thing

Technology is not the solution

March 26, 2019 — leslie dean brown

I think what most scientists aren’t willing to admit is that science and technology alone are not really the answer. Science and technology is actually what got us here in the first place (or the inappropriate use of technology anyway). I personally think the ‘solution’ lies in simply doing less, not more. Because for each new invention, there is always some unintended consequence. And more energy is always required.

We *already* have a ‘machine’ that can take carbon dioxide out of the air, assemble itself, grow by itself, regenerate itself, replicate itself. It gives us oxygen. It’s nice to look at. It’s even solar powered. It’s a tree. I think the best thing that we can do is plant more trees, not chop them down. If people are too lazy to plant a seed now and then, then there is basically no hope for us. Because it’ll be way harder to make a synthetic forest. Way harder.

I think that there have only really been a dozen truly remarkable (and harmless) inventions. The first one is no doubt the sail boat. The next one is the humble bicycle. Another one is the solar panel. And that’s about it really. That’s all I can think of.

Why do people want to learn the Russian language?

July 23, 2018 — leslie dean brown

I have lost count of the number of times that people ask me why I want to learn Russian, of all languages!

Oscar Rabin — Oskar Yakovlevich Rabin — ¨Oil refinery¨ (нефтелавна)

I decided to learn Russian for many reasons. So here goes. It starts with history, culture and my upbringing. When one is growing up, there are a lot of references to Russian people (stereotypes) on television and in the movies. Like for example Get Smart, James Bond and last but not least the Rocky and Bullwinkle show.

How many French spies did Mr. Bond get with in all of those movies? None, probably. For me, there has always been this mystery or enigma about them (no not the French, the Russians!). Maybe that’s it? Maybe it’s because it’s not French?

You see, here in Australia, the most popular language to learn has always been French. I studied it in highschool because there were only three options: French¹, German and Japanese. That was it. There was never any Russian option available.

There are as many Russian speakers in the world as there are German and Japanese combined. Yet according to duolingo, there are over two and a half times the amount of German language learners (and at least 75% more Japanese language learners as well). Likewise, there are almost as many Russian speakers in the world as there are French speakers, and yet four and a half times as many people are trying to learn French as opposed to Russian. Why is that? I could equally ask “why aren’t more people trying to learn Russian?” or “Why are so many people interested in learning French/Japanese /German/Spanish?”. I don’t know.

We did study a little bit about communism and agriculture in Russia during highschool. I paid attention in class, because this particular teacher threw the end pieces of his chalk at you if you didn’t. LOL. Even so I found it fascinating —unlike oh I don’t know— learning about Constantinople (because I never had any idea where it was on today’s modern maps).

So I have always been intrigued by Russia and the USSR for example (but the cold war was before my time). And my father was a young man in world war two, learning how to drive tanks, so the Russian fighters would be mentioned in his old war stories. I soon found out that 20 million Soviet soldiers died fighting as our allies. So I think there’s a strong chance that without their help, we could have lost WW2.

And let’s not forget the iron curtain. You couldn’t know about Russia even if you wanted to (unless you were a spy). So I gradually started reading more about Russia when I was able to (and about the breakup of the Soviet Union and how it impacted people’s lives). It became much easier to read about the USSR/Russia after the internet became popular, in the mid to late nineties.

In other words, it’s not like African countries which nobody has ever heard of. Russia has a big world presence. Everybody has heard of Russia!

So many Americans are anti-Russian (or anti USSR for that matter) and it doesn’t seem logical or fair to judge an entire nation without really knowing about it. For example, in the cold war, it’s common knowledge that Cuba had [presumably Russian] missiles pointed at America. But before this, USA had missiles installed in Turkey and pointed at the USSR! So it’s a hypocritical situation and ever since I read about the Cuban missile crisis, my interest grew.

The analogy today would be that North Koreans are not bad or evil people, even though it is seen as a ‘regime’. With some people, if information is not freely available, they become even more curious about it. Right?

Also, in my culture, we tend to support what is called “the underdog”, for example in football games like your recent world cup. Because it makes the win even more special! So you could say that I wanted to know Russia’s side. I wanted to know how Russians think.

