Youtube comments of ke6gwf - Ben Blackburn (@ke6gwf).

  1. Some observations from someone who enjoys working with metal. The base section is completely structural. It is using welded heavy wall stainless steel pipe for a bulletproof internal support frame and landing legs, heavy enough to withstand "slight miscalculations" on the suicide burns and punch holes in the concrete if needed. This looks like it was designed by an engineer familiar with building bridges and roller coasters and other such durable structures, and I see signs of very good workmanship in the welds and little details like the contoured gusset plates and such. It really looks like it's designed to support a bridge rather than fly. But considering that Elon probably wants something close to actual weight, overbuilding this is not a problem, and makes it more likely to survive heavy grasshopper testing without needing repairs. (landing pad is more likely to need repairs lol) The shell of the base section is heavy gauge SS as well, and was all bent in large probably CNC plate rolls making perfect curves that fit and weld together. And it is heavy enough not to distort from the welding. I assume that this will all be polished up to a mirror finish, and was built by a structural engineering team. The upper sections are built totally different, and I suspect by a different team or company. They seem to be an open framework with thin sheet metal panels fastened over it. It makes sense that it is a water tank company, because they would have experience doing such things. Now the difference is that they normally aren't trying to do compound shapes with thin sheets on water tanks, and it is nearly impossible to do it with flat sheets without lots of wrinkles and divots, just like of you put a sheet of paper over a basketball. They may have some trick to use heat to stretch the sheet metal and smooth it out after the structure is finished, it's pretty much black magic, but it is used by good sheet metal workers, so I say wait a little while and see what they are able to do. I also will not be surprised if the company that bid to do it had never done anything quite like this before, and are finding that they are fighting the metal, and it is winning lol So this may turn out to be a total failure on their part of being able to get a good looking result. Elon may be fuming about how ugly it is looking as we speak. On the other hand, as long as it is all attached properly, it is totally flyable as a grasshopper, and once the polishing is done it will be hard to see the surface shape. So it is possible that Elon decided he wanted something of the right size and shape and shiny to be in the air asap, and so is using his preferred fail fast prototyping method to knock together something that can hop, even if the appearance is wanting. If that is his goal, this is the way to do it. If you have seen the videos of that NASA guy who worked with SpaceX, and helped develop the Pica heatshield, (can't remember his name, but it was a series of short interviews), you are familiar with the culture there of being able to order stuff up from McMaster Carr, and put a test prototype together the next day to see what happens, and this seems to fit that profile. Though they probably didn't get the metal from McMaster lol So whether Elon is angry at how it looks, or this was the expectation, it is the fastest and cheapest way to get a Starship prototype hopping, and the appearance really doesn't matter for the testing, since it won't be going fast enough to have any effect. And using stainless steel is just because he wants it to look shiny like the final version lol As far as tanks, he doesn't need large or super light tanks for this first prototype. For initial testing, he can probably just use umbilicals, or small tanks. In order to make this shape with stainless steel, you basically need to use the same method that car body panels use, and hydroform or press them, so each panel is already shaped properly for the location it needs to go. This however requires extensive time and work making the dies for each section, since the sheets change shape and size as it goes up, so this is a big investment, and I can totally see him saying to just wrap it in tin foil to get it flying. They very likely are currently working on building dies and such, and may replace the upper section as soon as they are done and some hydroformed panels are available. So let's see what they are able to do to smooth out the tin, and remember that as long as it is being moved around and welded on, any straightening they do will just get messed up again, so they may be waiting until it is stacked before smoothing it. Oh, and if they were building this for anything other than an actual test prototype, they would NOT be making the top to look like a steam punk Burning Man art installation. The very fact that it is ugly and utilitarian, for something that Elon is doing, tells me that it is for hard science quickly.
    908
  2. 511
  3. Lots of mistakes in the script in this show, they need to have an actual mechanic with veto power over the script lol The major ones are that the grease put into the D10 near the end is actually what pressurizes the track tensioning cylinder and keeps the track tight. It has nothing to do with lubrication. It DOES reduce wear, but not because of lubrication, but because a loose track flopping and banging around wears everything out much faster, and so keeping the correct track tension leads to much longer life. The other big error was when the train motor was being replaced, and the shim was added, and the narrator said it was talking to give space for lubrication, but that's not accurate. He was setting the Backlash on the drive gear, which is how far the teeth mesh with each other. Put your hands together so your fingers mesh like gears, and try turning them. Notice how if they are too deep in, they bind and rub on the opposite side? But if they are too far out there is lots of slop and looseness, plus the load is all on the very tips. In gears, if you have them too close together they rub on each other wearing it out and creating lots of heat, and can even bottom out and jam. Too far apart and you are loading the tips of the teeth, plus every time you accelerate or decelerate that gap between the teeth let's them slam on each other. Backlash is the measurement of how far one gear will rotate without the other one moving, it's how manufacturers specify how to adjust the gears. So when he first put it together, it didn't have enough, or any backlash, so he added the shim to slightly seperate the gears and get the specified backlash reading. There! You now have more technical details than in the rest of the show script combined! Lol There were several other issues, but I didn't memorize all of them lol Oh, and the DRAMA! cut it out! You go on and on repeating yourself time and again about how every moment is so important and lost revenue, and then you cut to the most important people standing interviewing with you. I have worked on plenty of high value jobs where time was money, and I wouldn't have had time to lollygag for the camera lol I think the worst was the train lift, where you took 3 or 4 segments building up the lift not working, and not actually doing anything or even telling us what ended up being the problem, and chances are that you asked them to make the light blink and staged the whole thing lol I enjoy the subject matter, but if you aren't going to bother with technical accuracy, and are going to treat your audience like idiots, I will be careful not to watch any more from you. Which is sad, because you get into excellent locations.
    140
  4. 129
  5. 125
  6. 118
  7. 108
  8. 103
  9. 74
  10. 71
  11. 69
  12. 62
  13. 58
  14. 53
  15. 53
  16. 52
  17. 47
  18. 45
  19. 43
  20. 43
  21. 41
  22. 40
  23. 40
  24. 39
  25. 33
  26. 33
  27. 31
  28. 30
  29. 29
  30. 29
  31. 27
  32. 27
  33. 26
  34. 26
  35.  @MillionFoul  the Max crashes are exactly the same root cause, arrogance and ignoring engineering testing practices to save a buck and speed things up. They had never tested the MCAS system in many different failure modes, including loss of AOA vane on takeoff with no AOA Disagree indicator. They did the paperwork and said that runaway trim procedures would take care of any issues, and most of the people who were looking at safety and testing were not even aware of how powerful the software had become, and the people who expressed concerns were shut down. And all the people like you who are saying that all the proper testing and certification had been done, are just saying that the process of testing and certification is broken, because it should never have let so many arrogant assumptions slip by without being verified. For instance, they discovered that even with US pilots, the assumption that the runaway trim procedures could be done in a certain length of time, which was an assumption that they have been making for decades, turned out not to be reliable, and not just for foreign pilots. Pilots are trained differently than they were when that standard assumption was made when most pilots had a military background, and hand flying was the only way to fly a plane. So when you hear "we tested everything and it all met the requirements" it doesn't mean that they didn't mess up, it means that the messing up was done in assumptions and shortcuts in the testing and verification process. And MCAS didn't get thoroughly tested, just as Starliner didn't get thoroughly tested.
    26
  36. 25
  37. 25
  38. 25
  39. 25
  40. 24
  41. 23
  42. 23
  43. 22
  44. 22
  45. 21
  46. 20
  47. 19
  48. 19
  49. 19
  50. 19
  51. 18
  52. 18
  53. 18
  54. 18
  55. 18
  56. 18
  57. 18
  58. 17
  59. 17
  60. 16
  61. 16
  62. 16
  63. 16
  64. 16
  65. 15
  66. 15
  67. 15
  68. 15
  69. 15
  70. 15
  71. 15
  72. 15
  73. 14
  74. 14
  75. 14
  76. I am surprised that no one is talking about using the ISS as a staging facility for space missions. It is easy to launch to, high weight capacities with low delta v needed so easy reusablility and heavier payloads. You basically send the empty Orion capsule up on whatever rocket works best, and berth it to the ISS. Then you send up whatever works best as a space tug to get it to the moon, and using the Canada Arm on the ISS, and a space walk if needed, you connect them. Then you send up fuel, and using the Canada Arm you fuel it. (if you don't want to fuel at the station, you just dock the tanker to the side of the moon assembly, connect the hoses using the arm, and then after it leaves the station and is a safe distance away, you start the fueling process). Then to get the crew on it, you send them up on Crew Dragon, and either transfer at the ISS, or if you want to do the off-station fueling and not have astronauts on board during the fueling, you dock the Dragon to the Orion after fueling is complete. Then you jettison the tanker, send the Dragon back to the ISS as a back up reentry vehicle in case Orion has issues, and blast off towards the moon. And while this is a lot of steps, it requires very little additional engineering, because instead of having to design special automatic in orbit docking systems, you just have to make sure that things can be bolted together by the astronauts, and add Canada Arm grapple points. You could probably send up the extra Falcon loads and do the extra engineering for less than a years budget for the SLS.
    14
  77. 14
  78. 14
  79.  @A.Lifecraft  put your hand through a hole it barely fits through, then spread your fingers out, grab a tennis ball, and duct tape your fingers around it, and then try to pull your hand back through the hole. It won't go lol There are styles of wedge sockets where the tension simply pulls a wedge in tighter, often used to terminate crane cables because it's easily removable, but the poured style are the ultimate termination for a cable. The cable wires are splayed out to evenly fill the cone of the socket, and then they are mechanically and chemically cleaned. The metal, zinc, or a zinc based alloy is then poured in, and it's like soldering or brazing to each individual wire strand. So there is no way for it to loosen around the wires or corrode inside the metal plug, any more than a proper solder joint will loosen around the wires. It tins the metal and forms a metallurgical bond, actually forming an alloy layer of a combination of the base metal and the solder metal. This is in addition to any mechanical or adhesion bonds. So the zinc is held to the base metal with as much force as its held to itself, as long as the formulation is correct to be able to wet the base metal. So now, we have a tapered plug of solid metal bonded to thousands of wires inside. When you apply tension to it, the taper wedges it deeper into the socket, which compresses the plug of metal, squeezing down on the wires inside it. Since the potting metal is a little bit soft, it does compress the tighter it is pulled on, creating a very tight wedging action on the cable strands. As long as it is done properly, you can't get corrosion inside the plug, and the wires can never slip out.
    14
  80. 14
  81. 13
  82. 13
  83. 13
  84.  @kenbrown2808  this is not quite accurate. SA was constantly shifting and changing back in the day, and could be controlled from the ground, to either disable it as they did around 2000, or make it worse, or shut the system off entirely. The military got around it by having special receivers that could decode the GPS signal and find the actual location, while the unencrypted civilian signal was inaccurate. The ground stations that you are thinking of are probably what the surveyors set up to compensate for the SA. Basically they built networks of GPS receivers in carefully surveyed known fixed locations, and each ground station would have a vhf radio on it. The ground station would receive the GPS signal, and then calculate the error factor from its actual location, and then broadcast this correction factor over the vhf radio, which would be received by the surveyor's equipment, telling them their exact location. (GPS with the SA error removed) If you have ever seen a little gray dome on a metal pipe tripod along a road somewhere, with a solar panel and a little antenna coming off it, and a chain link fence surrounding it, that is a GPS correction network base station. In some areas the surveyor's would get together and set up the network and you had to pay a membership fee to use the encrypted signal. Other places a city or county will set up a network and let others use it. These days even without SA, and with multiple GPS networks available, modern survey equipment often uses all the GPS networks and can get within a few inches, but then if you want mm accuracy, you hook into the correction network, or just set up your own GPS base station on the side of the job site or mine, and it will talk to your portable data collectors and Total stations and give exact error correction data for all the different things that cause slight errors, atmospheric distortion, multipath, reflection, etc, and give you exact 3d position.
    13
  85. 12
  86. 12
  87. 12
  88. 12
  89.  @factsarefactsanddonotlie8397  if you have an electric water pump, you measure the amount of kwh of electricity it takes to pump 100 gallons of water from one location to another. You are not creating water, only moving it from one location to another. With an Air Conditioner, you are using electricity to move heat from inside the house and sending that heat outside the house, which is why the condenser coil outside gets so hot. A heat pump reverses this cycle and puts the evaporator coil outside, and the condenser coil inside, and takes heat from the outside air and sends it inside. Now, just like the water pump uses electricity to move water from one place to another, the heat pump uses electricity to move heat from one place to another. If you run electricity through a heating coil, all the energy in the electricity gets converted to heat, so if you use one kwh of electricity, you get one kwh of heat. However if you use that 1 kwh of electricity to run a heat pump, you can now MOVE 5 kwh of heat into the house, most of it coming not from the electricity, but being transfered from the outside air into the inside air. This is why it gets what you think is impossible efficiency, because it's moving existing heat rather than only turning electricity into heat. And if you say that this is impossible, then please explain how an AC can magically make heat energy dissappear from inside the house! I doubt that you will understand any of this and will just flame me too because ego is more powerful than intellect, but maybe this will help you understand the subject a little better.
    12
  90. 12
  91. 12
  92. 12
  93.  @PistonAvatarGuy  as for the SLS being a completed design, why do you think they keep having delays? They are making iterative changes too, just using multi million dollar jigs that have to be scrapped, and having to rebuild custom buildings for the changes. The built a custom rolling gantry for the test unit, and will have to build another later for the full size SLS. It's working on the same process as SpaceX, just with massive overhead and slow bureaucracy. And the one they are almost done building now, which then has to go through months and months of testing after transporting it to a different congressional district, is just a test prototype which will be totally destroyed in the test process. As far as I know, they haven't even begun building the next one which will be prototype number 2, and they haven't started building the upper stages that are able to do the actual exploration missions. So no, it's not a final design, it's still in the prototype and testing phase. What SpaceX does differently is cut out all the pork, let the engineers build something, test it, build a better one, test it, and keep going until you get something that works right. That's how they got Falcon 1 reaching orbit on the 4th attempt, to Falcon Heavy with landing boosters, and then a flying water tank, and now this, in 10 years. And while you may have a bad opinion about it, their track record is pretty good at actually doing what they set out to do. And if one gets destroyed in the process of testing, well, every SLS built is going to be destroyed, so what's the problem? Lol And they will keep iterating until they get it right. And if Raptor has problems that haven't shown up in testing yet, they will work on it until they solve it. And by letting the engineers do what they know, and cutting out the bureaucracy, they can work through this process in days and months, instead of years like nasa and contractors do.
    12
  94. 12
  95. 12
  96. 12
  97. 11
  98. 11
  99. 11
  100. 11
  101. 11
  102. 11
  103. 11
  104. 10
  105. 10
  106. 10
  107. 10
  108. 10
  109. 10
  110. 10
  111. 10
  112. 10
  113. 10
  114. 10
  115. 10
  116. 10
  117.  @Ellivation  the non perishable items Costco has are generally available elsewhere too, but generally if I am comparing whatever Costco has to what Walmart offers, usually Costco has better. Walmart doesn't care if they sell crap, and so they sell a lot of it. For an example, between working construction and having horses I buy a lot of garden hoses, and Costco only gets the best. So when they have them early in the year, I buy whatever I need, and they last better than pretty much any other hose I have gotten elsewhere. Now, I could spend a lot of money and get a "professional grade" hose, but that adds up when you need a bunch for horses and gardens, and the low priced Costco hose works just as well. They only carry the best windshield wiper and. The car batteries are excellent, as is the warranty, I try not buy car or truck batteries anywhere else. The food is always top notch, produce, etc, while other stores it's hit or miss if they get a good batch, if Costco has it I know it's going to be good, and on the rare occasion where something is bad, I can get a refund the next time I am in even if it's two months later and I don't have packages or receipts lol Some things, cashews and coconut oil specifically, Costco has literally the best available. They sell so much of both of those, they have incredible buying power, and so demand the highest quality that the growers produce. I think they still sell the majority of the world cashew production, and they are pretty high on coconut oil too. And again, if I see it in Costco, I can trust that it's been tested and vetted by their buyers, and has a higher chance of being a good product than something I see on a Walmart shelf.
    9
  118. 9
  119. 9
  120. 9
  121. 9
  122.  @factsarefactsanddonotlie8397  now I don't know what you are thinking about. I am talking about residential heat pumps for heating and cooling a house, the most common type being the mini split design, which is exactly an AC, because it IS an AC with a reverser valve that flips the flow depending on whether you need heating or cooling. So in the summer time it works like every other AC, using the same refrigeration cycle to transfer heat from inside the house to outside the house, and then in cold weather one valve flips and now it moves heat from outside the house into the house. You could literally take a window air conditioner and put it in backwards and it would pump heat into the house. Yes, there are also industrial heat pumps that look just like industrial refrigeration equipment, but no one is talking about them here, but even then, the only difference between an industrial refrigeration unit and a heat pump is that the heat pump has an extra valve that reverses the condenser and the evaporator coils so the heat moves the opposite direction. I also agree that insulation etc will save you more money than switching to a heat pump, but that's a separate issue. A heat pump, properly designed and sized for the application, under most conditions, will produce a certain amount of heat cheaper than gas heat or resistive electric heat. In some situations it will be much cheaper, in others only slightly cheaper, but in nearly all cases it is simply a more efficient source of heat since it is moving existing heat rather than creating it.
    9
  123. This is very interesting, but unrealistic. They totally leave out the entire phone network and that these switches are rarely all in the same room. A brief overview of the system, from old memory, but should be good enough to get the basic idea... The wire from your house goes to the nearest Central Office, which is a room full of these switches, and on one side of the office is a bank of switches with one terminal for each subscriber or phone that it serves. So if you had 2 lines in your house, there would be 4 wires running from your house to the Central Office, and connected to 2 terminals on multiple switches. (redundant so that the chances of all the switches that you were connected to being already in use was low) So when you pick up the phone, one of the switches it is connected to which isn't busy rotates and selects the contact for your phone. Then when you dial the first digit, that activates the second switch, which will select either to stay in this central office, or selects an available trunk line to another office in town. The next digit dialed is passed through now to the remote office, and selects the correct group of switches in that office for the right side of town. The next digit selects the bank of switches for the particular neighborhood, and the next digit selects the bank of switches for the right street, and the final digit selects the exact terminal for the wires running to your mother, because you should call your mother. You can see why phone numbers got progressively longer, because the more possible connections you have, the more numbers needed to drill down. In the early days you could only dial within your city or area, and if you needed to call long distance you had to call the Operator, who would select a trunk line in the direction you needed to go, the operator on the other end would answer, and then put the call through on their local system, and if you needed to call across the country, the operators might have to repeat this process through multiple interchanges in the cities along the way, until the route made it all the way to the end. When direct dialing was introduced, they had to add the country code and area code systems which would select the trunk lines headed the right direction, and then keep drilling down. This was more complicated, because the area codes were not in sequential order, so when you dialed a 7, it didn't know whether you wanted 707 in California or 737 in Texas, and so it had to have some way of waiting for all 3 area code digits were dialed before it even knew which side of the country you connect to. I can think of some ways to do it, but I don't know how it was actually done, but it was more complicated than just a simple city step system!
