Project Idea #4: Forest Permaculture

(Note: Yesterday I met a gentleman at the ATX Hackerspace who was working on a gardening invention. I don't think it would pass the test of altruism for PIFAM, but it was a great idea. That conversation has inspired me to post this project idea, somewhat out of my intended order.)

Permaculture is a beautiful design methodology. If we apply the idea to a forest, we can ask a question which is difficult to answer, but is objective and scientific, and of the greatest possible benefit to humankind:

How is it possible to extract the greatest possible economic value from a forest without damaging it?

Put another way, how can we extract the greatest possible benefit from a forest, taking into account all externalities:

• Cash flow,
• The animals who live in the forest,
• The plants,
• The fungus,
• The oxygen it produces,
• The beauty it provides,
• The soil stabilization and anti-desertification?

There are probably valuable points I have failed to mention. One can of course accuse me of being a tree-hugging hippy---but I assure you I am the most hard-headed and scientific of dandelion-eaters.

Given a mathematical model that weights each of these partially subjective benefits, can we manage the forest to provide a maximum sustainable yield? And what would that yield be?

How is it possible to extract usable products from a forest without chopping down the trees? For example, is it possible to inoculate logs and snags with an edible fungus? Is it possible to plan an edible crop beneath the trees without destroying the wildlife? Is it possible to collect collect wood from fallen timber sustainably? Is it possible to make paper from pine needles or oak leaves? Can we build a robotic monkey that will collect nuts from a 100-foot high tree? Can we obtain wood more efficiently from pollarding a mature tree than from cutting one down? Can we collect timber without building a road? Can we get people to pay for the privilege of mushroom hunting in a beautiful wood? Can we generate power from tree sap? Can we force a tree to grow in the form of an I-beam so that it need not be sawn to be valuable lumber? Can we put an iron collar on a tree to form the trunk into a beautiful sculpture? Can we build a computer simulation across time of the whole forest? Can we make a game out of trying to utilize the forest? Can we take a truly accurate census of every species present? Can we grow bromeliads in the canopy efficiently? Can we train the limbs to make a walkable path above the ground? Can we hunt the animals in an ethical and efficient way? And how many? Can we generate paper from the forest in situ, without taking the fiber to a paper mill? Can we build a machine that cuts a 2x4 from a tree in a way that it can heal? Can we account for the value of the migration of animals through the space? Can convince the trees to form themselves into an emergency shelter? Can we garden the forest to ensure that something of value can be gathered every week of the year by a visitor sustainably? Can we get the forest to consume our waste products safely? Can we put sewage on it? Can we bury soiled diapers beneath trees? Can the forest become a gymnasium? A running track? A meeting place? A school, a church, a public house? Can the forest become a road, allowing people or cargo to be transported across miles without touching the ground? Can we know precisely when a tree dies and harvest its timber at that time? Is it more efficient to do so? Can we make artificial lairs and dens for animals to improve the density of life? Can we get it to sequester carbon?

Can we make these questions precise and create an experimental plan for methodically answering them?

And, most importantly, does anybody want to lead such a project with my help and support?

Project Idea #3: Oscillatory Power Extraction

Windmills are catching on. However, the rotary propeller occurs only once in nature (in spermatozoa.) We need to explore the extraction of power from a moving fluid from with a non-rotary system. For example, we have all seen flags and pennants furling in the wind. Can we construct a furling device that extracts power from moving water or air? Similarly, a tree bends, if only slightly, in a wind, and oscillates to and fro. It is possible to build a tree-like structure which extracts power from a moving fluid? If so, how efficient can it be? Would it be safer than a windmill? Could it be packed more densely into a given area? Would it be kinder to wildlife?

Success criterion is to build a machine that extracts 1/10^th of the power from wind that windmill of similar size would extract.

Project Idea #2: A Perfect Luminaire (more explanation)

Total Internal Reflection is a phenomena that keeps light trapped within an optic fiber (and therefore a fiber bundle).  A light ray inside a medium with a higher index of refraction striking an interface will emerge at a sharper angle, and if that angle becomes so sharp that it dives back into the medium, then none of the energy in the ray will leave at all.  In general, at any interface between two media, such as glass, which has a high index of refraction, some fraction of the energy will be reflected, and some transmitted. Normal glass reflects about 4% of the light that hits it straight-on.

So the idea of the Perfect Luminair project is to figure out something simple, and very hard (at least to my knowledge.)  How do you shape a flat piece of some transparent material so that you can shine light into its side and make the light come out in an even field.  That is, in a perfect solution, you could take it outside, use a magnifying glass to focus the sun directly into the end of the fiber bundle, and the plate would magically produce a smooth, even glow.

Note that in the diagram above I have drawn two shapes, neither of which would work very well: The black shape would dump the light too quickly, and the blue shape would never dump the red ray at all!  Since their will be a certain amount of dispersion coming out of the fiber bundle, there will of course be a certain amount of light leaking almost everywhere.

