Winning Some And Losing Some

I was poking around PlugShare.com and found one of my favourite (accessible along well-travelled routes) EV charging stations was gone, the Shell station on the Trans-Canada Highway at Brandon, Manitoba. Anyway, three more take its place, one of which is a shopping mall welcoming tourists like me and another is Home Depot welcoming shoppers. I often shop at Home Depot for nuts and bolts or whatever. So, as the economy of EV charging stations grows and matures, things change but generally for the better. The number of EVs around here is still very low so there are plenty available to me and my shiny bright red Solo EV but as EVs become more common so will charging stations and proper stations serving mainly the motoring public will find a business model that works. So, far, it’s mostly about providing service to the public or customers and that’s OK but it may not scale if the number of EVs grows dramatically. We live in interesting times.

UPDATE I’ve just discovered that the Plugshare Application from Google Play still shows the Shell station in Brandon as a charging station while the plugshare.com site says it’s a “place”, not a charging station. Confusion reigns. Fortunately there are several other charging stations in Brandon as stated previously. I would expect both applications would be on the same database but perhaps some genius thought otherwise.

UPDATE Problem solved! It turns out there is a configuration item on the menu of the website that allows filtering what types of charging stations are displayed. The Shell station’s outlets are ordinary wall-mounted (actually they are on posts in this case) receptacles, not J1772 or such fancy things. So we’ve not lost anything and we are winning a lot of outlets in Brandon. It’s cool. Just drive around with the appropriate adaptor and Shell is available. They also have an ATM and fast food place… I like fast food even when I’m driving slowly…

UPDATE Then there’s Patient Advocate Pharmacy in Winnipeg… It seems the charging station is gone but the pharmacy remains. I didn’t even have a chance to visit. I visit pharmacies regularly and that one was very close to home. I would have given them some business.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Winning Some And Losing Some

  1. oiaohm says:

    Grece really pure personal attacks. So this Grece method of admit to being clueless LOL

  2. Grece says:

    Petey, can you do a flat-spin off the lamp post?

  3. oiaohm says:

    Grece so dropping to personal insults because you don’t want to admit you have been a idiot and wrong on every single attack so far.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Multicopter/comments/2rv87s/quadcopter_keeps_spinning_on_his_yaw_axis/
    Funny part here is a flat spin in a multi copter is a common malfunction. That is why its part of Australian commercial drone pilot license to fly a drone commercially.

    Most of the time multi copter flat spinning is no threat as long as operator does not panic. If you have been operating a fixed wing drone and switch to a multi copter drone and apply fixed wing flat spin correction to a multi copter flat spin that is when everything turns dangerous and there are accident reports with people hurt caused by this mistake. So it very important for everyone safety to understand that a multi copter can flat spin and the response to a multi copter flat spin is fly normally do not do any major corrective actions. Now a fixed wing flat spinning that requires fairly quick corrective actions if you are going to recover before running out of altitude and a fixed wing flat spin is way less common.

  4. Grece says:

    Flat spins are are standard multi copter move. If you find your requirement for drone certification you will find that flat spin/ flat yaw spin is in the require moves to prove control of of a multi copter.

    Oh Fifi, please put some flat spin multi copter moves, on some butter-face woman so it will keep you off the Internet. However, do NOT procreate, I repeat, do NOT procreate, your offspring would contaminate the rest of Australia!

  5. oiaohm says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KTnbMVmb0o
    A flat spin can ONLY be applied to winged aircraft, as both wings MUST be stalled. There is no airflow over the wings, hence no lift, so you drop like a rock with little chance of recovery.
    Grece goof ball. Flat spins are are standard multi copter move. If you find your requirement for drone certification you will find that flat spin/ flat yaw spin is in the require moves to prove control of of a multi copter.

    Interesting difference is a flat spin in a multi copter recovery is absolutely possible almost 100 percent of the time. Idea that flat spin is a wing aircraft term shows you are a goof ball.

    Even DrLoser is not the same level goof ball as Grece his post clearly mentioned that a flat spin can be done by a quad copter.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/359495816/Reduction-of-Splatters-in-Intercell-Welding-of-a-Lead-Acid-Battery
    I’m sure you have spurious links to this effect, oiaohm. I can’t see how welding of any kind might possibly be useful to the internal plates (being the ones between cells). And, whilst I can accept that there might be a (cheap and nasty) reason to spot-weld the two terminals to the exterior plates, I’m not entirely convinced that this is industry standard.
    DrLoser like or not it standard. When you reactive material is lead you really cannot use lead based solder. So very early in lead acid battery the internals of a lead acid batteries become welded assembly. 1 its cheep no extra materials 2 is reliable compared to the other options that were tried in early lead acid battery development..

    As normal zero research before challenge and challenge completely wrong.

    So far grece has not managed to get 1 thing correct on a challenge on this thread.

  6. Grece says:

    A flat spin can ONLY be applied to winged aircraft, as both wings MUST be stalled. There is no airflow over the wings, hence no lift, so you drop like a rock with little chance of recovery.

    Furthermore, in a flat spin, the rudder and elevator often do not have sufficient air flowing over their surfaces to change the yaw or pitch to one needed for recovery, often times this is due to the CG being too far aft, which aggravates the condition as you are tail heavy.

    https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-67C.pdf

    Neither of these nimby’s have any flight time, and I just set back and laugh at both arguing over semantics.

