Recently in economic development Category

In every economic downturn, Chicken-Little pundits squawk about how we can't have a sustainable recovery until employment figures show improvement. Any investor, and here I use the word "investor" in its broadest sense to include those who put resources to work, not just those who invest in stocks and bonds, who listens to this drivel is destined to fail, and fail disasterously.

Macroeconomics - the study of large-scale economic trends affecting an economy as a whole - is based feedback loops that drive business activity. These loops describe causal relationships between economic factors affecting business. For example, an increase in production levels generally pushes employment up. Each of these causal relationships involve a time delay. So, when production levels increase, especially from a depressed level, employment does not rise until production levels exceed capacity at the current employment level. This takes time, as does the process of hiring new employees.

These delays are what cause business cycles in the first place. If we use, say, buggywhip manufacture as a hypothetical example, we might say that it takes 18 months for the buggywhip business to respond to a sudden change in the overall demand for buggywhips. So, if New York City should pass a law banning motorized vehicles, so all the Yellow Cabs in the city had to be replaced by horse-drawn surries overnight, that would ratchet up demand for buggywhips. Because it takes 18 months for buggywhip manufacturers to respond, actual sales of buggywhips would not stabilize at a level reflecting the new demand until a year and a half later.

Business cycles occur because it is not possible for businesses to precisely meet demand. In the buggywhip example, assume that there are two buggywhip manufacturers in business at the time the New York law passes. They will both attempt to grab more than their fair share of the enormous new market. Part of driving sales is assuring customers that you can actually deliver the goods ordered. So, both manufacturers will expand production faster than necessary to just meet demand. In addition, during that first 18 months, it will be clear that the established manufacturers won't be able to meet demand. Outside entrepreneurs will see this as an opportunity to jump in to the expanding market, by starting rival buggywhip manufacturing operations.

The result is that some 18 months after the new law passes, worldwide buggywhip manufacturing capacity will greatly exceed demand. Inventories of unsold buggywhips will expand. Buggywhip prices will fall. Marginal buggywhip manufacturers will fail. Buggywhip production capacity will drop. By three years into the process, we'd be back to having inadequate production capacity to meet demand, and the whole thing would start over again.

Boom and bust cycles like that are not some aberration, or the result of faulty business strategies, or some market inefficiency that politicians can erase by passing laws, it's how things inevitably work. In fact, most complex systems, such as economies, consist of multiple such cycles that operate on multiple time scales. Basically, they're all chaotic systems, which is why long term charts of practically every economic indicator - from long-term jobs trends to prices for individual stocks - look like profiles of the Andes Mountains. They're all fractals, which is the pattern most often associated with chaotic systems.

Economic expansions, recessions, depressions, and recoveries are actually just business-cycle components. As any Taoist sage could tell you, whenever the economy is expanding, you know that a contraction is on its way. Similarly, a depression always presages a recovery. It's inevitable. The Great Depression of the 1930s was, when looked at from a longer perspective, just a particularly deep bottom of the overall business cycle. The huge expansion we experienced during the 1990s was, conversely, a particularly robust phase of the overall business cycle.

This latest contraction, which started about 2005, and will probably not completely play out until 2015, was another particularly nasty dip in the more or less regular cycle. It's as inevitable as the tide.

So, getting back to jobs data, and the usual panicky predictions of a so-called "jobless recovery," the reason employment data have not significantly improved is that it's just too early in the process for it to show up. Those who ask: "How can sales recover when employment is down?" simply don't understand how the business cycle works. Sales aren't driven by jobs, it's the other way around, with a significant time lag between.

Jobs are driven by production requirements. As any industrial engineer could tell you, production is driven by inventories, not by demand. Demand is an intangible that is very difficult to predict or measure. Inventory levels, on the other hand, are easily measured and better reflect a company's ability to sell the products it makes.

In the real business world, the first thing to recover after a recession is demand. It begins to recover when end users have had their belts cinched so tight for so long, that they have no choice but to by new stuff. Demand for food starts to rise, for example, when pantries start to look bare. It makes no difference whether the family bread-winner has a job or not, when there's nothing for dinner, somebody makes a run to the store. Even if you have to beg a cup of sugar from the neighbors, that sends the neighbors off to the store for more sugar, increasing the demand for sugar. Therein lies the disconnect between jobs and demand.

Demand seems to have hit bottom about six months ago. Since then, we've been working off inventory that built up at the start of the downturn, when production still exceeded demand. Next, production has to rise (pulled by further increases in demand) until it exceeds capacity at the present depressed employment levels. Only then will employment figures begin to rise.

Don't look for employment metrics to turn up until at least the end of the first quarter 2010. The reason it hasn't happened yet is that it's just too darn early.

