Electric Lemon Aid

Mr. Peters,

Have you ever seen the movie “The Pentagon Wars?”
Particularly, this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

I wonder if the Tesla underwent something similar in it’s evolution (especially when you talk about it being equipped with all kinds of energy sucking devices).

cheers,

Elon Musk tries to impress Betty from Bloomberg Financial with Tesla Model S Slacker internet radio software.

“I can play any song from any band from any time just using voice commands.”

http://www.youtu.be/QBxLnstuXj4

SpaceX capsule docks at ISS 200 miles outside Earth’s Atmosphere
http://www.youtu.be/f_poqEt7D00

New American Ingenuity:
1 Join UK to destabilize a peaceful South African nation with a psyops campaign about “apartheid”
2 Pose as land of opportunity to fleeing producers of resultant black idiocracy. A dystopia where its 90% black/colored population all play victims needing racial hiring preference and guaranteed jobs regardless of their skills or productivity.

Picture Our Lives Amid Tangerine Towers
Where Lemon Aid Drones Patrol Marmalade Skies

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2284208/How-tomorrows-living-skyscrapers-maintained-drones-powered-algae-respond-inhabitants-needs.html

Tomorrows’ Living Skyscrapers Powered By UrbanFarm Algae Biofuels

Hello Eric,
I translated the article in Italian and I’m going to post it, if you don’t mind.
Thanks,

For your consideration.

Chreos Luxury Electric Car HD – Silex Power

Regarding P.M. Lawrences comment… ” but you could still do it with stored energy or by quartering around the points of the wind, i.e. tacking down wind.”

You ‘Jibe’ going down wind and ‘Tack’ into the wind. When you change direction from one point of wind to its opposite _360′ 180’_ It is called ‘Coming about’. Sailing across the wind _90′, or perpendicular to the wind_ is usually the fastest point of sail.

Turbo or rotary sails offer much better efficiency and actually perform better into the wind or with it, as the windage generated by the structure and rig crossing the wind, is reduced.

“What I don’t understand is why so many people are so hurt because the RP campaign turned left when they said it should have turned right, says they didn’t try hard enough, and other such nonsense. ”

Other such nonsense, huh? I saw from about the middle of the campaign that it wasn’t a case of Paul’s campaign not trying hard enough, but that they were actively withdrawing him from view and sending him out as far from the campaign’s opportunities as possible.

Plenty of astute observers spoke out and were ignored. Remember Hugh Turley? He saw it and said what he saw last March:

http://www.dcdave.com/article5/120317.htm

You act like I said he was a crook or an asshole. I didn’t. I said that he’s no hero to be worshipped, just as no man is to be worshipped. I also said that I wasted my time and money supporting his campaign. He wasn’t serious about anything but making speeches. His campaign took millions of dollars from many of us who needed the money we gave. I worked for the money I contributed and it would have been better spent on my family. That campaign wasted our money while seeing to it that our efforts came to nothing.

I’m not hurt, I’m disgusted with myself for being fooled. Fuck the GOP. Last time I checked Ron and his neocon son are GOP members.

Maybe that’s what you’re trying to say when you write that you don’t understand why anyone would feel hurt.

Elon – What is the business model for Mars

Elon – I’ll put a man on Mars in 10 years

Elon – Accepts Mars Pioneer Award

Behavior Hierarchy where 1 is best and 8 is worst

1 those who build/do for themselves
2 those who prevent others from forcing others
3 those who build/do with some forced labor of others
4 those who build/do with only forced labor of others
5 those who talk about building/doing for themselves
6 those who talk about preventing others from forcing others
7 those who talk about building/doing with some forced labor of others
8 those who talk about building/doing with only forced labor of others
9-16 Worse than these actions is to prevent them. Stopping #1 is worse behavior than stopping #8

More kilowatts/wood for/on the Fire.

A brave CNN reporter repeated last weeks ill-fated trip by NY Times’ John Broder, and easily drove from Washington D.C. to Boston on electricity, in the winter, stopping only at Supercharger stations.

A CNN reporter has one-up’d the NY Times’ John Broder by successfully driving a Tesla Model S from Washington D.C. to Boston, in the middle of the winter, where Broder failed to make the same trip last week. According to a report published on Friday, Peter Valdes-Dapena of CNN Money not only made the trip but did so easily with plenty of energy to spare. Broder’s trip famously ended with the Model S on a flatbed tow truck.

Valdes-Dapena took the trip in one day on Thursday, rather than Broder’s plan to split it over two days with an overnight stop in a hotel. For the CNN reporter the “most scarey” part of the trip was the 200 miles between Newark, Del., and Milford, Conn. While the Tesla Model S has either a 240 mile or 260+ mile driving range (by default the car is configured for a 90% recharge, giving 240 miles of range) that isn’t much cushion given that the distance between those stations is 200 miles.

The 85 kilowatt-hour Tesla Model S has an EPA certified range of 265 miles. The Tesla Supercharger stations can give the car a complete recharge in about an hour. Tesla plans to, over the next few years, build out a network of these charging stations criss-crossing the country. Along the East Coast corridor, they’ll shortly build more stations making the Washington-Boston trip even easier.

For a write-up of Broder’s ill fated trip see Tesla Motors fires back at NY Times John Broder over failed Model S test drive

Valdes-Dapena reports having followed Tesla’s energy saving instructions carefully, to keep the cruise control between 60-65 miles/hr and the climate control at 72 degrees F. That let him sit in the middle lane of traffic and keep up with traffic very nicely. In Northern New Jersey he had a choice of two routes through New York City, one would be to drive through the City and potentially run into heavy traffic, the other was to swing north on a 30 miles longer route that was likely to avoid traffic. He chose the longer route, and ran into heavy traffic anyway.

