For precisely this reason. It also means you go at a speed where students can pick up the material. Slides you just go too fast. Most of the students like it. The ones that don't show up at class, not so much.
You are also forgetting that a rockets performance is empty weight to full weight ratio. So if you can make a fuel tank half as light you just double the ratio and that makes a huge difference. But also there is cost. Currently getting the needed ratio is expensive. A stronger lighter material could well make it much cheaper to achieve the required ratios.
I do also agree with this. But its worse than make people "rich". It means people hoard. This is not useful for a currency or for an economy for that matter.
While there are some quite clued up people in bitcoin (ie the bitcoin FAQ on the official page), there are a lot of anti government people who really don't understand our current banking systems at all. Then of course there are lot of speculators. It could be argued they don't really care as long as they can predict.
Personally some form of ecoin appeals to me and the bitcoin system is well thought out. Its has some flaws like scalability etc and too long to confirm transactions that all could be remedied with a different set of implementation details. Perhaps what i like the best is that block chains could be used to prove the existence of something at a time in a fairly secure manner. ie hash of security camera footage, ideas book, patent applications etc.
But it has failed as a currency to date. At best is a speculative thing. And i remain unconvinced that a proof of work is a good idea. Utility of those resources is wasted and would be better spent elsewhere.
I assume you have the same policy with various drugs and medical treatments then too right. Since these phama companies make Monsanto look like Mother Teresa with their patent policies.
Oh god and don't get me started about the swiss. And some of these people work with me in SCIENCE. Stupidity, dogmatism etc is not restricted to "other people".
I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.
First of all its easy to show patents are not about protecting inventors hard work. Otherwise at the very least independent invention would be a defense. Since if you have done the same amount of work and invented something presumable valuable enough to get a patent. So its not about inventors. A quick look at some of the fist patents with Watt and steam engines and its pretty easy to see that patents are only justified via "protecting inventors" but where never really implemented for that reason.
Secondly if 2 different people faced with the same problem come up with the same solution, then it is clearly not as unobvious as lawyers would like to claim it is.
At the end of the day, patents are a win for lawyers. Guess who defend the current system the most? Its not the inventors.
Jet packs are like flying cars. Everyone thinks they are awesome and would make like better, but no one knows how or why it would be better. Logic is hardly going to work with these fans.
Also the way things scale means its easier and cheaper to make some of these things bigger. So its cheaper to make a 2 man-4 man helicopter than a one man jet pack. Range is always a problem with smaller things because of the cube law.
Printing does not the crystal structure they way you need it for high temperature metals and materials. Most metals in use today, including that outside casing on iPhones need non trivial heat treatments. In fact using the iPhone as an example, its forged then machines precisely because it was the only way to get a metal with the properties it required. In short, you can't print it.
Jetpacks from a 100% efficient physics perspective can't work unless you have an arc reactor. They will always have very poor range, and huge jet/prop blast. As for military applications, well its not going to be too far into the future where it won't be fleshy meat bags doing the shooting.
Space elevators proponents always miss one very important detail. If you have the material to make the elevator, you can use that material to make traditional rockets too. And it may well make rockets cheaper than a elevator.
The history of paper money is interesting as is fractional reserve banking. What a lot of people don't realize is that we the public asked for it to be regulated. And for good reason. The problem i have with bitcoin and bitcoin fans, is they seem to think bitcoin is somehow immune to all the things that went wrong with normal currencies. Its not.
The mass/strength ratio of the currently non existent material will have a very high speed of sound. At least in the ~km/s range. The bend is really small (easy to calculate) since the tension is huge, and the mass of the car is quite small compared to the cable. There can be waves in the cable of course but again nothing that hard to deal with.
The problem is still a material that has a high enough strength to density ratio.
Its simple math. The sun is only directly pointing at the panels at 90deg at noon. So when the sun is a 45deg compared to the panels you get about 70% of peak output etc. Integrate over a full day, where negative angles give zero output. You get an area of 2 between 0 and 180deg of the sine curve. The total peak area is 2pi. Divide, and yes i had a typo in my R, its ~32%, not 17%. So its average of 1.2GW. But that is for perfect weather and for a permanent summer.
Talking about cost per watt is a bullshit way of comparing solar to something that can work at any time of day.
You left out that a 4GW solar plant only produces 4GW at noon, in the summer on fine days. Even assuming your at the equator your looking at 17% average of the peak output. So now we don't really have a 4GW plant but a ~700MW one.
Slashdot Mirror
For precisely this reason. It also means you go at a speed where students can pick up the material. Slides you just go too fast. Most of the students like it. The ones that don't show up at class, not so much.
You are also forgetting that a rockets performance is empty weight to full weight ratio. So if you can make a fuel tank half as light you just double the ratio and that makes a huge difference. But also there is cost. Currently getting the needed ratio is expensive. A stronger lighter material could well make it much cheaper to achieve the required ratios.
Only your jet pack doesn't have enough range. And its raining.
