Farah dead at 62

I recieved a tweep from the Detroit Free Press and few minutes ago that Farrah Fawcett has died.

Osaka University’s Cold Fusion or Bad Science?  Courtesy of Engadget

JAPAN – Speak the words “Cold Fusion”, and for good or bad images of the late 1980’s come to mind when our hopes were brought up only to come crashing down.

A little background for those too young to remember. In 1989, two scientists from Utah, Pons and Fleishmann, reported that they were able to produce a fusion reaction that was significantly cooler and less costly than had ever been obtained before. Termed “Cold Fusion” it brought the hopes of the nation up. The end of fossil fuel dependence.

Then reality reared it ugly head. For something to be “science” it needs to be duplicable. When other scientists tried to repeat the experiment, it failed or energy that was put in was similar that came out. Cold Fusion became the coin term for bad science in the western world.

Now Osaka University forced deuterium (heavy hydrogen – containing one neutron) gas under pressure into an evacuated cell containing a sample of palladium dispersed in zirconium oxide, which caused the deuterium to be absorbed by the palladium sample, resulting in a denser, or “pynco” deuterium, with deuterium nuclei that are close enough together to fuse. That process also supposedly resulted in a rise in temperature to about 70° Celsius (158° Fahrenheit).

Supposedly they are going to increase the amount of palladium/zirconium oxide to see if the amount energy released increases. Even if they report that it does, don’t jump up and down. Remember to be good science it needs to be duplicable. Also, they don’t report of any harmful byproduct of the reaction. Whenever you mention “Nuclear” it needs to be tested thoroughly to the extreme.

Afterall, you don’t want your own mini Three Mile Island in your house.

Cause that is what we are talking about. Mini nuclear reactors in our homes, our cars, our work, and etc. If it is truly a cold fusion reaction, it would be as safe as a furnace or a hot water heater. Supposedly the reaction core stayed “hot” for 50 hours on only 7 grams of “fuel”.

We’ll keep a skeptical eye out on this one.

Have gas prices risen enough for alternative fuel usage?

As odd as it seems, up to this point global warming and rising fuel prices have not been enough to take alternative fuels seriously. With gasoline prices over $4.00, has the tide turned with consumers?

“. . . we came to the conclusion (back in the 1980s) that fossil fuel had such an economic advantage (over alternative fuels), and the ease of use that it was going to be very difficult to displace them . . .” Lee Raymond on “Charlie Rose” November 8, 2005

It’s hard to believe the CEO of ExxonMobil back then, and it’s even harder today that they spent the equivalent of two billion dollars on research back in the 70s and 80s just to throw up their arms in defeat. It would be quick to say that it wasn’t in their best interest as an oil company to find an alternative. That viewpoint is true, but its also true that even if we stopped using personal cars, trucks, SUV’s and Vans, oil as an industry would continue.

Don’t believe it? Diesel runs the trains, trucks, and cargo ships. Try running them on ANY alternative fuel. Look at your jar of Vaseline, it is petroleum jelly. Most plastics are petroleum based. Moving parts need lubrication, petroleum products are some of the best lubricants. Kerosene is made at the same time as gasoline and diesel. So there will be always be a need for petroleum, just hopefully a diminished need.

Mr. Raymond also points out “economic advantage and ease of use”. Well until Huricane Katrina hit, this is a correct statement. Let’s look at hydrogen a moment. A great alternative with fuel cells powering our vehicles. The exhaust is water. 1 kilogram of hydrogen is the equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline, and current prices range from $5/kg to $10/kg. An increase in demand would push the average to the higher end of the scale. To add insult to injury, most of the methods to produce hydrogen involve using hydrocarbons, and therefore release carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

Electric cars have the benefit of NO emissions, but also have its limitations. One is that eventually you must plug the car into an electrical outlet. Cost of a recharge depends on the cost of electricity, and now manufacturers are saying about three dollars. Cool? Well if true that is actually a lot, for example my electric is under ten cents a kilowatt hour. Multiply that on the grid by the number of vehicles latching on at the sametime. That would be a hell of a load. The load can be minimized through solar and wind through a cost to the consumer. The batteries are a problem too. They are still heavy, still die, still have a problem with cold environments, and still are environmentally unsafe (after dying).

