The Airship era, had some pretty crazy stuff. Engineers in each engine nacelle with a normal sea-ship style Full Ahead, Ahead Standard, Full Reverse etc indicator for what Captain wanted from the Engines. There was also the late WWI German Riesenflugzeug large biplane bombers which either had the engines inside the fuselage with gearboxes and driveshafts transferring power to the propellers out on the wings, or large nacelles to accommodate the engineers. In some desperate attempt to get reliability out of early engines.
The original rigid airships had a series of bladders containing the lifting gas. These bladders were effectively open bottomed. As the air pressure dropped they simply let the lifting gas vent out of the bottom of the bladder. I thought this was pretty crazy when I read about it, and it did lead to a nasty loss of an early airship. The windscreen of the open top cockpit/gondola created a vortex that trapped the venting hydrogen. This eventually led to a fire/explosion and loss of the airship. Although not as crazy as the really early dirigibles before they mastered mass production of hydrogen. They used coal seam gas as the lifting gas, and even ran the engines from a feed from the balloon.
I would imagine to preserve the helium the Airlander 10 could use a compressor to store the helium in tanks and reduce the internal bladder pressure.
Also the crew capsules will be staying docked for months at a time. The Dragon v2 is not going to have big extending solar arrays like the current dragon, instead it will have some solar panels wrapped around the trunk. While it is docked and can't keep its attitude aligned to keep these panels in the sun it will need power from somewhere.
You missed:
Timing belts, accessories belt, spark plugs, ignition leads, coils, distributors, ignition modules. Some transverse setups are a pig for these, especially transverse V6s. I make it a habit of when buying a used card, replacing most of that in quick shape.
You might need a set of sleeve valves or similar to seal off the intake ports. So the combustion chamber of the deactivated cylinder can act as the air spring.
I wonder if there is a limitation to how much power you can make from that size of linear generator/stator though, so you wouldn't get much advantage, I don't know that much about that side of things though.
They can be horizontal opposed in motion in the parallel twin design. This will give some second order imbalance though. Piston rings don't fail all the time, or you would see new cars blowing blue smoke all the time. They gradually wear out.
The other thing the article doesn't state, is that the cylinder and head design is similar to 2 stroke diesels. With exhaust ports at the top, and intake ports at the bottom, blocked off as the piston moves up. They generally use a supercharger or a turbocharger to force the exhaust gases out and the fresh intake charge in, so I assume this design is using some sort of electric supercharger in it's place.
I'm confused by this. I have 7 monitors on one machine, 3 connected to an AMD Radeon, the other 4 connected to a Nvidia Geforce (using a matrox triple head 2 go, to make 3 appear as 1 monitor to the card). And it all works seamlessly. Even have 3d applications/meda players spanning across them and it works. (Not quite sure how the 3D side of things work, backbuffer from one copied to the other?)
Depends, if the work is done under warranty, the manufacturer has how many hours they estimate the job to take. And that is what the dealership will get paid to do the work. If the mechanics takes longer, than the dealership gets screwed but that isn't your problem. These book hours may be used as estimates for out of warranty repairs, and if the customer quibbles they can claim that is what the manufacturer estimates the job will take. Independent mechanics, different story of course.
I can remember reading an article about how landing on mars was a bitch compared to the moon or earth. Earth has a descent amount of atmosphere, so you can rely on aero braking then parachute. On the moon you have no atmosphere so you can fire rocket engines in the direction your flying, and do a powered descent.
Mars has the problem of so little atmosphere that aero braking barely slows you down to a speed where you can open a parachute and not have it ripped apart as you are still travelling at supersonic speeds. And the atmosphere is just thick enough to upset rocket engines firing into the oncoming stream/airflow so you can't do a powered descent.
The Aerodynamic flight wasn't all that new. That was based on what the Apollo command module did on reentry.
The sky crane engines were based off the ones that landed the Viking landers.
