- Joined Aug 27, 2009
By now, many BS detectors will be ringing at full volume. I get it. This sounds like magic beans.
And this is a field full of magic beans. Manifestos promising revolutionary energy solutions (if only The Establishment weren’t suppressing them) abound. I get those emails myself.
3DFS tech directly challenges a lot of conventional wisdom in the field and involves a technology and a level of data that are genuinely new, such that basically nobody beyond 3DFS has experience with them. It makes it difficult to consult outside experts — the best I got was, “Well, I don’t hear anything that sounds impossible...” — and quite rightly inspires a heightened level of skepticism. One professor of electrical engineering, when I mentioned that 3DFS believes DOE numbers on energy waste are mistaken, became enraged and literally hung up on me.
I don't know if it's possible to use more buzz words in an article. What exactly do you mean when you say 'electricity' in a supposedly scientific explanation of a technology? We don't generate 'electricity', we use the existing electricity in matter to transform and/or transport electrical energy. The KE of 'current electricity' (usually electrons) is a loss factor in the transmission of electrical field energy but the VOX article mixes the two into a unrecognizable mess if you're looking for actual engineering details of software-defined electricity.If it proves out, the implications of what 3DFS calls “software-defined electricity” (SDE) are almost beyond reckoning. To begin with, recovering some or most of the lost electricity on the grid would amount to finding a huge new source of zero-carbon power — a powerful resource in the fight against climate change.
It promises to hasten electrification of the economy, radically reduce infrastructure costs, and open up new lines of science and inquiry. It is not exaggerating to say that it could change our relationship to electricity more than anything since the days of Nikola Tesla.