I have repeatedly proposed this to various branches, and individuals in our government whom are impowered to grant financial aid and cut red tape, but to no avail. Alas, I came to the waking realization that this innovation can never come into being without private investors.

Here is my reasoning:

Lobbyists. Plain and simple enough, eh? I will merely indulge myself by explaining. By greatly reducing the amount of fossil feul consumption this generator would be reducing the profit margins of the big oil tycoons around the world. Big oil companies keep lobbyists on payroll and all over our nations capital, to insure that they dont loose any of their profits. When they notice something that can reduce their profit margins, they protect their employers, by infuencing the decissions of our elected officials to side with them in their stand against change. Change means that they cant make any more money.

With lobbyists for big oil in one ear, they also have the lobbyists from the major power corporations, in the other ear. With these kinds of generators there would be no need in a power company anymore. That industry would be obsolete…Useless.

I could go on and on about lobbyists, but I think that even those who didnt understand how lobbying works in Washinton, have some understanding of it now.

Heres an even more disturbing reason:

Taxes. After the initial investment, by John Q. Public (which would be about the equevolent of two years worth of Electric bills), there would be virtually (Virtually would mean that about every five years or so, you would have to purchase replacement parts at the cost of about 400USD) no further investment. With this in mind, there would be a great reduction in the amount of taxes collected by our government for the purchase of fossil feuls, and absolutely no taxation for comercial power at all.

Therefore my innovation will never be realized unless a private investor with substancial capital or, of course, a pro-green organization wouldnt mind taking on those Washinton fat-bottoms, and their lobbyists partners.

I am not affraid. Are you?

Tommy Smith, Junior
loverboy000150@yahoo.com

In response to Mr Michael F. Sarabia, from the above comment:

Sir, I implore you to reconsider your idea. While you have the right idea by making the industry more efficient. I believe if you replace those assembly workers with automated workers, then you would lay-off thoudsands of Americans, therefore reducing the amount of US dollars circulating in the general public, and as a result, there would be less money to buy those cars that you are making.

But, we must evaluate carefully. Take the Presidential Helicopter, we have known about the price jumps and the “Buy in Europe” requirements for a long time. We barely stopped the $135 Billion project that would have set back American airplane skills for 20 or more years.

But, remember Edison said “Genius is 99 Percent Perspiration and One Percent Inspiration.”
It does not follow that the best credetials and titles will produce the best ideas. It may have been that the Google founders were turned down for a job by some of our best and famous companies. The founder of Microsoft was a drop out (HS or BS?). But, evaluation groups do require the best established know how.
One way to test an idea is to build a model.
Auto and airplane companies do it all the time.
(but not for the Presidential Helicopter, why?)

These efforts are expensive and take a lot of time.
There is a better way: Simulation. NASA is the world’s expert on this matter. They had tours of the Air Control System for the future simulator but their budget was cut
-I know.

Our automakers need a new assembly line that is manned only by Assembly Inspectors, no assembly workers.
The expensive way would also take too long to do any good.
The cheap way is to use Computer Simulators of the machinery and the process.
One item, for example, would be the Assembly Item Robotic Handler which would pick the item from an stack and place it, within 1/1000th of an inch of the intended place at the exact orientation. Automatic devices would weld or tighten bolts as directed, exactly as directed by the computer program.
When the design is complete, run operations for complete cars and modify the design to do it faster, and compute the additional cost to do it faster -and so on.

All this to be computed simulation work. It can be done, just ask Ford how they will do it or ask Boeing how are they doing that -they were leading the field.

Also, this is the ideal task that would be supported by the best universities and research organizations, keep them in mind: “Computer Simulation of Assembly Lines.” This could justify their new Super Computer to advance their computing reaserach.
Leap frog others doing perspiration and save a lot of time and money, we have a lot of. recently, unemployed programmers, this is the right time for the right work.

The need to support the International Space Station (ISS)is assumed by the world but I understand it is short in funds and will need more shuttle flights.
The Hubble Space Telescope will soon depend more on “hope” than hardware, I am sure much could be done to improve it until a new telescope is build.

