Theme: AI

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/47479755_10156823181772264_909879398499352576_n_10156823181767264.jpg THIS IS WHY THERE AREN’T AMAZON DRONES, ROBOTS, AND JETSONS

The problem of batteries that have the energy density of gasoline, so that the weight of the energy and it’s means of conversion to physical movement. Or more simply, power to weight ratio. Rolling wheels, floating water, lift via air, all make use of land, water, air, to discount the cost of defeating gravity (compared to launching a rocket). If you want the distance coverage of an automobile without refueling (4 hrs), or planes (14 hrs), or boats (HP/.6 pr hr), or ships (150 tons per day or 75T for 8 hrs) we still lack the battery technology. And it is this battery technology that is the principle limitation on mechanical evolution. Hence why biological life forms are so vastly more complicated, but vastly more energy efficient. (You, by contrast, cost about the equivalent of a 100w light bulb to live).Bill JoslinYup. You have to think of a battery as “fuel” then measure by energy density. Ultra-caps and Super-caps might change the game – but there is still a fair amount of work to be done.Dec 4, 2018, 9:30 AMAndrew GribbleDan J. Schulte, Steve Schulte, Jeff GanaposkiDec 4, 2018, 9:35 AMCharles H BrennanOn top of that, converting energy to batteries at all loses a large chunk of that energy. So even if weight and output weren’t such problems, providing the energy needed would be brutal.Dec 4, 2018, 9:47 AMCurt DoolittleTHERE IS NO COMPARISON TO OR EQUIVALENT OF CAPTURING NATURAL DECAY (ENTROPY)Dec 4, 2018, 9:49 AMCurt Doolittle(mining the universe for uranium is insanely cheap.)Dec 4, 2018, 9:50 AMBill JoslinI wonder what is the energy density of liberals?Dec 4, 2018, 9:51 AMCurt DoolittlenegativeDec 4, 2018, 9:53 AMBill JoslinhahahahahaDec 4, 2018, 9:53 AMCharles H BrennanBill Joslin answered aboveDec 4, 2018, 9:54 AMBill JoslinCharles H Brennan only in this group would someone actually come up with a precise and scientific answer in under 2 minutes. hahahahahaDec 4, 2018, 9:55 AMMicah PezdirtzMy question is will we figure out a better energy extraction method than boiling water (for nuclear sources)Dec 4, 2018, 10:41 AMJack RiänImagine how often a company like Amazon would go through LiPo batteries with those drones running 24/7-365. No room for error, as those batteries lose maH with every charge.

Margaret’s gonna be pissed to learn she lost her bulk order of cat toys in a lithium fire two miles from her apartment complexDec 4, 2018, 10:44 AMCharles H BrennanNUCLEAR COMBUSTION ENGINE NOWDec 4, 2018, 10:44 AMJared NeavesA battery with no power left is nominally the same weight as a battery that is full of potential energy… There is a reason especially aircraft do not use batteries, as a precisely calculated nearly empty fuel tank is optimal as it is much lighter than one that is full of fuel, burn fuel to carry fuel as they say.Dec 4, 2018, 11:04 AMJared NeavesWhat is wrong with steam power? It’s pretty damned efficient, you could probably get the same effect with other fluid/gasses but it’s added complexity when it isn’t necessary.Dec 4, 2018, 11:06 AMSteve PenderModular jettisoning of used batteries could work, but that’s another layer of complexity.Dec 4, 2018, 11:46 AMԴավիդ ՎելլաPosts like these are one of the reasons why I’m so glad I follow you on FB. Natural selection was a really great way of improving efficiency. The subject you touched on particularly interests me because of the explosion of diabetes in our societies. We aren’t adapted for a constant refueling with rich energyDec 4, 2018, 12:13 PMRussell WagnerNailed it.Dec 4, 2018, 12:39 PMCurt Doolittleit’s a mistake to reason as such. steam is no different from using fluid in your transmission…..Dec 4, 2018, 12:52 PMSteven J. WoronHmmm maybe my dads idea of slingshots wasn’t so crazy afterall…Dec 4, 2018, 1:32 PMDmitry NikolovMicah Pezdirtz we already have. Liquid salt.

https://youtu.be/uK367T7h6ZYDec 4, 2018, 1:42 PMDmitry NikolovThose drones will never happen. A million things that can go wrong.Dec 4, 2018, 1:45 PMGreg HamiltonKeven KerkamDec 4, 2018, 2:26 PMGreg Hamiltongeothermal works very well in some parts of the country especially if you have a secondary use for the waster water which is still quite warm.

Nuclear is the obvious answer.

I think it was the designers of the game traveler in the 70s that identified a few required items for a big tech jump. Battery storage and non resistive conductors being the two main onesDec 4, 2018, 2:30 PMGreg HamiltonCharles H Brennan call it about a 10% loss going both in and out.Dec 4, 2018, 2:36 PMCharles H BrennanAnd it gets bigger when you scale it up for industrial applications. Hydro storage loses a ton.Dec 4, 2018, 2:40 PMGreg Hamiltoni just know from home level systems that you can expect a 10% loss in heat at every conversion point. Including going from

12v to 120 etc.

My knowledge ends at that scale.Dec 4, 2018, 2:41 PMJeffery Gog Magog HughesMini nuclear reactors for everything. Make all currency u235 tokens.

2 birds with one stone.Dec 4, 2018, 2:43 PMGreg HamiltonCurt Doolittle off subject. In the 90s were you familiar with a zine called Extropy?Dec 4, 2018, 3:08 PMAndrew ClaytonWe aren’t anywhere near a solution to fossil fuels, at least outside science fiction and UFO theories.Dec 4, 2018, 3:30 PMCurt Doolittledoesn’t come to mind. sorry.Dec 4, 2018, 3:48 PMGreg Hamiltonno big deal. It was bio hacking but also guys who thought someday they would upload.

I just like the word extropy as it’s what we do.Dec 4, 2018, 3:50 PMAndrea RoyallBut it’s still a net positive… even the energy density of feces is positive 😞

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/cash2/Dec 4, 2018, 5:07 PMJared NeavesSteve Pender yeah I don’t see faa or casa or other aviation bodies loving the idea of tossing heavy battery cells at the peopleDec 4, 2018, 8:10 PMLuke WillisAnd on this shelf, my collection of buckshot-riddled vibrators…Dec 4, 2018, 9:01 PMKinsley BinghamThe slightest effort researching the environmental impacts of electric battery production should bring pause to those who sincerely care about the world’s ecology.Dec 5, 2018, 9:25 AMJayque OoshHonestly it’s pretty magical that simple animal fat has a comparable energy density to coal.

Crazy how nature do dat

Why don’t we consider pork a renewable energy source?Dec 6, 2018, 8:15 AMJayque OoshRhetorical question, because it tastes too good to throw in the Stirling gennyDec 6, 2018, 8:16 AMLeon ScamahornWe need to develop materials that are as strong as steel and aluminum but as light as a feather. This is an exaggeration but you get the idea. Vehicles weigh less but can do the same work burns less carbon based fuels.Dec 7, 2018, 11:11 AMTHIS IS WHY THERE AREN’T AMAZON DRONES, ROBOTS, AND JETSONS

The problem of batteries that have the energy density of gasoline, so that the weight of the energy and it’s means of conversion to physical movement. Or more simply, power to weight ratio. Rolling wheels, floating water, lift via air, all make use of land, water, air, to discount the cost of defeating gravity (compared to launching a rocket). If you want the distance coverage of an automobile without refueling (4 hrs), or planes (14 hrs), or boats (HP/.6 pr hr), or ships (150 tons per day or 75T for 8 hrs) we still lack the battery technology. And it is this battery technology that is the principle limitation on mechanical evolution. Hence why biological life forms are so vastly more complicated, but vastly more energy efficient. (You, by contrast, cost about the equivalent of a 100w light bulb to live).

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/47479755_10156823181772264_909879398499352576_n_10156823181767264.jpg THIS IS WHY THERE AREN’T AMAZON DRONES, ROBOTS, AND JETSONS

The problem of batteries that have the energy density of gasoline, so that the weight of the energy and it’s means of conversion to physical movement. Or more simply, power to weight ratio. Rolling wheels, floating water, lift via air, all make use of land, water, air, to discount the cost of defeating gravity (compared to launching a rocket). If you want the distance coverage of an automobile without refueling (4 hrs), or planes (14 hrs), or boats (HP/.6 pr hr), or ships (150 tons per day or 75T for 8 hrs) we still lack the battery technology. And it is this battery technology that is the principle limitation on mechanical evolution. Hence why biological life forms are so vastly more complicated, but vastly more energy efficient. (You, by contrast, cost about the equivalent of a 100w light bulb to live).Bill JoslinYup. You have to think of a battery as “fuel” then measure by energy density. Ultra-caps and Super-caps might change the game – but there is still a fair amount of work to be done.Dec 4, 2018, 9:30 AMAndrew GribbleDan J. Schulte, Steve Schulte, Jeff GanaposkiDec 4, 2018, 9:35 AMCurt DoolittleTHERE IS NO COMPARISON TO OR EQUIVALENT OF CAPTURING NATURAL DECAY (ENTROPY)Dec 4, 2018, 9:49 AMCurt Doolittle(mining the universe for uranium is insanely cheap.)Dec 4, 2018, 9:50 AMBill JoslinI wonder what is the energy density of liberals?Dec 4, 2018, 9:51 AMCurt DoolittlenegativeDec 4, 2018, 9:53 AMBill JoslinhahahahahaDec 4, 2018, 9:53 AMBill JoslinCharles H Brennan only in this group would someone actually come up with a precise and scientific answer in under 2 minutes. hahahahahaDec 4, 2018, 9:55 AMMicah PezdirtzMy question is will we figure out a better energy extraction method than boiling water (for nuclear sources)Dec 4, 2018, 10:41 AMJack RiänImagine how often a company like Amazon would go through LiPo batteries with those drones running 24/7-365. No room for error, as those batteries lose maH with every charge.

