How much progress have human beings made since the 1960s? There has been progress in food production, known as the Green Revolution. There has been medical progress and advancement in scientific knowledge. But let's consider two revolutions that mean the most to the daily lives of people around the world. Since the inventions of the steam engine and the telegraph, we have been witnesses to both the transportation and the communications revolutions.
But let's just review from the 1960s onward. Cars have improved since then. They break down less. They do not need tuneups. Electronic ignition is superior to the old carburetors. The computer consoles in engines are better than distributors. Cars are more fuel-efficient today. Jet aircraft have gotten bigger.
However since the sixties, the transportation revolution has been completely outpaced by the communications revolution. These improvements to cars are good but they have been relatively minor improvements. You still get into a car and drive or into an airplane and fly just like you used to then. In fact, we landed men on the moon in the sixties and are not doing anything like that now.
In comparison, consider the communications revolution. In the sixties, there was only mainframe computers, the PC had not even been invented yet. There was only solid block text, a graphical user interface like windows was unimaginable. The idea of the internet was only just conceived in 1969.
Who could imagine everyone from five year olds on up with their own computer with a graphical user interface sending emails all over the world, looking up everything they could ever want to know on Google or Yahoo and sending instant messages to anyone they knew?
In the sixties, the idea of never getting lost due to a GPS system using satellites and carrying a cell phone everywhere you go seemed like futuristic science fiction not to mention the replacement of copper wires with fiber optics to carry millions of phone calls at once. The progress in processing speed has been so phenomenal that if you could time-transport a $15 scientific calculator from today back to the 1950s, it would be worth untold millions of dollars.
Since the sixties, the communications revolution has delivered on it's potential while the transportation revolution is still stuck in just about the same place with only minor improvements. The basic propulsion systems used then are the same ones we use today. This has caused global warming as well as getting us dependent on the oil in the Middle East. The two revolutions are like the proverbial turtle and the hare but in this case, the hare is not sleeping so that the turtle can catch up. The communcations revolutions has gone through leap after leap while the transportation revolution has been limited to minor improvements.
The next step in the transportation revolution is obvious, a completely new propulsion system for cars and aircraft that does not use fossil fuels. Gasoline is only a step above coal as a fuel. Gasoline in the transportation revolution is more primitive than DOS in the computer and communications revolution. I do not hesitate to write that if we put anything like the same creativity into the transportation as we do into the communications revolution, everything would be running on sunshine by now, and in fact would have been doing so for quite some time.
Why are we unable to make anything but relatively minor improvements in the transportation revolution? The primary reason is that the primary nodes of the communications revolution are much smaller and less expensive. Phones and computers as opposed to cars and jet airplanes. Trying out new systems and products thus costs much less. In the communications revolution, an average college student might come up with a revolutionary ides, drop out of college to pursue it and be a billionaire by age 30. That is very unlikely to happen in the transportation revolution. It is virtually impossible for an ordinary person to put their creativity into the design of cars and aircraft in the same way as in computers and other communications devices.
Transportation progress hit a plateau in the sixties that it has never broken out of. We cannot put the same creativity into it as we can into communications because the required investment is so much more. It is both unfair and unrealistic to demand that automakers come up with a totally different propulsion system. Even if thay did, they would each come up with a different standard.
This is a project that is beyond the capacity of any automaker. The required investment would be too vast and the certainty of profit in the foreseeable future too low. What if the government decided to develop solar energy technology in the same way that it developed the internet and then turned the technology over to the private sector? What kind of world would we live in today if it had done that upon the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Gamma Burning
I have been thinking about a possible solution to the high cost of fuel. For one thing, we must forget about replacing gasoline (petrol) with ethanol. Food costs are rising nearly as fast as that of fuel and massive ethanol production would reduce food production by diverting agricultural land use. My idea is to tinker with the burning process itself rather than seeking new fuels. I would like to introduce my concept of "Gamma Burning", which is an artificial method of burning a material for the release of heat energy.
Let's consider the chemical bonds between atoms in a molecule. There are a few different types of bond, such as sigma and pi bonds. Carbon atoms in organic substances can also be bound by either single, double or, triple bonds. Each inter-atomic bond in a molecule contains energy. It is this bond energy that binds the atoms together.
When these bonds are somehow broken, the energy in the bond is released as heat. Digestion is actually a form of burning that does not produce a lot of heat, the calories in a food are essentially the sum of the energy in it's molecular bonds that are broken during the digestion process. A substance will burn when a flame is applied to it if the energy in it's molecular bonds is greater than the energy it takes to break the bonds. If it is not, the breaking of the bonds by the heat released by the breaking of other bonds will not be self-sustaining and the material will not burn.
The heat released by burning is the difference between that released by broken bonds and that required to break the bonds. My idea is that if we could come up with an artificial way to break the inter-atomic bonds in molecules to release their energy, we could obtain more energy from a material than conventional burning could deliver because the heat energy to break the bonds would not be required.
Now, let's consider gamma rays. These are electromagnetic waves just as light, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray and, radio waves are. But gamma rays are the waves of the highest frequency and thus, the shortest wavelength and highest energy. Gamma rays are often found in the cosmic rays that continuously bombard the earth from space. What if we could generate gamma rays of a specific wavelength?
Gamma rays are electromagnetic waves like radio waves but of a much higher frequency. We know that radio waves are best received by an antenna which is half the wavelength in length. My belief is that if we could bombard a quantity of material with gamma rays that are twice the wavelength of the molecular bonds in the material that the bonds would absorb the full energy of the gamma rays and would thus be broken and release their heat. Gamma rays cause cell and gene damage in living things by breaking molecular bonds.
There is energy in the molecular bonds in any material but it is only useful to us if the material can be made to burn. The truth is that heat is a very crude way to break molecular bonds. It does so by causing the atoms to vibrate until the bonds between them break and release more heat energy to sustain the process. The infrared radiation of heat shakes the atoms to break their bonds but gamma rays of the right wavelength would be absorbed directly by the bonds themselves and snap them, thus releasing their energy as heat.
It is somewhat like pulling a string until it breaks as opposed to the much more efficient process of directly cutting it with a scissors. Also, a material will burn only if there are few enough electrons in the outer orbital of it's atoms to permit oxidation to take place. Oxidation is necessary to the burning process to carry away the atoms whose bonds have already been broken to release their heat to get them out of the way so that the process can continue. The usual oxidizer is, as the name implies, oxygen. Although it is not the only chemical that can act as an oxidizer.
I beleive it is possible for gamma burning to take place without oxidation. This means that we can take the loose atoms of a substance that has undergone gamma burning and recombine them into something else. This is not possible with conventional burning due to oxidation. We can manipulate matter by selectively breaking the bonds of a certain length while leaving the others intact. A substance can be vaporized and it's atoms rearranged by cutting it's molecular bonds without heat.
Remember that it is the carbon dioxide produced by the combining of a carbon atom from a burned fuel with two atoms of oxygen in the air during the oxidation process that causes global warming. If my gamma burning process can release the energy without conventional burning and oxidation, not only can we get much more energy from fuels because none of the heat energy will be needed to break further molecular bonds, but there will be no exhaust oxidation of carbon.
Gamma burning would also revolutionize space travel because no liquid oxygen or other oxidizer would be needed. In gamma burning, energy would be released much more rapidly than in conventional burning. The process would certainly provide far more energy than it would require to generate the gamma rays and would leave the released atoms available for other uses. But this only involves molecular bonds between atoms, it will not enable us to collect a pile of scrap metal and turn it into gold because this would require a change in the atoms.
Finally, I would like to speculate on what we might be able to do if we could create a laser using gamma rays instead of red or green light. A gamma ray laser, or GRASER as I will call it. We could point the GRASER at something and literally snap the inter-atomic bonds in all it's molecules, causing the object to cease to exist.
Let's consider the chemical bonds between atoms in a molecule. There are a few different types of bond, such as sigma and pi bonds. Carbon atoms in organic substances can also be bound by either single, double or, triple bonds. Each inter-atomic bond in a molecule contains energy. It is this bond energy that binds the atoms together.
When these bonds are somehow broken, the energy in the bond is released as heat. Digestion is actually a form of burning that does not produce a lot of heat, the calories in a food are essentially the sum of the energy in it's molecular bonds that are broken during the digestion process. A substance will burn when a flame is applied to it if the energy in it's molecular bonds is greater than the energy it takes to break the bonds. If it is not, the breaking of the bonds by the heat released by the breaking of other bonds will not be self-sustaining and the material will not burn.
The heat released by burning is the difference between that released by broken bonds and that required to break the bonds. My idea is that if we could come up with an artificial way to break the inter-atomic bonds in molecules to release their energy, we could obtain more energy from a material than conventional burning could deliver because the heat energy to break the bonds would not be required.
Now, let's consider gamma rays. These are electromagnetic waves just as light, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray and, radio waves are. But gamma rays are the waves of the highest frequency and thus, the shortest wavelength and highest energy. Gamma rays are often found in the cosmic rays that continuously bombard the earth from space. What if we could generate gamma rays of a specific wavelength?
Gamma rays are electromagnetic waves like radio waves but of a much higher frequency. We know that radio waves are best received by an antenna which is half the wavelength in length. My belief is that if we could bombard a quantity of material with gamma rays that are twice the wavelength of the molecular bonds in the material that the bonds would absorb the full energy of the gamma rays and would thus be broken and release their heat. Gamma rays cause cell and gene damage in living things by breaking molecular bonds.
There is energy in the molecular bonds in any material but it is only useful to us if the material can be made to burn. The truth is that heat is a very crude way to break molecular bonds. It does so by causing the atoms to vibrate until the bonds between them break and release more heat energy to sustain the process. The infrared radiation of heat shakes the atoms to break their bonds but gamma rays of the right wavelength would be absorbed directly by the bonds themselves and snap them, thus releasing their energy as heat.
It is somewhat like pulling a string until it breaks as opposed to the much more efficient process of directly cutting it with a scissors. Also, a material will burn only if there are few enough electrons in the outer orbital of it's atoms to permit oxidation to take place. Oxidation is necessary to the burning process to carry away the atoms whose bonds have already been broken to release their heat to get them out of the way so that the process can continue. The usual oxidizer is, as the name implies, oxygen. Although it is not the only chemical that can act as an oxidizer.
I beleive it is possible for gamma burning to take place without oxidation. This means that we can take the loose atoms of a substance that has undergone gamma burning and recombine them into something else. This is not possible with conventional burning due to oxidation. We can manipulate matter by selectively breaking the bonds of a certain length while leaving the others intact. A substance can be vaporized and it's atoms rearranged by cutting it's molecular bonds without heat.
Remember that it is the carbon dioxide produced by the combining of a carbon atom from a burned fuel with two atoms of oxygen in the air during the oxidation process that causes global warming. If my gamma burning process can release the energy without conventional burning and oxidation, not only can we get much more energy from fuels because none of the heat energy will be needed to break further molecular bonds, but there will be no exhaust oxidation of carbon.
Gamma burning would also revolutionize space travel because no liquid oxygen or other oxidizer would be needed. In gamma burning, energy would be released much more rapidly than in conventional burning. The process would certainly provide far more energy than it would require to generate the gamma rays and would leave the released atoms available for other uses. But this only involves molecular bonds between atoms, it will not enable us to collect a pile of scrap metal and turn it into gold because this would require a change in the atoms.
Finally, I would like to speculate on what we might be able to do if we could create a laser using gamma rays instead of red or green light. A gamma ray laser, or GRASER as I will call it. We could point the GRASER at something and literally snap the inter-atomic bonds in all it's molecules, causing the object to cease to exist.
Automobile Frames And The Safety Muffler
I have come to believe that virtually no one should ever die in a car accident. Of course, we have heard this before. Students nearing driving age are inevitably given some kind of lecture in school about driver safety, usually with accompanying slides or filmstrips about the horror of auto accidents. There is usually some similar class that would-be drivers have to sit through and in many areas, those caught speeding or committing other traffic violations have the option of spending a beautiful Saturday afternoon in a classroom listening to such a lecture.
But really, no one should die in a car wreck. Not long ago, five newly-graduated girls were killed in such a wreck in the general area where I live and a few months back, there was a similarly unfortunate tragedy east of Toronto. I began wondering what could be done besides lecturing people to drive carefully.
The construction of modern cars began over a century ago. Buildings had been built around steel frames for a few decades and cars were constructed on the same concept, as if a car was a miniature building that moves. No matter how much progress has been made in the design of cars, the basic frame around which the car is built uses the same essential concept today as a hundred years ago.
The trouble is that cars get into crashes while buildings don't. When automakers try to make cars safer based on structure, it is with an "arms race" concept, making the car more sturdy so that it's passengers are safer but those in the other car are not. As much as improvements are made to cars, I find that the basic design is the result of tradition-bound, grooved-in thinking. In contrast to the design of the body or the power of the engine, the design of the auto frame is utterly devoid of glamor or sales potential.
There are springs on the car, whether coil or leaf springs, and shock absorbers (dampers in Britain) to make the ride smoother for the passengers. Why can't the entire frame of the car be a spring? The passenger cage can be solidly built and sorrounded by a body made of springs to absorb the impact of any crash. The idea is to spread the force of impact around.
When I was a boy, there was a pond nearby that would freeze over in the winter. One day, I could not walk on the ice because it would break but I noticed that if I put a board that I found on the ice, I could walk on the board and the ice would not break. The reason is simply that the board spread my weight over a larger area of ice instead of being concentrated in one place.
The same can be done on cars, dissipating the force of an impact over the entire vehicle rather that having it concentrated in one spot. There is a company that makes giant shock absorbers to protect buildings and bridges from earthquakes. The force of an auto crash is virtually nothing compared to that of an earthquake on a building. If this can be done, then why can't the entire body of a car be designed to absorb impact?
The car could be designed to bounce back one or two meters in a head-on crash while heavy-duty rear brakes absorb much of the force of impact. A joint could be built into the steering column so that it would not be pushed into the driver and head rests could be built into all seats to prevent whiplash while the impact of the crash is absorbed.
