Posts
Okay, here's a way we could probably fix part of the banking problem: you've heard of credit ratings, right?
What we need is a Lender Rating. So, when a bank has to do a foreclosure -- they obviously did something wrong in lending money to that person. So, this should lower their lender's rating, and the next loan they write should have to be on better terms for the borrower, and/or a lower interest rate.
If they have lots of bad loans, then they need to write loans with a lot better terms for the borrower and at a lower interest rate -- so that the borrower will be able to pay off the whole loan. Once the bank can show that they are writing responsible loans that work through until they are paid off -- they then earn the right to raise their interest rates, or otherwise earn more profit from writing loans.
And when there is a foreclosure, the loan should be renegotiated at the current market value of the property. This is the best result for everybody -- the bank gets a fair return on the property, and the property owner who has already committed to the property gets to continue to use it. This prevents the downward spiral of property values.
Here's an earlier blog entry I wrote on this:
Proposal for the Mortgage Problem
Hi,
Here a fellow named Robert Llewellyn who does a weekly podcast called "Carpool"; and there are several that are very interesting all about electric cars.
Check out these (in the order from the newest to to oldest/top to bottom on the list on the right side):
* Paul Scott Carpool -- owner of a RAV4 EV and who is involved in http://www.pluginamerica.org/
* Mitsubishi iMiEV Carpool -- Robert Llewellyn will be driving this car on the show for the next year or so; replacing his Prius.
* Chelsea Sexton Carpool -- she was an engineer on the EV1 and appears in "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
* Tesla Carpool -- where Robert Llewellyn interviews a fellow who worked for Colin Powell and knows a fair bit about national security and international energy policy, as well as battery technology.
John Britten designed and built these amazing machines: they have (at least) 5 major design elements: "skin & bones" carbon fiber wheels, beam suspension with no "stiction" and controllable geometry, 4-valve hand cast stressed member engine in frame-less chassis, unique aerodynamics (dubbed "torpedo over blade"), and the fully ducted cooling system that made this narrow design possible. It weighs just 145kg (320 pounds).
John Britten on Wikipedia
Top Gear on Britten
Isle of Man TT race video
Best Motorcycles Ever #6
Britten V1000 Superbike Motorcycle - History
These are especially delicious for us aspiring engineering types:
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt1
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt2
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt3
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt4
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt5
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt6
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt7
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt8
Britten Bike Story - One Man's Dream Pt9
Front view showing cooling intake scoops:
Profile/side view showing all the goodness (carbon fiber wheels and beam suspension, stressed member engine, unique aerodynamics):
Rear cooling exhaust vent:
I found out about these great "music" videos -- they are put together by someone who has a web page called Symphony of Science.
They are a video assemblage of Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Michio Kaku and Robert Jastrow. With heavy use of AutoTune these great scientists "sing" their words like poetry. You need to watch it to get the full effect, but here are the lyrics to my favorite of the three, called "We Are All Connected":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk
(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)
[deGrasse Tyson] We are all connected; To each other, biologically To the earth, chemically To the rest of the universe atomically
[Feynman] I think nature's imagination Is so much greater than man's She's never going to let us relax
[Sagan] We live in an in-between universe Where things change all right But according to patterns, rules, Or as we call them, laws of nature
[Nye] I'm this guy standing on a planet Really I'm just a speck I'm just a speck Compared with a star, the planet is just another speck To think about all of this To think about the vast emptiness of space There's billions and billions of stars Billions and billions of specks
[Sagan] The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it But the way those atoms are put together The cosmos is also within us We're made of star stuff We are a way for the cosmos to know itself
Across the sea of space The stars are other suns We have traveled this way before And there is much to be learned[deGrasse Tyson] We are all connected; To each other, biologically To the earth, chemically To the rest of the universe atomically
[Sagan] I find it elevating and exhilarating To discover that we live in a universe Which permits the evolution of molecular machines As intricate and subtle as we
(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)
[deGrasse Tyson] I know that the molecules in my body are traceable To phenomena in the cosmos That makes me want to grab people in the street And say, have you heard this??
