Seconded. v3 is entirely usable and stable, the new graphics engine is a step forward as well. It also handles large (1000x1000, ok I know that isn't especially big) matrices gracefully. It is not as pretty as Matlab, but they are working on a pretty front end.
If he is breathing via a snorkel (I suspect a 2m long snorkel is going to be very hard work) then he won't get bends as he will be at atmospheric pressure, internally. He also says he's going to surface every night, so his maximum exposure is only one day.
You are correct. The Aptera has a lower Cd than most cars because its basic form is a low drag shape that was invented back in the sixties, from memory. It has a higher Cd than some cars because of all the silly suspension struts and so on, and sensible features like doors and wing mirrors.
The GP might like to consider why all of these efficient vehicles don't look like Mum's taxis, it isn't just an image thing.
Well, OK, but then how come vehicle stability controls (antirollover) actually reduce the crash rate? To the extent that the insurance industry acknowledge this?
The answer is that simplistically you can't really tell how much safer you are exactly, so an antirollover system doesn't seem to make you much safer as it doesn't modify every day driving, whereas, say, traction control encourages you (me) to use full throttle all the time because it controls it. Same with ABS.
Thanks for the gladwell link, he's usually an interesting writer.
They banned ABS from F1, one can only assume that the teams found it beneficial.
In your split mu example, if you counter steered while the ABS braked you would stop more quickly - in other words you need a different skill to a non ABS stop, not no skill at all.
Anyway, as you probably said, the primary value of ABS is a statistical one, on average if people drive at the same speed as before they are safer. The fact that they then tailgate is just Darwinism in action.
In fact it was at safer than its competitors, overall. I vaguely remember that from 2 million pintos sold, fewer than 100 deaths resulted from fuel tank fires, slightly better than average for that class of car at the time, and of course far short of 'thousands' that court case publicity stated.
ACC?... served in the Royal Air Force as a radar instructor and technician from 1941-1946, proposed satellite communication systems in 1945[4][5] which won him the Franklin Institute Stuart Ballantine Gold Medal in 1963.
It all depends on what you want from a book. As a writer, a plonker of words on the page, ole Crich score a passing grade. His characters are mere ciphers.
But... he had way of finding an interesting idea, and making a story of it. Hitchcock called this idea the McGuffin. Hitch made the film despite the McGuffin, whereas to Crich the McGuffin was the story.
I doubt even Crichton (or his agent) thought he was a 'great author'. More of an Arthur Hailey, if you remember that far back. A hack. Mills and Boon for nerds. Dickens. That sort of page turner.
Slashdot Mirror
Seconded. v3 is entirely usable and stable, the new graphics engine is a step forward as well. It also handles large (1000x1000, ok I know that isn't especially big) matrices gracefully. It is not as pretty as Matlab, but they are working on a pretty front end.
If he is breathing via a snorkel (I suspect a 2m long snorkel is going to be very hard work) then he won't get bends as he will be at atmospheric pressure, internally. He also says he's going to surface every night, so his maximum exposure is only one day.
Yes it was. Douche.
I agree. That is why I didn't type "production cars". You idiot.
"M grasp of physics is pretty incorrect here."
60 mph=27 m/s
a=v/t=27/5=5.4
F=m.a=907*5.4=4.9 kN (so you got that bit right)
Power=F*v (instantaneously) so at 60
Power=4900*27=132 kW=177 hp
You are correct. The Aptera has a lower Cd than most cars because its basic form is a low drag shape that was invented back in the sixties, from memory. It has a higher Cd than some cars because of all the silly suspension struts and so on, and sensible features like doors and wing mirrors.
The GP might like to consider why all of these efficient vehicles don't look like Mum's taxis, it isn't just an image thing.
Well, OK, but then how come vehicle stability controls (antirollover) actually reduce the crash rate? To the extent that the insurance industry acknowledge this?
The answer is that simplistically you can't really tell how much safer you are exactly, so an antirollover system doesn't seem to make you much safer as it doesn't modify every day driving, whereas, say, traction control encourages you (me) to use full throttle all the time because it controls it. Same with ABS.
Thanks for the gladwell link, he's usually an interesting writer.