There was a tragic recent fiery car crash in Ontario and I recalled an idea that I had first thought of after a similar crash some time previously. A lot of progress has been made in recent years, such as airbags that inflate and protect passengers upon the impact of a collision.
There is more progress that can be made in minimizing the chance of a fire breaking out following a collision. What happens is that the muffler and catalytic converter on the underside of a car gets hot so that it ignites volatile fuel which may spill onto it during a collision. This happens most often in pile-ups, when cars are likely to be struck near the fuel tank.
I recall someone once parking over some leaves, and the hot catalytic converter set the leaves ablaze. There is a limited amount of fuel that is actually in the engine, at any given time, so the fuel in the fuel tank itself is most likely to feed a fire.
The muffler is so-called because it muffles noise from the engine as the hot exhaust passes through it, as the catalytic converter neutralizes dangerous chemical compounds in the exhaust. But in doing so, both retain a lot of heat themselves which can ignite a fire if fuel spills in a crash.
Notice that such car fires occur much less frequently in winter, or during rain. This is not because cold air stops the fuel from igniting. If this were the case, the car would not even start. Fuel is actually made more volatile in the winter.
Neither does rain stop the fuel from igniting. Gasoline (petrol) is lighter than water, so that it floats, and water will just spread it over a wider area. The reason is that the cold winter air or the splashing water prevents the muffler and catalytic converter of the car from getting hot enough to ignite leaked fuel during a crash.
The reason that the muffler and catalytic converter of a vehicle gets hot enough to ignite spilled fuel is due to the way a car is designed. In the effort to make the car as aerodynamic as possible, reducing air friction so that the car moves more efficiently, the muffler-catalytic converter system is tucked up away from the stream of air that flows underneath the car as it is moving.
But this is what results in the muffler and catalytic converter building up so much heat. The engine is cooled by air flowing over the radiator, so that it does not get too hot. Why don't we design cars with the muffler and catalytic converter placed so that there is a steady stream of air all around them as the car is in motion? There could even be a screen placed to deflect air onto the parts that get hot. Another possibility is cooling fins on the muffler and catalytic converter.
This would make the car a little bit less aerodynamic, but it would be worth it in reducing car fires following collisions.
But really, no one should die in a car wreck. Not long ago, five newly-graduated girls were killed in such a wreck in the general area where I live and a few months back, there was a similarly unfortunate tragedy east of Toronto. I began wondering what could be done besides lecturing people to drive carefully.
The construction of modern cars began over a century ago. Buildings had been built around steel frames for a few decades and cars were constructed on the same concept, as if a car was a miniature building that moves. No matter how much progress has been made in the design of cars, the basic frame around which the car is built uses the same essential concept today as a hundred years ago.
The trouble is that cars get into crashes while buildings don't. When automakers try to make cars safer based on structure, it is with an "arms race" concept, making the car more sturdy so that it's passengers are safer but those in the other car are not. As much as improvements are made to cars, I find that the basic design is the result of tradition-bound, grooved-in thinking. In contrast to the design of the body or the power of the engine, the design of the auto frame is utterly devoid of glamor or sales potential.
There are springs on the car, whether coil or leaf springs, and shock absorbers (dampers in Britain) to make the ride smoother for the passengers. Why can't the entire frame of the car be a spring? The passenger cage can be solidly built and sorrounded by a body made of springs to absorb the impact of any crash. The idea is to spread the force of impact around.
When I was a boy, there was a pond nearby that would freeze over in the winter. One day, I could not walk on the ice because it would break but I noticed that if I put a board that I found on the ice, I could walk on the board and the ice would not break. The reason is simply that the board spread my weight over a larger area of ice instead of being concentrated in one place.
The same can be done on cars, dissipating the force of an impact over the entire vehicle rather that having it concentrated in one spot. There is a company that makes giant shock absorbers to protect buildings and bridges from earthquakes. The force of an auto crash is virtually nothing compared to that of an earthquake on a building. If this can be done, then why can't the entire body of a car be designed to absorb impact?
The car could be designed to bounce back one or two meters in a head-on crash while heavy-duty rear brakes absorb much of the force of impact. A joint could be built into the steering column so that it would not be pushed into the driver and head rests could be built into all seats to prevent whiplash while the impact of the crash is absorbed.
There was a tragic recent fiery car crash in Ontario and I recalled an idea that I had first thought of after a similar crash some time previously. A lot of progress has been made in recent years, such as airbags that inflate and protect passengers upon the impact of a collision.
There is more progress that can be made in minimizing the chance of a fire breaking out following a collision. What happens is that the muffler and catalytic converter on the underside of a car gets hot so that it ignites volatile fuel which may spill onto it during a collision. This happens most often in pile-ups, when cars are likely to be struck near the fuel tank.
I recall someone once parking over some leaves, and the hot catalytic converter set the leaves ablaze. There is a limited amount of fuel that is actually in the engine, at any given time, so the fuel in the fuel tank itself is most likely to feed a fire.
The muffler is so-called because it muffles noise from the engine as the hot exhaust passes through it, as the catalytic converter neutralizes dangerous chemical compounds in the exhaust. But in doing so, both retain a lot of heat themselves which can ignite a fire if fuel spills in a crash.
Notice that such car fires occur much less frequently in winter, or during rain. This is not because cold air stops the fuel from igniting. If this were the case, the car would not even start. Fuel is actually made more volatile in the winter.
Neither does rain stop the fuel from igniting. Gasoline (petrol) is lighter than water, so that it floats, and water will just spread it over a wider area. The reason is that the cold winter air or the splashing water prevents the muffler and catalytic converter of the car from getting hot enough to ignite leaked fuel during a crash.
The reason that the muffler and catalytic converter of a vehicle gets hot enough to ignite spilled fuel is due to the way a car is designed. In the effort to make the car as aerodynamic as possible, reducing air friction so that the car moves more efficiently, the muffler-catalytic converter system is tucked up away from the stream of air that flows underneath the car as it is moving.
But this is what results in the muffler and catalytic converter building up so much heat. The engine is cooled by air flowing over the radiator, so that it does not get too hot. Why don't we design cars with the muffler and catalytic converter placed so that there is a steady stream of air all around them as the car is in motion? There could even be a screen placed to deflect air onto the parts that get hot. Another possibility is cooling fins on the muffler and catalytic converter.
This would make the car a little bit less aerodynamic, but it would be worth it in reducing car fires following collisions.
Granularity
There is a factor that can cause error in various mathematical calculations that I believe should be given a name. To correctly set up a calculation of something, it is first necessary to fully understand what we are dealing with. I find that units are a significant factor in causing error in calculations if not handled properly.
I am not referring to defined units such as meters, pounds, degrees and so on. Sometimes calculations are inadvertantly set up as if it was a smooth, homogenous medium that was being dealt with when, in fact, it is not. One example is the difference between water and sand. Water is such a smooth and homogenous medium, at least down to the level of the molecules. Sand, however, is not. Sand is composed of grains, or discreet units, hence the name "granularity".
Sand may flow like water but failure to consider the size of the grains of sand and deal with it as if it were the smooth medium that water is may invite error in calculations. Granularity involves the difference between a medium that is smooth and homogenous, like water, and one that may resemble it in appearance or behavior (behaviour) but which is, in fact, composed of discreet units, such as sand.
What I will term "granular errors" occur when we assume that a medium that is grainy is in fact smooth or when we, during calculations, mistake an entity that is finite for one that is either infinite or infinitesimal. I have determined that there are basically two types of granular errors: those of the infinite and those of the infinitesimal. With either of these conditions, units become meaningless. But since we are actually dealing with the finite, this throws off our calculations.
An ideal example of granularity is the compounding of interest. Most people know that we will not come up with the same answer if we compound the interest by day as if we use continuous compounding. This is because the daily compounding revolves around a certain unit (or grain), the day, whereas continuous compounding does not.
Let me give you may favorite (favourite) example of a granular error. Suppose you have a drawer full of gloves, well-mixed and with an equal number of right- and left-hand gloves. Now suppose you reach into the drawer without looking and pull out two gloves. What are the odds that you will have a matching pair, one left and one right?
The first reaction of many people is to say that there is a fifty percent chance of having a matching pair. But this is not correct and the reason is granularity. Suppose there are ten gloves in the drawer, five right and five left. When you pull out your first glove, that will leave five gloves that would form a matching pair with it and four that would not.
Therefore, your odds are pulling out a matching pair of two gloves when you pull out the second glove are not 50/50 but 5/9, five out of nine. Due to granularity, the odds become better than even. The odds would only be 50/50 if there were an infinite number of gloves in the drawer. As long as there is any finite number of gloves, the odds must be above fifty percent. This is an example of granularity, treating something as infinite, when in fact it is finite due to the fact that the pile of gloves are composed of discreet units, the gloves.
Another type of granular error is considering something in the calculation as infinitesimal when it is not. An example of this is the neutron "bullet" that is fired toward a uranium or plutonium nucleus to begin a nuclear chain reaction. In calculating the probable distance that the neutron must travel before striking a nucleus we cannot consider the nucleus as a dimensionless point if we want the best answer. The neutron has certain dimensions of it's own that increase it's chances of striking a nucleus in a given distance over what those chances would be if the neutron was a dimensionless point.
One reason that I believe Planck's Constant shows up all over physics formulas is that space is not a smooth, homogenous medium as it appears to us. It is, in fact, composed of certain particles, as in the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity and to get accurate answers, the size of these particles or grains of space must be taken into account.
To sum up granularity, when we are doing calculations involving either the infinite or the infinitesimal, units tend to become largely meaningless. But if we are dealing with the finite that we perceive as the infinite or the infinitesimal than we open ourselves to error in such calculations.
I am not referring to defined units such as meters, pounds, degrees and so on. Sometimes calculations are inadvertantly set up as if it was a smooth, homogenous medium that was being dealt with when, in fact, it is not. One example is the difference between water and sand. Water is such a smooth and homogenous medium, at least down to the level of the molecules. Sand, however, is not. Sand is composed of grains, or discreet units, hence the name "granularity".
Sand may flow like water but failure to consider the size of the grains of sand and deal with it as if it were the smooth medium that water is may invite error in calculations. Granularity involves the difference between a medium that is smooth and homogenous, like water, and one that may resemble it in appearance or behavior (behaviour) but which is, in fact, composed of discreet units, such as sand.
What I will term "granular errors" occur when we assume that a medium that is grainy is in fact smooth or when we, during calculations, mistake an entity that is finite for one that is either infinite or infinitesimal. I have determined that there are basically two types of granular errors: those of the infinite and those of the infinitesimal. With either of these conditions, units become meaningless. But since we are actually dealing with the finite, this throws off our calculations.
An ideal example of granularity is the compounding of interest. Most people know that we will not come up with the same answer if we compound the interest by day as if we use continuous compounding. This is because the daily compounding revolves around a certain unit (or grain), the day, whereas continuous compounding does not.
Let me give you may favorite (favourite) example of a granular error. Suppose you have a drawer full of gloves, well-mixed and with an equal number of right- and left-hand gloves. Now suppose you reach into the drawer without looking and pull out two gloves. What are the odds that you will have a matching pair, one left and one right?
The first reaction of many people is to say that there is a fifty percent chance of having a matching pair. But this is not correct and the reason is granularity. Suppose there are ten gloves in the drawer, five right and five left. When you pull out your first glove, that will leave five gloves that would form a matching pair with it and four that would not.
Therefore, your odds are pulling out a matching pair of two gloves when you pull out the second glove are not 50/50 but 5/9, five out of nine. Due to granularity, the odds become better than even. The odds would only be 50/50 if there were an infinite number of gloves in the drawer. As long as there is any finite number of gloves, the odds must be above fifty percent. This is an example of granularity, treating something as infinite, when in fact it is finite due to the fact that the pile of gloves are composed of discreet units, the gloves.
Another type of granular error is considering something in the calculation as infinitesimal when it is not. An example of this is the neutron "bullet" that is fired toward a uranium or plutonium nucleus to begin a nuclear chain reaction. In calculating the probable distance that the neutron must travel before striking a nucleus we cannot consider the nucleus as a dimensionless point if we want the best answer. The neutron has certain dimensions of it's own that increase it's chances of striking a nucleus in a given distance over what those chances would be if the neutron was a dimensionless point.
One reason that I believe Planck's Constant shows up all over physics formulas is that space is not a smooth, homogenous medium as it appears to us. It is, in fact, composed of certain particles, as in the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity and to get accurate answers, the size of these particles or grains of space must be taken into account.
To sum up granularity, when we are doing calculations involving either the infinite or the infinitesimal, units tend to become largely meaningless. But if we are dealing with the finite that we perceive as the infinite or the infinitesimal than we open ourselves to error in such calculations.
Transporting Water
Fresh water is becoming ever-more valuable simply because the world has a fixed supply of it while the population is exploding. Thus, there is continually less fresh water per person. This means that rivers will become as valuable as oil wells are today.
There have already been ideas about moving vast amounts of fresh water from one place to another such as towing an iceberg to the Middle East. I notice that areas of too much water and areas of drought are often within several hundred kilometers of each other. We transport large amounts of oil and gas by pipeline. It seems to me as inevitable that we will do the same with water.
Why can't we begin large-scale shipping and piping of fresh water from where there is too much of it to where there is too little of it? Sea level is increasing because ice from Greenland is sliding into the ocean due to global warming. We can counter this by taking water from the mouths of rivers that is about to flow into the sea and sending it to dry areas devoid of water.
This will not only absorb excess water but will greatly increase the production of food. There is plenty of tension in the world over supplies of fresh water. In the U.S., dry western states like California, Nevada and, Arizona would very much like some of the water in the Great Lakes. The states around the lakes are just as determined that they not get it.
The solution is to take the water from the mouth of rivers, such as the Mississippi, which will only flow into the ocean anyway. The mouth of a river is the ideal place from which to scoop fresh water because it is the zone between fresh water and salt water. Aquatic plants and fish almost always live in one or the other but not both.
