| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 Forum
Thread: What's in a name: Is the "Clean Energy" moniker in CEP justified? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 16
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hello WCG.
Attention: WCG project management/administration Greetings. I'm of the view that the "Clean Energy" name of the (Clean Energy Project) CEP (Phase 1 and Phase 2) is not the best name for the project. CEP does not deal with the full array of "Clean Energy" sources like wind, ocean-based, etc. CEP deals with only one form of energy: solar/light. The Clean Energy project mission statement: The mission of The Clean Energy Project is to find new materials for the next generation of solar cells and later, energy storage devices. By harnessing the immense power of World Community Grid, researchers can calculate the electronic properties of hundreds of thousands of organic materials – thousands of times more than could ever be tested in a lab – and determine which candidates are most promising for developing affordable solar energy technology. To allocate and next reserve WCG space for (possible future WCG coverage of) the other clean energy sources, the "Clean Energy" moniker should not be used to represent coverage of any one energy source by a project. For the current CEP, that means either CEP take focus out of the solar/light area and spread that focus to all energy areas, or for CEP to continue to focus on the solar/light area but rename its project to something that is more specific to its area of coverage. Good examples of alternative project names for CEP include: "Solar Energy" project, "Light Energy" project, "Harnessing light energy" project, or "Energy from light" project. For your consideration, please. Good day ; |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi andzgrid,
Several of the WCG project names tap into the general public's attention: "Clean Energy" is such an attraction and DDDT-2 is another, really covering 4/5 diseases (one split off into a separate project now). AFAIK, several "Clean Energy" bills are before congress in the USA. What then is the underlying specific research is quite quickly found out on the info pages. Renaming the project, if you're proposing that, I for sure think unrealistic as it has been carrying now for 2 years. Would only cause confusion imho. But, yes "reserving" name spaces is certainly advisable and having taken "Clean Energy" surely has prevented other project developers to walk away with this one. My 2 Euro Cents :D |
||
|
|
nasher
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Dec 2, 2005 Post Count: 1423 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
have you ever tried to rename a project once it has been released to the public.
----------------------------------------this is at least "A" clean energy project... if I had the power to fix any names of things the first one i would shoot for is "CLEAN COAL" this project is doing research into the clean energy frontier of corse there researcher is focused into the solar area... you are right solar might have been a better name but no one else had grabbed clean energy project so they did. I am sure there are a lot of people who use "green energy" as a catch phrase. also remember these are public companies and changing a name of a project is incredibly hard and sometimes very expensive. AND there is no legal reason to need or want to change the project. This is after all a clean energy project that is focusing in on solar energy. again using the name clean energy project doesn't hurt any other project either. Any new project will have to more define there project name or such but it didn't hurt anyone and its not false advertising.  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hello WCG.
Attention / Reference: -Sekerob / [Feb 5, 2011 2:02:09 PM] post -nasher / [Feb 5, 2011 4:15:32 PM] post -WCG Project Management/Administration Greetings. Sekerob, nasher -- thanks for responding. WCG members, welcome. The other forms of energy (wind, ocean-based, geothermal, hydro, etc) that may also be classed as a "Clean Energy", if ever a project for it comes up and cleared to run on WCG, would (have to) use a specific namespace, sure enough. That can only leave the "Clean Energy" namespace in WCG as a namespace owned by-, and with it for the exclusive use of-, solar/light -- something that solar/light does not deserve (in the intellectual sense) in general, and something that CEP does not deserve (in the concrete sense) in particular. I wish it is a matter of CEP "not hurting anyone and is not false advertisement" in which case, I could then rest my arguments. But, I have to admit that I consider the assignment of the "Clean Energy" for a namespace for CEP as coming close to false advertisement in the form of "omission of specificity"; and the idea that the decision to proceed with the granting of the "Clean Energy" namespace for CEP if only to tap into general public's attention, was done despite the knowledge (or lack of it) of what the effect may be with other namespaces -- can only make the said "omission of specificity" even more important. Good day ; |
||
|
|
nasher
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Dec 2, 2005 Post Count: 1423 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I am trying to figure your point out but to me it is not a big issue.
