You are not logged in.
This is irrelevant to the thread. We already know the issues and challenges. This thread is about technologies that directly respond to the issues and challenges, not a description of the issues and challenges.
Well comparing just a gas only vehicle to just Electric is what you want while both suffer from speed to going faster will cause a mileage drop for both
How far can an electric car go on one charge?https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/range-electric-car
Overview of EV range
Shortest
135 km (84 miles) Smart Fortwo EQ, a two-seater city carAverage 313 km (194 miles) Renault Zoe ZE50 R135
Longest 637 km (396 miles) Tesla—with the Model S Long Range Plus
Recent statistics from Bloomberg pointed out that battery costs have dropped from $1,200 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to around $125/kWh today.
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/electric/ … c-cars-ev/
To know your battery is to get a feel for how you drive will dictate how far you can go between charges.
https://newmotion.com/en/knowledge-cent … e-of-an-ev
https://img2.storyblok.com/802x0/filter … -2lqu.webp
Well assuming you are right (not entirely sure), the vast majority of those losses exist today when people "Plug in" their EV. But when they do plug in, electricity is already far cheaper than gasoline or diesel. Not sure what it is currently but it's often been 25% of the cost of gasoline for a given mileage. So if we have some additional loss now in the region of 3-10% then it is only (on the worst case scenario) going to raise the cost to 27.5% (based on the 25% example). But of course you have huge gains in terms of convenience (which does reflect economic cost of time spent fuelling up), reduced battery size (less energy required to move the vehicle), lower EV cost (die to reduced battery size) and less tyre wear pollution.
Read the links from the video's page of information and then total up all of the part losses for each of the given circuits. The total is from the plug in the wall to what is saved in the battery for use.
There are some 600,000 bridges in the USA (at least - the figure relates primarily to road and rail bridges but there must be many more footbridges). We won’t need a single one on Mars. That underlines the difference in infrastructure needs will be different from those on Earth.
On Earth a lot of infrastructure expenditure goes into dealing with the fact we are a watery planet. Not only do we build bridges across rivers and sea inlets, we also build massive ports that can take the huge container ships that transport goods around the planet. We construct huge breakwaters to stop the sea eroding our coasts.
On Earth we also construct vast international airports and because we are such a watery world we are obliged to build very robust metalled roads that won’t get washed away in a rainstorm.
Until terraformation is successfully concluded, Mars won’t require big bridges or ports or airports or even roads. Perhaps there will be a few viaducts, but no bodies of water need to be bridged. Even after terraformation, the single ocean on Mars - the Northern Ocean - would occupy a small proportion of the globe (compared with 70% on Earth - think Mars's ocean would be more like maybe 15%).
So what sort of infrastructure will Mars require?
As on Earth, human civilisation will be heavily dependent on energy production. It is indeed one of the marks of our modern civilisation on Earth that it can access huge quantities of energy above and beyond that produced by human or animal bodies. So Mars will require large energy facilities. These are highly likely to be based on photovoltaic energy to begin with. But other forms of power generation could be developed such as nuclear power and heat difference engines (the latter might prove hugely effective on Mars owing to the very large daily swings in temperature).
We will need the equivalent of roads of course. Most of the northern hemisphere of Mars seems well suited to robust vehicular traffic with no need to create tarmac surfaces (metalled roads). So rather than roads as on Earth, these would be on Mars what I call roadways - cleared paths for vehicular traffic. Robots would clear all boulders and stones from the roadway and roller robot rovers would render them as flat as possible. Because of the cratered surface, roadways may take rather circuitous routes. That won't be very important for the robot eletric vehicles that travel these roads. It makes more sense to have focus on connecting places rather than building bridges.
Robots are tireless. They can work 24/7. Circuitous routes are not a major issue.
The roadways will be used primarily in the early period to transport water ice and a variety of ores from mining areas to the main city. As more settlements are established away from the main city (at tourist sites, science sites and mining areas) we will see more food, clothes and a host of other items being transported to the settlements. People will travel along these routes but probably not for hundreds of miles (unless they are heading off on an exploratory mission in a large pressurised rover). For very long journeys human will probably travel in rocket hoppers or in Starships.
