energy harvesters transform waste heat into electricity

[RandomGuy]

When I read this, the application to gasoline engines and hybrid cars seemed really obvious. Most of the energy from burning gasoline escapes as heat.

I also wonder if such a technology would be feasible to place on the condensor coils of A/C units.

Also the cooling towers from fuel burning power plants, to further suck energy out of that process.

Interesting applications, if so.

------------------------------------

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20110516-00

ORNL energy harvesters transform waste into electricity
OAK RIDGE, Tenn., May 16, 2011 — Billions of dollars lost each year as waste heat from industrial processes can be converted into electricity with a technology being developed at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The high-efficiency thermal waste heat energy converter actively cools electronic devices, photovoltaic cells, computers and large waste heat-producing systems while generating electricity, according to Scott Hunter, who leads the development team. The potential for energy savings is enormous.

"In the United States, more than 50 percent of the energy generated annually from all sources is lost as waste heat," Hunter said, "so this actually presents us with a great opportunity to save industry money through increased process efficiencies and reduced fuel costs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Initially, Hunter envisions the technology being used for cooling high-performance computer chips, thereby helping to solve an enormous problem facing manufacturers of petaflop-scale computers. These mega machines generate massive amounts of heat that must be removed, and the more efficient the process the better. Turning some of that heat into electricity is an added bonus.

Hunter's technology uses cantilever structures that are about 1 millimeter square in size. About 1,000 of these energy converters can be attached to a 1-inch square surface such as a computer chip, concentrated photovoltaic cell or other devices that generate heat. Although the amount of electricity each device can generate is small - 1 to 10 milliwatts per device - many arrays of these devices can be used to generate sizable amounts of electricity that can power remote sensor systems or assist in the active cooling of the heat generating device, reducing cooling demands.

The underlying concept, pyroelectricity, is based on the use of pyroelectric materials, some of which have been known for centuries. First attempts to use this technology to generate electricity began several decades ago, but these studies have been plagued by low thermal to electricity conversion efficiencies - from about 1 to 5 percent.

This is also the case for techniques using thermoelectric, piezoelectric and conventional pyroelectric platforms. However, using arrays of cantilevered energy converters that feature fast response and cycle times, Hunter's team expects to achieve efficiencies of 10 to 30 percent - depending on the temperature of the waste heat generator - in an inexpensive platform that can be fabricated using standard semiconductor manufacturing technology.

"The fast rate of exchange in the temperature across the pyroelectric material is the key to the energy conversion efficiency and high electrical power generation," Hunter said, adding that ORNL's energy scavenger technology is able to generate electrical energy from thermal waste streams with temperature gradients of just a few degrees up to several hundred degrees.

The device is based on an energy harvesting system that features a micro-electro-mechanical, or MEMS, pyroelectric capacitor structure that when heated and cooled causes current to flow in alternate directions, which can be used to generate electricity. In this configuration, cantilevers are attached to an anchor that is affixed to a waste heat generator substrate. As this substrate becomes hot, the cantilever also heats and bends because of the bi-material effect, similar in principle to the bimetal switch used in room and oven thermostats.

"The tip of the hot cantilever comes into contact with a cold surface, the heat sink, where it rapidly loses its heat, causing the cantilever to move back and make contact with the hot surface," Hunter said. "The cantilever then cools and cycles back to the cold heat sink.

"The cantilever continues to oscillate between the heat source and heat sink as long as the temperature difference is maintained between the hot and cold surfaces."

Other developers of this technology, which is funded by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program, are Nickolay Lavrik, Thirumalesh Bannuru, Salwa Mostafa, Slo Rajic and Panos Datskos. UT-Battelle manages ORNL for DOE's Office of Science.

[Winehole23]

Neat-o. :tu

[Drachen]

If they can make this device clear, then they can attach it to DarrinS' light bulbs and power another house!

[DarrinS]

If they can make this device clear, then they can attach it to DarrinS' light bulbs and power another house!

Original

[RandomGuy]

Original

C'mon man, even you have to admit that was kinda funny.

[Drachen]

Ok, got the jokes outta the way (but I agree, it was original AND funny). Since I have read this, I have just been coming up with more and more uses for this. What a technology! I mean, shit, throw this onto solar panels because PV operates more efficiently at lower temperatures, and you can increase the PV efficiency as well as adding another electricity stream.

[SnakeBoy]

This is awesome! This could change the world! Exciting stuff, I can't wait to tell my friends and family about it. Thanks for sharing!

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone know the cost/watt?

[ElNono]

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/94483_f260.jpg

[Drachen]

Anyone know the cost/watt?

Probably pretty high ATM I get the impression that this is relatively new.

[Wild Cobra]

Probably pretty high ATM I get the impression that this is relatively new.
No, it is very old technology. Unless a very significant breakthrough has occurred, this will never be a useful technology for normal power production. Even collecting auto exhaust heat will produce some power, but likely be lost in the resistance of cooling and extra weight. Commercial applications at the cooling end of turbine power generation would work, but at what cost to power?

wiki: Thermoelectric effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect); Thermopower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopower)


The Seebeck effect is the conversion of temperature differences directly into electricity and is named for German physicist Thomas Johann Seebeck, who, in 1821 discovered that a compass needle would be deflected by a closed loop formed by two metals joined in two places, with a temperature difference between the junctions. This was because the metals responded differently to the temperature difference, creating a current loop and a magnetic field. Seebeck did not recognize there was an electric current involved, so he called the phenomenon the thermomagnetic effect. Danish physicist Hans Christian Ørsted rectified the mistake and coined the term "thermoelectricity". The voltage created by this effect is on the order of several microvolts per kelvin difference. One such combination, copper-constantan, has a Seebeck coefficient of 41 microvolts per kelvin at room temperature.

The thermoelectric effect is sometimes used to generate electrical power, starting from a source of a temperature gradient. For example, some spacecraft are powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, exploiting the temperature difference between a radioactively-heated plate and the cold empty space surrounding the craft. Some researchers hope that, in the future, much wider use could be made of thermoelectric power generation, including using waste heat from automobiles (see Automotive Thermoelectric Generators) and power plants. (This is a form of energy recycling.)

To be produce usable electricity, the temperature difference at the junctions have to be dramatically different:

wiki: Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator)


RTGs can be considered as a type of battery and have been used as power sources in satellites, space probes and unmanned remote facilities, such as a series of lighthouses built by the former Soviet Union inside the Arctic Circle. RTGs are usually the most desirable power source for robotic or unmaintained situations needing a few hundred watts (or less) of power for durations too long for fuel cells, batteries, or generators to provide economically, and in places where solar cells are not practical. Safe use of RTGs requires containment of the radioisotopes long after the productive life of the unit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Cutdrawing_of_an_GPHS-RTG.jpg

Taken to the moon on Apollo 14:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/ALSEP_Apollo_14_RTG.jpg/601px-ALSEP_Apollo_14_RTG.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well its nice to see that WC did not even bother to read the article.


The device is based on an energy harvesting system that features a micro-electro-mechanical, or MEMS, pyroelectric capacitor structure that when heated and cooled causes current to flow in alternate directions, which can be used to generate electricity. In this configuration, cantilevers are attached to an anchor that is affixed to a waste heat generator substrate. As this substrate becomes hot, the cantilever also heats and bends because of the bi-material effect, similar in principle to the bimetal switch used in room and oven thermostats.

"The tip of the hot cantilever comes into contact with a cold surface, the heat sink, where it rapidly loses its heat, causing the cantilever to move back and make contact with the hot surface," Hunter said. "The cantilever then cools and cycles back to the cold heat sink.

"The cantilever continues to oscillate between the heat source and heat sink as long as the temperature difference is maintained between the hot and cold surfaces."

They are doping semiconductors and coupling it with a very basic mechanical device to maintain the oscillation thus the use of the term cantilever. Nanotechnology is neat stuff. Your nonsense of pressure relief devices, tubes and coils is not.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, I missed part of it. Still, my question remains. What is the cost/milliwatt.

[Drachen]

Yes, I missed part of it. Still, my question remains. What is the cost/milliwatt.

Probably more than coal at the moment, so we should probably stop pursuing it.

[Wild Cobra]

Probably more than coal at the moment, so we should probably stop pursuing it.
No, if it can potentially become a viable power, then pursue it. However, let the energy companies or wannabe energy companies develop it with their resources, and not tax payer dollars. If an investor sees a future for it, they will invest. If nobody is willing to gamble on the technology, why should tax dollars be used?

[LnGrrrR]

No, if it can potentially become a viable power, then pursue it. However, let the energy companies or wannabe energy companies develop it with their resources, and not tax payer dollars. If an investor sees a future for it, they will invest. If nobody is willing to gamble on the technology, why should tax dollars be used?

With thinking like this, we probably wouldn't have the internet. Don't you think that turned out to be a good use of taxpayer dollars?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, I missed part of it. Still, my question remains. What is the cost/milliwatt.

You are asking this when they are still developing the prototype? This just goes to show how amateur you are. I guess you want to be able to compare it to the those wonderful efficient natural gas boilers you love to tell us about. The more important question is what materials are used.

