How do Planes Fly and Parachutes Float?

Not too long ago, Pocket ran a reprint of a piece that said that we really don't know how planes fly. Gee, the Bernoulli principle and other explanations did not suffice?

I then turned my attention to what might be the explanation and posted it on Twitter. I'm no longer on Twitter being as I could get no one to interact with me on that douchebaggy of a venue that is really only for the "blue checkmarks" and those who grovel at their feet.

Anyway, what I said was that the density of air could explain why planes fly. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction--Einstein never killed that one, and that leads me ask, "have you ever tried to move a 4x8 plywood in the wind?" It's a terrifying task. The slightest wind will knock you over. 

Likewise, if wind can easily push a 4x8 plywood, a plane's wings could just as easily push against the air, and when it does, it would compress the air thereby raising the density of the air, THEREBY causing the plane to float above the high density air that it created. At what air speed do hurricanes lift up entire buildings? I believe 150 mph does substantial damage. Now, what is the speed of a jumbo jet? it's in the hundreds, of course, and we need to ask ourselves, what difference is there between fast moving wind and a fast moving wing? I submit that there is little difference. Further, what is it that prevents a large surface like a wing from plowing through air vertically and parallel to the Earth? Is it not simply the density of air? What is it that makes it so impossible for a plane to get out of a plunge? Is it not the density of air now equalized on both sides of the wing such that sideways movement locks the wing in place because of the higher density of air it haplessly creates?

Air, unlike liquids, is compressible and it's entirely possible for the air to be so compressed that it's density is higher than that of the plane. Occam's razer comes through for us. If you doubt that air can compress and turn itself into a "solid" just consider why a comet or asteroid would break up as it enters our atmosphere--it is not because of friction although friction can make it easier for matter to break apart once it encounters--or creates--air of sufficiently high density.

It only seems counterintuitive because we easily plow through air with our hands but it should be realized that the more you compress air, the harder it becomes to continue compressing with that same amount of force.

Does a submarine also move vertically by a similar phenomenon? Liquids are not compressible and the simple answer is one of Newtonian laws. However, ultimately, yes, it's the same phenomenon except that you need to compress air before your plane can act like a submarine in water.

Before I leave, I must offer some explanation with regard to gliders. They are not propelled by engines. So, what gives? Well, it is my understanding that a glider will eventually be forced to land but note that its wing surface to airplane weight ratio higher than that of a powered plane's. That greater surface area is needed to enable a higher density air to lift the glider. Interestingly, a glider seeks hot air currents to fly higher and hot air is definitely LESS dense than cold. What gives? Well, Newton to the rescue, that hot air is moving upward and when it hits the wings of the glider, it compresses and allows the glider to float on it--just like the powered airplane with smaller wing surface to airplane weight ratios.

Finally, let's consider the parachute. It never falls straight down but always to one side or the other. Those parachutists who land on a bullseye have some rudimentary steering available to them. The parachute is like a heavy object falling down a hillside. It creates a dense layer of air that lends some support but inevitably it will sink towards the less dense air surrounding it. That is, unless you cut a small hole at the center but what is that hole doing? Is it not releasing the high density air that is trapped within it?

So how does a parachute work vis-a-vis our theory? Because of the higher density of air within the parachute and the greater kinetic energy of that air, the parachute is able to remain open and thereby lower the total density of parachute+air+parachutist allowing the "object" then to float through the atmosphere on its way down.

If BernieCare Should Hold Sway

If healthcare is made universal and the healthcare industry in the U.S. is given the amount they now bring in, it would eventually require a budget far bigger than that of the military. With a population of 330 million and at a cost per enrollee of $12,000 (2011 number) the yearly costs come to 4 Trillion dollars.  From that you could probably only deduct 1/2 Trillion dollars if everyone in the country paid a $1,000 premium. To offset the costs of Medicare for all, the premium would have to be closer to $8,000.

The only fair solution is to require a progressive healthcare surcharge on every source of income in the country. Nothing wrong with that, we do similar taxation with S.S. and medicare.

There is no doubt that the program would be costly--and it would double by 2040 (CBO). For me, the imperative would be to find every which way of lowering costs and not leave it up to market forces because, to date, they have failed to contain medical costs. My UniCare program would increase efficiency and make things affordable and sustainable but it is too radical and not something a candidate would embrace for it requires thinking outside the box that the medical lobbyists have put us in. However, there are actions that we can take no matter the healthcare plan.

1. If the medication that was prescribed did not work, the patient/UniCare is refunded the money. Too many refunds would tell us that the medication lacks efficacy or the physician is unable to select the right medication for the patient and may be incompetent or engaged in fraudulent practices.
2. When a medication is prescribed for a chronic condition, the patient should have automatic refills instead of having to see the doctor every 3 months. When there is the possibility that a medication could cause adverse reactions, automatic testing should be done such that the patient goes and gets the testing done on his own initiative w/o first visiting a doctor. (controls for this are easily implemented)
3. Laboratory and imaging companies should provide the results directly to the patient so the patient can review the results and write down any questions for the eventual visit. The main objective of this is to ensure that the doctor is on his toes and addressing every medical concern that comes up. Strict guidelines should be implemented with regard to retesting. The days of medicine being an "art," are long gone--we're way beyond hocus pocus. Perhaps the surgeon can lay claim to an artform but no one else.
4. Pharmacists and nurses should be given a license to prescribe common medications. You just don't need 12 years of higher education to prescribe a kid antibiotic drops for an ear infection or a middle-aged person blood pressure medications. With the latter, not even a doctor looks for uncommon causes of high blood pressure and for good reason b/c it needs to be controlled regardless of etiology. How idiotic is it for insurers to allow a psychiatrist to say to his patient, "how are you doing with your anti-depression and sleep meds? Want to continue using them? OK, he's the script, see you next quarter for more." You do the math on a decade of this.
5. Patient records should be on the cloud. It is inexcusable for government not to demand this of healthcare professionals. The AMA would fight us on this because it would mean that that data can be mined for signs of malpractice or incompetence or fraud.
6. No treatment should be undertaken by a doctor unless an A.I. program has given its seal of approval. Naturally, particularly b/c A.I. is in its infancy, a doctor would be allowed to override the program but not without justifying his position. You would think that doctors would welcome an A.I. program that would absolve them of any medical malpractice--this alone would be a great savings which he/she could keep or pass down to his/her patients.
7. No communications should be allowed between your present doctor and previous doctors. With records on the cloud, there is simply no information about the patient that needs to be provided surreptitiously between doctors. This--I admit to it being a suspicion on my part--would be an ideal mechanism to blacklist the "problem" patient to his severe detriment.
8. Every person who dies while under a doctor's care should have his cloud records inspected.
9. Government should establish surgical centers for common and sometimes repeated surgeries like kidney stone removal. I don't think a patient on BernieCare or other plan would object to traveling a bit to be operated on by a doctor who's done thousands of them and has been mandated to use the latest equipment and techniques.