Roadways will be a wonderful cheap mode of transportation. No need for any expensive infrastructure like tarmac, bridges or signage (any warnings can be communicated directly to robot vehicles or via audio instructions to human passengers). They will have regular solar power battery stations for recharging of batteries and life support posts offering food, water and air. There will be a Roadway Support Unit maintaining these stations and ensuring they are always kept supplied. The Unit will also be responsible for keeping roadways clear of any obstructions inculding sand build-up. Transponders along the roadways will help keep vehicles on path (though the Mars equivalent GPS system will also serve the same purpose).
Earth-based infrastructure requirements for hurricane and earthquake warning/response/design will not be necessary on Mars.
I don't think we would build vast electricity grids on Mars with huge pylons and transmission wires. It won't be necessary. From the get-go, the energy generating facility (primarily PV) will be located close to usage points. PV facilities can be far less robust than on Earth owing to the clement weather conditions. Another big saving.
Water management on Mars will be very different to on Earth. Whether it requires more or less of a resource input is not clear. It may be more resource-intensive than on Earth. Earth's advantage when it comes to water is that there is a lot of free flowing fresh water. On Mars we will be able to get water easily enough from very pure water ice glaciers. It will require some processing (but probably not as much as water drawn from rivers on Earth). Rather than water being used and disposed of via a sewer system I think on Mars there will be an emphasis on water recycling. This may extend even to sewage with any solid residue simply being dumped in a convenient crater some miles from the city. It will be naturally frozen. It's final disposal can be left to future generations if necessary. On Earth water eventually runs into the sea and essentially that's how we deal with sewage...we now spend a lot of money to clean it up and then let the water flow into rivers and thence to the sea. On Mars that's not an option.
The overall modest infrastructure requirement of Mars will mean that living on Mars is significantly less expensive than on Earth in terms of infrastructure. Simple roadways, pure water ice, no bridges, no ports...it's all pretty good news really.
Yes Void, I was very taken with this technology. 45% efficiency is just what we need! Will be transformative if it can be developed.
Remember that in many parts of the world, PV panels are already producing electricity much more cheaply than fossil fuels so not sure exactly what their claim is about cost.
I guess if you are taking the energy of the sun before it hits the ground you are creating a cold island. Presumably that effect would be observed with ordinary PV panel installations as well.
I believe that I posted this on the forum some other place but could not find it.
NovaSolixhttp://www.novasolix.com/
Quote:NovaSolix is developing the technology that will generate the cleanest and cheapest form of energy on Earth: rectifying antennas that convert light to electricity from the entire solar spectrum.
NANOSCALE ANTENNAS
NovaSolix’s carbon nanotube (CNT) antennas are small enough to match the nano-scale wavelengths of sunlight. Antennas can convert electromagnetic spectrum much more efficiently than photovoltaic (PV) cells. When perfected, NovaSolix antennas will capture far more energy from the sun, and far more efficiently, achieving near 90% efficiency (versus ~20% for PV).NANOSCALE DIODES
NovaSolix has successfully manufactured the world's fastest diode – a critical component for energy conversion.NANOSCALE MANUFACTURING
From the beginning, NovaSolix engineers have developed our products so that they can be manufactured using roll-to-roll advanced manufacturing techniques. At scale, these techniques ensure that NovaSolix’s products will be the cheapest form of energy on Earth.WORLD'S MOST EFFICIENT SOLAR ENERGY
Our solution, manufactured at scale, will enable solar energy to be produced at a cost per kWh less than fossil fuels.What I have read and listened to indicates that their devices will be non-toxic,
will cost 10% of what existing solar panels cost, and will be 45% efficient, and
then later 90% efficient.Of course they will need to actually do it.
So, if they achieve the 90% efficiency goal, is my mind correct to think that
some of the 10% will be reflected off, and some converted to heat?If this topic has been followed by the reader, you know that I am interested in
shading soils, and also cooling the sky.Solar panels are inclined to heat up, I presume, because they are so inefficient.
