Tesla existential threat?
10-05-2019 | 07:35 AM
#2086
Race Car
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 4,045
Likes: 61
From: SoCal
As Porsche continues to spar with Tesla over who has a faster four-door electric car on the track, there's claim it can make with certainty: It has far more experience building cars,
as demonstrated by its refined process. The raw video from within the Zuffenhausen, Germany, production hub, shows a super-clean futuristic community of robots and humans hard at work.
as demonstrated by its refined process. The raw video from within the Zuffenhausen, Germany, production hub, shows a super-clean futuristic community of robots and humans hard at work.
10-05-2019 | 08:31 AM
#2087
Rennlist Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,393
Likes: 1,640
From: Northeast
10-05-2019 | 01:37 PM
#2088
Rennlist Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,393
Likes: 1,640
From: Northeast
(Fascinating)^2 article that corresponds to my own intuitions except it has researched and demonstrated them down to their very core. It is so well written that it reads like a historical thriller. I am compelled to copy&paste it in its entirety as every paragraph is copy-worthy, but I won't. It's short and well worth reading in its entirety. The emperor is not only naked but reeks of odious smell, too:
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect"
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
"Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."
...
"It is an interesting fact that Arrhenius (1896 and 1906b) obfuscates his critical backradiation mechanism of the "Greenhouse Effect" by focusing the reader's attention on the idea he falsely attributed to Fourier, which is now found in the dictionary; namely, that the atmosphere admits the visible radiation of the sun but obstructs the infrared radiation from the earth. However, Arrhenius' calculations are based on surface heating by backradiation from the atmosphere (first proposed by Pouillet, 1838, p. 44; translated by Taylor, 1846, p. 63), which is further clarified in Arrhenius (1906a). This exposes the fact that Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect" must be driven by recycling radiation from the surface to the atmosphere and back again. Thus, radiation heating the surface is re-emitted to heat the atmosphere and then re-emitted by the atmosphere back to accumulate yet more heat at the earth's surface. Physicists such as Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009) are quick to point out that this is a perpetuum mobile of the second kind - a type of mechanism that creates energy from nothing. It is very easy to see how this mechanism violates the first law of thermodynamics by counterfeiting energy ex nihilo, but it is much more difficult to demonstrate this in the context of Arrhenius' obfuscated hypothesis."
...
"Conclusion
In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning.
Since its original proposition by Arrhenius, the definition of the "Greenhouse Effect" has been chaotic and, as such, has successfully obfuscated the weakest and most important part of that proposition. Namely, that terrestrial heat radiated into the atmosphere is there absorbed and re-emitted back to earth to raise surface temperatures beyond what is possible from the incident radiation alone. In fact the physics, as we have examined them, only allow compositional changes to redistribute heat within the absorbing mass of the earth if no change in mean incident radiation occurs. This predicts that atmospheric warming due to increased opacity can only result in surface cooling, which effectively does no more than alter the thermal gradient, thereby redistributing the heat without adding or subtracting from it. This was confirmed by observations of surface cooling during eruptions that ejected ash and carbon dioxide into the stratosphere (Angell & Korshover, 1985) and by observations of stratospheric warming as a consequence of these same eruptions (Angell, 1997). The "Greenhouse Effect" would predict that backradiation from this warmer stratosphere would instead warm the surface significantly. Evidently, this did not occur. If the power recycling mechanisms that typify the "Greenhouse Effect" really existed, we could build cars that ran on nothing but their own recycled momentum and free energy machines could be built to create energy out of nothing more than spent energy. With a viable "Greenhouse Effect" a windscreen would not need a demister as the heat back-radiated by the glass would prevent ice and water drops from condensing and double-glazed windows filled with carbon dioxide would be self heating. In reality, heat flows and is conducted via two modes of heat transfer. One mode of heat flow is by contact transfer, and the other is by radiative transfer. By taking the radiative transfer part of conductive transfer and adding it to the total amount of conductive transfer between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere, Arrhenius (1896) duplicated a portion of the existing heat pro rata to the degree of absorption by carbon dioxide when, in fact, this portion of radiative transfer is already included in the conductive transfer figure.
In the real physics of thermodynamics, the measurable thermodynamic properties of common atmospheric gases predict little if any influence on temperature by carbon dioxide concentration and this prediction is confirmed by the inconsistency of temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the geological record. Moreover, when the backradiation "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the "Greenhouse Effect" simply does not exist. This is why the "Greenhouse Effect" is excluded from modern physics textbooks and why Arrhenius' theory of ice ages was so politely forgotten. It is exclusively the "Greenhouse Effect" due to carbon dioxide produced by industry that is used to underpin the claim that humans are changing the climate and causing global warming. However, without the "Greenhouse Effect", how can anyone honestly describe global warming as "anthropogenic"?"
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect"
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
"Abstract
This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."
...
