The gold would be moved by cash-in-transit trucks which have relatively modest payload capacities of 5000-9000lbs today, a bit less in the 60s. 3 tons per truck is probably on the high end.
Was that the case in the 60s as well? I know trucks of that era had much lower capacity than today, even when comparing across class like "half-ton" trucks.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 set the gross vehicle weight limit for trucks at 73,280lbs. I imagine trucks of the day probably at least came close to that limit?
Yes I understand, that's why I was asking about box trucks of the day. I'll dig into it myself as I am curious now, I've only ever really looked into cab-over bread trucks from that era and those aren't a great comparison either. I was just curious if the GP already knew what 60s era box trucks would have been rated for.
That was indeed a pain point, but not anymore after CSS flex layout became available some 10 years ago. It's not worse than WPF for sure. It's even better than WPF because you have access to tons of UI components and toolkits that work everywhere.
I think you're comparing hand-writing an HTML/CSS interface to the WYSIWYG form editor of Qt or Visual Studio? Because hand writing a GUI in Qt/QML/C++/.NET is not any easier than writing it in HTML. There are tons of boilerplate and special markup to learn. The magical editor just hides all the plumbing from you.
I'll grant you that the lack of good WYSIWYG designers for working on web/electron apps is appalling, it's like RAD peaked in 1998 with VB6 and it's been downhill ever since.
I know you can wire transformers in series, but doesn’t that just change the voltage? As far as I understand it, if you have a 75kva 7.2kV -> 480V wired in series with a 75 kva 480V -> 208V transformer, you still only have 75 kva at the secondary of the second transformer.
Could you parallel two (or more) sets of three single-phase transformers into a single circuit on the secondary side assuming they were all identical and the conductors are all the same length? I assume it’s more economical to just have one three-phase transformer for instrumentation/control and switching reasons, just wondering on a theoretical level.
Not an EE, but if transformers are at all like smaller scale power supplies, the issue with using multiple smaller components is it works right up until it doesn't. If you lose one or it gets overloaded, it puts more strain the rest, increasing the failure risk. Then another one pops, and the load shifts to the smaller pool, in a cascade failure.
To an extent, you can do this, as long as you have systems in place to shed load and prevent the components from failing in quick succession by circuit breaking.
Also i believe transformers are much more graceful handling overcurrent than silicon. But everything has its limits.
Since kva literally just means ‘kilovoltamps’ and is calculated by multiplying volts * amps, and transformers convert step up and down voltages while keeping amperage roughly the same (to the first order approximation), then yes. Minus losses.
And yes, you could parallel sets of even series transformers together. It will work fine, until something happens and then it doesn’t (or explodes). Making that not happen is relatively non trivial and is a lot of why keeping a working power grid working is non trivial and a lot of work.
At larger scales, when this goes wrong it can cause grid blackouts. Smaller scales, fires.
Since a single transformer rated for the load it will carry is pretty simple and ‘just works’ in almost all scenarios, it’s more economical just using a single one when you can.
No sane way to do that with two different power plants on opposite sides of the state, of course.
Why can’t we mass manufacture aircraft carriers by making a lot of small boats and joining them up?
It’s the same kind of problem.
(And notably, it’s not that it’s actually completely impossible to do it that way - just impractical compared to the alternative. You could actually make something that kind of sorta worked for an aircraft carrier by joining tens of thousands of small pontoons and support ships. Operationally, it would just suck compared to the alternative.)
> You could actually make something that kind of sorta worked for an aircraft carrier by joining tens of thousands of small pontoons and support ships.
In fiction: "Tom Swift and his Ocean Airport" (1934) [1]
In reality, a floating pontoon airport, with over 10,000 pontoons, was built during WWII, as "Project Sock".[2] It worked OK in a protected bay. Once large planes could cross the Atlantic, and small carriers with small planes were built for convoy protection, there was no military need. Floating airports have been tried a few times since, but it's never been worth the trouble.
Prefabricated pontoons were a big thing in WWII. Used for bridges, barges, docks, etc.
Useful when you really need a temporary structure in a hurry, and aren't too concerned about
its long term lifespan.
Putting multiple transformers in series is quite possible, but
it's rarely done because it's less efficient than a larger transformer and takes up more space.
Ah, invasive extra paperwork (enforced by criminal penalties, at least in theory) for something they say on the surface they won’t actually need. So very german (hah)
In the United States, adult males have to sign up for the Selective Service for the same reason even though we haven't had conscription since the Vietnam War in the late 1970s(?).
I don't know how it worked for anyone else, but I remember the selective service PSA ads when I was growing up -- (that's a manual emdash) If you don't sign up for selective service when you turn 18, you'll be celebrating your birthday at pound-me-in-the-ass federal prison. Or maybe you couldn't get a welfare check, college loan, or federal job. The details are a bit fuzzy.
Then a month or two before my 18th birthday, I got a postcard saying I had been auto-registered. It was a rather disappointing denouement.
Can someone explain to me how the Selective Service is constitutional? I know Congress "shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union", but that's only a call, not a legal requirement for anyone to answer the call. The argument seems untenable to me. Not to mention that it's a gross violation of individual freedom, and that if you can't get people to fight for their country then maybe there's something wrong with the country.
It’s the same reason there is a different legal system in the military than for everyone else.
Sometimes, you need to round up all the men and start killing folks - or everyone else dies. Such is life. Making it easy to find them is a basic operational best practice.
Under U.S. federal law, men ages 18–25 must register with the Selective Service System to be eligible for most federal jobs. Federal agencies enforce this under hiring rules in 5 U.S.C. § 3328.
The wording is a bit strange - technically all men (18-25) must register. When I tried to register, I was told I couldn't because I was already registered.
The Selective Service auto-registers people from various data sources.
But this puts me in a weird spot: I've never actually registered. I am registered. But I did not register - which is the requirement.
There are Kafka-esque parts of the US government where this distinction could matter.
Informally, it's put forward as one of the most successful government programs in history: it succeeds at all it's objective, comes in at or under budget, employs few people, and avoids the scope creep that kills other successful programs.
It's only shortcoming: it doesn't actually do anything.
Nobody wants to be the guy who got the nation caught with its pants down if conscription needs to come back in a hurry. The same reason the military budget always ratchets upwards.
Measured as a percentage of GDP (which I'd say is the most sensible way to measure it) the US's current military budget is lower than at any point since WWII aside from a few years between the end of the Cold War and 9/11.
Struggling to see the relevance, but, thank you for teaching me this:
The U.S. Army is the permanent, professional standing land force (Regular Army, Reserves, National Guard),
while the Army of the United States (AUS) was a temporary, authorized component used primarily during major wars to rapidly expand forces through draftees and volunteers.
It is not like they had a choice. The article is about
1939, the events were well progressed then. Only very few were able to hide themselves and stay hidden for years.
Not sure what point you are trying to make. Does that justify the law and its consequences? Does that mean people who did not register were doing something wrong or stupid?
I thought it was those pesky Poles refusing to provide a German land corridor to enable intra-territorial transit between Germany and Germany’s exclave East Prussia. That and ethnic Germans allegedly being harassed in Poland.
First one is definitely true and isn’t emphasized much and tbh I feel like that demand wasn’t unreasonable. Shipping people and things and providing defense would be a lot harder to an exclave than to contiguous territory. They did seriously overreact by invading, of course, and it seems like Mr H had some serious temperamental issues.
Second one I’ve never researched enough to know if it’s true or German propaganda.
I don’t recall the Germans ever claiming that Poland was about to invade them? Maybe I missed it.
reply