Category Archives: Technology

The Hyperloop: BUSTED!

All the problems of deep space travel, bought down to the surface of the planet, such that you can travel about the speed of a bullet within a couple of cm of a gun barrel.

Sadly almost no one in the main stream media assessed this stuff critically from a scientific/ engineering point of view. They just took them at their word when they said they could construct the completely untested large scale hyperloop for 1/10th the cost of a regular high speed rail connection.

They took them at their word when they said it would only cost 20 bux, and take on 25 minutes. In reality the engineering problems are probably insurmountable. It would be like proposing a floating roadway across the Mediterranean or something.

US F-35 Reportedly Starts to Crumble in Okinawa in ‘Routine Training Mission’

F-35

The reputation of the most expensive plane in history has once again been tarnished.

The F-35, a fifth-generation US stealth fighter, lost part of its fuselage, during a “routine training mission” near Kadena Air Base in Japan, according to the Defense News.

The incident, which occurred east of Okinawa on November 30, was reported by Japanese media at the time, but it wasn’t until December 4 that US Air Force officials confirmed the report.

The loss of one of the plane’s panels, measuring approximately 12 inches (30 centimeters) by 24 inches (60 centimeters), was noticed by the F-35’s wingman as the aircraft was in the process of landing.

Specialists suggested that the panel was broken during the flight, given the fact that the F-35 was thoroughly inspected ahead of the takeoff.

It is still unclear whether the replacement of the lost part of the plane’s fuselage will be possible without compromising its flight safety.

The F-35 Lightning II is the second US fifth-generation fighter after the F-22 Raptor.

The program to create the F-35 is estimated to have cost about one and a half trillion dollars, something that turns this fighter jet into the world’s most expensive aircraft.

The project has repeatedly been slammed, including by US President Donald Trump, over a whole array of technical problems.

READ MORE: All Gloat, No Glory: Trump Misleads Public on F-35 Program Savings

In October, representatives of the US Air Force were cited as saying that many F-35 pilots had symptoms of oxygen deficit.

In November, US government officials said that the US Defense Department refused to accept the delivery of F-35s between September 21 and October 20 after finding “corrosion exceeding technical limits” around fasteners holding the planes’ exterior coatings to their airframes.

Joseph Stiglitz Calls For The Use Of Violence Against Peaceful Bitcoin Users On State Propaganda TV

If someone has won a Nobel prize and they are regularly on television programming, you can be assured that they are a shill for the globalist system whose role is to keep people enslaved.

 

In fact, at this point, Nobel prize winners should likely be some of the first people targeted in the upcoming bitcoin assassination markets.
Just look at Nobel peace prize winner, Barack Drone Bomber, who did not have one day of peace his entire presidency as one ridiculous example.
Or Nobel prize in economics winner, Paul Krugman, who is certifiably insane and whose list of demented ideas include making a $1 trillion coin to get around the debt ceiling and faking an alien invasion to boost the economy!
Now, Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, who never saw government intervention and the use of its violence that he didn’t like, has come forward with his thoughts on bitcoin.

 

