Electric car drives for 100 hours non-stop. MAGAs panties getting moist.


Wow! Lotsa good stuff there Floridafan. Sounds like the automotive manufacturers are committed to EV and battery technology.
It's an exciting time, for engineers especially.

ItN better not read those links or he'll get all butthurt when he sees how wrong he is.

I loved this quote:

Many EVs were previously created from the platforms of internal-combustion cars—and some still are—but the adoption of cell-to-chassis designs will make those older platforms hopelessly outclassed. According to Frost at Sprint Power, “the commitment by most [manufacturers] to an EV-only future in conjunction with more integrated designs, such as cell-to-chassis, will lead to significant improvements in the overall design and performance of EVs.”
 
Wow! Lotsa good stuff there Floridafan. Sounds like the automotive manufacturers are committed to EV and battery technology.
It's an exciting time, for engineers especially.

ItN better not read those links or he'll get all butthurt when he sees how wrong he is.

I loved this quote:

Many EVs were previously created from the platforms of internal-combustion cars—and some still are—but the adoption of cell-to-chassis designs will make those older platforms hopelessly outclassed. According to Frost at Sprint Power, “the commitment by most [manufacturers] to an EV-only future in conjunction with more integrated designs, such as cell-to-chassis, will lead to significant improvements in the overall design and performance of EVs.”

As I pointed out, and you ignored, the problems outweigh the benefits, and 90% of what was in those articles is either unachievable or decades from reality. For example, there is no way in hell gold nanofilaments are going to get used in car batteries. The cost alone would be prohibitive. It's obvious you read those articles uncritically then came yourself with excitement because you had no idea what you were reading about from a technical standpoint.
 
WTF are you talking about? Republiclowns cry about EVERY SINGLE improvement or advancement in technology. Making ICE vehicles more efficient, so they burn less gas and cause less pollution is enough to outrage them.

So, you are lying since you haven't answered my question? You think the left is responsible for EVERY SINGLE improvement or advancement in technology? Lol!
 
He always was. He thinks a magick Holy Gas can somehow warm the Earth too, ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
He can't explain where the additional energy is coming from that is required in order for Earth's temperature to increase. He can't explain how Earth's radiance can be decreasing while Earth's temperature can be increasing (IOW, how the left side of a math equation can result in a smaller total than the right side of it).
 
No, the above is called "wishful thinking." In all three articles the authors discuss a series of 'what ifs' and possibilities being tossed about by engineers and scientists.

In the first article, it discusses ways to reduce battery weight by building the battery into the structure of the vehicle. The problem with that is the battery can no longer be swapped out when it inevitably dies. That means the vehicle becomes a one-shot deal and at the end of its battery life an unrecyclable mess. The article at its end even grudgingly admits these problems.

The next article is a series of what if's about possible future battery design that may or may not become reality any time soon, and possibly never. For example they mention nanotechnology and carbon nanotubes. While these exist experimentally, they are decades from being a reality that can be mass produced. Then it mentions recharging the battery via Wi Fi. That is a no go. Simple as that. Maxwell's well proven equations show that over air transmission of electrical charge drops as an exponential of range. This is why radio signals transmit at thousands of watts or more to be received at milliwatt or even microwatt levels miles away.

It's just a series of maybes and wishful thinking.

The last one is the same thing. Charge time is still a function of total energy to be transferred to the battery. If you need 100 KW in charge, and it takes 10 minutes, you have to push 10 KW per minute into the battery. It's that simple. Since power is a function of voltage x amperage, either you raise the voltage (which you really can't on the delivery to the battery even if you can do in on the line side of the charging station) or you raise the amperage. Since amperage determines the size of the conductor, more amperage equals a bigger conductor.
For a 90 VDC system delivering 10 KW per minute you need a #4 AWG conductor pair minimum. Weight and size become a problem here.

Your articles are better summarized as "Wishful thinking" than progress.


Which is the problem with Conservatards as what you call 'wishful thinking' to fight progress is the way it almost ALWAYS WORKS.

