| |
Recent Columns - Roger Born
• Kindle Wireless Reading Device - Review
Friday, 02/29/08
• what mymac.com and the online community has meant to me
Tuesday, 08/21/07
• BENEATH THE NEON - Book Review
Monday, 08/20/07
• DEVICES OF THE SOUL - Book review
Thursday, 05/31/07
• My Mac Wife
Tuesday, 10/24/06
Recent Blogs - Roger Born
• SUN, SHINE & PICKLE
Wednesday, 10/28/09
• FRANK
Friday, 10/23/09
• Quarterly Earnings Are In - Apple Is Doomed
Tuesday, 10/20/09
• THE BEST SCIENCE FICTION AUTHORS
Wednesday, 09/30/09
• THE BEST TIME TRAVEL STORIES
Wednesday, 09/23/09
Archive - Roger Born
• 2006
• 2005
• 2004
• 2003
• 2002
• 2001
• 2000
|
|
Five Inventions We Still Need
Roger Born
Columnist, The Macintosh Continuum
Tuesday, 05/23/06
There have been precious few real inventions or discoveries in our history, if you think about it. Fire. The wheel. The lever. The inclined plane. The screw. The steam engine. The turbine. Electricity. Radio. Video. The Macintosh.
Despite our own Patent Office giving out patents for things everyone else would laugh at as an invention, the real invention is a rare and precious jewel.
Here are five inventions we still need, and which no one seems to be able to even find an approach to inventing.
ONE A way to store electricity. Our current power is supplied real time over a power grid, running full tilt with maximum power. We take what we want of it, and then it goes away. There is no storage option for electricity. What is needed is a buffer - a temporary storage medium close to the power sources, which can hold an untold amount of electricity and supply it as it is needed. Such an invention would allow the power companies to fill the buffer when they are able, at a much slower rate, while the buffer would supply the grid as needed. No more peak usage worries. No more brownouts or blackouts. This invention would save our country a third or more in annual fuel savings, most of which is oil.
TWO A way to gain a much greater efficiency in our automotive engines. Face it. A lot less than half of the available power in our fuel is extracted for motive energy. The rest goes out the tail pipe. Why is that? It has always been that way. Sure, car and truck engines have grown more sophisticated all the time, but still, the basic design is flawed, since so little of the energy is used. If someone invented a new way to extract power from fuel, our cars would be getting 300 miles to a gallon. Better yet, we could fill our tanks with water, and the available hydrogen and oxygen in the water would run our vehicles for a month.
THREE A way to tap all the free energy in subspace. Subspace, by definition, lives in the all-connected nano dimensions on a quantum level. Supposedly, there is an infinite quantity of free energy there, just for the taking. If anyone ever invented a device that could tap into that energy, there would not be the need for petrochemical fuel, steam turbines, internal combustion engines - none of it. Such power could be connected directly to generators in the power grid and in our vehicles and private homes. I suspect (and so do a lot of others) that such a device would resemble a radio.
FOUR A way to utilize the magnetic fields of the planet and/or universe, in order to overcome gravity. Some few people maintain that the military already has such aircraft. You can easily imagine what such a vehicle might be like. No motors. No fuel. Just receptors built into the hull of an airtight, self-contained vehicle. Want to travel anywhere on earth? Just grab the controls and go. Want to go into orbit? No problem, just travel at any suborbital speed and in an short time, you are there. Want to come back? Again, no problem with excessive speed of re-entry. Travel back at your leisure. The same would be true of going to the moon. You could get there in a day or so, stay as long as you want, and come back when you are ready. No rockets. No toxic rocket fuel, burned in the atmosphere. No high G's. No chance of burning up on re-entry. The magnetic forces are there. The energy they contain is more than enough to do what we want with it. All we need is an invention to make use of it.
FIVE A way to gently transmute energy and atoms into more complex matter. I know, I know. A Replicator, you say. Already been invented - in Star Trek. But the invention I am talking about is a non-violent way to make simple carbohydrates (sugars) and lipids (also sugars) out of any form of energy applied to water and carbon dioxide (CO2). The formulas we already know, from (left handed) simple sugars to complex carbohydrates, amino acids and proteins. Why do this? Such an invention would supply the world with food for everyone, even cattle, for a fraction of the cost and toil that comes from growing it. Think of the world's population being liberated from the capriciousness of planting, watering, and harvesting seasonal crops, of being freed from the labor, power consumption, and the necessary use of fertilizers and pesticides. Of course we would still grow our food and raise our herds and flocks, but nobody would ever have to die of famine or lack of nourishment. (Imagine how this would solve the need to supply food on a trip to the planets.) Sure, maybe someday there would be Replicators that supply us with all the dishes we love on the spot, but first, let someone invent the countertop box that will duplicate what every living cell can already do - produce complex matter (sugars, amino acids and proteins) out of energy, water and air.
