The S2000 in outside North America (and in North America up until the 2003 model year) made 240HP from a 2 liter engine, for 120HP/liter. They later basically changed the crankshaft to increase the displacement to 2.2L. It didn't change the output, they basically traded displacement for revs. It also didn't change the external engine size or fuel efficiency.
Note that the S2000 also is rated at 20/26MPG (US). Thus the Corvette makes almost double the HP and about the same MPG (worse city, better highway).
Now, as to liters here.
Displacement is ONLY a measure of how much air an engine pumps in two revolutions of the crankshaft. THAT IS ALL. It does not measure engine size in any way.
For one example, the GM 6L 400HP V8 may have a displacement of 6L versus the BMW's 4.8L (I could have swore it was 5L!), but in dimensions, the GM engine is smaller. It is also much smaller in dip volume (the actual measure of the space the engine takes up). It also has a much lower center of gravity, since the BMW has all those valves and cams adding weight up top whereas the GM engine has half the valves, 1/4 the cams and moves the cam down low in the block. If you had watched the Grand Am race at Watkins' Glen last week they showed both engines side-by-side (both fit in a Grand Am Daytona Prototype car) and you could have compared visually for yourself. They also showed the Ford 4.6L (actually, probably the Cammer 5.0), which was about the size of the GM engine, and BTW, is the most fuel efficient of the three.
As an additional note, both the GM 6L and 7L engines I mentioned are the same size. Both use the same block and are thus the same size (minus the dry dump pump on the 7L) even though they don't pump the same amount of air per two revolutions.
To underscore again, displacement is almost completely useless when measuring engine size.
MPG/liter displacement is a doubly useless measure. Even MPG/dip volume (which the GM engine does far better on) is a pretty stupid measure.
The Honda gets much better power per liter displacement (and volume/weight also, BTW) because it spins at a lot higher RPM. If you spin faster, you pump more air in the same time and thus can add more fuel to burn with that air and make more power in the same time. But, as the 2.2L and 2.0L versions of the S2000 show, that doesn't make you necessarily larger, smaller, more fuel efficient or more powerful.
High revs is nice, because you basically use all your components as often as possible instead of adding more of them (which adds weight). Every engine manufacturer tries to rev as fast as they can, but sometimes you have to make tradeoffs on revs to get other things. In Honda's case, they traded revs for displacement on the 2.2L S2000 because of complaints about peaky power output and loud engine noise (due to high revs). Does that mean the 2.2L S2000 isn't high tech because it doesn't rev as high as it Honda knows how to rev?
In GM's case, they had to give up revs to go to a pushrod configuration. This pushrod configuration reduces weight, lowers the center of gravity and reduces internal friction (means better fuel efficiency and higher power output). It does necessitate increasing displacement (if you're going to pump slower, you have to pump more per spin), but as long as you can package that engine in a small, light package with good mpg, why do you care whether it pumps its air more often or in larger gulps?
You will notice I never compared the engines in question to the S2000 engine. The S2000 engine is an excellent engine. I believe it will be a truly historic engine (the 2.0L version). Although displacement is a poor measure of engine size, the S2000 engine is also small in dip volume, dimensions and weight too. Very impressive.
However, the engine/car is not any kind of paragon of fuel efficiency. It gets truly lousy mpg for its size, actually.
That's what Saturn uses. And I spoke with one of the designers of the panels (he was my material's science professor when I was in school). He explained at length the advantages and disadvantages. FRP cannot even be used in large horizontal surfaces (hoods, trunk lids), because FRP has to be very thick to support its own weight over a span.
Go ahead and weigh a Saturn FRP panel versus a metal panel. Saturn never said it was lighter, and stories have been related many times in car mags (seemingly from Saturn engineers) about how the panels are heavier.
As to your generic "European companies have been using composite panels for a decade or two now" is just plain incorrect. They use FRP and other composites the same as American and Japanese manufacturers, no more and no less. Most body panels on European cars are steel. A few are aluminum (the hood on my 2000 Audi is Aluminum, V8 models with longer fenders also used Al for the fenders).
As to using steel for the implied strength, again, look at the inside of a race car. Look at the dashboard. It is only used to mount gauges and switches in. It is metal. Why not plastic? I has no structural or protective value.
Metal is lighter than plastic in most structural situations. Composites are beginning to take over though, and if you want to call those plastics fine, but the ones that are giving all the weight savings are not the ones in your car. (To return to the argument from the post above that why aren't our cars getting better mpg, they have more plastics in them)
It is the first private plane/spacecraft in human history to reach space. Once space travel becomes commonplace this vehicle will be as prized as the first Wright Flyer.
I was slightly suprised when they reused it to try to take the X-Prize. What if they had crashed it?
I definitely belongs in a museum, and now.
The way composites work, it wouldn't be all that expensive to make another shell on the same plans. They could take all the parts ouf of SSOne and put them in that shell and fly it at a very low cost.
So don't fret, it's there because it's more valuable as a museum piece than as an airplane now. That won't be the case with the 2nd one built I don't think. Although the 2nd may very well be the first private vehicle to actually carry a paying passenger to space.
I want to say thank you to Paul Allen for the funding first.
