Giving away? No... The idea is for them to produce and sell the devices. But I suppose from a long term point of view you could think of it as far less expensive for the consumer.... As the manufacturer you can charge people to do maintenance on the devices to keep them running properly. But... third parties can do that too.
My point was that money and the bussiness bottom line does more to stop helpful technology emerging into society more than anything else.
Look at a company called Changing Worlds Technologies. They invented a machine that breaks all organic matter back down into its base components, much like nature does over millions of years, but in a matter of days. Plus one of the byproducts is a possible gasoline alternative fuel source.
An excellent way to overcome our pollution landfill issues and possibly help solve an impending fuel crisis, yet this technology is years old now. Why is it not mainstream yet?
Becuase somebody somewhere would lose money or drastically have to change thier bussiness to accomidate it, and lose money. Like for example the Waste management and Oil companies?
It seems to me that humans allow the bottom line to get in the way far too often to our detriment for long term improvement.
they have been quite effective at stopping it by blocking patents. no company or concern wants to introduce a product without security and protection that it just won't be copied by everyone. as to cost...erm...ever look at how much energy concerns make in just 1 quarter? paying off some scientists and lawyers (considering most lawyers for major firms are on salary anyway) is pocket change. they have lobbyists already on salary or retainer in nearly every country.
it is inevitable however, they are just delaying. man portable power generation without fuels they control is anathema to them, so they'll do whatever it takes to block it for as long as possible. could be even worse, they could be working on their own designs, blocking any other patents until their version(s) are ready. then they can patent...and sit on them allowing no one to produce anything.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Some people, however, claim that Rossi is a fraud, so don't be too anxious. We'll have to wait and see.
Show me a generator unambiguously outputting more energy (combined electricity and thermal/whatever) over a given time span than could be plausibly obtained via chemical reactions from the material input into the generator PLUS any hidden chemical fuel that might be concealed inside it by anybody trying to "cheat". If it does that and does not create health hazards or ethical issues above what a fossil fuel generator of that output would create, then it would have my 100% endorsement. Rossi's refusal to let anybody look inside his "black box" or otherwise verify that there is not extra hidden fuel or other power source besides what he claims is what makes people call him a crank--any novel claims in science or engineering require verification in order to be any more trustworthy than pure speculation, and he appears reluctant to allow independent verification of his claims.
My brother just brought this weeks New Scientist magazine, apparently they are planning to holt production of new nuclear plants until they sort out the waste problem now. This may put a holt to the future plans of Ad Astra and there Vasimr plasma engine being powered by a nuclear reactor. Also would it make sense foe them to do further testing with a nuclear reactor to see how well etc the Vasimr performs with a nuclear power source?
My brother just brought this weeks New Scientist magazine, apparently they are planning to holt production of new nuclear plants until they sort out the waste problem now. This may put a holt to the future plans of Ad Astra and there Vasimr plasma engine being powered by a nuclear reactor. Also would it make sense foe them to do further testing with a nuclear reactor to see how well etc the Vasimr performs with a nuclear power source?
power source is electricity, that's all the engine needs, how it gets it doesn't matter (while it's still in testing) as long as power generation can keep up with demand. so concerns about how it will perform with different power generation schemes only matters if they can produce the power it needs. once outfitted or planned to be then lightweight power sources become more relevant.
a nuclear plant would not be used in any case...as they are rather large and not suited for space...much less launch a plant is a rather large complex of reactors and support equipment that covers a rather large area and going into the thousands, at a conservative guess tons.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
power source is electricity, that's all the engine needs, how it gets it doesn't matter (while it's still in testing) as long as power generation can keep up with demand. so concerns about how it will perform with different power generation schemes only matters if they can produce the power it needs. once outfitted or planned to be then lightweight power sources become more relevant.
a nuclear plant would not be used in any case...as they are rather large and not suited for space...much less launch a plant is a rather large complex of reactors and support equipment that covers a rather large area and going into the thousands, at a conservative guess tons.
yes i know, the power required is electric but for the ship to travel to lets say Mars in 2 or less months, it will require Megawatts + of power which today only nuclear reactors can, even the CEO of Ad astra behind the company behind the Vasimr engine says so, unless the e-cat fusion/fission reactor story is not fake then that will change things.
Also the Russians have already made a space nuclear reactor decades ago so it is possible. NASA has made one and tested it on an ion engine years ago too.
yes i know, the power required is electric but for the ship to travel to lets say Mars in 2 or less months, it will require Megawatts + of power which today only nuclear reactors can, even the CEO of Ad astra behind the company behind the Vasimr engine says so, unless the e-cat fusion/fission reactor story is not fake then that will change things.
