And here we go! (We really need a Joker smiley face)

Frank stated that government funded research is about 3 to 1, compared to what industry puts into research.

From what I have been able to dig up with a cursory internet search (ok...I went to Wikipedia because it came up first in Google)

"In the OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government, although in poorer countries such as Portugal and Mexico the industry contribution is significantly less. The US government spends more than other countries on military R&D, although the proportion has fallen from around 30% in the 1980s to under 20%[1]. Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36% in the U.S. The government funding proportion in certain industries is higher, and it dominates research in social science and humanities. Similarly, with some exceptions (e.g. biotechnology) government provides the bulk of the funds for basic scientific research. In commercial research and development, all but the most research-oriented corporations focus more heavily on near-term commercialisation possibilities rather than "blue-sky" ideas or technologies (such as nuclear fusion)."

With that said, I do think the "blue-sky" research is vastly important. Super colliders leap to mind as something that government funding is very important for! Frank, would it be fair to say that we can agree that there are some projects under the "blue-sky" umbrella that deserve and need government funding?

If you want a medical industry example of government interference. Medical devices is an excellent one. The new taxes to be levied on medical device companies is going to derail research by said companies in the short term. Because...these companies have =contracts= that lock in their prices so they can't pass the cost on...which they will. This isn't speculation on my part, I can name one company where management has stated this.

I will grant you that DARPA does some wacky and brilliant research that has resulted in vast gains for all of society. I should be very careful about painting with too broad of strokes. So, I will give ground that some government intervention is beneficial that the line shifts further and further towards total control.

And there was the fact that I failed to mention that the Navy is funding the research into the polywell fusion reactor (although I wish they weren't).

Fair enough?

Hermit said "So do I. I also know how to declutch. Or, if you're preferring automatics, turn the engine of and switch to N. I honestly fail to get how this can kill you. It's not like the engine isn't extinguisghable. At worst, you ruin the engine, but you can then bill the company for that? And even if the normal brakes for soe reason do not work, there is a maniual brake that must be included with a car, so once your engine is dead or turned off, use that to brake.

Also, free market says hushing up is cheaper and more efficient than recall. It's state regulations that force automakers to abide by safety standards, not free market."

You know, when I heard that story about the State Trooper and his family that died...the first thought was why? Neutral or take the car out of gear make perfect sense to me. So I do agree on that one.

As for the 'hushing up', maybe some in the free market think so but if it would be me facing jail time I say nada. Recalls happen all the time though, so again that broad brush.

DOH! I missed one other good point that Hermit brought up!

"I'd rather like to see CH3OH run engines or something. It is impossibkle to contain hydrogen, and I'd hate to have my gas tank emptied after a week by diffusion."

There is some promising research being done on some hydrogen fuel cells, I will see if I can find the link.

Methanol is pretty toxic and represents some significant problems in that regard but hey who knows!

Only meagerly more than the good stuff in your liquors and beers. And it is naturally occurring and degenerates into carbon dioxide and water just fine naturally. You may go blind from it if you drink too much (it's what makes moonshine the health wonder it is), but if you keep your liver occupied, anmd it is built down only slowly, even that can be surpassed. Yes, the cure for methanol poisoning is to be dead drunk for a few days.

The problem is, hydrogen being such a tiny and neutral molecule, it just diffuses out of any gatter you lock it into. You can try to add it to Platinum or something on a nanotube net, but then you are looking towards trouble getting it off there again. So far, there is no feasible application that will hold hydrogen as dependably as a plastic tank will hold an alcohol or other carbon hydrids.

And you can run a fuel cell with these too. Plus, producing them does not require an entire fusion plant doing hydrolysis day and night. Not to mention that all this released oxygen might actually cause problems of it's own. Sure, you could pave New Mexico and the Mojave with thermosolar plants, but where to get the water to hydrolysate then from?


Given what kinds of people populate the upper echelons of the economy these days, I call bogus. You might not want to risk it, but these people do. Hushing up instead of recallinmg is a long standing amrican tradition. Most recalls you see come because the state kicks the companies in the arse, not because the companies want to.

Considering that my wife works in regulatory for a medical device company and her name is on the documents they don't pay her enough money to risk going to prison. She has worked for three companies all of whom have had voluntary (meaning the FDA never required them to do so) recalls. You hear about the bad fish but I don't agree that all of them are that way.

Now you did it...my wife is sitting next to me directing my response!

