Slashdot Mirror
X Prizes for DNA, Nanotech, Autos, Education
An anonymous reader writes "Larry Page and Craig Venter are now on the X Prize Board of Trustees, and Peter Diamandis, the man behind the $10 million space prize, said new X prizes are in the works for innovations in automobiles, education, nanotech and DNA reseach. Diamandis, from the article: "Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon? I think that we'll see some amazing achievements in this area." This is in addition to the foundation's incentive to completely decode the DNA of 100 or more people covered earlier on Slashdot."
Now, to "decode" that would mean that it's encrypted somehow, but it's not. It's there in strands in the center of a cell's nucleus. Maybe "extract" would work as a verb, but we're certainly not cracking any encryption. Do I use RSA encryption to protect my genes from you? No. Even if I did, they'd likely only have to crack it once unless everyone used separate public keys.
What it would really mean to decode DNA would be to figure out what the sequence is actually telling us and we are a far far way from that. The sequence reveals the three letter nucleotides and these then reveal many different proteins that form upon folding. We need to find out which are junk, how recombination works, what defines a stop codon, which nucleotides form which proteins, understanding the C-value, etc. Once that happens, then we can start claiming we've decoded something. Please, people, its function is encrypted, not its sequence.
When an X-prize is issued using this wording, it really makes me think twice if they really even know what they want done to win the prize. If you take it literally, that's awfully ambitious. Of course, there's no way to reverse the use of this word as I believe the media has made it a permanent house-hold phrase
My work here is dung.
"Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?"
Because the oil companies buy out/sue out any startup that attempts to make a practical electric car.
They did all these feats on snowboards. No really. I saw it on ESPN yesterday. You haven't truly recombined DNA till you've done it on the backk of a snowmobile doing 40! Booyah!
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Ninnle in Space!
Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?
clear profit
enjoy those tax cuts
What kind of prize are they going to offer for education? I can see easily quantifiable results in the other areas, but does anyone know what they are thinking about in education?
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
It's great to see private companies encouraging this kind if creativity! But at the same time its sad to see billions of federal tax dollars going to complete waste. I can't help but imagine if the US put billions into science and technology and not blowing up countries.
http://religiousfreaks.com/Because cars have to conform to safety and performance standards that preclude making them too underpowered or too light. The compact cars we have now (which regularly do get 40-50 MPG) already fare badly in a collision with a pickup truck, much less a tractor trailer. When all cars are as solid as motorcycles, all cars will be as dangerous as motorcycles. When a car that is only as solid as a motorcycle also can't accelerate or keep up with the other traffic, it makes a motorcycle seem like a Cadillac by comparison. Or would you try the experiment of driving one of the participants in the Solar Challenge on an unrestricted road alongside normal vehicles?
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Um, because consumers have never demanded anything different and Detroit and Big Oil have squelched attempts to develop new technologies for fear of cutting into their profit margin?
If these new X-Prizes bear fruit, it may signal breaking the grip of the big guys on the market, but I think there's less competition for a successful space plane than there is for a fuel-efficient, alternative-fuel car. Even if something radically new and spectacular is created through this process, don't expect Detroit to jump on the bandwagon so easily. Look at how hard it is for them to switch over to making hybrid vehicles.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
One interesting thing about these goals is that we do not currently have even a solid hint of an idea as to how to solve them.
While the Personal Spacecraft challenge was indeed a monumental feat, it was largely an engineering challenge. Humans have already sent themselves into space many times. The technology was there; humans have a fair understanding of chemical rocketry and aerodynamics.
These new challenges are in a different league. No one has yet decoded that much human DNA that quickly. No one has made a [practical] vehicle that runs much above the 40 mpg mark (that I know of).
These challenges represent not just break throughs in engineering, but in the fundamental knowledge that underpins them.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
If there's one thing that confuses me, it's why anyone ever uses the verb "decode" when speaking about DNA.
Funny, because what's been confusing me is why anyone would use the word "decode" when they are speaking of a cipher. Wouldn't you say "decipher" instead?
A code is simply a map from one representation to another, such as:
-map from DNA to protein
-map from book attributes to a Library of Congress number
-map from a packed memory structure to a set of attributes
I'm just kidding about decode not applying to ciphers. Obviously it does. The difference here is that a cipher is a specific type of code where the map from one set to the other is meant to be one-way unless specific requirements are met, such as knowing the key sequence. A code is just a mapping, and doesn't need to be a cipher.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I think it is an interesting idea to fund scientific innovation. In the past (IBM, Bell Labs) companies would spend oodles of money and not accomplish a whole much (well the transistor was pretty important)
Prizes allow companies to fund innovation without making a long term commitment, which can sink a company.
