Assuming the average song is around 3:30 minutes, that comes out to 7.4 cents per play. This doesn't seem to bad, especially when compared to the rate of 0.1-0.2 cents per play for "pureplay" and "run-of-the-mill" webcasters [1]. This guy's songs seemed to be around 30 seconds each[2], but that would still be more than 1 cent per play. (It seems odd that the pay rate doesn't take into account the song length. This is probably just to keep things simpler.) And this is all ignoring the fact that this was only three "users" who were listening to the songs.
Doesn't even pay the tuition plus living expenses for an *average* college.
That certainly more than pays for tuition and living expenses for in-state residents at a public school (often above average schools).
Spring 2013 Tuition at University of Wisconsin-Madison: $10,400/year [1]
Which would leave $14,600/year for living expenses. More than enough.
Non-residents have to pay $26,600/year so tuition would be nearly covered, but not living expenses. However, I think most states have an "average" public university, or reciprocity with a near by state which does. I've even heard of state universities offering free or highly reduced tuition for students who have decent grades or ACT/SAT scores. These numbers, of course, don't include any other financial assistance or scholarships.
This isn't energy you can run your TV on, but in this Mother Earth News article they describe how one acre worth of poplar trees can produce enough wood to be "firewoodselfsufficient." (See "Wood?Lots!") Obviously, the entire world population can't do this, but I thought it was an interesting and semi-relevant article.
Hybrid Poplar Tree Projects
"You also get more efficient transfer of heat to mechanical advantage by using the vaporization of the water powered by the heat of the regular fuel."
I don't believe this is true. When water is converted to steam, some energy is used up in the heat of vaporization. This energy doesn't increase the temperature of the water at all, it is the energy required for the phase change. So instead of that energy being used to increase the combustion temperature (thus increasing combustion pressure), it is used up converting the injected water (or any injected liquid) to a gas. And I know that by adding more fuel to the air/fuel mixture, or injecting water into the combustion chamber lowers the combustion temperature, which, unless there is something more going on, will reduce combustion pressures (and then reduce the torque transmitted to the crank) Let me know if I am forgeting/missing something.
But weight doesn't matter that much in top speed contests. The top speed is determined almost entirely by the horsepower and aerodynamic drag. It's only a problem if it takes too long to accelerate up to speed. During speed week they have 4 miles to get up to speed. If that is not long enough, I'm sure they can come back later, on their own, and get a longer course set up.
But I'm not sure what disadvantages a diesel engine would have. Maybe because not as much research has gone into high performance diesel engines as standard gas engines. Or maybe because diesel engines tend to be built much larger to handle the higher combustion pressures. And a larger engine would result in a less aerodynamic car. I think the former is the most likely reason.
The maximum torque occurs when the volumetric efficiency is the greatest. The maximum fuel efficency also occurs when the volumetric efficiency is at it's peak. Although it isn't common for the maximum torque and maximum efficiency to coincide. Maximum efficiency doesn't usually occur at the full power of that RPM. I've seen a bunch of engine charactaristic maps and they all have the maximum fuel efficiency at the rpm of maximum torque. I'm not sure when happens when you throw V-Tech into the picture though. I can't find any pictures online of such maps. I'll try to scan some and put them online so you can see what they look like.
I don't believe that an economy increase of 800% can be obtained by just changing the carborator. All other things constant, I assume there would be a linear relationship between engine efficiency and fuel economy. If an engine is already 30% efficient, to increase the economy from 20mpg to 160mpg (worse than the worst case test) would require an engine efficiency of 240%. Also, I would like to see how the tests are run. At what speed, what kind of terrain etc.
No. About 20% of the energy is lost through the cooling system, 20% radiates off the engine, and 30% of the energy leaves the motor with the exhaust. And the other 30% is transmitted through the drive shaft. The efficiency of the whole drive train may be 10-15% efficient, but the motor efficiency is closer to 30-40%. I just took all these measurements on a turbocharged Audi engine a couple of weeks ago.
You want to find the cube root of 53.6. You know that the nearest cube 64 = 4^3.
4 * 3^2 = 48 (easy)
64 - 53.6 = 10.4 (easy)
10.4 / 48 = 0.2 (approximate)
4 - 0.2 = 3.8
The first step should be 3*4^2. You said that you were using Newton's method, but you should have explained that step better for people unfamiliar with it. That is the derivitive of x^3 evaluated at x=4.
I agree, and will take it a little further. Assuming you are watching a decent movie, the less you know about it the better, I've found. I watched 'From Dusk Til Dawn' and '28 Days Later' without knowing at all what the movies were about. And I think the movies were twice as good that way. Although, I'm sure this was more effective for these types of movies, than it would be for a non-suspense movie.I just wish I had a good way of screening movies so I could always do this.
Actually, a heavier object of the same shape has a faster terminal velocity. Terminal velocity occurs when the drag force equals the force of gravity on the object. So with more mass, the object can fall faster before hitting that equilibrium.
Yes, so you would expect there to be more votes for IE. If there were more votes for mozilla or some other browser (which I think is what he is insinuating), you could assume that people were lying.
Umm, no. He said, "this is not an unsubtle attempt at pro-windows propaganda". the un- is refering to subtle. So take that out and: this is not an obvious attempt at pro-windows propaganda. That is not the same as "this is a subtle attempt at pro-windows propaganda".
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming the average song is around 3:30 minutes, that comes out to 7.4 cents per play. This doesn't seem to bad, especially when compared to the rate of 0.1-0.2 cents per play for "pureplay" and "run-of-the-mill" webcasters [1]. This guy's songs seemed to be around 30 seconds each[2], but that would still be more than 1 cent per play. (It seems odd that the pay rate doesn't take into account the song length. This is probably just to keep things simpler.) And this is all ignoring the fact that this was only three "users" who were listening to the songs.
