All the car companies pushed to have those laws overturned. They simply weren't ready to sell a non-trivial number of EVs and most customers weren't interested in buying them or even leasing them at a loss leader price.
And more than one RAV4 escaped, there is a guy here at work (South Bay) who owns one, I see it from time to time.
But he gives no inkling as to how Apple is actually dangerous to the net. I would think internet-focused companies like Google, Cisco or a raft of ISPs like Comcast would be much higher on the list.
This guy just comes off as paranoid.
Maps for Uncharted 2 were not $9.99 a piece
on
When DLC Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Nor were skins.
The first DLC map was free. The next two maps were $3.99 for the pair. The next two maps were in a $9.99 pack with an additional co-op game mode and six skins.
There were two skins packs, each was $6 (IIRC, I didn't buy either of them). There was also a motion comic pack which came with two skins.
Just that it is that way. And I agree, I've been there.
When you have a lot of labor to throw at a problem, the relative value of that labor becomes less. If you can get more workers for cheap, you'll use more of them and less expensive equipment and you'll use less expensive safety equipment too.
And I've seen this in China myself. Even if the process is supposed to be safe, the line managers are rewarded for running the lines fast and at low cost, so shortcuts that don't seem to hurt anyone lead to bonuses at the end of the quarter.
And yes, some of these shortcuts do hurt people long term, but its not obvious. That's why we have safety rules in the US. It's why China has them too, but never enforces them.
Let me give you just one example. In China I saw a guy welding stuff using an arc welder and no mask. He had a piece of cardboard to shield his eyes and he'd move it aside and squint when he needed to see what was going on. Yes, he was destroying his eyes. And complaining about what people post on slashdot isn't fixing the problem.
On the EU measuring system, the Prius gets 62mpg combined, which is still more than that Polo. And it's larger. And since it uses gas instead of Diesel, it is using less energy to do so (gas is less energy dense than Diesel).
This Mazda will still get about the same mpg as a Prius, so 44-50mpg. So it's not nearly as remarkable as it might seem from the 70 figure.
> GM gave up on this concept by having the gasoline engine provide a direct mechanical drive... Something neither the batteries nor a fuel cell could do.
When in EV mode (on battery), the electric motors do provide this drive. So a fuel cell could do so also. They say they don't do so for efficiency's sake.
> If the amount of power transmitted into the planetary gear set is really insignificant, why would they bother with the mechanical linkage at all? Even if the electric motor that performs the same function were horrendously inefficient, consuming say... twice as much energy, twice as much as insignificant should STILL be insignificant.
I don't think it's insignificant at all. They say the electric motor became inefficient at high speeds. So at these high speeds, likely they switch mostly to direct-drive. That'd be the only way to make a 15% efficiency difference as they say the direct-drive does.
In addition, as I said before, they may have (and likely did) undersize the generator in the Volt, the generator used with the ICE cannot make enough power to drive the car at 70mph. By having mechanical drive they not only make the system more efficient, but they also get to reduce the generator size. If you wanted to use another mechanical energy source, you would have to up the generator size to make the power needed to go that fast. If you use a fuel cell, the fuel cell would have to produce enough electricity to do so also.
Given the Volt was never supposed to offer the ability to easily swap the ICE, why does any of this matter? Also, I've seen under the hood, there's no way you were going to be able to swap the ICE out anyway, even if there was no mechanical connection. It's all mixed up under there (and we know why now).
The car still does what it always was going to do. That is operate with full performance as an EV or as a car that uses gas. Even if it is a parallel hybrid, it has a large enough motor side to run as an EV, unlike the Prius. Look at engadget's time with the Prius PHEV. It cannot go over 62mph in EV mode. If you do, it turns on the gas engine. This is the differentiating factor of the Volt versus a parallel hybrid ("regular" PHEV) and it hasn't changed.
I'm skeptical that people will spend so much more than a Prius to get a vehicle whose only advantage is that it can run 40(-ish) miles on electricity only with full performance and still have the advantage of gas range. But if they do wish to, this is still the only choice they have.
Sorry about the title thing, I confused you with the poster who changed the title. I've made that mistake before. My apologies.
"The 2007 Chevrolet Volt concept vehicle that appeared in the North American International Auto Show introduced the Voltec drive system, which is an attempt to standardize many components of possible future electrically propelled vehicles, and to allow multiple interchangeable electricity-generating systems. The initial design as envisioned in the Volt combines an electric motor and 16 kWh (58 MJ) lithium-ion battery plug-in system with a small 1.0 L engine powered by gasoline linked to a 55 kW (74 hp) generator. The initial production Volt will..."
The statement is referring to the Voltec drive system.
The generating systems are interchangeable inasmuch as you can design for other ones. There could be future vehicles that use the Voltec system that use other engines. That doesn't mean this one was going to be sold with other engines or be swappable. Show me a product announcement (not concept) that says otherwise.
