I already have the equipment, and many others already do too.
I stopped buying movies on DVD and started watching them on HBO because DVD looks like crap next to the signal I get from satellite, cable or even with the antenna I stick up in the air. Why would I buy a movie today when I know I'll want to rebuy it soon when it is finally available in good quality?
The lack of on-demand viewing of HD movies (i.e. DVDs) is hurting HD adoption significantly. And in the case of some people (like myself) it is hurting DVD sales.
Videodisc lasted 10 years. It was well accepted amongst those who cared about video or audio quality. I have no idea why people use it as an example of a failure.
For example, look at the Apple example below. Scroll south from the empty space, down De Anza until you see where CA-85 should be. It's not there. Now follow CA-85 SE to Saratoga road.
You see there that the pictures turn color, CA-85 appears and are MUCH higher res than google's pictures. People see planes in Google's pictures? You can see people walking in and out of the rides at EPCOT in MSN's pictures.
MSN earth just started up. Give them time to get all the latest pics in.
It is a ballistic barf trajectory. But that trajectory is toward the floor of the car.
You think since the car is being driven by gravity it can't pull over faster than gravity (9.8m/s^2)? That's incorrect. The extra speed it is created by the speed the car is carrying, and the turn in the track.
Let me put it this way. If the car were going 5,000m/s on an inverted straight track (a flat section, only the car is upside down), and the track turned downward (upward in track reference), the car would be accelerating downward a lot faster than 9.8m/s^2. Let's say the corner is tight enough that negotiating the turn takes 1s. So, entering the turn, the car has a 0 m/s downward vector. After the turn, it has a 5,000m/s downward vector (assuming no energy lost). It gained that 5,000m/s in the time it took to turn, 1 second. So it accelerated downward at 5,000m/s^2.
Now, that's an extreme case, and the track would fly apart before you could do it, but it shows that your assumption that you cannot go down faster than gravity with power assist is false.
And if you accelerate downward at 5,000m/s^2, and gravity only accelerates the vomit (which is not attached to the track, it is in free-fall) at 9.8m/s^2, then the car out-accelerates the vomit and the vomit would fall to the floor and stay there throughout the turn.
Either a lockout or a strike occurs when the management and workers cannot work out a new deal. It doesn't mean one side isn't talking, merely that both sides aren't talking each other's languages.
A strike occurs when the employees refuse to continue working under the current contract until the new one is worked out. A lockout occurs when the management refuses to employ the workers under the current contract until the new one is worked out.
The reason the employees would refuse to work under the current deal is because they think the current contract isn't good enough for them and that perhaps the management might benefit from stalling on making a new deal so that they could continue to pay the employees under the old deal.
The reason the management would refuse to continue the current contract is because they think the current contract isn't good enough for them and that perhaps the employees might benefit from stalling on making a new deal so that they could continue to be paided under the old deal.
So, here's the payoff: the significant difference between a strike is which side the current contract is perceived to favor. If it's the employees, you get a strike. If it's the management, you get a lockout. And that's the entire difference.
For example, in the NHL, it was widely felt that the next contract would be far less favorable to the workers (players). The players thus didn't really negotiate significantly. Instead, they knew that if they simply continued to fail to reach an agreement, the current contract would be extended and they would be paid under the older, more favorable contract.
So, there's not a big difference between the two. And it doesn't have as much to do with who is ready to negotiate as it does the terms in the current contract and who they favor.
And going beyond that, a lockout is much more likely to occur when the workers are not trying to negotiate a deal than when the "management refuses to talk to them at all" as the parent poster says. Mangement has plenty of reason to talk in a potential lockout situation, because they are the ones who feel they stand to benefit most once a new contract is in place and so they'd like to get it done as soon as possible (not without sacrificing their terms, of course).
Bluetooth and WiFi are not standard on other machines (think Dell). DVD-writers are not standard on other machines. Gobs of RAM isn't standard on other machines, although I would say on average you do get more than 256MB standard, 512MB is probably more normal as a base configuration on Apple's competitors.
Apple does offer *really good* video cards too. Apple offers the X800XT and 6800 GT video cards. They don't offer the 6800 Ultra, but I have to say, as an owner of a 6800 Ultra myself, I'm not sure I find that a big deal. I sure don't recommend any of my friends buy 6800 Ultras, even when it was the top of the line. It's just too hot, too expensive and too loud.
I do agree completely about your iDVD complaint. Now that iDVD costs money (part of iLife), it should support drives that didn't come specifically from Apple. I understood that when it was bundled in with machines, but now it should support 3rd party burners on par with bundled burners.
