Intel junk...Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flaw forcesLinux, Windows redesign

chrisv wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Efficiency of the motors is very close to 100%.

No it's not. Don't confuse motors with heaters.

BLDC motors tend to run around 90% efficiency, with that 10% being loss as
heat. Efficiency drops at lower speeds but not all that dramatically.

This is not your father's induction motor. But hell, even NEMA induction
motors need to meet specs in the eighties and nineties.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 01/09/2018 8:17 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-01-08 23:38, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 8, 2018, Doomsdrzej wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:11:20 -0500,
wrote:

In , Doomsdrzej
Â* wrote:


If you buy a Chrysler, you can expect a problem every 500 miles.

nonsense.

I speak as someone who actually owned a Chrysler and know just how
awful they are.

I had a Chrysler Pacifica, it ran very well until at about 22K miles
the V6
engine threw a rod, and smashed a hole in the crankcase. I had to dive
through all sorts of hoops with regard to the warranty. Eventually
they gave
me an astonishing deal on a loaded Chrysler 300C with a nice V8 Hemi. The
300C gave me good service until I traded it on a Mercedes E350.


The Chrysler V8 hemi is an awesome block. Often used to replace stock
engines in other brands.


Probably one of the best V8s ever built.

Rene

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-01-09 04:58, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy (ie,
fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the
proportion of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many litres
of some fuel does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?

Good questions. I came across a report somewhere within the last couple
of years about a group looking at desert plants. Those wouldn't displace
food plants.

Speaking of plants: Photosynthesis isn't very efficient. Less than 5% of
light energy is stored in the plant (all of it, not just the
carbohydrates that we can easily convert to fuels). Current solar panels
convert 20-25% of light into electricity, and labs have demoed
conversion efficiencies greater than 30%. Since biofuels are burned in
heat engines, only about 1% net of the infalling light ends up moving
your car. Using solar panels for charging the battery is much more
efficient.

There's research projects attempting to build an artificial leaf: use
enzymes plus light to do what the leaf does. Within the last couple of
years, New Scientist reported a proof-of-concept trial that was about
twice as efficient as a natural leaf. But scaling it up is a serious
problem. Always is with biochemistry.
OTOH, highly efficient solar panels and artificial leaves would be
serious competition to traditional power companies. Wide-spread feed-in
systems would become feasible: excess power produced on your roof would
reduce the need for (and highly profitable) power generation. That means
political and PR efforts to slow the development of solar. Which is
what's happening.


It's pretty hard to do what the leaf does.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and...ore-efficient/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

https://www.livescience.com/37746-pl...m-physics.html

Paul

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy (ie,
fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the proportion
of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many litres of some fuel
does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?


What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.


So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 16:06:34 -0500, Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

On 01/08/2018 03:57 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Doomsdrzej wrote:

Yes, the fact that Chrysler ends up on the very bottom of all
reliability lists by experts must all be coincidence too. It's
probably best that I ignore that and listen to some random person on
Usenet.

As a former Lada owner, I have to say that no matter how bad you think a
car can be, it can be worse.
--scott


I'll see your Lada and raise you one Skoda.
Never owned one but often heard them described in Europe as
farm tractors with a radio.

After the Berlin wall came down in '89, I used to regularly see Trabbies
(Trabant) broken down beside the road. When they did run, they smoked
and barely made it up even modest hills.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trabant

On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:47:13 +1300, Your Name
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 16:49:08 +0000, Doomsdrzej said:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:38:58 +1300, Your Name
wrote:

You still running that 50 year old computer with no issues? Or even 2-3 years.

I used a PowerMac G3 for nearly 20 years without major problems, until
a major fault somewhere in the IO system on the motherboard meant I was
forced to upgrade to a new Mac. Even the original hard drive was still
working ... and is still working, now in an external USB enclosure.

That's pretty impressive.

It died about March last year. I would still be using it now if it hadn't died.

It was still running Mac OS X 10.2 (released August 2002). I would
still probably have been using Mac OS 9, if it wasn't for an incomptent
ISP who wouldn't fix their servers!

What kind of server issues affected only Mac OS 9? I am sincerely
curious.

For people using a dial-up internet connection, the ISP's
authentication servers would ocassionally stop working (probably due to
a system update) meaning users couldn't log on. The original ISP fixed
the issue relatively quickly the couple of times I managed to finally
get the (non)Help Desk drones to understand the issue was at their end
and not mine.

Unfortuantely the ISP was then bought up by Vodafone New Zealand who
are utterly useless. They did fix the problem when it first showed up
again, but the next time they screwed me about for weeks saying they
would fix it, and then finally admitted they weren't going to bother.

