Bezos apologized for Kindle delays

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Actually, one symbol is zero and the other symbol is one. Power (on and off) is a binary state, so someone decided to use a binary symbol.

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Well, it is not really a line and a circle. This is the digital age and it is a 1 and a 0. 1 is on while 0 is off.

Perhaps so. But I've never seen a font where the 0 is perfectly round. I also suspect the intent was to make it symbols, rather than glyphs, to be international (though numerals are pretty international these days, so perhaps not), but in any case, I rather doubt it's meant to be 1 and 0.

Besides, the average person knows exponentially less about binary than they do about electricity.

Originally Posted by DaleDe

When a computer only uses 1's and 0's it might be difficult to imagine how it would make a rude gesture but now I have a picture.

Look at the version where the line and circle are juxtaposed, so that the line points upward, breaking the circle ... it does look something like a rude gesture, now that it's pointed out.

Of course it's also another point against the 0 1 theory.

[Taylor514ce]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_symbol

and for really interesting reading:

http://eetd.lbl.gov/Controls/publica...pubsindex.html

A perhaps somewhat depressing personal detail is that no, I didn't need to perform a web search for these... it's come up in my line of work.

[Cthulhu]

Am still trying to figure out why tech. manufacturers make such a big deal out of touting that their products are "Peanut Butter FREE." Really, is quality control so bad that not putting delicious smashed nutmeat into a circuit panel is a mark of distinction?!

@ Natch:
The way I saw it--once I figured it out--was that the line represented the very simplified circuit line, while the open circle was akin to the little open circuit symbol that looks like a 'c' what's been to France and now puts on airs.

[schulzmc]

For more support for the "1" and "0" view check out:

http://www.historyofthebutton.com/20...sign-by-habit/

http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=26596

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by NatCh

The Discovery Channel narrator made a bone-headed comment about one day maybe the air that runs the motor that runs the compressor that compresses the air will get us true perpetual motion. It's interesting that a guy who works with the Discovery Channel would know the word but not know such a comment would open him to ridicule.

I think that show was from 2004 or so... Plus it is created in the UK.

BUt, your right. Isn't that one of the "laws" of physics.

"There's no such thing as a free lunch."

The could add a compressor to the drive shaft, but it would add extra drag to the engine so it would have to work harder... I bet if you calculate it then it would be a net loss. But, I could see them doing something like hybrid's do today with regenerative braking. Use that inertia to run some compressors to replace some of the air during breaking.

I also would want to get a higher speed compressor for my house rather than waiting 4 hours for the thing to fill. But, I guess is it really gets an 850 mile range per "fill" then it should be ok. Or course, I assume the mean full air pressure and petrol.

BOb

PS: I don't see how it will be "zero" polution either. I guess unless the fuel they talk about using to warm the air is clean burining like natural gas or propane or something... but doesn't combusion give of CO2 by definition?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

BUt, your right. Isn't that one of the "laws" of physics.

It's the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which basically says that something like the conversion of the potential energy of compressed air into mechanical energy can never be 100% efficient - there will always be a certain proportion of the energy which is lost in the form of heat.

PS: I don't see how it will be "zero" polution either. I guess unless the fuel they talk about using to warm the air is clean burining like natural gas or propane or something... but doesn't combusion give of CO2 by definition?

No, it depends what it is that you're burning. If you burn a hydrocarbon (like natural gas or propane) you'll get CO2, but burn, say, hydrogen, and what you get is water vapour:

2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

[NatCh]

Thanks for all the links on the power symbol, y'all.

From looking through them, I've concluded that the IEC folks picked something that made sense to them, which may or may not have been based on anything concrete, and other folks have come up with ways to make it make sense to them (such as the binary thing).

This conclusion leaves me conveniently free to continue to get irate about it as I please.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I think that show was from 2004 or so... Plus it is created in the UK.

Well, there goes that theory, and it was a fun one too!

Originally Posted by pilotbob

BUt, your right. Isn't that one of the "laws" of physics.

"There's no such thing as a free lunch."

I think Newton phrased it a bit differently, but yeah, that's more or less what I was thinking of.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

PS: I don't see how it will be "zero" polution either. I guess unless the fuel they talk about using to warm the air is clean burining like natural gas or propane or something... but doesn't combusion give of CO2 by definition?

