Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Trey, I think you have three potential claims: traveling/living in space, especially with NASA losing so much funding recently it is a timely topic; athletic performance as it relates to preparation, talent, experience and which is more valuable; hybrid cars and their actual environmental impact. You have done good research and any of the claims are workable. I would decide by what is most interesting to you.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Question 10
Question 10
For my last two posts I was researching the effectiveness of electric cars, and have found some startaling evidence that it is not as it seems. While it seems that hybrid cars have near zero emessions released within city driving, the cars histroy of production makes the car actually just as, if not more, harmful to the surounding environment than gas consuming vehicles. "There is about a 50-percent chance in the United States that the electricity thats used to charge the batteries of a plug-in electric vehicle is generated by burning coal. Since the burned coal used to power an electric vehicle emits carbon dioxide to power the electric car, it goes on the cars emmisions tally. 'The general consensus is that if you power an electric vehicle from coal, the net carbon emissions are about the same as a gasoline vehicle,' says Paul Denholm, senior analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. 'But that's the worst-case scenario; anything that is a cleaner source is an improvement'" (Josh Clark). I decided to include this quote from an article on google not only because the credible source is from Golden, Colorado, but because he raises a very interesting point. This point was actually very lightly touched upon on other articles, so I found it necessary to read. I believe that a person should look into a hybrid based on their driving conditions and habbits, and if they are able to afford the increased price over petroleum engines. Hybrids, on average, cost around $5-$6,000 dollars more than its counterparts produced within the same car comapny, and with its claim of being much better for the environment being called into question, no one should blow all of their money on a hybrid vehicle.
Sources in order of appearance:
Clark, Josh. "Are Electric Cars Better for the Environment?" Discovery News. 30 July 2010. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. <http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-electric-cars-better-for-the-environment.html>.
For my last two posts I was researching the effectiveness of electric cars, and have found some startaling evidence that it is not as it seems. While it seems that hybrid cars have near zero emessions released within city driving, the cars histroy of production makes the car actually just as, if not more, harmful to the surounding environment than gas consuming vehicles. "There is about a 50-percent chance in the United States that the electricity thats used to charge the batteries of a plug-in electric vehicle is generated by burning coal. Since the burned coal used to power an electric vehicle emits carbon dioxide to power the electric car, it goes on the cars emmisions tally. 'The general consensus is that if you power an electric vehicle from coal, the net carbon emissions are about the same as a gasoline vehicle,' says Paul Denholm, senior analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. 'But that's the worst-case scenario; anything that is a cleaner source is an improvement'" (Josh Clark). I decided to include this quote from an article on google not only because the credible source is from Golden, Colorado, but because he raises a very interesting point. This point was actually very lightly touched upon on other articles, so I found it necessary to read. I believe that a person should look into a hybrid based on their driving conditions and habbits, and if they are able to afford the increased price over petroleum engines. Hybrids, on average, cost around $5-$6,000 dollars more than its counterparts produced within the same car comapny, and with its claim of being much better for the environment being called into question, no one should blow all of their money on a hybrid vehicle.
Sources in order of appearance:
Clark, Josh. "Are Electric Cars Better for the Environment?" Discovery News. 30 July 2010. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. <http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-electric-cars-better-for-the-environment.html>.
Question 9
Question 9
In my last post I researched a rather interesting topic in my opinion. The topic was "are hybrids really better for the environment", and my first article produced evidence that hybrids are actually not as good for the environment as the media makes them look. This was interesting to me because I don't know very much about hybrids, but the evidence produced was based on facts and made allot of sense to make me believe that hybrids are more of a gimmick and a fad than effective at preserving the environment in the long run. "But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil any more than a nonhybrid car. The truth is, it depends on the hybrid and the nonhybrid cars you are comparing, as well as on how you use the vehicles. There are good hybrids and bad ones. Toyota Prius, is lauded for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. But only when it's being driven around town, where its electric motor does its best and most active work. On a cross-country excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries quickly get exhausted. Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla — which costs thousands less. For the owner who does the majority of her driving on the highway, the Prius's potential for fuel economy will never be realized and its price premium never recovered" (Jamie Lincoln Kitman). The quote above was from a car tester affiliated with the New York Times. I liked this article because it avoided the controversy I have seen on many other sites about the cost of the oieces of the hybrid when shipping it over sees and where the raw materials come from. This article highlighted that drivers of hybrids will benefit from driving within cities instead of long cross country trips. Knowing the little bit I do about hybrids now, I would say this sounds very accurate and is very good advice for anyone looking into buying a hybrid.
