Sea Speed said:

---

How many airplane fights can you get in in a week?

---

I should feel bad about clubbing a baby seal like this. But I don't.

fka ftc said:

---

Roger. Thank you for reminding me that people who may appear to be experts sometimes have limited knowledge in their field of expertise.

Fella, if you think I get my happiness from this message board you are wrong again. But it is a source of profound entertainment at times.

---

Could have just said "thanks for correcting me".

Second part seems to be right out of your own head because I never mentioned any of that.

Sea Speed said:

---

How many airplane fights can you get in in a week?

---

Not as many as some who argue about EVs.

GAC06 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Roger. Thank you for reminding me that people who may appear to be experts sometimes have limited knowledge in their field of expertise.

Fella, if you think I get my happiness from this message board you are wrong again. But it is a source of profound entertainment at times.

---

Could have just said "thanks for correcting me".

Second part seems to be right out of your own head because I never mentioned any of that.

---

Let me know when you ask the publisher of the article I linked to print a correction.

You keep believing pilots are necessary because technology does not allow for an airliner to fly itself.

Or maybe you are just arguing with yourself.

FAA is the ONLY thing preventing modern airliner equipped with the current avionics rolling off the line at either AIrbus or Boeing, from operating from Airport A to Airport B if those are both also equipped with not just most current, but just somewhat recent technology.

Now, nobody would fly on those planes unless they were prohibitively stupid, as there is just too much unpredictability in the process to properly account for. In turn, the liability equation remains unsolved.

Same with self-driving cars, which is what we got started on this derail in the first place.

If you need to first place ribbon in this discussion, then I defer and you may have it. Rest well, safe travels.

Entire post is a straw man. You made a claim about airliners right now. You were wrong.

I'll humor you. Yes an airliner could be created to fly without human input, if safety were to take a backseat. Neat.

But that's not what you claimed until crawfishing and deflecting.

fka ftc said:

---

You can run a car on coal.

Combustion been reliable source of energy since cave man. But we are way beyond that now that the battery was recently invented.

---

What ****ing car are you going to run on coal, and exactly where are you going to get all this coal from? You gonna drive your coal car to a coal mine? Then what?

Dude, he'll get the coal with a shovel. He'll get the gas with a rubber hose.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

You can run a car on coal.

Combustion been reliable source of energy since cave man. But we are way beyond that now that the battery was recently invented.

---

What ****ing car are you going to run on coal, and exactly where are you going to get all this coal from? You gonna drive your coal car to a coal mine? Then what?

---

I mean, I can understand you may not be aware of a concept from 1981, btu cmon man.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/04/business/gm-displays-car-fueled-with-coal-dust.html

Quote:

---

Although two coal-burning cars were driven briefly today, Howard H. Kehrl. G.M.'s vice chairman, said commercial coal-powered vehicles would be ''products of the next century.''


''We'll see cars using coal liquids before then,'' Mr. Kehrl added. ''The economics of powdered coal versus liquids from coal or shale will determine which will be successful. We're just trying to show that we are not about to run out of energy. We can continue to have cars essentially as we know them today for hundreds of years.'' Large Coal Reserves Cited

---

Man, you guys have to be tired of being wrong by now, no?

Right. At least it will be possible for me to get gas and coal.

You need a field of soyboys on stationary bikes to charge the batteries to get your biplane started again.

I have a battery powered biplane? This is like arguing with a ten year old.

Yet you keep responding.

I said I like clubbing baby seals. Your terrible, fallacious, emotional arguments are entertaining to me.

Maybe one day you'll exact revenge as you pass me in your coal powered Edsel as I fail to charge the EV I don't own, after the apocalypse.

GAC06 said:

---

I said I like clubbing baby seals. Your terrible, fallacious, emotional arguments are entertaining to me.

Maybe one day you'll exact revenge as you pass me in your coal powered Edsel as I fail to charge the EV I don't own, after the apocalypse.

---

Just don't expect me to provide my fellatious services to you. I ain't into that.

You guys seriously never heard of coal burning cars? That's World War II technology.

http://www.robertsarmory.com/gas.htm

People like to think they know things and not spend anytime educating themselves.

Most folks have no idea how an ICE in their car works. Just gas, throttle and go, break to stop. The rest is unicorn farts of varying varieties.

The initial argument was for why not to buy an electric vehicle today and instead buy a gas vehicle.

