Has anyone seen this yet?

"Shawn B."

I saw it here

yesterday, and yes, I found it the most impressive one, especially when the guy kicks it and it recovers without falling.

They should've put a head on it, it's too weird to watch it moving without a head, kinda of scary :-)

Padu

the real world. The first time I saw this thing it looked damned weird, but with the musical accompaniment it's pretty kewl, heh.

Yup,

It is real.

The thing only works for a few minutes at a time, and the throttle has to be wide open all those minutes...

Mike

"blueeyedpop"

And that is in my opinion the biggest challenge for mobile robotics... autonomy. Electrical power is in my opinion not appropriate for mobile robotics, and gasoline is too messy and noisy. I wonder if one day nuclear energy will be as safe and as known to be put into a device the size of a AAA battery that could give energy for a robot to move centuries non-stop. (ok, it's early in the morning, I'm still dreamming)

Cheers

Padu

Well, that's sort of the dream of cold fusion. While chemical reactions, like combustion or batteries, is pretty efficient, atomic fusion or decay should be more so.

What I'd like to see is a practical conversion from nuclear "radiation" to electricity. We'd dig up all the discarded waste from power plants and pack it into lead lined batteries packs. Sure, we'd also have to make a container that couldn't be broken, but something having a half like measured in hundreds or thousands of years, seems like a wasted power source.

It's called an "IsoMiTe"--NASA has been using them since the '60s.

If the half life is that long the amount of energy that can be derived in a given time is quite small.

Fuel cells are likely to be far more satisfactory for most robotic uses.

what frequency/wave length is radiation from spent fuel rods?

build an antenna to catch it.

Rich

I'm pretty sure it is in the form of particles and not waves, and yes, I know that there are formula to represent virtually anything as either, but I think it is more than that.

Right now, we are sort of primitive. We can only harness two types of energy, heat and electronic force. We harness magnetism only in so much as it creates movement of electrons. There are so many forms of energy for which we may have ways of measuring them, but thus for can not harness them.

If a device like a Geiger counter could be constructed so that particle impact, somehow, created sufficient electronic force, then it would be possible to wrap atomic waste in such a device and have a virtually perpetual energy source.

D'oh! And to think they've been using steam all these years in nuclear power plants.

Seriously, such an antenna would be nearly atomic in size because of the wavelengths involved. Plus, the principle nuclear emission from spent fuel rods is alpha particles, which don't travel far. The antenna (antennas) would have be very close to the rod to be effective. Fuel rods are known to turn cement casings into a spongy mass. Think how long an antenna would last. It would just be yet another highly radioactive material to dispose of.

-- Gordon

But these are thermonic, which some people would say is not terribly efficient. However, they do seem to have suited V'ger quite well. In a few centuries, that blasted thing will come back to kill us all.

-- Gordon

I've been researching technology, and the "WE" in the above statement refers to society. Mass marketed technology. "they" create a demand for the supply they've manufactured.

There is more information out there than "WE" know. Individuals have developed technology that hasn't been marketed. It isn't marketed because it threatens or or will destroy the current market and society.

Rich

Don't be a conspiracy theory nut. It would have to be a HUGE secret. Who would keep this secret? How could they keep it?

The same way they kept my flatulence-powered AM radio from ever seeing the light of day.

I could have been rich, RICH, I tell you!

It isn't a conspiracy. It's called engineering of society.

How does a secret gain in size?

You drive a vehicle that has a gasoline powered reciprocating engine. Do you know how long "we" have had technology superior to this machine? It lasted the lifetime of the inventor, then died with him.

Do you know that "we" almost had a DC electricity distribution system? The idea was driven by the industry leaders at the time.

Do you know that GE made the first refrigerator/freezers as inefficient as possible, to increase sales of electricity?

Do you think that duracell, energizer would allow a "battery" that lasted 10X as long as their products to be marketed?

Do you think that the oil/automotive manufacturing/repair industry would allow a maintenance free, 10X more efficient engine to be marketed?

New inventions are accepted by the established industry only if they increase the demand for the products that are currently being manufactured.

Machines that have a long lifetime (relative to current lifespans of current machines) are unacceptable. If you build an umbrella that lasts for 50 years, each person has to buy only one every

50 years. The umbrella company goes out of business.