OK. These are the five new inventions we need before this new millennium ends. Preferably, a lot sooner, please. Say, in the next 94 years? Or, how about in the next dozen years? That way most of us would live to see it.
We need these, you know. Most of us are still miffed that we were promised (but not given) flying cars, vacations on the moon, and jet packs. Not getting the future we were promised really sucks, no matter how good all these new Macs and iPods are, and how much we love them.
Regards,
Roger Born
"Laws of physics cheerfully broken upon request. *Void where prohibited."
.
| Article Discussion | | MyMac welcomes reader feedback to our Article Discussion area below. Please REGISTER to become a free contributor, or LOGIN. |
Some fun stuff to dream about Roger. Here is my 2 cents back:
One: batteries and capacitors do this already. I think what you want to say is an economical and environmental friendly way. Reservoirs behind damns are also a way to “store” electricity in a manner of speaking too. For the solar energy systems I was looking at installing on my house, there were several storage systems available to save the energy from the daytime and use it at night. They were just VERY expensive. But will work just fine.
Two: The auto industry has had this for years but refuse to produce cars that are more efficient. Hybrids are a perfect recent example of making the power plants more efficient, but now are being bastardized to make them more powerful, not more efficient by Detroit. There have been experimental fuel cell cars (running on water, sort of) that are very efficient as well. One problem is, you cannot easily turn on and off a fuel cell, so what do you do with that energy when parked? Oh, you could plug it into the grid and supply electricity to your community. With the number of cars available that could do this, problem number ONE could go away given the large amount of parked cars putting power into the grid, especially at night! The by-product of a fuel cell is hot water by the way…nice and clean. And there have been many tests to show that a tank of Hydrogen in your vehicle is LESS dangerous than a tank of gasoline as well.
Three: A bit too Star Trek for me. I do not believe we have ever been there, so taking their energy may be difficult. And given the universe’s desire to remain in balance, if we take energy from sub-space, what goes back in return?
Four: I have a problem with this one. The amount of energy needed to get into orbit is quite large, and much large than anything that could be taken from the magnetic fields of the earth. Gravity is not magnetic anyway. While both exert a force, magnetic energy could either be turned into electricity, but I suspect you could not get enough of to lift a craft, much less make orbit (where the magnetic field diminishes as well as you move out) or used to push against another magnet, which I suspect you would need to power to modulate to push against the earth’s field. Power…oh…… Don’t see this one happening any time soon.
Five: “A Replicator, you say. Already been invented - in Star Trek.” Uh, no, that is a science fiction show. But this is a very interesting idea. Since plants do this by Photosynthesis, perhaps a bio-electrical device that can do this as well? Wait a minutes, in energy terms, photosynthesis converts solar energy into chemical potential energy that is in carbohydrates. We can ‘burn’ them again to get energy. Maybe this solves ONE as well!
Hmmmm…
Posted by Owen Rubin
|
Those are all good Rog, but I have a few items that I feel really, truly, need to be invented:
- A method and means that will cause Americans, especially the elderly and people who live in working class towns, to realize that state lotteries, especially the scratch tickets, are a TAX ON THE POOR!!!
- A means by which gorgeous women will totally forget about guys who are rich and good looking, and become powerfully attracted to ordinary guys who don't make much money.
- A way to end all of the following television programs: American Idol, WWF Smackdown, all 1/2 hour sitcoms, and all awards shows.
- A cure for Yoko Ono.
- A super strong adhesive, strong enough to hold Rosie O'Donnell's lips together. (such an adhesive could also be applied to Yoko Ono. )
- A legal means to totally null out any and all transmissions of Oprah Winfrey, and replace said transmissions with The Three Stooges.
Posted by Bruce Black
|
Just a word on number one - its already been done! Here in Tasmania as in many places in the world, we have many hydro-electric dams which store water until it is needed - want more power, open the gates. Want less, close them. This is by far the most efficient way of storing electricity, AND provides recreational fishing boating etc as well!
Posted by Ricklionheart
|
Major flaws in your research:
Invention One - Major research has been done and is still being conducted in the area of energy storage devices that allow us to move away from real-time power generation/consumption. One application being researched at Florida Institute of Technology is the practice of using super conductors. Super conductors, if maintained within the temperature range of the super conductive state store electrical energy for large amounts of time. The current problem for this method is the energy required to keep the material a super conductor is not economically feasible. This area will be addressed by innovation rather than invention as current methods will likely be innovated making them much more effecient and easy to attain. Also, batties and capacitors are not the storage devices he was hitting on. Batteries are highly lossy, cannot discharge all of their power as fast as capacitors, and capacitors are meant for short charge states (basically doing what batteries can't do, but not doing what batteries already do).
Invention Two - Your research here was specifically flawed. Most of the energy does not go out of the tail pipe, in fact most of the energy is used to push the car against the forces of wind. Effeciency lost due to wind resistance is roughly 60% (last figures I've heard from scientific articles). Again, innovating ways to negate wind resistance or use fuel in a manner different from our current methods would result in much greater effeciency.
Invention Three - This is also being researched, but I agree, it needs to be done. The problem is that the "subspace" domain is completely theoretical, and to my knowledge no one has carried out an experiment that proves the infinite amount of energy at the quantum level dimensions. The most likely field to tap into this is particle physics. With particle accelerators and devices creating magnetic fields that make the earth's field look like a pocket magnet (used for performing extreme manipulations on matter, they want to know what makes mass). Once again, it won't be a simple "invention." It will likely be a series of inventions and innovations.
Invention Four - Same as three. I doubt the American Military actually has this technology. People love conspiracy theories.
Invention Five - Also will be from the answer in three. Your asking for complex energy manipulation that will require the understanding of how matter is formed from raw energy instead of from other matter (i.e. fusion/fission).
While all of these things would be useful, you have a very ignorant view of current technology and how the design process works towards inventing and innovating our current technologies. Most of what you're asking is only the subject matter of science fiction, at least for the next few decades or centuries.
By the way, I'm not some random guy with no education answering your post to say your wrong. I'm 2 classes from a degree in Electrical Engineering and like to study high science in my spare time. :)
Victor Ludick
Posted by vizerei
|
Point one's been covered.
P2: Tesla invented an engine that he claimed was nearly 100% efficient, (this is the guy you can thank for the information age by the way), yet when people tried to re-create the experiment, they didn't do it to Tesla's exact specifications. It still demonstrated potential for high efficiency though. Why has this technology not been looked at closer?
P3: Large Hadron collider at CERN(Internet inventors) being complete this year. Progress is being made.
P4: Tesla allegedly created and tested such a machine. A common theme I keep seeing cropping up is rotating magnetic fields. Apparently Faraday did two experiments. One was the induction coil, which we use universally today. The other was a rotating magnetic field. There is a famous quote in physics that "electromagnetism took a wrong turn 150 years ago". Still no work has been done into this field. Why? Surely we could spare a few undergrads somewhere, to check it out. According to "The fractal symmetry of life" on video.google.com, biology is trying to solve that problem, guess it depends on whether you believe in evolution.
P5: Above video talks about golden spiral fractal compression of charge. Seems a little fantastical, but, again perhaps we should try and repeat those experiments.If they repeatedly fail then dismiss the theory. At least someone is at trying to raise the bar, perhaps?
Also on that point is E=mc^2, all mass is energy. Mass is just an extremely large amount of energy. Apparently, the energy required to separate quarks would create a new particle. And don't forget string (M) theory's attempts to unify gravity with the other force. You know, the strong-weak-electromagnetic force. That's right, all other forces are unified. But not gravity...
Posted by styryx
|
I thought the String Theory was pretty much proven false at this point by most mainstream scientists?
Tim
Posted by Tim Robertson
|
Owen:
It's not Detroit that has bastardized hybrid engines, but instead Tokyo is behind this one. The Accord hybrid is only offered with a V6, Isame for the Camry I believe.
Of course it doesn't help that our current president gives only lip service to raises fuel standards instead of signing an executive order demanding a 1mpg increase per year in the CAFE standard (I can hear DKE's keyboard firing right now!). When the CAFE was first rolled out it forced Detroit to become engineers again. The result, 4 cylinder engines went from 20 mpg with 70 horsepower to 40 mpg with 175mpg. It can be done again, a little gov't goosing is in order that is all.
Posted by Mark Marcantonio
|
guys,
as for number 2, i am talking about something radical, not an incremental advance to what we already have.
there needs to be some new approach to the idea of an engine that can burn any fuel, extracting almost the total available energy from it.
any kind of internal combustion engine will probably never achieve such a goal.
the idea is that any fluid could become fuel in such an engine - even water.
such an engine would be closer to a collider than the engines we are all familiar with.
regards,
roger born
"sorry. no refunds"
Posted by Roger Born
|
Mark, I disagree completly. The peopel who build the cars decide who the electrical motor will be used with the gas engine, and with the esxception of one Honda and one Toyota, all hybrids are being added to boots power NOT fuel economy.
The car companies are playing on people's desire to do the right thing and to use less and waste less. Since the first Hybrids saved gas and were very clean, people bellieve that just having a "hybrid" means they are doign something good. But when the gas milage of a new, popular non-hybrid gets 19 MPG and the hybrid version only gets 23 MPG but is more powerful, I blame the car builders.
I agree on the issue of Washington paying only lip service to the CAFE standard. The requirement for MPG minimums should go up EVERY year.
SIGH!
-Owen-
Posted by Owen Rubin
|
(sorry, I typed the above while trying to do something else...way too many typos....sorry)
Posted by Owen Rubin
|
| MyMac welcomes reader feedback to our Article Discussion area below. Please REGISTER to become a free contributor, or LOGIN. |
|
|