If it said "unprecedented sensitivity", I'd be with you. But it doesn't. the sentence talks of the unprecedented accuracy of determination of location and speed of motion, etc. It doesn't necessarily mean that quieter sounds than before were heard, merely that they were correlated better.
For other discussions of the difference between sensitivity and accuracy (resolution), see any of the discussions about whether or not we should keep the Hubble space telescope.
But it covers creating the relationships on the fly, and communicating the image from end to end. A ligature (which To isn't) is communicated to the other end with a single representational symbol, but the actual data it represents is not communicated.
If when you sent a ligature over a connection the sender sent a pixmap representing the appearance of the ligature the first time it sent it across, then this might apply. But instead, the sender just assumes the recipient already knows how to render the symbol and just sends the symbol across.
So ligatures aren't prior art for this patent. At least, not the kind of prior art that busts the patent.
I measured the office fridge/freezer, a 500L or so unit against a 6L thermoelectric fridge. Both ran for 23 hours, 30 minutes (sorry, 24 hours ended at an inconvenient time).
The office fridge used 1.66KWh in 23.5 hours. That's 619KWh/year (non-leap). Although it would probably be a bit less than that because the fridge is opened less (and less cold lost) on the weekends.
The thermoelectric fridge used 1.50 KWh in 23.5 hours. That's 559KWh/year (non-leap). It would also be a bit less since the fridge isn't opened on the weekends.
Again, remember the full-size fridge is cooling 80X the volume, and 1/3rd of that space is kept at about 20F, not 45F. It also makes ice.
I still wish I could have found a cube fridge to compare. but that's life.
I personally feel this shows how incredibly impractical thermoelectric cooling is in fridge-sized applications. In a car A/C, which is much bigger than even the large fridge here, it is completely untenable.
They specify a 15 amp outlet? A 15 amp outlet is a regular outlet. Why do you say it specifies a 15A outlet? Why should I care it specifies a 15A outlet? I've got one every 3 feet on the wall.
I'm currently testing (with my Kill-A-Watts) two fridges at work, one a 6L capacity Peltier and the other an approx 500L capacity regular fridge/freezer. (I wanted to use a cube fridge for the comparison, but my coworker got rid of his). I'll run them for 24 hours, but as of about 9 hours, the regular 500L fridge/freezer was on track to use about 1.1KWh in a day, and the 6L Peltier about 1.0KWh.
So the stand-up fridge uses about 10% more energy to cool 80X the space. Oh, and again, it is keeping about 1/3rd of its volume at below freezing, not 45F. And if you mean compared to a cube fridge, it's using 10% more power to cool 5X the space. And again, a portion of that area is not only well below 45F, but cold enough to make ice (freezing releases a lot of heat).
Also, I did dig up one thing, my home fridge, which has an 800L capacity used 5.8KWh of power in 5 days when I measured it a while back.
In your mention of the power taken by a fridge, the fridge I measured at work took only 145W when on, not 400W or 600W. I'm sure it takes a bit more sometimes, but not 600W.
When you say an ideal Peltier compares favorably, you are greatly mistaken. As you your comments about compressors being inefficient, you are insane. I've put a lot of numbers up there. How you can say that cooling 80X the space with 10% more power is inefficient I cannot understand.
I don't get your six-pack comparison. I'll say this, the Peltier will take 12 hours or more to cool a six-pack from room temperature to the 45F it rests at. The cube fridge wouldn't take over 3.
I'll have more numbers tomorrow, but to me, the story is already told. The fridge in the break room at work uses 10% more power than the Peltier in a coworkers office, and it cools 80X the space, and cools 1/3rd of that space well below the lowest temperature the Peltier can even reach at full bore. And I could put 10 of the Peltier fridges into the big fridge. I mean the entire Peltier fridges, not just the interior space equivalent. And I still would still have the freezer space to use for ice cream.
You can get a 44 quart thermoelectric cooler from target.com. A cube fridge is 48 liters, which is 50 quarts or so. Thus they are very comparable in size.
Also note, as I noted below, that watts is instantaneous power, not energy. This matters because while a cube fridge will turn off most of the time, the Peltier has to run continuously just to stay as cool as it is.
I measured my house fridge (800L volume) with my Kill-A-Watt. Over 5 days, it took 5.8KWh. That's under 50W/h. So I can run my house fridge to cool 800L (1/3rd of which is freezer) for only 25% more power than this Peltier cooler, which can't even make ice in an 8L space.
