Should read "Cummins unveils entirely uninteresting electric truck."
First off, the articles about have been mixed about the range extender. Some have said it's a range extending "battery". Adding only 200 miles range from a diesel generator would certainly be an unusually small amount. And where's the generator supposed to get air from? I doubt you could manage it just from flow under the vehicle like a small passenger sedan can.
Secondly, it's a prototype. Prototype EVs are a dime a dozen. Show us where Cummins is building the giant factories needed to actually produce EV components in bulk. These things don't pop up overnight. You can put out some minimal production of lousy low-quality EVs without much effort, but volume production of decent EVs requires serious investment and time.
Third, short-range class 7 electric semis are not in any way, shape, or form new. The Port of Los Angeles has been using short-range class 8 electric semis for something like two decades now. The interest in what Tesla is doing is about long-range, fast-charging-or-battery-swap semis. The info on some potential "range extender" is unclear, and they've said nothing at all about the latter.
Fourth, building battery pack that is A) long range, B) durable, C) safe, D) cheap, and E) quick to charge, is much more challenging than just wiring together some batteries. It's taken companies like Tesla a decade to mature their tech to the point where it is today. Where was Cummins all that time? It'd be one thing if they were partnering with an established EV player on the powertrain. But there's been no statement of the sort. Not like they would, because this is just, as mentioned, a prototype to try to take attention away from their competitors.
Fifth comes the problem of the source: a manufacturer needs to actually believe in their products if they want it to succeed. If a manufacturer feels that they're just making a hair shirt for hippies or a low-volume compliance vehicle, that's all it will ever be. They'll never sink the capital needed to get production costs down (the number one challenge with EVs, and yes, it's all about capital). They'll never sink the capital into building infrastructure (it takes billions). They'll never sink the capital into improving their tech. They'll just go for "what are the bare minimum stats we need to look like we're doing something?", and that's it. Does anyone here actually think that Cummins is suddenly convinced that EVs are the future? Hardly. So they're not going to put in the required capital. Which is a lot.
Making a prototype for show is one thing. Building your entire company around EVs is entirely another.
It's also ten orders of magnitude lower pressure than Hyperloop Alpha.
And no, properly designed vacuum tubes 1) are not particularly prone to accidents (you want to try to make an "accidental" hole in inch-thick steel?), and 2) do not suffer any form of "propagation" from accidents. That's why you hire engineers rather than just random guessing things.
Well, it won't be cost effective. It's apparently maglev. So unless they have some maglev breakthrough to make it cheaper, their system won't be cheap.
The interesting thing about Hyperloop Alpha wasn't that it was in a tube, it's that it was based around compressors (so the pressure in the tube didn't have to be a hard vacuum, which is expensive) feeding air bearings (so they didn't need to use maglev, which is expensive). But now "Hyperloop" has transformed into a synonym for "any sort of craft moving in a tube", including from some of the companies that have adopted the Hyperloop moniker that use technologies not at all related to those in Hyperloop Alpha. Many of them are just good old fashioned maglev vactrains.
And low speed limits, too. Really one of the best places in the world for EVs. Not that we don't have any factors working against us - namely, a long, wet winter. But even with respect to that, we don't get as cold as a lot of places.
The design pressure value is 1 millibar. Keeping the entire* tube at that pressure level and being able to pump sections up and down for general usage**, maintenance and emergency egress is not a trivial issue.
Compared to a hard vacuum, it really is. The difficulty of maintaining a vacuum is inversely proportional to its pressure. You talk about 1mb like that's low. The LHC's beamline is 1,3e-10mb. A 1mb mild vacuum is trivial.
* The total tube will be a metric crap-ton of volume no matter how you slice it.
You mean, like the size of any other large-diameter pipeline?
** Every capsule you send down the tube potentially introduces air to the tube.
Only if they're broken. That's the whole point of an airlock; it's evacuated to the pressure of the tube before it's opened.
Yes, because a sure sign of intelligence is basing your opinions on engineering topics not on the work of engineers, but on the Youtube rants of biochemists.
I'm sorry, I'm only interested in buying NEW CHINA ROCK CRUSHER SUPER BUY MUST SEE!!!. Do you have any NEW CHINA ROCK CRUSHER SUPER BUY MUST SEE!!! for sale?
1) Requirements for straightness on HSR and Hyperloop are the same, for a given speed. And there are standard solutions which very much work well for thermal expansion and are widely used in industry - either floating the object that would expand and allowing its expansion in a controlled manner, expansion joints, or resisting the expansion. Hyperloop Alpha proposed to use the first one, although any of the three could work. High speed rail generally uses the latter - pretensioned rail and heavy sleepers.
