Car Glass Rules Could Impair Cell, GPS and Radio Signals In CA 762
An anonymous reader writes "The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just passed a new regulation that requires glazed glass in automobiles that is supposed to reduce the need to use air conditioning. The catch is that the same properties that block electromagnetic sunlight radiation also block lower frequency electromagnetic radio waves. That means radios, satellite radios, GPS, garage door openers, and cell phones will be severely degraded. Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning.'"
! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be new to bureaucracies.
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Or to California. Really. Expecting something to come out of the California government to make sense?
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, does anybody really think that government is made up of the country's smartest people? That being said, why do some people think it's a great idea vote people into office who will tax us to come up with these half-witted "solutions" that don't even make any noticeable difference?
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
When seconds count, the police are always minutes away.
Last time I got burglarized, there were PRINTS ALL OVER THE PLACE that were too large to have come from anybody that lived in my house. The cops didn't bother to even lift them to see if they belonged to a known fucking criminal.
As far as I can see, police have no benefit unless it's a drastic situation. They rarely follow traffic laws that they're supposed to be enforcing, and they selectively enforce those, as well. There are the few good officers out there, and they actually try to do a damned fine job, but the majority are just useless.
And don't even try to report a CRIME IN PROGRESS (Ponzi Scheme) and have the evidence to go with it, even despite the fact that at least one court ruled that said company was an illegal pyramid scheme (nevermind the fact that unsolicited sales in parking lots is prohibited in CA, some of the same people sucked in got fines in court for it.) They simply do not want to hear about it.
Re:! surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
I see your burglary and raise you an armed robbery.
I was robbed at gunpoint several years ago. Within 15 seconds of the asshole leaving, I called 911 and was immediately connected to a 911 operator. Within 90 seconds there was a police officer on the scene. Within 3 minutes the place was swarming with cops. Within 6 minutes the asshole was sitting in the back of a car in handcuffs. Did I mention this was in the middle of a snowstorm. With 10 inches already on the ground?
Having said that I have been harassed by the police on multiple occasions because I looked like someone who might have drugs on them.
People are people, and they will always act like people, even if we give them special titles like Police Officer. Just don't confuse people being people with THE GUBBERMINT IS INCOMPETENT, because only people can be incompetent.
Re:! surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
omfg the man is totally out to get you dude.
Heres a hint: If you were robbed and the total loss was $50, I'm going to be fucking pissed if they spend $15k investigating it using my tax dollars rather than doing more important things.
How do you know the prints were bigger? Seems to me like they'd have to look all over the house and dust for them for you to know they were bigger. Of course, the reality of it is they were probably a friends, and the cops really only need to check specific places, where the criminals come in.
They don't dust your piano for prints when they check the glass on the broken window glass and find them there.
I too have been a victim, while I thought the cop and detectives that investigated were being very lax, after talking with them about what they were doing it became clear real quick that they had a good 20 years EACH more experience than I, and knew where to not waste time doing stupid shit. They caught the guy during one of the times it happened to me, with my help, people are far more likely to talk to a neighbor than a cop, its amazing how much YOU CAN HELP YOURSELF. The other instance resulted in a leather jacket and ~$30 taken from my unlocked car. It would have been a complete waste of time AND money to investigate it, however they are aware of it so if a string of break-ins occur they can work with the pattern.
You can report police who violate traffic laws, of course you'll probably end up reporting an officer that was going to a crime and didn't have his sirens on so he/she didn't alert the person he was coming or a hundred other reasons that you know nothing about since you obviously aren't a cop.
Cops don't investigate ponzi schemes, its not their arena, try the FBI or your SBI instead, those are the people who handle that sort of thing. Again however, I'd rather have them going after real criminal organizations rather than some ponzi scheme taking advantage of idiots like yourself. Truth be told, it probably wasn't a ponzi scheme, judging by the way you are using the word I'm betting you actually don't know what it means.
