Israel firm wants super-efficient engine to power car revolution

October 28, 2016 by Joe Dyke
Israeli firm Aquarius Engines says its reinvented internal combustion engine can allow cars to travel over 1,600 kilometres (990 miles) on a single tank of fuel

An Israeli firm says a super-efficient engine it has created could drastically reduce fuel consumption and help power an auto industry revolution as manufacturers search for environmentally sound alternatives.

Industry analysts, however, question the reinvented 's chances of success at a time when purely electric car technology is advancing and attracting investors.

The invention from Israeli-based Aquarius Engines is currently being discussed by France's Peugeot, the firm said.

Aquarius says the cost of the engine will be as low as $100 (92 euros).

According to the firm, the engine can allow cars to travel more than 1,600 kilometres (990 miles) on a single tank of fuel, more than double current distances.

Such efficiency is vital as countries seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions—a main cause of climate change. Car engines are a major source of CO2 emissions.

Aquarius's technology works by stripping back the traditional engine under the bonnet.

It replaces the combustion engine with its multiple pistons thrusting up and down with a single piston that goes side-to-side.

It has fewer than 20 parts and a single action, the company said.

In tests by the German engineering company FEV, the Aquarius engine's efficiency was more than double that of traditional engines.

Shaul Yakobi, inventor and co-founder of Aquarius Engines, poses next to a single piston combustion engine invented by the firm to drastically reduce fuel consumption

"It is the highest efficiency you will probably meet," co-founder Gal Fridman told AFP at the company's offices near the Israeli commercial capital of Tel Aviv.

"It has the lowest emissions and the highest power-to-weight ratio."

A Peugeot spokesman said: "We are discussing with them, as with many other start-ups, without obligation or a specific project."

For Peugeot and others, the engine could help them compete with the growing popularity of electric cars, John German, senior fellow at the International Council on Clean Transportation, said.

He said the engine would work best as part of a plug-in hybrid system, with manufacturers looking at "the idea of putting a smaller, inexpensive, range extender" alongside a battery and motor.

But he said Aquarius's radical design, and the changes it would require to manufacturing lines, might make companies in a risk-averse industry hesitant.

Undermining electric cars?

The technology can also be used to make more efficient back-up generators and other products, the company says.

Gal Fridman, co-founder of Aquarius Engines, said the firm's single-piston car engine had "the highest efficiency you will probably meet"

Aquarius is currently seeking its third round of funding and is aiming for $40-50 million.

But its challenge is to undermine the push towards electric-only cars, said Ana Nicholls of the Economist Intelligence Unit.

She said recent evidence suggested that "people are starting to trend away from hybrid cars towards fully electric vehicles".

US-based electric car maker Tesla is on course to sell around 50,000 vehicles in the second half of 2016, it has announced.

Nicholls said that automotive giants, with research and development budgets stretched thin, could be wary of investing in Aquarius.

"I think the feeling in the industry at the moment is very much that if they are going to put their resources behind something then probably fully electric engines are the way to go."

Aquarius's Fridman argued there is too much "hype" around purely , and that their actual popularity is limited because of small ranges and high prices.

"50,000 units is nothing," he said of Tesla's projected sales.

Industry analysts question whether a super-efficient engine invented by Shaul Yakobi (L), co-founder of Aquarius Engines, can succeed against electric car technology

"It is amazing as there has been a push from governments, municipalities, etc. And still after 15 years the segment is not really successful."

Franco Gonzalez, senior technology analyst at the IDTechEx analysis firm, said Aquarius was entering the competition late and playing "catch up".

"Automotive companies take seven to 10 years to implement a new technology," he said.

"So Peugeot would need to accelerate their implementation very, very fast to at least catch up to what Tesla, BYD, Nissan and other companies supporting the electric car model are achieving."

German said it was too early to say if the engine could make a major dent.

"A lot depends on the path the electric vehicle revolution takes. If pure battery electrics sell well then there probably isn't much need for this kind of engine," he said.

"But if people balk at the long recharge time and high costs of battery-only cars, then systems like these might be the future."

Explore further: Renault-Nissan CEO at Paris auto show: Diesel isn't dead yet

Related Stories

Antonov creates a 3-speed transmission for electric cars

July 5, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- There are a surprising number of designs out there for electric cars. Most of the design innovations are about creating a more efficient design. While this has meant, for the most part, that design innovations ...

Recommended for you

How social networking sites may discriminate against women

April 20, 2018

Social media and the sharing economy have created new opportunities by leveraging online networks to build trust and remove marketplace barriers. But a growing body of research suggests that old gender and racial biases persist, ...

Virtually modelling the human brain in a computer

April 19, 2018

Neurons that remain active even after the triggering stimulus has been silenced form the basis of short-term memory. The brain uses rhythmically active neurons to combine larger groups of neurons into functional units. Until ...

'Poker face' stripped away by new-age tech

April 14, 2018

Dolby Laboratories chief scientist Poppy Crum tells of a fast-coming time when technology will see right through people no matter how hard they try to hide their feelings.

176 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dirk_bruere
4.5 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2016
10 years too late. The next generation of batteries will be the nail in its coffin
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2016
Still, there could be niche applications (e.g. in very cold climates, where batteries don't work well). Maybe even as range extenders for trucks which will be some time yet before they can go fully electrical.

Though I'm always a bit skeptical when such huge efficiency increases are claimed. The side-to-side-single-piston geometry has been tried before, so there needs to be something else here to create such a huge leap.
JRi
5 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2016
I would have wanted more explanation of the technology, not so much about politics and electric cars. Now there is no details about the motor itself, aside from one piston technology.
JRi
5 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2016
Okay, yahoo canada has a bit more details on their page: "...a single piston that blasts to and fro inside a valveless 600cc cylinder, generating power from electromagnetic coils with each stroke. It delivers more than twice the overall energy efficiency of a typical combustion engine, according to simulations by German engineering firm FEV."
Anonym
1 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2016
Ten years' too early, more like. When the adverse health effects of the magnetic fields generated by big batteries and electric motors surface, folks will flee their electric death traps in droves, and these are exactly the buyers who will pay a premium for a hyper-efficient ICE-powered vehicle.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2016
What the hell are you blabbering about?
effects of the magnetic fields generated by big batterie

You are aware that batteries generate no magnetic fields? Magentic fields are generated by *moving* charges.

folks will flee their electric death traps in droves

People have been commuting via electrically driven vehicles (trains/tramways/metros) for more than a century. And the type of EM motors these have are an order of magnitude larger than what you will have in a car. Funnily enough people have not been dying in droves in these 'huge death traps' - so don't expect them to fall like flies in the smaller ones.

In any case electric motors are shielded so as not to cause interference with electrics or your radio. Even your regular car is shielded because otherwise the spark plugs would make it nearly impossible for you to get any clean reception.
betterexists
1.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2016
Sheer Stupidity. Just Put Both Engines! USE REMOTE CONTROL to Switch from Engine to Engine!
When there is a will, then there is a Way!
Such should NOT be limited to Software ALONE, but also for Hardware!
Install a Robot there that will do that job FOR YOUUUUUU!
Eikka
2.8 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2016
You are aware that batteries generate no magnetic fields? Magentic fields are generated by *moving* charges.


Yes they do. What do you think is moving inside the battery when you draw current out of it?

It's actually one of the things that stress the battery, because at high power output there can be 1-2 kiloamperes of current going through the battery, and the magnetic field generated by the current causes a force which changes the paths of the charges moving inside the battery cells, as well as physically push and pull things apart.

See: Ampere's Force Law
https://en.wikipe...orce_law
betterexists
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2016
"Recent evidence suggests that people are starting to trend away from hybrid cars towards fully electric vehicles".
Oh, yeah? That is about those that have their purses/wallets pushing their Pants all the way to the Floor. Rest will LOVE that $100 Engine. KISS KISS KISS! Damn the Electric Battery UNTIL, Until ONLY It too costs 100 Bucks!
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2016
Battery electric vehicles undermine themselves, because there's just too much demand for lithium to produce enough batteries for electric vehicles as well as all the mobile devices and grid energy storage in the world. As soon as people actually start buying the vehicles, the prices of batteries shoot up.

Largely for the same reasons, and to replace petroleum derivates in the chemicals, plastics, medical, agricultural, construction... etc. industry, overproduction from renewables will have to be directed to synthetic hydrocarbons: methane, ethanol, ammonia, hydrogen... and so-on. There has to be mass-production of cheap liquid fuels in order to have cheap plastics and fertilizers etc. and backup power for the grid.

That means fuel cell vehicles that can burn hydrocarbons are much more attractive than heavy and short-lived, failure-prone batteries. A light, cheap, efficient piston engine is a good competitor to FCs even if it doesn't quite reach the same fuel economy.

dustywells
5 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2016
Miles per tank is an extremely precise expression of efficiency. (/sarc)

Especially so since there does not seem to be a mechanical output link.
RichManJoe
5 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2016
Looks like a BMW motorcycle engine.
tekram
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2016
Back in July, 2016, Reuters reported on this:

'Renault, a first-mover in the current generation of electric cars with alliance partner Nissan, has its own prototype two-stroke range extender and no intention of using it, according to a senior alliance engineer.
The carmaker, PSA's (Peugeot) domestic rival, had also reviewed the Aquarius kit and decided to pass, he said.'
http://www.aquari...ters.pdf
Pooua
2 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2016
The sparse description makes me think of the free-piston engine. Usually, the exhaust of a free-piston engine drives a turbine, but I designed a variation in which the pistons drove a load directly. A nifty feature of FPE is that they can run on just about any combustible liquid fuel.

Still, there could be niche applications (e.g. in very cold climates, where batteries don't work well).


Batteries die quickly in very hot climates. I live in Texas, where a three-year car battery life is typical.
ddt
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2016
Batteries have been way over sold. They are the weak link in the electric car. Entropy charging and entropy discharging gives it about 30% efficiency. (not to mention dragging 2000lbs of lithium battereis around, which are mostly nickel and copper). 1 gallon of gas is the equivalent of a barrel (42 gal) of raw lithium ion material.
A super efficient IC engine could out strip the 30% efficiency of battery electrics with zero exotic material, far less complexity and weight and greater range. The rest of the car is the same and mostly for saftey, handling and comfort. You can also directly cool the engine using a 6 stroke cycle with a water injection stroke that uses the excess heat energy and dispenses with the energy wasting radiator. You can also use multi-exapnsion cycles that extract more energy from the gasoline. And finally you can get braking energy recovery with a flywheel. BTW: Flywheels have more energy density than batteries.

trylogic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2016
The title seems to be inaccurate. Presented is a more efficient electric generator. The efficiency of the combustion engine itself is extremely limited by physical laws ( Carnot ! ). Considering the lack of technical information I doubt that the Aquarius is more efficient than my single piston Honda back-up generator.
krundoloss
3 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2016
Was this article written by an Oil Company Executive? I Mean Really! A vastly more efficient ICE engine and everyone is like "Meh. Sounds like we will sell less fuel if people used that". Come On lets get this thing in production! It would probably save $50 million in fuel in One Day. Battery technology has a long way to go, and relying on precious metals means that scalability is just not there. We need this, and other innovations, to increase our MPGs so we can stretch out the usefulness of ICE, conserve Oil and get us by until Batteries or Fuel Cells are perfected.