I've never heard of this issue but that's a pretty interesting one.

The problem apparently only affect those still using Mac OS 9 or older
(and only via that ISP - it worked fine when I tested other ISPs via
friend's log-ins), so the only way solution was to upgrade to Mac OS X,
so I was forced to install 10.1. I later upgraded to 10.2, although I
regretted that a littel because it was more buggy than 10.1.

If I recall correctly, 10.2 was also considered snappier than 10.1. 10
in general was pretty damned slow until 10.1.5.

Vodafone New Zealand also showed their uselessness (and greediness
since they didn't decrease the fees!) by shutting down the Usenet
server, and a couple of months ago they shut down their email servers
as well.

Access to a Usenet server was a pretty damned big deal when I first
got onto the Internet. The fact that all ISPs would remove it -
apparently as a result of what some American congressman said - is
pretty pathetic.



The only other issue was web
browsers becoming less compatible, so I was about to update it to Mac
OS X 10.3 (released in October 2003).

I will also have had my current car (and only car I've owned) for 20
years this year, but it was four years old when I bought it. It also
still runs fine with only normal wear and tear problems. It's just
passed 200,000kms, so is due for it's second cambelt replacement ... at
twice the price of the first one!

Had I not ruined its paint job by trying to do the work myself, I
wouldn't have been embarrassed to drive my Volvo over its 210,000 km.
I would have had it for thirteen years.

I saw a car like mine advertised on a local eBay clone website recently
which had done over 300,000kms. The starting bid price was WAY too high
- at least four times what it was really worth. There was another one
before Christmas in even worse condition, but lower mileage, for about
the same price. The sellers were simply trying to cash-in on the
model's now-popularity with the hoon / boy racer brigade for modifying.

I doubt anyone was dumb enough to modify my Volvo s40 2001.

But I do know quite a few iMacs (both CRT and LCD models) from around
that same period that have either had multiple dead hard drives or
completely failed), possibly due to the all-in-one design and heat
issues over time.

I owned an iBook G3 back in 2002 and I can't imagine still working on
it today even though it likely would have managed to do pretty much
everything I would need for it to. Even maxed out at 640MB of RAM,
that thing was slow. Mac OS being the bloated behemoth that it is
didn't help. It ran Mac OS 9.2.2 beautifully though.

When my PowerMac G3 died, I did switch over to a iBook G4 for a couple
of months to finish off some work I was in the middle of, but that
laptop had already been having problems and quickly died under daily
use (it was a hand-me-down from another family member - the battery
never worked, one shift key was broken, the power socket kept coming
loose and needing re-soldering, etc.).

The PowerMac G3 had only 128MB RAM. I was using it pretty much every
day to do all sorts of things, including DTP with Adobe's apps. I can't
remember how much RAM the iBook G4 had - possibly just the standard
512MB.

I was also had only a dial-up internet connection with it and the
laptop, and both used with a 17" CRT display.

The forced upgrade to a new Mac Mini, with MacOS X 10.12 and all new
apps, as well as a broadband connection was a bit of a culture shock
... although my job meant I have always been helping people with their
newer Macs anyway.

Even though my exposure to Mac OS 8/9 was fairly limited, I liked the
operating system quite a bit and switched over to it for a while when
I got my iBookl G3 (600MHz). OS X was so sluggish that Mac OS 9 felt
rewarding to use but the apps for it were already disappearing at that
point and, if I remember correctly, I didn't like the way it
multitasked.

Mac OS 9 multitasked fine, but it didn't co-operatively multitask,
which meant some (badly written) applications could hog the system
resources.

I never really had any problem with the speed of the OSes running on my
PowerMac G3, and that was only 266MHz. It even ran Windoze (95? Can't
remember now) under emulation at a usable, if slow, speed. It was
unsurprisingly horribly slow at Nintendo GameCube emulation though.
:-) Yes, it could take a few minutes to generate a PDF from InDesign or
an hour or so to render a short video clip, but it was easy enough to
do something else and levave it to run.

I think that most computers at the 300MHz range were powerful enough
to do what most people wanted quite comfortably, but there's always a
crowd who thinks that waiting even 20 seconds for something is too
long. It's a shame that computers with those kinds of processors are
now being thrown into the trash considering how useful they were when
they were considered to be top of the line. Essentially, we're not
really doing much more today than we did back then and it doesn't
_feel_ any faster even though it is.

In article
Char Jackson wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 16:06:34 -0500, Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

On 01/08/2018 03:57 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Doomsdrzej wrote:

Yes, the fact that Chrysler ends up on the very bottom of all
reliability lists by experts must all be coincidence too. It's
probably best that I ignore that and listen to some random person on
Usenet.