People who whine like yourself are the kind of people that make the rest of the world think people from California are complete morons who expect someone else to take care of them, sadly, I do think someone else needs to take care of you, at least until you get out of high school.
As the GP said, grow the hell up, the man isn't out to get you.
I think I've heard this before....listen up (Score:3, Interesting)
I think, perhaps, its time you grow up and start thinking about the real role of government nowadays and quit taking notes from your 7th grade civics class. The role of government in ordinary lives is FAR larger than it has been at any point in our country (sans WWI and WWII). I got news for you kid, it ain't just roads, s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you driven in California lately? The highways are significantly overburdened, the country roads almost all haven't been repaved in so long that they are little more than a series of patches, the only roads in California that are any good are the ones that are being fixed by home owners associations.
The schools in California are terrible, their only saving grace is that they teach evolution, now if only they would teach English.
Yes the police are a necessary part of any government; it's to bad we spend
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Informative)
What about market failures. The insurance industry is always rife with them, for instance flood insurance, or, as you point out, health insurance. The FDIC (another insurance system) is even heralded by conservatives as the most successful government run program in existence.
The USPS can take any random sheet of paper across the country to a specific person for less than the price of a coke, with door-to-door service.
The federal government also does well busting up trusts.
But you're clearly right, free-markets* always** exist*** and work****
* Enjoy your cheap tainted meat!
** Microsoft is clearly on it's last legs.
*** Recall the horrors of the "company store"? WalMart would love to pay it's employees in WalMart script.
**** Remember when a poorly regulated free market destroyed the US economy? It was last year. See also, 1987.
Government control is bad, unregulated markets are bad. I don't understand how anyone can believe that free-markets are always the answer any more than people believe government is always the answer. At least the religious right has a history of dogmatically believing in things that evidence has disproved. Why so many libertarian FSM-touting people persist on this board, I'll never understand. Pure capitalism imploded before pure communism did. The countries that are currently doing well have a mixture of capitalism and socialism, a little heavier on the socialism than the US. But obviously, we must push to one extreme!
Re:! surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, because roads, schools, and police aren't beneficial at all. grow up.
Hmmmm? Why is "OMG ROADS" the grown-up response to "Government in general does a lot of terrible, wasteful things?"
At the Federal level, very little goes to roads, schools, and police. At the local level (at least where I live) those are the first things cut because cutting them scares up support for new taxes.
So, yes, roads, schools, and police are beneficial. Nobody said that they weren't, and that doesn't explain how anything coming out of California makes a lick of sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're forced to purchase car insurance with no government-provided option, BY LAW.
The answer is obviously not, because nobody will shoot the fuckers responsible and send a clear message that this bullshit will not be tolerated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're forced to purchase car insurance with no government-provided option, BY LAW.
How is that a bad thing? You might feel differently when your car is totaled by an uninsured driver, who has no money to pay for your medical bills even if you sue him.
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Or any committee (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, does anybody really think that government is made up of the country's smartest people?
The private sector could easily do something this stupid. It's just that, we have only one government, and in the private sector, stupid businesses are supposed to fail, unless they happen to be banks.
Re:Or any committee (Score:5, Insightful)
The private sector is already doing something much more stupid - namely, failing to use this glass for the 99% of car windows for which it makes sense. By comparison, requiring it in the 1% of cases (Jeep windows!) where it's not necessary is a little unfortunate but insignificant.
Re:Or any committee (Score:4, Informative)
No, they weren't. Stop lying.
To elaborate: (Score:5, Informative)
The parent is correct, but a bit terse. I thought I'd elaborate a bit:
"Federal Reserve Board data shows that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."
- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html [mcclatchydc.com]
The stats don't back up the idea that any public institution or law bears the brunt of the responsibility for problematic lending.