In the early days of building Roads to crisscross the country it was all based on 'wishful thinking'. Projections on adoption. Projections on economic impact. You as a conservatard scream 'DO NOT build roads, it is not proven'.

In the early days of the Internet, and massive costs of laying all that copper, it was based on 'wishful thinking', that if they provide it, people will pay for it and adopt it. You as a conservatard scream 'DO NOT build out the Internet, it is not proven'.


Do you understand why society needs to ignore all Conservatards who like Marjorie Greene or Boebert or yourself, simply would DENY and STOP all progress that is not already proven which by virtue of almost all big project or new technology is ALWAYS based largely on what you call 'wishful thinking'?

Can you imagine if conservatards like you had to be convinced that building any bridge was worth it based on the 'wishful thinking' of how many people would use it, and how the economic activity it would prompt would pay for it?


Conservatards are stupid and a scourge to progress and need to be pushed aside.
 
So, you are lying since you haven't answered my question? You think the left is responsible for EVERY SINGLE improvement or advancement in technology? Lol!
Not lying. Just not being stupid like you.

Sure some right leaning folks can make advancements too but they will still face the same attacks from others on the right who believe no advancement should be undertaken if it not already proven (see post above).

So while not everyone on the right might be that type of conservatard, almost all the people in the 'stop all advancement' camp are conservatards.

I can Venn diagram it for you if you need pictures.
 
Which is the problem with Conservatards as what you call 'wishful thinking' to fight progress is the way it almost ALWAYS WORKS.

In the early days of building Roads to crisscross the country it was all based on 'wishful thinking'. Projections on adoption. Projections on economic impact. You as a conservatard scream 'DO NOT build roads, it is not proven'.

In the early days of the Internet, and massive costs of laying all that copper, it was based on 'wishful thinking', that if they provide it, people will pay for it and adopt it. You as a conservatard scream 'DO NOT build out the Internet, it is not proven'.


Do you understand why society needs to ignore all Conservatards who like Marjorie Greene or Boebert or yourself, simply would DENY and STOP all progress that is not already proven which by virtue of almost all big project or new technology is ALWAYS based largely on what you call 'wishful thinking'?

Can you imagine if conservatards like you had to be convinced that building any bridge was worth it based on the 'wishful thinking' of how many people would use it, and how the economic activity it would prompt would pay for it?


Conservatards are stupid and a scourge to progress and need to be pushed aside.

Well, that's all nonsense and crap.

Before the automobile, roads made only limited sense as the primary means of transportation were horses and wagons. Railways made sense during that period because they could haul far larger loads and numbers of passengers. When automobiles showed up, roads started getting built, but you can't show that it was "Conservatives" that were opposed to them.

The early Internet relied on extant phone lines and twisted pair wire. It didn't require additional infrastructure for the most part. That came when the data load exploded with the Worldwide Web and browser technology. Even then, the infrastructure was simply a supplement to extant phone lines. Fiber optic is now replacing copper wire as the system expands. There was no "DO NOT build out the Internet..." on anyone's part.
In fact, the earliest vestiges of the Internet were to be found in military and university / research applications, not casual personal use. So, it was generally conservatives--the military--pushing hardest for it since even most of the academic applications were based on military research. I would put the earliest nationwide network that resembled something like the Internet to be the late 1950's to mid 60's SAGE and Missile Master systems of the USAF and US Army respectively. Of course, you know nothing about either (as you scramble to look those up on Wiki)...

Actually, it's usually the Left that is anti-technological progress. Leftists rarely are scientists and engineers in fields where practical applications are the primary thing. Look at things today. The Left is anti-nuclear even though that is the only way we can get to zero carbon without impoverishing the nation and even the planet. They are all for battery cars even though fuel cell technology makes far more sense and can easily be adapted to existing infrastructure. The Left are a bunch of technical retards who base their wants on magical thinking.
 
