The second ignores physically predefined efficiencies, which are usually significantly smaller than 100%. I take up this subject in detail on the following page.

First, I use general examples to illustrate the complexity of technical problems. Some of these have little to do with the contents of this book. If I were to discuss the efficiency of hydrogen cars right off the bat, the brains of a hydrogen proponent would then kick into “strike” mode. The “backfire effect” sends its regards (see Backfire Effect).

Efficiency

Efficiency is the ratio of what comes out at the back to what is put in at the front. Efficiency in all technical processes is less than 100%.7 When, for example, an electric motor converts 80% electrical energy into rotational energy (see chapter Energy and Supply), it is then 80% efficient. The remaining 20% of this electrical energy represents the incurred “losses”. According to the law of conservation of energy, these are not really lost, but converted into another form of energy: heat loss. If this isn’t properly dissipated, the engine will break down.

When you connect several technical processes in series, you can easily calculate their overall efficiency by multiplying the efficiencies (not the losses!) of the individual processes. If, for example, the efficiency of a coal-fired power plant is 40%, i.e. 0.4 (correct on average), the efficiency of the electric motor intended to drive something is then 80%, and the efficiency of the electric grid is then 92% (8% losses). You calculate this as follows: 0.4 × 0.8 × 0.92 = 0.294. In concrete terms, this means that 29.4% of the combustion energy of coal is converted into the rotational energy of this electric motor.

Efficiency is close to 100% only in a few technical processes. These are pure combustion processes, electrical processes and processes with incompressible fluids (water).

In all other technical processes (mostly so-called “circular processes”), which have to do with gases or where combustion is associated with a mechanical drive (gas turbine, internal combustion engine), efficiency is significantly below 100%.

This is a physical and not a technical limit.

Improvement is not possible.

The Last Percentages – Cutting Losses

“Nach fest kommt ab!” (Tight is followed by off!) says the German fitter when tightening a bolt. This means nothing else than that anything overdone makes no sense and is even counterproductive.

This can easily be illustrated: When we assume that a large electric motor has a connected load of 100 kW (it needs 100 kW from the electric grid), but the mechanical load is only 50 kW, it will then have 50 kW in losses (which are usually lost as heat). If you want to improve this motor and make it produce 1 kW more mechanical power, then you have to reduce the losses by 1 kW. 1 kW better at 50 kW corresponds to a 2% improvement. In doing so, the losses must be reduced by 2%. This seems simple.

Technical devices are better nowadays, however. Efficiencies are much closer to the maximum achievable value. Assuming that a modern motor with a 100 kW connection load converts 80 kW into a mechanical load, this means 20 kW are lost. If you want to improve this motor by 1 kW, this means a 1.25% improvement. The difficulty here: Any losses have to be reduced by 1 kW from 20 kW to 19 kW. That’s 5%. That’s a lot.

It’s therefore much more difficult to achieve any improvement when trying to optimize systems that are highly optimized already. Most of the time this kind of thing is associated with a lot of effort. It’s easy to reach an explosion in costs. That’s why you have to find a financially acceptable compromise most of the time.

Standards and Guidelines

You are constantly being confronted with new rules and guidelines. Technicians and engineers have “standards” for this. This is currently getting out of hand. Standards and guidelines aren’t the same in every country since the conditions aren’t the same. The purpose of standards is safety. Road traffic regulations are also written for safety’s sake.

In order to draft standards and guidelines, experts convene in order to discuss these. The difficulty is that as these experts try to prevent accidents, rules must be formulated in such a way that they don’t lead to an incapacity to act. This is even stated in the standards. Expert knowledge is therefore necessary to draft them. By the way, standards must always be adapted to the “state of the art”.

