PROPHESIES AND PREDICTIONS

It should come as no surprise to learn that there are still prophets among us. It seems that humans, believed to be the only species that think about, and shape the future, have always had a fascination with supposed ability to peer reliably into the future.... hundreds, even thousands of years ahead. For that reason Revelations in the bible and Nostradamus ( 1503-1566) both have avid followers, though the content of neither is accurately presented as the vision of a single individual. More likely, especially for Nostradamus, they are a collection of prophesies from different individuals, as we shall reveal still occurs. It seems odd that there is a preponderance of end-of-time scenarios, as well as other events of catastrophic significance.  As recently as the year 1999 there were dire prophesies attached to the importance of the turn of the millennium. Strange, considering that year 1 was arbitrarily chosen as the date of birth of Jesus Christ. That  was apparently in error since Christ was alive in the time of Herod, who died in 4B.C. Also, there appears to be a year missing, as there was no zero year.... only 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. Sir Isaac Newton in 1704 concluded, based on his study of The Book of Daniel, that the Apocalypse could occur no sooner than 2060 (yikes!). In 2011 American Christian radio broadcaster Harold Camping forecast the arrival of Rapture on May 21. It didn’t happen, and the date was subsequently revised to October 21, when to the disappointment of many, it didn’t happen again.  The run out of the Mayan calendar in 2012 holds serious portent about the end-of-times for some people. To a degree these beliefs persist because hucksters find it an easy way to get people to part with their money. For others it is fascination, or simply entertainment.
   
 Obviously, in the industrial world prophesies won’t do for serious planning. We are more acquainted with prediction than prophesy. While prophesy might emerge from observation and contemplation, prediction is generally  built on the collection, organization, analysis and interpretation of data. Underpinned by mathematics, the arts and sciences of systems analysis, statistical analysis, mathematical statistics and probability theory lead to conclusions and convictions that things will definitely occur in a certain way. Analyses would for instance convince Apple’s CEO to tool up with high confidence to produce x million I-phones instead of a few hundred thousand, and in fact would have guided the decision whether to produce them at all. Predictive work now occupies large positions in business, financial and scientific communities. In many instances the information is still formative, as in the cases of evidence of climate change and constantly changing threats. That Earth’s climate is warming as a result of human activity is already quite definitive, though skeptics abound. Statistical analysis, systems analysis and information gathering techniques are manifold. Oddly enough, a definition of consequences still lies somewhat in the territory of prophecy.

    Predictions have high value. Something can be done about them, or suffer the consequences. When meteorologists study a budding hurricane far out at sea, they can predict, within a range of probabilities, where it will make landfall. That would ordinarily trigger the normal defensive measures that people take, individually and by government agencies. On the other hand, an opinion that Earth will experience a collision with a celestial object during Century 21 would be nothing more than that. However, should astronomers detect an asteroid and determine through analysis that there is a 50% probability of colliding with Earth in December of 2069, it would be an actionable prediction and massive efforts would likely be undertaken to intercept and either alter its path or break it up.

    Prophets are still among us. Human nature being what it is, it seems natural for humans who have accumulated a bank of knowledge to imagine the future. Moore’s law is an example, a  forecast by Intel co-founder George E. Moore that the number of transistors that can be placed on a circuit board will double every two years. It turned out to be what some would consider prophetic but for realists it was simple the case of a person close to the industry showing an early recognition of a trend. It is generally recognized that trends have limited lifetimes.

    It was my good fortune to come across an opportunity to examine prophesies by an assortment of distinguished Americans at the 50 year mark of an elected 100 year time scale. In July of 1963 a time capsule was sealed and buried in ceremonies commemorating the fifth anniversary of the dedication of the General Dynamics Astronautics Division on Kearny Mesa in San Diego, California. It was to be unsealed in July of  2063. The site selected for burial of the capsule was perhaps too optimistic about the future of the division, since before the end of the century the Astronautics Division was sold to Lockheed Martin and the operations were subsequently shifted to Denver. What with the rapid building expansion in San Diego, the 300 acre Astronautics site was turned into an assortment of commercial and residential installations. The time capsule was dug up. Its current resting place is at Gillespie Field in El Cajon, California.

