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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
Germany’s green transition is a disaster. Twenty years ago, Germany had 23 nuclear power plants that generated 30% of the country’s electricity cleanly, cheaply, and reliably. These plants have all been shut by the government as part of a commitment to clean energy. What could be cleaner? Germany has switched to a mix of wind and solar, plus a significant shift to coal power. Wind and solar use a lot of land compared to nuclear, and they break down leaving fields of debris. There is now a lack of electricity to power homes and industries, and what power there is, is unreliable, due to the many dark windless days in Germany.
The lack of reliable electricity is crippling German industry now that Russian gas has been cut off. In this environment, why would the Germans order special trains and boats that burn, hydrogen that’s made from electricity and natural gas? My understanding of the reason is that, Germany sometimes has too much wind power and nothing to do with it. They plan to store this excess by making hydrogen that they can use to power their trains and boats. The cost is high, and the efficiency is poor, but the electricity is free.
Hydrogen is not as compact a fuel as gasoline, nor is it as cheap as electricity, but it’s cleaner than gas, and in some ways it’s better than battery-stored electricity. While hydrogen takes a lot of storage space relative to gasoline, high pressure helps, and the storage is cheaper than with batteries. Also, hydrogen fuel is transferred faster than electric fuels. Trains and ships are chosen for hydrogen because they are good at carrying bulky items. The transition to hydrogen is relatively straightforward with trains, since many are already powered by electricity. Hydrogen fuel cells can make the electricity on board (in theory), while avoiding the need for expensive overhead wires. The idea sort-of makes sense.
Germany’s first hydrogen train. cancelled after 1 year of poor operating.
The first German train to use hydrogen powered them with fuel cells that generated electricity. It began service in October 2022, but the fuel cells proved unreliable. Service ended one year later, October 2023, replaced by polluting diesel (see here). The Hannover line plans to replace these with battery-powered trains over the next few years. There are also plans for a hydrogen-powered ferry, but it is not clear why the ferry should prove more reliable than the train, or cheaper.
San Francisco’s hydrogen-powered ferry, $30 million, 15 knots top speed, 75 passengers, no cars. Long delayed.
In the US, the Biden administration has paid, so far, $30 million for a hydrogen ferry in San Francisco. It’s two years behind schedule and over cost, taking only 75 passengers and no cars at 15 knots, 17mph. In the US, and likely in Germany, most of the hydrogen will be made from natural gas. A better solution, I think would be to power the ferris and trains by natural gas and to store the excess electricity in land-based batteries or as land-based hydrogen for land-based fuel cells.
Germany is committed to electric trains, though, and hydrogen provides a route to power these trains with excess electricity. German customers take the train, in part, because they like them, and in part because German politicians have banned short-hop planes on competing routes, and subsidized electric trains. Yet another option to balance times of excess solar and wind power would be to subsidize electric cars, or at least allow theirs owners to trade electricity: to buy electricity when it’s cheap and resell it to the grid when demand and prices are high.
Heat exchange is a key part of most chemical process designs. Heat exchangers save money because they’re generally cheaper than heaters and the continuing cost of fuel or electricity to run the heaters. They also usually provide free, fast cooling for the product; often the product is made hot, and needs to be cooled. Hot products are usually undesirable. Free, fast cooling is good.
So how do you design a heat exchanger? A common design is to weld the right amount of tubes inside a shell, so it looks like the drawing below. The the hot fluid might be made to go through the tubes, and the cold in the shell, as shown, or the hot can flow through the shell. In either case, the flows are usually in the opposite direction so there is a hot end and a cold end as shown. In this essay, I’d like to discuss how I design our counter current heat exchangers beginning a common case (for us) where the two flows have the same thermal inertia, e.g. the same mass flow rates and the same heat capacities. That’s the situation with our hydrogen purifiers: impure hydrogen goes in cold, and is heated to 400°C for purification. Virtually all of this hot hydrogen exits the purifier in the “pure out” stream and needs to be cooled to room temperature or nearly.
Typical shell and tube heat exchanger design, Black Hills inc.
