Comments by "Winnetou17" (@Winnetou17) on "Thunderf00t" channel.

  1. And even though they're REALLY expensive (and only financially worth in very densely populated areas), they're still much cheaper than hyperloop.
    179
  2.  @TheWizardGamez  It's not the cameras, it's the Starweak signal.
    128
  3.  @david-3172  Still, give credit where credit is due. I'm still only 1% towards that 1 million dollars, as are most of its viewers.
    18
  4. I mean, it's not NASA's fault that it's massively underfunded. I'd say they still are doing very well given the circumstances. The recent Mars mission was a massive success. If only it would receive the money that SpaceX are burning, then it would be much better, though it will still be a very little budget.
    13
  5. I actually do have respect that he went there himself. Stupid, but respectable.
    12
  6. Well, Thunderf00t did mention a bit about that. So, you need roughly 1 MWh of energy for a full load of the semi. And in decently good conditions, you can about an average of 10 hours of peak time for solar panels. So to get 1 MWh of energy in a day, you need 100 kW worth of solar panels, that in 10 hours (well, in more than that, but in average) will gather 1 MWh. So, solar panels are usually 20 to 22.something percent effective. That is, they can gather about 20 something of the incoming solar energy which is around 1kW per square meter in a normal bright sunny day. It can go a bit more than that, though not by much. And when very bright, you usually have the problem of cooling the panels, otherwise their efficiency drops when overheated. So, let's assume the panels are at 25% efficiency. That means than 1 square meter of that can generate 250 W, so in one hour it will get 250 Wh of energy. Simply put, 4 square meters make 1 kW. To get to our 100 kW worth needed, we simply need to multiple the above figure by 100. So a megacharger needs gasp 400 sq.meters of good solar panels, and to run in good conditions, which California does have, but the northern part of USA and most of Europe (or rest of the world, really) do not. Now, usually a solar panel is bigger than a square meter, but less than 2. So the number of typical solar panels would be between 200 and 400, with a strong bias to be around 300, I'd say. Actually, if the conditions aren't that great or the efficiency is not the 25% I used... well, then having 400 might actually be the more realistic number.
    8
  7. I think you meant 3, not 300 billion dollars
    8
  8. So basically you're going to live forever .... longing
    7
  9. A unit is $2000, not $6000. At least that's what I understood from the video. The $6000 figure is because it needs 3 panels for 6L.
    6
  10. Yes, but Death would've taken the absolute clown show of watching Elon suffer the humiliation and stress of going down and (some, hopefully most) of its fans realizing just how d00mb they were and how bad Musk was. In the other scenario he would've been martyrized and people would go nuts with conspiracy theories, getting even d00m-ber.
    6
  11. @ Testing ™©®
    5
  12. Bullshit! The 3 year part. It stayed as a level 2 since... forever and you're claiming it will suddenly jump to level 5 in 3 years ? GET OUTTA HERE!
    4
  13. Like others said, I think at the first sign of trouble or good opportunity, Trump will kick Elon out like it's a flea. I got to say, it's weirdly satisfying seeing how Trump's got Elon under his boot. The old geezer still has tricks up his sleeve. Though overall, I fear it will only bring a massive amount of problems, globally and for USA. I do hope I'll be proven wrong on this.
    4
  14.  @thelasthallow  The launch itself is progress, though wildly expensive, but hey, it happens. But the detonation... I mean come on... totally not the reason to cheer. I mean, not even a shocked "oooh" or something like that, then follow up with "well, it launched, yaay" and only THEN cheer. It reeked of brainwashed people.
    4
  15. @thunder kus It won't take weeks. I don't know why Thunderf00t even mentioned how long it will take to charge using your standard home outlets, that's just stupid and a waste of time to think about and mention. Realistically, they will be mostly be charged overnight, when the driver sleeps. The most basic supercharger can get that done. Also, if those 1MW Semi chargers get to be a reality and actually not be very rare, they should also help a lot. Like you take a mandatory 30 minute break mid day, in that time you could charge 50% of the battery. So it's feaseable to reach 800 miles per day of driving. Really, if Elon Musk wouldn't have marketed insanely stupid things, people could see that in some cases this is a decent truck. For low-weight high volume short-to-medium hauls it's definitely usable.
