Basic Physics (Thermodynamics) Pt. 15

In this blog I want to look at what might be called the heart of thermodynamics: the nature of heat engines and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Let's begin with the basic definition of a heat engine: a device that converts thermal energy into useful forms such as mechanical and electrical. More exactly, it's a device which carries a substance through a cycle, during which:

i) Heat (Q_h) is absorbed from a source at high temperature (T_h)

ii) Work is done by the engine (W = Q_h - Q_c)

iii) Heat is expelled by the engine to a source at lower temperature (T_c). This expelled heat is denoted by Q_c.

An illustration is shown for such an engine with respective sources in Fig. 1. Again, the net work done is equal to the net heat flowing into the engine or W = (Q_h - Q_c) where the net heat Q(net) = (Q_h - Q_c). Note also that since the working substance (fluid or gas) goes through a cycle, the initial and final energies are equal and hence, delta U = 0. If the working substance is a gas, the net work for a cyclic process is just the area enclosed by the curve representing the process, e.g. on a P-V diagram.

As an example, there is the Carnot Engine, and Fig. 2 shows the applicable cycle (Carnot Cycle) for such an engine. We note here that no real heat engine operating between two heat reservoirs (at temperatures T_h and T_c) can be more efficient than a Carnot Engine operating between the same temperatures, thus the potential efficiency e < e(C) always, where e(C) denotes the Carnot Engine efficiency, defined by:

e(C) = 1 - T_c/ T_h, and note again: Q_c/Q_h = T_c/ T_h

The four components of the cycle are as follows:

1) A -> B: isothermal expansion at T_h, so absorbs Q_h and work = W_AB

2) B->C: adiabatic expansionL Q = 0, T_h -> T_c and work W_BC raises piston

3) C-> D: isothermal compression at T_c, expels heat Q_c, work done on gas = W_CD

4)D-> A: adiabatic compression: T_c->T_h work on gas is W_DA

Note the general thermodynamic efficiency of a heat engine is:

e = W/Q_h = (Q_h - Q_c)/ Q_h = [1 - Q_h/Q_c]

It can be seen that a heat engine will only be 100% efficient if Q_c = 0(i.e. no heat is expelled at a cold temperature). However, since every process known generates some kind of heat, which is inevitably left over, this is impossible. In practice, all heat engines convert only a fraction of absorbed heat to mechanical work, e.g. for the typical auto engine an effiency of 20% is practical, maybe a bit more (25%) on newer engines. If e = 20% that means 20% goes to useful work, say in propelling the car, but 80% is expelled as waste heat. (That is, 4 out of every 5 gallons you use of gasoline goes into producing waste heat. So if you pay $5 a gallon, you are burning up $4 as waste heat.)

This brings us to two general statements applicable to heat engines-cyclical machines, that provide a basis for the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

(I) The Kelvin -Planck statement:

It is impossible to construct a heat engine, operating in a cycle, which produces no other effect than absorption of thermal energy from a hot reervoir and the performance of an equal amount of work.

Does a refrigerator not qualify? NO! Because it is simply a heat pump (cf. Fig. 1) operating in reverse. Thus in this case the engine absorbs heat Q_c from the low temperature or cold reservoir and expels heat Q_h to the hot reservoir. In other words, it can be depicted by Fig. 1 with the thermodynamic arrows reversed. Then, the work done is: - W = Q_c - Q_h or, Q_h = Q_c + W (e.g. heat given up to hot reservoir equals the heat absorbed from the cold reservoir).

(II): The Clausius statement:

It is impossible to construct a cyclical machine that produces no other effect than to transfer heat continuously from one body to another at higher temperature.

The Absolute Temperature Scale:

This scale follows logically from the conditions with which we've become acquainted. We can arrive at such a scale by consideration of the fact that at the defined condition of "absolute zero" Kelvin temperature, there is no heat energy, period. That is, no molecular or other motion even at the atomic scale. On a practical basis, this scale will be based on careful measurements of heat used or expelled, and corresponding temperatures such that:

If Q_c = Q', and Q_h = Q, with T_h = T, and T_c = 273.16 K, then:

T = (273.16 K) [Q/Q'], where we want to find T.

Say then that we find for an isolated system that Q = 10,000 cal and Q' = 1,000 cal, then the temperature T will be:

T = (273.16K) (10,000 cal/ 1, 000 cal) = 10 (273.16K) = 2731 K.
By the same token, 0 degrees Celsius will equal to: C + 273.16 K = 0 + 273.16K = 273.16K on the Kelvin scale. Now, what about the absolute zero of Kelvin temperature (e.g. 0K)? This will be: T = 0K = - 273.16C. and: T = 0K = (273.16 K) [Q'/Q], where: Q <-> (273.16K) and Q' <-> T hence Q' = 0 J (or 0 cal).

In other words, this is the theoretical temperature of a reservoir in which a Carnot engine will expel no heat. But it is impossible to attain, because the THIRD Law of Thermodynamics (proposed by Nernst, otherwise known as the Nernst theorem), prohibits any object from being cooled to absolute Kelvin zero. As temperature reaches zero, entropy (or the state of microscopic disorder) also reaches zero, but this is impossible in the real world. Or another way of saying it, it's impossible to wring every last bit of heat energy from any object or system. If one were to achieve this, the object would no longer exist, all its electron and atomic motions would halt!

Example Problems:

(A)The Otto cycle applies to gasoline engines. We assume an air-fuel mixture approximates an ideal gas. The efficiency of this engine is given by:

Eff (Otto) = 1 - 1/ (V1/ V2)^y-1 where y = c_p/ c_v (ratio of specific heats) and V1 and V2 are two volumes occurring in different parts of the cycle, e.g. in the "exhaust stroke" V1 -> V2 (decrease). Find the efficiency for such an engine if V1 = 8 L (litres) and V2 = 1 L. while y = 1.4.