A Heliostat mirror should not heat up too much, if it is of high quality.So, on small installations, it does seem to me that these new devices could be
good in gardens.Might large installations create country "Cold Islands", and city "Heat Islands"?
Well my computer is bogging down.
Done
Can you give a timestamp for where they say that in the video (so I don't have to watch it all again!).
If you are accounting for the coil to coil that efficiency is achievable but not when you take into account the total system as this is basically a power signal amplifier that is connected to the coils.
The companies are claiming 90-97% efficiency - ie 3-10% loss. Not sure what your problem with that is...they might be misleading us I suppose but you haven't presented any evidence they are putting out misleading data.
Take a dammed cellphone and hold it over the plate and then tell me how much charge you get the further away you are with the single phase antenna. Its not until you use poly phased antenna's that you can get a larger field to be produced and even that is not until you up the frequency.
Re Spacenut's claim that the new technology can only operate at millimetre distances - that's wrong I think from the video. The new technology allows efficient charging at much bigger distances. The mm reference was to basic wireless charging.
re TA Hanson - Where are you getting the claim that "The product that started this new topic apparently uses cooling to permit greater power flow." It's not in the video. Links always help!
I think those are fair points. They are all part of the collective charge sheet against Musk. Plus he sometimes comes out with comments that Big Governmnet, Big Tech and Big Pharma don't appreciate re Direct Democracy, AI and keeping his operation going through Covid.
There are other issues at play here, aside from anti-space ideology.
Firstly, (20% importance) a lot of politicians aren't fond of what they see as billionaire joyrides. They don't necessarily appreciate the long-term importance of what Musk is trying to do. They are also suspicious of non-state actors achieving things without their help. Opposition to Musk and SpaceX on this basis, is across the political spectrum. Also, from the Dem side, Musk is a strong believer in technical solutions, driven by the private sector. He isn't interested in big state socialism and takes the piss out of Dem progressives via Twitter. It hasn't earned him many friends in that party, though most of the Dem party are probably ambivalent towards him as his electric vehicle ventures are an important part of the green new deal that they are selling. So he is tolerated, if if many consider him to be an irritant.
Secondly, (80% importance) and more importantly, there are other players in the launch market and Musk has trodden on them. The space programme has always been a very profitable business for the US aerospace sector and Musk's entry into that market has been highly disruptive. He will have cost people like Lockheed Martin and Boeing a fortune in lost revenue. Those players employ a lot of people, are important industries in their locales and their employees are voters. In a competitive market, your success always comes at someone else's expense. Musk has stollen the pork barrel from these people and they aren't going to give it up without a fight. They are powerful and have political friends in the states where they operate. Many of those states are Democrat run. So that is where the political opposition is coming from. Money talks.
For me the only issue is "Can I believe that we are closely to seeing this technology applied?" All the signals I can see say yes. I've no particular reason to dispute the claims of the developers unless people can give chapter and verse on why they are untrue.
In my layman's brain I see the issue as "Previously wireless transmission of energy was too diffuse, leading to unacceptable inefficiencies. Now various technologies allow a much more focussed wireless energy transfer. " I think even if it was only 80% efficient, that would still be good enough. But it is way more than that.
I feel v confident we will see inductive charging take over from cable transfer (which is a pain). Electric roads might take a while to develop but as the video hints someone like Musk might even pay to have roads adapted to it, seeing in it a huge business opportunity. I look into it before and actually if you integrate induction charging with normal road maintenance, the price per mile is probably only something like double normal road maintenance.
I think this technology is definitely the path we are going down and nothing I have read suggests it is untenable.
3 minutes in comes the how close the coil are for sending the power and receiving it...millimeter.
Which means the coil needs to have a focus system to bring the platform that the coil sets on to the optimal position once charging starts.
sightly further in is magnetic resonance which means the frequency of the sending unit has a receiver that is tuned for that value. So a tuner that sweeps the band of select frequency is need to provide the lock on its value. This is the same for the aiming of a solar panel to get maximum power.
polyphase means that its not a single coil but lots of little ones densely pack into the antenna transmitter.
https://www.ornl.gov/news/high-power-wi … ensed-hevo
DC power sources lose half of the energy since its needed to make AC so the first have of the loses are being ignored.
