For the second time this year, I have watched the maiden flight of an aircraft designed to be an air taxi. The first was funded by the nation of Dubai. The second was built by a private company in Germany. To many people, the visions of writers from the 20th century are finally becoming reality.
I do not believe those visions ever left our minds. Many technologies were developed in the 20th century that are only now cost effective. We tend to think that the time between prototype and production run is minimal or negligible. This has never been the case.
In many cases, the prototypes had flaws that were of great concern. Personal "jet packs" were constructed and tested in the 1950's. They had flight times measured in seconds. We did not simply abandon this technology though. We still lack an efficient fuel source in this case. There is another issue which some people ignore but is critical. These devices require training to use. Imagine if you left one in your garage and a child tried to operate it. Mass distribution of jet or rocket engines raises a great many safety concerns, and it should. Flying cars have a similar flaw. "Joyriding" in your parent's car can be dangerous. "Joyriding" is your parent's aircraft is dangerous. In the case of consumer aircraft, we again had an issue with power sources until recently. And again, safety is a concern. I do not believe the average driver is capable of commuting in an aircraft. Aircraft travel is limited and regulated in ways that do not seem possible if even 1% of the population were pilots. If, however, the aircraft are autonomous, this becomes plausible.
In some cases, the original calculations were just wrong. If Einstein's original calculations had been used during experimentation, he would have been proven wrong. The revised calculations were proven via experimentation in 1919. The Alcubierre drive requires an energy source that is unfeasible, only later work by Harold White made us consider the possibility again.
There are interim steps that allow the unimaginable to become reality. Regardless of resources, ENIAC would have never reached the performance levels available to anyone reading this. The transistor and the integrated circuit were necessary inventions in this process and then those inventions needed to be improved upon. Again, energy sources needed to improve. They have.
We are not now reaping the benefits of these things because of some monumental event. We are reaping the benefits of these things because of what we consider gradual improvement. The span of 20 or 60 years is actually the blink of an eye, but the 20th century prepared us for leaps and bounds. In truth, those leaps and bounds took years. The Saturn V was not built in 1947 or 1952.
The lithium-ion battery was not instantly "better" than its cousins. The next battery technology will not see widespread consumer use in a week or a year. The quantum computer exists but it will take many years for it to replace "traditional" supercomputers, and may never be used by most people.
So, yes, we have flying cars. We have flying cars because we had VTOL aircraft, quadrotors, microprocessors, and several generations of jet engines. We we will have AI in the next 20 years, because we had the Intel 4004, Deep Blue, and currently have IBM's Watson and a host of other systems. We will have androids and machines that pass all variations of the Turing test because of the current work in robotics. We will travel to Mars during the 21st century because we have learned much since the 1960's. We may never have replicators, but we do have 3-D printers that fit on desktops and are available to consumers. We have not created a polymer with a higher tensile strength than spider silk, but we have created graphene, superconductors, and steel alloys that could easily be called "ultrasteel" if desired.
"The future" didn't just show up in 1955. It took quite a bit of work to be designed, modeled, tested, and forged. We have seen many of he visions crafted in the 20th become reality. We will see many more, we may just not meet the original schedule.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Saturday, April 8, 2017
What did actually make the U.S. great?
Because, we were. The 20th century truly was a U.S. century.
Please note, I did not say "American century". Our seeming belief that we are the only country over the span of 2 continents worthy of consideration is endemic of one of the problems with this county. We think we own the place. The fact that the rest of the world lets us speaks to our influence. In 1917, we were "The Yanks" and our soldiers "Doughboys". At one time the British thought to simply absorb our numbers into their command. That had all changed by the end of the 20th century.
But fighting wars wasn't what made us great. Wars don't make anything great. Extreme situations do, however, shine a light on what already exists. Germany underestimated our ability to mobilize, twice.
In my opinion, what made us great was our belief in ourselves. Many things were considered impossible until we did them. "You can't fight on two fronts." was actually printed on U.S. propaganda during World War II. We started out the century finishing the Panama Canal. We turned out attention to the Mississippi River and made it navigable in a way Mark Twain would have thought impossible. We went to the moon (no, that is not up for debate).
I think what made us great can be summarized by a story usually used to criticize us. We wanted a pen that could write in zero gravity. We knew pencils existed. We made a pen that could write in zero gravity. We did not take the easy way out. We wanted something and we made it happen. Yes, it was expensive. Yes, it seems excessive. And, yes, that didn't matter.
