Bitcoin Forum

I'm bullish on Bitcoin. 

But I've been thinking of examples of technologies that failed despite their obvious superiority, and the example I can come up with that represents this is the electric train/car/taxi.

Who knew that around the turn of the century (yes 1900's) the US had electric taxi's and trains? That Henry Ford almost bankrupted himself fighting for electric cars & that he partnered with Thomas Edison in getting them into mass production? That continual patent extending ruined innovation and that even though the electric train network and cost was far far superior to every other form (diesel, gasoline), the people that ran the electric train companies basically bankrupted their companies in order to scrape as much profit as possible?

We don't know much about this because it has been resigned to the dustbin of history (I stumbled upon Internal Combustion by Edwin Black which details it).

While I don't think this will happen to bitcoin (as i said I'm hopefully bullish), I realise there is always a chance that a set of events or trend intervenes to rout something as positive and innovative as the Bitcoin protocol.

Yeah, it seems that electric cars in particular are stuck in that so-called "chasm of uncertainty" (the bit just before the s-curve goes exponential)

I think the reason is that petrol/diesel cars have just been cheaper and more fun to drive for the last 100 years. That also makes me bullish on bitcoin, because it is actually cheaper to use and more fun than fiat currency IMHO.

 ;D

Electric cars suck. That's why they failed. The battery technology is not there yet, and won't be for a while. Even then they take a long time to refill so no good for long trips. Just not gonna work.

However I'm curious about electric engines for boats. Especially as auxiliary propulsion on sail boats for days with no wind, where the batteries recharge by windmills. Something I intend to play with.

Under pessimal conditions a Model S will go 150 miles.  It takes 90 seconds to swap batteries at a station.  IF you had an adequate network of battery swap stations OR you were satisfied with a 150 mile daily range, it would be the best car ever (highest score on CR).  For many people, those conditions are true.  For even more people, they are not  -- I should say "yet" because Musk is such a dude he might just build out enough swap stations to make it viable for most affluent potential customers.

Setting aside the price tag, that's what, half the range of a normal car? Fine for most cases and I wouldn't personally complain given adequate infrastructure, but there are... flaws with certain models. I forget which, but in one of the cars, if the batteries are completely discharged, they can't be used again and you have to order a new pack with a ridiculous price tag.

Other considerations is price per mile. I haven't seen any comparisons on that yet.

Yes electric cars fall a bit behind compared to gasoline / diesel. But they do not suck - they have just started the race from a long way behind.

But back around the turn of the century, it was electric transport that had the infrastructure and market share.

They were way ahead in efficiency and with public sentiment. Diesel / gasoline were seen as noisy, polluting and inefficient. Imagine if electric had continued to develop..... Unfortunately it was destroyed by greed of those that owned the network.

Also I believe it was Tesla who created a self charging apparatus for the home (although it may have been Edison?) Purchase it and electricity would power your home forever, recharging itself.

Please stop repeating that kind of stupidity. Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change form. There is no such thing as free energy forever.

Whatever. You're going to try and play semantics, then go ahead.

Point is that one of those two built a contraption that harnessed energy, allowing users to charge their home without the need to pay a company to use the grid.

Despite how much you like or dislike electric cars, they will be the norm in the near future...

New innovations in Quantum Physics allow for extremely efficient scavenging of wasted natural radiant energies that exist in nature as a result of various radioactive decays, vibrations, signals, and electro-thermal potential energy differentials, cosmic sources, etc... Combine all of this with evolving flywheel energy storage and drive-line technology and electric cars begin to look superior to ICE cars...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Prove it.

People who talk about quantum physics and what it will do to revolutionize the world, especially when they Capitalize it, usually don't have a clue. What matters is practical application, not equations on a piece of paper. Show that, and we can talk.

I used Quantum Physics as a noun, hence the capitalization.

Have you used a new touch screen phone lately? Quantum tunneling in action; the variable resistance generated by closing the gap between two conductors with an insulator between them. (allows for fingerprint recognition on a touch screen being only a small feature).

Wave-particle duality - electrons are both a wave and particle simultaneously meaning you can harvest electricity from RF, wifi, microwaves, thermal differentials, vibrations, etc... Already invented and operating.

How many innovations would you like and are they still relevant if they don't all realize the maximum theoretical efficiency or widespread consumer adoption immediately?

The world will change; one way or another.

