Batteries

So for my Junior Theme topic, I decided to research why electric cars have recieved a lot of opposition in the past and especially in the last 40 years or so.  And one of the reasons why it is so difficult to market an electric car are the batteries.  In the past, only lead acid batteries were used.  They are very heavy, expensive, and have short lives, but they deliver a  lot of charge and are rechargable.  Since this clearly isn't going to work in the future, there are a number of other alternatives.

Henry Ford had an idea for a sodium sulphur battery, but it only works at about 600 degrees F, and the containment device for this battery would be too heavy, but it would give a lot of energy.

Here is one of the lithium ion batteries that will power the Nissian Leaf.

I read a great article about a Nickle Metal Hydride battery that would give long life, lots of power, and is pretty light.  There is another battery that has been a huge success in the mobile communications business, the lithium ion battery.  They are light, give pretty good charge, and last a while and are also environmentally friendly.  I read in an article by MIT that describes how they are making the lithium ion battery even more powerful and longer lasting.  The only problem with all new technology is that it will cost a lot for the first few models.

In addition to these technologies, there is also a lot of research done so that we can move towards thin film battery technologies.  This will allow batteries to be printed on plastic or metal sheets and then used to power items.  Using this technology, electric cars could go up to 4x the distance that they can now. (The leaf is marketed that it can go 100 miles on a single charge)

So would you buy one of these cars that may be a little on the expensive side?  I mean, wouldn't it benefit us all?  Or would the cost of all the things involved keep you away from the new technology?  Would a hybrid work?

Who Should Choose?

In the Wall Street Journal, I read this article about how a school in California was changing.  Basically, it was a really bad school.  Less than half of the students graduate, and only about 3% are elegible to attend California's public universities.  When I looked up, "Compton, CA," the town where this school is located, I saw that the top two related searches were ,"Compton ghettos," and, "Compton gangs."  No wonder the schools are bad.  Notice that the photo is from streetgangs.com.

So since the schools are so bad, the parents decided to petition the district to invite a charter school to take over their failing public school.  Needless to say, the public school administration and teachers and all the people involved are not happy.  This is the first example of "parent trigger" scholl reform.

The school is fighting the democracy of the people as well as it can.  It has urged parents to take back their petitions.  Next they sort of cheated.  They came up with a new petition processing method, which requires each person to show up at the school at certain appointed times and show IDs and stuff in order for the signature to be valid.  Then a judge issued a restraining order on the verification process, because it must have seemed just a bit unconstitutional to him (it certainly does to me!), and then the school disqualified all of the petitions on technicalities.  Just because they weren't all stapled or something.  It seems pretty shady to me.

Shouldn't the people get the right to say how they want their children educated?  And if the public school isn't up to snuff, shouldn't the people get to choose a better education for them?  Or should the government be allowed to say how people are allowed to be educated?  This seems like an abridgement of some rights to me, maybe not civil rights, but definitely some rights.

Free speech and Copyrights

I get mail from a certain website that posts information about iPhone updates, products, software, and mostly jailbreak information.  What is Jailbreaking an iDevice you may ask?  Basically, someone who owns an iPhone or iPod or iPad can run a program on their computer and device that allows you to run other programs, apps, and such, as well as change the appearance of the stuff on the screen.

For the past few weeks I have been receiving e-mails about controversy surrounding a hacker who's online name is Geohot.  He develops jailbreak software to jailbreak all kinds of devices, like the PS3.  He is being sued by Sony for helping software pirates, claiming that his actions would allow people to play pirated games.  Geohot claims that he supports people who want to create their own games, not those who steal games.  In any case, Geohot says that he never hacked a device that he didn't own or that somebody didn't ask him to hack.  But with so much gaming being done online, is a device that you own really yours?  Should you be able to do anything you want with what you bought?  I think so, but is that legal?  As long as it doesn't harm anyone, I don't see the issue.

Save the Written History!

I was reading this article that my dad saved for me from the paper, and it was about a kind of graffiti.  A teacher encouraged his students to write their name and a favorite quote on the classroom wall every year.  Some students came back and saw their names on the wall and were inspired, others were inspired by what their predecessors had written.  In any event, the teacher died of cancer, and the school is planning to rennovate the building, including the walls of that classroom.  I can't get a good picture, so please go to the link and look at the slide show and the descriptions.  Very interesting stuff.

The article goes on to say that in the past, such as at a certain ROTC center, they cut the signatures on the wall and part of the wall away and brought it with them to the new location so that the people on the wall would still be honored.  The school decided not to save the wall, but to make a record of the cinder block wall by photographing each block.

Does this seem like an appropriate solution?  Isn't there something more secure about having your name printed on concrete as opposed to paper or special cardstock?  Paper is easily destroyed.  What will new members of classes do?  Will they get an opportunity to immortalize their names for a few years?  Will the tradition stop?  Is this decision appropriate?

Deconstructing Wisconsin

During the debates over the past few weeks about the Wisconsin strikes, I have been able to look at what is going on and what the problem seems to be.  I just read two articles about this subject.  The article by USA today seems to lean towards the side of the republicans and the state of Wisconsin in this issue.  Governor Scott Walker says that he wants to balance the budget of the state by cutting the funding from a number of government funded organizations like Medicaid, as well as the salaries of government employees, and removing some of their collective bargaining rights.  Collective bargaining rights are simply the rights that an employee has to request higher pay or better benefits from their employer.  Some of these rights are being taken away from the unions, leaving only the right to request higher wages and strike for them.  In addition, certain regulations are being placed on unions that would cut their income by about 1/3.

Now, some of these measures make sense.  I  think that bills to cut spending are great.  Very necessary, any time.  I think that since only government employees are the ones affected, and since they receive pretty good benefits and pay, it is permissible to cut the ability to bargain for more, but only if they concede to not get rid of too many in the near future.  In addition, I believe that it is ridiculous that employees would not have to pay into their own pension and medical funds.  It seems like the government is just giving away the taxpayer's money and other people get it for free.  That doesn't seem right to me.

However, there are problems with this kind of law.  It seems like the governor and his party have ulterior motives that are not expressed publicly.  Weakening the unions would weaken the democratic party, which would weaken the opposition to the republicans.  This kind of power struggle is what has felled many a good country in the past, and I would hate to see a vicious fight for power between the two parties ensue.  While I see necessary spending cuts on the surface, I think that trying to pass laws that would hurt what makes America unique (democracy and the ability to lobby the government) is not right.

So where is the middle ground?  Can two parties that conflict find a compromise?  We'll soon find out, no matter the case.