Discussions

« Back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Battery Breakthrough?.

• 
  asdar
  

  Posts:
  69

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/26/2007 09:04 AM

  fundamental Flaw

  I understand and agree with your numbers, but I'll still wait and see what they deliver.
  
  It may be that the people that are making the claims actually made a discovery and can keep the permitivity high.
  
  They've certainly got EE's working for them.
  
  As far as scamming through Zenn, well I'm not buying Zenn, even if EESTOR is 100% legit Zenn still only has slow small cars and for a limited time.
  
  Like someone posted earlier, they're not saying they'll have this technology in 10 years, they're saying they'll deliver later this year. That's not a long time as far as these things go and I can certainly suspend my natural skepticism that long.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  zrski
  

  Posts:
  1

  Reply

  01/26/2007 10:16 AM

  MIT Readers Use Word Hype!

  This tome of the "science priests" better not save these comments from American scientific cannon law. You'll be looking silly it somebody but you invents something.
  
  Everyone knows how deep you're into the pockets of big physics and business (even it seems, petrochemical investers).
  
  zrski

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    run
    

    Posts:
    7

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/26/2007 09:48 PM

    Re: MIT Readers Use Word Hype!

    I'm not sure I know exactly what's meant but the tone is needed.
    
    It has been a while since an invention changed everything like how to use wires to move energy, generate light, and ultimately pipe light to move information.
    
    A reasonable question to ask though is; Is this breakthrough really needed to do what people believe it won't be able to do?
    
    The answer is simple; it's NOPE.
    
    Delivering energy far more optimally then by storing it moving along with a moving vehicle is possible in MANY OBVIOUS ways other then having it collect it from the sun when it's shining.
    
    In fact the vehicles that move in locations and times at which this is not the most efficient way to go, far more efficient even then the claims for supercapacitors so far, are unimportant in aggragated consumption compared to those that use paths well traveled.
    
    When necessary we did this.  We did it ages before catalytic converters in hilly cities with cables that transfered kinetic energy to 'cars' to increase there potential gravitational harvestable energy, AND THEN harvested it when they rolled back down hill.
    
    It is after all in generating energy where cost matters almost as much as efficiency in use.  Michael J Fox appearing in film only fans even learned decades ago that a few scraps of food could accelerate a lot of mass to incredible speeds if the mass of some of it itself could be converted to energy to do that, and the only reason that is not the exclusive way we push things around now has to do with politics.  With people making decisions to not do that- at least not yet.
    
    It is the one activity that only nations engage in to this day.  There is no market for nuclear powered 'mobile homes' or even yachts.  No surplus market for aircraft carriers with plant intact- not even for the basically countless number of just geeks in America who can easally afford to buy one for themselves- one custom made.
    
    So projecting the consequence of storing energy no longer being expensive, or heavy, or wasteful, is not trivial.
    
    THose who say this or that above and at the energy blog, or at there outlet be they segway or military inspired cop ebike owners, ignore this fact... that we AS A RULE, are not, have not, and ALMOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT COLLECTIVELY RESPOND RATIONALLY TO OPPORTUNITY in the way we so reflexively suggest would [impliedly] 'obviously' occur.
    
    Or else we would have cars that 'ran' mainly -surfed not- on not waves of power but ''merely'' accelerated from intersections inductively or even mechanically coupled to flywheels perhaps just buried under a few in many cities that likewise 'breaked' traffic to regain there 'spin'-- not to adequately (for anyone perpaps but myself) mention that most intersections in terms of "breaking-energy-wasting", and that's most of the oil used for transit IMMEDIATELY (just dozens of yards)in 'front' of them alone, should not be at all but should have underpasses etc. as part of there design with payback CERTAIN even if financed with venture/angel/martyr capital costing.
    
    So yeah we can enjoy this for months.  Pretend to hope.  Ignore the fact that it's NOW that we have to stop building more insane roads, tolerating crazier and crazier practices on them, and what.... as I've personally grinned at witnessing Nader reveling over.... 'begging for more and more juice in the "collander"' so we can sip peacefully when the colander (strainer, think porous which is the argument of Ford lol) has been flushed almost completey away and we would have to dive faster then light itself to get even a taste of what's being dumped down that drain we call the GNP as currently measured.
    
