Another note on that...
Using feedforward techniques with little negative feedback gain can work if the predictor used for feedforward is accurate. You can quickly spot the following error if the system behaves differently than the model.
Using high negative feedback with no feedforward has the ability of adapting to a changing system, and will keep the following error very low. The problem with that however, is the high negative feedback hides system changes, and the control system will keep it low until failure of the controls by saturation.
Climate models and human input are extremely complex. One has to worry that at some point, the feedback will be insufficient and the system crashes. Unfortunately, we live on that system so have to be wise in our choices...
jn
Chemtrails
For those that don't know, or have forgotten,
Atmospheric injection of NASTY chemicals and/or other harmful materials etc, to "supposedly" reverse/limit etc "Global Warmimg " etc has been going on for quite some time !
Here's just a few Patents that show how.
US 5,003,186 Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction Of Global Warming Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming - Hughes Aircraft Company &
Atmospheric injection of reflective aerosol for mitigating global warming Atmospheric injection of reflective aerosol for mitigating global warming - Neff, Ryan
This is what Chemtrails are. NOT contrails !
So they want to try & Save us from non poisonous CO2 by poisoning us from above with ALL that crap
Contrails in the sky are narrow & quickly fade away. Chemtrails spread right out & linger for a Long time ! Look up & see. This has been & is happening almost every day around the world for years !
For those that don't know, or have forgotten,
Atmospheric injection of NASTY chemicals and/or other harmful materials etc, to "supposedly" reverse/limit etc "Global Warmimg " etc has been going on for quite some time !
Here's just a few Patents that show how.
US 5,003,186 Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction Of Global Warming Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming - Hughes Aircraft Company &
Atmospheric injection of reflective aerosol for mitigating global warming Atmospheric injection of reflective aerosol for mitigating global warming - Neff, Ryan
This is what Chemtrails are. NOT contrails !
So they want to try & Save us from non poisonous CO2 by poisoning us from above with ALL that crap
Contrails in the sky are narrow & quickly fade away. Chemtrails spread right out & linger for a Long time ! Look up & see. This has been & is happening almost every day around the world for years !
Last edited:
I don't know if you're being serious or if this is all a joke to you, Zero D.
One can patent all kinds of things and have no means of implementing them, in fact most patents are useless and undeveloped.
Given these "nasty chemicals" would need to be deployed in massive quantities, why aren't they showing up all over the place in atmospheric mass spec? Or do you have a conspiracy theory for that too?
One can patent all kinds of things and have no means of implementing them, in fact most patents are useless and undeveloped.
Given these "nasty chemicals" would need to be deployed in massive quantities, why aren't they showing up all over the place in atmospheric mass spec? Or do you have a conspiracy theory for that too?
Engine horse power has improved over the decades as well. Combined those with lighter cars (more use of aluminum, carbon fiber, more efficient structural design...etc.), the energy efficiency has improved.
The patent thing is hilarious. Large companies actually have a strategy of patenting a protective encircling layer of patents around their true innovation. At my last job there was a particular patent that was pesky, because evaluators couldn't agree on its validity. One new R&D guy that worked on the file commissioned a patent review, and then immediately applied for a patent because it found a permutation that hadn't been patented yet. All a paper only exercise.
You know what, it would be interesting to read that article the picture is from. It does say it's an estimate, so I really do not know how to interpret that. I did ask for measured results. For all I know those estimates the graph you posted is built on might be made from manufacturer data, there's no way to tell.
Here's some links to various cars fuel consumption, results from actual use, sorted by model year.
WV Caddy
Honda Civic
Ford F-150 v6 gas and v8 gas
Ford Focus
Mazda Miata/MX-5
Dodge RAM 1500 V8 gas
Dodge RAM 2500 L6 Diesel
No cherry picking, the small cars are mixed engine sizes, the pickups are just by most popular engine. I can make the mixed list endless, but suggest you start checking yourself instead.
Last edited:
You have to compare consistently. You wouldn't measure temperature at your backyard one year and then measure again in a few years at your friend's backyard 100 Km away and consider that to be an objective comparison, would you?
Per horsepower produced, cars today use less energy than cars did 20, 30 years ago.
I will just say this: The biggest advantage modern engines have over 20 or 30 year old models, is process technology in manufacturing, more specificly: turbines for forced induction motors. It is the biggest performance difference beween Old and New, the modern turbines can be made of less material, causing less waste in manufacturing process, but most importantly: they are lighter and demand less energy to spool up, therefore they spool up faster, and with less lag than previously.
Now, we seem to have reached a point where the advantage of these lighter turbines are approximating the performance limit, and there might be a tiny bit, but not very much more, to wring out in terms of performance. The graph provided by Evenharmonics actually suggests this trend if you look at the graph from ca 2005, the focus on refined manufacturing for turbines, and they become part of the normal supply chain, even for tiny cars such as for instance the Fiat 500 TwinAir 0.9 and1 liter engines, picks up some development momentum, and reach a peak before smoothing out again.
Fuel efficiency vs how much power delivered from the engine, is virtually the same.
Now, we seem to have reached a point where the advantage of these lighter turbines are approximating the performance limit, and there might be a tiny bit, but not very much more, to wring out in terms of performance. The graph provided by Evenharmonics actually suggests this trend if you look at the graph from ca 2005, the focus on refined manufacturing for turbines, and they become part of the normal supply chain, even for tiny cars such as for instance the Fiat 500 TwinAir 0.9 and1 liter engines, picks up some development momentum, and reach a peak before smoothing out again.
Fuel efficiency vs how much power delivered from the engine, is virtually the same.
Last edited:
Interesting that over 30yr old models of VW Caddy utility pickups returned up to 10mpg better than 2013. More efficient per HP, quite possibly, but even in the sheltered corner of the world I live in (Vancouver Island BC) many market segments seem to be revisiting the late 60/early 70’s trend to excessive size/HP / 0-100kmh performance - and how many families North American families have only one vehicle- so is overall consumption down. As nifty a piece of engineering as the Tesla S is, who really needs the ability to go from 0-100kmh in under 3 seconds? Do statistics / analyses exist on the relative environmental footprints of total life-cycle / supply chain of production of current technology batteries and motors used in electrics & hybrids, vs that of internal combustion engines of all fuel types? And let’s not even talk about where the electricity will be coming from to power all these renewable energy vehicles, or what happens when some teenage decides to hack the self-driving software upon which we’ll soon be asked to place our faith and lives of our loved ones.
One more pet peeve, then I’m done for the day; Canada'''s oil price discount rises to widest gap since 2013 | CBC News
and dairy marketing was one the major stumbling blocks of the recent USMCA capitulation? I note with interest which of the three country letters came last - I doubt that was purely for the similarity to old Village People’s song title that agent orange may have tried to dance to in the day.
One more pet peeve, then I’m done for the day; Canada'''s oil price discount rises to widest gap since 2013 | CBC News
and dairy marketing was one the major stumbling blocks of the recent USMCA capitulation? I note with interest which of the three country letters came last - I doubt that was purely for the similarity to old Village People’s song title that agent orange may have tried to dance to in the day.
Most people are not practical when choosing a vehicle. This is quite obvious in my area where it is difficult to find a 2 wheel drive truck. Everyone thinks they need a 4X4 with a big engine.
The trend was towards more efficient vehicles until the drop in gas price about two years ago.
When it hit $4.50/gal US, people started selling gas guzzlers and switching to more efficient vehicles. After the price dropped back to $2.00/gallon the auto manufacturers started pushing gas guzzlers again.
I drive a truck, but it is a two wheel drive with a manual transmission and small V-8.
Idiocracy for sure.
The trend was towards more efficient vehicles until the drop in gas price about two years ago.
When it hit $4.50/gal US, people started selling gas guzzlers and switching to more efficient vehicles. After the price dropped back to $2.00/gallon the auto manufacturers started pushing gas guzzlers again.
I drive a truck, but it is a two wheel drive with a manual transmission and small V-8.
Idiocracy for sure.
Chris:
In general: The most environmetally friendly thing you can do is to purchase a small used car (because they require less energy both to make and use), and maintain it carefully, stretching it's life span as long as possible. If you can make it go further than 300 000 km the average production carbon footprint of a compact vehicle can get as low as 8%.
But if you compare modern cars, an electric car has less impact on the environment during it's intended life, by about 27% less carbon footprint total, even if much of the electricity comes from a coal based power plant.
In a regular compact car that is expected to "live" about equal distance, the expected carbon footprint just to make the fuel is 12.8%, that's before you burn up the fuel through combustion.
I would like to go on but it's late here. Good night people.
In general: The most environmetally friendly thing you can do is to purchase a small used car (because they require less energy both to make and use), and maintain it carefully, stretching it's life span as long as possible. If you can make it go further than 300 000 km the average production carbon footprint of a compact vehicle can get as low as 8%.