Not every innovative technology is beneficial everywhere. For example, aeronautical engineering is “conservative”, and innovations find their way into the market only very slowly. The failure of a single component can mean hundreds of deaths. That’s why computer-only control of an aircraft is prohibited (every processor is faulty) and why it’s mandatory to install important sensors twice (called redundancy). Electric airplanes designed for passenger transport are difficult to make because each battery must be monitored individually, since an airplane will crash in case a battery catches fire. Boeing can tell you a thing or two about this after they installed new types of batteries solely to power their instruments, and these had started to burn. The planes were “grounded”, just like the Boeing 737Max today. Even a Tesla car had posed insurmountable problems in Austria for several weeks because it wasn’t possible to transport the burnt-out vehicle wreckage. Electric cars had been approved, but nobody had considered the fact that this kind of a car could catch fire as well. Incidentally, 50 years ago, the German “NSU Prinz” automobile was dubbed “a lighter on wheels”. The registration authorities do know that cars can burn.

It took Airbus a long time to obtain the approval for components that weren’t made of aluminum but of fiber-reinforced plastics. Such a thing wasn’t permitted at the time, but was already standard in glider construction. Many tests proved that the components would be able to withstand the imposed loads. Then certification was assured and everything seemed fine. One was astonished to find that these airplanes were becoming heavier and heavier. The reason was that plastics soak up a certain amount of water (~1%), demonstrating that even the experts sometimes fail to consider the little things like this. In this case, it was of no critical importance, but in an airplane with a structural weight of 30 t, 1% also means missing a payload of 300 kg.

All in all, these rules and laws exist to make life as free as possible from any danger. However, these must be written in such a way that the limits are not too stringent in order for any action to be possible at all.

Furthermore, laws mustn’t conflict. For example, measles vaccination has become mandatory in schools. However, if a student refuses to get vaccinated then this means a conflict with Germany’s law of compulsory education.

Technical “Spoilsports”

The following lists examples showing that expertise in the respective area is required in order to be able to report on or evaluate these. Other examples show that supposed trivialities can bring down entire concepts.

Both can only be met with knowledge and competence.

Wind Turbines

This section applies the chapter entitled “The Last Percentages – Cutting Losses” to wind turbines.

The most efficient wind turbines achieve an overall efficiency of 50% (including all electrical and mechanical losses) at certain operating points. About 59% is the maximum that’s possible, as the scientist Betz had already calculated in 1919. This is the physical limit; more is not possible. Compared to the maximum achievable, these systems thus have an efficiency of 0.50/0.59, which corresponds to 83%. That’s darn good.

The press reports that new wind turbines “which are 2 to 3 times more efficient” have been developed. This means that the engineers who had developed them up to now were, according to these journalists and reports, both ignorant and stupid.

But if up to 83% efficiency is being currently achieved, then “twice as efficient” would mean 166% efficiency. Therefore the authors of these articles report about a perpetuum mobile.

Electric Scooters

Electric scooters, as mentioned before, are considered to be “innovative”. Some young guy had simply screwed a motor to a scooter and mounted some batteries on it. A few years ago, the marketing newspaper “Brand Eins” had lifted the young “inventor” into stardom. Nowadays, “young” and “innovative” are used synonymously. This kind of thing caters to a certain “pigeonhole thinking”.

When riding a bicycle, you know that it is easy to roll over when you pull the front brake too hard. This is worse on a scooter, as its wheelbase (the distance between front and rear wheel) is shorter. An article about these scooters can be found in a “Autobild” German car magazine issue from 2019. It had commissioned DEKRA, an official German technical authority like “TÜV”, to measure the braking performance in several models: Most electric scooters have a braking distance of 4 meters starting at 20 km/h. The deceleration can be calculated from it, which is only 3.9 m/s2, and is slightly more than half as much as that of a bicycle.8 Electric scooters therefore do not fit into current traffic conditions, as they do not correspond to the state of the art.

An article in the German car magazine “ADAC Motorwelt” [63], reporting on these electric scooters on over a three full-page spread, is indicative. It particularly mentions the high accident rate of their riders. The deceleration of 3.9 m/s2, the figure that would establish this relation to the state of the art and represents the main causes, is not mentioned.