For our typical designs the hot flows in one direction, and an equal cold flow is opposite, I will show the temperature difference is constant all along the heat exchanger. As a first pass rule of thumb, I design so that this constant temperature difference is 30°C. That is ∆THX =~ 30°C at every point along the heat exchanger. More specifically, in our Mr Hydrogen® purifiers, the impure, feed hydrogen enters at 20°C typically, and is heated by the heat exchanger to 370°C. That is 30°C cooler than the final process temperature. The hydrogen must be heated this last 30°C with electricity. After purification, the hot, pure hydrogen, at 400°C, enters the heat exchanger leaving at 30°C above the input temperature, that is at 50°C. It’s hot, but not scalding. The last 30°C of cooling is done with air blown by a fan.
The power demand of the external heat source, the electric heater, is calculated as: Wheater = flow (mols/second)*heat capacity (J/°C – mol)* (∆Theater= ∆THX = 30°C).
The smaller the value of ∆THX, the less electric draw you need for steady state operation, but the more you have to pay for the heat exchanger. For small flows, I often use a higher value of ∆THX = 30°C, and for large flows smaller, but 30°C is a good place to start.
Now to size the heat exchanger. Because the flow rate of hot fluid (purified hydrogen) is virtually the same as for cold fluid (impure hydrogen), the heat capacity per mol of product coming out is the same as for mol of feed going in. Since enthalpy change equals heat capacity time temperature change, ∆H= Cp∆T, with effectiveCp the same for both fluids, and any rise in H in the cool fluid coming at the hot fluid, we can draw a temperature vs enthalpy diagram that will look like this:
The heat exchanger heats the feed from 20°C to 370°C. ∆T = 350°C. It also cools the product 350°C, that is from 400 to 50°C. In each case the enthalpy exchanged per mol of feed (or product is ∆H= Cp*∆T = 7*350 =2450 calories.
Since most heaters work in Watts, not calories, at some point it’s worthwhile to switch to Watts. 1 Cal = 4.174 J, 1 Cal/sec = 4.174 W. I tend to do calculations in mixed units (English and SI) because the heat capacity per mole of most things are simple numbers in English units. Cp (water) for example = 1 cal/g = 18 cal/mol. Cp (hydrogen) = 7 cal/mol. In SI units, the heat rate, WHX, is:
The flow rate in mols per second is the flow rate in slpm divided by 22.4 x 60. Since the driving force for transfer is 30°C, the area of the heat exchanger is WHX times the resistance divided by ∆THX:
A = WHX * R / 30°C.
Here, R is the average resistance to heat transfer, m2*∆T/Watt. It equals the sum of all the resistances, essentially the sum of the resistance of the steel of the heat exchanger plus that of the two gas phases:
R= δm/km + h1+ h2
Here, δm is the thickness of the metal, km is the thermal conductivity of the metal, and h1 and h2 are the gas-phase heat transfer parameters in the feed and product flow respectively. You can often estimate these as δ1/k1 and δ2/k2 respectively, with k1 and k2 as the thermal conductivity of the feed and product, both hydrogen in my case. As for, δ, the effective gas-layer thickness, I generally estimate this as 1/3 the thickness of the flow channel, for example:
h1 = δ1/k1 = 1/3 D1/k1.
Because δ is smaller the smaller the diameter of the tubes, h is smaller too. Also small tubes tend to be cheaper than big ones, and more compact. I thus prefer to use small diameter tubes and small diameter gaps. in my heat exchangers, the tubes are often 1/4″ or bigger, but the gap sizes are targeted to 1/8″ or less. If the gap size gets too low, you get excessive pressure drops and non-uniform flow, so you have to check that the pressure drop isn’t too large. I tend to stick to normal tube sizes, and tweak the design a few times within those parameters, considering customer needs. Only after the numbers look good to my aesthetics, do I make the product. Aesthetics plays a role here: you have to have a sense of what a well-designed exchanger should look like.
