No, my peeve is not that the president must know everything, it is the press and a loudly vocal portion of the public who think the president must solve all their problems and be in control of every world event.
Swine flu got you worried? Why isn't the government stopping it? Close the borders! Measure the temperature of every person crossing the border. Quarantine everybody!
In fact, the government has already done the right thing. They told everyone to wash their hands frequently. I know, I know, it sounds like so little. You want to see some action. Bring out the medical emergency teams, and squash this thing before it gets started. But what exactly would you have them do? Where would you send a response team when people all over the country are infected? No, the best response is still to inform people about the best technique for stopping the spread of the disease: Wash your hands!
A potential swine flu pandemic is a big, scary event. It is reasonable to expect the president to have some position on this, and I think he has stated a very reasonable position. He cannot control everything in the world. Instead, he is offering useful, practical advice. Kudos to President Obama.
On the other hand, a military 747 flying over NYC is not a big event. Yes, it was handled cloddishly. Yes, it scared many people in NYC, but many people want to blame President Obama for this event. Do you really think President Obama keeps track of the daily movements of airplanes he may fly on? I hope not. I hope he spends his time worrying about bigger things than that.
Tomorrow's peeve: media coverage of aviation related events. Hint: Air Force One is not a single airplane.
For today, remember Benjamin Franklin's words: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Equation of the Day: F = ma
Now for something non-curmudgeonly - the equation of the day. Let's kick this off with a classic, Newton's Second Law of Motion, or F = ma.
In words, it says "Force equals mass times acceleration." Force and acceleration are vectors. They have both a magnitude and direction. This makes sense. If I apply a force in some direction, I expect to see the object I am applying the force to accelerate in that direction.
Mass is a measure of the resistance of a body to an applied force. That seems like a circular definition, since it really just says mass is equal to force divided by acceleration, which is exactly what Newton's Second Law of Motion says. But mass shows up in other places too, like Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. In fact, it seems kind of bizarre that the same property shows up in two disparate equations like that and did not appear as two different constants. And it shows up in another famous equation too: E = mc^2. Hmm, maybe all these things are related.
Newton's three laws of motion form the basis for classical mechanics. They can explain how most everyday things work and are used for everything from design of automobiles, aircraft, boats and bridges to predicting the weather. The field of statics is based on the second law with the acceleration equal to zero. The field of dynamics is applying the second law to accelerating systems. You can put a lot of study into one simple equation, and you can learn a lot about the world from it.
In words, it says "Force equals mass times acceleration." Force and acceleration are vectors. They have both a magnitude and direction. This makes sense. If I apply a force in some direction, I expect to see the object I am applying the force to accelerate in that direction.
Mass is a measure of the resistance of a body to an applied force. That seems like a circular definition, since it really just says mass is equal to force divided by acceleration, which is exactly what Newton's Second Law of Motion says. But mass shows up in other places too, like Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. In fact, it seems kind of bizarre that the same property shows up in two disparate equations like that and did not appear as two different constants. And it shows up in another famous equation too: E = mc^2. Hmm, maybe all these things are related.
Newton's three laws of motion form the basis for classical mechanics. They can explain how most everyday things work and are used for everything from design of automobiles, aircraft, boats and bridges to predicting the weather. The field of statics is based on the second law with the acceleration equal to zero. The field of dynamics is applying the second law to accelerating systems. You can put a lot of study into one simple equation, and you can learn a lot about the world from it.
Pet Peeve of the Day: Slow Drivers in the Left Lane
This one does not need much explanation. If you think it does need explanation, then pay attention please!
The left lane on a freeway is for passing other traffic. You have no business over there if you are not driving faster than other traffic. Most importantly, you should NEVER camp in the left lane, driving in formation with a car in the lane next to you and blocking traffic. What are you - a USAF Thunderbird?
It seems this practice is becoming more common lately. I don't know if it really is, or if that is just my perception. In either case, please do not do this! It slows traffic and can cause backups when there is really no need. Remember, there are a lot of other people out there on the road with you.
The left lane on a freeway is for passing other traffic. You have no business over there if you are not driving faster than other traffic. Most importantly, you should NEVER camp in the left lane, driving in formation with a car in the lane next to you and blocking traffic. What are you - a USAF Thunderbird?
