Loremo: The Ultra Efficient Car - 157MPG!

German Loremo AG will introduce their ultra Efficient Car at the Motor Show 2006 (site) in Geneva next week.

The car start-up developed a light-weight passenger car with outstanding aerodynamics. The Loremo LS is powered by a 2 cylinder Turbo Diesel engine with 20 hp and 160km/h top speed.

The amazing thing is that the Loremo only needs 1.5l per 100km. This is approx. 157MPG! The Toyota Prius hybrid has only 55MPG (combined city and highway). With one tank (20l) you could drive 1,300km.
Loremo AG plans to sell the Loremo LS for less than 11,000 Euros (~$13,000).

Real Time Episode 67

Premiering February 17, 2006
Guests: Sen. Russ Feingold, commentator Fred Barnes, actor Eddie Griffin, reporter Helen Thomas, and Iraq advisor Dan Senor.

On the Cheney Shooting

"To the Vice President's credit, he did own up to it. On Fox News, he said the fault is his. He can't blame anybody else. Boy, it's amazing. The only time you get accountability out of this administration is when they are actually holding 'a smoking gun.'" – Bill Maher

"So many things happened this week. This was a good week for Cheney to shoot somebody in the face, it covered up a whole lot of stuff. The congressional inquiry about Katrina came out this week. They released their findings. They said the White House ignored the warnings, they came in late, and then, of course, they did what any 'small government conservative' would do: they made it a big money grab and inundated the region with bucket-loads of cash." – Bill Maher

On the Press

"I think - I think your criticism is very valid. And that's why I think that it's a tragedy that we've become a country of one-newspaper towns, and newspapers are shrinking; TV gives you a sound bite - you're so right, they certainly don't go into depth. And in the case to the run-up to the Iraq war, my real criticism is that the press rolled over and played dead when they should have been asking questions." – Helen Thomas

On the Patriot Act

"Well, you know, I just decided to read the bill... Of course, you don't read all the bills. But this one, I thought, maybe in light of the fact that it was about a month after 9/11 and the government was claiming these enormous powers, we ought to check it." – Sen. Russ Feingold

On What Bush Rebels Aginst

"Rebelling against Washington. Rebelling against the conventional wisdom in politics. Rebelling against the foreign policy community. Rebelling against the political community in Washington. And rebelling against traditional conservatism. All those things." – Fred Barnes

On the Mohammad Cartoons

"I'm not for any censorship, but I am for some self-restraint, some taste, some sensitivity." – Helen Thomas

Bill Maher's New Rules February 17, 2006

No, let's go to New Rules. How about that? All right, ready? [slide of Olympic luger] New Rule: If you play a sport where most of the speed comes from gravity, you're not an athlete, you're a weight.

New Rule: You're not posing nude unless I can see your genitals. A peek at Scarlett Johansen's rump is not good enough, especially when I've had Jake Gyllenhaal's ass in my face twice this year. Which is weird, because I haven't seen "Jarhead" or "Brokeback Mountain."

New Rule: If churches don't have to pay taxes, they also can't call the fire department when they catch fire. Sorry, Reverend, that's one of those services that goes along with paying in. I'll use the fire department I pay for; you can pray for rain. Oh, I'm going to get letters on that one.

New Rule: The Olympics must stop putting on opening ceremonies that make me wonder if someone slipped acid into my drink. I tell you, you watch four hours of skaters with flaming torch helmets racing around interpretive dancers dressed in camouflage condoms, all while people in lederhosen play sixty-foot trombones, and suddenly that-[slide of luger]-starts to make sense.

New Rule: Let Britney be Britney. Darwin's survival of the fittest depends on hillbillies being left alone to do stupid hillbilly things. Like sticking forks in toasters and leaving babies in front seats, and going hunting with Dick Cheney. She's Britney Spears. Of course, she's going to drive with the baby on her lap. We're just lucky she didn't it mixed up with an empty and throw it out the window.

And finally, New Rule: Stop worrying that the government is listening in on your phone conversation. The person you called isn't even listening to your phone conversation. Any American in this day and age who thinks they're not being monitored is so naive and oblivious, I can't believe they're not working already for the Bush Administration.

Which...which is not to say it isn't creepy thinking of Karl Rove monitoring my emails. Which is why all of mine say the same thing: "Hey, did you hear freedom is on the march, and I quit smoking pot?" "Praise Jesus! - Bill."

But the organization that is conducting these wiretaps, the NSA, is a spy agency different from all the others, in that its only function is to listen. You know, like a husband. You know, like a husband!

And if they need to listen to keep a dirty bomb from going off in Long Beach, then I say, "Listen away." All I ask, NSA, is that you don't judge. And more importantly, if you could screen my calls. In fact, just tell everybody I'm not in. Oh, and if I say something funny during one of my phone conversations, write it down and hit me back with an email so I can use it in my next stand-up special.

So, yes, on the downside, our lives here in America are now an open book. But on the upside, Bush doesn't read books! And really, people, if you're so worried about the privacy of your cell phone calls, stop making them when you're in line at Starbucks!

Oh, please, Americans don't want privacy. They want attention! They'll put a camera in their shower and show it on the Internet! To get on television, they'll marry strangers and eat a cow's rectum, and ice dance with Todd Bridges. They're trying to get on a show called "Big Brother"!

We are a nation of exhibitionists from "me" to shining "me." And what we really fear isn't that someone's listening; it's that no one's listening. This whole country is one big desperate cry for somebody to listen to "listen to me, photograph me, Google me, read my blog!" "Read my diary; read my memoir. It's not interesting enough? I'll make shit up!"

You know that I could go on the Internet right now under my alternate screen name, "CherryXXX69," and get complete strangers to email me a picture of their scrotum. I tell you, this country gave the finger to privacy a long time ago.

In fact, I have reason to believe I'm being videotaped right now. Great to be back. Thank you very much. Terrific crowd, terrific panel. Very good. That's our show. I want to thank Eddie Griffin, Helen Thomas, Dan Senor, Fred Barnes and Senator Russ Feingold. Thank you, folks.

Peugeot & Citroen Develop Diesel-Electric Hybrid System

February, 2006 by Justin Couture - Canadian Auto Press

In terms of green, fuel-efficient automobiles, there are three schools of thought: gasoline-electric hybrids, modern direct-injection diesel and hydrogen (either fuel cell or internal combustion).
Though it’s nearly impossible to get a hold on any sort of hydrogen-powered automobile currently due to their high cost, extremely limited production and nearly non-existent refueling infrastructure, the other two are easy to access. Hybrid vehicles are sought after for their ability to provide zero emissions when running on pure electricity and improved fuel economy on the road, while diesels are chosen for their general thriftiness and plentiful torque; but what about the two together?

Following in the footsteps of Volkswagen’s diesel-electric Mk.IV Golf test bed vehicle, which the German automaker unveiled at last year’s Michelin Bibendum clean-energy challenge, France’s largest automaker has decided to have a go at playing with electricity. With over seven million of its world-famous HDi diesel engines under its belt, PSA-Peugeot-Citroën is considered the foremost authority on diesel technology, and has jumped onto the hybrid scene with two demonstrator vehicles powered by their new Hybride diesel-electric hybrid system, which they will be showing for the first time at this year’s Geneva Motor Show.

Like the VW Golf, the Honda Accord or the Ford Escape hybrids, the very French-sounding Hybride system has been integrated into vehicles currently in production; each brand will show its own version starting with the futuristic-looking Citroën C4 Hybride and the Peugeot 307 Hybride, both of which compete in the mainstream family-sized hatchback (Golf, Caliber, Civic etc.). Bar the vivid green Hybride vinyl sticker livery that each concept wears, both the C4 and 307 are plain, stock production vehicles that do not differ from their mass-produced counterparts. Not much is different on the inside either, but for the console-mounted LCD display which shows the car’s power flow, as with the Escape or Prius.

The Hybride system works much like any current gasoline-electric hybrid, pairing an internal combustion engine, in this case a 1.6-litre HDi common rail turbodiesel featuring a pollutant-capturing particulate filter system, with a 23 kW (31-hp) electric motor that can be used to generate or produce electric power. The diesel motor feature’s PSA’s Start and Stop system, which automatically turns the engine off when idling and restarts it instantly when the gas pedal is pressed - just like other hybrids. Electrical power is stored in a high-capacity lithium-ion battery pack. Because the Hybride system utilizes an electronically-controlled manual gearbox with sequential-shift, the car can be operated using any combination of diesel and/or electric power, making it a full hybrid, as opposed to a mild, ‘combination’ hybrid that merely assists the combustion engine.