Yes, the smaller unit takes less than 120 watts. Actually, it takes less than 40 watts.
But that's just instantaneous power.
Why does this matter? Because the cube fridge actually SHUTS OFF. When it reaches its target temperature, it turns off, it probably runs with a 5% duty cycle. The Peltier device works so poorly, it had to run constantly just to keep the device cold.
And again, the cube fridge gets much colder and cools an 8X larger space.
I don't think a cube fridge uses 1KW, I can't be truly sure, I don't have one here to plug into my Kill-A-Watt. Maybe I'll take the Kill-A-Watt to work and put it on a coworker's cube fridge. But 1KW is over half the power available on a regular 15A circuit, and I don't think that a 15A circuit will blow if you plug in two cube fridges to it (and they both come on at once). For that matter, I don't think my fridge in my kitchen used 1KW. But I can't find my spreadsheet with that info in it from when I measured it. Oh well.
Essentially all cars make less power at lower revs than at higher revs. Why? Because HP is torque (in ft/lbs.) * RPMs / 5252. If you cut the revs in half you cut the HP in half unless you double the torque. And you didn't.
But I'll say this, if that car makes 100HP at 2500 RPMs, it makes more than 50HP at 2000RPMs.
But anyway, who cares? The post you responded to said "a couple KW". Let's say 3KW. That's 4HP. Even if you car is only making 50HP, losing 4HP isn't going to put you out too badly.
Note that it takes a pitifully small amount of power to accelerate a car under normal conditions. A regular-speed acceleration can be executed with under 50HP, of course depending on the weight of the car.
And it's cooling a much SMALLER space. The cube fridge cools over 1 cubic foot of space. The Coolerator is cooling an area the volume of just over two six-packs.
And Coolerators are insulated, they are built in the chassis of a regular cooler. Coolers are obviously insulated, it's the reason people buy them instead of using a plastic storage box. Who would build a cooler that wasn't insulated? That'd just be insane. Even if you did it and made it work, your competitor would make an insulated version, ditch 3/4 of the expensive eletronic cooler doodads and kick your ass in the marketplace by undercutting your price by 50% and still selling at higher margins.
Read the other threads, not just this one. Peltiers are very poor. They just don't move enough energy for any given power consumption. In fact, since the energy you put in also turns to heat and you put it in right next to the "cold side", it often ends up heating up the thing you wanted to cool instead of cooling it down.
Coworker has a device like at the link. The only good thing about it is it is quiet.
Look at the size of it. Does that look as large as a cube fridge to you? Other links will tell you it has about a 6-liter capacity. One cubic foot is 28 liters. And cube fridges are over 1 cubic foot. Again, see link. 1.7 cu. ft. That's 48 liters. 8 times the size of the thermoelectric fridge.
It's moved, not removed. A/C moves heat from one place to another. The energy it takes to do this is actually all just lost as heat and works against you if exhausted in the wrong place.
It is easy to move more energy than you consume. A Peltier can't do it, but a phase-change A/C can do it many times over.
If A/C actually REMOVED heat, it would be putting energy back into the wall through the plug. It doesn't do that.
Peltiers do not work very well and are not as efficient as a phase-change (freon-type) system. You can prove this to yourself by buying a Peltier-based portable cooler at Target (they've been available for 20 years, search for "coolerator") and a $99 phase-change based cube fridge. The Peltier can barely get a six-pack to 35 (F), the cube fridge can make ice in a 1+ cubic-foot space.
This is just total bunk. The only way it saves energy is by not cooling as much.
Honestly, I think that the only threat to phase-change systems in small systems is sonic cooling. It could be more efficient, require less maintenance and have less environmental impact than a phrase-change system.
Evaporative systems are nice too, especially for large installations, but don't work for getting much below ambient.
It's just wrapped so the left meets the right and put in a circle.
Electronegativity is there, you're just not looking at it right I guess.
This table adds one more thing, it relates the numbers to electron shells even more explicitly than the other chart. The shells are there, they are the circles in the galaxy, they're even in the correct order they are filled, from inside to out.
But that having been said, this chart is a loser in my book. It doesn't add much to the other table. And most imporantly, it's like 95% non-information. Which means you have to print it huge just to see any information at a glance at all.
I can't see how this chart is going to supplant the current chart, which has nearly the same informative content in 1/20th the space.
You do have to get the stuff there, both the corn mash in and the ethanol out. Plus you have to get the fuel there too. And you have to grow the corn in the first place (fertilizer, fuel to run equipment, costs of irrigation).
