You apparently did come up with a solution that at least hadn't been implemented. So why don't you think a small-time inventor couldn't have the right lateral view to solve the problem here?
Mostly because "droplet size" has been done to death. Lookup acetone, surface tension, and carburetor.
There are a lot of aspects that I'd like to see addressed with real research. Finding a way to modulate droplet size based on RPM could be interesting, but he's not talking about that.
i'd like to think a professor from temple has a pretty good grasp on things. my guess is that if you two sat down and discussed these matters he'd best you, hands down.
I don't know, I'm an engineer, I read a lot, and have been working on cars and stuff for over 30 years. I've also met some pretty stupid Phds in my life as well. So, you may be right, but I'm not uninformed either.
The "droplet size" issue has been seriously examined for a long time. There were a lot of attempts at attacking this problem.
Some people have been using acetone to reduce the surface tension of the gas to reduce the droplet size. In theory that could work, in practice it doesn't on a modern engine. The fuel injection systems these days do a great job of atomizing the fuel.
One of the problems with "gas" as a fuel is similar to audio quality on an lp record. On the outside tracks, you have more surface area per revolution then on the inside tracks. The outside diameter of an LP is about 12 inches, so that means about 36" for an outside track, and about 18" for an inside track.
With gasoline, on low RPM you need to slow down the combustion of the gas, on a higher RPM you need to accelerate the combustion. This is what they use the EGR system to do. The droplet size should be, if possible, modulated with the RPM as well, but that is a more difficult problem. Lower RPMs, bigger droplets. Higher RPMs smaller droplets.
Perhaps smaller droplets with a more aggressive EGR control, who knows, but the "droplet size" has been done to death as a static measure.
How often do vehicles with NO2 systems require rebuilds ?
That's a factor of how much boost they create, lubrication, etc. The biggest problem is knock and ping and the increased stress on the bearings. 4 cylinder motors aren typically more carefully engineered for economy and generally need to be beefed up before you NOS them.
Pulling 44 tons is trivial on a flat surface. The test is acceleration and inclines. Oh, and the axles have to be well lubed and the rolling resistance has to be low to boot.
Formula one racers are fantastic machines, but one could hardly call them daily drivers. There are a lot of things you can do with a motor and a car if you don't have to worry about it lasting 150,000 miles or 8-10 years or driving in the snow or sub-zero weather, sandy or salty environments, or being reliable outside an oval track.
As for the 2 1/2 tons of metal to transport one person, I agree with you 100%.
Oh, I have driven some pretty cool turbo systems recently, but the turbo lag is just annoying.
My last "hot rod" was a 1987 Pontiac Firebird. I pulled the 305, and built a 383 stroker for it. Ported and polished heads, the works. It was 0-60 in the sub-5s It never passed emissions inspection, needed super unleaded, but man that sucker was fast. I got tired conning/bribing for inspection stickers.
Anyway, in the time of even the slightest turbo lag, I'm gone.
I'm currently working on a 1990 Firebird, keeping the 305, and seeing what I can do with simple headers, injection, etc. rather than go all out horse power, I want to balance economy.
Give me a break. Sorry, the "big" car guys, GM, Toyota, Ford, Mercedes, et al know the physics of combustion very well.
I have been chasing the problem in my spare time for years. I remember an invention I had in high school auto-shop, in 1978 (I was an electronics nerd and gear head) of drilling hole in a distributor cap, fastening a mirror to the rotor and using opto-electronics to detect the rotation and fire a small coil for each spark plug. I was able to run the car without a high voltage distributor. I should have patented it, because cars more or less work like that now. Anyway, I digress.
"Droplet Size" has been handled quite effectively by increasing the fuel injector pressure in the newer cars.
You aren't going to come up with a solution those guys haven't thought about. The only thing you can do is come up with an invention that they are unable to sell. Look at something like Nitrous Oxide or some other oxidizer, now, if you beef up a four cylinder engine to take the increased torque and rework the carboration/fuel injection control so that it is a seamless boost, you could run a much bigger car on a much smaller engine. Most cars are very fuel efficient while running, but suck down gas on acceleration. The over all fuel economy is how much gas a vehicle needs to maintain its speed, and the amount of power required to do that is a fraction of the capability of the engine, but to get the acceleration you need, you need the extra displacement.
So, even though you may need a 5.2 liters of engine displacement for performance, you need far less for maintaining speed, so why not start small with a four cylinder, and use something like NOS to bridge the difference? That's what a turbo or a super charger does. By compressing the air into the intake system, you are making your 4 cylinders effectively larger by allowing them to take in more air and fuel. Turbos, however, have a bad but improving performance curve. They have nothing at the start, and "lag" performance over a bigger motor. NOS doesn't suffer that problem.
