EVE Search - Tesla roadster: 14500 rpm, 0-60mph under 4s : Electric car Tech 2

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Tesla roadster: 14500 rpm, 0-60mph under 4s : Electric car Tech 2

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.10 10:57:00 - [1] Edited by: Splagada on 10/05/2008 11:00:13 I read this thinking "this could be the car our kids will remember as "first of a kind of all the cars we see around now"" http://www.teslamotors.com/ look in detail. the specs are quite nice :p theres a video on youtube showing a demo, quite nice $100k, for a first of a kind car it gives good hope about how "some" things could solve in a few years :) their website is interesting too edit : they really did a breakthrough on the engine, 200KW aint totally easy to deal with. 250 miles between recharges ------ Tides of Silence
lofty29 Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.10 11:02:00 - [2] As much as I think electric cars are a step in the right direction, it's still not particularly good. 220mile driving distance is poor. I couldn't visit relatives in it, let alone go on holiday. Until they make the driving distances a whole load further, then they wont replace petrol. Electricity also costs alot of fuel to produce, so we're still going to be burning oil to get it. Some different type of fuel has to be used. Hydrogen? Maybe, but it's not safe in a gas form, and fitting a cooler to a car which can make it liquid would be, uhm, interesting, and not particularly safe. Who knows. Maybe vegetable oil will be the future 族---族 Latest Video : Relentless
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.10 11:11:00 - [3] 220 is a good step. double that, and those cars will be all there i would think. 100k is the price of the top mercedes, and that's "doable" for the very rich dudes. this will go down for sure btw for many areas in europe 220 is fine but that 220 also pinpoints the last step : the energy storage. 500 kilos of batteries already in this :p looks ok too ! ------ Tides of Silence
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.10 11:35:00 - [4] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 10/05/2008 11:36:42 Originally by: lofty29 Electricity also costs alot of fuel to produce, so we're still going to be burning oil to get it. Some different type of fuel has to be used. Hydrogen? Maybe, but it's not safe in a gas form, and fitting a cooler to a car which can make it liquid would be, uhm, interesting, and not particularly safe. Who knows. Maybe vegetable oil will be the future Electricity is more efficient than gasoline in a car. That is to say the amount of fuel needed to move a car X-distance is more than the fuel used to generate the electricity to move a car that same distance. Not to mention you can use renewable sources such as solar, hydro, wind or geothermal to produce electricity. Or nuclear (not a renewable resource but abundant). As for hydrogen being unsafe it is not nearly as bad as people think. People seem blithely unaware of just how dangerous gasoline can be. Look what some fuel oil and fertilizer managed to do to the Oklahoma Federal Building. - Hydrogen has a higher ignition temperature than gasoline. - It is "light" so tends to dissipate quickly and because it is light it floats up and away from things (gasoline will fall to the ground and burn possibly spreading out under your car). - Hydrogen can be stored safely. Pressurized tanks are pretty tough. I've seen tests of them shrugging off bullets. Even if punctured they do not explode but rather vent through that little hole. - Hydrogen will not explode any more than gasoline does. You need oxygen to combine with it so you are not carrying a bomb. If the tank is punctured and set aflame you will get a jet of flame...not a boom. Just look at the Hindenburg disaster. It did not blow up but burned. Of course you need electricity to make hydrogen (or rather separate hydrogen from water...there is very little free hydrogen floating about and you need to pull it out of other things). As for vegetable oil I saw a guy on TV who has his own bio diesel "factory" in his backyard. He drives around to fast food restaurants and collects used cooking oil. With some processing he pumped the results into his unmodified car and off he went. The reporter said the exhaust smelled like french fries (really). -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
7shining7one7 Quafe Paladins	Posted - 2008.05.10 11:45:00 - [5] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h As for hydrogen being unsafe it is not nearly as bad as people think. People seem blithely unaware of just how dangerous gasoline can be. Look what some fuel oil and fertilizer managed to do to the Oklahoma Federal Building. awwwww.. look at how cute you are back to the topic yes interesting things will pop up in the near future.
