I have the N-Charge II base unit and it works JUST FINE as advertised!
I use it all the time to charge my celphone, digicam, and laptop portably without having to lug around multiple power-bricks. I'm even reusing my Toshiba powerbrick from an old laptop as my stay-at-home brick to charge my Sony VAIO while I keep the Sony's brick for on-the-go.
Saved me extra laptop-brick ($50), extra digicam batt ($50), extra laptop batt ($300), extra celphone charger ($20)= $420 for $125 (valence) + $30 (low-voltage adaptor) + $20 for two tip sets= $175.
Specs are sparse and more equivalent to the 65W Valence battery than the 130W, but you are very sparse on information. You're most likely not even using the expansion pack with the base unit which of course means you got half the performance. I get 4 hours out of the battery myself. No doubt even more if I ever want to add the expansion pack.
The 3 led battery display IS very uninformative, but the performance time is predictable.
This new form-factor is great for lifting one edge of the laptop up (the back) enhancing typing, and enhancing airflow underneath which you really should try out.
You COULD also just get the power-cord extender if you want to keep it inside your backpack if it's too inconvenient in the "lift-bottom" setup.
Typical of Slashdotters to comment, agree, and bitch about a product they know nothing about, but even for the reviewer to not RTFM. I guess that's typical too.
This really demonstrates how a constantly engaged (no-cones & belt) CVT works and why the Prius's drivetrain is really revolutionary, should be lower maintenance cost lifetime, and is just plain geeky cool.
Also, it shows what happens when you "drain" the drive battery down in that it doesn't stop the car from going, nor does it kill the battery.
Unless you consider the Toyota planetary-gear constantly engaged CVT (not the cone-belt Honda/Audi one). Toyota's is every bit as sturdy as the auto/manual without ever disengaging.
After all, it already handles 295lbs-ft torque at 0 rpm.
Nissan is talking out of the side of their ass btw because while they say that, they're putting out a hybrid Altima within 2 years (using Toyota tech). Go figure! And by 2005, there will be 10 types of hybrids available on the market; even Subaru.
Also, I doubt the small profit margin because Toyota has been doing this for 7 YEARS. That isn't a loss-leader type of longevity.
And let's spin the numbers, although Toyota hybrids + other hybrids represent 5% of total sales, 100% of Toyota's maximum ~100K hybrid production is being sold before it hits the production line with months-long waiting list. Sales are growing at double-rate.
Project that out for yourself and compare to the shrinking and stagnant SUV sales.
If Toyota could make enough hybrids, it would be the LARGEST and fastest growing percentage of total vehicles sold.
In the Prius: no alternator, no timing belt, no-multigear transmission and linkage.
Just a single-gear direct drive small (less weight!) gas-engine that only runs at certain RPMs, and electric motors.
An equivalent HP gas car of the same class and internal room weights more, currently.
And MPG is not the only part of the game - emissions is also, and there isn't a diesel engine (by itself) using USA diesel that puts out less emissions than a gas-hybrid.
Now, if you're talking about a diesel-hybrid using low-sulfur diesel, or a hydrogen-hybrid then WOOO!
Actually, Honda serial tech is one big gas engine that is used ALL the time, and a small electric motor that kicks in when needed for assistance (like a supercharger).
Until you consider lower emissions (reducing medical costs), and the new sulfur rules next year which effectively ban all current diesel engine tech (and sales) in the USA.
It's not just hybrids, but ALL cars don't attain the fuel consumption level on the sticker from the Echo to the SUV, to the Accord hybrid (which isn't really a full hybrid), nor the "hybrid" Silverado.
You can't compare EPA Echo to non-EPA Prius. That's just not apples to apples.
Goto some Priusenthusiast sites, or this specific page and you'll find there something called warp stealth.
If the battery is topped off, you're coasting, and you're not going uphill, the gas engine will just spin without being fed gasoline.
Plus, technology like regenerative braking, regenerative motion (charges battery when coasting), the fact that the gas engine's output is ALWAYS split 70% (drive wheels) / 30% feed electric motor/generator, this higher efficiency setup gives you the better mileage.
