A pastiche of cute kids:
Monday, July 28, 2014
Some 70,000 years or so ago, modern humans apparently made their pilgrimage out of Africa, eventually colonizing the entire world and becoming, well, us. At about the same time, Mount Togo in the Philippines in a massive super-volcano eruption, perhaps reducing those modern humans to about 5000 survivors. Or so the story goes. Here's possible some real, direct evidence of what was happening at that time.
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/07/2014/70000-year-old-african-settlement-unearthed
Show lesshttp://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/07/2014/70000-year-old-african-settlement-unearthed
During ongoing excavations in northern Sudan, Polish archaeologists have discovered the remains of a settlement estimated to 70,000 years old
People who object to Obamacare (I'm not one of them) are often challenged to come up with a better alternative. I found this as just one alternative. Judge for yourselves.
Abstract
Obamacare moves American health care in the wrong direction by eroding the doctor–patient relationship, centralizing control, and increasing health costs. True health care reform would empower individuals, with their doctors, to make their own health care decisions free from government interference. Therefore, Obamacare should be stopped and fully repealed. Then Congress and the states should enact patient-centered, market-based reforms that better serve Americans.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/after-repeal-of-obamacare-moving-to-patient-centered-market-based-health-care
Abstract
Obamacare moves American health care in the wrong direction by eroding the doctor–patient relationship, centralizing control, and increasing health costs. True health care reform would empower individuals, with their doctors, to make their own health care decisions free from government interference. Therefore, Obamacare should be stopped and fully repealed. Then Congress and the states should enact patient-centered, market-based reforms that better serve Americans.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/after-repeal-of-obamacare-moving-to-patient-centered-market-based-health-care
(From Michael Shermer on Facebook):
Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity—particularly diversity of viewpoints—for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: 1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years; 2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike; 3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking; and 4) The underrepresentation of nonliberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.
http://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf
Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity—particularly diversity of viewpoints—for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: 1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years; 2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike; 3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking; and 4) The underrepresentation of nonliberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.
http://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf
Get it, or get out. Just kidding.
And my revised edition of the 2'nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to self defense by necessary means shall not be denied. Congress and the states will cooperate to regulate and support such militia and their facilities."
And my revised edition of the 2'nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to self defense by necessary means shall not be denied. Congress and the states will cooperate to regulate and support such militia and their facilities."
The free market is not a moral mechanism, and was never seriously promoted as one by its founders. It is simply the best way to get competing/cooperating interests to work best to build the overall economy. But as a moral force, it is as devoid of life as Social Darwinism (or even true Darwinism at that) was, and using it that way just a rationalization for inhumanity. Even the preamble to the US Constitution declares "... to Provide for the Common Welfare ...". Of course, big government is not the preferred way to deal with needy and unfortunate in our society; but if we don't want to go that route we have to come up with better alternatives that will still (probably) involve government to some degree but allow market forces to work where appropriate. To me, I see Obamacare as just one attempt to do exactly that; and I'll back that position up by noting it's similarity to Republican plans (Romenycare in MA?) along the same lines.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/26/bill-maher-big-business-big-government_n_5623418.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000018&ir=Media
Show lesshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/26/bill-maher-big-business-big-government_n_5623418.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000018&ir=Media
OK, I've been touting the coming solar energy revolution as a natural by-product of the computer revolution, in it's post but parallel emergence from materials science/chemistry/physics, both in converting raw solar to electricity and in storage technologies. And I don't think I'm going to abandon that over one article, especially one that includes the same whopping big logical fallacy all solar-deniers (if I can use that term) make: the fallacy that proclaims the computer revolution didn't happen because it's too expensive and difficult to keep changing those damned vacuum tubes. But I've also learned that one ignores economists at one's peril. So, without further introduction, here is ...
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
Read more (11 lines)http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
SUBSIDIES for renewable energy are one of the most contested areas of public policy. Billions are spent nursing the infant solar- and wind-power industries in the...
A little more perspective. Gaza is about 175 square miles and contains some 1.8 million inhabitants -- that's about 10,000 per square mile, the equal of any major city in the world in size and density. It is also basically walled off and blockaded anywhere you turn. In addition, it is heavily populated with people who have already provided rationalizations for violence. I understand the reasons this was done, and Israel's security needs, but there is no way this is anything other than a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse. All parties involved have to come up with something better. Hamas, IDF -- unshoulder your weapons and deal with this impossible situation. To my country (the US), the EU, and all surrounding nations: all must be involved in unweaving this most interlocking and tangled of webs before catastrophe happens.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870148,00.html
Show lesshttp://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870148,00.html
One can talk of a Right to health care as stemming from the DOI rights to life and the pursuit of happiness. At the same time, health care providers have the same right to liberty. I am all in favor of using markets to meet these rights to the extent they can, but if that's all we have, too many fall through the cracks. So I find the logic behind Obamacare sound, even if the applications of it need tweaking and revisiting. Socialized healthcare (like socialized police and fire protection) has its merits, but might be too heavy-handed to work well in the US. Gosh, I guess I'm admitting I really don't know. But let's working on the problem.