And the plant does cost money, and it does require maintenance.
Remember, you are supposed to measure the total cost of producing the ethanol versus not doing so. Some of the numbers I saw in a rebuttal said that the ethanol came out ahead by 10% on average. That's not much in my book. It'll be tough to become much less energy dependent with a 10% clearance between the energy used and the energy produced. The same numbers said the best methods of producing the corn/corn mash allowed a 30% clearance. That's pretty decent, but it would require some effort to get the corn-growing industry up to a more efficient level.
And I don't believe private pensions (i.e. employee benefits) are as big in Germany because the government pays a lot bigger pension (like our Social Security) of course they pay for it with higher taxes. The government cut this pension quite a bit 2-3 years ago, which surely hurt pensioners.
Windows has many distros. 95,98,2000,XP,Server 2003. Several of these distros don't have IIS at all. Some of these distros have versions. XP has regular, SP1, SP1a and SP2 versions.
You seem relatively smart, yet you can make a mistake of not differentiating the versions/distros of and OS, instead using a generic term. Yet you say others who make murky assertions about Linux are full of horseshit. Why not be understanding and see that others can easily make the same mistakes you do?
"Uses demand paged virtual memory"! "Boosts priorities to overcome CPU hogging." "has a program named backup" "Supports SMP" "heavily dependent on memory-mapped files"
And how come when Linux is accused of being stolen, the answer is "kernels are easy to write" (see posts up above), but when both VMS and NT have some similar aspects, it's clearly because one is stolen.
This is ridiculous. I know the writers of NT learned from VMS, but it's not a ripoff, far from it.
IE and IIS patches are usually counted in the Windows lists.
As to Office, sharepoint, Office (nice one), Project, all MS games and SQL server, I have NONE of those things on my machine, same as many others. They do cost money, and many people don't have them. So why should they be counted as Windows problems?
Counting the bugs in bundled games like Minesweeper and Hearts is fair game. But counting Age of Empires doesn't make any sense.
We can rank the vulnurabilities in non-bundled games separately. I'll get started on the 50,000 Windows games, while you do Tux Racer and Quake 3. Okay?
I'm told MP2 is better at higher bitrates than MP3 is. That the extra layer 3 stuff doesn't help at higher bitrates and actually hurts.
True? I dunno.
As to the comments about OGG avoiding the MP3 patents, I have a couple things.
First, at a very low level, all MP3s are VBR. It uses a "bit reservoir", and how you deplete the bit reservoir can be optimized by multi-pass recording. VBR does not preclude multi-pass encoding, nor does it even help you maintain a noise floor level any differently than multi-pass with a bit reservoir does.
The 2nd point sounds interesting to me, it does seem like it avoids that aspect of the Fraunhofer patent.
But in the end, I can't go into this in detail, but Fraunhofer seems to think their patents cover OGG, and when you're trying to get an mp3 license, this is an issue. Are they correct? Are they using illegal means? I'm not sure it matters, it definitely puts the chill on commercial OGG support.
I use over-the-air digital TV, and having used it, no one who even looked at the two would want to stick with analog. I'm 50 miles away from San Francisco and I get perfect video, without even mounting an antenna on my roof (it's inside my attic).
I think the government probably needs to nudge people a bit, because older people who would benefit most (they like TV with no monthly fee) won't even look at the new stuff unless the government gets involved.
My only real concern with digital TV is that broadcasters seem to want to compress the hell out of the main channel so they can put in additional channels full of news, weather or infomercials. So instead of 1 good looking SD channel, or 1 good looking HD channel, I get 1 crappy looking SD channel and 3 more crappy-looking channels of junk.
The Pixma series are completely square, and can even be backed up against a wall and still work.
If you don't mind not using the top feed (it has a top and front feed), you can put stuff on top of it too. My mother puts hers in a shelving unit, it's only accessible from one side (the front), but works great. She has to take it out to change ink cartridges or whatever, but you don't do that too often on a Canon.
Check it out, go to the link below and click the text that says "Click here to see how the new PIXMA dual paper path works."
Slashdot Mirror
I already have the equipment, and many others already do too.
I stopped buying movies on DVD and started watching them on HBO because DVD looks like crap next to the signal I get from satellite, cable or even with the antenna I stick up in the air. Why would I buy a movie today when I know I'll want to rebuy it soon when it is finally available in good quality?
The lack of on-demand viewing of HD movies (i.e. DVDs) is hurting HD adoption significantly. And in the case of some people (like myself) it is hurting DVD sales.
