And there it is. Everyone who wants to believe (or have others believe) lies must at some point attack epistemology.
If one truly thought the laws of Physics were incorrect, one could attain fame and fortune by showing it.
Thank you kindly.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
"Stupid Ideas" For long range Electric Vehicle
- Thread starter Blackout
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Future Tesla
And there it is. Everyone who wants to believe (or have others believe) lies must at some point attack epistemology.
If one truly thought the laws of Physics were incorrect, one could attain fame and fortune by showing it.
Thank you kindly.
Wow, @Topher you are taking this whole 'Stupid Ideas' thing too seriously. Try reading these ideas from the POV of Gallagher and not Galileo.
Ok, sorry.
Hahahahahahahahaha. That is the stupidest thing I have read today.
Thank you kindly.
To give the whole topic a more philosophical note. There actually are now laws of physics. There is just the universe and it behaves a certain way, we can't say why, but it does.
What science in general does, is finding a rule for the chaos. We have done that since we exist, everyone every day. Even pigeons do it. We want to find regularities, so that we can adapt to a situation faster in the future. Actually most of the times the outcome is wrong. We think that if we find a penny, we'll have luck, if we wear the blue tie, the boss will be nicer. But real science goes a bit further, it does experiments. So if you postulate something, someone else tries to think of an experiment to prove, or disprove, you.
In the end we make our thesis better and better, we try to figure something out, that wasn't designed with logic or sense, with our own logic and sense. Well if you believe in god, it might be that some bearded guy sat down and after 6 days said:
"There shall be a limit on the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle can be known. And the general speed limit should be 299 792 458 m/s, nobody needs to go faster than that"
[Genesis, Invisible Touch]
But for anyone else, we can just assume and improve our assumptions. But as long as something is proven by experiment, a better theory still has to explain that experiment. And more importantly, we only need a new theory, if the old one can't explain a new experiment. As soon as there are two different theories for the same thing, we need to start searching for an error in one of those theories, make more experiments to disprove one of them.
What science in general does, is finding a rule for the chaos. We have done that since we exist, everyone every day. Even pigeons do it. We want to find regularities, so that we can adapt to a situation faster in the future. Actually most of the times the outcome is wrong. We think that if we find a penny, we'll have luck, if we wear the blue tie, the boss will be nicer. But real science goes a bit further, it does experiments. So if you postulate something, someone else tries to think of an experiment to prove, or disprove, you.
In the end we make our thesis better and better, we try to figure something out, that wasn't designed with logic or sense, with our own logic and sense. Well if you believe in god, it might be that some bearded guy sat down and after 6 days said:
"There shall be a limit on the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle can be known. And the general speed limit should be 299 792 458 m/s, nobody needs to go faster than that"
[Genesis, Invisible Touch]
But for anyone else, we can just assume and improve our assumptions. But as long as something is proven by experiment, a better theory still has to explain that experiment. And more importantly, we only need a new theory, if the old one can't explain a new experiment. As soon as there are two different theories for the same thing, we need to start searching for an error in one of those theories, make more experiments to disprove one of them.
Um, not true. The Goodyear blimp has enough helium on board to have neutral buoyancy, but it isn't massless. It also isn't weightless for the passengers and crew.
Helium with air works on the same principle that allows ships to float or submarines to rise and submerge. Only in a water medium rather than an air medium. Both are fluids, just one is 1000X denser than the other.
Any object in vacuum has the same mass it had in air, it may weigh a little less on a scale because the atmosphere isn't pushing down on it. The atmosphere has a weight which pushes down on everything in it. That's what air pressure is.
I agree with the buoyancy of helium. You may have been trying to make a valid point with the first part, but it didn't come out right.
To achieve what you want to achieve, you will have to violate the laws of Physics as we know them today. To do that, you will have to come up with a better model of Physics than we have today. That's a tall order with centuries of experimental evidence to support our current understanding. Einstein's theory of relativity proved that Newton's Laws of Motion was only an approximation that worked very well when velocities were low (which is all we experience for the most part). He laid out why his theory was better and gave a list of experiments that would prove or disprove his theory. At the time most of the experiments couldn't be done because we lacked the tech to do them, but eventually all proved out.
If there is some way around the laws of thermodynamics, you need to lay out a theory that explains experimental and real world results better than the current theories, and then describe experiments that can be done that would prove your theory. It's a massively steep cliff to climb and it takes a complete and thorough understanding of the existing Physical theories before you can even start.
The great scientists didn't just come out of nowhere with their theories. All were well trained in what was known before they started. Einstein was a classically trained Physicist. Nikola Tesla was trained as an Electrical Engineer. Thomas Edison had little training, but he didn't do most of the work and he was an inventor, not a scientist. He hired a large number of scientists who made his ideas work.
Edison was a 19th century Steve Jobs. He had vision, but didn't have the technical understanding to make it work. He had an entire company of people to do it for him.
Elon Musk is as successful as he is because he's a trained Physicist first. He also has vision like Jobs did, but the difference is he is capable of doing the job of just about everyone working for him. He's actually done it on occasion, firing an employee who said something couldn't be done and doing that job on top of his CEO tasks.
This is true in most areas where someone breaks all the rules. They aren't really breaking all the rules, they just were smart enough to figure out which rules were made by humans and which ones were made by nature, then they set out breaking the human made rules.
Um, not what I said.
