None of the things you listed can be put onto a poster and waved around during an angry protest. You can't martyr specially modified helicopters or the dog. At least try understand that much.
On the other hand, releasing the photo(s) will do nothing to stop the people who insist it's all a fraud from insisting it's a fraud. It will not convince anyone who isn't already satisfied with the reports.
If you can think of any positive result that can come from releasing them at this time, please share because I'm at a loss. =Smidge=
The REAL trick to identifying pirates is to post false claims about pirate-catching tricks and wait for pedantic pirates to correct you claiming they "had a pirated copy that worked fine."
Capacitors do not "breathe" like you describe, otherwise humidity would get in and ruin them. Instead they have "vents" in the sense that part of the casing is weakened to rupture safely if the electrolyte starts to break down and build pressure, rather than have the whole can explode.
The irony here is that the electrolyte in the "beer can" style caps is a mineral oil not completely unlike what they use as a coolant. The other option is to pay extra for non electrolytic capacitors on your equipment.
As for the oil degrading plastics and such, I'd like to think they thought of that and either use special wiring where it contacts oil or that the "special formulation" they speak of is designed to prevent that issue. Given that they warranty everything they're probably aware of something so obvious. =Smidge=
I was meant to show you what would happen if Tesla wasn't interfering with the testing and prohibiting Top Gear from showing the Car running out of juice. They could have run it down to 0 but weren't allowed too.
Wow, really? They did it out of spite because Tesla was interfering with the tests? That doesn't exactly help their image you know. How do you know this? It wasn't mentioned in the segment.
Nope most of the time when there pointing out a high end exotic's short range it's just left by the roadside as the presenter walks away. Been done many times.
Context is what's most important here, don't you agree? So if you could provide specific examples I could review in context that'd be swell. =Smidge=
the purpose was to demonstrate to the audience in a visceral and entertaining way what would happen when the battery went dead
And nowhere is that explained in the show - only in an after-the-fact comment prompted by Tesla's complaint. So again: Jeremy looking confusedly at the dashboard then cutting to a scene of crew members pushing the Tesla off the track was meant to imply what, exactly? The car didn't need to be pushed and it was never explained why it was.
I'm sure the expected range whipping one of those high-end sports cars around the track is much less than the official rating too, but you'll never see one of those being pushed back to the hangar... =Smidge=
Nobody from Top Gear ever said that the battery went flat.
So Jeremy looking confusedly at the dashboard then cutting to a scene of crew members pushing the Tesla off the track was meant to imply what, exactly?
Without any other clues as to what actually happened, it is up to the viewer to infer that the batteries had run flat. =Smidge=
"The Tesla" is not a car. It's company. The Roadster, which is a car made by Tesla, is the car you describe. And I agree it is a rather expensive toy more than an everyday vehicle. However, Tesla is also building their Model S which is slightly more practical. Still high-end, but at least it's not a two-seater.
The Aptera is a monstrosity. You can actually do better with a more conventional design. Not to mention that with only three wheels it is legally a motorcycle in some states. At least the stuff that Tesla makes (and has actually been selling) looks like a car, which actually counts for a lot more than you'd probably like to admit. Lastly, the Aptera is still gasoline powered - "new way of thinking" applies to more than just physical form.
That said, I think the focus should be more on "everyday driver" electric vehicles. Neither of the Tesla vehicles nor the Aptera count. =Smidge=
SOME batteries store energy in that manner, but the most battery types do not.
Using lithium as an example, the energy is indeed stored in the electrodes. During charging lithium is freed from the chemical structure of the cathode and the Li+ ions travel across the cell to chemically bond with the anode material. The energy is stored as the difference in oxidation states between the anode and cathode chemistries.
Even a lead-acid battery, where the electrolyte actively participates in the chemistry, can not be recharged by simply replacing the electrolyte. =Smidge=
That's where it makes the most sense to do it, though.
If charging from a 120V outlet, you'll probably get 2-3 miles worth of charge every hour. So it makes sense that you would charge during the times you aren't using the vehicle... which, for most people, would be overnight at home.
