Airborne Wind Turbines

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

The wind tends to be stronger at higher elevations, which makes kite-like sails more effective than ordinary sails — and airborne wind turbines practical:

Traditional wind turbines can be unreliable sources of energy because, well, the wind blows where it will. Not the case 1,000 feet up. “At a thousand feet, there is steady wind anywhere in the world,” says Mac Brown, chief operating officer of Ottawa-based Magenn Power.

To take advantage of this constant breeze, Brown has developed a lighter-than-air wind turbine capable of powering a rural village. “Picture a spinning Goodyear blimp,” Brown says. Filled with helium, outfitted with electrical generators and tethered to the ground by a conductive copper cable, the 100-foot-wide Magenn Air Rotor System (MARS) will produce 10 kilowatts of energy anywhere on earth. As the turbine spins around a horizontal axis, the generators convert the mechanical energy of the wind into electrical energy, then send it down for immediate use or battery storage.

Planning for the MARS has been under way for a few years, but this fall Magenn got the $5 million it needed to build prototypes from a California investor. In October, the MARS received its U.S. patent. Already, larger models — ones that might light a skyscraper — are in the works. Brown says he hopes his floating wind turbines will power off-the-grid villages in the developing world. He says the governments of India and Pakistan have expressed interest.

Universities bring video games into classrooms

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

Universities bring video games into classrooms:

Doug Thomas, an associate professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication, is developing a game for students ages 10 to 12 that aims to teach ideas and skills not found in traditional textbooks.

“Because games are experiential they might be good at teaching things that you learn through experience, and that are difficult to teach through books,” Thomas said in an interview.

His game, Modern Prometheus, uses the story of Frankenstein to teach ethical decision making.

Shelley’s original novel is subtitled, The Modern Prometheus; that’s where the game’s name come from.

The player assumes the role of Dr. Frankenstein’s assistant, who is forced to make a series of difficult choices that impact the game’s outcome.

Speaking of the original novel, it does not include a hunchbacked assistant named Igor. Nor does the movie, actually; there the assistant is named Fritz.

Anyway, the game is not about staying true to the source material:

To complicate matters, Thomas and his team added a twist — the assistant must help the doctor cure a plague that is threatening the town’s residents. One dilemma is whether or not to steal body parts from a cemetery — a key requirement for curing the disease.

“Stealing a brain is hard to justify ethically, but doing all this work that seems kind of shady in the present is actually going to save the town in the long run,” Thomas said.

“We want them to really wrestle with doing things and ask, ‘Is it good for me, or is it good for everyone else?’ There is no right way or wrong way to play it,” he explained.

The aim, Thomas said, is for students to play the hour-long game individually, then discuss the choices they made with their teachers and classmates.

“It’s not just a game but also the conversation that happens around it,” Thomas said. “When kids play games they don’t just play them, they also talk about them with each other. There’s a huge amount of informal learning that goes on.”

The real challenge is getting the game into schools:

One challenge for Modern Prometheus and other classroom games is finding teachers willing to incorporate them in their lesson plans.

“It’s really hard for teachers to work with an unfamiliar technology that the kids know more about than they do,” Thomas said. “They feel like ‘my job is hard enough already.’”

He also acknowledges that the game doesn’t quite fit into many established middle-school curricula.

Honda FCX Clarity

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

Norman Mayersohn of the New York Times reviews the hydrogen-fueled Honda FCX Clarity:

It will be a while before drivers selected for the three-year, $600-a-month Clarity lease program (it includes insurance and maintenance) will think about such topics. Instead, they will revel in its extraordinary silence. It drives away from a stop so quietly that it seems to be holding its breath, much as a hybrid does before the gas engine starts. Accelerating onto Interstate 10, though, incites a turbinelike zing — quite pleasant, really, if not as satisfying as the guttural bark of a V-8 — and the Clarity blends effortlessly into traffic. The sound of a pump at work breaks the silence occasionally, but it has none of the clicking and whirring evident in the previous-generation FCX.

Honda says the performance is on par with a similar-size car powered by a 2.4-liter engine, and it should know, as the 2008 Accord LX has just such an engine. The comparison is apt. The FCX motor produces 134 horsepower and 189 pound-feet of torque; the Accord’s in-line four makes 177 horsepower and 161 pound-feet. The Clarity weighs nearly 3,600 pounds, and while that is 400 pounds lighter than its predecessor, the Accord is some 300 pounds lighter yet. The wheelbases of the Clarity and Accord are identical at 110.2 inches.