I want to say thank you again for donating the ship to the Smithsonian. For those who don't know, Paul Allen has his own recently-opened Sci-Fi museum in Seattle. It would be very tempting to not give SSOne to the Smithsonian, instead to give it to his museum and loan it to the Smithsonian (so it would mention his museum on the plaque and he could bring it back from time to time) or to exhibit it at his own museum for a while to generate traffic/money.
Paul Allen didn't do these things.
Thank you very much Paul.
It's be great to see this exhibit/web page updated soon:
I've actually seen SSOne, I was there at its first flight into space. But I'd really like to see it next to the X-15 (which the Smithsonian also has) so I can see how much things have changed (and what hasn't) over almost 50 years.
Note that the SF (BART) map was incorrect and yet was still on the BART site.
I don't agree. This is a similar thing to the printing of "NYFD" shirts a while back. They basically want to maintain a copyright so they can make some money off it. That normally would be fine and dandy, but in these two cases, they are publicly-funded government entities, I just don't feel they should be able to enforce copyright. The purpose of copyright is to give private entities a way to generate revenue and thus encourage creative efforts. But for these public entities, they are there to serve the public and this is best done by making their creative efforts available to all for free.
Instead, it appears they are trying to make this like the attempt to enforce copyright on "The Bean" (Cloudgate) in Chicago, the Hollywood sign in L.A, the lone Cypress in Carmel. They want to at least be able to make sure no one else is making money off it and possibly, if it becomes hot, make money off it themselves.
I looked it up. Your car makes 220HP (umodded) from a 2L engine. Of course, that's really PS (Metric HP), so it's actually 218.5HP.
And your car does (highway) 7.6 liters/100km. 7.6 liters/100km is 30 mpg (US gallons). Your car would get 37.5mpg in Imperial gallons, since they are 25% larger. Neither is close to 50mpg.
Whereas the Ford, with a 4.6L engine (not 4) makes 300HP (unmodded), and 25mpg highway (US gallons).
Making 130HP/liter through turbo/supercharging requires significantly lowering the compression ratio in an engine. Which hurts gas mileage axiomatically. You're simply not going to get 40mpg US (50 Imperial) with an engine with that much boost. Not unless it is a one seater with no safety features (very light).
Anyway, you really should get a handle on comparative mileage before you go spouting off about fundamental problems.
Honestly, it sounds a lot to me like you have a chip on your shoulder about "low-tech" engines. Low-tech doesn't necessarily mean inefficient. Look at the Corvette making 400HP rated at 19/28 (US, which would be 24/35 Imperial) from an engine smaller in volume and weight than the fancy engine in a BMW M5 (the V8 and surely the new V10). Look at the C6 Z06 making 505HP rated at 16/26 (US, 20/32 Imperial) from an engine that is still smaller in volume and weight than the fancy engine in a BMW M5 (the V8 and surely the new 500HP V10). The 400HP BMW M5, btw, is rated at 16/21 (US, 20/26 Imperial). FIAT's (Ferrari's) 360 Modena making 400 HP is rated at a whopping 11/16 US (14/20 Imperial). To their credit, the new Ferrari F430 making 490HP seems to still makes 11/16 US, but the Corvette C6 Z06 still makes slightly more power and 50% better mpg from a "low-tech" engine.
I do agree economy isn't much of a goal here in the US, but the actual mileage numbers aren't as bad as you make it out to be. And the performance/economy ratio you speak of is fairly good too, especially considering how much less we pay for gas and thus how much less sensitive we are to the costs.
Tall, wide tires. Cars are much bigger. Engines are much more powerful. And cars have many more safety features on there. Safety features add weight.
And just so you know, plastic weighs more than metal much of the time. For example, the plastic panels on Saturns add significant weight. Basically plastic just isn't as strong under much except impact, so it adds a lot of weight when you make it thick enough to have the characteristics you need.
Think of it this way, look at a race car. Weight matters a lot on race cars. Do race cars have a lot of plastic on them? Even in places where strength doesn't matter (like inside), metal is used in preference to plastic, fiberglass in preference to metal and carbon fiber in preference to fiberglass.
And for those who are skeptical about the 60mpg, Canadian gallons are 25% larger than American ones. So that's 48mpg US, not odd for that car. The Geo Metro XFi got 55mpg US (highway), or 69mpg Imperial (Canadian).
That's $39/600 miles, or $0.065/mile. If you had a gasoline car, you'd probably get more like 400 miles per tank (that's at 31mpg, the rated value, your rated is 46mpg and you say you get that), or $0.0975/mile.
So, that means that you save 3.2 cents per mile.
The premium you pay to get that Diesel engine is $1600. So, after a mere 50,000 miles you'll break even, if maintenance costs aren't higher (which they are, a bit).
Of course, in California, Diesel currently costs $3.50 (versus about $3 for gas), so it'd cost you $45.50/600 miles, or 0.0758 cents per mile, thus saving you a whopping one cent per mile, and taking 160,000 miles to get your money back, assuming maintenance and repairs don't wipe you out completely.
Does Diesel cost more than regular gas in your state too?
And meanwhile, you're dumping more pollutants (especially particulates) in our air. Pardon me if I don't jump for joy.
When Xerox invented "rooms" (first virtual desktop), it was similar to this. And early multi windowed desktop managers like vtwm or HP's version were exactly like this. vtwm and HP's implementations did not connect screens at the edges.