Diodes are cheap. Very cheap. Heatsinks for temperatures around boiling are cheap. The question is what the nature of the material to stretch the silicon base is. All of the other parts are dirt ass cheap and we can dope very small gaps very cheaply nowadays too.

I am more curious about whether they use a silicon alloy, tubes, films etc to achieve the bend.

That you are trying to get at efficiency at this point just goes to show how you miss the point.

Once you know how its made then you can predict voltages generated by how much it expands the gap and how much it will cost to acquire materials and manufacture. Then they can print a label so you can read the specs on the part.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, if it can potentially become a viable power, then pursue it. However, let the energy companies or wannabe energy companies develop it with their resources, and not tax payer dollars. If an investor sees a future for it, they will invest. If nobody is willing to gamble on the technology, why should tax dollars be used?

You are right all tax payer dollars should only go to proven technologies like coal and natural gas.

[Wild Cobra]

You are right all tax payer dollars should only go to proven technologies like coal and natural gas.
LOL...

That's right, Take me out of context whenever you can. Just shows your moral character, or should I say lack of.

I am on record for being against subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

With thinking like this, we probably wouldn't have the internet. Don't you think that turned out to be a good use of taxpayer dollars?
The internet is a spinoff from developing other technologies. Technology I used in the 80's. The internet was not financed to be created, at least not as I think you are implying.

[Drachen]

Before I just jump into "WC is a moron" mode please clarify "not financed to be created". Was all of that money spent on a thought experiment?

[Wild Cobra]

Before I just jump into "WC is a moron" mode please clarify "not financed to be created". Was all of that money spent on a thought experiment?
The internet was a spinoff of digital communications financed by AT&T and the military. I worked on digital packet switching frames that would strip any packet from a DS1 signal and place it on one of the other 119 DS1 channels prepacked, as an electronic technician before it was seen the technology could be used as what is now the internet. A DS1 is a 2.048 megabit circuit and we used it for T1 (1.544 mb) circuits. We also had equipment that handled T3 circuits.

I don't know who spent how much on developing the internet concept, but the backbone was already in place.

[Drachen]

The internet was a spinoff of digital communications financed by AT&T and the military. I worked on digital packet switching frames that would strip any packet from a DS1 signal and place it on one of the other 119 DS1 channels prepacked, as an electronic technician before it was seen the technology could be used as what is now the internet. A DS1 is a 2.048 megabit circuit and we used it for T1 (1.544 mb) circuits. We also had equipment that handled T3 circuits.

I don't know who spent how much on developing the internet concept, but the backbone was already in place.

I am going to highlight the important parts of your post.

BTW, if I remember correctly, it started out using radio communication tech in hawaii for military comm (I will confirm when I can). It didn't go wired until later.

[Trainwreck2100]

not putting money into innovation

ishyddt

[Wild Cobra]

I am going to highlight the important parts of your post.

BTW, if I remember correctly, it started out using radio communication tech in hawaii for military comm (I will confirm when I can). It didn't go wired until later.
The military simply used the same technology Ma Bell did, except they also encrypted the signals. AT&T was really who financed most the tech. The financing the military did do was for their use. Not to supplement a future concept for civilian applications.

[Drachen]

The military simply used the same technology Ma Bell did, except they also encrypted the signals. AT&T was really who financed most the tech. The financing the military did do was for their use. Not to supplement a future concept for civilian applications.


1975-1976: Computerization of the network begins as AT&T installs the world’s first digital electronic toll switch, the 4ESS® , in Chicago. This switch could handle a much higher volume of calls (initially 350,000 per hour) with greater flexibility and speed than the electromechanical switch it replaced.

I am trying to re-piece together a book my dad lent me several years ago about the origins of the internet (until he responds to my text message with the title), but AT&T resisted this tech and held out for a while as evidenced by the quote above from their corp history page.

[m>s]

hey was the book that your dad "lent" you written in english or chinese? :rolleyes:

[Drachen]

hey was the book that your dad "lent" you written in english or chinese? :rolleyes:

Thanks for your input in the thread Latarian Rogueton

[Wild Cobra]

Getting past those first switches used in the 70's for the analog signals and going to PCM 30, when the DACS frames were made, this is the technology that the internet was built upon. AT&T financed this work, and it continued to fiber optic bandwidths.

Please...

How did the government subsidize the internet?

[m>s]

Thanks for your input in the thread Latarian Rogueton
yeah sup bro, you know it is me cos im the only person here to ever ID you. you're a chink and you just admitted it tbh, and its evidential that you hate this country as most other chinks do

[Winehole23]

Thanks for your input in the thread Latarian RoguetonPerh. a variant of:

http://cdn1.newsone.com/files/2011/08/big_Latarian-Milton-101-310x186.jpg

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=latarian

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Getting past those first switches used in the 70's for the analog signals and going to PCM 30, when the DACS frames were made, this is the technology that the internet was built upon. AT&T financed this work, and it continued to fiber optic bandwidths.

Please...

How did the government subsidize the internet?

The US research/university system, DoD, and the government agencies themselves all say hello.

No one is saying that various communications and computer firms did not play a key role but you are being pretty obtuse to try and credit 'the internet' to analog switches that you worked on 30 years ago.

[Wild Cobra]

The US research/university system, DoD, and the government agencies themselves all say hello.

No one is saying that various communications and computer firms did not play a key role but you are being pretty obtuse to try and credit 'the internet' to analog switches that you worked on 30 years ago.
I was working with digital switches 30 years ago. PCM, PAM, RZ, NRZ, stuffing and destuffing bits, etc. Communications was not developed by the government, but the need for us humans to talk to one another, and it wasn't done with tax payer dollars. The military necessities only created a market for private corporations to sell to. Why do you libtards believe research and development needs government help? If there is a market for it, developers will create it. I guess you are a believer of supply side technology.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I was working with digital switches 30 years ago. Communications was not developed by the government, but the need for us humans to talk to one another, and it wasn't done with tax payer dollars.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was established in 1958 to prevent strategic surprise from negatively impacting U.S. national security and create strategic surprise for U.S. adversaries by maintaining the technological superiority of the U.S. military.

To fulfill its mission, the Agency relies on diverse performers to apply multi-disciplinary approaches to both advance knowledge through basic research and create innovative technologies that address current practical problems through applied research. DARPA’s scientific investigations span the gamut from laboratory efforts to the creation of full-scale technology demonstrations in the fields of biology, medicine, computer science, chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, material sciences, social sciences, neurosciences and more. As the DoD’s primary innovation engine, DARPA undertakes projects that are finite in duration but that create lasting revolutionary change.

MIT and UCLA were key. Various transfer protocols were developed by various firms including Bell Labs but TCP/IP/FTP were all not.

Your dumbing shit down again.

[Winehole23]

http://www.darpa.mil/our_work/

[Wild Cobra]

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was established in 1958 to prevent strategic surprise from negatively impacting U.S. national security and create strategic surprise for U.S. adversaries by maintaining the technological superiority of the U.S. military.

To fulfill its mission, the Agency relies on diverse performers to apply multi-disciplinary approaches to both advance knowledge through basic research and create innovative technologies that address current practical problems through applied research. DARPA’s scientific investigations span the gamut from laboratory efforts to the creation of full-scale technology demonstrations in the fields of biology, medicine, computer science, chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, material sciences, social sciences, neurosciences and more. As the DoD’s primary innovation engine, DARPA undertakes projects that are finite in duration but that create lasting revolutionary change.

MIT and UCLA were key. Various transfer protocols were developed by various firms including Bell Labs but TCP/IP/FTP were all not.

So?

That does not disagree with the points I'm making. I am simply saying that if there is a market for these energy harvesters in the free market, that the free market will finance the development. This is not something that should be tax payer subsidized. Then I was also saying that The internet is a spinoff of military applications, but was not designed and paid for by the government to be the internet.

Again, I am against subsidies. At least what little government money went to the research, was because there was military necessity. Not because some politician was trying to buy your vote with tax payers hard earned money.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Communications was not developed by the government, but the need for us humans to talk to one another, and it wasn't done with tax payer dollars.

DARPA is a private firm? MIT and UCLA? Or do they get grants and/or are fully funded by various government agencies.

You really are a clueless little fuckwad aren't you?

[Wild Cobra]

DARPA is a private firm? MIT and UCLA? Or do they get grants and/or are fully funded by various government agencies.

You really are a clueless little fuckwad aren't you?
My God man. You are a ridiculous joke. You keep sidetracking my point. Spending tax payer dollars on bonafide military needs is different that subsidizing non military applications just for feel good ideas.

Are you purposely missing my point, or are you really that stupid?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My God man. You are a ridiculous joke. You keep sidetracking my point. Spending tax payer dollars on bonafide military needs is different that subsidizing non military applications just for feel good ideas.

Are you purposely missing my point, or are you really that stupid?

You said that the government did not develop communications as if its this all or nothing. Ive quoted you. No one reading this is going to think youre right dumbfuck. There is a reason why people make fun of you all the time for being stupid. it doesn't come from nowhere.

[Wild Cobra]

You said that the government did not develop communications as if its this all or nothing. Ive quoted you. No one reading this is going to think youre right dumbfuck. There is a reason why people make fun of you all the time for being stupid. it doesn't come from nowhere.
Yopu cannot blame me for your assumptions, especially when i have said other things that prove I wasn't taking an all or nothing stance. That;s your weakness and stupidity. Think about my other threads. I often point out things are complex and there is seldom a single variable.

