The Science behind Astrology

By Andrew Troubadour | Filed in Occult Sciences
We’ve all seen these columns in various newspapers where we are told that anyone born in the sign of Virgo or Aquarius or whatever star sign is going to find love, a job or will be going on a long journey.

Well actually, it’s all bunkum.

No – I’ll qualify that – it’s based on the time-honoured traditions of a noble art, but as it’s presented it’s so simplistic that it’s useless.  Worse than useless in fact, because it gives the reader, under the guise of ”a good giggle”, the impression that Astrology is ”just a bit of fun”, or worse, something to be ridiculed.  And nothing could be farther from the truth.  As it happens, Astrology can hold its own with any science, and despite the rather unreasonable assertions by scientists like Professor Brian Cox, and scientifically-minded atheist comedians such as Dara o’Briain and Robin Ince, it can be proven to have a basis in truth, at the very least.

It will be observed, for example, that the moon in its orbit around the earth, causes the tides of the sea.  It can also be observed, and has been proven in tests on creatures such as fruit flies in experiments which cancelled all other influences, that the moon and the lunar cycle has a direct effect on the physiology of these creatures. We can adduce from that, therefore, that the gravity - or at least some influence exerted by this lunar mass - has an effect on liquid, given that this is the common factor.  We can also factor in the phenomenon known as ”moon madness” or lunacy.  Ergo, we know that human beings are not immune to the effects of the moon: given that our bodies are about 80% water in consistency, this is only to be expected.

However, this is the moon, which is relatively near – our nearest celestial neighbour, in fact.  Yet Astrology talks of planets, and indeed of constellations whose constituent stars are of the order of light-years away.  Can it really be possible that all these bodies have an effect?

Well, yes.

The moon is, as extra-terrestrial bodies go, quite small.  Perhaps not as small as asteroids, comets or the particles, shards and boulders of ice that make up the rings of Saturn, but small nevertheless – especially when compared with the likes of Jupiter or even Mars, which is roughly the same size as Earth.  If the influence the moon has on our water is a factor of its size and its distance from us, then it follows logically that other satellites will also have the same influence relative to these two factors.  Jupiter, the Gas Giant, has a smaller mass than its size would suggest, but it is still huge and therefore exerts a massive influence – although its distance from us, even at its closest point to us, is also vast, and therefore that influence is somewhat lessened.  But it’s not the amount of influence that is the important bit, but the fact that there is influence at all.  So even the star Betelgeuse, in the constellation of Orion, has an influence even though it is 427 light-years distant (427 x 5,878,625,373,183.608 miles): an infinitessimal influence, but still enough to help mould us, through our gestation and so on.  This, again, is a fair assumption, given that it has been proven that our sun, which is dwarfed by Betelgeuse even in its smallest phase, has influence far out into the depths of space, far beyond our solar system and beyond, even, where its light is easily discernable.

It is the knowledge of exactly how these influences occur that baffles science.  However, Astrology as a science is known from ancient times – and astronomical observations aside, the character traits of people born under certain astral configurations and whatnot have been observed to be correlate far, far beyond the dawn of what we might call history.  That science in its present form has no truck with it is unfortunate – however, such unreasonable assertions as emanate from the likes of Cox, o’Briain and Ince, worthy though these people are, are thoroughly unbecoming of the ”age of reason”.

It is surely, therefore, encumbent on science to at least acknowledge Astrology proper - as opposed to the stuff and nonsense that so tittilates in newspapers - to have some basis in fact, and not to dismiss it without proper consideration and the prejudice science tends to have in relation to ancient wisdoms.

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2011 Busineversity.com

Be the first to comment
del.icio.us this! Digg this! Share this by email. Share on Facebook! Share on LinkedIn! Stumble Upon this! Tweet this! Share on Reddit! RSS 2.0 TOP

The Internal Combustion Engine

By Andrew Griffiths | Filed in Automotive Technology
Share in top social networks!

The Internal Combustion engine, as used in all manner of vehicles and other tools, has been around for over a century and a quarter.  There are many types of I.C. engine – for example the petrol and Diesel two- and four-strokes – but for the purposes of this article, I shall be concentrating on the 4-stroke petrol variety.

The petrol-driven four-stroke engine, then, is widely attributed to one Nikolaus August Otto, a German engineer for whom the Otto cycle (being the four strokes the engine makes – induction, compression, ignition and exhaust – in order to work) is named.  However, he was working on the operation principle of Alphonse Beau de Rochas, and after the engine of Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir.