So it would suggest it is more likely this was written by someone who used a VDM, but not the one you are used to.
I own a 6800 Ultra and a 7800 GT (not GTX). Both are about the same speed (the 7800 GT is slightly faster). But the difference in power consumption is enormous.
Do not consider a 6800 series. They are just too large and too hot. NVidia knew this a while back, the 7800 series is actually a further development/refinement of the 6600, not the 6800. NVidia seemed to know the 6800 had many undesireable characteristics a long time ago.
I have to say I'm in no way a fan of SLI either, but that's a personal thing.
I'd highly recommend you get a single 7800 GTX, it performs as well as two 6800 Ultras in most situations. And there's no SLI hassle, no need for a huge power supply.
I replaced my 3.0GHz P4 (Northwood, I think, not the 31 pipeline stage versions) with an Athlon X2 4200+. Now, the Athlon does run somewhat cooler, but honestly, difference is not astounding. The Athlon is a lot more powerful though, but then again, it's almost 3 years newer than my Intel processor. Short version: I think you're barking up the wrong tree blaming P4 for people getting enormous power supplies. My work machine is a 3.2GHz Prescott P4, and it has a 300W power supply and has no problems. A big CPU (like my P4 or Athlon X2) will be rated at max between 85 and 110W (both my P4 and X2 are rated at 89W, Athlon X2 4400+ and up are rated at 110W, Intel's dual-core EE actually hits like 130W though). 110W isn't the problem. What's taking a lot of power is fancy video cards (like my 6800 Ultra), dual video cards or (as you say), people's imagination.
I mean, a fancy video card could take 80W. So I have 160W in my CPU+GPU, perhaps 40W in mass storage (HDs go about 15W each), and I'm sure there's a fair bit of "misc". If you add all that up, you get, what, 250W, 300W? And that's with a monster video card. People are just buying way too much power supply. Either that, or they're putting 11 HDs in their machines (don't joke, I saw a guy buying a case the other day that could do that, and my new motherboard could run 12 drives with no add-in cards!). I run my 6800 Ultra/P4 3.0GHz machine just fine on an Antec 380W PS.
BTW, I think you're overamping Seasonic a bit here. I'm not saying they are bad power supplies, quite the opposite. But It's near impossible to make a power supply that would cut off on a given load with 1% accuracy. And even if you could, testing it would be tough. SilentPCReview (good PS reviewers, and fans of the Seasonic) found out they were 5% off on their loadings on high end power supplies. So, even if Seasonic had worked a miracle here, SPCR couldn't have detected it.
I'd have a Seasonic S12-430 (although some think the 500 is more efficient, even at light loads) in my machine right now, except I just bought a new Antec Sonata II case, which came with a nice, silent power supply. So I'm saving my money and sticking with what I got. But if one hadn't been bundled, I'd have a Seasonic for sure.
The screens that are cracking in this case are the LCD module inside the iPod nano, not the polycarbonate plastic sheet over it. I know this because it is when the glass (yes, glass) inside the LCD breaks is when you hear people describe that simultaneous with the display cracking also the pixels stopped responding on one side of the crack (or both). Also, people are saying the LCD cracked on them, with "no external damage". This they are referring to a crack inside the unit, not on the polycarbonate cover.
Honestly, it's by far the most common problem I've had with LCDs. I've broken LCDs in both pagers and cellphones in this same fashion (LCD glass broken, not outside plastic). And I'm sure most people have has similar experiences.
So, you're way off. They cannot be the same issue.
As to perhaps the scratches problem itself is due to hardener, I agree it is possible. But having scratched a few iPods in my day also (including a nano), I have to believe Apple's story here. It's no different than the others except perhaps that since the screen is so small and the pixel density so high, scratches matter more than they have in the past.
But it isn't actually higher than the Antec recommended. SilentPCReview had decided it was, but has since written a large article about how their measurements overestimated the efficiency of high capacity power supplies, like the Seasonic 500W.
They're both high efficency, quiet power supplies. The Antec fails the regulation specs on the 3.3V line, so perhaps that's a reason to buy the Seasonic. Otherwise, it's really a toss up. Take your pick.
Say, did you even read about the Antec 500W anyway? It actually has a fan, it is thermistor controlled. At regular useage levels, it doesn't turn the fan on at all. Sound familiar? The Antec fan is located on the inside of the machine, not at the back. So you won't hear it. I do agree in general a 120mm fan is better than an 80mm, but in this case, you won't hear either of them, unless perhaps you don't have hard drives in your machine and thus it is truly silent.
Kinda weird. Many responses on/. seem to think the Phantom is fanless. Like perhaps they didn't even read the article. The article mentions it has a fan IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
Actually, in most portable devices the display refreshes itself anyway, to save power. So the CPU can be stopped or even turned off when the screen isn't being updated already. So the only power being consumed is by the LCD. And LCDs are very power efficient, as anyone who has used a digital watch or similar thing can attest. eInk does remove this additional power consumption, if you don't need to change anything on the screen and don't wave the device around too much, it will retain what is on the display with no power at all.