Also the Russians have already made a space nuclear reactor decades ago so it is possible. NASA has made one and tested it on an ion engine years ago too.
i know, but you referenced nuclear plants originally as being a potential problem...not individual reactors. plants are strictly ground based, so the new scientist story while interesting, is irrelevant concerning the VASMR engine.
the story on waste disposal itself...just another indication of anti-nuke nuts with more money/time than brains. funny part, they gripe about the short sightedness of politicians etc...yet are no better themselves.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
i know, but you referenced nuclear plants originally as being a potential problem...not individual reactors. plants are strictly ground based, so the new scientist story while interesting, is irrelevant concerning the VASMR engine.
the story on waste disposal itself...just another indication of anti-nuke nuts with more money/time than brains. funny part, they gripe about the short sightedness of politicians etc...yet are no better themselves.
Yes I know I said nuclear plants because in the previous posts we were talking about nuclear power and other future power sources and even before that I have repeatedly said nuclear reactors when it comes to what will be used. :rolleyes:
Anyway back on topic. With the unfortunate news of the legendary Neil Armstrong's death, may he rest in piece, maybe this will motivate us to go to outer space more and see with our own eyes what Neil Armstrong saw.
Thus, the UN demonstrating amply what technological Ignorance, in a chamber full of activists, crooks, and lawyers, can conceive of when sufficiently insulated from either knowledge, or reality.
It took a combined effort of sustained work, intentional work, on a reactor complex where "quality" meant they only cut the structural materials with bad additives on 50% of it (when the work was actually done) to create the Tchernobyl explosion, and it took an earthquake sufficient to move a subcontinent 8 FEET to create the problem in japan-on a reactor that was more than forty years old and fifty years behind the design curve, and slated to be SHUT DOWN.
Beyond the need for a fairly large crew of well-educated (Possibly collegiate engineering level) disposeable terrorists to turn your reactor into an Atomic bomb (Specifically), there's the time factor-you're not going to do it, even on an old Hanford-N site, in a sweaty and joyous-praise-be-the-cause afternoon using hand tools and a flippy binder.
Well.. yes and no. Not a thermonuclear device, but a dirty bomb? yeah, those are doable.... but.... you don't ned a reactor core to make one, or even reactor grade material. Raw Pitchblende ore works fine too. So it's STILL pointless.
Powered Pitchblende is BAD for the lungs. Imagine if the dust got scattered over a city?
Actually, good luck getting people to inhale it. It's too heavy to remain airborne more than a few minutes.
low power, but that's due to the tech in piezo conversion, multiple batteries, and/or just time itself. pyroelectric nanogenerators are improving rapidly, as are other forms of piezogenerators using nanotech. small nuclear batteries (RTG's) may shortly have enough power to do nearly anything needed which is essentially seems to be what they're planning on producing.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
It took a combined effort of sustained work, intentional work, on a reactor complex where "quality" meant they only cut the structural materials with bad additives on 50% of it (when the work was actually done) to create the Tchernobyl explosion, and it took an earthquake sufficient to move a subcontinent 8 FEET to create the problem in japan-on a reactor that was more than forty years old and fifty years behind the design curve, and slated to be SHUT DOWN.
The Fukushima reactor was built to withstand what, up until then, had been the largest earthquake in Japan's recorded history. The 2011 quake was BIGGER than that. Just how rare of an event do you have to build for, if "hasn't ever yet happened in the history of mankind" isn't good enough?
just to note, it wasn't the quake that caused the meltdown, it was the tidal wave killing the diesel generators that were supposed to supply power to the coolant pumps in case of emergency. they kicked on and performed their function until the wave hit flooding them out. related...in the typical over-reaction of late, japan is planning on phasing out all nuclear plants and not building anymore.
instead relying on imported coal, oil, and natural gas...yay...more CO2.
further related note, europes recent cave-in to the nut jobs has caused russia to plan construction of several nuclear plants with the obvious intention of selling power to the EU. that sounds like a great plan >.> EU decommisions and plans only a few more plants because they want to switch back to 'safer' fossil fuels...but will be buying power from russia's excess of new plants.
why doesn't this forum have a /double facepalm emote...
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
just to note, it wasn't the quake that caused the meltdown, it was the tidal wave killing the diesel generators that were supposed to supply power to the coolant pumps in case of emergency. they kicked on and performed their function until the wave hit flooding them out. related...in the typical over-reaction of late, japan is planning on phasing out all nuclear plants and not building anymore.
instead relying on imported coal, oil, and natural gas...yay...more CO2.
further related note, europes recent cave-in to the nut jobs has caused russia to plan construction of several nuclear plants with the obvious intention of selling power to the EU. that sounds like a great plan >.> EU decommisions and plans only a few more plants because they want to switch back to 'safer' fossil fuels...but will be buying power from russia's excess of new plants.
why doesn't this forum have a /double facepalm emote...
