Alright guys, what's going on with our good ol' bud, Elon?

maybe hes mad because they won't let him make a zero point drive.

He names the jew.

Attached: 2kzgvqhl5i011.jpg (1024x724, 107.42K)

He also created the "applefags" of automotion.

He denied he was referring to Jews in the replies. The reactions were still hilarious.

What the fuck do you expect him to do? Go full 14/88 and own up to it?

He's obviously very self-conscious.

Attached: Elon.jpg (602x441, 43.12K)

He just started taking testosterone and HGH like all everyone in their group. Peter Thiel did the same thing.

That's just plain silly.

He must have spent a fortune on his hair.

Attached: Elon.jpg (480x360, 20.93K)

I just find it hard to tell if he legit was referring to Jews or not. Look at the way he worded this: twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1000951606009974784 I also considered he was doing a wink-wink and had to cover his ass after, though.

Who else could he be referring to?

Attached: a6ed270c1044fe1c3b5c35295f647bbc1387d0933c9a7e544819305b1183ea46.png (1000x1000, 10.45K)

People are saying it was taken out of context because the person he was replying deleted their post or something.

Josh: Powerful people control polls.
Elon: Who do you think controls the media?

It is very possible he was just referring to "power people" and nothing else. Obviously we know that those powerful people are Jews, but there is no guarantee Elon does.

lol

twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1001233031405780993

twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1001238197500719108

Part of the reason I wound up here is because I didn't just go "durr they must be right" when people fed me lies and hide the truth from me about Jews and everything else. You have to actually investigate stuff and question things instead of just immediately believing and dismissing things.

Elon Musk is the biggest fraud of the 21 century, maybe after Einstein.
Why people are talking about him like he's the next Iron man, whereas he's literaly a no one, just a faggot who got money from the powerful, with companies who don't make profit, but who're big thanks to the US tax money.

...

I wonder what they are implying with his name being Hebrew, because according to ethnicelebs he's European, unless that site is compromised. I agree that it is really uncertain if he was actually naming the Jew or not.

Eat my fucking shit fucking faggot.

Lol no he got a shit ton of money from the very profitable paypal cashed out and then started a bunch of low profit but very important projects.

He was being groomed but he probably fell off the deal for some reason we will never know. And now he's expendable. tldr character assassination

literally who

...

Fuel-based power generators are more efficient than car engines using the same fuel, and the extra efficiency is still there with distribution overhead so either way we're winning.

There was a noticeable shift in the way media represented him ever since he announced his idea of a media ranking site. It went from him being a cool hip entrepreneur into all out defamation on every possible thing. The cave rescue twitter fiasco just gave them more ammo. They are trying to ruin his reputation and companies because he dared to oppose them in any way.
Would be a shame if this affects his companies or what he does because he genuinely is pushing technology forward.

Similar thing happened with mark zuckerberg, the news came out he might have unknowingly helped Trump and media went nuts on defaming him and facebook for shit that was known for years and that every other social media company does.

Holy shit, he should have just shaved it bald. Maybe the media could have added calling him skinhead into their defamation repertoire among all the other shit they already tried.

Elon musk in a nutshell:

*adr Mar 27, 2017 6:43 PM*
He didn't found PayPal, he facilitated the transfer of PayPal from the guy who made it to Ebay, pocketing billions.
He didn't program the game he sold for millions.
Didn't engineer the first Tesla car.
Didn't come up with Hyperloop or SpaceX. The fucking North Koreans have a better launch record.
The shyster buys other's ideas and sells them to the Jewish cabal for mega profits. The guy is the CEO from the we switched to FedEx commercial.

*not dead yet Mar 27, 2017 6:48 PM*
What a bunch of bullshit. Musk was NOT a founder of Paypal. The real founders bought one of his startups, which they eventually shitcanned, which gave Elon a piece of the action and his fortune. Updating an over 100 year old concept, the electic car, with the key parts and technology bought from suppliers, does not qualify as revolutionizing the industry or the product. Lost in the noise from these Tesla bag lickers is that the mainstream auto makers have not fielded electrics because without government giveaways only a handful of people want them. Tesla is a niche market that sells toys to rich boys. The Musk lovers like to claim all the automakers are bringing electrics to market in the next few years due to him but the reality is it is government mandates that are doing this. Germany for one wants to outlaw the selling of fossil fuel cars starting in 2030 and have all fossil cars off the road by 2050. Others are going to follow suit. Selling a car, and solar panels, with abysmal quality while losing huge money on every sale which enables an almost worthless stock to be valued at $260 a share is revolutionary. It was claimed by sellling direct and bypassing the dealer was a huge innovation but with his Model 3 selling to the masses Elon and crew are now setting up their own dealerships. They already have company owned Tesla repair centers, with more on the way, which are actually profitable which is not surprising considering the crappy quality built into each car.

If it wasn't for Panasonic there would be no battery factory. Last fall Elon announced he had to go to the debt markets to raise more capital and a few days later said it was no longer neccessary. Panasonic saved his ass again and as a reward is going to build batteries in New York state in a factory built and paid for by the state in which Solar City was to start manufacturing it's own solar panels. Not a good idea from the start as the Chinese solar mfg's would undercut them and run them out of business like they did to almost all their competition many of which had factories built for them with public funds.

Elon is a one man false flag operation and like government false flags the media is on board. Every time his operations look like crap he calls a conference, or has someone do leaks, and announces some bullshit like sending people to Mars, the hyperloop, or how sometime in the future he's going to build big rigs or whatever and the press gleefully forgets the problems and claims what a genius Elon is and Tesla stock pops instead of crashing. Witness his recent announcement of having to raise billions to cover his billions in cash burn and his stock goes UP. So Elon puts a few bucks into this far out brain concept and again it's "all hail the genius" and everyone forgets his POS operations. The hyperloop is a decades old idea and just by mentioning the concept he is falsely given credit for it and is considered the driving force behind it, which he isn't.

*gregga777 Mar 27, 2017 6:54 PM*
Things must be getting serious for Elon Musk to roll out a new Ponzi-Musk scheme so soon after rolling up his SolarCity Ponzi-Musk scheme into his Tesla Ponzi-Musk scheme. This is proof positive that the United States Swinders Excuse Commissars (US SEC) are nothing more than a CON Street Swindler protection racket.

Attached: elon_musk.jpg (1280x720, 246.81K)

One power plant that generates electricity for one million electric cars is far more efficient and environmentally friendly than a million ICE cars each with their own engines. It's far more easier to replace a single power plant than it is to replace a million internal combustion engines.

Attached: fox-and-grapes.jpg (205x246, 8.61K)

That depends on how much energy is being lost through transmission.

blog.schneider-electric.com/energy-management-energy-efficiency/2013/03/25/how-big-are-power-line-losses/

Those numbers are based on a best case scenario in a small well developed country. In most of the world the energy infrastructure is poorly maintained garbage(India loses over 30%) so an ICE car would be both more efficient and enviromentally friendly than using a power plant to charge electric vehicles.

Everyone mistakenly thought that he was a good goy. Turns out he's a shitlord Nazi. He needs to be character assassinated.

This. Let's break down the efficiency of an electric car.

An electric motor is 94% efficient.
The process of charging a battery is about 80% efficient.
The process of discharging a battery is about 80% efficient.
The DC power in the battery needs to be converted into AC for the motors, probably with something like a variable frequency drive. That device would be about 95% efficient.
There will be some losses in the copper wiring because manufacturers can't afford to use 0000 AWG wiring everywhere. This figure would be difficult to estimate without studying a wiring diagram so I'll exclude it from the estimate.
The power distribution grid is probably somewhere around 90% efficient, but often less depending on the grid's quality and each person's distance from the source.
The power plant itself isn't particularly efficient, either. This is also difficult to estimate due to the differences between the various types of power plants, but 50% efficiency is probably a reasonable estimate.

If we do the math, this means an electric car is optimistically about 26% efficient. The estimates for the efficiency of a gasoline engine are usually in the range of 20% to 40%, depending on who you ask. Diesel engines are slightly more efficient; I see claims that peak diesel engine efficiency is usually about 45%. To be fair, we should subtract the typical 15-20% drivetrain losses from these figures, so we can assume a gasoline car as a whole is somewhere between 17-34% efficient and a diesel around 38% efficient at peak. In the end, there isn't a significant difference between ICE and electric car efficiency in practice, but the data also suggests that a well-engineered internal combustion engine has the potential to be more efficient than an electric car could ever be.