You're not using extra energy to charge the batteries. You're just using the excess gas engine energy to charge when driving at a constant speed. How much HP do you need to beat down wind-resistance?
I drive ~75mph and I routinely get 47mph on the highway - and I'm just breaking it in! In high traffic situations (stop & go) which resemble city driving, I've gotten 51mpg so far; so traffic is a GOOD thing.:)
EPA's posted numbers are not realworld numbers, but EPA is inaccurate for EVERY car out there. Consider that.
AND, don't forget emissions - even if Echo gets comparable mpg, it's not a AT-PZEV vehicle where the air coming out is basically cleaner than the dirty city air going in. This is vastly more important than mpg if you care about your health longterm.
'84 to '86 (< 2 years) isn't really a good proof of "well-established". I'm pretty sure you can find sales figures of how "well-established" Macintosh sales were too.
During '87s, the 65816 did outperform the 68000 clock for clock if you checked the synthetic benchmarks such as dhrystone. Have you ever tried to compile C homework between the Mac or IIGS? I did and the Mac Plus/SE was at least 2x slower and ram limited.
But of course, it's software, not hardware that determines the winner and yes the Mac was a much cleaner 32-bit architecture, but it didn't get its legs until a few more years later. Why did Apple need to disavow its own momentum and mindshare with the Apple II, unless it's because it wasn't Job's baby?
At this same time, there have been rumors of a 65C832 in development by WDC (vaporware) as well as a prototype ARM-Apple II that would've gave the obvious headroom, as well as a consumer friendly upgrade/migration path. There was also the Mark Twain ROM04 IIGS freshener project.
At the time, GS/OS did support up to 8MB of ram since '87. Matching that with the lower software bloat, it was quite head-n-shoulders above even the "business" game PCs which continued to be software limited to 640K.
Jobs of course wouldn't have wanted his Mac baby killed in the cradle, so any significant Apple II improvement that would have eclipsed the Mac would be stillborn. And that management bias probably continued to hold sway after Jobs left. It IS always better to concentrate on one product than split your resources.
The IIGS came out in '86. It predates the Mac II (FIRST Mac with color, ADB, separate monitor, HD support) by at least a few months.
The IIGS had ADB keyboard & mouse, separate RGB monitor, color Quickdraw II, platinum color, external 3.5" drives, 8-bit wavetable sound, up to 8MB of ram and still a lot of expandibility.
Timeline and development-wise, modern Macs are really "Fake GSs". The IIGS plowed the way ahead of the Macs.
At this point in time, I don't remember Macs being established as the "future" at all. It was probably only in Job's reality distortion bubble. All the software was still Apple II and very little "Mac" in the way it's all PC now and Mac is a niche.
I can't remember if Macs were even established as DTP houses at this time yet (1986). Most schools were stocked with Apple IIes, and that WAS your future generation of users and developers.
It seem more of Woz was done with his final project and was going to party out rest of his life off (which stopped after the airplane accident), and Jobs was pushing very hard with his renegade "business" Macintosh project to prove that "Apple" wasn't a toy making company.
Ignoring of course how well the Apple II was doing and the generation it was creating.
Remember, up until the late 90s, Apple II sales entirely funded Mac R&D even though all advertising stopped by the late 80s, early 90s for the Apple IIs. This EOL product sold itself and funded another project for the next 8-9 years!
I would've been logical to continue the Apple II line in an evolutionary way as DOS to Windows to NT has, instead of doing the sudden break to Mac, then sudden break to PowerPC, then sudden break to OSX (not that the last bit is bad).
You can still run a lot of your ancient PC software on modern hardware as a demonstration how well the PC transition went, and I submit that's why it dominates
I also submit that dropping the AppleII was Apple's single most biggest failure and blunder of the kind that usually kills a company like Commodore squandering their Amiga potential.