The Socialist Healthcare Manifesto: A Paradigm Shift to Stop the Madness

[Note: I apologize if this offends truly empathetic doctors who are not out solely for money. If this paradigm shift happens, I think you'll enjoy no longer chasing after the greenbacks but concentrating on your noble profession the way it was meant to be.] [The name UniCare is used here and I apologise for its use if it has intellectual property protection from elsewhere]

I hope everyone knows the meme that we pay the most of any advanced nation on Earth and yet receive care that is--putting it kindly--less than optimal. How do we correct this imbalance? We can try incremental changes as has been proposed by the GOP but this smacks of duplicitousness because they most likely would not want to implement the second change until the first has succeeded and that could take decades. I'd go with their suggestion, however, if we could implement each change before previous changes had run their course; otherwise, how will we know of the negative interactions between them? But let's dive right into my proposals, shall we?

1. Diagnosis
• The first order of business is to have the patient go to a diagnostician who uses computer assistance (UniCare Software or UCS) and testing to properly diagnose the patient's condition. How many of us have gone to a doctor only to have the doctor try this or that until he hits on the right treatment? A doctor goes to medical school for over a decade but invariably his diagnostic work turns out to be a trial and error process (he'll never admit to it but it is often the case). It would be nice if one doctor could do diagnosis and treatment but it's inefficient at best. The expert that we need--with few exceptions--only does diagnosis and nothing else. This diagnosis is passed on to the proper specialist who then provides the necessary treatment, again, with computer assistance that provides him with protocols to follow. BTW, there may come a day when a medical school degree would only be required of the diagnostician and surgeons who require more advanced training (neurosurgeons, heart and orthopedic surgeons).
• Pregnancies would probably require birthing centers where woman can go to get prenatal care and obstetrical procedures.
• The main cost advantage is that with specialization comes increased accuracy. Costly inefficiencies like improper diagnoses are minimized. Also, pharmacists and nurses can do diagnoses of more common ailments; referring the patient to a specialist diagnostician if unusual elements present.
• The treatment doctors also get a detailed diagnosis; you don't just get diagnosed with high blood pressure, you are told what's causing it (when possible) and, when there are multiple causes, what is the percent that each is likely to be contributing (ie. 30% weight, 30% diet, and 40 percent smoking)
2. Treatment Doctors
• Here we can establish various tiers or categories. Although all information will be on a cloud, the patient will have a hard copy of the diagnosis for verification purposes.
1. Medicinal treatment of common ailments treated with relatively benign drugs. The patient is given the option of seeing a nurse practitioner or a pharmacist when medically appropriate. An incentive might be to offer a zero co-pay when you go to a non-MD/OD for treatment.
2. Medicinal treatment of more unusual ailments treated with drugs requiring extra care. Here you might encounter anti-coagulants, chemo, etc.
3. Surgical Centers. If the diagnostician determines that you need surgery, you will go to a public non-profit (UniCare) surgical center where highly trained and highly specialized surgeons will operate on you. At first, these centers could be part of the Veterans' administration hospitals. If the surgery is needed ASAP, the patient can go to a private hospital where costs will covered by UniCare. Emergencies like heart attacks, trauma, and others can be handled by private hospitals where, again, costs will be covered with no out-of-pocket expenses but the private hospital must determine if it's a true emergency; if not, the patient is referred back to a UniCare hospital.
3. Laboratory
• Today, laboratories and imaging centers respond only to a Dr's script and they provide results only to the doctor. It's time to change this paradigm.
1. The prospective patient should be allowed to request any diagnostic procedure that is not invasive (venipuncture allowed). However, he or she must pay for the test out-of-pocket, but if positive results are returned, his expenses are refunded. What is the advantage here? Let's say you suspect you have a medical condition but would like to try and treat it yourself via alternative medicine or lifestyle changes, this will allow you to do that. Further, you've avoided that first visit with the GP--saving money--and have possibly made the diagnosticians' job more efficient with results in hand.
2. What does providing results only to the doctor mean? First thing it means is that you need to go see the doctor and pay for the visit before you know anything. If the results are totally negative, there is no justification for a visit but we find that at the time the doctor orders a blood test, you are given an appointment for your next visit to discuss the results; results that may in fact be negative. Also, some results are borderline and do not require immediate and aggressive treatment.
• There is something else that could go a long way to fixing our healthcare. By giving the patient copies of all lab/imaging work, the physician is kept on his toes for now if the patient should die, the family has the data in their possession with which to pursue a malpractice claim. Sometimes, it's not incompetency on the part of doctor--it's that, as a businessman, he's motivated to "keep things moving," at a detriment to the patient. Along these lines, something else that might be beneficial is that the patient has all the time in the world to keep track of his numbers and is more likely than the busy doctor to see important trends. Please remember that the only time a doctor gets to see trends is during your visit--will he/she spot it within the time they give themselves?
4. Oversight
• I've heard it said, half-facetiously, that physicians bury their mistakes. But the truth of the matter is that nothing could be closer to the truth because there is no proper oversight.
1. When someone dies at home, the cops question family members with an eye to uncovering wrongdoing. However, who investigates the medical practitioner at the time of his patient's death. Absolutely, no one. In fact, whatever the doctor says is taken as the gospel truth--if he's even questioned at all. There is no investigation, no pouring over the patient's chart to look for signs that the doctor may be incompetent. While it may be too much of burden to do this in every case (though, I personally don't believe it is) there is no reason why a government agency can't randomly select doctors (like the IRS does with tax returns) and look at how they are handling the care of their patients. I propose, three strikes and you're OUT, you've lost the right to practice medicine. This auditing should be for all physicians not just those accepting UniCare patients.
2. Diagnosticians' ability to properly diagnose will be rated and action taken to correct. Any changes in diagnoses must take place after consultation with the diagnostician.
5. Medication
• Medication is expensive but there are ways to lower costs
1. Others have proposed buying at the same cost as that which Europeans or Canadians pay. Definitely a good move but what's the hold-up?
2. Why should any patient who has a chronic illness that requires meds for the rest of their lives need to go back 4 times a years just to get renewals? The answer the AMA would tell you is that the doctor needs to assess or look for adverse effects but how does the doctor assess these effects? Is it not via lab tests? The renewal of medications under Unicare would require a patient--in lieu of seeing the doctor 4 times a year--to undergo pertinent testing. If the results are problematic the patient then makes an appointment with the doctor and if he doesn't make an appointment, his renewals can be cancelled.
3. At the FDA end, there is no reason why medications can't be introduced into the market without efficacy testing but with extensive safety testing. So, if the doctor and the drug manufacture believe there is reason to expect a product to work, give it a try; if it doesn't work, the patient gets his money back. The market will determine if a product is efficacious, and, if it just has a placebo effect, well, what harm is done?
6. What can Cuba do for us?
   