    9
  124. 9
  125. 9
  126. 9
  127. 8
  128. 8
  129. 8
  130. The problem with aftermarket led headlights is that many of them don't get the leds in the right position to simulate the original filament, and so the reflector doesn't get it focused into a nice beam. The led design needs to be different between a projector headlight and a reflector headlight, and each headlight housing has a slightly different design. If you don't get the correct match then you will blind everyone. I needed to upgrade my semi truck to leds (halogen was too dim for safety, and I got tired of paying for the short lived and expensive High Brightness Krypton ones, so I decided to go with led). It took me quite a while looking at articles and reviews and YouTube video reviews showing the beam patterns of different brand leds in different headlight housings before I finally settled on a couple of brands that looked like they might work, and then I pulled my truck up to a white dock wall and used a sharpie to mark the outline of the beam pattern with the halogen bulb. Then I put an led in one side and compared the beam pattern etc, and then tried the other brand. I found one of them matched every point on my markings EXACTLY, while the other one was a bit wonky. So I put the good one in the low beams, and put the one with poor beam control in the high beams where it won't effect anyone, and I am happy with the results. I also carefully re aimed the headlights afterwards, and parked on a level street and walked to the other end of the block to check for glare, etc, and I never have anyone flash me in complaint lol But most people don't go to that much work, and don't even know there is a difference, and so blind everyone.
    8
  131.  @scottmanley  as someone who long lived in typical California terrain where underground would be most useful, and also worked in construction and underground utilities in those areas, the reason they don't do it is because it would be incredibly expensive, and require cutting swaths though the land about the same as putting an oil pipeline in. Most of the California hills are rock, and digging trenches of any size either requires a very long time with large hydraulic hammers on giant excavators, or blasting. Neither of which the neighbors would appreciate. In much of it the rock is too hard for breaking, and so would require blasting. And don't be picturing a 1 foot wide trench a couple of feet deep, if you are installing anything high voltage, you are going to be looking at a 3 to 4 foot wide trench, probably 8 or 10 feet deep, and all the material removed gets trucked away, and then it's backfilled with imported sand and capped with cement. There is no way they would be given the permits to do this, with the required extensive clearing and road building that it would require, and would take decades just to work through the environmental impact studies and deal with fish protection plans etc. If this were soft and level ground, it's only several times more expensive, but those aren't the places where the fire danger is high, which is the mountains and canyons and high places where the wind is highest, and where you are on shallow bedrock. Many of the lines currently at risk are installed using helicopters, and since there would be no way to install a oil pipeline through the same terrain, they would have to be routed miles out of the way, increasing the costs many fold again. When you look at the places that do underground utilities, you will find that they are mostly on dirt, and don't have much shallow bedrock to deal with, and also that they have much smaller areas, and so they aren't dealing with a 200 mile run through rugged mountains. There are places where it makes sense, and where they are putting it underground, but the majority of places where underground would be nice, it's not a practical option, and it's not just expensive, it's unbelievably expensive, and incredibly damaging to the environment. So I am not trying to defend pg&e, just giving my experience as someone who has done a lot of digging in those areas, and I watched a lot of pipelines being installed, and what they had to fight with. My little town up in the hills above the Napa Valley in many places has the road asphalt directly on the rock surface, and it's common for the water line and the gas line to be in a trench scraped into the bedrock barely below the asphalt, sometimes with the asphalt directly on it. (leading to frequent leaks lol) In order to put the power lines underground you would have to blast trenches through this everywhere....
    8
  132. 8
  133. 8
  134. 8
  135. 8
  136. 8
  137. 7
  138. 7
  139. 7
  140. 7
  141. 7
  142. 7
  143. 7
  144.  @guidedmeditation2396  you are correct that NASA used experienced seamstresses to sew the gloves and fine details on the Apollo suits, and some of them were probably grandmothers, but the key was that they were the best seamstresses around, hired out of the garment industry because there was no aerospace industry at the time, and able to make the perfectly fitted suits accurately. But you have to remember that the suits had many layers of different materials, for comfort against the skin, insulation, debris protection, ventilation, bellows for mobility, etc, and then they had a pressure layer over the top of it. In addition, are you unaware that you can seam seal stitches? Between stitching through wet sealant, applying flexible sealants over the top of the stitches, applying seam sealant tapes over the seams, dipping the entire thing in liquid latex, etc etc, there are countless ways to seal needle holes and prevent leaks. And the Apollo suits didn't function flawlessly for a long period of time, they were each used once and then replaced. No Apollo suit went to the moon twice, because they wore out too fast. The part that you don't seem to understand is that while the seamstresses may have been sewing the suits together, the materials they were using were all custom designed and manufactured by teams across the country developing and testing new materials, and then after the ladies would sew a suit up, it would be sent to a giant lab and extensive testing done on it. Then the life support systems would have to be designed and built and tested, because these aren't just some fancy set of pajamas they are sewing up, it's a self contained miniature space ship, and the ladies were only responsible for assembling the soft parts of it, not building the entire thing. So if you think that they could build another one by getting done grannies in a sewing circle, you are missing the thousands of workers in labs and factories across the country that it took to make each suit, and so don't understand how expensive the Apollo suits were, or why new ones are so expensive.
    7
  145. 7
  146. 7
  147. 7
  148. 7
  149. 7
  150. 7
  151. 7
  152. 6
  153. 6
  154. 6
  155. 6
  156. 6
  157. 6
  158. 6
  159. 6
  160. 6
  161. 6
  162. 6
  163. 6
  164. 6
  165. 6
  166. 6
  167. 6
  168. 6
  169. 6
  170. 6
  171. 6
  172. 6
  173. 6
  174. 6
  175. 6
  176. 6
  177. The long version... lol In order to have current flow, you have to have a complete circuit between the power source, through the wires, and back to the other side of the power source. The ground wire is connected at one end to the neutral conductor, thus to one side of the power source, but it has no connection to the other side of the power source, and also no connection anywhere else to the neutral wire, and so no current can flow. This is actually exactly why the ground and neutral are only supposed to be Bonded at a single location, because if you had the ground wire connected to neutral at the main panel and also at an outlet you would get some current flow on the ground wire, because it basically becomes part of the neutral circuit, and that's not good! For one thing when you have current flow in a conductor, due to resistance you have differences in potential along the wire, and so some parts of the ground wire would now have a voltage difference when compared to say the water pipes, leading to shock hazards. This is part of the reason for the ground rod at the house, which will also be bonded to the water pipes, it's to achieve what's known as Equal Potential, where the neutral wire, and the ground wire, is at the exact same voltage as the water pipes and the dirt. And the ground rod at the transformer bonds the split phase windings to force one side of the transformer to be at the same potential as the earth. If you leave the neutral floating on a transformer, then you get 120v or whatever between the terminals, but you don't have one that's at 0v in reference to the ground, it floats. One site I was working on some industrial controls in an equipment room, and I was there after dark one day and discovered that there was 110v on the ground buss in the plc cabinet after I melted the end off a screwdriver lol I found that there was 0v from the "Hot" wire to grounded objects like water pipes, and 110v on the neutral and ground wires. I started testing but didn't find anything that night, so the next day I was going to start tracing the whole system back through the breaker boxes, but when I got there, everything was correct! I was confused, until a later day I was there late and around dark I heard a loud clunk, and curious I checked, and the voltage had flipped. Then I realized that some big outdoor lights were powered off the 110v panel, and so I started turning breakers off, and finally discovered that when I turned the breaker for one of the lights on, the voltage flipped. I discovered that the light circuit was dead shorted when the photocell energized it, so I disconnected it until it could be replaced. The room was served by a 3 phase feed, and they had put a transformer in the room to derive 110/240, and when I pulled the panel off, sure enough, the electrician who installed it had not bonded the neutral, so it was floating. That meant that when the "hot" side was shorted to ground, rather than tripping anything, it just referenced the whole transformer, and everything on the sub panel, so that hot was at Ground potential, and thus ground and neutral were now at 110 v to ground. I called the site rep over the next day and told him the problem, but he tried to tell me I was crazy, so I put the meter between the ground buss and the metal building, and took a test lead and hooked it to a screwdriver and the metal building, and jabbed the screwdriver into a live outlet with him yelling at me to stop, and then told him to look at the meter... I had to walk him through bonding and what was happening, but finally he agreed to call their electrician to come in and wire the transformer properly.
    6
  178. 6
  179. 6
  180. Basically the difference is that the nitrate levels and purity are carefully monitored and regulated in the "cured" products because they are regulated food additives, while the "uncured" products are preserved just the same with the nitrites, except it's via an unregulated and inconsistent strength "ingredient" that they usually have to add more of to ensure they get the minimum levels. So chances are that you are eating MORE of the nitrates and nitrites in the uncured products, but there is also a risk of food spoilage due to the inconsistent levels of nitrates in the celery sourced products. So it's all just marketing, no one cares about the health effects. It's like how since MSG gets a bad rap, it's not used very much, and instead there's lots of hydrolyzed soy protein or whatever, many different highly processed substances that are mostly MSG, but the MSG hasn't been specifically isolated so they can still call it something else. In this case, the celery juice is highly chemically processed and refined, so it bears no more resemblance to celery than cellophane plastic does to a tree, but because they don't refine it, they can still call it celery juice something. So many "natural" things are really no different than the "unnatural" version. And I am not taking a position on whether MSG or nitrates are harmful, I don't want Uncle Roger to get upset at me, but there are many things that are touted as natural that are in fact quite harmful, and many times the uniform lab created version is safer because it has a lot of harmful aspects removed. And other things it's exactly the opposite!
    6
  181. 6
  182. 6
  183. 6
  184. 5
  185. 5
  186. 5
  187. 5
  188. 5
  189. 5
  190. 5
  191. 5
  192. 5
  193. 5
  194. 5
  195. 5
  196. 5
  197. 5
  198. 5
  199. 5
  200. 5
  201. 5
  202. 5
  203. 5
  204. 5
  205. 5
  206. 5
  207. 5
  208. 5
  209. 5
  210. 5
  211.  @coryCuc if you knew your history you would know that the Interstate Highway System was a Federal project because it was needed for National Security. Leaving the roads up to the states and counties didn't work, because you would end up with miles of muddy roads through swamps that were impassable much of the year. This prevented interstate commerce, but most importantly made it impossible to move troops and machinery around the country quickly. The only way to make a reliable all weather road network through all the states was for the Federal government to do it, thus the National Defense Highway Act was passed creating the plan. And before you say the states should have done it, most of them couldn't. Most states do not raise enough revenue to support their own roads, Interstates or state routes local roads etc. This is why you couldn't really drive coast to coast prior to the Interstate system, because many states didn't have enough revenue to pay for it. So all the Representatives of the States joined in Congress decided that it would make the most sense to create a central agency that would collect road funds from all the states and use it for the benefit of the nation, since keeping it connected reliably is important for both national security and prosperity. The strength of the nation relies on the ability of a company in San Francisco to ship a truck load of widgets to New York city, and that requires at least as good a road across Nevada and Utah as across California and New York, but Nevada and Utah don't have the population to support roads that mainly carry people across the state. So that requires California and New York to pitch in to build that road, and that is ddjbr, via mutual agreement, via the federal agencies. And remember, while the constitution may give the States certain authority, it doesn't forbid the states from deciding to ask the federal government to coordinate, and thus lend the Federal some of the State responsibilities. Also remember that many states receive more money in taxes than they pay to the Feds, while states like California subsidize the rest of the states. The states that receive more than they pay tend to be Republican, rural, with high acreage low density businesses such as farms and agriculture, or they have little in the way of natural resources etc.
    5
  212. 5
  213. 5
  214. 5
  215. 5
  216. 5
  217. 5
  218.  @A.Lifecraft  you seem to think that because you "studied physics" that you are smarter than 100 years plus of engineers and scientists and and end users finding every possible way to make one of these terminations fail. There are only two ways to terminate a wire rope where the termination is stronger than the rope itself, and doesn't derate the cable due to bending it etc. You 100%of the cable strength with pressure swaged ferrules and fittings, and with Spelter poured ends like this (using either a special epoxy or zinc/white metal/Babbitt metal, etc). Since hydraulic ferrule presses are a newer invention, and a major investment, Spelter sockets are one of the most common methods to terminate cables, including bridges, crane support cables, rigging slings, barge tow lines, etc, and it's been that way for a very long time. Tug boats will carry the stuff on board so if one of their giant tow lines gets damaged, they can easily cut off the bad end and put the Spelter socket back on the end. They have been extensively tested and studied, by people with actual degrees, and the physics of how they work are well understood. I went to Crosby and did some reading on their research, and I was wrong on one point. It's almost entirely the wedging action of the tapered zinc or epoxy plug that holds the cable in. Using epoxy for instance, when it cures you have two forces acting on the wires, adhesion and friction. They found that either the adhesion or the friction by itself was adequate to seat the plug and create enough wedging action to break the cable. However, if the plug didn't seat, the adhesion was not enough to hold the wires in, so these fittings are always proof tested after installation to ensure it seats the plug. So they found that even if the wires were oiled so it would seem that they could slip out easily, there was still enough friction to pull the wedge in and exceed the breaking strength of the cable. And that's the key point of this termination method, it holds the cable securely enough that the cable will break before it pulls out of the potting material, because of the wedge shape squeezing tighter the more load you add to it. You also seem to think that zinc is a lubricant, which makes me wonder if you understood how Babbitt bearings worked, and I also suspect that the bearings you referred to are actually Babbitt metal, which is tin based, and not zinc. Babbitt works by having hard crystals in a soft matrix, providing a low coefficient of friction when used with a polished harder shaft. And it requires oil to make that happen. If you run steel directly on babbitt, or zinc, it will tear it up, because it's not a lubricant. And crimped wire rope wires are not a smooth surface, and so will not easily slide out of metal poured around it. The fact that it has held for 30 years indicates that it was a proper joint, or it would have failed when originally loaded. Also, the fact it failed after 30 years points to the likelihood of corrosion outside the potted section, which is a known and likely issue. So instead of saying that one of the best and most thoroughly tested cable termination methods is a bad idea, maybe we wait for more data on the actual failure.
    5
  219. 5
  220. 5
  221. 5
  222. 5
  223. 4
  224. 4
  225. 4
  226. 4
  227. 4
  228. 4
  229. 4
  230. 4
  231. 4
  232. 4
  233. 4
  234. 4
  235. 4
  236. 4
  237. 4
  238. 4
  239. 4
  240. 4
  241. 4
  242. 4
  243. 4
  244. 4
  245. 4
  246. 4
  247. 4
  248. 4
  249. 4
  250. 4
  251. 4
  252. 4
  253. 4
  254. 4
  255. 4
  256. 4
  257. 4
  258. 4
  259. 4
  260. 4
  261. 4
  262.  @jarkkohaimakainen2378  that's exactly the issue, translating the F1 designs and processes into modern manufacturing and technology would involve a ridiculous amount of work and money. All the F1s ever built were hand built by the guys who designed them and figured out how to build them, or people they had directly trained. So while the dimensions and chemistry of a combustion chamber might be in the records, the exact heat treating process, how it was stacked in the furnace, and exactly what the specs of the furnace were used, how it was cooled down to prevent warping, and then how it was hand lapped and adjusted to get it to fit and work perfectly, was only known by the craftsman actually doing it. And when they considered restarting the program, most of the original workers were dead or no longer remembered the details, and a lot of the engineer and technician notes had been lost or taken home by the workers. The machines and tools they used and the technology and techniques that they used back then are also no longer in use and not well understood anymore, kind of like very few people know how to black Smith anymore. So it would require figuring out how to build old designs with modern technology, which would also mean redesigning a lot of parts to make them compatible with CNC and other modern technology and materials science And at the end of the day, they realized that they would basically be starting from scratch, because they would have to start building and testing parts until they figured out how to get the required performance, and so they realized that it would be easier to design a new engine using modern technology from the start, rather than try to restart the F1 production. And that's the same issue Russia would run into if they try to reverse engineer anything, because if they don't have the materials science and exact tools and methods used, they won't be able to produce the exact copy without extensive R&D to develop their own skills and technology.
    4
  263. 4
  264. 4
  265. 4
  266. 4
  267. 4
  268. 4
  269. 4
  270. 4
  271. 4
  272. 4
  273. 4
  274. 4
  275. 4
  276. 4
  277. 4
  278. 4
  279. 4
  280. 4
  281. 4
  282. 4
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. 3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290. 3
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293. 3
  294.  @gandalf1783  if you are insulated and touch a hot wire, nothing happens. Just like a bird sitting on a power line. However, moisture is present in a lot of things, and most shoes are not completely insulating (sweat from the foot combined with pinholes in the sole etc), and so electricity can often find ways back to Source. For instance, if you are standing on bathroom floor after someone took a shower, the floor might have enough moisture on it to make a current path to a ground-bonded water pipe. You can also simply touch both terminals on an outlet. Or on carpet, if the humidity is high enough there might be some conductivity, or maybe you are kneeling on a nail beneath the carpet and the board has some moisture because the crawl space has high humidity, and the board is grounded to the damp concrete foundation. However, if you are wearing dry shock hazard shoes which have a dielectric barrier in them with no pinholes, or you are standing on a dry rubber anti shock mat, a clean and dry fiberglass ladder or plastic stool, then you can touch a hot lead with no shock, because there is no where for the current to go. All of the situations I mentioned before are very high impedance circuits, but it takes so little current to be dangerous to us that we can still get that shock. Now, I have gotten a lot of shocks in my life, between faulty equipment (not my fault) and working with electricity (my fault lol), and most of them were more straight forward, standing on wet surfaces, or touching both sides of a circuit, like the time my hand slipped on a large motor starter overload reset button and I punched across the 3 phase 480v terminals with my knuckles. I was actually standing on wet metal when it happened, but I had dry boots on so the only shock I got was between phases across my knuckles. I also was in the habit when I was working on open control panels like that to keep one hand behind my back, which may have saved my life that time, because if my other hand had been holding the cabinet door at the time it would have been much worse. I had an old electrician friend who used to never put cover plates on at his place so he could test the power easily if something went out, and he had to lick his fingers to be able to feel 110 v lol And usually he had to touch across both terminals or touch something grounded, because he would not be grounded standing on dry dirt or concrete. But it's hard to tell for us normal people whether what we are standing on is indeed dry enough to insulate us from ground.
    3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. 3
  299. 3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. What many are missing is that the "minor software issue" is actually a serious ground up design problem that needs to be completely redesigned with different assumptions and criteria. They designed the system in a way where a single point of failure would cause the capsule to blindly do things regardless of any other inputs. It was simply responding to a fixed sequence based on the clock, and that means that we won't find out what else has zero fault tolerance or error checking, until it's actually put to use. I do industrial automation, so I am familiar with making large machines perform actions automatically, and you always want to verify your inputs and have some form of error checking or redundancy. For instance, the easiest one. If the clock says 11, before you do the step for 11, you verify that the previous steps have been completed. Or, before changing the orientation of the craft, you check the star trackers and GPS and verify where you are supposed to be with where you actually are. You can also compare SECO/deployment with the download clock time and verify that they match the schedule. But, just like with MCAS, it is a system with lots of power and no way to verify or error check what it's doing, so one input is all it needs to jump off the bridge blindly. And you can say that it could be overridden by the crew and everything would be fine, but since they obviously failed in basic design and ground testing, designing a system that could fail so confidently, and not testing it adequately to discover this problem, but that is not a valid assumption, because the rest of the system is designed and tested by the same team, and so it would be surprising if this blind and Fail Dangerous system didn't have other similar flaws and bad assumptions and improperly tested aspects, that could have terrible consequences without a review as detailed as the MCAS is receiving.
