As you pointed out, every time you come here, you learn something. This morning, the world's experts from I guess three or four different companies on building seats, I think concluded that ultimately, the solution is, people shouldn't sit down. I could have told them that. (Laughter) Yesterday, the automotive guys gave us some new insights. They pointed out that, I believe it was between 30 and 50 years from today, they will be steering cars by wire, without all that mechanical stuff. (Laughter) That's reassuring. (Applause) They then pointed out that there'd be, sort of, the other controls by wire, to get rid of all that mechanical stuff. That's pretty good, but why not get rid of the wires? Then you don't need anything to control the car, except thinking about it. I would love to talk about the technology, and sometime, in what's past the 15 minutes, I'll be happy to talk to all the techno-geeks around here about what's in here. But if I had one thing to say about this, before we get to first, it would be that from the time we started building this, the big idea wasn't the technology. It really was a big idea in technology when we started applying it in the iBOT for the disabled community. The big idea here is, I think, a new piece of a solution to a fairly big problem in transportation. And maybe to put that in perspective: there's so much data on this, I'll be happy to give it to you in different forms. You never know what strikes the fancy of whom, but everybody is perfectly willing to believe the car changed the world. And Henry Ford, just about 100 years ago, started cranking out Model Ts. What I don't think most people think about is the context of how technology is applied. For instance, in that time, 91 percent of America lived either on farms or in small towns. So, the car -- the horseless carriage that replaced the horse and carriage -- was a big deal; it went twice as fast as a horse and carriage. It was half as long. And it was an environmental improvement, because, for instance, in 1903 they outlawed horses and buggies in downtown Manhattan, because you can imagine what the roads look like when you have a million horses, and a million of them urinating and doing other things, and the typhoid and other problems created were almost unimaginable. So the car was the clean environmental alternative to a horse and buggy. It also was a way for people to get from their farm to a farm, or their farm to a town, or from a town to a city. It all made sense, with 91 percent of the people living there. By the 1950s, we started connecting all the towns together with what a lot of people claim is the eighth wonder of the world, the highway system. And it is certainly a wonder. And by the way, as I take shots at old technologies, I want to assure everybody, and particularly the automotive industry -- who's been very supportive of us -- that I don't think this in any way competes with airplanes, or cars. But think about where the world is today. 50 percent of the global population now lives in cities. That's 3.2 billion people. We've solved all the transportation problems that have changed the world to get it to where we are today. 500 years ago, sailing ships started getting reliable enough; we found a new continent. 