It also doesn't make much sense. Take the fingers pointed at the CRA. It didn't force banks to make risky loans. They could deny an application based on income, credit rating, or any other relevant factors. What it *did* force them to avoid was "red-lining": denying loans based on the current living location (used as a proxy for the applicant's race). A person's race and living location might have some correlation with risk of defaulting, but as we all know here on slashdot, correlation is not causation, and a responsible financial institution would deal with the more directly relevant information: an individual's income/asset information and their credit history.
Here's some other links:
http://www.ptmortgage.com/blog/2008/10/01/pointing-fingers-was-it-cra-and-minority-lending-that-caused-the-mortgage-mess/ [ptmortgage.com]
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=73500 [debatebothsides.com]
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis [prospect.org]
http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html [frbsf.org]
http://www.ccc.unc.edu/news/news.021809.php [unc.edu]
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Commentary/2000/1100.htm [clevelandfed.org]
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls564.htm [treas.gov]
Wikipedia also has a summary [wikipedia.org].
Re:Or any committee (Score:4, Informative)
Studies have found that there is no statistical difference in forclosure rate between CRA-regulated banks and unregulated banks. Notably, the investment banks that sell credit-default swaps are not covered by the CRA. Banks were making many subprime loans, including ones with predatory terms (which increases forclosure rate), for profit, not because of the CRA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What "unregulated banks"? The ones not making the loans?
Notably, the investment banks that sell credit-default swaps are not covered by the CRA.
Right. The ones not making the loans in the first place aren't covered by the CRA. The ones making the loans were, and were forced into making them if they wanted good "community" numbers so they could open new branches and other thing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you think it would have any impact on fuel consumption at all? I mean seriously, we do not have thermostatic regulators on cars that vary the work of the compressors. They simply charge to a certain amount, release once the pressure it there and the AC in the car runs. With the aerodynamics of modern cars, it's actually cheaper-more fuel efficient to keep the windows rolled up and run the AC instead of rolling them down.
Nothing in modern car technology suggests that there would be any fuel saving
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, less need for AC only means that the venting controls will mix less or more fresh air across the diffuser/exchanger in order to maintain a comfortable temperature.
Bullshit. Less need for A/C means the steady state load for the system is smaller, which means smaller A/C systems can be installed, resulting in better fuel efficiency. See this report [nrel.gov] for their conclusions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that you're trimming the fuel consumption there when there's other places to go looking for wastage that'd be more effective. But, noo...we're going to worry about a roughly 2-5Hp drag on the engine that's not on all the time with any of the class of cars they're doing it to in the first place.
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, Jeep (and others, like GEM) are appealing to CARB for a waiver, and will probably get one. It was an oversight, not something deliberate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:! surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Federal law does not outweigh state law in all cases. For example, if you commit first-degree murder in a state without the death penalty, you cannot be charged with murder and have the death penalty applied under federal law if you did not commit the crime in certain very narrowly-defined locations or conditions.
While the Supreme Court found that federal law applies even in cases where the marijuana was grown, harvested, packaged, sold, kept, and consumed entirely with the state, it's notable that in the
Re:the thing is.... (Score:5, Interesting)
..marijuana really isn't illegal at the federal level
NO, that's wrong. It's a SCHEDULE I drug along with opium, Heroin, LSD and a long list viewable here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/812.htm#c [usdoj.gov]
The complex litany of penalties is viewable here:http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/841.htm#a [usdoj.gov]
There was a Marihuana Tax Act... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 [wikipedia.org]:
Excerpt From Wikipedia
In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself. In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.
Re:! surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree, because there are powers invested in government that aren't invested in any other organization. The government may make my actions illegal, imprison, and/or kill me. Other organizations can't, unless the government gives them the allowance to do so. Therefore, the government is the group that most critically requ
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Funny)
...my Jeep has air conditioning: the TD2-50 A/C system
(using it is pretty easy, too: take off the top and both doors, then go 50mph).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Works great in Canada though. If my car's been sitting in the hot sun on a cold winter day it might warm up almost to 0C. No need for a jeep, just open one window and the "air conditioning" will take it right back to -20C in no time. Much more comfortable.
