the obvious point that putting more electrical load on the alternator means a heavier mechanical load on the engine, so there goes your power savings.
Ever jump started someones car? It goes like this: 1) Start your engine 2) Hook up the cables to your car 3) Hook up the cables to their car 4) Hear your car rev up? That's your engine working harder to charge their battery. 5) Start their car. Notice how your car rev'd even harder? Again, greater electrical load=greater mechanical load. 6) Unhook the cables and loo loo loo. -- You could BugMeNot, or you could just click. You decide
What about the situation I recall reading recently about hydrogen combustion being worse for the environment than gasolene?
What article was that? Hydrogen compusts to form water. That's it. Very clean
There are many claims that since production of hydrogen is not 100% efficient, that more energy would be required to power the current state of the earth (and thus more fossil fuels or alternative sources) if hydrogen became the main conduit, and this is very true, so fueling cars entirely off hydrogen could be worse, (but that's not at all what this article is talking about, now is it?)
However, I subscribe to the belief that 1 electrical plant is way more efficient than the sum of the 10,000 cars it's powering via hydrogen production had they been running on gasoline, and it's easier to put bulky polution control systems on a stationary power plant than to try and minimize those solutions to install in every single car on the road, so fueling cars entirely with H2 would probably be better for the environment. -- Downloading in Firefox got you down? Cheer up
Seems kinda dumb that BT trackers rely on the clients to honestly report their ratios/upload amounts. Is it just this tracker implementation, or does the BT protocol work that way?
The BT protocol doesn't rely on this. This is a well known issue that effects tracker server logs and stats only. The actual BT Protocol for downloading makes decisions about who to upload to entirely in the client without requesting stats from any other client or tracker.
This "vulnerability" affects torent sites that enforce upload ratios in order to earn access to more torrents, and that's it. -- Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
Rather than a gyro, how about a series of accelerometers (1 for every axis). If you know the acceleration in an access, derive it and you have speed. Derive it again and you have the distance moved.
This is much more likely than gryos. -- Google innovative? Phhfft! This is Zombo-com!
Since the 23 gallons of H2 using this storage method only contains about half the energy of 23 gallons of gas, this is about 46 miles per gallon if it was gas.
Can your gasoline car do 320 miles on half a tank of gas? Can it get 46 MPG? These are the comparisons you must make due to differing energy densities.
Also, we don't produce the hydrogen in the car, we do that in a large plant to maximize efficiency of the hydrogen. Hydrogen is basically a battery, while oil is a source. But hydrogen can be a much better battery than LithiumIon (current best/weight) and there are lots of other sources of electricity that will become more and more viable over the years.
Go ahead and try to mandate that ever car must include scrubbers to limit carbon output. Now do the same on a giant plant producing hydrogen to put on those cars. Which is cheaper to do cleanly? -- Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
50L to go 500kM is 10kM to the liter. Or about 23MPG. Not good.
Hydrogen is a gas. Gasses do not have a constant volume (as liquids and solids) so you can't compare hydrogen to gas directly by volume, but you can compare energy contents by weight.
Remeber, it doesn't take 1 gallon of gas to make 1 gallon of hydrogen. Since hydrogen by weight stores less energy, you can (gasp) produce more of it per gallon of gas you burn.
Gasoline holds roughly 2.5x more power/gallon than hydrogen stored in this method. Even at 75% conversion efficiency, if we used gasoline as the source to produce hydrogen we're still talking some 47 MPG for an equal comparison if we stored hydrogen in this method, which seems to put the most of it in the tightest volume. But we wouldn't be using gas. We'd be using coal, wind, nuclear, or some other high efficiency electrical generation.
Also, it wouldn't cost you $3/"gallon" of hydrogen. And they'd probably sell it by the pound, like propane. -- Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
You don't swap pellets. You resaturate them by pumping more hydrogen across them.
The extra weight of the pellets is nominal since it's lighter than storing the same amount of energy in a thick bodied high-pressure tank, thus the less weight of the pellets (due to the thin walled tank) would be better than the other option.
The pellets are less flamable than hydrogen on it's own, since the pellets hold the hydrogen except under the right release conditions, so you wouldn't be dumping a full tank like you would in a high-pressure tank rupture.
