US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
Almost all piston planes still run on leaded gasoline.
I knew they was spraying chemicals!
I really want to know who on the biden admin thought a green military was a good goal - your base doesn't like the military in the first place.
The goal is to weaken our military and I don't know how they plan to subdue a rebellion, maybe foreign troops maybe they recruit the invaders maybe a bit of both, but everything they've done with the military is destroying it and do they even know they're doing it? The thing with electric vehicles for the military reminds me of all the dumbass shit Mao did to destroy his own ecology. This seems like something they actually want to do because they believe their own bullshit and don't understand you can't kill all the sparrows.

Like at the beginning of the oil&gas shutdowns I thought it was intentionally done to harm us, just a big "fuck you", but now that we're seeing the effects of it and their response I think they genuinely don't understand how these things work. The Germans laughing at Trump as he warns them to not rely on Russian energy - it's not them laughing their way to the bank, it's the idiots laughing at the valedictorian.
 
While I wouldn't expect a chemical engine block to fair much better than an electric against a direct hit from anything that goes boom, a near miss can seriously fuck up a lot of those sensitive electronic pieces an electric vehicle relies on. Meanwhile your chemical engine can be expected to tolerate any of that shock, and a few extra pieces of metal violently joining the engine block while you're at it.
You'd be surprised. American radial engines in WW2 could run with a quarter of their cylinders ko'd by enemy fire. If you can keep the turbine blades from violently separating from the shaft a turbine will keep running surprisingly well. There's a difference function between "convert electricity into power" and "burn things for power", mostly because the motive force in the latter is not generated by the engine but by the chemical reactions inside of it. If you can keep enough of those going, it will run.
 
Here's one more fun thought.

Lithium ion battery fires.


Yeah, let's add THAT to a vehicle carrying various forms of ammunition. Granted, cookoffs are gonna happen anyways if your vehicle gets brewed up. But why would we want to help it along? Plus, those kinds of fires? Toxic as fuck, AND they're hard to extinguish.

But hey, green, right?
 
I'm pretty sure that's in a Dylan Thomas poem. Also pretty sure that dude was a lefty.
He was an original woketard. He wrote that poem because his dad had made peace with his death and young Dylan was mad at him thinking it was more noble to rail against death on one's deathbed.

He was kind of a cunt.
 
I have never seen an electric drive komatsu outside of mine expo. I know people at several WA mines and they all have fleets of 777F trucks.

I don't know why diesel-electric has never caught in the defense industry. Oshkosh has had technology demonstrators for years where they can park up and generate power.

https://oshkoshdefense.com/technology/propulse/
IIRC, most submarines before nuclear were diesel-electric.
 
Just to add onto the dumping on electric vehicles, when LAX pushed out their LAXIt program, they started out with an all electric fleet of buses. Many of them overheated and broke down within the first week (this was in November on 70-80 degree days, shuttling passengers and their luggage around) and LAX had to "borrow" some retired diesel buses from other transit authorities to keep the shuttles running.

They're into year 3 of the program, they're still using those diesel buses and not a single electric shuttle in sight.
 
This fucking cunt.
Brandon said:
You know, but all kidding aside, this is the MAGA party now.

God, I wish. As it is now, it's 75% RINO (who kiss your administration's ass behind our backs) and 25% MAGA (and even then some of them might be RINOs in MAGA clothing). It's all so tiresome. *sigh*
 
You'd be surprised. American radial engines in WW2 could run with a quarter of their cylinders ko'd by enemy fire. If you can keep the turbine blades from violently separating from the shaft a turbine will keep running surprisingly well. There's a difference function between "convert electricity into power" and "burn things for power", mostly because the motive force in the latter is not generated by the engine but by the chemical reactions inside of it. If you can keep enough of those going, it will run.
And now that cylinder deactivation technology has made its way to consumer level engines in your ordinary car! Even a smol baby 3 cylinder turbo found in the new Fords has cylinder deactivation. I don't know why but it's there.
 
The fast recharge thing is getting hot in industry. They do a lot of weird stuff I don't understand to mitigate that. Expect the fast charging to get less damaging incrementally until it's not a problem (for consumer vehicles at least).

For batteries "fast recharge" means charging up in 20 minutes instead of 2 hours. You can pour liquid fuel into a tank 50x-1000x faster, in terms of energy delivered per second, than you can charge a battery, depending on how much pressure you're using to deliver the fuel and how much damage you're willing to do to the battery.

Robustness and weight? That requires a breakthrough invention to solve.

The weight problem can't be solved due to thermodynamics. The simplified version is once you pack enough energy into small space, chemical bonds start forming. Keep packing more energy into that space, and now atomic nuclei start forming. In other words, if you try to make something as energy-dense as diesel fuel, you'll probably just end up synthesizing diesel. Batteries can get better, but they can't become chemical bonds.
 