Also, a PIC is not necessarily a good choice for this setup. Microchip (makers of the PIC) are really best at making true microcontrollers. Microcontrollers don't have any external bus, which limits your total memory in the system to the internal memory. PICs do have a decent amount of memory, but this amount of memory would rapidly be gobbled up just holding the frame buffer for this screen and the bitmapped fonts. An ARM 7 is the most likely candidate for a device using this type of screen, and it probably already has one in the eInk.
eInk does look great, the display is much like paper in that it uses reflected light well, and works from any angle. So it is quite readable.
I went through the remote terminal phase twice now. Sort of 2.5. Once with TTYs, once with X terminals and sort of with the Citrix rage in the early 90s.
Now more than ever it makes no sense to have a thin client. The hardware required to do computing locally is so cheap now it makes no sense not to use it. To farm out all your work to the (remote PC|remote Unix X machine|Citrix box|mainframe) just doesn't work well for me.
Some day perhaps these systems will be brought to fruition with a system which does a lot of work locally and only makes sure everything is backed up remotely, instead of keeping all the data remotely and going through a narrow pipe to access it.
I have the largest iPod made, a 2G 20GB (thick one).
It is 4.01"x2.43"x0.875".
The total volume of the largest iPod made is 8.525 cubic inches.
The total volume of the OQO is 15 cubic inches.
So the OQO is about twice the size of the largest iPod made, let alone the average one.
So, the OQO is about the size of an iPod if a Ford F150 is about the size of a Civic.
comp time was never for hourly employees
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 1
It's for exempt (salaried) employees. It has always been that way. I know it isn't required, that's why I said "Most American companies at least pretend to have comp time." I would have though that was pretty damn CYA, but I guess not enough for slashdot.
Hourly workers are more protected against having to work unpaid overtime than salaried workers are, by far.
comp time is unheard of in the US?
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 1
Most American companies at least pretend to have comp time, which is paid vacation days for OT. Most follow though a lot less than 100% though.
Sounds like a great company. Not sure what it has to do with leaving the US though. Are Americans known to me more inhumane to each other?
It sounds like you are at a small company. I hope things don't go badly for you when your company ends up being taken over by Vivendi or Take Two. Faceless corporations tend to suck, no matter what nationality.
The problem of scratched bus windows is far from solved. I rarely see a bus/train window that doesn't have some initials scratched into it.
Apple should probably should have hard-coated the iPod nano, like Sony hard-coated the PSP. But since Apple has been making iPods without hard coat for 3 years now, it seems a little strange people are acting now like it's a surprise an iPod is scratchable.
Apple can't use a sapphire screen insert because the iPod (except the mini) has no screen insert. Cell phones do, as a rule. This would require the iPod have a visible seam around the display, and apparently they aren't willing to do that.
First race was 1989, as far as I know and every 3 years since.
So I don't get your rant here.
These cars are very impractical. I'm not saying some of the technology can't be used in street cars. But to use these vehicles day to day would basically entail getting rid of traffic lights for starters, because their acceleration characteristics are so poor.
As to lighter cars, if you want lighter cars, you have to start elsewhere. The biggest factor in the weight of current cars is safety and safety-based regulations. Oh, and did I mention these vehicles aren't at all safe?
Why do you speak of electrical outlets in relation to solar cars? Sunlight is wireless.
You say the point of mass transit is to carry more people without clogging the streets. You then suggest that a monorail would do that while a bus does not.
But later on you suggest the trolleys in Portland are a great example of mass transit.
How do you reconcile this? Trolleys close the roads worse than buses, whether using their own lane (which could be used for cars) or sharing a lane.
A monorail might carry more people, it depends on the schedules of the buses and cars It's sure not a given.
Personally, I think light rail (trolleys) are a great example of terrible mass transit. Since they go through regular car intersections, they suffer from congestion as bad as cars, and they stop all the time. The net result is a system of mass transit which is vastly inferior to a car. So that limits your ridership almost exclusively to people who cannot drive.
Subways, like Toronto's system are great. Properly installed, they sail by traffic and are actually more convenient and rapid than driving.
Additionally, why do you complain about hidden subsidies for cars as hiding the real costs of driving? It's not like fare show the real cost of mass transit either. Few mass transit systems are completely funded from the farebox.
Personally, I think that monotrails, especially the Disney-type are a dumb idea. Regular rails would be better. And if you don't like the noise of regular rails, use rubber tires like Montreal does. At least with all these systems you remain with largely proven and cheap to operate technology.
But it's clearly worthy. Go back and watch it. Some episodes did suck a bit, but overall, the show was incredibly foresightful about the growth of the news media and television in general.
Edison Carter: "Since when is news entertainment?" his editor: "Since the beginning."
And definitely "The Time Tunnel" would have to be mentioned before you even think of "Sliders".
If "Man from U.N.C.L.E", "The Avengers" and "The Prisoner" make it because of gadgets, then "Get Smart" should be there too. It had way more gadgets.
Slashdot Mirror
Still seems odd to see only one iPod on the list, at #78. And that iPod isn't even the one that sells (well, sold) the most.
I mean, the Treo 650 is known for being somewhat buggy (heck, there's a lawsuit about it), and it can make #10.
And the Seagate USB 2.0 pocket drive at #8? A mini does all that does plus play music. It even has the same style of hard drive.
So, yeah, it seems odd.