Thus, there will be minimal disturbance of the natural environment. When cross-country highways are built, why not use parallel pipes as a foundation for the roadway so that water can be sent through the pipes from where there is too much of it to where it is needed? Since we are depleting the fish in the oceans for food, why not use excess water to flood low-lying areas to create fish farms? Species of fish such as catfish grow especially well on farms.
In the Western Desert of Egypt, there is an area below sea level called the Qattara Depression. Years ago, the idea emerged to dig a canal to the Mediterranean Sea and fill it with water while generating hydroelectricity in the process. Why not fill it with fresh water instead? The Chinese government puts so much effort into trying to control the weather to improve agriculture, why not start simply transporting large amounts of water.
There have already been ideas about moving vast amounts of fresh water from one place to another such as towing an iceberg to the Middle East. I notice that areas of too much water and areas of drought are often within several hundred kilometers of each other. We transport large amounts of oil and gas by pipeline. It seems to me as inevitable that we will do the same with water.
Why can't we begin large-scale shipping and piping of fresh water from where there is too much of it to where there is too little of it? Sea level is increasing because ice from Greenland is sliding into the ocean due to global warming. We can counter this by taking water from the mouths of rivers that is about to flow into the sea and sending it to dry areas devoid of water.
This will not only absorb excess water but will greatly increase the production of food. There is plenty of tension in the world over supplies of fresh water. In the U.S., dry western states like California, Nevada and, Arizona would very much like some of the water in the Great Lakes. The states around the lakes are just as determined that they not get it.
The solution is to take the water from the mouth of rivers, such as the Mississippi, which will only flow into the ocean anyway. The mouth of a river is the ideal place from which to scoop fresh water because it is the zone between fresh water and salt water. Aquatic plants and fish almost always live in one or the other but not both.
Thus, there will be minimal disturbance of the natural environment. When cross-country highways are built, why not use parallel pipes as a foundation for the roadway so that water can be sent through the pipes from where there is too much of it to where it is needed? Since we are depleting the fish in the oceans for food, why not use excess water to flood low-lying areas to create fish farms? Species of fish such as catfish grow especially well on farms.
In the Western Desert of Egypt, there is an area below sea level called the Qattara Depression. Years ago, the idea emerged to dig a canal to the Mediterranean Sea and fill it with water while generating hydroelectricity in the process. Why not fill it with fresh water instead? The Chinese government puts so much effort into trying to control the weather to improve agriculture, why not start simply transporting large amounts of water.
The Hydrogen And Iron Perils
Here is something that you probably have not thought about. I used to be a proponent of clean hydrogen fuel until I realized something. Hydrogen supposedly burns clean and leaves only harmless water vapor (vapour) as exhaust. Most fuels that we burn today, including gasoline (petrol), are hydrocarbons. That is, their chemical structure is made mostly of carbon and hydrogen atoms. All the attention today seems to be focused on the carbon. This carbon in fuels combines with oxygen during combustion to form carbon dioxide, which is responsible for global warming.
Today, I would like to get you thinking about the hydrogen side of hydrocarbon fuels as well. When hydrogen burns, whether it is pure hydrogen or whether is is part of a larger molecule, two of the released hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom in the air to form a molecule of water, which exits into the atmosphere. The long-term peril that I realized and that no one seems to be paying attention to is that by burning hydrogen or hydrocarbons, we are permanently creating more water at the expense of oxygen. This leaves us with more water and less oxygen in the global environment.
It is more irreversible than the creation of carbon dioxide in the same engine since that will eventually be broken down by plants and the oxygen released back into the atmosphere. But water lasts essentially forever. During the era of automobiles and aircraft, we have been steadily increasing the amount of water in the world at the expense of oxygen.
We do not notice this in our daily lives but if you want to see an example just look up at the contrail (vapor trail) of a plane high in the sky. This contrail appears behind the plane when it is high enough in the sky, meaning the air outside is cold enough, for the water vapor (vapour) in the engines' exhaust to condense immediately.
This water vapor (vapour) comes from the hydrogen in the burned fuel combining with oxygen in the air just as the CO2 comes from carbon in the fuel combining with oxygen in the air. The same thing happens at ground level but is not visible to us. This comes at a time when countries across the world are trying to cope with rising sea levels.
I would like to add another peril. This one concerns the ever-increasing use of iron to manufacture steel.
As you may know, Iron is mined as ore and then combined with carbon to form steel. The presence of carbon atoms breaks the regular structure of the atoms in iron, thus giving it more strength. Various steels are made by giving the iron a certain concentration of carbon, but the carbon is never more than a few percent of the finished steel. There has only been large-scale steel production for about 150 years, but the modern world would be unimaginable without it.
The iron in steel will react with oxygen in the air to form rust. Regardless of the protection used; paint, galvanizing or, other rustproofing methods, none will last forever. All iron that is taken out of the earth by human beings will eventually turn to rust. Iron pipes were used by the Romans, as were lead pipes, but all that remains of the iron pipes today are rust-colored (coloured) streaks in the soil. Lead, which is softer but heavier than iron, came into use for pipes because it does not rust.
The iron in the ground does not rust because it exists as ores, and not as pure iron. It originated in iron asteroids which struck the earth. But when we make cars, structures, ships, appliances and, utensils of steel, we are exposing the chemically active iron to oxygen so that it will eventually rust.
When iron does rust, it combines with large quantities of oxygen. Life is actually dependent on this affinity between iron and oxygen because it is why the hemoglobin in blood carries oxygen in the body. If all of the cars in the world suddenly turned to rust, it would take up a significant amount of the oxygen in the atmosphere. So much of what we do in terms of transportation and manufacturing involves the use of oxygen. The air is about 21% oxygen and we act as if there is an unlimited supply.
The modern world is reducing the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere in three major ways. Even a slight decrease in concentration would have widespread ramifications for life on earth. We are permanently removing oxygen with the Hydrogen Peril and this Iron Peril. We are temporarily removing oxygen by creating carbon dioxide. Although this oxygen will eventually be liberated by plants, the increase in carbon dioxide decreases the oxygen available at any given time.
Iron is abundant on earth, indeed it is one of the most abundant elements in the Solar System. With an exploding global population, there is ever-increasing demand for steel and only a low percentage of steel is recycled. Eventually, all of it will turn to rust and a vast amount of oxygen will go with it.
Today, I would like to get you thinking about the hydrogen side of hydrocarbon fuels as well. When hydrogen burns, whether it is pure hydrogen or whether is is part of a larger molecule, two of the released hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom in the air to form a molecule of water, which exits into the atmosphere. The long-term peril that I realized and that no one seems to be paying attention to is that by burning hydrogen or hydrocarbons, we are permanently creating more water at the expense of oxygen. This leaves us with more water and less oxygen in the global environment.
It is more irreversible than the creation of carbon dioxide in the same engine since that will eventually be broken down by plants and the oxygen released back into the atmosphere. But water lasts essentially forever. During the era of automobiles and aircraft, we have been steadily increasing the amount of water in the world at the expense of oxygen.
We do not notice this in our daily lives but if you want to see an example just look up at the contrail (vapor trail) of a plane high in the sky. This contrail appears behind the plane when it is high enough in the sky, meaning the air outside is cold enough, for the water vapor (vapour) in the engines' exhaust to condense immediately.
This water vapor (vapour) comes from the hydrogen in the burned fuel combining with oxygen in the air just as the CO2 comes from carbon in the fuel combining with oxygen in the air. The same thing happens at ground level but is not visible to us. This comes at a time when countries across the world are trying to cope with rising sea levels.
I would like to add another peril. This one concerns the ever-increasing use of iron to manufacture steel.
As you may know, Iron is mined as ore and then combined with carbon to form steel. The presence of carbon atoms breaks the regular structure of the atoms in iron, thus giving it more strength. Various steels are made by giving the iron a certain concentration of carbon, but the carbon is never more than a few percent of the finished steel. There has only been large-scale steel production for about 150 years, but the modern world would be unimaginable without it.
The iron in steel will react with oxygen in the air to form rust. Regardless of the protection used; paint, galvanizing or, other rustproofing methods, none will last forever. All iron that is taken out of the earth by human beings will eventually turn to rust. Iron pipes were used by the Romans, as were lead pipes, but all that remains of the iron pipes today are rust-colored (coloured) streaks in the soil. Lead, which is softer but heavier than iron, came into use for pipes because it does not rust.
The iron in the ground does not rust because it exists as ores, and not as pure iron. It originated in iron asteroids which struck the earth. But when we make cars, structures, ships, appliances and, utensils of steel, we are exposing the chemically active iron to oxygen so that it will eventually rust.
When iron does rust, it combines with large quantities of oxygen. Life is actually dependent on this affinity between iron and oxygen because it is why the hemoglobin in blood carries oxygen in the body. If all of the cars in the world suddenly turned to rust, it would take up a significant amount of the oxygen in the atmosphere. So much of what we do in terms of transportation and manufacturing involves the use of oxygen. The air is about 21% oxygen and we act as if there is an unlimited supply.
The modern world is reducing the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere in three major ways. Even a slight decrease in concentration would have widespread ramifications for life on earth. We are permanently removing oxygen with the Hydrogen Peril and this Iron Peril. We are temporarily removing oxygen by creating carbon dioxide. Although this oxygen will eventually be liberated by plants, the increase in carbon dioxide decreases the oxygen available at any given time.
Iron is abundant on earth, indeed it is one of the most abundant elements in the Solar System. With an exploding global population, there is ever-increasing demand for steel and only a low percentage of steel is recycled. Eventually, all of it will turn to rust and a vast amount of oxygen will go with it.
Solving Global Warming
Sir Richard Branson, along with Al Gore, recently offered US$25,000,000 to anyone who can find a way to pull carbon out of the atmosphere at the rate of at least a billion (a thousand million) tons a year and I have been giving it some thought.
They probably mean the development of a physical process to actively reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but this is what all the plants on earth are already doing as I described in the posting below "The Other Side of Global Warming". What the world is basically doing now is taking the oil that formed from prehistoric plants and burning it in car engines to get the solar energy that was absorbed when these plants lived and releasing that energy to drive the car.
When those plants of long ago were growing, they pulled CO2 out of the air and used the energy of the sunlight to split the one carbon atom from the two oxygen atoms. The oxygen was released back into the atmosphere while the carbon atom went to build the plant's structure.
Unfortunately when the oil, the fossilized remains of these plants, is refined into gasoline and is burned in car engines, oxygen is taken out of the air and combined with carbon atoms from the gasoline to recreate the CO2 molecules that were broken up in the plants during prehistoric times.
Thus, by burning gasoline we are putting all that CO2 that has been underground and out of the atmosphere for so long, back into the atmosphere. The result is global warming because CO2 acts like a greenhouse in the earth's atmosphere.
Normally, the sun radiates energy to the earth, which absorbs it but re-radiates some of it back into space at a different wavelength. CO2 in the atmosphere does not affect the incoming radiation but it blocks the radiation that is being re-radiated by the earth back into space. So, the earth gets warmer.
Since we have released much of the carbon that was being held underground for millions of years back into the atmosphere, why not simply reverse that process? Plants operate on a cycle in terms of carbon and carbon dioxide, CO2. As the plant grows, it pulls carbon out of the air to build it's structure, as described above.
When the plant dies and decays, oxygen in the air combines with the carbon in the plant to return CO2 to the atmosphere. Since atmospheric oxygen is ordinarily diatomic, consisting of two atoms together, we get the two atoms of oxygen combining with one of carbon.
Why don't we recreate the burial of billions of tons of carbon underground and out of the atmosphere? What if all the grass that was mowed every summer was compacted into blocks and buried in a disused mine or somewhere that it could not decay and return it's carbon to the atmosphere? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would decrease.
There is all kinds of regulations about recycling garbage, why not do the same with mown grass and other plant matter? Maybe some use could even be found for the blocks of grass, as long as they could not decay. We have done a pretty good job of finding all manner of uses for discarded automobile tires.
Even if this was done on all the lawns on federal or local government properties in the U.S., Canada and, Europe, it may virtually solve global warming by permanently removing carbon from the atmosphere. I do not expect to get any money for such a simplistic solution but the way to solve this may well be low-tech and labor-intensive instead of high-tech.
They probably mean the development of a physical process to actively reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but this is what all the plants on earth are already doing as I described in the posting below "The Other Side of Global Warming". What the world is basically doing now is taking the oil that formed from prehistoric plants and burning it in car engines to get the solar energy that was absorbed when these plants lived and releasing that energy to drive the car.
When those plants of long ago were growing, they pulled CO2 out of the air and used the energy of the sunlight to split the one carbon atom from the two oxygen atoms. The oxygen was released back into the atmosphere while the carbon atom went to build the plant's structure.
Unfortunately when the oil, the fossilized remains of these plants, is refined into gasoline and is burned in car engines, oxygen is taken out of the air and combined with carbon atoms from the gasoline to recreate the CO2 molecules that were broken up in the plants during prehistoric times.
Thus, by burning gasoline we are putting all that CO2 that has been underground and out of the atmosphere for so long, back into the atmosphere. The result is global warming because CO2 acts like a greenhouse in the earth's atmosphere.
Normally, the sun radiates energy to the earth, which absorbs it but re-radiates some of it back into space at a different wavelength. CO2 in the atmosphere does not affect the incoming radiation but it blocks the radiation that is being re-radiated by the earth back into space. So, the earth gets warmer.
Since we have released much of the carbon that was being held underground for millions of years back into the atmosphere, why not simply reverse that process? Plants operate on a cycle in terms of carbon and carbon dioxide, CO2. As the plant grows, it pulls carbon out of the air to build it's structure, as described above.
When the plant dies and decays, oxygen in the air combines with the carbon in the plant to return CO2 to the atmosphere. Since atmospheric oxygen is ordinarily diatomic, consisting of two atoms together, we get the two atoms of oxygen combining with one of carbon.
