Oh Boy! Cigarette butts and Kodak wrappers all the way to mars.:p :D

"Concepts of superconductivity apparently are not understood. We so little understand the inner workings of superconductivity that we cannot even predict what can and can not be a superconductor - and why. Major breakthroughs included the BCS theory that explained something called phonons (no not photons). But again, to understand how these forces work, we need data that only a supercollider could have provided. Concepts including how strong forces, weak forces, etc all work, are interrelated, created, and controlled."

A flicker of understanding from the original author. The original researchers into superconductivity joked that they were more like witches mixing potions; a little yttrium, a little cobalt, and a dash of copper oxide, and bake at 350 degrees until the toothpick comes out clean, etc. The concepts of the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitic primary forces were conceived long before Fermi even thought of creating an atomic pile in a racquetball court. Supercolliders HAVE DONE NOTHING but to verify theories concerning basic, supermassive particles.

"Tell me about strained silicon - a new concept in IC development. Were these concepts developed from men trying to stay alive in the ISS - or from fundamental science learned from plasma and sub-atomic particle physics?"
"as to greater data storage - as to new materials that are faster, stronger, lighter, etc. "

Strained silicon, germanium, "doping" these and other elements to perform new unexpected tasks, and it's cousins from the field of molecular beam epitaxy have nothing to do with rings of magnets buried in the ground. Current plasma research was all that was required.

It seems as if the original author of this thread is making artificial distinctions between pure research and application research. Indeed, it can be said that any research into William Robert Grove's, 1838 discovery of the fuel cell and its principles is application research. It is a sometimes unfortunate fact that little separates pure and application research today; funders of such projects do expect some applications to be derived from the pure research aspects. However, anyone that does not have a favorable view on the so called "MBA" management style would have had insight enough to know this.

It can be noted with some irony that W. Grove's discovery had to wait 'til nearly the end of the 19th century for electrical research to reach a measure of fruition before the principles could be properly explored!

The morphing wings the author describe from his recent readings of Popular Mechanics is simply a rehash of the MAW, or Mission Adaptive Wing technology demonstrated on -- of all airplanes -- an F-111 bomber. The original author will no doubt delight in telling us of the cost overruns and miscalculations of McNamarra and his "whiz kids" over the F-111. Differing wing structures and their effects on sub, trans, and supersonic regimes can best be demonstrated by NASA's HiMat project. Boeing, and I am most certain Aribus, are working on differing airframe shapes to gain the best advantage of fuel savings and speed. My state is vying to be the primary assembler of Boeing's 7E7. To recap the concepts I've covered in this paragraph: The morphing wings described rely on application research, pure research by the "wrong" agency, and application research by a corporation. There are many MBA's employed at Boeing, which is a bit of a problem for Washington I must add with some amusement and chagrin.

"Why platinum and paladium[sic] work as they do - sub-atomic physics." Statements such as this sound dangerously like the quackery that brought Mssrs. Fleischmann and Pons into the limelight with their claims of so called "Cold Fusion". Platinum and Palladium are simply used as catalysts in the reactions the original author speaks of. To imagine they mystically but temporarily crack atoms into quarks is ludicrous. Ironically, in order to do such a thing as the author suggests, a supercollider is required, and the equivalent energies utilized by the United States in one year in the span of a second.

"Apparently Uryoces is using the myth that the space program resulted in numerous breakthrough technologies. In reality, the space program was only a consumer of products that were already marketed or developed for other purposes. If Uryoces was right, then the 8080 microprocessor was a direct result of the space program. In fact that propaganda was promoted in about 1970. Now for reality. The 8080 microprocessor was an existing technology also used by the space program and by other big budget programs such as the Minuteman missile program. What created the 8080 and it predecessors? Trying to make a calculator. There it is. Calculator development - not a space program - should be encouraged because it results in major technological breakthroughs."

This statement is so bizarre and snide, I don't have any comment.

"Uryoces - you were only insulted if you are emotionally attached to your conclusions. I read not one personal attack on you - not even close. Not a single reason to discuss blood. But the word blood says to me you are emotionally attached to your conclusions when you should be logically attached."

