Και μου χει έρθει τρέλα…

Μιας και είμαι λαϊκό παιδί ακούω και τα αντίστοιχα λαϊκά άσματα. Πάντα με κριτήριο και γνώμονα την ποιότητα, το στίχο, τη μελωδία…

C++ is a statically typed, free-form, multi-paradigm, compiled, general purpose programming language. C++ is considered as middle-level language, as it comprises of a combination of both-high & low level language features. C++ is widely used in the software industry & remains one of the most popular languages. Its application development includes systems software, application software, device drivers, embedded software, high-performance server, client applications & entertainment softwares like video games.

C++ is an OOP (Object Oriented Programming) in which it defines not only the data type of a data structure , but also the types of operations that can be applied to the data structure. In this way, the data structure becomes an object that includes both data and functions. In addition, programmers can create relationships between one object and another.

Experts From India is a final destination, where anybody can find the most experienced & expertised C++ Professional Developers with the highest level of knowledge in the implementation of C++ applications for the web development.

BENEFITS & SKILLS OF C++ DEVELOPERS AT EFI:

• The most experienced C++ developers at EFI can develop each & every application successfully for the web development using the C++ application.
• As the C++ developers at EFI are well experienced with at least 2years & more, you can choose a set of team among them as per your requirement & preferences.
• The C++ experienced developers would be available for you 24*7 with the best of the services made available for you.

With these benefits & skills of C++ Developers at EFI, we ensure the best services with the best quality of the developed applications that would be delivered to you from our end.

Hire the C++ Developers Now with EFI!!

I suppose the necessary disclaimer   (LONG WINDED) is that that baffles are very large piece of the equation.  The “equation” is what settings need to be on your bike (the jet/carb or the binary in the EFI) that provide safe, pleasing, performance-providing exhaust:  if you change the air filter, the header, the slip on, the cat, or the settings themselves, you risk throwing the whole thing out of balance.  In other words (QUICK-N-DIRTY), the system needs balance and harmony, so when you change one thing you may be required to change others.  If you swap pipes, you probably need to alter the settings, and for the 2010 Road King Classic that means adjusting the EFI.

I know nothing of such things but will probably get a PowerCommander since they’ve won out over all others on the DIY crowd.  But anyway …

As far as baffles go, there are free-flowing and chambered, short and long, swiss-cheese and slashed, and all have different properties.  I know nothing of these properties or their translation to performance/sound.  But I’m going to find out!

Simple though it may sound, I’m going to build my own baffles from exhaust tubing available at AutoZone.  I’ll poke holes in the sides and bend the mid section down to scoop the air and change the flow.  I can install them in the SuperTrapp SE muffler shells and keep my 2010 stock mufflers untouched.  I’m going to try to document this as well as possible so that others who want to edit the sound of their bike can benefit from my notes, much as I have benefited from what others have done before me.

AND,

(following the advice in the top paragraph)

I’m going to pick up an EFI tuner so that I can prevent overheating if my baffles cause the engine to run too lean.  At risk of repeating myself, I’m trying to nail down the choices but I think I’ll go with the PowerCommander.

And of course, if I do foul it all up, I’ll buy a full aftermarket exhaust for $600 and call it a pre-emptive repair bill.  That doesn’t mean I have money to burn, it just means I’m confident that with patience and the internet I can accomplish this.

You can look at that as foolish for bravado or noble for sacrifice,  but it’s just me doing what I do and I don’t judge you so just read on and hopefully you can benefit (no matter which judgment camp you’re in).

Someday my Harley will sound like a Harley.  Presently it’s jealous of the Volusia.

Psystar’s Rebel EFI software promises that you can install OS X on any PC with a Core 2 Duo, Quad, i7 or Xeon Nehalem processor for $50, but we are discovering that you will probably end up getting screwed royally.

2 weeks ago, I purchased Psystar’s RebelEFI software. While I own several Macs, I also have a fairly new PC with a Core 2 Duo and Intel motherboard that I thought would be a perfect specimen.

