Say you have a 900MHz cell phone. Putting a 5 foot antenna on it would hurt performance considerably, not gain. Using a too big antenna is just as bad as a too small antenna. Although, most small lower frequency antennas, like for a walkie talkie are electrically short since a full size antenna would be too large to be practical. so, yes...it would help the efficiency if using a poor very efficiency antenna.
Still, their efficiency would be limited since you would start getting corona discharges after adding way too much power. although, I suppose there's ways around that too.:)
Well, from reading the article, the antenna is more efficient than an electrically small antenna. Like said in the article, the antenna is 80 to 100% as efficient as the full size counterpart. from sciencetblog.com "Normally smaller antennas are only 8 to 15 percent efficient. Vincent's antennas achieved 80 to 100 percent efficiency as compared to the larger antennas."
So, it wouldn't save on either...but it will make the antenna smaller.
hahah. well, since the laptop was designed to cool itself on a flat surface by a vent on the bottom (with fan) and side, I'm sure It'll do fine. And, it's a good insulator, which is good for my legs. What would be the point of puttinga huge piece of copper under it? My legs would still burn.:p
It's a PIII 1GHz. On battery save mode (which I almost always use), the fan doesn't even turn on with 100% cpu usage. So, it can't be getting THAT hot. I suppose it'd be best to put a fan on the side of the laptop, to keep heat flow under it.
I say it'd be cool to get a little fountain pump like those found in Edmund Scientific magazine, then have a thin heatsink on the backside of the LCD (insulated from the heatsink of course). Wouldn't add much weight, and would be better than a lot of cooling methods I've seen on laptops.
I don't know about him...but I sure wouldn't wanna take 625kilobyte pictures for the rest of my life. Seems like they'd have to be pretty low res to me. Hell, my jpeg compressed pictures from my 5mp camera are over 20 megabits (little over 2.5megabytes each).
That's one thing I realy can't stand about console games...the insanely low resolution. If I wanted to play my games at 512x384, I'd go back to my voodoo3 and P2 400MHz.;) I always hear people say "well, (console here) runs better than the pc version". of course it does. look at the models, look at the environment, and look at the resolution.
I think the consoles have a HUGE advantage with their multiple controllers, they make gamming a social event. You can invite people over without being one of those nerds that carries their computer around to play games. Although, I'm sure there are console people out there who sit and play games by themselves all day.
But, we are lazy...so...in the end, the easiest will be the most popular.
around here, diesel fuel costs about 10 cents MORE than gasoline. Growing up, I always remember it being abotu 10 cents cheaper. Although, it could have to do with supply and demand or something, since not many people have diesel engines in the states.
"I am so underutilizing my engine that my vehicle must lug the engine injecting a LOT more fuel just to keep it going and compensate for what I am doing."
since you air/fuel ration is constant, you can't fit more fuel than air in. so, it should stay constant for any rpm, assuming the same amount of air (I believe resonants have to do with peak torque, so, maybe more air comes in?).
I don't see how what your saying is accurate, since the EPA fuel efficiency ratings are done like scenario 2...and everyone knows you get worste gas mileage than they say.
"Oh one other neat thing those new 300+ HP hemi's do while cruising on the interstate. They shut down some of the cylinders in the engine so they use only 4 cyldiners improving fuel economy by 20%. (they are still big cyldiners after all)."
so, overpowering leads to more fuel consumption??? More cylinders -> less efficiency?
"oh and the reason most SUV's get bad mileage is because the engines are typically underpowered."
is this true? Wouldn't moving a mass to some speed take the same force over time? Wouldn't this equate to the same amount of fuel, since power is related to the amount of fuel you can burn? Do bigger engines mean more efficiency (since that's the only way you could use less fuel)? Do engines get inneficient at higher rpm's?
I agree. Nothing is better than too much, since you can always, very easily, add what you want. I'm perfectly content with the bare-bones style. I just spend a couple minutes at the plugins page after first installing. It's not like they're hard to install. I also keep the shockwave, flash, and ony other installers in my archive for later use (omg, a couple megs!)...so, no redownloading.
I do think the preferences screen should include more options by default though. Maybe have an advanced tab or something like mozilla did.
There is a big difference between getting hit with a true stun gun and this thing. A true stun gun generates voltages up to 20,000v!!! This one, 330v AT MOST (as in, that's what the cap is rated for). The first will possible knock you out, and at least get you to the ground, the second will just burn two holes into your skin while hurting and giving you a shock. This "homemade stun gun" is NOTHING like a real stun gun and shouldn't replace one, as it's not NEALY effective.
