Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 784, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The math doesn't work.

“If they were to replace the batteries with these supercapacitors, you could charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn’t need to charge it again for over a week,”

My cell phone battery holds 11Wh and lasts a day. I'd need 77Wh to last a week.

To charge a 77Wh capacity in "a few seconds" (I'll give them 5 seconds) would take 55.4kW of power, or 120V at 462 amps with 100% charge efficiency.

My main panel is 200A at 240V or 48kW so even all the power that can pass through my main breaker couldn't accomplish that charge rate.

I work at the end of a long distribution line and we have 10 megawatts of service. There's a wooden pole distribution line I drive next to everyday to work that carries 32 megawatts.

Fast charging multiple cars at half a megawatt each is way more doable than providing 50kW to home users to charge their phones in 5 seconds.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 04:27 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The math doesn't work.

“If they were to replace the batteries with these supercapacitors, you could charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn’t need to charge it again for over a week,”

My cell phone battery holds 11Wh and lasts a day. I'd need 77Wh to last a week.

To charge a 77Wh capacity in "a few seconds" (I'll give them 5 seconds) would take 55.4kW of power, or 120V at 462 amps with 100% charge efficiency.

My main panel is 200A at 240V or 48kW so even all the power that can pass through my main breaker couldn't accomplish that charge rate.

Advancements in technology still have to follow conservation of energy, and my comment was about that, not about their device.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 01:04 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The math doesn't work.

“If they were to replace the batteries with these supercapacitors, you could charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn’t need to charge it again for over a week,”

My cell phone battery holds 11Wh and lasts a day. I'd need 77Wh to last a week.

To charge a 77Wh capacity in "a few seconds" (I'll give them 5 seconds) would take 55.4kW of power, or 120V at 462 amps with 100% charge efficiency.

My main panel is 200A at 240V or 48kW so even all the power that can pass through my main breaker couldn't accomplish that charge rate.

D500 - you are missing the point.

Even if their device is every bit as good as they say it is, home power supplies couldn't possibly charge it "in a few seconds". 5 minutes would be possible, but not a few seconds.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 00:28 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The math doesn't work.

“If they were to replace the batteries with these supercapacitors, you could charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn’t need to charge it again for over a week,”

My cell phone battery holds 11Wh and lasts a day. I'd need 77Wh to last a week.

To charge a 77Wh capacity in "a few seconds" (I'll give them 5 seconds) would take 55.4kW of power, or 120V at 462 amps with 100% charge efficiency.

My main panel is 200A at 240V or 48kW so even all the power that can pass through my main breaker couldn't accomplish that charge rate.

Old cameras - no, that's not quite right either.

Let's say you need 300Wh/mile. To get, say, 200 miles of range you'd need 60 kWh. I claim bathroom breaks take a maximum of 8 minutes. At 90% charge efficiency, that's half a megawatt. That's a lot, but it's less than 1% of the output of an ordinary power plant, and it's easily available at the medium voltage distribution grid. That's not as common as gas stations which are typically on the low voltage distribution grid, but it's not "half the output of the power plant" either.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 23:55 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The math doesn't work.

“If they were to replace the batteries with these supercapacitors, you could charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn’t need to charge it again for over a week,”

My cell phone battery holds 11Wh and lasts a day. I'd need 77Wh to last a week.

To charge a 77Wh capacity in "a few seconds" (I'll give them 5 seconds) would take 55.4kW of power, or 120V at 462 amps with 100% charge efficiency.

My main panel is 200A at 240V or 48kW so even all the power that can pass through my main breaker couldn't accomplish that charge rate.

D500 - check the math I did. Even if their device is exactly as they stated, you couldn't charge it that fast on any conventional residential or commercial plug-in power source. Yeah, I've got 480V 100A three-phase plugs at work for industrial purposes, I'm just saying that quote was highly misleading (essentially wrong).

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 23:52 UTC

The math doesn't work.

“If they were to replace the batteries with these supercapacitors, you could charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn’t need to charge it again for over a week,”

My cell phone battery holds 11Wh and lasts a day. I'd need 77Wh to last a week.

