Good idea, Lois, but I think a variation of it is already in the works. The road would collect sunlight energy, convert it to electrical power, and make it available to electric driven vehicles. I worry about road wear, oil drips and other spills, rain, snow, very heavy vehicles, etc. OccamIf it can be invented, it can be improved Occam. Edison worked out the bugs in electrical lighting and illuminated a city block in Manhattan in 1882. It was his prototype company that caught the attention of powerful investors and by the end of the decade people were demanding electric lights for their homes and offices. I'm sure these bugs can be worked and whoever does will become a billionaire and we'll all benefit. Cap' t Jack
Good idea, Lois, but I think a variation of it is already in the works. The road would collect sunlight energy, convert it to electrical power, and make it available to electric driven vehicles. I worry about road wear, oil drips and other spills, rain, snow, very heavy vehicles, etc. OccamHere's another website that has a FAQs link that would answer your questions. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways As to the weight question, here's the answer How much weight can these panels support? Semi-trucks get pretty heavy! Originally, we were designing toward 80,000 pounds. That was supposed to be the maximum legal limit for a semi-truck. However, we live in logging country and a former logging truck driver informed us that they don't have scales in the woods and that he'd topped out at 124,000 pounds. So we decided that we should go for 150,000 pounds. We then learned that oil companies can get permission to move refinery equipment up to 230,000 pounds on frozen roads, so we decided to shoot for 250,000 pounds. Both 3D Finite Element Method analysis and actual load testing at civil engineering labs showed that our Solar Road Panels can handle that and more.
You are absolutely right. Some of the bugs have already been worked out. See my reply to Occam. LoisGood idea, Lois, but I think a variation of it is already in the works. The road would collect sunlight energy, convert it to electrical power, and make it available to electric driven vehicles. I worry about road wear, oil drips and other spills, rain, snow, very heavy vehicles, etc. OccamIf it can be invented, it can be improved Occam. Edison worked out the bugs in electrical lighting and illuminated a city block in Manhattan in 1882. It was his prototype company that caught the attention of powerful investors and by the end of the decade people were demanding electric lights for their homes and offices. I'm sure these bugs can be worked and whoever does will become a billionaire and we'll all benefit. Cap' t Jack
You are absolutely right. Some of the bugs have already been worked out. See my reply to Occam. Lois Edison and his powerful investor, thought DC electricity, was the way to go. Edison, actively worked against Tesla's (who had his own powerful investor) much more effective, AC electricity ideas. Meanwhile, the powerful investor who wanted to maintain his profits in oil lighting, worked against both of them. AC was spectacularly revolutionary, as demonstrated at a World's Fair, and it won out. But I don't think that there is any guarantee that the best, and most practical new technologies will inevitably come to the fore, just because they are potentially profitable. Especially when it is more profitable to the most powerful to maintain the status quo. What can be done, and what will be done are not, necessarily, the same.Good idea, Lois, but I think a variation of it is already in the works. The road would collect sunlight energy, convert it to electrical power, and make it available to electric driven vehicles. I worry about road wear, oil drips and other spills, rain, snow, very heavy vehicles, etc. OccamIf it can be invented, it can be improved Occam. Edison worked out the bugs in electrical lighting and illuminated a city block in Manhattan in 1882. It was his prototype company that caught the attention of powerful investors and by the end of the decade people were demanding electric lights for their homes and offices. I'm sure these bugs can be worked and whoever does will become a billionaire and we'll all benefit. Cap' t Jack
Edison and his powerful investor, thought DC electricity, was the way to go. Edison, actively worked against Tesla’s (who had his own powerful investor) much more effective, AC electricity ideas. Meanwhile, the powerful investor who wanted to maintain his profits in oil lighting, worked against both of them. AC was spectacularly revolutionary, as demonstrated at a World’s Fair, and it won out. But I don’t think that there is any guarantee that the best, and most practical new technologies will inevitably come to the fore, just because they are potentially profitable. Especially when it is more profitable to the most powerful to maintain the status quo. What can be done, and what will be done are not, necessarily, the same.Yes and guess what, the powerful investor in oil lighting lost out, eventually. These changes aren't made overnight but they are made after all. As to there being a guarantee that a change will occur, well there's no guarantee that anything will progress without the sweat that goes into inventing and marketing the product, but for the most part it's always been a natural tendency for humans to embrace the technology that benefits us in the long run. In other words, we may be painfully slow to change but we have discarded inefficient tools and weapons for more effective ones. My money is on new technology. Otherwise our long distance communication would be accomplished by drums and transportation would be literally horsepower which Edison's protege BTW ended with his invention of the gas powered engine, well that's a double edged sword so to speak. We here unfortunately must include profit as a motivating factor in all aspects of American endeavor; it's one of the major reasons for the creation of this country and one of the major factors in inventing new technology. Inventors don't altruistically pursue a patent because they believe in progress or preservation. Eventually the powerful conservatives will dump a product when they see greater profits in advanced technology, e.g. computers, the internet and software. Oh, and Edison popularized his lighting by having the World's Fair filmed at night, by another of his inventions. To Ford Edison was a near deity. He asked Edison's son to trap his last breath in a test tube. It's on display in his museum. Cap't Jack
Edison championed DC current and tried to undermine the development of the much more efficient AC current that he viewed as too dangerous. There are many competing circumstances that can lead to when a particular technology is developed or whether it is developed at all. I think that we currently have the technology to develop renewable energy that could replace our current energy consumption many times over. Doing so is not immediately profitable enough for it to happen. Maybe it will be someday. I won’t hold my breath, as this may not occur in my lifetime.