Amazingly, Apple survived (with a lot of revenue and loyalty help from the educational market), long enough to finally came out with a MAINSTREAM product that actually sells and makes revenue (iPod).
is that the only example? Seems the other vertically integrated Japanese (Toyota, Honda...) are doing quite well.
In a counter example, the Toyota Prius is an entirely vertically integrated design and manufactured car. It's selling like hotcakes (no inventory leftover and long waiting lists) and has allowed Toyota to cut costs with larger profit margins; already 5 years ahead of any auto maker except for Honda.
Mitsubishi is the "only" unprofitable Japanese car maker.
Now let's take Sony. All the Playstations have been designed, built, and supplied in-house (including future PS3 fab factories) which has allowed Sony to make quite-a-bit of profit, dominate the console market, and practically propping up the earnings for entertainment division.
If you compare this to stocks, it's much like asset allocation where you spread out your risks so any one area doing badly doesn't hurt the overall.
I'm not sure where the "big vertical company is bad" point is, but I can appreciate the point that sticking your head in a hole in the ground with proprietary technology is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the N-Charge II base unit and it works JUST FINE as advertised!
I use it all the time to charge my celphone, digicam, and laptop portably without having to lug around multiple power-bricks. I'm even reusing my Toshiba powerbrick from an old laptop as my stay-at-home brick to charge my Sony VAIO while I keep the Sony's brick for on-the-go.
Saved me extra laptop-brick ($50), extra digicam batt ($50), extra laptop batt ($300), extra celphone charger ($20)= $420 for $125 (valence) + $30 (low-voltage adaptor) + $20 for two tip sets= $175.
Also, more power and better flexibility than the Socket Power Pack.
Specs are sparse and more equivalent to the 65W Valence battery than the 130W, but you are very sparse on information. You're most likely not even using the expansion pack with the base unit which of course means you got half the performance. I get 4 hours out of the battery myself. No doubt even more if I ever want to add the expansion pack.
The 3 led battery display IS very uninformative, but the performance time is predictable.
This new form-factor is great for lifting one edge of the laptop up (the back) enhancing typing, and enhancing airflow underneath which you really should try out.
You COULD also just get the power-cord extender if you want to keep it inside your backpack if it's too inconvenient in the "lift-bottom" setup.
Typical of Slashdotters to comment, agree, and bitch about a product they know nothing about, but even for the reviewer to not RTFM. I guess that's typical too.
Check this out.
This really demonstrates how a constantly engaged (no-cones & belt) CVT works and why the Prius's drivetrain is really revolutionary, should be lower maintenance cost lifetime, and is just plain geeky cool.
Also, it shows what happens when you "drain" the drive battery down in that it doesn't stop the car from going, nor does it kill the battery.
Cd of 0.29. But this means nothing without calculating against surface area presented which is really specified.
Goto Prius Online in the For Sale->Dealers section. There's many Prius ready for sale right now, no wait.
Unless you consider the Toyota planetary-gear constantly engaged CVT (not the cone-belt Honda/Audi one). Toyota's is every bit as sturdy as the auto/manual without ever disengaging.
After all, it already handles 295lbs-ft torque at 0 rpm.
How much sulphur coming out of that bio-diesel you're burning compared to other fuel solutions?
Bio-diesel is quite dirtier.
Nissan is talking out of the side of their ass btw because while they say that, they're putting out a hybrid Altima within 2 years (using Toyota tech). Go figure! And by 2005, there will be 10 types of hybrids available on the market; even Subaru.
Also, I doubt the small profit margin because Toyota has been doing this for 7 YEARS. That isn't a loss-leader type of longevity.
And let's spin the numbers, although Toyota hybrids + other hybrids represent 5% of total sales, 100% of Toyota's maximum ~100K hybrid production is being sold before it hits the production line with months-long waiting list. Sales are growing at double-rate.
Project that out for yourself and compare to the shrinking and stagnant SUV sales.
If Toyota could make enough hybrids, it would be the LARGEST and fastest growing percentage of total vehicles sold.
How is it more complex and heavier?
