This paper describes a little about how CDMA works. On page 33, you'll notice the typical TXPO (transmit power) from a handset is listed as 0 dBm "near middle of cell". 0 dBm, as we all remember, is 1 milliwatt.
Maybe old analog phones. Modern digital phones are rated at a maximum output of 200 milliwatts. I've read that the typical output is somewhere between 1 milliwatt and 5 milliwatts. I've studied more about CDMA phones than other technologies, and I think they adjust the output power every 40 milliseconds, based on the signal strength of the receiver (tower).
What's the typical power output of a cordless phone in the house? I'm guessing it's more than 5 milliwatts.
The concept of automated, direct-to-destination travel has been around for a while. Personal Rapid Transit is a city-wide automated system that would deliver a small group of passengers to their destination transit stations without stopping at other stations along the way. Non-stop travel is faster and more energy efficient.
Mod parent up. Without proof of getting enough current from the tree to do anything useful, this idea is pretty silly.
Plus, the article says "...increase the tree power from less than 2 volts to 12 volts...", but power is not measured in volts.
I tried to install a new monitor, the one the manufacturer shipped to me to replace mine under warranty. However, the new monitor is broken worse than the original: the LCD backlight works for no more than 0.7 seconds. Time for another phone call...
Interpreting as "the platters are spinning faster".
Faster than what? All 7200 rpm drives have platters that spin at... 7200 rpm. Drives of this speed have been around for years and years. 10k and 15k rpm drives have been around for a while, too.
Just what, exactly, are you making a comparison against?
If such a system gets built, and covers an entire city with stations every one-half mile, nowhere in the city will be further than one-quarter mile from a station. Statistically, the average distance to a station would be one-eighth of a mile from any random location.
The vehicle would be automated, so you would just need to walk to a station, select your destination, get in the car, and the system would take you there -- no schedules, no routes to memorize, etc. You don't have to be sober or have a driver's license. No waiting in traffic, since it would run on it's own elevate guideway. Fewer accidents, because the human factor of control is eliminated. Since the stations would be "offline", ie on a branch from the through-way, each trip would be non-stop to it's destination. Since there's no stopping, it would be much more energy efficient.
It's confusing and complex to figure out which bus runs where you want to go. My time is also wasted by waiting for the bus to pick me up and by stopping at each stop that someone else wants to board or get off. The technology is available to build an efficient transportation system; we just need to convince the politicians to do it.
Can we add our own transit systems as a comparison to existing systems? For example, I want to create a system with elevated guideways on which 4-passenger vehicles travel at 25mph to offline stations spaced one-half mile apart. How much time would I save over waiting for the bus and the stops it makes?
This PDF document has an interesting graph on the last page titled "Efficiency of Travel Mode" that shows the usefulness of travel modes (PRT, auto, foot) over varying distances. It wouldn't be hard to imaging how a 747 would look on the graph.
In your sporting event example, light rail and buses may work well if you assume that the riders want to go to the same destination, or if you just want to get people away from the stadium. If your goal is to actually get the people to their destination, the most convenient way would have the fewest transfers and least amount of waiting. A PRT system could provide more convenient transport here than the bus or light rail system.
This page directly addresses the question of how a PRT system could handle crowds. Keep in mind that each PRT vehicle would take the riders directly to their destination station, with no stops.
If the monorail would actually serve enough people to be useful, then it might actually get built. But, it's route would serve so few people that it's huge cost isn't justifiable.
If it doesn't serve many people, it won't do anything to reduce congestion. I-5 carries a lot of traffic, traffic that wouldn't be reduced by the monorail.
Consider PRT: much smaller & lighter than monorail, so it would be cheaper to build, cheap enough such that hundred of stations could be built to serve a lot of the city; 24/7 on-demand service; direct, non-stop to destination service, so it's efficient and rider-oriented.
As to speed, it will be do 40 MPH on the track except when at a station.
The problem with any "group" transportation system that has to stop is the average speed is reduced significantly with every stop. Plus, it may not take you exactly where you need to go. This page compares bus, light rail, etc.
Consider Personal Rapid Transit: much more efficient than monorail or light rail for average speed and more convenient for riders.
"Rapid transit" should mean "transportation able to get a person from point A to point B in the least amount of time."
"Mass transit" should mean "able to move a large number of people using a transportation system."
Consider Personal Rapid Transit: Non-stop travel between your origin and destination, and the ability to carry more people per hour than monorail or light rail. And convenience: the system would take you to the station closest to your destination.
Every system has advantages and disadvantages. LRT may be better for some inter-suburb transport or something else where elevated isn't necessary.
This page discusses cost comparison and other advantages of Personal Rapid Transit, which I believe would be beneficial in dense areas. It would be cheaper than monorail or light rail, and would provide better service (no waiting, non-stop travel, personalized service, etc).
A lot of research has been put into Personal Rapid Transit, which is expected to cost an order of magnitude less than monorail to build per mile, because it's so much smaller and lighter.
We should build public transportation that is more convenient and more efficient, in the dense areas (cities). PersonalRapidTransit has great potential to revolutionalize public transportation. It would be used more than trains or buses, since it eliminates the 3 most significant deficiencies of those modes of transportation by having these characteristics:
No schedules: all rides are on-demand, when the rider wants to go
Non-stop, direct to destination: your PRT car takes you to where you want to go
Grade separated, so no traffic jams, no collisions.
The BIG reason power companies want BPL is so that THEY can use it for reading your meter. They want to make your electric meter to be adressable and able to be read over the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
This paper describes a little about how CDMA works. On page 33, you'll notice the typical TXPO (transmit power) from a handset is listed as 0 dBm "near middle of cell". 0 dBm, as we all remember, is 1 milliwatt.
