Galin Engine

Okay, this is going to be a long one....I've been working on a project for a couple years now, and am getting somewhere slowly. Here is a bit of background:

The most common type of the internal combustion (IC) engine is the reciprocating piston engine, where a piston moves in a linear motion inside a cylinder observing two/four stroke combustion cycles. The linear motion of the piston is converted to rotary motion of a shaft via a slider-crank mechanism. The reciprocating motion of the IC engine is a historical artefact of its predecessor - the steam engine. Since commercialisation of the IC engine in the mid-1800s, this type of engine has been a driving force behind our exponential technological progress and globalisation. 

Despite its massive success, there are a number of drawbacks in the reciprocating piston architecture that cannot be avoided. Some examples include: 

* in translating reciprocating motion to rotary motion at the point of peak force (at piston top dead centre) the lever arm in the slider-crank mechanism is zero hence no torque is generated, 

* a single cylinder engine is unbalanced generating vibration and wear on the cylinder and piston head,

* there is only one power stroke for every two revolutions of the shaft. 

The rotary vane engine has long been proposed as an alternative design to the reciprocating piston engine with the aim of avoiding the above mentioned drawbacks. This type of engine consists of a cylindrical chamber with two shafts either side, each shaft has vanes attached. The vanes create between themselves chambers of variable volume, within which the strokes of the internal combustion cycle can occur. In the case that the chamber is hermetically sealed, and combustion made to occur in one of the chambers, the vanes would oscillate at a natural frequency - hence why the term oscillating piston engine, or vibratory engine is sometimes applied to this design. 

The rotary vane engine overcomes the previously mentioned drawbacks of the reciprocating piston engine. A rotary vane single cylinder engine has a constant lever arm, hence non-zero torque output across the full duration of the combustion stroke, low vibration with no linear moving parts, and at least four power strokes per shaft revolution. However, the rotary vane engine is not without its own drawbacks - the most prominent one being that despite many attempts to build a rotary vane engine, none of the proposed designs have been successful in practical tests. The main cause of failure in all known constructions is that they employ mechanical linkages to coordinate shaft rotation. Components in these linkages experience alternating shock loadings, which quickly lead to their destruction. 

Our solution to this critical drawback in the rotary vane engine design is to use electrical machines attached to either one or both shafts to achieve necessary coordination between the shafts. Controlling the accelerating and decelerating electromagnetic torques of the electrical machines ensures the necessary coordination of rotation of the shafts, and at the same time conversion of heat energy of the fuel into electrical energy.

STM32 Synchronizing Clocks

Problem Statement:

You have two (or more) STM32 Nucleo boards, and need their clocks to be synchronized. This means, that we allow for a non-zero phase offset between the clocks, but the phase offset should not change with time. 

One way to confirm this is that viewing the clock outputs for the two boards on your scope, triggering off one waveform should freeze the other clock waveform too. 

Solution:

1. Setting up the clock on the MASTER board:

a) within STM32CubeMX navigate to the "System Core" -> RCC tab and set the LSE clock source to "Crystal/Ceramic Resonator". Also, check the "Master Clock Output" checkbox. Doing this will send the clock to the MCO pin on the board (usually GPIO pin PA8). You will then connect that pin on the MASTER board to the CN7pin29 on the SLAVE board. See figure 1 for an example.

Figure 1 - MASTER board RCC and MCO pin configuration. 

Note: The MCO pin likely automatically be configured as "Alternate Function Push Pull", however, in addition, you will need to set the maximum output speed for this pin to "High" (the default is "Low"). 

b) open STM32CubeMX for your slave board, and navigate to the "Clock Configuration" tab to see the acceptable external HSE input frequency range. Then locate the "MCO Source Mux" in STM32CubeMX of the MASTER board and select the MCO frequency to be within this range (usually 1 - 32 MHz). See figure 2 for an example clock configuration on the MASTER board.

Figure 2 - Example clock diagram for the MASTER board.

c) program the board. Hook up a scope MCO output (GPIO pin PA8) of the MASTER board, and confirm that you get a clock signal of the appropriate frequency. See figure 3. 

Figure 3 - MCO output on the MASTER board.

2. Setting up the clock on the SLAVE board (the same configuration may be repeated on other slave boards):

a) refer to the User Manual for your board and understand what board configuration is required to configure the external high-speed clock (HSE) pins to accept input from an external oscillator through pin CN7pin29 (i.e. PF0 pin). In my case both boards are MB1136, and suggested configuration on page 24 is shown in figure 4.

Figure 4 - Configuration settings from User Manual for an STM32 Nucleo board to accept an external clock signal.

Note: Make sure to get the correct manual; look up the MB number at the back of the Nucleo board and get the manual for that numbered board. In my case the MB number for both boards is MB1136, and hence this is the appropriate manual.

b) within STM32CubeMX navigate to the "System Core" -> RCC tab and set both HSE/LSE clock sources to "BYPASS Clock Source", see figure 2. Checking the "Master Clock Output" checkbox is not necessary, but will help verify that you have in fact synchronized the clocks at the end of this exercise.