I am disgusted that this is not front page news. I am exceedingly glad that it was not made in America, where it surely would get buried by the oil companies. Tom Ogle all over again, LOL.
KelDude
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2016
All you battery haters need to get out more. There are so many new battery types being developed made out of iron/sulfur/nickel etc using non-volatile electrolytes the price of the cars will come down dramatically. Don't forget about capacitors as well. They are getting very large capacities to the point cars will get 500 kilometers on a single charge of the capacitor. Read all the stuff out there on battery/capacitor developments and you will quickly realize gas engines are headed for the dust bin.
optical
Oct 28, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Barkfin
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2016
The reason electric power is compelling is because of the success of diesel electrics on rail.
High reliability, high serviceability, and optimal economics. Anyway that's what a "hybrid" car is, basically.
The big problem with electric cars is they take at least 30 minutes to give a partial charge!
No thanks. I can fill up my car from empty to full & be on my way within 5 mins, tops.
A modern car demands as much as 20 to 25 hp at highway speed, so that pretty much defines the "floor" that the ICE must be capable of delivering.
A single cylinder probably has vibration issues. Anyway to improve efficiency with an ICE you have to narrow the powerband: it only works good at or near full-power (like an airplane engine). Part drives the wheels, the rest charges the battery.
I think automakers already have this worked out?
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2016
There is not going to be a problem with lithium supply. Even if other chemistries, and super caps do not pan out in the coming decades - world supplies appear very strong. The lithium is only a very small percent of the cost of the batteries - so the total price will not be affected too much if there are some price spikes as supplies ramp up to meet demand. Here is one article on potential new supply here in the U.S. - http://fortune.co...-nevada/
Barkfin
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2016
All you battery haters need to get out more.

I love batteries! I heard some guys tested a 2004 Prius (XW20) with something like 300,000 miles on the odometer and the battery still had ample capacity.
I'd use an electric car/plug-in hybrid no problem, just plug it in every night & never go to a gas station ever again. Works for me.
My problem is I only buy cheap used cars, and there are no cheap used electric/plug-in hybrids around (to my knowledge).
I am waiting for a drop-in conversion kit. I'd convert one of my existing cars, no problem at all.
Well, one problem: my old Dodge with cam & headers sounds AWESOME. Electric cars don't do that.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2016
There is not going to be a problem with lithium supply.


In your dreams. The Tesla Megafactory along gobbles up a sixth of the current world production capability of lithium, and it's only able to supply batteries to a couple million cars, which in the scope of worldwide demand for automobiles is a fart in the Sahara desert. It also needs to supply millions of Powerwalls that Elon Musk has promised, and his Supercharger stations etc. etc.

It's not a question of how much lithium there is in the ground theoretically, but about the fact that the lithium mining and processing industry must grow by a factor of 1000 in the span of a few short decades to meet the expected demand, and you just don't arbitrarily make 1000 times more of something without some serious additional costs.

And it's not just lithium, it's a problem with cobalt as well which is another essential metal used in high capacity lithium batteries.
wenkl2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2016
John Deere had a "one lunger" way back in the early 1900's. But it weighed a ton and burned kerosene. Great for a stationary power source, not so great for a car.
Eikka
not rated yet Oct 28, 2016
The lithium is only a very small percent of the cost of the batteries


It's not going to be a very small percent after you simply don't have enough of it to make any more batteries.
qquax
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2016
Their best chance is to find a niche in back-up power generation. Making a dent in the automobile market with a completely new engine design is not going to happen.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2016
Eikka
It's not going to be a very small percent after you simply don't have enough of it to make any more batteries.
Well - let's wait and see who is right. People have been whining about peak oil for 50 years - and look at the price of oil today. There is plenty of lithium out there. What we may see - are spikes in lithium prices - as current demand outstrips supply. We are glad that you agree that the current demand for EV's is going to explode. This will not dramatically affect the price of batteries - as lithium is a very small part of the total cost. It will stimulate a flurry of exploration, and development of reserves - and prices will stabilize. It is called supply and demand.

Good article.

http://www.usatod...7684224/
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2016
Okay, yahoo canada has a bit more details on their page: "...a single piston that blasts to and fro inside a valveless 600cc cylinder, generating power from electromagnetic coils with each stroke. It delivers more than twice the overall energy efficiency of a typical combustion engine, according to simulations by German engineering firm FEV."

So it generates electricity. Sounds kinda like a hybrid, but in one package...
rrrander
1 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2016
10 years too late. The next generation of batteries will be the nail in its coffin


Keep dreaming. We've been fed fairy stories about advances in battery technology, that have never come to pass. All that battery-powered cars have ensured is because of the cost of replacing batteries, it will never be economical to do so and therefore "planned obsolescence" will become even more rapid.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
JRi offered
"...a single piston that blasts to and fro inside a valveless 600cc cylinder, generating power from electromagnetic coils with each stroke. It delivers more than twice the overall energy efficiency of a typical combustion engine, according to simulations by German engineering firm FEV."
Sounds a heck of a lot like the Sandia "Free Piston Engine" many years ago, details here
http://crf.sandia...ehicles/
& a paper here
http://prod.sandi...2095.pdf

I recall journal articles approx 15 years ago - though might have been a feasibility study at Sandia as the paper looks quite recent, some eng tech journal circa 2005...

IIRC also touched on by NACA (organisation circa 1920's subsequently became NASA) which also did a great of work on water injection for aircraft/road transport piston engines.

Much prior art makes substantive patent path rather tough.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
Ah ha, thought so, this article triggered recollection, from Australia where I live although on the other side of the continent & if iirc Sandia's initial work led to this paper circa 2009
http://ro.uow.edu...t=theses

And here is a much older one with some base Math, makes you wonder if the Israeli firm used
this as basis for their modelling re heat efficiency
https://ntrs.nasa...6441.pdf

Also where I live in Western Australia, we have several raw Lithium deposits with many mining companies at advanced stages re funding for extraction plants. One of the largest encompassed by productive iron ore miner, Fortescue Minerals (disclosing shareholding)
http://fmgl.com.a...fing.pdf

They've tenements with sizable Lithium deposits & adjacent to other mining co's with deposits too & key fact re share price moves, FMG has > AUD$1B cash & dept free end 2017

Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2016
rrrander forgets history
We've been fed fairy stories about advances in battery technology, that have never come to pass
Beg Pardon ?

So bulky carbon zinc units we had for decades weren't displaced by nickel cadmium,
which weren't then displaced by nickel metal hydride
which weren't then displaced by lithium ion which aren't
further being displaced by improved topologies which aren't
further being displaced Eg for stationary applications by
Zinc Bromide eg Redflow in Australia (I'm also a shareholder)
http://redflow.com/ Look up their Z-Cell competitor to Tesla's PowerWall...

Now Supercaps... ?

rrrander again way off with facile & un-researched blurts not congruent with Science reporting
All that battery-powered cars have ensured is because of the cost of replacing batteries, it will never be economical to do so and therefore "planned obsolescence" will become even more rapid
Wrong, do the math even compare service cycles re petrol vs electric etc
Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
Auntie wrote, "The side-to-side-single-piston geometry has been tried before, so there needs to be something else here to create such a huge leap."

Exactly.

The efficiency of a combustion engine is determined by how much heat is wasted versus converted into mechanical energy.

Years ago, the US Army was involved in research of adiabatic engine technology - engines made of materials that could withstand high temperatures. Rather than cooling them, you would *insulate* them. They got some huge efficiency improvements. What they did not get was engines that would last very long.

I suspect that if this is a genuine claim, it's got an adiabatic design that's insulated. But unless they've found some radically better materials than the ceramics the Army tried, they're going to run into the wear problem, and that will be a fatal obstacle to commercialization.
Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
Eikka wrote, "...there's just too much demand for lithium to produce enough batteries for electric vehicles as well as all the mobile devices and grid energy storage in the world."

Nah.

First, we aren't going to run out of lithium any time soon. Bolivia alone has enough untapped lithium deposits to make more than 4 *billion* EVs. There are almost certainly more deposits out there. Lithium is a very common element.

Second, lithium is the battery chemistry of choice today, but it won't remain the battery chemistry of choice. More efficient chemistries are possible - especially as we learn to exploit carbon's enormous potential. Long before we run into real lithium shortages - not transient production shortages, but using up available deposits - we'll be transitioning into new and better battery chemistries.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2016
Conservatives seem unable to see parallels. The peak oilers whined for decades about how oil was going to run out - due to being a finite resource - and soon our energy system was going to go into scarcity mode - and energy prices are going to go through the roof. Conservatives have led the charge in making fun of the doomers. Now - they lead the charge in doing exactly the same thing towards lithium - and they can't see the problem. The renewable energy - EV revolution is interesting - in that it offers the possibility of decentralizing (to some degree) our energy system. Sarah Palin rattles on about the power and wisdom of 'the people.' Then she supports Trump (anti science - climate change denier) - who will not accept the result of a democratic election. When new developments equal more personal control - they are against it.....
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
Eikka claims
. your dreams. The Tesla Megafactory along gobbles up a sixth of the current world production capability of lithium, and it's only able to supply batteries to a couple million cars, which in the scope of worldwide demand for automobiles is a fart in the Sahara desert. It also needs to supply millions of Powerwalls that Elon Musk has promised, and his Supercharger stations etc.
You've limited dreams Eikka, geesh :-(

1. Didn't you consider Musk & others hadn't thought of supply issue LONG ago. ie Long before committing to factory plans, doh ?

2. Unfortunate you also hadn't considered factory design - large number of parallel flow lines encompassing many fabrication flow dynamics so virtually *any* battery technology from; Lithium, Sodium to Zinc & others easily accommodated ie Basic & mature capital risk assessment strategy ?

3. You need to be in the business Eg HQ electrodes http://www.hazergroup.com.au (I'm also a shareholder)

Yah think ?

:D
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
This was the problem when electric cars were being built back at the start of the 20th century. For the west, consuming the world's oil was a strategic necessity. It was the only way to maintain global dominance and prevent the emergence of oil-based empires. All the most easily-accessible oil had to be consumed as quickly as possible and so the emphasis was on technologies and socioeconomic systems which minimized efficiency and maximized consumption.

People commuted in huge cars and flew around the world to do business. Food was shipped in from all over. Raw materials were mined in vast quantities and moved great distances to be turned into frivolous consumer goods.

We were constantly given the impression that this was all natural and necessary, and there was no thought of refining these technologies or allowing the sort of competition which would make them cleaner and more efficient. Oil was so cheap for so long because it was never a commodity; it was a weapon.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
So now, when oil can only be recovered using western-controlled technologies, and it's further consumption at previous levels threatens extinction, competition from alternative energy sources is no longer suppressed. We can see how quickly new tech emerges in a competitive environment, and we can see how rapidly oil consumption is reduced as a result.

But harder to appreciate is what the world might be like without the dominance of the superpowers, a world full of nuclear-armed theocracies with their oil-fueled militaries, all stuck in the throes of religion-driven overpopulation, repeatedly annihilating each other and ruining the world.

Imagine 19th century europe or the middle east with 21st century technology. Empires had to fall and social systems had to be destroyed, and the elimination of easily accessible petroleum was essential not only to stability and progress but to the survival of civilization itself.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
Eikka - current best estimates of world lithium reserves is around 40 million tons (this will undoubtedly increase). It is estimated that Tesla will be using about 7,000 tons a year - and just one new deposit in Wyoming - is estimated to contain 228,000 tons of lithium. You need to join the peak oil movement - they would crown you.
santadam
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2016
I love electric cars and drive one as well. However, anyone who follows electric tech knows that e-cars only make up a tiny fraction of the current global car market. So why all the 'too late' talk? This newly designed engine could really catch on in emerging markets around the world and as some have said above, could be a boon for back-up power and generators, etc. The auto industry is slow to adopt new tech but perhaps one or two will run with it.
Urgelt
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
Otto is paying attention to facts selectively again, in order to arrive at his thesis.

Fact: petroleum-fueled automobiles, at the dawn of the automotive age, rapidly outperformed their electric counterparts in *every* performance measure. EVs lost in the marketplace, not because of Illuminati schemes, but because they were out-competed.

Fact: petroleum *still* provides cheaper power and outperforms EVs in *most* (not quite all) performance metrics.

Fact: technology is now driving EV performance upward, while petroleum-based vehicle performance is fairly stagnant. We can expect a crossing point where EVs will generally outperform ICE-based vehicles across most performance metrics.

Fact: the energy yield for petroleum versus energy cost of producing it is gradually worsening. Even if not for climate change, ICE vehicles are an eventual dead end. EVs will eventually dominate.
Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
I don't have a problem with Otto's despising - well, everyone - because of rapacious consumption, overbreeding, religious belligerence, warmongering, etc. Maybe we have that coming.

