Dawkins: Speaking the Ineffable

Warning!! The following text contains links and declarative statements that may cause chafing or philosophical infarct.

The Richard Dawkins BBC programs “The Root of All Evil, Part 1 and Part 2“, are quite worth the time to view. It will no doubt be uncomfortable for some. Dawkins is very much a promoter of reason and doesn’t restrain his blunt questions at all. 

What is interesting to witness is Dawkins’ genuine surprise when a few characters respond with an absolute and even threatening rebuff to his reasoning.  I think he truly expected to move these people to see his point of view by the force of reason.  In many ways, this program portrays a world very hostile to the analysis of belief.

The whole notion of belief as an inviolable, sacrosanct capsule of “vital essence” seems to be hardwired into our brains.  For many, the prospect of another person drilling into your personal theory of the universe (God or physics) is both profane and invasive.  Like most people, I am not keen on being “examined” like some analytical sample either. But in the end, a “theory of everything” that can’t survive scrutiny is not worth having.

Perhaps where Dawkins goes astray is at grasping the difference between being analytically correct and just being comfortable with an idea.  Few people have the overlap of both curiosity and the opportunity to cover some new ground in the scholarly examination of the Big Questions.  In fact, it seems that the methodical pursuit of novelty is not a universal trait in culture.  A great many people are perfectly happy to live and believe as the ancestors did. 

Dawkins is not shy about drilling into the bedrock of belief. I think between Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, there is a growing realization that religion should be studied analytically as a natural phenomenon rather than exclusively as a subject of devotion. 

Communication Codewords

Within organizations there are always people who are very quick to demand better communication. When you hear them make this statement, you might understandably believe that they wanted more information out on the table for discussion. One could take this to mean that their intent was to come to a group concensus.  And, for some people this is the case.

But for others, the word “communication” is a kind of code word. It means something like this- “YOU need to disclose this information so I can make the call on what is going to happen”. It is about control, and in most organizations much of the day to day conflict that arises has to do with control over some kind of resource. It is the root cause of much bad behaviour by grownup persons who should know better. When you think about it, power is about the the ability to allocate resources.

Many people who bark about communication are vocal about receiving it, but are poor at reciprocating.  That is, they are an information black hole, or a kind of WOM-  Write Only Memory. Such folks are great at demanding information, but somehow can’t be as diligent about it themselves.

If you have a leadership role where these kind of conflicts are occuring, the best thing to do is to bring conflicting parties together and mediate or facilitate the communication between them.  If you are not in a leadershop role, the best thing to do is to be guilty of generosity with information.  Send information by email and save copies of the correspondence for CYA.

Enomagnetic Resonance

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopists have finally crawled down off their crosses and condescended to the application of their technology to something really useful- the study of wine NMR spectra. If you believe the attached article, a restaurant in NJ has purchased an NMR spectrometer for the purpose of determining the quality of wine.  Evidently, the contents of a cork-sealed bottle can be examined by proton and 13C NMR.

Jeepers.  I wonder if it is hard to get boxed wines to spin inside the magnet? \;-)

One question. Does the rotating frame turn the opposite direction for Australian wines? 

Chemical Business in Russia- One Experience

Hearing of the passing of Boris Yeltsin, I can’t help but remember my trip to his northern empire in 2000.  We boarded a Lufthansa flight in Frankfurt, seemingly filled to the scuppers with jabbering Russian tourists anxious to return from their trip abroad. We left rainy Germany for the port city of St. Petersburg, near the mouth of the Neva River. Most of the terrain was obscured beneath heavy clouds so there was nothing to see until our descent at 10:30 pm. The sun sets late at 60 degrees north in the spring.  As we were coming down from cruise altitude, the lush green landscape became visible through breaks in the clouds.  We were going to land in Russia.

While the purpose of the trip was business, I was determined to soak in as much of the experience as possible. I had a total of one paltry year of Russian language in college so I could at least sound out the words and recall a tiny bit of vocabulary. 