Except this still isn't a fair comparison. We haven't considered the weights of these vehicles. The batteries in electric cars are ridiculously heavy: a Tesla Model S weighs about the same as a Cadillac Eldorado from the 1970s, and a Model X would be comparable to the even heavier Lincoln Continentals of similar vintage. Most non-electric non-hybrid economy cars weigh about half of those values. In other words, a Tesla would require twice as much energy to move down the road as a typical econobox, effectively cutting its efficiency numbers in half.
If we then consider the environmental impact of creating and disposing of the monstrous Lithium batteries they use about once per car per decade, there's absolutely no way that an electric car is more environmentally responsible than a car with an ICE, which is usually what people mean when they mention engine efficiency. Drilling for oil doesn't require completely destroying a landscape with a strip mining operation, and creating and disposing of an iron or aluminum engine block that should easily last 20+ years is an easy process.

Electric cars are impressive pieces of equipment in a lot of ways, but anybody trying to claim that they're more efficient than a traditional ICE car is lying through their teeth.

Why omit the energy costs of oil extraction, refining and transportation? :^)
Have you taken into account regenerative braking? :^)
Oil sand extraction, on the other hand, is pretty damn nasty.

theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2017/dec/25/how-green-are-electric-cars

Here's the Tesla Model 3, which gets 116MPGe (using 121MJ of electricity as the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline):
fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=40385
And here's an equivalent gasoline vehicle, the Ford Fusion, which gets just 26MPG. Conclusion? Electric vehicles are 5x more than gasoline ones.
Also
Both the Tesla and Ford have a curb weight of about 3500lbs, both have nearly identical passenger and cargo capacity, both are 4-door, and both are AWD.

This. It's important to remember that petroleum isn't actually an energy source, merely an (inefficient) storage medium for energy from natural gas, coal, etc.
To be totally fair, hybrids can use that too.

Forgot other link:
fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=36157

He has a vague resemblance to Bill Hicks in that old photograph.

Attached: 547f3be60b5b.jpg (1035x1435, 73.13K)

Electric car is a century old technology.

I'm sure some companies would pay billions just to acquire the technology that would make that even remotely possible.
petroleum, coal, and natural gas are actually 3 separate and distinct energy sources. if you put coal or natural gas in an engine designed to run off gasoline (a form of refined petroleum btw), it's liable to suffer some serious damage
t. live in an area where there's an oil drill on almost ever plot of land

Its used in some places

Coal -> Syngas (CO + H2) -> any hydrocarbon you want

Coal gassification has been known about since the start of the 17th century and performed at industrial scale in some places since the start of the 19th century
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification

The method to turn syngas into various short chain hydrocarbons has existed sicne the 1920's
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer–Tropsch_process

Its not just coal you can use either, any hydrocarbon can be broken down, the crazy thing is western countries ship millions of tons of plastic waste to China when they could be breaking it down and turning it into petrol and diesel

Should add, the way to solve fossil fuel usage in a practical manner would be to build nuclear power stations which power a system of atmospheric CO2 capture and FT synthesis facilities.

atmospheric CO2 -> liquid CO2
liquid CO2 + H2 -> CO + H2 + H2O
CO + H2 -> petrol, diesel, etc

This technology isn't complicated and we have been able to do it since the first commercial nuclear power station opened in the 50's, if the world was actually committed to getting rid of fossil fuel usage it could be achieved in just a few years. But that's not going to happen since its actually a workable solution, which means its not as profitable for rent seekers and parasitic politicians.

You realize oil doesn't magically announce its presence, leap out of the ground, transmute itself into products like gasoline, and teleport into your tank, right? That energy can't come from oil, because it doesn't yield the net energy needed.

Energy is required along every step of the way, and if the total amount of energy used for all these steps is greater than the energy you get from using it, you have what is termed "negative net energy". Even if the resource in question has a positive net energy, if the net energy ratio isn't high enough, depending on it would cause the collapse of civilization, as too much human effort would be required merely eking out energy for sustenance to engage in more sophisticated industrial activity.

Gasoline right now is one of those low-to-negative net energy resources, whereas other resources like natural gas and coal remain high-yield and thus inexpensive.

Indeed so.

Nuclear has its own problems, like the requirement to use insanely dangerous and experimental plutonium breeders in order to avoid exhausting our fuel supply under such a scheme.

