Read my words.. work, energy....get it? A truck sitting there is not using energy...get it? I did not say there were no gravitational forces, of course there are forces, but a static vertical system does not need to work to overcome gravitational force. There is no work being done by the truck to compensate for gravity, and therefore no energy required to perform that work.
Either you don't comprehend that simple rule of physics, or you are just trying to be a smartass by avoiding the terms we are discussing.
No, a delivery truck does not have to constantly overcome gravity. The system is vertically static. There is no ability for the load to move downward, therefore there is no force needed to keep it from moving downward. Think about how much more work it is to carry a load in your arms versus rolling it in a cart. Your arms can move up and down, therefore you must expend energy to hold up the load. In a cart, the load is held up by the vertically static system, no energy required.
the drivers have four demands: that Uber increase fares by 60% nationwide, that the company add a tipping option to the Uber app, that the ride cancellation fee be raised to $7 and that the minimum fare be increased, also to $7.
I wonder how surge pricing works during the strike?
The problem with Uber's insurance is that it only covers their driver. In an accident where the other driver is at fault, Uber's insurance won't cover the damage, or injuries to their driver or the passenger. If the other driver is uninsured, you're just hosed, because the Uber driver's own insurance won't cover them while they're driving for money. There have been lawsuits over this, and it's not pretty.
Interesting. I did not realize that was the case, and that is a big problem. That leads me to ask....what about disability if you are a driver and hit by uninsured?
Don't know about the total cost, but most of the energy savings claims are from using ultra efficient appliances, like a hybrid heat-pump washer dryer. I bet those are quite pricey.
I don't need to prove anything to you. I've given you enough information to at the least significantly doubt your assumption that drone flight requires much more energy than wheeled vehicular transportation. The fact that you come up with excuses to ignore the examples tells me more about you than anything you've stated about the technical topic at hand. I don't mind trying to help people that don't have a technical background understand the factors involved, but when that person becomes obstinate I am done.
Example, you discount human flight example because the craft must be near the weight of the load. But you will find that with drones and cargo, the drone will weight an amount similar to the load it can carry. So, you've dismissed that example based on a faulty assumption. Based on your past behavior, I know you will dismiss this statement as well, even though you can go find examples on our own, if you were willing, that back up my point. But you won't do that, you will just dismiss it.
With that said, I am done with this discussion. I much more enjoy discussions with people that are not intent on dismissing facts. Anybody with a bit of physics or engineering knowledge knows that flight transport is much more energy intensive than wheeled vehicle transport. The fact that you can't understand or just refuse to want to believe is something I can't change. Goodbye.
Pebble isn't using e-ink screens in any of their watches. They are using something they call "e-paper screen" which is a misleading marketing term for a type of ultra low power Transflective memory LCD display. The original Pebble used this (calling it "e-paper screen"): http://www.sharpmemorylcd.com/...
Thanks for correcting me. They fooled me. Now I hate them.
I showed the numbers that compare flight energy to vehicle energy, that is substantive and applicable. If you want to ignore it fine. There is a reason a guy can run 100 miles on a bike, but the human power helicopter flight record is 88 seconds. If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you.
5) Color e-Ink has been around for a looong time but it's still not in any of the mainstream e-book readers. Why? I don't care that it's not as good as LCD, it's not supposed to be. But color does improve the experience when reading books with technical diagrams or illustrations.
I think the resolution on Color E-ink is still not good enough for prime time, and due to that the color range is also very limited. I agree it would be nice. One of the new Pebble smartwatches has a color E-Ink screen, and if you look at the pictures , shapes have jagged edges. Not very impressive.
The dedicated ebook reader is for people who - you guessed it - read books.
Thats it. My wife is on her second kindle, and she was happy with the first one, I just couldn't think of another Christmas gift and figured she'd like the paperwhite.