The S2000 in outside North America (and in North America up until the 2003 model year) made 240HP from a 2 liter engine, for 120HP/liter. They later basically changed the crankshaft to increase the displacement to 2.2L. It didn't change the output, they basically traded displacement for revs. It also didn't change the external engine size or fuel efficiency.
Note that the S2000 also is rated at 20/26MPG (US). Thus the Corvette makes almost double the HP and about the same MPG (worse city, better highway).
Now, as to liters here.
Displacement is ONLY a measure of how much air an engine pumps in two revolutions of the crankshaft. THAT IS ALL. It does not measure engine size in any way.
For one example, the GM 6L 400HP V8 may have a displacement of 6L versus the BMW's 4.8L (I could have swore it was 5L!), but in dimensions, the GM engine is smaller. It is also much smaller in dip volume (the actual measure of the space the engine takes up). It also has a much lower center of gravity, since the BMW has all those valves and cams adding weight up top whereas the GM engine has half the valves, 1/4 the cams and moves the cam down low in the block. If you had watched the Grand Am race at Watkins' Glen last week they showed both engines side-by-side (both fit in a Grand Am Daytona Prototype car) and you could have compared visually for yourself. They also showed the Ford 4.6L (actually, probably the Cammer 5.0), which was about the size of the GM engine, and BTW, is the most fuel efficient of the three.
As an additional note, both the GM 6L and 7L engines I mentioned are the same size. Both use the same block and are thus the same size (minus the dry dump pump on the 7L) even though they don't pump the same amount of air per two revolutions.
To underscore again, displacement is almost completely useless when measuring engine size.
MPG/liter displacement is a doubly useless measure. Even MPG/dip volume (which the GM engine does far better on) is a pretty stupid measure.
The Honda gets much better power per liter displacement (and volume/weight also, BTW) because it spins at a lot higher RPM. If you spin faster, you pump more air in the same time and thus can add more fuel to burn with that air and make more power in the same time. But, as the 2.2L and 2.0L versions of the S2000 show, that doesn't make you necessarily larger, smaller, more fuel efficient or more powerful.
High revs is nice, because you basically use all your components as often as possible instead of adding more of them (which adds weight). Every engine manufacturer tries to rev as fast as they can, but sometimes you have to make tradeoffs on revs to get other things. In Honda's case, they traded revs for displacement on the 2.2L S2000 because of complaints about peaky power output and loud engine noise (due to high revs). Does that mean the 2.2L S2000 isn't high tech because it doesn't rev as high as it Honda knows how to rev?
In GM's case, they had to give up revs to go to a pushrod configuration. This pushrod configuration reduces weight, lowers the center of gravity and reduces internal friction (means better fuel efficiency and higher power output). It does necessitate increasing displacement (if you're going to pump slower, you have to pump more per spin), but as long as you can package that engine in a small, light package with good mpg, why do you care whether it pumps its air more often or in larger gulps?
You will notice I never compared the engines in question to the S2000 engine. The S2000 engine is an excellent engine. I believe it will be a truly historic engine (the 2.0L version). Although displacement is a poor measure of engine size, the S2000 engine is also small in dip volume, dimensions and weight too. Very impressive.
However, the engine/car is not any kind of paragon of fuel efficiency. It gets truly lousy mpg for its size, actually.
Fiberglass reinforced plastic.
That's what Saturn uses. And I spoke with one of the designers of the panels (he was my material's science professor when I was in school). He explained at length the advantages and disadvantages. FRP cannot even be used in large horizontal surfaces (hoods, trunk lids), because FRP has to be very thick to support its own weight over a span.
Go ahead and weigh a Saturn FRP panel versus a metal panel. Saturn never said it was lighter, and stories have been related many times in car mags (seemingly from Saturn engineers) about how the panels are heavier.
As to your generic "European companies have been using composite panels for a decade or two now" is just plain incorrect. They use FRP and other composites the same as American and Japanese manufacturers, no more and no less. Most body panels on European cars are steel. A few are aluminum (the hood on my 2000 Audi is Aluminum, V8 models with longer fenders also used Al for the fenders).
As to using steel for the implied strength, again, look at the inside of a race car. Look at the dashboard. It is only used to mount gauges and switches in. It is metal. Why not plastic? I has no structural or protective value.
Metal is lighter than plastic in most structural situations. Composites are beginning to take over though, and if you want to call those plastics fine, but the ones that are giving all the weight savings are not the ones in your car. (To return to the argument from the post above that why aren't our cars getting better mpg, they have more plastics in them)
It is the first private plane/spacecraft in human history to reach space. Once space travel becomes commonplace this vehicle will be as prized as the first Wright Flyer.
I was slightly suprised when they reused it to try to take the X-Prize. What if they had crashed it?
I definitely belongs in a museum, and now.
The way composites work, it wouldn't be all that expensive to make another shell on the same plans. They could take all the parts ouf of SSOne and put them in that shell and fly it at a very low cost.
So don't fret, it's there because it's more valuable as a museum piece than as an airplane now. That won't be the case with the 2nd one built I don't think. Although the 2nd may very well be the first private vehicle to actually carry a paying passenger to space.