I don't see many people converting their modern gas vehicles into coal burning vehicles.

Find me a mass producer of coal conversion kits for modern gas vehicles.

There are reasons to buy an electric vehicle, there are reasons to buy a gas vehicle. Their respective survivability of an EMP is not a differentiating factor. Whether or not you can drive a car would be low on your priority list in that environment and neither vehicle is going to operate. Not without significant modification.

Whether or not a plane can autonomously take off and land on its own holds little relationship to the regulatory environment and development pathway of autonomous vehicles.

The initial claim by FKA was that the technology exists today for self driving vehicles and regulators are blocking it. Find me one producer of self driving vehicles that will say they could, today, broadly deploy their self driving technology without driver monitoring. You can't. Waymo and Cruise have pilot programs in various cities that consist of driving around in perfect weather, in limited numbers, at limited speeds, in limited areas, because they utilize HD maps to operate, meaning they have to pre-map areas in detail prior to deployment. It's not regulators blocking them, they surely have requirements, but Waymo and Cruise aren't sitting there saying "but for regulators we would have self driving cars!"


How do self driving cars differ from airplanes and helicopters? Most importantly, failures are not nearly as catastrophic as in aerial vehicles. Additionally, Tesla currently has nearly 4 million vehicles with self driving hardware that they run the software on in stealth mode to analyze its accuracy. Those vehicles drive, according to Tesla's presentation on Wednesday, 123 million miles every day.

Let's say that Tesla has the self driving software to a point that they believe it's capable of deployment in 3 years. They currently have 400,000 self driving beta testers, and by that point they will have sold, conservatively, 8 million more vehicles. They have a take rate of 7% on their self driving software in the world, meaning that by the time they have what they believe is deployable software they would, conservatively, have close to 1 million self driving software users and 11 million more vehicles that are analyzing the software in stealth mode. That's 30 million miles, conservatively, every day in active operation and 330 million miles in passive analysis. At average auto fatality rates you'd expect a fatal crash every other day and about 150 accidents every day almost all of which Tesla would be able to acquire telemetry data and video for to determine cause of the crash.

By the end of a single year Tesla would have 11 billion miles of FSD driving to analyze. That's assuming slower than expected sales, stagnant take rate, and average miles driven on a software that removes the stresses of driving.

That doesn't even get into the financial incentives of a company like Tesla getting FSD approved. They estimate that a Robotaxi would drive close to 90,000 miles a year, at one million vehicles and their estimated $.30 per mile revenue they'd be missing out on $27,000,000,000 in annual revenue that would grow rapidly from that point.

These are not simulations, they're not N of some small number, they are huge financial impacts and huge real world data, demonstrating significant safety improvements, to back up the approval.

hph6203 said:

---

Whether or not a plane can autonomously take off and land on its own holds little relationship to the regulatory environment and development pathway of autonomous vehicles.

The initial claim by FKA was that the technology exists today for self driving vehicles and regulators are blocking it. Find me one producer of self driving vehicles that will say they could, today, broadly deploy their self driving technology without driver monitoring. You can't. Waymo and Cruise have pilot programs in various cities that consist of driving around in perfect weather, in limited numbers, at limited speeds, in limited areas, because they utilize HD maps to operate, meaning they have to pre-map areas in detail prior to deployment. It's not regulators blocking them, they surely have requirements, but Waymo and Cruise aren't sitting there saying "but for regulators we would have self driving cars!"


How do self driving cars differ from airplanes in helicopters? Most importantly, failures are not nearly as catastrophic as in aerial vehicles. Additionally, Tesla currently has nearly 4 million vehicles with self driving hardware that they run the software on in stealth mode to analyze its accuracy. Those vehicles drive, according to Tesla's presentation on Wednesday, 123 million miles every day.

Let's say that Tesla has the self driving software to a point that they believe it's capable of deployment in 3 years. They currently have 400,000 self driving beta testers, and by that point they will have sold, conservatively, 8 million more vehicles. They have a take rate of 7% on their self driving software in the world, meaning that by the time they have what they believe is deployable software they would, conservatively, have close to 1 million self driving software users and 11 million more vehicles that are analyzing the software in stealth mode. That's 30 million miles, conservatively, every day in active operation and 330 million miles in passive analysis. At average auto fatality rates you'd expect a fatal crash every other day and about 150 accidents every day almost all of which Tesla would be able to acquire telemetry data and video for to determine cause of the crash.