The sales rate may be that the E-readers simply are very good products with a much longer use cycle. They don't get OS updates, or need new features. They do what they do, and do it well, and you can read books today perfectly fine on a first generation EReader.
Let me simplify this for you. As I've show in my comparison above, it takes over 25 times (and that is being generous) the energy delivered to the propeller shafts of a drone than delivered to the drive shaft of a rolling vehicle to transport an equivalent load for an equivalent time/distance. If you think you can make up for that elsewhere in the engine or motor part of the system, good luck.
Are you trying to argue that ICE is less efficient than electric, or that flying is less efficient than trucking? I am talking the latter and my point was made solidly. I don't give a flying crap what you think Bezos thinks, or if you want to go on ignoring the laws of physics. My point is obvious to any engineer. You can power drones with petrol or electric, trucks with petrol or electric, and my point still stands. You do know that you can have an electric truck, right?
Have you got any quantitative input into this discussion, or are you just going to keep saying "I think this, I think that, he thinks that,.......?".
The statement from the article is, "During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.", not that 90 percent of strikes did not kill the intended target.
For the most part, although the people hit were not the key leader target, they were part of the leader's combatant organization. The article and summary purposely avoid making this important point.
How much warming will occur and what we can do about it is far from settled, and those are what really matter. The 97% only applies to "there is some warming due to us", and so the 97% mantra is simply a tired and useless one that distracts from the hard questions.
I did that comparison to show the difference in energy required to maintain a cargo load airborne vs rolling it in a vehicle. The two items chosen for comparison have a similar load capacity, and therefore it serves perfectly for that comparison. I chose both being electric so that the real energy difference is not lost in confusion over motor/engine efficiency. So, what I have demonstrated is that, regardless of motor technology, it requires much more energy to transport a given load with a helo type vehicle than a rolling one. That difference is central to my point. It illustrates what I think you don't appreciate, and that is just how much energy is required to fly a load.
It does not matter what the engine/motor technology is. The energy required to fly the load helo-style is much greater than to transport via wheeled vehicle. The energy difference from efficiency of the motor/engine technology is miniscule by comparison. You are stuck on electric vs ICE for some reason.
As for comparing a drone to a 6,000 lb truck. What drone would you suggest we use to provide a useful comparison? One that can carry an equivalent amount of cargo? If so, you'll get a similar answer as the comparison I presented. If you want to compare a drone that can only carry an 8 oz cargo to a truck, you'll have to reconcile the fact that the truck is carrying a bunch more, and divide by average loading during the route, factor in the multiple trips and therefore much greater distance the drone would need to fly to complete all those deliveries, etc. Not to mention the huge performance hits on a drone during driving wind, rain, or snow.
But in the end, you can't overcome the simple physics of it, it simply takes much more energy to fly a load helo-style.
This thing might be more dangerous if plugged into one of those portable USB power supply battery packs. Not sure what would happen, but a fire is not out of the question.
Check that last comment. Shorting won't help in advance assuming it uses the 5v usb to charge the capacitor, so it is not charged in advance. You'd have to apply some power to it first to check it, not simply short it.
Probably not too much of a spark, as the capacitor can't be very big. Shorting the pins would be an easy way to check it before you used it. But plugging any usb drive in from an unfamiliar source is just stupid.
This electric scooter can carry two people and has a range of 40 miles per charge, so lets assume two people is closer to 25 miles, and at 15 miles per hour that would easily be over an hour of travel time. The battery for this is only 0.8 KWh.
Slashdot Mirror
Read my words.. work, energy....get it? A truck sitting there is not using energy...get it? I did not say there were no gravitational forces, of course there are forces, but a static vertical system does not need to work to overcome gravitational force. There is no work being done by the truck to compensate for gravity, and therefore no energy required to perform that work.
Either you don't comprehend that simple rule of physics, or you are just trying to be a smartass by avoiding the terms we are discussing.
The truck puts no work into fighting gravity, therefore expends no energy fighting gravity. It is simple, basic, elementary school physics.
No, a delivery truck does not have to constantly overcome gravity. The system is vertically static. There is no ability for the load to move downward, therefore there is no force needed to keep it from moving downward. Think about how much more work it is to carry a load in your arms versus rolling it in a cart. Your arms can move up and down, therefore you must expend energy to hold up the load. In a cart, the load is held up by the vertically static system, no energy required.
Oddly, I suggested a story on how Uber drivers are on strike right now at this very moment, and it mysteriously, inexplicably failed to go anywhere!
How could that possibly be? It's an Uber story after all :D
http://www.latimes.com/busines...
the drivers have four demands: that Uber increase fares by 60% nationwide, that the company add a tipping option to the Uber app, that the ride cancellation fee be raised to $7 and that the minimum fare be increased, also to $7.
I wonder how surge pricing works during the strike?
The problem with Uber's insurance is that it only covers their driver. In an accident where the other driver is at fault, Uber's insurance won't cover the damage, or injuries to their driver or the passenger. If the other driver is uninsured, you're just hosed, because the Uber driver's own insurance won't cover them while they're driving for money. There have been lawsuits over this, and it's not pretty.
Interesting. I did not realize that was the case, and that is a big problem. That leads me to ask....what about disability if you are a driver and hit by uninsured?
Don't know about the total cost, but most of the energy savings claims are from using ultra efficient appliances, like a hybrid heat-pump washer dryer. I bet those are quite pricey.
I don't need to prove anything to you. I've given you enough information to at the least significantly doubt your assumption that drone flight requires much more energy than wheeled vehicular transportation. The fact that you come up with excuses to ignore the examples tells me more about you than anything you've stated about the technical topic at hand. I don't mind trying to help people that don't have a technical background understand the factors involved, but when that person becomes obstinate I am done.
Example, you discount human flight example because the craft must be near the weight of the load. But you will find that with drones and cargo, the drone will weight an amount similar to the load it can carry. So, you've dismissed that example based on a faulty assumption. Based on your past behavior, I know you will dismiss this statement as well, even though you can go find examples on our own, if you were willing, that back up my point. But you won't do that, you will just dismiss it.
With that said, I am done with this discussion. I much more enjoy discussions with people that are not intent on dismissing facts. Anybody with a bit of physics or engineering knowledge knows that flight transport is much more energy intensive than wheeled vehicle transport. The fact that you can't understand or just refuse to want to believe is something I can't change. Goodbye.
Pebble isn't using e-ink screens in any of their watches. They are using something they call "e-paper screen" which is a misleading marketing term for a type of ultra low power Transflective memory LCD display. The original Pebble used this (calling it "e-paper screen"): http://www.sharpmemorylcd.com/...
Thanks for correcting me. They fooled me. Now I hate them.
I showed the numbers that compare flight energy to vehicle energy, that is substantive and applicable. If you want to ignore it fine. There is a reason a guy can run 100 miles on a bike, but the human power helicopter flight record is 88 seconds. If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you.
5) Color e-Ink has been around for a looong time but it's still not in any of the mainstream e-book readers. Why? I don't care that it's not as good as LCD, it's not supposed to be. But color does improve the experience when reading books with technical diagrams or illustrations.
I think the resolution on Color E-ink is still not good enough for prime time, and due to that the color range is also very limited. I agree it would be nice. One of the new Pebble smartwatches has a color E-Ink screen, and if you look at the pictures , shapes have jagged edges. Not very impressive.
The dedicated ebook reader is for people who - you guessed it - read books.
Thats it. My wife is on her second kindle, and she was happy with the first one, I just couldn't think of another Christmas gift and figured she'd like the paperwhite.
The sales rate may be that the E-readers simply are very good products with a much longer use cycle. They don't get OS updates, or need new features. They do what they do, and do it well, and you can read books today perfectly fine on a first generation EReader.