But now, it is a new century. There was several attempts at electric cars by U.S. manufactures at the end of the 20th century. General Motors EV1 was the most famous, but Ford and Chrysler also built some electric vehicles between 1996 and 2002. All of these models were discontinued without actual production runs. Then something happened that has become common in the 21st century, someone outside the U.S. took the risk.
Toyota launched a production hybrid in 1997. Honda followed in 1999. I particularly remember a commercial aired for the Honda Insight on 1/1/2000. I also remember not seeing that commercial again. At a hostel in Washington DC, I remember the hope that commercial inspired and the defeat I felt as I protested the inauguration of an oil man.
In 2008, work was completed on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), It dwarfs the U.S. Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and is now the center for global experimentation in the area of particle physics.
We still have the drive. We still attract the dreamers. But, something has changed. We as a nation won't take the risk. We have become frightened. We forgot that our economy was built by men like Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk. It was not built by anyone at Goldman-Sachs. It was not built by the people at Apple and Atari that fired their founders. We forgot that technology is what got us here. We forgot that looking backwards gains you nothing. We forgot that the word "impossible" may just be a suggestion.
It is time we remembered. It was time we remembered that progress happens whether you like it or not. It is time to create a solar panel that the world buys in droves, not a coal plant the world mocks. It is time for us to accept the software industry as an industry. It is time for us to be less concerned about milking old patents, and more concerned about filing new ones. It is time for us to be less concerned about steel exports, and more concerned about semiconductor exports. In short, it is time to move into the 21st century. We can still make it a U.S. century.
Please note, I did not say "American century". Our seeming belief that we are the only country over the span of 2 continents worthy of consideration is endemic of one of the problems with this county. We think we own the place. The fact that the rest of the world lets us speaks to our influence. In 1917, we were "The Yanks" and our soldiers "Doughboys". At one time the British thought to simply absorb our numbers into their command. That had all changed by the end of the 20th century.
But fighting wars wasn't what made us great. Wars don't make anything great. Extreme situations do, however, shine a light on what already exists. Germany underestimated our ability to mobilize, twice.
In my opinion, what made us great was our belief in ourselves. Many things were considered impossible until we did them. "You can't fight on two fronts." was actually printed on U.S. propaganda during World War II. We started out the century finishing the Panama Canal. We turned out attention to the Mississippi River and made it navigable in a way Mark Twain would have thought impossible. We went to the moon (no, that is not up for debate).
I think what made us great can be summarized by a story usually used to criticize us. We wanted a pen that could write in zero gravity. We knew pencils existed. We made a pen that could write in zero gravity. We did not take the easy way out. We wanted something and we made it happen. Yes, it was expensive. Yes, it seems excessive. And, yes, that didn't matter.
But now, it is a new century. There was several attempts at electric cars by U.S. manufactures at the end of the 20th century. General Motors EV1 was the most famous, but Ford and Chrysler also built some electric vehicles between 1996 and 2002. All of these models were discontinued without actual production runs. Then something happened that has become common in the 21st century, someone outside the U.S. took the risk.
Toyota launched a production hybrid in 1997. Honda followed in 1999. I particularly remember a commercial aired for the Honda Insight on 1/1/2000. I also remember not seeing that commercial again. At a hostel in Washington DC, I remember the hope that commercial inspired and the defeat I felt as I protested the inauguration of an oil man.
In 2008, work was completed on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), It dwarfs the U.S. Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and is now the center for global experimentation in the area of particle physics.
We still have the drive. We still attract the dreamers. But, something has changed. We as a nation won't take the risk. We have become frightened. We forgot that our economy was built by men like Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk. It was not built by anyone at Goldman-Sachs. It was not built by the people at Apple and Atari that fired their founders. We forgot that technology is what got us here. We forgot that looking backwards gains you nothing. We forgot that the word "impossible" may just be a suggestion.
It is time we remembered. It was time we remembered that progress happens whether you like it or not. It is time to create a solar panel that the world buys in droves, not a coal plant the world mocks. It is time for us to accept the software industry as an industry. It is time for us to be less concerned about milking old patents, and more concerned about filing new ones. It is time for us to be less concerned about steel exports, and more concerned about semiconductor exports. In short, it is time to move into the 21st century. We can still make it a U.S. century.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Allow me to retort...
I write to my senators relatively often. I hope that one day the amount I write will be considered minimal. I recently wrote to my senators regarding H.R.
26 (REINS) and H.R. 998 (SCRUB). As I believe these resolutions will pass the House, I felt writing to my senators was prudent.
I wanted to share a response I received from Senator Toomey and take this opportunity to respond.
I wanted to share a response I received from Senator Toomey and take this opportunity to respond.
... I am supportive of reasonable pollution controls that are designed to protect our natural resources and public health, and individual state agencies have the knowledge and experience necessary to safeguard these important assets...
Individual states you say. I have to ask. Did Louisiana have the resources to deal with the Deepwater Horizons spill? What percentage of the costs would Alabama contribute? Although Alaska does benefit greatly from the oil industry, they did not benefit enough to deal with the Exxon Valdez disaster single-highhandedly. In my own backyard, the borough of Ambler, PA contains a Superfund site. Is the State of Pennsylvania ready to take on the cost burden associated with this site and the many others in Pennsylvania?
In all cases, the obvious answer is no. The states do not have the resources or even the jurisdiction to oversee environmental protection.
Senator Toomey goes further to state:
I am not certain what regulation(s) Senator Toomey is referring to that "harm Pennsylvania farmers". The regulations that have passed in the last 8 years have been focused on the energy industry. As the United States is still the 2nd largest consumer of coal, I support all of these regulations as I have worked with coal combustors and know the effects of Black Lung.
The specter of "job loss" comes up again with:
Let's talk about unemployment. Without any spinning, adjustment, etc. according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January of 2009, the Unemployment Rate was 7.8. In January of 2017, the Unemployment Rate was 4.8. Same organization, same calculation method.
I would be glad to discuss actual data with Senator Toomey at any time. I do recommend that he consult other sources. He seems to be getting his information from rhetoric and misnomer, both of which have horrible track records.
And just so everyone can see that I did not take anything out of context, here is the email in its entirety:
In all cases, the obvious answer is no. The states do not have the resources or even the jurisdiction to oversee environmental protection.
Senator Toomey goes further to state:
..I am concerned about the excessive regulations coming out of the federal bureaucracy in recent years that needlessly impede job creation and harm Pennsylvania farmers..Are we really going to go down this path yet again? The last time industry was actually negatively effected by the EPA was in 1973 when the use of spray-applied asbestos was banned. Even removing lead from our gasoline did not negatively effect an industry as one can see from looking at the profit margins of Exxon
I am not certain what regulation(s) Senator Toomey is referring to that "harm Pennsylvania farmers". The regulations that have passed in the last 8 years have been focused on the energy industry. As the United States is still the 2nd largest consumer of coal, I support all of these regulations as I have worked with coal combustors and know the effects of Black Lung.
The specter of "job loss" comes up again with:
.. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA and other federal regulators were especially aggressive in proposing new rules that raised energy prices, imposed onerous compliance costs, undermined economic growth, and put Pennsylvanians out of work...Let us see. According the U.S Energy Infromation Administration, the cost to "Ultimate Consumer" was 9.74 cents/KwH in 2008. By 2016, that had risen to an amazing 9.96 cents/KwH. In 2011, it reached a staggering 9.99 cents/KwH. No adjustments for inflation or any tweaks.
Let's talk about unemployment. Without any spinning, adjustment, etc. according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January of 2009, the Unemployment Rate was 7.8. In January of 2017, the Unemployment Rate was 4.8. Same organization, same calculation method.
I would be glad to discuss actual data with Senator Toomey at any time. I do recommend that he consult other sources. He seems to be getting his information from rhetoric and misnomer, both of which have horrible track records.
And just so everyone can see that I did not take anything out of context, here is the email in its entirety:
March 24, 2017
Dear Mr. Musick,
Thank you for contacting me about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate hearing from you.
Like most Pennsylvanians, I believe it is essential to protect our state's natural beauty and the quality of our environment. I am supportive of reasonable pollution controls that are designed to protect our natural resources and public health, and individual state agencies have the knowledge and experience necessary to safeguard these important assets. It is for these reasons that I have supported commonsense efforts in Congress to protect the environment and conserve lands for the enjoyment of future generations.
While I support sensible environmental protections, I am concerned about the excessive regulations coming out of the federal bureaucracy in recent years that needlessly impede job creation and harm Pennsylvania farmers. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA and other federal regulators were especially aggressive in proposing new rules that raised energy prices, imposed onerous compliance costs, undermined economic growth, and put Pennsylvanians out of work. I am hopeful that the Trump Administration will take a new direction and pursue a more balanced approach that is mindful of both our economy as well as our environment.
On March 16, 2017, President Trump released his fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint, which proposed reducing the EPA's budget by 30 percent compared to the current fiscal year. I understand your concerns about how federal budget cuts could impact environmental conservation in Pennsylvania, and it is important to know that the President's budget is only a proposal and has not been enacted into law. Please know that my staff and I are reviewing all areas of the President's budget blueprint, and I appreciate hearing your input.
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)