You neglected to mention the shock absorber dampener.
The "shock absorber" in a car is a large spring. Usually coils in the front and leaf springs in the rear, but more commonly coil springs all around.
It is these springs that absorb the shock that the tires did not. Attached to, or in-line with, these springs are dampeners that reduce the time required for the springs to dissipate the absorbed energy and stop "bouncing". These components are what most people call "shock absorbers" and are metal tubes filled with fluids of varying densities that are forced through internal valves, using up the energy from the bump.
If you ride in a car with springs and no dampeners the ride will not be "bumpy" but you will be bouncing all the time you are in the car. If you ride in a car with dampeners and no springs, you won't get far before the car self-destructs or your bones get jarred to splinters.
The springs in a car rarely need replacing, the dampeners however do have a quite finite life span.
"...isn't this energy that would just be wasted, anyway?"
No, this is energy that would have accelerated the car or kept it at speed.
"This thing doesn't exactly slow down your car."
If does. The laws of physics state that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If this thing is in any way an obstacle to my car, then my car must expend more energy to overcome the obstacle.
"That reduces the cost of maintaining roads in the long run by cutting out virtually all energy expenses in areas that are frequently traveled..."
That makes no sense. This thing does not eliminate the need to maintain the traffic lights or the pavement or the roadway markings or signs. In fact, this device adds complexity and maintenance costs to the roadway. Surely the ramp depends on moving parts to reset the ramp. Certainly the energy generation system needs regular maintenance and parts replacement.
The factor that we don't know anything about is the duration for which these things can generate the 10Kw you tout. Does it achieve that rate of generation continuously for for 3 nanoseconds? The former is improbable the latter is useless. Is this thing essentially a large spark generator like on a lighter?
I'm no DB nut job. I've argued that, logically, even petrol diesel is a zero net carbon fuel. The arguments occur because people want to arbitrarily define the timeframe and locations of measurement of the "net zero" status. On human timelines, certainly, petrol is not net zero; but on geologic times it certainly is. All of that carbon was in the atmosphere at some point.
And, yes, the $.50 assumes using waste oil that is free. The economies of BD will certainly change as the process becomes more available to general people and/or larger refineries start making and distributing the stuff. Still, it should always be lower cost to run and be better for the engines (assuming the engine is assembled to tolerate the solvent nature of the fuel).
You can not burn oxygen. Burning is a process of rapid oxidation. Something needs to react with oxygen for there to be combustion. That something is fuel. You also need heat sufficient to cause the oxidation process to begin and become self-sustaining.
In your log situation there is an effectively unlimited supply of oxygen for combustion. In the combustion cylinder of an engine there is a fixed amount of oxygen. If you burn hydrogen in there it will consume some of the oxygen and leave less for the diesel to burn with. Making the cylinder environment hotter will do nothing but get your hotter soot in this situation. Possibly, the soot would spontaneously combust as it exits the exhaust pipe and locates available oxygen (assuming gas temperatures are still above the ignition point).
"...higher levels of compression will cause enough heat to initiate combustion. If this happens before the piston reaches top dead center it is known as pre-ignition..."
Diesels don't run like gasoline engines. There is no pre-ignition possible since the fuel is not introduced with the air.
In any case, I've now read the articles at the manufacturer's web site and the hydrogen itself is not increasing the fuel efficiency. The hydrogen is cleaning the carbon deposits from the cylinders and increased fuel efficiency occurs in "0 to 0 months"
If you go read the manufacturer's web site they don't claim that the introduction of hydrogen itself will increase the fuel efficiency, but that the hydrogen will clean out the carbon deposits in the engine. The process will take "from 0 to 9 months" depending on the type of vehicle, amount of build-up, the weather, the speeds driven, the idling time, start/stop driving, etc. Once the engine is cleaned you can see up to "40% increase in fuel efficiency".
We're talking about some insanely small amounts of hydrogen here.
The standard kit holds about 4 liters of water and will run for about 12,000KM. If 2/3 of the water is converted to H and captured for use, that means there's 2,261 liters of hydrogen extracted.
I randomly took a Volvo VE D12 395 engine for specs: 12.13L displacement and 1500RPM suggested cruise RPM, I'll guess 95Km/h is "cruise".