By backpacking electricity to the already efficient HDi diesel powerplant, the Hybride system improves substantially upon the performance of current gasoline electric hybrids. For example, both the C4 and 307 Hybride are able to return a truly impressive 3.4 L/100 km (69 mpg) on a mix of city and highway driving, while returning a mere 90 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven. For comparison, a Peugeot 307 3-door HDi mated to a 5-speed manual, the same vehicle sans the Hybride system, is capable of 4.9 L/100 km (48 mpg) on the mixed cycle, and produces 129 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven, yet is 35 percent more powerful due to the boost of the electric motor. PSA claims that the Hybride-equipped C4 and 307 are capable of besting an equivalently sized gasoline-electric hybrid by some 25 percent, meaning reductions of up to 1.0 L/100 km on the mixed cycle.

Like most manufacturers, the only thing that is stopping PSA from giving the Hybride system the green light at the show is the impact of the expensive electrical components on the price tag. While hybrid technology may be viable for high-end sedans, large SUVs and purpose-built ‘green machines’, the price gap between a Hybride-equipped 307 or C4 is twice as large as consumers would be willing to spend. PSA has pledged to lower the cost of technology in order to implement wide-spread hybrid availability to the masses, and expects to have a solution presented before 2010. In four year’s time, the world should have an instinctively different outlook, and by then, perhaps diesel-hybrid technology will be more widespread.

E85 Greener Fuel

E85 is an alcohol fuel mixture of 85% ethanol (ethyl alcohol, i.e., grain alcohol) and 15% gasoline (petrol) (proportioned by volume rather than mass) that can be used in flexible-fuel vehicles.

Availability

The fuel is widely used in Sweden and is becoming increasingly common in the United States, mainly in the Midwest where corn is a major crop and is the primary source material for ethanol fuel production. Minnesota has the largest number of E85 fuel pumps of any U.S. state, with 158 of the 580+ pumps in the country. As of July 2005, Illinois has the second-greatest number of E85 pumps (about 60); most other states have fewer than two dozen. Even in Minnesota, the ethanol pumps represent a tiny fraction of the fuel outlets—there are about 4,000 gas stations in the state, each with several individual pumps (however, all stations there are required to carry E10, a 10% mixture of ethanol and gasoline).

Concerns about rising gasoline prices and energy dependence have led to a resurgence of interest in E85 fuel; for example, Nebraska mandated the use of E85 in state vehicles whenever possible in May 2005. Similarly, whereas selling any fuel containing more than 10% ethanol is still currently illegal in some states, even this is rapidly changing. For example, Florida proposed changing state law to permit the sale of alternative fuels such as E85 at an October 7, 2005 meeting, and held public hearings on October 24th. The expected outcome of having held this hearing is the changing of Florida state law to permit the selling of alternative fuels such as E85 by the end of 2005 to the general public. (Currently, only county, state, and Federal fleet vehicles may purchase E85 in Florida, from only 3 pumps in the state.) Several other states have similar laws still on their books that prevent the sale of E85 to the general public. The expected general outcome, though, is the rapidly widening acceptance of E85 sales to the general public in all of the United States by the end of 2006.

US Federal fleet flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are required to operate on alternative fuels 100% of the time upon the signing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law by President Bush on August 8, 2005. (See Section 701 for this requirement). Formerly, such FFVs were required to be operated by the end of 2005 on alternative fuels only 51% of the time (i.e., the majority of the time) by Executive Order 13149. (See Executive Order 13149 [1], dated April 21, 2000.) This means that the US Government's use of E85 is effectively doubled as of August 8, 2005 with the signing into law of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This jump in consumption had the unintended effect of limiting public availability of E85 coincident with shortages of gasoline due to impacts of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico during the 2005 hurricane season. Although the price of corn had not changed greatly, the usage of E85 nonetheless jumped, thereby creating a shortage of E85, and causing E85 prices to rise coincident with gasoline prices during the 2005 Hurricane Season.


Cost

As of 2005, E85 is frequently sold for up to 35% lower cost per quantity than gasoline. Much of this discount can be attributed to various government subsidies, and, at least in the United States, the elimination of state taxes that typically apply to gasoline and can amount to 47 cents, or more, per gallon of fuel. The US federal tax exemption that keeps ethanol economically competitive with petroleum fuel products is due to expire in 2007, but this exemption may be extended through legislative action. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the price of E85 rose to nearly on par with the cost of 87 octane gasoline in many states in the United States, and was for a short time the only fuel available when gasoline was sold out, but within four weeks of Katrina, the price of E85 had fallen once more to a 20% to 35% lower cost than 87 octane gasoline.

