Hi Sal

1356712

Comments

  • nooshinjohnnooshinjohn Posts: 16,598
    Gawd I wish I could get a mulligan...

    Yep... feels like Groundhog Day around here lately...
    The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, TriangleArt Reference SE with Pass Labs Xono twin chassis phono preamplifier, Walker Precision Motor Drive, ClearAudio Stradivari v2 cartridge and Origin Conquerer Mk3c tonearm, Polk Audio "Signature" Reference Series 1.2TL with complete mods, Pass Labs X1 two channel preamplifier Signed by Poppa himself, Pioneer PDD 9MkII SACD Player, PS Audio PerfectWave DAC MkII, Pioneer Elite SC-65, Oppo BDP-95 Bluray, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk audio AB700/800 "in-wall" surrounds

  • shawn474shawn474 Posts: 2,690
    edited November 13
    In before the close and the ban hammer!!!!

    Now that we know sal has conflict of interests pushing an agenda that he invests in - how is this not a violation of forum rules?

    Definition of a troll and a nuisance to the forum with nothing productive to contribute
    Shawn
    Pre-Amp: Pioneer Elite VSX-94TXH
    Amp: B&K AV5000 Series II
    Center Channel: Polk LSI C
    Front: Polk LSI 9's
    Rear: LSI fx
    Subwoofer: Mirage Omni S10
    Television: Samsung LN46B640
    DVD Player: Sony BDP-S1000ES
  • maximillianmaximillian Posts: 2,031
    Is Sal involved with dump trucks? I thought he was involved only in consumer EVs (not that I really care). If that is the case, how is the dump truck link a conflict of interest?

    Actually, the dump truck story is pretty cool. It only works because it brings its load downward. The opposite direction would take a lot of energy. It may not even be worth more than using a standard diesel truck.

  • shawn474shawn474 Posts: 2,690
    edited November 13
    Lasareath wrote: »
    shawn474 wrote: »
    In before the close and the ban hammer!!!!

    Now that we know sal has conflict of interests pushing an agenda that he invests in - how is this not a violation of forum rules?

    Definition of a troll and a nuisance to the forum with nothing productive to contribute

    Actually you’re the one Trolling me. Every post I make you have a remark. I’m calling you out. And reporting you.

    Sal,
    Please, take your martyr act somewhere else. The thread got shut down because you couldn’t keep your mouth shut and have an insatiable appetite to prove everyone wrong. Then you choose to bring it back up on ANOTHER old thread. I, and many others have called you out on this behavior (now and in the past). Report me and do whatever you need to to quench your insecurities.....but the fact is you’re an attention monger (proven by your crybaby “delete my account” thread and now this reinstate my account so I can push an annoying agenda and an annoying one at that. This will be the last post I make in any of your threads - it just isn’t worth the time.

    I will await the mods decision on whether to suspend or ban me (with bated breath)....
    Shawn
    Pre-Amp: Pioneer Elite VSX-94TXH
    Amp: B&K AV5000 Series II
    Center Channel: Polk LSI C
    Front: Polk LSI 9's
    Rear: LSI fx
    Subwoofer: Mirage Omni S10
    Television: Samsung LN46B640
    DVD Player: Sony BDP-S1000ES
  • I'm reporting myself. I was too embarrassed to post this in the "What are you listening to thread", and I posted it here.



    MrBigBlueLight
    Here to pick your brain & steal your cookies
    Shifting to Plan B+
  • ZLTFULZLTFUL Posts: 4,194
    edited November 13
    Lasareath wrote: »
    LOLPUSHINMAHAGENDUHSPAM!!!

    The true comedy here is using a picture of a diesel powered rock truck...

    See that mass of air cleaners and the exhaust pipe? That's all diesel powered engine hardware.

    wymm6flawpwf.jpeg
    "Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."