12,000KM / 95KM/H = 124.3 hours Hydrogen is produced at 18 liters per hour 124.3 hours * 1500RPM = 11,187,000 revolutions 11,187,000 revolutions * 12.13L = 135,698,310 Liters of displaced air/fuel mixture
If my conversions and guesses are close, that means there's.001% hydrogen to air ratio in the cylinders during combustion.
I say scrap the entire thing. Don't hack in to your electrical system and don't carry around the extra weight of the machine and water. If you want to reduce operating costs, increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollution then BURN BIO-DIESEL!! Bio-Diesel has a net zero effect on atmospheric carbon, is low cost (about $.50us/gal to produce yourself), and is a tremendously powerful solvent that cleans engines of deposits like nobody's business.
Or... the company started paying a few long haul truckers to peddle this thing. "Hey, buddy. I'll pay you $500 for each time you get interviewed and mention how great out product is".
Black smoke from a diesel is caused by incomplete combustion in the cylinder. Incomplete combustion occurs because too much fuel is present per mass of air in the cylinder, the oxygen runs out before the fuel does. If the incomplete combustion were a heat issue, it would not happen under the highest loads which create the highest engine temperatures.
Diesel oil is a fuel and hydrogen is a fuel. If you get incomplete combustion due to lack of oxygen then adding more fuel results in less combustion. Further, the hydrogen is more volatile than diesel oil and would combust first, leaving less oxygen for the diesel to burn with.
At least in my view this entire system is bunk and the person interviewed must have some financial interest in the promotion of this product.
You can also change the battery in the iPod without voiding the warranty. IF the battery should fail under warranty it is literally a 3 day turnaround to have Apple replace the battery for free. Granted, that's several days longer than it takes to change the batts in your Zen, but then I only have to worry about my battery every few years.
The iPod batteries ARE replaceable! The fact that most people lack the intelligence or skills to replace the battery does not change that fact. By your logic the battery in your electronic wristwatch isn't replaceable either because you need a tool to open it properly.
Except that the Nano can't play video. The iPod video units are just starting to trickle in to the stores so most people purchasing videos can't yet have an iPod that will play video.
If Apple has actually gotten even 50,000 iPods out in to customer hands already, I'd be surprised.
Soft does not necessarily equate to non-abrasive. Felt is used as for polishing metals and is indeed abrasive. The owner's manual specifically states to use a non-abrasive cloth to clean an iPod.
FWIW: paper towels are also abrasive and should not be used to clean plastics like LCD screens.
These military writers aren't too bright. Along with all the other "it's not aluminum" and "virtually scratch proof". here's my found flubs:
"The new armor combines the transparent ALONtm piece as a strike plate, a middle section of glass and a polymer backing. Each layer is visibly thinner than the traditional layers. " If the layers are transparent then how exactly are they visibly thinner?
"While the bullets pierced the glass samples, the armor withstood the impact with no penetration." Definitions:
pierce: go into or through something
penetrate: making a way into or through something
**boggle**
"Tests focusing on multiple hits from.50 caliber rounds and improvised explosive devices are in the works. " Um... stand up a piece of the stuff. Fire large rounds at the stuff perpendicular to its face. Test for penetration. This isn't rocket science. Just pick the largest machine gun anyone makes (one that puts the most energy down range per second) and use it.
Any the Army is LOWERING its intelligence standards?!?!
My issue is that the word "you" has absolutely no reason to exist in this riddle, mathematical term or not. Why am I choosing a number and does that mean that I get to choose it on the fly? If I'm choosing the number, that implies that the number is outside of the knowledge of the the prisoners and the king. If I choose that the prisoners will all be called 4 times and the king may flip the cup as many as 1000 times, then the puzzle has no solution.
Here again, you are demonstrating that you can't articulate your thoughts. What does "...at least a day longer than after the prisoners solve the puzzle..." mean?
In your original posting the language leaves much open to speculation because you spend several sentences clarifying one point and casually make another point. Ex: You dwell on the point that the cells are sound proof but make no mention of other senses such as sight. Is there a window from the cells to the central room? You dwell on the manner in which prisoners are called, but leave the "...or twenty times, or any number you choose," statement completely up in the air. What do you mean "you choose"?
I'd suggest you consider re-writing the mess so that it is not open to debate or question.
