(http://i.imgur.com/TXq44Cq.jpg)
I'd never seen this before. What a collection and what an era.
Just wanted to share.
C
I have seen that photo before on some UK TV programs that cover about such related topics.. There have been some really good TV programs on the BBC that covered such Science on Quantum physics.
They were the top guys in the Science research topic at that time..in the 1920/30s.
The TV program did discuss some of the arguments and disagreements and various theories that some of these top guys had back then; to see some having some disagreements with Einstein..and to see how varied their personalities were, along with their differing characters.
N. Bohr, E.Schroginger , M.Planck, W. Heisenberg, along with A.Einstein being the main ones discussed.
It was very interesting stuff...but a lot to recall and try to recite without seeing it several times. but you have posted some material that refer to it in your posts and threads.
If I can , I will see if I can find related videos of the Programs, although you probably will be familiar with most of it..
ah Cosmo.. are you playing catch the otter, too ? ;D
http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/solvay-conference-probably-intelligent-picture-ever-taken-1927/
17 of the 29 attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners.
The Solvay Conference, founded by the Belgian industrialist Ernest Solvay in 1912, was considered a turning point in the world of physics. Located in Brussels, the conferences were devoted to outstanding preeminent open problems in both physics and chemistry. The most famous conference was the October 1927 Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons, where the world's most notable physicists met to discuss the newly formulated quantum theory. The leading figures were Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr.
Einstein, disenchanted with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, remarked "God does not play dice". Bohr replied, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do". 17 of the 29 attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners, including Marie Curie, who alone among them, had won Nobel Prizes in two separate scientific disciplines. Here's a splendid colored version of the photo.
This conference was also the culmination of the struggle between Einstein and the scientific realists, who wanted strict rules of scientific method as laid out by Charles Peirce and Karl Popper, versus Bohr and the instrumentalists, who wanted looser rules based on outcomes. Starting at this point, the instrumentalists won, instrumentalism having been seen as the norm ever since.
Back to front, left to right:
Back: Auguste Piccard, Émile Henriot, Paul Ehrenfest, Édouard Herzen, Théophile de Donder, Erwin Schrödinger, JE Verschaffelt, Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg, Ralph Fowler, Léon Brillouin.
Middle: Peter Debye, Martin Knudsen, William Lawrence Bragg, Hendrik Anthony Kramers, Paul Dirac, Arthur Compton, Louis de Broglie, Max Born, Niels Bohr.
Front: Irving Langmuir, Max Planck, Marie Curie, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Paul Langevin, Charles-Eugène Guye, CTR Wilson, Owen Richardson.
The scientists on the picture:
Auguste Piccard designed ships to explore the upper stratosphere and the deep seas (bathyscaphe, 1948).
Emile Henriot detected the natural radioactivity of potassium and rubidium. He made ultracentrifuges possible and pioneered the electron microscope.
Paul Ehrenfest remarked (in 1909) that Special Relativity makes the rim of a spinning disk shrink but not its diameter. This contradiction with Euclidean geometry inspired Einstein's General Relativity. Ehrenfest was a great teacher and a pioneer of quantum theory.
Edouard Herzen is one of only 7 people who participated in the two Solvay conferences of 1911 and 1927. He played a leading role in the development of physics and chemistry during the twentieth century.
Théophile de Donder defined chemical affinity in terms of the change in the free enthalpy. He founded the thermodynamics of irreversible processes, which led his student Ilya Prigogine (1917-2006) to a Nobel prize.
Erwin Schrödinger matched observed quantum behavior with the properties of a continuous nonrelativistic wave obeying the Schrödinger Equation. In 1935, he challenged the Copenhagen Interpretation, with the famous tale of Schrödinger's cat. He shared the nobel prize with Dirac.
Jules Emile Verschaffelt, the Flemish physicist, got his doctorate under Kamerlingh Onnes in 1899.
Wolfgang Pauli formulated the exclusion principle which explains the entire table of elements. Pauli's sharp tongue was legendary; he once said about a bad paper: "This isn't right; this isn't even wrong."
Werner Heisenberg replaced Bohr's semi-classical orbits by a new quantum logic which became known as matrix mechanics (with the help of Born and Jordan). The relevant noncommutativity entails Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Sir Ralph Howard Fowler supervised 15 FRS and 3 Nobel laureates. In 1923, he introduced Dirac to quantum theory.
Léon Nicolas Brillouin practically invented solid state physics (Brillouin zones) and helped develop the technology that became the computers we use today.
Peter Debye pioneered the use of dipole moments for asymmetrical molecules and extended Einstein's theory of specific heat to low temperatures by including low-energy phonons.
Martin Knudsen revived Maxwell's kinetic theory of gases, especially at low pressure: Knudsen flow, Knudsen number etc.
William Lawrence Bragg was awarded the Nobel prize for physics jointly with his father Sir William Henry Bragg for their work on the analysis of the structure of crystals using X-ray diffraction.
Hendrik Kramers was the first foreign scholar to seek out Niels Bohr. He became his assistant and helped develop what became known as Bohr's Institute, where he worked on dispersion theory.
Paul Dirac came up with the formalism on which quantum mechanics is now based. In 1928, he discovered a relativistic wave function for the electron which predicted the existence of antimatter, before it was actually observed.
Arthur Holly Compton figured that X-rays collide with electrons as if they were relativistic particles, so their frequency shifts according to the angle of deflection (Compton scattering).
Louis de Broglie discovered that any particle has wavelike properties, with a wavelength inversely proportional to its momentum (this helps justify Schrödinger's equation).
Max Born's probabilistic interpretation of Schrödinger's wave function ended determinism in physics but provided a firm ground for quantum theory.
Irving Langmuir was an American chemist and physicist. His most noted publication was the famous 1919 article "The Arrangement of Electrons in Atoms and Molecules".
Max Planck originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918. He proposed that exchanges of energy only occur in discrete lumps, which he dubbed quanta.
Niels Bohr started the quantum revolution with a model where the orbital angular momentum of an electron only has discrete values. He spearheaded the Copenhagen Interpretation which holds that quantum phenomena are inherently probabilistic.
Marie Curie was the first woman to earn a Nobel prize and the first person to earn two. In 1898, she isolated two new elements (polonium and radium) by tracking their ionizing radiation, using the electrometer of Jacques and Pierre Curie.
Hendrik Lorentz discovered and gave theoretical explanation of the Zeeman effect. He also derived the transformation equations subsequently used by Albert Einstein to describe space and time.
Albert Einstein developed the general theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics (alongside quantum mechanics).He is best known in popular culture for his mass–energy equivalence formula (which has been dubbed "the world's most famous equation"). He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".
Paul Langevin developed Langevin dynamics and the Langevin equation. He had a love affair with Marie Curie.
Charles-Eugène Guye was a professor of Physics at the University of Geneva. For Guye, any phenomenon could only exist at certain observation scales.
Charles Thomson Rees Wilson reproduced cloud formation in a box. Ultimately, in 1911, supersaturated dust-free ion-free air was seen to condense along the tracks of ionizing particles. The Wilson cloud chamber detector was born.
Sir Owen Willans Richardson won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1928 for his work on thermionic emission, which led to Richardson's Law.
Photograph by Benjamin Couprie, Institut International de Physique de Solvay. The colorization photo by u/mygrapefruit.
Thanks otter! I was just too lazy to post all of that! hahahaha
But..it is an amazing group of people.
C
u r welcome :D
and yeah what a group..
makes you wonder who would be on such a list 99 years from now...? ?
guess what even a you tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GZdZUouzBY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GZdZUouzBY
Uploaded on May 3, 2007
http://www.FreeScienceLectures.com
The most known people who participated in the conference were Ervin Schrodinger, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Auguste Piccard, Paul Dirac, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Louis de Broglie, Marie Curie, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein and others.
