Noninvasive, accurate blood glucose measurement is one of the "holy grails" of biomedical engineering. The first company to come up with a technical solution and the associated patents will basically have a license to print money for the next 20 years.
Her plastic-bodied ride, nearly 4 feet shorter than a Mini, is the least fast, least furious thing ever to hit US streets.
While it looks plastic, most of it is actually steel. How else would it weigh over 1500 pounds ?
With its wimpy 50-horsepower engine, the Fortwo takes 20 seconds to get from zero to 60.
Actually, it's more like 18.5 seconds, with the smallest available engine. Also, since the transmission is a semi-automatic manual that as far as I know takes ~1-2 seconds to shift. As long as you don't have to shift 4 times, the actual acceleration will be higher than the 18.5 seconds suggest.
Also, there are more powerful engines available. Does 12.5 seconds sound more acceptable ? That's what you get with the most powerful available engine.
But any current models that come from overseas will have to be retrofit to pass more stringent US emission standards.
"You can burn as much gasoline to a mile as you want, as long as each gallon doesn't produce more than X of chemical Y". Yeah. Stringent emission standards my ass.
Fyi, I live in the one place in the world that has the highest density of Smart (cars), and I yet have to perceive any of them as an obstacle. And yes, I drive a 220 hp car.
It's not a reason, it's a FACT. In order for a car to be driven in the US, it must first meet strict safety regulations.
Very funny. It has to meet the regulations when it is sold. Afterwards, you can let it rot to your hearts content.
If the car industry over there ever found out that they could sell a gazillion new vehicles if they introduced technical checkups every two years (for everyone's safety, of course), heh. By European standards, a large portion of what's on American roads would be deemed unsafe and removed from public roads immediately.
A relative of mine had a friend who claimed his car got about 70mpg. Within a month of sharing this information with people, the car was repossessed. I don't remember what model the car was, but it used a generic four-stroke internal combustion engine and a carburetor - and it was built by one of the major American auto manufacturers.
Are you shure "sufficently pure gasoline" doesn't have sulfur, nitrogen,...?
Quite so. Ideally, gasoline is made only from carbon and hydrogen atoms. Sulfur can be removed during production and is not that big of a problem nowadays. Nitrogen... well, the air used for combustion contains 80% nitrogen, so you will have nitrogen in the combustion chamber no matter what fuel you use.
I know different alcohols have different properties (if not they would be the same, isn't it?). But they all burn and they only generate water+CO2 (am I wrong?).
Since there's nitrogen in the combustion chamber, NOx will also be produced. Also, the different properties do matter if you look at things like possible compression ratios, knocking and other things. Also, alcohol behaves quite differently from gasoline chemically, so you will need different hoses, seals, gaskets or else they'll be dissolved by the alcohol (something similar is the case with biodiesel).
You need to see how an inexpensive mod - adding pipe bumpers to a big truck increases the safety for the truck occupants.
Good lord. I'm glad they don't allow this kind of lunacy around here. If your daughter is so prone to run into things, she shouldn't be driving in the first place. Because when she starts hitting soft, squishy things (like your neighbors, their kids, their pets, and the like), those pipe bumpers will turn out to be excellent meat grinders.
Uhhhhh no. Different alcohols can have completely different properties.
If anything, you'll be looking at either methanol or ethanol. Methanol has some safety risks (it burns with an invisible flame, so you cannot see a methanol fire), and some dumbass is guaranteed to try drinking it at some point, removing himself from the gene pool but allowing for some nice liability lawsuits. Ethanol, well, no matter how much you denature it, people are going to drink the stuff, too. Free, untaxed booze if you don't care about the taste.
Also another fact I forgot to mention; your average SUV here in the U.S. would probably go over the thing like a monster truck. I would find it a little hard to brag about safety when your cab crumples.
Uh... bullshit. What you obviously don't know is that these things are made of steel (not aluminium, magnesium, plastics, cardboard or whatever). Despite their size, the Smart weights a whopping 700+ kg (empty. that's over 1500 pounds).
It's the 10+ seconds it takes to get from the 40 km/h offramp to the 135 km/h traffic speed that makes it dangerously underaccelerated for highway driving.
Don't know about you, but most highway entrances do have things called acceleration lanes to allow reaching highway speeds before actually merging with the traffic.
Perhaps smart cars would be easier to approve in the USA if they were banned from highways.
Funny. Why should the be banned from slowpoke US highways when they're perfectly fine on real highways, like Autobahns ?
I don't care if it bothers other people. They have no right to be in my busines, and neither does the government which you probably wish would regulate SUVs. Let me drive what I want and I wil let you drive what you want. I'm not complaining, why are you?
Because you are polluting the air that I breathe, because it's people with your attitude who are impacting the climate I have to live in, and so forth. Your right to do as you please ends, for one thing, where you start hurting others.
Reminds me of the old Texas saying (I realize Bush doesn't adhere to this so piss off): Leave me the hell alone and I'll leave you the hell alone.
Good. Great. I'm all for it. Now could you please move to another planet (or show me one I can relocate to, preferably one that has all the amenities of our little blue ball of dirt, like breathabe atmosphere, ecosystem, close to 1g of gravity, magnetic field to help keep the solar wind out, preferable somewhere close by that the move doesn't take half a millenium).
Yes but wind resistence or no wind resistence an engine burns X amount of fuel at a given RPM.
No, it doesn't. The amount of fuel the engine burns depends on the RPM and more importantly, on the throttle setting. And how far you have to open the throttle (that means: push down on the accelerator) to maintain a given RPM depends on the load put on the engine. And wind resistance is a factor in the load that grows with v^2.
This lowers the time spent burning fuel...
"Sorry officer, I was speeding because I need to get to the next gas station before I run out of gas."
Time doesn't really factor into the equations. To get from point A to point B, you need to spend X energy in order to overcome various types of friction, most of which depend on the velocity (rolling friction of your tires with v^1, wind friction with v^2). So, the faster you want to go from point A to point B, the more energy you need to expend.
Because at least over here, ambulance services keep logs of where an ambulance went, and when. That, and there's always "non cop" witnesses. I don't know where the whole thing comes from that a cops testimony is more valid than that of an "ordinary" person (that's why, at least over here, there are always two cops on patrol. Two witnesses are better than one). If you need to cross a red light to make room for the ambulance, there must be other people around, else simply stopping would have been enough.
If necessary, create a "pass" system so that only qualified drivers & cars can get on the freeways in the first place. I don't like government intrusion into my life, but I'd suffer through that just to have a smoother commute.
Does that roughly translate into "I like the pass system as long as I'm the one getting to drive on the freeway" ? Sure sounds like it to me.
But surely they can make them more accurate than that
They could, but it would add to the cost of the car while adding absolutely zero marketing value, and there would still be factors (tire circumference which changes with inflation pressure and wear, for example) that would affect the measurement.
The reason that manual transmission vehicles get better fuel economy than automatics is largely because people are better at this than mechanisms. (It's also because autos are heavier and the transmission mechanism syphons more power away than in a manual.)
No, it is exactly the other way around:
A car with a "real" automatic transmission (the ones with a torque converter instead of a clutch) is less efficient because it is heavier (about 50 kg) and because the torque converter acutally has significant slipping (~1-3%) since torque is transferred by a liquid medium (unless the vehicle also has a torque converter clutch).
A car with an automated manual transmission (that is, a normal manual transmission in which a computer takes over the clutch and shifting) is as efficient as one where a human does the shifting.
dude, if you're measuring your fuel consumption in litres per mile, you need a new car...
He was referring to his brand new hummer, you insensitive clod !
That's not the point -- the point is if a cop saw you speeding in that situation, you would not get a ticket, because he or she would exercise a little human judgment, something a camera will not do.
That's what the right to dispute the ticket is for.
"I was making room for the ambulance", if true, does get you out of any violation of a red light, at least where I live.
Also, what about the opposite situation - imagine a doctor on the way to an emergency having to explain the situation to the cop who just pulled him over... and the cop, having heard that old story a dozen times, not believing him ?
Not necessarily. Different cars have different gearing ratios hence are more efficient at different speeds. For example if the optimum fuel-efficiency speed of my car is 65mph, and I am in a 30mph limit, then staying below the speed limit is causing an unnecessary amount of exhaust fumes and costing lives.
