Much current power generation is done with steam. Water is confined in a "boiler" and exposed to some heat source (burning coal, nuclear fission, concentrated solar energy, etc.) and boiled. This produces steam, which is passed through a pipe to a turbine or reciprocating piston(s) to produce rotary motion. Usually this is used to power a generator, but sometimes the rotary motion is used directly--a steam locomotive for example.
An important but subtle component of a steam locomotive is what's called the "steam dome". This is a dome on top of the boiler, where the steam collects. It relies on gravity--water stays in the boiler, while the "dry" steam floats on top and in the dome. It's important to keep water out of the steam tubes and pistons: it cools the steam, reducing pressure, and if there's enough of it, can prevent the piston from moving and break something.
As far as I can tell, conventional steam locomotives need gravity or something like it (e.g. centrifugal force) to operate. There are heat engines which do not require this separation of dry steam, such as the Stirling Cycle, so it's still possible to produce rotary power in space. It's also possible to make a direct ejection steam rocket which could operate in zero-g.
30 August 2012
21 August 2012
Civics Teaching and Testing
It's very clear that a large majority of Americans don't understand enough about civics, history, public policy, or the constitution to be able to make informed political decisions. For example, when voters, including tea party folks, are asked about Obamacare, they are somewhat opposed, and this opposition has been growing. But when they are polled about the specific policy changes imposed by the ACA, without ever mentioning that it is ACA, they are overwhelmingly supportive of nearly all of it, and even substantially supportive of the mandate. There's clearly some distortion and probably propaganda involved. Then you get teapartiers carrying signs saying "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare". This was not an isolated incident. It can only be a symptom of a deep misunderstanding. Then you get Romney and Ryan, both of whom say they want to do things which could only cut Medicare deeply, screaming about Obamacare cutting Medicare $716B--No, ACA moves the $716B to parts of Health Care that work, and away from Part D, which didn't. Nearly all tea party members can't find "separation of church and state" in the constitution, so they believe that the constitution doesn't require it. They ignore, or are unaware of the fact that the people who wrote the first amendment say that separation is how we should achieve the religious freedom required there.
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor points out that many states have completely dropped all civics teaching requirements and worries that this results in an electorate that can't make informed decisions about important things...such as the above.
I think you should be required to pass a civics competency test before you can vote, and it should be constructed to eliminate "low information voters". here's a (possibly extreme) stawman for comment: "how many supreme court justices are there? Name 5 of them and give a little about their philosophy. What is the scientific method and what about it gives scientists high confidence in their results? give an economic, political and sociological description of the following societal models: communism, european socialism, capitalism, oligarchism, monarchy."
I think a class that teaches something like this should be part of the standard high school curriculum, and you should have to pass the test every few years to vote (with changes according to public events). I took a class in the 8th grade that would have gotten me to about 50% on this test, and I think a high school graduate should test over 70%. Right now, only a tiny percent would pass my test though, and that's a problem.
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor points out that many states have completely dropped all civics teaching requirements and worries that this results in an electorate that can't make informed decisions about important things...such as the above.
I think you should be required to pass a civics competency test before you can vote, and it should be constructed to eliminate "low information voters". here's a (possibly extreme) stawman for comment: "how many supreme court justices are there? Name 5 of them and give a little about their philosophy. What is the scientific method and what about it gives scientists high confidence in their results? give an economic, political and sociological description of the following societal models: communism, european socialism, capitalism, oligarchism, monarchy."
I think a class that teaches something like this should be part of the standard high school curriculum, and you should have to pass the test every few years to vote (with changes according to public events). I took a class in the 8th grade that would have gotten me to about 50% on this test, and I think a high school graduate should test over 70%. Right now, only a tiny percent would pass my test though, and that's a problem.
18 August 2012
The Scientific Method
People often make bizarre claims about science. For example, last week Ben Waide, a Kentucky state legislator, said "The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of
evolution is not science — Darwin made it up. My objection
is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth
as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the
most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution
has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."
It's amazingly clear that Mr. Waide doesn't have the foggiest clue what science is, and wouldn't pass a fourth grade test on the subject.
The Scientific Method, suggested by Isaac Newton, consists of five phases:
Question: Why is some particular thing about the universe the way that it is?
Hypothesis: you come up with a model for how that thing works.
Prediction: based on that model, you predict something that the model suggests would be true, but is not already obvious.
Experiment: you see if the prediction is true or not by trying it.
Analysis: you figure out if you've really proven your theory, and publish. The most crucial parts of this process are falsifiability and repeatability: does your experiment really prove what you set out to prove or did you crock it (possibly unwittingly) in a way that would succeed no mater what? The point is that the prediction be a little surprising--Maxwell's Equations predicting radio, General Relativity predicting the curvature of light in strong gravity, etc. Can other people with completely different situations duplicate your work? Very often, failed experiments lead to new, better questions. Most scientists spend most of their time in the experiment and analysis phase.