Wow! Lotsa good stuff there Floridafan.
...annnnnnd here comes the Pat on the Back Society.
Sounds like the automotive manufacturers are committed to EV and battery technology.
Is that why Ford announce a new V8 engine? Is that why Toyota said they are getting out of EVs?
It's an exciting time, for engineers especially.
So you consider fascism and communism via EV mandates an 'exciting time'.
ItN better not read those links or he'll get all butthurt when he sees how wrong he is.
Already read them. It's the same old BS.
I loved this quote:

Many EVs were previously created from the platforms of internal-combustion cars—and some still are—but the adoption of cell-to-chassis designs will make those older platforms hopelessly outclassed. According to Frost at Sprint Power, “the commitment by most [manufacturers] to an EV-only future in conjunction with more integrated designs, such as cell-to-chassis, will lead to significant improvements in the overall design and performance of EVs.”
Blatant lie, and it doesn't reduce the weight of the battery or the car.
 
As I pointed out, and you ignored, the problems outweigh the benefits, and 90% of what was in those articles is either unachievable or decades from reality. For example, there is no way in hell gold nanofilaments are going to get used in car batteries. The cost alone would be prohibitive. It's obvious you read those articles uncritically then came yourself with excitement because you had no idea what you were reading about from a technical standpoint.

I liked the 'gold nanofilaments' bit. That was hilariously bad.
 
Well, that's all nonsense and crap.

Before the automobile, roads made only limited sense as the primary means of transportation were horses and wagons. Railways made sense during that period because they could haul far larger loads and numbers of passengers. When automobiles showed up, roads started getting built, but you can't show that it was "Conservatives" that were opposed to them.....

Just explain to me how the idea of cars or trains before the first ones were built, were not based on 'wishful thinking"'


Meaning they hoped if they built it (roads, train tracks) that customers would actually use and pay for them?


Focus on just that aspect, and explain what FACTS they had before the first uses, that these things would be adopted and work?
 
Which is the problem with Conservatards as what you call 'wishful thinking' to fight progress is the way it almost ALWAYS WORKS.
No, it doesn't. EVs cannot succeed without mandates. Communism and fascism is not progress. You are ignoring the progress made with the gasoline engine, some of which I have already described for you.
In the early days of building Roads to crisscross the country it was all based on 'wishful thinking'.
No. It was based on usage patterns. Open lands became paths, paths became roads.
Projections on adoption. Projections on economic impact. You as a conservatard scream 'DO NOT build roads, it is not proven'.
It is proven.
In the early days of the Internet, and massive costs of laying all that copper,
No one laid copper for the Internet. The Internet is a family of protocols. I can travel over any medium...copper lines, fiber optics, radio, even smoke signals (if you don't mind the low bandwidth!).
it was based on 'wishful thinking', that if they provide it, people will pay for it and adopt it.
No. It was based on a government program. There are better protocols out there, but they were shoved aside for the internet.
You as a conservatard scream 'DO NOT build out the Internet, it is not proven'.
It does not need a proof. It exists simply because it is. Proof by identity.
Do you understand why society needs to ignore all Conservatards who like Marjorie Greene or Boebert or yourself, simply would DENY and STOP all progress that is not already proven which by virtue of almost all big project or new technology is ALWAYS based largely on what you call 'wishful thinking'?
You don't get to speak for all conservatives.

Apparently you think that only Democrats have ever invented anything. :rofl2:
Can you imagine if conservatards like you had to be convinced that building any bridge was worth it based on the 'wishful thinking' of how many people would use it, and how the economic activity it would prompt would pay for it?
Conservatives build bridges. Democrats try to stop it.
Conservatards are stupid and a scourge to progress and need to be pushed aside.
War mongering now? Just how do you intend to "push them aside"?
 
Not lying. Just not being stupid like you.

Sure some right leaning folks can make advancements too but they will still face the same attacks from others on the right who believe no advancement should be undertaken if it not already proven (see post above).

So while not everyone on the right might be that type of conservatard, almost all the people in the 'stop all advancement' camp are conservatards.

I can Venn diagram it for you if you need pictures.