Gasoline is also flamable, but cars only explode in the movies. It looks like pellets makes the same true for hydrogen cars. -- Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
You forgot "prompting the world to buy so much of it that we'd be out of it in 10 years"
What do you think prompted OPEC to form in the first place? You don't think it was the realization that they were going to run out of oil eventually and only through monopoly can they control the supply/demand curves to ensure they have oil through 2050. Maybe not, but the OPEC nations seem to think so... At least that's their public statement... -- You could BugMeNot, or you could just click. You decide
Or you could do ethonal from wheat. Not sure how it compares to soy, but it's way better than ethonal from corn.
Also, if you're using bio-anything fuel you don't have to worry about emissions. Petro-diesel is worse due to heavy metals (not in biodiesel) that are cleaned out with scrubbers in modern exhaust systems. Gas "equivilants" don't have the heavy metals, but are a little less efficient. Both pump out CO2.
Bio-anything has no heavy metals and pumps out CO2 that came from current plants, ie it'll be no probablem for new plants to aborb that carbon as part of the natural cycle. -- Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
plant where otherwise wasted hi temperatures and electricity (you can't turn off the reator at night)
Why the hell would you turn the reactor off at night? Nobody turns off (or even slows) their coal electric generators at night... -- Downloading in Firefox got you down? Cheer up
Converting water to hydrogen and oxygen is roughly 75% efficient (90% at best, but cost prohibitive catalysts needed). Converting hydrogen to electricity is roughly 80% efficient and improving. We get out about 60% of the energy we put in.
But here you're comparing a source (like fossil fuels and the sun) to a carrier (like hydrogen/fuelcell mix and batteries)
Now, if you compare the efficiency of fuelcells to batteries (and factor in fuel economy of the overall system when including the weights of the two devices) you'll find fuelcells tend to come out on top.
Fuelcells are the large battery replacement, not a coal/oil replacement. But without fuelcells we'll probably never have decent electric cars and thus will never cut dependence on oil. -- You could BugMeNot, or you could just click. You decide
The origional story said "hitachi will do this in a month"
The current story says "hitachi it's, and it costs this much". The story should have had a "previously mentioned" but that doesn't make it a dupe -- Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
Electrolosis in production environments tends to the 70-75% efficiency (www.elecdesign.com) and can be improved with various catalysts up to 90% (http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/)
Large scale coal plants do better much better than 50% efficiency, especially the newer ones. (we have lots of coal in ND, and thus export lots of electrical power. I've toured a few plants, but don't have the literature with me so I can't dispute this other than to say it's better)
fuel cells tend towards 80% efficiency (science.howstuffworks.com) and there is room for improvement yet.
No internal combustion engine using petro is anywhere near 35% efficient. 32% is on the high end. This number floats around 30% (ford.com)
On the other hand, internal combustion engines using hydrogen tend more towards 35-38% efficiency, so about the number you quoted. (ford.com)
Also, you're auto efficiency doesn't factor in the energy used (and efficiencies involved in) extracting and processing the fuel into gas. This information might have already been factored in your electrical plant estimate, which might explain why it's so much lower than it should be. Or that 50% is an average including low efficiency wind and solar that don't use coal.
Since I'm not actually sure what the powerplants should be, only that it's too low, I'll leave it at 50%, assuming it's fixed for extraction, etc. this gives us:
Fuelcell: 50% x 75% x 80% x 95% = 31% Hydrogen internal: 50% x 75% x 38% = 14.25% Current gas engines: well below 30% when including extracting fuels... more like 20% (ecen.com)
You still prove your point that internal combustion of hydrogen is undesirable, but internal combustion engines are not an efficient means of transport compared to fuelcell technology.
And I didn't use the 90% electrolysis that WILL be met once greater demand for hydrogen hits. This is already producable in small scales, and demand = competition = a reason to increase efficiency in the main stream.
Not to mention the CO2 scrubbers, fly ash collectors, etc that make a modern coal plant 100% better for the environment than 10,000 american automobiles -- Google innovative? Phhfft! This is Zombo-com!
But they didn't add new compression
on
OpenSSH 4.2 released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
From the changelog: " Added a new compression method that delays the start of zlib compression until the user has been authenticated successfully. The new method ("Compression delayed") is on by default in the server. This eliminates the risk of any zlib vulnerability leading to a compromise of the server from unauthenticated users." (emphasis mine)
OpenSSH used zlib before, and they're still using it now. All they've done is delay the start of compressed streams until after authentication. This is a security fix, not a speed boost.
With supply and demand, it looks like the remanufactures could come up with an alternative printer/cartidge,
The problem is that the remanufacturers don't actually remanufacture anything. They just put more ink in the existing cartridges (and reset the "this much ink left" counter in the lexmark cartridges or put tape over one of the pins on the newer HP cartridges).
