It depends upon how much power the engine generates, right?
If your car needs 60 horsepower to maintain speed uphill and wide open throttle produces 60 horsepower, you have one minute before you have to stop.
If your car needs 60 horsepower to maintain speed uphill and wide open throttle produces 240 horsepower, you will have substantially longer before your air tank is empty.
I wish I could drive a manual - I want to learn, but I've never had the chance.
It's a little tough to start now. I don't want to drop a few thousand dollars on a used car with a manual just to learn, but I also don't want to buy a brand new car with a standard transmission because I won't be able to test drive it worth a damn.
"Others have asked the question, and I'd be curious to know the answer: do non-hybrid cars live up to the EPA mileage reports? One would imagine that the EPA would have some consistency in their testing, so it'd be okay to compare numbers."
For example, let's say the automatic transmission in a car switches gears at 3000 RPM back to 1500 RPM in light driving. It makes the switch from first to second at 22 mph, second to third at 37, and third to fourth at 52.
If the test for mileage spends a lot of time at 20 mph, 35 mph, and 50 mph mileage will be relatively poor because the engine will be running close to 3000 RPMs most of the time.
If the test for mileage spends a lot of time at 25 mph, 40 mph, and 55 mph the mileage will be substantially better because the engine will be running close to 1500 RPMs most of the time.
Does the EPA take gear shift points into account when it runs the mileage tests? I'm not sure.
I have an Impala, and I'm a relatively light-footed driver. The rated mileage is 21/32 and I get 25/31.
Manuals have two advantages besides control and fun:
- No energy lost in a torque converter. - Generally offered with more gears, so you can keep the RPMs in the low range for efficiency or in the high range for performance as the mood strikes.
The cost of monthly repairs and more gas on an older car usually doesn't equal out to the cost of new car payments and higher insurance until your older car is falling apart.
I have 65,000 miles on my sedan, and the only way I'll replace it before 165,000 miles would be to get something with better crash protection (Like a Honda Accord Coupe or Subaru Forester, the two safest vehicles to be tested thus far.)
You got it backwards. 1.2 US Gallons = 1 UK Gallon 33 miles per 1 UK gallon => 33 miles per 1.2 US gallons => 27.5 miles per US gallon... Which is perfectly suitable for a moderately large Volvo station wagon.
In the AutoWeek forums Tech Talk section, a fellow with the handle VP (Variable Pressure) Drive has a thread where he discusses his hybrid concept: Instead of constant RPM generator, battery, electric motor he does constant RPM air compressor, air tank, specially converted internal combustion engine.
The compressor fills the air tank. Pressing the accelerator pedal opens the valve to let air from the tank fill the cylinders in the engine, generating torque just like any other car engine except without combustion. Pressing the brake applies braking to the tires and also automatically closes the valve from the air tank.
He said about one minute of hard acceleration would drain your air tank completely and would require about ten minutes to refill the tank to a drivable level, but nobody keeps the throttle wide open for 60 seconds straight.
The concept strikes me as brilliant, although I am neither a physicist nor engineer so this is an inexpert opinion. The air tank should suffer less inefficiency of power transfer than a battery.
I posted this as a response to someone else, but I thought the idea was worth repeating.
"The easiest way to gain fuel economy, however, is to drive a car that weighs 1500 lbs instead of 3000 lbs."
True. However, if your '82 Jetta gets in a crash, you're in trouble. A new Jetta might not get you 52 mpg, but new Volkswagens have excellent crash protection. I don't know if that matters to you, but to me the two biggest considerations as a car buyer are crash protection and fuel economy.
I read an interesting discussion in the AutoWeek tech talk forum from an independent inventor working on a variant of your diesel generator/electric motor combination. He was working with an air compressor, a (reinforced) air tank, and a 4 cylinder engine. The air compressor runs at its most efficient form to keep the air tank full. Pressing the accelerator pedal opens the airway from the air tank into the 4 cylinder engine, generating pressure just like detonation from traditional internal combustion.
The fellow was up front that he didn't have a completed test vehicle as proof of concept, but I thought the idea was interesting. I would think an air tank would be less prone to loss of stored energy or degradation over time than a battery, too.
I've wondered about the same idea, but none of the currently available hybrids work this way.
I may have my definitions mixed up, but I believe what you describe is a series hybrid. The internal combustion engine generates electricity, which charges a battery. The battery's electricity is used to power an electrical engine.
The Prius, Insight, and Civic are all forms of parallel hybrids. Sometimes the electrical engine powers the car, sometimes the internal combustion engine powers the car, and sometimes they work together.
You'll find morons on any side of a discussion, so being labelled a homophobe for believing homosexuality is wrong is no different than being called a 'pinko commie' by a conservative or a 'heartless religious fanatic' by a liberal.
