jeffhre
Member
I would read the article for giggles, but I do not want to cast any more pennies in Mr P's direction with clicks. Pass.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Friend(s) of JP - Conversations with Nicu
- Thread starter Nicu.Mihalache
- Start date
-
- Tags
- TSLA
While I think you intervention does not deserves any answer, it seems to me you have a hate problem, rather than me. That would be on top of an honesty problem, I have not seen any sign of hate in what you point out. You still owe me something and I won't answer anything else from you until I get it.
There is no contradiction in a good company and over-inflated stock. Puts and calls are simply a way to put a price on risk and me buying puts is no different to Tesla than a long buying puts for protection. As for JP, it's your opinion that he's a liar, because you do not like the questions he rises and his biases, and I will say for the 1000th time, I do not defend him. And I can very well live with the idea that he may not have a irreproachable behavior at all times (but I will not try to "educate" when he's over 60; I usually do not reeducate my friends, I take them as they are). Who wants to throw the first stone?
- - - Updated - - -
How convenient, everything stays in the same thread, with a clear title, so you could easily avoid reading all thisMaybe it's just me but I'm a little tired of reading posts saying "JP is not all bad"; "Yes, he is"; "No, he's not"; Yes, he is"....
- - - Updated - - -
I may have got used to process low quality ore if you say so, but it was the best I had at the time. Since early 2000s I've been following the energy / EV / hydrogen / whatever pie in the sky sector (even had some stock in ZENN at some point, if you know what I mean) and have always wondered how come every other week there is a world-changing discovery in the lab, but in the real world there is almost never a step change for the better? Swimming only in academic waters, I was even tempted to think that someone "does not get it" somewhere along the way from the lab to the factory. During the last 2-3 years I have been learning quite a lot about why there is a huge gulf from the lab to the factory, and how that relates to market reactions, most of it thanks to JP. That does not mean he can predict the future (who can claim that, anyway?), but before I have a hard time predicting the past, if you understand what I mean.
Anyway hcsharp, thanks for your kind words
- - - Updated - - -
JRP3, it even starts with the title, a normal person ("normal" as average, as opposed to "Tesla fan") would not even click on the link.
One observation does not make a study. You do the same thing as JP, take a study, randomly modify some assumptions and jump to your desired conclusions. This is not how science is done. As I have told you before, I am not competent beyond general observations in this matter. I have even pointed the person who may help you understand where things are.
Subjective assertion, overruled
NigelM
Recovering Member
How convenient, everything stays in the same thread, with a clear title, so you could easily avoid reading all this
Ummm, no I couldn't....
JP must be an amazing person. Anyone else who got so much wrong for so long would simply be written off and ignored but he must have some knowledge gems in there worth pursing that no one else on earth has. No matter how many flaws are pointed out in his articles, he still apparently has great insight I guess. Oh well.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Anyone looking for more data on a Tesla pack might click on the link. The title doesn't even mention Petersen, or what the bad data is or the conclusions. Compared to Petersen's over the top article titles, which clearly announce his bias, my title does not suggest which way the data may point. You simply projected a large amount of your own bias into your interpretation of that subject title.
I didn't randomly modify anything, and unlike Petersen, I didn't take the numbers from the study at face value and apply them to Tesla's pack. I took a known quantity, the cell level energy density of the cells that Tesla uses, and calculated where the finished pack density should end up. Those calculations did not just exist in space on their own, they also matched the calculations of others derived independently. As you say, you aren't competent beyond general observations in this matter, but I am, because I have studied the subject extensively, including having many discussions with MRTTF.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
What he really does is provide a semblance of authority for those who, for whatever reason, are biased against EV's and Tesla. He is not a battery expert or an EV expert and does not understand many of the basics of lithium cells or electric motors and inverters. For the uniformed who don't like EV's and don't care how faulty his reasoning or data are it appears that he knows what he's talking about and he reinforces their preconceptions. It's the same way climate deniers will point to some completely misleading and inaccurate article only because it says things they agree with.
- - - Updated - - -
Nothing as far as i remember, I don't know if he ever saw it.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Neither are JP's conclusions a study either. There's no study that directly models the Tesla pack, so to come up with some relevant numbers, you need to make some assumptions about the pack. What JP did is take that ANL study and then used his assumptions of the Tesla pack to come up with a impact number. JRP3 is doing the same with the same exact study.
JRP3 only made two assumptions in this rebuttal to JP's post:
1)Tesla's pack density is 150Wh/kg.
We've confirmed that's a reasonable estimate via analysis in this thread:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...berish/page165?p=296054&viewfull=1#post296054
But if you choose not to believe those numbers, you can look at numbers for previous Tesla packs to see JRP3 can't be far off: Roadster (121Wh/kg) and Smart ed (132Wh/kg).
http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/technology/battery
2)The study's 75Wh/kg density can be replaced with the equivalent Model S density (150Wh/kg) to figure out a final impact estimate.
If you look at page 14 of the study you can see that is sound, as the impact is primarily based on weight:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/B/644.PDF
JRP3 also mentions it's likely that the non-cell components have less impact than cell components, but does not play a part in his impact estimate of 20000 kWh for the pack.
The discussion of a possible hard limit for the lower price of Li ion 18650 cell, based on studying raw materials cost and purity, caused a deja vu with me.
Some 15 years ago, many knowledgeable people said that solar photovoltaics would go no where because
(A) the supply of moncrystalline silicone was limited in volume, effectively banning solar from exploring benefits of mass production, and
(B) as a consequence this technology could never, ever, deliver at a point lower than $10 per Watt.
Well this was right then, as the silicone production capacity these days was dedicated to produce wafers for integrated circuits. Polycrystalline Si ingots with far lower purity is what goes into solar cells today.
