The glory of American screws and bolts is their low cost ubiquity, especially in our coarse thread (UNC = United National Coarse) sizes. Between 1/4 inch and 5/8″, they are sized in 1/16″ steps, and after that in 1/8″ steps. Below 3/16″, they are sized by wire gauges, and generally they have unique pitch sizes. All US screws and bolts are measured by their diameter and threads per inch. Thus, the 3/8-16 (UNC) has an outer diameter (major diameter) of 3/8″ with 16 threads per inch (tpi). 16 tpi is an ideal thread number for overall hold strength. No other bolt has 16 threads per inch so it is impossible to use the wrong bolt in a hole tapped for 3/8-16. The same is true for basically every course thread with a very few exceptions, mainly found between 3/16″ and 1/4″ where the wire gauges transition to fractional sizes. Because of this, if you stick to UTC you are unlikely to screw up, as it were. You are also less-likely to cross-thread.
I own one of these. It’s a tread pitch gauge.
US fine threads come in a variety of standards, most notably UNF = United National Fine. No version of fine thread is as strong as coarse because while there are more threads per inch, each root is considerably weaker. The advantage of fine treads is for use with very thin material, or where vibration is a serious concern. The problem is that screwups are far more likely and this diminishes the strength even further. Consider the 7/16″ – 24 (UNF). This bolt will fit into a nut or flange tapped for 1/2″- 24. The fit will be a little loose, but you might not notice. You will be able to wrench it down so everything looks solid, but only the ends of the threads are holding. This is a accident waiting to happen. To prevent such mistakes you can try to never allow a 7/6″-24 bolt into your shop, but this is uncomfortably difficult. If you ever let a 7/6″-24 bolt in, some day someone will grab it and use it, in all likelihood with a 1/2″ -24 nut or flange, since these are super-common. Under stress, the connection will fail in the worst possible moment.
Other UNF bolts and nuts present the same screwup risk. For example, between the 3/8″-24 and 5/16″-24 (UNF), or the #10-32 (UNF) and also with the 3/16″- 32, and the latter with the #8-32 (UNC). There is also a French metric with 0.9mm — this turns out to be identical to -32 pitch. The problem appears with any bolt pair where with identical pitch and the major diameter of the smaller bolt has a larger outer diameter (major diameter) than the inner diameter (minor diameter) of the larger bolt. If these are matched, the bolts will seem to hold when tightened, but they will fail in use. You well sometimes have to use these sizes because they match with some purchased flange. If you have to use them, be careful to use the largest bolt diameter that will fit into the threaded hole.
Where I have the option, my preference is to stick to UNC as much as possible, even where vibration is an issue. In vibration situations, I prefer to add a lock nut or sometimes, an anti-vibration glue, locktite, available in different release temperatures. Locktite is also helpful to prevent gas leaks. In our hydrogen purifiers, I use lock washers on the ground connection from the power cord, for example.
I try to avoid metric, by the way. They less readily available in the US, and more expensive. The other problem with metric is that there are two varieties (Standard and French — God love the French engineering) and there are so many sizes and pitches that screwups are common. Metric bolts come in every mm diameter, and often fractional mm too. There is a 2mm, a 2.3mm, a 2.5mm, and a 2.6mm, often with overlapping pitches. The pitch of metric screws and bolts is measured by their spacing, by the way, so a 1mm metric pitch means there is 1mm between threads, the the equivalent of a 24.5 pitch in the US, and a 0.9mm pitch = US-32. Thread confusion possibilities are endless. A M6x1 (6mm OD x 1mm pitch) is easily confused with a M5x1 or a M7x1, and the latter with the M7.5×1. A M8x1.25 is easily confused with a M9x1.25, and a M14x2 with an M16x2. And then there is confusion with US bolts: a 2.5mm metric pitch is nearly identical to a US 10tpi pitch. I can not rid myself of US threads, so I avoid metric where I can. As above, problems arise if you use a smaller diameter bolt in a larger diameter nut.
For those who have to use metric, I suggest you always use the largest bolt that will fit (assuming you can find it). I try to avoid bringing odd-size bolts into their shop, that is, stick to M6, M8, M10. It’s not always possible, but it’s a suggestion. I get equipment with odd-size metric bolts too. My preference is to stick to UNC and to avoid odd numbers.
Robert Buxbaum, January 23, 2024. Note: I’ve only really discussed bolt sizes between about #4 and 1″, and I didn’t consider UNRC or UNJF or other, odd options. You can figure these issues out yourself from the above, I think.
Leading up to the Cybertruck launch 4 weeks ago, the expert opinion was that it was a failure. Morgan Stanley, here dubbed it as one, as did Rolling Stone here. Without having driven the vehicle, the experts at Motor trend, here, declared it was worse than you thought, “a novelty” car. I’d like to differ. The experts point out that the design is fundamentally different from what we’ve made for years. They claim it’s ugly, undesirable, and hard to build. Ford’s F-150 trucks are the standard, the top selling vehicle in the US, and Cybertruck looks nothing like an F-150. I suspect that, because of the differences, the Cybertruck can hardly fail to be a success in both profit and market share.
Cybertruck pulls a flat-bed trailer at Starbase.
Start with profit. Profit is the main measure of company success. High profit is achieved by selling significant numbers at a significant profit margin. Any decent profit is a success. This vehicle could trail the F-150 sales forever and Musk could be the stupidest human on the planet, so long as Tesla sells at a profit, and does so legally, the company will succeed. Tesla already has some 2 million pre-orders, and so far they show no immediate sign of leaving despite the current price of about $80,000. Unless you think they are all lying or that Musk has horribly mispriced the product, he should make a very decent profit. My guess is he’s priced to make over $10,000 per vehicle, or $20B on 2 million vehicles. Meanwhile, no other eV company seems to be making a profit.