Yao Shiu	Posted - 2008.05.10 12:29:00 - [6] biofuels from recycling (cooking oil for example) = great. however, with growing demands, and ill thought through targets from the west regarding them... Farming biofuels is beginning to cause great deforestation etc in 3rd world countries. car companies love biofuels, as they dont really need to do many modifications to their cars to be seen as "green". I think this electric car is a great step in the right direction. Hydrogen fuel cell cars as well, are essentially just electric cars with a different method of storing the electricity.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.10 12:34:00 - [7] That car does look pretty hot. Environmental issues aside, its a great car. 0-60 in 3.9, and a (safety limited) top speed of 125mph; thats similar acceleration to a Porsche 911, and a top speed far above anything else the electric car market has come up with. The range is a bit of a bugger, but all sports cars have a crappy range. ------ Originally by: Dark Shikari The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways.
lofty29 Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.10 12:38:00 - [8] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h As for hydrogen being unsafe it is not nearly as bad as people think. People seem blithely unaware of just how dangerous gasoline can be. Look what some fuel oil and fertilizer managed to do to the Oklahoma Federal Building. So a volatile gas floating around is nice and, uhm, safe? Petrol can be contained, hydrogen...not so much. 族---族 Latest Video : Relentless
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.05.10 12:59:00 - [9] There are very good reasons not to go with biofuels. Even if we planted virtually every scrap of arable land on the planet with them, it's unlikely that we'd be able to meet even a fraction of our fuel needs as well as producing a sufficient supply of food for the world's population. And that's before considering all sorts of ecological problems that would inevitably result. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Shirley Serious Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.05.10 13:16:00 - [10] Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro There are very good reasons not to go with biofuels. Even if we planted virtually every scrap of arable land on the planet with them, it's unlikely that we'd be able to meet even a fraction of our fuel needs as well as producing a sufficient supply of food for the world's population. And that's before considering all sorts of ecological problems that would inevitably result. I've heard that biofuels obtained from algae are far more promising than any land-based biofuel crop could ever hope to be. Something like yields at least one order of magnitude greater than the most productive land crop. So algae oil, yes, palm oil, no.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.10 14:06:00 - [11] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 10/05/2008 14:11:28 Originally by: lofty29 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h As for hydrogen being unsafe it is not nearly as bad as people think. People seem blithely unaware of just how dangerous gasoline can be. Look what some fuel oil and fertilizer managed to do to the Oklahoma Federal Building. So a volatile gas floating around is nice and, uhm, safe? Petrol can be contained, hydrogen...not so much. Sure. Hydrogen is non-toxic and safe to humans. Even if you vented a tank of hydrogen into the air it'd be out of your way in no time (see how fast a helium balloon takes off, hydrogen is even lighter) as well as diluted thoroughly in very short order. Then the hydrogen would be captured by other atoms/molecules and form other stuff or it would, literally, float off into space. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.10 14:08:00 - [12] Originally by: Shirley Serious Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro There are very good reasons not to go with biofuels. Even if we planted virtually every scrap of arable land on the planet with them, it's unlikely that we'd be able to meet even a fraction of our fuel needs as well as producing a sufficient supply of food for the world's population. And that's before considering all sorts of ecological problems that would inevitably result. I've heard that biofuels obtained from algae are far more promising than any land-based biofuel crop could ever hope to be. Something like yields at least one order of magnitude greater than the most productive land crop. So algae oil, yes, palm oil, no. I saw one estimate of an algae that could be vat grown. They said an area the size of the state of Maryland could provide all the fuel needs for the United States. Better still is since it is vat grown you can put it anywhere. Dump it in the desert where you would not grown anything anyway for instance. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.05.10 14:44:00 - [13] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 10/05/2008 14:31:38 Originally by: Shirley Serious Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro There are very good reasons not to go with biofuels. Even if we planted virtually every scrap of arable land on the planet with them, it's unlikely that we'd be able to meet even a fraction of our fuel needs as well as producing a sufficient supply of food for the world's population. And that's before considering all sorts of ecological problems that would inevitably result. I've heard that biofuels obtained from algae are far more promising than any land-based biofuel crop could ever hope to be. Something like yields at least one order of magnitude greater than the most productive land crop. So algae oil, yes, palm oil, no. I saw one estimate of an algae that could be vat grown. They said an area the size of the state of Maryland (~15,000 sq. miles) could provide all the fuel needs for the United States. Better still is since it is vat grown you can put it anywhere. Dump it in the desert where you would not grown anything anyway for instance. Somewhere with lots of sun and ready access to sea-water would be idea. Southern California springs to mind, and best of all, turning southern california into a vast complex of buildings containing oily green slime means that no-one would really notice any difference. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Haakon Jarl Caldari direkte	Posted - 2008.05.10 14:47:00 - [14] Theres a new elecytric car made by think which will be out soon I want one, but it will be expensive :( In it for the state