Videodisc lasted 10 years. It was well accepted amongst those who cared about video or audio quality. I have no idea why people use it as an example of a failure.
For example, look at the Apple example below. Scroll south from the empty space, down De Anza until you see where CA-85 should be. It's not there. Now follow CA-85 SE to Saratoga road.
You see there that the pictures turn color, CA-85 appears and are MUCH higher res than google's pictures. People see planes in Google's pictures? You can see people walking in and out of the rides at EPCOT in MSN's pictures.
MSN earth just started up. Give them time to get all the latest pics in.
It is a ballistic barf trajectory. But that trajectory is toward the floor of the car.
You think since the car is being driven by gravity it can't pull over faster than gravity (9.8m/s^2)? That's incorrect. The extra speed it is created by the speed the car is carrying, and the turn in the track.
Let me put it this way. If the car were going 5,000m/s on an inverted straight track (a flat section, only the car is upside down), and the track turned downward (upward in track reference), the car would be accelerating downward a lot faster than 9.8m/s^2. Let's say the corner is tight enough that negotiating the turn takes 1s. So, entering the turn, the car has a 0 m/s downward vector. After the turn, it has a 5,000m/s downward vector (assuming no energy lost). It gained that 5,000m/s in the time it took to turn, 1 second. So it accelerated downward at 5,000m/s^2.
Now, that's an extreme case, and the track would fly apart before you could do it, but it shows that your assumption that you cannot go down faster than gravity with power assist is false.
And if you accelerate downward at 5,000m/s^2, and gravity only accelerates the vomit (which is not attached to the track, it is in free-fall) at 9.8m/s^2, then the car out-accelerates the vomit and the vomit would fall to the floor and stay there throughout the turn.
Either a lockout or a strike occurs when the management and workers cannot work out a new deal. It doesn't mean one side isn't talking, merely that both sides aren't talking each other's languages.
A strike occurs when the employees refuse to continue working under the current contract until the new one is worked out. A lockout occurs when the management refuses to employ the workers under the current contract until the new one is worked out.
The reason the employees would refuse to work under the current deal is because they think the current contract isn't good enough for them and that perhaps the management might benefit from stalling on making a new deal so that they could continue to pay the employees under the old deal.
The reason the management would refuse to continue the current contract is because they think the current contract isn't good enough for them and that perhaps the employees might benefit from stalling on making a new deal so that they could continue to be paided under the old deal.
So, here's the payoff: the significant difference between a strike is which side the current contract is perceived to favor. If it's the employees, you get a strike. If it's the management, you get a lockout. And that's the entire difference.
For example, in the NHL, it was widely felt that the next contract would be far less favorable to the workers (players). The players thus didn't really negotiate significantly. Instead, they knew that if they simply continued to fail to reach an agreement, the current contract would be extended and they would be paid under the older, more favorable contract.
So, there's not a big difference between the two. And it doesn't have as much to do with who is ready to negotiate as it does the terms in the current contract and who they favor.
And going beyond that, a lockout is much more likely to occur when the workers are not trying to negotiate a deal than when the "management refuses to talk to them at all" as the parent poster says. Mangement has plenty of reason to talk in a potential lockout situation, because they are the ones who feel they stand to benefit most once a new contract is in place and so they'd like to get it done as soon as possible (not without sacrificing their terms, of course).
Bluetooth and WiFi are not standard on other machines (think Dell). DVD-writers are not standard on other machines. Gobs of RAM isn't standard on other machines, although I would say on average you do get more than 256MB standard, 512MB is probably more normal as a base configuration on Apple's competitors.
Apple does offer *really good* video cards too. Apple offers the X800XT and 6800 GT video cards. They don't offer the 6800 Ultra, but I have to say, as an owner of a 6800 Ultra myself, I'm not sure I find that a big deal. I sure don't recommend any of my friends buy 6800 Ultras, even when it was the top of the line. It's just too hot, too expensive and too loud.
I do agree completely about your iDVD complaint. Now that iDVD costs money (part of iLife), it should support drives that didn't come specifically from Apple. I understood that when it was bundled in with machines, but now it should support 3rd party burners on par with bundled burners.
If it said "unprecedented sensitivity", I'd be with you. But it doesn't. the sentence talks of the unprecedented accuracy of determination of location and speed of motion, etc. It doesn't necessarily mean that quieter sounds than before were heard, merely that they were correlated better.
For other discussions of the difference between sensitivity and accuracy (resolution), see any of the discussions about whether or not we should keep the Hubble space telescope.
I don't like this patent either.