As mentioned, future vehicle could use other sources, including a fuel cell. Again, the vehicle is fully capable of full performance on electricity only, so if you have a generating system which cannot provide mechanical input but can generate enough electricity go drive the vehicle at over 70mph, then they could just drive the motors as if they were in the EV mode instead of range extended mode. This is not done on the current model (according to GM) because it doesn't produce high enough efficiency. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be done where it is required due to other design choices.
I would also note that your position was you were disappointed because
As I recall, GM claimed at the time that the volt would be a pure electric vehicle, with an OPTIONAL range-extending gasoline generator.
Your quote about the Voltec drivetrain here does not support your position. A pure EV would have NO electricity-generating system, not an interchangeable one.
In addition, your position is (as still stated in the title of these posts) that the Volt cannot provide full performance in EV-only mode. Your argument here, which you say is the reason you aren't changing your position, does not contain any information which states it does not provide full performance in EV-only mode. You're down now to arguing about whether it was supposed to have alternate range extended modes, an entirely tangential argument.
How does this statement about the Voltec (E-Flex) drivetrain being able to use other range extenders support your position that the Volt doesn't have full performance in EV-only mode? How do you reconcile the fact that GM let journalists drive the Volt only in EV-only mode for a year and they reported full performance before letting them use range-extended mode at all (probably to conceal the direct-drive aspect of range-extended mode) with your position that the Volt doesn't have full performance in EV-only mode?
As I recall, GM claimed at the time that the volt would be a pure electric vehicle, with an OPTIONAL range-extending gasoline generator.
You recall incorrectly. GM announced widely that they felt the problem with the EV1 was "range anxiety" and that's why the Volt had the range extender on it STANDARD. They created a term that makes EVs look bad, and the EV community is angry about this. They did this because they weren't offering a pure EV, but an EREV.
Electric heat requires quite a bit of power - It could really put a dent in driving range in cold climates.
It most definitely will. You not only have to heat the people inside, but the battery pack too. This is a problem common to all EVs and this in EV mode, the Volt has it, because the Volt has electric heat.
As I understand it, the contested subject here is not what IS, but what was supposed to be. As has been stated elsewhere, GM promised an all-electric car and delivered a mostly-electric hybrid.
GM promised hybrid that operates as an EV on electric power until that runs out and then turns on a gas engine and goes further. That is what they promised, that is what they delivered.
Way to repeatedly attempt to shut down rational discussion.
What rational discussion?
The link I posted describes you perfectly. You get a piece of bad information, form an opinion around it, then when you find out the info is wrong you just make up new problems to bolster your wrong opinion instead of changing your mind.
You make up that the Volt was supposed to not have a gas engine. Wrong. You make up that the Volt doesn't have electric heat and needs to use the ICE for AC and heat. Wrong. You make up that the Volt doesn't deliver what it promised, which is a hybrid EV that can run on gas when it runs out of electricity. Wrong.
You're not being rational. There's no rational discussion to shut down.
The information in that article sounds like spin and misinformation to me. If the gasoline engine is acting as an electric generator, there's no reason it couldn't power both the traction motor and the planetary gear set motor, regardless of the batteries' state of charge.
You're exhibiting a very common behavior, sticking to the false information you already built your beliefs around, rather than incorporate new facts into your knowledge.
As to why the Volt might work this way: It takes more HP to drive at higher speeds. It's possible that the generator is not large enough to generate enough energy to run the car at those high speeds, even though the motors could accept enough energy if it could be generated.
It's also possible that GM could drive those motors via electricity but chose not to because it would be less efficient (this is in fact what they claim, for what it matters). It is also why the Prius uses its ICE directly at high speeds.
But, spin or no spin, and whether you know exactly why the Volt works the way it does, you are wrong.
The Volt's ICE only connects to the wheels when the battery is flat AND you go at high speeds, not OR you go at high speeds. So it does run in pure EV mode for the first 40ish miles, all the way up to top speed (a not terribly impressive 85mph). Thus, if you have a reasonably short commute and you plug it in at night, you can go without gas on normal trips. If your commute is 10 miles each way, in a week (M-F) a Prius would use a very respectable 2 gallons of gas a week, a Volt would use no gas at all, a big difference. So if you really are into not using gas, a Volt does hold an advantage over a Prius. If you're just in it for the money, let's face it, you'll never save enough money on energy costs to make the Volt make sense, get the Prius.
It's this limitation that requires ICE vehicles to have complicated gearboxes and clutching systems to ensure they utilise their power band as speed increases.
EVs often have gearboxes too. As some Teslas do. We both agree the electric power band is about twice as wide. Twice as wide isn't enough to eliminate the need for a gearbox for peak performance.The transmission in my car has a total ratio spread (not counting the torque converter) of 6.05. The electric motor's power band width advantage of about 2.5:1 still would leave a transmissionless EV at a disadvantage of about 2.42. If it wants to stay in its high output, efficient range across a breadth of speeds it needs a gearbox, albeit one with markedly fewer gears.