The standard that is being applied is
https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j2954_202010/current fast charging systems reach in a 15-20 minute charge time for a 100-kWh battery pack requires a 300-kW charging system. Which means only 1/3 of the energy is getting into the battery..
To couple that much energy means high frequency which means you are in the bands of megahertz with the multi antenna solution.
It's been almost entirely a Dem theme. As I say it goes back to the 1960s and was particularly associated with the Chicago radicals of the 1960s who opposed the Apollo programme. Obama took up the baton of Chicago radicalism, being based there himself, attending an anti-American church for 20 years and putting forward all the usual Far Left Dem policies. I've never heard anything from him that suggests he is enthused by Space X. To be fair, I don't think Trump is a great space fan either - he's got a very narrow view of what life's about. But the Far Left Dems have a strong principle opposition to space exploration.
The claim for social programs is not a new thing and its across both parties wondering where the billions are going when it could help so many. The bills pending are being stopped that would allow for the focus to shift to doing more with space but its up to the businesses to drive it not politics.
It was Russian dirt. The Dems were in league with the Russians in the 2016 Presidential election...exactly what they accused Trump of!
All your references are way behind the current timeline. Your "witnesses" are being prosecuted for their lies.
Seems that paragraph 3 and 4 says that Clinton hired research found dirt on Trump and got it to many to review.
Crossfire was a launched to find where the truth was for both sides with four court-approved FISA applications
With details all in the 400 plus pages of the Muller report
Schiff: Steele Dossier conclusion of Russia assisting Trump 'turned out to be all too true' video
Its to bad that [Igor] Danchenko lied to Christopher Steele and then lied to the FBI...He should be prosecuted not be pardoned the way Donald Trump pardoned people who lied to FBI agents, like Roger Stone and Mike Flynn. There ought to be the same standard in terms of prosecuting the liars.
The clue is in "caregiver" ie grandparents. Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.
Tell you what - why doesn't the state get off our backs and let us deal with the virus as we see fit. If this was a really bona fide plague people would be holed up in their houses by personal choice.
Another statistic of the dead while still rising is 140,000 kids had a parent or caregiver die from COVID. If we don't help them, America is going to end up with a lost generation.
You think the virus is having a conversation with Trump and Biden? lol
You sound like a fully paid up rep for Big Pharma.
Trump infection were from viraint A
Bidens infections were from variant Dhttps://media.zenfs.com/en/axios_articl … 62d97e986c
Of course since most of the vaccinated were done back before May we are now seeing deaths from the dropping immunity and are in need of a booster shot to slow those rates.
Or expectedly slow if, like me, you identified the Biden administration as being opposed to space exploration. The Far Left Dems have always opposed space exploration as a diversion from fighting poverty on Earth. It was a big message that came out of Chicago in the late 60s in opposition to Apollo and you can bet the Chicago street agitator Obama ran with that message and of course he is now a directing hand in this administration.
However, I do think Musk is a very clever operator and realised all that...so to some extent he was I feel rushing things technically to get the admin going in the hope that after the bureaucratic delays he really will be able to launch. In other words "Bring on the admin hassle now, while I prepare for real launch capability." I think that might explain the degree of confrontationality we've seen in recent months.
We have to remember that for a floundering administration, a space triumph is tempting, albeit a non-NASA one. It will tough for them to swallow but they may be prepared to let Musk go ahead if they feel they can trumpet it as a "Biden success".
I have not heard a thing yet about the permit-to-fly status out of Boca Chica. I'm guessing FAA/EPA is still screwing around bureaucratically. I hope Musk hasn't pissed one or both agencies off with his tweets a while back. This has been unexpectedly slow.
