Re-read what you just wrote and explain how it possibly makes sense. The only way your money buys more stuff is if the prices are lower. It's a tautology, not a symptom.
As I said "you only need cheap batteries if you are trying to be off grid".
As far as whether batteries are necessary for spurring a broader solar market, it is a small minority of people who would be buying solar panels to avoid power outages. If solar panel costs were finally low enough that you could install a (battery-free) system that would provide signficant net savings over its life, you wouldn't hear a lot of people saying "but if I still lose power when the grid is out, why should I bother".
I disagree. The grid is in the business of transferring electricity around. The grid doesn't care if it's electricity generated at a plant and sent to your home, or generated at your home and transferred to your neighbors home. And of course you'll pay to be attached to the grid, but that could take many forms, almost any manner of which would be cheaper than buying a bank of batteries.
I also didn't see how much mass it would gain. But it seems unlikely that the change in mass would be significantly more than the change in mass cars currently experience with gas tanks going from full to empty.
According to the OECD, U.S. tax revenues (federal, state and local combined) were 24.1% of GDP in 2009. Of the 34 countries they track, only Chile and Mexico collected a lower % of GDP in taxes.
In the UK it was 34.3% of GDP.
In Germany it was 37.3% of GDP.
In Switzerland it was 29.7% of GDP.
Everyone else in the developed world is paying MORE taxes than we are.
GM claims that the Volt has no direct mechanical linkage. Notice the use of the term "direct". They do not claim "no mechanical linkage". Their pedantry here is widely thought to be nonsense.
This is what the Volt does sometimes: gas engine connected to a generator, generates electricity, sends electricity to the electric motor, electric motor drives the wheels.
This is what the Volt does when batteries are lowest: gas engine is connected to both the generator and the planetary gear. The plantary gear cannot be locked into a gas-only mode, so the primary electric motor has to contribute some power to keep the gears spinning the right direction. However, under this scenario most of the power delivered to the wheels represents mechanical power transmitted through mechanical linkages from the gasoline engine.
Even thought GM somehow makes the claim that this means the car is EV, it is not meaningfully different than the way any other current hybrid automobile is set up. The only significant difference is the batteries, which are capable of providing enough energy for higher speeds and longer distances than non-plug-in hybrids.
It would be very inefficient to design a system such that the gas engine only generates electricity and never mechanically drives the wheels.
You are incorrect. The Volt is a very traditional parallel-series hybrid. Same basic drive train set-up as a Prius. It just has a big battery and a charging port. I guess Chevy's "ignore the fact it's a hybrid" campaign worked on you.
Volt is not all electric. It's a plug-in hybrid. Chevy just does a good job of avoiding that term. Starting this year, Toyota now markets a plug-in hybrid version of the Prius. They have decided to go the simple route and just call it that.
Plug-in hybrid is a hybrid with a larger battery that can be charged from the wall and provides some medium-length range (20-40 miles usually) without having to turn on the gas engine.
The Volt is not really an electric car. It's better described as a plug-in hybrid -- i.e. a hybrid with a much bigger battery that can be charged from the wall. Chevy does a good job of obscuring that fact, though. My point is that the Volt would be counted as a hybrid in the referenced survey.
BTW, don't get me wrong... I don't fault Chevy in any way for their marketing. They are very clear about what the Volt is and is not. They just have purposefully avoided using the actual terms "hybrid" or "plug-in hybrid".
There are tons of phone booths left in NYC. I can't remember the last time I saw someone use one to make a phone call*. I think all of the revenue comes from advertising posters mounted on the sides. The fact that there's a phone in there is just an excuse for building the ad space.
*Just a couple weeks ago I saw someone use one to take a wiz, though.
Apparently you did not RTFA. The city sold franchise rights to a company called City24x7, who will install and maintain the kiosks at its own expense. During the pilot program (250 units), the city gets 0% of the ad revenue. If the program is rolled out permanently, the city will get 36% of ad revenue.
OS X only does that for applications, not for "files". It's a big difference. If a user double-clicks on what he thought was a jpeg and that dialog pops up, it's gonna seem pretty unusual.
How do you know it's zero? You have no way of knowing how many terrorists gave up on their plots because of the higher level of security at the airports.
And I don't know what "State central banks" you might be referring to. Is there some libertarian revisionist history out there claiming there were once State central banks?
It's also not clear what the Fed or central banking has to do with TSA in the first place...
How accurate is biometric voice analysis when the person was under physical/mental stress at the time of recording? (Honest question, I really don't know.)
Concorde flight time from JFK to Heathrow was closer to 3 hours. And among a very wealthy (or expense accounted) class it was very popular (just not quite popular enough).
But remember that the biggest impediment to the success of Concorde might have really been that it only made sense to fly JFK Heathrow and JFK de Gaulle. Because of this, few planes were built, eliminating any economies of scale of building or even maintaining them. Also eliminating the possibility of follow-on models -- as it is often the subsequent models where the manufacturer finally gets it "right".
The reason this is announcement is a big deal, therefore, is that it potentially fixes Concorde's achilles heel -- that it was only allowed to go full speed over water, and didn't have the range to go over water any further than NY to Europe. This plane could fly over land, and have a longer range -- opening the possibility of many more city-pairs, many more sales, therefore economies of scale.