That's great, but this was supposed to be about electric cars. More specifically of interest to me, electric cars which are on par with normal cars.

These are innovations in electricity; you don't have to jump very far to reach a constructive use for an electric car.

For instance; flywheel energy storage:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/03/making-a-case-for-flywheel-energy-storage (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/03/making-a-case-for-flywheel-energy-storage)

Will recharge when you apply the brakes and lend momentum for acceleration from a stop. I've seen schematics for a carbon fiber flywheel energy storage system built into a transfer case. The system uses energy captured from the wheel hubs while applying the brakes to accelerate the flywheel. The flywheel increases efficiency by 80% as it is using otherwise wasted energy during braking.

The tech I mentioned in my last post can be used for scavenging alternate wasted energies. Batteries will always be important as an electrical buffer but you can combine multiple forms of waste energy scavenging systems to effectively drive an electric car indefinitely...

Flywheels could be built into normal cars too. I suppose that might count as a hybrid under a given definition, if a very loose one.

What I'm interested in is this, and what will be needed for mass adoption: Electric cars with at least the range of a normal car, at same or lower price per mile. Flywheels and finger print recognition won't get us there.

It's a numbers game in the end. Doesn't matter if we can change all cars to electric right now, if there is no economic benefit to it it won't happen. Same with solar panels in northern europe, it will take about 20 years or more to see a net gain compared to just getting electricity off the grid (unless something breaks before then - wanna bet on the odds of that?). A lot of people were still suckered in, but now that people are seeing how it works in practice nobody wants it.

The goal is to give electric cars an unlimited range by conserving as much energy (intrinsic to the vehicle) as possible while simultaneously scavenging wasted natural energy. The amount of wasted natural radiant energy across the entire spectrum is immense.

The cost of these technologies are very small, surprisingly little actually. A metamaterial can be applied with an aerosol spray and the process of creating various beneficial metamaterials is simple... Vaporize the base element and combine with other vaporized elements to create different properties. The vaporized elements will naturally crystallize after the application.

Again, practical application. Right now that stuff is just fantasy.

It's not fantasy, it's already been done; it just hasn't found mainstream incorporation yet...

http://www.gizmag.com/power-harvester-microwave-signals/29710/ (http://www.gizmag.com/power-harvester-microwave-signals/29710/)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/breakthrough-electrical-power-from-waste-heat-generated-at-the-quantum-level/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/breakthrough-electrical-power-from-waste-heat-generated-at-the-quantum-level/)

http://www.news.wisc.edu/17818 (http://www.news.wisc.edu/17818)

Just a few... Plenty more where that came from.

OK. I cant find the photo I have but here are two mentions.

http://energy.gov/articles/top-8-things-you-didn-t-know-about-thomas-alva-edison

In 1912 he announced an innovative new energy-self sufficient home called the “Twentieth Century Suburban Residence.” Every device and system in the house was powered by Edison batteries and a small-scale electrical generator -- making it completely “off the grid.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/magazine/03wwln-essay-t.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

In 1912 Edison unveiled an energy-self-sufficient home in West Orange, N.J. Billed as an experimental “Twentieth Century Suburban Residence” and designed to showcase his batteries, it bulged with luxuries like air heating and cooling units, a clothes-washing machine, an electric cooking range and, of course, plenty of light bulbs. Completely off the grid, the house received its juice from a generator that charged a bank of 27 cells in the basement. For this first attempt, Edison used a gas-run motor, but evidence suggests that he hoped to hook up to a wind turbine. The system would allow the prospective homeowner to be, according to The New York Times, “utterly and for all time independent of the nearness or farness of the big electric companies.”


Now stop being such a fucking douchebag.

My original post was about whether there were examples of superior technologies that didn't succeed in the marketplace. Try and add something to that discussion.

Fantasy as in it doesn't see practical use and won't for years or decades. Some of those links are interesting, especially the part about improving solar panels, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Numbers from practical use are needed.

Wait, electric trains failed?

https://i.imgur.com/brCBrp5.jpg

reason we don't see these fancy new things get to reality = cost prohibitive, bottom line. 

I don't buy the whole "it destroys infrastructure so just shelf it" for superior technology because, those in power would have just casually introduced the disruptive technology at a higher cost and would have gradually introduced it to the upper echelons of society. 

Cases in point = Moller international flying car, Optical Stealth by Susumu Tachi, and the JetLev.


None of those things exist with the exception of the JetLev and that is far from what we all originally wanted (something from the rocketeer - an actual, practical jetpack)


I will always call Bullshit on "free energy" stuff because a:

they always break the 2nd law of thermodynamics

there is always a catalyst of some sort that begins the chemical reaction that is NEVER considered/ ALWAYS ignored

because these products and innovations are "in theory" or "on paper" but never executed upon because of my first sentence.  Why aren't there HUDs yet in average consumer grade automobiles?  Why don't we have mag-lev enabled roadways yet with autonomous cars?  (those could certainly be automated to provide both fuel efficiency and safety!) 
 

What about this video then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiAhiu6UqXQ

Seems ok?

Back around the turn of the century, 1900, the American people trusted their government because it was trustworthy.

Today we have the internet and people are actively waking up to the corruption and cronyism of the untrustworthy kleptocracy.

If the Electric Train failed, not on it's own merits, but due to some sort of malice....
Well I think Bitcoin could survive this because we have the truth at our fingertips.

Lies and half-truths won't cause me to abandon BTC. The internet gave me enough information to make up my own mind.
I have better sources of information than our snake oil politicians and their cronies in the private sector.

Just like the Gutenberg Press led to the Protestant Reformation, renewed liberties, and the end of paying for absolution...
The Internet is waking us up to the evils of the United States Empire, the welfare-warfare state, the criminal nature of the IRS, etc etc.

Did you believe them when they said bitcoin is the preferred money of terrorists and drug dealer??

Of course not... The internet helps us to verify this information....   the United States Dollar is the preferred currency of criminals worldwide!

Be your own conductor. :)

eletric what ?

http://www.techoy.com/uploads/2013/07/Nikola-Tesla-seated.jpg

Hope Dorian next model will be something like that ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AtE54HpXBM

I prefer the following analogy:

Precious metals - Animal powered transportation. For example: Horse and buggy, chariots, elephants, mule carts etc. gold - horse, silver - mule etc.
Fiat currencies - Mechanical ground transportation, steam engines, electric engines, internal combustion engines, diesel engine, etc. For example: GBP - steam engine, USD - internal combustion engine, EUR, CNY, JPY high speed electric trains. etc
Crypto-currencies - Air / Space transportation. For example Bitcoin - aircraft, Litecoin -  helicopters etc.

The more I look at Bitcoin and related crypto-currencies the convinced I am that it is gold, and precious metals rather than fiat that will take the bulk of the the "Bitcoin hit". Yes Bitcoin and related crypto-currencies will take a bite out of fiat but the bulk of the wealth transfer may very well come from gold.

Yes because Chicago has no amtrak trains, NYC no operating subways and San Francisco doesn't have ANY trolleys. Japan and China CERTAINLY don't have electric high-speed rails...

I'm unsure if you're being sarcastic or you're just stupid. I suspect sarcasm, but, then again, think of how stupid the average person is and realize that half of the population are, by definition, 'stupider' than that.

Maybe that's you, the Honey BooBoo of bitcointalk.

So incase you are stupid: my point is that electric trains did not become the dominant system at a time when their technology was vastly superior and their infrastructure widespread. This is circa 1900. Gasoline / diesel powered systems were inferior and the electric networks had the upper hand, yet they did not spread nationally. They were confined to a few metro areas, largely due to the actions of the company owners.

And electric cars and taxi's are still either non existent or fledgling (but you didn't mention this of course).

Except for the part where you couldn't travel across the country with an electrified train because well... there weren't power-lines spanning the country... now who's the groundling?

I agree with you on the "free energy" bit usually being a bunch of crap. However, free energy isn't the same as scavenged energy, the system isn't perpetual because the source of the emission is constantly suffering decay as the particles containing the energy are released. This isn't a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics because sub-atomic particles have an intensive property of entropy. Solar power is an example of wasted energy until you convert it into something useful.

The end-cost is relative and is rarely a good representation for the actual cost...

I think the economic barriers to new technology are often the most prohibitive. The world is fueled by money, economic walls exist that serve to prevent technology from expanding too quickly. The investors like to see returns on their investments before pushing the next generation of tech; essentially pushing the old tech into obsolescence. Occasionally you have competing technologies from separate sources that will force a change but it's not a guarantee. Technology is growing too quickly; many new tech innovations are actually shelved until the "tap begins to run dry" so to speak. When that happens they unroll "the next big thing" and the profits come flowing in...