So, if you can find a cheap and plentiful and safe oxidizer gas and can make the boost clean, you'll be rich.
I have some friends and an ex-wife that work for IBM. While I would go as far to say that, by and large, my dealings with them have been fair an ethical, I would resist any sort of "white knight" metaphors, it is still a publicly traded company and stock holders mean more than standards.
It is only that IBM is a technically competent competitor that it *can* compete and win on a level playing field that they promote good standards.
That being said, having dealt with double dealing scum of Microsoft many times in the past, I'll take IBM any day.
We lose more people to premature death each and every year because we have no health care than we have to terrorism in the whole of the 21st century.
fear, fear, fear, be afraid, fear, fear, be afraid.
A young girl waring a proto-board with blinking LEDs could have ben shot dead because of the hysteria.
fear, fear, fear, be afraid, fear, fear, be afraid. fear, fear, fear, be afraid, fear, fear, be afraid.
You can't say we have nothing to fear, but we have a lot of real and pressing things that need to be focused upon.
fear, fear, fear, be afraid, fear, fear, be afraid. fear, fear, fear, be afraid, fear, fear, be afraid. Threat level purple.
The U.S.A. has to re-grow our spine. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Unfortunately, the current powers that be like to rule by exploiting and enhancing the terror of terrorists.
Re:I got modded flame-bait last time I said this
on
Bad Signs For Blu-ray
·
· Score: 1
Obviously you never used DAT.
I'm 45 years old, I have been "in to" audio since j.r. high school. I know about DAT.
CD was first, DAT had promise, but it came later and was soundly killed by the media companies. It never took hold because it was artificially limited.
Re:I got modded flame-bait last time I said this
on
Bad Signs For Blu-ray
·
· Score: 1
Cassette tapes were always a second rate way of getting music, the sound was for crap and they wore out quickly.
The "real" format at the time was LP record, 33 1/3 RPM. They were big and not portable at all.
If you wanted sound quality, you had an expensive turntable and stereo. If you wanted convenience you dubbed a tape from it on your tape deck so you could play it on a portable player.
When CDs came out, they were a bit expensive, but they didn't wear out with each use. Were smaller. Sounded better. You could walk across a room without making it skip. You didn't have all the pops and clicks from dust.
I got modded flame-bait last time I said this
on
Bad Signs For Blu-ray
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why would we buy a blu-ray? We have DVD players in our SUVs, we have hand-held DVD players for $99. We have DVD players/burners in our computers. A DVD is the media we can use where we want to use it.
Blu-Rays are expensive, need an expensive player, and can't be used with all our devices.
The only "advantage" beyond new and shiny bling appeal for techy nerds, is dubiously better picture quality on an HDTV for new movie releases.
I think for the full weight of the law to protect copyright, an original work must be provided in such a way that the right of first sale exists and/or "fair use" is preserved.
If neither of these exists, then the "IP" will not be protected by copyright.
The position that an entity like Comcast enjoys is that of a local monopoly. There *may* be competition, but for most, we have only one viable option for broad band. Like I said, I have *no* problem with a bandwidth limitation on service as long as it is a reasonable business proposition based on the locally awarded monopoly position and market conditions.
The issue I have is the contortions and control. There is no reason why port 80 should be any more favored than any other port. I want "broad band" access, give me access with a documented usage policy. Because you are a locally approved monopoly, that policy must be neutral!
These things are neither hard nor unreasonable. The problem is that business in the U.S. in the last 7 1/2 years have gotten used to dictating unfair terms.
So, if patent exhaustion is more expansive than previously thought.
If we purchase a DVD, should we not have also (included with the purchase) rights to the patent used in the product, i.e. the compression algorithms?
The used the "IP" to produce the product and paid the license to do so. Why should we be further encumbered? It isn't as if we are creating new content with the codecs, we'd use free ones for that.
Any lawyers want to start a class action for EVERYONE that owns a DVD player?
A little while back there was a supreme court decision about patent exhaustion. (I think that was the term.) It basically said that if company A licenses a patent to company B, and company B produces a product utilizing the patent and sells the product to company C, C does not need to pay A for the patent.
I wonder if this is a useful defense against "illegal" codecs. I mean, the patent holder license the patent to the media creator and the media creator sells us the product. Shouldn't the patent obligation been handled between the licensor and the media company? Aren't we in fact, entity "C?"
I am so pissed off at this administration. They just simply don't care, regardless of what they say, about the constitution or the laws of the country, or even the intensions of the founding fathers.