Lets make a simple assumption that FrontRow will be able to stream audio over the existing AirTunes system w/ an Airport Express base station. All you need is 1. Get the video out port of your iMac connected to your computer. This takes a $30 adapter to go from miniVGA to s-Videoa and $20 worth of cabling 2. An infrared remote control extender. You just need the built-in camera to see the remote's IR signals. Such devices are already available.
Bingo! You iMac sits in the office and you can watch all your videos on your home theater system.
I'm not arguing that one should be able to use the content for free in any circumstance one likes. In the case of Yahoo, the RIAA knowingly gave Yahoo the music videos at no cost for distribution in hopes of bolstering music sales. Now RIAA is saying they want to be paid for the content.
That demand is is fair in and of itself; Yahoo (any my dentist) should pay for use of the music content. I think that should be a negotiated, fixed fee representative of the actual value of the music. The charges should not be, as RIAA is arguing with Yahoo and Apple, a percentage of any income you make directly or indirectly while using their content even if the income is not derived from the sale of RIAA music. That sort of logic would then justify Apple demanding a "piece of the action" from iPod accessory manufacturers. This sort of behavior/demand is called racketeering or extortion. There are, at least in the US, laws against such practices.
I've read the article and I think it is you who have misinterpreted it.
Lets say you are music company and I own store. A person walks in to my store searching for "Madonna" merchandise that you provide me for free ( of you own free will ). Should you get a cut of my profit from the bubble gum they purchase while there? Are you paying my rent, payroll or utilities? Are you sending money my way when I'm running at a loss? No. If you want a cut of the Madonna content, then come up with a cost and distribution system for it. Trying to give away your content then extort money from things you had no hand in creating just makes no sense.
What next? Will the record companies tell dentists they need to pony up a portion of their patient fees because patients hear music in the waiting room?
Slashdot Mirror
You neglected to mention the shock absorber dampener.
The "shock absorber" in a car is a large spring. Usually coils in the front and leaf springs in the rear, but more commonly coil springs all around.
It is these springs that absorb the shock that the tires did not. Attached to, or in-line with, these springs are dampeners that reduce the time required for the springs to dissipate the absorbed energy and stop "bouncing". These components are what most people call "shock absorbers" and are metal tubes filled with fluids of varying densities that are forced through internal valves, using up the energy from the bump.
If you ride in a car with springs and no dampeners the ride will not be "bumpy" but you will be bouncing all the time you are in the car.
If you ride in a car with dampeners and no springs, you won't get far before the car self-destructs or your bones get jarred to splinters.
The springs in a car rarely need replacing, the dampeners however do have a quite finite life span.
"...isn't this energy that would just be wasted, anyway?"
No, this is energy that would have accelerated the car or kept it at speed.
"This thing doesn't exactly slow down your car."
If does. The laws of physics state that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If this thing is in any way an obstacle to my car, then my car must expend more energy to overcome the obstacle.
"That reduces the cost of maintaining roads in the long run by cutting out virtually all energy expenses in areas that are frequently traveled..."
That makes no sense. This thing does not eliminate the need to maintain the traffic lights or the pavement or the roadway markings or signs. In fact, this device adds complexity and maintenance costs to the roadway. Surely the ramp depends on moving parts to reset the ramp. Certainly the energy generation system needs regular maintenance and parts replacement.
The factor that we don't know anything about is the duration for which these things can generate the 10Kw you tout. Does it achieve that rate of generation continuously for for 3 nanoseconds? The former is improbable the latter is useless. Is this thing essentially a large spark generator like on a lighter?
I'm no DB nut job. I've argued that, logically, even petrol diesel is a zero net carbon fuel. The arguments occur because people want to arbitrarily define the timeframe and locations of measurement of the "net zero" status.
On human timelines, certainly, petrol is not net zero; but on geologic times it certainly is. All of that carbon was in the atmosphere at some point.
And, yes, the $.50 assumes using waste oil that is free. The economies of BD will certainly change as the process becomes more available to general people and/or larger refineries start making and distributing the stuff. Still, it should always be lower cost to run and be better for the engines (assuming the engine is assembled to tolerate the solvent nature of the fuel).
You can not burn oxygen.
Burning is a process of rapid oxidation. Something needs to react with oxygen for there to be combustion. That something is fuel. You also need heat sufficient to cause the oxidation process to begin and become self-sustaining.