Solution:


Eff (Otto) = 1 - 1/ (V1/ V2)^y-1 = 1 - 1/8^0.4 = 0.56

(B) The 'coefficient of performance' for a heat pump is defined: COP = Q_h/ W.

The coefficient of performance for a refrigerator is defined: COP = Q_c/W. Given that the COP of a fridge = 5, and 120J is absorbed from the cold reservoir, calculate: (i) the work done W, and (ii) the heat released into the house at the warm rservoir.

Solution:

i) COP(R) = Q_c/ W so that: W = Q_c/ COP(R) = 120J/ 5 = 24.0 J

ii) We have: Q_h = Q_c + W so Q_h = 120J + 24.0 J = 144 J.

Other Problems:

(1) Find the maximum theoretical efficiency of an engine for which steam is supplied at a temperature of 572F and condensed at a temperature of 95F.

(2)Suppose that a nuclear plant generates heat in the amount of 2 x 10^7 J from its fuel rods at a temperature of 1200C and delivers it to a specialized condenser at 140C, to drive a turbine. Assuming the basis of a Carnot engine and cycle, obtain the efficiency for this exchange. Estimate the amount of heat lost from the plant if the actual coefficient of performance is 1.01

(3) The surface temperature on the planet Mars varies from 183 K (night time) to 268 K (day) near one of its poles. Obtain these temperatures in Celsius and Fahrenheit temperatures. (Note for the latter, take: F = 9C/5 + 32).

(4)A heat engine operates in a Carnot cycle between 80C and 350 C. It absorbs some 2 x 10^4 J of heat per cycle from the hot reservoir. The duration of each cycle is 1 second. Find: (a) the maximum power output of this engine, and (b) the amount of heat it expels at each cycle.

(5) A heat pump powered by an electric motor absorbs heat from outside at 5 C and exhausts heat inside in the form of hot air at 40 C. Find: (a) the maximum coefficient of performance of the heat pump, and (b) the fraction of the theoretical work actually done if the COP = 3.2

(5) Technically speaking, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. Solar radiation injects on average 1360 watts per square meter onto the Earth's surface, or 1360 J each second per sq. meter. Given this fact, and that plants absorb a good deal of this for the process of photosynthesis, show why the creationist argument that "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" doesn't hold up. (Hint: NO quantitative work is needed!)

(6) In an Otto cycle, during the power stroke, the gas expands from volume V2 -> V1 while the efficiency attained overall is 0.64. To what volume (V1) did the gas expand during the power stroke. (Take the ratio of specific heats as 7/5)

Another Economic Propagandist and his LIES!

In the previous blog, I looked at how Paul Ryan lost it during a meeting of Goopers with Obama on Wednesday and how he begged the President to cease "misdescribing" his plan and to "ease up on the demogoguery". Funny, but where were these speech-sensitive repukes when their hacks and lackeys were all out talking about "death panels" just 2 years ago? Hypocrites anyone? I also generally wrote of the economic deceptions and distortions employed to try and justify Medicare cuts. I focused on Robert Samuelson in the prior blog (mentioning Thomas Sowell in passing) but focus exclusively on Sowell's brand of codswallop today. In a recent column he blathered:

To listen to some of the defenders of entitlement programs, which are at the heart of the present financial crisis, you might think that anything the government fails to provide is something that people will be deprived of.

This is just outright exaggeration and nonsense. First, entitlement programs aren’t "at the heart of the financial crisis"! Tax cuts over 10 years (causing deficits totalling more than $3 trillion) and military spending which was increased from 2.4% of GDP to 4% of GDP in 2004, IS! Unknown to most Americans nearly one fourth of the existing deficit is due to military over-spending, most done to subsidize defense contractors. Another enormous swatch is awarded to various preferred regions with military bases or manufacturing plants (such as for the wasteful F-35) merely to keep JOBS in those districts. This is done compliments of U.S. taxpayers while many other areas suffer.

Also, no one says that people will be “deprived of anything the government fails to provide”. What we say (based on actual economic statistics) is that if government support is withdrawn for programs like Medicare, many millions will fall through the cracks because they’ll no longer be able to afford the costs of prescriptions, preventive care or treatments.

In other words, if you cut spending on school lunches, children will go hungry. If you fail to subsidize housing, people will be homeless. If you fail to subsidize prescription drugs, old people will have to eat dog food in order to be able to afford their meds.

Again, Sowell is disingenuous and dishonest. It isn’t a case of old people “eating dog food” if prescription drug support is cut (though that isn’t beyond the realm of possibility ) but that the elderly will simply cut back on needed drugs, or split them into halves –thereby risking their health and invite much more medically costly complications and interventions. People like Sowell here are simply averse or allergic to basic arithmetic. Obviously if an elderly couple only has a fixed income of $35,000 a year (about the median) and $6600 is going to Medicare special coverage (($19,000 under Ryan’s plan) and $2,000 for water and utilities, with $6,000 for groceries, that’s not going to leave a lot of room to buy Lipitor on their own (cost of $230 a month each) or pay for special medical AND dental costs! (Which may add an additional $5,000 each a year). Factoring in INFLATION, which Sowell and similar blowhards refuse to do, and there is no margin for error or major calamity. One medical calamity or one massive drug price increase can spell the end of the senior!

This is the vision promoted by many politicians and much of the media. But in the world of reality, it is not even true for most people who are living below the official poverty line.

In fact it IS true, except Uncle Tom Sowell doesn’t wish to believe it. He does believe he can play with facts and distort them as he sees fit to support his propaganda. He continues with his gibberish:

Most Americans living below the official poverty line own a car or truck -- and government entitlement programs seldom provide cars and trucks. Most people living below the official poverty line also have air conditioning, color television and a microwave oven -- and these too are not usually handed out by government entitlement programs.