They make "law" by executive order, which are held as valid unless challenged by the courts or the legislature, then stall the legislature with fillibuster so that no corrective action can take place. Then fight every challenge up to the supreme court, which takes years.
So, in essence, the president is a king because although there is "balance of power" the time between executive order and any sort of push back is years, and the span of time, they have reaped the benefits of the unjust actions.
Disgraceful, but effective, this needs to be stopped some how. I think that, unfortunately, means passing laws that limit the effectiveness of the presidency.
However, the Constitution [wikipedia.org] specifically forbids Congress from writing any ex-post-facto [wikipedia.org] laws, which includes retroactive immunity.
WRONG!!! the ex-post-facto clause means that you can not create a law and then charge people for what are now crimes that were committed prior to the passage of the law. It does not address the decriminalization of an act in the past. If that were the case, a presidential pardon would be unconstitutional.
I don't see what you find so disturbing about that - it's not like they affect you personally.
If it didn;t affect me, it wouldn't bother me. The unfortunate thing is that these "believers" want to teach my kids "Intelligent Design" in schools. They want my tax money to go to their churches. They want to otherwise limit my rights in accordance to their belief.
Worse than that, we currently have christians in the U.S. government who don't give a shit about the future because "rapture" will soon be upon us. Just wiki James Watt.
The government can not circumvent the Constitution just by contracting-out its work.
While this is true, in general, there is a shield around private companies. The "freedom of information act" does not apply to private companies, even ones which contract with government.
Also, public officials are "public servants" and supposidly serve in that capacity. Private employees have no such obligation.
The vidicon tube is long gone, all these cameras are solid sate which means they are sensitive to near infrared. Conveniently enough, the exact same type produced by LEDs.
It should be possible to create a high brightness license plate frame which will overload the camera and just leave a very white rectangle where the plate should be in the photo.
Still, private companies should not be in the business of enforcing laws or tracking citizens. Private companies do not answer to the public and are not regulated in the same way a police officer is.
Slashdot Mirror
What part of So, if you can find a cheap and plentiful and safe oxidizer gas and can make the boost clean, you'll be rich. wasn't clear?
You apparently did come up with a solution that at least hadn't been implemented. So why don't you think a small-time inventor couldn't have the right lateral view to solve the problem here?
Mostly because "droplet size" has been done to death. Lookup acetone, surface tension, and carburetor.
There are a lot of aspects that I'd like to see addressed with real research. Finding a way to modulate droplet size based on RPM could be interesting, but he's not talking about that.
i'd like to think a professor from temple has a pretty good grasp on things. my guess is that if you two sat down and discussed these matters he'd best you, hands down.
I don't know, I'm an engineer, I read a lot, and have been working on cars and stuff for over 30 years. I've also met some pretty stupid Phds in my life as well. So, you may be right, but I'm not uninformed either.
The "droplet size" issue has been seriously examined for a long time. There were a lot of attempts at attacking this problem.
Some people have been using acetone to reduce the surface tension of the gas to reduce the droplet size. In theory that could work, in practice it doesn't on a modern engine. The fuel injection systems these days do a great job of atomizing the fuel.
One of the problems with "gas" as a fuel is similar to audio quality on an lp record. On the outside tracks, you have more surface area per revolution then on the inside tracks. The outside diameter of an LP is about 12 inches, so that means about 36" for an outside track, and about 18" for an inside track.
With gasoline, on low RPM you need to slow down the combustion of the gas, on a higher RPM you need to accelerate the combustion. This is what they use the EGR system to do. The droplet size should be, if possible, modulated with the RPM as well, but that is a more difficult problem. Lower RPMs, bigger droplets. Higher RPMs smaller droplets.
Perhaps smaller droplets with a more aggressive EGR control, who knows, but the "droplet size" has been done to death as a static measure.
This is a cool discussion, though.
How often do vehicles with NO2 systems require rebuilds ?
That's a factor of how much boost they create, lubrication, etc. The biggest problem is knock and ping and the increased stress on the bearings. 4 cylinder motors aren typically more carefully engineered for economy and generally need to be beefed up before you NOS them.
Pulling 44 tons is trivial on a flat surface. The test is acceleration and inclines. Oh, and the axles have to be well lubed and the rolling resistance has to be low to boot.
Formula one racers are fantastic machines, but one could hardly call them daily drivers. There are a lot of things you can do with a motor and a car if you don't have to worry about it lasting 150,000 miles or 8-10 years or driving in the snow or sub-zero weather, sandy or salty environments, or being reliable outside an oval track.
As for the 2 1/2 tons of metal to transport one person, I agree with you 100%.