    4
  16.  @Unethical.Dodgson  Don't kid yourself, he's not stupid. He always knows what to say to the public, be it normal people, investors or government officials/agencies so that they take his BS for granted. Nobody is even close to getting this far on this amount of BS. You can try your best to talk some people into an idea that's only 1/10 the amount of BS he does on a regular basis, and you'll get laughed out of the room and have nobody backing you up or giving you money. That's where his "genius" is.
    4
  17.  @thelasthallow  It's biased heavely in favour of science. Sorry that it makes you so salty about it, real people care about the real world, not about the fantasies of a con man.
    3
  18.  @4Leka  Dude, can you stop having EVs up yours so deep ? It's blatantly obvious that running low on fuel is much more of an issue with EVs than with gasoline cars. EVs are awesome but they specifically lack in this department (one of the few). EVs are awesome even with that, there's no need to act dumb and ignore the shortcomings in order to make EVs look better.
    3
  19. I would, after receiving an extra paycheck equal with the salary for one entire year, on the spot, so I can invest into my job security or a retirement fund. And, of course, a raised paycheck.
    3
  20.  @JoeOvercoat  Elon might've said that about Tesla, but I remember that rather recently (2020 maybe?) he said that about Space-X, so the need that everybody works extra hours go reach some goal/milestone. It was an internal email.
    3
  21. Nice, thanks for the info! Some others pointed that those barriers are actually heavier. I have no idea and I'm lazy to investigate myself, but it might be possible that the cargo is closer to 20 tons. On that idea, if the battery itself adds, at most, 6 tons extra than a diesel engine (7 tons battery, 1 ton less in engine+extras weight), why would it carry 10-14 tons less ? It doesn't make much sense. So I don't think that the drive and steer weigh 60000+lbs. Also, please split your text a bit. It's a wall of text right now. Readable, but not confortably so, once you passed the 2nd row.
    2
  22.  @SR-ry6hs  I don't think it's actually vaporware, just insane claims. I mean, for short to medium distances for low weight high volumes products, it makes a lot of sense. Toilet paper needs to be delivered too! It's just that it doesn't beat diesel in everything (not even close). And it's not even comparable with rail (why Elon isn't sued into jail for that and other impossibly stupid claims like that is beyond me. USA really is disappointing at times)
    2
  23. I don't understand the relevancy of that WAAAY OVERUSED "they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats" clip. Of all the stupid things Trump said, this has to be on the 2000th place in that list. It's sincerely annoying to see it so much as if it's of any importance (one way or another).
    2
  24. It's not zero. Much energy was wasted into making the bullshit claims, and into the others parroting them, then Thunderfoot debunking them, and by everybody who watched the original videos and/or this one. GBs if not a couple of TBs of uploading and encoding (for all resolutions) are not free. Neither streaming PBs of videos (1 GB of one video * 1 million views = 1 PB. Ok, for 1080p resolution, the video certainly doesn't have 1 GB, but it's 4 videos, so combined, they surely passed the Petabyte mark)
    2
  25.  @burgerjointgame  Well, better late than never! It's a bit sad that the claimed things aren't actually sustainable (who wouldn't want to travel in an actual Hyperloop and go from London to New York in like 1 hour ?). But better be a bit sad than to be shocked when you realize it was a conjob all along. And that you actually spend money on that.
    2
  26. It shouldn't fully flop. There are use cases, like short-medium range hauls. And not everything is very heavy, toilet paper and other such things need to be carried too. So for low weight high volume stuff, the Tesla Semi should be actually decent.
    2
  27.  @jerry2357  Oh, yeah, definitely. Servicing one truck per day is... not great :))
    2
  28.  @sdwone  Yeah, no problem doing that. It's not me who decided that the kid should go there. Also, by "that kid" do you mean Suleman Dawood ? Can't tell it to his father - he died with his son. Her mother also knew how risky it was and originally she was supposed to go, but eventually gave her ticket to her son, as he too wanted to go. At the end of the day, it's something very risky no matter what. And people do make mistakes. So I hope that they took the decision knowingly. From what I saw on Wikipedia everyone going had to sign an agreement that they know it's experimental and that bad stuff, up to and including death can happen.
    2
  29. Yeah, like Pablo said. I don't like Musk either, but right here you're strawmanning him.
    2
  30. That shows that he still either didn't learn anything or that he's still very willing to lie to his teeth for a nice lump sum of money. I wish the academia would single him out for making such a bad image of academics.
    2
  31.  @crocodile2006  Ok, ok, thanks for that. Sooo, let me quote "Recover up to 70 percent of range in 30 minutes using Tesla’s Semi Chargers". UP TO :)) Also, what numbers do add up ? If the battery is 1000kWh, then 70% of that is ... 700kWh. Charging 30 minutes from a 1000 kW station will give you ... 500 kWh. You might say, well, the battery is not actually 1000kWh, it's less because it needs less than 2kWh per mile. In the video they said 1.7 or 1.8 kWh per mile. Using 1.7 kWh (and we don't know the conditions for that, only that it was a full weight) per mile, in order to do 500 miles we'll need 1.7 * 500 = 850 kWh. 70% of that is 595 kWh. Which is 20% more than the 500kWh that 30 minutes at 1MW. These "numbers match" to you ??? Really, I think that the 70% figure is for the 300 mile variant. Or in a "best case" scenario, where you use much less than 2 or 1.7 kWh per mile, but it's not the average (or anything that you can rely upon)
    2
  32. Well, as an idea, it's not stupid. Choosing to implement it now, when it doesn't make any economical sense, that is VERY stupid. But who knows, maybe in another 100 years we might've developed something that would make it easier to implement. Or we might reach the level of need where the costs are feaseable... though I highly doubt that. Or simply have that much excess energy and prosperity that investing into something like this makes sense. Yeah, who am I kidding, we're never going to reach this.
    2
  33.  @aturchomicz821  The idea isn't that brains make LOTS of power (what is that even supposed to mean ???). The human brain typically consumes 20W of energy to run. And it's much better at doing complex stuff than any processor today. And everything bigger/better than a lower power notebook's CPU consumes more than 20W of energy
    2
  34. No, it's clear enough that it's a scam. We should start an indigogo (GoFundMe?) campaign to collect&help&fund all those backers and those that bought that abomination to sue Waterseed into oblivion, so Nancy and Don can finally go and rot in jail as they deserve.
    2
  35. Or just plain normal infrastructure. Like normal trains that USA so desperately needs.
    2
  36. I wonder if the current harsher economical landscape impacted it. As in, if it were still like in 2018 if it would still have trudged along with the same lies, consuming even more money.
    2
  37. taking selfies ?? On a more serious note, taking pictures/videos of the situation might be good later. Also, doesn't the GPS still function ? And isn't there any chance to connect to a satellite or something ? To do an emergency call for example. Or simply so you can be tracked by any means.
    2
  38. @Malus Ex Machina what you said makes sense, but in this case it all stops when YT said that they examined the appeal in great detail. They have absolutely no excuse at this point. And they don't seem to be accountable by any means ? Can they be sued for clearly lying in regards to what they do versus what the Terms & Conditions are ?
    1
  39. Oh come on, he meant on separate continents, not necessarily that there's only 3 continents. I mean, I certainly think he's not smart, but that's a minor common mistake that (too) many people make. Not Musk related.
    1
  40. They have a full day (monday) to read and respond
    1
  41. I sure hope that things will get more responsable. But I'm not betting on it.
    1
  42.  @jonbrokaw3569  Dude, just edit the original comment to correct it. No need for a reply.