Again, as noted in the prior blog, a car or truck is NOT a luxury today, but a necessity. It may mean the difference between getting or keeping a job or remaining unemployed. Whether government programs provide them is immaterial. Also, having air conditioning is not a luxury but a necessity for many people, including oldsters. People here fail to recall, or maybe don’t wish to, how more than 11,000 people perished in a massive heat wave in France in 2003. Nearly all were elderly with no air conditioning. The older person’s body doesn’t sweat like a younger person’s so can’t adjust to higher temperatures especially in confined surroundings. Dehydration is also much more likely and devastating because as people age they tend to lose the thirst reflex that induces them to drink more water. A/C thus is a life saver in more cases than not!

As for television, color or other, as I also noted in the last blog this isn’t a true luxury. In fact a TV is about the cheapest, most cost-effective form of entertainment there is! Short of playing cards or checkers five hours a day- which I doubt any reasonable person would expect. Most small (19”) color TVs can now be purchased for less than it costs to pay for one month of Lipitor (minus gov’t subsidy). The same goes for microwave ovens which in this say and age, aren’t luxuries. Given the difficulty the elderly or even working poor may have to taking time or effort to cook, a Microwave oven is a godsend. We aren’t talking about gilt-edged robotic ovens here!

Cell phones and other electronic devices are by no means unheard of in low-income neighborhoods, where children would supposedly go hungry if there were no school lunch programs. In reality, low-income people are overweight even more often than other Americans.

Again, Sowell is dishonest and deceptive. Cell phones are owned even by the poorest Barbadians, so why not American poor? They help families stay in touch, and are almost essential for elderly poor who (in a fall) may have to depend on that portable device for help. Sowell’s school lunch bunkum has also been roundly exposed by the Economic Policy Institute which has stats showing that 1 in 6 American kids remain malnourished, most in districts without school lunch programs providing meals at least twice a day. The situation is vastly magnified in regions where states have cut back on food pantry assistance, or food stamps have been halted.

Low income people are overweight, not because their fridges are so well stocked with good foods, but because their incomes are too low to afford the healthy foods, e.g. veggies, lean meats, items like almond milk rather than regular, that comprise the diets of the truly affluent. The difference in accommodating diets more abundant in fresh produce – lettuce, tomatoes, cabbage, asparagus, broccoli, etc compared to one with mainly franks, macaroni pies, or just eat at McDonalds is more than 40% or beyond the income ability ($14,000 /year) of most low income people. Thus, Sowell is again dishonest.

As for the elderly, 80 percent are homeowners whose monthly housing costs are less than $400, including property taxes, utilities, and maintenance.

Again, a dishonest portrayal, since Sowell isn’t making clear the huge proportion(~55%) of the current elderly “homeowners” are actually only so by dint of using reverse mortgages! For those who may be unaware, a reverse mortgage is one in which the elderly person with enough equity in his home essentially rescinds ownership on death in return for a small stream of income (contingent on the equity and value of the home). In most cases this is barely $550 a month, but enough to at least buy groceries or afford the cost of prescription drugs. The elderly who apply for reverse mortgages aren’t doing it out of enhancing their wealth, but desperation! Having exhausted all other avenues this is the only one left by which to obtain more money as their existing income runs low. They are “house rich” but cash poor.

Sowell also lowballs the utilities and maintenance costs. In even low cost areas, utilities can run $250 a month or more especially if the elderly use more heating and air conditioning, which they are more likely to do because their temperature regulation ability is not as good as younger folks. They are much more susceptible to colder temperatures and to much warmer ones. Maintenance costs themselves are often “low” simply because most (>80%) of fixed income poor elderly don’t keep up with them! Thus, many of their homes are falling into disrepair. As for property taxes, many communities (like mine) have had programs for poor elderly where – if they lived in homes at least ten years- they could take advantage of a program that allows them to pay only half the property taxes in a year. But those programs have been discontinued since the budgets of most states went into the crapper.

The desperately poor elderly conjured up in political and media rhetoric are -- in the world of reality -- the wealthiest segment of the American population. The average wealth of older households is nearly three times the wealth of households headed by people in the 35- to 44-year-old bracket, and more than 15 times the wealth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age.

Again, a blatant falsehood! And no politician depicts Medicare recipients as “desperately poor” – but that doesn’t mean they’re rich! Most of the factual distortion including by Sowell and Robert Samuelson, has occurred because the poverty line is lowballed. While the government cites $12,938 for an elderly couple, this is unrealistic given inflation hasn’t been factored in and the number has remained static since 1969. The actual poverty line for an elderly couple (given their higher medical expenses) is more like $38,000 a year. With this figure in mind, more than 65% of elderly are AT that level, only 35% above it.

As I also noted(prior blog)), the “average wealth” of elderly households is largely an illusion, a mirage. Subtract the home value from the net worth (which is how Sowell and Samuelson compute wealth) and for married couples it isn’t enough to survive a medical catastrophe or nursing home entry! This is because projected Medicare costs ($225,000) must ALSO be factored into future expenses! Indeed, most financial advisors are now telling seniors they can’t expect any comfortable existence in retirement unless they have at least $2.2 million saved (~ $72,000/yr. income for 30 years). This figure is at least EIGHT times HIGHER than the “elite” senior group Sowell cites! In other words, incredible as it seems, those elderly with “15 times the wealth of households headed by a 35-44 year old” are actually deficient or POOR in savings and will be for income in retirement! They are actually regarded as on a "warning list" by most financial experts!So how in the Hell can they be as wealthy as Croesus, to hear Sowell?

What does all this show? That the younger demographic is victimized by the greater wealth redistribution to the ACTUAL richest 1%, who have benefited most from the Bush tax cuts! THAT is the REAL inequality which those like Sowell refuse to address because...well...it's inconvenient to their 'prop up the rich' ideology. As Barbara Ehrenreich has shown (This Land Is Their Land, Chapter 3), the Bush tax policies actually amounted to the transfer of more than $0.5 trillion each year from middle or low income earners to the wealthiest 1%. No wonder the 35-44 working group can’t save and why their net worth is so low, even compared to humble seniors who saved over a lifetime! (Which is, in common sense terms, exactly WHY they have more net worth – because they saved for many more decades!)

