Electric Cars Not Yet Viable

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ee7bfaf5-ad79-46e5-8d07-8b843958be2c@googlegroups.com:

You do have an unfortunate habit of missing the fundamental points
in these discussions. Try to think a bit harder and longer before
you post.

You need to get off your hobby horse boy.

I have missed nothing and your closing remarks like this one,
means you should simply be ignored, because that is what an
insulting punk fuck like you deserves.

Actually you deserve a nice bludgeoning, but they do not let us do
that to stupid bastards like you any more.

You cannot even see simple facts about something as simple as a
555 timer chip. So now I am back to knowing (again) that the
descriptions about you by others is accurate.

Fuck Off And Die, dipshit.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 3:31:27 PM UTC+2, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:11:56 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence..org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-
89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

But you could have - pretty much overnight

Not really at all. That is another lie as you seem to conveniently
forget, underestimate, and mis-charcterize the POWER requisite for
freight transportation.

We simply do not have good enough batteries yet. Period. One can
place the biggest electric motors around into a tractor and if it
cannot do the load or move the distance, it is worthless for the task.
To integrate a battery which can means you are now moving the weight of
the battery pack around as well.

You do know that Tesla already has built electric semis and is presently road testing them, right?

I don't know this for a fact, but I expect one of the limitations currently is the charging infrastructure. While it is very good for taking autos on trips, they use eight charging stalls to charge a semi. They will need to build new semi charging stations. Unlike autos which will be charged mainly at home, semis will mainly be charged on the road. They will likely only sell semis for specific routes initially and build the charging network to suit, expanding the routes and sales together. Or they might initially sell to short haul markets where charging can be done overnight at the owner's facility.

That gives me a thought. It is rather pointless to have solar cells on a car because the relatively small surface area doesn't impact the battery drain much. But on a tractor trailer the surface is *much* larger. I wonder if this could be used to greatly increase the range with a lot fewer batteries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Solar_Challenge

The solar powered cars do get along at decent speed.

A loaded tractor trailer is lot heavier.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

Silly idea. Electrified railroads are standard everywhere where
the population density is higher than in the US.

electrified railroads move people. REAL locomotives move freight.

Rubbish. Really heavy duty locomotives used to be diesel-electric - electric motor are better adapted to providing the necessary torque at the wheels over the wide range of rotation rates needed.

The only economic question is whether taking the electicity generation out of the train save enough - in reduced load to be shifted - to pay for the overhead wiring along the whole lenght of the track.

Higher population densities - and thus more rail traffic along the track - makes electrification more attractive, because it is a a one-off cost, and you have to lug power generating unit along with every load you shift.

REAL locomotives are diesel electric. ALL our trains are
electric, but not on an overhead grid.

Your characterization of the 'idea' being silly, is pretty stupid,
because it is not silly, and it is not my idea. India, in fact, has
the first CNG train there is.

Does that make it clever?

So much for your population density analysis.

So much for yours. The metric is the number of people per unit area who will pay to use the train, or shift freight on it.

India may have 382 people per square kilometre - alomst twice that of Germany - but it's average per capita income is a whole lot lower.

Easier here to put a train on existing tracks that powers itself
than it is to erect overhead power feeds all over the place.

Of course it is, but you only have to put up the power feeds once, and they save money on every train trip. Lugging the diesel part of a diesel electric locomotive around costs money on every trip, and the overhead wires save that on every trip.

Not sure what you are talking about. The weight of the diesel motors is not an important factor in trains. In fact, they used to use "Bud" cars on a local line which had a motor in every car! Talk about weight inefficient. Clearly the railroad doesn't care.

--

Rick C.

------ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
------ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ee7bfaf5-ad79-46e5-8d07-8b843958be2c@googlegroups.com:

If you wanted to get enthusiastic about it, you could embedded
inductive charging loops in particularly heavily used bits of
highway,

Zero bits along a highway you dope.

Inductive charging at STOP points and intersections MAYBE, but not
any on-the-move methods. That would suck even more juice and the grid
boys won't like that. At intersections the amount and the user would
get logged.