  7. DrLoser says:

    Bitcoin was what, $100 or so in early 2013 and it topped out at $19K.

    So, Grece, are you saying that Robert is not the technological prophet he believes himself to be?

    Or are you saying that he was too mean to invest $100 in Bitcoin in 2013, when he had the opportunity to “diversify” into a penny stock such as Klondike-U-Like instead?

    Why am I even asking this question? We both know that answer number two is the obvious one.

  8. DrLoser says:

    I should point out that a “flat spin” is not a precise equivalent to yawing, since there is an element of vertical force involved. The vertical force is not supplied by the engines so much as by the control surfaces, however. Which means that you’ll get a certain amount of pitching and rolling even with a quad layout … although both pitching and rolling will occur at a small fraction of yawing.

    I’ll leave Grece to explain the precise details, should he feel the need.

  9. Grece says:

    Bitcoin was what, $100 or so in early 2013 and it topped out at $19K. So a $12K investment at the same time equivalency, would net you an gain of $2.2M easy.

    Robert still clings to the notion of gold bringing him wealth, it’s same with his fantastical notion that the Solo will deliver this year.

  10. DrLoser says:

    Gold would be flat but one prospectors in which I invested is up 300%.

    Not so much “flat” as “down 7%.” and what, precisely, do you mean by “one?” What happened to the rest of them?

    I mean, “one” of the utility shares I recommended (Microsoft) is up 200%. And that’s a utility share, not something that involves complicated knowledge about the relevant assets of one mining company as against another.

  11. DrLoser says:

    Not exactly. It called a flat spin Robert Pogson.

    Now, don’t you go confusing the senile by introducing the concept of angular momentum, Grece. Angular momentum is way above Robert’s pay-scale.

    A quick refresh, Robert. Instability whilst travelling through a fluid comes in three forms: pitching, rolling, and yawing. Now, let’s review your opinion on this:

    I’d expect a lot of pitching and rolling if one engine died on a quad.

    Well, I suppose it depends upon which plane your quad is designed, really. On a vertical plane, going forward, you would expect pitching. On a vertical plane, drawn sideways, you’d expect rolling.

    But actually, since pretty much every airborne quad known is laid out on a horizontal plane …

    … let’s see now … you’d expect the other thing.

    How nice to know that you have finally come to terms with the stability of triangulation, btw. Perhaps you would care to revisit that utterly awful design you came up with for your rubbnish Chinese tractorette hoist?

    Clue: it didn’t involve triangulation. And when I suggested an A-Frame, you dismissed the idea out of hand.

  12. DrLoser wrote, ” I believe your preferred alternative was gold. Let’s say you did so in 2013 and you wanted to cash out now. Would you estimate a percentage profit?”

    Nope. I recommended investment in good miners/prospectors. Gold would be flat but one prospectors in which I invested is up 300%.

  13. DrLoser says:

    Even most of your lead acid batteries are spot welded internally to the plates.

    I’m sure you have spurious links to this effect, oiaohm. I can’t see how welding of any kind might possibly be useful to the internal plates (being the ones between cells). And, whilst I can accept that there might be a (cheap and nasty) reason to spot-weld the two terminals to the exterior plates, I’m not entirely convinced that this is industry standard.

    Still, adding a couple of spot-welds is obviously preferable to mass-manufacturing the end-plates in a single piece, isn’t it?

  14. DrLoser says:

    Ah, yes. “Winning some and losing some.” If I may take three of you to one side, I’d like to ask the following questions.
    1) Grece — you are on record as having invested heavily in Bitcoin. Let’s say you did so in 2013 and you wanted to cash out now. Would you estimate a percentage profit?
    2) Robert — I believe your preferred alternative was gold. Let’s say you did so in 2013 and you wanted to cash out now. Would you estimate a percentage profit?
    3) Fifi — never mind. Red leather miniskirts will always be in style.

    Just as a baseline, btw: Microsoft stock was at $28 in 2013 and is now at $89. It’s astonishing how completely wrong Robert can be, isn’t it?

  15. oiaohm says:

    Grece I mentioned connecting lugs and soldering to lugs what is on the outside of a prebuilt battery yes lug terminals away from the battery cells.. Even most of your lead acid batteries are spot welded internally to the plates.

    Grece the clueless never knows when to give up. There as not been a single counter point in this complete thread when you have had stuff right Grece.

    The reason why your number of layers of spot welding batteries are limited is because you need the fusion of the metals. Now fusion of the slag/oxidized metal near prior spot welds does not have the strength so the spot welding can work no matter the depth in conductive plates if it will be a quality spot welled that is the problem.

    Really a spot weld purely depends on metal to metal fusion. Spot welder you are not using any welding rods/wire purely the present material. Spot weld is the most pure electrical form weld there is. The most pure form weld is the black smith weld again no additives just two bits of metal joined by method.

    Grece the clueless has not made 1 valid arguement on this complete topic.

  16. Grece wrote, of spot-welding thin members, “There is NO fusion of the metals”.

    In your dreams? What else fastens the members together? Glue?

    See Spot Welding

    “The attractive feature of spot welding is that a lot of energy can be delivered to the spot in a very short time (approximately 10–100 milliseconds). That permits the welding to occur without excessive heating of the remainder of the sheet.
     
    The amount of heat (energy) delivered to the spot is determined by the resistance between the electrodes and the magnitude and duration of the current. The amount of energy is chosen to match the sheet’s material properties, its thickness, and type of electrodes. Applying too little energy will not melt the metal or will make a poor weld. Applying too much energy will melt too much metal, eject molten material, and make a hole rather than a weld. Another feature of spot welding is that the energy delivered to the spot can be controlled to produce reliable welds.”

    I happen to have hundreds of pounds of scrap steel that I obtained decades ago and from time to time I find it useful to remove spot welds within and, believe me, they are fused/melted. My usual procedure is to drill out N-1 spot-welds and to twist the last one to break it. It takes a lot of effort because the two pieces of steel are joined as one at the spot.

  17. Grece says:

    Wikipedia just proved you incorrect Robert, but thank you for proving my point. There is NO fusion of the metals; coming from an alleged physics / nuclear engineer I would have thought you would understand the distinction, but this is YOU. The one that thinks he is going to get a red SOLO this year some how.

    CHUCKLE.

  18. Grece wrote, “that’s not welding in any sense of the word”.

    I am a welder. I know welding when I see it. The connection is made by fusing the two pieces that are to be joined.

    See Wikipedia: “Welding is a fabrication or sculptural process that joins materials, usually metals or thermoplastics, by causing fusion, which is distinct from lower temperature metal-joining techniques such as brazing and soldering, which do not melt the base metal.”

    On the contrary, what about welding cells together in a battery is not welding?

  19. Grece says:

    Robert, that’s not welding in any sense of the word. Per Peteys guidance, I want to see you weld some cables onto a few deep-cycle batteries that you are planning on using for solar array.

  20. Grece says:

    So you don’t over heat battery. You connect lugs to battery by welding.

    LOL…so you don’t want to heat the battery up, but then you go right ahead and mention welding the battery. Sheer brilliance Petey!

  21. oiaohm says:

    https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Free-shipping-Spot-Welding-Soldering-Station-with-Universal-welding-pen-for-phone-notebook-18650-lithium-battery/32618599474.html

    DUMBASSS, you don’t “weld assemble” batteries. Go ahead, weld some batteries together I dare you!
    Grece weld assemble batteries is something I do at least once every 3 months. Of course I could see Grece being a dumb ass and not use the correct welding machine so this is why he believes it not possible. So here is you attacking me being a clueless moron again.

    You don’t solder except to lugs. So you don’t over heat battery. You connect lugs to battery by welding. So to rework a non repack-able battery is a mixture of cutting interlinks, welding on lugs and soldering to lugs with require interconnects and this is only possible if doing this will not damage the cage the hold the battery.

    Why add lugs in rework because you can only weld so many layers of metal on to a battery because you run into weld spot not being solid due to slag from other welds.

    This is why re-workable design where you don’t need welder is so many times better when it comes to repair. Problem is bolt together costs extra time in initial assemble but that time is recovered in the first repack due to being able to do that faster.

    So TCO repack-able battery pack is cheaper. COM(Cost of Manufacture) weld assemble battery pack is cheaper as can be automated simpler.

    Robert Pogson direct soldering lithium ion batteries is fairly much a no-no too much heat. Ni-Mh and Ni-Cd can be solder assembled. So all the lithium stuff is either repack-able housing or welded. Welding in fact applies less heat than soldering. As well as being simpler to automate.

    Its not even uncommon to find Ni-Cd from the early 1980s with welded on terminals. So Grece is not even inside 2 decades of being correct. Batteries packs have been spot welded for a heck of a long time.

    Really this is Grece the clueless.

  22. Grece wrote, “you don’t “weld assemble” batteries.”

    Spot-welding is often used to assemble batteries. It’s much more reliable than passive posts and easier than soldering for automation.

  23. Grece says:

    DUMBASSS, you don’t “weld assemble” batteries. Go ahead, weld some batteries together I dare you!

  24. oiaohm says:

    You don’t need to change the battery you idiot on a Tesla. Even after 150K miles, the capacity is at 92% and at 310K miles are are looking at 80% capacity.

    Grece do you feel lucky punk. The reality here majority of EV batteries loss function before they get to 80 percent.

    https://www.quora.com/How-often-do-a-Teslas-batteries-need-to-be-replaced

    Basically this is your normal under educated answer. Notice the person who has done up a graphic. A few have seen their battery capacity collapse after doing less than 50000Miles of course for those people it has not been a major cost. Why has it not been a major cost the battery has been replaced in side the 8 years warranty. The 8 warranty does not get extend when the battery is replaced.

    So a 2012 Tesla runs out of battery cover in 2020/21 or 2 to 3 years time.

    Why the veneration is location, location, location. I have worked with EV forklifts with repairable batteries. I have seen two forklifts one with 5 percent loss and one with 50 percent loss in capacity. When you dissembled them there was only 5% of dead cells in both. Just the one that 50 percent loss happened 5% was fairly much clustered in one area of the battery pack and the 5% loss the 5% was spread all over the battery pack. So repack the battery with 50% loss add no new cells restore it to 95%.

    Yes it possible that 10% Cell death can take out 100 percent of battery capacity in EVs. Once you cross the 90% possible capacity line you have just crossed into possible 100 percent failed area if you cannot repack.

    So tell us, when should we “change” the battery?
    Grece this is the problem you cannot go by millage or functional capacity to predict when a battery pack in a Tesla will need replacing. Just like you cannot predict when a EV forklift with repack-able battery pack will need repacking. At least with something you can repack you can restore most of it functionally. Repacking requirement will normally happen when 5% to 15% of the cells have failed with the charging capacity dropping under 80% sometimes very quickly. So you could be at 96 percent and have cells fail in the right places and inside 1 hour be under 50% capacity.

