Why haven’t name-brand hybrid e-bikes gotten dramatically lighter?

Summer is here for most of those who escaped the New England lockdowns during coronapanic. Average Nashville high temp for May is 79 degrees (unlike Maskachusetts, Tennessee has no state income tax and no estate (death) tax; state tax competitiveness index).

Many moons ago, I wrote about a 2013 Trek e-bike that weighed 52 lbs.: Trek T80+ Electric Bike Review. The ungainly unbalanced rear hub motor beast has a 250W motor and a 250 Wh battery. I bought it as an experiment and figured that if I loved e-biking I would treat myself to a fancier mid-drive one when the Trek died. Here we are 11 years after the closeout purchase and the Trek has not died. It’s on its second chain and has needed a new rear tire, but otherwise just works. The range is more than adequate for running errands around Jupiter and bike theft is a minimal issue (if the Florida police do catch a bike thief do they say “Where did you think you were, San Francisco?”; I sometimes use the built-in wheel lock if leaving the bike for an hour or two). The ancient Trek has the “torque sensor” that is advertised as a selling feature in 2026 by e-bike vendors, though the company (BionX, in the Islamic Republic of Canada) that made the electric gear went belly-up in 2018.

I’d love to buy a new e-bike if I could find the same comfortable geometry and the same motor/battery power at 33 lbs. Is that possible? (TL;DR: nobody has ever managed to make mid-drive light; mid-drive was the Holy Grail 10+ years ago, but it might be an emperor with no clothes except for climbing steep hills (certainly the old Trek’s hub motor was fine for climbing hills in Eastern MA)) For reference, let’s have a look at the upright riding position of the ancient Trek:

How much progress has there been in this industry? The closest Trek current bike that I can find to the T80+ is the Verve+, starting at $2,000. The versions that are the most popular would weigh about 65 lbs. in a larger frame size.

The cheapest lightest version of this bike has the same motor/battery specs as my “survivor”. It is spec’d at about 42 lbs., but that’s for the M size and mine is an XL so let’s say that it would be 44 lbs. in L or XL. That’s not a negligible reduction, but the T80+ was literally thrown together and it is way off my 33 lb. spec.

What if we spent $6,749 on a Cannondale FlyingV (plus a $15 E-bike Battery Recycling fee?!?). The web page includes the word “weight” in numerous places to crow about how light the bike is due to its carbon fiber construction. The one spec they left out, though… the weight. It’s got 600 watts of motor power for people who want to kill themselves at 28 mph and 400 Wh of battery. An independent review says it weighs 40 lbs and it doesn’t have the suspension seatpost of the old Trek T80+. The review makes it sound uncomfortable as well: “The riding position aboard the FlyingV is balanced, fairly upright but with a sporty edge. The stance suits the bike’s character to a tee. If you want to fly, you’ll need to be at least a little fit and flexible – this isn’t your living room sofa on two wheels.”

Maybe the answer is a comfortable upright bike has to be super heavy? Giant’s $700-900 “city” bikes weigh 25-30 lbs., a fair amount more than a $1,000 non-electric road bike at 20 lbs. (examples). When road bikes are electrified they don’t get that much heavier. Here’s a road bike with the same 250W/250Wh spec as the old T80+. The Ride1Up weighs 28 lbs., presumably in a medium size, and costs $2200 (almost the same as the $2100 2013 price of the T80+, which is $3000 today if adjusted for the inflation that the government tells us does not exist). The same company makes a more upright city-style bike that costs $1400 and porks out to 40 lbs. with a 360 Wh battery. What if you spend $7000 on a carbon fiber hybrid from Specialized, the Turbo Vado SL 2 6.0 EQ Carbon? It weighs… 40.5 lbs. and has 520 Wh of power.

How are consumers getting these monster bikes onto roof racks or even into the backs of their monster SUVs when it is time to take the bike in for service? It seems as though the bikes that are actually selling in quantity weigh 50 lbs. or more. A review of what Bicycling says is the sweet spot e-bike, the Aventon Level 3, doesn’t even mention weight. Nor is the weight found on the page that sells the bike. Gemini says the beast weighs 67 lbs. and “The [733 Wh] battery is removable, allowing you to reduce the total weight to roughly 58 lbs for easier transport.”

Did everyone get rid of their roof racks and replace them with hitch racks, some of which can hold bikes up to 80 lbs.? Save the planet by attaching it to a Tesla Y’s receiver hitch, but leave half the e-biking family at home because it says “designed to support vertical loads of up to 160 pounds”? The two-bike hitch racks empty can weigh over 50 lbs.; the four-bike ones weigh over 70 lbs.!); maybe better to buy a cheaper one from Torklift that can handle more weight (the same company sells a Toyota Sienna receiver hitch that can handle 700 lbs. of tongue weight, which might translate to 350 lbs. of e-bikes). If you search for “bent receiver hitch with bike rack” the Google returns stories from people who bent the hitch or, worse, the frame of their vehicle, by loading up bikes.

