That’s just for keeping the tasers charged when the mobs and pandemonium breaks out.
Then we’ll move on to firearms.
The real problem is that this is the wrong message board for this.
You have to ask the question in Chinese. That’s the only place where there is enough photoelectric generation to save even a tiny amount of government control, a police state where the leaders don’t have qualms about killing or allowing enough people to die to save a few elites and enough peasants to farm without modern technology.
The rest of the world is toast, though.
:dubious:
In what way is the fuel tank for a diesel engine any more “on board” than the battery of an electric motor? Or to put it another way, in what sense in the cylinder of a diesel motor a “power source” that the brushes of an electric motor are not?
It seems that in both cases there is an external chemical energy source and an internal mechanism to convert that into motive force. In the case of the battery the chemical energy is converted first to electric energy, but aside from that I can’t see any difference between things commonly referred to as motors an things commonly referred to as engines.
Yet you would refer to a car motor, tractor motor, motor bike etc. And you would refer to the electric motor in a train or the Chevy Volt as an engine.
The point being that idiomatic conventions are frequently contradictory and give no insight into correct use.
Bricker: How would mortgages work in a legal system that did not recognize any form of property rights?
Pretty tough to give an answer to that one, isn’t it? That’s because there is no self-consistent framework for mortgages to exist in without property rights as an underlying concept. If they did exist in that legal system, they’d be a weird special case, and who could predict what properties a weird special case might have?
It’s, if anything, worse for a physicist to try and imagine separating electricity from magnetism. They’re linked at a very deep level; most people would point you to Maxwell’s equations but, really, it goes even deeper than that. Even ignoring the further unifications, the underlying fact is that reality is all of a piece, and not multiple separate realms each governed by its own laws.
Think back to the pre-modern mindset: Everything is as your deities will it, all apparently consistent facts of life are due to a group of powerful capricious beings acting as sovereign and inscrutable entities. If something bad happens, you better propitiate the appropriate deity, as reality is run on the protection racket system. There is no over-arching rule except, perhaps, “All gods are bastards (don’t hurt me).” Not much predictive power there.
After centuries of experiment, theorizing, tearing up said theories, further experimentation, fleeing the authorities, and lots and lots of math, we have theories like Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), into which we can slot equations that allow us to predict certain things out to ten decimal places. That theory (system of explanations) is both exceedingly simple and utterly contrary to intuition, but it works. It explains everything about magnetism, light, electricity, and the vast majority of reality you will ever experience directly. It is a triumph. Feynman’s book QED is also a very accessible introduction to it, from one of the people who came up with the theory in the first place.
It also means some things are foreclosed on. Any future theory will have to match QED’s predictions, because we know they’re right, which means electricity and magnetism will remain the same thing. It also means ‘broadcast power’ in the way Tesla envisioned it will forever be impossible, among other disappointing facts.
Because the theory we have about electromagnetism now is the same as the theory we have about why rainbows happen. It’s the same as the theory we have about why radio works. It’s the same as the theory we have about why polished steel is shiny and polished glass is clear. It’s the same as the theory we have about why the sky is blue, grass is green, and your retina allows you to see. It’s the same as the theory we have about why all of the molecules in your body keep holding together. Take that apart, and you have to find a new way to explain all of those phenomena and countless others without any self-consistent framework. Everything becomes a special case. You lose all predictive ability. You’re back at a Neolithic level of comprehension.
The worst thing school ever did to you was allow you to graduate without realizing how connected everything is.
(I hate racing the edit window.)
The main point remains: Take away the unified theories and everything becomes a special case, an act of ad hoc and sua sponte divine will humans have no insight into and cannot predict.
This sounds more like industry convention than etymology - there probably are contexts in which ‘motor’ means ‘electric motor only’, but those contexts are not the whole world.
I knew an electrician who, if someone used the term ‘bulb’, would reply "Daffodil or Tulip? Or did you actually mean “‘lamp’?”. He was probably right in some limited context.