Yes, you can just forget it and go without a gearbox, but you're going to give up efficiency and/or performance. And before you say the difference isn't huge, remember this gearbox-less EV would be at almost the same numerical disadvantage to my gearboxed ICE that you proclaimed to be a big selling point of an electric motor over an gearboxless ICE.
I'm not arguing that the Volt is not electric. I'm stating that it was originally sold as being "Pure electric drive", but it has since been found out to be "Mostly electric drive", which is a large difference.
Agreed. It's not pure electric drive, and GM's hedging "there is no fixed ratio between the ICE and the wheels" is garbage too. No ICE vehicle sold today has a fixed ratio between the ICE and wheels and yet we don't try to say the ICE isn't driving the wheels.
However, I don't agree it's a large difference to the customer. Would you really rather have (even) worse range extended mpg just so you can say your vehicle is a pure series hybrid? The bragging rights don't seem worth the downside to me.
While it is an achievement, Toyota could do the exact same thing with a software change and a second battery pack, which shows just how small a step this really is.
The Prius cannot provide full performance in EV mode as a Volt can because the Prius doesn't have an electric motor that is rated at the same output level as it enjoys with the ICE and electric motor on. There have been plenty of Prius conversions already which have software changes and additional batteries and the results do not yield anywhere near the performance of a Volt. You don't get any useful EV-only range, merely decreased fuel consumption for X number of miles (40 in the case below).
The Prius would require some changes, including a more powerful motor system in order to work as an EREV (PHEV with usable zero-emissions range).
However, I do agree that the difference between the two is smaller than what once was thought, it just isn't anywhere near zero, at least not right now.
Given the EV1's 100+ mile range and highway-capable driving speed (When using the 1st generation NiMh batteries they were fitted with), this is more of a step backwards, and a real disappointment for EV lovers everywhere.
The EV1 was a whole different animal. Turns out two seats and limited range was a deal killer for many people, and that's before you even talk about the ridiculous price of the EV1 (cost if you will since GM never passed on the true cost to the customer). Sure, the Volt is overpriced, but it's nothing next to the EV1. If you want to talk about how neato a car is, talk about the Tesla Roadster. But neither the Tesla nor the EV1 had any real impact, the Volt (and of course the Leaf) thus stand a chance of being a lot more important.
GM stated explicitly that the ICE could never move the wheels, it was claimed that it turned a generator that then charged the batteries, as a series hybrid, as opposed to to how the Prius does it (As a parallel hybrid). It has since been found out that the ICE can (and does) directly turn the wheels.
Agreed, GM lied about the ICE never moving the wheels. This was a lie, as at high speeds in range extended mode, the ICE can drive the wheels. It doesn't usually do so, so that makes it unlike the Prius in total, but in some modes it does operate similarly.
And, with the ICE completely disconnected from the wheels it can run at it's most efficient speed (As ICEs have a very narrow power band, whereas electric motors have a much much wider power band (From 0 RPM)). This would make for much better performance.
Which is probably why in the usual case it doesn't connect the ICE to the wheels, for efficiency. However at high speeds in range extended mode it does connect the ICE to the wheels because it is more efficient than operating in serial mode (according to GM). I don't know what "this would make for much better performance " means.
Also, characterization that ICEs have a VERY narrow power band seems inaccurate to me. ICEs and electric motors of similar power and torque output have similar power bands. The ICE one is narrower, but it's about half as wide, which I don't think comes to the level of "very narrow". For example, in the Tesla Roadster, the electric motor has a power band of about 15,000RPM. A normal ICE can have one of about 6,000RPM.
Now, those two things aside and assumed, my comment was "how does this make the Volt not electric?". So I have to ask again, how does this revelation that the Volt can directly drive the wheels from the ICE in range extended mode make it not electric? When it's operating in EV mode, it's electric. When it's operating in range extended mode, it is burning gas and thus is not electric, whether the ICE is connected to the wheels or not.
No, GM called it a range-extended electric vehicle. Now that it has recently been revealed that the Volt cannot achieve full top speed without the gasoline engine running
That's incorrect. Slashdot printed that, but it is incorrect.
It connects the ICE to the wheels when the battery is flat AND you go over 70mph, not when the battery is flat OR you go over 70mph as slashdot reported.
When you want to go over 70mph on the battery (before it goes flat), a 2nd electric motor kicks on, not the ICE.
As to it being a hybrid, it was always a hybrid. It has a fuel filler nozzle, how did you somehow think that meant it wasn't a hybrid? GM called it a hybrid the whole time.
I'm having a massive problem trying to understand why people care about this at all.
The car runs (about) 40 miles on electricity only with full performance. Then it runs perhaps 300 more on gas with full performance.
This is what it was stated it would do, that's what it does. I don't see how connecting the ICE to the wheels in the non-EV mode is a sin.
I honestly find the fact that current Volt users are only getting 35 miles on EV instead of 40 and the poor (36-ish) mpg in gas mode to be a bigger deal than how the ICE drives the wheels. And presumably not connecting the ICE to the wheels would only make the mpg in gas mode even worse!
So what you are saying is GGP is only wrong by a factor of 100,000, not 1,000,000? I'd say GP nailed it pretty close.
No, I'd say the GGP is off by a factor of 1000, same as GP.
When I say picoseconds, I don't mean 1 picosecond, or else I'd say 1 picosecond. I mean a measurement that is expressed (normally, let's not get weird here) in picoseconds. So 10ps, or 100ps, or yes, even 1ps or 999ps, but not 0.9ps or 1,000ps.
Since it is about 100ns, that means it's 1,000 off from my value (GGP) and also 1,000 off from the other poster's value (GP). We're both wrong.
not very realistic.
I didn't say it was realistic. I said it was true.
But no, latency and accuracy are not linked. Light takes 8 minutes to get to Earth from the sun. It's a long time and it doesn't change much. When it does change, it changes because the distance changes, not because of some kind of variability. It's long, but it's predictably long.
I'd actually be kind of interested to know how variable rates of reaction are. Clearly the amount of variability was not an insurmountable problem, as there are A-bombs (and H-bombs) in the world.
4.1.6.2.2.6: 'Creating a symmetric implosion wave requires close synchronization in firing the detonators. Tolerances on the order of 100 nanoseconds are required.'
So I wouldn't go with accuracies on the order of microseconds if I were you, you're going to need nanoseconds. Looks like picoseconds is not needed though.
I don't think detonating a chemical explosive to the picosecond is even possible, chemical reactions are slower than that.
The rate of the reaction is a component of latency. Latencies, as long as they are consistent, do not alter accuracy. Even if it took 10 minues for the chemical reactions to take place, starting them with 100ns accuracy may be necessary if they must finish coincidentally to an accuracy of 100ns.
If the fission capsule were in there, it most likely would not have gone off. With a implosion bomb (fat man style, as the Mark IV was), all the explosive has to go off at the same time, to very close accurate (picoseconds). If some goes off first, it just blows the core apart instead of pushing it to supercriticality.That is, if the core weren't scattered in the crash before the fire set off the explosives anyway.
Basically, you would have had a dirty bomb, no more.
Now, a little boy (uranium gun-type) bomb can go off by accidentally more easily, but getting the material for those is so difficult that few are made.
> They presented real inputs that were used in a poor manner by an automated trading system to allow them to perform arbitrage.
That's not what the article says. Do you have better info for me? I'd love to see it. I find this stuff interesting.
> If that's illegal, so is taking a long time between bids in an auction to play with the minds of the other bidders, even when every one of your bids was proper and valid.
Even legit trades can be illegal if they are for the purpose of market manipulation. Much like the Hunt brothers cornering the silver market.
Were these trades for the purpose of market manipulation? I would say it's difficult to answer 'NO' to this question.
'In yesterday's conviction of the Norweigan traders, the prosecution said the pair had given "false and misleading signals about supply, demand and prices" when they manipulated several Norwegian stocks through Timber Hill's online trading platform.'
If they figured out the algorithm and then presented false inputs to produce results they wanted (to get it to make a trade with them), then that's a problem, no?
Either way, these people and others like them should just just trying to edge-case systems to line their pockets and go out and do something. Entire business have sprung up around high-speed trading, the principles of which are just to arbitrage faster. This doesn't really benefit anyone but these few individuals. They're just collecting all the half-pennies (as you may recall from Superman III) that would have gone to other people and scooping them into their pocket.
How about driving commerce instead? The idea of capitalism is that by harnessing the greed of people, they will produce better products and services for all of us and improve all our lives. This doesn't work when all they are doing is trying to be the one to complete a trade instead of letting someone else do it. The net advantage to society is nothing. So we should encourage other kinds of business instead of advanced arbitrage.
This whole thing is dumb. If I had a system which already couldn't be tampered, I wouldn't need this NAND thing. And for the NAND, I can read out all the info about the NAND that could possibly be used as a key and then replicate it in a hardware-based emulator that I attach to the board in place of the NAND, leaving the rest of the system in place so it can answer any difficult security questions that are asked.
The NAND system adds nothing of value because it is replicable. Even if you can make a secure system from it, the rest of the system is doing all the security and the NAND adds nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
All the car companies pushed to have those laws overturned. They simply weren't ready to sell a non-trivial number of EVs and most customers weren't interested in buying them or even leasing them at a loss leader price.
And more than one RAV4 escaped, there is a guy here at work (South Bay) who owns one, I see it from time to time.
And he wants the power.
But he gives no inkling as to how Apple is actually dangerous to the net. I would think internet-focused companies like Google, Cisco or a raft of ISPs like Comcast would be much higher on the list.
This guy just comes off as paranoid.
Nor were skins.