   • Cuba has a program where it trains doctors and the only payback is that they (the students) agree to work in a disadvantaged neighborhood ANYWHERE in the world for a certain amount of time. This appears to be a win-win and one which should be looked into.
7.  The patients' role
• The patient is asked to conform to certain requirements
• DNA analysis should be required at the start of UniCare enrollment with an initial aim of determining known risk factors. All medical personnel would have access to these results with the patient's' consent.
1. Let's say the diagnostician determines that you have hypertension (you went to him/her complaining of "not feeling yourself"). He sent you to a cardiovascular specialist (or cardiologist or I.M.) who then tells you that you need to lose weight and take some pills for the time being. OK, you do the pills, the blood pressure goes to normal but the specialist (or G.P.; tbd) follows a government/university issued protocol that insists you also lose the weight (UniCare doesn't want you on meds if it can avoid it). Follow the protocol and you're on the road to recovery. Don't follow the protocol--especially that weight loss thing--and a surcharge would be added to your taxes and continue for every year you don't lose the weight. When losing the weight, you won't be left out in the cold (we're not those other socialists, you know). Instead, you will be offered treatment plans that involve exercise, diet, meds, surgery, and psychology.
2. We wouldn't want to hurt the patient who has decided to go with a private insurer, and personally-selected doctor, so whatever this patient pays is offset by the amount UniCare patients are paying for similar services.
3. Patients judged to be hypochondriacal or otherwise abusive of the system as shown by patient history, will be referred to a diagnostician for evaluation.
8. Computers
• Extensive use of computers should be undertaken for every UniCare patient
1. Patient records are kept on the cloud and accessed via a UniCare Medical ID.
2. Artificial Intelligence will go a long way to ensuring the best care. The diagnostician will have an entire medical "library" at his fingertips. At one point, he'll be able to take a picture of a rash and determine its etiology. The nature of A.I. is that the more data is entered, the smarter it gets.
3. Artificial Intelligence will also help the prescribing doctor, nurse, or pharmacist. The treatment option with the highest rate of success will be shown first; however, these protocols will have options in order to address patient issues like compliance, adverse effects, affordability (hopefully, price would one day be a non-issue).
4. Any future treatments will always be checked against pre-existing patient history to determine contraindications.
5. Dietary advice will always be provided depending on the patient's illness. For example, a gout patient will be advised against eating sardines or high amounts of animal protein. A kidney stone patient will be advised against drinking too much beer or eating too much spinach. Nothing should be left up to the imagination of the patient or the failings of the treatment professionals. If put on a special diet, patients may give permission for an app to access their food purchases with an aim to determine calories and nutritional benefits or lack of and providing alerts and advice for better purchasing decisions. [if you don't lose the weight, you incur additional surcharges]
9. Implementation
1. Medical universities and teaching hospitals should start immediate development of the A.I. programs that will be used by all personnel at every stage of care. Common diseases will be addressed first with less common diseases entered as they occur.
2. I am not an economist but it would seem to me that something as important as one's health should be well-funded. I propose a progressive health surcharge tax on all sources of income. The rates of which are expected to go down as UniCare increases the efficiency of medical care. All who contribute to the fund will benefit. Those who opt for private insurance and doctors, will get a discount equal to what their doctors would have received under UniCare.
3. Establish a centralized national testing laboratory (NTL). Existing laboratories can do testing if they are willing to accept the costs of the NTL for the same test plus a reasonable handling fee.
4. Start enlisting physicians who want to specialize only in diagnosis. The A.I. program can, during the diagnosis stage, recommend treatment for simple acute disorders. For example, ear drops for an ear infection or other acute localized infections, creams for a poison ivy rash, etc. These can be prescribed by the Diagnostician in the interest of efficiency. If a physician wants to do both diagnosis and treatment, he may, of course, do so but when servicing a UniCare patient, UniCare software must be used along with agreed upon fees.
5. Establish surgical hospitals, one per every--to be determined-population size. Initially, these will be used for the most common procedures: gallbladder, kidney stone, etc.

Easy Wine Making from a Kit.

I just completed making 10 gallons of a Pinot Noir first fermentation from a "kit." Previously I had made 5 gallons of a Merlot also from a 'kit.' They are called kits but really they're just a big bag of concentrated grape juice along with packets of yeast, sanitizer, preservatives and fining agents.

The biggest problem I had turned out not to be a problem at all. The instructions that come with the kit specify that you have to obtain an SG (specific gravity) of 1.020 before you can start the 'secondary' fermentation. Using a refractometer, I found I wasn't able to obtain that low a specific gravity--at least not as measured by my inexpensive refractometer. The primary fermentation got stuck at around 1.025-1.030 and I wasn't able to lower it even with the various tips offered online: add B6 vitamin, add nutrients like urea and ammonium salts, and/or add some more yeast.

Even though my refractometer did not give me sufficiently low readings, I found an online calculator of ABV (Alcohol By Volume in percentage units) and plugging in the values of starting and ending SG, I discovered that I had obtained an ABV of 14 %. Of course, I should have known I had good stuff because of the buzz I was getting from my wines.