But it covers creating the relationships on the fly, and communicating the image from end to end. A ligature (which To isn't) is communicated to the other end with a single representational symbol, but the actual data it represents is not communicated.
If when you sent a ligature over a connection the sender sent a pixmap representing the appearance of the ligature the first time it sent it across, then this might apply. But instead, the sender just assumes the recipient already knows how to render the symbol and just sends the symbol across.
So ligatures aren't prior art for this patent. At least, not the kind of prior art that busts the patent.
I measured the office fridge/freezer, a 500L or so unit against a 6L thermoelectric fridge. Both ran for 23 hours, 30 minutes (sorry, 24 hours ended at an inconvenient time).
The office fridge used 1.66KWh in 23.5 hours. That's 619KWh/year (non-leap). Although it would probably be a bit less than that because the fridge is opened less (and less cold lost) on the weekends.
The thermoelectric fridge used 1.50 KWh in 23.5 hours. That's 559KWh/year (non-leap). It would also be a bit less since the fridge isn't opened on the weekends.
Again, remember the full-size fridge is cooling 80X the volume, and 1/3rd of that space is kept at about 20F, not 45F. It also makes ice.
I still wish I could have found a cube fridge to compare. but that's life.
I personally feel this shows how incredibly impractical thermoelectric cooling is in fridge-sized applications. In a car A/C, which is much bigger than even the large fridge here, it is completely untenable.
They specify a 15 amp outlet? A 15 amp outlet is a regular outlet. Why do you say it specifies a 15A outlet? Why should I care it specifies a 15A outlet? I've got one every 3 feet on the wall.
I'm currently testing (with my Kill-A-Watts) two fridges at work, one a 6L capacity Peltier and the other an approx 500L capacity regular fridge/freezer. (I wanted to use a cube fridge for the comparison, but my coworker got rid of his). I'll run them for 24 hours, but as of about 9 hours, the regular 500L fridge/freezer was on track to use about 1.1KWh in a day, and the 6L Peltier about 1.0KWh.
So the stand-up fridge uses about 10% more energy to cool 80X the space. Oh, and again, it is keeping about 1/3rd of its volume at below freezing, not 45F. And if you mean compared to a cube fridge, it's using 10% more power to cool 5X the space. And again, a portion of that area is not only well below 45F, but cold enough to make ice (freezing releases a lot of heat).
Also, I did dig up one thing, my home fridge, which has an 800L capacity used 5.8KWh of power in 5 days when I measured it a while back.
In your mention of the power taken by a fridge, the fridge I measured at work took only 145W when on, not 400W or 600W. I'm sure it takes a bit more sometimes, but not 600W.
When you say an ideal Peltier compares favorably, you are greatly mistaken. As you your comments about compressors being inefficient, you are insane. I've put a lot of numbers up there. How you can say that cooling 80X the space with 10% more power is inefficient I cannot understand.
I don't get your six-pack comparison. I'll say this, the Peltier will take 12 hours or more to cool a six-pack from room temperature to the 45F it rests at. The cube fridge wouldn't take over 3.
I'll have more numbers tomorrow, but to me, the story is already told. The fridge in the break room at work uses 10% more power than the Peltier in a coworkers office, and it cools 80X the space, and cools 1/3rd of that space well below the lowest temperature the Peltier can even reach at full bore. And I could put 10 of the Peltier fridges into the big fridge. I mean the entire Peltier fridges, not just the interior space equivalent. And I still would still have the freezer space to use for ice cream.
You can get a 44 quart thermoelectric cooler from target.com. A cube fridge is 48 liters, which is 50 quarts or so. Thus they are very comparable in size.
Also note, as I noted below, that watts is instantaneous power, not energy. This matters because while a cube fridge will turn off most of the time, the Peltier has to run continuously just to stay as cool as it is.
I measured my house fridge (800L volume) with my Kill-A-Watt. Over 5 days, it took 5.8KWh. That's under 50W/h. So I can run my house fridge to cool 800L (1/3rd of which is freezer) for only 25% more power than this Peltier cooler, which can't even make ice in an 8L space.
Yes, the smaller unit takes less than 120 watts. Actually, it takes less than 40 watts.
But that's just instantaneous power.
Why does this matter? Because the cube fridge actually SHUTS OFF. When it reaches its target temperature, it turns off, it probably runs with a 5% duty cycle. The Peltier device works so poorly, it had to run constantly just to keep the device cold.
And again, the cube fridge gets much colder and cools an 8X larger space.
