Heavy duty alternators can dump upwards of 200 amps. 200 amps at 12 volts DC gives you 2.4kW. So yeah, 800W is feasable. Just don't forget all the other crap your car's electrical system is running.
I have seen some adventurous people use the alternator in their Jeep/Offroad vehicles as DC welders to make emergency repairs.
Anyway, if the UJPS uses a 12v battery system then I don't see why it couldn't work. I've thought about it myself... just fuse it at 25A to be safe. =Smidge=
Since I have a mouse with a clickable wheel, I use that to close tabs as well as open noew tabs (click with wheel button opens link in new tab). I can easily see the "main" X button being used for that getting even more confusing.
Failing that, I'm also used to using CTRL-F4 to close tabs and CTRL-TAB to switch tabs. Left hand on the keyboard, right hand on the mouse. =Smidge=
IIRC, New Orleans WAS built above sea level. It sank over time.
2. Away from hurricane prone areas
Like the entire southwest and eastern coasts...?
3. Investing in *capable* flood defences
The levees were designed for a Cat 3 hurricane, IIRC. I would have to believe there was a safety factor in there, too. The problem is that Katrina had a *lot* more rain than a normal Cat 4, and apparently the budget for maintaining the levees was cut.
4. Making proper arrangements for mass evacuations.
For the most part, they are. In this *particular* case however, this is up for debate. It all boils down to the individual's willingness to leave. A prime example of Darwinism.
But when cruising at speed, any power it takes from the drive train to charge (it is) battery pack can not be converted perfectly back to drive train power, so you will actually lose gas mileage.
The idea being that you use the stored energy while stopped/idling to power the car while cruising and to assist the car while accelerating. So even though there is loss, it's not 100% waste like it would be without the hybrid system.
You need a rediculously small amount of power to keep your car going once it's up to speed. 10-15HP would be enough for a light and/or aerodynamic vehicle to maintain highway speeds on even a slightly hilly road. The idea is to not run the engine at all at these times.
Plus, your engine runs most efficiently at a particular RPM with a particular load on it. A hybrid system is designed to run the gasoline engine as efficiently as possible by hitting that sweet spot, saving you gas. =Smidge=
I could easily see designing and building your own system based on this concept, though.
For a proper hybrid design, you would need a way to disconnect either the engine or the electric motor. Extra clutches...
I would consider getting a motor from an electric golf cart, which are pretty damn strong. The electric golf carts I'm familiar with use 6 rather large lead-acid batteries and have up to 10HP motors in them.
I tend to cruise at about 60mph with my car, so I would have to work out some means to connect the motor so the RPMs match at the motor's peak efficiency. Also, disconnecting the engine somehow would be nice so I'm not working against the internal resistance of the engine. Ideally, being able to shut the engine down completely on long highway trips.
And a plug-in recharger would be a must.
Of course, I own a 1964 Rambler with a straight-6 cyl. engine. I can practically sit next to it under the hood... that gives me plenty of room to work with! =Smidge=
Plants are pretty good at fixing carbon into forms usable as fuel; Wood, oil, sugars, etc. Depending on the type of plant and where you grow it, you needn't spend much energy to produce the "fuel".
Cane sugar C6H12O6 - Only 40% carbon by weight. Lignite, the poorest quality coal, starts at 40% carbon and the highest quality (anthracite) coal is up around 90% carbon. That's "realtively pure" in my opinion!
I'd like to see Google get an advanced copy of the publication (maybe a few hours before it goes to print), run it though their AdSense routines, and have just the right ads put in just the right spots!
1) It is not a theory because it is not based solely on empirical evidence, has no predictive ability (and is therefore useless in terms of scientific progress) and is de-facto untestable. It is a nice little story, though, and it may help you sleep better at night if you can write off such uncertainties with "God makes it that way" - but that is not science. My post was 100% satire.
2) The Anthropic Principle falls apart because it assumes life as we know it is the ONLY way life could exist. In fact the reasoning used is somewhat circular, because if the fundamental properties of the universe were different, we would either not exist (and therefore wouldn't be around to contemplate our existence!) or we would exist, possibly in a different form, and be saying how amazing it is that if the fundamental properties of the universe were different, we would not exist. In other words, you should not assume that the universe is the way it is as a consequence of life existing (First quote).