There is nothing about bitcoin that prevents it from being used in with a fractional reserve banking system. Its even in the FAQ.
I do also agree with this. But its worse than make people "rich". It means people hoard. This is not useful for a currency or for an economy for that matter.
Like i said. Read some of the history. Its not pretty.
What a great currency.. Oh wait. No that would make too volatile to be a currency.
On the whole BitCoin fans don't think that.
While there are some quite clued up people in bitcoin (ie the bitcoin FAQ on the official page), there are a lot of anti government people who really don't understand our current banking systems at all. Then of course there are lot of speculators. It could be argued they don't really care as long as they can predict.
Personally some form of ecoin appeals to me and the bitcoin system is well thought out. Its has some flaws like scalability etc and too long to confirm transactions that all could be remedied with a different set of implementation details. Perhaps what i like the best is that block chains could be used to prove the existence of something at a time in a fairly secure manner. ie hash of security camera footage, ideas book, patent applications etc.
But it has failed as a currency to date. At best is a speculative thing. And i remain unconvinced that a proof of work is a good idea. Utility of those resources is wasted and would be better spent elsewhere.
I assume you have the same policy with various drugs and medical treatments then too right. Since these phama companies make Monsanto look like Mother Teresa with their patent policies.
Oh god and don't get me started about the swiss. And some of these people work with me in SCIENCE. Stupidity, dogmatism etc is not restricted to "other people".
Citation required. The problem here is claims like "X is healthier" without data. Or that "Y is more sustainable" without proof.
If you want it to be science. You need data, not blind claims of superiority.
I think independent invention should be proof of obviousness.
First of all its easy to show patents are not about protecting inventors hard work. Otherwise at the very least independent invention would be a defense. Since if you have done the same amount of work and invented something presumable valuable enough to get a patent. So its not about inventors. A quick look at some of the fist patents with Watt and steam engines and its pretty easy to see that patents are only justified via "protecting inventors" but where never really implemented for that reason.
Secondly if 2 different people faced with the same problem come up with the same solution, then it is clearly not as unobvious as lawyers would like to claim it is.
At the end of the day, patents are a win for lawyers. Guess who defend the current system the most? Its not the inventors.
Jet packs are like flying cars. Everyone thinks they are awesome and would make like better, but no one knows how or why it would be better. Logic is hardly going to work with these fans.
Also the way things scale means its easier and cheaper to make some of these things bigger. So its cheaper to make a 2 man-4 man helicopter than a one man jet pack. Range is always a problem with smaller things because of the cube law.
And it has been used for this for decades.
Laser sintering gets you sintered material with different properties than say single crystal material. http://www.appropedia.org/Sing...
Printing does not the crystal structure they way you need it for high temperature metals and materials. Most metals in use today, including that outside casing on iPhones need non trivial heat treatments. In fact using the iPhone as an example, its forged then machines precisely because it was the only way to get a metal with the properties it required. In short, you can't print it.
Jetpacks from a 100% efficient physics perspective can't work unless you have an arc reactor. They will always have very poor range, and huge jet/prop blast. As for military applications, well its not going to be too far into the future where it won't be fleshy meat bags doing the shooting.
Space elevators proponents always miss one very important detail. If you have the material to make the elevator, you can use that material to make traditional rockets too. And it may well make rockets cheaper than a elevator.
The history of paper money is interesting as is fractional reserve banking. What a lot of people don't realize is that we the public asked for it to be regulated. And for good reason. The problem i have with bitcoin and bitcoin fans, is they seem to think bitcoin is somehow immune to all the things that went wrong with normal currencies. Its not.
Find a cave and go live in it. Then you will be safe from terrorists and we can get on with life rather than fear.
The mass/strength ratio of the currently non existent material will have a very high speed of sound. At least in the ~km/s range. The bend is really small (easy to calculate) since the tension is huge, and the mass of the car is quite small compared to the cable. There can be waves in the cable of course but again nothing that hard to deal with.
The problem is still a material that has a high enough strength to density ratio.
the real problem is that you may want that bag of flour i have, but i don't need chickens or a goat. Currency is also fungible.
Ops my math was slightly wrong. its not 17% but ~32%. Or 1.3GW with perfect weather with a permanent summer.
Its simple math. The sun is only directly pointing at the panels at 90deg at noon. So when the sun is a 45deg compared to the panels you get about 70% of peak output etc. Integrate over a full day, where negative angles give zero output. You get an area of 2 between 0 and 180deg of the sine curve. The total peak area is 2pi. Divide, and yes i had a typo in my R, its ~32%, not 17%. So its average of 1.2GW. But that is for perfect weather and for a permanent summer.
Talking about cost per watt is a bullshit way of comparing solar to something that can work at any time of day.
So comparing a 4GW peak power solar to 4 nuclear plants is bollocks.
You left out that a 4GW solar plant only produces 4GW at noon, in the summer on fine days. Even assuming your at the equator your looking at 17% average of the peak output. So now we don't really have a 4GW plant but a ~700MW one.