The Inconvenient Electric Car

This post is a continuation of a previous post concerning the true energy crisis that will affect our modern society within the next few decades, the depletion of worldwide crude oil. About two weeks ago, I saw a Tesla electric sports car in downtown Austin. It was a beautiful ride! It costs over $100,000 making it out of the reach of average Joe and Jane. The car can go from 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds and goes up to 244 miles per day. It may be unfair to judge the future of electric cars by this one extreme example. The technology that would go into a mass produced electric car (i.e. the Chevy Volt) would be similar, but cost restrictions would create many drawbacks. The lack of capability is sourced from the vehicle's energy storage.

We are going to first talk about where electric cars currently stand. I have a friend, Brian, who converted a 2002 Saturn from gas to electric power over a period of about a year. AustinEV is a nonprofit organization which aided my friend during the conversion. The amount of work required to complete the task was significant. All components that had use with the gasoline power were removed from the car. This included the gasoline engine, gas tank, alternator, radiator, air conditioner (needs mechanical power), old 12 V battery, power steering and other gas engine dependent systems that I am leaving out. In simple terms, the Saturn was gutted. New DC powered components were then installed in the Saturn. These included an electric engine, 1000 pounds of lead acid batteries, new controller, 1 F capacitors, air conditioning, and all the actuators were made DC compatible. Once assembled, it was quite a novelty. The car that plugs in and drives. It keeps up with city traffic and actually has significant acceleration. Our converted Saturn performs just like any gasoline powered vehicle until the batteries are drained after traveling 50 miles.

Converting the Saturn required about $28,000 in capital. The main expenses were purchasing the Saturn, the electrical components and the batteries. Labor was minimal in cost. This price tag is a little high for what the average driver is willing to pay for a automobile. If an electric car was mass produced in the future, the cost would be reduced through reduction in labor and purchasing of parts in large quantities. Technological improvements would also reduce cost. It is safe to say that an electric car would resemble this Saturn. The only main variation would be batteries with a higher energy storage density would be found on commercial cars, such as NiCad or Li ion cells.

This brings us to issue one with the electric car, lack of energy storage. The Saturn goes about 50 miles per charge carrying not much more than two passengers. 50 mile range would get an average person around an area of a medium sized city such as Austin for transportation purposes exclusively. Brian uses the Saturn to commute and do tasks like buy groceries or to go visit friends, events and etc. In Austin, this is fine. Someone living in a highly urbanized place like Southern California or Washington DC would barely have enough charge for a commute (maybe, commutes in many areas are longer than a 50 miles round trip). That's it! If any emergencies arise or desires to travel further within a day overwhelm an electric car owner, tough luck. The way around this is to use more advanced batteries with higher energy density. Production costs would soar as these are not cheap. This is why the Tesla is so expensive, Li ion batteries. Consumers are going to stick with the gasoline automobile if the gas car is significantly cheaper. The first new development electric cars require for a commercially competitive vehicle are inexpensive batteries capable of dense energy storage.

The lack of energy storage could be overcome with repeated charging. Charge the car at work, the local store or at a communal charging station. This sounds good, but it takes 6-8 hours to fully charge the batteries. This may be possible at work (no trips to the local Chinese restaurant), but it is not possible during brief stops. Driving down the road and stopping for a charge is not like gassing your current car. Long road trips are out. Many consumers would find this unacceptable. This is a larger technological hurdle than increased battery storage density since it affects all current battery technology and may limit the electric car's potential.

This post was to evaluate the electric automobile as a potential candidate replacing all current gasoline powered vehicles. Using the two obvious issues raised with energy storage in electric cars, here what I believe the future of electric cars will become.

The electric automobile will NOT:
1. Replace heavy transportation such as 18-wheeler trucks
2. Be used as interstate transportation
3. Used as a work vehicle, i.e. dump truck

The electric car will BE:
1. Practical automobile for local, light transportation
2. Drag racer (yes)

The reality of the electric car hinges on development of a cheap, high energy density battery. Until this occurs, the technology fights an uphill battle. This is why I believe the future fuel replacing crude oil derivatives will be in a liquid form. It will fulfill all of the practical uses gasoline vehicles currently do.

Holiday break

It is that time of year to do the holiday thing with family and friends. I will not be posting anything for over a week. Plenty of time is going to elapse at my parent's in NM, thus, ideas and posts will incubate. Happy holidays!

-Shawn

Theft in West Campus

As a fellow Longhorn, I know word on the street says Austin, TX has a low crime rate for a city its size of about 1 million people. This website has the highest theft rates of various neighborhoods throughout the US according to statistics. Before living in Austin, I use to reside in Albuquerque, NM and the Duke City is thought to have a high crime rate for its 1/2 million residents. It turns out that none of the neighborhoods in Albuquerque made the list while Austin's West Campus west of the University of Texas was #6 on the list with the odds of being a property crime victim being 1 in 2!

Digging further into statistics, this website compiles FBI statistics and the two cities rank the same overall for property and violent crime. This is the way statistics work. Changing the bounds or limits of the included numbers within the calculations results in varying results. If these kinds of numbers put into manipulative hands, anything could be supported or not leading to what the population at large believes. What is more important though is public perception. I was told in Albuquerque that it was a really dangerous city and the opposite in Austin. This distorted my view of reality. As Mark Twain made famous, there are "lies, damn lies and statistics."

The real future energy crisis

With the new Barack Obama administration and the Democrats winning majority in the US Congress a little over a year ago, there has been a significant amounts of talk and money thrown at green technologies or environmentally friendly alternatives to current technologies. The main philosophical basis of the push comes from the concept that current energy and industrialization are damaging to the planet's ecosystem. Personally, many of the overarching ideas in the environmental movement are good: less pollution in the air and water, preservation of remaining natural areas and making the planet a livable place for our children and grandchildren are all good directives. The issues I have are with the environmental orthodoxy and their view of the world. We need to have open debates and discussion about these sensitive issues within all varieties of communities. It is not happening though. This blog is not about politics or religion, thus, I am going to talk about one of the environmental issues that is going to survive beyond the current zeitgeist due to necessity. The replacement of oil for transportation needs is a vital issue facing our modern industrialized society over the next couple of decades.

The rest of this post is going to discuss energy sources. Over the last few decades and especially within the last couple of years as commodity prices have risen, the call for fossil fuel replacements have grown. Fossil fuels are limited resources and one exhausted, they are gone forever. Our industrialized society is dependent upon fossil fuels for energy. In order of dirtiest to cleanest fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. We are going to look into the relative economic and societal value of each fuel.

Coal is an ancient fuel source used in the modern production of electricity. It is incinerated in a furnace. The generated heat converts water into high pressure steam. High pressure steam is then used to turn generators creating electricity. The down side to this process is creation of air pollution in the form of fly ash, soot, sulfur (creates acid rain) and various other radioactive contaminants into the air. When I was young living in Arizona, I lived next to a coal fired power plant (Navajo Generation Station) and yes it causes air pollution. Majority of these pollutants can be removed through emission controls known as scrubbers. Excessive amounts of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide will still be emitted though. (Carbon dioxide is often blamed for global warming. I take issue with this though thinking that the true cause of global warming is the urban heat island effect.) Second, the mining of coal also tends to pollute natural water sources. Ignoring this, the take home message here is the US has ~250 year supply of the black stuff in the ground. Using appropriate scrubber technology, the US could go centuries without the use of alternative electrical sources (solar or wind generation) while still having adequate electricity sources. The US does NOT have to develop solar or wind energy for the next two centuries. I am not a fan of the coal solution due to the pollution issues, but it does exist.

Natural gas is based upon smaller chained hydrocarbons in gaseous form. The main uses of natural gas are electricity production, heating and miscellaneous purposes such as cooking. Natural gas can also be used as a fuel for engines in cars or various transportation. Natural gas seems like the ideal fix. One problem exists though, the majority of natural gas reserves are not within the US with the US being ranked #5 in the world according to the CIA. The other top ten countries (Russia, Iran and etc) are or have the potential to be politically hostile to the US or unstable. Our reserves alone would last just a few years if this became our primary energy source. This does not bode well for natural gas. The uses also could easily be substituted with oil or natural gas.

Finally, we come to the most common fossil fuel, crude oil. Crude oil is found in various grades within the ground. Highest quality oil is light sweet crude or crude with low sulfur content and the hydrocarbons have smaller chains (light). Both of these oil characteristics are desirable for the simple fact they allow easy refining or processing into final products in comparison to lower quality heavy sour crude. The other factor that makes some oil more desirable is accessibility. If the oil is found within large pockets easily reachable with traditional drilling technology, extraction is simpler and cheaper. Oil that is found in inaccessible places like in deep ocean waters or in small pockets makes extraction significantly more expensive. Oil has several uses in our modern world, transportation is the main use with residential heating as a secondary use.

What makes oil such a valuable commodity for the US in comparison to natural gas and coal has to due with the fact our transportation system is fully dependent upon oil. Automobiles, trains, aircraft and watercraft all use fuels obtained from crude oil. Without our daily fix of oil, our cars and delivery trucks will stop running. The alternatives of trains, aircraft and watercraft would face the same fate. Commerce would cease. Basic needs like food would not get to the grocery store. Employees would not get to work. Everyday functions in our society would come to a grinding halt.

The amount of accessible oil reserves left in the world are limited. An unpleasant fact is the US oil reserves are mostly depleted. Exact amounts of oil reserves worldwide is another topic of hot debate. Pessimists argue the majority of oil is already exhausted and production will decline over the next couple of decades. The best description of this effect is peak oil. Optimists argue there are several decades of oil exist before we even need to worry about this effect as often touted by the US Energy Information Administration. In either case, both sides agree on the fact that we are quickly consuming all worldwide available light sweet crude sources that are easily available. Lower quality crude oil will not make up the energy difference over a long period of time. The fact is once oil reserves are consumed, we have have no infrastructure in place as an alternative to our current transportation. Serious societal disruptions will occur. This is the true energy crisis.

Future posts will cover potential alternative fuels to crude oil based technology.

Ultimate compost

It is always good to see someone attempt to fix an environmental problem with a creative, technologically advanced solution. Mass amounts of sewage is an issue in large cities and this Marin county, California based company, Humanure, is trying to update an ancient technology for modern urban use. It is simply put, composting human waste. Yes, your sewer system will be replaced with a waterless holding tank that allows your recycled meals to decompose. The decomposed waste ends up eventually as fertilizer on some organic farmer's field.