But the logic he uses to justify it is based on misinterpreting events, selectively avoiding facts and imagining vast conspiracies which are the hallmark, not of a careful intellect, but a paranoid one.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
Fact: petroleum-fueled automobiles, at the dawn of the automotive age, rapidly outperformed their electric counterparts in *every* performance measure. EVs lost in the marketplace, not because of Illuminati schemes, but because they were out-competed
-And how do you know this wasnt because they werent allowed to compete and thereby improve? How would EVs have performed if a DC-based infrastructure had been established?
Fact: petroleum *still* provides cheaper power and outperforms EVs in *most* (not quite all) performance metrics
-which is only after a decade or so of renewed competition. And observe that EV is overtaking IC engines despite advancements like the one in the article. What if similar alternatives had begun to be explored a century ago?
Fact: technology is now driving EV performance upward, while petroleum-based vehicle performance is fairly stagnant
-Perhaps because EV is intrinsically more efficient and cheaper?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
Fact: the energy yield for petroleum versus energy cost of producing it is gradually worsening.
Exactly. We consumed it down to manageable levels. Rogue empires cant use it to overwhelm what may have been an predominently EV-based western culture.

Victory.
the logic he uses to justify it is based on misinterpreting events, selectively avoiding facts and imagining vast conspiracies
Youre right, I do tend to assume that we are only told what we need to know in order to think and act properly. But propaganda doesnt answer all the questions does it?

I like to start by asking 'What would things look like if they had turned out differently?' For instance, what would a 19th century europe have looked like with nuclear weapons? How about about a nuclear-armed caliphate? What may have been done to avoid such unpalatable inevitabilities?

And then I look at the so-called cold war and begin to appreciate how we and the soviets were working together toward a common goal.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
vast conspiracies which are the hallmark, not of a careful intellect, but a paranoid one
And how much thinking do you actually do before those nice catchphrases jump into your head? Fashion doesnt take much thought does it?

Fact: internal combustion was a critically destabilizing new tech available to anyone.
Fact: empires driven by religion and surplus populations can sweep the known world in a generation. Look up 'genghis khan'.
Fact: this potential was mitigated by a phased global war and a subsequent tripartite superpower structure which destroyed religion-driven prewar cultures and caused the prenatal infanticide of over ONE BILLION people and their descendants to the 3rd and 4th gen.
Fact: there hasnt been a nuclear weapon used in anger since that very effective demonstration over in japan.
Fact: 'descendants' is a lot harder to spell than you would think.

Things would have been very different now without a worldwide petrol-based economic structure.
An_electrical_engineer
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
While I believe that batteries will play a role in the future, the ICE will be with us for some time. I would expect that this engine could also be fueled by hydrogen or natural gas as well as gasoline which could expand its capabilities. The business case for development should not be difficult.
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
Otto asked, "How would EVs have performed if a DC-based infrastructure had been established?"

I hope you aren't revisiting Tesla versus Edison again.

But let's phrase the question more narrowly: how would EVs have performed if - for whatever reason - ICE vehicles failed to develop an economical infrastructure to propel them in consumer markets?

Badly.

Y'see, materials and chemical sciences had to advance a lot - nearly a century's worth - to get past lead-acid batteries. EV range, performance, weight characteristics were terrible at the start of the 20th Century, and there were no prospects whatsoever for rapid engineering refinements. If that was all we'd had to go on, EVs would have come into broad use, but long-haul transportation would have suffered. Economic development would have been slower.

The energy density in a tank of gas is just too good. It couldn't play out that way. You don't have to presume conspiracies to reach that conclusion.
Urgelt
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2016
An_electrical stated, "I would expect that this engine could also be fueled by hydrogen or natural gas as well as gasoline which could expand its capabilities."

Hydrogen compression and storage is a blinkin' nightmare. It's a mistake to regard it as a fuel. It's really a different kind of battery: you take some other form of energy (usually electricity), produce and compress hydrogen, move it, then convert it back to electricity to use it. The problem is that if you compress hydrogen enough to get decent range, you end up spending a fortune on compression. It's also difficult to contain. Hydrogen is far more costly per mile than just using regular ol' Lithium batteries.

It's also more dangerous. A tank of compressed hydrogen is a bomb. Don't jostle it. A battery can leak or catch fire, but it doesn't explode like a tank of hydrogen will. Gasoline doesn't immediately explode on a tank breach; you have seconds to get out of the way.

Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
As for compressed natural gas, yeah, the producers of natural gas would love to see natural gas fueled vehicles become a big thing.

But compression costs are highly significant with that fuel, too, the energy density is a lot lower than with gasoline, and it still emits CO2 into the atmosphere. Not as much as gas, perhaps, but it's still a problem going forward.

One thing armchair prognosticators tend to miss is that with any fossil fuel, the tech isn't going to advance much. The energy density is what it is. That's not the case for batteries. Battery tech won't advance as quickly as Moore's Law drove semiconductors, but it is going to advance, and nobody really knows where the limits are yet. Already, forward-looking engineers at NASA and elsewhere are looking at battery-driven aircraft. Not practical today, but they will be as batteries get better.

We need to end our reliance on fossil fuels for our energy, period. Natural gas doesn't get us there.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
"It is the highest efficiency you will probably meet,"
What if I was to meet a rotary design instead of reciprocating?
Gavilan
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2016
What if this newly designed Internal Combustion Engine is applied as the prime mover for a series hybrid power process, where prime mover demand is averaged over the entire transportation cycle, and braking is regenerated at high efficiency?

Imagine an ICE – Electric hybrid with no mechanical drive train to complicate the positioning of center of mass; combined with extreme performance and range; and with control enhanced by four wheel tractive control in both power and braking.

Electric vehicles make sense in polluted cities; but if the source energy for charging the batteries is a combustion plant then all that has been accomplished is relocation of the pollution and lower efficiencies. In terms of energy and environmental efficiency electric vehicles make no sense unless there is existing nonpolluting electrical sources to charge them.

http://www.bestsy...cars.htm
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2016
Urgelt observed
Otto is paying attention to facts selectively again, in order to arrive at his thesis
Too true re TheGhostofOtto1923 this case & many others too & has been caught lying openly in ugly personal attacks faking others quotes betraying a severe anti-intellectual stance against many secure in their qualifications/career choices adding facile claims of others mental states, all showing that TheGhostofOtto1923 is insecure, immature with chips on his shoulders no much ever useful to offer :/

Back to relevancy
Agree fully with your view re H2, I recall Don Lancaster many years ago touched on a full end-to-end thermodynamic analysis that concluded "Even if hydrogen was free it would be too expensive to use (ie thermodynamically & thus commercially)".

ie Re the ICE, issue of metal embrittlement & leakage preclude its use re dangers as it tends to attach to surfaces forming a long term explosion risk, it takes far less than a spark to ignite it !
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2016
Gavilan offered
What if this newly designed Internal Combustion Engine is applied as the prime mover for a series hybrid power process, where prime mover demand is averaged over the entire transportation cycle, and braking is regenerated at high efficiency?
This area has & is further keenly explored, for regenerative braking see prime movers with megajoule supercapacitors.

Suggestion replacing some Li-Ion batteries
http://www.electr...itor-bus

This co http://www.skelet...ortation
is currently on a trial with large ultra-capacitor arrays underneath prime movers across Europe.

http://www.altene...pacitors

The larger prime mover co's are expecting to achieve less than 20L/100Km fuel re hybrid, Li-Ion & super capacitors within the next 5 years...

This research & development began around time of Li-Ion price dip yrs ago
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2016
Gavilan
In terms of energy and environmental efficiency electric vehicles make no sense unless there is existing nonpolluting electrical sources to charge them.
I disagree. Look at the environmental catastrophe of tar sands. Google the oil pollution of the Niger Delta. Check what is happening around the Eagle Ford Shale. Remember Exxon Valdez, or Deep Horizon. Yes - every fuel source has it's environmental costs - but I would put solar panels up against coal/oil/gas any day. So the goal is better, not perfect. EV's running on an electrical system that is in transition, is better. The eventual goal is the mothballing of the fossil fuel system.
katesisco
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2016
Interesting read.
Our human flaw is change. Capitalism has expounded upon that flaw to 'create new markets.' Of which the electric car is one. Actually improving an existing product has no commercial advantage. It actually saves the consumer money. Inserting another middle man in the consumption stream is what 'new markets' actually is.
The unexplained heating of the Earth's core has delayed the 'finite oil' problem. Actually the electricity is being generated with fossil fuels, yet another example of capitalism. Decades of Bush's Clean Air has demonstrated that actually removing carbon dioxide and other pollutants is much more expensive and complicated than the big producers want to take on. And what about the waste stream? Haven't we proved that the waste stream is uncontrollable or it would have been controlled? Selling heavy metals in fertilizer as D Wilson showed in Deadly Harvest is always the choice for profit never mind the people's health. I could go on.......
BENRAS
5 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2016
Miniature version might be set to auto-charge batteries for always-ready use and expanded range. Just sayin'
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2016
kate, the electric vehicle is not a "new market", because it will replace a bigger one, the market for parts and maintenance for ICE-driven autos.

It is a cleaner and cheaper mode of transportation. Yes, cheaper, considering no gas, no oil , no filters, no smoke, no emissions whatever, and it is charged by my solar cells on the house.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2016
Eikka - current best estimates of world lithium reserves is around 40 million tons (this will undoubtedly increase). It is estimated that Tesla will be using about 7,000 tons a year - and just one new deposit in Wyoming - is estimated to contain 228,000 tons of lithium. You need to join the peak oil movement - they would crown you.


You're making a big strawman.

1) it's not about how much lithium there is in the ground. You have to get it out of there, and that costs money, the more the faster you want it dug up.

2) there's a great demand coming up with grid energy storage demanding hunrderds of terawatt-hours worth of batteries worldwide. It's not just electric cars that need them.

3) recycling lithium batteries is more expensive than using virgin materials, which is why it is not currenty done.

All that competition for limited production capability will drive the prices up and hold back the market expansion for electric vehicles for many decades to come
Eikka
not rated yet Oct 30, 2016
So the goal is better, not perfect. EV's running on an electrical system that is in transition, is better. The eventual goal is the mothballing of the fossil fuel system.


ICE cars running on methane would be better than the current crop of electric vehicles, because they don't produce particulate matter or NOx and 30% less CO2 compared to gasoline. Fuel cell vehicles running on methane would slash those emissions down in half again by improved efficiency.

The irony is that synthetic hydrocarbons will be used to store surplus renewable energy on the cheap, and it won't make any sense to turn those back to electricity in a big powerplant and charge a battery with it when you can have the powerplant directly in the car and avoid the heavy, expensive battery entirely.
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2016
Eikka thinks, "All that competition for limited production capability will drive the prices up and hold back the market expansion for electric vehicles for many decades to come."

At present, about 85% of the market is controlled by four producers who have incestuous relationships. Fortune Magazine called lithium pricing 'opaque.' It's not commonly traded on commodities markets.

However, new producers are getting into the act; Tesla is banking on their succeeding in ramping up production. There's little reason to think they can't succeed. There are plenty of untapped deposits, and it should be quite a profitable business.

Demand has surged faster than supply, and so prices are somewhat elevated at present. But that is not proof that lithium prices won't come down. Musk is intent on making sure that prices *do* come down. To a large extent, the success of Tesla, specifically, and EVs in general, does depend on it.
Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2016
Musk's strategy is to become a huge buyer, which will give him a lot of leverage. His megafactory has two purposes: one is to control his supply chain costs, and the other is to wield market power as a buyer of raw product.

Nothing is certain. There are risks.

But it's a viable strategy. I won't bet against him.

And when you get right down to it, this is how capitalism is supposed to work. There is plenty of lithium in the ground and there is rising demand for it. Production capacity will rise. Prices will fluctuate as the market matures; but in the long run, there will be plenty of production and plenty of price competition. There's really no cause for undue anxiety over it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2016
Urgelt says
Badly
"Acceptance of electric cars was initially hampered by a lack of power infrastructure, but by 1912, many homes were wired for electricity, enabling a surge in the popularity of the cars. At the turn of the century, 40 percent of American automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity, and 22 percent by gasoline."

Before the world wars people in the west rarely needed to travel far beyond their own neighborhoods. If they did they took the train. Rarely did they need to travel cross country to conduct business. Vacations were unheard of except for the rich.

This all changed in a decade or 2. Suddenly people needed cars and airplanes to do most anything.

So society [was] changed to make ICE tech essential. And now that it is being phased out, conservation groups like LEED are encouraging development in cities using local materials, public transportation, multiuse commercial/residential, regional food production, etc.

Reverting easily.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2016
Eikka
You're making a big strawman.
No I am not. The point was in direct response to you assertion. "It's not going to be a very small percent after you simply don't have enough of it to make any more batteries." And you are wrong.

Read Urgelt's assessment above - it explains it very well.

Also -
recycling lithium batteries is more expensive than using virgin materials, which is why it is not currenty done.
But you then go to assert that prices will be driven up - in which case recycling will become part of the picture - yes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2016
And who knows what might have been invented and when, if long-distance travel hadn't become essential and electric had had a chance to compete and improve?

"The nickel–cadmium battery (NiCd) was invented by Waldemar Jungner of Sweden in 1899. It uses nickel oxide hydroxide and metallic cadmium as electrodes."

-And since gas remained so cheap for so long there was no need to make engines more efficient. Instead they became bigger, more powerful, and more efficient at consuming great quantities of petrol.

Commercial trucking and air cargo replaced much of what was traditionally been done by trains and ships. But this was also made necessary by a supercharged demand for unnecessary and disposable consumer goods, and for foods brought in from all over the world for no good reason.

Again, all this seems to be evaporating very quickly, possibly because it was all very contrived and artificial. Strategic.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
no emissions whatever, and it is charged by my solar cells on the house
your vehicle (if you actually have one) is not charged by your solar panels

for starters: solar panels give out DC current, and your vehicle requires AC to charge
Charge your e-Golf at home with an available 240V wall box
https://www.vw.co.../e-golf/

http://www.plugin...e-motion

unless you have the SEL or upgraded DC Quick Charge, which you've never actually been able to prove or validate (also never said)

more to the point, your own power company (and you) says your system feeds the grid (you called it a "bank"), not a battery system in your house
http://www.pge.co...options/

http://www.pge.co...S_EV.pdf

http://www.seia.o...reements

again, you've repeated a blatantly false claim
(AKA-lied)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam cont'd
more importantly, you said your car charges at night ( http://phys.org/n...les.html ) which rules out your solar panels entirely unless you have them on the ISS and you've moved (and you wouldn't be able to use the VW in space)

so you can say your vehicle (if it exists) saves you on fuel costs
and you can say your vehicle (if it exists) saves you on maintenance
but you can't say you charge your vehicle with your solar panels, especially not at night as you've repeatedly claimed on PO
nor can you even say it is 100% emission free unless your power company uses nuclear technology to generate electricity and not emit CO2

all the evidence from your own posts, your own power company and your own manufacturer directly refute that
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2016
That's quite a fixation you have there. If you were a real veteran you could get help for it.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam

are you saying that i made a false claim anywhere?

by all means, show the evidence
prove it

because you haven't provided any evidence at all whatsoever NOR have you given anything that validates your claims about your DC car that charges at night on solar panels from a completely emission free electric company that doesn't use nuclear tech

so that means

1- i am not ignorant of solar energy, nor of your own power company setup, as demonstrated above, whereas you are ignorant of the facts

2- you are intentionally lying to gain attention
(lying yet again, as this has already been addressed on another thread)

3- the evidence proves i have far more experience in the area than you

it also means: If you were a real veteran you could get help for it

Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2016
Otto ranted, "So society [was] changed to make ICE tech essential."

It's really the other way around. When ICE vehicles were supported by an inexpensive gasoline distribution infrastructure, consumer demand drove adoption, and society was transformed by personal mobility.

Without the mobility, you can't get that transformation.

You imagine a cabal of plotters changing society so ICE vehicles could succeed. That's pure paranoia in action.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CSt) says
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
are you saying that i made a false claim anywhere?
by all means, show the evidence
prove it
Easily done & you do it often :/

a. Claiming a paper without experiments has "experimentation"
b. Claiming that paper was "rigorous" in defence when it expressed caution needing experimental rigor
c. Claiming your 15yr old grand-daughter "found" a paper proving THz radiation was harmless

Yet, you never apologise for huge gaffs - you're guilty of "Scientific Misconduct" regularly misinterpreting Science & not reading scientific papers - using those papers to Bully & Mislead !

You muddy the waters considerably re climate change in respect of radiative transfer claiming its hard when its not - in that you really like getting on the bandwagon of popular momentum just to Bully !

Your posts littered with claims of Liar this, liar that etc

You're unraveling, not the way mature people engage in Scientific discourse :/
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CSt) misusing Science terms again claims
1- i am not ignorant of solar energy, nor of your own power company setup, as demonstrated above, whereas you are ignorant of the facts

2- you are intentionally lying to gain attention
(lying yet again, as this has already been addressed on another thread)

3- the evidence proves i have far more experience in the area than you
Crap & doubt it (!) especially as you have a history of misusing terms like "evidence", "validation" etc

Although it appears you know some science, your pattern is merely to further authoritative argument, irony is you claim others are only ego oriented but, see your posts hurling personal abuse, not addressing science or even basic Physics :/

Misleading the public is negligence, tell CSt why, in debate with me, you kept claiming you linked to a paper which proved another paper proved Terahertz (THz) radiation is harmless ?

Please link directly to any paper proving THz harmless ?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2016
Otto ranted, "So society [was] changed to make ICE tech essential." … You imagine a cabal of plotters changing society so ICE vehicles could succeed. That's pure paranoia in action.
That's hardly a rant. In the course of recent human history the extremely disproportional influence of a tiny minority of bankers and industrialists has had profoundly detrimental consequences for the indigenous peoples and their planet. Thinking or saying otherwise means you're either ignorant, duped, deluded, or bought and paid for. Since you're too smart not to have a clue, here's a little ditty from David Rovics – Henry Ford was a Fascist (There are referenced, explanatory quotes at the beginning.)
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2016
Eikka (Ek) states
ICE cars running on methane would be better than the current crop of electric vehicles, because they don't produce particulate matter or NOx and 30% less CO2 compared to gasoline
Crap & Hang on, convoluted implying electric cars worse because they produce particulate emissions ? Unfortunate choice of words there :/

Ek adds
Fuel cell vehicles running on methane would slash those emissions down in half again by improved efficiency
Efficiency re methane, no way !

Better:-
1. Avoid pressurized automotive fuels H2, CH4 etc
2. Exploit existing liquid fuel infrastructure = cheaper, safer, far more efficient
3. Exploit methanol bio production within existing fossil fuel power plants, cheap CO2
4. Improve methanol combustion byproduct emissions

Ek wrote
.. irony is that synthetic hydrocarbons will be used to store surplus renewable energy on the cheap, and it won't make any sense to turn those back to electricity
Except hybrid vehicles :D
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2016
Proto quipped, "In the course of recent human history the extremely disproportional influence of a tiny minority of bankers and industrialists has had profoundly detrimental consequences for the indigenous peoples and their planet. Thinking or saying otherwise means you're either ignorant, duped, deluded, or bought and paid for. Since you're too smart not to have a clue, here's a little ditty from David Rovics – Henry Ford was a Fascist..."

Aside from your digs at my motives, I agree with your statements. But none of that demonstrates how ICE vehicles succeeded against EVs in the early 20th Century. Hint: no matter what fascists or cabals or banksters might have decided behind closed doors, ICE vehicles won in the marketplace because they outperformed EVs and got a cheap fuel distribution system in place. EVs based on lead-acid batteries and relying on early 20th Century electrical system build-out couldn't make the cut in the market.

Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2016
EVs are still not quite competitive. But they're much closer than they were due to tech advances and due to Musk's business tactics. The cross-over point isn't all that far ahead - two decades from now, I think EVs on the road will outnumber ICE vehicles.

They key, as it always was, is battery tech. EVs are inherently lower maintenance and produce reduced particulate emissions - the latter is true even if coal-fired plants are used to generate the electricity to charge them, and even better if renewable energy sources are used. All that holds EVs back, really, is battery cost and performance. With lithium ion batteries, they're much better than with the lead-acid batteries of the early 20th Century. And better still batteries are on the way.

Consumer willingness to buy EVs, then and now, is an important driver. Not even Musk could sell EVs if consumers didn't want them. He is focused on performance and price for very good reasons - they matter.
Urgelt
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2016
If cabals and banksters and fascists could close the market to EVs, they would. The defenders of the status quo and enormous fortunes are committed to fossil fuels. And they're trying! You have state legislatures like Michigan's forbidding direct to consumer sales by Tesla. You have lobbyists doing their best to shut down incentives for EVs and avoid carbon taxes. You have snide anti-EV articles popping up everywhere in mainstream media.

Tesla doesn't have to lift a finger to counter all of that, because consumers want EVs. They attained a ten billion dollar order book before they even reached 50,000 vehicles per year production. Consumers want them because: 1) Many of us are worried about climate change. 2) EV performance is nearing parity with ICE vehicles. 3) EV costs are coming down. 4) Tesla's cars are very well-designed. These aren't the glorified golf carts of yesteryear. 5) Fossil fuels aren't so cheap any longer.

Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2016
In the early 20th Century, EVs just couldn't compete. ICE vehicles whipped their butts with consumers. They had longer range, were easier to fuel, and the fuel was cheap. OPEC was a long way in the future. So was peak oil. Nobody had ever heard of climate change. Consumers wanted ICE vehicles. That demand drove the bus (literally).

Diesel-electric trains got a toehold because heavy batteries in locomotives weren't much of a disadvantage. In fact the extra weight improved their traction on rails. But heavy batteries imposed a huge weight penalty on early EVs, their range was crap, and the build-out of America's electrical infrastructure was still a work in progress. Meanwhile, gas stations popped up everywhere, all they needed was a few tanks in the ground, pumps and trucks to haul fuel. Fuel wasn't in short supply. At all.

Consumers wanted personal mobility, cheap. ICE vehicles gave it to them. Forget about cabals. The market made that decision.
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2016
And now the market is changing. Consumer desires are changing. EV quality and performance is changing.

Proto and Otto overestimate the power of the elites. Those elites do love to manipulate behind the scenes, yep, yep. But the truth is they're along for the ride just like we are. They can amass huge fortunes and screw with governments and the media, but climate change, peak oil and advancing tech are more powerful than they are.

Musk's genius is that he understands very well the limits of the power of the elites, and he understands how to whip them by harnessing the power of markets and advancing tech to overrule their schemes and their preferences.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2016
Urgelt keenly observed
Musk's genius is that he understands very well the limits of the power of the elites, and he understands how to whip them by harnessing the power of markets and advancing tech to overrule their schemes and their preferences
Indeed to sizable degree most pertinent point & from the various (subscribed) finance forums I frequent - to forward a strategy with appropriate tactics to bring a few mostly shy elites on side behind suitable vehicles. Plausible reports suggest Musk is able to call on an excess of USD$10B per yr each yr over 10 yrs under complex underwriting lines with the bulk in a mix of liquid foreign currencies, speculation of course :D

Though, to consider how well a knit of Tesla/Space-X & burgeoning hydra accumulate critical mass such that realistic/practical plans as articulated below can accelerate (not for the intellectually ill-equipped known for climate change denial & insult)
https://www.youtu...lSzNOh8s
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2016
This is what the capitalist conspiracy theorists miss:

There are indeed capitalists acting to protect the status quo. But there are also capitalists who are seeking to undermine it. Why? Because disruption, when successful, ushers in a new status quo and fills different elite wallets. The downfall of the Koch brothers and Exxon-Mobil will be the enrichment of other elites.

