First, a car's mass depends on its velocity. Second, a car loses gas while driving. Third, it wears off its tyres. Fourth, driver, pasengers and pets as well as transported bacteriae and other organisms, such as a plant like the cactus for aunt martha's birthday, constantly lose carbon and hydrogen. Even if they eat and drink during their journey, this means no gain in mass, as they will have to have brought it all with them.
Only gain in mass I can think of, beside rain / snow, are insects. Pounds of stinking mosquitos that I really really hate to screatch of.
I once drove to italy from north in a hot summer after it had rained. I drove for about 12 hrs. I had to wash quantities of rotten little corpses of my car that I don't want to think of. And they stink like any other corpses, they really do, even though I wouldn't have expected they would. And I wouldn't have changed the air filter myself after that, really.
all cool, man, calm down. of course there will be a generation of heat between tyre and road even if the road already is quite hot.
Or do you think hat would remove all friction?
Maybe at a certain temperature you will notice that things get a bit smoother, when the tyre starts sweating and gets all glitchy, though...
But it's true: major friction heat is generated in engine & transmission, and at a speed greater than, say 20mph, the plupart of power loss is due to air resistance.
true, that.
I see the major problem in the fact that a whole new infrastructure has to be implemented. The energy, after having been STOLEN:-), has to be stored in, say capacitors, and because of the limits of the whole approach, I suppose al of this will have to be backed up by preserving the good old power grid connection.
I wonder how many cars have to pass one of those ramps so that all the necessary investions pay back? I mean, they will have to open the street and banquet, install all of their gismos and close and seal everything again.
Given that they only do this when they have to anyway because of repairs / other installations, how many cars will have to pass such a ramp so the 25k$ return? And how many before it's broken?
1 kJ, that's 1 kWs, or 1 / 3600 kWh, thus 1 / 3.6 Wh, which turns out to be as much as ~0.28 Wh.
If they only manage to get 10% out of this, which imo would be a lot, we were at 0.028, which is not so far away from the OTHER result:-)
They could have changed oh, so much about it by using either the metal look and feel (which, as far as I know, has the exact same sizes for everything as that "butt ugly" default l&f you seem so much to dislike:-), or they could've simply globally turned on antialiasing, change the color scheme a little bit and incrtease font size by one.
Increasing font sizes would been the most critical step, but even if they had omitted it and done everything from the main() method and via command line params, it could look SO much better without no effort...
It allows one thread / process to overtake another in the execution pipe.
So two of them ma be executed in parallel BETWEEN two task switches.
When task switches are rare because of bad scheduling, it thus may improve the mutitasking experience.
So HT is a half-hearted replacement for a reasonable scheduler...
Hmm... The Windows NT (and 2000, XP) Scheduler has long since been known to perform abysmally in cases like this.
As soon as there is a thread using the CPU to the max, that is, a process that doesn't yield or wait or make system calls or do IO at least a couple of times a second, for some reason I don't understand, the priority of all other processes seems to be set to zero.
You will hardly find similar behaviour on machines running ANY other contemporary OS. A Linux machine won't stop everything else simply because there is a process performing a non-IO-intensive computation for more than a couple of seconds.
And a Windows machine shouldn't. Because that's the reason I know people who have used dual core machines seven years ago under NT 4 - simply so they could read/write e-mail or browse the web or play solitaire while compiling on the same machine.
And now Intel comes out with a nasty little trick that makes Windows usable in such situations for more reasonable a price. At least as long as you won't start a second compiler or renderer at the same time;-)
IMHO, the scheduler should do its job right, so we wouldn' be discussing dual core CPUs for desktop machines, except where necessary in order to increase pure number crunching power.
A single, fast CPU is the typically faster alternative on systems with a REAL scheduler.
A scheduler that needs a second CPU for the event queue is not.
sigh...