3) IMHO, Science and dogmatic religion are indeed opposites. Science dares to ask questions and oppose current ways of viewing the world. Dogmatic religion discourages and sometimes punishes those who question the teachings. Plus, saying "God did it" is a logical dead-end and halts progress. Having a partial answer that leaves more questions allows you to continue searching and discover more things. For example, if everyone accepted as fact that Zeus sat in the clouds throwing lighting bolts, chances are we would never have explored electricity which eventually led to the development of batteries, electric motors and computers. If everyone throughout history just accepted "God did it" as valid "theory" we would all still be working the fields with sticks. Well, all of us except the priests and kings...
Science and religion may not be *mutually exclusive* (in the sense that a good scientist can still be religious) but they most certainly do not compliment each other. =Smidge=
Current scientific theories on this subject are, at best, incomplete. I would like to offer an equally plausible alternative theory; Intelligent Spinning.
The Intelligent Spinner carefully regulates the speed at which the Earth's inner core rotates relative to the crust, thus regulating with great accuracy the strength and shape of the Earth's protective magnetic shield. Since this shield is so vital to life on this planet, it is inconceivable that it exists merely by chance. Therefore, we can conclude that the Intelligent Spinner was put in place by the Intelligent Designer, as one of the many mechanisms to protect His creation.
Extrapolating from this scenario, we arrive at the conclusion that the magnetic field reversal is all part of the Intelligent Designer's plan. Indeed, so-called "scientific" estimates have failed to predict another reversal. The Science-agenda advocates would have you believe that such reversals occur every 200,000 years, however in the same breath they also claim it has been over 780,000 years since the previous one. It is apparent that these scientists are simply making excuses for their flawed theories. Indeed, as we all know the Earth is only about 6,000 years old so the very notion of a 200,000 year cycle is absurd! My Intelligent Spinner theory predicts that the magnetic poles has (and will) weaken and eventually flip whenever the Intelligent Designer deems the time is right.
As you can see, my alternative theory explains the observed natural phenomena just as well as -- indeed, better than -- the current "scientific" theories of geology. I therefore assert that my theory is at least a viable alternative and feel that equal time should be given to its teaching in the classroom.
Actually, Murphy's law says that if it is possible to do it wrong, someone will invariably screw it up. (In other words: If Murphy can be misquoted, he will be.)
You raise a good point, though. Laptops are already pretty crowded and internally hot, and adding another drive won't help. I also can't imagine it being any good for battery life.
But as others have pointed out, if you drop the thing both drives run the risk of getting damaged. This seems to be only a feature to protect against normal failures and not accidents or mishandling. that makes it somewhat less useful IMHO. =Smidge=
There are these things called "hypothetical" questions... you know, the kind of thing you ask when you want to discuss and compare ideas rather than aquire factual information...
(1) If you don't have plumbing, you need to have a stirling engine and generator at each dish. Which is insane.
Which, if you had RTFA (Or anything, for that matter) is exactly what they have. See that box at the tip of each dish? That's the collector, engine, generator and radiator. IIRC from pictures I've seen, the entire box is roughly 3'x3'x6' (though I may be confusing SES's production engine with some other company's design)
The smaller you make a heat engine, the more surface area there is relative to working fluid volume.
That is correct. That is also the reason that making a Stirling engine of any useful power output is a hefty achievement. Stirlings are external combustion, so "dead" volume in the engine is a serious killer. Making huge engines requires huge heat exchangers to get the energy through, but also increase dead volume that robs the engine of useful output. Stirlings do not scale; the design methodologies for a large engine are completely different than that of a small one.
Same thing with generators vs bearing friction and windage losses. That's why commercial power plants use ONE heat engine and ONE generator, both huge.
Any power plant I have ever seen typically has several gen sets, for a variety of reasons. One being redundancy, another being modular load matching ability, and another being the fact that there is an upper limit to just how big you can make things before it becomes unusable. For new plants it is actually more popular to use many smaller setups than a few large ones because matching the load by enabling/deactivating each unit gives higher plant efficiency, even if each individual generator might be a few % less efficient.
That's why I jsut(sic) *assumed* you were going to have plumbing.
Well you assumed wrong. Even the slightest bit of research would have cured you of that. (Incidentally, that's the website of the manufacturer discussed in the article, since I know you didn't read the article!)