Note: The Master Clock Output (MCO) is usually output to GPIO pin PA8 on most (but not all STM32) boards. This GPIO pin will automatically be configured as "Alternate Function Push Pull" but in order to see an output on the scope the maximum output speed for this pin should be set to "High" (the default is "Low"). 

c) figure 5 provides the clock diagram for the slave board. Program the board.

Figure 5 - Example clock diagram for the SLAVE board. 

3. Putting it all together:

a) connect the MCO output of the MASTER board (GPIO pin PA8, CN12pin23) to the expected HSE clock input pin on the SLAVE board (GPIO pin PF0, CN11pin29). 

b) connect a scope to the MCO outputs on both the MASTER and SLAVE boards to confirm that the clocks are in sync. See figure 6.

Figure 6 - MCO outputs from the MASTER (yellow) and SLAVE (blue) boards. You'll just have to trust me that the phase isn't varying with time :D

Running

The burning sun softened on its way to the ground by the canopy of eucalyptus leaves, the scented heat of the bush penetrating your skin, the soft crush of the dry leaves as your feet pound the dirt skirting around the rocks as you run down a well known path. You recognise most of these rocks as old friends, they haven't changed, but you have.

I guess it is to be expected to write a blog post about "life and everything", ponder the meaning 'of it all', and reflect on the year past at a time when the calendar year is changing.

The water glistening green and blue, and softly gurgling as it hugs the roots of trees and rocks. The submerged sand scalloped by the repeated return of waves. The air is still, the trees only occasionally rustle with the lazy wind.

"Carpe diem" and/or "Live in the moment"; oft quoted words to encourage people to dig deep for the courage to feel alive everyday. Words meant to encourage a sense of wonder and that nose tingling excitement about the world around you - I'm feeling it now. But also, for myself, a sentiment that I do not understand. Taken at face value, it's quite a stressful idea. Don't relax 'into it', concentrate, ask yourself, 'are you really living the moment?'. But wait, it's gone, try again. Okay. Oh...there it goes, lost, that moment, slipping like sand through your fingers... How do you enjoy holding sand? When all you can do is concentrate on how to keep it in your hands for longer? You know it'll all be gone anyway.

You stop. Your breath is heavy, rasping your throat, your pulse quick and your whole body feels it - the quickened rhythm of your heart. Your are alone, and you let yourself relax into the sounds around you, filled with the chatter of birds, energetic screeching of parrots, the resonant hum of cicadas.

I've recently come to realise that "carpe diem" just isn't for me. My life is full, and as it slips through my hands, I enjoy and study it as it cascades onwards. I look back and appreciate what I see, it's not easy, and why would it be?

The final leg of your run is a menacing hill. You see the car at the top, small and far away. You put your head down, and concentrate on attempting to enjoy the burning in your legs. The only way to the top is one step at a time. You'll get there, but damn it, you wonder why the hell you parked so far away :)

GUILTY GENERATION

I'm home sick with some potent incarnation of the swine flu, hopefully not as fatal though, although I definitely have been having melodramatic feelings about writing my will on occassion. I know this is bad, because I didn't even enjoy this Saturday morning, my head feels like it's full of cotton, delirious cotton, brought upon either by fever or vast quantities of mulled wine I'm consuming....anyway... now I feel like writing something, but I of course cannot really think of anything to write, so I shall attempt to convert a talk I recently did into a blog post i.e. a form of intellectual recycling, which in this instance is actually quite apt - you'll hopefully get the joke if you read the post ;)

*****

Why do we (should we) care about climate change?

Because climate change is no longer just affecting our climate system, but through peoples efforts it is having an effect on our thinking, society, our markets, policy, economics, and industry. Sadly constantly the phrase rings out – I ‘believe’ in climate change, I do not ‘believe’ in climate change. I hope we share the desire not to believe (or not) in climate change, but because as we see its far-reaching influence, we want to ‘know’ more about it.

But I find that there’s not a lot of clarity out there on this issue. More specifically, clarity on how we are affecting it, and how we will be affected by it. This isn’t exactly clear to me. If we take to one side the question about whether humans are affecting the climate or not, and consider a message that has received some traction – that of reducing your energy consumption, or your ‘green footprint’ you get an overwhelming amount of questions:

Don’t you print double-sided? Don’t you drive a Prius? Don’t you recycle? Don’t you switch the lights off when you leave the room? Don’t you unplug your mobile phone charger? Don’t you avoid using the elevator?

We are: 'THE GUILTY GENERATION’.

'Back in the good ol’ days' people were optimistic about the future. It seems like a foreign sentiment to feel these days. Optimism about the future is unheard of in a general humanitarian sense. Sure, you can be optimistic about your future SAT scores, or your new baby etc, but about the future of mankind in general - well that's blasphemy really, and/or you just haven't been watching the news. They (i.e. our parents, and theirs) thought that by now we’d be on Mars, teleport all over the place, live forever, looking like Elle McPherson. There was excitement, optimism, things where being built, people where looking forward to the future…

Not anymore.

We, the future of the past are made to feel guilty all the time. Is that fish you’re eating? Is it from a sustainable source? But what is sustainable? (I have this awesome app on my phone: http://www.sustainableseafood.org.au/Sustainable-Seafood-Guide-Australia.asp?active_page_id=695)  Do you recycle your plastics? But did you know that packaging companies might finance recycling centers, and encouraging consumerism (http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/04/25/can-recycling-be-bad-for-the-environment/)? How is it that it may costs less to buy a new TV than to have your old one repaired? How much do cows really fart – and how is it really affecting the climate? (this is kinda cute: http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO873.html)

When I consider how much 'badness' there is out there, it's like trying to imagine the size of the universe - except it makes you feel guilty not giddy. I GUILTY (and I’m not even Catholic). If I starting thinking about it - I feel bad about what I eat, what I drink, how I live... If you just open the lid on ‘climate change’ you can feel like a downright rotten human being for existing, because it seems that your existence precurs the existence of the future for the human race.

I don’t think I deserve to, or that we need to.

I think the reason I become susceptible to this external guilt is that I do not understand the problem(s) entirely. I don’t know how large it is, and I don’t actually know how I contribute to it. This cloudiness leads to lack of action, to the point of apathy on my part. I think the key is in quantifying this issue, i.e. putting it in a context, and removing ambiguity always helps – for example, very simplistically, price is usually a first indicator we use to judge quality: How do I know if a bottle of wine is better than another? I look at the price. (For me £100 is always worse than a £5 bottle....especially for mulled wine... :))

So in my search for clarity, I stumbled across a text that addressed the issue of sustainable energy objectively. It got down to the numbers and quantified the situation. It’s called “Sustainable Energy: without the hot air” by David Mackay (http://www.withouthotair.com/).

This in my opinion is a text that addresses the issue (ahem…guilt) of sustainable energy (conveniently for those of you in the UK, in a British context) in a quantitative way, fanning away adjectives, and replacing them with numbers. It removes the guilty feeling, because it quantifies the problem. It answers questions about how big this problem really is, how you can affect it as an individual. By putting the issue of sustainable energy in a current quantitative context it becomes tractable.

I 'believe' that this is a work that objectively presents how you can contribute on an individual level to affecting the consumption of fossil fuels. One interesting message that I got from the book is that if “everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little”. What is a little? What is a lot? For example, switching off your mobile phone charger for ‘one year’ is equal to the energy in a single hot bath. The message? No more washing... ;)

Seriously. The message? Let’s stop to this guilt, by making a directed/informed choice.

Saturday mornings

Perhaps it's something particular to Saturdays that come after a busy week, during which you've been pushing yourself to do too much, and achieving little by your standards. Perhaps it's the warmth of the bed that won't let you leave until the morning is mature. Or maybe it's the crisp air, barely warmed by the autumn sun that sends a tingle through your body as you take deep breaths to clear your head.  What is it then, that unexpectedly opens your soul to the words in a book, and the thoughts they weave send waves of emotion coursing through, your head spins and you gladly fall into a new world... 'And when you do find one, observe with care,' he said to the intern: 'they almost always have crystals in their heart.'

Scheherazade

Tell me about the dream where we pull the bodies out of the lake
                                         and dress them in warm clothes again.
       How it was late, and no one could sleep, the horses running
until they forget that they are horses.
            It’s not like a tree where the roots have to end somewhere,
       it’s more like a song on a policeman’s radio,
         how we rolled up the carpet so we could dance, and the days
were bright red, and every time we kissed there was another apple
                                                                       to slice into pieces.
Look at the light through the windowpane. That means it’s noon, that means
        we’re inconsolable.
                            Tell me how all this, and love too, will ruin us.
These, our bodies, possessed by light.
                                                     Tell me we’ll never get used to it.

-Richard Siken

What is it that we miss?

I love autumn particularly because it is quiet. Particularly those days when the sky is clean from clouds; the morning air is crisp and fresh, and forces you into a brisk pace. The leaves crunchy under your feet. The trees dressed in a brilliance of flame coloured leaves. The sun still warm. The evening tepid, and the wind soft as it caresses your face, and whisks away the fallen leaves. I love walking home on days like this, because I see the sunset, because the day feels tired and lazy and feels happy to have ended. Because in the blue-yellow sky I see Venus and the crescent moon, and feel romantic and eternal...

...and sometimes I remember people who are so dear to me, but with whom I can never create new memories. I miss them. I miss their voice, their hugs and warmth. Their thoughts. Sometimes this makes me think that I am a very selfish person. I miss them because I gained so much from them. Being with them made me happy, and doing things for them made me happy. Sharing my life with them made me happy, and playing a part in theirs.

Recently a dear friend passed away, and I am sad.

Now you can no longer change me, and I can no longer affect you. But I won't forget that you made me a better person and how grateful I am that you cared. I will keep you with me.

"I will always miss you."

