ssh

Well some good news for me. Met with an advisor and it looks like I don't have to take as many classes as I thought to double major.

Other people can answer this better than I, but you'd probably be surprised how much $$$ they are spending on research to get these things to pass the emissions. Correct. Engine design is advancing very quickly. There are currently small diesel engines on the road that are collaborations between US, Asian, and European engineering and design. The dollar amounts and sheer number or engineers involved in the R&D were massive. The new guidelines set forth by the liberal agenda is forcing manufacturers to enhance efficiency, which in turn reduces overall emissions in gasoline engines. However, improved efficiency in a diesel engine has a tendency to boost emissions, primarily NOx emissions as combustion temperatures must rise to complete combustion which obviously enhances performance and efficiency. Improving diesel engine efficiency while reducing emissions is going to be an extremely difficult task. It is not something that is going to occur overnight, which is what the liberal agenda has forced on the manufacturers. Gasoline engines are a great example of design technology taking years to "perfect" in a financially feasible manner. R&D gets passed on to the consumer, and blowing up the price of the vehicle is not a realistic option. Gasoline engine emissions controls have evolved over nearly 50 years now, since the advent of the PCV system. So they need to find a way to meet these standards, which become far more stringent so quickly that they must weigh their options. If they can utilize technology that has proven effective in gasoline engines, they can minimize the cost or R&D and therefore the cost passed on to the consumer. They will improve efficiency at the cost of internal combustion design emissions control, and implement these effective gasoline "add ons". Forcing manufacturers to improve fuel economy on their entire fleet as well as reduce emissions in an exceptionally quick fashion is leading to a ton of questionable designs. The implementation of these systems, and their frightening real world pattern failures is going to cost this country a fucking fortune... and by staying at the top of my field, it is going to make me a ton of money again. Say it: "Thanks Obama." I just did, didn't I? Yeah you did, I just wanted to see the catch all phrase from you haha.

Other people can answer this better than I, but you'd probably be surprised how much $$$ they are spending on research to get these things to pass the emissions. Correct. Engine design is advancing very quickly. There are currently small diesel engines on the road that are collaborations between US, Asian, and European engineering and design. The dollar amounts and sheer number or engineers involved in the R&D were massive. The new guidelines set forth by the liberal agenda is forcing manufacturers to enhance efficiency, which in turn reduces overall emissions in gasoline engines. However, improved efficiency in a diesel engine has a tendency to boost emissions, primarily NOx emissions as combustion temperatures must rise to complete combustion which obviously enhances performance and efficiency. Improving diesel engine efficiency while reducing emissions is going to be an extremely difficult task. It is not something that is going to occur overnight, which is what the liberal agenda has forced on the manufacturers. Gasoline engines are a great example of design technology taking years to "perfect" in a financially feasible manner. R&D gets passed on to the consumer, and blowing up the price of the vehicle is not a realistic option. Gasoline engine emissions controls have evolved over nearly 50 years now, since the advent of the PCV system. So they need to find a way to meet these standards, which become far more stringent so quickly that they must weigh their options. If they can utilize technology that has proven effective in gasoline engines, they can minimize the cost or R&D and therefore the cost passed on to the consumer. They will improve efficiency at the cost of internal combustion design emissions control, and implement these effective gasoline "add ons". Forcing manufacturers to improve fuel economy on their entire fleet as well as reduce emissions in an exceptionally quick fashion is leading to a ton of questionable designs. The implementation of these systems, and their frightening real world pattern failures is going to cost this country a fucking fortune... and by staying at the top of my field, it is going to make me a ton of money again. Say it: "Thanks Obama."

Ahh yeah!!!

Or get a carbonation system if you're a nut.

In either case store it in the fridge if you aren't.

And yes it tied in.

I had to write the dumbest lab report ever. Something that could be described in one sentence dragged out to a page, so what do I do? Write about meth.

Heat shield won't reduce temperature enough--most likely.

That I do not know. I'm skeptical about it making enough of a difference to notice any change in voltage, but it might lengthen the battery's lifespan. :shrugs:

No. If your voltage sucks you probably need an aftermarket HO alt that has a case designed for the extra heat dissipation.

WinISD still gives you a pretty good idea on how one enclosure alignment performs against another. Would you disagree?

Buy the book. Should be on Amazon. If you read it than you should have a solid understanding. As to your secondary goal you're going to need to define what exactly you're trying to accomplish. I've seen quite a few threads from you lately, and like Sean mentioned you seem to be all over the place as to what exactly you're trying to do, so it makes giving advice hard. ie: going from ported to 4th order bp ported for all the wrong goals. Perhaps a new thread listing all the details of your previous enclosures, what you liked, what you didn't like, and listing what you want to improve on / detailed goals is the best route for help--because your collective threads are hard to keep track of. As to the last question. That value isn't helpful since it's only constant near one frequency. I will let you choose how conservative you want to be when selecting a value for the power, but I would be comfortable to say that modeling with 2/3rds power would be very conservative in this situation. So if your amp is rated for 2500watts at the point you're "wiring" to than calculating port velocity with 1875watts would be "safe" in my opinion. The above "2/3rds" is no rule, I literally made it up so don't take it as gospel, but when I had my xcons, BL, icons, dcons, etc and had them wired to 1ohm with sufficient electrical supply, I occasionally measured the impedance at different frequency points across different enclosures (no way is this scientific, just anecdotal) and the impedance was well over 2ohms, so that would be equivalent to half power.

Enclosure volume affects frequency response (frequency vs output). One 18" SP4 2500watts 32hz tuning port area - port velocity 50in^2 28m/s 60in^2 24m/s 70in^2 20m/s 80in^2 18m/s 100in^2 14m/s 120in^2 12m/s Another thing to take into consideration is the average of your impedance is going to be substantially higher than what you're "wiring to," so it makes more sense to calculate port velocity with less power than 2500watts as your amp is rated to. Note the units above are meters per second, not "f/s." An enclosure that takes cabin gain into account may perform better than factory spec enclosure, but it may not either. It entirely depends on how well designed it is. Your question is similar to: "If I build a custom race car in my garage, will it be better than a mustang?"

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/09/theres-clown-terrorizing-small-british-town/69425/

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-self-healing-polymer-spontaneously-independently.html Hmmm

I like how nonchalant she is.

They don't have writing classes with Fi Car Audio Subwoofers though.

Only in Romania.

In that case I know Leonardo decaprio cause I had dinner with his parents.

You're just a big sugar daddy.

Might help mitigate it to some extent. :shrugs:

If your fasting BG is higher in the morning than afternoon onward (common in diabetics) perhaps eat fat-protein in morning, and carbs afternoon and on?