    3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. 3
  313. 3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. I am an F350 guy (diesel, crew cab 4wd, and yes, I actually use it ;) ), but I am also a Tesla lover. I think this is the best designed non Tesla EV yet, if I were back in construction, this would be an amazing truck, with lots of good quirks and features, and the familiar Ford feel. So kudos to Ford, I was not expecting to be this impressed with it, based on all the other "Tesla Killers" so far lol. That said, I expect that the Cybertruck will also be a good worktruck, and will be cheaper for the same capabilities. Since the CT is still "subject to change" in design and specs, I won't at all be surprised if they add in some of the Ford features so they are equal on features. For instance, bed lighting and under body lighting is just an extra lighting kit, easy to add. The 40 amp 220 v inverter with lots of outlets is a pretty basic thing to match or exceed, as is being able to power your house. (the Tesla charge port already has this capability, it just needs to have the right wall hardware). I like the easy access front truck, and I don't know if the CT will have that, or does already, but I hope it gets added. So basically it would be easy for Tesla to put the extra window dressing on, and maybe make a specific "Work Truck edition" with built in saw horses or whatever, and none of it takes major engineering work, except maybe the easy access front trunk. The concerns I have with the Ford are production capacity, how many they will actually be able to mild, between factory ramp, battery supplies, 3rd party parts shortages, etc. I expect it will end up being delayed, and then probably not easily available for quite a while. The other concern is how these features will work in real life, what practical range will be as a work truck, how reliable the inverter will be, and how much repairs will cost, and all the other details that Ford doesn't really have experience with, that may bite them and the buyers. So if the early adopters are having lots of problems, the demand may dry up, or if it's not enough capacity to drive to the job across town and then run some tools for a few hours and make it home, the benefits of the system may not prove a good investment. So IF Ford can execute this smoothly, than I see a good market for it, but I don't see it being competition to the Cybertruck particularly either, because they are so different in appearance lol I know a lot of guys who see pulling up at the jobsite in a Ford is part of their carefully crafted image, but I also know a lot of people where pulling up at the customer in a Cybertruck will be part of their Brand, and specifically to set them apart from the competition. Imagine the yard care companies in the Bay Area or Florida getting fleets of Cybertrucks as the company calling card, etc.
    3
  319. 3
  320. 3
  321. 3
  322. 3
  323. 3
  324. ​ @CHECKERCE this is actually a very good use of Spot, pretty much the first one I have seen actually lol It's not really useful to install temperature sensors on motors, because different areas get hot depending on if it's a bad bearing or a bad motor, and so you have to have multiple temperature sensors on each motor in order to get the same data that a thermal imager will give you. And in a facility like this with thousands of motors, it would take months to install something like that, and most of the motors you can't access safely without a plant shutdown, so it would cost a lot to money to try to wire everything up. And thermal cameras that can give temperature alerts in an industrial environment are thousands of dollars each, and you would need hundreds of them to cover all the motors and gear boxes and bearings in the plant. On the other hand, you put one good thermal imaginary camera on the robot, and one good ultrasonic sensor on it, and then have it roam the plant 20 hours a day (with charging time), and it can get into the correct positions to check the temperature on every motor and gear box, and monitor for air leaks or even bearings going out, and even if it takes 3 days to cover the entire plant, you have constant monitoring going on, that would require hiring several additional technicians to do manually otherwise. So in this exact scenario it actually makes a lot of sense, and is a good investment, assuming that the automatic alerts etc work properly, because it frees up more expensive humans to actual correct the problems, rather than just having to do passive monitoring. And remember that Spot costs much less than hiring a single technician, so even if it only does the job of one employee, it will pay for itself in less than a year in a big facility like that.
    3
  325.  @MillionFoul  you just described for me WHY they need to do actual testing, because the systems are so interrelated, actually testing different failure modes is the only way to verify that a new system is safe! You are talking about a plane or rocket system like its a phone app, where you can just test it in the simulator, and then publish it, and then fix the bugs that show up, rather than testing it with different model phones and different OS versions. It's fine for an app, not for a plane. In addition, it was because of lack of testing and verification that they decided that MCAS wasn't a Catastrophic level system, because if they had looked at the more powerful version that shipped, they would have realized that it was capable of catastrophic failures. But because they had very low levels of oversight and were happy to ship stuff with minimal verification and testing, it never got looked at after it was strengthened. If they had been paying attention, they would have realized as soon as they discovered that they screwed up on the AOA disagree indicator, that the lack of it would leave the flight crew with no way to recognize an MCAS issue, especially considering that no one even knew MCAS existed, and someone would have realized that maybe they should alert the customers that the feature they were training for, didn't actually function. But they decided that it wasn't needed, and so were going to include it quietly in a future update, which never came... As to your claim that the crashes were mostly pilot error, you are assuming that the procedures and memory items are infallible and accurate, and they aren't. They attempted to follow the runaway trim procedure, but they were unable to, because the manual trim wheels are not able to be cranked with the control surface at that high an angle, because the aerodynamic forces are too high to overcome manually, and they were too low altitude to be able to dive while they cranked it to take load off of it. So when that didn't work, they re-engaged the trim cutouts, and were able to use the trim switch to recover. Now, if Boeing/FAA had actually told anyone about MCAS, the procedure would be that if the AOA disagree indicator was on, and you had runaway trim, to use the yoke trim switches to get the proper trim, and then turn the trim cutout switches off. And everything would have been fine. But because they decided not to tell anyone, and instead rely on a 50 year old procedure that hadn't been tested under extreme conditions, and that made their untested software unable to be overridden, causing hundreds of deaths. And claiming that the pilots didn't follow procedures that wouldn't work under those circumstances, in a failure mode that they had no training for, because a company shipped untested and unverified software without telling anyone, shows that you have bought into their culture, that not testing extensively is all right, because it costs too much to do proper testing. And it's rich that you make this claim after all the other stuff has come out and the Max failures, both of internal and external oversight, and now seeing the same thing play out with Starliner, with major lack of testing, as well as lack of internal and oversight. The whole system is broken if a company is this lax about testing their actual product, and the supposed oversight agency lets them do whatever they want, to save some time and money. Hopefully this tragedy, and the Starliner comedy (since no one was on it) will get NASA to put Boeing back on the leash, and get the world airline regulators to get involved in making sure that the planes are safe, even if it costs more money.
    3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 3
  330. 3
  331. 3
  332. 3
  333. 3
  334. 3
  335. 3
  336. 3
  337. 3
  338. 3
  339. 3
  340. 3
  341. 3
  342. 3
  343. 3
  344. 3
  345. 3
  346. 3
  347. 3
  348. 3
  349. 3
  350. 3
  351. 3
  352. 3
  353. 3
  354. 3
  355. 3
  356. 3
  357. 3
  358. 3
  359. 3
  360. 3
  361. 3
  362. 3
  363. 3
  364. 3
  365. 3
  366. 3
  367. 3
  368. 3
  369. 3
  370. 3
  371. 3
  372. 3
  373. I was nodding along until you lumped Keto in with the rest and misrepresented it. For people who do it properly, keto is extremely effective at burning fat, and is the ONLY diet that allows the body to burn stored fat constantly. And yes, most people don't do it for long, which is fine, since it doesn't take long to cut the fat off! Keto works by keeping carbs low enough that the body stops producing insulin. This is important because the presence of insulin blocks the body from being able to break down the stored fat as fuel. Exercise gets around this if you exercise long and hard enough to deplete the blood sugar and insulin, forcing the body to burn fat, but it comes out of ketosis as soon as you eat a snack bar or drink a Gatorade, and fat burn stops. If you are doing proper keto, you are constantly low on blood sugar and insulin, and so your body can access your stored fat constantly, and does. Skinny people on long term keto diets eat lots of fat as their primary energy source, and if they are active people spending all day at the gym they basically have to drink straight fat to keep up with the energy needs. (gross lol) For people like me with plenty of stored fat, keto mainly means limiting my carb intake below the minimum, and trying to keep my fat intake low, that way my body has to burn stored fat as it's primary energy source, and the weight comes off even with no exercise, because the body needs a certain number of calories per day even lying in bed (or driving a truck in my case), and so keto is really the ONLY diet where you can lose weight while sitting on your ass, without starving yourself, and still having decent energy levels. Any other diet relies on the high intensity exercises, or basically starving the body, in order to reduce weight, because any diet with carbs in it blocks the ability to burn fat directly. I do agree that it's not sustainable, but if you are doing it as a weight loss tool, then you can stop the madness as soon as you reach your target weight, or get tired of it. After a while in keto, my body lets me know when I need to reintroduce living food and a lighter diet, but I will have lost quite a few pounds by then. Once I am off keto, I will generally be feeling well enough that I am able to control portion size and time to hold the weight level for a while, but then things get stressful etc and I start gaining weight again, and when it gets uncomfortable, I do a round of keto again to get back down to a comfortable weight. So, I do agree that keto is not a good long term lifestyle diet for most people, unless they love gnawing on raw meat every day anyway, and it isn't a particularly healthy diet all told, but it's a very effective weight loss tool when done properly, and understanding how it works and what it does.
    3
  374. 3
  375. 3
  376. 3
  377. 3
  378. 3
  379. 3
  380. 3
  381. 3
  382.  @A.Lifecraft  it sounds like maybe you have also heard of trapping monkeys by putting chunks of salt etc into bulb shaped holes? Lol The reasons that they don't just solder the wires around the edges is, 1, you would be relying entirely on the shear strength of the solder to hold the load, and 2, the cables are giant, and you would have to have a very large ring to be able to terminate every strand to the anchor ring. Instead, the cable end is simply expanded, like the sticks on a witches broom, and unlike my analogy with your hand, the center is also full of strands, all evenly spaced apart. So basically you are forming the end of the cable into a wedge shape, and then filling it in with the potting metal to hold that shape. It doesn't rely on the sheer strength of the metal, which is why it's a tapered shape, so that the tension increases the gripping force on the wires much like a wedge and socket, but it's even stronger, because instead of simply using friction to hold the wires, it also uses the intermetallic bonds to make the wires become part of the wedge. In addition, and very important for such a large cable, it evenly distributes the load across all the strands and compresses them all evenly. In a wedge socket design, the friction is only on the outer strands, and it loads the core unevenly, while relying on bends in the cable to transfer force, leading to high stress points, cable, bundle, and strand deformation, and thus loss of strength. This method protects each strand, does not require any bending or deformation, and equalizes the compression forces and friction and actual metallic bonds across all the wires.
    3
  383. 3
  384. 3
  385. 3
  386. 3
  387. 3
  388. 3
  389. 3
  390. 3
  391. 3
  392. 3
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403.  @travcollier  in other words, Peter is trying to make his decision not to copy SX sound reasonable. Same as ULA dismissing reusablity. But you have to look at two other factors as well. The reason Peter ate his hat is because he realized that if they were able to reuse rockets they could save money, by reducing the number of rockets they had to build. In other words, reusablity was cheaper than building a second factory. So the recovery plan used a parachute and a helicopter, which is cheaper than a barge landing, for a tiny rocket. It's not an option for SpaceX, because the Falcon 9 is MUCH too large to catch with a helicopter. So Peter's new bigger rocket design is designed to do propulsive landing, and he is talking about how much money he saves by not using a barge, but at what cost? SpaceX doesn't need a barge, they have RTLS pads right next to the launch pads, and they can save so much money. But at what cost? RTLS takes away a lot of performance from the rocket, so less payload to orbit. So while Peter might be saving money with no barge, he's also reducing the maximum payload he can carry for every flight, unless he goes full disposable. So basically SpaceX has to look at each payload and flight and decide if it's cheaper to run the barge out there, or just dispose of the rocket. And so far, between the actual cost savings of reuse, combined with the increased launch cadence allowed without building a new factory, the barges are a good investment. But then, you have to remember that SpaceX wants to get away from the barges as well, which is where you need Starship, because it's large enough to RTLS with any size payload, so you are not limiting your largest payload by RTLS. You can launch an actual big yellow bulldozer to the moon with it! And if someone made a large enough payload, they could do fully expendable and only be out a few million dollars in stainless steel lol So Peter is talking up his personal choices, but not presenting the full picture, such as how much RTLS limits his payloads. Falcon 9 ride share with that 3rd party custom space tug to deliver small sats to exact orbits will be cheaper than Neutron anyway, so it's only benefits are a little more scheduling customization. And then Starship should be even cheaper still. But, I suspect there are enough customers who don't want to give Elon money that Rocket Lab has a chance at survival lol
    2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415.  @Bourinos02  a single bus line was not an option at the Las Vegas convention center, because there is no room for it. Otherwise they would have simply bought a couple of busses. And the reason so many casinos want the system to go to their casino is because traffic is already so bad that the busses that run the Strip can take an hour to get down it. Even 30 mph is several times faster than the options. You then compare some early concept art with the early prototype system, and don't see that the design matured since that early artwork, and also that the current system of human driven cars is only temporary. As the demand increases, higher capacity pods specifically designed for tunnel operation will get built, but I don't expect to see that until after Giga Texas gets finished, since Fremont doesn't have the capacity to build any new designs. And as the FSD software improves, it will be able to take a greater role in the driving. And as longer straight tunnels are made, such as down the Strip, speeds can increase as well. So all of your current complaints are that it's not all happening instantly right at the start, and so doesn't yet look like the end goal. When Elon says "next year", he's saying that he thinks something can be achieved in that period of time, but he makes clear that he is speaking of the goals he has, and that there are often delays and setbacks. Look at the Crew Dragon system. Years of delays, lots of "vapor ware" accusations, but now working beautifully. Same with Starlink and Model 3 and countless other projects that he has worked on that were delayed and called impossible, and are now part of daily life. And I was extrapolating that Starlink is probably over 2 hundred thousand users by now as they continue shipping dishes as fast as possible, but my point is that it's in daily use across the globe, so can't really call it vapor ware any more.
    2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431.  @spruce_goose5169  Google SWER, Single wire earth return. I would include a couple links, but YT doesn't always like links. It is not used very much because you get better performance if you add a return wire, it is a common method of current flow at utility scale. So while at household voltages and with household ground systems, earth return is not a practical solution for carrying much current, but when you get to utility scale they are able to do a lot more, because the more current paths you get through the earth, the more current you can get to flow, and if you think about it, the utility has thousands or millions of ground connections, since the neutral wire on the poles has several ground rods per mile creating a vast distributed grounding network. In relation to the Delta system, that's simple to explain. If you put a load between A phase and B phase, you will always have potential, because it's AC, and they are out of phase with each other. You knew that you can run a load across only two phases of 3 phase, right? You don't need a neutral wire to carry current with 3 phase, because the other phases act as the lower potential conductor. But because the Source is always grounded, if you test between a 3 phase power line and the dirt, you will still find it has potential to ground, even without the neutral wire. And the bike chain analogy is a bad one, since electrons take every path available, and are not constrained to only a single physical path. So if you take a wire off the 120v terminal on a utility pole transformer and take it all the way back to the power plant, it will make fireworks because there is a potential difference, despite going through all the transformers in between. If you truly isolate a system, then there is no potential to ground, but utility transformers are not true Isolation Transformers, because they don't provide capacitive isolation, and since the utility grounds the neutral, it removes any isolation that may have existed, meaning that every neutral and every hot wire all the way back to the power plant is tied together electrically, and current flows every available path, including through the earth.
    2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462.  @nipponsuxs  that's a common misconception, but it's not actually correct. Each nation used to maintain their own "Prototype" standard, basically a precision weight for mass units, and a precision ruler for length etc. That's why the USC inch and the Imperial inch didn't match, because they were based on different Prototypes, and even in carefully temperature controlled rooms they always are changing length. When the US and Britain agreed to normalize the inch, the center point they picked lined up with 25.4 mm based on the current length of the Prototype used for the metric system kept in France, and so they agreed that the 3 systems would now always track with each other, because previously they were always changing in regards to each other as the different Prototypes shifted length. They had been cross checking for a few years, and they had found that the French Prototype was the one that changed length the least, it had a more stable alloy than the US or British ones and so it was decided that everyone would track its length. But that doesn't mean that it was the metric system defining how long an inch was, it means that the US defined the Prototype as 39.37 inches, and even as it changed length, it would be measured as 39.37 inches and everything else would adjust to match it. So at this point, all 3 systems were simply locked to each other as a conversion factor, and it's just the luck of hundred year old metallurgy that the Meter Prototype was more stable than the US Prototype, or it would have been used. It's all a moot point now because Length is now defined by the time it takes for photons to travel a certain distance, and the 3 systems are locked together so they all change based on the most accurate technology at the time.
    2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. I picked one of these up by the engine once lol A cherry red one got completely high centered on top of a rock wall, right side wheels hanging in space, at Meadowood Resort in the Napa Valley a few years ago, and one of the other tow truck guys who got called out to it called me over from another city because he had no idea how to get it off... The guy had launched it coming out of the tennis court parking lot, and managed to basically fly it onto the top of the rock wall with only a little damage to the front air dam, and some undercarriage damage, and so we had to try to figure out how to lift it off without damaging anything else, so we couldn't just drag it off, and lifting anywhere would damage body panels. (we don't have those spreader bars like they use in Europe to lift by the wheels....) After looking all over from every angle and trying to find some option, I stepped back and looked at the car, and got an idea. So I went and popped the back window (hood) open, and looked in, and sure enough! Just like Honda likes doing, the engine had lifting eyes on it. After checking the geometry, I found that the window opened just far enough that I could get the cable straight down to the engine without hitting it. So I went and grabbed my bag of tricks that all the other drivers always made fun of because I loaded way too much on whenever I went on duty, and sure enough! I had a selection of various shackles and clevises and screw links and some short pieces of chain etc, and I put small screw links on the lifting eyes, and then stacked up different sizes until I could make a chain bridle between the lifting eyes. I remember I had to use multiple sizes because of clearance issues around the manifold or whatever. It was NOT pretty, and NOT rated for overhead lifting lol Then I got my tow truck positioned on an angle with the boom over the engine (this was on a narrow one way lane, so I couldn't get next to the car), got the cable past the window, chained the front end of the car loosely to the flatbed tow truck (the air dam and bumper were already damaged, so there was no loss), and then gingerly lifted, and picked the rear of the car up via the engine (I figured the engine was the heaviest part lol) and then retracted the boom to swing the car a few inches off the rocks. Since I was on an angle, I had to repeat this process several times, moving the tow truck in between each time, but we finally got the rear swung over onto the road, and then we were able to run the flatbed under the front end at an angle, lift it up and pull it over as well. And all this was in front of a Live Studio Audience, because the car was owned by a rich and well known local, and all the other rich guys thought it was more interesting than playing tennis lol Too bad it was before camera phones! Our company (Carl's, in St Helena), who was also the best body shop in the area, so was also doing the repairs, got a letter from the guy a while later, saying how great a job we had done not causing any more damage, and how much money we had saved him by being so careful. After this, I got less flack about all the junk I carried, because they realized I actually had it for a purpose! Lol I also have been to the guys house to jump start it, and THAT was nerve wracking, trying to avoid dragging the cables on the paint... Sadly, both the area where his house was, and Meadowood Resort (along with a bunch of my friends houses...), burned in the latest fire storm, but I would guess he was dead by now, so the car is probably long gone, since that's what the people here care about! Lol
    2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472.  Joe Chang , yes, like I said, gravity and magnetism were similar in that they both decay with distance, and I used magnetism as an example because it is something that we can feel and experiment with instead of just being an abstract theory. As far as long distance radio data transmission, yes! I am a Ham Radio operator, and also spent a few years in broadcast radio, including installing and tuning towers and the antennas on them, so I know a few things about the subject. You need 2 things you need to get a signal that far. A high gain antenna at each end, and an error correcting data format for when interference overpowers the signal briefly. If you take 23 watts and put it into a standard whip antenna (like a car radio antenna for instance), that power is going to radiate in all directions equally, and so any one direction is only going to get a tiny fraction of that energy. That is a zero gain antenna. But if you modify they antenna a little bit, such as putting reflector elements behind it, or the ultimate, using a dish antenna, you can point all that energy in one direction, giving it "gain". An old rooftop TV antenna is an example, having reflector elements behind the main element. A parabolic dish antenna is the highest gain you can have basically, which is why it it used for satellite dishes and microwave telecommunications links etc. So what they do for the deep space missions is have a parabolic dish antenna that is kept aimed back at earth, and then since the atmosphere attenuates radio waves, and there is a lot of rf interference on earth, they have a network of satellites called the Deep Space Network or something like that, and they have even bigger dish antennas pointed back, and the combination is enough to allow communication at those distances. It is extremely slow, because the data rate has to be kept very low at those distances, but the signal gets through, and if some drops out, it gets resent. Then the Deep Space Network satellite relays it back to the earth ground station.