Sources in order of appearance:
Kitman, Jamie. "Life in the Green Lane." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Apr. 2006. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com>.
In my last post I researched a rather interesting topic in my opinion. The topic was "are hybrids really better for the environment", and my first article produced evidence that hybrids are actually not as good for the environment as the media makes them look. This was interesting to me because I don't know very much about hybrids, but the evidence produced was based on facts and made allot of sense to make me believe that hybrids are more of a gimmick and a fad than effective at preserving the environment in the long run. "But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil any more than a nonhybrid car. The truth is, it depends on the hybrid and the nonhybrid cars you are comparing, as well as on how you use the vehicles. There are good hybrids and bad ones. Toyota Prius, is lauded for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. But only when it's being driven around town, where its electric motor does its best and most active work. On a cross-country excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries quickly get exhausted. Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla — which costs thousands less. For the owner who does the majority of her driving on the highway, the Prius's potential for fuel economy will never be realized and its price premium never recovered" (Jamie Lincoln Kitman). The quote above was from a car tester affiliated with the New York Times. I liked this article because it avoided the controversy I have seen on many other sites about the cost of the oieces of the hybrid when shipping it over sees and where the raw materials come from. This article highlighted that drivers of hybrids will benefit from driving within cities instead of long cross country trips. Knowing the little bit I do about hybrids now, I would say this sounds very accurate and is very good advice for anyone looking into buying a hybrid.
Sources in order of appearance:
Kitman, Jamie. "Life in the Green Lane." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Apr. 2006. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com>.
Question 8
Question 8
While driving down 6th avenue today, I was cut off by a driver in a prius. As I layed on the horn and physically expressed my displeasure with his reckless actions, I began to wonder if hybrid cars are actually as good for the environment as advertised. I got home, and decided to take to google with my question. I typed in "are hybrids really better for the environment", and instantly was introduced to a source that seemed like it would address my question directly. I clicked on it and began to read what it had to say. "A key element of a hybrid car is its battery pack. Although many are made out of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride, which are relatively safe for the environment, they can be hazardous when disposed. China has a near-monopoly on the rare earth metals that hybrid cars depend on. Rare earth metals going into the production of hybrid cars, which depend on them for components like the electric engine, may have already caused more damage to the environment than the vehicle could possibly offset. China is widely known for its disregard for environmentally-friendly mining techniques, especially when half of its rare earth metal mines are illegal" (Thomas Horner). According to this source, the production, and transportation of materials across the ocean from China might actually make hybrids like the Toyota prius more harmful to the environment in the long run. I find this interesting because I had always bought into the media hype that hybrids were extremely safe for the environment, but this source seems to believe that the cars are actually worse for the environment. Another point that the source hits on is if the batteries inside the vehicles will be recycled properly, because if not, that could also have a huge negative impact on the environment. I believe that this source makes a very logical and effective point in his article, supported by facts. I have never known too much about cars, especially hybrids, but to find out that the cars could actually be worse than gas consuming vehicles is a very interesting point. I will explore this further later.
Sources in order of appearance:
Horner, Thomas. "Are Hybrid Cars Really Green?" Suite101.com. 30 Mar. 2010. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. <http://thomas-horner.suite101.com/are-hybrid-cars-really-green-a219898>.