Okay, so its .0022% hydrogen in the mix.
No, it's not.
In your log situation there is an effectively unlimited supply of oxygen for combustion.
In the combustion cylinder of an engine there is a fixed amount of oxygen. If you burn hydrogen in there it will consume some of the oxygen and leave less for the diesel to burn with. Making the cylinder environment hotter will do nothing but get your hotter soot in this situation. Possibly, the soot would spontaneously combust as it exits the exhaust pipe and locates available oxygen (assuming gas temperatures are still above the ignition point).
"...higher levels of compression will cause enough heat to initiate combustion. If this happens before the piston reaches top dead center it is known as pre-ignition..."
Diesels don't run like gasoline engines. There is no pre-ignition possible since the fuel is not introduced with the air.
In any case, I've now read the articles at the manufacturer's web site and the hydrogen itself is not increasing the fuel efficiency. The hydrogen is cleaning the carbon deposits from the cylinders and increased fuel efficiency occurs in "0 to 0 months"
If you go read the manufacturer's web site they don't claim that the introduction of hydrogen itself will increase the fuel efficiency, but that the hydrogen will clean out the carbon deposits in the engine.
.001% hydrogen to air ratio in the cylinders during combustion.
The process will take "from 0 to 9 months" depending on the type of vehicle, amount of build-up, the weather, the speeds driven, the idling time, start/stop driving, etc. Once the engine is cleaned you can see up to "40% increase in fuel efficiency".
We're talking about some insanely small amounts of hydrogen here.
The standard kit holds about 4 liters of water and will run for about 12,000KM. If 2/3 of the water is converted to H and captured for use, that means there's 2,261 liters of hydrogen extracted.
I randomly took a Volvo VE D12 395 engine for specs:
12.13L displacement and 1500RPM suggested cruise RPM, I'll guess 95Km/h is "cruise".
12,000KM / 95KM/H = 124.3 hours
Hydrogen is produced at 18 liters per hour
124.3 hours * 1500RPM = 11,187,000 revolutions
11,187,000 revolutions * 12.13L = 135,698,310 Liters of displaced air/fuel mixture
If my conversions and guesses are close, that means there's
I say scrap the entire thing. Don't hack in to your electrical system and don't carry around the extra weight of the machine and water. If you want to reduce operating costs, increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollution then BURN BIO-DIESEL!! Bio-Diesel has a net zero effect on atmospheric carbon, is low cost (about $.50us/gal to produce yourself), and is a tremendously powerful solvent that cleans engines of deposits like nobody's business.
Or... the company started paying a few long haul truckers to peddle this thing.
"Hey, buddy. I'll pay you $500 for each time you get interviewed and mention how great out product is".
The flaw I see in this reasoning is this:
Black smoke from a diesel is caused by incomplete combustion in the cylinder. Incomplete combustion occurs because too much fuel is present per mass of air in the cylinder, the oxygen runs out before the fuel does. If the incomplete combustion were a heat issue, it would not happen under the highest loads which create the highest engine temperatures.
Diesel oil is a fuel and hydrogen is a fuel. If you get incomplete combustion due to lack of oxygen then adding more fuel results in less combustion.
Further, the hydrogen is more volatile than diesel oil and would combust first, leaving less oxygen for the diesel to burn with.
At least in my view this entire system is bunk and the person interviewed must have some financial interest in the promotion of this product.
"Burning the hydrogen produces more energy than it takes to extract it."
By George, you've invented a perpetual motion machine! How could we have not seen this sooner?
Unless the people touting the product have a stake in the company that's making the system.
You can also change the battery in the iPod without voiding the warranty. IF the battery should fail under warranty it is literally a 3 day turnaround to have Apple replace the battery for free.
Granted, that's several days longer than it takes to change the batts in your Zen, but then I only have to worry about my battery every few years.
The iPod batteries ARE replaceable! The fact that most people lack the intelligence or skills to replace the battery does not change that fact.
By your logic the battery in your electronic wristwatch isn't replaceable either because you need a tool to open it properly.
Except that the Nano can't play video. The iPod video units are just starting to trickle in to the stores so most people purchasing videos can't yet have an iPod that will play video.
If Apple has actually gotten even 50,000 iPods out in to customer hands already, I'd be surprised.
