Smarter or Dumber: Human Intelligence Over Time

The tone on this article will most likely be different from that of previous articles, as I didn’t actively research anything pertaining to this.  In fact, I spent most of my time thinking about how puns are only funny to the person telling the joke.

 

 

It was fairly common knowledge (as far as I can tell) that the human race was getting smarter over time.  Just in a general sense.  IQ scores, one kind of standardized method of testing (with its flaws, I know), has indicated a steady gain of IQ points since gaining IQ points has meant anything.  I just took it for granted.  We are in a world of books and information and the interwebs and over/under use of punctuation!  Of course we are getting smarter!  Common sense, right?

Well, according to some scientist (I wish I could find her article, but it was on StumbleUpon quite a few Stumbles ago), people are getting dumber.  Yes, the cynic in us says that every 45 seconds when we are out in public, but she is a scientist!  So it must mean something.  What’s her rationale, though?

The idea she posits is genetic.  We are getting dumber as a species because there is less of an evolutionary reward for us to be smart, or smart people are not being rewarded sufficiently.  Let’s break this down.  Back in the good old days when we lived in caves and fought for food, if you were stupid and slow, you were eaten by giant tiger like creatures, or starved to death (this is unnecessarily simplifying the matter, but that’s fine; we are all stupid, anyways, apparently).  This lead to better genes being handed down to subsequent generations.  Smart survivors had smart survivor kids, until, eventually, those super grandkids made survival of the fittest irrelevant.  How did survival of the fittest get eliminated?  McDonald’s, among other things.  That and the fact that just about anybody has the mental sufficiency to work eight hours a day.

Because survival is no longer a concern, and genes have a much harder time exiting the gene pool,  I can see why this scientist thinks people would get dumber.  There isn’t quite the evolutionary incentive that there used to be.  In the past, you survived if you were smart, obviously increasing the odds of you getting lucky and passing on your smart genes.  Now, the idiots you deal with probably are looking at the same odds as you, in regards to passing on genetic material (I’m loving these euphemisms right now, seriously), maybe even better odds.  Their genetic material, obviously inferior to your intimidating gray matter and stuff, essentially has normal odds of getting passed on.  Assuming being smart is a good genetic trait, this leads us to believe that society does not reward smart genes effectively enough, as it should be emphasized heavily, not be largely irrelevant.

Over time, this scientist is arguing, this is making people stupid.  Stop having stupid people die, and you just killed the evolutionary explosion that Homo sapiens were riding for a while.  That’s what it boils down to.  All things considered, it makes sense.  It does.  We have a lot of stupid people on this planet, and odds are good that they will go on diluting the gene pool (Jersey Shore cast, by itself, will be responsible for genetically reducing global IQ by five points in fifty years, most likely).  I remember an example even being employed, stating that if a citizen from Rome or something was placed in our current society, they would be one of the smarter individuals, and be more emotionally stable (I’m guessing this scientist doesn’t care for her peers).

So yes, I concede the fact that smart isn’t genetically rewarded like it used to be.  That’s fine.  However, one aspect of what intelligence is has a lot to do with why we are getting genetically dumber; specialization.  We specialize in things now.  Do you know how to make a car engine?  I don’t, but we have specialists that do.  People can afford to learn more about one particular thing, now, because they don’t have to worry about foraging for food or fighting off hyenas.  This specialization, aside from allowing knowledge to move beyond the most general of subjects, started the externalization of intelligence.

Essentially, the idea is we now have books, DIY’s on Pinterest, and FAQ’s for every subject known to mankind.  Seriously.  Whatever you can think of, it’s there.  Google how to make an ion thruster.  You’ll find it.  People, with the advent of stored knowledge, have allowed intelligence to be “offloaded” from themselves and made readily available to others.  Intelligence doesn’t die with the individual anymore; it’s converted to paper or electrons and stored, accessible to everyone and with ads by Google.  And this knowledge base is always growing at an amazing rate.

We may not be getting smarter in terms of how our genes are handed down, yes, but our collective brain is.  Our degree of specialization is increasing, as it should.  We are getting smarter, without a doubt, just in a specialized way.  Besides, it’s pointless to argue otherwise.  What would we do about it, anyways?  Cull the population based on test scores?  Whoops, there go a few of our former Presidents.

–MP

The Strong

It will subside, soon,

When it’s all said and done.

The dark feels cold, I know,

Under this beautiful sun.