For more than a decade, 57-year-old roofer and writer Joseph Jenkins has been advocating that we flush our toilets down the drain and put a bucket in the bathroom instead. When a bucket in one of his five bathrooms is full, he empties it in the compost pile in his backyard in rural Pennsylvania. Eventually he takes the resulting soil and spreads it over his vegetable garden as fertilizer.

I get a kick out of the name for this version in California (yes I have Irish roots).

Meanwhile, over in California, the Marin Composting Portable Odorless Outhouse Project, a.k.a. MCPOOP, is doing Klehm one better. The goal of MCPOOP (which is pronounced the Irish way as opposed to the rap-star way) is to get the government into the night-soil business and put humanure toilets in county parks and town squares. The group is less than a month old but already has the support of the local environmental establishment and Marin County supervisor Steve Kinsey. "The whole thing is like a good acid flashback," says Kinsey. "We approved several experimental permits like this in the '70s." He estimates that a small-scale municipal demonstration project could be under way in less than a year.

Those selling the idea claim it does not smell. In my experience with compost, if done well it does not smell that much. Odor will still be present though.

Personally, I think the idea works on a small scale and in certain situations. Portable toilets and rural type outhouses that require pumping the holds out would be excellent use of the simple technology. Serious problems arise if we replaced all sewers and toilets using this crappy technology (pun intended). Think of the amount of oil burnt to remove the compost. The inconvenience to households as workers invade your house to clean the can about once a month. Conventional toilets systems are still the best deal on large scales.

The unhappy intellectual

Often, you will find really smart, successful people who tend to be unhappy even with all of their achievements. When I refer to happy in this post, I mean general contentment in life. Everyone has good and bad days, but when I mean unhappy it is someone who spends a significant amount of time in a gloom. Not all intellectuals are unhappy, but intellectuals tend to be be less happy than the general population. Of the professors whom I met in my 10 years of college, I can only name 3 or 4 who were happy as the typical populace. One famous instance is Nobel winning writer Earnest Hemingway having a tumultuous life with several wives who he deserted. Hemingway finally took his own life. I believe there are two main factors behind this trend, socialization and the acceptance of issues in life.

I am going to talk about what makes individuals happy as an argument point. I have browsed over many studies to happiness and they seem to come to many conclusions, but three seem to stick out. First, happiness has some roots in genetics. People are born with a certain amount of happiness or lack thereof. It is pick of the genetics draw, thus this is not relevant to making intellectuals less happy than the general populace. Second, having strong interpersonal relationships helps. Good supportive family and friends to talk with and depend upon in times of trouble and need. Finally, one factor that leads to happiness is being religious. I do not think it is the religiousness that makes one happy, it creates an explanation of the universe. It creates a coping mechanism for unpleasant items such as injustice and inequality. Everyone has religious beliefs, but following an organized set of ideals allows greater coping skills or acceptance of the thorny issues found in life.

Intellectuals are not known to be the most social group. They often tend to spend many hours in their cubicles working on ideas. They are valued for their ideas not their brawn or teamwork. Is the lack of socializing part of their personalities? Is it the quest for bringing new ideas? Is it conquering the next challenge? I do not know. What does take a toll are relationships: family and friends. This makes it difficult to have trusted people within a social circle. It makes happiness less plausible.

Pondering this great thing called life brings about a great deal of questions. The vast universe has many wonders to explore. It also has a dark side of discrimination, injustice, inequality and finally death. Bad things happen to good people. The average person knows these things exist, he/she is typically not pleased with the darkness, but also does not dwell on them. The intellectual tends to dwell on these dark concepts wanting to make the world's wrongs all right. Logical ideas like if this person does this action or behavior, the problem will be solved. The wish to tell the multitude they are wrong! This dwelling on unobtainable change is lack of acceptance. Standing up to a fight without any possibility of winning. It breeds discontent out of unnecessary frustration.


Lack of acceptance also appears in the inability to enjoy life's simple things. Having a complex, curious mind leads to the desire for more knowledge. Teach me more, I want to know! However, this prevents an individual from deriving more than just fleeting pleasure from life's simple things like sunsets, flowers and etc. The result is boredom. If someone is bored, this prevents the appreciation of good things in an individual's life. It eventually leads to a lack of acceptance for what is and not what should be. I want a better job, car, house and etc because what I have makes me bored. In a bad situation (poverty or other extreme adverse situations), this can be good leading to an improvement in one's life. There is a point where one has to accept the good things in life to ever have happiness. I believe intellectuals struggle with this out of boredom.

Dr. Coffee's Innovation Award #2: Lighting Magic

I often showcase various technologies, but the extraordinary inventions earn a Dr. Coffee's Innovation Award. This invention from WiTricity Corp. of Cambridge, MA uses magnetic waves to safely transfer electricity through the air and into working devices. The device takes AC power and converts it into magnetic waves. Magnetic waves are then taken to a resonance device which amplifies their magnetic field. After the amplified magnetic wave is transferred to the consuming device, it is converted back into an AC power signal. The company's "technology" website gives a brief description of their proprietary resonance technology.

Resonant Magnetic Coupling: Magnetic coupling occurs when two objects exchange energy through their varying or oscillating magnetic fields. Resonant coupling occurs when the natural frequencies of the two objects are approximately the same.

Two idealized resonant magnetic coils, shown in yellow. The blue and red color bands illustrate their magnetic fields. The coupling of their respective magnetic fields is indicated by the connection of the colorbands.