Over the next week or so, I hope to share with you results of studies pointing the directions we can expect technology trends likely will take next year, and in the decade ahead. The good news for Americans, and for many national economies around the world, is that the recovery is exactly on track. Yammering about "jobless recovery" and doubts over the U.S. economy's ability to expand until full employment returns simply demonstrate the commentators' ignorance of how economies work.

Garden variety depressions, which is what we've experienced over the past five years, take many years to play out. Calendar year 2008 saw the acute contraction phase, but things had been unraveling since late 2005. After a contraction, comes a bottoming, followed by an expansion phase.

Economic recoveries - that is the bottoming and expansion phases of a dip in economic activity - start with stock markets, which anticipate the turn around in general economic conditions by some months. The reason stock markets anticipate recoveries is that investment professionals, unlike media commentators, do understand economics, and recognize harbingers of business improvement long before the improvement happens. Just as meteorologists know that when days start getting longer, Spring is just a few months away, investors know that economic harbingers, such as inventory levels stabilizing at high levels, pre-announce changes in economic trends by several months, and stock prices rise as these investors put themselves in a position to capitalize on the new trend.

After stock prices hit bottom and begin to rise, we start seeing signs that the downward pressure on business activity begins to ease off. High inventory levels, for example, begin to drop. Productivity begins to rise as businesses streamline to cut costs. Later, these more efficient businesses begin reporting better than anticipated earnings on still-falling revenue. Still months later, revenues begin to rise as individuals and businesses can no longer put off purchases that have been delayed since the beginning of the downturn. More months later, employment figures, which conventional wisdom seems to think should lead the recovery despite the fact that it never happens, begin to recover as the productivity gains of a few months ago prove insufficient to meet the growing demand for goods and services. Finally, very late in the recovery, large capital investments, such as in real estate, reach their bottoms and start to recover.

At present, the U.S. economy, as well as that of most of the world, is recovering nicely. Trends in measures like corporate earnings are showing the correct patterns in the correct order and with the anticipated timing. Even the jobless numbers are tracking exactly as they're supposed to. Back at the end of 2008, when the depth of the dip became apparent, knowledgeable pundits were able to predict that the unemployment rate would reach just above 10%, which is just what it did, and begin to recover in late 2009, which it also has done.

By the way, don't listen to all that emotional drivel about some fictional "real" unemployment rate being something like 18% instead of the published 10% level. "The unemployment rate" is a real, clearly defined metric that we use to compare one time period with another. The "real unemployment rate" that Chicken-Little types yammer on about is poorly defined and very difficult to measure, so it's useless as an economic metric. It's only use is to give fear merchants something to shoot their mouths off about to their poorly educated audiences.

One extremely useful metric that can provide prescience about general industrial trends is expectations among industrial automation buyers and sellers about their purchases and sales (respectively) in the coming year.

To determine whether the market for industrial automation equipment was beginning to ascend from the depths of this latest downturn, or were destined to remain mired in the muck at the bottom of the pit for awhile longer, our friends at Control Engineering magazine in partnership with analysts at financial services leader Morgan Stanley surveyed participants in the industrial automation market. The reason to look especially at sentiment in this market is that factory automation is arguably the most important trend in industrial technology of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.

Early in the 20th Century, factory automation was generally non-existent. We (or more accurately, our ancestors) simply did not have the tools available to automate production facilities in any meaningful way.

By the middle of the 21st Century, on the other hand, we anticipate that factories will run essentially fully automatically. That is, there will be no production tasks that are not done by automated machinery. Humans will generally hold supervisory positions. There will be CEOs, managers, engineers, maintenance technicians, and such like, but the population of assembly line workers, for example, will drop to more or less nil.

So, unlike the situation a few decades ago, perhaps the best measure of industrial activity available at the start of the second decade of this century is the level of activity in the industrial automation sector. That is what the survey set out to study, and that is why it's the first thing we looking at as we peer into our crystal ball.

"I'm happy to report that the survey does, indeed, offer more than few rays of hope," wrote David Greenfield, Control Engineering's editorial director, when reporting the survey findings in his article entitled 2010 Global Automation Industry Outlook. "Overall, the findings appear to indicate that a bottom in the market has been reached, pricing is holding firm, and that customers remain loyal - all positive signs for global automation players."

Greenfield cited four key findings of the survey:

1. The automation market has already bottomed; modest growth will return in 2010;

2. There is no evidence of a price war in automation equipment;

3. There is limited differentiation between the spending outlooks for process versus discrete industries;

4. While highly cyclical, automation is a good business to invest in over the long term.

It is important to note that the second finding belies the fear that inflation might be a an immediate threat. Despite concerns over accommodative monetary policies around the world, this survey shows no sign of inflation's return in the immediate future. It's axiomatic that for inflation to appear, prices must rise. This survey of a significant sector of the economy shows no hint of rapidly rising prices.

