Where is the US economy headed?

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

America has a long and rich tradition of scientific development, when we decide that we want to do so

Granted, but to what extent is the scientific development itself the manipulator of the decision the "we" make using the scientific persuasion techniques it has developed in order to make all human life over to its own image?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okie, how many times must you be reminded that huge amounts of the research which leads to new inventions and new science is funded by the government, and takes place in Universities?

Cycloptichorn

Did Henry Ford or the Wright Brothers go to college to figure things out, or what about Gates and Hewlitt Packard. How about Apple computer, didn't most of those guys work in a garage? And what about Edison, and many of the other great inventors? Who discovered the first oil and who drilled alot of the first wells? I won't say some things are not discovered or furthered by the government or university, but they certainly are far far less than having a monopoly on it.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie always knows how to point out the "exceptions to the rule." Tiresome; he always seems oblivious of the obvious.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

What rule? I disputed the proposed or implied rule that government was the driving force of innovation and invention. I think individuals are, in countries where governments encourage individual liberty and freedom, which encourages innovation and invention. It may be more the exception for governments to do it, that was the point of my post.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, Who's talking only about "proposed or implied rules about governments?" Nowhere in any of my posts have I restricted my comments about your opinions. If I did, please show me where?

Especially about government being the "driving force of innovation/invention?" Even here, you don't know what you are talking about. Your generalizations about all matters is what gets you into trouble.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okie, how many times must you be reminded that huge amounts of the research which leads to new inventions and new science is funded by the government, and takes place in Universities?

Cycloptichorn

Did Henry Ford or the Wright Brothers go to college to figure things out, or what about Gates and Hewlitt Packard.

Well, Gates went to Harvard, where he learned a thing or two about computers.

But this is really besides the point, and not a responsive comment when relating to the topic at hand. The vast majority of scientific improvements today come not from targeted product research done by companies, but government-funded research done in labs. Your lambasting of this government-funded research is not well-founded.

Given the examples you presented, it seems to me that you don't really get how science works in our modern world, and seem to think that the rules and ideas which held sway a hundred years ago are still the way things work today; they are not.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, Gates went to Harvard, where he learned a thing or two about computers.

I'm all for education, but Harvard did not fund his innovations, did they?

Quote:

But this is really besides the point, and not a responsive comment when relating to the topic at hand. The vast majority of scientific improvements today come not from targeted product research done by companies, but government-funded research done in labs. Your lambasting of this government-funded research is not well-founded.

Any evidence for this assertion?

Quote:

Given the examples you presented, it seems to me that you don't really get how science works in our modern world, and seem to think that the rules and ideas which held sway a hundred years ago are still the way things work today; they are not.

Cycloptichorn

I admit I am not familiar with alot of fields of research and study. Let me take one that I do know a little bit about, although I no longer work in that industry. Its the energy industry, and minerals. If you look at the strides made in oil and gas drilling and extraction, I think private companies have largely accomplished most of the advancements in drilling and completion technologies for oil and gas. Slant hole drilling and completion methods for shale gas reservoirs would be but one example. Mining techniques have been advanced and innovated by private companies directily involved in the activities. The coal industry, companies have learned how to more efficiently mine the coal and so forth.

Solar and wind companies, I am not familiar, but I am guessing that companies that build turbines have made great advancements in design, perhaps with some assistance from government funded research, but perhaps not, certainly not all and I am guessing probably not predominantly.

I am not familiar with the auto industry, but I am going to guess that company engineers have invented and perfected much of the design modifications and perfections of them, to achieve the efficiencies of engines and vehicles.

So, I doubt your assertion, cyclops, but if you have any evidence to support your belief, I would like to see it.

2 Replies

@okie,

Most people who have ever attended college and kept up with the news on R&D knows that the feds have invested in R&D at colleges and universities.

This chart shows the growth of federal investments in R&D.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/acad09p2sm.gif

BTW, the dark blue is the federal investment in R&D.

Also, the space program R&D was responsible for solving heat transfer problems that is now used in other technology.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, Gates went to Harvard, where he learned a thing or two about computers.

I'm all for education, but Harvard did not fund his innovations, did they?

Quote:
But this is really besides the point, and not a responsive comment when relating to the topic at hand. The vast majority of scientific improvements today come not from targeted product research done by companies, but government-funded research done in labs. Your lambasting of this government-funded research is not well-founded.

Any evidence for this assertion?