In the late 1990’s doing business in Russia- that is, buying Russian goods- could be complicated. This was late in Yeltsin’s term and a kind of cynical take on the free market was beginning to set in.  Earlier, the eastern bloc had imploded and the communist hold on Russia was in deconstruction. Under Yeltsin a select few had managed to amass wealth- the so-called Oligarchs.  But as a few like Khodorkovsky were to eventually learn, wealth does not automatically confer political power in Russia.

Doing business in Russia was a highly manual activity. In 2000, the start of the Putin years, Russia lacked much of the business infrastructure that we in the west take for granted. When I say “business infrastructure”, I refer to the whole picture- commercial credit; internationally compatible contract and tort law; credible mechanisms for the flow of currency; GAAP; a multimodal transportation network; a comprehensible market exchange for commodities; and a market place with suppliers and specialists for the many instruments of finance and insurance. 

In the Yeltsin years, many formerly state-owned factories came under control of people who conducted business in facilities through quiet arrangements behind the curtain.  Factories would operate at low intensity or would even be shut down until orders came in.  Workers were furlowed and operated taxi’s or did other odd jobs until an order arrived.  Maybe this still happens today.  I don’t know.

We needed product that was made by a very few specialists in the world and one of those vendors was in central Russia.  Russian manufacturers are as skilled as we are of course, but there are differences in business culture that may be hard to anticipate.  Western standards concerning documentation was a particular problem.  I recall that our vendor was quite carefree about lot traceability and packaging.   They also had the maddening habit of reusing old lot numbers.

Then there was the problem of shipping.  Russia did not then, and still may not, have anything remotely similar to Aldrich.  Now, you probably think of Aldrich as the “chemical supply house” and you’d be right. But I’m thinking of Aldrich as the “master of logistics”.  Logistics in Russia was a problem.  Ground transportation was unreliable. Our solution was to hire a local to bird-dog the whole process.  It was worth every penny.

One of the differences I found was in the attitude of the few manufacturers I was in contact with.  They were usually aware of western prices for their goods and were never afraid to demand Aldrich-type pricing.   In the west, the customer is king.  That is just taken for granted.  Uppity suppliers are soon former suppliers. 

What I ran into in Russia was something that I hadn’t seen anywhere else, including China or Taiwan.  Our Russian supplier wanted to dictate terms and was unwilling to budge- I think they call it “Vlast”.  We absolutely needed better prices for the raw material.  I’m sure that there were urgent arrangements behind the curtains that were part of the need to stand fast. But in the end, it was their absolute inflexibility that caused them to lose the business. 

While in Russia I did try to source other raw materials and “vendors” who could supply spot buys of particular compounds.  At the time, many chemical factories were partially shuttered, so custom chemical processing capacity was very much hit and miss.  Processing equipment sat in dark and idled buildings waiting for a purchase order and prepayment. 

We met with principals in an empty flat to talk about the manufacture of custom compounds. But the same problem always arose. They wanted cash up front, preferably deposited in a European bank.  I was very clear that this was not the transaction model that we were accustomed to and in fact, this requirement was a showstopper. My Russian contacts were mystified that an American would come all this way only to refuse to pony up the cash to get the ball rolling. And that is where my attempts at trying to do business with Russia ended. 

The operators of the factories I was in contact with had the pots and pans, skilled staff, and expertise in the technology- these guys were first rate technocrats. At first glance, what they lacked was the benefit of investment capital to plow into their operations to find and service customers.  But, digging deeper, it wan’t just the hard cash they lacked. There was a system-wide lack of free market history and culture that, elsewhere, would have provided the institutions and mechanisms to exploit opportunity. 

I admire Russia and I believe that they will eventually get their system working well.  But they do need to get away from the fascination with the strongman model of governance. From my travels I have concluded that countries with cultures that date far back are simultaneously blessed and cursed by it.  They are blessed by the warm embrace of cultural richness. But they are also cursed by it because it can be a sort of ball and chain that complicates the adoption of change.

Note: This was written a few months prior to posting.

Copyright 2007

Verbal Beatings by “Professionals”

One of my pet peeves is the use of the word “Professional”.  It is the ultimate lever. Or, at least the ultimate big stick. Any given cube-kibbitzer can say “Well, that just doesn’t look professional” and their flatulent comment will somehow be imbued with a kind of transcendent credibility. Other cube-sitters will piously nod their heads in agreement- “We’re concerned that the chair just doesn’t look professional”.