However on getting into Connecticut he had plenty of range to spare, and decided to play with the car, mashing the accelerator pedal to feel acceleration from 65 to 80 miles/hr. It made him giddy. We understand.

The second part of the trip from Milford to Boston was so unremarkable that he didn’t even mention it. According to Google Maps there are three routes from Milford to Boston, the shortest is 140 miles and has lots of public charging stations along the way. The other two are 160ish miles and have fewer public charging stations along the way.

This result from the CNN reporter casts even more doubt on the NY Times report by John Broder. Why did the CNN reporter seemingly have an incredibly easy time of the trip, when Broder had a hard time? We should note that earlier this week when Elon Musk was tweeting, one of the tweets called for other reporters to replicate Broder’s trip. Maybe the CNN reporter was simply better instructed than Broder was?

In Broder’s responses he has yet to explain two things: Why did he fail to fully charge the Model S in Milford Conn.? He left that charging station with a 73% charge costing him about 70 miles of range. Second, why did he take the longer route to Boston? Traveling through Norwich is, according to Google Maps, a 163 mile distance from Milford to Boston, while another route only requires 140 miles.

That the CNN reporter took the trip in one day meant his Model S did not spend overnight in 10-20 degrees F weather. According to Broder that sapped 60 miles or so of range and was the second issue that endangered his trip. However it’s likely most of that range will have been recovered when the battery pack warmed up, had Broder simply started driving.

Another difference is the ambient temperature on Thursday was a bit warmer than last week during Broder’s trip. As we saw with Broders trip, the cold weather did affect the car’s performance. However, Tesla Motors claims they have customers in all kinds of cold climates and that the cold weather effects should not be that significant.

Whether this creates enough doubt to undermine the NY Times report remains to be seen.

Source: CNN.COM

We need energy stratified transportation options… Tre

Ron Paul’s Gold Peace & Prosperity
http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf

Ron Paul’s Political Positions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Ayn Rand on the moon landing – a quote often cited by Ron Paul

“Think of what was required to achieve that mission: think of the unpitying effort; the merciless discipline; the courage; the responsibility of relying on one’s judgment; the days, nights and years of unswerving dedication to a goal; the tension of the unbroken maintenance of a full, clear mental focus; and the honesty. It took the highest, sustained acts of virtue to create in reality what had only been dreamt of for millennia.”

The best thing about Ron Paul? He understood his place. Rocket builders and tangible new inventions are superior to novelists, screenwriters, & politicians. He understood the best thing for liberty was to minimize and possibly eliminate the pull of looters, moochers, Ayn Rands, & Ron Pauls, as soon as the populace was sufficiently educated. Ron Paul would have preferred to win his philosophical battle and return to his life as a value creating obstetrician.

The worst thing about Ron Paul? He was a Peter Keating type and not a Howard Roark. He left his medical practice and followed the recipe and protocol of getting into politics. His achievement in this regard was mostly of the archetype of celebrity – he was a man who played a stoic nobleman role crafted by his large staff of supporters and admirers.

Ron didn’t live by his own principles, but rather continued to surrender his judgement and allowed other people to dominate his life upon entering politics. Ron Paul, though highly articulate and brilliant, ended up being just another consumerist whose sole action was one of choosing from the selection of items that were already on the shelf before him.

Ron Paul emulated the mystic, his was a status-seeker’s nature. Ron Paul was selfless. He sacrificed the things that he wanted in order to please others. He surrendered his own loves and values in an attempt to win social approval. He relinquished autonomy and permitted others to dominate his life. He never defended his right to life and thriving. He never demanded that obstetricians have a duty to be selfish, to be men true to their selves — that the self is fundamentally a man’s values along with the thinking he does to form them, that he had no obligation to be an obstetrician who performed in accordance with the “public good.”

Peter Keating – The Fountainhead

“Keating is a conformist. He surrenders his judgment and allows other people to dominate his life. In this regard, he is the story’s foil, a contrast to its hero, Roark. Everything that Keating does is done under the influence of others. He becomes an architect (although he would prefer the career of a painter), because his mother chooses it. He marries Dominique (although he loves Catherine Halsey), because Dominique’s grace and beauty impress other people. In all the important decisions of his life, Keating gives up his own values because other people disapprove of them. Keating lacks the strength of character necessary to stand on his own judgment.

An aggressive social climber, Keating desires prestige above all else. Because Keating attempts to rise to the position of partner in the country’s most prestigious firm — and because he uses any means necessary to attain this end, including flattery, deceit, and, in the case of Lucius Heyer, near-murder — he is conventionally thought of as selfish. But Ayn Rand presents a revolutionary analysis of such a status-seeker’s nature. Peter Keating, she says, is selfless. He sacrifices the things that he wants in order to please others. He surrenders his own loves and values in an attempt to win social approval. He relinquishes autonomy and permits others to dominate his life. Ayn Rand argues that in order to be selfish a man must be true to his self — and that the self is fundamentally a man’s values along with the thinking he does to form them.

The meaning of the novel can be expressed in two words: judgment and values. A man must live by his own judgment and form his own values. He needs to understand that this is the sole means to the attainment of happiness. To yield on these fundamentals is to betray the self, it is to surrender the essence of what makes an individual uniquely and distinctively himself. Peter Keating surrenders his self in this way, and this is why, inevitably, he ends an empty shell of a man. If a man surrenders the things and/or persons he loves, then he will not achieve happiness. But Ayn Rand points out something deeper: If he abdicates his judgment, then he surrenders the very part of him with which he can experience happiness — his self. This is the meaning of Keating’s life. He is selfless in a literal sense — he is without self.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead#Peter_Keating

Ron Paul= received stolen loot & voluntary donations while producing words and talk about ending the Fed.
Paypal= actually temporarily ended the fed’s monopoly.