While driving down 6th avenue today, I was cut off by a driver in a prius. As I layed on the horn and physically expressed my displeasure with his reckless actions, I began to wonder if hybrid cars are actually as good for the environment as advertised. I got home, and decided to take to google with my question. I typed in "are hybrids really better for the environment", and instantly was introduced to a source that seemed like it would address my question directly. I clicked on it and began to read what it had to say. "A key element of a hybrid car is its battery pack. Although many are made out of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride, which are relatively safe for the environment, they can be hazardous when disposed. China has a near-monopoly on the rare earth metals that hybrid cars depend on. Rare earth metals going into the production of hybrid cars, which depend on them for components like the electric engine, may have already caused more damage to the environment than the vehicle could possibly offset. China is widely known for its disregard for environmentally-friendly mining techniques, especially when half of its rare earth metal mines are illegal" (Thomas Horner). According to this source, the production, and transportation of materials across the ocean from China might actually make hybrids like the Toyota prius more harmful to the environment in the long run. I find this interesting because I had always bought into the media hype that hybrids were extremely safe for the environment, but this source seems to believe that the cars are actually worse for the environment. Another point that the source hits on is if the batteries inside the vehicles will be recycled properly, because if not, that could also have a huge negative impact on the environment. I believe that this source makes a very logical and effective point in his article, supported by facts. I have never known too much about cars, especially hybrids, but to find out that the cars could actually be worse than gas consuming vehicles is a very interesting point. I will explore this further later.
Sources in order of appearance:
Horner, Thomas. "Are Hybrid Cars Really Green?" Suite101.com. 30 Mar. 2010. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. <http://thomas-horner.suite101.com/are-hybrid-cars-really-green-a219898>.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Question 7
Question 7
While watching another game, Boston vs. Clippers I am once again reminded of my question from earlier and I would like to explore this question a little farther. Twords the bottom of the page that I used for my last post was a link to an article that the author of the last article used to build her argument around. This article was very long and contained alot of information to sort through to find the author's opinion. "In conclusion, exceptional athletes are built, not born. Like the great Winston Churchill said, 'Success is a journey…not a destination,' this tells us that the only way we can achieve our goals is through practice, practice, and more practice. It is impossible to be a 'born great' athlete; we become a great athlete through proper training, motivation, and through our environment. In order to reach the top, you must be dedicated and do whatever you must to reach the top" (Darell). This author makes a very good point, and further strenghens his point by including the following evidence. "Lance Armstrong is another great athlete who worked very hard to achieve success. In the book It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life (Armstrong and Jenkins 2001), Armstrong tells readers how he overcame cancer to win Le Tour De France, the most prestigious cycling event in the world. He states that while he was in the hospital, the captain of his former team went into his hospital room, and told him while he was dying that they were ending his contract. This upset Armstrong, and motivated him to get better and work harder so he could go back, and win the Le Tour De France to get back at the people at his former team for ending his contract. If great athletes are born, Lance Armstrong wasn’t one of them. He was born with harmful cells which later developed into testicular cancer that almost ended his life. If anything, his genes would impair his athletic ability, not improve it. Therefore, athletes are much more a product of nurture than nature" (Darell). This is an excelent point that the author makes, and it really makes his argument that much more effective. While I still believe that both nature and nurture have a big role, this author has effectively swayed my belief that nurture may play a greater role. However, Lance Armstong was a very good biker before being diagnosed with cancer, and theirfor the author's point may be redundent. Never the less, a good use of evidence.
Sources in order of appearance:
Darrell. "Expert Football Training Winning Mentality Born or Made? The Nature Versus Nurture Issue." Nature vs Nurture in Sports. Web. 13 Mar. 2012. <http://expertfootball.com/training/naturevsnurture.php>.