The film opens with quick shots of Erwin Schrodinger and Niels Bohr. Auguste Piccard of the University of Brussels follows and then the camera re-focuses on Schrodinger and Bohr.
Schrodinger who developed wave mechanics never agreed with Bohr on quantum mechanics.
Solvay gave Heisenberg an opportunity to discuss his new uncertainty principle theory.
Max Born's statistical interpretation of the wave function ended determinism in atomic world.
These men - Bohr, Heisenberg, Kramers, Dirac and Born together with Born represent the founding fathers of quantum mechanics.
Louis de Broglie wrote his dissertation on the wave nature of matter which Schrodinger used as basis for wave mechanics.
Albert Einstein whose famous response to Born's statistical interpretation of wave function was "God does not play dice."
Twenty-nine physicists, the main quantum theorists of the day, came together to discuss the topic "Electrons and Photons". Seventeen of the 29 attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners.
Following is a "home movie" shot by Irving Langmuir, (the 1932 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry). It captures 2 minutes of an intermission in the proceedings. Twenty-one of the 29 attendees are on the film.
---
It's Never too Late to Study:
http://www.FreeScienceLectures.com
---
Notice: This video is copyright by its respectful owners.
The website address on the video does not mean anything.
---
Category
Howto & Style
License
Standard YouTube License
Quote from: space otter on March 06, 2016, 03:43:45 AM
u r welcome :D
and yeah what a group..
makes you wonder who would be on such a list 99 years from now...? ?
For sure. It was an age of discovery and a collection like that may never be seen again. Would love to have been a fly on the wall when Schrodinger, Einstein and Heisenberg were talking about god playing dice with the universe!
C
Quoteno one flies around the sun, except skyfish
bwhahahahahahahaha you are such a braggart... but you aren't alone ya know ;D
Quote from: space otter on March 06, 2016, 03:51:18 AM
bwhahahahahahahaha you are such a braggart... but you aren't alone ya know ;D
Nah...not much for bragging. Not much for insulting either. Please tell me who else otter? I have been looking for years but no one yet has recognized what I write.
C
oh dear I've done it again.. foot in mouth.. that was just plying around not an insult in any way..
I hadn't paid attention to your new lines and got a chuckle outta it..
QuoteI have been looking for years but no one yet has recognized what I write.
I was referring to the song not your posts...perhaps you are above circling the sun
:-X
Quote from: space otter on March 06, 2016, 05:05:36 AM
oh dear I've done it again.. foot in mouth.. that was just plying around not an insult in any way..
I hadn't paid attention to your new lines and got a chuckle outta it..
I was referring to the song not your posts...perhaps you are above circling the sun
:-X
We are good. I don't boast or brag. I have explained Samadhi and how to achieve it, and what it is. I have a Hindu friend that teaches it and he says I am beyond him and that I may be my own guru. I don't know. This is something that I am going into in solitude and have no higher guides, no guru. Haven't been able to find a real one! For the most part, those "gurus" that I have seen making claims of realizing Samadhi, have not. (exception: J. Krishnamurti and Sri Chinmoy, Here is what Chinmoy said about it: http://www.srichinmoy.org/spirituality/concentration_meditation_contemplation/samadhi)
I have searched for someone that recognizes it, but even in modern Hindu culture, I have not seen much evidence for it as Gopi Krishna wrote in his book Kundalini. I keep referring/deferring to the ancient Hindu masters because, as far as I can determine, they are the sun source of this and it goes back maybe 10,000 years or earlier. They were the true masters. There may be living masters that have retreated from the world in caves or something, but I prefer to follow the middle path.
Having said that, I have written about all of this in my various threads. They actually are an attempt to tie all of it together and not just miscellaneous ramblings believe it or not! haha Space time, the quantum realm, consciousness, ALL of US...are linked in the eternal illumination, Brahman, the ETHER.