If you don’t want to lose more brain cells than a lifelong Mike Tyson sparring partner, then I warn you not to watch that video.
It is basically two manifest morons who know nothing about economics or cryptocurrencies trying to use big words, bow ties and act like they know something about economics and cryptocurrencies.
The first thing Stiglitz said was, “One of the main functions of government is to create currency.”
Yes, he is already in the wrong starting with the opening sentence. Governments rarely create currency… that is usually done by the central banks.
But government did not invent money or currency. And it is not government’s role to issue it or regulate it. The market invented money as a way to solve the barter problem.
Just like the market created bitcoin in order to get around the fraudulent monetary system, which the government took over as a scheme… another way to tax us… a way to shuffle wealth and investment to Wall Street… a way for the banks to expand their assets… a way for the military industrial complex to advance its goals. The elastic dollar can be stretched in these ways.
That aside, there is no legitimate function of government. Government is an illicit criminal organization that extorts groups of people in a certain geographical area.
In any case, Stiglitz was obviously told by his handlers what his role was in this interview as he barely got in two sentences before stating that bitcoin should be outlawed!
As I mentioned earlier, Stiglitz has never seen anything in which using government violence isn’t the answer… and that’s why he was given the Nobel prize and why he is featured on the television mind programming regularly.
And, why should it be outlawed? According to Stiglitz, bitcoin should be outlawed because it doesn’t serve any “useful social functions.”
But that’s like saying money serves none either.
He doesn’t understand the value of decentralization because he sees the market as the root of all evil and like all Marxists believes it is unstable and needs regulating.
Which is interesting because then this interview between two morons took a turn into the bizarre.
Considering that Stiglitz is essentially a Marxist, Tom Keene, the Bloomberg host, then attacked bitcoin saying investors are relying on Marx’s “theory of value” and going back to “middle Marxian” theories to determine bitcoin’s value.
What Marx was getting at with that term is that exchange value is an “objective” value, like a money price, which can be different than its actual underlying use value, usually because of speculators and capitalist exploitation. He tended to explain away this “exchange value” as notional and as a reason to suppress trade and exchange.
The host interviewing Stiglitz did not seem to be able to distinguish between that and the subjective value theory of goods that was contributed to economics by Menger, Mises, and the Austrian School. Marx believed that all the value belonged to labor and that value itself owed to labor, that it derived from labor, which came from the erroneous classical school view that value derived from the costs that go into production.
So it was somewhat ironic that the Marxian host questioned a neo-classical economist about why the free market was adopting a Marxian theory, when in fact it is actually adopting the subjective theory of value that neither a Marxian nor Classical economist would ever understand, but which has come to dominate economic thinking in the modern day.
In this theory, value and exchange value are synonymous, and not Marxian in that value is derived from the utility of the good to its consumers and users, and not according to costs or how much labor went into its creation.
But money is a different good altogether, which neither Marx nor the Classical school understood at all. It is the only good whose value does not rely solely on its utility to consumers or capital, but whose value relies on the fact that it already has a price.
The service that money provides is as a store of purchasing power (not wealth), and its value relies on what other goods it can buy.
The guy in the video was basically trying to say that exchange value meant that bitcoin had no real value, and relied on the greater fool theory, which is a crude and bad understanding of how money does increase in value, and why.
In the case of bitcoin, what the free market is actually adopting is the subjective value theory.
And so, to summarize.
Stiglitz incorrectly believes government’s role is to issue currency. Therefore, he thinks government should use violence to “outlaw” bitcoin. And, the two buffoons think that the reason bitcoin is trading at such high levels is because investors are relying on Marxist theories, when, in fact, they are the Marxists and bitcoin investors are relying on Austrian, free market, subjective value theory.
In other words, the entire interview was misinformation, wrong assumptions and calling for acts of violence against computer code and those who believe it has value.
These guys don’t even know what they are talking about, but if you were to have listened to them over the last few years, you would have missed out on the biggest investment returns in the history of the world.
Hopefully, you are smart and just use your TV as a computer monitor now to access things like The Dollar Vigilante and only watch propaganda like Bloomberg or CNBC solely for a good laugh.
To get access to our twice-monthly newsletter, regular alerts, worldwide community and numerous bitcoin and gold investment related books, click HERE.

 

Why Bitcoin-Mining May Be Elon Musk’s Next Big Problem…

If you thought Tesla was burning cash now, wait until this latest scheme goes mainstream…

As EcoMotoringNews.com reports, some creative Tesla owners came up with a way to make a few bucks from their parked EVs: Cryptocurrency mining.

This raises questions that shouldn’t just be aimed at bitcoin mining, or even electric vehicles.

For those unfamiliar, cryptocurrencies only work because there is a network of distributed computing that processes the transactions. To reward those offering the computing power, cryptocurrencies give fractions of new bitcoins to those who did the work of running the network. This is referred to as “mining” bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. This was an expensive and power-hungry task that could wear out computer components much faster than usual.

Initially, many doing this used high-end graphics processing units, but as the money earned per device diminished, miners turned to specialized computer units, called ASICs, to do the task faster with less electricity. But the units are still not free and they still can use kilowatts of electricity for a handful of them. To reduce the overall cost of running mining computers, some miners put the computers throughout their homes to act as small space heaters and reduce their heating bill. Others run their rigs on solar panels to avoid a monthly power cost.