Why don't we recreate the burial of billions of tons of carbon underground and out of the atmosphere? What if all the grass that was mowed every summer was compacted into blocks and buried in a disused mine or somewhere that it could not decay and return it's carbon to the atmosphere? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would decrease.
There is all kinds of regulations about recycling garbage, why not do the same with mown grass and other plant matter? Maybe some use could even be found for the blocks of grass, as long as they could not decay. We have done a pretty good job of finding all manner of uses for discarded automobile tires.
Even if this was done on all the lawns on federal or local government properties in the U.S., Canada and, Europe, it may virtually solve global warming by permanently removing carbon from the atmosphere. I do not expect to get any money for such a simplistic solution but the way to solve this may well be low-tech and labor-intensive instead of high-tech.
The Other Side Of Global Warming
The latest report on global warming by scientists from around the world was made public today and the results are the most alarming yet. The destructive spiral of warming is even further along than most scientists had suspected. The news is definitely not good.
The world is finally getting on with looking into what can possibly be done to slow down the emission of carbon dioxide, which acts as a greenhouse to radiation from the sun, into the atmosphere. This is what we should have been doing twenty or thirty years ago, but I suppose it's better late than never.
The problem is that even if we could completely stop industrial and automotive emission of CO2 tomorrow, the warming spiral is still underway and would not stop. What we really have to do is to actually pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. I propose attacking the problem from the other end as well. In my book "The Patterns of New Ideas", one of the ideas is "Hundreds of Millions of Trees".
All plants take in CO2 from the air. They then use energy from the sun caught by the plant's leaves to split the CO2 molecule into the atom of carbon and the two atoms of oxygen. The oxygen is then released back into the atmosphere and the plant builds it's structure from the carbon atoms that it has collected in this way. This means that plants, from trees on down, literally appear out of thin air.
Most of the material in a tree does not come out of the ground but from CO2 pulled in from the air. Another side of the problem of global warming that receives little attention is that rampant development has drastically reduced the total number of trees and other plants in the world over the past few decades. The problem is not just cars but also the parking space required for all of these cars.
We have been dumping an ever-increasing volume of CO2 into the atmosphere at the same time we have been removing the trees that could have helped absorb some of this CO2. On the site of the average big box store with it's vast parking lot, there may once have been hundreds of trees. Global warming could possibly be reversed if we could increase the number of trees in the world by maybe 50% and do it soon.
This means planting saplings wherever it is practically possible to do so. When these trees grow to maturity, they will pull CO2 from the atmosphere from which they will build their structures. Another possible part of the solution is hedges. A hedge is attractive as well as a safety feature along busy roads. One or two layers of hedge along a road will "catch" cars that may run off the road and absorb much of the impact. This makes a hedge a better safety feature along a road than any guardrail.
The world is finally getting on with looking into what can possibly be done to slow down the emission of carbon dioxide, which acts as a greenhouse to radiation from the sun, into the atmosphere. This is what we should have been doing twenty or thirty years ago, but I suppose it's better late than never.
The problem is that even if we could completely stop industrial and automotive emission of CO2 tomorrow, the warming spiral is still underway and would not stop. What we really have to do is to actually pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. I propose attacking the problem from the other end as well. In my book "The Patterns of New Ideas", one of the ideas is "Hundreds of Millions of Trees".
All plants take in CO2 from the air. They then use energy from the sun caught by the plant's leaves to split the CO2 molecule into the atom of carbon and the two atoms of oxygen. The oxygen is then released back into the atmosphere and the plant builds it's structure from the carbon atoms that it has collected in this way. This means that plants, from trees on down, literally appear out of thin air.
Most of the material in a tree does not come out of the ground but from CO2 pulled in from the air. Another side of the problem of global warming that receives little attention is that rampant development has drastically reduced the total number of trees and other plants in the world over the past few decades. The problem is not just cars but also the parking space required for all of these cars.
We have been dumping an ever-increasing volume of CO2 into the atmosphere at the same time we have been removing the trees that could have helped absorb some of this CO2. On the site of the average big box store with it's vast parking lot, there may once have been hundreds of trees. Global warming could possibly be reversed if we could increase the number of trees in the world by maybe 50% and do it soon.
This means planting saplings wherever it is practically possible to do so. When these trees grow to maturity, they will pull CO2 from the atmosphere from which they will build their structures. Another possible part of the solution is hedges. A hedge is attractive as well as a safety feature along busy roads. One or two layers of hedge along a road will "catch" cars that may run off the road and absorb much of the impact. This makes a hedge a better safety feature along a road than any guardrail.
Light And Dark Shades
If we knew decades ago that global warming would become a danger to the world, what could we have done differently? One thing that immediately comes to mind is the shades of color (colour) on the large-scale structures built by human beings that face the sun. Most people know that dark shades absorb heat while light shades reflect heat.
If you take a look at satellite imagery of your hometown, or the nearest city for which such imagery is available online, on http://www.maps.google.com/ you will most likely see that most of what you see, streets, parking lots and, the roofs of large buildings, are dark and thus are absorbing more heat from the sun than if they were of a lighter shade. What we would need, of course, is asphalt that is light in shade. This would absorb much less solar heat and decrease global warming.
Moving vehicles should be just the opposite. A dark car will get better fuel mileage than a light car. This is because dark absorbs heat and causes the surface of the dark car to be hotter. This makes the air rise faster from the surface of the dark car and thus improves it's aerodynamics, meaning that it will use less fuel.
This principle has other applications as well. In my book, "The Patterns of New Ideas", I suggested that since heat in wires increases electrical resistance, the world would save a vast amount of electricity over time if all electrical wires exposed to the sun, on telephone poles and utility towers, were light in shade instead of the black that seems to be the rule.
If you take a look at satellite imagery of your hometown, or the nearest city for which such imagery is available online, on http://www.maps.google.com/ you will most likely see that most of what you see, streets, parking lots and, the roofs of large buildings, are dark and thus are absorbing more heat from the sun than if they were of a lighter shade. What we would need, of course, is asphalt that is light in shade. This would absorb much less solar heat and decrease global warming.
Moving vehicles should be just the opposite. A dark car will get better fuel mileage than a light car. This is because dark absorbs heat and causes the surface of the dark car to be hotter. This makes the air rise faster from the surface of the dark car and thus improves it's aerodynamics, meaning that it will use less fuel.
This principle has other applications as well. In my book, "The Patterns of New Ideas", I suggested that since heat in wires increases electrical resistance, the world would save a vast amount of electricity over time if all electrical wires exposed to the sun, on telephone poles and utility towers, were light in shade instead of the black that seems to be the rule.
Magnetic Fields From Power Lines
As we know, a magnetic field emanates from a wire carrying an electric current. The field radiates out at right angles from the direction of the current. This principle is the basis for electromagnets and electric motors.
Opposing magnetic fields will cancel each other out. Thus, a double wire carrying a direct current from a power source to a load, such as a light bulb, and back again will manifest essentially no magnetic field because the magnetic fields produce by each of the two parallel wire will be opposite and will cancel out.
For large power plants, alternating current has an advantage over direct current in that it can be easily transformed from one voltage to another by the common device known as a transformer. Alternating current, or AC, operates as a sine wave. The wave starts at zero, goes to a peak, returns to zero and then goes to a negative peak before returning to zero.
This means that alternating current must have a certain frequency. The U.S. and Canada use a system that produces 60 hertz, or cycles per second. The signal for the electrons to move travels at the speed of light along the wire, but the electrons do not actually move this fast. So, the wavelength of alternating current will be the speed of light, 300 million meters per second, divided by the frequency. This would give North American alternating current a wavelength of 5,000 km.
The thought that occurred to me is that the longer the AC circuit, the more difference there will be in the point on the sine wave in the two parallel wires at any given point on the cable. In other words, the AC waves in a parallel wire will not be exactly the same when opposite each other and so will not completely cancel out.
This must mean that the cable will manifest a magnetic field alternating at the same rate as the current. Notice that when listening to an AM radio station when driving, high-tension power lines overhead will interfere with the signal while the local electric lines do not. The high voltage is not the only reason. The high-tension lines are used for long distance power transmission, meaning that the circuit is much longer than the local circuits and the parallel magnetic fields produced by current in the cables does not completely cancel out.
The point of this is concern about how these synthetic magnetic fields affect the earth's natural magnetic field. Earth's field spans the north and south magnetic poles but high-tension lines go in all directions. This means that in some places, the synthetic magnetic fields must be reinforcing earth's field and in other places weakening it.
This affects the Van Allen Belts around earth that shield us from charged particles coming in from space. In some places, particles may be blocked that would otherwise have gotten through while in other places, particles will get through that would otherwise have not gotten through.
Opposing magnetic fields will cancel each other out. Thus, a double wire carrying a direct current from a power source to a load, such as a light bulb, and back again will manifest essentially no magnetic field because the magnetic fields produce by each of the two parallel wire will be opposite and will cancel out.
For large power plants, alternating current has an advantage over direct current in that it can be easily transformed from one voltage to another by the common device known as a transformer. Alternating current, or AC, operates as a sine wave. The wave starts at zero, goes to a peak, returns to zero and then goes to a negative peak before returning to zero.
This means that alternating current must have a certain frequency. The U.S. and Canada use a system that produces 60 hertz, or cycles per second. The signal for the electrons to move travels at the speed of light along the wire, but the electrons do not actually move this fast. So, the wavelength of alternating current will be the speed of light, 300 million meters per second, divided by the frequency. This would give North American alternating current a wavelength of 5,000 km.
The thought that occurred to me is that the longer the AC circuit, the more difference there will be in the point on the sine wave in the two parallel wires at any given point on the cable. In other words, the AC waves in a parallel wire will not be exactly the same when opposite each other and so will not completely cancel out.
This must mean that the cable will manifest a magnetic field alternating at the same rate as the current. Notice that when listening to an AM radio station when driving, high-tension power lines overhead will interfere with the signal while the local electric lines do not. The high voltage is not the only reason. The high-tension lines are used for long distance power transmission, meaning that the circuit is much longer than the local circuits and the parallel magnetic fields produced by current in the cables does not completely cancel out.
The point of this is concern about how these synthetic magnetic fields affect the earth's natural magnetic field. Earth's field spans the north and south magnetic poles but high-tension lines go in all directions. This means that in some places, the synthetic magnetic fields must be reinforcing earth's field and in other places weakening it.
This affects the Van Allen Belts around earth that shield us from charged particles coming in from space. In some places, particles may be blocked that would otherwise have gotten through while in other places, particles will get through that would otherwise have not gotten through.
The Growth Mechanisms Of Plants
Since global warming due to increased carbon dioxide in the air is a well-established fact and food prices are also rising across the world, wouldn't it be great if we could just turn all of that excess carbon in the air into food?
The so-called Green Revolution of the 1960s, led by Norman Borlagh, was a success but we could really use another such revolution about now. Plants pull carbon out of the air for use in building the structure of the plant and release oxygen after using the energy of sunlight to split molecules of carbon dioxide. My proposal is that since all living things have a mechanism telling them how fast to grow, in humans it is associated with the thyroid gland, why can't we tinker with the growth mechanism in plants?
The previous green revolution made crops grow larger, what if now we could make them grow faster? We have been cross-breeding plants for thousands of years. St. Paul used the parable of the wild and cultivated olive trees in his Letter to the Romans contained in the Bible.
Today, so many foods have been genetically modified. Why couldn't we adjust the growth mechanism in seeds to get crops to grow two or three times as fast so that there are multiple crops per year instead of just one? Not only would this provide an abundance of food and more jobs, but it would pull a vast amount of carbon out of the air.
Over the long term, there has been a similar concentration of carbon dioxide in the air for millions of years and plants are adapted to this level. In recent years we have raised this concentration by burning fossil fuels. This opens the possibility that plants could possibly grow faster but nature takes a long time to adjust to such changes. Why can't we adjust the speed of crop growth since we have the ability?
Plants are physically capable of growing much faster than they do, look at bamboo as an example, but the bottleneck until now has been the availability of carbon. I do not claim that this will be as simple as I have made it seem here. Making plants grow much faster than they do now is a definite possibility but it will require more chemical fertilizer and also more water, which will be a problem in many areas.
But consider a country like Brazil. It has really been trying to step up it's already vast production of food, it does not seem to have a serious shortage of water and we could solve so many of the world's problems just by making crops grow faster.
The so-called Green Revolution of the 1960s, led by Norman Borlagh, was a success but we could really use another such revolution about now. Plants pull carbon out of the air for use in building the structure of the plant and release oxygen after using the energy of sunlight to split molecules of carbon dioxide. My proposal is that since all living things have a mechanism telling them how fast to grow, in humans it is associated with the thyroid gland, why can't we tinker with the growth mechanism in plants?
The previous green revolution made crops grow larger, what if now we could make them grow faster? We have been cross-breeding plants for thousands of years. St. Paul used the parable of the wild and cultivated olive trees in his Letter to the Romans contained in the Bible.
Today, so many foods have been genetically modified. Why couldn't we adjust the growth mechanism in seeds to get crops to grow two or three times as fast so that there are multiple crops per year instead of just one? Not only would this provide an abundance of food and more jobs, but it would pull a vast amount of carbon out of the air.
Over the long term, there has been a similar concentration of carbon dioxide in the air for millions of years and plants are adapted to this level. In recent years we have raised this concentration by burning fossil fuels. This opens the possibility that plants could possibly grow faster but nature takes a long time to adjust to such changes. Why can't we adjust the speed of crop growth since we have the ability?
Plants are physically capable of growing much faster than they do, look at bamboo as an example, but the bottleneck until now has been the availability of carbon. I do not claim that this will be as simple as I have made it seem here. Making plants grow much faster than they do now is a definite possibility but it will require more chemical fertilizer and also more water, which will be a problem in many areas.
But consider a country like Brazil. It has really been trying to step up it's already vast production of food, it does not seem to have a serious shortage of water and we could solve so many of the world's problems just by making crops grow faster.
