litchralee

I suspect that PG&E's smart meters might: 1) support an infrared pulse through an LED on the top of the meter, and 2) use a fairly-open protocol for uploading their meter data to the utility, which can be picked up using a Software Defined Radio (SDR).

Open Energy Monitor has a write-up about using the pulse output, where each pulse means a quantity of energy was delivered (eg 1 Watt-hour). So counting 1000 of such pulses would be 1 kWh, and that would be a way to track your energy consumption for any timescale.

What it won't do is provide instantaneous power (ie kW drawn at this very moment) because the energy must accumulate to the threshold before sending a pulse. For example, a 9 Watt LED bulb that is powered on would only cause a new pulse every 6.7 minutes. But for larger loads, the indication would be very quick; a 5000 W dryer would emit a new pulse after no more than 0.72 seconds.

The other option is decoding the wireless protocol, which people have done using FOSS software. An RTL-SDR receiver is not very expensive, is very popular, and can also be used for other purposes besides monitoring the electric meter. Insofar as USA law is concerned, unencrypted transmissions are fair game to receive and decode. This method also has a wealth of other useful info in the data stream, such as instantaneous wattage in addition to the counter registers.

The future is chrome!

I'm struggling to think of another application where a ring motor would be the superior option, except maybe: 1) EUCs, or 2) scenarios where the transmission needs to reside within the motor. That latter scenario is from something I vaguely remember seeing on YouTube, where the opposite was performed: sticking an engine within the hollow cavity of a massive transaxle.

But this is already a niche list of applications. Automobiles would not benefit from hollow hub motors because there's already stuff onboard of each wheel. The only plausible case is for an AWD/4WD vehicle that wants to minimize torque steer by having the transaxle length be equal on both sides, precisely by having the transmission and motor centered.

Spokes -- of both the wire variety on bicycles, and the solid type in automobiles -- serve a structural purpose, and their removal for no other reason than aesthetics is a disservice to practicality, specifically by increasing weight and servicing effort when changing a tire.

As it happens, it's about 10 C (50 F) near me and raining, and I did actually think about using my leaf blower for a very specific purpose: blowing the leaves clear of the road gutters.

I saw outside my window that the autumn leaves formed a dam in the gutter, impounding an amount of water which started diverting onto the asphalt and the sidewalk. From what little I know about road construction, water intrusion is the greater enemy so I didn't want to let the small pond sit there.

In the end, I just picked the leaves up by hand to remove the obstruction. But if I had a lot more streetfront, leaf blower would be the first tool to come to mind. But it would take no more than 10 minutes total.

TIL. Straight onto my watch list. Thanks!

I don't have much to add about the pronunciation question, but every time that Alexandre Dumas is mentioned, I feel compelled to recommend The Count of Monte Cristo, a work which I would describe as the mid-1800s rough equivalent to a shonen manga's plotline. The novel starts in 1810s southern France, just after the Napoleonic era, detailing the luck, misfortune, and events that befall Edmond Dantes, a young and intelligent sailor of modest means.

Admittedly, the unabridged book is quite a long read, with some print editions exceeding 1200 pages. The 117 chapters may be intimidating, but IMO it's a worthwhile read. It's also available in the public domain in the USA, so Project Gutenberg has an eBook of it from the 1888 English translation, retaining much of the "antique" translations, for added intrigue.

Unabashed plug for GnuCash. It's FOSS, double-entry, and capable enough for oddball personal finances or business finance, with all the spreadsheet exporting one might need.

I can't speak as to the veracity of this market report -- the full document is only available by subscription to the market research company -- but some additional details do appear on their website for this document, published February 2024.

I will say that I'm surprised that SLA battery ebikes apparently still have market share. Guessing what the report indicates, I have to imagine that they're still useful in very price sensitive markets or where the operating temperature of SLA (-20 to 60 C) is required compared to li ion batteries (0 to 45 C).

I'm only a passive yet very interested observer of aviation but am also a fairly avid cyclist. I think the equivalent analog for bikes is that it's much easier to track a straight line when doing 50 kph than at 5 kph. Just like airspeed is needed for rudder surfaces to work, cyclists need speed to maintain horizontal balance and manoruverability.

I'm assuming your question pertains to a window failure while still on the airport grounds prior to takeoff. If instead you meant a window failure while at cruise, I would suggest this Mentour Pilot video about Southwest Flight 1380 where an engine defect threw shrapnel at one of the cabin windows, smashing it open with disastrous effects.

Supposing the window failed prior to opening the jet bridge to allow passengers to board, it probably would have been noticed by the flight crew -- ie the pilots, cabin staff -- while doing their preflight preparations and checks, or by the ground crew, while loading baggage or food/supplies. Once notified, the boarding process would be delayed as the pilots assess whether the flight can continue -- definitely not -- and then the captain would use their authority to reject the aircraft for that flight, calling in the maintenance team and the airline so they can take the next steps. Practically speaking, this flight will be either heavily delayed or outright cancelled.

If instead the window failed after closing the doors and the aircraft has started taxiing to the runway, then there are some complications. With everyone seated for taxiing, passengers are not supposed to start walking around to notify the cabin crew. But the cabin crew may already be walking the aisles to check for stowed trays, seatbelts for takeoff, baggage obstructions, etc. So if they see a smashed window, that's an obvious sign that the cabin is not secured for takeoff. At the end of the cabin checks, the cabin crew would normally telephone the pilots to convey a secure cabin. Here, they would explain the situation and the pilots would contact ground control to return back to the terminal.

But supposing the window broke after the cabin was declared secure, and the aircraft is about to line up onto the runway. In this case, everyone including the cabin crew are sat down, so a passenger who sees the window can't really get the cabin crew's attention by pressing the overhead button. Barring some sort of additional malfunction that the pilots could notice -- like a major engine malfunction -- this aircraft might actually take off.

When taxiing, the pilots have a number of things to do, and so the "sterile cockpit" rule means that no non-operational chitchat is allowed, to allow them to focus. Mentour Pilot has other videos on what happens when the rule is violated. Likewise, the cabin crew are trained to not disturb the pilots unless something absolutely flight endangering is happening, at least for the first few thousand feet of takeoff climb.

The theory is as follows: if an aircraft is on the ground and stationary, it is safe. If the aircraft is at cruising altitude and cruising speed, it is safe. But if it's at low altitude (<1000 ft; 330 m), then it's very easy for the flight to go sour. Hence, once an aircraft has reached a certain point in taxiing, it will basically want to take off. And we still have the problem that the pilots don't even know the window broke.

So the aircraft rolls down the runway and takes off. Crisis? Not really. The plane will climb quickly up to some 3000-5000 ft, at which point the plane is configured for a steady climb to cruise. This is when the pressurization system would engage, since cabins need to keep the pressure to a breathable level. Although the system may also have noticed that the cabin pressure stayed the same as the outside air pressure for the entire climb. That's a clear sign of a cabin air leak, and the system would indicate to the pilots of a pressurization failure.

This is the first indicator for the pilots, although at this stage in the flight, the cabin crew may also phone the pilots since they start walking around earlier than 10,000 ft altitude. A pressurization failure or broken window means the pilots must halt their climb and remain below 10,000 ft, which is the upper limit for human breathing without supplemental oxygen. The pilots would radio to ATC and request a return to the airport, or another nearby airport if need be. A pan-pan or mayday could be declared, depending on the captain's assessment of the situation, or to obtain priority over any other aircraft wanting to land.

The last scenario before the Flight 1380 scenario is if the window broke just as the aircraft was passing 10,000 ft altitude, so there was no earlier indication of a cabin leak. In this case, there will indeed be a cabin depressurization, although it won't be as severe as at cruise altitude. Some aircraft will automatically drop the oxygen masks, and the pilots will don their own masks, now cognizant that a full-blown emergency is underway. This is handled the same way: bring the aircraft down to a breathable altitude and call ATC. The oxygen masks are good for some 20 minutes, which is well more than enough time to return to a lower altitude and make a plan.

TL;DR: the entirety of Mentour Pilot's YouTube back catalog truly sheds light on how the aviation industry keeps people safe. I highly recommend.