The first DLC map was free.
The next two maps were $3.99 for the pair.
The next two maps were in a $9.99 pack with an additional co-op game mode and six skins.
There were two skins packs, each was $6 (IIRC, I didn't buy either of them).
There was also a motion comic pack which came with two skins.
Just that it is that way. And I agree, I've been there.
When you have a lot of labor to throw at a problem, the relative value of that labor becomes less. If you can get more workers for cheap, you'll use more of them and less expensive equipment and you'll use less expensive safety equipment too.
And I've seen this in China myself. Even if the process is supposed to be safe, the line managers are rewarded for running the lines fast and at low cost, so shortcuts that don't seem to hurt anyone lead to bonuses at the end of the quarter.
And yes, some of these shortcuts do hurt people long term, but its not obvious. That's why we have safety rules in the US. It's why China has them too, but never enforces them.
Let me give you just one example. In China I saw a guy welding stuff using an arc welder and no mask. He had a piece of cardboard to shield his eyes and he'd move it aside and squint when he needed to see what was going on. Yes, he was destroying his eyes. And complaining about what people post on slashdot isn't fixing the problem.
On the EU measuring system, the Prius gets 62mpg combined, which is still more than that Polo. And it's larger. And since it uses gas instead of Diesel, it is using less energy to do so (gas is less energy dense than Diesel).
This Mazda will still get about the same mpg as a Prius, so 44-50mpg. So it's not nearly as remarkable as it might seem from the 70 figure.
> GM gave up on this concept by having the gasoline engine provide a direct mechanical drive... Something neither the batteries nor a fuel cell could do.
When in EV mode (on battery), the electric motors do provide this drive. So a fuel cell could do so also. They say they don't do so for efficiency's sake.
> If the amount of power transmitted into the planetary gear set is really insignificant, why would they bother with the mechanical linkage at all? Even if the electric motor that performs the same function were horrendously inefficient, consuming say... twice as much energy, twice as much as insignificant should STILL be insignificant.
I don't think it's insignificant at all. They say the electric motor became inefficient at high speeds. So at these high speeds, likely they switch mostly to direct-drive. That'd be the only way to make a 15% efficiency difference as they say the direct-drive does.
In addition, as I said before, they may have (and likely did) undersize the generator in the Volt, the generator used with the ICE cannot make enough power to drive the car at 70mph. By having mechanical drive they not only make the system more efficient, but they also get to reduce the generator size. If you wanted to use another mechanical energy source, you would have to up the generator size to make the power needed to go that fast. If you use a fuel cell, the fuel cell would have to produce enough electricity to do so also.
Given the Volt was never supposed to offer the ability to easily swap the ICE, why does any of this matter? Also, I've seen under the hood, there's no way you were going to be able to swap the ICE out anyway, even if there was no mechanical connection. It's all mixed up under there (and we know why now).
The car still does what it always was going to do. That is operate with full performance as an EV or as a car that uses gas. Even if it is a parallel hybrid, it has a large enough motor side to run as an EV, unlike the Prius. Look at engadget's time with the Prius PHEV. It cannot go over 62mph in EV mode. If you do, it turns on the gas engine. This is the differentiating factor of the Volt versus a parallel hybrid ("regular" PHEV) and it hasn't changed.
I'm skeptical that people will spend so much more than a Prius to get a vehicle whose only advantage is that it can run 40(-ish) miles on electricity only with full performance and still have the advantage of gas range. But if they do wish to, this is still the only choice they have.
Sorry about the title thing, I confused you with the poster who changed the title. I've made that mistake before. My apologies.
"The 2007 Chevrolet Volt concept vehicle that appeared in the North American International Auto Show introduced the Voltec drive system, which is an attempt to standardize many components of possible future electrically propelled vehicles, and to allow multiple interchangeable electricity-generating systems. The initial design as envisioned in the Volt combines an electric motor and 16 kWh (58 MJ) lithium-ion battery plug-in system with a small 1.0 L engine powered by gasoline linked to a 55 kW (74 hp) generator. The initial production Volt will..."
The statement is referring to the Voltec drive system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Voltec_powertrain
The generating systems are interchangeable inasmuch as you can design for other ones. There could be future vehicles that use the Voltec system that use other engines. That doesn't mean this one was going to be sold with other engines or be swappable. Show me a product announcement (not concept) that says otherwise.
As mentioned, future vehicle could use other sources, including a fuel cell. Again, the vehicle is fully capable of full performance on electricity only, so if you have a generating system which cannot provide mechanical input but can generate enough electricity go drive the vehicle at over 70mph, then they could just drive the motors as if they were in the EV mode instead of range extended mode. This is not done on the current model (according to GM) because it doesn't produce high enough efficiency. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be done where it is required due to other design choices.
I would also note that your position was you were disappointed because
As I recall, GM claimed at the time that the volt would be a pure electric vehicle, with an OPTIONAL range-extending gasoline generator.