While watching another game, Boston vs. Clippers I am once again reminded of my question from earlier and I would like to explore this question a little farther. Twords the bottom of the page that I used for my last post was a link to an article that the author of the last article used to build her argument around. This article was very long and contained alot of information to sort through to find the author's opinion. "In conclusion, exceptional athletes are built, not born. Like the great Winston Churchill said, 'Success is a journey…not a destination,' this tells us that the only way we can achieve our goals is through practice, practice, and more practice. It is impossible to be a 'born great' athlete; we become a great athlete through proper training, motivation, and through our environment. In order to reach the top, you must be dedicated and do whatever you must to reach the top" (Darell). This author makes a very good point, and further strenghens his point by including the following evidence. "Lance Armstrong is another great athlete who worked very hard to achieve success. In the book It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life (Armstrong and Jenkins 2001), Armstrong tells readers how he overcame cancer to win Le Tour De France, the most prestigious cycling event in the world. He states that while he was in the hospital, the captain of his former team went into his hospital room, and told him while he was dying that they were ending his contract. This upset Armstrong, and motivated him to get better and work harder so he could go back, and win the Le Tour De France to get back at the people at his former team for ending his contract. If great athletes are born, Lance Armstrong wasn’t one of them. He was born with harmful cells which later developed into testicular cancer that almost ended his life. If anything, his genes would impair his athletic ability, not improve it. Therefore, athletes are much more a product of nurture than nature" (Darell). This is an excelent point that the author makes, and it really makes his argument that much more effective. While I still believe that both nature and nurture have a big role, this author has effectively swayed my belief that nurture may play a greater role. However, Lance Armstong was a very good biker before being diagnosed with cancer, and theirfor the author's point may be redundent. Never the less, a good use of evidence.
Sources in order of appearance:
Darrell. "Expert Football Training Winning Mentality Born or Made? The Nature Versus Nurture Issue." Nature vs Nurture in Sports. Web. 13 Mar. 2012. <http://expertfootball.com/training/naturevsnurture.php>.
Question 6
Question 6
After watching the Boston Celtics vs. L.A. Lakers game yesterday and contemplating what i had researched, i had more questions regarding inherent traits in humans. For instance, does someones inherent abilities trump anothers countless hours of practice? While i realize that this question is broad and will not be the same for every person, i would like to find some opinions of others. I guess my question boils down to nature vs nurture being dominate over the other. So i turned to google's search engine and typed "nature vs nurture athleticism", and found multiple different searches that looked promising. I chose one of the first posts and began reading it. " these guys probably needed both genetics and the environment to become so talented. Without training and opportunities, artists and athletes probably would not have much success. And without genetics, they would have had an even harder time" (Dr. Karen Fitch). This source, Dr. Karen Fitch, seems to imply that both rely on each other more than overpower each other. I would partially agree with this. I believe the two rely on each other, but i do believe that one is more likely to overpower the other. Never the less, it is interesting to see what a doctor from Stanford believes.
Sources in order of appearance:
Fitch, Dr. Karen. "Ask a Geneticist." Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome. 15 Feb. 2005. Web. 13 Mar. 2012. <http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=91>.
After watching the Boston Celtics vs. L.A. Lakers game yesterday and contemplating what i had researched, i had more questions regarding inherent traits in humans. For instance, does someones inherent abilities trump anothers countless hours of practice? While i realize that this question is broad and will not be the same for every person, i would like to find some opinions of others. I guess my question boils down to nature vs nurture being dominate over the other. So i turned to google's search engine and typed "nature vs nurture athleticism", and found multiple different searches that looked promising. I chose one of the first posts and began reading it. " these guys probably needed both genetics and the environment to become so talented. Without training and opportunities, artists and athletes probably would not have much success. And without genetics, they would have had an even harder time" (Dr. Karen Fitch). This source, Dr. Karen Fitch, seems to imply that both rely on each other more than overpower each other. I would partially agree with this. I believe the two rely on each other, but i do believe that one is more likely to overpower the other. Never the less, it is interesting to see what a doctor from Stanford believes.
Sources in order of appearance:
Fitch, Dr. Karen. "Ask a Geneticist." Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome. 15 Feb. 2005. Web. 13 Mar. 2012. <http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=91>.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Question 5
Question 5
So while I was able to find some answers to the question I had about living and traveling through space, and what inhabbitating other places outside of earth would be like. However, this gave me new ideas and questions. One question I now have is if some individuals are born more prone to leadreship roles. Is it possible that some people are born with natural leadership ailities. I am confident that i will not find an actual answer to my question, but it is somthing i have wondered for a number of years. I naturally returned to google's search engine to find my answer, and typed in "some people natural leaders", and twords the bottom of the page i found a link that seemed promising. It was from a newspaper article that was discussing businesss tactics and news from a seminar about businesses. "the capacity to lead is an inherent quality, and if it is coupled with some business nous it's a fantastic combination" (The Telegraph). According to this quote, natural born leadership is a phenonina that some are born with, and in my experience I believe this is true. Some people seem to be born more athletic, just as some people seem to be born with a natural apptitude for leadership and persaverance.