Margaret’s gonna be pissed to learn she lost her bulk order of cat toys in a lithium fire two miles from her apartment complexDec 4, 2018, 10:44 AMJared NeavesA battery with no power left is nominally the same weight as a battery that is full of potential energy… There is a reason especially aircraft do not use batteries, as a precisely calculated nearly empty fuel tank is optimal as it is much lighter than one that is full of fuel, burn fuel to carry fuel as they say.Dec 4, 2018, 11:04 AMJared NeavesWhat is wrong with steam power? It’s pretty damned efficient, you could probably get the same effect with other fluid/gasses but it’s added complexity when it isn’t necessary.Dec 4, 2018, 11:06 AMSteve PenderModular jettisoning of used batteries could work, but that’s another layer of complexity.Dec 4, 2018, 11:46 AMRussell WagnerNailed it.Dec 4, 2018, 12:39 PMCurt Doolittleit’s a mistake to reason as such. steam is no different from using fluid in your transmission…..Dec 4, 2018, 12:52 PMSteven J. WoronHmmm maybe my dads idea of slingshots wasn’t so crazy afterall…Dec 4, 2018, 1:32 PMDmitry NikolovMicah Pezdirtz we already have. Liquid salt.

https://youtu.be/uK367T7h6ZYDec 4, 2018, 1:42 PMDmitry NikolovThose drones will never happen. A million things that can go wrong.Dec 4, 2018, 1:45 PMGreg HamiltonKeven KerkamDec 4, 2018, 2:26 PMGreg Hamiltongeothermal works very well in some parts of the country especially if you have a secondary use for the waster water which is still quite warm.

Nuclear is the obvious answer.

I think it was the designers of the game traveler in the 70s that identified a few required items for a big tech jump. Battery storage and non resistive conductors being the two main onesDec 4, 2018, 2:30 PMJeffery Gog Magog HughesMini nuclear reactors for everything. Make all currency u235 tokens.

2 birds with one stone.Dec 4, 2018, 2:43 PMGreg HamiltonCurt Doolittle off subject. In the 90s were you familiar with a zine called Extropy?Dec 4, 2018, 3:08 PMAndrew ClaytonWe aren’t anywhere near a solution to fossil fuels, at least outside science fiction and UFO theories.Dec 4, 2018, 3:30 PMCurt Doolittledoesn’t come to mind. sorry.Dec 4, 2018, 3:48 PMGreg Hamiltonno big deal. It was bio hacking but also guys who thought someday they would upload.

I just like the word extropy as it’s what we do.Dec 4, 2018, 3:50 PMAndrea RoyallBut it’s still a net positive… even the energy density of feces is positive 😞

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/cash2/Dec 4, 2018, 5:07 PMJared NeavesSteve Pender yeah I don’t see faa or casa or other aviation bodies loving the idea of tossing heavy battery cells at the peopleDec 4, 2018, 8:10 PMLuke WillisAnd on this shelf, my collection of buckshot-riddled vibrators…Dec 4, 2018, 9:01 PMKinsley BinghamThe slightest effort researching the environmental impacts of electric battery production should bring pause to those who sincerely care about the world’s ecology.Dec 5, 2018, 9:25 AMJayque OoshHonestly it’s pretty magical that simple animal fat has a comparable energy density to coal.

Crazy how nature do dat

Why don’t we consider pork a renewable energy source?Dec 6, 2018, 8:15 AMJayque OoshRhetorical question, because it tastes too good to throw in the Stirling gennyDec 6, 2018, 8:16 AMLeon ScamahornWe need to develop materials that are as strong as steel and aluminum but as light as a feather. This is an exaggeration but you get the idea. Vehicles weigh less but can do the same work burns less carbon based fuels.Dec 7, 2018, 11:11 AMTHIS IS WHY THERE AREN’T AMAZON DRONES, ROBOTS, AND JETSONS

The problem of batteries that have the energy density of gasoline, so that the weight of the energy and it’s means of conversion to physical movement. Or more simply, power to weight ratio. Rolling wheels, floating water, lift via air, all make use of land, water, air, to discount the cost of defeating gravity (compared to launching a rocket). If you want the distance coverage of an automobile without refueling (4 hrs), or planes (14 hrs), or boats (HP/.6 pr hr), or ships (150 tons per day or 75T for 8 hrs) we still lack the battery technology. And it is this battery technology that is the principle limitation on mechanical evolution. Hence why biological life forms are so vastly more complicated, but vastly more energy efficient. (You, by contrast, cost about the equivalent of a 100w light bulb to live).