In our mass-pulley experiment we observed some interesting principles of Newtons 2nd law of motion.

The method involved measuring the electrical discharge from a small battery , which powered a small pulley system, responsible for lifting .25 grams or less.

The laws we observed in this experiment pertain to “variable mass systems”, for example, a rocket burning fuel as it ascends, therefore adding variance to the mass of the rocket, and the force of the thrusters. Variable mass systems need to have an adaptive power source, which can provide the right amounts of force as the mass of an object increases or decreases.

We observed a positive correlation between mass and battery discharge. Meaning, The battery worked harder when the mass was greater. When the mass lifted by the battery was constant, the relationship between force and acceleration was postively constant. When the mass was NOT constant Newtons 2nd law didn’t and can’t be applied to the experiment, because the mass is variable.

The relationship between force and acceleration can be described like this : F=MA. The force acting on a body is proportionate to its mass times acceleration. Our data does not agree with the 2nd law, it simply can’t be applied here because the mass is variable

In summary, we observed that F=MA when the mass is constant, but variable mass systems require a different method for determining energy usage v. acceleration and mass.

The nature of these laws, at their core, are about motion and the conservation/expenditure of energy, we should always be looking for ways to apply fundamental laws of conservation to ubiquitous technology like mass transit and industrial energy.

***our results are available via the link at the top of this post
Thank you for reading!

Tim Main

batterydischarge1b

President Obama inspecting solar panels

There is no question that the Solydnra debacle had some questionable political and financial implications. When political and financially questionable activities abound we tend to call it a scandal. But the existence of any criminality in the solyndra breakdown, is as questionable as the choices that lead to the breakdown itself.

The viewpoints on this affair are diametric and mostly politically charged which clouds the issue with rhetoric and political posturing.

Solyndra was a cutting edge solar technology company based in California. Their product (solar panels mostly) was uniquely high-tech with a very complex design. This made the prices of their products somewhat uncompetitive, but the promise of their innovative design strategies drew attention and support from high places.

Specifically, the United States and California state government. Support from the government for Solyndra came in the form of hundred million dollar loans prior to its closure in 2010, and tax breaks favoring green technology companies. The Obama administration was ardent about supporting Solyndra publicly and financially, as part of the administrations efforts to support, incubate, and master green technology.

Dramatic shifts in the solar energy market made Solyndra’s already pricey products significantly less competitive, and eventually Solyndra found itself unable to cover production costs, and without a means of injecting capitcal.

So, Solyndra went down, and took with it hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars along with thousands of US jobs.

Detractors of the government support are calling the Solyndra deal “Chicago style scandal” , a not-so-subtle jab at the president and his administration. Opponents of the deal are suggesting that the deal was merely political and financial backscratching under the guise of green energy. Some have suggested that President Obama simply wanted to tout Solyndra as an example of his administrations environmentalism without forethought to the consequences of injecting huge amounts of taxpayer money into a risky company.

Others have countered by pointing out that ANY government support of promising green technology is inherently risky. The risks are necessary to gain rewards, and risks MUST be taken to displace industries like coal in any way shape or form.

In the comments section I hope you will offer your opinion on this issue, the risks v. rewards, the role of politics in green energy research, and whether you think there was foul play in the Solyndra breakdown.

Thanks !

tim main

Hydraulic fracturing or ‘hydro fracking’ refers to the use of pressurized fluid to create and exploit fissures and cracks in underground layers of rock using pressurized fluid. The practice of propagating cracks and fissures in layers of rock to discover, access, and ultimately recover underground resources dates back to 1947.

However, the modern technique called “horizontal slickwater fracturing” was introduced in 1998.In this process pressureized fluids are used against the rock, as opposed to other earlier methods. The innovation of Hydro-Fracking is significant because it makes petroleum and natural gas mining more economical, and because of the potential environmental and health hazards.

The positive economic impact of Hydro-Fracking is unquestionable. Hydro-Fracking is one of the essential methods by which the United States extracts important hydrocarbons. In fact, hydro-fracking will account for 70% of future natural gas development. Hydrocarbons, which are the principle components of petroleum and natural gas are difficult and expensive (in financial and environmental terms) to mine, which is why hydro fracturing is so significant.

On the other hand, the environmental hazards of hydro fracturing are equally well documented. The use of acids and other chemical fracturing agents can cause groundwater contamination, which can cause severe health problems if consumed. The huge volumes of water needed to hydro-frack, can also disrupt water supplies for remote villages in places like Africa, and sometimes require extensive above ground piping. This can be disruptive to both human and aquatic life in these areas.

Hydro-fracking is essential to natural gas recovery and production, which makes hydro-fracking essential to our entire economy. However, some of the potential hazards and draw backs call its sustainability into question.

references :

Charlez, Philippe A. (1997). Rock Mechanics: Petroleum Applications. Paris: Editions Technip. p. 239. ISBN 9782710805861.

“US Government Role in Shale Gas Fracking: An Overview”

Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). “Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas”. Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 115 (2): A76. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744.

One way of regulating and improving gas milage comes through government legislation. Infact, it was the Engergy Tax Act of 1978, that first levied penalties against “gas guzzlers” who failed to meet new minimum standards of fuel economy. The cooperation of the auto companies with government demands was slow to develop. The Energy Tax Act itself was phased in over a lengthy ten year period, although penalties increased over that time.

In recent years, the auto companies have largely accepted the need for significant regulation of  fuel economy by recognizing and abiding to frequently updated quotas and limitations.

More recently, the process of determining fuel economy in automobiles has been made more acute. The innovation of “Highway v. City” driving has sharpened the tools with which scientists establish reasonable limits on specific vehicles. The benifets of this process, are seen when the EPA is able to test a vehicles fuel economy and represent its real world impact more accurately.

In addition tocooperating with the research and subsequent rules of agencies like the NTSB, and the EPA, the automotive industry is trying to imrpove gas milage with technology.

“Start-Stop” technology allows drivers to remain  stationary without using up precious gasoline. The times we waste the most gasoline, ironically, are usually when we are not driving. Sitting in traffic, at a light,  letting the engine run in neutral or park, or even starting up a cold engine are all ways in which gasoline is wasted without the reward of movement or power. Start-stop technology uses hyrdaulics and electricity to assuage the work load of the engine during these wasteful periods. The start-stop technology being used in some newer Ford cars allows the engine to effectively regulate, or even terminate the consumption of gasoline by the engine, and with the use of hydraulics and creative electrical design, the vehicle retains is potential for acceleration and “dart” like manuevers.

In a similar technological vein are the CVT transmissions seen in cars like the Subaru Outback, and Nissan Altima. CVT stands for, “Continuously Variable Transmission”. The CVT performs a traditional job of the basic transmission, distributing torque and speed. But, CVT doen’t have a set number of gears, it has an “infinite amount of gear ratios” which allow it to constantly determine and distrubutethe right amount of torque for peak efficiency.This means drivers never have to shift gears, the CVT is constantly adjusting output and distrubution for greater fuel efficience AND a smoother ride.

: }

References :

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_(mechanics)#Automotive_basics

http://cars.about.com/od/thingsyouneedtoknow/a/CVT.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/08/30/10-ways-automakers-are-helping-you-spend-less-on-gasoline/

http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/the-road-ahead-how-well-get-to-54-5-mpg-by-2025/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles