itsme 
Member since Jun 24, 2014


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Idaho 'Solar Roadways' Co. Catches Attention of White House, Bill Nye

> and $750,000 from FHWA <--Taxes.

Finally! I've been throwing that clue in your face for how long now? I challenged you to state some harm, any harm, that came from the project, specifically mentioned the FHWA funding over and over, even using the word "taxes". I couldn't even FEED you the ammunition to make this challenging.

If you, Dunderh00f and the rest of the anti-progress campaign were around in the 1870's you would be the ones handing out flyers on the town square claiming that after 500 attempts, Edison had PROVEN that incandescent lighting was not practical and that money should be spent elsewhere. Never mind that it wouldn't have been your money to direct. Never mind that your opinion would have been completely irrelevant to the project. Never mind that what turned into a lot more than 500 attempts advanced the science and eventually succeeded.

If those people criticized my research, especially given their rebuttals all suffered from the same flaws as yours, I'd collect it all and show it at parties. Once I stopped laughing, that is. Dunderh00f is a professional skeptic. Some of the targets he takes on deserve it but that doesn't mean the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The guy behind that handle is a professional skeptic working in a system where incentive is tied to generating controversy. If he's boring, he doesn't earn. If he takes the wrong position, he doesn't suffer. He has no skin in the game. He's just really good at stirring up righteous indignation amongst other people who, like him, have zero influence other than supporting each others' collective sense of false superiority. He's a fringe talk show host art best, doing what all talk show hosts do - building an audience of followers and playing on their confirmation bias.

Nobody who is even slightly influential in my life would ever take the guy seriously. If he had a valid point or two we'd overlooked, we'd consider it and thank him for it. But defer to him as an authority given his body of work? Yeeeaaaahhhhh, no. That you consider him an authority speaks volumes as to the depth of proof you require. As noted earlier, what seems to qualify to you as proof is only that which conforms to your world view. And you are so busy regurgitating Dunderh00f's numbers you can't be bothered to revise them when shown to be deficient, or even recognize clues when practically beaten over the head with them. I HANDED you the V2I cost offsets. Still can't work them into the model.

The project is funded. It doesn't need your approval. It isn't even clear what you hoped to gain by slamming it in the comments other than to make yourself feel superior because you have zero influence over what happens with the money. At least Dunderh00f gets paid to be an ass. A well produced, articulate, well paid ass, but an ass nonetheless. You? Didn't even get paid.

I'm sure I'll see you around the boards, making your futile attempts to bend other people bend to your will, despite any standing to do so, and embarrassing the hell out of yourself in the process. I really hope I'm wrong for your sake.

God, I love the Internet.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by itsme on 06/26/2014 at 4:31 PM

Re: “Idaho 'Solar Roadways' Co. Catches Attention of White House, Bill Nye

1. a) Not my burden of proof. b) There are many economic cost offsets other than through power generation, of which I've handed you one to chew on. c) That's what the research funding is for. Demanding the numbers to justify the research that produces the same numbers is circular logic. Even if it isn't feasible, the research will quantify the gaps so we can identify at what efficiency it becomes so. That alone is worth the $2M.

2. If true, the research will show that. It may be that LEDs are more or less useful than originally envisioned. But instead of assuming it won't work and giving up, they'll test it. It may be as simple as scaling up the quantum dot technology so ultra-efficient LEDs become cheaper. Or it may be that we paint some lines. Or it may be that the low duty cycle of most of the envisioned uses is sufficient today.

> Satifactory response would include...

When I see a satisfactory challenge I'll have something to respond to. That would include any justification for why you or others like you think you have standing to interfere with the project as described and planned. Because if you can't show some harm and have no stake in the outcome then this boils down to your trying to feel superior to other people. That's usually the reason people exert a lot of time focused on things they have zero hope of influencing. It's a petty little ego boost, nothing more.

A satisfactory challenge would also use a complete economic model. As noted yours lacks even the V2I cost offset which should be pretty easy to factor in. I held back on some of the less tangible cost offsets because of the apparent limits of your math skills. Factor the V2I into your model and I'll hold your hand and walk you through the next one. If you work hard you might learn enough to build a realistic mathematical model of the project before they publish their numbers from the funded research. I'm here for ya, dude. You can do it!