They don't have any budget for research or developement. Their most substancial cost is probably shipping empty cartridges to their plant for refilling.
"you're suddenly a patent infringer. More importantly, Lexmark can sue cartridge remanufacturers for "inducing" patent infringement by making and selling refills."
How is that patent infringement? Does that cover if I, personally, refill my cartridge at home rather than buying one someone else refilled?
Since a compressed JPEG image is around 400Kbytes, you could easy take and send a picture within a second. Even an uncompressed image might only take a second. Compare that speed to a flashcard which takes several seconds to save a compressed JPEG image.
Don't forget that you still need to locate a wireless access point, associate with that wireless accespoint, and then encapulsate the data for transmission over a network. Oh, and provide some 20-30mW of transmission power to achieve the normal range seen by 802.11b/g products...
Yes, yes I do think that this will use more power than a 1.7~2.0v flash card.
Not to mention that that several seconds you're quoting is probably saving a LOT more than 400kb of image, which a camera high-end enough to include wifi is bound to also do. Few of the JPEG images on my camera are under 1MB, and mine is hardly pro-sumer. -- Tired of Fighting Firefox? Let Let Firefox fight you!
I guess I assumed they still got their standard per copy royalty in addition to the millions up front to make EA exclusive. The NFL was the big guy entering that contract deal, I don't see why they would have made it any different from the standard deal other than making EA pay even more for exclusitivity, otherwise they would have stood to make more leaving the market open.
But then, I really don't know any of the specifics. -- Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
Slashdot Mirror
the obvious point that putting more electrical load on the alternator means a heavier mechanical load on the engine, so there goes your power savings.
Ever jump started someones car? It goes like this:
1) Start your engine
2) Hook up the cables to your car
3) Hook up the cables to their car
4) Hear your car rev up? That's your engine working harder to charge their battery.
5) Start their car. Notice how your car rev'd even harder? Again, greater electrical load=greater mechanical load.
6) Unhook the cables and loo loo loo.
--
You could BugMeNot, or you could just click. You decide
What about the situation I recall reading recently about hydrogen combustion being worse for the environment than gasolene?
What article was that? Hydrogen compusts to form water. That's it. Very clean
There are many claims that since production of hydrogen is not 100% efficient, that more energy would be required to power the current state of the earth (and thus more fossil fuels or alternative sources) if hydrogen became the main conduit, and this is very true, so fueling cars entirely off hydrogen could be worse, (but that's not at all what this article is talking about, now is it?)
However, I subscribe to the belief that 1 electrical plant is way more efficient than the sum of the 10,000 cars it's powering via hydrogen production had they been running on gasoline, and it's easier to put bulky polution control systems on a stationary power plant than to try and minimize those solutions to install in every single car on the road, so fueling cars entirely with H2 would probably be better for the environment.
--
Downloading in Firefox got you down? Cheer up
Seems kinda dumb that BT trackers rely on the clients to honestly report their ratios/upload amounts. Is it just this tracker implementation, or does the BT protocol work that way?
The BT protocol doesn't rely on this. This is a well known issue that effects tracker server logs and stats only. The actual BT Protocol for downloading makes decisions about who to upload to entirely in the client without requesting stats from any other client or tracker.
This "vulnerability" affects torent sites that enforce upload ratios in order to earn access to more torrents, and that's it.
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
neither do people who consider themselves having an IQ greater than 50.
Replace "having an IQ greater than 50" with "pretentious blowhards" and the statement is true.
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
Can't do that with anything but a gyro.
Rather than a gyro, how about a series of accelerometers (1 for every axis). If you know the acceleration in an access, derive it and you have speed. Derive it again and you have the distance moved.
This is much more likely than gryos.
--
Google innovative? Phhfft! This is Zombo-com!
not 23 miles per gallon. 320 miles per fill up.
Since the 23 gallons of H2 using this storage method only contains about half the energy of 23 gallons of gas, this is about 46 miles per gallon if it was gas.
Can your gasoline car do 320 miles on half a tank of gas? Can it get 46 MPG? These are the comparisons you must make due to differing energy densities.
Also, we don't produce the hydrogen in the car, we do that in a large plant to maximize efficiency of the hydrogen. Hydrogen is basically a battery, while oil is a source. But hydrogen can be a much better battery than LithiumIon (current best/weight) and there are lots of other sources of electricity that will become more and more viable over the years.
