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.

 

Detroit DIYer cooks up stronger, lighter steel, shames scientists

page: 2
30
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
why would a steel company or any other big company want to bury this?

they can make a better product with 80-90% saving in energy production costs.


We could all do a lot better than that if we got off of fossil fuels, but there are so many trillions of dollars wrapped up into that industry that it's not so simple just to throw it away anymore.

I would imagine the same could be said of the current steel manufacturing process. Massive quantities of steel are produced all over the world every day. Changing processes would present financial issues of its own.




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by scojak
 


If someone released a real car that works on water they would make a fortune on the car themselves.

the big energy companies would sell water ... dont buy that guys water buy my water guaranteed 10 mpg better!!
dont say it wont happen people make choices on buying different types of water everyday because they think one is better over the other.

the reason they dont .. it does not work ...

btw i did not say it cannot work, but at the moment it does not .. like the truck on youtube.. and the guys big radio announcment ..ZIP .. why ? coz it does not work like u think it does..

cars may last longer but if a car lasts 10 times longer , but cost 10 times less to produce .. we are still even..



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel
why would a steel company or any other big company want to bury this?

they can make a better product with 80-90% saving in energy production costs.


We could all do a lot better than that if we got off of fossil fuels, but there are so many trillions of dollars wrapped up into that industry that it's not so simple just to throw it away anymore.

I would imagine the same could be said of the current steel manufacturing process. Massive quantities of steel are produced all over the world every day. Changing processes would present financial issues of its own.


they probably said that when the first mechanised plough was used instead of the horse plodding along ploughing the fields....

that mechanised plough is too expensive!! it will never catch on ....we already have lots of ploughs in operation !! but the fact is the product it has helped to produce got better (effieciency) hence the investment is worth it and pays off in the long run.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel
 


I agree with you. My only point is that the CEOs of these multi-billion dollar companies often don't see things the same way that you and I do. They care more about what's going into their pockets than how rapidly mankind is advancing with any given technology.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel
 


As I alluded to before, greed is the almighty dictator. I'm all for more efficient inventions and innovations, but the fact of the matter is, almost everything new has to replace something else. And the industry that will be replaced will generally do what they can to stay in business, even if that means doing things that aren't best for society as a whole. The best example I can give is hemp and the fact that it is illegal despite it being arguably the single best thing we could industrialize. It has so many benefits in so many areas, yet it is illegal for the fact that you can smoke it with adverse effects. Oh, and the fact the it would have put big oil industries out of business...

Now, this new steel is clearly a superior material to what is currently used, but that doesn't guarantee anything. In all possibility, a major company may realize that they cannot afford to switch over to this new steel, for whatever reason. Lesser developed companies would be able to, though, and their products, now superior to those of bigger companies, would dominate the industry, effectively causing the big companies to lose tons of income. I'm just spitballing here, but I think I'm getting the point across.

In all my hopes, this will become the wave of the future, and all but replace conventional steel. But until I see this in mass production, it's nothing more to me than hopes and dreams.

ETA:

Originally posted by bsbray11
My only point is that the CEOs of these multi-billion dollar companies often don't see things the same way that you and I do. They care more about what's going into their pockets than how rapidly mankind is advancing with any given technology.

Yep
edit on 6/16/2011 by scojak because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
30
<< 1   >>

log in

join