The above calculations are fine for the simple case where ∆THX is constant. But what happens if it is not. Let’s say the feed is impure, so some hot product has to be vented, leaving les hot fluid in the heat exchanger than feed. I show this in the plot at right for the case of 14% impurities. Sine there is no phase change, the lines are still straight, but they are no longer parallel. Because more thermal mass enters than leaves, the hot gas is cooled completely, that is to 50°C, 30°C above room temperature, but the cool gas is heated at only 7/8 the rate that the hot gas is cooled. The hot gas gives off 2450 cal as before, but this is now only enough to heat the cold fluid by 2450/8 = 306.5°. The cool gas thus leave the heat exchanger at 20°C+ 306.8° = 326.5°C.
The simple way to size the heat exchanger now is to use an average value for ∆THX. In the diagram, ∆THX is seen to vary between 30°C at the entrance and and 97.5°C at the exit. As a conservative average, I’ll assume that ∆THX = 40°C, though 50 to 60°C might be more accurate. This results in a small heat exchanger design that’s 3/4 the size of before, and is still overdesigned by 25%. There is no great down-side to this overdesign. With over-design, the hot fluid leaves at a lower ∆THX, that is, at a temperature below 50°C. The cold fluid will be heated to a bit more than to the 326.5°C predicted, perhaps to 330°C. We save more energy, and waste a bit on materials cost. There is a “correct approach”, of course, and it involves the use of calculous. A = ∫dA = ∫R/∆THX dWHX using an analytic function for ∆THX as a function of WHX. Calculating this way takes lots of time for little benefit. My time is worth more than a few ounces of metal.
The only times that I do the correct analysis is with flame boilers, with major mismatches between the hot and cold flows, or when the government requires calculations. Otherwise, I make an H Vs T diagram and account for the fact that ∆T varies with H is by averaging. I doubt most people do any more than that. It’s not like ∆THX = 30°C is etched in stone somewhere, either, it’s a rule of thumb, nothing more. It’s there to make your life easier, not to be worshiped.
About 7% of new US car and truck sales in 2023 were electric, 1.2 million vehicles. Of these, about 55% were Teslas. These numbers make sense based on US manufacturing and driving habits, so I don’t expect fast sales growth in 2024.
Currently home owners are the only major group of private drivers that save on fuel cost from owning an EVs. Home owners pay relatively little for electricity, about 11¢ per kWh, and they can generally charge their EVs conveniently, at home, overnight. Charging is more expensive and inconvenient for apartment dwellers. As a result, in 2023, some 95% of US EV sales went to home owners. Over 2 to 3 years they could hope to recover in gasoline savings the $7000 more that their EVs cost compared to petrol-powered vehicles, but they still have to drive a fair amount. A full charge of 80kWh EV at home will cost about $8.80 at current rates. This will power about 250 miles at a cost of 3.5¢/mile = $8.80/250.
Home, level 2 Chargers will cost about $1500 including the electrician cost.
The cost of gasoline is about 16.5¢/mile = $3.80/gal/ 23mi/gal) suggesting that you save 13¢ per mile by owning an EV. In order to recover the extra $7000 cost of the car in two years, you’d have to drive 27,000 miles per year, or 74 miles per day. To recover the difference in three years, you must drive 50 miles per day or 18,000 miles per year. This is more than most people drive.
EVs also offer reduced maintenance, but customers can balance this against the inconvenience of long charge times and spotty availability of chargers. My sense is that the fraction of Americans who benefit and drive 50-75 miles per day is about 7%. This fraction will increase as EVs get cheaper, but families that can benefit already own an EV.
The average Tesla costs today about $3000 more than the equivalent petrol car, but that still makes it relatively expensive, and it seems that the price differential was intentionally set to match sales to Tesla’s production capacity. Tesla could make EVs cheaper than petrol cars and still make a profit on each, but if they did this, they would have too much demand. Other US auto makers are mostly lose money on EVs and are unmotivated to lower prices. Based on this, my sense is that it is unlikely that sales will be much higher in 2024 than the 1.2 million sold in 2023.
