GOP Economics- Cash for Election Year!!

1 Reply

It was just announced that Congress and the Whitehouse have reached an agreement that will flood 117 million households (or families) with $600 to $1200 in mad money tax rebates. It supposedly amounts to 150 gigabucks.

Time to invest in Apple and Disney Resorts, because a lot of new iPods are going to be worn on trips to Disney theme parks. Same idea with flat screen TV’s.

Gold sounds like a good choice on which to spend the money.

Warren Buffett and Jim “Mad Money” Cramer see this latest Wall Street fiasco as a rat that will eventually pass through the python. 

While Wall Street sorts itself out, the rest of us need to understand what the Finance MBA’s are learning in B-School. The finance geniuses wizards seem to have an endless supply of schemes for brittle financial instruments. Yet another house of cards has collapsed. 

Deficit spending and the low value of US currency are huge problems that the GOP should be held accountable for before Bush the Lesser slinks out of DC. Where does Bush think the money will come from with his rebate? Obviously, it’s from the presses at the treasury or debt in the form of T-Bills.

Question of the day: What value does a country that is busy exporting its industry derive from a devalued currency? 

Bicarbonate Vulcanism

4 Replies

I’m taking thursday off to judge a middle school science fair. Should be a hoot.  I don’t know what I’ll say if I see an 8th grader with a volcano experiment. Hopefully we’ll see some hypotheses, measurement, data reduction, and conclusions rather than just demonstrations. I’ll try not to make anyone cry.

Update:  By my estimation, the science fair was a success. I was impressed by the number of students who obtained results that did not align with their hypotheses. I made a point of suggesting to them that experiments which give results that are unexpected are the most interesting of all.  We talked about what success really means in experimentation. Most seemed relieved to hear that their efforts weren’t wasted.

After we discussed this, I placed an epistemological time bomb in their consciousness. I asked the question “When people speak with great certainty but never do experiments, what are you going to think about their assertions?”

There were no volcano displays. That is elementary school stuff. But there were several Mentos/Coke Cola research studies. One kid built a potato cannon that used hairspray and a lantern igniter to launch the spuds. I predict that this kid will eventually lose body parts.

Bis, Tris, Tetrakis

2 Replies

For many seasons, Th’ Gaussling was the keeper of part numbers and nomenclature in his village.  Fellow peasants would stumble out from the dark and dank mines to plead for new part numbers and names for the new products. As always, outsiders are surprised to learn that this is an actual “job”, but in fact it is. When you make new stuff, eventually you have to call it something. And what you call it has to be recognizable to the barbarian tribes outside the walls.

Peasants and grandees alike would take the names in gratitude for the everpresent fear was that they themselves would be called to toil in the muck of nomenclature as I have.

The dark world of nomenclature is split into two hemispheres- IUPAC and CAS. I don’t know what the deal is with Beilstein. It seems to be a sinking ship with a few deckhands polishing the brass knobs as the bow submerges.  Arguably, CAS has become the default system for nomenclature and identification in much of the world. The CASRN is increasingly the standard for unambiguous substance identification. The US EPA relies upon CAS to keep track of the TSCA inventory. Chemical sellers all over the world rely on the CASRN system to identify products and as a search term to attract internet search engines to their websites.

The major problem that I have encountered is that nomenclature from the 9th collective index (9CI) is often incompatible with our accounting system. The system does not accomodate Greek letters (kappa and eta) and the numbering system leads to sorting and format problems with list generation and subsequent retrieval. The complex system of numbering schemes and nested hierarchies plays havoc with the system as well, if for no other reason than the character count exceeds what is permissable in the data field.

Even more troublesome, the complex names are largely inaccessable to non-chemists. It is very hard for administrative assistants and temps to comprehend accounting data when they are fundamentally unsure of what the identity of the product is and why various materials show up in the bill of materials. To non-technical folks on the business side, chemical names are often just a complicated character string that is prone to data entry errors.

