Indeed. If there were days of "shock enforcement" where 100% of available traffic officers specifically sought out to enforce cell phone driving laws instead of other non-immediately-deadly traffic infractions, people would respond QUICKLY.
Um... they basically did that in California. And nonstop news stories. And....
Nah, that's what they said they did, but in reality enforcement is pretty much nonexistent. Same with carpool violators.
The US fails, because it has a HUGE middle man bureaucracy that skims 20% off the top called Insurance.
Maybe, but it's going to take more than that to explain why the US spends three times as much as the UK, per capita, and the US doesn't even get everyone covered in the process.
If your ears are that thick at their thinnest point, you need to check with a doctor - it may be a tumor.
Right, and we could proceed to measuring the thickness of fingernails or even-sillier- things, and we'd still have but scratched the surface of how pointless "thinnest dimension" metrics are.
I do not belive "54% of Americans" have any significant experience with airline travel and are thus in no position to evaluate the TSA. Also, most people are stupid, but that doesn't make them correct.
Where did you hear that the Volt has two electric motors? That's one of the most bizarre claims I've heard yet.
Like any series hybrid, there are two EM machines in it. The smaller one (often called motor/generator) is definitely a PM machine. The larger one serves primarily as a traction motor, but probably does most or all of the regenerative braking, too. In some modes both provide tractive power. I followed your NYTimes link to find this quote:
In the rotor of a permanent magnet design--the type of motor the Chevrolet Volt will use--the field is generated entirely by strong magnets, without the need for current.
The Volt's larger machine may be an asynchronous motor, but either way it has no bearing on your point that "brushless motors are history". You've steered the thread away from that claim anyway, and now seem satisfied with "induction motors are also alive and well", which they are.
By the way, you forgot Fisker and Coda, both using PM machines, and you know what they say when you ass-u-me: The Focus is using a Magna E-drive system with--you guessed it--permanent magnets.
the concept that rare earths are necessary to EVs is simply false.
That's true. Induction machines make more sense particularly in larger/more powerful applications, and the major OEMs are slowly figuring this out. For smaller applications the market will sort it out.
I'm talking about inductive AC synchronous motors.
Please understand that "induction" and "synchronous" are two distinct motor types. Asynchronous AC motors use induction; synchronous AC (aka brushless DC) motors use permanent magnets. There are no "inductive synchronous motors".
GM does not use a permanent magnet motor. I linked to a GM site for you, where they quite clearly say it's an induction motor.
There are two machines in the volt. One is absolutely a permanent magnet machine, and I see conflicting reports on the web about the second (larger) machine. You linked to a dealer site that is overflowing with other errors, so far from authoritative. It may be an induction motor, in which case it would be the first modern example not descended from ACP technology.
The Leaf (and apparently the ActiveE, hadn't checked out their motor tech) are the only modern highway-speed EVs with permanent magnets in its motor. Is that clear enough?
Sure, but that's a lot of cars, and a far cry from your earlier claim that "Brushless DC motors are history as far as EVs go." You also overlooked GM's permanent magnet motor in the Spark, and practically everything coming out of Germany and Japan, with the exception of the RAV4EV (using Tesla tech) and an eventual induction-powered Prius.
"Brushless DC" motors are history as far as EVs go.
You're still confused. Please read carefully because there is much confusion about this subject, and you're inadvertently making it worse by spreading misinformation.
I think the part you're missing is that a "synchronous AC" motor is just another term for "brushless DC" motor. They are the same thing. Don't get hung up on AC vs. DC--all motors ultimately use AC. Even brushed motors just use the brushes as a really crude way of making alternating current. Strictly speaking a "brushless DC motor" uses the same crude commutation done electronically (instead of with mechanical brushes) but for traction applications the term "brushless DC" means (and has always meant) a synchronous AC machine powered by a transistorized variable frequency drive.
The key differentiator is synchronous vs. asynchronous. Induction motors are inherently asynchronous--there is no such thing as a synchronous induction motor. Synchronous AC (aka brushless DC) motors do indeed use permanent magnets.
Tesla and BMW's MiniE use induction motors, as they are both derived from AC Propulsion technology. GM's EV-1 used an induction machine, as it was the predecessor of AC Propulsion tech. The new RAV4EV is not a production vehicle, but it will use Tesla's induction machines.