Bogus physics here. The fuel efficiency depends on the engine RPM (where it has an optimum range)and the speed of the vehicle (more -> worse efficency). If the manufacturer says the car is "most efficient" at 65 mph, they mean that it is the best compromise between fuel efficiency and time needed to travel. If you go 30 mph while maintaining the same engine RPM by switching to the appropriate gear, then the very same care will be more fuel efficient, period.
More lives are probably cost by speed cameras. I've lost count of the number of cars I've seen drastically brake at the last minute when seeing a speed camera late, and either nearly swerve off the road or have the cars pile up into the back of them.
Yes, blame the camera for people who are not in control of their vehicle or keeping proper distance from the car in front of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I would assume there is not.
Noninvasive, accurate blood glucose measurement is one of the "holy grails" of biomedical engineering. The first company to come up with a technical solution and the associated patents will basically have a license to print money for the next 20 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6penick
And it is why mindless obedience should be considered a liability in any modern army, and therefore discouraged.
The guy mentioned in the article just took over the town hall. Good thing they didn't have any nukes back then.
While it looks plastic, most of it is actually steel. How else would it weigh over 1500 pounds ?
With its wimpy 50-horsepower engine, the Fortwo takes 20 seconds to get from zero to 60.
Actually, it's more like 18.5 seconds, with the smallest available engine. Also, since the transmission is a semi-automatic manual that as far as I know takes ~1-2 seconds to shift. As long as you don't have to shift 4 times, the actual acceleration will be higher than the 18.5 seconds suggest.
Also, there are more powerful engines available. Does 12.5 seconds sound more acceptable ? That's what you get with the most powerful available engine.
But any current models that come from overseas will have to be retrofit to pass more stringent US emission standards.
"You can burn as much gasoline to a mile as you want, as long as each gallon doesn't produce more than X of chemical Y". Yeah. Stringent emission standards my ass.
Fyi, I live in the one place in the world that has the highest density of Smart (cars), and I yet have to perceive any of them as an obstacle. And yes, I drive a 220 hp car.
Very funny. It has to meet the regulations when it is sold. Afterwards, you can let it rot to your hearts content.
If the car industry over there ever found out that they could sell a gazillion new vehicles if they introduced technical checkups every two years (for everyone's safety, of course), heh. By European standards, a large portion of what's on American roads would be deemed unsafe and removed from public roads immediately.
This is a fairly well-known hoax.
As long as you run nothing else, like the AC unit.
Quite so. Ideally, gasoline is made only from carbon and hydrogen atoms. Sulfur can be removed during production and is not that big of a problem nowadays. Nitrogen ... well, the air used for combustion contains 80% nitrogen, so you will have nitrogen in the combustion chamber no matter what fuel you use.
I know different alcohols have different properties (if not they would be the same, isn't it?). But they all burn and they only generate water+CO2 (am I wrong?).
Since there's nitrogen in the combustion chamber, NOx will also be produced. Also, the different properties do matter if you look at things like possible compression ratios, knocking and other things. Also, alcohol behaves quite differently from gasoline chemically, so you will need different hoses, seals, gaskets or else they'll be dissolved by the alcohol (something similar is the case with biodiesel).
They don't sell them anymore in the US. They still make and sell plenty of them in other places.
Good lord. I'm glad they don't allow this kind of lunacy around here. If your daughter is so prone to run into things, she shouldn't be driving in the first place. Because when she starts hitting soft, squishy things (like your neighbors, their kids, their pets, and the like), those pipe bumpers will turn out to be excellent meat grinders.
Same goes for sufficently pure gasoline.
And it can be any kind of alcohol.
Uhhhhh no. Different alcohols can have completely different properties.
If anything, you'll be looking at either methanol or ethanol. Methanol has some safety risks (it burns with an invisible flame, so you cannot see a methanol fire), and some dumbass is guaranteed to try drinking it at some point, removing himself from the gene pool but allowing for some nice liability lawsuits. Ethanol, well, no matter how much you denature it, people are going to drink the stuff, too. Free, untaxed booze if you don't care about the taste.
Uh
Yes !
Viral marketing at its very best. Well done, folks.
Don't know about you, but most highway entrances do have things called acceleration lanes to allow reaching highway speeds before actually merging with the traffic.
