Phi for All

I find it ironic that you find it impersonal while others are telling you it's not easy or comfortable to read. Just saying, no offense. I agree. While I don't find the hypothesis of pre-planted explosives entirely credible, this part is definitely the easiest when you think about it. Who really pays attention to workers moving stuff in and out of buildings that large? And any witnesses are easily discredited. "You saw suspicious men with dollies wheeling large crates marked 'office furniture' into the WTC prior to the 911 attack? Hmmm, thank you, we'll look into that...." It does seem likely that any thermite used would have been completely burned in the fire. What would be the cause of excess thermite being found?

And why does your car suddenly STOP making that sound when you take it to the mechanic? Why is the optimum volume for your favorite song just over the threshold of those around you? And please tell me why garbage like potato and carrot peels clog up my garbage disposal? What other kind of garbage was it made for?!

QFT. Shiny.

Realistically, here's what would happen. Everyone would read your post, check out your maths, run it through what they've already learned on the subject, and look for flaws. If none can be found, I guarantee you that thread is going to get some intense scrutiny. Personally, I would move it to Speculations for the reasons you've given, and behind the scenes the whole staff would be buzzing about what kind of protocols we should establish for moving it back if it should prove to have no flaws. When you start getting posts from famous scientists who have joined and offered to co-write papers with you, we might think about moving your original post back. Maybe. Of course, by then everybody will understand why we have the section and will be begging for their ideas to be there.

Let's see, first time poster just happens to find "an unusual" website and joins just to tell us about it. Can't fathom how a mysterious "they" were able to achieve "their" results. I smell a rat living in a molehill he thinks is a mountain on Pluto.

I'm always mystified by this. Do people really think science is established within the mind of one person? Ideas can't become fully fledged and valid without communication. Why get irate when your ideas are challenged? Isn't that what the methodology demands?

Look, this is a science discussion forum on the web. We have to make a distinction between what is established science, and what is not established but may become established someday. Students need to know what they can take confidently to class, and what is more speculative in nature. When a thread is moved to Speculations, it's not because it's disliked, or wrong, or unpopular. It just means the idea has not yet passed the kind of review that establishes firm ground for further work. Can't you still like and support your idea but admit that it's not firmly established? Speculations is more like ice. It's not firm ground but you can still walk on it. It may not end up holding your weight, but that's why it's there, for testing ideas to see if they have merit. Yes, it's tough. Yes, your idea will be put through the ringer. Science is meant to be methodical and precise. It's not meant to take huge leaps without carefully testing each step. That's why established science can be trusted. And we would absolutely love it if one of our Speculation threads managed to prove worthy and become established. That's why we have the section, and most others don't.

And I can see why something like that would have great military applications and actually be a threat in other hands. Energy sources can be exploited and it doesn't have to be a nuclear reactor to warrant concern. I just don't like the fact that the law seems like it, too, could easily be exploited and we'd never know. Exploited for commercial purposes, to keep existing technologies protected from competition. At least with a propaganda campaign, like the one used against hemp, we'd have the knowledge to make choices. With an Invention Secrecy Act gag-order, knowledge (and therefore choice) as well as innovation is suppressed.

! Moderator Note Personal attacks are against our rules. You have been warned and the next time your account will be temporarily suspended. Don't take the thread off-topic by responding to this warning.

I don't know what other countries have in place to keep inventions from undermining their national security. I also don't know what kind of influence the USPTO (which, in this context, also means the Pentagon, DOD, DOE, NASA and some congressional committees) has with other countries. I do know that infringement includes anything which would be sold in the US. Since the US is such a huge market, not being allowed to sell here is a big deterrent. It would be interesting to know if the USPTO can issue a seizure/gag-order on a particular patent and simultaneously grab foreign rights to it as well. Unfortunately, that's part of the problem with the ISA; you can't find out the extent of its reach due the secrecy involved, and those who might know face imprisonment (and due to the National Security/treasonable nature, maybe even death) for telling you.

Based on what FAS wrote, it's entirely possible that patents for solar technology that are better than 50% efficient and that might cost very little to manufacture have been grabbed by the PTO and shelved because a threat to existing technology like that could upset the economy and thus be considered a threat to national security. I hate using possibilities like this as an argument, but we can surely admit that such policies have been ill-used in the past and that it is likely that businesses with heavy investments that could be hurt would lobby for just such a use. If you could have a solar converter that would power your home for a cost that would be as much or less than your current monthly electrical bill, and be paid off in three years so the rest of your investment was minimal maintenance, would you be willing to adopt the technology? It's just a what-if, but I think it illustrates what's at stake to have a law like this in place that could potentially stifle needed and wanted innovation.

