The elite colleges, academic writing, and the Journal of Universal Rejection.

Leave a reply

What makes something elite? For elite colleges and academic journals, a large part is selectivity, the lower fraction of people who can go to your college or publish in your journal, or earn your credential, the more selective, thus the most elite. Harvard, boasts that “the best” apply, and of these, only 3% get in. Thus Harvard selects for the top 1%, or so they claim. These are not selected as the brightest, or most moral or motivated, but by a combination: they are the most Harvardian.

The top 20 most selective US colleges, 2022-23 according to Nathan Yau, FlowingData.com

Selectivity is viewed as good. That this 1% can get into Harvard makes the students elite and makes Harvard desirable. Some lower-class Ivy colleges (Columbia, for example) have been found to cheat to pretend higher selectivity; they’ve exaggerated the number of people who apply so they can inflate their rejection rate, and justify a high tuition, and presumably a high salary for their graduates. And it’s self-sustaining. Generally speaking, college professors and high-powered executives are drawn from elite institutions. Elite grads pick other elite grads as their way to get the best material, with the best education.

By this measure, selectivity, The Journal of Universal Rejection is the most elite and best. It’s the journal you should definitely get. The reject every article submitted on every subject. They are thus more elite than Harvard or Cal Tech, and more select than the quorum of US presidents, or Olympic gold winners, or living Chess champions, and they got there by just saying no. Many people send their articles, by the way, all rejected.

My lesson from this, is that selectivity is a poor metric for quality. Just because an institution or journal that is select in some one aspect does not mean that it will be select in another. Top swimmers and footballers rarely go to Harvard, so they have to pick from a lower tear of applicants for their swimming and football teams. It’s the same with the top in math or science, they apply to Cal Tech, with the rejects going to Stanford or Princeton. As for top chess players or US Navy Seals, a Harvard degree does nothing for them; few seals go to Harvard, and few Harvard students could be Seals. Each elite exists in its own bubble, and each bubble has its own rules. Thus, if you want to be hired as a professor, you have to go to the appropriate institution, though not necessarily from the top most selective.

From Nature, 2024. 20% of all academics come from just 8 schools, 40% come from the top 21.

As for journals to read or write in, an elevated reader like you should publish where you can be read, and understood, and perhaps to change things for the better, I think. Some money would be nice too, but few scientific journals offer that. Based on this, I have a hard time recommending scientific journals, or conferences. More and more, they charge the writer to publish or present, and offer minimal exposure of your ideas. They charge the readers and attendees such high fees that very few will see your work; university libraries subscribe, but often on condition that not everyone can read for free. Journal often change your writing too, sometimes for the better, but often to match the journal outlook or style, or just to suggest (demand) that you cite some connected editor. JofUR is better in a way, no charge to the author, and no editorial changes.

Typically, journals limit your ability to read or share your work, assuming they accept it, then they expect you to review for them, for free. So why do academics write for these journals? They’re considered the only legitimate way to get your findings out; worse, that’s how universities evaluate your work. University administrators are chosen with no idea of your research quality, and a requirement of number-based evaluation, so they evaluate professors by counting publications, particularly in elite (selective) journals, and based on the elite (selective) school you come from. It’s an insane metric that results in awful research and writing, and bad professors too. I’ve come to think that anyone, outside of academia, who writes in a scientific journal is a blockhead. If you have something worthwhile to say, write a blog, or maybe a book, or find a free, open access journal. In my field, hydrogen, the only free, open access journals are published in Russia and Iran.

And just for laughs, if you don’t mind the futility of universal rejection, there’s JoUR. Mail your article, with a self addressed return, or email it to j.universal.rejection@gmail.com. You’ll get a rejection notice and you’ll join an un-elite group: rejected, self effacing academics with time on their hands.

ROBERT BUXBAUM, January 16, 2025. If, for some reason, you want to get your progeny into an elite college, my niece, a Harvard grad., has a company that does just that, International College Counselors, they help with essays, testing, and references, and nudge your progeny to submit on time.

Golfball dimples on a car for improved mpg.

3 Replies
The Mythbusters dimpled Taurus, and a diagram meant to show how drag is reduced. On a golf ball, at low NRE, vortex separation is moved back to 110°, the mechanism on a car is different, I suspect.

The dimples on a golf ball reduce air-drag resistance, so why don’t we put dimples on planes or cars? Perhaps because it’s ugly, or that cars are much bigger and than golf-balls, so we expect the effect of skin effects to be smaller. Finally, a Reynolds number analysis suggests that dimples on cars should increase drag, not reduce it.

In 2009, the Mythbusters decided to test the conjecture. Hosts Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage ran careful gas usage tests on a Ford Taurus that was first covered with smooth clay. They drove the car repeatedly (5X) on a track at 65 mph (about 100 km/h), and measured “slightly over 26 mpg,” 9.047 l/100km, a respectable value. They then carved dimples into the clay to simulate the surface of a golf ball. See picture at right, and put the removed clay into the trunk so there would be no decrease in weight.