 

Let’s dream for a moment,

But remember who we are.

Summon forth this reality,

The canvas for optimism.

 

It’s beautiful right now,

On some distant, old coastline.

Just got lost on the way,

Trying to chase the sunset.

Lithium and Lithium Air Batteries: Potential and Issues

Lithium ion batteries have become the common high performance batteries we use in many high tech devices.  They are readily secondary (rechargeable), contain a high amount of energy versus volume and weight, and have good lifespans.  However, as like many technologies, there are limitations for the current iteration.  The chemical energy stored by the lithium ion cells can’t seem to exceed between 200 – 300 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg).  Being one of the more effective cell types, this leaves us with cell phones that run for 5 hours and stacks of cells powering cars for only 100 miles; all at fairly high expense, due to lithium ion’s relatively high price.

What if there is a cell that could increase the charge stored versus weight as much as 10 times that of lithium ion?  There is a young, fledgling cell type out there called lithium air batteries, which could provide such an incredible power increase.

A conventional cell works by chemical process, where chemical energy is converted to electrical energy.  Essentially, there are two halves to a cell which are separated by a substance (an electrolyte).  The electrical energy is garnered from the chemical redox and oxidation reactions from the anode and cathode on the half cells (the resulting gain and loss of electrons is the flow of electricity).  The electricity (ions) now flows through the bridge between the cells (and through the separating electrolyte), creating a constant stream of electricity.  It is this process that allows batteries to create electrical energy from stored chemical energy.

Lithium ion batteries, the currently commonly used batteries, use substances with lithium ions in the anode and cathode.  However, the chemical reaction taking place during oxidation takes fuel, in a sense, and is depleted over time and needs to be stored in the battery itself.  Lithium air batteries, however, use the oxygen in air as an oxidizing agent.  The oxygen is stored in the cathode, and reacts to create the flow of electricity.  Intrinsically, this is very beneficial.  Due to the abundance of oxygen, lithium air batteries (Li-air) do not need to store it internally, freeing up space and weight.

With this reduction in weight and volume comes a large increase in the possible battery charge given in a limited space.  With a 10 fold increase, a LI-air battery contains about the same amount of energy as gasoline.  This opens it up to being a viable alternative source of energy for the automotive industry (500 miles on a single charge has been IBM’s pursuit), as well as increasing efficiency on a myriad of other devices.  A cell phone that holds a charge for a week of use?  A possibility.

Li-air batteries are not with detractors, however.  General Motors points out that a Li-air battery on a vehicle would require the installation of an air blower and air filtration unit (as lithium cannot make contact with water).  GM posits that this would negate any benefit provided by the Li-air battery’s reduction in weight and space, rendering them pointless.  Also, chemists predict issues with longevity with Li-air, as the accumulation of substances on the cathode will gradually reduce the space available, limiting the effectiveness of the battery over time.

While the hurdles are present, they do not seem too large in scope, whatsoever.  The reduction in complexity of the engine due to it being electric leaves more than enough space for a blower and filtration unit, which can be refined over time, once that becomes the primary obstacle.  The science behind lithium, period, is still fairly new.  Lithium ion batteries were only introduced into commercial products in 1991, not becoming widely used until the 2000’s, and overcame many issues, including longevity.  Already, Li-air batteries are being refined, chemically and procedurally, to be more effective over a duration of time.  Without a doubt, Li-air will be the next upgrade in electrochemical cells, provided an even better opportunity doesn’t make itself known.

One issue, however, with the whole premise of lithium becoming such a mainstay in batteries is actually lithium itself.  Lithium isn’t rare, by any means, but neither is oil.  Lithium can be produced in two fashions; expensively through mining (there were mines in North and South Carolina), or cheaply by extraction from brine in salt deposits.  Obviously, the more inexpensive method is more attractive.  Where are viable salt deposit locations?  Four countries, just four, currently have access to significant amounts of lithium.  These countries (China, Chile, Australia, and Argentina), represent 90% of known sources of viably extractable lithium.

If lithium air batteries do happen to become popular and do serve as a functional source of power for vehicles, demand for lithium would be expected to increase.  Currently, batteries account for just shy of a quarter of the demand for lithium, meaning a spike in the demand for its use in that category would have a significant effect on its overall demand.  Lithium production, while currently sufficient, could be strained by demand if the acceleration of lithium battery technology occurs quickly, leading to a large degree of control over lithium prices by a few countries.  Sound familiar?  To illustrate the issue, China has recently reduced the amount of rare earth materials it exports, increasing prices globally (as China has the majority of these resources).  Barring the possibility that demand could just plain exceed production, prices could easily be set arbitrarily until the cost of buying salt extracted lithium from foreign countries begins to exceed the costs of mining domestically (representing a cost increase of about 2 – 3 fold).

