Honda's New Hydrogen-Powered Vehicle

UPDATE: This story was updated to add the car’s official name, Honda Clarity, which was announced at a press conference Wednesday. 

TOKYO — The most notable thing about Honda Motor's ‘s new hydrogen-powered Clarity fuel cell vehicle, unveiled Wednesday at the Tokyo Motor Show, is not the silent burst of acceleration it provides when your foot touches the pedal, or the fact that it emits nothing but water vapor from the tailpipe. It’s not even that the Clarity can go more than 400 miles between three-minute hydrogen fillings - assuming you have access to a hydrogen station.

No, the most important thing is that Honda’s new fuel cell system is one-tenth the cost of previous versions and — for the first time — fits neatly under the car’s hood, taking up no more space than a typical V-6 engine. That means two things: 1) there’s more space for passengers and cargo, and 2) the compact fuel cell power train can be used in a variety of other Honda vehicles.

This really does feel like a real leap forward in the shift toward fuel cell vehicles and a so-called “hydrogen society.”

Of course, getting the hydrogen remains a sticking point. In California and the Northeast, companies like First Element and Air Liquide are installing hydrogen stations with support from government grants as well as loans from Toyota and Honda, but the rollout to date has been slow.

Honda might have a solution, though: it’s developing a compact Smart Hydrogen Station, enabling you to use high-pressure electrolysis to produce your own hydrogen at home. There’s no word on when that might be available, but if it’s affordable, it could be a huge breakthrough in speeding the adoption of fuel cell vehicles.

The Clarity goes on sale next spring (about six months behind Toyota Motor's ‘s recently introduced Mirai fuel cell) and the automaker expects to sell far more than the 72 units sold of its previous-generation fuel cell, the FCX Clarity. Honda said the same platform will also underpin a new plug-in hybrid vehicle, coming shortly after the fuel cell vehicle’s launch. Honda said it sees plug-in hybrids as an important bridge toward hydrogen-powered fuel cells.

UPDATE: This story was updated to add the car’s official name, Honda Clarity, which was announced at a press conference Wednesday. 

TOKYO — The most notable thing about Honda Motor's ‘s new hydrogen-powered Clarity fuel cell vehicle, unveiled Wednesday at the Tokyo Motor Show, is not the silent burst of acceleration it provides when your foot touches the pedal, or the fact that it emits nothing but water vapor from the tailpipe. It’s not even that the Clarity can go more than 400 miles between three-minute hydrogen fillings - assuming you have access to a hydrogen station.

No, the most important thing is that Honda’s new fuel cell system is one-tenth the cost of previous versions and — for the first time — fits neatly under the car’s hood, taking up no more space than a typical V-6 engine. That means two things: 1) there’s more space for passengers and cargo, and 2) the compact fuel cell power train can be used in a variety of other Honda vehicles.

This really does feel like a real leap forward in the shift toward fuel cell vehicles and a so-called “hydrogen society.”

Of course, getting the hydrogen remains a sticking point. In California and the Northeast, companies like First Element and Air Liquide are installing hydrogen stations with support from government grants as well as loans from Toyota and Honda, but the rollout to date has been slow.

Honda might have a solution, though: it’s developing a compact Smart Hydrogen Station, enabling you to use high-pressure electrolysis to produce your own hydrogen at home. There’s no word on when that might be available, but if it’s affordable, it could be a huge breakthrough in speeding the adoption of fuel cell vehicles.

The Clarity goes on sale next spring (about six months behind Toyota Motor's ‘s recently introduced Mirai fuel cell) and the automaker expects to sell far more than the 72 units sold of its previous-generation fuel cell, the FCX Clarity. Honda said the same platform will also underpin a new plug-in hybrid vehicle, coming shortly after the fuel cell vehicle’s launch. Honda said it sees plug-in hybrids as an important bridge toward hydrogen-powered fuel cells.

