While some past pronouncements of
world-changing inventions haven't exactly panned out as promised, this latest one will at least have a pretty large stage on which to prove itself, with none other than Al Gore and others paying £1,000 or more apiece in the audience. As you might expect, however, things are being kept as vague as possible ahead of the big unveiling, which is set to go down later today in London. One of the few apparently clued in in the matter, British Inventors' Society founder Kane Kramer, would only go so far as to describe it as "a new science, a Super Material," adding that, "It would be 80 per cent cheaper than any alternative means of production, and it will contribute in a major way to reducing climate change." So, it's "something," but we'll just have to wait and see if it delivers as advertised.
posted Nov 30th 2007 11:53AM
DUH - Its called an "atmosphere proccessor". Just review your "Aliens" DVD disk.
Finally! A 64GB iPod Touch!
@superfresh
I don't get it.
neither do I.
What about a cheaper and more efficient alternative to the Platinum in catalytic converters?
Well shesh, if the interweb inventor will be there then it must be good.
Please stop repeating this stupid lie.
Al Gore never claimed to be inventor of the internet.
Plus he scores 98 MegaFonzies of the Coolometer.
@John M: "Please stop repeating this stupid lie. Al Gore never claimed to be inventor of the internet."
Looks like that's a matter of interpretation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore#Internet_and_technology
"Gore stated, 'During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet.'"
John M...actually you're wrong. Al Gore did say in a speech that he "invented" the internet. Granted, he might not have completely said what he meant, but he did say it. The audio can be found all over the internet. I hope this is better than the last World Changing Invention. Does everyone remember about 3 or 4 years ago when Dean Kamen hyped up his "IT" invention that was going to change the way humans looked at transportation? It was the damn segway....not quite life altering. I hope this one's better.
@DQ: Hey, find me a quote where he literally says "I invented the internet". It's a misquote that was perpetuated all over the place. People picked up on it because it's funny. End of story. Read that Wiki page.
Swear to god, people blow this Gore thing out of proportion. Can we all agree that the internet as we have it today would not be what it is without government assistance? Can we agree that Al Gore actually played a role in getting the internet on the floor for discussion? Some might say he took the initiative in congress to get the ball rolling.
Oh, and hey look, I just plugged two computers together and CREATED a network. Did I invent it? No. Jesus, people who really take that to mean he invented it need to take a reading comprehension class.
I really don't give a crap about Gore but stuff like this is just stupid.
"Computer. Computer? Ahh, a keyboard. How quaint."
That's pretty funny, no idea why though, it just sounds funny.
yep, definitely transparent aluminum:)
Bah. Last time something like this happened we got this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway
Flubber
I was sooooo gonna say that.
I'd be more interested in the smelloscope or a deathclock.
Or a what-if machine. Or even a finglonger!
I'd rather have some Element Zero =)
I still don't believe that we are changing the environment one bit; we are so small compared to the earth, how can we really drastically change something that big?
You, my friend, must not have thought a lot about this. There are a lot more people than you'd think using a lot more products than you'd think and the world is a lot smaller than you'd think.
@Weo - I presume your post is a joke? This particular claim is SO last year. Go on, keep up...
@James, and it is a lot more complicated than you think. Just recently the NHC came under major criticism for how badly they screwed the pooch on this past year's hurricane predictions. And this is just a single season prediction. With that sort of capability, and considering the enormously complex nature of ... uh... the entire world... how can we gain confidence about predictions of the future.
YOU can't hurt the earth. I can't hurt the earth.
But 6 BILLION people can hurt the earth in a lot of very bad ways. Have you ever seen a polluted lake or river, or a clearcut forest, or a smogbank over a city? Yeah, it's pretty clear that we can screw things up pretty badly.
But have you noticed how small that city is compared to the whole surface of the earth, how few there are compared to acreage of forests and whatnot?
@Andrew... I can drop a turd in the toilet and dirty that water... but that is hardly evidence that:
-global warming exists
-if it exists how strong are the effects and how much is natural
-if it is even possible to stop
-if it is possible, is it economically feasible to fix
I hate pollution as much as the next person, honestly, but I don't think we should rush into bankrupting the world to fix something before we are 100% sure of all those things I said above.
Think of it this way. Before a drug is allowed to come to market, it must under usually a quadruple blind study. One group lans the study, another administers the drug to patients, another observes the effects on patients, and a fourth analyzes results. These people are never allowed to communicate with each other and usually don't even know who the other groups are. Environmental research has no such thing, and the concept of peer review absolutely pales in comparison to the rigors of blind studies. All I want is certainty, beyond reasonable doubt, that all this global warming stuff is true before we spend a gazillion dollars on it. And the first step in that is truly independent and blind studies.
@nick
I thought people like weo were joking for a long time. then i googled "flat earth society".
depressing, ain't it?
@Chris - There is a fundamental flaw in that method of investigation in this case. In the event that global warming IS real, by the time we are able to 100% verify, validate and cross-check the source of the problem, it would likely be too late to do anything.
Even if human activity ISN'T negatively affecting the environment permanently, there is already ample evidence that it IS affecting the quality of life for everybody. Polluted lakes prevent many recreational activities, air pollution aggravates a host of respiratory conditions, water pollution depletes a very necessary natural resource, etc. Looking at the problem that way, you are either investing a "gazillion" dollars to improve the quality of life for everybody on Earth with the possible benefit of saving the Earth, or you're allowing the quality of life to continue to deteriorate and potentially dooming mankind.
Also, it's ridiculous to say that spending any amount of money on anything would bankrupt the world. In a worse-case scenario, you would bankrupt several nations and distribute their wealth to the rest of the world. Since most R&D seems to be done in large nations anyway (US, Japan, EU) even that scenario is highly unlikely.
Chris,
I would recommend you do some research before spouting off; reading wikipedia at the very least would be helpful.
First of all, quadruple-blind is a spurious term. In the pharmaceutical industry, randomized clinical trials (RCT's) are used to reduce bias and confounding factors in the attempt to prove or disprove efficacy. The best way to do this is by employing double-blind strategy, whereby the patient does not know what treatment he receives (one part blind) and the doctor does not know what treatment he administers (other part blind). Triple- or quadruple- blindedness is spurious because it's not possible for someone to analyze the results of a study without knowing the full details of that study.
For discussion's sake, let's take the analogy further. In order to have a double-blind global warming study, we would need two earths. On the first earth, we would have only wind-power and global economy where CO2 was only naturally produced (respiration, volcanos, et al.) On the 2nd earth, we would have life as we currently know it. Then, we would have to have two sets of observers in space stations orbiting each earth. The observers know nothing about what's going on on the surface but may take measurements of air quality, temperature, CO2 percentage, etc. Based on their observations over several millennia, statistical analysis would reveal whether global warming is inextricably linked to man-made production of CO2.
You can see by the ridiculousness and impossibility of the situation that RCTs are not useful in the scope of environmental study. The scientific community can at best make intelligent and informed assumptions from measurements and models. It is up to them to do "good" research, and up to us to hold them accountable.
brett
Brett-
I think I wasn't perfectly clear... I wasn't suggesting that we needed a control group. I was suggesting that when climatologists gather their data, it is often very dirty. They have to make assumptions about that data. Anomalies are removed, geographically local factors are adjusted, etc. When there is no separation between the people collecting the data, analyzing (and frequently changing the data), and interpreting what it means, bias is the inevitable outcome.
It's totally irrelevant whether or not global warming is an issue. Common sense tells you that you don't shit in your living room, so don't fill the air with unbreathable toxins.
@Weo and everyone who supports him
also @ everyone who says we can't hurt the world and that global warming isn't real
http://xkcd.com/164/ truly sums it up.
Cheap to manufacture, flexible, high efficiency solar panels maybe?
You might be on to something there.
I was thinking that too at first, but that has already been long-announced and now in production by Nanosolar (http://www.nanosolar.com/)
Not sure what it could be. Hope it is not a let down. Remember all the hype before the Segway came out that it would be "earth-changing" - everyone was speculating that Kamen came up with everything from fusion to a perfected stirling engine, and it turned out to be a fancy scooter.
Made in China?
My guess is that it's just some sort of extremely good insulator.
Less heat loss = less need for heat production = less power production = less greenhouse gases.