Lithium deserves to be treated as a highly valued resource.  Similar to a surge in the value of copper, demand for lithium will have an effect on geopolitics and necessitates a sort of national policy on its procurement.  A potential source for lithium, for example, is Bolivia, which American access to is not guaranteed; steps should be taken to insure that a steady supply from such a source is mutually beneficial.  Lithium production should also be boosted as much as possible domestically, in places such as salt deposits in Nevada, in order to avert future foreign dependence.

Lithium air batteries hold a significant amount of potential, in both the automotive industry and conventional electronics (where power drain is ever increasing).  Just the possibility of a clean car that runs further on a charge then a combustion engine powered vehicle alone makes scientific interest warranted, but the idea of charging a phone once a week is also enticing.  We will most likely see degrees of Li-air implementation in the next 5 years or so, meaning a policy regarding the lithium element should be taken in order to prevent future geopolitical turmoil.

–MP

Halo 4

After Halo Reach successfully disenfranchised a significant portion of Halo’s fan base, the pressure was firmly applied to the next iteration of the series to reinvigorate the franchise.  After playing, how do I think Halo 4 fared?

Campaign wise, I didn’t find it particularly exciting.  It looks amazing, yes, with fantastic textures and amazing architecture, but just felt mundane, otherwise.  343i tried to make the story significant but ended up going too far, making the events seem less like the previous universe and more like something out of Star Trek.  The loss of believability is important, as it was the raw sense of immediacy and importance that gave a sense of urgency and purpose previously.  I honestly enjoyed Reach’s campaign more.  In terms of campaign gameplay, nothing too amazing.  The new enemies are tough, but my brother and I played co-op and ran the campaign in about five hours on heroic.  Elites don’t seem to be as strong as they used to, which is a shame, and have been usurped by the Knights in terms of durability.  High powered weapons saturate the landscape; you can honestly keep a fuel rod cannon loaded for a good duration of gameplay, or replace it with something else quite frequently.  This detracts from the pleasure of killing a tough semi-boss like enemy, as previously they were more rare and differentiated between enemies better.  The campaign also seems to try to characterize individual people in the game, as well, which feels a bit out-of-place in Halo games.  This could simply be just because we are not familiar with it, but 343i’s attempts to humanize certain elements of the universe makes me think they are laying the groundwork for something (it’s just too random an element to arbitrarily add).

But really, we bought the game for the multiplayer, right?  The good news is, it isn’t as miserable as Reach.  The bad news is, it just can’t seem to leave other games alone.  The pacing is fine, the controls are tight, customization is nice; all in all, for a casual gamer, the game is very smooth and approachable.  However, there are some issues.

Perks are back.  Let’s be honest, yes, perks and modifications and such are great in CoD, but let’s leave them there.  I didn’t buy Halo 4 because I wanted to play CoD; that’s what I have my CoD disk for.  So keep CoD out of Halo!  I get it, 343i is trying to persuade some CoD fans to join the party, but in doing so has made the game less appealing for the Halo players that have been fans since CE.  Granted, they are not at all overpowered in H4 (they are actually pretty balanced and limited in scope), but still.

Weapon spawns are now random.  Yes, shock waves through the Halo community on this one.  Halo has always been an area control type of game; you want to insure you control the areas of the map that will provide you with access to the set weapon spawns.  This provided a sort of stability to matches, and added layers on layers of strategy.  By switching the weapon spawns (you will start with your designated loadout that you can customize) to random weapons and locations, the gameplay has just become more…well, random.  Adding to that fact is the capability to designate a personal ordnance drop (think care package from CoD and make it indoor capable and take about half a second) that contains three random items after your Spartan earns enough points in a match.  These points are basically thrown at you (stare at an enemy hard and you get an assist, seriously), so drops are fairly common.  The end effect of all this is unpredictability.  Players are running around the map, picking up random weapon drops, calling in random ordnance drops.  Who knows what weapons each player has anymore?  Don’t try to get distance; somebody might have dropped a sniper rifle.  Close distance?  Go for it, rockets only have so much ammo, right?  It just makes the game more chaotic and less consistent.