GW
The video discusses several wireless/induction charging technologies so not sure what "this" means in your post. Also, one of the companies developing this technology has open-sourced it for all car manufacturers to use for free (presumably on the basis that is good for their own business). As with all these technologies it will take time to see what ends up dominating (Betamax or Videodiscs anyone?). The point is that the negative posting about huge energy losses via induction appear to me highly misleading. Looks like efficiency is something like 90-97% depending on context. That's a 3-10% loss is totally acceptable if it means EV ownership can become available to everyone and EVs themselves become hugely more efficient as they don't have to lug around big batteries. That in turn will mean we have to produce less electricity for EVs and there will be less pollution from tyre wear. It's a win all round.
The industry for cellphones and the likes which have these for charging are proprietary and are not universal so this is going to be a hard sell for those looking for that key piece to be present. The coil in these are wrapped around a ferrite material that is heated plus pressed to shape to allow for the rf energy to be focused over the coil area. This is a slow charge system as currently designed and there is actual danger in making the energy levels to high as the frequency of the energy can be damaging to humans. A stationary system will work well for unoccupied vehicles.
Mars surface for this device will have issues as caused by the high iron levels, meaning that the locations will need more preparation to make them capable.
Isn't the Delta V requirement about the same as Mars? Pretty sure I read that once.
The value of the Moon is as a source of bulk metal ores in support of manufacturing carried out in high Earth orbit. It is ideally situated for that purpose. The low escape velocity and lack of atmosphere make it possible to use mass drivers to launch material packages at speeds of ~2km/s. Gérard O'Neil foresaw this almost fifty years ago.
The moon is a less promising destination for long-term colonisation, due to its lack of atmosphere and general paucity of resources other than bulk metal ores. The concentration of carbon in lunar rocks is only 50ppm. But as space manufacturing picks up, it will host a growing human presence as a mining colony. The presence of micrometeorites and heavy primary galactic cosmic rays, make it inadvisable to build permanent human settlement on the surface. Tunnels would appear to present the best habitation option.
Will be very useful for Mars of course as well. You can have wireless induction charging pads located in garages at the base (airlocked garages for non-robot vehicles). You could also place them along roadway routes so, for instance, robot vehicles bringing iron ore from a mine several hundred miles away could recharge en route. The charging pads would be run off stationary batteries/solar power facilities.
Looks like that EV charging issues will soon be a thing of the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3hVLG5iDec
Wireless/induction charging for parked vehicles is coming soon - Korean "Genesis" car manufacturer has teamed with an American company.
Will be important for robot taxis - of the type already operational in Phoenix, Arizona.
Musk is on board and thinks mobile induction charging will work for EVs, in particularly making EV trucks feasible.
My view is that the resultant reduction of battery size in EVs will be the final tipping point as EVs will probably be cheaper than petrol-fuelled cars when it comes to purchase (while also being lower cost on maintenance and fuel as well, and offering you revenue opportunities if you help support the Green grid).
How might Mars look 20 years after the first landing?
Here's a speculative sector analysis of the nascent Mars economy by Year 20:
1. Aerospace - Rocket hoppers and orbital rockets are now being produced. The base will have a dedicated Spaceport. A range of rocket fuels, such as LOX and methane will be produced.
2. Agriculture - A full range of food crops will be produced: salad vegetables, grains, fruit, beans, pulses etc. No animal farming will yet be undertaken (meat is imported).
3. Chemical industry – The community’s ability to process and manipulate a wide range of materials will be in place. The settlement can produce Mars ISRU feedstock for plastics. Very pure silicon can be produced for electronics, computers and PV panels.
4. Computers - The settlement is now able to produce basic computers which it is applying to life support systems.
5. Construction - Using ISRU bricks, basalt, cement, concrete, glass, 3D printing techniques, Mars dust-sourced “rubber” and steel frames, the Mars settlement is able to construct its own habs for accommodation, farming and industry.
6. Domestic goods - The settlement is able to produce refrigerators, freezers, ovens, cookers, hobs, plumbing parts, kitchen utensils, cooking ware, basic furniture, hygiene products (such as soap and toothpaste).
7. Education and research - An Earth-based University has established a Research Centre on Mars which is part of the base and forms an important part of the economy.
