> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jon louis mann > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:02 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: magic formula > >> Let me get this straight. You claim that there are revolutionary >> inventions, that would allow us to economically obtain energy from, >> say, solar power, and they are well documented. Yet, none of the solar >> sites references the clearly established documentation for this >> invention...even though it is put on the internet by the US government? > > Dan M. > > that's not what i'm saying, dan, you're putting words in my mouth. i > am talking about something like in the documentary film, "who killed > the electric car".
Well, I didn't mean to do that, I just tried to parse the meaning of your words. For example, when you wrote: <quote> there are reasons why our consumer economy in america chose to go with automobiles rather than other means of transportation. the fact is that the oil and automobile industries are critical to global capitalism and i do not see those powerful lobbies allowing alternative modes of transportation to develop. <end quote> I asked myself what it would take to keep anyone at all from developing technology for which the science was already known, or (as an alternative, to end scientific research in areas that would provide the necessary background to develop such technology). I couldn't think of any way to stop new technology from being implemented. Patenting it and not using it would delay the inevitable 20 years, so that's what I thought of as the most likely scenario. Then you wrote: > of course. but i do not doubt that corporate industry has impeded > progress in research and develop of more competitive products, or > bought the rights. This also led me to think about patents, because you mentioned buying the rights. That's what led to my questions about purchasing broad patents. If they bought the rights to narrow patents, then someone could read the patent, see what was possible, and then patent a work-around and go merrily along their way. If it was a trade secret, then it would only last until someone else figured the problem out. So, that's the only way I could see oil and auto companies being able to stop alternative modes of transportation from developing. > i assume you are a capitalist? I worked as an employee for about 18 years, and have been consulting since then. I suppose you'd say I have a small business with one employee (me). So, I guess I'm a capitalist. > if you ran a highly profitable business > that you had invested all your borrowed capital in, and had to retool > because someone had a better way, would you quietly go bankrupt if > there was a way you could buy out the other guy. No, and I'd agree that if it were possible for companies to hold back progress, they probably would. I just don't see how even a big company can do that...unless they used tactics that have been illegal for 100 years (like threatening the suppliers of the new company). Look at your example of an electric car. It is possible for a car company that decides the profits in taking government money for fuel cell development far outweighs the profits in making battery powered cars without government money. Canceling the battery car project, even if it showed more promise than the fuel cell car, would make sense. But, that's not enough to protect their investment. If it is a better alternative, they don't just need to refrain from developing it. Rather, they have to keep _anyone_ from developing it. Looking back on the discussion of the electric car, we see Rob state: <quote> The batteries used in the EV1 sucked. They sucked so badly that we construction people don't even use them in our cordless drills anymore. Because of the batteries, the EV1 was a very poor electric vehicle when compared to current models. <end quote> Looking at http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs.htm and http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs.htm he seems to be right. The new car's specs are better than the old car's specs. So, if they killed the electric cars by stopping their own program, why is a superior one being offered several years later by someone else? The problem for a company that wants to stifle technology breakthroughs is that they don't need to stop just one development program...they need to keep _any_ from forming. In the case of these electric cars, even the better one isn't that practical. But, the developers still found venture capital for their enterprise. If someone came up with a real breakthrough, one that promised to become a large industry quickly (as cell phones did), why wouldn't the better prospect be able to find capital? Now, if the advantages are small enough, I'll allow that it's possible. If you took the Beta side in the VHS-Beta wars, then you'd argue that superior technology was overwhelmed by shifty tactics. But, do you think it was possible for VHS companies to keep DVDs from entering the market? Finally, as Rob points out, there are other markets for improved batteries. The battery market is about 25 billion dollars. There is a great market for a laptop battery with twice the energy density of the present ones (as long as the cost is comparable). Oil and car companies would have to stop _this_ development work also...because the practicality of battery cars would be obvious after, say, 0.1 kilo batteries would be able to power a laptop at full power for ten hours. >isn't that what bill gates does? No, and that's a good example. Microsoft is close to a monopoly in operating systems and office products (Word, etc.) I think they have 95% market share. They are ruthless competitors, doing whatever they can to keep their market share, and to gain a lions share (in the classic sense of a lion's share: all of it) of any new, applicable market. We've seen this in several areas. They automatically include their web browser, their email server, their media player, etc. as freebees in their operating system. When they see a new, profitable feature, they may try to buy the company out, and then try to bury it if that doesn't work. What they don't do is try to eliminate the development of new features. They didn't try to keep people from using GUIs. They didn't try to stop the internet. Rather, they saw new technology and tried to dominate it. If they were able to stop future technology as you think auto and oil companies do, we would be running PCs with DOS 12.0 without an internet. > i am not talking about hidden inventions that would have transformed > the world if it weren't for evil companies. OK, then I'm not sure what you meant when you talked about owning the rights, and not allowing alternative to develop. I'm not trying to declare victory, make you look foolish, or put words in your mouth. I'm just giving you the my best understanding of the meaning and implications of your statements and then discussing those. For example, if inventions aren't hidden, how can companies, even big companies stop superior technology and products from being marketed by other companies? In particular, if the technologies are applicable and profitable for other large companies in other fields. >> It's (oil and other fossil fuels) an extremely easy to obtain >> source of low entropy energy. > > so are you saying that there is no way to make alternative, renewable > sources of energy that can compete with oil? No, I am saying there is no other easy way (except for nuclear electric plants). With present day technology or any technology on the immediate horizon, we cannot have practical, reasonably priced Greenpeace approved source of energy. As I stated many times, I think we need fundamental research to provide the needed scientific understanding to develop that type of technology. My guess, if we invest properly, we'd be able to start a massive reduction in fossil fuel use in about 40-60 years. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