I used to take the caps out of disposable cameras, then make two hemispheres of tinfoil with equal sizes. I'd put one cap lead into each hemisphere, then insulate them, making a ball. Then, charge the cap, and play catch with someone!:) I used to get sooo many people that way...and everyone laughed, without any burns to their skin, which shows how innefective this "stun gun" is.
"People are pretty enthused right now - around March 15th we hit our alpha date"
that's kinda funny...since they blamed it on the "hacker" that leaked the source code. I guess he was telling the truth when he said that's all they had.
I've been hearing this "put golf ball like dents to make more aerodynamic" for years upon years. I remember it back on beyond 2000 in the 90's. It amazes me everytime it makes it on the news...and not from a technological standpoint.
Wonder what's kept previouse people from using this idea. Maybe it's effects are neglible with all the other losses of an airplane?
I leave plenty of room in front of me and try to drive at a constant speed that allows me to drive without braking.
You're helping everyone by smoothing the traffic waves! When in stop and go traffic, the people me always seem to realise what I'm doing after a while. Sure makes the drive nicer, especially since I have a manual and stop/go can get irritating;)
It amazes me when people think they can go faster than the car in front of them by getting real close. You can't go faster than the car in front of you people!
sheesh...didn't you read the article! These bacteria can cause infections! It's not like our bodies have a defense system against infections, or a way to get rid of them.
Much less pourus than vinyl, and, since you have to wipe it down with a squeegee to keep the glass visibly clean, it probably stays much clearer than the vinyl.
Slashdot Mirror
but they have a titatium case...wouldn't the case act as a Farraday cage? :p
so, the rebels must arm the crowds with fans to blow away the ionised air!
If they're using a laser to ionise the air, wouldn't it be strong enough to, say, blind you or burn a hole in your skin?
Say you have a 900MHz cell phone. Putting a 5 foot antenna on it would hurt performance considerably, not gain. Using a too big antenna is just as bad as a too small antenna. Although, most small lower frequency antennas, like for a walkie talkie are electrically short since a full size antenna would be too large to be practical. so, yes...it would help the efficiency if using a poor very efficiency antenna.
Still, their efficiency would be limited since you would start getting corona discharges after adding way too much power. although, I suppose there's ways around that too. :)
Small antenna that is more efficient that antennas of similar size, not more efficient than the full size counterpart.
Overal efficiency will be the same or less (since his antenna is 80 to 100% as efficient as full size).
ALL antennas are of a limited-power design.
Well, from reading the article, the antenna is more efficient than an electrically small antenna. Like said in the article, the antenna is 80 to 100% as efficient as the full size counterpart.
from sciencetblog.com
"Normally smaller antennas are only 8 to 15 percent efficient. Vincent's antennas achieved 80 to 100 percent efficiency as compared to the larger antennas."
So, it wouldn't save on either...but it will make the antenna smaller.
hahah. well, since the laptop was designed to cool itself on a flat surface by a vent on the bottom (with fan) and side, I'm sure It'll do fine. And, it's a good insulator, which is good for my legs. What would be the point of puttinga huge piece of copper under it? My legs would still burn. :p
It's a PIII 1GHz. On battery save mode (which I almost always use), the fan doesn't even turn on with 100% cpu usage. So, it can't be getting THAT hot. I suppose it'd be best to put a fan on the side of the laptop, to keep heat flow under it.
I say it'd be cool to get a little fountain pump like those found in Edmund Scientific magazine, then have a thin heatsink on the backside of the LCD (insulated from the heatsink of course). Wouldn't add much weight, and would be better than a lot of cooling methods I've seen on laptops.
The first day I bought my laptop, I learned to put a large, thin, flat book between me and the machine.
I don't know about him...but I sure wouldn't wanna take 625kilobyte pictures for the rest of my life. Seems like they'd have to be pretty low res to me. Hell, my jpeg compressed pictures from my 5mp camera are over 20 megabits (little over 2.5megabytes each).
That's one thing I realy can't stand about console games...the insanely low resolution. If I wanted to play my games at 512x384, I'd go back to my voodoo3 and P2 400MHz. ;) I always hear people say "well, (console here) runs better than the pc version". of course it does. look at the models, look at the environment, and look at the resolution.