It's only "zero pollution" when it's running solely on it's air tanks. It's got two modes, you see, air only, and ICE assisted air (where a small ICE compresses air for it to run on) for longer distance driving.

Of course that leaves aside the question of the pollution generated in compressing the air in the first place, or in generating the electricity to run the compressor. The nit-pickin' version of the claim would be that the car generates no pollution itself, so long as you don't use the on-board ICE to compress more air.

That's the 800 pound gorilla in the room of electric car enthusiasts: the electricity has to be generated somewhere, which mostly means fossil fuel burning, and you have energy lost at three points, generation, transmission, and actual use. You can throw storage losses into that bag too.

I'm not saying that I think it's less efficient than an ICE, I'm just saying nobody seems to even want to acknowledge that question, let alone answer it. And questions that get ignored like that often turn out to be ones who's answers are at a minimum unpleasant or worse in direct contradiction to the claim being advanced. The longer it goes unaddressed the more I wonder about it.

It's like the "'Adding ethanol makes gas burn 10% cleaner!' -- 'But you burn 20% more of it to go the same distance.' -- 'But it burns cleaner!'" thing.

I figured out mathematically some years ago that making cleaner burning gas is a losing proposition unless it keeps the same efficiency, or drops more in emissions than it does in efficiency. Work doesn't move closer to home just because you have to burn more gas to get there, and if you burn enough extra gas to more than offset the reduction in emissions, then you have a net increase in emissions. It's high-school algebra.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by NatCh

It's only "zero pollution" when it's running solely on it's air tanks. It's got two modes, you see, air only, and ICE assisted air (where a small ICE compresses air for it to run on) for longer distance driving.

I thought the ICE was to go faster than 35MPH... it heats the air so it will decompress with more force or something?

Anyway... agreed about all the stuff you said about using energy to compress the air. But, one of the shows says it takes about 3 mins to fill the tank at a station which will cost about $2 in electric power... and that will bring you 800 miles. Seems like it still will create less polution. And, if those filling stations use solar/wind to run the compressors then it would truly be 100% zero pollution. Also 100% renewable.

BOb

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I thought the ICE was to go faster than 35MPH... it heats the air so it will decompress with more force or something?

I think you're right, there ... but it had something to do with greater distance too.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Anyway... agreed about all the stuff you said about using energy to compress the air. But, one of the shows says it takes about 3 mins to fill the tank at a station which will cost about $2 in electric power... and that will bring you 800 miles. Seems like it still will create less polution. And, if those filling stations use solar/wind to run the compressors then it would truly be 100% zero pollution. Also 100% renewable.

I'll point out that cost of electrical power and its associated generation emissions (this topic needs easier to spell words) aren't necessarily related. Most power generation in the U.S. is coal, I believe, and while it's cheap, it sure ain't clean.

Solar power for the Air stations would be an excellent idea in some places (I've developed a slowly growing skepticism of wind power, thanks to other discussions here), but I think there'd always have to be a grid connection at least as a back up.

I'm pretty interested in the thermionic drive concept. These folks in Gibraltar have come up with a way to convert heat directly to electricity, at about an 80% of ideal efficiency, and it doesn't seem to matter what method you use, so long as it makes heat. They've apparently already taken out a patent on using their chips to power a car, but there hasn't been any significant movement on them for quite some time.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by NatCh

II'll point out that cost of electrical power and its associated generation emissions (this topic needs easier to spell words) aren't necessarily related. Most power generation in the U.S. is coal, I believe, and while it's cheap, it sure ain't clean.

So true. Have you read the Solar Power Grand Plan?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...nd-plan&page=1

BOb

[TallMomof2]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which basically says that something like the conversion of the potential energy of compressed air into mechanical energy can never be 100% efficient - there will always be a certain proportion of the energy which is lost in the form of heat.



No, it depends what it is that you're burning. If you burn a hydrocarbon (like natural gas or propane) you'll get CO2, but burn, say, hydrogen, and what you get is water vapour:

2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

Ah yes, Thermodynamics, my most loved/hated course in college. And its successor, Advanced Thermodynamics. The Dean of the Engineering College taught those courses and they were rigorous.

[HarryT]

Not my favourite subject either, I have to confess .

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

So true. Have you read the Solar Power Grand Plan?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...nd-plan&page=1

BOb

I hadn't seen it, thanks for the link. I've only read page one (so far) but it's got me interested enough to head for page two.