Why do you intentionally fond ways to misrepresent my words? Are you that obsessed with me?

[LnGrrrR]

The internet is a spinoff from developing other technologies. Technology I used in the 80's. The internet was not financed to be created, at least not as I think you are implying.

Uhmm... I'm talking about ARPANet. ARPANet is the granddaddy of the internet.

[LnGrrrR]

Yopu cannot blame me for your assumptions, especially when i have said other things that prove I wasn't taking an all or nothing stance. That;s your weakness and stupidity. Think about my other threads. I often point out things are complex and there is seldom a single variable.

Why do you intentionally fond ways to misrepresent my words? Are you that obsessed with me?

You seemingly had an all-or-nothing stance when you talked about government fnance of R&D.

[Wild Cobra]

Uhmm... I'm talking about ARPANet.
It's the same data switching AT&T was using as well that became the internet. Besides, I was speaking of the internet being a spinoff. Not financed just so politicians can lay claim they brought something new to consumers.

[LnGrrrR]

It's the same data switching AT&T was using as well that became the internet. Besides, I was speaking of the internet being a spinoff. Not financed just so politicians can lay claim they brought something new to consumers.

Uhm... no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet


The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet.


And the original point was that if we didn't fund R&D by the government to create ARPANet, we wouldn't have the internet as a "spinoff" of ARPANet.

[Wild Cobra]

You seemingly had an all-or-nothing stance when you talked about government fnance of R&D.
Bullshit. You cannot apply specific circumstances to apply to all.

What timeframe and instance are you talking about? This thread, or a past thread and issue?

[LnGrrrR]

WC, what year do you think AT&T created a packet switched network?

[LnGrrrR]

However, let the energy companies or wannabe energy companies develop it with their resources, and not tax payer dollars.

Hm... seems like you're completely against government dollars for R&D there. Reread it and tell me what you think it sounds like.

[Wild Cobra]

Hm... seems like you're completely against government dollars for R&D there. Reread it and tell me what you think it sounds like.
I am against it when it isn't necessary. The free market can develop this without tax dollars. It isn't anything of national importance, so there is no need to artificially speeds up development of possible advances.

Really now. Do you want the government to have it's tendrils in every aspect of our financial lives?

[LnGrrrR]

I am against it when it isn't necessary. The free market can develop this without tax dollars. It isn't anything of national importance, so there is no need to artificially speeds up development of possible advances.

Really now. Do you want the government to have it's tendrils in every aspect of our financial lives?

What is and isn't it necessary? For instance, was ARPANet necessary?

[Wild Cobra]

WC, what year do you think AT&T created a packet switched network?
I don't know, but I'm going to guess about 1980. 1982 at the latest, and possibly around 1972.

[Wild Cobra]

What is and isn't it necessary? For instance, was ARPANet necessary?
It seems to me the technology becoming the internet would have occurred without it. Digital packet switching was already in place. Commercial necessity would have ended up crating at least something very similar without the military needs.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know, but I'm going to guess about 1980. 1982 at the latest, and possibly around 1972.

So... considering that ARPANet first sent a successful message in 1969, why would you think that AT&T was the basis for the internet?

[Wild Cobra]

So... considering that ARPANet first sent a successful message in 1969, why would you think that AT&T was the basis for the internet?
Digital communications and long distance telephone communications.

Don't you get it? ARPANet was using the exact same data packet switching equipment the telephone companies were using. Now the military added cryptography for security reasons, but the technology was the same otherwise.

[LnGrrrR]

Digital communications and long distance telephone communications.

Don't you get it? ARPANet was using the exact same data packet switching equipment the telephone companies were using. Now the military added cryptography for security reasons, but the technology was the same otherwise.

So, you're saying that AT&T interconnected those packet switching devices into a network? Is that it? Before ARPANet, mind you?

[LnGrrrR]

And fwiw, the idea of devices passing information in discrete packets is much more important to the internet than "long distance communications".

[Wild Cobra]

And fwiw, the idea of devices passing information in discrete packets is much more important to the internet than "long distance communications".
True, but it is a natural step after time division multiplexing. It is also how digital voice gets routed from phone/city to city/phone.

[LnGrrrR]

True, but it is a natural step after time division multiplexing. It is also how digital voice gets routed from phone/city to city/phone.

Yes, I'm familiar with that, being an IT guy. :)

However, how do you get that Time division multiplexing leads to networking? Curious where you're gong with this.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, I'm familiar with that, being an IT guy. :)

However, how do you get that Time division multiplexing leads to networking? Curious where you're gong with this.
What I'm saying is that packets were a natural next step. We went from frequency division modulation (FDM), spacing voice channels 4khz apart packing as many as 1200 channels on a single analog carrier, to TDM, to packets. Digital allows more flexibility, and using packets over FDM adds to that flexibility, especially with the rates of data we can achieve now, allows almost limitless flexibility. TDM doesn't allow for the variable compression ratios of live uncompressed data. It is still assigned fixed time slices. Priority assignments are better managed with packets, and have no fixed time slices. It is simply more efficient to use packets than assign channels or time slots.

[Wild Cobra]

Curious where you're gong with this.
Just that the internet would have occurred without DARPA, which wasn't my original intent to bring up. Even if it did require DARPA to exist, any funding did not set out to create the internet. Again, a spinoff. What was it, about 1986 that congress allowed their protocols to be used commercially? Do you think other protocols wouldn't have otherwise been developed?

I started by pointing out that funding for this energy harvester shouldn't be subsidized. The discussion was sidetracked with this internet idea being subsidized.

[LnGrrrR]

Just that the internet would have occurred without DARPA, which wasn't my original intent to bring up. Even if it did require DARPA to exist, any funding did not set out to create the internet. Again, a spinoff. What was it, about 1986 that congress allowed their protocols to be used commercially? Do you think other protocols wouldn't have otherwise been developed?

My point was that government funding can be a) useful and b) have far-reaching positive effects.


I started by pointing out that funding for this energy harvester shouldn't be subsidized. The discussion was sidetracked with this internet idea being subsidized.

I don't think it's a sidetrack at all. What if we find some sort of "spinoff" project from researching this equipment?

[TDMVPDPOY]

seems like the back to the future car runnin on food waste

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, I'm familiar with that, being an IT guy. :)

However, how do you get that Time division multiplexing leads to networking? Curious where you're gong with this.

Its pretty obvious that to his pea-brain multiplexer = internet. He dumbs shit way way down. They are a series of fucking AND gates. They key was the logic that the routers required how the configured not the creation of an 8:1 mux. Hes stupid so its no point trying to explain more than that.

[LnGrrrR]

Surprised WC hasn't responded again in this thread.

[Phenomanul]

DARPA is a private firm? MIT and UCLA? Or do they get grants and/or are fully funded by various government agencies.

You really are a clueless little fuckwad aren't you?

Just one quick interjection...

Academic institutions (like MIT or UCLA) also receive huge endowments from the private sector... it's rather misrepresentative to suggest that the Government subsidizes all or most of the groundbreaking or transcendental work that is conducted at such institutions...

I believe WC's main point (tax dollars aside) is that he doesn't want technologies such as this one to be politically used to pander the masses... That statement alone is not outrageous... otherwise you end up with politicians like Gore claiming to "have invented the internet" for the sake of more votes... ("Awwww... look at this guy, he's made all of our lives better - he certainly is deserving of a shot at the White House..! I mean, he gave us the internet... THE INTERNET!!")

Now... back on topic, one of my professors was working on enhancing the thermoelectric effect of materials by coating them with perfectly aligned carbon nanotube filaments... in this application, based on what I read in the article, the coupling of both of these ideas might lead to an even larger gain in conversion efficiency (heat --> electricity).

Neat stuff...

[Agloco]

Now... back on topic, one of my professors was working on enhancing the thermoelectric effect of materials by coating them with perfectly aligned carbon nanotube filaments... in this application, based on what I read in the article, the coupling of both of these ideas might lead to an even larger gain in conversion efficiency (heat --> electricity).


Giant thermoelectric effect in graphene

http://apl.aip.org/resource/1/applab/v91/i20/p203116_s1?isAuthorized=no

:tu


Neat stuff...

Indeed

[ElNono]

ARPANet was the originator... then there was X.25 built upon it, which I believe is what Cobra is talking about. Not surprised he doesn't know what he's talking about either.

At any rate, back on topic, the energy conversion mechanism this is built upon isn't really new, what's new is the ability to miniaturize it enough so the volume actually can add up to something usable.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, I'm familiar with that, being an IT guy. :)

However, how do you get that Time division multiplexing leads to networking? Curious where you're gong with this.

He doesn't want to admit anything good comes out of government research.

[RandomGuy]

I believe WC's main point (tax dollars aside) is that he doesn't want technologies such as this one to be politically used to pander the masses... That statement alone is not outrageous... otherwise you end up with politicians like Gore claiming to "have invented the internet" for the sake of more votes... ("Awwww... look at this guy, he's made all of our lives better - he certainly is deserving of a shot at the White House..! I mean, he gave us the internet... THE INTERNET!!")
Neat stuff...