C
The late Dr. Marie Curie might have taken exception to being called a 'guy'.
Looking over this magnificent collection of thinkers, I am inclined to hold to my opinion:
What the hell happened? The human race was making rapid progress, we were understanding the Universe and even the horror of WW2 did not slow down the rapid advance of technology (if anything, it accelerated it).
Yet, here we are in 2016. Where's Startrek? A Unified Field theory? Flying cars? A cure for cancer? Free energy? Life span extension? World prosperity? .......
If war, death, and disease couldn't hold us back, what has?
Quote from: Eighthman on March 06, 2016, 02:17:22 PM
Yet, here we are in 2016. Where's Startrek? A Unified Field theory? Flying cars? A cure for cancer? Free energy? Life span extension? World prosperity? .......
The way I see it, what happened was that, instead of 20 or 30 recognisable persons we now have thousands of unknown persons, each doing their work, in many cases still trying to prove or disprove the ideas of the people in that photo.
They found a new direction, but we are still travelling along it. :)
And are all those things you listed even possible?
QuoteIf war, death, and disease couldn't hold us back, what has?
Death and disease are part of life, and, as you said at the beginning of you post, war helps technology (as technology helps war), so I see those as the natural way of things.
More examples: battery technology is pathetic and we haven't progressed much for a century. We still rely on fossil fuels and internal combustion vehicles.
"Still traveling along it"? at what, a glacial pace? And please note the difference you bring up - "thousands", "in many cases still trying to prove or disprove the ideas of the people in that photo".
Contrast that near-stagnation with the boldness and breakthroughs of the 20 to 30 in their own time. Something has changed....
Quote from: Eighthman on March 06, 2016, 03:30:24 PM
More examples: battery technology is pathetic and we haven't progressed much for a century. We still rely on fossil fuels and internal combustion vehicles.
"Still traveling along it"? at what, a glacial pace? And please note the difference you bring up - "thousands", "in many cases still trying to prove or disprove the ideas of the people in that photo".
Contrast that near-stagnation with the boldness and breakthroughs of the 20 to 30 in their own time. Something has changed....
imagine the abuse's of these technologies with the current mind-set humanity has,. is a defo nono
but I can appreciate the fun to be had letting the mental patients play with the chaingun :D
funbox
Quote from: Eighthman on March 06, 2016, 03:30:24 PM
More examples: battery technology is pathetic and we haven't progressed much for a century.
We have, compare the new Li-ion technology with the Ni-Cd (the most advanced for decades) and you will see.
QuoteWe still rely on fossil fuels and internal combustion vehicles.
That's an economic problem, not a science or technology problem. Of all those people in the photo, which ones contributed with a economically viable product?
Quote"Still traveling along it"? at what, a glacial pace?
At the possible pace, specially when most people keep on complaining about money spent in science projects like LHC.
QuoteContrast that near-stagnation with the boldness and breakthroughs of the 20 to 30 in their own time. Something has changed....
First of all, I don't think those breakthroughs of 20s to 30s appeared from nowhere, if you look at it you will see that many of them resulted from ideas from the 19th century, and second, I don't see any stagnation.
Remember that most of the advances of the early 20th century were theoretical, having an idea and creating a theory is usually much faster than doing all the necessary work to prove it right and advance from there.
Wow! I totally forgot about marginally better batteries like NiCd. I'm sure Edison would faint seeing it after inventing NiFe (which are still being installed for home backup) like a HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
Fossil fuels and cars an economic problem? Uh, no. Technology hasn't given us good alternatives. Electric cars suck. That's why governments have to keep pushing them on a public that has little enthusiasm for them.
Langmuir did enormous work that led directly to practical technology. Even without that, the latest is what, string theory - or other crap lacking empirical value or verification? More stuff valued for "elegance"?
Would LHC give us free energy? Deep space travel? Antigravity? Stuff such as Langmuir achieved?