Hope(full)

Ehhh....stop the music. Why, why, are people allowed to impress themselves onto others in the name of tradition. Why are the values behind a particular tradition not re-evaluated at least occasionally, to ascertain the continued value of the occasion? 'Tradition' should not mean an action that is justified a priori, and whose consequences are not to be questioned. Why is the human condition full of these lazy short-hand actions?

Ah, well, now that I've had this little rant of exasperation, I turn to something more pleasant, and perhaps more revealing. I spent the afternoon in my first attempt to translate a poem from Russian to English. It caught my attention first as it is also a beautiful song (do look it up) by: Владимир Высоцкий "Надежда". 

------******------

Hope

Now that the trembling in my hands has stopped,

Now – higher.

Now that my fear has down the chasm slipped,

Forever, ever…

There’s no reason to stop,

I continue, slipping,

And the are no peaks in this world,

Which cannot be scaled.

Amongst the untrodden paths

Let one be mine,

Amongst the unconquered borders,

Leave one to me,

And the names of those, who fell here

The snow will conceal…

Amongst these untracked roads

One is mine.

Here the sky-blue radiance of the ice

Pours forth over the horizon.

The secret of another’s footsteps

Is harbored by the granite,

And I gaze into my dream

Above their heads

And faithfully believe in the purity

Of snow and words…

And let no short term pass

I will not forget

How here, the doubt within me

I managed to destroy.

That day the water whispered to me:

“Good luck, always!”…

But what day, what day was that?

Oh, yes, Wednesday…

------******------

Happiness

"Shukhov went to sleep fully content. He'd had many strokes of luck that day: they hadn't put him in the cells; they hadn't sent the team to the settlement; he'd pinched a bowl of kasha at dinner; the team-leader had fixed the rates well; he'd built a wall and enjoyed doing it; he'd smuggled that bit of hacksaw-blade through; he'd earned something from Tsezar in the evening; he'd bought that tobacco. And he hadn't fallen ill. He'd got over it.
     A day without a dark cloud. Almost a happy day." Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

Human brutality knows no bounds. The capacity to really do evil (harm, hurt each other without reason) is inexhaustible - instead it feeds upon itself and grows ever bigger.

This is only one perspective - Shukhov's, who'd done his outmost to survive a day in the 'Special Camp'. But his actions drawn from basic instincts of self-preservation undoubtedly precipitated events which hurt others around him. Who can blame him? When does stealing become virtuous? Like taking a couple of pens from a stationary cupboard at work for your friend.

Perhaps when you believe that you're struggling against "the system" - the machinery of society - the network of abominable interactions. Why is it that all of us forget the embarrassing moment that our very actions not only created it, but feed its existence. I guess this is because an individual realisation is not enough. It is not enough for a single person to gain 'enlightenment' of this fact, but that this liberating thought must permeate the collective consciousness. Only then can the fabric of a society be rewoven. But this is like asking an exothermic reaction to reverse itself. And perhaps in the end 'we get what we deserve'.

"Ivan went to sleep fully content. He'd had many strokes of luck that day: he had two new prisoners in the cells; he finally filled the quota for teams sent to live the "Socialist way of Life"; he'd beaten some lazy scum zek who complained that he didn't have any dinner; he'd arranged to get the largest shipment of flour and oats through for the camp; he'd fixed up his tommy and he enjoyed doing it; he'd smuggled a pint of vodka through; he'd earned something from Pavel in the evening; he'd bought that sheep skin hat. And he hadn't fallen ill. He'd got over it. 
     A day without a dark cloud. Almost a happy day."

To live and not know why the cranes fly, why babies are born, why there are stars in the sky. Either you must know why you live, or it's all nonsense. Dust in the wind!

Hello there, I'm in a place where time is lazy, where it runs like thick oil seeping into the routine of your day which is consequently very unambitious. The hours are wiled away eating or lying around staring at the dusty earth, and brittle olive trees and thinking about nothing. The air is dry and hot; the dappled sun pleasant as it warms your skin. The idle touch of the wind reminds me that I'm still awake... and still thinking about nothing...

I've discovered I'm really quite good at thinking about nothing. :)

And what a luxury this is. To let your thoughts run wild, to explore anything and everything that strikes your fancy, to let your imagination string thoughts together on tenuous 'flights of logic' :) to think of the ordinary and beautiful and simple. To let yourself feel happy and sad and lost and found.

To be.

I am lucky

I am so lucky to be a citizen of Australia; I am so lucky to live in the UK; I am so lucky to have travelled and lived in the USA. I am so lucky to know that I have rights as a civilian, and that these rights are protected. The right to know 'why' things are done the way they are in the democratic system that I live in, and also the empowered feeling I have to affect the system, if I think and can prove to others that there is something not exactly 'fair' or 'right' or pertaining to 'rule of law'.

