While they may not be masters of the art (because as yet nobody is) the Japanese are, nonetheless, the current masters of the nonhumaoid, form follows industrial function robot worker and they sell them all over the world. They're a bit of old hat. Nobody's going to grab a USA Today headline with "Robot that builds cars."
They are looking forward to a different market now.
Say hello to Yvette, your new household worker and companion; and sing the body electric.
What, precisely, was gained by doing this with actual physical robots, rather than a computer simulation?
Knowledge.
When I'm going where I've already been a computer model will suffice. When I'm going where I've never gone before only a physical model will do.
The inherent weakness of the computer model is that, even when using it to make predictions, it will only tell you what you already know and it will do so unerringly, even if what you know is . ..well, wrong.
. . . fortunately for mars, there probably isn't the problem with salts in the soils, and this method should be highly effective.
One of the really fascinating things to come out of the first hi def pictures of Mars was the rather obvious fact that it used to have a lot of fluid on the surface. That fluid is now gone.
Where do you suppose the salts that used to be disolved in that fluid are now?
But that's ok, because from a scientific point of view being able to map where water was is at least as interesting as being able to find where it is.
Perhaps you're considering the word "economy" too literally.
I am considering it in exactly the same way we consider ourselves as having a petroleum economy now.
Having the flexibility to use something besides oil for a major portion of our energy consumption (transportation) means we can substitute in biofuels, solar, nuclear, or what have you for the generation side. ..
And that stuff is what our economy will be based on. Nobody gives a damn about the battery and you'd be considered silly for suggesting a "Duracell economy." They care about the energy.
You are using the term economy so loosely as to lose it's meaning. That will make you easy to manipulate by the people who manipulate the economy.
Considering that hydrogen use be intended for vehicles only. ..
A faulty premise, right off the bat. I live just down the road from a fuel cell powered experimental house, built by Plug Power.
Thermal Hydrogen production from sunlight. ..
So, a solar powered culture and an economy based on the stuff to make the solar power useful for doing work. You have not fully thought out the implications of hydrogen being an energy carrier, not an energy source. Ignore the hand the illusionist is waving around. Look at the one he just stuck in his pocket. What has he got in his pocketseeesesssss?
Of course there are, but what does that have to do with the economy? Your entire argument is off the point.
No one is ever going to go to war for hydrogen, the stuff's all over. They're going to go to war for the stuff needed to put the energy in the hydrogen and/or the stuff to get it out. The hydrogen is just a vessel. A gas can; battery, whatever.
We aren't in Iraq to insure our supply of gas cans.
. ..does any other energy source like electricity have a distribution network?
Where are the electricity mines/farms?
Electric current is the result of work being done. Unless you push 'em electrons are prone to just sit there minding their own business, like getting annoyed at being anthropomorphised.
They are both valid, but they are neither truthful.
Make a test; go out in some vaguely natural environment and start producing some small amount of hydrogen without burning fossil fuels or disturbing said environment by some other means.
Yes, hydrogen is a fuel, but it is not an energy source. It is a fuel you have to put the power into. The phrase "hydrogen economy" is an idiocy at best; a fraud at worst. The economy will be based on whatever source of energy is used to make the the hydrogen. Like, oooooooooooh, gas and coal.
The more things change. . .
Gasoline and diesel have to be refined -- it's not like we find them naturally in the ground.
But the energy is already in the crude (stored solar) and it can be used to power its own refinement. There is a loss of available energy in the process, but a net gain nonetheless.
There is nothing but net loss in hydrogen since any energy that can be extracted from it must be put in it the first place - and the Second Law wins. The current cheapest and quickest way to put energy into hydrogen is to . ..burn oil and coal. Using hydrogen as a fuel increases coal and oil use until the price of them rises above the cost of energizing hydrogen by other means.
In other words, when hydrogen becomes really, really expensive itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Honest to God, I've always imagined Roberts naming the thing over a can of Reddi-Wip.
KFG
I don't think it's soluble. At some point, smaller is just too small. . .
Solution: Make it bigger.
KFG
Do not preorder a Phantom console.
KFG
While they may not be masters of the art (because as yet nobody is) the Japanese are, nonetheless, the current masters of the nonhumaoid, form follows industrial function robot worker and they sell them all over the world. They're a bit of old hat. Nobody's going to grab a USA Today headline with "Robot that builds cars."
They are looking forward to a different market now.
Say hello to Yvette, your new household worker and companion; and sing the body electric.
KFG
What, precisely, was gained by doing this with actual physical robots, rather than a computer simulation?
.well, wrong.
Knowledge.
When I'm going where I've already been a computer model will suffice. When I'm going where I've never gone before only a physical model will do.
The inherent weakness of the computer model is that, even when using it to make predictions, it will only tell you what you already know and it will do so unerringly, even if what you know is . .
KFG
Do these people seriously expect stopping kids touching each other is going to stop them getting hurt?