    The main content of the time capsule is a book of prophesies.1 J.R. Dempsey, President of Astronautics, sought the opinions of an array of distinguished Americans regarding their thoughts and dreams on what man will be doing a hundred years hence. To ease the task, he provided each with a list of questions they might address: What kind of space vehicle do you think man will be using? How far out in space do you think we will have moved? What will the ballistic missile be used for? What natural resources will we be taxing in outer space? What everyday activities will have been changed because of our efforts in space? What commercial ventures will have derived from space? and, Looking back from 2063, what will be the dominant achievement of the past 100 years?

    There were twenty-eight respondents, of which three chose to remain anonymous, plus an entry from Dempsey for a total of twenty-nine that were bound into a book. Most did not adhere strictly to answering the questions, but tended instead to  ramble. There was no apparent intent to keep the contents of the capsule secret, as a limited edition of 201 copies was printed for distribution to participating individuals and selected administrative personnel. I have no recollection of how I came into possession of copy 201.

 A few who responded (Governor Edmund Brown, President Lyndon B. Johnson, Congressman James Utt, Gerald P. Kuiper ) declined to answer the questions. Astronomer Gerald Kuiper pointed out that if chances for an accurate prediction ten years ahead are less than 0.5, the chances for making an accurate prediction 100 years out are reduced to 0.001.  In contrast, University of California Professor Harold C. Urey submitted a thirteen page dissertation on  trends in science and technology and their influences on human intelligence and progress, possibly constituting the entire content of one of his lectures at the University. It stands to reason too, that the contributions were made by a collection of humans whose thoughts were largely influenced by what they had personally observed was at that time occurring around the globe. Scientific and technological advancements that called for reliance on quantum mechanics instead of Newtonian probably had never entered their minds, yet today knowledge of quantum mechanics is essential in certain areas of engineering.    

    A common concern ran through much of the writing..... a concern that the difficulty of nations getting along, due to prejudice and ideological division, could stymie human progress. The One-World idea as a necessary development appears several times. There is now doubt that space cooperation among nations would have much of an effect on international relations. The cooperative effort among 16 nations comprising the United States, Canada, Russia, Japan and 12 European countries to build the International Space Station (ISS) seems to have borne that out. Indeed, some respondents were of the opinion that space ventures should remain competitive, arguing that progress is always more rapid in that atmosphere. The makeup of the ISS participants reveals that  China and India, capable of undertaking space ventures on their own, are not represented. China especially has the capability and intent to  proceed independently on various space undertakings.

   Opinions about space colonization ranged from outposts on the moon and on Mars to 10,000 people on the moon, 100,000 people on Mars, and outposts at or near all the outer planets.  At the fifty year mark there is not much evidence of planned effort beyond establishment of scientific outposts on the moon and Mars. As in all past explorations and conquests, the goal is always a handsome return on investment in the form of property, material goods, and on a lesser scale, services. The British East India company and the Jamestown Settlement are examples of past such ventures that were funded by venture capitalists. There are countless present day terrestrial enterprises, many of which are based on ever growing need for natural resources to support burgeoning populations. Examples are petroleum companies’ exploitation of former members of the Soviet Union for their oil and China’s inroads into Africa for the same purpose as well as a future food source. As yet, the case for anything more than outposts for scientific observations on the moon and Mars has not been made. Easing Earth’s population density is borderline silly. Today babies are being born at a rate that corresponds to the idling putt putt putt of a Harley motorcycle engine. The rate of dying is much lower since medical treatment is improving, resulting in marked life extension. That accounts for forecasts that an additional two billion people will be occupying Earth by mid-century.You cannot launch that many people into space.The notion that the human race could be saved from extinction by going into space is thus far in the realm of science fiction. Humans are pretty inventive. Some  on Earth will always survive.