Your quote about the Voltec drivetrain here does not support your position. A pure EV would have NO electricity-generating system, not an interchangeable one.
In addition, your position is (as still stated in the title of these posts) that the Volt cannot provide full performance in EV-only mode. Your argument here, which you say is the reason you aren't changing your position, does not contain any information which states it does not provide full performance in EV-only mode. You're down now to arguing about whether it was supposed to have alternate range extended modes, an entirely tangential argument.
How does this statement about the Voltec (E-Flex) drivetrain being able to use other range extenders support your position that the Volt doesn't have full performance in EV-only mode? How do you reconcile the fact that GM let journalists drive the Volt only in EV-only mode for a year and they reported full performance before letting them use range-extended mode at all (probably to conceal the direct-drive aspect of range-extended mode) with your position that the Volt doesn't have full performance in EV-only mode?
As I recall, GM claimed at the time that the volt would be a pure electric vehicle, with an OPTIONAL range-extending gasoline generator.
You recall incorrectly. GM announced widely that they felt the problem with the EV1 was "range anxiety" and that's why the Volt had the range extender on it STANDARD. They created a term that makes EVs look bad, and the EV community is angry about this. They did this because they weren't offering a pure EV, but an EREV.
Electric heat requires quite a bit of power - It could really put a dent in driving range in cold climates.
It most definitely will. You not only have to heat the people inside, but the battery pack too. This is a problem common to all EVs and this in EV mode, the Volt has it, because the Volt has electric heat.
As I understand it, the contested subject here is not what IS, but what was supposed to be. As has been stated elsewhere, GM promised an all-electric car and delivered a mostly-electric hybrid.
GM promised hybrid that operates as an EV on electric power until that runs out and then turns on a gas engine and goes further. That is what they promised, that is what they delivered.
Way to repeatedly attempt to shut down rational discussion.
What rational discussion?
The link I posted describes you perfectly. You get a piece of bad information, form an opinion around it, then when you find out the info is wrong you just make up new problems to bolster your wrong opinion instead of changing your mind.
You make up that the Volt was supposed to not have a gas engine. Wrong.
You make up that the Volt doesn't have electric heat and needs to use the ICE for AC and heat. Wrong.
You make up that the Volt doesn't deliver what it promised, which is a hybrid EV that can run on gas when it runs out of electricity. Wrong.
You're not being rational. There's no rational discussion to shut down.
The information in that article sounds like spin and misinformation to me. If the gasoline engine is acting as an electric generator, there's no reason it couldn't power both the traction motor and the planetary gear set motor, regardless of the batteries' state of charge.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
You're exhibiting a very common behavior, sticking to the false information you already built your beliefs around, rather than incorporate new facts into your knowledge.
As to why the Volt might work this way:
It takes more HP to drive at higher speeds. It's possible that the generator is not large enough to generate enough energy to run the car at those high speeds, even though the motors could accept enough energy if it could be generated.
It's also possible that GM could drive those motors via electricity but chose not to because it would be less efficient (this is in fact what they claim, for what it matters). It is also why the Prius uses its ICE directly at high speeds.
But, spin or no spin, and whether you know exactly why the Volt works the way it does, you are wrong.
The Volt's ICE only connects to the wheels when the battery is flat AND you go at high speeds, not OR you go at high speeds. So it does run in pure EV mode for the first 40ish miles, all the way up to top speed (a not terribly impressive 85mph). Thus, if you have a reasonably short commute and you plug it in at night, you can go without gas on normal trips. If your commute is 10 miles each way, in a week (M-F) a Prius would use a very respectable 2 gallons of gas a week, a Volt would use no gas at all, a big difference. So if you really are into not using gas, a Volt does hold an advantage over a Prius. If you're just in it for the money, let's face it, you'll never save enough money on energy costs to make the Volt make sense, get the Prius.
It's this limitation that requires ICE vehicles to have complicated gearboxes and clutching systems to ensure they utilise their power band as speed increases.
EVs often have gearboxes too. As some Teslas do. We both agree the electric power band is about twice as wide. Twice as wide isn't enough to eliminate the need for a gearbox for peak performance.The transmission in my car has a total ratio spread (not counting the torque converter) of 6.05. The electric motor's power band width advantage of about 2.5:1 still would leave a transmissionless EV at a disadvantage of about 2.42. If it wants to stay in its high output, efficient range across a breadth of speeds it needs a gearbox, albeit one with markedly fewer gears.
Yes, you can just forget it and go without a gearbox, but you're going to give up efficiency and/or performance. And before you say the difference isn't huge, remember this gearbox-less EV would be at almost the same numerical disadvantage to my gearboxed ICE that you proclaimed to be a big selling point of an electric motor over an gearboxless ICE.
I'm not arguing that the Volt is not electric. I'm stating that it was originally sold as being "Pure electric drive", but it has since been found out to be "Mostly electric drive", which is a large difference.