Quote:
Given the examples you presented, it seems to me that you don't really get how science works in our modern world, and seem to think that the rules and ideas which held sway a hundred years ago are still the way things work today; they are not.

Cycloptichorn

I admit I am not familiar with alot of fields of research and study. Let me take one that I do know a little bit about, although I no longer work in that industry. Its the energy industry, and minerals. If you look at the strides made in oil and gas drilling and extraction, I think private companies have largely accomplished most of the advancements in drilling and completion technologies for oil and gas. Slant hole drilling and completion methods for shale gas reservoirs would be but one example. Mining techniques have been advanced and innovated by private companies directily involved in the activities. The coal industry, companies have learned how to more efficiently mine the coal and so forth.

Solar and wind companies, I am not familiar, but I am guessing that companies that build turbines have made great advancements in design, perhaps with some assistance from government funded research, but perhaps not, certainly not all and I am guessing probably not predominantly.

I am not familiar with the auto industry, but I am going to guess that company engineers have invented and perfected much of the design modifications and perfections of them, to achieve the efficiencies of engines and vehicles.

So, I doubt your assertion, cyclops, but if you have any evidence to support your belief, I would like to see it.

Ever hear of the Department of Energy? They fund a lot of the research that you are talking about here.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/business/Business_Opportunities.html

But, to be more specific; what you are talking about are refinements of pre-existing techniques. Building a slant driller, or a wind turbine with slightly higher efficiency, is taking known science and making better and better products out of it. That's what companies specialize in, b/c that's what leads to a positive cash flow for them.

Universities specialize in theoretical research; that is, research which leads to entirely new techniques, new ideas, new physical methods of doing things, totally new processes. Most avenues of research along these lines are dead ends; we spend a lot of time proving what can't be done. Companies are loathe to sink money into this, because the ROI isn't very high unless you get lucky. So, most of this research is done in Universities and government-funded labs.

By knocking this, you are denying half of the engine which drives American invention and innovation. The 'free market' isn't responsible for basic research and the invention of brand new ideas and theories; it is responsible for taking the products of research houses and turning them into marketable products.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

ci, be serious, dollars spent on research in no way indicates results are proportional to dollars spent. Fact is, I bet it is not even close. Another bet, I bet alot of things are refined and improved in products without research dollars being spent, or at least with very little spent. It may be somebody in the field, such as an oil drilling engineer that determines something works better with a drilling technique, so they use the idea to increase efficiencies, no research done to accomplish it, it is accomplished during active projects being carried out.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, You're just jerking off again. I'm not going to tell you why you are wrong, because it doesn't help you in any way to wake up to the realities.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Universities specialize in theoretical research; that is, research which leads to entirely new techniques, new ideas, new physical methods of doing things, totally new processes. Most avenues of research along these lines are dead ends; we spend a lot of time proving what can't be done. Companies are loathe to sink money into this, because the ROI isn't very high unless you get lucky. So, most of this research is done in Universities and government-funded labs. Cycloptichorn

Dollars spent do not predict results, cyclops. How efficient is university research? I am betting alot of it isn't, it is more a case of job security, a way to fund your job, do a little work, write a report, and thats about it. Get a grant to fund your job for another year or two, that is always nice, but often it is a waste of money. Perhaps companies are loathe to sink money into useless pursuits. When I worked for an oil company, they had a research group, but research was directed into areas that the company found to be highly needed because of their particular problems and challenges in the ongoing projects and businesses. Universities have no constraints, they may go off on any tangent that fits their fancy, whether it is applicable or not. Granted, some things may be discovered, it may be nice to not be constrained by anything but your imagination, but the percentage of successes may not be that great, compared to industry efforts, or efforts of entrepeneurs and inventors.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The 'free market' isn't responsible for basic research and the invention of brand new ideas and theories; it is responsible for taking the products of research houses and turning them into marketable products.

Cycloptichorn

I think you are dead wrong on that one. The free market not only turns other people's discoveries into products, it also discovers stuff as well.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie doesn't understand that basic research is necessary to remain competitive in the world marketplace. That's what has driven our economy for the longest period of economic activity, and the world followed suit.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie doesn't understand that basic research is necessary to remain competitive in the world marketplace. That's what has driven our economy for the longest period of economic activity, and the world followed suit.

