Waiting for Superbatteries They are still a long way from matching the energy density of liquid fue

Actually, there is ample evidence that even the ancient Egyptians understood the concept of hydraulics. And did something similar and within the limits of their technology using sand as a fluid.

What, did you not know that? A trick they often used for sealing tombs was to fill a chamber under a stone to be used as a door with sand. An opening at the bottom allowed the sand to be released, the stone lowered into place.

This is really ancient, and not a secret. There are also carvings and paintings in ancient sites showing cranes and levers.as well as pullies. They may not have understood the actual principals, but it does not take a genius to see a lever works.

 

I'm simply saying that because these scams exist does not mean that the things can't exist.

Snake oil salesman claimed miracle cures that were false, but real medicine and technology did eventually fulfill many of those miracles.

The existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other.

I'm not getting into specific claims, I'm merely saying that history is replete with "scientists" and "engineers" being wrong.

 

They used the sand pits to raise the obelisk/pillars if I remember correctly.

Yes, I know. My point was that they were still limited by their own paradigms and had to naturally progress from one thing to another.

You can't skip a step....and that's no different now than it was then.

We can't know because it hasn't been invented/discovered yet.

Look at how amazing (and scary) quantum theory is.

 

There is nothing special about Li batteries. And they have been around for over 30 years.

And they are not even the "best batteries", they are simply an improvement over the older NiCd batteries. They do the exact same thing, in the exact same way. But they are still limited, and are just a storage device with all the problems of storage devices.

 

Then talk to us about real things and technologies. Showing us scams as your claim really is cutting your own feet off in this.

 

Look, I found another engineer from 1944.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1944/12/12/rockets-to-moon-atomic-power-are/

Rockets to Moon, Atomic Power Are Impossible--Marks
V-2 Expert Points to Sound Steps, Warns Against Wars
NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED
December 12, 1944
Lionel S. Marks, Gordon McKay Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Emeritus, and perhaps the dean of American mechanical engineers, yesterday warned that "another general war will plunge the economic conditions of the world to such depths that the masses will be re-living the Dark Ages."

dot dot dot

"We will never live in a world of inter-planetary rocket ships and atomic power," he asserted. "Just because those experts who once said Man would never fly have been proven wrong, it does not follow that the range of science is unlimited."

Belittles Flying to Moon

dot dot dot

Professor Marks, 73-year-old native of Birmingham, England, and editor-in-chief of the Mechanical Engineer's Handbook, standard reference for mechanical engineers throughout most of the world, is generally recognized as one of the great authorities on jet-propulsion.

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean other technologies won't be developed that solve the loss of energy that occurs in storage.

You can't know what you don't know yet.

 

Tunnel vision? Where the heck do you get that crap? All you need to do is follow the garden path from energy generation to energy use. A 10 year old can get it. An ICE is at the beginning of that path. A battery is at the end just before the wheels turn.

And that path loses energy every step of the way.

Maybe I'm just giving you too much credit for being as smart as a 10 year old.

 

See my nice article from 1944 and the King of all Engineers. Long may he reign.

 

What scam did I show you?

 

I imagine a lot of people said that about recoverable booster rockets and surrendering Japan in the 1940's.

 

Why?

 

Do we have nuclear power and rocket ships now?

The Lord of Engineers said we never would.

Gee. I wonder why I used that example. I wonder why I did that.

 

Probably because you've never understood the question.

 

I can't wait for you to tell me what the question was and then explain it for me.

 

That batteries, any kind of batteries in any kind of EVs, can't compete with IC engines. The best they can do is suffice in a limited range of not very demanding applications like commuting to work or maybe going to the grocery stores.

As for the reasons why, I've now covered that enough. You still don't seem to get it.

 

And what does that have to do with physics and reality?

I also say that a man will never under their own power jump to the Moon from the surface of the Earth.

YOu sure seem to cherry pick a hell of a lot, and avoid discussing anything of actual scientific content or substance. Almost like it does not even matter at all.

 

Lol. I didn't say that cranes don't use hydraulics! That doesn't mean that a crane is needed! You don't need to use a crane to robotically move a battery pack. A hydraulic (or pneumatic) system can move and manoeuvre a large battery back

 

To be honest, what you say really does not matter. It is almost random nonsense, almost literally the first thing that seems to come to your mind, with little to no actual thought behind it or actual logic.

Heck, now we have pneumatic. Why not just build a robot that will build a new battery inside the vehicle?

 

LoL I didn't cherry pick anything. I simply proved that history is replete with people claiming things "can't be done" or "will never happen" and being proven wrong.

Battery technology will continue to improve in at least incremental ways using technologies we don't even know about yet, because we can't.

Your argument was that current efforts are scams. That may very well be true.

That argument doesn't invalidate future breakthroughs though. Both are simultaneously possible.

Personally I think a lot of the answers lie in quantum technologies when it comes to many things but that's just a guess.

 

Mid air refuelling is possible but you think that changing a battery pack on a stationary vehicle is impossible to do automatically.

You just carry on living in the past and think that today's technology is the same as 100 years. Yea, how can a little bit of rock weighing just 100lbs flatten a town, don't be stupid. Structures carrying heavy loads floating on air, that's not possible.

 

So basically they can compete in 99% of the ways people actually use cars. They also have a lot of torque. I've always wondered how much fun one would be in my Jeep.

If you knew anything about my postings, you'd also know that I argue against the mandatory push towards EV's and replacing the IC engine for many reasons. Demanding we get rid of IC's in 10-12 years is a stupid idea.

One, I think most eco-warriors, AGM proponents and people that glue themselves to floors and roads are idiots.

Two, it's not feasible in many rural areas, shipping, long distance driving, etc situations. Most notably because you have a 2+ hour recharge every 300 miles or so. Recharging in many places is already overcrowded and EV's represent only a few percent of cars on the roads now.

But, if I'm being honest, I also have to recognize the fact that most drives are short trips, and an EV that can be charged at home fills that role quite well.

My only point to YOU was that history is full of engineers saying "it can't be done" right before we do it.

 

No shiite. I watched the moon landing on my parents black and white TV. I'm no stranger to innovation. In fact, I've spent my career in it.

I now also know you quite well. You're much more interested in showing off your Google skills than actually discussing technical stuff.

And I really don't need any more of that crap in my life.

 

There was no technical stuff brought up.

You just kept saying "it'll never work" and I showed you why nobody who's ever said that was right.

Pretty basic concept really.