Scientists develop low-cost solution that generates electricity from air

Yynxs

Posts: 544   +183
TechSpot Elite
So a BS is not a higher education to you? (Well, at least not the kind you might be thinking of anyway.) :laughing:
I remember my BS. The people handing them out were very impressed. I had a British school system educated Mother. She viewed most of the classes I took as "High School Remedial", so it didn't seem the same to me. Seeing the 'college' degrees and the classes required for them in the past 25 years, no I don't think of a 'bachelor's degree' as higher education.
 

Yynxs

Posts: 544   +183
TechSpot Elite
There! You just proved it. Institutions of higher learning are liberal breeding grounds and must be exterminated. :laughing:
I didn't reply to that post because I didn't want to go through the process of gathering all the Federal funding numbers that made those achievements possible.
I wonder if our present administration will notice what changes will happen to these coast education institutes if the research money is moved inland? (hmmm...I should write a monograph on that and submit it...)
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,125   +3,214
Wasn't this Nicholas Tesla discovery?
Um, no. He was interested in extracting electricity from lightning IIRC.
I remember my BS. The people handing them out were very impressed. I had a British school system educated Mother. She viewed most of the classes I took as "High School Remedial", so it didn't seem the same to me. Seeing the 'college' degrees and the classes required for them in the past 25 years, no I don't think of a 'bachelor's degree' as higher education.
Well, there is that problem of grading on a curve because the people who send their kids to an expensive school b!tch when their kids cannot pass. In some cases, that education is meaningless.

It is, however, up to the individual to do something with that education, and therein lies the crux of education - it is worthless if the educated do nothing with it.

I didn't reply to that post because I didn't want to go through the process of gathering all the Federal funding numbers that made those achievements possible.
I wonder if our present administration will notice what changes will happen to these coast education institutes if the research money is moved inland? (hmmm...I should write a monograph on that and submit it...)
Well, there you are getting to a pet peeve of mine - the economic systems of the world, in general, only value those who collect the most money. As I see it, that has to change.

Don't worry, though. The current administration is engaging in its own war on science. Pretty soon, stone knives and bearskins will the the next technological trend. 🤣
 

Yynxs

Posts: 544   +183
TechSpot Elite
Don't worry, though. The current administration is engaging in its own war on science. Pretty soon, stone knives and bearskins will the the next technological trend.
Had me up until then. I have a very thin view of 'established science', seen too much proven information get replaced over time. I understand the need for shrimp on a treadmill but still see the scientists unable to explain the reasons for the research as destroying funds for basic research for everyone else.

As for the present administration, I do see a war on 'climate science' but I also read everything the so called 'climate scientists' say. There is a very large charge of 'sketchy' there for headline grabbing and selling clicks (the 97% of climate scientists was a good one until it got drilled down on). When larger number of 'assumptions' are required for a 'posit' then it's best to set aside whatever conclusions are 'accepted' until the data pans out. The NADW springs to mind. I would think a permanent temp sampling of the gradients of this massive water movement would be integral in climate modeling and refreshes.
Changes to higher temps could not be argued as being normal since the arctic origins are a given. It's already linked to (and I'm just dropping a Wiki-name here) Heinrich events and the last Ice Age. Yes I don't see or hear anything making headlines for (and definitely not against) global warming.
 

Yynxs

Posts: 544   +183
TechSpot Elite
Well, there you are getting to a pet peeve of mine - the economic systems of the world, in general, only value those who collect the most money. As I see it, that has to change.
People that 'collect money' are the basis of all civilization. Any government that interferes with that process collapses in a very short while. There are no socialist or communist success stories and never have been.
It might be nice if everyone shared equally and worked equally like bee or ant colonies but bees and ants don't build transistors or the tools to build the tools to build the tools to build transistors. Money and the exchange of it does that.

signed/Capitalist Pig
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,125   +3,214
People that 'collect money' are the basis of all civilization. Any government that interferes with that process collapses in a very short while. There are no socialist or communist success stories and never have been.
It might be nice if everyone shared equally and worked equally like bee or ant colonies but bees and ants don't build transistors or the tools to build the tools to build the tools to build transistors. Money and the exchange of it does that.

signed/Capitalist Pig
Some indigenous cultures/first peoples managed without money. Then again, they also realized that they could not over fish, hunt, etc., and still have stocks left over for the next generation. In other words, they were/are interested in taking only what they need rather than hoarding it all for profit.

