PDA

View Full Version : Cancer research versus health care lobbing expenditires



Charles E
10-16-2013, 11:01 PM
More fun with real numbers...

From

http://www.academia.edu/309237/Trends_in_the_global_funding_and_activity_of_cance r_research


We have estimated that in 2004/2005 the global spend on cancer research was 14,030 million euros, with the USA, dominated by the NCI (c. 83%) accounting for the largest absolute spend.

OK, go to the NCI website:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding


In recent years, NCIís budget has been relatively flat, averaging approximately $4.9 billion per year over the past 6 years.


So, if they're 83 percent of the total, that makes $5.9 billion the total amount spent in the U.S. on cancer research.

Finally, from

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

see the chart "A growing billion dollar business"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#A_growing_billion_do llar_business

It appears that lobbying in the health care industry, outside political campaign contributions, totals 4.2 billion.

Don't care what party you belong to, this is kinda disgraceful...If the lobbyists give another one billion for in campaign contributions, we in the U.S. spend just about as much on lobbying as on cancer research. Just as a BTW, Hillary Clinton got a lot as a U.S. Senator -- second highest, it was reported -- no one, left or right, seems immune.

The lobbying money has to come from somewhere, so these "lobbying health care dollars" aren't available for doing any solving or curing work...

Eddie Harren
10-17-2013, 06:21 AM
Charles, do you realize how many people would be out of work if they found a cure for cancer? Think about it.

Wayne Shaw
10-17-2013, 06:35 AM
You are exactly right Eddie, and other issues fall into the same thing. Why do you suppose we do nothing to secure our southern border, knowing full well that is where most illegal drugs come from. If there was no illegal drugs, addicts, arrests, rehab, trials, incarcerations, how many people would be out of work?

Why do you suppose that in Europe, autos over there get great mileage, towards 80 MPG. It has been done here a few times, and each time the "inventor" disappeared. So if all the vehicles in the US doubled in MPG, think of all the lost revenue from the less sales and road tax.

msorwan1975
10-17-2013, 10:21 AM
Why do you suppose that in Europe, autos over there get great mileage, towards 80 MPG. It has been done here a few times, and each time the "inventor" disappeared. So if all the vehicles in the US doubled in MPG, think of all the lost revenue from the less sales and road tax.

I for one, would like to see the proof of this statement.

GerryM
10-17-2013, 01:56 PM
your wrong
Lets kill cancer and put those people out of work then lets find cures for other diseases like Parkinson, Dementia spinal Biffeda,
Cerebal Paulsy, etc etc . There will be plenty of work for other needed cures.

Charles E
10-17-2013, 04:03 PM
Charles, do you realize how many people would be out of work if they found a cure for cancer? Think about it.Na, About the same time, they'll stop illegal immigrants. Then there will be all those jobs that no one else will take available. In fact, South Carolina just went through that.

Of course to be fair, it would be the lobbyists who got those thankless jobs, & the victorious cancer researchers would get the cushy lobbyist's jobs. But life don't work out that way.

Still... I think I know the answer to Fermi's Paradox (look it up). The reason there is no evidence of other intelligent life in the universe is about 200 years after a species learns how to use radio transmission for communication, that species self-destructs. That give us only around 50 more years to worry about. So run up the debt & leave the lights on.

alinwa
10-17-2013, 05:55 PM
I for one, would like to see the proof of this statement.

It's pure bunk, Urban Legend mixed with ignorance (and I happen to actually have a relative who was purportedly "offed" for "inventing a better motor" for real....... he IS really dead too, from mysterious causes ..... LOL :) )

There is no "new tech," there is no "goobermint suppression" and most of all there just AINT NO MAGIC!

Physics is physicks is fizzix

al

Wayne Shaw
10-19-2013, 06:59 PM
I frequent other forums, one in particular is one where there are some extremely knowledgable people. and, it has many people that participate from other countries. So I sent a PM to one member that lives in Germany, and posed this very question about vehicles getting 80MPG. He knows the issue of comparing MPG to what they use ther, he is from here originally. His response was "absolutely". That many vehicles get that and more.

