I appear to have insulted some people, Wasn't my intent.

Side note regarding Organo-Metallic materials. An author I like - Brian Stableford - in 1973, predicted organo-metallic materials in "Rhapsody in Black" In that case, it was living worm like creatures that created copper matrix materials.

Well, he was trying to flex like I didn't know. I did look up Becquerel's first name - Henri. I can be dinged on that if people like.

But the juicy part is he was trying to catch me with her co-writers, while not even having the right Nobel prize. That prize with two co authors was in physics. Her prize in Chemistry was solo. It was highly related to the physics Nobel. But to your other comment about the nationalistic fervor if the Japanese - perhaps I insulted some of out Japanese posters. Certainly that was not the intent.

The intent was to compare the discovery of Radium and Polonium to Metallic materials that allow gas to permeate them.

Apparently a lot of people deeply care about that, and comparing pioneering work on radioactivity and discovery of radium and polonium was an insult. Perhaps I am unschooled in social mores of some people.

I'm not surprised. But if one's country winning, is a main point, it becomes a sort of intellectual and science Olympics, where one's country is as important as the science involved.

Regardless, congratulations to Japan. They obviously have some pretty smart people.

Her husband Pierre, and a guy named Becquerel Since I wasn't allowed to look it up, I might have mangled the spelling.

BTW, I was referring to her Nobel in Chemistry - she had two.

So thanks for your modding me down. Then so cowardly and wrong, acting like the self proclaimed genius you thing you are, referring to an off topic Nobel, thinking I was referring to her physics Nobel? I was referring to her chemistry Nobel my dear cockawhoop. If you are going to be smart, stay on topic.

A spectrum of psychologists. Hope I'm not stepping on toes here, and casting a wide net, when marriage counseling part of psychology has ben heavily influenced by womanist politics, and is pretty worthless. disclaimer - the standard format is the wife demands to go to therapy, wanting to fix her terrible husband. There is a powerful incentive to play to the "victim", so if the therapist dares to claim that the wife is at some level of fault, she'll stop going, so there is more money in badgering the husband until he apologizes for his transgressions, gives validation to the wife, which results in repeat therapy sessions.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that there could be a 50/50 mix of "fault"

Not in a marriage counselor situation, a former friend was going to a psychologist. The psychologist at some point told her that she had to look at herself and not other people as the cause of her problems. The former friend quit going.

The situation FWIW, is that the woman was good at getting jobs and friends, but would self sabotage each and every one.

I used to help her because she was a widow of a man I was very good friends with. And while I told my wife to not become friends with her, she did. It got weird. They had some fight about something, and wife only gives me sketchy details, so must have been "interesting."

Two things. Autism Speaks wants money, and an epidemic of Autism makes them look good

The other reason is that somehow over the fast few decades, having mental or physical problems has become a flex.

I've worked with some actual aspies, what they are is individuals that might be a bit socially awkward, might have a tendency to speak their minds without as many filters, might not be athletic, but damn - so many are really smart and focused.

But they have feelings, want to be loved, and once you get them on your wavelength, they can make pretty good friends.

Or as I tell people, they are on the normal person spectrum.

Hard to predict what the future holds, but in a hundred years we'll still be talking about Madame Curie, but not these guys - I think.

OP Flyswatter wrote: "That comes in the form of a cord and is more efficient." referring to losses of power between direct and inductive charging.

NP Valgrus Thunderaxe replied:"I think the idea is ultimately to put the charging into roads." self evident meaning.

NP Saloomy replied: "Also a stupid idea. It's inefficient no matter what. The right solution is a conductor that pops out (or up) automatically from the ground or from the parking spot. I have felt that a robust connector should either shoot up from the road, or to make it more maintenance free, down from the vehicle. Using magnets for inductive charging is inherently inefficient, when compared to beefy copper conductors and nothing will change that. We are too lazy to manually connect and disconnect it, so just make it automat"

NP Drinkypoo replied: "The right solution is vehicles on rails, which solve the steering, tire dust, and tire inefficiency problems. All of the attempts to make cars make sense in this age are wasted effort. Cars make sense for some situations, but not the one we're in now where we have way too many of them for our own good.

I replied "Do you have calculations to make every road in the US function this way, or do we all have to move to cities and embrace the urban gestalt?