There are odor bombs (creates a scented fog that permeates fabric and carpet) for cars that sell for around US$20. Your process would either have to be cheaper or remove odors that other products couldn't. As I understand your process, you would remove excess humidity, then humidify with some kind of antibacterial agent (resole? This doesn't translate, it means to put new bottoms on shoes). Finally, you would be dehumidifying again, most likely leaving the antibacterial agent in the car. The process sounds time consuming and expensive (over US$100, is that what you're expecting?). I could see a need for it with extreme odors (skunk) or for people sensitive to odors (some people can't stand greasy or smoky smells in their immediate environment), but this seems like a limited market. How much were you thinking of charging? Sometimes a higher price tag can be attractive if you can guarantee to remove any odor. Also, I think you are talking about sweat, not sweet. Sweat is perspiration, sweet is how sugar tastes. Ooooh, good market. I hadn't thought about that.

It would be easy to imagine immortality as being able to rapidly regenerate each cell in our body instead of forming scar tissue. Teeth would grow back, severed digits and limbs would regenerate, there would be no disease because each organ could simply grow back new and shiny. Could we assume that you would pretty much stop aging once you'd reached your full growth (around 18 for women, 20 for men)? The only way we could die is through catastrophic means like decapitation, being blown up or drowning. I actually think this would make us value life more because there would be more to lose. I think laws regarding weapons that could cause catastrophic injury would be more strictly enforced. Isn't that strange to think, that since life is less than 100 years, it's OK to be reckless with it, but if we were immortal, well, that's different, it would really be worth something then.... So I think I'll go with happier, since aging and medical problems would be a couple of big things less to worry about. You'd have to add more sad for not being able to have as many children, unless immortality could help us develop off-planet exploration more rapidly.

As I mentioned before, why wouldn't the auto makers want better fuel efficiency so their cars would be cheaper to run, leading to more use, leading to more sales? Gas prices have been considered high for the last 40 years, ever since the 1973 Oil Crisis in my experience.

What if the majority of the people aren't made aware of the progress? From The Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/10/invention_secrecy_2010.html

Well, as I said, my only arguments are ones that are tough to back up. The relationship between auto makers and oil producers seems like a no-brainer on the surface, but the auto makers want cheaper fuel so people use their cars more, and the oil producers know they are working with a diminishing supply, so high prices (but not too high) are their best friend. I acknowledged this in the opener. And when you add in the fact that intellectual property is ignored by some countries, it makes it even tougher to use standard business models to be successful in electronics technology. I agree that the suppressors of innovation are taking a very short view. I also think that some of the larger corporations are able to sidestep the normal laws of the free market; they are fully capable of mounting campaigns that make the majority believe they need what that corporation has decided it wants to sell. Although, I have to say, it has been interesting to see consumer reaction to the amount of effort and money the entertainment and electronics industries have put into Blu-ray. It shows that we have all been burned before and are a bit wiser for it. Again, though, let's not forget how politics, possibly being used by corporate special interests, plays a part in consumer ignorance. When math and logic fail, political candidates can always be counted on to turn it into a partisan thang.

Seriously though, after 100 years, ways to improve fuel efficiency and emissions together haven't progressed proportionately? I realize I'm arguing from incredulity here, but why wouldn't that happen? More efficient burning of fuels would seem to lead to both added economy and less emissions. There's no doubt that the overall integrity of the vehicles have progressed immensely in the last 100 years. I think that's what makes the lack of progress in fuel efficiency stand out all the more. There's another question for you: is it consumer demand for cheaper products, or is it manufacturer ability to make a product that costs half to make but sells for only one-third less? The factory outlet model suggests that you can manufacture to a certain price point while gaining more profit by marketing to people who think they re getting huge discounts. And I didn't say the companies were greedy. The model demands that as companies grow, they take on investors who need to see a return, and any time a company changes hands there needs to be more money that comes from somewhere to bridge the gaps. When a company goes public, stockholders need to see dividends and that money has to come from a variety of different strategies. But that's just business. What I'm trying to get at is where do you draw the line? Consumers should be responsible for demanding something better than a light bulb that heats the house more efficiently than it lights it. We should be smart enough to realize that something that lasts ten times longer is well worth three times the price. But what can we do when corporations have the political and media power to keep us in the dark about technology that might mean more efficiency at less cost to us? The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 lets Congress and the military, through the Patent and Trademark Office, decide that an invention is against the interests of national security. The law is so broad and powerful that it can effectively require that no mention is ever made of the request for patent, not just the parts that are deemed dangerous. It's been claimed that this law has been used to suppress inventions that would increase fuel economy in internal combustion engines (and the law is applicable since the military uses IC engines), but those claims can't be verified for the above mentioned reasons. Apparently, a current list of technology areas used to screen patent applications for restriction isn't publicly available, even under the Freedom of Information Act. It could even be argued that any invention which would adversely affect existing markets and thus upset the economy could be construed as against the interests of national security. As we see corporate personhood gain more prominence in political affairs, and knowing that the US has made use of the military to further business interests in the oil industry, as well as having evidence that competing technology has been purchased and suppressed to support current profit centers, is it farfetched to think we are a bit bogged down with "business as usual" in favor of more efficient uses for our resources?