It isn't weightless at all. [Not sure how the passengers and crew are supposed to weigh it though.]
No, it won't Any scale is going to be calibrate to read zero when there is nothing on it. The object weighs the same, whether your scale is screwed up is your lookout.
thank you kindly.
A scale measures force, so if you filled your car with helium, instead of air, the force on the scale would be lower. If you would glue a balloon to the top of your scale. It would read a negative force.
Also an interesting thing about scales, if they are built at the equator and you take it to the north pole, it isn't accurate anymore.
Here is a question in-line with this thread:
Could towing a canoe improve the aerodynamics of a car? (Or maybe not make it any worse)
This is actually a real world scenario for me and my S, potentially. Earlier in the thread there was a black car with an extended butt and that got me thinking.
The canoe would be very low to the ground, and the trailer, besides the wheels, would be within the profile of the canoe.
Thoughts?
Could towing a canoe improve the aerodynamics of a car? (Or maybe not make it any worse)
This is actually a real world scenario for me and my S, potentially. Earlier in the thread there was a black car with an extended butt and that got me thinking.
The canoe would be very low to the ground, and the trailer, besides the wheels, would be within the profile of the canoe.
Thoughts?
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A STUPID IDEA:
Be able to plug a charge lead into two Tesla's, joining them together so that the higher charged Tesla can power the lesser charged one whilst driving. This is not mechanically towing btw.
It can also be used to charge the lesser charged one when stationary.
Elon I know you read this forum so when you implement this just give a shout out to me, that's all I ask.
Be able to plug a charge lead into two Tesla's, joining them together so that the higher charged Tesla can power the lesser charged one whilst driving. This is not mechanically towing btw.
It can also be used to charge the lesser charged one when stationary.
Elon I know you read this forum so when you implement this just give a shout out to me, that's all I ask.
JenniferQ
Active Member
My daughter wants this for her phone! Has mentioned it many times. I think it's a great idea
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A STUPID IDEA:
Be able to plug a charge lead into two Tesla's, joining them together so that the higher charged Tesla can power the lesser charged one whilst driving. This is not mechanically towing btw.
It can also be used to charge the lesser charged one when stationary.
Elon I know you read this forum so when you implement this just give a shout out to me, that's all I ask.
Very interesting discussion, or were those kind explanations for OP?
Anyway, I think everyone is thinking one dimensional; i.e. use electricity to move motor and generate electricity by moving generator. However there are multiple dimensions to this thinking. Do you happen to know Atmos clock by Jaeger LeCoultre? It takes out energy from the difference of ambient temperature and drive the clock, without springs, without electricity. Atmosphere is much bigger than a car, so we could take advantage of that.
Also there will be ups and downs - these are taken care of by regen.
Now there are also at least two more dimensions - yes, horizontal and lights. There sometimes are sidewinds, and we could take advantage of that to extend our range. Would it be possible to create a car shape so that it has less side drag while keeping frontal drag minimum as before?
Anyway, I think everyone is thinking one dimensional; i.e. use electricity to move motor and generate electricity by moving generator. However there are multiple dimensions to this thinking. Do you happen to know Atmos clock by Jaeger LeCoultre? It takes out energy from the difference of ambient temperature and drive the clock, without springs, without electricity. Atmosphere is much bigger than a car, so we could take advantage of that.
Also there will be ups and downs - these are taken care of by regen.
Now there are also at least two more dimensions - yes, horizontal and lights. There sometimes are sidewinds, and we could take advantage of that to extend our range. Would it be possible to create a car shape so that it has less side drag while keeping frontal drag minimum as before?
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT A STUPID IDEA:
Be able to plug a charge lead into two Tesla's, joining them together so that the higher charged Tesla can power the lesser charged one whilst driving. This is not mechanically towing btw.
It can also be used to charge the lesser charged one when stationary.
Elon I know you read this forum so when you implement this just give a shout out to me, that's all I ask.
LOL. Kind of like mid-air refueling by the Air Force. Get some trucks on the road with big battery banks in a trailer and hook me up! Weeee!
Obvious practical limitations aside, you're probably best to rotate the car into the wind so it sort of crabs along instead of trying to find some aero profile. Even with a fairly stiff crosswind you're still looking at a fairly acute apparent wind angle, at least when traveling at speeds where aerodynamics really makes a difference.
For instance, a direct 20mph crosswind while traveling 70mph results in a ~16deg apparent wind angle. While not absolute worst case, probably bounds >99% of the real world crosswind scenarios.
How much aerodynamic improvement that makes is a bit more complicated...gut feel is that 80% of the scenarios are probably under 2% improvement, 99% of the scenerios are probably under 5%. Again, all that ignores inherent losses/complexities/negatives of such a design.
What would really make a difference is an active aerodynamic profile that constantly adjusts to maximize efficiency. You just need to leverage ironman technology...
You want to drive a car on air temperature differences?!
Let's look at the math on that shall we? Assume 10°F temperature difference (from where? I have no idea), 100% efficiency, and 250 Wh per mile. Air has a heat capacity of 0.018 BTUs per °F per foot³, and 1 kWh is 3413 BTUs. So you would need 4,700 cubic feet of air (about a garage's worth) at that temperature difference to go one mile.
As usual, most 'cool ideas' don't survive doing the math. That applies to everyone's, by the way.
Thank you kindly.
Similar threads
