Not yet but I think fusion generators will eventually join the list.

Cryptocurrency for sure

The moon landing _was_ a hoax though. Check out "American Moon"

Hey something’s may take 60 to 100 years to get here. And it will be great but to stop using it’s predecessor b4 it’s viable is foolish . To make things seem like they are here and ready when they aren’t feeds into the disbelief . We both know one that we been hearing about for years but only now have a viable way to mass produce it so now it can start to scratch its potential. Elon musk states a prototype is easy compared to a functional mass produced product . Would love to see several carbon capture techniques used particularly one with Algae due to some of the products that can be made from it

I don't think hydrogen storage will ever be a economical way to store power. Batteries are continuing to get better and better and I see very little room for improvement in efficiently producing and storing hydrogen. If I'm proved wrong, that's just fine.

Meanwhile Hyperloop is being worked on

People thought that women shouldn’t ride trains because their vaginas might be expelled from their bodies.

@@ColeSpolaric Worked on is an interesting concept. Telekinesis was worked on for decades. So? Money can be poured into any project, indefinitely and with no promise of success.

@@romgl4513 in this case there is an actual working proof of concept

Well the first train Did kill someone! The race that saw The Rocket adopted as the first passenger train had a fatality. As the trains pulled up to take on water one local MP insisted on going on track to talk to the PM a certain Duke of Wellington ..... he got hit by a train and was fatally wounded! It was at a little known place called Newton-le-Willows. ..... Not quite what the skeptics meant, but close ;o)

I never read that before. Thanks for sharing!

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

@Funny tell a joke at least… shame

See also: “New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled the humiliating question arises 'Why then are you not taking part in them?” ― H.G. Wells

@@Majere613 Ah yes. People are just trying to avoid committing themselves to something new. Much easier to bash everything new. I think this just comes from our biology - our brain trying to save it's resources.

hard to be reasonable when you either have a specific agenda to push, or you just lack the intelligence to be able to process the necessary information (or both). most people are not capable of proper critical thinking, yet those who are the least capable are the ones shouting loudest about how we should 'question everything' whilst spreading baseless conspiracy nonsense and outright lies.

@@daos3300 watch Sandy Munro (Munro Live) if you are interested. I am sure you may have heart of him. The most honest and innovative person I have seen. I enjoy what him and his team do when it comes to the automotive industry.

@@daos3300 pretty sure it's literally impossible to not have an agenda but otherwise yeah, idiots will always be loud and feel entitled to being considered valid by everyone.

@@daos3300 Lol, sorry. Didn't finish reading what you wrote. Thought you were one of the conspiracy, hidden truth people

Balance is bullshit. In science, it's as misleading as it can be. For example, the idea of balance in climatology is to have one scientist (representing the virtually entire scientific community) debating with one fossil fuel sponsored actor. That's balance for you. Follow the truth, follow the evidence. Stay skeptical but open minded.

@@florinadrian5174 Actually - your statement is a good example of how difficult 'balance' can actually be. What percentage is 'virtually the entire scientific community?' Eighty percent? Ninety? Ninety five? It is certainty that the sum total who have officially undersigned public statements questioning the 'consensus' of the community of experts numbers some thousands of scientists. More importantly: To what degree is 'degree of consensus' a proxy for truth. We know that there has been great consensus in the past around ideas we now find abhorrent - sometimes changing from one to the other with little change to the underlying evidence available at the time - eugenics post WWII being the case exemplar. Are we really bound - even morally - to simply 'trust the experts' as our best proxy to truth, even when our own sense insists the conclusions don't even follow from the facts brought up in their support? Or if the public spokesmen for thecommunity should repeatedly mischaracterize the nature and positions of their opponents, while failing to address the substance of their arguments? Or if the proposed solutions to problems identified by the experts seem far less effective on their face that other options, while potentially serving other less benign agendas quite well indeed? When are those who lack expertise justified in questioning the general consensus of those who do not? Do we ever have an 'obligation to trust'? Should we ever trust those who demand it, rather than ask? It's not a simple question.