There are some bad companies but there are plenty of companies that want to do the right thing too. Companys do recalls for litigation purposes to avert lawsuits. The recalls that are safety related have to be reported to the government. This is insured by random inspections to ensure that procedures are in place and being adhered to. While highly placed corporate officers will commonly purchase insurance to protect themselves from civil litigation this does not provide any protection in cases where there is willful negligence and criminal proceedings can be pursued.

If you want to see the safety related recalls that are taking place go to :grinbig:www.recalls.gov which covers consumer protection safety commission, NHTSA, FDA, USDA, EPA, and the US Coast Guard. There are additional recalls taking place that do not require reporting to government agencies.

Audits are conducted to ensure that companies are in compliance with regulations.

The FDA's approach is not meant to operate like some of the emerging markets where they use regulations to generate fees. Or other countries where they use their regulations to limit access to their markets. FDA has designed (along with public input) an ingenius system that is meant to be self-correcting with an emphasis on constantly improving the system. Simply because that they do not have the manpower to inspect 100%. It is a quality system of good manufacturing practices, good clinical and good laboratory practices. Each manufacturer analyzes complaints from the field spotting trends and dealing them as they arise. These complaints are prioritized by risk, dealing with those that are obviously the worst first. In addition to the complaint system, there are manufacturing errors that are caught before the product goes out the door. Finally, design controls are meant to identify and resolve errors before the device goes to the manufacturing area. Design control is important because it is cheaper to fix it at that point then once it is in manufacturing or even worse than having to perform a recall which is very expensive.

This whole process is economically driven because it is cheaper to fix errors early on. The first reaction by some companies is that this is a bunch of government bureaucracy. The companies that get it realize that this is a way to save money, improve the quality of the product and make a profit.

End of wife input. I hope that you enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed typing it! *OUCH* Don't hit me!

Depending on your car, I wouldn't shut the engine off until stopping, that often kills the power assist for brakes.

I've driven a car that did not have power steering or breaks... it was a stone bitch to turn when you were stopped, but when you were going then it was easy.

As for power breaks... you have a good leg... mash that petal!

Like my old Fiero, no power steering because there was no room. Ufff.

I don't know what the original discussion was, but just reading this post, it is possible you and Frank are comparing different things. Maybe the Wikipedia post you quote deals in dollar cost, whereas the 3 to 1 may be in separate researchers/projects.

I know that in universities, the overwhelming majority of research is done by graduate students, who significantly outnumber faculty. (They also bring in way more money for the universities than the faculty members do, but that's another can of worms.) Some of these, particularly in engineering and physical sciences, work on segments of a research director's larger project, others are doing their own thing off in a corner office/lab, with little funding but buckets of creativity and energy. Count them all up, and you have a lot of people, mostly funded by federal grants. It is possible this creates a 3 to 1 ratio compared to private industry. I will acknowledge that industry also funds university research, but they usually go for the big ticket, high profile researchers. (Who themselves often then enslave a bunch of graduate students to do the grunt work, so it is complicated.)

I'd be curious to know where Frank got his numbers.

I would say that my first instinct would be to stop power from going to the drive shaft, i.e. neutral or out of gear. Turning off the before you have stopped the vehicle might result in locking up the steering column (not a good thing if you flying through traffic like the Dukes of Hazzard).



I was on the verge of derailing CGL #4 thread, I don't remember if he stipulated a source. Soooo, you could be right about the apples and oranges.

Spot on, with that grad students perform the =overwhelming= majority of research.

Blue sky projects I would certainly agree but actual products...that is a different beast. My belief in the free market (which I don't believe we have had in every sector of the US for at least four decades) is in the innovative spirit of entrepreneurs. The research and product development that is going on is simply staggering, not just in the US either.

Nor do I believe that entrepreneurs equal corporations. I harbor deep reservations about the current breed of 'too big to fail' corporations. In economics the fundamental of diminishing returns rules supreme for a reason. These bloated corporations become so unwieldy that they don't have a real understanding of their actual picture. Just as with ancient empires, with borders that exceeded their ability to rule effectively, there seems no reason to believe that corporations should be exempt from this.

My problem with government 'intervention' comes down to this personal experience. I worked for a multinational corp, the branch manager was a retired light colonel a nice enough guy. A problem with the site that was I working was that we had a number of forms that had to be filled out every shift. The amount of paper work had grown to the point that actually doing the work required at that site became impossible to do properly. Informing the branch manager of this problem his response...and it still floor me...'Don't worry I will design a new form to fix the problem.'

Was this new form going to replace or condense the existing forms? Nope.

His solution (and might I say the holder of a PhD) was always 'one more piece of paper work'. That is why I have NO faith in our government to solve our problems.