Rescue via Science ?
 

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

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

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.

There is a well defined correlation between a country's economic performance and it's levels technological advancement.

more money = more science

I hate to say it, but I've noticed that throwing more money at science doesn't necessarily result in saving the world.

Throwing more money at engineering tends to have a greater benefit.

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.

The electric motor may have 90% efficiency but if you recharge it from a power station burning dirty coal with SFA efficiency, is it really that great?

Second part of my text covers that.

I understand we CAN do it, I'm just saying I'm not sure that breakthrough would be as game-changing as it could be thanks to other factors, such as opposition to nuclear.

Though I'd love a phone that didn't require charging every night. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.png

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/02/29...ne-charger.jpg

there are certain mechanical inefficiencies realised between the flywheel and the wheels

What is this totally clean method of which you speak TCH?

Thorium fission power stations do leave some radioactive waste but instead of tens of hundreds of thousands of years of dangerous waste, it's around 300 years. Also by their design they are inherently safer than otherwise conventional uranium-fuelled stations.
There's also a lot of promise in Dense Plasma Fusion power. It is effectively limitless and pollution free.

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?)



I think the Hulk was just comparing the engines, and assuming all other factors (eg transmission efficiency, vehicle mass etc) remeined identical.

Electric cars typically don't need much in the way of a gearbox or drivetrain, and so often have even higher overall efficiency than a petrol/diesel car in that area.