Despite its compact size, the new fuel cell system gets a 30 percent increase in power, to 130 kilowatts, with a 700-kilometer (435 mile) range. It’s paired with a flat lithium-ion battery pack that fits under the front seats. There are two hydrogen tanks: a large one that fits behind the rear bulkhead, with a smaller one under the rear seat. The larger tank clearly cuts into trunk space, but there’s still a decent amount of room for golf bags or luggage.

Virtually every automaker is working on fuel cell vehicles; it’ll be interesting to see how they develop. Just as with hybrid vehicles a generation ago, it’s Honda and Toyota leading the way.

Full > http://tinyurl.com/jjkcq4p

Cricket Explained

Cricket is a ball game played by two teams with 11 players on each side. In a way, cricket is similar to baseball – one man throws a ball at the batsman who tries to hit it as far as possible while other players in the field try to catch the ball or stop it from going out of the field, and prevent the batsman from scoring runs. However, it is more elaborate and of longer duration than its American counterpart. Various versions of the game have evolved over the years. I will attempt to explain the game as simply as possible so as to enable the uninitiated to strike a conversation on cricket.

Cricket is a religion in India. No other sport generates such mass hysteria and madness in the country. It unites strangers and makes friends out of enemies. Streets empty out whenever India plays against a formidable opponent, especially Pakistan. It is no wonder that cricket is considered the unofficial national game of India (the official national game being field hockey).

The roots of cricket date back to the 16th century. However, the modern version of the game dates back to 1844. Today, most Commonwealth nations play professional cricket.

I will take you through the game by explaining the rules, the various formats of the game, key nations and the best international players. I hope you will enjoy this series and pick up enough knowledge to talk your way through a casual conversation on the game.

As explained above, cricket is by far the most popular sport in India and has evolved over the years: first there was only the five-day game, then came the one-day game and today there is also a three-hour game (known as “20:20”). All the formats are still in vogue in India and various tournaments are held in each format – both national and international.

Cricket is played in open fields or stadiums on a “pitch” – a rectangular ground 20.12m (22 yards) long and 3.05m wide.

It is bound at either end by the “bowling creases” and on each end are the “wickets” which are three sticks or “stumps” with two “bails” balanced on top. The aim of the batsmen is to defend the wickets and make as many “runs” between the wickets as possible; while the bowler aims to get the batsmen “out” by hitting the wicket and knocking the wooden bails balanced on top. On getting out, the batsman has to return to the pavilion and the next batsman replaces him. There are other ways of getting the batsman out: through a “catch” where a fielder or the “wicket-keeper” catches the ball while it is still in the air after being hit by the batsman, being “run-out” where the batsmen “runs” after hitting the ball (similar to baseball) and is not able to reach the “return crease” before a fielder (or the bowler), hits the wicket at either end with the ball, “LBW” (Leg Before Wicket) where the ball hits the batsman’s leg, which is blocking the wicket, “Stumped” where the wicket-keeper knocks the bails off the stumps after catching a ball that passes by the batsman without touching either the bat or the wicket while the batsman is still outside the “batting crease”, “Hit-wicket” where the batsman accidentally hits the wickets with his bat or accidentally trips and falls on the wickets.

There are two key scores in cricket; the number of runs that have been made; and the number of batsmen that have got out. The batsmen tries to get as many “runs” as possible for his team while the other team bowls. Runs can be scored by running between the wickets after hitting the ball or by hitting the ball hard enough to make it go out of the ground either touching the ground (4 runs, also known as a “boundary”) or flying out without touching the ground (6 runs, called a Sixer). The higher scoring team wins the match.

Now, we’ll talk of the oldest and the longest version of the game – the five day format popularly known as “Test Cricket”. Test Cricket usually lasts for five days with each team batting and bowling twice; at the end of which, the game can still end in a “draw” with no team winning!

Test cricket is played in “innings” during which one team attempts to score while the other team attempts to prevent the first from scoring. The competing teams alternate who is “in bat” and who is bowling. The exception to this rule is a “follow-on”. This happens if, at the end of its first innings, Team B’s total falls short of Team A’s first innings’ total by at least 200 runs, the captain of Team A can choose to order Team B to stay in bat. If he does so, Team B must commence its second batting innings immediately (i.e. following on from their last batting). Each innings lasts until all the batsmen are dismissed or until the batting team “declares” the innings over after having established a big “score” of runs.