    1
  43. Yup!
    1
  44. Holy crap, I really hate to do this, but the calculations at 9:00 are really off. Let me put it in another way. Let's actually compute the energy needed for a 36 t vehicle going at 60 kmph for 901 km (560 miles for the cavemen out there). Using the computing method as shown by Engineering Explained's video named "Why Teslas Are Bad At Towing (Today)" (search it here on YouTube) from 4th December 2019, and using the following assumptions: drag coeficient is 0.6 (what I found is typical for a truck, after a quick search), the same 3.7 sqm area as in the EE's video (40 sqft for the neanderthals out there that somehow know to read) which is almost 2 by 2 meters, and a rolling resistance coeficient of the same 0.015, which seems actually to be pretty conservative, I've found lower estimates after a quick search on the web. Also these 901 km are on completely flat land. Formulas used: on short, the total force needed is Fa (force to overcome aero drag resistance) + Fr (force to overcome rolling resistance). Fa = 1/2 * p (density of air, in kg/m^3) * v^2 (speed of the vehicle, in m/s then squared) * Cd (coefficient of drag resistance, unitless) * A (area displaced, in 1/m^2) Fr = G (vehicle's weight, which is mass * g, in N) * Crr (coefficent of rolling resistance, depending on tires and the surface, like asphalt, unitless) Then the force is multipled by the distance, to find out the energy in Joules and then I converted it to kWh, since that seems to be used more in these kind of discussions. So, after doing the calculations, the energy needed is 94.94 kWh for the Aero drag resistance and 1325 kWh for the rolling resistance. For a total of 1420 kWh energy needed to move a 36 000 kg vehicle on flat asphalt for 901 km. And taking the current usually used estimate of 0.25 kWh per kg energy density of Li-ion batteries, we end up with a battery which has 5683 kg, so 5.7 tonnes. I wouldn't say I used optimistic numbers. And even for this truly unneeded long range of 900 km, the battery is much lower than "8-16 tonnes" nonsense. If the truck would go at 100 kmph then it would need 1589 kWh of energy, or 6358 kg of batteries. If the truck would go at 60kmph but just for 400 km, then it would need a mere 630 kWh energy or 2523 kg of batteries. As if it wasn't enough, there's one more thing that makes this even better, and can be seen in the Honda Accord vs Tesla Model 3: the car weight, without the batteries. The Tesla one vs Honda is 300 kg less. That's because the electrical engine is smaller and there's other stuff that's simply not needed. I expect this to be the same in a truck, and something like 1000 kg to be shed from a normal diesel truck when getting it to be electrical. So this means that the extra weight will be about 3-5 tonnes. And probably the range a bit smaller. But it's still up for 15 tonnes of payload or 25% less which might be less than the other economies of going electric. In other words, I can totally see this working. Please Thunderf00t stop these cringe calculations and most importantly, stop giving musktards fuel for refuting you or your points and videos. You represent the science community and this 8-16 tonnes of batteries bullshit is just... sad.
    1
  45. @Fourier21 I don't 100% agree with what TF says, though I'd say I'm like 90%. I like most of his videos. Only other criticism I had for him, but I think was also buried in the thousands of comments, was the total clickbait title of "Why Tesla's batteries suck" or something like that. And in that video it goes to show why batteries in general are not perfect one-size-fits-all solution and that they have lower energy density than gas. Absolutely nothing wrong with Tesla there, but he just had to put it there. Anyway, I do have faith that if TF sees my comment, he won't call me an Elon fanboy. I think it's obvious that I'm not and TF is not that bad.
    1
  46. But all of his business already have over 5 years ? So this prediction IS a very big deal, especially given how much credit people give Musk ? Do you think Ford or Jeff Bezos will be bankrupt in 5 years ? For some people Tesla or SpaceX or Musk being bankrupt in 5 years is as impossible as for normal people imagining Ford or Amazon or Jeff Bezos being bankrupt in 5 years.
    1
  47. I think the 16 tonnes battery is ... well... bullshit. I actually was curious and did some computations and for a 36 tonnes vehicle to go 901 kms (560 miles) at 60 kmph it would need 1420 kWh or 5683 kg of Li-ion batteries. Even if I was somehow too optimistic, from almost 6 tonnes to 16, that's waay to much. Not to mention that the engine would weight less.
    1
  48.  @nodvick  Uhm, and ? What I said is that basically I think that an electrical semi should be able to have at least 10 tonnes of cargo.
    1
  49.  @nodvick  So you're saying that most trucks have 2100 miles range ? That's... much more than I expected. I was thinking that even 560 miles is a bit much on most trips.
    1
  50. I don't like to play the devil's advocate, but the max cargo can't really be just 5-6 tons. By Thunderf00t own calculation, the battery would weight about 7 tons. And the electric motors are simpler and need less parts than a diesel engine. I'd say we can remove ~1 ton from less engine weight. So the engine+battery means 6 extra tons. If a diesel truck can haul 20 tons, then the Tesla Semi whould be able to haul 20 - 6 = 14 tons. With this in mind, I think there's enough scenarios where this would work. Overnight charging, while the driver sleeps, carrying low-weight-high-volume cargo and you can do 500 to 1000 miles per day. No, it totally doesn't surpass diesel in all areas. And that "beats rail" should get Elon a ticket straight to jail, but alas, the thing is that this Semi is not totally useless either.
    1