Can't have progress without knowing astronomy

Actually my whole town runs on hydro-electricity.

Fascinatingly irrelevant to my comment.

And what's so different electricity generated from steam or water, wind or solar or nuclear?

Its efficiency.

The Earth itself is a dynamo.  So does that mean the technology itself is 4 billion years old? And nuclear power is just ancient technology we got from the sun?

Is this really the best you could do?

All progress moves together. Impressionist painters and the French revolution went hand in hand.

Oh god.

Einstein couldn't have made his achievements with only relying on Earth observations. He had to question what happened in the galaxies above us to grasp the physics that we're all a part of.

Good fucking grief. Almost your entire post is a mess. Where do you even get these opinions from?

So going with some peoples logic in this thread, I guess the car I drive today is no better than a car someone drove 100 years ago.

Just like steam generators eh....

So going with some peoples logic in this thread, I guess the car I drive today is no better than a car someone drove 100 years ago.

This is correct. In fact, most cars today are even less efficient as transportation than the early 1900's, since they often include features such as power steering or air conditioning which further degrades output efficiency.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on August 04, 2013, 11:49:29 AM

So going with some peoples logic in this thread, I guess the car I drive today is no better than a car someone drove 100 years ago.

This is correct. In fact, most cars today are even less efficient as transportation than the early 1900's, since they often include features such as power steering or air conditioning which further degrades output efficiency.

I see, so what car do you drive?

I can't say I've seen many Ford Model T's driving about.

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

Actually my whole town runs on hydro-electricity.

Fascinatingly irrelevant to my comment.

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

And what's so different electricity generated from steam or water, wind or solar or nuclear?

Its efficiency.

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

The Earth itself is a dynamo.  So does that mean the technology itself is 4 billion years old? And nuclear power is just ancient technology we got from the sun?

Is this really the best you could do?

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

All progress moves together. Impressionist painters and the French revolution went hand in hand.

Oh god.

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

Einstein couldn't have made his achievements with only relying on Earth observations. He had to question what happened in the galaxies above us to grasp the physics that we're all a part of.

Good fucking grief. Almost your entire post is a mess. Where do you even get these opinions from?

Perhaps you forgot what I was responding to?

Give me an example where technology moves forward in one area and not in another.  Because your steam generator one wasn't valid.

I see, so what car do you drive?

I can't say I've seen many Ford Model T's driving about.

Oh, I see, you have no idea what the discussion is about. Fascinating.

Perhaps you forgot what I was responding to?

Perhaps you didn't read what you were responding to?

Give me an example where technology moves forward in one area and not in another.  Because your steam generator one wasn't valid.

Your opinion on validity isn't of my concern. When I posted here, I assumed you were intellectually prepared for a debate, instead all I seem to have gotten out of you is comprised of either gibberish or whining, usually some combination of the two.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on August 04, 2013, 01:38:26 PM

I see, so what car do you drive?

I can't say I've seen many Ford Model T's driving about.

Oh, I see, you have no idea what the discussion is about. Fascinating.

What makes you say that? Care to elaborate.

Quote from: Lorddave on August 04, 2013, 08:27:35 AM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 04, 2013, 08:18:24 AM

I can't believe airplanes are still so 19th century. I mean, after over a hundred years of developments, we're still using the same principals as the Wright Brothers to lift things into the sky. I can't believe how backwards some technology is....

Why are you equating backwards with unchanged?  One is a step in reverse, the other is no step at all.

How is still using steam turbines a step backwards? It's the same thing as the airplanes. We still use steam to turn generators, and we still use atmospheric lift to fly.

It's not backwards, it's unchanged.  Please keep up.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on August 04, 2013, 01:38:26 PM

I see, so what car do you drive?

I can't say I've seen many Ford Model T's driving about.

Oh, I see, you have no idea what the discussion is about. Fascinating.

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 01:48:28 PM

Perhaps you forgot what I was responding to?

Perhaps you didn't read what you were responding to?

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 01:48:28 PM

Give me an example where technology moves forward in one area and not in another.  Because your steam generator one wasn't valid.

Your opinion on validity isn't of my concern. When I posted here, I assumed you were intellectually prepared for a debate, instead all I seem to have gotten out of you is comprised of either gibberish or whining, usually some combination of the two.

Your only concern is reading the majesty of your own sentences and defaming others clearly. Please prove that cars are less efficient at transporting people now than the early 1900s.

Your only concern is reading the majesty of your own sentences and defaming others clearly. Please prove that cars are less efficient at transporting people now than the early 1900s.

He is not talking about efficiency at transporting people.  He is discussing the efficiency at converting energy from one form to another.