A basic engine is quite straightforward in its construction: firsly, the engine housing, the block, is made typically of iron, aluminium or an alloy, dependent on whether the manufacturer considers lightness, strength or cost to be more important.  Other factors which influence the materials used include heat conductivity, propensity to warp and, of course, for what it will ultimately be used.

In relation to cost, obviously an iron block would serve best as this metal is relatively cheap, has the advantage of strength and is easy enough to work.  The problem is its weight – which may not be an issue for a bog-standard, work-a-day vehicle, but when performance or dexterity are required, it can be a liability.  Aluminium is more expensive but much lighter than iron.  However, it is also less robust and is more difficult to work than iron, as it tends to warp easier.  However, in an alloy it works well, providing lightness while the other metal provides strength.  That said, the resulting alloy may still be difficult to work, and will invariably be more expensive, than iron.

Within the block are cut the cylinders, usually four, although six, eight, twelve and even sixteen have been used, either in straight, vee, flat or ”W” formation.  There have also been three- and five cylinder engines, ’though three cylinders tends against smoothness because three is fewer than the strokes in the cycle, and therefore there is an inbalance in the timing of the ignition (and thus, power) stroke relative to the number of cylinders.  The Vee engine can be either 60 or 90 degrees between each bank, the deciding factor being the power it needs to produce versus the thermodynamic efficiency of the rest of the layout (engines run optimally in a certain range: too cold and more petrol will be required, resulting in a silting up of the engine, and increased wear as the oil doesn’t reach its optimum viscosity – too hot and anything from a blown gasket to total seizure can occur), while a flat engine has the banks at 180 degrees.  The W configuration has three banks – hence this is only useful for 6- and 12 cylinder engines (although it would theoretically be possible to have a W9 unit, this would be improbable given that, as with the 3-cyl engine, the four strokes cannot easily be distributed between them.)

The cylinders are lined with metal sleeves, within which the pistons are pushed up and down by connecting rods attached to the crankshaft – of which mechanism, more later.  But the sleeves themselves, the cylinder liners, are important in the cooling of the engine.  Depending on the architecture of the engine block, these liners may be known as wet-liners – where the engine’s coolant runs directly against the liner – or dry-liners, where the coolant chamber will be separated from the liner by the construction of the block.  Factors influencing this design choice include ease of manufacture and optimal operating temperature.

The pistons within the cylinders are connected to the connecting rods (con-rods, for short) by an arrangement of gudgeon pins and various other mechanisms so that, held upward, the con-rod has free movement of sufficient degree along one plain.  This is because the other end of the con-rod is connected to the crankshaft.  Now, the crankshaft is, basically, a rod which rotates along the length of the bottom of the engine, and corresponding to each piston is an eccentrically-placed portion of the rod so positioned that, when the rod is rotated, it drags the piston down to the bottom and then back up to the top of the cylinder.  This is what causes the cycle to be completed.

However, this is not the end of the matter, for we haven’t touched the top of the engine yet – the cylinder head.  This is where the combustion chamber, and the valves, reside.  For efficiency, the combustion chamber has a specific shape, so that the fuel-air mixture may be properly drawn into the cylinder as the piston goes down on the induction stroke, and then is compressed to exactly the right degree on the upward, compression stroke; then when the compressed mixture is ignited it is as per design specification and then on the upward stroke the spent fuel is dispensed with efficiently.  Of course, the induction and exhaust have to happen by some means, and those means are the valves.  Once upon a time – and indeed, until relatively recently – the side-valve was the configuration of choice.  This meant the valves would either be pushed up into an inlet in the side of the combustion-chamber, or pushed into the combustion-chamber itself from the side.  This was cheap to produce, but mechanically not very efficient because the hot gasses were more inclined to rise than move sideways.  And so the overhead valve was born.  Now, the overhead valve, or ohv engine, was still controlled from the side of the engine, for that was where the camshaft was, and so a pushrod arrangement was used.  The pushrod was pushed up by the camshaft, where it engaged with a rocker arrangement whose fulcrum was a rod atop the cylinder head: the result being that as one end was pushed up, the other was pushed down onto the waiting valve, held closed by strong springs.  This arrangement has been largely superceded on all but the most agricultural and primitive of engines by the over-head camshaft (ohc) arrangement, whereby the camshaft (or camshafts, for double overhead camshaft – dohc -arrangements) acts directly on the valves themselves or, failing that, via rockers.  The camshaft itself is a shaft, smaller in diameter than the crankshaft, on which there are numerous ovoid protuberances (cams), so placed that as the shaft rotates, the cams cause whatever is beneath them (or above them, in the case of pushrod or sidevalve engines) to be pushed.  Obviously, this camshaft is connected to the crankshaft, so that it spins half as fast as does the crankshaft – that way, each valve only opens once per cycle, and it works properly.  Of course, between those valve actions, the compressed mixture in the chamber is ignited, thus pushing the piston down and providing the power – and the source of that spark is the sparking plug.  This is also the work of the camshaft, for as well as the cams the camshaft also has a gear ring, from which the distributor is run.  The distributor distributes the electricity needed to fire the sparking plugs, and it does that by means of a rotor arm which spins off the gear on the camshaft and distributes the charge to each of the cylinders in turn.  For a four cylinder engine, the firing order is usually 1,3,4 2 – but according to the set-up of the engine it could be any combination, except a straight line, for this would set up un-necessary strains on the engine and thus shorten its life.