The Chinese have plenty of new EVs, and they are eager to export. Their car market is currently about 50% EV, with companies like BYD selling EVs for as little as $12,000. The Chinese government subsidizes production and powers their EVs with cheap electricity by burning coal.These cars do not seem very good, compared to Tesla, but at this price they would flood the market if allowed to compete. The US government has kept them out with tariffs and with complaints about slave labor. Trump has promised a yet higher tariff, 100% on Chinese cars, if elected. The intent is to preserve US jobs and manufacturing. This is one of those situations where tariffs are good, IMHO.
Toyota Prius, the most popular hybrid.
Hybrids are a third option, cheaper than EVs, high mpg than normal engines. Though they are sometimes touted as a transition to EVs, to me they’ seem to suit a completely different demographic: those who don’t own their own home and drive a lot. Toyota makes the most popular hybrids in the US. They cost about $4000 more than the equivalent petrol car, $30,000 for a Prius vs $26,000 for a Corolla. When using a Prius in the city, you’ll get about 50 mpg, spending 7.5¢ per mile ($3.80/gal / 50 mpg = 7.5¢). This implies a gas savings of about 9¢ per mile vs an ordinary Corolla. Based on this, you have to drive about 27,000 miles per year in the city to recover the cost difference in two years. That’s a lot, and your performance is typically worse with a hybrid: you have a heavier car with a small engine. Maintenance cost is also higher with a hybrid than with an EV: you still need oil changes, fluid changes, belts, etc. and the mpg advantage vanishes on the highway. A hard driving home owner is better off with an EV, IMHO, an apartment dweller with a hybrid. Hybrids also should make sense for taxis and local-haul trucks. I can imagine hybrid sales rising in 2024, perhaps as high as 15% of vehicle sales. What we’re all waiting for is more near-shore manufacturing (or mandates), and this is not likely in 2024.
In 1905 and 1908, Einstein developed two formulations for the diffusion of a small particle in a liquid. As a side-benefit of the first derivation, he demonstrated the visible existence of molecules, a remarkable piece of work. In the second formulation, he derived the same result using non-equilibrium thermodynamics, something he seems to have developed on the spot. I’ll give a brief version of the second derivation, and will then I’ll show off my own extension. It’s one of my proudest intellectual achievements.
But first a little background to the problem. In 1827, a plant biologist, Robert Brown examined pollen under a microscope and noticed that it moved in a jerky manner. He gave this “Brownian motion” the obvious explanation: that the pollen was alive and swimming. Later, it was observed that the pollen moved faster in acetone. The obvious explanation: pollen doesn’t like acetone, and thus swims faster. But the pollen never stopped, and it was noticed that cigar smoke also swam. Was cigar smoke alive too?
Einstein’s first version of an answer, 1905, was to consider that the liquid was composed of atoms whose energy was a Boltzmann distribution with an average of E= kT in every direction where k is the Boltzmann constant, and k = R/N. That is Boltsman’s constant equals the gas constant, R, divided by Avogadro’s number, N. He was able to show that the many interactions with the molecules should cause the pollen to take a random, jerky walk as seen, and that the velocity should be faster the less viscous the solvent, or the smaller the length-scale of observation. Einstein applied the Stokes drag equation to the solute, the drag force per particle was f = -6πrvη where r is the radius of the solute particle, v is the velocity, and η is the solution viscosity. Using some math, he was able to show that the diffusivity of the solute should be D = kT/6πrη. This is called the Stokes-Einstein equation.
In 1908 a French physicist, Jean Baptiste Perrin confirmed Einstein’s predictions, winning the Nobel prize for his work. I will now show the 1908 Einstein derivation and will hope to get to my extension by the end of this post.
Consider the molar Gibbs free energy of a solvent, water say. The molar concentration of water is x and that of a very dilute solute is y. y<<1. For this nearly pure water, you can show that µ = µ° +RT ln x= µ° +RT ln (1-y) = µ° -RTy.