Pres. Reagan made headlines by endorsing construction of an updated version of the Space Shuttle. The world’s investments in the ISS depends on extended support by the Shuttle. Now is the time to order an updated Shuttle.

The future rockets for the Moon and Mars can wait and it would be, at least, unwise to speed up these brand new manned projects. The Shuttle may not be ideal any more but it is proven and it works.

If I had a choice between a ladder to fix my roof and I knew the ladder is more expensive than the roof, and the ladder was new and untested,
I recommend taking the extra time.

NASA I am sure could use more funds to invest in more programming in Aerodynamic reasearch for the coming new Blended Wing Airplanes, which will introduce new problems, brand new air flow problems with an airplane that may carry 1,000 passengers. That, surely, is far more important.

Edwards AFB NASA Space Center could probably do critical reasearch with larger models of this kind of plane and American companies would benefit from the time and efforts in experimental and computational work by their excellent staff. No doubt, they could immediately plan the new version of aerodynamic models needed to deal and test with the brand new flow separation problems to be expected, and solved, of course. The predicted efficiency of this new plane will wipe out all competition, including the High Speed Rail in California.

Intel, no doubt, could use financial support to expedite the new Internet version based on WiiMAX that will link most people interested in reliable, secure and fast communications in Business, Technology and Government.
The Intel project may linger otherwise.

If NASA had enough funds, they would be able to join the Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO). I am sure their sharp innovators have a list of projects that await approval for preliminary evaluation. That effort ought to be near the top. The world is not waiting. China, India and Iran are investing a lot in rocket science. New Rocket Science!
Russia and China will soon be contenders in commercial jets. We can either help NASA and Boeing or fly whatever they build 10 years from now.
I had and have no vested interest in any of the companies mentioned. I did work for NASA in my first engineering job but I have been retired for 20 years and follow developments in Aerodynamics and computer science.

Another drag on innovation in my industry (space) is the application of ITAR (arms traffic) rules to widely available commercial (rather than military) space components. This is described in Newsweek here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/182544

Having read Space News and similar publications for years, I can vouch that the harm to the U.S. space industry, and in particular the innovative smaller parts of that industry, caused by ITAR is tremendous, ongoing, and more or less universally acknowledged by the remaining entrepreneurial parts of the industry.

A final change that I’d recommend to encourage innovation is to shift some of the Federal science and engineering budget to commercial entrepreneurs when appropriate. For example, currently an enormous percentage of NASA’s funding is dedicated to NASA-run projects or larger aerospace contractors, an approach that is criticized in Science Progress articles like “Science’s Troubled Legacy”:

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/01/sciences-troubled-legacy/

This often results in government competing with private industry, or wasteful, multi-billion dollar programs (like the Space Shuttle and NASA’s new Ares rockets). Instead of these approaches, NASA should use commercial launch services across the board, and in cases where a commercial launch service doesn’t exist (such as with astronaut transportation), encourage it (for example using NASA’s “COTS” commercial competition approach). Using and encouraging commercial services will encourage innovative launch services to develop, and these in turn will, if successful, enable more space innovations that require cheaper, more frequent, or more convenient launch services.

Manufacturing is no longer a major factor in this country. After: We became a service economy and our consumer base of spending was built upon the spending habits of the Baby Boomers. Dewey’s formula, for spending being concerned with that which is simply fashionable, changes from age to age.

The Baby Boomers are fading out of the consumer economy, and not gradually. Many are being forced out of the work place and into an early retirement. The retirement of this population will reduce the requirement for many services, and spending will be dramatically reduced. At the same time, the cost of assisting our ever ageing population will be borne by a reduction of numbers that will supply required services. And this is both a long term problem, and one that will increase throughout the coming decades.

I advise against any type of spending. The retired individual may have already purchased his last automobile. And spending increases by a government, that will for decades have its revenue stream reduced, will result in disaster. Growth and development, and expenditures, must be confined to the Military and Public Health. Whole countries are on the verge of collapsing and cannot support its population. Millions of people have moved into Europe, and stressing its generosity. China has a huge population of males, and few females, and this type of social engineering has not survived throughout history. In the past couple of months social engineering has ruined our Banking System, and has pushed our culture into oblivion.

Don’t be looking for younger years to come again! publishingink.com