Your theory is not correct. There is a speed at which capacity is maximised. Below that capacity is reduced , but it's also reduced above it. The specific speed will vary from road to road. The way to find it is by observation, not math.
However it's a blind alley. An individual car cannot control the speed of the traffic as a whole, and it it tries to go as fast as possible as you are suggesting, that will actually slow down the traffic as a whole. The best heuristic any particular car can do to help the traffic flow is exactly what it says in TFA. Seek to make the distance between cars to the front and the back equal (subject to a maximum distance beyond which it doesn't matter any more.)
Of course it's asking too much of human drivers to do this, monitoring the space behind at all times is expecting too much. But for automated cars it's a very sensible heuristic.
It's not "an assumption" that all distances would be equal. It's a heuristic for each car, at any particular moment to seek to equalise the distance between the car in front and the car behind.
If there's a merge of two similar roads, then of course the merge would happen. And after the merge the average distance would be halved.
Speed and safe distance to other cars are not independant variables though. Generally speaking slower speeds allow more throughput of cars, because the distances between cars (wasted space) is lowered.
In fact it's this dependancy that explains WHY congested traffic moves slower. The smaller distances between cars demand slower speeds.
And a population more than 4 times the size. You have to account for population size, so you should be using figures per capita. And there's no denying that Americans are the most polluting people on earth.
I guess you didn't read it. Your article is about Bitcoin mining. We know that's happening in Venezuela, that's what TFA is about. But it says nothing related to your claim that Venezuelans are using Bitcoin to buy groceries.
What you are missing is that whilst Venezuela is worse for the rich people. It; better for the poor people. Not great, but it was worse when the capitalists were in control.
Yes, they get the leadership they deserve. They keep voting socialist because the socialists make their lives better. They are not stupid, and you are not in a better position to say what they should vote.
Unless the chargers are built on top of the mountain, the truck will have emptied more space in the battery on the way up the mountain than is needed to store regen electricity on the way down.
But if it came to it, the truck will have to have enough conventional brakes to bring it to a stop regardless.
For now. There's another 2 years before production. Cab facilities beyond basic driving have obviously not been designed yet. Or at least not yet built into the prototypes.
Idiot. More ability to pull loads, more ability to accelerate when unloaded. The acceleration comes for free from the fact that the Tesla is specified to pull a full load up hill faster than a diesel. And because EVs naturally out acclerate internal combustion engines.
Acceleration will not have been a major design goal. Just a happy side effect.
Slashdot Mirror
No it doesn't. It just means the traffic must slow down approaching the merge point.
Well that is a stupid law then. You can't have one law requiring people to break another law.
But seriously, you're not. But it's a good heuristic for autonomous vehicles or adaptive cruise control.
And you're a bigot.
Your theory is not correct. There is a speed at which capacity is maximised. Below that capacity is reduced , but it's also reduced above it. The specific speed will vary from road to road. The way to find it is by observation, not math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
However it's a blind alley. An individual car cannot control the speed of the traffic as a whole, and it it tries to go as fast as possible as you are suggesting, that will actually slow down the traffic as a whole. The best heuristic any particular car can do to help the traffic flow is exactly what it says in TFA. Seek to make the distance between cars to the front and the back equal (subject to a maximum distance beyond which it doesn't matter any more.)
Of course it's asking too much of human drivers to do this, monitoring the space behind at all times is expecting too much. But for automated cars it's a very sensible heuristic.
That's standard, and legal behaviour in the UK too.
It's not "an assumption" that all distances would be equal. It's a heuristic for each car, at any particular moment to seek to equalise the distance between the car in front and the car behind.
If there's a merge of two similar roads, then of course the merge would happen. And after the merge the average distance would be halved.
Speed and safe distance to other cars are not independant variables though. Generally speaking slower speeds allow more throughput of cars, because the distances between cars (wasted space) is lowered.
In fact it's this dependancy that explains WHY congested traffic moves slower. The smaller distances between cars demand slower speeds.
And a population more than 4 times the size. You have to account for population size, so you should be using figures per capita. And there's no denying that Americans are the most polluting people on earth.
I guess you didn't read it. Your article is about Bitcoin mining. We know that's happening in Venezuela, that's what TFA is about. But it says nothing related to your claim that Venezuelans are using Bitcoin to buy groceries.
You made it up.
Do you have ANY evidence of such use of Bitcoin. Because that sounds like wishful thinking.
A Ponzi Scheme will not help out Venezuela in any way.
Well look at you. All it took was a salary to turn you from a marxist to a capitalist. Maybe you were just in it for yourself all along.
What you are missing is that whilst Venezuela is worse for the rich people. It; better for the poor people. Not great, but it was worse when the capitalists were in control.
Yes, they get the leadership they deserve. They keep voting socialist because the socialists make their lives better. They are not stupid, and you are not in a better position to say what they should vote.
Yep, there's always another Ponzi scheme to more to.
Spot the spoiled guy who's never used public transport.
"And no space to walk away if "rowdy" types get into the same "car" as you."
If they are rowdy, you'd see that on the platform and not get in with them in the first place. But if you do, what the hell, it's a short journey.
The vast majority of the Heathrow express runs on preexisting railway lines. The new sections are mostly tunnels.
The slightest puncture means leaking fuel into the area where you are going to store the fish.
Do you not have any electrical appliances in this wet room kitchen of yours?
Any policy that relies on "educating" the public is doomed to failure.
Unless the chargers are built on top of the mountain, the truck will have emptied more space in the battery on the way up the mountain than is needed to store regen electricity on the way down.
But if it came to it, the truck will have to have enough conventional brakes to bring it to a stop regardless.
For now. There's another 2 years before production. Cab facilities beyond basic driving have obviously not been designed yet. Or at least not yet built into the prototypes.
I think this hole post is a troll. The launch didn't say anything about 7.2 Mwh per charge.
The best guess is 1 Mwh per charge.
Idiot. More ability to pull loads, more ability to accelerate when unloaded. The acceleration comes for free from the fact that the Tesla is specified to pull a full load up hill faster than a diesel. And because EVs naturally out acclerate internal combustion engines.
Acceleration will not have been a major design goal. Just a happy side effect.