Go ahead and try to mandate that ever car must include scrubbers to limit carbon output. Now do the same on a giant plant producing hydrogen to put on those cars. Which is cheaper to do cleanly?
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
That would be 311 miles in 13.2 gallons.
Who cares how many gallons? Gas and Hydrogen have different energy densities, and gas is a liquid while hydrogen has no fixed volume.
Instead think of it as 311 miles on a tank of gas, or between fill-ups.
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
50L to go 500kM is 10kM to the liter. Or about 23MPG. Not good.
Hydrogen is a gas. Gasses do not have a constant volume (as liquids and solids) so you can't compare hydrogen to gas directly by volume, but you can compare energy contents by weight.
Remeber, it doesn't take 1 gallon of gas to make 1 gallon of hydrogen. Since hydrogen by weight stores less energy, you can (gasp) produce more of it per gallon of gas you burn.
Gasoline holds roughly 2.5x more power/gallon than hydrogen stored in this method. Even at 75% conversion efficiency, if we used gasoline as the source to produce hydrogen we're still talking some 47 MPG for an equal comparison if we stored hydrogen in this method, which seems to put the most of it in the tightest volume. But we wouldn't be using gas. We'd be using coal, wind, nuclear, or some other high efficiency electrical generation.
Also, it wouldn't cost you $3/"gallon" of hydrogen. And they'd probably sell it by the pound, like propane.
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
You don't swap pellets. You resaturate them by pumping more hydrogen across them.
The extra weight of the pellets is nominal since it's lighter than storing the same amount of energy in a thick bodied high-pressure tank, thus the less weight of the pellets (due to the thin walled tank) would be better than the other option.
The pellets are less flamable than hydrogen on it's own, since the pellets hold the hydrogen except under the right release conditions, so you wouldn't be dumping a full tank like you would in a high-pressure tank rupture.
Gasoline is also flamable, but cars only explode in the movies. It looks like pellets makes the same true for hydrogen cars.
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
Tell me: what is the energy density of water?
Zero. Water puts out fires. Duh!
--
Google innovative? Phhfft! This is Zombo-com!
gasoline would be at a more reasonable price.
You forgot "prompting the world to buy so much of it that we'd be out of it in 10 years"
What do you think prompted OPEC to form in the first place? You don't think it was the realization that they were going to run out of oil eventually and only through monopoly can they control the supply/demand curves to ensure they have oil through 2050. Maybe not, but the OPEC nations seem to think so... At least that's their public statement...
--
You could BugMeNot, or you could just click. You decide
Or you could do ethonal from wheat. Not sure how it compares to soy, but it's way better than ethonal from corn.
Also, if you're using bio-anything fuel you don't have to worry about emissions. Petro-diesel is worse due to heavy metals (not in biodiesel) that are cleaned out with scrubbers in modern exhaust systems. Gas "equivilants" don't have the heavy metals, but are a little less efficient. Both pump out CO2.
Bio-anything has no heavy metals and pumps out CO2 that came from current plants, ie it'll be no probablem for new plants to aborb that carbon as part of the natural cycle.
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
plant where otherwise wasted hi temperatures and electricity (you can't turn off the reator at night)
Why the hell would you turn the reactor off at night? Nobody turns off (or even slows) their coal electric generators at night...
--
Downloading in Firefox got you down? Cheer up
Converting water to hydrogen and oxygen is roughly 75% efficient (90% at best, but cost prohibitive catalysts needed). Converting hydrogen to electricity is roughly 80% efficient and improving. We get out about 60% of the energy we put in.
But here you're comparing a source (like fossil fuels and the sun) to a carrier (like hydrogen/fuelcell mix and batteries)
Now, if you compare the efficiency of fuelcells to batteries (and factor in fuel economy of the overall system when including the weights of the two devices) you'll find fuelcells tend to come out on top.
Fuelcells are the large battery replacement, not a coal/oil replacement. But without fuelcells we'll probably never have decent electric cars and thus will never cut dependence on oil.
--
You could BugMeNot, or you could just click. You decide
Not actually a dupe!
The origional story said "hitachi will do this in a month"
The current story says "hitachi it's, and it costs this much". The story should have had a "previously mentioned" but that doesn't make it a dupe
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
Just make those figures up on the spot did we?
