintained by myself, so your mileage may vary" argument.
I know that was a joke. (At least, I hope it was a joke)
But responses like that are what's wrong with people in the world today. (Mostly because the person giving them is serious, rather than being a smartass...)
You put forth a well reasoned argument, that's at least plausible, and somebody goes off on a completely different tangent, missing the point completely, and assuming that you like bacon bits and garlic in your strawberry ice cream.....
Or a non-IE browser on Windows, with 20 or more Youtube windows open. But then it just gets a little choppy, due to the CPU usage. I've never had it crap out completely, even then.
Other than the once I've already mentioned, but that was just a couple of windows open.
Everybody's got this horrible opinion of Realplayer and the whole "buffering" thing, but I wonder how many have tried it recently.
Most of the people who complain about this refer back to something like version 8, and how much it sucked.
Version 8 came out somewhere around 1998, I think. How many people had a decent broadband internet connection in 1998? Of course it's going to buffer.
There's at least a possibility that it was just ahead of its time. The internet infrastructure couldn't handle the bandwidth that Realplayer needed, so it sucked.
I haven't actually researched this, but it's just a thought.
Now, we have software that actually sucks, and it gets compared to Realplayer.
Maybe we should be comparing Vista to Windows 3.1. I do believe Windows 3.1 was faster, in it's day....
That's because most people do not have the right external box for their TV. Think of your standard stereo unit. Nobody plugs things directly into the speakers. They plug it into the central box, and that central box has a selector mechanism that allows you to choose which audio signal gets to the speakers.
No. Most people go spend $99 on a cheap-ass all in one POS from WalMart, and then go do the same again when one of the following happens:
1. Their 90-day warranty unit fries itself in 120 days. 2. They decide they need a new capability (CD/DVD/BlueRay/MP3/whatever) and they find their cheap POS doesn't have a jack on the back for extra inputs, because that would have cost an extra 18 cents to manufacture.
1. Your computer sucks rocks. 2. Your internet connection sucks rocks. 3. Your computer is infected with malware, which slows it down and makes it suck rocks. 4. You're using Norton, Trend, McAfee, or something which equally sucks rocks. 5. You have an old/insecure/unsupported/third-party flash player, which is currently trying to infect your computer with crapware, thereby sucking rocks.
I've heard people complain about this before, and I've never seen it happen on my own computer, or on any other machine that's properly maintained, and doesn't have 99% of it's memory taken up by Internet Security Suites from you-know-who.
Actually, I lie. I've seen it happen once on my computer. Once. It was a Youtube video, which was buffering, playing fine, and stopped loading about 2/3 of the way through. And you can tell that it's buffering or not, unless the player sucks. That's what the red line behind the play bar is on Youtube. It shows how much of the video is buffered. I haven't seen a player that doesn't have this feature.
The one time it stopped playing on mine, it stopped just at the end of said red line. My guess is "Connection reset by peer" errors result in something like this happening.
As much as the DMCA sucks, I don't agree with your comment.
Slashdot wasn't responsible for what the commenter posted, otherwise the CoS would have been able to sue slashdot and win, regardless of whether the comment was taken down or not.
The fact that you have to comply with a DMCA takedown doesn't mean that you're responsible for the comment. It means you're responsible for the comment, only if you ignore the takedown notice.
In practice, the comment is gone either way, so it doesn't make much difference to freedom of speech, but you aren't legally (read: financially) responsible.
Slashdot Mirror
If you take the heat out of the exhaust, you'll reduce the pressure of the gas and thereby slow down the flow.
By that logic, a narrower exhaust pipe would increase pressure and flow rate, thereby increasing the power output of the engine. So maximum power would be made by building all car exhausts out of 3/16 ID brake line.
This obviously doesn't happen, so there's got to be more to it than that.
I know power output drops on a regular engine if you remove the exhaust completely, but if I understand correctly, it's simply that the exhaust has to be tuned to the displacement and output of the engine. That's why funny cars have an 18" length of straight pipe for each cylinder to make maximum power.