    2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. Scott, one thing I think you misunderstood is the radio communication issue. On the teleconference they really tried to talk around the issue, but finally got asked enough times what the problem was that they very reluctantly said more than just "an elevated background noise floor in certain geographical areas". From what I heard on the teleconference, they said it was a loss of communication with TDRS, probably because of cell towers. Now, I am a radio guy, and I don't know exactly what system they had set up, but if it involved the TDRS satellite network, then it would either be a ground station uplink to TDRS, or a connection to a NASA TDRS ground station. If they are communicating directly with the capsule, they wouldn't need TDRS, so I am guessing that it was a TDRS uplink site, probably something Boeing built especially for Starliner. And didn't test... Cell towers broadcast relatively low power, and directed out horizontally, so they don't waste power aiming for the sky. Ever try to send a text from a plane? Lol You don't get reception even directly over a tower usually, because the lobe is horizontal. So there's no way that a cell tower would reach a signal to LEO. It's just not powerful enough. So, if a cell tower caused interference, it was with ground based equipment, not space based. And that means that they probably didn't design proper filters and interference rejection into the ground systems, which is standard practice for any radio system installed near possible interference sources. In addition, if it was a ground station connecting to TDRS, then they could test it ahead of time, to verify it connected. Oh, and certainly they would have known that they were using the same frequency band (or near harmonics of) the nearby cell towers, because that's part of a basic site survey, and that's all in the public FCC database. So if cell towers indeed causes this interference, unless one of the cell transmitters had just gone nuclear and was pumping out highly elevated levels of noise and hadn't shut down yet, then it means that they didn't do a proper site survey, they didn't design the system with intermod and interference rejection and protection and filtration, they didn't test the system to see if there was a lot of noise from nearby frequencies, and didn't test the link to TDRS to make sure it was stable. And if they messed up THAT badly, I understand why they REALLY didn't want to admit that cell towers had messed up their TDRS uplink lol
    2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486.  @hawkdsl  haters by their very nature get all the facts wrong. He was not kicked out of PayPal, he was replaced as CEO just before it was sold to eBay. I agree that SpaceX works so well because of Shotwell, which is exactly why Elon gave her the job, because they work well together, she keeps the company working smoothly so he can focus on developing new technologies. Without both of them SpaceX would not be what it is today. And if you think that SpaceX could push technology so far without Elon, how come no one else is doing so well, and how come before Elon hired her, Shotwell was just a regular engineer and manager at her previous jobs, and didn't make any amazing progress on anything before joining Elon? Elon certainly has a cult of personality, but acting like that's all he is shows a deep level of denial of the accomplishments he's made and how integral he is to the companies he starts and runs. And countless engineers and scientists have testified how in awe they are at his grasp of engineering and science, and how quickly he learns new things. People who have spent a lifetime studying a particular subject, and they are in a meeting with Elon deciding how to proceed on a project, and he asks the right questions to be able to understand the situation, and then makes a decision that turns out to be the right one. There's a reason SpaceX and Tesla are the most popular places for engineers to work, because Elon has created an environment where engineers can shine and develop amazing things, and with few exceptions, the ones who have worked with Elon say he's a great engineer. You seem not to understand what the T Mobile service is, or how it compares to Starlink broadband internet. They will use the same satellite buss, but nothing else will be the same. It's literally an expansion pack bolted to the Starlink satellite. Different antennas, different frequencies, different power levels, and different ground based hardware. The T-mobile service will only work for slow low bandwidth text message transmission, and possibly eventually phone calls, literally turning the satellite into a cell tower in space as far as the phone knows. Starlink broadband internet service on the other hand is a high bandwidth that provides faster internet service than most cable internet today, and works everywhere in the world (when the laser links are fully rolled out anyway.) If you consider that must of the cruise lines and airlines working on using Starlink for data connections as a "niche" service, that's on you lol Already it's what people across every country are clamoring to get if they live in the country, or half a mile past the end of the cable company internet cable that wants $30k to extend broadband to the house. And as they expand converge to places like Africa and Australia and South America, where internet infrastructure is not built out to most of the country, they will become the primary or only provider of internet access to great swaths of the world. I know lots of people up in Canada for instance that are snapping up Starlink because all they had before was slow access, or Direct TV type internet access which is nearly useless, and now they can have stable and high speed access for about the same price. But the Starlink service is totally different from what T-mobile is talking about, because it requires a large antenna and receiver on the ground, and uses completely different frequencies than cell phones, so the T-mobile deal doesn't give SpaceX more or less access to customers, because the orbital cell tower will be accessed through the cell phone carrier, while the internet service will be through SpaceX directly. So anyway, do your research if you want to sound like you know what you are talking about!
    2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. Basically you are melting a round puddle of metal surrounding the arc (the tip of the wire in this case), and then the filler metal (from the melting wire in mig) fills in the hole created to build up the weld. So on an unprepared (sharp edges, no bevels) inside corner like this doing a fillett weld, if you cut a cross section you would see that it melted into the flat plate, and also melted into the bottom edge of the bar. So on the flat plate it would be like a groove was gouged out, partly extending below the edge of the bar, and it will be like the lower corner of the bar is melted off giving it a beveled edge. But thanks to Kurtis's skillz, he guides the molten metal (partly from the plate and bar, partly from the melting wire) into the weld pool and refills them so they are slightly over filled. Since the arc heats and melts a relatively circular area, you can picture each arc diameter as a seperate operation, so it's melting into the plate, melting into the bar, and melting back into the last spot welded, and then filling that puddle up and mixing them all together. Then it moves forward to the next location and repeats the process. This leaves each layer of weld on an angle since it's bridging from the flat base metal up to the top of the bead of filler metal. A really good bead, especially with TIG is often referred to as "stacking dimes" because that's what it looks like. With a machine like this and the technique Kurtis uses it's going to be more of an elongated weld pool, and he's very smooth, so it looks more like a bead of perfection than a stack of dimes, but if you break it down to a single weld pool at a time it's easier to visualize what's going on. And I was trying to paint a word picture, rather than get technical on the details, so no hate mail lol As to your question, no, there is no wicking under the bar like with solder, the weld is entirely in the area that was actually melted and fused right on the side. And unlike if it was a bead of glue or caulk which would just sit on the surface, there is the melting into the parent metal, which is called Penetration. It's possible to lay a weld bead that only sits on the top of the metal, but it is likely to fall off lol (see their recent video on redoing a line boring job where the last guy got no Penetration and it just sat on the surface, because it wasn't hot enough to melt into the base metal and fuse with it.) You have to melt down into both pieces that you are welding to get them to fuse, and the more Penetration you get, the larger the cross section of the fused metal and the stronger it is. And if you need a REALLY strong weld, then you bevel it. You know how when he welds the cylinder eyes on, he will leave a wide gap between the eye and the rod, and then fill it up completely with the welder? That is so that the entire thickness of the rod, other than the little center dowel or whatever, is completely fused between the rod and the eye. If he's welding thicker steel you will see him bevel the edges back and then start welding down in the "root" and then fill the v bevel up to the top. This fuses the entire thickness. Solder or brazing melts at a lower temperature than the base metal, and so you can heat the base metal up hot enough to melt the solder, and then it can wick into the gap and then cool and harden. If the molten metal is the same, then if it tries to flow into a crack, it will instantly chill and solidify because the base metal is much cooler. And if you try to get the base metal hot enough to make it work, you will just melt the base metal and destroy the whole thing. Now, I realize that you could have watched a video on the welding process in the time it took me to write this, but I had fun and hopefully it makes sense to you! And if you are interested, look up "welding penetration" or "welding cross section" on Google or YouTube and you will be able to see PICTURES!
    2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. You are wrong about most of your main points, and gang nail plates don't make ANYTHING "possible", they just make it a little cheaper and weaker. There are countless other products and methods and techniques for building trusses, nearly all of which are stronger and last longer with fewer failures, the truss plate is just the lowest possible strength and cost way to do it, and should NOT be glorified like this. If it had not been approved, we would still have trusses, they would just use nails or screws or bolts through the side plates, like any heavier duty and better built truss or joint would use. Making it sound like the truss plate is this pivotal invention that makes the modern world possible means that either you are just trying to find a unique click bait hook to make a video with along the lines of an actual expert like Practical Engineering etc, or that you phoned in your research and didn't actually understand the subject very well. The real revolution was learning how to design trusses for residential buildings in a way that didn't require teams of engineers hand calculating loads on drafting boards with slide rules, and making it possible to design trusses rapidly and cheaply so they could be used for lower cost buildings. Getting the computer involved was really the key, so they could just plug in the design, and it would tell them the loads and what sizes of materials they needed. The other big factor that you missed as you tried to focus everything on the truss plate is the development of truss joists and I-joists, which is what actually makes the open multi-floor plans possible, because you can span much further than with a plain wood beam with no support below. Also, the shade given to overlapped boards and toe nails was inaccurate and unfair, because the through-nailed overlap is one of the strongest joints you can make, much stronger than the gang nail plate, and any carpenter who can use a speed square can easily make that joint. And toe nails are actually STRONGER than the gang nail plate when done properly, because they go all the way through the wood, vs the gang nail plate just being stuck in the side, where it will come loose as the wood dries, and is especially bad in a fire where just some surface char will cause complete structural failure, even if the board itself is still unburned in the core. So anyway, the only benefit of the gang nail plate is a minor cost reduction in the manufacture of trusses, at the cost of strength and longevity and safety, and the actual catalyst of the changes that you are talking about was the development of the ability to rapidly engineer truss design at a cost that made them an affordable option for residential construction.
    2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539. 2
  540. 2
  541. 2
  542. 2
  543. 2
  544. 2
  545. 2
  546. 2
  547. 2
  548. 2
  549. 2
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 2
  559. 2
  560. 2
  561. I remember my dad talking about seeing the Echo satellite go overhead. He went on to program for and operate a couple of the early tube and transistor computers including the ERMA at BofA in LA, basically the original Online Banking, and what made the magnetic ink on checks a thing so it could read them automatically. One fun story he told was that the computer developed a glitch, some circuit was going out and it would lock some board on the back end of the computer up, and the operator would have to get up from the control console and walk all the way around the racks, open a panel and flip a momentary reset toggle switch. The GE technicians had looked at it and just gave the instructions to keep flipping the switch as needed, and didn't seem to be in a hurry to repair it, so late one night when my dad was working alone processing checks, the thing kept locking up, and he would have to walk around to the other side of the racks and flip the switch, then walk back to the console and hit Continue, and it was wasting a lot of time, so he grabbed a roll of string from the secretary's desk, tied one end on the reset switch, through a vent slot in the cover panel, and then ran it over the top of the racks and tied it to the console, so every time it froze up he could just pull the string and hit the restart button and lose very little processing time. The next morning the manager gets into work and yells at him for the string dangling over the room, and my dad tells him how many minutes of processing time it saved that night by not having to walk back every time, and the manager simmered down. Then the manager went and called GE, and very soon the tech came over a little red around the ears and replaced the faulty board!
    2
  562. 2
  563. 2
  564. 2
  565. 2
  566. 2
  567.  @neurofiedyamato8763  except it's not arbitrary exactly. The Metre was defined back in the 1700s as 1 ten millionth of the distance from north pole to the Equator. A metal bar was then made to represent this length, and it was the Standard of Length that was then used to measure the speed of light, so basically they found that light took a certain amount of time to travel from one end of the metal bar to the other. Then when they found that the metal bar was constantly changing length, and the ability to measure the speed of light and define time became more and more accurate, they decided to use the last official comparison between the speed of light to that metal bar, and from now on, simply use the distance light travels in a certain time (based on tests with that metal bar) as the new Standard. So it's not random or circular, you just have to remember that the speed of light is defined by the time it takes to travel the length of a particular piece of metal, and then they decided to reverse that and just use this derived time as the new standard, but it's still based on the measurements made with that metal bar. On the other hand, I suppose it was random to make it 1 ten millionth of that particular distance lol I wish that the meter was a little shorter, it would make it much more useful for things like carpentry. That's the main reason I prefer USC to metric for carpentry, it's a lot easier working with inches and feet, because they fit the ranges I work with much better. M is too long, and mm is too short and cm is so close to mm it's not that helpful. If inches were 10 instead of 12 it would be perfect lol But I often just use inches for normal lengths, and math works fine then.
    2
  568. 2
  569. 2
  570.  @sunside79334 , lightweight linear position sensor hydraulic cylinders are a very common off-the-shelf product, as are the linear sensor components for inclusion in a custom cylinder design. It is one of the most preferred means to measure position, because it is completely protected from external interference or damage, unlike rotary shaft encoders or external scales. Since this is being controlled by a computer, all you have to do is tell the computer what angle of grid fin equals what cylinder position. If you did a rotary encoder on the shaft, you have to find space for it, add complexity to the shaft, either a disk mounted to the shaft, gears to operate a parallel axis rotary encoder, or try to fit 4 of them in the center between the end bearings and the shafts and the stage seperation cylinder, protect it from damage (it would need to be a high precision encoder, which means very tiny slits which are susceptible to debris clogging them leading to an incorrect reading), and adding additional components to the system. Then you would have to put that data into the computer, which would have to count pulses and then calculate rotary position. The linear approach prevents calibration errors or position error, because instead of counting clicks, it can tell what part of the sensor the piston is at. No, having it built in to an existing component that very possibly is an off the shelf part, where it is protected from space and heat and debris is a very smart thing. Also, if they wanted pressure sensors, they would need to have 2, one for each end of the cylinder since it is a double acting cylinder. These would probably be mounted flanking the valve if they needed them, but they aren't dealing with high forces here, so they don't really need pressure sensing. As for the plumbing, it is really simple. On the lower left side, 2 metal lines come from the hydraulic pump. One is Pressure and one is Return. (the smaller one is Pressure) They connect to 2 square manifold loops, a larger and a smaller, and then there are 4 sets of red hydraulic hoses coming off the 4 sides of the manifolds to the valves, which are mounted on the cylinders. The reason for the square loop manifolds took me a second to figure out, but it is to smooth hydraulic flow and prevent pressure drops. Each valve and cylinder is separately controlled, and as they cycle, the hydraulic flow needs vary widely, but since they tend to move in opposed pairs, with one extending while the other retracts, and it takes a lot more fluid to extend a cylinder then to retract it, by allowing fluid to go either direction around the loop, it allows fluid to bypass lower flow cylinders to get to the higher flow cylinders. If it only went 3/4 of the way around, then the cylinder on the far end would be starved if 2 cylinders before it were in high flow demands. So by adding a few inches of pipe and closing the loop, they were able to reduce the size of the manifold pipe, and avoid pressure drop issues. I call that genius! There is no need to try to hydraulically synchronize cylinder pairs, because that is done through positive position feedback through the computer, and since it is flying the rocket with the fins, it does not always want them synchronized. If they were hydraulically synchronized, you would see lines going directly between the cylinders. So, I am also quite impressed with this design, because it is simple, and uses standard parts and systems that are well understood and reliable, except maybe for the hydraulic pump, which is probably some special helium driven gas over hydraulic unit, which always have problems lol
    2
  571.  @firesculpturevideo  a servo hydraulic valve is a specific part. It is designed so that the valve can be opened part way, rather than the normal valves that are either all the way open or all the way shut. It is normally only used on larger valves, but it is used when the continuous speed of operation of a cylinder or motor is needed, rather than just position. So to position grid fins, you don't need smooth gentle variable speed motion, you can pulse the valve to get the fin to the needed position, and so the valve just needs to be on or off. If you are dealing with a larger device with a lot of inertia, then you might need a servo valve, so you can command it to 20 percent to start the load moving, then to 50 percent, then to 80 percent, and finally fully open, etc. The servo in the name refers to the valve operating mechanism being something other than on or off. I have worked with these types of valves using either direct magnetic core designs, or rotary motors operating the valve. Now maybe in some fields some people refer to position controlled hydraulics as "servos" because it reminds them of electric servos from airplanes or radio controllers, but that isn't the normal name for having motion controlled hydraulics, because other than occasionally using a servo valve, it isn't really the same thing as a servo. Oh, and the reason servo hydraulic valves are not very common is because they generate lots of heat, and heat kills hydraulics. Normally if you need to control the speed of a cylinder, you use some form of pressure control or variable output pump, etc. Anything that uses friction to control flow is like using the brakes to control the speed on your car, instead of taking your foot off the gas. Not a good idea, unless it is only occasionally needed lol
    2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575.  @Sakotyr  it's not illegal to collect rainwater, but someone else likely owns the Rights to the water, so it's not yours to collect. Water rights are just like mineral rights or oil rights, and are often sold separately from the property itself, and so unless you also own the water rights, the water isn't yours. It's the same as drilling for oil or mining gold if someone else has those Rights. In the early days out west, it was the ranchers and farmers that literary fought over water rights, until finally they divided everything up. So if I had a little cabin with a big spring behind it, and the rancher down the hill needed water for his herd, I might say that I needed whatever water would flow through a 2 inch pipe, and I would sell the rest of the water to him. If that was Deeded back in the 1800s, it would still be legal today. In discussions of water rights you will often hear mention of Elder Rights. Those are the original water rights before water agencies were formed, and it's how a lot of farmers get their water, especially out in the desert. But the farmers and ranchers were very water greedy, and so they started going around and buying up the Surface Water Rights from all the landowners in a valley or watershed, thus giving them exclusive rights to all the water in the streams. Then as towns began forming, the towns would create water agencies who would buy up more water rights, from landowners, and also from ranchers and farmers. Come to modern days, and very few parcels have the deed to the surface water, not because anyone has taken anything or because the government has taken control, but rather because some previous owner sold off the water rights for a pretty penny. So while it may not seem fair to not be able to do whatever you want with the surface water on your own property, take it up with the person who sold that right to the highest bidder. It's possible to repurchase those rights, but water is valuable and so few do become of how much it costs. But just remember that owning property consists of many layers, and they can be sold separately and then you are bound by what the deed says when you buy the property.. And if you think of it from the perspective of someone who has spent a lot of money to buy the water rights, if you are taking rainwater and preventing it from flowing down into their reservoir to supply the city with water, it's no different from their perspective as if you pumped it out of their lake. It is still taking water that they own and rely on. And yes, maybe owning water is wrong, but that's how cities get a reliable water supply, by owning the rights to enough watershed to supply their needs, and if everyone could take whatever fell on their property, the towns would no longer get any water. It would be nice if they allowed a 55 gallon drum full, but again, they paid for the rights for that water too.