 

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:1r6shepquecq509v5p5ksskd9qcj3bnhm0@4ax.com:

Electronic design engineers tend to work a lot, so don't waste
money on silly stuff, and tend to marry stable women who have good
jobs. The combination makes for a good upper-middle-class life.

I would rather bet that you have ZERO grasp on what typical EEs
lives are like.

You are silly stuff, and your bent mentality is a glaring example
of that.

You spout as if factual but what you just spouted was utter
bullshit, and based on zero statistics other then your own life
circumstance.

How well do you think the $9.00 an hour Boeing engineers live?

The stats you spout are bullshit, and you have done it in other
areas as well.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 5:58:14 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ee7bfaf5-ad79-46e5-8d07-8b843958be2c@googlegroups.com:

It's not a question of power, but rather of energy density (where
hydrocarbon fuels win big-time) and what you've missed is that you
can accomodate the rather lower energy density of batteries by
refuelling them more frequently than you would a hydrocarbon
fuelled truck.

Bullshit. It is about a MATCHED delivery JOB. Stopping ten more
times per thousand miles is 100% unacceptable and INCREASES trip
time and driver labors.

But not by much. Your idea of what might be acceptable has been presumably mined from your rather-less-than creative imagination.

Nope. It MUST be able to perform trip runs in the same time
windows we now have.

If the price is right, the end customer is likely to be more flexible.

You apparently do not get the requisite, because you keep coming
back with more labor intensive, more ridiculous means to move
between two points on a map.

Trucks are labour intensive. Putting the containers on properly automated railway system makes a lot more sense.

For a while all inland freight moved around on railways, but trucks got practical before containers were invented, and America missed that particular boat.

MAYBE they could do short haul city trips with those short
trailer... MAYBE.

Still not even viable yet for that.

In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 11:51:33 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:22:59 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:


50 10k Lb trailers cost more to pull than 13 40k Lb trailers
cost.

So it needs to be able to tractor a 40,000 Lb trailer, just
like we
currently do.

But the prime mover only needs to tractor the load between
charging stations or battery swap station. Range is a negotiable
feature.


You are an idiot with that one. One will NOT be charging their
tractor trailer trucks overnight, AND as I stated, the difference is
unacceptable.

Whence "charging stations or battery swap stations".

Rick C keeps on telling us that he can recharge his Telsa in the time that it takes him to buy and drink a cup of coffee. That's not overnight.

You are misquoting me. I said have a meal, not have a coffee.

Today I am driving up to Frederick to have dinner. I think my usual meal stop may not be a meal stop. It will truly be a charging stop... unless I decide to have a light lunch at the Sheetz. I much prefer a Wawa.

Once the charging station in Frederick is ready I'll be able to charge much more effectively. It will still be twice per round trip, but one will be light to get me around town and the other will be larger to get me down and back.

As the market matures there will be a lot more convenient charging locations.

--

Rick C.

----+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:27:26 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

Fat chance of that. "Passenger car" are as much status symbols as
personal transport. The Tesla is styled to attract the kinds of
people who buy cars designed to make them look rich.

Again, like I said earlier. LEARN HOW TO READ.

THE CITY HAS NO ROADS. NOBODY WILL BE JUST DRIVING IN.

ZERO CARS get access.

So what? Most big cities are pretty close to that already. You can get a car into the city centre, but it always takes ages, and usually costs a bomb.

The people who keep on using them are mostly making the point that they can afford to waste time and money drivng around in a (generally expensive) car.

You starting to get up to speed yet? Maybe you should read the
speculation post again.

Once was more than enough.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:94a99a24-b7ea-450c-
aa64-ba4188baee0e@googlegroups.com:

It's you who hasn't thought the matter through.

You keep blathering about rail density and people moving.

How many of your electric trains are 2 miles long pulling thousands
of tons of freight.

I'd be willing to bet that EU runs much shorter trains.

The US freight rail system is pretty economical. You crying about
the weight of the locomotive when that weight is trivial in a loaded up
train to pull.