    Basically working around EV Forklifts I got to understand how these banks of batteries behave in the real world. The graph made from Tesla car data matches up to EV forklift data other than the fact you cannot repack the Tesla car battery so allow you to move or replace fail cells. Yes a forklift required for unloading cargo who capacity had dropped to 50% you might just repack existing cells in a different order to restore it to 90-95% until replacement cells can be got. This is another big difference if you have a battery issue in a Tesla it cannot be temporary fixed in a few hours because of the cage around the battery and the fact you would damage it attempting any of the temporary fixes. You have to be lucky and have replacement battery on hand with a Tesla.

    Grece anyone who has worked around EV items with and without repackable batteries gets to know why you want repackable if you can.

    Solo comes with a weld assembled battery that you could hack apart and reorder and you can fix a proper repackable into it. So something like a Solo in a few hours you could restore most of it capacity by temporary measures(cut interconnects and soldering back in different order to shuffle cells around) while waiting on a new battery/repack-able kit. This is something when people reviewing EV don’t consider how fast in case of fail could the battery pack be got back to somewhat operational and the methods that can be used.

  25. Grece says:

    You don’t need to change the battery you idiot on a Tesla. Even after 150K miles, the capacity is at 92% and at 310K miles are are looking at 80% capacity.

    So tell us, when should we “change” the battery?

  26. oiaohm says:

    Grece Tesla battery design to repack involves damaging that batteries cage. So a used Tesla the battery replace or repair is insanely expensive.

    I also see you attempting to change topic because you don’t want to admit you have just brought in invalid points. In fact the list about things I have said you still have invalid points in that that this time I am not going bother correcting because you are a total moron who does not listen.

    Grece goes around spreading false facts because he cannot do research and he fails to record stuff properly so is a total moron. Also the moron attempts to change topic when ever he is found to be totally in the wrong..

  27. Grece says:

    Robert, just do yourself a favor and cash out of your investments and go buy a used Tesla. I just drove a Model S for a few days and I was throughly impressed to say the least.

    Tesla is shipping 30K a quarter now, and Solo shipped how many in Q4 2017?

    **CRICKETS**

    Exactly my point.

  28. Grece says:

    Valid points against you Marfan Boy-Wonder?? I have plenty of VALID points.

    Lets recap!

    I don’t go on blogs and post that I have dyslexia, as my reasoning due to not being able to compose a functioning sentence.

    I don’t go on blogs and post that my writing style is special, and scientific in nature and analogous to doctors.

    I don’t go on blogs and post that I have biological issues that cause wireless routers to drop offline.

    I don’t go on blogs and post that I paint my face black and dance the the macarena, while jumping around looking like Harambe.

    I don’t go on blogs and post that I have Marfan Syndrome, so this gives me an advantage to picking citrus fruit.

  29. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson its not a perfect flat spin if you watch the attacked video is still vibrating up and down a bit but inside the vibration up and down quad copter will do in normal when moving around level. Running on 3 engines has lost some stability not like its gone unpredictable. .

    It creates the flat spin by basically standing the quad copter vertical then using the drive engines to create a spin around vertical axis that once spinning then levels self out. Ok not perfectly level but stable enough for controlled flight. Of course this move is quite simple with 3 engines out of the 4. Lot harder to do with only 1, 2 motors and props remaining functional. Of course rate of flat spin has to be monitored because the act that creates flat spin will have to be repeated if flat spin slows down too much. If you are under 3 engines the ability to perform the flat spin again might not be there.

    That video is the 2013 Algorithm on slower cpu controller than what is used today. More exact control of motor speed and time of application the quad has the smaller the up/down vibration in flat spin can be got. With the right controllers and motors it can be that a person will think a drone is functional other than the fact it spinning. Of course a quad copter or any of the multi prop copters in a continuous flat spin is normally not doing that for good reasons. Continuous flat spin in a multi prop copters is something has gone horrible wrong and the on board controller is doing it to be able to maintain stableish flight compared to the other option of totally out of control and crashing. A loss of a full engine lift + 10% more for stableish flight so meaning no drone crash is well and truly worth it compared to lose of a full engine and drone impacted into ground.

    As Robert Pogson you normally will not see a quad copter in a flat spin because it kind ruins taking photos, lose about 10% of your lift power(that the turbulence problem) so there is no functional benefit when all engines are working to use flat spin mode.

    Also a lot of the cheaper closed source multi copter controllers don’t include the algorithm to get into flat spin or to fly flat spin mode. If you are hanging 2 thousand dollar camera or worse someones life on multi copter you want to be sure it has as many functional back-up plans as possible.

    Really the flat spin method can be used in any multi copter design to level out the cost of engine loss to ability move. So a lot of engine loss on one side does not equal lack of ability to move effectively in the other direction once the drone/aircraft is flat spinning.

    The flat spin flight method is also what makes me kind of worried about EV Multi copters that carry people if something goes wrong and they drop to flat spin mode could be a really nasty way to lose your lunch think the caravel cup and saucer with extra dimension of fear. Mind you there might be a few thrill seekers out there who will think it fun.