Do they still get transported to school in motor vehicles?
Kids are very simple life forms, they don't have a firm grasp of logic and hence do stupid things which get them hurt.
In other words, they take after their parents.
Old Alladin had a dongle,
Dee ar, dee ar, em!
With an access code here,
And an access code there.
Here an access code,
There an access code,
Everywhere and access code.
Old Alladin had a dongle,
Dee ar, dee ar, em!
KFG
They can stay grounded in reality. . .
I tried that. It wrecked my life.
KFG
Why are you assuming that there was salt in the "fluid" that was on Mars?
I'm not. We've gone there and licked it.
KFG
. . . fortunately for mars, there probably isn't the problem with salts in the soils, and this method should be highly effective.
One of the really fascinating things to come out of the first hi def pictures of Mars was the rather obvious fact that it used to have a lot of fluid on the surface. That fluid is now gone.
Where do you suppose the salts that used to be disolved in that fluid are now?
But that's ok, because from a scientific point of view being able to map where water was is at least as interesting as being able to find where it is.
KFG
Go for it.
KFG
Well, burn some coal and oil then; although some exercise wouldn't hurt you.
KFG
Perhaps you're considering the word "economy" too literally.
.
I am considering it in exactly the same way we consider ourselves as having a petroleum economy now.
Having the flexibility to use something besides oil for a major portion of our energy consumption (transportation) means we can substitute in biofuels, solar, nuclear, or what have you for the generation side. .
And that stuff is what our economy will be based on. Nobody gives a damn about the battery and you'd be considered silly for suggesting a "Duracell economy." They care about the energy.
You are using the term economy so loosely as to lose it's meaning. That will make you easy to manipulate by the people who manipulate the economy.
Follow the money.
KFG
A digital recording is a series of discrete mathematical points used to represent the sound.
KFG
Makes more sense than Phonographic. . .
Phonograph means "A record of sound."
KFG
Considering that hydrogen use be intended for vehicles only. . .
.
A faulty premise, right off the bat. I live just down the road from a fuel cell powered experimental house, built by Plug Power.
Thermal Hydrogen production from sunlight. .
So, a solar powered culture and an economy based on the stuff to make the solar power useful for doing work. You have not fully thought out the implications of hydrogen being an energy carrier, not an energy source. Ignore the hand the illusionist is waving around. Look at the one he just stuck in his pocket. What has he got in his pocketseeesesssss?
KFG
There are a couple of advantages to hydrogen.
Of course there are, but what does that have to do with the economy? Your entire argument is off the point.
No one is ever going to go to war for hydrogen, the stuff's all over. They're going to go to war for the stuff needed to put the energy in the hydrogen and/or the stuff to get it out. The hydrogen is just a vessel. A gas can; battery, whatever.
We aren't in Iraq to insure our supply of gas cans.
KFG
. . .does any other energy source like electricity have a distribution network?
Where are the electricity mines/farms?
Electric current is the result of work being done. Unless you push 'em electrons are prone to just sit there minding their own business, like getting annoyed at being anthropomorphised.
It's the Sun that makes the world go around.
KFG
Go try it and carefully track your fossil fuel use and how your environment fairs. The results may not be as you expect.
KFG
me wanders off into the wilderness with a solar panel. . .
Did you carve that solar panel out of deadfall or something?
KFG
I doubt it very much.
.
You are, nonetheless, wrong.
Go straight from the solar to the hydrogen. Eliminate the steps in the middle.
We shall leave this as an exercise for the student.
Now all mankind has to do is find the catalyst, and the carrier to transport the hydrogen with. Instant . .
Carrier and catalyst economy.
KFG
They are both valid, but they are neither truthful.
Make a test; go out in some vaguely natural environment and start producing some small amount of hydrogen without burning fossil fuels or disturbing said environment by some other means.
KFG
Rather than "it's about protecting the environment" we should be saying "it's about not being dependent upon the Middle East".
How about telling the truth, just to be different?
KFG
Yes, hydrogen is a fuel, but it is not an energy source. It is a fuel you have to put the power into. The phrase "hydrogen economy" is an idiocy at best; a fraud at worst. The economy will be based on whatever source of energy is used to make the the hydrogen. Like, oooooooooooh, gas and coal.
.burn oil and coal. Using hydrogen as a fuel increases coal and oil use until the price of them rises above the cost of energizing hydrogen by other means.
The more things change. . .
Gasoline and diesel have to be refined -- it's not like we find them naturally in the ground.
But the energy is already in the crude (stored solar) and it can be used to power its own refinement. There is a loss of available energy in the process, but a net gain nonetheless.
There is nothing but net loss in hydrogen since any energy that can be extracted from it must be put in it the first place - and the Second Law wins. The current cheapest and quickest way to put energy into hydrogen is to . .
In other words, when hydrogen becomes really, really expensive itself.
KFG
What's the point? Isn't it obvious?
No, that's the point.
KFG