EdEarl

The free piston engine used in a hybrid may eliminate 80% of the weight of an engine, by replacing the mechanical drive train with electric motors and (graphine) wires. However, I've seen no evidence they intend to manufacture such cars, perhaps because EVs seem to be the winning technology.

Toyota has made a free piston generator, which might be used to power a hybrid, which reduces the weight of an internal combustion engine by eliminating the mechanical drive mechanisms, including connecting rods, drive shaft, flywheel, transmission, differential, drive shaft and axles. Here is a youtube video of the engine.

80% saved of a 350 lb engine is 280 lbs, which gives between $33.60 and $56 per year savings in fuel. However, removing that much weight from the engine would allow a lighter weight vehicle, increasing the amount of fuel saved and the cost of the vehicle, unless your solution requires expensive materials. I'm not asking questions, just making observations.

According to Sebastian Blanco, Cars are driven about 12,000 miles per year, which means 100 lbs would save between $12 and $20 per year , assuming $2.50/gallon of gas, and 30mpg. For your improvement to be valuable enough to be used, it would have to cost no more than 20% of savings. Small car engines weigh about 350 lbs. It seems unlikely your improvement can save enough to be valuable. However, I am ignorant of your invention. You should do some calculations similar to those I've done, and make up your own mind. You should also consider the probable change from internal combustion engines for motor vehicles to electric cars, which should be occurring over the next 20 years, after which cars, trucks and buses with internal combustion engines will be very few.

Among scientists there are honest differences of opinion. When opinions affect business, dishonest differences of opinion are bought and sold. Some science is interesting, but whether an opinion is right or wrong, no one will be adversely or advantageously affected, for example the age of the Universe. However, some science can affect the fate of man, beast or Earth, for example climate change. It is important to know the affects of climate change on the Earth, because there are potentially adverse affects, and some say adverse affects have already occurred. Since I am neither a climatologist nor meteorologist, it seems to me like humanity is juggling a loaded gun, and if it goes off, it may hit a vital organ and we all die, only injure us, or miss us entirely. I'd rather we take a safe route, and not juggle a loaded gun. The problem is that juggling is good business and we want to continue the good business, and many ignore the potential disaster or they are willing to gamble with the fate of humanity. To me it is not rational, and should not be done.

That $150K would be better spent hiring a pro comedian.

The attached youtube video shows a man moving multi-ton stones with sticks and stones, no heavy equipment. The sticks are mostly dimension lumber (e.g., 2x4s and 4x4s, IDK metric for these). For example, he lifts a 20 ton block several almost a meter (yard) by making two fulcrums less than a meter apart, and uses a teeter-toter motion of the block to lift one side and then the other one 2x4 at a time. He also plants one in the ground as a monolith. And rolls heavy blocks with ease. If the Egyptians and Celts moved stones with these techniques, it was easier than I ever imagined.

I just watched a 1.50 minute youtube video, Introducing Amazon Go and the worlds most shopping technology. As you walk into a store with this technology, you swipe your card in a reader, go into the store picking up the things you want, and walk out, without having to stop at a register to check out. The system watches you while you shop, and automatically adds things to your virtual cart as you pick them off shelves. No more checkout lines, and many jobs will be lost as the technology spreads from store to store.

Politicians may be difficult to prosecute, but they are not immune.

Intent to kill would probably be difficult to prove. However, culpable intent sounds like manslaughter to me. With millions killed, I'd think some could be put away for life. I like Phi's idea.

Estimating deaths from climate change is a complex process, and bound to be controversial. However, it's being done. Previously the UN estimated 100M deaths by 2030, a new report suggests the number will be much smaller, perhaps 9M. During WWII Nazis killed about 6M Jews, including 1.5M children. The Nuremberg trials convicted a number of Nazis for this genocide. Should there be similar trials for people who are responsible for perpetuating climate change?

A problem with this kind of study is there may be alternate explanations of chi a phenomenon, such as hypnosis. Unless chi can be measured directly, like volts, it seems to me the experiments will be futile.

3D printer is a term with an evolving definition, I think. To me it a mechanism that produces 3D things from CAD drawings, the process or processes used are not important. 3D printers are being developed for a variety of materials. I know mine is a very broad definition, other people have different ideas, and a consensus may be different.

3D printers are a menagerie of tools, some huge, to print houses, and some small to print things at nano scale. The original 3D printers made plastic parts from spools of mono filament. Now 3D printers make things from all sorts of material, but none print with all materials. Moreover, you couldn't 3D print a watch with a printer designed to make houses. The first 3D printers added layer upon layer of plastic to make things. Now some 3D printers remove material, such as an NC mill, which existed before the term 3D printing was coined. There are many ways to add or remove material, often depending on the type of material being used to make the 3D thing, for example metal, plastic and ceramic. Consequently, there are many kinds of 3D printers, and one might call a fully automated mega factories a 3D printer. Although, the term 3D printer tends to be used for things smaller than a factory.

IDK all the rules for human testing, but whoever participates must volunteer without being pressured, and must be able to stop being a test subject at any time. In the US, law not ethics would prevent testing, I think.

What makes you think all women are bisexual? What makes you think gay men have a woman's brain? It's a bit more complex, I think. For example, a gay man may like having a penis; whereas, a transsexual man (or woman) feels their sexual organ is wrong. Although, I think it's even more complex.

Storing data depends on the surface quality of the medium used. If digital, each bit needs to be stored on almost identical areas of the medium, e.g., a glass disk, so the bits are identical. A surface that is irregular will cause errors. Paper tends to be irregular and not capable of storing high density data; whereas, a smooth glass or plastic surface can store very small regular bits/pixels or whatever.

Perhaps this 5D storage on glass disk

Ken, Recently the rate of CO2 release changed. On the other hand, the rate of automation is increasing. Automation will help us restore the environment, in the not too distant future. I agree with you in principle. If the environment deteriorates faster than technology can respond, then we may have a bleak outcome. On the other hand, if automation improves quickly enough it can assure a rosy outcome. I'm betting automation will win the race.

Sorry, try again.

I graduated university with an engineering degree and always took tests with a slide rule, because pocket calculators didn't exist. Within two years of Texas Instruments hiring me, they introduced the first under $100 desk calculator, and integrated circuits contained half a dozen transistors. I've lost count of how many transistors are in ICs today, millions. Houses are being 3D printed, robots are still a bit clumsy but improving rapidly, and AlphaGo is a general purpose learning system with hardware steadily improving. We will have automated systems to build things in space. The military industrial complex is already building AI and robots. Capitalists want automation to reduce costs and the military want it to avoid sending soldiers into harm's way. There is a race to provide clean energy for the world, the technology is ready, implementation is just beginning. A semi-automated lettuce factory is already producing heads of lettuce. Not only will that factory be automated, but the one that produces parts for that factory will be fully automated, at this time it is partly automated. It is the process started by the industrial revolution, and the changes to processes are changing faster than ever. If climate change killed half the population tomorrow, the process of automating industry would continue, but slower. However, with half the people, environmental damage would slow down too. I don't think citizens can significantly threaten the US military, and they will assure automation efforts continue.

Politicians shave words into images that appeal to their constituency when they campaign. They vote according to the wishes of the backers who pay them enough to be elected, and who also provide other perks. I am concerned that regardless of what they know, they will continue to act as they do now. Properly educating the people is more important, but it would require continuing education throughout the lives of all voters. Money for education is not considered important enough to provide a university education for free, and I'm pretty sure trying to get voters to attend a couple of weeks of training every year would fail.

This type of processing component will power deep learning servers, increase their computing power, and accelerate the use of strong AI. This Toshiba part is similar to a previous component, but uses 1/6 the power.