momoschili

Indeed, but you are clearly missing the historical context as these were two highly celebrated and referenced texts of the time period by leading scientists. However, it appears that the leading scientific minds (of which Maxwell and Whittaker are) did not include these uses in their texts. I do not dispute that science can be wrong (in fact it is almost always 'wrong' in the end) nor do I dispute that there could have been published research in those applications. I would argue that these applications were likely fringe at best within the scientific community by the mid 1800s.

There are of course incredible scientists that went down disappointing paths (eg Shockley, Dyson, Pauling) in terms of their research output later on, though one must remember that typically this occurs outside their original field of expertise.

If you read my comment you will see that I am asking for the references to the claims the previous author made. I simply provided my own references which werew written at the time and are representative of the times that do not corroborate the tall tale of the previous author. If you have any references to support their claim I would be interested in perusing them.

The most boring example is x-rays. Slightly less boring are the radiation therapies for cancer.

What is maybe the most applicable that is widely accepted is electric therapy for people recovering from ACL surgeries.

Going to need some citations here since the texts that I'm familiar with from that time period are "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" by Maxwell (mid-late 1800s) and "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" by E. T. Whittaker, neither of which mentions anything of the sort. I suspect you are choosing from texts that at the time likely would not have been considered academic or standard.

I think the requirements at the semi level are quite different than what the tooling industry will be able to produce. The silicon carbide layer thickness probably needs to be controlled at least to the 10 nm level and the film quality will need to be quite high for optical applications. There is some use of silicon carbide in semi in high power electronics, but I don't know how well that transfers to optical quality either.

A few major elements to this that I'm really interested in:

1. wireless data transfer and how that affects the performance

2. EMG: this is alright, but seems to be a bit overhyped

3. MicroLED: clearly the best display technology available, but how close is color display to consumer price levels?

4. silicon carbide: great material, interested in seeing it at scale

5. magnesium frame: super awesome to see this being pushed as wel

I think here there is a misunderstanding on the meaning of 'work'. It's most likely clear to all authors in this chain that if you take an LED and shine it onto an appropriate PV you will get voltage out of it. That much isn't governed by thermodynamic limits.

Likely the word 'work' here is in the context of collecting or generating energy in some manner. Your example here is essentially energy transfer. In analogy what you're describing is the transfer of power from driveshaft to axle, not what is happening in the engine itself.

A lot more institutions, but in terms of total number of students, about 4x the UW system, ~2x amount of administrative staff, 4x the academic staff.

Not saying the UW got a good deal of course, it's pretty clear based on the progress of the modernization that UW didn't.

Not quite true, especially not for the higher end research universities.

The University of Washington is projected to spend $2B on modernizing IT infrastructure (which does seem like a reasonable amount).

In that number though is $340M to update it's accounting system. Not quite directly comparable to $600M for HR, but not completely perpendicular either

Chemical reactivity isn't the only thing at play here, in fact I'd say it's more burying the lead (kekek) than addressing the issue at hand. Sure glass isn't the most inert material, but another piece of the puzzle that is often neglected is mechanical abrasion. Once that surface has been compromised, the microplastics come right out.

Glass has the benefit of very high chemical inertness while also being extremely resistant to mechanical abrasion. Some types of glass are clearly not good enough (eg most 'crystal'/lead glasses), but borosilicate and fused silica are certainly well proven materials.

Another process that is relevant, leaching, while considered a 'chemical process' does not actually involve any kind of 'reactivity'. It's governed by solubility and statistical mechanics.

This is bit of a commonly misheld perception in my opinion.

It took 30-50 years for anything in the 1910s to become particularly useful. Even the photoelectric effect itself took over 30 years before the first devices (photomultipliers) were even developed.

The much celebrated quantum mechanics likely wasn't so useful either until 30-40 years later with electronics such as transistors.

General relativity didn't really find a use until GPS and that was over 70 years later.

The only field that contributed 'relatively' quickly during that time period was nuclear physics, but that field saw an extreme concentration of effort due to the war.

Meanwhile theoretical condensed matter physics today is rife with things that are on the cusp of being useful with 2D materials, superconductors, quantum simulators, etc

I think you missed the memo during the pandemic then. That was the biggest supply of free money in a while for many industries.

The article mentions the use of a diffractive mask. This can be very generally associated with an optical diffuser in its function.

And yes, Laura Waller at UC Berkeley has been one of the pioneers in this research for a few decades.

what a tragedy... I can't think of many sites with the impact that YouTube has had, especially during her tenure as the lead.

lung cancer as well, I don't think she was a smoker so what a bad stroke of luck.