Underneath a Porche GT4, smallish dimples.

They then drove the dimpled car over the same course, five times as before at exactly 65 mph, and found the car got 14% more mpg, 29.6 mpg, or 7.946 l/100 km. See video excerpt here. They considered it their most surprising Mythbuster episode.

As it happens, dimples had been put on some production cars, even before the episode. They are just located underneath where most people don’t see them. The VW “Golf” had dimples even before the episode, and the Porsche Cayman GT4 does today, see picture above left, but most experiments find little or nothing. Car dimples are typically smaller than those used on Mythbusters, so that may be an explanation. Dimples have been found to help on soccer balls (the stitching acts as the dimples), and bicycle wheels (less advantage).

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS 18, 041702 (2006) Mechanism of drag reduction by dimples on a sphere, Jin Choi, Woo-Pyung Jeon, and Haecheon Choia.

The graph at right shows the source of confusion for cars and the great advantage for golf balls. It’s a plot of the drag coefficient for smooth and dimpled golf balls, as a function of the Reynolds Number, where NRE = Vdρ/µ. In this formula, V is velocity, d is the diameter of the car, ball or whatever, ρ is the density of the fluid, and µ is viscosity. NRE can be thought of as the ratio of the inertial to viscous forces acting on the object. It’s a way of describing the combined effects of speed and size for different objects in motion.

We see, above, that dimples reduce golf-ball drag by more than 50%, but only at speeds/ Reynolds numbers that are much lower than for normal cars, NRE between about 4×104 and 3.5×105, as are typical of golf balls during play. A typical car at 65mph will have a NRE.CAR = 3×106, suggesting that there should be no advantage for dimples, or possibility a disadvantage, that dimples should increase drag. A side note one sees, above, is that it is only the dimples on the front of the golf-ball that reduce drag: other dimples do nothing. If one were to add dimples to high-speed trains and airplanes I’d suggest them only on the front, so far I have not seen them.

I think that the Mythbusters did a good job with their experiments, and find their 14% improvement significant. So why do so few other cars see and advantage. One thought I had was to note that the Ford Taurus is a remarkably round car, providing ample space for front dimples to help, most cars today are more angular. I also note that the production cars have smaller dimples, as on the Porsche, above. Then again, the Mythbusters folks may have made some non-obvious experimental error.

Robert Buxbaum, January 4, 2024. An important side issue in this is that Google’s AI was awful, a handicap in researching this article. It lies continuously and convincingly, and did so here. I’d asked it for the year of the episode, and the AI lied, and said 2012. I asked for the type of car, the AI said an SUV, and it gave a misdescription of the tests. Lying AIs appear as villains in science fiction, e.g. HAL of 2001 A Space Odyssey, now in real life.

Making semi-traditional STAM ink using walnuts.

Leave a reply

Jewish tradition requires that certain holy items have to be written on parchment with kosher, opaque, black ink. These items are called STAM. They are books of the Torah (Sifre torah, in Hebrew), Philactaries (Tefillin in Hebrew), and Mezzuzos for the doorpost. To be kosher the ink must be made from kosher sources: plant matter, soot, water, and/or inorganic chemicals. That leaves a lot of options, and it is likely that black Sharpie would be kosher, but there are ancient recipes, and I decided to semi-follow one, but thought to use walnuts instead of the classic gall nut. I’m aiming for an ink that’s dark ,compatible with animal skin parchment, and long lasting. That is, it shouldn’t rot or degrade in moist air. Some vegetable inks rot or fade, and some iron-based inks will degrade parchment over time.

The classical recipes for STAM ink is based on using the shell of gall nuts, a tree-growth (not really a nut) found in the Mid-east. But gall nuts are not readily available in the US, so as an experiment, I’ve tried to make a respectable, kosher ink with walnuts instead. Walnut trees grow readily in the midwest. I collected a dozen walnuts with their husks from a tree near my home. The husk had been green originally, but had turned black by the time I picked them (mid November). Rather than extract the shell, I used the walnut as I found it. To extract the color, I tried boiling them in denatured alcohol, and also in water. Boiling in alcohol didn’t work well, and produced a weak ink shown below, left. Boiling in water (below right) produced a much darker liquid. I used this for the basis of my ink.

Boiling walnuts in water produces a dark liquid, Walnut water.
I boiled walnuts in alcohol. The water-ink runs and isn’t dark.

The traditional recipe begins by boiling gall nuts in water to produce a brownish ink-wash that looks hardly darker than my alcohol-wash ink. You then add soot and “green vitriol”. Perhaps that is copper sulphate, or perhaps iron sulphate. Copper sulphate is a dark blue, while iron sulphate is a light green. With gall nut water, it turns out that iron vitriol works better. It reacts with tannin to make a black color. It may also serve as a preservative, to keep mold from forming in the ink or parchment. When tried with mu walnut water, I saw no color advantage to iron vitriol, likely because the original nut water was so much darker.