Aside from the refractometer, the only other equipment I splurged on was a stainless steel tank with spigot (the best way to rack) and a specialized lid that allowed placement right on top of the must at any volume of must. From my numerous gadget collections, I also had a digital non-contact thermometer that came in handy and a pH meter. Oh, and I also purchased a degassing tool (it's nothing more than a rod with what looks like a weed wacker line looping at one end and an opposite end that you insert into a household drill).

• Buy the kit for starters. You can mess around with your own juices later. If you use your own fruits, you are advised to kill any wild yeasts that might be present. Here, Campden tablets are both convenient and cheap. One tablet per gallon of must is first dissolved in water and then stirred into the must.
• Follow directions but do not fret over cleanliness or SG.
• We must remember that to this day, people still stomp on grapes with their bare feet and it's off to the fermentation tank without further ado. Furthermore, the yeast will start producing alcohol immediately and we all know that alcohol is a great disinfectant. Yeast also produce carbon dioxide and what that means is that eventually there will be little room for oxygen (what oxygen there was will be consumed by the yeast themselves and no oxygen means that nasty bacteria will not be able to thrive. Yeast will continue to thrive for two reasons: they start to ferment without oxygen (anaerobic fermentation and they are more tolerant of alcohol.).
• Instead of obsessing over the final SG number, what I found to be more telling and verified by the above-mentioned calculator is how much the SG has dropped after 3 to 7 days in the fermentation tank. In my Merlot fermentation, I had gone from 1.080 to 1.020 and in my Pinot Noir fermentation, I went from 1.090 to 1.025.
• The kit directions start off with a suspension of bentonite clay in warm water. This will aid in giving you a nice clear wine because protein particles stick to the bentonite and drop to the bottom. I found that the Merlot kit needed no further 'fining.' The kit has additional packets of substances that will aid in getting the wine even clearer but a little cloudiness doesn't bother me so I doubt I will use them for my Pinot which is in its secondary fermentation.
• The syrupy juice is then added along with water. For my Merlot I thought I would be smart and use distilled water but one site I went to thought this wasn't a good idea as yeast could use the dissolved minerals in spring water. Nevertheless, I was able to get a good-tasting Merlot with distilled water.
• The yeast comes next and packet directions should be followed to the letter but do not let the yeast sit in the preparation water for more than 15 minutes. Stir the yeast into the must but be sure that the yeast suspension and the must are within 9 degrees F of each other--preferably both at around 75 degrees F. The higher the eventual must temperature, the faster the yeast will go to work but try for under 80 degrees F. It should be noted that when yeast go to work, they produce heat and the temp of a 75 degree must could exceed the optimal upper limit of 80. I used a small fan aimed at the tank to play it safe. (probably a needless obsession on my part).
• The kit directions specify placing a cover with airlock onto the must but yeast--initially--need oxygen to get to work. Many wineries do not bother with covers--at least during primary. I decided to seek middle ground. I placed plastic wrap over the tank and left a 3" square opening that I covered with gauze. One site mentioned that a cover was a good idea because it would maintain a high carbon dioxide concentration need the surface of must and in so doing, ward off microbial contaminants; however, I've seen the commercial tanks used in primary fermentations and the liquid in the huge tanks is exposed to the air with ample air circulation. In fact, here is an article on the importance of oxygen during the first 2-3 days. The yeast need O2 in order to build their cell structures. It's so important that I'm thinking I'll buy myself a stainless steel diffuser like the kind you might use in a fish tank (see article) to use during the first few days (I'll try it on a one gallon run first)
• It depends on temperature, but usually at the end of a day, the must will start foaming. If left alone, this foam will dry out. It is advisable to "punch the cap" at this time by stirring the top layer. This allows additional oxygen to infuse into the must. I did this numerous times throughout primary (even when the foam had not dried out) but, in the future, if I can still see bubbles coming to the surface, I think I'll just leave it alone. This, only to minimize contaminants.
• At the end of 3 to 7 days, the must will stop foaming. If you measured SG at this point you will likely discover, as I have, that the SG (as measured by poorer quality refractometer--hydrometers may provide more accuracy at lower SG levels) has reached its lowest point. I've seen estimates that in the primary fermentation the yeast produce 80% of the alcohol and that you get the rest during secondary fermentation. I broke my hydrometer and haven't replaced it, so I can't verify this but at one point I had an airlock during secondary and I don't even remember seeing bubbles. I suspect that you can obtain a much higher ABV during primary if the conditions are right--higher temp and great starting must in terms of sugar content & nutrients)
• Now comes the time for the first racking where the top layer is siphoned off to a sanitized container to continue on to a secondary fermentation (with airlock). In some setups, that secondary fermentation will take place in that second container. However with my stainless steel tank with the spigot, I open the spigot and pour the wine into temporary "carboys" (five gallon spring water containers). I then clean and sanitize the stainless steel tank before putting back the wine from the carboys.
• With my setup, I lower the sanitized lid onto the tank and pump up the pneumatic seal that prevents oxygen from reaching the must thus preventing aerobic bacteria from spoiling the must. In carboy fermentations, it is advisable to bring up the level of must to within 1 or 2 inches of the airlock by adding pre-sterilized and must-temperature water.
• Experts will tell you that the reason to lower the SG to zero or better is that this ensures that your wine will be dry (free of any sweetness). But the bottom line is that if it tastes good and gives you a good buzz, why fuss with a good thing? Because I try to eliminate as much sugar from my diet as possible, I keep the lid on for another three weeks or more to attempt greater dryness but I seriously doubt that I'll have that much to go to get 100% of all sugar consumed and turned into alcohol.
• There can be additional racking done before bottling but this just gets you a clearer wine. If the clarity of your wine isn't that important, why go through the trouble of racking? Note that using a tank or carboy with a spigot adds another racking as you bottle. That spigot rides slightly higher than the bottom of the vessel permitting dead yeast & debris (the lees) to stay behind in that space below the spigot.
• When ready to bottle the wine and after having done the sanitize must, preserve must, and clarify must as outlined in the kit procedure, you need to degas the wine. This is done in a 30-60 minute time frame (if you're in a hurry; if not, you can just let the must degas by itself as it sits in secondary fermentation. Placing the degass tool in an electric drill and inserting it into the must, you alternate spinning the drill in one direction (clockwise) for 30 seconds and then switching directions (counter-clockwise) for the next 30 seconds; and so on, back and forth. During this step, you will see bubbles coming to the surface as a light foam that soon disappears after stopping the degassing.
• You can now bottle and cork the wine. I found that inserting a dry cork with a corker (I used the Portuguese corker) was very hard unless I first wet the cork using wine or a dilute solution of potassium metabisulfite (10% or less). The latter would be preferred especially if aging the wine for years but I see no difficulty with a little wine on the cork; after all, it sits in wine throughout the ageing period.

Here are some notes on sanitizing and preserving:

• Find yourself a suitable cleaner online. I used a "green" non-toxic preparation that I happened to have around along with a lot of hot water for rinsing. You want to remove all traces of must.
• Buy potassium metabisulfite powder (concentrations used are 10% (100 g/liter of water) and 25% (250 gm/liter of water). The higher concentration is used to sanitize equipment while the weaker one is used for everything else.
• Before starting work, I sanitize every surface that comes in contact with the wine.  I am obsessed with this because I've just spent $80 on grape concentrate and do not want to lose it to spoilage but whether the risk from not thoroughly sanitizing is real or not, I have yet to determine. But because it's not that big a deal, I'll continue to sanitize.
• See this piece Keep-it-Clean for a good summary of products used.

A note on sulphur dioxide gas:

This is a toxic gas given off by potassium or sodium metabisulphite. Free levels of the gas in the wine are essential to prevent spoilage and specialized tests are needed to determine if you have adequate amounts of it. When determining the amount of potassium metabisulphite to use, a pH determination needs to be made because you need less of it the more acidic the wine. There are easy formulas to use to obtain ballpark free SO2 levels based on the pH of the wine. These together with potassium sorbate should prevent your wine from spoiling while it ages. Determining free SO2 levels and adding the right amount is easily the most difficult thing to do right in winemaking. If you use a kit, the manufacturer has estimated the amounts that you will need for their product and has provided you with packets containing the right amounts. DO NOT BREATHE the powder and smell it in solution only by using the chemist's technique of gently fanning the air above the liquid towards your nose with your hand. The only reason for doing this is to see if that solution you made up two months ago is still potent.

A nutrition advocate seeks a better label | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

A nutrition advocate seeks a better label | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

I just know Harvard is going to miss the boat again. Neha Khandpur, SD ’16, in Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Department of Nutrition is doing nutrition label activism. The article, however, concentrated on nutrients and did not address the glaring problem of caloric content vis-a-vis weight loss efforts.


The solution, which I've proposed before directly to the FDA and the USDA is to print the TOTAL caloric content of a package (no exceptions--the head of lettuce doesn't get off easy anymore). Let's elaborate on the insanity as it is practiced today and how my idea has a very good chance of fixing obesity--for those who want to lose weight and who want to do it by caloric restriction. Yes, labels as they exist today do offer some meager information and we do read them to see, for instance, how many "empty" calories the product contains; but, does it help in the least with calorie counting? No, not unless you are a glutton for punishment.


Presently, one buys numerous products, brings them home, and either shares them or keeps them for his/her special diet. If you kept them for your use only, you still have to look at the label, calculate, and measure out your portions--it is tedious and not at all conducive to weight loss. Why? Ipso facto, no one does it much.


But, in a more sane world, what if you went to the grocery store with this thought in mind, "I would like to limit my calories to 7000 a week for sure-fire rapid weight loss" and what if you then went down the aisles and saw the TOTAL calories for the food of interest printed right there on label (I'd go one step further and print it on the front of the package)? Well, you would tally up the total of all the packages and easily determine that you were within target--you now go home, and limit your consumption to those packages which you determined at the store total no more than 7000 calories.You only count calories once, consume, and buy again. What could be easier?


Difficulties arise when you have to share the food with others but for that we await the right algorithms to create a smart scale that reads the barcode, weighs the package after each use, asks for the name of the consuming individual, subtracts from his allotment and warns accordingly. That one is just begging for online funding. The algorithm could also allow you to buy extra food and warn you if your consumption was exceeding a daily average (in the above case, 1000 calories)


One other difficulty I see is that of the consumer who is incapable of limiting choices but that person has to understand that he/she could buy a great variety for the week if individual items were purchased instead of bulk. But motivation is everything here and I thought it would go smoother if you limited yourself to fewer packages and then varied their content for subsequent weeks.


BTW, can anyone explain why foods have so little nutritional content--if you are to believe the labels, of course. I don't know about you, but until I get an explanation, I'll keep on making the supplement companies rich.

On the enigma of blindness and psychosis

This article lends credence to a theory I once had concerning the nature of schizophrenia. I have what I consider to be an uncanny ability to see faces in many textures. I was always able to see the "man in the moon," but one night, while stoned, I spotted a face in a weird table we had that was made up of crushed shells embedded in plastic. I found dozens. The more I looked, the more I found. None then or to date were very human-looking--they were mostly impish. But what if a schizophrenic isn't aware that his mind is picking up on these images. I propose having a clinician take an ordinary image and show the schizophrenic that, "hey, I can spot faces too and they never hurt me." The pictures can be created with a mask that can be superimposed on them to better enable the viewing of the "faces." I would call it a therapeutic Rorschach where the therapist sees things similar to those seen by the patient.

Kudos to League of Women Voters for Elucidation of NJ Ballot Questions

The sample ballot which we receive in New Jersey does nothing to illumine the issues/controversy surrounding the public questions to be voted on this election cycle.


After reading this unbiased take on the public questions before us, I've gone from two yes votes to two no votes and sticking to them.


The sample ballots, imho, should come with a link to the New Jersey League of Women Voters and their concise and easy to understand explanations on the repercussions of voting one way or the other. I hope they always do this because it is so needed and so refreshing to see two sides laid out in such a way that you know how you should vote. I am putting the LWV on my list of vetting tools.

Ebola and Its Travels Among Species

I read a very interesting article in the NYT which touched on the biology of Ebola. Something they said really got me thinking about viruses in general and their raison d'etre. Ebola, it seems, lives a peaceful life in the Fruit Bat; reproducing at such a rate that the bat is unaffected. As we know, when Ebola crosses species, all hell breaks loose. Why is this? Why cause havoc in one species but yet co-exist in another?

To make sense of this, I thought of the first predator. There was one, you know--there had to be a first. Now, whether this "predator" first feasted on other living things or first feasted on inorganic matter--still making it a predator of sorts--and then went on to prey on plants is something we may never know. But what we do know, instinctively, is that life blossomed on this planet as a result of the invention of photosynthesis, and, afterwards, the "first" predator had ample food available.* Fortunately, for us anyway, evolution does not sit still, the predator found itself being attacked by another predator.

Before we go on, we must bring out the violins and feel sorry for predator vis-a-vis the self-sufficient plant. Putting food on the table is the top concern of any organism. The plant has to find a way to get sunshine, water, and air but, for the plant, that's not that hard to do. The plant, of course, has to contend with the predator but not having to worry about food that much, it can utilize its genome to come up with defenses in the form of tough fiber, pointed fiber, and a vast assortment of poisons. But, as with everything, there is a fine line and the plant came to its senses and realized that it could employ the animal to disperse its seeds and provide fertilizer. What wonderful efficiency and frugality. The plant has chosen to give up making its own fertilizer (a few still do) and utilize the freely available animal dung. Can you say win-win?

There is wonderful cooperation between plants and their main predator, the herbivore. Unfortunately for those two bosom buddies (fortunately for us), there soon developed the kind of predator which forms the main focus of this post: the predator of the predator of which we are top banana or so we like to think. Now, the plant has poisons but what does the first predator (the herbivore) have? I submit for your consideration that it has infectious agents just like the Fruit Bat has Ebola. If a second or higher tier predator eats a Fruit Bat, it risks getting a serious infection if it has not developed immunity. I once developed the theory that viruses were a means of population control** but what I now have to add is that it is a means of population control of the 2nd or higher tier predator in order to protect the first tier predator. The first tier predator does not want to be wiped out but what defenses does it have? It is, after all, the staple for a higher-tier predator.

It is pure speculation on my part but I believe that these infectious agents surface as a result of first tier predators succumbing to stresses imposed by higher-tier predators. The zebra that relaxes after a lion has eaten one of its own can no longer do so because lions have overpopulated (a lion somewhere has found the means of outrunning the zebra, for instance) and are a constant non-stop day after day stressor.*** As a result of this stress, the zebra's immunity gets impaired and the zebra is more likely to become host to a virus. The zebra, of course, has to be lucky enough to not be so adversely affected by the virus that it dies from the infection. But the Fruit Bat did it and so, why not the zebra or any other vertebrate whose immune system is disabled from stress.**** Once our hypothetical zebra regains tranquility as a result of fewer lions, its immune system picks up and  mounts a great defense against future viral invasion. Is the Fruit Bat under stress? I don't know but wherever man goes, there goes another species' habitat.

The take-away (you can thank me later, PETA) is that we need to become or stay a first tier predator--we need to go vegan (I'm almost there but can't seem to go 100%, and, as such, I live in fear of Mad Cow, liver flukes, trichinosis, bird flu, etc. but not Ebola as I do not eat Fruit Bats or monkeys that eat Fruit Bats. The other take-away is that nothing in biology is as simple as we would like it to be but, nevertheless, there is much food for thought therein.


  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This freed the organism to plop down nearly anywhere and make itself a home. It was no longer constrained to hot vents on the ocean floor. Previously, it may have enjoyed frolicking in a hot ocean but its inorganic energy source was not readily replenished and, luckily, it found a way to harness the Sun.

**This seems obvious because epidemics surface and are at their worst when population densities increase.

***You'd be very hard-pressed indeed to find an organism that cannot be infected by viruses and that includes plants. However, I do not see how a plant population would eliminate--through viruses--another organism that was encroaching on its "territory" or harming it in some way. For one thing, plant viruses stay within their kingdom. Indeed the vectors that they often need to disseminate a virus usually only infect members of the same species. Viruses vis-a-vis the plant kingdom seem to be just plain old parasites. Let's also remember that plants do not want to harm the main source of their fertilizer. What about a plant encroaching on the territory of some other plant species? Would the one plant get stressed and by then succumbing to a virus cause an invading plant to also get the infection? First, I don't think there is much cross-species contamination and second, would an insect (the primary vector of most plant viruses) find a stressed out plant appetizing?

**** (I'm assuming that the Fruit Bat was stressed out from monkeys trying to eat them--otherwise, it's all just happenstance that Ebola works that way. That is, harms monkeys and humans but not Fruit Bats)

Roku 2 | Roku Streaming Player

I have the Roku 2 | Roku Streaming Player but I wasn't happy because the use of the headphone feature ,which I loved, gobbled up batteries like crazy. Two weeks I think I got out of a pair of AA batteries. So, I hooked up a 5V adapter to the battery terminals and now I enjoy Roku without having the sound die on me half way through a show.



Use the two terminals near the bottom of the unit (close to the that dumb Roku cloth tag). Now, please note that the batteries supplied 3 volts. Although my unit is working fine with 5 volts, I wouldn't want your unit to burn. I had originally put in a voltage divider but it still needed batteries to work. Now, it works without batteries of any kind but at 5V instead of 3. I would have put in a 3 volt but it would have meant having to buy one. Years of gadget buying has given me a horde of dozens of adapters which I try to reuse in my maker projects.



One extra benefit was that I got the unit open and removed those damn hot keys for Netflix, Amazon, and the other bullshit. I really didn't need buttons that I accidentally kept pressing during a show. To open the unit, first remove the screw inside the battery compartment, then, use a box-cutter to carefully but into the seam (less than 1/16") while prying apart the two halves. Keep track of the "membrane" type switches. There are three, two of which you will keep and one you'll throw away (the one that switches to Netflix and Amazon and two other services). One last piece of advice. The remote's construction is a bit of a puzzle but just note how the parts fit together before assembling again.



If this trigger happy remote keeps annoying me, I'll make the "back" and "home" buttons flush with the surface so I don't inadvertently press these too.



I wish Roku had consulted with me.

Free Will? Perhaps It Is Still There

We've been hearing that we don't have any free will because the subconscious brain seems to respond well before the conscious brain issues a motor command like, "move finger."

I'd like to address this issue from the perspective of a systems analyst. First, we have three pertinent modules: conscious, subconscious, motor. The information conveyed back and forth between these modules consists of commands like delay, move, start. etc., and feedback information like completed, movement detected, etc.