I could run through the alternatives even my future compressed air car. The point is this: the cheapest fuel available is still fossil fuels. The reason is the public NEVER demanded alternatives. I’m not talking about individual groups, ecologists, futurists, scientists and such. I’m talking everyone that looks in a mirror, everyone that drives a car, everone that has a pulse . . . everyone.

Ask yourselves these questions: Between 1989 and 2000, did I only buy vehicles that got 30+mpg? How many vehicles did I own that got less than 30? Less than 20 . . . 10? Did I own an SUV, Truck, or Van even though you had less than four kids (or no kids or even a spouse), no business purpose, never went camping or off-roading, or never put anything in the back of my truck except a wide screen TV. Did you use that SUV, Truck, or Van as your work commute vehicle? Did I buy a sports car cause it made me look good (or sexy), and/or it was fast as lightening (even though you never broke the speed limit and those cars are less efficent at lower speeds)?

Am I saying the public is at fault? No, we just never gave the auto companies incentive. The auto companies were willing to create public demand for these gas guzzlers, cause it was cheaper for them to produce them and not to find ways of making 70 mpg vehicles before 2000.  Even today look at auto TV ads. Does the VW Polo ad with the Singing Dog even mention its gas mileage? It should . . .  it reaches 46 mpg, but they know that is NOT what sells . . . the cute singing dog does.

So ask yourself, “Is gas prices high enough for me to switch vehicles and the way I drive? Or can I afford $10 per gallon?”

Last month, U.S. Transportation head Mary Peter introduced the new CAFE proposal to increase fuel efficiency of the nation’s cars and trucks to 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015. That is based on the price of gasoline reaching $2.26 per gallon by 2015.

Oh wait, we’ve already passed that point Mary.

Now she is saying that it could be tougher than the initial proposal.

Mary, Mary quite contrary.

31.6 miles per gallon is a joke. The CAFE regulation has been between 27 and 28 mpg since the 1980’s.  The standard was never raised after the auto companies complained that it was not technologically or economically feasible to keep up with the increases. When the first Bush and Clinton administrations, the Department didn’t even ASK for an increase. If the initial increases were forced and repeated by the DOT, we would be driving vehicles in excess of 70 mpg. 

That wasn’t a misprint . . . 70 mpg!

Now forcing an impotent industry to go beyond 31.6 mpg will cause the auto industry, the UAW, and other interest groups to rally against the increase. Despite the fact that it would be good for their company, and good for consumers.

Meanwhile, the oil companies and foreign oil barons sit back and roll in the profits.

There is hope. Smaller companies are responding from the consumer demand. Smaller companies are springing up with alternative fuel solutions. These are not concepts, these are actual vehicles being released beginning this year. These vehicles, if they use gasoline at all, get in excess of 100 mpg.

That wasn’t a misprint . . . 100 mpg!

Will this spell the end of the big three: Toyota, GM and Ford? (bet you thought I would say Chrysler)  Not right away. Public opinion needs to change too. For example, a single person driving a SUV getting 20 mpg, with no rhyme or reason to have such a vehicle, needs to be convinced that its not sexy to have such a vehicle. That’s starting to happen.

Wouldn’t 20 mpg be low for CAFE standards? Yes and No. CAFE always gave the auto industry an out, and there still is outs in these standards. Change the wheel base, you lower the standard, offer vehicles above the standard but really hard sell the ones below the standard. As long a it shows the right statistics, and you know what they say about statistics, you’ll meet the standards.

In other words, the standards mean NOTHING. Remember its cheaper for the auto companies NOT to put money in Research and Development. A recent Ford commercial showed engineers figuring out the best place to put a mirror for a woman . . . how many engineers did it take to figure that out? And they used a man in the driver seat wearing virtual reality goggles to see the difference.

Here is a cheaper way FORD, put a woman in the seat without virtual reality goggles. Use the money to put out 100 mpg vehicles out . . . next year. Think about it, you’ll destroy the competition!

DEARBORN HEIGHTS, Mich. — The Dearborn Heights fire department, located at 4500 S. Telegraph Road was evacuated after a person brought in some sort of World War II missile, police said.

Telegraph Road from Michigan Ave. to Annapolis Road and Hopkins Road were closed.

The bomb squad was called and is taking the missile to an area near Annapolis and Inkster roads to detonate it.

This is happening in my neighborhood – Proxima

read more | digg story