Before making them street legal, you could also have examined the problems that other countries (like Israel) are having with them, or you could transferred these problems from the time when inline skates were so popular: Ten wrist fractures were being admitted to every hospital of any major city on any fine weekend in Germany.

I’m getting ahead of myself: Why were these scooters still allowed on the road? The reasons are several: First of all, we want to get our young people on the side of politics. The latter also knows that the “energy turnaround” cannot work. These days, communicating politically incorrect facts is not permissible: In this case, everyone, including the politicians, would otherwise be “shredded” by the press. So, you bow to the pressure. This also gives you a stage that you can use to demonstrate to the public that you are an “environmentalist”. “Electro” sounds good and is “politically correct”. That’s the way German decisions are made.

However, cost-intensive wrist operations are no “environmental protection”, but instead counterproductive: these accident victims are being sacrificed to preserve the power of the respective party in power.

Outer Space Transporters

Some thirty years ago, a European research project was launched to compete with the Space Shuttle. It was called “Sänger” (The inventor was Eugen Sänger) and consisted of a sub-stage that was supposed to fly as an airplane up to an altitude of 30 km. On top of it sat “Horus”, which was supposed to separate with rocket propulsion at this altitude and fly into space. Sänger looked like a pointed triangle and was flat. Attached to the bottom were engines that looked similar to those on a Concorde airplane.

Sänger always had to be flown at exactly one angle of attack so that the engines would deliver the thrust that the engineers had actually calculated to the third digit. Let’s say it was 8.735°. The angle of attack is the angle between the longitudinal axis of the airplane and the air flow. The Sänger project was developed further over several years with this in mind. A professor said it had involved “computing orgies”.

An engineer then had the “stupid” idea to ask how this 8.735° could exactly be maintained. Not at all! Because an aircraft never flies straight ahead, but always slightly high/low-high/low. This is called a “phugoid”. Every aircraft engineer learns this when studying “flight mechanics” in college. This is movement is similar to riding a bicycle through the snow and seeing that you are always zigzagging. Going straight ahead is impossible.

The engines thus had no longer delivered any thrust at this angle, and the Sänger project “died”. They didn’t advertise it, but let it sink into oblivion instead. It was a little embarrassing.

Carbon Fiber Concrete

Considered a “major innovation” in Germany a few years ago: carbon fibers that had been cut into small pieces were added into concrete to produce a concrete that is not only pressure-resistant but tensile-resistant as well. But you should know that fiber-reinforced concrete is nothing new. Metal fibers and (special) glass fibers were known at the time. Glass fiber reinforced concrete can even be used to build thin-walled boats.

One had now mixed carbon fibers into the concrete. This certainly works excellently, but it has one big disadvantage: Carbon fibers are about 5 times more expensive than glass fibers. It therefore makes more sense to mix twice as many glass fibers into the concrete in order to create the same material properties. This concrete thus contradicts the basic principles of mechanical engineering: Concrete is a cheap material. Carbon fibers are very expensive. But it is pointless to combine cheap and expensive things because the disadvantages of the cheap material (concrete) cannot be outweighed by the advantages of the expensive material (carbon fibers).

Since being awarded the prize, no one has heard anything more about the material. Experience has shown that, unfortunately, even professionals are now impressed by things like “carbon fibers”. It’s synonymous with “high tech”. Incidentally, cost-conscious people try to avoid high-tech materials as much as possible because these demand big compromises most of the time, which is not to say that they’re superfluous everywhere.

Elbow Pads and Citybike Frames

The same was true for elbow protectors. The “idea” had been born to build these from pure carbon fiber reinforced plastic in order to be “innovative”. But this material is sensitive to impact, shattering almost like glass. The formula “carbon fibers = great = innovative” was applied in this case as well.