Seriously though, I consider solar heating for my car an advantage for at least 7 months a year (and for as many as 6 hours a day when the sun is actually high enough in the three coldest months). And I rarely use the A/C in the summer, and then only for h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to live in Phoenix, Arizona. There's no feasible amount of tint or blocking the sunlight that's going to stop those poor bastards that lack AC from rolling the windows down in the summer. Keeping the windows might have hot air blowing in your face but it's stopping the air in your car from turning into an oven.
It can honestly get up to 150 degrees in a car with the windows rolled up very fast (15 minutes). I would see stories all the time about people that were new to the area leaving their dogs (or
You mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... people will have problems using cell phones while driving?
Oh darn. That's just horrible.
Re:You mean ... (Score:4, Informative)
Passengers can also use cell phones, you know. Some people carpool. Also, I don't know about you, but I like to listen to the radio while driving.
Re:You mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I don't know about you, but I like to listen to the radio while driving.
Every car radio I have ever seen had an EXTERNAL antanna.
Re:You mean ... (Score:5, Informative)
Never owned an Oldsmobile then? Many of them have the FM antenna embedded in the windshield glass.
Ahh, that explains that ... (Score:3, Funny)
I wondered why General Motors dropped the Oldsmobile brand.
Re:Ahh, that explains that ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ahh, that explains that ... (Score:5, Funny)
If cars were computers:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try the rear window. Those defroster lines that "don't work"? Yeah, that's your radio antenna.
Re:You mean ... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I worked in military communications, and have *built* AM/FM transmitters and antennas, as well as cellular networks. I can tell you from experience that while they work on different frequencies, it's entirely possible to connect an appropriate antenna to a wiring harness to bring the signal inside what's effectively a Faraday cage.
I turn my cell phone off when I'm driving, actually. Probably has something to do with that military background, and that desire to have all of my focus on driving when I get behind the wheel. *shrugs*
See above. And you must have lived a very sheltered life to have not come in contact with cars that have in-dash navigation systems....
Re:You mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, instead of meaning people will stop using their phone, they'll probably just fumble around with it more instead to restart their calls.
Or they'll resort to texting which (supposedly) doesn't require as strong of a signal as voice calls.
Re:You mean ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or they'll just plug into an external cell antenna.
Re:You mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
OR they'll roll down the window to make the call, heating up the car in the process, then run the AC on full blast to level it out afterwards.
Re:You mean ... (Score:5, Funny)
Then turn on the blender to make margaritas because they're still hot and now thirsty.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
... people will have problems using cell phones while driving?
When Arnold says he'll "take swift action" [latimes.com] he MEANS IT!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, haven't you ever pulled over after hearing the phone ring to take an important call? Haven't you ever used a hands-free set? (My car has built-in Bluetooth.) Haven't you ever tethered your phone to your laptop as a passenger and gotten work done on a long road trip? How many people's lives have been saved after they were able to cell 911 while trapped inside a car after an accident?
We can talk about banning the use of cell phones while driving, but cheering measures that effectively jam all cell phones
Re:You mean ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what I'm trying to figure out... If you reflect 60 percent of the "sun's energy," doesn't that mean that only 40% of light from outside is let in? And if it's dark... doesn't that make night driving pretty damn dangerous?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. It blocks mostly in the non visible wavelengths. You won't have any trouble seeing through the car windows.
Solar radiation, or solar energy, is made up of three components: ultraviolet radiation, visible light and near-infrared radiation. Near-infrared radiation makes up 53 percent of the solar spectrum, visible light 44 percent, and ultraviolet 3 percent.
So if you block 80% of the infrared and you are blocking 60% of the total energy you are only blocking something like 20% of the visible light.
