PDA

View Full Version : Roswell Crash technology



Jason Chapman
2009-Jun-24, 08:11 AM
Here's a quick one for you.

UFO crashes just outside Roswell New Mexico 1947. US Army move in to clear the wreckage and bodies etc, and hand it over to scientists at Area 51 for study.

That was 62 years ago, do you think that maybe some of the technology we take for granted today may have been a result of research into whatever crashed at Roswell?

tnjrp
2009-Jun-24, 08:31 AM
Quick answer to a quick question: not so much.

Gharlane
2009-Jun-24, 09:50 AM
Probably best if you begin by looking at the Philip.J.Corso thread that on the forum. This idea has been debated before.:)

Jason Chapman
2009-Jun-24, 09:56 AM
I thought someone would have at least mentioned 'velcro'

eburacum45
2009-Jun-24, 09:59 AM
None of the technologies that Corso said came from Roswell actually did. They all were developed right here on Earth as a result of research and development that goes back well before the Roswell incident, which itself has also been debated here, and had nothing to do with extraterrestrials (neither were there any bodies).

So I guess the answer is no, then.

Nowhere Man
2009-Jun-24, 10:33 AM
Since Velcro was conceived in 1941 by a Swiss engineer, no. His inspiration was a natural phenomenon, the burr of the burrdock plant. It took 10 years to completely mechanize the process for making the stuff.

Or is that only what They want us to believe?

Fred

tnjrp
2009-Jun-24, 10:58 AM
Or is that only what They want us to believe?Nah, some bitz just fell backwards in time to 1941. Tends to happen when superluminal UFOs crashland :shifty:

gzhpcu
2009-Jun-24, 11:17 AM
What I never could understand is how really advanced technology could be possibly be understood much less reverse-engineered.

To come to earth from some distant star, tremendously advanced technology would be needed, and it would have been developed by some form of life most likely totally different from us.

Makes fun reading but not much sense to believe in the Roswell crash...:)

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-24, 12:01 PM
What I never could understand is how really advanced technology could be possibly be understood much less reverse-engineered.

Note that Corso didn't explain how we reverse-engineered the infrastructure needed to provide the materials that we used to recreate the alien technology.

Gullible people tend to ignore such problems, however.

Rhaedas
2009-Jun-24, 01:05 PM
And saying that all those technologies were just copied and not actually developed is a big slap in the face to the many people who spent all the time and effort, some probably their career lives, working on them.

JayUtah
2009-Jun-24, 02:16 PM
Here's a quick one for you.

UFO crashes just outside Roswell New Mexico 1947. US Army move in to clear the wreckage and bodies etc, and hand it over to scientists at Area 51 for study.

That was 62 years ago, do you think that maybe some of the technology we take for granted today may have been a result of research into whatever crashed at Roswell?

Well, you seem to be mixing fact and fantasy. It is a fact that such things as the transistor exist today. And it is a fact that the historical record shows an appropriate lead-up to the invention of the gadget. These things are relatively undisputed. But Roswell and saucer crashes are folklore. They don't rise to level of credibility as the established record. Hence to try to cite reverse-engineered alien technology as an explanation for how we got stuff, when more clearly documented, more straightforward explanations exist is pure wishful thinking.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-24, 03:01 PM
...and bodies etc...

Slightly off topic and a bit "nitpicky", but....


There is absolutely no mention of alien "bodies" in any 1947 report(s). Astrophotographer can correct me, but I think it wasn't until the 80's that alien bodies turned up in the Roswell folklore.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-24, 03:30 PM
Slightly off topic and a bit "nitpicky", but....


There is absolutely no mention of alien "bodies" in any 1947 report(s). Astrophotographer can correct me, but I think it wasn't until the 80's that alien bodies turned up in the Roswell folklore.

I can confirm that.

astrophotographer
2009-Jun-24, 04:38 PM
I thought someone would have at least mentioned 'velcro'


Didn't the vulcans bring that over to us? I remember seeing a documentary about it on the Sci-Fi channel........Wait a minute....that was an episode of "Enterprise". Sorry....my mistake.

astrophotographer
2009-Jun-24, 04:47 PM
There is absolutely no mention of alien "bodies" in any 1947 report(s). Astrophotographer can correct me, but I think it wasn't until the 80's that alien bodies turned up in the Roswell folklore.

Yes. All these people were scared into silence for over thirty years but Jesse Marcel Sr. was blabbing his head off and eventually told Stanton Friedman his tale. I commented on it in the last issue of SUNlite. I would comment about the Nitinol nonsense recently announced on the web by Anthony Bragalia but the release date for SUNlite number 2 is only a week away and I would not want to spoil the surprise. Anyone with a web browser could have done the work Bragalia did and discovered he is wrong.

This desire to attribute great achievements by individuals as getting help from aliens is just nonsense. I call it Corsoism, which I define as:

"The process by which Roswell crashed spaceship proponents claim the established scientific, academic, or engineering achievement of others is not due to their own abilities but because of assistance from alien technology and/or information".

It is a desire to steal the accomplishments of others in order to elevate one's status in the UFO community. IMO, those that practice it without having rock solid evidence to prove their case (and they haven't yet) are dishonorable individuals.

Torch2k
2009-Jun-24, 05:14 PM
Trying to recall the show, but believe it was World's Strangest UFO Stories. They did a fair treatment of this claim, I think, although they do tend to leave questions like this open.

solomarineris
2009-Jun-24, 06:50 PM
UFO crashes just outside Roswell New Mexico 1947. US Army move in to clear the wreckage and bodies etc, and hand it over to scientists at Area 51 for study.That was 62 years ago, do you think that maybe some of the technology we take for granted today may have been a result of research into whatever crashed at Roswell?

Definitely,
Look, we are still driving a basic Combustion Engine which was invented 110 yrs ago, same engine, no matter it is in latest Corvette or Bonnie & Clyde's Ford V8.
OTOH look at meteoric rise of computer technology, do I need to say more?
We are inventing stuff with exponential speed. Where does the know-how come from when it is in baby steps in other areas?

JayUtah
2009-Jun-24, 06:58 PM
OTOH look at meteoric rise of computer technology, do I need to say more?

Yes, you do. Please explain why computers are in every respect like automotive engines.


We are inventing stuff with exponential speed. Where does the know-how come from when it is in baby steps in other areas?

I'm sorry, I forgot where you obtained your degree in engineering and worked in the field of commercial engineering for long enough to justify the expectation that all sectors of commercial technology should progress at a uniform pace.

captain swoop
2009-Jun-24, 07:00 PM
Computers are still a young developing technology. Internal Combustion Engines are an old mature technology. Look at the pace of development of the car in the first half of the 20th Century. Similarly with steam power. New techynologies tend to develope rather quickly.

Larry Jacks
2009-Jun-24, 07:01 PM
Electronics have advanced so quickly due to the invention of transistors and even more importantly, the integrated circuit in 1960. For almost 50 years now, the number of transistors that can be put on a single piece of substrate has doubled every 18 months or so (Moore's Law). This allows putting millions of transistors into a single integrated circuit. There simply isn't any way to get that kind and rate of improvement out of car engines or other technologies.

Perhaps the most dramatic non-electronic technology advances were in aviation. From the Wright Brother's first brief controlled flights in ground effect (Dec 17, 1903) to airlines carrying millions of passengers around the world each day today (actually, this has been going on for quite some time) is a remarkable rate of development.

JayUtah
2009-Jun-24, 07:07 PM
Computers are still a young developing technology. Internal Combustion Engines are an old mature technology. Look at the pace of development of the car in the first half of the 20th Century. Similarly with steam power. New techynologies tend to develope rather quickly.

The basic principles of internal combustion engines haven't changed in 100 years. The basic principles of thermodynamic engines haven't changed in 250 years. However, anyone who thinks that modern internal combustion engines are much like those of 100 years ago in terms of their engineering finesse doesn't really know much about them. I read a couple of papers recently about capturing unused fluid-dynamics cycles to make exhaust systems more efficient. This is stuff Ford never knew. My expertise has been used on high-end automotive engines, plus I have hands-on experience with a 1917 Ford engine. Dismissing the former as nothing more that 100-year-old technology is pretty naive.