Management or HR can proclaim that your attitude, presentation, or apparel isn’t “professional”. The word professional is a kind of wild card, a Joker in a stack of social cards that can mean anything you want it to mean.  It is a kind of peer pressure of the sort that the cool students in high school used to decide who was cool and who wasn’t.  It is an upgraded “ugly stick”.

What is amazing is the extent to which it works. It is like a phaser set to stun. It stops people in their tracks. This is why I keep saying that business is part of anthropology.

Creeping Featurism: Too much Software

My big problem in life, other than being age 50 on a runaway train with the Grim Reaper, is a plurality of software.  It crept up on me while I was standing there, slack-jawed and admiring of all of the pretty colors and pull-down menu’s that were a mouse click away. What a wonderous stack of riches, says I.

In any given week, I can find myself at the console of a Bruker 300 MHz NMR, an HP GCMS, an older HP GC with stand alone integrator, a TA Instruments TGA, a Cecil UV/Vis, A Perkin Elmer FTIR, two GOD**MNED cell phones, an office voicemail system, the business MRP accounting system (&$^#!#!@!), office laptop with many applications in Word, Excel, Access, Contact, GoldMine, ChemDraw, SciFinder, a telescope driven by The Sky, numerous platforms on the internet, two home computers, two cars, and, oh yes, a family. And don’t forget my cruel mistress- Chemistry.

It all adds up to a bit too much. I use perhaps the top 5-10 % at most of nearly every software on the list.  The standardization imposed by Microsoft Windows does help with basic navigation, but the data workup and all of the particulars put me into an eternal state of “technological Alzheimers”. I keep asking “Now, how did that work again”?

Then there is the password issue.  All of the computers I work on have some level of security, and so passwords are required to get in. Blessedly, being a networked system, my network password usually works. But passwords expire and it is a constant battle to remember all of them. But if you log onto the Aldrich catalog, or any number of other on-line systems, entry requires a password.

Each of these computerized marvels is layered like an onion with hierarchies and taxonomies unique to the miserable cluster of sods who wrote the code. These sadistic canker blossoms … whoa! I’m getting carried away here. Easy does it, skippy.

Then there are the rules- business SOP’s, IATA, DOT regs, Customs issues, TSCA, policies, lab safety, Hazmat storage, respirator training, new Homeland Security regs, flash points, HMIS numbers, Haz Waste issues. 

This week I did bench chemistry, wrote an MSDS, issued and received inventory in the accounting system, defined SKU‘s, ran a few TGA‘s and FTIR’s, defined some product specifications, did competitive intelligence and worked out some costing and pricing, sent out some quotes, sat in mind-numbing meetings, took two long days to write a report, noodled through some patents, sent some products out the door that I made with my own hands, and received a few new orders.

It was a productive week in fabulous industry. They don’t call it industry for nuthin’.

Lost Comments

Sorry to a couple of commenters whose cogent additions to the blog were lost. Their comments were somehow trapped in the spam gill net and then plinked into the 12th dimension. When the God Akismet is angry, even Th’ Gausslings superior left clicking skills begin to fail.

Thorium and Methanol

As we track down the back side of the petroleum curve, we will see a transition from the alkane/alcohol fueled Otto engine to a greater reliance on electric conveyance. Here is some wishful thinking-  Ethanol as a direct petroleum replacement will collapse under the weight of scrutiny as better cost data becomes available. Eventually, ethanol will be prized foremost as an oxygenate additive replacement for MTBE. 

Methanol and Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbons from coal and biomass will provide high energy density fuels for the carbon-neutral future as petroleum scarcity drives other technologies into play. The Fischer-Tropsch liquified fuels technology from 20th century pariah states (Nazi Germany and South Africa) will assume a greater role in the post-petroleum age.

Fermentation of starch-derived glucose to ethanol and CO2 is too wasteful in the end to be attactive.  Fermentation of cellulosic material to acetate is more mass efficient. Esterification and reduction of ethyl acetate affords ethanol. One company, ZeaChem, (former coworkers, actually) is already working to bring this technology on stream. It remains to be seen how it will go over. I wish them well.

