Cross-state global research and development funds

Recently we were discussing self replicating machines as a way to organize an easily scalable mass production lines in modern world (take a look at it in physics.stackexchange and ai.stackexchange).

There we came to an idea that there are completely no technical troubles with it, the main problem with it is just in appropriate fundings.

As often seen in modern science/research/development, the only problem is with funding. The problems with this scale require some solid funds for a large amount of time. That is not compatible with modern financial world, that is aiming at low term profits in simple stuff. Both states and commercial sectors (venture firms) are not currently able or willing to fund it due to uncertainties.

Continue reading “Cross-state global research and development funds”

Self-replicating machines for easily scalable production

The ability to create self-replicating machines can give some very useful benefits. So what is the problem with creating this type of stuff?

Let’s say we have two pieces of equipment – 3d printers and robotic arms. These items are already available and are easy to create.

It looks like they are enough to create self replicating machines. 3d printers are able to print any details for arms and printers. Robotic arms are able to assemble other arms and printers. Both equipment items are able to create almost any other kind of stuff.

Basically, both arms (i.e. manipulators) and 3d printers consist of servomotors, wires, chips and structural mechanical elements. They all can be easily 3d printed, that’s no doubt I guess.

Continue reading “Self-replicating machines for easily scalable production”

Total employment and floating work shifts in macroeconomics

It looks like there are some common major problems in modern economic systems when employing people to work.

At first, some people stay without work in unemployment and suffer from the lack of funds without salary. The second problem is with working people – they always suffer from overworking (5 days and 8 hours shifts, limit of vacation and almost no time to stay with family) and are often quite bored and lack energy to do everything with joy and fun.

So why just not using floating working shifts to solve both problems ? Let’s say we have a 3 working days a week 6 hours shifts for an average workers for example. Thus we are able to both reduce load to the ones who are already working and to hire the ones who suffer without employment.

Continue reading “Total employment and floating work shifts in macroeconomics”

The energy and the money

Well there are lots of ideas about different types of values/goods and the common medium among them – the money.
There were tons of debates on gold standards and pure fiat types of money.
But what about something very simple and able to convert to everything we need – the energy ?

This substance is conserved due to the very heavily tested and solid fundamental conservation of energy principles in modern physics.
Also it can be generated, stored, transported and converted to any kind in any possible scenarios – mechanical movement of objects or thermal.

To make things simple let’s take a look at its form of electricity – it can be easily generated and converted to all we need – constructions/food/heating/transport/communications/applied goods.
It cannot be inflated/deflated and its cost doesn’t grade with time.
The energy couldn’t be destroyed or made from nothing – it is a basic physical phenomena.

So to make it a kind of a money we just need to create common effective converters and transport system with minimized transport costs.
This can be easily made with superconductors – the loss of energy on transportation is about zero.

So the question is – why not using energy (for example in form of electricity) as a kind of really universal money ?

Feel free to add some meaningful comments for this topic in our Economics StackExchange discussion.

Electron vs proton currents

So lets get back to the basics in electricity.
As everyone knows, electric current is just a flow of charged particles, so there is no special about it.
But what about the type of particles and the differences of produced currents.

To make things simple let’s take a look at 2 basic charged particles – protons and electrons.
They have the same charge, but with the opposite sign. Also electron weights about 2000 times less compared to proton.
As far as I understand, in electric appliances we use only electron currents. They originate as flow of electrons in the crystallic structures of atoms in conductors between protons (just like Dirac’s concept, it is an ocean of electrons).

But what happens if we choose protons as a charge carrier ?
Since it is much heavier with the same charge, it’s current flow will produce much more work – just about proportionally the weight ratio.
And also it is quite ineffective to use light electrons in heating elements and appliances like electric transport devices (cars, scooters, planes, helicopters and drones).

So my guess is that electrons currents are good at communications with low losses. But when it comes to heavy work or heating, protons currents are about 2000 times more effective as much more massive particles.

So the question is – why aren’t we still using proton currents – are there some technical difficulties about generating or transporting it ?

Also is it possible to generate the opposite flows of particles with the same charge value, but much differences in weights ?
That would allow us to create devices to get 2000 times increasing force just by generating small amounts of electrons with no problems with energy conservation laws.

Feel free to add some reasonable comments for this topic in our Physics StackExchange discussions.

Advanced wind electricity generation

Well, when it comes to electricity generation it is important to design units to be scalable enough.
With wind turbines becoming popular nowadays it is very important.
As you know, currently wind turbines are placed on surface, mostly at hills and small mountains.
But why placing it on surface, where the wind speed is very limited ?
Why not placing it in some cloudy heights, where the wind constantly flows at really large speeds 24 hours a day ?

One can argue that it is technically difficult to get heavy turbines at heights and costly transport energy to the land via cables.
But what about using wind kite farm cell structs ?
These kind of units can be easily scaled via structs attachments and are capable of carrying huge amounts of generating fans.