I think the consoles have a HUGE advantage with their multiple controllers, they make gamming a social event. You can invite people over without being one of those nerds that carries their computer around to play games. Although, I'm sure there are console people out there who sit and play games by themselves all day.
But, we are lazy...so...in the end, the easiest will be the most popular.
my pda computes, and it is mine...so...seems to fit the PC deffinition to me!
around here, diesel fuel costs about 10 cents MORE than gasoline. Growing up, I always remember it being abotu 10 cents cheaper. Although, it could have to do with supply and demand or something, since not many people have diesel engines in the states.
are all engines inneficient at lower rpms!? If that's the case, then I guess I'll spin up the engine everytime I take off! hooray!
that's another nice thing about small engines, it seems that you can floor it more without as much hit to gas mileage.
but, more powerfull engine means more fuel consumption. ideally, I would think it would be proportional. must just be losses from friction and other?
"I am so underutilizing my engine that my vehicle must lug the engine injecting a LOT more fuel just to keep it going and compensate for what I am doing."
since you air/fuel ration is constant, you can't fit more fuel than air in. so, it should stay constant for any rpm, assuming the same amount of air (I believe resonants have to do with peak torque, so, maybe more air comes in?).
I don't see how what your saying is accurate, since the EPA fuel efficiency ratings are done like scenario 2...and everyone knows you get worste gas mileage than they say.
"Oh one other neat thing those new 300+ HP hemi's do while cruising on the interstate. They shut down some of the cylinders in the engine so they use only 4 cyldiners improving fuel economy by 20%. (they are still big cyldiners after all)."
so, overpowering leads to more fuel consumption??? More cylinders -> less efficiency?
"oh and the reason most SUV's get bad mileage is because the engines are typically underpowered."
is this true? Wouldn't moving a mass to some speed take the same force over time? Wouldn't this equate to the same amount of fuel, since power is related to the amount of fuel you can burn? Do bigger engines mean more efficiency (since that's the only way you could use less fuel)? Do engines get inneficient at higher rpm's?
I agree. Nothing is better than too much, since you can always, very easily, add what you want. I'm perfectly content with the bare-bones style. I just spend a couple minutes at the plugins page after first installing. It's not like they're hard to install. I also keep the shockwave, flash, and ony other installers in my archive for later use (omg, a couple megs!)...so, no redownloading.
I do think the preferences screen should include more options by default though. Maybe have an advanced tab or something like mozilla did.
There is a big difference between getting hit with a true stun gun and this thing. A true stun gun generates voltages up to 20,000v!!! This one, 330v AT MOST (as in, that's what the cap is rated for). The first will possible knock you out, and at least get you to the ground, the second will just burn two holes into your skin while hurting and giving you a shock. This "homemade stun gun" is NOTHING like a real stun gun and shouldn't replace one, as it's not NEALY effective.
:) I used to get sooo many people that way...and everyone laughed, without any burns to their skin, which shows how innefective this "stun gun" is.
I used to take the caps out of disposable cameras, then make two hemispheres of tinfoil with equal sizes. I'd put one cap lead into each hemisphere, then insulate them, making a ball. Then, charge the cap, and play catch with someone!
"People are pretty enthused right now - around March 15th we hit our alpha date"
:|
that's kinda funny...since they blamed it on the "hacker" that leaked the source code. I guess he was telling the truth when he said that's all they had.
that big smoking hole in their foot must hurt
I've been hearing this "put golf ball like dents to make more aerodynamic" for years upon years. I remember it back on beyond 2000 in the 90's. It amazes me everytime it makes it on the news...and not from a technological standpoint.
Wonder what's kept previouse people from using this idea. Maybe it's effects are neglible with all the other losses of an airplane?
I leave plenty of room in front of me and try to drive at a constant speed that allows me to drive without braking.
;)
You're helping everyone by smoothing the traffic waves! When in stop and go traffic, the people me always seem to realise what I'm doing after a while. Sure makes the drive nicer, especially since I have a manual and stop/go can get irritating
It amazes me when people think they can go faster than the car in front of them by getting real close. You can't go faster than the car in front of you people!
just curriouse...what type of situation would mean "no other choice"? Such as software support and whatnot?
sheesh...didn't you read the article! These bacteria can cause infections! It's not like our bodies have a defense system against infections, or a way to get rid of them.
Just get a glass sliding glass shower/tub door.
Much less pourus than vinyl, and, since you have to wipe it down with a squeegee to keep the glass visibly clean, it probably stays much clearer than the vinyl.