    "Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip
    2 Channel: Silverline Audio Sonatina MKI, Monitor 5 Series II, DIY Seas based bookies
    LR 2 Channel: LSi7, DSW-MP2000
    HT: JTR Triple 8 LCRs, DIYSG Volt 8LX Surrounds, DIYSG Volt 6LX Atmos, 6 SI HT-18D2 Subs
    Guest BR 2 Channel: Swans D1080MKII
    Deck: Pyle BT Speaker pair with upgraded woofers
  • pitdogg2pitdogg2 Posts: 8,112
    I also must mention I have not seen huge radiators or any radiator on the front of any EV vehicle. Not only does this one have a monster radiator but you can even see the heat distortion from the exhaust

    EPIC FAIL SAL!!!!!!
  • Viking64Viking64 Posts: 741
    edited November 13
    The Komatsu HD605 diesel-to-EV is under development. This article was from September.

    https://newatlas.com/komatsu-electric-dump-truck/51377/
    Polk SDA SRS 2.3TL
    Silk Audio MS38SE Tube Amp
    Yamaha DSP A-1 AV Amp
    Panasonic TC-P65S2 Plasma TV
  • Viking64Viking64 Posts: 741
    Don't count your chickens before they hatch. :p

    From the original article Sal posted:

    Of course, this is still an experimental project, and Empa (the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology) is working with the e-Dumper team to study battery performance in such a harsh environment and use case. Empa's battery expert, Marcel Held, says that a big question is what happens if there's mechanical damage to the cells—a real possibility in an environment like a quarry.

    "Some batteries start smoking, others burst into flames," he said. "The crucial thing in this instance is to make sure the neighboring cells are not damaged by the fire and heat. Otherwise, there is the risk of a chain reaction."
    Polk SDA SRS 2.3TL
    Silk Audio MS38SE Tube Amp
    Yamaha DSP A-1 AV Amp
    Panasonic TC-P65S2 Plasma TV
  • Well .... uhm .... there's only going to be 1440 nickel manganese cobalt cells, so I'm sure that statistically speaking there's not all that much of a certainty that things will go wrong.
    For the most part.
    Generally speaking.

    MrBigBlueLight
    Here to pick your brain & steal your cookies
    Shifting to Plan B+
  • ken brydsonken brydson Posts: 6,562
    Gawd I wish I didn't mistakenly start this thread...
    HT/Main- Panny 50" G10 Plasma, Pioneer SC-1222k AVR, Panny DMP-BD60 BDP, Polk LS90 mains, CS350LS center, LS/fx side surrounds, LS50 surround backs, SVS 25-31PC+ sub, Harmony One

    Office Rig- Marantz 2252B, Denon 2910, Kenwood KD2070 TT, Polk RTA 12B's/ RTA8t
  • nbrowsernbrowser Posts: 7,017
    Kids...play nice together...no need to get a second thread shut down in as many days....
    Living room: Samsung UN55KU7000 4K UHD HDR 55 inch TV, Marantz CD6004, Pro-Ject Debut Carbon, Parasound zPhono, Mac Mini, Oppo BDP-93, XBox One S 2Tb, Kenwood DPX792BH car deck for radio purposes, Marantz SR5010 AVR, Parasound HCA-1200II, Front SDA 2 modded with Larrys Rings and RD0-194-1 tweeters, Rear Onkyo SKF-4800 Towers, Center CSiA6, BOOM Tannoy TS2.12 Sub, Audioquest Evergreen interconnects just about everywhere except from AVR to amp, MIT Terminator 4, MIT AVT3 speaker cables with extra terminals covered up Monitor 5 Jr+ in the wings for a center channel.
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 15,287
    ...

    Actually, the dump truck story is pretty cool. It only works because it brings its load downward. The opposite direction would take a lot of energy. It may not even be worth more than using a standard diesel truck.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a b!tc#. It doesn't "work" in the global sense of 'creating' energy, nor even in the (thermodynamically legitimate) sense of 'harnessing' gravitational potential energy. It "works" because a load of mass is transferred to it at the top of the hill. The energy cost of putting the load into that big momma truck up at the top of the hill exceeds the amount generated by the trip downhill. That, friends, is the crux of the Second Law.