See my above statement. The original author of the article apparently has no sense of subtlety and wit; at least in this forum.

The common man needs to understand that the supercolliders ONLY purpose for existence is to confirm theories concerning basic, supermassive particles. Nothing that the original author of the thread has spoken of requires the Supercollider, or indeed any subatomic research.

I must point out here that the term "common man" sounds somewhat dirty and unflattering, as if such a person needs to have someone else's will forced upon them to shed their "commonness", as if they needed to pay attention to their betters. I reject this line of extremist thinking to which the original author subscribes.

I note with more irony the author and I both agree that the Superconducting Supercollider would be a worthwhile project. There is one method that WILL get it built. The goal and the method is to engage a person's imagination in the possibilities. The picture of the earth rising above the lunar surface taken by the crew of Apollo 8 showed that the world is indeed one single place, no convenient borders drawn across it. The Apollo moon landings have inspired the India, and China to develop new technological applications. The pure research has already been done by the United States and the ESA, if not for pure reasons. :)

Humanity will move out in to the solar system, sooner or later. The start is to make a sensible space program run with enthusiastic people of vision. To come back to the space shuttle, it's a very pretty ship that really couldn't pay its way. Designing and building a reasonable space program will allow the ISS to fulfill it's promise as a gateway. If we are able to launch several Apollo-type missions for the cost of one shuttle flight, we can keep humanity is space and learn the lessons that are needed to create successful lunar and Martian bases. The original author assumes I mean to send two (why two?) people there immediately. This is a strange assumption, and one of which I never spoke.

All of this requires belief, however. The original author has demonstrated that cynicism is a preferred mode of thought, to which I say cynicism is a tool, not a way of life.

"Oh Boy! Cigarette butts and Kodak wrappers all the way to mars. ":p :D

Sigh. You may be right on the money there...

Fuel cells do not break atoms into quarks. And cold fusion has nothing to do with the process. Either Uryoces insults me with sarcasm or he really does not understand the subatomic operation of fuel cells. Platinum breaks and separates atoms into Leptons and Baryons; not into quarks. How is this accomplished? Fundamental to the process are interactions of strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. What is the super collider a research tool for? To understand these basic forces. What don't we understand? How these forces operate; forces that explain everything from semiconductors and superconductivity to advanced materials.

Learning how these basic forces work is necessary to understand superconductivity, materials for morphing wings, strained silicon and other semiconductors, and yes - even cold fusion (not understood and yet has been reproduced in only some labs such as one by the US Navy). And yet one would outrightly deny sub atomic research is relevenat to any of this? Same scientific naiviety that also did not understand the difference between basic and application research.

Space exploration and a Mars landing is most likely in our future. However a Mars landing is not a fundamental science breakthrough. A Mars landing is only possible only after other major technological breakthroughs - in basic research followed by successfuly application research. We have a long way to go. I don't expect to see a human on Mars in my lifetime. We just have too much fundamental science to discover to make that journey possible.

Scientific advancement that would provide new application technologies to both make a moon occupation possible and to build a society that can support such an achievement simply do not currently exist. We need more knowledge from the promising basic research tools - not the least of which are the fundamental tools of quantum physics.

I don't know where references to cold fusion, McNamara's F-111 and Popular Mechanics (the application research is being conducted on an F-18; not an F-111), confusion between basic research by Grove verse application research by Ballard Power, or a need for subtlety comes from. These are totally irrelevent to sub-atomic research and the potential resulting products from appliaction research inspired by that basic research.

The one tool that most promised a significant return on investment would have been the $8billion super collider. Instead we spent $80billion on ISS. And we will be spending much more as this boondoogle gets into more trouble. And yet one would propose we solve this problem by putting some men on the moon scratching for water?

Once we solve some major scientific problems, then we will have the knowledge and resources to put men on the moon. We are a long way from that historical acheivement.

It would help if we stopped electing MBAs to the presidency and lawyers into Congress. Advance research has no hope went confronted by science fiction romance of a man in the moon. However that is what we have which is why such important research tools such as the super collider are shelved. And while an astronaut and cosmonaut try to maintain a space station that has no scientific purpose.

ISS is glorious and romantic; basic research be damned. Men scratching for water on the moon currently would be just as silly.

