Rivalarrival @ Rivalarrival @lemmy.today

Posts

1

Comments

3,229

Joined

2 yr. ago

YOU SHOULDNT GET IN FRONT OF ANYTHING YOU ARENT SURE IS STOPPING

This, exactly. This "plan" sounds terrible to me.

No, I'm not braking to turn at the intersection you're sitting in. I'm turning into a driveway just past that intersection. If you pull in front of the green light the government says I have to have on my vehicle, I'm going to t-bone you.

That's called "loitering".

A senior official who dismantled the US government’s Russian disinformation unit is married to a Russian woman with links to the Kremlin

They're talking about Melania, right?

Sounds expensive.

Way I see it, if I'm over 1:1, I'm owed more than I owe. You're welcome, and/or, where can I pick up my check?

It's not the voltage you need to focus on. It's the current.

Analog telephone wiring used 90v @20hz to ring the phones. Off-hook, they were at 9vdc, which rose to 48vdc on-hook. The insulation can handle potentials much higher than 5v.

But, telephone wires are typically 26awg to 22awg, which are only rated to .361 to .92 amps for power transmission. Pull too much current, and you risk melting the insulation and starting a fire.

Since DC power (watts) are volts times amps, to keep the amperage low, you will want to keep the voltage as high as the insulation will tolerate.

Telephone wiring is very similar to (and may even be carried on) cat5/6 cabling. There are formal standards for using cat5/6 cabling for power transmission: Power-Over-Ethernet standards 802.3af, 802.3at and 802.3bt. These standards call for 44 to 60 volt power injectors, and up to 15.4 watts per wire pair. If I were going to jury rig household telephone wiring for power transmission, I would use those standards as a guide.

You should use a current-limited power supply, to keep your current below 0.361A, or you risk melting the insulation and starting a fire.

In this job marlet, if you're not lying, you're not trying.

A reasonable president wouldn't have sent him in the first place. A reasonable president would be asking for him back, offering favorable diplomatic terms.

If refused, as Trump has claimed, a reasonable president would be parking a carrier group off the coast of Acajutia, and having F/A-18s doing nightly, low-altitude, glass-breaking, supersonic passes over Casa Presidencial.

Taco de Pollo

He doesn't hate trans people, any more than he hates anyone else

FTFY. Trump hates everyone who isn't himself.

I would expect more mishaps from a regional turboprop, flying ten 45-minute flights a day, than a widebody flying a single 12+ hour flight a day.

Mishaps are most prevalent on takeoff and landing. The aircraft that make the most takeoffs and landings are going to have the highest mishap rate.

The risk of a mishap is greatest on takeoff and landing. Inflight mishaps are extremely rare.

A "flight" is one takeoff and one landing. The largest aircraft have the longest duration flights. They might be airborne 12+ hours at a time. They might fly fewer than 10 flights a week.

Small commercial aircraft flying local and regional routes might be shorter than an hour. These aircraft might have 70 flights a week.

A student pilot in the smallest, single-engine GA aircraft might spend all day shooting touch-and-goes to build time and experience. Each touch-and-go is a landing-and-takeoff. These aircraft might have 300 "flights" a week.

Yes, the smallest aircraft are going to have the highest per-airframe mishap rate, simply because they experience the most risky phases of flights much more frequently than large aircraft.

Per-flight, the risks aren't significantly different.

A320 seat configuration is 3-3. ATR-72 is 2-2. I'd take a guaranteed not-middle-seat any day.

Exists. I won't link, but I can assure you: It Exists.

Burdick v. US.

A reporter was ordered to divulge a source. Reporter refused, on 5th amendment grounds.

Reporter was given a blanket pardon. Government argued that because the reporter could not be convicted regardless of what they said, the reporter was compelled to testify and name the source.

SCOTUS said that accepting a pardon was tantamount to an admission of guilt. The reporter could refuse the pardon, maintain their claim of innocence, and continue to exercise their 5th amendment right against self incrimination.

Yes, you can refuse a pardon.

"The math is somewhat different" does not give adequate consideration to the importance.

That 777 I mentioned? The fuel weight on a maximum range flight is more than twice its remaining payload capacity. Fuel weight is the primary consideration you need to be looking at. The efficiency gains from charging batteries (relative to electrically-produced fuel) cannot justify the losses from their constant weight.

Some estimates say that between electrolysis, transportation and fuel cell conversion it's almost twice as bad in terms of energy efficiency, so you ultimately need double the energy for the same thing.

Only twice? Then its not even a contest. I was assuming fuel production was 1/10th as efficient conversion as battery charging.

The typical issue with fuel cells is not energy density, it is the fact that you need to waste a lot of energy to regenerate and transport the fuel.

I've never understood that thinking. Yes, it takes energy to produce fuel. So what? We started with a form of energy that couldn't be stored and transported, and converted it to a form that could be. That's the entire point.

So, overall, you'll need to spend much more energy (= both recurring and upfront costs) compared to running battery-powered transportation if you want to make it a close cycle similar to batteries.

That's not actually true.

A 777 can carry up to 320,000 pounds of fuel, which gives it a 9000 mile range. It will land about 300,000 pounds lighter than it took off.

Build an electric version of the 777. Put enough batteries on board to make a 9000 mile flight, and it will weigh the same amount on landing as it did on takeoff. It carries the whole load for the whole flight.

Put that original 777 on the 2600 mile flight from LA to New York, and it doesn't need a full fuel load. You can drop 200,000 pounds of fuel, and add 200,000 pounds of payload.

The e777 will still have the same weight of batteries needed for that 9000 mile flight.

Swap out the batteries with fuel cells, and you can take on an optimal, sub-maximal fuel load for your shorter flights, radically improving total efficiency over batteries.

Sufficient storage capacity to meet overnight needs is going to be a challenge; storage to meet seasonal production variation is impossible. To make solar feasible, we need to build out sufficient generation capacity to meet our needs in winter. Winter, with, perhaps, 9-hours of mostly overcast skies and low angles over the horizon.

Imagine the output of that same system in summer: 15 hours of high-angle daylight and mostly clear skies. The summer output of that facility will be at least 400% its winter productions.

The solar economy needs absurdly massive electrical loads in summer that can be readily shed over winter. We may see fleets of factory ships, loaded with electrolysis equipment, plugging into grids on whichever side of the equator is currently experiencing summer.

Like sticking an alcohol drenched tampon in your booty hole.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

I have it on good authority that there is no spoon. Get bent, OP.