On the other hand, I don't know of any reasonable, valid arguments against homosexuality. If you have some, I am willing to listen. I know and am friends with many homosexual and bisexual individuals who live perfectly normal lives, pay their taxes, do their work, do not have sex with children, and generally do nothing worthy of disapproval (save engage in homosexual acts, which of course is what you disprove of).
In this case, I don't think homosexuals were seizing on Turing's achievements as an excuse for homosexuality. They are pointing out how his achievements were blocked because of other people's reactions to homosexuality. He was offered a choice of life in prison or hormone therapy simply because he was homosexual - do you have a justification for that?
And your last full paragraph engages in the 'slippery slope' logical fallacy, in which one postulates that allowing one concession automatically assures that all other points will eventually be conceded. Permitting homosexuals to live in peace no more guarantees that 13 year olds will be declared legal adults than permitting adults to drink alcohol guarantees that all adults will become alcoholics.
Divorce is bad for everyone involved - but having two people living under the same roof who despise each other is worse. The only solution is to only marry someone you will love for the rest of your life. Unfortunately, that can't be legislated.
I think your sexuality/race/creed/gender is only worth mention in discussions like this if your ability to achieve success was diminished by it.
So if you do some really cool stuff and live a normal life, your sexuality is irrelevant. If you do some really cool stuff despite discrimination or mistreatment, or do some really cool stuff and then get killed or blocked from further contribution because of discrimination, your sexuality/race/creed/gender is noteworthy.
Turing would almost certainly be more important historically if he were not gay, because he could have continued contributing to mathematics and computing for the rest of his natural life.
In that sense, his being gay is very relevant to his intellectual accomplishments because his ability to contribute was forcibly diminished as a result.
The Turing Machine is arguably the theoretical foundation of computing.
So while you are correct that neither the idea of computers nor the first implementations of computers can be credited to Alan Turing, you might call him the father of the concept of programming.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear with my point: I would have preferred a more mathematical and programming concept orientation in the software engineering program. I feel cheated that I didn't get it.
If I wanted to move into a graphic calculating application job, the learning curve would be much steeper for me than for your average Software Engineering or Computer Science MS. I'm not at all happy about that.
My degree is really only useful for attracting attention to the resume when conducting searches on Monster.com.
It's a shame it works that way. I took a lot of proof-oriented classes in college.
I think if you can prove a concept correctly, chances are you understand the subject matter pretty well. Once you have that, solving any particular equation on the subject is usually a cinch.
In the US the vast majority of the population possesses a car at one point or another in their life. If you're an exception, I apologize for wasting your time but a basic auto mechanics class would be very useful for 90% of the population.
Good for you. I got a graduate degree in Software Engineering at the U. of Scranton, and the degree was more presentation and management oriented than software.
My presentation and public speaking skills were honed quite a bit, but my coworkers and manager often pass around terms related to programming theory that I've never encountered.
I would like to think I'm competent at my job now, but really I lucked out that they didn't catch the knowledge gaps I didn't even know I possessed when they interviewed me three years ago.
Real mathematics is proofs. People with their PhD's don't sit around all day making up multivariable calculus equations to solve on 75 sheets of paper, they attempt to prove or disprove theorems using other theorems and axioms.
Writing a correct program is extremely analagous to writing a proof. If you can do one well, chances are you can learn to do the other easily.
It weighs 2900 pounds plus occupants and cargo. Any truck and a tow cable will flip it over easily, but your two teenagers would have to be competitors for the MetRX World's Strongest Man competition.
Yes, but the super efficient Honda Insight can credit most of its fuel efficiency to extremely light weight, 1800 pounds (about 825 kg).
The Honda Civic Hybrid is only slightly more fuel efficient than the Civic HX Coupe and not nearly as efficient as the similarly sized Toyota Prius hybrid.
Honda is ahead of everyone save Toyota, but Toyota still has quite a lead.
There was a National Public Radio discussion of this a few weeks back. In one school that taught abstinence, 11 of 12 kids that had signed a statement declaring their intention to abstain had become sexually active within the next four years anyway.
Thanks for the info! I'll keep that in mind in case anyone tries to use that silliness in any game I play.
Re:Ask the girl out on a date!
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 1
I haven't read through my rulebooks in years, but I think earlier editions had substantially less emphasis on experience for outwitting foes or otherwise avoiding combat.
I think it makes for unintentional bias. If there's five pages devoted to experience from combat and a paragraph and simple chat for DM experience rules, players may focus on the former.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends upon how much power the engine generates, right?
If your car needs 60 horsepower to maintain speed uphill and wide open throttle produces 60 horsepower, you have one minute before you have to stop.
