iChallenge

Here is an iChallenge for the iPeople who are developing the telecommunications wonders we have today. You designers of the Kindle, Nook, iPhone, iPad, iWidget, and all of the variants spreading away from the core technology. I know you are clever and hard working people. There is no doubt.

What about developing or just relocating manufacturing processes that can be run in the USA? Shouldn’t the fabrication technology be lined out and automated to the point where it can be operated nearly anywhere? One of the things that the advance of technology brings is reduced headcount per unit of production.  How do we justify off-shoring manufacturing that is highly automated? What is the advantage if inexpensive labor is not needed? It must be something else.

If taxes are the issue, then let’s look at the numbers. Quit the handwaving. We need a company like Apple to pony up some actual numbers. Make your case like you did in B-school. Manufacturing doesn’t have to start up in the expensive SF Bay area. Plants can be built anywhere the public infrastructure already supplies utilities and transportation.  Could it be that many of the arguments for off-shore manufacturing are related to a deficit in imagination rather than rigorous calculation?

And to the iConsumers out there. By demanding these wonderphones, you are only making the trade deficit worse.  Public corporations are people, or so the thinking goes. What is with these people? Do they not have any sense of loyalty? Are they even trying to manufacture in the USA anymore?

 

Whither Helium?

A friend from western Pennsylvania was showing me photos from a recent trip to his native land. He was stunned at the extent to which natural gas infrastructure was creeping into the countryside.  Former neighbors and distant cash poor/land rich family members were cashing in the family sod for piles of lucre offered by the gas barons.  All aboard the good ship Marcellus. And if you missed that boat, the USS Utica is right behind it.

So,some of the eastern states are full of gas? It makes one wonder if the gas holds much helium?  Helium is very important as most readers of this blog will know. Helium’s low boiling point makes for a useful low temperature thermostat bath for superconductors. Helium sits within nested Dewars in NMR cryostats, quietly bubbling into the atmosphere, where it begins its random walk to the cold vacuum of space.  In exchange for tipping protons in the rotating frame, we send helium atoms back into the cosmos.

Helium supplies were interrupted recently with the maintenance shutdown of a plant in Wyoming.  This square western state also blows gas. Tremendous amounts of it. The sweetening process for all of this gas produces massive amounts of sulfur byproduct. 

It is not uncommon for Th’ Gaussling to sit at the rail intersection in his Colorado town and count rail cars clacking south in the dark of night, all full of molten sulfur from that other square state.  I have counted as many as 85 cars in one train all stencilled with “Molten Sulfur”.  All headed to, I presume, somewhere near the Gulf coast for, perhaps, sulfuric acid production.

I think we users of helium need to be a bit more vocal, or more curious at least, about the strategic reserves of helium. A lot of technology and sevices rely on it.  Has anyone looked at the Marcellus and Utica reserves for helium??

Fulminate- Noun or Verb?

I think it is fair to say that most chemists are familiar with the fact that mercury fulminate, Hg(CNO)2, is a pressure sensitive explosive material. But because only a few of us actually handle such materials, myself not included, thankfully, the history and actual boundaries of safe handling practice are probably somewhat indistinct. Mercury, as the fulminate or the metal, has been applied to the extraction of gold and silver from ore. The former as a primary explosive for blasting compositions, and the latter as a solvent (and possibly a reductant).

In the course of my ongoing studies in historical metallurgy, I have been searching the very earliest history of chemicals and processes related to the extraction of gold and silver. The threads between these two metals in history are closely interwoven and include an extensive list of civilizations, scholars, monarchs, banking institutions, viceroys, scientists, engineers, and chemical technology.

One fascinating thread in the metallurgy of gold and silver is the role of quicksilver. The discovery of native mercury occured independently in Asia, the Iberian penninsula, central Europe, and the American CordilleraCinnabar has been used as a pigment by aboriginal peoples for adornment and decorative purposes back into prehistory.  There is no documentation in written or other form of the sudden discovery of native mercury. The earliest references to metallic mercury are from Pliny, who mentions some curious properties of the substance in relation to gold, namely, that gold was the only substance known to sink in quicksilver, leaving behind the mineral components of the ore floating on the surface.

The invention comprising the use of quicksilver in the refinement of silver is usually attributed to Spanish merchant Bartolomé de Medina in the part of New Spain comprising what is now Mexico. According to the story, Medina was approached by a German known only as “Maestro Lorenzo” who described a process by which ore was treated with sodium chloride (sea salt water) and quicksilver. Medina travels to Mexico and develops what will be come to be known as the Patio process.

The Patio process proves to be a substantial improvement over smelting processes known in Europe at the time and this fact leads to a long term demand for quicksilver in the Americas. According to records from New Spain, for every quintal (100 lbs) of silver extracted, two quintales of quicksilver were consumed in the Patio process. The primary quicksilver mines in operation by the close of the 16th century were Almaden in Spain, Idria in Slovenia, and Huancavelica in Peru.

Over time mercury was used to produce explosives, Fahrenheit‘s thermometer, and antimicrobial preparations. The discovery of mercury fulminate was crucial to the production of detonating caps for mining and bullet cartridges. Unlike NI3, mercury fulminate, Hg(NCO)2, could be isolated and handled, albeit with great care.