I know that some current indigenous cultures ask "Is it good for our generation and will it be good for seven generations to come?" when making important decisions.

Funny thing with that. I read a study a while back that said that it takes seven generations for any particular family to raise their income tier by one level.

Fiat is not sustainable, either. There is no real value there, and as I see it, the current situation in the US is not that much different than what existed before the fall of history's empires.

I would say that people collecting money as the basis of all civilization has arisen from those that sought to be king of the hill and those who believed that they were worthy of being king of the hill. In other words, the power seekers who's sole purpose to seek that power is for their own personal gain. Maybe a bit more strongly put - the bullies. The trouble with that is that those that are bullied get tired of being bullied.

Had me up until then. I have a very thin view of 'established science', seen too much proven information get replaced over time.
That is the nature of science, though, isn't it? It learn, explains things to the best of its ability at the time, then learns more, explains things again to the best of its ability at the time and repeats the process. No scientist with any integrity will tell you that all is known that there is to know. I am not necessarily fond of it either, especially the situation in medical science, but it is the way things are in the scientific world.

When we start demanding perfection in the scientific world, or anywhere, for that matter, that is when we set ourselves up for failure - IMO.

I understand the need for shrimp on a treadmill but still see the scientists unable to explain the reasons for the research as destroying funds for basic research for everyone else.
So we should set up committees to determine what is necessary to research and then throw out everything else? Insights sometimes come about by accident or from unrelated topics that may show similar patterns. Putting things together in ways that others do not necessarily see sometimes has benefits.

We already have vetting processes that decide what research is funded.

Then again, we come to that common denominator - money - and where the "value" lies.

As for the present administration, I do see a war on 'climate science' but I also read everything the so called 'climate scientists' say. There is a very large charge of 'sketchy' there for headline grabbing and selling clicks (the 97% of climate scientists was a good one until it got drilled down on). When larger number of 'assumptions' are required for a 'posit' then it's best to set aside whatever conclusions are 'accepted' until the data pans out. The NADW springs to mind. I would think a permanent temp sampling of the gradients of this massive water movement would be integral in climate modeling and refreshes.
Changes to higher temps could not be argued as being normal since the arctic origins are a given. It's already linked to (and I'm just dropping a Wiki-name here) Heinrich events and the last Ice Age. Yes I don't see or hear anything making headlines for (and definitely not against) global warming.
As I see it, there comes a time when trends become important. There are no exact answers, at least with the current state of technology in the world. We have to pay attention to the trend. If we need those exact and perfect answers (especially within a chaotic system like climate and the weather) before we take action to quell a growing trend, then we risk the possibility of setting things up for failure and researching things to an nth degree while the lab crumbles around the researchers.

You seem science oriented. So I'll say have a look at this -
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/decoding-the-weather-machine
 

Morris Minor

Posts: 207   +125
Necessity is the mother of invention.

as for Greta not being elite! what planet are you on. she has two famous parents (actor and opera singer) millionaires who sail around on a yacht. being a poor working class person that seems pretty elite to me. but then if you live in a household that earns over $34,000 a year, on a global scale you are in the 1%.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,125   +3,214
Necessity is the mother of invention.

as for Greta not being elite! what planet are you on. she has two famous parents (actor and opera singer) millionaires who sail around on a yacht. being a poor working class person that seems pretty elite to me. but then if you live in a household that earns over $34,000 a year, on a global scale you are in the 1%.
And there lies the failure of the world's economic systems.
 