Moreover, in this case there is no need of placing heavy generators in kites and send them to air.
You can easily transfer the torque moment from fans in the air to the generators on land using the cords, connecting the kite to the land.
That means it is easy to create really large generating volumes in the air and transfer huge amounts of useful work to the land.

Also kites and fans are very cheap in mass production and can be easily installed almost anywhere.
If you think that wind power is just not enough – think about heavy hurricanes and typhoons that deal really a lot of damage to civilians all around the world.
This scalable devices can easily dissipate all that energy and convert it to useful electricity.
I guess an array of 10-50 small cheap generating cubes like 100-400 meters in length can easily handle small hurricanes.

So why are we still using ineffective heavy structures with generators instead of this kind of structs ?

For more discussions on this topic – take a look at stack physics

Going from 2d to 3d in plants cultivation

As you know, currently grown organic plant food (like rice and wheat for example) is grown using flat 2d approach with just one floor of seeds on surface.
Using that lots of people start to talk about lack of food due to the population increase on the limited surface of our planet.
It also produces other harmful events like deforestation and wildlife problems due to the increasing surface for food plantations.

But what about going 3d production instead of current 2d surface cultivation to handle it ?
Since plants are the basis of ecology chains, that looks like really important.
Just imagine simple 3d cell frame structures with plants growing in volume in it nodes.
One can argue to the problems with light, but it can easily be handled with artificial additional lightning.

Problems with soil can be handled with artificial substrats and hydroponics.
So let’s define a simple model, applicable almost everywhere and try to estimate its costs.
If we want to grow plants almost everywhere, let’s start with hydroponics compact 3d frames using artificial soils and artificial phyto lights.
To make things really simple and reasonable we will assume large autofilling tank of water above this structure that drop water using controlled cranes to all nodes of frame via tubes.

Let’s estimate costs, using mass production.
Well, the structure frame and nodes are really cheap – node costs you about one 5 liter plastic bottle, as well as frame structs.
So basically all you need is artificial light and water pumps transfer from bottom to top with reuse cycle.

Since in common cultivation the main asset is land surface, in mass production all the costs can be reduced to the economy on surface.
Also this approach allows us to grow indefinite amounts of plants on the limited surface just increasing floors amount.
That means we can get 10x output with 10 floors and roughly 100x output with 100 floors on the given amount of surface.
So the question is – why are we still using ineffective 2d cultivation instead of more productive 3d approach ?

Feel free to add some reasonable comments for this topic in our Biology StackExchange and Economics StackExchange discussions.

Process evolution

The control structure is not restricted in any way, so this organization may easily adopt to market changes and evolve and grow almost indefinitely (up to all markets) with constant employee qualification grow. This kind of organization is able to produce items of unlimited complexity (let’s say it is also proportional to qualification as a kind of its measure) that will be required indefinitely by everyone or at least most of people.

Any kind of problems with excessive complexity (that get it to failure) of products can be solved with reasonable planning, common modular development approach and proper quality control measures.

So the question is – what factors limits current economical structs to get to this kind (or similar simple constructs) of self-evolving evolution (which is reasonably efficient and usable to any person in society) ?

Feel free to add some meaningful comments for this topic in our Economics StackExchange discussion.

Making it efficient

This model is quite simple, but I guess it may be easily applied to real world with some additions for initial capital, required controlling quality functions and resources flow shared evenly for creds (is subtracted from sales profit).

When all the data with profitability stats are available to all workers it is quite easy to get clear and reasonable profit distribution among the workers. If we assume that the work of sales (marketing) and efficiency tuning (a kind of management) can be measured in creds and then in real values, so the control function may be handled just as some sort of ordinary work and added to overall work pool.

So we have a highly human involved work pool, independent of exact type with ability to tune it with positive feedback loop from sales and efficiency tuning. Moreover it is absolutely 100% clear to all attendants and the contribution of each employee activity can be tracked with clear stats. Every employee is also positively feedback motivated for his qualification improvement, which also gives additional value gain for him and everyone in this struct.

For more details check it in our Economics StackExchange discussion.

Growth factors and optimization

So in general we have a basic low skilled small portions of value gain to build some initial assets and start some very small sales with intent to grow. To get an increase in quality of our product and thus sales profits we need to attract some skilled professionals.

They don’t need to get training and need some sales shares as a reward. The profitability of the overall portfolio of software assets sales (S) depends on qualification (Q) and amount of work (W), let’s say it is proportional (S = k1*Q*W). So to promote and attract experts we can simply give them some kind of internal fictional currency as shares (lets say just some creds). When an expert is performing work, he is gaining some creds for completion of small required portion.

After some period (two weeks, month) the overall sales (in real values) for period are then interchanged and shared according to the creds amount. The only problem is that no one is trusting anyone, but we can easily handle it with 100% shared data on sales and efficiency of products (let’s say it is available only after some creds limit gained to avoid fraud).