By the end of a single year Tesla would have 11 billion miles of FSD driving to analyze. That's assuming slower than expected sales, stagnant take rate, and average miles driven on a software that removes the stresses of driving.

That doesn't even get into the financial incentives of a company like Tesla getting FSD approved. They estimate that a Robotaxi would drive close to 90,000 miles a year, at one million vehicles and their estimated $.30 per mile revenue they'd be missing out on $27,000,000,000 in annual revenue that would grow rapidly from that point.

These are not simulations, they're not N of some small number, they are huge financial impacts and huge real world data, demonstrating significant safety improvements, to back up the approval.

---

Facts!

hph6203 said:

---

Whether or not you can drive a car would be low on your priority list in that environment and neither vehicle is going to operate. Not without significant modification.

---

Ding ding ding. Starting with the lack of treated water and sewage due to every pump motor, MCC, all the chemical feed equipment, and lots of other controls/panels being wiped out by the EMP.

smitshot said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Whether or not a plane can autonomously take off and land on its own holds little relationship to the regulatory environment and development pathway of autonomous vehicles.

The initial claim by FKA was that the technology exists today for self driving vehicles and regulators are blocking it. Find me one producer of self driving vehicles that will say they could, today, broadly deploy their self driving technology without driver monitoring. You can't. Waymo and Cruise have pilot programs in various cities that consist of driving around in perfect weather, in limited numbers, at limited speeds, in limited areas, because they utilize HD maps to operate, meaning they have to pre-map areas in detail prior to deployment. It's not regulators blocking them, they surely have requirements, but Waymo and Cruise aren't sitting there saying "but for regulators we would have self driving cars!"


How do self driving cars differ from airplanes in helicopters? Most importantly, failures are not nearly as catastrophic as in aerial vehicles. Additionally, Tesla currently has nearly 4 million vehicles with self driving hardware that they run the software on in stealth mode to analyze its accuracy. Those vehicles drive, according to Tesla's presentation on Wednesday, 123 million miles every day.

Let's say that Tesla has the self driving software to a point that they believe it's capable of deployment in 3 years. They currently have 400,000 self driving beta testers, and by that point they will have sold, conservatively, 8 million more vehicles. They have a take rate of 7% on their self driving software in the world, meaning that by the time they have what they believe is deployable software they would, conservatively, have close to 1 million self driving software users and 11 million more vehicles that are analyzing the software in stealth mode. That's 30 million miles, conservatively, every day in active operation and 330 million miles in passive analysis. At average auto fatality rates you'd expect a fatal crash every other day and about 150 accidents every day almost all of which Tesla would be able to acquire telemetry data and video for to determine cause of the crash.

By the end of a single year Tesla would have 11 billion miles of FSD driving to analyze. That's assuming slower than expected sales, stagnant take rate, and average miles driven on a software that removes the stresses of driving.

That doesn't even get into the financial incentives of a company like Tesla getting FSD approved. They estimate that a Robotaxi would drive close to 90,000 miles a year, at one million vehicles and their estimated $.30 per mile revenue they'd be missing out on $27,000,000,000 in annual revenue that would grow rapidly from that point.

These are not simulations, they're not N of some small number, they are huge financial impacts and huge real world data, demonstrating significant safety improvements, to back up the approval.

---

Facts!

---

UAS aren't allowed to do autonomous flight out of sight of a pilot currently without a waiver from the FAA. The potential danger of a small UAS is MUCH less than a 4000 lb car driving on a busy highway surrounded by cars.

Again...tech is the easy part - I do that for a living. It's the regulators that will be the hard part.

fka ftc said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

You can run a car on coal.

Combustion been reliable source of energy since cave man. But we are way beyond that now that the battery was recently invented.

---

What ****ing car are you going to run on coal, and exactly where are you going to get all this coal from? You gonna drive your coal car to a coal mine? Then what?

---

I mean, I can understand you may not be aware of a concept from 1981, btu cmon man.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/04/business/gm-displays-car-fueled-with-coal-dust.html

Quote:

---

Although two coal-burning cars were driven briefly today, Howard H. Kehrl. G.M.'s vice chairman, said commercial coal-powered vehicles would be ''products of the next century.''