I know... Politicians always make me feel like that...:(
Anyways, a new type of safer reactor has been desgined, guess why it isn't used yet? Because it has a side effect of producing small amounts of plutonium. However... under normal rector operation those traces would never leave the reactor core. I forget the name but the design is unique in that it can use almost any radioactive material. This reactor wouldn't need people to purify uranium, the material simply needs to be concentrated enough to produce radiation.
switch to safer reactor types if you're referring to all the planned decommissioning and no new construction. there are alternatives they're just more expensive to build than the inherently unsafe versions. invest heavily in solar generation, cover ever roof in the EU or japan with cheap poly solar film... there's even a paintable version in the works.
corporations though don't like any of those technologies (except for safer plants...those they can kind of get behind) for the same reasons they're not fond of lenr, it takes power generation out of their control.
What is all this talk about outdated technology here? Fission power generation? Huh? Next thing you propose is to run spaceship propulsion on on solar boilers?
and drop that ancient technology with acceptance problems that requires producing a very durable contact poison.
if you'd read this whole topic you'd have discovered we discussed LENR quite a bit. as well as other technologies. contact poison? very few high (like none but i'll err on the side of caution) power generation techniques involving radioactive elements are safe once containment is breached...go fig. and fission generation through RTG's and the like are a tried and tested technologies, while LENR still has issues that need to be solved as well as further testing for stability and overall lifetime of the unit(s).
LENR has potential...but that's all it has atm. and one thing it really needs to get rid of is that cold fusion tag it's associated with....causes many believers in the current theories to see red as soon as those two words come up together followed by shouts of 'impossible!' etc.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
out of all the power generations we have which will be the best to use overall and which do you all think will be the best to use for space travel? Ever since the Dragon capsule launched a new space race has began.
switch to safer reactor types if you're referring to all the planned decommissioning and no new construction. there are alternatives they're just more expensive to build than the inherently unsafe versions. invest heavily in solar generation, cover ever roof in the EU or japan with cheap poly solar film... there's even a paintable version in the works.
corporations though don't like any of those technologies (except for safer plants...those they can kind of get behind) for the same reasons they're not fond of lenr, it takes power generation out of their control.
Too true, and since money talks, corporations con governments into supporting outdated technology.
out of all the power generations we have which will be the best to use overall and which do you all think will be the best to use for space travel? Ever since the Dragon capsule launched a new space race has began.
It's too early to tell. The new techs are still not finished.
Too true, and since money talks, corporations con governments into supporting outdated technology.It's too early to tell. The new techs are still not finished.
Okay its to early to tell but which one do you all think also there is another thread on here saying now a German company is asking for one way tickets to Mars for colonising! I would love to go but not sure about the one way also if they have perfected/improved the tech being used.
Okay its to early to tell but which one do you all think also there is another thread on here saying now a German company is asking for one way tickets to Mars for colonising! I would love to go but not sure about the one way also if they have perfected/improved the tech being used.
a one-way ticket to mars? o.O
with you on that, have to see the plans for colonization and the tech before i'd even consider it. though lag from mars to earth would be horrible, so no more mmo's at least earth based ones. personally think a lot would have to be done before hand for a permanent presence on mars.
power generation, atmosphere generation, some way to get a steady supply of water, hydroponics, communication arrays, medical facilities and equipment. all that without considering living space yet or where.
underground being the best option
protection from radiation and other hazards vs surface structures
expansion can continue with fewer hazards than construction on the surface
less building materials required
always though for any type of moon base that would be ideal as well...while shiny domes/surface habitats look all pretty and sci-fi, they are rather impractical, even for hydroponics...you don't actually need real sunlight, reactor or alternative power generation can supply the power for artificial methods of producing the light plants need and humans for that matter (Vit D conversion)
only real negative to subsurface is creating the tunnels and rooms. initially expensive, and requires equipment. robots could be sent ahead though and start the digging. with finishing touches put on with the arrival of humans. air locks and bulkheads. though...fusing the raw walls into a glass as a second pass after initial tunnel...meh, lots of methods, and this is getting into wall-o-text territory.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
with you on that, have to see the plans for colonization and the tech before i'd even consider it. though lag from mars to earth would be horrible, so no more mmo's at least earth based ones. personally think a lot would have to be done before hand for a permanent presence on mars.