Having said that, barring a magic bullet like "engineers figure out sure-fire way to make a Mach-2 passenger jet at only 50% higher cost per passenger mile with limited up-front development risk", you are correct that no one is going to spec billions to see if they can make the thing work. Concorde was cool, but a financial boondoggle for Britain and France. Boeing thought about making a (relatively) efficient Mach-0.95 jet, but at the cost of a dramatic departure from traditional airliner design. They decided the risk was too great and went with the more traditionally-shaped 787.
We're stuck at Mach-0.85 until another government decides to underwrite the development costs. There's just too much risk for a private corporation to take on. They could spend billions and have it just not work.
The one possibility for this tech, however, is for a really high-end private jet. A guy like Burt Rutan might be able to put together a skunk-works-style prototype of the thing, and then sell copies at a few hundred million a piece. At that price, could probably sell a half-dozen around the world.
(Note: current passenger jets can reach top speeds above Mach-0.9, but typical cruising speed is right around Mach-0.85.)
The MIT team is not using an adaptive wing. As described by Icyfire0573 above "...they fixed that by taking the old design which had no lift, ran it through a ton of simulations and found a design which has the lift necessary to fix this."
There is a team in Japan that is using an adaptive wing. Depending on exactly how the Japanese team's wing adapts, that could be an impediment to use in a commercial airliner. Thinking about current airliner designs, the wing surface shape is modified by flaps and slats, but the core load bearing structures of the wings (spars and the connection points to the airframe) remain fixed. I would be wary of a swing-wing design for commercial air, for instance, but something similar to flaps/slats would theoretically be no more of a safety risk than today's (incredibly safe) designs.
In addition to safety, there is also the simple fact that fewer moving parts would be cheaper to build and maintain.
This thing needs to be going at over 10,000 miles per hour. The g-forces would be ridiculous at those speeds in a circle. And you'd have a really, really hard time keeping the vehicle from impacting against the track.
Slashdot Mirror
But this is true of any codec. You could patent an optimization for WebM just as easily as you could patent an optimization for H.264.
Re-read what you just wrote and explain how it possibly makes sense. The only way your money buys more stuff is if the prices are lower. It's a tautology, not a symptom.
As I said "you only need cheap batteries if you are trying to be off grid".
As far as whether batteries are necessary for spurring a broader solar market, it is a small minority of people who would be buying solar panels to avoid power outages. If solar panel costs were finally low enough that you could install a (battery-free) system that would provide signficant net savings over its life, you wouldn't hear a lot of people saying "but if I still lose power when the grid is out, why should I bother".
I disagree. The grid is in the business of transferring electricity around. The grid doesn't care if it's electricity generated at a plant and sent to your home, or generated at your home and transferred to your neighbors home. And of course you'll pay to be attached to the grid, but that could take many forms, almost any manner of which would be cheaper than buying a bank of batteries.
You only need cheap batteries if you are trying to be off grid (or your utility doesn't do net metering). Otherwise, let the grid be your battery.
No. The definition of deflation is that prices decline. In a growing economy with a fixed money supply, prices must decline.
I also didn't see how much mass it would gain. But it seems unlikely that the change in mass would be significantly more than the change in mass cars currently experience with gas tanks going from full to empty.
Nope. Even those elements occur naturally. The just don't last very long.
According to the OECD, U.S. tax revenues (federal, state and local combined) were 24.1% of GDP in 2009. Of the 34 countries they track, only Chile and Mexico collected a lower % of GDP in taxes.
In the UK it was 34.3% of GDP.
In Germany it was 37.3% of GDP.
In Switzerland it was 29.7% of GDP.
Everyone else in the developed world is paying MORE taxes than we are.
Source:
Spreadsheet: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/38/46721091.xls
Other OECD data: http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3746,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html
And we pay less for it than all of those foreigners. U.S. effective tax rates are much lower than just about any developed nation.
GM claims that the Volt has no direct mechanical linkage. Notice the use of the term "direct". They do not claim "no mechanical linkage". Their pedantry here is widely thought to be nonsense.
This is what the Volt does sometimes: gas engine connected to a generator, generates electricity, sends electricity to the electric motor, electric motor drives the wheels.
This is what the Volt does when batteries are lowest: gas engine is connected to both the generator and the planetary gear. The plantary gear cannot be locked into a gas-only mode, so the primary electric motor has to contribute some power to keep the gears spinning the right direction. However, under this scenario most of the power delivered to the wheels represents mechanical power transmitted through mechanical linkages from the gasoline engine.
Even thought GM somehow makes the claim that this means the car is EV, it is not meaningfully different than the way any other current hybrid automobile is set up. The only significant difference is the batteries, which are capable of providing enough energy for higher speeds and longer distances than non-plug-in hybrids.
It would be very inefficient to design a system such that the gas engine only generates electricity and never mechanically drives the wheels.
They are differentiating it from the traditional "hybrid" (as distinct from "plug-in hybrid").
