Chevy Bolt concept - 200 mile range, $30,000

[SeanB]

Not having a car is considerably cheaper than having one. No road tax, for example. So, you're getting a £200 a year government grant for not owning a car. (That's if you look at a £5k grant as the same as actually giving someone £5k, which it patently isn't.)

That of course presupposes that you have good public transport infrastructure, which is not a given all over the world. There are plenty of countries where public transport is either limited, poor or lacking.

Here in South Africa it is all three, and to add to that what there is ranges from shoddy to outright deadly. Most common accident report is one involving a mini bus taxi, either broken down somewhere in the middle of the road or having had an accident.

[mtdoc]

Environmental Science and Global warming failed all 5 criteria.  When was the last time the data was critically discussed?  etc. etc.  I am not saying it won't pass.  I am saying it has not yet pass.

Thus, Environmental Science is not one I would call science.  It totally lack the vigor required by science be it in collected data or proposed hypothesis or peers verification.  Consequently, "Environmental Science" like "creation science" and many other "sciences" are on a par in substance.   

OK so you're just a climate change denial nutter.   Dismissing a whole field of science because it disagrees with your political views betrays your motives.

Apparently you don't understand what environmental science is. It is a field of Chemists, Physicists, Biologists, Geologists and Geographers doing research in their fields as it applies to the environment. Do you not consider those sciences?

  Bottom line is, like many other "sciences", they just want your money.

That is why I would not trust anything said by the environmental groups unless and until government, tax, and government funding is taken out of the picture.

Rick

Science by its very nature is a public endeavor. It has always been publicly funded.  See the 5 principles you cited - they all depend on public and open sharing of knowledge.  While some science is funded by private companies - by its nature it is usually not shared openly and the financial incentives create huge conflicts of interests.  Trust me I deal with this on a daily basis. Drug and medical device company funded research is fraught with this problem.

How would you propose science be funded?

[dannyf]

So, you're getting a £200 a year government grant for not owning a car.

Then why are you guys so worried about income inequality?

Think about those millions of taxes you are NOT paying in capital gains,  your yachts, your Caribbean trips, or wages to your maids, landscapers, etc.

As a matter of fact, the more I think about, the more I think you should pay the 1% for at least half of those costs.

[electr_peter]

Given the above, if you have two engines with same max power output, one with higher low-end torque will win a drag race

Right answer but wrong explaination. The engine with more power at low RPM wins the drag race because it can put more energy in an object in less time.

Explanation is correct. See below.

Accelleration is about energy. Not torque. Torque is defined as N/m.

Acceleration is about force and mass, not energy (Force = Mass * Acc). Torque unit is N * m (Newton * meter), not N / m (Newton over meter).

There is no energy and/or time relation in those units and therefore it cannot be used to compare time related performance.

Torque, power, energy, RPM, time - all those units are directly related in example of ICE and drag racing. Power and torque curves w.r.t. to RPM show engine performance in different, but completely exchangeable ways. If you know power curve - divide by RPM and you know torque. If you know torque curve - multiply by RPM and you know power.

Physics 101: energy is not pushing a car. What is pushing the car? Car is pushed by force. Where is this force coming from? Force is a torque. Engine generates torque, torque is transmitted via gearbox to wheels (with some transmission ratio - torque can be higher or lower at wheels than engine torque) and to the road [torque is converted to linear force].
What is energy? Energy = Force * Distance        ~ Torque * Transmission ratio * Number of rotations
What is power?  Power  = Force * Distance / Time ~ Torque * RPM

Back to drag racing example.
EDIT: Example about drag race assumes that all conditions (friction, mass, tyres, gearing, etc.) are the same except engine torque at low RPM. /EDIT
Car with higher low end torque will accelerate faster because it is pushed with higher force. This also means that at first moment this car will get more instantaneous energy (power) than the other and wins.
Example can be viewed from torque perspective (more torque -> more force -> more acceleration -> more speed) or from power perspective (higher torque at the same RPM -> more power -> more work done in the same time -> more speed).

[dannyf]

Physics 101: energy is not pushing a car.

It is both true and untrue at the same time.

sure, the car is pushed by the friction between the driving wheels and ground (thus torque at wheel, which is proportional to the engine's torque output).

On the other hand, between two points in time, that force has accelerated the car and the car has gained kinetic energy (it is going faster). That change in kinetic potential is the direct result of the work output from the engine.

[zapta]

OK so you're just a climate change denial nutter.

That's a sure way to avoid an honest discussion. You must have your motives.

[zapta]

Back to drag racing example. Car with higher low end torque will accelerate faster because it is pushed with higher force.

Not necessarily. Torque = power / rpm. A motor with a constant 1w power has an arbitrary max torque  at an arbitrary low rpm. (just measure at as low RPM as needed, when you reduce the rpm by half, the torque is doubled due to the constant power). This motor will do very purely though in a 0-60 because it has no power.

What counts is the integral of the motor's power over the 0-60 time which is exactly the work dannyf mentioned.

[miguelvp]

OK so you're just a climate change denial nutter.

That's a sure way to avoid an honest discussion. You must have your motives.

Getting the thread locked probably one of them

[mtdoc]

That's a sure way to avoid an honest discussion.

An honest discussion about climate change?  Your kidding, right.

No honest discussion possible if facts and science are ignored or dismissed out of hand. 

And no - getting the thread locked is not my intent. In fact if you read the whole post it really had nothing to do with climate change.

[electr_peter]

Back to drag racing example. Car with higher low end torque will accelerate faster because it is pushed with higher force.

Not necessarily. Torque = power / rpm. A motor with a constant 1w power has an arbitrary max torque  at an arbitrary low rpm. (just measure at as low RPM as needed, when you reduce the rpm by half, the torque is doubled due to the constant power). This motor will do very purely though in a 0-60 because it has no power.

I edited post to be clearer about drag racing example as it seems to be misinterpreted.

EDIT: Example about drag race assumes that all conditions (friction, mass, tyres, gearing, etc.) are the same except engine torque at low RPM. /EDIT

Same or more torque than competition over full RPM range-> more force -> more acceleration -> more speed -> more fun (in case all other conditions are the same).

What counts is the integral of the motor's power over the 0-60 time which is exactly the work dannyf mentioned.

To be pedantic, drag race is usually understood as a race in a fixed distance, not as a race to a fixed speed. In a fixed distance race you could lose (in theory) even if your car (same mass, same tyres, etc. except torque curve) got more energy during race than the other car.

[zapta]

No honest discussion possible if facts and science are ignored or dismissed out of hand. 

That's what I thought, you have no intention for a honest discussion and doge it by name calling.

[mtdoc]

No honest discussion possible if facts and science are ignored or dismissed out of hand. 

That's what I thought, you have no intention for a honest discussion and doge it by name calling.

Really?  You mean like the countless times the issue has been discussed here with multiple referenced facts presented that are ignored? Do you really think that needs to be rehashed again? Try the search button. What purpose would it serve? No one here is going to be convinced of anything - especially when the discussion is made political and not based on science.

I did not raise the issue in this thread. I was responding to a post and simply pointed out hypocrisy where I saw it. It was not the primary  topic of the post.

[zapta]

I did not raise the issue in this thread. I was responding to a post and simply pointed out hypocrisy where I saw it. It was not the primary  topic of the post.

It's OK if you don't want to discuss it but the name calling ('climate change denial nutter') was unnecessary.

[mtdoc]

I did not raise the issue in this thread. I was responding to a post and simply pointed out hypocrisy where I saw it. It was not the primary  topic of the post.

It's OK if you don't want to discuss it but the name calling ('climate change denial nutter') was unnecessary.

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I assume then you'll not be doing any name calling yourself and pointing it out everytime others do it as well?

Getting back to the topic of my post. Should science be publicly funded? If not, how should it be?

[mtdoc]

Getting back to the topic of my post. Should science be publicly funded? If not, how should it be?

Why even ask, you know the answer... As long as the government doesn't pay for it, that's the only thing that matters. These guys would rather halt all unprofitable basic research than have a penny of their money spent for them.

But I think it's an important topic that once raised should be addressed.  If one claims to be pro-science but also not trust any research that is publicly funded then they should present alternatives.  Surely no one can argue that science funded by for profit corporations will be open to full disclosure and scientific discourse, never mind unbiased?

There are some limited alternatives. Private non profit foundations do exist. For example when I was doing neuroscience in the 1980s/1990s, I knew several scientists who had funding through the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.  However, such large private funding sources are rare and still puny relative to the overall budgets needed to fund widespread research across the sciences.  As the system exists now - without public funding, scientific research would collapse.

[Skimask]

Wait a minute...wait a minute...wait a minute...






I need more popcorn....

[dannyf]

I think it's an important topic that once raised should be addressed.

If you think it is important, then you answer it.

Just because some weirdo somewhere asked a question the said weirdo considers important doesn't obligate others to answer it.

Me? I like to go back to travel in comfort and style in my el cheapo Leaf that I paid twice the price to acquire,

[zapta]

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I assume then you'll not be doing any name calling yourself.

I am not calling names, I am just describing people ;-)

Seriously, I am trying not to insult people, here and other places just because they have other views. You may have your own conclusion if I succeeded or not.

Getting back to the topic of my post. Should science be publicly funded? If not, how should it be?

I see significant difference between tax payers money going, without political bias and agenda,  to non profit basic research (e.g. universities) and tax payers money and other benefits going to companies and their customers. I think that the criticism of the EV industry that you see in these forums relates to the second kind.

[mtdoc]

Getting back to the topic of my post. Should science be publicly funded? If not, how should it be?