I don't think a cube fridge uses 1KW, I can't be truly sure, I don't have one here to plug into my Kill-A-Watt. Maybe I'll take the Kill-A-Watt to work and put it on a coworker's cube fridge. But 1KW is over half the power available on a regular 15A circuit, and I don't think that a 15A circuit will blow if you plug in two cube fridges to it (and they both come on at once). For that matter, I don't think my fridge in my kitchen used 1KW. But I can't find my spreadsheet with that info in it from when I measured it. Oh well.
Essentially all cars make less power at lower revs than at higher revs. Why? Because HP is torque (in ft/lbs.) * RPMs / 5252. If you cut the revs in half you cut the HP in half unless you double the torque. And you didn't.
But I'll say this, if that car makes 100HP at 2500 RPMs, it makes more than 50HP at 2000RPMs.
But anyway, who cares? The post you responded to said "a couple KW". Let's say 3KW. That's 4HP. Even if you car is only making 50HP, losing 4HP isn't going to put you out too badly.
Note that it takes a pitifully small amount of power to accelerate a car under normal conditions. A regular-speed acceleration can be executed with under 50HP, of course depending on the weight of the car.
And it's cooling a much SMALLER space. The cube fridge cools over 1 cubic foot of space. The Coolerator is cooling an area the volume of just over two six-packs.
7 071848?asin=B00008O384&AFID=k40132&AFID=SMX&ref=tg t_adv_XSD10000
1 21924434/ref=sr_2_3/602-0442749-7071848?_encoding= UTF8&asin=B0009EXXWO
And Coolerators are insulated, they are built in the chassis of a regular cooler. Coolers are obviously insulated, it's the reason people buy them instead of using a plastic storage box. Who would build a cooler that wasn't insulated? That'd just be insane. Even if you did it and made it work, your competitor would make an insulated version, ditch 3/4 of the expensive eletronic cooler doodads and kick your ass in the marketplace by undercutting your price by 50% and still selling at higher margins.
Read the other threads, not just this one. Peltiers are very poor. They just don't move enough energy for any given power consumption. In fact, since the energy you put in also turns to heat and you put it in right next to the "cold side", it often ends up heating up the thing you wanted to cool instead of cooling it down.
Coworker has a device like at the link. The only good thing about it is it is quiet.
http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/602-0442749-
Look at the size of it. Does that look as large as a cube fridge to you? Other links will tell you it has about a 6-liter capacity. One cubic foot is 28 liters. And cube fridges are over 1 cubic foot. Again, see link. 1.7 cu. ft. That's 48 liters. 8 times the size of the thermoelectric fridge.
http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/sr=2-3/qid=1
I did make a slight error, the first units were called Koolatrons, not coolerators. But both words are used now.
It's moved, not removed. A/C moves heat from one place to another. The energy it takes to do this is actually all just lost as heat and works against you if exhausted in the wrong place.
It is easy to move more energy than you consume. A Peltier can't do it, but a phase-change A/C can do it many times over.
If A/C actually REMOVED heat, it would be putting energy back into the wall through the plug. It doesn't do that.
Peltiers do not work very well and are not as efficient as a phase-change (freon-type) system. You can prove this to yourself by buying a Peltier-based portable cooler at Target (they've been available for 20 years, search for "coolerator") and a $99 phase-change based cube fridge. The Peltier can barely get a six-pack to 35 (F), the cube fridge can make ice in a 1+ cubic-foot space.
This is just total bunk. The only way it saves energy is by not cooling as much.
Honestly, I think that the only threat to phase-change systems in small systems is sonic cooling. It could be more efficient, require less maintenance and have less environmental impact than a phrase-change system.
Evaporative systems are nice too, especially for large installations, but don't work for getting much below ambient.
It's just wrapped so the left meets the right and put in a circle.
Electronegativity is there, you're just not looking at it right I guess.
This table adds one more thing, it relates the numbers to electron shells even more explicitly than the other chart. The shells are there, they are the circles in the galaxy, they're even in the correct order they are filled, from inside to out.
But that having been said, this chart is a loser in my book. It doesn't add much to the other table. And most imporantly, it's like 95% non-information. Which means you have to print it huge just to see any information at a glance at all.
I can't see how this chart is going to supplant the current chart, which has nearly the same informative content in 1/20th the space.
You do have to get the stuff there, both the corn mash in and the ethanol out. Plus you have to get the fuel there too. And you have to grow the corn in the first place (fertilizer, fuel to run equipment, costs of irrigation).
And the plant does cost money, and it does require maintenance.