Circling back to my original question… why no 33 lb. comfy hybrid e-bikes given all of the progress that has been made in materials? ChatGPT says a 250 Wh battery weighs only 3-4 lbs. ChatGPT says that the killer is the motor: “A 250W mid-drive (bottom bracket) motor system typically adds ~6–10 lbs (2.7–4.5 kg) compared to a normal bottom bracket. … Ultra-light e-bikes (like Fiido Air) avoid mid-drives. They use small rear hub motors instead. That saves ~5–8 lbs immediately.” (apparently the feel and balance of the mid-drive is worth the extra weight for most consumers, but the “sweet spot” is “Lightweight hub motor + torque sensor”) ChatGPT says that 67 percent of e-bikes globally are sold with hub motors, not the mid-drives that I thought were going to dominate the industry. In Europe and for premium bikes, though, mid-drives are dominant. The mid-drives up wearing out the drivetrain, though, so the super heavy bike has to get loaded into the car for the trip to the bike shop more frequently… (see above)

ChatGPT says that Fazua, a Bavarian company founded in 2013 and now owned by Porsche, is the leader in making a lightweight mid-drive system. Their completed city bikes, however, weigh at least 40 lbs. Internet reviews of Fazua’s reliability are mixed, to say the least, compared to the standard Bosch. ChatGPT: “In general, Hub motors are more reliable than mid-drives”. So maybe the answer is that I can have a better balanced bike if the battery is moved to the downtube, but the architecture of the motor in the rear wheel needs to be retained in order to avoid what ChatGPT claims is a 5-8 lb. weight hit and a lifetime of additional maintenance.

Let’s close with a bike that isn’t exactly “name-brand” (Giant, Trek, et al.), but that does seem to have the architecture that ChatGPT recommends… Urtopia Carbon 1 Pro (about $2100 as of a couple months ago). It seems to have a similar geometry to the $6,749 (plus $15 recycling/virtue fee) Cannondale, above. It lacks the suspension seat post of the old Trek, but maybe the flexible carbon frame absorbs shock reasonably well. Instead of cutting the promised-by-ChatGPT 5-8 lbs. by switching to a hub motor, the practical weight savings is only 3 lbs. (37 lbs. vs. 40). This one might be worth a test-ride (the company has dealers).

Full post, including comments

Artemis II launch experience

I went to the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex yesterday to watch at least $2.5 billion of our tax dollars getting incinerated via the Artemis II mission. The best graphic that I’ve found to explain this somehow comes from Al-Jazeera:

My journey began with a flight (2005 Cirrus SR20 with no A/C) from our South Florida redoubt to KTIX. The sole FBO was slammed so they established a piston ghetto parking area on the east side of the field and deputized flight school employees to park the planes that weren’t worth dealing with. Here’s the Cirrus row:

I arrived around noon and my Enterprise rental car wasn’t there. “They had to deliver 300 cars to NASA,” explained the FBO gal. Eventually a 19-year-old flight instructor gave me and two other Cirrus pilots rides to the downtown Titusville Enterprise office. The 19-year-old had gone straight from high school to flight school and, now in possession of all her ratings, was working as a CFI rather than paying $400,000 to listen to PhD mediocrities (being a Florida, she could presumably have gone to college essentially for free via Bright Futures, but her flying career would have been delayed by four years; she can get an online bachelor’s degree if she ever needs one). I then stopped at Publix to pick up sandwiches and returned to the airport to pick up a friend in his ghetto-adjacent Piper Malibu JetPROP. My friend, an AI-coding entrepreneur, had found unauthorized resale tickets on Reddit for Kennedy Space Center viewing at $155 each ($99 face value; to have gotten our own tickets we would have had to notice an email sent from the KSC that Gmail maps into Promotions and then purchased the $99 or the $250 “feel the heat” ticket within the first few seconds (“feel the heat” is viewing from the Saturn V building, just 4 miles from the pad; the main KSC has a much larger capacity and is 8 miles away)). He brought along a guy who has some connection to a commercial space company. Let’s call him “Space Friend”. At the “real FBO” we met a father-daughter pair who’d just stepped out of their personal Challenger (“I work in finance” said the dad, when Space Friend asked). They had arranged a car service to take them to a public park, but Friend had two extra tickets so we invited them to jump into the Enterprise minivan with us and go to the KSC.

[AI for Cool Kids Tip: Claude Code for initial development. Codex for finding bugs.]

Combining the delays of getting the Enterprise car, Space Friend fighting through Miami traffic to reach KFXE, and Friend+Space Friend having to sit on the ground at KFXE waiting their turn to take off (45 minutes due to heavy flight school volume), we ended up on the road at about 3:15 pm, a mistake of monumental proportions. There was a security check to get onto the NASA Causeway and we were also asked if we had tickets, but didn’t have to show them. Somehow this caused an epic traffic jam despite the fact that the security check for us took about 15 seconds (everyone trusts minivan owners!). We arrived at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor complex around 5:30 pm (i.e., 2+ hours for what is normally a 15-minute drive). The parking lot attendant asked us to show a phone screen of our ticket, but didn’t scan it. There were some people watching the launch from the parking lot (pretty much the same view/sound as inside) so I wondered if they had pictures of someone else’s ticket or perhaps they had the $99 tickets and didn’t like crowds.