    2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578. 2
  579.  @rabidsamfan  I agree with you on several points, but let's be honest, water rights is the least of the bad things still being done to the indigineous peoples, and if the root of them being treated like children who have to be controlled was changed, the water rights issues would be worked out as well, since the treaties would have included the right to use the water on their land. It is true that some water rights have been taken by without consent or compensation, but that's in the minority. Generally the land was bought up, and then resold without the water rights, or they were purchased directly. It may be true that allowing water and mineral rights to be handled separate from the property may not be "fair", but modern society would not be able to function otherwise, because that's what farmers rely on to feed the world, and what cities rely on to supply water reliably. So if you are unable to collect rainwater from your roof, but you can turn a faucet and get water from the very water agency that is telling you not to collect rainwater, you have nothing to complain about, unless you would rather rely completely on the rainwater and not have the safe and reliable water at your tap. It's also not "fair" that the government can claim imminent domain to private property to build freeways and roads, but without that ability society could not exist. And again, it's your choice whether to buy a piece of land with water rights or not, so if you build your house on land that does not have the water rights anymore, that's totally on you, and you can't blame it on anyone else. Just like if you bought land with a conservation easement on it, and then complained that you couldn't build on it. It's all in the Deed, and different types of Deeds have different uses available for the land. It's a lot like zoning in a city. Different types allow you to do different things with the land, and so you buy what you need for what you want to do with it.
    2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 2
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588. 2
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 2
  593. 2
  594. 2
  595. 2
  596. 2
  597. 2
  598. 2
  599. 2
  600. 2
  601. 2
  602. 2
  603. 2
  604. 2
  605. 2
  606. 2
  607. 2
  608. 2
  609. 2
  610. 2
  611. 2
  612. 2
  613.  @reinerjung1613  the business model of using multiple operators for things that technology allows us to streamline and automated, is deciding not to adopt modern technology. If we can fully automate precision factories, putting big dumb concrete slabs in should be simple. We have the technology, just no one has implemented it in large TBM, mainly because it's a niche market, and the sub contractors can set their own prices. In this case, Boring is the Prime Contractor and operator, and so reducing the tunneling costs is the key to their business model, where it would reduce profits for the incumbents. As far as the ability to continue cutting while the rings are being installed, it would be pretty easy to design a system that either locks into the inner surface of previous rings, or where the new ring section is assembled slightly seperated from the previous one, and when it's done the push mechanism moves forward, grabs it, and shoves it back into position as cutting resumes. In softer materials, you might even be able to put one section of ring in at a time, using the other jack legs for cutting pressure, and just work your way around the circle one segment at a time never losing pressure. Granted, on the giant cutters in hard rock, these may not work because you need so much more pressure, but that's not the scenario here. And even if you had to stop the machine, having automated systems to place the segments would be much faster than the current systems, allowing the cutting to proceed much faster. As for material removed, the processing systems should all be sized to handle a steady flow of material at the peak cutting rate. So stopping cutting shouldn't give anyone a chance to catch up, because they should never fall behind! Whether the spoils are removed by train or conveyor, it will be planned to keep up with the cutter, and the only thing that might allow stockpiling would be if it was hauled off by dump trucks, and then the continuous production is handled by increasing the number of dump trucks in rotation. As for the logic and benefits of this type of system, it makes a lot of sense when you consider that all vehicles in the tunnel will be under automated control, not relying on human control. In this small system, it is basically just creating more travel space so that you can drive between buildings without taking away exhibit or pedestrian space, and avoiding very congested surface streets. So you either have to go under or go over, and going over was even more expensive. In a larger system, such as if it is expanded out into Las Vegas, or put in a big city, you would have larger pods or cars more like a tram or something, so higher capacity and quick loading and unloading. Then, the entire system would be monitored, each car tracked, and it would be designed much like a freeway with on and off ramps for stops. Being fully automated, it would be able to keep any pod in the main line moving at full speed, and when one was entering from a station, it would neatly merge into the flow. So you could carry as many people, at maximum speed, as you could get pods in the tunnel nose to tail. With current mass transit systems, every vehicle has to stop at nearly every stop, but with a smaller pod, and using a smart system where you check in via an app or kiosk, the system can tell riders what pod to get into, and group trips. So if it's in a city, and a lot of people go to the airport, then you can have a pod just for the airport, and you use technology to get people to that pod, which zips past all the other stations straight to the airport. During rush hour, once the system learns rider flow, it could have Gate 1 to the airport, Gate 2 to the west side of town, gate 3 to a particular subdivision, gate 4 to a high rise apartment building, and so forth. And if it used an app to ride, it could plan ahead when it saw the riders who always go to a certain destination start arriving at the station, and alert them that a trip their way was leaving in a few minutes. And for the people who were going to less common destinations, they would get directed to a pod based on their general direction, so that it could take the most efficient route. And the people going to out of the way destinations might be left on a pod through a high volume trip, and then be taken to the far spot on the return trip to maximize volume. By not being confined to rails, and with the rider's destinations able to be planned for so that they could be grouped together, and changeable displays on each pod to make it easy to tell a rider (use Blue POD Gamma arriving shortly at Gate 3) which one to get on, and using a mainline and feeder architecture, you can keep all the pods moving at full speed with no interference, keep your volumes up, and add more pods as volumes grow. Your bottlenecks would be human based as people moved through the stations and got on and off the pods, but since that would only delay that particular pod, it would have less impact on the entire system. And if you had a station that was a major bottleneck, you put a new tunnel and station a block over and relieve the congestion. And if you start exceeding the mainline capacity, you bore another tunnel next to, or below it, and since any pod can take any route, the system can seamlessly load share. Another option is to put a mainline down through the middle of the business district, with a side tunnel running down under each side of the street, and each skyscraper could have their own station, so you can take the elevator from the Penthouse offices straight to the private executive platform, and, for an additional fee of course, have your luxury Limo Pod waiting for you to take you to wherever you wanted to go, with priority routing. And then have another elevator for all the employees. Same with big apartment buildings. You put a station for each building, and then you can put your parking garage off site and sell more apartments instead. The granularity that small pods in an automated system brings leads to much greater efficiency and capabilities as compared to any other system. As far as emergency access, ventilation, etc, those are all greatly reduced in a system like this, because it's all electric, so no exhaust fumes to remove (which is most of the ventilation needs in a regular tunnel), it's all automated, so accidents will be rare, and if there's a breakdown, you can send the recovery vehicle backwards at full speed to the location, and clear it rapidly. In case of fire, you can put a filtration system on the pods, and have them seal the air intakes in the case of smoke in the tunnel. And you will get quite a bit of time with just the air contained in the vehicle safe from smoke. And it's easy to put an oxygen monitor and an oxygen bottle in, either just to keep the levels high, or with airline style masks that drop if the levels drop too far before the smoke is cleared or you can get to a station. (and make the stations positive pressure so that smoke is kept clear in them) And since it's all automated, unlike a human tunnel, you can just tell all pods to back up and leave the effected section of tunnel. It's not a perfect solution to everything, but in many ways it's much better and more flexible than a subway or bus system, since any issues or delays effects a much larger number of people, and slows the entire system. Here, if you have a pod break down, you reroute traffic around it, possibly even reversing direction on the other side of the loop etc, until it's cleared. It's so much more fluid than humans lol
    2
  614. 2
  615. 2
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 4:44 - Run. Do not walk, RUN AWAY! I am a rigger, and that cable makes me weak in the knees... Death waiting to happen. In regards to hanging guys below helicopter, when a cable snaps, it can recoil UP and take out the helicopter too. The only safe way to deal with this is to set charges where the cable stays from the top of the towers attach to the outer ring of ground anchors, and sever all the cables at once so that the weight of the truss pulls the now unsupported towers inwards. This keeps people as far from the danger zone as possible (unless one of the cable stays snaps at the top of the tower and recoils back to the ground anchor). Basically getting closer than the length of the cables is dangerous. The only safe way I can see to salvage it is to get someone like Mammoet (just the best heavy move company in the world) to come in with either an unlimited budget, or donating their services, and set up giant crane towers around the outer perimeter, and then snake giant cables across underneath the truss, and then winch them up to cradle under the truss, removing the weight from the existing cables without having to get any workers underneath it. Once it was supported in the cable basket, then you could start replacing the cables. But this dish is in the middle of the jungle, and getting the massive amount of giant equipment up there would probably require building new roads, new ports, and take months getting billions of dollars of specialized equipment, designed, fabricated, shipped from across the world, and hauled up into the jungle. Building a new one is probably cheaper....
    1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. I am subscribed to very few channels, and have notifications turned on for only a couple, and so my feed (always android phone) is pretty much entirely algorithm driven, and it does a very good job (most of the time lol) in showing me videos I will watch. And as far as educational content, that's most of what it shows me, because that's most of what I watch. So in my vast sample size, the algorithm doesn't have a problem showing educational content, it just doesn't brother showing it to people who mainly binge on pewtypie and gossip channels. I watched the black balls video not because of, or truth be told in spite of the clickbaity title, but because I drive past it frequently, and I have read about it in the past. YouTube has been trying to shove this video down my eyeballs repeatedly since, and it has probably shown up on my home list 5 or 6 times, and more than that in the below a video list, and it didn't really sound interesting, or more accurately, it sounded like a clickbait video with some interesting content (which it turned out to be lol) I was bored and there wasn't anything else on, and decided to watch it as much to make YouTube quit suggesting it as anything! Oh, and most of the channels that I subscribe to, and most of videos that I Like, I do so because I feel the creator deserves help and support, not because I want to be notified. Oh, and because the algorithm is so tailored to what I watch, if I want to watch a pewtypie video or something else from the mindless stew of YouTube, I turn on incognito mode, because I don't want the algorithm thinking that I want more lol
    1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. There are a lot of cnc channels on YouTube, millennials teaching the basics, narcissists teaching how great they are, guys with cat 50 tapers up their.... Chip conveyers..., funny guys, guys who have panic attacks at the thought of keeping a scrap pile around, etc (bonus points for the people who know who each of those descriptions fit lol), but the only guy I know of who has the level of wisdom that I think you would want to learn is Edge Precision. He works on specialty stuff, iconel, titanium, etc, jobs where the Blank costs $20k because it's some special forged titanium alloy or something, so he's only got one shot to get it perfect. One difference between CNC and manual is that you have to be able to plan ahead and know what your material is going to do, rather than just making a pass and checking it, and that's something he goes into depth on, how to predict and compensate for all the factors. He's slow paced, but he walks through what he's doing and why, goes into detail on g codes and planning out tool paths, and does a lot of manual work with the cnc machines as well, or running short programs to get a particular step done, rather than start it up and it spits a complete part out. I suspect that his use style will be closer to yours than someone focused on a job shop environment where it's all about shaving cycle times and fixturing multiple parts at once, and he spends a lot of time on the manual aspects, interfacing via the control panel rather than just via CAM software. But he also does quite a bit with the cam side on some jobs, especially dealing with verifying programs before you run them, partly because his main machine is a giant Mazack and so any crashes would be very expensive, and he's often working with very expensive or long lead time blanks where a tiny error will destroy it, so he's very good at verifying the programs. It will take you much longer to watch his videos than to read my comment... Lol, but if you are wanting to be as good at the cnc as you are with manual machines I think he will be at your level, His projects are usually pretty fascinating too, wierd oil industry and aerospace gadgets with holes and ports everywhere. He also makes a lot of custom tooling.
    1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693.  @ivanfenis1221  yes. If a fence around a substation for instance is not well grounded, a live high voltage wire could fall onto it and energize the fence. And then when the utility worker arrives at the substation to find out why people are without power, they get electrocuted when they touch the gate. On the other hand, if the fence and all metal items in the substation are grounded in what's known as Eqipotential Bonding and Grounding, then if the live wire falls on the fence, it is a dead short to ground and either burns through the wire, or trips the breakers. It happens sometimes that power lines will fall down on top of a wire fence on wooden posts going across a farm and start a fire, and a firefighter will get electrocuted miles away if they touch that fence before the utility gets there to shut the power off. In a home situation, it's not the "ground rod" that makes the breaker trip, but rather the Grounded Conductor being bonded to the neutral to provide a low impedance path back to the Source. The ground rod is there in that situation to bleed off static charges and to reference the system 0 volts to ground, but it's that zero volts to ground reference that's important! If you had a bad ground rod connection, you could theoretically have the water pipes at 110 volts in reference to the earth from a short circuit, without tripping a breaker. If you were in the house you might be able to touch the pipes fine, but when you are standing on the dirt and go to turn the hose off, you could get a shock.
    1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736.  @takix2007  if I lived in a metric country, obviously I would need to use their system lol And if I use a system for a while, it would become natural for me, and I would find ways to make it easier, and I totally don't expect you to understand the work flow when you are in a different environment where it's not really an option for you anyway. When I am working off of blueprints, I need to use the system they use, but when I have been doing personal projects, I have tried doing it in metric to see the benefits (since the math is easier basically), and while there are some benefits, I missed the shortcuts and better sized units that inches and fractions come with. If there were a unit somewhere between CM and Metre, it would make things a little easier, but that's why everyone just uses mm generally. One thing that I really appreciate about USC (United States Customary, which shares some units, but is different from Imperial in several ways) is that we have options about what units to use for the work we are doing. For instance, carpentry is normally in feet and inches, but grading and earthworks usually use feet and tenths of a foot. Since when you are setting grades you are having to do lots of math, and you don't need accuracy less than an inch, tenths just make it fit the needs. And if I am doing metal working, I will probably be using either decimal inches or thousandths, depending on what the tolerances are. Wood by nature is imprecise, so using a more flexible fractions system matches the job. And yes, it is more complicated to learn multiple units and systems, but when a system is tailored to a specific task, if you are doing that task frequently, it saves you time in the long run. And metric is just less flexible in that regard. You have to apply the same set of units to everything. It's kind of like the difference between English, and a native language. In English, we take words from whatever language has a useful word, and add it to English, sometimes modifying it to work best for us. In other languages, sometimes things are a lot more clumsy to express, because you are confined to that language. USC was specifically designed using the logical units, as needed by various users, refined from the old units, and modified as needed. Metric was designed by white lab coats, and then everyone has to figure out how to fit their needs to the old system, because it's perfect, therefore you can't change anything to make it more versatile lol But, since you are in a metric country, you really don't have any choice, so it's just theory to you, although, since lumber generally is still based on US standard sizes, I suppose that you could do carpentry the same way I do, once you got it home from the lumber yard lol And I know that in some metric countries, the carpenters use a mix of USC and metric, depending on what works easiest for a particular situation.
    1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750.  @spruce_goose5169  you may not understand this, but in order for current to flow, there has to be two conductors to make a complete circuit, so your idea that Current can flow between separate generators or grids that are only connected by one conductor (the Earth) is pretty funny. That said, if a wire is connected between grounded remote systems, you will have a potential between them, or if they are in sync in frequency and voltage they will just both work to share the load. But in a system with a high voltage wire connecting the systems, with the generator grounded and each substation transformer grounded, as well as the neutral wire a few times per mile, a ground fault anywhere on that system (sourced from that grid) will return to every ground point on the grid, though if there is a nice big fat copper wire as one option most of the current will flow on it, but the other paths still exist. And while the transformers may have some isolation properties, the inductive coupling is strong enough to move the current, and the secondary sides are Earthed, thus eliminating any isolation the transformer may have provided, again making the second circuit path through the earth. My purpose of mentioning the SWER systems is to show that the earth is a very valid conductor, and can conduct actual usable current. What most people don't understand is that the Earth is actually effectively a perfect conductor, zero resistance, due to its massive size and nearly infinite current paths, each taking a tiny bit the current, so the only resistance in the circuit is the contact resistance at the ground electrodes, and so if you put in enough ground electrodes, grids, plates, networks, etc, especially if you are using salt pits, charcoal, or the other water retention ground conduction improving compounds, you can get very low contact resistance, and actually get lower resistance through the ground than through a wire. Now a couple of ground rods at your house are going to have a high enough contact resistance that will prevent much current from flowing, but the Utility grid will have almost perfect grounds as a result of having so many ground points, and engineered grids etc at substations, power plants, etc.
    1
  751.  @ArniVidar  I said that most outlets in the US (in newer houses anyway) are on 20 amp CIRCUITS. In other words on a 20 amp breaker with minimum 12 gauge wire to the outlet. The wall outlets themselves are generally 15 amp style outlets, but you can upgrade the outlet itself to a 15/20 amp combo outlet and still be legal, since the circuit is a 20 amp circuit. We can't even use 14 gauge romex over here anymore, 12 is the minimum. It is true that 1500 watts is the most common maximum current for small household appliances, but it's easy to find 1800 watt heaters (which you can use on a 15 amp outlet if that's the only load). They usually go with 1500 watts, because that's generally plenty of power, and because it's common for outlets to have other loads on them, and if you pushed right to the maximum, you would have more tripped breakers and issues. Also, a lot of our older houses still have 14 gauge wire and 15 amp circuits, and you don't want to load them with the maximum on older installations. But generally on a newer house you can get 20 amps from the wall outlet LEGALLY, by only swapping the outlet itself out and not putting anything else on that circuit. New single family residential homes in the US, at least in many states, are required to have a Minimum of a 200 amp service and main breaker. Older homes generally have at least a 100 amp service and breaker, with the oldest tiny houses with the original actual fuse box still installed might be 60 amp, or really old ones down to 40 amp fuses. A standard electric dryer or stove for us runs on a 30 amp circuit and outlet, while a big electric stove and oven may have a 50 amp outlet. 50 amp outlets are also often used to plug in a "caravan" or rv. So most laundry rooms or garages in the US will have a large 30 amp 110/220 volt outlet to run a dryer as standard equipment, unless it's designed to only use a gas dryer. I suspect that the difference is that we label things at 110, and you label them at 220, so they would be 15 amp and 25 amp circuits to you at 220 volts. I believe that you only have a single wire that goes through your main breaker for instance, so a 50 amp main breaker for you is the same amount of watts as a 100 amp 2 pole breaker for us, since we use split phase with each leg of 110 getting its own breaker, though the handles are tied together so they trip together.