Electrolosis in production environments tends to the 70-75% efficiency (www.elecdesign.com) and can be improved with various catalysts up to 90% (http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/)
Large scale coal plants do better much better than 50% efficiency, especially the newer ones. (we have lots of coal in ND, and thus export lots of electrical power. I've toured a few plants, but don't have the literature with me so I can't dispute this other than to say it's better)
fuel cells tend towards 80% efficiency (science.howstuffworks.com) and there is room for improvement yet.
No internal combustion engine using petro is anywhere near 35% efficient. 32% is on the high end. This number floats around 30% (ford.com)
On the other hand, internal combustion engines using hydrogen tend more towards 35-38% efficiency, so about the number you quoted. (ford.com)
Also, you're auto efficiency doesn't factor in the energy used (and efficiencies involved in) extracting and processing the fuel into gas. This information might have already been factored in your electrical plant estimate, which might explain why it's so much lower than it should be. Or that 50% is an average including low efficiency wind and solar that don't use coal.
Since I'm not actually sure what the powerplants should be, only that it's too low, I'll leave it at 50%, assuming it's fixed for extraction, etc. this gives us:
Fuelcell: 50% x 75% x 80% x 95% = 31%
Hydrogen internal: 50% x 75% x 38% = 14.25%
Current gas engines: well below 30% when including extracting fuels... more like 20% (ecen.com)
You still prove your point that internal combustion of hydrogen is undesirable, but internal combustion engines are not an efficient means of transport compared to fuelcell technology.
And I didn't use the 90% electrolysis that WILL be met once greater demand for hydrogen hits. This is already producable in small scales, and demand = competition = a reason to increase efficiency in the main stream.
Not to mention the CO2 scrubbers, fly ash collectors, etc that make a modern coal plant 100% better for the environment than 10,000 american automobiles
--
Google innovative? Phhfft! This is Zombo-com!
From the changelog:
" Added a new compression method that delays the start of zlib compression until the user has been authenticated successfully. The new method ("Compression delayed") is on by default in the server. This eliminates the risk of any zlib vulnerability leading to a compromise of the server from unauthenticated users." (emphasis mine)
OpenSSH used zlib before, and they're still using it now. All they've done is delay the start of compressed streams until after authentication. This is a security fix, not a speed boost.
That the DMCA will fall into play if you merely tell someone how to refill their cart.
Lexmark already lost their DMCA case... that's why they moved on to patents, where they apparently won. (that parts in TFA)
With supply and demand, it looks like the remanufactures could come up with an alternative printer/cartidge,
The problem is that the remanufacturers don't actually remanufacture anything. They just put more ink in the existing cartridges (and reset the "this much ink left" counter in the lexmark cartridges or put tape over one of the pins on the newer HP cartridges).
They don't have any budget for research or developement. Their most substancial cost is probably shipping empty cartridges to their plant for refilling.
unfortunately some big manufacturer(probably HP)
HP?? You mean Lexmark? They're already doing it. That's what TFA is already about!
"you're suddenly a patent infringer. More importantly, Lexmark can sue cartridge remanufacturers for "inducing" patent infringement by making and selling refills."
How is that patent infringement? Does that cover if I, personally, refill my cartridge at home rather than buying one someone else refilled?
Since a compressed JPEG image is around 400Kbytes, you could easy take and send a picture within a second. Even an uncompressed image might only take a second. Compare that speed to a flashcard which takes several seconds to save a compressed JPEG image.
Don't forget that you still need to locate a wireless access point, associate with that wireless accespoint, and then encapulsate the data for transmission over a network. Oh, and provide some 20-30mW of transmission power to achieve the normal range seen by 802.11b/g products...
Yes, yes I do think that this will use more power than a 1.7~2.0v flash card.
Not to mention that that several seconds you're quoting is probably saving a LOT more than 400kb of image, which a camera high-end enough to include wifi is bound to also do. Few of the JPEG images on my camera are under 1MB, and mine is hardly pro-sumer.
--
Tired of Fighting Firefox? Let Let Firefox fight you!
I guess I assumed they still got their standard per copy royalty in addition to the millions up front to make EA exclusive. The NFL was the big guy entering that contract deal, I don't see why they would have made it any different from the standard deal other than making EA pay even more for exclusitivity, otherwise they would have stood to make more leaving the market open.
But then, I really don't know any of the specifics.
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
Meh.. I won't buy it...
--
You could BugMeNot, or you could just click. You decide
If sales drop, maybe the NFL will look to renegotiate their deal
--
Downloading in Firefox got you down? Cheer up