They banned ABS from F1, one can only assume that the teams found it beneficial.
In your split mu example, if you counter steered while the ABS braked you would stop more quickly - in other words you need a different skill to a non ABS stop, not no skill at all.
Anyway, as you probably said, the primary value of ABS is a statistical one, on average if people drive at the same speed as before they are safer. The fact that they then tailgate is just Darwinism in action.
So, let's see. GM is burning 3 billion a month. A typical product development program costs 1 to 6 billion over 4 years.
I rather think they bet the farm on making unsaleable unprofitable cars, the Volt is just one last fart of activity from a decaying corpse.
"The Pinto was a deathtrap, sure"
In fact it was at safer than its competitors, overall. I vaguely remember that from 2 million pintos sold, fewer than 100 deaths resulted from fuel tank fires, slightly better than average for that class of car at the time, and of course far short of 'thousands' that court case publicity stated.
... and then easily surpass them.
Isn't that the bit you are really afraid of?
So, could you explain how an economy can endlessly drain its currency by doing this to support a low exchange rate, without compensating elsewhere?
And if, in fact it is possible without negative consequences, why the target economy does not respond likewise?
I just remember all the crap that was thrown at Japanese support of the cheap yen, great way to grow the economy guys.
A virtual mod point to you sir
ACC? ... served in the Royal Air Force as a radar instructor and technician from 1941-1946, proposed satellite communication systems in 1945[4][5] which won him the Franklin Institute Stuart Ballantine Gold Medal in 1963.
Self rectifying water turbine, always turns the same way even if the water flow reverses
http://www.cetusenergy.com.au/action.php
and if you really want fishy like motion then
http://www.biopowersystems.com/biostream.php
The thing is enormous - 50 feet high, generating 300 hp. Full size proto is under construction.
Yes, both of them, thirty four years ago.
OK, my memory is a bit hazy.
It all depends on what you want from a book. As a writer, a plonker of words on the page, ole Crich score a passing grade. His characters are mere ciphers.
But... he had way of finding an interesting idea, and making a story of it. Hitchcock called this idea the McGuffin. Hitch made the film despite the McGuffin, whereas to Crich the McGuffin was the story.
I doubt even Crichton (or his agent) thought he was a 'great author'. More of an Arthur Hailey, if you remember that far back. A hack. Mills and Boon for nerds. Dickens. That sort of page turner.
Let's see
Alien invader succumbs to common earth organism (cold virus) Mysterious organism succumbs to common earth chemical (CO2)
I wouldn't want to claim the latter as an original idea.
AS wasn't an awful book, but I doubt anyone ever read it twice, unless it was for money or they were drunk the first time.
Well, yes, it was a faithful transcript of the book. But the book was as boring as bat shit, and the movie was worse.
The Atkinson cycle , at least as embodied in the Prius, is not very weird, Heywood merely classes it as an over-expanded engine.
Absolute rubbish, many internal combustion engines have an overall efficiency greater than 40%.
Here's a list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption
That is to say, you can go and buy a car with an engine more efficient than whatever you think you have proved.
Sadly, by leaving the car in gear with the throttle closed you will be slowing much more quickly that if you had hit the clutch.
So yes, you'll be saving the fuel needed to run the engine at idle, but you are wasting the kinetic energy of your car.
Yeah, like punters are making thousand dollar plus wagers based on Wiki.
We don't even trust the real grown-up newspapers, never mind the random Brownian motion of the brain cells of a few basement-dwellers (Wiki).
My portfolio is up about 5% over the last three months, how are you cunts going?
Well, thank you for taking me seriously, but...
1) not worth it for normal drive cycles
2) should've could've. They don't with reasonably cheap batteries if they are crash proof.
3) Agree
4) He isn't the worse GM guy around
5) That's a big philosophical/political argument. GM are free to choose whatever respected authority's defintion suits them (yeah it sucks).
6) hmm, subtle. I quite like the 40 mile EV range argument.
7) OK
8) Agree
9) Disagree. They made a beautiful thing that made no sense. BTDT.
10) No, there has been no consumer led imperative for such a vehicle up til now.