    1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755.  @DC2022  what you and Scott are missing is that the "minor software issue" is actually a serious ground up design problem that needs to be completely redesigned with different assumptions and criteria. They designed the system in a way where a single point of failure would cause the capsule to blindly do things regardless of any other inputs. It was simply responding to a fixed sequence based on the clock, and that means that we won't find out what else has zero fault tolerance or error checking, until it's actually put to use. I do industrial automation, so I am familiar with making large machines perform actions automatically, and you always want to verify your inputs and have some form of error checking or redundancy. For instance, the easiest one. If the clock says 11, before you do the step for 11, you verify that the previous steps have been completed. Or, before changing the orientation of the craft, you check the star trackers and GPS and verify where you are supposed to be with where you actually are. You can also compare SECO/deployment with the clock time and verify that they match the schedule. But, just like with MCAS, it is a system with lots of power, and no way to verify or error check what it's doing, so one input is all it needs to jump off the bridge blindly. And you can say that it could be overridden by the crew and everything would be fine, but since they obviously failed in basic design and ground testing, designing a system that could fail so confidently, and not testing it adequately to discover this problem, but that is not a valid assumption, because the rest of the system is designed and tested by the same team, and so it would be surprising if this blind and Fail Dangerous system didn't have other similar flaws and bad assumptions and improperly tested aspects, that could have terrible consequences without a review as detailed as the MCAS is receiving.
    1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761.  @keith6371  I guess Tesla did start a design center in Shanghai, so maybe they worked with the engineers in Fremont to design a cheaper motor to go with the cheaper LFP cells, I didn't see Tesla say that but I don't read everything in detail. But in regards to your other statements, yes, Tesla DOES have the most efficient and cutting edge motor designs, that's one of the ways they are leading the industry, because they design their own motors, with help from the SpaceX engineers and technology. In fact the latest motor, fur the Plaid, is using never before seen carbon fiber overwrapped armatures, using SpaceX technology, to enable the high speeds without it blowing up. And if you doubt they have better motor designs, go watch some of the Sandy Monroe videos where he tears the motors down and compares the Tesla motors to the ones from other EV brands, and see all the special features they have built in to make them better. In regards to Autopilot, it's the only Pure Vision ADAS system on the market, surpasses the capabilities of any of the competitors, and just keeps getting better. Panasonic makes all the batteries used in the Fremont factory, and while it's Panasonic making cells, they use the chemistry developed by Tesla, so even the cells have higher performance then what's available to other companies. I don't know if they are using the Tesla chemistry in any of the Chinese made batteries, but I would assume they are, other than for the LFP in the base model. And Tesla designs their own battery packaging and control systems, so patent count doesn't matter because Tesla has the best ones.
    1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766.  @keith6371  efficiency isn't as important to the consumer as it is to the manufacturer, because you can give a car however many miles range you want by putting a big enough battery in, but the more efficient you can make the car, the smaller the battery you can put in, which means a higher profit margin since the battery is the most expensive part. And so far none of the other car companies are able to get near the range that Tesla can get from a battery, which means that their costs are going to be higher for a car with the same range. So if Tesla is able to use a smaller battery, that means that they can either increase profits, or sell cheaper than the others in the same class. With gas cars a little difference in efficiency isn't that important, because you can just put a bigger tank in and get good range, but it's the defining characteristic for an affordable and desirable EV. And I am sure that there will be a lot of cheap EVs in China and other countries, lacking in comfort and safety features etc, but just as BMW is not really losing sales in China to the basic model Chinese cars Tesla is aiming for a higher market where people want luxury and safety features. Even the eventual Model 2 will still have the full safety package, setting it above the cheap cars, and aiming at a different market. So again, comparing Tesla to dissimilar vehicles in other markets is not very useful, anymore than you would compare an AMD graphics card to some unknown brand. Tesla currently has the best technology in the industry, and that gives it a price and profit advantage, which is why Tesla is the most common EV in the world right now, and the other companies are just starting to actually sell EVs in any quantity.
    1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781.  @kingg213  reading you repeat yourself over and over blindly doesn't change the fact that Boeing offered a plane for sale that could fly anywhere in the world, and had all the necessary certifications for use just like any other plane. Boeing failed in proper design and testing, and lost that certification worldwide. The plane is a fraction of its original promised value if it then gets certified in the US, but not the rest of the world, because Boeing is selling it to the world market mostly. So if Boeing sold a plane to Malaysia Air, and Malaysia Air is unable to fly the plane because it lost its certification, then Boeing is not able to deliver that plane until they get certification in Malaysia. And if Boeing tries to force it, Malaysia Air can sue Boeing for breach of contract, and easily win, because the plane does not meet the original promise of being usable in Malaysia. The difference that you are missing is that it used to be that if the FAA certified a plane, the rest of the world accepted the certification. It's kind of like how some countries you can visit with just your passport, but other countries you have to apply for a Visa. Previously the rest of the world accepted FAA certification without question, but Boeing and FAA messed up so badly that they lost that trust. Going forward, each agency will want to do their own certification, or maybe they will band together into subgroups, but no more simply trusting the FAA. And Boeing can do nothing about this, except continue working with each country's agency to win its approval, until it meets the worldwide certification originally promised. And even US airlines have grounds for delay or cancelation if Boeing is unable to get international certification, because if people have the choice between flying on a carrier with planes they ESSA says aren't safe, or another carrier without those planes, a lot of people are going to choose the carrier without them, and so the carrier with them will lose money. So Boeing basically has to do whatever it has to in order to win international certification, because anything else is breach of contract.
    1
  782.  @kingg213  I can tell that you were on the customer facing side of the aviation industry, because you are such a people person and have an amazing grasp of human psychology! /s While I agree with you that a lot of people will not even think about it and fly whatever plane shows up at their gate, there are also a lot of people who WILL care, and it will cost the early return carriers business. The big difference that you are missing between this and comet and DC 10 is the internet. Back then, people were more likely to accept the official statements, which isn't so much anymore (see: antivax, flat earth, 9/11, etc). Back then you had Walter Cronkite and a newspaper, and they would not have spent much time on the subject. Now you have the news everywhere, and now when a pilot union leader tweets that Southwest is trying to pressure them into flying an airplane that they feel is unsafe, because EASA is not certifying it because of an issue with short circuiting wires, that's going to be plastered everywhere, and the investigative articles will explain how FAA is defending their original approval as following the normal procedures, and then it will go on to quote the FAA when they refused to ground the Max originally, saying how all the normal procedures were followed and it was safe, and FAA is going to not be trusted. And then people are going to be watching the other Boeing sagas with Starliner and the military planes where they also are showing an inability to provide their own oversight, and the inability of the government agencies to provide proper oversight, and lots of people will get on Twitter and say how they aren't going to fly the Max and will be avoiding Southwest, and those tweets will get scrolled across the news, and Southwest will notice their numbers drop off, and demand compensation from Boeing because the lack international certification is hurting their business. And while it is true that the pilots have limited ability to refuse to fly it, the pilots union, and flight attendants union have a LOT of social power, and unless Boeing and the airlines can satisfy them, including with international certification, even if they don't strike, if they continue making public statements that they feel that they are being forced to fly unsafe planes, the public behavior WILL be effected by it, putting more passengers on the carriers that aren't flying the Max. And none of that happened back in the Comet days.
    1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. Major error at 6:55. You state that the center wire is Ground, which is simply wrong lol Ground will be bare or green marked. Neutral is white marked. Technically in official language it would be a GroundED Conductor, whereas the green or bare wire would be the GroundING Conductor. And while both are connected to the earth ground rod, neither have any function requiring it under normal circumstances. Earth ground is exclusively there to drain off static charge and lightning, and has nothing to do otherwise with the operation of the electrical system (thus why you can operate off a generator or inverter with no ground rod) So that center wire is a bonded neutral, meaning that it's bonded to the Grounding Conductor, and having nothing to do with the ground rod, because you wire rvs, boats, planes, ships etc the same way, no ground rod needed. Also, other than the mentioned static buildup or lightning, no current will ever flow to the ground rod. As a matter of fact, the resistance of the ground rod is so high, that you could take a hot wire from a 15 or 20 amp breaker and attach it to the ground rod, and not enough current will flow to trip the breaker! And while none of this may seem important, I think that you would agree that using the correct name for things is important, especially when trying to do an instructional video. It's also important since many people think that current flows to the ground rod lol Oh, and the purpose of bonding the neutral and ground wire is simply to give a path back to the power plant via the neutral for any current on the ground wire from a shirt circuit, allowing the breaker to trip. If the ground wire was only connected to the ground rod, the breaker would never trip because almost no current would flow.
    1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. Do a test including rechargeable, and use the Ansmann 2850 cells, and compare them against the best of the alkaline! I have been a tech director at a large church for many years, as well doing various special events, and experimented with everything from zinc carbon, to lithium, to all the alkaline brands, and after settling on Duracell alkaline for being the most predictable and reliable (having a microphone die in the middle of a speech from a presidential candidate is just not acceptable! And I have had problems with Energizer not being stable and reliable between batches, but never with Duracell. Which I used for that speech, so it went fine lol) But then I read an article from an even more experienced tech director who had run the tests on rechargeables, which have never been reliable or long lasting enough for a live stage environment in high drain microphones, and he found the Ansmann, and had converted his entire battery stock to them. I got a few and tested them myself for a few months, and then got enough for all my applications (I had 60 in their chargers at the end of every event), and after several years, I only had a couple fail, and they performed better than the Duracell, reliably, and cheaper in the long run. There are 2 styles, regular and slim. The regular are slightly larger than alkaline and so are a tight fit in certain devices, so I mostly used the slim, but most devices will fit either. This is where I got the batteries and chargers from, and I have been happy with them, but you may be able to find them elsewhere as well. I have no affiliation with anyone, just a very happy user! https://horizonbattery.com/collections/aa-rechargeable-batteries-high-capacity/products/ansmann-aa-2850-mah-slimline-4pk These are designed to be left on a charger/maintainer all the time, taken off to be used, and returned to the charger. They don't hold the charge as long, because they are designed for maximum capacity. They also have the Max E low discharge batteries which have like 30 times lower self discharge, but also lower capacity, but are great for remote controls toys, etc. And remember that the faster you charge a battery, the faster it will fail because of the higher internal temperatures. So get a good trickle charger/maintainer, and only fast charge if you aren't able to have enough batteries to slow charge, maybe a photographer using them in flashes or something.
    1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. Yes, lack of infrastructure is to blame for the low sales numbers of hydrogen cars... Oh wait! No... People don't want to buy hydrogen cars for many reasons, so why build infrastructure that no one will use?! Here's something they don't talk about. Performance. Hydrogen fuel cells don't give the kind of power that a battery does, so you have a car that drives like a Prius or a Geo Metro. And for the same price as a Tesla... The other big downside of hydrogen is that unlike electric, you can't charge it at home while you sleep. Not everyone can, but a large percentage of Tesla owners charge at home or work, often getting free charging, or very cheap, especially if they have solar panels. And then they never have to go to a charger except for a long trip, which they hydrogen car can't even do because of the lack of infrastructure. In addition you have all the wasted energy in producing, processing, compressing, transporting, storing and chilling hydrogen, and the fact that most hydrogen stations are not able to handle a high volume of customers, and with the good BEVs such as Tesla, you get similar range, for a similar price or much cheaper, you get incredible performance, the ability to charge at home on cheap power, and a giant network of chargers allowing you to go pretty much anywhere in the world, and constantly expanding, and pretty much the only downside is that it takes a few minutes longer to charge than to refill. The choice isn't hard! Oh, and by the time the hydrogen infrastructure is built out, battery technology will probably have taken another leap in power density, and the BEV range will outstrip the hydrogen range.
    1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. You usually get things right, but you really screwed up on the facts this time. The inch was standardized in the US back in the 1800s, and had nothing to do with barley corns, which had been a British thing long before (though it is still the basis for shoe sizes lol). We developed the US Customary system of weights and measures, based on the English units, but we actually standardized things instead of using barley corns or body part sizes, and so they didn't all match anymore with the English units. We basically created a system that worked well for an industrial nation, and was given units to serve the different needs of industry. For instance, machinists use thousandths, surveyors use tenths of a foot, carpenters use fractions, etc, because they work well for the unique requirements of each. Later England made their own standard system, the Imperial System. During ww2, it was discovered that because the US Customary inch and the Imperial inch were a few millionths different, they were having problems with shared technologies and equipment. So in the 1950s they decided to meet in the middle and make the Inch standard around the world, and the Imperial inch lengthed by 1.7 millionths of an inch and the USC inch shortened by 2 millionths of an inch. They picked this point because it also eliminated all the extra decimal points from the metric conversion and brought it to exactly 25.4 mm, instead of 25.46372846 or whatever it had been lol So to claim that the inch was first standardized in the 1950s and had been based on barley corns all through the history of the United States, 2 world wars, and us leading the world in industrial growth and development, is either a lie, or shows that you think that metric is so much better that the inch doesn't deserve any respect or accurate history. It is just the common YouTube comment level of factless scorn on another group or belief system, and has no scientific validity or even basic accuracy. Yes, for science and theory, metric is a lot better, but for instance carpentry is a lot easier dealing with 8 foot boards rather than 2440mm boards. And when using a tape measure, it is a lot easier to glance at a fractions scale than count mm. So basically, we developed a logical and perfectly functional standardized system long before anyone else did, and built the largest industrial nation on it, and now everyone else is saying that we are stupid for not spending trillions of dollars to convert from something that works perfectly well for us to what someone else uses. That's like saying we should stop speaking English because most people speak Chinese. And since we already use metric wherever it makes more sense, trying to say that we should stop using US Customary when it makes more sense is just ludicrous. Oh, and to make clear, US Customary is not based on the Metric System! The conversion factor has been locked in between Metric, US Customary, and Imperial, but they still retain their own units. Just like the metric system retained it's units when it was redefined by the speed of light and Plank's Constant. So please if you are going to cast shade on our system of measurement, at least use truthful facts. It doesn't destroy your credibility as an engineer that way.
    1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. While you put this together in a way that makes it sound confusing and contradictory, in reality most of those sizes don't associate with each other, because they are in different regions or different fields. For instance, there is no need to compare a shotgun size with a wire diameter or a railroad track width, and houses wired with 12 gauge wire in the US are not going to confuse British electricians. And with wire gauges its the current carrying charts that actually matter and where it gets really confusing, because the same copper wire gets a different rating depending on the type of insulation on it, the ambient temperature,, inside conduit or in a wall cavity, etc etc. Railroad gauge is an entirely different use of the word so it doesn't fit in the same sentence as wire gauge. Since in many of those examples the gauge referred to some combination of figures, diameter and wall thickness etc, it doesn't matter if it's metric or not, because it's giving a bigger picture. For instance, Standard Gauge railroad track is not just talking about the width, it includes the other dimensions of the tracks as well, camber and curve and slope and super elevation and a whole long list of specs that allow a train to run properly on the track. And since most things listed by gauge, the users don't need to know the actual thickness or measurement, what it's based on is not really important. For instance if you are an electrician in the US, everything is called out in Gauge, so you get a device rated for a certain size wire, and you look at a chart to see what diameter hole you need, or how many wires you can fit in a conduit, and the physical diameter of the wire is rarely needed. And when it is, usually it's outer diameter of the insulation that's needed anyway, and if it's on thousandths of an inch or fractions of a mm, it doesn't really matter much. So while interesting, this video makes the subject seem worse than it really is, which is normal for people who think they are smart, but have never actually worked in the fields they are talking about.
    1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. Project Farm, you tested flow at one temperature extreme, but didn't test the flow or lubricity at operating temperature or above, which is where the engine spends most of its time. Do any of them get very thin at high temperature? Do they have more wear at high temperature? How do they compare to single viscosity oils? (a multi viscosity oil is rated at 2 different temperatures, so 10w 30 should have the same viscosity as a 10 weight when tested at -10 or so (some test as low as -40 I believe) ,and the same as a 30 weight at 212F, which is considered normal operating temperature. A good multi viscosity will match those numbers, and a bad one will be too thick when cold or too thin when hot, or sometimes do weird things from using low quality viscosity modifiers. So if you want to test viscosity accuracy, add a single viscosity conventional oil control sample of whatever the W (Winter) rating is (straight 5w etc) in the freezer test, and then repeat the test at 212f using a straight 30 weight conventional oil as a comparison. I would also do at least one demonstration test on the lubricity tester using a known good brand such as the Mobile 1, or the Rotella T6 when you do diesel oils, and do one test straight out of the freezer, one at room temperature, and one at or as close to 212f as you can safely get, and see if it wears differently. Then repeat the 3 tests using a 5 weight oil. (doing it with a 30 weight oil won't be very interesting, because room temperature and hot will be in its normal range, and cold is only a problem for pumping through small oil ports, and being thicker it will have higher lubricity in the tester. When 5 weight gets hot though, it thins out and the film fails and you get bad wear.)
    1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879.  @mackenzieiscamping1293  It's not just about selling a certain number of cars, don't you get it. Tesla is valued for its cutting edge solar solutions, for its cutting edge best in the world battery storage systems, and for its work towards autonomous driving technology, which is far ahead of anyone else, and, oh ya, it has a commanding lead in electric vehicles, and is years ahead of the competition. When even the CEO of Volkswagen says that they think there is a chance that they might be able to catch Tesla, in other words that they are way behind and catching up isn't a given, and none of the other car companies have shown any signs that they are close to Tesla, and countries around the world are moving to force adoption of electric cars, looking to the future is very easy to do. But if you think Tesla is just a car company and so should be valued on the number of cars sold, then of course you would not understand the valuation. And you may say that self driving isn't going to happen, or that Tesla is way behind others, but the fact that they have so much data to train the AI with, so many cars on the road with the full sensor suite, as long as they hire AI experts as good as the competition, they will beat the competition, simply because they have more to work with. And they may have some bumps in the road, but that doesn't mean that they aren't still way ahead of the game. In addition, the market caps of the car makers is also based on what is expected from them, and none of them are doing really well at the moment. They are all in turmoil trying to keep up with electrification, with changing consumer tastes, with changing environmental laws, with a changing political environment, plus lots of scandals and upheaval in leadership, and poor profit margins. So they aren't a very good looking stock right now, especially since everyone sees a major shift to electric cars coming, and no one else is ready for it, especially not compared to Tesla. So a big part of Tesla'a valuation is in comparison to the problems at the other car companies, and their scandals and blind leadership.
    1
  880.  @mackenzieiscamping1293  Uhh, hello! That's what the stock market is, a giant casino! Most stocks are valued based on people's guesstimates and assumptions, and when you look at the wide range of valuations by all the different analysts who are all looking at the same data, you can see this is true. And its why many people who make these assumptions when a stock is low (Amazon, Google, Apple, etc) are now millionaires because their guesstimates were correct. And I don't see the AI value being in the ride share app, that may be nice, but the real value is that when they get it figured out, they can then extend it to trucks, and that will be a multi billion dollar market right there, if fleets can reduce the need for as many drivers. See, except for ride shares, most car traffic is because the driver personally wants to go somewhere, so the car being autonomous doesn't actually help the driver much. With trucks, the driver doesn't need to be there, he's just delivering the load, so if he can be replaced, the load is much cheaper to deliver, because drivers are the second most expensive part of delivering a load, slightly behind costs. (which means that if you can drastically cut fuel costs with a battery truck, AND eliminate driver costs, you just got the attention of ALL the fleets!) And the Tesla Semi is covering this, because it's going to be designed to be ready for autonomous driving with the sensors and computer, and so it will cut fuel costs, and then when the software is ready and regulations allow, the companies can pull drivers out and cut their costs in half or more. Yes, Tesla solar has dropped in market share, partly because they pulled people off of it to ramp the Model 3, and partly because they were concentrating on getting the Solar Roof ready for market, and partly because in the ramp for Model 3, they were cell constrained because Panasonic was slow on their ramp, and so energy storage took a back seat on cell supply, and many solar installs include storage, so they had to wait. Now that the Solar Roof is ramping up, and as they get cell supplies ramped up, solar and storage should start recovering. Also, once they get Self driving ready, they can license it to others in other markets and turn it into a separate income stream. Just like as they get more Gigafactories online and start cell production, they can start building skates for other manufacturers and add that income source. So they have multiple directions they are able to grow, most of which are emerging markets that don't have much direct competition and haven't even begun to be tapped yet. And if they gain primary market share in even one of those markets, they will be worth more than today when it matures.