I want to say thank you to Paul Allen for the funding first.
h tml
I want to say thank you again for donating the ship to the Smithsonian. For those who don't know, Paul Allen has his own recently-opened Sci-Fi museum in Seattle. It would be very tempting to not give SSOne to the Smithsonian, instead to give it to his museum and loan it to the Smithsonian (so it would mention his museum on the plaque and he could bring it back from time to time) or to exhibit it at his own museum for a while to generate traffic/money.
Paul Allen didn't do these things.
Thank you very much Paul.
It's be great to see this exhibit/web page updated soon:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal100/gal100.
I've actually seen SSOne, I was there at its first flight into space. But I'd really like to see it next to the X-15 (which the Smithsonian also has) so I can see how much things have changed (and what hasn't) over almost 50 years.
Note that the SF (BART) map was incorrect and yet was still on the BART site.
I don't agree. This is a similar thing to the printing of "NYFD" shirts a while back. They basically want to maintain a copyright so they can make some money off it. That normally would be fine and dandy, but in these two cases, they are publicly-funded government entities, I just don't feel they should be able to enforce copyright. The purpose of copyright is to give private entities a way to generate revenue and thus encourage creative efforts. But for these public entities, they are there to serve the public and this is best done by making their creative efforts available to all for free.
Instead, it appears they are trying to make this like the attempt to enforce copyright on "The Bean" (Cloudgate) in Chicago, the Hollywood sign in L.A, the lone Cypress in Carmel. They want to at least be able to make sure no one else is making money off it and possibly, if it becomes hot, make money off it themselves.
I looked it up. Your car makes 220HP (umodded) from a 2L engine. Of course, that's really PS (Metric HP), so it's actually 218.5HP.
And your car does (highway) 7.6 liters/100km. 7.6 liters/100km is 30 mpg (US gallons). Your car would get 37.5mpg in Imperial gallons, since they are 25% larger. Neither is close to 50mpg.
Whereas the Ford, with a 4.6L engine (not 4) makes 300HP (unmodded), and 25mpg highway (US gallons).
Making 130HP/liter through turbo/supercharging requires significantly lowering the compression ratio in an engine. Which hurts gas mileage axiomatically. You're simply not going to get 40mpg US (50 Imperial) with an engine with that much boost. Not unless it is a one seater with no safety features (very light).
Anyway, you really should get a handle on comparative mileage before you go spouting off about fundamental problems.
Honestly, it sounds a lot to me like you have a chip on your shoulder about "low-tech" engines. Low-tech doesn't necessarily mean inefficient. Look at the Corvette making 400HP rated at 19/28 (US, which would be 24/35 Imperial) from an engine smaller in volume and weight than the fancy engine in a BMW M5 (the V8 and surely the new V10). Look at the C6 Z06 making 505HP rated at 16/26 (US, 20/32 Imperial) from an engine that is still smaller in volume and weight than the fancy engine in a BMW M5 (the V8 and surely the new 500HP V10). The 400HP BMW M5, btw, is rated at 16/21 (US, 20/26 Imperial). FIAT's (Ferrari's) 360 Modena making 400 HP is rated at a whopping 11/16 US (14/20 Imperial). To their credit, the new Ferrari F430 making 490HP seems to still makes 11/16 US, but the Corvette C6 Z06 still makes slightly more power and 50% better mpg from a "low-tech" engine.
I do agree economy isn't much of a goal here in the US, but the actual mileage numbers aren't as bad as you make it out to be. And the performance/economy ratio you speak of is fairly good too, especially considering how much less we pay for gas and thus how much less sensitive we are to the costs.
Tall, wide tires. Cars are much bigger. Engines are much more powerful. And cars have many more safety features on there. Safety features add weight.
And just so you know, plastic weighs more than metal much of the time. For example, the plastic panels on Saturns add significant weight. Basically plastic just isn't as strong under much except impact, so it adds a lot of weight when you make it thick enough to have the characteristics you need.
Think of it this way, look at a race car. Weight matters a lot on race cars. Do race cars have a lot of plastic on them? Even in places where strength doesn't matter (like inside), metal is used in preference to plastic, fiberglass in preference to metal and carbon fiber in preference to fiberglass.
And for those who are skeptical about the 60mpg, Canadian gallons are 25% larger than American ones. So that's 48mpg US, not odd for that car. The Geo Metro XFi got 55mpg US (highway), or 69mpg Imperial (Canadian).
13 gallon tank of gas at $3/gallon lets say.
That's $39/600 miles, or $0.065/mile. If you had a gasoline car, you'd probably get more like 400 miles per tank (that's at 31mpg, the rated value, your rated is 46mpg and you say you get that), or $0.0975/mile.
So, that means that you save 3.2 cents per mile.
The premium you pay to get that Diesel engine is $1600. So, after a mere 50,000 miles you'll break even, if maintenance costs aren't higher (which they are, a bit).
Of course, in California, Diesel currently costs $3.50 (versus about $3 for gas), so it'd cost you $45.50/600 miles, or 0.0758 cents per mile, thus saving you a whopping one cent per mile, and taking 160,000 miles to get your money back, assuming maintenance and repairs don't wipe you out completely.
Does Diesel cost more than regular gas in your state too?
And meanwhile, you're dumping more pollutants (especially particulates) in our air. Pardon me if I don't jump for joy.
You just use a different kind of VDM.