@@joellewis6086 It is a simple question. If you are ignorant (even partially) in a certain field, as most of us are in most fields, why the hell you won't trust the crushing majority of the experts? What would be your argument for choosing to bet against them, your gut feelie? That's still fine for your personal belief, since you're not hurting or misleading anyone else. But if you want to speak up with your feelings against the experts then you better have hard, scientific counter arguments. In my country we have a saying: eveyone is an expert in politics and football. In the US, every idiot thinks he's an expert in climatology.

🤔No he's not. 1st the Computer components that make up the PC were not invented by the people he credited; do your research and you will see that African Americans invented the concepts and parts to the computer including the resistors and capacitor. Mark Dean, whom is still alive holds the mosy important Patents in IBM History Period! Because America just freed their slaves they didnt allow but a few women and men to patent their technologies during the Reconstruction period due to greed and not wanting to their slave population to seem smarter than them. 👉🏾 Forget Kubrick;👍🏾 NASA themselves admitted to Never Crossing the Van Allen Belt, 👍🏾Buzz Aldrin would never testify that he actually went to space in the court of law because he would be under oath,👍🏾 and NASA Admits their pictures and videos of space are all Artist Renderings .🤔 The first Airplane was invented back in Ancient Chinese times and they perfected it so much that they sold miniature models it called Taketonbo that kids played with. Guess what the Wright Bros Plane looks exactly like? The Taketonbo. You people appropriated others technologies and mass produced it keepung the money and kicking out the little man = *Capitalism* Your agenda must be to push European Centric Capitalistic Ideas on to people while at the same time making it seem like they have a choice. You dont seem Undecided in these matters which discredits you in many different ways from having unbiased and opinionated observation this channel is supposed to Represent. Unsubscribing; your a phoney homie😐

@@florinadrian5174 💯🙏🏾Facts; balance when trying to prove if something is True or Not is Null and Void. Either Something Is or Something Isnt. No middle ground. Open mindedness, yes. At least that means your not closing any options down to explore.

My first computer was a TRS-80 I bought when I was 18. My grandfather asked me, "What does it do?" Hardest question I ever had to answer

@@Lethgar_Smith 😂👍🏼

@@rogerstarkey5390 Interesting.

@@rogerstarkey5390 I operated the first 9100 or 9200 sold west of the Mississippi at BYU in the 70's... had run offsets from AB Dick 360's fulfilling much the same role. It was easy to see where those were going.

I hope you put some birthday money on Apple

I cannot agree more!

And not demand obedience or submission to any other's views or preferences. Free people can both create and dismiss. Slaves can do neither.

You can't put critical thinking BACK into public education after all the hard work done to get rid of it.

@@chrisdahler5557 It is there but it rarely ever relates to real life issues if at all.

Too bad we're squandering almost all of our public education funding on administrative bureaucracy instead of investing in high quality teachers eh?

This is true, but there is a difference between that and just saying it won't work no matter what based on unconscious bias.

That’s why the saying is, “Never say never.”

40v for the win.

Yet another thing we can thank NASA for.

Are commercia gradel cordless tools good? I've never had any luck with their domestic counterparts, cheap or expensive.

As long as you have plenty of batteries they are great. Brushless motors have helped greatly with efficiency and power.

True that! Industry wars can push or detract a lot of technology mainly because it is or it's not convenient for such part..

How much oil does it take to make a 12ah lithium battery? How much oil does it take to make a 100watt panel? We need to make solar and battery technology clean and as independent from fossil fuels as possible

@@louiss.w1944alert ! ALERT! Coporate shell spotted! Opinion rejected!

@@louiss.w1944 Or pollution? Or slave labor?