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
Why do we drive on parkways yet park in driveways?
Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?
Simple, with our current economy and infrastructure it is more profitable to very influential energy companies this way. And since our current President and Vice President are very close to these energy companies, you will see very little in the way of change.
Let's hope the X-prize will be a catalyst for widespread use of new types of renewable energy.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I'm well aware the Japanese have a word for it, but please, no more stories about people covered in DNA.
If you really want to nitpick, let's do this. From here:
... or it is synonymous with decipher.
decode
Main Entry: decode
Pronunciation: (")dE-'kOd
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to convert (as a coded message) into intelligible form b : to recognize and interpret (an electronic signal)
2 a : DECIPHER 3a b : to discover the underlying meaning of
Ok, so if it was an electrical signal, I'd let it slide. Otherwise, it is decoding a messege into something intelligible which GTAAACTTGAAAA isn't
My work here is dung.
What did you mean by "what defines a stop codon"? It's UGA, UAG, or UAA...maybe you were refering to determining the exact mechanism of how a ribosome works?
Now, to "decode" that would mean that it's encrypted somehow, but it's not.
No, you are mixing up the words "decode" and "decrypt". The set of actions that can be labelled "decoding" is a superset of the set of actions that can be labelled "decrypting"; or, to put it another way, decrypting is a specialised form of decoding.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to misuse the word decode, but take a look at a dictionary:
To extract the underlying meaning from
A sequenced genome is more intelligible than a bunch of cells. That's all that's happening, and although there is further work to be done, it doesn't mean that sequencing is not decoding.
that runs on cow farts? I mean it would be a great idea in terms of green house gases! Kills two birds with one stone.
Extrinsic and intrinsic rewards are just some of the properties (for the want of a better word) that motivate people. These rewards will help solve these problems, which are not impossible, just technologically difficult.
The more I know, the less I know
very informative first post. Thanks for the info. BTW, decode doesn't necessairly mean something is encrypted, it just means that you're changing stuff from one understood medium to another understood medium. Like the way ppl decode clay tablets that were written 1000 years ago. I write network level code and to me, decode and decryption are two different things. When I decode a network packet, I just strip away the headers depending on whats in it. When I decrypt a network packet, I need to use some keys etc. I guess its all about your POV of things.
:p
Just my 2 cents.
Because some of us like to drive 500-1000 miles at a time on a somewhat regular basis, and yes its cheaper/more convenient than flying/train/emu. Especially once you have a family.
I R'd TFA and they linked to an article describing cars using around 250 miles/gallon.
When an X-prize is issued using this wording, it really makes me think twice if they really even know what they want done to win the prize.
For what it is worth... in the article, the X-prize folks did NOT use the word "decode" when referring to DNA; they said "sequence". Only the LiveScience.com article writer used the word "decode".
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
"Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?"
The question should be: Why do we still drive cars?
Certainly in urban areas this is the most inefficient way of getting people from point a to b.
Check out http://www.carfree.com/ for a non mainstream look at this issue.
This would be a good chance to address real questions and not just come across as another "rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic" type endeavor.
Money for performance, why can't industry do this? Because there is no money in it?
01010100011010000110010100100000010101010110111001 101001011101000110010101100100
00100000010100110111010001100001011101000110010101 110011001000000110111101100110
00100000001001110100110101100101011100100110100101 100011011000010010000001101001
01110011001000000110011001110101011011000110110000 100000011011110110011000100000
01100111011101010110110001101100011010010110001001 101100011001010010000001101001
01101100011011000110100101110100011001010111001001 100001011101000110010101110011
00100001001000010010000100100001001000000100111101 101001011011000010000001110010
01110101011011000110010101111010001000010010000100 100001001000010010000100100000
00100000
Sincerely,
Kilgore Trouit, C.E.O.
Voice 2: Solution: Simple! Let's advertise some NEW prizes, for things that are basically impossible: either violate basic laws of Physics, or too vague to quantify. Then we can really howl, and never have to pay out another dime!
Chorus: Yes! Yes! Yes!
completely decode the DNA of 100 or more people ... on Slashdot
Common results included a disregard for traditional business models, predisposition for processed snack cakes and energy drinks, and an unusual heightened responsiveness to patellar reflex stimulation. Only 1% of the sample set were found to know what a naked woman looks like, which not surprisingly corresponded directly to the 1% determined to actually be women.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
When an X-prize is issued using this wording, it really makes me think twice if they really even know what they want done to win the prize.