''We'll see cars using coal liquids before then,'' Mr. Kehrl added. ''The economics of powdered coal versus liquids from coal or shale will determine which will be successful. We're just trying to show that we are not about to run out of energy. We can continue to have cars essentially as we know them today for hundreds of years.'' Large Coal Reserves Cited

---

Man, you guys have to be tired of being wrong by now, no?

---

Exactly where are these coal powered cars from 40 years ago that are the next big thing? Where can I buy one?

And WHERE is this coal going to come from?

Same place you can buy an EV from 100 years ago.

Interesting that their rationale was to use coal dust vs "depleting petrochemical reserves".

Funny, at one point that was also an argument for EV. Weren't we supposed to be out of oil by now? I guess batteries, solar panels and windmills allowed us to stretch that further…

techno-ag said:

---

You guys seriously never heard of coal burning cars? That's World War II technology.

http://www.robertsarmory.com/gas.htm

---

It's not that it can't be done, it's that it isn't something readily or commercially available. You could run a car on plutonium like Perseverance, but that doesn't mean you can just go buy one or build one.

I don't need an EV from 100 years ago. They're mass produced today. I can literally go in the internet and just order one. Where can I order a brand new coal powered car? Your quote said they'd be the cars of the next century, yet here we are, and I don't see any

So back to the original question, exactly what coal powered car are you going to drive, and where are you getting this coal from in the event the world goes tango uniform?

Can we just all agree that the EMP debate is pointless in trying to find a benefit for ICE vehicles over EVs?

The number of EMP-Proof ICE vehicles still in existence essentially rounds to zero at the scale of millions (or hundreds of millions) of people.

What a pointless tangent to waste time going back and forth on.

You guys are acting like we built the oil and coal extraction and refining, and transportation industries to be EMP proof, themselves. As if, none of that equipment requires electricity and circuits and silicon chips.

For your coal powered car, are you going to rely on a coal powered backhoe to extract it, and a coal powered tanker truck to take it to the coal powered refinery and another coal powered tanker to bring you your coal dust?

This discussion is absolutely bonkers.

Calls for end to EMP debate, then follows up with more point on EMP.

Solid.

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Can we just all agree that the EMP debate is pointless in trying to find a benefit for ICE vehicles over EVs?

The number of EMP-Proof ICE vehicles still in existence essentially rounds to zero at the scale of millions (or hundreds of millions) of people.

What a pointless tangent to waste time going back and forth on.

---

This actually isn't true. EMP effects were studied on cars and trucks in 2008, and the effects were minimal even in cars with a lot of electronics. No effects were seen in cars or trucks that were not running. It was estimated that only about 1/50 vehicles would be permanently disabled.

The real issue would be the supply chain for fuel and all of the production facilities being offline. Localized electrical production through things like solar panels could keep a lot of EVs running regardless. Panels themselves wouldn't be much affected by an EMP. The bigger issue would be the support equipment. If you're really "prepping" then a hardened solar system and EV is actually a solid choice.

fka ftc said:

---

Calls for end to EMP debate, then follows up with more point on EMP.

Solid.

---

If you quote me directly, I just called for us to all agree that it was a pointless tangent.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

aggievaulter07 said:

---

Can we just all agree that the EMP debate is pointless in trying to find a benefit for ICE vehicles over EVs?

The number of EMP-Proof ICE vehicles still in existence essentially rounds to zero at the scale of millions (or hundreds of millions) of people.

What a pointless tangent to waste time going back and forth on.

---

This actually isn't true. EMP effects were studied on cars and trucks in 2008, and the effects were minimal even in cars with a lot of electronics. No effects were seen in cars or trucks that were not running. It was estimated that only about 1/50 vehicles would be permanently disabled.

The real issue would be the supply chain for fuel and all of the production facilities being offline. Localized electrical production through things like solar panels could keep a lot of EVs running regardless. Panels themselves wouldn't be much affected by an EMP. The bigger issue would be the support equipment. If you're really "prepping" then a hardened solar system and EV is actually a solid choice.

---

I hope you're right. Would love to see a link to the study.

http://www.empcommission.org/

http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf

Quote:

---

Automobiles
The potential EMP vulnerability of automobiles derives from the use of built-in electronics that support multiple automotive functions. Electronic components were first introduced into automobiles in the late 1960s. As time passed and electronics technolo- gies evolved, electronic applications in automobiles proliferated. Modern automobiles have as many as 100 microprocessors that control virtually all functions. While electronic applications have proliferated within automobiles, so too have application standards and electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic compatibility (EMI/EMC) practices. Thus, while it might be expected that increased EMP vulnerability would accompany the proliferated electronics applications, this trend, at least in part, is mitigated by the increased application of EMI/EMC practices.