    There were inputs from former astronauts John Glenn, Scott Carpenter and Wally Schirrar. Somehow, I was not surprised that their thoughts were limited and uninspired. In my view, astronauts are highly skilled at operating complicated and powerful machinery. But with the exception of one or two (“Buzz Aldrin comes to mind),  they don’t come across as visionaries. John Glenn and Scott Carpenter were of the opinion that an anti gravity device would be developed by 2063. At the half way mark there is no evidence that anyone takes such a prospect seriously or can define what the benefits would be. As a side issue, rewarding astronauts with positions at the heads of various NASA agencies may be counterproductive, for both vision and drive are vital at those levels for space exploration to thrive.

    In 1958 C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography had just begun his measurements of carbon dioxide concentration atop Mauna Loa in Hawaii..... measurements that have shown a rise in concentration every year since then, until levels at this date are the highest they have been for hundreds of millenia. Scientists predict climate change in the direction of global warming with severe consequences, partly as a result of rising ocean levels due to melting of ice.  At the time of the submittals to the time capsule there must already have been discussion in scientific circles about this issue. Astronomer Fred Whipple prophesied water levels rising to the point that coastal land around the world is endangered. “The legislative assembly of the world union is meeting to decide how to control melting ice caps.”
   
    A majority was of the opinion that ballistic missiles would be obsolete.... that more deadly and effective weapons would be developed. At the half way mark, the outlook is not too encouraging, as more nations are busying themselves with acquiring intermediate and intercontinental ballistic missile capability. The United States and Russia preserve mutual annihilation capability, though the cold war has been over for twenty-four years.

    Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin prophesied that  “television telephones may permit instantaneous visual communication between people on opposite sides of the earth.” A bit conservative, as devices like Apple’s Facetime are currently in the news. Van Deerlin  also offered the astonishing view that nuclear energy would be used to melt the polar ice caps. We might want to think about that.

    Several respondents were of the opinion that ballistic travel, or  travel at near orbital velocities would make half hour intercontinental trips routine. At the half way mark there are no signs that this is in anyone’s planning. I and others have written articles supporting feasibility.2 The required transporters are easily within existing technology. Let’s look at a possible scenario: Sir Richard Branson, who put together the British based Virgin Group, is sponsoring a pseudo-space venture originally begun by Burt Rutan at his Mohave Desert company, Scaled Composites. Rocket propulsion will take willing riders at $200,000 per ticket straight up to the edge of space, upon which the craft, containing perhaps a half dozen passengers, will spiral and then parachute back to the ground. This porpoise-like exercise could easily convert to something far more exciting, say a ballistic flight that reaches the edge of space from Edwards Air force Base in California, terminating at New Mexico’s new rocket base. In a way, it would repeat the experiences of Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom during the early manned flights out of Cape Canaveral, but in much more comfortable style than being cocooned in a Mercury capsule and splashdown in the ocean.That would be the beginning of an impressive shift on the transportation scene, and in what amounts to a serendipitous situation, it might occur to Branson that his Virgin Airlines could pioneer intercontinental ballistic flight. Ensuing developments would then likely involve participation and investment by other airlines, with the object of creating a global capability.

In 1962 James Watson and Francis Crick, having described the structure of DNA in 1953, received the Nobel Prize for their findings. There is no evidence whatever that any of the contributors, even Dr. Harold Urey, realized the implications of this discovery.... the eventual mapping of the human genome, growing ability to manipulate gene structure to eliminate inherited diseases, the emergence of nanotechnology in both biological and non-biological fields, advancements in hybridization, growing replacement organs and tissue, and creating designer bacteria, to name a few. Though the benefits of space experiments in medical advancements were mentioned by several, the really big advancements thus far have been made by participation of vast numbers of researchers on the ground, as opposed to a half dozen or fewer astronauts in space.3 One of the great inventors of our time, Craig Venter, first to map the human genome, currently has under construction a huge laboratory within shouting distance of my home. Venter has plans for such developments as a specialized form of bacterium that will produce gasoline from whatever organic material it feeds on. That is one of his answers to the emerging problem of shortage of fossil fuels, which humanity has yet to deal with.

