Chemtrails ?.. are you serious?

[matts-uk]

I'll have to condense things down a bit to make this more readable.

I invited you to comment on two things in particular regarding your understanding of logic, had you managed it your post could have been a lot shorter. I will infer you have not been trained in formal (propositional) logic or set theory, unless you claim otherwise. As an aside, I was kept busy 'debugging' formal logic problems while first learning to program in the late 70s. Computer time was so expensive I had to show some aptitude on paper before being let loose at a keyboard. I guess they don't do that anymore.

There's that argument again. Power is not energy!

Wot The Flip!!! You underlined it too. It's not a mistake then.

Power = Work X Time. Work = Force X Displacement. Force = ∆ Energy.
The SI unit of energy is the Joule. The SI unit of power is the Watt. 1 Watt = 1 Joule per Second.

On this Earth power IS energy because, you know, gravity and stuff.

We see this with computing too - it's not uncommon for modern CPU cores to be more efficient (in terms of energy consumed per task) in a higher-power state due to things like leakage,

Ok I will do this just in case other readers find it interesting.

CPU power consumption, in common with all electronic components, modern or otherwise, is dominted by Ohm's law, V = IR, which is simply a restatement of the earlier thermodynamic equations. Voltage and resistance are the opposing forces and current is delta energy. The maximum clock speed of a CPU, hence the power it consumes, is limited by the width of the conductive elements (tracks) printed on the silicon wafer. Ohmic heating occurs whenever current passes through a conductor. Too much current, too much heat, the track vapourises = dead transistor. Why high frequency switching might cause excessive current is to do with switching propogation and induced noise but I really don't have time to go into that and feel the effort would be wasted.

Electronic 'leakage' in a CPU core is a quantum effect that does not apply to aircraft.

Roughly...Very roughly. CPUs are not called semi-conducters for nothing. A certain amount of force (V) is required to make a 'silicon junction' conduct 'significant' current (I) in the forward direction. The resistance at the junction (R) drops significantly when the threshold voltage is reached, causing significant current to flow foward. Below this threshold a tiny 'leakage' current flows in the reverse direction - A few billionths of an Amp for a single transistor. During the 1970s CPUs contained a couple thousand transistors and leakage was not significant. A modern multi-core CPU contains billions of transistors. Maximum leakage current can now be measured in Amps and that is significant. I am not pretending to be able to do the maths but I can visualise the curve and an intersection where pre-charging unused registers meets execution probabilty, realising a reduced electrical load overall.

Your argument is like saying a given CPU is more efficient because it uses 50W rather than 70W, even though it takes ten times longer to complete the same task and the energy consumed, say in Joules, is far greater.

Nope. My argument is nothing like that. It is not an argument I would ever make...Because I pay an eye-watering price for electric in a data-centre. There is an interesting paper, written by Google IIRC, that concludes an optimum temperature whereby cost of air-con meets cost of powering servers. It turned out the optimimum temperature is higher then previously thought, between ~28C and 32C IIRC.

My argument would be, and I would hope you are familiar with it by now, a CPU is not an aircraft.

Just, suggesting a less efficient mode of transport is more efficient is something of a hard sell outside of very specific, you could say cherry-picked, scenarios.

I have not 'just' suggested that at all. You failed to address many of the points from my previous posts, like 'unnecessary miles' and 'energy efficiency' being a fractional value while 'work efficiency' is a factorial, and each mode of transport being optimal for some journeys and not optimal for many others, and efficiency being not the same thing as conservation. I would not like to think you have quite deliberately 'cherry-picked' my argument to suit yours but it is a possibility.

Sorry if it comes as a shock but (unless they come up with something new at CERN)...

Power IS Energy IS Mass.

...The fundamental fact of the Law of Conservation of Energy (Lavoisie/Mayer/Einstein). The First Law of Thermodynamics, because it is so important. Lacking that knowledge and the implications of it, there is not a hope of understanding what I have been saying.

Thanks, it has been 'enlightening' but I see no point continuing to discuss efficiency with you.

[Xlucine]

Efficiency is the ratio of output to input, expressed as a percentage. The classic physics (thermodynamic) definition of efficiency is energy output divided by energy input. Work efficiency is defined as units of work divided by time spent. Energy is 'lost' to inefficiency in the process of doing work. Thermodynamic efficiency reduces the loss but: i) Energy must be expended to realise the potential saving. ii) The saving is a fraction of the energy expended. Increasing work efficiency merely speeds up the rate energy is expended. Within these simple definitions there is no accounting for fuel nor emissions nor the necessity of the work being done.

Rubbish! Efficiency is a percentage for anything that turns one form of energy into another form of energy - the units (joule in against joules out, or watts in against watts out) cancel giving a dimensionless percentage. For any vehicle transporting a number of people or a weight of cargo the input for a journey can be expressed as energy, and the output is completely different (person-miles, or tonne-miles, or similar). The efficiency is therefore not dimensionless, and so you cannot express it as a percentage.