The elites are never united behind a single group of industry players. They scheme against one another in a ruthlessly competitive fashion, even as they seek to mold public opinion, corrupt governments and seek advantages for themselves.

They are divided, not united. It's important to understand this when evaluating their impact on public policy and markets.

Musk isn't alone. He has the backing - sometimes the nervous backing - of ambitious capitalists who want to profit big from his disruptions. There isn't one cabal, but many, with incompatible goals.
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2016
And because that's so, no single cabal can always dictate where markets will go.

Sometimes, they can. But it doesn't last. Humanity is going to move where it wants to go; elites who get in the way will discover the limits of elite power.

Consumers wanted ICE vehicles in the early 20th Century; they were longer-range, better-handling and used cheaper, more readily available fuel. EVs were not ready for prime time. Those facts, not any scheming from elites, determined the course of the 20th Century.

If the protectors of the status quo were all-powerful, we'd still be driving horses.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2016
@facile/false_mikey
Easily done
ok, mr facile... please show where i've made a false claim in the above thread

before you drag in your uneducated illiterate argument from another thread you should consider the actual conversation and context, which you've just completely ignored because you're pissed off about still not being able to read
you never apologise for huge gaffs
you're wrong about that as well
i will not apologize for your laziness, either

just because you claimed to have read all those studies but then ignored the evidence in them, especially the study that literally consolidated and examined all the other *experiments* in ThZ while discussing the state of the knowledge, doesn't mean i claimed "a paper without experiments has "experimentation" ", nor does it mean i didn't understand the science

you made a false claim about Thz b/c you didn't comprehend the context - PERIOD
and now you're pissed and being a d*ck about it
cjones1
not rated yet Oct 31, 2016
A hybrid using a fuel cell could use the same source of fuel and power up the house in an emergency.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2016
@facile/penile mike
so if you want to get all OT and discuss the Thz, use e-mail or lets go to a moderated forum where we can have an objective mediator and quit being a jerk here

more to the point
Crap & doubt it (!)
ok, if you doubt it and it's crap, please, by all means, show where the above information i provided was false, improperly used, or in any way wrong

otherwise, STFU and learn English - i hear it's the primary language spoken where you live, so why are you still f*cking it up?
Misleading the public is negligence
then you're guilty of negligence as well as outright fraud because of your claims
feel free to litigate if you think you want to go there, otherwise STFU
Please link directly to any paper proving THz harmless?
1- you ignored it already, so why keep repeating this all over PO?

oh, right... it's because you like to repeat lies - like the eu

2- learn how to read
b/c
3- i referenced it and you said you read it

you're OT
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2016
@Captain Stumpy (CSt)
Comprehend you wrote "..i made a false claim anywhere?"

Clearest Eg is you referenced a Scientific paper without experiment claiming it was "rigorous" & proof THz radiation is harmless, regardless where - fully defeats your open ended claim, falls directly within province of "anywhere" ie Not off topic :P

Please step up to the plate, tell new readers here how you, who claim to be a fire truck captain (fortunately nothing else) easily interpret complex Scientific Papers across disciplines from Electronic Engineering through to Bio-chemistry AND also claim your 15yr old grandaughter without uni education understood it?

Why can't you prove your case, link the paper you Bullied gkam with 3 times claiming "THz radiation is harmless" or shall I remind you ?

Then also please link directly to the other paper you claim proves THz radiation is harmless ?

I read ALL your references, none have ANY proof whatsoever, link it please ?

& apologise please ?
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2016
sigh
@mike
Comprehend you wrote "..i made a false claim anywhere?"
comprehend you said
I have read all the papers relevant to the Scope of Work (which includes those you linked earlier)
which technically means you literally read all 20 references that i listed (to that point) but then claimed
1. Paper intent wrong, can't prove harmless
2. Does NOT have ANY empirical evidence :/
3. Two disclaimers, key in last conclusion line
without reference OR stating which paper you were discussing

now, taken in context to the conversation we were having that is called a false claim, AKA- a blatant f*cking lie
which then makes you a blatant f*cking liar and profssionally stupid for continuing to spread the same misinformation all over PO in various unrelated threads
AKA - negligence, fraud & intentional deceit

until you learn to read and speak english, STFU
the reason you're not making this point on a moderated site is that you would be banned for lies
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2016
@mike cont'd
Then also please link directly to the other paper you claim proves THz radiation is harmless ?
i linked them all here: http://phys.org/n...ens.html

you claimed you read them
repeating your lie in various threads because you can't f*cking read is getting tiresome

as for your attck on my granddaughter or my education - you don't know WTF education i have, mike, but i've proven that you are at least illiterate and can't read

more to the point, you want to make this a pissing contest about the most educated - that is called argument from authority, and like liar-kam, it is not relevant

all because you refused to actually read the references

now, i aint gonna continue this yet again
especially since you've proven that you will NOT read the links i already gave you

so, unless you want to prove how the idiot gkam charges his electric golf at night with solar panels with no battery system as he claimed, STFU
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2016
& apologise please ?
i will apologize to the forum

sorry that mike is a complete idiot and apparently can't read

sorry that mike thinks solar panels work at night

sorry that mike thinks that hooking solar panels up to the grid system somehow means zero emissions, that you can use solar power at night and that you can call it solar powered charging when you don't have batteries to store the energy that you can't get at night

sorry that mike thinks stolen valor is a great thing, that lying about being an engineer is ok, and that making a claim when the evidence directly refutes the claim is somehow justified

apparently, so long as you can post pictures, a copy of a known inflated annual feedback from the military or a store-bought MS degree that with no baccalaureate, then you can argue from authority because you can prove you're smarter than everyone else, and to hell what the evidence or the science says, according to mike and liar-kam

FOAD
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2016
It's really the other way around. When ICE vehicles were supported by an inexpensive gasoline distribution infrastructure, consumer demand drove adoption, and society was transformed by personal mobility
Indeed, cause and effect. It took enormous amounts of seed money to finance this vast new infrastructure. Where did it come from?

And people had no need to travel until large corporations drove local shops, companies, and markets out of business. You seem to think that this was all natural, or happenstance, or at least the result of pathological greed.

I think that 1) overpopulation has always been the biggest threat to civilization, and that 2) technological advance is also the biggest threat to civilization, and that 3) both are absolutely inevitable.

Read your bible. You don't have a bible?

"There is a Time for everything... everything is beautiful in its own Time." Ecc3

Humans are above all Planners. It's what made us human. Planners survived.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2016
And why would you think that Planning didn't prevail at the very top of the Command Structure? As they need to deal with humanity's most pressing problems, shouldn't we expect to find the most exquisite Plans at work there?

Pharoah had a bad dream. Jacob explained it to him - 7 years of feast would make 7 years of famine inevitable. As always. So they built graneries and stored food, and they ended up owning everything of value in egypt. And Jacob's 12 brothers came begging him for food and even though they had thrown him down a well he gave it to them.

Well, SOLD it to them.

The Rothschilds made their fortunes by knowing how a war would turn out. Being able to engineer wars to produce favorable results can generate unimaginable wealth and power. All it requires is that Leaders above a certain level on both sides of the conflict, are on the same Side.

The mafia always prefers to have a judge in its pocket before they go to court.

Etc. Am I being too obtuse for you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2016
Back to specifics
In the early 20th Century, EVs just couldn't compete. ICE vehicles whipped their butts with consumers. They had longer range, were easier to fuel, and the fuel was cheap. OPEC was a long way in the future. So was peak oil. Nobody had ever heard of climate change. Consumers wanted ICE vehicles. That demand drove the bus (literally)
If you peruse that wiki article I linked you will see that EVs were preferred in urban areas. Rich people loved them. Suburbs and commuting and Levittowns and shopping malls are distinctly unnatural.

People had to be forced - er deceived - to adapt.

"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood..."

Daniel Burnham, city Planner
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2016
Urgelt and Mike. Great discussion - and I am in agreement. One point - that is too broad to cover in depth - but I am interested in. There clearly are great forces in our world - that work towards the promotion of specific agendas (oil and gas industry, military industrial complex, medical industry, church etc.) An interesting read for example is the history of the rubber industry, and the untold suffering in the Congo - http://www.histor...darkness . Seems clear that many interests converged to promote the use of oil, and the personal transportation sector. Look at the spending on the highway system. Today - one of the biggest deterrents to striking out as a small business person - is the crushing cost of medicine. I agree with you that things are changing. Wonder if we can free out throats of the crushing forces - often determined to maintain the status quo. Thanks.
promytius1
not rated yet Oct 31, 2016
Very thin discussion of a non-news event; this article lacks perspective. History tells us many, many times that 'new' 'discoveries' are sometimes more marketing than science; we already made a one piston engine, decades ago. Without a serious perspective on the place this thing will play in the world, it's just another ad on the magazine's back pages.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2016
"a blatant f*cking lie
which then makes you a blatant f*cking liar and profssionally stupid for continuing to spread the same misinformation all over PO in various unrelated threads
AKA - negligence, fraud & intentional deceit

until you learn to read and speak english, STFU"
------------------------------------------------

Such are the rantings and ravings of anonymous snipers.

Can we rid ourselves of them? How about getting them out of this forum?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2016
Hint: no matter what fascists or cabals or banksters might have decided behind closed doors, ICE vehicles won in the marketplace because they outperformed EVs and got a cheap fuel distribution system in place.
What they decided had nothing to do with trickling their wealth upon the masses to make the world a better place – rather, it had everything to do with global domination. And it worked pretty well, check out some excerpts from Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler

And it still works well – for example, you say that:
Not even Musk could sell EVs if consumers didn't want them
But there are entire states that prohibit the free commerce and won't let Musk satisfy consumer's demand in their jurisdictions – Why Tesla Motors can't sell cars in most of the United States. See how that works?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2016
Proto and Otto overestimate the power of the elites.
He can speak for himself on that. He tends to credit our technological advancements as products of the war machine and the tribal environment of perpetual conflict. I tend to argue we'd be a lot further along if we weren't devoting so much effort and resources to destroying each other and the planet.

I believe the real source of prosperity and advancement is science, and not one bit at all from monetary subjugation of the masses to contrived, archaic, morally impoverished laws of the jungle – history has shown repeatedly how deleterious that is for most, and the greed machine has us all facing WWIII while we're still engaged in wars OF terror against actors graciously supplied and trained by our own military machines. The time to put a stop to it all is (and has always been) NOW.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2016
and the greed machine has us all facing WWIII while we're still engaged in wars OF terror against actors graciously supplied and trained by our own military machines
War is inevitable.
Such are the rantings and ravings of anonymous snipers.

Can we rid ourselves of them? How about getting them out of this forum?
Psychopaths like george kamburoff are inevitable. Notice how he enjoys baiting goobers?