•1908: Henry Ford introduces the Model T. The gasoline-powered car enjoys up to 21 miles per gallon (just six m.p.g. fewer than the average new vehicle sold today).

The model T got 21 mpg.  According to the quote, about half of modern cars do not get that good of gas mileage.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2013, 06:06:17 PM

Your only concern is reading the majesty of your own sentences and defaming others clearly. Please prove that cars are less efficient at transporting people now than the early 1900s.

He is not talking about efficiency at transporting people.  He is discussing the efficiency at converting energy from one form to another.

Quote from: http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2012/0307/From-Model-T-to-Prius-13-big-moments-in-fuel-efficiency-history

•1908: Henry Ford introduces the Model T. The gasoline-powered car enjoys up to 21 miles per gallon (just six m.p.g. fewer than the average new vehicle sold today).

The model T got 21 mpg.  According to the quote, about half of modern cars do not get that good of gas mileage.

If that's what he meant then fair enough.

Quote from: jroa on August 04, 2013, 06:46:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2013, 06:06:17 PM

Your only concern is reading the majesty of your own sentences and defaming others clearly. Please prove that cars are less efficient at transporting people now than the early 1900s.

He is not talking about efficiency at transporting people.  He is discussing the efficiency at converting energy from one form to another.

Quote from: http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2012/0307/From-Model-T-to-Prius-13-big-moments-in-fuel-efficiency-history

•1908: Henry Ford introduces the Model T. The gasoline-powered car enjoys up to 21 miles per gallon (just six m.p.g. fewer than the average new vehicle sold today).

The model T got 21 mpg.  According to the quote, about half of modern cars do not get that good of gas mileage.

If that's what he meant then fair enough.

Efficiency doesn't work quite that way. You can't simply look at MPG and say that engines haven't become more efficient, because you aren't factoring in the power to weight ratio. The model T produces 20bhp at 60lb/hp. This isn't an efficient engine, it's an inefficient engine in a very light vehicle. Vehicles that have lower efficiencies do not have lower efficiencies because of technology, rather, consumers prefer cars that go faster than 45mph (max speed of a model T) - much, much, faster with superior acceleration in a more efficient (mathematically speaking) engine. The average curb weight of a mid size sedan (which the model T would compare to) is around 3500 pounds. This is nearly triple the weight of a model T. The average mileage of a 2013 car is 25mpg. At triple the curb weight, this is a MUCH more efficient engine.

The statement regarding efficiently converting energy is, on its face, absolutely and unequivocally false.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2013, 07:08:57 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 04, 2013, 06:46:26 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 04, 2013, 06:06:17 PM

Your only concern is reading the majesty of your own sentences and defaming others clearly. Please prove that cars are less efficient at transporting people now than the early 1900s.

He is not talking about efficiency at transporting people.  He is discussing the efficiency at converting energy from one form to another.

Quote from: http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2012/0307/From-Model-T-to-Prius-13-big-moments-in-fuel-efficiency-history

•1908: Henry Ford introduces the Model T. The gasoline-powered car enjoys up to 21 miles per gallon (just six m.p.g. fewer than the average new vehicle sold today).

The model T got 21 mpg.  According to the quote, about half of modern cars do not get that good of gas mileage.

If that's what he meant then fair enough.

Efficiency doesn't work quite that way. You can't simply look at MPG and say that engines haven't become more efficient, because you aren't factoring in the power to weight ratio. The model T produces 20bhp at 60lb/hp. This isn't an efficient engine, it's an inefficient engine in a very light vehicle. Vehicles that have lower efficiencies do not have lower efficiencies because of technology, rather, consumers prefer cars that go faster than 45mph (max speed of a model T) - much, much, faster with superior acceleration in a more efficient (mathematically speaking) engine. The average curb weight of a mid size sedan (which the model T would compare to) is around 3500 pounds. This is nearly triple the weight of a model T. The average mileage of a 2013 car is 25mpg. At triple the curb weight, this is a MUCH more efficient engine.

The statement regarding efficiently converting energy is, on its face, absolutely and unequivocally false.

Damn you stole my thunder.

The power to weight ratio of modern cars is, by far, more efficient than the those 100 years ago. There's also the fact that modern engines are designed to be more efficient at higher speeds.

The principle behind how a combustible engine works has not changed since they were first conceived. The fact that modern cars are heavier while still achieving the 'same' (and I use that term loosely) efficiency as cars 100 years ago, proves the modern combustible engine has significantly been developed and improved.

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

Actually my whole town runs on hydro-electricity.

Fascinatingly irrelevant to my comment.

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

And what's so different electricity generated from steam or water, wind or solar or nuclear?

Its efficiency.

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

The Earth itself is a dynamo.  So does that mean the technology itself is 4 billion years old? And nuclear power is just ancient technology we got from the sun?