    1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. I see you bought the Nikola Checks title I mean Chevy sales talk lol This is a prototype that doesn't even have a functional power train, and is using a new battery system that's yet to be used in a vehicle, and you are saying that it's closer to production than the cyber truck, which actually is running around on the street? You have a LOT of faith in the company line lol It's also interesting how similar this is how Trevor Milton allegedly did things, showing off prototypes when they didn't actually have key components, such as motors and drive axles like that this one, but making it sound like they were ready to go into production. While they might actually have the motors almost ready, it's a little risky to be making big promises about things they don't even have designed yet. So, we shall see if the stuff they are promising actually gets built and works, and then have to remember that this is the first time they have tried making something like this electric, and it's quite a bit different than anything they have done before, whereas, Tesla has been exclusively building electric vehicles for years, and are currently building the factory to build the CT, and the last vehicle they unveiled was in production within like 7 months, so CT should be pretty much on schedule, or close to or with Elon time, getting the batteries perfect lol And your comment that this might be the go-to electric pickup? At that price point? LMAO! This might be in your price range, but the Venn Diagram of people who play off road, and the people who can afford that, doesn't have much overlap lol This will mostly be seen at movie premieres and at the club, not in Normal People's driveways with a half sheet of plywood in the back.
    1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. You made 2 serious mistakes. 1. An "Inverter" takes DC and creates AC. It does NOT create DC from AC. That would be a "Convertor". 2. You make a false assumption on needing as many chargers as gas stations. No one, barring a few farmers with diesel trucks, can fuel their vehicle at home, and battery electric is the only type of vehicle that can "fuel" at home while you sleep. The current density of gas stations is specifically because no one can fuel at home, and so every home needs a gas station nearby, with enough to handle the daily volume of people needing fuel. With EVs, a large percentage if not a majority of owners will be charging at home, and for every person who does that, the need for a public charger diminishes. This is why you hear very few Tesla owners complaining about having a hard time finding an available Supercharger, because the Superchargers are mainly used on road trips, and so need to be placed with that in mind, rather than near homes. As more apartment dwellers buy EVs, and the need for public charging increases because they can't charge at home, then the charging stations will have demand, and gas stations will reduce in demand. But at least with Tesla, they can monitor this shift by how busy the city Superchargers are, and also by watching the data coming from the cars about whether they are charging at home, or only at public chargers, and they can build out the network as needed to support the no-home-charger demographic. But at the same time, more employers and businesses will be adding charging facilities, further reducing the need for dedicated charging stations, and since the majority of people will probably always have home charging as the preferred option, I don't think that the public chargers will ever have to equal the current gas station density.
    1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. To clarify a key point, all current flowing from the outlet will end up returning to the neutral wire at the power pole, whether through the proper path, or through your stupid butter knife poking self! If it flows through you, it will end up going to a water pipe, a safety ground circuit, wet concrete etc, but will end up back at the ground rod or pipe bonding wire, etc, and flow back to the main panel where the Neutral wire is Bonded to the Grounding system, and thus return to the neutral wire on the pole. Remember that all current requires a complete circuit in order to flow, so in order to have a ground fault, the electrons still need a path to return to the Source, be it the power plant, generator, solar panel, battery, etc. The soil doesn't magically soak electricity up, and it's a horribly high resistance if you try to use it as one side of the circuit to source. In fact, you can drive a long ground rod, and connect it directly to a 15 amp circuit breaker, and the breaker won't trip, because the resistance is so high very little current will flow, but what DOES flow is simply going to the nearest bonded ground rod to get back to the Source. The key purpose for ground rods is to bleed off static and lightning, and to reference the Neutral wire to be the same potential as the soil, water pipes etc. Think of standing barefoot on a metal plate, with a car battery sitting on the plate. If you touch either terminal of the battery, no current will flow, because there is no connection between the battery and the metal plate. If you now connect a wire from one terminal of the battery to the plate, that plate now carries the potential of that terminal, and is Bonded to it. Now if you touch the bonded terminal, nothing happens, because you are already at the same potential. And it doesn't matter if it's the positive or negative terminal bonded. That becomes the reference voltage. If you are getting power from a generator, you can bond either the hot or the neutral to the ground rod if you want, and that becomes the Earth Reference. So if you bonded the Hot to Earth, you can touch the hot wire while standing in the pool, and get no shock because they are the same potential. Sadly, if you touch the frame of the generator, you will die painfully, so don't ever do this! Lol This becomes important when dealing with transformers, because you have to pick which leg is bonded, what you want to reference to Earth. I was working in an industrial facility once, and in the evenings, the neutral wire would become 110v to ground, and the hot wire would be zero volts to ground. Then in the daytime it would be normal again. I started looking at the Big Picture™ (© 2018 HVACR Videos) and discovered that that mechanical room was being fed by a single 3 phase circuit to the main 3 phase panel on in it, and then there was a buck boost transformer feeding the 110/220v panel which ran all the lights and outlets etc. After some testing, I discovered there was an outside light with a photocell, that had a shorted out ballast, and that the electrician who installed the system had not bonded the center tap on the transformer to Earth ground, and so it was a floating system. So when the photocell turned on, it bonded one of the 110 v transformer legs to earth ground, driving the center tap neutral to 110v away from ground, and since the shorted out light was the only place the transformer was connected to ground, there was no fault current to trip a breaker....
    1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. Truck driver here. I notice that the lane divider markers are much less visible, and tend to only reflect for a short window of distance in a truck. When you think about the angles involved with them being so low, compared to a roadside sign etc, it makes sense. But also, different styles and companies reflect differently, so some roads I can see the Morse code for miles, and others just a few feet in front of the truck where my eyes and headlight align with the reflector, but before it cuts off at the edge of the corner cube. You may think that we may have a harder time seeing signs because our eyes are higher, but you have to remember that our headlights are higher also, and I don't think the angle is really much greater between the outgoing and reflected light for a roadside sign, as compared to a car, where both lights and driver are lower. And we are higher into the sweat spot for overhead signs. It's just surface reflectors that suck lol I have noticed the red reverse side to freeway reflectors, sometimes on new road work you will see where one got out on backwards! One time I was driving down this road, and they ALL were on backwards! It was quite odd... All the other drivers seemed to be confused by it too, all driving the wrong way... (/joke) It's always cool when I am driving away from the setting sun under just the right conditions, and all the red side reflectors on the opposite side of the road are on fire from the sunlight. Speaking of corner cubes, in your surveyor stock footage, not a single corner cube appeared lol They were using GPS units... APOLOGIZE!!
    1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979.  @jeovannijuarez9518  oh, you are right that NASA is more experienced at training astronauts, and so I fully expect that when SpaceX begins their training programs for the Dear Moon mission, and whatever other missions they want their own astronauts for, that they will make a deal with NASA for use of their facilities that don't need to be specific to SpaceX equipment, and that NASA astronauts will be involved in the training program, supporting the SpaceX staff. Or maybe SpaceX will just hire NASA astronauts like Bob and Doug, people who have all the NASA training and experience, and also understand SpaceX well, and have them set up the training program. And for missions to the ISS, even just tourist missions, Tom Cruise, movie crews etc, part of the training will occur at the NASA ISS training facility, and maybe some at the Russian ISS training facility, and if they are going to be doing any evas, they would probably use the neutral buoyancy facility, but SpaceX can get access to all of this as a customer, and do the training themselves, except maybe for the ISS specific parts. And considering that all the NASA training stuff is decades old, as is their training program, I would expect to see SpaceX developing new EVA space suits, in which case, building a swimming pool and making a new neutral buoyancy training facility for the new equipment isn't very expensive, and for anything to the moon or Mars, there isn't much that NASA has that would be applicable to the training, but anything that it does have, SpaceX would have access to.
    1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036.  @spacedout5692  you know that what they mean by "they lost the technology" is that they designed amazing things and kept all the blueprints, but because it was a bunch of young guys operating in skunk works/startup mode at the time, the team actually building the engines and such were having to solve problems on the fly, and having to develop new techniques to build things, and making tweaks to the blueprint design to get it to work right, and since it was the same team that continued building them, no one thought to document and preserve the techniques and specialized skills they had developed, and so when those guys retired and died, the knowledge of how to make it work reliably went with them. Teams since have built engines based on the blueprints, and found that they differed slightly from the remaining engines they compared them to, and without knowing the exact techniques used to build the pieces, they were not able to exactly recreate it, and decided that the amount of time and money to try all the different techniques until they figured out the right one, and how to apply it, would be more expensive than designing a new engine. So it isn't so much that the technology was lost, it is that they relied on human craftsmanship rather than technology, and the craftsmanship wasn't passed down, as the programs were canceled and new ways of doing things were developed. It's just like we don't know how the Egyptians built the pyramids, but we could achieve the same results now, just using different technologies.
    1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. There is no way that the speed of light could be variable, and it be impossible to measure that it was variable. Simple test setup: triangle formed by evacuated tubes, with beam splitter mirrors at each end of the base, and a single detector at the apex. Send in a beam at one end of the base and reflect it back from the other end, measuring the round trip the normal way, but also measuring the intervals at the apex detector, from when the beam entered, when it reflected off the far end, and the when it returned to the start. You then compare the measurements, of both directions of the light on the bounce via the apex detector, and also the round trip time via the standard detector. If all the readings match, then the speed of light is consistent. If you still don't trust it, add additional beam splitters along the length of the tube, with additional paths to the single detector, using optical means to get each path identical in length., and actually measure the time it takes both directions along the path. And if you still question it, then you turn the assembly to a different orientation and run the test again, and try a few different positions, and see if you get any changes in any readings. This setup removes any timing issues or signal differential issues or clock speed issues by simply having the detector at a point equidistant from both measuring points, I mean, why have two separate clocks? That's a requirement that makes it fail By giving the light multiple directions to change speed, and monitoring it at multiple points, you remove the ability of the light to sneak in one direction and go slow in a different direction, without being able to see it change, because you are measuring both the time to the far mirror, and the time to return. And as far as the delay in the wire being the same in the light, etc, send the sync pulse the opposite direction! Or in my setup, make the apex detector much further away than the length of the base, so that any speed difference would not simply cancel out. And since we are dealing with light pulses, not single photons, you can split off some photons, so observation is non destructive. Since the hypothesis is that either the speed is different because of some sort of Aether headwind or tailwind, or going with the grain or against the grain, or something external like that, by doing a triangle, and moving it to different positions, and measuring the light at several points in its travel, you will be changing the orientation of the beams in relation to whatever that external force is, thus changing some measurement. If you are going to say that maybe the external force changes to ensure that round trip time is always the same, but one leg is faster than the other, so somehow all these legs at different angles to each other are magically all delayed the same way, now you are outside science and into superstition and magic, that somehow the Force knows that you are trying to measure it and so hides it's presence. This actually sounds a lot like the Flat Earth philosophy, that if I can't prove something, than you must be right. Yes, the sun COULD be a giant chandelier, and yes,light COULD magically change speed, but if light DID change speed, someone would have noticed it in some experiment along the way. All that said, just as light travels at a different speed through a vacuum or through gas, or different densities of glass, etc, I would not be surprised if its speed is also effected by other radiation and energy types, so it probably does go at a different speed, say, AWAY from the Sun as Towards the sun, because there are tail winds so to speak, but that it's a very minor change that doesn't effect anything any more than the slight variation in density in a length of fiber optic cable from where the guy at the kiln sneezed. And, yes, you could measure that too. 3 satellites near the sun forming a triangle, each with lasers and mirrors and detectors, comparing the reflected to the origin time, with the viewed from the apex time, and then trying it in the opposite direction. You may not be able to get exact speed measurements, but you can see if the relative measurements change based on direction of travel, and whether it is reflected or direct. So, good click bait video, but I am kind of surprised that neither of you stepped back and looked beyond the restrictions of two timers.
    1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072.  @taxiuniversum  I guess you have never heard of Kelvin? C is a random scale, because 0 is not actually zero. It's no more logical than F, which is based on the average temperatures humans live in for 0 and 100. But for the metric world to have dual systems and the associated confusion between them is not logical. Secondly, most measuring in the US is not done using fractions. And metric countries use fractions anyway, ever hear anyone say half a meter, or a quarter mm? Fractions are used in carpentry because it's easy, but any carpenter can use decimal inches if they want, but they generally don't. Also, most fields that use fractions are not having to do many calculations. And the fields where calculations are required, tend to use decimal. Surveyors for instance use the Engineering scale, which is feet and tenths of a foot. Machine tools use decimal inches and thousandths. I hear the claim that the US is cost billions by using the USC System, (we don't use Imperial over here), but that's stupid lol Even if we changed today, mechanic shops would still need two sets of wrenches for many decades, and that only costs a few dollars extra. But when you look at the big machines, the factories packed full with USC scaled lathes and machine tools, and you realize that they can have many decades of life, if you tried converting the country it would cost billions to replace all the long life span machinery, retrain all the engineers and workers, replace millions of street signs, reprogram electronic devices, replace all the USC measuring tools, and all the other things that go along with a major change like that. And it makes no sense to force that change, especially since the main people that will benefit are the YouTube comments section lol
    1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075.  @coryCuc  you do realize that not everything is specifically spelled out in the constitution, right? We have three branches of government, and things like interstate roads, tax collection etc, are spelled out in laws passed by congress, and then implemented by the President. That's where the IRS comes from, congress passed a tax law, and so the president created the IRS to manage the tax law. Same with the Highway Act. In order for you to have a valid concern, you would have to find where the Constitution specifically FORBIDS the federal government from doing something, or specifically gives the authority to the states. In this case, both building roads and regulating Interstate Commerce are specifically given to the federal government. Section 8 of Article 1 of the proposed Constitution of the United States of America granted Congress the power "to regulate Commerce... among the several States, and... establish Post Offices and post Roads." Congress also would have the power to "regulate Commerce for foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" and to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This covers building interstate freeways. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United Statesc This means that collecting taxes is legal, and also that collecting taxes for the general welfare of the United States " (such as a good road network) is also Constitutional.
    1
  1076. 1
  1077.  @bernardbarry447  When you say it can take 3-5 years to bring a new project on line, are you talking about opening a mine or a processing plant? I agree that new mines take time to open, but in the near term, most of the existing mines could increase output relatively easily without much delay, and so you should be able to increase raw mineral output as fast as Tesla is ramping production. As for processing, that traditionally is done as part of the project with opening a mine, and they grow with the mine, involving years of planning and getting loans and investments in it, and then the usual pace of contractors getting such things done. But we are in the Tesla world now, and if the existing processor plants are unable to produce enough high grade minerals, and are taking too long to expand, Tesla can take a few billion out of the bank and build a processing plant as fast as motivated contractors can put it up, and be able to handle as much unprocessed ore as needed. And in the mean time, the new projects slowly get started, including lots of new players across the world who now have a large enough market to be worth opening mines, and the ability to raise funding for it. And with factories opening in many countries, it will be natural for the raw materials to be mined and processed in that country to save on shipping costs. Meanwhile, the existing suppliers will be looking like small players in comparison to the world supply. Don't expect that things will stay at the same slow pace when the demand is taking the S curve up, people can move MUCH faster when properly motivated by fear or greeed or vision.
    1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089.  @bill1usmc  so you admit that it peaked once in '83 because of extreme river conditions, and went ABOVE full. And that is the only time in the history of the lake that it got that high. So by definition, overfull, using the emergency spillway and actually damaging the dam, should not be considered the definition of Full. And it's exactly events like that which damage the dam that made them more conservative in future years and always leave a few feet of room for flood surge, and so consider it "full" at a lower level. They are required by the downstream water rights to release a certain minimum flow from the lake, and prior to 2000 they were able to release more than the minimum each year. After 2000, the water right requirements have exceed the river inflow every year, so it has never been able to refill and steadily drops. Water rights are one of the most sacred rights in the US, and it's only in times of extreme drought that water rights can be reduced, so they are legally required to release that minimum amount every year. If you are a farmer and you have the elder rights to a certain amount of water available to you, are you going to use less water and thus make less money on your land, or will you grow the highest value crop you can on your land with the water you have available? You can complain about the almond groves, but if you owned that land would you not grow what's most profitable and utilize all the water you can buy or have rights to? Remember that most of the California almond groves buy the water from the water districts, and it doesn't come from the Colorado River.
    1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. I know that when you are hating on people, facts don't matter, but I happen to be a mask proponent, and I also use metric when convenient, but you are totally wrong to say that the US uses Imperial units. We stopped using them in the 1700s, and use US Customary units, which is a different system from Imperial. The inch didn't even used to match, until finally the UK and US agreed to each shift their respective inch slightly towards the middle lol And the great thing about a free country is that we can choose to use whatever measurement we want, and so no one is forced to use USC over here. However, we still have a vast installed base of USC machines and tooling that would cost billions to replace, so conversions may need to be made in some cases. And enough with the arbitrary examples like a 1 mile bridge railing! No engineer is going to put "1 mile" on the blueprints. It will be in feet, or at least yards, and the math is no more difficult than figuring out how many bolts are needed in a 5280 meter guard rail with posts every 2 meters. In addition, anyone who works with length for more than a few days will be able to remember 5280, just as you remember lots of conversion factors and stuff like Pi. You get all drama Llama about how horrible it must be to have to REMEMBER THINGS, like somehow with metric no conversion factors or anything else needs to be memorized, that it's all just simple multiples of ten in science. Now, if I am not arguing that metric isn't the best for science, and as I said, I use it when convenient, but you have gone beyond logic, ignored facts, and are instead far outside science into the religion of metric, and making arguments that sound like Trump, to prove your beliefs to the people who believe like you, and in the process telling others how they should think and behave. I wish I had an intuitive feel for metric numbers, but unless we spend billions to change all the signs, football fields, books, tools, lumber sizes, (oh wait never mind, most of the world still uses USC lumber sizes, just called out in MM! I smirk whenever I see that! Enjoy your 2440mm 2x4s suckers! ;) ), machine tools, factories, laws, and our very language, and that's not something most of our citizens want or would support, and would take years to do. And stupid videos like this just inflame the situation, and show the complete ignorance of the metric religionists of the basics of our situation or units.