It seems this practice is becoming more common lately. I don't know if it really is, or if that is just my perception. In either case, please do not do this! It slows traffic and can cause backups when there is really no need. Remember, there are a lot of other people out there on the road with you.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Pet Peeve of the Day: Zero Emissions Vehicles
Zero Emissions Vehicle? There is no such thing.
Aha you say, what about a bicycle? Nope, you exhale CO2 at a greater rate when pedaling than when at rest, so there is some climate change penalty. Not a whole lot, but most of the beneficial effect is because you are only moving the mass of a bicycle around and not an automobile. (The human body produces about 70-80 kg of CO2 per million BTU.)
A bicycle is not really practical anyway. I rode my bicycle to work every day for about 5 years. That was only practical because my family also had a car that could be used for shopping, taking kids to school and soccer practice, and for taking trips. The bicycle is nice, but in suburbia you need a car to supplement it.
What about the real Zero Emissions Vehicles, electric cars? There are zero emissions coming out their tailpipes - they don't even have tailpipes - so it looks good at first. They use nice, clean electricity.
So how much CO2 is produced by electricity production. That depends on the fuel used to produce the electricity. Here are some typical values for CO2 produced by burning various fuels:
So what? Is that a big number or a small number? Let's compare it to the kg CO2 produced by driving a gasoline engine powered car. Gasoline produces about 71 kg CO2 per million BTU or about 8.8 kg CO2 per gallon of gasoline. The average car uses 370 watt-hr to travel 1 mile. Let's assume our car averages 20 miles per gallon. So it is using (8.8 kg CO2 / gallon ) x (1 gallon / 20 mile) x (1 mile / 370 watt-hr) x (1 watt-hr / 3.41 BTU) = 349 kg CO2 per million BTU.
At first glance, the zero emissions vehicle appears to be a half the emissions vehicle. That's certainly an improvement, but it is not anywhere close to zero. There are also a few things we have not considered, like electrical transmission losses (around 7%) and storage, but we also have not considered the effects of trasnporting gasoline either.
Back to my pet peeve. They are not Zero Emissions Vehicles. Maybe they are Half the Emissions Vehicles, but I think the main attraction for most people is they are NIMBY Emissions Vehicles.
Aha you say, what about a bicycle? Nope, you exhale CO2 at a greater rate when pedaling than when at rest, so there is some climate change penalty. Not a whole lot, but most of the beneficial effect is because you are only moving the mass of a bicycle around and not an automobile. (The human body produces about 70-80 kg of CO2 per million BTU.)
A bicycle is not really practical anyway. I rode my bicycle to work every day for about 5 years. That was only practical because my family also had a car that could be used for shopping, taking kids to school and soccer practice, and for taking trips. The bicycle is nice, but in suburbia you need a car to supplement it.
What about the real Zero Emissions Vehicles, electric cars? There are zero emissions coming out their tailpipes - they don't even have tailpipes - so it looks good at first. They use nice, clean electricity.
So how much CO2 is produced by electricity production. That depends on the fuel used to produce the electricity. Here are some typical values for CO2 produced by burning various fuels:
- coal = 95-104 kg per million BTUs
- fuel oil = 73 kg CO2 per million BTUs
- natural gas = 54 kg CO2 per million BTUs
So what? Is that a big number or a small number? Let's compare it to the kg CO2 produced by driving a gasoline engine powered car. Gasoline produces about 71 kg CO2 per million BTU or about 8.8 kg CO2 per gallon of gasoline. The average car uses 370 watt-hr to travel 1 mile. Let's assume our car averages 20 miles per gallon. So it is using (8.8 kg CO2 / gallon ) x (1 gallon / 20 mile) x (1 mile / 370 watt-hr) x (1 watt-hr / 3.41 BTU) = 349 kg CO2 per million BTU.
At first glance, the zero emissions vehicle appears to be a half the emissions vehicle. That's certainly an improvement, but it is not anywhere close to zero. There are also a few things we have not considered, like electrical transmission losses (around 7%) and storage, but we also have not considered the effects of trasnporting gasoline either.
Back to my pet peeve. They are not Zero Emissions Vehicles. Maybe they are Half the Emissions Vehicles, but I think the main attraction for most people is they are NIMBY Emissions Vehicles.
Geographic Position Indicator
A new marking appeared on the ramp at Fort Worth Meacham airport recently. It isa pink circle with a number inside, called a Geographic Position Indicator. They are used to indicate holding positions for aircraft taxiing during low visibility conditions.