Show less
"Talk of 'rights' is just a rhetorical game progressives play to get the policies they want (usually a single payer system). But talk of 'rights' does nothing for the goal of actually figuring out how to get people reasonable access to the healthcare they need. To do that, we have to deal directly with the problems of affordability (as in the United States) or with the perverse consequences of rationing (as in Canada). The disastrous rollout of Obamacare just might stimulate a serious, widespread discussion of these options for the first time."
There's an old saw about how we need liberals to come up with new ideas and solutions to problems, but we need conservatives to make these ideas work in practice. There used to be some truth in that. I'm not sure there is anymore.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/26/conservatives-societal-change-comes-best-individuals-government/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Show lesshttp://dailysignal.com/2014/07/26/conservatives-societal-change-comes-best-individuals-government/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Pew Research released a study of Americans' political beliefs, dividing them into seven categories from "steadfast conservatives" to "solid liberals."
Charles Darwin (if anyone believes Jacob Bronowski and Richard Dawkins) was a Victorian-era gentleman who held the racial views of his time and culture. He clearly did not believe in equality of races, but then neither did Lincoln and virtually everyone else; only Darwin's co-discoverer of Evolution by Natural Selection, Alfred Russell Wallace, rejected the racist views of his day. Paradoxically, this caused him to reject Darwinism as a theory of human evolution, which is one of the reasons why he doesn't have the fame Darwin has acquired. If you enjoy historic irony (as I do), you will find this delightful.
ALL OF WHICH has nothing to do with Darwin's main theories, the discoveries in genetics made during his time (poor Mendel in his overlooked abbey) and after (de Vries in 1901 rediscovering Mendel and making him famous at last), or any of the truckloads of fossil and other evidence from other fields that prove Neo-Darwinism true beyond any rational doubt.Show less
ALL OF WHICH has nothing to do with Darwin's main theories, the discoveries in genetics made during his time (poor Mendel in his overlooked abbey) and after (de Vries in 1901 rediscovering Mendel and making him famous at last), or any of the truckloads of fossil and other evidence from other fields that prove Neo-Darwinism true beyond any rational doubt.Show less
Oh when may reason and fact prevail?
It tries so hard, to no avail.
But fools use both bucket and pail
To provide all lies, both old and stale.
If peace is sought, it will succeed,
If not as swiftly as we need.
Both sides must join to stop the fight
Or there can never be right just might.
Lay down your arms, I beseech you all,
Or death will continue to appall,
Till one day you count up all your dead
And find not one whole heart or head.
Justice will only be for those who heed
The call for peace we desperately need.
Rockets, bombs, and guns shall cease,
And the day come we all want peace.
Show lessIt tries so hard, to no avail.
But fools use both bucket and pail
To provide all lies, both old and stale.
If peace is sought, it will succeed,
If not as swiftly as we need.
Both sides must join to stop the fight
Or there can never be right just might.
Lay down your arms, I beseech you all,
Or death will continue to appall,
Till one day you count up all your dead
And find not one whole heart or head.
Justice will only be for those who heed
The call for peace we desperately need.
Rockets, bombs, and guns shall cease,
And the day come we all want peace.
Just over 90 years ago a discovery was made that started a fascinating journey exploring human evolution in Africa. The Broken Hill skull was the first early human fossil to be found in Africa and evidence suggests it probably represents the species that we, Homo sapiens, descended from.
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-early-human-fossil-africa-debut.html#jCp
Show lesshttp://phys.org/news/2013-03-early-human-fossil-africa-debut.html#jCp
Interesting article. We should not underestimate advances in CO2 sequestration, or modest increases in nuclear and hydroelectric power. I'm more optimistic about renewable energies growth in the coming decades than the authors however (think computer revolution over the last 30 years; very similar science and technology are involved). Add to this improvements in energy efficiency (as has been happening steadily for decades), substitution of natural gas (with sequestration) for coal, and there is yet more cause for optimism. If we can meet a goal of keeping CO2 levels =< 500 PPM, a 1 - 1.5 temperature rise is within possibility.
