***Official Political Discussion Thread***

doesn't matter when...

Energy-Density-Comparison.png


800px-Energy_density.svg.png


http://www.science20.com/science_20/energy_density_why_gasoline_here_stay-91403

density.png

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9991

giphy.gif
Haha, this guy is saying that a loss  of energy doesn't matter. You are openly admitting that you don't understand the basics of thermodynamics, yet you insist you're right. You are beyond ignorant.
 
that's still facts thou :lol:


Which part are you calling a fact, though?

Do you know how much energy is lost is a combustion engine?

doesn't matter when...

Energy-Density-Comparison.png


800px-Energy_density.svg.png


http://www.science20.com/science_20/energy_density_why_gasoline_here_stay-91403

density.png


On an equivalent energy basis, motor gasoline (which contains up to 10% ethanol) was estimated to account for 99% of light-duty vehicle fuel consumption in 2012. Over half of the remaining 1% was from diesel; all other fuels combined for less than half of 1%. The widespread use of these fuels is largely explained by their energy density and ease of onboard storage, as no other fuels provide more energy within a given unit of volume.

electric vehicles with fuel cells powered by hydrogen can double the fuel economy of a similarly sized gasoline vehicle, while battery-powered electric vehicles can achieve a quadrupling of fuel economy, but the costs of fuel cells, hydrogen storage, and batteries are prohibitively expensive to most consumers and the availability of refueling and charging facilities is extremely limited. In addition, the improvement in fuel economy of these vehicles does not compensate for the lower fuel densities of hydrogen and various battery types like lithium ion, lithium polymer, and nickel-metal hydride batteries that result in limited driving range relative to gasoline-powered vehicles.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9991

giphy.gif

Energy density is less important than energy efficiency. Better efficiency means you use less fuel to get the same output.
 


Haha, this guy is saying that a loss of energy doesn't matter. You are openly admitting that you don't understand the basics of thermodynamics,

now ur moving da goal posts :lol:

da amount of energy lost DOESN'T MATTER COMPARED to electrical batteries because EVEN with da loss, they still have a HIGHER density amount vs lithium ion batteries...
 
that's still facts thou :lol:


Which part are you calling a fact, though?

Do you know how much energy is lost is a combustion engine?

doesn't matter when...

Energy-Density-Comparison.png


800px-Energy_density.svg.png


http://www.science20.com/science_20/energy_density_why_gasoline_here_stay-91403

density.png


On an equivalent energy basis, motor gasoline (which contains up to 10% ethanol) was estimated to account for 99% of light-duty vehicle fuel consumption in 2012. Over half of the remaining 1% was from diesel; all other fuels combined for less than half of 1%. The widespread use of these fuels is largely explained by their energy density and ease of onboard storage, as no other fuels provide more energy within a given unit of volume.

electric vehicles with fuel cells powered by hydrogen can double the fuel economy of a similarly sized gasoline vehicle, while battery-powered electric vehicles can achieve a quadrupling of fuel economy, but the costs of fuel cells, hydrogen storage, and batteries are prohibitively expensive to most consumers and the availability of refueling and charging facilities is extremely limited. In addition, the improvement in fuel economy of these vehicles does not compensate for the lower fuel densities of hydrogen and various battery types like lithium ion, lithium polymer, and nickel-metal hydride batteries that result in limited driving range relative to gasoline-powered vehicles.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9991

giphy.gif

Energy density is less important than energy efficiency. Better efficiency means you use less fuel to get the same output.

who told you that lie? it's cheaper to make engines more efficient in harnessing da max amount of energy (Auto lobbies are asking for higher octane ratings so engines can combust gas richer in density to be better efficient)

that to re-invent physical limitations of electrical storage of energy in batteries.

that's straight facts.
 
Last edited:


Haha, this guy is saying that a loss of energy doesn't matter. You are openly admitting that you don't understand the basics of thermodynamics,

now ur moving da goal posts :lol:

da amount of energy lost DOESN'T MATTER COMPARED to electrical batteries because EVEN with da loss, they still have a HIGHER density amount vs lithium ion batteries...

Tell an engineer than energy loss doesn't matter and you might wake up in the hospital.

You don't know what you're talking about.
 


Haha, this guy is saying that a loss of energy doesn't matter. You are openly admitting that you don't understand the basics of thermodynamics,

now ur moving da goal posts :lol:

da amount of energy lost DOESN'T MATTER COMPARED to electrical batteries because EVEN with da loss, they still have a HIGHER density amount vs lithium ion batteries...

Tell an engineer than energy loss doesn't matter and you might wake up in the hospital.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I said COMPARED to lithium batteries it doesn't matter because even with da loss Gas can't be beat...I gotta sound **** out to ya now?

da government's own site on energy already shut u & your homeboy down..
 
now ur moving da goal posts
laugh.gif


da amount of energy lost DOESN'T MATTER COMPARED to electrical batteries because EVEN with da loss, they still have a HIGHER density amount vs lithium ion batteries...
You need to learn to read. Energy efficiency  has to do with the amount of energy lost. NO GOAL POSTS HAVE MOVED. 

I don't think you understand what you are saying in the second part. 
 
who told you that lie? it's cheaper to make engines more efficient in harnessing da max amount of energy (Auto lobbies are asking for higher octane ratings so engines can combust gas richer in density to be better efficient)

that to re-invent physical limitations of electrical storage of energy in batteries.

that's straight facts.
Engine efficiency has an incredibly low limit. Read: thermodynamics.
 
I said COMPARED to lithium batteries it doesn't matter because even with da loss Gas can't be beat...I gotta sound **** out to ya now?

da government's own site on energy already shut u & your homeboy down..

So you really gonna ignore me? Lmao I'm not gonna stop b.

WAS YOU WRONG?
 
who told you that lie? it's cheaper to make engines more efficient in harnessing da max amount of energy (Auto lobbies are asking for higher octane ratings so engines can combust gas richer in density to be better efficient)


that to re-invent physical limitations of electrical storage of energy in batteries.


that's straight facts.


Engine efficiency has an incredibly low limit. Read: thermodynamics.

Dude better google those laws. There are three of them.

Ninjahood, read this if you want to understand why there is a push towards electric powered vehicles.

https://www.quora.com/How-energy-efficient-are-electric-motors-compared-to-combustion-engines

Energy density doesn't matter if your efficiency is poor, and in gas powered vehicles I believe it's only 33%. Compare that to 90% efficiency for electric motors, which can also operate as generators (which means transforming heat into energy to be fed back to the batteries). In addition, we haven't yet reached the limits of battery storage research (which means better, cheaper, more compact batteries with better range than what we have today).

Efficiency wouldn't matter if we had limitless sources of energy, and we don't (even though that's what the O&G lobby keep pushing with fracking and what have you).
 
US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html

For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration.

None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.
But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.

The corroboration, based on intercepted communications, has given US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents, these sources say.

giphy.gif


golden showers!!!

:rofl:
 
Last edited:
who told you that lie? it's cheaper to make engines more efficient in harnessing da max amount of energy (Auto lobbies are asking for higher octane ratings so engines can combust gas richer in density to be better efficient)


that to re-invent physical limitations of electrical storage of energy in batteries.


that's straight facts.


Engine efficiency has an incredibly low limit. Read: thermodynamics.

Dude better google those laws. There are three of them.

Ninjahood, read this if you want to understand why there is a push towards electric powered vehicles.

https://www.quora.com/How-energy-efficient-are-electric-motors-compared-to-combustion-engines

Energy density doesn't matter if your efficiency is poor, and in gas powered vehicles I believe it's only 33%. Compare that to 90% efficiency for electric motors, which can also operate as generators (which means transforming heat into energy to be fed back to the batteries). In addition, we haven't yet reached the limits of battery storage research (which means better, cheaper, more compact batteries with better range than what we have today).

Efficiency wouldn't matter if we had limitless sources of energy, and we don't (even though that's what the O&G lobby keep pushing with fracking and what have you).

internal combustion engines will be more efficient before lithium batteries will be able to pack da energy density that gasoline has per volume..
 
[emoji]128514[/emoji][emoji]128514[/emoji][emoji]128514[/emoji]

Ninjahood,

Physics and thermodynamics aren't really a matter of opinion you know.

And since you're so into automobiles, you should know by now that electric cars competed with steam and gas powered vehicles in the infancy of the car industry. All the reasons for which they lost that early battle have been successfully addressed thanks to the massive improvement in technology and battery storage research.
 
internal combustion engines will be more efficient before lithium batteries will be able to pack da energy density that gasoline has per volume..


You wouldn't need to pack the same amount of energy due to the fact that an electric motor is more efficient. 

umm yeah you would because,

-you still can't pack da same amount of energy in storage to go anywhere far

-charging is still slow.

-battery weight to compares to a tank of gas of comparable energy is laughable right now.
 
[emoji]128514[/emoji][emoji]128514[/emoji][emoji]128514[/emoji]

Ninjahood,

Physics and thermodynamics aren't really a matter of opinion you know.

And since you're so into automobiles, you should know by now that electric cars competed with steam and gas powered vehicles in the infancy of the car industry. All the reasons for which they lost that early battle have been successfully addressed thanks to the massive improvement in technology and battery storage research.

still ignoring...

, motor gasoline (which contains up to 10% ethanol) was estimated to account for 99% of light-duty vehicle fuel consumption in 2012. Over half of the remaining 1% was from diesel; all other fuels combined for less than half of 1%. The widespread use of these fuels is largely explained by their energy density and ease of onboard storage, as no other fuels provide more energy within a given unit of volume
 
umm yeah you would because,

-you still can't pack da same amount of energy in storage to go anywhere far

-charging is still slow.

-battery weight to compares to a tank of gas of comparable energy is laughable right now.
Either you aren't reading or you don't understand what the words "energy" and "density" mean. 

This goes for you and your political views.
 
Back
Top Bottom