Okay, so this is how I genuinely feel right now. And here is my problem:

I need to have my UK VISA renewed - I have received a new Certificate of Sponsorship from my employer, I have filled in the application on the UK website, and (of course) I like to think I'm an easy case. But, (there's always a but), I have heard/read/been told, that the processing time when mailing in your application form and ancillary documents can be at least 2 months. For circumstances not in my direct control, I can only submit my application by post 6 weeks before I have to travel on business. Damn. However, there is an option to take the 'premium' option (you pay an extra 300 pounds, above the already hefty 500 pound application processing fee), and you are directed to a website whose irony still amazes me. On this particular page you are asked to fill in dates when you are free to come into a UK border agency centre (one of seven), and submit your documents in person and consequently receive a decision much sooner. You pick and choose in your naive honesty a suitable range of dates, and centres closest to yourself, and then click 'next'. The irony in this whole process is that of course, you quickly realise that there are no appointments available for any days (at all), in any of the centers (gosh - you're even willing to travel to Belfast from London). The lovely/polite message telling you:
"We do not have any appointments available for your preferred dates and locations."
Feels like a spit in the face...

You are resourceful, so you call up the next morning to find out how it is possible (if at all) to make an appointment for the 'premium' service? You are politely told that a single 'days worth' of appointments (you are told which day they are up to) is released at a 'random' time between 5pm and 9am (the next day)... So it's luck of the draw. You ('event' - I'll explain later) feel this is defining unfairness, but you cannot pin-point exactly why. Why the cryptic messages on the website then? Why not just be direct and tell people this information - does the agency need the revenue from the calls lodged to be told this?

Anyway, okay, so, you prepare yourself to log into that now 'stupid' website and madly check all the date/location combinations...(Okay, so here is where I own up - reference to 'event' explained: after a week of this stupidity, I 'just' successfully secured an appointment. I say this because in all fairness to human nature, it is likely that my 'zeal' (awww...stinging sense of humour? ;)) in writing about this has died down somewhat. However, I am not finished with my story, and I remain curious to understand a few things in the nature of this process...)

So, in this whole painful process, agonizing about the possibility of securing an appointment, still getting paid at work, the deep 'unfairness' feeling I get when I think about the process of appointment bookings, the duration your travel documents will be with the UK government - and you unable to travel... I don't understand something... I do not understand why (if you are able to receive this in the first place), you cannot during this interim period travel on a concurrent passport. Why? Why will my whole application process become void/invalid the moment I leave the country? Why does the UK govt have me by the throat when my documents are being reviewed? Why are my basic human rights to travel... let me rephrase that: my basic human rights to see my family, to help my family and friends when/if they are in need (and happen to be outside of the UK)? Why are my basic human rights to freedom of choosing how I spend my free time, and conducting my work where it will be most effective impinged upon? - simply because the UK govt are processing my VISA extension?

Why? It does not seem fair. Perhaps because I do not understand something - perhaps it is a national security risk to allow me to travel out of the country while my documents are in possession of the UK govt? Perhaps I'm missing something important? (and here I am not being ironic - I am sincere when I say that perhaps I am really missing a bit of information that will answer my question, and give me that 'ah' feeling when curiosity is reasonably satisfied.)

Anyway, the point to this protracted story is that I intend to find out 'why'?

And I'll let you know.

"catapulting" UK science across the "valley of death", or: as I walk through the valley in the shadow of death...

Hehehe...."how" and "where" I hear you ask?
oh...you know...showing off some uber classy lingo I picked up... ;) Actually, these two unfortunate metaphors were the worst thing about an otherwise amazing evening I just experienced at the Royal Society. (It is actually hilarious to hear people discussing the 'valley of death' and what it means to overcome "it", rather, than directly addressing the difficulties that stand in the way of say creating a successful business from a wonderful piece of research: the valley of death this, and the valley of death that...ahaaa)

Jokes aside, I am awed from the discussion that I was just exposed to. Objectively speaking it was not particularly full of substance, i.e. statements that are testable, concrete and philosophically charged, but perhaps this is because my ears are not accustomed to hearing politically motivated and/or exposing statements. And actually, the discussions were so far above my 'pay bracket' that it was a little fantastical. However, what I felt was a genuine and sincere attempt to project ideas and receive feedback.

A few points/statements that did get me thinking are:
1. A definition of "invention" that I had not previously ever encountered, and actually not really sure what to make of: "invention is transfer of money into knowledge"... Really? that is not the street meaning of it, at least not yet. Invention to myself means the materialisation of thought. Cash/economy have nothing to do with this process. However, it is an interesting take on the word.
2. An interesting statement: Engineering is construction of complex systems. Which got me thinking that perhaps: Science is the de-construction of complex systems.
3. Additionally, on the specific subject of scientific enterprise, I wonder in comparison with engineering, science is not a 'passive enterprise'. In the sense that it is involved with the ordering of data. I personally consider that scientists are people who are good 'reducing agents' - good at turning data into information. In my own (perhaps poor metaphor), I consider the unknown workings of nature as a high entropy system, and scientists are basically people who are good at putting things into order, classification, and discerning trends. Scientists don't actually make anything - hence the use of the word passive. In contrast engineering enterprise, is using scientific effort (descriptions of how to order and predict nature) to create material objects.