Edison championed DC current and tried to undermine the development of the much more efficient AC current that he viewed as too dangerous. There are many competing circumstances that can lead to when a particular technology is developed or whether it is developed at all. I think that we currently have the technology to develop renewable energy that could replace our current energy consumption many times over. Doing so is not immediately profitable enough for it to happen. Maybe it will be someday. I won’t hold my breath, as this may not occur in my lifetime.That's true Tim and as much as Edison tried to convince the public that DC was "safer" (he electrocuted an elephant with AC to show how dangerous it was) AC won out in the end due mainly to the persistence of Tesla and Westinghouse. It proved to be much more efficient in the long run. Once again, the more efficient invention won out and became more profitable which is why our homes are wired with AC. And hopefully we will see solar energy replace fossil fuels in our lifetime and then maybe you won't have to hold your breath for so long! The alternative is not having any breath to hold. Cap't Jack
That's true Tim and as much as Edison tried to convince the public that DC was "safer" (he electrocuted an elephant with AC to show how dangerous it was) AC won out in the end due mainly to the persistence of Tesla and Westinghouse.Well that and AC made infinitely more sense from an engineering distribution real-world outlook (super long distances, massive amounts of electricity - impossible with DC. Motors that could do heavy work… same story)
Well that and AC made infinitely more sense from an engineering distribution real-world outlook (super long distances, massive amounts of electricity - impossible with DC. Motors that could do heavy work… same story)yThat's true CC, but the point is that no matter how hard he tried Edison couldn't prevent the advent of AC as the most popular form of electrical current, and he used every means available to do so including publicity stunts like electrocuting dogs. He was able however to convince law enforcement agencies to use it on humans rather than simple hanging. Cap't Jack
... Edison ... was able however to convince law enforcement agencies to use it on humans rather than simple hanging. Cap't JackWell hell son, that's just law enforcement taking advantage of all technological advances available*. Tesla sure wasn't up to inventing one, who else were they going to go with? Now if Tesla could have made that ray gun thing work… they'd have been beating a path to his door. (don't you think?) *You should see what they are coming up with next. . . :coolhmm: {PS. Why isn't the firing squad better* than the lethal shot in the arm??? * excuse me… more humane
Good question CC. Pundits are saying that with the last botched execution by lethal injection, that the firing squad would be the most humane (if you could call it that) way to kill a criminal. I think that the last prisoner executed by “lethal” bullet was Gary Gilmore but I’m not sure. And Tesla was working on a ray gun? Cool. Was he making it for Flash Gordon? :lol:
Cap’t Jack
Good question CC. Pundits are saying that with the last botched execution by lethal injection, that the firing squad would be the most humane (if you could call it that) way to kill a criminal. I think that the last prisoner executed by "lethal" bullet was Gary Gilmore but I'm not sure. And Tesla was working on a ray gun? Cool. Was he making it for Flash Gordon? :lol: Cap't JackThere is no humane method of killing a person in cold blood, which is one good reason the United States should haul itself up to the level of the rest of the free world and end the death penalty. It makes the United States look like a primitive Third-World country to the rest of the free world. We are already the laughingstock of so much of the world, why not do some damage control? Other countries seem to survive without the death penalty, why should the US be any different? Lois
Lois is correct, however, if we were going to be a bit more humane the system would be: a) assign an execution date, b) a week or so before, very secretly load the prisoner’s food with ketamine (date rape drug), c) after s/he’s completely unconscious, pump nitrogen into the cell, d) his/her heart will quietly stop, so move the body to the refrigerator, e) a week later, put it on a gurney, cover with a sheet, wheel it into the execution room and make believe doing a standard one.