So, take a step back, and think about all the technology we have, and why we can't make this happen? I doubt I can get "proof", but tell me why we can't do this. And, why don't we take full advantage of all the natural gas we have, and convert our vehicles to CNG? If it is such abundance as we hear, it's a simple thing to do, many stationary generators are fueled by NG, I've overseen jobs where many have been installed, and it's easy.

John Kielly
10-19-2013, 08:32 PM
Remember that the US gallon is smaller in volume than the European one, so 80 mpg there would equate to around 67 mpg Stateside.

On the other hand, VW has run the prototype of a hybrid diesel city car that they expect will use 1 litre per 100 kilometers (235 US mpg).

alinwa
10-19-2013, 09:33 PM
I frequent other forums, one in particular is one where there are some extremely knowledgable people. and, it has many people that participate from other countries. So I sent a PM to one member that lives in Germany, and posed this very question about vehicles getting 80MPG. He knows the issue of comparing MPG to what they use ther, he is from here originally. His response was "absolutely". That many vehicles get that and more.

So, take a step back, and think about all the technology we have, and why we can't make this happen? I doubt I can get "proof", but tell me why we can't do this. And, why don't we take full advantage of all the natural gas we have, and convert our vehicles to CNG? If it is such abundance as we hear, it's a simple thing to do, many stationary generators are fueled by NG, I've overseen jobs where many have been installed, and it's easy.

"Think about it?"

THINK about it????

I've been stepping back and thinking about this for 35yrs........ I'm a gearhead, not only do I read about this stuff but I spend money on it, cars that is, motors........ and there IS NO MAGIC!

Nor suppression.

"Proof" is simple, but it takes some reading. And a basic understanding of things mechanical.

We in America are required to meet a bunch of safety and EPA regulations that other countries don't have to adhere to, our cars are heavier. That's IT. It's simple power-to-weight ratios..........And we require more in a car, there is very little market for stripped tiny cars here.

Get netflix, watch 'Top Gear' and you can watch Europeans drive and test European cars all day long. That doesn't mean that they understand mechanical things, they don't, but they do DRIVE those mythical cars, and talk about them. They test them, and they aren't boring top watch. And none of them get any better milage over there than anywhere else all things being equal (They don't have to drink corn gas)

Charles E
10-19-2013, 09:52 PM
Well Al, they (the Top Gear presenters) have changed their minds on the turbo diesels over the past few years. They're lauded now. And BMW is finally marketing a decent diesel in the States starting next year. 32 city/45 highway. But I don't buy new cars & let them depreciate as I sleep.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130805/CARNEWS/130809933

& if you'll take less poop than the BMW, you can get higher milage. If only they were sold in the States...

I still think hydrogen is the answer, but as you've pointed out, hydrogen filling stations are a ways away -- beyond my lifetime.

Edit:

Actually, ceramic engines would help a lot. What's the theoretical & practical limits with a steel/aluminum engine, around 22% efficient?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_efficiency

mks
10-19-2013, 10:13 PM
I have averaged over 50 mpg with my 2006 VW Golf TDI for the past several years. I wish the 70+ mpg Polo were available in the US.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2010-volkswagen-polo-bluemotion-diesel-quick-spin

alinwa
10-20-2013, 02:46 AM
I don't believe hydrogen will ever be the answer...... hydrogen isn't a found "fuel," it's simply a carrier. You can't mine hydrogen, you must first "uncombine it" from something it's bound up in, like water...... only in deep space can you go around scooping up hydrogen. And "uncombining" hydrogen, breaking it loose to use as "fuel" takes more fuel than it can give back (simple fizzicks again :) ) Hydrogen "fuel cells" and such aren't majick, they're just ba'ddries.

I know, I know, the silly people are all impressed that when you use it the byproduct is WATER!

Whee..... to a physicist or a chemist or an engineer that's like "DUHH!!! "WHAT ELSE would you expect?""

It's like the stupid "electric car" conundrum. Ya' first gots ta' MAKE the 'lectric, then you gots to STORE the 'lectric, then ya' turn around and reuse it....... handy, but not cost-effective for cars. (And please don't jive me about "solar" 'lectric.....) but anyway, again, the stupid people think 'lectric is "green" because the byproduct of "using it" is........ "nothing!" (this isn't at all true, but there's always a market for stupid ;) )

And it LOOKS like "nothing"

To most of the voting populace, "looks like nothing" is enough :)

Electricity isn't a fuel, it's just an extra step.