Is this really the best you could do?

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

All progress moves together. Impressionist painters and the French revolution went hand in hand.

Oh god.

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 11:27:22 AM

Einstein couldn't have made his achievements with only relying on Earth observations. He had to question what happened in the galaxies above us to grasp the physics that we're all a part of.

Good fucking grief. Almost your entire post is a mess. Where do you even get these opinions from?

Are you actually interested in debating or just being a total douche? Your arrogance is clearly an attempt to mask your low self esteem. You're cool man! Don't let anyone tell you different. You're a beautiful human being.

Quote from: Genius on August 05, 2013, 05:29:53 AM

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

Not as much as you'd think.
Batteries have gotten smaller in part because power requirements have decreased.  Not only that but the ONLY real battery tech improvement came when Lithium Ion batteries hit the market.  Before that it was NiCa all the way.

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:15:29 AM

Quote from: Genius on August 05, 2013, 05:29:53 AM

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

Not as much as you'd think.
Batteries have gotten smaller in part because power requirements have decreased.  Not only that but the ONLY real battery tech improvement came when Lithium Ion batteries hit the market.  Before that it was NiCa all the way.

While there has been a plateau, energy density has been steadily climbing; there are a bevy of new battery technologies that double (or better) Li-ion, LiPo, and even Li-Air. They haven't reached mass commercialization yet, but the technology is there. 

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on August 04, 2013, 01:38:26 PM

I see, so what car do you drive?

I can't say I've seen many Ford Model T's driving about.

Oh, I see, you have no idea what the discussion is about. Fascinating.

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 01:48:28 PM

Perhaps you forgot what I was responding to?

Perhaps you didn't read what you were responding to?

Quote from: FlatOrange on August 04, 2013, 01:48:28 PM

Give me an example where technology moves forward in one area and not in another.  Because your steam generator one wasn't valid.

Your opinion on validity isn't of my concern. When I posted here, I assumed you were intellectually prepared for a debate, instead all I seem to have gotten out of you is comprised of either gibberish or whining, usually some combination of the two.

Actually you havent posted one single refutation of any of the fairly valid points here. You simply say they are irrelevant or accuse the poster of not reading the thread. You are the one who is whining and speaking in gibberish. Actually refute a point...explain why something is irrelevant. Back up what you say as you are not debating simply being an ass.

Quote from: Lorddave on August 05, 2013, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:15:29 AM

Quote from: Genius on August 05, 2013, 05:29:53 AM

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

Not as much as you'd think.
Batteries have gotten smaller in part because power requirements have decreased.  Not only that but the ONLY real battery tech improvement came when Lithium Ion batteries hit the market.  Before that it was NiCa all the way.

While there has been a plateau, energy density has been steadily climbing; there are a bevy of new battery technologies that double (or better) Li-ion, LiPo, and even Li-Air. They haven't reached mass commercialization yet, but the technology is there.

I am aware.  However, the point is that battery technology hasn't improved as much as computer technology has.  Thus the developments are uneven and not likely Dependant on each other.

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on August 05, 2013, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:15:29 AM

Quote from: Genius on August 05, 2013, 05:29:53 AM

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

Not as much as you'd think.
Batteries have gotten smaller in part because power requirements have decreased.  Not only that but the ONLY real battery tech improvement came when Lithium Ion batteries hit the market.  Before that it was NiCa all the way.

While there has been a plateau, energy density has been steadily climbing; there are a bevy of new battery technologies that double (or better) Li-ion, LiPo, and even Li-Air. They haven't reached mass commercialization yet, but the technology is there.

I am aware.  However, the point is that battery technology hasn't improved as much as computer technology has.  Thus the developments are uneven and not likely Dependant on each other.

They are dependent on each other, if battery tech improves more substantially, it's likely portable computers (tablets etc...) or mobile phones would be vastly improved. It's also likely that there would be an increase in the novel use of portable computer tech.

Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2013, 03:02:58 AM

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on August 05, 2013, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:15:29 AM

Quote from: Genius on August 05, 2013, 05:29:53 AM

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

Not as much as you'd think.
Batteries have gotten smaller in part because power requirements have decreased.  Not only that but the ONLY real battery tech improvement came when Lithium Ion batteries hit the market.  Before that it was NiCa all the way.

While there has been a plateau, energy density has been steadily climbing; there are a bevy of new battery technologies that double (or better) Li-ion, LiPo, and even Li-Air. They haven't reached mass commercialization yet, but the technology is there.

I am aware.  However, the point is that battery technology hasn't improved as much as computer technology has.  Thus the developments are uneven and not likely Dependant on each other.