The Sea Spectroscope
This is certainly an idea whose time has passed but I find it intriguing anyway. There is a navigation tool that would have been extremely useful in the days of sailing ships hundreds of years ago except that it seems no one ever thought of it. The telescope was invented by a Dutch maker of eyeglasses and used with great effect for astronomical observations by Galileo. Ship captains often carried hand-held telescopes to sea.
In 1666, Isaac Newton discovered that white light, which is a mixture of all colors (colours), can be broken down into it's component colours by passing it through a glass prism. This was the beginning of the spectroscope. (Note: to avoid continuous use of parenthesis, I will alternate the two global spellings of the word color or colour).
As I pointed out in the posting "Plants and Light", the daytime sky contains every major color except much green and this is why plants are green. Clouds are white because the droplets of water in them do the opposite of a prism, they merge all colours together into white light. All colors, that is, except green but our eyes cannot tell the difference whether much green is included or not.
The thing that surprises me is that no one thought of combining a telescope with a prism and taking of it to sea. If the scope was focused on a cloud near the horizon, it would quickly tell the captain whether land was near. No significant amount of green light comes from the sky and the water absorbs blue light last so the sea is blue. This means that if the cloud was shown to contain green light, it can only be from land under the cloud. The same technique could be used to tell travellers on land whether they were near a large body of water.
In 1666, Isaac Newton discovered that white light, which is a mixture of all colors (colours), can be broken down into it's component colours by passing it through a glass prism. This was the beginning of the spectroscope. (Note: to avoid continuous use of parenthesis, I will alternate the two global spellings of the word color or colour).
As I pointed out in the posting "Plants and Light", the daytime sky contains every major color except much green and this is why plants are green. Clouds are white because the droplets of water in them do the opposite of a prism, they merge all colours together into white light. All colors, that is, except green but our eyes cannot tell the difference whether much green is included or not.
The thing that surprises me is that no one thought of combining a telescope with a prism and taking of it to sea. If the scope was focused on a cloud near the horizon, it would quickly tell the captain whether land was near. No significant amount of green light comes from the sky and the water absorbs blue light last so the sea is blue. This means that if the cloud was shown to contain green light, it can only be from land under the cloud. The same technique could be used to tell travellers on land whether they were near a large body of water.
Tides In Ancient Times
One thing that I am surprised Europeans in ancient times and the Middle Ages did not notice is that the distance span between high and low tides can be used to gain a fairly good approximation of how vast a body of water is in comparison with another. The extent of the Atlantic Ocean and what was on the other side was a complete mystery until about five hundred years ago. As far as I can tell, no one in Roman times or before had the slightest idea of the scope of the ocean, they just knew that it seemed to go on forever.
The Mediterranean Sea, in contrast, was very familiar. The Romans called it "Mare Nostrum" (our sea). Ships crossed it continuously as is famously illustrated in the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible. Tides are caused by the gravity of the moon and, to a lesser extent, the sun. There is a low tide and a high tide each day unless the arrangement of the local landscape plays tricks with the usual tidal pattern, as does the Isle of Wight on England's south coast.
The span between the water level of high and that of low tide depends, to a large extent, on the volume of water in the sea or ocean. The more water there is, the greater the span of the tide will logically be. The depth of the water is a factor too, but since all large bodies of water are shallow relative to their width, depth can be safely ignored here.
The Mediterranean Sea has relatively weak tides. This is simply because, despite it's role in human history, it is a limited body of water, globally speaking. The Atlantic Ocean, in contrast, has a great tidal range because it is a far bigger body of water.
My surprise is that apparently, no one thought to estimate how wide the Atlantic was by measuring the average tide span around the Mediterranean, doing the same along the European coast of the Atlantic and figuring that it would give a good estimate of the extent of the Atlantic Ocean in comparison with the Mediterranean. My feeling is that if Alexander's conquests had gone westward instead of eastward, one of the scholars of ancient Greece would probably have thought of this.
The Mediterranean Sea, in contrast, was very familiar. The Romans called it "Mare Nostrum" (our sea). Ships crossed it continuously as is famously illustrated in the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible. Tides are caused by the gravity of the moon and, to a lesser extent, the sun. There is a low tide and a high tide each day unless the arrangement of the local landscape plays tricks with the usual tidal pattern, as does the Isle of Wight on England's south coast.
The span between the water level of high and that of low tide depends, to a large extent, on the volume of water in the sea or ocean. The more water there is, the greater the span of the tide will logically be. The depth of the water is a factor too, but since all large bodies of water are shallow relative to their width, depth can be safely ignored here.
The Mediterranean Sea has relatively weak tides. This is simply because, despite it's role in human history, it is a limited body of water, globally speaking. The Atlantic Ocean, in contrast, has a great tidal range because it is a far bigger body of water.
My surprise is that apparently, no one thought to estimate how wide the Atlantic was by measuring the average tide span around the Mediterranean, doing the same along the European coast of the Atlantic and figuring that it would give a good estimate of the extent of the Atlantic Ocean in comparison with the Mediterranean. My feeling is that if Alexander's conquests had gone westward instead of eastward, one of the scholars of ancient Greece would probably have thought of this.
Slowing The Rotation Of The Earth
Are you getting tired of reading about and worrying about global warming? Not a problem, let me introduce the next environmental issue to worry about. Civilization has got to be slowing the rotation of the earth.
When glaciers in the arctic melt into liquid water because of global warming, the water spreads out southward toward the equator. Thus, the melting of arctic ice sheets is not only raising sea level, it is also redistributing the earth's mass toward the equator.
Now, consider that the earth is rotating once a day. When a mass of water moves from the arctic to the equator, it must move in a wider circle each time the earth rotates. This means simply that a mass or object at the equator must move further each day to rotate with the earth than it would if it was at a higher latitude.
If the earth's mass was rearranged so that more matter had to move further with each rotation, it would violate the laws of physics for the earth to keep rotating at the same speed. So, when a sheet of ice in the arctic melts and the water flows toward the equator, it is necessary that the earth's rotation slows down slightly to compensate and avoid violating the laws of motion.
The fact that melting glaciers will be slowing the earth's rotation is not my idea, there is already discussion going on about it.
The purpose of this posting is that I would like to add to it. I have come to realize that modern civilization in general, and not just global warming, must be slowing the rotation of the earth.
Whenever an object or a quantity of matter on earth is relocated so that it must move in a wider circle during the rotation of the earth, the earth's rotation must necessarily slow down a little bit to compensate in order to avoid violating the laws of physics. This happens whenever something moves from a higher latitude closer to the equator. It also happens whenever anything moves from a lower to a higher altitude on earth because this means that it will have to move through a wider circle during rotation.
When you roll a stone up a hill, the earth's rotation must slow down a little bit to compensate. Roll the stone back down the hill and it speeds back up. Roll the stone toward the equator and the rotation will slow, roll it toward a pole and it will speed up. This is the same principle used by a governor on a spinning axle to stop it from going too fast.
When a meteorite lands on earth, the rotation must slow a little bit because now there is more mass that must be rotated. When a spacecraft leaves the earth, the rotation speeds up for the opposite reason. When a ship sinks to the bottom of the sea, it must move over less distance when the earth rotates because it is closer to the earth's center and this will cause the rotation to speed up.
What about the building of a skyscraper? We are taking iron, stone and, other materials from under the ground and putting them up in the sky so that they now have to travel further when the earth rotates. Thus, every time we take materials from under the ground and put then either on the earth's surface or high above ground, we are contributing to the slowing of the rotation and lengthening the days. This includes all mining and quarrying.
One side of global warming that I have never heard referred to is that with all the carbon dioxide we are pumping into the air, the atmosphere is getting heavier. This is especially true since CO2 is heavier than the same volume of air. We are taking petroleum from deep underground and turning it into carbon dioxide high in the sky so that it has to travel in a wider circle when the earth rotates.
This slowing of the earth's rotation due to civilization is compounded by the fact that the human population of the earth is concentrated in the warmer areas of the planet close to the equator. This causes more slowing of the rotation than if the population were closer to the poles.
Of course, no matter what humans do we are not capable of slowing the planet's rotation by much. This inevitable slowing of the rotation will only be critical if there is some factor that is closely dependent on the speed of the rotation, in other words the length of a day.
The first thing that comes to mind is the earth's magnetic field. The earth is actually a magnet and the slower it rotates, the weaker the magnetic field will be. It is the earth's magnetic field that forms the two Van Allen Belts out in space that protect us from charged particles, particularly those from the sun. If the magnetic field weakened even a little bit, it would allow more charged particles to get through from space.
When glaciers in the arctic melt into liquid water because of global warming, the water spreads out southward toward the equator. Thus, the melting of arctic ice sheets is not only raising sea level, it is also redistributing the earth's mass toward the equator.
Now, consider that the earth is rotating once a day. When a mass of water moves from the arctic to the equator, it must move in a wider circle each time the earth rotates. This means simply that a mass or object at the equator must move further each day to rotate with the earth than it would if it was at a higher latitude.
If the earth's mass was rearranged so that more matter had to move further with each rotation, it would violate the laws of physics for the earth to keep rotating at the same speed. So, when a sheet of ice in the arctic melts and the water flows toward the equator, it is necessary that the earth's rotation slows down slightly to compensate and avoid violating the laws of motion.
The fact that melting glaciers will be slowing the earth's rotation is not my idea, there is already discussion going on about it.
The purpose of this posting is that I would like to add to it. I have come to realize that modern civilization in general, and not just global warming, must be slowing the rotation of the earth.
Whenever an object or a quantity of matter on earth is relocated so that it must move in a wider circle during the rotation of the earth, the earth's rotation must necessarily slow down a little bit to compensate in order to avoid violating the laws of physics. This happens whenever something moves from a higher latitude closer to the equator. It also happens whenever anything moves from a lower to a higher altitude on earth because this means that it will have to move through a wider circle during rotation.
When you roll a stone up a hill, the earth's rotation must slow down a little bit to compensate. Roll the stone back down the hill and it speeds back up. Roll the stone toward the equator and the rotation will slow, roll it toward a pole and it will speed up. This is the same principle used by a governor on a spinning axle to stop it from going too fast.
When a meteorite lands on earth, the rotation must slow a little bit because now there is more mass that must be rotated. When a spacecraft leaves the earth, the rotation speeds up for the opposite reason. When a ship sinks to the bottom of the sea, it must move over less distance when the earth rotates because it is closer to the earth's center and this will cause the rotation to speed up.
What about the building of a skyscraper? We are taking iron, stone and, other materials from under the ground and putting them up in the sky so that they now have to travel further when the earth rotates. Thus, every time we take materials from under the ground and put then either on the earth's surface or high above ground, we are contributing to the slowing of the rotation and lengthening the days. This includes all mining and quarrying.
One side of global warming that I have never heard referred to is that with all the carbon dioxide we are pumping into the air, the atmosphere is getting heavier. This is especially true since CO2 is heavier than the same volume of air. We are taking petroleum from deep underground and turning it into carbon dioxide high in the sky so that it has to travel in a wider circle when the earth rotates.
This slowing of the earth's rotation due to civilization is compounded by the fact that the human population of the earth is concentrated in the warmer areas of the planet close to the equator. This causes more slowing of the rotation than if the population were closer to the poles.
Of course, no matter what humans do we are not capable of slowing the planet's rotation by much. This inevitable slowing of the rotation will only be critical if there is some factor that is closely dependent on the speed of the rotation, in other words the length of a day.
The first thing that comes to mind is the earth's magnetic field. The earth is actually a magnet and the slower it rotates, the weaker the magnetic field will be. It is the earth's magnetic field that forms the two Van Allen Belts out in space that protect us from charged particles, particularly those from the sun. If the magnetic field weakened even a little bit, it would allow more charged particles to get through from space.
The Zero Hypothesis
Have you ever noticed the bizarre curve in the progress of technology in human history? A lifetime is really too short to notice but technical progress since the beginning of civilization has been somewhat like a turtle morphing into a very fast rabbit for the last 1/15 or so of a race. If we consider civilization as having begun about 7,000 years ago, almost all of our technical progress, relatively speaking, since then has been in the last 350 years.
There has been intermittent progress throughout civilization such as the development of writing, alphabets, geometry, cement and, flying buttresses. However, none of these steps had much effect on the daily life of the average person. In contrast, the last three and a half centuries have been incredibly different. The Industrial Revolution led to the Nineteenth Century revolution in chemistry, which led to the Twentieth Century revolution in physics.
Before this, humans were adept at agriculture, building, medicine, navigation, mining, measurement, writing, calendars and, time-keeping. The one thing that was missing was machines. Anything that human beings made before 350 years ago that could be described as a machine was very rudimentary. When the Industrial Revolution came, it was based on machines and affected all other areas of progress.
But why did human history unfold like this? I believe that the Reformation opened the psychological door to the Industrial Revolution but did not provide the vehicle. The newly-invented printing press spread the Industrial Revolution and promoted mass-education but I do not believe that it was the cause of it. National rivalry spurred competition but I do not believe that it caused the Industrial Revolution either.
My conclusion is that it was simple arithmetic that turned out to be revolutionary. Geometry, which is vital to the construction of complex buildings, was quite advanced in ancient times. In fact, it was much more advanced that arithmetic. It struck me one day that there are no complex calculations discussed or mentioned in the Bible. The most complex calculation seems to be 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. In contrast, the construction of the temple is told in geometric detail and plumbs and surveying is also discussed in the Bible.
The Industrial Revolution actually began with a gradual numbers revolution and when that became embedded in our thinking, the machines naturally followed. People could count since prehistoric times either with their fingers or piles of stones. A variety of abaci (the plural of abacus is abaci) and counting boards have been in use for thousands of years.
What I have concluded that changed the course of history is the concept of zero. When the importance of zero is fully grasped, very complex calculations can be done on paper. Without using zero, we are limited to the relatively simple calculations that can be done with abaci and counting boards. It is not necessary to understand the importance of zero in order to use these simple devices but it is to do complex calculations on paper.