power generation, atmosphere generation, some way to get a steady supply of water, hydroponics, communication arrays, medical facilities and equipment. all that without considering living space yet or where.
underground being the best option
protection from radiation and other hazards vs surface structures
expansion can continue with fewer hazards than construction on the surface
less building materials required
always though for any type of moon base that would be ideal as well...while shiny domes/surface habitats look all pretty and sci-fi, they are rather impractical, even for hydroponics...you don't actually need real sunlight, reactor or alternative power generation can supply the power for artificial methods of producing the light plants need and humans for that matter (Vit D conversion)
only real negative to subsurface is creating the tunnels and rooms. initially expensive, and requires equipment. robots could be sent ahead though and start the digging. with finishing touches put on with the arrival of humans. air locks and bulkheads. though...fusing the raw walls into a glass as a second pass after initial tunnel...meh, lots of methods, and this is getting into wall-o-text territory.
lol, all true im sure the best minds are thinking of this as well. You know the old saying, great minds think alike. I wonder though what propulsion would they use to get there?, maybe hinting at VASIMR there .
With the news of chemisit walking on more nuclear batteries for spaceships, I wonder how much power one of these can generate and will it be enough to give thrust in the VASIMR engine?
Also any reason why they are talking so long 2013 for the first true test of the engine on the ISS? Apparently this technology has been around for decades and yet it looks like they are only just getting started, Ad Astra was founded over 5 years ago, why has it taken them this long? Also from the Vids on youtube and articles i have read about the VASIMR, why haven't they test this on a nuclear power source yet, nasa has over a decade ago on and ion engine.
Comments
My point was that money and the bussiness bottom line does more to stop helpful technology emerging into society more than anything else.
Look at a company called Changing Worlds Technologies. They invented a machine that breaks all organic matter back down into its base components, much like nature does over millions of years, but in a matter of days. Plus one of the byproducts is a possible gasoline alternative fuel source.
An excellent way to overcome our pollution landfill issues and possibly help solve an impending fuel crisis, yet this technology is years old now. Why is it not mainstream yet?
Becuase somebody somewhere would lose money or drastically have to change thier bussiness to accomidate it, and lose money. Like for example the Waste management and Oil companies?
It seems to me that humans allow the bottom line to get in the way far too often to our detriment for long term improvement.
R.I.P
My character Tsin'xing
it is inevitable however, they are just delaying. man portable power generation without fuels they control is anathema to them, so they'll do whatever it takes to block it for as long as possible. could be even worse, they could be working on their own designs, blocking any other patents until their version(s) are ready. then they can patent...and sit on them allowing no one to produce anything.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Show me a generator unambiguously outputting more energy (combined electricity and thermal/whatever) over a given time span than could be plausibly obtained via chemical reactions from the material input into the generator PLUS any hidden chemical fuel that might be concealed inside it by anybody trying to "cheat". If it does that and does not create health hazards or ethical issues above what a fossil fuel generator of that output would create, then it would have my 100% endorsement. Rossi's refusal to let anybody look inside his "black box" or otherwise verify that there is not extra hidden fuel or other power source besides what he claims is what makes people call him a crank--any novel claims in science or engineering require verification in order to be any more trustworthy than pure speculation, and he appears reluctant to allow independent verification of his claims.
About two weeks to go.
power source is electricity, that's all the engine needs, how it gets it doesn't matter (while it's still in testing) as long as power generation can keep up with demand. so concerns about how it will perform with different power generation schemes only matters if they can produce the power it needs. once outfitted or planned to be then lightweight power sources become more relevant.
a nuclear plant would not be used in any case...as they are rather large and not suited for space...much less launch a plant is a rather large complex of reactors and support equipment that covers a rather large area and going into the thousands, at a conservative guess tons.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
yes i know, the power required is electric but for the ship to travel to lets say Mars in 2 or less months, it will require Megawatts + of power which today only nuclear reactors can, even the CEO of Ad astra behind the company behind the Vasimr engine says so, unless the e-cat fusion/fission reactor story is not fake then that will change things.
Also the Russians have already made a space nuclear reactor decades ago so it is possible. NASA has made one and tested it on an ion engine years ago too.
i know, but you referenced nuclear plants originally as being a potential problem...not individual reactors. plants are strictly ground based, so the new scientist story while interesting, is irrelevant concerning the VASMR engine.
the story on waste disposal itself...just another indication of anti-nuke nuts with more money/time than brains. funny part, they gripe about the short sightedness of politicians etc...yet are no better themselves.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Yes I know I said nuclear plants because in the previous posts we were talking about nuclear power and other future power sources and even before that I have repeatedly said nuclear reactors when it comes to what will be used. :rolleyes:
Anyway back on topic. With the unfortunate news of the legendary Neil Armstrong's death, may he rest in piece, maybe this will motivate us to go to outer space more and see with our own eyes what Neil Armstrong saw.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19550658
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ea069f2-f830-11e1-828f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26finzHud
I wonder how much energy it will produce.