Before I purchased the software, I downloaded the trial version of RebelEFI. Sure enough, I was able to boot and install OS X 10.6. I installed the RebelEFI utility in OS X and because it was a trial, the hardware compatibility feature was disabled. (Why this feature would be disabled in a trial version?) I called Psystar with several questions and asked what would happen if some of my hardware was not compatible? The sales person told me that they would be able to access the software’s hardware compatibility list and be able to supply me with drivers for the incompatible hardware.

I purchased the software and ran the hardware compatibility test. It showed me lack of compatibility for my video, audio and USB 2.0, however there was no way to send them the results of this test. When I questioned this, I sent Psystar a tech support ticket through the software’s Customer Support feature. I was told in a reply that I would have to fill out a DCR form. I asked what a DCR form is and where I could find it. (They assumed I would automatically know this information).

After not hearing anything for a week, I tried calling Customer Support and was greeted with a message that support is only handled via email. I again asked the same question via email and 3 days later I received a PDF file in response. It basically says I have to send Psystar my computer for them to make it completely compatible. WHAT???? At no point during the purchase was I told I may have to send them my computer. I am now in the process of trying to get my money back.

Mac OS X on any computer? FAIL

Psystar Document

SAMRAL CHOWK, Punjab, Índia, 6 de outubro de 2009 (CDN) – extremistas hindus agradiram seriamente e esfaquearam um operário cristão, de acordo com o Conselho Evangélico da Índia (EFI). Eram cerca de 7:30 da manhã quando o sr. Vijay Kumar – um operário cristão da Igreja Pentecostal Indiana e ex-estudante do Colégio Bíblico da região do Punjab, estava distribuindo folhetos com a palavra de Cristo quando extremistas hindus chegaram num veículo sem placas e forçaram-no para dentro do carro.

Email para um amigo ou divulgue no Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Batendo e esfaqueando-o no seu peito e pernas enquanto o levavam por toda a parte, eles perguntaram a ele quanto dinheiro tinha recebido para se converter à fé cristã. Perguntaram também com quais grupos cristãos estava associado. Mais tarde, levaram-no para uma floresta local e continuaram a torturá-lo.

Uma equipe de buscas cristã começou a procurar o sr. Vijay Kumar às 19:30 e finalmente às 2 da manhã receberam um telefonema dizendo que os agressores o haviam trazido de volta para sua vila e o jogaram para fora com o veículo em alta velocidade. Ele foi levado ao Colégio Médico Cristão (Christian Medical College) com ferimentos graves mas estava conseguindo se recuperar bem, com a graça de Deus. Uma queixa foi resigrada na delegacia de polícia de Shingaar, mas nenhuma prisão foi efetuada até hoje.

Email para um amigo ou divulgue no Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Psystar releases Rebel EFI installer, further enrages Apple

Laut einer Meldung von AppleInsider verkauft Mac-Clone-Hersteller Psystar seinen Software Hack Rebel EFI, mit dem Snow Leopard auf PCs läuft, jetzt als Sonderangebot für unter 50 US-Dollar.

Dies hat Psystar, seit Juli 2008 mit Apple im Rechtstreit, gestern bekanntgegeben. Mit dem Software Hack Rebel EFI soll es möglich sein, auf jedem mit Intel Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, i7 oder Xeon Nehalem-Prozessor ausgerüstetem PC, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard installieren zu können.

Damit gießt Psystar im andauernden Konflikt mit Apple noch einmal Öl ins Feuer. Hat sich daran aber vielleicht schon verbrannt. Denn die Webseite, auf der Psystar eine Installationsanleitung in 38 Schritten bekanntgibt, ist bereits nicht mehr zu erreichen.

Link: Psystar-Shop
Quelle: MacLife

Como decía la publicidad de Cruz Verde, “Eficacia Probada”. Y aplicando ese mismo claim, desde el mundo del insecto al mundo de la publicidad, la creatividad ha y debe ser eficaz; y eso es lo que reconocen los Premios a la Eficacia en la Comunicación Comercial, también conocidos como Efis, y que otrorgan la Asociación Española de Anunciantes. Diversas marcas, anunciantes y sus correspondientes agencias fueron premiadas en un acto que tuvo lugar en el Palacio de Congresos de Madrid. 11 Efis de Oro se entregaron a otras tantas campañas, entre ellas Mahou, Ikea, Audi, Trina… Nuestra campaña para a el Ayuntamiento de Pamplona también se llevó un Efi de Oro, cerrando una brillante trayectoria en los festivales nacionales e internacionales de publicidad, obteniendo este galardón que acredita que además de una acción espectacular, ha resultado de lo más efectiva. Todas las campañas ganadoras han sido recogidas en un libro donde se explican todas las estrategias de las marcas ganadoras, un tesoro muy eficaz.

Again with the countdown.  Letting myself get a little excited.

I called the service dept to check on the bike, and like always, rather than say 2 words, they took my name and xferred me to sales.  Then, talking to Eddy, I told him I wasn’t driving off without some kind of ECM fix (yes, rip me off for the $120 fuel map switch) but that I’d rather just pick up the parts they couldn’t get installed and that I’d do them myself.

Of course, I said all that after I’d confirmed that I’ll be able to drop by this saturday and ride home.  They open at 9:00.  Guess who will be there at 8:50 am?  My wife!  And me, I hope.

I’m probably going to invest in some wind protection – “rain guards” from Desert Dawgs and possibly “hippo hands” from Hippo Hands.   Both products seem like something I can make myself, and if they look ridiculous when mounted then it makes no difference if they look like hell or not, right?   So long as it doesn’t scratch the paint…

No progress yet on the EFI manager.  A tuner near the house, with a good reputation, wants to sell me a PC III for $350, then charge me $200 for the tuning.  I think I’ll ride the HD upgraded download for a bit.

3 days.  Kind of amazing.  It’s in the high 60’s today.  What I wouldn’t give for more of that …

To get any EFI (electronic fuel injection) engine to really sing, there are EFI managers available that adjust how the ECM (the engine’s brain – literally electronic control module, sometimes called ECU [..."unit"]) pulls those strings and makes the EFI dance.

Of course, there are also replacement units that just know how to haul ass.  And that’s fine if that’s you.

I’m looking for a plug-in system.  It seems there are a few.  They all interface with the EFI and “trick” it into running richer, or leaner, depending on what you’re looking for (typically richer – more fuel means more power, to a point).  The ECM (or “ECU”) adjusts the engine’s idle speed and the amount of juice the EFI is allowed to burn — all based on the engine’s temperature, the amount of oxygen in the system, and maybe some other factors.  An EFI manager is like the nagging wife that tells the EFI “I know the ECM said to inject for 5 milliseconds, but if you don’t make it 7 ms you’ll be sleeping in the doghouse tonight” and so the EFI ignores the ECM.

FuelPak, by V&H, is a unit that’s earned lots of respect as far as nagging wives go, but isn’t available for 2010 bikes, according to http://www.fuelpakfi.com/harley1.html on today’s date.  The FuelPak behaves the way the ECM does, but is “better” — the ECM has a long list of how the EFI ought to respond for each scenario (RPM, temp, throttle position, O2, etc…) and simply makes that happen.  That list of instructions is called a “map” since it can most easily be understood as a topology of the fuel function.  The FuelPak has its own fuel map and borrows the ECM’s measurements (above) to tell the EFI to use its values from its fuel map.  FuelPak is the least expensive option, so it’s a shame that they’re not able to give me what I want since I’m kind of over here waving my $300 around.

In case you’re wondering, I decided to get a fuel manager based on all the glowing praises from various forums and newsgroups.  It’s like having a butler, but instead of doing your laundry, he does your fuel injection. Or, I suppose it’s like having a TV/monitor set to the wrong resolution?  Go to hell, analogies.