    The First Law says "You can't win".
    The Second Law says "You can't break even."



    "Some amps run on self bias, some amps run on fixed bias. But his amps run on confirmation bias." -- seen on audioasylum

  • ZLTFULZLTFUL Posts: 4,194
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    ...

    Actually, the dump truck story is pretty cool. It only works because it brings its load downward. The opposite direction would take a lot of energy. It may not even be worth more than using a standard diesel truck.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a b!tc#. It doesn't "work" in the global sense of 'creating' energy, nor even in the (thermodynamically legitimate) sense of 'harnessing' gravitational potential energy. It "works" because a load of mass is transferred to it at the top of the hill. The energy cost of putting the load into that big momma truck up at the top of the hill exceeds the amount generated by the trip downhill. That, friends, is the crux of the Second Law.

    The First Law says "You can't win".
    The Second Law says "You can't break even."



    Don't try to tell that to the kooks trying to push an agenda. All that matters in their kooky agenda.
    "Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."

    "Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip
    2 Channel: Silverline Audio Sonatina MKI, Monitor 5 Series II, DIY Seas based bookies
    LR 2 Channel: LSi7, DSW-MP2000
    HT: JTR Triple 8 LCRs, DIYSG Volt 8LX Surrounds, DIYSG Volt 6LX Atmos, 6 SI HT-18D2 Subs
    Guest BR 2 Channel: Swans D1080MKII
    Deck: Pyle BT Speaker pair with upgraded woofers
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 15,287
    Well, there's a widespread tendency to look at the use of energy in a so-called open system. An open system can exchange matter and/or energy with its surroundings. All of those "perpetual motion" schemes depend on just such a system. There's at least a little additional energy that needs to be put in compared to what comes out. In an isolated system (e.g., the whole univese), the entropy of the system always, always increases. No free lunch.

    This is true with batteries, too -- if batteries didn't "obey" the Second Law, they could be recharged an infinite number of times, and every Joule of energy used in charging the battery could be recovered to do electrical work. But, unfortunately, the battery loses "a little something" with every charge-drain cycle, and some of the energy put in during charging is lost (as heat) and cannot be recovered to do useful work -- without expending even further energy.

    "Some amps run on self bias, some amps run on fixed bias. But his amps run on confirmation bias." -- seen on audioasylum

  • schwarcwschwarcw Posts: 7,125
    Where does the energy to create the electricity come from? About 75% from fossil fuels. Electricity from fossil fuels is about 35 - 45 % efficient. It would be better to burn the carbon to generate the power to the wheels that to burn the carbon to make electricity, charge the battery, etc. There is nothing "green" about electric cars that got their electricity from a fossil fuel plant. Nuclear energy to create the electricity makes the most "green" sense. Burn gasoline and save the planet (and our tax money). If it makes good economic sense, then it doesn't need tax credits.

    Show us a diagram Dr. H! ;)
    Carl

  • Viking64Viking64 Posts: 741
    schwarcw wrote: »

    Show us a diagram Dr. H! ;)

    I swear he has a nuclear power plant in his basement. :p
    Polk SDA SRS 2.3TL
    Silk Audio MS38SE Tube Amp
    Yamaha DSP A-1 AV Amp
    Panasonic TC-P65S2 Plasma TV
  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,068
    Lasareath wrote: »
    ZLTFUL wrote: »
    Lasareath wrote: »
    LOLPUSHINMAHAGENDUHSPAM!!!

    The true comedy here is using a picture of a diesel powered rock truck...

    See that mass of air cleaners and the exhaust pipe? That's all diesel powered engine hardware.

    wymm6flawpwf.jpeg

    Tell the author of the article.

    I was Quoting the story. Not the picture of the Truck.
    http://www.komatsuamerica.com/mining/electric-trucks
    vlkhpt8jd82w.png


    That's the problem I have with your citations, Sal. They are not accurate and/or truly relevant to what your point is. They attempt to fit what your agenda is, regardless of the above. You did the same thing in the closed thread. Unfortunately, I was not able to point it out.

