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."
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:[.]
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
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.
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.
Actually the reason is with our current economy and infrastucture it was more profitable for EVERYBODY. Notice how people are now looking for alternatives to gas powered vehicles at the same time the oil companies are making record profits.
When oil was cheap there was no incentive to look at alternatives, now that it's become more expensive there is a market demand for more efficient/alternative fuel vehicles.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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.
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.
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.