The weapons, themselves, however, are balanced well.  Grenades are less “floaty” and less damaging (the new grenade type seems completely useless), but don’t feel too weak.  The long range starting primary weapons all feel roughly equal, with slight differences.  The close range starting primary weapons do actually slightly trump long range in close quarters consistently, so at least that degree of rock-papers-scissors remains intact.  Honestly, though, the ability to customize your loadout seems pointless.  Pretty much everyone is going to choose a long range rifle, Boltshot, and frags.  Just make that standard and remove the option. 

In terms of the actual combat is very refreshing, though, especially coming from the “clunkiness” of BF3.  The controls are very responsive (a sensitivity of ten feels just right), and hit detection feels good barring some lag related encounters.  The BR duels feel like the battles of Halo 2, which is great.  Tactics remains squarely team oriented and still reward sophisticated team play.  When all said and done, the game is definitely a step back in the right direction from Reach.  A few things could be improved or removed, but the game is generally very much a good time.

More to come…

–MP

The Next Four Years

 

 

 

Largely, a close race has resulted in the election of Barack Obama to a second term in the White House.  While many celebrate and many vocalize displeasure, one must ask what this means to us, the constituents that have decided on another four years.

Unfortunately, obstructionism will most likely run rampant, so the results of this election will likely result in less than hoped for.  The percentages of the popular vote are very close, indicating no clear preference between the Democrat’s and Republican’s views on how to approach the problems facing the country.  The House remains firmly in Republican control, while the Democrats retain the Senate, with no massive majorities in either.  This means that the party of “no” maintains the capability to stall movement, if so desired.

And why not?  Generally, the Republican Party has opposed the vast majority of Democratic propositions (the list is actually quite fantastic), and with Obama not worrying about reelection he can more actively pursue issues (his only concern being his legacy, which is already fairly cemented, in my opinion).  Due to Obama’s ability to be more cavalier in his pursuit of legislation, it would follow suit that the Republican Party would become proportionally more obstructionist.  However, this may not be the case.

It’s easy to forget that both parties are truly looking out for America’s future and only want to make America an even greater nation; they just have different ideas about how to go about ensuring America’s place in the globe’s future.  To pretend that either party is doing otherwise is discounting the whole premise of a two party system.  This is important, as the election of Obama is an affirmation of more liberal ideologies (albeit by a smaller margin), so the burden of change ultimately lies in the conservative camp.  Yes, the status quo could be maintained (obstructionism, and hoping that the next four years do not treat Obama and the U.S. well), but that would be betting on the United States’ failure, essentially, and would run counter to any Republican desire to actually better this great nation.  Because of this, the conservative party faces a choice: gamble on obstructionism for the next four years, hoping that the difficulties facing the nation vindicate such a stance, or bring options to the table and cooperatively work with the Democratic Party.

Honestly, if I was faced with such a choice, a degree of bipartisanship would seem like the most reasonable idea.  If anything, it would more positively affect the dismal way Congress is viewed, make the Republican Party more of a party of ideas and give them more of a footing in 2016, and just generally help the U.S. move forward in these rapidly evolving times.  Sure, you could just stay the course and keep saying no, but let’s be honest, that’s fractious even within the Republican Party, and the populous wants results, not promises.

On the other side of the aisle, however, lies Obama’s schedule.  Emboldened by both his reelection and no longer being hindered by worrying about it, can have a more aggressive strategy.  This does not mean he should, however; this would be counterintuitive.  Yes, larger issues can be addressed, but they need to be approached for the sake of the nation, not a Democratic Party checklist.  Being overly aggressive will only force the conservative party’s hand and will result in the slowing of the legislative process.  Bipartisanship is more important now, then ever.

So what lies in the future for the next four years?  Granted, I have no insider knowledge here, but if I was given a choice of what to focus on, the foremost area of focus would be the economy.  Most likely a combination of lowering some taxes and raising others on business, as well closing tax loopholes, coupled with increased governmental spending, will be pursued to stimulate the economy.  Social issues, while exigent, are unnecessarily divisive, and should wait until more pressing matters are resolved (why divide Congress on abortion and such while the U.S. misses chances to accelerate its growth?).  The deficit, while an important issue, should be conquered with a strong economy, and should be approached at a later date.

All in all, it could go two ways.  This could be a very important time in American history, or it could end up being largely irrelevant and frustrating.  Only time will tell.