Oh, I have driven some pretty cool turbo systems recently, but the turbo lag is just annoying.
My last "hot rod" was a 1987 Pontiac Firebird. I pulled the 305, and built a 383 stroker for it. Ported and polished heads, the works. It was 0-60 in the sub-5s It never passed emissions inspection, needed super unleaded, but man that sucker was fast. I got tired conning/bribing for inspection stickers.
Anyway, in the time of even the slightest turbo lag, I'm gone.
I'm currently working on a 1990 Firebird, keeping the 305, and seeing what I can do with simple headers, injection, etc. rather than go all out horse power, I want to balance economy.
Give me a break. Sorry, the "big" car guys, GM, Toyota, Ford, Mercedes, et al know the physics of combustion very well.
I have been chasing the problem in my spare time for years. I remember an invention I had in high school auto-shop, in 1978 (I was an electronics nerd and gear head) of drilling hole in a distributor cap, fastening a mirror to the rotor and using opto-electronics to detect the rotation and fire a small coil for each spark plug. I was able to run the car without a high voltage distributor. I should have patented it, because cars more or less work like that now. Anyway, I digress.
"Droplet Size" has been handled quite effectively by increasing the fuel injector pressure in the newer cars.
You aren't going to come up with a solution those guys haven't thought about. The only thing you can do is come up with an invention that they are unable to sell. Look at something like Nitrous Oxide or some other oxidizer, now, if you beef up a four cylinder engine to take the increased torque and rework the carboration/fuel injection control so that it is a seamless boost, you could run a much bigger car on a much smaller engine. Most cars are very fuel efficient while running, but suck down gas on acceleration. The over all fuel economy is how much gas a vehicle needs to maintain its speed, and the amount of power required to do that is a fraction of the capability of the engine, but to get the acceleration you need, you need the extra displacement.
So, even though you may need a 5.2 liters of engine displacement for performance, you need far less for maintaining speed, so why not start small with a four cylinder, and use something like NOS to bridge the difference? That's what a turbo or a super charger does. By compressing the air into the intake system, you are making your 4 cylinders effectively larger by allowing them to take in more air and fuel. Turbos, however, have a bad but improving performance curve. They have nothing at the start, and "lag" performance over a bigger motor. NOS doesn't suffer that problem.
So, if you can find a cheap and plentiful and safe oxidizer gas and can make the boost clean, you'll be rich.
I'm sorry, it just looks like a Buzz Lightyear costume.
I have some friends and an ex-wife that work for IBM. While I would go as far to say that, by and large, my dealings with them have been fair an ethical, I would resist any sort of "white knight" metaphors, it is still a publicly traded company and stock holders mean more than standards.
It is only that IBM is a technically competent competitor that it *can* compete and win on a level playing field that they promote good standards.
That being said, having dealt with double dealing scum of Microsoft many times in the past, I'll take IBM any day.
We lose more people to premature death each and every year because we have no health care than we have to terrorism in the whole of the 21st century.
fear, fear, fear, be afraid, fear, fear, be afraid.
A young girl waring a proto-board with blinking LEDs could have ben shot dead because of the hysteria.
fear, fear, fear, be afraid, fear, fear, be afraid. fear, fear, fear, be afraid, fear, fear, be afraid.
You can't say we have nothing to fear, but we have a lot of real and pressing things that need to be focused upon.
fear, fear, fear, be afraid, fear, fear, be afraid. fear, fear, fear, be afraid, fear, fear, be afraid. Threat level purple.
The U.S.A. has to re-grow our spine. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Unfortunately, the current powers that be like to rule by exploiting and enhancing the terror of terrorists.
Obviously you never used DAT.
I'm 45 years old, I have been "in to" audio since j.r. high school. I know about DAT.
CD was first, DAT had promise, but it came later and was soundly killed by the media companies. It never took hold because it was artificially limited.
Cassette tapes were always a second rate way of getting music, the sound was for crap and they wore out quickly.
The "real" format at the time was LP record, 33 1/3 RPM. They were big and not portable at all.
If you wanted sound quality, you had an expensive turntable and stereo. If you wanted convenience you dubbed a tape from it on your tape deck so you could play it on a portable player.
When CDs came out, they were a bit expensive, but they didn't wear out with each use. Were smaller. Sounded better. You could walk across a room without making it skip. You didn't have all the pops and clicks from dust.
Why would we buy a blu-ray? We have DVD players in our SUVs, we have hand-held DVD players for $99. We have DVD players/burners in our computers. A DVD is the media we can use where we want to use it.
Blu-Rays are expensive, need an expensive player, and can't be used with all our devices.