Paypal Chronology
1998 Oct-Nov: It all started with digital wallets

Max Levchin and Peter Thiel launch a security focused company which allows users to store encrypted information on PDA devices, enabling the digital wallet. Their theory is that this is safer than real cash in a wallet because it can never be stolen.

1998 December: PayPal, or known as Confinity, is founded. At this point, Confinity’s main objective is to enable money transfers solely on PDAs.

1999 October: Email payments with PayPal enabled
A Confinity engineer developed an online demo that allows people to email payments, making PayPal into what it is today.

2000 January: eBay users start posting PayPal’s logo on their auctions. PayPal quickly changes its business to enable eBay payments and grows to 100,000 accounts.

2000 March: Confinity merges with its competitor x.com, taking on their company name.

2000 March: PayPal hits 1 million users, 10 times the number in just two months.

2001 June: PayPal officially takes on its name.

2001 May: The war on fraud
PayPal teams up with the FBI and local authorities around the globe to help dissolve organised crime rings conducting online fraud in Chicago, Houston, Russia, and Nigeria.

2002 February: Going public
PayPal issues its Initial Public Offering.

2002 October: PayPal is acquired by eBay for US$1.5 Billion. Thus, the merger of the world’s largest auction site and online payments system.

2002 October: PayPal becomes available in Euros and Pound Sterling.

Recap
1 Governments & FBI outlawed Paypal’s business model which could bypass the FED
2 Paypal forced to merge with Ebay to survive
3 Paypal forced to participate in fraud stings with the FBI

SpaceX Rockets, Tesla Elec Car, Mars Missions, Hyperloop,
all these growing boondoggles serve to distract from the obvious fact that the US Govt has nationalized all financial services and payment systems in the Western world.

Everywhere they ratchet down the largest permissible size of cash transactions. And increase reporting requirements. We’re all going to be living off Obamacare-EBT-HUD-Cash4Clunkers-~ Grid Dollar~ cards in a year or two.

At the same time, parts yards are “bad for the environment.” Shade tree mechanics are zoned out of existence. Autos are becoming just another empty consumer good.
Without a way to independently store value in money. Without a way to independently create valuable large dollar consumer goods like new or restored cars,

Once all cars are just large dollar consumer goods they aren’t going to amount to much more than a fuhhhtball type of distraction. Go Chevy! Go Ravens! Go Ron Paul! I buy books and vote libertarian and become freeeeeeee! Free is things that I need. Things that make me go!

https://news.usc.edu/#!/article/46778/cheap-strong-lithium-ion-battery-developed-at-usc/

A lot of name calling on the issue of EV’s, the Tesla ‘S’ and the debatable Broder article. I will trow this on the fire.

“On Wednesday evening Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk posted a response to John Broder’s Tesla Model S review in last weekend’s NY Times. That review portrayed the Model S as unable to finish a simple road trip, while Musk’s response, with its detailed data, instead claims that Broder’s article was very inaccurate, or worse. While Musk praises the NY Times for its reputation for honest and fair reporting, his blog post describes Broder’s article as inaccurate or a fabrication and calls on the NY Times to investigate.

Broder’s article was ostensibly meant to be to test the Tesla Model S on a fairly typical road trip, from Washington D.C. to Connecticut, and back. We went over the trip previously in NY Times’ writer Broder makes EV rookie mistakes on failed Model S road trip. The short version of the story is that he traveled from Washington D.C. north, stopping at the Supercharger stations in Delaware and Milford Conn. along the way. These Supercharger stations were installed in December and are the first part of the Supercharger network on the East Coast. Eventually the Supercharger network is meant to allow owners of the Tesla Model S, Model X and future Tesla electric cars, to drive coast-to-coast on electricity. It would be more than interesting to see careful testing of Tesla’s claims for that network.

Broder made several mistakes along his trip such as not ensuring the car was fully charged at critical parts of the trip. He ended up in a not-terribly-remote part of Connecticut (Norwich) with insufficient range to make it back to Milford. He ended up stranded on the side of the highway, and was able to take a picture of the Tesla Model S on a flatbed tow truck.

On Monday, Elon Musk took to Twitter and a CNBC interview to slam Broder’s article, promising a detailed blog post. Which was not published until Wednesday afternoon. That blog post tells a story similar to the conclusions we drew in the article linked earlier (“EV rookie mistakes”) but has detailed data to back up the reasoning.

That blog post makes a list of claims that run counter to what Broder claimed. Each side in this argument has made claims, the question is which side is correct and are either of them purposely fabricating evidence?

A key fact remains in all the details printed below. Broder only recharged to 73% at the Milford Supercharger station. If his intent was to travel to Boston, the route he chose was 163 miles, and a 90% recharge would have given the car a 242 miles range, and a 100% recharge would have given it a 260+ mile range. That would have ensured a comfortable arrival in Boston. In addition, Broder could have chosen a different route to Boston, that required fewer miles, and had more public J1772 charging stations to use as a backup charging solution. For some reason Broder failed to do any of that, and it isn’t explained why by either himself or Tesla.

Musk claims:

The Model S driven by Broder never completely ran out of energy. Broder claimed that his Model S locked up so badly the tow truck driver had to drag it onto the truck, and then had to spend 20 minutes at the Supercharger before the car would turn itself on sufficiently enough for the car to roll off the truck.

The final leg of Broder’s trip was a 61 mile distance, but he unplugged the charging cord when the estimated range remaining was 32 miles. This is one of the rookie mistakes we mentioned earlier. What Musk claims is that his choice to unplug the charging cable was expressly against advice from the Tesla service department.