There is a lot of taxiway and runway repair and repaving going on at Meacham. I am not sure if this was added to facilitate the holding of taxiing aircraft during the repair period or if it will be a permanent addition.
Last week I was asked to hold on the ramp while taxiing out for take off in order to allow other aircraft to taxi in. There was one section of taxiway that had to be used by aircraft going in opposite directions. The place I held is where the Geographic Position Indicator is now located, but it was not there at the time.
The poor controllers at Meacham are being kept pretty busy while the reconstruction is going on. Meacham has quite a few taxiways and runways and the work crews are moving around, requiring closing different taxiways periodically. A taxi clearance now can include 4 or 5 taxiways, and many pilots are caught by surprise by the complexity.
Yesterday, taxiways A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, C-1, and J were all closed. In addition, Runway 9-27 is closed, Runway 16-34 has been redesignated Taxiway Z, and Taxiway A has been commissioned as Runway 15-33. VFR traffic is being directed to Runway 17-35 and IFR traffic is using Runway 15-33. The ILS is out of commission also, so only GPS approaches are available.
I found a theme for my blog: Curmudgeon.
I have not posted anything on this blog since I started it at the beginning of the year. Now, I have two posts in one day. And there is a common theme between the two: I am a curmudgeon. Maybe knowing and accepting that, I will be inspired to blog more.
Here is my second curmudgeonly act of the day - a letter to the editor of AOPA Flight Training magazine complaining about mistakes in an article. (OK, actually complaining about mistakes in a response to somebody else's complaint about the original article.)
The original article was in the January issue of Flight Training, and the previous response was in the March issue.
If you are a pilot or are interested in flying, I highly recommend the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). Their dues are reasonable. In fact, their publications alone are well worth the cost of the dues.
Here is my second curmudgeonly act of the day - a letter to the editor of AOPA Flight Training magazine complaining about mistakes in an article. (OK, actually complaining about mistakes in a response to somebody else's complaint about the original article.)
The original article was in the January issue of Flight Training, and the previous response was in the March issue.
If you are a pilot or are interested in flying, I highly recommend the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). Their dues are reasonable. In fact, their publications alone are well worth the cost of the dues.
I am a security threat?
I went to the municipal court building this morning to pay a speeding ticket. It was a nice morning, so I decided to walk the half mile from my office to the court. To enter the building you have to empty your pockets and go through an airport style metal detector. Unfortunately, they would not let me in with my pocketknife, and told me to go back and put it in my vehicle. Sorry, I'll just come back next week.
I guess I should have known, but it did not occur to me when I left my office that there would be a security checkpoint to get into the cashier's office at the court. Why do they need such security? Are they keeping large sums of money? OK, it looks like my speeding ticket (74 mph in a 60mph zone on the freeway) is going to come to $181, so maybe there is a lot of money being held there, but my bank probably has lots more money on hand, and it has no metal detectors.
The reason there are metal detectors at the court building is the government is in charge, and it is very reactionary. There was a shooting at the Tarrant County courthouse in Fort Worth back in 1992. Shortly after that the extra layers of security were added at the county and city court and administrative buildings, and those layers have been in place ever since.
How much do these extra layers of security improve safety? I don't think there have been any shootings in any of the county or city courts since then, so it must have made a tremendous improvement, right? Who knows. George Hennard shot and killed 23 people at Luby's restaurant in Temple, Texas in 1991. So of course Luby's must require all their customers go through a metal detector now, right? No. You can walk right into Luby's and go through the cafeteria line. I don't think there have been any mass shootings in any Luby's since then.
Why are the responses to these two situations so different? Government agencies and private businesses respond to different stimuli. The government is influenced by those who speak the loudest, complain the most, and give the most money to politicians. They have to appear to be doing something, so we get security theater. It is very visible, which is its primary goal, without probably having much influence on actual safety. (If you are going to walk into a court building, which is already full of armed policemen, to shoot someone, are you going to be deterred by a metal detector?) By being visible, the metal detector and pat downs are a symbol of security. They quiet the loud, complaining voices, or at least can be pointed to when there are complaints.
The private business on the other hand responds to hundreds or thousands of individual transactions. A few loud complainers can try to get them to change, but unless they can influence others to follow their lead about they best they can do is stay away from a business they disagree with. If they feel Luby's should increase their security, they do not have to go and eat there. If enough people feel that way, Luby's will add security.