To charge a 77Wh capacity in "a few seconds" (I'll give them 5 seconds) would take 55.4kW of power, or 120V at 462 amps with 100% charge efficiency.

My main panel is 200A at 240V or 48kW so even all the power that can pass through my main breaker couldn't accomplish that charge rate.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 23:33 UTC as 39th comment | 18 replies
In reply to:

Lee Jay: To me, this is out-dated technology. Tablets are no longer useful since phones are just as powerful and more portable, and ultrabooks and 2-in-1 computers are so powerful and so small that tablets don't save an appreciable amount of space but sacrifice a huge amount of capability. In other words, tablets got squeezed from both sides. A small 2-in-1 laptop is relatively cheap (as long as you don't buy an Apple), powerful, and with mSATA and m.2 drives can have massive storage inside (terabytes, if you want) in a light weight, power efficient and reliable form. I now use a touch-screen ultrabook at work as my main desktop computer, and I'm a long-time power user, doing a lot of Matlab, Excel, and Lightroom. It has 16GB of RAM, a 1TB m.2 drive, a Skylake i7, a touch screen and drives my 40" 4k desktop monitor no problem and can have up to about 8 hours of battery life.

5 sheets of paper are 5 times bigger than 1 sheet of paper. But so what?

The thing is positively tiny. No, you aren't going to put it in your pocket, but you aren't going to do that with an iPad either. If it's 20mm thick with keyboard versus 6mm without, does it really matter in your bag/suitcase/car?

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: To me, this is out-dated technology. Tablets are no longer useful since phones are just as powerful and more portable, and ultrabooks and 2-in-1 computers are so powerful and so small that tablets don't save an appreciable amount of space but sacrifice a huge amount of capability. In other words, tablets got squeezed from both sides. A small 2-in-1 laptop is relatively cheap (as long as you don't buy an Apple), powerful, and with mSATA and m.2 drives can have massive storage inside (terabytes, if you want) in a light weight, power efficient and reliable form. I now use a touch-screen ultrabook at work as my main desktop computer, and I'm a long-time power user, doing a lot of Matlab, Excel, and Lightroom. It has 16GB of RAM, a 1TB m.2 drive, a Skylake i7, a touch screen and drives my 40" 4k desktop monitor no problem and can have up to about 8 hours of battery life.

The other reason I like to have a computer with me on travel is to add metadata as needed while events are still fresh in my mind. A few minutes at the end of each day can save hours of frustration later trying to remember what was going on and so forth.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 15:13 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: To me, this is out-dated technology. Tablets are no longer useful since phones are just as powerful and more portable, and ultrabooks and 2-in-1 computers are so powerful and so small that tablets don't save an appreciable amount of space but sacrifice a huge amount of capability. In other words, tablets got squeezed from both sides. A small 2-in-1 laptop is relatively cheap (as long as you don't buy an Apple), powerful, and with mSATA and m.2 drives can have massive storage inside (terabytes, if you want) in a light weight, power efficient and reliable form. I now use a touch-screen ultrabook at work as my main desktop computer, and I'm a long-time power user, doing a lot of Matlab, Excel, and Lightroom. It has 16GB of RAM, a 1TB m.2 drive, a Skylake i7, a touch screen and drives my 40" 4k desktop monitor no problem and can have up to about 8 hours of battery life.

Every single person I know but one has stopped using their tablets in favor of their phones or their PCs. Tablet sales are declining year-over-year for the second year in a row. A lot of tablet sales now are for professional use in places like healthcare.

The reality is, going on the road with a tablet or going on the road with a 13" thin-and-light PC is almost no different in terms of weight and size, but extremely different in terms of power and capability. I just got my daughter a Dell Inspiron 13 2-in-1 at the Dell Outlet for a little over $400 with 8GB, a 256GB SSD and an i5-6200U. That machine weighs about nothing, takes up the space of a file folder, but will run full-blown Lightroom like a champ. And you can use it like a tablet because it has a 360 degree hinge, a touch screen and 6-7 hours of battery life.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 14:36 UTC

