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)
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.
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.”
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, 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.
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, 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.
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.
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?
A new service lets engineers and orthopedic surgeons design and 3D print highly accurate, patient-specific, orthopedic medical implants made of metal -- without owning a 3D printer. Using free, downloadable software, users can import ASCII and binary .STL files, design the implant, and send an encrypted design file to a third-party manufacturer.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.