$5,000 Retro Fit Hybrid Kit
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Video about wardforce
Next: Gerber files
From: John Larkin on 17 Nov 2009 23:52 On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:06:42 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>electronics is >> >> accessible and fun. > >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements. > >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it? > >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the thing they hope they can invent. John
From: Bret Cahill on 18 Nov 2009 10:53 > >> >>electronics is > >> >> accessible and fun. > > >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range > >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements. > > >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it? > > >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f > > Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the > thing they hope they can invent. Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion. Eventually they'll develop a cost effective battery or they'll prove that it's impossible. The funding speeds things up. Bret Cahill
From: John Larkin on 18 Nov 2009 11:14 On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:53:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >>electronics is >> >> >> accessible and fun. >> >> >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range >> >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements. >> >> >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it? >> >> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f >> >> Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the >> thing they hope they can invent. > >Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines >would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion. Absurd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#History John
From: Bret Cahill on 18 Nov 2009 12:40 > >> >> >>electronics is > >> >> >> accessible and fun. > > >> >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range > >> >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements. > > >> >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it? > > >> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f > > >> Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the > >> thing they hope they can invent. > > >Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines > >would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion. > > Absurd. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#History The axial flow machine now used in most commercial aviation was first proposed in Paris in 1853. No commercial development whatsoever for 90 years. After massive governmental spending in the 1940s GTs were developed enough to become a commercial success. We see the same thing with Stirling except the time lag is 200 years. The Swedes spent a lot of taxpayer money and developed a 200 bar engine for their submarines which was further developed by Sandia [more gummint funding] and a utility, San Diego Gas and Electric [quasi gummint]. Some transportation breakthroughs might be done privately, i. e.,the wheel motor, but it's crazy to think that all energy solutions can be developed in the garage following the software model. Bret Cahill
From: John Larkin on 19 Nov 2009 12:05
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:40:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>electronics is >> >> >> >> accessible and fun. >> >> >> >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range >> >> >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements. >> >> >> >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it? >> >> >> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f >> >> >> Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the >> >> thing they hope they can invent. >> >> >Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines >> >would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion. >> >> Absurd. > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#History > >The axial flow machine now used in most commercial aviation was first >proposed in Paris in 1853. > >No commercial development whatsoever for 90 years. > >After massive governmental spending in the 1940s GTs were developed >enough to become a commercial success. > >We see the same thing with Stirling except the time lag is 200 years. > >The Swedes spent a lot of taxpayer money and developed a 200 bar >engine for their submarines which was further developed by Sandia >[more gummint funding] and a utility, San Diego Gas and Electric >[quasi gummint]. > >Some transportation breakthroughs might be done privately, i. e.,the >wheel motor, but it's crazy to think that all energy solutions can be >developed in the garage following the software model. > > >Bret Cahill > > > > You sound like a typical leftist: don't really understand technology or economics, yet determined to have dominant political control over both. John |