explain to a normie why the internal combustion engine has so much going for it, there must be a false equivalency here.
>>7740178
Computer technology has gotten a lot better, but also a lot cheaper. Alternative energy technology is still very expensive and therefore not practical.
>>7740178
You keep spamming this thread fuck off.
>>7740178
Progress in computer technology and engine technology is not that different, in both cases the basic functioning principles have remained the same but newer technologies made the products cheaper and more efficient (also smaller in the case of computers). Today's car engines are quite different from the first internal combustion engines.
Also, we realised that progress in electronics can make car engines more efficient (there's a reason why every car nowadays has an on-board computer) while the reverse is not true and our current engines are "good enough" for what they must do (i.e. the advantages of researching and building a better engine are not enough to justify the expenses), so it only makes sense that there is much more research going on in one field rather than the other.
subsidies both public and private
If you think the gas engine hasn't changed in 100 years, you are naive.
We don't use the same one unless you drive a model T. There have been vast improvements made to the internal combustion engine in efficiency in the last 100 years along with the use of unleaded fuel, fuel injection, catalytic converters and mufflers, turbo, smart cylenders,, hybrids, etc. Mazda even uses a fucking rotary engine in some of their cars, which isn't the same internal combustion engine by a long shot. There are a number of electric cars on the market, most notably the ones using AC induction motors by a company called Tesla Motors, which is based on even older technology mixed with *gasp* vast improvements on efficiency, and power storage and delivery techniques. Fuck off.
Because electric charged cars are shit ?
Because when that next big car driving source comes around it's either bought up by oil/car companies or the person behind the new energy ends up dead/missing.
>>7740178
Advances in mechanical engineering are far more subtle. The .50 cal machine gun used by the US military today is over 100 years old.
>>7740314
My bad it's only 98 years old. Still. you can't really compare advances in electrical engineering, which is still in it's infancy with mechanical engineering which is thousands of years old so gains are harder to come by.
>>7740178
No matter how hard you try you can't get a one and a half ton vehicle up to 50 m/s with less than 1.9 MJ and then you have to keep adding energy every second to compensate for drag and other losses. My motorcycle is far from an engineering marvel and yet uses less than 3.5l/100km, five times less than the ford model T, and the fumes are extremely clean. It also makes significantly more power from just a tenth of the T-s displacement
>>7740178
>1993
>Combined battery life of 6 months
>2013
>Battery lasts 8h
Gee, I wonder why no one wants a car that can only go 1/18th of the distance of one from the 1990s
>>7740353
But don't you see the progress, anon? We have apps! Apps!
>>7740353
bro the watch battery alone lasts three years or so
>>7740178
>explain to a normie why the internal combustion engine has so much going for it
Power to weight. Getting power out of external combustion requires large, heavy heat exchangers.
If you're asking why we still use combustion engines in general, it's because hydrocarbon fuels have such excellent energy density for the weight, volume and cost.
>there must be a false equivalency here.
Ya think?
>>7740178
Because gas fuel, despite all its flaws, has an unmatched "operational" energy density, both in volume and mass. Note that I voluntarily said "operational" because Nuclear fuel has a better energetic density but it requires a very large reactor and safety zone to be operated safely.
>>7740409
I wonder why it's so hard to get electric cars to have replaceable batteries. If we can standardise batteries to a certain size (I believe that kinda already happens, the individual power cells in teslas are like AA size iirc) then our range anxiety and battery decay problems might go away whatsoever.
I'm envisioning a kind of stackable series of power cells being fed into the car's side skirts while on the other side the spent ones get pushed out and sent to the charger. Surely, that process could be done in under 20 minutes with our current state of technological advancement. Even if the range drops from the teslas 230 miles to 100, it's not a problem anymore because there are power stations on the way and you should rest between the legs of your journey, visit the sights for a minute or so.
>>7740353
Smartphones are a travesty and I don't wish to use them as a benchmark of anything other than the commercialization of computers to the general public.
>>7740452
>Even if the range drops from the teslas 230 miles to 100, it's not a problem anymore because there are power stations on the way and you should rest between the legs of your journey, visit the sights for a minute or so.
you need to listen to yourself before you hit that send button
100 miles of range is nothing, not even for commuting
>>7740455
But android phones are pretty much just running a cut down proprietary distro of Linux, right? I personally like having the electronic version of a victorinox in my pocket. Sure, I won't use it's full potential for anything other than vidya, but an easy to use scientific calculator/camera/flashlight/wikipedia browser/nds/GPS/much more does come in handy in situations where pulling out a laptop every other minute while walking is impractical at best, and even ultrabooks or whatever they're called only last for a few hours. With a spare battery or a powerbank in the pocket the short battery life stops being an issue.
Sure it's not as good as any purpose as a dedicated device but it provides 90% of everything in less space than just one "maths for dummies" book
>>7740474
>100 miles is nothing for commuting
You must be American.
>Not realizing its because oil corporations want you to keeping making them rich.
The internal combustions has been outdated since the 60s.
>>7740488
wow epin counter argument m8 u sure showed me :^)
all this research towards high density battery technology must be pointless because 100 miles of range is just fine for an electric car
just need to put power stations with every 80 or 90 miles, but who's counting money anyway
>>7740502
You already have gas stations every other mile where I live. And at no point did I say that we should stop researching battery technology. I just said that even right now an electric car would be fully viable if gas stations also started offering batteries.
>>7740178
>the same gas engine we used 100 years ago
>there must be a false equivalency here
ya think?!
>>7740499
Name something more efficient that can be placed in a vehicle.
Meh I think it's nearly done, the engines are getting increasingly better efficiency wise.
...vw excluded
Hybrids are yet to become a norm and yet electric cars are already considered.. Normal.
I'd think it's not far off for the combustion engine becoming uncool.
...although a Lamborghini literally just went past.
I'm sure there are applications that will still require combustion engines but its not far off for a viable alternative existing.
...although economists may disagree
100% because battery technology is really fucking hard.
really, really, REALLY fucking hard
the best we have right now is marginal increases in the energy density of LiPos
with the next leap in battery tech, this will be the new norm for sports cars, because electric motors can put down ungodly amounts of power, the batteries are just ass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAwIsKC7ROQ
>>7740649
i don't think ICE will ever be "uncool", it's just that the appreciation will shift towards high performance engines and all the shitbox turbo 4s become electric, which is fine.
basically, no matter the political climate, the incredible sound of a lambo will never not be cool
>>7740675
This.
Batteries suck and are really expensive.
Takes over an hour to recharge them also, compared to the minute or two for pumping gas.
>>7740178
the "WAKE UP!" bit makes it sound like there was some serious tinfoil loon who made this picture. that annoying cousin who rants about the new world order and GMOs at family gatherings
>>7740891
No. Supercapacitors have rather poor energy density compared to batteries; what makes them useful is *power* density.
>>7740891
i have a wet dream of super capacitors being an analogy for a supercharger.
they're constantly being charged and topped off by the less-instant power delivery of the batteries, but at "high rpms" the "supercharger" kicks in and DUMPS current into the motors and you get this fucking huge boost in power.
also the supercap cans stick out of the hood like a crazy intake plenum or something. rad as fuck
>>7740178
it has literally nothing going for it other than the fact that it works and the infrastructure is already here after 100+ years of building. it will be all gone within thirty years, world-wide except for the shittiest and dumbest of countries
Am I the only one who fucking cringes when I have to read a foreigner say "maths"?
>>7740178
Because computer technology is still on the exponential part of the logistic curve.
>>7740569
Electric?
>ICE efficiency <30%
>electric efficiency >80%
>>7740178
you touch yourself at night
>>7741241
what about inefficiency in production of electrical energy?
>>7741247
LOL
why yes he does