Electric power for the future will come from many sources. Distant, centralized power plants will channel energy across the grid to home-charged automobiles. Electrons travel fast and quietly over the lonely wire. They do not require fleets of ponderous 18-wheelers to move them around in limited quantities.

I see a future heavily reliant on electrons supplied from nuclear plants. Uranium-235 infrastructure will continue to supply fuel to nuclear plants for a long time. But the low abundance of U-235 (o.7 %) and the ever present proliferation potential of Pu-239 from this fuel cycle raises questions as to the wisdom of building U-235 nuke plants in the third or fourth tier states.

A more obscure nuclear fuel that is more abundant than uranium will see a phase-in as demand on the present nuclear fuel infrastructure exceeds supply.  That fuel is Th-232. Thorium-232 is  generally more abundant that uranium and has the additional benefit that it’s major isotope, Th-232 , is the nuclide of interest. Th-232 is not a fissile nuclide, but is a “fertile” isotope instead. Th-232 absorbs a neutron in a reactor seeded with U-235 or Pu-239 to provide an initial neutron flux to become Th-233, which beta decays to Pa-233 which further beta decays to U-233.  It is U-233 which is the fissile nuclide.  U-233 then participates in the fission chain reaction that generates the heat.

You can’t make a nuclear weapon out of Th-232, though in principle you could make one from U-233. The downside of a U-233 bomb is the high specific activity of this isotope.  U-233 is intensely radioactive and poses extra problems in handling.

The economics of thorium energy is advantageous in many ways to that provided by uranium/plutonium infrastructure. Thorium is abundant in monazite formations- reportedly up to 16 % thorium oxide.  The present problem with the thorium cycle is handling the intensely radioactive U-233 that remains in the spent fuel elements. Separate processing infrastructure will have to be put in place to supply reactors that burn thorium before this fuel can go forward.

An HTGR  Brayton cycle reactor with a helium turbine could provide up to 50 % thermodynamic efficiency.  Combine this reactor design with the potential cost savings of the more abundant Th-232, and you have a technology that is well set to provide power to keep the lights, cable TV, and the internet going into the post-petroleum age.

Check out the blog dedicated to Energy from Thorium. I’m writing about thorium because I think it is an important fuel and it needs to find its way to mainstream thinking.  

American Parliament, part II

In a previous posting, I daydreamed about an American system that more resembled a parliamentary system. The motivation for this is that our executive branch has apparently gone astray with the presidents military ambitions in nation building under the guise of the war against terrorism. The ability to dissolve a government off the election cycle and repopulate it with different characters seems like a desirable attribute.

Viet Nam and GW-II are examples of ideological pageantry lead by stubborn presidents. Like the fighter pilot who is so target fixated on his opponent that he follows him into the ground, we cannot allow our presidents to drag the country into self-inflicted disaster.

As suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the noises now coming from the White House concerning Iran resemble the noises made by the same White House about Iraq.  What is strange about this distressing circumstance is this: The checks and balances that are provided by the constitution seem to be inadequate to restrain the executive.  The congress seems to be genuinely flummoxed.

Despite popular sentiment and wise counsel by very well regarded citizens, the president continues to press for ideological conquest in the middle east.  Despite the floundering dollar, no-child-left-behind-except-for-4-million-uninsured-kids, and tera-dollars of debt accumulated in the “War Against ______”, our executive continues to press on within the bounds of the constitution.

The question is this: Does the US Constitution provide adequate checks and balances against the abuse of power?

I suppose it is inevitable that a president would be elected who didn’t have both oars in the water. Who knows if this guy really is disturbed. But the executive retains substantial control of the military.  The president is able to amass a vast force of civilian security contractors who seem to be beyond the audit of the congress.  Does your view change when they pack weapons and answer only to the executive branch? Did the framers miss this possibility?

The US has a president that is hell-bent on performing a script that is neither transparent nor mandated by anything other than the enchanting voices of a few dark characters who are temporarily burrowed in the White House. We’ve had 2 terms of a war president. It’s enough.