Mission Adaptive Wing and the F-111.
www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1992/PDF/H-1855.pdf http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Pho...33385-002.html

These are merely the first two (active) links that can be found on Google if the subject "Mission Adaptive Wing" is entered. This basic research occurred as early as 1992. I've mentioned the F-111, and reminded the original author of said airframe's origins. This is the platform that was forced upon the Army, Navy, and Air force by McNamarra and his "whiz kids" at the Pentagon, to less than satisfactory results. The current research into so called "morphing wing" technology can trace it's roots back to this initial research. Now that I think a bit further on this, Orville and Wilbur wright's control mechanism for their Flyer was warping the wings, a primitive but effective morphing technology.

The author mentioned Bell labs, and the basic research that was performed there. Bell was expecting that some application would come from the researcher's efforts there. The transistor is simply an application of that research to replace the vacuum tube. For all the advances that the transistor brought, and as great as it is, it was simply an evolutionary step.

Currently, Fuel cells rely on a Proton Exchange Membrane (Ballard's specialty and focus), which is simply a way to borrow an electron from a hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom, in it's standard isotopic form is composed of one electron (lepton) and one proton (composed of two up quarks and one down quark). This is the proton from the aforementioned PEM. Grove demonstrated his fuel cell in 1838, long before atomic theory was understood, or we had the ability to temporarily disassociate quarks.

"Platinum breaks and separates atoms into Leptons and Baryons; not into quarks. How is this accomplished? Fundamental to the process are interactions of strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. What is the super collider a research tool for? To understand these basic forces."

This statement was the source of my confusion. I don't believe the original author of this thread understands what a supercollider does. However, I can explain it's processes in basic terms. Protons and antiprotons are accelerated to relativistic speeds in opposite directions in a massively large toroidal magnetic field. When they have reached a significant enough velocity of c, their paths are allowed to cross in a special chamber of superconducting sensors that map the resultant explosion of subatomic particles. Supermassive particles are created in an instant and then decay over microseconds into more basic particles. One scientist likened it to smashing two pocket watches together, and Big Ben appearing for a split second and then disappearing again.

The above statement by the original author is somewhat garbled. The separation of the hydrogen atom into it's constituent particles (and here I must concede that my usage of "sub atomic" refers to the most fundamental particles, quarks and to a lesser extent electrons) takes place in the realm of electromagnetism. The strong and the weak force have absolutely nothing to do with this process; they are responsible for holding the nucleus of an atom together (strong), and for the sometimes spontaneous conversion of protons to neutrons (called "radiation" simply enough) and indicative of the weak force. Once again, for the original author's benefit, I must point out that basic fundamentals of quantum theory existed long before linear or toroidal accelerators. I would further point out that due to the simple nature of the most common isotope of hydrogen, one proton and one electron, that it's impossible for the strong force to play any part in the interaction. i.e. There are no other nuclear particles (in this term "of the nucleus of the atom") to interact with!

"Either Uryoces insults me with sarcasm or he really does not understand the subatomic operation of fuel cells. ... And yet one would outrightly deny sub atomic research is relevenat to any of this? Same scientific naiviety that also did not understand the difference between basic and application research." I would point out to the original author of the thread that this statement bears out that at least I am not insulting anyone. I have been known on many different occasions to insult with frivolity, jollity, and in a non-sequitor manner, but never with sarcasm.

"I don't know where references to cold fusion ... or a need for subtlety comes from. " Hmm. Disappointing, but fair enough; indeed expected at this point.

"It would help if we stopped electing MBAs to the presidency and lawyers into Congress." Absolutely; right on the money. I cannot agree with the original author more!

"Advance research has no hope went confronted by science fiction romance of a man in the moon. However that is what we have which is why such important research tools such as the super collider are shelved. And while an astronaut and cosmonaut try to maintain a space station that has no scientific purpose."

I point out to the original author that the "science fiction romance of a man in the moon" has been the inspiration for much advanced plasma research, i.e. the VASIMIR and ion drives. The basic principles behind the VASIMIR and ion drive is being used for atomic deposition of carbon for the creation of new materials. Many have called the coming age of research and its applications the "Diamond Age" because of the carbon deposition (specifically Carbon 60, or C^60) research.