Now, take a derivative with respect to some linear direction, z. Normally this is considered illegal, since thermodynamic is normally understood to apply to equilibrium systems only. Still Einstein took the derivative, and claimed it was legitimate at nearly equilibrium, pseudo-equilibrium. You can calculate the force on the solvent, the force on the water generated by a concentration gradient, Fw = dµ/dz = -RT dy/dz.
Now the force on each atom of water equals -RT/N dy/dz = -kT dy/dz.
Now, let’s call f the force on each atom of solute. For dilute solutions, this force is far higher than the above, f = -kT/y dy/dz. That is, for a given concentration gradient, dy/dz, the force on each solute atom is higher than on each solvent atom in inverse proportion to the molar concentration.
For small spheres, and low velocities, the flow is laminar and the drag force, f = 6πrvη.
Now calculate the speed of each solute atom. It is proportional to the force on the atom by the same relationship as appeared above: f = 6πrvη or v = f/6πrη. Inserting our equation for f= -kT/y dy/dz, we find that the velocity of the average solute molecule,
v = -kT/6πrηy dy/dz.
Let’s say that the molar concentration of solvent is C, so that, for water, C will equal about 1/18 mols/cc. The atomic concentration of dilute solvent will then equal Cy. We find that the molar flux of material, the diffusive flux equals Cyv, or that
where Cy is the molar concentration of solvent per volume.
Classical engineering comes to a similar equation with a property called diffusivity. Sp that
Molar flux of y (mols y/cm2/s) = -D dCy/dz, and D is an experimentally determined constant. We thus now have a prediction for D:
D = kT/6πrη.
This again is the Stokes Einstein Equation, the same as above but derived with far less math. I was fascinated, but felt sure there was something wrong here. Macroscopic viscosity was not the same as microscopic. I just could not think of a great case where there was much difference until I realized that, in polymer solutions there was a big difference.
Polymer solutions, I reasoned had large viscosities, but a diffusing solute probably didn’t feel the liquid as anywhere near as viscous. The viscometer measured at a larger distance, more similar to that of the polymer coil entanglement length, while a small solute might dart between the polymer chains like a rabbit among trees. I applied an equation for heat transfer in a dispersion that JK Maxwell had derived,
where κeff is the modified effective thermal conductivity (or diffusivity in my case), κl and κp are the thermal conductivity of the liquid and the particles respectively, and φ is the volume fraction of particles.
To convert this to diffusion, I replaced κl by Dl, and κp by Dp where
Dl = kT/6πrηl
and Dp = kT/6πrη.
In the above ηl is the viscosity of the pure, liquid solvent.
The chair of the department, Don Anderson didn’t believe my equation, but agreed to help test it. A student named Kit Yam ran experiments on a variety of polymer solutions, and it turned out that the equation worked really well down to high polymer concentrations, and high viscosity.
As a simple, first approximation to the above, you can take Dp = 0, since it’s much smaller than Dl and you can take Dl to equal Dl = kT/6πrηl as above. The new, first order approximation is:
D = kT/6πrηl (1 – 3φ/2).
We published in Science. That is I published along with the two colleagues who tested the idea and proved the theory right, or at least useful. The reference is Yam, K., Anderson, D., Buxbaum, R. E., Science 240 (1988) p. 330 ff. “Diffusion of Small Solutes in Polymer-Containing Solutions”. This result is one of my proudest achievements.
In Q4 2023, BYD became the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer, passing Tesla in world wide sales. They mostly sell in China, and claim to make a profit while selling cars for about half the price of a Tesla. They also make robots, trucks, busses, smart phones, and batteries — including blade batteries that Tesla uses for a variant in its Berlin facility. They are a darling of the wall-street experts, in part because Warren Buffett is an investor. BYD cars look to be about as nice as Tesla’s at least from the outside and sell (In China) for a fraction of the price. The experts are convinced enough to write glowing articles, but I suspect that the experts have not invested, nor bought BYD products. — What do I know?
BYD truck. It looks good on the outside. Is it competition?