It’s a shame that we didn’t bring Mindy the Crippler because we were greeted by a bunny near the entrance:

Our sketchy Reddit tickets actually did scan, so we were able to enter and find a golden retriever:

Also the Artemis backup team:

The bleachers and prime viewing areas near big-screen TVs were packed, but nearby areas almost as good weren’t crowded:

The weather was perfect:

The launch itself was loud, but not to the point that it would have been nice to have earplugs.

We had binoculars, but it was uncomfortable to look at the vehicle with them because the rocket exhaust is so bright. I didn’t make a video because I believe in “f/8 and be there” (i.e., the cameras set up by NASA and affiliates close to the pad are going to “be there” and do a much better job).

The trip back to the airport took about 45 minutes through some traffic.

I flew the Cirrus back to her Stuart, Florida home, about 35 minutes under a full moon. Orlando Approach refused to provide “flight following” (formerly there was a big push to call this “VFR Advisories”, but that seems to have died along with “Notice to Air Missions” as a replacement for “Notice to Airmen”) due to “staffing”. Florida is bursting at the seams!

Was it worth a whole day for a 4-minute launch experience? Sure. I was glad that I was there for a Florida community experience. Although we weren’t there for long, we chatted with people who’d been there for hours in folding chairs and who were extremely passionate about space flight, e.g., a family from Melbourne, Florida whose kids are techies in Atlanta and have come home for every Artemis attempt. It would have been a lot less traffic and more fun to enter the KSC at around noon and spend the day waiting with the crowd. If you just want to experience the sound and fury of a rocket launch, though, it would be just as good to get a “feel the heat” ticket to watch a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch (much less likely to scrub) from the Saturn V building. It’s a smaller rocket, but being only half the distance away means the visceral effect is as large or larger.

Let’s hope the Artemis mission is a success. If it is, though, we’ll be forced to conclude that it is easier to send an Astronaut of Color, an Astronaut of Femaleness, and an Astronaut of Canadianness (another victimhood category?) to the moon than it is to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Mahmoud Khalil, or most other migrants.

(Given SpaceX Starship, what is the point of the SLS and Artemis, you might ask? A friend at NASA Goddard: “It’s a jobs program so that NASA didn’t have to fire the people who worked on the Shuttle.” In his view, all of the SLS/Artemis goals could be accomplished at a much lower cost by SpaceX. Keep in mind that Science NASA is jammed with haters of the manned space program!)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Book about the Edmund Fitzgerald

It’s Friday the 13th, a notorious day for bad luck. Speaking of bad luck, let’s look at the 29 men who died on the Edmund Fitzgerald on November 10, 1975. They’re the subject of an interesting new book: Gales of November by John Bacon. Not exactly a spoiler: everyone dies, just as Gordon Lightfoot explained in his enduring hit song (from the book I learned that Lightfoot was an experienced recreational Great Lakes sailor).

Some things that I didn’t know:

  • it was the last trip of what was going to be the retirement year for the captain and many of his long-time partners amongst the crew
  • the captain was considered the best on the Great Lakes and had 45 years of experience
  • the weather was a 50-year event, perhaps, and not merely an ordinary “gale of November”

Perspective on the suffering of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims

Since almost everything in the news these days must be referenced to the Epstein Files…

The sinking was preventable, as we’ll see below, and quite a few mistakes were made.

Columbia offered some of the families the victims’ last paycheck ($568.25 for a deckhand) and $750 for the victim’s lost personal effects, an amount determined by their labor contract, but other families didn’t receive even those checks. When Columbia offered nothing else, the families had little recourse but to file wrongful death lawsuits, for which Columbia paid whatever the families’ individual attorneys could negotiate. Some families received about $35,000, or a little more than a year’s wages for a deckhand making overtime, and others marginally more.

The typical woman who alleged that she suffered by receiving cash, Gulfstream rides, free rent in Manhattan, luxury vacations, etc., in exchange for sex 10, 20, or 30 years earlier, was paid about $3.5 million from Epstein’s estate, a JP Morgan settlement fund, and a Deutsche Bank settlement fund. That’s 100X what an Edmund Fitzgerald crewmember’s survivors were paid. Thus, we can conclude that having sex on Jeffrey Epstein’s island was 100X worse than riding through 30-50′ waves for hours and ultimately being drowned in 42-degree water.

The bargain all the crewmen on the Fitzgerald had signed up for was a hard one, but straightforward: The work will be taxing, and you will miss most of your family’s best moments, but you will retire relatively young, with a good pension and nothing to do but hunt, fish, and play cards, pool, and golf. Best of all, you’ll have plenty of time and energy to spend with your grandchildren. The Fitzgerald’s twenty-nine crewmen and their families had all paid their deposits up front, but never got to enjoy the sweet side of the deal.