Agreed. It's not pure electric drive, and GM's hedging "there is no fixed ratio between the ICE and the wheels" is garbage too. No ICE vehicle sold today has a fixed ratio between the ICE and wheels and yet we don't try to say the ICE isn't driving the wheels.
However, I don't agree it's a large difference to the customer. Would you really rather have (even) worse range extended mpg just so you can say your vehicle is a pure series hybrid? The bragging rights don't seem worth the downside to me.
While it is an achievement, Toyota could do the exact same thing with a software change and a second battery pack, which shows just how small a step this really is.
The Prius cannot provide full performance in EV mode as a Volt can because the Prius doesn't have an electric motor that is rated at the same output level as it enjoys with the ICE and electric motor on. There have been plenty of Prius conversions already which have software changes and additional batteries and the results do not yield anywhere near the performance of a Volt. You don't get any useful EV-only range, merely decreased fuel consumption for X number of miles (40 in the case below).
http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion/get_charged
The Prius would require some changes, including a more powerful motor system in order to work as an EREV (PHEV with usable zero-emissions range).
However, I do agree that the difference between the two is smaller than what once was thought, it just isn't anywhere near zero, at least not right now.
Given the EV1's 100+ mile range and highway-capable driving speed (When using the 1st generation NiMh batteries they were fitted with), this is more of a step backwards, and a real disappointment for EV lovers everywhere.
The EV1 was a whole different animal. Turns out two seats and limited range was a deal killer for many people, and that's before you even talk about the ridiculous price of the EV1 (cost if you will since GM never passed on the true cost to the customer). Sure, the Volt is overpriced, but it's nothing next to the EV1. If you want to talk about how neato a car is, talk about the Tesla Roadster. But neither the Tesla nor the EV1 had any real impact, the Volt (and of course the Leaf) thus stand a chance of being a lot more important.
GM stated explicitly that the ICE could never move the wheels, it was claimed that it turned a generator that then charged the batteries, as a series hybrid, as opposed to to how the Prius does it (As a parallel hybrid). It has since been found out that the ICE can (and does) directly turn the wheels.
Agreed, GM lied about the ICE never moving the wheels. This was a lie, as at high speeds in range extended mode, the ICE can drive the wheels. It doesn't usually do so, so that makes it unlike the Prius in total, but in some modes it does operate similarly.
And, with the ICE completely disconnected from the wheels it can run at it's most efficient speed (As ICEs have a very narrow power band, whereas electric motors have a much much wider power band (From 0 RPM)). This would make for much better performance.
Which is probably why in the usual case it doesn't connect the ICE to the wheels, for efficiency. However at high speeds in range extended mode it does connect the ICE to the wheels because it is more efficient than operating in serial mode (according to GM). I don't know what "this would make for much better performance " means.
Also, characterization that ICEs have a VERY narrow power band seems inaccurate to me. ICEs and electric motors of similar power and torque output have similar power bands. The ICE one is narrower, but it's about half as wide, which I don't think comes to the level of "very narrow". For example, in the Tesla Roadster, the electric motor has a power band of about 15,000RPM. A normal ICE can have one of about 6,000RPM.
Now, those two things aside and assumed, my comment was "how does this make the Volt not electric?". So I have to ask again, how does this revelation that the Volt can directly drive the wheels from the ICE in range extended mode make it not electric? When it's operating in EV mode, it's electric. When it's operating in range extended mode, it is burning gas and thus is not electric, whether the ICE is connected to the wheels or not.
No, GM called it a range-extended electric vehicle. Now that it has recently been revealed that the Volt cannot achieve full top speed without the gasoline engine running
That's incorrect. Slashdot printed that, but it is incorrect.
It connects the ICE to the wheels when the battery is flat AND you go over 70mph, not when the battery is flat OR you go over 70mph as slashdot reported.
When you want to go over 70mph on the battery (before it goes flat), a 2nd electric motor kicks on, not the ICE.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20019260-48.html
You are misinformed. It would be fantastic if you would not spread your misinformation to others.
How is it not electric?
As to it being a hybrid, it was always a hybrid. It has a fuel filler nozzle, how did you somehow think that meant it wasn't a hybrid? GM called it a hybrid the whole time.
I'm having a massive problem trying to understand why people care about this at all.
The car runs (about) 40 miles on electricity only with full performance.
Then it runs perhaps 300 more on gas with full performance.
This is what it was stated it would do, that's what it does. I don't see how connecting the ICE to the wheels in the non-EV mode is a sin.
I honestly find the fact that current Volt users are only getting 35 miles on EV instead of 40 and the poor (36-ish) mpg in gas mode to be a bigger deal than how the ICE drives the wheels. And presumably not connecting the ICE to the wheels would only make the mpg in gas mode even worse!
So what you are saying is GGP is only wrong by a factor of 100,000, not 1,000,000?
I'd say GP nailed it pretty close.
No, I'd say the GGP is off by a factor of 1000, same as GP.