Re:You mean ... (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed [georgetown.edu]
Basically:
The ideal warm-weather windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, reflects near-IR, and transmits mid/far-IR.
The ideal cold-weather windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, transmits near-IR, and reflects mid/far-IR.
The ideal general-purpose windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, reflects near-IR, and reflects mid/far-IR.
UV: Generally bad. Not much heat (and needed for vitamin D synthesis) but causes skin cancer and ages many (if not most) materials.
Visible: What you can see. Obviously, you want as much of this as you can.
Near-IR: A significant amount of solar energy that you can't see but will still heat up your car significantly.
Mid/far-IR: Heat radiating from surfaces on Earth (i.e., the inside of your car losing heat)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I drive wearing night-vision goggles, you insensitive clod!
Now... The goggles... They will do nothing.
Who owns the patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who owns the patents? (Score:5, Informative)
Low-E glass was introduced in 1979. I.e., any patents that may have been around for it at the time no longer exist.
There probably are "newer, better" types of Low-E glass that are still patented, but Low-E glass in general is not.
Did they specify WHERE the glass has to be? (Score:5, Funny)
I know when they passed legislation requiring motorcycle helmets to be worn, they didn't specify "where", so people were strapping one to their knee or hanging it from an elbow.
Perhaps you can do the same thing, and sell glazed drinking glasses, stick one in your cup-holder, you're golden?
CARB, necessary evil (Score:5, Insightful)
The CARB should be barred from mandating equipment, and simply mandate emissions standards. Who cares why your car gets good or shitty mileage? Let's just see them have mandated emissions and, if necessary, mileage; we already have both, of course. But at the same time, the CARB has done amazing things for California's air quality; there's more Chinese pollution in LA now than the local stuff. Which highlights the NEXT phase of the problem... but we're not done here, yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. I'm all for environmental regulations, but they have be structured correctly. Mandate results, not particular technologies.
Remember the ban on incandescent light bulbs? It wasn't a ban on a particular technology, but a mandate for a certain level of efficiency. Manufacturers stepped up to the plate [slashdot.org] and did what nobody expected: gave us improved incandescent bulbs that met the specifications! That's how it should work.
It'd be really easy to quantify the benefit that's expected from Low-E glass, too:
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:4, Insightful)
But should be up to the customer.
If you want something that gets 10 mpg, go ahead and buy it. Just don't come looking to me for a handout when you can no longer afford the gas. Yep, history spoke against me last year, yep, were 70,000 dollar Hummer drivers got their handouts.
Same with a 50 mpg car. Who cares how it gets there, as long as it meets all emission regulations and safety standards. When people who know nothing about automobile technology mandate what needs to be used, they'll be no better off than the software industry - beholden to marketing, lobbying and politics, and ... never mind
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>But should be up to the customer.
No. It should be up to society. Some people are just too thick at act responsibly. And car manufacturers are hardly going to build cars for 'a few stupid idiots' - they will design a car and market it hard, and try to sell as many as possible. Regulating will take away the option to make cars suitable for the dumb.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It should be up to society
No. It should be up to the customer. The alternative breeds what we call a "Nanny State." That's a Bad Thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It should be up to society
No. It should be up to the customer. The alternative breeds what we call a "Nanny State." That's a Bad Thing.
Nanny state is such a funny term. Libertarians use it to describe unwelcome economic regulation while liberals use it to describe unwelcome social regulation.
A regulation like this is trying to prevent a tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org], specifically with our air. At first glance I thought it was specious also, but in a warm place like California where the AC is running probably a good portion of the time, I wouldn't be surprised if the AC is the weakest link in the chain of efficiency.
I don't really know if th
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:5, Insightful)
"what we call a "Nanny State." That's a Bad Thing."
Why? A political catchphrase is not an argument, nor is it a description of an actually-existing thing. It's just a shout with no verbal content.