Yynxs

Posts: 544   +183
TechSpot Elite
So we should set up committees to determine what is necessary to research and then throw out everything else? Insights sometimes come about by accident or from unrelated topics that may show similar patterns. Putting things together in ways that others do not necessarily see sometimes has benefits.

We already have vetting processes that decide what research is funded.

Then again, we come to that common denominator - money - and where the "value" lies.
You're trying to make a point and setting aside my statement, "...but still see the scientists unable to explain the reasons for the research as destroying funds for basic research for everyone else...."

The scientist is not funded by geniuses that understand their work. They are funded by working people paying taxes and going about their daily lives. The working people 'trust' the people they put in charge of stuff to be 'smarter' than they are and choose to fund science that does them some good, sooner or later. The quote smarter unquote people see their choices on what to fund as being 'good' for 'science' and much of the time forget the money wasn't free. Someone paid taxes and did without because of those taxes.

Teaching the scientist how to communicate with their basic fund providers, the taxpayers, eliminates the "vetting processes that decide what research is funded.", (A cost savings in itself) but few people that become scientists want to get into the chaotically messy methods of adequate communication with large bodies of people. It's really a lot of work and a 'science' in itself.

That laziness or inability to understand communication creates your complaint about money.

If you want to solves this, start a movement to make 5% of the national budget be set aside for funding science in any form with individual taxpayer voting allowed. The funders get a direct say in what science is pursued. Obscura and basic research science gets it's chunk from the 'smart' people committees designating funding from those who don't care where the tax goes. The charlatans get their piece of the pie under public scrutiny. And the social engineering power seekers get their chance to convince the gullible.

Get out of the business of complaining about money and understand what it is, where it comes from, and who it belongs to.
 

Yynxs

Posts: 544   +183
TechSpot Elite
Some indigenous cultures/first peoples managed without money. Then again, they also realized that they could not over fish, hunt, etc., and still have stocks left over for the next generation. In other words, they were/are interested in taking only what they need rather than hoarding it all for profit.
Please name an "indigenous culture" that did not discover money as a substitute or storage medium for labor, that succeeded.
 

Yynxs

Posts: 544   +183
TechSpot Elite
I would say that people collecting money as the basis of all civilization has arisen from those that sought to be king of the hill and those who believed that they were worthy of being king of the hill. In other words, the power seekers who's sole purpose to seek that power is for their own personal gain. Maybe a bit more strongly put - the bullies. The trouble with that is that those that are bullied get tired of being bullied.
This is whining. Power structures, currently, do not form from who is physically strongest. They form from temporary alliances that morphed into religious supplemented social structures called governments. The primary purpose of the power structures is to protect the governments (and incidentally the people) from being destroyed by other well-organized groups. No one is bullied that doesn't choose to be bullied as Jeff Bezos exemplifies.

Money is as much a tool as a sword or a plow. It is a storage mechanism for labor, physical or intellectual. Please understand that. Even the idea of a storage mechanism for labor cannot be supplanted.

The subject of this article is electrical power from the air. All research and discovery and use of artificial power creations are substitutes for labor beginning with the gathering of wood for warmth, animals for flesh, and fruit of the land. Artificial power (labor) leverages these activities. If the nanowire power generation works out at scale, the ability to generate power for labor savings could upend the current 'monetary methods' only because labor storage might no longer matter. Anyone, with minimal, investment (see parental activities) would start out with electricity to use to get their basic needs.

It's doubtful this societal paradigm change would occur. Anything that becomes common or is easily acquired has no value in the social exchange between humans. Something else would begin to substitute for 'money'.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,049   +4,850
Now leaf blowers will be able to recharge your electric car
Yes, but the problem is, only ICE powered leaf blowers will generate enough ait pressire to effect charging.