    With respect to manned space activities in low Earth orbit, respondents Hugh Dryden and Krafft Ehricke, among others, wrote of multiple space stations and significant manufacturing in space. Relatively easy access from Earth would logically place those developments at orbital altitudes not exceeding three or four hundred miles. At the half way mark, it is not too difficult to foresee the future based on what occurred in the first fifty years. First there were the Russian Mir and the American Skylab Workshop. Then there was the formidable development of the International Space Station (ISS) by 16 participating nations, as described above. China, left out of the consortium, decided to proceed with its own station and at this writing has three astronauts, two men and a woman, visiting its first orbiting space station.  Plans for the ISS are for termination of activities in 2020. What then?  Will China be the only nation with space stations in orbit? The answer is no. First, there is some space station commercial activity under way which could succeed. Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas, Nevada has been involved for several years in development of space station concepts for commercial applications, including tourist destinations. Current plans involve beginning the launching of modular components for station Alpha in 2014 and Bravo in 2016. Success will depend in a large part on the availability of cheap transportation to and from the orbital sites, a development that was widely predicted by respondents to the time capsule, but which as yet has not materialized either in hardware or concept.
   
    With the closure of the ISS, alternative space stations that cost less and are more flexible will be sought.4 It’s high cost and relatively obscure achievements signal that a replacement is not likely to find support. Instead, it is likely that Russia and the United States will each proceed with smaller stations, building on their forerunners Mir and Skylab. One might surmise that the other participating nations on ISS will want to continue their activity in Space. In their cases the logical route is to purchase versions of  Chinese, U.S. or Russian stations for their own purposes, and depending on external providers for transportation and  servicing. This is not unlike the operation of terrestrial hotels that depend on external transportation to bring them occupants and contract with outside firms to keep things running and shipshape.
   
    There has always been a fascination with what is out there in the universe, no less so with contributions to the time capsule by prominent personalities like Dr. Brainard Holmes of NASA, Former Congressman George Miller, Chair of the Science Committee, Dr. William H. Pickering, President, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics all predicting that travel at relativistic velocities will be commonplace by 2063. That of course means interstellar travel. Travel at the speed of light, or anywhere near it, makes no sense at all within the confines of our solar system. The most optimistic of prophesy for 2063 by former AIAA president William Pickering is that travel by humans is already underway to nearby star systems to explore other planets.
   
    Interstellar travel isn’t going to occur that soon, but many interesting things are happening. Star ship concepts keep appearing on the scene. A serious study, titled “Daedelus” was performed by members of the British Interplanetary Society (BIS) in the 1970’s. The proposed project was a fusion powered unmanned spaceship that would travel to Barnard’s Star, about ten light years distant. Other studies by members of BIS continue. In the United States the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)  recently awarded a contract to study what is titled “The 100 Year Star ship.” The study is in partnership with NASA  Ames Research Center and has the objective of defining the next generation technologies that would be needed for extended manned space travel. It is unclear why such a study would originate within a defense research establishment unless there is expectation that some military benefit would accrue. But interstellar fans are cheered by the development.
   
    Construction of extremely powerful astronomical observation devices, both orbital and terrestrial, as well as advanced  analytical methods, has opened a window to reveal a universe incredibly more vast and complex than previously believed. These studies have already confirmed that planets like Earth are abundant, numbering perhaps in the hundreds of millions. As observation instruments improve, more will be learned. Perhaps direct observation of the planets will be possible. NASA’s Kepler space telescope has already detected 2300 exoplanet candidates. The large binocular telescope atop Arizona’s Mount Graham, nearing completion but already in operation, will have ten times the resolution of the Hubble space telescope when fully operational. The European Union sponsored Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) atop a mountain in Chile, under construction for the next ten years, will be even more powerful. The largest telescope ever built, it will have a mirror measuring 39.3 meters in diameter.
   