The investigator informs the subject that he (his conscious mind) is to issue a command to the fingers to move after a period of time to be determined by the conscious mind. [The conscious mind cannot measure time objectively but via the subconscious, in the form of possibly the cerebellum, it can count periods of time.]

So, here's how I think it plays out. The conscious mind issues a series of "delay" commands to the subconscious mind and the latter dutifully obliges and informs the conscious mind that the requested delay has completed. Fine, so far.

The conscious mind now decides to move and simultaneously it informs the subconscious not to count up any more delay periods and to implement the finger move. [although we can voluntarily move our skeletal muscle, we do not do it alone. We must use the subconscious to connect to the motor neurons. Let us recall that the motor neurons were connected to the subconscious way before the cortex came along.]

Motor neuron autonomous activation by the subconscious is suppressed and relegated mostly to the conscious mind when the conscious mind is awake; otherwise, we may be engaging in some really odd behavior when awake [this exact scenario may take place only when the action is novel before it has been entrenched in the subconscious.]

Let's get to the nitty-gritty, the conscious mind issues the command to move but it has to go through the subconscious. It is at this point that the researchers picks up a signal to move coming from the subconscious but the conscious mind is not conscious of the movement starting to occur until much later. It thinks that it has commanded the fingers to move and the fingers have obeyed but it actually took place earlier as a result of the command by the conscious mind to the subconscious mind. The conscious mind may actually have to wait for feedback from the fingers in order to determine that it has exercised its "free will." And this adds to the delay in free will being recorded by the researchers.

To recap, I believe the discrepancy occurs in this manner because a) the conscious mind has to utilize the subconscious to access the motor neurons b) the delay in implementing the conscious mind's free will is picked up by researchers as an artifact of the process/protocol of conscious motor control.

I Don't Love Corporate Types but Elon Musk is something else.

We know Mr. Musk is waging war in the fight for clean air and renewables in the personal transportation arena, and he is doing it in a unique way that he hopes will benefit his agenda. If he has any ulterior motives for his paradigm shift, I do not fault them and I sincerely hope it will only serve to catapult Mr. Musk to the top of the transportation game while simultaneously helping to destroy the idiotic, moronic, of-benefit-only-to-lawyers-and-government patent system.

The deal is for anyone to freely use the Tesla electric car patents while promising to allow Tesla to use any patents developed by anyone taking advantage of Tesla's "generosity." I put it in quotes for obvious reasons and because I tend heavily towards skepticism; but, to my way of thinking, we desperately need a different system.

While I commend Senators Leahy and Smith and their 2011 congressional act to cut fees by 42%, it is still too high for what the inventor gets. I would rather see it under $100 for 12 years and issued automatically. What you are getting is certification that you submitted the patent on a certain date. If you encounter an infringing party, you can then do what you would normally have done--you sue them in court.

This idea of Mr. Musk could turn out to be a real game changer. It's brilliantly simple. You use my patents and I get to use yours. It remains to be seen what will happen when the lawyers get involved in the game, though. They no doubt already are and further involvement guarantees that a simple idea gets perverted into something even more complex than what we have now.

I call upon Mr. Musk to also pursue my plan as it complements his plan very well.


Tesla Motors offers all its patents for good faith use - CNET 

RightsLink to what? Lower costs? Big Effen Deal!

When RightsLink came along, I have to admit I was ecstatic for it promised to provide access to scientific periodicals FOR FREE to patients and family caregivers; but as capitalism or, shall we say, greed would have it, that would not last.

Above, you see what the American Association for Cancer Research is now attempting to do--charge for access. Admittedly, it is a small price compared to what these greedy people normally try to get away with but, if they have their way, you'll end up paying hundreds of dollars to them over a year's course for the privilege of accessing what most likely is taxpayer-funded research.

So, what is my idea for this post? I'd like to see our government ask all researchers who benefit from our tax dollars to post their DRAFT manuscript on NIH or university website for anyone to see. There is no need for them to wait for their manuscript to be accepted by a journal.

This is a win-win because the greedy publisher still can do its capitalist thing and the taxpayer can have access for free. Now, the original draft may not have been proofread thoroughly but I'll bet the  researcher worth his salt will submit a nearly perfect manuscript. Also, it may not have the perfect font or the perfect formatting but the entire text will be there along with any pictures submitted to the journal.

It is also a win for the researcher because he/she gets to publish way before the journal gets around to doing it and, market forces being what they are, the greedy publishers will have to add-on a ton of value to the manuscript to make it that much more appealing than the free draft version. Let them capitalize all they want--greedy monopolistic bastards.

Oh, and AACR, don't bother telling me that it was all a mistake by some webmaster you just hired--I'll not buy it!

Was Jill Abramson fired for her bra-less feminism?

Jill Abramson is a feminist. It is obvious when you look at her bra-less. The world is not ready for such sights. Is it prudish to think so? I don't think it is because I am an observer of feminine culture and rarely have I seen the demarcation of breasts as in the above photos. In fact, the only other time I have seen this is with my wife who is also a child of the sixties. When my wife's breasts were petite, it was acceptable but then the kids came and the breasts grew into small-melons and the cutesie breasts draped by loose clothing were no more; yet, the bra never came.

My wife doesn't understand why I make such a fuss over her choice of clothing. But I tell her that this style as far as seduction or ogling is concerned, is a whole new ballgame.

I don't know what went on at the New York Times, but if I had had a role in the continued employment of Jill Abramson, her choice of apparel would not have been an endearing attribute. I personally think that cleavage (with bra) is far more acceptable in today's society (Steinem not withstanding) than is Ms. Abramson's bra-less stand.

If you leave nothing to the imagination, you are no different than at best, a National Geographic picture of a primitive native woman, or, at worst,  a harridan who can't be bothered with a bra. But that's me, a Cuban who grew up accepting of drugs and peaceniks but never of demarcated breasts. Will we come to a point of universal acceptance of one's choice of apparel? I don't know. But I'll say this much, I can't hear the female's voice if my eyes are glued to her chest in seduction or disbelief.

I wish Ms. Abramson all the best. Certainly, helping to garner 4 Pulitzer prizes for her reporters in 2 and half years is a testament to her skill as an editor.

How to stop spamming once and for all.

First, those who ask us for our email will also display a "permission" field. The content for the permission field is generated automatically by a browser program that also stores it locally. When email is received, any sender who is not already on the approved list of senders, will have to provide the permission field. If a match is found, the email is displayed. If no match is found then the email gets sent to a spammer collecting server for possible punitive action. Whether to implement the checking process is, of course, optionally implemented on the email client.

No action is required on our part and no spam gets by.

Simultaneity

This thought requires agreeing that, in an equilateral arrangement of three points, every vertex is able to detect simultaneous events occurring at the other two vertexes, also the following:   If you had a tool--let's say, compass and ruler--and you had been able to "square the circle," would you not have shown that it were possible to do so? If you agree, please proceed.

Imagine two points in space A and B. They are any distance apart but stationary with respect to themselves and point C. Each has an identical length of fiber optic cable the ends of which are as close as possible to an event occurring at C. If those cables had an identical shape (both semi-circles, for instance; although a spiral may be more accommodating  in most situations where, for instance, A is closer to C than B is), would A and B not be able to detect an event occurring at C regardless of how far apart they (A and B) are to each other and to C? Also, more traditionally, would C not be able to detect if an event occurred simultaneously at A and B?

What if one point were in motion relative to the others? The speed of light is constant and the distance that information has to travel is the same for CA as it is for CB (following the equidistant path of the fiber optic cable and assuming symmetry can be maintained (in at least one dimension?).

Mosquito Control

This tells of a serendipitous discovery of an invention that may have applicability as a mosquito control.

I dabble in green tech, and as such I was led to collect rain water in a barrel. Now, knowing that mosquitoes like stagnant water, I placed a screen over the barrel. Miracle of miracles, the mosquitoes continued to lay their eggs right through the screen.

If these traps are placed in heavily infested areas, I can see the female laying eggs only to have their little darlings jailed at the nursery!

The trap may even require zero maintenance especially if the screen is made of nylon or other long-lasting material.

Water, I think, ought not to reach the screen. A drain placed immediately below the screen may suffice in this regard. However, the exact distance to the screen may have to be adjusted for particular mosquito species.

Of course, the height can be much lower than that of a normal barrel--perhaps just inches high.

Mothers with son's DNA in their Brains?

In this NYT article, the phenomena of chimeric and mosaic genomes are discussed. Mention was made of autopsy results on the brains of about 60 women where they found that more than half had the Y chromosome in their neurons. The article goes on to say that "They most likely came from the sons they all gave birth to."

I don't see how this is likely b/c immune tolerance during pregnancy is a local temporary phenomenon. In addition, you would have to ask yourself how did a male cell find it's way into its mother's brain and start functioning as a neuron. This is not inconceivable but goes against Occam's Razor more than a chimera created during gestation.

I believe it's more likely that the mother obtained the Y chromosome while she herself was in HER mother's womb, and the source of the DNA was a male fraternal twin that only lived long enough to populate his sibling's embryo/fetus. The foreign DNA would have been tolerated because immunity only kicks in after all differentiated cells have come into being.
I wonder how hard it would have been for researchers to determine double-X in male brains? Did they do it? I can't afford the darn journals to find out.

Also, I would need to ask if there was a quantitative estimate of the Y chromosome content. This is important because more than one or two cells would indicate an origin during development whereas a few cells would support DNA coming from a gestation where a male was being carried.

I'm off Twitter. This time for good. If I'm going to say something, I want to know that I've had an effect. My followers hardly ever commented on anything I said, and for those who know me, for some issues, I like to rock the boat. So, I can only surmise that no one is reading my tweets. But that's OK, Twitter was consuming too much of my time and I have so many more things that I've promised myself to do.

However, Twitter has served me well in other ways. After some 5000 tweets, I found that my spelling and grammar had improved enormously. How did I know this? I wrote a long paper w/o spelling assist, head down typing, and the MS Word spell checker only found one problem--an extra space between two words.

I assure you, spell/grammar checking on that size paper would have taken me at least 20 minutes. I attribute my skills entirely to my twittering. I strongly urge those with poor typing/proofreading skills to crank out those 140 characters grammatically correct and not misspelled. 

The "texualist" Justice Scalia and his convenient blinders

www.news12.com/full_ap_frameB.jsp?news_type=ap_national_worldnews&cat=national_worldnews&articleId=DA1N8R280&position=300&regionId=1&region_name=LI

This article says that "Scalia calls himself a "textualist" and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them."

Now, if there was a chance that Scalia would respond to my interpretation of the Federalist Papers, I would write something more scholarly and comprehensive; but he won't, so I'll just attack one recent judgement of the SCOTUS, i.e. the Citizens United ruling calling corporations people.

Justice Scalia himself has said that he holds the Federalist Papers in very high regard, I therefore, refer the reader to No. 57 of the Federalist Papers (No. 57 was written by Madison)--I quote:

"Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State."

Now, I ask the very opinionated Justice this question, does he not think that corporations--via their coffers--disenfranchise Madison's electors by their inordinate influence and make a mockery of his words? Furthermore, for the sake of our country's future, I strongly suggest that he read the Federalist Papers during each and every god-damned decision that he writes.

The Dismantling of Wall St.

Wall St can be dismantled without loss to investors and our economy would take off and we would reach new heights of prosperity. Here's how to do it:

• Freeze all stock prices. (FP=frozen price)
• Allow only the issuer to buy back the stock (the corporation). If a shareholder needs to liquidate, he can offer to sell back to the corporation for less than the FP but the corporation is not required to buy back.
• A percentage of profits will be set for each corporation to quarterly buy back its stock.
• While this is going on, Wall St facilities will be converted to a public investment house through which the public can invest in any corporation offering--to the investor--a satisfactory ROI.

What does this do? It will:

• Eliminate crashes caused by nervous investors
• Eliminate wealth disparity as there are no big players, sitting on their asses, skimming off the top.
• Stop the Ponzi scheme b/c money earned in Wall St trades comes from those who will lose an amount equal that which is earned.
• Importantly, the CEO of the corporation will no longer have to kowtow to Wall St by doing sometimes unethical things merely to maintain a high stock price.
• Most importantly, money is being invested directly in our corporations and start-ups. Money with no middle men to skim off the top. Stock shares, remember, are invested during the IPO process but you could easily end up with zilch. Not so with my proposal