When Xerox invented "rooms" (first virtual desktop), it was similar to this. And early multi windowed desktop managers like vtwm or HP's version were exactly like this. vtwm and HP's implementations did not connect screens at the edges.
So it would suggest it is more likely this was written by someone who used a VDM, but not the one you are used to.
That says they have no ability to tax or regulate interstate commerce?
The supreme law of the land does mean something, you know.
The 7800 series of video cards.
I own a 6800 Ultra and a 7800 GT (not GTX). Both are about the same speed (the 7800 GT is slightly faster). But the difference in power consumption is enormous.
Do not consider a 6800 series. They are just too large and too hot. NVidia knew this a while back, the 7800 series is actually a further development/refinement of the 6600, not the 6800. NVidia seemed to know the 6800 had many undesireable characteristics a long time ago.
I have to say I'm in no way a fan of SLI either, but that's a personal thing.
I'd highly recommend you get a single 7800 GTX, it performs as well as two 6800 Ultras in most situations. And there's no SLI hassle, no need for a huge power supply.
I replaced my 3.0GHz P4 (Northwood, I think, not the 31 pipeline stage versions) with an Athlon X2 4200+. Now, the Athlon does run somewhat cooler, but honestly, difference is not astounding. The Athlon is a lot more powerful though, but then again, it's almost 3 years newer than my Intel processor. Short version: I think you're barking up the wrong tree blaming P4 for people getting enormous power supplies. My work machine is a 3.2GHz Prescott P4, and it has a 300W power supply and has no problems. A big CPU (like my P4 or Athlon X2) will be rated at max between 85 and 110W (both my P4 and X2 are rated at 89W, Athlon X2 4400+ and up are rated at 110W, Intel's dual-core EE actually hits like 130W though). 110W isn't the problem. What's taking a lot of power is fancy video cards (like my 6800 Ultra), dual video cards or (as you say), people's imagination.
I mean, a fancy video card could take 80W. So I have 160W in my CPU+GPU, perhaps 40W in mass storage (HDs go about 15W each), and I'm sure there's a fair bit of "misc". If you add all that up, you get, what, 250W, 300W? And that's with a monster video card. People are just buying way too much power supply. Either that, or they're putting 11 HDs in their machines (don't joke, I saw a guy buying a case the other day that could do that, and my new motherboard could run 12 drives with no add-in cards!). I run my 6800 Ultra/P4 3.0GHz machine just fine on an Antec 380W PS.
BTW, I think you're overamping Seasonic a bit here. I'm not saying they are bad power supplies, quite the opposite. But It's near impossible to make a power supply that would cut off on a given load with 1% accuracy. And even if you could, testing it would be tough. SilentPCReview (good PS reviewers, and fans of the Seasonic) found out they were 5% off on their loadings on high end power supplies. So, even if Seasonic had worked a miracle here, SPCR couldn't have detected it.
I'd have a Seasonic S12-430 (although some think the 500 is more efficient, even at light loads) in my machine right now, except I just bought a new Antec Sonata II case, which came with a nice, silent power supply. So I'm saving my money and sticking with what I got. But if one hadn't been bundled, I'd have a Seasonic for sure.
The screens that are cracking in this case are the LCD module inside the iPod nano, not the polycarbonate plastic sheet over it. I know this because it is when the glass (yes, glass) inside the LCD breaks is when you hear people describe that simultaneous with the display cracking also the pixels stopped responding on one side of the crack (or both). Also, people are saying the LCD cracked on them, with "no external damage". This they are referring to a crack inside the unit, not on the polycarbonate cover.
Honestly, it's by far the most common problem I've had with LCDs. I've broken LCDs in both pagers and cellphones in this same fashion (LCD glass broken, not outside plastic). And I'm sure most people have has similar experiences.
So, you're way off. They cannot be the same issue.
As to perhaps the scratches problem itself is due to hardener, I agree it is possible. But having scratched a few iPods in my day also (including a nano), I have to believe Apple's story here. It's no different than the others except perhaps that since the screen is so small and the pixel density so high, scratches matter more than they have in the past.
But it isn't actually higher than the Antec recommended. SilentPCReview had decided it was, but has since written a large article about how their measurements overestimated the efficiency of high capacity power supplies, like the Seasonic 500W.
/. seem to think the Phantom is fanless. Like perhaps they didn't even read the article. The article mentions it has a fan IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
They're both high efficency, quiet power supplies. The Antec fails the regulation specs on the 3.3V line, so perhaps that's a reason to buy the Seasonic. Otherwise, it's really a toss up. Take your pick.
Say, did you even read about the Antec 500W anyway? It actually has a fan, it is thermistor controlled. At regular useage levels, it doesn't turn the fan on at all. Sound familiar? The Antec fan is located on the inside of the machine, not at the back. So you won't hear it. I do agree in general a 120mm fan is better than an 80mm, but in this case, you won't hear either of them, unless perhaps you don't have hard drives in your machine and thus it is truly silent.
Kinda weird. Many responses on
Actually, in most portable devices the display refreshes itself anyway, to save power. So the CPU can be stopped or even turned off when the screen isn't being updated already. So the only power being consumed is by the LCD. And LCDs are very power efficient, as anyone who has used a digital watch or similar thing can attest. eInk does remove this additional power consumption, if you don't need to change anything on the screen and don't wave the device around too much, it will retain what is on the display with no power at all.