If your car needs 60 horsepower to maintain speed uphill and wide open throttle produces 240 horsepower, you will have substantially longer before your air tank is empty.
I wish I could drive a manual - I want to learn, but I've never had the chance.
It's a little tough to start now. I don't want to drop a few thousand dollars on a used car with a manual just to learn, but I also don't want to buy a brand new car with a standard transmission because I won't be able to test drive it worth a damn.
"Others have asked the question, and I'd be curious to know the answer: do non-hybrid cars live up to the EPA mileage reports? One would imagine that the EPA would have some consistency in their testing, so it'd be okay to compare numbers."
For example, let's say the automatic transmission in a car switches gears at 3000 RPM back to 1500 RPM in light driving. It makes the switch from first to second at 22 mph, second to third at 37, and third to fourth at 52.
If the test for mileage spends a lot of time at 20 mph, 35 mph, and 50 mph mileage will be relatively poor because the engine will be running close to 3000 RPMs most of the time.
If the test for mileage spends a lot of time at 25 mph, 40 mph, and 55 mph the mileage will be substantially better because the engine will be running close to 1500 RPMs most of the time.
Does the EPA take gear shift points into account when it runs the mileage tests? I'm not sure.
I have an Impala, and I'm a relatively light-footed driver. The rated mileage is 21/32 and I get 25/31.
Manuals have two advantages besides control and fun:
- No energy lost in a torque converter.
- Generally offered with more gears, so you can keep the RPMs in the low range for efficiency or in the high range for performance as the mood strikes.
The cost of monthly repairs and more gas on an older car usually doesn't equal out to the cost of new car payments and higher insurance until your older car is falling apart.
I have 65,000 miles on my sedan, and the only way I'll replace it before 165,000 miles would be to get something with better crash protection (Like a Honda Accord Coupe or Subaru Forester, the two safest vehicles to be tested thus far.)
You got it backwards. ... Which is perfectly suitable for a moderately large Volvo station wagon.
1.2 US Gallons = 1 UK Gallon
33 miles per 1 UK gallon =>
33 miles per 1.2 US gallons =>
27.5 miles per US gallon
In the AutoWeek forums Tech Talk section, a fellow with the handle VP (Variable Pressure) Drive has a thread where he discusses his hybrid concept: Instead of constant RPM generator, battery, electric motor he does constant RPM air compressor, air tank, specially converted internal combustion engine.
The compressor fills the air tank. Pressing the accelerator pedal opens the valve to let air from the tank fill the cylinders in the engine, generating torque just like any other car engine except without combustion. Pressing the brake applies braking to the tires and also automatically closes the valve from the air tank.
He said about one minute of hard acceleration would drain your air tank completely and would require about ten minutes to refill the tank to a drivable level, but nobody keeps the throttle wide open for 60 seconds straight.
The concept strikes me as brilliant, although I am neither a physicist nor engineer so this is an inexpert opinion. The air tank should suffer less inefficiency of power transfer than a battery.
I posted this as a response to someone else, but I thought the idea was worth repeating.
"The easiest way to gain fuel economy, however, is to drive a car that weighs 1500 lbs instead of 3000 lbs."
True. However, if your '82 Jetta gets in a crash, you're in trouble. A new Jetta might not get you 52 mpg, but new Volkswagens have excellent crash protection. I don't know if that matters to you, but to me the two biggest considerations as a car buyer are crash protection and fuel economy.
I read an interesting discussion in the AutoWeek tech talk forum from an independent inventor working on a variant of your diesel generator/electric motor combination. He was working with an air compressor, a (reinforced) air tank, and a 4 cylinder engine. The air compressor runs at its most efficient form to keep the air tank full. Pressing the accelerator pedal opens the airway from the air tank into the 4 cylinder engine, generating pressure just like detonation from traditional internal combustion.
The fellow was up front that he didn't have a completed test vehicle as proof of concept, but I thought the idea was interesting. I would think an air tank would be less prone to loss of stored energy or degradation over time than a battery, too.
I've wondered about the same idea, but none of the currently available hybrids work this way.
I may have my definitions mixed up, but I believe what you describe is a series hybrid. The internal combustion engine generates electricity, which charges a battery. The battery's electricity is used to power an electrical engine.
The Prius, Insight, and Civic are all forms of parallel hybrids. Sometimes the electrical engine powers the car, sometimes the internal combustion engine powers the car, and sometimes they work together.
You'll find morons on any side of a discussion, so being labelled a homophobe for believing homosexuality is wrong is no different than being called a 'pinko commie' by a conservative or a 'heartless religious fanatic' by a liberal.