Ok, I looked at it. Now what?
It doesn't say anything about the power output of a phone. It does talk about SAR, which is measured in watts/kg. See a definition.
Maybe old analog phones. Modern digital phones are rated at a maximum output of 200 milliwatts. I've read that the typical output is somewhere between 1 milliwatt and 5 milliwatts. I've studied more about CDMA phones than other technologies, and I think they adjust the output power every 40 milliseconds, based on the signal strength of the receiver (tower).
What's the typical power output of a cordless phone in the house? I'm guessing it's more than 5 milliwatts.
What distance? A few hundred feet throughout the house? The loss would be neglegible over that distance.
If we're talking several hundred yards or more, then we might consider thinking about it.
A recent article on Slashdot talks about Anonym.OS, which is supposed to keep your web activities anonymous. Maybe he should look into it.
The concept of automated, direct-to-destination travel has been around for a while. Personal Rapid Transit is a city-wide automated system that would deliver a small group of passengers to their destination transit stations without stopping at other stations along the way. Non-stop travel is faster and more energy efficient.
A link and another link.
Mod parent up. Without proof of getting enough current from the tree to do anything useful, this idea is pretty silly. Plus, the article says "...increase the tree power from less than 2 volts to 12 volts...", but power is not measured in volts.
What percentage of vehicles driven when it snows are SUVs?
I tried to install a new monitor, the one the manufacturer shipped to me to replace mine under warranty. However, the new monitor is broken worse than the original: the LCD backlight works for no more than 0.7 seconds. Time for another phone call...
Aren't we talking about an autobiography, which, by definition, is written by the person it's about?
Faster than what? All 7200 rpm drives have platters that spin at... 7200 rpm. Drives of this speed have been around for years and years. 10k and 15k rpm drives have been around for a while, too.
Just what, exactly, are you making a comparison against?
If such a system gets built, and covers an entire city with stations every one-half mile, nowhere in the city will be further than one-quarter mile from a station. Statistically, the average distance to a station would be one-eighth of a mile from any random location.
The vehicle would be automated, so you would just need to walk to a station, select your destination, get in the car, and the system would take you there -- no schedules, no routes to memorize, etc. You don't have to be sober or have a driver's license. No waiting in traffic, since it would run on it's own elevate guideway. Fewer accidents, because the human factor of control is eliminated. Since the stations would be "offline", ie on a branch from the through-way, each trip would be non-stop to it's destination. Since there's no stopping, it would be much more energy efficient.
It's confusing and complex to figure out which bus runs where you want to go. My time is also wasted by waiting for the bus to pick me up and by stopping at each stop that someone else wants to board or get off. The technology is available to build an efficient transportation system; we just need to convince the politicians to do it.
Can we add our own transit systems as a comparison to existing systems? For example, I want to create a system with elevated guideways on which 4-passenger vehicles travel at 25mph to offline stations spaced one-half mile apart. How much time would I save over waiting for the bus and the stops it makes?
(If this sounds like a cool transportation idea, see Personal Rapid Transit or PRT pages.)
Cost: $323 million
Guideway: 38.2 mi.
Vehicles: 1230
Speed: 25-40 mph
Stations: 72
Berths: 192
Capacity: 20,160 trips/hour
Source
This PDF document has an interesting graph on the last page titled "Efficiency of Travel Mode" that shows the usefulness of travel modes (PRT, auto, foot) over varying distances. It wouldn't be hard to imaging how a 747 would look on the graph.
In your sporting event example, light rail and buses may work well if you assume that the riders want to go to the same destination, or if you just want to get people away from the stadium. If your goal is to actually get the people to their destination, the most convenient way would have the fewest transfers and least amount of waiting. A PRT system could provide more convenient transport here than the bus or light rail system.
This page directly addresses the question of how a PRT system could handle crowds. Keep in mind that each PRT vehicle would take the riders directly to their destination station, with no stops.
If the monorail would actually serve enough people to be useful, then it might actually get built. But, it's route would serve so few people that it's huge cost isn't justifiable.
If it doesn't serve many people, it won't do anything to reduce congestion. I-5 carries a lot of traffic, traffic that wouldn't be reduced by the monorail.
Consider PRT: much smaller & lighter than monorail, so it would be cheaper to build, cheap enough such that hundred of stations could be built to serve a lot of the city; 24/7 on-demand service; direct, non-stop to destination service, so it's efficient and rider-oriented.
I think the capacity of a PRT system isn't much of a concern: Passengers per hour: how to calculate transit capacity
It's conclusion: PRT could handle rush-hour in-bound and reverse commute better than light rail or bus.
Consider Personal Rapid Transit: much more efficient than monorail or light rail for average speed and more convenient for riders.
Define "rapid transit" and "mass transit".
"Rapid transit" should mean "transportation able to get a person from point A to point B in the least amount of time."
"Mass transit" should mean "able to move a large number of people using a transportation system."
Consider Personal Rapid Transit: Non-stop travel between your origin and destination, and the ability to carry more people per hour than monorail or light rail. And convenience: the system would take you to the station closest to your destination.
This page discusses cost comparison and other advantages of Personal Rapid Transit, which I believe would be beneficial in dense areas. It would be cheaper than monorail or light rail, and would provide better service (no waiting, non-stop travel, personalized service, etc).
A lot of research has been put into Personal Rapid Transit, which is expected to cost an order of magnitude less than monorail to build per mile, because it's so much smaller and lighter.
This page and this page show the cost comparison.
Read more about PRT studies and research here and here.
- No schedules: all rides are on-demand, when the rider wants to go
- Non-stop, direct to destination: your PRT car takes you to where you want to go
- Grade separated, so no traffic jams, no collisions.
And we all know public transportation has benefits.