3. They posted their early numbers. Of course, you probably only looked at the DunderH00f numbers, right?

4. Good thing I funded testing for this.

5. I do run a company and I did donate. It was proposed as a speculative project for which crowd funding is an appropriate way to spread the risk. Nobody who donated gained a stake in the company. Nobody who donated expected any personal return other than some swag. Because it was an irrevocable grant the only risk to individual donors would be for the inventors to use the money for something OTHER than the purpose for which it was raised - i.e. if they listened to the likes of you. But, also because of the funding structure, your whining and petty rants are completely irrelevant to their ability to proceed on plan which, as donor, pleases me to no end. Even if I were not here, they don't need to be because they aren't accountable to you.

For that matter, I don't need to be here. But I'm fascinated that people would argue against performance of research. Even more so that they would cite their academic credentials as justification *for* their argument. Add in that many of these supposed credentialed experts people seem to earnestly believe that they are performing a public service and it becomes like the train wreck you just can't stop staring at.

You have no standing to complain, can't show any harm, have zero potential influence over the project, and design mathematical models that fail to factor in even the most basic secondary and tertiary cost offsets but that conform closely to your world view. What, exactly, is it that you hope to accomplish? Whatever it is, you're doing it wrong.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by itsme on 06/26/2014 at 10:34 AM

Re: “Idaho 'Solar Roadways' Co. Catches Attention of White House, Bill Nye

So here's the thing... A couple of inventors had a grand vision, asked for help funding more research on their project, and thousands of people responded. They aren't using taxpayer money and they didn't displace any other research funding. If anything they raised the profile on solar research in popular culture and made it cool so other projects might have an easier time getting funded. Now that they have the money, they are moving forward with the project as described in the funding request. Furthermore, nobody is forcing Solar Roadways pavers on anyone else. The project isn't green lit by anyone except those volunteering to test the pavers in their parking lots and low-traffic streets.

If the project displaced someone else's funding, it might need defending.
If the project had $2M of taxpayer money it might need defending.
If the project does something other than what they proposed with the money it might need defending.
If the project starts laying pavers on public highways without completing the research and proving the business case, it might need defending.

But it's not doing any of that. It is not the party here needing to defend its position.

On the other hand, YOU are the one trying to stop an ongoing research project. That $2M didn't displace your funding, didn't come out of your taxes, won't appear on your streets, and in general hasn't harmed you in any way. YOU are the one needing to defend your position. What you fail to grasp is that your numbers are less important than first demonstrating that you have grounds to warrant interference.

As for my unsatisfying response, I practically hit you over the head with the clue stick (V2I cost offset) and alluded to the many other economic paybacks that your math lacks, the inclusion of which would make your mathematical model more complete but less agreeable to your stunted world view. But I'm not going to do your homework for you. You are the one with the burden of proof.

So if you aspire to graduate from pure trolling, you'll first need to explain whatever injury you believe the project has caused and then use a mathematical model that includes at least SOME of the cost offsets that you currently ignore. Without that, it's all just petty ranting. Amusing, I'll grant you that. But petty nonetheless.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by itsme on 06/26/2014 at 8:47 AM

Re: “Idaho 'Solar Roadways' Co. Catches Attention of White House, Bill Nye

Yeah, I looked at your numbers. They are either incredibly naive or else intentionally deceptive. Consider a project to put solar roofing shingles on a house. What's the payback? You could take the cost of the project and divide that by the power offset but that would be the wrong number. To do it right requires first subtracting the cost of conventional shingles. It is the *incremental* cost that determines the ROI, not the total project cost.

A similar effect is at work with Solar Roadways. The payback in power generation is just one of the economic paybacks. But your numbers assume it is the *only* payback. So either you don't understand the project or you are deliberately omitting those numbers. Either way your calculations are bollocks. Try adding in some of the other economic benefits. I'll give you one cause I'm generous but you'll have to actually read and understand the project to get some of the others. Sorry. Start by factoring in the V2I cost offset if you aspire to be credible at this.