End point charging is a crucial difference in habit that a lot of anti-EV people have difficulty grasping. The notion that everyone will always be using dedicated, commercial recharging facilities as they do gas stations is absurd - there may be a market for such facilities, but they would be rarely used by any one individual. =Smidge=
Part of the problem is the Volt's battery pack is thermally managed, which adds considerably to the volume. Another part of the problem is the Volt is shitty as an EV to begin with (likely because it was designed to be a series hybrid, not an electric vehicle).
In short, no; a ~250 mile all-electric range is NOT doable with a Volt. It's doable with EVs in general, like with the Tesla Roadster, but not the Volt. =Smidge=
Electricity, generated by coal/oil/gas 85% of the time.
Closer to like 66% of the time (total % of electrical power from coal. gas and oil), according to the 2009 LLNL Energy Flow sankey diagram. Been decreasing slowly but steadily for several years now, too. But hey, using Google is much harder than pulling numbers out of your ass I guess...
We estimated that a car driven 100 km uses about 80 kWh of energy.
Your cited website is entirely bogus for this discussion since it applies only to gasoline powered vehicles.
80 kWh/100km translates to 0.75 mi/kWh. This is absurd for electric vehicles - if a modern EV gets less than 3.0 mi/kWh it's either a pile of shitty engineering or you're driving it on a drag strip. Hell, even on a drag strip you'd probably get better than that.
In reality you're looking at about 20kWh/100km, which is consistent with real-world driving experiences as reported by Nissan Leaf owners. ~120-240kW. That's still way too much power for untrained personnel to be handling, and certainly more than any typical household service could provide... but still, your numbers are way off. =Smidge=
More result per unit cost just increases the incentive to spend more, since the rate of return gets more and more favorable. it's unlikely next year's bleeding edge gaming rig will use less power - if you can do next year with 450 watts what you can do today with 1200 watts, imagine what you can do next year with 1200 watts!
I think the only reason PCs haven't gotten much more power hungry is because there is a limit to how much power you can suck out of a wall socket before needing to redo the wiring. =Smidge=
The purpose of the Enigma machine was not to direct submarines and armies. Its purpose was to encrypt and decrypt messages. And it is still used for exactly that purpose. The content of the messages, and the personal motive for encrypting them, is inconsequential to the purpose of the machine itself. =Smidge=
The enigma machine - still used and replicated by enthusiasts and historians
The Grand Arcanum - Is something that never actually existed in the first place a valid example?
The Inca "knots tied in a rope" document format. - They're called Quipus. Might be your only valid example.
Ancient Egyptian stone drill bits. - Stone drill bits (and stone tools in general) are still made and used.
Greek Fire - Hard to say since nobody really knows what the stuff was made of.
Babylonian legal code - Arguably not a tool, though we still use written laws today.
Vacume [sic] tubes - See other posts; not even close to dead.
Ancient calendars - Arguably still used for archeological/anthropological research and other historian activities.
Aristotle/Arcamedies model of the Universe - Unfortunately, Geocentrism is alive and well. But again this isn't really a tool in the common sense of the word...
The 4 Humors - Not really a tool either IMHO, but culturally some of it lingers in modern medicine. Then there's the whole "alternative medicine" sack of shit that's all about balancing internal chemistry and whatnot... same snake oil, different vocabulary.
----
I would submit various medieval torture devices as examples of tools that are no (thankfully) longer produced or used. =Smidge=
>Therefore, it is vital to strictly limit government spending just to those expenses which no other organization can make.
What about expenses that other organizations CAN make, but WILL NOT?
Running power and telephone out into the boonies is a good example. That never would have happened without billions in subsidies to the telco industry. Sure they COULD have spent their own money, but they wouldn't because they were too short sighted.
What about space programs? ALL of the private endeavors today are doing it because of government incentives, and ALL of them are basing their work on the knowledge and technology gained from billions poured into government programs mostly in the 50s and 60s.
How many private organizations out there offer unemployment insurance? Only ones I can think of are a handful of the larger labor unions.
Here's the bottom line: It is precisely because the government does not "generate income" that it has the luxury to spend money on projects that have no obvious profit potential. That means research, infrastructure, and exploration.
The private sector is sorely lacking in vision and willingness to think long-term. =Smidge=
It's not entirely clear how the government is fundamentally different from a private company when it comes to the essence of the Keynesian model.