The only "advantage" beyond new and shiny bling appeal for techy nerds, is dubiously better picture quality on an HDTV for new movie releases.
It isn't good enough to be worth it.
I think for the full weight of the law to protect copyright, an original work must be provided in such a way that the right of first sale exists and/or "fair use" is preserved.
If neither of these exists, then the "IP" will not be protected by copyright.
Does anyone want to start a political movement?
The position that an entity like Comcast enjoys is that of a local monopoly. There *may* be competition, but for most, we have only one viable option for broad band. Like I said, I have *no* problem with a bandwidth limitation on service as long as it is a reasonable business proposition based on the locally awarded monopoly position and market conditions.
The issue I have is the contortions and control. There is no reason why port 80 should be any more favored than any other port. I want "broad band" access, give me access with a documented usage policy. Because you are a locally approved monopoly, that policy must be neutral!
These things are neither hard nor unreasonable. The problem is that business in the U.S. in the last 7 1/2 years have gotten used to dictating unfair terms.
http://spie.org/x26516.xml
So, if patent exhaustion is more expansive than previously thought.
If we purchase a DVD, should we not have also (included with the purchase) rights to the patent used in the product, i.e. the compression algorithms?
The used the "IP" to produce the product and paid the license to do so. Why should we be further encumbered? It isn't as if we are creating new content with the codecs, we'd use free ones for that.
Any lawyers want to start a class action for EVERYONE that owns a DVD player?
A little while back there was a supreme court decision about patent exhaustion. (I think that was the term.) It basically said that if company A licenses a patent to company B, and company B produces a product utilizing the patent and sells the product to company C, C does not need to pay A for the patent.
I wonder if this is a useful defense against "illegal" codecs. I mean, the patent holder license the patent to the media creator and the media creator sells us the product. Shouldn't the patent obligation been handled between the licensor and the media company? Aren't we in fact, entity "C?"
he "executive order" complaint sounds like total bullshit, but if I'm wrong I'd like to hear about
Well, this article is about an "executive agreement"," ACTA.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18769prs20041220.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/25/military_cites_risk_of_abuse_by_cia/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051217-5791.html
Just google for:
"bush abuse of executive order"
In Windows, you don't have any practical walls, firewalls, that is.
Just remember, with Microsoft, simply because there are no walls doesn't mean you aren't behind locked Gates.
I would go further:
executive orders last 6 months, then they must be approved as if they were laws by simple majorities of both houses.
I am so pissed off at this administration. They just simply don't care, regardless of what they say, about the constitution or the laws of the country, or even the intensions of the founding fathers.
They make "law" by executive order, which are held as valid unless challenged by the courts or the legislature, then stall the legislature with fillibuster so that no corrective action can take place. Then fight every challenge up to the supreme court, which takes years.
So, in essence, the president is a king because although there is "balance of power" the time between executive order and any sort of push back is years, and the span of time, they have reaped the benefits of the unjust actions.
Disgraceful, but effective, this needs to be stopped some how. I think that, unfortunately, means passing laws that limit the effectiveness of the presidency.
This is the most worrisome part of it all. No oversight, no public control.
The only advantage is that it isn't technically constitutional and can be corrected with a more "pro-rights" legislature.
However, the Constitution [wikipedia.org] specifically forbids Congress from writing any ex-post-facto [wikipedia.org] laws, which includes retroactive immunity.
WRONG!!! the ex-post-facto clause means that you can not create a law and then charge people for what are now crimes that were committed prior to the passage of the law. It does not address the decriminalization of an act in the past. If that were the case, a presidential pardon would be unconstitutional.
I don't see what you find so disturbing about that - it's not like they affect you personally.
If it didn;t affect me, it wouldn't bother me. The unfortunate thing is that these "believers" want to teach my kids "Intelligent Design" in schools. They want my tax money to go to their churches. They want to otherwise limit my rights in accordance to their belief.
Worse than that, we currently have christians in the U.S. government who don't give a shit about the future because "rapture" will soon be upon us. Just wiki James Watt.
The government can not circumvent the Constitution just by contracting-out its work.
While this is true, in general, there is a shield around private companies. The "freedom of information act" does not apply to private companies, even ones which contract with government.
Also, public officials are "public servants" and supposidly serve in that capacity. Private employees have no such obligation.
The vidicon tube is long gone, all these cameras are solid sate which means they are sensitive to near infrared. Conveniently enough, the exact same type produced by LEDs.
It should be possible to create a high brightness license plate frame which will overload the camera and just leave a very white rectangle where the plate should be in the photo.
Still, private companies should not be in the business of enforcing laws or tracking citizens. Private companies do not answer to the public and are not regulated in the same way a police officer is.