Next up is the ThunderMax.  It looks great – instead of a simple map, it can adjust itself and “learn” the bike and your riding habits.  Seems great, right? Problems: first, the complete system (the “autotuner”) comes out to about $700.  Hopefully I’ve misunderstood and the autotuner isn’t required, but according to my understanding of their website, that’s not the case.  Problem two? It’s not available for throttle-by-wire bikes.  Oh well! http://www.thunder-max.com/

And then, last up, is the Power Commander.  There are two, kinds, but it seems only the PC V (that’s a FIVE) will work on a 2010 TBW bike.  Cost? Just $360, and they have the autotuner for another $360 too.  Wait a minute! Again with the autotuner?

Best I can figure, the autotuner is what enables “learning” mode.  That’s got to be the way to go, right?  But for $700, couldn’t we just get on the dynojet and calibrate once and for all?

Apple has released what it calls “Performance Update 1.0,” an update to its Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) and 10.6 (Snow Leopard) operating systems for selected iMacs and MacBooks.

As Apple describes it — in typically brief fashion — in its Support pages, ”This update addresses intermittent hard drive related pauses reported by a small number of customers.”

Gotta love those detailed descriptions!

The update may be related to an EFI Firmware Update in June that some MacBook owners suspect was the cause of intermittent crashes and system freezes. This latest update may well put these problems to rest once and for all, except there’s something interesting about the name…that 1.0 suffix hints at the possibility of further revisions to come. A “Performance Update, Update” perhaps?

The update isn’t for everyone, however. It applies only to the following Mac models.

MacBook
MacBook (13-inch, Aluminum, Late 2008)
MacBook (13-inch, Early 2009)
MacBook (13-inch, Mid 2009)

MacBook Pro
MacBook Pro (15-inch, Late 2008)
MacBook Pro (17-inch, Early 2009)
MacBook Pro (17-inch, Mid 2009)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2009)
MacBook Pro (15-inch, Mid 2009)
MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2.53GHz, Mid 2009)

MacBook Air
MacBook Air (Late 2008)
MacBook Air (Mid 2009)

Mac Mini
Mac Mini (Early 2009)

iMac
iMac (24-inch, Early 2009)
iMac (20-inch, Early 2009)
iMac (20-inch, Mid 2009)

Part 1 is here.

Part 2 is here.

Part 3 is here.

*EDIT: Sorry this is out of order.  I pushed every post up since I had to squeeze this post in between Part 2 and Part 4.  I expanded the fuel system section quite a bit and decided it needed its own post. 

     In the last post I explained bits about the Electronic Fuel Injection (EFI) system and how to modify it to cope with the upcoming turbo power.  Near the end, I introduced the idea of the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) to estimate the amount of fuel the engine will need per hour.  Here I’ll expain a bit more on the BSFC and how it affects our cars.

     So I’ve already defined the BSFC as the amount of fuel the engine requires to produce one horsepower per hour, but I didn’t specify a unit.  We can figure that out by looking at how to calculate the BSFC.  You’ll only need two variables: the Fuel Rate (Lb/Hr) and the Power (Hp).  Here is the equation:

BSFC (Lb/Hp*Hr) =

Just divide the Fuel Rate by the Power.  And if you use only the units, you’ll see that the unit for BSFC is Lb/Hp*Hr.

     When you take a look at the equation, it’s very simple.  We’re just multiplying two numbers.  But if you start comparing the two variables, Fuel Rate and Power, you realize that you can never have an exact BSFC for an engine or car.  Why?  Because the BSFC is the rate of fuel consumption over one hour of operation.  What if for the first hour you drove mildly on the highway, and then the second  hour you were sitting in bumper to bumper traffic?  The two Fuel Rates would be completely different.  As would the Power as well.  When we’re sitting in traffic, we’re not using and power at all.  And when we’re cruising on the highway, I doubt you’re using all your engine’s power for a full hour.

