Solar cell
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 24 Apr 2010 04:44 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:19:12 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:38:54 -0700, "Joel Koltner" ><zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>"mpm" <mpmillard(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:56681aec-1de7-4f52-b0f6-8e9748d43aa6(a)t36g2000yqt.googlegroups.com.... >>> Doesn't history show that successful technologies are successful >>> pretty much right out of the gate? >> >>I expect you can find plenty of anecdotes both for and against this surmise. >> >>Lasers are perhaps a good example of technology that was incredibly nichey for >>many decades (being fragile and expensive) until someone figured out how to >>build a semiconductor version of one (making them cheap and reliable), and now >>the average person likely owns half a dozen. > >Lasers are a special case. The technology's usefulness was known long before >it was practical. Gordon Gould mopped up on that delay. > >>It also took a number of decades for gasoline to become the defacto standard >>for powering autmobiles -- early on kerosene, coal, and other unusual fuels >>were in use because gasoline couldn't be made as easily and hence was >>expensive; thermal cracking is what changed all that. > >Again, not exactly the same thing. > >>Even the Internet as we know it today might have taken another few decades if >>it hadn't been for all the government DARPA funding way-back-when... > >Nope. Not buying that one. Networking was ready. The Internet wasn't even >the largest network until the mid '80s. No sale, by the mid 1970s Ethernet style network connections were becoming preferred for computer to computer (except IBM which was and still is SNA). True, much of it was high priced 9800 baud to 56k leased lines, major corporations and government mostly. As for the biggest before DARPAnet, NSFnet, FIDOnet and some others were merged into the original Internet about 1980(?) IBM SNA networks seem to have been king, providing Tymenet, and its competitors. > >>On the other hand, some people suggest that DOS retarded the development of PC >>operating systems by at least a decade as well... :-) > >...and Windoze stopped it dead. ;-) Yup, pretty nearly; and still cripples it today. Lots of eye heroin. > >>In general it makes sense to have the government subsidize "promising" new >>technologies; the tricky question is just "how much is too much?" -- when do >>you decide that the taxpayers have given enough in the hopes of discovering >>the Next Big Thing and just leave it entirely up to private industry to >>continue development? > >TNBT should be left 100% to industry. Let the government do some basic >research, if that. Government wasn't required for *any* of the examples you >cited.
From: Don Lancaster on 24 Apr 2010 11:19 On 4/23/2010 8:58 PM, JosephKK wrote: > > An irrelevant financial calculator is not helpful. I think I found your problem. The calculator is central and essential to net energy. -- Many thanks, Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don(a)tinaja.com Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
From: mpm on 24 Apr 2010 11:27 On Apr 23, 7:23 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Consider how much energy was wasted building the pyramids, and how much more > is today as people fly from all around the world to see them. :-) > > ---Joel Actually, a great deal of that pyramid-building energy still exists today - in the form of stored kinetic energy. -mpm
From: mpm on 24 Apr 2010 11:52 On Apr 23, 11:38 am, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "mpm" <mpmill...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > news:56681aec-1de7-4f52-b0f6-8e9748d43aa6(a)t36g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > > Doesn't history show that successful technologies are successful > > pretty much right out of the gate? > > I expect you can find plenty of anecdotes both for and against this surmise. > > Lasers are perhaps a good example of technology that was incredibly nichey for > many decades (being fragile and expensive) until someone figured out how to > build a semiconductor version of one (making them cheap and reliable), and now > the average person likely owns half a dozen. > > It also took a number of decades for gasoline to become the defacto standard > for powering autmobiles -- early on kerosene, coal, and other unusual fuels > were in use because gasoline couldn't be made as easily and hence was > expensive; thermal cracking is what changed all that. > > Even the Internet as we know it today might have taken another few decades if > it hadn't been for all the government DARPA funding way-back-when... > > On the other hand, some people suggest that DOS retarded the development of PC > operating systems by at least a decade as well... :-) > > In general it makes sense to have the government subsidize "promising" new > technologies; the tricky question is just "how much is too much?" -- when do > you decide that the taxpayers have given enough in the hopes of discovering > the Next Big Thing and just leave it entirely up to private industry to > continue development? > > ---Joel I would probably re-phrase this as: Lasers weren't successful right out of the gate. (And they still aren't, if we're talking about them in terms of missile defense, etc...) Semiconductor lasers on the other hand (different beast), are commonplace today. They are not "laser pointers", they're LED pointers. The latter technology was highly successful, pretty much right out of the gate. As to your fuel example, I would argue you should look at all those fuels as a group. Hydrocarbon fuels took off over steam pretty much right away. The technology was easy. Drill, pump, use. Some of that stuff you don't even need to refine - even to this day! (Note: By extention, you could even consider McDonalds' french fry grease to run a car.) But solar-cars, electric or electric-hybrids, or even nuclear-powered cars -- all are possible, but none have proven to be instant hits. But to your specific gasoline example, one could say this was tied to the success of the personal automobile (another big hit over the horse & buggy!). As engine technology improved, the need for hydrocracking came about, and the rest is history. That gasoline didn't "take-off" sooner as a specific fuel is a bit of a "Rivers in Bolivia" argument, since prior to more advanced engine technologies, such fuels were unnecessary. That said, the TECHNOLOGY that produces gasoline is definitely an example of what I'm talking about here. I also disagree with your Internet example, though that may be just an exercise in agreeing to what exact timeline constitutes something taking off like a rocket. I'm sure you'll agree that (as a whole), the Internet has been a huge success. Much like the gasoline example above, Internet pervasiveness tracks pretty well with the success of the IBM Personal Computer. Which technology led and which one followed, may not matter. Switching gears, let's look at (2) specific technologies that HAVE NOT taken off. One is photovoltaic utility power generation. Industry has been working for decades to perfect this, and have made impressive strides. But my position remains: If utility PV was ever going to be successful, you would see the signs early and often. This has not been the case, and indeed, utility PV has yet to see the light of day (no pun intended). Another example is wind energy. Again, no technological hurdle, but can you really claim it's taken off? Certainly it is no cheaper that other energy. And absent government subsidies & mandates, would we even see wind power? I don't think so. In that regard, one might argue government subsidies are an instant hit! :) To sum up: Successful technologies tend to be instant hits. That does not preclude invention and innovation applied to some previously unsuccessful technology. My point is that "instant hit" and "time to invent, innovate and prefect" are opposite ends of the spectrum. Further, it would be the invention/innovation that would be the instant hit, and not the underlying "whatever". -mpm
From: mpm on 24 Apr 2010 11:56
On Apr 23, 8:19 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > When I grew up there, it wasn't like that. The cafeteria ladies were > from your own neighborhood. If you didn't eat your green beans they'd > call your mother :-( > They had telephones back then?? :) |