150 years ago, locomotives got efficient enough, steam power, that we turned the continent into a country. Over the last hundred years, we started building cars, and then over the 50 years we've connected every city to every other city in an extraordinarily efficient way, and we have a very high standard of living as a consequence of that. But during that entire process, more and more people have been born, and more and more people are moving to cities. China alone is going to move four to six hundred million people into cities in the next decade and a half. And so, nobody, I think, would argue that airplanes, in the last 50 years, have turned the continent and the country now into a neighborhood. And if you just look at how technology has been applied, we've solved all the long-range, high-speed, high-volume, large-weight problems of moving things around. Nobody would want to give them up. And I certainly wouldn't want to give up my airplane, or my helicopter, or my Humvee, or my Porsche. I love them all. I don't keep any of them in my living room. The fact is, the last mile is the problem, and half the world now lives in dense cities. And people spend, depending on who they are, between 90 and 95 percent of their energy getting around on foot. I think there's -- I don't know what data would impress you, but how about, 43 percent of the refined fuel produced in the world is consumed by cars in metropolitan areas in the United States. Three million people die every year in cities due to bad air, and almost all particulate pollution on this planet is produced by transportation devices, particularly sitting in cities. And again, I say that not to attack any industry, I think -- I really do -- I love my airplane, and cars on highways moving 60 miles an hour are extraordinarily efficient, both from an engineering point of view, an energy consumption point of view, and a utility point of view. And we all love our cars, and I do. The problem is, you get into the city and you want to go four blocks, it's neither fun nor efficient nor productive. It's not sustainable. If -- in China, in the year 1998, 417 million people used bicycles; 1.7 million people used cars. If five percent of that population became, quote, middle class, and wanted to go the way we've gone in the last hundred years at the same time that 50 percent of their population are moving into cities of the size and density of Manhattan, every six weeks -- it isn't sustainable environmentally; it isn't sustainable economically -- there just ain't enough oil -- and it's not sustainable politically. I mean, what are we fighting over right now? We can make it complicated, but what's the world fighting over right now? So it seemed to me that somebody had to work on that last mile, and it was dumb luck. We were working on iBOTs, but once we made this, we instantly decided it could be a great alternative to jet skis. You don't need the water. Or snowmobiles. You don't need the snow. Or skiing. It's just fun, and people love to move around doing fun things. And every one of those industries, by the way -- just golf carts alone is a multi-billion-dollar industry. But rather than go license this off, which is what we normally