But the real answer is that what comes out as a product is determined only slightly by technological advancement and more importantly instead by commercial viability, which includes very many more factors and variables. Hence I ask where Solomarineris practiced engineering.

captain swoop
2009-Jun-24, 07:10 PM
Railways developed with a similar speed in the VIctorian era. from the first experimental colliery engines in the 1820s to 600 ton express trains traveling at more than 100 MPH and thousands of miles of track in fifty years.Most of all there were huge increases in reliablility and efficiency. In the UK a lot of engines built in the 1890s were still in regular use in the 1950s. North Eastern Railway class E1 a small 060 tank engine was first built in the 1890s, When the railway companies were 'Grouped' by amalgamation in the 1920s the LNER built another batch as their standard tank engine and then in the 1940s when the railways were nationalised BR built another batch as their standard 060 tank. It's design couldn't economicaly be improved.

JayUtah
2009-Jun-24, 07:15 PM
From the Wright Brother's first brief controlled flights in ground effect (Dec 17, 1903)...

Earlier, in fact. The addition of power to the Wright Flyer is an afterthought to the more important breakthroughs of three-axis flight control, which was where the important Wright patents placed the emphasis. These important glider test flights occurred during the summer and fall of 1903, and were the principal reason the Wrights worked largely in secret: they knew they were onto something the rest of the competitors had not yet realized.

But we still allude to Wright patents every time we climb into an airliner. When you see the ailerons wiggling up and down a fraction of an inch to impose ever-so-subtle roll moments according to the direction of the sophisti-ma-cated flight-control system, you're seeing 100-year-old technology at work.

When people go to the National Air and Space Museum and look at the Flyer enshrined in glory, I tend to look up at the smallish glider hanging from the ceiling, where the real breakthrough occurred.

PetersCreek
2009-Jun-24, 07:16 PM
Definitely,
Look, we are still driving a basic [B]Combustion Engine which was invented 110 yrs ago, same engine, no matter it is in latest Corvette or Bonnie & Clyde's Ford V8.
OTOH look at meteoric rise of computer technology, do I need to say more?
We are inventing stuff with exponential speed. Where does the know-how come from when it is in baby steps in other areas?


Definitely? That suggests a level of evidence that so far, hasn't been presented.

As for the internal combustion engine, that's a very poor analogy. Although still of the same basic design, IC engines have been refined remarkably since their early days. While the market has demanded cheaper, lighter, or more powerful engines, there are also demands that the engines be supportable by the current infrastructure set up to maintain and operate the engines. We're heavily invested in that infrastructure and it would be difficult and expensive to change. It's not at all surprising, Roswell or not, that we're still using the IC engine.

Computer technology on the other hand has a well documented history of development and advancement. The market forces for faster, more powerful computers are massive and far outstrip the demand for a technological status quo. Besides, as is the case with the internal combustion engine, CPUs are still based on the transistor. True, we make them smaller, faster, more power efficient, and more tightly packed into the given space, and we user different techniques to move information through them; but they're still pretty much a bunch of transistors on a chip. Argumentum ad Roswell isn't necessary to explain our advances.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-24, 07:17 PM
UFO crashes just outside Roswell New Mexico 1947. US Army move in to clear the wreckage and bodies etc, and hand it over to scientists at Area 51 for study.That was 62 years ago, do you think that maybe some of the technology we take for granted today may have been a result of research into whatever crashed at Roswell?

Definitely,
Look, we are still driving a basic Combustion Engine which was invented 110 yrs ago, same engine, no matter it is in latest Corvette or Bonnie & Clyde's Ford V8.
OTOH look at meteoric rise of computer technology, do I need to say more?
We are inventing stuff with exponential speed. Where does the know-how come from when it is in baby steps in other areas?

Babbage, anyone?

Until the infrastructure was in place to support the development of these ideas, they were just ideas. They didn't spring from the forehead of Zeus, or the dashboard of an alien spaceship.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jun-24, 07:19 PM
OTOH look at meteoric rise of computer technology, do I need to say more?
Yes;


We are inventing stuff with exponential speed. Where does the know-how come from when it is in baby steps in other areas?
You need to balance the technology gain with the physic limits to that gain.
The internal combustion engine seems to be nearing it's physical limit with metalurgy, manufacturing techniques, and energy capture. Therefore, any gain will be very small. And; even though technology has vastly improved past the point of building an engine, it doesn't matter, because only the earlier technology is required to build one.

Electronics are nowhere near the limits of materials and physics concepts down to the level of manipulating single electrons or photons. We can theororize the molecular computer, but we don't have the technology to create one. We didn't have the technology to create what we are now. In this case, its the development technology rather than the physical limits of the product.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-24, 07:25 PM
Where does the know-how come from...

I am so weary of the "I don't understand how (whatever) was accomplished, so it must have been alien intervention", argument.

A perfect example of lazy thinking.

Fortis
2009-Jun-24, 07:50 PM
None of the technologies that Corso said came from Roswell actually did. They all were developed right here on Earth as a result of research and development that goes back well before the Roswell incident, which itself has also been debated here, and had nothing to do with extraterrestrials (neither were there any bodies).

So I guess the answer is no, then.
Actually, it is a well known facttm that one of the main reasons for alien visitation is so that they can steal our spork technology...

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-24, 07:53 PM
Actually, it is a well known facttm that one of the main reasons for alien visitation is so that they can steal our spork technology...

I think it's much more serious than that. Proof. (http://www.on.br/revista_ed_anterior/janeiro_2003/noticias/astro_arte/imagens/filme-marsneedswomen.jpg)

gzhpcu
2009-Jun-24, 08:04 PM
OTOH look at meteoric rise of computer technology, do I need to say more?
We are inventing stuff with exponential speed. Where does the know-how come from when it is in baby steps in other areas?
What is so great about our current computer technology. Moore's law will soon hit the wall around 2020, then we need new technology.

The current computer technology has shown itself to be insufficient for artificial intelligence and other once highly tauted applications.

I highly doubt an advanced alien civilization would use such primitive technology to build a computer.

We are already investigating and looking for better technology (optical computers, quantum computers) than the silicon-based computing.

Aliens would have something more potent.

Larry Jacks
2009-Jun-24, 08:24 PM
The basic principles of internal combustion engines haven't changed in 100 years. The basic principles of thermodynamic engines haven't changed in 250 years. However, anyone who thinks that modern internal combustion engines are much like those of 100 years ago in terms of their engineering finesse doesn't really know much about them. I read a couple of papers recently about capturing unused fluid-dynamics cycles to make exhaust systems more efficient. This is stuff Ford never knew. My expertise has been used on high-end automotive engines, plus I have hands-on experience with a 1917 Ford engine. Dismissing the former as nothing more that 100-year-old technology is pretty naive.

Just last night, I read an interesting article in Kitplanes magazine (the July 09 edition) on turbo-compound engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine). While these may not be viable for use in cars due to the wide range of RPMs, they were some of the most efficient airplane piston engines made. However, the rise of turbine engines cut development of turbo-compound engines short. There were several turbo-compound engine projects starting in WWII but the most successful was the later model Wright R-3350 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-3350) radial engines (up to 3500 HP out of 3350 cubic inches with very good cruise fuel consumption specs).

When people go to the National Air and Space Museum and look at the Flyer enshrined in glory, I tend to look up at the smallish glider hanging from the ceiling, where the real breakthrough occurred.

The Wrights figured out 3 axis control with their 1900 glider (more of a kite). After bad results with their 1901 glider based on Otto Lilienthal's airfoil data, they built their own wind tunnel and tested airfoil sections. They found that Lilienthal's data (considered the best in the world at the time) was wrong. The result was their very successful 1902 glider. The big breakthroughs with their 1903 Flyer was the propellor. When the Wright Experience tested an Wright propellor in a wind tunnel, it was found to be within 1-2% as efficient as modern props. Their first engine only produced about 12 HP. Without an efficient prop, the plane would've never left the ground. Like they did with the airfoil, the Wrights found that existing propellor design was insufficient so they invented their own. In the process, they probably invented aeronautical engineering. Pretty amazing for two young men from Ohio who never even graduated high school.

Daffy
2009-Jun-24, 09:11 PM
Dismissing the former as nothing more that 100-year-old technology is pretty naive.



Indeed. In 1977 I could do ALL the maintenance (including removing the engine) on my '69 micro bus by myself. My 2004 xterra I can't even identify most of the parts on the engine.

Suggesting that the technology has not changed in 100 years is at best disingenuous. It has made HUGE leaps just in the last 30 years.

Jason Chapman
2009-Jun-24, 09:58 PM
Didn't the vulcans bring that over to us? I remember seeing a documentary about it on the Sci-Fi channel........Wait a minute....that was an episode of "Enterprise". Sorry....my mistake.