And finally two thoughts which I am not too comfortable with, and perhaps will explore at a later date more fully, as they have not yet crystallised within me yet:
a) I posted a while back now about they fact that we (citizens of western countries) exercise our democratic rights about once every few years (in general). And there is this general consensus amongst us (at least it was drummed into my and my classmates ins school) - that every vote counts, you can make a difference etc. The existence of large companies, companies with turnovers greater than many countries, this view of the workings of a democracy is a little naive. Their voting power is far greater, more efficient at altering the course of the economy and consequently our lives than we can ever achieve with a ballot paper every few years (okay, you say this is obvious - but today I actually 'felt' this for the first time to the bone). The saving grace is that a company is not a person, and as employees we exercise our democratic right every day when we get into work.
b) What social services are funded by public money? (I have to look this up.) I ask this because I am wary about this idea that science that is publicly funded owes something to the public. "Open access" is an applicable term here. There are many services/projects that are publicly funded and yet remain and need to remain out of the public domain - take MI6 or whatever the secret service is called here... it is undoubtedly funded by public money, but I doubt if it will ever will be open access. Anyway, this is likely a nonsensical statement, I'm just trying to 'download'.

Well, there you are, just a few random thoughts about the night. Very different experience from the meetings I have previously attended. I don't think I really learnt anything except to get a confirmation of a feeling that had recently been germinating - and that is the UK is in safe hands. You guys have a lot of brilliantly smart people. Oh, I am going to start gushing now :)

CAPITALISE EVERYTHING

Daaaamn right!....

So what I am attempting is to bring forward the observation that in our society there is this intense push to privatise and 'transactionalise' everything. I think I have blogged previously (my existential crisis...one of many, but of the few that actually pass my rational barrier, and make it out to the bloggosphere. Oh, well, 'sharing is caring') about my concern.

However, this particular subject is beginning to crop up everywhere on my radar: NHS privatisation, outsourcing of jails (what the....?), education (old news I admit) etc. And finally, I recently read this on a twitter post, which I paraphrase: should teachers begin to see their students as consumers of their service?

Now, I am a capitalist, I am not blind to the fact that human nature necessitates a personal profit driven motive to progress (i.e. higher levels of hygiene, if we need a basic measure for progress, as an off hand example). However, there are certain things which should never be subject to a transaction. For example, the communist mindset is ideal for a happy, cohesive, functional family. It's normal for the family mantra to be: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I am glad mum and dad never expected us to earn our way, and pay rent while my sis and I were freely pooping in our nappies. The communist slogan is frankly a beautiful sentiment, and works well within a family setting (and why we may all hate/love to bits our families) but it just doesn't scale - as a couple of social experiments have demonstrated. AND...by this same token, just because capitalism works so well on a large societal/civilisation scale, does not mean that capitalism scales down. It must be admitted, acknowledged and respected that certain services are the product of the generosity of human nature (which capitalism by definition does not consider, but this doesn't mean this generosity of spirit is non existent).

Admittedly, this generosity I speak of is easier to imagine in the case of a teacher/student relationship, and not so much between a criminal and his/her jail warden, but what I am trying to say is that there are certain 'services' of a society which should remain run by the state. Yes, I agree that state run services suffer from gross inefficiencies, these should be addressed, but with a surgeon's scalpel, not a butcher's cleaver. 

The outcome of these trends of gross capitalisation, is that when student's are asked why they did not fill out an assessment/survey form for a class at the end of a semester reply that it is not in their interest to contribute to the betterment of the class, as in a few years time, it is possible that new graduates from the same, but now 'better' class will be their competition in the market place. (True story. Courtesy of a friend.) This deserves a capitalisation of WTF larger than I can get in this font. This thought process is so poignantly a product of capitalism, it will serve these students well on the stock exchange. But to live a life of such emotional miserly is to never live - to redefine the human condition. <- Yeah, yeah... I am being sentimental, but then I'm not an emotional capitalist.

Symptoms of a sickness

*cough* *cough*.....*sneeze* and *wheeze* ..... I guess I have had a fair run of about a year not being sick...and now it's time...

I've also been recently noticing a trend in society which seems to indicate to me, something of a sickness in our society....(Ah...today is a hard day to write in a focussed way, and I just noticed that what I'm about to do is offer criticism of a system within which I live, and offer no solution...)
Okay, back to it - specifically, (and this may be a naive observation to most) is that societal laws aside from preventing/punishing its members for doing harm to each other, also remarkably prevent us from being decent to each other. An example of this, when a person has been wrongly dismissed at a company, and even prosecuted based on false grounds, does not (cannot) receive an apology from their company once this person's name has been cleared. To apologise, is to admit wrongdoing - and consequently (most importantly), to become 'liable'. The word 'sorry' is now a legal liability! Wow.

So, okay, I admit, this isn't insightful, but my small observation here is that,
although laws are reactive to societal behaviour and evolution, they also shape/confine us in the short term. Is it possible, that children will no longer be taught to 'say sorry' when you've done something wrong? ... because well frankly your parents are gonna now sue my parents?

I can imagine that in my example above, there was/is a discord between what they felt was right, and what they were legally advised to do, within the person who wrongfully dismissed the given person. The fact that this feeling exists is encouraging, but they fact that it remains a feeling is not so much. I wonder how long this feeling will linger?...