The price of E85 has risen quickly during 2005 also due to additional factors. With the signing into law of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, US Federal consumption of E85 jumped, causing shortages of E85, along with a rise in prices.

Unfortunately, because ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, fuel economy is reduced for most 2002 and earlier FFVs (flexible-fuel vehicles) that are currently on the road by about 30% (most after 2003 lose only 15-17%, or less) when operated on pure E85 (summer blend.) Some of the newest vehicles can lessen this reduction to only 5-15%. A few cars actually claim to provide better fuel economy on E85 than on gasoline; for example, one Saab turbocharged car actually claims better fuel economy on E85 than gasoline through using a higher compression ratio engine. Still, for almost all FFVs, more E85 is typically needed to do the same work as can be achieved with a lesser volume of gasoline. This difference is sometimes offset by the lower cost of the E85 fuel, depending on E85's current price discount relative to the current price of gasoline. As described earlier, the best thing for drivers to do is to record fuel usage with both fuels and calculate cost/distance for them. Only by doing that, can the end-user economy of the two fuels be compared.

For example, an existing pre-2003 model year FFV vehicle that normally achieves, say, 30 MPG on pure gasoline will typically achieve about 20 MPG, or slightly better, on E85 (summer blend.) When operated on E85 winter blend, which is actually E70 (70% ethanol, 30% gasoline), fuel economy will be even better than when operating on the summer blend. To achieve any short-term operational fuel cost savings, the price of E85 should therefore be 30% or more below the price of gasoline to equalize short term fuel costs for most older pre-2003 FFVs for both winter and summer blends of E85. Life-cycle costs over the life of the FFV engine are theoretically lower for E85, as ethanol is a cooler and cleaner burning fuel than gasoline. Provided that one takes a longterm life-cycle operating cost view, a continuous price discount of only 20% to 25% below the cost of gasoline is probably about the break-even point in terms of vehicle life-cycle operating costs for operating most FFVs on E85 exclusively (for summer, spring/fall, and winter blends.)

Fuel economy in fuel-injected non-FFVs operating on a mix of E85 and gasoline varies greatly depending on the engine and fuel mix. For a 60:40 blend of gasoline to E85 (summer blend), a typical fuel economy reduction of around 23.7% resulted in one controlled experiment with a 1998 Chevrolet S10 pickup with a 2.2L 4-cylinder engine, relative to the fuel economy achieved on pure gasoline. Similarly, for a 50:50 blend of gasoline to E85 (summer blend), a typical fuel economy reduction of around 25% resulted for the same vehicle. (Fuel economy performance numbers were measured on a fixed commute of approximately 110 miles roundtrip per day, on a predominantly freeway commute, running at a fixed speed (62 mph), with cruise control activated, air conditioning ON, at sea level, with flat terrain, traveling to/from Kennedy Space Center, FL.)


Use in Flexible-fuel engines

E85 is best used in engines modified to accept higher concentrations of ethanol. Such flexible-fuel engines are designed to run on any mixture of gasoline or ethanol with up to 85% ethanol by volume. The primary differences from non-FFVs is the elimination of bare magnesium, aluminium, and rubber parts in the fuel system, the use of fuel pumps capable of operating with electrically-conductive (alcohol) instead of non-conducting dielectric (gasoline) fuel, specially-coated wear-resistant engine parts, fuel injection control systems having a wider range of pulse widths (for injecting approximately 30% more fuel), the selection of stainless steel fuel lines (sometimes lined with plastic), the selection of stainless steel fuel tanks in place of terne fuel tanks, and, in some cases, the use of acid-neutralizing motor oil. For vehicles with fuel-tank mounted fuel pumps, additional differences to prevent arcing, as well as flame arrestors positioned in the tank's fill pipe, are also sometimes used.