"It is an interesting fact that Arrhenius (1896 and 1906b) obfuscates his critical backradiation mechanism of the "Greenhouse Effect" by focusing the reader's attention on the idea he falsely attributed to Fourier, which is now found in the dictionary; namely, that the atmosphere admits the visible radiation of the sun but obstructs the infrared radiation from the earth. However, Arrhenius' calculations are based on surface heating by backradiation from the atmosphere (first proposed by Pouillet, 1838, p. 44; translated by Taylor, 1846, p. 63), which is further clarified in Arrhenius (1906a). This exposes the fact that Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect" must be driven by recycling radiation from the surface to the atmosphere and back again. Thus, radiation heating the surface is re-emitted to heat the atmosphere and then re-emitted by the atmosphere back to accumulate yet more heat at the earth's surface. Physicists such as Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009) are quick to point out that this is a perpetuum mobile of the second kind - a type of mechanism that creates energy from nothing. It is very easy to see how this mechanism violates the first law of thermodynamics by counterfeiting energy ex nihilo, but it is much more difficult to demonstrate this in the context of Arrhenius' obfuscated hypothesis."
...
"Conclusion
In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning.
Since its original proposition by Arrhenius, the definition of the "Greenhouse Effect" has been chaotic and, as such, has successfully obfuscated the weakest and most important part of that proposition. Namely, that terrestrial heat radiated into the atmosphere is there absorbed and re-emitted back to earth to raise surface temperatures beyond what is possible from the incident radiation alone. In fact the physics, as we have examined them, only allow compositional changes to redistribute heat within the absorbing mass of the earth if no change in mean incident radiation occurs. This predicts that atmospheric warming due to increased opacity can only result in surface cooling, which effectively does no more than alter the thermal gradient, thereby redistributing the heat without adding or subtracting from it. This was confirmed by observations of surface cooling during eruptions that ejected ash and carbon dioxide into the stratosphere (Angell & Korshover, 1985) and by observations of stratospheric warming as a consequence of these same eruptions (Angell, 1997). The "Greenhouse Effect" would predict that backradiation from this warmer stratosphere would instead warm the surface significantly. Evidently, this did not occur. If the power recycling mechanisms that typify the "Greenhouse Effect" really existed, we could build cars that ran on nothing but their own recycled momentum and free energy machines could be built to create energy out of nothing more than spent energy. With a viable "Greenhouse Effect" a windscreen would not need a demister as the heat back-radiated by the glass would prevent ice and water drops from condensing and double-glazed windows filled with carbon dioxide would be self heating. In reality, heat flows and is conducted via two modes of heat transfer. One mode of heat flow is by contact transfer, and the other is by radiative transfer. By taking the radiative transfer part of conductive transfer and adding it to the total amount of conductive transfer between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere, Arrhenius (1896) duplicated a portion of the existing heat pro rata to the degree of absorption by carbon dioxide when, in fact, this portion of radiative transfer is already included in the conductive transfer figure.
In the real physics of thermodynamics, the measurable thermodynamic properties of common atmospheric gases predict little if any influence on temperature by carbon dioxide concentration and this prediction is confirmed by the inconsistency of temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the geological record. Moreover, when the backradiation "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the "Greenhouse Effect" simply does not exist. This is why the "Greenhouse Effect" is excluded from modern physics textbooks and why Arrhenius' theory of ice ages was so politely forgotten. It is exclusively the "Greenhouse Effect" due to carbon dioxide produced by industry that is used to underpin the claim that humans are changing the climate and causing global warming. However, without the "Greenhouse Effect", how can anyone honestly describe global warming as "anthropogenic"?"
10-05-2019 | 01:52 PM
#2089
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,663
Likes: 4,011
From: Santa Cruz, CA
keep digging - you'll eventually find that gold nugget.
text book definition of confirmation bias along with lack of peer review - hmmmm - this as a good of a source of information as National Review - totally convinced me and 98% of the other scientist they've been totally wrong.
(Fascinating)^2 article that corresponds to my own intuitions except it has researched and demonstrated them down to their very core
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 10-05-2019 at 02:08 PM.
10-05-2019 | 01:58 PM
#2090
Intermediate
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 34
Likes: 15
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/t...203920884.html
79,600 Model 3's sold for the quarter - or about 2x the number of Taycan's Porsche plans to sell annually.
not sure that's a decline in demand for Q3 where auto sales were down over all.
79,600 Model 3's sold for the quarter - or about 2x the number of Taycan's Porsche plans to sell annually.
not sure that's a decline in demand for Q3 where auto sales were down over all.
10-05-2019 | 02:09 PM
#2091
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,663
Likes: 4,011
From: Santa Cruz, CA
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla...203920884.html
total cars - I was focusing on the Model 3 deliveries
Tesla delivered 79,600 Model 3 sedans, plus 17,400 Model S cars and Model X
The following users liked this post:
flexor76 (10-06-2019)
10-05-2019 | 02:18 PM
#2092
Rennlist Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,393
Likes: 1,640
From: Northeast
keep digging - you'll eventually find that gold nugget.
text book definition of confirmation bias along with lack of peer review - hmmmm - this as a good of a source of information as National Review - totally convinced me and 98% of the other scientist they've been totally wrong.
text book definition of confirmation bias along with lack of peer review - hmmmm - this as a good of a source of information as National Review - totally convinced me and 98% of the other scientist they've been totally wrong.
10-05-2019 | 02:42 PM
#2093
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 12,150
Likes: 776
From: Atlanta, Georgia
10-05-2019 | 03:36 PM
#2094
Racer
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 313
Likes: 124
Are you being serious? The idea that should try to do everything better than a industry that's already highly refined is laughable. The industry knows how to do nearly all the blocking and tackling well and efficiently- there's very little to be gained there. Tesla knows that, which is why it both hires from the industry and relies on it to supply the majority of its parts. Applying Tesla's innovations to existing best practices (without falling on its face) is the winning formula.
Trying to reinvent the wheel in basic areas where competence already exists, on the other hand, is not something Tesla can afford to do. It's still a tiny company with a fraction of the resources, and improving on the product of a century of experience hundreds of thousands of engineers is neither easy nor cheap. They need to copy where it makes sense and innovate where it doesn't.
Trying to reinvent the wheel in basic areas where competence already exists, on the other hand, is not something Tesla can afford to do. It's still a tiny company with a fraction of the resources, and improving on the product of a century of experience hundreds of thousands of engineers is neither easy nor cheap. They need to copy where it makes sense and innovate where it doesn't.
"Failure is an option here. If things are not failing, you are not innovating enough."
I for one am glad that Tesla looks at every task with a clean sheet of paper. True, they may end up with the same solution as existing automakers, whereby wasting valuable resources as you mentioned above but it's also spawned innovation that none of the legacy automakers have been able to duplicate. Would you rather they mimic how everyone else does things and we end up with the Tesla Bolt? Tesla IMO would not be nearly as successful at building the most compelling car on the market today, BEV or ICE if they just followed the crowd.
Do you feel that utilizing the old school concept of vertical integration in automotive manufacturing has been a mistake? Success in the BEV marketplace hinges on two critical components, software and batteries. This is where Tesla's strength and future dominance will remain. As long as the legacy automakers outsource the vast majority of their components, they are simply Assemblers, not Manufacturers. This results in sharing of vendors and loss of control not just in availability and costs, but flexibility and efficiency.
Tesla has re-invented the automotive model which we are now seeing the advantages as more and more legacy automakers are following suit.
Look at the Volvo Polestar coming out next year. The similarities to Tesla which is counter to how any other non-Tesla automaker operates is telling.
Online sales
OTA updates
Phone as key
Google UI
Tesla continues to acquire companies that can help get them to where they need to be singularly, the purpose being to avoid dealing with subcontractors, vendors, unions, politics, etc. Having complete and total control of the product development allows quicker refinement of the product which results in lack of model years refinements in lieu of immediate updates on a weekly, monthly, cycle, as they happen. I fail to see how all the innovation and first principles culture has been a net detriment to where Tesla is today. I honestly feel that if they played by all the same rules as GM, Ford, FCA, Honda, Toyota, etc, they would be out of business. Bottom line is an EV company is different than an ICEV company. It's sounds simplistic on the surface but it has much deeper meaning as you peel away the layers of manufacturing and all that go with it. Thinking you can run one just like the other is suicidal.
The downside to having all your manufacturing, engineering, design, fabrication, assembly, machine shop, sales force, software development, battery production, etc., under one roof is a behemoth infrastructure that in lean times can be difficult to make leaner. Re: GM's shuttering of plants, bailing on Europe, massive layoffs, union woes.
10-06-2019 | 12:17 PM
#2097
Rennlist Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,393
Likes: 1,640
From: Northeast
Not only is the 98% number fake news (propaganda) but whatever the % actually is must be massively adjusted for the "inquisition effect". Imagine being a climate scientist or a scientist in any related field and your paycheck coming from an emperor who you think is not only naked but stinky. Starting at 4:50 in the video below (the whole video is full of similar examples) -- "having a climate skeptic in your midst threatens the funding for the whole department". Anyone who's not a zombie and has more than two working neurons in their head can easily estimate the effect this could have on the "% of scientists agreeing" about something. Btw, 97-98% were the favorite numbers by which communist dictators got "elected" -- almost everyone agreed about how great they are:
10-06-2019 | 01:47 PM
#2098
Rennlist Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,393
Likes: 1,640
From: Northeast
A blatant temperature data manipulation of such enormity (as shown in this new video) suggest a large and well organized conspiracy to defraud the public. Can anyone offer an alternative explanation?
10-06-2019 | 01:53 PM
#2099
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,663
Likes: 4,011
From: Santa Cruz, CA
reminds me of the kid digging in a pile of manure thinking there is a horse in there somewhere. @hf1 is clearly upset that scientific consensus isn’t in alignment with his personal world view - so we are down to a vast conspiracy. Always a firm foundation for argument.
10-06-2019 | 02:14 PM
#2100
Rennlist Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,393
Likes: 1,640
From: Northeast
reminds me of the kid digging in a pile of manure thinking there is a horse in there somewhere. @hf1 is clearly upset that scientific consensus isn’t in alignment with his personal world view - so we are down to a vast conspiracy. Always a firm foundation for argument.