Attached: SimplifiedNetCliff.png (694x460 128.57 KB, 72.78K)

Whats so dangerous about them? because things like LFTR are the safest reactor designs ever created, the only problem with them is achieving criticality on a purely Thorium fuel source since the fission chain produces very little neutrons.

Nice wishful thinking.

Even ignoring the fact that precisely zero have been built, molten salt reactors in general have a hilariously terribad accident record, civilian breeder generators are still rare to the point of practical nonexistence and entirely experimental after the entire history of nuclear power, plus the there's the fact that breeders have the unique distinction from conventional reactors of "literally turn into an atomic bomb and detonate in a mushroom cloud" as a failure mode.
Is, like "rare earths", spread too diffusely to account for more than about 1/4 of viable fuel reserves. Not to mention that it has to be transmuted into weapons-grade plutonium in order to be used in a breeder, and kept that way as long as possible for maximum efficiency.

I wish

are jews that gay?

Except Zucc is a jew himself so he can "unfuck" anything

Prove it

His first name is a Hebrew name but there are so many random gentiles with Hebrew first names nowadays due to over a thousand years of Christfags. Last name is supposedly English/Old French in origin.

While it didn't run on Thorium the MSRE at Oak Ridge ran successfully and without incident for 1.5 years at full power and 1 year at standby. The only issues encountered was shallow cracking of the salt exposed metal (for which a solution was found) and that the salt-fuel mixture during the 30 year storage after the experiment was shutdown nearly went critical (only an issue for an experimental reactor like the MSRE).

The reason for this is that the current economics of nuclear reactors mean that its more profitable for manufacturers to sell a LWR near or at cost with the lock-in of a fuel supply contract for the life of the reactor (even enriching raw uranium to the 3-5% used in civilian reactors is expensive so they charge a lot for it), so it makes little sense from a business perspective to sell reactors which can run on nuclear waste or Thorium because you can't justify the fuel lock-in to the customer. Then there is also the politics behind it since it could be used to make nuclear weapons (which is one of the reasons why Thorium is so attractive since it needs as much of the Plutonium as possible).

For water moderated reactors maybe, but one of the main benefits of molten salt reactors is they can be theoretically designed to not have large quantities of Plutonium in the system at any given time.

Its far more common than Uranium and is often found in ores containing other metals. Thorium isn't expensive its just that the people selling samples of it are scamming you.

Pure Thorium is probably unrealistic at this point in time (although it can theoretically work, there are enough neutrons given off by the decay chain of Plutonium), in practice such a reactor would probably run on a mixture of Thorium and spent fuel from LWRs to raise the neutron efficiency and make the design of the first reactors easier.

We're hitting levels of based that shouldn't even be possible.

Just another day in the life of a narcissist tech capitalist.

Would you be able to make your goth gf abandon the shadows?

Attached: IMG_20180724_151725.jpg (800x534, 73.11K)

his name comes from Wernher Von Braun `s 1952 book The Mars Project
Download the pdf and see for yourself, there is also a hyperloop in there.

Goths are an endangered species, you better be joking nigger that's never ok.

Nope, the relationship between the mass/weight of the vehicle and its efficiency is much more complex than that.

According to Newton's first law, the car would require no power at all to continue moving down the road forever if no outside forces were acting on it. The force that works against that is friction - with the air, the ground, and within the powertrain. The power required to maintain a constant speed on level ground is therefore a function of aerodynamics, tyre performance and powertrain losses, not related to the mass of the vehicle at all.

This doesn't account for acceleration, deceleration, climbing and descending inclines. In these phases of vehicle motion the mass does indeed become relevant - however, this is where regenerative braking has particular relevance too. The bigger the mass that is accelerated or pushed uphill, the greater the energy that can be recaptured on deceleration or descent.

I'm not saying that the extra mass isn't a disadvantage - clearly it is - but it's nothing like the scale of disadvantage that your crude and flat-out-wrong "twice the weight, half the efficiency" formula implies. To measure it properly would require a fairly complex study of the average duty cycle between acceleration, deceleration, climbing, descending and level travel.

You're mostly right, but
is wrong. Friction (tyre to ground) is proportional to the mass of the car. Try pushing a book on your table, note how much force is required to move it. Add another book on top. Is the force required to push the book same or is it greater? Now, of course, in case of a vehicle rolling on the road, rolling friction coefficient is a lot smaller than that of a book sliding on the table so the effect is not as great, but it's still there.