We typically see a peak current of about 10 - 30 kA per stroke, with an average of 2 or 3 subsequent strokes per flash. That's the successful triggers, of course. We only get current at ALL about 50% of the time, and about 25% of the time we get actual return strokes.
We often strike a section of de-energized power line, with a (nominal) impedance of 400 ohms. That translates into peak voltage of 10 megavolts as a first approximation, and about 250 gigawatts. But, since the peak duration is no more than a couple of microseconds, that's about 500 kilowatt-seconds, and 138 watt-hours - less than a single kilowatt-hour.
Er - what do you do, to consider 25 kA "not much current"? Just wondering...
It's a nice thought, harnessing the power of lightning. And it's true that there's a really high power output. However, the duration is so short that the total energy, in terms of kilowatt-hours, is typically on the order of US$0.20 - US$0.30 per lightning flash.
When we in the University of Florida lightning research group trigger a lightning flash, we use a $500 rocket to get that US$0.30 worth of electricity. This alone makes the whole process very cost-ineffective. Add to this the fact that there is not a good way to store that much energy that quickly, and you quickly realize that it's simply not practical to try to store lightning energy.
I'll be glad to share more information, if anyone's interested.
Hmm... Well, you know, I have to tell you - you're not going to get better help by acting like a spoiled child. You haven't offered any specifics about the problems you're having, except for being able to download the complete ISO's. Then, you bitch and moan about how the community is unhelpful and hates you, killed your goldfish, whatever. It doesn't really sound to me like you WANTED any help, and at any rate it doesn't take much of a genius to figure out that Slashdot is not a tech support forum.
You catch more flies with honey, etc. If you happen to have a specific question, feel free to ask me personally - but include useful information like distro, version, CPU, RAM, etc.
If you just want to to stir up shit, leave me the fuck out of it.
Oh, and just for additional clarification - the desktop video editing workstations of the world typically do not employ 250 GB drives - they typically employ large RAID arrays of ~37 GB or ~73 GB drives, striped for speed. If they need more storage than provided by 8 73 GB drives, they typically employ external storage solutions.
You didn't make any analogies, sir. You said that you would be transporting full-fidelity video with this device, and that it was inadequate. You were saying that the 20 GB was inadequate because video takes more space than that. You didn't ask what the audience might be, or suggest anything like your reply indicates.
If you wish to accuse me of misunderstanding your post (or of being mindless), I can only point out that what you said in your original post is not what you claimed in your second post. Perhaps you MEANT what you said in the last one, but you didn't SAY it. No one here claims to read minds. If you really want people to understand your posts, try writing clear, concise sentences which communicate what you mean. There's a preview button you can use to re-read after composition. You might try re-reading that first one now, just to see if you said what you thought you said.
Clearly, this device is not targeted at you. I think it's pretty obvious that anything with a 3.8" screen is making some serious compromises in the area of total visual experience.
Yes, you are supposed to accept that 2 hours of high-fidelity recordings will crap out this device. Why?
This is not a video editing workstation. This is a video-portability solution. Your complaints are akin to complaining that a minivan doesn't perform like a Katana. Now, of course, you can demand that the automotive industry sell you a 7-seat family transporter which does 0-60 in under 4 seconds - but you won't get one.
If you really want to get 2 hours of video storage in a portable package you can fit in a pocket, has good fidelity, and a built-in screen - go buy a DV camcorder.
if you are serious enough to get something similar to this archos, you'd likely use 2x250 gb drives
Where the hell are you going to find a pocket-ish-sized device which can hold 2x250GB drives? If you're really serious about that kind of video, you WOULDN'T get one of these anyway!
Ah, but if the other posted sign says, clearly, in the driver's native language, "Slower Traffic Keep Right" - then I think it's pretty easy to argue that the guy going 69 SHOULD get over. It's possible to obey both the speed limit sign and the keep right sign, but not by camping in the left.
Moreover, there's nothing in the law that says that drivers should endeavor to enforce other drivers' compliance with the law. Two wrongs don't make a right. And safety is a greater issue than obeying the speed limit. Frankly, the guy doing 69 should have gotten back into the right (or middle) lane as soon as convenient anyway.
