Reply With Quote
What do you think would be a good percentage of an energy company's budget to be spent on R&D?
am I a ing scientist?
Way to dodge the question, you are running away
A new large funded project could develop new tech.
you don't seem to believe in science
I've made quite a good living as an engineer for the past 25 years.
I just think Faraday's prinicple of induction is very practical. That's why we've used it for so long.
What do you think would be a good percentage of an energy company's budget to be spent on R&D?
yeah I've read about the algae, it's interesting BUT
it still creates an industry in which people have to pay for fuel.
I'd rather science take the next leap already and create an engine that is completely self-sufficient and only requires maintenance.
one less thing for citizens to have to waste money on
but why are you singling out an amateur (me) unimportant examples of a much bigger problem? really, are you trolling? cause you can't be serious.... my examples were just shooting the to give an idea of what scientists should come up with. for all I know, it will have NOTHING to do with electricity.
Do you not believe that science can discover a new form of energy production?
conflict of interest.
Private corporations will NEVER allow their R&D departments to develop a technology that does not benefit them financially.
they will tell them to stop and focus on a more "financially lucrative" path.
the government has to do it, or we have to wait a long time until some genius in his spare time surprises the world again.
There will always be SOME kind of fuel, regardless of engine design. If memory serves, I think a perpetual motion machine violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
That's why scientists don't waste their time trying to create one.
Why would it not benefit them financially if they were successful?
Energy companies DO spend money on R&D. Just not all that much.
When it comes to innovation, the govt's track record isn't quite as good as the private sector.
It wouldn't be perpetual motion, though.
For instance.
Nuclear reactors last for about 30+ years before they need to be refueled.
That's 30 ing years.
Scientists can come up with another way to produce energy that lasts a long time like that.
Once again completely dodging the main question.
Is it your stance that a private corporation will waste resources to develop tech that does not benefit them financially?
No, a private company won't settle for a negative rate of return. That's how govt does business.
I understood. The last part of my earlier response:
With the intensity of lightning, I was pointing out the relatively small power from what people think it is. Scale that down to how small? How insignificant is any power you can now generate?Regardless, in a control chamber, you will get less power out than you put into it.
Yes, the never ending quest for a perpetual motion machine.
Does it run on unobtainium?
nuclear power is self-sufficient and nuclear power plants go unmanned for days at a time. it also lasts a very very very long time.
no perpetual motion garbage here.
You still misunderstood his whole point. He didn't say that we should mobilize legions of scientists, funding, etc. in order to create a miniature thunderstorm underneath the hood of a car. He said that we should mobilize legions of scientists, funding, etc. in order to create a new energy source/method of producing energy. Oh and in addition to that he has always wondered about the possibility of creating a miniature thunderstorm underneath the hood of the car (for EXAMPLE). Y'all are trying (and succeeding, he did mention he isn't a scientist, he is just letting his imagination wander) to discredit the thunderstorm part and completely ignoring the actual important part: Funding research into new means/methods of producing energy.
At the end of the day, even nuclear power heats water to spin turbines that, in turn, drive generators.
When you guys come up with a means to generate power that doesn't involve Faraday's principle of induction, let me know.
Otherwise, all this talk of "lightning in a bottle" is just childlike fantasy.
We should use nuclear power. It's the greenies that hate it.
"nuclear power is self-sufficient"
total BULL
The moon has something. I just know it.
Agreed. Why hasn't something been initiated along those lines? If not the government then some company that can then market it and make oodles of money off the new technology. Let's face it most companies wont fund research unless there is a profit to be had. And I can't blame then for that.
Answer: Moneyand lots of it.
From memory at the time and I haven't been able to find a link to it or the inventors names but I did read about the following:
So what if the auto industry came out with an engine that gets approx. 84 mpg / no sparks plugs / 100.000 miles per oil change that fits a auto body the size of the old Mercury Capri? Though based on gasoline wouldn't that at least help the situation? Call it a stop gap/transitionary type of situation. Not a permanent solution but one that will at least buy some more time in order to invent/ make economically feasible other types of energy.
Well back in the late '70s - I think '78 - '79 - two inventors in Florida did just that. And they tried to peddle it to the government. A senator even road in it and thought it a great idea. For $6K they would renovate your existing auto and and the savings on gas and tuneups would pay for itself over time. And since the USA had just gone through an energy crisis in '74 with gas lines and such it was an idea that seemed to have promise. Unfortunately they dieappeared as rapidly as they came onto the scene. The scuttlebutt was that the auto industry bought them out for somewhere in the vicinity of $100 Million or so. Ford, GM and Mercedes Benz were all supposed buyers. That technoligy never hit the market. Many in favor of it stated that the auto indusrty couldn't afford for it to be available and just bought the rights to it and them promptly shelved it. The loss in auto parts sales and tuneups alone were calculated to be substantial.
That is an example of why business won't do someting just for the sake of the enviroment or humanity for that matter. There must be a financial gain for business to either fund or pursue it. Or if thay did such a thing then they have come to a conclusion that theie very existence as a business depends on it. That's why they are in "business".
Greedy but and unfortunate aspect yet neccessary driving force to capitalism. Or at least up to this point in history.