In the Prius: no alternator, no timing belt, no-multigear transmission and linkage.
Just a single-gear direct drive small (less weight!) gas-engine that only runs at certain RPMs, and electric motors.
An equivalent HP gas car of the same class and internal room weights more, currently.
And MPG is not the only part of the game - emissions is also, and there isn't a diesel engine (by itself) using USA diesel that puts out less emissions than a gas-hybrid.
Now, if you're talking about a diesel-hybrid using low-sulfur diesel, or a hydrogen-hybrid then WOOO!
Actually, Honda serial tech is one big gas engine that is used ALL the time, and a small electric motor that kicks in when needed for assistance (like a supercharger).
Toyota is a small gas engine, with a big 295lb-ft torque @ 0-1200rpm electric motor and both run independently in PARALLEL depending on usage.
Until you consider lower emissions (reducing medical costs), and the new sulfur rules next year which effectively ban all current diesel engine tech (and sales) in the USA.
You should revise down for the Echo too.
It's not just hybrids, but ALL cars don't attain the fuel consumption level on the sticker from the Echo to the SUV, to the Accord hybrid (which isn't really a full hybrid), nor the "hybrid" Silverado.
You can't compare EPA Echo to non-EPA Prius. That's just not apples to apples.
Goto some Prius enthusiast sites, or this specific page and you'll find there something called warp stealth.
:)
If the battery is topped off, you're coasting, and you're not going uphill, the gas engine will just spin without being fed gasoline.
Plus, technology like regenerative braking, regenerative motion (charges battery when coasting), the fact that the gas engine's output is ALWAYS split 70% (drive wheels) / 30% feed electric motor/generator, this higher efficiency setup gives you the better mileage.
You're not using extra energy to charge the batteries. You're just using the excess gas engine energy to charge when driving at a constant speed. How much HP do you need to beat down wind-resistance?
I drive ~75mph and I routinely get 47mph on the highway - and I'm just breaking it in! In high traffic situations (stop & go) which resemble city driving, I've gotten 51mpg so far; so traffic is a GOOD thing.
EPA's posted numbers are not realworld numbers, but EPA is inaccurate for EVERY car out there. Consider that.
AND, don't forget emissions - even if Echo gets comparable mpg, it's not a AT-PZEV vehicle where the air coming out is basically cleaner than the dirty city air going in. This is vastly more important than mpg if you care about your health longterm.
I predict this is TiVo's death throes as Comcast moves to buy it up.
As I said in some previous post...
My preeciousss.
Where am I? This ain't Kansas anymore...
No, it's SlashDupe-lund.
Would it probably work for these two languages so we can then decipher or correct books such as the language in the Simarillion?
Where's Hoshi? I bet she's faster.
Traffic would be somewhat lighter if CA had (and will) build out more rails so all that heavy lifting could be moved off the roads.
Reduces the congestion, and the WALL of trucks along some freeway lanes.
are already doing this by checking your last smog inspections (if available) to calculate your annual mileage and then charge you accordingly.
AAA is one I know certainly does this.
Yup, those damned terrorist founding fathers.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Not only is this a DUPE, but it was squashed and died LONG ago as one of the "funny" ideas the new DMV chief had.
All of a sudden, it's news all over again?
Every keeps suggesting that Iran "might" have them from every political figure down to Rice on her last leg of her debutant tour.
And that soon, "people" might have to start breathing down the back of Iran's pants (just like how you guys did with Iraq).
Look at us! We REALLY got them! Come on, play with us!
Why bother running WEP if you're already running OpenVPN? That's unnecessary double encryption and lowers your wireless bandwidth.
'84 to '86 (< 2 years) isn't really a good proof of "well-established". I'm pretty sure you can find sales figures of how "well-established" Macintosh sales were too.
:)
:)
During '87s, the 65816 did outperform the 68000 clock for clock if you checked the synthetic benchmarks such as dhrystone. Have you ever tried to compile C homework between the Mac or IIGS? I did and the Mac Plus/SE was at least 2x slower and ram limited.
