Gates looking for energy solutions

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

f 1/2 your research money isn't being "wasted" you are not learning enough.
Don't take that literally folks. Wasted within the scope of the research, yes, through poor theory, poor design, equipment failure, breakage or just plain blunders. Most often because the data does not match expectations and the theory at hand does not explain it. Data must be wrong, whether or not it really is wrong, that's another issue. (AGW anyone?) Professor says grad student did sloppy work when grad student did excellent work but doesn't have the experience, background or opportunity to recognize same and develop correct theory.

Wasted as in spent frivolously, no. Maybe a small amount goes to support people the research could easily get along without but that's not as common as many think. Good Managers make the most of their staff and poor producers are usually transferred to a more suitable position. I could go on at length but this is probably enough ...
Aero

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

Regarding research into electric motor efficiency. A new winding method offers significant improvements.
Remy cites testing showing that an HVH internal permanent magnet motor provides 27% higher torque and 34% higher power compared with the same size round wire winding IPM motor. At the same performance level, the HVH motor offers a 22% reduction in space requirements and 13% reduction in mass. In addition to documented fuel efficiency improvements, freight hauling capacity can be increased since more weight can be carried in the vehicle rather than in the hybrid drivetrain.
With this kind of improvement being made, who's to say what more can be done with a funded and focused research effort.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/01 ... 127-1.html
Aero

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Post by MirariNefas »

Betruger wrote:
Which do you want?
False dichotomy.
Or are you going to go out on a limb
Don't even need to read past that. Once more reading between the lines and extrapolating and exagerating instead of just taking what I say to mean exactly what it says. If you drop the grandiose philosophy for a minute and look at ME specifically, it's not so hard to understand.
Sure, okay, I'll return the favor and just skim your middle paragraph there. It seemed big and boring and clearly wasn't going to say anything I needed to read in order to respond.

But, feel free to skip this too, I'm just going to say the same thing.

You're not as well qualified to decide if he should be funded as an expert in the field. Also, I imply that you are arrogant. Your crap about cheapness is meaningless - there's an infinity of cheap projects that can be tested. He's no conman, okay, so? That's what people like me can figure out from afar. I can also figure out that he doesn't have the trappings of genius. At that point, it's time to leave it to people who actually understand his grant proposals.
Fail to fund and it's the baby out with the bathwater.
Mm. And is this happening?
ME would be "just another" fringe project if it didn't have such huge implications.


Actually, a rather large proportion of fringe projects have huge implications.
Then is the same point as MSimon made - you have to turn stones over to know if there's anything under em.
Nice. Good saying for elementary school kids.
It also saves people from wasting their time turning that same stone over.
Fallacy. If you're saving someone else from turning a stone, it would get turned anyway.
Oh yeah. And money's meant to be SPENT.
Totally agree.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

I skipped it because instead of reading what I said, you went off arguing something I was supposed to say next.
I'll return the favor
That's the end of this conversation. Instead of figuring out misunderstandings you play debate tactics. E.G.
Fallacy. If you're saving someone else from turning a stone, it would get turned anyway.
Hey, it's an analogy Einstein. The reality is that instead of putting ME to rest right off the bat, there'll be other people wondering at any given time what's what, and be (this is where the analogy breaks, obviously enough) in the process of turning the stone. Redundant efforts. Wasted time and money.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Post by MirariNefas »

Betruger wrote:I've never given it much thought, but it's always felt right to test random stuff. Why? Because I don't know what to expect. Intuition says that's no way to go about things in general in the real "serious" world, but there has to be some rule of thumb like 1/2 an R&D budget "wasted" that way. There's some axiomatic need for it, that I can't articulate. Something like "there's no such thing as too much new data". Meaning data from new experimental settings or whole new experimental field. Terra incognita.
There's a lot of researchers who agree with you there. My own inclinations are to try out various semi-random, semi-informed schemes. I work with animals though, and these particular buggers display a seasonal phenotype. So I have to justify my ideas enough to get them approved, then wait months for the right time of year. Puts a real damper on creativity, maybe it's making me too conservative.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Post by MirariNefas »

Betruger wrote:I skipped it because instead of reading what I said, you went off arguing something I was supposed to say next.
No, I didn't. At least in my interpretation of my words.
I'll return the favor
That's the end of this conversation. Instead of figuring out misunderstandings you play debate tactics. E.G.
Okay. How else did you think I'd respond to that? Act rude, and I will be rude. I'm not the one who decided misunderstandings weren't worth working out.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Aero wrote:Regarding research into electric motor efficiency. A new winding method offers significant improvements.
Remy cites testing showing that an HVH internal permanent magnet motor provides 27% higher torque and 34% higher power compared with the same size round wire winding IPM motor. At the same performance level, the HVH motor offers a 22% reduction in space requirements and 13% reduction in mass. In addition to documented fuel efficiency improvements, freight hauling capacity can be increased since more weight can be carried in the vehicle rather than in the hybrid drivetrain.
With this kind of improvement being made, who's to say what more can be done with a funded and focused research effort.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/01 ... 127-1.html
A straight line extrapolation of 22% efficiency increase in 50 years says that in no longer than 250 years to get to over unity. In 500 years we should have motors that deliver 2X more output than input. In another 250 years they will have a motor that delivers output with just a simple spin up and never needs any energy. In another 250 years they will have roving bands destroying the motors that will not stop. In order to prevent the overheating of the earth.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

