Sci - Electric Cars Can Be Better If - Science & Math - 4chan
Sci - Electric Cars Can Be Better If - Science & Math - 4chan
Sci - Electric Cars Can Be Better If - Science & Math - 4chan
jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pw / qst / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Edit]
[Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
The problem with electric cars is that A they still need to charge meaning
that there is a finite distance they can go unlike a gasoline vehicle. Another
problem is that the self driving feature is more of a neat trick rather than a
reliable thing. so i was thinking how do you solve those things NFC near field
communication implanted in the road would allow electric cars to not only
charge while driving reliably but it would also be able to transmit information
allowing reliable and safe self driving ie if a person needs to slam on their
breaks the road would tell the car that XYorZ just slammed on his breaks.
>>13222828 (OP)
Also with NFC it would solve a lot of traffic related jamming due to track style driving communication
electric cars really make you appreciate how incredible gasoline is as a fuel, dense, liquid, fairly easy to transport
in both small and large quantities
>>13222828 (OP)
>>13222976
>>13222828 (OP)
why don't we expend the same billions on making gasoline inexhaustible than
making electric cars work
>>13223023
This. Install a charger in your garage and charge the car every night. Charging only seems like a problem to
apartmentcucks who can't fathom actually being self-reliant in any way.
>>13223016
>an inexhaustible
supply of it is available
>>13223016
>>13222976
dont electric motors perform better than piston engines in terms of acceleration and horse power? The big problem
with electric cars is the battery and the huge advantage internal combustion engines have since they dont have to
carry all the oxygen they use as extra weight.
>>13222828 (OP)
you mean like those wireless phone chargers? if you can imagine how much infrastructure costs would be, how
much energy costs that would be, how much maintenance and training would be, and then imagine how crazy
people would go considering how crazy people already are about ELF to UHF radio wave exposure with things like
new 5G network implementation then you can be our guest.
maybe in the future though. plenty of empty land out there waiting to be filled with fast food and walmarts.
>>13222828 (OP)
>>13223247
Not having to get out of your car to plug in your tesla would be pretty sweet. Surprised this wasn't implemented at
the tesla charging stations, it shouldn't be very difficult.
I like the idea of aluminum-air "batteries". They should be much easier to have a hands free
automated swap process than lithium ion batteries. But the technology still has issues it
needs to work out for them to be viable.
>>13222828 (OP)
Who cares about the self driving meme, that’s irrelevant to whether they are electric or not.
>>13223451
All modern cars are electric. In fact all of them have batteries too. The lead-acid battery helps start the engine.
Cars use electricity for the radio, various lamps, wiper motors, fuel pump, computer units, and many more electrical
systems. So electric is actually the present.
>>13223199
yes
>>13223543
>having a battery (a necessary component of spark ignition engines) makes the car electric
LOL
>>13223801
>>13222828 (OP)
>>13222976
Hydrocarbons are also easy to work with from an standpoint of chemistry and engineering. Meanwhile the
electrochemistry of batteries is difficult for something that has poor energy density.
>>13223036
SpaceX is working on Sabatier Process plants for converting sunlight, CO2, and water into hydrocarbons. Combine
that with a good renewable methane to octane synthesis path and there's your infinite gasoline.
>>13223924
>>13222828 (OP)
You could easily eliminate the need for charging by simply allowing the motor to power the front wheels and
installing a generator in the rear axle which will recharge the main battery as the car moves.
Just install a small wind generator on the hood to make up the difference.
>>13223978
>>13223978
>Just install a small wind generator on the hood to make up the difference.
>>13223807
>This car that uses electricity for almost everything and even getting started is not actually electric because I say
so
LOL
What about off roading or extended camping trips? Here in Australia there are lots of extreme distances between
places in regional areas and being able to carry your own fuel makes all.the difference. You can't just stand around
for hours in the heat while your solar array tries to charge your cyber truck or some shit.
>>13224914
>>13225084
It's the opposite problem up in the north of Norway. Long distances and cold weather.
>>13225544
Or diesel, and which is why they are called fuel-powered vehicles. Compared to battery-powered vehicles. Almost
all modern cars are electric.