    1
  1106. What a horrible job on the traction control system! And Doug, a fully kitted out rig is a sign of someone with too much money not of skill. Body damage is the sign of someone with actual experience! Lol Since those are quad electric motors, they have instant torque response and control, so there is zero reason to have them slipping and digging alternating holes like that, except developer laziness. As soon as a wheel starts to slip, it should have the torque dropped or the brake applied BEFORE it turns far enough to dig a hole. This is old technology people. Sometimes you have to spin and dig, but you should only let it do that if at least both wheels on the axle are doing it together at the same speed. The way it was controlling each wheel separately causes the diagonal rocking that we saw, and just digs useless holes, just like with a totally open differential. It has the "capability" to electronically lock all 4 wheels together and keep them moving in sync. Even if it takes using brakes as well as torque, it is possible if they put the work into the software. So I see this as a very underwhelming rig, but then I remember that your "off roading" is basically fancy factory stock vehicles, so by that metric I guess this is pretty impressive, but compared to even slightly modified vehicles this is not impressive. And likely will break in very expensive ways when people discover that the undercarriage and suspension and various other parts are easily damaged and expensive to replace, and that a lot of stuff is going to start breaking and jamming when exposed to actual dirt and dust and sand and mud. Imagine the tonneau cover once it gets sand in the rails, or the gear doors when they get muddy, or the first aid kit the first time it starts raining a little bit with the gear tunnel open. And the first time you catch the front corner on a rock or branch and you have to get it towed home because it shattered the charge port, and it ends up being a $10k repair bill replacing the front end, you are going to start keeping it to the pavement.... This truck looks like it was designed by someone who subscribes to the Bespoke Post and shaves with a Damascus hatchet, or maybe looks like Jack Dorsey with the big beard... It's a great rig for a small market, a certain type of person, and it will sell a few, but I don't see this being a popular hit outside that Bespoke group, and I expect long term reliability and quality issues with a high cost of ownership as a result. I also can't stand the looks! Lol
    1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. You need to do a video on cold air intakes on engines and why it helps, because you clearly don't understand the principles lol. It is to get more air into the cylinder by reducing volume. A cold air intake, or an intercooler on a turbo charged engine, is there to increase the density of the air, thus making it possible to fit more air into the cylinder, because the engine works by heating the air up and making it expand. So if you put hot air in, it's already partly expanded and so you get less power. Think about how a turbo is trying to squeeze more air in by increasing the pressure, doesn't it make sense to decrease the temperature as well? This is also one of the reasons water injection is used in some performance engines, because it cools and densifies the charge air. Nitrous injection also does this. So on an ICE, cooling the intake air is entirely to increase density, and the amount of air that will fit in the cylinder, thus having more air that can expand a greater amount when it's heated. Remember that an ICE is still a heat differential engine and so the greater the heat differential, the greater the potential power. For clean combustion however, preheating the air is very helpful and important, because if you preheat the combustion air, it allows the flame temperature to be higher, leading to a more efficient combustion. Industrial oil burners often preheat the air with exhaust heat for this purpose. Google "preheating air for combustion" etc. So if your end result needed is expansion (ICE, turbine engines, rockets, etc), then you want to have your intake air as cold and dense as possible, (see SpaceX superchilling their propellant), but if you are just going for heat production, preheating is important. I will also mention carb heat on planes and the old engines that had heat stoves or the intake manifold heated by the exhaust manifold. That is very in-ideal, but to solve a problem with gasoline not evaporating properly, either due to the use of carberators that didn't evaporate the fuel well, or due to the cold temperatures in high altitude air. But generally the cars with those features were not high performance cars, or they had thermostatic dampers on the heat stove, so it only helped while the engine was cold and then shut off the heat.
    1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166.  @togowack  Elon said he underestimated the value of humans when he tried to do too many things with robots on the model 3, so he added a few more humans until he could get the robotics figured out. Have you seen any of the videos from inside Tesla factories? It's fully automated with robots doing as much as possible. Some of the stuff that still needs humans, like putting the dashboard in etc, the humans actually sit strapped into cockpit chairs on robot arms that swings them in through the car door and positions them correctly to install the parts, and then swings them back out. And it's all these robotics that allows them to produce so many cars with only 2 factories, and a 30 percent profit margin. Maybe the robots that YOU work with have those problems, and ancient software, but that's why Tesla purchased a leading German factory automation company so that they can make everything custom to their needs, and they have strong software engineering talent so they can write new software from the ground up. So when done properly, automation is amazing and extremely efficient, because it's perfectly repeatable at high speed, and doesn't tire out. Also, they use a lot of computer vision etc to give the robots eyes so they can be even faster and more accurate. This is the same company developing leading AI and computer vision on cars, and they can apply the same talent to the factory. So maybe you should go work for Tesla and enjoy your job a lot better working with much nicer automation! As far as the Nikola plant seen in this video, it looks nothing like the Iveco factories, which are full of equipment, and yes, robots. So if this is based on the European factory design, it currently looks nothing like it. It's almost like you didn't watch this video, or have never seen what an actual factory looks like inside. This looks like hand building prototypes inside a warehouse, and you say it can produce one truck per minute. That's what confuses me.
    1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170.  @togowack  crashing is a human issue from bad programming or process design. Journals can be line bored and repaired, and if the castings are wearing out that means that you need to redesign the robot so that the journals are sleeved or otherwise repairable. Worn castings is ALWAYS a result of either bad design or poor maintenance, and is not something that should be allowed. And you probably don't have the authority to redesign the robot, but that's a pretty basic concept that Tesla can surely solve. And again, they are using machine vision or other means to give many robots eyes to compensate for misaligned parts. You are repeating the same drivel that the old auto manufacturers and Tslaq have been saying for years, that Tesla doesn't have manufacturering abilities, that there is no way they can manufacture better than Ford and GM and VW and Toyota, but now Ford and VW and many others are realizing that Tesla is doing BETTER at manufacturing than they are, so you may think that they are lacking in MEs, but they seem to be doing pretty well with what they have. It helps that they can share the best ones between SpaceX and Tesla, and it's one of the reasons why they have purchased several companies dealing with factory automation, battery cell production, etc, to get their engineers. So whatever you say about what they are lacking, the proof is in how fast they are able to build factories and get them up to speed, and how rapidly they are able to redesign the cars and constantly improve them.
    1
  1171.  @togowack  the factory to build the Cybertruck is currently under construction, did you expect them to build it in a barn? It also needs the 4680 cells that are still ramping production, so it's not quite ready to start. VW says that it takes them 40 hours to build their EV, while it takes Tesla 10 hours. That's mostly thanks to the automation in the factory. And that's how far ahead Tesla is from the top German manufacturers. Ford just decided to double their planned EV production, and their target for 2024 is about half what Tesla will do next year. And Toyota is having to partner with a Chinese EV company to build EVs for them. The old Ford plants would have to be fully rebuilt in order to start car production again, including the installation of thousands of robots, because that's how auto manufacturers do things now, so it will take years for such construction and then the ramp up. It's not like in the movies where someone walks into a dusty old factory and flips a big switch and the factory roars to life, because technology has changed so much that nothing in that old factory would still be usable, the layout would need to be entirely different, and remodeling an old building is usually more difficult and expensive than designing a new building optimized for your needs. So this idea that the other manufacturers are going to be able to magically make as many cars as they want faster than Tesla can is just funny. And look at how easy it is to make mistakes. Like GM having to recall every Bolt made to replace the battery, and now the rumors are coming that Porsche may have to do the same thing. And maybe Nikola will do all the manufacturing by hand no robots, but if they do, they will not be able to compete on price against Tesla with a truck designed for efficient construction using as much automation as possible. And the Cybertruck is also designed for maximum automation.
    1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. One thing to realize is that different brains function differently. When I look at an analog clock, I have to count ticks to read the time. Some people can glance at it and know the time, but my brain has never functioned that way. So for me, a digital clock makes more sense, because it says the exact thing that I have to reverse engineer from an analog clock, thus saving me the time and effort. It's like the difference between writing out an equation, and simply stating the results. How would you rate this video on a scale of 1 to 3+2+4+1? (insert some algebra formula in here that I can't come up with off the top of my head!) I guess I have always dealt with exact time. My dad taught me 24 hour time, but I was rebellious and became bilingual. Then I started in ham radio as a teenager, then working with satellite TV uplink and downlink, and then worked at a radio station where I kept all the automation system clocks set correctly, so I have always needed perfectly accurate clocks and watches, used to call Time every day, or tune in to WWV, and was very happy when this new thing called the Internet started allowing automatic time setting! I know that some people think in "half past the hour", or "10 til 5", but I have to parse those meanings into hour:30 and 4:50. I internally think in 12 hour format, but can transpose to and from 24 hour format instantly, since I have used it so much. Sometimes I think in 24 if I am trying to math something, otherwise I use my fingers lol So for me, I have little love for analog clocks, though for certain applications where movement of time is important, rather than exact time, it's useful. Similarly, I want a vehicle tachometer to be analog so I can see the sweep and rate of change compared to red line or shift points, but I need a digital speed readout since generally the only thing I need that number for is comparing it to the sign on the side of the road (now, the sign on the Maps display lol). In my truck, I actually mounted an old smartphone to the dash and have a GPS speedometer app running on it, so whenever I start the engine it opens the app, and I have a digital speed display. I only use the analog speedometer occasionally if I am wanting to see rate of acceleration. On the other hand, on something that is constant speed, such as the motor on an industrial device where I am setting the RPM and leaving it, I want digital, because I want that exact number, rather than a needle in the general vicinity. The Inverter Variable Frequency Drives for electric motors don't have dials, they have digital readouts because they put the motor at an exact speed. With some equipment, I will add a needle or histogram display in addition to the digital number, so that speed changes can be tracked visually as well, but that's only useful if it's changing speeds frequently. So basically analog is good to display change and rate of change, but digital is best for accurate data and not having to parse a picture to get a number. And you know the fancy clocks that only have the 4 primary numbers, or no numbers at all, just some lines? I hate those! I literally have to count lines and try to estimate the number of degrees in between to get an accurate reading, because I don't function with the approximate. I remember in my EMT class, the instructor saying not to record a blood pressure as anything other than a line on the gauge that had a number by it. If it wasn't specifically marked, and you tried to estimate it, you were making it up. So you read to the nearest Number and wrote that down. This is pretty much the entire point of reading an analog clock, Making Stuff Up! Lol Now, when taking blood pressures or counting respirations, having a sweep second hand was amazing since you could visually watch for 15 or 30 seconds while counting, without having to parse anything, simply watching for the hand to get to a particular location, but I could do the same thing by watching the seconds on my digital watch, it was only slightly harder. But most of the interaction I have ever had with time, digital made so much more sense, since that's the form it got converted to in my head anyway.
    1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. I really don't like your revisionist history, talking about all the other brands and models currently using CCS, and ignoring the fact that for most of the existence of Tesla, they WERE the defacto industry standard, simply because they had almost no competition. Not to mention that the BetaChademo standard was competing against the VHSccs until just recently, so getting bitter against Tesla is well misplaced. Also you left out that Tesla attempted to get the other manufacturers to sign on and use the much superior Tesla standard, but the other manufacturers wanted to pretend that Tesla didn't exist, and so they created a second design. Plus, Tesla built out most of its supercharger network before CCS really took off or there WERE any other options for Tesla drivers. So while you have valid concerns about the situation for Tesla drivers, the way you go about bitching about the industry leader is pretty petty. Remember that without Tesla having built out such a large proprietary network, we wouldn't HAVE a robust EV market today, because Tesla literally had to create the infrastructure before people would buy the cars, and so the giant proprietary network was not an option, but the only way to do it. Now that the company is stable with plenty of cash flow, and they are able to install chargers faster than they can build cars, and there are just beginning to be 3rd party alternative charging networks that actually work, they are starting to move towards making it so Tesla's can at other networks easily, and also opening up the Supercharger network to other brands, but only as they are able to expand the network so that the Tesla owners don't have to wait for a line of Ioniqs at a Tesla facility. If you were a Tesla owner, you would be happy that you don't have to deal with all the other EVs on the road charging at "your" station, kind of like how only Costco members can get gas at Costco. As I see Tesla building chargers in every shopping center and restaurant district and random farm fields along the freeway in the middle of nowhere, some with hundreds of stalls, just a few miles down the road from others with hundreds of stalls, I see them getting to the point where they can start opening up to other brands, and just continue rolling them out as fast as they can get permits. It's kind of like how they aren't rushing to introduce more car models until they get production ramped on the existing models and have headroom to take on a new challenge, they had to get their network expansion ramped up fast enough to be able to handle outside customers, rather than just serving the Tesla fleet. And since all the early Model S cars that were built before CCS even was spawned from the pits of committee hell are STILL on the road, they couldn't just stop installing new Tesla connecters, because they would have had to retrofit all the older cars, as well as all the existing chargers, home chargers, etc. You treat it like it's saying that Apple should sell new phones with USB C, when really it's more like Apple having to upgrade the last 5 years of phones to work with USB C, and send out new chargers and battery packs to all their customers. Oh, and most Tesla owners would not WANT to "downgrade" from Tesla to CCS! Lol So I look forward to the adapter coming out to give Teslas charging options, and a slow rollout of CCS capabilities at Supercharger stations to allow 3rd party charging. Probably only a few stalls with CCS, and the rest are still reserved for the only currently large fleet of EVs in the US! (I have seen just 2 Ioniq5s in California so far, one of them today. I like the looks of it as much as I want to wear your brown tweed jacket.... Smirk)
    1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195.  @jimstanley_49  some cord ends have afci built into them to protect just the cord, but the breakers are to protect the in wall wiring more than anything. Some of the most common causes of house fires are from nails going through wires and causing an intermittent short that heats the wire up (or being pinched against metal causing a low level short, etc), or from a bad connection, either from a broken wire that is still touching, or a loose connection, which will heat up under load. These can also occur in cords, but the reason they are required as breakers rather than outlets, is to protect against in-wall faults. And yes, AFCIs are susceptible to false trips, but unless the afci breaker is defective, if it is tripping when turning on a heavy load, it probably means that there is a wiring fault, and it is doing its job. If there is a loose connection at the breaker, at the back of the outlet, or a loose wire nut somewhere along the way, or an internal fault in the unit, it will detect this under heavy load where it might not be a problem under light loads. So I would try plugging the unit into another AFCI protected circuit from a different breaker, and see if it still trips. Most of the breakers will show you a code to let you know what it detected, which can help with the troubleshooting. To put it another way, an afci tripping is a sign of a problem with some part of the system, and should be investigated, rather than just treated as a nuisance,because a properly designed system won't do that.
    1
  1196. 1
  1197.  @jimstanley_49  so what you are describing sounds nothing like an AFCI nuisance trip, but like either a bad connection or bad contacts in that circuit, so that the ac wasn't getting full current. When they trip, they actually trip. And the modern multifunction AFCI breakers that I get at Home Depot (series and parallel fault, plus GFCI), will flash a code through an led so that you can tell why it tripped lol The early AFCIs were only single function, and yes, were more for protecting against damaged cords, but the new ones are much more useful. Oh, and I consider putting in AFCI breakers as a one time upgrade to 200 year old technology, and if they come out with a new style that adds new features, I will look and see if they are a compelling addition worth upgrading, or just a marginal improvement. The next likely improvement is if they figure out how to detect heating from bad connections, which is a common cause of fires, but I make sure that I have good connections in my wiring, and that issue is usually the result of shoddy workmanship, so probably not worth an upgrade. I will also mention that in a house that has good wiring, I am not going to upgrade everything, just bedrooms and such. Where is would upgrade everything is something old with known sketchy wiring, where an electrical fire won't surprise me. It's kind of like getting fire extinguishers and a fireproof safe for your important documents. If I can put a couple of hundred bucks towards knocking my fire risk way down, maybe it's worth it. The places I have
    1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. ​ @maskie4189 the pad got damaged on the first launch because Elon didn't want to wait for the water deluge system which was already under construction, and they knew it would sustain some damage, it was just more than expected. But they installed the deluge system and it works fine now. The second launch had upgraded quite a few things that they learned from the first launch, and then they found several other issues that they improved on the third launch. And all the issues are related to it being fully reusable, because the entire rocket is designed differently to achieve this goal. If they weren't going for reusability, the rocket would use composite tanks and simple engines and not need all this extra complexity. And if they were not working on reusability, then the third launch would have been a success, because it launched and reached orbit just fine, it was on the reentry that it burned up, but guess what? Every other orbital class rocket before Falcon 9 also burned up on reentry! And every second stage, even for F9, has also burned up, so it's only a failure to successfully reenter, the launch was a success. In any case, SpaceX is pushing the envelope with the sole focus on making a reusable rocket, and they are doing it by launching rockets to test them, not waiting until they are positive it won't blow up, which is why they haven't bothered putting a payload on yet. This lets them move faster because they aren't afraid to break things. But the most important part of this, is that none of the failures have been identical, and each flight they have gone further and made more progress, and if they continue that trend, they will be reliably going to orbit before BO, and then start getting success recovering the rocket as well. Remember, people were saying the exact same things about Falcon 9 when it started flying and blowing up, and now it's the only Human rated rocket in the US, and they are using reused rockets to launch astronauts, so while you may not like their design and testing methods, they are effective and they have a proven track record of being able to pull off things that people say are impossible.
    1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. The thing that you failed to mention as you repeatedly complained that the world leader in EV innovation hadn't invested millions of dollars in upgrading every existing car to a new charging port, is that Tesla uses a "proprietary" connector, BECAUSE THEY WERE FIRST, and nd they attempted to get the industry to use the same connector as the standard, but certain other car companies hated Tesla, and so refused to use the standard, and developed their own competing standard. By this time however, Tesla had lots of customers using the Tesla connector, and had invested billions into building out their Supercharger network, which is what has made worldwide EV adoption possible, because people see that it works if you build the infrastructure, which no car company wanted to do. So now in order to change to the late comer standard, they would have to invest billions in upgrading the existing US Tesla fleet charge ports, home chargers, destination chargers and Superchargers to the new port, and do it all at once so that no customer with free lifetime charging got stranded at a Supercharger with the wrong port. And if you think that someone with a $100k car is going to be happy having to use an adapter, you are wrong! Also, most Tesla owners don't want the change, because one of the value added benefits of owning a Tesla is that you don't have to compete with all the other makes at a charging station. You are part of a dedicated ecosystem that is expanded as needed as more Tesla's are sold, rather than having to fight for space with cars that don't contribute to the build out of more chargers. It's kind of similar to why it's not likely the US will convert to metric, because it would cost billions of dollars to do, with very little benefit for the average person.
    1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244.  @FreshGreenMoss  you are wrong when you say keto doesn't give anyone a weight loss advantage. I am an overworked truck driver, very rarely have time to get out of the truck, and with keto I can lose weight with basically no exercise. I can't do that on a carb diet, because unless I am literally starving myself, my body will never burn the stored fat, because the insulin blocks the ketosis of fat, and as long as you eat carbs, the body produces insulin. Keto is entering the state of ketosis, where the insulin levels drop low enough to allow the body to begin converting stored fat into energy, basically allowing you to burn fat as the primary energy source, rather than carbs as a primary energy source like most diets. On a carb diet, you basically only burn fat when you exercise enough to burn through the blood sugar from eating carbs, and for a few minutes you get into ketosis and burn fat as the backup fuel, but then as soon as you snack on carbs it drink something with sugar in it, your insulin spikes and you stop burning fat. When you fast, once the blood sugar drops, you start using body fat for energy, which is why you feel weak at first during a longer fast, but then you start feeling better and have more energy once the body stabilizes in ketosis. But on keto, I can be sitting on my ass with a full stomach and still be losing weight, because my body is converting stored fat into energy to operate my body. So yes, keto most definitely helps lose weight, because it opens the metabolic pathway to directly and constantly burn fat, and that's something no other diet can do.
    1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1