The Special Hazards of the Great Lakes

The Great Lakes can be more treacherous than the oceans. One reason is the distinct structure and frequency of the Great Lakes’ freshwater waves. In the oceans, salt weighs down the water, squashing the waves and spreading them out, so they typically form larger but smoother swells, similar to a roller coaster. On the Great Lakes there’s no salt to hold down the waves, so they rise more sharply and travel closer together, like jagged mountains of water coming at you in rapid succession. These waves don’t roll; they peak, crest, then crash down on whatever is unlucky enough to lie below them.

That’s another reason why Great Lakes waves are so steep and ragged and travel so fast. On the ocean the waves are usually about ten to sixteen seconds apart, so even a large container ship can fit between them. On Lake Superior the waves run four to eight seconds apart, which means that a seven-hundred-foot lake freighter can be riding atop two waves at once.

That problem produces more problems. On the Great Lakes a ship that long can impale its bow in one wave, which can lift it up thirty feet or more, while the ship’s stern can be simultaneously stuck in the wave coming right behind it, raising the ship’s back end in the air another thirty feet. That leaves its midsection, which could be loaded with 58 million pounds of iron ore—the equivalent of 4,200 adult elephants—suspended between the two waves, with nothing supporting it. That creates a phenomenon naval architects call “sagging,” in which the unsupported middle of the ship sags toward the water below it, exerting a tremendous strain on the hull.

After sagging between two waves, just seconds later the ship might face another threat: riding over the peak of a single colossal wave. This creates a condition known as “hogging,” the opposite of sagging, where the vessel drapes over the wave’s crest, with both the bow and stern drooping downward, again placing immense pressure on the center of the ship’s hull.

[Michigan Tech’s Guy] Meadows’s research shows that Lake Superior’s biggest storms occur every thirty years or so, but even in milder storms the waves on the Great Lakes can be alarming. In a pretty unremarkable 2020 storm, for example, two of their buoys anchored off Lake Superior’s southern shore, far from the path of Superior’s biggest waves, measured waves reaching 28.5 feet, almost as high as a three-story building.

If the biggest waves within a few minutes are at 30′, according to Guy Meadows, and they stay there for 24 hours, a ship should experience at least one 60′ wave (1 in 10,000).

Another bad feature of the Great Lakes is that it is easier for freshwater to freeze above the waterline on a ship than it is for saltwater to freeze, thus adding weight to a ship that is already in peril. A typical modern iron boat’s cargo of taconite also creates a hazard:

Because it’s two-thirds clay, a porous material, it can absorb up to 7 percent of its weight in water, and four times that can get trapped between the pellets when it’s piled high.

(i.e., the cargo hold can hold a lot of water weight that isn’t possible to pump out; separately, if you thought that math professors were useless, the book notes that U. Minnesota math prof Edward W. Davis is the person who figured out how to work with taconite, a low-grade iron ore)

Overloading as a Factor

Prior to the wreck of the Fitz, Great Lakes captains prided themselves on moving maximum tonnage per trip and per season. Everyone loaded up the ships to the painted Plimsoll line at which point the freeboard is the minimum required for safety. The Fitz was operated with far less freeboard than her original designers had intended:

Given how such incredibly small margins on the Plimsoll line could produce such prodigious gains, especially when multiplied by forty to fifty round trips each shipping season, the executives at Columbia Transportation must have been thrilled when the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), working with the Coast Guard, reduced everyone’s required freeboard in 1969, and again in 1971, and again in 1973. For the Fitzgerald, that meant the original requirement of 14 feet, 9.25 inches of freeboard when sailing in November had been reduced to 11 feet, 6 inches—a total drop of 39.25 inches, or more than a yard, in just a few years.

Captains would then use various techniques to add a few inches of cargo beyond even this reduced freeboard, described in a chapter titled “Cheating the Plimsoll Line”.

The Edmund Fitzgerald was loaded to the absolute maximum, and a little beyond, on what was supposed to be her last voyage of the season:

The loading speed was all the more impressive because the dockworkers had filled the Fitzgerald’s belly with 26,112 long tons of taconite—far from the staggering amounts the new thousand—footers were carrying, but a fitting finale to McSorley’s celebrated career. The load that day was almost 4,000 long tons more than the 22,509 the Fitzgerald needed to set the Great Lakes record on its very first run just seventeen years earlier, a testament to the extra 39.25 inches the Coast Guard had allowed the Fitzgerald to sink in the water since 1973—plus the crew’s ability to cheat a few more inches on the Plimsoll line. This was such a common practice it would have been more remarkable if the crew had not cheated on the Plimsoll Line. Even the crew’s families knew about it. “They were overweight because they wanted to break their own record,” says Blaine Wilhelm’s daughter, Heidi Brabon. “So they cheated.” But what was unusual, according to former Fitzgerald deckhand Terry Sullivan, was that she was carrying a full load so late in the season, when even the USCG rules start scaling back the limits. While the Fitzgerald might not have been cheating by much, on the grand scale, when you combine those extra inches, plus the 39.25 inches the Coast Guard had already granted the Fitzgerald two years earlier, and the fact that all ships were supposed to scale back their loads for the rougher fall weather, any reasonable analysis can draw only one conclusion: The Fitzgerald had loaded thousands of tons more than what her architects had designed her to carry.