You have an institution that wants something done - say, build a bridge - and pays someone else to do it. The construction of this bridge employs engineers, architects, construction workers, foundry workers, and so on all the way down to the guy with the catering van that sells lunch and coffee at the job site. At the end of the project, you get a bridge.
Please explain how you can tell, from an external point of view, whether the institution described above is a government office or a private business, or even a private individual.
You can argue that it didn't really "create jobs" because all those workers are out of work when the project is done, but that's the way the construction industry works anyway. Creating a job is not the same as creating a lifelong career position. What does it even mean to "create jobs in a meaningful and lasting way?"
You don't get that intrinsic value with tax cuts or simply sending everyone a check. =Smidge=
It's a first-person sandbox game. There is no goal at this point, no win or lose conditions (unless "dying" counts as losing but you can respawn an infinite number of times), and there is no action that NEEDS to be taken.
You dig/mine blocks, which you can then place back anywhere you want. Some blocks can be converted into materials to make other block types, tools, weapons, decorations and other stuff.
Kinda like LEGO but you have to find and dig out (sometimes manufacture) the blocks you want. =Smidge=
I recall him being suspended for making a personal donation, but not for soliciting donations from his audience.
Of course, Fox not only doesn't reprimand their staff for donating to campaigns, they actively and openly use their resources as a media network to help raise money for political candidates.
Slashdot Mirror
None of the things you listed can be put onto a poster and waved around during an angry protest. You can't martyr specially modified helicopters or the dog. At least try understand that much.
On the other hand, releasing the photo(s) will do nothing to stop the people who insist it's all a fraud from insisting it's a fraud. It will not convince anyone who isn't already satisfied with the reports.
If you can think of any positive result that can come from releasing them at this time, please share because I'm at a loss.
=Smidge=
Sucker!
The REAL trick to identifying pirates is to post false claims about pirate-catching tricks and wait for pedantic pirates to correct you claiming they "had a pirated copy that worked fine."
Busted.
=Smidge=
Capacitors do not "breathe" like you describe, otherwise humidity would get in and ruin them. Instead they have "vents" in the sense that part of the casing is weakened to rupture safely if the electrolyte starts to break down and build pressure, rather than have the whole can explode.
The irony here is that the electrolyte in the "beer can" style caps is a mineral oil not completely unlike what they use as a coolant. The other option is to pay extra for non electrolytic capacitors on your equipment.
As for the oil degrading plastics and such, I'd like to think they thought of that and either use special wiring where it contacts oil or that the "special formulation" they speak of is designed to prevent that issue. Given that they warranty everything they're probably aware of something so obvious.
=Smidge=
I was meant to show you what would happen if Tesla wasn't interfering with the testing and prohibiting Top Gear from showing the Car running out of juice. They could have run it down to 0 but weren't allowed too.
Wow, really? They did it out of spite because Tesla was interfering with the tests? That doesn't exactly help their image you know. How do you know this? It wasn't mentioned in the segment.
Nope most of the time when there pointing out a high end exotic's short range it's just left by the roadside as the presenter walks away. Been done many times.
Context is what's most important here, don't you agree? So if you could provide specific examples I could review in context that'd be swell.
=Smidge=
the purpose was to demonstrate to the audience in a visceral and entertaining way what would happen when the battery went dead
And nowhere is that explained in the show - only in an after-the-fact comment prompted by Tesla's complaint. So again: Jeremy looking confusedly at the dashboard then cutting to a scene of crew members pushing the Tesla off the track was meant to imply what, exactly? The car didn't need to be pushed and it was never explained why it was.
I'm sure the expected range whipping one of those high-end sports cars around the track is much less than the official rating too, but you'll never see one of those being pushed back to the hangar...
=Smidge=
Nobody from Top Gear ever said that the battery went flat.
So Jeremy looking confusedly at the dashboard then cutting to a scene of crew members pushing the Tesla off the track was meant to imply what, exactly?
Without any other clues as to what actually happened, it is up to the viewer to infer that the batteries had run flat.