I can't agree with Figure II's details. GW will not only shift the temperature curve, but should broaden it as well. This means extreme warm events will increase and the opposite decrease, but there will still be plenty (and more, albeit) of both.
Oh, please don't use pictures of cooling towers emitting plumes of steam. That has nothing to do with CO2 or warming (even ST plants have them), and can only confuse people. And phrases like, "global meltdown" really are misleading
I can't agree with Figure II's details. GW will not only shift the temperature curve, but should broaden it as well. This means extreme warm events will increase and the opposite decrease, but there will still be plenty (and more, albeit) of both.
Oh, please don't use pictures of cooling towers emitting plumes of steam. That has nothing to do with CO2 or warming (even ST plants have them), and can only confuse people. And phrases like, "global meltdown" really are misleading
Interesting article. We should not underestimate advances in CO2 sequestration, or modest increases in nuclear and hydroelectric power. I'm more optimistic about renewable energies growth in the coming decades than the authors however (think computer revolution over the last 30 years; very similar science and technology are involved). Add to this improvements in energy efficiency (as has been happening steadily for decades), substitution of natural gas (with sequestration) for coal, and there is yet more cause for optimism. If we can meet a goal of keeping CO2 levels =< 500 PPM, a 1 - 1.5 temperature rise is within possibility.
I can't agree with Figure II's details. GW will not only shift the temperature curve, but should broaden it as well. This means extreme warm events will increase and the opposite decrease, but there will still be plenty (and more, albeit) of both.
Oh, please don't use pictures of cooling towers emitting plumes of steam. That has nothing to do with CO2 or warming (even ST plants have them), and can only confuse people. And phrases like, "global meltdown" really are misleading
Show lessI can't agree with Figure II's details. GW will not only shift the temperature curve, but should broaden it as well. This means extreme warm events will increase and the opposite decrease, but there will still be plenty (and more, albeit) of both.
Oh, please don't use pictures of cooling towers emitting plumes of steam. That has nothing to do with CO2 or warming (even ST plants have them), and can only confuse people. And phrases like, "global meltdown" really are misleading
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Comments such as "global warming is adding four million Hiroshima bombs to the globe everyday" are so absurd they should deserve no comment. But it's apparently necessary. Contemplate how much total heat the atmosphere possesses; enough to rise it from -273C (absolute zero if there were no sun) to ~15C average today. That's 288 total degrees for the entire atmosphere, or (I'm neglecting phase changes, which add more energy to the equation). Now, the addition of (0.8C/century)/(century/100 years)(year/365 days) = 2.192e-5C/day of the total atmospheric energy added to the planet every day. If that's 4 million atomic bombs, then those four million (Hiroshima sized) bombs increases the atmosphere's energy only by 0.002192% each day. Of course if a day is unusually hot, say 10C hotter, then that is (10.00/2.192e-5C) X 4 million bombs = 1.8 trillion Hiroshima bombs to produce that extra heat (far, far, far larger than the entire Earth's nuclear arsenals). And that is nothing compared the heat of the whole atmosphere.
It's just a scare mechanism. And putting it terms of nuclear weapons (which it has nothing to do with) just nails in the terror. And worse, if anything, it has the opposite effect. Global warming and climate change should be talked about -- to the public -- soberly, responsibly, and with as much scientific explanation as the public can handle. The doubts and problems should be admitted. PR campaigns, falsehoods, one-sided presentations, exaggerations, and ads like the above will only be seen as they are, leading to further resistance.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
17:00 16 May 2007 by David L Chandler
"Water is a major greenhouse gas too, but its level in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Excess water vapour rains out in days. Excess C...O2 accumulates, warming the atmosphere, which raises water vapour levels and causes further warming.
"Is water a far more important a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, as some claim? It is not surprising that there is a lot of confusion about this - the answer is far from simple.
"Firstly, there is the greenhouse effect, and then there is global warming. The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases (and clouds) absorbing and re-emitting the infrared radiating from Earth's surface. It currently keeps our planet 20°C to 30°C warmer than it would be otherwise. Global warming is the rise in temperatures caused by an increase in the levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity.
"Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap.
"At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference."
DJS -- I have attached a chart showing these overlapping and separate regions. Green is water vapor and red carbon dioxide. Although there is a lot of overlaps there are still distinct regions where they absorb in different parts of the spectrum. I also have to correct a miscalculation I made. A 1.0 degree C increase in atmospheric temperature should result in a seven percent increase in water vapor; i.e., an increase in ~1500 ppm (the CO2 increase is ~100 ppm). Although pure CO2 appears to have ~20 times the greenhouse effect than pure H2O, the overlaps in saturated regions (all IR blocked) appears to make the contribution of both approximately the same. There is also still some natural warming, which, as I read the 2013 IPCC data, is between 25-50% of the total. -- END DJS
"So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.
This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2"
17:00 16 May 2007 by David L Chandler
"Water is a major greenhouse gas too, but its level in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Excess water vapour rains out in days. Excess C...O2 accumulates, warming the atmosphere, which raises water vapour levels and causes further warming.
"Is water a far more important a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, as some claim? It is not surprising that there is a lot of confusion about this - the answer is far from simple.
"Firstly, there is the greenhouse effect, and then there is global warming. The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases (and clouds) absorbing and re-emitting the infrared radiating from Earth's surface. It currently keeps our planet 20°C to 30°C warmer than it would be otherwise. Global warming is the rise in temperatures caused by an increase in the levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity.
"Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap.
"At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference."
DJS -- I have attached a chart showing these overlapping and separate regions. Green is water vapor and red carbon dioxide. Although there is a lot of overlaps there are still distinct regions where they absorb in different parts of the spectrum. I also have to correct a miscalculation I made. A 1.0 degree C increase in atmospheric temperature should result in a seven percent increase in water vapor; i.e., an increase in ~1500 ppm (the CO2 increase is ~100 ppm). Although pure CO2 appears to have ~20 times the greenhouse effect than pure H2O, the overlaps in saturated regions (all IR blocked) appears to make the contribution of both approximately the same. There is also still some natural warming, which, as I read the 2013 IPCC data, is between 25-50% of the total. -- END DJS
"So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.
This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2"
Sunday, March 9, 2014
An Explanation of Ocean Acidification and its Effects on Life
By David J Strumfels on http://AMedelyofPotpourri.Blogspot.com/
(Wikipedia, 2/28/14): "Between 1751 and
1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from
approximately 8.25 to 8.14 (how measured in 1751?),[5] representing
an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the
world's oceans.[6][7] Available Earth System Models project that
within the last decade ocean pH exceeded historical analogs [8] and
in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could
undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and many ocean goods
and services.[9]"
8.25 to 8.14 -- what does that mean? What it
does not mean is that the oceans are acidic, for their pH would have
to be below 7.0 to say that. In fact, we would call it alkaline
(the opposite of acidity). But acidification indicates a
direction, not a specific place on the pH scale (some climate
warming skeptics seem not to understand the difference) .
Chemically, pH is defined as the "negative log (hydrogen
ion concentration)". But what does THAT mean?
The hydrogen ion, or H+ (a hydrogen
atom without its electron, or a bare proton), is the main acidic
species in water. If the concentration of H+ is
8.00E-8 = 0.00000001 Molar (moles per liter, or just M), then the log
of that number is -8.00, its negative log is 8.00, and so the pH is
8.00. As to the specific cases here: pH 8.25 =>
-8.25; antilog (-8.25), or 10 to the power of the number)
yields 5.62E-9 H+ M, while 8.16 => -8.16 =>
7.14E-9 H+ M. That's a difference of 1.52E-9 H+
M concentration, or 0.00000000152M. Yes, it is a 29% increase
in acidity, mathematically. Of course, 29% of practically
nothing is even closer to actually nothing. But
chemically, especially biochemically, it can be very important.
For example, your blood pH has to be kept within a
narrow range of 8.25 and 8.35, or illness, even death, can
result. I do not know all the reasons for this, but I can tell
you that many biomolecules have both basic (opposite of acidic) and
acidic forms, and they are chemically different. They may have
to be kept within a very narrow equilibrium of basic and acidic
forms, each running a different reaction. Or some are all
necessarily basic at this pH, while others all acidic. At pHs
near 7.0 (neutrality), these equilibria are extremely
sensitive to these tiny changes I outlined above.
So it is not difficult to see how a drop in 0.09
pH units (combined with a degree or two warming) could wreak havoc on
numerous sea organisms, plant, animal, protozoan, or bacterial. On
the other hand, the immensity of the oceans assures that there will be
pH (and temperature) variations, in time and location, so sea life
should be expected to be a little more hardy. But there are still
fairly strict limits. The 21'st century will surely test those
limits.
A little more chemistry now. We blithely speak of
CO2 increasing water acidity, but how?
First, CO2 is mildly soluble in
water, the lower the water temperature, or the higher the water
pressure, the more soluble (for thermodynamic reasons we need go into
here) it is. That isn't enough for acidity, however. There has to
be a chemical reaction between CO2 and
H2O
first: CO2 +
H2O
<=> HCO3-
and H+.