8. Electrical - The settlement is producing a range of chemical batteries, some of which are being used to power the Base Zone rovers and to even out power over a sol. The settlement is now able to produce cable – plastic covered copper wiring. Most copper wiring is being produced from recycled materials but some is being sourced from meteorites on the surface of Mars.
9. Energy - Mars now has a well developed energy sector based on PV power systems, solar reflectors,, chemical batteries, differential heat engines and methane/hydrogen production Virtually all elements of the energy system can now be produced with ISRU on Mars, although PV film is still being imported from Earth.
10. Food processing – Food processing is becoming a more important activity. Some chilled meals and prepared salads are being produced. Nearly all food processing is automated. Food is refrigerated, turned into powder form, and frozen.
11. Life Support - Life support (water, air and temperature control) is a key industry that generates income e.g. through sale to Universities, TV companies and space agencies.
12. Metal industry - This is an important sector, producing steel supports for construction, steel tools for farming, steel bars and suspension springs for rovers. Steel is used to produce gas cylinders and gas tanks. Aluminium is used in construction of airlocks and pressure cabins.
13. Pharmaceuticals - This industry is at quite a primitive level. The community is only just beginning to produce basic medicines and other health products such as paracetamol, some vitamins and minerals.
14. Textiles - Basic clothing – cotton T shirts and trousers - are being produced. Plans are in place for production of Mars ISRU space suits.
15. Transport - Mars is now able to produce its own rovers rather than having to import them. Small pressurised Rovers are used to transfer from one hab to another with ease (it taking only five minutes to exit through air lock chambers. The vehicles are kept small in order that airlocks can be on a small scale as well. Longer range rovers use methane and oxygen as their power systems.
16. Water - Water is mined at large glaciers or ice deposits and transported in robot rovers to the Base where it is stored in shaded and regolith covered storage pits. Water recycling is a feature of nearly all processes.
There are, in my view a number of reasons why the Moon should be viewed more as a diversion and not a path to anything substantial:
1. Establishing humanity on the Moon does not guarantee its survival even if the Moon could (much much greater difficulty than Mars) be made self-sufficient. A major asteroid impact on Earth could easily destroy civilisaton on the Moon as well as huge fragments are thrown up into space.
2. As mentioned, the Moon has a far more limited range of resources. Mars could easily support several hundred million people in a self-sufficient manner. It's difficult to see this being achieved on the Moon.
3. The Moon cannot be used as a base for a Mars mission - or, rather, it could but it doesn't afford any advantages.
4. The Moon has huge symbolic importance on Earth. It is difficult to see that the people of Earth would want their silvery moon to be turned into one that is green or peppered with lights at night. Thus any bases on the Moon would likely have to remain small.
5. The 14 day lunar night does not deliver the Earth-like experience of Mars with its close to 24 hours sol. Likewise, with there being no wind, no seasons.
I see some roles for the Moon:
(a) Lunar tourism I believe will be hugely popular. A two week stay or a honeymoon would attract lots of people with money to spare. Imagine, the lunar tourism attractions: visits to the Apollo 11 landing site where you can see the flag and lander perfectly preserved; visitng other Apollo landing sites; moon buggy rides; a lunar golf course; a visit to the dark side of the moon; talking to your friends from the moon via the internet connection; engraving your name on lunar rock; returning with some moon rock etc etc. It would have more going for it than many cruise excursions.
(b) Using the Moon as a test ground for Mars flights.
(c) Using the Moon as an observatory. Presumably these days you don't even need to staff your observatory, it could be operated remotely from Earth. But an observatory could also be built into the lunar tourism offer.
So there's no free fuel as with solar or wind...just very good efficiency in terms of combustion?
I think the first priority for farming on Mars would be food. Whether biofuels might prove useful on Mars remains to be seen.There is the issue on Mars that you don't have air-oxygen freely available to burn the fuel. So there is a cost to that - but that might work in harmony with plant agriculture.