To me, this is out-dated technology. Tablets are no longer useful since phones are just as powerful and more portable, and ultrabooks and 2-in-1 computers are so powerful and so small that tablets don't save an appreciable amount of space but sacrifice a huge amount of capability. In other words, tablets got squeezed from both sides. A small 2-in-1 laptop is relatively cheap (as long as you don't buy an Apple), powerful, and with mSATA and m.2 drives can have massive storage inside (terabytes, if you want) in a light weight, power efficient and reliable form. I now use a touch-screen ultrabook at work as my main desktop computer, and I'm a long-time power user, doing a lot of Matlab, Excel, and Lightroom. It has 16GB of RAM, a 1TB m.2 drive, a Skylake i7, a touch screen and drives my 40" 4k desktop monitor no problem and can have up to about 8 hours of battery life.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 14:16 UTC as 36th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Lee Jay: 3, 13, and 15 aren't landscapes. Calling 11 a landscape is really pushing it since the image is dominated by wildlife, not land.

4 is awful and 6 is a picture of nothing at all.

The top third of the clouds in 9 look weird. Not sure if it's processing, rectilinear stretching, motion blur, or what.

I'm shocked to say, I like number 1 the best. That never happens.

Since I've spent my career on wind energy research, yes. Those blades are not feathered or in the startup position meaning the rotational rate must be between rated and about rated/1.7 or so. That means that wasn't a multi second exposure which is likely what would have been needed for motion blur to blur the clouds that much.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2016 at 22:06 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: 3, 13, and 15 aren't landscapes. Calling 11 a landscape is really pushing it since the image is dominated by wildlife, not land.

4 is awful and 6 is a picture of nothing at all.

The top third of the clouds in 9 look weird. Not sure if it's processing, rectilinear stretching, motion blur, or what.

I'm shocked to say, I like number 1 the best. That never happens.

Yeah, but look at the wind turbine blades. They are barely blurred indicating an exposure time of around 1/20th or so.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2016 at 19:05 UTC

3, 13, and 15 aren't landscapes. Calling 11 a landscape is really pushing it since the image is dominated by wildlife, not land.

4 is awful and 6 is a picture of nothing at all.

The top third of the clouds in 9 look weird. Not sure if it's processing, rectilinear stretching, motion blur, or what.

I'm shocked to say, I like number 1 the best. That never happens.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2016 at 16:07 UTC as 51st comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Timbukto: I'd just get the S7. Where as the iPhone 7 doesn't get all the camera goodies the plus has (OIS and telephoto prime), I honestly can't figure out what the Note 7 does that a S7 doesn't except explode! Also disappointing that no one has used extinguished as a pun. Otherwise yah Google Pixel looks nice, not as weather proof as the Samsungs but more fireproof.

One word - stylus.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2016 at 22:10 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: This is for generating captions, not keywords. They are fundamentally different in substantial ways.

Those were for illustrative purposes to indicate how the algorithm learned. It still created an entire caption with verbs and connext in words and which lacked important keywords. For example, keyword in those images would include which beach in which location, the dog's name, and so forth. This algorithm might caption an image "a woman eating a spaghetti dinner" while a human would keyword it "mother, Lisa, restaurant, Chicago, Illinois, vacation". Captions and keywords are fundamentally different.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 11:45 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "Anyone who manages a large image library knows how important keywording and captioning are for categorizing and keeping things searchable."

I have around 400,000 images, and they aren't keyworded. And I can find them.

I don't take random photos. I take photos of events in our lives. They are thus categorized in folders named after each event. The Eiffel tower shot would have been in vacations\Paris, etc.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 11:40 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "Anyone who manages a large image library knows how important keywording and captioning are for categorizing and keeping things searchable."

I have around 400,000 images, and they aren't keyworded. And I can find them.

Don't need keywords to find the images.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 03:33 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: This is for generating captions, not keywords. They are fundamentally different in substantial ways.

I didn't know a, of, the and is were keywords.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 03:32 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "Anyone who manages a large image library knows how important keywording and captioning are for categorizing and keeping things searchable."

I have around 400,000 images, and they aren't keyworded. And I can find them.

Usually a few seconds to a few tens of seconds. My wife can find them too.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2016 at 02:52 UTC

This is for generating captions, not keywords. They are fundamentally different in substantial ways.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 20:38 UTC as 34th comment | 5 replies
Total: 784, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »