Engine economy

This is my first posting in over two weeks. I just moved to Dallas and my new job is occupying most free time, thus, my posting frequency is going to decline. Since no one has ads on my blog, I feel free to do so.

In prior posts, Volt Full of Trouble, The Inconvenient Electric Car, and The real future energy crisis look into energy issues relating to transportation. I discuss the aspects of what will occur when crude oil supplies are depleted worldwide in the latter post. The former posts investigate why the electric car and hybrid are poor replacements for the current technology. My over all conclusion is we need a liquid alternative to crude oil along with innovative engines.

This post on MSNBC.com is just what the doctor ordered. Researchers at Michigan State University have developed their Wave Disc Generator. According to the authors,

The Wave Disk Generator uses 60 percent of its fuel for propulsion; standard car engines use just 15 percent. As a result, the generator is 3.5 times more fuel efficient than typical combustion engines.

If true, this is quite an improvement over current 100 year-old technology. They even claim that it reduces emissions by 90 percent in comparison to typical internal combustion engines. Double bonus for clean air.

How the engine works creating such high efficiency,

The engine has a rotor that's equipped with wave-like channels that trap and mix oxygen and fuel as the rotor spins. These central inlets are blocked off, building pressure within the chamber, causing a shock wave that ignites the compressed air and fuel to transmit energy.

If claims are true or not, it is going to be new technologies similar to this prototype that is our future, not electric cars.

Japanese suffering

The news outlets are all loaded with the recent 8.9 earthquake followed with a tsunami that hit the northeast of Japan. My condolences and prayers go out to those poor people caught up in this horrendous disaster. There is nothing good to come of this mess. The media is focusing on the nuclear reactor problems Japan is having, but I believe that the problems with meltdown are overblown and the government should worry about other much more severe problems at hand.

Nuclear reactor issues at Fukushima have caused quite a stir. Some of the buildings had explosions and several fires have erupted. The fear is of a reactor meltdown releasing a significant amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere may occur if officials can not cool down a couple of the reactors. Fear of a meltdown is real. Radiation in the local area has been measured at a magnitude or greater than background. Long term exposure to this level is unhealthy, but could mitigated. If meltdown does commence, the release would be devastating to local regions up to 50 miles from the plant. Anyone present when a meltdown release occurs would be exposed to a large quantity of toxic materials potentially resulting in all sorts of radiation sickness and future cancer. Very bad! Beyond the local region, I do not see effects from radiation or radioactive materials hurting people. Even with winds blowing materials.

What should be of concern are more mundane, yet destructive problems that could occur from the disaster. The ability to deliver clean water and food has been wiped out by the disaster. Transportation methods are all disabled. Millions of people are also homeless in the aftermath. If these people do quickly get water and food, they will face dehydration or starvation. This requires only a few days without basics, so this threat is imminent. Getting in the necessary supplies into the area is difficult when roads, railways, airports and shipping are all wiped out. The secondary threat is from water-born disease. Cholera and typhoid easily spread with stagnate water loaded full of dirty debris including sewage and various animal/human corps. Dealing with a health epidemic inside a natural disaster would only add to the woes. If either problem previously described in this paragraph take hold, tens of thousand of people could unnecessarily perish.

I guess our media has to hype the politically sensitive issues even though they are the least threatening. No one wants to tune into hear the standard starvation/disease monologue which occurs routinely. Nuclear meltdowns occur once in a decade and make sensational stories. When watching media stories, remember this.

Ever elusive hipness

Update: 3-9-2011:

One of my Facebook friends, Damian, pointed out that there are many groups who define what is "hip". What one group finds hip another finds repulsive. He is correct in this sense. There are many subcultures out there with a hip or in-crowd. Each is unique in their style, geography, social class, age range and philosophy. The best example I can think of a subculture is '80s punk's nihilistic underground. My original post covers what would be considered "mainstream American youth culture". The original post points to the ever changing composition of mainstream youth culture and its obsession with materialism and lack of philosophical ideals in comparison to recent youth movements.

Original Post:

Most of my posts tend to cover technology with a little finance thrown in for spice. This post is a personal view of modern American life. It is about the current state of being "hip" or "cool". The in-crowd member. American hipness is for young adults in the late teens through their 20's before they settle down and have kids. This is common and nothing new. Even in my 20's I was not with the in-crowd, but could spot culture trends. What I find confounding is the vapid nature of current hipsters.