Part of the BYD charm is that it is considered socially progressive, while Tesla is seen as run by a dictatorial villain. A Delaware judge who concluded that Musk did non deserve the majority of his salary, and confiscated it. There are no such claims against BYD. BYD also has far more models than Tesla, 41 by my count, compared to Tesla’s 4. The experts seem to believe that all BYD has to do is bring their low-cost cars west, and they will own the market. My sense is that, if that was all they needed, they’d have done it already. I strongly suspect the low cost cars that are the majority of BYD’s sales are low quality versions — too low to sell in the US. Here are some numbers.
Total number of vehicles made 2023: Tesla: ~1,800,000 BYD: ~3,020,000 (1,570,000 BEV)
Net Profit 2023: Profit per employee: Profit per vehicle: Tesla: ~$9.5B (9.7%). Tesla: $67,857. Tesla: $5,280. BYD: ~$3.5B (4.1%). BYD: $5,542. BYD: $1,160
Market share based on sales in western countries 2023: Tesla: US: 4%, EU: 2.6% BYD: US: 0%, EU: 0.1%
The most telling comparison, in my opinion, is BYD’s tiny market share in western countries. Their cars sell for 1/2 what Tesla’s sell for. If their low-cost cars were as good as Tesla’s, there is no way their market penetration would be so low. My sense is that the average BYD vehicle is lacking in something. Maybe they’re underpowered, or poorly constructed, unsafe, or unreliable: suitable only for China, India, or other poor markets. I suspect that the cars BYD sells in Europe are made on a separate line. Even so, customers say that BYD cars feel “cheap.” BYD charges more for these cars in Europe than Tesla charges for its top sellers, suggesting that these vehicles are of a different, better design. Even so, the low numbers suggest that BYD does not turn a profit on the sales. I suspect they do it for PR.
Both cars look sporty. Why doesn’t the BYD sell?
Another observation is that BYD produces 5.03 vehicles per worker, per year. That’s half as many as Tesla workers produce per worker-year. It’s also about half of Ford’s Rouge plant (Detroit) worker production in the 1930s. That Ford plant was vertically integrated starting with raw materials and outputting finished cars. This low output per worker suggests that BYD is built on low wage, low skill production, or equally damning, that none of these models are really mass-produced.
A first world market favors a polished product that your mechanic is somewhat familiar with. That favors Tesla as it has significant market penetration, and a network of mechanics. Also, Tesla has built up a network of fast charge stations and reliable service providers. BYD has no particular charging infrastructure and virtually no service network. Charging price and experience is a key decider among first world customers. No American will tolerate slow charging in the snow at a high price — especially if they must travel to a charger without being sure the charger will be working when they get there. Tesla has figured out how to make charging less painful, and that’s worth a lot.
Tesla might fail, but if so I don’t think it will be because of BYD success. Months ago the experts assured us that cybertruck would be deadly a failure. I disagree, but it might be. I don’t think BYDs will be better. Government subsidies have ended in many states and countries (Germany, California…) putting a dent in Tesla sales, and they are having manufacturing difficulties, particularly with batteries. These seem fix-able, but might not be. I see relatively little first world competition in the US EV market from legacy auto companies. Maybe they know to avoid EVs. They currently make decent products, IC and EV, but lose money on every EV. They treat EVs as a passing fad. If they are right, Tesla and BYD will fail. If they are wrong, Tesla will do fine, and they may not be able to make up their lost place in the market. As for BYD, given their low production numbers, they will need some 3 million new workers and many new factories. I don’t think they can find them, nor raise the money for the factories.
Most of the data here was taken from @NicklasNilsso14. All of the opinions are mine.
The glory of American screws and bolts is their low cost ubiquity, especially in our coarse thread (UNC = United National Coarse) sizes. Between 1/4 inch and 5/8″, they are sized in 1/16″ steps, and after that in 1/8″ steps. Below 3/16″, they are sized by wire gauges, and generally they have unique pitch sizes. All US screws and bolts are measured by their diameter and threads per inch. Thus, the 3/8-16 (UNC) has an outer diameter (major diameter) of 3/8″ with 16 threads per inch (tpi). 16 tpi is an ideal thread number for overall hold strength. No other bolt has 16 threads per inch so it is impossible to use the wrong bolt in a hole tapped for 3/8-16. The same is true for basically every course thread with a very few exceptions, mainly found between 3/16″ and 1/4″ where the wire gauges transition to fractional sizes. Because of this, if you stick to UTC you are unlikely to screw up, as it were. You are also less-likely to cross-thread.
I own one of these. It’s a tread pitch gauge.
US fine threads come in a variety of standards, most notably UNF = United National Fine. No version of fine thread is as strong as coarse because while there are more threads per inch, each root is considerably weaker. The advantage of fine treads is for use with very thin material, or where vibration is a serious concern. The problem is that screwups are far more likely and this diminishes the strength even further. Consider the 7/16″ – 24 (UNF). This bolt will fit into a nut or flange tapped for 1/2″- 24. The fit will be a little loose, but you might not notice. You will be able to wrench it down so everything looks solid, but only the ends of the threads are holding. This is a accident waiting to happen. To prevent such mistakes you can try to never allow a 7/6″-24 bolt into your shop, but this is uncomfortably difficult. If you ever let a 7/6″-24 bolt in, some day someone will grab it and use it, in all likelihood with a 1/2″ -24 nut or flange, since these are super-common. Under stress, the connection will fail in the worst possible moment.
Other UNF bolts and nuts present the same screwup risk. For example, between the 3/8″-24 and 5/16″-24 (UNF), or the #10-32 (UNF) and also with the 3/16″- 32, and the latter with the #8-32 (UNC). There is also a French metric with 0.9mm — this turns out to be identical to -32 pitch. The problem appears with any bolt pair where with identical pitch and the major diameter of the smaller bolt has a larger outer diameter (major diameter) than the inner diameter (minor diameter) of the larger bolt. If these are matched, the bolts will seem to hold when tightened, but they will fail in use. You well sometimes have to use these sizes because they match with some purchased flange. If you have to use them, be careful to use the largest bolt diameter that will fit into the threaded hole.
Where I have the option, my preference is to stick to UNC as much as possible, even where vibration is an issue. In vibration situations, I prefer to add a lock nut or sometimes, an anti-vibration glue, locktite, available in different release temperatures. Locktite is also helpful to prevent gas leaks. In our hydrogen purifiers, I use lock washers on the ground connection from the power cord, for example.
I try to avoid metric, by the way. They less readily available in the US, and more expensive. The other problem with metric is that there are two varieties (Standard and French — God love the French engineering) and there are so many sizes and pitches that screwups are common. Metric bolts come in every mm diameter, and often fractional mm too. There is a 2mm, a 2.3mm, a 2.5mm, and a 2.6mm, often with overlapping pitches. The pitch of metric screws and bolts is measured by their spacing, by the way, so a 1mm metric pitch means there is 1mm between threads, the the equivalent of a 24.5 pitch in the US, and a 0.9mm pitch = US-32. Thread confusion possibilities are endless. A M6x1 (6mm OD x 1mm pitch) is easily confused with a M5x1 or a M7x1, and the latter with the M7.5×1. A M8x1.25 is easily confused with a M9x1.25, and a M14x2 with an M16x2. And then there is confusion with US bolts: a 2.5mm metric pitch is nearly identical to a US 10tpi pitch. I can not rid myself of US threads, so I avoid metric where I can. As above, problems arise if you use a smaller diameter bolt in a larger diameter nut.
For those who have to use metric, I suggest you always use the largest bolt that will fit (assuming you can find it). I try to avoid bringing odd-size bolts into their shop, that is, stick to M6, M8, M10. It’s not always possible, but it’s a suggestion. I get equipment with odd-size metric bolts too. My preference is to stick to UNC and to avoid odd numbers.
Robert Buxbaum, January 23, 2024. Note: I’ve only really discussed bolt sizes between about #4 and 1″, and I didn’t consider UNRC or UNJF or other, odd options. You can figure these issues out yourself from the above, I think.