Evolution has stood up to some of the most intense scrutiny of any theory in history and has come through with flying colors. For example, countless experiments have shown that you can force a species to change by altering its environment to benefit some trait or other. Most of these are done in the lab, but we've also created numerous strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by using antibiotics too much. As another example, evolution predicts "link" species would appear in the fossil record. Most of these are transitional forms and don't last long enough to leave a trace, but plenty do, including in the fossil record of our own species. Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Zinganthropus, many others
It's amazingly clear that Mr. Waide doesn't have the foggiest clue what science is, and wouldn't pass a fourth grade test on the subject.
The Scientific Method, suggested by Isaac Newton, consists of five phases:
Question: Why is some particular thing about the universe the way that it is?
Hypothesis: you come up with a model for how that thing works.
Prediction: based on that model, you predict something that the model suggests would be true, but is not already obvious.
Experiment: you see if the prediction is true or not by trying it.
Analysis: you figure out if you've really proven your theory, and publish. The most crucial parts of this process are falsifiability and repeatability: does your experiment really prove what you set out to prove or did you crock it (possibly unwittingly) in a way that would succeed no mater what? The point is that the prediction be a little surprising--Maxwell's Equations predicting radio, General Relativity predicting the curvature of light in strong gravity, etc. Can other people with completely different situations duplicate your work? Very often, failed experiments lead to new, better questions. Most scientists spend most of their time in the experiment and analysis phase.
Evolution has stood up to some of the most intense scrutiny of any theory in history and has come through with flying colors. For example, countless experiments have shown that you can force a species to change by altering its environment to benefit some trait or other. Most of these are done in the lab, but we've also created numerous strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by using antibiotics too much. As another example, evolution predicts "link" species would appear in the fossil record. Most of these are transitional forms and don't last long enough to leave a trace, but plenty do, including in the fossil record of our own species. Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Zinganthropus, many others
13 August 2012
What isn't a Free Market
The right is constantly harping on how it's important that we let the free market work, that government not pick winners and losers, that the free market is always the best possible system and we must never try to replace free market systems with national ones.
All of this is wrong. Actually, most of it is correct, but the right misapplies it in almost all cases.
The theory is that the market correctly evaluates all ideas and the best ones are the ones that succeed. There's a lot of truth in this, but there are some big caveats. The most important is that there are a lot of cases where the market fails to be free for some reason. More than a century ago, it was recognized that monopolies have the power to manipulate the market for their own purposes, and with very few exceptions, when they did this it was to the detriment of everybody. Railroads, oil companies, banks, the phone company and more were all either broken up or strictly regulated to assure that the good of the public remained the first priority.
About 30 years ago we forgot what the problems had been, and set about reversing this: deregulating all of these industries and more. That mistake has led to the current high unemployment, congressional gridlock and corruption.
There's actually a fairly good metric for whether a market is free. A market is only free if it can be seen embracing new ideas. If there are better ways that are not succeeding, there has to be some reason, and usually it's that there's something preventing the free market from working.
For example, US health care is capable of providing the best service anywhere, but at a sufficiently high cost that most people can't afford that excellent standard of care, and many people can't afford any health care at all. Our rank by "outcomes" is among the lowest of any advanced country and we're the most expensive per capita by far--about double all those countries with better outcomes. We have a collection of tacit collusion, perverse incentives, corruption and several other things that allow insurers and providers to maximize profits without improving service. Most regions have only a handful of providers and many have only one. Until recently, insurers were allowed to reject customers for pre-existing conditions, which prevents customers from changing insurers when they find out their coverage is bad. There are obviously several better ways out there: Japan, Switzerland, Great Britain, many others have a variety of different approaches. All have found that eliminating or strongly regulating the market is what works. Nationalizing seems to work a little better than strongly regulating, but I think it's significant that it's close, and that costs for these others is broadly similar, with the difference mainly being in the program's generosity.
Another example: During the first years of the 20th century, Standard Oil controlled about 70% of the US market for petroleum, and almost 90% of the refining. In 1911, the Supreme Court ruled that Standard was a monopoly and required it to be broken up into 34 "baby Standards". Within a few years 9 of them: Standard of New Jersey (later Exxon)
Standard of New York (later Mobil)
Standard of California (later Chevron)
Standard of Indiana (later Amoco)
Atlantic (later part of ARCO)
Continental (later Conoco)
Standard of Kentucky (later Kyso)
Standard of Ohio (later Sohio)
Ohio Oil (later Marathon)
were all bigger than Standard had ever been. Part of this growth was the rise of the private automobile, but the success of creating a free market is undeniable.
All of this is wrong. Actually, most of it is correct, but the right misapplies it in almost all cases.
The theory is that the market correctly evaluates all ideas and the best ones are the ones that succeed. There's a lot of truth in this, but there are some big caveats. The most important is that there are a lot of cases where the market fails to be free for some reason. More than a century ago, it was recognized that monopolies have the power to manipulate the market for their own purposes, and with very few exceptions, when they did this it was to the detriment of everybody. Railroads, oil companies, banks, the phone company and more were all either broken up or strictly regulated to assure that the good of the public remained the first priority.
