Too good to be true?

One of the many problems this country faces is its energy dependence on foreign suppliers, from Russian gas to Islamic oil, neither having our best interests at heart. Yet essentially we're a technological society that depends on the burning of hydrocarbons to produce the power we need, for transport and power generation. Despite the claims of the greens, a hell of a lot of hydrocarbons go into the making of their bird-mincers and sunshine panels, environmentally friendly they aren't save at the point of use and they aren't even particularly efficient there either. Still when someone comes up with a formula to produce petrol from air you have to wonder just what medication they're on (and could we have some)
Telegraph.

A small company in the north of England has developed the “air capture” technology to create synthetic petrol using only air and electricity.
Experts tonight hailed the astonishing breakthrough as a potential “game-changer” in the battle against climate change and a saviour for the world’s energy crisis.
The technology, presented to a London engineering conference this week, removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The “petrol from air” technology involves taking sodium hydroxide and mixing it with carbon dioxide before "electrolysing" the sodium carbonate that it produces to form pure carbon dioxide.
Hydrogen is then produced by electrolysing water vapour captured with a dehumidifier.
The company, Air Fuel Syndication, then uses the carbon dioxide and hydrogen to produce methanol which in turn is passed through a gasoline fuel reactor, creating petrol.
Company officials say they had produced five litres of petrol in less than three months from a small refinery in Stockton-on-Tees, Teesside.

As an engineer having worked occasionally in the chemicals industry at first I thought this must be complete bollocks (and my engineering hindbrain is still telling me that too) I'm also wondering about the laws of conservation of energy too, it simply doesn't happen that you get more out than you put in, you can release energy, you can't create it so to speak. Yet if the process is economically viable in producing a petrol substitute at less (or equivalent too) the current market cost then these guys are onto a winner. Though again the usual caveats involving cold fusion apply here, if it looks too good to be true then it probably is.
Nor can we expect that the big fuel companies will be interested, not unless of course they can see at least as much profit for themselves in it, still a chemical plant in a nice safe democracy has got to be a better bet than an unstable theocracy...
If we can break the ties to foreign energy supply via shale and now this process we may be able to turn back some of the overt influences those suppliers have forced upon us too (yes we're looking at you Saudi Arabia) so I'm going to watch this one very carefully and hope some middle east cartel doesn't buy it and bury it...

I shouldn't lose any sleep over this...

In general I like scientists, not climate pseudo-scientists, but scientists in general. They've improved our lives immeasurably, kept the lights burning and the fields producing. Plus they've also given us some good laughs with their theories, particularly the end of the world/universe ones.
Mail.

People often say that time speeds up as we age, but if the latest scientific theory is true the opposite could well be the case.
The radical theory by academics suggests that time itself could be slowing down - and may eventually grind to a halt altogether.
The latest mind-bending findings - put forward by researchers working at two Spanish universities - proposes that we have all been fooled into thinking the universe is expanding.
In fact, they say, time itself is slowing down until eventually, in billions of years time, it will cease altogether.

Billions of years means very little to people who actually wonder just how they are going to manage till the end of the month. It is a good theory, though how they intend to prove it (or be around long enough to collect data) is not included in the report in a similar way that warmists refuse to discuss their theories when it's snowing and summer is delayed yet again.
When you're talking billions of years, I guess it really doesn't matter if the universe is expanding or contracting, at least not in the here and now. Indeed most of us care very little as to what might be happening in the here and now, beyond say the results of Britain hasn't got talent. Which I suspect was either planned by the powers that be or at least taken advantage of.
Still, with billions of years to spare, it might just be that we will end up with a government that actually does some good.
I was going to say filled with honest politicians, but not even billions of years could change their nature.

Biblically speaking

Matthew 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away...

Not terribly good advice from a physical point of view, though that wasn't really the advice Jesus was giving, it was more about keeping stuff around that makes you sin, a close analogy would be letting a toddler loose in a sweet shop.
But for this woman it sounds as if it might be a good idea...
Telegraph.

A British woman is considering having her hand cut off and replaced with a bionic one after she lost use of her right arm following a car crash. 

