Navy Funds Development of Tool to Model Biofuel Performance
The Navy has granted University of Wisconsin researchers $2 million to develop a tool that can model the performance of biofuels to help identify one it can use to power aircraft carriers, like the one shown, as well as submarines and other seafaring vehicles. The work is part of the military's ongoing interest in exploring alternative methods to fossil fuels for energy. (Source: Navy)
Ann, true. Most of the advance research outputs are from defence research labs and later on the technologies are transferring to public/private companies for common man benefits. Hopefully we can expect the similar path in case of bio fuel also.
That military-to-private-sector technology development flow is what used to be the case with electronics back in the day (60s, 70s, even 80s), but changed when the whole military picture changed in the late 80s. Now it seems like in other, non-electronics technologies, especially alternative energy, that the military is back in the invention business again, or at least funding it, like they are with a lot of robotics research.
Ann, you are right. I think now a day's private sectors are investing more for R&D, when compare with either public/government sector annual budget. But private companies R&D are exclusive for business or profit purposes and not for common man benefits. I strongly believe that only public/government R&D institutions can do the R&D for common man benefit or for a public cause.
Mydesign, we were specifically discussing military funding, not "government" funding, a broad term that covers many entities. MIlitary funding doesn't benefit the "common man" or "common woman", i.e., citizens, unless they are soldiers, or unless the military entities agree to a technology transfer to the private sector by way of the specific companies doing the R&D. Which government sectors providing R&D funding did you have in mind?
Ann, in my country there is a military owned research and development organization for various defence researches. They used to do research and developments for various military forces including weapons. Most of the technology outcomes from military research are transferred to governments owned companies for production in some other forms, which are benefitted to public. For example, the latest developments in Cryo are used in medical field and light weight metals developed for Space and Missiles are used for making artificial limbs etc.
Thanks for the clarification. The US also has a military-owned agency that funds military R&D, which is DARPA. But here, the government owns the military, and we don't have government-owned companies, as you say your country does. That's a very different setup. Looks like you have a built-in mechanism for technology transfer.
Ann, you are right. Government is funding for R&D in Military and Space applications, but later such technology are transferred to common people in some other different forms like new products, technology, medical treatments etc. Government policy is “we are spending tax payer’s money for R&D, so they are also entitled for some benefits.”
Sounds like your corporate structures aren't burdened by the large walls we erect between public and private sectors. That's got its downsides, too, of course (as do those walls) but at least in this instance it sounds beneficial.
Seems like agood idea but I think auto manufacturers would need a strong incentive to use it in the private sector. If the research labs for BMW or Mercedes used this, it would be a boost and others would follow. German engineers have been very resistant to alternative fuels.
Nadine, that's an interesting comment: "German engineers have been very resistant to alternative fuels." From what I've read, in general biofuels have become more common in road transportation in Europe. Can you tell us more? Do you mean automotive engineers, for instance?
Ann-"From what I've read, in general biofuels have become more common in road transportation in Europe." Yes, they are more common but not fully embraced by luxury car owners/designers.
I look at multiple international sources for infomation. The first time I heard about the biofuel backlash was while watching DW a couple of years ago. A new biofuel was made readily available to consumers across Germany. The reaction from luxury car drivers was intense. "I wouldn't put that crap in my car" was expressed repeatedly. The story went on the interview automotive designers and engineers who were more diplomatic but agreed with the consumers.
I've seen and heard this sentiment repeated, primarily out of Germany, since then. Some luxury designers and engineers in the US are starting to echo this attitude.
I think it just comes from discomfort with the new fuels. It's hard to think something designed to purr on fossil fuel will still run as well on a new source. This tool from the ONR and UW could help progress move faster.
Just when you thought mobile technology couldn’t get any more personal, Procter & Gamble have come up with a way to put your mobile where your mouth is, in the form of a Bluetooth 4.0 connected toothbrush.
The grab bag of plastic and rubber materials featured in this new product slideshow are aimed at lighting applications or automotive uses. The rest are for a wide variety of industries, including aerospace, oil & gas, RF and radar, automotive, building materials, and more.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.