For what it is worth... in the article, the X-prize folks did NOT use the word "decode" when referring to DNA; they said "sequence". Only the LiveScience.com article writer used the word "decode".
-----
I love Slashdot, but I die a little inside each time I see a +5 comment based on a completely incorrect understanding of the article stemming from the poster obviously not reading the article. We need to discourage this as a community.
1) Consumers don't want alternatives (unless your a Californian)
2) Governments don't want alternatives (unless your California)
3) Car companies don't want alternatives (unless you forced to sell in California)
4) Gas companies don't want alternatives. (Because they are Texan)
There are litteraly countless designs out there both to improve fuel efficiency, use alternative fuels or power supplies, or use considerably more environmentally friendly technology then what we use now. They have been around for as long as 30 years or more. I don't understand how the X Prize will be won or even contested when there have been viable alternatives for years. Also this contest is moot because of the 4 conditions above.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Arugments like these always give me a good laugh. I suppose if you live in a fantasy world, it makes perfect sense to assume that Oil Companies have large quantities of assasins looking to cap anyone who comes up with a fuel efficient car.
Meanwhile, in the Real-World (tm), basic economics dictates that anyone able to produce a more fuel efficient car with similar performance to todays models, or better yet a high-efficiency alternate-fuel vehicle with a convinient power-source, this person or comany would "make a killing" as it were. Just like in any other industry, providing the customer with better value for their money increases sales, thereby generating larger profits.
Back in fantasy land, the president of Exxon Mobile is currently issuing orders for the president of Ford to be disembowled because he had the nerve to increase fuel efficiency by 5 miles per galon.
You conveniently missed the "practical" point. Do a cost analysis on a hybrid and even with the amount of gas you will save over the life of the car you will generally lose.
Still, there's are some basic laws of thermodynamics getting in the way of huge improvements (>100mpg) without significant changes in what folks consider to be cars.
Changing to electric power only moves the problem (burn more coal/oil to make electricity).
Engineering is the art of compromise.
We need to enhance the moderation format to include "+1 Tinfoil Hat" Everytime we get some qusi-paranoid conspiracy theory we just mod it up +1 Tinfoil Hat, although the rest of the moderation system may get jealous because they will never be used...
I blame Microsoft for the lack of this feature. I think it is a conspiracy between them and the NSA to keep us from expanding our Tinfoil Army.
"Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?"
2 points, 1 question
1. I guess your 30mpg is an average. I know most SUVs don't come close to that.
2. Frankly, I find it amazing that you can take a 1 gallon jug of liquid and slowly burn it and propel yourself and 3000 pounds of vehicle 30 miles. I know there are vehicles that can even do better, but 30 miles is a lonnnnnnnnng way. To be able to do that will 1 gallon of dinosaur juice seems pretty good.
Q1. If the US decided to move to 1 compact New York style location and didn't require the massive amounts of fuel to move bodies from home to work to the mall to the grocery store to school to etc, how would that affect the economy?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Your logic is misguided. If I drive my SUV 7 miles a day and get only 15MPG, I'm still not using as much gas as you driving a Civic 60 miles one way because you chose to live out further from your work/pleasure.
It shouldn't be about efficiency, it should be about usage/person.
Oh really? Last I checked, G, T, A, and C stood for guanine, thymine, adenine, and cytosine, the four nitrogenous bases of DNA. There are 20 amino acids (no, I won't list them all), none of which are components of DNA (ignoring histones, etc.).
Now, to "decode" that would mean that it's encrypted somehow, but it's not. It's there in strands in the center of a cell's nucleus. Maybe "extract" would work as a verb, but we're certainly not cracking any encryption. Do I use RSA encryption to protect my genes from you? No. Even if I did, they'd likely only have to crack it once unless everyone used separate public keys.
Well there is a bit of encryption of the human body in the DNA. The code itself only is about 20mb, but yet it can some how produce thousands of trillions worth of cells arranged in a fairly organized pattern far more complex than the raw DNA code.
Think of it of like a Zip file in which we've got the zip file and we've got the expanded file, but we don't really have a clear picture of how to its compressed or decompressed into working beings with some type of say... Encryption key.
(and yeah the original article didn't say decode, but I could see where they could come from)
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Probably they have a clue about what they're asking: Peter Diamandis is an MD.