An interesting technology that involves heating biomass at rates of 1000°C/s. Under such conditions, up to 70% of the dry mass is converted into combusible liquids, with only about 20% left as char.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ch … -pyrolysis
Such a technology would be very useful on Earth and on Mars. We could actually use an electric furnace to decompose the biomass. To do this, mix finely chopped biomass with biochar. The mixed material is fed into a hopper. The material passes through the electric furnace quickly. As it does, rotating magnetic fields induce eddy currents in the charcoal grains, rapidly heating them to thousands of degrees. The charcoal grains then heat the surrounding biomass particles to several hundred degree Celsius by radiation. The spent char and ash then falls in a pit, which would contain an inlet to a condenser, allowing the liquids to condense and creating a pressure drop that draws gas and vapour into the condenser.
The whole assembly would be hour-glass shaped, with the hopper on top and the electric furnace in the middle. Spent char would be ground into powder and remixed with feedstock entering the reactor. These units could be built on farms, allowing farmers to produce their own fuel and sell it for profit.
You say "from" Covid. You mean "after a positive Covid test (which in some cases will be a false positive)".
The vast majority of the 347,050 will be very close to death anyway. You can tell that because you won't see huge rises in your 5 year average mortality rates after the initial impact. Covid is just taking its place alongside all the other lung pathogens that finish off people with weakened immune systems: the aged, people with cancer, people with diabetes, people who are grossly obese, people with other lung pathogens etc etc.
Keeping very old people alive is not necessarily a good thing. It means that while they might have had a relatively peaceful death from respritatory failure they will now have to die from painful cancers, distressing dementia conditions, immoblising diseases like Parkinsons or septicemia, often involving amputation of limbs.
Time you got real rather than pumping out Big Pharma propaganda.
Not about either president
On Trump’s Last Full Day, Nation Records 400,000 Covid Deaths
347,050 Americans have died from COVID-19 since President Joe Biden took office.
Vaccine doses administered 437,352,000 Fully vaccinated 54.33% Received at least one dose 67.95%
Which means increased vacinations should be if the vaccines was for the current variant reducing numbers even more but for the same period its 50,000 lives saved that would have died.
When you've lived throughout your life hearing "Fusion Breakthrough Within 20 Years" you get a bit cynical about the potential. Someone's going to crack it eventually but maybe not for 50 years!
For Mars_B4_Moon ... thank you for your reply, and for your original post ....
If you happen to run across more information about the Chinese efforts, there is a good chance more than one forum member would appreciate the updates.
You are right about the lab in the US .... their monster laser pellet pounder is making progress but it is still not at break-even.
The Chinese are probably doing something similar. I'm glad to see a race between institutions (and Nations) at this level, because fusion is a ** big ** problem and we need players at that level to advance the state of knowledge.
Calliban has described interesting hybrid ideas, which (as I recall) feature fission reactors intertwined with fission ones to achieve productivity neither could achieve separately.
While I'm thinking about it, thanks for all the contributions you've made bringing old topics back to light and adding new content.
(th)
Think I featured this before (Plasma Kinetics) - here's Matt Ferrell's take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7CCq4oBgw4
This does seem a genuine energy storage breakthrough. Laser light releases the hydrogen from a solid state.
Could be used for green hydrogen at utility scale, cutting storage costs.
I'm definitely a hydrogen convert!
Presumably that would be the Siberian area of Indo-Europeans...?
There is evidence for both Polynesian contact with South America and also African contact with America.
It's not so surprising. There is a pretty credible narrative that Native Americans in their canoe got blown off course and ended up in Ireland (Galway Bay I recall) in the 1400s. Some think Columbus found out about this as he was involved in voyages to that area. If a group including males and females of fertile age gets blown by the winds to a new continent, they could reproduce. People can survive a long time out on the sea by drinking their own urine.
My opinion is that it is best to try to get expert opinions on this and similar topics, not hold to old notions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEuropean/c … europeans/
So, it is currently thought that 3 main groups blended to create Europeans in the past.
They confirm that one of the 3 is closely related to Native Americans of America.
Enough, hopefully nobody will bring ugly baggage to this.
Done.