Musk claims that on the final leg of Broder’s trip he drove right past several public charging stations. He had a dashboard warning him emphatically to stop and charge. He could easily have stopped at any of these charging stations to do some charging. One is at the Saybrook Inn in Saybrook, there is a car dealership also in Saybrook with a charging station, the East Haven Town Hall has one, and there is one in New London not too far off the route he took.

Broder claims that early in his trip he set the cruise control to 54 miles/hr, and at times drove as slow as 45 miles/hr on the freeway. Musk claims that the vehicle data logs show the cruise control was never set to 54 miles/hr, that he never limped along at 45 miles/hr, and instead drove at speeds between 65 miles/hr and 81 miles/hr. While we can understand the temptation to enjoy the ultra high speed and acceleration of the Model S, it’s a matter of simple physics that higher speeds require more energy and if the goal is to complete a long road trip one must not lead foot it.

Broder also claimed to have turned the climate control down, but vehicle data longs show he never did so, had it set to 72 degrees and even raised it once to 74 degrees.

In Milford, Broder claimed to have spent 58 minutes recharging but, according to Musk, vehicle data logs show that charge session was only 47 minutes. It gave him a 185 mile driving range but if he’d have simply waited another 11 minutes the range would have been enough for the trip with no need for a tow truck.

Basically there is a big gap between the claims by John Broder and Tesla Motors. On the 12th Broder wrote a follow-up posting claiming that his initial report was accurate, and that he had indeed done all the things he said. Musk’s post includes graphs from the vehicle log data annotated with details showing what he actually did.

Musk’s blog post has two details which we can quibble over. First, he never explains why the Tesla service person sent Broder to Norwich to use a public charging station there. He could have driven south and used one of the two stations in Saybrook, instead. Second a map is shown listing all the charging stations along Broder’s route, however that map doesn’t reach as far as Norwich but stops in East Haven. If that map had gone as far as Norwich it would have shown there is less electric car recharging infrastructure in that vicinity. It also calls into question why Broder went to Norwich when there are other highway corridors leading to Boston with more charging stations.

Broder’s followup post claims his goal was to test the Supercharger network, not to test driving the Model S on a long road trip. In that case why would he try to make it to Boston when the east coast network is not yet built out sufficiently? Any halfway experienced EV driver will know to do some research into alternate routes and charging stations before setting out on a long trip.

The core question here is reputation and truthfulness. Both are casting doubt on each others credibility. For example, in addition to the errors Musk points out, he notes that in the past Broder has written articles claiming “the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.” Musk apparently wants to paint Broder as being predisposed to not like the Tesla Model S, or any other electric car. While the NY Times has a high reputation they are not without tarnish, and some of their reporters have been known to create fabrications (cough cough, Judith Miller).”

Another news organization (CNN, IIRC) has now driven the same route and made it with nearly 100 miles range left.

BUT, they didn’t stop overnight & the air temperature was 20F warmer.

The NYT article exposes the extremely poor cold-weather performance of the Model S’s battery pack.

It is not always possible to ‘plug-in’, and in the NYT’s case that resulted in more than 2/3 loss of range literally overnight.

Until the above issue is fixed the Model S CANNOT serve as a viable year-round, everyday vehicle in cold areas like the northeastern U.S.

PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES

I’m fairly certain that frustrated genius Wile E. Coyote has tried them all. To his repeated dismay they all disappointed him.

tgsam

Wired carried news of Elon’s refutation. I actually HAVE a Model S, since last November. It is, without a doubt, the future carried back to the present. I have driven it almost every day since then and have had excellent experience with it. I recently drove it from the California foothills to San Francisco and parked in a public parking garage with charging. I made the return drive the same day and had NO problems whatsoever. Eric, have YOU spent a week with a Model S, much less months? You are criticizing that which you may not have personal experience with. This car IS NOT LIKE ANY OTHER ELECTRIC THAT HAS GONE BEFORE. Please go get some firsthand experience.

To solve the heater problem, the next generation Tesla will come with a wood burning stove.

In Broder’s follow up article, linked above, he says he was criticized for driving 75MPH which increases power drain.

I don’t know about you but, if I pay over $100k for a car that’s advertised as having over 400HP and I can’t drive 75…ahh…I’ll stick with a diesel Rabbit.

Power density is the critical factor when it comes to the success of electric cars.
A 300 mile range with a 15 minute recharge time will be the only things that make electric cars a success.
We are not there yet . . . and will likely not be there for some time to come.

I simply do not trust anything written in or for the NY Times. I’d like to see someone objective like Eric take the same test drive and read his review. He obviously has great opinions about cars, the state, and liberty but at least we’d get an honest review and not whatever this shill Broder’s garbage that actually gives more fodder to the “only the state can do this” crowd once Broder’s claims are denounced. That isn’t to say that the Tesla logs couldn’t be false, but I’m saying that it’s unlikely and I’m more inclined to believe Musk over the NY Times any day, even if he is sucking at the public teat.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/02/tesla-logs-nytimes/

My brother is a mechanic at a Toyota dealership. Yesterday at a training class he was given a Prius and told to disable the engine and see how far he could go on electric power only. He “cheated” and tricked the car into overcharging the batteries. He went 1.7 miles before the battery was drained to its limit. Out of 10 people he made it the furthest.

Lot’s of comments here, I was wondering if anyone knew anything about cars with batteries with liquid electrolytes that could be changed out easier to make refueling less of a problem? I remember some manufacturers researching this approach, but never heard much about it. I guess that means it failed, I’d be interested in knowing why though.

So if I understand you correctly. Broder makes claims about the car, Tesla pulls the log for the car contradicting his claims, and you believe Broder?!?

