• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

The bass for now!

As others have mentioned, a bass with a built-in tuner should be common place. I also though the Line-6 Variax series or the Fret Light instruments were truly paradigm shifts, however neither set the world on fire.

However the timing may have just been poor on both? Lots of things that "missed" the timing mark have gone on to be forgotten about....
 
this hasn't seemed to change Classical musicians minds much since what the 1500's ? . I think the tech is pretty much where it will stay . +/- a few innovations here and there but that's ok with me . The old tech gets the job done just fine .
 
It takes 39 kWh to produce a kilogram of hydrogen, presuming your electrolyzer is 100% efficient.
None are 100% efficient.

A kilogram of hydrogen in a fuel cell produces less than 34 kilowatt hours.

This is a NET ENERGY LOSS. Even in its potentially optimal state.
Sorry, but that’s not the future of transportation.

You are presuming that water gets in the engine. You do realize I hope that internal combustion engines in use since 1885 until now are water-cooled and water channels run throughout the block of all of them except the VW Beetle, which was air-cooled.

The current batch of Hydrogen fuel cell cars use the hydrogen in the fuel cell to generate electricity by the interaction of oxygen from the air and hydrogen in the fuel cell. It uses this hydrogen/oxygen interaction to generate electricity, which powers the vehicle by combining them in the fuel cell and emits water vapor as the exhaust.

Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas and that process produces carbon emissions. The most emission free method is to separate out the H from the H2o using another permeable membrane. Then energy becomes easily processed from H2o by splitting the H from the 2o, using the H to power the fuel cell and the o to supply the fuel cell with the needed oxygen for the interaction to produce electricity...but we're not there yet.

Current Hydrogen cars have a hydrogen fuel tank that needs to be filled up as it is used. Not a lot of filling stations around. Good news is that an amount of hydrogen comparable to a gallon of gas gets over 2½ times as many miles per gallon compared to gasoline and currently emits water vapor as an exhaust. And, the water vapor exhaust is no more that what a gas engine produces.
 
Actually, despite your attempts to portray any/all who think differently than you as morons, I’m quite familiar with the issues around large scale generation. Baseload generation of reactive power has become a large issue in many places. For ANY grid, it is power generated that never reaches the customer - and for which the customer pays. (For those of you wondering what it is, reactive power is needed for voltage support.) Meanwhile, aging grid components demand either a) lower constant load, and/or b) wide scale (and dazzlingly costly) upgrades.

A large chunk of this increasing demand could be offset by local power harvesting. As but one example, homes with solar roof tiles (accompanied by battery storage). Most of the suburban homes in this nation exist at latitudes that make solar harvesting cost-effective.

No, it comes from people who don't have any understanding of the actual practicalities of what they are suggesting.

And this proves the point. You have zero idea of the practicalities of the use or cost of use of large scale generators. I was an engineer in the industry for a long time. I have no problem with alternatives, but I am not interested in massively increasing my power bill because of impractical unicorn generation schemes whether grid or local.

I said before, not the forum.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker
Actually, despite your attempts to portray any/all who think differently than you as morons,
Your projection, and this sort of comment I've found in the past to mean you don't really understand it. Can't be bothered any further with this subject. Want to take it to an appropriate forum, I'll continue.
 
Last edited:
Ever hear the song “In the year 2525” by Zager and Evans? Check it out…cool lyrics! It goes from 2525 and up. In the year 5555 the verse goes…
In the year 5555
Your arms are hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine is doing that for you

Well…if that’s the case then let’s all hope they’ll have some kind of blue tooth capable anal probe that can interface with some kind of bad a*s digital low frequency simulator! Talk about funky!
 
I like the performance of some of them, like the Teslas I've driven, but they're not really a driver's car.

Agreed...to begin with, Tesla's love affair with the touch screen is the opposite design philosophy to what makes a good driver's car. The car should facilitate an absolute focus on the act of driving, and therefore enable you to do everything important by tactile feel without taking your attention from the road. The fact that Tesla is seen as a leader in this space and doesn't get this is disappointing. Still, there are manufacturers who do get what a driver's car ought to be and are actually moving away from touch screens in recent models (Mazda is a notable example) and I'm looking forward to what they might cook up as batteries get lighter. That's the main limitation...electrics are too damn heavy to go around corners nicely so far. Looking forward to that changing over time.

Well, it's really not meant to be a high performance car, per se.

The Model S is absolutely marketed as a performance car. Ludicrous mode & Plaid for the geeks, and this sort of thing for everyone else:
01.jpg


Actually, the future for cars is self-driving, so....

Oh good, it'll keep phone-obsessed drivers from knocking me off my motorbike ;)

I'm gonna quickly jump on my soapbox, and just as quickly jump back off.

I can only hope the future includes making the truss rod adjustment at the heel of the neck instead of the headstock (where it should be), an illegal design specification. I have often said that design engineers, regardless of what they design, should be forced to use their design about 1000 times. Would the neck heel truss rod adjustment still exist if the designers (and actually current manufacturers) had to take the neck off to adjust it, 1000 times? I doubt it. Would a poorly designed (purely an example) wine bottle opener exist for long if the engineer had to open 1000 bottles with that poor design? I doubt it.

Now I'm stepping down.
Vintage Fender necks don't need to be removed or loosened for truss rod adjustment
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker