Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Uh Ah.....God made them

Originally posted by dadudemon
Unsuable until we can create functionally conductive carbon nano-tubes. Right now, it works on the micro or even nano scale (I don't know how small they were working, here).

But, if we could create long strands/strings of carbon nano-tubes, binding photosynthetic soups to carbon nano-tubes would be closer to the bottom of the list of breakthrough uses.

I don't see how longer nanotubes would help this. The benefit is simply that they can fix themselves if damaged.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't see how longer nanotubes would help this. The benefit is simply that they can fix themselves if damaged.

You'd have to have much longer nanotubes in order to conduct electricity in any usable way. Good luck fabbing those. Until they can fab really long nanotubes and rope them into "wire", the "discovery" is useless.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You'd have to have much longer nanotubes in order to conduct electricity in any usable way. Good luck fabbing those. Until they can fab really long nanotubes and rope them into "wire", the "discovery" is useless. And thank you, Mr. Killjoy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You'd have to have much longer nanotubes in order to conduct electricity in any usable way. Good luck fabbing those. Until they can fab really long nanotubes and rope them into "wire", the "discovery" is useless.

Woah, did photovoltaics researchers kill your dog or something?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Woah, did photovoltaics researchers kill your dog or something? Haha

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, they are doing it backwards. First, we have to be able to fabricate carbon nano-tubes, on a mass scale, macroscopically, for relatively cheap.

Why bother thinking about cars when the wheel is still in production, eh?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Basically, they are using imperfect technologies to make even less imperfect technologies.

Exactly like the whole history of technology...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why bother thinking about cars when the wheel is still in production, eh?



Exactly like the whole history of technology...


Your post contains no real rebuttal: just oblivious technology-loving rhetoric.


How long did it take before we had a car, after the "wheel" was invented?

And, no, the whole history of technology is not like that. If one technology depends on another to work, then the latter has to be developed enough to be usable by the former. This is much easier if you don't play word games, but, instead, actually get the point: you can change "imperfect' to what ever word you want until it jives well with your mind. Simply: this "discovery" is useless for the forseable future.

If we were to be as hopeful as you guys want to be, we should be jumping up and down at all the little microscopic fusions expierments which have no way, at all, of transferring to any usable form.


Originally posted by Bicnarok
At least say it´s one piece in the puzzle, your surely not going to be totally negative are you

Actually, I am. Any useless discovery is useless. We need to work on nano-tubes before this can be useful.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The benefit is simply that they can fix themselves if damaged.

One step closer to a healing factor, Wolverine fanboys will be ecstatic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your post contains no real rebuttal: just oblivious technology-loving rhetoric.


How long did it take before we had a car, after the "wheel" was invented?

And, no, the whole history of technology is not like that. If one technology depends on another to work, then the latter has to be developed enough to be usable by the former. This is much easier if you don't play word games, but, instead, actually get the point: you can change "imperfect' to what ever word you want until it jives well with your mind. Simply: this "discovery" is useless for the forseable future.

If we were to be as hopeful as you guys want to be, we should be jumping up and down at all the little microscopic fusions expierments which have no way, at all, of transferring to any usable form.




Actually, I am. Any useless discovery is useless. We need to work on nano-tubes before this can be useful.
I don't see how it's "useless" just because it's impractical at the moment. There's no such thing as useless knowledge.

Interesting.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't see how it's "useless" just because it's impractical at the moment. There's no such thing as useless knowledge.

Nope, this is the exceptions apparently. But I think he might be joking because ddm was something of a singularitarian a year or so ago.

Are u sure for that?

Originally posted by dadudemon



You didn't really address anything I've stated, just stated what I've stated in other words.

"impractical at the moment" vs. "useless for the foreseeable future."


I also clearly indicated that this discovery becomes useful once we have a carbon nano-tube fabrication breakthrough.
If you're looking for immediate gratification then a lot of current "breakthroughs" are useless. But if you look at it from a long term perspective it isn't useless at all. It's knowledge, it's useful to someone even if it isn't useful to you or I.

You also don't know what might come of this little discovery, perhaps from this scientists might discover something of use outside of the field of photovoltaics.

To me it just seems like you're being needlessly dismissive of the discovery, almost as if it's a personal matter.

You'd think DDM was an albino, with how bigoted he is towards the Sun.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If you're looking for immediate gratification then a lot of current "breakthroughs" are useless.

And a lot aren't.


Originally posted by Omega Vision
But if you look at it from a long term perspective it isn't useless at all. It's knowledge, it's useful to someone even if it isn't useful to you or I.