Having said that, I hadn't seen that statement from Chevy before. I agree that is pretty disingenuous of them.
You are incorrect. The Volt is a very traditional parallel-series hybrid. Same basic drive train set-up as a Prius. It just has a big battery and a charging port. I guess Chevy's "ignore the fact it's a hybrid" campaign worked on you.
Volt is not all electric. It's a plug-in hybrid. Chevy just does a good job of avoiding that term. Starting this year, Toyota now markets a plug-in hybrid version of the Prius. They have decided to go the simple route and just call it that.
Plug-in hybrid is a hybrid with a larger battery that can be charged from the wall and provides some medium-length range (20-40 miles usually) without having to turn on the gas engine.
The Volt is not really an electric car. It's better described as a plug-in hybrid -- i.e. a hybrid with a much bigger battery that can be charged from the wall. Chevy does a good job of obscuring that fact, though. My point is that the Volt would be counted as a hybrid in the referenced survey.
BTW, don't get me wrong... I don't fault Chevy in any way for their marketing. They are very clear about what the Volt is and is not. They just have purposefully avoided using the actual terms "hybrid" or "plug-in hybrid".
There are tons of phone booths left in NYC. I can't remember the last time I saw someone use one to make a phone call*. I think all of the revenue comes from advertising posters mounted on the sides. The fact that there's a phone in there is just an excuse for building the ad space.
*Just a couple weeks ago I saw someone use one to take a wiz, though.
Apparently you did not RTFA. The city sold franchise rights to a company called City24x7, who will install and maintain the kiosks at its own expense. During the pilot program (250 units), the city gets 0% of the ad revenue. If the program is rolled out permanently, the city will get 36% of ad revenue.
Net cost to NYC taxpayers -- $0.
OS X only does that for applications, not for "files". It's a big difference. If a user double-clicks on what he thought was a jpeg and that dialog pops up, it's gonna seem pretty unusual.
How do you know it's zero? You have no way of knowing how many terrorists gave up on their plots because of the higher level of security at the airports.
And I don't know what "State central banks" you might be referring to. Is there some libertarian revisionist history out there claiming there were once State central banks?
It's also not clear what the Fed or central banking has to do with TSA in the first place...
How accurate is biometric voice analysis when the person was under physical/mental stress at the time of recording? (Honest question, I really don't know.)
Concorde flight time from JFK to Heathrow was closer to 3 hours. And among a very wealthy (or expense accounted) class it was very popular (just not quite popular enough).
But remember that the biggest impediment to the success of Concorde might have really been that it only made sense to fly JFK Heathrow and JFK de Gaulle. Because of this, few planes were built, eliminating any economies of scale of building or even maintaining them. Also eliminating the possibility of follow-on models -- as it is often the subsequent models where the manufacturer finally gets it "right".
The reason this is announcement is a big deal, therefore, is that it potentially fixes Concorde's achilles heel -- that it was only allowed to go full speed over water, and didn't have the range to go over water any further than NY to Europe. This plane could fly over land, and have a longer range -- opening the possibility of many more city-pairs, many more sales, therefore economies of scale.
Having said that, barring a magic bullet like "engineers figure out sure-fire way to make a Mach-2 passenger jet at only 50% higher cost per passenger mile with limited up-front development risk", you are correct that no one is going to spec billions to see if they can make the thing work. Concorde was cool, but a financial boondoggle for Britain and France. Boeing thought about making a (relatively) efficient Mach-0.95 jet, but at the cost of a dramatic departure from traditional airliner design. They decided the risk was too great and went with the more traditionally-shaped 787.
We're stuck at Mach-0.85 until another government decides to underwrite the development costs. There's just too much risk for a private corporation to take on. They could spend billions and have it just not work.
The one possibility for this tech, however, is for a really high-end private jet. A guy like Burt Rutan might be able to put together a skunk-works-style prototype of the thing, and then sell copies at a few hundred million a piece. At that price, could probably sell a half-dozen around the world.
(Note: current passenger jets can reach top speeds above Mach-0.9, but typical cruising speed is right around Mach-0.85.)
The MIT team is not using an adaptive wing. As described by Icyfire0573 above "...they fixed that by taking the old design which had no lift, ran it through a ton of simulations and found a design which has the lift necessary to fix this."
There is a team in Japan that is using an adaptive wing. Depending on exactly how the Japanese team's wing adapts, that could be an impediment to use in a commercial airliner. Thinking about current airliner designs, the wing surface shape is modified by flaps and slats, but the core load bearing structures of the wings (spars and the connection points to the airframe) remain fixed. I would be wary of a swing-wing design for commercial air, for instance, but something similar to flaps/slats would theoretically be no more of a safety risk than today's (incredibly safe) designs.
In addition to safety, there is also the simple fact that fewer moving parts would be cheaper to build and maintain.
How is it easier to remember who is who when you get their information via Bump or QR code?
AND Rovio was making a fortune on Angry Birds. They were not developing the Android version on a mom-and-pop budget.
This thing needs to be going at over 10,000 miles per hour. The g-forces would be ridiculous at those speeds in a circle. And you'd have a really, really hard time keeping the vehicle from impacting against the track.