Also, the HUD thing is a good one. They put HUD's in some older Cadillacs, I think people were "distracted" by them. The mag-lev roadways with autonomous cars is entirely possible with consumer-grade tech but the fundamental resistance to change, lack of urgency, and high cost are all major road-blocks.

The Moller Sky Car was too much like an airplane yet significantly more expensive, and it didn't incorporate full manual flight control.

Optical Stealth is still promising...

Well, that is exactly my point. Thank you for noticing.

You've ignored that there were operational electric cars / taxi's circa 1900 (& charging stations etc.) and are focusing on trains.

Electric trains had the existing infrastructure but you couldn't travel across the country, although it was extremely widespread. Putting in the connecting miles was not such a difficult job. IIRC one of the sticking points was connecting northern cali (although i may be mistaken). The business was profitable but connecting the 'black spots' didn't happen for a few reasons, one being the owners of the electric train companies ran their companies into the ground for profit, giving gasoline / diesel powered technology an easy market entrance despite the fact that they had been demonstrated to be extremely inferior.

But again, the trolls in this thread take away from the original point;

bitcoin is often compared to early days of the internet / email - technologies that were better, were initially dismissed, and then proved universally successful. I also hope bitcoin follows this path. But are there examples of a technology that was superior but 'failed' like electric train/car/taxi's (and yes I am aware that there are electric trains that operate around the world).

You are ignoring that battery technology at that time (and still) is a joke, every car would have had to operate as a trolly with connections to overhead lines to go any worthwhile distance, it would have been horribly dangerous and very cost prohibitive to have every lane of every road having overhead lines, lane changes and turns would have been a royal pain as well. THIS is why they failed. Electric cars may have been there, the battery technology was woefully lacking (and still is).

It's true that technology can be stifled by economic powers. The problem with the electric train wasn't with the technology itself, rather the ownership of the technology and the failures of a few.

Bitcoin, unlike the electric train doesn't require that it be "allowed" because it's a harmless technology and logic is overwhelmingly against a legal restriction to Bitcoin. People must agree on some level to legislation in order for legislation to be successful. Legally restricting the use of Bitcoin is akin to the reasoning behind restricting the cup size of a fountain drink... Too many people won't accept it.

Bitcoin would likely fail if it weren't open source. The open-source nature of Bitcoin ensures its success for as long as the benefits outweigh the dis-advantages. Considering the economic state of the world, I don't think Bitcoin will be going away...

Bitcoins main vulnerability is in the exchange to government issued currencies.

Im not ignoring battery technology at all. How were they a joke in 1898?

How were they a joke when Edison unveiled his Twentieth Century Suburban Residence or when an electric vehicle hit over 50mph's in 1901?

And no, they didn't require overhead powerlines as they had battery recharging stations.
 
THIS IS NOT why they failed.

Never let assumptions get in the way of facts.

Point is that electric models were more advanced & efficient than any other at the time and stood on the cusp of being the mainstream way to travel for a number of years.

Agreed.

The power in the hands of a few companies & patent extension laws were the main killers of the electric train and electric car respectively.

You sir or ma'am are a moron. They may have achieved speeds over 50mph in 1901, that doesn't meant hey could go any appreciable distance. Batteries back then were massive, stored very little energy and weighed enormous amounts, they still do with far far more advanced battery chemistry and still limit lightweight cars made out of fiberglass and aluminum to a couple of hundred miles. Recharging stations for batteries from that period would have taken DAYS to recharge the batteries (especially to keep them at safe temperatures). I don't think you understand batteries very well, especially the nearly-primitive ones of that time.

The electric cars of the time (like the baker electric coupe) used a  nickel-iron battery that was painfully slow when it came to charge times and was only good for 200 miles or so... and there were several electric cars at the time, most of them used lead-acid batteries which were even bulkier and weaker (required more cells) and had worse mileage. They didn't catch on because they were JUNK just like modern electric cars. They also had poor acceleration (if in fact an electric car reach speeds of 50mph, it was likely a very slow acceleration and probably had several times as many cells as a commercially available vehicle). Just give it up.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/brainstuff/the-lure-of-perpetual-motion/

Read this then get back to me :)