do, it seemed to me that if we put all our effort not into the technology, but into an understanding of a world that's solved all its other problems, but has somehow come to accept that cities -- which, right back from ancient Greece on, were meant to walk around, cities that were architected and built for people -- now have a footprint that, while we've solved every other transportation problem -- and it's like Moore's law. I mean, look at the time it took to cross a continent in a Conestoga wagon, then on a railroad, then an airplane. Every other form of transportation's been improved. In 5,000 years, we've gone backwards in getting around cities. They've gotten bigger; they're spread out. The most expensive real estate on this planet in every city -- Wilshire Boulevard, or Fifth Avenue, or Tokyo, or Paris -- the most expensive real estate is their downtowns. 65 percent of the landmass of our cities are parked cars. The 20 largest cities in the world. So you wonder, what if cities could give to their pedestrians what we take for granted as we now go between cities? What if you could make them fun, attractive, clean, environmentally friendly? What if it would make it a little bit more palatable to have access via this, as that last link to mass transit, to get out to your cars so we can all live in the suburbs and use our cars the way we want, and then have our cities energized again? We thought it would be really neat to do that, and one of the problems we really were worried about is: how do we get legal on the sidewalk? Because technically I've got motors; I've got wheels -- I'm a motor vehicle. I don't look like a motor vehicle. I have the same footprint as a pedestrian; I have the same unique capability to deal with other pedestrians in a crowded space. I took this down to Ground Zero, and knocked my way through crowds for an hour. I'm a pedestrian. But the law typically lags technology by a generation or two, and if we get told we don't belong on the sidewalk, we have two choices. We're a recreational vehicle that doesn't really matter, and I don't spend my time doing that kind of stuff. Or maybe we should be out in the street in front of a Greyhound bus or a vehicle. We've been so concerned about that, we went to the Postmaster General of the United States, as the first person we ever showed on the outside, and said, "Put your people on it. Everybody trusts their postman. And they belong on the sidewalks, and they'll use it seriously." He agreed. We went to a number of police departments that want their police officers back in the neighborhood on the beat, carrying 70 pounds of stuff. They love it. And I can't believe a policeman is going to give themselves a ticket. (Laughter) So we've been working really, really hard, but we knew that the technology would not be as hard to develop as an attitude about what's important, and how to apply the technology. We went out and we found some visionary people with enough money to let us design and build these things, and in hopefully enough time to get them accepted. So, I'm happy, really, I am happy to talk about this technology as much as you want. And yes, it's really fun, and yes, you should all go out and try it. But if I could ask you to do one thing, it's not to think about it as a piece of technology, but just imagine that, although we all understand somehow that it's reasonable that we use our 4,000-pound machine, which can go 60 miles an hour, that can bring you everywhere you want to go, and somehow it's also what we used for the last mile, and it's broken, and it doesn't work. One of the more exciting things that occurred to us about why it might get accepted, happened out here in California. A few weeks ago, after we launched it, we were here with a news crew on Venice Beach, zipping up and back, and he's marveling at the technology, and meanwhile bicycles are zipping by, and skateboarders are zipping by, and a little old lady -- I mean, if you looked in the dictionary, a little old lady -- came by me -- and now that I'm on this, I'm the height of a normal adult now -- and she just stops, and the camera is there, and she looks up at me and says, "Can I try that?" And what was I -- you know, how are you going to say anything? And so I said, "Sure." So I get off, and she gets on, and with a little bit of the usual, ah, then she turns around, and she goes about 20 feet, and she turns back around, and she's all smiles. And she comes back to me and she stops, and she says, "Finally, they made something for us." And the camera is looking down at her. I'm thinking, "Wow, that was great -- (Laughter) -- please lady, don't say another word." (Laughter) And the camera is down at her, and this guy has to put the microphone in her face, said, "What do you mean by that?" And I figured, "It's all over now," and she looks up and she says, "Well," she's still watching these guys go; she says, "I can't ride a bike," no, she says, "I can't use a skateboard, and I've never used roller blades," she knew them by name; she says, "And it's been 50 years since I rode a bicycle." Then she looks up, she's looking up, and she says, "And I'm 81 years old, and I don't drive a car anymore. I still have to get to the store, and I can't carry a lot of things." And it suddenly occurred to me, that among my many fears, were not just that the bureaucracy and the regulators and the legislators might not get it -- it was that, fundamentally, you believe there's pressure among the people not to invade the most precious little bit of space left, the sidewalks in these cities. When you look at the 36 inches of legal requirement for sidewalk, then the eight foot for the parked car, then the three lanes, and then the other eight feet -- it's -- that little piece is all that's there. But she looks up and says this, and it occurs to me, well, kids aren't going to mind these things, and they don't vote, and business people and then young adults aren't going to mind these things -- they're pretty cool -- so I guess subliminally I was worried that it's the older population that's going to worry. So, having seen this, and having worried about it for eight years, the first thing I do is pick up my phone and ask our marketing and regulatory guys, call AARP, get an appointment right away. We've got to show them this thing. And they took it to Washington; they showed them; and they're going to be involved now, watching how these things get absorbed in a number of cities, like Atlanta, where we're doing trials to see if it really can, in fact, help re-energize their downtown. (Applause) The bottom line is, whether you believe the United Nations, or any of the other think tanks -- in the next 20 years, all human population growth on this planet will be in cities. In Asia alone, it will be over a billion people. They learned to start with cell phones. They didn't have to take the 100-year trip we took. They start at the top of the technology food chain. We've got to start building cities and human environments where a 150-pound person can go a couple of miles in a dense, rich, green-space environment, without being in a 4,000-pound machine to do it. Cars were not meant for parallel parking; they're wonderful machines to go between cities, but just think about it: we've solved all the long-range, high-speed problems. The Greeks went from the theater of Dionysus to the Parthenon in their sandals. You do it in your sneakers. Not much has changed. If this thing goes only three times as fast as walking -- three times -- a 30-minute walk becomes 10 minutes. Your choice, when living in a city, if it's now 10 minutes -- because at 30 minutes you want an alternative, whether it's a bus, a train -- we've got to build an infrastructure -- a light rail -- or you're going to keep parking those cars. But if you could put a pin in most cities, and imagine how far you could, if you had the time, walk in one half-hour, it's the city. If you could make it fun, and make it eight or 10 minutes, you can't find your car, un-park your car, move your car, re-park your car and go somewhere; you can't get to a cab or a subway. We could change the way people allocate their resources, the way this planet uses its energy, make it more fun. And we're hoping to some extent history will say we were right. That's Segway. This is a Stirling cycle engine; this had been confused by a lot of things we're doing. This little beast, right now, is producing a few hundred watts of electricity. Yes, it could be attached to this, and yes, on a kilogram of propane, you could drive from New York to Boston if you so choose. Perhaps more interesting about this little engine is it'll burn any fuel, because some of you might be skeptical about the capability of this to have an impact, where most of the world you can't simply plug into your 120-volt outlet. We've been working on this, actually, as an alternative energy source, starting way back with Johnson & Johnson, to run an iBOT, because the best batteries you could get -- 10 watt-hours per kilogram in lead, 20 watt-hours per kilogram nickel-cadmium, 40 watt-hours per kilogram in nickel-metal hydride, 60 watt-hours per kilogram in lithium, 8,750 watt-hours of energy in every kilogram of propane or gasoline -- which is why nobody drives electric cars. But, in any event, if you can burn it with the same efficiency -- because it's external combustion -- as your kitchen stove, if you can burn any fuel, it turns out to be pretty neat. It makes just enough electricity to, for instance, do this, which at night is enough electricity, in the rest of the world, as Mr. Holly -- Dr. Holly -- pointed out, can run computers and a light bulb. But more interestingly, the thermodynamics of this say, you're never going to get more than 20 percent efficiency. It doesn't matter much -- it says if you get 200 watts of electricity, you'll get 700 or 800 watts of heat. If you wanted to boil water and re-condense it at a rate of 10 gallons an hour, it takes about 25, a little over 25.3 kilowatt -- 25,000 watts of continuous power -- to do it. That's so much energy, you couldn't afford to desalinate or clean water in this country that way. Certainly, in the rest of the world, your choice is to devastate the place, turning everything that will burn into heat, or drink the water that's available. The number one cause of death on this planet among humans is bad water. Depending on whose numbers you believe, it's between 60 and 85,000 people per day. We don't need sophisticated heart transplants around the world. We need water. And women shouldn't have to spend four hours a day looking for it, or watching their kids die. We figured out how to put a vapor-compression distiller on this thing, with a counter-flow heat exchanger to take the waste heat, then using a little bit of the electricity control that process, and for 450 watts, which is a little more than half of its waste heat, it will make 10 gallons an hour of distilled water from anything that comes into it to cool it. So if we put this box on here in a few years, could we have a solution to transportation, electricity, and communication, and maybe drinkable water in a sustainable package that weighs 60 pounds? I don't know, but we'll try it. I better shut up. (Applause)
就像你们所说的,每一次来到这里都会学习到一些东西。 今天早上,来自几家座椅公司的 世界级专家们 得到的最终结论是:人们不应坐下来,要继续前进。 我早应该告诉他们的。 (笑声) 昨天几个汽车行业的人提出来新观点, 他们相信,三十到五十年后, 就可以用电线来驾车, 而不需要那些机械装置了。 (笑声) 这真让人放心。 (掌声) 他们接着又说一些其他装置都可用电线操作, 就不需要机械部分了。 这很好,那为什么不除掉电线呢? 那么就只需意念就可以开车了。 我想谈一下科技, 十五分钟后, 和在座的科技发烧友们谈一下 这个领域未来会发生什么。 可在此之前,我要说, 从技术发展开始, 重要的不是技术本身, 当然,当我们把科技应用到iBOT上去为残障社团服务时, 这是很重要的。 但我觉得现在的问题是, 用一个简单的方案来解决交通系统里的一个重大问题。 从一方面来看:有很多的数据 我很乐意以不同的形式向你展示。 都不知道为什么, 大家都那么相信汽车改变了世界。 大概一百年前,福特开始生产T型车 我觉得人们不会想的是 科技被应用的背景 比如说当时百分之九十一的美国人 住在农村和小镇 所以汽车 也就是替代马车的无马车,是十分重要 它的速度比马车多一倍 车身比马车短一半 它还改善了环境卫生,因为 在1903年曼哈顿的城区已经禁行马车了, 你可以想像那些马路的模样 当路上有很多马 而且他们都在撒尿或干别的 会酿成无数伤寒症,还有别的问题 所以汽车是令环境更卫生的交通工具 汽车也是让人可以来往农庄之间 走进市镇的工具 这给百分之九十一的人口带来了方便。 到了20世纪50年代,我们修建高速公路系统把所有的城镇连接起来, 这被许多人称之为世界第八大奇迹。 这当然是个奇迹。 同时,因为我对旧技术感兴趣 我想向各位保证——尤其是 十分支持我们的汽车业: 我不认为这个发明会与飞机或汽车竞争 但请想想目前的世界状况 世界上有一半人口正住在城市里 足足是三十二亿人 所有交通问题都已被解决 这些问题改变了这个世界,把它塑造成了现在的样子。 五百年前,已发展成熟的航海技术 让我们发现新大陆 一百五十年前,蒸汽火车效率高得 让我们把一片大陆发展成一个国家 在上世纪,我们开始制造汽车 让我们在以后的半个世纪以高速地 把所有城市都连接起来 因此我们的生活质素也大大改善 但与此同时,越来越多婴儿出生 越来越多人迁居城市 在未来十五年,单是中国就有 四至六亿人会迁入城市 因此,没有人会否认在以往五十年间 飞机把大陆和国家转化为一个社区 如果观察科技如何被实践 我们已经解决了运输过程中的 长距离,高速度,大容量,超重量的问题。 没有人会想舍弃这些技术 当然,我也舍不得我的飞机 直升机、悍马或保时捷 虽然我不把它们放在家中,我还是很喜欢它们 事实是,问题是在最后路段 当一半人口现居于城中 而且因人而异的 人们差不多耗费了花九成至九成半体用于步行 我不知道怎样的数据才能让你感到震撼 美国大城市里的汽车消耗掉了 全球百分之四十三的精炼燃油 每年有三百万市民死于空气污染 几乎地球上所有粉尘污染 都是源于交通工具,尤其市区里的 还有,我不是要攻击任何行业 我真的很喜欢我的飞机 还有在高速公路上以每小时六十英里奔驰着的车子 效率是超然的 以上两点都是从工程 能源消耗和效益角度上出发 我们都爱自己的车子,我也是 问题是,如果你走进市里,想走四段街段 这既无聊又低效 持续性也低 如果,在1998年的中国,四亿一千七百万人骑自行车 一百七十万人开车 如果当中百分之五的人成为了所谓的中产人士 并希望走我们在过去百年我们走过的路 同时当中一半人口每隔六周 迁入面积和密度跟曼哈顿一样城市 环境受不了 经济受不了,因为没有足够的石油 政治上也不可承受 我说的是,我们现在到底在争夺什么呢? 我们可以把问题变得复杂,但世界现在到底在争夺什么呢? 对我来说,有人要在最后路段上下工夫 幸运的是我们在研发iBOTs。 可是我们认为一旦研发成功 它会马上取代汽艇,你不需要水也可以开。 或者可以替代雪上摩托,你不需要雪也可以开。 或者滑雪,这是纯粹娱乐而己,大家还是喜爱四处玩耍的 另外,当中所有行业之中 只有高尔夫车才是价值数以十亿美元计的行业 没有做我们常常做的取消其执照, 我觉得如果我们不把所有的精力用在技术上 而是专注理解其他世界上的问题如何解决 并开始接受城市, 回到古希腊时代,就是说人们要徒步走路 为人类而建的城市 现在有足迹 当所有运输难题都已解决 正如摩尔定律般 我是说,看看用科内斯托加旅行车穿过大陆需要多长时间, 对比用火车和飞机的时间 所有交通工具都进化了 过了五千年,我们又回到了城市 城市变得更大更广 各城市中最贵的房地产 威尔希尔大道,第五大道,东京,或巴黎—— 最贵的房地产就位于市中心 市区内共有百分之65的地区是用作泊车的 全球二十大城市 你或许会问,要是城市可以给行人 我们现在来往城市时认为是理所当然的东西呢? 要是我们可以使城市变得更有趣、更吸引、更整洁 更环保? 如果可以让可以通过大众运输的最后一环 走出来,走向你的汽车变得更合意, 因此我们可以都生活在郊区, 随心所欲的使用汽车, 让城市再次充满活力呢? 能够这么做也真不错 我们关注的问题之一 是如何合法地在人行道上行走 因为技术上我有马达和车轮,我就是一辆机动车 但我看上去不像机动车 我跟行人一样会留下足迹 也有同样的独特能力 在拥挤的地方处理同其他行人之间的问题。 我从零开始做起, 在人群中走了一个小时。 我是行人。但法律通常比科技落后一至两代 如果我们不能走人行道,我们有两个选择 我们可以成为无关紧要的娱乐设施, 但我不会把时间花在这上 或者我们应该走上街道 同灰狗巴士或机车一道。 我们向来十分关注这问题 我们曾走到邮政署长面前 第一个展示给了他看 并说,“给你们的人装备这个吧,大家都信任邮递员。 他们应该在人行道上使用,他们会认真使用它的。” 他同意了,我们去了数个警察部门 他们想让警员们及时深入邻里社区 并携带这70多磅的物品。他们爱死了这个。 我就不相信警察会给自己发罚单 (笑声) 所以我们真的下了很多工夫 但我们知道技术的发展, 不会像培养权衡轻重和应用科技的心态那样困难 我们遇过一些有远见的人 提供足够资金,让我们研发这东西 希望给了我们足够的时间让他们满意。 我很乐意谈论这项技术 这真的很有趣,你该出去试一试 如果我能要求你做一件事, 不是要把它当成是一种技术 而是想像,虽然我们都理解 我们用这台四千磅的机器 以每小时六十英里的速度行驶 把我们带到任何我们想去的地方的合理性 也是我们在最后一英里使用的工具, 它坏了,不能开动了 我们遇过最兴奋的事情之一 让我们觉得它可能会被接受,就在加州这里发生了 几个星期以前,我们发布之后, 在威尼斯滩,我们带着一个新闻工作者来 惊叹着这技术 期间骑自行车的走过来 踏滑板的走过来 一个矮小的老太太,去查字典吧, 她来我这边 当时我这上面,跟一般成年人一样高 她停下来,镜头就在那边,她抬头看着我 说:“我可以试吗?” 我们怎么会说什么呢? 所以我说:“当然可以” 我下来,她上去,有点像习以为常的 然后她转着,大概走了二十尺 再往后走,她全程都笑着 她回来停下来,说: ”终于有人给我们制造了些什么。“ 镜头往下对着她 我心想:“太好了 (笑声) ——女士,请不要说别的。” (笑声) 镜头仍然对着她 那位采访员把麦克风对着她 问:“你这么说是什么意思?” 我当时想,“都完了。” 她抬头说:“嗯” 她仍然看着那些人,说着,“我不会骑单车,” 不, “我不会滑板,也不会滑旱冰,” 她知道它们的名字 “我五十年没有骑过自行车了。” 然后她抬头说: “我现在81岁了,不能开车了, 我还是要去商店,我不能提很多东西,” 突然我意识到,在我的许多恐惧之中, 并不仅仅是官僚,监管当局 或立法人员不能明白 而基本上,有种来自群众的压力 叫你不要侵占这些城市中仅余的一点 珍贵的人行道上的空间 看着法律规定的36英寸宽的人行道时, 停车位的八英尺,加上三个车道 然后又八尺 这就是所剩下的空间了。 可是她抬头这么说 让我意识到,孩子们不会在意这些东西, 他们也不投票,商人和青少年 都不会介意,他们很通达, 所以我猜我是潜意识地担心 老人们会在意。 所以,看到这件事后,担心了八年后 首先我拨电话问我们市场部门和规范部门的朋友 他们叫AARP,并立刻约时间见面 我们得给他们看看这东西 然后他们把它带到华盛顿,展示了 他们也要参与计划了 看着这些东西怎样在几个城市被人们接受, 比如亚特兰大,我们在当地试行它们会否 有助给这些城市重新注入活力 (欢呼) 底线是,无论你相信联合国与否, 或其他智库组织 在未来二十年间,所有人口增长都会 集中于城市 单是亚洲就会有十亿人口 他们一开始就学会用手机。 他们无需像我们一样走过一百年的进步历程。 他们从技术食物链顶端开始 我们得开始建设城市和人类环境 让一百五十磅重的人也可以在密集、富庶、绿化的环境中 也可以走数英里 而毋须使用这台四千磅重的机器 汽车不适合平行停泊 在城市之间移动他们是得力机器,但想想看: 我们解决了长距和高速的间题 希腊人穿着凉鞋从狄俄尼索斯的剧院走到了帕台农神庙。 而你现在就穿着运动鞋 变化不大 如果移动速度比走路快三倍──三倍── 三十分钟的路程缩为十分钟 如果你住在市区,你的选择是十分钟── 如果要半个小时的话,你需要别的方法,公车或火车也好 我们得建设施 ── 轻轨 ── 你或者会选择继续泊车 但是如果你在大多城市里能行动自如, 想象如果你有时间,你在城市里半个小时可以走多远。 如果你可以把路程变得有趣,把它缩为八至十分钟 你找不到车子,取回车子,开车 再泊车,然后去别的地方 你不能打的或坐地铁 你可以改变人类调配资源的方法 世界消耗能源的方法 让它变得有趣 我们希望历史将证明我们是对的。 它叫赛格威,这是循环发动机 我们很多工作把这个混淆了 这小怪正产生数百瓦的电力 对,它能够做到 也对,利用一公斤丙烷 你愿意的话,可以从纽约走到波士顿 也许这台小机器更有趣之处是,它会燃烧任何燃料 因为你们有部分也许质疑 这种性能的影响 在大部分地方你都不能轻易插入120伏特的插座 事实上我们正在研究这种 替代能源 从强生公司开始,到使用iBOT, 因为你能得到的最好电池是 每公斤铅十瓦特小时 每公斤镍镉二十瓦特小时 每公斤镍金属水合物四十瓦特小时 每公斤锂六十瓦特小时 每公斤丙烷或汽油八千七百五十瓦特小时 因此根本没人会开电动车 可是,在任何时候,它都会以同样速度燃烧 因为它是在外部燃烧,跟你家的炉灶一样 假如任何燃料都可使用,那么燃烧后都是干净的 比如说,这使得仅仅足够的电力这样做 在其他地方,晚上有足够电力 正如霍利博士指出, 启动电脑和开灯。 更有趣的是,这方面的热力学家说 你绝不能达到超过两成的效能 也没多大关系,就是就如果有两百瓦特的电力 就会产生七百到八百的热能 如果你想使水沸腾并以每小时10加仑的比率重新凝聚, 要花25,25.3多千瓦特—— 2万5千瓦的持续能量来完成。 这么多能量,你没法在我国 用这种方式淡化或净水。 当然,在世界的其他地方,你的选择是毁掉这个地方, 把所有可燃的物质都转化为热能,或把所有可喝的水都喝光 世界首要致命原因就是恶水 视乎你相信那组数字 每天有六十至八万五人因此死亡 我们不需成熟的心脏移植手术 我们需要水源 妇女们不该再每天花四小时寻找水源 或看着孩子死亡 我们研究到怎样把蒸汽压缩蒸馏器放在上面 再以反流式换热器采余温 用少量电力控制这过程 用450瓦,是废热的一半多一点, 每小时就能造出十加仑蒸馏水 从任何使用的燃料那里得到的能量来给它降温。 如果把盒子放在这 这几年间我们能否在这个重60磅的盒子里 得到解决交通、电力、 通讯,或许饮用水问题的方案? 我不知道,但我们会试试看 我得闭嘴了。 (鼓掌)