Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not worth it. (Score 1) 48

by geogob (#47783657) Attached to: How the World's Fastest Electric Car Is Pushing Wireless Charging Tech

No one is suggesting we should install right away an inefficient system. What is suggested is that such a system would be useful and should be developed further to make it both practical, affordable and efficient. At its current stage, the technology is obviously not mature.

An what's with the frustration about electrical cars? Do you really believe the concept doesn't go beyond the aspiration of sum assholes or of Tesla motors?

Anyway, you might be surprised to learn that electrical cars are more effective and save energy when compared to comparable internal-combustion engine cars. An they would still be more efficient and energy saving, even with 25% addition loss, which doesn't imply that this 25% loss is in anyway acceptable.

Comment: Re:Not worth it. (Score 2) 48

by geogob (#47783189) Attached to: How the World's Fastest Electric Car Is Pushing Wireless Charging Tech

Although I agree that the 25% loss is not acceptable, I can't rally to your argumentation based on "several place are having power supply issues". What if I live in an area that doesn't have issues at all?

I've heard the same argumentation before for water. Fresh water is short in server place, so we need to save water said the politic. Followed large (and expensive) initiatives to save water - even in region where fresh water was not an issue. Followed that in those region, the water saving was so efficient, that the consumption dropped below critical threshold for the infrastructure. To maintain it, it now needs to be flushed out on regular basis, which in turn lead to a higher overall water need as before the initiatives. I'm not saying that this is case for electricity, but it just illustrate how this kind of argumentation can be a two-edged sword.

Comment: Re:Not worth it. (Score 2) 48

by geogob (#47782977) Attached to: How the World's Fastest Electric Car Is Pushing Wireless Charging Tech

It's not a question of difficulty, but of convenience. Imagine you could charge at every red light you stop.

I drive an electrical car every day to work. The charging time for one leg from home to work is typically 15 minutes. Driving time is about 40 minutes. In those 30 minutes. I cross about 20 intersections with traffic lights; about 10 of those are major intersections, where I often wait 30 seconds to 1 minute. So assuming my luck is bad, I get to wait 10 minutes at red lights on my way to work.

With a charging system embedded in the road only at major intersection, I would already recharge most my day's use, mitigating the need to charge full every 2 days or so. As range is still the biggest limitation of electrical cars, I believe this would be an important step forward.

Comment: Re:Quite warm beneath the car, right? (Score 3, Interesting) 48

by geogob (#47782937) Attached to: How the World's Fastest Electric Car Is Pushing Wireless Charging Tech

Quite warm, yes! It's already quite warm under may car, where the battery is, when charging it with 22 kW over a good ol' copper thick copper wire. At this charging rate, the cooling fans and the car's AC automatically jump in to cool the cells.
Although I never tried it, I could also charge at 44 kW... that's sure going to produce a lot of heat.

Now I imagine doing so at 80% transfer efficiency. I am convinced heat would be a major issue; It's not yet a technical issue, but definitely a comfort issue. Furthermore, paying now about 0.28€/kWh, I wouldn't be happy to lose 20% of it to melt the snow on the road. That's only good for Quebec, where I used to pay under 0.04$/kWh.

Comment: Re:interesting case.... (Score 1) 75

by geogob (#47772529) Attached to: Fake NVIDIA Graphics Cards Show Up In Germany

It will get intestesting if it traces back to manufacturing. Lets hypothise a second that the production plant has problem reaching their production goals. It would be quite a nasty twist if they simply took the products of another production line which was working under its nominal rate and rebranded the products.

If (and its a big IF) the deception occured at that level, it will raise an important question on the quality and authenticity of any other products comming out of those work and countries. So in other word pretty much anything.

Comment: American capitalism (Score 1, Informative) 525

by geogob (#47754923) Attached to: Net Neutrality Is 'Marxist,' According To a Koch-Backed Astroturf Group

What would be so bad about changing American capitalism? As if moderating part of it would automatically send the American society deep into communism.

But staying on topic, net neutrality IS a good idea, and I do hope that so-called Marxist as well as anyone else believes so. Saying it would be bad because group X or Y think so, is the stupidest thing ever. These sort of argumentation can get so fast out of control...

Comment: Re:Spherical Torus (Score 2, Informative) 147

by geogob (#47747567) Attached to: Princeton Nuclear Fusion Reactor Will Run Again

In other words, it's a torus.

No it is not. There is a very clear defintion to what a torus is, and this is not. It may be seen as a torus-like shape, but not a torus. Proper use of terminology is important in science and engineering.

It may not be of the standard donut dimensions people are accustomed to when they think torus, but it's still a torus.

Again, its not a question of what people are accustomed to, but rather a question of definition. And no, the shape named "thorus" is not defined through the shape of a donut.

It's like saying that a rectangle with dimensions of 50x51 is a square-like rectangle. Simply calling it a rectangle would do.

False analogy. Both linguisting points are absolutely not comparable. In the case of the shape of the Tokamak built at PPPL, it is neither a sphere nor a torus. It's something else, which has no specific name. In your analogy, the 50x51 surface IS a rectangle. A better analogy would be, assuming there is no name such as rectangle for a 50x51 surface with straight angles, calling it a square-like box.

Comment: Re:Many other municipalities switched to Linux (Score 3, Insightful) 190

by geogob (#47746841) Attached to: Munich Council Say Talk of LiMux Demise Is Greatly Exaggerated

...don't know why media keep talking only about Munich. It's not the only city that switched to Linux, several others have. The Italian city of Udine, for example:

One reason, size...

Munich : 1,4M
Udine : 0.1M
Turin : 0.9M

source: wikipedia (because only order of magnitude matter).

Furthermore, Munich is one of the most influential city in one of the most influential country of the European Union. From the size, Turin is not that far behind, but from the impact both cities cannot be compared. All this explains quite easily the media coverage.

But its quite interesting to see more cities considering this alternative. And with large cities like Turin and Munich doing it effectively, a lot of smaller cities and communes will start to consider open source as a serious alternative.

The open consideration of such an alternative has much more to do with psychology than with technical needs or limitations. Exactly why the media keep talking about Munich. Psychology. Marketing. And failing to understand this is a large part why open source alternative are still so far beyond what they could be.

We can predict everything, except the future.