It also isnt only RPM that is important, it is load. A train spends most of its time at constant heavy load, and as noted on your link
Since motors run most efficiently near their designed power rating, it is good practice to operate between 75 percent and 100 percent of full load rating.
Cars run over a much wider load range, and typically operated at between 20 and 40 percent of max load. That means you either have to have the motor/generator combo running at low load as well during these times, or you have a lower power setup running at full load to match the average energy requirements, and need a heavy (though they are getting better) battery bank with its associated inefficiencies to compensate.
You are right though, the series setup in a train can be nicely thought of as an electric transmission.
While a motor can be made to be much more efficient at constant load and speed (eg by camshaft grind) the efficiency of going from rotational energy to electricity and back to rotational energy is just too low. Trains only do it because of the number of diffs and mechanical complexity that would be required to get the energy of the motor to so many wheels.
Based on the number of UDIs (unidentified drunken injuries) one typically comes home with after a night on the cans one could argue the whole process was dangerous to begin with, so the danger of the launcher is not really a problem..
If you're going to disagree with me, at least swear a little. Civil people are boring.
RTFA. New Scientist noticed that 6 graphs were duplicated exactly across two paper that were describing different cells. They questioned the results, and a panel of experts reviewed the data. Nowhere does it say that New Scientist magazine got their hands on even a single stem cell.
a) This is a mouse study. A required early step for a cancer treatment, but by no means indicative of significance. We have many, many treatments that cure cancer pretty well in lab mice.
I recently went through a course of chemo, and at the very start when my doctor was talking me through the whole process he said "We are actually getting really good at treating cancer - it is just a shame you aren't a mouse."
This might be some shocking news to you - but your big oil companies didn't end up rich and powerful by being morons. I fail to see the financial gain in Shell (or any other big oil) buying the company and disbanding the project. Wouldn't it be more sensible for them to buy the company, finish development, and then have a strategic advantage over their competitors by being able to roll with the punches as oil demand goes down and demand for high performance energy storage goes up.
Actually, no, what I have written is crazy. I forgot to take into account that these are the same people that suppressed the 400 mile to the gallon carburettor and had the guy killed that invented the car that only runs on water.
Well to be fair Saddam did not demonstrate to the inspectors that he had destroyed all his weapons, however it was not quite as simple as Bush and Saddam having a political punchup. I have recently become friends with Rod Barton, who was on a variety of the UN inpection teams in Iraq from the early 90s and into the recent war. He has recently had published a book called "The Weapons Detective" where he details his time as an inspector, it is a very honest and unbiased account of what he saw and I highly recommend it, although it can be hard to find. I think there is a company selling it online - I am sure Google knows who. The following two paragraphs I think are a nice summary of what became known in retrospect.
After the break we gradually came to the subject of real concern - what Dr Taha and others had told the ISG about the disposal of the anthrax and other agents in 1991. According to Taha's new account, the anthrax had not been stored at Al Hakam during the Gulf War but rather hidden in a warehouse at "Electronic Warfare Unit 114". When the location became unsafe because of Coalition bombing, it was move around the country on semitrailers. Eventually in July 1991, the instruction was given by Hussein Kamal to destroy it. At this time the anthrax was outside Radwaniyah Palace because this was where one of the semitrailers broke down, and so the agent was deactivated and simply tipped out onto the surrounding desert. Dr Taha could not declare this to UNSCOM or UNMOVIC because, to put it mildly, Saddam would not have been pleased. Hamish and I later visited the palace; as we stood at the steps to the entrance we could clearly see where the anthrax had been dumped.
Others confirmed Dr Taha's story. UNMOVIC's evidence, including Document 62856, had showed overwhelmingly that Iraq's storiy about the destruction of anthrax at Al Hakam could not be true. However, it was now clear that our conclusion, that "there must be a strong presumption that the anthrax still exists," had also been wrong. Now the ISG knew the truth: it had been destroyed outside one of Saddam's palaces.
An important part of this is that people learn in many different ways. Many people like to classify students who regularily attend class as "good", and those that do not as "bad", which is really not very accurate. As an example I am nearing the end of my PhD, and I can probably count on two hands the number of sit-down type lectures that I have ever attended and found useful.
Podcasted lectures are useful for people like myself as I am able to watch the lecture, and then as soon as something is said that I dont understand or want to explore further I can pause the lecture and refer to other sources.
In the situation you have just described I struggle to see how the CTO could have possibly forseen this unless they were micromanaging every aspect of the people underneath them - and if they had have been doing that then everybody would whine that they were being micromanaged. About the only way I can see that the CTO in that case should have taken blame is if the "dweeb" managing the backup tapes was directly underneath them, in which case you could argue that it washer responsibility to keep and eye out and make sure the people reporting to her were doing thier job correctly.
I mean hey, I am as big on corporate responsibility as anyone else, but making heads roll just to satisfy a public desire for firings is really not a sensible policy.
Further to the parent, the lack of an existing problem or application should not immediately be a reason to not explore a phenomenom or similar. Very frequently people come up with a problem that they would like solved (eg: cryptography), and find that much of the solution already exists independent of the application (eg: number theory).
Yeah, thats what the want you to believe. You see the oil companies and the car companies are actually all owned by satan and they dont want you to find out that oil is actually made from baby seals that have been clubbed to death. Thats why they suppress these inventions.
Air bubbles in the blood stream arent that much of a big deal, you need to have quite a bit before it is a problem. I had 4 months of chemotherapy a year back and when they are changing lines etc I was shocked at the amount of air that went in, the nurse said lots of people freak out. The wierd thing is you can feel the air going in, which is a bit spooky.