----------------------------------------are you trying to say that CEP and CEP2 have some sort of advantage over say a geothermal project if they wanted to run would run a project on WCG cause they couldn't use clean energy project as a name? and would have to come up with something like Geothermal clean energy Geothermal@home Clean Geothermal energy project Clean Energy Geo if you click on any of the project info for CEP you find out the information that it is for solar project. if I understand your argument it should be for all the other projects as well.. to me I dont have a problem with any of the names but i am just trying to put enough info out there so you can better explain my misconception of your arguments. Computing for Clean Water... do you think they should have specified they are doing water filters vs projects that might run say reverse osmosis? Discovering Dengue Drugs - Together... in this case are you saying that because this project works on identify promising drug candidates to combat the Dengue, Hepatitis C, West Nile, Yellow Fever, and other related viruses that the name is too specific and thereby wrong???Help Cure Muscular Dystrophy... investigating protein-protein interactions for more than 2,200 proteins whose structures are known, with particular focus on those proteins that play a role in neuromuscular diseases. is this not specific enough or is this one a good name in your bookHelp Fight Childhood Cancer... The mission of the Help Fight Childhood Cancer project is to find drugs that can disable three particular proteins associated with neuroblastoma, one of the most frequently occurring solid tumors in children .... by your argument this project name would also be off cause it is searching for only one of the most common types not all types of childhood cancer. Help Conquer Cancer... The mission of Help Conquer Cancer is to improve the results of protein X-ray crystallography, which helps researchers not only annotate unknown parts of the human proteome, but importantly improves their understanding of cancer initiation, progression and treatment. ... from your argument this should have the title of "x-ray crystallography for a cancer cure" or something like that? Human Proteome Folding ... The Human Proteome Folding project will provide scientists with data that predicts the shape of a very large number of human proteins. These predictions will give scientists the clues they need to identify the biological functions of individual proteins within the human body. With an understanding of how each protein affects human health, scientists can develop new cures for human diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, SARS, and malaria. this seems on the money.FightAIDS@Home... predicts how small molecules, such as drug candidates, might bind or "dock" to a receptor of known 3D structure. Personally this one also seems to be specific enough by your argument.Influenza Antiviral Drug Search.. project is to find new drugs that can stop the spread of an influenza infection in the body. seems specific.Nutritious Rice for the World... The objective of this project is to predict the structure of proteins of major strains of rice. The intent is to help farmers breed better rice strains with higher crop yields, promote greater disease and pest resistance, and utilize a full range of bioavailable nutrients that can benefit people around the world, especially in regions where hunger is a critical concern. "... shrug breading better rice. not sure if this one is specific enough for you claim or not.AfricanClimate@Home to develop more accurate climate models of specific regions in Africa. ok this one is on the moneyGenome Comparison The main objective of the Genome Comparison project is to perform, for the first time, a complete pairwise comparison between all predicted protein sequences, obtaining similarity indices that will be used, together with standardized Gene Ontology (www.geneontology.org/), as a reference repository for the annotator community and providing an invaluable data source for biologists. i am guessing you are asking all project names to be specific like this Help Defeat Cancer A relatively new investigative tool called tissue microarrays (TMA) holds great promise in helping doctors in selecting proper treatment strategies and providing accurate prognosis for cancer patients. Although TMA is not currently being used by doctors to render primary diagnoses, it does make it possible for researchers to determine the specific type and stage of cancer present and systematically investigate which therapies or combinations of treatments are most likely to be effective for each kind of cancer based upon the known outcomes of individual patients. Specific courses of treatment can then be prescribed for actual cancer patients based on whether a specific set of antigens is present or not. Should this have been named "Tissue microarrays to investigate cancer"?? ok I might be going around a long ways just to try to make a point. so here it is spelled out. In my opinion the face they called this project "The Clean Energy" and there goal is The mission of the Clean Energy Project is to find new materials for the next generation of solar cells and later, energy storage devices. By harnessing the immense power of World Community Grid, researchers can calculate the electronic properties of tens of thousands of organic materials â many more than could ever be tested in a lab â and determine which candidates are most promising for developing affordable solar energy technology. Yes this is for solar energy and such but i dont seem to be and omission its in there mission statement on the research page. do you think that if they used a name like "Organic Photovoltaic research for clean energy promotion" honestly i think this would confuse more people. I dont see how this is false advertising. its kinda like when they say "smoking causes cancer" is non specific. well it has been linked to Lung, mouth, throat, stomach, bladder and colon cancers. Most people know smoking causes cancer and the fact that it doesn't list what types of cancer it causes and what types of cancer it dose not cause heck there are hundreds of types of cancer out there myself I am recovering from thyroid cancer but I see no legal reason to go through the arguments. from what i can tell you are trying to use BIG WORDS and legal phrases to justify your argument. I am a simple man and i had to do web searches to try to figure out the words you used and what meaning you ment for them. heck Moniker is normally computer science term the term "omission of specificity" come up with legal terms mostly with debates on the US constitution. "intellectual sense" more legal terminology basically meaning unfair in a technical sense "Concrete sense" cant find a good definition of this term in any relation to the argument.. guessing its just cause im not incredibly intelligent. ... to make a long post short the project has been named and the amount of time/energy/money to change the project name would be non "advantageous" as far as i can tell there is no intended false advertisement for this project and most people who run distributed computing projects do check to figure out what the projects mission statement is and guess what it is pretty clear on that page what they intend to do. Also WCG did not "GRANT THE NAME" to this Harvard research project it was named at Harvard and brought to this computing platform. Certainty you are correct that they chose the name to tap into the general public attention but i see no legal problem with that. if it was EASY to change the name of a project or such once it was in the public don't you think Chevy would have renamed the car "NOVA" at least to countries with Spanish speaking people remember no va translates as no will or no go great name for a car you are trying to sell. so can you please restate your argument and the reasons why you think this project name should have been changed and realize that nothing short of a legal battle (that I would consider silly) would cause the name to be changed. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Dear andzgrid,
You raise a fair point. Here are the two reasons why this relatively general title was chosen: 1) It is rather catchy and easy to grasp for a general audience, which is inherently important for research which depends on public support. It is also quite complicated to make something appealing out of the more specific ‘computational screening and design of organic photovoltaic materials’... While your proposed titles are more specific, they each still lack important details. And if you want to be picky: wind, ocean, and hydro energy are all forms of solar energy, so you couldn’t use that title either! 2) The methodology we develop in this project is relevant for other energy related research as well. We originally planned to look into energy storage for example. The general nature of the project title has introduced a few unexpected problems for us because other people use it as well. We have hence started to employ ‘Harvard Clean Energy Project’ in case of potential misunderstandings. Following your argument, there probably cannot be a Clean Energy Project in the most general meaning. No device/material research could fulfill your criteria. In that sense the title could not be used at all. So while one could make the point that there may be more suitable titles, we don’t think this is a particularly relevant discussion. The bottomline is that we have established and to a certain degree branded our project with the current title and changing it at this stage would be counterproductive. Hence - it is what it is. Best wishes from your Harvard CEP team |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Dear cleanenergy,
As the scientists on this project, I appreciate that you have replied in a gentle manner to the question raised.  As a cruncher, I think that it is extremely rude for a volunteer cruncher to make the suggestion to somehow change the project name, and also that the implication that you intentionally misled the community is unsupportable.  As always, any single volunteer that has a problem with any of the projects can easily choose not to participate. We get 'to vote with our feet'. Conversely, I am pleased to have completed 1881 WU for this project and have no regrets.  |
||
|
|
sk..
Master Cruncher http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif Joined: Mar 22, 2007 Post Count: 2324 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
If there is a Wind, Wave, Biomass, Coke or even Nuclear Energy project I'm sure we will be able to identify them from their badges, oh, and the first paragraph of the project description ;P
Take the as yet unrealised idea of solar energy materials covering a windmill. On a non-windy day they could open up (unwrap) from the trunk and extend from the blades, angle towards the sun and make the thing useful. Even on a non-windy, overcast day they would at least look better. Stick one out at sea and use it in some way to generate energy from the waves and it's using 3 different forms of energy. Anyway, point is, these technologies don't have to be mutually exclusive. If they are used together it might make them more economically viable and more reliable. |
||
|
|
Randzo
Senior Cruncher Slovakia Joined: Jan 10, 2008 Post Count: 339 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Dear CleanEnergy
thanks for tireless informing us, I appriciate it greatly. Hope you will have enough power to return to your former science target "We originally planned to look into energy storage for example" of course after successfull completing of this one ;-). Because solar energy need to be stored effiecently in order to serve us well. (In Slovakia solar power is marked as unstable energy source so it is not supported well). Wish good luck. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hello WCG.
Attention / Reference: - skgiven / [Feb 10, 2011 6:35:43 PM] post Greetings. While clean-energy sources and the technology used in harnessing the energy can conceivably be used together in some configuration, each of the energy-source need to have their respective technology be developed in a focused manner. If the idea is to develop a technology that would facilitate a combination or synergy of the clean-energy sources, a project for that purpose can be packaged as well. Think of an office-suite as an analogy, tying specific capabilities of specific apps (word processor, spreadsheet, presentations, etc) to facilitate a kind of work that may otherwise be cumbersome at best, even impossible at worst. To the extent that the capabilities one obtains from an integrated product is defined by and/or limited by the capabilities of the individual stand-alone products, the stand-alone products need to be developed separately and firstly. We had stand-alone products first before the idea or the want/need for a suite arose. Now, can CEP be to clean energy what an office-suite is to the stand-alone apps? Not even close, and that is why that project does not deserve the all-encompassing, and generic name of "Clean Energy Project". Unless CEP deals with the other clean-energy sources AS WELL, I see CEP -- by way of analogy -- as being presented as some kind of an office-suite, but with only one app packaged in: the app called "solar/light". There is nothing that I can read from the CEP mission statement about an aspect of the project that seeks to find commonalities that can be scientifically deemed as true to all kinds/types of clean energy sources; Or, an aspect of the CEP project that seeks to tie together un-commonalities between possibly differing nature of clean energy sources. Only those directions and anything in between those directions -- would have hinted that the project deserves a shot at the generic and all-encompassing phrase -- "Clean Energy Project" -- for a project name. How about the argument that CEP never intended to cover all clean-energy sources so an analogy with the likes of an office-suite is not fair? My response: then why not use the magic word, "solar" or "light" in the project name? Solar/light is the area of focus/coverage of the project anyway: what is so wrong with a project name -- that would have the word "solar" or "light" in it -- for a project that focuses on the solar/light area? To what extent would be it be reasonable for marketing-motivated catch-phrases be allowed to introduce fundamentally-flawed project names for a project that is first and foremost a science project? Good day ; |
||
|
|
|