Science & Technology News

[Eigenvector]

Retraction -



From the computer that I first looked at earlier, it looked like the tractor had no rear wheels. Which made it a Dr. Seuss truck which articulated at highway speeds.


Now looking at it, there appears to be rear wheels on the truck.


So not so far out there. But net payload is still a open question.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Eigenvector

....But it's a concept, nothing wrong with that. Dr Seuss pulled it off all the time..

Welll...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_GOqZrZMB8&t=163s

[Ded reckoner]

Show me a kenworth, freightliner, mack, western star, sterling, or insert the name you wish that can drive 3k miles virtually nonstop . Team trucking . Or insert railway name .

A corporate whitepaper argues hydrogen fuel cells are a better fit for larger, heavier vehicles aiming for long haul and heavy cargo transit than battery powered electric vehicles. When hydrogen combusts, the waste product is water. Hydrogen fuel is sourced either from electrolysis of water, petroleum, natural gas, or biomass. Excerpts: “…adding more battery capacity – this currently means any type of battery – to a vehicle yields diminishing marginal range.” But, as for gasoline or diesel fueled engines, the “…1:1 increase of range with added energy storage is also true with hydrogen fuel cells.” Battery change-outs have been proposed for circumventing prohibitively long battery re-charge times, but, with increasing vehicle size “…the batteries become too large and heavy to easily change out.” In comparison, fuel cell refills “… fill up–like their gasoline equivalents – in about five minutes.” China has an official policy to develop the implementation of hydrogen fuel cells. Other sources indicate China thinks the break will be along the lines of the referenced corporate whitepaper. A free market approach considering all-of-the-above would best avoid bad decisions based on non-economic considerations.

[Eigenvector]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

A corporate whitepaper argues hydrogen fuel cells are a better fit for larger, heavier vehicles aiming for long haul and heavy cargo transit than battery powered electric vehicles. When hydrogen combusts, the waste product is water. Hydrogen fuel is sourced either from electrolysis of water, petroleum, natural gas, or biomass. Excerpts: “…adding more battery capacity – this currently means any type of battery – to a vehicle yields diminishing marginal range.” But, as for gasoline or diesel fueled engines, the “…1:1 increase of range with added energy storage is also true with hydrogen fuel cells.” Battery change-outs have been proposed for circumventing prohibitively long battery re-charge times, but, with increasing vehicle size “…the batteries become too large and heavy to easily change out.” In comparison, fuel cell refills “… fill up–like their gasoline equivalents – in about five minutes.” China has an official policy to develop the implementation of hydrogen fuel cells. Other sources indicate China thinks the break will be along the lines of the referenced corporate whitepaper. A free market approach considering all-of-the-above would best avoid bad decisions based on non-economic considerations.

Hydrogen is cool and all that but what you don't read is that it will only works in vehicles if it's liquefied to get the energy density up to gasoline/diesel levels. This is around 5000 psi (35 MPA per the cited article). Imagine a car crash that takes out an entire block of houses in the blast.


Hydrogen is a manufactured fuel in that it doesn't generally occur naturally. It is a lost leader unless it can be produced by something cheaper than fossil fuels.


Things may have changed since I left the gov labs 20 years ago but at that time the air filter technology was not there at the time to run a PEM fuel cell OTR with current pollution for more than a day.


I don't really run in those circle anymore. I'm open to enlightenment.

[GordMay]

Earth from Space:
The European Space Agency released a series of photos, showing the first perspective of the Earth, Venus and Mars, as seen from the sun's perspective. The 4 second video was taken by the ESA and NASA's Solar Orbiter, which has been working its way toward the sun, where it will go into orbit later this year.
Venus, Earth and Mars ➥ https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/V...Earth_and_Mars

The first picture of Earth from another world was taken from the moon in 1966 by the Lunar Orbiter, followed in 1968 by the famous Earthrise colour photo taken by the crew of Apollo 8, the first humans to leave low Earth orbit, and the first to see the whole planet all at once with their own eyes.
Earthrise ➥ https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/apollo-8-earthrise

Voyager 1 was the first to capture both the Earth and moon in the same frame in 1977 as it departed for Jupiter and Saturn.

