Aren't most anti aircraft missiles heat seeking? Could also be a reason why 60% of the engine energy need to go into creating heat. Otherwise cheap gas engine drones that can't be intercepted and can fly thousand of miles could be really dangerous.
stan meyer (infamous for claiming his dune buggy ran on water) did a hilarious talk where he described pvc tube rockets filled with water used both as the propellant and the explosives. Mass produced they would cost 5 dollar[sic]
There have been huge improvements since the first petrol engine, and huge improvements in the last 20 years as well. Petrol engines are some of the most studied and meticulously engineered things ever created.
What do you mean? The amount of improvements in standard ICE engines are mind-blowing. The fuel efficiency and power they manage these days is insane. You’re quoting that 60% figure and neglecting that most of the losses from that are thermodynamic and mechanical losses at transfer points that can’t really be overcome. At some point you have to lose some heat along the way.
There is a fundamental limit to ICE efficiency dictated by the laws of thermodynamics. You can push that theoretical limit up, but it is dependent on having a higher compression ratio. Diesel engines use higher compression ratios for ignition, but they are dirty (in comparison). Higher compression ratios tend to result in more NOx emissions too, so for the regular car makers there is a direct trade between efficiency/emissions/reliability. But even if you aim for highest efficiency at all cost, you'll never get close to 100 percent, as the theoretical max never goes there (or does it at infinite compression ratio?).
Petrol engines can physically only achieve around 55-60 % efficiency, so getting up to ~35-40 % vehicle efficiency is actually really good. Large scale Diesel engines get really, really close (within a few points) of the hypothetical frictionless-no-heat-radiation-no-flow-losses efficiency possible with their parameters.
Turbochargers do exactly that. They take waste gas/heat to turn a pump and provide more oxygen for combustion. Also look into the F1 ERS systems that recover waste energy.
One big limitation is the Carnot efficiency - for any heat engine (which internal combustion engines are) there's a maximum upper bound on the efficiency, which for gasoline and diesel is around 37%. Beyond that point you can't extract any more energy out of the waste heat without removing energy from somewhere else in the system.
There is, especially in Racing. In Formula 1 some engines have reached 52% thermal efficiency [1], but the amount of hardware required in order to capture the excess heat (see MGU-H)[2], makes this costly and difficult to improve upon, and currently with the new F1 engine regulations they are dropping some complex systems so the barrier to entry is less expensive.
The term to google for is cogeneration. Sometimes all people need is the correct search term.
The problem with cogeneration is its usually incredibly heavy and there aren't many uses for very low temperature process heat in most real-world applications.
Another problem with cogeneration is you might get a small percentage boost by connecting a backup generator to the HVAC system but the capex can be VERY high if done safely and reliably, and system complexity seems to scale at an exponential rate. It seems a no-brainer to dump the radiator heat from a backup generator into an office building thereby burn less natgas to heat the building; however you factor in that you have to frost-proof it all and its going to be hundreds of gallons of anti-freeze in those pipes which is expensive and all pipes leak eventually with has ecological issues, and you can't have exhaust leaks into the building and over half the time you need cooling not heating anyway and the HVAC cannot be made smaller because you still need to heat even when the gen is off and the HVAC system will be less reliable because it'll be more complicated and the backup gen will be less reliable because its more complicated, perhaps making the backup gen less reliable than wall power. So shrug shoulders and dump the gen heat using an air cooled radiator, even in the winter.
It's amazing what we do have. Just the computers alone are more than anyone could have ever imagined. But as for flying cars, they do exist, but we just don't need them.
Isn't this called a helicopter? Aside from the noise, etc. issues with them, what would be the difference between a flying car and a helicopter? The need for a pilot's license to fly one?
Is this meant as a joke? Because almost the whole world is working on outlawing or "regulating" these and they aren't even anonymous most of the time. Not being controlled and centralized is threatening enough.
It's a receipt for disaster. Especially if they centralize it even more by replacing banks with a Central Bank that fully controls the Digital Currency. Which they are already planning and testing. This will be misused. And people can be controlled with this in a really bad way. If your Social Credit Score is low you could be taxed higher or even forbidden to drive your car or travel, for example. Your food choices could be restricted at any moment too if you don't behave.
You don't need a cashless society for any of that. Background checks and basic identification requirements can already impose oppressive regulation on everyone even if the products are paid for by cash.
Cash is just an IOU for the bank that can be devalued at any point in time. If you want to avoid government oppression, go back to bartering rare metals. "Yes but what if the government turns oppressive" isn't an avoidable scenario, cashless or not.
Renewables make things much worse because they need loots of Gas as Backup if the sun isn't shining or there is no wind. Which happens very often in Germany especially in the Winter.
You could ask the same about Apple Pay: "Is the end Goal to make Apple Pay the only payment method supported on the internet and kill credit card numbers"
Not only is there nothing to support your claim, there's no reason to believe this would be the next step if your claim was accurate. Instead, they'd just...require ID on the internet, it's not like that's not currently possible.
Verifying pictures of people's physical ID cards is much more involved than using a digital standard.
It may be a big leap to say that implementing a Digital ID standard means that an ID-locked internet is the end goal, but it is a necessary step to reach that goal.
A much bigger flaw in their reasoning is that it's unclear who "they" is. Apple? Why would they care beyond maybe locking their own services behind ID? Government? Because they don't seem to be even making a uniform push to get things implemented.
There’s lots to support his claim. You can’t use Homepods without an iCloud account, you can’t get an iCloud account without an Apple ID, and you can’t get an Apple ID without providing a phone number and email address.
The (eventual) goal is not to kill off anonymity, but to better support user control of data and thereby give more anonymity.
You should be able to prove your age to buy liquor, without disclosing any other information (including your name or birth date). That should work without the government or any other party knowing you. But we are still on the road to get there.
There are numerous other efforts for decentralized identity systems where the user 'holds' digitally signed credentials and presents them under consent. While most parties realize that reducing data release and supporting anonymity are important objectives, the different efforts (and participants) have different priorities.
Some efforts, like Smart Health Cards, do not support selective disclosure of information, instead just supporting digital medical documents as signed data. This was a scope reduction to get a system out more quickly for COVID vaccination credentials.
Mobile drivers licenses support selective disclosure, but many privacy controls are really being implemented via certification, where compatible reader devices are being limited to those who certify that they discard data after use.
There are stronger primitives like Anonymous Credentials [1] , which also make the cryptography itself unlinkable, and predicate proofs which let you present answers to questions without presenting the underlying information. However, standardizing and deploying such crypto at scale takes years.
Kevin O'Leary from Shark Tank pushes for a sustainable Bitcoin. His proposed solution is to have basically "certified" Miners mine clean Coins and never exchange them. Of course if this takes over Bitcoin isn't really decentralized anymore, but he thinks Institutional Investors would prefer that.
If you are willing to do that, then make them certified ledger maintainers and throw out the entire mining overhead and make them use a good old SQL database. Sprinkle as much cryptography on top of that as you want to feel happy about unforgeability and such. The only reason to have a mining process is to allow anonymity, when you give up on that, mining becomes pointless. Also Bitcoin has not been decentralized for a long time, the idea that every Bitcoin user gets a vote in the consensus process went out the window a decade ago.
So do you want to Forbid News reporting on Cop violonece too, because it can result in violent Protests? What about school shootings. Reporting on that can convince others to do it too.
You mean million that died, had a positive PCR test at some time. There are still less people dying in 2020 than in 2018 in most countries even though population gets older and therefore more people are dying every year on average anyway.