If umbrellas are manufactured to break in a year, you can sell one per year per person. The umbrella company thrives.

light bulbs, autos, shoes, clothing, paint, roads, all manufactured to break, so you have to go get a new one.

is it a "huge" secret? Nope. Just something that most people don't think about.

When we were hunter/gatherers, we worked as a tribe for about

4 hours a day to get our food. That leaves about 8 hours a day for recreation, art, thought, invention.

Now we work 8 hours a day to get our food. What happened to our free time? What does it get spent on?

The products that we MUST HAVE. Why must we have them? because "they" tell us we must have them.

The individuals who have invented machines that threaten the design of the society have been labeled "crackpots", crazy, or just plain silly. We believe they are "crackpots" and that the inventions they created are impossible, because that is what we are told.

Whoever benefits most. The people who have us working 8 hours a day, who have us spending all of our time on their products.

Mass media. Newspapers, television, books, "gaps" between "generations" of people.

How do you keep a secret? You either don't ever tell anyone about it, or lie. If you don't tell anyone about it, it would be good to tell other dramatic stories to keep people thinking about something else. Or invent engaging activities to keep people busy enough that they don't have time to question the lies.

Rich

And this technology is?

Yes, that is well known, and in fact some localities in the US were running DC as late as the mid '60s. What of it?

You've never been involved with the initial release of a new product have you? At that point you don't know enough about how it's going to hold up in service to be able to do that kind of fine tuning. In any case, GE doesn't sell electricity so why would they do this?

You mean like methanol fuel cells?

They would bring it to market themselves if they could, but there is no such thing so they can't. Or haven't you heard of CAFE?

So?

I've never worn out an umbrella. I've lost many of them. Your scenario makes a false assumption about the umbrella market.

So how does one make any of those things in such a manner that it won't break? Sorry, but you're finding a conspiracy where there isn't one.

When were you a hunter-gatherer?

Huh?

And yet somehow you have discovered all these secrets. Gee, seems that they failed.

Mainly due to limited temperature differential. Internal combustion engines are not terribly efficient either but they are nonetheless "practical". The Russians used nuclear thermionic cells all over the place at one time and there are people running around with nuclear powered pacemakers, so it's certainly a "practical" technology.

Maybe you should have made more of a stink about it. You know what they say: The louder you are, the more they notice you.

-- Gordon

I'll just comment on this one.

The main impetus behind a DC power grid was non other than Thomas Edison. If there was ever anyone in history that people would listen to, trust, and invest in, it was Edison and his companies. The fact that we don't have a DC grid is based on pure economics that even a famous inventor like Edison couldn't change: AC is cheaper to generate and transmit than DC.

While I have no doubt there have been technologies developed and then buried to keep the status quo, this wasn't one of them. The debate of AC versus DC was well publicized at the time, and everyone who read the paper knew about it.

-- Gordon

In the united states, it is taught in gradeschool to highschool that Benjamin Franklin flew a kite with a key on it, and discovered electricity.

Then Edison made the lightbulb.

Who invented AC? We use it every day. We're taught that Ford invented the automobile. We use them every day.

Who invented AC?

ask a high schooler.

The inventor isn't taught.

Edison is taught, and is taught to be a "wizard" of electricity. A student in the USA school system will probably tell you Franklin or Edison invented AC electricity.

What did Edison invent?

He was an entertainment invention improver... He improved the motion picture machine, the phonograph. He took someone else's idea (light bulb) and randomly tried different elements until he found one that would last long.

his company manufactured the lightbulb in this form for a few years before they figured out if they built them to break, people would have to come back and buy more.

Who invented AC?

Why isn't it taught?

What else did he invent?

What else did he discover?

why is Edison, and entertainment machine improver, taught in USA school system, and the inventor of AC power generation + transmission + AC electric motor is forgotten?

Edison had the backing of the industry owners at the time. He was a thief who stole other's ideas and claimed they were his own.

Read about these events in our history. Read where the money was at, and who was friends with the people that had the money?

Read about how the guys with the money accepted, and rejected new technologies.

Read about the things the schools didn't teach you.

Or not... it may be more comfortable for most people to believe what information they are fed.

Rich