Any thoughts?  Let me know.

–MP

Honesty and Politics

Fact checking politicians seems like a normal course of action now.  The procedure is simple: watch or listen to the individual, take in the information presented to you with a grain of salt, then learn about all the reported inaccuracies presented by the individual.  I have been nearly overwhelmed by the topic of honesty and accuracy in politics lately, in every medium I read.  Apparently politicians are wrong or misrepresenting information quite frequently lately (either that or we have just not been paying attention previously, which is a scary thought).  Most likely due to a highly politically polarized nation, this election has called a lot of attention to accuracy and honesty.

With Obama and Romney both bending truths and misconstruing facts, who should we view this?  Surely, a politician’s willingness to deceive has an adverse affect on how their persona is viewed; the nation does not want a liar as a leader.  But how negatively should we allow our views on these politicians to be affected?  Is the question even relevant?  What does this say about our current state of politics?

Personally, I feel like half the problem is that we don’t know enough about the subject matter being stretched in the first place.  Really, if, collectively, we all have a very firm grasp on most of the matters, it would make misrepresenting them much more difficult; political discussions regarding the current financial situation would  be hard to represent if we are all familiar with how things operate in the first place, for example.  The same goes for any subject.  Granted, this does not excuse politicians and put the burden of honesty solely on the populus, but rather encourages more of an engaged discourse regarding our country’s future in the first place.  While I don’t have the time to become an expert on tax code, I can get a better idea and have a firmer basis to evaluate answers (like what income brackets are affected more significantly, and so forth).  Essentially, people better informed of the issues would force politicians to refine their answers or face even greater scrutiny.

The politicians themselves, however, need to change their course of action, as well.  The deliberate misconstruing of facts, while common practice, is misleading.  This is reflective of the candidates themselves.  It doesn’t matter how close the race is; don’t deceive your constituents.  Some information and statistics are inherently hard to extrapolate off of, or it is possible to interpret them in different ways, but it is possible to represent them appropriately (and if it isn’t possible, they really don’t serve a purpose).  Honestly, candidates should be forced to provide access to the material they are quoting.  Every other profession provides citations, so why should politics be much different?  Tell me how you arrived at that conclusion and where you derived those numbers from.  If your logic is sound, it will survive analytical scrutiny.  The American people are more than capable of understanding these concepts, so stop arbitrarily espousing the conclusion of your thought process and show us how you arrived at it.

It is a scary thought, thinking about how the two, currently, most prominent politicians are getting things wrong and then wondering about how often other politicians are.  If the two individuals in the spotlight feel compelled to do so and face scrutiny, how about the other members of our government who face less attention?  I’ve read some statements from members who sit on science committees which are quite frightening (especially since they control governmental funds responsible for financing science related endeavors).  So we can just take Obama and Romney as illustrating a larger issue.

A cure-all is, unfortunately, not possible overnight.  However, discourse based on qualitative analysis would lend itself to more empirical and definable resolutions in our government.  This would also cause a shift away from unnecessarily lofty rhetoric and would decrease divisiveness, as the focus would be on finding answers to the problems that face the U.S., as opposed to defining voting lines.  Unfortunately, it is too late to punish either Obama or Romney for their lack of honesty, but it’s a perfect time to start asking our politicians “how did you get to your proposed solution?”.  They are our elected representatives, after all.

–MP

Metamaterials

A metamaterial which produces a negative index of refraction. The total array consists of 3 by 20 by 20 unit cells with overall dimensions of 10 by 100 by 100 millimeters. Credit – Glenn Research Center. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We get fairly used to most of the things in our everyday lives operating in a predictable way.  Momentum keeps the cars rolling forward, gravity keeps us flat on our feet, electricity keeps flowing through conductors; these things are common and taken for granted.  However, there exists a set of materials that defies our expectations for a variety of rules, and the implications of them doing so are very interesting.

These peculiar materials are called metamaterials.  Don’t look for them in the ordinary day-to-day comings and goings of your day; they exists only in the universe as artificially constructed materials.  They do not occur naturally, as for them to exist, we have to make them.  Because they don’t exist commonly, they exhibit characteristics that are not, well, common.  It is because of their strange traits that they are so useful and perplexing.