Let me simplify this for you. As I've show in my comparison above, it takes over 25 times (and that is being generous) the energy delivered to the propeller shafts of a drone than delivered to the drive shaft of a rolling vehicle to transport an equivalent load for an equivalent time/distance. If you think you can make up for that elsewhere in the engine or motor part of the system, good luck.
Are you trying to argue that ICE is less efficient than electric, or that flying is less efficient than trucking? I am talking the latter and my point was made solidly. I don't give a flying crap what you think Bezos thinks, or if you want to go on ignoring the laws of physics. My point is obvious to any engineer. You can power drones with petrol or electric, trucks with petrol or electric, and my point still stands. You do know that you can have an electric truck, right?
Have you got any quantitative input into this discussion, or are you just going to keep saying "I think this, I think that, he thinks that,.......?".
The safest cars will be both driverless and riderless.
The statement from the article is, "During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.", not that 90 percent of strikes did not kill the intended target.
That is another important distinction.
For the most part, although the people hit were not the key leader target, they were part of the leader's combatant organization. The article and summary purposely avoid making this important point.
How much warming will occur and what we can do about it is far from settled, and those are what really matter. The 97% only applies to "there is some warming due to us", and so the 97% mantra is simply a tired and useless one that distracts from the hard questions.
I did that comparison to show the difference in energy required to maintain a cargo load airborne vs rolling it in a vehicle. The two items chosen for comparison have a similar load capacity, and therefore it serves perfectly for that comparison. I chose both being electric so that the real energy difference is not lost in confusion over motor/engine efficiency. So, what I have demonstrated is that, regardless of motor technology, it requires much more energy to transport a given load with a helo type vehicle than a rolling one. That difference is central to my point. It illustrates what I think you don't appreciate, and that is just how much energy is required to fly a load.
It does not matter what the engine/motor technology is. The energy required to fly the load helo-style is much greater than to transport via wheeled vehicle. The energy difference from efficiency of the motor/engine technology is miniscule by comparison. You are stuck on electric vs ICE for some reason.
As for comparing a drone to a 6,000 lb truck. What drone would you suggest we use to provide a useful comparison? One that can carry an equivalent amount of cargo? If so, you'll get a similar answer as the comparison I presented. If you want to compare a drone that can only carry an 8 oz cargo to a truck, you'll have to reconcile the fact that the truck is carrying a bunch more, and divide by average loading during the route, factor in the multiple trips and therefore much greater distance the drone would need to fly to complete all those deliveries, etc. Not to mention the huge performance hits on a drone during driving wind, rain, or snow.
But in the end, you can't overcome the simple physics of it, it simply takes much more energy to fly a load helo-style.
This thing might be more dangerous if plugged into one of those portable USB power supply battery packs. Not sure what would happen, but a fire is not out of the question.
You still might get some damage to the PC as the power and ground leads are fed from the PC.
Check that last comment. Shorting won't help in advance assuming it uses the 5v usb to charge the capacitor, so it is not charged in advance. You'd have to apply some power to it first to check it, not simply short it.
Probably not too much of a spark, as the capacitor can't be very big. Shorting the pins would be an easy way to check it before you used it. But plugging any usb drive in from an unfamiliar source is just stupid.
Not just a killer USB, but standards compliant as well!
Anti espionage: Just leave one around the office if you suspect the cleaning crew.
Russian roulette: Get 1 killer USB and five legits and a few friends... take turns plugging into your computers.
Search and seizure revenge: "I warned you".
Here is a reference point with real numbers;
http://www.personal-drones.net...
This copter can carry two people for 30 minutes on a fully charged 17.5 KWh battery.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/4070...
This electric scooter can carry two people and has a range of 40 miles per charge, so lets assume two people is closer to 25 miles, and at 15 miles per hour that would easily be over an hour of travel time. The battery for this is only 0.8 KWh.
As you can see, its not even close.