The most dramatic image is the first movie showing the Earth rotating in space, taken over 25 hours by the Galileo spacecraft in 1990. The probe was on its way to Jupiter by way of a gravity assist from Venus and had the fully lit Earth in view long enough to actually see it move (spin).
Spinning Earth ➥ https://www.youtube.com/watch/ceJOBFj3hKs

And finally, the most distant image, famously named the Pale Blue Dot, was taken from the outer edge of our solar system in 1990 by Voyager 1, the same spacecraft that saw the Earth and moon together 13 years earlier.
Pale Blue Dot ➥ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/pal...-dot-revisited

***

[Ded reckoner]

Electrical Grid Issue with Renewables

A business news article addressed a European blackout that was narrowly averted this week when a cold front moved through. Technical concern was on the European continental power grid. Excerpts: The point was made that, for Europe, “Transmission grids need to stay at a frequency of 50 hertz to operate smoothly and any deviations can damage equipment that’s connected…” and cause “…damage across the entire European high voltage network, potentially causing blackouts for millions.” Solar and wind exacerbate the problem. “Large amounts of intermittent electricity create huge swings in supply which the grid has to be able to cope with…” Fossil fuel and nuclear plants don’t have the same intrinsic problem with grid frequency. “Spinning turbines of thermal plants connected to the grid create kinetic energy called inertia which helps keep the network at the right frequency. This spinning can’t be created by wind turbines or solar panels and policy makers need to find ways to incentivize other forms of energy storage or flexible output.”

[Lodesman]

A somewhat humorous story about how science sometimes gets it wrong. This would be an example of confirmation bias: https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/i...Bfrj2NsZJFxt9s

[ImaginaryNumber]

Inuit Cartography

In Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland), the Inuit people are known for carving portable maps out of driftwood to be used while navigating coastal waters. These pieces, which are small enough to be carried in a mitten, represent coastlines in a continuous line, up one side of the wood and down the other. The maps are compact, buoyant, and can be read in the dark.

[Ded reckoner]

Masks Ineffective Against COVID-19 Infection

A family medicine practice in Oregon posted an advisory note to their patients informing them that public mask wearing is ineffective against coronavirus infection. This result is no different than conclusions of previous studies for other viral infections. “There have been many randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analysis of previous studies that suggest that masks do not work to prevent influenza- like illnesses, or respiratory illness transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles – like Covid.” There is commentary on multivariate studies which have been done for SARS-CoV-2 which prove this point. These studies have inherent limitations such as lack of a control group or modulation of the level of a factor on an effect. A recent Danish study was done using a different type of experiment, known as a planned experiment, studying the effectiveness of surgical masks against COVID-19 infection. Excerpt: “…the difference observed was not statistically significant” even at a coin-toss level of confidence between the group wearing masks and the control group. “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.” Another and larger point was made by the Oregon physicians that “…one of the greatest losses in this pandemic has been the loss of credibility of organizations for whom we held in high regard. Organizations such as the CDC, WHO and Public Health Organizations that need to maintain the trust of the citizens. Because it is increasingly apparent that the basis for the mask mandate is not medical, but political.”

[GordMay]

Three Levels of Scientific Evidence Demonstrate the Benefit of Community Masking to Control SARS-CoV-2
1.Controlled laboratory-based experimental studies of cloth masks’ capacity to –Block exhaled emission of virus-laden respiratory particles (source control)–Reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer (personal protection)
2.Epidemiological investigations–Outbreaks–Cohort and case-control studies
3.Population-level community studies–Across multiple levels (e.g., hospital system, city, state, country, multi-country)
➥ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sking-full.pdf

“Scientific Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2" ~ CDC
Includes links to 45 external scientific references.
“Conclusions:
Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer. The relationship between source control and personal protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic14, so that individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use. Further research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks and in particular to identify the combinations of materials that maximize both their blocking and filtering effectiveness, as well as fit, comfort, durability, and consumer appeal. Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation."
➥ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sars-cov2.html


“A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients”~ by C. Raina MacIntyrea and Abrar Ahmad Chughtai
"Results:
A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study – 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures. In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective. Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts.
Conclusion:
The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented."
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

Face masks: what the data say”~ by Lynne Peeples
The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?
“... To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease ...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

As referenced by Ded reckoner:
“Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial” ~ by Henning Bundgaard et al
Limitation:
"Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.
Conclusion:
The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."
...
"... Reduction in release of virus from infected persons into the environment may be the mechanism for mitigation of transmission in communities where mask use is common or mandated, as noted in observational studies. Thus, these findings do not provide data on the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing in the community in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections. They do, however, offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect. The findings also suggest that persons should not abandon other COVID-19 safety measures regardless of the use of masks. While we await additional data to inform mask recommendations, communities must balance the seriousness of COVID-19, uncertainty about the degree of source control and protective effect, and the absence of data suggesting serious adverse effects of masks (45)."
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7707213/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

Masks Ineffective Against COVID-19 Infection

A family medicine practice in Oregon posted an advisory note to their patients informing them that public mask wearing is ineffective against coronavirus infection.

Some doctors do politics. No surprise.

The main reason people should be wearing masks when they can't avoid being in close proximity to others is to help stop them spreading it to others if they are unknowingly infected yet asymptomatic (because of course no one who knows they are infected would ever deliberately go out, would they?...). For this purpose, basic cloth or disposable masks work.

It's not really about protecting the wearer. But the good doctors don't ever point that out.

Of course, if there are people who don't know they're infected, then we can only ensure they're covered by telling everyone to wear a mask. Sucks, but here we are.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Some doctors do politics. No surprise...

FWIW:

Dr. (John) Powell [Evergreen] is a signatory to the Great Barrington Declaration, and thinks that: “The Great Barrington Declaration represents a much more reasonable and overdue approach to respond to this virus...
... My response to them is to follow Sweden’s policies ...
➥ https://www.nrtoday.com/opinion/gues...ed0578762.html

More opinions from Evergreen ➥ https://www.evergreenfamilymedicine....py-of-ceo-blog

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Eigenvector

. . . Hydrogen is a manufactured fuel in that it doesn't generally occur naturally. It is a lost leader unless it can be produced by something cheaper than fossil fuels.. . .

Hydrogen can be produced directly in a nuclear reactor using High Temperature Steam Electrolysis -- https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-elec...gen-production.


And can be produced by ordinary electrolysis using wind power when there is excess capacity.


In fact hydrogen and wind go together like cookies and cream -- wind's biggest downside is that the output varies with the wind. Well, you can dump the excesss output into hydrogen production and store the energy easily like that.

[Ded reckoner]

More about the Danish mask study. The authors write, “In this community-based, randomized controlled trial conducted in a setting where mask wearing was uncommon and was not among other recommended public health measures related to COVID-19, a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation.”

Perhaps a little context will help to understand the new Danish study that couldn’t demonstrate masks are effective against COVID-19 infection. About two decades ago, there were innumerable studies done to demonstrate second-hand smoking is correlated with cancer. Of course, statistical correlation is not equivalent to causality, but that’s a different subject. The studies in which it was claimed smoking correlated to cancer had been demonstrated had a confidence level of about 80 percent or lower. The problem using this relatively low confidence level to make authoritative decisions is that when the experiment is re-run to corroborate the findings, the results most often came back as statistically significant at much lower confidence levels, even below a coin-toss level of confidence, or 50 percent. So, re-examinations couldn’t show second-hand smoke was correlated cancer with any confidence. This experimental cycle was repeated over and over again without definitive resolution until a jury decided they didn’t care about (or understand) statistics and a lottery should be hosted by the tobacco companies. By comparison, there is a strong correlation, often at confidence levels at or well above 90 percent, that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Few, well run, planned experiments were needed to show these results because, with confidence levels at about 95 percent or higher, it was relatively easy for other experimenters to run the same experiment and get the same results.

The purpose of the Danish study was to determine if wearing surgical masks could demonstrate effectiveness against coronavirus infection. “The face masks provided to participants were high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%.” But, the confidence level was so low with the results, that, “the 95% confidence intervals are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.” These results indicate masks could be reducing infection rates, or they could be increasing infection rates. This experiment couldn’t determine which is the case. As the authors state, the proper interpretation of these data is the study could not demonstrate the effectiveness of wearing surgical masks against getting infected by COVID-19. When the authors wrote, “these findings do not provide data on the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing in the community in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections” they elaborate this is because mask wearing is relatively uncommon in the Danish community of the experiment even while social distancing is practiced, and they speculate mask wearing could have some benefit in source control. This was a high quality planned experiment, but it produced low confidence demonstrating mask effectiveness against infection. This suggests other similar experiments will produce the same ambivalent results.

[GordMay]

Super Antibodies
Our immune systems’ ability to churn out a countless variety of antibodies, means that sometimes, someone makes a spectacularly successful one — an antibody that can be turned into a drug, to protect many people. The coronavirus antibodies, in the blood of one person from Seattle, Washington, were developed into the promising COVID drug bamlanivimab*, made by the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly.
The work builds on efforts to develop an antibody treatment for HIV, based on the uniquely powerful antibodies from a person known as Donor 45.
This week scientists announced that they finally had the first evidence that an antibody drug could protect against HIV.
“May I Borrow Your Covid Immunity?” ~ by Roxanne Khamsi
Whenever a new virus emerges—be it HIV or SARS-CoV-2—a few lucky people put up a potent natural defense. Monoclonal antibody drugs let them share the health.
More ➥ https://www.wired.com/story/covid-im...f8ef0-45020405



*“Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19" ~ FDA
Today [November 9, 2020], the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adult and pediatric patients ...
➥ https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...tment-covid-19