After having explained about Test Cricket, I will explain about the faster and shorter format of the game – the One Day International Cricket (ODI). In an ODI, 50 “overs” (a set of six consecutive balls bowled in succession) are played per side between two national cricket teams.

The basic rules of cricket are followed. The Captain of the team winning the “toss” chooses to either “bat” or “bowl” (field) first. The team batting first sets the target score in 50 overs.

The innings lasts until the batting side is “all out” (i.e., 10 of the 11 batting players are “out”) or all of the first side’s allotted overs are used up. The team batting second tries to score more than the target score in order to win the match. Similarly, the side bowling second tries to bowl out the second team for less than the target score in order to win. The game is declared as a “tie” (regardless of the number of wickets lost by either team) if the number of runs scored by both teams are equal, when the second team loses all of its “wickets” (batsmen getting out) or exhausts all its overs.

ODIs were introduced in the 1970s and gained popularity because the game gets over within about 8 hours and is always action packed unlike a Test Match which can get boring at times. It is also played as a “day – night” game with one innings being played during the day and the other stretching into the night and being played in flood lights.

The popularity of One Day International Cricket (ODI) cricket  soared through the late 1980s & 1990s and peaked in the last decade. However, the latest version of the game –  Twenty20 or T20 is already beginning to dwarf the popularity of the ODIs.

The rules of cricket remain the same. The major difference is that instead of 50 overs per inning, there are only 20 overs per inning. The popularity of the game lies in its short playing hours – 75 minutes for each side. In about three hours, the result is out. This keeps the tempo of the game throughout in top gear. Formally introduced in 2003, T20 has come a long way with even a World Cup of its own.

Though India made its International T20 debut only as recently as in 2006, the game has already broken all records of popularity with the introduction of the Indian Premier League (on the lines of the English Premier League) which has taken the game to the next level of entertainment.

Erica, the 'most beautiful and intelligent' android.

*Too weird and believe I can say where this is going.

Erica enjoys the theatre and animated films, would like to visit south-east Asia, and believes her ideal partner is a man with whom she can chat easily.

She is less forthcoming, however, when asked her age. “That’s a slightly rude question … I’d rather not say,” comes the answer. As her embarrassed questioner shifts sideways and struggles to put the conversation on a friendlier footing, Erica turns her head, her eyes following his every move.

It is all rather disconcerting, but if Japan’s new generation of intelligent robots are ever going to rival humans as conversation partners, perhaps that is as it should be.

Erica, who, it turns out, is 23, is the most advanced humanoid to have come out of a collaborative effort between Osaka and Kyoto universities, and the Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International (ATR).

At its heart is the group’s leader, Hiroshi Ishiguro, a professor at Osaka University’s Intelligent Robotics Laboratory, perhaps best known for creating Geminoid HI-1, an android in his likeness, right down to his trademark black leather jacket and a Beatles mop-top made with his own hair.

Erica, however, looks and sounds far more realistic than Ishiguro’s silicone doppelganger, or his previous human-like robot, Geminoid F. Though she is unable to walk independently, she possesses improved speech and an ability to understand and respond to questions, her every utterance accompanied by uncannily humanlike changes in her facial expression.

Erica, Ishiguro insists, is the “most beautiful and intelligent” android in the world. “The principle of beauty is captured in the average face, so I used images of 30 beautiful women, mixed up their features and used the average for each to design the nose, eyes, and so on,” he says, pacing up and down his office at ATR’s robotics laboratory. “That means she should appeal to everyone.”

She is a more advanced version of Geminoid F, another Ishiguro creation which this year appeared in Sayonara, director Koji Fukada’s cinematic adaptation of a stage production of the same name.

The movie, set in rural Japan in the aftermath of a nuclear disaster, made Geminoid F the world’s first humanoid film actor, co-starring opposite Bryerly Long. While robots in films are almost as old as cinema itself, Erica did not rely on human actors – think C-3PO – or the motion-capture technology behind, for example, Sonny from I, Robot.

