/:|

I'm very interested in hover vehicles, specially since we have the technology, but people ain't using it. And if they are, not enough are doing likewise.

People aren't using them because it's cheaper to build a vehicle that doesn't need power to keep itself aloft while not moving, like boats, cars, and planes. Yeah, hover vehicles are much less limited by terrain, but they're just not efficient yet.

People aren't using them because it's cheaper to build a vehicle that doesn't need power to keep itself aloft while not moving, like boats, cars, and planes. Yeah, hover vehicles are much less limited by terrain, but they're just not efficient yet.

That's true. They aren't exactly efficient. There is, however, a way to get around the efficiency issue. If the lift fan and thrust fan are both controlled by the throttle, the vehicle will not hover while still. With an aircraft or an amphibious hovercraft this isn't desirable, but a hovercraft that isn't designed to cross water doesn't need to be hovering constantly.

People aren't using them because it's cheaper to build a vehicle that doesn't need power to keep itself aloft while not moving, like boats, cars, and planes. Yeah, hover vehicles are much less limited by terrain, but they're just not efficient yet.

Also something that makes me rage.

We have the technology required for better power, but is nobody using it? Yes, nobody is using it. They stick with their gasoline cars, oil/coal/other-similar-resources powerplants, and electronuclear death machines.

Part of it is the greedy idiots who have the power to put our tech to good use and advance our tech further to make even more new types and improvements to existing power sources are too greedy, idiotic, and not caring to do so.

Besides, the middle east hates all advances and attempts to make changes that lessen the need for oil, so don't be surprised if it's later found out that the middle east is directly responsible for the energy standstill.

[/rant]

electronuclear death machines

Why must Chernobyl be the stereotype for nuclear power plants? Our technology has advanced so far that such an indecent is a thing of the past. We even have the technology to re-use the "waste" material (though we don't use it, it's "too expensive" as people usually say).

Still, I agree with you on oil and other fossil fuels.

Project Phoenix is just a radio controlled prototype at the moment, but it's electric, using a pair of Dynamite RC 2200 mAh 2s1p Lithium-Polymer batteries (the same battery chemistry as what is used in the Toyota Prius and Chevrolet Volt hybrids).

The issue at the moment isn't power, it's friction. I need to apply a low-friction coating to the bottom of the chassis panel.

On another note, I found the original WIP prototype in a drawer in my basement.

Finally, on the note of the middle east, it's not the general public in that area - during the dark ages Persia as it was still know was one of the most advanced civilizations, not counting eastern Asia - it's the middle-eastern oil barons (one of which was also a wanted terrorist until his death this spring/summer) that hate anything that takes away from their profits.

Fengir says you are a troll, addict, because you say things that are stupid just to see how people react to them, like implying that the US relies solely on middle-Eastern oil which is not true because Canada and Mexico exist.

http://205.254.135.2...ent/import.html

Plus, you say that it's greedy and idiotic to continue improving existing energy technology instead of immediately switching over to new ones? Tell that to someone who has worked in the coal industry for his entire life.

1. Yes, it has advanced very far, but this advanced technology can fail at any moment, just like all other technologies. In the event of a worst case scenario (nuclear meltdown and all the technology fails for some reason), Chernobyl will happen again. In a best case scenario, the technology will stop the disaster before anything else happens and merely take the plant offline for a few months until everything is green for reboot.

But that's not efficient; You either get death or everything works fine until an event that takes the plant offline until everything is green for reboot, which has to take time to allow for a full safety inspection to ensure there are no further underlying problems.

I'll end here, now that I've stated the reason for my opinion.

2. Yay, you found it!

3. I know, I was referring to said oil barons.

I'm not talking about oil barons, I'm talking about the miners and the other people who get the stuff out of the ground.

How did I miss that first reply?

Pre-last-post-of-mine-reply:

1. I'm not implying that. I'm implying the world relies on it as a major oil source.

2. You have a point there. I thus revise my argument to:

People are improving conventional methods of power generation, but many blargs are doing the applications horribly, if at all.

At the same time, many blargs are shunning new sources of energy or using them but overcharging because of it.

And there are some who are idling waiting for new and/or conventional methods to get favorable for use in their applications.

Post-above-this-one:

What?

1. Yes, it has advanced very far, but this advanced technology can fail at any moment, just like all other technologies. In the event of a worst case scenario (nuclear meltdown and all the technology fails for some reason), Chernobyl will happen again. In a best case scenario, the technology will stop the disaster before anything else happens and merely take the plant offline for a few months until everything is green for reboot.But that's not efficient; You either get death or everything works fine until an event that takes the plant offline until everything is green for reboot, which has to take time to allow for a full safety inspection to ensure there are no further underlying problems.I'll end here, now that I've stated the reason for my opinion.

Do you know anything about the Springfield, IL Nuclear Fission Power Plant? My father's company built that thing. I take attacks on nuclear power quite personally, since I'm the son of a contractor who's built several, all of which are operational to this day and have never had a mishap.

Trust me, if there really was an innate, inescapable danger to nuclear power, I'd know first hand and would do something about it. Chernobyl was rushed into operation and was never fully tested. Three Mile Island was poorly maintained. The plants in Japan are once again under control (they were shut down due to international politics, not safety hazards).

I myself am personally interested in development of efficient fusion reactors. At the moment it takes more energy to operate one than the reactor puts out, but that soon will change. Also the whole "small sun" issue with such reactors is complete nonsense.

1. No, I don't. *Googles*

2. I guess I might as well inform you that I had no reactor disasters in mind when I called them elecronuclear death machines.

3. Hehehe, I be interested too. I'll tell you I don't know much, but I know ain't no "mini-sun" gonna appear in mah fusion reactor

Back to 1. I'm very happy somebody's doing it right. (To be clear, I'm not in any way sarcastic. It's hard to tell so on the internet.)

My point was, and still is, when something does go wrong, it'll take the plant offline for a while due to safety precautions, and if that's what you rely on for electricity, you may have difficulty getting electricity with that thing offline.

That doesn't really matter though, it's the other part of the point that's rarer, yet the real threat: Either due to poor safety regulations (NOW I'm going to point at Chernobyl's horrible administration) or due to the fact that no technology is infallible, you're going to get ranging consequences from a minor radiation leak that'll disperse itself and be no threat, or, in very rare cases under good admininstration and modern safety engineering (not so rare when they rush a plant and don't even bother maintaining it properly. This time, I am pointing at reactor disasters. Not counting Japan. That reactor's leak was too minor, and the administration had to deal with the consequences of a major earthquake and tsunami at the same time, so they managed the plant good in my opinion. Also not counting any modern day reactors due to the fact that I'm not aware of any of them undergoing poor administration), a major radiation leak occurs.

Again, I'll say this to be clear: " ... it's the other part of the point that's rarer, yet ...". Especially with the new safety engineering I just googled. However, rarer (Or even very extremely rare, as what I googled tells me) != impossible. <- That right there, that sums up the entire point. Seeing that that's the point, I shouldn't have called them electronuclear death machines.

Sorry, it just bugs me when somebody takes my points to the extreme. You got the impression that I was saying every nuclear reactor's gonna do Chernobyl every other year (Okay, maybe I'm over exaggerating, but you get the point). Although, seeing that you take attacks on nuclear power personally, I don't blame you.

Oh, thought I might add that I'm not against nuclear power, seeing that cars are many times more deadly than modern nuclear power plants.

1. No, I don't. *Googles* 2. I guess I might as well inform you that I had no reactor disasters in mind when I called them elecronuclear death machines. 3. Hehehe, I be interested too. I'll tell you I don't know much, but I know ain't no "mini-sun" gonna appear in mah fusion reactor Back to 1. I'm very happy somebody's doing it right. (To be clear, I'm not in any way sarcastic. It's hard to tell so on the internet.)My point was, and still is, when something does go wrong, it'll take the plant offline for a while due to safety precautions, and if that's what you rely on for electricity, you may have difficulty getting electricity with that thing offline. That doesn't really matter though, it's the other part of the point that's rarer, yet the real threat: Either due to poor safety regulations (NOW I'm going to point at Chernobyl's horrible administration) or due to the fact that no technology is infallible, you're going to get ranging consequences from a minor radiation leak that'll disperse itself and be no threat, or, in very rare cases under good admininstration and modern safety engineering (not so rare when they rush a plant and don't even bother maintaining it properly. This time, I am pointing at reactor disasters. Not counting Japan. That reactor's leak was too minor, and the administration had to deal with the consequences of a major earthquake and tsunami at the same time, so they managed the plant good in my opinion. Also not counting any modern day reactors due to the fact that I'm not aware of any of them undergoing poor administration), a major radiation leak occurs. Again, I'll say this to be clear: " ... it's the other part of the point that's rarer, yet ...". Especially with the new safety engineering I just googled. However, rarer (Or even very extremely rare, as what I googled tells me) != impossible. <- That right there, that sums up the entire point. Seeing that that's the point, I shouldn't have called them electronuclear death machines. Sorry, it just bugs me when somebody takes my points to the extreme. You got the impression that I was saying every nuclear reactor's gonna do Chernobyl every other year (Okay, maybe I'm over exaggerating, but you get the point). Although, seeing that you take attacks on nuclear power personally, I don't blame you. Oh, thought I might add that I'm not against nuclear power, seeing that cars are many times more deadly than modern nuclear power plants.

I see what you're saying about nuclear power. Yeah, Nuclear power, although as clean as a high-output power-source will be for years to come, isn't without it's risks. No technology is infallible, but it tips the odds quite far in our favor.

As for having to shut down plants for maintenance, that's why you don't have just one plant on the entire grid.

People aren't using them because it's cheaper to build a vehicle that doesn't need power to keep itself aloft while not moving, like boats, cars, and planes. Yeah, hover vehicles are much less limited by terrain, but they're just not efficient yet.