I didn't realise that, I have read the Roswell Incident By Charles Berlitx, and William more, and it mentioned an interesting account by a man called Gerald Light who claims that Eisenhower visited Edwards Air force Base to view the wreckage of a UFO.
People have mentioned the advancement of computer technology. I'm 39 years old and can remember what it was like 30 years ago technology wise. There was nothing around then that you would recognise now, except for the basics like TV and radio, and even they are changing now. Back in 79, the first games consoles, such as the Atari 2600 were starting to appear and probably early desktop IBM computers there finding their way into the office. The kind of technology we have become used to today was still two decades such as broadband, in fact even ten years ago Broadband wasn’t about, I think I got my first broadband in 2002 something like 250kps speed. Looking back we have come along in leaps and bounds with certain technologies, whether this is the result of research from Alien craft recovered over the years is still uncertain.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-24, 10:03 PM
. . . whether this is the result of research from Alien craft recovered over the years is still uncertain.
No, it's not uncertain at all. You can trace the progress of the computer field quite clearly, and none of the new productions requires a single iota of alien technology.

JayUtah
2009-Jun-24, 10:24 PM
Looking back we have come along in leaps and bounds with certain technologies, whether this is the result of research from Alien craft recovered over the years is still uncertain.

It isn't at all uncertain to the engineers who built them. "Broadband" is based on technology from the 1960s. It's not at all difficult to understand and doesn't require great epiphanies without visible support.

Gharlane
2009-Jun-25, 12:34 AM
Ah, Charles Berlitz.
Very good at languages but a consumate perveyor of piffle.
Take what he wrote with a large pinch of salt.

solomarineris
2009-Jun-25, 12:51 AM
Yes, you do. Please explain why computers are in every respect like automotive engines.
I'll be more happy to. But don't you see huge gap yourself in development of Combustion Engine vs Computer technology?

I'm sorry, I forgot where you obtained your degree in engineering and worked in the field of commercial engineering for long enough to justify the expectation that all sectors of commercial technology should progress at a uniform pace.
Yea, actually you should be sorry, you didn't forget, I didn't earn any degrees, let alone engineering degree from anywhere.
I don't have justify nothing. If you think you can explain discrepancy of progress among various scientific fields, fine, I'd like to read it.
Yes I do claim Computer technology went ahead with lightspeed compared to progress of combustion engine or propulsion (Rocket) technology.
I think you'll be disappointed to know that I am not tying this to any UFO crash story. I was just being sarcastic, in case you didn't notice.

Rhaedas
2009-Jun-25, 01:01 AM
Amazing how we took highly advanced alien technology, and reverse engineered it to the very basic transistor, then slowly pretended to develop it into what we have today. It must have been hard to not release too much at one time and give away the big "secret". :rolleyes:

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-25, 01:04 AM
I don't have justify nothing.

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the rules of this board...and the rules of grammar concerning the use of double negatives. :)

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-25, 01:06 AM
Ah, Charles Berlitz...snip...Take what he wrote with a large pinch of salt.

Not a "pinch", more like a salt lick.

solomarineris
2009-Jun-25, 01:09 AM
Dismissing the former as nothing more that 100-year-old technology is pretty naive.
I do respect your expertise, I don't even know what the hell is under my 08 Landrover's hood, I can't recognize anything.
Having said that, 1917 Ford could run probably 40mph comfortably. With my Landrover I can go up to 120MPH probably and climb those hostile dirtroads with pretty good ease.
I got my first Mac in 1980. Now I have a Mac with 32inch display, where I can see the world instantly, the photoshop I have can transform any picture with an ease that no one could dream 25 yrs ago. look at any aspect of this technology, not even Arthur C Clarke could envision the leap of Computer technology, although he did very well in his imagination of our exploration of Solar system. We failed him, his imagination did not fail him.

PetersCreek
2009-Jun-25, 01:12 AM
I don't have justify nothing. If you think you can explain discrepancy of progress among various scientific fields, fine, I'd like to read it. Yes I do claim Computer technology went ahead with lightspeed compared to progress of combustion engine or propulsion (Rocket) technology. I think you'll be disappointed to know that I am not tying this to any UFO crash story. I was just being sarcastic, in case you didn't notice.

If you make an ATM/CT claim, then you most certainly do have to "justify" it according to the rules of this forum. If you don't wish to do that, you may withdraw your claim.

solomarineris
2009-Jun-25, 01:13 AM
Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the rules of this board...and the rules of grammar concerning the use of double negatives. :)
I just have to love your rules, why don't somebody justify first before they are answering a question? Do rules only apply to newbies?
Or are you in the habit of ganging up on newcomers?
Here I see the relevance of double negative null & void when someone answers a Q. with a Q.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-25, 01:21 AM
If anything, proponents of this idea think too small. If our "advanced" technology were back engineered from crashed saucers, then why don't we have faster than light star drives? Why don't we have aircraft capable or instant right angle turns? Instead of progressing naturally, why hasn't our medical and engineering knowledge advanced exponentially?

You can never get a "straight" answer from proponents when you ask questions like this.

LotusExcelle
2009-Jun-25, 01:26 AM
Your grasp of technological history is lacking. I suggest you read up on where that technology comes from, its roots, and why your 32 inch display is not really amazing at all. In fact your Mac isn't either. Its all based on technology humans have had and invented - no giant leaps. Just continuous progression.

PetersCreek
2009-Jun-25, 01:27 AM
Good point. A fantastically advanced space craft would ostensibly be equipped with a fantastically advanced first aid kit and/or a fantastically advanced tool kit (for minor "road side" repairs at least). I haven't seen quantum leaps in development on those fronts, either.

LotusExcelle
2009-Jun-25, 01:32 AM
Also a transistor is essentially a tiny on/off switch. Just as all internal combustion engines go 'bang' on the inside. But as JayUtah said there IS a world of difference between a modern engine and one from 100 years ago.

Transitors get smaller, we push the limits of design and manufacturing and eventually we create integrated circuits. People decide to see what these things can, design their own, and what do you know the VIC-20 comes out. (Just an example) Other people see the success, design their own chips, and the market does the rest. Nothing odd about that.

If we went from vacuum tubes to 32-core 128-bit cpus in one year then yes, odd. But that didn't happen.

Do you know why you can't identify what is under your hood? Its because you don't understand modern engines. At least *learn* about them, their history, the changes in emissions requirements and so on that has led to what you see under there now.

Grashtel
2009-Jun-25, 01:35 AM
How about turning this around? If say a Global Hawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk) had landed somewhere in 1947 what could have been reverse engineered from it? As a Global Hawk is presumably much less advanced than an alien space ship, built by humans, and for this scenario it would have landed safely rather than crashing reverse engineering it would be far easier than from a crashed alien vehicle.

Van Rijn
2009-Jun-25, 01:40 AM
I got my first Mac in 1980.


Not possible. Do you mean 1984?



Now I have a Mac with 32inch display, where I can see the world instantly, the photoshop I have can transform any picture with an ease that no one could dream 25 yrs ago. look at any aspect of this technology, not even Arthur C Clarke could envision the leap of Computer technology, although he did very well in his imagination of our exploration of Solar system. We failed him, his imagination did not fail him.

By the early 1980s, the so-called Moore's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law) was well known, and it was considered likely that it would continue to apply for at least a couple more decades. I wasn't the only one who extrapolated trends based on that, and no, current computer capabilities aren't beyond my what I could then imagine. While they are impressive in some ways, I was expecting that these chip densities would get us a lot more. I was hoping that by now we would be getting to seriously advanced AIs. All in all, I'm a bit disappointed that we haven't gotten farther than we have.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-25, 01:41 AM
...for minor "road side" repairs at least.

Off topic for a moment...for a "driving" vacation, I decided to take along one of those "air in a can" tire repair kits, thinking that if I had a flat, it would get me to the next town without the "hassle" of changing a blown tire. About 20 miles from home and I had a flat...but it wasn't just a hole in the tire...the tire completely disintigrated...the "can of air" did me no good at all.

No "moral" really...just thought of it when I read "minor road side repairs". :lol:

OK...back to topic...


Do rules only apply to newbies.

No...the rules apply to everyone...and if you make unsupported claims, you will be asked to support those claims with evidence.