I tend to agree. Trying to weld a hot thing to a cold thing never works well. The process is touchy and unreliable.
I think I may of replied to you before, but parts from my Solidoodle are very strong. The heat transfer from the extruder when printing at 0.3mm is more than enough to slightly melt the previous layer and fuse them. Printing at 0.1mm makes an almost seamless print. When printing with a heated bed, in an enclosed space the whole print is slightly tacky and soft. The prints do have a grain, and that is the weakest part, but you can design items with that in mind. If you are worried about printing something out of ABS/PLA that is going to fail due to stress, having it injection molded isn't going to increase the strength factor by enough margin to stop it breaking.
Well the SD itself has multiple 3d printed parts. I have printed gears and other parts I would happily use in robotics and other projects. The ABS plastics it builds are surprising strong and robust. I would not call the parts that much weaker than the equivalent injection moulded ABS part.
Although the base SD2 comes with no bed heater which makes it basically useless. The bed heater upgrade has "crept up" from $49 to $99. Although now some people are modifying theirs to not use the underpowered bed heater, but to use a large silicon heat mat instead. So if you want to go that option the base model is useful.
Oh yes, it's all the unions. Even though Germany has unions, pay's it auto works more, and their car industry is profitable, makes more cars, with large amounts of exports.
Unions done wrong fuck the system up. Builds adversarial us (the workers) vs them (the management) mentalities. Unions done right, can and does work very well. It is collaborative, where everyone works together to make the company better, struggle through the bad times etc. This collaboration works both ways, if the company is hitting hard times, the board, management should be taking paycuts themselves, stopping bonuses. They have failed to lead the company into a properous position. Before they have the cheek to ask the workers to cut their salaries, they should be severely cutting their own pay first. Put their hands up in the air, and claim "Yes, we fucked up", so how can we get through this? The CEO has taken a paycut of 80% sacrificing $25 million saving about 300 jobs, can you guys cut 15% until we get through this?
Both Germany and Japan after the second world war had written into their constitutions by Eisenhower, MacArthur and their aides various protections and rights for workers to bargain and act collectively. They both have become some of the biggest players in the automotive industry, and this is not by coinicendence, it is by design.
So going to oldapps.com, getting a nice older version of skype. And going Tools -> Advanced -> Automatic Updates (or similar depending on version) and disabling it doesn't work for you like it does for me?
On a beach? Sounds like someone was flying a stunt kite or similar. They can make incredibly aggressive turns and manoeuvres, and are basically silent. Something like this odd youtube video? or this one?
Combustion engines typically have very poor efficiency at low rpms, so you'll spend far more Watt-hours worth of gasoline to generate a Watt-hour of kinetic energy until you get into the relatively narrow "optimal efficiency" power band.
What gave you that impression? I have been doing a lot of reading/research into this lately and there is no reason you can't make an engine efficient at low rpm. There are 2 terms related to engines/cars. Efficiency which is what you stated, measured in g/kWh (or lb/hph) and economy. An engine with good efficiency != a car with good economy.
How efficient an engine is, generally follows the torque curve (but not always). As the torque curve measures how good the engine is at being an air pump. If it manages to pump more air each revolution, it can make larger bangs for the same friction and other ancillary overheads. So an engine tuned to make a lot of torque in low rpm ranges, will be just as efficient (if not a little more, due to less heat causing more friction overheads, but I suspect that is actually quite minor).
The problem with designed engines to make a lot of torque down low, is to get any appreciable amount of power you need large capacities. This destroys the economy. The major contributing factor for this, is to maintain 60mph (100km/h) a car only needs around 6-10kW. For a big engine this is an issue, as you do not need to open the throttle very much to achieve this. Thus the engine spends most of it's engine sucking a vacuum against the nearly closed throttle plate, and your efficiency goes out of the window. With a smaller engine it will have the throttle at a wider more open position, so the engine is not fighting as hard to be able to breathe.
Putting a smaller motor on there would not increase battery life magically.