If the wealthiest segment of the population cannot pay their own medical bills, who can? The country as a whole is not any richer because the government pays our medical bills -- with money that it takes from us.

Here, Sowell finally arrives at the crux of the problem but via a dishonest presentation. It’s not the ‘wealthiest segment” that cannot pay their medical bills, but a segment that is only RELATIVELY better off compared to a demographic (35-44 age group) that’s been totally screwed by the disproportionate benefits of the Bush tax cuts going to the REAL wealthiest elite! Further, that relatively better off group didn’t have it handed to them, they achieved their relatively better net worth by dint of decades of hard work and constant SAVING! By contrast, the younger category has chosen not to save that much (their saving rate is actually below 0.1% compared to seniors and older persons’ 5-6%). Thus, the younger group not only begins deeper in the hole (thanks to the inequity of the Bush tax cuts) but has dug itself deeper by using its credit cards to try to compensate for low pay-wages. Meanwhile, the actual wealthy – the uppercrust 1% who are now out buying Bentleys and diamonds – have benefits to the tune of $58,000 extra each year thanks to the Bush tax cuts. That number is more than four times what low income 35-44 year olds receive.

Thus Sowell answers his own question but based on exactly the wrong cause: the country isn’t "any richer" because the (Bush) government and his tax cuts have taken from the bulk of the population (95%) and awarded the benefits to the upper 5% with the top 1% gaining most.

Finally, Sowell finishes off his PR pop piece by writing:

We don't need to send the country into bankruptcy, in the name of the poor, by spending trillions of dollars on people who are not poor, and who could take care of themselves. The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state can advance.

The truth is more brutal here but has nothing to do with any “welfare states” but rather: a) out of control military-defense spending that now eats up nearly 60 cents of each dollar, and b) redistributive tax cuts since 2000 that have provided zero benefit for 95% of the people while transferring nearly two thirds of their wealth to the top 5% of the population. (Of whom barely 0.0001% are elderly!)

No country can survive long with such inimicable and inequitable economic forces in play, nor can it survive when liars like Sowell continue to mislead people on the real causes!





.

Ryan Wets his Panties in Confrontation with Obama

Seems like during the meeting of GOP brain-dead, anti-tax posturing rats with Obama yesterday, Paul Ryan (he of the Medicare Early Death Plan) tossed a hissy fit and at one point (according to a McClatchy News Service report in today's paper) accused the President of "misdescribing" his proposal and "implored the President to ease up on the demagoguery". Are you kidding me? These rat-ass bozos were nothing BUT demagoguery two years ago, painting Obama's Affordable Health Care Act as having "death panels" for seniors! The report noted Obama wasn't having any of it from this twit either, responding he wasn't a stranger to "cartoonish depictions" saying:"I'm the death-panel supporting, socialist, may not have been born here president", thereby mocking the Repukes' and their endless blathering the past two years.

Who are these assholes trying to kid anyway? Or is it more like letter -writer Greg Zierten in today's Denver Post described it:

"The argument, it seems, is “until you come up with something equally absurd, you can’t complain.” Really? If those who supported the Ryan plan could just show us the list of private insurers lining up to write affordable policies for the elderly, the poor and the terminally ill, maybe we wouldn’t be scared.

It’s not Democrats but the callousness or naiveté of those who support this unworkable plan. So death panels are just fine as long as they are administered by the private sector?

If you really want an honest start in dealing with budget problems, perhaps you could propose eliminating all the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts don’t save lives, but Medicare does."

Or another letter writer (David Peel) who put it:

"Republican Reps. Scott Tipton and Cory Gardner are complaining the Democrats are using scare tactics against the Republican Medicare plan. And they should know — after all, the Republicans invented Medicare scare tactics. Remember “death panels” and “killing grandma”? They were Republican talking points from last year’s election.

Well, Reps. Tipton and Gardner, now that the Democrats are pushing back, you complain about 'scare tactics'. You boys sound just like spoiled brats running home crying to mommy that someone is being mean to you. Man up and stop whining. You voted for the Republican plan; defend it."

But as I noted in earlier blogs, they can't defend it! The bottom line is simple and can't be cloaked in bullshit: Seniors get handed a pittance to buy medical insurance on their own in a closed market with only other elderly or sick seniors. The chances of any company taking them on for even a half million bucks are SLIM and none! Why should they? Any medical insurance idiot would know the medical loss ratio would be enormous with a mostly sickly-disposed pool to work with. They'd be paying out endlessly for this or that treatment or test and being given a lousy $8,000 - 12,000 a year to work with. (Which is why the GAO estimates seniors at minimum would have to pay at least 67% out of pocket compared to what they do now with Medicare which is no freebie).

But some dull of brain or ignorant are misled into blinkered thinking by the despicable tactics used by some economic demagogues (the REAL demagogues), including Robert Samuelson and “Uncle Tom” Sowell. These two typically whine and mew about "entitlements" and "dependency" then complain how many “poor” seniors (and poor people in general) own cell phones, cars or TVs. Well give me a fucking break already! You think those are signs of AFFLUENCE or wealth!? Only a numskull would believe so, since even the most indigent chattel house renter in Barbados has those! They're regarded as essentials, not luxuries, and rightly so! A TV is about the cheapest, most cost effective form of entertainment one can have short of five hours of Gin Rummy a day. It certainly isn't like going out to concerts, ball games or the night clubs every night! A car is regarded as a necessity, either for seniors who need to get to their doctors, or who still must work to make ends meet - to get to their jobs- since most towns (like the one I live in) have eliminated hundreds of bus routes due to budget cuts. And as for cell phones, tell Grandma that if she wants her standard Medicare she can't own one 'cause they're "too luxurious" next time she falls down on the bathroom floor and can't get up! Yet these shitheads believe there are enough dumb asses out there to lap this crap up. Well, maybe there are!

