Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Cancel
12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I guess no one would be willing to spend a single cent on these type of vehicles as long as there are suicide bombers out there. Who would want to be remembered as "s/he who made terrorism so much easier"... $\endgroup$
    – Mrkvička
    Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 0:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We recycle more than 98% of our lead. Without that, costs of car batteries would already be unreasonable. This part should be corrected and moved to cons. $\endgroup$
    – Mołot
    Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 10:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon $\endgroup$
    – pjc50
    Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 12:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's worth noting that torque figures by themselves are fairly meaningless, as engines will generally run through a gearbox, where the RPM figure matters a lot. Whilst torque is OK for roughly comparing similar engines, it's hopeless when comparing engines that are vastly different - for example, a Toyota Prius has more torque than a Ferrari 355. But because the torque is at very low RPM, it's not comparable. Put through the right gearbox, 100nm at 10,000 rpm will generate just as much motive force as 1,000nm at 1,000 rpm. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 13:22
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Mrkvička Thorium is not weaponize-able in the same fashion as plutonium or uranium, according to my sources. $\endgroup$
    – nijineko
    Commented Jan 30, 2017 at 20:41

-