Now about not needing a heat sink
My apologies. There was so much other bogus shit in there I missed that one. Of course you will need a means to reject unused heat: in this case, an air cooled radiator, mounted behind the engine.
Hmmm, that's not a very impressive site.
We've established you don't like my source. We've also established your spelling (and reading comprehension) isn't all that great either... but you have yet to cite any sources of your own other than three sentences in an electronics journal, published by some dipshit who cites as "Off-site resources" such useful and relevant websites as "Dilbert", "The Motley Fool", "Netflix" and my personal favorite "The Onion" (Hey, it's America's finest news source!). What a pro.
And yet somehow my energy balance calc still shows 26% real sun-to-electricity efficiency, which matches the calculated Carnot from assumed (and fairly reasonable for solar applications) operating temperatures and the 50% of the Carnot efficiency claimed on the site I linked, plus a little loss for the electricity generation.
So you cite (rather, just mention) some experiment in a Japanese lab where they got 19%. Great. What were the engine metrics? Heat source/sink temp? Working fluid? Internal pressure? Swept volume? Was it an alpha, beta, gamma or free piston configuration? I certainly don't doubt their 19% claim but we must compare apples to apples here.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you'd like another article about global warming or the Iraq war?
...right?
There are still plenty of Google articles! Nerds like Google, right?
=Smidge=
Heavy duty alternators can dump upwards of 200 amps. 200 amps at 12 volts DC gives you 2.4kW. So yeah, 800W is feasable. Just don't forget all the other crap your car's electrical system is running.
I have seen some adventurous people use the alternator in their Jeep/Offroad vehicles as DC welders to make emergency repairs.
Anyway, if the UJPS uses a 12v battery system then I don't see why it couldn't work. I've thought about it myself... just fuse it at 25A to be safe.
=Smidge=
Don't be silly! Their legal department probably has a better cost/earning ratio than the rest of their operation!
=Smidge=
You have more security at a McDonald's than at some of these facilities.
I'm glad! I think McDonalds poses a more immediate threat to this coutnry's health than just about anything in those petri dishes...
=Smidge=
Since I have a mouse with a clickable wheel, I use that to close tabs as well as open noew tabs (click with wheel button opens link in new tab). I can easily see the "main" X button being used for that getting even more confusing.
Failing that, I'm also used to using CTRL-F4 to close tabs and CTRL-TAB to switch tabs. Left hand on the keyboard, right hand on the mouse.
=Smidge=
It would be more efficient to use hand operated electric generators.
=Smidge=
Please! "Invasion" is so 20th century. Now we "Liberate"!
Liberation is double plus good!
=Smidge=
1. Building cities above sea level
IIRC, New Orleans WAS built above sea level. It sank over time.
2. Away from hurricane prone areas
Like the entire southwest and eastern coasts...?
3. Investing in *capable* flood defences
The levees were designed for a Cat 3 hurricane, IIRC. I would have to believe there was a safety factor in there, too. The problem is that Katrina had a *lot* more rain than a normal Cat 4, and apparently the budget for maintaining the levees was cut.
4. Making proper arrangements for mass evacuations.
For the most part, they are. In this *particular* case however, this is up for debate. It all boils down to the individual's willingness to leave. A prime example of Darwinism.
=Smidge=
But when cruising at speed, any power it takes from the drive train to charge (it is) battery pack can not be converted perfectly back to drive train power, so you will actually lose gas mileage.
The idea being that you use the stored energy while stopped/idling to power the car while cruising and to assist the car while accelerating. So even though there is loss, it's not 100% waste like it would be without the hybrid system.
You need a rediculously small amount of power to keep your car going once it's up to speed. 10-15HP would be enough for a light and/or aerodynamic vehicle to maintain highway speeds on even a slightly hilly road. The idea is to not run the engine at all at these times.
Plus, your engine runs most efficiently at a particular RPM with a particular load on it. A hybrid system is designed to run the gasoline engine as efficiently as possible by hitting that sweet spot, saving you gas.
=Smidge=
I could easily see designing and building your own system based on this concept, though.
For a proper hybrid design, you would need a way to disconnect either the engine or the electric motor. Extra clutches...