Sources in order of appearance:
"Spot the Natural Leader." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 17 Mar. 2005. Web. 12 Mar. 2012. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk>.
So while I was able to find some answers to the question I had about living and traveling through space, and what inhabbitating other places outside of earth would be like. However, this gave me new ideas and questions. One question I now have is if some individuals are born more prone to leadreship roles. Is it possible that some people are born with natural leadership ailities. I am confident that i will not find an actual answer to my question, but it is somthing i have wondered for a number of years. I naturally returned to google's search engine to find my answer, and typed in "some people natural leaders", and twords the bottom of the page i found a link that seemed promising. It was from a newspaper article that was discussing businesss tactics and news from a seminar about businesses. "the capacity to lead is an inherent quality, and if it is coupled with some business nous it's a fantastic combination" (The Telegraph). According to this quote, natural born leadership is a phenonina that some are born with, and in my experience I believe this is true. Some people seem to be born more athletic, just as some people seem to be born with a natural apptitude for leadership and persaverance.
Sources in order of appearance:
"Spot the Natural Leader." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 17 Mar. 2005. Web. 12 Mar. 2012. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk>.
Question 4
Question 4
My small amount of research yesterday got me thinking more about humans in space and what that would be like. To further explore this phenomina I returned to the NASA website which had a multitude of sources for continued reading on the topic at the bottom. I chose one that was on the NSS website (National Space Society), which is sponsored by NASA. The article was titled Space Settelment Nexus, and went on in great detail about how the colonization would be possible, and what benefits it had with it. Some exapmles that were listed as are follows.
"The largest asteroid, Ceres, has enough material to build orbital space settlements with a total living area well over a hundred times the land area of the Earth.
One smallish asteroid, 3554 Amun, has about $20 trillion worth of metals. There are tens of thousands of asteroids.
The energy available for space settlements exceeds 2 billion times the total energy currently used by humanity."
I found these stats rather interesting and impressive, but ultimatly my belief that space living is not somthing to be concerned with at this moment still stands. TI believe that there are problems here and now on earth that should be dealt with before people turn to the skies in search of more money making industries.
Sources in order of appaerance:
"Space Settlement - National Space Society." National Space Society. NASA, 16 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2012. <http://www.nss.org/settlement/>.
My small amount of research yesterday got me thinking more about humans in space and what that would be like. To further explore this phenomina I returned to the NASA website which had a multitude of sources for continued reading on the topic at the bottom. I chose one that was on the NSS website (National Space Society), which is sponsored by NASA. The article was titled Space Settelment Nexus, and went on in great detail about how the colonization would be possible, and what benefits it had with it. Some exapmles that were listed as are follows.
I found these stats rather interesting and impressive, but ultimatly my belief that space living is not somthing to be concerned with at this moment still stands. TI believe that there are problems here and now on earth that should be dealt with before people turn to the skies in search of more money making industries.