It'd make sense b/c it's not super-sexy, so it could be developed without a whole lot of media buzz until they really want to trump it up.
@ JuggleNuts
Energy that we pull from the environment around us, DOESN'T cause any forms of warming. The energy was already on the planet, you just moved it around. The entire basis for something like global warming is that energy from the sun is being trapped here.
It could be along the lines of that oscillation-based kinetic wind-energy convertor we saw online some weeks back. That invention had a thin synthetic strip that resonantly vibrates in the wind (like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, its inspiration) to produce power. Supposedly many times more efficient, many times cheaper, and many (hundreds of times) smaller than turbine-based windmills for energy harvesting. My bet goes to that; Either that invention specifically, or a modified version for hydro-power.
Even if this isn't what they're announcing, I think that the little wind-energy bars that can charge a laptop and a cellphone in unwired rural areas will be just as life-changing for many. Especially if it's practical to have a few strung together to operate, say, a refrigerator.
Stoneymonster, I was going to go with
"One word: Ginger"
but you beat me to it.
Ever noticed how things that change the world are almost never given large amounts of fanfare when they first appear? But I guess when you have no real position of importance or consequence on world events apart from appearing in a Futurama movie, you have to find something to do on Friday nights...
yea like copernicus' heliocentric theory. no one wants to listen.
physics..string theory..
I didnt even bother to read this article.... the picture was just to awesome...
"Buddha! Zeus! God! Somebody help me!
Satan, you owe me!"
Now I KNOW you're joking...!
My comment was supposed to be @weo, but for some reason it is being displayed before his comment rather than after it (at least in my browser it is).
i think you are mistaken; how about global cooling? what do you think of that?
when is this dinner going down?
RTFA
"which is set to go down later today in London"
"a new science" = I've lost interest
It's obviously a new plastic, made without petrochemiclas. The future, my son, is in plastics!
Capital Obvious me be the winner.
I am with you on this one
"a new science, a Super Material," "It would be 80 per cent cheaper than any alternative means of production, and it will contribute in a major way to reducing climate change."
The term "Super Material" could imply some kind of high temperature super conductor. Such a material has been sought by a lot of scientists for use in things like energy efficient computers, magnetic based systems (power generators, mass transportation like trains, electric vehicles like cars), energy production, etc. With a super conductive material capable of greatly reducing heat produced during power use you can greatly reduce power consumption.
They will be unveiling "common sense". When applied to the current "global warming/climate change" theories it drastically reduces the amount of hot air spewed about this politically-driven, anti-American agenda as well as dramatically reducing the cost to fund these crackpot "scientists" who spit out "results" to please the people who fund their "research".
@SleeplessKn1ght
You americans must have VERY large belly buttons to think that everything and anything must be for or against the U.S. Global warming is a global concern. You may not believe the science behind it, but it has nothing to do with leftish green-freaks wanting to destroy capitalism.
In fact, if you had a clue about what's being done, you'd realize that the Kyoto protocol actually relies on capitalism (emissions trading, creating incentives for the transfer of "green" technology to developing countires and so on) to deal with the problem. Another thing for you to think about before throwing out chauvinistic and uninformed comments: Sir Nicholas Stern, an economist, advisor to the UK Government (are you saying them Brits are against you too?) estimates that the cost of acting now to prevent major climate change is a fraction of the cost of dealing with possible catastrophes such as increased floods, storms, draughts, etc. Pure market analysis and risk hedging. Now if that's not capitalism, what is?
@Daemonios:
They added emissions trading to the Kyoto protocol later. If they wouldn't have added it, many of the participants would have dropped out and the it would have collapsed. It is the only reason that most Western European countries may be able to meet the guidelines. They're simply buying pollution from former Soviet block countries that, for some reason, don't have quite the same economy they had in 1990.
Does the formula on the chalkboard mean anything or is it nonsense?
it's a real world equation, but it's drawn as a joke on a dog pooping (production team on the DVD commentary said this)
@Weo
No. 30 years ago it was global cooling. You know 30 years ago, don't you? Back when predicting that days' weather was less accurate than predicting a high pressure front coming out of your a$$ in the next 2 seconds. With the kind of systems modeling that's pushed through the super computers of today, we can get very accurate temperature predictions upwards of ten days in advance. With models that include everything from polar shift to continental drift to forest migration, we can get accurate predictions of climate change for the next 50+ years.