Remember, you are supposed to measure the total cost of producing the ethanol versus not doing so. Some of the numbers I saw in a rebuttal said that the ethanol came out ahead by 10% on average. That's not much in my book. It'll be tough to become much less energy dependent with a 10% clearance between the energy used and the energy produced. The same numbers said the best methods of producing the corn/corn mash allowed a 30% clearance. That's pretty decent, but it would require some effort to get the corn-growing industry up to a more efficient level.
Incredible work. You're clearly one of the leaders in your field.
Like we have a great supply of here?
0 01-19e.htm
u lfs_Vol_0706.html.
Germany has their share of corporate scandals that hurt the average person.
http://www.neue-einheit.com/english/is/is2001/is2
And I don't believe private pensions (i.e. employee benefits) are as big in Germany because the government pays a lot bigger pension (like our Social Security) of course they pay for it with higher taxes. The government cut this pension quite a bit 2-3 years ago, which surely hurt pensioners.
Finally, you'd be more likely to drive a VW. Of course, VW is another of those totally angelic German companies you speak about http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bribery_Scandal_Eng
Windows has many distros. 95,98,2000,XP,Server 2003. Several of these distros don't have IIS at all. Some of these distros have versions. XP has regular, SP1, SP1a and SP2 versions.
You seem relatively smart, yet you can make a mistake of not differentiating the versions/distros of and OS, instead using a generic term. Yet you say others who make murky assertions about Linux are full of horseshit. Why not be understanding and see that others can easily make the same mistakes you do?
"Uses demand paged virtual memory"!
"Boosts priorities to overcome CPU hogging."
"has a program named backup"
"Supports SMP"
"heavily dependent on memory-mapped files"
And how come when Linux is accused of being stolen, the answer is "kernels are easy to write" (see posts up above), but when both VMS and NT have some similar aspects, it's clearly because one is stolen.
This is ridiculous. I know the writers of NT learned from VMS, but it's not a ripoff, far from it.
I don't think so.
IE and IIS patches are usually counted in the Windows lists.
As to Office, sharepoint, Office (nice one), Project, all MS games and SQL server, I have NONE of those things on my machine, same as many others. They do cost money, and many people don't have them. So why should they be counted as Windows problems?
Counting the bugs in bundled games like Minesweeper and Hearts is fair game. But counting Age of Empires doesn't make any sense.
We can rank the vulnurabilities in non-bundled games separately. I'll get started on the 50,000 Windows games, while you do Tux Racer and Quake 3. Okay?
I'm told MP2 is better at higher bitrates than MP3 is. That the extra layer 3 stuff doesn't help at higher bitrates and actually hurts.
True? I dunno.
As to the comments about OGG avoiding the MP3 patents, I have a couple things.
First, at a very low level, all MP3s are VBR. It uses a "bit reservoir", and how you deplete the bit reservoir can be optimized by multi-pass recording. VBR does not preclude multi-pass encoding, nor does it even help you maintain a noise floor level any differently than multi-pass with a bit reservoir does.
The 2nd point sounds interesting to me, it does seem like it avoids that aspect of the Fraunhofer patent.
But in the end, I can't go into this in detail, but Fraunhofer seems to think their patents cover OGG, and when you're trying to get an mp3 license, this is an issue. Are they correct? Are they using illegal means? I'm not sure it matters, it definitely puts the chill on commercial OGG support.
I use over-the-air digital TV, and having used it, no one who even looked at the two would want to stick with analog. I'm 50 miles away from San Francisco and I get perfect video, without even mounting an antenna on my roof (it's inside my attic).
I think the government probably needs to nudge people a bit, because older people who would benefit most (they like TV with no monthly fee) won't even look at the new stuff unless the government gets involved.
My only real concern with digital TV is that broadcasters seem to want to compress the hell out of the main channel so they can put in additional channels full of news, weather or infomercials. So instead of 1 good looking SD channel, or 1 good looking HD channel, I get 1 crappy looking SD channel and 3 more crappy-looking channels of junk.
Oh, and and the broadcast flag.
The Pixma series are completely square, and can even be backed up against a wall and still work.
a nonAdvantageTopicDtlAct&fcategoryid=117&modelid=10 440&id=11662
If you don't mind not using the top feed (it has a top and front feed), you can put stuff on top of it too. My mother puts hers in a shelving unit, it's only accessible from one side (the front), but works great. She has to take it out to change ink cartridges or whatever, but you don't do that too often on a Canon.
Check it out, go to the link below and click the text that says "Click here to see how the new PIXMA dual paper path works."
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=C