  30. I’ve never seen a drone go into a flat spin. There’s no torque to cause a spin.

  31. oiaohm says:

    Grece how many months now that you have not had a single valid point against me??? What are you bit short on IQ to pick that up.

  32. oiaohm says:

    https://newatlas.com/quadcopter-failure-algorithm/30031/
    I’d expect a lot of pitching and rolling if one engine died on a quad.
    Not exactly. It called a flat spin Robert Pogson.

    Modern day quad copter quality control software has flat spin mode. Lose a motor go into a flat spin automatically without user intervention and can fly perfectly controlled in a flat spin. You can fly it where ever you want as long as you don’t care about it spinning and it not rolling or pitching.

    You can lose up to 2 engines out a quad copter and possible go into stable flat spin mode. Stable flat spin mode on a quad copter requires one of the axis to still have motors. Once spinning it able to by computer control provide up thrust at the right time to simulate the missing motor. A human with direct joystick control of motors no way in hell could do this. So a quad copter with a decent controller can lose any 1 of the 4 engines and fly stable. Can lose selected 2 of the 4 engines and fly stable as there will still be enough lift. Down to one engine or 2 engines in the wrong configuration might be short on lift and this is controlled decent. Once the props cannot stay inside operational angle you lose even more thrust so it kind of important to be able to restore level state this means bring pitching and rolling under control. Spinning around vertical axis is not a problem spinning on any other axis big problems.

    Yes that video with the single motor was pushing the absolute limit. Some quads do have enough lift on a single engine to go into single engine mode landing is a lot rougher because its not coming down level and its not common because the prop is normally on angle mean more lost upwards thrust normally does not have enough thrust to support the weight so comes a controlled decent.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfkRCzgHGq8
    Yes this is a drone pushing the limit single motor.

    So automated systems would be able to control crash a helicopter better than most helicopter pilots.

    You both are ignorant fools. One states a fantasy construct (drones only need three motors) and the other says, yeah…it may work, but we just need to tweak it a weeeee bit.
    Grece just proven you are clueless. The controller software is able to algorithm change almost instantly.

    I guess never have operated drones just did want to admit that. At least Robert did.

    This is why the skill to be a pilot even of major jets is going to reduce. Automated systems can respond faster than humans and do corrective actions humans cannot do.

    HamDong been playing HALO too much and cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.
    HamDong Grece really need to stop playing HALO and doing some research before commenting. About time you stop going head to head with someone with read world experience. Of course that would be a pure nightmare for you to have to admit Grece.

  33. Grece wrote, “One states a fantasy construct (drones only need three motors)”.

    I did not. Obviously, one is sufficient. Three works, too: https://www.google.ca/search?q=drone+with+three+motors

  34. Grece says:

    You both are ignorant fools. One states a fantasy construct (drones only need three motors) and the other says, yeah…it may work, but we just need to tweak it a weeeee bit.

    Aircraft engines most be of equal rating and symmetrical in nature.

    HamDong been playing HALO too much and cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.

  35. oiaohm wrote, “4 engines instead of 3 is so one complete engine can fail and it can fly on 3 engines.”

    I’d expect a lot of pitching and rolling if one engine died on a quad. You’d have to throttle the live engine instantly and then it’d be almost useless except to maintain balance on one axis for landing. You’d need 5 or 6 motors to cover a failure, a great increase in cost and parts-count. I think 3 motors would be more practical spread in an equilateral triangle than half a quad.

  36. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson reason why quad copters are 4 engines instead of 3 is so one complete engine can fail and it can fly on 3 engines.

    Sometimes the extra makes sense.

    https://www.1001crash.com/index-page-statistique-lg-2-numpage-3.html
    The numbers surprise some people. The most dangerous section of a flight is in fact landing.

    The computer controlled VTOL system gets rid off human in control of
    1)Taxi because you don’t.
    2)Take off and initial climb issues including being able to avoid stall issues.
    The take off issues are partly addressed with a rapid deploy parachute so issues are detected early fight no turning around just deploy parachute and float back down.
    3)Climb
    4)Descent and initial approach
    5)Final approach and landing

    Say by by to between 80% to 90% of the issues of flying. This is why computer controlled VTOL has such low pilot certification process because most of the danger has been removed by design.

    With more automation the cruse stage can be taken out of the humans hands as well.

    So very much like using 3 bolts instead of 4 Robert this has been done have need redundancy without any extra risks. Reason for the 4 bolt design is normally because you have a human controller who thinks better in left, right, up and down than 3 axis interaction but if you had a computer controlling the thing can do the maths quickly and simply and adjust correctly. There are some very interesting advantages disconnecting aircraft flight controls from human pilot in complexity reduction that are not practical to-do if you want a human to be able to directly control the aircraft.

  37. oiaohm wrote, “based off the likes of quad copter controllers”.

    One of the advantages of having been there and done that in another century is that I understand steering. Back in the day, engineers always had four levelling bolts for equipment, and E-W/N-S adjustments for pointing, because it worked and was simple to do. I was annoyed because “four things” just aren’t necessary. Two things doesn’t work because there is no control in the other direction but three works much more efficiently. It’s just that one has to move two things in one direction and the third in another to get the job done and there’s some maths involved but a three-legged table or stool never wobbles… I worked this out when I was in Saudi Arabia operating a cyclotron. We were always working two sets of knobs, one for left/right and another for up/down when three knobs would do… Now that I’m my own boss I often build things with three legs whenever possible. My solar array will be steerable and because the axis will be aligned with the axis of rotation of Earth, only one thing needs adjustment to track the sun hourly. It’s all about doing more with less you see. It’s one of the reason I like the Solo EV. It has three wheels, all that are necessary for getting from A to B in style.

