Here is a good way to look at what Obama has been doing to "our" country. I say "our" because I am part Native American and most of my roots go back to the 1600's from Scotland. They built this place for their children and for that reason, I have no problem calling this "our" country. Here is my point.
Look at this whole economic system as being a balance between two groups. First those who are building this country by "producing" something and those who don't produce anything and just consume. Got the picture? The trick is to keep this in balance or with the scale tipped toward those who produce. What Obama has done is to take away from those who produce and give it to those who do not produce. It is like having a teeter-totter in balance and then having someone take weight off one end and put it on the other. The net affect is "double", not just one times the amount shifted. That is what the affect of Obama's actions these first 3 years have done. Now my next point.
The motivation of the groups on the two ends of the balance is "different". That's right. These two groups respond to totally different kinds of motivation. Now what are those? The ones who are the producers are motivated by "greed" and the future of their children. Greed is not bad, it motivates people to work hard. Personal fulfillment is another. This is what motivates most athletes. Every golfer wants to improve his or her score. Now what motivates those who are not producers? Pain. It is pure and simple "pain". I don't think that pain is bad. They say that any pain that does not kill you, makes you stronger and that is true. What Obama has been doing is to steal from and more difficult for the producers to provide a better future for their children while at the same time taking away from the non producers the pain that would get them motivated to produce.
Finally, like most problems, the cause and the solutions are simple. We need more pain for the non producers and government out of the way for the producers. Stealing from the producers and giving it to the non producers is the wrong thing to do by "double". If this picture is not clear, there is no hope for "our" country.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Saturday, July 28, 2012
John Deere LA145
I own a John Deere riding lawnmower model LA145 with a 48" mower deck. It is a nice mower and I have been well satisfied with until it came to greasing the three spindle bearings. For some reason the John Deere company designers don't seem to understand that us customers run our mowers more than two or three times. It appears that they never had to personally grease the bearings because two of them are impossible to grease. The zerk is located near the bottom of the spindle and the spindle is mounted in a depression.on the deck. The affect is that it is impossible to get any of my 5 grease guns secure onto the zerk. As you might have expected the two spindles that are impossible to grease are the two that have failed. The one that I can grease is just fine.
There is a further problem with the location of the zerks. It appears that the people who assemble the mower decks do not have any regard for how they are placed on the deck. By luck, one of the spindles is mounted so that the zerk is accessible while the deck is on the mower. The other two have the spindles rotated so as to make it impossible to get at the zerk when the deck is on the mower.
I have worked with John Deere people for many years while the corporate product manager for another company who was in direct competition with John Deere in another product line. It was the attention to the many details that set John Deere apart from other companies, but for some reason it seems the least competent of the John Deere people have ended up in the lawnmower division. If actions like this continue and great companies like John Deere stop doing the job that I know they are capable of, China will eat our lunch.
For the record, John Deere is not the only American company who have let their guard down. I just retired a Simplicity mower where they put the valve stems on the "inside" so that they were next to impossible to get at. I will never buy a Simplicity mower again because of this one event that I know proves that they do not care about their customers.
I know that "service parts" account for most of the profit of the major equipment companies and that they want to sell as many spare parts as the can, but when it becomes clear that their designs promote parts failure, that is where the parting of company starts. I know that it is a key part of all their business. Years ago, I had reliable data that showed that Caterpillar sold $0.44 of spare parts for every $1.00 of new equipment sales. That is one of the main reasons that Cat has done so well during this recent world wide economic slow down.
Finally, John Deere. Do a better job.
PS----------------
The reason that I wrote this blog is because there is no easy way for a customer to complain directly to John Deere so a loyal custiomer can give them some "constructive" criticism. Fix your web site so that good customers can communicate with you and help America be more competitive.
There is a further problem with the location of the zerks. It appears that the people who assemble the mower decks do not have any regard for how they are placed on the deck. By luck, one of the spindles is mounted so that the zerk is accessible while the deck is on the mower. The other two have the spindles rotated so as to make it impossible to get at the zerk when the deck is on the mower.
I have worked with John Deere people for many years while the corporate product manager for another company who was in direct competition with John Deere in another product line. It was the attention to the many details that set John Deere apart from other companies, but for some reason it seems the least competent of the John Deere people have ended up in the lawnmower division. If actions like this continue and great companies like John Deere stop doing the job that I know they are capable of, China will eat our lunch.
For the record, John Deere is not the only American company who have let their guard down. I just retired a Simplicity mower where they put the valve stems on the "inside" so that they were next to impossible to get at. I will never buy a Simplicity mower again because of this one event that I know proves that they do not care about their customers.
I know that "service parts" account for most of the profit of the major equipment companies and that they want to sell as many spare parts as the can, but when it becomes clear that their designs promote parts failure, that is where the parting of company starts. I know that it is a key part of all their business. Years ago, I had reliable data that showed that Caterpillar sold $0.44 of spare parts for every $1.00 of new equipment sales. That is one of the main reasons that Cat has done so well during this recent world wide economic slow down.
Finally, John Deere. Do a better job.
PS----------------
The reason that I wrote this blog is because there is no easy way for a customer to complain directly to John Deere so a loyal custiomer can give them some "constructive" criticism. Fix your web site so that good customers can communicate with you and help America be more competitive.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Renewable Bio Fuel
Most of do not know that we get more energy from burning wood than we do from either solar or wind. Many people feel that we should concentrate more on things like renewable wood. Like playing Chess, you can't win if you are just a "one mover". How does this affect burning wood?
At first glance, burning woods sounds like a good choice. Any carbon dioxide produced by burning the wood was carbon dioxide that the same tree took out of the atmosphere. If a new tree is planted for every tree that is cut, things will stay in balance over time. Sounds like the perfect solution. The problem is that it is not all "gain". It takes a lot of energy to plant, grow the tree and harvest and process it. Even the burning of the wood is not very efficient compare to the carbon dioxide produced compared to other forms of fuel. This leads to the next "chess move".
If we mined more coal equivalent to the wood harvested, we would get more energy and create less carbon dioxide. How can that be? The total cycle of processing coal into energy is much more efficient than the cycle for wood. Further, if we did not cut the tree, it could keep on taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. We would be a lot better off harvesting trees for lumber that would not be burned or into paper that can be recycled many times. When paper can no long be processed into more paper, it could be used as mulch in the soil or buried in a land fill were it could not burn and create carbon dioxide.
The real problem is that we want a lot more energy that creates carbon dioxide than wood could produce. That means we need to burn much more coal. What we need to do is to ask "why" we need more energy? It would seem a lot more logical to attack the "cause" rather than apply expensive medicine to the problem. What do you think the "cause" is? It is growth in human population and the demand that we all have a higher standard of living or quality of life. I think that you know that the USA uses more energy per person than any other country in the world. The Bushman in Africa use the least. Can't follow this example? Sorry, but some people can not be helped.
Obama might have it right when he claims that things are not "fair" and that we need to fix the problem. If you agree with Obama, all you need to do is to send 50% of your pay check to those Bushman in Africa so that both you and them have the "same" standard of living and quality of life. You might notice that in the end, you will have to greatly reduce you standard of living and quality of life. All this sounds like the old adage that, "there is no such thing as a free lunch".
At first glance, burning woods sounds like a good choice. Any carbon dioxide produced by burning the wood was carbon dioxide that the same tree took out of the atmosphere. If a new tree is planted for every tree that is cut, things will stay in balance over time. Sounds like the perfect solution. The problem is that it is not all "gain". It takes a lot of energy to plant, grow the tree and harvest and process it. Even the burning of the wood is not very efficient compare to the carbon dioxide produced compared to other forms of fuel. This leads to the next "chess move".
If we mined more coal equivalent to the wood harvested, we would get more energy and create less carbon dioxide. How can that be? The total cycle of processing coal into energy is much more efficient than the cycle for wood. Further, if we did not cut the tree, it could keep on taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. We would be a lot better off harvesting trees for lumber that would not be burned or into paper that can be recycled many times. When paper can no long be processed into more paper, it could be used as mulch in the soil or buried in a land fill were it could not burn and create carbon dioxide.
The real problem is that we want a lot more energy that creates carbon dioxide than wood could produce. That means we need to burn much more coal. What we need to do is to ask "why" we need more energy? It would seem a lot more logical to attack the "cause" rather than apply expensive medicine to the problem. What do you think the "cause" is? It is growth in human population and the demand that we all have a higher standard of living or quality of life. I think that you know that the USA uses more energy per person than any other country in the world. The Bushman in Africa use the least. Can't follow this example? Sorry, but some people can not be helped.
Obama might have it right when he claims that things are not "fair" and that we need to fix the problem. If you agree with Obama, all you need to do is to send 50% of your pay check to those Bushman in Africa so that both you and them have the "same" standard of living and quality of life. You might notice that in the end, you will have to greatly reduce you standard of living and quality of life. All this sounds like the old adage that, "there is no such thing as a free lunch".
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
IEEE Looks At Alternative Energy
I have been bad mouthing the IEEE for several years for being silent on "green energy". The IEEE is smart on technology, but not too swift on economics. Maybe that is the reason for the silence. There is an article in the July 2012 issue "A Skeptic Looks At Alternative Energy" by Vaclav Smil. I think it is a little weak on the economics an thus the logic of the whole "green energy" thing. The "End Game" is energy and food. The two are connected any way that you want to cut it.
If you are a gardener, you know that if you burn the biomass that it will not be long before you will be out of food. Biomass is not some "free" source of energy. There is a cost and that cost is less food. Any additional food production will come on inferior land that will require more energy to produce that additional food. It may be irrigation or fertilizer, but in the end it is energy. Using corn to produce auto fuel is stupid, period. Someone is going to have to starve so that you can put ethanol in your car. It might not be today or tomorrow, but the time will come and it will not be that long. I don't know why we are doing all these things that we all know will "not" cure our energy problem. At best it will delay the final "end game" and what is that? Human population growth.
If we have more people, there is only one solution, lower standard of living and lower quality of life. When I say "solution", I mean a place where the equations balances out. Remember your chemistry class? Recall that the chemical reaction equation had to "balance"? It is the same in the energy/food debate.
What we have to get used to is that there is no solution that includes a continued growth in human population. I know that a lot of people would like to think that there is some magic bullet out there that needs to be discovered, but there is not. Our population has grown geometrically for the last 250 years and we all know that it can not continue. We have used up all the cheap energy and all the cheap alternatives. From here on it is going to get very expensive. Those are the facts so get used to it.
Back to the article. I think that the editors of the IEEE Journal included this article because it was so weak. I don't think they have the guts to publish the real facts and use words like "stupid" when it comes to "green energy". I can only hope that some day we will read an article in the IEEE Journal that is honest and calls a "spade a spade". No pun intended.
If you are a gardener, you know that if you burn the biomass that it will not be long before you will be out of food. Biomass is not some "free" source of energy. There is a cost and that cost is less food. Any additional food production will come on inferior land that will require more energy to produce that additional food. It may be irrigation or fertilizer, but in the end it is energy. Using corn to produce auto fuel is stupid, period. Someone is going to have to starve so that you can put ethanol in your car. It might not be today or tomorrow, but the time will come and it will not be that long. I don't know why we are doing all these things that we all know will "not" cure our energy problem. At best it will delay the final "end game" and what is that? Human population growth.
If we have more people, there is only one solution, lower standard of living and lower quality of life. When I say "solution", I mean a place where the equations balances out. Remember your chemistry class? Recall that the chemical reaction equation had to "balance"? It is the same in the energy/food debate.
What we have to get used to is that there is no solution that includes a continued growth in human population. I know that a lot of people would like to think that there is some magic bullet out there that needs to be discovered, but there is not. Our population has grown geometrically for the last 250 years and we all know that it can not continue. We have used up all the cheap energy and all the cheap alternatives. From here on it is going to get very expensive. Those are the facts so get used to it.
Back to the article. I think that the editors of the IEEE Journal included this article because it was so weak. I don't think they have the guts to publish the real facts and use words like "stupid" when it comes to "green energy". I can only hope that some day we will read an article in the IEEE Journal that is honest and calls a "spade a spade". No pun intended.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Liquid Hop Extraction
Been a while, but this one may be interesting. I used to live in Buenos Aires and was introduced to espresso there. As an engineer, I wanted to figure out why espresso was so different from regular American coffee. It was not just that the coffee was ground finer or that it was a much darker roast. It was more complicated than that. An interesting additional point is that a good friend of mine here built a machine to automatically make single serve coffee pods and is now in the business of selling pods. I got one of the pod brewing machines and liked the coffee much better than regular American coffee. The reason was the same as the espresso, "higher temperature water". If you ever tried to wash you hands in cold water, you know some thing about solvency of water and how it relates to temperature. It is the same with coffee. The punch line here is that it is also the same with homebrewing and extracting the flavor from hops. There is no way to increase the temperature of water by heat alone. You need pressure, like a pressure cooker. You can boil your wort all day in Denver and you will never get it upto 212f because of the lower air pressure at a mile high. I noticed this years ago when we went deer hunting in the mountains. Coffee was terrible. Now for homebrewing.
Here is what I did. I took my old aluminum espresso pot like many of you have and filled it about 3/4 full with hop pellets. On top of that, I put whole grains of malt until it was packed full. The way these pots are made, the bottom of the top part is a filter with very small holes that the espresso goes thru and leaves the ground behind. The malt grains were there to keep the holes from getting plugged up, like a lauder-tun. Next I filled up the bottom pot with water and put in on the stove, just like I was making espresso. In a few minutes, I had a pot of hop extract in the top pot.
The next step was to dump the extract into a keg of "cold" beer from my tapper. The idea was to get the extract cooled down a fast a possible. How could it have been faster? One of the reasons that you dump some of your hops in at the end of the boil and why you cool it down as fast as you can is to prevent the flavor of the hops from escaping. Now, I think you are starting to get the idea.
Few final points. The cheap espresso pot has a pressure relief valve to keep it from blowing up. If steam starts coming out of the valve, just turn down the heat. If steam does come out, you know that the water is well above 212f and doing its job of extracting the flavor from the hops. It may take a little experimentation to get every thing running right, but I think now you can start to make some real homebrew.
In a prior blog, I mentioned "blending" beer to get different flavors, now you have a way of adjusting the flavor of your beer after you have it cooled down in the tapper and have tasted tested it.
Here is what I did. I took my old aluminum espresso pot like many of you have and filled it about 3/4 full with hop pellets. On top of that, I put whole grains of malt until it was packed full. The way these pots are made, the bottom of the top part is a filter with very small holes that the espresso goes thru and leaves the ground behind. The malt grains were there to keep the holes from getting plugged up, like a lauder-tun. Next I filled up the bottom pot with water and put in on the stove, just like I was making espresso. In a few minutes, I had a pot of hop extract in the top pot.
The next step was to dump the extract into a keg of "cold" beer from my tapper. The idea was to get the extract cooled down a fast a possible. How could it have been faster? One of the reasons that you dump some of your hops in at the end of the boil and why you cool it down as fast as you can is to prevent the flavor of the hops from escaping. Now, I think you are starting to get the idea.
Few final points. The cheap espresso pot has a pressure relief valve to keep it from blowing up. If steam starts coming out of the valve, just turn down the heat. If steam does come out, you know that the water is well above 212f and doing its job of extracting the flavor from the hops. It may take a little experimentation to get every thing running right, but I think now you can start to make some real homebrew.
In a prior blog, I mentioned "blending" beer to get different flavors, now you have a way of adjusting the flavor of your beer after you have it cooled down in the tapper and have tasted tested it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)