I have to stand in awe of the vapid stupidity of your remarks. Maybe someone should service your car based upon your impressions and just never hook your car (if you have one) to a diagnostic machine. You’re up there with all the economists who believe wealth can be created by printing money despite all the clear factual evidence to the contrary!!! As someone who has worked in IT for quite a number of years, only the daft and dumb would try to contradict the logs of the system in question. It’s one of the reason we make logs of all of the key elements of the system. So that we can actually diagnose and address the ACTUAL problems of the system. That you are unable to grasp this most basic of facts speaks volumes to the lack of your intellectual abilities. W Edwards Deming would be rolling over in his grave at the vapidity of your remarks. Please, please stick to lighter stories about entertainment. You’re obviously out of your domain!

Just because most successful car companies historically started off by mass producing a cheap profitable high volume product does not mean that the Tesla strategy of starting off by selling a luxury product to rich people will not succeed. It could succeed, but the product will have to offer value to the buyers, which seems very questionable. Clover was not necessarily wrong about the strategy, just he was childishly presumptuous about whether the luxury Tesla will be profitable. Not to mention arrogant in his attitude toward those who didn’t agree with him.

As bad as it is that government thugs and their fellow gang members like Mooch, or is it Musk, stole money to use for investing in Tesla, let’s recognize that the Tesla company could make some valuable advances in electric driven car technology. It’s possible and Eric should not be so sure that it’s hopeless to invest in battery powered car technology.

So maybe it’s not a complete boondoggle. Let’s look at the bright side; unlike most government spending, the Tesla subsidies are not money spent on theft (IRS), sexual assault (TSA), torture (enhanced interrogations), kidnapping (extraordinary rendition), spying, murder (drones), dismemberment (war), or destruction(war).

I had a brief conversation via e-mail with Musk as he was getting Tesla off the ground.

I wrote him to let him know I appreciated his R&D efforts and wished him success. At that time, which he didn’t know-I was developing designs for a battery powered motorcycle.

What struck me at the time of my discussions is that he didn’t even know what a “Tool & Die” shop was(I own one)….let’s just say a fundamental building block in manufacturing in the auto industry.

I had to explain what we did to him…lol

Anyway, he’s seems like a good guy-he’s just like a lot of these internet millionaire/billionaires. They made their money quick and young and don’t have hardly any practical experience outside of the internent/software/coding.

Musk’s “second” education in regard to entrepeneurship is ongoing and obviously not going well. There’s a reason you can’t get this type of education in any college any where.

Anyway, back to my final points:

1. I don’t think Musk thinks of taking gov’t subsidies beyond his attempt to “do good” as theft(even though it is)…he’s been focused on running companies and neglected developing deeper personal philosophies(naturally) so try not to be too hard on him. (he is still losing a ton of money)

2. In regard to Eric’s comment on battery technology/weakness, etc. A couple of years ago I developed a significant “component” to deal with all the issues surrounding use the use of various Lithium battery technologies. Not much has changed at that time and I’m not trying to deploy/invest more money until the recent rash of bankruptcys, merger’s, etc. shake out.

I believe there is a potential market for electric cars, but the model Musk attempted was similar to many other industries that were successful in that way, like the CD player. It started with “high end” users able to afford its adoption cost and dropped over time.

However, my belief is that this model is incorrect for electric vehicles. Unlike CD players, there is alternative viable(better) technology already out there for the same “mission” so to speak.

In my estimate, success for battery vehicles will only come by coming from a “bottom up” approach, frankly like the “Model T”, and which the expectations are managed accordingly.

If someone could drop $10k on an electric car and knew it was only good for around town stuff-around 75 miles total range(which is 85% of our driving) I’ll bet there would plenty of takers.

That being said, people should be deploying their own capital. Having spent so much time myself in both research & development on battery technology myself and talking to Musk I figured I might chime in.

Best regards to all!

Wow!Murphy said a mouthful,I watched that segment on a engine runnng basically on water,beat anything I had ever seen,still dont believe in the “Fish” carburater or other urban Myths,FoMoCo has done research on vehicles utilizing hydraulic accumulaters,as far as the battery fiasco goes ,I think hybrid technology has pretty well solved that until a better source of electricity is developed,They have Class 8 tractor&trailer rigs running around large metro areas running battery packs and essentially a tiny APU to keep the batteries topped off,wouldnt work on the highway,but apparently works great around town,even seen an apu powered bus at PigeonForge(must have been somesort of Hybrid)
While we can always do the best average,its hard for one size to fit all-Kevin

OK, people smarter than me, a question.

It seems the problem is with range and recharging. Right? If that’s the problem why not have a battery PACK that can be removed(unplugged) and have another unit popped in? I can see EV areas added to existing gas stations that would have a unit in which the removed pack would be placed, fully drained then fully recharged. It would be a conveyor belt type thing, put in low unit, remove fully charged at the other end. Perhaps the car could go on a lift or drive over a pit for removal/install.

Outside doing something like that it will take a techno revolution to make an EV viable…IMHO

TO ERIC PETERS: My contact email is entered. Contact me if the information I disclose at the end of the comment is something you want to discuss about perhaps breaking as a story. When you read it, you will know what I mean. This is a long comment.