On the other hand, I don't know of any reasonable, valid arguments against homosexuality. If you have some, I am willing to listen. I know and am friends with many homosexual and bisexual individuals who live perfectly normal lives, pay their taxes, do their work, do not have sex with children, and generally do nothing worthy of disapproval (save engage in homosexual acts, which of course is what you disprove of).
In this case, I don't think homosexuals were seizing on Turing's achievements as an excuse for homosexuality. They are pointing out how his achievements were blocked because of other people's reactions to homosexuality. He was offered a choice of life in prison or hormone therapy simply because he was homosexual - do you have a justification for that?
And your last full paragraph engages in the 'slippery slope' logical fallacy, in which one postulates that allowing one concession automatically assures that all other points will eventually be conceded. Permitting homosexuals to live in peace no more guarantees that 13 year olds will be declared legal adults than permitting adults to drink alcohol guarantees that all adults will become alcoholics.
Divorce is bad for everyone involved - but having two people living under the same roof who despise each other is worse. The only solution is to only marry someone you will love for the rest of your life. Unfortunately, that can't be legislated.
I think your sexuality/race/creed/gender is only worth mention in discussions like this if your ability to achieve success was diminished by it.
So if you do some really cool stuff and live a normal life, your sexuality is irrelevant. If you do some really cool stuff despite discrimination or mistreatment, or do some really cool stuff and then get killed or blocked from further contribution because of discrimination, your sexuality/race/creed/gender is noteworthy.
Make sense?
Turing would almost certainly be more important historically if he were not gay, because he could have continued contributing to mathematics and computing for the rest of his natural life.
In that sense, his being gay is very relevant to his intellectual accomplishments because his ability to contribute was forcibly diminished as a result.
The Turing Machine is arguably the theoretical foundation of computing.
So while you are correct that neither the idea of computers nor the first implementations of computers can be credited to Alan Turing, you might call him the father of the concept of programming.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear with my point: I would have preferred a more mathematical and programming concept orientation in the software engineering program. I feel cheated that I didn't get it.
If I wanted to move into a graphic calculating application job, the learning curve would be much steeper for me than for your average Software Engineering or Computer Science MS. I'm not at all happy about that.
My degree is really only useful for attracting attention to the resume when conducting searches on Monster.com.
It's a shame it works that way. I took a lot of proof-oriented classes in college.
I think if you can prove a concept correctly, chances are you understand the subject matter pretty well. Once you have that, solving any particular equation on the subject is usually a cinch.
In the US the vast majority of the population possesses a car at one point or another in their life. If you're an exception, I apologize for wasting your time but a basic auto mechanics class would be very useful for 90% of the population.
Good for you. I got a graduate degree in Software Engineering at the U. of Scranton, and the degree was more presentation and management oriented than software.
My presentation and public speaking skills were honed quite a bit, but my coworkers and manager often pass around terms related to programming theory that I've never encountered.
I would like to think I'm competent at my job now, but really I lucked out that they didn't catch the knowledge gaps I didn't even know I possessed when they interviewed me three years ago.
Real mathematics is proofs. People with their PhD's don't sit around all day making up multivariable calculus equations to solve on 75 sheets of paper, they attempt to prove or disprove theorems using other theorems and axioms.
Writing a correct program is extremely analagous to writing a proof. If you can do one well, chances are you can learn to do the other easily.
It weighs 2900 pounds plus occupants and cargo. Any truck and a tow cable will flip it over easily, but your two teenagers would have to be competitors for the MetRX World's Strongest Man competition.
I was just thinking of using the James Bond Theme.
or maybe Carmina Borana.
Yes, but the super efficient Honda Insight can credit most of its fuel efficiency to extremely light weight, 1800 pounds (about 825 kg).
The Honda Civic Hybrid is only slightly more fuel efficient than the Civic HX Coupe and not nearly as efficient as the similarly sized Toyota Prius hybrid.
Honda is ahead of everyone save Toyota, but Toyota still has quite a lead.
Thanks for pointing that out.
There was a National Public Radio discussion of this a few weeks back. In one school that taught abstinence, 11 of 12 kids that had signed a statement declaring their intention to abstain had become sexually active within the next four years anyway.
It is indeed pedantic sillyness. I would never attempt it because it is clearly an abusive metagaming tactic.
But I have to admit, whoever devised this combination found a particularly clever set of loopholes in the rules.
Thanks for the info! I'll keep that in mind in case anyone tries to use that silliness in any game I play.
I haven't read through my rulebooks in years, but I think earlier editions had substantially less emphasis on experience for outwitting foes or otherwise avoiding combat.
I think it makes for unintentional bias. If there's five pages devoted to experience from combat and a paragraph and simple chat for DM experience rules, players may focus on the former.