Overhead electrical lines pose huge problems, and not just making new
locomotive engines to accomodate them.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 04/07/2019 15:10, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 08:38:32 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 03/07/2019 15:18, Rick C wrote:

The trend for unicorn companies that have never made a profit but always
promise "jam tomorrow" is a modern version of the same boom-bust game.

We partonize two bars that provide FREE BEER TOMORROW.

I know of one not too far from Fermi lab that does (a) free beer with
their lunchtime meal on one particularly quiet day of the week.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 10:50:11 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 06:31:23 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:11:56 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-
89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

But you could have - pretty much overnight

Not really at all. That is another lie as you seem to conveniently
forget, underestimate, and mis-charcterize the POWER requisite for
freight transportation.

We simply do not have good enough batteries yet. Period. One can
place the biggest electric motors around into a tractor and if it
cannot do the load or move the distance, it is worthless for the task.
To integrate a battery which can means you are now moving the weight of
the battery pack around as well.

Why not develop some Pony Express style operation. At selected
stations leave the emptied tractor at the station for charging and
take a fresh fully charged tractor to move the trailer to the
destination.

Because unlike the wild west, we have laws about how much a person can drive before resting. Unless you want to pay two people to move your load, it has to stop periodically for the driver to rest. No real need for battery pack swaps.

For longer high volume routes, put the trailer on to a train or ship
and then use ordinary tractors at both ends of the route.

You are aware they already do that, right? The down side is trains are very slow. They often average only 30 miles per hour and individual loads can be slower sitting in a rail yard waiting for a different train to take it further. Expect a cross country trip to take two weeks.

You do know that Tesla already has built electric semis and is presently road testing them, right?

I don't know this for a fact, but I expect one of the limitations currently is the charging infrastructure. While it is very good for taking autos on trips, they use eight charging stalls to charge a semi. They will need to build new semi charging stations. Unlike autos which will be charged mainly at home, semis will mainly be charged on the road. They will likely only sell semis for specific routes initially and build the charging network to suit, expanding the routes and sales together. Or they might initially sell to short haul markets where charging can be done overnight at the owner's facility.


Do you how much energy a semi-trailer will consume ?

A battery operated city bus can handle about 1 km/kWh, so it is
possible to quick charge the bus at the end(s) of the line, while the
driver takes a coffee/tobaco/toilet break. Alternatively, install a
charging station on each bus stop and each time the bus stops on the
bus stop for 5-15 seconds charge the bus.

That gives me a thought. It is rather pointless to have solar cells on a car because the relatively small surface area doesn't impact the battery drain much. But on a tractor trailer the surface is *much* larger. I wonder if this could be used to greatly increase the range with a lot fewer batteries.

What is the top surface area ? Perhaps 50 m² and assuming about 100
W/m² (with suboptimal solar angles) that makes 5 kW (7 hp) or in one
hour charged by 5 kWh, so a city bus would run 5 km once an hour and
much less for a semi-trailer.

Yeah, I found a page that shows a class-8 truck using 160 kW for level ground at 65 mph.

--

Rick C.

++++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 11:19:07 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9672821c-e745-4826-8880-73ee0c3cac61@googlegroups.com:

You do know that Tesla already has built electric semis and is
presently road testing them, right?


You do know that they do not match my criteria either, right?

Your criteria is not important. The criteria of those who buy semis is important.

--

Rick C.

+++++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ee7bfaf5-ad79-46e5-8d07-8b843958be2c@googlegroups.com:

It's not a question of power, but rather of energy density (where
hydrocarbon fuels win big-time) and what you've missed is that you
can accomodate the rather lower energy density of batteries by
refuelling them more frequently than you would a hydrocarbon
fuelled truck.

Bullshit. It is about a MATCHED delivery JOB. Stopping ten more
times per thousand miles is 100% unacceptable and INCREASES trip
time and driver labors.

Nope. It MUST be able to perform trip runs in the same time
windows we now have.

You apparently do not get the requisite, because you keep coming
back with more labor intensive, more ridiculous means to move
between two points on a map.

MAYBE they could do short haul city trips with those short
trailer... MAYBE.

Still not even viable yet for that.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:19:16 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-
89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

We won't evolve alternative technologies. They already exist.