2) Building vacuum lines is no more complicated than building pressure lines, contrary what biochemists-pretending-to-be-engineers on Youtube would have you believe. There are standard guidelines and formulae for them, and no, a properly designed vacuum line does not suffer cascading failures.
Which is why the Hyperloop Alpha proposal was A) for a mild vacuum, not a hard vacuum, and B) did not use maglev. Specifically to address both of those issues.
This student competition is something entirely different. And each of the different companies which have taken on the "hyperloop" name are choosing their own technologies. But as for Hyperloop Alpha (the original proposal), it was very much about majorly reducing the cost of high-speed ground transport.
That said, Neuralink is not new. It just hasn't made the press as much. I definitely recommend the earlier-linked Waitbutwhy article, which is based on interviews with people involved in Neuralink. It's a very long article, but very detailed and thought provoking.
Neuralink is probably Musk's most ambitious project - the least likely to succeed, but with the most profound impacts on the future of humanity if it does.
No, fascism is marching around with torches, waving Nazi flags and shouting "Jews will not replace us!" and "Blood and Soil!" Fascism is a guy with a facebook page full of Nazi imagery plowing his car into a crowd of protesters. Fascism is literal fascism. Save your "metaphorical fascism" comments for when we're not dealing with actual nazis.
Where exactly do you get your information on "antifa"? You are aware that there is an active movement right now by pro-Trump trolls running fake "Antifa" twitter accounts, don't you? Even the pro-trump troll who created the "declare antifa a terrorist group" White House petition claims to have twitterbot armies of his own stoking the fires.
Antifa is not a "movement". It has no "ideology". It simply means "anti-fascist". Anyone who considers themselves anti-fascist can (or not) adopt the label.
A J1772 connector doesn't even fit in a Tesla charge port, you have to use an adapter.
Tesla has two different types of charge ports - a unique "Tesla" port in the US, and a unique variant of the (legally mandated) Menneckes / Type 2 port for Europe which combines high power DC into the Type 2 (rather than adding two extra pins, as in CCS combo). Both types allow for charging at Tesla Supercharging stations, which only support Tesla-made vehicles. V2 (current) superchargers are 145kW per unit, max 120kW per vehicle, which each unit serving two stalls, and multiple units per station. The details of V3 have not been fully revealed, only that it will be battery buffered, and make 350kW "look like a children's toy".
Not talking about superchargers
Then why are you here? Do you think Tesla is deploying supercharger networks for the heck of it? Tesla vehicles are designed to charge on superchargers. It's one of their primary selling points versus their competitors. At this point in time, Tesla is the only manufacturer with a widespread high power charging network. High powered CCS and the like are rare and do not form an extensive network. Low-powered CHAdeMOs and CCS (~50kW or less) are common, but involve charging at a much slower rate than superchargers (Teslas can use CHAdeMOs too, with an adapter).
SunPower panels (anything but lightweight) are around 11,4kg/m^2, meaning the aforementioned 119,33m^2 would be 1,362kg, for covering both the top and sides. They're rated to withstand 1" hail impacts, which should be fine for road debris (although might need a better scratch-resistant coating, particularly for side-mounted panels).
If one wants to prioritize weight over efficiency, you could probably get that figure down to 100-200kg, although your efficiency will drop several percent.
We don't know what power output Tesla plans for Supercharger V3, except that it's been stated to make 350kW look like "a children's toy". It's battery buffered, so there's really no realistic upper bound on how much power they can output - it's their call entirely based on what they want to do with current (connector sizes, connector count, cable cooling, and/or automated docking) and charge voltage, with respect to capital costs. The peak power coming into the station doesn't factor into the picture, only the average.
1) Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "ignoring".
2) But hey, since you insist, sure, lets discuss the purpose of having incentives on new technology. Which is, to help speed the adoption and thus improvements to a technology. Cost per unit is strongly proportional to the scale of mass production, the level of investment in technological development is strongly proportional to market size, and infrastructure deployment is likewise.
Slashdot Mirror
Should read "Cummins unveils entirely uninteresting electric truck."
First off, the articles about have been mixed about the range extender. Some have said it's a range extending "battery". Adding only 200 miles range from a diesel generator would certainly be an unusually small amount. And where's the generator supposed to get air from? I doubt you could manage it just from flow under the vehicle like a small passenger sedan can.
Secondly, it's a prototype. Prototype EVs are a dime a dozen. Show us where Cummins is building the giant factories needed to actually produce EV components in bulk. These things don't pop up overnight. You can put out some minimal production of lousy low-quality EVs without much effort, but volume production of decent EVs requires serious investment and time.
Third, short-range class 7 electric semis are not in any way, shape, or form new. The Port of Los Angeles has been using short-range class 8 electric semis for something like two decades now. The interest in what Tesla is doing is about long-range, fast-charging-or-battery-swap semis. The info on some potential "range extender" is unclear, and they've said nothing at all about the latter.
Fourth, building battery pack that is A) long range, B) durable, C) safe, D) cheap, and E) quick to charge, is much more challenging than just wiring together some batteries. It's taken companies like Tesla a decade to mature their tech to the point where it is today. Where was Cummins all that time? It'd be one thing if they were partnering with an established EV player on the powertrain. But there's been no statement of the sort. Not like they would, because this is just, as mentioned, a prototype to try to take attention away from their competitors.
Fifth comes the problem of the source: a manufacturer needs to actually believe in their products if they want it to succeed. If a manufacturer feels that they're just making a hair shirt for hippies or a low-volume compliance vehicle, that's all it will ever be. They'll never sink the capital needed to get production costs down (the number one challenge with EVs, and yes, it's all about capital). They'll never sink the capital into building infrastructure (it takes billions). They'll never sink the capital into improving their tech. They'll just go for "what are the bare minimum stats we need to look like we're doing something?", and that's it. Does anyone here actually think that Cummins is suddenly convinced that EVs are the future? Hardly. So they're not going to put in the required capital. Which is a lot.
Making a prototype for show is one thing. Building your entire company around EVs is entirely another.
No such thing occurred, but I guess that's more creative than "fr1st p05t!"
Hyperloop One is not at all connected with Musk. If anything, they're a competitor.
It's also ten orders of magnitude lower pressure than Hyperloop Alpha.
And no, properly designed vacuum tubes 1) are not particularly prone to accidents (you want to try to make an "accidental" hole in inch-thick steel?), and 2) do not suffer any form of "propagation" from accidents. That's why you hire engineers rather than just random guessing things.
Well, it won't be cost effective. It's apparently maglev. So unless they have some maglev breakthrough to make it cheaper, their system won't be cheap.
The interesting thing about Hyperloop Alpha wasn't that it was in a tube, it's that it was based around compressors (so the pressure in the tube didn't have to be a hard vacuum, which is expensive) feeding air bearings (so they didn't need to use maglev, which is expensive). But now "Hyperloop" has transformed into a synonym for "any sort of craft moving in a tube", including from some of the companies that have adopted the Hyperloop moniker that use technologies not at all related to those in Hyperloop Alpha. Many of them are just good old fashioned maglev vactrains.
And low speed limits, too. Really one of the best places in the world for EVs. Not that we don't have any factors working against us - namely, a long, wet winter. But even with respect to that, we don't get as cold as a lot of places.
Compared to a hard vacuum, it really is. The difficulty of maintaining a vacuum is inversely proportional to its pressure. You talk about 1mb like that's low. The LHC's beamline is 1,3e-10mb. A 1mb mild vacuum is trivial.
You mean, like the size of any other large-diameter pipeline?
Only if they're broken. That's the whole point of an airlock; it's evacuated to the pressure of the tube before it's opened.
Yes, damn them for sponsoring a student competition.
Next up: SpaceX hands out food to the homeless. "Oh, wait, SpaceX is manipulating the homeless to get rid of their extra food? WTF is up with that?"
Yes, because a sure sign of intelligence is basing your opinions on engineering topics not on the work of engineers, but on the Youtube rants of biochemists.
I'm sorry, I'm only interested in buying NEW CHINA ROCK CRUSHER SUPER BUY MUST SEE!!!. Do you have any NEW CHINA ROCK CRUSHER SUPER BUY MUST SEE!!! for sale?
1) Requirements for straightness on HSR and Hyperloop are the same, for a given speed. And there are standard solutions which very much work well for thermal expansion and are widely used in industry - either floating the object that would expand and allowing its expansion in a controlled manner, expansion joints, or resisting the expansion. Hyperloop Alpha proposed to use the first one, although any of the three could work. High speed rail generally uses the latter - pretensioned rail and heavy sleepers.
2) Building vacuum lines is no more complicated than building pressure lines, contrary what biochemists-pretending-to-be-engineers on Youtube would have you believe. There are standard guidelines and formulae for them, and no, a properly designed vacuum line does not suffer cascading failures.
They're saying that energy spent accelerating a craft can be recovered in decelerating it.
In practice, while maglev is low friction, it's not frictionless, so your craft will suffer some deceleration.
Which is why the Hyperloop Alpha proposal was A) for a mild vacuum, not a hard vacuum, and B) did not use maglev. Specifically to address both of those issues.
This student competition is something entirely different. And each of the different companies which have taken on the "hyperloop" name are choosing their own technologies. But as for Hyperloop Alpha (the original proposal), it was very much about majorly reducing the cost of high-speed ground transport.
To the point of parody. ;)
That said, Neuralink is not new. It just hasn't made the press as much. I definitely recommend the earlier-linked Waitbutwhy article, which is based on interviews with people involved in Neuralink. It's a very long article, but very detailed and thought provoking.
Neuralink is probably Musk's most ambitious project - the least likely to succeed, but with the most profound impacts on the future of humanity if it does.
Can it apply to "lose" and "loose" as well?
No, fascism is marching around with torches, waving Nazi flags and shouting "Jews will not replace us!" and "Blood and Soil!" Fascism is a guy with a facebook page full of Nazi imagery plowing his car into a crowd of protesters. Fascism is literal fascism. Save your "metaphorical fascism" comments for when we're not dealing with actual nazis.
Where exactly do you get your information on "antifa"? You are aware that there is an active movement right now by pro-Trump trolls running fake "Antifa" twitter accounts, don't you? Even the pro-trump troll who created the "declare antifa a terrorist group" White House petition claims to have twitterbot armies of his own stoking the fires.
Antifa is not a "movement". It has no "ideology". It simply means "anti-fascist". Anyone who considers themselves anti-fascist can (or not) adopt the label.
Iceland. Third most expensive fuel in the world, last I checked. And anything but a shithole - just expensive. Most nice places are.
A J1772 connector doesn't even fit in a Tesla charge port, you have to use an adapter.
Tesla has two different types of charge ports - a unique "Tesla" port in the US, and a unique variant of the (legally mandated) Menneckes / Type 2 port for Europe which combines high power DC into the Type 2 (rather than adding two extra pins, as in CCS combo). Both types allow for charging at Tesla Supercharging stations, which only support Tesla-made vehicles. V2 (current) superchargers are 145kW per unit, max 120kW per vehicle, which each unit serving two stalls, and multiple units per station. The details of V3 have not been fully revealed, only that it will be battery buffered, and make 350kW "look like a children's toy".
Then why are you here? Do you think Tesla is deploying supercharger networks for the heck of it? Tesla vehicles are designed to charge on superchargers. It's one of their primary selling points versus their competitors. At this point in time, Tesla is the only manufacturer with a widespread high power charging network. High powered CCS and the like are rare and do not form an extensive network. Low-powered CHAdeMOs and CCS (~50kW or less) are common, but involve charging at a much slower rate than superchargers (Teslas can use CHAdeMOs too, with an adapter).
Silly me, apparently we live in a world where shorthand for objects must be 100% unique, regardless of context.
And apparently for some people the context here isn't Teslas.
So you're saying that they over doubled what was then 25 years of production, in the past 7 years?
It could be if they scaled up greatly, but do you have a reference?
(Not like it matters much, of course...)
SunPower panels (anything but lightweight) are around 11,4kg/m^2, meaning the aforementioned 119,33m^2 would be 1,362kg, for covering both the top and sides. They're rated to withstand 1" hail impacts, which should be fine for road debris (although might need a better scratch-resistant coating, particularly for side-mounted panels).
If one wants to prioritize weight over efficiency, you could probably get that figure down to 100-200kg, although your efficiency will drop several percent.
We don't know what power output Tesla plans for Supercharger V3, except that it's been stated to make 350kW look like "a children's toy". It's battery buffered, so there's really no realistic upper bound on how much power they can output - it's their call entirely based on what they want to do with current (connector sizes, connector count, cable cooling, and/or automated docking) and charge voltage, with respect to capital costs. The peak power coming into the station doesn't factor into the picture, only the average.
1) Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "ignoring".
2) But hey, since you insist, sure, lets discuss the purpose of having incentives on new technology. Which is, to help speed the adoption and thus improvements to a technology. Cost per unit is strongly proportional to the scale of mass production, the level of investment in technological development is strongly proportional to market size, and infrastructure deployment is likewise.
Wait, so apparently you expect people to talk in shorthand?