The only way to control them is to divide them up, give them machetes, and let them go at it. Baiting psychopaths like george is also very easy.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2016
Seems clear that many interests converged to promote the use of oil, and the personal transportation sector. Look at the spending on the highway system.
-- The onion jackass hee...hawwss again.
This is the jackass who boasted about his 1200 mile jaunt, during which he emitted more than a tenth of the US average annual CO2, in JUST 2 DAYS. Tell us jackass, which oil company was holding a gun to your head? None? Well let's blame the fantastic highway system, if they were bad then you would have only driven 12 miles. Right?
Keep braying at the heretics jackass, you'll save the world.
Dug
not rated yet Oct 31, 2016
"She said recent evidence suggested that "people are starting to trend away from hybrid cars towards fully electric vehicles". More indicatively, 2015-2016 overall electric car sales declined significantly when the price of oil declined by half - both hybrids and all electric. Before electric cars become mainstream, they will have to become less expensive than similar capacity and priced ICE powered vehicles. Given that eliminating all private ICE vehicles reduces global anthropogenic CO2 about a measly 3% (remember that the power grid is 83% fossil fuel generated - and that doesn't count distribution losses) - it's hard to feel guilty for not converting to the generally under performing/wt./size and more expensive electric vehicle choices at this time. A globally adapted ICE engine that was twice and efficient as current ICE engines would have far greater impact on rising CO2 levels that current electric car development efforts and progress.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2016
Dug
(remember that the power grid is 83% fossil fuel generated
Do you have a source for that stat? Eia says it is about 67% http://www.eia.go...city.cfm
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2016
War is inevitable.
Why, because you heard a story about war breaking out even in a place like heaven? War is nothing more than disagreement (in the extreme), and if the battlefields of disagreement were moved to (or constrained within) frameworks of scientific methodology then there would be no unnecessary loss of life and limb, neither would there be any unnecessary destruction of materialistic property and infrastructure. There would be growth instead of death, evolution instead of devolution, and purpose instead of folly.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2016
if the battlefields of disagreement were moved to (or constrained within) frameworks of scientific methodology then there would be no unnecessary loss of life and limb, neither would there be any unnecessary destruction of materialistic property and infrastructure
@Proto
not so sure about this considering our evolutionary history

it sounds great, but can it be feasible?
if we take the example of war or battle and put it in the sports arena, we can see that it doesn't work. fans are willing to fight for their chosen team...
so why think this will apply to science?

in all actuality, science would have a far better ability to drive the war into more devastating results than even sports - and we *do* see that in history with technology, bio-terror, or modern tactics

so whereas i can respect the argument, i am not sure it's feasible
especially in our current state of development

perhaps in a millennia once we learn how to evolve ourselves?
Eikka
not rated yet Nov 02, 2016
But you then go to assert that prices will be driven up - in which case recycling will become part of the picture - yes?


Yes and no.

The whole point is that electric cars will remain a niche because the batteries can't decrease in price. Right now very few are buying them because the batteries are too expensive, and so it will remain for a long long time.

Batteries will eventually become technically cheaper, but manufacturing them in the huge volumes required will not be cheap due to the supply issues, because the limited production capability of virgin materials AND the high cost of recycling will hold the price up. We just can't make batteries fast and cheap enough to provide an affordable electric "folkswagon" that everyone and their grandmother could buy in the next 20-30 years.

Electric cars will sell somewhat more than they do today, but fuel cell vehicles and hybrids with advanced ICEs using synthetic and renewable fuels will be the mainstay of mobility.
Eikka
not rated yet Nov 02, 2016
Let's put it this way:

The Tesla gigafactory uses up 7,000 tons (given by Greenonions) of lithium to make 35 GWh of batteries per year. That's 35 million kWh.

Each electric vehicle is fitted with 100 kWh of battery capacity, which has an average life of 10 years in use, therefore they "consume" 10 kWh of batteries per year/ car.

So, the gigafactory can keep up with 3.5 million cars on the roads.

According to Wikipedia, the worldwide use of lithium in 2012 was 120,000 tons a year. Using all of that lithium to make batteries for electric cars would supply enough for 60 million cars.

There are 260 million passenger cars in the US alone. Four times the world supply wouldn't be quite enough to electrify them all. That is the scale of the supply problem, and that's not even counting all the other new uses for lithium batteries, such as the Powerwall systems which represent an even greater potential demand for batteries.

Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2016
Anyhow, the bigger elephant in the room is grid energy storage.

The US consumes about 600 GW electricity on average, so one day of backup batteries across the grid is 14,400 GWh and again with 10 years of shelf-life that's 1,440 GWh of batteries being replaced each year. That takes 41 Gigafactories to make them, and 288,000 tons of lithium a year.

That's just a ballpark estimate, but it illustrates the problem perfectly. We can't make these things because with growing demand the cost of the raw materials shoots through the roof and the demand chokes due to high prices.

Meanwhile, there's already a functioning supply system of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons that can power vehicles and homes, that can be converted gradually to renewable energy without major disruptions, which works with what people already have.

Utopists planners try to pull off revolutions, while the real world works by evolution.
peep_rada
4 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2016
Seems like another hype.
First, we do not know what kind of tank was used. Perhaps 100l tank? Then we don't know what kind of car was used, perhaps some kind of thin wheeled trike with very small frontal area of extremely aerodynamic design nobody would want to buy.

Any thermal engine efficiency is principally limited to theoretical Carnot engine efficiency that depends on in inlet temperature and burn temperature difference. Unless waste heat isn't reused like it is done in large diesel engines installed on the ships. So far, increase in engine efficiency originates from more efficient fuel burn (fuel injection and timing) and less friction (better materials and oils). It remains to be clarified what is the actual efficiency of that engine. And from where efficiency gains are coming.
peep_rada
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2016
They (Aquarius engines) state to have reached 43.2% efficiency. Which is better than normal car engine (around 35%) of course, but not revolutionary.
peep_rada
5 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2016
Eikka, supplying electric cars with electricity isn't a too big deal. First because most of them (60-80%) are normally charged during night time when approx. 1/3 to 1/2 of the electric generating capacity is not used. Utility companies would be more than happy to run their plants during night time at full power.
Plus, producing gasoline or diesel fuel uses up large quantities of electricity which can be used for charging cars instead of producing fuel. It is not clear how much electricity is used for producing one litre of fuel, as it depends on oil type used in input and refinery technology, but it should be something between 100wh to 1kwh of external electricity per one litre. To be clear, this electricity is not entirely wasted, as many refining reactions are endothermic. But refinery machinery needs to be powered, required pressures and temperatures for chemical reactions need to be met.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2016
Eikka
There are 260 million passenger cars in the US alone.
Source please. My source says that # refers to 'passenger cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles' https://www.stati...ce-1990/
Each year there are about 8 million cars sold in the U.S. each year. https://www.stati...ce-1951/ So based on your figures of 100 Kwh per car - we would be looking at around 23 gigafactories - using 161,000 tons of lithium per year - no problem. You are also ignoring recycling - that will clearly become a part of the equation. The lithium is a very small part of the cost of the battery https://cleantech...-prices/ There are other factors - such as the possibility that electric cars are going to last longer than ice's - due to less complexity. Musk is planning on the million mile car. etc. etc. etc.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2016
Utility companies would be more than happy to run their plants during night time at full power.
Plus

Uh huh and the "greenest" form of electricity; solar, is so abundant at night, right?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2016
They (Aquarius engines) state to have reached 43.2% efficiency. Which is better than normal car engine (around 35%) of course, but not revolutionary.

When every 0.1% increase to date has been heralded as big step such a leap is indeed revolutionary.

Then again: Efficiency alone isn't the deciding factor whether something will be adopted (it's profitability...which must overcome the initial cost of retooling of factories and redesigning of cars in a market that is moving away from ICEs to begin with). So while this sounds good I think it's too late be to be adopted in anything but specialized niche products.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2016
Eikka
Utopists planners try to pull off revolutions, while the real world works by evolution.


I agree. You are talking about Tesla Motors right - and the evolution they are very much a part of - to introduce better vehicles - that are also more environmentally friendly? Sometimes evolution happens fast. Why not just let it play out?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2016
Why, because you heard a story about war breaking out even in a place like heaven? War is nothing more than disagreement (in the extreme), and if the battlefields of blah
War is always a competition over resources. Competition is made necessary when populations grow past the carrying capacity of the region they reside in. We refer to this as 'overpopulation', and until quite recently it has always been inevitable. Inevitable. Inevitable.

Overpopulation is the cause of all war, which in turn, makes_war_inevitable.

The fact that this is not always readily apparent is because as Planners we know it often times makes sense (is absolutely imperative) to attack an enemy before he is ready to attack you.

"All of war is deception." Sun Tsu

"Peace is only the preparation for war." Carl von clausewitz

"And so all of peace is also deception." otto von Physorg

"Everything is beautiful in its own Time." gods heavenly chorus

Ecclesiastes is an opera.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2016
Continuing the thought and to elaborate, as war has always been the single most dire threat to stability and progress and to civilization itself, the preparation for war during peacetime must necessarily include extravagant and elaborate social, political, and economic systems conceived from scratch to facilitate the waging of war at the proper Time and in the proper Manner.

These wars must always be waged to benefit and not harm civilization, nor can they endanger that most precious of possessions, our accumulated store of knowledge about the universe.

Which you call science.

The people must be convinced to expect them, to support them, and to participate in them. This often requires significant actions such as hyperinflation, blowing up ships in foreign harbors, or flying planes full of people into buildings full of people.

It may even require turning your whole country into an army which is often called fascism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2016
There would be growth instead of death, evolution instead of devolution, and purpose instead of folly
Wars have ALWAYS produced this, a dead giveaway that they are always Engineered. Staged. Choreographed. Planned and Produced in order to achieve a preconceived Result.

Planning is what we DO. And as consummate Planners why would you think that we wouldnt want to Plan for the most dangerous activity the human race can engage in?

And if you accept this, why wouldnt you expect that other dangerous activities like the dissemination of disruptive technologies or AGW, would be similarly anticipated and prepared for, and actually manipulated and exploited for the Greater Good?

ALL the tech we are having to generate in order to counter AGW is directly applicable to establishing self-sustaining colonies on Mars. All of it. This cannot be happenstance.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2016
Eikka
Utopists planners try to pull off revolutions, while the real world works by evolution.


I agree. You are talking about Tesla Motors right - and the evolution they are very much a part of - to introduce better vehicles - that are also more environmentally friendly? Sometimes evolution happens fast. Why not just let it play out?

So, it is true, the jackass just likes to hear itself bray and so, on and on, the onion jackass hee...hawwss. This is the jackass how boasted about his 1200 mile jaunt, during which he spewed more than a tenth of the US annual average CO2, in JUST 2 DAYS. Evolution cannot happen fast enough for this jackass, so he trolls this forum, braying at the heretics and pretending that he cares and will save the world.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2016
braying at the heretics and pretending that he cares and will save the world.

He may not be perfect, but he is not completely insane like you are :) .
Isn't this the 100th time that you post this?
Congratulations, insayno.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2016
braying at the heretics and pretending that he cares and will save the world.

He may not be perfect, but he is not completely insane like you are :) .
Isn't this the 100th time that you post this?
Congratulations, insayno.

Congrats Retardo.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2016
Congrats with what, insayno.
It is part of your syndrome to echo other people's words like a zombie.
Still it is far better than reading your own words over and over and over again.
What does your psychiatrist say about your blogging?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2016
Congrats with what, insayno.
It is part of your syndrome to echo other people's words like a zombie.
Still it is far better than reading your own words over and over and over again.
What does your psychiatrist say about your blogging?

Being the Retard of the Decade it's beyond you to realize it's just your words I repeat to you and that's because I don't speak Retard.
Tell me. Were you born this stupid or dropped (deliberately) as a baby?
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2016
Phys1
Isn't this the 100th time that you post this?
I don't see anything goracle posts any more - it helps take the edge off hating the human race - not having to look at the excrement. You might enjoy this read Phys - helps bring a little humor to a depressingly pathetic world - http://www.altern...ng-jerks Words of wisdom
Don't engage on the issues since the pig doesn't really care about them.
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2016
"All of war is deception." Sun Tsu
So, then war is repugnant to science. You'd think that goes without saying.
"Peace is only the preparation for war." Carl von clausewitz
Peace is the fertile ground wherein science flourishes. Even in times of war, the laboratories are far from the front lines.
exploited for the Greater Good?
The context for the greatest good is, by default, one species, one planet. So, in the best interests of everyone, for the "absolute" greater good, wars and violent acts of aggression should be universally condemned and prevented.
to attack an enemy before he is ready to attack you.
Preemptive attacks are a fearful resort of weak minds, too weak to resolve disagreement, too fearful of defending motives incompatible with the aforementioned greater good.
Overpopulation is the cause of all war
If rabbits could do maths/science as well as humans can do maths/science, they'd plant more carrots throughout the solar system.
peep_rada
not rated yet Nov 03, 2016
Utility companies would be more than happy to run their plants during night time at full power.
Plus

Uh huh and the "greenest" form of electricity; solar, is so abundant at night, right?