Greenfield pointed out that the near-term trend in demand for automation equipment appears brighter than it did in early in 2009 because of the percentage of respondents expecting demand to increase, more budgets going up or staying level versus retreating, and increasing demand to replace aging equipment. In addition, pricing appears to be stabilizing in the near term. Few respondents expect to see prices fall, but neither are they expecting out-of-the-ordinary upward price moves by suppliers to help offset losses in the past year.

These results are exactly what we would expect at this stage of the present economic recovery. Pundits prophesying a double dip, an L-shaped recovery, or any similar pattern find no support for their views in this important economic indicator.

During the 1970s, I conducted an (unpublished) meta-analysis of data Charles Greeley Abbot collected from various sources in the early 20th Century to look for cross correlations between his solar irradiance measurements, sunspot index measurements, and weather patterns in various cities. The meta-analysis showed a significant positive correlation between solar irradiance and sunspot data, and a partial correlation between them and the temperature data.

Abbot, like nearly all astronomers and astrophysicists of his time, firmly believed in a negative correlation between sunspot index and solar irradiance, rather than the positive one his data showed. He noted the partial correlation between sunspot index and temperatures, but his prejudice about the correlation between index and irradiance led him to reject the effect as spurious.

By the end of the 1980s, the positive correlation between solar irradiance variations and sunspot index variations had been confirmed by satellite measurements, overturning astrophysicists' previous view. This allowed partial explanation of historically observed climatic variations, specifically the so-called "Little Ice Age" in the latter half of the second millennium, by reduction of solar activity observed through anomalies in the sunspot index, specifically the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minima. This research strongly indicates that solar variability is also an important input to the climate system that is certainly not under human control.

Now, it is becoming clear that the climate system is highly complex, with multiple positive and negative feedback loops, as well as a large number of independent forcing inputs, only a few of which are under human control (see "Aerosols Cloud Climate Picture," Science News, v. 176, n. 11., pp. 5-6 for a brief synopsis). These are characteristics of a chaotic system

Paleontologists and geologists have pieced together a fairly complete, though not necessarily detailed, picture of Earth's climate over the 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence. This picture shows a chaotic climate capable of varying over a wide temperature range. On short time scales, weather patterns are now acknowledged to be chaotic, with a horizon of predictability on the order of a week.

Taken together, these bits of information lead one to the conclusion that Earth's climate exhibits chaotic behavior on all time scales. It is, basically, a chaotic system.

Now, let's look at efforts to control climate change. We are attempting to use a chaotic system (global politics) to harness a second chaotic system (social, economic, and technical institutions) to control a third chaotic system (Earth's climate), when not all the forcing variables (e.g., solar irradiance, geology) are in our hands, anyway.

This sounds like a fool's errand.

I suggest that we could much more effectively apply our energies to developing means to react to climate change that is inevitable, than to the fool's errand of trying to direct it. Climate change, in any direction, has both positive and negative affects. It would be far better to direct our efforts toward engineering social systems, laws, and technologies to take advantage of the positive effects, and ameliorate the negative effects.

Truly successful technologies - those that achieve widespread commercial application - generally exhibit a number of characteristics. Chiefest among them is probably the ability to help humans do a lot of things that they would be doing anyway, but do them faster, cheaper, and more easily.

Automobiles, for example, did not make people peripatetic. People have been wandering around Earth's surface for hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of years. They've been doing it since long before the modern species homo sapiens developed. All the automobile did was up the cruising speed from around 2 mph to several tens of mph. Human behavior didn't change, they still like to go from A to B whenever they can come up with an excuse, the automobile achieved enormous commercial success by making it possible to do it faster, cheaper, and more easily. What pushed the automobile's success to the enormous dimensions it achieved was the fact that its advantages applied to almost everything people do, from enjoying an afternoon tryst to seeking out new worlds to conquer.

Ultrathin, flexible, disposable battery technology should have similar success. It seems like such a simple thing: use thick-film technology to manufacture carbon-zinc batteries on a flexible substrate. How hard can it be to manufacture a battery consisting of a handful of non-moving parts compared to the typical automobile's 3.7 kazillion moving parts? You make the things with a glorified ink-jet printer. What could be easier?

Well, it isn't all that easy to make the things thin enough, reliable enough, and consistent enough for commercial success. It's simple to imagine doing it. The Devil's in the details of doing it right. Only a few companies have managed it.

Blue Spark Technologies is one of them. In an article published in yesterday's Designfax online newsletter, Matt Ream, Blue Spark's marketing manager and an electronics engineer with 20 years of experience in high-tech electronics and radio frequency identification (RFID) technology, reviews ultrathin battery technology and presents a cross section of applications.