So the right attacks itself and prevents the right from inventing anything...gotit. :rofl2:
 
Just explain to me how the idea of cars or trains before the first ones were built, were not based on 'wishful thinking"'

Okay, simple enough. Wagons and carriages existed long before automobiles and trains. Both the train and the car were based on them initially. For both the invention of the practical steam engine was sufficient for someone to think, Gee, if I put a steam engine on a carriage I won't need a horse...

Tom+Thumb+(1).jpg


Tracks weren't a necessity, but rather made it easier to more fully use the engine

Steam-Engine-1.jpg


It isn't rocket science. It isn't as if the inventor came up with the entire contraption on his own. Instead, it was built on existing technology used in innovative ways.


Meaning they hoped if they built it (roads, train tracks) that customers would actually use and pay for them?

And, they were correct, people would pay to use them.


Focus on just that aspect, and explain what FACTS they had before the first uses, that these things would be adopted and work?

The invention came first. It was then refined into a practical, working model--however simplistic and crude the early ones might be--and from there commercialized. It might take a number of tries at coming up with a practical invention before anything proceeds too. That's how things work.
 
Just explain to me how the idea of cars or trains before the first ones were built, were not based on 'wishful thinking"'
I am not going to write a book for you. You can go discover the history of inventions yourself.

Briefly, inventions happen because:
1) they will make the inventor a lot of money, fame, or both.
2) to protect yourself in time of war, including more effective means to quickly end war.
3) accident.
4) use of existing technology in another field
5) changing conditions.
Meaning they hoped if they built it (roads, train tracks) that customers would actually use and pay for them?
Roads just happen by themselves. Paths become roads.
Locomotives were originally built as an entertainment device. They were used to give rides as entertainment. Later, they were used to haul freight and passengers across country.
One line was built across the United States for exactly the reason that they planned on making profit on it. They did too, until the federal government shut them down.
All the other lines built across the Unite States were by the government. No way to run a railroad. They never did make a profit until private interests bought those lines.
Focus on just that aspect, and explain what FACTS they had before the first uses, that these things would be adopted and work?
Ah...there's that magick word again, "facts", as if it's some kind of Universal Truth or 'proof'.

I suggest you study the history of inventions and the history of engineering. It's quite enlightening, and it's full of fascinating stories about the people behind these inventions.

You seem to think that inventions only occur because of Democrats, or that they happen in a vacuum (which was first publicly demonstrated at a beer festival in Germany, created by the first vacuum pump, originally a fire extinguisher that had been modified).

You seem to think that steelworkers and foundry workers are all Democrats, or that anyone that ever built a car is a Democrat.
 
Okay, simple enough. Wagons and carriages existed long before automobiles and trains. Both the train and the car were based on them initially. For both the invention of the practical steam engine was sufficient for someone to think, Gee, if I put a steam engine on a carriage I won't need a horse...

Tom+Thumb+(1).jpg


It isn't rocket science. It isn't as if the inventor came up with the entire contraption on his own. Instead, it was built on existing technology used in innovative ways.




And, they were correct, people would pay to use them.


The invention came first. It was then refined into a practical, working model--however simplistic and crude the early ones might be--and from there commercialized. It might take a number of tries at coming up with a practical invention before anything proceeds too. That's how things work.

Exactly. Stationary steam engines had been around for quite some time, running factories and mines and even some home and farm equipment. It was not until someone stuck one on a mobile platform and gave a few tourists rides on the contraption that the locomotive started to come into it's own.
 
Okay, simple enough. Wagons and carriages existed long before automobiles and trains. Both the train and the car were based on them initially. For both the invention of the practical steam engine was sufficient for someone to think, Gee, if I put a steam engine on a carriage I won't need a horse...

Tom+Thumb+(1).jpg


Tracks weren't a necessity, but rather made it easier to more fully use the engine

Steam-Engine-1.jpg


It isn't rocket science. It isn't as if the inventor came up with the entire contraption on his own. Instead, it was built on existing technology used in innovative ways.




And, they were correct, people would pay to use them.