Virtually everything else on the road uses synchronous motors, and that includes BMW's new ActiveE, GM's volt, everything from a Japanese OEM (except the RAV4EV edge case), and every single hybrid on the road.
Have a look at Wikipedia for more info. Also check out the article on brushless DC motors and notice this quote:
These motors are essentially AC synchronous motors with permanent magnet rotors.
Tesla, and pretty much all other modern EVs, don't use rare earths. They use AC synchronous motors, which don' have permanent magnets.
This is not correct, and is evidently a point of much confusion on the internets. Synchronous motors (aka "brushless DC" motors) do indeed use permanent magnets. Virtually all hybrids and EVs on the road today use this type of motor, and absolutely employ the so-called "rare earth" magnets.
Tesla is fairly unique in that they (like AC Propulsion from which they sourced their technology) use AC induction ("asynchronous") motors, which do not use any permanent magnets.
While the stators are the same in both types of machine, the induction rotor uses only iron and copper (or aluminum or other conductor). I also happen to believe induction motors are mostly the better choice for traction applications--particularly for high performance and larger motors.
Major OEMs use synchronous motors mostly because they don't know better, they're simple to build, and they used to be easier to control (although cheap modern microprocessors have made that irrelevant). Synchronous motors can be made slightly more efficient at a specific power-and-RPM point, but that's not representative of real world driving, where the typical power is about 10% of the peak power.
Tell me, how is adding even more onto the tax burden going to stimulate our economy?
It's called fiscal responsibility. If you want public resources devoted to protecting your copyrights, then someone has to pay for that, and it might as well be the people registering those copyrights.
I, for one, would like to see anything released over 10 years ago go into the public domain.
The best idea I've ever heard came from someone right here on slashdot. Unfortunately I can't find it, and I'm going to butcher it, but the gist was:
- After a brief free introductory period, you must pay an annual tax to keep your copyright viable.
- The tax is based on your own "declared value" of the work in question.
- You can declare any value you like, but the catch is that anyone can buy out your copyright for your stated value, at which point it immediately becomes public domain.
- The tax is pretty high (since you're now paying for the privilege of having government enforce your copyright).
- The tax rate increases over time, to encourage eventual release to the public domain.
Want to keep Mickey Mouse copyrighted in perpetuity? Fine, but it's going to cost you a little more every year, and you'd better choose your stated value well because anyone can come along and buy it out for the benefit of humanity.
Any argument that takes the form "If all [X] were [Y]..." is pointless, because that's not how it's going to happen. The transition is going to be gradual and there will be no 100% solutions (nor anything approaching that).
The marginal generation deployed to meet the marginal load does matter, and it would be a shame if it were all coal (hint: it won't be) but even if it were, it's a significant win in terms of energy savings compared to importing (and refining) all that oil.
Something radical will have to be developed to enable recharging to be as quick and convenient as filling up at a gas station.
You should try actually driving an electric (or at least talking to people who do) rather than pontificating from a distance. The vast majority of charging happens at night while you're doing other things, so, unlike the gas station, you're not standing around waiting for it. It's actually more convenient than getting gas because you plug it in when you get home (which takes, literally, a few seconds) and then never give it another thought. Your "tank" is magically full every time you leave the house.
Your 0.05/kwh is only for off peak winter electricity when the only thing you do is periodically charge your car.
The summer off-peak rates are the same, except for the lower tiers where summer is even cheaper.
If you live in a normal house with lights and maybe even a computer, you most assuredly hit the 4th tier at $0.20/kwh.
You should stop pontificating and actually talk to people who drive these cars. You can invent worst-case scenarios but in the real world it doesn't work the way you assume.
Nighttime charging utterly dominates, not coincidentally because it is most convenient and cost effective. This effect only gets stronger with the phenomenal range of the Model S (i.e. fewer days per year where opportunity charging is necessary).
"Lights and a computer" are insignificant loads compared to the vehicle.
You're also ignoring solar energy (available in the form of a power purchase agreement at $0.14/kWh), public charging (which is most-often free, or at least cheap) and a whole host of other details, because you're theorizing instead of speaking from personal experience.
Your conversion seem suspicious to me though. I can travel 45 miles real world miles on a gallon of gas.
Not in a vehicle comparable to a Model S, which was the original topic here on slashdot. For a fairer comparison, use something like a large BMW or other sports sedan that gets 20-25 mpg on premium gas.
At greater than $0.45/kwh, the price to buy it isn't your biggest worry.