I see that you conveniently left out the 'evolve INTO' aspect.

The process of adopting a new technology and getting into wide use isn't any kind of "evolution".

It's more a case of intelligent design. We know what the technology can do, what it costs, and what it can save us.

We already have many alternate technologies. EVOLVING INTO THEM,
does NOT happen overnight as you say, nor can it do so. And I never
said that we need to evolve the technology itself.

"Evolution" menas un-folding. You can't see what you are going to get until you have unfolded the package and laid it all out where you can see it.

Once you have the technology, putting it into place is just planning and logistics, and of course raising the capital to invest in the new equipment (which doesn't grow on trees).

You apparently need to learn to read, or learn to refrain from
drinking when you do. Or maybe you need glasses. Regardless, you
missed that one or deliberately left out to difference made by my
wording using it. "EVOLVE INTO" is NOT "evolve" as you put it,
which infers that I said we need to invent.

It implied that we didn't know where we needed to go.

Your manipulations of my words makes me want to put you back into
the place some of these others have binned you in. You will very
likely only get one more chance.

Wow. You want to put yourself in the same box as Cursitor Doom?

I was being nice to you as you do possess some intelligence.
Apparently, however, that does not involve you refraining from
petty, unbecoming vocabulary in your non-technical responses to
folks.

I've been in the technical advice business for long enough - a couple of decades - to know that being diplomatic wastes time.

People have to be told that they have got something wrong very clearly and unambiguously. Anything less and they are remarkably good at missing the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 11:54:16 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:94a99a24-b7ea-450c-
aa64-ba4188baee0e@googlegroups.com:

It's you who hasn't thought the matter through.


You keep blathering about rail density and people moving.

How many of your electric trains are 2 miles long pulling thousands
of tons of freight.

I'd be willing to bet that EU runs much shorter trains.

The US freight rail system is pretty economical. You crying about
the weight of the locomotive when that weight is trivial in a loaded up
train to pull.

Overhead electrical lines pose huge problems, and not just making new
locomotive engines to accomodate them.

We have electric rail lines in the US. The northeast corridor runs electric trains. They are also in other places in the US. I'm not aware of any limitations on the size of freight trains due to electric locomotives.

I think you are talking through your hat.

--

Rick C.

----+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:03:04 PM UTC+2, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:07:49 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

Silly idea. Electrified railroads are standard everywhere where
the population density is higher than in the US.

electrified railroads move people. REAL locomotives move freight.

Rubbish. Really heavy duty locomotives used to be diesel-electric - electric motor are better adapted to providing the necessary torque at the wheels over the wide range of rotation rates needed.

The only economic question is whether taking the electicity generation out of the train save enough - in reduced load to be shifted - to pay for the overhead wiring along the whole lenght of the track.

Higher population densities - and thus more rail traffic along the track - makes electrification more attractive, because it is a a one-off cost, and you have to lug power generating unit along with every load you shift.

REAL locomotives are diesel electric. ALL our trains are
electric, but not on an overhead grid.

Your characterization of the 'idea' being silly, is pretty stupid,
because it is not silly, and it is not my idea. India, in fact, has
the first CNG train there is.

Does that make it clever?

So much for your population density analysis.

So much for yours. The metric is the number of people per unit area who will pay to use the train, or shift freight on it.

India may have 382 people per square kilometre - alomst twice that of Germany - but it's average per capita income is a whole lot lower.

Easier here to put a train on existing tracks that powers itself
than it is to erect overhead power feeds all over the place.

Of course it is, but you only have to put up the power feeds once, and they save money on every train trip. Lugging the diesel part of a diesel electric locomotive around costs money on every trip, and the overhead wires save that on every trip.

Not sure what you are talking about. The weight of the diesel motors is not an important factor in trains. In fact, they used to use "Bud" cars on a local line which had a motor in every car! Talk about weight inefficient. Clearly the railroad doesn't care.

The weight of the total load being shifted clearly does matter.

The fact that you can buy electricity from the grid much more cheaply than yu can get it by running a mobile diesel--power generator is probaby a bigger factor.