I’ll have to admit that nomenclature from earlier indices (6CI to 8CI) is often more user friendly in this regard. So when it is time to choose a name, 9CI doesn’t always win. This is a propagation step in the retention of obsolete nomenclature and I am guilty as hell of keeping it going.

Unhappy Chemicals

7 Replies

We all have experiences with chemicals that stick in our memory. Experiences where we have witnessed just what chemical potential really means.  Proton or electron transfer can be downright frightening sometimes. Rude and abrupt phase changes or angry exotherms. Sometimes nature rages back at our feeble attempts to take the dragon out for a walk on a short leash.

I can name many exciting materials, but I think that chlorosulfonic acid is one of the more exciting and obnoxious substances that isn’t explosive or neurotoxic.  What are your favorites?

Thumpin’ the Good Book at 5000 Watts

4 Replies

It’s Sunday and the airwaves are positively crackling with overmodulated, firebreathin’ preacher-men poundin’ the pul-pits and spreadin’ the good word. AM radio in particular is an interesting place to dial in some of the more colorful characters preachin’, witnessin’, and evangelizin’ the Gospel. 

Around these parts we have an AM station that specializes in the Messianic message that broadcasts on a low power transmitter over what they call the American Freedom Network.

Between phone-linked sermons (homilies for the survivalist, really) you’ll hear infomercials hawking colloidal silver cure-alls, dubious gold investments, nutriceuticals, and other market flotsam. For a time there was a fellow who was reading off seismic data and coordinates for earthquake enthusiasts. It appeals to that quiet voice in the back of your consciousness that urges you to move into a small cabin and become a hermit. I’m afraid that one day while driving I’ll have a deer crash through my windshield because I was distracted by this stuff.

When I hear these people talking about getting religion back into the public arena, or “bringing God back” into public life, I’m mystified.  Many of the religious talking heads are striking back at the recent popularity of skeptics like Dawkins, Shermer, or Harris. These fellows have made a cogent and thoughtful appeal to the use of analysis and reason. I doubt there are more atheists per capita today than before. But it is evident that atheists and agnostics are a bit more vocal in public today.

Despite their popularity, they represent a minority view of the physical reality of religious concepts.  Their ideas will certainly never catch hold in the USA as a majority view because our very brain architecture predisposes us to adopt a belief in the supernatural. Only a few people seem to be able to break away from this notion. They (we) will always be in a minority.

But I can’t help but conclude that when the call is made to “bring religion back” to public discourse, the intent of those making the call is perhaps not what the rest of us might conclude from their words.

Bringing back religion to the public arena is not meant to imply that we will openly examine religion. It is not a call for analysis. It is a call for devotion.  In my experience, the evangelical elite tend not to examine their belief system scientifically or analytically. Rather, they tend to approach it devotionally. This is the big difference between those who dwell under the religious magisterium and those who do not.

The call for public implementation of American-style religiosity through the framework of the public commons of the government does not simply mean that we would suddenly be free to pray in the post office. We already have that. You can stand in the post office and make a silent prayer anytime and anywhere you want. I have prayed to any supernatural being who would listen that my tax return would arrive on time. There is no consequence for uttering a tackful plea to the prime mover. Only the most clumsy, clueless authority would attempt to subdue an individual who was quietly praying.  Of course, if one were to handle serpents or chant in tongues, the constable may be summoned to quiet the commotion of those frightened by the spectacle.

What I think the evangelical impresarios really want is to hold services in the pubic commons. They want to make a show of their humility. They want expressions of devotion and ultimately alignment to their way of thinking. They want to see a universal protestant Jesus haunting that pervades every aspect of our lives. Preferably with a Southern Baptist twang.

Rendering the commons religious in some way is only a blueprint for social upheaval. It is worth recalling that the Puritans did not come to the new world for freedom of religion. They came for freedom from other peoples religion.

What could people mean when they suggest that we govern according to Gods law? If this picture looks like Deuteronomy, I’m moving to Canada.  What does Gods law say about the uniform building code or municipal zoning or the transport of hazardous goods or ten thousand other ordinances and statutes that have the most real impact on our lives?

I’m pretty sure that the bible is silent on most of the code that affects our daily lives. But you can bet that people will line up to tell us what the Almighty has to say about it.

On Expired Patents

4 Replies

The website Latepatents.net has collated a top 100 list of companies with a link to their individual expired US patents.  Said patents have expired due to failure to pay maintenance fees and not due to normal expiry. I checked a random sampling at the USPTO and found that indeed the patents were expired.

Readers will have to determine for themselves the value of these heaps of company treasure lying about the Public Domain landscape like so many abandoned Buicks, tanks still full of gas.

Given the quality of the companies that have the prematurely expired patents, and the resources they surely spend on IP management, I’ll hazard a guess that most of these patents were allowed to expire on purpose.

Patents are obtained for many reasons. One invention might lead to prompt and exclusive sales and profits for its owner. Another invention might lead to possible cash flow in the future if certain circumstances align properly. Some patents may be intended to be put up for lease or sale. Still other inventions serve to block competitors from facile entry into your line of business, so called “picket fence” patents.

It is not unusual for a given bit of intellectual property to become obsolete before the natural expiration of the patent. Technology can advance sufficiently such that a process or composition is no longer competitive. A company can move away from a technology package for business reasons having nothing to do with the suitability of the patented art.

Finally, I think that some patents are obtained simply because the company has a “policy” that requires the disclosure of inventions and subsequent mechanical submission to the attorneys. If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you’re running an intellectual property office, every disclosure looks like a patent. 

If too many “improvements” turn into applications, it may not be the fault of over-eager patent attorneys. More likely, it is the result of choices made by company management. I have witnessed a few circumstances where managers have been reluctant to exercise business judgement and have heaped the decision to patent solely upon the hapless attorney. What choice does the attorney have but to prosecute the patent?

It is my opinion that business people far too frequently allow their attorneys to make IP business decisions for them. The typical excuse is that it is a “legal matter”. The question for a business person is this- Can we make a choice that prevents the issue from becoming a legal matter?  Sometimes we use lawyers because we need a surrogate to do the dirty work for us.

The common default choice found in IP is that if it can be patented it should be patented. This is an expensive and weak-minded philosophy and I’ll wager that the patents in the aforementioned list are expired as a result of some second thoughts on the value of these inventions.

Aurum Oracle, What Say You?

5 Replies

Watching the market take on water like a leaky Liberian freighter, I’m wondering about the wisdom leaving my assets in the 401(k) plan.  It’s a fact that the market goes up and the market goes down. The question is, what kind of games do the fund managers play as share prices fall? Do they sell-off many low priced shares for fewer shares of stronger stocks? If so, how does that affect your recovery as the market strengthens? I don’t know. Sounds like its time to understand this better.

Gold has been steadily increasing in value since at least June of 03 (near the limit of my horizon). Since stock prices started to nose downward in early 4Q2007, the slope of gold price growth increased. The inverse price trend with investor confidence in stocks is normal behaviour for gold.

But looking at the upward trend in gold prices this decade, I’m left to wonder if there isn’t some fundamental change happening. If the price is rising due to global demand, who is out there steadily driving up prices? Are there big players who are in the know?  And what are the consequences for individuals?

The Astute and the Cagey

1 Reply

It is possible to split business organizations coarsely into two camps- Old Testament and New Testament. Old Testament organizations tend to be conservative along all of the organizational degrees of freedom. Employees have conservative mannerisms and dress, decorum is strenuously observed, desktops are always neat and tidy, and the management of personnel tends to be rigid. Lots of complicated rules and no mercy.

New Testament organizations on the other hand, tend to be more tolerant of iconoclasm and Bohemian values. The New Testament company is all about redemption and mercy. Ties are hastily donned for visitors from Old Testament businesses because Friday business casual lasts all week. Startups tend to be New Testament.