We seek first a mathematical solution.  Given an input from the bundle with a given dispersion profile, what shape will maximize both the brightness and evenness of the escaping light?

Note that making light escape forward is obviously a significant problem.  You can of course back-silver the surface, though any reflection of a metallic surface will cost you about 8%.

Ideally, we would like a nice, smooth, easy to manufacture piece of glass.  However, a rugose, or bumpy, piece of glass would work as well---maybe the surface should be "rippled".

A different, but related approach would be to split the fiber bundle, and direct individual fibers to different places on the plane---but it would be better not to make any assumptions about the light entry at all.  For example, if we don't insist on a fiber bundle, then we could place a fluorescent bulb along one edge, and still produce a pleasing, diffuse light.

This problem is mathematically interesting in its own right, but could also improve light efficiency, including in developing countries, where a traditional copper-based power wiring could be completely avoided for at least some lighting situations.


If this problem has been addressed, please let me know---I'm not aware that it has even been researched.

Merfluke Project Report #3: Comfort improvements

The embarrassing fiasco of last week did teach me one thing---that the new pedals needed some improvements.  I spent 4 hours today repositioning my leg braces and cementing some more padding to my top-of-foot blocks.  In a dry-test, it feels much more comfortable now.  I was foolish for not doing that before the last wet-test, which I had to cancel due to the coldness of the water and air.

I went to the Austin ATX Hackerspace today, but yet again nobody was there.  Since I am not yet a full member, I couldn't get in, which is rather unfortunate---apparently my work habits do not coincide with those of other hackers.  They have an open house very Tuesday night, but I am taking a parkour class on Tuesday which partially conflicts.

I have only modest hopes for the next wet-test, but do hope to get some timings.

Editorial: Writing the Book--- Public Invention 101

Looking at the grandest scale, the purpose of PIFAM is to write a book entitled Public Invention 101: How to Save the World for Dummies. 

I once had the pleasure of attending a lecture and panel discussion by C.A.R. Hoare, Edsger W. Dijkstra, and Ben Kuipers. (Hoare and Dijkstra are both winners of the Turing Award, the highest honor a Computer Scientist can receive.) Hoare pointed out that the introductory textbook on Physics was already written and unlikely to change. The introductory textbook for Computer Science, a much younger discipline, is still being written, and that it is a great ambition for a young scientist to add a single line to this textbook. The real geniuses, he said, will remove a line.

There are books on how to be get patents. How to be more creative. How to think like Einstein or da Vinci. But we must admit that when it comes to Public Invention, that is, invention in the public good, the canon is far from closed. I don't think any books really give practical advice on reifying an unmonetizable invention---that is, moving from ideas to social benefit.  Brenda Laurel's The Utopian Entrepreneur comes close.  

Mankind has made some progress constructing large, well-funded organizations that can, over long periods of time, produce astounding results. However, this process has not been made personal. Just as the personal computer empowered individuals in a way that mainframe computers did not, we as an organization must seek to empower ever smaller groups of people and individuals. We need to create a handbook of Public Invention. I expect this will take decades if not centuries to write. I personally barely know where to begin, and certainly can't claim to be an authority---though I don't intend to let  that stop me.

Project Idea #2: A Perfect Luminaire

(Note: after posting this, I realize it is not at all clear unless you are an expert in optics, if then.  I will try to post a diagram soon that explains the idea in greater detail.)

The idea is to build a large flat object that when fed light via a fiber optic cable or channel produces an even, diffuse source of light without any losses.

Such a device would make more practical the idea of using solar power for internal illumination, as well as allowing a single highly efficient light source to provide better lighting.

I expect this to require computer modeling, a basic understanding of optics and fiber optics, creative geometry, and possibly an exploration of surface properties.

Success criterion is to build a functional lamp (by which I mean a wall-hangable light fixture, not a desk lamp) that provide pleasant illumination.

If we define "perfect" mathematically as producing perfectly even light (which would have to have a definition of direction as well as brightness from a given part of the luminaire) this is an interesting mathematical problem in optics which doesn't require very much knowledge of materials.

I personally don't know if this is old-hat, or if it has never been researched.  It is possible this problem has already been solved---if so, please enlighten me.

It seems to me this is an area in which amateur researchers could hope to make a significant contribution.

Merfluke Project Report #2: Trial fails because too cold

Today I went to the Lake to try out the Merfluke VII.  I even had two volunteer test pilots.  Quite embarassingly, it was entirely too cold to swim, even though I had tested it yesterday (when it was sunny.)  This is a shallow, man-made lake, I guess the temperature can fluctuate rapidly.  Additionally, I found that I may have to move the top blocks of the pedals to make them more comfortable. Other than that, the mark 7 seemed to be okay, but I was unable to do any seriously athletic tests.

A Triangle of Innovation Sources

To my mind there are three main sources of innovation. Universities strongly incent people to innovate theory.  A doctoral degree is awarded for a significant original contribution to the body of human knowledge.  In general, this contribution must be original---they take that part very seriously---but as a society we fudge a little on the significant part.  After all, we can't ALL create something terribly significant---if we did, mankind would be making a lot more progress.  Although theory and practice can never be fully separated, Universities are much better at innovating theory than practice.