Another possibility is the team was assembled to give the impression that they were trying to comply without the intent to comply. Perhaps they just underestimated the probability that they would be fined.
Well, he hasn't been doing it for 30 years, but either way it is not a very good argument.
In Australia we have a 0.05 limit for unrestricted drivers, and 0.02 for provisionary drivers. The rule of thumb is that it allows a male 2 drinks in the first hour, and one every hour after that.
I've been talking and driving for 30 accident free years, well over 10 of them with a cell phone. If someone can't talk and drive at the same time, they should be banned from driving, not banned from cell phone use.
I have a mate who drives home from the pub all the time. He uses much the same argument.
Slashdot Mirror
You have never been smashed on the head by your surfboard, have you?
So.... what did you think about the latest Noam Chomsky book?
Cars run over a much wider load range, and typically operated at between 20 and 40 percent of max load. That means you either have to have the motor/generator combo running at low load as well during these times, or you have a lower power setup running at full load to match the average energy requirements, and need a heavy (though they are getting better) battery bank with its associated inefficiencies to compensate.
You are right though, the series setup in a train can be nicely thought of as an electric transmission.
While a motor can be made to be much more efficient at constant load and speed (eg by camshaft grind) the efficiency of going from rotational energy to electricity and back to rotational energy is just too low. Trains only do it because of the number of diffs and mechanical complexity that would be required to get the energy of the motor to so many wheels.
You ain't from round here, are you boy?
Based on the number of UDIs (unidentified drunken injuries) one typically comes home with after a night on the cans one could argue the whole process was dangerous to begin with, so the danger of the launcher is not really a problem..
1) Welcome your new robotic overlords 2) Imagine a beowulf cluster of them 3) Ask if they run linux 4) ??? 5) Profit!
I, for one, welcome our beowulf explaining overlords.
RTFA. New Scientist noticed that 6 graphs were duplicated exactly across two paper that were describing different cells. They questioned the results, and a panel of experts reviewed the data. Nowhere does it say that New Scientist magazine got their hands on even a single stem cell.
This might be some shocking news to you - but your big oil companies didn't end up rich and powerful by being morons. I fail to see the financial gain in Shell (or any other big oil) buying the company and disbanding the project. Wouldn't it be more sensible for them to buy the company, finish development, and then have a strategic advantage over their competitors by being able to roll with the punches as oil demand goes down and demand for high performance energy storage goes up.
Actually, no, what I have written is crazy. I forgot to take into account that these are the same people that suppressed the 400 mile to the gallon carburettor and had the guy killed that invented the car that only runs on water.
50% + 6x10% = 110% - it doesn't seem like underfunding is such a problem anymore.
More importantly - how are we supposed to threaten them with nukes? I mean would they be weapons or foreign aid?
Furthermore some sports favour people with preexisting disorders, for example Basketball and Marfan syndrome. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=4672.
Well to be fair Saddam did not demonstrate to the inspectors that he had destroyed all his weapons, however it was not quite as simple as Bush and Saddam having a political punchup. I have recently become friends with Rod Barton, who was on a variety of the UN inpection teams in Iraq from the early 90s and into the recent war. He has recently had published a book called "The Weapons Detective" where he details his time as an inspector, it is a very honest and unbiased account of what he saw and I highly recommend it, although it can be hard to find. I think there is a company selling it online - I am sure Google knows who. The following two paragraphs I think are a nice summary of what became known in retrospect.
Only 7 posts old and someone has already made a carp joke.
An important part of this is that people learn in many different ways. Many people like to classify students who regularily attend class as "good", and those that do not as "bad", which is really not very accurate. As an example I am nearing the end of my PhD, and I can probably count on two hands the number of sit-down type lectures that I have ever attended and found useful.
Podcasted lectures are useful for people like myself as I am able to watch the lecture, and then as soon as something is said that I dont understand or want to explore further I can pause the lecture and refer to other sources.
In the situation you have just described I struggle to see how the CTO could have possibly forseen this unless they were micromanaging every aspect of the people underneath them - and if they had have been doing that then everybody would whine that they were being micromanaged. About the only way I can see that the CTO in that case should have taken blame is if the "dweeb" managing the backup tapes was directly underneath them, in which case you could argue that it washer responsibility to keep and eye out and make sure the people reporting to her were doing thier job correctly.
I mean hey, I am as big on corporate responsibility as anyone else, but making heads roll just to satisfy a public desire for firings is really not a sensible policy.
Further to the parent, the lack of an existing problem or application should not immediately be a reason to not explore a phenomenom or similar. Very frequently people come up with a problem that they would like solved (eg: cryptography), and find that much of the solution already exists independent of the application (eg: number theory).
Yeah, thats what the want you to believe. You see the oil companies and the car companies are actually all owned by satan and they dont want you to find out that oil is actually made from baby seals that have been clubbed to death. Thats why they suppress these inventions.
Air bubbles in the blood stream arent that much of a big deal, you need to have quite a bit before it is a problem. I had 4 months of chemotherapy a year back and when they are changing lines etc I was shocked at the amount of air that went in, the nurse said lots of people freak out. The wierd thing is you can feel the air going in, which is a bit spooky.
Another possibility is the team was assembled to give the impression that they were trying to comply without the intent to comply. Perhaps they just underestimated the probability that they would be fined.
Well, he hasn't been doing it for 30 years, but either way it is not a very good argument.
In Australia we have a 0.05 limit for unrestricted drivers, and 0.02 for provisionary drivers. The rule of thumb is that it allows a male 2 drinks in the first hour, and one every hour after that.