But of course, it's software, not hardware that determines the winner and yes the Mac was a much cleaner 32-bit architecture, but it didn't get its legs until a few more years later. Why did Apple need to disavow its own momentum and mindshare with the Apple II, unless it's because it wasn't Job's baby?
At this same time, there have been rumors of a 65C832 in development by WDC (vaporware) as well as a prototype ARM-Apple II that would've gave the obvious headroom, as well as a consumer friendly upgrade/migration path. There was also the Mark Twain ROM04 IIGS freshener project.
At the time, GS/OS did support up to 8MB of ram since '87. Matching that with the lower software bloat, it was quite head-n-shoulders above even the "business" game PCs which continued to be software limited to 640K.
Jobs of course wouldn't have wanted his Mac baby killed in the cradle, so any significant Apple II improvement that would have eclipsed the Mac would be stillborn. And that management bias probably continued to hold sway after Jobs left. It IS always better to concentrate on one product than split your resources.
Apple II sales did support the Macs into the 90s if just not into the late 90s... Wasn't Apple a dying company in the late 90s until Jobs came back?
So whatever, this still qualifies as an Apple flop.
The IIGS came out in '86. It predates the Mac II (FIRST Mac with color, ADB, separate monitor, HD support) by at least a few months.
The IIGS had ADB keyboard & mouse, separate RGB monitor, color Quickdraw II, platinum color, external 3.5" drives, 8-bit wavetable sound, up to 8MB of ram and still a lot of expandibility.
Timeline and development-wise, modern Macs are really "Fake GSs". The IIGS plowed the way ahead of the Macs.
At this point in time, I don't remember Macs being established as the "future" at all. It was probably only in Job's reality distortion bubble. All the software was still Apple II and very little "Mac" in the way it's all PC now and Mac is a niche.
I can't remember if Macs were even established as DTP houses at this time yet (1986). Most schools were stocked with Apple IIes, and that WAS your future generation of users and developers.
It seem more of Woz was done with his final project and was going to party out rest of his life off (which stopped after the airplane accident), and Jobs was pushing very hard with his renegade "business" Macintosh project to prove that "Apple" wasn't a toy making company.
Ignoring of course how well the Apple II was doing and the generation it was creating.
Remember, up until the late 90s, Apple II sales entirely funded Mac R&D even though all advertising stopped by the late 80s, early 90s for the Apple IIs. This EOL product sold itself and funded another project for the next 8-9 years!
I would've been logical to continue the Apple II line in an evolutionary way as DOS to Windows to NT has, instead of doing the sudden break to Mac, then sudden break to PowerPC, then sudden break to OSX (not that the last bit is bad).
You can still run a lot of your ancient PC software on modern hardware as a demonstration how well the PC transition went, and I submit that's why it dominates
I also submit that dropping the AppleII was Apple's single most biggest failure and blunder of the kind that usually kills a company like Commodore squandering their Amiga potential.
Amazingly, Apple survived (with a lot of revenue and loyalty help from the educational market), long enough to finally came out with a MAINSTREAM product that actually sells and makes revenue (iPod).
is that the only example? Seems the other vertically integrated Japanese (Toyota, Honda...) are doing quite well.
In a counter example, the Toyota Prius is an entirely vertically integrated design and manufactured car. It's selling like hotcakes (no inventory leftover and long waiting lists) and has allowed Toyota to cut costs with larger profit margins; already 5 years ahead of any auto maker except for Honda.
Mitsubishi is the "only" unprofitable Japanese car maker.
Now let's take Sony. All the Playstations have been designed, built, and supplied in-house (including future PS3 fab factories) which has allowed Sony to make quite-a-bit of profit, dominate the console market, and practically propping up the earnings for entertainment division.
If you compare this to stocks, it's much like asset allocation where you spread out your risks so any one area doing badly doesn't hurt the overall.
I'm not sure where the "big vertical company is bad" point is, but I can appreciate the point that sticking your head in a hole in the ground with proprietary technology is stupid.