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

:nope

[Phenomanul]

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

:nope

Leave it to you to take a pretty obvious, and noted, "sarcastic" remark as the central argument in my post.

Your linked article doesn't change the fact that Al Gore's comment was still rather self-serving... all for what? political posturing?...

Most anyone with a basic understanding of the internet's potential would have supported initiatives to strengthen its infrastructure... Gore was basically claiming his insight was unique... by proxy he continues to assert that the 'internet' as we know it would have taken a different route if not for his 'key role' in pushing forward those technology initiatives which hit his desk, or those that he sponsored...

He didn't even pen those initiatives down (as they were initiatives proposed by the great communications companies of the 80's and 90's - mainly AT&T and Bell)...

[Phenomanul]

Either way, I'm more interested in the development of the technology itself rather than where its funding is coming from...

[boutons_deux]

"how do you get that Time division multiplexing leads to networking"

The entire rational of TDM, eg X.25, is to share a communications medium, eg, a network.

iow, the desire to share ( very expensive) network led to TDM as a network sharing technique.

btw, when France Telecom implemented X.25 in early 70s, they verified their network using San Antonio's Datapoint X.25 box, as being the best, most compliant X.25 implementation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Either way, I'm more interested in the development of the technology itself rather than where its funding is coming from...

This is the point that I am trying to get to. When markets do not get needed technology researched or infrastructure built for whatever reason then that is when government steps in.

It was true when Eisenhower built the highways, Roosevelt building power grids in rural areas, AIDS research when it was widely thought that it was only contracted by homosexual sex, space exploration, particle physics and all manner of works.

Our US energy and technology policy is in shambles precisely because of a powerful lobby and their sycophants such as WC. Our power grid is fucked, has been fucked and will continue to be fucked. We are falling behind in chemistry and physics research because of the cancelling of projects in the 1990s. AIDS research was delayed a good 10 years because of antigay sentiment. The list goes on.

No one is saying that all tech needs to be researched with government funding but an intelligent focused approach only makes sense rather then lets just hope the magic market fixes everything nonsense that is perpetrated by the dumbfuck sycophants.

[RandomGuy]

Leave it to you to take a pretty obvious, and noted, "sarcastic" remark as the central argument in my post.

Your linked article doesn't change the fact that Al Gore's comment was still rather self-serving... all for what? political posturing?...

Most anyone with a basic understanding of the internet's potential would have supported initiatives to strengthen its infrastructure... Gore was basically claiming his insight was unique... by proxy he continues to assert that the 'internet' as we know it would have taken a different route if not for his 'key role' in pushing forward those technology initiatives which hit his desk, or those that he sponsored...

He didn't even pen those initiatives down (as they were initiatives proposed by the great communications companies of the 80's and 90's - mainly AT&T and Bell)...

That is a bit more of a fair criticism. Thank you.

[RandomGuy]

Either way, I'm more interested in the development of the technology itself rather than where its funding is coming from...

I agree completely.

I would also add that funding for the types of basic research that may never be directly commercially useful, but furthering human knowledge is something I consider important.

Private industry generally won't pony up funds for this kind of stuff, as they are looking for next quarter's or next years profit margin, so it falls to governments to do that.

[LnGrrrR]

"how do you get that Time division multiplexing leads to networking"

The entire rational of TDM, eg X.25, is to share a communications medium, eg, a network.

iow, the desire to (very expensive) network lead to TDM as a network sharing technique.

btw, when France Telecom implemented X.25 in early 70s, they verified their network using San Antonio's Datapoint X.25 box, as being the best, most compliant X.25 implementation.

I can understand what you're saying, but you're not really invalidating my comment unless you're saying that X.25/TDM is more intrinsic to the creation of the internet than ARPANet was.

[Wild Cobra]

I can understand what you're saying, but you're not really invalidating my comment unless you're saying that X.25/TDM is more intrinsic to the creation of the internet than ARPANet was.
It only supports my contention that our internet is the natural evolution of our communications network.

[LnGrrrR]

It only supports my contention that our internet is the natural evolution of our communications network.

Not really. BD isn't very clear... in the first comment he seems to support your idea, in the second, he says that TDM was wanted due to people wanting networks (meaning TDM came after networks ie ARPANet).

And saying that the internet was a "natural evolution" is somewhat surprising... if it was so natural, why didn't a private enterprise come up with it first? It's akin to saying, "The wheel is a precurser to the boat, because after people traveled on land they decided to travel on water."

[Wild Cobra]

Not really. BD isn't very clear... in the first comment he seems to support your idea, in the second, he says that TDM was wanted due to people wanting networks (meaning TDM came after networks ie ARPANet).

And saying that the internet was a "natural evolution" is somewhat surprising... if it was so natural, why didn't a private enterprise come up with it first? It's akin to saying, "The wheel is a precurser to the boat, because after people traveled on land they decided to travel on water."
LOL...

Do I need to find some tube multiplexers using TDM?

I don't know if they exist, but tube FDM multiplexers do.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, if you think that TDM lead to networking inexorably, then why didn't any private citizens see that opportunity first?

[boutons_deux]

My bet is that material/chemical breakthrough with nanotech will provide huge increases in joules/volume for batteries, and sunlight used to convert CO2 and H2O directly into oxygen and hydrogen for fuel cells.

If we'd stopping pouring $Ts into shitty oil countries and military gargbage but rather into deep research, we could fix a lot of problems instead of allowing UCA to keep sucking us dry by exploiting those problems, redistributing wealth to themselves.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, if you think that TDM lead to networking inexorably, then why didn't any private citizens see that opportunity first?
What do you mean?

There was plenty of corporate investment. Are you saying that the government was the only investor?

I tried finding a history on TDM. TMI on the internet. I did find TDM was first used in 1870, but not how we think of it today.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It only supports my contention that our internet is the natural evolution of our communications network.

smh. Muxes were a tool used in the design but the mux does not have a natural evolution pattern. All ALU's use muxes so you might as well claim that all of the modern computer industry's innovations are beholden to whoever you think designed the mux. BTW that wasn't Bell Labs.

Combinational logic is so far beyond the simplicity of a conglomeration of ANDs and an OR

[LnGrrrR]

What do you mean?

There was plenty of corporate investment. Are you saying that the government was the only investor?

I mean, why didn't civilians do it on their own, without government help? If the advance of networking was obvious after the creation of TDM, why didn't any civilians get together and build a proprietary internet?

[Wild Cobra]

I mean, why didn't civilians do it on their own, without government help? If the advance of networking was obvious after the creation of TDM, why didn't any civilians get together and build a proprietary internet?
I don't know, but if there is a working design, why not use it?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know, but if there is a working design, why not use it?

You miss my point. If it was an obvious transition from TDM to packet-based networks, why didn't a civilian company jump on it before the government? And if government work is usually more inefficient, even if they started at the same time, the civilian company should've been able to put out a better/faster product, correct?

[Wild Cobra]

You miss my point. If it was an obvious transition from TDM to packet-based networks, why didn't a civilian company jump on it before the government? And if government work is usually more inefficient, even if they started at the same time, the civilian company should've been able to put out a better/faster product, correct?
Can't say for sure, but it seems the government may have had use for it before the public wanted it.

[LnGrrrR]

Can't say for sure, but it seems the government may have had use for it before the public wanted it.

Maybe because of its size, the government can look more at long-term projects that might not immediately have a payout. Would you say that's fair?

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe because of its size, the government can look more at long-term projects that might not immediately have a payout. Would you say that's fair?
Absolutely.

Maybe the internet would have taken longer to develop, but in the early 90's, it was nothing to get excited over anyway. Only since the late 90's were we really able to get good use out of it. We really need the speed of out computers to make it work, and I would say it wasn't till we broke 500 mhz that it became useful. At least for me. Not so much for the home commuter speed as much as the server speeds also available.

I remember playing searching on the internet with my 25 mhz 68040 Amiga A4000 that I bought in October 1992. The internet existed before that, but I didn't bother until I installed I-Browse. So few sites, so little information.

[LnGrrrR]

Absolutely.

Maybe the internet would have taken longer to develop, but in the early 90's, it was nothing to get excited over anyway. Only since the late 90's were we really able to get good use out of it. We really need the speed of out computers to make it work, and I would say it wasn't till we broke 500 mhz that it became useful. At least for me. Not so much for the home commuter speed as much as the server speeds also available.

I remember playing searching on the internet with my 25 mhz 68040 Amiga A4000 that I bought in October 1992. The internet existed before that, but I didn't bother until I installed I-Browse. So few sites, so little information.

Ok, so I think you're finally getting to my point. The government can invest in these long-term projects, that don't have an obvious payoff, because they are the government. In many cases, there may not come a payoff. But in some cases, like ARPANet, the payoff was incredibly great.

So, we can agree that in some cases, the government is better suited to fund research into an area of study that commerical/private companies wouldn't, correct?

[Wild Cobra]

Ok, so I think you're finally getting to my point. The government can invest in these long-term projects, that don't have an obvious payoff, because they are the government. In many cases, there may not come a payoff. But in some cases, like ARPANet, the payoff was incredibly great.