That was my point, a smaller motor was not going to increase battery life. The parent Gordonjcp seemed to be under the impression that you could shrink the motor, and make up for the loss of power by gearing. I was trying to state (in my saturday night drunken state), that gearing will make up for the loss in torque, but not the loss in power.
1) & 3) Electric Motor Basics Top Graph is for an ICE, torque is more or less flat over the rev range, they are torque constant devices. Electric motor, torque slides down, power goes up to a peak, stays there for a bit and drops off. They just work in fundamentally different ways. Power = torque * rotational speed. With an ICE, you form explosions that push a piston, connected to a conrod that provides leverage on a crank shaft that produces torque. The torque is equivalent to the size of the explosions produced. Power is how many explosions you produce a second (directly tied to crankshaft speed). The torque stays relatively constant throughout the rev range (although this changes quite a bit based on intake shape/resonance, cam lift, duration and overlap, exhaust resonance, head swirl dynamics), so therefore power increases with Revs. With an electric motor, power comes in, power goes out. Power = torque * rotational speed. So if a motor is drawing/given 300kW of power. Either rotational speed or torque (or a whole load of heat) has to go up to keep the equation balanced.
4) " I am talking in terms from the engine/motors perspective." So motors don't follow the rest of the laws of physics?
Of course they do, but you don't just look at the torque output from an engine (see my hand crank example), you need to look at work done (i.e power).
With battery tech improving (in term of cars), I don't think a lot of people grasp just how energy dense petrol/diesel/fossil fuels truly are, and how poor batteries really are. This chart on wiki really hits it home:
Energy Density chart
I find it quite amusing that fat metabolism is at the same density per litre as petrol, I guess that also shows how amazing evolution is at solving problems, and also why losing weight is so hard. Also the chart shows how energy poor hydrogen is per litre. The alternatives to fossil fuels, really are not that great.
Slashdot Mirror
The Airship era, had some pretty crazy stuff. Engineers in each engine nacelle with a normal sea-ship style Full Ahead, Ahead Standard, Full Reverse etc indicator for what Captain wanted from the Engines. There was also the late WWI German Riesenflugzeug large biplane bombers which either had the engines inside the fuselage with gearboxes and driveshafts transferring power to the propellers out on the wings, or large nacelles to accommodate the engineers. In some desperate attempt to get reliability out of early engines.
The original rigid airships had a series of bladders containing the lifting gas. These bladders were effectively open bottomed. As the air pressure dropped they simply let the lifting gas vent out of the bottom of the bladder. I thought this was pretty crazy when I read about it, and it did lead to a nasty loss of an early airship. The windscreen of the open top cockpit/gondola created a vortex that trapped the venting hydrogen. This eventually led to a fire/explosion and loss of the airship. Although not as crazy as the really early dirigibles before they mastered mass production of hydrogen. They used coal seam gas as the lifting gas, and even ran the engines from a feed from the balloon.
I would imagine to preserve the helium the Airlander 10 could use a compressor to store the helium in tanks and reduce the internal bladder pressure.
Also the crew capsules will be staying docked for months at a time. The Dragon v2 is not going to have big extending solar arrays like the current dragon, instead it will have some solar panels wrapped around the trunk. While it is docked and can't keep its attitude aligned to keep these panels in the sun it will need power from somewhere.
You missed: Timing belts, accessories belt, spark plugs, ignition leads, coils, distributors, ignition modules. Some transverse setups are a pig for these, especially transverse V6s. I make it a habit of when buying a used card, replacing most of that in quick shape.
You might need a set of sleeve valves or similar to seal off the intake ports. So the combustion chamber of the deactivated cylinder can act as the air spring.
I wonder if there is a limitation to how much power you can make from that size of linear generator/stator though, so you wouldn't get much advantage, I don't know that much about that side of things though.