They are dependent on each other, if battery tech improves more substantially, it's likely portable computers (tablets etc...) or mobile phones would be vastly improved. It's also likely that there would be an increase in the novel use of portable computer tech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop#History

Laptops existed with old battery technology.  Therefore the creation of laptops is not dependant on battery technology except to say that A battery should be available.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on August 07, 2013, 03:18:22 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2013, 03:02:58 AM

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on August 05, 2013, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:15:29 AM

Quote from: Genius on August 05, 2013, 05:29:53 AM

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

Not as much as you'd think.
Batteries have gotten smaller in part because power requirements have decreased.  Not only that but the ONLY real battery tech improvement came when Lithium Ion batteries hit the market.  Before that it was NiCa all the way.

While there has been a plateau, energy density has been steadily climbing; there are a bevy of new battery technologies that double (or better) Li-ion, LiPo, and even Li-Air. They haven't reached mass commercialization yet, but the technology is there.

I am aware.  However, the point is that battery technology hasn't improved as much as computer technology has.  Thus the developments are uneven and not likely Dependant on each other.

They are dependent on each other, if battery tech improves more substantially, it's likely portable computers (tablets etc...) or mobile phones would be vastly improved. It's also likely that there would be an increase in the novel use of portable computer tech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop#History

Laptops existed with old battery technology.  Therefore the creation of laptops is not dependant on battery technology except to say that A battery should be available.

It is because those laptops have the processing power etc... reduced to accommodate for the fact that it needs to draw power from a battery. It's a balancing act between processing power and battery time. They even design chips that have a reduced power signature to accommodate for the fact that they are reliant on the power from a battery.

If battery tech improved significantly the novel application of laptops and portable devices would be vastly improved.

Battery tech is a bottle neck to the development of portable devices. They are dependent on each other.

Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2013, 03:02:58 AM

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on August 05, 2013, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:15:29 AM

Quote from: Genius on August 05, 2013, 05:29:53 AM

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

Not as much as you'd think.
Batteries have gotten smaller in part because power requirements have decreased.  Not only that but the ONLY real battery tech improvement came when Lithium Ion batteries hit the market.  Before that it was NiCa all the way.

While there has been a plateau, energy density has been steadily climbing; there are a bevy of new battery technologies that double (or better) Li-ion, LiPo, and even Li-Air. They haven't reached mass commercialization yet, but the technology is there.

I am aware.  However, the point is that battery technology hasn't improved as much as computer technology has.  Thus the developments are uneven and not likely Dependant on each other.

They are dependent on each other, if battery tech improves more substantially, it's likely portable computers (tablets etc...) or mobile phones would be vastly improved. It's also likely that there would be an increase in the novel use of portable computer tech.

Personally, I think that battery improvements are more likely to drive improvements in electric/hybrid cars more than portable electronic devices. for a while at least.

Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2013, 03:28:37 AM

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on August 07, 2013, 03:18:22 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2013, 03:02:58 AM

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:23:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on August 05, 2013, 01:59:49 PM

Quote from: pax on August 05, 2013, 08:15:29 AM

Quote from: Genius on August 05, 2013, 05:29:53 AM

I dunno, batteries seem to be pretty suckish whilst everything else goes forward.

Nope, they're fantastic - we just keep building devices that are smaller and do more. If we had cell phones that looked the way they did in the 80s, we'd get weeks of talk time. Like the car analogy, they're far more efficient - they don't last any longer because they're doing 10 times as much, in a much smaller package.

Not as much as you'd think.
Batteries have gotten smaller in part because power requirements have decreased.  Not only that but the ONLY real battery tech improvement came when Lithium Ion batteries hit the market.  Before that it was NiCa all the way.

While there has been a plateau, energy density has been steadily climbing; there are a bevy of new battery technologies that double (or better) Li-ion, LiPo, and even Li-Air. They haven't reached mass commercialization yet, but the technology is there.

I am aware.  However, the point is that battery technology hasn't improved as much as computer technology has.  Thus the developments are uneven and not likely Dependant on each other.

They are dependent on each other, if battery tech improves more substantially, it's likely portable computers (tablets etc...) or mobile phones would be vastly improved. It's also likely that there would be an increase in the novel use of portable computer tech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laptop#History

Laptops existed with old battery technology.  Therefore the creation of laptops is not dependant on battery technology except to say that A battery should be available.

It is because those laptops have the processing power etc... reduced to accommodate for the fact that it needs to draw power from a battery. It's a balancing act between processing power and battery time. They even design chips that have a reduced power signature to accommodate for the fact that they are reliant on the power from a battery.

If battery tech improved significantly the novel application of laptops and portable devices would be vastly improved.

Battery tech is a bottle neck to the development of portable devices. They are dependent on each other.

A bottleneck is not dependency.  It's actually closer to symbiosis.