Tesla semi

[houstonscott]

An idea, perhaps, but not much understanding, apparently. You are playing in my sandbox. I'm an engineer working for one of the Big Four cellphone companies, and I've been doing this since cellphones were installed in cars, and handhelds were a marketing promise. I worked for William C.Y. Lee, who was one of the pioneers at Bell Labs in developing the cellular technology that became AMPS. We are not exceeding Shannon's limit. Nobody knowledgeable thinks we will. What we are doing is getting very creative with re-use and carrier aggregation. For those who don't know, that's adding channels together to serve the customers that have a good enough signal to make use of it. For example, if I have a site with 3 10 MHz channels, I can add 2 of them (2CA) or 3 of them (3CA) together to make a massive pipe for customers who can take advantage of it, while keeping them separate for customers who have a lousy signal and wouldn't really benefit anyway. (They'd just rob capacity from other customers.) The larger point is, many people simply assume that there is no limit to what we can do, so it makes perfect sense to them to invest tax dollars in schemes that require a violation of basic physics, because, hey, we always find a way, so we always will. That's as nonsensical as saying that it can't be done because we haven't done it.

You know those LTE networks get faster by adding antennas, it's not a speed per antenna increase you are imagining, that's getting mature.

 

[vvanders]

Hey, finally someone who's willing to speak my language.

Note that I said "traditional" Shannon's limit, most people assume that the symbol rate of Shannon is tied to Nyquist. However what I was talking about was compression + clever coding schemes(that approach Shannon) which get you over what you'd think is a traditional link's data limit. Take run length encoding, even with that basic encoding unless I've got a ton of entropy in my data can provide huge speed increases.

Channels and coding schemes are a bit different though. CDMA lets you multiplex over a single channel so you don't have to do something like TDMA and waste frequency on receivers who aren't receiving anything(or even worse something like Aloha and the unsynchronized things that some wifi has to do).

My point is that we can make large improvements despite not breaking the "laws" of physics. FWIW 5G is based mostly on moving up the spectrum where you have a lot more bandwidth per frequency spectrum along with some other tricks. The downside as you're probably aware is that higher frequency stuff doesn't propagate nearly as well so you need a lot more cells/transmitters.

I agree that we can't blindly invest in things but saying that the world is going to stay still because everything is discovered is pretty absurd.

 

[tomato coupe]

And the first few waves of investors in any Ponzi scheme are very happy with their investments. Just ask Bernie Madoff.

Tesla customers aren't investors, they're purchasing a commodity. Tesla customers tend to be very happy with the product. Calling Tesla a Ponzi scheme makes for a nice sound bite, but it's not an accurate portrayal of the situation.

Tesla is still not making a profit. That's not delivering. It's a Ponzi scheme funded by taxpayers.

As a rule, companies lose money in the early years. Tesla may or may not become profitable in the future -- no one really knows at this point.

Look up the Fair Tax. Problem solved.

It might work.

The important thing to remember is, with the implementation of any revenue-neutral tax scheme, some people will pay higher taxes and some will pay lower taxes. Sales taxes, by nature, tend to be regressive taxes because wealthy people spend less of their income on goods. The Fair Tax tries to rectify this by giving rebates to the lowest income earners, but the wealthy will still come out ahead. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, but if you implement a Fair Tax that is revenue neutral, then someone has to make up for the lower taxes paid by the wealthy. In this case it looks like you are likely to pay more in taxes if you're in the lower-mid or middle income groups. I'm okay with that, but I know a lot of people who wouldn't be.

 

[MossRoad]

What is your background and education? Ask an engineer and they will tell you that any tech has an absolute limit, a maximum possible limit and limit that is a bell curve with the best performance per dollar per time per reliability and per safety .
This is why the Concord was parked . This is why the US still flys the U2 instead of the ST-71. Even the super duper B2 is sub Sonic and the F35 is subsonic with the ability to briefly sprint super sonic.
It is why the best efficiency for an internal combustion reciprocating diesel is approx 50% and that is compound with exhaust heat extraction. Try to tell people that the 200mpg carburetor does not exist and they will fight you to the death because they want to believe they can have it and save money . And they believe oil companies are villains hiding the 200mpg carb. Take a look at the btu痴 in a gallon of gasoline and tell us how 200mpg is possible . Same analogy for battery storage .

That ST-71 must have been top secret....

 

[sd455dan]

I notice there was no test of the claims. And VW Polo's TDi 3 cylinder HP diesels exceed 100mpg now.

Wouldn't matter to me if it got 500mpg, I'm not interested in living itty-bitty.

That part i would agree with - 1 of the only rules was to keep the cars above 30 MPH - my guess is some of the competitors that are referenced would have a hard time beating a 36 hp VW Bug in a drag race.

 

[buickanddeere]

I think you mean SR-71 or the A-12

Shell scientists did experiments and a book was even written,

"Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); it was published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1977 One of the chief scientists quoted well over 300 mpg




here is a small discussion on some of the findings in the book
Shell Oil Company achieves 376.59 mpg in test car at Wood River Laboratory

Rumor has it that it has since been removed from the National archives or Library of Congress.?..


The car has been found that achieved 377 mpg:

Shell Oil's 377 MPG 1959 Opel - YouTube

Gasoline may have been (reformulated) and the vaporization has been reduced to the point that vapor carbs no longer are feasible.

There was an interview with one of the Shell scientists years ago that was involved with this project but I have not been able to find it so far.

also found a PR letter from Shell to an interested party, but the quoted mpg is (only) 297...

http://www.opel-p1.nl/custom/testcar/wo5778a.jpg

Do the math, such mileage would require over unity efficiency , doesn't occur. SR-71, the S and the T are beside each other on the keypad.

 

[tomato coupe]

Do the math, such mileage would require over unity efficiency , doesn't occur.

So, you're saying it never happened?

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Going to be a lot of old PhD's with a classic old Tesla in the barn someday, waiting for the break through. You can park it next to the Honda Insight. Lol.

Yes and the same may be true for some new small tractors being sold today and people will Red Bellies may have to help move these parked 'newer' tractors from time to time.

Technology may be the death to all.

 

[Redneck in training]

Kind of like jet travel getting faster? We're all still stuck at .9 Mach, just like the 707 days.

It has very little to do with physics. It has something to do with the cost and mainly noise.

 

[Redneck in training]

I think you mean SR-71 or the A-12

Shell scientists did experiments and a book was even written,

"Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); it was published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1977 One of the chief scientists quoted well over 300 mpg




here is a small discussion on some of the findings in the book
Shell Oil Company achieves 376.59 mpg in test car at Wood River Laboratory

Rumor has it that it has since been removed from the National archives or Library of Congress.?..


The car has been found that achieved 377 mpg:

Shell Oil's 377 MPG 1959 Opel - YouTube

Gasoline may have been (reformulated) and the vaporization has been reduced to the point that vapor carbs no longer are feasible.

There was an interview with one of the Shell scientists years ago that was involved with this project but I have not been able to find it so far.

also found a PR letter from Shell to an interested party, but the quoted mpg is (only) 297...

http://www.opel-p1.nl/custom/testcar/wo5778a.jpg

Yes. That high mileage is possible. The cars are small single seat, very light, move slow to limit aerodynamic drag, have hard wheel tires to lower rolling resistance, have tiny diesel engines producing so low power that they don't need cooling and are in fact insulated to prevent heat loss etc.

Speaking about battery energy density. The current batteries are on the threshold of the practical energy density. There is also more room in the cars to stuff bigger battery in. The barrier is the cost .