Geometry became advanced long before arithmetic because it did not require understanding of the importance of zero. The building of elaborate structures requires geometry but only relatively simple arithmetical calculations because buildings do not have moving parts. The planning of machines, in contrast, require complex calculations with numbers and this could not be done in ancient times.
Have you ever noticed the similarity between an addition or multiplication problem and the operation of machines involving wheels or pistons? Not only did the ability to do complex calculations make the development of machines possible, those early machines even resemble the operation of an arithmetic problem as the operation moves from one column to the next. The Arabs seem to have introduced the idea of zero to Europe and I believe that merchants brought it to them from India.
There has been intermittent progress throughout civilization such as the development of writing, alphabets, geometry, cement and, flying buttresses. However, none of these steps had much effect on the daily life of the average person. In contrast, the last three and a half centuries have been incredibly different. The Industrial Revolution led to the Nineteenth Century revolution in chemistry, which led to the Twentieth Century revolution in physics.
Before this, humans were adept at agriculture, building, medicine, navigation, mining, measurement, writing, calendars and, time-keeping. The one thing that was missing was machines. Anything that human beings made before 350 years ago that could be described as a machine was very rudimentary. When the Industrial Revolution came, it was based on machines and affected all other areas of progress.
But why did human history unfold like this? I believe that the Reformation opened the psychological door to the Industrial Revolution but did not provide the vehicle. The newly-invented printing press spread the Industrial Revolution and promoted mass-education but I do not believe that it was the cause of it. National rivalry spurred competition but I do not believe that it caused the Industrial Revolution either.
My conclusion is that it was simple arithmetic that turned out to be revolutionary. Geometry, which is vital to the construction of complex buildings, was quite advanced in ancient times. In fact, it was much more advanced that arithmetic. It struck me one day that there are no complex calculations discussed or mentioned in the Bible. The most complex calculation seems to be 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. In contrast, the construction of the temple is told in geometric detail and plumbs and surveying is also discussed in the Bible.
The Industrial Revolution actually began with a gradual numbers revolution and when that became embedded in our thinking, the machines naturally followed. People could count since prehistoric times either with their fingers or piles of stones. A variety of abaci (the plural of abacus is abaci) and counting boards have been in use for thousands of years.
What I have concluded that changed the course of history is the concept of zero. When the importance of zero is fully grasped, very complex calculations can be done on paper. Without using zero, we are limited to the relatively simple calculations that can be done with abaci and counting boards. It is not necessary to understand the importance of zero in order to use these simple devices but it is to do complex calculations on paper.
Geometry became advanced long before arithmetic because it did not require understanding of the importance of zero. The building of elaborate structures requires geometry but only relatively simple arithmetical calculations because buildings do not have moving parts. The planning of machines, in contrast, require complex calculations with numbers and this could not be done in ancient times.
Have you ever noticed the similarity between an addition or multiplication problem and the operation of machines involving wheels or pistons? Not only did the ability to do complex calculations make the development of machines possible, those early machines even resemble the operation of an arithmetic problem as the operation moves from one column to the next. The Arabs seem to have introduced the idea of zero to Europe and I believe that merchants brought it to them from India.
The Most Valuable Unit
There is a common measurement that could be extremely useful to us but is rarely used. Whenever we look at an object, it manifests a certain angular diameter in our field of vision. The angular diameter of any object in our vision is proportional to it's actual diameter divided by it's distance from us. Of course, if it is an unevenly sided object, trigonometric functions must come into play.
But measuring and expressing angular diameter is something that we handle very poorly. We usually express angular diameter in imprecise, subjective terms such as "loomed large in the sky".
I believe that getting in the habit of precision measurement of angular diameter would be very useful because it gives us an immediate ratio of the diameter of the subject in relation to it's distance from us. This ratio determines how much of our field of vision, or that of a camera, the object will occupy. Angular diameter could be measured at least as easily as physical diameter using a simple scope or square.
The beginning of the problem is the way that we measure angles. We measure in degrees. 90 degrees is a right angle, 180 is a straight line and 360 is a complete circle.
Measurement in degrees works just fine if we are measuring the outside of a circle, such as latitude and longitude on the earth's surface. But it is my conclusion that we must deal with circles and spheres as two different entities if we are measuring the circle from the inside, instead of the outside.
Whenever we look at an object some distance away, we are forming a circle with us at the center and the object on the edge of the circle. If there is vertical elevation involved, then we form a three-dimensional sphere rather than a two-dimensional circle.
We do sometimes express angular diameter, such as the apparent distance between two stars in the sky. However, the reason that we are not making full use of thus measurement is that we try to measure in degrees. While this works fine for the outside of a sphere or circle, it works very poorly for measuring the inside and this is what we are doing when we look at an object some distance away.
My solution is to dig out that old standby of math class known as a radian. This is simply the distance on a circle equal to the radius of the circle, meaning that there are 2 pi radians in a complete circle. This is a textbook unit that is rarely used in the "real world" and I find that to be a shame because it could easily be extremely useful. Since measurement in radians is a ratio, the actual diameter of the object divided by it's distance from us, we can treat measurement of angular diameter in radians in the same way as trigonometric functions, which are also ratios.
If you look at an object such as a building perpendicular to it's center from a distance equal to the width of the building, it will occupy an angular diameter of one radian. We only have to keep in mind that this angular diameter is the arc of the circle of which the observer is at the center and not the straight line side of the building, which is actually a chord on the circle. This means that if we look at the side of a building along a line perpendicular to the side, we actually have to subtract the sine of the angle which is half the angular diameter of the building.
If the building occupies an angular diameter of 1.57 radians, which is 90 degrees, we would take the sine of half that angle, 45 degrees, which is 0.5. So, if we subtract 0.5 of 1.57 radians, we get 0.785. This means that the side of the rectangular building that we are looking at along a line perpendicular to it's side and which occupies an angular diameter of 1.57 radians, is at a distance from us of 0.785 the length of the side of the building.
Probably the reason that we do not make more use of this versatile unit is that it does not fit with our base ten number system. There is 2 pi, or 6.28 radians in a complete circle. The conversion factor with degrees is 57.3. This means that if you looked at an object from a distance ten times the object's diameter, it would occupy an angular diameter of .1 radian or 5.73 degrees.
The radian would appear to be especially useful in space travel because when a spherical body, such as a planet, occupies an angular diameter of one radian, it means that the observer is at a distance from the planet's surface equal to the radius of the planet, or the distance from it's surface to it's center.
One reason that the radian is such an interesting unit is that it is actually the only completely natural unit that human beings use. The vast majority of units that we use were created arbitrarily. Seconds, meters, feet, miles and, pounds are entirely arbitrary. A degree was chosen to be 1/360 of a complete circle because 360 is a very round and easily divisible number, but even so this is an arbitrary unit that is meaningless in the universe of inanimate matter.
Days and years can be said to be natural units because they are based on the rotation and revolution of the earth. Yet these are natural units only on earth or while measuring it. Further out in space, the day and the year are just as arbitrary as the other units.
Radians, however, are a natural unit anywhere in the universe and as far as I can see, is the only unit of which this claim can be made.
But measuring and expressing angular diameter is something that we handle very poorly. We usually express angular diameter in imprecise, subjective terms such as "loomed large in the sky".
I believe that getting in the habit of precision measurement of angular diameter would be very useful because it gives us an immediate ratio of the diameter of the subject in relation to it's distance from us. This ratio determines how much of our field of vision, or that of a camera, the object will occupy. Angular diameter could be measured at least as easily as physical diameter using a simple scope or square.
The beginning of the problem is the way that we measure angles. We measure in degrees. 90 degrees is a right angle, 180 is a straight line and 360 is a complete circle.
Measurement in degrees works just fine if we are measuring the outside of a circle, such as latitude and longitude on the earth's surface. But it is my conclusion that we must deal with circles and spheres as two different entities if we are measuring the circle from the inside, instead of the outside.
Whenever we look at an object some distance away, we are forming a circle with us at the center and the object on the edge of the circle. If there is vertical elevation involved, then we form a three-dimensional sphere rather than a two-dimensional circle.
We do sometimes express angular diameter, such as the apparent distance between two stars in the sky. However, the reason that we are not making full use of thus measurement is that we try to measure in degrees. While this works fine for the outside of a sphere or circle, it works very poorly for measuring the inside and this is what we are doing when we look at an object some distance away.
My solution is to dig out that old standby of math class known as a radian. This is simply the distance on a circle equal to the radius of the circle, meaning that there are 2 pi radians in a complete circle. This is a textbook unit that is rarely used in the "real world" and I find that to be a shame because it could easily be extremely useful. Since measurement in radians is a ratio, the actual diameter of the object divided by it's distance from us, we can treat measurement of angular diameter in radians in the same way as trigonometric functions, which are also ratios.
If you look at an object such as a building perpendicular to it's center from a distance equal to the width of the building, it will occupy an angular diameter of one radian. We only have to keep in mind that this angular diameter is the arc of the circle of which the observer is at the center and not the straight line side of the building, which is actually a chord on the circle. This means that if we look at the side of a building along a line perpendicular to the side, we actually have to subtract the sine of the angle which is half the angular diameter of the building.
If the building occupies an angular diameter of 1.57 radians, which is 90 degrees, we would take the sine of half that angle, 45 degrees, which is 0.5. So, if we subtract 0.5 of 1.57 radians, we get 0.785. This means that the side of the rectangular building that we are looking at along a line perpendicular to it's side and which occupies an angular diameter of 1.57 radians, is at a distance from us of 0.785 the length of the side of the building.
Probably the reason that we do not make more use of this versatile unit is that it does not fit with our base ten number system. There is 2 pi, or 6.28 radians in a complete circle. The conversion factor with degrees is 57.3. This means that if you looked at an object from a distance ten times the object's diameter, it would occupy an angular diameter of .1 radian or 5.73 degrees.
The radian would appear to be especially useful in space travel because when a spherical body, such as a planet, occupies an angular diameter of one radian, it means that the observer is at a distance from the planet's surface equal to the radius of the planet, or the distance from it's surface to it's center.
One reason that the radian is such an interesting unit is that it is actually the only completely natural unit that human beings use. The vast majority of units that we use were created arbitrarily. Seconds, meters, feet, miles and, pounds are entirely arbitrary. A degree was chosen to be 1/360 of a complete circle because 360 is a very round and easily divisible number, but even so this is an arbitrary unit that is meaningless in the universe of inanimate matter.
Days and years can be said to be natural units because they are based on the rotation and revolution of the earth. Yet these are natural units only on earth or while measuring it. Further out in space, the day and the year are just as arbitrary as the other units.
Radians, however, are a natural unit anywhere in the universe and as far as I can see, is the only unit of which this claim can be made.
Making It Rain
I have long noticed that in summer downpours, the heavy rain seems to begin so suddenly. It seems as if there are a few smaller drops of rain falling, the thunder and lightning starts and then all of a sudden, the heavy rain begins and it is like standing under Niagara Falls. I got to wondering about what factors could be involved in the sudden beginning of such heavy downpours.
Let's take a quick look at what happens when it rains. It can rain, at least to a moderate extent, from any sizable cloud, whether cumulus or stratus. But heavy downpours tend to come from those dark, towering cumulo-nimbus clouds that hold tremendous amounts of water.
Clouds are composed of vast numbers of water droplets that condense on dust particles in the air and hold together by hydrogen bonding. This bond occurs because water molecules are polar, one side of the water molecule is more negative and the other side more positive and the molecules thus line up end to end. When these droplets become so numerous that they collide with each other, they merge together into larger droplets that are too big to remain suspended in the air and they fall as rain, collecting other droplets as they fall.
But for heavy rain to begin so suddenly, there must be a factor that causes the droplets to begin to collide with each other at a very high rate. I say that this sudden beginning of heavy rain cannot be due to a weakening of some updraft that kept the droplets suspended in the air. Updrafts are stronger over cities than over rural areas because concrete and asphalt gain heat faster than land and if this were true, there would be significantly different rain patterns in cities in comparision with the sorrounding countryside and there is no evidence that there is.
The thought occurred to me that it is the shock wave created by lightning, which we hear as thunder, that jostles the closely packed water droplets in a dense cloud so that they collide and join into larger droplets that are too heavy to remain suspended in the air and which fall as rain. Lightning is the result of static electricity produced by the strong and close together updrafts and downdrafts in the cloud.
What better way is there to explain why heavy downpours seem to begin so suddenly after a few bolts of lightning? The microscopic droplets of water in a dense cumulo-nimbus cloud are in very close proximity to one another and it requires only the shock wave through the air, caused by sudden heating and expansion, to cause them to collide and join by hydrogen bonding so that they fall as rain.
So much effort has been put into creating rain artificially, particularly by China and Australia. The most common method thus far seems to be seeding the clouds with silver iodide using an aircraft flying above the cloud. This promotes cooling and causes more water vapor (vapor) to condense. However, such methods have had very limited success so far.
Why not craft an explosive charge attached to a balloon or rocket that can be sent into the cloud and will closely approximate the sound and shock wave of a loud thunderclap? This would be much simpler and less expensive than silver iodide seeding and would imitate nature in that it would jostle the closely-packed water droplets in a dense cloud into joining together by hydrogen bonding into larger droplets that will then fall as rain.
Let's take a quick look at what happens when it rains. It can rain, at least to a moderate extent, from any sizable cloud, whether cumulus or stratus. But heavy downpours tend to come from those dark, towering cumulo-nimbus clouds that hold tremendous amounts of water.
Clouds are composed of vast numbers of water droplets that condense on dust particles in the air and hold together by hydrogen bonding. This bond occurs because water molecules are polar, one side of the water molecule is more negative and the other side more positive and the molecules thus line up end to end. When these droplets become so numerous that they collide with each other, they merge together into larger droplets that are too big to remain suspended in the air and they fall as rain, collecting other droplets as they fall.
But for heavy rain to begin so suddenly, there must be a factor that causes the droplets to begin to collide with each other at a very high rate. I say that this sudden beginning of heavy rain cannot be due to a weakening of some updraft that kept the droplets suspended in the air. Updrafts are stronger over cities than over rural areas because concrete and asphalt gain heat faster than land and if this were true, there would be significantly different rain patterns in cities in comparision with the sorrounding countryside and there is no evidence that there is.
The thought occurred to me that it is the shock wave created by lightning, which we hear as thunder, that jostles the closely packed water droplets in a dense cloud so that they collide and join into larger droplets that are too heavy to remain suspended in the air and which fall as rain. Lightning is the result of static electricity produced by the strong and close together updrafts and downdrafts in the cloud.
What better way is there to explain why heavy downpours seem to begin so suddenly after a few bolts of lightning? The microscopic droplets of water in a dense cumulo-nimbus cloud are in very close proximity to one another and it requires only the shock wave through the air, caused by sudden heating and expansion, to cause them to collide and join by hydrogen bonding so that they fall as rain.
So much effort has been put into creating rain artificially, particularly by China and Australia. The most common method thus far seems to be seeding the clouds with silver iodide using an aircraft flying above the cloud. This promotes cooling and causes more water vapor (vapor) to condense. However, such methods have had very limited success so far.
Why not craft an explosive charge attached to a balloon or rocket that can be sent into the cloud and will closely approximate the sound and shock wave of a loud thunderclap? This would be much simpler and less expensive than silver iodide seeding and would imitate nature in that it would jostle the closely-packed water droplets in a dense cloud into joining together by hydrogen bonding into larger droplets that will then fall as rain.
The Queen Of Numbers
Here is something to really think and talk about. Have you ever stopped to ponder just how inefficient our basic counting system is, the one that we have taken for granted since early childhood? In my book, "The Patterns of New Ideas", I suggested that our present system of counting by tens is woefully inefficient and we began using this system only because we have ten fingers and people in ancient times used their fingers to count. This is surely the supreme example of how we can be technologically forward but system backward.
For ancient people, using their ten fingers to count worked just fine. But the world was to get far more complex. The four basic arithmetical operations are: addition, subtraction, multiplication and, division. Basing our counting system on any number, such as the tens that we use now, will do very well with the first three.
However the last of the four, division, is the tricky one. Division is very important in the flow of daily life, just as are the first three. The difference with division is that not all of the convenient numbers that we could possibly base our counting system on are equally divisible.
I maintain that, for maximum efficiency, the number on which we base our counting system should be as divisible as possible. It does not make sense to base the system on too high of a number because that would mean that more symbols (1,2,3,...) would have to be use and that would hinder communication. However, we have made a really great mistake by counting by tens simply because ten is so poorly divisible.
Consider that by far the most important and most frequent measurement that human beings take is that of time. In fact, we take measurements of time many times more often than all other entities that we measure such as distance, weight, temperature, etc. Now notice when you look at a clock or watch that we base our measurement of time not on the number ten, but on twelve and multiples of twelve. There are twelve hours in a day, sixty seconds in a minute and, sixty minutes in an hour.
You may notice that there was once ten months. The sept- of September means seven in Latin, just as oct- means eight, nov- means nine and, dec- means ten (as in "decimal", for example). But the logic of counting by twelves, rather than by tens, prevailed. Two more months were added to make twelve, July is named for Julius Caesar and August is named for Augustus Caesar.
The truth is that when measuring time, division is very important and people instinctively adapted a system based on twelve, rather than the conventional ten. This is also why eggs are sold by the dozen, rather than by tens, twelve eggs are more likely to be evenly divisible by the members of a family.
Time is not the only measurement in which twelve is very obviously a better base to use than ten because of it's easy divisibility. A complete circle, such as the circumference of the earth, is divided into 360 degrees. This is a nice, round, easily divisibly multiple of twelve.
The Metric System is an absolutely brilliant idea that was conceived at the time of the French Revolution. But yet something is still missing about it. The Metric System is superior to the old English system of feet, yards and, miles.
However, here we are in the Twenty-First Century and that old system still has not gone away and the Metric System usually has to be forced on people by law. The reason is very clear, the Metric System is far better with regard to multiplication and the easy convertibility of units, but the old system still has the advantage of divisibility. Twelve inches are a foot, 36 inches are a yard and 5,280 feet are a mile. Notice that measurement of time was never metricized.
The Metric System is at the mercy of the number base that we use and will never reach it's full potential as long as we count by tens, rather than twelves. Fractions are still as useful as they are because ten is such an awkward number to divide, basing our number system on twelve would change this by incorporating much of the useful divisibility of fractions.
Just think how convenient it would be if we could express time in decimal form based, of course, on twelve, rather than ten. Consider a decimal such as 1.63 hours. It is difficult for us to grasp quickly because it straddles the two number systems.
By using a grid, we can easily express any point on the grid by using cartesian coordinates. What if we could do this with the entire planet? We can, but expression in terms of latitude and longitude are based on twelve but we will have to express the coordinates in base-ten decimal form and it makes for an awkward and inefficient arrangement. Latitude and longitude are getting ever-more important in these days of GPS but we cannot effectively express the coordinates of a point in decimal for and will not be able to most-effectively do so until we count by twelves.
Our number system plainly and simply revolves around twelve but we try to make it revolve around ten because we happen to have ten fingers. This is certainly one of the greatest mistakes ever made. We do not still write in hieroglyphics yet we still count by tens.
THE EXPRESSION OF TIME IN DEGREES
While we are on the subject of counting and measurement systems, let's consider the units of hours and minutes. Hours and minutes are completely arbitrary units and were adapted due to the easy divisibility of the units which we use for time.
We cannot actually measure time but only motion, which is a function of time. Our measurement of time is based on the motions of the earth. The earth rotates 360 degrees in one day. Thus, one degree of the earth's rotation corresponds to 240 seconds or what we would now refer to as four minutes. An hour is fifteen degrees.
Since humans are now spending quite a bit of time in space, in earth orbit, why not express time in degrees? This would base the passage of time on how far the earth has rotated during that interval of time. I am certain that this would be much more convenient and efficient, hours and minutes were merely convenient everyday units in the pre-space age.
For ancient people, using their ten fingers to count worked just fine. But the world was to get far more complex. The four basic arithmetical operations are: addition, subtraction, multiplication and, division. Basing our counting system on any number, such as the tens that we use now, will do very well with the first three.
However the last of the four, division, is the tricky one. Division is very important in the flow of daily life, just as are the first three. The difference with division is that not all of the convenient numbers that we could possibly base our counting system on are equally divisible.
I maintain that, for maximum efficiency, the number on which we base our counting system should be as divisible as possible. It does not make sense to base the system on too high of a number because that would mean that more symbols (1,2,3,...) would have to be use and that would hinder communication. However, we have made a really great mistake by counting by tens simply because ten is so poorly divisible.
Consider that by far the most important and most frequent measurement that human beings take is that of time. In fact, we take measurements of time many times more often than all other entities that we measure such as distance, weight, temperature, etc. Now notice when you look at a clock or watch that we base our measurement of time not on the number ten, but on twelve and multiples of twelve. There are twelve hours in a day, sixty seconds in a minute and, sixty minutes in an hour.
You may notice that there was once ten months. The sept- of September means seven in Latin, just as oct- means eight, nov- means nine and, dec- means ten (as in "decimal", for example). But the logic of counting by twelves, rather than by tens, prevailed. Two more months were added to make twelve, July is named for Julius Caesar and August is named for Augustus Caesar.
The truth is that when measuring time, division is very important and people instinctively adapted a system based on twelve, rather than the conventional ten. This is also why eggs are sold by the dozen, rather than by tens, twelve eggs are more likely to be evenly divisible by the members of a family.
Time is not the only measurement in which twelve is very obviously a better base to use than ten because of it's easy divisibility. A complete circle, such as the circumference of the earth, is divided into 360 degrees. This is a nice, round, easily divisibly multiple of twelve.
The Metric System is an absolutely brilliant idea that was conceived at the time of the French Revolution. But yet something is still missing about it. The Metric System is superior to the old English system of feet, yards and, miles.
However, here we are in the Twenty-First Century and that old system still has not gone away and the Metric System usually has to be forced on people by law. The reason is very clear, the Metric System is far better with regard to multiplication and the easy convertibility of units, but the old system still has the advantage of divisibility. Twelve inches are a foot, 36 inches are a yard and 5,280 feet are a mile. Notice that measurement of time was never metricized.
The Metric System is at the mercy of the number base that we use and will never reach it's full potential as long as we count by tens, rather than twelves. Fractions are still as useful as they are because ten is such an awkward number to divide, basing our number system on twelve would change this by incorporating much of the useful divisibility of fractions.
Just think how convenient it would be if we could express time in decimal form based, of course, on twelve, rather than ten. Consider a decimal such as 1.63 hours. It is difficult for us to grasp quickly because it straddles the two number systems.
By using a grid, we can easily express any point on the grid by using cartesian coordinates. What if we could do this with the entire planet? We can, but expression in terms of latitude and longitude are based on twelve but we will have to express the coordinates in base-ten decimal form and it makes for an awkward and inefficient arrangement. Latitude and longitude are getting ever-more important in these days of GPS but we cannot effectively express the coordinates of a point in decimal for and will not be able to most-effectively do so until we count by twelves.
Our number system plainly and simply revolves around twelve but we try to make it revolve around ten because we happen to have ten fingers. This is certainly one of the greatest mistakes ever made. We do not still write in hieroglyphics yet we still count by tens.
THE EXPRESSION OF TIME IN DEGREES
While we are on the subject of counting and measurement systems, let's consider the units of hours and minutes. Hours and minutes are completely arbitrary units and were adapted due to the easy divisibility of the units which we use for time.
We cannot actually measure time but only motion, which is a function of time. Our measurement of time is based on the motions of the earth. The earth rotates 360 degrees in one day. Thus, one degree of the earth's rotation corresponds to 240 seconds or what we would now refer to as four minutes. An hour is fifteen degrees.
Since humans are now spending quite a bit of time in space, in earth orbit, why not express time in degrees? This would base the passage of time on how far the earth has rotated during that interval of time. I am certain that this would be much more convenient and efficient, hours and minutes were merely convenient everyday units in the pre-space age.
The Westbound Rule
As a boy, I was fascinated with aircraft. I remember how overjoyed I was when I first understood how an aircraft flew. The bottom of the wing surface is flat while the top surface is curved. This means that, as the wing slices through the air, the air must travel faster over the top of the wing than it does over the bottom. The result is that there is more pressure on the bottom of the wing than on the top and when the aircraft is going fast enough to get to the point where this difference in pressure on the wing exceeds the weight of the plane, it lifts off into the air.
Now, I would like to see if I can add something to the field of aviation. I only thought this up within the last 24 hours but I think that I really have something here.
We know that a hurricane travels westward actually because the circular motion of the air causes the hurricane to gain some independence from the earth's gravity and the earth rotates eastward under the hurricane. We could actually measure a hurricane's independence from the earth's gravity relative to the sorrounding air that was not part of the hurricane by the time it takes the hurricane to cross the ocean divided by the time it takes the earth to rotate that distance. It is also clear that the very high winds in the stratosphere are due to relative independence from the earth's gravity.
The rotation of the earth affects so many things as I have described extensively in these online writings. It affects rivers, the courses of glaciers, winds and, ocean currents. I got to wondering, why wouldn't the rotation of the earth have an effect on aircraft also? Nowadays, aircraft fly high enough to gain a lot of independence from the earth's gravity.
Let's begin by thinking of an aircraft as actually a spacecraft and considering the absolute distance that it travels during a flight. This absolute distance is not the same as the apparent ground distance due to the rotation of the earth. For example, you can sit still in a chair and you are still moving rapidly in terms of absolute space because the earth that you are on is rotating and revolving around the sun. An aircraft is actually a spacecraft except that it is more influenced by the earth and cannot leave earth's atmosphere because it depends on outside oxygen for fuel combustion.
An aircraft flying eastward must travel a far greater absolute distance than one travelling westward for the same ground distance yet the flight takes no longer. In a flight from New York to London, for example, the earth's eastward rotation is actually moving London away from the plane and thus stretching out the flight, while the return flight from London to New York has the earth's rotation actually bringing New York toward the plane and so shortening the flight. Yet, the flight time either way is the same. (Doesn't this sound like relativity?)
The reason for this is that the eastbound flight, while stretched out, is also assisted by momentum from the earth's rotation while the westbound flight has it's advantage of having New York brought toward the plane negated by forcing the plane to work against the momentum of earth's rotation over the shortened flight. Since no new energy is introduced, the flight times remain the same.
Someone on the ground or in the plane will notice none of this. But suppose that a person on the moon or far out in space was watching or tracking the flight. It would seem that the westbound flight to New York was travelling a much shorter distance than the flight to London but was doing so at a much slower speed so that the flight times were the same.
Imagine that the earth is not there and picture how far each flight travels in terms of absolute space instead of ground distance. In eastbound flights, and diagonal flights with an eastern element, the total flight distance is the surface distance plus the distance the earth rotated during the flight. In westbound flights, the total flight distance is the surface distance minus the distance the earth rotated during the flight. Since the flight times are the same, it is clear that the eastbound flight must be going considerably faster in terms of absolute space and the only way to explain the added velocity is the eastward rotation of the earth.
In summary, we have a trade-off that comes out even. Eastbound flights must cover more distance because the rotation of the earth is moving the destination away from the aircraft but in return these flights are assisted by the momentum of the earth's eastward rotation. Westbound flights get the "gift" of having the earth's rotation bring their destinations closer to the plane but the price is that the momentum of this eastward rotation works in opposition to the motion of the plane.
Now, why not apply our knowledge of spaceflight to aircraft in a way that I cannot see has yet been done? Suppose we could find a way to make the earth's rotation work for us by maximizing the benefit of this rotation for eastbound flights while minimizing the hindrance of the same rotation for westbound flights. The obvious way to do this is by altitude selection since the earth's influence will be greater the closer we are to it. The actual absolute distance that flights must travel cannot be changed, but that does not mean we cannot alter the influences of the earth's rotation.