Nicola Wilding, 35, suffered serious neck and shoulder injuries 13 years ago, which left her entire right arm paralysed.
Although nerve transplants and physiotherapy allowed her to regain movement in her upper arm, her hand has remained paralysed and withered.
She is now hoping to have the hand removed because she said it is “useless” and merely gets in the way.
Mrs Wilding believes a bionic hand would change her life by allowing her to carry out basic tasks such as cooking and dressing.
She said she was inspired to take the drastic step after seeing a television news bulletin about an Austrian man who underwent elective amputation to have his withered hand replaced with a prosthetic one.

Five years ago, I had a tumour removed from my right arm, it was growing to the front of my elbow and was wrapped around the radial nerve, it was also malignant and growing pretty fast. I was lucky, I was put in the hands of a very skilled surgeon in one of the leading cancer research hospital in the UK (Royal Marsden) Under normal circumstances, I'd probably have lost the arm, as it was he was prepared to attempt to save it, though he warned me that he might just have to sever the radial nerve on my arm leaving me with no wrist control. As it was, I lucky, I lost half my bicep, suffered some nerve damage but essentially was able to return to work after a 6 month convalescence mostly due to the nerve damage. (I would be very reluctant to hold anything if I'm the one hammering, but at least I can hammer) Fine motor control is a thing of the past with me, but I can type and can write, though sadly my guitar playing days are behind me, I can no longer strum very well or finger pick.
Still, for all it seems extreme, I can well sympathise with the lady having been in a similar if not so extreme position. It is of course an all or nothing position to be in, most people intending to have something similar have already lost a limb.
I wish Nicola well, I'm fairly sure that bionics so to speak is only in its infancy and we're nowhere near 6 million dollar man territory yet, they haven't as far as I'm aware even got to touch or pain sensation yet.
Still, great oaks from small acorns etc...

Research funding

Some of the greatest pieces of scientific research have developed from individuals who have strayed off the beaten track and observed something a bit odd and followed it through. It's the initial observation itself that often provides the impetus, Fleming might have discovered penicillin, but it was a massive development afterwards by other scientists who produced the results. Yet it's only because the state didn't interfere (then) with research of all kinds that some of the greater discoveries were made.
Telegraph.

The future of British science is under serious threat because its funding body is making “disastrous errors”, more than 70 senior academics have warned.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, they claim changes introduced by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council are “damaging scientific discovery in Britain” because civil servants have taken on new powers to dictate what type of science is given money.
The letter says a pledge by David Willetts, the universities and science minister, to make Britain “the best place in the world to do science” would be difficult to achieve because the council had “exceeded its remit so spectacularly”.
The group calls on Mr Willetts to make sure the research council is either overhauled or replaced.
Prof David O’Hagan from the University of St Andrews, one of the signatories, said: “We’re being asked to identify where our programme may go in 10 to 50 years’ time. This is anti-intellectual. Nobody involved in research would pretend to know where embryonic ideas may lead.”

In a sense they are quite right, no-one knows where the next greatest discovery will come from and you can probably rest assured that it wont come from anything that Whitehall wishes to be researched.

Attila Emecz, director of strategy at the research council, said the accusations were “a major and gross misrepresentation”, adding: “We believe the new policies will protect and improve UK research.”

Yet this is the mindset that funds the current craze in climate research, not because it will make any major discoveries (probably) but because it is intended to justify increased taxation. The government isn't interested in disproving global warming climate disruption, because if it did it wont be able to justify what they've done to promote useless alternative energy schemes, whilst also not funding research into shale gas extraction.
Unfortunately for a lot of universities funding is a major issue and they tend to follow the money to a certain extent. So if the government want to fund research into climate change that's what the universities will research, often as in the case of the Climate research Unit in East Anglia making stuff up to keep the funding coming in.
In an ideal state, universities would simply be told to research anything they felt was worth looking into, the governments obsession with getting value for money along with making sure their own pet prejudices are promoted means that nothing of the sort happens.
research will still get done, there's no doubt about that, but unless it's freed from the constraints of government (Whitehall) guidelines then chance discoveries will be made elsewhere.
We have a tradition of making great discoveries in this country, if this carries on though, that's now at an end.

Bad Timing

Time is a funny thing, humans generally use the diurnal rotation of the planet coupled with its annual rotation around the Sun as the standard measure. Yes it's not precise, but over the centuries we've built in a few checks and balances to even up the odd bits and bobs left over at the end of the yearly rotation which is why we have Leap years and no doubt eventually a double Leap year if and when it's decided to even things up again. It's how our calendars and watches work, fitting into the human sense of what seems to be right. Sadly though there are always some who wish to meddle and in this case it's the EU and A group of scientists from the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), based near Paris who want to use the time from an atomic clock system to replace GMT. I doubt that it's spite, though the French have never been particularly happy about GMT becoming the international standard as opposed to Paris Mean Time which is one degree of latitude out.
Express.