So nobody today can tell what advances will help lower the 18650 cell prices an when, but it is a sure bet that research is done in this field as long as market demand stays high.
Some 15 years ago, many knowledgeable people said that solar photovoltaics would go no where because
(A) the supply of moncrystalline silicone was limited in volume, effectively banning solar from exploring benefits of mass production, and
(B) as a consequence this technology could never, ever, deliver at a point lower than $10 per Watt.
Well this was right then, as the silicone production capacity these days was dedicated to produce wafers for integrated circuits. Polycrystalline Si ingots with far lower purity is what goes into solar cells today.
So nobody today can tell what advances will help lower the 18650 cell prices an when, but it is a sure bet that research is done in this field as long as market demand stays high.
callmesam
Member
I will start believing the stock shorters and FUD slingers like JP when they acknowledge the following:
Tesla makes the best and safest car ever produced by a car company.
They have a technological moat of at least three years around them that their competitors have never accomplished.
None of the major automakers (except Nissan) are convinced that pure electric is the future.
Tesla is the only car company that solves range anxiety with Superchargers.
THEN they can write how they won't be able to procure batteries, or there isn't enough lithium in the universe or the grid won't support EVs or the Model S is dirtier than a Hummer.
Tesla makes the best and safest car ever produced by a car company.
They have a technological moat of at least three years around them that their competitors have never accomplished.
None of the major automakers (except Nissan) are convinced that pure electric is the future.
Tesla is the only car company that solves range anxiety with Superchargers.
THEN they can write how they won't be able to procure batteries, or there isn't enough lithium in the universe or the grid won't support EVs or the Model S is dirtier than a Hummer.
Last edited:
The issue with the energy density is while JRP3 could be wrong, he could be right. He made an assumption based on known data that Tesla already used in older generations. Its a completely reasonable assumption that the wh per kg would increase. No sense in putting out a less energy dense product for more money.
Now we get the the 75 wh per kg is definitely wrong, unless you assume that Tesla took a 39% hit on energy density in order to use the latest and greatest batteries, and NCA is much less energy dense than LCO (roadster batteries). This claim is contradictory to common sense.
Conversely, a battery expert would know how much the 18650 batteries weigh and someone who writes about Tesla would be knowledgable on the number of cells in the pack, and would not propose that the Tesla pack would weigh ~2500 lbs, when we know that each cell weighs ~45 grams and Tesla has ~8000 cells. That is unless they were intentionally trying to distort data, then say mea culpa when proven wrong.
If i said 4 years ago Apple was putting a 400 MHz processor in their iphone 3, now in their iphone 5, they have a single 240 MHz processor, i would get funny looks and the apple people would call me out on that ( note i made up the MHz numbers). While the 240 MHz may be cheaper and have some merits, there would be absolutely no reason for apple to use it.
Now we get the the 75 wh per kg is definitely wrong, unless you assume that Tesla took a 39% hit on energy density in order to use the latest and greatest batteries, and NCA is much less energy dense than LCO (roadster batteries). This claim is contradictory to common sense.
Conversely, a battery expert would know how much the 18650 batteries weigh and someone who writes about Tesla would be knowledgable on the number of cells in the pack, and would not propose that the Tesla pack would weigh ~2500 lbs, when we know that each cell weighs ~45 grams and Tesla has ~8000 cells. That is unless they were intentionally trying to distort data, then say mea culpa when proven wrong.
If i said 4 years ago Apple was putting a 400 MHz processor in their iphone 3, now in their iphone 5, they have a single 240 MHz processor, i would get funny looks and the apple people would call me out on that ( note i made up the MHz numbers). While the 240 MHz may be cheaper and have some merits, there would be absolutely no reason for apple to use it.
Last edited:
smorgasbord
Active Member
Petersen thinks Tesla's stock will rise in late September, as a result of Tesla's Book Value doubling:
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/1631091-axion-power-host/2215052-axion-power-concentrator-267-september-12-10q-filing-for-q2-two-axion-forbes-articles-john-petersen-on-pipe-mechanics-incentives#comment-23207132 (no money to Petersen)
Yep, I have the feeling that comments only on TMC are the property of the commenter and should not be cited without written permission
You might run an anti-virus scan. Your system seems to have contracted something that causes vastly oversized fonts.
callmesam
Member
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
No more sure than we are that you're not someone else or I'm not someone else. (Well, okay, a lot of you have met me.) But I doubt Nicu is JP. Why would you say that?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Nicu did write some good pro Tesla articles, before Petersen lured him to his castle in Transylvania, I mean Switzerland, and put some sort of spell on him :wink:
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
+1
Nicu was one of the more vocal anti Petersen commenter back then. So imagine my surprise when he does a 180. Then again JP telling people not to short TSLA is another 180 I didn't expect. I think he will probably use this to pivot his view to pro Tesla.
you guys are hilarious - get off the Nicu (Bonnie is on target here)-
you guys are starting to sound paranoic-
JP is who he is for what he is and why he is... and Nicu is NOT!
TSLA is priced too high right now - you know it, I know it (and still added cal options today), JP knows it (but thinks it will go higher now), Nicu knows it; hell, Elon knows it and says it now in so many words; I siuppose you think he's pro JP now too----
Stop... Just stop...
(adopt the class of the company you are invested in...)
you guys are starting to sound paranoic-
JP is who he is for what he is and why he is... and Nicu is NOT!
TSLA is priced too high right now - you know it, I know it (and still added cal options today), JP knows it (but thinks it will go higher now), Nicu knows it; hell, Elon knows it and says it now in so many words; I siuppose you think he's pro JP now too----
Stop... Just stop...
(adopt the class of the company you are invested in...)
Similar threads
