It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When will we get something good?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Just a question to any former Government engineers. When will the government junkies stop hoarding the tech that will free our society at large from mass pveerty and third world debt? Wouldn't filling an inflating balloon with helium rather than air be more logical?

I mean on a small scale much of the technology is out there. And rightly so if used rationaly by smart people. Thats of course the catch 22 of it all though i know. Yet there in mine and im sure most others, be a rational line to have technology such as free energy magnetic motors or joe cell water fuel technology which anyone with a brain can make work and is all over youtube.

And one i saw of a guy who made an implosion motor, than runs on most any object like bio matter.

Things that will show the world good faith that would perhaps make people more comfortable with a less war mongering paranoid attitude towards the populace that they took oaths to serve, not protect them all back into the stoned age.




posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
What people like you don't get is that almost everything that you come into contact with on a semi-regular basis is the result of years or decades of engineering. Every computer, every road, every engine, ever BALLPOINT PEN. There are many things that simply aren't developed enough to meet the public's expectations of reliability and safety and longevity. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a HUMMER to consume as little fuel as it does? Let alone a car with fuel economy as an actual consideration. Every item you run into is the product of years of dedicated hard work and frustration.

Frankly, the majority of wild claims of machines like free energy devices and cars that run on water, and new and exciting internal combustion engines capable of fuel efficiencies double or better than current engines, or new carburetors for double the horsepower or fuel economy are complete bullcrap. The rest are almost all wild exaggeration. There are literally thousands of hoaxes out there, along with a generous spattering of false advertising, and a rather large amount of sincere delusion.

Most of the technologies that actually exist, and make for interesting reading in popular science magazines and such simply aren't developed enough for use, and, in fact, the majority of those will NEVER be developed enough for use. Oftentimes, existing solutions to problems are better than entirely new ones. Oftentimes, initial ideas seem more promising than their results show.

Look at engines. The Wankel rotary engine sounds great on paper. But because it requires one way seals, it burns oil, and can't be made as environmentally friendly as a conventional Otto cycle piston engine. Many other novel rearrangements of the Otto cycle suffer the same fate. Great ideas doomed to obscurity because of environmental protection laws and manufacturing limitations. The Wankel rotary is lucky enough to be a recurring feature in Mazda cars, most similar ideas are never picked up. The costs involved in working out the refinement of the idea to the point where it is useful to anyone are simply too high to be worth it.

Other times, it's simple economics why certain technologies never see the light of day. Some solutions are simply too pricey, or simply not desirable for most people, and if developing them would require large amounts of money, then it won't be developed. Look at 3D VR helmets. They're cool. But nobody buys them. So almost nobody develops them. The underlying technology is there, the idea is there, but the product is nonexistent.

The list of reasons goes on and on. Quantum computing requires superconductors, which require cryocooling. Computer technology simply isn't up to the point where functional AI can be created. Small proton exchange fuel cells are expensive poisoned by carbon monoxide, and thus have problems running on anything besides pure hydrogen. Processes do not exist which can manufacture the more interesting nanomaterials in the quantities necessary for commercialization. Barring huge advances in technology, there will not be a flying car in every garage, and a jetpack on every back. Solid state lasers exist, but neither they, nor power sources are advanced enough for you to have a raygun.

Look deep enough into any given technology and you'll find all kinds of problems that need to be overcome to make improvements. Some are currently insurmountable. Some, by the time they will be surmountable, won't matter because the technology they are associated with would be long obsolete.

The problem isn't technological supression, it's gullibility and unrealistic expectations. You want to play with cool science toys before everybody else? Become an engineer like me. You'll quickly find that nothing works half as well as it seems on the news. Only after years of hard work and frustration and *LOTS OF MONEY* does anything become a useful and dependable product for the general public.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
thanks for the lesson, i wasnt aware it took teams of super smart people years or decades to figure out and test theories in the scientific realm.. Im not eluding to any of that at all. Just after hearing about rejuvination from both art bell and alex jones, i was hoping we could enhance our medical condition. As well as our ability to travel..anywhere.



new topics
 
0

log in

join