So, we can agree that in some cases, the government is better suited to fund research into an area of study that commerical/private companies wouldn't, correct?
You are sidestepping my point. This is a spinofff that was not intended. I'm talking about intentional research and funding for projects the free market can accommodate.

[LnGrrrR]

You are sidestepping my point. This is a spinofff that was not intended. I'm talking about intentional research and funding for projects the free market can accommodate.

The spinoff is the point. The government is the only one with the means to research such a big project without any form of immediate payout.

And it's a big disingenuous to argue that the internet was an unintended spinoff. I don't see how you can say that TDM was an obvious precursor to the network, but ARPANet wasn't an obvious precursor to the internet.

Now, the people who came up with it had no idea how ubiquitous the internet would become, but you seem to imply that there was no point/benefit to packet-based networks in the first place.

The potential of networking wasn't realized until decades later... most companies don't have the capability to look that long-term. When it comes to "green" technologies, the government can afford to step in, because there's a possibility of unexpected advantages producred years later.

[Wild Cobra]

The spinoff is the point. The government is the only one with the means to research such a big project without any form of immediate payout.

But the internet was not the intended development financed.

I would have been completely against this if the government set out to create the internet back the.

It's called a spinoff for a reason.

As for government research f8unds... Yes, it they were the only ones whop could handle it, and it was something we needed. Not desired, but needed.

Do we need the internet? We did just fine before it.


And it's a big disingenuous to argue that the internet was an unintended spinoff. I don't see how you can say that TDM was an obvious precursor to the network, but ARPANet wasn't an obvious precursor to the internet.

Technology keeps advancing. If ARPNet didn't exist, I think you can bet something similar would have been developed.


Now, the people who came up with it had no idea how ubiquitous the internet would become, but you seem to imply that there was no point/benefit to packet-based networks in the first place.

I never said no such think. I said packet switching was a natural evolution. This would have happened at some point with or without the military.


The potential of networking wasn't realized until decades later... most companies don't have the capability to look that long-term. When it comes to "green" technologies, the government can afford to step in, because there's a possibility of unexpected advantages producred years later.

Can afford to step in?

No fucking way. We are in a spiraling debt as it is.

So it would have taken longer for initial development of the internet. So what. I don't More money will naturally be put into green technology as a profit in the future can be seen on the horizon.

Are you someone who cannot live without the internet? I lived without it most my life. It's no big deal.

Back to spending tax dollars on green technology.

What if we spend all this money, make people use it saying it will be revenue neutral in 5 years, and it never is. What if we put ourselves in a position that it becomes another black hole of spending.

Keep in mind. The government is seldom the solution, and almost always the problem.

[LnGrrrR]

But the internet was not the intended development financed.

It grew organically off the back of networking, but yes, it wasn't the "intended" development. I would argue that the intended development, a packet-switching network, is important enough to justify the spending in the first place.


I would have been completely against this if the government set out to create the internet back the.

Why would you be against the government creating an internet, but for them creating a network?


It's called a spinoff for a reason.

That's how R&D works though WC. If you got what you wanted everytime, there'd be no need for RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT.


As for government research f8unds... Yes, it they were the only ones whop could handle it, and it was something we needed. Not desired, but needed.

Do we need the internet? We did just fine before it.

Ha! That's like saying we don't need cars, because people were fine with horses and buggies. When the base network drops here, 95% of people can't do their work.


Technology keeps advancing. If ARPNet didn't exist, I think you can bet something similar would have been developed.

But ARPANet WAS first... and America created it. As such, America was one of the first to benefit from said knowledge. It's one reason why we've got a relatively robust cyber architecture.


I never said no such think. I said packet switching was a natural evolution. This would have happened at some point with or without the military.

Packet switching from TDM is no more a "natural evolution" than the internet is from networking.


So it would have taken longer for initial develpoment. So what.

Let's throw some more hypotheticals in here:

So China came up with the world's best fighter plane, so what? Somebody would've eventually.

So England came up with a radically more effective way to treat cancer? So what, somebody would've eventually.

Etc etc. My point is, by doing the research ourselves, we gain access to said information earlier. What if we didn't bother to research, say, nuclear technology?


Are you someone who cannot live without the internet? I lived without it most my life. It's no big deal.

You absolutely have no idea how important networks (not necessarily the internet, but networks) are to modern day companies.

[LnGrrrR]

Can afford to step in?

No fucking way. We are in a spiraling debt as it is.

Didn't you say that America needed to keep manufacturing jobs?


So it would have taken longer for initial development of the internet. So what. I don't More money will naturally be put into green technology as a profit in the future can be seen on the horizon.

You're missing the long term picture. Look at the bankers with the bailout. Now, would've it have made more sense long-term to be responisble and do what was best for the company by not taking risky ventures.

But almost all the parties involved did what could make them money for the short-term. Why do you think that is?


What if we spend all this money, make people use it saying it will be revenue neutral in 5 years, and it never is. What if we put ourselves in a position that it becomes another black hole of spending.

Sometimes R&D doesn't work out. That's the point.


Keep in mind. The government is seldom the solution, and almost always the problem.

Yet, sometimes the government can provide a solution.

[Wild Cobra]

You disappoint me. What are you, a socialist? Maybe a communist?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You disappoint me. What are you, a socialist? Maybe a communist?

Who gives a fuck who disappoints you? You wouldn't know a true socialist if they bit you in your ass. Its not black and white, socialist or not, you pigeonholing dimwit.

ARPA developed a protocol intentionally as they were directed to which was direct government funding. The universities and research foundations were funded by DoD, NSI and the publically owned schools and their endowments. In 1992 when you did not think that there was much going on in the IP world, those organizations had vast domains up sharing info across the country. They just did not give random dimwits like yourself access to that data.

They started farming out IP addresses to people who gave public access and voila you got in.

If anything what this shows is that government and private businesses working together can come up with highly successful projects as both the private and public sectors contributed into what we have today.

[LnGrrrR]

You disappoint me. What are you, a socialist? Maybe a communist?

-------


Maybe because of its size, the government can look more at long-term projects that might not immediately have a payout. Would you say that's fair?


Absolutely.


------

You agreed with my earlier premise. Do you or do you not think that the government's research into networks was valid?

[LnGrrrR]

WC, do you think R&D always comes up with exactly what they were looking for?

[Wild Cobra]

WC, do you think R&D always comes up with exactly what they were looking for?
Absolutely not. Generally more things are created or invented than intended.

Again, it is not the government responsibility to provide for us. If that's what you believe, then move to some other country. Maybe get out of the military and pay the proper taxes for your income and benefits should you be able to find a job that provides as well as you have now for a standard of living. You probably pay so little in taxes. With your housing, separate rations, and COLA if you get it... Only you base pay being taxable... What did you say you are? E-6 and married? If you made the same comparable living and paid taxes on all your income, you would like pay $20k a year in taxes or more. Maybe then you would be more concerned about government feel good programs that unnecessarily spend tax dollars.

Base pay for my years and rank is more than double now, from what it was in 1992 when I got out. $1420 to $2947. Back then, I figured I had to have a job that paid over $18 per hr. to have the same net income after taxes when you add the pay I received added to my base pay that was not taxable.

How much per hour would you have to make to break even on net income after taxes if you left the military? How much would you end up paying in taxes? Would you then care every time they wanted to change the tax code? How would eliminating the "Bush tax Cuts" affect you?

Most people just don't realize how good people in the military have it. What's sad is most in the military don't even realize it, till they get out.

[LnGrrrR]

Who said anything about the government providing for us? I think that government interest in long-term projects that may not have short-term value can be a good idea.

And I realize the benefits of the military, that's one of the reasons I've stayed in. Did you stay in the full 20?

[Wild Cobra]

Who said anything about the government providing for us? I think that government interest in long-term projects that may not have short-term value can be a good idea.
"May have"

Sorry, I want something necessary before we spend tax dollars on it. Not desired, but necessary.

I think you keep missing that point.

And I realize the benefits of the military, that's one of the reasons I've stayed in. Did you stay in the full 20?
E-5 at 11 years. My MOS was such a sweet gig, we had a saying. You didn't make E-6 till someone died or retired.

When the cold war ended, my job was outsourced to civilian contract as the security concerns were downgraded, and it was fixed station. Half the assignments were on Air Force bases which really sweetened the deal for my MOS. I could have stayed in, buy I didn't see a MOS that was available that I liked. They gave me more than $28k as a separation bonus. My MOS was 26V, which was later reclassified as 29V.

Have you ever considered how much more in taxes you would pay working a civilian job, at an income high enough to have the same net income after taxes? I'd be curious how much that would be. Like I said, it was over $18/hr for me in 1992.

[LnGrrrR]

"May have"

Sorry, I want something necessary before we spend tax dollars on it. Not desired, but necessary.

Do you think that networks were necessary when they were developing ARPANet?


When the cold war ended, my job was outsourced to civilian contract as the security concerns were downgraded, and it was fixed station. Half the assignments were on Air Force bases which really sweetened the deal for my MOS. I could have stayed in, buy I didn't see a MOS that was available that I liked. They gave me more than $28k as a separation bonus. My MOS was 26V, which was later reclassified as 29V.

