F1technical.net

strad wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2019, 21:03

seems redundant.??.

Not until you run out of overhead power lines.

strad wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2019, 21:03

seems redundant.??.

As roon suggests, we don't have overhead electrical supply on all bits of all lines, so sometimes the train has to have a self-contained power source. It is a redundant system but it's a fall-back redundancy rather than a waste of time redundancy.

Just_a_fan wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2019, 20:29

Andres125sx wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2019, 18:43

Thank you both, so basically it´s an hybrid train, same to BMW i3 with range extender

No. It's two trains in one really. It's new-age electric from overhead wires with old-school diesel-electric from the 60s.

Sorry but I can´t see the difference, i3 is an electric car with a twin cylinder engine wich works only as a generator for those situation where it runs out of battery. The train, if I got it correctly, is the same, an electric train wich also have an engine for those situation where they run out of electric supply (overhead wires)

What´s the difference?

I love internal combustion, but wow, Greenland ice melt is just to massive to ignore.
Thank god f1 embraced the push for greener technology because of right now.

well ...
several hundred years ago Greenland was warmer than it is now
that's why they called it Greenland
settlers from Europe lived there
and it has been said there must at some time have been a NW passage ? (for the concept to have such traction)

we have been told (given the recent brief heat wave then some heavy rain) that it's now ....
certain that there's some element of manmade warming
(EDIT - just pointing out how unusually careful they're being)
the last I heard was those people in Paris pronouncing that warming is 2 parts manmade and 1 part natural

People should compare the credentials. There are more scientists with meteorological degrees and expertise that don't believe any warming is man made than on the other side.
The warmists are using Edward Benays (the father of spin) methods of mass psychology and herd instinct against us.
You can't just believe what you hear from the news and from the emissaries that have something to gain.
Don't just believe me either research both sides seriously.

Any source for that majority, Strad? I know, I am not providing one for the other side either. Too lazy, on holidays.

All you have to do is be willing to do research on both sides. Something they don't want you to do or even be able to do.
Look where the warmist propaganda/facts come from. People like NBC and Chuck Todd, a second rate journalist that went to collage majoring in political science and didn't even graduate. He has declared on his media platform (Meet the Press) that "the science is settled and we are not going to allow any discussion from the other side."From the U.N.s, I.P.C.C.. people who have been caught admitting they fudged the numbers and that grants valued in the millions of dollars a year riding on it.
Well you ought to blanch whenever you hear one of these people declare the science is settled. There is no less scientific statement than " the science is settled". You will never hear any real scientist make such a statement. It always reminds me of when they thought the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe.
That is what they said in Ptolemy's time.
Todd and Gore and others that won't even entertain discussion or true debate are using the media to use Bernays' Mass Psychology and methods of Crystallizing Public Opinion to limit any debate.
I urge people to read the material that is available but harder to find from meteorological scientists from the Cato Institute and other highly ranked think tanks with credentials that are above reproach the show good reason to doubt mankind's influence on the climate and the research and methods of those that are on the side of global warming.
You only hear one side because the warmist have something to gain and use the media to make sure you only get propaganda from that side.
It's not my purpose to convince anyone but rather to encourage research and not be caught up in the herd psychology.
IF you do due diligence and still believe that's fine but if you're letting the mas media decide for you...…..

Check out Edward Bernays and see how his methods dovetail with this and many other things these days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystalli ... ic_Opinion
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

So, to answer hollus' question: no, you don't have a source for your "meteorologists agree," claim. Thats fine you want to throw in with them, but I'd better not catch you complaining next time your local weatherman doesnt get the forecast right!

Where to start with this litany of logical fallacies.

-attacks credentials instead of ideas
-uses scare-italics-they to frame purported opposition
-incredibly vague claims about what scientists do or do not do
-science can be settled, obviously, it's one of the goals of inquiry. Settled doesnt mean sacrosanct.
-'i'm just asking questions' fallacy galore

You are right about academic corruption and the careerism of climate change evangelists. But there is much more required for critique on this topic.

Fractionally we are in agreement. Throw AGW and climate change out the window. I never actually needed it as a social cause. Yet there is is. There will still be a need and a drive toward efficiency and toxicity/pollution reduction, land stewardship, ethical treatment of life, forest and biodiversity preservation. General environmentalism is enough.

These flimsy disorganized critiques of AGW are not good enough to improve nor destroy the bad parts of the scene/movement.

Good luck transcending mass culture/psychology, strad. You too are spouting things believed by millions of people.

Anyway. I thought Ptolemty was known for accurately estimating the diameter or radius of earth. Not discovering or profering the idea of roundness.

Call me crazy but if every university, space agency, media outlet, gouvernement and administration (including the very conservative Reagan and Thatcher cabinets), except for the current US administration and conservative news, understand that climate change is mainly man made... could it be that there is something else in play?

There seems to be a movement to discard science and discredit fact base theories. We have seen it with brexit, disbelief in vaccines and even more extreme in flat earth. Somehow scientists are all part of a huge conspiracy...

Generally I would say you are observing widespread internet connectivity.

Climate change is caused by many things. Mass human activity is only one of them. So, 'contributes to' would be more accurate to say.

That’s why all the scientists, agencies, etc etc state that climate change or global warming is mainly man made. Of course there are other factors, but they are nothing compared to the change our industrial progress caused according to all the leading scientists, agencies, universities, etc etc.

And all before “Facebook truths” or “fake news” were a thing.

As a citizen living under sea level near a coast, global warming is frightening

Jolle wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2019, 04:17

Of course there are other factors, but they are nothing compared to the change our industrial progress caused according to all the leading scientists, agencies, universities, etc etc.

No, thats not quite it either. Ask the dinosaurs. What is unique is not size nor scope, but source. Anthropogenic. What's unique is that it is human activity, which has a potential to change.

Unlike volcanoes and meteors, whom often ignore requests to stop careening or exploding.

roon wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2019, 04:31

Jolle wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2019, 04:17

Of course there are other factors, but they are nothing compared to the change our industrial progress caused according to all the leading scientists, agencies, universities, etc etc.

No, thats not quite it either. Ask the dinosaurs. What is unique is not size nor scope, but source. Anthropogenic. What's unique is that it is human activity, which has a potential to change.

Unlike volcanoes and meteors, whom often ignore requests to stop careening or exploding.

The sharp rise in CO2 and average temperature for the last fifty years, the steepest, warmest en highest in more then a 1000 years... “yes but the dinosaurs were killed by a meteor”? We are killing our planet. Not a vulcano, not a meteor but our love of burning oil, gas and cow farts.

There are some hard facts. First is the measured temperature over the years. Then there is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, also a measurement and not something you should debate. We also know that these corrallate to each other. CO2 works as an insulator. The cause of the sharp rise of co2 in the atmosphere could be debated. To believe or deny that burning oil and livestock produce the amounts of methane and co2 found in the atmosphere the past 50 odd years are not direct connected would be completely naïeve.