Then you replied: "There is a wonderful invention called a "parking lot" which removes the needs to build rails to your door. You might want to check into it. Europeans seem to have figured them out." Seemingly you believe that there are no parking lots in the USA.

And for myself, I posted that you have deep seated insecurities. You show it by posting a blatant Eurocentric uber alles non sequitur, then try to use only Drinkypoo's comment about rails, and ignoring the charging topic of the other posts

You might consider letting the adults have their conversation, or if you wish to post more of your insecure drivel, we can at least laugh at you.

Or even... maybe... pay attention, and join the conversation as an adult, without the weird non-sequitur digs. At this point, it is pretty clear that you pick and choose

Keeping with the conversation flow, we were talking about highway charging vs parking lot charging in the mix.

At least here in Pennsylvania where I live, there is no issue with electric chargers in parking lots. We have them in parking lots, convenience stores, and even in some fairly remote areas, like some state parks. In an ironic twist, sometimes many miles before an ICE driver can fill up. The IC driver might run out of gas while the EV driver pulls out with a full charge.

So the parking lot paradigm doesn't have to be an urban vs rural fight. When the concept some people espouse, like charging while driving is used - the other half of the conversation, you have to be willing to invest in a huge amount of disruptive installed infrastructure, when building out a parking lot requires a huge amount less disruption. Locally, pretty much no disruption at all.

We already have them my insecure European friend.

Seriously, the idea that Europe in its incredible superiority, has parking lots with chargers, while we subhuman's in the hinterlands don't would be funny if it wasn't top level copium.

And while you search for any reason to sling some shit on us, if you had actually paid attention to the conversation, we were talking about electrification of roads in the mix. Of course electrification of parking lots is the best move, and that is why we have them. We even have charging ports in our more remote site parks.

Funny how you act superior, when your reading comprehension shows elsewise.

Do better, stop the insecure cope. It is not a good look.

You perfectly illustrate the urban uber alles outlook.

The small world where someone lives in a cramped apartment in the depths of the city, takes the bus or subway everywhere in their tiny world, who believes that is the only proper existence is. what they are doing, and anyone outside of their tiny world is barely human, while enduring fear if ever outside their bubble.

I sense a zinger there, Drinkypoo! 8^)

You note a parking area - Yup, something similar to the Terminal area in NYC. People coming into the city in private autos park thier cars in the big terminal parking lot, get onto public transport, and it keeps a lot of cars out of the city. A pretty good solution. To my mind, there is where charging stations should be. Park your car there in the morning, go to work, and come back to a charged vehicle.

That is certainly a lot less expense and infrastructure buildout than trying to electrify all the roadways.

Oh yeah. We have a terminal right outside New York City that is the same thing. Likewise the lot is quite full. Trains between NYC and Philly running all the time, packed with people. Add in Boston, and it's people, people, people.

In such concentrations of humanity, you simply have to have some manner of public transportation. No choice. It's all about how much space has to be provided for private autos.

But give it a thought. We do our level best to keep personal autos out of the very place some think we should start building out charging electrification.

Now I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but if I'm developing a place for people to charge their cars, I'd look at this parking lots and think - "There's a place for charging." It has so many advantages. A substation will probably be needed. Park your EV in the morning, and come back to a fully charged EV at the end of the workday. No car in the city, adding to parking and traffic woes. No miles of infrastructure needed for the wireless concepts and their IR losses.

Back of envelope calculations here with a number of assumptions:

Outside of the densely packed urban areas, roadway charging really doesn't work. If we take my state of Pennsylvania for instance, we have around 251,700 miles of paved roads. 2,575 miles in the Philadelphia area, and Pittsburgh has about the same. Note, there are other cities that are much smaller. So with around 5 thousand miles in Philly and the 'Burgh, and let's assume another 10 thousand miles in the rest of the urban areas, we can end up with around 230,000 miles of non- urban roadways.

How are we going to accommodate that? I'll note that for the traveling challenges here in PA, a lot of people prefer to live in the uncluttered areas, because it is so darned beautiful here. I might have to drive 50 miles to get to another town that is only ten miles away - if in a straight line - but the drive is always a joy.

So roadway charging will be a pretty hard sell.

When I see these sort of posts, I always think the poster has an urban only outlook. What is your solution for the rest of the country?

Do you have calculations to make every road in the US function this way, or do we all have to move to cities and embrace the urban gestalt?