Sources in order of appaerance:
"Space Settlement - National Space Society." National Space Society. NASA, 16 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2012. <http://www.nss.org/settlement/>.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Question 3
Question 3
After not having posted anything for a few days I decided to return with a new inquiry. I was really intrigued by my last question, and decided to continue on that train of thought. I liked the thought of futuristic houses here on earth, but with earths population ever increasing, where would we go? I was interested in the hypothetical theory of people living on other planets, and what would this look like? I searched "space colonization" on google and found an interesting article posted on NASA's website. "Space colonies could be the answer to the limitations of using the resources of just one world out of the many that orbit the Sun. The colonists would mine the Moon and the minor planets and build beamed power satellites that would supplement or even replace power plants on the Earth" (NASA). This was not exactly what i was looking for, but a good place to start. Obviously NASA has given this topic some thought, and considered some possible benefits and downfalls. I don't believe that "Space Colonies" are plausible at this time, or in the near future, but perhaps one day. At the bottom of NASA's website was a link to other pieces of literature dealing with the topic i was interested in, so i chose a topic and clicked on it. This took me to a website sponsored by NASA that was dedicated to "Space Settlements". "Orbital space colonies could be wonderful places to live; about the size of a California beach town and endowed with weightless recreation, fantastic views, freedom, elbow-room in spades, and great wealth" (Al Globus). The idea of these orbital space colonies is a sealed capsule that would revolve around Earth and house people. While, once again, I do not for see this as being something attainable in the near future, i do believe that the future could possibly bring forth creations like this.
Sources in order of appearance:
"Space Colonization." NASA Headquarters Library. NASA, Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/pathfinders/colony.htm.
Globus, Al. "Space Settlements." Space Settlement. NASA, 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. <http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/>.
After not having posted anything for a few days I decided to return with a new inquiry. I was really intrigued by my last question, and decided to continue on that train of thought. I liked the thought of futuristic houses here on earth, but with earths population ever increasing, where would we go? I was interested in the hypothetical theory of people living on other planets, and what would this look like? I searched "space colonization" on google and found an interesting article posted on NASA's website. "Space colonies could be the answer to the limitations of using the resources of just one world out of the many that orbit the Sun. The colonists would mine the Moon and the minor planets and build beamed power satellites that would supplement or even replace power plants on the Earth" (NASA). This was not exactly what i was looking for, but a good place to start. Obviously NASA has given this topic some thought, and considered some possible benefits and downfalls. I don't believe that "Space Colonies" are plausible at this time, or in the near future, but perhaps one day. At the bottom of NASA's website was a link to other pieces of literature dealing with the topic i was interested in, so i chose a topic and clicked on it. This took me to a website sponsored by NASA that was dedicated to "Space Settlements". "Orbital space colonies could be wonderful places to live; about the size of a California beach town and endowed with weightless recreation, fantastic views, freedom, elbow-room in spades, and great wealth" (Al Globus). The idea of these orbital space colonies is a sealed capsule that would revolve around Earth and house people. While, once again, I do not for see this as being something attainable in the near future, i do believe that the future could possibly bring forth creations like this.
Sources in order of appearance:
"Space Colonization." NASA Headquarters Library. NASA, Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/pathfinders/colony.htm.
Globus, Al. "Space Settlements." Space Settlement. NASA, 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. <http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/>.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Question on my Mind 2
Question on my Mind 2
After contemplating the questions I had at the end of my research I decided to get on google once again. I was interested to read about future building designs and structures. I wanted to read about this from the perspective of engineers and see what they believed, not just random Star Trek fans. I google searched "what will buildings look like in the future". I scrolled towards the bottom of the page and found a page written by a structural engineer with the title "10 features of future buildings". This seemed like a good place to start my search. "It may be easier to predict what our future green buildings will look like if energy prices continue to rise. As energy becomes more expensive, future buildings will incorporate features which will allow them to be as energy efficient as possible. As these features maximise solar light and heat gain while minimising heat loss, we can predict what future buildings will look like and the features they will include" (The Helpful Engineer). Most of the article revolves around the future of self sufficient buildings, and "green houses" that have a lower dependence on the energy companies. I believe that this is a very accurate prediction, as a transition to more energy efficient objects/appliances is a popular trend today, and if energy prices continue to increase, this trend will likely only grow. As i returned to google I found an article that also looked interesting. The title was "Future Building Will Change The Look And Feel Of Towns And Villages". I clicked on it and read a long article, complete with pictures, talking about a program in Britain that is "trying to have all new houses being built to be zero carbon by 2016" (Sebastian Schmeig). The article went into detail about how this will be completed, but towards the bottom of the article one paragraph really caught my attention. "Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, is constructing an entire zero carbon city. The plan, dubbed the Masdar Initiative, is developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Cambridge, US. The city will spread out over 7-square-kilometres on the outskirts of Abu Dhabi" (Sebastian Schmeig). This interested me because I had heard of this as a theory before, but I was unaware that they had actually already started construction. Another thing I found interesting, which the article touched on, was that the country is responsible for a substantial portion of the world's oil. I believe that this city is more of a status symbol for the country than a attempt at progressing the uses of energy efficient buildings. Never the less, a very interesting and admirable accomplishment.