Suburban railways, just moving passengers, aren't all that weight conscious.. The trick there is to be able to put together long trains to move a lot passengers at once at peak hours, and serve the same route with shorter trains when the demand it less. One motor in every car makes it lot easier to adjust the number of cars in a particular train running at a particular time..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 6:04:20 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ee7bfaf5-ad79-46e5-8d07-8b843958be2c@googlegroups.com:


You do have an unfortunate habit of missing the fundamental points
in these discussions. Try to think a bit harder and longer before
you post.


You need to get off your hobby horse boy.

I have missed nothing

Woosh!

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:11:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 5:58:14 PM UTC+2, DecadentLinux...@decadence..org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ee7bfaf5-ad79-46e5-8d07-8b843958be2c@googlegroups.com:

It's not a question of power, but rather of energy density (where
hydrocarbon fuels win big-time) and what you've missed is that you
can accomodate the rather lower energy density of batteries by
refuelling them more frequently than you would a hydrocarbon
fuelled truck.

Bullshit. It is about a MATCHED delivery JOB. Stopping ten more
times per thousand miles is 100% unacceptable and INCREASES trip
time and driver labors.

But not by much. Your idea of what might be acceptable has been presumably mined from your rather-less-than creative imagination.

Nope. It MUST be able to perform trip runs in the same time
windows we now have.

If the price is right, the end customer is likely to be more flexible.

You apparently do not get the requisite, because you keep coming
back with more labor intensive, more ridiculous means to move
between two points on a map.

Trucks are labour intensive. Putting the containers on properly automated railway system makes a lot more sense.

For a while all inland freight moved around on railways, but trucks got practical before containers were invented, and America missed that particular boat.

Dude, you might as well give that one up. My dad was a railroad dispatcher and a friend is a buyer of food goods which are nearly always trucked rather than deal with the problems of railroad freight. Long delivery times, unpredictable delivery times and the requirement for large loads. Then there is the need to coordinate truck hauling at each end.

Railroad freight is used in the US, but not nearly as much as trucks because it is a PITA mostly. Trucking is a bit more expensive, but a lot less hassle and in most cases the only real option because of scheduling issues. One week vs. two or more weeks is a big deal.

It seems Tesla uses railroads to deliver their cars in the US. The scheduling issues prevent Musk from ramping up deliveries at the end of the quarters, so he wanted to build his own trailers... lol

--

Rick C.

----++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
----++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 3:22:59 AM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f34dcf90-6624-4362-89c6-c6f388d4399f@googlegroups.com:

But the prime mover only needs to tractor the load between
charging stations or battery swap station. Range is a negotiable
feature.

...I need a truck that can pull the load described AND
do so for 2000 miles at a time AND NOT have a 1.5 day wait between
segments of a long haul.

And no, battery swap stations are not feasible aither.

Not sure why you think that (there are batteries with slurry electrodes,
you can pump uncharged out, and pump charged in), but there
are other options: for a tractor/trailer, swap tractors.

Remember the Pony Express!

 

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
news:1r6shepquecq509v5p5ksskd9qcj3bnhm0@4ax.com:

Peet was Dutch, and started roasting coffee in Berkeley, back when
americans were drinking weak swill. Peets spun off Starbucks,
which
partly regressed to swill. Peets coffee is still great.

Both peet and SB are OVERROASTED BURNT bullshit grinds.

That motherfucker's personal taste came into it and his personal
taste is burnt french roast, or very near, because so are all the
coffees offered. After years of complaints SB came out with medium
roast versions.

But I will not give either ANY of my business. Lame HUGELY
overpriced bullshit greedy bat's turds.

You will never know because you never try the other offerings. So
your perspective is again bent. Sort of like french roast coffee.

Burnt beans ruins the entire taste experience. French roast is
burnt beans. ALL of SB's offering were just that before they added
two 'medium roast' versions. They "roast their own beans", but are
clueless on doing it, becasue they roast them all to the point of
being BURNT BEANS. Shitty taste and too high a price. Absolutely
lame.

You are obviously a burnt bean boy.