What you do not understand is who primarily drives discovery, invention, and innovation, also perfection of a technology? I think it is not government, although they are involved to some extent. I decided to look at solar panels as an example, and I think my argument is demonstrated. Improvements and innovation on solar technologies continue today, I believe primarily by market driven forces that encourage alternatives to other competing energy industries. Government spends alot of money on research, and our space program has provided incentives for further work, but it seems as though private enterprise has provided most of the progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Ohl

"Russell Shoemaker Ohl (January 1898 - March 1987) was an American engineer who is generally recognized for patenting the modern solar cell (US Patent 2402662, "Light sensitive device"). Ohl was a notable semiconductor researcher prior to the invention of the transistor. He is also known as Russell Shoemaker Ohl or R.S. Ohl.

Russell Ohl’s specialized area of research was into the behavior of certain types of crystals. He worked on materials research in the 1930’s at AT&T's Bell Labs’ Holmdel facility, investigating diode detectors suitable for high-frequency wireless, broadcasting, and military radar. His work was only understood by a handful of scientists in the organization, one of whom was Dr. Walter Brattain (one of the trio who invented the germanium bipolar transistor in 1947, and who would be awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1956).

Ohl, in 1939, discovered the PN barrier (or as it became known, the “P"N junction”). At the time hardly anyone knew anything about the impurities within these crystals, but Russell Ohl discovered the mechanism by which it worked. It was the impurities which made some sections more resistant to electrical flow than others, and thus it was the "barrier" between these areas of different purity that made the crystal work. Ohl later found that super-purifying germanium was the key to making repeatable and usable semiconductor material for diodes. All diodes (incl. LEDs, laser diodes etc) are descendants of Ohl's work. His work with diodes led him later to develop the first silicon solar cells."

Later, G.L. Pearson, C.S. Fuller, and D.M. Chapin developed a solar battery at Bell Labs:

http://www.computerhistory.org/semiconductor/timeline/1954-Diffusion.html

"Beginning in 1952 Bell Labs chemist Calvin Fuller demonstrated how impurities could be introduced into germanium and then silicon by exposing them to high-temperature gases containing desired dopants. By adjusting the time and temperature of exposure, he could precisely control the amount of impurities introduced and their penetration depth to accuracies of better than one micrometer " far better than achievable with grown-junction techniques.

Working with engineer Daryl Chapin and physicist Gerald Pearson in early 1954, Fuller diffused a layer of boron atoms into wafers of n-type silicon, forming large-area p-n junctions just beneath the surface. By shining light on these junctions, they generated a strong electric current via the photovoltaic effect discovered by Ohl in 1940, (1940 Milestone) getting energy conversion efficiencies up to 6 percent. Bell Labs announced this solar cell, dubbed the "Solar Battery," on 26 April 1954. By the late 1950s, solar cells were powering rural telephone systems and space satellites."

Perfections of the technology continued, one being:
"1969: Bell scientists adapt solar principles to translate electronic data into light energy, leading to the charge-coupled device, or CCD, now used in digital cameras and the Internet."
http://www.porticus.org/bell/belllabs_photovoltaics.html

1 Reply

@okie,

Another example: wind turbines, it appears entrepeneurs of private enterprise did the vast majority of the work early on, much of it from Danish companies. I link some information on that. Later, government research and private companies have both worked to perfect designs, etc., but I think it is clear that this industry thrives and is growing not because of government, but because of entrepeneurs and private industry. The industry will certainly grow as it proves its value against competing energy producing sources, probably primarily by private companies in competition with one another, unless government intervention causes too many unintended consequences in the industry.

http://www.windpower.org/en/pictures/brush.htm
"Wind Energy Pioneer: Charles F. Brush
The Forgotten Wind Turbine Pioneer
All photographs on this page copyright © the Charles F. Brush Special Collection, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Charles F. Brush (1849-1929) is one of the founders of the American electrical industry.
He invented e.g. a very efficient DC dynamo used in the public electrical grid, the first commercial electrical arc light, and an efficient mehod for manufacturing lead-acid batteries. His company, Brush Electric in Cleveland, Ohio, was sold in 1889 and in 1892 it was merged with Edison General Electric Company under the name General Electric Company (GE).

http://www.windpower.org/en/pictures/lacour.htm
"The Wind Energy Pioneer - Poul la Cour
Poul la Cour

Askov Folk High School still exists. Presently a non-profit association, the Poul la Cour Museum, is trying to collect funds to preserve Poul la Cour's original windmill Photographs © 2000 Poul la Cour Museet Poul la Cour (1846-1908) who was originally trained as a meteorologist was the pioneer of modern electricity generating wind turbines.
La Cour was one of the pioneers of modern aerodynamics, and built his own wind tunnel for experiments.
The picture shows Poul la Cour and his wife Christine at Askov. ( 49K JPEG )
La Cour was concerned with the storage of energy, and used the electricity from his wind turbines for electrolysis in order to produce hydrogen for the gas light in his school.
One basic drawback of this scheme was the fact that he had to replace the windows of several school buildings several times, as the hydrogen exploded due to small amounts of oxygen in the hydrogen(!)
Class of 1904
La Cour gave several courses for wind electricians each year at Askov Folk High School. This picture shows the group graduating in 1904.

http://www.windpower.org/en/pictures/fifties.htm
The Wind Energy Pioneers - 1940-1950
The F.L. Smidth Turbines
During World War II the Danish engineering company F.L. Smidth (now a cement machinery maker) built a number of two- and three-bladed wind turbines.
Yes, Danish wind turbine manufacturers have actually made two-bladed wind turbines, although the so-called "Danish concept" is a three bladed machine.
All of these machines (like their predecessors) generated DC (direct current).

http://www.windpower.org/en/pictures/juul.htm
The Wind Energy Pioneers: The Gedser Wind Turbine
Johannes Juul and the Vester Egesborg Turbines
The engineer Johannes Juul was one of the first students of Poul La Cour in his courses for "Wind Electricians" in 1904.
In the 1950s J. Juul became a pioneer in developing the world's first alternating current (AC) wind turbines at Vester Egesborg, Denmark. (57K JPEG)
The Gedser Wind Turbine

Gedser is a good, windy area located at the southern tip of the island of Falster in Denmark.The concrete tower of the Gedser turbine is still there after 50 years, although it is now equipped with a modern Danish wind turbine nacelle The innovative 200 kW Gedser wind turbine (35K JPEG) was built in 1956-57 by J. Juul for the electricity company SEAS at Gedser coast in the Southern part of Denmark.

1 Reply

Here is another interesting subject, hybrid cars: Again, entrepeneurs and companies leading the way. Also, there is the fascinating episode about an almost forgotten inventor, Victor Wouk, whose hybrid invention was apparently squashed by none other than the government bureaucracy in 1974, according to the following website!!!

http://www.hybridcars.com/history.html
100th Anniversary of First US Hybrid Car Patent

Happy Birthday, Hybrids! You may not have known it, but March 2 is the 100th anniversary of the granting of the first US patent for what was called the “Mixed Drive for Autovehicles.” Henri Pieper, a German-born inventor and gunmaker in Belgium, submitted his application on November 23, 1905"and was granted a US patent on March 2, 1909

http://www.hybridcars.com/history/hermance-toyota-hybrid-guru.html
Hermance was widely regarded as Toyota's hybrid guru in North America. He was responsible for advanced technology vehicle communication for the North American market, and emission regulatory activities in California. Hermance joined Toyota in 1991; from 1985 to 1991 he served as Department Head for Durability Test Development at General Motors. He joined G.M. in 1965, serving in a variety of roles in the Vehicle Emissions Laboratory from 1971-1985. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from the General Motors Institute in Flint, Michigan.

.....

Hermance: I am the native English speaker who presents hybrid technologies so folks can better understand it. The father of Toyota’s hybrid technology is a fellow in Japan by the name of Dr. Yaegashi. I’m kind of his stepson, if you will. There have been other phrasings, but I’m the American face of Toyota’s hybrid technology.

http://www.hybridcars.com/history/the-great-hybrid-car-cover-up-of-74.html
Thirty years before the Toyota Prius got the attention of an energy-anxious nation, a starry-eyed inventor named Victor Wouk built a hybrid gas-electric vehicle that sipped fuel at half the rate of virtually all other cars on the road.

And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tested Wouk’s vehicle, certified that it met the strict guidelines for an EPA clean-air auto program"and rejected it out of hand.

The story about the vehicle and its inventor, who died in May, 2005, at age 86, is unknown among even the most diehard fans of today’s burgeoning hybrid car movement. One might conclude that in fact America was ahead of all other countries in hybrid car science"three decades ahead"but squashed it under the weight of the federal bureaucracy.
“The government program I was on to develop hybrids was more secret than Los Alamos and the atom bomb. There was a program, but nobody knows anything about it now,” Wouk said in an interview one year before his passing.

The story of the 1974 prototype hybrid car pits Wouk against an EPA bureaucrat, Eric Stork, head of EPA's Mobile Source Air Pollution Control Program from 1970 until 1978. Stork was highly skeptical that any inventor or backyard tinkerer could produce a feasible low-emission vehicle. Stork recently stated, “It never happened.”

What certainly did happen is that the EPA in 1974 ran an obscure research program called the Federal Clean Car Incentive Program. Wouk, whose enthusiasm for gas-electric hybrids bordered on fanaticism, shared the passion of many amateur auto inventors of the 1960s and 1970s who sought to create an everyday car that belched far fewer toxic fumes than contemporary vehicles.

Wouk’s design, which he built with his partner, Charlie Rosen, easily could be lost to history. But since more than 200,000 hybrid gas-electric vehicles will be bought in the United States this year, the story of Wouk’s invention is required reading for anyone interested in our quest to wring more performance out of gallon of gasoline. And with the national average price of gas hovering around $2.60 a gallon, who isn’t?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, You can provide as many links to who did what, but basic research is necessary for any economy of this world to remain competitive. People learn basic research at colleges and universities, and many of those are funded through the federal government.

Innovation comes from research; it's the source for creating all those inventions you listed. Without research, our country will fall economically. The economically strongest countries in the world was made possible through research.

You have the bad habit of looking at the detail without understanding the global picture; you should study what happened to the computer industry from its very beginning to current generation of the computer industry to learn about why many other countries are now competing in this industry.

First, they needed the educated work force in math and science. What followed should be obvious to most people; from vacuum tubes to solid state, the advances could not have progressed without research.

Fortunately for the US, we had the financial backing to start companies with the right mix of educated scientists and entrepreneur's. The industry grew, because we were able to recruit the best and brightest from all around the world, and we lead the world in high tech and biotech. Without basic research, those industries would have stagnated and died or other countries would have taken over the lead in these industries.

Silicon Valley where I live has one of the highest educated populations in the world, and some the highest paid. Internationally, California is ratred the sixth or seventh richest country in the world - even today. Some of the world's biggest tech companies are in our neighborhood including Google, Yahoo, Apple, Hewlett Packard, Cisco, National Semiconductor, IBM, Sandisk, Norton, and many companies including some relatively small ones. We are the high tech manufacturing center of the US.

From UCLA.edu.

Quote:

Economic Prosperity Through Science & Engineering Research
U.S. Leadership Narrowing Across Key Indicators

SOURCE: Council on Competitiveness

U.S. Share of Global Output
U.S. Leadership Narrows Across Key Indicators:
Declines Across the Board in Global Share
R&D Investment
America’s economic recovery requires more federal investment in basic scientific research. Overall scientific research and development (R&D) promotes economic development, job growth, national security, competitiveness and global leadership. Recent efforts to double our investment in R&D over a ten-year period may help turn
the tide, but U.S. leadership continues to narrow across a
broad range of indicators when compared to the rest of the world.
A National Science Foundation (NSF) study found that 73% of the science papers cited in industry patents were funded by taxpayers through the federal government, especially university research operations.1
California contractors earned $14.26 billion in federal R&D contract expenditures in FY 2008, with approximately1,496 contractors involved.2 This amount does not include federal grants and loans for R&D activities. Information and charts on this page demonstrate the importance of federal investment in R&D to California’s economy, and its future in the global marketplace.

okie, Let me see you refute these findings by UCLA.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

ci, I have never disputed that research is necessary, in fact many of the links that I cited about solar, wind and the hybrid car documents tons of research. However, what I documented was alot of discovery and progress by entrepeneurs and inventors either working on their own, or for private companies. There is no doubt that government research or government funded research accomplishes a great deal, but what I am pointing out is that private enterprise is I think a bigger driver of progress, without question. So you either do not seem to comprehend what I have written, or you purposely distort it. Get it through your thick head that government and private enterprise both contribute, but my argument is that private enterprise is the greater contributor. And I have cited direct evidence.

And all you have to do is compare countries like North Korea and South Korea, to see which one has been the most innovative after they went their separate ways, one relying totally upon government, the other relying principally on free markets, entrepeneurship, and innovation outside of government. Compare their gdps if you don't believe it.

2 Replies

@okie,

North Korea and South Korea, I think provide an excellent real life case study of how totally government run research fares against free market innovation, discovery, and progress. They have a similar cultural pool of people, the primary difference is political and economic system.

"Even with last year's extraordinary growth, North Korea's gross domestic product was 1/38 of South Korea's $935 billion and its trade volume was 1/224 of the South's $857.3 billion in 2008. As long as North Korea's reclusive leader Kim Jong Il refuses to open up his country, the gap is bound to keep expanding."

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know