You have a very odd definition of "clean". BTW, do you know of any ICE vehicles that advisories exist for admonishing owners not to park indoors or to stop driving with 70 miles of range remaining? Nascent technologies are just that. Relying upon them irrespective of their flaws is foolish. That doesn't mean they won't improve. Just stop worshipping shiny new things just because they sparkle. That diamond may turn out to be a cubic zirconia.

Collabs help the channel grow. This channel should do some with other S-Channels! Anyway: And theres many Science-Channel who's Fan's dont know each other's channels. So here comes my plan into account: I drop random comments about 'Hey, want some recommendations about something? Anything?', get called a bot sometimes, but who cares, and sometimes people say 'Thanks, i take a look', which makes my Day!

Theranos, to name just one.

@@luboshemala3485 wasn’t the thing they were trying to develop actually achieved by another company a few years after they went bust (doesn’t excuse their unethical practices but the idea itself wasn’t bad)

Most definitely. And people are right to be skeptical, there are so many scams out there that it makes sense to reject new ideas by default unless there's good evidence and good science and economics to back it up. In fact I think people are not strict enough when reviewing new ideas and that's why all the "water from air scams" are still being reinvented

It means a lot actually. It means that skepticism/criticism is fine, but it doesn't actually "debunk" anything.

it has never been about possible vs impossible, is more about when and how hard it would be space is a perfect example, is very hard and is taking lots of time

You know what is an absolute certainty.? That humanity will utterly perish in the near future if little is done to mitigate climate change. Also, if we survive this apocalypse, that humans will evolve from flesh beings into cyborgs to cope with the rigors of outer space. No doubt.

@@juanasenjo8515 "Humanity will utterly perish in the near future if little is done to mitigate climate change." Utterly perish? Not just slightly perish?

@@juanasenjo8515 I doubt that all of humanity will die. But they will, however, experience an existence made so much more difficult by their own doing and probably cause a large percentage of humanity to, as you say, perish. And money won't mean much in a world ravaged my extreme climate change, when you learn, that you can't eat money. Speaking of climate change, I just read a conspiracy theory recently. Do you know why all those super rich fellas are throwing money at space travel? It's because they know Earth is, pardon my French, f*cked and they don't wanna stick around to see the mess they caused.

what about nuclear fusion and space travel to nearest solar system? cheap batteries, 50% efficiency PV cells, they are not impossible but not available on the market either

Or touchscreen controls on WW golf 8 and tesla 3 for example. I mean yeah there are cool features preventing you from crashing into something, but why add additional distractions, to "balance" out safety features?

@@kirvis250 and those features breed complacency, cancelling much of the benefits.

I prefer physical buttons and knobs I can find in the dark and without looking away from the road.

to use the way of the video above.. maby its not the touch-screen infotainment systems in cars that are absolutely stupid, and that we chould not have them, but the way they work that we should not have... its like saying that we cant have computers at home because thay are to big and take up a whole room, its a bad idea. lets make the touch-screen infotainment systems usable instead

@@Mr0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0 , the trouble I have with that is that touch-control requires sight to work. Button and knob controls never move, so I don't have to take my eyes off the road to use them. With a touch screen there is not haptic feedback, no way to line up your fingers with a specific spot on the screen, especially while you're bobbing along over our exceptionally well maintained roads. We can tell people all day long they shouldn't use their touch screens while driving, but they will because they can, and because of that touchscreens are more dangerous than real physical controls.

Ha! I really should have.

As it is its close to Halloween...

You're a genius. 😂

Isn't the UK presently in the works of planning a fusion facility? Hopefully you were pretty close.

@@BloodAsp I think it's in France but I could be wrong.

@@bpdmf2798 Youre on the internet, instead of posting "I think X but I could be wrong" statements, you could spend 20 seconds googling stuff. 1: A fusion plant is planned in Nottinghamshire in the UK. 2: Youre thinking of ITER in France, which is already being built and projected to be complete around 2025.

