Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
here is a short video (8 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEULs...layer_embedded where the financial expert being interviewed calls for scientific innovation for the masses to save the world from financial depression. If money was thrown at science... would there become available new innovative technologies ? What technologies could you envision ? And what of vested interests blocking roll out of such innovation The small inventor is at a huge disadvantage when it come to financial assistance |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
The small inventor is at a huge disadvantage when it come to financial assistance Usually it is the inventor that has the vision... most other parties are oblivious, and complacent re the status quo
I have had personal experience with government... and even on this forum (and all others) simple smack-you-in-the-face concepts are actively denigrated, and this negative aspect has been apparent all through the history of science Its almost as if earthlings are so up themselves that to allow anyone else a quarter is fatal to their own self esteem curious and curiouser |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
Well spending money on anything can act as an economic stimulus. Spending a lot of money on science would take some planning, so probably wouldn't contribute much to any immediate problem. Plus scientific discoveries have a fairly long lag time before commercialisation, so I'm not sure it has any particular merit over other forms of spending as a economic lever to avoid recessions.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
As reluctant as I am to try to add anything sensible to a Zarkov thread ....
Battery technology is one thing I'd really like to see advance soon. If they could be made with about 1/3 the energy density of regular petrol it'd be a real game-changer. The reason being that a typical petrol engine is about 30% efficient, a good electric motor about 90% or so efficient, so if the batteries were about 1/3 as good a petrol it should be possible to get a car, etc, doing about the same job. (that right?) But as always, recharge times are likely to be somewhat limiting. We already know how to make almost totally clean electrical power and many other quite clever things, I'm still at somewhat of a loss to understand why they are not taken up ASAP. |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
As reluctant as I am to try to add anything sensible to a Zarkov thread .... |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
If they could be made with about 1/3 the energy density of regular petrol it'd be a real game-changer. The reason being that a typical petrol engine is about 30% efficient, a good electric motor about 90% or so efficient, so if the batteries were about 1/3 as good a petrol it should be possible to get a car, etc, doing about the same job. (that right?) |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
What is this totally clean method of which you speak TCH? There's also a lot of promise in Dense Plasma Fusion power. It is effectively limitless and pollution free. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
Originally Posted by The Credible Hulk
If they could be made with about 1/3 the energy density of regular petrol it'd be a real game-changer. The reason being that a typical petrol engine is about 30% efficient, a good electric motor about 90% or so efficient, so if the batteries were about 1/3 as good a petrol it should be possible to get a car, etc, doing about the same job. (that right?) there are certain mechanical inefficiencies realised between the flywheel and the wheels |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
I think the Hulk was just comparing the engines, and assuming all other factors (eg transmission efficiency, vehicle mass etc) remeined identical. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|