Soft does not necessarily equate to non-abrasive. Felt is used as for polishing metals and is indeed abrasive. The owner's manual specifically states to use a non-abrasive cloth to clean an iPod.
FWIW: paper towels are also abrasive and should not be used to clean plastics like LCD screens.
These military writers aren't too bright. Along with all the other "it's not aluminum" and "virtually scratch proof". here's my found flubs:
.50 caliber rounds and improvised explosive devices are in the works. "
"The new armor combines the transparent ALONtm piece as a strike plate, a middle section of glass and a polymer backing. Each layer is visibly thinner than the traditional layers. "
If the layers are transparent then how exactly are they visibly thinner?
"While the bullets pierced the glass samples, the armor withstood the impact with no penetration."
Definitions:
pierce: go into or through something
penetrate: making a way into or through something
**boggle**
"Tests focusing on multiple hits from
Um... stand up a piece of the stuff. Fire large rounds at the stuff perpendicular to its face. Test for penetration. This isn't rocket science. Just pick the largest machine gun anyone makes (one that puts the most energy down range per second) and use it.
Any the Army is LOWERING its intelligence standards?!?!
My issue is that the word "you" has absolutely no reason to exist in this riddle, mathematical term or not. Why am I choosing a number and does that mean that I get to choose it on the fly? If I'm choosing the number, that implies that the number is outside of the knowledge of the the prisoners and the king. If I choose that the prisoners will all be called 4 times and the king may flip the cup as many as 1000 times, then the puzzle has no solution.
Here again, you are demonstrating that you can't articulate your thoughts. What does "...at least a day longer than after the prisoners solve the puzzle..." mean?
In your original posting the language leaves much open to speculation because you spend several sentences clarifying one point and casually make another point. Ex: You dwell on the point that the cells are sound proof but make no mention of other senses such as sight. Is there a window from the cells to the central room? You dwell on the manner in which prisoners are called, but leave the "...or twenty times, or any number you choose," statement completely up in the air. What do you mean "you choose"?
I'd suggest you consider re-writing the mess so that it is not open to debate or question.
Why? Apple's servers are supplying it at over 400KB/s!
Lets make a simple assumption that FrontRow will be able to stream audio over the existing AirTunes system w/ an Airport Express base station. All you need is
1. Get the video out port of your iMac connected to your computer. This takes a $30 adapter to go from miniVGA to s-Videoa and $20 worth of cabling
2. An infrared remote control extender. You just need the built-in camera to see the remote's IR signals. Such devices are already available.
Bingo! You iMac sits in the office and you can watch all your videos on your home theater system.
Isn't it ironic that you use a reference tool with a made-up word(wikipedia) for a name to denounce the use of a made-up word(viri)?
The "security issue" is that a security application you have no need to run is causing a security issue?
To my knowledge the Mac hasn't had a confirmed virus since about 1993 in the Early days of System 7.
I'm not arguing that one should be able to use the content for free in any circumstance one likes. In the case of Yahoo, the RIAA knowingly gave Yahoo the music videos at no cost for distribution in hopes of bolstering music sales. Now RIAA is saying they want to be paid for the content.
That demand is is fair in and of itself; Yahoo (any my dentist) should pay for use of the music content. I think that should be a negotiated, fixed fee representative of the actual value of the music. The charges should not be, as RIAA is arguing with Yahoo and Apple, a percentage of any income you make directly or indirectly while using their content even if the income is not derived from the sale of RIAA music.
That sort of logic would then justify Apple demanding a "piece of the action" from iPod accessory manufacturers. This sort of behavior/demand is called racketeering or extortion. There are, at least in the US, laws against such practices.
I've read the article and I think it is you who have misinterpreted it.
Lets say you are music company and I own store. A person walks in to my store searching for "Madonna" merchandise that you provide me for free ( of you own free will ). Should you get a cut of my profit from the bubble gum they purchase while there? Are you paying my rent, payroll or utilities? Are you sending money my way when I'm running at a loss? No. If you want a cut of the Madonna content, then come up with a cost and distribution system for it. Trying to give away your content then extort money from things you had no hand in creating just makes no sense.
What next? Will the record companies tell dentists they need to pony up a portion of their patient fees because patients hear music in the waiting room?