4 ms·

First engineering is an iterative process. Which means something that's engineered is made better by successive improvements from previous work. 2nd this is f

First engineering is an iterative process. Which means something that's engineered is made better by successive improvements from previous work. 2nd this is failing to consider different environment conditions and applications may make gathering energy from the environment in creative ways practical and useful. Not saying this particular technology will eventually be practical from a commercial standpoint, only wishing to state it's more than just 'will this technology easily solve global energy demands'.

dojomouse 3y ago
Correct, but what the parent here presents is a theoretical upper bound. A working product wouldn’t even get close. When the theoretical upper bound shows that something could never aspire to more than a vastly inferior alternative to existing proven technologies, the correct approach is to abandon it rather than invest in iterative improvements. I agree we should keep an open mind regarding creative ways of collecting energy from the environment. But we should also abandon those which are quickly demonstrated to have no meaningful potential even if we were to perfect them.
eesmith 3y ago
> successive improvements from previous work The first iteration produces 0.5 units. The next produces 0.75. The third produces 0.875, then 0.9375 and so on. Each iteration improves on the previous, but no engineering will surpass the 1.0 limit set by fundamental physics. > may make gathering energy from the environment in creative ways practical and useful. There's no end of crappy ways to produce electricity. Get electricity from walking across the floor? Yep [1]. Get electricity from exercise bikes at the gym? Yep. Get electricity from plants? Yep [2]. "Solar Freakin Roadways"? Yep. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavegen#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavegen#Criticism [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212093308.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212093308.h... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_highway#Solar_road_panels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_highway#Solar_road_panel... > it's more than just 'will this technology easily solve global energy demands'. You know how I know it's not a "potentially game-changing breakthrough in energy harvesting"? The best place to use this is not in extracting power from rainfall but in ultra-low-head hydropower energy production. Let the water fall on the panel as drops, and extract power. The energy involved corresponds to a head of about 3m, so it needs to be more efficient than other ULH methods, which already exist. Yet there's no mention of that application in the article. It's not like I'm an expert on the topic, so I conclude this is a solution in search of a problem.

dojomouse 3y ago

Correct, but what the parent here presents is a theoretical upper bound. A working product wouldn’t even get close. When the theoretical upper bound shows that something could never aspire to more than a vastly inferior alternative to existing proven technologies, the correct approach is to abandon it rather than invest in iterative improvements. I agree we should keep an open mind regarding creative ways of collecting energy from the environment. But we should also abandon those which are quickly demonstrated to have no meaningful potential even if we were to perfect them.

eesmith 3y ago

> successive improvements from previous work The first iteration produces 0.5 units. The next produces 0.75. The third produces 0.875, then 0.9375 and so on. Each iteration improves on the previous, but no engineering will surpass the 1.0 limit set by fundamental physics. > may make gathering energy from the environment in creative ways practical and useful. There's no end of crappy ways to produce electricity. Get electricity from walking across the floor? Yep [1]. Get electricity from exercise bikes at the gym? Yep. Get electricity from plants? Yep [2]. "Solar Freakin Roadways"? Yep. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavegen#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavegen#Criticism [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212093308.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212093308.h... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_highway#Solar_road_panels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_highway#Solar_road_panel... > it's more than just 'will this technology easily solve global energy demands'. You know how I know it's not a "potentially game-changing breakthrough in energy harvesting"? The best place to use this is not in extracting power from rainfall but in ultra-low-head hydropower energy production. Let the water fall on the panel as drops, and extract power. The energy involved corresponds to a head of about 3m, so it needs to be more efficient than other ULH methods, which already exist. Yet there's no mention of that application in the article. It's not like I'm an expert on the topic, so I conclude this is a solution in search of a problem.