The largest competing electric pickup company is Rivian. They sold 16,000 electric trucks in Q3 2023, but the profit margin is -100%. This is to say, they lose $1 for every $1 worth of sales –and that’s unsustainable. Despite claims to the contrary, a money-losing business is a failure. The other main competitors are losing too. Ford is reported to lose about $50,00 per eV. According to Automotive News, here, last week, Ford decided to cut production of its electric F-150, the Lightning, by 50%. This makes sense, but provides Cybertruck a market fairly clear of US e-competition.
2024 BYD, Chinese pickup truck
Perhaps the most serious competitor is BYD, a Chinese company backed by the communist government, and Warren Buffet. They are entering the US market this month with a new pickup. It might be profitable, but BYD is relatively immune to profitability. The Chinese want dominance of the eV market and are willing to lose money for years until they get it. Fortunately for Tesla, the BYD truck looks like Rivian’s. Tesla’s trucks should exceed them in range, towing, and safety. BYD, it seems, is aiming for a lower price point and a different market, Rivian’s.
A video, here, shows the skin of a Cybertruck is bulletproof to 9mm, shotgun, and 45 caliber machine gun fire. Experts scoff at the significance of bulletproof skin — good for folks working among Mexican drug lords, or politicians, or Israelis. Tesla is aiming currently for a more upscale customer, someone who might buy a Hummer or an F-250. This is more usable and cheaper.
Don’t try this with other trucks.
Another way Cybertruck could fail is through criminal activity. Musk could be caught paying off politicians or cheating on taxes or if the trucks fail their safety tests. So far, Cybertruck seems to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards by a good margin. In a video comparison, here, it appears to take front end collisions as well as an F-150, and appears better in side collisions.
This leaves production difficulty. This could prevent the cybertruck from being a big success, and the experts have all harped on this. The vehicle body is a proprietary stainless steel, 0.07″ thick. Admittedly it’s is hard to form, but Tesla seems to manage it. VIN number records indicate that Tesla had delivered 448 cybertrucks as Friday last week, many of them to showrooms, but some to customers. Drone surveys of the Gigafactory lot show that about 19 are made per day. That’s a lot more than you’d see if assembly was by hand. Assuming a typical learning curve, it’s reasonable to expect some 600 will be delivered by December 31, and that production should reach 6000 per month in mid 2024. At that rate, they’ll be making and selling at the same rate as Rivian or Ford, and making real money doing it. The stainless body might even be a plus, deterring copycat competition. Other pluses are the add-ons, like the base-camp tent option, a battery extension, a ramp, and (it’s claimed) some degree of sea worthiness. Add-ons add profit and deter direct copying (for a time).
Basecamp, tent option.
So why do I think the experts are so wrong? My sense is that these people are experts because of long experience at other companies — the competitors. They know what was tried, and that innovation failed. They know that their companies chose not to make anything like a Cybertruck, and not to provide the add-ons. They know that the big boys avoid “novelty cars” and add-ons. There is an affinity among experts for consensus and sure success, the success that comes from Chinese companies, government support and international banking. If the Cybertruck success is an insult to them and their expertise. Nonetheless, if Cybertruck succeeds, they will push their companies towards a more angular design plus add-ons. And they will claim cybertruck is no way novel, but that government support is needed to copy it.
Franklin’s walking stick, willed to General Washington. Now in the Smithsonian.
Many famous people carried walking sticks Washington, Churchill, Moses, Dali. Until quite recently, it was “a thing”. Benjamin Franklin willed one, now in the Smithsonian, to George Washington, to act as a sort of scepter: “My fine crab-tree walking stick, with a gold head curiously wrought in the form of the cap of liberty, I give to my friend, and the friend of mankind, General Washington. If it were a Scepter, he has merited it, and would become it. It was a present to me from that excellent woman, Madame de Forbach, the dowager Duchess of Deux-Ponts”. A peculiarity of this particular stick is that the stick is uncommonly tall, 46 1/2″. This is too tall for casual, walking use, and it’s too fancy to use as a hiking stick. Franklin himself, used a more-normal size walking stick, 36 3/8″ tall, currently in the collection of the NY Historical Society. Washington too seems to have favored a stick of more normal length.
Washington with walking stick
Walking sticks project a sort of elegance, as well as providing personal protection. Shown below is President Andrew Jackson defending himself against an assassin using his walking stick to beat off an assassin. He went on to give souvenir walking sticks to friends and political supporters. Sticks remained a common political gift for 100 years, at least through the election of Calvin Coolidge.
Andrew Jackson defends himself.
I started making walking sticks a few years back, originally for my own use, and then for others when I noticed that many folks who needed canes didn’t carry them. It was vanity, as best I could tell: the normal, “old age” cane is relatively short, about 32″. Walking with it makes you bend over; you look old and decrepit. Some of the folks who needed canes, carried hiking sticks, I noticed, about 48″. These are too tall to provide any significant support, as the only way to grasp one was from the side. Some of my canes are shown below. They are about 36″ tall, typically with a 2″ wooden ball as a head. They look good, you stand straight, and they provides support and balance when going down stairs.
Some of my walking sticks.
I typically make my sticks of American Beech, a wood of light weight, with good strength, and a high elastic modulus of elasticity, about 1.85 x106 psi. Oak, hickory, and ash are good options, but they are denser, and thus more suited to self-defense. Wood is better than metal for many applications, IMHO, as I’ve discussed elsewhere. The mathematician Euler showed the the effective strength of a walking stick does not depend on the compressive strength but rather on elastic constant via “the Euler buckling equation”, one of many tremendously useful equations developed by Leonhard Euler (1707-1783).
For a cylindrical stick, the maximum force supported by a stick is: F = π3Er4/4L2, where F is the force, r is the radius, L is the length, and E is the elastic modulus. I typically pick a diameter of 3/4″ or 7/8″, and fit the length to the customer. For a 36″ beech stick, the buckling strength is calculated to be 221 or 409 pounds respectively. I add a rubber bottom to make it non–scuff and less slip-prone. I sometimes add a rope thong, too. Here is a video of Fred Astaire dancing with this style of stick. It’s called “a pin stick”, in case you are interested because it looks like a giant pin.