Hydrogen, the same.

al

alinwa
10-20-2013, 02:50 AM
I have averaged over 50 mpg with my 2006 VW Golf TDI for the past several years. I wish the 70+ mpg Polo were available in the US.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2010-volkswagen-polo-bluemotion-diesel-quick-spin

We got 50mpg out of the old Volkswagen loafs back in the 80's...... with a half dozen people and two-three dawgs aboard :)

And driving one was like space travel

Bill Gammon
10-20-2013, 06:54 AM
From what I understand cars over in Europe get very high mileage, I know when I was over there I was amazed at the mileage. Was then told that because of the pollution controls here, that mileage was not going to happen.

Eddie Harren
10-20-2013, 06:58 AM
Maybe the out of work cancer researchers could work on getting better mileage and, if they succeed, they would al mysteriously disappear!
THINK ABOUT IT!

Chism G
10-20-2013, 08:37 AM
Looks like Electric power for Cars may be the wave of the Future.
http://www.teslamotors.com/models/design


Glenn

Charles E
10-20-2013, 09:04 AM
Mr. Herron: Right, it's all a conspiracy. Never "our" fault. Now lessee, whose conspiracy is it? The communists are out this decade, so it must be a capitalist conspiracy....Except they don't need these kinds of contortions, they just offer credit cards with a 20+% vigorish...

Mr. Gammon -- Yeah, right. The Europeans don't care about pollution controls...except have you looked at their laws? How much they have done to cut air pollution? Then look at their price for fuel... Likely the reason for higher mileage cars.

Mr. Al: -- Hydrogen is a naturally occurring fuel. Read up on light sails, speaking of space travel... Here on earth, fuel = fire. The good stuff is underground, or man-made, always somewhat protected from Mother Nature. If it were easy, it'd have burned up long ago.

Think of how many jobs would be created if we tried to find better ways to do just about anything. But as long as the economic model is maximizing the return on assets, where most assets have a relatively short life, innovation takes the back seat. If you lengthen the time of taking economic returns beyond short-term assets, you get different answers.

By the way, if you watch Top Gear (UK), you might remember when they took a Prius (or some real efficient car) around their track. It got about 18 mpg, a little worse than a BMW. Or the time when ‹ber Male drove an Audi to Edinburgh & back on one tank of gas. He reported it as being very hard work, but the car could do it...

(Here's the program for free, sort of, except for with all the adds & buffering... http://www.flixxy.com/audi-a8-diesel.htm Better to just get NetFlix)

Getting better mileage isn't that hard. Example: when I drive to work in the morning, on a 19-mile only expressway, I go around 7 mph faster than the speed limit. Now during an average week, I pass maybe three cars...and am passed by hundreds... Lessee, maximum time savings if you went the full 19 miles, going 75 mph instead of 60 mph, is about 5 minutes... Oh yeah!

Wayne Shaw
10-20-2013, 09:14 AM
"Think about it?"

THINK about it????

I've been stepping back and thinking about this for 35yrs........ I'm a gearhead, not only do I read about this stuff but I spend money on it, cars that is, motors........ and there IS NO MAGIC!

Nor suppression.

"Proof" is simple, but it takes some reading. And a basic understanding of things mechanical.

We in America are required to meet a bunch of safety and EPA regulations that other countries don't have to adhere to, our cars are heavier. That's IT. It's simple power-to-weight ratios..........And we require more in a car, there is very little market for stripped tiny cars here.



Get netflix, watch 'Top Gear' and you can watch Europeans drive and test European cars all day long. That doesn't mean that they understand mechanical things, they don't, but they do DRIVE those mythical cars, and talk about them. They test them, and they aren't boring top watch. And none of them get any better milage over there than anywhere else all things being equal (They don't have to drink corn gas)

Seems to me Al, you have your head stuck in neutral. To think there is no way to make an engine get better fuel efficiency, just look at the strides that have been made to engine in the past 20 -30 years. I remember when a spark plug wouldn't last 6 months. Now, they go over 100k easy. And EPA regs? Shouldn't be a problem.

