Cancer research versus health care lobbing expenditires

[mks]

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]

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]

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 If you can get a new sale because a product is obsolete, you don't have to develop it as well -- the development dollars aren't what motivates purchase.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]

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]

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]

hydrogen mining......


http://www.hydrogengroup.com/Mining_practice_overview

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

al

 

[Dan Conzo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..."