Bicycle frames in citybikes frequently suffer from impacts or blows. Carbon-fiber reinforced plastic breaks in the process from “delaminating”. But some people also got the fine idea to build citybikes with frames made from carbon fibers. Research funds are granted for this kind of nonsense.

Summary of the “Spoilsports”

The examples show that no matter how promising a project or new idea may be: When physics provides a single “striking” argument demonstrating that the thing does not work, then you have to accept it. These can be arguments that even professionals haven’t taken into account even though it belongs to their core canon of knowledge, as this aspect isn’t taken into account in the concrete case. It's thus not as in normal life where you are able to circumvent certain problems and difficulties.

The following applies in this respect:

Physics is ruthless.

You cannot negotiate with physics.

Good intentions don’t help here either.

Aramide fibers would have had to be added to the elbow protectors, as is very likely done in the case in Formula 1 cars with their monocoque shells that protect their drivers from accidents.

In the case of carbon fiber concrete, the cost calculation will always throw a monkey wrench into the works. Otherwise, it’s interesting to see that when it comes to these kinds of technical matters, psychology or “positive thinking” or “visions” often stand in the way of a reasonable solution (see chapter “Anti-Logical Psyche”).

Exactly this, i.e. “positive thinking”, is being placed on a pedestal these days. But this doesn’t help any when the laws of nature stand in the way.

A chapter with similar examples is presented in this book in chapter “Normal Insanity”. “Visions”, among other things, that are currently circulating through the press are examined in a critical light there. It can already be said with certainty that these will fail because the reason for their failure lies beyond the designers’ imagination, and partially in other areas: An all-encompassing view is lacking, and the insight that technology is not only about one’s own area of expertise.

“Monocausal thinking” has taken hold everywhere.

Perfection Mania

Large parts of the European population are uncompromisingly against nuclear power, against black coal, against brown coal, against carbon dioxide, against glyphosate, against killing animals, against pesticides anyway and, of course, they are against wind power plants because these shred bats, insects and birds, against new high voltage power lines, against plastic waste, against diesel fuel, and you eat a vegan diet. Of course, you do sports and prefer “healthy” food. Anyone who deviates from this “forced optimization” is verbally abused and insulted. These kinds of threats are often made in social media. For someone who feels morally superior, this somehow doesn’t seem to be a problem at all.

The press spurs on veganism by portraying the appalling conditions that animals are partially being kept under. Some animals have been truly maltreated in the past. People were fewer at the time, and the animals were fewer. Many things used to be normal. Most things became better – some, unfortunately, worse. Probably many older stables are still being operated under the “grandfather clause”. The conditions under which cattle are living in the stables built according to the latest EU standards are not being portrayed. This kind of thing doesn’t generate ratings or attract readers. It’s certainly very important to address any deficits, but the world doesn’t consist of deficits alone. This is where “selective perception” kicks in (see chapter Selective Perception). The fact that animals don’t fare well when it comes to factory farming prompts you to conclude that factory farming is fundamentally bad.

The press reports about castrations without anesthesia. The marginal notes tell us, however, that the EU was not ready for a regulation here. One would have been forced to administer medication first. This, however, contradicts other regulations concerning the pesticides or drugs permitted on the market.

Let’s take a brief look at those “good old days”. Everything was much better back then, wasn’t it?

“The Good Old Days”

Some time ago I read from a journalist: “In the past, everything used to be organic.” My response to this at the time was rather clumsy: “Beating women used to be standard. Animals used to be petted?”

Kings had died from their beautiful red and green wallpaper. The colors of these had been made with mercury salts in combination with lead or copper. At some point people had realized that these bright colors were poisonous. They were then used as insecticides and fungicides. Today, organic farmers continue this beautiful tradition with copper.

Washing clothes was a challenge. You washed them with soap and a washboard – a thing with a metal sheet in the middle that was folded in a zigzag, and an insane hassle to the housewife.