I put the walnuts in a beaker as shown, nearly covering them with water, and put a piece of foil on top. The longer I simmered the darker it got, but I also evaporated water. In the end, I left the mix on a hotplate, on low, for nearly a day and got the result shown above. The ink-wash, by itself was a reasonably good ink, as shown below left. It’s darker than the ink other folks had gotten with boiled gall nuts and iron vitriol.

The traditional recipe includes three more ingredients, so I experimented with them. These are vitriol, soot, and gum Arabic. The proportions are shown below, in the form of a poem in Arabic written about 900AD (Dark Ages). The first of these additions I tested was vitriol. I first tried copper sulphate, half as much as walnut water, and found that it darkens the color a little. It also makes the combination a bit thicker thought the ink is still watery. Darkness is hardly better than the walnut water alone, but it looks OK to me. Copper sulphate is an antimicrobial, so even without changing the color, I imagined this was a worthwhile addition. I also tried adding iron sulphate. This makes the ink slightly blacker, perhaps, but not thicker, and I have less confidence about its antimicrobial properties. There were reports that iron vitriol could harm a parchment over time. I committed to tests to see if one grows lasts longer; these tests are on-going with no noticeable difference so far.

Ink made from walnut water, copper sulphate, and soot. Perhaps better?

The next ingredient to add was soot. It’s used to make the ink darker, and perhaps thicker. Traditional soot is made from burning olive oil, though some folks have used wood ash. I had some soot in my lab from MER corp, a leftover from making buckminsterfullerene. I added as much soot as vitriol, as in the poem below. As expected, adding soot increased the blackness of the ink, but it also changed the texture, making it gritty and hard to write with. I had trouble dissolving the soot into the ink too, and apparently, I’m not the first to have this trouble. Some suggested heating, and some suggested honey. Heating helped, honey hardly did. Perhaps these ingredients act as emulsifiers, helping when you mix the ink. As a side experiment, I tried adding a drop of dish soap. The result, above left, was blacker than the original, but the writing is not professional grade, IMHO. The ink does not write well, and it still doesn’t cover 100%. I moved on to the next ingredient, gum Arabica.

The recipe for ink, musclé, via a poem by Mukla Farsi, 900AD from blog of the Bodlieian Libraries at Oxford.

The mixing ratios in this poem are not exactly clear. The amount of soot is the same as of vitriol, and half that of gall, but is this the weight of the gall nuts, or volume, or the weight of the dried extract, perhaps. I used volume. Even so, it’s quite a lot of soot; soot is messy and hard to dissolve.

The final ingredient is gum Arabic, the gum of the acacia tree. This seems to be used as a thickener, and my expectation was that it might also make the ink darker, and that it might help dissolve the soot. Gum Arabic is available in the US, on Amazon as an edible “candy”, so I bought some. It wasn’t expensive, but took about 10 days to get here. In the meantime, I tried honey as a thickener. It appears in some ancient recipes, but didn’t really help here, and left the page sort of sticky. Gum arabic is solider, so I hoped for for lasting product. When the Gum Arabic came, I found that it was solid, crystalline, with has hardly any taste. Maybe Arabs add sugar? I figure there might be a mystical advantage to gum Arabic since it comes from the Acacia tree, the type of tree used to make the Ark of the Covenant.

As it happens, gum Arabic doesn’t dissolve in cold water. But it did dissolve if I mixed it in, then heated and stirred for 5 minutes. The gum helped dissolve the soot too; honey seemed to help in this too, but gum Arabic seemed to do a better job. Once the gum ink dried it was nice and solid, with the dried letters standing off the page a bit; they’re raised letters, and I really like that. The ink was still sort of grainy, perhaps from the walnut bits. My understanding is that it’s kosher for STAM, but as a follow-up experiment, I’m carrying some inked parchment in my breast pocket to see if it rots or fades. So far, no change. Some samples of writing with the final product are at left. The upper words are with the iron-vitriol version (iron sulphate), the lower with the copper vitriol (copper sulphate).

Robert Buxbaum, December 22, 2024. I should mention the choice of pen. Scribes of 2000 years ago used wooden pens, as feather quills hadn’t been invented, it seems. I made a wood pen by caring a popsicle stick. This pen was used a wood for some of the samples above. The better-looking letters, and longer passages, were written with a metal, calligraphy “quill.”

Sleepwalking into WWI, and WWIII

Leave a reply

A remarkable book by Christopher Clark on WWI posits that WWI was an accident, entered into, by sleepwalk. That is, it was not brought on by the elaborate plan of an evil aggressor, Germany or Britain, acting for dominance or economic gain, but rather that many individuals precipitated the deadly conflict through a series of ever-more dangerous, unplanned steps. The great diplomats went on vacation following the June 28, 1914 assassination, and each minor actor felt a need to push for a previous status quo, emboldened by the certainty that nothing bad would happen, since none of the last acts had caused any serious harm, at least not to them. There was, in Clark’s view, a general numbness caused by earlier wars: in China and Russia, in Serbia and Albania, and by Italy’s invasion of Africa, and the fact that there had not been a major, deadly conflict since the Crimean war. In this environment, one nation shoving another was seen as normal conflict until a war broke out that killed millions and toppled four empires: the Russian, Austrian, German, and Ottoman.