Think about this: real nannies exist for a reason. Real states also exist for a reason. There are certain situations where people collectively come to the decision that they don't *want* to tolerate certain types of destructive behaviour, because they cost us all. Any healthy group does this, because normal healthy humans are social creatures. We *like* to modify our behaviour so that it doesn't have stupid outcomes for the group. We call this "learning to socialise". The only people who think that a human must be an absolutely self-sufficient, take-nothing, give-nothing, hardcore screw-my-neighbour loner, are psychologically damaged individuals who haven't learned how to live with others.
It's one thing that such a syndrome exists. It's another that this psychological dysfunction has become a hugely powerful political movement. We don't need to bow down to this false idea of the heroic egotist fighting the mass of zombie sheeple trying to crush his freedom. Instead, look at each case on its merits and realise that collective problems do exist, society is not a bad thing, and that centralised responses sometimes are the right response and sometimes aren't.
So instead of just throwing a content-free slogan around, how about arguing why in *this* specific case, *this* kind of regulation is the wrong response to a serious societal problem?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He has nothing on a tank. An M1 Abrams takes ten gallons of fuel [wikipedia.org] just to start. Of course, that's not all that much when you have a 500 gallon tank.
An M1, at current market prices, would cost $1300 [doe.gov] to fill up. Compared to that, a Hummer looks like a scooter.
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:4, Interesting)
Economically speaking, a high tax on gasoline is the best way of increasing fuel efficiency. But like we've seen time and time again, the technically best solution is confounded by social issues. Fuel economy standards are the next best thing. Consider:
Better CAFE-style standards than nothing at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite. Why, exactly, should I care WHY my car gets good mileage?
If I get a car that gets 100 mpg, does it really matter to me just why it gets that kind of mileage? Likewise for a car that gets 10 mpg...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you're a scientist or engineer doing reasearch and development on the topic, it really doesn't matter. You get 100mpg and have low emissions, that's good enough for the lay-person.
The mileage and the emissions should be the goals set by the government, rather than pegging it to a specific technology. What happens when an improved technology is developed that is better for mileage and emissions but no longer fits within this law? Surprise, it's suddenly illegal to put in more efficient glass!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it'd be easier for him to understand the question phrased:
Provided that my car achieves some regulated minimum standard of gas mileage, why should I care which methods are used to achieve that standard?
The basic idea being, if you are going to have regulation, it should be scoped so that you are setting a goal, not mandating every step of one particular method of achieving that goal. The former encourages innovation while the latter stifles it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>(My luxury car gets 30 mpg
A 1908 Ford model T got 25 mpg.
Doesn't that sound really wrong to you?
Hmm I wonder ... (Score:5, Funny)
[places pinky finger to mouth]
An .. Aerial !!!!
I've developed a new type of air conditioning (Score:4, Funny)
I've spent the past several years designing and prototyping a new type of eco-friendly air conditioning for automobiles that solves both these problems. By using the intrinsic velocity of an automobile and cutting-edge gas dynamics, I've discovered that the inside of a car can be cooled merely by adding an additional aperture to the side of the vehicle. This aperture can even be temporary, thanks to an innovative sliding glass mechanism that preserves visibility and allows a variety of different settings to suit the user's preference. A slight decrease in aerodynamics and therefore fuel efficiency, as well as a tendency for papers to blow around in the back seat, is the only downside.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bring back vent windows! They were very effective in the days before AC, and I miss them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[citation needed]
MythBusters' Episode 22: Boom Lift Catapult, A/C vs. Open Windows [kwc.org]
Re:I've developed a new type of air conditioning (Score:5, Insightful)
However, often the mythbusters' methodology is shaky, and from this short synopsis (I haven't seen that episode) this was one of those cases.
At 45 mph you will indeed get better mileage with the windows down (on most cars, YMMV). That's the first methodology fault. The faster you go, the more pronounced the drag. Under 40 you're better with the windows down, over 50 you're better off with them up. Nobody drives 45 on the interstate -- in fact, that's the minimum speed on most highways.
