I'm pretty sure most hybrids use NiMH batteries and not lead acid.
Also, I hear a lot of people talk about how some old car use to get such great mileage, and why can't modern cars do better. Someone even tried to compare a Model T's gas mileage to a modern car for me once as an explanation for some conspiracy theory. What these people don't realize is that safety standards have evolved and require several extra, heavier, and powered components that weren't on older cars.
I'm not defending low mileage cars, just pointing out that you have to keep things in perspective...
Thank you for pointing this out! With so many frivolous patents these days, it is very typical for companies to license "technology" from other companies to avoid paying court fees and lawsuits later. This is especially true for low volume items (like hybrids) where the net royalties will remain low.
The fact that they "licensed technology" from Toyota means nothing. Now if they were buying the hyrbid drive systems from Toyota that would be a different story...but they aren't.
This is not really that new. There is an apple orchard near my grandparents farm that has a sound cannon to prevent hail damage to the apples. I've seen it operate a couple of times. You can actually watch the sound waves ripple through the rain/hail in the sky. We use to always speculate whether or not it really works...apparently he thinks it does
The only real difference here is the application and the radar (the farmer would manually turn it on)
I once read an article that claimed that if you calculate the amount of trace uranium in the coal we burn each year, it adds up to far more than all our nuclear waste combined...and of course it ends up in the air we breathe. Not sure if it's really true, but an interesting thought.
I guess it comes down to which is better: A 100% chance your health is being harmed slowly, or small chance your health could be harmed drastically.
To put the other reponses in context, I would make the following analogy. Recall that Microsoft made a large purchase from SCO immediately after SCO started making its claims regarding Linux. Several people on/. immediately claimed it was a plot by MSFT to indirectly fund SCO's attack on Linux. Of course, like others said,/. does not claim to be an unbiased news organization. However, in all the articles I've read on the ordeal from other large news organisations claiming to be unbiased, I never heard (correct me if I'm wrong) anyone directly claim it was factual that Microsoft was just funding SCO's attack. Facts were shown that supported it, and it was mentioned that others CLAIMED it could be the case, but nowhere was it stated as a fact. Here, the BBC is not being so prudent. They have essentially called an editorial news...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure most hybrids use NiMH batteries and not lead acid.
Also, I hear a lot of people talk about how some old car use to get such great mileage, and why can't modern cars do better. Someone even tried to compare a Model T's gas mileage to a modern car for me once as an explanation for some conspiracy theory. What these people don't realize is that safety standards have evolved and require several extra, heavier, and powered components that weren't on older cars.
I'm not defending low mileage cars, just pointing out that you have to keep things in perspective...
Thank you for pointing this out! With so many frivolous patents these days, it is very typical for companies to license "technology" from other companies to avoid paying court fees and lawsuits later. This is especially true for low volume items (like hybrids) where the net royalties will remain low.
The fact that they "licensed technology" from Toyota means nothing. Now if they were buying the hyrbid drive systems from Toyota that would be a different story...but they aren't.
This is not really that new. There is an apple orchard near my grandparents farm that has a sound cannon to prevent hail damage to the apples. I've seen it operate a couple of times. You can actually watch the sound waves ripple through the rain/hail in the sky. We use to always speculate whether or not it really works...apparently he thinks it does
The only real difference here is the application and the radar (the farmer would manually turn it on)
I once read an article that claimed that if you calculate the amount of trace uranium in the coal we burn each year, it adds up to far more than all our nuclear waste combined...and of course it ends up in the air we breathe. Not sure if it's really true, but an interesting thought.
I guess it comes down to which is better: A 100% chance your health is being harmed slowly, or small chance your health could be harmed drastically.
Dave
To put the other reponses in context, I would make the following analogy. Recall that Microsoft made a large purchase from SCO immediately after SCO started making its claims regarding Linux. Several people on /. immediately claimed it was a plot by MSFT to indirectly fund SCO's attack on Linux. Of course, like others said, /. does not claim to be an unbiased news organization. However, in all the articles I've read on the ordeal from other large news organisations claiming to be unbiased, I never heard (correct me if I'm wrong) anyone directly claim it was factual that Microsoft was just funding SCO's attack. Facts were shown that supported it, and it was mentioned that others CLAIMED it could be the case, but nowhere was it stated as a fact. Here, the BBC is not being so prudent. They have essentially called an editorial news...