Quote from: Eighthman on March 06, 2016, 05:17:52 PM
Wow! I totally forgot about marginally better batteries like NiCd. I'm sure Edison would faint seeing it after inventing NiFe (which are still being installed for home backup) like a HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
NiCd batteries are slightly older than Edison's NiFe and are still in use today.
QuoteFossil fuels and cars an economic problem? Uh, no. Technology hasn't given us good alternatives. Electric cars suck. That's why governments have to keep pushing them on a public that has little enthusiasm for them.
Yes, I see that as mostly an economic problem, looking for a replacement for something that is cheap and widely available is not considered a priority, that's why electric cars only have been (slightly) improved in recent years.
QuoteLangmuir did enormous work that led directly to practical technology. Even without that, the latest is what, string theory - or other crap lacking empirical value or verification? More stuff valued for "elegance"?
That's the difference between something that has a direct practical use, like chemistry, and something like
theoretical physics.
QuoteWould LHC give us free energy? Deep space travel? Antigravity? Stuff such as Langmuir achieved?
Did Langmuir achieved any of those things? If he didn't, why join his name to that list of achievements you are expecting?
WHAT HAPPENED? You ask?
The Military Industrial Complex :P
Back in those days we were interested in DISCOVERY no matter where it led us Same in Archaeology We didn't care if it destroyed old established ideas... Damn the torpeodoes full speed ahead!!!
Re: the Photo; EGGHEAD's Not so ANONYMOUS MEETING
Einstein invented the Refridgerator and then gave us the Atomic Bomb
While the fridge is a safe USEFUL invention that almost everyone in civilized nations has... not so much the Atomic Bomb :P
Tesla gave us the ignition coil we still use in cars today and AC power without which we would be using oil lamps but he also invented HAARP and the Scalar Death Ray
While the coil and AC are modern items we cannot live without, not so much HAARP and that Death Ray
So along comes your GOVERNMENT who we all know has your best interest at heart... ::)
And they create the DoD RESTRICTED TECHNOLOGY LISTS
This means that if a scientist wants to look into ANYTHING that is on that list, he can only do so under the watchful eye of the DoD. If some new discovery pops up, the Military gets it first and then it will be tied up in Black Ops for around 30 to 50 years
Afterall you cannpt trust "We the people.." with such technology especially in a time when "We the People..." are considered terrorists
Take Batteries.... Dr Paul Brown invented a NUCLEAR BATTERY. This batterie could absorb radiation directly... so you could use radioactive waste to charge these batteries, at the same time removed that radiation from the waste.
So where is the battery? Weell Dr Brown was assisinated... When I first followed the link to his old website I was redirected to a DoD department in Washington...
The Battery? POOF!!! into the black hole that is black ops
Star Trek? Well the European EISCAT researchers (EISCAT is the Eurpoean name for HAARP like projects) weere working on one of the functions of HAARP to create a planetary shield (yes it CAN do that :P ) in case our magnetic field should fail ( [url'http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/]Giant Hole in Magnetic field 2008[/url])
Now as a SPINOFF of that research they discovered that this same technology could create shield for the Star Ship Enterprise I pdoted that on the website years ago
EISCAT
European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association
Shields for the Starship Enterprise: A Reality?
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/EISCAT_Artificial_Magnetic_Shield.html
But shortly after I posted that I went back to find out more and it had gone POOF!!! The original links to the press release give you ACESS FORBIDDEN
http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/~ian/press_release/
Looking further a few years later we get THIS
Updated on Wednesday, 07 April 2010
NEWS & PRESS
RAS PN 07/25 (NAM 21): SHIELDS FOR THE STARSHIP ENTERPRISE - A REALITY?
Last Updated on Wednesday, 07 April 2010 18:09
Published on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:00
Travel beyond the immediate vicinity of the Earth carries significant risks for astronauts, not the least of which is the exposure to sometimes high levels of radiation. Now a team of scientists at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory are set to construct an experimental magnetic shield that would protect explorers in their journeys between the planets. Dr Ruth Bamford will present this idea in her talk on Wednesday 18 April at the Royal Astronomical Society National Astronomy Meeting in Preston...
ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY PRESS INFORMATION NOTE
EMBARGOED FOR 00:01 BST, WEDNESDAY 18 APRIL 2007
Ref.: PN 07/ 25 (NAM 21)
SOURCE: ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY PRESS INFORMATION NOTE
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/148-news2007/1199-ras-pn-0725-nam-21-shields-for-the-starship-enterprise-a-reality
So as of TODAY that report is STILL EMBARGOED
That is not quite the same as CLASSIFIED but it is the scientific version of suppressing new material the same way the Military uses Classified
Quote from: ArMaP on March 06, 2016, 02:31:06 PM
The way I see it, what happened was that, instead of 20 or 30 recognisable persons we now have thousands of unknown persons, each doing their work, in many cases still trying to prove or disprove the ideas of the people in that photo.
Yes exactly. Before we had a small select group of geniuses that worked together to actually learn something and share that knowledge
Today as you say we have thousands... more likely 1o's of thousands, around the world and many are duplicating the work because their is little free sharing due to government restrictions, national security, and corporate greed...
In EFFECT what has happened is we have a new Tower of Babble. You can see it on social media Post an article on some really cool new technology and within 2-3 posts you will see all kinds of mindless comments and babble and uneductaed opinions and soon the entire thread is so off topic and stupid you might as well delete it
Quantity has NEVER been an answer for Quality :P
QuoteThey found a new direction, but we are still travelling along it. :)
Going in circles more like... ::)
QuoteAnd are all those things you listed even possible?
Yes they are... but unless there is a huge PROFIT... they won't get off the table. People talk about FREE ENERGY being suppressed.. but in reality we are USING free energy already
The electricity we use is 'created' by GRAVITY Water flows downhill by gravity, turns a water wheel and that water wheel spins a copper coil within a magnetic field VOILA!! FREE ENERGY You could make 10 dams in a row on the same river and create 10 times the energy.
In Quebec Canada they proposed such an idea There is one dam on that river but half the energy is zapped into the ground as it has no where to go. They proposed they could crate 9 more dams, creating a serioes of 10 lakes for wildlife and create tons of power. All they wanted was someone to put in the transmission lines (Never happened) ::)
So all that power is generated for FREE once you build the initial infra structure of course...
What you PAY for is the delivery system to get it to your house
If you lived near a river, you could put in your own free energy water wheel (they ddi in Medieval times :P ) or a windmill
The real problem with free energy is that SOMEONE has to pay for all the infrastructure FIRST... you want TEsla wireless towers? Well WHO will offer to build them for FREE? Who will build the receivers and converts you need to USE that power fro FREE? Until some such benevolent philanthropist appears... nothing will change
A kid in Thunderbay invents a carburator that will give any car 100 mpg... story is he was paid off 6 million and never heard from again... (well a bullet is cheaper and has the same effect ::) ) There is a second story of a different inventor with the same ending...
So until we have a planetary revolution, or some Alien space fleet pops in to 'fix' things nothing much will change save the few little tidbits to keep us all amused and docile
Like THIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVS9nkn-LYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVS9nkn-LYk
and THIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfzqUsGMHE0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfzqUsGMHE0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdMyBu7h_fM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdMyBu7h_fM
Quote from: zorgon on March 06, 2016, 09:19:23 PM
The electricity we use is 'created' by GRAVITY Water flows downhill by gravity, turns a water wheel and that water wheel spins a copper coil within a magnetic field VOILA!! FREE ENERGY You could make 10 dams in a row on the same river and create 10 times the energy.
In Portugal, more than 50% of the electricity is produced in dams or wind farms.
QuoteIf you lived near a river, you could put in your own free energy water wheel (they ddi in Medieval times :P ) or a windmill
Some 20 km from where I live we still have some old tide mills. :)
Quote from: Eighthman on March 06, 2016, 03:30:24 PM
More examples: battery technology is pathetic and we haven't progressed much for a century. We still rely on fossil fuels and internal combustion vehicles.