Just think of OPEC, big oil, big business, and the already mentioned taxes, and it's not hard to see why we're are stuck on the mileage we have PLUS the price we are paying. We have gads of natural gas, we can use it, but it wouldn't fit the agenda

mks
10-20-2013, 09:46 AM
We got 50mpg out of the old Volkswagen loafs back in the 80's...... with a half dozen people and two-three dawgs aboard :)

And driving one was like space travel

Driving one now would be like time travel.:D I had a friend with a diesel Rabbit back then. Heard stories of guys putting a turbo on them and getting 75mpg, and I don't doubt it. Thinking back on those old cars, though, the newer Golf is so much more comfortable and powerful. One thing I don't like is its size. It is huge compared to the first generation econoboxes - large in size and over 3000 lbs. All that mass and volume is detrimental to performance. I think the Polo would be a better commuter car, and a blast to drive.

Keith

mks
10-20-2013, 10:07 AM
Actually, ceramic engines would help a lot. What's the theoretical & practical limits with a steel/aluminum engine, around 22% efficient?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_efficiency

You found and posted it before I could. The Carnot efficiency for a steel engine is given in the wikipedia link as 37%. Actual efficiencies of production engines are substantially lower, so improvements could be made.

The world record fuel mileage is 12,665 mpg. (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/extremeMPG.jsp) It should be a slam dunk of an engineering problem to get 100 times worse mileage - 127 mpg - in a practical car, if we put our minds to it. There seems to be a mindset at US auto companies that all Americans want is big SUV's.

Bill Dorsey
10-20-2013, 10:52 AM
I'm paraphrasing so cut me some slack.......

VW Beetles and Busses got tremendous mileage for years....so did the Porsches of that era.

They went away when you couldn't effectively put a catalytic converter on them and make them live under EPA rule.

That happened when.....about 1974 or 75????

America only made one competitor for the VW if you can even call it that....the Corvair.....we can thank Ralph Nader for it's death.

They were one of the most popular sandrail power plants back in the 70's


VW has survived.....but the Beetle and Bus as we knew them back then are only alive due to the collectors and restoration.

You can still buy an old style Beetle, or you could because my Uncle brought one out of Mexico several years back.

Charles E
10-20-2013, 10:58 AM
You found and posted it before I could. The Carnot efficiency for a steel engine is given in the wikipedia link as 37%. Actual efficiencies of production engines are substantially lower, so improvements could be made.

. . .

There seems to be a mindset at US auto companies that all Americans want is big SUV's.

Couple things... There was that guy in Colorado, industrial designer, rich guy (and smart), who some time ago built his own SUV using carbon fiber. Don't remember the mileage, but it was well over 50mpg.

As for ceramic engines, apparently there are production issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic#Other_applications_of_ceramics

There are a couple things working against innovation, aside from the "net return on asset" problem. One is "style" or "fashion." Essentially, style is a form of planned obsolescence. If you can get a new sale because a product is obsolete, you don't have to develop it as well -- the development dollars aren't what motivates purchase. Of course that's short-sighted thinking, but we've built a whole economy on that kind of thinking.

When you really look, the highest returns on investment ("investment" is a bit different than "asset") have always come from basic research. But the payoffs may be obscure, years down the road, and not always in the industry where the investment was made. "The "moon mission" is one obvious example. Spinoffs from that technology fueled the American economy for years, but most NASA programs were eventually cancelled.

There is a way where economic policy (read: taxation) could be set up to reward innovation, just like the capital gains taxes rates aided building industrial plant, when that was needed. BTW, industrial plant doesn't seem to need the boost now. A lot of U.S. companies are cash rich, and employment is still relatively low.

But it isn't politically possible, I suppose. We're getting like the Russian peasants.

(A Russian peasant rubbed a magical lamp, and a genie appeared, offering one wish. "My neighbor has a cow," the peasant said. "So, you want a cow of your own?" the genie asked? "No," was the reply, "I want you to kill my neighbor's cow.")