So I visited Moscow by myself in the year 2000 when I was 23 years old, to “see for myself”. Anyway, it was part of a round the world trip, so I didn’t have much time in each place. There was simply no time to learn 12+ languages. I wouldn’t know which ones to learn in any case! And in most places I could get by in English. But somehow Russia was different…

Despite this uncertainty about languages, way back then, I managed to learn most of the Cyrillic alphabet, and it was a good thing too, because I needed it to navigate there with the street signs and train stations (without any mobile phone or internet or anything!).

I got a kind of a culture shock, but in a good way. The whole thing was a great experience for me, almost like being in a parallel world. All of these mostly Caucasian people walking around, but speaking a very different language to ours.

I remember little things like the heavy doors to the metro and that people were actually helpful. Even a military officer politely escorted me all the way to the platform so that I could get to where I needed to go. Even so, travelling there felt strangely intimidating. I saw the seven Stalin buildings, which were very imposing (until then I had no idea they even existed!). My point is that for me at least it was all very surreal. Everything just seemed to be opposite to what I was used to. That was part of the appeal. Suddenly I felt like the foreigner.

Anyway, In 2005, I went back to St Petersburg. And again I was awestruck by the culture. I felt that the time invested in learning the alphabet has already paid off. But I still couldn’t speak any Russian!

During my two world trips, only a few places left a big lasting impression on me. One of them was Russia. And the other was Japan. That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy visiting other countries like Italy (one of my favourites for other reasons, like the food) and cities like NYC, Istanbul, Rio and Buenos Aires. But I digress. Anyway, I realised that unlike so many other countries, English was not very useful to me in Russia and Japan. Even in Japan for example the street signs are also written in English. But not in Russia (at least they weren’t when I went).

I was always one of those people who thought that they could never learn a new language after becoming an adult. So it never really occurred to me to proactively start to learn Russian. Well, I did buy a little pocket English–Russian dictionary (which I still have). But I just became overwhelmed and promptly gave up when I saw how long all the words were. Because I was young and naïve and I thought I could learn by reading a dictionary. Wrong!

Also, when I was doing my PhD, I encountered many relevant scientific papers about silica and colloidal chemistry written in Russian. I would have referenced some of them, but unfortunately I couldn’t understand them or interpret the results.

Eventually I moved to Spain (Tenerife), I lived there for about 8 years, and I managed to learn Spanish. So now I am back in Australia, feeling lost, and so I decided to start a new language-learning chapter in my life!

Maybe next time I will go to Russia in the Winter? Or maybe I will go on the trans-Siberian railway? I haven’t got any specific plans, but I am sure I will visit again one day — and I suppose the point is that I will be much better prepared² with my language skills next time. Hopefully I will be able to strike up a conversation with “the enemy”. And who knows? Maybe I will find a beautiful Russian wife one day? I hope so!

And finally I should say that after starting to learn Russian words, I like them! I like how they sound! And the more I learn, the more I want to know! Because they sound strong! You don’t stuff around with unimportant words like ‘a’ and ‘the’. And I like all of the letters like Z, V, Y, X (and also j, q if you really want to know). They’re my favourite letters in the whole alphabet. Because whenever we play scrabble, these letters are worth the most points!

I hope that answers your question(s) as to why I want to learn Russian and what attracts me to Russian culture.

Anthropogenic global warming – truth or fraud?

October 1, 2017 — leslie dean brown

“It is very disturbing when the amorality of scientists unites the immorality of politicians.” — Jurandyr Arone Maues

“amorality of scientists”? You’ve got to be joking! Now you’ve done it.

Do you think scientists want global warming to be true? No, I can assure you that we don’t want it to be true. I personally would rather carry on regardless with my affinity for fossil-fuel powered sports motorbikes, BUT I can’t simply ‘forget’ my science education. Can I?

First of all, we’ve already told you. Many times over. But apparently non-scientists are not as ‘logical’ as scientists. Other things seem to get in the way of your reasoning. Things like lifestyle and belief systems. Social inertia. Conspiracy theories. Conservatives. Religion.