Perhaps smart cars would be easier to approve in the USA if they were banned from highways.
Funny. Why should the be banned from slowpoke US highways when they're perfectly fine on real highways, like Autobahns ?
Because you are polluting the air that I breathe, because it's people with your attitude who are impacting the climate I have to live in, and so forth. Your right to do as you please ends, for one thing, where you start hurting others.
Reminds me of the old Texas saying (I realize Bush doesn't adhere to this so piss off): Leave me the hell alone and I'll leave you the hell alone.
Good. Great. I'm all for it. Now could you please move to another planet (or show me one I can relocate to, preferably one that has all the amenities of our little blue ball of dirt, like breathabe atmosphere, ecosystem, close to 1g of gravity, magnetic field to help keep the solar wind out, preferable somewhere close by that the move doesn't take half a millenium).
What, you can't ? Geee.
No, it doesn't. The amount of fuel the engine burns depends on the RPM and more importantly, on the throttle setting. And how far you have to open the throttle (that means: push down on the accelerator) to maintain a given RPM depends on the load put on the engine. And wind resistance is a factor in the load that grows with v^2.
This lowers the time spent burning fuel...
"Sorry officer, I was speeding because I need to get to the next gas station before I run out of gas."
Time doesn't really factor into the equations. To get from point A to point B, you need to spend X energy in order to overcome various types of friction, most of which depend on the velocity (rolling friction of your tires with v^1, wind friction with v^2). So, the faster you want to go from point A to point B, the more energy you need to expend.
Because at least over here, ambulance services keep logs of where an ambulance went, and when. That, and there's always "non cop" witnesses. I don't know where the whole thing comes from that a cops testimony is more valid than that of an "ordinary" person (that's why, at least over here, there are always two cops on patrol. Two witnesses are better than one). If you need to cross a red light to make room for the ambulance, there must be other people around, else simply stopping would have been enough.
Nasty paint ? I'd use bird poop. Seriously, though, in the right circles, these markings would be seen as trophies. Gotta collect them all.
Does that roughly translate into "I like the pass system as long as I'm the one getting to drive on the freeway" ? Sure sounds like it to me.
They could, but it would add to the cost of the car while adding absolutely zero marketing value, and there would still be factors (tire circumference which changes with inflation pressure and wear, for example) that would affect the measurement.
Correction, it's actually a v^2. Still, wind resistance does not increase linearly with speed.
No amount of doctoring with the cw value is going to take the v^3 part out of the wind resistance formula.
The reason that manual transmission vehicles get better fuel economy than automatics is largely because people are better at this than mechanisms. (It's also because autos are heavier and the transmission mechanism syphons more power away than in a manual.) No, it is exactly the other way around: A car with a "real" automatic transmission (the ones with a torque converter instead of a clutch) is less efficient because it is heavier (about 50 kg) and because the torque converter acutally has significant slipping (~1-3%) since torque is transferred by a liquid medium (unless the vehicle also has a torque converter clutch). A car with an automated manual transmission (that is, a normal manual transmission in which a computer takes over the clutch and shifting) is as efficient as one where a human does the shifting.
dude, if you're measuring your fuel consumption in litres per mile, you need a new car... He was referring to his brand new hummer, you insensitive clod !
That's what the right to dispute the ticket is for.
"I was making room for the ambulance", if true, does get you out of any violation of a red light, at least where I live.
Also, what about the opposite situation - imagine a doctor on the way to an emergency having to explain the situation to the cop who just pulled him over
Bogus physics here. The fuel efficiency depends on the engine RPM (where it has an optimum range)and the speed of the vehicle (more -> worse efficency). If the manufacturer says the car is "most efficient" at 65 mph, they mean that it is the best compromise between fuel efficiency and time needed to travel. If you go 30 mph while maintaining the same engine RPM by switching to the appropriate gear, then the very same care will be more fuel efficient, period.
More lives are probably cost by speed cameras. I've lost count of the number of cars I've seen drastically brake at the last minute when seeing a speed camera late, and either nearly swerve off the road or have the cars pile up into the back of them.
Yes, blame the camera for people who are not in control of their vehicle or keeping proper distance from the car in front of them.