Mitch Manus Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.10 15:09:00 - [15] Bet it sounds **** though
Batwigg	Posted - 2008.05.10 15:09:00 - [16] Edited by: Batwigg on 10/05/2008 15:10:42 Originally by: lofty29 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h As for hydrogen being unsafe it is not nearly as bad as people think. People seem blithely unaware of just how dangerous gasoline can be. Look what some fuel oil and fertilizer managed to do to the Oklahoma Federal Building. So a volatile gas floating around is nice and, uhm, safe? Petrol can be contained, hydrogen...not so much. A volatile gas is no more dangerous than a volatile liquid. Less so, even. Hydrogen can be contained. As someone explained earlier, a punctured hydrogen tank will vent hydrogen, and even if you set that vent on fire, the whole thing will not blow up, but you will merely have a jet of fire out of the tank. There's a bunch of Hydrogen powered buses here in Iceland, and in crash tests they fared no worse than petrol cars. In fact, in the event of the tank being ruptured in a crash, it's safer than a petrol car's gas tank being ruptured. The hydrogen tank will not blow up unless the entire tank is spontaneously shattered and set on fire simultaneously - Which is even less likely than a car with a full gas tank going up in a fireball. When a conventional car is wrecked, it can leak petrol, which can catch fire as it spreads on the ground - When the same thing happens to a hydrogen car, the gas just dissipates rapidly. There's a bunch of issues with Hydrogen driven cars, but safety isn't one of them. The only thing that makes them not commercially viable on a large scale today is that the fuel cells are ludicrously expensive, as they must use platinum in certain bits to work - And there is not a lot of that stuff going around. As soon as they manage to make the fuel cells cheap and easily mass produced, hydrogen driven cars will be superior to conventional ones in every possible way.
Mitch Manus Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.10 17:24:00 - [17] Isn't hydrogen fueled cars just as bad for atmosphere though? In top gear mag there was a write up on the water vapour given off from hydrogen fuel cells contributes to greenhouse effect same as carbon dioxide, so it's rather pointless tbh Not as fast as petrol, and sounds alot ****ter to
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.05.10 17:49:00 - [18] Originally by: Mitch Manus Isn't hydrogen fueled cars just as bad for atmosphere though? In top gear mag there was a write up on the water vapour given off from hydrogen fuel cells contributes to greenhouse effect same as carbon dioxide, so it's rather pointless tbh Not as fast as petrol, and sounds alot ****ter to If water vapour was a greenhouse gas, we'd be living in something approximating Venus by now. There is SO MUCH water in the atmosphere, you wouldn't believe. What do you think clouds are made of? Now, the REAL reason that hydrogen fuel is not eco-friendly is that you need energy to make it. In fact, the energy you get out of burning the hydrogen must be strictly less than the energy spent producing it. That's because the most plentiful source of hydrogen on Earth is water. Electrolysis can separate the oxygen and hydrogen, but at more energy cost than the energy gained by burning it. (Assuming all energy transfer processes are strictly less than 100% efficient). So how will we obtain hydrogen fuel? By burning fossil fuels. Now, if we got rid of oil and gas burning power plants, and relied on solar/nuclear/etc energy, then it WOULD be eco-friendly. Okay, lecture over. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.10 21:17:00 - [19] Originally by: Mitch Manus Isn't hydrogen fueled cars just as bad for atmosphere though? In top gear mag there was a write up on the water vapour given off from hydrogen fuel cells contributes to greenhouse effect same as carbon dioxide, so it's rather pointless tbh Not as fast as petrol, and sounds alot ***ter to As much as I do love Top Gear, they've not exactly got a good record for accuracy on environmental issues. A reliable source with that would be nice. Water vapour can, technically, act as a green house gas. But it almost never does. One of the big reasons carbon dioxide and methane and such are so bad is that, once they're up in the atmosphere, they take a very long time to come back down again. Water vapour doesn't have that problem- once it goes up, it forms clouds, condenses, then rains back down again. There would have to be some serious evidence to show that the temporary green house effect caused by hydrogen cars' water vapour would be anywhere near as dramatic as the effect caused by carbon emitting oil-based cars. ------ Originally by:* Dark Shikari The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.05.10 21:37:00 - [20] Originally by: Mitch Manus Isn't hydrogen fueled cars just as bad for atmosphere though? In top gear mag there was a write up on