Have you ever considered how much more in taxes you would pay working a civilian job, at an income high enough to have the same net income after taxes? I'd be curious how much that would be. Like I said, it was over $18/hr for me in 1992.

Have you ever wished you stayed 20? And yes, I realize how much more I'd have to make. Thankfully, with my experience, education, and military background, I should be able to make a decent wage on the outside.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, do you think R&D always comes up with exactly what they were looking for?
Let me add something. For four years, I worked at a company that did rapid research and development. So many patents, so many new procedures, and the pathway to GHZ rated microprocessors.

[LnGrrrR]

Let me add something. For four years, I worked at a company that did rapid research and development. So many patents, so many new procedures, and the pathway to GHZ rated microprocessors.

Exactly WC, but you never would have found those spinoffs if you didn't engage in the R&D in the first place.

[Wild Cobra]

Exactly WC, but you never would have found those spinoffs if you didn't engage in the R&D in the first place.
The private sector is capable. Stop belittling us by implying we need tax dollars and government assistance.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you think that networks were necessary when they were developing ARPANet?
That specific system? Maybe. You have to remember, there were at least 1/2 dozen other similar projects going on at the time. Some were completely private ventures.

Have you ever wished you stayed 20? And yes, I realize how much more I'd have to make. Thankfully, with my experience, education, and military background, I should be able to make a decent wage on the outside.
At times.

With annual cost of living increases, I could have easily retired E-6 at 20 in 2001. Today's equivalent retirement would be an additional $1766/month income today. Not enough to comfortable live on, but that would be a nice supplemental to my current income.

Still, impossible to know what my current job possibilities would be today. In 1994, I had the best break of my life. It gave me the experience and qualifications I have today. Never would have had that break without the military, but never would have had that job if i stayed in for 20.

If i stayed in for 30, that would have been 9/8/2011. 75% would give me $2650/month on top of any job I could find today.

[LnGrrrR]

That specific system? Maybe. You have to remember, there were at least 1/2 dozen other similar projects going on at the time. Some were completely private ventures.

So what was necessary about the government getting into networking? Especially if private companies were already doing so? I'm pretty sure that if you were around in the 60's and caught wind, you'd be railing against that as much as you are here.

I think finding ways to squeeze extra power out are useful things for our government to run R&D on, as that technology could have great payoffs.


With annual cost of living increases, I could have easily retired E-6 at 20 in 2001. Today's equivalent retirement would be an additional $1766/month income today. Not enough to comfortable live on, but that would be a nice supplemental to my current income.

Still, impossible to know what my current job possibilities would be today. In 1994, I had the best break of my life. It gave me the experience and qualifications I have today. Never would have had that break without the military, but never would have had that job if i stayed in for 20.

If i stayed in for 30, that would have been 9/8/2011. 75% would give me $2650/month on top of any job I could find today.

I really don't think staying in 30 years is worth it, unless the economy is extremely poor. I've still got 8 to go, so we'll see.

[boutons_deux]

I heard on NPR this morning that the avg enlisted retires at 39, the officer at 46.

The story was about the best city for military to retire. SA was only about 4th or 5th.

[LnGrrrR]

I heard on NPR this morning that the avg enlisted retires at 39, the officer at 46.

The story was about the best city for military to retire. SA was only about 4th or 5th.

What were the other cities? Just curious.

And 39 makes sense for enlisted... most tend to join after high school.

[Wild Cobra]

You keep asking questions and it's getting to things I don't know. If you want a history lesson, that's beyond me. Ask someone else.

[LnGrrrR]

You said you'd only support government research if it was necessary. Do you think that it was necessary for governments to invest money into R&D for networks, given what you said about private companies already trying to tackle that area?

If you can't honestly answer because you don't know whether it was considered necessary, would you be willing to admit you might not realize the necessity of investing in energy solutions today?

[Wild Cobra]

You said you'd only support government research if it was necessary. Do you think that it was necessary for governments to invest money into R&D for networks, given what you said about private companies already trying to tackle that area?

If you can't honestly answer because you don't know whether it was considered necessary, would you be willing to admit you might not realize the necessity of investing in energy solutions today?
During the cold war, better and secure military communications was a necessity. Need I say more?

[LnGrrrR]

During the cold war, better and secure military communications was a necessity. Need I say more?

During a period where more and more countries are using up more and more natural resources (see China), better means of capturing energy are a necessity. Need I say more?

[boutons_deux]

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Norfolk, Virginia
Richmond, Virginia
Austin, Texas
San Antonio, Texas
Madison, Wisconsin
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Raleigh, North Carolina
Omaha, Nebraska
Manchester, New Hampshire

https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/enterprise_retirement_best_places_landing?adID=VUR L_bestplaces

[LnGrrrR]

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Norfolk, Virginia
Richmond, Virginia
Austin, Texas
San Antonio, Texas
Madison, Wisconsin
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Raleigh, North Carolina
Omaha, Nebraska
Manchester, New Hampshire

https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/enterprise_retirement_best_places_landing?adID=VUR L_bestplaces

Thanks BD! Manchester isn't too far from my home, I'll have to dig into that article to see why they think it's a good retirement area.

[boutons_deux]

heating oil is supposed to be very expensive this winter. So those far-north cities would that as a negative. heating with oil must be more expensive than cooling with coal or nuclear in the sunbelt?

[boutons_deux]

more govt "wasting taxpayer $$":

The Coolest New Solar Manufacturing Technology You’ve Never Heard Of

The Optical Cavity Furnace is a new piece of equipment for making solar cells that is about to rock the photovoltaic industry by slashing costs and increasing efficiency. The news should not just excite tech nerds—by reducing the cost of producing solar cells by nearly three-quarters, this new technology represents another big step on the path to making clean energy the cheap kind of energy. Here’s how it works. By using optics to more efficiently focus visible and infrared light, the Optical Cavity Furnace can heat silicon wafers used in solar cell production much more precisely and uniformly than previous forms of solar cell manufacture. The resulting solar cells are stronger, more efficient, and have fewer impurities.

The National Renewable Energy Lab, or NREL, the DOE office responsible for the research, and a corporate partner AOS Inc. are now working to bring this technology to scale.

The partners plan to build an industrial-scale Optical Cavity Furnace capable of producing 1,200 highly efficient solar cells per hour. NREL has cooperative research agreements with many of the country’s biggest solar cell producers.

http://www.altenergymag.com/stories/2011/11/the-coolest-new-solar-manufacturing-technology-you%E2%80%99ve-never-heard-of/420

[Drachen]

During a period where more and more countries are using up more and more natural resources (see China), better means of capturing energy are a necessity. Need I say more?

I feel like the world has turned into a great big episode of the transformers. We need to find more and newer ways to produce energon cubes.

[boutons_deux]

Energy efficiency pushed to extremes is the cheapest, most immediate path to "create" energy (that will not be available if efficiency isn't increased. Crushing energy prices will be widespread, and the energy corps will love it and do everything they can to hasten those $Ts of profits).

[boutons_deux]

Natural gas and coal electric utility CEO on Solar: In “3 to 5 Years You’ll Be Able to Get Power Cheaper from the Roof of Your House Than From the Grid”

CEO of NRG Energy: The fundamental issue of our day [is] climate change…. The people who were opposed to climate change legislation used one of two tactics. They either said, “Well, we don’t believe it’s happening.” Which, of course, is just a bald-faced lie.

Or the second part of the one/two punch is, “We can’t afford to do anything about it because a synonym for the word “green” is “expensive.” But looking forward, electric vehicles will be far cheaper to operate than internal combustion engine vehicles. And solar panels on the roof will provide power more cheaply than taking power from the grid.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/13/366764/utility-ceo-solar-cheaper-grid/

[RandomGuy]

Natural gas and coal electric utility CEO on Solar: In “3 to 5 Years You’ll Be Able to Get Power Cheaper from the Roof of Your House Than From the Grid”

CEO of NRG Energy: The fundamental issue of our day [is] climate change…. The people who were opposed to climate change legislation used one of two tactics. They either said, “Well, we don’t believe it’s happening.” Which, of course, is just a bald-faced lie.

Or the second part of the one/two punch is, “We can’t afford to do anything about it because a synonym for the word “green” is “expensive.” But looking forward, electric vehicles will be far cheaper to operate than internal combustion engine vehicles. And solar panels on the roof will provide power more cheaply than taking power from the grid.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/13/366764/utility-ceo-solar-cheaper-grid/

The cost per installed kWh has been going down in a pretty steady fashion since the invention of PV.

Had some stalling as demand was taxing supply, but module costs continue to drop.

[boutons_deux]

http://files.technologist.geblogs.com/technologist/files/2011/03/graph.jpg

http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/declining-cost-per-watt-solar

the silicon costs will keep declining,meaning the costs of the rack, inverters, batteries, meters, labor will begin to dominate. And of course if you want batteries to go off grid, they're not moving down much.

I talked with a SA PV installer last week who said his company is booked solid through the end of the year as people want to get the 30% Federal tax credit.

[Wild Cobra]

I talked with a SA PV installer last week who said his company is booked solid through the end of the year as people want to get the 30% Federal tax credit.
I hate tax credits. Maybe this one should be phased out. Drip it 5% per year. 25%. 20%. 15%, etc. till it's zero.