Historically, the first widely-sold flexible-fuel vehicle in the United States was a variant of Henry Ford's Model T intended for use by self-reliant farmers who could make their own ethanol. Surprisingly, it is capable even to this day of running on E85, or gasoline, as it was designed to operate on either ethanol or gasoline, at the user's choice. Henry Ford's subsequent 1927 Model A likewise was an early flex fuel vehicle. It, however, eased the driver's method of accommodating various blends of alcohol and gasoline through a driver's control on the dash with a knob that was turned to control air fuel mixture and pulled to choke the single-barrel Zenith carburetor. This dash-mounted control provided easy control of all the major adjustments required for easily burning alcohol and gasoline in varying proportions, including enough range for burning today's E85 blend of alcohol and gasoline in any mix of E85 and gasoline.

Modern flexible-fuel vehicles have come a long way since the Model T and Model A, and now automatically adapt themselves to burning changing percentages of alcohol and gasoline without any user intervention required. So far, most flexible-fuel vehicles that have been built in the United States have been sport-utility vehicles and other members of the "light truck" vehicle class, with smaller numbers of sedans, station wagons, and the like.

Swedish automobile maker Saab has developed a turbocharged flexible-fuel engine called the BioPower which takes special advantage of the high-octane fuel. This engine allows the vehicle to accelerate faster and attain higher speeds when running on E85 than when running on straight gasoline.

General Motors subsidiary GM do Brazil adopted GM's Family II and Family 1 straight-4 engines with FlexPower technology that enables the use of ethanol, gasoline, or their mixture. The vehicles with FlexPower include the Chevrolet Corsa and the Chevrolet Astra.

Ford Updates Escape Hybrid with E85 Compatibility

February 17th, 2006 by Justin Couture - Canadian Auto Press



The only thing that could possibly be greener than the Ford Escape E85 Hybrid is the fuzzy green Muppet, Kermit the Frog, the Escape Hybrid’s new “spokesperson” who presented it together with Earvin ‘Magic’ Johnson at its debut last week in Chicago. The Escape Hybrid has been in the limelight for quite some time now, being the first hybrid vehicle to be produced by a North American automaker as well as the first hybrid SUV, and it’s been bumped back into the headlines by being the world’s first production vehicle to mate the benefits of a hybrid-electric drivetrain and ethanol flexible fuel technology.

Where some automakers pursue ethanol for its performance-enhancing properties, such as Saab and its BioPower models and concept, the Escape turns to ethanol for a different reason. E85, a fuel comprised of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, is a much more environmentally friendly fuel than regular unleaded which is generally 10 percent ethanol by volume. The ethanol used in E85 is grown from corn and other crops, and is considered to be carbon-neutral as the crops used to grow it remove the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as when it is burned.

On the surface, it seems as if the E85 Escape Hybrid isn’t any better than the standard Escape Hybrid. It operates just like the standard Escape Hybrid, with no difference in performance, noise, or fuel consumption. Instead, the difference lies in the E85’s tailpipe emissions rating, which is some 25 percent less caustic than an already relatively green gasoline-powered Escape Hybrid, making it the world’s cleanest and most fuel-efficient compact SUV. And in areas where E85 isn’t readily available, the Escape Hybrid E85 can run on any combination of gasoline and ethanol. It does not require a separate tank; the onboard computer automatically adjusts combustion to the fuel that is used.

On the other side of the globe, at the same time no less, Ford of Asia unveiled a facelift for its Escape at the Melbourne International Motor Show alongside its local-market Territory crossover SUV. The facelifted Escape (or Maverick in other markets) features Ford’s new three-bar chrome-plated grille, new twin-beam headlamps with wider lenses as well as a new hood. Also new are front and rear valances which feature painted skidplate protection, LED taillamps, recessed foglamps and mirror-mounted turn signal lamps.

Inside, Ford has made minor alterations to the cockpit, and while no official photos have been released, changes include a new steering wheel, new seat fabrics, a reworked instrument cluster and improved sound deadening materials for a quieter ride. Mechanical updates have also improved the efficiency of the V6-powered Escape, dropping its fuel consumption by 10.6 percent, enabling it to return 12.2 L/100 km in the city and 10.9 L/100 km on the highway. Equipment levels have also been boosted to include four-wheel discs with ABS on all models, as well as standard front and side airbags.

Incidentally, with the launch of a facelifted Escape for Asia, and a technologically-advanced E85 hybrid in America, Ford has shown its strengths as a global player with its Escape compact SUV. While it’s yet to be confirmed that the changes made to Escapes built at Ford’s Philippine and Vietnamese plants will be applied to North America-built Escapes, there’s a good chance that they’ll show up in the near future as they play an important role in strengthening Ford’s new global image in all of its markets.