Essentially, metamaterials are the recursive iteration of a small segment of artificially constructed substance.  The size and material of the segment determines the characteristics it will exhibit.  Little loops of various substances are engineered, their size proportional to the wavelength (or the distance it takes for the wave that the metamaterial seeks to alter to oscillate) of the source of interaction that the metamaterial is intended to interact with.  Some wavelengths are larger, like seismic waves or microwaves, while others, like light, are much smaller.  The iterations of the little loops of the metamaterial must be smaller than the wavelength in question, as it causes the wave to phase around the object in a strange fashion.

An incident electromagnetic wave from free space entering a material at the boundary indicated by the lower left arrow refracts as shown by the solid upper right arrow when entering a conventional material and as shown by the dashed lower right arrow when entering a left-handed metamaterial. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Metamaterials also posses inherently strange characteristics, as well.  The can demonstrate something called a negative refraction index, which is a trait not shared by any known natural materials.  These negative index materials interact with the electromagnetic spectrum in a manner unique to the metamaterials; they refract light in the opposite direction of normal refractive substances (like glass, water), and are attracted towards a transmission of light, among other things.

Metamaterials are confusing, but make more sense when applied to some sort of actual practical use.  While many of their applications are theoretical or largely unrefined, they stand to provide many benefits if they could be effectively harnessed.  Carbon nanotubes have been in the news frequently, for several uses (absorption of light, breaking down CO2, and something else, I believe).  They serve to demonstrate metamaterials usefulness.

Metamaterials can be used in a variety of different of fashions.  They can be used in antennas to better focus emission or absorption.  They can be used in lenses to focus past limits inherent in conventional materials.  They can be used in electronics to self-regulate transmission intensity.  They can be used to shield buildings from earthquakes.  Yes, earthquakes.

Earthquakes are essentially longitudinal waves being transmitted through material.  This compression and expansion wave, if matched by a metamaterial, would allow the seismic wave to phased around the metamaterials as if it wasn’t even there.  The same principle could be applied to waves of water; a structure protected by these materials could phase the wave behind it, sparing the structure the onslaught of dealing with a tsunami.

Sound interesting?  How about an invisibility cloak?  Theoretically, this could happen.  The proof of concept has already been established.  If enough little metamaterial loops are created to cover an object, light (a wave) could be phased around the object like it isn’t even there.  Unfortunately, this could be a while down the road, as the current technology for manufacturing on the nanometer scale is much to inefficient to create a meaningful amount of the required metamaterial.

There are plenty of uses for metamaterials.  Their fantastic properties stand to improve, or open, many avenues of implementation.  They are a younger technology, in both terms of postulation and testing, but need to be further researched.  Nano assemblers?  It could happen.  This will be an exciting scientific field to watch.  I’m thinking that within the next ten years or less, we will start seeing some very interesting new results from metamaterials.

–MP

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles: a Possibility?

The economic and environmental viability of hydrogen fuel cells is dependant on the ability to produce hydrogen in a clean and cheap method.  The cells themselves are already there.  There are fleets of fuel cell powered busses in Europe, automakers are experimenting with new designs, and the cells keep getting more efficient.  In fact, as of now, fuel cells rival and surpass the efficiency of standard combustion engines.  Without heat recapture, an average of 50 to 60 percent efficiency can be achieved in a fuel cell versus an average of around 25 percent efficiency in a combustion engine.  The stuff works.  A fuel cell powered tractor was being demonstrated at fairs in 1959.  So what’s the hold up?  Why don’t we see more of these cars?

The issue has to do a lot with efficient and clean production of hydrogen itself.  It currently can either be expensive or is a byproduct of a dirty process.  Either way, it is either environmentally unsound or just plain not financially worth it.  However, scientists at Cambridge have devised a way to effectively create a catalytic reaction that produces hydrogen.  Typically, expensive metals are required for the reaction to take place.  Cheaper metals are significantly less effective, but the Cambridge scientists have demonstrated that cobalt (a cheap and prevalent material) can do the job quite well, and in an industrially viable setting.  This opens the door to broad implementation of hydrogen fuel cell technology.

It may not make a difference, however, for the same reason electric cars are not as environmentally sound as they could be; infrastructure.  Existing infrastructures do not support these alternative forms of fuel.  Electric cars suffer from being provided power by dirty power grids, and hydrogen fuel cells have to overcome the complete lack of a system for dispersal.  The estimates for creating such of fuel cell infrastructure varies wildly in cost (20 to 500 billion), and would require parting from the current status quo.