So one of these gizmos would slightly alter the tuning, and you'd have to tweak it to maximize power output again.
Although that's to do with volumetric efficiency, not thermodynamic efficiency. Essentially meaning a crappy exhaust will reduce the volume of the air-fuel charge in the cylinder, reducing power output, but also reducing fuel usage.
So I don't think it would alter thermodynamic efficiency at all, but you may lose power due to less fuel getting in the engine in the first place, if you're not careful with exhaust tuning.
Then Xubuntu is much more resource intensive than Debian.
And considering I've got a Debian fileserver running on a 200MHz Pentium Pro, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
Well, I'll be honest...I looked it up on acronymfinder.com.
But I usually do that with acronyms, even when I know what they mean in context, so I can find the most bizarre, twisted meaning of the sentence, and see if it's worth a "+1 Funny".....
If you're taking heat away before said heat moves the piston down, then yes, you're reducing the efficiency, and therefore power output.
If you're taking heat out of the upper radiator hose, or the exhaust pipe, both of which are just dumped out to the atmosphere, anyway, then it really is waste heat, and you're not reducing the efficiency of anything.
Recover enough heat, and you might be able to do with a smaller radiator and cooling fan, though, which, while it wouldn't increase the efficiency of the engine, it would reduce both the engine load for cooling, and the weight of the car slightly, so have the same effect as an increase in power.
Regenerative breaking?
Does that mean hitting it with a sledgehammer recharges the battery?
The flash videos I particularly love are the ones where the video lags a half second behind the audio. What an unholy mess.
That's not limited to flash, by any means.
I've seen that behaviour on mpeg, avi, wmv, mp4, and just about anything else.
Is all of Europe striving to be as bad as the French?
I fart in your general direction!
Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Thank you.
Thank you so much for informing me that the depths of my sarcasm are completely misunderstood by /.
Sar-chasm: n. The gulf between the speaker of a sarcastic comment, and the person who completely misunderstands it.
Can't say that I've ever seen that.
Again, this is on potentially hundreds of machines, so it's hardly anecdotal.
And I completely agree with you, that Norton is crap.
But his comment made it seem like it was impossible.
It's definitely possible....just not a good idea.
Ok, I'll have to take your word on that, as I don't own a Mac.
I know it's not their fault, but so much for "Just works".
Weird. I've got a Linux machine that's a PIII-800, with 256MB RAM, running the latest Debian.
Runs Youtube just fine. Takes a couple of seconds to get the vid loaded and intialized, but once it's playing it's fine.
You're right, though, the non-IE versions of Flash take a crapload of processor time.
1. My one-year-old iMac sucks rocks.
Probably not.
2. My Internet connection sucks rocks (but somehow it still loads a two-minute Youtube video in 10 seconds and never drops network connections). Odd.
Then how, exactly does it freeze up watching flash videos? It either buffers, or it doesn't. You claimed earlier that it was buffering, but not saying it, but now you claim it loads completely in 10 seconds. Which is it?
Besides, you could still be getting connection resets or dropped packets that don't affect normal error-correcting TCP connections, but could screw up a finicky flash player.
3. My iMac is infected with malware.
You say that like it's an impossibility. Don't rule it out. Likely? Not really. Possible? Certainly.
4. I'm using Norton on Mac OS X.
Why is that so impossible to believe?
5. I'm using the latest version of Adobe Flash available, which is "old/insecure/unsupported/third-party" and "currently trying to infect your computer with crapware, thereby sucking rocks."
When the next version of flash player comes out, because a security hole will be found in the current one, then it the current one will be considered insecure. But it's the exact same code that people are currently using, and is considered secure. That means it's also insecure now, just not too many people realize it.
No, this is the inviolate "It works for me, all my clients, and all my customers, which numbers in the high hundreds, possibly thousands of machines, but they're all properly maintained by myself, so your mileage may vary" argument.