Everyone else is politically happy, and the inmate didn’t have to suffer the pain of a standard execution.
Occam
And Tesla was working on a ray gun? Cool. Was he making it for Flash Gordon? :lol: Cap't JackOh lordie if you don't know about Tesla's wild side, you are in for an adventure.
"Tesla's Death Ray Machine" http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_2.htm Tesla's work on particle beam weapons can be traced all the way back to 1893 with his invention of a button lamp, and again to 1896 when he replicated the work of William Roentgen, discoverer of X-rays. At that time, Tesla was "shooting" X-rays over considerable distances, creating photographs of skeletons sometimes as far away as 40 feet from the source of the gun. Tesla was also involved in experiments with shooting cathode rays at targets.
I myself think there was a little of the 'cold fusion' about it - http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_wendwar.html In 1931 Tesla announced to reporters at a press conference that he was on the verge of discovering an entirely new source of energy. Asked to explain the nature of the power, he replied, "The idea first came upon me as a tremendous shock... I can only say at this time that it will come from an entirely new and unsuspected source."
http://home.earthlink.net/~drestinblack/nikola_tesla.htm During the initial test, the mute electrical machinery suddenly transformed into lifelike firespitting demons. Power transformers supplying the heavy currents hummed a dissonant sixtycycle tune. The floor beams vibrated a cacophonic reply. Spheres of the capacitordischarge circuit became bridged by a machinegun series of wristthick blinding flashes. The huge secondary of Tesla's transformer was crowned by an electrical fire of long fingerlike streamers. A halo of harassing brush discharges enveloped the entire surface of the main switch panel. Evidently, stray highfrequency currents had found a return path into the Colorado Springs Electric Company's facilities. Unknown to Tesla, the reaction was playing havoc with their generators and transmission lines. Lightning insulators within a dozen miles became shortcircuited and glowed with purplish arcs.I can't find it now, but I hear one of Tesla's experiments blew out all the power of Colorado Springs… many, many moons ago. On the more serious side, I did get to work in one of Tesla's old AV generating plants near Telluride a few years back. So interesting being in those places directly touched by great events. To say nothing of the impressive structure, equipment and that huge pipe coming down the mountain.
http://dcasler.com/2010/07/25/ieee-heritage-site-the-ames-hydroelectric-plant/ IEEE Heritage Site: the Ames Hydroelectric Plant The Ames Station is the first generating station to produce and transmit alternating current (AC) electrical power. We may think that sort of humdrum, but at the time it was hotly-contested technology. It’s located near where Ophir Pass meets the highway at the west end… ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ http://www.bobalden.com/courses/eps/ames.htm After being appointed manager of the Gold King, Nunn recruited his brother, Paul, to help him design the workings of the Ames Power Plant. On June 19, 1891, the Nunns unleashed water on a big wheel belted to a generator. The electricity was transmitted 2.6 miles over rugged terrain to power a motor-driven mill at Gold King. Westinghouse had manufactured the 100-horsepower alternator used. … The current installation at Ames is the third set of alternators and generators, replaced a final time in 1906 with General Electric equipment and a new building of cut granite. The system includes a diversion at the Howard's Fork of the San Miguel and the impounded waters of Trout Lake. Lake Hope, a glacial lake above Trout, augments the water supply in winter. The water is piped about 3 miles for its big plunge into Illium Valley [The building at the bottom of the plunge I got to work on and around, only serious clean up work, still I love touching that old stuff. ].
Was he making it for Flash Gordon? :lol: Cap't JackActually it did turn out that way, all those grand electrical pyrotechnics in Frankenstein… that's all Tesla. http://www.teslacoil.com
A blog by Liberal MP John McKay on the deplorable official state of denial the conservative government is in here.