Any source of electricity you don’t have to pay the normal rate for, or that you don’t have to pay for at all, is an opportunity for miners to increase their already thin profits. Teslas and other EVs have free access to power at many charging stations, so it was probably only a matter of time until somebody decided to plug their mining computers in.

One member of the Tesla Owners Worldwide on Facebook suggested the idea, possibly in jest. Then another owner went ahead and did it, posting a photo of his setup (above). Some members suggested that his setup could pull as much as 3 kilowatts of power and would probably require the vehicle’s air conditioning to be on for cooling. Other members raised ethical questions.

Is it stealing to use the power for something other than driving?

On the one hand, this could be a good way to offset the cost of owning an electric vehicle. On the other hand, it lowers the efficiency of the vehicle and increases the environmental impact. But then again, the mining was going to be done somewhere anyway, so does it really? Will many EV owners do this? Will they do it at places they were going to charge anyway, or will there be opportunistic fleets of EVs blocking up charging stations to make a quick buck? How will charging station owners respond?

But really, these questions shouldn’t just be aimed at bitcoin mining. Computing power is going to be in higher and higher demand going forward. Self-driving cars are already running on graphics processing units like bitcoin miners once all used. Infotainment systems are getting more and more powerful, and that power needs to come from somewhere. Mobile devices used by passengers are going to need more and more power to charge. Even beyond that, there are “V2H” systems that can run a house on an electric vehicle’s battery, and that goes far beyond the tiny bit of power needed to run a few mining computers.

And these questions shouldn’t just be applied to electric vehicles. Many of these power strains will apply to hybrid, regular gas and regular diesel vehicles. Alternators, the parts that charge most car’s 12v batteries, are already a big part of the car’s fuel consumption. Ecomodding hobbyists have gained as much as 15% fuel efficiency by removing them, and that amount is only going to grow as more demand is placed on it. Some companies are suggesting waste heat recovery to generate the electricity needed for the future.

When we look at these wider power issues, it becomes clear that bitcoin mining is just a drop in the bucket. Even if a large number of EV owners did it, it would still be nothing compared to the other computing future cars will eventually be doing. Where that power is going to come from is a good question we shouldn’t just be aiming at the odd bitcoin miner.

There is just one thing preventing Elon Musk’s vision from coming true: The laws of physics

When Elon Musk stepped on stage at Tesla’s product-launch event earlier this month, he knew the market’s confidence in Tesla’s brand had sunk to an all-time low since he took over the company a decade ago. So, he resorted to a tactic that should be familiar to anybody who has been following the company: Shock and awe.

While the event was ostensibly scheduled to introduce Tesla’s new semi-truck – a model that won’t make it’s market debut for another two years, assuming Tesla sticks to its product-rollout deadline – Musk had a surprise in store: A new model of the Tesla Roadster that, he bragged, would be the fastest production car ever sold.

Musk made similarly lofty claims about the battery life and performance of both vehicles. The Tesla semi-trucks, he said, would be able to travel for 500 miles on a single charge. The roadster could clock a staggering 620 – more than double the closest challenger.

There was just one problem, as Tesla fans would later find out, courtesy of Bloomberg: None of it was true.

In fact, many of the promises defy the capabilities of modern battery technology.

Elon Musk knows how to make promises. Even by his own standards, the promises made last week while introducing two new Tesla vehicles—the heavy-duty Semi Truck and the speedy Roadster—are monuments of envelope pushing.

To deliver, according to close observers of battery technology, Tesla would have to far exceed what is currently thought possible.

Take the Tesla Semi: Musk vowed it would haul an unprecedented 80,000 pounds for 500 miles on a single charge, then recharge 400 miles of range in 30 minutes. That would require, based on Bloomberg estimates, a charging system that’s 10 times more powerful than one of the fastest battery-charging networks on the road today—Tesla’s own Superchargers.

The diminutive Tesla Roadster is promised to be the quickest production car ever built. But that achievement would mean squeezing into its tiny frame a battery twice as powerful as the largest battery currently available in an electric car.

These claims are so far beyond current industry standards for electric vehicles that they would require either advances in battery technology or a new understanding of how batteries are put to use, said Sam Jaffe, battery analyst for Cairn Energy Research in Boulder, Colorado. In some cases, experts suspect Tesla might be banking on technological improvements between now and the time when new vehicles are actually ready for delivery.

“I don’t think they’re lying,” Jaffe said. “I just think they left something out of the public reveal that would have explained how these numbers work.”

While Jaffe seems inclined to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt, there’s little, if anything, in Musk’s recent behavior to justify this level of credulity. In recent months, Musk has repeatedly suffered the humiliation of seeing his lies and half-truths exposed. For example, the self-styled “visionary” claimed during the unveiling of the Model 3 Sedan that he would have 1,500 copies of the new model ready for customers by the end of the third quarter. Instead, the company managed a meager 260 models as factory-line workers at its Fremont, Calif. factory struggled to assemble the vehicles by hand as the Model 3 assembly line hadn’t been completed.

Increasingly agitated customers who placed deposits with Tesla back in March 2016 have begun asking for refunds, only to be chagrined by the company’s sluggish response. While nobody in the mainstream press has (somewhat bafflingly) made the connection, Tesla revealed earlier this month that it burned an unprecedented $1.4 billion of cash during the third quarter – or roughly $16 million per day – despite Elon Musk’s assurance that Tesla had its “all-time best quarter” for Model S and X deliveries.

And let’s not forget the fiasco surrounding Tesla’s autopilot software. Musk has repeatedly exaggerated its performance claims. And customers who paid more than $8,000 for a software upgrade more than a year ago have been repeatedly disappointed by delays and sub-par performance.

Musk’s exaggerations about the Tesla Roadster were particularly egregious.

Tesla claims that its new $200,000 Roadster is the quickest production car ever made, clocking zero to 60 in 1.9 seconds. Even crazier is the car’s unprecedented battery range: some 620 miles on a single charge. That’s a longer range than any battery-powered vehicle on the road—almost twice as long as Tesla’s class-leading Model S and Model X.

To achieve such power and range, Musk said the tiny Roadster will need to pack a massive 200-kilowatt-hour battery. That’s twice the size of any battery Tesla currently has on the road. Musk has previously said he won’t be making the packs bigger on the Model S and Model X because of space constraints. So how can he double the pack size in the smaller Roadster.

BNEF’s Morsy has a twofold answer. First, he expects Tesla will probably double-stack battery packs, one on top of the other, beneath the Roadster’s floor. That creates some engineering problems for the battery-management system, but those should not be insurmountable. Still, Morsy said, the batteries required would be too large to fit in such a small frame.

“I really don’t think the car you saw last week had the full 200 kilowatt hours in it,” Morsy said. “I don’t think it’s physically possible to do that right now.”

Is it possible that, thanks to incremental improvements in battery density and cost, Musk somehow manages to hit these lofty targets? Perhaps, though, as Bloomberg points out, the fact that Musk is basing these claims on a set of projections that haven’t yet been realized is hardly confidence inspiring.

To be sure, there’s an important caveat to Musk’s claims. While they may be staggeringly exaggerated, there’s still the possibility that incremental improvements in battery technology will make these targets more feasible by the time the models hit the market.

Again, Musk may be banking on the future. While Tesla began taking deposits on the Roadster immediately—$50,000 for the base model—the first vehicles won’t be delivered until 2020. Meanwhile, battery density has been improving at a rate of 7.5 percent a year, meaning that by the time production starts, packs will be smaller and more powerful, even without a major breakthrough in battery chemistry.

“The trend in battery density is, I think, central to any claim Tesla made about both the Roadster and the Semi,” Morsy said. “That’s totally fair. The assumptions on a pack in 2020 shouldn’t be the same ones you use today.”

However, in its analysis of the feasibility of Musk’s claims, Bloomberg overlooked one crucial detail: Back in August, the company’s veteran director of battery technology, Kurt Kelty, unexpectedly resigned to “explore new opportunities,” abruptly ending a tenure with the company that stretched for more than a decade, and comes at a critical time for Elon Musk.

Kelty’s resignation – part of an exodus of high-level executives that is alarming in and of itself – hardly inspires confidence in Tesla’s ability to innovate. We’ve noticed a trend with Tesla: The more the company underdelivers, the more Musk overpromises.

In our opinion, this is not a sustainable business strategy.  

Via Zero Hedge

Tesla Is Blowing Through Half a Million Dollars Every Hour, Report Says

Tesla is fresh off a splashy reveal of its upcoming electric semi truck and a surprise unveiling of a world-beating new Tesla Roadster, but a new report from Bloomberg portends some trouble on the horizon if the company keeps burning cash at a rate of almost $500,000 every hour without more money from investors or a greater return from its fledgling Model 3. 

According to Bloomberg’s numbers, Tesla is currently going through about $8,000 a minute—extrapolated out, $480,000 every hour—as it continues to recover from the massive costs incurred during the development of its lower-priced, mass-market electric car. Additionally, Tesla has sunk billions into building out its Nevada Gigafactory, and will likely spend billions more to get the Semi and Roadster off the ground. At the current rate, Bloomberg estimates it will use up its entire stockpile of cash by August of next year.

Of course, that’s no sure thing. It is hard to take a snapshot of a company’s finances in a particularly turbulent moment and use it as an accurate barometer of the future. For one, the automaker will continue to build and sell the Model S and Model X. And despite several missed deadlines this year, CEO Elon Musk is still adamant that production of the Tesla Model 3 will be ramping up in earnest in the first quarter of 2018, and new agreements with suppliers will cut costs even further. Updated numbers haven’t been released yet, but just 440 Model 3s had been built by the end of October.

You Might Like
Tesla Model 3 Revealed
Tesla Model 3 Test
Tesla Model 3 — /CHEATSHEET
The Drive

Then there’s the biggest reason the company won’t run out of cash, at least not yet: Its practice of taking deposits for cars that haven’t been built yet. Despite the short sellers on Wall Street, Musk has no shortage of investors willing to give him money, but Tesla has also been buoyed by the 500,000 would-be Model 3 buyers who each plunked down $1,000 for a spot in line before the first prototype was even built, generating $500 million for the company. Reservations opened for both the Semi and the Roadster before last week’s presentation even finished—the latter of which requires a $50,000 deposit.

Still, it probably won’t be smooth sailing for Musk as he continues to chart a course toward an electric future, at least in the short term. Aside from the Model 3, the company will also be spending billions over the next few years to get the Tesla Semi and Roadster production lines off the ground. The company could also sell more equity to raise more cash, but Musk has previously been unwilling to dilute existing shareholders, including his personal 20 percent stake.

“Whether they can last another 10 months or a year, he needs money, and quickly,” Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Analyst Kevin Tynan said, adding that he believes Tesla will have to raise at least $2 billion in new capital by mid-2018 to stay afloat. A Tesla spokesman declined to comment on the record.

The Sibiu Manuscript—a 500-year-old text that describes multi-stage rockets

The Sibiu manuscript discovered in 1961, is a collection of around 450 pages that include among many other things, details of three-stage rockets and manned rocket flight.

Most of us are unaware of the fact that there are countless ancient manuscripts scattered across the globe, describing what many consider as improbable achievements of the past.

What would you say If I told you that there is an ancient manuscript that dates back nearly 500 years, and describes liquid fuel, multi-stage rockets, and even manned rockets?

You’d either say I’m crazy, or it’s just fake news.

*Have you noticed how people these days call out as fake news anything that they find hard to believe or goes against their belief system?

Anyway, the Sibiu manuscript is real, it’s not fake news, and it does, in fact, describe—among other things— liquid fuel and multi-stage rockets, and it was officially published in the 16th century, although many believe it was written using texts that go back further in time.

The Sibiu Manuscript was found in 1961 by Doru Todericiu, a professor of Science and Technology at the University of Bucharest. The manuscript contained around 450 pages which were recovered from the archives of the city of Sibiu, in Romania.

To the surprise of Todericiu, the ancient text was flooded with drawings and technical data on artillery, ballistics and detailed descriptions of multistage rockets.

Referred to as the Sibiu manuscript ever since, the ancient text is believed to have been written by a man called Conrad Haas, between 1550 and 1570.

Conrad Haas is believed to have been a military engineer who worked for the Kingdom of Hungary and the Principality of Transylvania.

The ancient manuscript origins aren’t very clear, nor are the origins of its author who according to historians is believed to have been born in either Austrian or Transylvania and became the head of the arsenal of the Austrian Empire under King Ferdinand I.

Description of a rocket by Conrad Haas. Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Sibiu manuscript, written entirely in German, was found to be a theoretical treatise on the construction of different types of weapons, including—for the first time in history—multistage rocket technology. It also includes details on the combination of fireworks with weapons, the design of fins in the shape of a hang glider as well as the creation of fuel mixtures with the use of liquid fuel.

It remains a mystery whether or not Haas managed to use his designs and put into practice, but there are some who claim that a rocket launch was carried out in Sibiu in 1550, but there is no documentary evidence to support these claims.

We do know from history that Johann Schmidlap, a 16th-century Bavarian fireworks maker, and rocket pioneer, was the first to experiment with two-stage and three-stage rockets around 1590.

Before the discovery of the Sibiu manuscript, the earliest details of a three-stage rocket was attributed to Kazimierz Siemienowicz, a Polish specialist in artillery, who published details about rocketry in his 1650 treatise Artis Magnae Artilleriae Pars Prima.

Conrad Haas wrote down a few interesting sentences in his manuscript in which he talks about the military use of rockets (translated):

“But my advice is for more peace and no war, leaving the rifles calmly in storage, so the bullet is not fired, the gunpowder is not burned or wet, so the prince keeps his money, the arsenal master his life; that is the advice Conrad Haas gives.”

Ivan
Ivan is editor-in-chief at ancient-code.com, he also writes for Universe Explorers. You may have seen him appear on the Discovery and History Channel.

Dear Android Users: Google Is Tracking You Even If You Disable Location Services

Slowly but surely, Americans have been conditioned to give up any expectations of privacy in the name of public safety and/or for simple technological conveniences.  However, there remains, even today, a tiny sliver of the population that would prefer to not have their every movement tracked no matter how antiquated that makes them look. Be that as it may, per a recent discovery from Quartz, those old-school folks better hope they haven’t been using an Android device for the past 11 months.

Many people realize that smartphones track their locations. But what if you actively turn off location services, haven’t used any apps, and haven’t even inserted a carrier SIM card?

Even if you take all of those precautions, phones running Android software gather data about your location and send it back to Google when they’re connected to the internet, a Quartz investigation has revealed.

Since the beginning of 2017, Android phones have been collecting the addresses of nearby cellular towers—even when location services are disabled—and sending that data back to Google. The result is that Google, the unit of Alphabet behind Android, has access to data about individuals’ locations and their movements that go far beyond a reasonable consumer expectation of privacy.

Quartz observed the data collection occur and contacted Google, which confirmed the practice.

Of course, the company that has been collecting your location data for nearly a year now without your knowledge, would like for you to know that you shouldn’t worry too much about your privacy because they can assure you the data was never “used or stored” and was only collected to help “improve the speed and performance of message delivery”….

The cell tower addresses have been included in information sent to the system Google uses to manage push notifications and messages on Android phones for the past 11 months, according to a Google spokesperson. They were never used or stored, the spokesperson said, and the company is now taking steps to end the practice after being contacted by Quartz. By the end of November, the company said, Android phones will no longer send cell-tower location data to Google, at least as part of this particular service, which consumers cannot disable.

“In January of this year, we began looking into using Cell ID codes as an additional signal to further improve the speed and performance of message delivery,” the Google spokesperson said in an email. “However, we never incorporated Cell ID into our network sync system, so that data was immediately discarded, and we updated it to no longer request Cell ID.”

Google

…you know, because wireless carriers haven’t quite figured out yet how to efficiently route data streams through network nodes just yet

It is not clear how cell-tower addresses, transmitted as a data string that identifies a specific cell tower, could have been used to improve message delivery. But the privacy implications of the covert location-sharing practice are plain. While information about a single cell tower can only offer an approximation of where a mobile device actually is, multiple towers can be used to triangulate its location to within about a quarter-mile radius, or to a more exact pinpoint in urban areas, where cell towers are closer together.

The practice is troubling for people who’d prefer they weren’t tracked, especially for those such as law-enforcement officials or victims of domestic abuse who turn off location services thinking they’re fully concealing their whereabouts. Although the data sent to Google is encrypted, it could potentially be sent to a third party if the phone had been compromised with spyware or other methods of hacking. Each phone has a unique ID number, with which the location data can be associated.

“It has pretty concerning implications,” said Bill Budington, a software engineer who works for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for digital privacy. “You can kind of envision any number of circumstances where that could be extremely sensitive information that puts a person at risk.”

“It is really a mystery as to why this is not optional,” said Matthew Hickey, a security expert and researcher at Hacker House, a security firm based in London. “It seems quite intrusive for Google to be collecting such information that is only relevant to carrier networks when there are no SIM card or enabled services.”

Of course, if their excuse for this gross invasion of privacy is even remotely true, then we look forward Google’s follow-up report to Android users detailing precisely how much faster their text messages are now than before…we won’t hold our breath.

3D-Printed Invention Produces 2 Liters of Drinking Water Each Hour out of Thin Air

Did you know? By 2025, an estimated 1.8 billion people will live in areas where water scarcity is prevalent. This is concerning, but fortunately, not unsolvable. In fact, a 22-year-old Indian entrepreneur has already presented a solution.

Jawwad Patel, an engineering student, has developed an invention that converts atmospheric moisture into potable drinking water. In other words, it pulls water from the air to produce drinkable water within a short period of time.

invention drinking water from air

Perhaps most notable is the fact that the device — dubbed the ‘Dewdrop’ — was 3D-printed. Tech Story reports that the invention sucks in air using a fan, filters dust, and then condenses moisture using the Thomson and Peltier effect to produce mineralized water. The water is then stored for drinking. When the container is emptied, it begins the process once again.

Because the Dewdrop weighs approximately two pounds, it is easy to carry wherever you go. It is powered by a 12V 6000 man Li-ion battery and can produce about 1.86 liters per hour of potable drinking water. In the desert, the 3D-printed invention can generate 1.2 liters per hour.

Dewdrop-creates-2-Liters-water-per-hour-1

The engineering student devised the interface to control the operation of the device and its sensors, which detect humidity, temperature, and a few other factors. Reportedly, Jawwad is already working on the next version of the product. His plan is to incorporate a solar cell to power the Dewdrop and to provide the user with the choice of hot or cold water.

Because he is from India, Jawwad is well-aware of the hardship that accompanies water shortages. When he visited a small town in the Marathwada region of Maharashtra, for instance, he witnessed people struggling to survive without water. It affirmed the need to develop an invention that can pull water from the air, so people with limited resources don’t die of something as simple as thirst.

ZeroWater 10 Cup Pitcher with Free TDS Meter (Total Dissolved Solids) - ZP-010

Jawwad sees the device being used by mountaineers and explorers, the poor and impoverished and by campers who visit deserts and remote forests.

Though the device is news-worthy, it isn’t the first invention to pull and store water from the air. In the past, Fontus and Water-gen developed devices that convert atmospheric moisture to water — but using a different technology. Fontus designed a water bottle that is solar-powered and consists of a condenser connected to a series of hydrophobic resources that repel water, then collect it. Water-gen developed the Atmospheric Water Generation (AWG) that works by dehumidifying air as in air-conditioners. The Israeli product sucks air, cools it down and, as a result, consent water and recycles cold air. The AWG can yield up to 450 liters of water each day.

Watch the video below to learn more:

At his core, Jawwad is an inventor. He became passionate about electronics around the age of 12-13, and eventually had his own laboratory to experiment thanks to his supportive parents. A strict follower of Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, Jawwad wants the government to install tech incubation centers for teenagers to help them innovate.

LifeStraw Personal Water Filter for Hiking, Camping, Travel, and Emergency Preparedness

The areas of innovation he is particularly interested in are water, energy, and healthcare. He considers these the three main fields in which India faces many problems. The 22-years-old seeks to take his products to the rural masses through government channels, rather than private companies.

What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!

This post appeared first at Real Farmacy

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/naturalblaze/~3/RgF7yxOTXg4/drinking-water-from-air.htmlinvention drinking water from air