Slashdot Mirror
First, a car's mass depends on its velocity. Second, a car loses gas while driving. Third, it wears off its tyres. Fourth, driver, pasengers and pets as well as transported bacteriae and other organisms, such as a plant like the cactus for aunt martha's birthday, constantly lose carbon and hydrogen. Even if they eat and drink during their journey, this means no gain in mass, as they will have to have brought it all with them. Only gain in mass I can think of, beside rain / snow, are insects. Pounds of stinking mosquitos that I really really hate to screatch of. I once drove to italy from north in a hot summer after it had rained. I drove for about 12 hrs. I had to wash quantities of rotten little corpses of my car that I don't want to think of. And they stink like any other corpses, they really do, even though I wouldn't have expected they would. And I wouldn't have changed the air filter myself after that, really.
all cool, man, calm down. of course there will be a generation of heat between tyre and road even if the road already is quite hot. Or do you think hat would remove all friction? Maybe at a certain temperature you will notice that things get a bit smoother, when the tyre starts sweating and gets all glitchy, though... But it's true: major friction heat is generated in engine & transmission, and at a speed greater than, say 20mph, the plupart of power loss is due to air resistance. true, that.
I see the major problem in the fact that a whole new infrastructure has to be implemented. The energy, after having been STOLEN :-), has to be stored in, say capacitors, and because of the limits of the whole approach, I suppose al of this will have to be backed up by preserving the good old power grid connection.
I wonder how many cars have to pass one of those ramps so that all the necessary investions pay back? I mean, they will have to open the street and banquet, install all of their gismos and close and seal everything again.
Given that they only do this when they have to anyway because of repairs / other installations, how many cars will have to pass such a ramp so the 25k$ return? And how many before it's broken?
1 kJ, that's 1 kWs, or 1 / 3600 kWh, thus 1 / 3.6 Wh, which turns out to be as much as ~0.28 Wh. If they only manage to get 10% out of this, which imo would be a lot, we were at 0.028, which is not so far away from the OTHER result :-)
They could have changed oh, so much about it by using either the metal look and feel (which, as far as I know, has the exact same sizes for everything as that "butt ugly" default l&f you seem so much to dislike :-), or they could've simply globally turned on antialiasing, change the color scheme a little bit and incrtease font size by one.
Increasing font sizes would been the most critical step, but even if they had omitted it and done everything from the main() method and via command line params, it could look SO much better without no effort...
It allows one thread / process to overtake another in the execution pipe.
So two of them ma be executed in parallel BETWEEN two task switches.
When task switches are rare because of bad scheduling, it thus may improve the mutitasking experience.
So HT is a half-hearted replacement for a reasonable scheduler...
Hmm... The Windows NT (and 2000, XP) Scheduler has long since been known to perform abysmally in cases like this. As soon as there is a thread using the CPU to the max, that is, a process that doesn't yield or wait or make system calls or do IO at least a couple of times a second, for some reason I don't understand, the priority of all other processes seems to be set to zero. You will hardly find similar behaviour on machines running ANY other contemporary OS. A Linux machine won't stop everything else simply because there is a process performing a non-IO-intensive computation for more than a couple of seconds. And a Windows machine shouldn't. Because that's the reason I know people who have used dual core machines seven years ago under NT 4 - simply so they could read/write e-mail or browse the web or play solitaire while compiling on the same machine. And now Intel comes out with a nasty little trick that makes Windows usable in such situations for more reasonable a price. At least as long as you won't start a second compiler or renderer at the same time ;-)
IMHO, the scheduler should do its job right, so we wouldn' be discussing dual core CPUs for desktop machines, except where necessary in order to increase pure number crunching power.
A single, fast CPU is the typically faster alternative on systems with a REAL scheduler.
A scheduler that needs a second CPU for the event queue is not.
sigh...
10 squared centidiameters would be approx. 5 ft. per hour and kelvin. That would be CONSIDERABLY too much!
:-[o.o.ooOo.o