How many private businesses have metal detectors? The only places I can think of now are sporting venues like football stadiums and basketball arenas, where large crowds of people gather. Otherwise, I think it would be difficult for someone to stay in business if they hassled their customers that much.
So the majority of people, when making their own free choice, do not choose metal detectors and pat downs. Government agencies on the other hand respond to the loud and complaining few, and the rest of us have no choice but to put up with the hassles.
But the government is elected by a majority of the people, so why don't its policies mimic those of private businesses. After all, I was a customer of the government when I went to pay my fine. It evens says "Customer Copy" right on the traffic citation. Again, the loud, complaining few have more influence over elections, which are few and far between compared to the number of transactions a business makes with its customers. The election process is not as efficient as the buying process, so the government we get is not as satisfying as most of our business dealings.
Which makes it all the more frustrating that government is insinuating itself into more and more businesses and other aspects of daily life. This cannot be a good trend.
When an entity that can already collect its customers by force off the highway wants to have even more influence and power, watch out!
I guess I should have known, but it did not occur to me when I left my office that there would be a security checkpoint to get into the cashier's office at the court. Why do they need such security? Are they keeping large sums of money? OK, it looks like my speeding ticket (74 mph in a 60mph zone on the freeway) is going to come to $181, so maybe there is a lot of money being held there, but my bank probably has lots more money on hand, and it has no metal detectors.
The reason there are metal detectors at the court building is the government is in charge, and it is very reactionary. There was a shooting at the Tarrant County courthouse in Fort Worth back in 1992. Shortly after that the extra layers of security were added at the county and city court and administrative buildings, and those layers have been in place ever since.
How much do these extra layers of security improve safety? I don't think there have been any shootings in any of the county or city courts since then, so it must have made a tremendous improvement, right? Who knows. George Hennard shot and killed 23 people at Luby's restaurant in Temple, Texas in 1991. So of course Luby's must require all their customers go through a metal detector now, right? No. You can walk right into Luby's and go through the cafeteria line. I don't think there have been any mass shootings in any Luby's since then.
Why are the responses to these two situations so different? Government agencies and private businesses respond to different stimuli. The government is influenced by those who speak the loudest, complain the most, and give the most money to politicians. They have to appear to be doing something, so we get security theater. It is very visible, which is its primary goal, without probably having much influence on actual safety. (If you are going to walk into a court building, which is already full of armed policemen, to shoot someone, are you going to be deterred by a metal detector?) By being visible, the metal detector and pat downs are a symbol of security. They quiet the loud, complaining voices, or at least can be pointed to when there are complaints.
The private business on the other hand responds to hundreds or thousands of individual transactions. A few loud complainers can try to get them to change, but unless they can influence others to follow their lead about they best they can do is stay away from a business they disagree with. If they feel Luby's should increase their security, they do not have to go and eat there. If enough people feel that way, Luby's will add security.
How many private businesses have metal detectors? The only places I can think of now are sporting venues like football stadiums and basketball arenas, where large crowds of people gather. Otherwise, I think it would be difficult for someone to stay in business if they hassled their customers that much.
So the majority of people, when making their own free choice, do not choose metal detectors and pat downs. Government agencies on the other hand respond to the loud and complaining few, and the rest of us have no choice but to put up with the hassles.
But the government is elected by a majority of the people, so why don't its policies mimic those of private businesses. After all, I was a customer of the government when I went to pay my fine. It evens says "Customer Copy" right on the traffic citation. Again, the loud, complaining few have more influence over elections, which are few and far between compared to the number of transactions a business makes with its customers. The election process is not as efficient as the buying process, so the government we get is not as satisfying as most of our business dealings.
Which makes it all the more frustrating that government is insinuating itself into more and more businesses and other aspects of daily life. This cannot be a good trend.
When an entity that can already collect its customers by force off the highway wants to have even more influence and power, watch out!
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
A New Year, A New Blog
Don't know how long this will last, and I am not even sure what I will put here. Probably just whatever comes into my mind. Usually that would be flying, water-skiing, sailing, reading, cooking, or maybe even work.
But let's start with this article about celebrity Scientologists. Jason Lee's character in My Name Is Earl is hilarious, and I had inferred from the way the character is played that Jason is pretty skeptical. Apparently not.
But let's start with this article about celebrity Scientologists. Jason Lee's character in My Name Is Earl is hilarious, and I had inferred from the way the character is played that Jason is pretty skeptical. Apparently not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