Works Cited in order of appearance:
Engineer, The Helpful. "10 Features of Future Buildings." The Helpful Engineer. WordPress, 09 Feb. 2011. Web. 06 Mar. 2012. <http://thehelpfulengineer.com/index.php/2011/02/10-features-of-future-buildings/>.
After contemplating the questions I had at the end of my research I decided to get on google once again. I was interested to read about future building designs and structures. I wanted to read about this from the perspective of engineers and see what they believed, not just random Star Trek fans. I google searched "what will buildings look like in the future". I scrolled towards the bottom of the page and found a page written by a structural engineer with the title "10 features of future buildings". This seemed like a good place to start my search. "It may be easier to predict what our future green buildings will look like if energy prices continue to rise. As energy becomes more expensive, future buildings will incorporate features which will allow them to be as energy efficient as possible. As these features maximise solar light and heat gain while minimising heat loss, we can predict what future buildings will look like and the features they will include" (The Helpful Engineer). Most of the article revolves around the future of self sufficient buildings, and "green houses" that have a lower dependence on the energy companies. I believe that this is a very accurate prediction, as a transition to more energy efficient objects/appliances is a popular trend today, and if energy prices continue to increase, this trend will likely only grow. As i returned to google I found an article that also looked interesting. The title was "Future Building Will Change The Look And Feel Of Towns And Villages". I clicked on it and read a long article, complete with pictures, talking about a program in Britain that is "trying to have all new houses being built to be zero carbon by 2016" (Sebastian Schmeig). The article went into detail about how this will be completed, but towards the bottom of the article one paragraph really caught my attention. "Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, is constructing an entire zero carbon city. The plan, dubbed the Masdar Initiative, is developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Cambridge, US. The city will spread out over 7-square-kilometres on the outskirts of Abu Dhabi" (Sebastian Schmeig). This interested me because I had heard of this as a theory before, but I was unaware that they had actually already started construction. Another thing I found interesting, which the article touched on, was that the country is responsible for a substantial portion of the world's oil. I believe that this city is more of a status symbol for the country than a attempt at progressing the uses of energy efficient buildings. Never the less, a very interesting and admirable accomplishment.
Works Cited in order of appearance:
Engineer, The Helpful. "10 Features of Future Buildings." The Helpful Engineer. WordPress, 09 Feb. 2011. Web. 06 Mar. 2012. <http://thehelpfulengineer.com/index.php/2011/02/10-features-of-future-buildings/>.
Schmeig,
Sebastian. "Amplified Green." Amplified Green. WordPress, 09
Jan. 2009. Web. 06 Mar. 2012.
http://amplifiedgreen.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/future-building-will-change-the-look-and-feel-of-towns-and-villages/.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Question on my mind 1
Question on my mind.