I would consider getting a motor from an electric golf cart, which are pretty damn strong. The electric golf carts I'm familiar with use 6 rather large lead-acid batteries and have up to 10HP motors in them.
I tend to cruise at about 60mph with my car, so I would have to work out some means to connect the motor so the RPMs match at the motor's peak efficiency. Also, disconnecting the engine somehow would be nice so I'm not working against the internal resistance of the engine. Ideally, being able to shut the engine down completely on long highway trips.
And a plug-in recharger would be a must.
Of course, I own a 1964 Rambler with a straight-6 cyl. engine. I can practically sit next to it under the hood... that gives me plenty of room to work with!
=Smidge=
Plants are pretty good at fixing carbon into forms usable as fuel; Wood, oil, sugars, etc. Depending on the type of plant and where you grow it, you needn't spend much energy to produce the "fuel".
=Smidge=
Cane sugar C6H12O6 - Only 40% carbon by weight. Lignite, the poorest quality coal, starts at 40% carbon and the highest quality (anthracite) coal is up around 90% carbon. That's "realtively pure" in my opinion!
=Smidge=
Tell me: what is the energy density of water?
:)
Depends on its temperature and pressure.
=Smidge=
Sorry, but coal is (relatively) pure carbon.
Maybe sugar? People are always trying to put sugar in my gas tank anyway...
=Smidge=
I'd like to see Google get an advanced copy of the publication (maybe a few hours before it goes to print), run it though their AdSense routines, and have just the right ads put in just the right spots!
=Smidge=
As much as I hate to feed trolls...
1) It is not a theory because it is not based solely on empirical evidence, has no predictive ability (and is therefore useless in terms of scientific progress) and is de-facto untestable. It is a nice little story, though, and it may help you sleep better at night if you can write off such uncertainties with "God makes it that way" - but that is not science. My post was 100% satire.
2) The Anthropic Principle falls apart because it assumes life as we know it is the ONLY way life could exist. In fact the reasoning used is somewhat circular, because if the fundamental properties of the universe were different, we would either not exist (and therefore wouldn't be around to contemplate our existence!) or we would exist, possibly in a different form, and be saying how amazing it is that if the fundamental properties of the universe were different, we would not exist. In other words, you should not assume that the universe is the way it is as a consequence of life existing (First quote).
3) IMHO, Science and dogmatic religion are indeed opposites. Science dares to ask questions and oppose current ways of viewing the world. Dogmatic religion discourages and sometimes punishes those who question the teachings. Plus, saying "God did it" is a logical dead-end and halts progress. Having a partial answer that leaves more questions allows you to continue searching and discover more things. For example, if everyone accepted as fact that Zeus sat in the clouds throwing lighting bolts, chances are we would never have explored electricity which eventually led to the development of batteries, electric motors and computers. If everyone throughout history just accepted "God did it" as valid "theory" we would all still be working the fields with sticks. Well, all of us except the priests and kings...
Science and religion may not be *mutually exclusive* (in the sense that a good scientist can still be religious) but they most certainly do not compliment each other.
=Smidge=
May we be forever touched by his noodly appendage.
RAmen.
=Smidge=
(Score:5, Insightful)
*facepalms* Ah, Merton, you tricky bastard!
=Smidge=
Dear kzinti;
Current scientific theories on this subject are, at best, incomplete. I would like to offer an equally plausible alternative theory; Intelligent Spinning.
The Intelligent Spinner carefully regulates the speed at which the Earth's inner core rotates relative to the crust, thus regulating with great accuracy the strength and shape of the Earth's protective magnetic shield. Since this shield is so vital to life on this planet, it is inconceivable that it exists merely by chance. Therefore, we can conclude that the Intelligent Spinner was put in place by the Intelligent Designer, as one of the many mechanisms to protect His creation.
Extrapolating from this scenario, we arrive at the conclusion that the magnetic field reversal is all part of the Intelligent Designer's plan. Indeed, so-called "scientific" estimates have failed to predict another reversal. The Science-agenda advocates would have you believe that such reversals occur every 200,000 years, however in the same breath they also claim it has been over 780,000 years since the previous one. It is apparent that these scientists are simply making excuses for their flawed theories. Indeed, as we all know the Earth is only about 6,000 years old so the very notion of a 200,000 year cycle is absurd! My Intelligent Spinner theory predicts that the magnetic poles has (and will) weaken and eventually flip whenever the Intelligent Designer deems the time is right.
