That doesn't mean total system efficiency is better.
Which is why the rest of my comment covers figuring out the total system efficiency.
Comparing a cold engine (worst case scenerio) with a an operating power plant (best case).
sorry, this was a typo, the word "cold" should be substituted for "golf", and I should turn off autocorrect. 34% is roughly the best efficiency you'll get from the golf's engine, once warmed up, at its optimal rev range. In reality, the average case will be substantially lower than this. The current best engines out there in terms of efficiency only manage about 38% thermal efficiency, and even then, again, only at their optimal rev range.
Not really. You're over estimating the mechanical transmission losses, while under-estimating the electrical transmission losses. (Multiple conversions at the plant, during transmission, and during use)
Actually, no, I'm not over estimating mechanical transmission losses. There are several studies into this. Mechanically propelled cars really are only roughly 15% efficient at the wheel. That said, you're right, I did miss out transmission efficiency. The electric grid is about 94% efficient in the US. Meanwhile, carrying a gallon of diesel to petrol stations in a tanker, burns on average 0.2 gallons of diesel, so roughly 84% efficient. That makes the total system efficiency of diesel 12.5%, and for electricity 45%. That actually makes the story worse for diesel, not better.
If you ignore fuel production costs, Modern ICE engines compare quite well.
1) Now who's got "obvious bias"? "If you ignore half the equation, then this looks better" 2) It doesn't even look better - as outlined above, it actually looks worse for fuel if you include transmission efficiency.
Even if the answer is a giant coal power plant, that coal power plant is much more thermally efficient than your Golf TDi. The cold TDi's engine is around 34% efficient (and that's ignoring the fact that a petrol car has a much more significant gear box and transmission than an electric, and hence loses more there, it's likely to only about 15% efficient at the wheels). Meanwhile thermal efficiency for power plants is around 60% and electric cars have thermal efficiencies around 80%, so in total about 48% thermally efficient at the wheels. That is, for the same power, an electric car will burn 3 times less fossil fuels, even if you assume that it is 100% powered by fossil fuel power plants.
If Global Warming is a science issue then stop trying to make political arguments.
Global warming is a science issue and is argued by scientists in papers. The problem is that convincing everyone to do something about global warming is a political issue, and politicians aren't above discrediting anyone who opposes them to get their way.
To be fair, Obama proposed exactly that (he proposed a government option insurance so that the cost of basic insurance was effectively capped). Just the Republicans shot it down.
This is literally "I'll give you something for nothing"
Welfare involves people actually paying taxes. That is, it is not something for nothing, it is simply amortising the average person's income a bit to allow them to get through difficult times.
What, because a space craft that was designed to work for 90 days actually lasted 10 years? Given that, shouldn't you expect SSDs to last way way longer than they claim based on this evidence?
The free market requires that you can get your goods to the market. Allowing a cartel to stand in the way of getting your goods to market is anti free market, not pro free market.
That's exactly what they claim to have found (at least so far in tests on mice). They also assert that they think it would be extremely difficult for MRSA to adapt to this drug, as it would require a fundamental change in the structure of it as being a gram positive bacteria.
I have a strong suspicion that "size" is being used as a euphemism for mass. I didn't think that Kepler could measure the radius of these planets, only their mass.
The point is that your "exception" is not an exception. Your "exception" involves cocoa with sugar, and so is not an example of cocoa being nice without sugar.
Right, the key is in the fact that they only mandate 10% cocoa liquor content. While the EU mandate 15% cocoa butter, and 27.5% cocoa solids (42.5% cocoa liquor). White chocolate in europe actually contains more cocoa than milk chocolate needs to in the US.
It doesn't need to carry it when it launches though - this is the big benefit. A huge amount of the fuel that rockets carry is for the sole purpose of lifting the fuel and oxydiser for everything after 20km up by 20km. That's when the rocket is heaviest, and when it's having to push through the thickets atmosphere, and when it's travelling slowest (yes, counter intuitively, rockets are more efficient the faster they travel).
By not having to carry the oxygen for 20km onwards at launch time, you reduce the launch weight hugely, and in doing so enormously reduce the amount of fuel needed to lift that launch weight. Add to that that you don't need to carry the oxidiser for that fuel either, and you come in with an absolutely massive weight saving.