O rly? So you've solved the chaining problem with Nano-tubes? If you have, then, yes, from a future perspective, it's useful...but not really.

It pales compared nano-cell technology will be used for a far more efficient photovoltaic cell: the one I referenced earlier. That technology is already developed to the point that it's cheap and absurdly efficient and can be sprayed on "plates". The only problem: we need nano-tubes to collect the freed electrons. So we already have a cheap highly efficient solar technology developed that needs the use of long nano-tubes. Guess which one will get the green light when we have a cheap frab process for nano-tubes?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You also don't know what might come of this little discovery, perhaps from this scientists might discover something of use outside of the field of photovoltaics.

Well, in that case, let me get my check book out so I can start funding their research.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To me it just seems like you're being needlessly dismissive of the discovery, almost as if it's a personal matter.

Nah, everyone made it personal when they were dismissive of my injection of reality into the discussion. They took it personal for some reason and saw the need to needlessly defend this currently useless research.

Originally posted by Robtard
You'd think DDM was an albino, with how bigoted he is towards the Sun.

Nah. I love solar technologies. I am usually the one talking about them in energy related threads. I just don't like it when people (not necessarily people from KMC) hype up a very useless "discovery".

No discovery is useless. Knowledge itself is a worthy pursuit.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No discovery is useless. Knowledge itself is a worthy pursuit.

I do like to think that in concept, but I could imagine a sort of Lovecraftian "Forbidden Knowledge" that may not be worthy to know, for one reason or another.

OK, but this is probably not one of those cases. And even then it wouldn't be "useless" knowledge.

Considering the demand to find sustainable alternative fuel sources will only increase as time goes by, this has a high chance of being of use sometime in the future. DDM's just being an ass.

Wait to see how much a barrel of oil cost in once China finishes building its roadway/highway structure they've dumped a gigibillion yuan into.

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK, but this is probably not one of those cases.

It seems quite reasonable to assume that, yes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And a lot aren't.




O rly? So you've solved the chaining problem with Nano-tubes? If you have, then, yes, from a future perspective, it's useful...but not really.

It pales compared nano-cell technology will be used for a far more efficient photovoltaic cell: the one I referenced earlier. That technology is already developed to the point that it's cheap and absurdly efficient and can be sprayed on "plates". The only problem: we need nano-tubes to collect the freed electrons. So we already have a cheap highly efficient solar technology developed that needs the use of long nano-tubes. Guess which one will get the green light when we have a cheap frab process for nano-tubes?



Well, in that case, let me get my check book out so I can start funding their research.



Nah, everyone made it personal when they were dismissive of my injection of reality into the discussion. They took it personal for some reason and saw the need to needlessly defend this currently useless research.



Nah. I love solar technologies. I am usually the one talking about them in energy related threads. I just don't like it when people (not necessarily people from KMC) hype up a very useless "discovery".
I'm getting the impression that the only discovery you'll think anything of is carbon-nanotubes.

Google "carbon nanotubes"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm getting the impression that the only discovery you'll think anything of is carbon-nanotubes.

Despite me referencing an awesome breakthrough in solar technologies?




Also, robtard, I do not believe that this discovery is currently useful.


Reality, though, dictates that a technology like this is far less likely to succeed when compared to the other nano-cell technology I mentioned. That technology has a very consistent and measurable efficiency.



This technology COULD lead to ideas about self-repairing photovoltaic cells or cells that could be repaired by nano-bots. However, that's an idea that already exists and many people have thought of it already. But, that doesn't mean some kid can be inspired by this discovery to one day create a fully functional, self-repairing, highly efficient, photovoltaic cell...but let's not put the cart before the horse: this technology really has no future. There's just too many other technologies better than this, out there, that could be useful if we could "bus" the freed electrons. Think of how many people are working on batteries, right now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
D Think of how many people are working on batteries, right now.

At least 4...And one of them is called Dave...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Despite me referencing an awesome breakthrough in solar technologies?




Also, robtard, I do not believe that this discovery is currently useful.


Reality, though, dictates that a technology like this is far less likely to succeed when compared to the other nano-cell technology I mentioned. That technology has a very consistent and measurable efficiency.



This technology COULD lead to ideas about self-repairing photovoltaic cells or cells that could be repaired by nano-bots. However, that's an idea that already exists and many people have thought of it already. But, that doesn't mean some kid can be inspired by this discovery to one day create a fully functional, self-repairing, highly efficient, photovoltaic cell...but let's not put the cart before the horse: this technology really has no future. There's just too many other technologies better than this, out there, that could be useful if we could "bus" the freed electrons. Think of how many people are working on batteries, right now.
This technology is just invented and there is no data at all on it's efficiency... so how you got the notion that other technologies will be more efficient is beyond me, especially since the functions of the two are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This technology is just invented and there is no data at all on it's efficiency... so how you got the notion that other technologies will be more efficient is beyond me, especially since the functions of the two are not mutually exclusive.

