Apartheid. There's an app for that.
I didn't explain the behavior adequately.
SELECT * FROM dbo.GetReferencedModelPointsByJobID(@JobID)
Returns someplace between 2-56 rows, depending on JobID
The second query does NOT error out, but is not returning a comma delimited string of all rows, but instead, in some cases, is returning only ONE row.
Since I'm using this to build a temp table, it doesn't error out until I attempt to fill columns in the temp table that do not exist.
... the greater your capacity, the less cycle life matters. If you want an EV that battery that will run a 250Wh/mi vehicle for an average 20 miles a day for 15 years, then you want it to cycle through about 30MWh. If you use a 100 mile (25kWh) battery pack, then that's 1100 cycles. If you use a 200 mile (50kWh) battery pack, then that's 550 cycles. If you use a 400 mile (100kWh) battery pack, then that's a mere 275 cycles. Actually, the improvement is even better than that in the real world, because the greater your capacity vs. how far you're actually driving, the more you can cycle the cells through a less destructive state of charge range rather than doing deep discharges.
A lot of people picture battery packs in EVs backwards, they think that things like hybrids stress the packs the least, PHEVs moderately, and EVs the worst. But it's reversed. If you look at how big hybrid packs are vs. how much electric range they hold, you'll see that they're disproportionately large, even after you factor in any differences in Wh/kg. The reason is that because hybrid packs get cycled so much, they have to keep the cycling in a very narrow state of charge range, only allowing shallow discharges. So if you only have a narrow discharge range, you have to make your pack bigger to make up for it. EVs can discharge through much more of their pack because they need fewer total cycles and only rarely go down toward the lower end of their allowable discharge range. Some EVs also let you limit the max that your pack charges up to to further extend lifespan (it's usually destructive both to use the very top end and the bottom end of the discharge range).
1024 mAhg1 is excellent capacity even vs. brand new graphite or amorphous carbon, about 3x as much as graphite's maximum. Silicon's theoretical max is 8-10x that of graphite, but the main problem with it is durability, it tends to tear itself apart on loading. There are silicon anodes in some newer li-ion cells on the market, but the tech is in its infancy.
That said, the real papers you want to be on the lookout for are cathode improvements, there's a lot more potential for volume/mass reduction there than in the anode. But it seems to be a more difficult challenge. Getting a 3x improvement in anode density is absolutely not the same a getting a 3x improvement in battery life.
Commercial li-ion battery energy densities have continued to improve during that time period, including the commercial introduction of cells with silicon anodes. Of course, silicon anodes are a new tech, so there's a great deal of room for improvement, which probably won't come close to "maxing out" for a decade or more.
Of course, that said, this article is your typical fluff piece following the guidelines of fluff science reporting.
1. Present an oversimplified version of one technology challenge that may or may not address the biggest issue and certainly doesn't address all of them - but don't mention that.
2. Introduce an outside-the-establishment loner with a passion - or at least someone you can try to present as "outside the establishment" and glaze over anyone who helped him.
3. Loner gets a "vision" based on some everyday activity
4. Present their solution and make it out to be a huge revolution that will certainly solve all our problems - if they can only get corporate backing / funding!
I think these sort of articles hurt the image of science because people read them, think "OMG, all our problems are solved!", then when everything's not solved afterward, fail to trust science in the future. For example, in this case, the most important element to improve is the cathode, not the anode. And cathode improvements are less common and usually less major than anode improvements. There's also tons of different anode improvements out there in various stages of research. Pretty much all of the silicon ones get way better than graphite or amorphous carbon.
That doesn't mean that this isnt an important paper - actually, from looking at it, it looks pretty good. It's just not "all that".
BTW, anyone know how credible this journal is? I see it's hosted on Nature.com but not part of Nature, and I tried to find an impact rating for it but couldn't.
But our creator gave us rational minds to solve puzzles with.
How about if I look at it in a mirror? Or out of the corner of my eye? Or I have someone else look at it and describe it to me?
Quantum computing sure is hard.
Link to Original Source
My Scoop is following: At the risk of being not popular here at Slashdot I dare to ask: can magnetic field changes and climate changes be connected and analyzed in concert?"
Link to Original Source
If Slashdot had posted a story about "the Lone Gunmen" pilot episode, then they would have a scoop that anticipated the 9/11 attacks with a civilian airliner, by several months...
I don't care if I can look at it. I just want to know if it will run Watch_Dogs on ultra at 60 fps.
And the Bible said it was OK to stone adulterers and that you shouldn't eat shellfish or touch your wife while she's menstruating.
Read the Gospel;
Which one? The ones that the Council of Nicea approved? Or the older ones or the ones Luther approved?
See that's the problem with religion: It's made by men and yet is supposed to be above the review of men.
Nah. Not HERE, in the land of the Free, with Rule of Law!
We were right all the time. Unfettered by doctrine, dogma of allegiances, wary of our own cognitive bias, we saw what we saw.
That I'm running a risk with the first of > 800 Model Points, but in my database, I never exceed 80 modelpoints for a given job ID.
But I still don't understand why the subquery is necessary (in some cases).
I have a Table Valued Function that returns a simple parameterized view. I want to turn that view into a string.
Can anybody tell me why the first query works and the second one doesn't?
DECLARE @JobID INT
DECLARE @strOut VARCHAR(MAX)