Let's go back to previous decades, the 60's, 70's and 80's. In these decades, styles tended to be easy to pick out along with their social movements. The 60's had long-haired, second-hand clothed hippies. It was not difficult to pick out the styles and imitate them. The 70's had similar styles as the '60s, but certain aspects changed, most definitely the music. Fast-forward to the '80s, everything changed with the punk movement, electronica movement and hair-metal bands. Head-bands, bracelets, torn jeans and bright colors ruled the day. One could pick out these distinct styles. We will move on to early '90s with the grunge movement. The grunge movement was the antithesis of the '80s hair-metal. Simplistic in nature, grunge was easy to spot.

In the late '90s, styles became less distinct. There was no large scale social movement. Music became a rehash of prior styles (much of it good). Style sort of fell into a drift. What is cool? It seems like to be hip one had to have direct connection with the hip crowd. Styles change so fast it is difficult to even recognize that hat you are wearing was soooooooooo yesterday.

It almost seems as a few people monopolize on being hip. Instead of fitting into a crowd, it became excluding the majority of people, even young people. Often today, being a hipster has a negative connotation. I had a few friends about 4 years ago who were 18-19 years old. They were aspiring artists (i.e. no money). By all means, they would be considered hip. One night while at their numerous parties, a friend mentioned his bad run-in with a group of "hipsters" in Austin. This struck me as odd, but thinking more about it, it makes sense. I also know of a young lady who tried to keep up with the in-crowd and the chase put her $30,000 in debt. Currently, I believe being hip is more than about style and nothing to do with a social movement. It is about being the proper age/class and that is about being both young and wealthy.

I believe this reflects the income disparity and social stratification in our society. Even the youth are voluntarily excluding each other. Distinction not by race, religion, age, or philosophy, but exclusion by economic class.

Dwarfs will rule the world!

Well, no, dwarfs may not rule the world. There is a good chance a certain group will outlive their contemporaries though. This recent study out of the University of Southern California studied a group of dwarfs who have Laron syndrome in Ecuador and worldwide. Laron syndrome is genetic and effects how growth is regulated in the body.

The individuals have Laron syndrome, a rare disease that causes stunted growth in about 250 people worldwide. Scientists have known the syndrome results from a mutation in a gene that regulates how cells grow and divide.

The dwarfism cause is also a barrier to cancer and diabetes. The disease limiting culprit in Laron's cases appears to be an insulin producing protein that binds with human growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor 1 or IGF1.

High levels of IGF1 have been implicated in cancer and diabetes in previous studies, and low levels have been found to cause increased longevity in everything from yeast and worms to mice.

"In worms, we don't see diabetes or cancer or anything — once we establish this potential [to extend life] in worms, we moved to mice," said Felipe Sierra, director of the Division of Aging Biology at the National Institute on Aging. "We do see similar things in this study [of humans], and it validates everything we do."

Sure enough, in the short-statured Ecuadorean group, the study revealed that deficient growth hormone receptor led to low levels of IGF1, and this was associated with the disease-resistance.

The final intention is development of a drug that will mimic reduced IGF1 in healthy individuals reducing cancer and diabetes.

Interesting concept, but I would guess other negative side effects would appear besides the positive reduction in cancer rates and diabetes. Wikipedia states one of the disease's symptoms in men puts fear in almost any healthy male,

.....a very small penis.

Flu's days are numbered

This report by the media group UPI has news on a new, universal flu vaccine being developed in England. Unlike the typical flu vaccine we are inoculated with these days which protects against certain strains of flue, this would protect against all strains. The article states,

Current flu vaccines only work against a few kinds of flu and only for a short time, as seasonal flu evolves and changes to get around immunity provided by that year's vaccine, requiring constant research and re-vaccination, NewScientist.com reported Monday.

Several research groups, including one at Oxford University, are attempting to develop a flu vaccine out of proteins that are identical in all flu viruses in the hope this will protect people from all flu once and for all.

If science has enough time and resources dedicated to certain solvable problems, inevitably, many will have solutions appear. The key is dedication. We have this idea that by putting a bunch of smart people in a group and throwing a little money at them they will solve all of the world's problems. It does not work that way. The best example I can think of as a modern marvel is modern computing. We have more computational power on our desktop now than could be housed in 10 city blocks. What people often fail to acknowledge is the 40 years of innovation and billions of dollars invested.

We need to fund research and development in the US if we are to compete with rest of the world.