If a sizable investment is made to further develop hydrogen fuel cells and their effectiveness, they could be viable.  However, only time will tell.

 

–MP

BF3 and MBT’s

My vehicle of choice in BF3 is the MBT; I’ll often opt to use it even when provided with a choice between a tank or a chopper.  While I realize there are many different ways to use a MBT, I figured I’d explain how I implement it, as well as my three upgrade choices. 

In my opinion, the most important goal for a tank driver to achieve is survivability.  Flags will be taken and re-taken, LAV’s will come and go, and infantry will keep passing by, but the tank should remain.  It should be a steady and predictably supportive element of your team.  If your team is starting to capture a flag or arm an MCOM near your position, they should be able to count on your tank’s covering fire without having to check to see if you are capable.  If you are getting aggressively attacked, odds are your team is getting relief due to you taking the pressure.  Either way, you need to be able to survive, which is made possible by both avoiding damage and dealing it effectively. 

So let’s take a look at the upgrades, which generally set the tone for how the tank will be used.  While upgrades do help certain roles to be filled in more easily, they do not inherently preclude a tank from filling a role it wasn’t upgraded to fulfill; there is always flexibility, if you know what you are doing.  That being said, this is the setup I run on my MBT.

Passive:  Proximity Scan.

Secondary:  Guided Shell.

Gadget:  IR Smoke.

I think this setup provides tremendous versatility and survivability.  While not optimized for an anti-infantry role, I really don’t have much of an issue dealing with foot soldiers using the main cannon.  I used to employ the canister shell, but with the recent change in firing rates when switching between the main cannon, I find the loss of fire rate frustrating.  It’s not like the canister was that much more effective than the main cannon.  Rather, it was the two being used in conjunction that made the canister worth it.  So if you can switch between the two and maintain a fire rate that matches only one weapon firing by itself, why not just stick with the one?  I really never cared for the LMG, and find the HMG to be fairly ineffective.  With the other choices eliminated, why not optimize the MBT for an anti-vehicle role?  The GS (which did have the time required to fire increased after switching weapons) makes the tank very formidable against every vehicle on the ground.  Its firing time was nerfed, but it doesn’t affect it that much (it takes about that long to  lock on when doing so as a driver), and seems to move faster, and get top attack bonuses when targeting a designation made by another player.  One of a tanks roles in a game is anti-vehicle, and the GS helps in that regard.  You get used to the lack of an anti-infantry weapon pretty quickly.

The more I play, the less I see proximity scan, and I can really see why.  With attractive choices like autoloader and reactive Armor, PS seems pretty mundane.  However, with PS, the close quarter urban situations that lead to repeated C4 deaths become much more manageable.  If you keep the chassis of the tank lined up with the roads (or are just always sure you can quickly burst forward or backward), you can avoid and kill the infantry running at you with C4 pulled out.  This means you can move the MBT into interesting locations and still prevent soldiers sneaking up on you, vastly increasing your lifespan in close quarters.  While autoloader is useful, tank duels can be won with the GS.  And if they have IR smoke and autoloader, you could play smart to gain the 1.5 seconds you need.  Reactive armor can provide be hard to deal with, especially if they have smoke, but keep the front of your tank on them and you can win those duels.  Remember, reactive is only good for one hit per side; it doesn’t provide longevity for very long.

While IR smoke doesn’t augment your offensive capabilities directly, it greatly increases the length of you and your tank’s life.  It keeps Javelins, GS’s, and the missiles from jets and choppers at bay, gives you cover to repair under, and a screen to fire from behind.  Essentially, it opens up the map for you.  Those open areas are more accessable now; lock ons gained by moving your tank into the open can be combatted effectively with smoke.  While I realize sometimes it might be worth switching when few people seem to be using lock on weapons, I still recommend sticking with smoke.  The other gadgets can be replaced with skill, for the most part.  Get good enough at aiming, and zoom optics becomes less necessary.  Become familiar with mine patterns and spamming with the spot button, and finding infantry, and the thermal optics is becoming less useful.  I seldom have issue with taking on tank “snipers” that are using zoom optics with my normal optics, let alone my GS.

