Category Archives: Energy

Vaping Harmful to Health

At the recent Structure conference, a young woman who had just moved from the east coast to San Francisco boasted of her boyfriends’ addiction to “Vaping”. She showed photos of all the accessories he has been obsessing about, from batteries to different colors and patterns. A young man visiting from New York echoed her story and said he was happy to be spending money on hip new e-cigarettes.

The e-cigarette contains a nicotine cartridge in four strengths – 16mg, 11mg, 6mg and 0mg, compared with the 13mg in the average manufactured cigarette. One cartridge lasts for 300 to 350 puffs, or two days. It also has a battery that enables it to emit a mist of propylene glycol, essentially fake, fast-dissipating smoke, and light up at the end when puffed on.

My first reaction was that there should be a chip in the e-cigarette that captures data to be transmitted and stored. Big data should be collected from vaping immediately. I was thinking about all the health info that could be assembled quickly from these battery powered devices. Lung capacity, ingredients, amount of nicotine per second/minute/hour, draws per charge, particulate matter in external air…and trend-lines for everything.

My next thought was that they should be solar powered. Why aren’t they able to absorb sunlight as power? Standing in the sun with a stick in your mouth? Use the power right there. And for that matter why doesn’t the act of sucking air generate sufficient power? Hello, funnel turbine. Why are you sucking power out of the grid? Oh, that’s right. You want to buy accessories, I mean batteries. Got it.

Neither of them seemed to have a firm idea about the energy use, let alone health risks or harm. They said it’s “just vapor”. But the fact is not much data has been collected.

The man from NY listened to me, took a long drag from his plastic tube of toxic fumes and said “By Jove! My old man you might be right! Could a teeny chip really go inside this contraption to record data? I will go start a company right now on that idea!”

I wondered if they read the news from the FDA:

Dr. Mike Feinstein, a spokesman for the American Lung Association said, “People are inhaling some type of chemical vaporized compound into their lungs without really knowing what’s in it.”

[…]

Authorities don’t necessarily know what’s inside of e-cigarettes, but the FDA tested a small sample just a few years ago and found a number of toxic chemicals including diethylene gylcol – the same ingredient used in antifreeze.

The accessory feature can actually introduce additional risks. Obviously the idea of putting a battery between your lips can be harmful to your health.

Chief Butch Parker of the North Bay Fire District responded to the call. He said a faulty battery inside the electric cigarette likely caused the accident. Parker described the explosion as if Holloway was holding a “bottle rocket in his mouth.”

[…]

Parker said the explosion knocked out all Holloway’s teeth and part of his tongue. The event also set fire to the room.

For some reason all the unsubstantiated buzz and positive marketing around e-cigarettes just reminds me of the tobacco smoke enema.

By 1805, the use of rectally applied tobacco smoke was so established as a way to treat obstinate constrictions of the alimentary canal that doctors began experimenting with other delivery mechanisms. In one experiment, a decoction of half a drachm of tobacco in four ounces of water was used as an enema in a patient suffering from general convulsion where there was no expected recovery. The decoction worked as a powerful agent to penetrate and “roused the sensibility” of the patient to end the convulsions, although the decoction resulted in excited sickness, vomiting, and profuse perspiration.

If only exploding batteries and unknown other “toxic chemicals” could have been used for anal treatment hundreds of years ago; today we would know better and not bother with e-cigarettes. Then again, I guess I shouldn’t joke about them becoming a public enema. Given the nature of the young vaping proponents I met, they might be thrilled by the idea and interested only in new accessories they could buy or sell…


Update five years later (April 2017):

Concerns explode over new health risks of vaping and find toxicity issues are real, especially among children:

Students as young as 12 or 13 are now more likely to vape than to smoke. Many are under the impression that because e-cigs don’t contain tobacco, they pose little risk to health. Wrong.

Over the past few months, research has turned up evidence that vaping can pose many brand new risks. The vapors mess with immunity, some studies show. “Smoker’s cough” and bloody sores have begun showing up in teen vapers. The hotter a vaped liquid gets, the harsher its effects on human cells. And a relatively new vaping behavior called “dripping” ups the heat. This threatens to intensify a teen’s risks from those vapors.

Evidence is mounting that teenagers in particular, susceptible to advertisers and social pressure, are being hit hard by harms in vaping:

It worries [Rob McConnell, internal medicine specialist at the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles] that vapers show some of the same lung symptoms as cigarette smokers. It also worries him that more teens are taking up vaping. E-cigarette use grew an astounding 900 percent among high school students between 2011 and 2015.

[…]

[Adam Goldstein of UNC] says it’s important to note that just because something doesn’t taste like tobacco doesn’t mean it is safe. Studies have shown that some flavor compounds in e-liquids (such as cinnamon extract) appear to become harmful when heated in an e-cigarette.

[…]

Now Catherine Hess of the University of California, Berkeley, and her colleagues have turned up traces of toxic metals in the e-liquids used in five different brands of e-cigarettes.

[…]

“The fact that vaping can deliver benzene levels many times higher than those found in the ambient [air] — where it’s already recognized as a cancer risk — should be of concern to anyone using e-cigarettes,” [Chemist James Pankow] says.

While many people cite the use of vaping as an intentional way to stop smoking, anecdotal evidence suggests the opposite. Vapers smoke more, and subject themselves to additional harms beyond just higher overall intake of nicotine.

Vaping in practice increases the frequency of puffs. While dosage of nicotine actually may increase through more frequent use (can choose masking scents, keep vaping device in pocket and breathe from it repeatedly and frequently, far more easily than with the complications of lighting tobacco leaves with flame) it is the new toxic metals and chemicals that scientists are only just beginning to document as additionally harmful.


Update seven years later (2019):

  • April: Rite-Aid announces it will stop selling e-cigarettes in all stores
  • August: Reuters reports the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified 193 potential cases of severe lung illness tied to vaping in 22 states as of Aug. 22, including one adult in Illinois who died after being hospitalized: “The severity of illness people are experiencing is alarming and we must get the word out that using e-cigarettes and vaping can be dangerous,” Illinois Department of Public Health Director Dr. Ngozi Ezike said.

Update thirteen years later (2025):

One e-cigarette a day as harmful as smoking twenty packs of traditional cigarettes.

Views of Greenery Make You Smarter, Healthier

A 2009 article in the Boston Globe describes a research report (“The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting With Nature”) and explains why human-designed environments are harmful to the brain unless they incorporate natural environments.

When a park is properly designed, it can improve the function of the brain within minutes. As the Berman study demonstrates, just looking at a natural scene can lead to higher scores on tests of attention and memory. While people have searched high and low for ways to improve cognitive performance, from doping themselves with Red Bull to redesigning the layout of offices, it appears that few of these treatments are as effective as simply taking a walk in a natural place.

This indicates that people who live in the country and dial-in to meetings should be far more productive and happy than their counterparts fighting traffic and sitting in an office building…

The study is new and interesting but it sounds very familiar to what the Victorian scientists argued more than a hundred years ago. The creation of a Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and a Central Park in New York City were purposeful attempts to make the cities more habitable.

AC72 wing design

We are only a couple months away from the giant America’s Cup catamaran wings being launched. A team led by American Paul Cayard already has theirs on sea trials. Blue Planet Times explains there was a lot of effort put into design regulation.

The box rule governing the AC72 is one big sandbox, so the engineers get to play. Oracle Racing Team Coordinator Ian Burns explains: “I was involved in writing the rule for the AC72s, and when we addressed the wing, we started with a complicated rule, to limit what a designer could do. We added more and more pieces as we thought of more and more outcomes, and we came to a point where it was so complicated—and it was still going to be hard to control, because the more rules you write the more loopholes you create – that we reverted to a simple principle. Limit the area very accurately, and make it a game of efficiency.”

Here’s the basic box rule for the AC72:

Hull Length: 22m (72.18 feet)
Maximum Beam: 14m (45.93 feet)
Wing Height: 40m (131.23 feet)
Maximum Draft: 4.4m (14.44 feet)
Displacement: 5900kg (13007 pounds)
Wing Area: 260 sqm (2798 square feet
Jib Area: 100 sqm (1076 square feet)
Gennaker Area: 400 sqm (4305 square feet)
Crew: 11@92kg/per (203 pounds)

Cayard’s description of the latest engineering challenges to make those numbers work is not your usual scuttlebutt.

“We have 38 hydraulic cylinders. We want to avoid running hydraulic piping to each of them, because that would be heavy, so we have electrovalves embedded in the wing to actuate the hydraulics. But if you had two wires, positive and negative, running to each electrovalve, your wing would look like a PG&E substation, and that’s heavy too, so we use a CAN-bus [controlled area network] with far fewer wires. Still, it’s incredibly complex.

“We wind up with lot of hydraulics,” Cayard says, “and the America’s Cup rules don’t allow stored power, so two of our eleven guys—we think, two—will be grinding a primary winch all the race long. Not to trim, but to maintain pressure in the hydraulic tank so that any time someone wants to open a hydraulic valve to trim the wing, there will be pressure to make that happen.”

Ok, so there’s thousands of hours in design of these wings but there’s something deeply ironic about a 72 foot catamaran with a 130 foot wing that can sail faster than the wind but can’t generate enough power to manage hydraulics without two crew constantly grinding a winch. It seems like a legacy mindset. A big part of the old America’s Cup boats was to be staffed with powerful yet heavy crew who can muscle the boat around. These boats surely call for lighter more nimble crew. What if someone even figured out a way to efficiently use the wind to generate power…?

Perhaps Luca Devoti said it best. These boats are pure racing machines that have power to burn. They should have no shortage of energy at their disposal, or they may even have a reason for absorbing excess.

You have to change completely your way of thinking: the boat is sailing from the moment the wing comes out of the shed because the wing can fly away at any moment.

The trick, as explained in the following video, is to make the wing secure yet light; to keep it as uncomplicated as possible to reduce risk and reduce response time. Most of all, it sounds like the designers want to hurry-up and make up for 20 years of lost time by borrowing technology and efficiency study lessons from the A-Class and C-Class catamaran fleets:

The Power of Cracking Passwords

Ivan Golubev’s blog points out that power supply and heat dissipation can impact the speed of brute forcing passwords with graphics cards.

Apparently lowering GPU core frequency resulting in “closer to estimations” performance. My first guess was that there is internal throttling in 6990 and so overheating causing performance drop. I’ve even posted in official forum about this but some more experiments reveals that I wasn’t totally true. Answer was pretty simple:

[…]

Yep, by default it isn’t enough power provided for 6990 to make it work with 100% performance

[…]

…make sure you have proper cooling and PSU as looks like official 375W TDP can easily became 450W and this means A LOT of heat you’re need to deal with somehow.

The Radeon HD 6990 graphics cards have dropped to under $400, which is very tempting, but only for air-cooled. So the cost of reaching peak brute-force performance levels of 10 billion passwords per second with ighashgpu really must be measured in terms of cost of liquid cooling and clean supply of power (around $4,000 for a complete system). It’s a nice example of how security is tied to energy and efficiency. Golubev actually provides a spreadsheet of performance per dollar but it doesn’t mention environmental factors that support peak performance.

To put this all in perspective, a strong mixed upper-lower case alphanumeric with symbols password that is 8 digits long on a Microsoft OS could take around 20 days to crack for less than $5,000. Since password change cycles are usually 90 days…