But if you compare modern cars, an electric car has less impact on the environment during it's intended life, by about 27% less carbon footprint total, even if much of the electricity comes from a coal based power plant.
In a regular compact car that is expected to "live" about equal distance, the expected carbon footprint just to make the fuel is 12.8%, that's before you burn up the fuel through combustion.
I would like to go on but it's late here. Good night people.
Today's car engines are far more efficient than those of the past, overall getting better mileage and also producing more horsepower from fewer cylinders and cc's. And overall auto company fleets are more efficient. The advances in IC engines have been dramatic. That said, cars are an American (and also in other countries) iconic consumer good, romanticized by many, a hobby to many. High power and luxury have long been a point of distinction and marketing in the auto world. I do not see that changing. On the other hand, driven by the price of gas and depending on one's environmental philosophy, high mileage cars, hybrid cars, plug in hybrids and electric cars have grown greatly in the past 20 years. Most consumer trends of large ticket items evolve over time, and out of need, cost or concern relating to one's circumstances.
World and local oil reserve projections 50 years ago did not foresee the science that exists today to far more greatly predict those reserves. Just like 50 years ago doctors made projections on health but did not envision MRIs or laparoscopic surgery. You go with the science you have at the time.
It is not just a question of how much oil exists in planet Earth, but how much CO2 and other pollutants we want to blast into the atmosphere when lower-impact alternatives exist. Personally, I am for breathing the cleanest air and drinking or swimming in the cleanest water that is possible and practicable. Long term reliance on IC autos when there are 9 or 10 or 12 billion people on the planet poses major health risks, even if you do not believe in global warming.
Someone mentioned the threats of acid rain and related it to a hoax. It was not a hoax. Flora and fauna in significant parts of the Appalachians and East were perishing due to pH changes. Environmental regulations on coal burning power plants helped stop and reverse those trends, certainly on sensitive indicator species such as trout.
I can well recall the intense, foul-smelling, lead-filled air that choked Southern California in the 1970's when I lived there, and hung over the place like a dense, dry fog. It made your lungs hurt and your sinuses burn. Go to Beijing and take a few deep breathes and then talk about the wrongs of environmental regulation and how wrong scientific studies were around air and water 20-50 years ago that led to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
World and local oil reserve projections 50 years ago did not foresee the science that exists today to far more greatly predict those reserves. Just like 50 years ago doctors made projections on health but did not envision MRIs or laparoscopic surgery. You go with the science you have at the time.
It is not just a question of how much oil exists in planet Earth, but how much CO2 and other pollutants we want to blast into the atmosphere when lower-impact alternatives exist. Personally, I am for breathing the cleanest air and drinking or swimming in the cleanest water that is possible and practicable. Long term reliance on IC autos when there are 9 or 10 or 12 billion people on the planet poses major health risks, even if you do not believe in global warming.
Someone mentioned the threats of acid rain and related it to a hoax. It was not a hoax. Flora and fauna in significant parts of the Appalachians and East were perishing due to pH changes. Environmental regulations on coal burning power plants helped stop and reverse those trends, certainly on sensitive indicator species such as trout.
I can well recall the intense, foul-smelling, lead-filled air that choked Southern California in the 1970's when I lived there, and hung over the place like a dense, dry fog. It made your lungs hurt and your sinuses burn. Go to Beijing and take a few deep breathes and then talk about the wrongs of environmental regulation and how wrong scientific studies were around air and water 20-50 years ago that led to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
Last edited:
Such line of thinking would make it easy to pursuit agenda by those who are trying to exploit things for their gain. Audio electronics example would be boutique cable vendors exploiting the sound properties we don't hear in attempts to sell. In such line of thinking, water would be called toxin, in excessive amount.
Not only we exhale CO2, we also inhale it too along with oxygen and other air. When there is a bit of CO2 with oxygen we breath in, our respiratory system delivers oxygen in our body more efficiently compared to breathing in pure oxygen. IOW, too low of CO2 can cause problem with our normal function. Look up "science of breathing".
Not only we exhale CO2, we also inhale it too along with oxygen and other air. When there is a bit of CO2 with oxygen we breath in, our respiratory system delivers oxygen in our body more efficiently compared to breathing in pure oxygen. IOW, too low of CO2 can cause problem with our normal function. Look up "science of breathing".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.