So this video's claim, if I got it right while skimming in a subway, is that when Prusa redesigned the part cooling fan shroud to improve overhang performance they also went ahead and improved the slicer, and the benchmark results that have them generally win overhang comparisons around that time may be attributed more to the software fix than the new HW parts.
That's very interesting information, thanks for sharing.
It's also exactly the kind of thing where a Bambu fan would normally go "oh, so they just made the better integrated product that works better in the end without the customer having to care why".
But I totally agree they should document this transparently since Prusa Slicer can also be used with off-brand printers to good success.
> Prusa slicer is also a fork ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure, which it very prominently displays on the splash screeen to this day instead of hiding it, giving credit where credit is due.
The difference is that it was forked off from Slic3r much longer ago, Slic3r isn't really actively developed anymore, and Prusa has largely rewritten it since.
So it's a false equivalence. This sort of disingenuous comment is the reason a lot of people don't like the Bambu user/influencer brigrading.
I don't think Borat works as well for this. Borat was made for an international audience, including many Americans, and involved Sasha Baron Cohen meeting Americans in person to wind them up, so there had to be an element of accuracy in his satire. Top Gear, on the other hand, was made primarily for a British audience, so the jokes in that episode are very much lazy stereotypes that the British have about Americans without having to be too rooted in reality. I imagine that the production crew spent some time looking for a filling station where they could provoke the 'throwing rocks' incident, for example.
Yes it does. Consider too that after kerosene whaling declined while world population, wealth and demand for lighting grew rapidly.
Also, kerosene for lanterns became a thing in 1846, not 1865 as claimed in the article, and by 1856 was already widespread. Wikipedia has this to say about its impact:
As kerosene production increased, whaling declined. The American whaling fleet, which had been steadily growing for 50 years, reached its all-time peak of 199 ships in 1858. By 1860, just two years later, the fleet had dropped to 167 ships. The Civil War cut into American whaling temporarily, but only 105 whaling ships returned to sea in 1866, the first full year of peace, and that number dwindled until only 39 American ships set out to hunt whales in 1876.[36] Kerosene, made first from coal and oil shale, then from petroleum, had largely taken over whaling's lucrative market in lamp oil.
The really big problem in open source intelligence has been for some time that data to support just about anything can be found. OSINT investigations start with a premise, look for data that supports the premise and rarely look for data that contradicts it.
Sometimes this is just sloppy methodology. Other times it is intentional.
I think OSINT makes it sound like a serious military operation, but I think political opposition research is a much more accurate term for this sort of thing.
No, that is not right. The correct answer is "it depends", but let's run some indicative numbers on data for Boston:
On average and excluding the minority of routes with dedicated lanes (which may be best run on diesel), the Boston metro buses are in use for 6.6 hours per day, covering on average 53 miles.
A full size electric bus uses electricity at a rate of approx 2 kWhr/mile.
So, on average the bus would have around 17 hours to charge up with 106 kWhrs of juice, and this averages out to about 6.2 kW. On average.
However, the smart thing to do would be to charge the buses when the power costs the least, say between 10 pm and 8 am, so you'd need ~10 kW/bus, maybe ~1MW for the 100 bus fleet. Not difficult.
"Blue hydrogen" is commonly used for hydrogen produced from natural gas. If it is produced by steam reforming (most common), then the associated CO2 emissions are worse than if you just burn the natural gas directly.
"Green hydrogen" is usually hydrogen produced from water by electrolysis, using electricity from non-CO2 source, e.g. wind or electricity.
Right, if you "oops" don't have working capture because it's never been practical you're making "Blue" hydrogen in which your customers can tell everybody they're environmentally friendly but due to a technical hitch you are emitting lots of CO2. Maybe you can agree a token $1B fine, of course offset against the taxes you were already going to pay, and everybody carries on as before. Hooray for your profitable corporation and oops, too bad for the stupid humans who live on the gradually less inhabitable planet you're destroying.
This would only be really dumb if the corporation was owned by humans. Huh.
Natural gas is a mixture of methane and heavier hydrocarbons, the composition varies by region, depending largely on how the LPGs (propane and butane) are used. Ethane usually ends up in natural gas, unless there is a petrochemical complex nearby.
So, 80% is a theoretical maximum, which is never achieved in practice. 75% hydrogen looks pretty right.
I'm still curious about the measurement "on a molar basis". If you have 20 moles of methane, and you process that to separate out the carbon, you'll end up with 20 moles of some form of carbon and 40 moles of hydrogen gas, right?
I think that "on a molar basis" is there to clarify that it's counting by number of atoms rather than grams. On a gram-for-gram basis, methane is ~75% carbon.
"Molar" refers to a number of elementary entities, which could be atoms or molecules or w/e. So yes, if you are counting moles of H2 gas, but not if you are counting atoms...
But hydrogen gas is the only thing you can get from that reaction. There is a theoretical construct of monatomic hydrogen, also a gas, but you're guaranteed to get molecular hydrogen instead. And there will only be 40 moles of it. There isn't a way for you to end up with 80 moles of hydrogen product.
I'm the original commenter, and quite simply you're right and I slipped up. It's not really using the terminology correctly for me to say "natural gas is ~75% hydrogen on a molar basis".
Whenever talking about hydrogen's physical properties etc on a molar basis, we'd be talking about H2. So if you had a mole of methane (CH4) we'd say you could make two moles of hydrogen (H2) out of it.
My point was really just that the gas companies' reserves of natural gas mean that they'll do anything to try to stimulate demand for blue/grey hydrogen, because their reserves of natural gas are reserves of hydrogen.
Let's go back to your opening comment which was something like "I thought methane was 80% hydrogen on a molar basis". Methane does not contain H2 molecules, it contains 4 atoms of hydrogen. Plus one atom of carbon, which would indeed make it 80% hydrogen on a molar basis.
If that does not convince you: note also that atomic carbon is also a very unstable, and will auto polymerize into one of its allotropes (eg. C60 - buckyballs). And yet we count carbon by the atom.
And right after that, the fight against climate change will be lost.
Electric cars could have been the enabling technology for intermittent renewable power generation. Smart charging and back-feeding into the grid when needed could have largely solved the intermittency problem.
>Those who in America, had Learjets and beachside villas, had to make do with bugged apartments and black Volgas in the Soviet Union and they rightly saw it as unfair.
The Soviet Union endured a most destructive war, and then had economic warfare waged against it by its former allies. Kind of hard to compete under such circumstances.
I'm not speaking about overall economic level. I'm speaking about inequality. Which was low in the Soviet Union and top 1% - which was also the most educated class and had the best access to information too - could not miss the fact that they were badly underpaid compared to their capitalist counterparts, even from poor capitalist countries. There was just not enough inequality.
And also, their lives were full of risks compared to capitalists who could at worst bankrupt their companies and walk away to their beachfront villas, Soviet elites that misstepped, ended up in Gulag.
Elites in the end, were the most intrinsically anti-Soviet part of the Soviet society: they had a lot to gain from the collapse of the System, and they indeed, did gain a lot when it happened.
One thing that Politburo could do to extend the life of the Soviet Union was to be softer on the elites by letting them freer access to foreign currency, facilitate their freedom of travel, owning foreign property and investments, and so on. They couldn't escape after all - they had no skills to make good money in the West.
Only if you compare Prusa printing at 50 mm/s with Bambu at 500 mm/s.
>and better overhang performance
What? No. Proof: https://youtu.be/HcSOz-Lsxgg?feature=shared&t=293
>Prusa drives the slicer development ecosystem (Bambu Studio is a fork)
Prusa slicer is also a fork ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
reply