Never Change Nelly

This is the second caricature in my blog series. My first caricature was the True Believer. This character could well overlap with True Believers, Never Change Nelly. Never Change Nelly wants everything to remain as they are currently. The ultimate conservative (not in the American political sense) who wants everything to remain constant day-to-day and so on. They refuse to take any chances no matter how detrimental their current position may be. Any discontinuity to their never changing world is taken as a threat without regards to the effects in their lives.

What may drive this worldview? My guess is a variety of things.
1. As people age they get set in their ways and want to change less
2. Personality, some people do not like surprises or challenges
3. One pathology of this thinking creates the mindset of I know everything. (Hint: no one knows everything or even possesses the majority of knowledge humans have. This really is another version of narcissism.)
4. They have worked hard to set their lives up in a certain manner which they like.
5. Life has been easy for them

Whatever the driving factor behind Never Change Nelly, a problem quickly arises. Our world is a quickly changing, highly dynamic place. Change will come. Change is inevitable. You cannot stop it. What was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow. Stubborn refusal to adapt creates dinosaurs. Being an expert with the typewriter 3 decades ago would have given someone employment. Today, it would equal unemployment. Adaptation is vital for survival. To paraphrase Andy Grove, the cofounder of Intel, in reference to the budding computer industry, "Only the paranoid survive".

I truly believe successful individuals adapt to changes. Never Change Nelly will never find a place among the successful.

True Believer

This post is going to be one in a several on different caricatures who fill social roles and carry certain beliefs/worldviews. My initial caricature is a very familiar one, the True Believer. "True believer" is often associated with a deeply religious person in the traditional sense, which, is a great example (Myer-Briggs personality indicators put these type of people as SJs). I will take it further, as someone who is deeply dedicated to whatever their cause is may that be religion, career, organization, society and etc. This definition covers all personality types in all areas of modern society.

When I mean True Believer, it is someone who models their life around the ideal group "member". They have full, sincere faith in the institutions which they belong. They go the extra distance.

Why am I mentioning this seemingly obvious concept? It is because True Believers will move up their respective ladders in life (organization, career and etc.) well ahead of other caricatures. This Fortune magazine article talks about the most successful individuals in corporations are those who maintain the status quo when moving up the corporate rungs. This concept is universal with almost all organizations with individual groups having different criteria. The politically correct, communist professor who is a hit in academia would not last too long in a conservative business atmosphere. You get the drift. I think it has to do with trust among the leadership. It is easiest to trust those who are true believers in your cause.

The 4th generation

There is an old saying "shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations". Basically, it means that a family's wealth only will last for three generations before it is lost. This saying is universal worldwide and the Chinese have the easiest to understand and most applicable version "Wealth will not last for over three generations".

Picture this scenario. The first generation is the founder of a family's wealth, whether it is a matriarch or patriarch. Founders work hard and have unique opportunities. The second generation consisting of several children continue on their parent's work ethic gradually expanding the wealth, while at the same time splitting the assets among them. By the time the third generation comes along, the wealth is split again among the grandchildren within less productive investments. The bigger issue is the third generation knows nothing but easy living. They do not develop the work ethic and sense to maintain the wealth. It is squandered away on poor investments and parties. The fourth generation gets nothing.

The best example of this that comes to mind is the Furr's grocery store chain in New Mexico (related to the restaurant). It was founded in 1929 by Roy Furr in Lubbock, TX. The chain expanded throughout Roy's life until passing away in 1975. Roy's three children squabbled over the business and it went bankrupt in 1979 through their mismanagement. West German investors took over the grocery store chain until it was finally closed in 2002. This is an example of wealth lasting two generations.

I am going to take this idea a little further and apply it to societies in general. Let's say an average generation is 25 years in time. Three generations would make 75 years. According to this idea, prosperity would last approximately 75 years before a time of chaos would befall a society in the form of an economic depression or war. Using American history as an example to guess where we stand in our cycle form this time line. NOTE: During prosperous times disastrous events do occur, but are limited in negative effect on the society. The lines below represent the cycle in order on each line the event, years in history, elapsed time and whether it was prosperous or chaotic in nature.

US Revolutionary War, 1776-1783 AD, 7 years, Chaos
Early Republic, 1783-1860 AD, 77 years, Prosperity
US Civil War, 1861-1865 AD, 4 years, Chaos
Turn of Century, 1866-1929 AD, 63 years, Prosperity
Great Depression & WWII, 1930-1945 AD, 15 years, Chaos
Post WWII superpower, 1946- ? AD, 64+ years, Prosperity

If this holds any water, we are approaching the end of a prosperous time in the US. The question is how long will this last? What will replace our current system? No one knows.