They can be horizontal opposed in motion in the parallel twin design. This will give some second order imbalance though. Piston rings don't fail all the time, or you would see new cars blowing blue smoke all the time. They gradually wear out.
The other thing the article doesn't state, is that the cylinder and head design is similar to 2 stroke diesels. With exhaust ports at the top, and intake ports at the bottom, blocked off as the piston moves up. They generally use a supercharger or a turbocharger to force the exhaust gases out and the fresh intake charge in, so I assume this design is using some sort of electric supercharger in it's place.
I'm confused by this. I have 7 monitors on one machine, 3 connected to an AMD Radeon, the other 4 connected to a Nvidia Geforce (using a matrox triple head 2 go, to make 3 appear as 1 monitor to the card). And it all works seamlessly. Even have 3d applications/meda players spanning across them and it works. (Not quite sure how the 3D side of things work, backbuffer from one copied to the other?)
Depends, if the work is done under warranty, the manufacturer has how many hours they estimate the job to take. And that is what the dealership will get paid to do the work. If the mechanics takes longer, than the dealership gets screwed but that isn't your problem. These book hours may be used as estimates for out of warranty repairs, and if the customer quibbles they can claim that is what the manufacturer estimates the job will take. Independent mechanics, different story of course.
I can remember reading an article about how landing on mars was a bitch compared to the moon or earth. Earth has a descent amount of atmosphere, so you can rely on aero braking then parachute. On the moon you have no atmosphere so you can fire rocket engines in the direction your flying, and do a powered descent.
Mars has the problem of so little atmosphere that aero braking barely slows you down to a speed where you can open a parachute and not have it ripped apart as you are still travelling at supersonic speeds. And the atmosphere is just thick enough to upset rocket engines firing into the oncoming stream/airflow so you can't do a powered descent.
The Aerodynamic flight wasn't all that new. That was based on what the Apollo command module did on reentry. The sky crane engines were based off the ones that landed the Viking landers.
You could all buy my game, and learn to make correct car analogies.
That is a 104 years of theatre subscription, in your sound system alone!
Do we have the full story here? Has the maintainer done this repeatedly, or was this his first mistake? We are all human.
I tend to agree. Trying to weld a hot thing to a cold thing never works well. The process is touchy and unreliable.
I think I may of replied to you before, but parts from my Solidoodle are very strong. The heat transfer from the extruder when printing at 0.3mm is more than enough to slightly melt the previous layer and fuse them. Printing at 0.1mm makes an almost seamless print. When printing with a heated bed, in an enclosed space the whole print is slightly tacky and soft. The prints do have a grain, and that is the weakest part, but you can design items with that in mind. If you are worried about printing something out of ABS/PLA that is going to fail due to stress, having it injection molded isn't going to increase the strength factor by enough margin to stop it breaking.
Well the SD itself has multiple 3d printed parts. I have printed gears and other parts I would happily use in robotics and other projects. The ABS plastics it builds are surprising strong and robust. I would not call the parts that much weaker than the equivalent injection moulded ABS part.
Although the base SD2 comes with no bed heater which makes it basically useless. The bed heater upgrade has "crept up" from $49 to $99. Although now some people are modifying theirs to not use the underpowered bed heater, but to use a large silicon heat mat instead. So if you want to go that option the base model is useful.
The writers of Repetier-Host are writing Repetier-Server that can be run on a RaspberryPi to remote your 3D printer of choice. See here for the plans https://github.com/repetier/Repetier-Host/issues/64
Oh yes, it's all the unions. Even though Germany has unions, pay's it auto works more, and their car industry is profitable, makes more cars, with large amounts of exports.
Unions done wrong fuck the system up. Builds adversarial us (the workers) vs them (the management) mentalities. Unions done right, can and does work very well. It is collaborative, where everyone works together to make the company better, struggle through the bad times etc. This collaboration works both ways, if the company is hitting hard times, the board, management should be taking paycuts themselves, stopping bonuses. They have failed to lead the company into a properous position. Before they have the cheek to ask the workers to cut their salaries, they should be severely cutting their own pay first. Put their hands up in the air, and claim "Yes, we fucked up", so how can we get through this? The CEO has taken a paycut of 80% sacrificing $25 million saving about 300 jobs, can you guys cut 15% until we get through this?