    Organizations for the promotion of interstellar exploration exist at many levels. The most prominent among them are The British Interplanetary Society, Tau Zero Foundation, The Royal Astronomical Society, The American Astronautical Society, The Planetary Society and The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
   
    Of course, public interest is constantly stoked by individuals like Carl Sagan (1934-1996),  television programs created by NOVA, BBC and others, motion pictures and science fiction novels that bring a sense of reality to possible other worlds, monthly journals and other publications by space societies, and of course news that the United states is sponsoring the study of a 100 year Star ship.
   
     What can be concluded regarding the prophesies of the twenty-seven men and one woman (Mrs. Robert H. Goddard) who participated? One can say that for the most part they were charged with optimism. At the fifty year mark it is clear that advancements have taken place that they would not have dreamed about. They had little notion that communications advancements, data retrieval and storage, the Internet and search engines would revolutionize access to knowledge before fifty years had elapsed. Nor could they know that the new capabilities could be turned to selfish advantage, such as gaming the financial system in ways that can be ruinous to the world economy. It was a time of optimism, however, for a well educated, productive middle class had emerged after World War II. But advancements such as nanotechnology, application of quantum theory, mapping of the human genome and subsequent forays into DNA modification to eliminate heredity diseases, growing replacement organs and tissue, and robotics were still the stuff of science fiction. 
   
    Though concerned about ideological and racial division and the brakes they place on progress, they did not foresee that serious reversals can take place if for example persons and corporations  manage to concentrate wealth and turn government into an instrument that serves their private and selfish desires. This is visibly occurring in present times, as we witness a  re-emergence of an oligarchy that is bent on returning a dynamic nation back to an era best represented by the 1920’s.5 To counter that, organizations like the Brookings Institution and the Great Transition Initiative have appeared to tackle the social and environmental issues of our time. It is difficult to make a case for the existence of more than 400 multibillionaires in the United States as being good for human progress as a whole.  In the deregulated and unregulated society they desire, prophets have small reason for optimism.

    Governor Brown, President Johnson, J.R. Dempsey and others dwelt briefly on the moral imperative for society to move ahead in abandoning ideological division and assuring freedom and opportunity for all. They did not, however, prophesy that by 2063 great gains had been made.

1. General Dynamics: Prophesies by Distinguished Americans. July, 1963
2. Edward Hujsak: The Case For Ballistic Transportation. Spaceflight 2006
3. Edward Hujsak: Conquering Space - One Man At A Time. Space News op-ed, 26 Mar. 2012 and this site.
4. Edward Hujsak: Obama’s Rocket. Space News op-ed, 24 May 2010 and this site
5. Edward Hujsak, Essay, “How We Got Here And Where We Are Headed.” 2010, This site

GREAT NATION

I'm sorry that no one will ever get to read my erudite article on why America is a great nation. It got blown out of the water today by a Republican Congressman.

Y'all wanna know why Merica is a great nashin? We got th' pick-a-tha litta! Hit took curge to git heah!"

Ah well.

PRODUCTIVITY? WHAT'S THAT?

My old boss told me once, “When someone calls you with an opportunity, be assured that it is his opportunity. Words have a way of allowing a skewing of their definitions, depending on the situation and intent with which they are used.

The word that bothers me today is productivity, which in the socio-economic context correlates with increasing the amount of product you can get out of a person or a work force. It is measured by the change in the ratio of the value of things produced to the cost of the labor needed to produce them.  Improved productivity in theory adds to personal and national well-being that results from growth in income. Theorists argue that the benefits are more real income, enjoyment of leisure, lower cost of goods and services, and improved housing and education. The truth of this is subject to question in the practical world. With the prices of automobiles at ten times what they were in 1970, gasoline at over  four dollars a gallon, food prices buttressed by subsidies because producers can’t compete with foreign sources, a few raised eyebrows at this contention might be justified.