Frankly, the part about driving at or below the speed limit and the part about not camping in the left lane are orthogonal, and your suggestion that the camper has the law on his/her side is invalid. Speed laws say nothing about lanes.
My mother used to use that argument. Then she moved to New Jersey. Haven't heard that crap from her since.
Keep in mind here that I'm not advocating that anyone exceed the posted limits - I'm advocating thorough and safety-oriented education of drivers. One aspect of this education should include teaching drivers NOT to camp in or block the left-most lane, regardless of speed. It's a matter of situational awareness and of courtesy. Mostly, I'm talking about this because great-grandparent poster implied that people who WERE exceeding the speed limit should pass on the right. This is bad.
Fast lane is really a misnomer. Better term would be "passing lane." See, here's the deal: You pass on the left. Some shmuck sits at the exact limit, or 5 mph under, in the left-most lane - he's the asshole. Period. You should, as a matter of driving habit, always attempt to stay as far right as possible, and move left only as far as necessary to pass the person ahead of you and only for as long as needed.
People who camp in the left lane, forcing others to pass on the right (as you seemed to imply was OK) are MORE dangerous than people who drive 5 MPH over the limit.
Now, before you even start with the "waah! safety! speed=death! Waah!" shtick, let me point out that (as an example) the U.S. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was designed for safe 75 MPH travel in the '50s. IOW, for safe 75 MPH travel by 1950's-era American automobiles. The speed limits have been reduced for three main reasons: a perceived potential for improvement in overall fuel economy, economic windfalls (more income from speeding citations), and the general inability of the average American driver to operate a motor vehicle at 75 MPH. That last one is a doozy, huh? It's not because Americans have slower reflexes, or can't read anything on green signs, or drive cars unsafe at that speed, or are incapable of seeing cars around them - it's because the American system of educating drivers is insufficient and flawed. A classic example of the failure to properly educate drivers can be seen in people who think that if they're happy in the left lane, others should be content to pass them on the right.
Sound familiar?
Passing on the right isn't an inconvenience - it's a dangerous practice. People who camp in the left lane and refuse to yield (or worse, don't notice the line of angry drivers behind them) are a menace.
Whatever. Try reading your own post again. Parts of what you said were accurate. I've pointed out the errors, and if you don't want to understand better that's your problem. I suppose I should stop wasting my time, huh?
"Doubling the voltage will cause a relative quadrupling of power stored in the junction"
No, you certainly didn't make it clear that you said just the opposite. Power isn't stored in a capacitor. Nor is power stored in a junction. Nor is power dissipated in a (perfect) capacitor. Power is, however, dissipated in a junction.
Frankly, what you said didn't make much sense at all. Moreover, you titled your comment "Not Ohm's law" when in fact it exactly IS Ohm's law which is involved. "Q=CV^2". True. Notice, however, that there is no mention of power in that equation.
I still don't understand what you meant. However, with my [buffs fingernails on shirt] masters in EE, I do understand how power dissipation in VLSI works. I'm very sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
No. Ohm's law is in play. Charging a capacitor takes in energy, yes, but that energy is stored as charge, not radiated as heat. The heat comes from I^2*R loss. The I part comes when the capacitor must be charged.
So, it's really pretty simple. Lower voltages mean that the capacitors don't take in as much charge, and therefore don't require as much current to charge up. Less current == less I^2*R loss == less power consumed.
You can get similar improvements by reducing the size of the capacitances, which can be done by reducing the size of the FET gates... which means a smaller feature size.
You are correct that the transistors look mostly like capacitors, but you are incorrect in stating that power is stored in the junction and that creates heat. Power is dissipated in the interconnects, sources and drains, and in the vias between layers. This is also one big reason why we went to copper - lower resistance interconnects == less power lost to resistance.
Oh, shit, are you kidding me? If (IF!) they really found Noah's Ark, and it really had coprolites from a thousand varieties of animal... how many of those animals are now extinct? Those coprolites would be invaluable!
Hell, I just did! I lay down on the floor, kicked and screamed, held my breath, and tried to bite my mommy (that last part didn't work, she lives a thousand miles away). I screamed, "I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!" at the top of my lungs - and nobody on Slashdot noticed. Or cared.