The second is, you have two different drivers with two different driving styles. The one who is able to keep closer to a steady speed is going to get the best mileage. If they had set the cruise control to 70mph and done the test, the computer would have matched the results.
Fuel Economy (Score:4, Insightful)
I must be an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
I must be an idiot but my radio antenna is outside my car connected with a cable to my radio. Why would glazed glass be an issue. not only that but unless your car is made of plastic isn't the frame of the car in fact a passive antenna since it isn't grounded? (I could be wrong here, too many years since school). Feel free to correct me but since the windows are not contigious isn't this an issue of weaker cell phone signals and with more states passive anti-cell phone while driving laws isn't this a moot issue?
I must be old and cranky or just plain stupid but how is this a bad idea? A cooler car, less gas burned in AC, and potential to stop an alien laser weapon long enough to duck before it melts through the glass seems like a good idea. While we are at it can we require bulletproof glass to boot in the wind shield and rear windows since they always seem to get shot up in the movies but no one ever takes a shot from the side...
I guess this article had its intended effect... (Score:5, Insightful)
It has everyone complaining about the stoopid government but did you notice that this was printed in a Detroit newspaper? Gee, I wonder why people in Detroit would care about a new type of glass in a car window that adds extra cost to a vehicle? You just got played due to your knee-jerk anti-government attitude. Regardless of whether you agree with the manufacturers or the government you should realize when you are being manipulated by the media.
Re:I guess this article had its intended effect... (Score:4, Funny)
Not sure this really effects Detroit all that much. I think they only sold 6 cars last year.
Now the "foreign" manufacturers that set up shop south of Michigan? They might actually care.
Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
> Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even
> for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and
> no air conditioning.
The alternative would be to leave a loophole in a rule intended to be followed by automotive corporations. Historically, that hasn't worked out so well.
c.
BTW (Score:3, Funny)
Did you know that some of that old glazing material was Abseto in old homes... I wonder what crap they want put on our windows now; that in 30 years we'll find out causes cancer, autism, allergies, Liberal Rage Disorder, NIMBY Rightwing Syndrome, a taste for Bud Light, and a yearing for Married With Children reruns...
I am a firm beliver in colored glass+copper foil+lead with two sheets of clear wire reinforced safety glass on the outside.
Attention People of California (Score:4, Insightful)
Your government is defective. Huge budget deficits, stealing from local cities and counties and flawed regulations being rammed through the legislative process.
Living here, I vote we rip up the state's constitution and start fresh. The first step is ousting the assholes currently in charge.
Did any go to the CARB wbesite... (Score:5, Informative)
And they wonder why their economy is in the toilet (Score:3, Insightful)
If the state of California believes they need to regulate negative externalities resulting from the operation of internal combustion engines, then they should tax the operation of internal combustion engines across the board.
Instead, we have an authoritarian government telling us what light bulbs we can screw in, what size of televisions we can own, and now the brand of auto glass we use.
What we have here is government singling out specific groups, behaviors, and industries with coercive power in a manner that is anathema to individual liberty.
Economic liberty is a civil liberty.
CARB is synonymous to SCO (Score:4, Interesting)
CARB "scientists" aren't really considered as scientists by real scientists.
Shoot, even one of the "scientists" from CARB faked his credentials [signonsandiego.com].
CARB's also behind MTBE which nationally was mandated by the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 but was predated by California's own state law, California Clean Air Act of 1988.
And as early as 1986, there was a scientific report that stated that MTBE was a "bad cookie" (finding the exact copy is a tad difficult but it is referred by the USGS in a 1993 report [usgs.gov])
A major local (to the Bay Area) opponent to CARB is Dr. Bill Wattenburg [kgoradio.com] (an older version of his site is here [kgoam810.com])
And apparently, CARB wants to require particular" paints [ca.gov] (PDF) and barring any scientific/engineering breakthrough, that probably means dark colored cars (black, dark blues, etc.)