  38. oiaohm says:

    Grece one of the big things about EV VTOL is due to them being based off the likes of quad copter controllers landing is simple. You have two systems. The motors that allow you to land VTOL that the computer controls if that does not work you have 2 parachutes for the complete aircraft. So you never have to learn how to manually land the thing.

    Go back and look at that video I provided of a EV VTOL look at the landing gear notice no wheels.

    The big thing here why EV VTOL can use parachutes so effectively is simple there don’t risk catching fire. A burning engine puts out sparks those sparks can light up/melt holes in parachutes. Its another reason why fuel based flying cars were dead off the start line.

    Grece thinking these things are like the old flying car attempts just shows you are a moron.

  39. oiaohm says:

    Fifi no one is going to be flying cars or electric flying-cars for that matter, in this century. Pilotage requires a heavy skillset, over 40+ hours of training and a very high cost.
    LOL Grece. How to be so wrong its funny. Dubai you want to be certified to fly a EV VTOL between their building with passengers. The course is 8 hours 1 day.

    First part of the day is how to properly submit flight plans. Second part is how to properly use the radio. third part is how to do technical inspection before take off. Last part is how to program auto pilot and do collusion avoidance using joystick. At the end of this you are EV VTOL certified commercial Pilot. Where is the massive training cost the reality it does not exist due to high automation.

    Uber wants to move submitting flight plans, using the radio, collusion avoidance and inspection into the EV VTOL automated systems at that point person hopes in EV VTOL chooses destination and the automated systems take over after that. But we can be sure that the 8 hour course to come a Pilot will get shorter as more parts get approved by regulators to be automated.

    Yes I know this is kind of scary it faster to get a EV VTOL commercial pilot license than what it is to get a license to drive anything else. The course is more complex to fly a drone.

    EV VTOL is a major disruption it rips up most of the ideas we have about flight costs and the patterns aircraft have to fly. The training requirement to operate EV VTOL is already close to nothing. UBER will not be happy until the training cost is nothing.

    Grece the stuff I am talking about is not a flying car. This just shows how badly out of date you are.

  40. Grece says:

    Fifi no one is going to be flying cars or electric flying-cars for that matter, in this century. Pilotage requires a heavy skillset, over 40+ hours of training and a very high cost.

  41. oiaohm says:

    Grece
    How many people would jump in some uncertified and unsafe contraption?
    Here goes clueless idiot again.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r3kpl5Ao5s
    Watch the video take note of the runway location. This is not a clear open field with nothing to hit location. Be it NASA or European Space Agency test sites (yes the video European Space Agency runway) the vehicle has to pass all requirements registration as a normal aircraft plus what ever NASA or European Space Agency put on top. Surprising to most people higher requirements than a Boeing 777. These days NASA and European Space Agency don’t allow stuff on their runways without a parachute for the complete craft.

    So you are looking at prototype aircraft you do want to see if they are tested at NASA or European Space Agency.

    The shocking reality is if you stick under a particular weight most countries around the world will allow you to register the most defective aircraft possible yes one that cannot even take off and if it does take off its requirements for flight don’t have to remain connected. In the ultra light class of aircraft around the world they are a lot of uncertified and unsafe contraptions that people fly every day of the week.

    Sorry you are the clueless idiot here grece who either did not watch the video or did not have enough knowledge to identify the test site to understand what it meant.

    The reality is safe EV VTOL are coming and the current prototypes pass what is required to be certified to fly in conventional commercial airspace with qualified pilot. Of course companies like uber want to automate these EV VTOL so that people without pilot license can operate them this brings regulation nightmares but they are willing to work way though this to reduce costs.

    I bet Grece thinks all prototypes have to be unsafe. Why did NASA get so picky on their test sites simple they had a prototype crash into air traffic control center and hurt a lot of staff this is bad. European Space Agency case makes NASA one look good. European Space Agency managed to have prototype take out a school tour bus lucky everyone was off the bus at the time. So after both of those cases they have got very particular on what can be tested at least on paper and laboratory tests has 100 percent safe or so far in the middle of no where that there is absolutely nothing to hit. European Space Agency absolutely nothing to hit means being out to sea using a platform.

    So making an aircraft and testing is sometimes easy and sometimes quite hard. So those interested in aircraft that could be made will normally be looking at stuff that has testing done at a location that is controlled the way NASA and European Space Agency is so that you know the aircraft base design will tick all regulatory requirements and then more.

  42. Grece says:

    Few months??

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  43. Grece wrote, “How many people would jump in some uncertified and unsafe contraption? “

    Solo is certified one at a time so far. The type will be certified shortly. Solo even passed the crash tests as it was designed to do. I will be getting into a safe and certified car in a few months.

  44. Grece says:

    BLAH BLAH BLAH Fifi.

    How many people would jump in some uncertified and unsafe contraption?

    Well, we all know that Robert most certainly would.

  45. oiaohm says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PmXL0oiggg

    This is over view of what Uber is doing in the field.

    Grece the power effect VTOL EV will have fixed wings of some form. Airbus are attempting a transferable cabin design.