(PS. [Legal disclaimer...hehehehe....] The example I used wasn't something that happened to me, or that I actually made up from scratch, it came to my attention attending a recent even on the Leveson enquiry - which is another fascinating subject, full of 'symptoms of sickness'.... :))

"Good wine" and subjectivity

My laptop battery is solidly dead, and I am too lazy to get the charger (but not too lazy to type with my index finger), hence this is the first post from my phone...

Anyway, I was at a wine tasting today... (very nice perks of the job). We were provided with a selection of wines and asked to rate them on various criteria: flavour, acidity, alcohol, 'balance' (?) etc. It was a lot of fun, the highlight of my evening included meeting a forensic anthropologist (I now think I know how to sex a skull!). A comment made by one of the members of our group struck me, specifically, the comment was on the nature of subjective element of the scoring. Now subjectivity I think to most people implies an element of indetermination, arising from the belief in a 'right' answer and expressing a certain element of skepticism that the current experiment is capable of exposing the truth.

This statement got me thinking... (I personally have always been and remain convinced that if I think a certain glass of wine tastes crap/good then it is, I have no time for the 'quality', price, year etc... of the wine)... of my new thesis that we are all in a very frightening and vulnerable way very similar to each other. You and I share the same pains, the same anxiety, our mutual silence is what prevent us from realising this. I thought of my first experiences lecturing, the first time you present a set of material, your stomach is in a knot, your voice shakes , you think what will they ask me? These amazing brilliant students? ... (if you prepare well, they ask you questions you can answer) and and...most surprisingly the subsequent time you give the lecture, the very SAME questions are asked! I was astounded the first time, but I wonder what this says about subjectivity? Does it exist?

These people that put this wine tasting event on, and had us fill in a survey, they knew this, that on average we are all the same, and they just wanted to calibrate to our similarity...

Hmmm... I don't yet have an answer, but I think I need to think more, what does it mean - subjectivity?!

And before I loose myself to the ecstacy of music, I express my last naive subjective thought that my friend's ragou was very nice :)

Guilty until proven Innocent

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.
(that's me trying to appear clever :))

...now, without trying to appear overly dramatic, this is the treatment I received when I went to have my driver's license renewed recently. I'll divulge a little into the specifics of this story, and then relate it to the subject of this post.

So. Boring details aside, I needed to obtain a Sydney State license having a Tasmanian State license. Now from my conversation with the person working for the roads authority, I came to understand that she could not issue the licence to me then, because, they did not have proof that I had not lost my Tasmanian license due to negligence etc. Consequently, they would have to send off a fax to Tasmania to receive details of my driving record, and I would have to come back later. Damn it. I had my passport with me, and asked if it would help matters if I could prove to her that I was not in the Australia for the period in question, and consequently could not have committed any driving offence. (...well, at least that they would know of, as I was driving overseas...)

Anyway, point is, they did get a fax from Tassie 'clearing my name', I did come back later, and she did issue me a NSW license... but, after a little reflection, I realised that I was treated as someone who had committed an offence. And proof was required to state otherwise. Not the other way around.

Innocent, until proven guilty: A concept that we are (in the Western world) brought up with, and consider our fundamental right.

However, while this idea may be played out in courts, or at least portrayed as such, on an everyday level we are facing the complete opposite treatment. In interactions with government agencies (particularly!) we are frequently asked to present papers, documents (signed by JPs, lawyers and others...) that provide 'proof' of our intention, condition, statements. I'm not blind to the fact that this method of approach has grown out of necessity, as there are people that lie, steal and cheat, however, I like to also think that these are not actions of the majority. And yet, we, the majority pay for it, with our time, energy, and resources.

Is it correct to observe that the fundamental fibres/protocol for officially interacting with each other, and various agencies, are actually based on the very opposite premise? Namely, that you are guilty, until proven innocent?

The Appearance of Value

Do you know where one of the most annoying places to get a paper cut is? on the tip of your right index finger....ow...no typing right, no writing....bah....

Petty complaints aside, I have a bigger issue to tackle, and this is the idea that I crave my coffee in the morning. I will often get it from the coffee shop downstairs, where it will cost me about £1.30, although I have perfectly good coffee (which at this moment is actually a small fib, this unfortunate purchase has all the appearances of good coffee and none of the taste, but that's a side issue) in my office, which will cost me all of £0.30 or less to make (factoring in its cost, and milk and sugar, and my hourly wage ;)).
Yet, I get distinct pleasure from coffee served to me and have an irrational conviction that it is somehow better than what I could make. It is my little indulgence for getting up in the morning :)

With the plethora of coffee shops around my work, I understand that to attract more customers they need to 'differentiate' themselves from the rest. How? I can guess, by cooler music in their cafe, or fancy spoons, or red cardboard cups instead of gray ones, etc etc. How provide their customers with a 'feeling' that they are special without forking out the extra money for fancy coffee, or organic sugar, or whatever...