I'm sorry, when I said, "I would check into those laws if you haven't already", I meant "If I were you, I would check into those laws (if you haven't already)". Lazy grammar and punctuation on my part. I'm not comfortable with advising you on German revenue requirements. You should be able to ask an adviser at your school for some suggestions on how to proceed.

There are thousands of examples where innovation has been suppressed, or durability has been compromised, to maintain profitable business. We've used the highly inefficient incandescent light bulb for over one hundred years (90% of its energy goes to heat instead of light). The 1908 Ford Model T got 25 mpg and a hundred years later the average gas mileage is worse: 21 mpg. Plastics and other materials have been reduced in strength in order to decrease product lifetime and increase repeat purchases. Planned obsolescence limits the product lifetime where weakening the structure is impractical. Often politics is used to insure that inefficient methodology is adopted, like using corn to produce ethanol as a fuel additive. Patents are purchased so the technology can be suppressed, like Chevron's purchase of NiMH battery technology from General Motors (they promptly mired the patents in multiple corporate purchases and lawsuits, insuring that no one dares to go anywhere near making an electric car with it again). A goal of some businesses is to research, develop and manufacture a product/service that consumers want. Once you've done that, you work to recoup your expenses and minimize your costs. Once established, the last thing you want to do is change anything so you incur more costs that have to be recouped. Other than for growth (manufacturing more of the same product), innovation seems to be anathema to this kind of business model. On one hand, efficient design and use of resources wars with free market profits and consumer choice. On the other hand, with today's fast-paced technology, it's often difficult to bring a product through R&D and manufacturing and thus to market when competitors can easily build on the work you've done and trump you in the marketplace. And how much effort can you put into a great new piece of computer hardware knowing that it will most likely be archaic in a couple of years? Untold amounts of money have been spent on advertising designed to make us discontented with what we have in an effort to get us to make purchases sooner than necessary. Psychological obsolescence is pervasive, and while it can be argued that we are free to make our choices, how can we possibly not fall prey to such massive efforts to manipulate our minds? I've seen well-used products made from plastic in the 1950s that are still functional today and look like the day they came off the assembly line; not even any scratches on them, still bright and colorful. These items weren't terribly expensive to purchase in their day, and it seems like over time plastic items have gotten dramatically weaker without being dramatically cheaper. Would our economy have been broken if many products rarely had to be replaced or would we have come up with other things to use our resources for? What's more important? Efficient use of resources and unbridled innovation, or maintaining the economy and allowing business to thrive using proven methodologies?

! Moderator Note Topic moved to Computer Help from Science Education. You will be more likely to receive notice regarding IT services here. Congratulations on having the foresight to start this now. I have no doubt you will be successful if you continue to think ahead like this. I'm not sure what the laws are in Germany regarding starting a business. In the US, I could start a sole proprietorship without even registering, as long as I paid my taxes. I would check into those laws if you haven't already. In these economic times, many small to mid-sized companies can't afford to have full-time IT personnel on the payroll. You might want to start with those types of companies and see if they are looking for IT help on an as-needed basis. This flexibility might also fit well with your student status.

Cool! Good to know. Thanks, StringJunky. Unfortunately, it looks like having a second (and possibly third) battery to swap out is just as important with Li-ion. Curse you, consumer economy!

Welcome to SFN, and thanks for starting this thread. I think we're still within established science here so far, but if we start to get off the proven track and into speculations (which are very good things, don't get me wrong), I may have to move this to the Speculations section. But wave/particle duality has been documented repeatedly. It's not really called a "belief". Dimensions give perspective, allowing us to plot the structure of what we perceive in the universe. One dimension is a line, two dimensions is a plane, and three dimensions is a cube. Add time as a temporal dimension for movement and we can know where we are within the universe. Are you referring to the multiverse hypothesis, where multiple parallel universes exist?

Agreed. It doesn't matter whether it was a good or evil choice. It matters that God said not to do it, there will be a certain consequence. It doesn't even matter that the consequence wasn't what God said it would be, the fact is that they knew there was a consequence, they did it anyway and were punished for it. God could have killed them both, since death was the consequence He warned of. Banishment could be construed as merciful comparatively. Courts often decide to reduce sentences to incarceration instead of death when premeditation can't be proven, since you bring up secular law (which you shouldn't, since secular laws vary by society, and what is considered just by some is barbarism to others).

The difference is perceptual, and may vary between societies. In the US we may judge a person insane if they suddenly leave their job and family to wander around in the desert, but aboriginal Australians call that "walkabout" and consider it a perfectly sane rite of passage. In the end, I suppose we judge the difference by how much of a danger one is to oneself or others. The actual "line" between sanity and insanity is a purple one, painstakingly woven from lint I found stuck to some tape that held my copy of Animal Farm together, and carefully dyed with a Sharpie marker my aunt Dorothy gave me for Christmas in 1969.