Meddling Eurocrats are threatening an even more integral part of our British heritage – Greenwich Mean Time.

A group of scientists from the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), based near Paris, want to axe the last vestiges of the Greenwich Mean Time system, under which day-length is based on the rotation of the earth.

Under the new proposals, which have been rejected by the British Government, the scientists argue that day-length should be based solely on atomic clocks, which differ slightly from astronomical time. Since 1972, standard international time has combined both.

But the new proposals would mean Britain’s role in global timekeeping would finally be relegated to a footnote in history, with the BIPM in France effectively taking charge. Dr Elisa Felicitas Arias, of the BIPM, said: “We want to de-couple the world’s timekeeping from its link to the rotation of the Earth.  

Rejecting the plans, Science Minister David Willets said: “This is primarily a finely-balanced scientific argument.

“But I do detect undercurrents of nationalism. Britain’s position is that we should stick to real time as experienced by humans, which is based on the Earth’s rotation, not atomic clocks.”

Under the alternative proposed system, he said, we would lose contact with the reality of Earth’s rotation.

This could mean that, “eventually our midnight would happen at noon”.

Real time does indeed work fine for most people, after all, we live in real time so Midnight and Noon should remain the same, 12 hours apart and we live our lives in-between. Atomic time however takes no notice of minor variations in the Earth's rotation because of our planets rotation and minor wobbles occasionally happen which are corrected manually without our noticing by establishments by the BBC and the atomic clock people at Jodrell Bank. Sticking however to an atomic time system would eventually move the Midnight and Noon cycle out of synchronisation with what people perceive to be the actual time and I suspect that things would rapidly go back to the old system though possibly if the French have their way it would be based upon Paris Mean Time rather than Greenwich Mean Time, that is how the EU seem to work in favour of most things French with the Germans paying the bills.
Time will tell no doubt.

Bet they're faked (not)

I'm not a great one for conspiracy theories, in the end it always seems to be that people can always find some evidence to prove what they want to believe no matter what. The Twin Towers attack is one of those with people constantly coming up with "proof" that it was a controlled detonation or the panes were added to the films after or even it was the wrong sort of plane.
The Moon landings are another case in point, with accusations that they all took place on a massive sound stage, that the flag waved in the breeze when a door was opened, all foundering on the simple fact that if it was a conspiracy, it would have involved hundreds of people and not one has ever come forward to admit it, ever.
Mail.
For many it is one of the human race’s greatest achievements - but ever since that first ‘giant leap for mankind’ there are some who have questioned whether man really did land on the moon.
Now, though, there’s photographic evidence so powerful that even the most hardened sceptics should be persuaded that we really did touch down on the lunar surface.
Nasa’s Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter (LRO) has taken new photographs of the surface that clearly show astronaut footprints, the lunar rover and spacecraft scorch marks.

I don't doubt for a second someone will be along in a minute or two to tell us these pics are fakes, though to my mind, the USA's crowning scientific achievement has always been its lunar landing program. I listened to it back in 1969 with most of the rest of the world and was thrilled by it as much as I expect any American was too. Why some people had to try and spoil it I don't know, but the rumours were always persistant if having little or no evidence to back it up. Even the flag in the breeze was explained

Still, I was pleased to see the pics, they proved to me at least that something I felt was right is actually right.

That's gotta hurt (USA version)

I love technology and I wander around various scientific sites looking to see what the future will bring, some things are boldly announced (cold fusion) only to vanish without trace and some are predicted on an almost monthly basis only to never quite seem to make it off the drawing board (fusion power) Others like the first hypersonic plane have reached the test stage and look to revolutionise transport turning the potential flight time from London to New York to 15 minutes.
However sadly the first test hit a snag, a $300 million snag.
Mail.