Second, you assume iron is the only metal. Titanium, although hard to extract right now, is not only lighter than steel, it is considerably stronger. This means that it should survive impacts very nicely. Vastly better than steel for the same weight.
Third, you assume that impact resistance requires the vehicle's survival. F1 and Indycar disprove this. You can certainly build vehicles using carbon composites that are designed to shatter, for the explicit purpose of getting energy away from the vehicle's occupant(s). Since a wrecked car is unlikely to be repaired (and even if it is, it'll often be substantially weaker), there is little actual advantage in having the car mostly intact but unusable anyway.
Fourth, you assume that car bodies are particularly efficient. Many have a lot of drag (which is why cyclists have topped 100 mph by staying close behind cars), the underbody is covered in pipes and gaps creating all kinds of nasty airflows, etc. You also only need significant grip when accelerating (that includes cornering, as it's a change in velocity, and emergency manoevers). If you're going in a straight line at uniform speed, you only have to overcome air resistance, and that's not going to require a whole lot.
This is not to say that you can build a car that can take advantage of all - or indeed any - of these characteristics. If it's not been done, there is no proof it can be done. However, a lack of proof is not proof of lack. All it proves is that nobody has (yet) established what the "ultimate" car would actually be - even in theory.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well, thermodynamics only let you go so far. And contemporary engines sacrifice mileage in favour of emissions. You could probably improve your mileage with 10-20% or so by running very lean mixtures, but you'd release a whole lot of NOx. Causing smog amongst others.
Even electric cars don't have that great an efficiency as the combustion process is just deferred to a power station instead. If you replace a high-efficiency biodiesel engine with a coal plant you shoot yourself in the foot badly.
Personally, I think biofuel is the key. You can use the entire fleet of vehicles that exist today with a little tweaking of their injection and ignition systems, and it is essentially solar power that takes the route via carbohydrates.
But the oil companies don't like this because they live off petroleum.
And the academic researchers don't like it because they prefer gigantic infrastructure-changing projects that will require billions of dollars in reseach indefinately.
And the car companies don't like it because they want to sell you an entire new car. Not just put a $50 gizmo in your present one.
And governments don't like it because they bow to companies and academic institutes.
Which leaves it to you to start demanding ethanol and biodiesel and pour it in your Buick, today. I do.
PS: The T-Ford had good mileage because it weighted 1200 lb and topped out at 45 mph. You could also get good mileage with such a light car and only 20 BHP. A very big part of fuel consumption come from accelerating the car. Keep a steady speed and have a light car and you can get away rather well even if you have a big strong engine.
There are a lot of those tanks out on the road being driven by idiots who tailgate, speed, and take corners too fast. And that's not even to mention big trucks.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
The rest of the system need not be jealous, they're quite adequate! Next time you get mod points, and you want to use them to mod 'Tinfoil hat', remember that it falls under 'insightful' or possibly 'interesting'
Actually, one could consider GTAAACTTGAAAA intelligible. If you consider that the without sequencing DNA is just a bit of goo in a cell nucleus. By "decoding" it into a string of letters with a well recognized "code" for mapping between letters and bases you've translated it into something that can be written or spoken.
Intelligible doesn't mean that everyone who reads it understand it. Open any high level math textbook and show a formula at random to an intelligent person who doesn't study math. Most likely they won't understand it, but that doesn't mean the formula is unitelligible.
Now, writing a DNA sequence using only four letters will result in a much longer formula than an elegant math equation using symbols that require years of study just to understand what a single symbol means, but that's just a question of information density. "Decoding" from chemical to written equivalent of chemical does make the information intelligible even if it's not easily understandable.
Yeah, it's not like car manufacturers haven't spent any money on research in that area (*cough*tens of billions*cough*).
Sheesh, it is astoundingly naive to believe that a mere 10 million dollar prize is going to bring about some "magic motor" that is far more fuel efficient than what we have. Some of the smartest engineers in the world have been working on the problem for at least four decades.
Space is different -- there isn't much of a direct economic incentive to get to space, so giving out a prize for a relatively useless stunt made a little bit of sense. But there is already an immense economic incentive to produce a fuel-efficient motor. The patent on something like that would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions).
While they're at it, why don't they offer a prize for human-level AI. I hear no one has been working on that, either. ::rolls eyes::
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
True, but how much energy does it take to grow the plants to convert into biofuel?