The shelves of a chemist (or apothecary) of the late 18th century would have certainly have contained sulfuric acid, nitric acid, numerous salts, sulfur, lime, various extracts and elixirs, caustics, etc.  It was inevitable that one day someone would combine nitric acid, ethanol (“hydrated ethylene”), and a metal or its salt.  This particular admixture of nitric acid and ethanol, to which a metal oxide or other compound was added would produce a mixture whose vigorous ebullition with the evolution of vapors and smoke would be referred to as fulmination. A residuum or precipitate recovered from the mixture came to be known as a fulminate.  The treatment of red mercury oxide with nitric acid and ethanol produced a mercury fulminate. 

Mercury fulminate was discovered by Edward Howard around the year 1800. The details of his work were published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol 90 (1800), pp. 204-238.  The paper can be found at jstor.org and is worth a read. In it Howard describes an experiment wherein he detonates a small quantity of mercury fulminate in a thick glass vessel and notes the relatively small volume of gas produced in the explosive reaction. He also notes the presence of finely divided mercury on the vessel walls.  The reader will notice that Howard fabricated a rudimentary electrical resistance heater as an initiator to stimulate the fulminate into decomposition.

Howard’s attempts to evaluate this fulminate as a new type of gunpowder are also detailed. Howard’s experiments show that the fulminate reliably burst the breech assemby of all of the guns tried, but strangely did not have the ability to propel a ball with the energy of an equivalent quantity of gunpowder. What he learned was that great sensitivity does not necessarily confer high explosive energy.

As an interesting aside, it was later determined by Gay-Lussac, Liebig, and Wöhler that silver fulminate had the same composition as silver cyanate. After much debate, Berzelius was able to introduce the idea of isomerism to settle the matter.

Mass Transfer Hijinks

Wow. Got a big reminder of some principles of  mass transfer the other day.  Kettle reactors have big limitations if your material won’t mix.  Even if your reaction is approximately diffusion limited, it is possible for things to go haywire if you can’t get it to move. A fellow knows this, but when confronted with it the magnitude seems greater than expected. There must be an exponent in the equation. Scheisse.

Stupid Tricks with LN2

One of my favorite tricks with liquid nitrogen (LN2) was to pour some onto a chalk tray at the bottom of a chalk board. The skittering, madly boiling liquid would entrain the chalk dust from the tray and transport it to the end where it would plummet to the floor making that wonderful muffled popping sound. The chalk dust would be splatted onto the floor where it would lie as a thin, mysterious white cake. I suspect the janitors were rather less delighted by this than I was.

Today’s youthful chemists, these tender shoots, probably think that dry erase white boards have been around since the time of the pilgrims. That’s OK.  I’ll not speak of squealing chalk, long leatherbound erasers, and chalk dessicated hands. The use of blackboards and chalk will remain our little secret.

Business and Government

There is a common conceit out there that business people are in possession of some kind of skill set that makes them uniquely suited to occupy congressional and executive seats in government.  While business folk have organizational experience in general, it is hard to reconcile why the citizens of the USA would want the autocratic style of business lorded over them. Business serves the interest of shareholders primarily and stakeholders a distant second. Government serves at the interest and pleasure of citizens.

The imperative of business is to grow for the profit of the shareholders. Given this basic reality, I fail to see why a businesslike template should be applied to governance. We do not want government to grow for it’s own sake. 

Business, in principle at least, has better command and control feedback. Or so goes the thinking.  Have you ever tried to get an answer or some kind of satisfactory resolution to a problem from a very large company? As an individual with average cash resources, your singular pull is usually not very large.  If we are going to let market forces have control of national and state governance in the manner conceived by hard-right political candidates, what of the individual?

The marketplace is a kind of 24/7 professional wrestling match. It is a Darwinistic contest of the strong vs the weak. Do we really want to be governed by this kind of system? Do we really want every single aspect of our lives to be a dog-eat-dog competition? I thought the purpose of civilization was to buffer some the harshness out of our lives.  Do the proponents of 100 % laissez-faire really want the system to snuff out the weak and those of lesser means?  That would be those who occupy the opposite side of the bell curve from those of means.

The notion that we should let market forces freely influence governance is popular among those of means.  The privatization of government services will immediately benefit those who are already flush with resources. Because only those with current resources will be able to step into such a position.  It would represent a transfer of power to those who already hold commercial power. Power is in the ability to allocate resources.

Why low and medium income republicans favor privatization of government services is a complete mystery. The loss of control over the influences in their lives to unrestrained market forces is contrary to the common self-perception of rugged individualism.  Money and power tend to accumulate into the hands of a few. Examples are all over the place.  This is the lesson from the age of monarchy and of robber barons. 

Privatization in and of itself is not the answer. It is just another type of concentration of power that favors corporations and individuals who already have the resources to buy a seat at the table. Why would citizens of ordinary means want this? 

Well, they wouldn’t want this ordinarily. But if you create a stampede of frightened citizens, it is possible for a small group of highly motivated demagogues to steer a frightened herd in whatever direction they want. This is precisely what is happening today.  The overthrow of the prevalent system by such means has many examples on history.  Just look around.  The manufacture of consent is a thriving business.