Country Irishmen are sometimes depicted with a heavy walking stick called a Shillelagh. It’s used for heavier self-defense than available with a pin-stick, and is generally seen being used as a cudgel. There are Japanese versions of self defense using a lighter, 36″ stick, called a Han-bo, as shown here. There is also the wand, as seen for example in Harry Potter. It focuses magical power. Similar to this is Moses’s staff that he used in front of Pharaoh, a combination wand and hiking stick as it’s typically pictured. It might have been repurposed for the snake-on-a-stick that protects against dark forces. Dancing with a stick, Astaire style, can drive away emotional forces, while the more normal use is elegance, and avoiding slips.
Sailing ships are wonderfully economic and non-polluting. They have unlimited range because they use virtually no fuel, but they tend to be slow, about 5-12 knots, about half as fast as Diesel-powered ships, and they can be stranded for weeks if the wind dies. Classic sailing ships also require a lot of manpower: many skilled sailors to adjust the sails. What’s wanted is an easily manned, economical, hybrid ship: one that’s powered by Diesel when the wind is light, and by a simple sail system when the wind blows. Anton Flettner invented an easily manned sail and built two ships with it. The Barbara above used a 530 hp Diesel and got additional thrust, about an additional 500 hp worth, from three, rotating, cylindrical sails. The rotating sales produced thrust via the same, Magnus force that makes a curve ball curve. Barbara went at 9 knots without the wind, or about 12.5 knots when the wind blew. Einstein thought it one of the most brilliant ideas he’d seen.
Force diagram of Flettner rotor (Lele & Rao, 2017)
The source of the force can be understood with help of the figure at left and the graph below. When a simple cylinder sits in the wind, with no spin, α=0, the wind force is essentially drag, and is 1/2 the wind speed squared, times the cross-sectional area of the cylinder, Dxh, and the density of air. Add to this a drag coefficient, CD, that is about 1 for a non-spinning cylinder. More explicitly, FD= CDDhρv2/2. As the figure at right shows, there is a sort-of lift in the form of sustained vibrations at zero spin, α=0. Vibrations like this are useless for propulsion, and can be damaging to the sail. In baseball, such vibrations are the reason knuckle balls fly erratically. If you spin the cylindrical mast at α=2.1, that is at a speed where the fast surface moves with the wind, at 2.1 times the wind speed, and the other side side moves to the wind, there is more force on the side moving to the wind (see figure above) and the ship can be propelled forward (or backward if you reverse the spin direction). Significantly, at α=2.1, you get 6 times as much force as the expected drag, and you no longer get vibrations. FL= CLDhρv2/2, and CL=6 at this rotation speed
Numerical lift coefficients versus time, seconds for different ratios of surface speed to wind speed, a. (Mittal & Kumar 2003), Journal of Fluid Mechanics.
At this rotation speed, α=2.1, this force will be enough to drive a ship so long as the wind is reasonably strong, 15-30 knots, and ship does not move faster than the wind. The driving force is always at right angles to the perceived wind, called the “fair wind”, and the fair wind moves towards the front as the ship speed increases. If you spin the cylinder at 3 to 4 times the wind speed, the lift coefficient increases to between 10 and 18. This drives a ship with yet force. You need somewhat more power to turn the sails, but you are also further from vibrations. Flettner considered α=3.5. optimal. Higher rotation speeds are possible, but they require more rotation power (rotation power goes as ω2, and if you go beyond α=4.3, the vibrations return. Controlling the speed is somewhat difficult but important. Flettner sails were no longer used by the 1930s when fuel became cheaper.
In the early 1980s, the famous underwater explorer, Jacques Cousteau revived the Flettner sail for his exploratory ship, the Alcyone. He used light-weight aluminum sails, and an electric motor for rotation instead of Diesel as on the Barbara. He claimed that the ship drew more than half of its power from the wind, and claimed that, because of computer control, it could sail with no crew. This latter claim was likely bragging. Even with today’s computer systems, people are needed as soon as something goes wrong. Still the energy savings were impressive enough that other ship owners took notice. In recent years, several ship-owners have put Flettner sails on cargo ships, as a right. This is not an ideal use since cargo ships tend to go fast. Still, it’s reported that, these ships get about 20% of their propulsion from wind power, not an insignificant amount.
And this gets us to the reason your curve ball does not curve: you’re not spinning it fast enough. You want the ball to spin at a higher rate than you get just by rolling the ball off your fingers. If you do this, α = 1 and you get relatively little sideways force. To get the ball to really curve, you have to snap your wrist hard aiming for α=1.5 or so. As another approach you can aim for a knuckle ball, achieved with zero rotation. At α=0, the ball will oscillate and your pitch nearly impossible to hit, or catch. Good luck.
Robert Buxbaum, March 22, 2023. There are also various Flettner airplane designs where horizontal, cylindrical “wings” rotate to provide lift, power too in some versions. The aim is high lift with short wings and a relatively low power draw. So-far, these planes are less efficient and slower than a normal helicopter.
The Dead Sea in Israel is a popular tourist attraction and health resort-area. It is also the lowest point on the planet, with a surface about 430m below sea level. Its water is saturated with an alkaline salt, and quite devoid of life, and it’s shrinking fast, loosing about 1 m in height every year. The Jordan river water that feeds the sea is increasingly drawn off for agriculture, and is now about 10% of what it was in the 1800s. The Dead Sea is disappearing fast, a story that is repeated with other inland seas: the Aral Sea, the Great Salt Lake, etc. In theory, one could reverse the loss using sea water. In theory, you could generate power dong this too: 430m is seven times the drop-height of Niagara Falls. The problem is the route and the price.
Five (or six) semi-attractive routes have been mapped out to bring water to the Dead Sea, as shown on the map at right. The shortest, and least expensive is route “A”. Here, water from the Mediterranean enters a 12 km channel near Haifa; it is pumped up 50m and travels in a pipe for about 52 km over the Galilean foothills, exiting to a power station as shown on the elevation map below. In the original plan the sea water feeds into the Jordan river, a drop of about 300m. The project had been estimated to cost $3 B. Unfortunately, it would make much of the Jordan river salty. It was thus deemed unacceptable. A variation of this would run the seawater along the Jordan in a pipe or an open channel. This would add to the cost, and would likely diminish the power that could be extracted, but you would not contaminate the Jordan.
A more expensive route, “B”, is shorter but it requires extensive tunneling under Jerusalem. Assuming 20 mies of tunnel at $500 MM/mile, this would cost $10B. It also requires the sea water to flow through the Palestinian West Bank on its way to the sea. This is politically sensitive and is unlikely to be acceptable to the West Bank Palestinians.
Vertical demand of the northern route
Two other routes, labeled “C” and “D” are likely even more expensive than route B. They require the water to be pumped over the Judaean hills near Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem. That’s perhaps 600m up. The seawater would flow from Ashkalon or Gaza and would enter the Dead Sea at Sodom, near Masada. Version C is the most politically acceptable, since it’s short and does not go through Palestinian land. Also, water enters the dead sea at its saltiest point so there is no disruption of the environment. Route D is similar to C, somewhat cheaper, but a lot more political. It goes through Gaza.
The longest route, “E” would go through Jordan taking water from the Red Sea. Its price tag is said to be $10 B. It’s a relatively flat route, but still arduous, rising 210m. As a result it’s not clear that any power would be generated. A version of this route could send the water entirely through Israel. It’s not clear that this would be better than Route C. Looking things over, it was decided that only routes that made sense are those that avoided Palestinian land. An agreement was struck with Jordan to go ahead with route D, with construction to begin in 2021. The project has been on hold though because of cost, COVID, and governmental inertia.
In order to make a $5-10B project worthwhile, you’ll have to generate $500MM to $1B/year. Some of this will come from tourism, but the rest must come from electrical power generation. As an estimate of power generation, let’s assume that that the flow is 65 m3/s, just enough to balance the evaporation rate. Assuming a 400 m power drop and an 80% efficient turbine, we should generate 80% of 255 MWe = about 204 MWe on average. Assuming a value of electricity of 10¢/kWh, that translates to $20,000/ hour, or $179 million per year. This is something, but not enough to justify the cost. We might increase the value of the power by including an inland pond for water storage. This would allow power production to be regulated to times of peak load, or it could be used for recreation, fish-farming, or cooling a thermal power station up to 1000 MWe. These options almost make sense, but with the tunnel prices quoted, the project is still too expensive to make sense. It is “on hold” for now.
It’s not like the sea will disappear if nothing is done. With 10% of the original in-flow of water to the Dead Sea, it will shrink to 10% its original size, and then stop shrinking. At that point evaporation will match in-flow. One could add more fresh water by increasing the flow from the sea of Galilee, but that water is needed. When more water is available, more is taken out for farming. This is what’s happened to the Arial Sea — it’s now about 10% the original size, and quite salty.
Elon Musk besides the prototype 12 foot diameter tunnel.
There’s a now a new tunnel option though and perhaps these routes deserve a second look: Elon Musk claims his “Boring company” can bore long tunnels of 12 foot diameter, for $10-20 MM/mile. This should be an OK size for this project. Assuming he’s right about the price, or close to right, the Dead Sea could be raised for $1B or so. At that price-point, it makes financial sense. It would even make sense if one built multiple seapools, perhaps one for swimming and one for energy storage, to be located before the energy-generating drop, and another for fish after. There might even be a pool that would serve as coolant for a thermal power plant. Water in the desert is welcome, even if it’s salt water.
Sharrow Marine introduced a new ship propeller design two years ago, at the Miami International Boat show. Unlike traditional propellers, there are no ends on the blades. Instead, each blade is a connecting ribbon with the outer edge behaving like a connecting winglet. The blade pairs provide low-speed lift-efficiency gains, as seen on a biplane, while the winglets provide high speed gains. The efficiency gain is 9-30% over a wide range of speeds, as shown below, a tremendous improvement. I suspect that this design will become standard over the next 10-20 years, as winglets have become standard on airplanes today.
A Sharrow propeller, MX-1
The high speed efficiency advantage of the closed ends of the blades, and of the curved up winglets on modern airplanes is based on avoiding losses from air (or water) going around the end from the high pressure bottom to the low-pressure top. Between the biplane advantage and the wingtip advantage, Sharrow propellers provide improved miles per gallon at every speed except the highest, 32+ mph, plus a drastic decrease in vibration and noise, see photo.
The propeller design was developed with paid research at the University of Michigan. It was clearly innovative and granted design patent protection in most of the developed world. To the extent that the patents are respected and protected by law, Sharrow should be able to recoup the cost of their research and development. They should make a profit too. As an inventor myself, I believe they deserve to recoup their costs and make a profit. Not all inventions lead to a great product. Besides, I don’t think they charge too much. The current price is $2000-$5000 per propeller for standard sizes, a price that seems reasonable, based on the price of a boat and the advantage of more speed, more range, plus less fuel use and less vibration. This year Sharrow formed an agreement with Yamaha to manufacture the propellers under license, so supply should not be an issue.
Vastly less turbulence follows the Sharrow propeller.
China tends to copy our best products, and often steals the technology to make them, employing engineers and academics as spys. Obama/Biden have typically allowed China to benefit for the sales of copies and the theft of intellectual property, allowing the import of fakes to the US with little or no interference. Would you like a fake Rolex or Fendi, you can buy on-line from China. Would you like fake Disney, ditto. So far, I have not seen Chinese copies of the Sharrow in the US, but I expect to see them soon. Perhaps Biden’s Justice Department will do something this time, but I doubt it. By our justice department turning a blind eye to copies, they rob our innovators, and rob American workers. His protectionism is one thing I liked about Donald Trump.
The Sharrow Propeller gives improved mpg values at every speed except the very highest.