New Testament businesses are like friendly Unitarians and liberal Quakers, while Old Testament businesses are like sober Pentecostals and Mormons. One is not necessarily better than the other, though if you are caught in the wrong “denomination”, you are probably very unhappy.

Having once experienced the transition from New to Old Testament management, I can say that it can be a very uncomfortable ride. This transition can cause people to elicit interesting or unexpected behaviour. One of the insights that I have had relates to the manner in which people may engage in discussion or negotiation.

Some business managers are naturally very shrewd or astute individuals. They are able to achieve penetrating insights into relationships and circumstances where others might just see a toothy grin or hear a plausible excuse. After all, even Freud had to admit that sometimes a cigar was just a cigar. But the astute business person may be able to intuit a more creative view.

Sometimes, however, astute is confused with cagey. A cagey manager can be shrewd, but the difference is that a cagey person is one who is fundamentally unwilling to reveal information. Why is this important? Because information is the currency of trust. Information truthfully (and carefully) revealed is what allows relationships to move forward. Information about your intent and interest can go a long way to make a potential customer feel better about the business decision to buy your products.

Cagey managers may go well beyond simple mistrust of everyone. They may also be convinced that they understand what the customer “really” wants or what their real intent is. It is possible for smart people to step across the line and enter a space where they believe they can see what is happening behind the curtain. It is a very dangerous thing for a manager to think he is smarter than the customer.

The time tested optimum path is to take the customers word at face value, even if it means that you will get taken advantage of now and then. Give the customer what they ask for and not what you think they really mean. You can’t fall off the floor.

Google Patent Search Tool

10 Replies

The Google Patent Search tool seems to be rather useful for some kinds of patent search activity. I had been using SciFinder or other search tools to find patent numbers that I would then enter into pat2pdf.org to get a single download file copy of the patent. The reason for going to pat2pdf was that it would combine the individual pages of the patent  from the USPTO and download a single combined pdf document of the patent. The Google search tool does this and more.

Our patent office seems to have failed to catch on to the fact that users would prefer not to download patents 1 page per file. Maybe the USPTO has changed this recently or has an upgrade in process. I don’t know.

Among the nice features, it provides links to citation and reference patents. It also provides links to the US classification designations listed in the patent. The default page seems to include the claims and with the click of a button the user can pull up the description or abstract. It also provides a link to download a pdf of the patent or a direct link to the USPTO.  A person can scan a patent without having to download a pdf.

I would say that Google has a handy search tool for at least fairly superficial work.

Wherein Gaussling Pontificates on Ridiculous Events

4 Replies

Th’ Gaussling holds a peculiar view of the theory of the universe. In addition to quantum physics and the big bang, I maintain that the universe will continue to exist until every ridiculous circumstance that can exist eventually does exist.

Accordingly, Th’ Gaussling is personally responsible for ratcheting the universe a few notches closer to its eventual doom. That is my frank admission. Here are a few examples:

Exhibit 1. Forklift-Boat Collision.  As a young lad I spent a great deal of time at our family business. My father and grandfather had a metal fabricating company that specialized in the manufacture of farm implements. As a result, the precocious young Gaussling learned to use power tools at a very early age. By age 12 I could perform arc, gas and spot welding; operate a variety of brake presses and heavy duty shears; layout; a small amount of blacksmithing; and operate a fork lift.

One day inside the plant the 13-year old Gaussling was joy riding on the propane powered forklift. The rear wheel steering with its short wheel base assured that the machine could turn on a dime, but it could be prone to over-steer in the wrong hands.

This day, turning around a corner just a bit too fast in youthful zeal I over-steered the turn and promptly over-corrected my recovery.

Unfortunately, the Pauli Exclusion Principle puts strict limits on how particles can occupy a given space and, as a result, the boat that was sitting on its trailer in the space I intended to occupy underwent an elastic Newtonian collision with the forklift. The boat appeared as though it would tip over from this collision, but for some reason it rocked violently and returned to ground state.  All was well, except for a meter long gash in the trim of the boat.