@weo (again) - you obviously haven't done much research into all of this. Go and do your homework (properly and thoroughly this time) and you will find that the science behind this really is thorough and detailed. You may not WANT to believe it, but blind faith is not sufficient, I'm afraid.
O.K. I had to Google, but here is the scoop.
"The joke? Witten's Dog (Ed Witten is a winner of the Fields medal, mathematics' highest award) is a parody of the Schroedinger's Cat paradox in quantum physics. The equation and diagram were devised by astrophysicist David Schiminovich, and apparently resembles an equation that constrains the mass density of neutrinos in the universe."
This is an excerpt of a larger web article:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/sum-thing-to-do-with-maths-genius/2006/01/05/1136387564868.html
dude that's the idea; last year it was global cooling, now global warming, and neither really has much evidence; what is up?
Uh- er... didn't I just read something about converting carbon dioxide to baking soda?
Or.... did I just dream it?
Oh yes, here's a link to the baking soda thingy..
http://snipurl.com/1ufkp
its my ass...can power millions of homes...the by product is paid for by what i spend on food and the only thing left that makes up the %20 cost is the TP I would use
Good news everyone!
@Argot
We haven't yet observed the benifits of this new whachamagigger. In respect of Science I suggest we curb our enthusiasim down to this (until QED is reached):
News everyone!
Now if you'll excuse me I need to go to a store and buy a single piece of fruit with a coupon. Then complain about it!
You obviously missed the joke Melissa. If you'd ever watched Futurama you'd know that's what the professor always says when he comes up with some crazy ill-hatched idea.
So, pretty much they're revealing an "IT" product aka The Segway.
A new super material?
Maybe they've figured out a way to convert Al Gore into something useful.
like a new gaming computer! yeah!
It's called Wood and our scientests have managed to create it in a lab!
Ya see, you put this thing called an Acorn in wet paper towels... it sprouts, you plant it.
Then it somehow magically scrubs the Carbon Dioxide from the air and even absorbs other stuff... right from the air!
Magic!
Description makes it sound like a new solar cell "material" "80 less cost" "contribute to climate change issue"
We heard that before about solar cells.
OR simply a pill to make cows burp less maybe.
Sounds like the Legion of Doom is panning on killing off Al Gore and the Govenator all in one fell swoop.
You're all wrong. It's Slurm(tm).
I hope Steorn is doing the presenting. Will they have webcams from 10 angles looking at this fancy new science?
I suggest going through the episodes again. You probably never caught it when he's just said "News everyone!" (rather than his usual).
It's a turd converter. Power your car one log at a time. The prototype is call "The Steamer".
"bankrupting the world"
money is a social creation that is of no significance if the planet is destroyed...
"It would be 80 per cent cheaper than any alternative means of production, and it will contribute in a major way to reducing climate change."
Just like the Segway was supposed to change transportation around the globe.
If all those ignorant "we are to samll to affect the environment" people would shut their mouth and stop breathing, we'd have a lot less Carbon Dioxide to worry about.
1970's, Time Magazine cover with New York in a glacier and the title, "New Ice Age?"
Now, we're all gonna drown.
It's a cycle people. The sun heats up, the sun cools down. About a 40 year period.
I do agree we should clean up our act though. The atmosphere is thinner proportionally on the earth than the skin is on an apple.
The talk about global warming and global cooling can go on and on and on, but it obscures one indisputable fact that IS serious - the carbon dioxide content of our atmosphere is at an all-time high.
The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere measured in parts-per-million is higher than anytime in history going back over a hundred million years.
Human behavior IS altering the planet no matter how inconvenient a fact that may be to the business community.
Realize first of all that we have an impact on the planet. I would contend even a major one if humans were to do something like...destroy all the forests on the earth's surface (like we are slowly doing to the Amazon).
Consider also, things like arsenic, mercury, and other toxic substances which, in microscopic amounts can kill a human being. Considering such analogies I'm sure that there ARE ways we COULD damage the entire globe.