I see significant difference between tax payers money going, without political bias and agenda,  to non profit basic research (e.g. universities) and tax payers money and other benefits going to companies and their customers.

That is not how funding of basic science research works. Universities do not really fund research. They may employ scientists with modest teaching salaries and provide lab space but the funding of lab equipment (very costly), materials, travel, post doctoral fellows, research assistants, and in some cases graduate students is largely from grant money - in the US mostly through the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health.   This is why any University professor that fails to attract grant money will, even if they keep their job, be relegated to status of "lecturer" and will not be doing much, if any research. 

And - in addition to that,  the majority of the top research Universities are publicly funded!

In any case, my original point was in response to a poster who proclaimed that they would not trust research unless "government funding was taken out of the picture!"

[dannyf]

University professor that fails to attract grant money will, even if they keep their job, be relegated to status of "lecturer" and will not be doing much, if any research. 

That's one of the primary reasons our higher ed is so messed up.

And - in addition to that,  the majority of the top research Universities are publicly funded!

So?

In any case, my original point was in response to a poster who proclaimed that they would not trust research unless "government funding was taken out of the picture!"

So?

[zapta]

In any case, my original point was in response to a poster who proclaimed that they would not trust research unless "government funding was taken out of the picture!"

Governments are controlled by political creatures and naturally they try to use whatever means they can control to influence their agenda. That's the human nature and is not surprising.

Take NASA for example, it reports to the president and gets political cues from him.

"... and third, and perhaps foremost, he [OBAMA] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,"

NASA Administrator, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/

[mtdoc]

In any case, my original point was in response to a poster who proclaimed that they would not trust research unless "government funding was taken out of the picture!"

Governments are controlled by political creatures and naturally they try to use whatever means they can control to influence their agenda. That's the human nature and is not surprising.

Take NASA for example, it reports to the president and gets political cues from him.

"... and third, and perhaps foremost, he [OBAMA] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,"

NASA Administrator, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/

I'm not sure how, if true,  encouraging the NASA chief - a public figure - to engage in public relations relates to science or is relevant to the question.

Despite all the noise some make about science being influenced by government funding -there is no credible evidence that this occurs in any significant way.. Elected government officials are so far removed from the decision making level of grant funding that the claim they control it is completely unfounded. Grant funding occurs over multi-year cycles that do not correspond to election cycles. Scientists political leanings span the entire spectrum  Scientific consensus does not change with election cycles.

That's not to say that like any human endeavor, the potential for biases is not there - but science by it's nature averages any individual biases out through the process of repeatability, peer review, open discourse, etc until eventually consensus is reached, or not.  Initial new findings are always subject to question and close scrutiny - sometimes the result is rejection of the findings, sometimes, after much confirmatory research, consensus. The process often takes decades.

[dannyf]

averages any individual biases out

Simplistic and naive view: what if those "individual biases" are subject to the same systemic biases, because of a common factor - government funding.

[zapta]

...
That's not to say that like any human endeavor, the potential for biases is not there - but science by it's nature averages any individual biases out through the process of repeatability, peer review, open discourse, etc until eventually consensus is reached, or not.

In an ideal world yes, and in some disciplines of science more than others, but in politically hot areas such as climate research and forecast the politics intermixed with science, scientists becomes activists and are emotionally invested in the outcome, skeptics are intimidated and ridiculed, and being in sync with the prevailing dogma improves one's chances of getting published and receiving grants.

I saw recently on youtube an episode of the Andrew Bolt show (can't find it now) where a scientist said something very interesting, 'only retired (climate) scientists express skepticism' because they do not depend on the system anymore. You can find many references for intimidation among scientists, here is an arbitrary example

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18395-intolerance-global-warming-fanatics-intimidate-swedish-scientist

The weakest link in science are the humans ;-)

[Corporate666]

It works like this. The agreement is for a loan covering the cost of the car. There is an agreed value for the car, which is a bit above market value, after two years. The amount I pay is the difference between the cost of the car and the agreed value after two years, divided over 24 months. At the end of the two years I can either sell them the car at the agreed value, which covers the rest of the loan, or I can sell it to the dealer for the same amount plus a deposit on a new car, or I pay them that amount myself and keep it.

Interesting - thanks for the detailed reply.  So it's basically analogous to what we call leasing in the USA.  I wonder if there might perhaps be some kind of consumer laws that make USA leasing a non-starter in Europe.

As far as the shrewdness of making a car payment vs investing, criticizing a loan is something I don't quite understand the mentality of.  Living on credit to finance an extravagant lifestyle is a bad idea, but taking a 0% loan to pay for a necessity isn't.  We are all going to be dead in 100 years, if not sooner, so while scrimping on every penny to achieve financial goals later in retirement is a valid option, so is being comfortable, living within your means and investing in tools that help you be more profitable today - like a car   At 0%, one would be foolish not to take the loan (assuming the quantity of money is the same as if one paid for the car outright).