    IF YOU DON'T believe energy will be  very cheap in the future, if you don't believe storing it will have almost no value terrestially (surface wise) in the ... present.... then why are you not cashing out real estate to increase efficiency in heating the water you swim etc. in already?  Pumping heat has coefficients in the dozens right now, but rare is the heater that gets within a fifth of even one to one.
    
    
    "A123" ''batteries'' --if sold profitably by a benevolent 'mart-- are already a threat to "national security" if you define that as MAINTAING having most people behave against there own interest and that of most other people (and most assuming continuing to perpetuity) at all costs or else!  If you care only about getting a piece of the pie that only exists if almost all progress continues to be denied to almost all-- even though that pie pales in comparison with what PEACE/pieces we would all share if we could just get something as simple as counting votes done reasonable well.
    
    I'm not cynical at all.  I've never considered buying a car and driving it back and forth over and over again as if to torture my "first and only son" before even meeting someone to 'raise' a family with.   To stop deceiving ourselves is not a pipe dream.  This dialogue reads like Sci-fi and seems to function pathalogically just as it too often does these days for it's victim readers.  More shameful then never having registered to vote should be having considered getting a drivers license for more then a heartbeat.  First -in our living history!- after all we gave up enjoying having someone do that for us, then we gave up having someone fill up our tanks for us, now we routinely give up being noble for it (GM as USa) itself.
    
    The car is a poor God.  Could there be a realer Devil?  A greater hell then that we now suffer to pay the taxes to impose upon entire continents?  So we collect our checks, brag about our tenure, and bury our heads pretending this sand about that strand could matter as long as we continue to ignore the fact that the PERSONAL IS POLITICS.
    
    Sierra talks about Green Cars.  A little pregnant in other words.  More lethal in fact.  Crueler and crueler we will become until a revolution in how we regulate OUR paths, not those of electrons, is the topic of those reading or skipping this note.
    

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      tyydyy
      

      Posts:
      1

      Reply

      01/27/2007 06:06 AM

      Re: MIT Readers Use Word Hype!

      Um...  You may find that you have alot more time if you don't share all your thoughts with us.  That rant was very revealing though.  You keep fightin' the good fight.  I need to get back to my planet now.  Good luck to ya.

      Rate this comment:
    • 
      madmarty
      

      Posts:
      5

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/27/2007 01:59 PM

      Re: MIT Readers Use Word Hype!

      You might try writing your thoughts out, editing them, revising them, and thinking a little about what others will get from them. We have no clue what is whirring around in your mind (thank goodness.) But ranting, and then repeating it doesn't bode well for people taking you seriously.
      Especially with all the mistakes you make which make it very hard to read (not comprehend, that isn't possible)

      Rate this comment:
    • 
      TJGeezer
      

      Posts:
      5

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      01/27/2007 09:59 PM

      Re: MIT Readers Use Word Hype!

      I wish I could speak that language, whatever it is.

      Rate this comment:
    • 
      markcaz
      

      Posts:
      2

      Reply

      02/04/2007 11:15 AM

      Re: MIT Readers Use Word Hype!

      I thought that long post was annoying... but it got funny when I remembered the subject of this thread :)

      Rate this comment:
    • 
      pauljurczak
      

      Posts:
      1

      Reply

      10/13/2007 12:01 AM

      Re: MIT Readers Use Word Hype!

      Isn't it obvious that it was a computer generated response? AI gone bad ;-)

      Rate this comment:
    • 
      bkshilo
      

      Posts:
      18

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      11/05/2007 02:22 PM

      Re: MIT Readers Use Word Hype!

      Wacky stuff, dude!  Too much Jolt Cola?

      Rate this comment:
  • 
    madmarty
    

    Posts:
    5

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/27/2007 01:48 PM

    Re: MIT Readers Use Word Hype!

    I wanna be a part of "Big Physics" Do you guys hold meetings? Or is it all in back rooms and dark alleys? Do I get to learn a secret handshake?

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      jamesbil
      

      Posts:
      1

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      03/22/2007 04:03 PM

      Re: MIT Readers Use Word Hype!

      Good One! Very Funny!

      Rate this comment:

« Back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »