Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re:I hope this goes into production (Score 0) 2

by zMaile (#34058556) Attached to: Electric Car Goes 375 Miles on One 6 Minute Charge
It may still not be compeltely acceptable for long distance travelling. The battery takes 4 hours to charge. The 6 minute figure comes from the theoretical limit that hasn't actually been reached. Quoting Neil Blanchard from the linked article:

Yes, I agree the car is not super efficient, but the battery seems to be the revolutionary thing.
If this is real, then the end of the ICE age is here.
They are also saying the batter is 97% efficient, which a bit better than current batteries (which are ~94% as I understand it?).
They had ~18% charge left, and since we don't know what the DOD is, a wild ass guess is they used ~90kWh, and this works out to ~240Wh/mile. Which is very plausible, though not outstanding. At 660 pounds, this battery could be used in Dave Cloud's Dolphin and since it is 1,300 pounds lighter, it could get below 100Wh/mile -- and have a range of about 1,000 miles!
*That* would be a revolution!
Translated from this page: http://adacemobility.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/das-wunder-von-berlin/#more-744
"Technical Data Audi A2 DBM *
* Subject
Empty weight (including driver) 1260 kg
Perm. Total weight 1600 kg
Battery lithium-iron-polymer (260 Ah/380 V) cell voltage of 3.8 volts
Battery weight about 300 kg
Charging time about 4 hours due to mains phase current in the household (380)
battery requires 6 minutes (future solution)
Life time 2500 charge cycles (without loss of capacity)
= Service life target: 500,000 km
Top speed 160 km / h
5-speed sequential gearbox (race gear: shifting without the clutch)
E-motor 300 Nm torque"
So, the 6 minute charge is future/theoretical limits of the battery. The actual time is 4 hours; which is still very impressive.
Sincerely, Neil

Comment Re:Dual 960x1080 (Score 0) 1140

by zMaile (#33818220) Attached to: Why Are We Losing Vertical Pixels?
You're reffering to Linux right? or possibly OSX? Windows aero has that snap to left/right side of the monitor that works well with 16:9, or even two monitors. I'm not trying to troll, and i know it's possible to set up linux to do a similar thing (I used compiz, but that has its issues too). I dont have any experience OSX, so i can't comment on that. As far as i know, windows does widescreen best, at least by default. Personally i hate M$, and all their practices, but i'm not above saying what they actually do well.

Comment 50 messages a day? (Score 0) 468

by zMaile (#33633702) Attached to: Texting On the Rise In the US
Is that taking into account messages over 160 chars that are broken into two or more messages? Just a thought. In australia, i dont know of anyone that sends that many messages a day. The heaviest message-er (18 years old) that i know would only send about 20-30 a day.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 0) 363

by zMaile (#33485590) Attached to: 4chan Gives 90-Year-Old Vet a Great Birthday
Anon isn't one being, it's a collective of people. Some are nice, some aren't, and some do kill puppies and post that as an animated .gif. Though recently 4chan got a bunch of 'summerfags', who i imagine are diluting the truly 'evil' anons that there are. It really has been getting more immature and the years pass by.

Comment Re:I think its entirely reasonable to say... (Score 0) 439

by zMaile (#31313026) Attached to: Caltech Makes Flexible, 86% Efficient Solar Arrays
I'm not 100% sure, but if 78% of electrons generate electricity, isn't there still wasted energy before it actually gets to the useful energy stage? i.e. energy in a single visible photon (~700nm if i recall) is significantly higher than the energy required to jump an electron up a state, and that difference in energy is turned into heat. this would have the effect of reducing the overall efficiency to 15% or something that is much lower. Is this true, or am i remembering bits and peices that are all wrong?
Input Devices

Typewriters, Computers, and Creating? 227

Posted by kdawson from the no-country-for-old-typewriters dept.
saddleupsancho writes "Today's NY Times reports that Cormac McCarthy is auctioning the 45-year-old Olivetti manual typewriter on which all his novels, screenplays, plays, short stories, and much of his correspondence were written, to benefit the Sante Fe Institute where he is a Research Fellow. What would happen decades from now if, say, Richard Powers or Neal Stephenson attempted to auction their desktops or laptops? Setting aside completely any comparison among the three authors, is there something more intrinsically interesting and valuable, less ephemeral and interchangeable, about a typewriter vs. a computer as an instrument of literary creation? Or is the current generation just as sentimental about their computer-based devices as McCarthy's generation is about his Olivetti? Would you offer as much for McCarthy's input device if it were a generic PC, Mac, or Linux box as you would for his Olivetti?"

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close