TIL Milwaukie, Oregon, which is named after Milwaukee, Wisconsin but from an older spelling of the same

Having sat down to look into whether this court challenge will hold any water, I am thoroughly pleased with how nice the Canadians are, where their federal government annotates their Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a component of the overall Canadian Constitution), and where the environmental law firm taking up this case kindly included the lawsuit in their online press release. Such reader conveniences would be luxurious here in California and the USA.

Anyway, to start, we need to summarize what Bill 212 -- now enacted -- changed in the Ontario laws. Reminder: IANAL. The Royal Assent PDF version is the finalized changes to the laws, and it indicates five Acts were amended, by way of five Schedules in the bill. Of those, only Schedule 4 from the bill is relevant, which modified the Highway Traffic Act by adding Section 195.2-195.18. As of this writing, the web version of the Highway Traffic Act has not been updated with the new Sections, but they should appear soon.

The salient details added by Bill 212 are:

• Section 195.3: Minister approval for bicycle lanes required
• Section 195.5: Authority to direct future bicycle lane removals
• Section 195.6: Bloor Street, University Avenue and Yonge Street bicycle lanes removed; auto lanes restored
• Section 195.9: reimbursement to municipality for initial construction and removal costs
• Section 195.14: no lawsuits by individuals for losses due to lane removals

The Ontario Legislature uses its exclusive "Local Works and Undertakings" power from the Canadian Constitution to write and amend the Highway Traffic Act, meaning that federal law cannot preempt the Legislature on the topic of public works wholly within the province. Overall, it seems that the drafters wrote in all the necessary details seemingly needed for a valid bill.

The lawsuit challenges the Ontario Attorney General and Minister for Transportation, requesting the provincial court:

• Determine that Section 195.6 violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 7 and thus unconstitutional
• Void Section 195.6 from having any effect
• Grant an injunction to prevent any changes by anyone to the three street's bike lanes for the time being
• Grant an order to produce all memos and documents from ministers discussing Bill 202, in unredacted form
• Order the province to pay the law firm's expenses

Section 7 of the Charter reads as:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The lawsuit specifically argues that the rights to life and security are infringed. Those are summarized as:

The right to life is engaged where the law or state action imposes death or an increased risk of death, either directly or indirectly

Security of the person is generally given a broad interpretation and has both a physical and psychological aspect ... Security of the person will be engaged where state action has the likely effect of seriously impairing a person’s physical or mental health

The challenge will turn on whether fundamental justice was done by Section 195.6, and notably the lawsuit does not seek to challenge any of the other sections, like 195.3 or 196.5. This may just be down to putting their strongest foot forward, since the outright inclusion of three streets by name could be considered arbitrary or gross disproportionality, which are against fundamental justice.

The principles of fundamental justice include the principles against arbitrariness, overbreadth and gross disproportionality.

The full link on Section 7 goes into greater legal detail, but I want to point out something which American bicyclists frequently have to consider: if this lawsuit succeeds, could this be weaponized by motorists in future? I think it's unlikely, because the closest analogy would be if a 400-series Highway were being removed and a motorist wanted to sue to stop that from happening. But the Section 7 challenge can only work if life and security are at stake.

A motorist would struggle to argue that closing a freeway directly causes cars to use city streets, which imperils the lives of motorists who might get into car crashes, since divided highways tend to have lower death/injury rates. The argument fails because freeways aren't built for the explicit purpose of safer travel, although they do tend to achieve that by not having pedestrians around. It would also be too tenuous to argue that a freeway removal forces motorists to use the city street; they can also choose a different freeway, or take transit and not drive at all, and the Charter doesn't guarantee a right to drive an automobile.

Whereas it is the explicit purpose of Bloor Street's bike lanes to provide a safe path for bicyclists, separated physically from motor traffic by curbs and bollards. Physical safety is part-and-parcel to the core notion of a protected bike lane.

I'm not well versed in Canadian constituional law, but the lawsuit takes aim at the most time-sensitive part of Bill 212. And at least to me, it makes a colorable argument that has decent odds of obtaining the injunction to stop the demolition for the moment.