Wot The Flip!!! You underlined it too. It's not a mistake then.

Power = Work X Time. Work = Force X Displacement. Force = ∆ Energy.
The SI unit of energy is the Joule. The SI unit of power is the Watt. 1 Watt = 1 Joule per Second.

On this Earth power IS energy because, you know, gravity and stuff.

So acceleration is distance? Amps are coulombs? dx/dy ≡ x?

Weight is a terrible measure of the capability of a vehicle, since passenger travel and the vast majority of freight is limited by bulk rather than weight. The limit on almost any passenger aircraft is based on the number of seats which can be fitted, with the width and legroom requirements. Typically this is tens of thousands of pounds less than the payload the aircraft can carry. Similarly, with an ocean liner, the limiting factor isn't the weight of the passengers, but the space taken for staterooms, along with dining areas, etc, that are required for a lengthy voyage.

The same is, mostly, true for freight. Freight aircraft are typically loaded close to their physical capacity, and rarely close to their maximum weight limit, although this does happen on occasion. Partly this is due to the types of freight moved by air. I've flown a plane filled with nothing but fresh cut flowers, for example. Consider your last Amazon Prime delivery. They probably used a Cubic foot of box to send you an SD Card.
Container ships are usually packed with containers on deck to the point of stability. It's bulk that keeps piling up until they get too top-heavy for more. The benefit here is that freight can be packed a lot more densely than people can for a longer period.

PMPG works for comparing moving people, and it's a lot better for the environment for you to fly from the UK to the US than it is for you to take a boat, and to a degree this is reflective in how much cheaper it is, as fuel is a major cost. If you wanted to ship your car over, it's a lot better to put it on a ship than to fly it. Again, the relative costs, to some extent, reflect the fuel used.

Ooh, if it's volume-limited then you can do fun things with the efficiency units. Cargo gallon-miles per gallon cancels out to miles (i.e. how many miles you travel to burn a volume of fuel equivalent to the volume of cargo), and the energy used to cover a given journey makes the units disappear entirely (i.e. how big the fuel volume is in relation to the cargo volume)

[watercooled]

Believe it or not I don't need an invitation to reply to anything! In particular, I'll reply to stuff which is plain wrong or nonsensical, so most of your post until I got bored (and my threshold of getting bored, and tolerating nonsense is beyond what most people seem to bother with TBH). I would hardly call getting bored half-way, or not replying to every single statement individually for the sake of readability as cherry picking, but suit yourself. Most of the later points are repetition anyway and are suitably addressed by earlier parts.

You're just acting like a patronising individual who can't put across a good argument now, and everyone can see it. Throwing down what you believe are qualifications in lieu of a convincing argument, is usually a sure sign you're probably not making sense, and feel the need to justify it to anyone else reading TBH. Fact is, you generally don't know who's on the receiving end of your drivel, and a convincing, logical argument does not require such statements to back them up.

It's hilarious that you feel the need to explain your interpretation of the cause of CPU power consumption, again totally irrelevant to the analogy. It's a perfectly good analogy to what you're implying, IMO (relating to the relationship between time, power and energy). Hate to break it to you but current is not energy either! You're just demonstrating time after time you don't fully understand what energy is, frankly, or you in fact do but are too stubborn to admit it now. CPU leakage is not only related to the number of transistors, but construction and size of the transistors themselves.

Higher temperatures are not optimal for the CPUs themselves, rather it is an equilibrium where the energy costs of equipment and cooling are lowest compared to ambient temperatures. Cooling below this point will still increase CPU efficiency, but that drop will be more than offset by the increased cooling energy. I'm sure you're aware of the positive temperature coefficient exhibited by most conducting materials?

Saying Power IS Energy is totally nonsensical and wrong. Relating it to energy mass equivalence is wrong.


TL: DR - TBH, the whole premise of your original argument, and arguments since, seem to revolve around your apparent lack of understanding of some fairly straightforward calculations. Rate of consumption != efficiency, Power != Energy, Mass != Power, Current != Energy, etc, etc. They are a component, sure, but to ignore the other component(s) is just plain wrong.

To imply that someone does not know what they're talking about because they don't believe that Energy=Power is laughable, but speaks volumes and is a perfect point to end on methinks!

[TeePee]

Rubbish! Efficiency is a percentage for anything that turns one form of energy into another form of energy - the units (joule in against joules out, or watts in against watts out) cancel giving a dimensionless percentage. For any vehicle transporting a number of people or a weight of cargo the input for a journey can be expressed as energy, and the output is completely different (person-miles, or tonne-miles, or similar). The efficiency is therefore not dimensionless, and so you cannot express it as a percentage.



So acceleration is distance? Amps are coulombs? dx/dy ≡ x?



Ooh, if it's volume-limited then you can do fun things with the efficiency units. Cargo gallon-miles per gallon cancels out to miles (i.e. how many miles you travel to burn a volume of fuel equivalent to the volume of cargo), and the energy used to cover a given journey makes the units disappear entirely (i.e. how big the fuel volume is in relation to the cargo volume)

With an airplane, the fuel is separate from the cargo, and defined by weight (in larger aircraft). But the amount of fuel on board is carefully managed, as it takes fuel to move fuel. Then there is altitude to consider. As planes are more efficient at higher altitudes, but are limited in how high they can climb due to weight. Generally climbing higher as fuel is burned, reducing weight. Then factoring wind at different altitudes, making it sometimes worth delaying the climb. Then there's the speed factor. Choosing a slower airspeed with a tailwind can be more efficient, or not, there's an optimal speed for every condition, which then has to be compensated for temperature. Good flight planning can save literally tons of fuel, and good piloting to recognise and change when conditions don't match the forecast can save even more...

[watercooled]

I wonder if/how fuel weight is applied to shipping? For some, you can tell how much fuel they're carrying based on how low they sit in the water, the trade-off being extra drag but potentially less stability for a lighter vessel. Of course, some ships can intentionally carry water as ballast.

[TeePee]

I wonder if/how fuel weight is applied to shipping? For some, you can tell how much fuel they're carrying based on how low they sit in the water, the trade-off being extra drag but potentially less stability for a lighter vessel. Of course, some ships can intentionally carry water as ballast.

They often use fuel tanks as water ballast tanks. (Which is it's own environmental issue. My guess is they have their own complicated calculation relating to fuel as ballast, to counterbalance deck loading so that they don't end up top heavy. Carrying extra fuel is probably less of a factor.

[ik9000]

My argument would be, and I would hope you are familiar with it by now, a CPU is not an aircraft.

I didn't read it all, TL:.DC, but I saw this line and I think we can all agree a CPU is not an aircraft. That is kind of obvious.

[TeePee]

I didn't read it all, TL:.DC, but I saw this line and I think we can all agree a CPU is not an aircraft. That is kind of obvious.

As a pilot, I feel like I have some expertise with this particular topic, at least on this issue specifically. It was a challenging one, but having referred to the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual, to ensure that I have accurate information, from the source, I can now confirm that a CPU is not an aircraft. Again, checking sources carefully, this will not change if the CPU is thrown.

[peterb]

As a pilot, I feel like I have some expertise with this particular topic, at least on this issue specifically. It was a challenging one, but having referred to the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual, to ensure that I have accurate information, from the source, I can now confirm that a CPU is not an aircraft. Again, checking sources carefully, this will not change if the CPU is thrown.

But given the controversy around the Boeing 737 Max, can you actually trust the manuals to be giving full, complete and accurate information?

[TeePee]

But given the controversy around the Boeing 737 Max, can you actually trust the manuals to be giving full, complete and accurate information?

No, and I cannot confirm if the 737Max is, or is not a CPU. Certainly too much CPU appears to have been a problem...

[ik9000]

No, and I cannot confirm if the 737Max is, or is not a CPU. Certainly too much CPU appears to have been a problem...

I'm not a lawyer but I believe they might suggest editing that to include the word "allegedly" rather than certainly, and "possible contributory factor being considered in their investigations" rather than "problem".

As for the first part, AMD might have an opinion: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13594...7371-processor

So, my question to you, as an expert witness to the Hexus jury, is if this "high-frequency epyc 737-1" processor is flying along nicely at 3.8GHz on all 32cores, 64 threads, does it not follow therefore that it could be likened in its performance to an aircraft skipping through the skies at 30,000ft?

[TeePee]

I'm not a lawyer but I believe they might suggest editing that to include the word "allegedly" rather than certainly, and "possible contributory factor being considered in their investigations" rather than "problem".

As for the first part, AMD might have an opinion: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13594...7371-processor

So, my question to you, as an expert witness to the Hexus jury, is if this "high-frequency epyc 737-1" processor is flying along nicely at 3.8GHz on all 32cores, 64 threads, does it not follow therefore that it could be likened in its performance to an aircraft skipping through the skies at 30,000ft?

What's the CAS latency?

[ik9000]

What's the CAS latency?

Don't get SMART and try and RAM my crossfire-examination off track. You're here to answer questions, not try and play inspectre. Do you feel able to carry on or are you worried you might have a meltdown on the stand? We can always take a short recess and reconvene after a coffee lake, sorry I mean break.

[Ttaskmaster]

Weight is a terrible measure of the capability of a vehicle, since passenger travel and the vast majority of freight is limited by bulk rather than weight.