When I say picoseconds, I don't mean 1 picosecond, or else I'd say 1 picosecond. I mean a measurement that is expressed (normally, let's not get weird here) in picoseconds. So 10ps, or 100ps, or yes, even 1ps or 999ps, but not 0.9ps or 1,000ps.
Since it is about 100ns, that means it's 1,000 off from my value (GGP) and also 1,000 off from the other poster's value (GP). We're both wrong.
not very realistic.
I didn't say it was realistic. I said it was true.
But no, latency and accuracy are not linked. Light takes 8 minutes to get to Earth from the sun. It's a long time and it doesn't change much. When it does change, it changes because the distance changes, not because of some kind of variability. It's long, but it's predictably long.
I'd actually be kind of interested to know how variable rates of reaction are. Clearly the amount of variability was not an insurmountable problem, as there are A-bombs (and H-bombs) in the world.
True, the timing has to be very accurate, but I'm pretty sure
microsecond accuracy is enough, or a million times less accurate than
your claim.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.6.2
4.1.6.2.2.6:
'Creating a symmetric implosion wave requires close synchronization in firing the detonators. Tolerances on the order of 100 nanoseconds are required.'
So I wouldn't go with accuracies on the order of microseconds if I were you, you're going to need nanoseconds. Looks like picoseconds is not needed though.
I don't think detonating a chemical explosive to the
picosecond is even possible, chemical reactions are slower than that.
The rate of the reaction is a component of latency. Latencies, as long as they are consistent, do not alter accuracy. Even if it took 10 minues for the chemical reactions to take place, starting them with 100ns accuracy may be necessary if they must finish coincidentally to an accuracy of 100ns.
If the fission capsule were in there, it most likely would not have gone off. With a implosion bomb (fat man style, as the Mark IV was), all the explosive has to go off at the same time, to very close accurate (picoseconds). If some goes off first, it just blows the core apart instead of pushing it to supercriticality.That is, if the core weren't scattered in the crash before the fire set off the explosives anyway.
Basically, you would have had a dirty bomb, no more.
Now, a little boy (uranium gun-type) bomb can go off by accidentally more easily, but getting the material for those is so difficult that few are made.
> They presented real inputs that were used in a poor manner by an automated trading system to allow them to perform arbitrage.
That's not what the article says. Do you have better info for me? I'd love to see it. I find this stuff interesting.
> If that's illegal, so is taking a long time between bids in an auction to play with the minds of the other bidders, even when every one of your bids was proper and valid.
Even legit trades can be illegal if they are for the purpose of market manipulation. Much like the Hunt brothers cornering the silver market.
Were these trades for the purpose of market manipulation? I would say it's difficult to answer 'NO' to this question.
Did you forget the Big Dig already?
Bay Bridge retrofit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway
and then of course there is the Bridge to Nowhere.
The article says they gave false info:
'In yesterday's conviction of the Norweigan traders, the prosecution said the pair had given "false and misleading signals about supply, demand and prices" when they manipulated several Norwegian stocks through Timber Hill's online trading platform.'
If they figured out the algorithm and then presented false inputs to produce results they wanted (to get it to make a trade with them), then that's a problem, no?
Either way, these people and others like them should just just trying to edge-case systems to line their pockets and go out and do something. Entire business have sprung up around high-speed trading, the principles of which are just to arbitrage faster. This doesn't really benefit anyone but these few individuals. They're just collecting all the half-pennies (as you may recall from Superman III) that would have gone to other people and scooping them into their pocket.
How about driving commerce instead? The idea of capitalism is that by harnessing the greed of people, they will produce better products and services for all of us and improve all our lives. This doesn't work when all they are doing is trying to be the one to complete a trade instead of letting someone else do it. The net advantage to society is nothing. So we should encourage other kinds of business instead of advanced arbitrage.
What do I need the NAND for?
This whole thing is dumb. If I had a system which already couldn't be tampered, I wouldn't need this NAND thing. And for the NAND, I can read out all the info about the NAND that could possibly be used as a key and then replicate it in a hardware-based emulator that I attach to the board in place of the NAND, leaving the rest of the system in place so it can answer any difficult security questions that are asked.
The NAND system adds nothing of value because it is replicable. Even if you can make a secure system from it, the rest of the system is doing all the security and the NAND adds nothing.
The ICE only drives the wheels when going over 70mph AND the batteries are run down. The summary says OR, this is incorrect.
If you charge up, you do still have 25-50 miles of all-electric range, even at over 70mph.
MS didn't show it in the demo (that I saw).
The quality of the browser is paramount. Do we know if it's any good? Their last one sure wasn't.
Versus Android?
How so?
Their old plot was 1 acre, sold for this price, they took the money and built a new house on a 49 acre lot somewhere else.
Macy's I think? Ordinary people can try it.
By all accounts, yes, it is 360's EyeToy. You've got the same kind of games, with a little better control and better graphics.