the water vapour given off from hydrogen fuel cells contributes to greenhouse effect same as carbon dioxide, so it's rather pointless tbh Not as fast as petrol, and sounds alot ****ter to Breaking news: hydrocarbon fuels combust to: Carbon Dioxide Water CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.10 21:53:00 - [21] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Mitch Manus Isn't hydrogen fueled cars just as bad for atmosphere though? In top gear mag there was a write up on the water vapour given off from hydrogen fuel cells contributes to greenhouse effect same as carbon dioxide, so it's rather pointless tbh Not as fast as petrol, and sounds alot **ter to Breaking news: hydrocarbon fuels combust to: Carbon Dioxide Water For the record (before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick), there is a difference between a hydrogen fuel cell and a hydrocarbon fuel cell. A "perfect" hydrogen fuel cell produces water waste and nothing else. ------ Originally by:** Dark Shikari The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.05.10 22:01:00 - [22] Originally by: Malcanis Breaking news: hydrocarbon fuels combust to: Carbon Dioxide Water Actually, internal combustion engines produce Hydrocarbons (basically unburned fuel) Nitrogen Oxides Carbon Dioxide Carbon Monoxide Water Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons combine to form ozone (seen as smog). The carbon dioxide IS the major greenhouse gas. As for hydrogen fuel cells making water not sure how it is a concern. You have to break water apart to get the hydrogen. When hydrogen forms water again seems like all is in balance to me. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
Hellraiza666 Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.10 22:06:00 - [23] Originally by: Patch86 Originally by: Mitch Manus Isn't hydrogen fueled cars just as bad for atmosphere though? In top gear mag there was a write up on the water vapour given off from hydrogen fuel cells contributes to greenhouse effect same as carbon dioxide, so it's rather pointless tbh Not as fast as petrol, and sounds alot ***ter to As much as I do love Top Gear, they've not exactly got a good record for accuracy on environmental issues. A reliable source with that would be nice. Water vapour can*, technically, act as a green house gas. But it almost never does. One of the big reasons carbon dioxide and methane and such are so bad is that, once they're up in the atmosphere, they take a very long time to come back down again. Water vapour doesn't have that problem- once it goes up, it forms clouds, condenses, then rains back down again. There would have to be some serious evidence to show that the temporary green house effect caused by hydrogen cars' water vapour would be anywhere near as dramatic as the effect caused by carbon emitting oil-based cars. ye sorry, what i meant was that if every1 switchs from petrol to hydrogen fuel cells, there will be ALOT more water vapour given off, so either goin rain alot more, or contribute to greenhouse effect yes? or am i wrong
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.10 22:27:00 - [24] It's also worth pointing out that, if it did become apparent that the increase in humidity caused by hydrogen cars was causing trouble, it'd be a relatively simple process to fit a water-condensing piece of kit on the exhaust, turning the water back in to a liquid and potentially collecting it, for future controlled draining away. But thats a big "if". I've not seen any reliable evidence yet that water vapour caused by fuel cells would cause an even slightly comparable effect to the emissions from a standard car. ------ Originally by: Dark Shikari The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways.
Nomakai Delateriel Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.05.10 23:04:00 - [25] Originally by: lofty29 So a volatile gas floating around is nice and, uhm, safe? Petrol can be contained, hydrogen...not so much. Yes! A lighter-than-air gas is always pretty safe. It will vent and either create a nice contained blowtorch, or it will dissipate into the atmosphere. Unless you design your car completely wrong (so that it retains and captures gas) it's not a problem. For example you're far less likely to be burnt alive in a hydrogen powered car. Now flammable gas that is heavier than air...that **** is nasty. Petrol is pretty nasty too, but if the absolute nightmare for any fireman in the term of flammable stuff (barring crazy stuff like solid or liquid explosives) is Propane (common fuel for gas stoves) and Acetylen. Propane since it's heavier than air and ignites fairly easy. Responsible for some of the worst disasters and infernos in modern histories. Acetylen because the containers don't have a safety value (there is a fairly good reason for that, I can't remember which though. I haven't brushed up on my fireman training in over 7 years) and when heated there is an exothermic reaction that builds up pressure inside the tube. Thus the very heavy bottle can explode or blow off like a rocket (flying up to 300 meters up in the air, quite dangerous). Once the reaction has started there is pretty much nothing you can do to stop it except to try to keep it cool and (if possible) get a heavy calibre sniper and puncture the tube from a safe distance. As said, petrol is nasty (if you have live passengers trapped inside the vehicle it's bad since it stays on the scene and it's common and easily flammable. Watching someone burn to death is pure nightmare fuel), but at least it won't spread that far and you can easily soak it up with sand or foam it. ______________________________________________ -You can never earn my respect, only lose it. It's given freely, and only grudgingly retracted when necessary.
