Message-ID: <63f31add@news.ausics.net> From: Computer Nerd Kev Subject: Re: Short name for USB Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc References: <1crvbgma7vk4x$.dlg@10235314.user.individual.de> <2iednQq3V55KvHb-nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@earthlink.com> <63f15dee@news.ausics.net> <63f2a6be@news.ausics.net> <0i0bcjxks1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> User-Agent: tin/2.0.1-20111224 ("Achenvoir") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.31 (i686)) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net Date: 20 Feb 2023 17:01:50 +1000 Organization: Ausics - https://www.ausics.net Lines: 71 X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net Path: csiph.com!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:37177 25B.E866 <25B.E866@noaaba.net> wrote: > On 2/19/23 8:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote: >>>>>> ??? Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't >>>>>> ??? even need a transmission. >>>>> >>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor >>>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able >>>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the >>>>> engineer who designed it. >>>> >>>> Same with an ICE. >>>> >>>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start or run >>>> the car till it is repaired or replaced. >>> >>> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is >>> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler >>> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's >>> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is >>> remotely simple anymore. >> >> >> Mechanically they are way simpler. > > That was my main point ... consider ALL the moving parts > in today's petrol engines. The things are VERY complicated. > Yea, x-percent of the parts are just replicated, but still > it's a LOT of parts and there are a few VITAL support > systems too. > > Electrics = stator+rotor and a couple bearings and you don't > even need a tranny. Feed the wheels directly and you can > skip the pumpkin(s) too. > > In BOTH kinds of motors, these days, there's a complicated > computerized control unit. They won't run without it. Yer > '54 Chevy would, but not anything made today. On the plus > side, such units are basically plug-ins - quick (but $$$) > to replace. Actually the complicated control unit made the mechanical parts less complicated in IC engines (no distributor, carburettor, etc.). The mechanical complexity went down, but the overall complexity went up. What I think you're trying to say is that _reliability_ is better with electric cars (provided they get the design right, I suppose), and in principle I agree with that. The thing is that I'd quite like electric cars to be simple overall because then both the electronics and the mechanics would be within the grasp of a backyard mechanic again. In practice they make it all too complicated, and even figuring out how to replace a module without the main computer spitting out rude error messages might be beyond someone without the manufacturer's documentation at hand. That's after you shell out a fortune for the replacement module and wait a couple of months for it to travel across the globe. > BATTERIES are the bane of electrics alas ... they need to > be a LOT better and I do *not* see anything on the near > horizon. Oh sure, lots of 'exciting research' reports - > but the prototypes are maybe a square millimeter and > they NEVER scale up to real, affordable, production. Yep, I agree on that. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#