[Sagan] The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it But the way those atoms are put together The cosmos is also within us We're made of star stuff We are a way for the cosmos to know itself
(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)[Feynman] There's this tremendous mess Of waves all over in space Which is the light bouncing around the room And going from one thing to the other
And it's all really there But you gotta stop and think about it About the complexity to really get the pleasure And it's all really there The inconceivable nature of nature[Nye] To think about all of this To think about the vast emptiness of space There's billions and billions of stars Billions and billions of specks
[Sagan] The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it But the way those atoms are put together The cosmos is also within us We're made of star stuff We are a way for the cosmos to know itself
Across the sea of space The stars are other suns We have traveled this way before And there is much to be learned
I love the spirituality of their words. Enjoy!
Here are some of the source videos: Richard Feynman, Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I am very happy to see another electric vehicle on the near horizon: the Nissan Leaf was announced on August 2nd. There’s a very comprehensive post on AutoBlogGreen, including a video.
They appear to have done a lot of careful design: they did as much aerodynamic design as they could without having obvious things like wheel skirts. They did not want it to look like a Prius/Insight, and though it has the same basic shape of those cars, it obviously looks more “normal” than they do. Personally, I would prefer a lower window sill line — which would improve rearward visibility. And I hope that it can be had with steel wheels, so one can use smooth wheel covers.
I want it to work well; and as long as it avoids any “stupid” styling (which I think it does!) that hurt how it works, then I’m happy. Form should follow function, like with the Aptera. Styling should be limited to the “graphic” adjustments of the aerodynamic shape. Again, the best example of this is comparing the earlier Aptera MK-0 and Typ-1 to the current model. They changed the height, and they changed the “graphics” of things like the shape of the windows and the headlights, and while the overall shape is the same slippery form, the newer models look much better.
To quote the ABG article on this subject:
A Question of Style
Interestingly, unlike the current alt-fuel darlings from Toyota and Honda, Nissan has purposefully eschewed a fastback shape for a more formal five-door appearance. Shiro Nakamura, Nissan’s senior vice president and chief creative officer (read: styling director) admits he wanted the car to be unique, but not so bizarre as to be off-putting to most car buyers:
“From the beginning, we did not want to make the car very strange, because one of the perceptions of the EV [is that] people think that EVs are toys, or cheap… that you cannot drive high-speed, that EV means ‘not real car.’ But the car we have is a real car – you can drive it at 140 kilometers, you can sit four or five passengers comfortably.By that measure, the more upright yet unique Leaf is a success – it is a slippery shape with real passenger space, yet it doesn’t resort to visually polarizing aerodynamic tricks like faired-in wheel housings and to maximize aero. Instead, it has a smooth face (secreting two charging ports hiding beneath the Nissan logo), strangely prominent blue-tinted headlamps that manage airflow as much as they do nighttime vision, and a roofline whose rearmost pillar reminds us of another Nissan – the Murano. The Leaf has an almost Gallic rump that recalls that of the Versa, a design that in turn reminds us of offerings from Nissan’s European partner, Renault.
From what we have been told so far, the Leaf will have range of 100 miles, carrying four adults or five people, and it has two charging plugs: a 120v and a 240v (~16 hours and ~8 hours for a full charge, respectively) — and there is the ability to use a 3-phase fast charge (if you have access to an expensive special charger) that does an 80% charge in less than 30 minutes, or an ~30% charge in about 10 minutes. The battery pack is ~200kg (440 pounds) and is made up of 48 laptop-sized modules (each of which has 4 magazine-sized cells). These are thin, laminated lithium ion cells (that may be similar to the battery used in the newest MacBook Pro laptops) — and they are installed in the floor of the Leaf. The total weight of the car is probably similar to say the Versa, but the Cg is probably much lower because of where the batteries are installed.
Here's a post on Green Car Congress with some specific information about the initial release of ~5,000 Leafs in 2010:
Up to 5,000 Nissan LEAF EVs in 5 Regions
So, the (non-exhaustive) list of EV’s that we already have seen, or will be seeing in the next few years grows a bit longer:
- Nissan Leaf
- Toyota/Scion FT-EV
- Mitsubishi iMiEV (say: I-meev)
- Aptera 2e
- Coda Automotive
- Ford Focus EV
- Mini E
- Th!nk City
- BYD F3DM
What would you say about using "cooked" chicken feathers to store hydrogen very efficiently? How about using chicken feathers as carbon fiber reinforcement in things like wind turbine blades?
The answer to both questions is -- yes you can!
Science Friday: "Hydrogen Storage in Chicken Feathers?"
Link to podcastResearchers say they've come up with a new material for storing hydrogen fuel -- carbonized chicken feathers. Speaking this week at at the 13th Annual Green Chemistry & Engineering Conference in College Park, MD, researchers said that carbonized chicken feathers could absorb as much or perhaps more hydrogen than other materials for hydrogen storage, including carbon nanotubes or metal hydrides, at a much lower cost.
Here's another source: Happy News
While I'm on the subject of Science Friday, the second segment in today's show was also very interesting; talking about the enormous potential for wind power to far exceed all our needs.
Here’s a new one on me; the Riversimple open source hydrogen fuel cell car.
Not too many details are available yet: it has a 1kg tank of hydrogen and a whopping 6kW (8HP) fuel cell that give it a range of 240 miles, and a top speed of 50mph. It weighs just 350kg (~771 pounds), owing mostly to the carbon fiber chassis. They are looking to produce 10 next year, and ~50 the year after that, with leases available in 2012, for £200 ($315) per month, including the hydrogen fuel. Key to their design is efficient regenerative braking (50% returned energy) using some ultracapacitors.
It looks like they are using hub motors in each wheel, and carbon fiber for the chassis. It does not appear to be on their web page (yet), but they plan to release their plans so that anybody can build one. I really like this idea of sharing the design information. The aerodynamics seem to be worked out pretty well — the range of the car with just 1kg of hydrogen is proof of this! The one (possible) snag is whether or not the side windows are operable — I guess toll roads can be handled with a wireless unit, though. There is an intake grill, which may be used for ventilating the car.
I have my concerns with hydrogen — you can either get it from processing natural gas (which is obviously not very “green”) — or you need to use renewable energy (electricity from solar/wind/tidal/wave/biomass, etc.) to make the hydrogen. There is no infrastructure for hydrogen, and this is a nontrivial hurdle. But with this Riversimple car, they provide the hydrogen as part of the lease. So this design concept works if you are located close to where they will have service.
What other parts of science do you not believe are true?
Do you believe that the Theory of Gravity is correct? Or, do you believe in Intelligent Falling?
Do you believe in evolution? Or, do you believe in Intelligent Design?
Do you believe in the theory of atomic structure? Or, something else is responsible for how physics and chemistry work?
Do you believe in DNA? Or, do you believe that God chooses what characteristics to give your child?
What about the theory of how the Universe works, and the life cycles of stars and galaxies? Or, do you believe that God created it all in 6 days?
Do you believe that the Earth and the other SEVEN planets are orbiting the Sun? Or, does everything revolve around the Earth?
Are plate tectonics real? Or is there some other explanation for volcanoes and earthquakes?
Is the Earth (approximately) a sphere -- or is it flat?
Do you believe that medical drugs are developed using scientific methods? Or, are they just lucky guesses?
You see, you can't believe in just parts of science -- it all works the same: we explore the unknown, and as we find out more and more, we theorize about how it works. Then, based on the evidence and peer review, the accepted theory emerges; and is continuously tested and debated. Things settle more, as scientist come into closer and closer agreement.
This is how it is for all scientific endeavors -- they are not just making this up! Global Climate Change is real and it is the predominant scientific conclusion that humans have affected an abrupt change in the climate, by burning old carbon fuels; releasing millions of years worth of old carbon in about 150 years.
A few naysayers here and there may be right -- but on the other hand, maybe the large majority of the scientists who study this are right? Which is the bigger risk: that the naysayers are right and we conserve too much fuel and move to renewable energy anyway -- or, we keep on keepin' on and the ocean rises 40 feet in the next 100 years or so, and parts of the world go into an ice age, other parts go into drought, etc. etc. etc. -- who knows what the risks are??
Are you willing to take that risk?
Post Script:
Since Intelligent Design is a renaming of Creationism -- and neither one of them is science, then you can believe in it if you want to. The Theory of Gravity is science, and so it remains true whether you accept it or not. If you choose to take a similar tact to believing in Intelligent Design instead of accepting Evolution as the science that it is, then you might need to try to work out calling gravity Intelligent Falling as well.
My intent is to point out that science is a process where based on the facts, we humans work to understand and name the best -- and most consistent theories possible to make all the facts that we know to fit together. Scientists are constantly testing all the theories, and exploring the unknown. When they find something that they cannot explain -- they DO NOT just attribute it to some unknown cause; like we all do in our faiths all the time! This is the different between science and faith. Science looks to either find out more about the unknown, until either the new thing fits into the accepted theory, or they have to change the theory to fit with everything that has come before AND with the new thing. Faith simply accepts the unknown thing without question.
I apologize for this sentence in particular: "Or, do you believe that God created it all?". Later on I edited this to say "Or, do you believe that God created it all in 6 days?". There is a BIG difference there, because it means something very different -- so again I apologize.
The difference is that one could believe that a God created the world as a matter of faith AND the creation process is what science is working to explain and understand. But believing that God created the universe, the world, and all living things in a literal 6 days is a matter of faith which is conflict with science. I hope that I have made the difference a little clearer.
Again, it was not my intent to debate the difference between faith and science; though this is obviously part of the discussion. My main point was to try to point out the need for consistency in the understanding of science: if the scientific process has produced strong theories (which are very different from hypothesis') for things like gravity, atomic theory, plate tectonics, evolution, electricity, astronomy -- all of these things and much more -- are *inseparable* from the way we live and the way we understand all things in science. To be intellectually consistent, all of these and more -- including global climate change must be accepted as a whole! If you reject one part, then you must reject all the others, too -- because they are part of the whole.
This certainly does not mean that one cannot question any or all of these things -- this is what scientists do ALL THE TIME! This is EXACTLY what scientists DO all the time. But to throw out the theory of evolution say, on the basis of a few examples, is frankly throwing out the baby with the bath water. If one is to pronounce that any part of accepted science as bunk, then one had better be ready to show that they have a fully working alternative theory -- and to defend it scientifically, through accepted scientific process.
I urge all of you who are interested in this to watch a NOVA video online, or the next time it is broadcast on your local PBS station:
Watch show online
Sincerely, Neil
Hello,
I have installed my own video mirrors on my Scion xA, and it has reduced my frontal area by ~62 sq. in., and I will be doing another coast down test to see how much it may have helped lower my Cd. I did one set of coast down tests and I got ~0.267 (down from 0.31 of the stock car); though this is based on an estimated rolling resistance of 0.011 for my 44PSI Yokohama Avid tires.
Here's my post about the installation on EcoModder:
Installation post on EcoModder.com
Now that I've driven with the video mirrors for a few days now, and I'm close to being used to their location. I drove in the heavy rain yesterday -- and they work much better than optical mirrors! The lower resolution "misses" much of the mist (kicked up from the tires) and their aperture adjustment makes the images on the screens quite bright. Ditto for dusk operation. I have not driven at night except once, and I think I now have the windshield reflection issue solved...(see the picture below for the current set up, that eliminates the reflection)
If I were to design this from scratch, I would say that a slightly less wide angle of view would be plenty (90-100 degrees instead of the ~110 degrees these cameras provide). The wide angle is great and I love being able to see a bit of the side of my car in both screens, but frankly, it takes getting used to. And that leads me to my next improvement:
I would want the lens optics to compensate for the barrel distortion (and maybe overcompensate?) so the cars behind in the adjacent lanes were shown larger and appeared to be closer. I am still looking over my shoulder to confirm that I have room (which is probably wise in any situation!), because they look pretty small when they are ~100' behind me.
Large (semi) trucks behind me show up in all three mirrors! And the way they work in the rain is quite impressive -- the lens get a few drops when the car is parked, which show up as soft-focus distortions on part of the screen, but if you wipe these off, then they stay dry when you are driving. It doesn't matter if your windows get fogged up, either!
I averaged (just) above 50mpg on a tank, for the first time! The passenger side was put on about 1/3 through the tank, and the driver side about 2/3 through -- not too bad, if I say so myself.
Here's some pictures of what the video mirrors look like at dusk and near dark -- it's a little tricky getting an exposure that shows it close to what I can actually see!
These are getting progressively darker top to bottom -- the middle one especially makes it look darker outside than it actually is, and the cameras really seem to open up their apertures in this light, and they sometimes are slightly overexposed on one or the other, depending on the direction of the sun. The last one is sitting in my driveway, and there is very little ambient light -- you can kinda make out the light thrown by my taillights in the right screen...the light ahead is my porch light.
