Energy - Part II

Original: (Thursday, August 16, 2007)

Part two of N; Part one is here: ENERGY - PART I. Only today, instead of talking about electrons, we'll be talking about hydrocarbons. Now, hydrocarbons are an important part of the World Of Chemistry. In fact, hydrocarbons are the basis of an entire field of Chemistry know as... Organic Chemistry. Organic Chem, as well as being about hydrocarbons, and hydrocarbon-based compounds, is also the primary reason why a lot of Chemistry students switch to English Lit. Chaucer is easier than the Paraffin Series, which is the easy part of Organic. It's all downhill from there.

Fortunately, aside from the word hydrocarbon, we really don't need to know much more about this stuff. As an aside, it's interesting to note that hydrocarbon compounds actually 'own' many electrons! If we could tease them into giving them up, we'd be able to fill our tanks (well, I mean, the gas tanks in our cars - not the Abrams Tanks in the many war zones we have scattered about the Middle East), and then drive happily about using an electric motor! Sadly, it's not in the nature of the Chemical Bond to give us those electrons without a lot of effort! We have Linus Pauling's word for that, and, knowing that he has not one, but two, Nobel Prizes, you can believe he's smarter than we are! He's also deceased, so the whole idea of megadoses of vitamin C might not be as great as he believed.

But that's another story, as they say.

Now, at this juncture in history, when some of the more-or-less prominent politicians are campaigning for President (these campaigns are so unrelenting, it may well be that the next president has already been elected, and we're getting ready to nominate the candidates for 2012), everybody is talking a lot about how they are about to develop a PLAN! A plan that is, to a.) Save The Planet From Global Warmng or b.) Save The American Driver From Big Oil. Some of the more ambitious politicians are, I believe, trying to work both of those Big Ideas into their ahem, Plan.

Sorry, as my motto says; Good Idea, Too Bad It's Wrong!

The basis for all these wonderful plans is to swap out petroleum as the source for the hydrocarbons going into your (fuel) tank, and to use hydrocarbons from another source. A partial list of these sources: Corn; Sawgrass; Sugarcane; Oil Palms; Used Cooking Oil (from MacD et al.); Methane From Garbage; Methane From Cows (yes, cowfarts!); and that old standby, King Coal. Now, this can all be done. In fact, third world farmers have been using animal byproduct (ahem) as fuel for many centuries. Heck, the West was settled by wagon trains that cooked their way across the plains using Buffalo Chips. That was, of course, before they killed and ate all of the Buffalo.

Problem with all this is, nobody seems to want to consider the scale!

Let us consider the scale: About 500, 000, 000 (1/2 billion!) cars. Maybe more. Heck, there's 260 million cars in the USA alone (see below; Everybody's Getting...). The owners of these cars all want to fill their tanks (the fuel tanks, that is) with hydrocarbons. Aside from some not-entirely-unreasonable fear of engine damage, the car owners really don't give a big rat's ass where the damn hydrocarbons come from. However, the total volume, or weight, of all this fuel is staggering to contemplate! Billions And Billions of Litres! (Borrowing here from famous TV astro-evangelist Carl Sagan). All this stuff gets burned, no matter where it comes from. The burning produces CO2, H2O, CO, Oxides of Nitrogen, Ozone, partially combusted hydrocarbons, and small particulates (soot, actually). The operation also produces Heat, Light, Motion, Dented Fenders, and the occasional Dead Pedestrian.

The problem, actually, is that, given their druthers, most people seem to want to travel about accompanied by something like two tons of assorted metal, plastic, glass, rubber, and a smidgen of other stuff. A car is, emotionally speaking, a sort of cross between a Big, Powerful Destrier (Magnificent Huge Masculine Warlike Stallion, that is), and a Security Blanket (Warm, Soft, Feminine, Peaceful, Comforting, that is). It's quite often not the best way to travel from point A to point B; but What If I Need To Run An Errand? It's also not the healthiest way to travel (See: Everybody's Getting Fat Except...); but What If I Need To Pick Up The Kids? So, what's to be done?

I Don't Know!