    Next most attempted at flying cars have been using fuel based engines and have failed badly due to two reasons. Fuel based VTOL normally requires lot of maintenance due to fuel lines and other things(yes fuel lines don’t like bending). Next attempt to make car sizes with everything stored in standard car space ends up with folding wings that add extra points of failure or being pure prop based lift that is not power effective.

    So what I am talking about Grece is not a flying car. EV VTOL does not have the limitation of must fit in a single car parking space. Airbus design you still have a airport you land at airport they store and maintain the wings. Of course just storing wings suspended from roof of hanger can fit lot more per hanger than current conventional aircraft. Transporting body of car by Airbus design reduces the area required for long term parking at Airport and security issues of stored cars.

    So you would say EV VTOL is not a flying car but its between idea of flying car and what can be in fact be made work practically with safety.

    You will have the flying taxis like uber idea running from top of build to top of building that you will never own. You will have like the Airbus idea of something that you will part own. Airbus design you never own the wings you rent them on need so they are correct maintained. And you have my first link where the flying EV VTOL would be a rental with less moving parts. There is one thing in common they are all fixed wing EV aircraft.

    Really the idea of flying car has a stupid fault. If you take vehicle that has not been maintained and attempt to get approval to fly you are never going to get without massive licensing requirements. So a flying car that fits in a normal garage and is stored in a normal garage was always going to run into regulator blocks. There is less regulator blockages for rental EV VTOL or Airbus idea where the key parts for flight are not sitting in someones garage not maintained. Flying in the air is not like a car where you can just pull over if something fails.

    Grece so I am serous-ally not talking about pure flying cars as they never logically worked. But the EV VTOL that you rent all or part of does in fact work logically. EV VTOL does ask the question how far will we be traveling by road in future with how fast EV VTOL are and how fuel effective they are. So a EV car to get you to the EV VTOL terminal might be all you need. Really how often have you traveled more than 300km one way without a stop in your car?

    Please note these EV VTOL are being design drone style. So able to fly self as well. Of course you will most likely have to book long range EV VTOL in advance. So this is not like a car. They don’t fit into the camp 100 percent own private transport.

  46. oiaohm says:

    Grece really check the video link. Its not theoretical its in the prototype stage with data on how well it performs. The issue is getting in production and being approved by regulators at this point. So its now when not if. Particularly that the trials have proven to use less power to cover same distance with same cargo being the cargo we carry in a normal size car.

  47. Grece says:

    EV VOL?….Flying cars??

    Fifi please take your drugs.

  48. oiaohm says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r3kpl5Ao5s
    Eventually not having private transportation for long trips (especially during the weekend) will be proposed as the solution.
    True this is valid case. Little bit more than you think.

    Which is what the planners probably wanted, so they can dictate growth with their centrally-planned railways. Roads are planned too, but not so centrally as railways, they spread more widely and can even be constructed by private parties on private land easily (many exurbia centers had the residential roads built privately).
    If you watch the above video you will see a prototype of a full EV VTOL. Yes Vertical take off and landing with a 300KM range.

    Airbus has idea of well of EV that changes between ground to air.

    Its something that is simple to over look is small fixed wing EV VTOL traveling 300kms uses less power than driving either EV or a fuel based that distance on the ground.

    Reason for rail lines will be moving cargo. Roads may be reduced to short range trips only. And ranged trips by humans might be EV VTOL.

    Fuel based engines made it insanely complex to make a VTOL. There are also hybrids on the drawing board for VTOL for over the 300KM range.

    Yes the Back to the Future line “we don’t need roads”. EV is a highly disruptive technology particularly when you look at what is happening in the aircraft side.

    Yes 300km about 1 hour travel time. is the prototype. This range will extend as batteries improve. So short trip in a EV to higher a VTOL EV for the long trip and then swap to a road based EV is one possible model.

    Airbus model is the wing and wheels of the EV are changeable parts. So short trip to where you have your road based wheels disconnected and you long range wings connected of course the body with all your stuff in is the same fly at like 300km for the long range part at end higher a set driving wheels.. What makes Airbus model interesting that the batteries are in the wings and wheels so you can swap in fully charged wheels or wings to extend range.

    So long range in the EV world could look very different and be very back to the future with roads and rail being optional for anything other than cargo.

  49. kurkosdr says:

    How many vehicles can recharge simultaneously at one of these stations? How long does it take?

    Remember how in the first years of the automobile people were not really concerned about parking space in dense urban centers because they thought the problem would work itself out or that the infrastructure would eventually catch up? We are still waiting for that to happen, and in fact not having private mobility was eventually proposed as the solution.

    Can’t imagine why charging in charging stations would be any different. Eventually not having private transportation for long trips (especially during the weekend) will be proposed as the solution.

    Which is what the planners probably wanted, so they can dictate growth with their centrally-planned railways. Roads are planned too, but not so centrally as railways, they spread more widely and can even be constructed by private parties on private land easily (many exurbia centers had the residential roads built privately).

  50. Old Bill wrote, “How many vehicles can recharge simultaneously at one of these stations? How long does it take? It seems to me that recharging could be a real aggravation.”