All together, these three upgrades put together allow this MBT to pretty much go anywhere and fill multiple roles.  However, you need to get comfortable with the main cannon; you will be using it a lot, and the less you miss with it, the more effective you will be.  In fact, if you aren’t quite good enough to actually start hitting infantry directly with the main cannon projectile (the actual shell, not the explosion), practice until you can.  If you use the layout effectively, you will find yourself getting very few deaths and plenty of kills.  Enemy tanks, LAV’s, choppers; they all go down easily if you keep calm and play smart with the GS.  Don’t be afraid to capture flags or run very close quarter support, as the PS will keep you aware of your nearby targets.  And smoke will help keep you alive during the entire process.

Some tips about using the GS:

–Disable/destroy an enemy MBT in mere seconds by firing the main cannon, switching to the GS and locking on and firing when able, then switching back the main cannon.  This will disable a tank when firing against front armor, and destroy a tank if good shots are landed on side/rear armor.

–If you have a player in the CITV Station, have them acquire your GS locks against ground vehicles.  The damage you will do using their lock on will be increased, and will instantly disable an MBT.

–Your GS lock can be achieved through your own smoke.  This means you can spot the enemy tank, reverse through the smoke, and fire your GS.

–Pull up behind a hill and have someone SOFLAM ground and air targets for you.  The GS will dodge some geography, and the geography will shield you from immediate return fire.  You can keep enemy ground vehicles disabled with virtually zero risk to yourself and with minimum team involvement.

–You can “fling” the GS so its trajectory is more appropriate for the shot you are trying to make.  Just acquire the lock and quickly slide your aim more in the direction you wish for the shell to travel.  The lock will be discarded if you move the sights too far, however; I generally don’t move much more than the four lines in the GS aiming sight.  Using the “fling”, you can have the shell hit specific parts of vehicles, fire around buildings and over objects.  It helps ensure you aren’t wasting a lock and maximizes the chance of a hit, provided you know what you are doing.

–Just because a vehicle just smoked does not mean it is unable to be locked on.  The smoke breaks current lock on attempts and kills tracking on airborne missiles, but only prevents target acquisition if the target remains in its smoke.  If it moves outside of it and is not obscured by the lingering smoke, you can acquire and fire before the smoke is ready to be deployed again.  Be aware of timing, though; they might be close to dropping smoke again, in which case it wouldn’t be worth firing the GS.

–A tank with a manned CITV station and GS is incredibly difficult for any chopper to attack, and makes traversing the airspace near the tank risky.  GS’s kill attack choppers, scout choppers, and jets in one shot.  GS’s make the tank a fairly effective anti-chopper vehicle, augmented by the tank’s durability and near impenetrable smokescreen.

Tips about IR smoke:

–By sitting in the smoke and dropping more when it is rearmed, you can avoid impact from lock on projectiles quite easily and comfortably for some time, if done right.

–Smoke breaks tracking as soon as it’s dropped.  Meaning, you don’t have to hide in it to avoid getting hit.  However, if you are moving, you can be locked onto immediately after firing the smoke.  Be aware.

–If a tracking projectile is fired, smoke reduces the damage from it, even if the projectile is merely half a second away.  I’m not sure if it’s just the final 10m portion of the downward curve being prevented (so the projectile actually misses by a few meters), or the projectile becomes a dumbfired projectile in the game’s eyes and losses damage because of it, but you prevent yourself from being disabled with a last second smoke, if you have no choice.

–Related to the last tip, smoke just kills target tracking.  It doesn’t make the projectile harmless.  A missile tracking downward towards your tank will continue to fly straight after the smoke drops, potentially hitting friendlies.  Try to be aware of your team and smoke when it won’t affect them.

–Spot enemies through your smoke.  Using the spot button, spam through the smoke to find targets and hit them behind the smokescreen.  This is actually a very effective method of breaking off on target fire from you, and allows you to still semi-accurately maintain targeting.  This is also very useful in tank duels, and drawing a miss from the enemy tank can mean victory for you, and is very helpful if you find yourself a hit behind.

–The description for smoke says (I believe) that it removes enemy spots from you.  While as, yes, it does, it does not seem to be very consistent, so don’t count on it.  However, smoking after a battle would be more beneficial than not.

Random tip–If you are playing in a match where the enemy is using mines frequently, spend a few seconds to spam the path you intend to take with the spot button!  The game is lenient on mine spots, and it’s easy to do and will save your life many times.  Too few people do this.

 

 

–MP

Back Into the Swing of Things

I haven’t been feeling amazing lately, so, unfortunately, that meant not really keeping up on here.  I just didn’t have the energy.  However, the pacing will be restored over the next week or so, I’m hoping.

–MP