No, no, no. See, you just don't understand. He's using magnets. They have powers that you just don't understand.
What'll happen is this. You'll have a 9-volt battery that you take with you when you leave for work in the morning. You use this battery to run a little half-watt motor (540 mW, according to the article). Now, clearly this isn't enough to move your car - but wait! This motor drives a generator, which makes 1.755W of output! (from the article). This still isn't enough, but we might be able to work something out...
The 1.755 W drives a 1.7 W motor. This motor, in turn, drives a generator. This generator can generate 5.525 W of electricity. We'll use this energy to drive a 5.5 W motor. That motor will turn a generator, which thanks to the mysterious power of magnets will generate 17.875 W! Amazing!
This still isn't enough to move your car very fast - but wait! We're not done! If we use our 17.875 W to drive a 17.5 W motor, it can drive a generator which produces 58.09 W!!! That's a lot of power! It's almost 1/10th of a horsepower! Next, we'll use that electricity to power a fancy 55 W electric motor, which (because the magnets have eternal power forever) can turn a generator producing 178.75 watts! Clean! Cheap! Quiet! With this power, we can operate an electric motor which in turn drives a generator generating an awesome 580 Watts of power! Using this electricity to drive another motor / generator pair, we can generate 1.888 kW of clean, wholesome electric power! It's amazing!
Now, let's say we've got a 1.8 kW motor in the trunk. This motor drives another generator which produces 5,850 W of power - that's 7.842 HP in your trunk. We'll use the electricity to drive another motor, this time a 7.8 HP motor - notice we're allowing for (I^2)R losses - which in turn drives a generator. This generator puts out a whopping 18.85 KW of power - that's as much as 10 hair dryers! But, rather than dry all 10 of our passengers' hair at once (can't do *our* hair, we're driving!), we'll use that electricity to drive a 25 HP electric motor. This is a big motor, but not as big as it would be if it didn't use the amazing power of magnets! It can drive a generator that makes 61.26 kW of electricity, which let me tell you is quite a bit! This electricity will be used to drive an 82 HP electric motor - as much as a small electric car. But you don't want a SMALL electric car, nosiree Bob! We use that dinky-assed commuter-car motor to drive a honkin' big generator, which pours out a torrent of electrons - almost 200,000 watts worth! Yikes! That's enough electricity to drive a 265 HP motor! Wow!
But why would we want a pitiful little 265 HP motor in our car? We're carrying 10 passengers, remember? Let's keep going! If we use that 198 kW to drive a motor/generator pair using Minato's incredible magnetic technology, we can generate 644 kW of clean, efficient electricity! That's enough to drive an 863 HP electric motor, which thanks to its use of magnets, can be as small as a gallon paint can - and just as quiet!
Isn't this incredible? Using a single 9 volt battery - preferably an Energizer or Duracell - and 14 super-quiet, incredibly efficient electric motors along with 13 revolutionary electric generators, we're driving an 863 HP super monster screamin' machine with 10 passengers! We're passing Corvettes and Ferrarris like they're glued to the asphalt, and we don't need any gasoline to do it!
Tune in next week, as I show you how it takes only 20 motor/generator pairs - using Minato's incredible magnetic technology - to generate 1.21 Jigawatts - twice! You can send TWO DeLoreans "Back to the Future" at the same time, and STILL have enough electricity to run that bangin' DVD player in your sun visor!
Now, I realize that this all seems a bit hard to believe, but that's just because you don't understand the incredible power of magnets.
Well, that is certainly news to me. Perhaps you could direct me to some other source of information regarding this campaign? A description of the activities in which they engaged? Exactly what was Saddam campaigning for at the time?
Slashdot Mirror
We typically see a peak current of about 10 - 30 kA per stroke, with an average of 2 or 3 subsequent strokes per flash. That's the successful triggers, of course. We only get current at ALL about 50% of the time, and about 25% of the time we get actual return strokes.
We often strike a section of de-energized power line, with a (nominal) impedance of 400 ohms. That translates into peak voltage of 10 megavolts as a first approximation, and about 250 gigawatts. But, since the peak duration is no more than a couple of microseconds, that's about 500 kilowatt-seconds, and 138 watt-hours - less than a single kilowatt-hour.