The original question/problem was about building enormous amount of new powerplants and power lines just to meet increased demand to charge car batteries. That would happen in short perspective.

In longer perspective, Coal and natural gas fired power plants aren't going to fade until there is good/cheap enough energy storage.
Also, using local fuels for electricity and diverting electricity from fuel production to battery charging is much better alternative than buying oil from saudis.
Sun might not shine at nights but winds are still blowing. And it could be that coal power plants are going to produce less electricity during day time. We'll see what is going to happen in 20 years. One thing is sure, oil is going to get much more expensive unless less oil is pumped.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2016
People have ideas for scientific research all the time. Wartime just makes an (unsustainable) level of funds available to weapons-relevant research. It's like fossil fuels vs renewables. You can gain a quick leg-up with the former. But it collapses in the long run. Humanity is here for the long run.

Overpopulation is the cause of all war

The world hasn't been overpopulated for the overhelming part of history. Wars have always been waged. How do you square that?

Wars aren't perpetrated by masses of people. Masses of people are duped by few into fighting wars for them for personal aggrandisement/gain/(fanatic) ideology. The average farmer couldn't care less whether another farmer 100km over is a different nationality/religion/skin color or not.

to attack an enemy before he is ready to attack you.

A stupid doctrine because then in the long run you always (and forever) have to be the first to attack everyone. That's a strat that doesn't work for long.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2016
peep_rada
One thing is sure, oil is going to get much more expensive unless less oil is pumped.
Be careful with predictions. The peak oil folks have been so sure about the price of oil and gas - and so far they have been very wrong. We have never lived with an energy landscape like the one that is evolving now. Look at this - off shore wind down 22% in 6 months - some auctions coming in at $67 per Mwh. A little over half the cost of nuclear from Hinkley point - http://phys.org/n...car.html
Perhaps the oil majors are finally seeing the writing on the wall - https://cleantech...reuters/
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2016
war is repugnant to science
'Science' doesnt have emotions. Modern science owes it's existence to war. The church couldn't resist research into chemistry, astronomy/celestial navigation, optics, physics, metallurgy because they needed it to wage successful wars and defend themselves.

And of course Oppenheimer won ww2 even if he felt bad about it.
the laboratories are far from the front lines
War ensures the kind of stability and progress which makes science possible. And science is most successfully applied on the front line. And NASA is a military organization.Columbus was a military operation. Recon is essential SOP.
The world hasn't been overpopulated
Overpopulation is defined as when the pop exceeds the carrying capacity of its region.

In ancient times a vast swath from the sahel to the gobi was stripped and desertified due to overpopulation. Look at a map.

You don't know enough about the subject to be discussing it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2016
"There was a time when the countless tribes of men, though wide-dispersed, oppressed the surface of the deep-bosomed Earth, and Zeus saw it and had pity and in his wise heart resolved to relieve the all-nurturing Earth of men by causing the great struggle of the Ilian war, that the load of death might empty the world. And so the heroes were slain in Troy, and the plan of Zeus came to pass." Stasinos, poet (lived 776 – 580 BC)

The Atrahasis Epic, the original flood myth, was about overpopulation.

Nebuccadnezzar tried to remove the top few feet of the entire euphrates valley because it had become saltified due to irrigation. He gave up.

-Ancient Leaders understood that overpopulation had always been the greatest danger to civilization. Their literature is full of references.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2016
I don't see anything goracle posts any more - it helps take the edge off hating the human race - not having to look at the excrement.
-- The onion jackass hee...hawwss...yet again.
The onion jackass finally explains his hypocrisy, in that he closes his eyes to excrement and so does not look at himself, the very epitome of excrement. This is the jackass who boasted about his 1200 mile jaunt, during which he spewed more than a tenth of the US annual average CO2, in JUST 2 DAYS. Yet, he has the audacity to troll this forum, braying at the heretics, pretending he cares and is saving the world.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2016
The world hasn't been overpopulated for the overhelming part of history. Wars have always been waged. How do you square that?
Overpopulation has been a problem ever since proto-humans became able to hunt the predators which had been keeping their numbers in check.

A species will always produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity. You do understand that this alone ensures competition and drives speciation and evolution?

With every victory over natural attritive elements, overpopulation and conflict became more critical. People became the principle enemy of people.

Humans began living in tribes for protection. Tribes with better internal altruism coupled with external animosity would prevail in combat. Tribalism caused our brains to grow. This group selection is what made us human.

So tell me aa why do tribes fight? Why did Jane Goodalls apes wage war?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2016
The average farmer couldn't care less whether another farmer 100km over is a different nationality/religion/skin color or not
In ancient Greece tensions arose when city states grew to the point that conflict over arable land became critical.

A system existed whereby the leaders would visit the oracles who would tell them where and when to fight, and who would be their allies.

War was conducted in a very controlled manner with slow-moving phalanxes in open fields by amateur citizen-soldiers, not unlike a chess game. But in this case the oracles would predetermine the outcome.

War was waged, heroes created, scores were settled, and at the end the warriors became farmers again. But there were fewer of them and thus nothing to argue about.

This went on for 600 years. Pop growth is what sustained it. Planning and forethought is what made it successful without endangering the Greek culture as a whole.

Have you noticed how so many govt buildings are Greek architecture?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2016
Preemptive attacks are a fearful resort of weak minds, too weak to resolve disagreement, too fearful of defending motives incompatible with the aforementioned greater good
Nice garbling. This is what happens when we try to sound astute.

"Angriff ist die beste Verteidigung."

-Only an idiot or a criminal would wait until the enemy crossed his border to begin defending himself. If you knew any history this would be obvious to you.

Nero fiddled while rome burned. He was criminally negligent because he failed to deal with the Christians before they burned his city.

So afterward rome had the excuse they needed to begin tailoring the religion by selective purge, turning it into something they could use.

Reminiscent of krystallnacht. Israel was certainly something the west could use.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2016
Perhaps the oil majors are finally seeing the writing on the wall ...
-- The onion jackass hee...hawws...yet again
This from the jackass who boasted about his 1200 mile jaunt, during which he spewed more than a tenth of the US ANNUAL average CO2, in JUST 2 DAYS. Yet, this jackass has the hubris to troll this forum, braying at the heretics and pretending he cares and is saving the world. Even more, this jackass has the audacity to add "green" to his moniker. Bray jackass....bray.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2016
@lunaticle
You posted this already a hundred times.
Does your current psychiatrist know about this?
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2016
Congrats with what, insayno.
It is part of your syndrome to echo other people's words like a zombie.
Still it is far better than reading your own words over and over and over again.
What does your psychiatrist say about your blogging?

Being the Retard of the Decade ...

You don't know the concept of a millennium, do you?
You never go beyond a century.
HTK
not rated yet Nov 05, 2016
20 parts and double efficiency and more compact. When will cars come out with engines that we can replace filters, batteries, etc like cartridges?
Moebius
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2016
What's the net gain if we improve the efficiency of everything 100% and we allow the population to double? (And only one of those 2 things is really happening)
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2016
-Only an idiot or a criminal would wait until the enemy crossed his border to begin defending himself. If you knew any history this would be obvious to you.
The history I know best is the history we lived through: every time they squawked, "attention on the net, overflight in progress" it was like being right in the enemy's sights. Did we preemptively strike the USSR? No, we didn't self-destruct.

Ghost, the further back in history you go, the easier it is to find examples of humans behaving like animals. Facing forward, it's the idiot who fails to see that humans evolve, and it's the criminal who fails to behave in a humane fashion. You talk as if humans will forever be animals, despite your ability to see what we're evolving towards. Killing humans is, by every sense of the word, inhumane. It doesn't matter how sophisticated the weapons become by hijacking and misapplying the good works of scientists – war (hot, cold, lukewarm, or asymmetric) is inhumane.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2016
Did we preemptively strike the USSR? No, we didn't self-destruct
Germany preemptively struck the USSR and in the end saved half its country and most all of western Europe from communism. We did this in brush wars and proxy wars around the globe which is why the USSR eventually collapsed. And we didn't have to do it on Western soil which I suppose you would have preferred.
Killing humans is, by every sense of the word, inhumane
Defending oneself, ones family, ones community, and ones country are the highest examples of 'humane'.

You know it makes me a little ill when posturing play-actors like yourself pretend to know history, and presume that 'what if they gave a war and nobody came?'

What you say means nothing. Pros defend us and good people support them. And guys like you sit and play with yourselves.

Everybody feels good wot? Them a little longer than you of course-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2016
Ghost, the further back in history you go, the easier it is to find examples of humans behaving like animals
See, this is really funny. Fundys are using women and children as human shields in Mosul RIGHT NOW and people like you and aa think it's our fault. You call US inhumane because we choose to stage preemptive wars over there rather than waiting to fight them over here.

If you knew history, which you don't, you would realize that those are the only 2 alternatives there are.

And because you and aa are completely oblivious to the cause of war, which is and has always been overpopulation, then you can never appreciate that the ONLY long term solution is to reduce the birthrate by destroying the obsolete religionist cultures that exploit it.

And this is exactly what the west is doing. The west has found ways of achieving zero growth and living within its means. And it WILL impose this philosophy on the rest of the world because it has no choice but to do so.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2016
In order to spread peace and love in this world sometimes you gotta crack a few heads.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2016
until the enemy crossed his border

Other people aren't your enemy. Get this through your head. (or find psychiatric help for your paranoia)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2016
Get it through your head. What's going on in your head is NOT what's going on in the rest of the world.

So who's the one with the pathological disconnect Hmmm?

People aren't the enemy. Their biology is the enemy and it always has been until very recently. As a woman you should appreciate the freedom from forced reproduction that you all enjoy exclusively in the west.

You know, the 'right to choose'.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2016
In order to spread peace and love in this world sometimes you gotta crack a few heads.

Let me guess, that's a quote from Gandhi?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2016
Preemptive attacks are a fearful resort of weak minds, too weak to resolve disagreement
Syria had a nuclear program. in 2007 Israel destroyed it's reactor before it could build a bomb.

In 2012 netanyahu stood before the UN and explained graphically how Israel would do the same to Iran before it had its own bomb.
http://mobile.nyt...ael.html

The west tried appeasing Germany and Japan before ww2 and we know how that turned out. France built a wall rather than modernize it's army, and the Nazis simply attacked through Belgium AGAIN.

History shows us that appeasement never works against cultures designed to outgrow and overwhelm.

The only reason there hasn't been a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan is because the Taliban and al qaida have been busy bleeding off 1000s of young Pakistani males and sending them westward into the guns of coalition forces.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2016
"Germany preemptively struck the USSR and in the end saved half its country and most all of western Europe from communism."
------------------------------------------------

The discussion is about auto engines, "otto", not your love of Fascism.
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2016
Syria had a nuclear program. in 2007 Israel destroyed it's reactor before it could build a bomb.

In 2012 netanyahu stood before the UN and explained graphically how Israel would do the same to Iran before it had its own bomb. http://mobile.nyt...ael.html
Your version of "history" was written decades before it happened, mr. expert historian. You're too smart to be that duped. Compare your state-issued, official propaganda with the verifiable historic content contained in the archives of a bona fide investigative journalist and let me know what you think: Bollyn Archives. Aggression and deception are foolish strategies in the long run, when the light of day finally shines on the darkness. The idea that war is inevitable or is in any way a prerequisite for scientific progress is absolute rubbish.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2016
"Bollyn has investigated and written extensively about the events of 9-11. He helped Professor Steven E. Jones in the spring and summer of 2006, when Jones found solid evidence of Thermite in the dust of the Twin Towers. The discovery and discussion of Thermite in the demolition of the World Trade Center led to serious trouble for both Jones and Bollyn."

"Christopher Bollyn, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist who focuses on the 9-11 attacks, reportedly will be making several appearances at 9-11 events in California. Bollyn was one of the earliest promoters of anti-Semitic 9-11 theories blaming Israel and Jews for the attacks."

-Talk about looney conspiracy theorists. Bollyn is apparently a convicted felon, bigot, and fugitive.

Thanks for illuminating your mindset.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2016
Otto, get off your worship of Fascist actions, aggressive force and brutality against others. You did not serve, so is this a way of "proving" your alleged manhood?

We have learned to resist you hateful and violent folk. If you were brave, you would not be HIDING, cowering behind a cut-out and phony names.

Now, this discussion regards an Israeli vibrator-type of engine. Got any ideas?

Ever been in the power business?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2016
Otto, get off your worship of Fascist actions, aggressive force and brutality against others. You did not serve, so is this a way of "proving" your alleged manhood?

We have learned to resist you hateful and violent folk. If you were brave, you would not be HIDING, cowering behind a cut-out and phony names.

Now, this discussion regards an Israeli vibrator-type of engine. Got any ideas?

Ever been in the power business?


So are you saying that Otto-Skippy is wrong about Christopher Bollyn? Do you even know who he is and what he says? Geeze glam-Skippy, you really need to do a little research before you chime in because you are getting the agendas mixed up.

Christopher Bollyn is the very definition of the anti-Semitic Fascist nutcase. But I am not surprised that you did not know that and thought just because Otto-Skippy said something bad about him he must be some sort of liberal new-agey hippy guru of truth.

This is why nobody pays attention to you Cher.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2016
"This is why nobody pays attention to you Cher. "
--------------------------

Go back and read your absolute fixation on me.

You dream of me, don't you?
Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2016
Ghost, how superficial of you; Bollyn's wife is Jewish, and his material is all referenced, documented, and well researched. As for my "mindset," it's far better to be a "truther" than a "falser." I'm all about the science, the veracity, the true nature of reality; I reject the violence, the deception, and the lies.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2016
"This is why nobody pays attention to you Cher. "
--------------------------

Go back and read your absolute fixation on me.

You dream of me, don't you?


So tell us glam-Skippy why do you think Otto-Skippy is wrong about Christopher Bollyn?

Do you think Christopher Bollyn is a good person?

Do you think Christorpher Bollyn is truthful?

Do you think Christopher Bollyn is wrongly described by Otto-Skippy?

Your comment seems to say so.

Is it because you agree with Christopher Bollyn?

Or is because you had no idea about who he is and what he says but thought if Otto-Skippy was critical of him, he must be a good guy?

Otto-Skippy is not the Fascist like you call him. But Christopher Bollyn is the Fascist like Otto-Skippy called him.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2016
Ghost, how superficial of you; Bollyn's wife is Jewish, and his material is all referenced, documented, and well researched. As for my "mindset," it's far better to be a "truther" than a "falser." I'm all about the science, the veracity, the true nature of reality; I reject the violence, the deception, and the lies.


I don't usually disagree with you but Proto-Skippy. Christopher Bollyn is one of the most repugnant holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, and all-round-crazy peoples who ever hit the interweb with crazy stuffs. He is one of cantdrive-NAZI-Skippy's main heroes.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2016
This thread regards engines. Why can't you get that?

And I made no comment regarding Bollyn. Please go back to Twitter, where your silly personal comments are standard fare.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2016
And I made no comment regarding Bollyn.


You did Cher. But we already know how "truth" works in glam-Skippy's world.

You made a comment regarding Bollyn by choosing to accuse Otto-Skippy of being Fascist because he made a negative comment about Bollyn.

@ Everybody Else.

In case you don't know about Christopher Bollyn. He is a star of the Alt-Right.

He is the vehement climate change denier.

He is the vehement holocaust denier.

He is the vehement anti-scientist.

He is virulently anti-Semitic.

He is virulently xenophobic.

He is virulently racialist.

He is virulently pro-Trump.

And glam-Skippy thinks it wrong for Otto-Skippy to criticize him, eh?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2016
Do you have a one-track mind? You and otto and Grumpy all hide behind phony names to attack others. What character.

This thread is about auto engines. I maintain the electric vehicle will supersede them. Got any technical discussion, or are you still mired on your puerile emotions?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2016
Christopher Bollyn is the very definition of the anti-Semitic Fascist nutcase. But I am not surprised that you did not know that...
What makes you say that? There are videos of him when he went on a speaking tour (see above link) and he addresses those (baseless) claims personally and unequivocally. Maybe instead of attacking the individual you could find fault with the work?
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Nov 06, 2016
war is repugnant to science
'Science' doesnt have emotions. Modern science owes it's existence to war.
Emotion has nothing to do with it. Another word for deception is fraud and yet another is pseudoscience. Another word for repugnant is incompatible. War and its deceptions are incompatible with science. War is definitely not inevitable: in fact, it takes a great deal of resources and propaganda to sustain it. Modern science would be much further along with just half the money spent on war, and individual quality of life (and security) would be much more abundant from the other half of the money spent on war.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Nov 06, 2016
Ghost, how superficial of you; Bollyn's wife is Jewish, and his material is all referenced, documented, and well researched
In addition to what ira said, my excerpt about your hero's antisemitism was from the antidefamation league. I'm only reporting what I read from a site written by Jews. And they ought to know don't you think? (That there is my opinion and you're welcome to call it superficial if you want.)

Thermite nonsense aside, you want to believe that 9/11 was staged as an excuse to invade the ME, but you can't accept that it was absolutely essential to do so, which it obviously was.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2016
Modern science would be much further along with just half the money spent on war, and individual quality of life (and security) would be much more abundant from the other half of the money spent on war
Your opinions come from your ass and from conspiracy theorists fanboy. What good are they?

Fashion is not theory. Fashion is not science.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2016
In addition to what ira said, my excerpt about your hero's antisemitism was from the antidefamation league. I'm only reporting what I read from a site written by Jews.
That's like reporting on what Fox News says and trying to assert it must be correct because it's written by Americans.

So rather than finding something yourself from Bollyn's work, and quoting it to show everyone that the accusations of antisemitism are indeed warranted, you just parrot the accusations of his critics. Did you look at any of his work? It's a whole book's worth – surely you can find even just one example of antisemitism?

If there was even an ounce of consistency to your comments, you'd be praising what Bollyn (and others) uncovered as being very much like the winning strategies you espouse. But you won't go there, because you realize it's not all said and done yet, is it Ghost?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2016
No retard the antidefamation league does not offer opinions.

And if you weren't a fan boy you would do a little research and find out how the thermite idea has been totally and thoroughly debunked.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2016
Christopher Bollyn is the very definition of the anti-Semitic Fascist nutcase. But I am not surprised that you did not know that...
What makes you say that?
This makes me say that,,,,

http://www.bollyn.com/

There are videos of him when he went on a speaking tour (see above link) and he addresses those (baseless) claims personally and unequivocally.
Even Kluckers will tell you, I don't hate black peoples, I just want to love them back in Africa

Maybe instead of attacking the individual you could find fault with the work?


You can find his "work" here.

Founding member of the "Liberty Lobby" and staff "reporter" for the "Spotlight"http://www.libertylobby.org/

When they went defunct he started "reporting" at the "American Free Press" http://americanfreepress.net/
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2016
P.S. For Everybody.

Here is Christopher Bollyn on the climate change (in his own nutty words.)

http://www.matrix...tml.html
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2016
Never heard of the guy, but it that's true, I'm with Ira on this one.

But this thread regards new engines.

Let's get back to it.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2016
Never heard of the guy, but it that's true, I'm with Ira on this one.

But this thread regards new engines.

Let's get back to it.


Thank you for that glam-Skippy. You know where I live and how a lot of peoples down here are about things racial and our large crop of bigots. I am in the interracial (Cajun me and Creole Mrs-Ira-Skippette) marriage me so these are things I am extra sensitive about and play close attention to.
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2016
Even Kluckers will tell you, I don't hate black peoples, I just want to love them back in Africa -Uncle Ira

Ummm... what?
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2016
"I am in the interracial (Cajun me and Creole Mrs-Ira-Skippette) marriage me so these are things I am extra sensitive about and play close attention to."
-------------------------------------------

I do not understand how folk would not want to marry others from different cultures. It is so much more rewarding and educating to be exposed to different societal stuff.

American Exceptionalism to me means we get the exceptional people, those who have the spirit to leave their own nation and start anew.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2016
Even Kluckers will tell you, I don't hate black peoples, I just want to love them back in Africa -Uncle Ira

Ummm... what?


It is sarcasm. I am referring to Bollyn-Skippy's "own words" telling why he is not an anti-Semite.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2016
@ Mikey-Skippy.

Are you a fan of the climate denying anti-Semite Bollyn? Come on out of the closet Cher and tell us what you think.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2016
Never heard of the guy, but it that's true, I'm with Ira on this one.

But this thread regards new engines.

Let'S get back to on-topic postings like george kamburoff always does
George was rattled when mods deleted some of his I/me posts so he's sucking up now to appease them so he can get back to lying about his education and experience to justify the facts he makes up.

And because he regards mods as dumb goobers like everybody else in the world, he doesn't think they'll recognize these transparent attempts to manipulate them.

What an incredible waste of time and thread space just so a psychopath can practice his art in public.

You're so proud of your disease aren't you george?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2016
Here is Christopher Bollyn on the climate change (in his own nutty words.)
http://www.matrix...tml.html
Ira, those aren't "his own nutty words," they're a post of an article written by John Coleman ( http://www.kusi.c...ing-scam ), and a quote from Sarah Palin ( from this WaPo article: http://www.washin...402.html ), and – hold on – you're attacking skepticism and deflecting, instead of supporting the claims of fascism and antisemitism; why? You gave a link to Bollyn's site but that's the exact one in my "archives" link, to which I referred when I asked for one measly example to support the claims. And you claim Kluckery – did you miss the fact his wife is Jewish? Bollyn also provides autobiographical information about his time in a kibbutz. Oy vey, cher.

cont'd >
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2016
> cont'd

Furthermore, Bollyn's been collecting information and reporting on it (as you verify he's a journalist by trade) and piecing everything together into what appears to me to be a coherent, consistent, fact-based perspective, and he's been at it *full time* since 2001 – who has time to check it all? If there's something seriously flawed or factually incorrect with the work, show me.
=-=-=

Speaking of deflections and ad hominem attacks, Ghost, why do you keep bringing up thermite? Bollyn's focus, he said, is on the "who" and the "why" more than the "how," but he still provides documentation from, and on, the few companies (and their owners) that make the advanced stuff that has enough energy to turn 220 stories to dust and burn for months.

And I'm nobody's fanboy; if you think some right (or left) wing speaks for the entire population you're guilty of a faulty generalization. In the context of an entire race or ethnicity it's a form of racism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2016
there's something seriously flawed or factually incorrect with the work, show me
Thermite didn't bring down the wtc. That's nonsense. Completely and totally debunked. And no I'm not going to get sucked into a wtc clusterfuk.
that make the advanced stuff that has enough energy to turn 220 stories to dust and burn for months
Yah I think they call it red mercury.
piecing everything together into what appears to me
-bingo.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2016
Thermite didn't bring down the wtc. That's nonsense. Completely and totally debunked. And no I'm not going to get sucked into a wtc clusterfuk.
Yeah, the only conspiracy theory i've seen throroghly debunked is the 9/11 commission and the NIST(!) report. Also, it's basic chemistry that increasing the available surface area of the reactants increases the rate of reaction; using nanoscale composites instead of micron-sized particles liberates orders of magnitude more energy, more faster. See the manufacturer's scientific data (and strategic evaluations, including use as fuel), referenced by Bollyn.

I apologize if this seems off-topic, but can you imagine the range and output of an Aquarius Engine using a moderated nanoscopic thermitic reaction consisting of reacting a few nano-sized chips/flakes per cycle? eeeyowza...
danR
5 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2016
...but I designed a variation in which the pistons drove a load directly.

Then it is not a free-piston engine ipso facto.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.