No Simon, you miss read.
motor offers a 22% reduction in space requirements
In another 250 years they will have roving bands destroying the motors that will not stop. In order to prevent the overheating of the earth.
They will be looking for them because they have shrunk so small that they are starting to compete with nanotech, and the entrenched nanotech powers that be are afraid of that much power in the hands of competition. But I should point out that they won't be able to use overheating the earth as a reason because by the time 250 years have passed, that reason will have been used for everything from soup to nuts and will be no longer effective. They may use the damage to hearing in infants who's ears are acute enough to be harmed by the powerful hum of these mighty midget engines.
Aero

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

He needs interest to keep up with inflation, or he is essentially losing money.
I dont know about your inflation rates in the US, but I think if he is a not a complete idiot, he will do just fine coping with inflation, lol.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

MirariNefas wrote: Okay. How else did you think I'd respond to that? Act rude, and I will be rude. I'm not the one who decided misunderstandings weren't worth working out.
There was nothing rude in what I said. No arrogance either; I have no idea how you went and figured that one.
No, I didn't. At least in my interpretation of my words.
Said words being
Are you going to go out on a limb and [...]
I call it like I see it. If it didnt make sense to you, I tried to articulate it as concisely as possible. Just a note here, it's starting to be a major trend that while speaking to north americans and anglo saxons over the net, some take major offense to the way I say things. I suspect it's because they "hear" and picture me saying what I say as though an American were saying it. That's nothing like my demeanor. I can see how it passes that way, but I'm not about to mimick or try and fit into some cultural conventions.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Post by MirariNefas »

You call it as you see it, as do I. We will not always see what the other is trying to present, and we probably have even less chance for commonality in interpreting other topics. For what it's worth, I don't think an imagined tone is the problem, but it isn't really worth persuing. I've made my points, and if someone doesn't read them as I meant them, then my thoughts probably wouldn't resonate with them anyway.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

I did and do see what you mean and I totally disagree with it.

Show me this list of equally promising and cheap fringe projects.

vankirkc
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:08 pm

Post by vankirkc »

MSimon wrote:The earth is homeostatic.
You have absolutely no basis to make this claim. While historically temperatures have ranged within a band, those periods didn't have humans generating massive quantities of exotic chemicals and dumping them into the air.

I bet the Martians were saying the same thing about their planet just before it dried out.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Post by MirariNefas »

Show me this list of equally promising and cheap fringe projects.
What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about a list. If you want to make a list, go dig it up yourself.
I did and do see what you mean and I totally disagree with it.
You haven't really demonstrated that in my mind. Are you actually interested anyway? I admit that I'm soured on this exchange and not particularly interested in learning more about your point of view. You said awhile ago that the discussion was over. I agree.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

I don't care about the whole drama thing you're insisting on, that you're sour or whatever. The discussion's not going anywhere if you're going to ignore the salient points to instead call honest people's hard work "crap", resume them to being "not a genius" and their as yet undebunked theoretical work kooky and not worth funding.
If you're going to actually argue the facts then I'm game. Show me what you've got.

I just want to see this list that'd be the most concise support for the crux of your argument:
Sure, you never know, sometimes game changers come out of left field. But a lot of crap comes out of left field. It's rarely a wise investment. Let Woodward compete for his grants like everyone else.
[...]
It's like zero point energy or antigravity. A field known to be rife with quackery, full of crazies or conmen, and sometimes fairly reasonable people who are simply trying too hard to read meaning into their pet theories. It's a field which is known to not produce results, so you automatically have to be skeptical of any new claims, or the people who are drawn to try.
[...]
And so on. Correct me if I'm wrong but what you're getting at is that there's too many kooky projects out there begging for funds, that'll never deliver because they're bogus. And that ME is right in that lot, so that lowering the bar to ME's level would also (if we're being perfectly impartial) lower it to or past more other fringe projects than Bill Gates' budget could cope with.

Is that not what you've been arguing? If so, all you need to do is show a trend, some links, whatever (I'm not trying to play debate here, I'm genuinely curious to see the evidence, or evidence of a trend supporting your argument), it doesn't need to be peer review-level quality bibliography. Just show me this trend that ME is nowhere near the top of fringe projects. That it isn't, as me and Skipjack and maybe others think and have said clearly, a project based on physics not debunked and one effectively cheap to fund.

Post Reply