Er - what do you do, to consider 25 kA "not much current"? Just wondering...
It's a nice thought, harnessing the power of lightning. And it's true that there's a really high power output. However, the duration is so short that the total energy, in terms of kilowatt-hours, is typically on the order of US$0.20 - US$0.30 per lightning flash.
When we in the University of Florida lightning research group trigger a lightning flash, we use a $500 rocket to get that US$0.30 worth of electricity. This alone makes the whole process very cost-ineffective. Add to this the fact that there is not a good way to store that much energy that quickly, and you quickly realize that it's simply not practical to try to store lightning energy.
I'll be glad to share more information, if anyone's interested.
Hmm... Well, you know, I have to tell you - you're not going to get better help by acting like a spoiled child. You haven't offered any specifics about the problems you're having, except for being able to download the complete ISO's. Then, you bitch and moan about how the community is unhelpful and hates you, killed your goldfish, whatever. It doesn't really sound to me like you WANTED any help, and at any rate it doesn't take much of a genius to figure out that Slashdot is not a tech support forum.
You catch more flies with honey, etc. If you happen to have a specific question, feel free to ask me personally - but include useful information like distro, version, CPU, RAM, etc.
If you just want to to stir up shit, leave me the fuck out of it.
damn - fubar'd a closing italic tag.
Oh, and just for additional clarification - the desktop video editing workstations of the world typically do not employ 250 GB drives - they typically employ large RAID arrays of ~37 GB or ~73 GB drives, striped for speed. If they need more storage than provided by 8 73 GB drives, they typically employ external storage solutions.
Go on - ask me how I know.
You didn't make any analogies, sir. You said that you would be transporting full-fidelity video with this device, and that it was inadequate. You were saying that the 20 GB was inadequate because video takes more space than that. You didn't ask what the audience might be, or suggest anything like your reply indicates.
If you wish to accuse me of misunderstanding your post (or of being mindless), I can only point out that what you said in your original post is not what you claimed in your second post. Perhaps you MEANT what you said in the last one, but you didn't SAY it. No one here claims to read minds. If you really want people to understand your posts, try writing clear, concise sentences which communicate what you mean. There's a preview button you can use to re-read after composition. You might try re-reading that first one now, just to see if you said what you thought you said.
Clearly, this device is not targeted at you. I think it's pretty obvious that anything with a 3.8" screen is making some serious compromises in the area of total visual experience.
Yes, you are supposed to accept that 2 hours of high-fidelity recordings will crap out this device. Why?
This is not a video editing workstation. This is a video-portability solution. Your complaints are akin to complaining that a minivan doesn't perform like a Katana. Now, of course, you can demand that the automotive industry sell you a 7-seat family transporter which does 0-60 in under 4 seconds - but you won't get one.
If you really want to get 2 hours of video storage in a portable package you can fit in a pocket, has good fidelity, and a built-in screen - go buy a DV camcorder.
if you are serious enough to get something similar to this archos, you'd likely use 2x250 gb drives
Where the hell are you going to find a pocket-ish-sized device which can hold 2x250GB drives? If you're really serious about that kind of video, you WOULDN'T get one of these anyway!
I have to ask - are you trolling, or just stupid?
Except in New Jersey, where anyone can issue a traffic citation to the violator. Maybe that's why your mother is happy?
:-)
Having ridden in the car with her since the move, I can tell you that is NOT the reason.
Ah, but if the other posted sign says, clearly, in the driver's native language, "Slower Traffic Keep Right" - then I think it's pretty easy to argue that the guy going 69 SHOULD get over. It's possible to obey both the speed limit sign and the keep right sign, but not by camping in the left.
Moreover, there's nothing in the law that says that drivers should endeavor to enforce other drivers' compliance with the law. Two wrongs don't make a right. And safety is a greater issue than obeying the speed limit. Frankly, the guy doing 69 should have gotten back into the right (or middle) lane as soon as convenient anyway.
Frankly, the part about driving at or below the speed limit and the part about not camping in the left lane are orthogonal, and your suggestion that the camper has the law on his/her side is invalid. Speed laws say nothing about lanes.
My mother used to use that argument. Then she moved to New Jersey. Haven't heard that crap from her since.