Nah, I ain't buying that bullshit.

Because if efficiency were anything remarkable, that would be something "bragged" about, all over anyone talking about it.

It's most likely unremarkable. Keep in mind that for photovoltaic researchers, 80% efficiency is the magic barrier: any discovery that broke that barrier would automatically become a HUGE breakthrough.

And, yes, if the technology captures very little sunlight, it is going to be thrown out as a useless photovoltaic technology. Since there is already a technology that is ready for manufacturing (it's a sprayed on, lol!), but just requires nano-tube "wires" to bus out the electrons.


BTW, both technologies I've talked about are currently useless and may remain useless unless we build tiny robots that can put together nano-tubes for us. Guess what those tiny robots' computers could be made out of ? Memristors. awesome

Time to pop the champagne!!!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah, I ain't buying that bullshit.

Because if efficiency were anything remarkable, that would be something "bragged" about, all over anyone talking about it.

It's most likely unremarkable. Keep in mind that for photovoltaic researchers, 80% efficiency is the magic barrier: any discovery that broke that barrier would automatically become a HUGE breakthrough.

But they weren't trying to make a more efficient solar cell . . .

Originally posted by dadudemon
BTW, both technologies I've talked about are currently useless and may remain useless unless we build tiny robots that can put together nano-tubes for us. Guess what those tiny robots' computers could be made out of ? Memristors. awesome

"Okay, you heard the man. All technological process will now cease in favor of developing memristors. Yes that cancer stuff is interesting but little robots could do it better so your discoveries are useless. Yeah, yeah you're a "biologist". That's a kind of science isn't it? Get working on those memristors."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah, I ain't buying that bullshit.

Because if efficiency were anything remarkable, that would be something "bragged" about, all over anyone talking about it.

It's most likely unremarkable. Keep in mind that for photovoltaic researchers, 80% efficiency is the magic barrier: any discovery that broke that barrier would automatically become a HUGE breakthrough.

And, yes, if the technology captures very little sunlight, it is going to be thrown out as a useless photovoltaic technology. Since there is already a technology that is ready for manufacturing (it's a sprayed on, lol!), but just requires nano-tube "wires" to bus out the electrons.


BTW, both technologies I've talked about are currently useless and may remain useless unless we build tiny robots that can put together nano-tubes for us. Guess what those tiny robots' computers could be made out of ? Memristors. awesome
If the efficiency were anything remarkable... it WOULDN'T be, because this is the first example of said technology that wasn't being researched because of suspected efficiency. That's like telling someone back in 1910 "This 'internal combustion engine' thing doesn't seem very efficient. You should just work on electric cars instead, they are better." It was true at the time, but gas cars very quickly exceeded them in efficiency once they were starting to improve.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If the efficiency were anything remarkable... it WOULDN'T be, because this is the first example of said technology that wasn't being researched because of suspected efficiency. That's like telling someone back in 1910 "This 'internal combustion engine' thing doesn't seem very efficient. You should just work on electric cars instead, they are better." It was true at the time, but gas cars very quickly exceeded them in efficiency once they were starting to improve.

And how exactly how are they going to improve the solar efficiency of the collectors?


You do know that the only thing they could do to improve the collectors efficiency is arranging them into hexagonal structures, right?



That's it.



Other than that, they are stuck with what they have. They would literally have to change the material and, by doing that, change the chemical properties. Basically, the would have to re-invent their work completely and only keep the carbon-nano tubes as fun little attachments.

In the actual MIT article, the solar panel itself isn't even credited as the thing they invented. Actually, the invention was phospholipids that provide a unique way of arranging existing photovoltaic molecules. The only advantage/disadvantage being that this is self repairing and does not degrade, unlike current photovoltaics.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/self-healing-solar.html

Originally posted by King Kandy
In the actual MIT article, the solar panel itself isn't even credited as the thing they invented. Actually, the invention was phospholipids that provide a unique way of arranging existing photovoltaic molecules. The only advantage/disadvantage being that this is self repairing and does not degrade, unlike current photovoltaics.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/self-healing-solar.html

Self-repairing when a solution is added.


Yeah, that's pratical.


And, no, it fails: the cell has no mechanism bus the freed electrons as it requires a "technology" that does not exist yet.