Frezik Basically Outdated Stereo Equiptment	Posted - 2008.05.11 00:45:00 - [26] Hydrogen is a terrible power source, though the real reasons have only been barely mentioned in this thread. No, hydrogen isn't particularly dangerous. Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas (many times more than CO2, in fact), but natural atmospheric processes will condense it back to liquid water very quickly. The problem is that hydrogen is only an energy source if you have a source of elemental hydrogen to start with. The best places to find that are gas giants and stars. If we have to split hydrogen from water (or even petroleum, which is where most of the elemental hydrogen currently comes from), it's not a power source because it takes more energy to split out the oxygen atom than you'll get back. Therefore, fuel cells are a form of battery. The problem is that in terms of energy density and efficiency, we already have far better batteries. Hydrogen will only make sense if, for example, a solar cell is invented that releases hydrogen rather than raw electricity. Otherwise, algae-based biodiesel looks like the best bet, but it's best to fund many different approaches. Then only one needs a breakthrough to solve the problem.
Nomakai Delateriel Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.05.11 01:07:00 - [27] Originally by: Frezik Therefore, fuel cells are a form of battery. The problem is that in terms of energy density and efficiency, we already have far better batteries. Actually liquid hydrogen storage devices have about 200-300% better J/kg ratio than anything but the most expensive (and thus not suitable for mass production) batteries. P.S: There are solar cells that release hydrogen. They're not all that efficient at the moment, but they're getting there. ______________________________________________ -You can never earn my respect, only lose it. It's given freely, and only grudgingly retracted when necessary.
Constantine Arcanum IMPERIAL SENATE Pure.	Posted - 2008.05.11 01:42:00 - [28] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Originally by: Mitch Manus Isn't hydrogen fueled cars just as bad for atmosphere though? In top gear mag there was a write up on the water vapour given off from hydrogen fuel cells contributes to greenhouse effect same as carbon dioxide, so it's rather pointless tbh Not as fast as petrol, and sounds alot ****ter to If water vapour was a greenhouse gas, we'd be living in something approximating Venus by now. There is SO MUCH water in the atmosphere, you wouldn't believe. What do you think clouds are made of? Now, the REAL reason that hydrogen fuel is not eco-friendly is that you need energy to make it. In fact, the energy you get out of burning the hydrogen must be strictly less than the energy spent producing it. That's because the most plentiful source of hydrogen on Earth is water. Electrolysis can separate the oxygen and hydrogen, but at more energy cost than the energy gained by burning it. (Assuming all energy transfer processes are strictly less than 100% efficient). So how will we obtain hydrogen fuel? By burning fossil fuels. Now, if we got rid of oil and gas burning power plants, and relied on solar/nuclear/etc energy, then it WOULD be eco-friendly. Okay, lecture over. Water vapour is in fact the 'worst' greenhouse gas.
Frezik Basically Outdated Stereo Equiptment	Posted - 2008.05.11 01:46:00 - [29] Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel Originally by: Frezik Therefore, fuel cells are a form of battery. The problem is that in terms of energy density and efficiency, we already have far better batteries. Actually liquid hydrogen storage devices have about 200-300% better J/kg ratio than anything but the most expensive (and thus not suitable for mass production) batteries. How much energy do expend keeping the hydrogen liquified?
Constantine Arcanum IMPERIAL SENATE Pure.	Posted - 2008.05.11 01:46:00 - [30] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Mitch Manus Isn't hydrogen fueled cars just as bad for atmosphere though? In top gear mag there was a write up on the water vapour given off from hydrogen fuel cells contributes to greenhouse effect same as carbon dioxide, so it's rather pointless tbh Not as fast as petrol, and sounds alot ****ter to Breaking news: hydrocarbon fuels combust to: Carbon Dioxide Water Breaking news: carbon monoxide and carbon too. Also hydrogen =/= hydrocarbon.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.