-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
mwu
Member
Just want to say that this thread is awesome. The uselessness of the numbers may even have a positive effect on how fun it is.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
John Lamoureux
l Parzival l
Nice catch. I left off the .01 gigawatts because I was sure that SageBrush could compensate with more petaplancks.
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
It would please me greatly if this thread did not diverge into sci-fi. That would be a wonderful topic for a different thread.
You missed the part where I explicitly acknowledged that charging at a different voltage would change the number of electrons, but that this is not about energy; it's about counting the number of electrons that come out of the wall in my particular installation so that I can give a silly and meaningless answer to a dumb question.
Well the answer is really that you are getting infinite miles per electron since you aren't using them up/destroying them. All you're doing is changing their electrical potential energy. You're not even getting the electrons flowing through your EVSE since it's AC. They are just wiggling back and forth a tiny distance (amount dependent upon Amperage, wire gauge, and wire material (copper vs aluminum etc)).
In case you care, for 6 AWG copper at 40 Amps, if there is uniform movement (and you fudge RMS current vs average), it's about 1.84um total displacement.
While you are not doing so good at reading comprehension
. From the first post:
ℬête Noire
Active Member
That it is happening because of electrons moving, rather than being expended, is exactly why I love the electron of distance per electrons. I picture millions of nerf balls getting hurled at the back of the car trying to push it forward a nerf ball's diameter.
My bad on not reading the first post carefully.While you are not doing so good at reading comprehension
In the spirit of this excellent discussion, what do you guys think the mileage would be in miles per gallon of electrons?
So we have 6.23 * 10^-23 miles per electron and Avogadro's number is 6.02 * 10^23 mol^-1. So we get 3.75 miles per mol of electrons. Now if only someone could come up with the concentration of electrons in the battery pack ...
mblakele
FSD Beta (99)
How many electrons are in a gallon of electrons???
That gave me an idea. Wouldn't Elon want us to start from first principles? E=mc^2
The grid will only get greener, right? Eventually we'll all be charging from 100% efficient mass-energy conversion — if we live long enough. We're looking for mpg, so let's feed a gallon of gas into our mass-energy converter.
It's been a while since I've tried this kind of math, but I gave it a shot.
- assume 250 Wh/mi
- that's 9x10^5 J/mi
- divide by c^2 in m/s: 1x10^-11 kg/mi
- specific gravity of gasoline is 0.739, treat that as kg/L: 7.39x10^10 mi/L
- in USA units, 2.8x10^11 mi/gal
ℬête Noire
Active Member
What's a good standard pressure to measure the at? Probably once you reach the state of a degenerate gas. Past that I believe they disappear into neutrons? I should ask my son.....How many electrons are in a gallon of electrons???
You are assuming we can completely annihilate the matter into energy. Consider: A hydrogen bomb can obliterate the biggest city on Earth, and it transforms only a teeny tiny itsey bitsey amount of its mass into energy. The difference between the mass of two atoms of heavy hydrogen and one mass of helium is all that's annihilated. If you converted a gallon of matter entirely into energy, 280 billion mpg is probably way too low.
Though I have been getting about 320 Wh/Mi, not 250.
Electrons will never become neutrons. Neutrons are made of quarks and electrons are a different kind of stuff altogether. Bosons and fermions. I also suspect that a bucket of free electrons would behave very differently than a gas. They would require some sort of special containment. Note that containing a plasma is the hurdle that after decades of research still confounds attempts at a fusion reactor.
I suspect that "a gallon of electrons" will turn out to be a meaningless concept. The electrostatic pressure of even a very small number of them would be immense.
I do like the idea of the number of electrons that it takes to move the car the diameter of an electron. But does an electron actually have a diameter? Do we know enough about its fundamentals? We know its charge and its weight. But its size?
ℬête Noire
Active Member
They are all of the same stuff, energy. That's the truth told by e=Mc^2. In a neutron star protons and electrons merge/disappear and in their place are only neutrons.
Your thinking is on the right track with "successful fusion reactor". Turns out stars have what is needed for that. Gravity. Electrons reach maximum compression there, in white dwarfs, that's what I was referring to.
Such resignation has no place in this thread, good sir!
It is!!!!! Mind bogglingly so, and even more-so to overcome it to make the electron go away.
We know some things about it.
1) Its size larger than zero. ((Complicated story which I'm not qualified to tell and I don't remember the short, simple version of the story.))
2) Its size is smaller than...hmmm, I think Linus Pauling first put the upper maximum at 10^-15m. That upper limit has been shrunk since then, though. I'd have to look that up.
We also know it has mass. Because it has energy, but doesn't go anywhere at the speed of light. Again, e=Mc^2.
Also it's a wave too, which is what sets its distance from the nucleus of the atom for a given energy level. So, you know, physics is weird.
Last edited:
Similar threads