Voodoo Economix

Original: (Monday, March 23, 2009)

200 Billion Dollar deficits as far as the eye can see... (R. Limbaugh, 1993)

The Large Surplus will harm the economy... (G. W. Bush, 2001)

Deficits Don't Matter...(D. Cheney, 2003)

The Deficit is unconscionable... (J. Gregg, 2009)

From these and other similar quotes, of which we certainly have No Shortfall we can derive certain basic Rules of Economics
A. Deficits Don't Matter (if the President is a Republican) -
B. Deficits Do Matter (if the President is a Democrat) -
C. A Budget Surplus is bad (if the President is a Democrat) -
D. A Budget Surplus is out of the question (if the President is a Republican) -

Remember those polls from last January that said "People are willing to give the new President a long time to fix the economy."
Long Time appears to be just slightly less than two months.

Don't Gaff That Shark!

Original: (Sunday, May 30, 2004)

Some years ago, I worked as a deckhand on a sportfishing boat out of Los Angeles. One summer morning we were fishing out at Rocky Point (South of Redondo Beach), and we had a pretty good bite going. A good mix of fish, including Calico Bass, Bonito, Barracuda, with a few Yellowtail mixed in.
Unfortunately, we also had a pair of Blue Sharks cruising off the stern.

They were eating pretty much every fish the passengers hooked. They were going for the bait, too, and cutting off the fishermen’s lines. One of the Blues was going back and forth so close off the stern, I decided to do something about it. So I grabbed the long gaff and went to the back of the boat. Terry, the skipper, shouted “Don’t stick him!”. I said “He’s just a little fish, no problem.”
Well, Blue Sharks are kind of long and skinny (like I was in those days), so their appearance can be deceptive. I gaffed that Blue just behind the dorsal fin, and pulled about six feet of shark out of the water. There was still more fish in the water than there was out of it. That Blue wrapped its skinny little tail section around the gaff, started thrashing about, and broke it off. The shark swam away, looking unhappy, with the hook in its back. Because I didn’t listen to the skipper, I wound up having to replace that gaff out of my own pocket.
I learned a lesson from that, eventually. I tried to pass that lesson on to President Bush a while ago. I tried to tell him not to stick that gaff into Iraq. He didn’t listen to me. He didn’t listen to a lot of people. Now, well, it looks to me as if Iraq has broken off the gaff, and is swimming away with the hook in its back.
Seems to me, the President owes the people a new gaff, paid for out of his own pocket. And he should take care when and where he uses it in the future.

I Really Hope It Was Like This

Original: (Saturday, September 25, 2004)

A Great Story...

A long long time ago, during an era known as The Vietnam War, I was doing my time (as it was called then) in the United States Navy, as an enlisted man.

Now, the Navy and I were not a great fit, but in spite of the limited use to which I could be put, the Navy insisted I remain 'til the end of my enlistment. The Powers in the Pentagon seemed to think it their moral duty to retain all personnel in spite of... well, in spite, I believe. Besides, in those days we still had a large component in the military that could best be categorized as "cannon fodder", just like in the good old days of the World Wars (I and II). I see I've drifted a little.
At any rate, there I was, finally, consigned to duty as a shore patrolman in Yokohama, Japan. As duty stations go, I must admit it wasn't too bad. I was a free-spirited malcontent, though, so I wasn't considered a "good shipmate" by any means. Had a tendency to complain. Now, this happened to be at just about the time some of the soldiers in Vietnam started to desert. In fact, this was exactly the time the first two United States Army soldiers deserted. They had been sent on R&R to Japan and decided, when their leave was up, that it really wasn't in their best interest to return to the bullet-infested jungles of Vietnam. I really do sympathize with that view, but at the time, of course, nabbing those deserters was the Number One priority of the Yokohama Shore Patrol. What a coup! What kudos we'd recieve!
As part of the plan of these deserting soldiers, they'd contacted a radical element of the Communist Party known as the Japanese Red Brigade, which happily housed, fed, and displayed the two men at various rallies. We would naturally hear about these appearances and, red lights and sirens going, we'd race off to capture the miscreants. Faring as far as Kamakura, Fujisawa, and even Hakone once. Never did catch them, of course.
Interestingly, there was a sailor who lived in the Yokohama area who bore a striking resemblance to one of the deserters. He was stopped, it seems, about every two blocks whenever he ventured out onto the streets of Yokohama. It got to where he pretty much just kept his ID in his hand, and whenever he saw a SP truck he'd just come on over and say hi. We used to chat a little from time to time. He seemed to take it all pretty well. He was a JO2 (Journalist second class) at Kami Seya. I even remember his name. It was Doug Shuitt. I remember some time later seeing his byline in the Los Angeles Times. I do not know where he is or what he is doing now.
To digress for a moment (I promise, this will have a bearing on the story). Since I appreciate all things maritime, I used to watch the papers for notices of passenger liners sailing from the Yokohama docks. The French Indochina Line (yes, French Indochina Line, with three ships: SS Vietnam, SS Cambodia and SS Laos), home port Marseilles, ran a passenger route from Marseilles through the Suez Canal, around India, up to Singapore and Bangkok, around to Saigon, Hong Kong, Yokohama, and finally to Khabarovsk. The ships were tiny, but pretty. Which is more than you can say about the bloated horizontal high rise hotels polluting the oceans today. Okay, so I'm biased. These were actual passenger ships, however, used by people to go places, not just for expensive vacations. My sister arrived in Yokohama aboard the SS Laos

one time while I was there. I helped her smuggle a Honda Motorbike into Japan. But that's another story. Anyway, when I saw that one of these ships was departng, I used to go down to the dock, join in the throngs (like the ships, the throngs were small), throw confetti, try to catch an end of those paper spirals the passengers threw at the dock, generally have a good time.
Well.
Eventually, those two deserting soldiers left Japan, travelled across Russia, and wound up in Sweden, where they became posterboys for the antiwar movement. Judging by the dates, and the route, and so on, it seems to me entirely possible that those soldiers left Yokohama by way of the SS Laos, on a date when I was not only waving goodbye, but since I was on duty at the time, I was at the dock with my battleship gray Shore Patrol truck, and wearing full SP regalia, including helmet, nightstick, and .45 Colt Automatic pistol! If the soldiers were on that ship, I surely hope they weren't hiding out below. I hope they were at the rail, wondering why that shore patrolman was there waving goodbye to them! I really hope it all happened that way.
It would be a great story, wouldn't it?

Energy: Part 1

Original: (Sunday, May 20, 2007)

Electricity

First, a few facts about energy generally: There are several different kinds of energy in nature - Electrical, Gravitational, Mechanical, Physical, Mental, and Emotional. The First Law of Energy: "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another". This law was first proposed by Lord Kelvin (OBE,BTU), who used this law in the development of the Kelvinator, an early form of Frigidaire, or refrigerator, known today as "reefer".

Electricity can be "made" (remember the First Law!) in several ways. One way is to go fly a kite in a thunderstorm (Be Careful!).
Another way (preferred) is to block a river, and then let the dammed water flow over a windmill. The rotating windmill causes two wires to rub together, making the electrons living in the wires to run to the other end. This is an excellent example of the Conversion of Energy: the current from the flowing river is converted to current flowing along the wire!

Now that we know how to "make" electricity; let's think about the other part of the equation - what we can use it for!

Electricity is used in a myriad ways today.

The main thing we do with it is --- we waste it! Electricity's major use is to Heat Empty Spaces, Cool Empty Spaces. and Light Empty Spaces. It is also sometimes used to fill empty spaces with the sound of "music".

The number two use of electricity is for manufacturing. Electricity is used in (Manu)Factories to make almost anything we want but don't really need: Cars, Cosmetics, TV Dinners and other foodlike items, Levis, iPods, and "stuff" in general. The list is endless! Ummm, now that I look at it, I don't think any of that stuff (except maybe for the TV Dinners) is actually "manufactured" in the US anymore. In any case, this is proof that electricty, like political donations,is fungible; electricity used to make "stuff" we don't need could also be considered in category 1, above (wasted).

In pretty much a tie for third place is electicity used to light up houses - where it is intended to warn people that the occupants are awake and alert, so they should stay away; and commercial buildings - which are lit up like Christmas trees inside and out, hoping to make people think something interesting is going on, and attract them! It's an interesting duality. I have yet to figure if all this light shining in people's eyes has either effect. It's been going on for over a century now, and I guess the jury is still out.

The fifth (remember, there are two number 3's) most common use for electricity is (are you ready for this?) - to power appliances that are "off." Yes; many years ago, Lord Magnavox (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. etc.) discovered that if he wired your television or other essential appliance so that "OFF" really meant "ON - but not so you can use it," people would be happier. Their electric meters would continue to turn happily, thus avoiding a breakdown in the delivery of power to the home (and billing for same).

As I said earlier, electricity has a myriad of uses today. I have mentioned only a few of the most common. The other hundreds of uses perhaps adding up in the aggregate to as much as use number five (providing electricity to appliances that are "OFF").

So, when your local (or national) Candidate For President starts talking about "Clean Power" or "Green Power" remember: He-Or-She isn't talking about electricity. He-Or-She is talking about just plain power (His-Or-Her own).

Next: Energy: Part 2. Combustion

Why Does It Freeze?

Original: (Saturday, October 15, 2005)

Way long ago on a warm summer day when I was about 5 or 6, I was playing at a friends house. Sometime around the middle of the afternoon Benny's mom came out of the house with a contraption. She said "We're going to make some ice cream." Well, I was highly skeptical. I figured "making ice cream" was pretty much like "making potatoes", or "making milk". I was one of those who thought food came from the market. Anyway, we (she) poured some stuff into the middle part of this Ice Cream Maker,



and put ice and rock salt in the surrounding bucket. And told us to start cranking the handle. After what seemed like a long time (but probably wasn't) and a lot of work (and probably was), the cranking got difficult. We stopped; took the thing apart; opened the cannister in the middle, where we'd poured the cream, sugar, and things I don't have any idea about, and Voila'! Ice cream! Just as advertised. How? On a warm day, with the two of us sweating over the crank, and the ice melting; How? How did the liquid in the cannister freeze?

At last, the point - If you can't figure out how this happened, you shouldn't be allowed to talk about Global Warming. The simple answer is: heat transfer. You could look it up, to quote the late great Casey Stengel.
Now Steven Milloy, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, says HERE, global warming claims are contradicted by the fact that at one point on the Earth the temperature indicates we are making ice cream.

OOPS:

I mean, rather, that thermometers aren't indicating a temperature increase in that locale. Therefore, the heat content of the system is not increasing! An incredible and totally unbelievable argument. Such illogic is stunning in its scope! There are still a number of people who, like Mr. Milloy, are finding local cold spots that they can point to in order to support a claim that the energy (heat content) of the Ice Cream Maker - I mean the Earth - is not increasing. You would suppose that any sensible person would be embarrassed to make such a fool of himself, and in public too! I suspect Mr. Coal and Mr. Petroleum are spending a lot of money to ease the embarrassment of these people.

Of course it's simple logic that the Earth is always either warming or cooling, so it's about 50/50 that at any given time we are in a warming part of the cycle (epicycle, or epiepicycle, etc.). The science regarding the Greenhouse Effect is simple, well understood, and clear. It's been known for decades. Without the Greenhouse Effect, the Earth would be uninhabitable by creatures such as ourselves. It's also been known, since the '50's anyway, that the release of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and other greenhouse gases by humans increases the atmospheric concentration of these gases, magnifying the effect. Thus, the warming/cooling cycles are shifted toward increased warming. Can it get any simpler than that?

What seems toxic to me about the debate over this is that there are some who deny that warming is occuring, others who deny it could be a problem, and still others who say we really shouldn't pay any attention to the situation unless and until we are absolutely certain that there will be negative effects! OH!, I'll think about it tomorrow!, said Scarlett.
Now NOAA says that we are setting yet another record HERE.
I realize NOAA is a part of the US government, and therefore not to be trusted (heck, George W. Bush says not to trust a buncha bureaucrats), but I personally will take what the scientists there, using a lot of data, over what an "adjunct scholar" at a near-fanatical reactionary Cato Institute says, using his select subset of thermometers.

Once upon a time, the United States Government (and some local governments also) was preeminent in taking steps to reduce pollution, reduce impacts of human actvites on the environment, and generally led efforts to clean up and improve the health of the world environment. What Happened? Why is the government in a state of paralysis here? How do people (like the President) get away with claiming that reducing human impact on the Earth is A Bad Thing for the economy? This is belied by past experience; in general, reducing the release of industrial waste products has always been an economic boost, as well as improving the health of the population and the country (and the world) generally. I think we lost our compass.

"It's Not At All Certain..."?????

Original: (Thursday, October 28, 2004)

Dick Cheney
seems to parse reality differently than most of us. When he hears what he wants to hear, like 'intelligence' from the well known fabulist Ahmad Chalabi, nothing in the world is more certain. When he is told something he doesn't want to hear, like news of another military bumble in Iraq, like the failure to sequester a large store of explosives (at the very location he claims Saddam Hussein was "reconstituting his nuclear program"), this information is "not at all certain". Thinking about it, I suppose most of us practice this sort of denial to some degree. When it reaches this level, and the practitioner is so happy to share his deeply felt skepticism (read:fantasies) with the world, well, any total sociopath would be proud. I guess the only certain knowledge he possesses is the data that fits his preconceptions. Sort of todays version of "All The News That Fits, We Print". Anything he doesn't want to believe, well, it's just "not at all certain".
And then the Vice president calls John Kerry an "Armchair General"? Come on! This is the man who had "other priorities" when it came his time to serve in the military. Some of us think his other priority was to nestle deep in his armchair, where he was much less likely to get his ass shot off. Or become a victim of the ever popular "friendly fire".


Besides, Mr. Vice-Commander-In-Chief, the phrase is Armchair Admiral! You're in Pensacola! Pensacola's been a Navy town for longer than you've been a crooked politician! And that's a long long time...

How Productivity Software Saved the Day

Original: (Thursday, August 05, 2004)

I have spent the last several days in a kind of limbo. Or, if you prefer, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Its a sort of penance for having done something the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs didn't like. Anyway, I've been walking a lot, rubbernecking, dodging motos and beggars (I notice that the Geckoes are active in the daytime too, here). I've also been watching a lot of teevee in the heat of the day. I just saw Shakespeare in Love earlier today. It really is a good movie, I am happy to report. The thing that got me to thinking though was the last scene, where Shakespeare is beginning to pen Twelfth Night.
Now, I have several computers, not counting the one I am currently typing on. This one is in an internet cafe next door to my hotel. Costs r2000/hour (50 cents). My primary computer, despite being a well-aged five years, is fully loaded with Productivity Software. With my computer I can Process Words; I can Spread Sheets; I can Base Data, in many wonderful ways. I can even Point with Power. Isn't the modern world amazing!
My point? Will Shakespeare wrote 55 plays, and a number of sonnets (78 is a number that comes to mind, but it's probably wrong), and the only productivity software he had was a blotter. Or perhaps they still used sand to blot the ink on the paper back at the beginning of the 17th century. I don't really know. At 55 plays, Master Will is approximately ummm, 55 plays ahead of my production. So much for Word Processors, Spell Checkers, Grammar Checkers, Plot Outliners, and all the assorted canned writing aids of today. Of course, I am no Shakespeare, you might say. You are correct. In fact, there are very few such. One is the correct count, I believe. Still, there are lots of other people in history, recent times, and today, who have created rather prodigious bodies of intellectual work. I haven't heard of any who can be said to have had their productivity improved by Productivity Software.
Of course, without such software, I wouldn't be writing this, so that's something, I guess.
The only other example of the utility of Productivity Software I can think of immediately is that when my secretary (this was in the early '80's) came into possession of a Word Processor, the monthly report she submitted from my group to the main office grew in a few months from a seven page document, on average, to a seventy page document, also on average. She stopped typing, and started cutting-pasting-inserting-overtyping. Nothing ever got taken out.
Sort of like the tax laws.
Oh: everything has been smoothed over with the Thai Ministry of etc., so I am returning to Bangkok tomorrow. All has been forgiven.