Please don't spew false information. PG&E nighttime rates for EV charging are about $0.05/kWh, which is about like buying gasoline for $0.50/gal.
Even at the made-up price you pulled out of your bunghole, it's still comparable to the per-mile fuel cost of a gasoline car, never mind the practically-zero maintenance cost of the electric.
Lister and DeMarco devote attention to noise pollution in Peopleware, which is really a must-read anyway for technical (especially software) people.
I pretty much agree with their analysis that music is compatible with some types of work, but that some cognitive work can suffer because part of the brain is distracted. In any case, their real point is that if you find yourself "needing" to listen to music just to concentrate, it's a symptom of a workplace that's hostile to technical productivity.
Personally, I find music with lyrics is especially destructive to technical productivity.
Fox claims that giving viewers the ability to skip commercials on recorded television shows demonstrates the "clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem."
Ah yes, the old "technology represents a threat to our antiquated business model" argument.
Also, I'd be interested to hear the logic connecting ad skipping with copyright violation.
[...] could not identify any new science-based evidence indicating that maize MON 810 cultivation in the EU poses a significant and imminent risk to the human and animal health or the environment.
Fixating on the health issues is just a distraction from the real problem with GM crops: They're patented, and used to exert control.
You can't view it directly (at least not if you want your eyes to keep working) but you can make a pinhole viewer with minimal supplies and tools.
Lots of options for variation, but I did this: Cut a postage-stamp sized hole in a cereal box (or something suitably opaque). Cut a small square of aluminum foil (scavenged from your tinfoil hat, if necessary) and tape it over the hole. Then use a pin to make the smallest hole possible in the foil.
Hold the cardboard w/ pinhole up orthogonal to the sun, and project the pinhole image onto a white card.
You'll see a tiny (reversed) image of the sun in the form of a small circle, and as the moon occludes it, you'll see it clearly.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. If there were days of "shock enforcement" where 100% of available traffic officers specifically sought out to enforce cell phone driving laws instead of other non-immediately-deadly traffic infractions, people would respond QUICKLY.
Um... they basically did that in California. And nonstop news stories. And....
Nah, that's what they said they did, but in reality enforcement is pretty much nonexistent. Same with carpool violators.
The US fails, because it has a HUGE middle man bureaucracy that skims 20% off the top called Insurance.
Maybe, but it's going to take more than that to explain why the US spends three times as much as the UK, per capita, and the US doesn't even get everyone covered in the process.
If your ears are that thick at their thinnest point, you need to check with a doctor - it may be a tumor.
Right, and we could proceed to measuring the thickness of fingernails or even-sillier- things, and we'd still have but scratched the surface of how pointless "thinnest dimension" metrics are.
FFS, I am only 0.3 inches at my thinnest dimension. And no, it's not where you're thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Q3jZw4FGs
I do not belive "54% of Americans" have any significant experience with airline travel and are thus in no position to evaluate the TSA. Also, most people are stupid, but that doesn't make them correct.
Where did you hear that the Volt has two electric motors? That's one of the most bizarre claims I've heard yet.
Like any series hybrid, there are two EM machines in it. The smaller one (often called motor/generator) is definitely a PM machine. The larger one serves primarily as a traction motor, but probably does most or all of the regenerative braking, too. In some modes both provide tractive power. I followed your NYTimes link to find this quote:
In the rotor of a permanent magnet design--the type of motor the Chevrolet Volt will use--the field is generated entirely by strong magnets, without the need for current.
The Volt's larger machine may be an asynchronous motor, but either way it has no bearing on your point that "brushless motors are history". You've steered the thread away from that claim anyway, and now seem satisfied with "induction motors are also alive and well", which they are.
By the way, you forgot Fisker and Coda, both using PM machines, and you know what they say when you ass-u-me: The Focus is using a Magna E-drive system with--you guessed it--permanent magnets.
the concept that rare earths are necessary to EVs is simply false.
That's true. Induction machines make more sense particularly in larger/more powerful applications, and the major OEMs are slowly figuring this out. For smaller applications the market will sort it out.
I'm talking about inductive AC synchronous motors.
Please understand that "induction" and "synchronous" are two distinct motor types. Asynchronous AC motors use induction; synchronous AC (aka brushless DC) motors use permanent magnets. There are no "inductive synchronous motors".
GM does not use a permanent magnet motor. I linked to a GM site for you, where they quite clearly say it's an induction motor.