Attention to productivity improvement goes far back in history. James Watt got things really rolling in England in the late eighteenth century with his improvements on, and production of the steam engine kick-starting the Industrial Revolution. In current context it involves organization of work, attention to cost structure, adoption of accepted business processes, knowledge management and information technology, and improved and automated equipment. In many cases software with broad application is adopted for process upgrades.

The claim of increased income for workers at a time of rising productivity is open to question, as wages have shown no growth for more than a decade, and even some reduction. While  productivity assessment works for most fields of effort, including wholesale trade, retail trade, medical, food supply, etc, it is handiest to look at the manufacturing segment, as that is where data is most readily available and where productivity seems to get the most attention. It is where the claim of increased income for workers begs the question: Is this for real? A startling piece of information generated by the labor department for the year 2009 compares the dollar per hour cost of labor for 18 nations, including 12 European countries, Australia, Canada and Japan. Norway ranked the highest, at $53.89 per hour. Spain  was last at $27.24 per hour. The United states ranked fourteenth at $33.53 per hour.  This tells us that the benefits of increased productivity are more likely in profits that are distributed to owners and shareholders and not to workers.  

Since not much has changed in the socio-economic picture in the last three years, a review of more recent years would likely show similar results.  In the first quarter of 2012 in the manufacturing sector productivity rose by 5.9% and unit labor cost fell by 4.2%. From an efficiency standpoint that looks great, but a lowered labor cost indicates that workers are not benefiting. The reality is that managers improve productivity by cancelling pensions, medical plans, retiring older workers who earn more,and making fewer people work harder. It is no surprise that workers complain that they have to work harder to keep their jobs. 

When a widget manufacturer raises his work force efficiency to produce more widgets for the same labor hours, or accomplishes the same by installing automated machinery, he can boast about improved productivity. If the market can absorb more widgets, workers are assured of keeping their jobs. But if the market cannot absorb more widgets the work force gets reduced. Either way, the widget manufacturer wins, but the latter case is bad for employment.

What should one read into it when the President announces that productivity is up but the unemployment picture is still unsatisfactory? How does improved productivity correlate with employment numbers? Did improved productivity result in wage increases? Is it helpful or harmful?

In a benevolent commercial and industrial society, the profit that improved efficiency generates is heavily distributed to workers in the form of higher wages, medical insurance and provisions for a reasonably comfortable retirement. If wages are held stagnant, the economy isn’t going to improve. If improved productivity benefits the worker, then good things happen. There is no better way to stimulate the economy. But management that operates in this manner is at a disadvantage with respect to competition, which explains its rarity.

Rising productivity is deemed to be good. Why must this be accepted? No one can say what will be enough. Futurists like Ray Kurzweil (The Singularity Is Here) foresee human brains as adjuncts to far more powerful external computer brains, automated factories that can supply all human needs, that can replicate their machinery and even replicate themselves. But they give short shrift to the spiritual side of humans that propels them to be individually creative and productive.

In these few words, I have only touched on this complex word..... productivity. I could have written instead about productivity in baking bread. Should I use the bread maker, which is speedy and doesn’t measurably improve my life and produces something that tastes like bread but doesn’t look like bread? It will free me to do something else, say, water the plants..... or should I do it the old fashioned way, and spend the time kneading dough in serene contemplation, anticipating golden brown loaves that look like bread, lifted from the oven?

LETTER TO JOHN BOEHNER

Honorable Congressman John Boehner
Speaker, House of Representatives
1011 Longworth  House Office Building
Washington, Dc 20515 -3508

Dear Speaker Boehner,

In the light of your recent approval of an important meeting of Sectarians in the Capitol building...... Our House, an enduring symbol of a Constitution that requires separation of Church and State, I would guess that future historians will mark you as a man of poor judgment who somehow managed to rise to a position where good judgment is fundamental to leadership

You knew that the participants, to a man (and woman) are of a mind  to break down that wall and proclaim that at last, this is a Christian nation. Others need not apply.  It was a near victory lap for them,....something close to the flag raising by soldiers at Iwo Jima.