"Still traveling along it"? at what, a glacial pace? And please note the difference you bring up - "thousands", "in many cases still trying to prove or disprove the ideas of the people in that photo".
Contrast that near-stagnation with the boldness and breakthroughs of the 20 to 30 in their own time. Something has changed....
Well...maybe battery technology is improving...
http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-government-weve-found-holy-grail-of-grid-scale-battery-tech/
C
Ever seen Chrysler ads for "hemis" as if they were hot technology? They go back beyond 1901.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherical_combustion_chamber
There was a time when US newstands were full of illustrations of visionary technology: moon bases, trips to Mars, atomic power sources, new flying vehicles... Popular Science. Popular Mechanics, Life magazine, too.
And today we have......Windmills? more hydro? better.....bicycles? pellet stoves? WTF??!!
PS. OK, maybe about those off world bases.....I dunno about that one.
Quote from: Eighthman on March 07, 2016, 12:58:10 PM
Ever seen Chrysler ads for "hemis" as if they were hot technology? They go back beyond 1901.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherical_combustion_chamber
That's another problem, the liars that present their things as if they had just invented them and they are the best thing ever.
QuoteThere was a time when US newstands were full of illustrations of visionary technology: moon bases, trips to Mars, atomic power sources, new flying vehicles... Popular Science. Popular Mechanics, Life magazine, too.
Most of those were not visionary technology, were visionary uses of possible future technology, probably resulting from something many people do, when they see something new they want to apply it to everything, that's why we got all those products with "atomic", "nuclear", etc. in their names, just because it helped selling them (we are also back in the liars area I mentioned before).
Every new technology has areas where it can and cannot be used, and too much optimism is not going to make them work.
QuoteAnd today we have......Windmills? more hydro? better.....bicycles? pellet stoves? WTF??!!
We also have microwave ovens and induction stoves.
And do not forget about computers. :)
PS: what's wrong in having better bicycles (and cars and many other things), making the things we use better is also an advance.
Quote from: Eighthman on March 06, 2016, 05:17:52 PM
Wow! I totally forgot about marginally better batteries like NiCd. I'm sure Edison would faint seeing it after inventing NiFe (which are still being installed for home backup) like a HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
Fossil fuels and cars an economic problem? Uh, no. Technology hasn't given us good alternatives. Electric cars suck. That's why governments have to keep pushing them on a public that has little enthusiasm for them.
Langmuir did enormous work that led directly to practical technology. Even without that, the latest is what, string theory - or other crap lacking empirical value or verification? More stuff valued for "elegance"?
Would LHC give us free energy? Deep space travel? Antigravity? Stuff such as Langmuir achieved?
I have been following energy storage quite closely and I knew that graphene would be a factor and here it is! How about a batter/capacitor that will take a Tesla over 600 miles??? It's here and you will be able to buy them.
Graphene Polymer! I must be a total geek because this stuff puts a smile on my face! lol
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QEclI6IpDnQ/Vt012SqG9VI/AAAAAAABHL4/P3lxxaKJ3XI/s640/graphene-battery.jpg)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/03/spanish-company-graphenano-claims.html
C
I, too have great hopes for graphene but we have a ways to go before any Really Good Battery rolls off the shelf. I would particularly worry about fire and explosion issues. More energy density can mean That Much Closer To A Bomb.
I've spent many hours pouring over tech documents about aluminum chloride/bromide battery attempts at Cornell. The sad part is that they go back to the Carter Administration - you know, the guy who put solar panels on the White House that Reagan got rid of?
Visionary science had its value. It gave us hope. It gave us engineers who plowed thru Calculus classes because they dreamed of being "Scotty" (not a joke, an actual poll result once). It gave us something greater to aspire to beyond You Tube cat videos while lying on mom's couch and praying for weed legalization.