Waking up Pleo

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

Daniel Terdiman is Waking up Pleo — and falling in love with the animatronic dinosaur:

This is a very odd beast. On the one hand, it’s impossible to forget that Pleo is a machine, since every time she moves, you can hear the motors whirring. But then you sort of forget that she’s not an animal. Several times already, people have come to check Pleo out, a fair bit of skepticism in their demeanor, and a minute later, they were scritching her and cooing at her the way one does with a pet.

And it’s at that moment that you recognize Ugobe’s marketing plan and the wisdom behind charging $350 for a toy. The company insists Pleo is not a toy, but let’s be honest. Pleo is a toy, albeit an expensive one, and one that is probably not appropriate for little children. For those who are allergic to cats or dogs, or who don’t want the hassle of taking care of a real-life pet, but who want more than a Tamagotchi, however, I can see Pleo becoming the stand-in pet around the house.

ActionTab

Saturday, December 8th, 2007



I don’t even own a guitar, but ActionTab caught my eye:

ActionTab is a new way of teaching guitar at a global level — via the internet. The actiontab tutoring system utilizes Macromedia Flash Player software in order to provide site users with an audio-visual method of learning guitar. Although complex in design and application, the end product is relatively simple for people to use and enjoy. The simplest description of ActionTab’s core concept is that it is ‘one step short’ of sitting in front of a guitar teacher and watching/listening as they show you how to play pieces of music on the guitar. The ActionTab tutor shows the fretboard of the guitar (see diagram below), and also each appropriate finger movement precisely — synchronized along with the recorded music. Each finger placement and action is denoted by simple, colour-coded dots. There is simply no easier way to learn new guitar songs.

How to Raise Your Own Stonehenge

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

A retired construction worker from Michigan demonstrates How to Raise Your Own Stonehenge without any modern equipment:

The Checklist

Friday, December 7th, 2007

Writing in the New Yorker, Atul Gawande explains the power of The Checklist:

On October 30, 1935, at Wright Air Field in Dayton, Ohio, the U.S. Army Air Corps held a flight competition for airplane manufacturers vying to build its next-generation long-range bomber. It wasn’t supposed to be much of a competition. In early evaluations, the Boeing Corporation’s gleaming aluminum-alloy Model 299 had trounced the designs of Martin and Douglas. Boeing’s plane could carry five times as many bombs as the Army had requested; it could fly faster than previous bombers, and almost twice as far. A Seattle newspaperman who had glimpsed the plane called it the “flying fortress,” and the name stuck. The flight “competition,” according to the military historian Phillip Meilinger, was regarded as a mere formality. The Army planned to order at least sixty-five of the aircraft.

A small crowd of Army brass and manufacturing executives watched as the Model 299 test plane taxied onto the runway. It was sleek and impressive, with a hundred-and-three-foot wingspan and four engines jutting out from the wings, rather than the usual two. The plane roared down the tarmac, lifted off smoothly, and climbed sharply to three hundred feet. Then it stalled, turned on one wing, and crashed in a fiery explosion. Two of the five crew members died, including the pilot, Major Ployer P. Hill.

An investigation revealed that nothing mechanical had gone wrong. The crash had been due to “pilot error,” the report said. Substantially more complex than previous aircraft, the new plane required the pilot to attend to the four engines, a retractable landing gear, new wing flaps, electric trim tabs that needed adjustment to maintain control at different airspeeds, and constant-speed propellers whose pitch had to be regulated with hydraulic controls, among other features. While doing all this, Hill had forgotten to release a new locking mechanism on the elevator and rudder controls. The Boeing model was deemed, as a newspaper put it, “too much airplane for one man to fly.” The Army Air Corps declared Douglas’s smaller design the winner. Boeing nearly went bankrupt.

Still, the Army purchased a few aircraft from Boeing as test planes, and some insiders remained convinced that the aircraft was flyable. So a group of test pilots got together and considered what to do.

They could have required Model 299 pilots to undergo more training. But it was hard to imagine having more experience and expertise than Major Hill, who had been the U.S. Army Air Corps’ chief of flight testing. Instead, they came up with an ingeniously simple approach: they created a pilot’s checklist, with step-by-step checks for takeoff, flight, landing, and taxiing. Its mere existence indicated how far aeronautics had advanced. In the early years of flight, getting an aircraft into the air might have been nerve-racking, but it was hardly complex. Using a checklist for takeoff would no more have occurred to a pilot than to a driver backing a car out of the garage. But this new plane was too complicated to be left to the memory of any pilot, however expert.