So, do these ignorant, posturing imps believe American poor seniors shouldn’t even own what the most impoverished West Indian finds essential? This is bollocks! I don’t care if a senior has two TVs, a cell phone and a beat up old ’88 Chevy, he or she is still entitled to his or her Medicare- and THAT means the standard issue (which even as it is isn't cheap at $3,300 a year or more)- not some stupid voucher. NOW, if we’re talking about owning two Lamborghinis, a 3,000 sq. foot home with four Jacuzzis, and a home movie center with surround sound and stereo from an 89” flat screen HDTV- THAT’S a different kettle of fish! Then I would certainly question whether a senior can't afford to pay a lot more for his medical services!

But for fuck's sake, let's not lump all seniors together as Samuelson and Sowell do, especially resorting to bogus economic stats. For example, in his own argument, Samuelson begins by referencing the government's defined "poverty line" of $12,968 for 2009 for an over-65 couple.He then adds that "the high income group- defined as four times the poverty line or almost $52,000 for a couple in 2009- rose from 18.4% in 1980 to 30.6% in 2007". But as I noted in an earlier blog, the REAL poverty line, not the lowballed farce, is more like $38,000/yr! (The existing poverty level hasn't factored in inflation since 1969!)

Even at $38,000/yr. this means the retired couple at $52,000/yr., say, is only one major calamity away from indigence since it's barely 36% above the true poverty line. Indeed, most financial columnists writing on retirement incomes (e.g. in Smart Money magazine last issue), place a couple over 65 with $50,000/yr. income as just barely in the middle class! Obviously, something is serious amiss in the picture presented by Samuelson! Well, as one previous Denver Post letter writer put it, he obviously isn't factoring in the cost of a nursing home stay, estimated at $130,000 for one senior and it may occur more than once!

Samuelson and Sowell do further injustice and compound their PR crimes by complaining that the median net worth (that is assets minus debts) of 65-plus households was $237,000, or about "twice the amount of households aged 45 to 54. Among 65-plus married couples, median net worth was $385,000".

But again this misses the point! All it really shows is that the average American of whatever age group is a terrible saver, and this is most likely based on wage scales that have declined absolutely since 1973 - coupled with increased dollar value debasement. To get a more realistic picture, recall net worth factors in the home as well, and we do know most over 65's own their homes. (Which is a move also heartily recommended by financial planners). Let's say the home is nominally worth $100,000 then subtract to get the actual monetary net worth, which turns out to be $137,000 for the average over-65 household and $285,000 for married couples. But this is nothing! Given current over-65s are already advised to have on hand $225,000 to cover expenses and co-pays Medicare won't! That already eats up the total net worth in real money terms of the average over-65'er and most of the net worth (79%) of the married couples! So WTF does Samuelson want? For our "affluent" or "higher income" seniors to live off cat food, along with no vacations ever, and no amenities, period?

The one hole in all the pro-Ryan, GOP'ers thinking is the failure to process that Medical costs are not standardized as in the case of most common consumer products. For seniors this is even more greatly exacerbated, often because they're included in one large risk pool with many of the same problems (cancers, hip fractures, etc.) THIS is exactly what has led Yale School of Management Professor Fiona Scott Morton to call out Ryan’s plan for exactly what it is: a demand shedding plan. As she puts it, “there’s no evidence many companies will be rushing in to provide health coverage to ailing boomers with competition that ought to lower any premiums”

So let Weepy Ryan, Uncle Tommy Sowell, and Robert the "Grinch" Samuelson piss and moan all they want. Most Americans (nearly 3 in 5) want their Medicare as miserly as it may be compared to other nations' programs, rather than a pitiful voucher and pat on the back with "Good Luck and God Speed!" from Ryan's Death Proposal. As for "demagoguing", not at all. The Dems merely need to lay out the cold, hard FACTS of Ryan's plan where they go on the campaign stump and let people who hear it decide for themselves if that is really a gamble they want to make!

Evolutionary Transitions: Still the Key to Understanding

When I first taught Evolutionary Biology in the West Indies more than 4 decades ago, I drew the attention of a Scripture teacher passing by my classroom. He'd evidently peeked in and spotted the large 24" by 36" diagram on the wall showing various stages of human evolution, from Australopithecus 3.5 million years ago, to Homo Sapiens today. He poked his head into the class briefly and inquired: "Do you really, seriously believe that this chart shows how we originated? That it portrays how we came to be here?" I replied: "Sure! And if I didn't believe it I certainly wouldn't be teaching it!".

But the issue of evolutionary transitions almost always incites problems for many people, not only those who've never taken a college (or even high school) biology course, but even those who have but can't wrap their heads around the concepts, or principles. Often I have found they get easily misled by what I call 'macguffins': issues or side shows not critical to evolution but to which the media seems to allot much attention or importance.

Most people, for example, aren't aware that evolution theory is not one monolithic framework but incorporates algorithmic components that can lead to differing interpretations of transitional species: 1) gradualism, 2) punctuated equilibrium, and 3) mixed transitions including both (1) and (2). While a "missing link" (exact common ancestor identified by specific genome at a specific time) would be more or less standard for the gradualist view it is not needed for the latter two. We are able to see more in terms of algorithmic branching in the latter, and how numerous competitor common ancestors could have emerged rapidly and co-existed. (Just as we now have evidence that both Neandertal Man and modern Homo Sapiens existed at the same time, for perhaps 50,000 yrs.)

A sound response to such questions on "missing links" is always for the evolutionist to refer directly to the evidence for a "genetic missing link" which would cover both the gradualist and punctuated equilibrium idioms. Specifically, in one of the most powerful ever demonstrations of the validity of evolution, Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy', showed that the human chromosome designated '2' was the result of the telomeric fusion of the two ape chromosomes, 2p and 2q. The effect also saw the reduction from 24 chromosome pairs in apes, to 23 pairs in humans. In other words, the duo of ape chromosomes (2p and 2q) can be considered a genetic missing link to humans!

Less well known, if that can be believed, is the crucial role that dentition analysis and tool making play in sorting the fossils of prehistoric humans. For example, one of the first questions the investigator will ask is whether a given jaw and teeth found in it, can accommodate flesh eating. For some fortunate cases, this is also answered by the fossils found in the vicinity of the hominid ones. For example, in the case of one Au. garhi fossil (see image of this hominid) an antelope jawbone was found nearby and on it ancient cut marks disclosing its tongue had been sliced out using a stone tool. Radio-nuclide dating of both fossils traced them to the same time. Clearly, Au. garhi had a taste for antelope tongue much like his more distant cousins.

In more ways than one, paleoanthropology is an adjunct to evolution proper, as well as microbiology. Together they give a very complete and uniform picture of how huans evolved over the past 4-5 million years. We can glean similarly complete picture from studies of the intermediary or transitional fossils of other species, such as the elephant (see transitional imagery).


What about alleged fossil problems associated with evolution, or as some critics aver, “gradualism” (given we now use this word only casually and not formally!) Well, as Richard Dawkins has observed we do know that most of the major invertebrate groups seem to suddenly appear in the Cambrian rock strata of 600 million years ago as if “planted” (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 229) Evolutionists concede this leaves a large hole or gap in the fossil record, but one which is not without logical explanation! Consider the backward time trajectory within which we see fossils by older layers (dated using radioactive decay – as I showed in a prior blog) accumulating the further back we go. We see a bunch of invertebrates at 600 my ago but virtually nothing before. Why? A logical explanation is that even more primitive forms pre-existed these and their soft exo-skeleta or body parts would simply not have survived. In other words there were no shells or bones to fossilize! Think of just a large primitive jellyfish, would we find fossil evidence for it? Hardly! The creature is 100% soft tissue none of which would have been preserved. Same with most other more primitive denizens. Again, this explanation is accepted by BOTH punctualists and gradualists

Another reason for apparent “jerks” in the fossil record is offered by Prof. Dawkins (op. cit., p. 240)

“The reason that the transition from ancestral species to descendant species appears to be jerky is simply that, when we look at a series of fossils from any one place, we are probably not looking at an evolutionary event at all, but a migrational event. The arrival of a new species from another geographical area”

This actually is perhaps the simplest and most logical explanation of all. I mean, there’s no law that commands all species remain fixed in one place! Even today, as water holes dry up or food reserves dip, African animals like Wildebeest, antelope and others will migrate to new areas in search of resources to support them.

Not mentioned by Dawkins is how many other ‘holes” or gaps may have been created by virtue of tectonic plates (which make up the Earth’s crust) slipping or crushing key fossils in distinct layers. (Or, totally destroying the layers and embedded fossils.) Obviously, if such tectonic traversal displaced a fossil layer, then it likely won’t be found when it may well have harbored intermediate forms. Thus, in effect, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"!

The bottom line, as of this writing, is we are very confident of the transitional record assembled so far, not just for human evolution but for evolution of hundreds of other species as well - from Trilobites to elephants. Sure, there will always be naysayers - there are in every field- but until they can come up with their own unique theory (which must include its own falsification) they are merely wasting their time...and ours!

Charles Pinckney: Staunch Separationist

One of the most crucial articles of the U.S. Constitution is Article VI. Three paragraphs long, it essentially makes clear that document is the supreme law of the land and judges, elected representatives are bound to adhere to it. The provision also states that all public officials will be required to swear an oath, NOT to the bible, but to the Constitution. It then adds in clear English:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States."

This stipulation was entered compliments of one Charles Pinckney, a 29-year old delegate to the Constitutional Convention from South Carolina. Though Pinckney knew such religious tests were common in many state constitutions he had no use for them in the federal system which would always supersede that of the states. Thus, he fully rejected what passed for muster in the states. This didn't mean that he got his way unopposed.

He actually resorted to good old fashioned political maneuvering to get his way. At first his "no religion test" clause was shunted off to a committee, but undaunted Pinckney brought the proposal up again on the full floor. The measure was seconded by Gouverneur Morris and adopted by the entire convention "by a very great majority" as one member put it. In fact, given the background from which most colonists came -that of internecine religious warfare and persecution - this should not have been suprising. The only real surprise is why there was any hesitation adopting it at all.

Of course, the new Constitution had to be then approved by the states, and delegates from North Carolina provided opposition, with one member fulminating about the possibility of "pagans, Deists and Mahometans" seeking office. Hmmmm.....reminds one of the climate today when so many fret about any non-believers seeking office!

Nonetheless, James Madison leapt to the defense of Article VI in 'The Federalist Papers' calling it one of the highlights of the proposed Constitution. Thus, the provision for no religious tests remained intact. Beyond this, Pinckney also tried to go further, drafting another provision that "the legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion". However this didn't make it through. Had it done so we might have been spared such bunkum as changing the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, and even remotely considering prayers in public meetings.

The sad aspect today, is that Article VI is almost unheard of among Americans, espcially that percentage who in poll after poll ignorantly assert there must be a religious test for public office. What the hell country are these bumpkins living in? Do they even KNOW their nation's Constitution? Can they even interpret it? Yet most forlorn voters today seem most comfortable with candidates who embrace a "faith" considered part of the mainstream. Atheists get special short shrift, but this need not be astounding.