Philips Develops Plastic RFID Tag

Scientists at Philips Research have created a fully functional 13.56 MHz RFID tag based entirely on plastic electronics. In contrast to conventional silicon-chip-based RFID tags, a plastic electronics RFID chip can be printed directly onto a plastic substrate along with an antenna without involving complex assembly steps. This could pave the way for the packaging industry to replace existing barcodes by a low-cost RFID tag that provides individual packages with a unique item-level identification code – something not feasible with current barcode technology.

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is an automatic identification method, based on remotely retrieving information via radio waves from miniature electronic circuits called RFID tags. Philips has now realized the first plastic-electronics-based tag that is capable of transmitting multi-bit digital identification codes at 13.56 MHz – the dominant industry-standard radio frequency for RFID tag applications. As an additional demonstrator for the technology, scientists at Philips Research have also developed a 64-bit code generator, showing the practicality of building plastic electronic circuits with the complexity required for item-level tagging.

Performance results for these circuits will be presented at this year’s International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC, February 5-9, San Francisco, CA, USA) in a paper that will also be awarded the conference’s Beatrice Winner Award for Editorial Excellence.

Source: Linux Electrons.

History of the Light-Speed Debate

Upheaval in Physics:
History of the Light-Speed Debate
by Helen D. Setterfield

[Ed Note: We have been following Barry Setterfield's research on the speed of light since 1993.1 It is interesting that both evolutionists and creation scientists can be blinded by their own presuppositions...]

When we walk into a dark room, flip a switch and the light is instantly on, it seems that light has no speed but is somehow infinite - instantly there - and that was the majority opinion of scientists and philosophers until September 1676, when Danish astronomer Olaf Roemer announced to the Paris Academie des Sciences that the anomalous behavior of the eclipse times of Jupiter's inner moon, Io, could be accounted for by a finite speed of light. 2 His work and his report split the scientific community in half, involving strong opinions and discussions for the next fifty years. It was Bradley's independent confirmation of the finite speed of light, published January 1, 1729, which finally ended the opposition.3 The speed of light was finite-incredibly fast, but finite.

The following question was: "Is the speed of light constant?" Interestingly enough, every time it was measured over the next few hundred years, it seemed to be a little slower than before. This could be explained away, as the first measurements were unbelievably rough compared to the technical accuracy later. It was not that simple, though. When the same person did the same test using the same equipment at a later period in time, the speed was slower. Not much, but slower.

These results kicked off a series of lively debates in the scientific community during the first half of the 20th century. Raymond Birge, highly respected chairman of the physics department at the University of California, Berkeley, had, from 1929 on, established himself as an arbiter of the values of atomic constants.4 The speed of light is considered an atomic constant. However Birge's recommended values for the speed of light decreased steadily until 1940, when an article written by him, entitled "The General Physical Constants, as of August 1940 with details on the velocity of light only," appeared in Reports on Progress in Physics (Vol. 8, pp.90-100, 1941). Birge began the article saying: "This paper is being written on request - and at this time on request ... a belief in any significant variability of the constants of nature is fatal to the spirit of science, as science is now understood [emphasis his]." These words, from this man, for whatever reason he wrote them, shut down the debate on the speed of light. Birge had previously recognized, as had others, that if the speed of light was changing, it was quite necessary that some of the other "constants" were also changing. This was evidently not to be allowed, whether it was true or not, and so the values for the various constants were declared and that was that. Almost. In the October 1975 issue of Scientific American (p. 120), C.L. Strong questioned whether the speed of light might change with time "as science has failed to get a consistently accurate value." It was just a ripple, but the issue had not quite disappeared.

Partly in order to quell any further doubts about the constancy of the speed of light, in October 1983 the speed of light was declared a universal constant of nature, defined as 299,792.458 kilometers per second, which is often rounded off to the measurement we are more familiar with in the West as 186,000 miles per second.

Birge's paper was published in 1941. Just a year later, Barry Setterfield was born in Australia. In 1979 he was 37 years old. That year he received a book from a friend, a book on astronomical anomalies. It was a large book, and near the end of it there was a section on the speed of light, questioning its constancy. Barry was stunned. Nothing he had read or learned in physics or astronomy had even hinted that there was a question regarding the speed of light. It was a constant, wasn't it? As he read, he learned about the measurements that had been taken years before, and the arguments that had gone on in the scientific literature, and he was fascinated. He figured he could read up on it and wrap up the question in about two weeks; it didn't quite work out that way.

Within a couple of years, one of the creationist organizations had started publishing some of Barry's findings. They were still preliminary, but there was so much more to this than he had thought. In the following years his exploration continued, and he read all the literature he could find. His work caught the attention of a senior research physicist at Stanford Research Institute International (SRI), who then asked him to submit a paper regarding his research. It was to be a white paper, or one that was for the purposes of discussion within the Institute.

Barry teamed up with Trevor Norman of Flinders University in Adelaide, and in 1987 Flinders itself published their paper, "Atomic Constants, Light, and Time." Their math department had checked it and approved it and it was published with the Stanford Research Institute logo as well. What happened next was like something out of a badly written novel. Gerald Aardsma, a man at another creationist organization, got wind of the paper and got a copy of it. Having his own ax to grind on the subject of physics, he called the heads of both Flinders and SRI and asked them if they knew that Setterfield and Norman were [gasp] creationists! SRI was undergoing a massive staff change at the time and since the paper had been published by Flinders, they disavowed it and requested their logo be taken off. Flinders University threatened Trevor Norman with his job and informed Barry Setterfield that he was no longer welcome to use any resources there but the library. Aardsma then published a paper criticizing the Norman-Setterfield statistical use of the data. His paper went out under the auspices of a respected creation institution.

Under attack by both evolutionists and creationists for their work, Norman and Setterfield found themselves writing long articles of defense, which appeared in a number of issues of creation journals. In the meantime, Lambert Dolphin, the physicist at Stanford who had originally requested the paper, teamed up with professional statistician Alan Montgomery to take the proverbial fine-tooth comb through the Norman-Setterfield paper to check the statistics used. Their defense of the paper and the statistical use of the data was then published in a scientific journal,5 and Montgomery went on to present a public defense at the 1994 International Creation Conference. Neither defense has ever been refuted in any journal or conference. Interestingly enough, later in 1987, after the Norman-Setterfield paper was published, another paper on light speed appeared, written by a Russian, V. S. Troitskii.6 Troitskii not only postulated that the speed of light had not been constant, but that light speed had originally been about 1010 times faster than now.

Since then, a multitude of papers on cosmology and the speed of light have shown up in journals and on the web. The theories abound as to what is changing, and in relation to what, and what the possible effects are. There is one person who is continuing to work with the data, however. As the storm around the 1987 report settled down, Barry Setterfield got back to work, investigating the data rather than playing around with pure theory.

Meanwhile, halfway around the world from Australia, in Arizona, a respected astronomer named William Tifft was finding something strange going on with the redshift measurements of light from distant galaxies. It had been presumed that the shift toward the red end of the spectrum of light from these distant galaxies was due to a currently expanding universe, and the measurements should be seen as gradually but smoothly increasing as one went through space. That wasn't what Tifft was finding. The measurements weren't smooth. They jumped from one plateau to another. They were quantized, or came in quantities with distinct breaks in between them.

When Tifft published his findings,7 astronomers were incredulous and dismissive. In the early 1990s in Scotland, two other astronomers decided to prove him wrong once and for all. Guthrie and Napier collected their own data and studied it. They ended up deciding Tifft was right.8 What was going on? Barry Setterfield read the material and studied the data. The universe could not be expanding if the red shift measurements were quantized. Expansion would not occur in fits and starts. So what did the red shift mean? While most others were simply denying the Tifft findings, Barry took a closer look. And it all started to make sense. The data was showing where the truth of the matter was. While many articles continued to be published regarding theoretical cosmologies, with little regard for much of the data available, Barry was more interested in the data.

Yet, his work is not referenced by any of the others. The Stanford paper is just about forgotten, if it was ever known, by the folks in mainstream physics and astronomy. However, not only are the measurements still there, but the red shift data has added much more information, making it possible to calculate the speed of light back to the first moment of creation. So Barry wrote another paper and submitted it to a standard physics journal in 1999. They did not send it to peer review but returned it immediately, saying it was not a timely subject, was of no current interest, and was not substantial enough. (It was over fifty pages long with about a hundred and fifty references to standard physics papers and texts.) So Barry resubmitted it to an astronomy journal. They sent it out to peer review and the report came back that the paper was really interesting but that it really belonged in a physics journal. So, in 2000, he sent it off to another physics journal. They refused it because they did not like one of the references Barry used: a university text on physics. They also disagreed with the model of the atom that Barry used - the standard Bohr model. In August 2001, the paper was updated and submitted to a European peer-reviewed science journal. The editor has expressed interest. We will see what will happen. In the meantime everything continues: Barry Setterfield is giving presentations in different countries, the mainstream physicists and theorists are continuing to publish all manner of theoretical ideas, and the subject of the speed of light has erupted full force back into the scientific literature.

There is a reason that Barry's work is not being referenced by mainstream scientists - or even looked at by most. If Barry is right about what the data are indicating, we are living in a very young universe. This inevitable conclusion will never be accepted by standard science. Evolution requires billions of years.

And there is a reason why the major creation organizations are holding his work at an arm's length as well: they are sinking great amounts of money into trying to prove that radiometric dating procedures are fatally flawed. According to what Barry is seeing, however, they are not basically flawed at all: there is a very good reason why such old dates keep appearing in the test results. The rate of decay of radioactive elements is directly related to the speed of light. When the speed of light was higher, decay rates were faster, and the long ages would be expected to show up. As the speed of light slowed down, so the radioactive decay rates slowed down.

By assuming today's rate of decay has been uniform, the earth and universe look extremely old. Thus, the evolutionists are happy with the time that gives for evolution and the creationists are looking for flaws in the methods used for testing for dates. But if the rates of decay for the different elements have not been the same through time, then that throws both groups off! Here was an "atomic clock" which ran according to atomic processes and, possibly, a different "dynamical" clock, the one we use everyday, which is governed by gravity - the rotation and revolution rates of the earth and moon. Could it be that these two "clocks" were not measuring time the same way? A data analysis suggested this was indeed happening. Tom Van Flandern, with a Ph.D. from Yale in astronomy, specializing in celestial mechanics, and for twenty years (1963-1983) Research Astronomer and Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C., released the results of some tests showing that the rate of ticking of the atomic clock was measurably slowing down when compared with the "dynamical clock."9 (Tom Van Flandern was terminated from his work with that institution shortly thereafter, although his work carries a 1984 publication date.)

In recognizing this verified difference between the two different "clocks," it is important to realize that the entire dating system recognized by geology and science in general, saying that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe somewhere around ten billion years older than that, might be thrown into total disarray. The standard science models cannot deal with that. The standard creation models cannot, at this point, deal with the fact that radiometric dating may be, for the most part, telling the truth on the atomic clock. And, meanwhile, the Hubble spacecraft keeps sending back data which keep slipping into Barry Setterfield's model as though they actually belonged there.

Single Electron Switches New Silicon Transistor

Single Electron Switches New Silicon Transistor

The latest issue of Applied Physics Letters carries news about a silicon transistor, designed by NTT Corp. (NTT) of Japan, that is switched on and off by the motion of an individual electron. The transistors have been tested at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the researchers say they will have application in low-power nano-electronics, particularly as next-generation integrated circuits for logic operations.

Until now, this type of transistor - called a "single-electron tunneling" (SET) device - was typically made with a metal "wire" interrupted by insulating barriers that provided a narrow range of control over electron flow. But silicon devices overcome this limitation by having barriers that are electrically "tunable" over a wider operating range, offering finer, more flexible control of the transistor's on/off function. Silicon-based devices also allow fabrication using standard semiconductor technology. The researchers say that this is the first reproducible and controllable silicon SET transistor design to have been reported.

The new devices are based on the principle that as device sizes shrink to the nanometer range, the amount of energy required to move a single electron increases significantly. It is then possible to control individual electron motion and current flow by manipulating the voltage applied to barriers, or "gates," in the electrical circuit. When the transistor is turned on, individual electrons file through the circuit, as opposed to thousands at a time in a conventional device.

NIST/NTT made five uniform, working silicon transistors with tunable barriers. Each device consists of a silicon channel 360 nanometers (nm) long and 30 nm wide, with three gates crossing the channel. The gates have two levels; the upper level turns the current on and off, while the lower level controls electron flow in small local areas. The team was able to tune gate conductance properties over a wide range, by more than three orders of magnitude.

Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology

World of Islam: Energy or Religion?

World of Islam Energy or Religion...