IIRC, most submarines before nuclear were diesel-electric.
Sort of. They were dual-drive, which meant they had electric motors connected to the driveshaft that could operate with the diesels shut off, necessary for quiet running underwater. That said, the Finnish coastal defense ships in the 30's that were the pride of the fleet were diesel-electric designs. Shit's nothing new.

Ships​

The first diesel motorship was also the first diesel–electric ship, the Russian tanker Vandal from Branobel, which was launched in 1903. Steam turbine–electric propulsion has been in use since the 1920s ( Tennessee-class battleships), using diesel–electric powerplants in surface ships has increased lately. The Finnish coastal defence ships Ilmarinen and Väinämöinen laid down in 1928–1929, were among the first surface ships to use diesel–electric transmission. Later, the technology was used in diesel powered icebreakers.

In World War II, the United States Navy built diesel–electric surface warships. Due to machinery shortages destroyer escorts of the Evarts and Cannon classes were diesel–electric, with half their designed horsepower (The Buckley and Rudderow classes were full-power steam turbine–electric). The Wind-class icebreakers, on the other hand, were designed for diesel–electric propulsion because of its flexibility and resistance to damage.

Some modern diesel–electric ships, including cruise ships and icebreakers, use electric motors in pods called azimuth thrusters underneath to allow for 360° rotation, making the ships far more maneuverable. An example of this is Symphony of the Seas, the largest passenger ship as of 2019.

Gas turbines are also used for electrical power generation and some ships use a combination: Queen Mary 2 has a set of diesel engines in the bottom of the ship plus two gas turbines mounted near the main funnel; all are used for generating electrical power, including those used to drive the propellers. This provides a relatively simple way to use the high-speed, low-torque output of a turbine to drive a low-speed propeller, without the need for excessive reduction gearing.
Electric drives are an excellent way to generate continuous torque, especially at low ends when you really need it. I believe the CATTB (Component Advanced Technology Test Bed) test bed tank variant of the Abrams had hybrid engines specifically that reason, especially since turbines have poor fuel efficiency unless running at high RPM's. Once the Abrams gets going its fuel efficiency isn't a whole lot worse than a conventional diesel, unless you thought the Germans were somehow magically able to cram a thousand horses into the Leo 2's diesel engine without burning through fuel like it was nothing. "Gallons per mile" has been a thing ever since tanks were invented, believe it or not, and nothing unique to the Abrams.
And now that cylinder deactivation technology has made its way to consumer level engines in your ordinary car! Even a smol baby 3 cylinder turbo found in the new Fords has cylinder deactivation. I don't know why but it's there.
Well, that's just horrifying.
 
For batteries "fast recharge" means charging up in 20 minutes instead of 2 hours. You can pour liquid fuel into a tank 50x-1000x faster, in terms of energy delivered per second, than you can charge a battery, depending on how much pressure you're using to deliver the fuel and how much damage you're willing to do to the battery.



The weight problem can't be solved due to thermodynamics. The simplified version is once you pack enough energy into small space, chemical bonds start forming. Keep packing more energy into that space, and now atomic nuclei start forming. In other words, if you try to make something as energy-dense as diesel fuel, you'll probably just end up synthesizing diesel. Batteries can get better, but they can't become chemical bonds.
Yeah, you more or less are restating what I said. Fast charging will get quicker overtime. Batteries are closing in on a limit with their incremental improvements. I'm not big into chemistry, so I can't agree or disagree on there being a theoretical limit on battery storage.
 
Fast charging will get quicker overtime.
Fast charging is pretty close to its limit already. They're trying to come up with new battery designs to mitigate the effects of pumping more power into a battery per moment, but any improvements will be marginal from here out. Increasing the wattage per moment not only damages the battery from temperature effects, which shortens its life considerably, but also increases the incidence of whiskering, where the lithium ions clump and form nanoscale whiskers between the anode and cathode, which will cause a short and likely destroy the battery. This whiskering can occur spontaneously even when the battery is just sitting unused, which is why they occasionally spontaneously combust and destroy whatever they're sitting in. There are some potential technologies to mitigate this, but they only increase the cost of the cell and might actually reduce capacity somewhat, as they require more material in a given space for the same charge. Barring some miracle technology appearing tomorrow, electric batteries have hit their capacity and performance limits.
 
Flywheels are the coolest form of energy storage. There is something about storing energy by spinning something really, REALLY fast that is deeply satisfying to my monke brain.
They're a neat idea, but imagine what happens when something in the flywheel system wears down or gets bumped out of place, and suddenly a part or all of that rotational energy gets applied to the vehicle as a whole.
 
This fucking cunt.
Yep a fucking asshole indeed. Honselty I hope said "Maga party" ends up winning the midterms just so we can say "looks like people surpport the Maga party" over you.

Also I wouldn't take his word. Biden after all still claims to be the real president after all. despite evidence saying otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back