The whole game seems to be fixed in terms of picking electric hybrids as a winner for so called hybrid tech or alternative fuels in favor of the “electric car” using out of date technology. I am NO EXPERT in AUTOMOTIVE SCIENCE (but am an engineer), but years ago, mid 1980s, I saw a 60 minutes or similar news story about fuel efficient technologies that went down the memory hole, mainly about the late 1970s inventors of add on conversions for petrol-hydraulic hybrids that conservatively (and at affordable cost) let most existing model vehicles more than double mileage to about 75mpg. A car designed from the ground up as such could easily get over 140mpg, and would be mechanically simpler, cheaper, than existing conversions because (apparently) things necessary in mechanical petrol vehicles (like U joints) would NOT be needed. Before I comment further, read the following link stories. One is about Vincent Carman who invented it (and was given run around by government proofers until he ran out of cash apparently, do some searching online for more). Another was how Ernie Parker, an instructor at a technical college in Minnesota got his students together and designed an off the shelf capable conversion that worked well.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/1978-03-01/This-Car-Travels-75-Miles-on-a-Single-Gallon-of-Gasoline.aspx#axzz2Krgxly1r

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/1977-11-01/Can-This-Transmission-Really-Double-Your-Cars-Mileage.aspx#axzz2Krgxly1r

ADDITIONALLY, even wikipedia says that the EPA proved the concept again with an American Sedan in the 1990s. Doing this would allow all those Crown Victoria’s Eric Peters likes for cops to be cheaply converted for REAL mileage savings until ground up designs were made by Detroit (or the various Japanese and Korean companies since American auto companies have had almost 40 years now to get with the program and replicate what an independent penniless mechanic and a voc tech class and instructor each did off the shelf with 1970s tech). Here is what Wikipedia said about the EPA efforts (which have languished for about 20 years since):

“In the 1990s, a team of engineers working at EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory succeeded in developing a revolutionary type of petro-hydraulic hybrid powertrain that would propel a typical American sedan car. The test car achieved over 80 mpg on combined EPA city/highway driving cycles. Acceleration was 0-60 mph in 8 seconds, using a 1.9 liter diesel engine. No lightweight materials were used.The EPA estimated that produced in high volumes the hydraulic components would add only $700 to the base cost of the vehicle.[34]”

The fact is, any of the following combinations I am suggesting above and below are nothing more than the modestly creative combination of existing, long proven, off the shelf, long developed technologies from 1940 to the 1970s (as a rule) that would allow far better, more fuel efficient, mechanically simpler, safer, lighter, stronger, lower polluting cars at a FAR lower price than is available today. It would save lives, allow home mechanics to modify their simpler, more affordable vehicles, convert old ones, and reduce the price (but perhaps increase margins) of newer ones. At some point, if American companies do not intelligently adopt these technologies (or the more advanced ones I am mentioning below), I promise you, certain foreign entities may well. The question is whether certain, entrenched big money interests in oil and auto are more important than the whole nation (to them, yes), and the other big money interests that could healthfully adopt or push these technologies. America is more of a nation where it is now a battle of special interests because currying government favor, and the regulatory approval (or hammer against enemies) has more to do with market success and availability than good tech (we would have no auto industry, electric industry, aviation industry, oil industry, etc. if Federal regulations back when they began allowed government bureaucracies the power it has now, which is stifling many new technologies as small businessmen cannot afford to bring them to market through the maze of regulations and approvals, and often the corporations they would sell control of said inventions to would never want the new technology competing in the market against their established products and interests).

Now, if we wanted, we could make the vehicles lighter using FORD’S 1940 HEMP PLASTIC PANEL vehicle (constructed over a tubular steel frame-google it), and it could even run on Hemp Biodiesel too (but probably not a pogue carburetor then). China leads the world in Hemp production because the USA won’t grow it anymore. I worked counterdrug ops when I got out of a Spec Forces unit and it turned me against drug war, a lot of wasted money and man hours, national guard activations go to eradicating wild hemp while pretending to stamp out cannabis (itself a huge waste). Anyone who wants to look into the industrial uses of hemp (let alone the medical uses of cannabis and thc oil as found at http://www.phoenixtears.ca) can look here (and many other places:

http://www.illuminati-news.com/marijuana-conspiracy.htm

http://www.illuminati-news.com/2007/0601a.htm

Now note, combine ANY of those technologies with the rediscovered (and long suppressed Pogue Carburetor) and you are on to something. First, however, you have to get the oil companies to quit adding lead. They started adding lead to gasoline to gunk up the pogue carburetors after buying and shelving the patent (to prevent independent developers from doing this), and even “unleaded” fuels STILL have lead in them. Read this for the university lab proven tests and science:

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Carburetors/McBurney/press_release031117.htm

Read this for the story about how the Pogue Carburetor was accidentally rediscovered. Now, nothing seemed to be available on this for quite sometime since the original article was published and I saw it in the USA carried affiliates in early 2003, and I wondered if the guy who found it and tested it (and happened to be a mechanic) was “bought off” too. Certainly nothing MAINSTREAM (and with the science of how today’s formulated gas is specifically designed to gunk up these things, that tells you how and why). The reprint of the article from 2003 is at the beginning of the next link with all kinds of patent drawings and the technical info:

http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm

Some more (with the parent site being FULL of great suppressed info, from the Stanley Meyers hydrogen fracturer to foreign inventors who accomplished same thing, from Japan to Phillipines):

http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=986

The fact is, it does not take a genius to insist that ALL additives to fuels be taken out, and fuel injectors, because the Pogue carburetors let vehicles run much cooler burning the fuel much more efficiently as described in the science article on it by
Bruce McBurney that I linked above. This alone reduces the emissions AND gets so much more efficient mileage that far less fuel is being burned, period, anyway. There is also far less wear and tear on engine and components, engine stays cool, clean reducing maintenance and repair costs significantly over time, and increasing reliability.

Pogue was not alone, and it has been alleged that others (not just Stanley Meyer) were murdered to prevent their world changing tech from getting mass awareness and eventually distribution:

http://truedemocracyparty.net/2011/09/vapor-fuel-system-tom-ogle-full-story/

Additionally, combine the technologies, and you see the 200mpg pogue carburetor running on a hydraulic hybrid conversion that effectively doubles mileage plus (so now a baseline of 400mpg or more). Add that in concept to a ground up designed hydraulic hybrid like the INGOCAR, info available in base here: http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3112 and more can be found here: http://www.valentintechnologies.com/ plus Youtube has videos.