You also get a space saving, because the oxygen that you pack in as you fly upwards can be packed into the space that the hydrogen you're burning used to take up. That space saving saves weight in the structure of the vehicle, and it saves aerodynamic drag. That's two more large savings there.
The point being made was that cocoa doesn't taste good unless you pair it with sugar. By putting cocoa on meat, and then frying/grilling that meat, you pair it with sugar. Your counter example is not a counter example (no matter how delicious it is).
Sure, and the reason that tastes great is because when you cook a steak properly, you get the mailliard reaction going, and produce a bunch of sugars on the surface of the meat.
To be fair, what you're talking about is American "chocolate", which lacks regulation, and as such is mostly just oil with a tiny amount of chocolate flavouring. In Europe, the amount of cocoa content of a chocolate bar is regulated, and isn't dropping. That's why europeans tend to baulk the first time they taste a hershey bar - it doesn't taste of chocolate.
Skylon works by scooping up the oxygen it will need for orbital flight while still in the atmosphere. Because the oxygen is about 95% of the launch mass that means you can launch with much much much less weight. Even if you need twice as much fuel to land again, you still have a craft that weighs 10% of the original.
The numbers I've seen say that Skylon will cost the same for the first launch. But in being completely reusable, and not needing to carry oxygen on the way up, will become orders of magnitude cheaper once you account for several launches per vehicle.
Having the right to publish whatever you feel like does not imply that you don't have prejudice. They choose to publish only the religious interpretation of some somewhat misunderstood facts, and not the scientific interpretation of the corrected facts. That is bias. They have the right to have that bias, but it is still bias.
Slashdot Mirror
They were not backups. If they're plugged in, they're merely redundancy.
And also, why redundancy is not backup. If your backup is plugged in and/or mounted, it's not a backup any more.
That doesn't mean total system efficiency is better.
Which is why the rest of my comment covers figuring out the total system efficiency.
Comparing a cold engine (worst case scenerio) with a an operating power plant (best case).
sorry, this was a typo, the word "cold" should be substituted for "golf", and I should turn off autocorrect. 34% is roughly the best efficiency you'll get from the golf's engine, once warmed up, at its optimal rev range. In reality, the average case will be substantially lower than this. The current best engines out there in terms of efficiency only manage about 38% thermal efficiency, and even then, again, only at their optimal rev range.
Not really. You're over estimating the mechanical transmission losses, while under-estimating the electrical transmission losses. (Multiple conversions at the plant, during transmission, and during use)
Actually, no, I'm not over estimating mechanical transmission losses. There are several studies into this. Mechanically propelled cars really are only roughly 15% efficient at the wheel. That said, you're right, I did miss out transmission efficiency. The electric grid is about 94% efficient in the US. Meanwhile, carrying a gallon of diesel to petrol stations in a tanker, burns on average 0.2 gallons of diesel, so roughly 84% efficient. That makes the total system efficiency of diesel 12.5%, and for electricity 45%. That actually makes the story worse for diesel, not better.
If you ignore fuel production costs, Modern ICE engines compare quite well.
1) Now who's got "obvious bias"? "If you ignore half the equation, then this looks better"
2) It doesn't even look better - as outlined above, it actually looks worse for fuel if you include transmission efficiency.
Nope, not cherry picking, just sucking at slapping autocorrect. Replace "cold" with "golf" and you'll get the right sentence.
Even if the answer is a giant coal power plant, that coal power plant is much more thermally efficient than your Golf TDi. The cold TDi's engine is around 34% efficient (and that's ignoring the fact that a petrol car has a much more significant gear box and transmission than an electric, and hence loses more there, it's likely to only about 15% efficient at the wheels). Meanwhile thermal efficiency for power plants is around 60% and electric cars have thermal efficiencies around 80%, so in total about 48% thermally efficient at the wheels. That is, for the same power, an electric car will burn 3 times less fossil fuels, even if you assume that it is 100% powered by fossil fuel power plants.
If Global Warming is a science issue then stop trying to make political arguments.