[boutons_deux]

HyperSolar Discovers Method to Make Renewable Natural Gas Using Solar Power

HyperSolar, Inc., the developer of a breakthrough technology to make renewable natural gas using solar power, today announced that it has filed a patent application for the production of renewable natural gas using sunlight, water and carbon dioxide. This renewable natural gas is a clean, carbon neutral methane gas that can be used as a direct replacement for traditional natural gas to power the world, without drilling or fracking, while mitigating CO2 emissions.

Using advanced nanotechnology, HyperSolar intends to eliminate the harmful aspects of extracting natural gas and preserve its existing delivery infrastructure and economy by fundamentally changing the source of natural gas from underground to above ground. The company intends to do this by creating natural gas above ground using sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, in a renewable and sustainable manner.

http://www.altenergymag.com/news/2011/11/15/hypersolar-discovers-method-to-make-renewable-natural-gas-using-solar-power/22158

====

See, I said nanotech was the key to some real (solar) energy breakthroughs. One or a couple of these breakthroughs will be tranformative.

Weakness? Water is an input, and probably a very pure if not distilled water, so there is energy consumed purifying the water. We have/can capture Ms of tons of polluting green house gas CO2.

[Wild Cobra]

HyperSolar Discovers Method to Make Renewable Natural Gas Using Solar Power[/url]

====

See, I said nanotech was the key to some real (solar) energy breakthroughs. One or a couple of these breakthroughs will be tranformative.

Weakness? Water is an input, and probably a very pure if not distilled water, so there is energy consumed purifying the water. We have/can capture Ms of tons of polluting green house gas CO2.
Deionized water isn't too expensive if you have your own filtering setup. It is cheaper and more pure than distilled water.

Now, in my opinion, this is the type of technology that has a future. No need for large scale low efficiency processes. We already have gas appliances in many homes, and it is easily stored.

It wouldn't surprise me if this company is all privately funded rather than getting millions from the government.

Maybe they took my idea:

I wonder how difficult a task it would be to uses solar electricity and convert 2(H2O) + CO2 to CH4 + 2(O2)? If we extract the carbon from the air to begin with, we would have no fear of adding to it when we burned it. We already have storage and pipelines in place for natural gas. just add this to the system. (http://www.thescienceforum.com/environmental-issues/23989-ammonia-economy-nh3-instead-h.html#post278121)

[LnGrrrR]

So would you support government R&D into those types of projects, or grant money for private companies that developed prototypes?

[Wild Cobra]

So would you support government R&D into those types of projects, or grant money for private companies that developed prototypes?
Hell no.

It isn't needed. There are plenty of capital venturists who will finance worthwhile projects.

[LnGrrrR]

Hell no.

It isn't needed. There are plenty of capital venturists who will finance worthwhile projects.

True, but one of the advantages in the government funding something is that they can ask the private company to look into more specific lines of tech that might benefit them, as well as having an 'inside track' to the tech.

[Wild Cobra]

True, but one of the advantages in the government funding something is that they can ask the private company to look into more specific lines of tech that might benefit them, as well as having an 'inside track' to the tech.
Sorry, I do not trust bureaucrats to make good decisions. It isn't their money, and they have no fucking accountability. I trust more, those who have skin in the game.

[boutons_deux]

but you trust blindly the govt to start wars for oil and spend $1.5T/year on the American UCA Empire and spend $Bs on bullshit research for military crap.

[Wild Cobra]

but you trust blindly the govt to start wars for oil and spend $1.5T/year on the American UCA Empire and spend $Bs on bullshit research for military crap.
I'm sorry if you are that deluded to think that's my position.

[boutons_deux]

you're not sorry at all, and you adore the can-do-wrong MIC

distilled water, even just any water, is a critical input to the HyperSolar conversion, certainly at the large scale needed for HS conversion to contribute to renewable energy.

[Wild Cobra]

distilled water, even just any water, is a critical input to the HyperSolar conversion, certainly at the large scale needed for HS conversion to contribute to renewable energy.
Are you under the assumption there isn't enough water to do such a task?

[boutons_deux]

looks like they have addressed the relentlessly worsening problem of global water shortages

"Instead of using pure water, a very expensive starting point, we are optimizing our technology to work with wastewater containing organic molecules of all kinds, such as municipal and industrial wastewater. Our process photo-oxidizes (detoxifies) wastewater to simultaneously produce molecular hydrogen and clean water. Waste steams containing acids, such as hydrogen bromide and hydrogen chloride from industrial facilities, can be processed to produce pure bromine and chlorine, which are valuable and marketable byproducts."

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, I do not trust bureaucrats to make good decisions. It isn't their money, and they have no fucking accountability. I trust more, those who have skin in the game.

The problem with that is that you then limit yourself to the drawbacks/advantages of our own corporate system.

Ask just about any CEO or executive about how focused most companies are on the short term, and short term returns.

Long term investments, the kind that pay massively over the long run don't get made, and you get a sub-optimal result where people are worse off than they would have been had you made the investment.

Nothing you have said offers anything that overcomes this criticism. Merely repeating "government bad, private sector good" like some kind of mantric security blanket may make you feel good and all, but if you can't do anything beyond repeat cliches, you aren't really presenting us with a viable policy solution.

How do you overcome this shortcoming of our private sector in selecting R & D funding?

[Wild Cobra]

The problem with that is that you then limit yourself to the drawbacks/advantages of our own corporate system.

Ask just about any CEO or executive about how focused most companies are on the short term, and short term returns.

Long term investments, the kind that pay massively over the long run don't get made, and you get a sub-optimal result where people are worse off than they would have been had you made the investment.
How wrong you can be without knowing.

Corporations often only look quarter to quarter, but venture capitalists aren't trying to please stock holders.

[coyotes_geek]

The problem with that is that you then limit yourself to the drawbacks/advantages of our own corporate system.

Ask just about any CEO or executive about how focused most companies are on the short term, and short term returns.

Long term investments, the kind that pay massively over the long run don't get made, and you get a sub-optimal result where people are worse off than they would have been had you made the investment.

Nothing you have said offers anything that overcomes this criticism. Merely repeating "government bad, private sector good" like some kind of mantric security blanket may make you feel good and all, but if you can't do anything beyond repeat cliches, you aren't really presenting us with a viable policy solution.

How do you overcome this shortcoming of our private sector in selecting R & D funding?

Sorry, but this is a bunch of garbage. Any company who depends on R&D to produce new products who also thinks quarter to quarter isn't going to be in business very long.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry, but this is a bunch of garbage. Any company who depends on R&D to produce new products who also thinks quarter to quarter isn't going to be in business very long.
He thinks he knows everything but doesn't.

I have worked for one very large corporation and a smaller company that did very good in research, not only caring about quarter to quarter, but knowing the future was key.

Random...

Why do you stereotype everyone and everything?

[boutons_deux]

How wrong you can be without knowing.

Corporations often only look quarter to quarter, but venture capitalists aren't trying to please stock holders.

venture capitalists ARE stock holders :lol :lol

[RandomGuy]

How wrong you can be without knowing.

Corporations often only look quarter to quarter, but venture capitalists aren't trying to please stock holders.

Venture capitalists look at three year time horizons for returns.

That does not answer my question.

How do you propose to solve the mitigate the problem that valuable things might not be researched because our system has such a short time horizon for research to pay for itself?

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, but this is a bunch of garbage. Any company who depends on R&D to produce new products who also thinks quarter to quarter isn't going to be in business very long.

Find a company that invests in projects with "payback" periods longer than 10 years.

quarter to quarter is not how R & D is directed, granted.

Most of it is pretty short term, and very limited. Companies are, rightfully so, risk-averse, even if the potential benefit is huge.

[RandomGuy]

He thinks he knows everything but doesn't.

I have worked for one very large corporation and a smaller company that did very good in research, not only caring about quarter to quarter, but knowing the future was key.

Random...

Why do you stereotype everyone and everything?

I would feel better about your analysis, were you involved in the funding decisions.

Were you involved in the funding decisions?

[Agloco]

.....and another thread devolves into a "Govt vs Private Sector Financed" argument. We thank you once again WC.

[coyotes_geek]

Find a company that invests in projects with "payback" periods longer than 10 years.

quarter to quarter is not how R & D is directed, granted.

Most of it is pretty short term, and very limited. Companies are, rightfully so, risk-averse, even if the potential benefit is huge.

Pretty much the entire biotech industry is involved in projects that have payback periods longer than 10 years. A 10 year time horizon on a capital investment isn't all that long a period of time, be it for R&D, a new facility or anything else a company chooses to invest in. When an oil company decides to invest in a refinery, their time horizon is probably closer to 40 years. In my industry, transportation infrastructure, we'll look at a project out to 50 years.

An industry like tech may not be looking out that far given how rapidly things change in that industry. Even then, I can guarantee you it took Apple a hell of a lot longer than a couple of quarters to get the iphone to market.

[LnGrrrR]

Sorry, I do not trust bureaucrats to make good decisions. It isn't their money, and they have no fucking accountability. I trust more, those who have skin in the game.