There are two machines in the volt. One is absolutely a permanent magnet machine, and I see conflicting reports on the web about the second (larger) machine. You linked to a dealer site that is overflowing with other errors, so far from authoritative. It may be an induction motor, in which case it would be the first modern example not descended from ACP technology.
The Leaf (and apparently the ActiveE, hadn't checked out their motor tech) are the only modern highway-speed EVs with permanent magnets in its motor. Is that clear enough?
Sure, but that's a lot of cars, and a far cry from your earlier claim that "Brushless DC motors are history as far as EVs go." You also overlooked GM's permanent magnet motor in the Spark, and practically everything coming out of Germany and Japan, with the exception of the RAV4EV (using Tesla tech) and an eventual induction-powered Prius.
"Brushless DC" motors are history as far as EVs go.
You're still confused. Please read carefully because there is much confusion about this subject, and you're inadvertently making it worse by spreading misinformation.
I think the part you're missing is that a "synchronous AC" motor is just another term for "brushless DC" motor. They are the same thing. Don't get hung up on AC vs. DC--all motors ultimately use AC. Even brushed motors just use the brushes as a really crude way of making alternating current. Strictly speaking a "brushless DC motor" uses the same crude commutation done electronically (instead of with mechanical brushes) but for traction applications the term "brushless DC" means (and has always meant) a synchronous AC machine powered by a transistorized variable frequency drive.
The key differentiator is synchronous vs. asynchronous. Induction motors are inherently asynchronous--there is no such thing as a synchronous induction motor. Synchronous AC (aka brushless DC) motors do indeed use permanent magnets.
Tesla and BMW's MiniE use induction motors, as they are both derived from AC Propulsion technology. GM's EV-1 used an induction machine, as it was the predecessor of AC Propulsion tech. The new RAV4EV is not a production vehicle, but it will use Tesla's induction machines.
Virtually everything else on the road uses synchronous motors, and that includes BMW's new ActiveE, GM's volt, everything from a Japanese OEM (except the RAV4EV edge case), and every single hybrid on the road.
Have a look at Wikipedia for more info. Also check out the article on brushless DC motors and notice this quote:
These motors are essentially AC synchronous motors with permanent magnet rotors.
Tesla, and pretty much all other modern EVs, don't use rare earths. They use AC synchronous motors, which don' have permanent magnets.
This is not correct, and is evidently a point of much confusion on the internets. Synchronous motors (aka "brushless DC" motors) do indeed use permanent magnets. Virtually all hybrids and EVs on the road today use this type of motor, and absolutely employ the so-called "rare earth" magnets.
Tesla is fairly unique in that they (like AC Propulsion from which they sourced their technology) use AC induction ("asynchronous") motors, which do not use any permanent magnets.
While the stators are the same in both types of machine, the induction rotor uses only iron and copper (or aluminum or other conductor). I also happen to believe induction motors are mostly the better choice for traction applications--particularly for high performance and larger motors.
Major OEMs use synchronous motors mostly because they don't know better, they're simple to build, and they used to be easier to control (although cheap modern microprocessors have made that irrelevant). Synchronous motors can be made slightly more efficient at a specific power-and-RPM point, but that's not representative of real world driving, where the typical power is about 10% of the peak power.
Tell me, how is adding even more onto the tax burden going to stimulate our economy?
It's called fiscal responsibility. If you want public resources devoted to protecting your copyrights, then someone has to pay for that, and it might as well be the people registering those copyrights.
I, for one, would like to see anything released over 10 years ago go into the public domain.
The best idea I've ever heard came from someone right here on slashdot. Unfortunately I can't find it, and I'm going to butcher it, but the gist was:
- After a brief free introductory period, you must pay an annual tax to keep your copyright viable.
- The tax is based on your own "declared value" of the work in question.
- You can declare any value you like, but the catch is that anyone can buy out your copyright for your stated value, at which point it immediately becomes public domain.
- The tax is pretty high (since you're now paying for the privilege of having government enforce your copyright).
- The tax rate increases over time, to encourage eventual release to the public domain.
Want to keep Mickey Mouse copyrighted in perpetuity? Fine, but it's going to cost you a little more every year, and you'd better choose your stated value well because anyone can come along and buy it out for the benefit of humanity.
"Human-machine cooperation" as in "How about you let me win every time, puny human."