Primitive weather forecasts and distributions of forecasts

One of the blessings of the semiconductor revolution kicked off by William Shockley and carried forward by Jack Kilby is that computers have gotten vastly more powerful, thus enabling weather forecasts to become more reliable even without any advances in our understanding of meteorology. The National Weather Service was consistently late and consistently underestimating the strength of the storm that would sink the Fitz.

That afternoon [Sunday, November 9, 1975] the National Weather Service had posted a “gale warning,” a level of caution the NWS had created after the 1913 Storm of the Century showed it needed intermediary warnings, not just hurricane alerts. A gale warning predicts winds blowing thirty-nine to fifty-four miles per hour. But the NWS projected the wind would barely reach the gale range, which meant about forty miles per hour.

By 7 p.m. the National Weather Service noticed the storm system that started out of California had reached Iowa, and was gaining speed. It issued a gale warning for all of Lake Superior, correcting its earlier prediction that the storm would slip just below the big lake. Now, the NWS meteorologists said, the storm would cut diagonally across Lake Superior, producing waves from five to ten feet. That might not sound like much, but because the Fitzgerald had only 11.5 feet of freeboard, ten-foot waves wouldn’t give the ship much margin for error.

Late Sunday night the National Weather Service revised its forecast again, now predicting that waves Monday morning would reach ten to fifteen feet high. At 2 a.m. the NWS escalated its gale warning to a storm warning, reserved for winds expected to reach fifty-five to seventy-three miles per hour—strong enough to tear off roofs, uproot large trees, and knock over people attempting to walk outside. But the reality on the water was already starting to outpace the NWS’s forecasts. Winds on Lake Superior had already surged past fifty-eight miles per hour, and were still accelerating. The storm was gaining power like a boulder thundering down a steep hill.

[at 4 pm on Monday, November 10] Captain Cooper, now running an hour behind the Fitzgerald, later reported waves “up to twenty-five feet” when the Anderson neared Caribou Island. Since the Fitzgerald was now about twenty-five miles and an hour and forty minutes beyond the coordinates whence the Anderson had made that report—that much closer to the safety of Whitefish Bay, but also the storm’s epicenter—the waves the Fitzgerald was now experiencing were probably worse than the twenty-five-footers the Anderson had reported. Because the Fitzgerald had only 11.5 feet of freeboard, and probably less by the hour due to its compounding problems, those waves would be more than enough to wash green water—entire waves, not just the spray—over the Fitzgerald’s deck.

The Fitz sank at about 7:10 pm.

Get-there-itis

Some captains put in at Thunder Bay after realizing that the storm was

Full post, including comments

Shout-out to our brothers, sisters, and binary-resisters in Minneapolis

Some gratitude to the good people of Minneapolis. The city’s martyrs of ICE resistance, such as Alex Pretti and Renée Good, are apparently forgotten because Donald Trump briefly posted part of a “king of the jungle” video (apparently suppressed by the righteous who run YouTube, but available from the haters at X). Front page of the NYT today condemning Trump for his racism; nothing anywhere on the front page about Minneapolis, as if the sacrifices were for nothing:

I will celebrate Minneapolis, therefore, with a shout-out to SANUS, headquartered in suburban Minneapolis (a 3-minute drive from the Al-Amaan mosque). Mere hours before we were to our Super Bowl extravaganza guests are arriving, our four-year-old $900 Costco 86″ TV wouldn’t turn on. Thanks to the Sanus BLT3-B1 “tilt 4D” mount, however, I was able to pull the recalcitrant machine from the wall and use my Ph.D. in EECS skills to unplug it and plug it back in. The kids are watching the Puppy Bowl and, if the Costco gods are with us, the party will proceed as planned.

I suppose that we also have to celebrate our brothers and sisters in China (not too many binary-resisters there) for actually making the Sanus BLT3-B1 so that it cost $100 instead of $300.

(I do wish that ICE would detain and deport whoever made the Xfinity XG1v4 box, which I picked up because of its advertised 4K capability. It needs to be power-cycled almost every time that we want to use it and the boot-up process is almost 10 minutes.)

Let this be a cautionary tale for anyone who is considering a super-slim wall-hugging TV mount that requires professional skills and multiple humans to execute a dismount and reach-around. (I guess we could have accomplished the power-cycle via flipping breakers. I’ve never seen a behind-the-TV outlet that is associated with a convenient switch that could be used for a convenient power-cycle.)

Finally, maybe this is the time to start an extended warranty claim on the TV? It was a floor model at Costco and they threw in a five-year warranty from Allstate. The warranty was already used once to replace the TV’s main board, possibly a casualty of a lightning storm putting high voltage into the Xfinity cable (another good reason to go with a fiber connection if you’re lucky enough to live in a place where fiber is available).

Loosely related

From the masjid around the corner from Sanus, a Facebook post from one month after the Gazans’ peaceful October 7, 2023 excursion into Israel:

Allah is the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful, the One Who has the absolute ability to save the oppressed, inflict punishment on the criminals and stop the brutal massacre and genocide happening in Gaza.

