Yet you use a computer and perform frivolous activities like browse internet comments. I can't think of a more pointless use of cancer-causing electricity and throw-away goods.
Statistics are good, but I think a course on critical thinking should be mandatory to become an adult (get your voting privileges). If you can't tell the difference between a valid argument and a straw man fallacy or an ad hominem fallacy, then you have no right in voting. I doubt any politician would let this sort of thing happen, though.
Yeah, and let's make the world use the United States customary units for science because it "got them to the moon." Quick, how many BTUs is the silicon bandgap? How many BTUs does a photon with a wavelength of 1/36000" have? US customary units are a joke.;)
I have something similar to what you want! I just upgraded my old sharp to the next model: EL w516. It uses a fairly decent-size display with square pixels (no seven segment BS), displays proper fractions (if you want), shows pi properly, has a "natural" equation setup (shows equation at top, solution on bottom), has an ANS function, mappable equations, four 4x4 (maximum size) matrices, does determinants, shows proper imaginary numbers, a menu of physical constants (with greek letters and shows units), and all your other "vanilla" scientific calculator stuff. It's not quite multi-line, but it does have a memory (pressing up) and 8 slots for number storage (A,B,C,D,E,F,X,Y), accessed by STO+var or RCL+var.
Physics makes me happy. Also, I found that good manual math skills and a good scientific calculator is usually very suitable up to the point where you need some high-powered computer programs to do your dirty work (and definitely not a graphing calculator).
For your bag calculator, you should check out the sharp EL-W516. It seriously makes me happy. It properly shows fractions (or you can force decimals if you want), can solve up to a 4x4 matrix determinant (memory for 4 4x4 matrices, I believe), has a CNST menu with physical constants (and their units!), answer memory, proper complex number mode, and a ton of other neat nerd-pleasers (like I said, makes me happy). It is a massive change from the previous generation from sharp.
Totally agree, except I don't use a slide rule (just a plain scientific calculator). Understanding the math is much more important than crunching the numbers. Our profs mentioned this on many occasions, saying something to the extent of "don't just substitute the numbers in and do it on your calculator. Solve it for variables first; substitute at the end."
On the plus side, if the thing melts into a lump you will probably have a light that comes on, and enough charge in the battery to take you to the repair shop. Seeing how it looks, one would assume it's a straightforward replacement. Maybe it could work out?:D
The only reason I can think of to have a ludicrously slow spin-up speed would be if it was really heavy -- but they explicitly say it's light.
Perhaps it has a narrow window of operating rpm? If it stalls if spins out of this range, that would make it a pain in the ass to try to drive some wheels directly.
In a car, smaller and lighter is better. Also, I'm not sure if this new engine has a particular warm-up time, but the Stirling engines do have a notable warm-up period. Also, in some designs of a Stirling engine, the seals are an issue. This design looks pretty damn simple in deployment (but I'm going to imagine that the theory and design of the shape of the rotor is quite complex); cover plate, moving piece, not moving piece.
Exactly; more efficient means better engines. Higher compression, smaller tolerances, higher quality forging for higher revolutions; all these add up to a higher base price, and I think the auto sector has been pushing the "cheap, disposable car" model for some time now (especially the now-defunct Pontiac; terrible cars). Sure, you could build a car that was 3 times as efficient, but that may mean 10 times the price (or some forfeit of amenity), and people would admire but not buy such a car.
Yeah, but 10 mL ingested can make you go permanently blind, and the stuff can even soak through your skin. Methanol can be corrosive to some very-commonly-used metals. For something that millions of Americans are going to be spilling drops of everywhere, or on the hands of gas station attendants, the end result would probably be terrible.
Not to mention there's a problem with using food to make fuel, or using land that could be growing food to make fuel. Fuel is expected to be cheap, and food is much more expensive of a product. Ideally, one would find some oily non-edible plant that could grow in the least-desirable (but able) soils, and utilise that land for biodiesel production; that, or use the ocean.
Torque is nice, but it sucks when you peak under 3000 rpm, and fall-off harshly at 5000 rpm; what a stupid concept. A gas piston engine with more torque than horsepower (and a decent max rpm -- more than 5250 rpm) means it's struggling to breathe at high RPM.
Due to the nature of the combustion cycle (1 per revolution in a rotary as opposed to 0.5 per revolution in a piston engine), the displacement is somewhat equivalent to a piston engine of double the size (2.2 l). Add to this the fact that that rotary engines (especially old) have lower compression ratios, strange-shaped combustion chambers (less-than-ideal expansion stroke), and early exhaust timing, this probably fully explain the shitty fuel economy. I think the side-port exhaust was meant to help with fuel economy and emissions (especially unburnt hydrocarbons).
Slashdot Mirror
depends how hungry you are
Yet you use a computer and perform frivolous activities like browse internet comments. I can't think of a more pointless use of cancer-causing electricity and throw-away goods.
A few weeks ago I was looking to see if anyone was trying what you say! It's a very interesting concept.