Plainly and simply, we can take advantage of the earth's rotation by establishing air corridors based on flight direction and altitude. Eastbound flights should fly low to maximize the assistance given by the earth's rotation and westbound flights should fly high to minimize the hindrance of the momentum of the earth's eastward rotation.
The systems of flight corridors in use today does nothing to make use of the earth's rotation. In the U.S. flights heading east or west must fly at odd or even thousands of feet in altitude and I cannot see that any other country exploits this potentially great advantage either. It cannot be said that flying west at a higher altitude will have any such benefit negated because it will travel a wider circle higher above the earth. Aircraft gain altitude gradually, not by a vertical rise, so the same proportion of the "corner cut off" will occur as on lower, eastbound flights.
When flying diagonally with an westbound element to the flight vector, the same principle applies. If the plane were to have less eastward momentum than the destination city, the rotation will "deliver" the city to the plane and the plane can thus course a lesser angle relative to the north-south line and thus travel less distance. But when flying eastward, we want to gain the maximum momentum possible. In direct north or south flights, with no east or west element, we want the rotational momentum to be as close as possible to that of the destination city on the ground so flights in these directions should be as low as practical.
Thus flights in any direction have an optimum altitude, considering that corridors of space must be reserved for flights going in every direction. From the top down, westbound flights should be at the highest altitude, diagonal flights with a westbound element in the vector should be below those with the more westbound higher, flights north or south should be next and, eastbound flights should be at the lowest practical altitude because the earth's rotation is pulling their destinations away the most yet they have the most to gain from the earth's rotation. Basically, the more the westbound element in a flight, the higher in altitude it should be for maximum efficiency.
(Note- By the way, international agreement defines that flights going north or east have even flight numbers and flights going south or west have odd flight numbers.)
This concept makes practical use of the Equatorial Force that I described in my geology blog. The earth's rotation not only affects very large objects but also those travelling a long distance across the earth's surface in a short time, relative to the time of rotation. This will have minimal effect on low-level flight in the denser air nearer the earth's surface. It would not have been an important factor in the early days of aircraft development, but that has certainly changed.
Aircraft fly by playing a simple trick on the air and getting it to lift the plane. Why not play a similar trick on the rotating earth and get it to give aircraft an extra boost? We see this opportunity more clearly when our frame of reference is the absolute space and not the rotating earth.
In selecting appropriate flight altitudes, this is certainly not the only factor. Also to be taken into account are winds, weather and, the altitude at which the engines are designed to operate best since air gets thinner as well as colder as we get higher. But I am certain that this idea will save a fortune in fuel costs every year.
The same principle will apply to any type of missile. Usually a 45 degree angle, halfway between horizontal and vertical, is considered the aiming point to acheive maximum range. But if we consider the earth's rotation, we will find that actually for eastbound missiles it is a little bit below 45 degrees to gain assist from the earth's rotation and for westbound missiles, it is a little bit above 45 degrees to minimize hindrance from the contrary rotation.
I notice that proof of this effect can be seen in where Cape Canaveral is located. This is the launching site on the east coast of Florida from which spacecraft are launched.
There is a certain amount of risk that something will go wrong whenever a rocket is launched, as with the unfortunate destruction of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986. If that should happen, it is preferable that the rocket not be over a populated area. U.S. military rockets were tested in open spaces in the western part of the country, and the Russian launch site was in a remote area of what is now Kazakhstan.
So why was Cape Canaveral constructed on the east coast of Florida, when the U.S. has much more open space in the western states? Part of the reason is the weather, a launch in the winter would not have to deal with ice and snow. Another reason is the latitude, it is easier to launch a spacecraft into orbit if the launch site is not too far from the plane of the equator.
But it seems to me that the main reason for the site of Cape Canaveral is the earth's rotation. With the rocket launched directly upward, the momentum from the earth's rotation would pull the rocket eastward, so that it would orbit the earth in the same direction as it's rotation the same as the moon does. But, with the launch site on the east coast, this would also mean that the rocket would be over the ocean if a mishap should occur. The probable reason that it was not located further south in Florida was to avoid putting the Bahamas at any risk.
But this shows that my idea of saving fuel by organizing air corridors to take advantage of the earth's rotation must be correct.
Now, I would like to see if I can add something to the field of aviation. I only thought this up within the last 24 hours but I think that I really have something here.
We know that a hurricane travels westward actually because the circular motion of the air causes the hurricane to gain some independence from the earth's gravity and the earth rotates eastward under the hurricane. We could actually measure a hurricane's independence from the earth's gravity relative to the sorrounding air that was not part of the hurricane by the time it takes the hurricane to cross the ocean divided by the time it takes the earth to rotate that distance. It is also clear that the very high winds in the stratosphere are due to relative independence from the earth's gravity.
The rotation of the earth affects so many things as I have described extensively in these online writings. It affects rivers, the courses of glaciers, winds and, ocean currents. I got to wondering, why wouldn't the rotation of the earth have an effect on aircraft also? Nowadays, aircraft fly high enough to gain a lot of independence from the earth's gravity.
Let's begin by thinking of an aircraft as actually a spacecraft and considering the absolute distance that it travels during a flight. This absolute distance is not the same as the apparent ground distance due to the rotation of the earth. For example, you can sit still in a chair and you are still moving rapidly in terms of absolute space because the earth that you are on is rotating and revolving around the sun. An aircraft is actually a spacecraft except that it is more influenced by the earth and cannot leave earth's atmosphere because it depends on outside oxygen for fuel combustion.
An aircraft flying eastward must travel a far greater absolute distance than one travelling westward for the same ground distance yet the flight takes no longer. In a flight from New York to London, for example, the earth's eastward rotation is actually moving London away from the plane and thus stretching out the flight, while the return flight from London to New York has the earth's rotation actually bringing New York toward the plane and so shortening the flight. Yet, the flight time either way is the same. (Doesn't this sound like relativity?)
The reason for this is that the eastbound flight, while stretched out, is also assisted by momentum from the earth's rotation while the westbound flight has it's advantage of having New York brought toward the plane negated by forcing the plane to work against the momentum of earth's rotation over the shortened flight. Since no new energy is introduced, the flight times remain the same.
Someone on the ground or in the plane will notice none of this. But suppose that a person on the moon or far out in space was watching or tracking the flight. It would seem that the westbound flight to New York was travelling a much shorter distance than the flight to London but was doing so at a much slower speed so that the flight times were the same.
Imagine that the earth is not there and picture how far each flight travels in terms of absolute space instead of ground distance. In eastbound flights, and diagonal flights with an eastern element, the total flight distance is the surface distance plus the distance the earth rotated during the flight. In westbound flights, the total flight distance is the surface distance minus the distance the earth rotated during the flight. Since the flight times are the same, it is clear that the eastbound flight must be going considerably faster in terms of absolute space and the only way to explain the added velocity is the eastward rotation of the earth.
In summary, we have a trade-off that comes out even. Eastbound flights must cover more distance because the rotation of the earth is moving the destination away from the aircraft but in return these flights are assisted by the momentum of the earth's eastward rotation. Westbound flights get the "gift" of having the earth's rotation bring their destinations closer to the plane but the price is that the momentum of this eastward rotation works in opposition to the motion of the plane.
Now, why not apply our knowledge of spaceflight to aircraft in a way that I cannot see has yet been done? Suppose we could find a way to make the earth's rotation work for us by maximizing the benefit of this rotation for eastbound flights while minimizing the hindrance of the same rotation for westbound flights. The obvious way to do this is by altitude selection since the earth's influence will be greater the closer we are to it. The actual absolute distance that flights must travel cannot be changed, but that does not mean we cannot alter the influences of the earth's rotation.
Plainly and simply, we can take advantage of the earth's rotation by establishing air corridors based on flight direction and altitude. Eastbound flights should fly low to maximize the assistance given by the earth's rotation and westbound flights should fly high to minimize the hindrance of the momentum of the earth's eastward rotation.
The systems of flight corridors in use today does nothing to make use of the earth's rotation. In the U.S. flights heading east or west must fly at odd or even thousands of feet in altitude and I cannot see that any other country exploits this potentially great advantage either. It cannot be said that flying west at a higher altitude will have any such benefit negated because it will travel a wider circle higher above the earth. Aircraft gain altitude gradually, not by a vertical rise, so the same proportion of the "corner cut off" will occur as on lower, eastbound flights.
When flying diagonally with an westbound element to the flight vector, the same principle applies. If the plane were to have less eastward momentum than the destination city, the rotation will "deliver" the city to the plane and the plane can thus course a lesser angle relative to the north-south line and thus travel less distance. But when flying eastward, we want to gain the maximum momentum possible. In direct north or south flights, with no east or west element, we want the rotational momentum to be as close as possible to that of the destination city on the ground so flights in these directions should be as low as practical.
Thus flights in any direction have an optimum altitude, considering that corridors of space must be reserved for flights going in every direction. From the top down, westbound flights should be at the highest altitude, diagonal flights with a westbound element in the vector should be below those with the more westbound higher, flights north or south should be next and, eastbound flights should be at the lowest practical altitude because the earth's rotation is pulling their destinations away the most yet they have the most to gain from the earth's rotation. Basically, the more the westbound element in a flight, the higher in altitude it should be for maximum efficiency.
(Note- By the way, international agreement defines that flights going north or east have even flight numbers and flights going south or west have odd flight numbers.)
This concept makes practical use of the Equatorial Force that I described in my geology blog. The earth's rotation not only affects very large objects but also those travelling a long distance across the earth's surface in a short time, relative to the time of rotation. This will have minimal effect on low-level flight in the denser air nearer the earth's surface. It would not have been an important factor in the early days of aircraft development, but that has certainly changed.
Aircraft fly by playing a simple trick on the air and getting it to lift the plane. Why not play a similar trick on the rotating earth and get it to give aircraft an extra boost? We see this opportunity more clearly when our frame of reference is the absolute space and not the rotating earth.
In selecting appropriate flight altitudes, this is certainly not the only factor. Also to be taken into account are winds, weather and, the altitude at which the engines are designed to operate best since air gets thinner as well as colder as we get higher. But I am certain that this idea will save a fortune in fuel costs every year.
The same principle will apply to any type of missile. Usually a 45 degree angle, halfway between horizontal and vertical, is considered the aiming point to acheive maximum range. But if we consider the earth's rotation, we will find that actually for eastbound missiles it is a little bit below 45 degrees to gain assist from the earth's rotation and for westbound missiles, it is a little bit above 45 degrees to minimize hindrance from the contrary rotation.
I notice that proof of this effect can be seen in where Cape Canaveral is located. This is the launching site on the east coast of Florida from which spacecraft are launched.
There is a certain amount of risk that something will go wrong whenever a rocket is launched, as with the unfortunate destruction of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986. If that should happen, it is preferable that the rocket not be over a populated area. U.S. military rockets were tested in open spaces in the western part of the country, and the Russian launch site was in a remote area of what is now Kazakhstan.
So why was Cape Canaveral constructed on the east coast of Florida, when the U.S. has much more open space in the western states? Part of the reason is the weather, a launch in the winter would not have to deal with ice and snow. Another reason is the latitude, it is easier to launch a spacecraft into orbit if the launch site is not too far from the plane of the equator.
But it seems to me that the main reason for the site of Cape Canaveral is the earth's rotation. With the rocket launched directly upward, the momentum from the earth's rotation would pull the rocket eastward, so that it would orbit the earth in the same direction as it's rotation the same as the moon does. But, with the launch site on the east coast, this would also mean that the rocket would be over the ocean if a mishap should occur. The probable reason that it was not located further south in Florida was to avoid putting the Bahamas at any risk.
But this shows that my idea of saving fuel by organizing air corridors to take advantage of the earth's rotation must be correct.
Other Blogs And Books
My main blog, where the most recent postings on all topics are to be found, is http://www.markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/
If you liked this blog on progress, you will also like my blog about economics, history and other human issues, http://www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com/
http://www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com/ is my geology and global natural history blog for topics other than glaciers. www.markmeekworld.blogspot.com is my natural history blog concerning glaciers.
http://www.markmeekniagara.blogspot.com/ is about new discoveries concerning natural history in the general area of Niagara Falls.
http://www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com/ is my observations concerning meteorology and biology.
http://www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com/ is my blog about physics and astronomy.
http://www.markmeekcosmology.blogspot.com/ is my version of string theory that solves many unsolved mysteries about the underlying structure and beginning of the universe.
http://www.markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com/ details my work with the fundamental patterns and complexity that underlies everything in existence.
http://www.markmeekreligion.blogspot.com/ is my religion blog.
http://www.markmeekcreation.blogspot.com/ is proof that there must be a god.
http://www.mark-meek.blogspot.com/ is my autobiography
http://www.markmeektravel.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of North America.
http://www.markmeekphotos.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of Europe.
My books can be seen at http://www.bn.com/ http://www.amazon.com/ or, http://www.iuniverse.com/ just do an author search for "Mark Meek"
If you liked this blog on progress, you will also like my blog about economics, history and other human issues, http://www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com/
http://www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com/ is my geology and global natural history blog for topics other than glaciers. www.markmeekworld.blogspot.com is my natural history blog concerning glaciers.
http://www.markmeekniagara.blogspot.com/ is about new discoveries concerning natural history in the general area of Niagara Falls.
http://www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com/ is my observations concerning meteorology and biology.
http://www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com/ is my blog about physics and astronomy.
http://www.markmeekcosmology.blogspot.com/ is my version of string theory that solves many unsolved mysteries about the underlying structure and beginning of the universe.
http://www.markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com/ details my work with the fundamental patterns and complexity that underlies everything in existence.
http://www.markmeekreligion.blogspot.com/ is my religion blog.
http://www.markmeekcreation.blogspot.com/ is proof that there must be a god.
http://www.mark-meek.blogspot.com/ is my autobiography
http://www.markmeektravel.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of North America.
http://www.markmeekphotos.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of Europe.
My books can be seen at http://www.bn.com/ http://www.amazon.com/ or, http://www.iuniverse.com/ just do an author search for "Mark Meek"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)