A University of Minnesota study (in March, 2006) by Penny Edgell, Associate Professor of Sociology, and co-authors, Doug Hartmann and Joseph Gerteis reported that a significant number of respondents associated atheism with an array of moral misbehavior, including criminality and materialist emphasis. In addition, the findings “seemed to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.” This is nothing short of astounding given that as a nation and people, Americans are notorious for giving short shrift to the “common good” as evidenced by consistently voting for no-tax or tax cutting candidates, when they know the outcome will starve government of the resources needed to advance the needs of the vulnerable, such as the 47 million currently without any health insurance.

Sadly, until and unless Americans of every stripe become more informed about their own national history and especially their Constitution, this type of myopic and self-serving idiocy will continue. When the nation gets its first Atheist president, who also has no truck for any "national prayer days", we will be sure that has changed.

Solutions to Heat Problems

Part 13:

Problems:
(1) Let 5 million calories of solar energy be absorbed by 2 cubic meters of hydrogen gas 100 km above the Earth. If the particle density of the gas is 10,000 atoms per cubic meter, estimate the heat capacity of the gas volume. (Atomic mass of a hydrogen atom, 1 u ~ 1.6 x 10^-27 kg).

(2) 10 lbs. of iron and 5 lbs. of aluminum - both at 200 F, are added to 10 lb. of water at 40 F contained in a vessel whose thermal capacity is 0.5 Btu/ deg F. Calculate the final temperature if c(Al) = 0.21 cal/ g C, and c (Fe) = 0.11 cal/g C (Note: specific heat capacities are the same in calories per gram per degree Celsius as in Btu/ F deg).

(3)A calorimeter and its contents have a total thermal (heat) capacity of C = 200 cal/ deg C. A body of mass 210 g and at temperature 80 C is placed in the calorimeter resulting in a temperature increase from 10 C to 20 C. Compute the specific heat capacity of the body.

Solutions:

(1): The heat capacity Q = mc so: c= Q/m

Where Q = 5 x 10^6 cal

But J = W/H = 4.18 J per calorie, so:

Q = 4.18 (J/cal) x (5 x 10^6 cal ) = 2.1 x 10^7 J

The mass m (of hydrogen) in the volume is:

m = 2 m^3 x (10^5/m^3) x ( 1.6 x 10^-27 kg) = 3.2 x 10^-22 kg

Then the heat capacity = (2.1 x 10^7 J)/ (3.2 x 10^-22 kg) = 6.5 x 10^28 J/kg

(2) We use: Q lost by metals = Q gained by water + Q gained by vessel

Q lost by metals = m(Fe)c(Fe)(200F – T ) + m(Al)c(Al)(200F – T)

Q gained by water + vessel = (10 lb.)(T – 40F)

Then:

(10)(0.11)(200 – F) + (5)(0.21)(200 – F) = 10(T – 40F)

Find T:

 1.1(200- T) + 1.1(200 – T) = 10T – 400

Or:

440 – 2.2T = 10T – 400

12.2T = 840

T = 68F

(3) Cm (t2 – t1) = 200 cal/ deg C

(200 cal/C)(20 C – 10C) =210 g(c) (80 C – 20 C) = 2,000 cal

Then: c = (2,000 cal)/ (210)(60) = (2,000 cal)/ 12400 = 0.16 cal/g deg C



Part 14:

1) A student performs the heat conductivity experiment as shown in Fig. 1, and determines the thermal conductivity of copper to be 390 W/mC. If he then measures the thermometer differences (t4 - t3) = 5 C and (t2 - t1) = 2C, using 0.5kg of warmed water, and his copper test rod for the experiment is 0.5 m long, what would its cross-sectional area A have to be? (Take the specific heat capacity of water = 4200 J/kg K). Also, obtain the % of error in the student's result by looking up the actual thermal conductivity of copper.

2)A plate of copper 0.4 cm thick has a temperature difference of 60 C between its faces. Find: a) the temperature gradient, and b) the quantity of heat that flows through each square centimeter of one face each minute?

3)How many calories per minute will be conducted through a window glass 80 cm x 100 cm by 2mm thick if the difference between the two sides is 20C?

4) A group of 4 astronauts lands on Mars with solar radiation collection material of total area 2000 m^2. If the efficiency of the material is 30%, and the ambient night time temperature on Mars for their base location (Isidis Planitia) is -40 C (10C day time), will they have adequate collecting material if the solar constant on Mars is 620 W/m^2? (Assume insulating material with a thermal conductivity of 0.08 W/mC, and a need to keep the inside area of their domecile at least at 10 C, requiring solar radiant energy collected of at least 1,200 W per minute for an area of 10 m x 10 m.) Estimate the thickness of insulating material they're likely to need in order to make it work. Comment on whether this expedition is even feasible given the limits of their materials, and that no more than 100 m^3 of insulating material can be taken.

Solutions:

(1) We require:

k A T(t2 - t1)/L = mc(t4 - t3)

where: k = 390 W/mC , L = 0.5m, mass of water = 0.5 kg, T = 600 s

(t4 - t3) = 5 C and (t2 - t1) = 2C

Then: A = mc(t4 - t3) / k T(t2 - t1)/L = (1050 J/C)/ (1560 W/m^2 C)

[(0.5 kg)( 4200 J/kg C)(5 C)] / [(390 W/mC) (2C)/ 0.5m] = 0.67 m^2

The % error: Actual k = 397 W/mC so: % Error =

(397 – 390)W/mC/ 397 W/mC x 100% = 1.7%

(Note: the student likely has committed other serious errors even though he got close to the correct k. The reason is that the value for A is certainly excessive!)