>>13222828 (OP)
Are you retarded. Gas operated vehicles have to be refueled after a finite distance.
>>13225666
>>13225664
You're a ridiculous cunt. This kind of pedantry doesn't help anyone, you know exactly what people mean when they
talk about electric cars.
"Electric car" is a meaningless marketing phrase. It implies fuel-powered cars don't use electricity which is absurd.
Battery-powered is a much more informative way to describe the cars.
>>13225710
But all modern cars have batteries which power all the electronics and even provide the power to ignite the fuel in
the engine. The combustion only serves to charge the battery. Therefore, all modern cars are battery-powered
which makes this a meaningless marketing phrase.
>>13225734
>>13225710
no it isn't?
"electric car" specifically means a car driven by electric motors. 4 stroke gas and diesel engines are ***NOT***
electric motors, not even close, not even if they have big batteries attatched to them, not even of they are computer
controlled.
>>13225736
(You)
>>13225727
>>13225752
Sometimes the only way to fight autism is with more autism to show them how ridiculous they're being. If someone
is going to say "electric car" is a misleading term because cars utilize electric power in some way, then "battery-
powered" is equally misleading because those same cars get that electricity from a battery. That's why this type of
pedantry is fucking retarded and unhelpful.
>>13225768
there are internal combustion engines, and then there are DC electroc motors. They are absolutely different
technologies with no ambiguity.
>>13223288
>>13223375
Just an idea I discussed with someone a long time ago. It is unlikely any electric cars were or will be designed for
simple battery swaps. There are downsides to be worked out, but most human problems can be managed with
well-sealed batteries and some checking process at the station. It wouldn't be hard to turn a battery pack into a
bomb that destroys the rest of the station.
That leads to the other part of battery handling within the station, but that can be automated away with a generic
plug tapped to internal sensors on the battery, which it will have anyway.
Standardized battery development would be a good thing, but doesn't yet exist for laptops or cell phones, and is
unlikely to appear in electric vehicles even though it is almost a thing in regular cars. Whichever company corners
the battery swapping market would become a defacto standard, but Musklets are worried about tunnels or
whatever.
>>13225779
>>13225779
As opposed to external combustion engines? Why not call battery-powered cars reduction and oxidation reaction
cars at this point.
And what are those motors powered by? A battery, fuel generator, nuclear powered, hydrogen powered? Calling
them electric cars and calling it a day doesn't help anyone understand what the cars are powered by. Btw, fuel-
powered cars also have DC motors in the fuel pump.
>>13225768
>then "battery-powered" is equally misleading because those same cars get that electricity from a battery
No it isn't because the battery doesn't power the drivetrain like it does in battery-powered cars.
>>13225832
Correct, just like electricity doesn't power the drivetrain in gas-powered cars.
>>13225710
By this logic I could relabel all of my home electronics with a sticker that reads [70% nuclear, 15% coal,10% natural
gas, 5% wind and solar] since those are roughly the source proportions of the local grid where I live. Would I shill
for nuclear? You bet, but not in that way.
>>13225821
>Why not call battery-powered cars reduction and oxidation reaction cars at this point.
because "battery powered" is dumb
>Calling them electric cars and calling it a day doesn't help anyone understand what the cars are powered by
and yet the fuel pump isn't what propels the vehicle
Why did this thread go into autism mode? Just stop sperging wtf.
>>13223543
we should ditch battery only cars and build cars based on roland gumperts methanol fuel cell
vehicles which are easier than hydrogen fuel cars to use, and rival gasoline cars with range.
850-1000km on a pressure less tank fill with ethanol you can tank in 3 minutes, compared to
200ish km on a hydrogen fuel cell car which needs like 700 bar to keep the fuel liquid and a
complicated tanking mechanism which requires leak checks and other safety measures for
each time you tank. gumpert built a mass market capable prototype contracted by the german ministry for
environment , and they would not even look at it when it was done. they had already heavily invested into a battery
only infra structure, and would not accept a proposal for a methanol fuel station grid. the battery lobby got the last
word
[a / c / g / k / m / o / p / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w] [vip / qa] [cm / lgbt] [3 / adv / an / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / his / int /
jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pw / qst / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Edit]
[Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
About • Feedback • Legal • Contact