Using a ground up hydraulic power train vehicle like the Ingocar we see the actual likely mileage using UNADULTERATED gasoline go from its estimated baseline 170mpg (using normal fuel, no Pogue tech) to 800-1000 mpg if also run on a Pogue caburetor (or lesser miles but full alternative fuel such as hemp biodiesel). Make the vehicle itself out of that hemp plastic and it is tougher than steel, but lighter, for even greater mileage savings, safety ratings, you name it. Even realizing HALF those benefits, just converting existing vehicles by using Pogue carburetors, let alone combined as I mentioned, etc., would so drastically reduce emissions (read the McBurney article I linked) and fuel consumption that prices for fuel would fall, the need to ethanol, MTBE, and other stupidly wasteful, expensive wastes of food and environmental pollution would dry up. If fuel quadrupled in price driving costs would still be cheaper by far than today per mile driven due to the massive mileage gains.

Just using KNOWN, proven, tested, patented technologies I linked to the articles above would allow a revolution that would drop costs and allow a simplification of cars (no more computer controlled emission equipment, fuel injectors, and all kinds of parts) so that the vaunted V8 could return, and V6’s (or be unnecessary using super accumulators for the hydraulic hybrids), and with modular designs (see some wired.com articles on this and batch productions), kit cars, a renaissance in auto production could be realized here in the USA, sparking numerous companies and injecting life into the moribund American auto industries.

The problem, of course, is it is a threat to many interests. You could just start ticking off the huge list of threatened political interests. Peak oil would mean nothing, and all developing world cars, and fuel needs, and emissions, would have negligible impact on the ecology (and the world would have even more reasons to again buy American).

Now, do not get me started on the alternative tech like that pushed and developed by Stanley Meyer and others (watch the 1995 “It Runs on Water” video now on Youtube, get the long version (50 minutes or so, it shows several proven techs, for a primer). Paul Pantone’s GEET is also something that has great promise on several levels. There are many others, and IF the USA had the same legal environment (lack of government regulations and the legal ability to halt public disclosure of technologies and scientific papers on “national security” grounds”) and scientific freedom, a number of these technologies would surely have already had widespread adoption. The average person, even the exceptional person, typically has NO IDEA. This, however, is not the place for discussion of same, but if called upon I can recommend a number of books and websites with credible, detailed information.

Now, for the comments specifically for Eric Peters. I was part of a DARPA research conference on developing a “Petroleum Free Military” by 2035, and I am a US military veteran and medically retired engineer. I maintain my promises of confidentiality about the work product of the conference and the people because I made them and will not break them, but I also have things I CAN share about some of what I learned that do NOT violate confidentiality, classifications, and non-disclosure. I can prove this assertion with hard physical evidence in every way if called upon.

If Eric Peters would like to discuss the information I have on this, and can discuss without violating any security information, he can contact my email address. If he misses this, because of my long post, encourage him to read it and contact me so that we could schedule follow up. It is a tricky subject to discuss things I think SHOULD be disclosed to the public now, without disclosing any of the things I learned and worked on that I promised to keep confidential, so with the understanding that there will be things related to the conference and projects and information imparted to me by DARPA personnel, etc., if he would want to discuss what I believe I CAN discuss, I would welcome the contact. This is a single, one time, public offer because I have made several, very limited, private, unsuccessful attempts to bring some of this information into discussion with people in relevant fields but the lack of introduction and inability to disclose substantial amounts of information upfront has caused a general lack of interest. Mr. Peter’s expertise in automotive tech, his interest in liberty, and his willingness to investigate and disseminate (as relevant) information make me willing to discuss the matter with him, and he can decide to take, or not take, further steps in investigating my information, and to disclose, or not disclose, what he learns, in a more public forum.

Otherwise, I ask that the following temporary contact address NOT be abused by attention seekers: ancientengineersgooglemail

I got that Tesla beat.

66 MPG @ 118 MPH with a range of 575 miles with a better view at a third of the price of a Tesla ‘S’. Speed with out the speeding ticket

http://www.skycraftairplanes.com/
http://youtu.be/ZjTMQM2oErA

Eric,

You are a pleasure to read. I found out about you on lewrockwell.com, but now just love to read your stuff even when you haven’t contributed on that particular day.

I am one of the unfortunate souls who lives on Long Island and have for the past 40 years except for my five year hitch in the military. The 32 mle ride to the office often takes 1:30+, most often due to the clovers, or left-lane bandits. Prius drivers are the biggest clovers as they have the “right” to drive in the HOV lane with only a driver due to their being a “low emission vehicle” and they drive at speeds far below that of those in the left, and even middle lanes of the Long Island Expressway (an oxymoron if I have ever seen one). The whole purpose of the HOV lane is to reward those with multiple occupants with a faster commute.

I am not a car guy, and generally just consider a car something that gets me from A to B, but I sure miss my first car, a 1971 Camaro with only 58k when I bought it in 1983. I had to sell it for $300, because I couldn’t afford the upcoming insurance payment as a youngster. Man, I miss that car.

Nikola Tesla was a genius. It’s a shame that con artist Monk used Tesla’s name on such a retarded boondoggle as this battery powered “car”.

Reg; “One of the things I really like about my old bikes is the kick starter. There’s just something about kicking an engine to life vs. pushing a starter a button.”

Yes, Eric, it involves you in the mechanism, the machinery of motion. It is also why I like seeing the motor in a bike or Hot Rod. There is a certain emotional component to the experience when those involvements are included, most just don’t get it.