With that caveat out of the way I make this argument. So yes, CO2 is higher than it has been for x-millions of years, however consider that life has been on the planet for billions of years, compared to a mere 20 million year (wikipedia) high in C02. Meaning our concern over C02 could be similar to freaking out that we have reached the highest temperature of the morning.
Therefore, when CO2 was this high, a short geological moment ago, did it really have an impact? Does a 30% increase in the "0.038%" (wikipedia) part of the atmosphere have the effect of arsenic on a human or is it equivalent to a cigarette heating the Superdome? Yes I know many argue it does have an impact, but in all honesty there are very many (perhaps an equal number) of scientists that believe otherwise.
We should curb our CO2 output by advancing technology lest we create a undeniable problem judging by how we've added so quickly to the total C02 in such a glimpse of time.
BUT, remember that there are those who would tell you to do something (supposedly for your own best interest) when they have their own selfish designs at heart.
Republicans are often accused of using fear to motivate people to vote for them to "save" them from doom. I do not doubt many republicans do this. On the same token look at the way the democratic party has used this as a rallying point to gather power to themselves.
It is also a great talking point for the media, because, let's face it they make more money by getting our attention, and we are more prone to listen to gloom, doom, and possible danger lest we are caught unaware.
Let that sink in before you take all this hype (from nay-sayers or supporters) lock, stock, and barrel. Weather we have a problem or not, the real grain of truth can be used by crook, deliverer, and prophet alike.
Anyhow, FYI, may I suggest looking at the following to give us all a clearer perspective by taking a broader point of view, just so you can say you're more informed than the next man.
Summary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
Detail: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark
Gore is a huge fraud, just like this bogus event. The main problem we face is Peak Oil, not climate change. You can bank on whatever this thing is being super-energy-intensive, hence a net loss. Gore is uninterested in altering the real source of our problems, which is the corporate power structure that dictates which technologies we use.
You know gore just jumped on the bandwagon, and pretty late too, he didn't discover climate change or the alleged high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
All gore did was make a movie about it and cash in on it, and of course he managed to make americans aware of it, that's an achievement in its own right, gotta give him that.
If it's not a programmable self-replicating molecular nanoassembler, I ain't interested.
All I want for Christmas is a programmable self-replicating molecular nanoassembler.
I will refrain from being very interested. 99 times out of 100, it's one of those breakthroughs that 3 years away from implementation, but nothing much every really does happen with it. Speculative inventions are a dime a dozen. If they have some super practical for today...then I'll be interested.
@Chris
Your logic is good, however you missed the application of it. Shouldn't we be NOT polluting until we know if it does any damage to the earth or not. Your analogy would let the drug companies dole out untested drugs to people and only pull them when a few million (just to make sure it wasn't by chance) people were killed.
Oh yeah?
We'll I'll build my own climate-changing invention!
...with blackjack! ...aaaannd hookers!
Aaah, screw the climate-changing invention.
Maybe its a new soy based plastic, that way anthing that uses soybeans can go up in price like anything using or raised on corn.
Maybe its a giant seaweed kite that works as a C02 scrubber that also blocks out the sun to keep the planet colder.
We already have cars that run on water, and cars that run on compressed air. The air car was frickin cool.
One thing is for certain we need to stop ehtanol production from corn right now. Biodiesel is a much better alternative.
This invention is basically a DOOMSDAY device, that kills all humans on the planet.
Bam. All your environment problems cease to be an issue anymore. In as little as 200 years, the planet will be a much greener.
if you have a problem with a lake, go to a new lake, bad air, move away from a city; There is plenty of water to go around, after all, it has lasted this long, hasn't it? Just because air is bad where there are lots of people doesn't mean that air is bad everywhere.
yeah; totally agree; except that it is still wrong to be spending lots of money on something that isn't truly confirmed yet (if it were, there wouldn't be arguements, right?)
I am willing to bet al gore's life that this is about more efficient solar panels
and yes, i do own al gore
I have an interesting comments on this, to hear it please sign up for my $1000 a plate fancy dinner expected to be held soonest.
Sounds to me like an invention that will try and convince people to buy a certain company's stock.
I hate to be so jaded, but the laws of physics have always conspired to make me so.