Global warming is a science issue and is argued by scientists in papers. The problem is that convincing everyone to do something about global warming is a political issue, and politicians aren't above discrediting anyone who opposes them to get their way.
Also, the police don't go out on 24/7 shifts. They go out on 8 hour shifts.
To be fair, Obama proposed exactly that (he proposed a government option insurance so that the cost of basic insurance was effectively capped). Just the Republicans shot it down.
Welfare looks nothing like this.
This is literally "I'll give you something for nothing"
Welfare involves people actually paying taxes. That is, it is not something for nothing, it is simply amortising the average person's income a bit to allow them to get through difficult times.
Con artists try to encourage entire nation to fall victim to their con by promising to pay them money every month.
Seriously, if it looks too good to be true (they're paying you for doing nothing), it probably is.
Sure it is - the police routinely wear all kinds of other equipment, packing 6 phone batteries around their belt will not exactly be hard.
It wasn't fine, it was destroyed in the landing. The ship it landed on is fine.
What, because a space craft that was designed to work for 90 days actually lasted 10 years? Given that, shouldn't you expect SSDs to last way way longer than they claim based on this evidence?
The free market requires that you can get your goods to the market. Allowing a cartel to stand in the way of getting your goods to market is anti free market, not pro free market.
That's exactly what they claim to have found (at least so far in tests on mice). They also assert that they think it would be extremely difficult for MRSA to adapt to this drug, as it would require a fundamental change in the structure of it as being a gram positive bacteria.
I have a strong suspicion that "size" is being used as a euphemism for mass. I didn't think that Kepler could measure the radius of these planets, only their mass.
The point is that your "exception" is not an exception. Your "exception" involves cocoa with sugar, and so is not an example of cocoa being nice without sugar.
Right, the key is in the fact that they only mandate 10% cocoa liquor content. While the EU mandate 15% cocoa butter, and 27.5% cocoa solids (42.5% cocoa liquor). White chocolate in europe actually contains more cocoa than milk chocolate needs to in the US.
It doesn't need to carry it when it launches though - this is the big benefit. A huge amount of the fuel that rockets carry is for the sole purpose of lifting the fuel and oxydiser for everything after 20km up by 20km. That's when the rocket is heaviest, and when it's having to push through the thickets atmosphere, and when it's travelling slowest (yes, counter intuitively, rockets are more efficient the faster they travel).
By not having to carry the oxygen for 20km onwards at launch time, you reduce the launch weight hugely, and in doing so enormously reduce the amount of fuel needed to lift that launch weight. Add to that that you don't need to carry the oxidiser for that fuel either, and you come in with an absolutely massive weight saving.
You also get a space saving, because the oxygen that you pack in as you fly upwards can be packed into the space that the hydrogen you're burning used to take up. That space saving saves weight in the structure of the vehicle, and it saves aerodynamic drag. That's two more large savings there.
The point being made was that cocoa doesn't taste good unless you pair it with sugar. By putting cocoa on meat, and then frying/grilling that meat, you pair it with sugar. Your counter example is not a counter example (no matter how delicious it is).
Sure, and the reason that tastes great is because when you cook a steak properly, you get the mailliard reaction going, and produce a bunch of sugars on the surface of the meat.
To be fair, what you're talking about is American "chocolate", which lacks regulation, and as such is mostly just oil with a tiny amount of chocolate flavouring. In Europe, the amount of cocoa content of a chocolate bar is regulated, and isn't dropping. That's why europeans tend to baulk the first time they taste a hershey bar - it doesn't taste of chocolate.
Skylon works by scooping up the oxygen it will need for orbital flight while still in the atmosphere. Because the oxygen is about 95% of the launch mass that means you can launch with much much much less weight. Even if you need twice as much fuel to land again, you still have a craft that weighs 10% of the original.
The numbers I've seen say that Skylon will cost the same for the first launch. But in being completely reusable, and not needing to carry oxygen on the way up, will become orders of magnitude cheaper once you account for several launches per vehicle.
Having the right to publish whatever you feel like does not imply that you don't have prejudice. They choose to publish only the religious interpretation of some somewhat misunderstood facts, and not the scientific interpretation of the corrected facts. That is bias. They have the right to have that bias, but it is still bias.