=Smidge=
"The Tesla" is not a car. It's company. The Roadster, which is a car made by Tesla, is the car you describe. And I agree it is a rather expensive toy more than an everyday vehicle. However, Tesla is also building their Model S which is slightly more practical. Still high-end, but at least it's not a two-seater.
The Aptera is a monstrosity. You can actually do better with a more conventional design. Not to mention that with only three wheels it is legally a motorcycle in some states. At least the stuff that Tesla makes (and has actually been selling) looks like a car, which actually counts for a lot more than you'd probably like to admit. Lastly, the Aptera is still gasoline powered - "new way of thinking" applies to more than just physical form.
That said, I think the focus should be more on "everyday driver" electric vehicles. Neither of the Tesla vehicles nor the Aptera count.
=Smidge=
As it should. Gasoline can be taxed as a non-renewable energy source, rather than as a proxy for road usage like it is now.
=Smidge=
SOME batteries store energy in that manner, but the most battery types do not.
Using lithium as an example, the energy is indeed stored in the electrodes. During charging lithium is freed from the chemical structure of the cathode and the Li+ ions travel across the cell to chemically bond with the anode material. The energy is stored as the difference in oxidation states between the anode and cathode chemistries.
Even a lead-acid battery, where the electrolyte actively participates in the chemistry, can not be recharged by simply replacing the electrolyte.
=Smidge=
That's where it makes the most sense to do it, though.
If charging from a 120V outlet, you'll probably get 2-3 miles worth of charge every hour. So it makes sense that you would charge during the times you aren't using the vehicle... which, for most people, would be overnight at home.
End point charging is a crucial difference in habit that a lot of anti-EV people have difficulty grasping. The notion that everyone will always be using dedicated, commercial recharging facilities as they do gas stations is absurd - there may be a market for such facilities, but they would be rarely used by any one individual.
=Smidge=
The Volt's battery pack takes up the space under the rear seat as well as the "hump" down the middle of the vehicle. If you strip out the ICE and gas tank, and sacrifice what little there is of the cargo space, you might be able to squeeze two more of similar capacity into the vehicle.
Part of the problem is the Volt's battery pack is thermally managed, which adds considerably to the volume. Another part of the problem is the Volt is shitty as an EV to begin with (likely because it was designed to be a series hybrid, not an electric vehicle).
In short, no; a ~250 mile all-electric range is NOT doable with a Volt. It's doable with EVs in general, like with the Tesla Roadster, but not the Volt.
=Smidge=
http://www.betterplace.com/the-solution-switch-stations
In trial phase in select cities around the world.
=Smidge=
Electricity, generated by coal/oil/gas 85% of the time.
Closer to like 66% of the time (total % of electrical power from coal. gas and oil), according to the 2009 LLNL Energy Flow sankey diagram. Been decreasing slowly but steadily for several years now, too. But hey, using Google is much harder than pulling numbers out of your ass I guess...
Tangentially related, "Electric car owners prone to going solar".
=Smidge=
We estimated that a car driven 100 km uses about 80 kWh of energy.
Your cited website is entirely bogus for this discussion since it applies only to gasoline powered vehicles.
80 kWh/100km translates to 0.75 mi/kWh. This is absurd for electric vehicles - if a modern EV gets less than 3.0 mi/kWh it's either a pile of shitty engineering or you're driving it on a drag strip. Hell, even on a drag strip you'd probably get better than that.
In reality you're looking at about 20kWh/100km, which is consistent with real-world driving experiences as reported by Nissan Leaf owners. ~120-240kW. That's still way too much power for untrained personnel to be handling, and certainly more than any typical household service could provide... but still, your numbers are way off.
=Smidge=
Not if Jevons Paradox has anything to say about it.
More result per unit cost just increases the incentive to spend more, since the rate of return gets more and more favorable. it's unlikely next year's bleeding edge gaming rig will use less power - if you can do next year with 450 watts what you can do today with 1200 watts, imagine what you can do next year with 1200 watts!
I think the only reason PCs haven't gotten much more power hungry is because there is a limit to how much power you can suck out of a wall socket before needing to redo the wiring.
=Smidge=
The purpose of the Enigma machine was not to direct submarines and armies. Its purpose was to encrypt and decrypt messages. And it is still used for exactly that purpose. The content of the messages, and the personal motive for encrypting them, is inconsequential to the purpose of the machine itself.