My character Tsin'xing
Powered Pitchblende is BAD for the lungs. Imagine if the dust got scattered over a city?
Actually, good luck getting people to inhale it. It's too heavy to remain airborne more than a few minutes.
My character Tsin'xing
low power, but that's due to the tech in piezo conversion, multiple batteries, and/or just time itself. pyroelectric nanogenerators are improving rapidly, as are other forms of piezogenerators using nanotech. small nuclear batteries (RTG's) may shortly have enough power to do nearly anything needed which is essentially seems to be what they're planning on producing.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
The Fukushima reactor was built to withstand what, up until then, had been the largest earthquake in Japan's recorded history. The 2011 quake was BIGGER than that. Just how rare of an event do you have to build for, if "hasn't ever yet happened in the history of mankind" isn't good enough?
instead relying on imported coal, oil, and natural gas...yay...more CO2.
further related note, europes recent cave-in to the nut jobs has caused russia to plan construction of several nuclear plants with the obvious intention of selling power to the EU. that sounds like a great plan >.> EU decommisions and plans only a few more plants because they want to switch back to 'safer' fossil fuels...but will be buying power from russia's excess of new plants.
why doesn't this forum have a /double facepalm emote...
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Anyways, a new type of safer reactor has been desgined, guess why it isn't used yet? Because it has a side effect of producing small amounts of plutonium. However... under normal rector operation those traces would never leave the reactor core. I forget the name but the design is unique in that it can use almost any radioactive material. This reactor wouldn't need people to purify uranium, the material simply needs to be concentrated enough to produce radiation.
My character Tsin'xing
switch to safer reactor types if you're referring to all the planned decommissioning and no new construction. there are alternatives they're just more expensive to build than the inherently unsafe versions. invest heavily in solar generation, cover ever roof in the EU or japan with cheap poly solar film... there's even a paintable version in the works.
corporations though don't like any of those technologies (except for safer plants...those they can kind of get behind) for the same reasons they're not fond of lenr, it takes power generation out of their control.
if you'd read this whole topic you'd have discovered we discussed LENR quite a bit. as well as other technologies. contact poison? very few high (like none but i'll err on the side of caution) power generation techniques involving radioactive elements are safe once containment is breached...go fig. and fission generation through RTG's and the like are a tried and tested technologies, while LENR still has issues that need to be solved as well as further testing for stability and overall lifetime of the unit(s).
LENR has potential...but that's all it has atm. and one thing it really needs to get rid of is that cold fusion tag it's associated with....causes many believers in the current theories to see red as soon as those two words come up together followed by shouts of 'impossible!' etc.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
My character Tsin'xing
Okay its to early to tell but which one do you all think also there is another thread on here saying now a German company is asking for one way tickets to Mars for colonising!
a one-way ticket to mars? o.O
with you on that, have to see the plans for colonization and the tech before i'd even consider it. though lag from mars to earth would be horrible, so no more mmo's
power generation, atmosphere generation, some way to get a steady supply of water, hydroponics, communication arrays, medical facilities and equipment. all that without considering living space yet or where.
underground being the best option
protection from radiation and other hazards vs surface structures
expansion can continue with fewer hazards than construction on the surface
less building materials required
always though for any type of moon base that would be ideal as well...while shiny domes/surface habitats look all pretty and sci-fi, they are rather impractical, even for hydroponics...you don't actually need real sunlight, reactor or alternative power generation can supply the power for artificial methods of producing the light plants need and humans for that matter (Vit D conversion)
only real negative to subsurface is creating the tunnels and rooms. initially expensive, and requires equipment. robots could be sent ahead though and start the digging. with finishing touches put on with the arrival of humans. air locks and bulkheads. though...fusing the raw walls into a glass as a second pass after initial tunnel...meh, lots of methods, and this is getting into wall-o-text territory.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
lol, all true im sure the best minds are thinking of this as well. You know the old saying, great minds think alike. I wonder though what propulsion would they use to get there?, maybe hinting at VASIMR there
Also any reason why they are talking so long 2013 for the first true test of the engine on the ISS? Apparently this technology has been around for decades and yet it looks like they are only just getting started, Ad Astra was founded over 5 years ago, why has it taken them this long? Also from the Vids on youtube and articles i have read about the VASIMR, why haven't they test this on a nuclear power source yet, nasa has over a decade ago on and ion engine.