It promises to revolutionise air travel, slashing the flying time from London to Sydney to just an hour.
Yesterday the 13,000mph aircraft of the future took off for a crucial test flight.
Within hours however, the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 appeared to have failed the test.
It was launched from a Californian rocket pad to the edge of space and was due to glide back down to Earth at roughly four miles per second.
But all contact was lost and the craft was thought to have crashed.
It was a cruel anti-climax after all the hype, and a case of back to the drawing board for its developers at the Pentagon.

Fortunately this is the USA military we're talking about so they are unlikely just to give up unlike the U.S. government or more likely our own would still $300 million is gonna hurt pretty bad and I'm fairly sure the Senate Military appropriations committee (or whatever it's called) will have something to say about it.

 I hope they carry on with these experiments, the withdrawal of civilian manned space flight means that it's projects like this which will eventually lead us back into space.

90p a gallon, that'll be before tax of course.

Seems our clever British scientists have developed a fuel based on hydrogen that can be used as a substitute for petrol that costs only 90p a gallon (oh halcyon days) and can be used in petrol driven cars without modification. It's also carbon friendly but only idiot enviroloons give a damn about that.

Express.

BRITISH scientists have invented an “artificial” petrol that could spell an end to soaring prices at the pumps.
The new hydrogen-based fuel costs only 90 pence per gallon and could even run in existing cars.
The environment-friendly fuel has been developed in secret at a laboratory in Oxford and could be available in as little as three years.
Motorists could even be able to drive for 300 to 400 miles before needing to fill up.
The breakthrough comes as average UK fuel prices have hit a record high, marking “another milestone along a road of misery for drivers”, according to motoring organisation the AA.
The revolutionary fuel, which has been invented by Cella Energy, produces no greenhouse gases and is “suitable for widespread use as a carbon-free alternative to petrol”.

Clever guys, of course what everyone is forgetting is the cold dead hand of the state and fuel duty. There's no way in hell that we'll be buying fuel at 90p a gallon not with any politicians in charge of the country, not now, not then, not ever.
That said, if it can get us out of the clutches of OPEC and the Islamic oil cartel (yes I know it's not just the Middle East) then it will be a job well done. Until that is the enviroloons start panicking about us turning all our water into fuel. There are already water problems around the world of too much usage anyway. However there is a source of hydrogen available too us if we want to go and get it. All of the gas giant planets out there starting with Jupiter have hydrogen atmosphere's, plus there are masses of Ice asteroids out past Neptune. Not easy to get, but easy enough from a technical standpoint as the technology to convert the stuff to fuel to power the tankers needed to get it is already in development.
I'd expect our enviroloons to come up with some sort of objection though, it's in their nature, they want to reduce the world population (minus the enviroloons) not sustain or civilisation by technology. So this technology will have been a body blow to them.
Isn't science grand...

An English science triumph

Kew gardens, doesn't exactly trip to the tongue as a forefront of science really, yet they lead the way in discovering new species of plant life and more importantly re-discovering thought to be lost species, preserving them and nurturing them back to merely rare.

Telegraph.

The Parsley Fern, which is only known to grow on Ascension Island, was declared extinct in 2003 after not being seen since 1958.

But scientists leapt into action after four of the plants were found halfway down a ridge of a mountain on the volcanic British overseas territory. 

They used ropes to get to the ferns twice a week so they could water and weed them until they spored.

The spores, which have only a 24 hour lifespan, were then packed in a sterile container and flown four thousand miles to Brize Norton in Oxfordshire before being transferred to Kew Gardens.

The spores survived and are currently growing in Petri dishes at the centre.

The plant has delicate, yellow-green leaves, which give it its name as they resemble miniature sprigs of parsley.

Dr Phil Lambdon, botanist with the UK Overseas Territories Programme at Kew, and local conservation officer Stedson Stroud were routinely looking to rescue plants as part of the UN's International Year of Biodiversity when they made the discovery.

They found the fern, Anogramma ascensionis, as they surveyed the knife edge ridge of a mountainside in the volcanic landscape in the South Atlantic.

Colin Clubbe, leader of the UK Overseas Territories Programme at Kew, said: "It is very unusual to see an 'extinct' plant come back to life, as it were, and is cause for great celebration.

No doubt some will see this as a waste of time and money, yet I have to admire all they went too to preserve a long thought lost species. Hopefully they'll be able to find some places to replace it from their labs and it will make a come back on Ascension Island and perhaps elsewhere. Some discoveries are worth the money, even if all they do is make us feel good about ourselves and our world unlike global warming climate change.