Also, the project proposal is that the lighting would only be on when vehicles are present. That's obviously different in LA than it is in the middle of the desert so which of those cases did you use in your calculations? Oh that's right, they aren't very nuanced and don't take that into account because you aren't interested in an accurate model, just one that fits your world view.

Which, I suppose, is why you keep tagging your own posts "Epic o_O fail." That your posts, which are very narrow interpretations of the project designed to produce the result that conforms to your world view, are each epic failures is the one thing you get right. Of course, once your arguments are debunked you just resort to "saying it louder" which pretty much confirms my assessment.

Your incomplete numbers don't stand up to scrutiny.
More detailed analysis doesn't conform to your world view.
New tactic: insist at higher volume that your world view is correct.

You aren't by any chance an aspiring talk show host are you? Because it's coming across as comedy.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by itsme on 06/26/2014 at 12:45 AM

Re: “Idaho 'Solar Roadways' Co. Catches Attention of White House, Bill Nye

> The fact remains the FEASIBLE research isn't possible just look at the calculation I posted!

No, no, no, research is DEFINITELY feasible. That's why we have people in white coats, laboratories, and beakers and stuff. It is the feasibility of solar paving tiles that is at question, not the feasibility of performing research. You did say you were a PhD, yes? And you deal with grants? Read the grant application sometime. It turns ourt those things are for research. It really is feasible! Check it out!

Oh, and I did look at your calculations. They assume that the only payback of the pavers is in electricity generation. That's rather like calculating the payback of solar shingles based solely on the electricity they generate. But if you need a new roof the payback on solar shingles is based on the *difference* between those versus traditional shingles, i.e. the incremental cost, not on the full price of the roof. The calculation you posted is either very naive or else intentionally deceptive because it fails to factor in all the other benefits. It also seems to assume the LEDs are always on, which is NOT what was described by the inventors.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by itsme on 06/25/2014 at 12:44 PM

Re: “Idaho 'Solar Roadways' Co. Catches Attention of White House, Bill Nye

> Actually if they said "well this isn't feasible and we went in another direction with it" They CAN do that.

They can only do that AFTER they know more than they know when they asked for the funding. The FHWA funded study showed that the idea merited further investigation. That's what they are doing. To ask for funding and then - without any further testing - announce it really isn't feasible would be outright fraud. They'd need to actually, you know, perform research, to conclude against the findings of the prior study and go another direction. If you actually dealt with grants all the time you would understand that so I sincerely doubt the claim to credentials.

I ride a motorcycle and the texture concerns me as well. However, rather than assuming it won't work I'm going to wait for the testing. Then, when some of this stuff is laid down on a public low-speed road, I'll go ride on it personally. If it ever makes it to a high-speed road, that'll only be after more live testing on low-speed roads and I'll go ride on that too. Then I'll make an informed decision based on, you know, emperical testing.

It's a process and thank God it doesn't depend on vetting from the Internet but rather on actual research and testing. Because the Internet is apparently full of people who were born too late to rail against a helio-centric universe so they look for other research to impede. "I'm a PhD and in my professional capacity I feel it's urgent to spend my valuable time campaigning against someone else's ongoing research." Way to go there, Torquemada.

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by itsme on 06/25/2014 at 12:19 PM

Re: “Idaho 'Solar Roadways' Co. Catches Attention of White House, Bill Nye

Nice sidestep, @Michael! I mention Columbus's contemporary detractors to illustrate how people then and now are more invested in their world view than in research and facts and you try to make it about Columbus himself as if that has ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the topic of Solar Roadways.

The fact remains - the project was funded to do feasibility research and people are so vested in their narrow world view they are arguing, vehemently and earnestly, against completing that research. They are actually jealous of the success of the project and instead of starting up their own campaign to benefit their preferred technology they whine and complain that Solar Roadways was successful. They are actually taking the position that *other* research has been harmed because people like me donated our own personal funds to Solar Roadways. The degree of wrong-headedness in opposing the project - especially not that it's funded and there's absolutely nothing you can do but wait for the numbers at this point - is amazing.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by itsme on 06/25/2014 at 6:31 AM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2017 Boise Weekly

Website powered by Foundation