Very few of the vehicles were tested up to the maximum level of the EMP simulator.
They didn't have enough funding to be able to compensate the owner for a bricked vehicle, so they started at low EMP pulses and ramped up until they got the engine to stall. They stopped before they bricked the car, so they don't really know what size pulse would brick the car. But we know from the Future Weapon tests, that you can certainly get there in a lab setting.
Also,
It is important to note that the latest model of car that was tested by the U.S. EMP Commission (as noted in the quotation above) was a 2002 model car. Since 2002, the number of microprocessors in cars and the reliance on microprocessors in all motor vehicles has increased greatly. Also, the sensitivity of the electronic circuitry to EMP has increased due to the use of smaller electronic components designed to operate on lower voltages.
The take-away is that cars will be OK with smaller pulses, but have problems with larger pulses. But we already knew there would be a threshold. No one was claiming that a tiny pulse would brick a car. And we've got evidence that a large pulse can certainly create a brick. They throw around some pulse energies in the article you linked to, but they are meaningless to me, as I don't have any reference point to compare them to.
Depends on the hack, doesn't it? If an enemy country hacked a nuclear power plant and caused a meltdown with significant loss of life, then wouldn't the "kinetic response" potentially be not only justifiable, but appropriate?
This type of example is why you'll never get a major government to say "there is no situation where we would respond to a cyber attack with a physical response".
They're utilizing data from a 1962 study done at Sandia Lab. Those cars had no electronics.
Modern cars' electronic ignition systems get completely fried by EMP. Any car built since probably the early 1980s would be completely bricked by an EMP.
Sandia did that testing in 1962 with cars that had essentially no electronics in them.
Future Weapons (a Discovery Channel show) put a 1990's era Ford Taurus through an EMP pulse in 2006. Simple electrical systems continued to work (lights, locks, windows) but the engine would not restart.
I agree. Have just enough a hurdle that the honest-but-lazy user doesn't just keep saying to himself "I'll just pay for it later".
Full disclosure: I've been that honest-but-lazy guy who kept meaning to pay for shareware and then never got around to it (even though I really meant to and wasn't really trying to avoid it).
Yeah, there's no magic to the app. They just turn on the vibrate mechanism. Phone spins by itself when the vibrator is on. The app also hooks into the camera APIs, I guess, so it's not quite as simple as "just" turning on the vibrator. But as far as the spinning feature, it's a byproduct of how the phone is designed; the app isn't doing anything particularly special.
Don't get me wrong, still a really cool idea. It just doesn't represent some kind of clever hack of vibrate mechanisms.
1) Just because only 14% of fatal accidents are caused by speeding, are you implying that's its no big deal and we should just let those 14% keep happening year after year? Or maybe its such not a big deal that we should stop all speeding enforcement and let that percentage climb?
2) Causing an accident is not the only way speeding can affect fatalities. An accident caused by something besides speeding is more likely to cause a fatality if speeding is also occurring. This is simple physics. It's hard to measure for any one particular accident, but fatality stats generally show an increase in areas where speed limits are raised, even when accidents were not caused by the increased speed.
You're totally right. I don't think any of us here support cruise missile stikes, bombardments by manned warplanes, or CIA hitsquads on American soil against US persons either.
I disagree. There are circumstances under which I would absolutely support those things. VERY NARROW circumstances, mind you, but I wouldn't want them to be completely ruled out as a potential response to exigent circumstances.
It's worse than that. If everyone were being spied on, then everyone would have standing. Only lots of people are being spied on. But no one can prove which people are actually being spied on. So lots of people being spied on, but no one has legal standing to try to stop it.
But it definitely uses less fuel to keep the car in gear, but send no fuel to the engine (obviously, this only works for engines that are designed for it). The car slows down a little faster than if you put it in neutral, but it uses no fuel during that period. That beats the hell out of coasting a little further while using enough fuel to keep the engine idling.
No. Not magic. I just got it backwards. The valves are kept closed during the whole cycle, with no fuel injected into the cylinder. The upstroke compresses the air in the piston, which then pushes back against the piston on the downstroke, recovering a lot of the energy lost in compression. It's the same way they turn off piston in variable displacement engines.
You're right, I got it backwards. It keeps the valves closed, not opened. The piston compresses the air in the upstroke, which then pushes back against the piston in the downstroke. Relatively low energy loss. It's the same way they shut off cylinders on variable-displacement engines.
Sorry, I got it backwards. It keeps the valves closed, not opened. The piston compresses the air in the upstroke, which then pushes back against the piston in the downstroke. Relatively low energy loss. It's the same way they shut off cylinders on variable-displacement engines.
Coasting neutral will get you further, but the car is also sending gas to the engine to keep it running. This offsets the energy savings of coasting further.
Uses less gas to stay in gear and shut off fuel to the engine. This is because it doesn't merely shut off fuel to the engine, it also opens all the valves. This reduces engine drag down to a pretty low level. So your choices for coasting are (i) coast in gear with minimal engine drag or (ii) coast out of gear with zero engine drag, but gas going to the engine to keep it spinning. The first option wastes less energy overall.
I agree with your point. If Top Gear had simply driven the car for the 40 minutes it would have taken to run down, and then followed the same pre-written script, then it would have looked exactly the same to a viewer, and Tesla couldn't have complained. So the meat of the bitis true -- 55 miles of track range; can't bring fuel to the car, have to bring the car to the fuel. Top Gear just saved themselves the expense of having the film crew sit around while they proved the 55 mile range.
I'll bet, though, that in retrospect the Top Gear guys just wish they'd done the extra driving and saved themselves the other trouble.
They weren't doing a maximum range test. They were testing whether they could drive between charging stations in a manner consistent with how regular users would use the cars. Tesla warns that charges above 90% (the level the reporter charged to and that shows "Charging Complete" in the UI) will reduce your battery life. Furthermore, the UI showed plenty of range to get between stations at that level of charge. In spite of Elon's whining, he has also essentially admitted that the charging stations are too far apart on the East Coast (due to lower efficiency of the battery in the cold and more stop-and-go traffic in that region).
Slashdot Mirror
From that article:
Very few of the vehicles were tested up to the maximum level of the EMP simulator.
They didn't have enough funding to be able to compensate the owner for a bricked vehicle, so they started at low EMP pulses and ramped up until they got the engine to stall. They stopped before they bricked the car, so they don't really know what size pulse would brick the car. But we know from the Future Weapon tests, that you can certainly get there in a lab setting.
Also,
It is important to note that the latest model of car that was tested by the U.S. EMP Commission (as noted in the quotation above) was a 2002 model car. Since 2002, the number of microprocessors in cars and the reliance on microprocessors in all motor vehicles has increased greatly. Also, the sensitivity of the electronic circuitry to EMP has increased due to the use of smaller electronic components designed to operate on lower voltages.
The take-away is that cars will be OK with smaller pulses, but have problems with larger pulses. But we already knew there would be a threshold. No one was claiming that a tiny pulse would brick a car. And we've got evidence that a large pulse can certainly create a brick. They throw around some pulse energies in the article you linked to, but they are meaningless to me, as I don't have any reference point to compare them to.
Depends on the hack, doesn't it? If an enemy country hacked a nuclear power plant and caused a meltdown with significant loss of life, then wouldn't the "kinetic response" potentially be not only justifiable, but appropriate?
This type of example is why you'll never get a major government to say "there is no situation where we would respond to a cyber attack with a physical response".
They're utilizing data from a 1962 study done at Sandia Lab. Those cars had no electronics.
Modern cars' electronic ignition systems get completely fried by EMP. Any car built since probably the early 1980s would be completely bricked by an EMP.
Sandia did that testing in 1962 with cars that had essentially no electronics in them.
Future Weapons (a Discovery Channel show) put a 1990's era Ford Taurus through an EMP pulse in 2006. Simple electrical systems continued to work (lights, locks, windows) but the engine would not restart.
No one but the Secret Service is allowed anywhere near the presidential vehicles. That's why they ship in vehicles, instead of using theirs.
I agree. Have just enough a hurdle that the honest-but-lazy user doesn't just keep saying to himself "I'll just pay for it later".
Full disclosure: I've been that honest-but-lazy guy who kept meaning to pay for shareware and then never got around to it (even though I really meant to and wasn't really trying to avoid it).
Yeah, there's no magic to the app. They just turn on the vibrate mechanism. Phone spins by itself when the vibrator is on. The app also hooks into the camera APIs, I guess, so it's not quite as simple as "just" turning on the vibrator. But as far as the spinning feature, it's a byproduct of how the phone is designed; the app isn't doing anything particularly special.