As a former Lada owner, I have to say that no matter how bad you think a
car can be, it can be worse.
--scott


I'll see your Lada and raise you one Skoda.
Never owned one but often heard them described in Europe as
farm tractors with a radio.

After the Berlin wall came down in '89, I used to regularly see Trabbies
(Trabant) broken down beside the road. When they did run, they smoked
and barely made it up even modest hills.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trabant

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 20:38:05 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jan 8, 2018, Doomsdrzej wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:11:20 -0500,
wrote:

In , Doomsdrzej
wrote:


If you buy a Chrysler, you can expect a problem every 500 miles.

nonsense.

I speak as someone who actually owned a Chrysler and know just how
awful they are.

I had a Chrysler Pacifica, it ran very well until at about 22K miles the V6
engine threw a rod, and smashed a hole in the crankcase. I had to dive
through all sorts of hoops with regard to the warranty. Eventually they gave
me an astonishing deal on a loaded Chrysler 300C with a nice V8 Hemi. The
300C gave me good service until I traded it on a Mercedes E350.

All I can say is that I'm happy someone bought a Chrysler and _didn't_
feel as though they had wasted their money. In my case, I think I
would have been better off buying an 2010 Equinox rather than the
Patriot I chose. I didn't want a luxury car at that point and was
going in the direction of Chevrolet but found out that they had some
sort of transmission issue whereas the Patriot only had a ball joint
issue. The latter seemed like less of a big deal even though replacing
them and all of the rest cost a small fortune.

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy
(ie, fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the
proportion of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many
litres of some fuel does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?


What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.


So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?



Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

Hydrogen and oxygen reactions are rather eco friendly, though there are some
nitrogen based products we could do without.


--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail:
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

In article
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy (ie,
fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the proportion
of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many litres of some fuel
does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?


What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.


So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?

On 01/09/2018 11:18 AM, DaveFroble wrote:
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy
(ie, fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the
proportion of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many
litres of some fuel does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year?
Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?


What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.


So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?



Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

Hydrogen and oxygen reactions are rather eco friendly, though there are
some nitrogen based products we could do without.



Add Hydroelectric for charging up all these batteries.

Rene

On 01/09/2018 11:23 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 01/09/2018 11:18 AM, DaveFroble wrote:
Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy
(ie, fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the
proportion of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many
litres of some fuel does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year?
Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?


What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.


So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?



Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

Hydrogen and oxygen reactions are rather eco friendly, though there
are some nitrogen based products we could do without.



Add Hydroelectric for charging up all these batteries.

Rene

Check this endever for power.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/23/te...ian-wind-farm/

Rene

On Jan 9, 2018, DaveFroble wrote
(in article ):

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy
(ie, fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the
proportion of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many
litres of some fuel does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?

What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.

So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?

Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

Hydrogen and oxygen reactions are rather eco friendly, though there are some
nitrogen based products we could do without.

Then there is this:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/8/16...gen-fuel-cell-
ev-car-ces-2018

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Char Jackson wrote:
After the Berlin wall came down in '89, I used to regularly see Trabbies
(Trabant) broken down beside the road. When they did run, they smoked
and barely made it up even modest hills.

They are _supposed_ to smoke. It's a 2-cycle engine, that's what makes it
work.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 12:18:05 -0500, DaveFroble
wrote:

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
Den 2018-01-09 kl. 14:16, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Jan-Erik Soderholm
wrote:

Den 2018-01-09 kl. 10:58, skrev Tim Streater:
In article , Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-01-08 14:59, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
[...]
If you run the gasoline engine on bio-fuels produced from plants
growing *today*, there is no issue with the C02 emissions.

There is a net addition to the CO2 load, because it costs energy
(ie, fuel) to produce the biofuel. That cost can be stated as the
proportion of the fuel needed to produce it. That is, how many
litres of some fuel does it take to produce 100 litres of the stuff?

And how much land to produce the 100 litres each year every year? Or to
produce enough biofuel for one vehicle's annual driving?


What kind of "vehicle"? You can probably forget all those V8's...

No, bio-fuel is not the only solution. There will be other fueld
neededf and at the samre time another way to "build" our communities
that does not need the amount of car travels as today.

And bio-fuel is not only about growing stuff out on the fields, it
is also gas produced from ordinary household waste.

Biofuel is not a solution at all.


So then, what is the solution to get rid of the fossil fuels?



Solar, thermal, wind, and for consistency, nuclear.

The first three are worthless and the last is the most dangerous thing
on Earth.

Hydrogen and oxygen reactions are rather eco friendly, though there are some
nitrogen based products we could do without.

Hydrogen is the only one that I believe has potential.