Dan Conzo
10-20-2013, 05:27 PM
I remember the Genie and Cow story a little different. The Genie refused to kill the cow. So the hardworking peasant wrote a letter to a Pa Rifle Club or maybe a Texas Rifle Club, I'm not sure, and ask for their assistance. He explained that he bought and paid for 6 cows and took very good care of them and had a very productive farm, but his neighbor's farm was in poor condition with weeds growing in the fields and he had no cows but the wild weeds caught on fire and spread across to his barn and killed 4 of the cows, then the Socialist government took one of the cows and gave it to his not so hard working neighbor and wouldn't you know it lightning struck his last remaing cow dead. So a group of club members went over there and after negotiations w/ the not so hard working neighbor who wouldn't budge shot the cow dead. When the club members were leaving the hard working peasant tried to pay them but they refused and told him to buy a cow. The last thing the members heard him yelling was God Bless America.
That's how I remember it and that's the rest of the story.

alinwa
10-20-2013, 09:51 PM
Sometimes it's easiest to just wait a generation instead of trying to educate each new crop :)

I'll just say it,

THERE IS NO NEW TECH!!!!

And WHEN THERE IS, you won't have to search to find it, it'll take over, it's called "market share." New tech is not a hard sell!!!

And in ten yrs, or twenty when we're NOT driving hydrogen nor 'lectric cars and NOT wandering about collecting "solar energy" you will all see this.....about the time the last stupid windmill grinds to a sputtering halt.....and we'll all be drinking the free BubbleUp and eating the Rainbow Stew. This was written forty yrs ago...... http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=youtube+rainbow+stew


But I'm talking to the wall..... the average person retains information for about a year, and then only that which they understood.


The depressing thing is, most people BELIEVE that we're just "letting opportunity go by" and "people aren't driven to innovate" and "the government (or "Big Oil" or some other boogeyman) is slowing progress..... or, worst of all, "if we had access to all the secret stuff the military has!!!"


"secrets" everywhere..... and Big Brother watching me poop from out my teevee.... (how el'tse could they get them Nielsen ratings?)

Jeepers people, READ A BOOK!

al

alinwa
10-20-2013, 11:13 PM
hydrogen mining......


http://www.hydrogengroup.com/Mining_practice_overview

http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/10/where-are-the-hydrogen-mines

al

Dan Conzo
10-20-2013, 11:19 PM
Al--If you are familiar with watching boxing from the past to the present, my opinion the new boxers except for a few are not as technical in their boxing style now as they were then (40s, 50s), but if you watch the old matches with the way they filmed them vs now is why it don't seem that way. Cameras weren't close, black and white vs color, camera speed, etc. Mayweather and a few others are very technical, but so were Ray Robinson, and many others back then. Boxers were more advanced back then than the filming. Dempsey, who boxed even earlier had no ultra shiny training gym w/ college educated trainers weighed only 187 lbs but could knock a mans head off in the heavy weight class and box for 20 to 30 rounds.
Between the inventions of Tom Edison and the innovations from WWII other than computers and a few other electronics we are still living off these things.

alinwa
10-22-2013, 01:08 AM
Couple things... There was that guy in Colorado, industrial designer, rich guy (and smart), who some time ago built his own SUV using carbon fiber. Don't remember the mileage, but it was well over 50mpg.

As for ceramic engines, apparently there are production issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic#Other_applications_of_ceramics

There are a couple things working against innovation, aside from the "net return on asset" problem. One is "style" or "fashion." Essentially, style is a form of planned obsolescence. If you can get a new sale because a product is obsolete, you don't have to develop it as well -- the development dollars aren't what motivates purchase. Of course that's short-sighted thinking, but we've built a whole economy on that kind of thinking.

When you really look, the highest returns on investment ("investment" is a bit different than "asset") have always come from basic research. But the payoffs may be obscure, years down the road, and not always in the industry where the investment was made. "The "moon mission" is one obvious example. Spinoffs from that technology fueled the American economy for years, but most NASA programs were eventually cancelled.

There is a way where economic policy (read: taxation) could be set up to reward innovation, just like the capital gains taxes rates aided building industrial plant, when that was needed. BTW, industrial plant doesn't seem to need the boost now. A lot of U.S. companies are cash rich, and employment is still relatively low.

But it isn't politically possible, I suppose. We're getting like the Russian peasants.

(A Russian peasant rubbed a magical lamp, and a genie appeared, offering one wish. "My neighbor has a cow," the peasant said. "So, you want a cow of your own?" the genie asked? "No," was the reply, "I want you to kill my neighbor's cow.")


OK, there's just a BUNCH of this I cain't get with...



... There was that guy in Colorado, industrial designer, rich guy (and smart), who some time ago built his own SUV using carbon fiber. Don't remember the mileage, but it was well over 50mpg.