Both Germany and Japan after the second world war had written into their constitutions by Eisenhower, MacArthur and their aides various protections and rights for workers to bargain and act collectively. They both have become some of the biggest players in the automotive industry, and this is not by coinicendence, it is by design.
So going to oldapps.com, getting a nice older version of skype. And going Tools -> Advanced -> Automatic Updates (or similar depending on version) and disabling it doesn't work for you like it does for me?
As both Helium and Hydrogen are much lighter than air, the difference in buoyancy between the 2 is only about 8%
On a beach? Sounds like someone was flying a stunt kite or similar. They can make incredibly aggressive turns and manoeuvres, and are basically silent. Something like this odd youtube video? or this one?
What gave you that impression? I have been doing a lot of reading/research into this lately and there is no reason you can't make an engine efficient at low rpm. There are 2 terms related to engines/cars. Efficiency which is what you stated, measured in g/kWh (or lb/hph) and economy. An engine with good efficiency != a car with good economy.
How efficient an engine is, generally follows the torque curve (but not always). As the torque curve measures how good the engine is at being an air pump. If it manages to pump more air each revolution, it can make larger bangs for the same friction and other ancillary overheads. So an engine tuned to make a lot of torque in low rpm ranges, will be just as efficient (if not a little more, due to less heat causing more friction overheads, but I suspect that is actually quite minor).
The problem with designed engines to make a lot of torque down low, is to get any appreciable amount of power you need large capacities. This destroys the economy. The major contributing factor for this, is to maintain 60mph (100km/h) a car only needs around 6-10kW. For a big engine this is an issue, as you do not need to open the throttle very much to achieve this. Thus the engine spends most of it's engine sucking a vacuum against the nearly closed throttle plate, and your efficiency goes out of the window. With a smaller engine it will have the throttle at a wider more open position, so the engine is not fighting as hard to be able to breathe.
That was my point, a smaller motor was not going to increase battery life. The parent Gordonjcp seemed to be under the impression that you could shrink the motor, and make up for the loss of power by gearing. I was trying to state (in my saturday night drunken state), that gearing will make up for the loss in torque, but not the loss in power. 1) & 3) Electric Motor Basics Top Graph is for an ICE, torque is more or less flat over the rev range, they are torque constant devices. Electric motor, torque slides down, power goes up to a peak, stays there for a bit and drops off. They just work in fundamentally different ways. Power = torque * rotational speed. With an ICE, you form explosions that push a piston, connected to a conrod that provides leverage on a crank shaft that produces torque. The torque is equivalent to the size of the explosions produced. Power is how many explosions you produce a second (directly tied to crankshaft speed). The torque stays relatively constant throughout the rev range (although this changes quite a bit based on intake shape/resonance, cam lift, duration and overlap, exhaust resonance, head swirl dynamics), so therefore power increases with Revs. With an electric motor, power comes in, power goes out. Power = torque * rotational speed. So if a motor is drawing/given 300kW of power. Either rotational speed or torque (or a whole load of heat) has to go up to keep the equation balanced.
Of course they do, but you don't just look at the torque output from an engine (see my hand crank example), you need to look at work done (i.e power).
With battery tech improving (in term of cars), I don't think a lot of people grasp just how energy dense petrol/diesel/fossil fuels truly are, and how poor batteries really are. This chart on wiki really hits it home:
Energy Density chart
I find it quite amusing that fat metabolism is at the same density per litre as petrol, I guess that also shows how amazing evolution is at solving problems, and also why losing weight is so hard. Also the chart shows how energy poor hydrogen is per litre. The alternatives to fossil fuels, really are not that great.