     So the problem becomes the use of BSFC if we can’t calculate an exact number for an engine.  Well, we can get a range of BSFCs for engines.  For example, in our last post I used 0.65 as a safe number for a turbocharged engine.  Most turbo’d engines run between 0.6 and 0.65 BSFC while supercharged cars have a BSFC between 0.55 and 0.6, and naturally aspirated engines use only 0.45 to 0.5 Lbs/Hp*Hr.  These are only approximations, but you can clearly see the difference between naturally aspirated engines and turbocharged engines.  Turbocharged engines usually require more fuel to keep detonation at bay due to the increased temperature and pressure of the intake air.  This is why a turbocharged engine uses more fuel per horsepower per hour.  Now that we’ve established that the BSFC of an engine is in constant flux, let’s take a look at how and why it changes.

     First let’s take a look at how the BSFC changes in relation to the Engine’s Speed (RPM).  One would guess that at the car’s maximum RPM would be when the BSFC is the highest, and vice versa.  But take a look at this:

Edgar, Julian. “Brake Specific Fuel Consumption.” AutoSpeed. Web Publications
     Pty Limited, 10 Apr. 2008. Web. 27 Sept. 2009. <http://autospeed.com/cms/
     title_Brake-Specific-Fuel-Consumption/A_110216/article.html> 

     The red curve shows the Power (in kW for this graph) while the green curve represents the Torque (shown as the Brake Mean Effective Pressure here) so then the pink curve is obviously the engine’s BSFC (in g/kWh this time).  What’s interesting is that the pink curve isn’t linear or exponential and that the lowest point isn’t at the lowest RPM, but the curve begins around the 1,000 RPM point, and then drops to its lowest point at around the 2,500 RPM area.  It can’t be linked to either the highest Torque point or the highest Power point, so it seems that power can’t be directly linked to the BSFC. 

     There are a few reasons that I can think of for the BSFC being at neither the lowest nor the highest engine speeds:

1.      At lower RPMs, time between the engine cycles lets the intake air cool down too much during the compression cycle.  We want the coolest air to fill up the cylinder to pack more air in there (The Pressure-Temperature Law), but once the valves close and the compression cycle starts, we want the pressure and temperature to increase to give us more torque.  Remember that heat is a form of energy, and the more there is in the compressed air, the more energy is converted when ignition occurs.
2.      At high RPMs, there is an exponential increase in frictional loss within the engine, from cylinders to camshafts to belts.  Faster engine speeds = more friction.
3.      Also at high RPMs, the speed the piston is descending on its intake stroke is faster than the air filling up the cylinder.  This is what creates a vacuum at higher RPMs, since the engine doesn’t get the air fast enough.  This vacuum creates extra work for the engine, thus reducing efficiency.
4.      Most engines are tuned for mid-range torque, meaning all the geometry of the engine, the timing of the cams,camshafts etc are all optimized for the best efficiency in the middle of the RPM range, not the lowest or the highest point.

     But there’s another problem.  This is more or less a dyno graph, meaning the data logged is when the car is going full-throttle from 1,000 all the way to 7,000 RPMs.  Our engines rarely run full throttle while puttering around town.  So lets take a look at how Throttle Position (%) (or engine load) affects our BSFC.

 Edgar, Julian. “Brake Specific Fuel Consumption.” AutoSpeed. Web Publications
     Pty Limited, 10 Apr. 2008. Web. 27 Sept. 2009. <http://autospeed.com/cms/
     title_Brake-Specific-Fuel-Consumption/A_110216/article.html>

     Going by this graph, by using 100% throttle, we’re actually getting the most efficienct BFSC, and we’re getting the worst by using “only” 25% throttle.  You can once again see that the lowest point on each curve is in the middle of the RPM range; between 2500 and 3500 RPM in this case. 

     The BSFC for full throttle (100%) is at most 0.50 Lb/Hp*Hr, with a 0.43 Lb/Hp*Hr best.  But when we look at the 50% throttle curve, it has a horrible 0.80 Lb/Hp*Hr best, but a decent 0.48 Lb/Hp*Hr best.  But when we take a look at the 25% throttle curve, it gets alot worse.  Its worst BSFC is a 1.50 Lb/Hp*Hr, with only a 0.70 Lb/Hp*Hr best.  That’s about three times the fuel consumption at its worst, and just under twice at its best.  So if we had to two engines running at the same RPM (lets use 3,000 RPM), one at 100% throttle, the other at 25% and producing the same amount of power, the engine using only 25% throttle would use up almost twice the amount of fuel.  It seems that while we linearly decrease our throttle, our BSFC increases exponentially.  Now please remember that BSFC does NOT equate to the fuel efficiency at a certain throttle or engine speed, but the fuel efficiency of a certain throttle or engine speed in comparison to the Power produced.  When we were comparing the 100% throttle and 25% throttle, we were saying that an engine using 100% throttle is using 0.43 Pounds of fuel per Horsepower per Hour. 

     In mathematical terms, the more power we’re using, the smaller our BSFC (if the Fuel Rate doesn’t change), since BSFC is equal to Fuel Rate divided by Power.  But to get more Power, we usually have to increase our Engine Speed, which in turns raises our Fuel Rate, and eventually our BSFC (you see the dilemma?).  This is why the BSFC of an engine isn’t as simple as just the lowest or highest RPM.  What if we ran our car at a constant 3,200 RPM with 100% throttle?  We’d obviously be getting the best BSFC possible.  But on the other hand, using 100% throttle means increasing the Engine Speed faster, and in turn increasing our Power faster.  And the larger our Power, we lower the BSFC (once again if the Fuel Rate doesn’t change).  Also, there’s no way we can keep the throttle open all the way yet keep it at 3,200 RPM.  Its like a dog chasing its own tail.

     On the last note, we’ll take a look at a graph of an engine’s actual BSFC in comparison to its Engine Speed (RPM) and Engine Load/Torque (BMEP):

Edgar, Julian. “Brake Specific Fuel Consumption.” AutoSpeed. Web Publications
     Pty Limited, 10 Apr. 2008. Web. 27 Sept. 2009. <http://autospeed.com/cms/
     title_Brake-Specific-Fuel-Consumption/A_110216/article.html>

     As you can see, the best BSFC is a 0.42 Lb/Hp*Hr (the red island), at round 2,000 RPM while using 100 BMEP (Torque).  The black dots represent a car’s BSFC taken at 1 second intervals.  See how they rarely enter the 0.42 Lb/Hp*Hr island, and are mostly spread out between 0.50 and 1.70 Lb/Hp*Hr.  And at the worst BSFC is when the car is idling, where the engine consumes fuel, but doesn’t create any Power, and ultimately doesn’t get anywhere.

     This post is actually quite a diversion from the turbocharging process, but it interested me, so I decided to add it in here.  Mathematically I haven’t solved anything (I haven’t found how to achieve the “best” BSFC in a real world setting), but this was a fun research topic.  Stay tuned for the next post where I’ll get back on topic.

As many people, I have a white MacBook with a Core 2 Duo (64-bit) processor, but with EFI32. I installed Snow Leopard thinking that the whole system will be in 64-bit mode from the beginning (as Apple says on its web). But opening the Activity Monitor I realized that the kernel was still in 32-bit mode (kernel_task process, in All processes). I searched on the Internet and I found out that if your MacBook has EFI32 your kernel won’t boot on 64-bit mode. Doesn’t matter the processor you have, Apple does not allow it.

For EFI64 Macbooks, the kernel won’t boot in 64-bit from the begining too. But it is possible to boot the kernel in 64-bit mode doing some tricks. Be careful because I have read that this tricks can make some drivers not compatible with the system.

I tried to do those tricks with my EFI32 MacBook and nothing seemed to happen. I know the system booted in 64-bit mode, but the kernel_task process was still in 32-bit, so I decided to leave it and forget it. But some days later I realized that the general performance of Snow Leopard was worse. After some searches on the Internet without finding any answer, I remembered the changes I made. When I reverted those changes, starting the system in 32-bit mode, everything was fixed.

So I recommend EFI32 MacBook users to forget the 64-bit kernel, at least until Apple makes an update activating it.

Related posts: Find out which EFI your Mac has

Tricks for EFI64: ZDNet