@@bpdmf2798 there are quite a lot of fusion facilities now a days. There are the "classics" like ITER in France or Wendelstein 7-X in Germany and quite a lot of "newcomers" in China (Hefei | CFETR), USA (SPARC | Cambridge Massachusetts) , GB (First Light Fusion Ltd Test Reactor | Oxfordshire) and other locations.

@@Kamikater2 all these fusion facilities are like the LHC at CERN; experiments to advance knowledge; none will produce more electricity than they consume...

I understand what you mean. I thought that smartphones were a good idea if they could get batteries that would actually let them work throughout the day, but I never thought that trashing the keyboard in favor of a touchscreen was a good idea. Of course, to this day I still believe that was a bad choice. In no way is a touchscreen superior to a physical button that you can feel and use without looking at it.

I know what you mean. It adds another layer of virtuality to the world to have buttons you can see but not feel. They say it's extremely distracting to use touch screens in cars, because they require a greater level of focus than old fashioned buttons and sliders and switches.

@@Kevin_Street My vehicle uses a touch screen for most settings, and it's quite distracting/annoying.

@@darylsonnier658 I'm right with you on hating touchscreen keyboards. I used to text without looking. Now? I typo when I am looking!

Show me a lazy person and i will show you a genius. Any device or system that saves time or effort will thrive.

I wonder if the first guy split off a big chunk of stone and everyone else stood around and denied it had happened. :D

Reusable rockets have been around since 1981 but they didn't take off because of the space shuttle and sudden stagnation of NASA and Other big Space companies at the Time.

@@asandax6 "Didn't take off". I see what you did there.😏

@@asandax6 - The space shuttle main engines and the SRBs had to be more or less rebuilt between missions. While they were technically reusable, they were not able to be reused quickly, and with minimal maintenance. SpaceX has definitely raised the bar on that front, with their fully reusable Falcon 9 (and F9 Heavy) first stage boosters. I don't disagree that the SRBs on the Space Shuttle were reusable, just that they were not fully reusable.

People experimenting with reusable rockets for long time already. The problem is that they never were economically viable. And the jury is still out to see if SpaceX rockets actually cost less then expendable rockets.

@@jurabondarchook2494 SpaceX is a commercial company, beating all the competition and is the industry leader by huge margins; using those reusable boosters with ever more increased cadence. You don't need a jury to see the value of reuse...

Jiffy Poo…your response is confusing. Steel is an allow of iron and carbon-2500 to 2800 deg F.…and brass is a soft metal alloy made of copper and zinc-melting point 1083 deg F. You are comparing apples to raisins

cars were just faster horses. :D

@@markrothenberg9867 He’s using the exact arguments that were made back then, not making them himself. #readingcomprehensionfail

@@markrothenberg9867 If you trying to state that Humans working with Brass is newer than Steel... Humans using Brass goes back to the Neolithic, The Romans used it for decoration. Not undestanding the metallurgy doesn't mean we didn't use it; Syrians were making Brass 5000 years ago.

The Stone Age didn't end because of a lack of stones...

That actually happened in the Precontact American. Without large beasts of burden, wheels are practically useless and sleds or log rolls were used.

@@gljames24 and virtually NO technology was developed. I wonder about a causal effect.

@@gljames24 AHAHAHAHAHA yes of course because the americas were completely devoid of horses, buffalos and elephants oh wait it was still full of buffalos when the europans arived and the native americans hunted both all their species of horses and all their species of pachiderms to extinction bwahahah

@@fredandersen9873 yeah it's the fault of not having invented the wheel, not having wheels is what made everyone dumb

Yeah. For me the main problem with a smart phone was the idea that someone would want to be constantly connected to the Internet. Back then I "surfed" the Net for a certain number of hours each day, and that was it. Being online was an activity like watching TV or reading a book. The concept of constantly being online, doing everything online and being reachable by others 24/7 just didn't sound appealing - but it has become the dominant paradigm, for good and ill.