[1] $2.5 Billion: The Big Number that “Big Radio” could owe each year if it paid music royalties at Pandora’s rates Info a little less than half way down the page
[2] John Matrix
Doesn't even pay the tuition plus living expenses for an *average* college.
That certainly more than pays for tuition and living expenses for in-state residents at a public school (often above average schools).
Spring 2013 Tuition at University of Wisconsin-Madison: $10,400/year [1]
Which would leave $14,600/year for living expenses. More than enough.
Non-residents have to pay $26,600/year so tuition would be nearly covered, but not living expenses. However, I think most states have an "average" public university, or reciprocity with a near by state which does. I've even heard of state universities offering free or highly reduced tuition for students who have decent grades or ACT/SAT scores. These numbers, of course, don't include any other financial assistance or scholarships.
[1]http://registrar.wisc.edu/tuition_&_fees.htm
This isn't energy you can run your TV on, but in this Mother Earth News article they describe how one acre worth of poplar trees can produce enough wood to be "firewoodselfsufficient." (See "Wood?Lots!") Obviously, the entire world population can't do this, but I thought it was an interesting and semi-relevant article.
Hybrid Poplar Tree Projects
15(to 25)mph into a 25mph headwind? Lance, is that you?
"You also get more efficient transfer of heat to mechanical advantage by using the vaporization of the water powered by the heat of the regular fuel." I don't believe this is true. When water is converted to steam, some energy is used up in the heat of vaporization. This energy doesn't increase the temperature of the water at all, it is the energy required for the phase change. So instead of that energy being used to increase the combustion temperature (thus increasing combustion pressure), it is used up converting the injected water (or any injected liquid) to a gas. And I know that by adding more fuel to the air/fuel mixture, or injecting water into the combustion chamber lowers the combustion temperature, which, unless there is something more going on, will reduce combustion pressures (and then reduce the torque transmitted to the crank) Let me know if I am forgeting/missing something.
But weight doesn't matter that much in top speed contests. The top speed is determined almost entirely by the horsepower and aerodynamic drag. It's only a problem if it takes too long to accelerate up to speed. During speed week they have 4 miles to get up to speed. If that is not long enough, I'm sure they can come back later, on their own, and get a longer course set up.
But I'm not sure what disadvantages a diesel engine would have. Maybe because not as much research has gone into high performance diesel engines as standard gas engines. Or maybe because diesel engines tend to be built much larger to handle the higher combustion pressures. And a larger engine would result in a less aerodynamic car. I think the former is the most likely reason.
The maximum torque occurs when the volumetric efficiency is the greatest. The maximum fuel efficency also occurs when the volumetric efficiency is at it's peak. Although it isn't common for the maximum torque and maximum efficiency to coincide. Maximum efficiency doesn't usually occur at the full power of that RPM. I've seen a bunch of engine charactaristic maps and they all have the maximum fuel efficiency at the rpm of maximum torque. I'm not sure when happens when you throw V-Tech into the picture though. I can't find any pictures online of such maps. I'll try to scan some and put them online so you can see what they look like.
g /cfm.htm
E fficiencyPower.html
http://www.offroaders.com/info/tech-corner/readin
Volumetric Efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSFC
Bottom of the page, Note:
http://www.viragotech.com/fixit/FuelEconomyEngine
The whole page talks about this topic.
http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-VolEff.htm
Actually, the highest efficency, in grams of fuel (or liters) per kWh, always occurs at the rpm of the maximum torque.
I don't believe that an economy increase of 800% can be obtained by just changing the carborator. All other things constant, I assume there would be a linear relationship between engine efficiency and fuel economy. If an engine is already 30% efficient, to increase the economy from 20mpg to 160mpg (worse than the worst case test) would require an engine efficiency of 240%. Also, I would like to see how the tests are run. At what speed, what kind of terrain etc.
No. About 20% of the energy is lost through the cooling system, 20% radiates off the engine, and 30% of the energy leaves the motor with the exhaust. And the other 30% is transmitted through the drive shaft. The efficiency of the whole drive train may be 10-15% efficient, but the motor efficiency is closer to 30-40%. I just took all these measurements on a turbocharged Audi engine a couple of weeks ago.
You want to find the cube root of 53.6. You know that the nearest cube 64 = 4^3.
4 * 3^2 = 48 (easy)
64 - 53.6 = 10.4 (easy)
10.4 / 48 = 0.2 (approximate)
4 - 0.2 = 3.8
The first step should be 3*4^2. You said that you were using Newton's method, but you should have explained that step better for people unfamiliar with it. That is the derivitive of x^3 evaluated at x=4.
I agree, and will take it a little further. Assuming you are watching a decent movie, the less you know about it the better, I've found. I watched 'From Dusk Til Dawn' and '28 Days Later' without knowing at all what the movies were about. And I think the movies were twice as good that way. Although, I'm sure this was more effective for these types of movies, than it would be for a non-suspense movie.I just wish I had a good way of screening movies so I could always do this.
Actually, a heavier object of the same shape has a faster terminal velocity. Terminal velocity occurs when the drag force equals the force of gravity on the object. So with more mass, the object can fall faster before hitting that equilibrium.
Yes, so you would expect there to be more votes for IE. If there were more votes for mozilla or some other browser (which I think is what he is insinuating), you could assume that people were lying.
Umm, no. He said, "this is not an unsubtle attempt at pro-windows propaganda". the un- is refering to subtle. So take that out and: this is not an obvious attempt at pro-windows propaganda. That is not the same as "this is a subtle attempt at pro-windows propaganda".