Keep in mind here that I'm not advocating that anyone exceed the posted limits - I'm advocating thorough and safety-oriented education of drivers. One aspect of this education should include teaching drivers NOT to camp in or block the left-most lane, regardless of speed. It's a matter of situational awareness and of courtesy. Mostly, I'm talking about this because great-grandparent poster implied that people who WERE exceeding the speed limit should pass on the right. This is bad.
Fast lane is really a misnomer. Better term would be "passing lane." See, here's the deal: You pass on the left. Some shmuck sits at the exact limit, or 5 mph under, in the left-most lane - he's the asshole. Period. You should, as a matter of driving habit, always attempt to stay as far right as possible, and move left only as far as necessary to pass the person ahead of you and only for as long as needed.
People who camp in the left lane, forcing others to pass on the right (as you seemed to imply was OK) are MORE dangerous than people who drive 5 MPH over the limit.
Now, before you even start with the "waah! safety! speed=death! Waah!" shtick, let me point out that (as an example) the U.S. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was designed for safe 75 MPH travel in the '50s. IOW, for safe 75 MPH travel by 1950's-era American automobiles. The speed limits have been reduced for three main reasons: a perceived potential for improvement in overall fuel economy, economic windfalls (more income from speeding citations), and the general inability of the average American driver to operate a motor vehicle at 75 MPH. That last one is a doozy, huh? It's not because Americans have slower reflexes, or can't read anything on green signs, or drive cars unsafe at that speed, or are incapable of seeing cars around them - it's because the American system of educating drivers is insufficient and flawed. A classic example of the failure to properly educate drivers can be seen in people who think that if they're happy in the left lane, others should be content to pass them on the right.
Sound familiar?
Passing on the right isn't an inconvenience - it's a dangerous practice. People who camp in the left lane and refuse to yield (or worse, don't notice the line of angry drivers behind them) are a menace.
Yeah.
*OLED. The 'O' is for "Organic". The LED screen you're babbling about isn't OLED, it's just LED. The difference is kinda crucial.
Perhaps the reason you didn't get a scholarship is the fact that you tend to spout off about things you don't understand?
Hey, with a Beowulf cluster of these, I can run Longhorn!
OK, I'm done. Sorry. Mod away!
Dude - are you serious? I mean... seriously? You think because it was copyrighted in 1980 that it must have been pressed in 1980?
If you're trolling, props to you. That's devilishly clever.
Whatever. Try reading your own post again. Parts of what you said were accurate. I've pointed out the errors, and if you don't want to understand better that's your problem. I suppose I should stop wasting my time, huh?
"Doubling the voltage will cause a relative quadrupling of power stored in the junction"
No, you certainly didn't make it clear that you said just the opposite. Power isn't stored in a capacitor. Nor is power stored in a junction. Nor is power dissipated in a (perfect) capacitor. Power is, however, dissipated in a junction.
Frankly, what you said didn't make much sense at all. Moreover, you titled your comment "Not Ohm's law" when in fact it exactly IS Ohm's law which is involved. "Q=CV^2". True. Notice, however, that there is no mention of power in that equation.
I still don't understand what you meant. However, with my [buffs fingernails on shirt] masters in EE, I do understand how power dissipation in VLSI works. I'm very sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
No. Ohm's law is in play. Charging a capacitor takes in energy, yes, but that energy is stored as charge, not radiated as heat. The heat comes from I^2*R loss. The I part comes when the capacitor must be charged.
So, it's really pretty simple. Lower voltages mean that the capacitors don't take in as much charge, and therefore don't require as much current to charge up. Less current == less I^2*R loss == less power consumed.
You can get similar improvements by reducing the size of the capacitances, which can be done by reducing the size of the FET gates... which means a smaller feature size.
You are correct that the transistors look mostly like capacitors, but you are incorrect in stating that power is stored in the junction and that creates heat. Power is dissipated in the interconnects, sources and drains, and in the vias between layers. This is also one big reason why we went to copper - lower resistance interconnects == less power lost to resistance.
Oh, shit, are you kidding me? If (IF!) they really found Noah's Ark, and it really had coprolites from a thousand varieties of animal... how many of those animals are now extinct? Those coprolites would be invaluable!
Hey, when I went there it was the entry for 'moron'. Why was that?
Hell, I just did! I lay down on the floor, kicked and screamed, held my breath, and tried to bite my mommy (that last part didn't work, she lives a thousand miles away). I screamed, "I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!" at the top of my lungs - and nobody on Slashdot noticed. Or cared.
Good call, sir.
Thank you. I had never heard that one. Holy fucking shit, that's funny.
Thank you. Voice of reason. Your suggestions are perfect.
[ blushes, twists toe in the dirt] Aw, shucks!
It can really monopole-ize a conversation.
No, no, no. See, you just don't understand. He's using magnets. They have powers that you just don't understand.
What'll happen is this. You'll have a 9-volt battery that you take with you when you leave for work in the morning. You use this battery to run a little half-watt motor (540 mW, according to the article). Now, clearly this isn't enough to move your car - but wait! This motor drives a generator, which makes 1.755W of output! (from the article). This still isn't enough, but we might be able to work something out...
The 1.755 W drives a 1.7 W motor. This motor, in turn, drives a generator. This generator can generate 5.525 W of electricity. We'll use this energy to drive a 5.5 W motor. That motor will turn a generator, which thanks to the mysterious power of magnets will generate 17.875 W! Amazing!
This still isn't enough to move your car very fast - but wait! We're not done! If we use our 17.875 W to drive a 17.5 W motor, it can drive a generator which produces 58.09 W!!! That's a lot of power! It's almost 1/10th of a horsepower! Next, we'll use that electricity to power a fancy 55 W electric motor, which (because the magnets have eternal power forever) can turn a generator producing 178.75 watts! Clean! Cheap! Quiet! With this power, we can operate an electric motor which in turn drives a generator generating an awesome 580 Watts of power! Using this electricity to drive another motor / generator pair, we can generate 1.888 kW of clean, wholesome electric power! It's amazing!
Now, let's say we've got a 1.8 kW motor in the trunk. This motor drives another generator which produces 5,850 W of power - that's 7.842 HP in your trunk. We'll use the electricity to drive another motor, this time a 7.8 HP motor - notice we're allowing for (I^2)R losses - which in turn drives a generator. This generator puts out a whopping 18.85 KW of power - that's as much as 10 hair dryers! But, rather than dry all 10 of our passengers' hair at once (can't do *our* hair, we're driving!), we'll use that electricity to drive a 25 HP electric motor. This is a big motor, but not as big as it would be if it didn't use the amazing power of magnets! It can drive a generator that makes 61.26 kW of electricity, which let me tell you is quite a bit! This electricity will be used to drive an 82 HP electric motor - as much as a small electric car. But you don't want a SMALL electric car, nosiree Bob! We use that dinky-assed commuter-car motor to drive a honkin' big generator, which pours out a torrent of electrons - almost 200,000 watts worth! Yikes! That's enough electricity to drive a 265 HP motor! Wow!
But why would we want a pitiful little 265 HP motor in our car? We're carrying 10 passengers, remember? Let's keep going! If we use that 198 kW to drive a motor/generator pair using Minato's incredible magnetic technology, we can generate 644 kW of clean, efficient electricity! That's enough to drive an 863 HP electric motor, which thanks to its use of magnets, can be as small as a gallon paint can - and just as quiet!
Isn't this incredible? Using a single 9 volt battery - preferably an Energizer or Duracell - and 14 super-quiet, incredibly efficient electric motors along with 13 revolutionary electric generators, we're driving an 863 HP super monster screamin' machine with 10 passengers! We're passing Corvettes and Ferrarris like they're glued to the asphalt, and we don't need any gasoline to do it!
Tune in next week, as I show you how it takes only 20 motor/generator pairs - using Minato's incredible magnetic technology - to generate 1.21 Jigawatts - twice! You can send TWO DeLoreans "Back to the Future" at the same time, and STILL have enough electricity to run that bangin' DVD player in your sun visor!
Now, I realize that this all seems a bit hard to believe, but that's just because you don't understand the incredible power of magnets.
Well, that is certainly news to me. Perhaps you could direct me to some other source of information regarding this campaign? A description of the activities in which they engaged? Exactly what was Saddam campaigning for at the time?
Thanks. I really appreciate the information.