When I began college in 1972, the majority of engineering students and business students were male. They from the top of their high school classes, and from stable homes mostly; they went on to high paying jobs. Boys also dominated at the bottom of society. They were the majority of the criminals, drug addicts, and high-school dropouts. Many went off to Vietnam. Some, those who were handy, went to trade schools and a reasonable life, productive life. Society did not seem bothered by the destruction of boys in prison, or Vietnam, or by drugs, but there was an outcry that so few women achieved high academic levels. A famous presentation of the problem was called “for every 100 girls.” An updated version appears below showing the status as of October, 2021. A more detailed version appears further down.
From the table above, you can see that women are now the majority of those in college, the majority of those with a bachelors degree or higher, and a majority of those with advanced degrees. Colleges added special tutoring, special grants, and special programs. Each college had a Society of Women Engineers office, and similar programs in law and math. All of these explicitly excluded men or highly discouraged their presence. The curriculum was changed too; made more female-friendly. Dirty, and physical experiments were removed, replaced with group analysis of the social interactions — important aspects of engineers that boys were far-less adept at doing well. Perhaps society and engineering is better off now, but boys (men) are far worse off. This is particularly seem by the following chart, looking at the bottom. Boys/men provide the vast majority of the prison population, of those diagnosed as learning disabled, of those expelled, or overdosed, and among the war dead.
I’ve previously noted that a majority of boys in school are considered disruptive, and that these boys are routinely diagnosed as ADHD and drugged. It is not at all clear that this is a good thing, or that the drugs help anyone but the teacher. I’ve also noted that artwork and attitudes that were considered normal for boys are now considered disturbing and criminal like saying I wish the school was blown up. The cure here, perhaps is worse than the disease. I’m not saying that we should encourage boys to say such things, but that we should acknowledge a difference between an active and a passive wish. And we should find a way to educate boys/men so they don’t end up unemployed, addicted, or dead. Currently boy, particularly those at the bottom are on the scrap-heap of society.
Here is some source material for the above:
For every 100 women enrolled in US colleges (degree-granting postsecondary institutions) at all levels there are 75 men enrolled. Source: National Center for Education Statistics
For every 100 women enrolled in US graduate schools there are 68 men. Source: Council for Graduate Schools (2020)
For every 100 women who earn bachelor’s degrees from US colleges and universities, there are 73 men. Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2021-2022)
For every 100 females in local jails in the US, there are 614 males. Source: Department of Justice via Wikipedia
For every 100 females in state and federal prisons, there are 1,225 males. Source: Department of Justice
For every 100 females in federal prison, there are 1,331 male prisoners. Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons
For every 100 female military personnel who have been wounded in action during Operation Enduring Freedom, 5,098 men have. Source: Congressional Research Service
For every 100 female military personnel who have been wounded in action during Operation Iraqi Freedom, 4,982 menhave. Source: Congressional Research Service
22 long rifle shells contain early any propellant.
The most rifle cartridge in the US today is the 22lr a round that first appeared in 1887. It is suitable to small game hunting and while it is less–deadly than larger calibers, data suggests it is effective for personal protection. It is also remarkably low cost. This is because the cartridge in almost entirely empty as shown in the figure at right. It is also incredibly energy efficient, that is to say, it’s incredibly good at transforming heat energy of the powder into mechanical energy in the bullet.
The normal weight of a 22lr is 40 grains, or 2.6 grams; a grain is the weight of a barley grain 1/15.4 gram. Virtually every brand of 22lr will send its bullet at about the speed of sound, 1200 ft/second, with a kinetic energy of about 120 foot pounds, or 162 Joules. This is about twice the energy of a hunting bow, and it will go through a deer. Think of a spike driven by a 120 lb hammer dropped from one foot. That’s the bullet from a typical 22lr.
The explosive combustion heat of several Hodgdon propellants.
The Hodgdon power company is the largest reseller of smokeless powder in the US with products from all major manufacturers, with products selling for an average of $30/lb or .43¢ per grain. The CCI Mini-Mag, shown above, uses 0.8 grains of some powder 0.052 grams, or about 1/3¢ worth, assuming that CCI bought from Hodgdon rather than directly from the manufacturer. You will notice that the energies of the powders hardly varies from type to type, from a low of 3545 J/gram to a high of 4060 J/gram. While I don’t know which powder is used, I will assume CCI uses a high-energy propellant, 4000 J/gram. I now calculate that the heat energy available as 0.052*4000 = 208 Joules. To calculate the efficiency, divide the kinetic energy of the bullet by the 208 Joules. The 40 grain CCI MiniMag bullet has been clocked at 1224 feet per second indicating 130 foot pounds of kinetic energy, or 176 J. Divide by the thermal energy and you find a 85% efficiency: 176J/ 208 J = 85%. That’s far better than your car engine. If the powder were weaker, the efficiency would have to be higher.
The energy content of various 22lr bullets shot from different length barrels.
I will now calculate the pressure of the gas behind a 22lr. I note that the force on the bullet is equal to the pressure times the cross-sectional area of the barrel. Since energy equals force times distance, we can expect that the kinetic energy gained per inch of barrel equals this force times this distance (1 inch). Because of friction this is an under-estimate of the pressure, but based on the high efficiency, 85%, it’s clear that the pressure can be no more than 15% higher than I will calculate. As it happens, the maximum allowable pressure for 22lr cartridges is set by law at 24,000 psi. When I calculate the actual pressure (below) I find it is about half this maximum.
The change in kinetic energy per inch of barrel is calculated as the change in 1/2 mv2, where m is the mass of the bullet and v is the velocity. There is a web-site with bullet velocity information for many brands of ammunition, “ballistics by the inch”. Data is available for many brands of bullet shot from gun barrels that they cut shorter inch by inch; data for several 22lr are shown here. For the 40 grain CCI MiniMag, they find a velocity of 862 ft/second for 2″ barrel, 965 ft/second for a 3″ barrel, 1043 ft/second for a 4″ barrel, etc. The cross-section area of the barrel is 0.0038 square inches.
Every 22 cartridge has space to spare.
Based on change in kinetic energy, the average pressure in the first two inches of barrel must be 10,845 psi, 5,485 psi in the next inch, and 4,565 psi in the next inch, etc. If I add a 15% correction for friction, I find that the highest pressure is still only half the maximum pressure allowable. Strain gauge deformation data (here) gives a slightly lower value. It appears to me that, by adding more propellant, one could make a legal, higher-performance version of the 22lr — one with perhaps twice the kinetic energy. Given the 1/3¢ cost of powder relative to the 5 to 20¢ price of ammo, I suspect that making a higher power 22lr would be a success.
Robert Buxbaum, March 18, 2021. About 10% of Michigan hunts dear every year during hunting season. Another 20%, as best I can tell own guns for target shooting or personal protection. Just about every lawyer I know carries a gun. They’re afraid people don’t like them. I’m afraid they’re right.
You may know that engineers recently succeed in decreasing the tilt of the “leaning” tower of Pizza by about 1.5°, changing it from about 5.5° to about to precisely 3.98° today –high precision given that the angle varies with the season. But you may not know how that there were at least eight other engineering attempts, and most of these did nothing or made things worse. Neither is it 100% clear that current solution didn’t make things worse. What follows is my effort to learn from the failures and successes, and to speculate on the future. The original-tilted tower is something of an engineering marvel, a highly tilted, stone on stone building that has outlasted earthquakes and weathering that toppled many younger buildings that were built straight vertical, most recently the 1989 collapse of the tower of Pavia. Part of any analysis, must also speak to why this tower survived so long when others failed.
First some basics. The tower of Pisa is an 8 story bell tower for the cathedral next door. It was likely designed by engineer Bonanno Pisano who started construction in 1173. We think it’s Pisano, because he put his name on an inscription on the base, “I, who without doubt have erected this marvelous work that is above all others, am the citizen of Pisa by the name of Bonanno.” Not so humble then, more humble when the tower started to lean, I suspect. The outer diameter at the base is 15.5 m and the weight of the finished tower is 14.7 million kg, 144 million Nt. The pressure exerted on the soil is 0.76 MPa (110 psi). By basic civil engineering, it should stand straight like the walls of the cathedral.
Bonanno’s marvelous work started to sink into the soil of Pisa almost immediately, though. Then it began to tilt. The name Pisa, in Greek, means swamp, and construction, it seems, was not quite on soil, but mud. When construction began the base was likely some 2.5 m (8 feet) above sea level. While a foundation of clay, sand and sea-shells could likely have withstood the weight of the tower, the mud below could not. Pisano added length to the south columns to keep the floors somewhat level, but after three floors were complete, and the tilt continued, he stopped construction. What to do now? What would you do?
If it were me, I’d consider widening the base to distribute the force better, and perhaps add weight to the north side. Instead, Pisano gave up. He completed the third level and went to do other things. The tower stood this way for 99 years, a three-floor, non-functional stub.
About 1272, another engineer, Giovanni di Simone, was charged with fixing the situation. His was the first fix, and it sort-of worked. He strengthened the stonework of the three original floors, widened the base so it wold distribute pressure better, and buried the base too. He then added three more floors. The tower still leaned, but not as fast. De Simone made the south-side columns slightly taller than the north to hide the tilt and allow the floors to be sort-of level. A final two stories were added about 1372, and then the first of the bells. The tower looked as it does today when Gallileo did his famous experiments, dropping balls of different size from the south of the 7th floor between 1589 and 1592.
Fortunately for the construction, the world was getting colder and the water table was dropping. While dry soil is stronger than wet, wet soil is more plastic. I suspect it was the wet soil that helped the tower survive earthquakes that toppled other, straight towers. It seems that the tilt not only slowed during this period but briefly reversed, perhaps because of the shift in center of mass, or because of changes in the sea level. Shown below is 1800 years of gauge-based sea-level measurements. Other measures give different sea-level histories, but it seems clear that man-made climate change is not the primary cause. Sea levels would continue to fall till about 1750. By 1820 the tilt had resumed and had reached 4.5°.
The 2nd attempt was begun in 1838. Architect, Alessandro Della Gherardesca got permission to dig around the base at the north to show off the carvings and help right the tower. Unfortunately, the tower base had sunk below the water table. Further, it seems the dirt at the base was helping keep the tower from falling. As Della Gherardesca‘s crew dug, water came spurting out of the ground and the tower tilted another few inches south. The dig was stopped and filled in, but he dig uncovered the Pisano inscription, mentioned above. What would you do now? I might go away, and that’s what was done.
The next attempt to fix the tower (fix 3) was by that self-proclaimed engineering genius, Benito Mussolini. In 1934. Mussolini had his engineers pump some 200 tons of concrete into the south of the tower base hoping to push the tower vertical and stabilize it. The result was that the tower lurched another few inches south. The project was stopped. An engineering lesson: liquids don’t make for good foundations, even when it’s liquid concrete. An unfortunate part of the lesson is that years later engineers would try to fix the tower by pumping water beneath the north end. But that’s getting ahead of myself. Perhaps Mussolini should have made tests on a model before working on the historic tower. Ditto for the more recent version.
On March 18, 1989 the Civic Tower of Pavia started shedding bricks for no obvious reason. This was a vertical tower of the same age and approximate height as the Pisa tower. It collapsed killing four people and injuring 15. No official cause has been reported. I’m going to speculate that the cause was mechanical fatigue and crumbling of the sort that I’ve noticed on the chimney of my own house. Small vibrations of the chimney cause bits of brick to be ejected. If I don’t fix it soon, my chimney will collapse. The wet soils of Pisa may have reduced the vibration damage, or perhaps the stones of Pisa were more elastic. I’ve noticed brick and stone flaking on many prominent buildings, particularly at joins in the chimney.
John Burland’s team cam up with many of the fixes here. They are all science-based, but most of the fixes made things worse.
In 1990, a committee of science and engineering experts was formed to decide upon a fix for the tower of Pisa. It was headed by Professor John Burland, CBE, DSc(Eng), FREng, FRS, NAE, FIC, FCGI. He was, at the time, chair of soil mechanics at the Imperial College, London, and had worked with Ove, Arup, and Partners. He had written many, well regarded articles, and had headed the geological aspects of the design of the Queen Elizabeth II conference center. He was, in a word, an expert, but this tower was different, in part because it was an, already standing, stone-on stone tower that the city wished should remain tilted. The tower was closed to visitors along with all businesses to the south. The bells were removed as well. This was a safety measure, and I don’t count it as a fix. It bought time to decide on a solution. This took two years of deliberation and meetings
In 1992, the committee agreed to fix no 4. The tower was braced with plastic-covered, steel cables that were attached around the second and third floors, with the cables running about 5° from the horizontal to anchor points several hundred meters to the north. The fix was horribly ugly, and messed with traffic. Perhaps the tilt was slowed, it was not stopped.
In 1993, fix number 5. This was the most exciting engineering solution to date: 600 tons of lead ingots were stacked around the base, and water was pumped beneath the north side. This was the reverse of the Mussolini’s failed solution, and the hope was that the tower would tilt north into the now-soggy soil. Unfortunately, the tower tilted further south. One of the columns cracked too, and this attempt was stopped. They were science experts, and it’s not clear why the solution didn’t work. My guess is that they pumped in the water too fast. This is likely the solution I would have proposed, though I hope I would have tested it with a scale model and would have pumped slower. Whatever. Another solution was proposed, this one even more exotic than the last.
For fix number 6, 1995, the team of experts, still overseen by Burland, decided to move the cables and add additional tension. The cables would run straight down from anchors in the base of the north side of the tower to ten underground steel anchors that were to be installed 40 meters below ground level. This would have been an invisible solution, but the anchor depth was well into the water table. So, to anchor the ground anchors, Burland’s team had liquid nitrogen injected into the ground beneath the tower, on the north side where the ground anchors were to go. What Burland did not seem to have realized is that water expands when it freezes, and if you freeze 40 meters of water the length change is significant. On the night of September 7, 1995, the tower lurched southwards by more than it had done in the entire previous year. The team was summoned for an emergency meeting and the liquid nitrogen anchor plan was abandoned.
Tower with the two sets of lead ingots, 900 tons total, about the north side of the base. The weight of the tower is 14,700 tons.
Fix number 7: Another 300 tons of lead ingots were added to the north side as a temporary, simple fix. The fix seems to have worked stabilizing things while another approach was developed.
Fix number 8: In order to allow the removal of the ugly lead bricks another set of engineers were brought on, Roberto Cela and Michele Jamiolkowski. Using helical drills, they had holes drilled at an angle beneath the north side of the tower. Using hoses, they removed a gallon or two of dirt per day for eleven years. The effect of the lead and the dirt removal was to reduce the angle of the tower to 4.5°, the angle that had been measured in 1820. At this point the lead could be removed and tourists were allowed to re-enter. Even after the lead was removed, the angle continued to subside north. It’s now claimed to be 3.98°, and stable. This is remarkable precision for a curved tower whose tilt changes with the seasons. (An engineering joke: How may engineers does it take to change a lightbulb? 1.02).
The bells were replaced and all seemed good, but there was still the worry that the tower would start tilting again. Since water was clearly part of the problem, the British soils expert, Burland came up with fix number 9. He had a series of drainage tunnels built to keep the water from coming back. My worry is that this water removal will leave the tower vulnerable to earthquake and shedding damage, like with the Pavia tower and my chimney. We’ll have to wait for the next earthquake or windstorm to tell for sure. So far, this fix has done no harm.
Robert Buxbaum, October 9, 2020. It’s nice to learn from other folks mistakes, and embarrassments, as well as from their successes. It’s also nice to see how science really works, not with great experts providing the brilliant solution, but slowly, like stumbling in the dark. I see this with COVID-19.
There are several unbelievable assertions surrounding the Kennedy assassination, leading many to conclude that Oswald could not have killed Kennedy alone. I believe that many of these can be answered once you realize that Oswald used an Italian gun, and not a US gun. Italian engineering differs from our in several respects that derive from the aesthetic traditions of the countries. It’s not that our engineers are better or worse, but our engineers have a different idea of what good engineering is and thus we produce designs that, to an Italian engineer, are big, fat, slow, and ugly. In our eyes Italian designs are light, fast, pretty, low-power, and unreliable. In the movie, Ford vs Ferrari, the American designer, Shelby says that, “If races were beauty contests, the Ferrari would win.” It’s an American, can-do, attitude that rings hollow to an Italian engineer.
Three outstanding questions regarding the Kennedy assassination include: How did Oswald fire three bullets, reasonably accurately in 5 to 8 seconds. How did he miss the limousine completely on the first, closest shot, then hit Kennedy twice on the next two, after previously missing on a close shot at retired general, Edwin Walker. And how could the second shot have gone through Kennedy’s neck, then through his wrist, and through Connolly twice, emerging nearly pristine. I will try to answer by describing something of the uniquenesses of the gun and bullets, and of Italian engineering, in general.
Oswald cartridge.
The rifle Oswald used was a Modello 91/38, Carcano (1938 model of a design originally used in 1891) with an extra-long, 20.9″ barrel, bought for only $19.95 including a 4x sight. That’s $12.50 for the gun, the equivalent of $100 in 2020). The gun may have been cheep, but it was a fine Italian weapon: it was small, fast, pretty, manual, and unreliable. The small size allowed Oswald to get the gun into the book depository without arousing suspicion. He claimed his package held curtain rods, and the small, narrow shape of the gun made the claim believable.
The first question, the fast shooting, is answered in part by the fact that loading the 91/38 Carcano rifle takes practice. Three American marksmen who tried to duplicate the shots for the Warren commission didn’t succeed, but they didn’t have the practice with this type of gun that Oswald had. The Carcano rifle used a bolt and clip loading system that had gone out of style in the US before WWI. To put in a new shell, you manually unlock and pull back the bolt. The old casing then flies out, and the spring–clip loads a new shell. You then have to slam the bolt forward and lock it before you can fire again. For someone practiced, loading this way is faster than with a semi-automatic. To someone without practice it is impossibly slow, like driving a stick shift car for the first time. Even with practice, Americans avoid stick shift cars, but Italians prefer them. Some time after the Warren report came out, Howard Donahue, an American with experience on this type of rifle, was able to hit three moving targets at the distance in 4.8 seconds. That’s less than the shortest estimate of the time it took Oswald to hit twice. Penn of Penn and Teller recreates this on TV, and shows here that Kennedy’s head would indeed have moved backward.
Oswald’s magic bullet, shot two.
That Oswald was so accurate is explained, to great extent by the way the sight was mounted and by the unusual bullets. The model 38 Carcano that Oswald bought fired light, hollow, 6.5×52mm cartridges. This is a 6.5 mm diameter bullet, with a 52 mm long casing. The cartridge was adopted by the Italians in 1940, and dropped by 1941. These bullets are uncommonly bullet is unusually long and narrow (6.5 mm = .26 caliber), round-nosed and hollow from the back to nearly the front. In theory a cartridge like this gives for greater alignment with the barrel., and provides a degree of rocket power acceleration after it leaves the muzzle. Bullets like this were developed in the US, then dropped by the late 1800s. The Italians dropped this bullet for a 7.5 mm diameter version in 1941. The 6.5 mm version can go through two or three people without too much damage, and they can behave erratically. The small diameter and fast speed likely explains how Oswald’s second shot went through Kennedy and Connolly twice without dong much. An American bullet would have done a lot more damage.
Because of the light weight and the extra powder, the 6.5 mm hollow bullet travels uncommonly fast, about 700 m/s at the muzzle with some acceleration afterwards, ideally. Extra powder packs into the hollow part by the force of firing, providing, in theory, low recoil, rocket power. Unfortunately these bullets are structurally weak. They can break apart or bend and going off-direction. By comparison the main US rifle of WWII, the M1, was semi-automatic, with bullets that are shorter, heavier, and slower, going about 585 m/s. Some of our bullets had steel cores too to provide a better combination of penetration and “stopping power”. Only Oswald second shot stayed pristine. It could be that his third shot — the one that made Kennedy’s head explode — flattened or bent in flight.
Oswald fragment of third bullet. It’s hollow and seems to have come apart in a way a US bullet would not.
The extra speed of Oswald’s bullets and the alignment of his gun would have given Oswald a great advantage in accuracy. At 100 yards (91 m), test shots with the rifle landed 2 1⁄2 to 5 inches high, within a 3-to-5-inch circle. Good accuracy with a sight that was set to high for close shot accuracy. The funky sight, in my opinion , explains how Oswald managed to miss Walker, but explains how he hit Kennedy accurately especially on the last, longest shot, 81 m to Kennedy’s head
Given the unusually speed of the bullets (I will assume 750 m/s) Oswald’s third shot would have taken 0.108 s to reach the target. If the sight were aligned string and if Kennedy were not moving, the bullet would have been expected to fall 2.24″ low at this range, but given the sight alignment we’d expect him to shoot 3-6″ high on a stationary target, and dead on, on the president in his moving vehicle. Kennedy was moving at 5 m/sand Oswald had a 17° downward shot. The result was a dead on hit to the moving president assuming Oswald didn’t “lead the shot”. The peculiarities of the gun and bullets made Oswald more accurate here than he’d been in the army, while causing him to miss Walker completely at close range.
comparison of the actual, second shot, “magic bullet,” left, with four test-shot bullets. Note that one of the test bullets collapsed, two bent, and one exploded. This is not a reliable bullet design.
We now get to the missed, first shot: How did he miss the car completely firing at the closest range. The answer, might have to do with deformation of the bullets. A hollow base bullet can explode, or got dented and fly off to the side. More prosaically, it could be that he hit a tree branch or a light pole. The Warren commission blamed a tree that was in the way, and there was also a light pole that was never examined. For all we know the bullet is in a branch today, or deflected. US bullets would have a greater chance to barrel on through to at least hit the car. This is an aspect of Italian engineering — when things are light, fast, and flexible, unusual things happen that do not expect to happen with slow, ugly, US products. It’s a price of excellence, Italian style.
Another question appears: Why wasn’t Oswald stopped when the FBI knew he’d threatened Kennedy, and was suspected of shooting at Walker. The simple answer, I think, is that the FBI was slow, and plodding. Beyond this, neither the FBI nor the CIA seem to have worried much about Kennedy’s safety. Even if Kennedy had used the bubble top, Oswald would likely have killed him. Kennedy didn’t care much for the FBI and didn’t trust Texas. Kennedy had a long-running spat with the FBI involving his involvement with organized crime, and perhaps running back to the days when Kennedy’s father was a bootlegger. His relation with the CIA was similar.
The Mateba, Italian semi-automatic revolver, $3000, available only in 357 Magnum and 44 magnum.
I should mention that the engineering styles and attitudes of a country far outlast the particular engineer.We still make big, fat, slow, ugly cars — that are durable and reasonably priced. Germans still overbuild, and Italian cars and guns are as they ever were: beautiful, fast, expensive, and unreliable. The fastest production car is Italian, a Bugatti with a top speed of 245 mph; the fastest rollercoaster is at Ferrari gardens, 149 mph, and in terms of guns, let me suggest you look at the Mateba, left, a $3000 beautiful super fast semi-automatic revolver (really), produced in Italy, and available in 357 magnum and .44 magnum only . It’s a magnificent piece of Italian engineering beautiful, accurate, powerful, and my guess is it’s unreliable as all get out. Our, US pistols typically cost 1/5 to 1/10 as much. A country’s cars, planes, and guns represent the country’s aesthetics. The aesthetics of a county changes only slowly, and I think the world is better off because of it
Robert Buxbaum, February 14, 2020. One of my favorite courses in engineering school, Cooper Union, was in Engineering Aesthetics and design.
