Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
I like that word. That and alliteration.
Don`t like the Spanish word "leche" (milk).
It would also improve handling, performance and efficiency by quite a bit.
Shame it doesn`t exist. But it might at some point, maybe within a decade.
Although that still leaves all the other problems.
The grid could be upgraded enough, at a staggering cost.
Increasing generating capacity by enough would take more than just money.
Maybe it will be viable in decades to come.
The basic design is well known. It`s not like it`s a secret. So why isn`t everyone using it instead of other turbine designs? I think it`s because it`s worse than other turbine designs.
It`s an interesting turbine design but, as is usually the case with anything Tesla is connected with, a myriad implausible claims are made for it. It`s easy to build a small one, but far harder to scale it up to a commercial size. I think it`s worth noting that Tesla never managed to do so.
We can`t make enough batteries to meet the demand.
We can`t make enough electricty to meet the demand.
We can`t distribute enough electricity to meet the demand.
We can`t charge the cars fast enough to make it viable except for overnight charge in a garage. Many people don`t have a garage.
That`s not just a matter of the batteries being able to charge fast enough. It`s also a matter of supplying the charge. If, for example, you want to charge 50KWh in 5 minutes (i.e. as a reasonable fuel station stop), you need to supply 600KW to the car and even that`s with 100% efficiency. Can`t be done.
UK prices, feel free to do the same for your own country.
If anyone disagrees about the tax...do you really think the government would stop all that tax income? Of course not.
2010 Elise S 37.2 mpgSC 28 mpg
Petrol 111.89 per litreTax 72.85pActual price = 39.04p
UK gallon = 4.55 litres
UK gallon actual price 177.63
UK cost per mile:
Elise S 4.78Elise SC 6.34
UK electricity cost ~10p per Kwh
Tesla 28Kwh per 100 miles.
UK cost per mile: 2.8p
But...the big cost is battery replacement. Tesla say you`ll get 100,000 miles of normal driving. They won`t give a price, because they know it`s bad news. £10,000 is a reasonable estimate. So that adds 10p per mile, making it double the running cost of an Elise SC and not far off triple that of the Elise S, both of which are much better cars at half the
Yeah! And the warp drive, and anti-gravity, and the computer, and the portals gun, and the stargate, and the time machine, and parallel universes, and the laser, and the tractor beam, and the atom bomb, and R2D2! WHY doesn`t he get credit for any of this? Why oh why were all of his secret inventions suppressed by the government ?
I wondered who would mention Tesla the Magic Man, inventor of 90% of supertechnology.
I`m idly curious as to whether any of the stuff attributed to him actually existed. I`m also idly curious as to whether or not he was a StarFleet engineer from Star Trek. That would explain a lot.
It`s amusing in a way. Like "Loose Change". Neither should be taken seriously.
Electric cars don`t work all that well, aren`t particularly green, aren`t particularly cheap to run when all costs are taken into account (e.g. battery replacements), can`t be produced in sufficient quantity and couldn`t be supported by current generation and distribution if they could.
All that was even more true in the period covered by "Who killed the electric car?"
No-one killed it. It`s just not good enough.
To make it viable, we`d need radical advances in technology. Either in batteries, generation and distribution or in fuel cells and hydrogen production and distribution. Or both. We`re not even close yet.
It`s also irrelevant.
Say I have invented an engine that uses no fuel and has no emissions and can be built for about as much as an ICE. Impossible, but for the sake of argument assume it was real.
Option 1: I approach a major transnational company with it. Tens of millions for a production facility will be buttons to them. They could sell a billion of these engines as fast as they could build them and make trillions in profit. You think they`ll say "no"? Really?
Option 2: I start my own company. If it works, it will sell and it will get publicity.
Option 3: I release full details and plans to the public domain as a service to humanity. Even if only a thousand people build one, everyone will know in weeks.
If it existed, it would be impossible for oil companies to bury.
People have been selling magic stuff that doesn`t work for at least as far back as the beginning of recorded history. There are always suckers eager to buy it, even today when people should know better. There are still people getting funding for perpetual motion machines. Seriously. They don`t work, of course, but suckers give the "inventors" money.
I`m not saying it`s always a con. Sometimes the people selling it are deluded.
There may well be some radical new technology invented at some point, either utilising a previously unknown reaction or making use of something in a way no-one has considered before. There`s a very important difference between that and all the delusions and cons - it can be proved to work.
For example, a research team is developing a battery with 10 times the charge to weight ratio of Li-ion batteries. Very radical. The key factor is that they have demonstrated a working prototype.
That would be a Robin Reliant
seriously IAB forumers.... grow tf up.
I`m just piggybacking off Ollie`s comment.
That makes more sense in this case.
Just wanted to point that out within the oil debate...
I`m sorry, is this real? Is this guy claiming to have a car powered by antimatter?
He`s a fraud.
Which is more believable, (1) that oil companies quashed a technology on which they could make money, or (2) that a freelance inventor circumvented the laws of physics.