We could come up with the most irrefutable evidence you could imagine and still there would be loads of people that would think “it’s all a giant conspiracy”. Because they’re hooked on vehicles, consumer goods and international air travel. Right?

Most people are almost born with this ideology that “work is good” and “work can’t be bad”. It’s indoctrinated into us all through our schooling and beyond. We’re all taught to “do something of benefit”. People who are brought up with religion automatically think “man can do no harm”. Wrong! We invented the thermonuclear bomb. I think everyone agrees that they’re very destructive man-made things.

And the thing is, nuclear bombs are essentially atomic-scale devices. We invented all sorts of poisons that can kill off entire ecosystems. Guess what? Poisons are molecular scale devices also.

Almost every single change or consequence in this universe is brought about by the small scale influencing the big scale. For example, my expertise is in materials (that’s how I know about IR spectroscopy); every single material you can touch is influenced by the arrangement of its atoms. Every single one. It’s the difference between charcoal and diamond. They’re both carbon-based materials. The only difference is the atomic stacking. That’s it. That’s why superman can squeeze a lump of coal and turn it into diamond.

I think deniers need to just stop already and take a much-needed reality check. And fast. Just leave your preconceived ideas at the door. Is it so hard to believe that what we do affects our environment? Is it?! If we keep on making changes at the *local* scale, and we keep on doing this *all over the planet*, that means we are *already* doing things on a global scale. Just because you can’t SEE all of those exhaust pipes in front of you, doesn’t mean they’re not contributing.

Likewise, just because you can’t comprehend how a tiny thing like a molecule can influence a whole planet, doesn’t mean it’s not happening either. We already know that changes in one scale can and do influence another. There are storms all over the planet Venus for example. Do you know why? Well according to planetary scientists, it’s because of its atmosphere.

Do me a favour, read this. That’s the link between CO2 and absorption of radiation. That’s the mechanism right there. There is no doubt about the IR spectra of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

But it’s not a question of one lone molecule, is it? Do you know how much volume of gas one tonne of CO2 represents? Do you? 1 tonne of CO2 gas occupies 557 thousand litres.

Now try to imagine the NUMBER of molecules. It’s right up there. Forget tonnes. Forget litres. Let’s talk about the actual number of molecules for a change. The USA emits emits approximately 71,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of these molecules every single year. Do you see how many zeroes that is? That is no exaggeration. That is a real number estimate that I have personally calculated. We are talking “duodecillions” of molecules here, all over the world.

Now granted there are a lot of molecules in a teacup (a lot less than this, I can assure you). But I hope that at least *some* people who read this can now begin to see how this goes from being a molecular-scale problem to a planetary-scale problem.

And not only that. We know there are tipping points. We know about chaos theory. We know about “sensitive dependence on initial conditions”. What the hell am I on about now? Well for example if Hitler had have got into art school, instead of being rejected, then there WW2 probably wouldn’t have happened. Would it?

And the thing is, we can see the carbon dioxide concentration is increasing all over the world. So that is measurable. And the electromagnetic spectrum of greenhouse gases are also measurable (and let me tell you, their repeatability is undeniable).

Next deniers will tell you that plants love CO2. And so does phytoplankton. Not according to this study.

Well sorry to alarm you, but forests and oceans can’t seem to keep up. Because if they could, the CO2 concentration would stabilise. But it doesn’t. It keeps rising. And the more forests we cut down, the higher it goes. Indeed, it should already be obvious. Because if they loved the extra CO2, they would already be making use of it.

Do you know what those little serrations are on this graph? I read somewhere that each one of those jumps represents and entire growing season for deciduous plants (because there are more in one hemisphere than in the other). And judging by that graph, you can even see that the leaves fall from the trees faster than they grow. That’s what that is.

Those little zig-zag jumps you can see are the effectiveness of the planet’s lungs. Each year they take a breath. And each year, it looks like they are suffocating ever so slightly more. You might say the concentration of CO2 might not matter to them. It probably doesn’t. But the fact is, global warming would still occur even without any trees, as it does on the planet Venus, the “greenhouse capital” of the solar system.

And this problem we are facing is no different to another anthropogenic global problem: ozone hole problem. Remember? Nobody denied that! And I’ll tell you why nobody denied that. Because it was EASIER to give up CFCs and swap over to a different aerosol propellant, wasn’t it? Simple. Done.

Try to realise that if the Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t actually go on forever. It’s less than 10km thick. People commute more than that on a daily basis. Ethiopians walk more than that on a daily basis just to get enough water. It’s actually very thin when you think of it like that (as all astronauts and cosmonauts will tell you).

And that was what Carl Sagan was trying to say with his book “Pale blue dot”. Carl Sagan was truly brilliant at making ordinary people appreciate big and small numbers. Well I’m going to go one further than Carl. And I’m going to bring it right down to human-scale proportions. If the Earth’s atmosphere was condensed into a solid, it would be only 12.2 metres thick. That’s it. That’s all we’re playing with.

Now try to recall every single time you filled up your fuel tank. Can you remember? That’s 50kg or more at a time. If you had to carry that 50kg every time you filled up your car, you’d probably be more aware of the amount of carbon you’re burning. But it just flows up into the petrol bowser, down through the hose and out the nozzle without you even lifting a finger.

Now try to remember every single time you turned on a light switch or plugged something in. All that electricity had to come from somewhere too (like when coal and gas were scooped up by the truckload at all the mining sites dotted around this planet and burned in power stations that you can’t even see).

And now try to remember every single thing you have ever bought. Tonnes of invisible (invisible to you) carbon dioxide went into making all the stuff we buy. Tonnes. Incidentally, that is why the manufacturing industry doesn’t want to talk about climate change either (because they’re too involved in it).

Now. All that CO2. Have you planted that much carbon in the mean time? Has your garden grown and gained tonnes and tonnes of weight? Or has it been urbanised instead– chopped down and flattened? Has your soil got that much richer? No. The answer is “no it hasn’t”. All of that carbon has been taken from underground mines and dispersed into the atmosphere.

Try to think of all of that carbon being sprinkled onto the 12.2 metre frozen sea of air. Try to think of it that way. Try to think of all those duodecillions of molecules “doing their thing”. Try to think of it that way.

QED.

“But I don’t want to live on Mars”

September 21, 2017 — leslie dean brown

I’m hoping one or more of the 2000+ billionaires in the world are reading this…

Because even the richest people in the world, all the current billionaires –even future trillionaires– cannot afford to maintain their current lifestyles, as they do here so nicely, except on the planet Mars.

Where do all the rich and famous people go on holidays? I’ll tell you were they all go. They go to the one place in the world that literally “exudes luxury”. And I’ll give you a hint: it’s not Monte Carlo (that’s for people that spend money).

³ – Bora Bora, in French Polynesia. They stay in overwater bungalows costing upwards of US$5,000 a night. That’s where they go. They take a few steps down a little ladder and snorkel right off from their little balconies. Isn’t that wonderful?

And call me strange, but all of those luxurious resorts encircling Bora Bora look absolutely nothing like… well, bloodywell anywhere on that dusty little shithole unfortunate sister planet of ours, Mars⁴. It’s a completely vacant, crappy, dry, dusty monotone brown little shithole. And I think we have to ask ourselves “why indeed is Mars so vacant?”

And it’s going to be a L O N G time before it even remotely starts resembling somewhere like any 5+ star resort on the “just-the-right-size-mother-bear-planet-Earth”. If there’s one thing I know rich people can’t stand, it’s being in a crap environment. That’s why they pay extra to wait in lounges at the airport. Or why they have to be located in a different section of the plane. Or a different plane altogether. Because to do otherwise would be depressing. And if humans can’t stand one thing, it’s “not being happy”.

Then let this serve as an advanced warning to you, future trillionaire: the rest of us just aren’t leaving Earth so that you can stay and enjoy it around here with all your lakes, rivers, oceans and surf beaches.

I for one am not living on Mars, either voluntarily or forcibly. No. And neither are my non-existent children. This mass exodus of people in the direction of “Earth to Mars” is just not going to happen. There’ll be the bloodiest revolution in the history of mankind before that happens.

Why? Because far from thinking “Mars is going to be ‘fun’ “, I think it would be even more boring than a long-term jail sentence.

The life cycle analysis of an automobile is more than just the battery

September 19, 2017 — leslie dean brown

In this article I’d like to talk about the life cycle analysis of a traditional car with an internal combustion engine compared to that of an electric car. I’m not actually going to perform any detailed life cycle analysis calculations, just talk about the number of additional parts that a petrol or diesel powered car requires compared to an EV.

First of all, let’s get one thing straight. No one is saying that purchasing an EV car is ‘better’ for the environment than purchasing no EV car at all (and no petrol/diesel replacement either). Right? No one is saying that here, there or anywhere.

It’s nice that David Pilling has written about where materials come from when they buy an EV. But why not also write an equally-damning column on the materials that go into petrol powered cars? Likewise, it’s nice that Schalk Cloete has written about the hidden emissions of electric cars. But do the authors really think that petrol- or diesel-engined vehicles are any less exempt? That’s what pisses me off.

There are thousands of intricate moving parts that make up a conventional internal combustion engine. Thousands. In order that they function correctly, they require complicated electrical, lubrication and cooling systems. The first time I looked at my motorbike’s repair manual, I was shocked!

Let’s talk about how many individual parts there are in an internal combustion engine and compare shall we?

What about all the pistons, piston rings, driveshafts, camshafts, gearbox, valves, crankshafts, valve springs, fuel injectors, bearings, o-rings, timing belts, fan belts, flywheels, alternators, ignition coils, spark plugs, distributor, starter motor, fasteners, sensors, switches, relays, cables, wiring harnesses, oil pumps, water pumps, fuel pump, oil filters, fuel filters, petrol tank, radiator, exhaust system …I mean the list goes on and on and on and on!

My point is that none of the above mentioned parts are required in an EV. None. I will repeat that: none.

So fossil fuel driven cars are competing with a motor that has ONE moving part in it (well except for the ball bearings on the main drive shaft). So the internal combustion engine now is potentially at a huge manufacturing and environmental disadvantage.

The cost of manufacturing, moulding and machining all of those extra parts is huge! And they’re not made of crappy alloys either. What then is the environmental cost?

What about the lead in lead/acid batteries? What about the copper in the starter motor? And what about the aluminium in the radiator? What about the aluminium in the engine block and gearbox casing? Where do all these materials come from?

What about the Manganese, Molybdenum, Chromium, Vanadium and Nickel in all those hardened-steel moving parts inside the engine and gearbox? What about the energy that goes into mining, smelting, forging, forming, cutting, swaging, extruding, casting, injection moulding, machining, tempering, hardening, plating?

What about the environmental impact of building and maintaining all of the machines used in manufacturing, processing and production? What about the energy required by all of the machines on the assembly line? What about the energy required by the testing and tooling machinery to make sure all of the parts are within tolerance?

What about consumables? What about engine oil? What about the coolant? What about the battery acid? What about the transmission fluid? What about the gaskets? What about the grease? What about the air filter? What about the oil filter? What about the fuel filter? What about the environmental cost of changing those frequently?

None of those things are required with an EV either. None.

There are so many friggin’ parts, no one has even tallied up the environmental cost of them individually (instead they work out how much energy the factory or the entire transport energy sector uses). It’s a rough guess at best.

If EV cars were invented first, piston engined car would never have even been conceived, that’s how overly-complex they are to design, manufacture and produce. Of course EV manufacturers already know all of this, that’s why they’re all trying to jump on the band wagon now, because there’s potentially more profit in it.

Can you at least begin to see that it’s not just about the environmental impact of a lithium ion battery in an electric vehicle. And that it’s not just about where the electricity comes from? It’s much more ‘complicated’ than that.

Would fossil fuel proponents now like to sit there and calculate all of the life cycle factors and environmental impacts, taking into account all of the things I have just spoken about?

The bottom line is, you have got to be fuckin’ kidding me if you think combustion engines are more sustainable when everything is taken into account… and yes I really would hate to be the sorry bastard that gets lumped with all those calculations.