I know that was a joke. (At least, I hope it was a joke)
But responses like that are what's wrong with people in the world today. (Mostly because the person giving them is serious, rather than being a smartass...)
You put forth a well reasoned argument, that's at least plausible, and somebody goes off on a completely different tangent, missing the point completely, and assuming that you like bacon bits and garlic in your strawberry ice cream.....
There's something for everyone on the Internet... :)
Or a non-IE browser on Windows, with 20 or more Youtube windows open. But then it just gets a little choppy, due to the CPU usage. I've never had it crap out completely, even then.
Other than the once I've already mentioned, but that was just a couple of windows open.
Base it on Java instead, call it MHP and let it painfully die..... again.
The Montana Highway Patrol is dead?
Now I know where I need to go with my GTO.....
as if the quality of flash video wasn't bad enough on my 15" monitor -
That's not the capabilities of Flash. That's the capabilities of n00bs trying to record cheesy overdubbed music videos on a 320x240 webcam.
Everybody's got this horrible opinion of Realplayer and the whole "buffering" thing, but I wonder how many have tried it recently.
Most of the people who complain about this refer back to something like version 8, and how much it sucked.
Version 8 came out somewhere around 1998, I think. How many people had a decent broadband internet connection in 1998? Of course it's going to buffer.
There's at least a possibility that it was just ahead of its time. The internet infrastructure couldn't handle the bandwidth that Realplayer needed, so it sucked.
I haven't actually researched this, but it's just a thought.
Now, we have software that actually sucks, and it gets compared to Realplayer.
Maybe we should be comparing Vista to Windows 3.1. I do believe Windows 3.1 was faster, in it's day....
That's because most people do not have the right external box for their TV. Think of your standard stereo unit. Nobody plugs things directly into the speakers. They plug it into the central box, and that central box has a selector mechanism that allows you to choose which audio signal gets to the speakers.
No. Most people go spend $99 on a cheap-ass all in one POS from WalMart, and then go do the same again when one of the following happens:
1. Their 90-day warranty unit fries itself in 120 days.
2. They decide they need a new capability (CD/DVD/BlueRay/MP3/whatever) and they find their cheap POS doesn't have a jack on the back for extra inputs, because that would have cost an extra 18 cents to manufacture.
That probably means one of a few things:
1. Your computer sucks rocks.
2. Your internet connection sucks rocks.
3. Your computer is infected with malware, which slows it down and makes it suck rocks.
4. You're using Norton, Trend, McAfee, or something which equally sucks rocks.
5. You have an old/insecure/unsupported/third-party flash player, which is currently trying to infect your computer with crapware, thereby sucking rocks.
I've heard people complain about this before, and I've never seen it happen on my own computer, or on any other machine that's properly maintained, and doesn't have 99% of it's memory taken up by Internet Security Suites from you-know-who.
Actually, I lie. I've seen it happen once on my computer. Once.
It was a Youtube video, which was buffering, playing fine, and stopped loading about 2/3 of the way through. And you can tell that it's buffering or not, unless the player sucks. That's what the red line behind the play bar is on Youtube. It shows how much of the video is buffered. I haven't seen a player that doesn't have this feature.
The one time it stopped playing on mine, it stopped just at the end of said red line.
My guess is "Connection reset by peer" errors result in something like this happening.
We're talking about a comment posted on /. at the moment - not TPB. /. is a US site, run by a US company.
Don't feed the trolls, I know.
Which is fine, because I don't even know where to start.....
Which misconception/fantasy/crack-induced-delusion do you counter first?
As much as the DMCA sucks, I don't agree with your comment.
Slashdot wasn't responsible for what the commenter posted, otherwise the CoS would have been able to sue slashdot and win, regardless of whether the comment was taken down or not.
The fact that you have to comply with a DMCA takedown doesn't mean that you're responsible for the comment.
It means you're responsible for the comment, only if you ignore the takedown notice.
In practice, the comment is gone either way, so it doesn't make much difference to freedom of speech, but you aren't legally (read: financially) responsible.