Don't get me wrong, still a really cool idea. It just doesn't represent some kind of clever hack of vibrate mechanisms.
Guns don't kill people... dolphins kill people.
"Many places"? or is it really "one place that everyone seems to know the story and the town got slapped down by the state for doing it"?
Why are you driving so fast in icy conditions?
Problems with your post:
1) Just because only 14% of fatal accidents are caused by speeding, are you implying that's its no big deal and we should just let those 14% keep happening year after year? Or maybe its such not a big deal that we should stop all speeding enforcement and let that percentage climb?
2) Causing an accident is not the only way speeding can affect fatalities. An accident caused by something besides speeding is more likely to cause a fatality if speeding is also occurring. This is simple physics. It's hard to measure for any one particular accident, but fatality stats generally show an increase in areas where speed limits are raised, even when accidents were not caused by the increased speed.
Then he should argue that... which has zero to do with drones, mind you.
You're totally right. I don't think any of us here support cruise missile stikes, bombardments by manned warplanes, or CIA hitsquads on American soil against US persons either.
I disagree. There are circumstances under which I would absolutely support those things. VERY NARROW circumstances, mind you, but I wouldn't want them to be completely ruled out as a potential response to exigent circumstances.
It's worse than that. If everyone were being spied on, then everyone would have standing. Only lots of people are being spied on. But no one can prove which people are actually being spied on. So lots of people being spied on, but no one has legal standing to try to stop it.
The court ruled that they have no standing. No standing means it doesn't matter what your argument is, the court will not listen.
I'm not sure it's 50/50.
But it definitely uses less fuel to keep the car in gear, but send no fuel to the engine (obviously, this only works for engines that are designed for it). The car slows down a little faster than if you put it in neutral, but it uses no fuel during that period. That beats the hell out of coasting a little further while using enough fuel to keep the engine idling.
No. Not magic. I just got it backwards. The valves are kept closed during the whole cycle, with no fuel injected into the cylinder. The upstroke compresses the air in the piston, which then pushes back against the piston on the downstroke, recovering a lot of the energy lost in compression. It's the same way they turn off piston in variable displacement engines.
You're right, I got it backwards. It keeps the valves closed, not opened. The piston compresses the air in the upstroke, which then pushes back against the piston in the downstroke. Relatively low energy loss. It's the same way they shut off cylinders on variable-displacement engines.
Sorry, I got it backwards. It keeps the valves closed, not opened. The piston compresses the air in the upstroke, which then pushes back against the piston in the downstroke. Relatively low energy loss. It's the same way they shut off cylinders on variable-displacement engines.
Coasting neutral will get you further, but the car is also sending gas to the engine to keep it running. This offsets the energy savings of coasting further.
Uses less gas to stay in gear and shut off fuel to the engine. This is because it doesn't merely shut off fuel to the engine, it also opens all the valves. This reduces engine drag down to a pretty low level. So your choices for coasting are (i) coast in gear with minimal engine drag or (ii) coast out of gear with zero engine drag, but gas going to the engine to keep it spinning. The first option wastes less energy overall.
I agree with your point. If Top Gear had simply driven the car for the 40 minutes it would have taken to run down, and then followed the same pre-written script, then it would have looked exactly the same to a viewer, and Tesla couldn't have complained. So the meat of the bitis true -- 55 miles of track range; can't bring fuel to the car, have to bring the car to the fuel. Top Gear just saved themselves the expense of having the film crew sit around while they proved the 55 mile range.
I'll bet, though, that in retrospect the Top Gear guys just wish they'd done the extra driving and saved themselves the other trouble.
I think the existing supercharger network is a "we gotta start somewhere" thing.
They weren't doing a maximum range test. They were testing whether they could drive between charging stations in a manner consistent with how regular users would use the cars. Tesla warns that charges above 90% (the level the reporter charged to and that shows "Charging Complete" in the UI) will reduce your battery life. Furthermore, the UI showed plenty of range to get between stations at that level of charge. In spite of Elon's whining, he has also essentially admitted that the charging stations are too far apart on the East Coast (due to lower efficiency of the battery in the cold and more stop-and-go traffic in that region).
"handset extended warranty"
Need to double-check my posts better. :-(