"ISS is glorious and romantic; basic research be damned. Men scratching for water on the moon currently would be just as silly."

This semi-formed paragraph is very strange, indeed. No statement has been made that basic research should not be done, rather I have been attempting to show that artificial divisions of basic and application research simply don't exist outside of dictionary definitions. Further, I have been suggesting that we retire our tired workhorse shuttle fleet and replace it with a more sensible program of a manned (humanitied? :) ) presence in space. This would enable the ISS to be much more cost efficient, and fulfill it's intended purpose. There is no need to swear, or become agitated.

Let me, if you would, describe what the "scratchings on the moon" would entail. Any colony, any life will need shelter and water. The highly successful Clementine mission sponsored by DARPA found large concentrations of water in the shadows of the craters in southern lunar Aitken basin. There are areas in that region that receive nearly continuous sunshine. This would be needed for power generation and plant growth. All that would be required is the water. Which will be provided by the aforementioned sources of water ice. The lunar surface soil is composed of Silicon, Oxygen, and Aluminum. The lunar soil in it's basic form can be compacted into dense lunarcrete for structures. Silicone can be produced as a sealant if needed. I needn't go into too much detail what the Aluminum can be used for; use your imagination: Wiring, structural members, mirrored surfaces to collect sunlight for solar furnaces. The silicon can be used for solar panels. Further, the silicone can be used for transparent panels and domes if desired; we needn't live in caves. I am not thinking of two people; I am thinking in terms of dozens; friends and colleagues from around the world manning a research station that doubles as a fuel depot. Fuel? Hydrogen and oxygen from water and further sources of oxygen from the soil.

This would require several robotic missions for proof of concept. Indeed, a settlement could be built and ready for habitation remotely.

This sensible and reachable vision of the future will take time and money, and I do not suggest that it can start tomorrow, nor have I ever. I fear I may be damned to repeat this until it is clearly understood.

Furthermore, I am forced to repeatedly state that I find the idea of the Superconducting Supercollider a good, sound idea; I fear this may never be understood by the original author of this thread...

ISS currently has no scientific pupose. No emotion. Just a blunt fact that for some reasons others don't believe. Some still believe a myth that ISS is doing science research? Why?

Almost no science is performed on ISS. That is fact. That 'no science on ISS' is why the Columbia, which was suppose to be retired, was instead refurbished - so that NASA had something that could do space science. Columbia disintegrated carrying its science payload. It was never modified to mate to ISS and therefore was kept from retirement because NASA needed a platform to do science. Without Columbia, NASA had no platform to perform basic space science. No emotion. Blunt fact.

The first three ISS occupants just perform maintenance. Almost no human time is available for science. Why then maintain ISS? And why assume ISS is a science platform? Because science was the original purpose of ISS. Something got lost. Not enough money to maintain ISS AND perform science. ISS is that over budget.

Congress had to chose - super collider or ISS. They were told either would cost $8billion. They chose $8billion ISS on a promise that it would be a science platform. Super collider that would answer fundamental science questions was scrapped. In the meantime, ISS now costs $80billion - ten times more, cannot perform research, and now has no purpose.

Why not remove occupants and temporarily put ISS to sleep? Russians strongly oppose that because of their previous experience. ISS requires so much human maintenance that ISS may be lost. What Russia had to do just to reoccupy Mir was considered a major human achievement. Mir was almost lost because humans were not on board to constantly fix it. ISS has same problems. Put it to sleep and ISS may be lost - because it requires constant maintenace.

Show me where ISS advances mankind? And show me where putting men on the moon's southern pole would currently have any productive advantage? Only reasons given were for the greater glory - reasons of romance - not one basic scientific reason provided.

There are some long term reasons why we might eventually want humans on the moon. One is to provide earth with energy directed to earthborne receivers using microwaves. Just another reason why eventually man will find productive uses for the moon. But currently we have nothing to gain from lunar residents. That is simply blunt fact as demonstrated by a shortage of ideas in this thread.

Some of the world's most promising science have questions whose answers are found in tools that smash sub-atomic particles. Only a fool would think that Ballard Power is going to solve these fundamental science questions. Many breakthrough technologies called American products exist because previous research was performed mostly in the US at American particle smashers. However those advantages will be moving overseas because we chose to waste $80+billion on ISS, many times more to keep some lunar occupants alive, and chose not to build the super collider. Romance makes more sense than basic research? Men on the moon and ISS come at the elimination of other and more promising science.

What are the fundamental science questions to be answered by keeping two men on the moon? Same as being answered by three men on ISS. Virtually nothing.

Most space research is performed by robot satellites (ie probes to Mars, Hubble, Soho, etc). They cost little and produce so much science. Putting men in space costs so much and consumes massive resources only to keep those men alive not doing science. It even comes at the expense of other robot reseach platforms. Fundamental - there is almost no science ongoing on ISS. Those astronauts and cosmonauts spend almost all productive hours maintaining the station. That is the dirty little secret about ISS. When it became too expensive, the first function eliminated were science experiments.

Bottom line - not one good reasons justifies ISS - let alone some humans on the moon. Only provided are romantic ideas that if men live on the moon, then automatically major science breakthroughs will occur. Nonsensical scientific fiction. Current science is still struggling to find reasons to go to the moon. Eventually some good reasons will be discovered. But today we should be learning the science that will make that journey possible. That knowledge is found in basic research tools such as the super collider and not in romantic 'man in space' journeys. Nothing romantic or emotional about it. Just blunt fact. Why do so many here love boondoogles such as ISS?

The transistor was not developed because Bell expected some application to result. It was not an attempt to replace the vacuum tube - even though it did so. The transistor was simply basic research to learn if and how semiconductors would works as electronic valves. Bell could not find an early purpose for transistors!

Along comes Akio Morita who signs a licensing agreement for the concept called transistor. During paper signing, Bell executives are so curious. Why was Morita interested in transistors? Morita says he planned to develop transistor radios - application development. Bell executives were amazed. Western Electric had tried and failed to do that. The rest of that history (Sony) is common knowledge.

Bell Labs is fundamental research as defined by the legendary Mervin Kelly in 1950:
Bell Labs in its heyday expected no products from basic research performed there. As a result, it got tremendously successful knowledge from the Labs that resulted in so many famous products.

I am only demonstrating again the difference between basic research and application development. Something that MBAs don't understand and therefore destroyed some famous sources of American productivity - ie Sarnoff Labs, Bendix Research Labs, and the post 1995 diffussion of Bell Labs. In IBM, Gerstner was about to do same to IBM Labs when he was convinced otherwise. He later admitted that not having sold off their Labs was one of the most successful decisions he ever made. IBM Labs do basic research such as moving Argon atoms to spell out "IBM". No product. But that basic research is necessary to make application development possible. That is well understood by those who come from science. The separation between basic research and application development is essential in the advancement of science.

Bell did not expect any products to come from the Labs. They only expected basic research to happen as defined by Mervin Kelly starting in 1936. What were some of the early products that were created by basic research in quantum theory? The thermal, electrical, and magnetic properties of crystals. Breakthrough quantum research that later created products found on WWII battlefields. Funny how tools used in quantum research eventually result in amazing new products. But then that is why fundamental research and application development are two separate functions. It is why the super collider would have been so productive for America - instead of Europe.

Then explain all the experiments currently running in the ISS. Please review my first post, for the website showing the experiments.

It's not a blunt fact, because it's not a fact at all.

AND there already IS a supercollider in CERN. Why create a duplicate of that when we could have something new?

Does Science Matter?
 

More reasons why we prefer spending science money on boondoogles:
How many noticed that ISS does no science - that list of experiments would never be done except that the ISS is desperately seeking something "scientific" to justify its existence. And the amount of science being done is so trivial as to be Zero. The problem lies with us.

Take computer experts as an example. How many programmers can perform logic minimization? IOW most programmers don't even have basic logic training. How many computer "builders" can list tasks performed by a power supply. They don't need no electrical knowledge. They fix computers because they are experts - they own a screwdriver.