It requires carbon nanotubes... which are a different field of study, but will probably be available in good time. That's it though, because the phospholipids automatically create a compatible arrangement with the nanotubes.

Again, I Googled; it seems these 'carbon nanotubes' already exist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Self-repairing when a solution is added.


Yeah, that's pratical.


And, no, it fails: the cell has no mechanism bus the freed electrons as it requires a "technology" that does not exist yet.

ok, so here is the scenario:

you are the editor at "DDM's relevant scientific journal: proceedings A"

these researchers send you a manuscript outlining this new discovery

your reaction is to reject said manuscript?

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, I Googled; it seems these 'carbon nanotubes' already exist.

Very short ones. Many of the most obvious benefits come from getting them to a few inches long, then yards, then miles.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Very short ones. Many of the most obvious benefits come from getting them to a few inches long, then yards, then miles.

Ah, I see. So they're currently in their Asian-state, I get it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, I Googled; it seems these 'carbon nanotubes' already exist. The future is now.

Ya lots of application for carbon nanotubes in the future.

Wow, everyone was a dick in this thread, including me.


This is the most spot-on point in the thread, however:

Originally posted by dadudemon
It pales compared nano-cell technology will be used for a far more efficient photovoltaic cell: the one I referenced earlier. That technology is already developed to the point that it's cheap and absurdly efficient and can be sprayed on "plates". The only problem: we need nano-tubes to collect the freed electrons. So we already have a cheap highly efficient solar technology developed that needs the use of long nano-tubes. Guess which one will get the green light when we have a cheap frab process for nano-tubes?

There are probably a dozen other solar technologies that are more efficient and cost far less than this discovery. They would be first in line for the application of carbon nano-tubes (used to collect the freed electrons). I mean...why did the thread progress any further than that point.

It is fun to discover new stuff, for sure, but why was everyone not being more realistic?


This technology existed as far back as 2008...and it is in need of those CNTs more than these phospholipid cells:

http://ecogeek.org/2008/01/80-efficient-solar-panel-works-at-night/


There were lots of very bad comparisons in this thread. The wheel comparison and the combustion engine comparison, especially.

The wheel had existed for thousands of years before the automobile was created in very rudimentary forms. Unlike this technology, which literally has no method of collecting the "freed excitons", automobiles made use of wheels with an engine (steam powered). The solution was pragmatic and worked but it was not practical due to the very short distances. This did not matter as this was a proven solution that had real use and application: this solar technology doesn't. To compare it to the car is illogical. This would be like someone building the frame, throwing on some decent wheels, and calling it a modern car: that's hilariously stupid. You need a damn engine. To put it into perspective and to compare it this solar technology, this technology would be like creating any vehicle that had a frame and wheels. That structure has existed for thousands of years. Obviously the very first device constructed for this could not be considered an "automobile." This is the same for this solar technology: without a way to collect the electrons, this technology is no different than a vehicle that has no engine. It's just a frame on wheels.

You need the engine, first, before you can have the automobile. This was my point. We need a way of collecting, ultra-efficiently, freed electrons from solar cells/technologies. If you have that, you can come up with all sorts of wild technologies that can fit on top of your collection system (not literally "on top", of course).


Any solar technology that is released WITHOUT a method or solution in place to collect freed elections should be glossed over by investors (generally). We should not get excited (lol, pun) about them. "Hmm, interesting" is about what we should think. Why? Because there have been hundreds or thousands of solar technology "breakthroughs" with no practical real-world use...they just won't work. If a technology is invented that can make use of another old invention, there are millions of scientists who have access to that research and can revive it. This is what happened with memristors and look how HP has taken off with those? Memristors were considered Sci-fi level shit and now they are in commercial production. Just because a technology has no practical use, now, does not mean we cannot re-purpose it with another technology that does not exist, yet...let us not go ape-shit over these things until that happens, though.


If someone comes up with a solar technology that is relatively simple to fabricate BUT is ridiculously expensive, I would call that a breakthrough. We could figure out how to reduce the cost of fabrication, most likely.

Compare that to this technology: "Here is a new technology...but it is completely useless because it directly depends on the existence of a nonexistent technology."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Basically, they are using imperfect technologies to make even less imperfect technologies

lol.

Wouldn't less imperfect = more perfect = better?


*you just earned Nitpicking trophy*

Originally posted by Scoobless
lol.

Wouldn't less imperfect = more perfect = better?


*you just earned Nitpicking trophy*

Yes. The word should have been "more" not "less."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow, everyone was a dick in this thread, including me.


You were the biggest dick though.

I thought I was mildly funny in my dickishness.