Speaking of Mechanical fun, check out this… >

http://www.cyclekarts.com/CycleKart.html
http://www.gittrevillegp.com/www.gittrevillegp.com/Welcome.html
http://www.gittrevillegp.com/www.gittrevillegp.com/The_Cars/Pages/Panhard_Levassor.html#0
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7042985

Oop’s! Forgot this curiosity, Eric…> http://www.studebakermotorcompany.com/home/home/

I wish one of the smart clovers would hurry up and invent the perpetual motion machine so we can completely bypass the growing pains of the electric lemons.

Here is some useless but fascinating information relating to batteries. World War Two submarines had four engines and two batteries. Each battery had 126 cells. Each cell was about 54 inches high, 15 inches deep by 21 inches wide. Each cell weighed about 1650 pounds. That’s about 104 tons per battery.

Granted, those subs were a mite heavier than a passenger car, and battery technology has improved somewhat since then. But 208 tons in each sub is still a lot of battery.

I think the main problem when charging a battery is this:

Most battery level or state-of-charge meters are nothing more than a voltmeter. When a battery has been used and not charged fully, initially, the charge level meter will show more voltage than actual charge has been put in the battery. Leaving the battery to settle for a while, the voltage eventually drops, but not quite back to the level before charge.

Conversely, when a battery has been heavily used, if the battery is left to settle without charging, the voltage will slowly creep up again, but not back up to the level before discharge.

This is a common problem in electric forklifts and batteries of all kinds in my electric model aircraft, of which I have much experience in service and usage of. ACTUAL battery capacity is very difficult to measure, unless a computer averages several rotations of charge and discharge, logs the k’s travelled and the amps drawn and voltage thereby.

All batteries exhibit this voltage drop phenomenon, to a slightly greater or lesser degree depending on the battery type, being lead-acid, lithium, nickel-metal-hydride, nickel-cadmium or calcium.

However, heat and cold will always have adverse effects. Cold will reduce the ability of the battery to change its chemistry during discharge and, heat generates resistance within a circuit. This doesn’t just affect the battery, but gearbox oil, grease, motors and their circuits etc.

It’s entirely likely that all these problems with batteries and electric power were either not fully addressed, or even ignored by Tesla in their marketing. It’s also likely that Broder isn’t aware of these battery facts. Regardless, battery power for transportation continues to be disappointing.

Kinda rich, ain’t it? Two lying sociopaths going at each other trying to convince others of their credibility. How Rich.

The parasitic sociopath Elon Musk must have been “helping” Boeing with their 787 battery problem and let his own product battery quality plummet…Maybe he gave Boeing all his “good” batteries.

I think one of the issues with cars (especially electrics/hybrids) is that there is a tendency to try to turn them into wheeled multitools.

The fact is some vehicles work better at some tasks than others. You see electric vehicles used a lot in sunbelt retirement communities. They are called “golf carts” for the uninitiated. Granted they fill up on grid power; but they also are very light and don’t have a lot of .gov mandated safety requirements. Also in these same communities there are huge land yachts/RV’s parked in driveways for traveling outside the communities themselves.

Speaking for myself; my next automotive purchase will likely be an early ’90’s Mazda Miata. Simple, fun to drive, easy to maintain,that will used mostly as a grocery getter and curve carver. That will make 3 vehicles counting the Pick-up and the motorcycle. If my scheme holds together in the future the one after that will be something like a Roadmaster station wagon or a big-ass Cadillac for interstate travel.

Different tools for differing purposes.

I am optimistic about the future of the electric car. At some point, somebody will figure out how to store a few hundred kilowatt hours in a battery the size of the current 12 volt battery in a conventional car. That may sound far fetched. But if you tried to tell an electronics expert sixty years ago that someday it would possible to put millions of transistors on a chip the size of a postage stamp, they would have thought you crazy too. The CPU in the computer you are using is such a chip.

The story of Tesla motors is not a condemnation of the electric car, but rather a condemnation of government subsidies. Heavily government subsidized businesses have a completely different set of priorities than the business receiving little or no government subsidies. That shows in the company’s products. The Tesla roadster is a white elephant of an electric car. Big on hype and price and offering little of practical value. On the other hand, there is the Nissan Leaf. Much less subsidized than the Tesla and at half the price, practical for some people.

Affordable electric cars will be a reality some day. Government subsidies will put that day farther off rather than bring it closer. Technological advancement is like a horse race with many horses in the running. The government invariably bets on the wrong one. This ties up money that could have been spent on a winner.

Let’s consider a reversal of gasoline versus battery question. Imagine that gasoline, with it’s incomparable burning quality, has not been discovered. Served by charging stations, for more than a century man has moved loads and himself with battery powered vehicles. Mules are still bred, and horse drawn wagons are still quite common.

Can you imagine the excitement that would accompany the sudden appearance of gasoline and the otto engine? I can imagine it now in bold print:

AT LAST. MANKIND NEED NO LONGER DEPEND ON INEFFICIENT BATTERY POWERED TRANSPORTATION!

Gasoline and the otto engine promise a quantum leap in the transportation of people and goods….

tgsam

Apparently Musk is working on a solution with Boeing to fix their Lithium-ion battery problem on their latest Dreamliner aircraft- good luck to him.

It’s a simple power density problem. 40 pounds of gasoline is equivelent to 400 pounds of batteries (assuming they are fully charged, in which case they’re just 400 pounds of dead weight).

Now factor in the portability and the transportability of gasoline, not to mention the long term endurance of the internal combustion engine. The technology simply isn’t there (yet?), and all of the subsidies in the world will not change that. (Besides, subsidies are only cost transfers, not cost reducers.)