Exhibit 2. Airplane-Dog Near-Collision.  The clouds were scattered and the winds were light and variable.  Th’ Gaussling was shooting touch-and-goes solo at the local airstrip flying a left-hand pattern on runway 29.  Abeam the numbers on the downwind leg about 800 ft AGL I pull on the carburetor heat, chop the power to 1600 rpm, drop 10 degrees of flaps, and trim the airplane for 60 kts. This is the transition from flying machine to sinking machine.

“Longmont Traffic, Cessna 714 Yankee Bravo turning base for two niner.”

As I rolled onto base, I drop another 10 degrees of flaps, cut the throttle to about 1200 rpm, and dial in a bit more nose down trim. Things happen fast in the landing phase of flight and as soon as you get onto base you have to prepare to roll out onto final approach.

My favorite part of flying is landing. It is like ballroom dancing. The airplane becomes a part of the pilot and the two must deftly and with fluid-like motion arrange to kiss the wheels onto the ground. 

Coming over the fence I chop the power to idle, and rely on my peripheral vision to give clues as to altitude.  Coming over the runway threshold, I bring the nose up to level flight attitude (flare) and allow the machine to sink as airspeed bleeds away maintaining directional control with the rudder.

Just as I flare I catch a glimse of something ahead that boggles my mind. I can’t believe it! A dog- a black Labrador, to be precise- has wandered onto the runway dead ahead!  Somebody’s darling doggie is about to get sliced by the propeller.

Here were my choices- 1) Plow through the dog, 2) attempt to steer around the dog, and 3) attempt to hop over the dog. By the time these choices are in my head, the airplane has touched down and we’re in the landing roll.

Since I had slowed down to “full flaps” stall speed, I was reluctant to hop the plane into the air in ground effect for fear of the subsequent drop to the ground. The dog was too close for acceleration with added power, so option 3) was no good. 

Option 1) was highly undesirable for obvious humane reasons. But option 2) could easily result in oversteer off the runway at high speed in a 3-wheel machine full of 110 octane gas. This was no good either.

Instead, I opted for a combination of 1) and 2). I applied heavy braking while turning off center only slightly. I was not about to get injured trying to avoid this airdale that had wandered my way. If I hit the dog I would just have to deal with it. At the last moment, a black streak to port told me what happened.

I missed the dog.

Exhibit 3. Mercury Shower. Whether in production or on the benchtop, filtration is a problematic operation. Against ambient pressure, vacuum pressure is limited to a pressure differential maximum of 1 atm.  For a minimally equipped fume hood, pressure above can be supplied by carefully holding your finger on the nitrogen bubbler and carefully applying pressure to the Schlenk filter. This way, the filtration time can sometimes be minimized.

One day in grad school, leaning inside the fume hood I was attempting to apply pressure to my filter flask by holding my finger on the exit of my mercury bubbler. At some point, the seal of my skin yielded to the pressure and the high pressure N2 shot mercury up through the bubbler, past my finger, where its trajectory carried it to the top of the hood. As it is prone to do, the mercurial fluid broke into a zillion tiny beads, many of which rained down upon my head. I could feel the delicate tapping impacts on my prematurely grey locks and my shoulders. 

After the ritual spewing of foul utterances, not over pain or distress, but over the hazardous mess, I set about cleaning up the mercury spill in my space. I removed my shirt for disposal and shook my head until I was dizzy.

Hours later, I visited the university health office for a visual inspection of my scalp and ears. No point in delivering mercury to my pillow.  The nurse was at first reluctant to inspect me, but relented if only to hear the story of why I was there. Later I was pronounced free to go home where I would lather-rinse-repeat all evening.

These are stories of circumstances that have advanced the universe 3 clicks forward in the net cosmic ridiculousness.  This very post could be a 4th.