There is, of course, much more to an engine than the foregoing. I will be adding to the store of knowledge on all things automotive hereon – and much more besides – but for now, this is a large enough contribution.

Share in top social networks!
Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2011 Busineversity.com

Be the first to comment
del.icio.us this! Digg this! Share this by email. Share on Facebook! Share on LinkedIn! Stumble Upon this! Tweet this! Share on Reddit! RSS 2.0 TOP

The Trouble with the Euro

By Andrew Griffiths | Filed in Economics

The study of economics, per se, is fraught with uncertainties, pratfalls and blind alleys.  Economists are experts at telling you what has happened, but not so clever when it comes to predicting an upcoming hazard.

This is perhaps not surprising, as the mechanics of economics is fairly simple, yet we have to contend with the fickle jade that is human nature and the near-impossible bubbles of ceteris paribus, or all things remaining equal, and perfect knowledge – an Utopian dream which, were it possible, would render the study of economics a pointless exercise anyway.

There is, nonetheless, a certain inevitability about the Euro.  Its course has been remarkable thus far, but it is, nonetheless, as improbable a thing as a whale at altitude – cumbersome, ill-suited to its environment and ultimately unable to avoid an eventual and ungainly fate which, when it happens, is going to be both messy and painful.

The fact is, whereas it should be a tool of economic necessity, it is more a political noose around the necks of most members, with Germany and France taking turns as hang-men.  As a political noose – by which the otherwise supposedly autonomous countries which espouse it in the name of belonging to this dysfunctional agglomeration called the European Union – it serves as a not-very-assertive stage director trying to control a troupe consisting not so much of team players but of prima-donnas.  It is of course right and proper that each individual country should look after the needs of its own people – this is, after all, what democratically elected governments should do – but in this action, each individual country’s economy moves in different directions not necessarily conducive to the proper functioning of the region.  It is, naturally, possible to manipulate minor factors by which one’s economy can be affected a little bit: then again, the micro-corrections possible through this behaviour are puny when compared with some of the buffeting to which an economy may be subjected, to the extent that the levers known to ameliorate, say, a rise in interest rates, or sudden inflation, will not be possible when one cannot either print money, put up interest rates or devalue.

The problem is somewhat exacerbated when one considers that the Euro-zone, with its extensive and disparate family of nations, will tend towards an average.  This is wonderful for the poorer nations, who will be dragged up by the richest as the money drains from them, but for the richest nations it’s a poor deal as the rewards of their economic dilligence goes towards propping up the profligate.  So there are rules governing the way members of the Euro-zone manage their affairs – but these rules have always been treated with various degrees of contempt by those who, as outlined above, have been acting in the interests of the people who elected them, to the exclusion of the interests of other stake-holders.  And as we have seen with the Greek situation, the degree to which the factual accuracy of a member’s situation has been reported is not always as one would expect.  Ergo, what presents itself is a frighteningly dangerous and fragile structure.

The Proper Structure 

The Euro would have been far more stable and desirable were its progenitors honest in the first instance about its purpose.  That could only have been achieved had said purpose been purely economic and not the bastard child of reputedly megalomanic intentions.  It can also only work if all the countries in the Euro-zone dissolved into one whole, with one government, one set of economic principles and without the push-me-pull-you maneouvring which wastes so much energy that can more productively be used elsewhere.

However, this is a European model which our forefathers had fought against since the time of Charlemagne, the Habsburg dynasty and the two world wars, and every other European conflict in-between.  It is ironic, therefore, that the European Union is, in part, a mechanism whereby no conflicts arise.

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2011 Busineversity.com

3 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
del.icio.us this! Digg this! Share this by email. Share on Facebook! Share on LinkedIn! Stumble Upon this! Tweet this! Share on Reddit! RSS 2.0 TOP
iCom Now
[0]
 
Chat
Requests