Besides, you can't expect a leaf blower that runs off your car battery to do anything more than waste power.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,125   +3,214
This is whining. Power structures, currently, do not form from who is physically strongest. They form from temporary alliances that morphed into religious supplemented social structures called governments. The primary purpose of the power structures is to protect the governments (and incidentally the people) from being destroyed by other well-organized groups. No one is bullied that doesn't choose to be bullied as Jeff Bezos exemplifies.

Money is as much a tool as a sword or a plow. It is a storage mechanism for labor, physical or intellectual. Please understand that. Even the idea of a storage mechanism for labor cannot be supplanted.

The subject of this article is electrical power from the air. All research and discovery and use of artificial power creations are substitutes for labor beginning with the gathering of wood for warmth, animals for flesh, and fruit of the land. Artificial power (labor) leverages these activities. If the nanowire power generation works out at scale, the ability to generate power for labor savings could upend the current 'monetary methods' only because labor storage might no longer matter. Anyone, with minimal, investment (see parental activities) would start out with electricity to use to get their basic needs.

It's doubtful this societal paradigm change would occur. Anything that becomes common or is easily acquired has no value in the social exchange between humans. Something else would begin to substitute for 'money'.
Go deeper. Come out of your shell and stop pretending. - https://sacred-economics.com/
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,125   +3,214
It's 2020, Democrats are nominating a communist for president.
Be Happy!
I am not the only one to think anything is better than what is in there now, and most presidents really never get to employ, for various reasons, what they promise in their campaigns, anyway.
 

Yynxs

Posts: 544   +183
TechSpot Elite
Go deeper. Come out of your shell and stop pretending. - https://sacred-economics.com/
roflmao...seriously? and he's selling books? "pay what you want".

I can see there's no way to give you knowledge. As I said elsewhere, if it's freely available to everyone, no one puts a value to it and something else substitutes. I've run into this before. I wish you well.

Keep an eye on the projects housing prediction. They start out everywhere progressive socialists try to solve 'value' problems. They've ended up the same too.

Try reading a bit about the nanowire surface effect that generates the voltage differential. In and of itself, it's an interesting 'new effect' considering we can x-ray image lithography on surfaces. If you know someone who is in the chip design and etching business, you might want to let them see the article, ask if they can dupe the effect in a semi-conductor, and then invest in their company if they can. It will be a revolution for tech if they can and you'll get rich off the demon money.
 

DAOWAce

Posts: 307   +49
And like everything that's beneficial to humanity, this will never be seen because it can't be monetized.
 

CharmsD

Posts: 413   +253
I am not the only one to think anything is better than what is in there now, and most presidents really never get to employ, for various reasons, what they promise in their campaigns, anyway.
I know, and for one, I miss having a big beautiful Mexico Wall. /cheap shot

There are no socialist or communist success stories and never have been
Must...try harder. Until it kills us.
- Cyanotic Pig

Since you mentioned over-parity ;) this is rather interesting if it has any merit - https://phys.org/news/2020-02-simple-self-charging-battery-power-solutions.html
"Our electrochemical cells, which in principle are simpler than batteries, are all about self-organization, which is the substance of life,"

OMG. Braga has created bipolar static. Focused static. Laser Battery!
"Self-charge and self-cycling processes upon alignment of the dipoles in the ferroelectric-electrolyte due to the electrical necessity of aligning the Fermi levels"
: blinks: "batteries charged to maximum fermi, forward at warp 4"

In this paper, https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5132841 Braga outlines the process as ananalogous to a biological process. It's not a stargazer fish, but if it works it doesn't have to be.. lol

 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

CharmsD

Posts: 413   +253
I can see there's no way to give you knowledge. As I said elsewhere, if it's freely available to everyone, no one puts a value to it and something else substitutes. I've run into this before. I wish you well.
This pretty well sums up what physicians tell ~50yo (male) patients with high blood pressure. "Take your damn pills", but few do until they have a 4-way bypass.