Also, a PIC is not necessarily a good choice for this setup. Microchip (makers of the PIC) are really best at making true microcontrollers. Microcontrollers don't have any external bus, which limits your total memory in the system to the internal memory. PICs do have a decent amount of memory, but this amount of memory would rapidly be gobbled up just holding the frame buffer for this screen and the bitmapped fonts. An ARM 7 is the most likely candidate for a device using this type of screen, and it probably already has one in the eInk.
eInk does look great, the display is much like paper in that it uses reflected light well, and works from any angle. So it is quite readable.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay /fs17a_overview.htm
It appears the minimum pay for an exempt employee is $23,660/year.
I went through the remote terminal phase twice now. Sort of 2.5. Once with TTYs, once with X terminals and sort of with the Citrix rage in the early 90s.
Now more than ever it makes no sense to have a thin client. The hardware required to do computing locally is so cheap now it makes no sense not to use it. To farm out all your work to the (remote PC|remote Unix X machine|Citrix box|mainframe) just doesn't work well for me.
Some day perhaps these systems will be brought to fruition with a system which does a lot of work locally and only makes sure everything is backed up remotely, instead of keeping all the data remotely and going through a narrow pipe to access it.
I have the largest iPod made, a 2G 20GB (thick one).
It is 4.01"x2.43"x0.875".
The total volume of the largest iPod made is 8.525 cubic inches.
The total volume of the OQO is 15 cubic inches.
So the OQO is about twice the size of the largest iPod made, let alone the average one.
So, the OQO is about the size of an iPod if a Ford F150 is about the size of a Civic.
It's for exempt (salaried) employees. It has always been that way. I know it isn't required, that's why I said "Most American companies at least pretend to have comp time." I would have though that was pretty damn CYA, but I guess not enough for slashdot.
Hourly workers are more protected against having to work unpaid overtime than salaried workers are, by far.
Most American companies at least pretend to have comp time, which is paid vacation days for OT. Most follow though a lot less than 100% though.
Sounds like a great company. Not sure what it has to do with leaving the US though. Are Americans known to me more inhumane to each other?
It sounds like you are at a small company. I hope things don't go badly for you when your company ends up being taken over by Vivendi or Take Two. Faceless corporations tend to suck, no matter what nationality.
The problem of scratched bus windows is far from solved. I rarely see a bus/train window that doesn't have some initials scratched into it.
Apple should probably should have hard-coated the iPod nano, like Sony hard-coated the PSP. But since Apple has been making iPods without hard coat for 3 years now, it seems a little strange people are acting now like it's a surprise an iPod is scratchable.
Apple can't use a sapphire screen insert because the iPod (except the mini) has no screen insert. Cell phones do, as a rule. This would require the iPod have a visible seam around the display, and apparently they aren't willing to do that.
First race was 1989, as far as I know and every 3 years since.
So I don't get your rant here.
These cars are very impractical. I'm not saying some of the technology can't be used in street cars. But to use these vehicles day to day would basically entail getting rid of traffic lights for starters, because their acceleration characteristics are so poor.
As to lighter cars, if you want lighter cars, you have to start elsewhere. The biggest factor in the weight of current cars is safety and safety-based regulations. Oh, and did I mention these vehicles aren't at all safe?
Why do you speak of electrical outlets in relation to solar cars? Sunlight is wireless.
In equivalent energy.
Thats a US gallon, and I guess that would mean it's about 2/3rds of a liter equivalent.
You say the point of mass transit is to carry more people without clogging the streets. You then suggest that a monorail would do that while a bus does not.
But later on you suggest the trolleys in Portland are a great example of mass transit.
How do you reconcile this? Trolleys close the roads worse than buses, whether using their own lane (which could be used for cars) or sharing a lane.
A monorail might carry more people, it depends on the schedules of the buses and cars It's sure not a given.
Personally, I think light rail (trolleys) are a great example of terrible mass transit. Since they go through regular car intersections, they suffer from congestion as bad as cars, and they stop all the time. The net result is a system of mass transit which is vastly inferior to a car. So that limits your ridership almost exclusively to people who cannot drive.
Subways, like Toronto's system are great. Properly installed, they sail by traffic and are actually more convenient and rapid than driving.
Additionally, why do you complain about hidden subsidies for cars as hiding the real costs of driving? It's not like fare show the real cost of mass transit either. Few mass transit systems are completely funded from the farebox.
Personally, I think that monotrails, especially the Disney-type are a dumb idea. Regular rails would be better. And if you don't like the noise of regular rails, use rubber tires like Montreal does. At least with all these systems you remain with largely proven and cheap to operate technology.
I didn't think of it, someone else on here did.
But it's clearly worthy. Go back and watch it. Some episodes did suck a bit, but overall, the show was incredibly foresightful about the growth of the news media and television in general.
Edison Carter: "Since when is news entertainment?"
his editor: "Since the beginning."
And definitely "The Time Tunnel" would have to be mentioned before you even think of "Sliders".
If "Man from U.N.C.L.E", "The Avengers" and "The Prisoner" make it because of gadgets, then "Get Smart" should be there too. It had way more gadgets.