Stephen Harper and the Chamber of Secrets]
I was reminded of Lord Voldemort last week, when the Environment Committee tabled its Report on the Great Lakes Watershed. The Conservative side went to great lengths to rule out of order and eliminate the phrase climate change from the recommendations. The seventy-page report actually contains the phrase "climate change" 18 times, but the Conservatives wanted no mention of it in the recommendations to the government. The Harperites are so deathly afraid of the phrase that, despite numerous mentions of how climate change is exacerbating existing problems in the Great Lakes, they argued rather implausibly that climate change was beyond the scope of the study. Remarkably, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment can spend months hearing from witnesses, reading articles and putting together a report on the dismal condition of the Great Lakes watershed, and yet fail to come up with one recommendation that mentions the "Issue That Must Not Be Named."
Climate change has emerged as the single most important issue of our time, and it is nothing short of baffling that this government has chosen to bury its head in the sand and hope it goes away. Not only has the Harper government ignored the issue, but they have also gone to great lengths to suppress further research and any meaningful remedial or mitigating action. Spending by Environment Canada on climate change and clean air programming has plummeted. The 2014-15 Report on Plans and Priorities allocates a mere $95 million, and funding will drop to under $36 million by 2017. This means that 325 full-time workers -- well over 50 per cent of the workforce dedicated to climate change and clean air -- will find themselves unemployed. The Minister is hoping to recover the money in subsequent rounds of estimates. Since last fall, my fellow opposition critics and I have asked Minister Aglukkaq no less than 25 direct questions regarding government action on climate change, and each time we have received nearly identical non-answers.It's also becoming clearer that the Harper government used extensive election fraud to help achieve a majority government in 2011. Robocalls campaign national in scope]
Prescott read the statement into the record on Wednesday at the request of Sona’s lawyer, Norm Boxall. “It’s now crystal clear to all but the most rabid partisans that something amiss occurred during the 2011 election," Prescott wrote. “It’s also patently obvious that what went on across the country was definitely not the work of any ‘lone staffer’ on a single campaign as we have heard repeatedly from Conservative spokespersons."
“This scheme was clearly wide-spread, national and well organized. It required access, and ultimately complicity from someone higher up in the campaign in order to accomplish. “While I don’t for a moment believe such actions were condoned by the national campaign, it’s painfully clear to all now that the Party is seeking to misdirect Canadians by accusing ‘local staffers’ of what was a national crime."
Can you believe this?Anyone who lives in Canada under evidence-allergic/scientist-muzzling Stephen Harper isn't shocked by this at all. It's the new normal here, sadly...... until 2015, hopefully.
A conservative MP is trying to pass a bill that would limit the powers of his own Prime Minister..Which had many rah-rahing him.......unfortunately, he mysteriously supported the recent 'Fair' Elections Act, which was unanimously panned by every expert out there......and of course, we know what Stephen Harper thinks of 'experts'. The 'Fair' Elections Act, which implements US-style voter suppression tactics. What drives me absolutely nuts are the people who either don't pay enough attention to know what's going on right in front of them, or just don't care to know.
Lois is correct, however, if we were going to be a bit more humane the system would be: a) assign an execution date, b) a week or so before, very secretly load the prisoner's food with ketamine (date rape drug), c) after s/he's completely unconscious, pump nitrogen into the cell, d) his/her heart will quietly stop, so move the body to the refrigerator, e) a week later, put it on a gurney, cover with a sheet, wheel it into the execution room and make believe doing a standard one. Everyone else is politically happy, and the inmate didn't have to suffer the pain of a standard execution. OccamToo much can go wrong with chemicals. An exploding bullet to the brain (when he is not looking) would result in instantaneous cessation of brain activity. It would be succinct. It would be about as humane as can be when killing someone. It would be a grisly mess, but why should killing someone look pretty? It should be televised, so that persons who tacitly or otherwise support the death penalty would have something to think about.
Meanwhile something even remotely linked to the topic of this thread.
A conservative MP is trying to pass a bill that would limit the powers of his own Prime Minister..Which had many rah-rahing him.......unfortunately, he mysteriously supported the recent 'Fair' Elections Act, which was unanimously panned by every expert out there......and of course, we know what Stephen Harper thinks of 'experts'. The 'Fair' Elections Act, which implements US-style voter suppression tactics. What drives me absolutely nuts are the people who either don't pay enough attention to know what's going on right in front of them, or just don't care to know. I agree, Harper's Canada is a twisted image of what most of us want it to be. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/16900/