You trusted them in 2003. :)

[Wild Cobra]

You trusted them in 2003. :)
No, I agreed with them. Not quite the same thing. It's those of you who trusted them without your own solid opinion back then, who are now bitter about Iraq.

[LnGrrrR]

No, I agreed with them. Not quite the same thing. It's those of you who trusted them without your own solid opinion back then, who are now bitter about Iraq.

So you knew we were going to be in Iraq for 8 years or so? Neato.

[Wild Cobra]

So you knew we were going to be in Iraq for 8 years or so? Neato.
Ever think about becoming a journalist?

Spin... spin... spin...

When's the last time you checked your integrity?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I agreed with them. Not quite the same thing. It's those of you who trusted them without your own solid opinion back then, who are now bitter about Iraq.

You agreed with them but did not trust them? I bring up critical thinking constantly for very good reason. The above is a monumentally stupid statement.

[Wild Cobra]

You agreed with them but did not trust them? I bring up critical thinking constantly for very good reason. The above is a monumentally stupid statement.
Only in your biased mind.

I agreed with the action over there, that does not mean I trust politicians, even when they agree with me. I don't get let down by them because I know better than to expect them to do the right thing all the time. For you to twist that, is your own problem. Not mine.

[LnGrrrR]

Ever think about becoming a journalist?

Spin... spin... spin...

When's the last time you checked your integrity?

WC, you've openly admitted your biased against liberals, so I'm not sure you should rail on me about "integrity". If you thought that we would only be in Iraq a few years and it would be easy, then you trusted the government. If you knew they were wrong, and knew it was going to last ten years but thought it was worth it, then you supported a government that was either a) stupid or b) lying. Take your pick which of those three options you prefer. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Only in your biased mind.

I agreed with the action over their, that does not mean I trust politicians, even when they agree with me. I don't get let down by them because I know better than to expect them to do the right thing all the time. For you to twist that, is your own problem. Not mine.

Thats not a very good chain of events.

They wanted to send men off to war, you didn't trust them and you went along with the idea anyway? We really did not need much more proof that you have no business with anything resembling responsibility.

They sure did fuck Colin Powell good on that one too. He would be the GOP golden boy right now if the Bush Administration had not made him look the fool. Whoops!

[Drachen]

HyperSolar Discovers Method to Make Renewable Natural Gas Using Solar Power

HyperSolar, Inc., the developer of a breakthrough technology to make renewable natural gas using solar power, today announced that it has filed a patent application for the production of renewable natural gas using sunlight, water and carbon dioxide. This renewable natural gas is a clean, carbon neutral methane gas that can be used as a direct replacement for traditional natural gas to power the world, without drilling or fracking, while mitigating CO2 emissions.

Using advanced nanotechnology, HyperSolar intends to eliminate the harmful aspects of extracting natural gas and preserve its existing delivery infrastructure and economy by fundamentally changing the source of natural gas from underground to above ground. The company intends to do this by creating natural gas above ground using sunlight, water and carbon dioxide, in a renewable and sustainable manner.

http://www.altenergymag.com/news/2011/11/15/hypersolar-discovers-method-to-make-renewable-natural-gas-using-solar-power/22158

====

See, I said nanotech was the key to some real (solar) energy breakthroughs. One or a couple of these breakthroughs will be tranformative.

Weakness? Water is an input, and probably a very pure if not distilled water, so there is energy consumed purifying the water. We have/can capture Ms of tons of polluting green house gas CO2.

this is the cool thing about this company called Joule Unlimited. They have created a type of algae which combined with water, sunlight and Carbon can be made to produce diesel, (and with different strains) heating oil, jet fuel, etc. They have made it in the lab, they are building a mini plant here in Texas to prove that it can scale up. The greatest part of this is that they can use brackish water, waste water, etc to make it. We've got TONS of brackish water and even if we didn't they could put a natural gas plant next to a desalination plant, next to one of these "farms". The Natural gas plant could produce power to for a city (and the desalination plant), then the carbon from the Ngas plant and the brackish water from the desalination process could feed the Joule Unlimited plant to make diesel.

Check it, Yo!
http://www.jouleunlimited.com/video/story.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

this is the cool thing about this company called Joule Unlimited. They have created a type of algae which combined with water, sunlight and Carbon can be made to produce diesel, (and with different strains) heating oil, jet fuel, etc. They have made it in the lab, they are building a mini plant here in Texas to prove that it can scale up. The greatest part of this is that they can use brackish water, waste water, etc to make it. We've got TONS of brackish water and even if we didn't they could put a natural gas plant next to a desalination plant, next to one of these "farms". The Natural gas plant could produce power to for a city (and the desalination plant), then the carbon from the Ngas plant and the brackish water from the desalination process could feed the Joule Unlimited plant to make diesel.

Check it, Yo!
http://www.jouleunlimited.com/video/story.html

Thi is going to be fun if its not controlled, its allowed to get out and is able to reproduce easily.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, you've openly admitted your biased against liberals, so I'm not sure you should rail on me about "integrity". If you thought that we would only be in Iraq a few years and it would be easy, then you trusted the government. If you knew they were wrong, and knew it was going to last ten years but thought it was worth it, then you supported a government that was either a) stupid or b) lying. Take your pick which of those three options you prefer. :lol
Hey there Mr. Spin...

I didn't say they were wrong.

[LnGrrrR]

Hey there Mr. Spin...

I didn't say they were wrong.

Well, it's pretty obvious they were. Has the war paid for itself? No. Were we out in a matter of a few years? No.

So, did you know they were lying at the time but figured it needed to be done anyways? Or did you trust them about the above statements?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, it's pretty obvious they were. Has the war paid for itself? No. Were we out in a matter of a few years? No.

So, did you know they were lying at the time but figured it needed to be done anyways? Or did you trust them about the above statements?
OK, Yes, you can find something they were wrong about that. My mistake for jumping to the conclusion thinking you meant the thinks you always talk about, other than the real examples.

[LnGrrrR]

OK, Yes, you can find something they were wrong about that. My mistake for jumping to the conclusions you always talk about other than the real examples.

So, given that they were wrong, did you trust the government when they said those things? Or did you think/know they were wrong/lying?

[Wild Cobra]

So, given that they were wrong, did you trust the government when they said those things? Or did you think/know they were wrong/lying?

My God, how many times over the last few years have we been over this?

I agree with the actions taken against Saddam and his government. Refer to past threads.

[LnGrrrR]

My God, how many times over the last few years have we been over this?

I agree with the actions taken against Saddam and his government. Refer to past threads.

Did you or did you not believe the government when they said a) the oil itself would pay for the war and b) the war would be over in a matter of a few years? Simple question, really.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you or did you not believe the government when they said a) the oil itself would pay for the war and b) the war would be over in a matter of a few years? Simple question, really.
No, I was skeptical about that. I will ignore any farther sissy fits by you in this thread. If you wish to continue about the war, bring back a past thread or create a new one. We have contaminated this thread enough.

[LnGrrrR]

No, I was skeptical about that. I will ignore any farther sissy fits by you in this thread. If you wish to continue about the war, bring back a past thread or create a new one. We have contaminated this thread enough.

Sissy fits? You're the one calling me out; I'm asking rather simple questions that you keep trying to avoid.

Funny that you supported a government action by people who stated things that you didn't trust.

[Wild Cobra]

Sissy fits? You're the one calling me out; I'm asking rather simple questions that you keep trying to avoid.

Funny that you supported a government action by people who stated things that you didn't trust.

I will ignore any farther sissy fits by you in this thread. If you wish to continue about the war, bring back a past thread or create a new one. We have contaminated this thread enough.

[DMC]

My problem with taxpayer funding of this kind of research is that, once it's developed, it's patented by some private entity who charges the shit out of the taxpayer to use it. So the private entity gets free R&D.

[Wild Cobra]

My problem with taxpayer funding of this kind of research is that, once it's developed, it's patented by some private entity who charges the shit out of the taxpayer to use it. So the private entity gets free R&D.
I think we have some common ground in that aspect.

I believe that if tax payer dollars are used for research, then that research should have no patent holder, and is allowed to be used as public access.

Maybe we need to have such a legal distinction made. It would make corporations less willing to accept government money, wouldn't it.

[DMC]

I think we have some common ground in that aspect.

I believe that if tax payer dollars are used for research, then that research should have no patent holder, and is allowed to be used as public access.

Maybe we need to have such a legal distinction made. It would make corporations less willing to accept government money, wouldn't it.
It might, but someone would just say "nope, we didn't find anything" as their spinoff corporation in Taiwan unveils their latest invention.,

[boutons_deux]

One solution to our current mess is that research and production and commercialization should be separated, rather than integrated.

eg, for drugs (assuming that shit ever works better than placebo or nothing or diet+exercise), a research group comes up with a product, the govt reviews it thoroughly before deciding to pay for (very expensive) clinical/field trials.

If the product works, then the govt pays the research group a fee of perhaps several $Bs (could be spread of a few years), and the govt owns the patent. The research group would not get any other compensation (eg, from licensing fees).

The govt then competitively sub-contracts the production (much like BigPharma does now) with contractual, audited limits on the producers' profit margins.

Sellers would buy the product FOB the factory, with the govt setting the price to provide the contractual margin to the producer.