1/. Road vehicles specify a maximum weight limit for carrying cargo and passengers. They do not specify a volume limit.
2/. Passengers on a 7 day ship voyage require much more support cargo and consumables than passengers on an 8 hour flight. Inanimate cargo is the same no matter by what method you move it.

So to keep things fair, I would suggest maximum vehicle cargo weight is the best option. Just pick a cargo that is heavy enough but small enough to max out the weight capacity of any plane or car and use that across the board.
You can't judge based on cubit feet of SD card packages.

[TeePee]

1/. Road vehicles specify a maximum weight limit for carrying cargo and passengers. They do not specify a volume limit.
2/. Passengers on a 7 day ship voyage require much more support cargo and consumables than passengers on an 8 hour flight. Inanimate cargo is the same no matter by what method you move it.

So to keep things fair, I would suggest maximum vehicle cargo weight is the best option. Just pick a cargo that is heavy enough but small enough to max out the weight capacity of any plane or car and use that across the board.
You can't judge based on cubit feet of SD card packages.

1. Actually they do. Lorry's have a maximum length/height/width and the 'standard' lorry on the road conforms to those limits. They also usually, mostly, bulk out before they reach their weight limit. Obviously depending on load.


The SD Card package highlights a problem, since we are talking about economy. That SD card package represents a huge volume of freight being moved, both by air and by road. Amazon in particular, contracts a fleet of aircraft for it's Prime service in the US which mostly flies air around, usually packaged in (biodegradable) plastic bags. That's a perfect example of something which causes unnecessary environmental damage..

[matts-uk]

Weight is a terrible measure of the capability of a vehicle, since passenger travel and the vast majority of freight is limited by bulk rather than weight.

If you want to calculate how much energy a vehicle needs to extract from fuel, mass (weight) is a really good measure of a vehicle's capability.

The same is, mostly, true for freight. Freight aircraft are typically loaded close to their physical capacity, and rarely close to their maximum weight limit, although this does happen on occasion. Partly this is due to the types of freight moved by air. I've flown a plane filled with nothing but fresh cut flowers, for example.

Freight is a better measure of fuel Vs payload than passengers are. 90% of the World's freight travels by ship. Airfreight carries something like 0.3% but 35% by value. I had a figure in my head of 6x the cost for airfreight but this article reckons shipping is 10x to 20x cheaper
https://www.americanshipper.com/news...tonumber=69208

Generally it is perishable and/or high value cargo being flown around. No one wants wilted flowers. I was once bumped from a Continental arlines jet in Micronesia when a headwind rendered cargo in the hold more valuable than my seat.

Container ships are usually packed with containers on deck to the point of stability. It's bulk that keeps piling up until they get too top-heavy for more. The benefit here is that freight can be packed a lot more densely than people can for a longer period.

The benefit is a ship will use far less fuel than an aircraft to travel the same distance carrying the same weight.

You can see the difference in the emission figures. What gets burnt at one end comes out the other. Took me a while to get past the airline industry SEO.

Data in g CO 2 per tonne-kilometer

Aircraft (LH Cargo B747) 	500 g
Airship (Cargolifter) 		55 g
modern truck 			60-150 g
modern railway 			30-100 g
modern sea ship 		10-40 g

https://www.fluglaerm.de/hamburg/klima.htm

Lighter containers are stacked on the deck of a freighter and the heavy containers go in the hull to optimise the loadout. It costs less fuel to move volume (bulk) through the air than the hull through the water. Ro-ro ferrys have a shallow draft and the salons above the car decks for much the same reason.

People make it more complicated. According to the article linked below Carnival cruise ships emit 401g CO2 per head but the average ferry is only 120g CO2 per head, about the same as the 747 the article mentions. The disparity is attributed to passenger activities, not the ships efficiency as a vehicle. The article mentions that a cruise passenger produces 3.5Kg of waste per day Vs 0.8Kg for a 'local on shore.' Average waste per capita in the USA is about 2.5Kg per day and probably more for a guest in a hotel in Vegas.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/...t-than-planes/

PMPG works for comparing moving people, and it's a lot better for the environment for you to fly from the UK to the US than it is for you to take a boat, and to a degree this is reflective in how much cheaper it is, as fuel is a major cost.

Comparing PMPG apparently causes people to believe a 300 Ton jet flying at 300mph at 30,000ft is akin to a magic carpet. The physics of the vehicles makes it blindingly obvious that the one commerical advantage a jet has is speed but it costs a great deal of fuel to keep the plane flying. But you know physics, TLR;

Turns out you can book passage from Southampton to the States on a freighter for about £100 a day including full board in a room a little more comfy than a Travel Lodge. Drinks are duty free and sold at cost from bond. Seriously considering it.