Here's a team of amateurs doing it in 4 minutes with only relatively minor modifications to the engine. Design it from the ground up for engine swap and have a robot do it, and I have little doubt at all you could do 2 minutes.
It is insightful and about sums up the issue.
I think a lot of this has to do with (excuse me while I silently vomit as I say this) 'thought leaders' - (or in proper terms) 'influential people' deciding that Google should or shouldn't offer up - from politicians to the heads of certain political, social, or other advocacy groups.
In so far as Google intends to placate these concerns, it's up shit creek if it just wants to return actual valid results that aren't influenced by such concerns. That ship has sailed. It has become too big and so must 'reflect society's values'.
Unless it's a little crafty.
All it has to do is create a seperate domain for unfiltered results that operate as old Google did (I know, nothing is unfiltered/unbiased) and let the politicans and media mouths have their sanitised Google results, while anyone who wants real(er) results bookmarks rawfeed.google.com, or whatever.
An EV battery is not some 12V with a couple leads sticking out of it. Just like an engine, it requires rigid attachment to the frame, integration with the airflow circulation, etc. It's not just sitting in some compartment that you can open up, it generally runs the length of the entire vehicle, having a meaningful impact on structural strength. The EV pack is also significantly heavier than most car engines (~500-600kg for Teslas - you can get whole cars lighter than that). And HV connectors are a lot more sensitive than just some random wire. When it comes to engineering, designing the HV connectors to survive numerous removal / reconnection connection cycles without degradation is one of the hardest parts. It's one thing to demonstrate simply swapping it once, but ensuring reliability is a much more challenging part.
Beyond that, your comparison of a car engine not designed for swapping with an EV pack designed for swapping is facetious.
What is that website exactly? For one, it only seems to list Europe. Secondly, when you limit it to *fast chargers* (since that's what's being discussed), Tesla comes out in the middle in Europe. Lastly, the site doesn't seem to list nearly as many Tesla superchargers as Tesla itself does.Even if you only count "locations" rather than "chargers", then Tesla has 296 in Europe, while that map lists 146.
Yes, that was a typo. Very clear what I meant, though.
That's one every 5750 (ish) square miles.
Did you seriously just divide Earth's total land area by the number of chargers? Great to know that I can pop over to a Tesla supercharger when I'm in the middle of Antarctica, Greenland or the Sahara.
Tesla Superchargers are only found in:
* The US (not including Alaska)
* Southern Canada (and not all of southern Canada)
* Southeast coastal Australia (plus one in the west, and a couple in NZ)
* South Korea
* East China
In the US, Superchargers are spaced 50-100 miles apart along all but a handful of interstates (the latter to be added by the expansion), as well as smaller highways in more densely populated areas (many more to be added by the coming expansion). Which is more than enough to drive cross country. Note that we're only talking about superchargers; there are also many more slower chargers in place.
Comparing it to gas stations is a stupid comparison, firstly because there are vastly more cars on the road, and thus vastly more gas stations needed. But beyond that is the more basic point: EVs don't do most of their charging at superchargers. Gas vehicles must fill up at gas stations. EVs overwhelmingly don't fill up at superchargers. Superchargers are for trips.
Exactly this. The concept of "battery swapping" is at least as difficult as the concept of "engine swapping" (for someone else's engine, at that). It can be done, but you're dealing with a very large, heavy component critical to vehicle structure, with sensitive connections, and very high value, which high stockpiling requirements - multiplied by the number of batteries on the market. And mandating that everyone use the same battery pack will never fly - not out of stubbornness, but because different vehicles represent entirely different capacity needs, power needs, form factors, price ranges, etc, and the technology is a constantly moving target. The sort of battery you're going to put in a 2wd luxury sedan is not the sort of battery you're going to put in an electric jeep, which is not the same sort of battery you're going to put in in a sports car, which is not the same sort of battery you're going to put in a delivery truck, which is not the same sort of battery you're going to put in a motorcycle... (continues ad nauseum).
Battery swap is fun to prototype, but it's not at all practical. Faster and faster charging is the way forward. Which BTW comes inherently with increased capacity. If you go from a 100kW pack made of cells that can charge in half an hour to a 200kW pack made of cells that can charge in half an hour**, then you're going from charging at 200kW to 400kW, and doubling the kilometers-range-per-hour-spent-charging.
** - Pretending that charging is linear, rather than fast in the beginning and slow at the end, for simplicity's sake.
Freed patents are by definition not "proprietary".
Perhaps you mean "non-standard". But again, it's hard to declare Tesla to not be standard when there's more Tesla superchargers than others. And while there's a single widely accepted standard for lower rate charging (J1772 - which Tesla supports), there's a number of competing fast-charging "standards" for fast charging, so again it's hard to declare one arbitrary other standard to be "the" standard.
I'd also argue that Tesla's standard for fast charging is the best one. High peak power, compact footprint, broadly adaptable, etc.
A lot of it simply comes down to battery size. As cells charge in parallel, then for a given cell chemistry and format, the rate you can safely charge is proportional to the vehicle's capacity. And Teslas have huge capacities compared to most other EVs (for example, the Ioniq is only 28kWh).
Now, of course, that's conditional on vehicles using the same types of cells. For example, if one vehicle is using cobalt-based 18650s and another is using, say LiPo or high-rate spinel cells, then the latter can take a much higher power for a given amount of capacity.
Obviously the charger can limit your rate. But in general the charger will be designed to max out at the maximum capability of the pack.
I am a long time GIMP user, but sometimes I just want to do quick things with photos - tweak the colors, crop, add an arrow or note, or make a quick collage. There are lots of android apps that make things like this quick and easy. I have G'MIC but that gives you all the settings, which I do use. But sometimes it's nice to just have presets. And sometimes you just gotta make a meme out of a pic to send to friends.
OK, ok, hang on. Only when I have to use it.
I work at a software company and we are a MS shop. I run Linux at home, and have since around '99. If I need to log into my work machine, I can launch my container that connects to the work vpn and does an RDP into my machine in about 10 seconds. Linux just works for me, even with MS (most of the time).
But I refuse to sync my phone with Outlook, for two reasons.
1. I don't want to check work email all the time, and have that expectation that I am always available. My time is my time.
2. I don't like like corporate policy, and I don't want their hooks into my phone.
That's how I use Office365 - if I need to check an email, my calendar, or look at a document on onedrive and I am not on the vpn. But that's it. It's a backup way of doing my job. It's slow but somewhat usable, but it is nowhere near ready to use all-day every-day especially in the corporate world. The fact that Excel/Outlook/Onedrive has to sync in the background has caused issues as well when "something goes wrong". And it does, often. Onedrive works most of the time, but when it doesn't sync it's a real PITA.
That's unfair. Blender did undergo some big changes, but they were more than justified. It's not like they're just continuously changing it, or that the changes weren't warranted. I think Blender is a better tool today because of their changes.
I have much more of an issue with GIMP. Pushing forth changes that the vast majority of the userbase hated (and railed against on the forum), and got a big "FU, if you don't like it, use another tool" response from the developers. Comments on the "can only save XCF through the save menu, changes to other formats pester you about "unsaved changes" even if you do export" design change were over 10:1 against. The brush size slider is a mess. Text editing is broken in about ten different ways, from it forgetting what font size you're typing in to not rendering full text deletion in some cases. The general quality has gone way downhill. Meanwhile, things that have supposedly been "in the works" for years, like higher bit-depth colour, seem further away than ever. Even if I didn't want to export to a higher bit depth, if I want to do a gaussian blur on a high-res image I need to do a combination of dithers and blurs because of the loss of precision at 8 bits per channel.
Facebook is the classic example of terrible product evolution (particularly Messenger... have these people never heard of the concept of screen real estate?). I'd also like to zing Google for Google Maps. Today it's way slower, they took the very convenient full-length zoom bar out (and only put the tiny one in after user complaints), buttons with similar functionality are scattered out (e.g. satellite is on the bottom left, but landscape hidden in the menu top left), photo integration is terrible (no longer shows photos where they actually are, but in a giant "bar" on the bottom of the screen, opened by an ambiguous icon that looks like three different buttons, with lines that point to the map seemingly at random), make you zoom in twice as far to see the same amount of map information (ex. road labels), added icons to the upper right that have no connection to Maps at all just for "product consistency", and so on. And it's 2017, why is their landscape option still so terrible? Even little local companies' map services have vastly superior landscapes.
The absence of labels [in ECL] is probably a good thing. -- T. Cheatham