Successful marketing plays on this, i.e. selling hot air, 'a feeling at no cost, and all profit'. This is where the 'cost benefit' occurs - in the time lag between the actual/legal meaning of a word, and customer perception, or the 'street' meaning. For example, when you/I think organic, we think cows on green pastures, eating buttercups bathed in sunshine. It means 'good', 'warm', 'grassy', 'wholesome', that is it's street value. Yet, legally, to be allowed to stick an organic label a product, means obviously something different. Something like, the fertiliser which the food was grown with had to be 50% sourced from renewable sources (erm...let's not go to define renewable), for example. This is its 'real' meaning.

This disparity between meanings is where a lot of profit is to be made, and it's legal. Which is kind of crazy when you think about it. I would definitely not maintain a close friendship with a person, to whom I said: Please do not tell this to anyone....blah blah.
I later found out that they told everyone, and when I confront them they retort that they kept their word, they did not tell 'anyone'. Admittedly, this is a clumsy example, but I hope it carries the point. The people we value most are those who understand us most, not weirdos that don't 'get' our meaning.
Hmmm... this actually reminds me of a book about jokes that Freud wrote (yes! would you believe! and which I have read, that is also not a joke). In this book, Freud explores the mechanics of the most basic turns of phrase that make us laugh etc, and one of the most common is the brief misunderstanding of a word in a given context.
So I guess, I understand why this approach is so common in many branches of our society, not just between friends over a coffee.... ooohhhhh .... yes, coffee... in a brown coffee cup for £1.30 :D....special.

In the Eye of the Beholder

Hahaha....I never noticed before - but there's a 'transliterate' button in blogger now, very interesting.....

"I have just been to" <--> "И хаве юст бен to" ....хехехе....

Anyway, indeed, I have just been to the Degas exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts. I remember seeing his painting "Musicians in the Orchestra" which for an instant made me think I was looking through a window at real people. It is a beautiful exhibition, and makes you realise that not that long ago, we had no idea what people looked like in motion - the way our muscles flexed, or the lines our knees/arms/thighs traced as we walked or swam. Amazing to think that this knowledge was absent from the collective consciousness! (...made me consider how trivial my research is in the larger scheme of things... in a decade or so, everything that I have done will be worthless, not to say it's not important, but that it will be assimilated into public knowledge, and hence become unnoticeable, because it will become obvious.)

I left with one distinct impression though...as though the exhibition, it's arrangement... had an idea to express: the idea of our (i.e. humanities) visual maturity. What I mean by this is, as you begin your walk through the exhibition, you see the first early paintings/sketches by Degas of dancers/people. And you realise how awkward and sometimes out of proportion the limbs are, and how sometimes the faces, heads, necks of his subjects are almost brutal in their coarseness. The plaques in the exhibit make mention of the fact that at this time, people in motion were rarely drawn because it was so difficult to hold a pose, and sometimes ropes or other props would be used to fix a dancer's figure in a certain position.

Then, as you walk on, you get introduced into the idea of photography, the efforts to capture motion. And Degas' paintings improve - the dancers now posses a delicacy, fragility and grace that was absent in his early drawings. Now, I do not want to say that Degas drew these later paintings from photographs, but that rather, the existence of photographs, and his exposure to them, allowed him to fix in his memory (for longer than was otherwise possible) the still figure of a dancer 'in motion'. Consequently, when drawing from memory, he was able to recall this image with greater accuracy than he was previously able to do.

Now, is it possible, that before photographs to compare to, people seeing Degas' first paintings of dancers in motion, really considered that this is what they looked like? Not having the capacity to 'feel' that the proportions where wrong, because they of course had even less exposure to dancers than Degas? (i.e. this sense of proportion, and motion, had not entered the collective consciousness?)

Could this in any way be justifiably related by analogy to the infantile early (early! i.e. BC) paintings? or those of small children? Photography/movies has allowed the specific fluidity of human form to enter our minds. Before this, we looked upon these forms, and in our 'minds eye' saw the stick figures of our early childhood?

Relational Relativity

I've had an interesting week, a spending a few more evenings in the pub than usual, meant that I spent a few more hours than usual harping on about my philosophical ideas (I apologise to my companions!). It occurrs to me, that 'the world is bad', 'life is unfair', etc etc. Yet, 'we are not bad', 'we are fair' etc etc., 'we' just 'do' bad things occasionally (as I expanded upon in one of my previous posts). So we live in a world that we say is all these negative things, and in which we try our dared hardest to be all the positive things, and occasionally find ourselves doing some negative things. And yet, we are the world - as Sartre said - "hell is other people".
Anyway, this is a nonsensical post.

Interconnectedness

"To live and not to know why the cranes fly, why children are born, why the stars are in the sky. Either you know why you're alive or it's all nonsense, it's all dust in the wind." by Chekhov . Wow :)

I'm sure it even sounds/feels even better in Russian! I'm sure I've read it too at some stage, but somehow it didn't have such an impact as I feel now - and funny thing is I just read it in: "The Making of a Fly: the genetics of animal design".... after hearing about the book watching a TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html. 


Hmmm....but for now...back to CryoSat :)