The invention came first. It was then refined into a practical, working model--however simplistic and crude the early ones might be--and from there commercialized. It might take a number of tries at coming up with a practical invention before anything proceeds too. That's how things work.

No i want DATA.

How did they know for FACT, these things would be adopted and not flop like other inventions and attempts in mass transit.

You are arguing that they were not just using their best guess that 'if they built it people would use it' so give me the hard data to prove it?

Same for a new bridge. PROVE to me that any new bridge being proposed will be used? Do not speculate, with your best guess, i want PROOF and DATA.
 
No i want DATA.

How did they know for FACT, these things would be adopted and not flop like other inventions and attempts in mass transit.

You are arguing that they were not just using their best guess that 'if they built it people would use it' so give me the hard data to prove it?

Same for a new bridge. PROVE to me that any new bridge being proposed will be used? Do not speculate, with your best guess, i want PROOF and DATA.

That's just moving the goal posts.

For example though,

Railways using wooden tracks, later iron, and the cars pulled by horses appeared as early as the end of the 16th century in Europe. The advantage to this was lowered rolling resistance of the wagon(s) being pulled. These persisted in limited use for the next roughly 200 years. At the end of the 18th century and into the beginning of the 19th century, a number of inventors in England, Scotland, France, the US, etc., all began to experiment with using steam engines to drive ships and land vehicles. For land vehicles, inventors saw replacing existing horse drawn carriages and trains, generally used in mining applications, with a steam engine. Others, like William Murdoch in Scotland did his experiments with models, possibly making him the first model railroader in history.

Many of these early steam engines for railroads were for limited application to existing railroads of very limited length, most often those associated with mining. This was a simple substitution and the mining companies and inventors both saw the practicality of using steam instead of horses within a mine.

By the 1820's to 30's, inventors and entrepreneurs in many countries were now aware of steam engines running on railroads. They saw potential in expanding this to passenger and freight service. Most of the early engines were simply modified copies of the earliest steam engines as these designs were available in publications at the time.

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/george-stephensons-first-steam-locomotive
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-first-locomotives/

This is the way most inventions go. There is no one inventor, but rather many who each move forward by watching what others are doing then making improvements in it. When it becomes practical enough to commercialize, they do so with their inventions becoming marketable.
 
That's just moving the goal posts.

For example though,

Railways using wooden tracks, later iron, and the cars pulled by horses appeared as early as the end of the 16th century in Europe. The advantage to this was lowered rolling resistance of the wagon(s) being pulled. These persisted in limited use for the next roughly 200 years. At the end of the 18th century and into the beginning of the 19th century, a number of inventors in England, Scotland, France, the US, etc., all began to experiment with using steam engines to drive ships and land vehicles. For land vehicles, inventors saw replacing existing horse drawn carriages and trains, generally used in mining applications, with a steam engine. Others, like William Murdoch in Scotland did his experiments with models, possibly making him the first model railroader in history.

Many of these early steam engines for railroads were for limited application to existing railroads of very limited length, most often those associated with mining. This was a simple substitution and the mining companies and inventors both saw the practicality of using steam instead of horses within a mine.

By the 1820's to 30's, inventors and entrepreneurs in many countries were now aware of steam engines running on railroads. They saw potential in expanding this to passenger and freight service. Most of the early engines were simply modified copies of the earliest steam engines as these designs were available in publications at the time.

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/george-stephensons-first-steam-locomotive
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-first-locomotives/

This is the way most inventions go. There is no one inventor, but rather many who each move forward by watching what others are doing then making improvements in it. When it becomes practical enough to commercialize, they do so with their inventions becoming marketable.

No you are just full of shit and flailing.

The FACT is before their were any railways, cars, etc there was ONLY 'wishful thinking'.

In EVERY SINGLE ONE of these advancements, since our primary mode of transportation went from being our feet, it was ONLY wishful thinking that drove them believe that if they built 'whatever', people would come and people would use it (wishful thinking).


Do you agree with that, and if not again what data would they have when these things were all just in blue print stage that they would be adopted and work?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top