Nobrainer’s Think Tank

I really haven’t been keeping up the acetone in gas thing which I have, in the past, written about in depth. I have kept up only to the point that I read the generally hilariously unhelpful comments and I also notice that those acetone pages are driving the vast majority of the revenue on the site. But I felt like it was a good time to comment on the comments.

First, let me say that I will gladly reverse course when someone provides verifiable, repeatable, (at least semi)-scientific evidence that says that acetone really does increase fuel mileage nearly as well and as broadly as claimed. So far, I have still yet to see anything resembling good evidence.

Second, some people ask whether acetone is really safe to put in your fuel system. Of the affirmative responses, the answer is usually: “acetone is a main ingredient of fuel system cleaners, so yes.” I have yet to verify that acetone is indeed a main ingredient in any common gasoline additive. But, if it is true, it has important implications. First, it is pretty much common knowledge that such additives are not capable of drastically increasing fuel mileage. Second, it undermines the argument that oil companies (who of course primarily make and market fuel additives) are afraid of acetone.

Finally, a comment about the vast oil conspiracy. I’ve argued before that if such a conspiracy exists, the powers-that-be are horribly inept; extreme oil company profits are not the norm; they are the exception. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that they aren’t woefully inept at managing their vast conspiracy. Let’s further say that they are in fact quite skilled at market manipulation and screwing the consumer. With those assumptions of their power in place, I simply cannot fathom why they would not desperately seek increase mileage while simultaneously controlling the oil market to increase prices at the same time. Why do I say this? It’s simple really. If they can completely manipulate the market, why would they not find a way to double mileage and use half the material sold at double the current price for double the profit per unit? They could get same amount of profit for half the work. And, and, and, they would then have even more saved up to sell in the future. In short, with acetone, they could maintain profits, do less work, and increase future income potential.

But who really knows with the acetone thing. Even though it is backed by only scant evidence, and thoroughly dubious logic, I remain open to the possibility that it works. I just wish that someone who says that it works would bother to satisfactorily prove that it works (whether or not the conspiracy theories make any sense).

… or given, neatly condensed into one little video.

Orac calls it the best scientific talk, ever, while the Unapologetic Mathematician considers it the best lecture ever. Sunclipse has it as well.

“I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.” Sure you will Mr. Comfort. Comfort and Kirk Cameron are going to appear on a to-be-televised-on-ABC debate.

For Mr. Comfort’s sake, I hope his undeniable scientific proof isn’t a jar of peanut butter or a banana.

What’s funnier, or really, sadder, is Kirk Cameron. I give him credit for avoiding the childhood-actor-turned-petty-criminal-who-dies-in-the-gutter path of life. But his religious exploits are just way too far over the top. Let’s look at some of what he said in the article:

Atheism has become very popular in universities–where it’s taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn’t be surprised when there are school shootings.

Just let that thought marinate for a while.

(more…)

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,

might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Does that say that they wanted to melt the Arctic ice cap on purpose? Yes. Yes, it does.

Welcome to science reporting, 1975 style:

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

I just learned about a new “surprisingly simple” way to fight cancer:

When we diagnose cancer, the treatment is still primarily surgical, commonly combined with radiation therapy and anticancer drugs. The aim of these treatments is to suppress, or arrest, the unrestrained growth of cells in the body organs or tissues. In the case of many man-made systems we are similarly faced with situations where processes deviate from the normal operation of the system. But the remedy for such deviations is surprisingly simple: negative feedback.

Hmm, feedback. I do hate cancer and I do love modern control theory! Tell me more!

Negative feedback means that the system’s output is fed back into the same system in order to enable the system to determine the difference between the actual and the desired output, and to make the necessary corrections in its own operation. For example a vehicle’s speed control uses the difference between the actual and the desired speed to adjust the fuel flow rate. Those systems which feed back their own output for self-regulation are said to be closed-loop control systems.

Yup, I get that. I use the cruise control all the time. (more…)