After our class today I had not chosen a topic that seemed interesting to me. As I was driving up the winding road to my apartment, I looked at all of the towering apartment buildings lining the road and suddenly thought of a question. What human civilization was the first to actually construct a structure and what purpose did it specifically serve? I narrowed this question to exclude humans who just utilized hollow caves created by nature. I figured this was a good place to start my research and see where it takes me. So when I got home I performed a quick google search of "oldest man-made structure". Discovery News was one of the first articles so i figured i could start their. According to Rossella Lorenzi, "the oldest structure, aging 23,000 years, was a stone wall covering 2/3 of a cave entrance. It is believed to have been a barrier from cold winds entering the cave" (Rossella Lorenzi). This seemed to answer my question exactly, and since it was from the Discovery Network, I believed it was reliable information. I decided to go back to google however, and see what other links had for me to look into. After this, their was a slew of articles posted that all dealt with the same issue, so I naturally wanted to check them out. The issue was a controversy over multiple stones found in South Africa, which supposedly date back to being the oldest man made structures in history. "75,000 years ago early humans built a stone calendar that predates all other man-made structures found to date. This ‘African Stonehenge’ has for the first time created a link to the countless other stone ruins in southern Africa and suggests that these ruins are much older than we thought" (thecrit.com). However, other websites have statements like, "These guys are talking nonsense. We are doing extensive research in Mpumalanga and these sites are fairly well known. While we don't dispute that structures like this are man-made, there is no way it is 75 000 years old. The type of science they use to date these sites is highly questionable" (Amanda Esterhuysen). Amanda Esterhuysen is a Wits University academic from the geography, archaeology and environmental sciences department, and says her entire department disagrees with the claim. After examining many different websites with views from scholars, archaeologists, and environmental scientists, I believe I understand the debate. While the discovery is interesting, and the area it was found was the same area some of the first human signs of life were found, I believe that since too many respected scholars disagree over the age, it cannot be officially recognized as the oldest man made structure. After this search, I have more questions than answers, like how did individuals live 23,000 years ago, and what will future structures/buildings look like?
Citation's in order of appearance:
After our class today I had not chosen a topic that seemed interesting to me. As I was driving up the winding road to my apartment, I looked at all of the towering apartment buildings lining the road and suddenly thought of a question. What human civilization was the first to actually construct a structure and what purpose did it specifically serve? I narrowed this question to exclude humans who just utilized hollow caves created by nature. I figured this was a good place to start my research and see where it takes me. So when I got home I performed a quick google search of "oldest man-made structure". Discovery News was one of the first articles so i figured i could start their. According to Rossella Lorenzi, "the oldest structure, aging 23,000 years, was a stone wall covering 2/3 of a cave entrance. It is believed to have been a barrier from cold winds entering the cave" (Rossella Lorenzi). This seemed to answer my question exactly, and since it was from the Discovery Network, I believed it was reliable information. I decided to go back to google however, and see what other links had for me to look into. After this, their was a slew of articles posted that all dealt with the same issue, so I naturally wanted to check them out. The issue was a controversy over multiple stones found in South Africa, which supposedly date back to being the oldest man made structures in history. "75,000 years ago early humans built a stone calendar that predates all other man-made structures found to date. This ‘African Stonehenge’ has for the first time created a link to the countless other stone ruins in southern Africa and suggests that these ruins are much older than we thought" (thecrit.com). However, other websites have statements like, "These guys are talking nonsense. We are doing extensive research in Mpumalanga and these sites are fairly well known. While we don't dispute that structures like this are man-made, there is no way it is 75 000 years old. The type of science they use to date these sites is highly questionable" (Amanda Esterhuysen). Amanda Esterhuysen is a Wits University academic from the geography, archaeology and environmental sciences department, and says her entire department disagrees with the claim. After examining many different websites with views from scholars, archaeologists, and environmental scientists, I believe I understand the debate. While the discovery is interesting, and the area it was found was the same area some of the first human signs of life were found, I believe that since too many respected scholars disagree over the age, it cannot be officially recognized as the oldest man made structure. After this search, I have more questions than answers, like how did individuals live 23,000 years ago, and what will future structures/buildings look like?
Citation's in order of appearance:
Lorenzi,
Rossella. "Oldest Man-Made Structure Found in Greek Cave." Discovery
News. Discovery Network, 05 Apr. 2010. Web. 05 Mar. 2012.
<http://news.discovery.com/history/oldest-man-made-structure-found-in-greek-cave.html
Heine,
Johan, and Michael Tellinger. "Discovering the Oldest Man-made Structures
on Earth." Thecrit.com. 22 Jan. 2009. Web. 05 Mar. 2012.
<http://thecrit.com/2009/01/22/discovering-the-oldest-man-made-structures-on-earth/>.
Serrao,
Angelique. "Discovering The Oldest Manmade Structures on Earth." Discovering
the Oldest... Wendag Website, 14 July 2008. Web. 05 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki34.htm>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)