But you should know this already if you have read the rules.

nauthiz
2009-Jun-25, 01:42 AM
I'd be really curious to know how computer technology was aided by analyzing the wreckage of a crashed flying saucer. Were the aliens carrying an ultraviolet lithography plant on the craft or something?

Most the other major aspects of computer technology that I can think of were already in place long before the Roswell crash - the basic principles were worked out in the 1800s, the first transistor was built in the 1920s, the mathematical foundation was articulated in the 1930s, the first programmable machines were built around 1940 (with the first really workable one completed in 1941), ENIAC came along in 1945, and machines using the Von Neumann architecture came along by the end of the 1940s (but were designed by the time ENIAC came online).

So that leaves integrated circuits as the only major technological hurdle I can think of that wasn't tackled until after the Roswell incident. . . but that goes right back to the question at the start of my post. How would we have learned how to make them from the Roswell wreckage unless the ship was, for some unfathomable reason, carrying photolithography equipment?

Access Denied
2009-Jun-25, 02:31 AM
I didn't realise that, I have read the Roswell Incident By Charles Berlitx, and William more, and it mentioned an interesting account by a man called Gerald Light who claims that Eisenhower visited Edwards Air force Base to view the wreckage of a UFO.
The following are some select quotes from a good article detailing the origins of this myth that Berlitz and Moore no doubt failed to mention (assuming they even bothered to research the case)…

[pay particular attention to the very last snippet]

http://www.ufologie.net/ce3/1954-04-usa-edwardsafb.htm


In the Forties in the United States, one Meade Layne was a "paranormal" buff, talking about "other dimensions of reality" the world of the spirits, ghosts, ectoplasms, dematerializations, materializations and so on.

He founded a research society on these matters, which he said had bona fide scientists as members, whom he designated only by code numbers, so that the malevolent mainstream scientists do not harass them.

[snip]

Once the topic of the flying saucers had been popularized in 1947, he naturally begun to research this subject, and discovered that these flying saucers really did not come from other planets, but from the fourth dimension, inhabited by the "Etherians", beings made up of a form of matter that we cannot touch, who build the flying saucers by the force of the thought, and live in "the etheric counterpart of the planet Venus" and other such interdimensional places.

The reason that they now visit mankind so often is that the sun soon will explode into a supernova.

Meade Layne had made these discoveries on the true nature of the flying saucer by the intermediate of a psychic named "Probert". "Probert" had been contacted by ancient spirits, such as "The Yada Di'Shi'ite", an Oriental chap who had lived 500.000 years ago as a citizen of an Himalayan civilization, as well as one friend of Gallilée, and a deceased German scientist.

In 1954, the radio host Frank Edwards refers to flying saucers that were rumored to have landed at Muroc AFB, and soon, Meade Layne produced a letter he claimed to be of his friend "Gerald Light", an expert on the occult and an "astral traveller". Light told how he had his time of fun when he saw the humiliation of the "know-it-all" mainstream scientists who scoffed at the etheric theories confronted with the Etherians beings demonstrations of superior techniques.

[snip]

Then, authors of flying saucers books of the lunatic fringe type, from Jimmy Guieu to William Cooper, removed the too-obviously nonsensical tones of the story, carfully avoided giving the sources or the background, and gave birth to the ever re-hashed mythology of the encounter between President Eisenhower and the aliens at Muroc AFB (aka Edwards AFB).

[snip]

As of Gerald Light, oddly or significantly, I found strictly null independent confirmation that he even existed, and it is quite possible that he did not exist at all and that his alleged letter was simply invented.
All I can say is I hope you didn’t pay too much for that book… :)

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-25, 02:40 AM
I just have to love your rules, why don't somebody justify first before they are answering a question? Do rules only apply to newbies?
The rules apply to whoever can read them. And membership is based, partially, on the ability to read.


Or are you in the habit of ganging up on newcomers?

You walk into a cage of tigers with a steak around your neck, you draw a crowd.

solomarineris
2009-Jun-25, 03:05 AM
Suggesting that the technology has not changed in 100 years is at best disingenuous. It has made HUGE leaps just in the last 30 years.
What'd you do last 30yrs with combustion engine? Did you go 0 to 60 less than a second?
That's what Computer Technology did as comparison.

LotusExcelle
2009-Jun-25, 03:10 AM
Suggesting that the technology has not changed in 100 years is at best disingenuous. It has made HUGE leaps just in the last 30 years.
What'd you do last 30yrs with combustion engine? Did you go 0 to 60 less than a second?
That's what Computer Technology did as comparison.

Not even remotely comparable. And shows how little you know about both technologies.

But yes there are vehicles that go that fast. Have you never heard of them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_fuel_dragster
I suggest seeing them in person. It is quite a sight.

solomarineris
2009-Jun-25, 03:11 AM
You walk into a cage of tigers with a steak around your neck, you draw a crowd.
I don't want to confront you. Actually I feel pretty free, you two choices; (first one is the best)
#1-Ignore my posts (if they lack intelligence behind)
#2-Censor/ban me, which is not warranted

solomarineris
2009-Jun-25, 03:18 AM
Have you never heard of them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_fuel_dragster
I suggest seeing them in person. It is quite a sight.
I stand to be corrected, actually there's a dragster which can go that fast.
For a second I thought you were going to mention a Indy car or something.

LotusExcelle
2009-Jun-25, 03:21 AM
Indy cars use rather advanced engines as well. I won't pull Nascar into it as I think they have it backwards. (I'm not a fan of 'displacement' or pushrods). The point is that IC engine technology is, indeed, rather advanced. And it has become that way through a traceable series of events and technologies developed by clever humans. Just like transistor tech, silicone, and so on.

Van Rijn
2009-Jun-25, 03:23 AM
Suggesting that the technology has not changed in 100 years is at best disingenuous. It has made HUGE leaps just in the last 30 years.
What'd you do last 30yrs with combustion engine?


Given the physical limits of a combustion engine, what improvements would you expect in the last 30 years?

solomarineris
2009-Jun-25, 03:29 AM
If you make an ATM/CT claim, then you most certainly do have to "justify" it according to the rules of this forum. If you don't wish to do that, you may withdraw your claim.

This is the most ridiculous claim that I have to prove.
How I am going to do that? Tell how combustion engine evolved from using pistons or even how we quit using gasoline and started using plasma?
Is that what should I say?
I stand by my claim. Gasoline & combustion Engine is still here.
Computer technology went crazy in comparison.

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-25, 03:34 AM
Wasn't the combustion engine made obsolete by jet technology? :)

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-25, 03:37 AM
I stand by my claim. Gasoline & combustion Engine is still here.
Computer technology went crazy in comparison.

...and your claim is that this was all due to "alien intervention"?

solomarineris
2009-Jun-25, 03:40 AM
Given the physical limits of a combustion engine, what improvements would you expect in the last 30 years?
Frankly not much, we have to absolutely chuck the idea now using this archaic power plant. We should invest tenfold or more into developing a reliable electric car. (would I be willing to pay more taxes? Yea I would)
I am a hypocrite when I write this, I drive one of the best machines Combustion Engine invented, I burn gas like it will never end.
I think we consumers & carmakers finally getting the point.

Gandalf223
2009-Jun-25, 03:46 AM
...do you think that maybe some of the technology we take for granted today may have been a result of research into whatever crashed at Roswell?

A weather balloon? (OK, it was a secret surveillance balloon.) What the heck kind of technological advances are we supposed to have made by analyzing our own technology? There's never been anything presented that proves it was anything but what the Air Force said it was, other than a bunch of conspiracy theorists who also have nothing.

As entertaining as CTs like the alleged incident at Roswell may be, without any kind of corroborating evidence I'm not going to give the ETs credit for my PCs.

nauthiz
2009-Jun-25, 03:48 AM
Wasn't the combustion engine made obsolete by jet technology? :)

When did jet engines stop using combustion? :p

R.A.F.
2009-Jun-25, 03:54 AM
Given the physical limits of a combustion engine, what improvements would you expect in the last 30 years?

Van Rijn...if I may, I'd like to change this quote just a "tad" to...

Given the physical limits of a combustion engine, when used in an automobile, what improvements would you expect in the last 30 years?

There are only so many "improvements"
that can be made to the combustion engine when it is used in an autombile. For instance, and as I posted earlier, the combustion engine "evolved" into the jet engine when used in airplanes. Well, we can't very well do that with cars, so the "evolution" of the engine in cars can go no farther than "ordinary" combustion.

In other words, Solomarineris, the premise for your analogy has been basically flawed from the beginning.

nauthiz
2009-Jun-25, 04:04 AM
There are still some neat things going on with piston engines, though. Those six-stroke engines - basically a hybrid gasoline/steam engine - are fascinating.

Daffy
2009-Jun-25, 04:12 AM
This is the most ridiculous claim that I have to prove.
How I am going to do that? Tell how combustion engine evolved from using pistons or even how we quit using gasoline and started using plasma?
Is that what should I say?
I stand by my claim. Gasoline & combustion Engine is still here.
Computer technology went crazy in comparison.

And I stand by what I said. A person from 1910 wouldn't have the vaguest notion of what most parts of a car engine today are even for.

AGN Fuel
2009-Jun-25, 04:56 AM
This is the most ridiculous claim that I have to prove. How I am going to do that?

I think if you come into this forum presenting this argument:

Premise 1. The progress of Technology A, relying on a specific set of drivers 'A', has progressed by a certain amount.
Premise 2. The progress of Technology B, relying on a completely unrelated set of drivers 'B', has progressed by a greater amount.
Conclusion: Technology B has been sourced from a crashed alien spaceship.

...then I tend to agree that you probably do need to provide a little substantiation to support your argument.

Van Rijn
2009-Jun-25, 05:09 AM
Given the physical limits of a combustion engine, what improvements would you expect in the last 30 years?
Frankly not much,[snip]


So, then what is your basis of comparison between combustion engines and computers?

Van Rijn
2009-Jun-25, 05:17 AM
I don't have justify nothing. If you think you can explain discrepancy of progress among various scientific fields, fine, I'd like to read it.


What "discrepancy of progress" among scientific fields are you referring to?

PetersCreek
2009-Jun-25, 05:56 AM
This is the most ridiculous claim that I have to prove.
How I am going to do that? Tell how combustion engine evolved from using pistons or even how we quit using gasoline and started using plasma?
Is that what should I say?
I stand by my claim. Gasoline & combustion Engine is still here.
Computer technology went crazy in comparison.

What should you say? Start with something that supports your claim instead of just blindly insisting upon it. So far, you have failed to demonstrate that advances in computer technology should have proceeded no faster than in automotive technology, unless we had the benefit of alien technology from which to borrow. Just saying it's so won't make it so...and just saying it's so doesn't comply with our rules.

My direct question to you is, why is your claimed disparity in technological advancement remarkable and attributable to reverse engineered alien technology? I've already suggested some differences in the market forces between the two technologies. Please consider them when providing your timely answer.

gzhpcu
2009-Jun-25, 06:10 AM
You walk into a cage of tigers with a steak around your neck, you draw a crowd.
I don't want to confront you. Actually I feel pretty free, you two choices; (first one is the best)
#1-Ignore my posts (if they lack intelligence behind)
#2-Censor/ban me, which is not warranted

Posts are not ignored here, because it appears to lurkers as if it were tacit consent by the members of this board.

You will only be censored if you use rude language. This might also lead to a banning.

In this forum, if you make claims for which you have no evidence, you either find evidence or admit you are wrong and withdraw the claim. If you refuse to do so, it might result in banning (actually a suspension for some period of time).

It's all in the rules...

slang
2009-Jun-25, 07:18 AM
Computer technology went crazy in comparison.

This is nonsense. The computer under your fingers right now still uses the same basic principles as the very first tiny hobby computers. You know, the ones without a proper screen, that had a 4 bit processor (or less), just a few keys, and a couple of LED number displays. It's still just transistors set up in such a way that they can perform very simple functions. The main improvements have been to put stuff that used to be discrete components into custom chips, and slow improvement of the material of which chips are made (allowing for faster speeds and more miniaturization).

What you see as crazy improvement is nothing but a long, long series of a small improvements, by many companies, on individual components, and a slowly increasing usage of those components as they could handle more. Many different manufacturers improved upon just a few components, and they become available constantly. When you buy a new computer every five years, all you see is how much faster and more capable it was then your previous computer. However, were you to buy a new computer every three months, buying one in the same price range as your previous one, you would notice a much slower rate of improvement.

To suggest that this improvement isn't normal, or possible, is a slap in the face of the millions of people in the computer industry, who have studied years, and worked hard, to get where we are now.

Don't believe me? http://www.old-computers.com/museum Click on the years and see the slow growth. Please stop defending silly statements on fields where you obviously have no expertise at all.

worldcruiser
2009-Jun-25, 08:51 AM
The whole reverse engineering statement is nonsense.
Thought experiment:
Drop a laptop from thousand feet on the ground.
Take the pieces and put it in your timemachine and send the former laptop to some early genius, let us take Leonardo da Vinci.
Does anybody really believe Leonardo could reverse engineer from that heap of laptop trash an electronic device like a TI 30 calculator?

How do you reverse engineer things (which physics background are unknown) that needs technology you don't posess neither have the knowledge nor the necessary support to build?

NorthernBoy
2009-Jun-25, 10:29 AM
Look, we are still driving a basic Combustion Engine which was invented 110 yrs ago, same engine, no matter it is in latest Corvette or Bonnie & Clyde's Ford V8.
OTOH look at meteoric rise of computer technology, do I need to say more?
We are inventing stuff with exponential speed. Where does the know-how come from when it is in baby steps in other areas?

Well, what do you think could be the difference?

Personally, I'd put at least a part of it down to the fact that a wheel is already about as good as you are going to get for moving things for a low energy cost, and to the fact that even a 1940s car was getting about 10% of the energy out of a litre of petrol.

On the other hand, we turned out to be using electronic components that were billions of times larger than they needed to be, leaving lots and lots of room for improvement.

On the other hand, you could look at things another way. The radio that my parents had in the 50s was pretty similar to the one that I have now, but the car parked on my drive would have won the first grand prix that was run, and would also get me to and from the event in comfort.

So maybe you are actually focussing on what you want to focus on to prove a point.

NorthernBoy
2009-Jun-25, 10:46 AM
I'm not a fan of 'displacement' or pushrods

Which is well in fitting with your name, of course.

On the subject of advances in computing against cars, of course, there is the following (probably embellished) riposte to Bil Gates' claim that if car manufacturers had kept up with electronics we'd all be driving V-32 engined machines that could do 10,000mph and getting 1,000mph;

"But Bill, who'd drive a car that would crash twice a day".

NorthernBoy
2009-Jun-25, 10:53 AM
I drive one of the best machines Combustion Engine invented

Ooh, what is it?

I'd say that, depending on which direction you want to take, that would be an Elise S1 Sport 160 (or its Exige cousin), a Zonda F, an Atom, or, if you want to expand "drive" to cover two wheels as well, the new ABS Fireblade or a GSX-R1000. Did I guess right?

Or, if you prefer the older machinery, perhaps a Miura, or a Merc 300SL.

I assume that you are from the US (apologies if not), and it is rare to come across someone from there who shares the European's love of beautiful engineering and purity of design in automotive engineering. Sadly, all too often, they look up to Mustangs or Dodge Vipers or other abominations.

Anyway, apologies for the thread derail, but the above comment just is too much of a tease.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-25, 11:25 AM
You walk into a cage of tigers with a steak around your neck, you draw a crowd.
I don't want to confront you. Actually I feel pretty free, you two choices; (first one is the best)
#1-Ignore my posts (if they lack intelligence behind)
#2-Censor/ban me, which is not warranted

All we're doing is pointing out the fallacies in your posts. You're the one taking umbrage at the corrections.

Larry Jacks
2009-Jun-25, 01:13 PM
solomarineris

Given the physical limits of a combustion engine, what improvements would you expect in the last 30 years?
Frankly not much, we have to absolutely chuck the idea now using this archaic power plant. We should invest tenfold or more into developing a reliable electric car. (would I be willing to pay more taxes? Yea I would)

The sticking point for electric cars is battery technology. Even though battery technology is reportedly improving by up to 30% a year, it still takes a lot of batteries to store the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline that weighs only 6 pounds. Practical urban electric cars will be hitting the market soon but they won't serve the needs of a lot of people nearly as well as gasoline powered cars and trucks. They're also going to be quite expensive because of all those batteries.

In the meantime, gasoline engine technology for automobile use has advanced tremendously in the past 30 years or so, in part due to the advances in electronics. I read once (and can't find a source to back up the statement) that a car produced in the 1960s and 1970s produced as much as 400 times the pollution as a modern car. Most of them also produced less power and got worse gas mileage. Simultaneously improving power and economy while reducing pollution is a significant achievement in engine technology due in part to electronic ignition, electronic fuel injection, better materials, tighter tolerances, and other technological advances. Adjusted for inflation, these modern engines aren't that much more expensive than the old engines, either. Not too shabby.

Grashtel:

How about turning this around? If say a Global Hawk had landed somewhere in 1947 what could have been reverse engineered from it? As a Global Hawk is presumably much less advanced than an alien space ship, built by humans, and for this scenario it would have landed safely rather than crashing reverse engineering it would be far easier than from a crashed alien vehicle.

An interesting question. The basic aerodynamics of the Global Hawk wouldn't surprise anyone in 1947. They might be able to learn quite a bit about the alloys used in the airframe and especially in the jet engine. Jet engine technology was still in its infancy in 1947 with relatively short operational life and horrendous fuel consumption.

I suspect they'd have a much harder time understanding the avionics. The integrated circuits used in modern avionics are many orders of magnitude more complicated than any electronics made back then and you can't see what's going on inside of a chip. The satellite communications system might baffle them some 10 years before Sputnik. Without GPS signals, they'd likely have a hard time understanding how the plane navigated.

Now if one of the stealthy UCAVs like the X-47B were somehow transported back in time to 1947, that would likely baffle them. Its built of materials that didn't exist back then, is aerodynamically unstable, and has a lot of features that would just be outside of their experience.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-25, 01:23 PM
I think a good example of OOPART would be a cell phone. Even if the phone itself was reverse engineered in 1947, something very unlikely, it would be useless, a "one of a kind" item with nobody to call.

JayUtah
2009-Jun-25, 01:49 PM
I stand by my claim. Gasoline & combustion Engine is still here. Computer technology went crazy in comparison.

Your claim is based on the premise that both automotive engines and computer technology should have advanced at the same apparent rate if both were unaided by aliens. It is that premise you must prove before your claim has any merit.

nauthiz
2009-Jun-25, 02:06 PM
I would have expected computer performance to increase faster. Today's computers were designed using yesterday's computers and are being used to design tomorrow's computers. That fact suggests an exponential growth curve.

On the other hand, you can't use an engine to design an engine. . . move it around maybe, but not design it.

eburacum45
2009-Jun-25, 02:25 PM
The sticking point for electric cars is battery technology. Even though battery technology is reportedly improving by up to 30% a year, it still takes a lot of batteries to store the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline that weighs only 6 pounds.
There is a good reason for this; gasoline produces energy when combusted with oxygen, but on this planet oxygen is free and doesn't have to be carried around inside the car. That saves on mass.

A battery generally has to carry all the chemicals it needs to store the energy it retains; except for batteries that use oxygen out of the air (such as fuel cells), a battery will always hold lower energy per kilogram than gasoline or hydrogen. Unless you can start running cars on nuclear power or antimatter, there is a real limit to how much energy you can pack in a given mass of motor vehicle.

Perhaps one might think that a nuclear-powered car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon) is a good idea; but the need for heavy anti-radiation shielding and safe waste disposal seems to suggest that fission cars are not recommended. Fusion power is still fifty years away, so they say, and small car-sized fusion plants seem unlikely in any case. Antimatter would be a great fuel but is probably the most expensive material currently produced on Earth. So I really don't hold out much hope for phenomenal improvements in motor car fuel technology for the foreseeable future.

Access Denied
2009-Jun-25, 03:46 PM
Well, when you think about it, the modern computer is, at it’s most basic function, really just an “automated” (or “virtual” for lack of a better analogy?) version of the abacus which was invented what… over 4,000 years ago?

In comparison, the internal combustion engine has been around (in practical form) for what… around 200 years?

I say give it time… still waiting for my air car. :whistle:

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-25, 03:53 PM
I say give it time… still waiting for my air car. :whistle:
Moeller just filed for bankruptcy, so you'll have to wait a while longer.

cjameshuff
2009-Jun-25, 04:29 PM
This is the most ridiculous claim that I have to prove.
How I am going to do that? Tell how combustion engine evolved from using pistons or even how we quit using gasoline and started using plasma?
Is that what should I say?

What precisely is ridiculous about requiring you to be able to back up your claims? If you can not do so...maybe you shouldn't be making those claims. That *is* an option.

Anyway, as has been mentioned several times already, the technology needed to produce transistors, integrated circuits, etc. can not be reverse engineered from the final product. At the time of the Roswell incident, the concept of microscopic circuitry certainly existed. Semiconductor rectifiers were in use (crystal detectors, selenium rectifiers, etc), and the theory underlying transistor action already existed...patents were being given for transistor designs decades earlier. The main obstacles to production of transistors were materials and fabrication. Production of ultra-pure semiconducting materials and formation of doped regions, thin films, and metal contacts. Many approaches were tried, and in fact the first generations of commercial devices used point contact and grown junction technologies that were not useful for integrated circuits, and lots of other dead-end ideas. Kind of like what you'd expect from a technology being developed from scratch.

Photolithography, plasma deposition, and various other technologies are required to actually fabricate high density integrated circuits...what was required was advancements in a variety of fields including chemical industry, process control, etc, things that just would not be obtainable from examination of the finished product. And coincidentally, things that themselves benefit from the electronic devices they make possible. Automotive engines don't make it massively easier to make automotive engines, at best they make it a little cheaper to haul materials around. Electronic controls allow more precise fabrication of electronic parts and better automation of production, and computer aided design both greatly reduces the time required to get a working product and greatly increases the complexity of the designs that are practical to work with.

And finally...automobiles are the product of revolutionary advances. The explosive development in machine industry was what made mass-produced self-powered vehicles at all feasible. You're comparing an entire field to a specific product that emerged relatively late in the development of another field. Automobiles relied on compact, high power engines that were the result of earlier advances. Many refinements have been made since then, but those early vehicles used engines orders of magnitude more advanced than those of a century before. What you're doing is no more valid than comparing the development of portable media players to the industrial revolution: there have only been incremental improvements in sound quality and the variety of media that can be played on portable devices, compared to the massive jump from wobbly toy steam engines that were incapable of doing any useful work to the great locomotives and steamships. Does this mean that high power steam engines and the Bessemer process for mass production of steel must have been results from even earlier UFO crashes?

NorthernBoy
2009-Jun-25, 07:05 PM
Moeller just filed for bankruptcy, so you'll have to wait a while longer.

They should have hooked up with Steorn to solve the problem of having to carry all of that fuel around.

vonmazur
2009-Jun-25, 07:19 PM
""Meade Layne had made these discoveries on the true nature of the flying saucer by the intermediate of a psychic named "Probert". "Probert" had been contacted by ancient spirits, such as "The Yada Di'Shi'ite", an Oriental chap who had lived 500.000 years ago as a citizen of an Himalayan civilization, as well as one friend of Gallilée, and a deceased German scientist.""

Of all the whackamundoes in all the world, you had to find the one that is my nominal favorite; "E Yada Di Shi'ite" and his famous ads in fringe publications....
I say "nominal" in the true meaning of the term...

Dale in Al

captain swoop
2009-Jun-25, 10:47 PM
We are looking at IC engines from the end of their development . Look back to the end of the 19th century and then forward to the 1930s. That's where the big leap forward came, the comparable rate of development with computers today.

LotusExcelle
2009-Jun-25, 11:11 PM
In terms of internal combustion I think we are nowhere near the end of development. Homogeneous charge, variable compression, etc is still on the drawing board (that is... not in production). Soon we will also see new valve technologies (BMW has had an electromagnetically actuated valve system in the works for years now).

Plus diesels just keep getting better and better and with the introduction of EGR systems and piezo injectors we are seeing a new era of quite, clean diesels. Unheard of 20 years ago, even.

NorthernBoy
2009-Jun-26, 09:14 AM
In terms of internal combustion I think we are nowhere near the end of development.

Well, this may be true, but if we are now extracting 25% of the chemical energy of the fuel, we only have a factor of four to go before we are getting it all, then that's that in terms of reducing waste.

cjameshuff
2009-Jun-26, 11:23 AM
Well, this may be true, but if we are now extracting 25% of the chemical energy of the fuel, we only have a factor of four to go before we are getting it all, then that's that in terms of reducing waste.

And that's just looking at the energy efficiency. Also consider size and weight for a given power output, cost, ease of operation, reliability and maintenance requirements...

There have certainly been and continue to be new developments and refinements, but the really major advancements in piston engine technology (even specifically internal combustion engines) predated the automobile. The Model T engine was a fairly modern design, and was kept in production until 1941 with only minor refinements and adjustments. The field was already quite mature when mass produced automobiles arrived on the scene, while complex electronics didn't really even begin until vacuum tubes were developed in the early 1900s.

Comparing the development of electronics or even just integrated circuits or computers with the development of the automobile is absurd. A more realistic comparison would be electronics against the entire industrial revolution, which had similar positive feedback effects spurring its growth...production of engines and tools allowed production of more advanced engines and tools, similar to how electronic controls and computer aided design allow further advances in electronics.

iquestor
2009-Jun-28, 01:52 PM
What is so great about our current computer technology. Moore's law will soon hit the wall around 2020, then we need new technology.

The current computer technology has shown itself to be insufficient for artificial intelligence and other once highly tauted applications.

I highly doubt an advanced alien civilization would use such primitive technology to build a computer.

We are already investigating and looking for better technology (optical computers, quantum computers) than the silicon-based computing.

Aliens would have something more potent.

Moore's law may hit a wall based on the manufacturing process required to lay down the traces to allow elelctron flow, and transistor size as well -- we were supposed to hit that wall in the early 90's but developed a new process that allowed the newer pentium processors. I forget exactly which, but it was a big breakthrough. Prior to that, it was considered impossible to go further, a lot like 28.8 kb modems represented the maximum amount of badwidth possible over a POTS line. then we got 33.6k, then 56.6k through compression and other algorithms. By then, we had availability of higher bandwidth that POTS, so we set aside further modem development and concentrated on these conduits. We had enough throughput now so we could develop the internet applications and data transfers we wanted, so we could focus on those.

In new PCs we can have 2 or more real or virtual processors coupled with a bus with sufficient bandwidth to allow memory operations that arent a bottleneck -- but I wonder if we are truly at a wall.

In a way, I hope we are. I think quantum computing is a real possibility soon, and it seemingly opens the door to the kind of breakthroughs we look for in AI, etc. Kind of like using a T1 line or bable in place of a modem; much higher throughput using atomic states over NP juntions to perform logic operations. I think the possibilities will truly seem endless for a while.


And we truly owe this to Babbage, The Transistor, and the Integrated Circuits. No Aliens needed.

gzhpcu
2009-Jun-28, 03:10 PM
Point I am trying to make is that our current transistor-based technology for computers is not good enough for the type of technology the alleged aliens use to get here...

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-28, 03:17 PM
Point I am trying to make is that our current transistor-based technology for computers is not good enough for the type of technology the alleged aliens use to get here...

Very true. If it was we'd be going there.

iquestor
2009-Jun-28, 03:41 PM
Point I am trying to make is that our current transistor-based technology for computers is not good enough for the type of technology the alleged aliens use to get here...

I get that, and totally agree. I was just pointing out that although our PC technology may seem to have grown suddenly, it has a well established and documented history that doesn't need to include alien technology to explain.


However, to play devil's Advocate .... Why do we have to assume Aliens would give us their current level of technology?? Why not give us the concept of a PN juction as a switch to use and evolve on our own? A PN juction switch is something we might not have had, but we certainly could understand it. We were already using VTs to perform the switching necessary to store and use binary states; I doubt we could have evolved a more advanced method on our own, of say Quantum Computing, because we didnt have the technology to exploit it at the time. We would have had to have a lot more sophisticated technology in may areas to use it at all, which means they would have had to given us a LOT of technology.

If we found a race of intelligent monkeys and wanted to help them, would we give them a fully fledged car, or start them out with the Wheel instead?

To be clear, I dont think we got any of our tech, or anything else from aliens. Just playing devil's advocate.

astrophotographer
2009-Jun-28, 05:49 PM
But it is not a matter of the aliens "giving" us the technology. The claim is that we stole it from the alien's spacecraft. It is similar to this intelligent race of monkeys have a jet fighter crash in their midst. They might figure out the wheel thing but they aren't going to figure out the avionics for some time.

iquestor
2009-Jun-28, 06:03 PM
But it is not a matter of the aliens "giving" us the technology. The claim is that we stole it from the alien's spacecraft. It is similar to this intelligent race of monkeys have a jet fighter crash in their midst. They might figure out the wheel thing but they aren't going to figure out the avionics for some time.

Ah, yes. you are correct. I forgot the assumption here was that we had found the technology at Roswell. thanks.

Fortis
2009-Jun-28, 08:16 PM
While reading this thread I am reminded of the short story by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, Roadside Picnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic), which posits the notion that we would have about as much of an understanding about the significance of stuff left behind by visiting aliens, as animals would understand what was going on with the junk left behind by people who stop by the side of the road, in a wood, for a picnic.

The odds of us being able to reverse engineer it into something even vaguely useful seems slim at best.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-28, 08:26 PM
While reading this thread I am reminded of the short story by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, Roadside Picnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic), which posits the notion that we would have about as much of an understanding about the significance of stuff left behind by visiting aliens, as animals would understand what was going on with the junk left behind by people who stop by the side of the road, in a wood, for a picnic.

The odds of us being able to reverse engineer it into something even vaguely useful seems slim at best.
Take someone from 1809 and show them your house. How many "gadgets" could they reproduce? The plastic shelves? The teflon pans? The LED tv? The electric coffee pot? The poor guy would freeze to death because he would be able to find a fireplace! I suspect that any aliens that do make here will be a bit beyond that 200 year gap.

Gillianren
2009-Jun-28, 08:33 PM
The poor guy would freeze to death because he would be able to find a fireplace!

I presume you mean unable, and he'd be able to find fireplaces and pellet stoves in a lot of places around here, including my own apartment.

Paul Beardsley
2009-Jun-28, 08:36 PM
While reading this thread I am reminded of the short story by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, Roadside Picnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic), which posits the notion that we would have about as much of an understanding about the significance of stuff left behind by visiting aliens, as animals would understand what was going on with the junk left behind by people who stop by the side of the road, in a wood, for a picnic.

The odds of us being able to reverse engineer it into something even vaguely useful seems slim at best.

A pertinent post indeed.

This isn't really a quibble, but... some years ago, a Russian colleague of mine who was a friend of the Strugatsky brothers pointed out that the translation of the title lost a significant point. The "roadside" was not supposed to be the sort of wood where you'd have a picnic; rather, it was a layby in a built-up run-down area next to a busy but poorly maintained road - that is, the last place you'd want to stop to eat, but for some reason you did anyway.

A great little story - not fully captured in Tarkovsky's film Stalker.

Torch2k
2009-Jun-28, 09:30 PM
Take someone from 1809 and show them your house. How many "gadgets" could they reproduce? The plastic shelves? The teflon pans? The LED tv? The electric coffee pot? The poor guy would freeze to death because he would be able to find a fireplace! I suspect that any aliens that do make here will be a bit beyond that 200 year gap.

Do you really have to go back that far? Take someone from 1959 and empty your pockets and attache case: a cell phone would be hard enough for them to grasp; a Blackberry would blow them away; your laptop would seem like something out of 2001; and, your GPS would look like voodoo.

I don't think reverse engineering would be the problem -- it'd be an incredible leap for them to believe you weren't trying to deceive them.

Torch2k
2009-Jun-28, 09:37 PM
However, to play devil's Advocate .... Why do we have to assume Aliens would give us their current level of technology??

Of course, a counter-argument is, "Why would the aliens give us an outrageously outmoded technology if we were capable of assimilating a more advanced one?"

Von Daniken comes to my mind. Props to the aliens for helping us build the pyramids, but wouldn't it have made more sense to teach the Egyptians about arches, concrete, and rebar?

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-28, 09:58 PM
I presume you mean unable, and he'd be able to find fireplaces and pellet stoves in a lot of places around here, including my own apartment.

Grammar fail.

Yeah, but I live in an all electric home, and the thermostat is not at all obvious as a source of heat. Cryptically marked and out of the way.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jun-28, 10:01 PM
Do you really have to go back that far? Take someone from 1959 and empty your pockets and attache case: a cell phone would be hard enough for them to grasp; a Blackberry would blow them away; your laptop would seem like something out of 2001; and, your GPS would look like voodoo.

I don't think reverse engineering would be the problem -- it'd be an incredible leap for them to believe you weren't trying to deceive them.

I work on the Antebellum USN. (URL on request.) The differences in technology are interesting. I've seen long documents on the way copper protects ships from damage, and most of it is wrong, wrong, wrong. But they're trying to figure it out. No idea of a sacrificial anode at that time, IIRC.

Gillianren
2009-Jun-28, 10:12 PM
You know, the funny thing is that I was just commenting the other day about how familiar Sir Isaac Newton would be with a lot of the contents of my house. Yes, the plastic and various other technological advances would throw him, but I do still have that fireplace, and while my windows are beyond anything he could have had, they're still windows. My books are brighter and more varied, but they're still books. He wouldn't be able to work out my oven without help, I suspect, and my refrigerator would completely floor him, but aside from our dependence on electricity, not as much has changed as we may imagine. (And emptying my bag would produce no electronics whatsoever, and only my collection of credit cards/store discount cards/library cards would produce any suprises.) The basics don't really change.

Fortis
2009-Jun-28, 10:40 PM
Another example that might provide an insight into the difficulty of reverse engineering any truly advanced technology.

A few years ago a couple of radio-thermal generators were recovered from Georgia. These were designed to provided electrical power in remote areas. The lumberjacks that originally came across them were using them as heaters...

Halcyon Dayz
2009-Jun-29, 01:12 AM
Take someone from 1809 and show them your house. How many "gadgets" could they reproduce? The plastic shelves? The teflon pans? The LED tv? The electric coffee pot? The poor guy would freeze to death because he would be able to find a fireplace!

A concept used hilariously in the TV-show Catweazle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catweazle).

Elec-trickery!

FramerDave
2009-Jun-29, 04:47 PM
As technology develops and progresses, it tends to leave behind many predecessors. A short look at history will show this. I'm afraid I'm not as knowledgeable about this as some here, so forgive any mistakes I might make in the following example: One might look at early mechanical computing devices, later followed by electromechanical devices such as those used to break the Enigma code, followed by vacuum tubes, followed by the transistor, followed by the integrated circuit, etc.

Each one of those steps had a predecessor, much as living creatures have fossil ancestors. Each step is accompanied by huge amounts of documentation, research, theory, budgets and spin-off technology.

Can anyone show us one example of technology, whether we take it for granted or not, that just suddenly sprung into being without such backing? If so I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

As for our ability or inability to backwards engineer alien technology... I think we can take it as a given that any civilization advanced enough to traverse interstellar distances would have to be far more advanced than us. Let's say by 500 years at least. Go back 500 years into our past and give Galileo a nuclear powered aircraft carrier and ask him to reproduce it. How do you think that would work out?

BetaDust
2009-Jun-29, 05:03 PM
Go back 500 years into our past and give Galileo a nuclear powered aircraft carrier and ask him to reproduce it. How do you think that would work out?

Very bad for Galileo. :)

captain swoop
2009-Jun-29, 09:59 PM
It can be hard with current technology. In WW2 the Germans never suspected that the british had developed microwave Radar. They even had a Cavity Magnetron tube from a crashed H2S set on a Lancaster Bomber.
Conclusion they thought it was a hoax as they had no idea of the theory behind it and didn't even consider microwaves as a possibility.

Just before the war the Germans sent an Airship on a series of flights up and down the North Sea packed wit hdsetectors for Radio and Radar transmission. Germany was using rotating antenna with a wavelength of between 1 and 5 meters for it's Radar experiments. In the UK a complete system was already operational using 11m wavelength (this was chosen as half the wingspan of a Heinkel 11 bomber) Instead of using a rotating antenna CHL used phase shift between 4 transmisson and 4 reciever towers to give direction. It operated on a pulse rate of 25 per second, this was a sub multiple of the mains power frequency and was chosen to stop interferance.
When the Germans detected these signals they were so different to their experimental Radar sets they assumed they were just getting interference from the National Grid.
Conclusion the UK didn't have Radar.

Larry Jacks
2009-Jun-29, 10:09 PM
That flight was, as far as I can tell, the last flight of the Graf Zeppelin, the last of the great airships. The British were tracking the flight on radar and monitoring the communications the whole time. According to one story I read, at one point the airship gave an incorrect position report. The British had to bite their tongues to keep from correcting the Germans. IIRC, I read this story in a book I bought in England titled "Most Secret War" by Dr. R. V. Jones (considered by many as the father of electronic countermeasures), a great read.

captain swoop
2009-Jun-29, 11:03 PM
check out http://www.radarpages.co.uk/ all you ever wanted to know (and more) about British Air Defence Radar.

JonClarke
2009-Jun-30, 09:04 AM
That flight was, as far as I can tell, the last flight of the Graf Zeppelin, the last of the great airships. The British were tracking the flight on radar and monitoring the communications the whole time. According to one story I read, at one point the airship gave an incorrect position report. The British had to bite their tongues to keep from correcting the Germans. IIRC, I read this story in a book I bought in England titled "Most Secret War" by Dr. R. V. Jones (considered by many as the father of electronic countermeasures), a great read.

My understanding is that this was Graph Zeppelin II a sister to the Hindenberg, not the slightly smaller but more famous craft that circumnavigated the world and provided scheduled services to South America

AGN Fuel
2009-Jul-01, 07:22 AM
That flight was, as far as I can tell, the last flight of the Graf Zeppelin, the last of the great airships. The British were tracking the flight on radar and monitoring the communications the whole time. According to one story I read, at one point the airship gave an incorrect position report. The British had to bite their tongues to keep from correcting the Germans. IIRC, I read this story in a book I bought in England titled "Most Secret War" by Dr. R. V. Jones (considered by many as the father of electronic countermeasures), a great read.

:lol::lol::lol:

I can just picture it...

Zeppelin radio operator: "Ja, mein Herr . Wir sind (reads co-ordinates)"

(Crackling radio in clipped tones): "Actually, old boy, I think you'll find that you're rather north of that location, what what?"

Starfury
2009-Jul-05, 03:45 PM
What I never could understand is how really advanced technology could be possibly be understood much less reverse-engineered.

To come to earth from some distant star, tremendously advanced technology would be needed, and it would have been developed by some form of life most likely totally different from us.

Makes fun reading but not much sense to believe in the Roswell crash...:)


The funniest part is that after traveling many light years to get here it all went pants on them in the last couple hundred miles.

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-05, 06:28 PM
The funniest part is that after traveling many light years to get here it all went pants on them in the last couple hundred miles.

The claims are that either lightning hit the Roswell saucer or two of them collided. The first is based on the storm that night, indicating that UFO are not capable of handling weather even if they can cross interstellar space. The second is needed to explain why there is more than one crash site charging admission.

Fortis
2009-Jul-05, 07:07 PM
The funniest part is that after traveling many light years to get here it all went pants on them in the last couple hundred miles.
Maybe they just forgot how to fly the thing in the atmosphere. A few years ago, I had the joy of observing the emergece of "Brood X", a brood of 17 year periodic cicadas (immortalised by Bob Dylan in "The day of the locusts".) These things spend roughly 17 years of their life living in tunnels underground, and then finally emerge into the light where they have a couple of weeks of trying to fly (and mate.) Trust me, they are not very good at the flying thing (the other bit I didn't observe.) Maybe a similar thing happened to the "aliens". ;)

phunk
2009-Jul-06, 06:56 PM
Ask anyone who works on probes sent to other planets. The last hundred miles are always the hardest part. :)

JayUtah
2009-Jul-06, 07:08 PM
And of that, the last hundred meters are even more difficult.

korjik
2009-Jul-06, 08:23 PM
'Just get us on the ground!'
'That part'll happen pretty definitely'

Mal Reynolds to Wash

Any thread could use a little Serenity

:)

Gawdzilla
2009-Jul-06, 09:00 PM
Ask anyone who works on probes sent to other planets. The last hundred miles are always the hardest part. :)

One part Hollywood got right. (c.f. "Mission to Mars" and "The Red Planet", among others.)

Donnie B.
2009-Jul-06, 09:32 PM
Any thread could use a little Serenity

:)
Can't it just.

pzkpfw
2009-Jul-07, 10:29 AM
I just had to mention; I'm currently working on understanding a particular RFID reader so that I can integrate it into an existing system I built.

It's from www.alientechnology.com

I need a DLL that I wasn't supplied. Guess how much fun it was (just today) googling for "alien technology".

Paul Beardsley
2009-Jul-07, 11:46 AM
I've just worked out what you mean. That is funny!

Piano Paul
2009-Jul-07, 08:12 PM
I've just worked out what you mean. That is funny!

That IS funny! "Alien Technology" (roflmao)