Less than sixty years ago people had used a radioactive radiator with a shield affixed on top of it. People used to put their foot and their new shoes into it and could directly see the space left by their toes in the shoes. This wasn’t done at the hospital, but in the shoe store. It was considered progress when you could immediately see how your new shoes fit.

Fifty years ago, people who ate schnitzel received the same dose of hormones as from a birth control pill.

There were no nicotinamides for insects and no glyphosate. Smoking wasn’t harmful to your health. “Better reach for an HB (cigarette) - then everything will work out like a charm” was the motto. Beriberi was on everyone’s lips (which is why we should always eat “whole grain” food). Copha (“Palmin”) closed the pores of the meat. Scurvy was caused by a vitamin C deficiency, and the power of Omo detergent “went through the knot”. All this, by the way, “allegedly”.

What’s more, “innovations” hadn’t existed yet. These were dubbed “progress”. In the past, people moved forward, today everything is new.

Wikipedia reports that potato varieties were still being cultivated in the Third Reich (variety “Forward!”), which had about ten times as much solanine, the poison of the nightshade plant, as today’s varieties. Times back then were so good because less poison had to be sprayed because the poison was in the potatoes. One small disadvantage: If you ate 1 kg of potatoes you were dead. Rudolf Steiner (philosopher and founder of the Waldorf schools) said: “Eating potatoes makes you stupid”.

Since people knew about such things, no one would ever come up with the idea of doing something like that. The purpose of food was to get calories into your body – in contrast to today where we avoid calories in order to chase after an ideal of beauty.

No decent drugs were available. Women had a hard time: They died of childbed fever, or their children did, or both together.

Many people died of syphilis, which usually ends in dementia in its final stage. The first effective drug against it was called “Salvarsan”. It was a mixture of heavy metals. The Farbwerke Hoechst chemicals company produced the toxin during the Second World War. Local residents were often forced to shut their windows, as everything often became covered with the yellow factory dust. Near blast furnaces, on the other hand, the factory dust was red. Epidemics abounded as well as children’s diseases that resulted in permanent damage or death. Letterpress printing letters were made of lead, which is why many printers died of lead poisoning. Sweetening was done with lead sugar. Cars were operated on leaded fuel. The lead dust was blown into the environment. Water pipes were made of lead as well, but this was regarded relatively uncritically.

Plants were fertilized with excrement. It's well known that it can be toxic. EHEC sends its regards.

Since no insecticides existed, every household was plagued with insects such as cockroaches and the like. Windows had no glass – only the upper class had glass windows. The English word “window” comes from the word “wind-eye”. It was for ventilation purposes so that you didn’t die of carbon monoxide poisoning when heating your quarters. As mentioned before, Immanuel Kant was also plagued by vermin in his study and certainly in bed as well. It would be interesting to know how many people suffered from arachnophobia, i.e. a fear of spiders. I almost wrote “arachidophobia”. No: Peanuts were unknown in Europe.

To stay with the subject: The old railroad trains used to be pulled by beautiful steam engines. The ride used to be quite ramontic – excuse me, I meant “romantic”. Apart from the fact that many stokers in locomotives went stupid because they suffered from continuous carbon monoxide poisoning (tunnels...). In December 1952, 12,000 people had died from the smog in London.

Romantic relationships were uncommon in earlier centuries. “Romantic love” was promoted in poetry, by the theater and the media. Marriage was for convenience and only had to do with “love” in exceptional cases. Children were needed to feed you in old age.

Five droughts were recorded in Germany around the year 1240, similar to that in 2019. This is evidenced by “Hungersteine” (“hunger stones”) that served as famine memorials in rivers, which had showed up again for the first time in 2019. There were no trucks and no water pipes. Thousands starved to death. First, the old people were left to starve and then the children. Survivors were marked for life.

<1 2 3 4 5 6 >

На страницу:

Перейти

3 из 6