With the checklist in hand, the pilots went on to fly the Model 299 a total of 1.8 million miles without one accident. The Army ultimately ordered almost thirteen thousand of the aircraft, which it dubbed the B-17. And, because flying the behemoth was now possible, the Army gained a decisive air advantage in the Second World War which enabled its devastating bombing campaign across Nazi Germany.

Of course, Atul Gawande isn’t writing about aviation; he’s writing about his specialty, medicine:

Medicine today has entered its B-17 phase. Substantial parts of what hospitals do — most notably, intensive care — are now too complex for clinicians to carry them out reliably from memory alone. I.C.U. life support has become too much medicine for one person to fly.

Yet it’s far from obvious that something as simple as a checklist could be of much help in medical care.
[...]
In 2001, though, a critical-care specialist at Johns Hopkins Hospital named Peter Pronovost decided to give it a try. He didn’t attempt to make the checklist cover everything; he designed it to tackle just one problem, the one that nearly killed Anthony DeFilippo: line infections. On a sheet of plain paper, he plotted out the steps to take in order to avoid infections when putting a line in. Doctors are supposed to (1) wash their hands with soap, (2) clean the patient’s skin with chlorhexidine antiseptic, (3) put sterile drapes over the entire patient, (4) wear a sterile mask, hat, gown, and gloves, and (5) put a sterile dressing over the catheter site once the line is in. Check, check, check, check, check. These steps are no-brainers; they have been known and taught for years. So it seemed silly to make a checklist just for them. Still, Pronovost asked the nurses in his I.C.U. to observe the doctors for a month as they put lines into patients, and record how often they completed each step. In more than a third of patients, they skipped at least one.

The next month, he and his team persuaded the hospital administration to authorize nurses to stop doctors if they saw them skipping a step on the checklist; nurses were also to ask them each day whether any lines ought to be removed, so as not to leave them in longer than necessary. This was revolutionary. Nurses have always had their ways of nudging a doctor into doing the right thing, ranging from the gentle reminder (“Um, did you forget to put on your mask, doctor?”) to more forceful methods (I’ve had a nurse bodycheck me when she thought I hadn’t put enough drapes on a patient). But many nurses aren’t sure whether this is their place, or whether a given step is worth a confrontation. (Does it really matter whether a patient’s legs are draped for a line going into the chest?) The new rule made it clear: if doctors didn’t follow every step on the checklist, the nurses would have backup from the administration to intervene.

Pronovost and his colleagues monitored what happened for a year afterward. The results were so dramatic that they weren’t sure whether to believe them: the ten-day line-infection rate went from eleven per cent to zero. So they followed patients for fifteen more months. Only two line infections occurred during the entire period. They calculated that, in this one hospital, the checklist had prevented forty-three infections and eight deaths, and saved two million dollars in costs.

Atul Gawande has authored two books on modern medicine, Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science and Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance.

From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility

Friday, December 7th, 2007

In 2004, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus published The Death of Environmentalism, which featured the infamous Chinese ideogram for crisis on its cover — danger plus opportunity.

In it, they argued that the great successes of the modern environmental movement in the 1960s and ’70s had laid the seeds of the movement’s failure in the early years of the 21st century.

In Break Through, they continue their argument for a new environmental movement that isn’t just another special interest group.

In, The Lowdown on Doomsday, Jonathan Adler looks at their book and why the public shrugs at global warming:

The authors contend that the environmental movement must throw out its “unexamined assumptions, outdated concepts, and exhausted strategies” in favor of something “imaginative, aspirational, and future-oriented.”
[...]
But no one, they contend, is going to demand draconian emission limits–the kind that would actually slow the warming trend — if they bring down the standard of living and interrupt the progress of the economy.

A progressive approach, the authors say, would acknowledge that economic growth and prosperity do not, in themselves, pose an environmental threat. To the contrary, they inspire ecological concern; the environment, Messrs. Nordhaus and Shellenberger say, is a “post-material” need that people demand only after their material needs are met. To make normal, productive human activity the enemy of nature, as environmentalists implicitly do, is to adopt policies that “constrain human ambition, aspiration and power” instead of finding ways to “unleash and direct them.”

Messrs. Nordhaus and Shellenberger want “an explicitly pro-growth agenda,” on the theory that investment, innovation and imagination may ultimately do more to improve the environment than punitive regulation and finger-wagging rhetoric. To stabilize atmospheric carbon levels will take more — much more — than regulation; it will require “unleashing human power, creating a new economy.”

Google Charts

Friday, December 7th, 2007

The fine folks at Google have introduced a really simple API for generating charts:

This URL:

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=p3&chd=s:hW&chs=250x100&chl=Hello|World

Creates this image:



That’s it – no state, no calls, just send your data in an http request and get a png image graph back. Embed the request in an img tag and you’re done. We currently support line charts, bar charts, pie charts, scatter plots, and sparklines.

If you’re not familiar with sparklines, they’re simply little in-line charts. Tufte discusses them at length in his Beautiful Evidence.

Serious Legislative Innumeracy

Friday, December 7th, 2007

As I’ve already mentioned, in Serious Play, Michael Schrage, of the MIT Media Lab, examines how organizations use models, simulations, and prototypes to stimulate innovation.

Sometimes even a valid model doesn’t guarantee useful communication:

A congressman who favored a “soft-technology” approach to U.S. energy needs was discussing demand projection with a modeler. He pointed out that adequate conservation measures and modest lifestyles could reduce growth of electrical demand to 2 percent per year. “But Congressman,” said the modeler, “even at 2 percent per year, electrical demand will double in thirty-five years.”

“That’s your opinion!” exclaimed the congressman.

Charles Munger and Predicting Policy Costs

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

I’ve already mentioned that Berkshire Hathaway’s Charles Munger gave a speech at UCSB in 2003 that was chock-full of thought-provoking bits — like this bit on predicting the cost of Medicare:

Extreme economic ignorance was displayed when various experts, including Ph D. economists, forecast the cost of the original Medicare law. They did simple extrapolations of past costs.

Well the cost forecast was off by a factor of more than 1000%. The cost they projected was less than 10% of the cost that happened. Once they put in place all these new incentives, the behavior changed in response to the incentives, and the numbers became quite different from their projection. And medicine invented new and expensive remedies, as it was sure to do. How could a great group of experts make such a silly forecast? Answer: They over simplified to get easy figures, like the rube rounding Pi to 3.2! They chose not to consider effects of effects on effects, and so on.

Charles Munger and Predicting Policy Costs

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

I’ve already mentioned that Berkshire Hathaway’s Charles Munger gave a speech at UCSB in 2003 that was chock-full of thought-provoking bits — like this bit on predicting the cost of Medicare:

Extreme economic ignorance was displayed when various experts, including Ph D. economists, forecast the cost of the original Medicare law. They did simple extrapolations of past costs.

Well the cost forecast was off by a factor of more than 1000%. The cost they projected was less than 10% of the cost that happened. Once they put in place all these new incentives, the behavior changed in response to the incentives, and the numbers became quite different from their projection. And medicine invented new and expensive remedies, as it was sure to do. How could a great group of experts make such a silly forecast? Answer: They over simplified to get easy figures, like the rube rounding Pi to 3.2! They chose not to consider effects of effects on effects, and so on.

Bruce Schneier Blazes Through Your Questions

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

The author of Beyond Fear, Bruce Schneier, blazes through questions on security from Freakonomics readers. I enjoyed this response:

Q: How do you remember all of your passwords?

A: I can’t. No one can; there are simply too many. But I have a few strategies. One, I choose the same password for all low-security applications. There are several Web sites where I pay for access, and I have the same password for all of them. Two, I write my passwords down. There’s this rampant myth that you shouldn’t write your passwords down. My advice is exactly the opposite. We already know how to secure small bits of paper. Write your passwords down on a small bit of paper, and put it with all of your other valuable small bits of paper: in your wallet. And three, I store my passwords in a program I designed called Password Safe. It’s is a small application — Windows only, sorry — that encrypts and secures all your passwords.

Here are two other resources: one concerning how to choose secure passwords (and how quickly passwords can be broken), and one on how lousy most passwords actually are.

The Legend of Brunhild

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

Ben Boxer has created a comic-strip version of The Legend of Brunhild.

As Adam at Drawn! noted: Happy ending not included.

Blond Hair Map

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

The Eupedia includes a page of maps of Europe by language, religion, population density, hair & eye color, etc..