It’s a challenging theological question. Allah is “All-Mighty, the Most Merciful” and with “the absolute ability to save the oppressed” (redundant with “All-Mighty”?). Yet the genocide happening in Gaza wasn’t stopped until the Gazans had suffered the loss of most of their military capability. Why did Allah wait two more years and, perhaps more importantly, not assist the Gazans in realizing their military goals, including the destruction of the Zionist entity and the establishment of Hamas rule from the river to the sea?

Full post, including comments

Greta Thunberg tennis court (solar panel sunshade)

Happy National Cut Your Energy Costs Day to those who celebrate.

An idea for how to be simultaneously more virtuous and comfortable: a Greta Thunberg-branded tennis court shade. ChatGPT says that some fabric shades have already been made and they should be about 45′ high to avoid interference with lobs (50-65′ at the pro level). ChatGPT says that it would be stupid expensive to engineer this in rigid solar panels, especially if there is a need for the structure to survive a hurricane, but on the other hand we’re told that the only way to save Planet Earth from going Full Venus is to do stupid expensive stuff. Florida’s Broward County (home to FLL) has covered two basketball courts with solar:

They say that what was, very likely, an eye-watering outlay of tax dollars is “a visible reminder of how sustainable infrastructure investments can benefit both people and the planet while saving on energy costs.” (If there truly were net savings on energy costs wouldn’t we see these all over Florida, Arizona, Nevada, etc., and not just in this one park?)

If there is a big influx of tax base thanks to Zohran Mamdani, I’d love to see more of this in Palm Beach County. ChatGPT says that it could conceivably work for pickleball (required height only 18-22′).

Separately, some folks are working on tennis coach robots, e.g., ACEMATE and Tenniix:

ChatGPT’s explanation of why a tennis Greta Thunberg-brand shade can’t be affordably engineering to Miami-Dade hurricane standards:

Why it’s hard (and what makes it “expensive hard”)

1) Wind uplift loads get huge, and PV is a rigid “wing”

ASCE 7 treats canopies/roofs with net uplift pressure coefficients (negative pressures trying to peel the roof off). Canopies got more explicit treatment in ASCE 7-16 and later. Structure Magazine+1

For a big, flat-ish PV canopy:

  • Uplift (psf) scales roughly with V2V^2V2.
  • Going from 120 mph to 170 mph isn’t “+40%”—it’s closer to (170/120)² ≈ 2.0× the pressure.

Fabric shades can “spill” wind; PV cannot. The PV roof transfers that uplift straight into:

  • purlins/joists
  • primary girders
  • columns
  • foundations (uplift + overturning)

2) Height required for tennis multiplies overturning

Tennis-friendly clearance is typically ~40–50+ ft so you don’t ruin lobs/serve sightlines. That height makes the wind problem worse because:

  • the structure “lever arm” increases → bigger overturning moments
  • columns behave like tall masts, not “carport posts”

A PV canopy that might be straightforward at 12–16 ft (parking) becomes much heavier at 45–55 ft.

Full post, including comments

Occupancy sensor-based per-room water shutoff?

Loyal readers may recall the failure of our Moen Flo whole-house water shutoff system to detect a drip. How about a more granular approach?

Have a flow sensor and shut-off valve for every room in the house in which there is plumbing, e.g., kitchen, laundry, bathrooms.

Put an occupancy sensor in each of the above rooms and, for the washing machine, a current sensor at the plug to tell if the machine is on. (Alternatively, use the network of cameras that a home should have for assisting with misplaced objects.)

Now the system doesn’t have to be that smart. If there is a sudden water draw from a bathroom that isn’t occupied then shut off the water to that bathroom. Have an override switch by the main light switch, of course, in case AI isn’t as smart as imagined.

How could one do occupancy sensing without either a massive privacy issue or an uglification of the house? Here’s an outlet that combines app-switchable power, night light, CO2 and VOC measurement, temp and humidity sensor, and occupancy sensing (via radar):

(Legal to install in a bathroom or kitchen counter, I think, if there is a GFCI circuit breaker.)

What’s the obvious flaw in this plan? Given that insurance companies will give a discount for the Moen Flo, which will allow at least hundreds of gallons of water to trash a house before it does any shutting off, I would think that insurance discounts over the years would more than pay for all of the tech. I guess there is an ongoing maintenance hassle, especially if flow is measured via impellers. Still, when you consider the $200,000+ cost of cleaning up after a flood, I think it is worth it.

Full post, including comments

Why isn’t there a simple 5-channel or 7-channel amplifier that connects to a television’s HDMI eARC output?

Our family room TV is almost impossible to use due to the fact that the hub of the system is a Yamaha RX-6A AV receiver with a complex user interface and many functions that overlap with the TV. What’s worse, the Yamaha has already had one HDMI switch board failure and seems to be on track for another one (the receiver is about 3.5 years old and sells for almost exactly what we paid for the vastly-more-useful and vastly-simpler-to-use 86-inch LG TV, i.e., $800 (we got the TV at Costco 3.5 years ago for $900, but they threw in a five-year warranty that should have been worth about $100).