Although the day when every household has its own Erica is some way off, the Japanese have demonstrated a formidable acceptance of robots in their everyday lives over the past year.

From April, two branches of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group started employing androids to deal with customer enquiries. Pepper, a humanoid home robot, went on sale to individual consumers in June, with each shipment selling out in under a minute.

This year also saw the return to Earth of Kirobo, a companion robot, from a stay on the International Space Station, during which it became the first robot to hold a conversation with a human in space.

And this summer, a hotel staffed almost entirely by robots – including the receptionists, concierges and cloakroom staff – opened at the Huis Ten Bosch theme park near Nagasaki, albeit with human colleagues on hand to deal with any teething problems.

But increasing daily interaction with robots has also thrown up ethical questions that have yet to be satisfactorily answered. SoftBank, the company behind Pepper, saw fit to include a clause in its user agreement stating that owners must not perform sexual acts or engage in “other indecent behaviour” with the android.

Ishiguro believes warnings of a dystopian future in which robots are exploited – or themselves become theabusers – are premature. “I don’t think there’s an ethical problem,” he says. “First we have to accept that robots are a part of our society and then develop a market for them. If we don’t manage to do that, then there will be no point in having a conversation about ethics.”

Nomura Research Institute offered a glimpse into the future with a recent report in which it predicted that nearly half of all jobs in Japan could be performed by robots by 2035.

“I think Nomura is on to something,” says Ishiguro. “The Japanese population is expected to fall dramatically over the coming decades, yet people will still expect to enjoy the same standard of living.” That, he believes, is where robots can step in.

In Erica, he senses an opportunity to challenge the common perception of robots as irrevocably alien. As a two-week experiment with android shop assistants at an Osaka department store suggested, people may soon come to trust them more than they do human beings.

Full Article > http://tinyurl.com/jzj2h2o

Reliability Concerns Regarding Probation Drug Screens

The NC Department of Public Safety (DPS) has begun relying on less accurate presumptive testing for urine screens for drugs for probation, prison, and DSS cases. The focus of this post will be probation cases, though the testing is the same for prison and DSS cases.

Testing Prior to 2014

Until February 2014, the Department of Public Safety maintained two laboratories with trained staff and EMIT analyzers (an immunoassay test) to run either initial testing or additional testing on urine that gave a positive result on an screening test. These labs tested approximately 125,000 samples per year. The North Carolina State Crime Lab uses similar equipment to the former DPS labs for presumptive toxicology testing.

Current Drug Testing Procedures

The DPS labs were closed in early 2014. On-site urine drug screening is now performed by probation officers using a presumptive test kit similar to the type of urine dip test that can be purchased over the counter at many stores. Currently, additional testing is completed by Norchem, a private lab in Arizona, only when the test subject immediately denies use of a controlled substance. If the test subject admits use, the urine specimen is discarded and a positive result is reported (See NC DPS Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice – Community Corrections – Policy & Procedures – Chapter H – Section .0400 Substance Abuse Screening Program, available athttps://www.ncdps.gov/div/CC/Publications/Policy.pdf, p. 367, subsection (i)). Because the urine sample is discarded, if the test subject later denies use, the sample cannot be re-tested using more reliable methods.

Reditest and the Need for Confirmatory Testing

The Reditest Panel Dip Test (“Reditest”) is the on-site screening test currently used by probation officers. The Reditest is one of many presumptive test kits which are intended to screen for drugs in urine. The Reditest package insert which describes how to use the product states in its “Limitations” section that the test “provides only a preliminary analytical test result. A secondary analytical method must be used to obtain a confirmed result.” The instruction card for a similar product can be found here. The instructions note that gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is the “preferred confirmatory method.”

Reditest and Lack of Validation and On-Site Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Reditest recommends but does not provide “positive and negative controls to be tested as good laboratory practice to confirm the test procedure and to verify proper test performance.” Reditest kits are not being validated by the end user in North Carolina. If batches of test kits are not validated, there is no check on the accuracy of kits being used in the state. Immunoassay testing performed by the DPS labs prior to 2014 revealed that on several occasions the on-site test kits shipped to probation and other offices did not work as expected and yielded either inaccurate or uninterpretable results.