We tested a sample of 37 cars in an EMP simulation laboratory, with automobile vin- tages ranging from 1986 through 2002. Automobiles of these vintages include extensive electronics and represent a significant fraction of automobiles on the road today. The testing was conducted by exposing running and nonrunning automobiles to sequentially increasing EMP field intensities. If anomalous response (either temporary or permanent) was observed, the testing of that particular automobile was stopped. If no anomalous response was observed, the testing was continued up to the field intensity limits of the simulation capability (approximately 50 kV/m).
Automobiles were subjected to EMP environments under both engine turned off and engine turned on conditions. No effects were subsequently observed in those automobiles that were not turned on during EMP exposure. The most serious effect observed on run- ning automobiles was that the motors in three cars stopped at field strengths of approxi- mately 30 kV/m or above. In an actual EMP exposure, these vehicles would glide to a stop and require the driver to restart them. Electronics in the dashboard of one automobile were damaged and required repair. Other effects were relatively minor. Twenty-five automobiles exhibited malfunctions that could be considered only a nuisance (e.g., blinking dashboard lights) and did not require driver intervention to correct. Eight of the 37 cars tested did not exhibit any anomalous response.

Based on these test results, we expect few automobile effects at EMP field levels below 25 kV/m. Approximately 10 percent or more of the automobiles exposed to higher field levels may experience serious EMP effects, including engine stall, that require driver intervention to correct. We further expect that at least two out of three automobiles on the road will manifest some nuisance response at these higher field levels. The serious mal- functions could trigger car crashes on U.S. highways; the nuisance malfunctions could exacerbate this condition. The ultimate result of automobile EMP exposure could be trig- gered crashes that damage many more vehicles than are damaged by the EMP, the consequent loss of life, and multiple injuries.

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3349812/replies/64386815

Ag with kids said:

---

UAS aren't allowed to do autonomous flight out of sight of a pilot currently without a waiver from the FAA. The potential danger of a small UAS is MUCH less than a 4000 lb car driving on a busy highway surrounded by cars.

Again...tech is the easy part - I do that for a living. It's the regulators that will be the hard part.

---

Self-driving cars are harder technology than autonomous drones.

The differentiator between your drone and an autonomous car is that the technology to develop an autonomous car is much harder and when created provides much more benefit to society. They are not the same thing. Autonomous drones do not provide the same economic benefit, they do not provide the same safety benefit, and they are pretty much all risk to the regulators and marginal benefit to the producers when compared to autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vehicles are a multi-trillion dollar opportunity for the industry, what is the addressable market for autonomous drones? BIllions? Lots more money will be put into getting an autonomous car through the regulators than for an autonomous drone. Lots.

Part of developing the technology is making sure it is safe. That's regardless of regulators. Businesses have an interest in developing a technology that is safer than the average driver, because the average driver isn't going to say "sign me up to ride in a death trap". Regulators are not what is curtailing self-driving vehicles right now, as FKA suggested, the technology is. An autonomous vehicle that drives better than the average driver, which would be the goal of the business, not the regulators, is a risk to regulators because at that point the regulators are necessitating that more die than should die.

There are self-driving cars approved by regulators on the road. No human backup. Right now. You can get in, sit in the back seat and pay for it to take you to your destination. Whether or not you actually make it there is up to the technology. They are not capable of driving in all situations and not reliable enough even in ideal conditions. Tell me again how it's regulators curtailing their development because the regulators are allowing them to operate and the company can't get them to operate reliably more than in a small area of the country in ideal conditions. They have been on the road for 4 years now.


Regulators caused this car to stall:


Regulators made an entire fleet of Waymo cars to converge on one location
https://gizmodo.com/waymos-self-driving-cars-are-mysteriously-flocking-to-a-1847862042

Regulators caused the same thing to happen to Cruise's vehicles:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/01/self-driving-cars-from-gms-cruise-block-san-francisco-streets.html

It's technology stopping their proliferation. All of those cars were operating without a human driver backing them up. They failed because of technology.