The <=> sign means the reaction goes in both directions; which
set of reactants/products is favored depends on
various conditions. Cold leans toward the first
two, pressure the opposite way. This again is thermodynamics, with
enthalpy and entropy competing against each other. At the low
concentrations of CO2,
in general the latter is favored. But it's still a tiny contribution
of H+, enough, as
you've seen, to lower ocean water an average of 0.1 pH units over the
last two hundred years (and I would not be surprised if 0.5 – 0.7
units of that is within the last 30-40 years, and
it ~doubles by 2100 – this is serious).
Friday, February 14, 2014
High Octane Fuels and the Use of Ethanol in Engine Fuels
You've seen and heard the word octane with relation to cars and gasoline all your life. Well, unless you never pumped gasoline into your car. Ever wonder what it means? Well, the basic answer is, the higher the octane number the more smoothly the gasoline will burn in you engine, reducing any "knocking" and increasing efficiency and mpg.
But that still doesn't tell us much. Where does this number come from, how is it determined, and what chemical and physical properties of the fuel control the final rating?
A little chemistry is needed to explain this.
Octane rating is measured relative to a mixture of 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, CH3-C(CH3)2-CH2-CH(CH3)-CH3(an isomer of octane; it has eight carbons) and n-heptane (7 carbons in a straight line).
Arbitrarily but unsurprisingly, the octane is given an octane number of 100, while the heptane is assigned 0. Mixtures of the two are then used in engine to access their different octane numbers. Incidentally, there are hydrocarbons with octane numbers (not to be confused with octane numbers compounds!) higher than 100, for jet and rocket fuels (which of course cannot be allowed to knock or fail).
You're probably asking at this point: why not just give me pure 2,2,4-trimethylpentane at the gas pump and "put a tiger in my tank?" Well, they could, but there'll be another tiger in your bank account as it would be horribly expensive. Why? Now, finally, we get to petroleum, oil, that is pumped out of the ground. Petroleum is not one compound; it is instead a mixture of many, many different chemicals. The cheapest way to separate them is by "fractional" distillation, which is rather like a much more complicated and expensive kind of distillation than used to turn wine into cognac, or mash into beer or whiskey, or just to extract straight ethanol.
So, trying to fractionate pure 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, or any pure chemical, out of crude petroleum is so expensive that only a professional race driver could afford it, if they wanted to -- they actually use other, better, fuels. It is far easier and cheaper to just take an entire fraction of the distillation process and use that as gasoline. Now we come to problem two, the big problem. This fraction, untreated, will not perform well in gasoline engines because its octane number is simply not up there enough; certainly not the 86 of the standard gasoline you buy at the pump. So -- what might we add to the fraction to get its octane number up to 86, or 89, or 91-93 (pump standards)?
The standard method for boosting octane is to add an additive. The first additive (that I know of) was tetraethyl lead. Because of its spherical shape, this compound was very effect. It did have a serious downside however. Burning it in a car engine spewed lead and lead compounds into the atmosphere, where it could be inhaled/absorbed into bodies and do real damage there -- rather like mercuric compounds. Thus, tetraethyl lead was gradually phased out, and the search for a safer additive was undertaken. The first(?) of these was methyl tert-ethyl ether, or methyl - O - C(Me)3. Like tetraethyl lead it also it is also highly spherical, making it an excellent octane booster. Unfortunately, it ran into another problem. It tended to seep into groundwater from tanks, poisoning water supplies. So it too, in the end was phased out.
Nowadays we mix up to 10% corn-ethanol (drinking alcohol) into gasoline to improve its anti-knock properties. A second reason is that, ethanol being derived from atmospheric carbon dioxide, doesn't increase the level of this important greenhouse gas, thus helping to fight anthropogenic climate warming. Many environmentalists was to increase it to 15% -- but there are negatives to it to that cause others to rid it altogether is gasoline. The problem is gasoline containing ethanol is especially subject to absorbing atmospheric moisture, then forming gums, solids, or two phases (a hydrocarbon phase floating on top of a water-alcohol phase), all of which shorten the lives of engines. This is why ethanol is still not the perfect additive. It also takes a great quantity of land to grow a sufficient quantity of corn, which drives it and other vegetables up in price.
I claim no knowledge of what a perfect additive would be. Perhaps we will have migrated from natural gasoline to syn-fuel mixtures derived from algae/plants first, via genetic engineering (as we already are), if that is, electricity and hydrogen/LNG don't get there first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام ( ...
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A reproduction of the palm -leaf manuscript in Siddham script ...