Princip shoots Count Ferdinand, June 28, 914. Getty Immage.

Clark points out, too that the Serbs, the folks who started the war, benefited from it. They escaped from imperial control by Austria and from The Ottoman Empire. Self determination was the motivation for the assassination, and it worked too, for the Czechs, Croats, Poles, and communists. In just a few years, the former group got their own countries, and the communists took Russia, something that no one saw coming in June, 1914.

The key sleep-walk steps to war were as follows: In response to the assassination, and a decade of earlier insults, Austria-Hungary, demanded harsh cocessions from Serbia that Serbia found unacceptable. Austria Hungary, backed by Germany and Italy, declared war on Serbia. Russia then mobilized its troops for war with Germany, so Germany declared war on Russia. France, an ally of Russia, then mobilized for war with Germany, so on August 2 – 3, Germany declared war on France and invaded Luxembourg and Belgium. Why Luxembourg and Belgium — because they would not allow free transport of German troupes to attack France. This forced Great Britain to declare war on Germany, which, finally, on August 6, brought Austria-Hungary to declared war on Russia, and effectively on the rest of the Allies. Over the next few years, we (the US) were dragged in along with Japan, on our side.

What a mess, but I fear we may be sleepwalking to the same, grim altercation via our wars in Ukraine and Syria. As at the beginning of WWI, there are two big power alliances: NATO including The US and most of Europe, versus a BRICS alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, Iran, China, and South Africa, along with a few minor others. The alliances are now three years into a proxy war in Ukraine, and another one in Syria. So far the declared combatants are Russia vs Ukraine, and Turkey vs Syria, but both sides keeps harassing the other at a higher and higher pace. So far, the sleep-walk steps were that Russia invaded Crimea, in response to some insult, and then attempted to take Kiev. The NATO alliance responded provided limited weapons to Ukraine. But, as these proved insufficient, we (NATO) provided greater and more deadly weapons, plus some volunteer troops. Meanwhile Russia’s BRICS allies are selling drones and missiles into the conflict in return for Russian gold, wheat, and raw materials. One of us, perhaps Ukraine, then cut the RussianGerman gas pipeline, while China seems to have cut important communications cables in the Baltic Sea.

North Korea began sending troops, 12,000 apparently, to fight on the Russian side, while Biden has sent long-range missiles to be used for strikes deep into Russian territory, on logistic centers, train depots, food stores, airports, etc. Putin has threatened a nuclear response, but has done nothing so far beyond sending a few long range, hypersonic missiles against civilian targets and against Ukraine’s power grid. He’s lost some 600,000 Russians, and has lost control of Syria and Armenia, so he has reason to be upset. Ukraine has lost some 400,000, and is still losing territory, but is still demanding total victory, the removal of all Russian forces, including those in Crimea.

The fight has spread to Syria, where the US, Israel, and Turkey have bombed in recent days, something I would call an act of offensive war against a sovereign unstable government. It’s not totally unprevoked, of course. Syria and Iran had been attacking Israel for years from Lebanon, by way of Hezbollah jihadists. Recently Israel took out a major fraction of Hezbollah, and the jihadists (Sunni) seems to have gone back to Syria, and have removed Assad, Syria’s Shia president for life, with help from Turkey, another Sunni Moslem country. This too is an act of war. Assad retains a sliver on the coast where the Russian bases are, the red areas in the map below, but he isn’t popular with anyone at the moment. The rebel leader, Abu Mohammed al Jolani, was a member of Al Quada till 2006, and then member of ISIS (ISIL) under Abu Baghdadi till 2016 at least. He’s still on our terrorist list, though he now claims to be a progressive Moslem. Not everyone is convinced, or happy with him. Syria is divided into seven (or more) control zones, shown on the map below. He could bring peace to Syria, but his path to peace is clearly further war.

On the legal and PR front, we’ve called Russian president Putin a madman and war criminal, we support Turkey’s efforts to overthrow Assad, but complain about his attacks on the Kurds, the yellow areas, and dark green at right, and we both applaud and condemn Israeli President Netanyahu for attacking Syria in the south, and in the red sliver, destroying Syria’s navy. Meanwhile, we (the US) have taken it upon ourselves to attack ISIS (ISIL) camps in central Syria, the grey areas, as well as attacking troops (Iranian Shia) entering from Iraq. By normal definition, this would put us at war with Syria, and perhaps with Turkey since we support the Kurds in their war against Turks.

Recently we’ve decided that the rebel leader, al Jolani, might be taken off the terrorist list subject to a few conditions (I wonder which). We (Biden, Shumer) along with the International Criminal Court have called for the arrest and imprisonment of Israel’s PM Netanyahu. The Turks too have join in on this, while somewhat cheering Israel’s destruction of Assad’s navy. The Druze, allies of Israel (and us?) seem to be at war with al Jolani, and likely the Turks and Iran. They’re in south-east Syria, near Deraa, not shown by a color on the map. Meanwhile, Russia is trying to make peace with al Jolani, to secure their military bases, while Iran (Shia) has reached out to al Jolani (Sunni) in an effort to join with him in a war against Israel. It’s not quite tipped into world war, but it seems awfully close.

One possible peace maker might be the incoming US president, Trump, but the outgoing president, Biden, has done his best to tie his hands, branding him as a felon and seditionist, as well as claiming he’s a Russian asset. European leaders don’t like him either. France’s Macron might a peacemaker, but Macron’s government has fallen. The Germans or Turks might be peacemakers, but the government of Germany has nearly fallen, the economy of Germany is hurting, and Turkey is a combatant, at war with the Kurds and Druze. Iran, and Russia, though not combatants, are directly involved in the fighting, and both countries are under sanction by the US and EU, and the UN is discredited from it’s years helping Hezbolla. I thus see no clear path to peace and no peacemaker who will dial back the drama before we sleep-march into WWIII.

Robert Buxbaum, December 11, 2024

Bendy hockey sticks, and my, half-bendy version.

2 Replies

Hockey sticks have gotten bendier in recent years, with an extreme example shown below: Alex Ovechkin getting about 3″ of bend using a 100# stiffness stick. Bending the stick allows a player to get more power out of wrist shots by increasing the throw distance of the puck. There is also some speed advantage to the spring energy stored in the stick — quite a lot in Mr Ovechkin’s case.

Alexander Ovechkin takes a wrist shot using a bendy stick.

A 100# stiffness stick takes 100 pounds of force in the middle to get 1″ of bend. That Ovechkin gets 3″ of bend with his 100# stick suggests that he shoots with some 300 lbs of force, an insane amount IMHO. Most players use a lot less force, but even so a bendy stick should help them score goals.

There is something that bothers me about the design of Alex Ovechkin’s stick though, something that I think I could improve. You’ll notice that the upper half of his stick bends as much as the lower half. This upper-bend does not help the shot, and it takes work-energy. The energy in that half of the bend is wasted energy, and its release might even hurt the shooter by putting sudden spring-stress on his wrist. To correct for this, I designed my own stick, shown below, with an aim to have no (or minimal) upper bend. The modification involved starting with a very bendy stick, then covering most of the upper half with fiberglass cloth.

I got ahold of a junior stick, 56″ long with 60# flex, and added a 6″ extension to the top. Doing this made the stick longer, 62″ long (adult length) and even more bendy. One 1″ of flex requires less force on a longer stick. I estimate that, by lengthening the stick, I reduced it to about 44#. Flex is inversely proportional to length cubed. I then sanded the upper part of the stick, and wrapped 6 oz” fiberglass cloth (6 oz) 2-3 wraps around the upper part as shown, holding it tight with tape at top and bottom when I was done. I then applied epoxy squeezing it through the cloth so that the composite was nearly transparent, and so the epoxy filled the holes. This added about 15g, about 1/2 oz to the weight. Transparency suggested that the epoxy had penetrated the cloth and bonded to the stick below, though the lack of total transparency suggests that the bond could have been better with a less viscous epoxy. Once the epoxy had mostly set, I took the tape off, and stripped the excess fiberglass so that the result looked more professional. I left 23″ of fiberglass wrap as shown. The fiberglass looks like hockey tape.

Assuming I did the gluing right, this hockey stick should have almost all of the spring below the shooter’s lower hand. I have not measured the flex, but my target was about 80 lbs, with improved durability and the new lower center of bend. In theory, more energy should get into the puck. It’s a gift for my son, and we’ll see how it works in a month or so.

Robert Buxbaum, December 5, 2024.

Check the screws on your door locks.

Leave a reply
Original hardware brass screws from my door and locks, plus one of the stainless screw that I used as a replacement.

I just replaced the door knob assembly on my home and found that it was held in place by a faceplate that was attached by two, 5/8″, brass screws. These screws, shown at right with their replacement, would not have been able to withstand a criminal, I think. Our door is metal, foam filled, and reasonably strong. I figure it would have withstood a beating, but the brass screws would not, especially since only 1/4″ of the screw is designed to catch foam. Look closely at the screws, and you will see there are two sizes of pitch, each 1/4 long. Only the last 1/4″ looks like it was ever engaged. The top 1/4″ may have been designed to catch metal, but the holes in the door were not tapped to match. The bottom 1/4″ held everything. Even without a criminal attack, the screw at right was bent and beginning to go.

Instead of reusing these awful screws or buying similar ones, I replaced them with stainless screws, 1 3/4″ long, like the one shown in the picture above. But then I had a thought — what were the other locks on my door attached with? I checked and found my deadbolt lock was held in by two of the same type of sorry, 5/8″ brass screws. So I replaced these too, using two more, 1.75″ stainless steel. Then, in my disgust, I thought to write this post. Perhaps the screws holding your door hardware is as lousy as was holding mine. Take a look.

Robert Buxbaum, November 28, 2024

This is not the most important election, 1860 was

Leave a reply

Every year we hear the same claim: that this the most important election of America’s history. This year is among the more contentious than most, but the issues dividing the candidates are few. Both, for example, claim they will protect the border and spur the economy. In lieu of issues, there’s name calling. Trump claims Harris is as incompetent buffoon and Harris claims Trump is a fascist dictator. The rancor practically guarantees as they’ll be riots whoever wins but, as these things go, the election is less important, and divisive than ’64 and ’68, and in particular, the election of 1860.

Following the 1860 election, election seven states ceded from the union and we had a Civil War. Even the most bleak prediction for 2024-25 is for a more peaceful transfer of power. The election of 1860 had two major issues on the ballot; one was slavery or rather the expansion of slavery to the territories, and the other was implementation of the Morrill tariffs. These import taxes, proposed by Justin Morrill and passed but not yet implemented, would have raised the average agricultural duty from 15% to to 47%. Duties on durable goods wool rise to 65%, with the burden falling disproportionately on the southern states. Duties on durable goods. There was also a price schedule that would have prevented British shippers from minimizing the effect by falsely claiming a price far below market, something China currently does. In September 1860, Republican Leader Thaddeus Stevens told a New York City audience that “the Tariff would impoverish the southern and western states, but that was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers.”

Matching the two sides to the two major issues of the day, there were four major candidates for president in 1860. All of them won states. Lincoln carried the greatest number, 18, and won the most electoral votes, 180. He was for high tariffs and against the expansion of slavery. Second was John Breckinridge, the Southern Democrat, who carried 11 states and got 72 electoral votes. He was for the expansion of slavery and against the higher tariffs. Then there was Stephen Douglas, the Northern Democrat, who was for allowing the expansion of slavery, considering it a “states right,” and also for the higher tariffs. Douglas carried only one state, Missouri, with 12 electoral votes. Finally, there was John Bell, the Constitutional Union candidate, who carried three states, Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky, representing 39 electoral votes. He opposed the expansion of slavery and also the increased tariff, but he generally believed that compromise was always possible. This was the worst vote split in US history. The worst split I’ve seen was 1968, when three candidates carried states.

Had either Bell or Douglas won, I suspect that the Civil War could have been avoided, at least temporarily. Virginia, the most important of the slave states, had shown it was willing to accept an anti-slavery president so long as he did not impose high tariffs — tariffs that benefitted the northern industrial workers and manufacturers at the expense of southern consumers and agricultural producers. Lincoln’s victory precipitated the immediate secession of 3 states. Another 4 seceded after inauguration.

The south imagined they could walk away because that’s how they read the constitution before the 13th amendment. They imagined they could win a civil war because they imagined they had British military support. “Cotton was king,” they claimed. The UK prime minister, Lord Palmerston, had told secretary Adams, “We do not like slavery, but we want cotton, and we dislike very much your Morrill tariff.” As it was, the British stayed on the sidelines, in part because of diplomacy. Besides, the gunship Monitor showed that the North could sink most any British ship that entered US waters.

As for 2024, I expect there will be riots whoever wins, but nothing more. The parties are realigning significantly, as happened in 1964-68, and neither side much understands the appeal of the other. This seems like less of a wrenching election than in 1964 and 1968, though. In ’64-’68 US boys were dying in Vietnam in numbers, and black folks and their white friends were being lynched in the south. Nothing like that is happening today. Today’s riots have been fueled by nothing more than name-calling, fear, and the occasional assassination attempt. Mild, even compared to 1968.

Robert Buxbaum, November 4, 2024. Justin Morrill is mostly remembered today for the Land-grant college act of 1862. This created an agricultural -technical college in each state. I taught at Michigan State University, Michigan’s land grant university. I’m generally a fan of tariffs, both as an aid to the domestic economy and as a tool of foreign policy. I present these views here. I got these views from Peter Cooper.

Sailors, boaters, and motor sailing at the hull speed.

Leave a reply

I’ve gone sailing a few times this summer, and once again was struck by the great difference between sailing and boating, as well as by the mystery of the hull speed.

Sailors are distinct from boaters in that they power their boats by sails in the wind. Sailing turns out to be a fairly pleasant way to spend an afternoon. At least as I did it, it was social, pleasant, and not much work, but the speeds were depressingly slow. I went on two boats (neither were my own), each roughly 20 feet long, with winds running about 10-15 knots (about 13 mph). We travelled at about 3 knots, about 3.5 mph. That’s walking speed. At that speed it would take about 7 hours to cross Lake St. Clair (25 miles wide). To go across and back would take a full day.

Based on the length of the boats, they should have been able to go a lot faster, at about 5.8 knots (6 mph). This target speed is called the hull speed; it’s the speed where the wave caused by the bow provides a resonance at the back of the boat giving it a slight surfing action, see drawing.

This speed can be calculated from the relationship between wave speed and wavelength, so that Vhull = √gλ/2π where g is the gravitational constant and λ is the water line length of the boat. For Vhull in knots, it’s calculated as the square-root of the length in feet, multiplied by 1.34. For a 20 foot boat, then,

Hull speed, 20′ = 1.34 √20 = 1.34 x 4.5 = 6.03 knots.

While power boats routinely go much faster than this, as do racing skulls and Americas cup sailboats, most normal sailboats are designed for this speed. One advantage is that it leads to a relatively comfortable ride. There is just enough ballast and sail so that the boat runs out of wind at this speed while tipping no more than 15°. Sailors claim there is a big increase in drag at this speed, but a look at the drag profile of some ocean kayaks (12 to 18 feet, see below) shows only a very slight increase around this magical speed. More important is weight; the lowest drag in the figure below is found for the shortest kyack that is also the lightest. I suspect that the sailboats I was on could have gone at 6 knots or faster, even with our current wind, if we’d unrolled the spinnaker, and used a ‘screecher’ (a very large jib), and hung over the edge to keep the boat upright. But the owner chose to travel in relative comfort, and the result is that we had a pleasant afternoon going nowhere.

Data from Vaclav Stejskal of “oneoceankyacks.com”

And this brings me to my problem with power boating. Th boats are about the same length as the sailboats I was in, and the weight is similar too. You travel a lot faster, 20 to 25 knots, and you get somewhere, but the boats smell, and provide a jarring ride, and I felt they burn gas too fast for my comfort. The boats exceed hull speed and hydroplane, somewhat. That is, they ride up one wave, fly a bit, and crash down the other side, sending annoying wakes to the sailboaters. We crossed lake St. Clair and rode a way down the Detroit river. This was nice, but it left me thinking there was room for power -assisted sailing at an intermediate speed, power sailing.

Both sailboats I was on had outboard motors, 3 hp, as it happened, and both moved nicely at 1 hp into and out of the harbor, even without the sail up. Some simple calculations suggest that, with I could power a 15 to 20 foot sailboat or canoe at a decent speed – hull speed – by use of a small sail and an electric motor drawing less than 1 hp, ~400 W, powered by one or two car batteries.

Consider the drag for the largest, heaviest kayak in the chart a move, the Cape Ann Double, going at 6.5 knots. At 6 knots, the resistance is seen to be 15 lbs. To calculate the power demand, convert this speed to 10 fps and multiply by the force:

Power for 6 knot cruising = 10 fps x 15 lbs = 150 ft lbs/s = 202 W or 0.27 hp.

Outboard motors are not 100% efficient, so let’s assume that you need to draw more like 250 W at the motor, and you will need to add power by a sail. How big a battery is needed for the 250 W? I’ll aim for powering a 4 hour trip, and find the battery size by multiplying the 250 W by 4 hours: that’s 1250 Hrs, or 1.25 kWh. A regular, lithium car battery is all that’s needed. In terms of the sail, I’m inclined to get really invovative, and use a Flettner sail, as discussed here.

It seems to me that adding this would be a really fun way to sail. I’d expect to be able to go somewhere, without the smell, or the cost, or being jarred to badly. Now, all I need is a good outboard motor, and a willing companion to try this with.

Robert Buxbaum, Sept. 9, 2024

China’s space station and the ISS, a comparison

Leave a reply

It gets so little notice from the news agencies that many will be surprised to find that China has a space station. It’s known alternately as the Tiangong Space Station or the CSS, Chinese Space Station; it’s smaller than the International Space Station, ISS, but it’s not small. Here is a visual and data comparison, both from Wikipedia.

China’s space station is smaller than the ISS, but just about as capable. Cooperation leads to messiness (and peace?)

The ISS has far more solar panels, but the power input is similar because the CSS panels are of higher efficiency. As shown in the table below, the mass of the ISS is about 4.5 times that of CSS but the habitable volume is only 3 times greater than of CSS, and the claimed crew size is similar, of 3 to 6 compared to 7. The CSS is less messy, less noisy, with less mass, and more energy efficiency. Part of the efficiency comes from that the CSS uses ion propulsion thrusters to keep the station in orbit, while the ISS uses chemical rockets. The CSS thus seems better, on paper. To some extent that’s because it’s more modern.

Another reason that the ISS is more messy is that it’s a collaboration. A major part of its mission is to develop peaceful cooperation between the US, Europe and Russia. It’s been fairly successful at this, especially in the first two decades, and part of making sure parts from The US, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada all work together is that many different standards must be tolerated and connected. The ISS tolerates different space suits, different capsules, different connections, and different voltages. The result is researchers communicate, and work together on science, sending joint messages of peace to the folks on earth. Peace is an intended product.

By contrast, the Chinese space station is solely Chinese. There are no interconnection issues, but also no peace dividend. It has a partially military purpose too, including operation of killer satellites, and some degree of data mining. This was banned for ISS. So far the CSS has hosted Chinese astronauts. No Chinese astronauts have visited the ISS, either.

Long march 6A rocket set to supply the CSS. It is very similar to the Delta IV.

India was asked to join the ISS, but has declined, wishing to follow China’s path of space independence. The Indian Space Research Organization plans to launch a small space station on its own, Gaganyaan, in 2025, and after that, a larger version. That’s a shame, though it’s not clear how long cooperation will continue on the ISS, either. See the movie I.S.S. (2023) for how this might play out. Currently, there is a tradition of cooperation about ISS, and it’s held despite the War in Ukraine. The various nations manage to work together in space and on the ground, launching people and materials to the ISS, and working together reliability.

Although it isn’t a direct part of the space stations, I should mention the troubles of the Boeing Star-liner capsule that took two astronauts to the ISS compared to the apparently flawless record of the CSS. The fact is, I’m not bothered by failures, so long as we learn from them. I suspect Boeing will learn, and suspect that this and other flailing projects would be in worse shape without the ISS. Besides, the ISS has been a major catalyst in the development of SpaceX, a US success story that China seems intent on trying to copy. SpaceX was originally funded, at low level, to serve as a backup to Boeing, but managed to bypass them. They now provide cheaper, more reliable travel through use of reusable boosters. The program supplying CSS uses traditional, disposable rockets, the Long March 5 and 6 and 7. These resemble the Atlas V, Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy. They appear to be reliable, but I suspect they are costly too. China is currently developing a series of reusable rocket systems. The Long March 9, for example will have the same lift capacity as SapceX’s Starship, we’re told. Will the Indian program choose this rocket to lift their space station, or will they choose SpaceX, or something else? The advantages of a reusable product mostly show up when you get to reuse it, IMHO.

Robert Buxbaum, September 10, 2024.

We’re depressed, allergic, overweight, alone, and demented. What causes what?

Leave a reply

Among the wonders of the western world is how many people are allergic to nuts compared to a few decades ago, and to gluten, and to a host of other things that hardly anyone was allergic to 50 years ago. Perhaps it’s a change in perception, but it doesn’t seem that way.

When I was in public school in NY, back in the 1960s, there was a subsidized lunch program serving, every day, peanut butter sandwiches. Peanut butter is nearly totally fat. It was ladled each day, from a giant tub, provided by the USDA, and slathered on USDA bread along with jelly from some other vat. The smell filled the lunch area, and the fats and sugars filled our stomaches. No one seemed bothered by the nuts, and no one showed obvious signs of passing out. And despite the ill diet, we were less obeease than today. Even today, in poor countries, thy still serve massive peanut butter dishes, or bread covered in lard, and these countries show fewer allergy problems, and less obesity in general.

Perhaps it is the lack of exposure to peanuts in the US that caused the allergy (sounds almost plausible), and maybe it’s the dietetic food that causes obesity, and the glut of non-gluten that causes gluten allergies. These connections may be false, but If true, it would suggest we’re in for many more problems.

Moving to depression and dementia. We’re seeing more and more of both, and at earlier ages. In our era, virtually everyone over 80 shows signs of clinical dementia, often Alzheimer’s dementia, but the rates are rising, especially in those 55-70, and it seems most every adult is depressed. I don’t know why, though lots of people on the internet have speculative explanations. There are also cures, and perhaps some work. The research behind at least one of the best hopes for an Alzheimers cure was shown to be falsified, just made up. Not that funding was stopped quite, highlighting another problem that is becoming more common: people in trust positions no longer behave in a trustworthy way. Nor are they punished for lying. Strange to add that an anti-obesity drug, Metformin, seems to actually work at weight loss, and helps against Alzheimers dementia. Then again, from other research, it seems that obesity protects from dementia.

Some of the problem seems to be societal, a lack of friendship and companionship. I could imagine that isolation leads to dementia, depression, and weight gain. Another thought, pushed by RFK Jr., is that new drugs and vaccines are responsible for allergies and ADHD, along with changes in diet. It’s possible. At least some comes from early diagnosis, and a change in the definition of dementia. Perhaps that’s the reason for the significant difference state to state. Yesterday’s curmudgeon is redefined as depressed, and drugged (more in some states than others), and becomes isolated (again more in some communities). The disoriented, lonely patient is then given anti anxiety drugs and classified as a dementia patient. It happens in some cases, but there seems to be a rise in real dementia too: the sort of stumbling and blankness that reflects general brain deterioration. As for ADHD, I’m still not convinced this is a new real disease; it could be that’s how boys always behaved.

Would we be less depressed or demented or less autistic with different vaccinations, or different foods, or with more human interaction? Would people be less isolated if they were less depressed or autistic? RFK’s family now claims that RFK Jr is demented himself for even asking these questions. My guess, totally unsupported is that the rise in allergies, dementia, obesity, and depression are related somehow, but I’m not convinced that RFK Jr. has picked out the right connection. What causes what? Perhaps someone can use statistics, or biology experiments to help untangle this stuff. It seems horribly important to the majority of Americans.

Robert Buxbaum, Sept 10, 2024. There was a. bit of a joke in the last comments: my daughter got a degree in epidemiology, and is employed in part to answer just the sort of questions I’ve posed.