Proof that the popular option is not always the best. Smart phones are an awesome convenience, but as with most conveniences they can be leveraged against you once you become dependent upon them

umm funny i was amongst the first users. but ended hating iphones and switched to samsung

I didn't hear much about the iPhone launch, didn't even have a pc or internet at that point (eventually got internet for video games), but I visited my brother and his girlfriend had an iTouch (iphone minus the phone part) and was blown away by how fun and responsive it was and went on to buy an htc evo 4g not too soon after.

@@milo-qh7cv I was one of the early iPad adopters but as the price of the subsequent models kept skyrocketing I lost my taste for them, switched to Samsung and became disenchanted with Apple altogether and I was an ardent Mac fan since their inception - EVERYTHING Apple is ridiculously overpriced and unfortunately Samsung is following suit, well at least with their phones.

It is indeed ironic. But for now, DC is only viable for very long distances. For local distribution, AC is still much more cost effective at the moment, due to the relatively cheap and simple transformers that can be used to convert higher AC transmission voltages to the voltages used by consumers. But, given that technology is continually evolving and getting cheaper, I'm not going to "debunk" DC being used in other scenarios sometime in the future. So much has changed within my lifetime.

Which is why there's currently a lot of intense conversation happening about building 1 million plus volt DC lines in the US. The solution is being generated in order to get the US to 100% renewable energy by concentrating solar and wind farms, government funded, in the most productive geological areas and then shipping that power off to other parts of the country where those conditions do not exist. I think China currently has six of these 1 million volt DC power transfer systems installed and running. With plans to build several more. Elon musk has publicly stated many many times about how relatively little area would be required in order to provide enough power to satisfy the needs of the entire country. I think it was something like 100 square kilometers or 100 square miles, something like that. Like he said, a relatively small area when you consider the size of the United States. 100 square mile blocks are a dime a dozen in the Nevada deserts and New Mexico deserts, and Texas deserts, I mean.. ranchland. And then look around at all the places like the Bonneville salt flats, and the Black Rock desert, where you can go weeks without a single day of wind speeds below 10 mph. The large flat open geological characteristics of these areas and allow for continuous buildup of unobstructed wind velocities. And using those characteristics who choose future places to put wind turbines, one only has to look as far as Oklahoma, and Nebraska, Texas, etc etc. Despite all this, Biden is finding himself running short of spare pocket change to pay for all this new power generation.. Anyone not paying attention would be forgiven when asking the question How the hell can you not have the money when You've got a 4.5 trillion dollar bill in your pocket!? Well the answer to that is currently the governor of the great coal state of West Virginia, and just for starters has insisted they lop off a cool 1 trillion dollars so that his coal mines have to keep pumping out coal to provide 100% fuel stability for all of the power generators for the electrical grid. Joe biden's offshore wind farms were one of the casualties in that one trillion dollar cut.

Ummm, the reason we have an AC power grid is because of ability to efficiently step the voltage up and down using transformers. Ohm's law tells us that transmission lines must be high voltage (say 700,000 volts) to minimize current, and avoid losses due to heating the cable. Unfortunately wires carrying very high voltage will arc to ground even through considerable insulation, so inside of buildings we need the voltage to be much lower (say 120 or 240 volts). Until there is a way to step DC voltages efficiently, our power grid will remain AC.

@@5tr41ghtGuy There are some losses converting DC to DC, mainly because is has to go through an AC stage. However, long distance and underwater power transmission is DC. It's particularly helpful to convert to DC when the phasing of the interconnecting power grids are not in sync - sometime the frequency is completely different (50HZ/60Hz). The Chinese set a record with 1.2megaVolts DC power transmission over thousands of kilometers. You're right in that, domestically, AC makes a lot of sense : stepping 33kV to 10kV for street level distribution and then down to 240 or 110 is easy with transformers. It is interesting that nearly everything in your house can be run off DC; the main exceptions being motor driven appliances but (almost) anything modern that can be plugged in to a wall socket will happily accept 240 or 110V DC and this includes lighting (other than florescent strip lighting).