As you can see, my alternative theory explains the observed natural phenomena just as well as -- indeed, better than -- the current "scientific" theories of geology. I therefore assert that my theory is at least a viable alternative and feel that equal time should be given to its teaching in the classroom.
Thank you for your time;
=Smidge=
Actually, Murphy's law says that if it is possible to do it wrong, someone will invariably screw it up. (In other words: If Murphy can be misquoted, he will be.)
You raise a good point, though. Laptops are already pretty crowded and internally hot, and adding another drive won't help. I also can't imagine it being any good for battery life.
But as others have pointed out, if you drop the thing both drives run the risk of getting damaged. This seems to be only a feature to protect against normal failures and not accidents or mishandling. that makes it somewhat less useful IMHO.
=Smidge=
based on the results of the quiz, it seems my boss is probably not a psychopath. But I might be one myself!
Great... now I'm paranoid, too!
=Smidge=
No, I mean a hypopthetical question.
=Smidge=
There are these things called "hypothetical" questions... you know, the kind of thing you ask when you want to discuss and compare ideas rather than aquire factual information...
=Smidge=
But if I pay Google to put up an ad which reads "B'Trey's Auto Insurance - better than Geico!" then I run afoul of this ruling.
Do you violate the ruling or does Google for accepting your business?
Is it now illegal to mention a competitor in an ad for your own service or product?
=Smidge=
(1) If you don't have plumbing, you need to have a stirling engine and generator at each dish. Which is insane.
Which, if you had RTFA (Or anything, for that matter) is exactly what they have. See that box at the tip of each dish? That's the collector, engine, generator and radiator. IIRC from pictures I've seen, the entire box is roughly 3'x3'x6' (though I may be confusing SES's production engine with some other company's design)
The smaller you make a heat engine, the more surface area there is relative to working fluid volume.
That is correct. That is also the reason that making a Stirling engine of any useful power output is a hefty achievement. Stirlings are external combustion, so "dead" volume in the engine is a serious killer. Making huge engines requires huge heat exchangers to get the energy through, but also increase dead volume that robs the engine of useful output. Stirlings do not scale; the design methodologies for a large engine are completely different than that of a small one.
Same thing with generators vs bearing friction and windage losses. That's why commercial power plants use ONE heat engine and ONE generator, both huge.
Any power plant I have ever seen typically has several gen sets, for a variety of reasons. One being redundancy, another being modular load matching ability, and another being the fact that there is an upper limit to just how big you can make things before it becomes unusable. For new plants it is actually more popular to use many smaller setups than a few large ones because matching the load by enabling/deactivating each unit gives higher plant efficiency, even if each individual generator might be a few % less efficient.
That's why I jsut(sic) *assumed* you were going to have plumbing.
Well you assumed wrong. Even the slightest bit of research would have cured you of that. (Incidentally, that's the website of the manufacturer discussed in the article, since I know you didn't read the article!)
Now about not needing a heat sink
My apologies. There was so much other bogus shit in there I missed that one. Of course you will need a means to reject unused heat: in this case, an air cooled radiator, mounted behind the engine.
Hmmm, that's not a very impressive site.
We've established you don't like my source. We've also established your spelling (and reading comprehension) isn't all that great either... but you have yet to cite any sources of your own other than three sentences in an electronics journal, published by some dipshit who cites as "Off-site resources" such useful and relevant websites as "Dilbert", "The Motley Fool", "Netflix" and my personal favorite "The Onion" (Hey, it's America's finest news source!). What a pro.
And yet somehow my energy balance calc still shows 26% real sun-to-electricity efficiency, which matches the calculated Carnot from assumed (and fairly reasonable for solar applications) operating temperatures and the 50% of the Carnot efficiency claimed on the site I linked, plus a little loss for the electricity generation.
So you cite (rather, just mention) some experiment in a Japanese lab where they got 19%. Great. What were the engine metrics? Heat source/sink temp? Working fluid? Internal pressure? Swept volume? Was it an alpha, beta, gamma or free piston configuration? I certainly don't doubt their 19% claim but we must compare apples to apples here.
=Smidge=