This is completely irrelevant to ANY market..... First of all, WHY did the guy (rich/smart) do all this carbon fiber work??? TO SAVE WEIGHT. It's a perfect iteration of my initial statement that this is simply a power-to-weight game and this guy (rich/smart) DID NOT pull an Elon Musk scam and try MARKET his creation, he just built it. Because he COULD. Same reason folks climb mountain and dogs lick their, parts most of us humans cain't reach.


As for ceramic engines,

HellOOOO!!! Let's at least talk about how stupid ceramic lined barrels are instead of cars....this goes back 50yrs....



There are a couple things working against innovation, aside from the "net return on asset" problem. One is "style" or "fashion." Essentially, style is a form of planned obsolescence. If you can get a new sale because a product is obsolete, you don't have to develop it as well -- the development dollars aren't what motivates purchase. Of course that's short-sighted thinking, but we've built a whole economy on that kind of thinking.

When you really look, the highest returns on investment ("investment" is a bit different than "asset") have always come from basic research. But the payoffs may be obscure, years down the road, and not always in the industry where the investment was made. "The "moon mission" is one obvious example. Spinoffs from that technology fueled the American economy for years, but most NASA programs were eventually cancelled.

Man, there's just so much I disagree with here, the entire IDEA behind it for starters, that I'll try to illustrate Harold Vaughn style. Harold Vaughn often utilized the technique he called "An Old Engineer's Trick" wherein he isolated items via exaggeration. F'rinstance, when confronted with the question "does bullet tip damage affect BC?" he said "let's test it!" "Let us irrevocably DAMAGE us some bullets by filing them off at monstrous angles and TEST it." The problem prior had been "how do you find the variation?" and his answer was "by exaggeration." In this light we need to move from "cars" into the usage of internal combustion technology as a means of moving mass, GOODS and SERVICES. The airline industry, trucking and shipping. Do you still think "fashion" and "planned obsolescence" and "returns on investment" and "payoffs may be obscure" apply? And purposeful suppression of tech??? The Pogue carburetor should be used to illustrate a type of SCAM, not to advocate an industry mindset of suppression.

And the idea that cars aren't as good as they could be/should be etc because "you don't have to develop it as well"...... I AM a gearhead, I'm typing with grease on my fingers because I've been inside three engine bays today.....and I bite my thumb at this. I've 10 vehicles licensed right now that are at or over 200,000mi and have had NO WORK DONE TO THEM. This is astounding. Most of them are work vehicles dragging massive loads from place to place but one of them is my Beloverly's personal car all leather and loaded and quiet and smooth and going on 187,000 freakin' miles. I recently shop't for my kid a teeny car with 287,000 on the clock.... MADness you say?


nein

cars are THAT GOOD right now. I expect a quarter million miles from a rig BEFORE I SPEND ANY MONEY ON IT.

cars are that good now.

And to end, spinoffs from the moon trips DID NOT "fuel our economy for yrs" IMO...... don't get me wrong, I think we should have people living on the moon right now, having babies..... but that pertickler "spinoff" political football has FLOWN... and it always distressed me because it flatly illustrates that the average human need be FOOLED out of their money. I have several "space pens" at my elbow and have drunk freeze-dried beverage and used mylar and foamed ceramic within the last 24hrs but I don't buy into the NASA thing A'tall..... NASA is a bunch of fumbling tools...I'll still happily fund them, for the same reason's I'll continue to fund the slaughter of our young on foreign soil but NOT for happy-smiley reasons as propounded by political pundits and the press.

I'll crawl back under my roc now..... rant OFF


:)


LOL


al

mks
10-22-2013, 10:09 AM
THERE IS NO NEW TECH!!!!

And WHEN THERE IS ... [/U]



No new tech, except when there is? That's a good one, Al!

I think you may be confusing unproven concepts with ready-for-the-market products. For instance, Nicolas Carnot back in 1824 published the concept that the maximum efficiency of a heat engine depends only on the hot and cold temperatures between which it operates. Thus an iron engine, because it can take higher temperature, is better than, say, a wood engine, thinking of the materials available to him. He undoubtedly thought about what other materials might allow higher temperature and greater efficiency, like ceramics. The CONCEPT is almost 200 years old, but I would argue that the TECHNOLOGY is still not available.

