Dulak's Suffolk Blog

Over approximately the last decade, no problem has so vexed the average American as that of rising gasoline prices. Though the nation has encountered similar (or arguably, more drastic) periods of pain at the pump, most notably during the oil embargoes of the late-1970’s, the value of gasoline has risen spastically and dramatically. With political tension arising anew in the Middle East over Iran’s nuclear potential, this seems unlikely to change in the near future; as such, consumers have begun transitioning from the large, fuel inefficient trucks and sports utility vehicles which so permeated the 1990’s and early 2000’s in favor of more economic small cars. Seeing this change, and also feeling the pressure of government mandates to meet increased fuel efficiency minimums in the near future, automobile manufacturers around the globe have begun to develop new technologies to reduce their emissions and elevate their miles-per-gallon.
In an attempt to corner the market on fuel-efficient vehicles, the various automakers have introduced new terminologies into the industry lexicon. Midway through the last decade, Americans in-tune with such developments were mulling such buzzwords as “hydrogen fuel cell,” “hybrid,” “ethanol,” and “solar power.” While only a couple of these technologies have seen mass implementation, there is hope that further innovation will allow hydrogen (knocked for its combustibility in collisions) and solar power (currently produced with too great inefficiency for use) to be included in future vehicles.
Of those aforementioned technologies, perhaps the most popular and exciting has been the hybrid gas-electric engine. Some manufacturers, most notably Chevrolet with their new “Volt”, are banking on full electric battery engines to become the primary efficient fuel source of the future, but as of this writing such engines are limited by constraints of their batteries and a lack of recharge stations. Hybrid engines, which combine standard combustion systems with electric batteries, do not face such challenges; some have solved recharge issues by transforming heat naturally generated by the brakes into electricity, and their combustion engines are served the same gasoline as any older vehicle. One hybrid model, the Toyota Prius, manages to eclipse 40 MPG, well on the way to President Barack Obama’s mandate of all 2025 model year vehicles surpassing 50 MPG.
This quick synopsis barely touches the tip of the “fuel efficiency” iceberg. Thanks to a combination of rising gas prices, government mandates, and concerns for the environment, a whole new market has emerged over the last decade for vehicles that achieve ever-greater fuel economy. While some automobile manufacturers are claiming, as said in one of the links below, that such efficiency may come at the expense of passenger safety, their opponents are proving them wrong daily. With every brand conceivable at least considering hybrid engines or other efficient systems, it seems the most green will be found in “green” cars.

Links/Sources:

http://bit.ly/yv9vqZ (This is an episode of Scientific American Frontiers which documents the efforts of the auto industry to meet higher MPG demand circa 2005)

http://on.msnbc.com/wew9PP (MSNBC article on the auto industry backing Obama’s mileage mandate)
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/03/autos/wards_auto_CAFE_engineer_survey/index.htm

This blog entry concerns the mechanics experiment for the latest class I was able to attend (details for later absence has been noted to Prof. Sonek). During this class session, we were tasked with making our robot perform several rudimentary, yet at times challenging, tasks of movement. Amongst these were linear and circular travel. For the former assignment, we also had to record measurements of the robot’s distance, and place that against the results anticipated by the computer software.

While the most enthralling part of these assignments was discovering how much additional motion was generated by even slight increases in the amount of movement we ordered the robot to conduct, my partner and I were cognizant of the learning opportunity before us and diligently recorded data from the each trial. The constant variable in each of our trials was the amount of time the robot was set for, always exactly one second. Varying were the settings dictated for each side wheel. In the first trial, we set one wheel at 69 and the other at 65; the travelled distance physically measured was 42 cm. Our error percentage for this trial was a miniscule .48%, a truly outstanding result!

Other heats did not produce such excellent error percentages, but were nothing to be ashamed of in their own rights. In the second trial, the wheels were set to 79 and 75, respectively and produced a distance of 49 cm. After using our mathematical skills this gave us a 2.06% error percentage. Continuing the trend of upward error percentages, setting the wheels to 89 and 85 rendered a distance of 54 cm and an error percentage of 3.64%.

So what must be taken away from these assignments? First of all, that playing with Lego robots can actually be a very fun way to learn about science! But on a more serious note, it is telling that has the robot’s acceleration and distance grew, so did our error percentage; no matter the effort exerted, our ability to adequately match Labview’s predicted distance decreased. Also not to be missed were the mathematical abilities and formulae which allowed these results to be found. Copied below are the rough data we collected during the experiment.

Wheel rotation
1. Circumference= 15.7
2. # of wheel turns= rotation (degrees)/(360/1 rotation)
3. Distance= (# of wheel turns) x (Circumference)
4. Velocity= Distance (in Meters)/ Time (in Seconds)
5. % Error= (Measured Distance)- (Labview Distance)x1000/ 0.5(Measured+Labview Distance)

Experiment ONE

Time = 1 Second
Power 1 = 69
Power 2 = 65
Circumference = 0.1570

Distance Measured = 42 cm

% Error = (0.002 / 0.42) x 100 = 0.00476= 0.48%

Experiment TWO

Time = 1 second
Power 1 = 79
Power 2 = 75
Circumference = 0.1570

Distance Measured = 49 cm → 0.49
Labview Distance = 0.48103

% Error = (0.01/0.485) x 100 = 2.06%

Experiment THREE

Time = 1 second
Power 1 = 89
Power 2 = 85
Circumference = 0.1570

Distance Measured = 54 cm → 0.54
Labview Distance = 0.56

% Error = (-0.02/0.55) x 100 = 3.64%

Since electricity went mainstream during the early to mid-twentieth century, a critical problem facing providers concerned how to manage the perpetually growing grid of power lines leading them into consumer homes. Even more important to the provider was how to control usage of these lines, as excessive simultaneous demand would theoretically (and infrequently, in practice) cause widespread blackouts. For decades all which could be done was to survey trends and request customers avoid the system during anticipated peak occurrences, but the turn of the millennium, the advent of advanced ecological and computing technologies and new economic models have introduced new solutions to this dilemma.
Demand response, is at its most basic level, a movement within the electrical industry to revolutionize its relationship with consumers. In an effort to make the existing grid “smarter” and more efficient, electricity providers have begun inviting consumers to participate in the process of regulating peak usage. Perhaps the most traditional methodology for curtailing use during anticipated peak hours has been to charge more per kilowatt during those times, thereby encouraging consumers to procrastinate on running dishwashers, laundry machines or other high-consumption devices until the later hours when demand drops. New programs under consideration would create a more capitalist system for energy consumption; one such program would feature a system “in which consumers bid on specific load reductions in the electricity wholesale market. A bid is accepted if it is less than the market price. When a bid is accepted, the customer must curtail his load by the amount specified in the bid or face penalties” (Ahbaldi 2007). As other possibilities likewise integrate the consumer, it seems the future of demand response will be remarkably more democratic.
Keeping in theme with these individualist overtones, technological innovations of the last several decades also hold promise for demand response. As the technology has improved and become more efficient, home-based solar power generation has spiked in popularity. To take advantage of this development, one revolutionary idea that has been posited would completely overhaul our current conception of the consumer-provider relationship, as well as the structure of the power grid as currently exists; rather than simply charge for electricity to go in one direction (from traditional provider to consumer), some would like to see a “two-way line” develop in which customers with solar panels would feed into the grid and receive credits for their production. Alternatively, though less revolutionary, new “smart” panel technologies may allow electrical companies to work directly with consumers to regulate their usage in such a way that will tax the grid less and ergo the consumer as well.

Sources:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378779608001272

http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Technologies_Demand_Response/Evolution-of-demand-response-Johnson-Controls-led-consortium-embodies-several-trends-4421.html

http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Technologies_Demand_Response/Demand-side-technology-passes-important-test-in-Ontario-3862.html

On March 11, 2011, the island nation of Japan encountered several phenomena that resulted in nothing short of unmitigated tragedy and disaster. Residing in the region of the world colloquially known as “The Ring of Fire” due to the large number of seismic faults and ergo earthquakes, that such a tremor should have occurred on that day may have came of little surprise to the Japanese; it was the magnitude of the quake, and the size of its subsequent tsunami that provided the greatest shock. Complicating matters further, the earthquake, tsunami or some combination of the two forces razed not only homes and business, but also the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. As if reeling form the effects of seismic activity were not enough, the people of coastal Japan now had to contend with the possibility of nuclear fallout as well.

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on exactly what occurred on March 11. Shortly after the events of that day unfolded, the Japanese government launched an investigation into the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in an effort to find out what exactly caused the plant to fail. The preliminary results of that investigation were released in December 2011, finding that “the authorities grossly underestimated the risks tsunamis posed to the plant,” and accused the Tokyo Electric Power Company of ignoring similar grievances in its past (New York Times 2011). According to the report, Tokyo Electric Power Company planned only for tsunami waves of approximately twenty feet, while that which slammed the plant on March 11 eclipsed forty feet.

More recently, the Japanese Parliament has found these results to be unsatisfactory and, as such, commissioned a second investigation into the happenings around Fukushima Daiichi. Within Japan, “questions…linger as to the extent of damage to the plant caused by the earthquake even before the tsunami hit. Any evidence of serious quake damage at the plant would cast new doubt on the safety of other reactors in quake-prone Japan” (New York Times 2012). Given that this previous quake displaced more than 100,000 people and left fallow hundreds of acres of farmland for the foreseeable future, these are not questions to be left unanswered.

How the Japanese government responds to the final findings of the first study, and any results from the second will be very interesting to observe. More than almost any other nation, Japan has embraced nuclear power. With 54 plants across the country, it would not be feasible for them to abandon the power source; but then, how do they go about protecting themselves from similar fiascos in the future? While they cannot regulate the seismic activity of the earth beneath them, perhaps legislation will be drafted to increase government oversight of the plants or their management companies. Regardless of the direction in which Japan heads after more is learned, American eyes will be set firmly upon them, particularly in California, where nuclear power has similarly been embraced and faults such as the San Andreas continue to threaten the state.

Sources and Media:

New York Times Damage Map graphic

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/business/global/independent-panel-to-start-inquiry-into-japans-nuclear-crisis.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/world/asia/report-condemns-japans-response-to-nuclear-accident.html

This activity was certainly a departure from anything I have ever previously done in any classroom before, never mind a science lab! That said, I did find it both engrossing and entertaining from start to finish. While I would never have thought of using Lego-machines to represent important scientific and technological concepts, in practice the idea does much to re-enforce those principles.
Stepping down from my pedagogical soapbox, and delving into the actual results of my experience with the “Lego Mindstorm”, it would be fair to say my partner Julie and I met mixed results. We jumped out to an initial lead, working well together and quickly assembling the mini-robot; unfortunately, a freak accident resulted in the device falling apart, and with little time remaining, we had difficulty reproducing our previous efficiency. However, given the success we met at first, I am confident that a return to the lab will also mean a return to such positive outcomes. We obviously failed to have our machine complete the described movements, but given that we absorbed the assembly and programming lessons along the way, I have great optimism for future tasks.

Welcome to Blogs.cas.suffolk.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it under Manage>Posts or make a new one under Write>Posts then start blogging! Be sure to visit the Design tab to choose a new look for your blog as well.

Also, for immediate “how-to’s” visit the Tutorials section, or the Getting Started section.