If this technology works as claimed, it would be like a science fiction movie come to life. The problems that I can see they will have to overcome are:
1. Scaling down the resonant coils to less than a large book.
2. Energy loss in the electricity-to-magnetic conversion and back.
3. How do you control several devices in one room (frequency)?

This is definitely a leap forward if practically done.

Thanksgiving

No serious post here. It is time for me and my fiance to travel to New Mexico and have dinner with my folks. Please, everyone go to family or friend's places and enjoy some turkey (none of that tofu crap). Enjoy the bountiful harvest we all share. I will be back next week with more insightful posts.

-Shawn

Technophobia

We as Americans (anyone in a developed nation) live in a complex, technologically advanced world. We have equipment that transports us in quick efficient manner, like automobiles and airplanes. We also have information technology such as radios, televisions and computers that transport information almost instantly across the world. Many more technological marvels exist in our world. As an engineer, these tools are magic without any of the deception. What always strikes me strange are individuals who have strange or irrational beliefs about technology. Sometimes, these beliefs are to the point of fear and often the terms technophobe or Luddite are used. I believe three main reasons why someone would reject a form of technology:
1) Utilitarian
2) Ignorance
3) Cultural influence of a potential failed society

Technology exists to make our daily lives easier. It is utilitarian in nature. As with anything in life, we choose whether to bring the useful gadgets into our lives or reject them. It can be argued that too much technology eventually becomes the accumulation of things and is materialistic. The Amish believe that technology disrupts the social order and prevents them from focusing on their cherished beliefs of community, simplicity and religion. As for those of us in mainstream society, this extreme rejection seems ridiculous. Looking to a more common pragmatic view is the selective acceptance and rejection of technologies. If someone accepted all new gadgets when they become available, their house would be filled to the brim with all sorts of things. Several conflicting technologies would be sitting next to each other. Since only one tool would be used as a primary phone or entertainment piece. Clutter would ensue. Significant amounts of money would also be wasted. This would not make our daily lives easier. It really is best if we limit our technology to what is needed. Rejection of some technology on the grounds of simplicity is necessary.

When I was young, they had a movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. The basic storyline is when a Coke bottle is dropped out of an airplane to a primitive tribe in Kalahari Africa. The natives are fascinated with the bottle never before seeing such a wonder and end up fighting over the bottle. They try to get rid of the bottle because of all the trouble within the tribe it is causing. We as individuals in industrialized countries are used to seeing such items. We do not fight over them in the same manner. The Bushman's lack of understanding is a form of ignorance. I am not degrading the tribesman, they just simply do not know what the item is due to lack of knowledge from experience. Being an engineer, I am exposed to high technology on a daily basis. I do not expect people with less experience/education to understand how advanced technology works. I do expect them to become comfortable with a technology after contact. Too often, this is not the case. New technologies come out and unsubstantiated claims immediate appear. The one that quickly comes to mind is nanotechnology making gray goo in people's minds. Note, this is science fiction and not reality. No form of nanotechnology exists that can replicate and turn your brain into goo! The lack of experience in everyday society allowed for the formation of media headlines stating such falsehoods. This kind of ignorance too often extends to common everyday technology unfortunately.

Something that has sort of a mythological place in western culture is the dystopia, the anti-utopia. Several well known dystopia stories are 1984, Brave New World and the Terminator movie series. The world has become an unpleasant, giant dysfunctional society with the technologically armed leaders keeping others in check. The future is an unknown arena. New controlling technologies may emerge, creating a potential dystopia. This is a fear raising idea without anyway to argue for or against. The Man may start watching with his new technology. How do I avoid this? Is this really a fault of technology. I would say no. This is really the product of an authoritarian government using technology to their advantage. It is a negative product of human action. The concept is old as the hills.

Technology can often generate other undesired results creating an unpleasant future, like pollution or various ecological destruction. These are controllable factors, once again by people. It is not a forgone conclusion the entire natural world will be destroyed. Societies have the option of adopting or rejecting a certain technology on the same principle as an individual for the common good. It is not fair to scapegoat all of modern life on the basis of an unknown future outcome. What is even more mystifying is the destructive results are from a minority of technologies. One can not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Truly, I believe prevention of a ecological disaster will come through the development of less harmful technologies and through cleaning up pollution using new techniques. Repealing technologies' march forward will not stop ecological damage.

Digging for aged liquid gold

It always amazes me as archaeologists dig up many ancient artifacts. This Yahoo story outlines a New Zealand based exploration searching for a past cache that might cause future hangovers. Drilling for 100 year old scotch whiskey in the antarctic! Now, why would someone dig in the frozen south for a potent potable that could be found in your local liquor store?

The drillers will be trying to reach two crates of McKinlay and Co. whiskey that were shipped to the Antarctic by British polar explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton as part of his abandoned 1909 expedition.

Whyte & Mackay, the drinks group that now owns McKinlay and Co., has asked for a sample of the 100-year-old scotch for a series of tests that could decide whether to relaunch the now-defunct Scotch.

They claim in the story that the main reason for traveling hundreds of miles though extreme conditions is to later replicate the recipe for modern sale. The lead explorer does not want to taste the buried whiskey. I have a little skepticism with this comment from the explorers though.

"It's better to imagine it than to taste it," he said. "That way it keeps its mystery."

Richard Paterson, Whyte & Mackay's master blender, said the Shackleton expedition's whiskey could still be drinkable and taste exactly as it did 100 years ago.

Using this logic, if I dig in my fridge for a forgotten beer does that count as true exploration?

Limitations of dreams

My scientific training is as an experimentalist surface scientist in a materials science related study. I spent a significant amount of time in the lab. It is one of my secondary homes. One bone of contention in the scientific world is the clash between experimentalist (us) versus theorist (what is a lab?). Both disciplines take large amounts training, rigorous work and deep thought. In an ideal world, theory should follow after experimental data. Occasionally, theory should predict a result like nuclear weapons is a great example. This post is going to cover a potential dark side associated with theory.

Theory is based upon experimental data sets and observations. Most experimental data fits into trends following mathematical relations. New data usually has previous bodies of work to support the new theoretical idea or concept. Over time, a story is built within a given area of study. It becomes easier to predict experimental outcomes ahead of time. New chapters in the story are written as evidence is presented with a theorist entering the wording.

One very basic concept that is the basis of all theory are assumptions. The theory holds true if for example in a chemistry experiment, the temperature, pressure and etc. are at certain levels. Note, these are serious limitations. All related conditions have to be met for the theory to be true. One assumption is not met, the theoretical framework fails. During initial theory development, many pieces are missing and often all assumptions are not yet known. This will often lead to semi-independent theories. In science and engineering fields, this learning process is benign. Trouble comes with other less easily quantifiable subjects such as sociology, psychology and history for several reasons. First, many subtle factors come into play. Second, not all of the necessary pieces are known. Finally, if a theory is not correct and taken by public policy makers as gospel, significant damage to society may occur. One of the worst historical outcomes from a theory comes from the false science (accepted in the past) known as Eugenics. Eugenics is the idea of keeping a genetic stock pure without undesired genes like genetic diseases. Sterilization of those with less than desirable traits was the main cure. Sometimes death was the their cure. Eugenics was one of the main driving forces behind the Nazi concentration camps.

Groupthink is when a group of individuals comes to a consensus without any serious debate leading to the suppression of all opposing ideas. This is not a fault of theory itself, but of those who are authorities on a given subject. It promotes continuation of false ideals and is a greater threat to any organization than an incomplete theory. Development of a theoretical framework requires legitimate questioning of an idea or concept. If the theory can not comprehensively address a proper inquiry, the theory has serious problems. The problem can often be fixed with a slight refinement. Other times, the theory is then disproven and a new concept is proposed. Groupthink suppresses all questioning, thus, faulty theories are allowed to live and often thrive. Some faulty theories cause serious damage if applied without any moderation to public venues touching us all.

New monitoring technology

There is a huge debate going on in the US concerning the monitoring of public places using video cameras. I am personally in favor of monitoring some public areas within a limited context, but I also feel the cautious warning of civil libertarians against abuse. Privacy is also an issue with cameras constantly monitoring. This post is about an interesting monitoring technology that can locate gunfire within a given area. The makers (ShotSpotter of Mountain View, CA) claims the technology can pin point the discharge of a firearm according to when the shot occurred and the physical location.

ShotSpotter monitors only one thing: gunshots. Its microphones can detect a gunshot from a mile or more away. The system determines the exact location of each shot using triangulation and wirelessly transmits a recording of the sound to police dispatchers.

This technology solves the conflict between public security and personal privacy. If used in a proper context, cities and crowded locations guns have no place being fired, this would help prevent crimes infiltrated with guns. Since it is illegal to fire a gun in the city, all events recorded are crimes. Initial trials seem promising.

The system was installed in San Francisco late last year as part of a crime-fighting initiative. Since the beginning of the year, the city's homicide rate has dropped 50%.

The secondary use of a system would be as evidence in the proof of self-defense.

In an argument against the ShotSpotter system, it does not help law enforcement in crimes where no firearm was discharged. The system dose not help with a significant portion of crimes committed.

Vital Abilities

This post is a continuation of an earlier post, Luck or Skill, discussing the merits of luck and skill towards success in life. In that post, I concluded it is a combination of both luck and skill that leads to an individual's success at any endeavor. This post will investigate two vital skills I believe are more important than either luck or quantifiable skills such as mathematical abilities. The capabilities are abstract in nature and are not really teachable, per say.
1. Accepting the world as is and shaping your environment to reality and not to a desired reality is necessary. Simply put it, adaptation.
2. Looking forward to the future and adjusting the present, while simultaneously preparing for the future is the next even more difficult skill to learn. No one can fully predict the future.

We all want to believe in ourselves, sometimes greater than the truth. Being the great scientist, artist, business tycoon, surgeon and etc. Nothing is wrong with a little fantasy to escape the daily grudge. Once the daydreaming stops, unless we are independently wealthy (majority of us aren't) we have to find a way to support ourselves through employment. Often, many aspects of this employment thing are not pleasant. This is the reality we face everyday and serves as an example. Challenges come daily. The obstacles can be annoying or at the other extreme dangerous. Sometimes reality is a dead end. No where to go. In all cases, successful individuals will accept what is truly presented to them. Obtain something useful from the moment being presented. Not accepting reality allows any situation (potentially threatening) to catch an individual off guard.

Two extreme variations are those who live obsessed with a different time, the future or past. We all know of those who constantly say, "I will do this when this occurs". It is good to put off gratification to a limited extent. Taking this mind set to an extreme will has someone ignoring a possible opportunity though. The future is an accumulation of past (at that point in time present) actions. Carpe Diem loosely translated from Latin is "seize the day". This rings true. The expected tomorrow may never materialize. The opposite side of the coin are those trapped in the past. Life was good when I was a "enter position", but everything is wrong now. It is all my contemporaries' fault. Life moves on through various stages. Past events are water underneath the bridge. The past taught lessons and brought good memories, but dwelling there is unhealthy. The high school football star who won the state championship was glorious, but that is yesterday's news. As the slave said to Julius Caesar while riding the chariot in victory, "All glory is fleeting."

Finally, the ability to avoid negative situations both in the present and future. These damaging events can be layoffs, elimination of a profession through replacement by a newer technology, organizations turning against a member and etc. I personally think this skill is not teachable. It is deep within their mind and soul, a skill that is not quantifiable. The positive end of the skill is the ability to see emerging trends into the future. What is the next big thing? In the computer world, names like Bill Gates, Michael Dell and Steve Jobs are just the beginning. Multitudes of others made their fortunes by doing relatively accurate future predictions. Bringing any organization into the future is going to require some forecasting.

Space travel in the 21st Century

Our best known and really only truly operating space agency currently in the world is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA. NASA is funded by the United States government through taxpayer money. The organization is well respected for its many achievements including its crown jewel, the Apollo program landing astronauts on the moon.

NASA's main orbital launch vehicle for satellites and humans at the moment is the Space Shuttle. The space shuttle was designed and developed during the 1970's with what is now 30+ year old technology. During the Space Shuttle's inception, the concept of a reusable craft capable of reaching orbit was revolutionary. Original plans called for a reusable unmanned orbiter utilized as a satellite launch vehicle. After several rounds of politics, an area was added that would support humans. This increased the overall project costs twofold through:
1) Building a larger spacecraft
2) Increased amount of fuel and supplies during launches.
Currently, it costs $450 million per launch. The Space Shuttle's large price tag annuls the original purpose of a cheap, reusable space craft intended for launching satellites.

The other serious issue the space shuttle faces is the overall reliability and safety. Within the 28 year Space Shuttle mission span, the Challenger and Columbia both failed with disastrous results taking all honorable lives on board. To put this in prospective, here are approximate probabilities of dying over a span of 1 year using various transportation methods from Reason Magazine:
Airlines crash = 1 in 400,000 or 0.00045 %
Walking across street = 1 in 48,500 or 0.0021 %
Automobile crash = 1 in 6,500 or 0.015 %
Space Shuttle crash = 1 in 1800 or 0.06 %.
Yes, to date an astronaut has an extremely high chance of dying if routinely flying shuttle missions.

The numbers speak for themselves, the space shuttle is both expensive and dangerous. Space flight is a relatively new phenomenon being around for little over 50 years. Loading multi-million dollar satellites and really brave souls onto oversize candles was at one time patriotic in the Cold War, but the Berlin Wall fell and it is time to move on. This is why the Obama Administration is reconsidering the program's future.

It looks like the future may not be NASA's (NASA is involved through), but through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and US Air Force as the X-37B. The exact details are being kept secret due to the military aspect, but some details have slipped out.

The vehicle itself is about 29 feet long with a roughly 15-foot wingspan and weighs in at over five tons at liftoff. Speeding down from space, the craft would likely make use of Runway 12/30 — 15,000 feet long by 200 feet wide — at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. This vague description is more in line with the original idea behind the Space Shuttle. That was to build a cheap, reliable spacecraft. As with all X-class aircraft, they tend to be experimental in nature with technology development as the main intent.

Just last month, a U.S. Air Force fact sheet noted that the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO), located in Washington, D.C. "is working on the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle to demonstrate a reliable, reusable, unmanned space platform for the United States Air Force."

It looks like the military is stepping into the forefront here. Hopefully, the technology will make its way into civilian hands through NASA.

"NASA has a long history of involvement with the X-37 program. We continue to monitor and share information on technology developments," said Gary Wentz, chief engineer Science and Missions Systems Office at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "We are looking forward to a successful first flight and to receiving data from some advanced technologies of interest to us, such as thermal protection systems, guidance, navigation and control, and materials for autonomous re-entry and landing."

I truly believe the ability to reliably launch satellites cheaply into orbit would prove to be extremely profitable. This may not be too far away. Other ventures such as economically practical research and human space flight for the masses could then follow.

Luck or skill?

This post is going to discuss a little of my philosophy on life. The debate about someone being truly lucky or creating their own luck through certain behaviors, i.e. skill or talent associated with hard work. This an open ended question and forgive me for this post's length. Personally, I believe it is a combination of both.

One point I want to initially make is about a certain trait that will make any and all forms of luck or skill meaningless, self-destructive individuals. Many individuals end up unnecessarily losing opportunity or squandering gains through their own actions. Often these actions are found in antisocial behavior, laziness, substance abuse, self-absorption, disregard for all rules and my favorite, chronic denial. All people have weaknesses, but most people keep their weakness in check. Win the lottery and spend every penny the following day on illicit items is not going to help any one's situation. No amount of luck or skill would end with a net gain if squandering through anti-productive behavior. What causes individuals to be self-destructive is a topic beyond this post.

Let us start with an argument for those who use skill and talent to make their own luck. In most professions, there is a minimal skill set requirement to practice. In professional sports, an individual needs to be an outstanding athlete. Musicians are musically gifted. Writers are good with language. Politicians are good at debate. In my profession, engineers need a knack for mathematics before even beginning core curriculum. It can then be argued that the best in any given field rises to the top through possession of greater skills in comparison to the pack. In our egalitarian society the best of best will find a way to achieve. From the poorest of neighborhoods up to leader of the pack. Capitalism at its best! I would like to believe this, as many of us were taught as children, "You can do any thing when you grow up." Rags to riches stories occur, but it is not that common. Hard work brought a better life, but many of their poor cohort with undeveloped talent never improved their lot in life. Here is where the skill exclusively brings success argument fails. If skill was the only reason why individuals succeed, the top tiers in all professions would have an equal representation of our society. Most of us know, this is not true.

It is an obvious statement to say that the wealthier classes have a greater representation in the higher paying professions: medical doctors, lawyers, stock brokers and corporate executive positions. Entrance into the bottom rung positions require at minimum an undergraduate college degree. Medical doctors and lawyers require advanced degrees. These all take money. If a high school student has mediocre grades, enough money and some private college would enroll them. The same deal applies if the student faces dismissal. Donate to the alumni groups. When the lackluster student eventually graduates, contact an old friend of the family who owes a favor. I could go on and on. One book of interest on this topic is The Millionaire Next Door. The vast majority of people are not wealthy. They vast majority does not possess the money or contacts. It is easy to say that skill or luck do not apply to the wealthy. I disagree. Those who are born into the privileged classes are lucky in the material sense. For any one who has the opportunity to enter a desired career, the luck was obtained from birth status or situation.

Let's be more arbitrary. Take two white, male, middle class, US citizens finishing their equivalent undergraduate degrees from a university with similar grades. Why does one end of as CEO of a company and the other at bottom of the corporate ladder? Let us say both graduates have their greatest strength as being sociable, well liked fellas. For our example, one graduate ends up being a computer programmer (grad A) and the other as a salesman (grad B). Both positions have similar potential for advancement. Grad A may do well at his programming position, but his greatest strength is not utilized. He may be capable in his work requiring skill, but his greatest attribute remains untapped. Now grad B as a salesman takes his position and excels as his greatest attribute is a vital part in his job. He becomes the best among his peers and moves on up the corporate ladder. Grad B was lucky to land the right position in comparison to grad A. Even if both grads take sales positions, many lucky characteristics take play such as a good company with upward mobility. Avoiding any devastating unlucky event (layoffs, illness) is itself a form of luck. The luck factor kicks in as an opportunity to use an individual's talents or skills.

Personally, I believe a combination of hard work and luck creates success in any endeavor. Hard work allows one to develop talents and skills leading to success. Hard work is vital, not optional. Luck on the other hand opens the doors to opportunity. Without opportunity to utilize talent, success will not follow.

Next generation shark

This posting is on a new type of ship the navy is working on. Yahoo News puts forth this article on the race for a highly anticipated, next generation warship. The ships in competition are a monohull ship versus a trimaran (three hull ship). The sailing ships that are used in the big money races like the America's Cup use trimarans as top-of-the-line designs. The three hulls have low water friction with added stability from balance and are typically advantageous to the single hull design. Neither design in this sense is new.

What is new are nontraditional propulsion systems in the two rivals.

Both versions of the Littoral Combat Ship use powerful diesel engines, as well as gas turbines for extra speed. They use steerable waterjets instead of propellers and rudders and have shallower drafts than conventional warships, letting them zoom close to shore.

Driving close to shore is going to be easy for this new generation ship. This will have the multiple advantages of going up rivers, docking in many inaccessible places and going close to shore chasing the world's unpleasant variety. Pirates, yarrrrrrrh!

The other neat thing is this boat goes automobile highway speeds.

Independence, a 418-foot warship built in Alabama, boasts a top speed in excess of 45 knots, or about 52 mph, and sustained 44 knots for four hours during builder trials that wrapped up this month off the Gulf Coast. The 378-foot Freedom, a ship built in Wisconsin by a competing defense contractor, has put up similar numbers.

Whoever wins the contract will make a mint due to the navy's rush.

Driving with the rearview mirror

One source of continuous fascination is the stock market. Why not? Put in a little money, it grows, and in the end profit without labor. How can you not like that! Billions of dollars is exchanged on the world's stock exchanges daily. Stock markets exist as an easy way for companies to raise money through a collective public ownership. Of course, the market operation is much more complex.

The psychology behind this money for nothing concept supports the main market drivers, fear and greed. Everyone who has struggled to make a dollar and put it into an online brokerage account understands this. They love when the market goes up and make money. Optimism pushes buying, the market rises. They absolutely hate when the market goes down with money evaporation. Pessimism leads to selling, the market craters. In the end, the market is a sentiment machine driven by the various kinds of investors summarized by this site.

Excluding day traders, two main kinds of investors exist: fundamentals and technical. Fundamental trading is based upon the idea that a stock is worth a certain value according to corporate size and revenues. Profitable companies are worth more than unprofitable entities. The other investors are technical traders and their trading is dependent upon derived indicators. Some of the best known indicators are:
Moving Average Convergence-Divergence (MACD)
Fast and Slow Stochastics
Relative Strength Index
Bollinger Bands.
The basic concept behind all of these indicators is to identify the point at which a stock changes momentum, i.e. stops going down in price and begins to appreciate.

The movement of the markets has thousands of traders everyday bidding prices up and down. Buying and selling stock. One school of thought has stock market movement being random. Looking over years of stock market data, patterns appear. Typically in upward movements followed with an occasional sell off forming a wave pattern. Personally, I believe the day-to-day patterns are random, but over time patterns do exist. Technical trading is supposed to clue an investor into these patterns identifying momentum changes. Honest traders admit they are lagging indicators or tools that tell investors when to buy (or sell) after the momentum has already changed. I agree, but another serious issue that is a fly in my ointment is these indicators all use past data. What happened yesterday, may not necessarily happen tomorrow. Yes, the indicators show stock price going up. If another disaster like 9/11 hits New York, will the indicators show this. NO!!!!!! As we discussed earlier, the market tends to be a sentiment indicator. One frustrated mutual fund manager has heart burn from his favorite Indian restaurant may drive down a stock. The indicators will not pick this up until it is too late. I think the best analogy is driving down the road using the rearview mirror instead of looking through the windshield. That crash ahead is pretty rough.

Devolution

Once in a while, I see something that is so ridiculous by a supposed educated individual, it just requires a little constructive criticism. This post is based upon a book published by an Australian anthropologist asserting claims about our ancient ancestor's physical abilities. The author makes outrageous claims like a normal, healthy Rwanda man jumping his own height, aboriginal Australians running faster than current world record sprinters and marathon running Roman centurions. After reading the post, only one claim has any hard evidence that is not circumstantial. I respect other branches of science that are out of my field, but come on!!! Out of curiosity, I have a few comments for our anthropologist or subjects.

Really what our author found was the use of a early super steroid. Athletes everywhere should be taking a trip to Rwanda to find this enhancing substance. An enterprising individual could make a mint off of this!

After a typical day of pillaging and plundering for the Roman empire, was the only daily form of entertainment they could find involve running about 40 miles? Was the prize an Emperor's Cup?

Ancient Neanderthal men, word of caution. When dating the ancient opposite sex, be careful. They can easily pick you up and throw you like a rag doll. That would make a bad scene, especially in the grocery store.

Dr. Coffee's Innovation Awards # 1, Have a Heart

This blog is new. I am quickly finding out that blog topics are easy to find. The amount of work required to put the ideas into words is significant though. As a way to keep the posts coming, I am going to have a blog series with common themes. This blog is the inagural post for Dr. Coffee's Innovation Awards. Basically, it will be a series of posts covering outstanding, contemporary discoveries or innovations.




This post comes from Yahoo News concerning a recent discovery involving a new type of human cardiac stem cells capable of growing heart tissue. According to the article, the stem cells can be used to create portions of working heart muscle outside of the human body within laboratory conditions. The future hope is using a heart attack patient's own cadiac stem cells to create new working heart tissue. It would then be possible to easily replace damaged tissue without biological rejection.

Now, if they could only find adult human brain stem cells.

Learning by Computer or Learning the Computer

Screen shot of Nintendo's Super Mario Brothers

My friend Joe recently posted this comment on Facebook concerning learning and suffering:

” Pathein estin mathein, mathein estin pathein.”
To learn is to suffer; to suffer is to learn.
-Aeschylus, Agamemnon (paraphrased)

Does learning have to be painful, or can it be made more pleasurable?

This brings up an old debate about calculators or computers being used for math education. When is the computer useful for learning or when is the computer doing the work for the student? Personally, I think calculators are great for math that requires tables (logs) or excessive amounts of algebra, i.e. complex differential equations. Unfortunately, basic math like multiplication tables require memorization to grasp the knowledge. Significant amounts of work is involved. Repetition is what allows students to recall values in the future. Making the repetitious process less tedious would result in students being more willing to memorize.

Taking this into consideration, I think computers could be used for basic mathematics education in an interactive manner. The program would require students to follow a programmed series of scenarios with the student controlling the action in a video game. The student could have a customized character going through a mathematical world. Think Indiana Jones running through a jungle maze. Each step of the way through the game, a student makes one of two inputs answering questions:
1) answers with exact numbers

2) multiple choice numbers.

The method in which a student answers the question depends on the

question being asked. The game based on multiplication tables would present a question on screen:

5 × 5 = ?

If the student types in the correct answer of 25, the character proceeds in the game. The next question is presented and the cycle is repeated. Wrong answers would have the same question repeated up to three times after which a new question is posed. The character remains in place until a correct answer is given. In a more advanced level, the multiple choice option would be utilized with equations. The jungle landscape would then fit the equation’s plotted shape. The final touch would be to have students compete with each other within a multiplayer game. Keep students interested by getting the competitive juices flowing.

My first blog

Hello everyone,

This is the beginning of my first blog. I am a voracious reader of economic blogs, thus, I want to contribute in my specialty area, technology. Let me introduce myself. My name is Shawn Coffee and I have my Ph D in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. The dissertation focused on nanotechnology and the similar processes that make microchips. Currently, I work at Cerium Laboratories (subsidiary of Spansion) as a Materials Engineer in Austin, TX, which I reside. We are the characterization laboratory for Spansion's fab25. Cerium performs analytical work for both internal and external customers from a whole host of industries: semiconductor, solar, automotive, military, academia and a variety of start ups. That is what inspired the name of the blog, because I sit at the crossroads of future technology. This blog will be updated about twice weekly with insightful analysis. Comments are always appreciated.

-Shawn