About 30 years ago we forgot what the problems had been, and set about reversing this: deregulating all of these industries and more. That mistake has led to the current high unemployment, congressional gridlock and corruption.
There's actually a fairly good metric for whether a market is free. A market is only free if it can be seen embracing new ideas. If there are better ways that are not succeeding, there has to be some reason, and usually it's that there's something preventing the free market from working.
For example, US health care is capable of providing the best service anywhere, but at a sufficiently high cost that most people can't afford that excellent standard of care, and many people can't afford any health care at all. Our rank by "outcomes" is among the lowest of any advanced country and we're the most expensive per capita by far--about double all those countries with better outcomes. We have a collection of tacit collusion, perverse incentives, corruption and several other things that allow insurers and providers to maximize profits without improving service. Most regions have only a handful of providers and many have only one. Until recently, insurers were allowed to reject customers for pre-existing conditions, which prevents customers from changing insurers when they find out their coverage is bad. There are obviously several better ways out there: Japan, Switzerland, Great Britain, many others have a variety of different approaches. All have found that eliminating or strongly regulating the market is what works. Nationalizing seems to work a little better than strongly regulating, but I think it's significant that it's close, and that costs for these others is broadly similar, with the difference mainly being in the program's generosity.
Another example: During the first years of the 20th century, Standard Oil controlled about 70% of the US market for petroleum, and almost 90% of the refining. In 1911, the Supreme Court ruled that Standard was a monopoly and required it to be broken up into 34 "baby Standards". Within a few years 9 of them: Standard of New Jersey (later Exxon)
Standard of New York (later Mobil)
Standard of California (later Chevron)
Standard of Indiana (later Amoco)
Atlantic (later part of ARCO)
Continental (later Conoco)
Standard of Kentucky (later Kyso)
Standard of Ohio (later Sohio)
Ohio Oil (later Marathon)
were all bigger than Standard had ever been. Part of this growth was the rise of the private automobile, but the success of creating a free market is undeniable.
04 August 2012
Romney Tax Returns Case Analysis
Case 1: there’s
nothing there, apart from opportunistic exploitation of the tax law. Upside of releasing returns: disarms the
attacks. Downside: it’s a weapon that
can only be used once. No matter what,
Romney makes a lot of money and pays an embarrassingly small amount of taxes
compared to average Americans pay.
Upside of holding on: he looks determined/stubborn in the face of
opposition , slightly countering the extensive evidence of flip-flopping/etch-a-sketch. Downside: his enemies have a mystery weapon
they can hold against him.
Case 2: he paid 0% taxes in one or more years because of
legal but unfair exploitation of the tax law.
Upside of releasing: it disarms the attacks. Downside: the unfairness of tax law becomes a
top issue in the campaign, with Romney a flag bearer for the bad guys. Upside of holding: this doesn’t happen. Downside: the attacks continue.
Case 3: he hasn’t tithed appropriately to his church. He’s supposed to give 10%. If he hasn’t done it, there may be some quid
pro quo with the church or another Mormon politician, but for this case I’ll
pretend there wasn’t. Upside of
releasing: most people will see that
there’s nothing really important there, although it’s very embarrassing for him. The attacks are disarmed. Downside: A lot of religious conservatives
will look at him with some distain. This
won’t make anybody vote for his opponent, but it may make a bunch of his
current supporters not vote at all.
Upside of not releasing: these
votes stay with Romney. Downside: the
attacks continue.
Case 4: he hasn’t tithed appropriately in return for some
quid pro quo, presumably from someone connected with LDS. This spreads the damage to people Romney may
value and may lead to real jail time for them, while leaving Romney unscathed,
except for failing to protect his friends.
Upside of releasing: None. Downside
of releasing: Romney’s friends go to
jail, blaming Romney. Upside of holding:
he keeps his friends. Downside of
holding: the attacks continue.
Case 5: Romney’s tax returns show evidence of some
especially rapacious but legal behavior, most likely in connection with the
economic crisis of 2007-08. Economic
upside of releasing: None. Downside:
Romney’s credibility as a businessman who plays fair is completely destroyed
and he will become the face of the crisis and economic collapse. he loses 48-50 states in the election. Upside of holding on: this doesn’t happen. Downside: the attacks continue.
Case 6: Romney’s
returns show evidence of some crime by himself or those close to him: Upside of releasing: none. Downside: he or his close ally goes to
jail. Upside of holding on: this doesn’t
happen and he maintains his determined look.
Downside: the attacks continue.
One of the big advantages of being president is that you get
to pick your attorney general and federal prosecutors. If you or those close to you are guilty of
some crime, you can steer the justice department away from prosecuting those
crimes. It will go badly for such a
president if he’s found out, and controlling the justice department may be the
only way to prevent that. This is almost certainly the reason Sheldon
Adelson is so determined to buy somebody a presidency: there’s pretty good evidence that he,personally, is guilty of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in Macau,
against the advice of his lawyers, so it’s a knowing violation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)