=Smidge=
Medieval torture devices are still, in very limited way, used by enthusiasts, historians and fetishists.
Uh, no. No they are not. If some of those devices are used, people die - since that's how they work.
Getting kinky with a set of nipple clamps is a far cry from using a "Breast Ripper."
=Smidge=
The enigma machine - still used and replicated by enthusiasts and historians
The Grand Arcanum - Is something that never actually existed in the first place a valid example?
The Inca "knots tied in a rope" document format. - They're called Quipus. Might be your only valid example.
Ancient Egyptian stone drill bits. - Stone drill bits (and stone tools in general) are still made and used.
Greek Fire - Hard to say since nobody really knows what the stuff was made of.
Babylonian legal code - Arguably not a tool, though we still use written laws today.
Vacume [sic] tubes - See other posts; not even close to dead.
Ancient calendars - Arguably still used for archeological/anthropological research and other historian activities.
Aristotle/Arcamedies model of the Universe - Unfortunately, Geocentrism is alive and well. But again this isn't really a tool in the common sense of the word...
The 4 Humors - Not really a tool either IMHO, but culturally some of it lingers in modern medicine. Then there's the whole "alternative medicine" sack of shit that's all about balancing internal chemistry and whatnot... same snake oil, different vocabulary.
----
I would submit various medieval torture devices as examples of tools that are no (thankfully) longer produced or used.
=Smidge=
>Therefore, it is vital to strictly limit government spending just to those expenses which no other organization can make.
What about expenses that other organizations CAN make, but WILL NOT?
Running power and telephone out into the boonies is a good example. That never would have happened without billions in subsidies to the telco industry. Sure they COULD have spent their own money, but they wouldn't because they were too short sighted.
What about space programs? ALL of the private endeavors today are doing it because of government incentives, and ALL of them are basing their work on the knowledge and technology gained from billions poured into government programs mostly in the 50s and 60s.
How many private organizations out there offer unemployment insurance? Only ones I can think of are a handful of the larger labor unions.
Here's the bottom line: It is precisely because the government does not "generate income" that it has the luxury to spend money on projects that have no obvious profit potential. That means research, infrastructure, and exploration.
The private sector is sorely lacking in vision and willingness to think long-term.
=Smidge=
It's not entirely clear how the government is fundamentally different from a private company when it comes to the essence of the Keynesian model.
You have an institution that wants something done - say, build a bridge - and pays someone else to do it. The construction of this bridge employs engineers, architects, construction workers, foundry workers, and so on all the way down to the guy with the catering van that sells lunch and coffee at the job site. At the end of the project, you get a bridge.
Please explain how you can tell, from an external point of view, whether the institution described above is a government office or a private business, or even a private individual.
You can argue that it didn't really "create jobs" because all those workers are out of work when the project is done, but that's the way the construction industry works anyway. Creating a job is not the same as creating a lifelong career position. What does it even mean to "create jobs in a meaningful and lasting way?"
You don't get that intrinsic value with tax cuts or simply sending everyone a check.
=Smidge=
You make fuel on-site for the return trip.
=Smidge=
It's a first-person sandbox game. There is no goal at this point, no win or lose conditions (unless "dying" counts as losing but you can respawn an infinite number of times), and there is no action that NEEDS to be taken.
You dig/mine blocks, which you can then place back anywhere you want. Some blocks can be converted into materials to make other block types, tools, weapons, decorations and other stuff.
Kinda like LEGO but you have to find and dig out (sometimes manufacture) the blocks you want.
=Smidge=
You're avoiding the question: did he solicit donations from his audience on-air?
=Smidge=
I recall him being suspended for making a personal donation, but not for soliciting donations from his audience.
Of course, Fox not only doesn't reprimand their staff for donating to campaigns, they actively and openly use their resources as a media network to help raise money for political candidates.
That's what I mean by "shill."
=Smidge=
Did Chris Matthews let Obama give a fund raising pitch on the air? Not as a commercial, but as a guest on the actual programming?
Did Chris Matthews ever implore his audience to contribute to Obama's campaign for any reason?
Because that's what Fox News does for the GOP.
=Smidge=