To administer the Reditest, a provider dips a portion of the card in a urine sample for 15 seconds. Five minutes later the results can be obtained. The card should have a control line appear in each testing area. If any line appears in the testing section (no matter how faint), the results are negative for that screen. If a line does not appear in the testing section, the manufacturer’s website explains how to send the sample to a laboratory for confirmatory testing. Administration of these presumptive tests by probation officers instead of individuals with scientific training further complicates the potential for incorrect results.

False Positives with Reditest

Included on the package insert are a subset of clinical studies which demonstrate the preliminary nature of the test. Agreement with GCMS, a more accurate confirmatory test, ranged from 89%-99%. The numbers demonstrate the possibility for false positives. In tests such as these, a false positive is typically caused by a legal substance which the kit confuses with an illicit drug. Most commonly this involves over-the-counter medications. For example, some kits will register pseudoephedrine as methamphetamine. The FDA also notes that results from these types of tests can be affected by how the test was performed, how the urine was stored, what the person ate or drank before taking the test, and any other medications the person may have taken.

Admissibility of Screening Test Results

In State v. Carter, 765 S.E.2d 56 (N.C. App. 2014), the N.C. Court of Appeals held that field drug test kits, which are presumptive tests, are inadmissible due to their lack of reliability. The Court noted that for testing of controlled substances to be admissible, it “must be based on a scientifically valid chemical analysis[.]” To establish that a test is admissible, the party must present evidence that the test methods are sufficiently reliable. Results of these initial tests without confirmatory testing should not be admissible and should not be sufficient for the basis of revocation of probation.

Screening Tests and Workplace Testing

Use of the Reditest would not meet federal guidelines for workplace testing. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2015 Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing requires that an initial drug test be an immunoassay or alternate technology, such as spectrometry or spectroscopy. (Section 11.9, Available athttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/05/15/2015-11523/mandatory-guidelines-for-federal-workplace-drug-testing-programs#p-426) An HHS-certified laboratory must validate an initial drug test before testing specimens. (Section 11.9) Initial test results must be confirmed by an analytical method that uses mass spectrometric identification. Such methods include gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS), GC/MS/MS, LC/MS/MS] or equivalent. (Section 11.12) Only specimens that yield a positive result on initial and confirmatory tests are reported as positive results. (Section 11.17)

In North Carolina, the testing used to allege a probation violation, revoke probation or remove a child from a parent’s custody would not qualify as even an initial test in the federal employment context.

Share this:

• Twitter
• Facebook
• More

Related

Thousands of cases compromised due to faulty forensic analysisIn "Crime Labs"

Forensic Tests for Saliva: What you should knowIn "Bodily Fluids"

False Positives in Drug Field Testing KitsIn "Drug Analysis/Toxicology"

3 Comments

Filed under Drug Analysis/Toxicology, Uncategorized

How many homeless people are there in America?

MANY city dwellers do their best not to see the homeless people who share their streets and pavements. Donald Trump once famously insisted that his security guards clear all tramps and panhandlers from the pavement in front of Trump Tower. Even when the homeless aren’t being chased away, they can seem invisible. In 2014, the New York City Rescue Mission, a shelter, conducted a social experiment, Make Them Visible, in which they filmed participants walking past relatives disguised as homeless people. None of the participants noticed their relations sitting on the street. “We don’t look at them. We don’t take a second look,” said Michelle Tolson, then director of public relations for the organisation, at the time.

Every two years, however, American cities make a huge effort to take note of their homeless populations as part of the federally mandated “point-in-time” survey. Volunteers and shelter workers search pavements, parks, and tunnels to count how many of their city’s residents are living without shelter on a given night. The data is combined with a tally of shelter beds to gauge the success of the previous year’s service efforts and to estimate how many people will need shelter in the coming year. In 2014 , 1.49 million people used homeless shelters and 578,424 were recorded as being without shelter: sleeping on the streets, in tents, in cars, and other exposed places. Cities completed the 2016 point-in-time count in January.

The count is a critical supplement to shelter programmes' year-long tallies, which only record the number of people actively seeking help. It also helps fill out nationwide data and federal reports to provide a more complete picture of homelessness in America. The Department of Housing and Urban Development uses this information to determine funding for cities and to design programs and initiatives, such as Barack Obama’s proposal to spend $11 billion helping homeless families.

But the count is a flawed measure. Counting on one night of the year, every two years, is likely to have its limits. For example, the count is made in January, when icy weather makes an accurate tally of the homeless especially difficult. Many people seek temporary shelter with friends or family, or take refuge in hidden locations that volunteers don’t find. Walking a city, counting heads seems a rather crude, old-fashioned method of collecting data. But a better approach has yet to be found. The result is that the homeless remain, to some extent, invisible even in data and census records that seek to make them visible.

If homeless people are not seen, it is difficult to tackle the problems they face. As Giselle Routhier, policy director for the Coalition for the Homeless in New York, explains, “If you don’t have an accurate read of the problem, you can’t accurately identify solutions.”

Correction: the original version of this article suggested that Michelle Tolson is still director of the New York City Mission. She has left the organisation.

Full > http://preview.tinyurl.com/zomwhhj

Google & MIT Self-Driving Car Project

Imagine if everyone could get around easily and safely, regardless of their ability to drive.

Aging or visually impaired loved ones wouldn't have to give up their independence. Time spent commuting could be time spent doing what you want to do. Deaths from traffic accidents—over 1.2 million worldwide every year—could be reduced dramatically, especially since 94% of accidents in the U.S. involve human error.

Our self-driving cars are designed to navigate safely through city streets.

They have sensors designed to detect objects as far as two football fields away in all directions, including pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles—or even fluttering plastic shopping bags and rogue birds. The software processes all the information to help the car safely navigate the road without getting tired or distracted.

Full > https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/

Vox Technology View

We've only begun to think through how self-driving cars could one day reshape our roads, cities, and lives — for better and for worse.

They might, for example, make traffic lights obsolete. Which... is actually a bit unsettling.

In the video above, researchers at MIT’s Senseable City Lab demonstrate how streets full of autonomous vehicles wouldn't necessarily need stoplights. If the cars were all communicating with each other, they could simply slow down a bit and "slot" their way through intersections at steady speeds without ever causing a collision.

The model for "slot-based intersections" is described in this recent paper in PLOS One.The researchers found that reducing reliance on stoplights would greatly cut down on delays and congestion. No more waiting for the light to turn green. Cars would lower their speed to fit into a "slot" and then breeze right through the intersection without stopping. Sounds wonderfully efficient, right?

Except this also raises some difficult urban-planning questions. Slot-based intersections obviously don't work for places where pedestrians need to cross. Or for bicycles. So what do you do there? More broadly, accommodating people who walk or bike is going to be a major challenge for autonomous vehicles (AEVs). There's a real risk that in an AEV-centric future, roads could end up catering far more to cars than they do today — pushing everyone else out.

Granted, this technology is still a long, long ways off, as Kevin Hartnett nicely points outin the Boston Globe. Cars will first need to be able to communicate not just with each other but likely with a central traffic controller. And roads would have to be filled entirely with autonomous vehicles — if you had even one human driver, that could muck up the flow. A stoplight-free future is decades away, maybe more.

Even so, it's a good example of how radically self-driving cars could remake our transportation systems, in positive and not-so-positive ways. As my colleague David Roberts says, it's wrong to imagine that AEVs will simply replace conventional vehicles on the road in a 1-1 fashion and all else will stay equal. All else won't stay equal. Massive systemic changes are likely to emerge from a future filled with AEVs — changes that are very difficult to predict in advance. It's much like how the advent of the internet didn't simply replace the postal service.

The end of stoplights is one example of a possible systemic change with far-reaching implications. No doubt there will be many more.

Full > http://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11324690/self-driving-cars-intersections