    Your response of posting someone's work, attempting to make your point seem relevant, even though the person's work may not (has not been) be accurate to, or relevant in making your point does not help your credibility at all.
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:

    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\

    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • charley95charley95 Posts: 570
    I'm just glad we're not part of the Paris accord. We all know who the author of that one is.
  • maximillianmaximillian Posts: 2,031
    mhardy6647 wrote: »
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a b!tc#. It doesn't "work" in the global sense of 'creating' energy, nor even in the (thermodynamically legitimate) sense of 'harnessing' gravitational potential energy. It "works" because a load of mass is transferred to it at the top of the hill. The energy cost of putting the load into that big momma truck up at the top of the hill exceeds the amount generated by the trip downhill. That, friends, is the crux of the Second Law.

    They are taking stuff down from a mountain. The mass is essentially constant. But the change is height is much greater in transferring the load down a mountain than the height difference in loading the truck. ΔPE = mgΔh. It's a transfer of potential energy to stored electrical energy in the batteries using regenerative breaking. In this case, the energy is there from the creation of the planet. The mountains are in a state of lower entropy with respect to the planet. Taking stuff down from the mountains and making them "flatter" with the rest of the planet increases entropy.

    It only works in this VERY limited use case. Wouldn't work on flat land or a quarry. That's all I found was cool.
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 15,287
    edited November 14
    Yes, the gravitational potential energy is doing the (incremental) work -- but there's a
    substantial (I assume) added mass in the truck on the downhill run due to the load... and the load had to get loaded into the dump truck somehow. More 'anti-entropy'.

    We're generally in violent agreement -- and the only real point is that, from a universal perspective, entropy increased (less free energy around in the universe to do work after the truck makes a run than before).

    I guess the corollary point is that any scheme that looks like a cheap or free way to "make energy" fails the test from the perspective of the universe (which, when all is said and done, is the only perspective that really matters) ;)


    It is clever -- like my wife's old Hybrid Explorer with regenerative brakes to get back some of that energy expended going down a hill and use it to charge batteries (and reduce wear on the disc brakes). But, again, not 100% of the dissipated energy is 'reclaimed' by charging the batteries. Darn you, Second Law! :)

    "Some amps run on self bias, some amps run on fixed bias. But his amps run on confirmation bias." -- seen on audioasylum

  • maximillianmaximillian Posts: 2,031
    "violent agreement"? What the does that mean? I am not violent in any sense of the term. I agree with your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, but I disagree with your application. That doesn't make me violent.

    First please explain "anti-antropy". If you Google this term is has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

    The equation is clear: the energy difference in transferring an object of mass "m" over a change of height "Δh" is: E = mgΔh

    The only practical variable here is Δh. Loading a truck changes the height about 30 feet (guess here by the picture of the truck). I am making an assumption here that the top of the mountain is on average flat. So the energy is required to load the truck is what it takes to lift the mass "m" 30 feet.

    Since the unloading point is down the mountain (and it's called a mountain in the article) the height difference is substantially larger. For a 300 foot mountain (which is small) the height difference in 10 times larger than the height difference in loading the truck. Sure, there's inefficiency losses here and there. But there is an order of magnitude potential difference in energy.

    The mass is only the load. There is energy required to move the empty truck up the mountain in which some of it is captured going back down due to regenerative breaking. This is at a net loss. Point is that the truck is much heavier going down compared to going up.

    There's no "free" energy being generated here. But when energy is transferred from one place to another and entropy is increased, then there is a potential to make it do work for us. That's what's going on. Moving the mass out of a quarry decreases entropy and would require a lot of energy from somewhere else (constant recharging from the grid or use a diesel truck).

    For your "hybrid" example... yes there is losses, but the point is that the energy from the Δh going down a hill doesn't need to be completely wasted as heat generated in conventional breaks. It can be transfered to somewhere else. The key term here is "completely". As you correctly put it, you can't claim 100%. Point is that you don't have to lose 100% to waste heat either.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!