What functions of the Yamaha do we actually want? We want it to switch among HDMI inputs and amplify sound for five passive speakers. If we had a subwoofer we’d want it to provide a line-level output for a powered subwoofer. A modern television already supports HDMI switching, typically among 4 inputs, which is plenty for 99% of consumers (cable TV box, some sort of dongle, maybe a slide show player). The modern television also puts out multi-channel audio and volume control commands via its eARC HDMI output. From ChatGPT:

Given how cheap Class D amplifiers are and how inventive Asian electronics companies are, I can’t figure out why there isn’t a display-free and remote-free 5- or 7-channel amplifier with a line-level subwoofer output that could take eARC with Consumer Electronics Control (CEC) input and drive one’s legacy passive speakers. This would enable consumers who’ve cut their cable cords to enjoy true surround sound with just one remote control. As a minor enhancement, when the TV is off and eARC has no signal the little amp could offer to play a Bluetooth source, e.g., from a phone app, through the two main speakers.

There must be something wrong with this product idea because nobody makes a “keep the TV at the center of the TV-watching system” amp. But what is the flaw?

Full post, including comments

Could we shade the Earth or at least some cities now that Starship is working?

Elon Musk wants to go to Mars on Starship. What can the technology do for those of us who aren’t interested in living on Mars? How about improving our beloved Earth, or at least the biggest and richest cities, via space-based sunshades? If we wanted to help everyone on the planet we could put a 35kTon shield at the L1 Lagrange point (#Science).

But if we’ve learned nothing else from the Climate Change (TM) experts we’ve learned that the climate righteous don’t care about everyone on the planet. Greta Thunberg, for example, cares only about the noble Palestinians (today she sails to Gaza from Spain). Climate change alarmists in New York City were in favor of open borders when migrants invaded Texas and against open borders (“a crisis”) when migrants began showing up in NYC by the busload to claim their right to taxpayer-funded housing.

What about space-based sunshades funded by the richest and most densely packed cities that are aimed at cooling off only folks in those cities and only for the hottest months of the year? Grok says that New York City could be shaded for less than $5 billion. If we assume that 1 million NYC residents (out of 8.5 million) pay non-negligible taxes, that’s $5,000 per taxpaying New Yorker, essentially nothing. It’s also nothing compared to the NYC government’s $115 annual budget. Maybe Grok is wrong about the likely cost? Or Grok is budgeting for 20 years of improvements in technology?

Unlike air conditioning, a solar shade for the elite has the advantage that it will also cool off non-elite regions of the Earth, at least to a small extent. The constellation of sun shades for NYC could move to provide relief to equatorial cities in the spring and fall and then be repositioned to provide shade to Southern Hemisphere cities during their summer. Maybe a city could still hit 95 degrees due to being near a warm air mass, but there wouldn’t simultaneously be a blazing hot sun. Grok says we can get a 3.5-7-degree F local temperature reduction.

Where else could this work? I.e., what other cities tend to be too hot for some parts of the year, are densely populated, and are rich? Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tel Aviv (cue the Jewish Space Lasers!), Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Miami, Doha, Tokyo?

Here’s Grok’s answer after I asked about shading all of Florida and then just NYC:

Technical FeasibilityBuilding a space-based sunshade for New York City (NYC, approximately 800 km² land area) that deploys seasonally from June 1 to September 15 is theoretically possible but would require significant advancements in solar sail technology and orbital mechanics. Unlike global sunshades at the Sun-Earth L1 point (1.5 million km away), a city-specific system would use a constellation of smaller, lightweight reflective sails or mirrors in Earth orbit to provide targeted shading. This draws from early concepts like Hermann Oberth’s 1920s-1970s proposals for orbiting mirrors (100-300 km diameter) to weaken solar radiation over specific regions.

Modern adaptations could leverage “statite” configurations—solar sails that balance solar radiation pressure against gravity to “hover” over fixed points, such as high latitudes.

Design and Deployment: A constellation of 10-50 sails (each 10-50 km², depending on orbital altitude) could achieve 20-50% insolation reduction over NYC during summer daylight hours. Sails would use ultra-thin materials (e.g., polymeric films with SiO₂ nanotubes, areal density ~1-4 g/m²) for reflectivity. For seasonal use, sails could be oriented edge-on to the Sun (non-reflective) outside summer, or maneuvered into storage orbits using onboard ion thrusters or solar pressure. Deployment might involve launching folded sails from Earth, unfolding in orbit, and positioning via solar sailing—reaching operational orbits in weeks to months.

Orbital Configurations: To maintain persistent shading over NYC (40.7°N), sails could use inclined geosynchronous orbits (24-hour period) or Molniya-like elliptical orbits to linger overhead during daylight. Statite modes could allow quasi-stationary hovering by tilting sails to counteract gravity, enabling seasonal activation without full repositioning.

Studies on L1 sunshades show orbiting disks can mitigate seasonal temperature variations by ~0.5-1°C globally, suggesting adaptability for targeted summer cooling (e.g., reducing NYC heat by 2-4°C).