Fusion power.

In my twenties I honestly expected a closed nuclear cycle. No waste, just breed more fuel. Forty years later , nada. And yes I know it’s just around the corner , it’s been just around the corner for forty years. Also Airships

Flying cars

Food in the form of pills, and disposable clothing. Also supersonic flight, like Concorde.

the first selflanding rockets where build in the 90s, what you are saying you didn´t know anything about rockets before elon musk plastered them on your tv, but at least he did and made you interested which is a win

No more crazy than a jet airplane to someone who has only seen the steam engine as the pinnacle of technology.

@@mrxmry3264 Crazy doesn't mean it won't work

Orbital class rockets, yeah I didn't think they could scale it. Don't think I was alone in that thought. It's so easy right, anyone can do it? Apollo moon lander was a landing rocket, but I think people know what I meant.

@@andrewc662 I came to the realization most don't try anything groundbreaking. Or they try and get discouraged too fast and give up. Like google, they have many great ideas and do research, but they scrap most stuff after 2 years. If they continued to try harder most of those products could actually be great. Most want to play the safe game, doing what they know that works. Very few try to reinvent how something is done.

"I agree with what you said in the video" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Wright!?

Really? They're not that understated :D ;)

@@emmapowell1582 hehe.. I feel like they are. No pause, winks, or nudges, and they usually don't feel forced.

Well yeah! People (us included), when trying to refute something, tend to think all or nothing. So, in this case, solar PV is not worth it unless it produces 0g of CO2 and causes 0 problems.

20g to produce a solar panel? 20g? Lol

@@MohamedTarikRochdi People need to try to research something a bit more before either blindly dismissing or accepting something. That's frequently easier said than done though. You also have some trust in something simply because you trust the person or company working on it. However, you shouldn't then go attacking other ideas or critics without doing some research yourself. No one is perfect though and we will all make mistakes. We just need to try our best.

@@coolmenas To produce a single 400w, that what the research shows. 60g per kw. Remember, a lot of solar panels are produced all at once. What do you show that it is?

@@anthonypelchat per kwh not kw. Youre kind of right its just we miscomunicated.

Glad you liked it.

@@UndecidedMF In fact loved it

didn't see any debunking cited in this video, just plain denial

have you tried the Build for Tomorrow podcast?

What a shame there was Wozniak then.

Jobs was the driving force though, he was relentless, while Wozniak was only interested in designing some hardware and then has lost interest.

@@StrangerHappened Ah..no, not at the beginning. Maybe into the 1990s when the Apple /// and LISA had failed, and the Mac had taken off. But The Woz was very much part of things until that point.

@@FarrellMcGovern Wozniak was almost entirely absent already by 1982 but even before then, he was only interested in technical things and not in the running of the company. The whole idea to invite Wozniak to co-found Apple was to get his excellent engineering skills (as Jobs has explained, those were better than his own) but it has never gone beyond that.

I can't guarantee that this will solve the problem, but I can guarantee that the problem won't be solved if we don't try *something*.

well tell us , Great Wise One . Tell us how technology doesn't evolve through trial and error . Because many ideas have failed , lets stall and invent nothing new , because it might be a scam . Lol

@@danielc9967 I never claimed that we should stall technology forever lol, I claimed the exact opposite. Did you even read the comment you replied to?

@@mrxmry3264 The Theranos woman indeed turned out to be a scam, the idea wasn’t a scam and in fact with good management they could have pulled it off .

@@fredbloggs5902 Sure thing! Here are my list of five overhyped technologies there were either scams or otherwise didn’t work out as advertised. Note that I’m writing this in hope to balance the discussion a bit, and hopefully comparing this list to the video could give people some idea of what good/bad tech ideas look like. Perhaps that can be useful for people in telling the difference between overhyped nonsense and genuinely revolutionary technologies, who knows. 1: Perpetual Motion Machines (PMM) Countless people and companies have claimed to have come up with uniue designs for perpetual motion machines, yet none of them have been shown to actually work without some form of external energy input. The US patent office even has a rule to ban patents of PMMs, because the applications were too frequent and they never panned out. Not to mention the basic rules of thermodynamics show that PMMs can never work. This is probably the most obvious example of an overhyped technology that is clearly a scam. 2: Zeppelins This one is certainly not a scam, but also a technology that just did not work out in the end. Despite being used for quite a long time, roughly between 1900-1940, the main safety issue of travelling high up in the sky with a massive balloon of highly explosive gas was never resolved, and the technology was given up on, despite being seen as the future of transport. 3: Biofuels for personal cars Many people and companies tried to push biofuels, in particular E85, as the future of climate-friendly automobile fuel. While E85 does work, and cars and fuel stations were built, the technology is almost entirely abandoned today, due to not being financially viable in most situations, and worries of increased food prices if a significant amount of farmland were used for growing biofuel crops. 4: Andrea Rossi's "Cold Fusion" box Many exciting headlines were written about Andrea Rossi's supposed cold fusion device, the so called Energy Catalyzer, back in 2011. It was never verified to actually work. It doesn't help that the "inventor" had previously made several similarly unverified claims about his designs in the past, including a device could create electricity from waste heat only for it to provide a thousand times less energy than he claimed. 5: Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWT) To be clear, I am not referring to hobbyist projects who are focusing on simple designs, fully knowing that they will never achieve particuarly good efficiencies but are more interested in learning and building things themselves (that's awesome). Instead, I am referring to the many companies that tried to push "revolutionary" VAWT designs as the future of renewable energy, only for them to never pan out. Turns out most of these designs have already been around for decades but never attracted commercial interest due to low energy yields.

Yeah the people who hinder progress in the pursuit of greed doesn't help either.

I feel like a lot of these things like: "impossible to go faster than light" come from the need for translations to the general public to not be full of asterisks. Even the addition of "given our current understanding" makes an otherwise catchy headline look unwieldy.

Well something like FTL is difficult to say definitively of course, its issues in physics are severe enough that its unclear if it is physical or not. But if it is possible I kind of expect one day some one will make one. Just like people will keep working on fusion power till it works, each generation of fusion power is better then the previous, so it kind of seems like something that is bound to succeed eventually.

Although, while there are many debunked technologies that changed the world, there are also many "next big things" that didn't make it.

@@rogerstarkey5390 For FTL mass or no mass really doesn't matter energy wise, because in current physics no amount of energy will let you exceed it. But there are a few spots in physics that may or may not allow a loophole to exist. I wouldn't really count on it, but it's hard to completely rule out for now either. As for what constitutes a workaround, warp drives for instance, well theoretically maybe. You see warp drives seem to be possible in theory, and if you could get a warp drive at FTL speeds theoretically it should stay there. The catch is, we know of no way you could push it over light speed. Does a way exist to do so? Don't know. But maybe it does and maybe like all FTL attempts every single idea to do so will fail... who knows really?

That doesn’t make sense considering people would have rode horses which could get up to that speed

@@shanetroy111 Maybe that's why they thought that way, riding a galloping horse can be hard on your body and the thing about trains and cars wasn't that they could go so much faster than a horse but the fact they kept going at that speed instead of getting tired in a few minutes.

He also patented the idea of running trains in vacuum tubes.

🤣 That's brilliant. Thank you.

I did not know that. (But I just learned about the AND Gate about 4-weeks ago.)

But... this is provably false...

do you watch thunderfoot? Its an easy rabbit hole to fall in , and youtube doesn't help either with their recommendation algorithm .

But the real inventor was Charles Babbage anyway.

Was it really a "digital computer" ? Surely all the parts were analogue electronics?

@@honesty_-no9he the whole universe is analogue. You're confusing the device from the concept. A computer that uses on-off gates is digital regardless of how that switch works. It could be a relay or a transistor. They both provide a switch or 'gate" The digital machines and codes invented by humans always sit on top of analogue carriers. A "digital" phone signal is just a pulse-modulated analogue EM wave.

@@cherubin7th no, his difference engine was not a universally programmable computer. It was a very sophisticated mechanical comptometer.

these examples of bad predictions are famous in history. I've know many of these examples and more since I was a kid, many well before the age of the internet. Doesn't take much effort to find these examples and more.

@@rogerstarkey5390 'because i don't see how/think/believe it can happen' isn't debunking, it's just an opinion

I don't know about the claim that AI would never beat humans at chess (hard for me to believe that serious experts would have said that because chess can be played with simple exhaustive search of the possible moves) but most of the criticisms of AI in "What Computers Cannot Do" and "What Computers Still Cannot Do" have held up pretty well. We need to make a distinction between "hard" AI and "soft" AI.

Santos Dumont was not anywhere close to first. Brazilian detected.

@@SVSky he flew first in Paris without needing a catapult.

Yes, I agree, well said.

I disagree, it's not a liberal/conservative issue. Do you think there were gas stations on every corner before people started buying cars? Demand drives investment, and speculative investors get rich for taking risks. The grid will respond as demand increases. Installing more lines/charging stations/ electrical infrastructure is just part of the curve. Would you really want utilities spending billions speculatively without any market forces to support their decisions?

"As I've said before, better check for water in the pool before leaving the diving board!" that's the dumbest thing I have heard this year in this context . Without demand there won't be supply , people like you are why innovation is stagnating , I bet you are an antivaxxer as well.

@@rogerstarkey5390 Very eloquent Roger, I capitulate since you obviously are in the right, at least I hope you are, for our sake!

Those things exist and aren’t prohibitively expensive..

"out of date" is not an argument. Either what was said was true or it is not. And you have provided evidence of neither.

@@remyllebeau77 in case you don't understand what the meaning of out-of-date is, let me just explain that technology improves over time. So what might have been true in the past isn't necessarily true now. Additionally the documentary didn't actually look at all sources of renewable energy.

What are the biases in Matt's Undecided video on aluminium air batteries?

It isn't easy to be aware of your own biases, but you can find them through analyzing why you think the way you do about everything, and talking to others can help too. However you can only be so aware, I know some of the biases I have but I doubt I know them all.

@@SgtKaito That does not answer my question.

@@johnbash-on-ger I was answering the question from the original comment.

Balance is the key.

There's also the "energy" train. Takes hundreds of tons up a hill, with electricity, and rolls back down to create it. Reminds me of the grand old duke of york...

@@chrisheath2637 I haven't seen that one yet. That sounds pretty great too.

germany just steals france's electricity lmao none of their renewables work also shootout to all the german politicians who sided with putin because they need his oil XDD

But what he was missing was the equipment to conveniently step the voltage up or down at different points in his DC system. This was the main advantage of Tesla's system- the use of transformers. Even today the converters needed on each end of a HVDC transmission line are very costly and only facilitate a point to point connection rather than being able to be an integral part of an power grid.

@@michaelharrison1093 My comment was tongue in cheek. My background is power, so I am well aware. High voltage DC was discussed decades ago, but has only recently come to mainstream. And, as you point out, only where the cost is justified.

Failure can be a good thing. In fact, I'd argue that scientific failure isn't failure at all. Proving or disproving a hypotheses both result in learning and moving forward.

@@UndecidedMF Very much so. Failure is only failure in the mind of the defeated.

👏🏻

Stop the scam

SCAM

Go AWAY SCAMMERS

@@slartibartfast7921 you really commented 3 times to say nonsense? I'm convinced that you are child, and will not believe otherwise.

Wow, thank you!