I cannot imagine how you can ever live down this colossal blunder.

Sincerely,


Edward Hujsak.

A MATTER OF UNDERSTANDING

I don’t know. I like to think that I was the instigator of this idea, but I could be wrong. Ideas have a way of spawning simultaneously in minds around the globe, as if transmitted on an undefined wave through an as yet undetermined medium.

It happened, one day some years ago, standing in line at the cashier’s in Ralph’s grocery store, that I found myself behind a cart holding a young child with big round eyes, obviously a bit under the weather. I watched a little hand pass under a runny nose then slide smoothly along the handle of the cart. Something told me that this needed a little attention.

Upon returning home I wrote letters to Ralph’s headquarters and to the Chlorox company stating my concern that grocery store cart handles could be among the worst transmitters of disease in the community. I heard nothing from either party, but imagine the warmth in my heart upon discovering, a few months later, a Chlorox hand wipe dispenser at the entrance to Ralphs, mounted on a crude stand, with the message: “Hand Wipes for Your Convenience.”

It seems that the idea took hold, as in the ensuing years the dispensers at store entrances appeared at more and more places, even at Home Depot. They appeared in various designs, which indicated more than one entrepreneur was involved. I imagine it has gone national, maybe international (Aha! I am a job creator, and not even a one percenter! Maybe the sycophants who proclaim the rich are job creators are in error!).

But it has become clear that my work is not yet done. “Hand Wipes for Your Convenience” merely begs the question:  Why do I need clean hands to shop? (What a dumb idea). 

Humans respond poorly to indirect or implicit instructions. “Hand Wipes for Your Convenience” is like saying “Powder Room” for “Ladies Restroom.” That took considerable training as “Powder Room” was historically where they kept kegs of gunpowder.  Signs that are explicit work best, like “Cross” and “Don’t Cross.” Exit”, with an arrow. No Parking. You get the idea. Good signs get results. Of course it brings to mind the oft repeated tale about P.T. Barnum’s method of emptying the arena for the next wave of customers with the sign: “This Way to the Egress.”

So it’s time for another letter to Ralphs and Chlorox.

Gentlemen: You must change your sign to read “Hand Wipes for Germ Free Cart Handles.” 

That ought to do it.

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND COAL BURNING CARS

Systems engineering draws together different disciplines within the engineering field and is concerned with organizing and integrating a project, taking into consideration virtually everything that makes it function as planned throughout its life cycle, including attention to risk reduction, impacts on the surrounding territory, logistics, performance, etc. To illustrate: a manufacturer of, say a ready-to-operate rocket (or a car) delivers his finished product at the loading dock, The buyer of the rocket (user) must then deal with transportation to the launch area, payload integration, design and maintenance of a launch platform, provision and loading of rocket propellants, flight control software, range safety and a host of other operations to make the rocket lift off and deliver a payload to a promised location. That would be the user’s system. Lots of independent functions that have to be organized and integrated in the most efficient way possible.  But this operator may be servicing an even larger system, like the International Space Station, a product too of system engineering.  In recent years, largely due to the growing complexity of products, systems engineering has also been widely applied in the design of products, like a rocket, a car. or an e-book. It focuses on the nature of customer needs and desires, as well as functional aspects early in the process. It establishes a management plan for achieving the objective of a finished product.  It proceeds with modelling and actual design followed by prototype construction, development and proofing tests, production, quality control, packaging and delivery. 

We’re going to hear a lot more about systems engineering. The applied discipline is only seventy years old. We’re not yet at the point where world governments have the insight to recognize the  global significance of systems engineering to keep Earth livable long into the future.....in one word: sustainable. Sustainability is the capacity to endure. Essential elements are long term maintenance of responsibility, with environmental and social dimensions,  stewardship and the responsible management of resources. The tendency seems always to capitalize on opportunities the easy way, disregarding the consequences.

In the case above where the product is a car, there was little awareness in the industry and in political circles trumpeting the wonders of the electric car, that a little more systems engineering would have been beneficial. When the power for operating a car originates in a power plant hundreds of miles away, the electric car in fact turns out to be quite different from the energy saving wonder that automotive producers would have one believe. Converts to electric cars believe they are doing a good thing. They have a car that goes and they are making their contribution to the environment. Advertising tells them that they are right on both counts, but only the first is true.

Plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars that have been developed and marketed might have been banned had they been subjected to end-to-end analysis of energy consumption. Such an evaluation would have demonstrated that they do not improve the energy picture, and in fact are detrimental, as well as unhelpful for environmental improvement. Electric cars, unless their batteries are recharged by renewable energy sources......photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and biofuels..... are little more than coal burners. They are less efficient than the worst of gasoline powered cars.

System engineering could have delayed construction of nuclear power plants until safe storage of nuclear waste was concurrently provided; there would not be mountains of tires and automobile junkyards scattered around the country; disposable dry cells would be outlawed, as there is no trustworthy system for disposal of their toxic contents, and providing power in this manner is a colossal waste of resources. (How much more elegant... a generator on an exercise bike where you can recharge all your household batteries).

About three-quarters of the electrical energy in the United States comes from coal fired and nuclear plants (50% coal and 20% nuclear). Both operate at around 30% thermal efficiency although a few newer high-tech coal burning plants are demonstrating higher efficiencies. Transmission losses from the generator through the grid and terminating at the car’s battery approximate 10%. An electric car is at best 85% efficient. At a little over 20% overall energy efficiency, the electric car hardly compares with gasoline powered cars, which are closer to 30% efficient. Of course, a thorough analysis would show that there are regional variations. Some parts of the nation depend solely on coal generated power. Some are a mix of power generated from several sources that can show better thermal efficiency. Power transmission losses are however unaffected.

Were fifty million plug-in’s and hybrids to hit the roads, there would be a huge upswing in both coal and natural gas consumption.  Renewable sources would rise too, but would likely remain at 30% of the total power generated. It’s hard to compete economically with coal. Total energy consumption would far higher than if automobiles were to continue to operate on gasoline.

An electric car design that would reduce total energy consumption would consist of a drive motor on each wheel, a moderate complement of batteries, and an internal combustion engine that operates at constant speed at its point of highest efficiency and functions only to charge the batteries. Such an engine could be much more efficient than conventional gasoline burning engines, for which a 40% operating efficiency is still an elusive target. It thus would result in overall reduction in energy consumption. Such cars could boast a thousand miles between tankings. For that matter, there are European automotive Diesel engines that already fit the requirement. These engines could evolve easily into burners of various types of biofuels.  

Yesterday a mature juniper tree, its roots humping up my sidewalk, was removed from my front yard. As I watched the workman’s truck depart for the city dump, loaded with greenery, I imagined thousands of such trucks arriving at city dumps every day across the nation. Potential biofuel, destined to become buried or chopped into garden mulch. Is it that much of a stretch to imagine driving your electric motor powered car to a station at the entrance to the city dump and tanking up with biofuel?

Systems engineering can keep the planet livable, for all species. There is no other option. Should a time arrive when it is necessary to pray for miracles, it will be too late.

GENEROSITY AT THE PUMP

GENEROSITY AT THE PUMP


Gasoline prices are excessively high, but do you know that the price you run up at the pump is not all that you pay for that tank of gasoline?

Oil companies are awash in cash. Some find ways to avoid paying any taxes at all, and as a group  they manage, through the services of skilled lobbyists, to get the government to give them money, lots of money, described as subsidies.

Gasoline consumption in the United States is around 135 billion gallons a year.
Oil company subsidies average about ten billion dollars a year.

Let’s see.... it’s simple arithmetic.

Ten billion dollars is a trillion cents. Divide that by 135 billion gallons and you get .74 cents a gallon. In other words, each time you tank up ( a modest 14 gallons), you tip the oil companies just over a dollar.

Feel better now?