I agreee that the statement isn't quite true in terms of absolutes but nuclear power through fusion - that based on hydrogen or its isotopes - is the most efficient form of energy in the universe. Has little waste and is the most abundent element available anywhere. The universe is made up of 70%+ of hydrogen IIRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_plant:
Fusion power advocates commonly propose the use of deuterium, or tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also lithium and boron. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[60] Although this process has yet to be realized, many experts and civilians alike believe fusion to be a promising future energy source due to the short lived radioactivity of the produced waste, its low carbon emissions, and its prospective power output.
Since the oil crisis of the '70s I have always been an advocate of nuclear power. Initially due to the fact that I believed in weening the USA off of foreign energy resources but as time progressed the enviromental impact it would have on both the USA and the world.
Exactly, and this is a crime against humanity imo.Agreed. Why hasn't something been initiated along those lines? If not the government then some company that can then market it and make oodles of money off the new technology. Let's face it most companies wont fund research unless there is a profit to be had. And I can't blame then for that.
Answer: Money
From memory at the time and I haven't been able to find a link to it or the inventors names but I did read about the following:
So what if the auto industry came out with an engine that gets approx. 84 mpg / no sparks plugs / 100.000 miles per oil change that fits a auto body the size of the old Mercury Capri? Though based on gasoline wouldn't that at least help the situation? Call it a stop gap/transitionary type of situation. Not a permanent solution but one that will at least buy some more time in order to invent/ make economically feasible other types of energy.
Well back in the late '70s - I think '78 - '79 - two inventors in Florida did just that. And they tried to peddle it to the government. A senator even road in it and thought it a great idea. For $6K they would renovate your existing auto and and the savings on gas and tuneups would pay for itself over time. And since the USA had just gone through an energy crisis in '74 with gas lines and such it was an idea that seemed to have promise. Unfortunately they dieappeared as rapidly as they came onto the scene. The scuttlebutt was that the auto industry bought them out for somewhere in the vicinity of $100 Million or so. Ford, GM and Mercedes Benz were all supposed buyers. That technoligy never hit the market. Many in favor of it stated that the auto indusrty couldn't afford for it to be available and just bought the rights to it and them promptly shelved it. The loss in auto parts sales and tuneups alone were calculated to be substantial.
That is an example of why business won't do someting just for the sake of the enviroment or humanity for that matter. There must be a financial gain for business to either fund or pursue it. Or if thay did such a thing then they have come to a conclusion that theie very existence as a business depends on it. That's why they are in "business".
Greedy but and unfortunate aspect yet neccessary driving force to capitalism. Or at least up to this point in history.
Human scientific progress is stunted. A better way of living for the world's population, with less stress, less wars, will never be achieved with the current model of GREED.
It has to change. Only people with $$$ can change anything. In this case, the government has to do it, because the rich will not.
Nikola Tesla was going into amazing fields of science, but he had to depend on a ing greedy businessman to finance him, JP Morgan.
Once JP Morgan found out that he could not make money off the inventions Tesla was planning, he pulled funding.
It doesn't matter that HUMANITY would benefit, he doesn't give a .
These type of "human beings" we call businessmen are the s of planet earth. They seek profits from EVERYTHING, including deaths and WAR such as the Military-Industrial Complex.
and in my opinion, we need to reform capitalism.
This is a fest we are living in, a black age just as bad as the Middle ages that was stunted by religious fanaticism.
atomic weapons and moon shots aside....
The government can do things that private investors can't:
Spend money on basic research that might be of limited profitability in the short term.
Nuclear reactors have always required massive government subsidies to be built, and no nuclear power plant in the US has ever been built for LESS than 200% more than original estimates.
As for 30 years between refueling: Link?
I am fairly sure that is incorrect.
battleships nuclear reactors go 30 years before refueling
however,
standard nuclear power plants go about 3 years before refueling.
still a long ing time.
scientific progress is taking a back seat to commercial profitability. it has to end...
Though I wouldn't call them the s of the earth they are a product of our human evolution. Regardless of what people think our species is evolving towards a more humane view of people. IMO. There will be a lot of bumps in the road but if you just look at the last thousand or so years there has been tremendous progress in how we treat others, ilrespective of the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos...etc that have come and gone. Life spans have increased dramatically and the standard of living under capitalism is the highest in recorded human history. We, as a species, seem to take baby steps when it comes to dramatic changes in lifestyles and/or views of life. It took Christianity almost 300 years to become the established - not prosecuted - religion in the Roman Empire and only because Constantine thought it would bring him a military victory.
Slavery was probbably the second oldest ins ution (pros ution being the oldest) on earth prior to it being looked upan as evil starting back around 500 years or so. Great Britian became the first European nation to outlaw it in 1833 but if you look at the great empires in histroy, particularly the Roman one, they couldn't have been built or expanded as far as they did without slavery. They just wouldn't have had the manpower to do the things they did without slaves. Even the Bible never really spoke out against it and Paul spoke to slaves about their being obedient to their earthly masters (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-25). That was used as biblical justification for slavery by Southern ministers prior to he Civil War. Woman didn't get the right to vote until the 20th century and the list goes on.
Not defending those "s " but just saying. Though I do argue and put my 2 cents in I tend to look at "US" in a more historical perspective and not get too worked up over the day to day stuff. Our species tends to incorporate things slowly rather taking dramatic leaps in evolutionary behavior.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