And dang, CARB's budget for 2009-2010 is over 600 million [ca.gov], just the imagine how many teachers would have been spared lay-offs...or how many professors, TAs, faculty at UC/CSU schools would have been spared from furloughs.
Not to forget the CARB vs Diesel fiasco [signonsandiego.com]
How is this going to affect ezpass toll systems? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if this is going to affect ezpass toll systems, which use battery powered RFID transponders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ZPass [wikipedia.org]
Calm down, the glass works great! (Score:4, Informative)
My VW has special glass that prevents the interior from
heating up and it works *great*. Park the thing on blacktop
all day in the hot summer sun and the interior barely gets
warm at all. Orders of magnitude more comfortable than cars
with regular glass. I assume the glass is low-e although VW
didn't describe it as such.
The glass is no darker than normal factory tinted glass.
The garage door opener remote works fine.
For those of you whining about the heavy hand of government,
there are many far worse problems than requiring decent
glass in cars. Many of these problems are discussed in
slashdot so you ought to be aware of them.
> we do not have thermostatic regulators on cars that vary
> the work of the compressors
Maybe yours doesn't but mine does.
Re:Welcome to California... (Score:5, Insightful)
More spending: they vote YES.
Raise taxes to pay for that spending: the vote NO
Have a windfall in tax revenues? Got to spend it! Can't save it for future budgetary shortfalls!
California is the most democratic state in the Union and look what happens. There's a reason why we're set up as a Republic.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That doesn't really logically follow. I'm sure most Californians wouldn't vote to confine gays to a lifetime in a small cage, and wouldn't vote to allow chickens to marry.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hopefully, this implementation of it won't peel or bubble.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is, this is how California effectively legislates for the entire nation. The auto industry won't sell 2 different versions of their cars (that would cost too much money, having to have different assembly lines to satisfy the laws of a single state), they will just change the assembly line and install this glass on all new cars regardless of where they are destined. So in effect California is going to create a nationwide mandate and degrade wireless signals inside of cars nationwide. Also, the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? California has always had a separate standard for pretty much everything, and you can buy pretty much any car in any state with the "California Emissions Package". In California that this "option" is required of any new car purchased there.
The car manufacturers have, by and large, been making "California" versions of their vehicles for years. Some other states (like Maine) mandate the same package rather than going to the effort of developing their own standards.
So California is legislating, in e
Re:If I lived in Cali... (Score:5, Informative)
Since you have to pay for the glass up front, but can distribute the cost of the fuel over the entire 12 years, you have to take interest into account when determining the ROI. Specifically, you would need to save about $290 over 12 years, minimum, to break even on a $250 up-front investment at the extremely conservative savings-account return of 1.30% APR.
Re:If I lived in Cali... (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't allow you to do that here in California - you can't just bring a 49 state car here. This state is run by egomaniacs who have no concept of finance.
I bet that they didn't even think about whether the cost of the glazed glass pays for the fuel it saves.
California really does feel like a separate country. They place zero value on personal freedom here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ever move to California, do exactly that. Then try to register it as a resident.
I've never lived in California, but I have a hard time believing they would allow such a loophole. I expect the conversation would go something like this:
You: "Hi, I just bought a car and I'd like to register it, please."
DMV: "Great. Congrats. So let's see the paperwork, please." (shuffles paperwork). "Hmm, you a resident of California?"
You: "Yes"
DMV: "OK, you are aware that you needed to buy the California packa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in California, Sacramento no less, and one of two things is going to happen eventually. Taxes are going to have to be raised, or massive cuts to services will happen. The problem is that there is no political will to do either because people want the government to do all this wonderful stuff for them, but they don't want to pay for it. There's an incredible entitlement complex in California but there's also this idea that no matter how much money you make it should always be the MORE wealthy who shou