(2) 0.4 cm = 0.004 m = x and (T2 – T1) = 60 C

Then:

(a) Temp. gradient = (T2 – T1)/x = 60 C/ 0.004 m = 1.5 x 10^4 C/ m

(b) Q = k(T2 – T1)/x = (397 W/mC)(60 C)/ 0.004m = 5.9 x 10^6 W/m^2

That is: 5.9 million J/s per square meter

Now, 1 cm^2 = (0.01 m)^2 = 10^-4 m^2

Then: Q(/cm^2) = (5.9 x 10^6 W/m^2) x(10^-4 m^2/cm^2)= 590 W/cm^2

Or 590 J per cm^2 per sec

Then over 1 minute: (60s)

= (590 J per cm^2 /sec)(60 sec) = 35, 400 J



(3)Heat conductivity for glass = 0.0025 cal/cm C

And x = 2mm = 0.2 cm

A = 80 cm x 100 cm = 8,000 cm^2

Then: k A T(t2 - t1)/L =

[(0.0025 cal/cm C) (8 x 10^3 cm^2)(60s) (20 C)]/0.2 cm

= 120,000 calories

(4)The astronauts require 1200 W/m2 for a living area of 10m x 10m, but this assumes adequate insulation, with k = 0.08 W/mC

The heat lost per minute (Q/t) over the domecile area (100 m^2) given a Martian exterior temperature of (-40 C) is:

1200 W/m^2 (60s)(100m^2) = 7,200,000 J for (t2 – t1) = (10C – (-40C)) = 50 C

The heat energy that can actually be potentially delivered will be the Martian solar constant x the total area of the solar collector x the efficiency:

Q(eff) = (620 W/m^2) (2000 m^2) (0.30) = 372,000 W = 372,000 J/s

and over 1 minute: 372,000 J/s(60s) = 2.2 x 10^7 J

However, only the fraction able to cover the net heat losses should actually be used (in addition one must store the rest on account of likely meteorite damage!) If 650m^2 of collecting material is used, then the energy delivered per minute will be:

7.26 x 10^6 J

or just above the heat losses of 7.2 x 10^6 J

But all this assumes the insulation material is adequate and the limit is that only 100 m^3 can be brought.


Then compute the ratio A/L = (7.2 x 10^6 J)/ (0.08 W/mC)(60s) 50 C = 3 x 10^4 m

This means that there simply isn't enough insulation material to do the job. Even if L = 1 m (i.e. 1 m or 3.3' thickness of insulation was used) it would have to cover an area of 3 x 10^4 m^2 (e.g. A/L = (3.0 x 10^ 4 m^2/ 1m = 3 x 10^4 m). But the putative area for the living space is only 100m^2 (10m x 10m) meaning the height of each wall would need to be: h = (3.0 x 10^4 m^2/ 10 m)= 3.0 x 10^3 m = 9,900' or 990 stories high!

How Cyanobacteria Saved the Earth - for Humans!

Some 3.85 billion years ago, our planet wasn't an abode humans would've been able to live 5 seconds in, far less five minutes or five hours. Apart from the temperatures, the atmosphere was an unbreathable reducing one comprised mainly of methane (CH4) and some ammonia and CO2. Not a very healthy environment for "Adam & Eve"! Does that mean that NO extant life forms were around then? Not at all!

In earlier blogs I noted the presence of methanotrophic bacteria, or primitive organisms able to actually ingest and use the abundant methane for their metabolic processes. The key research on discovering these bacteria was done via the use of the radionuclide (isotope) 'delta- C13' and published in the paper: Evidence for Life on Earth More Than 3850 Million Years Ago, in Science, Vol. 275, 3 January, 1997, p. 38, by H.D. Holland. Now, new research appears to show that the emergence of a radically new type of 'cyanobacteria' (see image) some 2.5 billion years ago resulted in a mass-extinction of the earlier methanotrophic bacteria. This has been published in the Journal BMC Evolutionary Biol., Vol. 11, No. 45 (2011) by Shirrmeister et al.

Few humans today (apart from microbiologists) may appreciate just how critical a role was played by these cyanobacteria. They essentially were single-handedly responsible for chemically converting a toxic atmosphere of methane, NH3 and CO2 into an oxygen and nitrogen one conducive for the evolution of higher life forms, including the fish, amphibia, reptiles, and ultimately humans. Their key trick for doing so was the development, perhaps by a random mutation, of chlorophyll units or organelles (giving them their color) that enabled the conversion of CO2 via photosynthesis, to O2.

Then, over the course of their slow evolution, these prokaryotes (note: a prokaryote has one chromosome only, dispersed in its cytoplasm) 'donated' their light-harvesting organelles to plants while also acquiring a nitrogen harvesting mechanism which then paved the way for a whole diverse array of multicellular organisms. In no small measure, humanity has these tiny bacteria to thank for even being able to have a chance to evolve and lay claim to this 3rd planet from the Sun!

Alas, few cyanobacteria have actually been gene-sequenced so their evolutionary history and phylogeny is relatively unknown. This is where Shirrmeister et al's research proved even more important. They employed multiple phylogenetic analyses on the existing limited number of (165rDNA) cyanobacterial sequences available to compare the resulting (phylogenetic) trees with established morphologically derived neighbors and to the fossil record. This investigation resulted in uncovering a monophyletic (single phylum) tree that identified Gleobacter as the nearest outgroup, and Chlamydia as the closest eubacterium. (Readers may recognize the latter as being the culprit responsible for one form of sexually transmitted disease, or STD).

The interesting aspect of these bacteria is that despite their rates of evolution being relatively slow, they organized into multicellular forms several times to acquire some specialization. Are they some kind of bacterial "shape shifters"? Could be! Astoundingly, they also acquired this multi-cellular ability long before the eukaryotes did (note:A eukaryote has multiple chromosomes dispersed in its cytoplasm). Since achieving this shape-shifting ability, the cyanobacteria evidently have evolved into three major clades or "families" which have shifted between unicellular and multi-cellular forms.

Maybe one can more truthfully argue that these strange bacteria remade the planet to enable all other higher eukaryotes to inhabit it. We certainly have these tiny shape-shifters to thank for our being here at all!