Other than that, I like the idea. It certainly replaces the importance of certain oil-rich regions with that of arable land, which is differently, and hopefully more evenly, distributed (sucks to be outside the temperate zone).
Because that's all their asking for them to do--read the DNA into a form that reflects the ordering of G, T, A or C which are abbreviations for the different possible amino acids.
They are nucleotides not aminoacids. Amino acids make proteins.
It's there in strands in the center of a cell's nucleus.
The DNA is not in the centre of the nucleus is occupying almost the whole nucleus.
Just my three cents.
it's why anyone ever uses the verb "decode" when speaking about DNA.
Because that's acceptable terminology in the field.
Now, what I don't understand is why computer scientists use the term "optimize" for processes that clearly produces suboptimal solutions.
--------
--- Just say no to negativity.
"Even electric cars don't have that great an efficiency as the combustion process is just deferred to a power station instead. If you replace a high-efficiency biodiesel engine with a coal plant you shoot yourself in the foot badly."
Are you seriously suggesting that several hundred little engines of varying design, repair, and maintainence, are somehow or other MORE efficient than a single, carefully maintained and well-optimised power plant? Heck, don't you even consider that there are ways to generate electricity that don't require burning fossil fuels?
in areas where government research and funding has started to slack off, or at least, loose site of their goals (example: NASA doesnt care about getting to Mars and exploring space, they wanna put up new GPS satellites and do seemingly random expirements on the ISS (which are no doubt useful, but if you want public support, the public needs to understand the basics of the research on the ISS))
For those who are mechanically inclined, http://www.starrotor.com/ might be an interesting read. I've been hearing about this engine for a few years now, and it looks pretty promising. Personally, I'd love to have one under my hood.
Why is it worth so much to obtain just the plain DNA code of a lot of people? The practical uses of this are limited, and will also meets some ethical questions. It will enable screening people for diseases, the like etc. etc. But will it really? Genetically, you can only prove an increased chance on a certain 'disease', and sometimes this might even depend on combinations of genes that are now not understood.
What apparently the X-prize doesn't want to help achieve is a good understainding of what the genetic code means, or how to interpret it at least. Instead, they help gaining bulk DNA data which is of no real use (yet), although I guess insurance companies might be interested. I would rather have them see putting a prize on unraveling DNA decoding schemes exhaustively.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
Why is it worth so much to obtain just the plain DNA code of a lot of people? ... I would rather have them see putting a prize on unraveling DNA decoding schemes exhaustively.
That's the holy grail, of course. But consider that this goal is currently rather far out of our reach- and that the speedy sequencing of genomes is a necessary and important step in achieving this goal.
Until we get a good bottom-up model for complex gene behavior, statistical analysis is one of the main tools, if not the main tool available to understand what genes actually do. And statistical analysis of genes depends on large genome sample sizes, and that depends on speedy mass sequencing of genomes.
So I'd say the prize is attached to the correct feat.
How about... make a solar panel that's more than N% efficient?
I think it's great that the X Prize foundation is finally going to get to the bottom of the genetic causes of Asperger's Syndrome. Kudos.
Breakfast served all day!
It would be nice to move at any distance safetly .When using the market and politics to control transportation,safty disapears.Unequality therfore creates energy loss.The price to move a person safetly should be the same as moving any object of the same weight.The time in moving objects is where we need to focus our attention.Using electic rail to move people during the day and products at night to recuce fluctuation on energy flow could solve some safty and energy problems.
A nuclear SUV? All you'd have to do is make an SUV big enough to fit the concrete tower on the back and you'd only have to refuel every 20 years or so! Works for aircraft carriers!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The peak efficiency of any internal combustion engine is in the 30's%. Most automobiles are using their engines at much less than peak efficiency, as they are sized for acceleration demands, not average power demands. The range of instantaneous efficiency of an IC auto is approximately 0-30%.
Power stations, of various flavours, can have efficiencies well into the 40's(%). These efficiencies can be achieved for longer time periods.
Electric vehicles have the advantage, since the range of instantaneous energy efficiencies is much better, viz 70-95%. Take into account generation and distribution losses, this turns into approximately 35-43%. Already better than IC. Add to this the advantages of regenerative braking.
The limiting factor for EV technology is public perception. Most people don't want to be bothered plugging their car in overnight. They probably feel a form of claustrophobia as a result of the reduced range (compared to IC). There are simple technologies to work around this though.
Automobile prize should goto Honda for developing the Honda FXC. It runs entirely on Hydrogen fuel and is currently in use by ordinally families in CA.
DNA is unique to everybody. I expect they want someone to be able to decode the entire dna completely in 100 people easily.
Education is probaly some sort of technology that helps educating faster and better. Such a technology would be something like the 'learning device' on Battlefield Earth.
Nanotechnology requires building fully functional molecular robots that can be used to build/repair things or repair/heal the human body.
\
I wrote this back in June 2004, on a prompt, after the fiasco of the first DARPA grand challenge. Good that its happening.
The purpose of DARPA grand challenge is "to leverage American ingenuity to accelerate the development of autonomous vehicle technologies that can be applied to military requirements."
The last two words make all the difference. It requires the entrants to disclose their technology to the military and public, and the criteria of the race is to cross a stretch of rough terrain (very much military requirement), The output of this challenge will aid some parts of transportation industry, but not the most important, road vehicles that everyone drives.
I guess, If some X-Prize kind of competition comes up for the purpose, then auto manufacturers will rush to beat each other in innovation. Today no competition exists for the innovation in vehicle technologies. Formula 1, Nascar etc. are tightly controlled with rules to make it competitive, knowingly restricting the use of new innovations.
X-Prize for innovations in vehicle technologies
Monday, June 07, 2004
Disclaimer: link going to my rarely updated blog.
Think of it like the other X-Prize.
:-)
Getting to the edge of space is to all intenets and purposes useless. But from that first stepping stone you can build something like Virgin Galactic.
Once you can sequence lots of DNA with ease then it becomes easier to look for patterns and correlations. As soon as anyone can do the first steps (instead of just the big boys) then the later steps come easier. Instead of having just one human's worth we can have thousands with any anomoly or disease resistance you can name.
So I'd say this challenge was exactly like the first X-Prize...
And the technology won't only be used for humans - the ability to quickly sequence the organism you've been experimenting with and has suddenly an immunity to the latest superbug would be damn handy.
BTW IANABCBIDDO
(I am not a Bio-Chemist, but I did date one
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Let me throw some more figures into thsi discussion to give some perspective on electric cars.o tes2.htm) so at 30% efficient let's say that's 10KJ equivalent.
1 litre of fuel contains 33KJ(http://www.projects.ex.ac.uk/trol/dictunit/n
My tank has a capacity of 30L and I can get approx 400 miles on this - but it is a new car so lets keep it easy and say 30L = 300 Miles. so I need 1KJ to get me 1 Mile.
I'll drive up to 600 Miles in one day, so either my electric car needs to store 600KJ, or to be equivalent to my car I need to be able to re-charge whatever it's tank capacity is at a rate of 100Miles/Minute (Assuming it takes 3 minutes to fill the tank at the pump - it's faster than this but I'll be generous).
If I could plug in a 100KW to my car, I'd re-charge it's capacity in 3 seconds. 5KW would re-charge this capacity in the required 3 minues - quite doable with a 240V 3 phase supply.
But where the hell are these batteries that can store that much power that fast? Ok even if I'm generous and take a break for 1/2 an hour at a service station while my car re-charges, what kind of battery can store that much that fast? Or are there "simple technologies" to get around this?
One design I saw for this was replacable battery banks that at the service station would be slid out by machinery and replaced with new fully charged ones...
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
There are two possible technolgies. Firstly, flow batteries. Secondly, a generator trailer for the times you need to take trips longer than the range of the batteries. Check out http://www.acpropulsion.com/ for info on the second solution.
This crowd make use of a 20kW charger, so your assumptions aren't out of the realm of possibility.
I have done a simple calc on battery capacity to work out how many Li-ion cells it would take to get me a useful commuting range (100km) in my Mazda MX-5. My commute is 70km round trip. Turns out it would require about 90kg of 18650 type cells. This is based on a current fuel comsumption of about 8 litres/100km with an average fuel to powertrain efficiency of 15%, and not including regen braking. All very doable really, except the battery pack alone would be about US10k.
Looking at your numbers, I see you've mistaken kJ for MJ. Only a factor of 1000 out.
You probably already have. It's the same principle that is used for many lube-oil pumps.
Thanks!
;-)
I was doing the numbers and they seemed far too small! I couldn't find where I went wrong. So instead we need 5MW to recharge this car.
Good luck finding a piece of flex to do that
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
How about an X-Prize for new environmentally-friendlier energy production methods, e.g. a working fusion reactor (non-Tokomai). Then the X-Prize might benefit more than just a few rich people like Branson and his Virgin Galactic customers.