The 00s come to an end

And there's a lot of wasted energy from wireless electricity.
It's getting much more efficient all the time though.

I don't know if this is going to take off big time or not, but I wouldn't dismiss it as quickly as some here seem to be. The technology is still in its early days but the potential really is huge for some applications...

I remember people slagging off wireless networks for similar reasons - computers don't move, what use would that be, it's slow, it's inefficient... and look where it is today ;)
 
It's getting much more efficient all the time though.

I don't know if this is going to take off big time or not, but I wouldn't dismiss it as quickly as some here seem to be. The technology is still in its early days but the potential really is huge for some applications...

I remember people slagging off wireless networks for similar reasons - computers don't move, what use would that be, it's slow, it's inefficient... and look where it is today ;)

good point!!

personally, I agree I don't see the buzz for wireless energy right now...

what's the point of having the TV without wires if you just have to put the base station that radiated the energy behind the TV that you want to connect without wires anyway!!

where I could perhaps see a lift for this technology is if houses are built with this technology in mind.

and by that I mean with a massive induction loop built into the floors, so all you have to do is lay your devices induction loop down and it'll magically charge!

you've got a massive induction loop in the floor, so all you have to do it put your phone on the table to charge it.

you can put your TV on any table because there is an induction loop in the base that will convert the required energy for the device...

same for radios and laptops, all you have to do is put your laptop on the table and it'll start charging.

-the most massive hurdle to this technology (I believe) won't actually be the efficiency of the technology, it would be the specifications.

especially in this new smaller world where people travel a lot,
in America you'll have 120V induction loops, and a corresponding amount of loops in your phone to create a 5v charge,
in Britain we'll have 240v loops and our devices will get a 5v charge.

so come over here and your devices will get a 10v charge, we go there and we don't get enough charge...

continental Europe have a 220v system. to further muddy the waters.

Also, when you start talking about powering devices wireless using induction loops you'll also find that every RFID tag that you have about your person will also become active.

(and there are a couple in my wallet now to allow door entry to offices), these will be constantly transmitting, making it easier for people to gather clones for these devices.



Anyway... my predictions for the next ten years...

Firstly, I predict that the current war in Afghanistan will last at least the next half of the decade.
so I'm predicting that military tech will continue to move along at a significant rate -war is very good at pushing technological boundaries.

thus I suspect that we will see...

invisibility/obfuscation camouflage. -intelligent camo, there are already some people that have developed light bending materials to hide things, I predict that these will start to be deployed for the purpose of hiding military vehicles.

Wireless electricity, we're seeing it emerging now, I can envisage that towards the end of the decade this tech will be in every home, I suspect however that this may only be in the form of charging pads/table tops where you put your phone/mp3 player down and it charges via induction rather than needing to be plugged in.

electric vehicles, there are a couple now, but I suspect that electric vehicles will be a lot more widespread by the end of the decade.

Green politics...
Firstly, I think that there will be a lot of miss-representations cleared up.
certainly there are a lot of people now who say a few different things,
1, peak oil crisis, certainly it is true that if we use fossil fuels at a rate faster than they are created, we will without doubt run out of them. -but nobody knows how fast they are created. also we don't know how many pockets of usable carbon based fossil fuels exist.
2, CO2 global warming, there is still very little proof that the world is warming up as a result of human activity, certainly scientist have also said that other planets are also warming up, even though there are no civilisations [that we know of] creating co2 there.
I guess the debate will rage on, and we'll get policy based on it... which I predict will be as such...

renewable energies:
I'm a big believer in micro generation being the answer to this problem -if the problem even exists, indeed I believe that 60 million small 2kw wind turbines given to every man woman and child in the UK
then that's one hundred and twenty thousand mega watts of electricity generated.
(three hundred million for American population) is going to do a lot more than a handful of wind turbine farms scattered across the country.

combine this too with solar heaters, and I think that it'll be very possible to reduce the energy needs and you might not even need this amount of wind turbines at all!

solar power,
Solar power will take off, but I don't think that it will be in the form of solar panels, rather power will be generated in existing heat furnaces, just with the fuel source being the sun, rather than coal/gas etc...

In this respect I think that equatorial countries (that have the advantage of very little seasonal change regarding day light hours and an abundance of very hot sunshine) can become new world energy powers. for a lot of these countries it's about the only thing that they have, (abundance of free energy).

community heating.
sounds very socialist, but I believe that where there are power stations and computer data centres that currently waste the heat produced in such facilities to the elements with cooling towers/air conditioning radiators. then this 'waste' energy will start to be used more productively, so rather than a cooling tower, you'll have a cooling loop providing heating to homes within the vicinity of a power station.

green computers,
I also think that there will be a bigger shift to low power computing rather than faster computing over the coming decade. the average home computer doesn't need 4 cores of of massive computing power when all the average home user is doing is surfing the internet and emailing their family.
so I think that the next big shift made in earnest will be towards lower powered computing rather than faster computing. (the fact that there may be kick backs associated with this will help!).





I also predict, (due to 64bit tech) the unix 32bit epoc time roll over date 'bug' will come and go without incident.

further to this 21st December 2012 will come and go without incident, after all the Mayan calendar reverting to 13.0.0.0.0 is actually just a rollover bug in a counting system.
 
electric vehicles, there are a couple now, but I suspect that electric vehicles will be a lot more widespread by the end of the decade.
I actually think we'll start to see hydrogen powered vehicles emerge and make an impact, and I think the jostle for victory will be between those and straight electric based cars.

Looking on things currently, hydrogen has many advantages over electricity - it'd be stored in a tank that wouldn't need to be replaced unless a hole appeared in it (and it'd be relatively cheap to replace if one did emerge.) Compare that to current battery technology which would mean a hugely expensive bank of batteries would need to be replaced every few years or so. There's also more power available in terms of the storage space it requires, and that's getting better all the time. Battery technology isn't increasing at anywhere near the same rate.

The only real disadvantage that I can see is you'd still have to go to a petrol station to fill it up - rather than just charging it from the mains at your house. That said, that could again act as something to drive it forward (companies like BP and Shell may well sponsor its development if it means they'll still have a share of the market when it comes out!)

True, battery technology could get better and lessen those disadvantages - but they will still be there, and we're talking about a completely new technology here that's still got lots to get out of it. Batteries have been around a long while and I doubt we're suddenly going to see a huge surge in their capacity...

Honda have already shown us cars like the FCX clarity that run on hydrogen and, well, it works as a normal car (and it's developing stupidly quickly.) You're not talking about a top speed of 40 mph and a range of about 5 metres, you're talking 0-60 in 10 seconds and a range of approaching 200 miles. How many electric cars (which in comparison have been out a while) can boast those figures?

My personal view is that people will start to see straight battery powered electric based cars aren't the way forward, and that hydrogen powered ones are instead...:)

In terms of mass energy generation? Doing everything from renewable sources would be fantastic, but having done the research I believe this just isn't feasible with technology as it is at the moment. It'll still be pushed, but i don't think it will take over conventional power stations for a heck of a long time yet.

My view is that we should have gone, and stayed, nuclear. It really is a brilliant technology with few drawbacks - and I for one am a bit sick of eco-mentalists shouting it down just because "I don't understand it and doesn't it leave some nasty stuff behind?" Said people don't seem to realise that had we invested time and money in nuclear in the first place, most of the original problems will have most likely be overcome through advances in the technology anyway...

Oh and I also believe the world will end in 2012.



...not. Hey, it's possible, but no more likely than today, tomorrow or in the next 5 seconds. I do believe every other person will get all hot up about it though...!
 
kind of a good question, indeed, most religions have their own calendar:
today (23rd december 2009) is
jewish year: 5770
isliamic year: 1431 AH -though it's not as simple as just adding a year by this time next year as the Islamic calendar is based on lunar cycles to make months, (of which there are 12 in the year).


you added when you should have subtracted, because it was in times of AD on BC when the islamic calendar started.
but would have still been wrong for the reasons above regarding lunar cycles and years.
the Islamic calendar was also started In 638 (the year 17 AH), (e.g Mohammed came to Mecca in 621AD).
if you do the sums 2009 - 621 you still get 1388, and the year is actually 1431 on that calendar. the small differences with have a 12 lunar month calendar, compared to the 28/29/30/31 day Gregorian calendar add up over time, this is also why Islamic religious festivals start at different times of year each year, (e.g the month of Ramadan moves slightly closer to the summer each year).



the mayans didn't even call it 2012, they didn't have a time for 2012. you've fundamentally missed the point of how different calendaring systems work.

the Mayan calendar was worked out by Mayan astronomers, and key events co-inside with celestial events.
the astronomers had a rather good accuracy and understanding of the science of astronomy and the physics, orbits etc. and they "predicted" all the major celestial events, based on their observations for a long time.

the reason that people *say* that the world will end in 2012 is that it is when the Mayan calendar stops.

and why does the calendar stop?
in 2012 there will be a major celestial event, and this will be in the form of plants aligning. this may or may not have an effect on the earth, but I doubt it'll mean the end of civilisation.
HOWEVER, the Mayans MAY HAVE believed that it would be the end of the third creation of the world. -but it's unlikely.

There is no evidence of that. in fact it may have just been a time that the planets were aligning and time for a big party!

indeed there are apparently Mayan dates written for a period in the future AFTER this date, which kinda rubbishes the idea that the world will end then...

why is it 2012? that's just the translation of the date, scientists have looked at the mayan calendar and observed the predictions that they made, as they predicted something on a certain date, and that thing happened on a certain date we can say with some assurance that that particular day in the Gregorian calendar that we use IS a date in the Mayan calendar, (whatever name of day/week/month/lunar cycle/celestial body movement/year/period/season etc) that they used.

the same as we (based on simple counting we can say that it's the year and day Tevet 6, 5770* in the Jewish calendar.

and tomorrow it'll be tevet 7, 5770.

tevet 6 5770 = December 23rd 2009
tevet 7 5770 = December 24th 2009

the date in the Mayan calendar that (they believed that the world would end) is either 31st or 23rd december 2012 (in the Gregorian calendar).

this is 13.0.0.0.0 in the mayan calendar.

the day before is 12.19.19.17.19.

also the Mayans didn't just start their calendar at the arbitrary date of when they thought that a religious leader that may have existed might have been born. like we did with the Gregorian calendar. they back dated their calendar to when they thought the start of creation was.

for more reading on the Mayan calendar visit:


http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/humanorigins/calendarsystem.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon

Thanks for clarifying that. ;D
 
Only 9 days left in the decade... wow, it's been quite the 10 years, especially in technology.

What's everyone's plans/general predictions (for the world;) ) in 2010-2019?

I think 3D gaming and 3D TV could be the next major milestone after HD. Alot of movies are out in 3D now and nvidia has some support for games
 
mayaend.jpg

Mystery Solved
 
Yeah, that should be fun.

I heard the local church is talking about getting "ready" for "God coming home", which is apparently set to happen in 2012 now. :D

lol what happened to nobody being able to predict the end of the world?


My view is that we should have gone, and stayed, nuclear. It really is a brilliant technology with few drawbacks - and I for one am a bit sick of eco-mentalists shouting it down just because "I don't understand it and doesn't it leave some nasty stuff behind?" Said people don't seem to realise that had we invested time and money in nuclear in the first place, most of the original problems will have most likely be overcome through advances in the technology anyway...

Oh and I also believe the world will end in 2012.



...not. Hey, it's possible, but no more likely than today, tomorrow or in the next 5 seconds. I do believe every other person will get all hot up about it though...!

I would have to agree with all of that. Most (if not all) of the problems with nuclear energy have already been overcome.
 
I actually think we'll start to see hydrogen powered vehicles emerge and make an impact, and I think the jostle for victory will be between those and straight electric based cars.

Battery cars are actually better. They've made pickup trucks that can go 60 miles on a single charge with an empty engine compartment (tink generator, or a real engine). To do that with hydrogen vehicle, you'd need a HUGE tank, which would be changed at nearly 3K PSI. Just think about the ford pinto, times a million. Hydrogen isn't gonna get put in our cars.
 
Back
Top Bottom