If all the cars in the US were electric
Any argument that takes the form "If all [X] were [Y]..." is pointless, because that's not how it's going to happen. The transition is going to be gradual and there will be no 100% solutions (nor anything approaching that).
The marginal generation deployed to meet the marginal load does matter, and it would be a shame if it were all coal (hint: it won't be) but even if it were, it's a significant win in terms of energy savings compared to importing (and refining) all that oil.
Something radical will have to be developed to enable recharging to be as quick and convenient as filling up at a gas station.
You should try actually driving an electric (or at least talking to people who do) rather than pontificating from a distance. The vast majority of charging happens at night while you're doing other things, so, unlike the gas station, you're not standing around waiting for it. It's actually more convenient than getting gas because you plug it in when you get home (which takes, literally, a few seconds) and then never give it another thought. Your "tank" is magically full every time you leave the house.
Your 0.05/kwh is only for off peak winter electricity when the only thing you do is periodically charge your car.
The summer off-peak rates are the same, except for the lower tiers where summer is even cheaper.
If you live in a normal house with lights and maybe even a computer, you most assuredly hit the 4th tier at $0.20/kwh.
You should stop pontificating and actually talk to people who drive these cars. You can invent worst-case scenarios but in the real world it doesn't work the way you assume.
Nighttime charging utterly dominates, not coincidentally because it is most convenient and cost effective. This effect only gets stronger with the phenomenal range of the Model S (i.e. fewer days per year where opportunity charging is necessary).
"Lights and a computer" are insignificant loads compared to the vehicle.
You're also ignoring solar energy (available in the form of a power purchase agreement at $0.14/kWh), public charging (which is most-often free, or at least cheap) and a whole host of other details, because you're theorizing instead of speaking from personal experience.
Your conversion seem suspicious to me though. I can travel 45 miles real world miles on a gallon of gas.
Not in a vehicle comparable to a Model S, which was the original topic here on slashdot. For a fairer comparison, use something like a large BMW or other sports sedan that gets 20-25 mpg on premium gas.
At greater than $0.45/kwh, the price to buy it isn't your biggest worry.
Please don't spew false information. PG&E nighttime rates for EV charging are about $0.05/kWh, which is about like buying gasoline for $0.50/gal.
Even at the made-up price you pulled out of your bunghole, it's still comparable to the per-mile fuel cost of a gasoline car, never mind the practically-zero maintenance cost of the electric.
Lister and DeMarco devote attention to noise pollution in Peopleware, which is really a must-read anyway for technical (especially software) people.
I pretty much agree with their analysis that music is compatible with some types of work, but that some cognitive work can suffer because part of the brain is distracted. In any case, their real point is that if you find yourself "needing" to listen to music just to concentrate, it's a symptom of a workplace that's hostile to technical productivity.
Personally, I find music with lyrics is especially destructive to technical productivity.
with only small bag of nuts
Speak for yourself, mister.
The video narrator sounds like he should be piloting a terran battlecruiser.
clear goal of violating copyrights
I want to hear their weasely lawyer elaborate on this supposed connection to copyright violation.
That way, when everything goes torches and pitchforks we can hunt that fucker down and use his own sociopathic words against him.
Fox claims that giving viewers the ability to skip commercials on recorded television shows demonstrates the "clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem."
Ah yes, the old "technology represents a threat to our antiquated business model" argument.
Also, I'd be interested to hear the logic connecting ad skipping with copyright violation.
[...] could not identify any new science-based evidence indicating that maize MON 810 cultivation in the EU poses a significant and imminent risk to the human and animal health or the environment.
Fixating on the health issues is just a distraction from the real problem with GM crops: They're patented, and used to exert control.
You can't view it directly (at least not if you want your eyes to keep working) but you can make a pinhole viewer with minimal supplies and tools.
Lots of options for variation, but I did this: Cut a postage-stamp sized hole in a cereal box (or something suitably opaque). Cut a small square of aluminum foil (scavenged from your tinfoil hat, if necessary) and tape it over the hole. Then use a pin to make the smallest hole possible in the foil.
Hold the cardboard w/ pinhole up orthogonal to the sun, and project the pinhole image onto a white card.
You'll see a tiny (reversed) image of the sun in the form of a small circle, and as the moon occludes it, you'll see it clearly.
...nuclear energy is bad, nuclear energy is bad, la la la I can't hear you nuclear energy is bad.