Ignorance of science is so widespread that some never learned the diffference between fundamental research and application research; and why it must remain separate. Some think Ballard Power Systems can do sub-atomic research necessary for major breakthroughs in fuel cells. Or that practical superconductivity, a sub-atomic concept, will be understood without smashing atoms. Or that GM crops will destroy the world. Or that the Bible tells us everything we need know.

We are entering a period of scientific hearasy as demonstrated by the big bucks put into ISS and the total naviety about what a super collider could have accomplished. No wonder more than 50% of all Master's Degrees are now in business - a philosophy similar to communism.

*They* are the Europeans who, as the NY Times article notes, will be prospering at the expense of America. Second, they are not building Cern. Cern is a smaller existing ring being converted because America is cutting back on science (where did the World Wide Web came from?) Many types of colliders are possible. I have forgotten the two most promising particles that could be collided. But Cern is being converted to smash the same type of particles that the super collider should have been smashing years ago. Furthermore, the TX supercollider was to have energy levels necessary to meet current science experiments; energy levels that will not be available at Cern.

IOW we had the option of remaining the world leaders in fundamental particle research and therefore the first potential beneficary of those breakthrough technologies. Instead we paid 10+ times more for an ISS that does no science. Therein lies the problem. As the NY Times article notes, America is becoming so scientifically naive as to not even understand what the super collider could have accomplished AND what the ISS really does (nothing).

I would suspect that many here only just learned what happens inside a fuel cell in this thread - the breakdown of an atom into leptons and baryons. Fuel cells, supercondutivity, and yes even the recent Intel press release about a breakthrough in high-K materials to replace sillicon dioxide - all involve sub atomic concepts.

But ISS must be more valuable? After all that is outer space! .... Doing what? It's not doing any science which is why the Columbia was not be retired. Only manned research being done in space were in those science modules put inside the space shuttle. And the more productive science is found in unmanned space craft such as Hubble, Soho, Pioneer, Mars Landers, Venus flybys, etc. Again, too many instead have the science knowledge found in a Leno piece called "Jay Walking".

I too could perform an experiment in space to see if I can make grass grow straight up in space. That is not science. And yet that is how desperate most of the 'so called' science is on the ISS. Useless nonsense that could not be cost justified anywhere else - except that ISS needs something to justify the $80+ billion.

I periodically get NASA tech breifs - a summary of new inventions and technologies. I have yet to read one from an ISS experiment. Many from space lab - on the shuttle. Nothing from ISS. And most done down here on earth. IOW the amount of science being done on ISS is - rounded to the nearest third significant digit - is Zero.

In the meantime, whether you watch Leno is completely irrelevant. Only posted to diffuse the issue. The issue is what is portrayed on "Jay Walking" - and not what OnyxCougar watches on TV.

Do you know what has happened to the American economy? We don't make things. Our income is based almost entirely on innovation and measured by the number of patents and copyrights. Have you been watching what is happening to Tiawan? They too are moving up into businesses that require knowledge. Most every business report shows the rows of Tiawan factories shut down and moved to mainland China. The rest of the world now makes things - and should be growing our crops (and direct reference to the recent Cancum conference that I need not define because it was well reported in decent newspapers).

More than ever, we must keep moving up the food chain - stay ahead of Tiawan - which means even more of the world's innovations must come from America - or else we too suffer deprecession, downsizing, and bankruptcies.

To maintain an income, that income comes mostly from the intellecutal value found only in innovation. But if less patents come from the US, then you must take a severe pay cut - because we innovate less. Pay cuts are usually instituted by inflation, drop of the dollar on world markets, corporate bankruptcy (complete with golden parachutes), and layoffs. Pay cuts and job losses come directly from a loss of innovation - as indicated by a reduction in US patents.

This nation would not be a world leader without the greater CA region - OR, WA, AZ, CO, TX - where most innovations and therefore patents come from. Only a person without basic economic knowledge would associate patents with glory. We don't produce. We invent - innovate. Why the US has been so prosperous since 1992. Rather scary that you don't understand significance of that decrease in patents since it takes us back to the recession of 1990 - and even worse to the terrible times called the 1970s - when an engineer could not get a job to save his soul - except in the greater CA area.

The patents and copyrights we don't produce today means no jobs in four years. Only the ill informed would associate patents with glory. When there is no innovation, then we have identified anti-American industries (ie. big steel that George Jr protects at the expense of American jobs).

George Jr also does not understand why number of patents is a precursor to serious economic problems- a leading indicator of future diminished economic growth. George Jr is an MBA meaning he would not comprehend the importance of that last sentence. Value of a patents cannot be mesured on spread sheets or by a technically ignorant president. Please don't associate yourself with a mental midget president. Appreciate the serious future problem indicated by a serious drop in US patents - as has already been demonstrated in 1990 and the 1970s.

Some income comes from selling rights to patents. Some comes from other sources of innovation. For example, let's take that computer.

Intel limits their manufacturing to the more complex parts of a computer - where their superior work in atomic and sub-atomic physics results in massive innovation. Intel once made (and created all the original types of) memory and all the peripheral chips. But there is not enough innovation in memory and peripherals to justify Intel's involvement in that less innovative part of the business. Intel makes the CPU. Intel then tells other companies (ie Tiawan) what is required from memory, chip sets, and peripherals. Intel even defines what must be in the power supply AND how PC traces must be laid out on the computer board.

Other countries make all the computers. They purchase rights and other innovative (and intellectual property) from the US to make computers. They learn how to lay out those PC traces. The more advanced countries learn what is required in those simple chip sets (other ICs that support the Intel computer chip) and make those chip sets per American requirements.

We don't make computers in America. But we earn substancial money by defining what must be in those computers and how to make them work. That is how the American economy has changed and is changing.

But if America is not being so innovative; if Japan, Korea, Tiawan, Germany, France, Britian, etc are now doing more patents; then America's future 4 to 10 years from now will be threatened.

This is exactly why the US suffered so much in the 1970s. The domestic auto industry is a classic example of what happens when innovation dies. Look at history in the 1950s and 1960s. Every year, a new auto innovation would appear - automatic transmission, power steering, safety brakes, McPherson strut suspension, stratefied charge engine, better combustion methods (ie. Chryslers CAP system). American cars were even exported everywhere. But in the 1970s, American innovations were being stifled by those who did not even have driver's licenses - and were therefore top auto executives.

There was no unfair Japanese competition. There were too many American MBA educated executives who followed the concepts of the Harvard Business School and therefore stifled or gave away innovation. Lost profits because they could not measure those innovation on spread sheets. They only understood what spread sheets could report. Innovation appears on no spread sheets until after the innovation appears in products.

Who was making major profits on automobiles sold in America? Japanese and Europeans. Why? Honda was the two best selling American vehicle in 1980s America - because they used innovations pioneered in America and that were kept out of America by Henry Ford. The stratefied charge engine was called the CVCC in Honda. Honda's would start every time, pollute less, got better gas mileage, and required much less platinum because Honda used American innovations that American stifled or gave away.

Japan is famous for the transistor radio. They paid AT&T for transistor rights because AT&T executives had no idea of the value of their invention. Sony is what resulted. When Americans do not understand the value of a technology, then other countries have prospered emmensely from myopic American management. Who created the VCR? Not Japan. But the American company (Ampex) was so technically nieve as to all but give away the VCR to Japan.

Why did the US economy take off starting in the late 1980s? Enough American businesses (startups without MBA domination) understood the value of their innovations as to make profits from those innovations. The most stunning example of those resulting profits are found in the American electonics industry of the greater California region (Intel, HP, Cisco, Seagate, etc).

Cisco does not manufacturer or even touch most of their products. Cisco defines what their product must do and has third party companies manufacturer their products. Most Cisco products are shipped direct from that third party manufacturer to the customer. Cisco does not even touch many of the products they sell. Intellectual value is what Cisco sells. Others make the product.

How did Microsoft make so many profits at the expense of IBM? Microsoft's people were programmers. IBM's were MBAs. Microsoft did the high tech parts of DOS, Windows 9x, OS/2, etc. IBM did the 'third world' programming. When it came to getting paid, IBM ended up paying Microsoft for the important parts of OS/2 because Microsoft did then what America must do today. The smart parts must be innovated in America so as to be manufactured overseas. The dumb programming work must now be done in India. It is a world economy.