Cheers,
Keith

PS. Carnot efficiency = 1 - Tcold/Thot

alinwa
10-22-2013, 01:27 PM
No new tech, except when there is? That's a good one, Al!

I think you may be confusing unproven concepts with ready-for-the-market products. For instance, Nicolas Carnot back in 1824 published the concept that the maximum efficiency of a heat engine depends only on the hot and cold temperatures between which it operates. Thus an iron engine, because it can take higher temperature, is better than, say, a wood engine, thinking of the materials available to him. He undoubtedly thought about what other materials might allow higher temperature and greater efficiency, like ceramics. The CONCEPT is almost 200 years old, but I would argue that the TECHNOLOGY is still not available.

Cheers,
Keith

PS. Carnot efficiency = 1 - Tcold/Thot

"There is no new tech!"


"And when there is..."


the actual quote is more like


THERE IS NO NEW TECH!!!!

And WHEN THERE IS, you won't have to search to find it, it'll take over,


So let me e'splain..... I know you'se literalistic engineer sorts have trouble with illustrations, with abstractions, predictions, things which are not absolute NOW..... so we'll look at it from another angle.

"New Tech" shall be replaced with 'X'

Let 'X' be anything, let's pretend it's candy.

'X'=candy

Let's pretend we've got a candy machine in the lunchroom near the water cooler. This (imaginary) dispenser is restocked by an (imaginary) vending supplier from a fixed stock of (imaginary) candy. But we want a NEW candy! We wish passionately for a watermellion flavored jawdropper and we've heard through the office scuttlebutt that there's a NEW CANDY available but WE CAN'T GET IT because this supplier isn't stocking it.

So we ask for it,

and we whine for it,

and we accuse the supplier of holding out....

Until finally the vendor yells "THERE IS NO NEW CANDY!!!!" (this means there is no new candy NOW)


"AND WHEN THERE IS" (this means the door is open for new candy IN THE FUTURE)


"it will be placed into the machine" (this means that you won't have to search for it, it will BE HERE)



So, let me try again.....

There is no new tech NOW.

There is no new tech BEING SUPPRESSED.

There MAY BE new tech some day and if so, YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT IT.

But regardless, (irregardless?? lol) actual advances in technology WILL COME INTO THE MARKET just as soon as possible because they're BETTER.




Right now we have NO BETTER OPTION than fossil fuel. Therefore anything BUT fossil fuel is a hard sell. Right now the only way it can work is by the boss making us walk across the street to buy fruit instead of dropping coin in our own candy machine. Because the president told him to.....


al

alinwa
10-22-2013, 01:36 PM
BTW "ceramic" mixed with "internal combustion engines" is goofyspeak. No more meaningful than your "wood" analogy but I've got to pick on the point you made.

This is you Keith.....
The CONCEPT is almost 200 years old, but I would argue that the TECHNOLOGY is still not available. These are your actual words...


TECHNOLOGY=tech

"tech" is shorthand for technology.

My statement "THERE IS NO NEW TECH!!!"

Your argument is that "the technology is still not available"


WHERE is our disagreement again?

al

mks
10-22-2013, 05:22 PM
My statement "THERE IS NO NEW TECH!!!"

Your argument is that "the technology is still not available"


WHERE is our disagreement again?

al

I disagree that there is no new technology. If that were true, we would still have NO technology, because all technology was new at some point. Humankind was not born with smokeless powder, jacketed bullets, nor internal combustion engines. All may be old tech now, but they were new once.

And suppressed technology? Of course, there is. It happens all the time, whether by capitalistic greed, regulatory misguidedness, lack of imagination, tight budgets, or underinformed choices.

Cheers,
Keith

Charles E
10-22-2013, 06:06 PM
And suppressed technology? Of course, there is. It happens all the time, whether by capitalistic greed, regulatory misguidedness, lack of imagination, tight budgets, or underinformed choices.

Cheers,
Keith

Of course there is suppressed technology. Remember "You can't sell safety"? So said the marketplace, probably because mothers with teenage sons & daughters didn't do the car buying. What hubby was trying to prove with his car purchase is probably best left unsaid (just in case mom is listening). Then the Feds said "... a modicum of safety is required..."