3 ms·

1. My point was that it wasn't a replacement. It's not even capable of getting half the power. Hence my claim that the title was clickbait, it's patently false.

1. My point was that it wasn't a replacement. It's not even capable of getting half the power. Hence my claim that the title was clickbait, it's patently false. That's like saying I invented a replacement motor for the Bugatti Veyron at half the cost, oh by the way it makes 400 horsepower instead of 1000. 2. Again it's my demonstration of clickbait. A 40 pound engine that makes 6.5 horsepower will never be replaced by an engine featured in the article. At least, not in the next several decades. An engine that weighs 40 pounds and makes 6.5 horsepower is called a lawnmower engine. It's cheap to make and maintain and people use it because it's affordable. People aren't going to replace their $50 lawn mower engine with one that's $1000.

kbenson 10y ago
I'm not sure why you think replacing an engine has to entail having the exact same performance as before. > That's like saying I invented a replacement motor for the Bugatti Veyron at half the cost, oh by the way it makes 400 horsepower instead of 1000. You can. What's wrong with that. Maybe there's something else about the engine that makes it noteworthy, such as it being electric? In this case, it's a way to showcase specific aspects of the engine, it's size and weight. > A 40 pound engine that makes 6.5 horsepower will never be replaced by an engine featured in the article. Might it be replaced by two 4 pound engines with a total of 6 horsepower for 8 pounds? Or maybe three for 9 horsepower for 12 pounds? Perhaps the efficiency can scale and they can do a single motor for ~9 horsepower and ~12 pounds? > It's cheap to make and maintain and people use it because it's affordable. It's cheap because it's mass produced. You can't compare how useful this engine is to existing engines without considering the cost when built at the expected scale. > People aren't going to replace their $50 lawn mower engine with one that's $1000. I'll just repeat myself with inflection: "It may cost $1000 in its current incarnation, but that's what you get when you manually machine all the parts instead of have them mass produced."

kbenson 10y ago

I'm not sure why you think replacing an engine has to entail having the exact same performance as before. > That's like saying I invented a replacement motor for the Bugatti Veyron at half the cost, oh by the way it makes 400 horsepower instead of 1000. You can. What's wrong with that. Maybe there's something else about the engine that makes it noteworthy, such as it being electric? In this case, it's a way to showcase specific aspects of the engine, it's size and weight. > A 40 pound engine that makes 6.5 horsepower will never be replaced by an engine featured in the article. Might it be replaced by two 4 pound engines with a total of 6 horsepower for 8 pounds? Or maybe three for 9 horsepower for 12 pounds? Perhaps the efficiency can scale and they can do a single motor for ~9 horsepower and ~12 pounds? > It's cheap to make and maintain and people use it because it's affordable. It's cheap because it's mass produced. You can't compare how useful this engine is to existing engines without considering the cost when built at the expected scale. > People aren't going to replace their $50 lawn mower engine with one that's $1000. I'll just repeat myself with inflection: "It may cost $1000 in its current incarnation, but that's what you get when you manually machine all the parts instead of have them mass produced."