Question about power capacity of electrical motors.

You really can't stay on topic can you? We were discussing size and weight reduction vs. power output, not efficiency.

Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote on 7/21/2017 9:05 AM:

That's not what happened. I'm sure the Tesla can run at high speeds as well. It's the pedal to the metal (plus the fact that the Tesla uses the motors for braking) that makes it self limit power. The Tesla is well equipped for high speed driving with its very low coefficient of drag reducing the power required.

Blow it out your ass, stalker.

Are you saying the Tesla won't pull a boat? The car didn't melt down or implode. It continued to pull a very respectable time. Actually I don't think the model S will pull a boat as it has no trailer hitch. The model X has a trailer hitch option for 5,000 pounds. Do you think it dies when you actually connect a trailer?

So is the Tesla lacking in acceleration? Check it out. The model S has the fastest 0 to 60 time in the world according to Road and Track, 2.3 seconds. All those heavy batteries really slow it down!

Too bad the car sucks so bad in all other regards. Oh, wait, it's really a great car in other regards! I guess you like to join JL in whining.

BTW, power to weight doesn't determine acceleration. Torque vs. weight does, and *THAT* is why the Tesla model S is the fastest production 0 to 60 car in the world.

Because they don't understand basic Newtonian mechanics, rather they listen to everyone else who spouts nonsense.

You mean 20 minutes and you don't need to empty your bladder after driving for four hours? I guess you pee into Gatorade bottles while you drive? I never developed that skill.

I don't duplicate my other post about acceleration and 0 to 60 times.

Just waiting for you to actually *say* something.

So??? I'm still waiting for you to say something significant about this. It's also not practical to launch a Cessna 172 to the moon. SO WHAT?

Solar powered planes exist and have flown around the world. Unlike gas powered or jet engines they can stay up for days as they don't need to be refueled after six hours or so. They fly well above the weather and collect sun all day and continue to fly at night using batteries and altitude accumulated during the day.

Where is the problem?

I didn't remember you for sure as I haven't seen you post lately. Now I recognize your signature, profanity and anger. I thought I had you killfiled... Later.

Yeah, right.

So solar powered airplanes other than motor gliders are not practical.

Attempts to drag in red herrings about the Wright Brothers and the Moon noted.

All of those are motor gliders, thus proving my point.

Your utter lack of understanding.

Ya know, rickman, you really are a pimple on the ass of mankind. Try to find a different group to hassle.

Yeah, I don't well tolerate puerile stalkers.

Jim, there is no reward in arguing with the troll.

I've never disputed these planes are like gliders. I'm asking why this is significant??? Who cares? I've already told you why they are significant. They fly missions that no other plane can do. I don't understand what your issue with them is.

As has been said many times now, because gliders require very little power to remain airborne.

And that is very little in both relative and absolute terms.

I still don't see the relevance. Why should anyone care about this fact?

Because someone with at least a small amount of sense is capable of understanding that airplanes, other than sailplanes, do not have enough surface area to be able to capture enough solar energy to supply their energy rquirements to remain airborne.

This is a demonstration of Chimp's level of scientific understanding.

You keep saying the same simple fact over and over. I have no idea why you feel this is so important. I'm done asking you to explain.

And I am done trying to explain it to you as either you are the dumbest nob on the planet or a troll pretending not to understand something so simple.

At least this troll admits to being a lier and troll.