    Most of the charging stations are for one car at a time but there are exceptions like a park in Winnipeg with 3-4 outlets, IKEA with 4 outlets, and a park in Carman, MB with two outlets, one for Tesla and one for J1772. So, there is the possibility of two EVs needing charging simultaneously “colliding” in time but in the cities it’s not a problem as the latecomer can go to another station. It’s out on the highway that it would be a problem, an extra long wait for the previous car to charge and charging one’s own. As far as I can tell from charging data, it’s not an issue yet and it won’t be for a year or two as sales still haven’t taken off. Three years down the road, the early birds may see these years as the Good Old Days of EVs. Some places like USA and BC do have more charging stations but they are heavily into pay as you go with some kind of credit card or member card payment system. That would be OK for me as long as one is not paying $10 for $1 worth of electrical energy. This market is still being established.

    I’m aging so I welcome this opportunity to drive for $free but in a few years I may well be content to just charge from home and cut out long trips. I can still have a lot of fun. The news that Solo will have a bigger battery is promising. While EMV still publishes 100 mile range, I with an eye to efficiency may well be able to achieve 150 miles on a charge cutting out the need for charging on the highways.

    Old Bill also wrote, “Keep or rent a conventional car for extended trips.”

    I think that’s what will happen for the time being. As EV ranges increase it will become less of an issue. If I were young again and had a bunch of children to drive around I would certainly have some kind of bus for family outings and something like Solo for commuting. In my neighbourhood almost all families have two or more vehicles for various purposes. Commuters though almost always travel singly.

  51. Old Bill says:

    How many vehicles can recharge simultaneously at one of these stations? How long does it take? It seems to me that recharging could be a real aggravation. Short round trips from home seem like a more realistic target mission, sort of like using an electric razor and charging/cleaning station. Keep or rent a conventional car for extended trips.

  52. Grece says:

    Well, he’s the CEO. He’s got a lot on his mind.

    Yea, he’s making sure all his lies run together.

    negotiations are underway for a bigger manufacture in Canada,

    Yet they cannot ship one a month? Tell us RObert, in the last quarter, how many units were shipped to paying customers?

    preparations are going well in China for manufacture,

    NO evidence wahtsoever.

    new stations are permitting 4-10 Solos per month to be built in the tiny facility,

    All this hype of what they CAN do, but nothing IS being done!

    they are building Solo #27,

    Sure. They have built exactly twenty-seven prototypes perhaps, which are currently in Alpha. When are they going to stop making changes and cut to Beta?

    the production battery has arrived and is about 20% larger in capacity with no increase in size,

    Of which Jerry does not even produce locally. EM is beholden to it’s vendors.

    an external airbag for pedestrians and internal airbags are in the works,

    External? Thats MUST be a joke right?

    crash tests were survived, and

    Survived by whom? Who did the testing or was this a real accident? Again, no evidence backing this statement.

    certification should result this month.

    Certification by whom? For a C-level individual, Jerry sure does leave out a massive amount of pertinent details.

  53. Grece wrote, “I watched about 30-seconds of Jerry rambling on about nothing related to the vehicle”.

    Well, he’s the CEO. He’s got a lot on his mind. My key take-aways:

    • negotiations are underway for a bigger manufacture in Canada,
    • preparations are going well in China for manufacture,
    • new stations are permitting 4-10 Solos per month to be built in the tiny facility,
    • they are building Solo #27,
    • the production battery has arrived and is about 20% larger in capacity with no increase in size,
    • an external airbag for pedestrians and internal airbags are in the works,
    • crash tests were survived, and
    • certification should result this month.

    Things are looking good.

  54. Grece says:

    There’s a CEO update tonight on EMV’s facebook page so we may have some good news about certification and production. It’s about time.

    About time Robert? Are you getting upset that Jerry has not delivered??

    I watched about 30-seconds of Jerry rambling on about nothing related to the vehicle in question, lots of superfluous talk of things not concerning the Solo.

  55. kurkosdr says:

    I do have a reservation and a signed picture…

    So did the guys who pre-ordered the Phantom console. Or the guys who pre-ordered Duke Nukem Forever back in the 90s. Or the guys who pre-ordered anything that didn’t made it into mass production or didn’t make it for a decade.

  56. Grece wrote, “That’s all you are going to EVER receive”.

    You can’t know that unless you have some criminal plan in mind. There’s a CEO update tonight on EMV’s facebook page so we may have some good news about certification and production. It’s about time.

  57. Grece says:

    I do have a reservation and a signed picture…

    That’s all you are going to EVER receive Robert.

  58. kurkosdr wrote, “stop pretending you own a Solo EV because you are not by any objective measure”.

    I do have a reservation and a signed picture… That’s objective, unlike kurkosdr’s rants.

  59. kurkosdr says:

    You betcha! I’ll be writing a slew of blog posts about my exciting adventures with Solo. I think I’ll get a dash-cam and record it all…

    ’till that happens, can I politely yet firmly ask you to shut your pie hole and stop pretending you own a Solo EV because you are not by any objective measure?

  60. Grece wrote, “The reason the charging station is gone Robert, was that no one was using it.”

    It was a 120V station so that may be true. Another possibility is that Shell didn’t realize it was on the web and when they found out… Who knows?

  61. Grece says:

    The reason the charging station is gone Robert, was that no one was using it.

  62. kurkosdr wrote, “Can I have a photo with you next to your “shiny bright red Solo EV”?”

    You betcha! I’ll be writing a slew of blog posts about my exciting adventures with Solo. I think I’ll get a dash-cam and record it all…

  63. kurkosdr says:

    and my shiny bright red Solo EV

    Can I have a photo with you next to your “shiny bright red Solo EV”?

Leave a Reply