Firms are spectacularly good at creating innovations that people are able and willing to pay for. This is the storied "engine of capitalism" and it chugs along, driven by a desire for profit, sometimes running roughshod but generally producing things that people want---at least, in proportion to people's ability to and willingness to pay.

I would like to see us strengthen the third vertex of this triangle, which I am calling Public Invention.  Public Invention means both invention for the public good and invention that is done in public, because the two ideas are very closely related.  It is hard to imagine a monopolistic or secret altruism.

Who does Public Invention?  I certainly didn't invent it. It has always been a strong undercurrent in the great waters of human thought---at least since the time of Pythagoras. However, since I am an American, I will point out that Benjamin Franklin was a champion of this idea, particularly with respect to the Franklin stove, an energy-efficiency improvement of tremendous import.  Thomas Jefferson was a proponent, and Buckminster Fuller was one of its 20th century heroes. A fine description of its spirit can be seen in My Inventions, the autobiography of Nikola Tesla, a Serb who spent the latter part of his life in America.

Most recently I think we must recognize the late Michael Hart, creator of Project Gutenberg, and Richard Stallman, creator of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU organization.  The Wikipedia owes a great debt to both these gentlemen---though of course we should thank thousands, perhaps millions by now, of mostly approximately anonymous contributors for the Wikipedia and Project Gutenberg and the GNU/Linux and free software in general.

Since Project Gutenberg and the Wikipedia both represent a form of "knowledge work", I consider them a form of Public Invention.  The genius of these organizations is that they have made it cheap and easy for people to contribute to them---which is good, considering what they pay. I've led the addition of about 50 books into Project Gutenberg, and personally processed about a dozen of them.  I got thanks, recognition, a sense that I had done my duty, but not half a sandwich or a free beer.

What I am trying to do with Public Invention is to follow in the footsteps of Prof. Hart and Richard Stallman, but focusing on a harder task---the production of the kind of innovation we call "invention".  This is not more important than the kind of knowledge work that goes into the Creative Commons or a Wikipedia article or a software patch or a book processed into Project Gutenberg and thereby preserved forever for all mankind.  It is, however, harder, in that most ideas, even good ideas, don't work. To create an "invention", a physical invention, typically requires much more capital to test and prove out, and also to publicize, than the sweat equity required add something to a Wikipedia article.

My job, (and I hope soon to be able to write "our job" once someone has joined me), is to make contributing to an invention that really helps the world in some way as easy as possible.  I don't know how to do this yet, but I intend to learn.  What I can do right now is provide enthusiasm, organization, technical expertise,wisdom, and money---in that order.

I think there is an ocean of brilliant energy out there waiting to be harnessed.  I would like to somehow organize it and direct it behind ideas freely contributed by others and myself in a way that is accountable and responsible and, above all, effective.  The third vertex of the triangle of innovation has always been important. Let's put our shoulders beneath it now and find a way to elevate Public Invention to contribute as much as Universities and Capitalism does.

Mefluke Project Report #1

Yesterday I joined Hackerspace ATX and worked on the 7th prototype of the Merfluke.  The main difference between this and the Mark 6 is improved pedals. Today at 11:30 I went to the Hackerspace but nobody was there---I need to become an associate member so I can get in.

Nonetheless, today I completed the new pedals and reassembled the Merfluke Mk 7.  This weekend I will give it another test run, probably in Lake Pflugerville on Saturday afternoon. If there are no major problems I will try to time myself swimming a few hundred meters, and perhaps I can get my wife or some volunteer to video tape me swimming---I would love to be able to analyze my technique, since it is entirely possible small changes could make a big difference.  I doubt the water is clear enough to show much, but anything is better than nothing.

I am reasonably confident, based on prior experience, that the Mark 7 will be better than the Mark 6, but probably will not approach the speed with which I can monofin..  I hope at least I can acheive the speed at which I can swim freestyle unaided.

Here are some photos of the Mark 7.

This is a side-on view---my body would be to the left, with my shins embraced by the white soccer shin guards and my feet on the ugly orange pedals, which are more hydrodynamic and lighter than my last ones.

 Here is sort of a pedal detail:

 Looking down, showing the fluke as well as the pedals:

 A detail of the fluke, which is Polycarbonate riveted to aluminum, with side rails.

 A view of the wood block that sits on the top of my left foot, allowing me angle the fluke upward by pulling with my feet.  The asymmetry the foot pull power and push power is a major unsolved problem.  I would like to figure out a way to add a spring that equalizes it somewhat, but I don't know how to do it hydrodynamically.

 A view looking down, with my feet for scale.

 The braces that hold my legs.  Very un-streamlined.  They do have to be sturdy, however, because most of the up-and-down power which provides propulsion is borne by the shin-guards and transmitted to the frame through those braces.