Statistics are good, but I think a course on critical thinking should be mandatory to become an adult (get your voting privileges). If you can't tell the difference between a valid argument and a straw man fallacy or an ad hominem fallacy, then you have no right in voting. I doubt any politician would let this sort of thing happen, though.
Yeah, and let's make the world use the United States customary units for science because it "got them to the moon." Quick, how many BTUs is the silicon bandgap? How many BTUs does a photon with a wavelength of 1/36000" have? US customary units are a joke. ;)
and a note that says "get off my lawn"
I have something similar to what you want! I just upgraded my old sharp to the next model: EL w516. It uses a fairly decent-size display with square pixels (no seven segment BS), displays proper fractions (if you want), shows pi properly, has a "natural" equation setup (shows equation at top, solution on bottom), has an ANS function, mappable equations, four 4x4 (maximum size) matrices, does determinants, shows proper imaginary numbers, a menu of physical constants (with greek letters and shows units), and all your other "vanilla" scientific calculator stuff. It's not quite multi-line, but it does have a memory (pressing up) and 8 slots for number storage (A,B,C,D,E,F,X,Y), accessed by STO+var or RCL+var.
Physics makes me happy. Also, I found that good manual math skills and a good scientific calculator is usually very suitable up to the point where you need some high-powered computer programs to do your dirty work (and definitely not a graphing calculator).
For your bag calculator, you should check out the sharp EL-W516. It seriously makes me happy. It properly shows fractions (or you can force decimals if you want), can solve up to a 4x4 matrix determinant (memory for 4 4x4 matrices, I believe), has a CNST menu with physical constants (and their units!), answer memory, proper complex number mode, and a ton of other neat nerd-pleasers (like I said, makes me happy). It is a massive change from the previous generation from sharp.
Totally agree, except I don't use a slide rule (just a plain scientific calculator). Understanding the math is much more important than crunching the numbers. Our profs mentioned this on many occasions, saying something to the extent of "don't just substitute the numbers in and do it on your calculator. Solve it for variables first; substitute at the end."
I'm pretty sure the guys who designed Chernobyl used them, too.
On a side note, solving math problems for variables instead of numbers seems to get the point across when it comes to getting a feel for math.
Maybe "Ivory league" is something entirely different and for poachers?
Google put you on its watchlist after you googled "Google." Serves you right.
or the Deep Ones
Definitely. I'd say if one had to make a hasty generalisation, it would fit a centrifugal slurry pump much better.
Judgement here is suspended until the 25 kW shows a result
On the plus side, if the thing melts into a lump you will probably have a light that comes on, and enough charge in the battery to take you to the repair shop. Seeing how it looks, one would assume it's a straightforward replacement. Maybe it could work out? :D
The only reason I can think of to have a ludicrously slow spin-up speed would be if it was really heavy -- but they explicitly say it's light.
Perhaps it has a narrow window of operating rpm? If it stalls if spins out of this range, that would make it a pain in the ass to try to drive some wheels directly.
In a car, smaller and lighter is better. Also, I'm not sure if this new engine has a particular warm-up time, but the Stirling engines do have a notable warm-up period. Also, in some designs of a Stirling engine, the seals are an issue. This design looks pretty damn simple in deployment (but I'm going to imagine that the theory and design of the shape of the rotor is quite complex); cover plate, moving piece, not moving piece.
Exactly; more efficient means better engines. Higher compression, smaller tolerances, higher quality forging for higher revolutions; all these add up to a higher base price, and I think the auto sector has been pushing the "cheap, disposable car" model for some time now (especially the now-defunct Pontiac; terrible cars). Sure, you could build a car that was 3 times as efficient, but that may mean 10 times the price (or some forfeit of amenity), and people would admire but not buy such a car.
Yeah, but 10 mL ingested can make you go permanently blind, and the stuff can even soak through your skin. Methanol can be corrosive to some very-commonly-used metals. For something that millions of Americans are going to be spilling drops of everywhere, or on the hands of gas station attendants, the end result would probably be terrible.
Not to mention there's a problem with using food to make fuel, or using land that could be growing food to make fuel. Fuel is expected to be cheap, and food is much more expensive of a product. Ideally, one would find some oily non-edible plant that could grow in the least-desirable (but able) soils, and utilise that land for biodiesel production; that, or use the ocean.
Torque is nice, but it sucks when you peak under 3000 rpm, and fall-off harshly at 5000 rpm; what a stupid concept. A gas piston engine with more torque than horsepower (and a decent max rpm -- more than 5250 rpm) means it's struggling to breathe at high RPM.
Due to the nature of the combustion cycle (1 per revolution in a rotary as opposed to 0.5 per revolution in a piston engine), the displacement is somewhat equivalent to a piston engine of double the size (2.2 l). Add to this the fact that that rotary engines (especially old) have lower compression ratios, strange-shaped combustion chambers (less-than-ideal expansion stroke), and early exhaust timing, this probably fully explain the shitty fuel economy. I think the side-port exhaust was meant to help with fuel economy and emissions (especially unburnt hydrocarbons).