Size and Materials: Total sail area might be 500-2,000 km² for effective shading, far smaller than global proposals (3-4 million km²). Advanced sails (reflectance >90%) could minimize mass to 1,000-5,000 tons, deployable via reusable rockets like Starship.

Challenges and LimitationsEngineering and Launch: Solar sail tech is nascent (e.g., NASA’s Solar Cruiser prototype); scaling for precision control over a city requires breakthroughs in attitude control and collision avoidance. Launching via 50-100 missions (at $50-100/kg) could take 5-10 years, with risks of orbital debris exacerbating Kessler syndrome.
Cost: Estimated $500 million to $5 billion, based on scaled-down global figures ($5-10 trillion for planetary-scale).

This includes R&D ($100-500 million), launches, and maintenance. Seasonal operations add complexity, potentially increasing costs by 20-30% for repositioning fuel/thrusters.
Environmental and Ethical Issues: Targeted shading could alter local weather (e.g., reduced rainfall or photosynthesis impacts), affect solar energy production, or cause uneven cooling in adjacent areas. Global governance is needed, as unilateral deployment raises international concerns. Sudden failure (e.g., solar storm damage) could lead to rapid warming.

Current Status: No prototypes exist for regional shading; efforts focus on global concepts via groups like the Planetary Sunshade Foundation.

Implementation might be viable in 20-30 years with investments in reusable launchers and in-space manufacturing.

In summary, while conceptually sound and more feasible than Florida-scale due to NYC’s smaller size, this remains speculative geoengineering. Ground-based alternatives (e.g., cool roofs, urban trees) offer quicker, cheaper relief.

Sustained R&D could make it a complementary tool for urban heat mitigation.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Credentialed expert consensus: SpaceX Starship will never work

Two months ago, New York Magazine Intelligencer (“intelligence” even in the name of the publication), “Is Elon Musk’s Starship Doomed? The future of SpaceX keeps blowing up, and no one knows if he can fix it.”:

“Having a rocket ascend a few hundred meters and blow up is not a success to me,” says Dallas Kasaboski, an analyst who covers the space industry for the research firm Analysys Mason.

Reusing both parts of a rocket, instead of just one, sounds like a modestly more ambitious undertaking — if you can do it once, why not twice? — but in fact, it’s exponentially harder, since the amount of energy to be dissipated while returning to Earth goes up not as a linear function of velocity but its square. The energy gets turned into heat, which sends the temperature of the Starship soaring into the thousands of degrees, such that it glows white-hot. To reduce the effects of this heat, the rocket’s exterior is coated in thermal tiles. But these are heavy. So is the internal bracing required to hold the ship together during the turbulence of reentry.

For critics, like Substack writer Will Lockett, the fact that Starship has failed so many times in a row is proof that the concept is fundamentally unworkable. “SpaceX is having to make the rockets too light, resulting in them being fragile, meaning that just the vibrations from operation with a fraction of its expected payload would be enough to destroy the rocket,” he wrote in one typically acerbic post.

“I remember reading a book in the 1970s about how the space shuttle would be flying every two weeks and cost low hundreds of dollars per pound to orbit,” says Grant Anderson, co-founder of the space-systems-maker Paragon Space Development Corporation, which helped launch SpaceX in 2002. “It never did that, obviously.” … When would we know if Starship is toast? One major red flag is persistent failures. “If you have a failure at the same stage twice for the same reason, and they can’t solve the problem, that’s an indication that there’s a design flaw that’s more than just an ‘Oops!’” says Anderson.

Readers: What do you think? Is it possible that Elon Musk and SpaceX are right and the expert consensus is wrong? Is there any way that Starship could one day make it into orbit without exploding? And, perhaps one day many years or decades from now, that both booster and Starship could land back on Earth?

Full post, including comments

The revolution in oil-powered general aviation is at least three years away

Happy National Aviation Day to those who celebrate.

One thing that you’d expect the Experimental Aircraft Association, with revenue of more than $60 million per year, to do is fund the development of new powerplants. There has never been any significant progress in aviation without first an improvement in engines. A low-power high-efficiency turbine engine, for example, would enable the creation of all kinds of dramatically superior aircraft. But none of the kit companies or even the certified four-seat aircraft companies can readily afford to invest what is required.

Enter Turbotech, a startup in the Islamic Republic of France. They say that they have a 140 hp turboprop engine that burns fuel at approximately the same rate as a 140 hp Rotax (piston) engine:

How long before this can be dropped into a certified airframe? The founders said that if everything goes perfect and nothing at all has to be changed in their current design, the engine could be EASA/FAA-certified in three years.

An analysis with some numbers (I disagree with the price discussion):

I don’t think it is Turbotech, but the Canadians claim to have a “turboshaft engine” in their Janus-I Flying Suitcase:

The ultimate license plate for light aircraft enthusiasts (a car parked at Oshkosh and, presumably, that will seen at Sun ‘n Fun in Lakeland, Florida in April:

Full post, including comments