He says that products using the company's technology rely on convergence of printed electronics and thin, flexible printed battery technologies. Printed electronics is the printing of electronic devices on common media, such as paper, plastic, or textiles, using traditional printing processes. Examples include programmable chips (ICs), RFID antennas and tags, printed displays, and thin, flexible batteries that provide a low-voltage power source. Ream goes on to report that industry analyst IDTechEx predicts that the market potential for printed electronics will grow to over $35 billion by 2018, while NanoMarkets predicts sales of thin film and printed batteries will grow to over $5 billion by 2015.

For product designers of low-voltage electronic products and systems, Ream says his company's 1.5-V printed carbon-zinc batteries offer multiple advantages over traditional button and coin cells, such as:

• Eco-friendly, safe disposability, since they contain no lithium, mercury, or other toxic materials.

• Small form factor, thin profile, and customizable shapes with a thickness range from about 430 to 700 microns (0.017 to 0.027 in.), and peak drain currents of at least 1 mA.

• Lower production and integration costs because they are made using conventional printing processes, and can often be printed or mounted on the same substrate as other printed electronics.

Such batteries can be used in applications where integration of a conventional battery would be too complex and costly. Within limits, users can typically specify size and shape (linear and non-linear), overall voltage, storage capacity, and thickness -- all tailored to the application requirements.

In a CNBC interview, Gary Johnson, the company's CEO, and Michael Liard, RFID Practice Director for ABI Research, described the market potential for ultrathin disposable batteries. Basically, you can look forward to seeing the technology attached to, pasted on, or incorporated into all kinds of disposable items that you use every day. Actually, you won't know that you're seeing them. They'll sit there in the background making it possible to do faster, cheaper, and easier what you were going to do, anyway.

In previous blog postings, I've attempted to pique your interest in the rapid technological changes that are transforming the data centers that we all rely on. Very soon these changes will revolutionize how folks around the world will use the Internet and what they will be able to do with it.

You don't have to just take my word for it, though. Tomorrow (Wednesday, 9/29) Cisco Systems will host a live Internet TV broadcast and Q&A session to discuss its vision for Data Center 3.0 and how the company's core technologies and new solutions are mapping to its overall corporate business strategy. Best of all, you don't have to be anyone special to attend. The session will be distributed free to all. No registration required. Just visit the event URL at 10:00 a.m. PDT and select "Play" to launch the live presentation.

Presenters will include:

Rajiv Ramaswami, vice president and general manager of the Data Center Switching Technology Group, will discuss how storage networking technology is evolving, including a glimpse at Cisco's future technology for storage networking innovation.

Ed Chapman, vice president of product management, Server Access and Virtualization Group, Cisco, will discuss how IT organizations are evolving their data centers with new protocols such as Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) to reduce operating costs and simplify management. The presentation will include a glimpse at new technology being developed for unifying SAN and LAN networks in the data center.

Derek Masseth, Senior Director for Infrastructure Services at the University of Arizona, will describe how the university recently united its data center networks using Fibre Channel over Ethernet to create a unified fabric. Masseth will explain the reasons for choosing this technology and the upgrade process, as well as benefits and cost reductions achieved.

The event will air Tuesday, September 29, 2009, from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. PDT. Attendees who experience difficulties connecting can contact support at (866) 614-0208 or (617) 778-9652. Phone support is available 30 minutes prior to and after the event, as well as during the videocast. Attendees may also submit an Online Support Request to CiscoTV_help@external.cisco.com or ciscotv_help@btci.com if necessary.

With all the hoopla about electric vehicles and "carbon neutral" fuels lately, it brings up the question of why gasoline and diesel became the dominant fuel choices for mobile power plants in the first place. There, of course, have always been alternatives. Everything from coal to spermacetti oil have been tried in the past.

Two canards are worth disposing of right away: the inertia and conspiracy arguments.

The inertia argument goes something like this: "We use gasoline and diesel fuel for light trucks and passenger vehicles because that's what we've always used." This idea has appeal only to those who know nothing about early automobile development. From roughly 1890 through as late as 1920, enthusiastic inventors tried to use essentially every kind of engine and every available fuel to produce a commercially viable horseless carriage. The only ones that proved technically and commercially viable were powered by gasoline or diesel fuel. Everything else flopped for one reason or another, and most alternative fuel vehicles flopped for technical reasons related to their engines.

The conspiracy argument (Isn't there always a conspiracy theory?) holds that big oil companies, like Standard Oil, persued nefarious means to sabotage development of any vehicles that ran on anything but the gasoline and diesel fuel they supplied. While corporate leaders in the early 20th Century would gleefully have engaged in such behavior, they just weren't up to it. First, their companies didn't carry that much clout until the boom in automobile transportation - powered by gasoline and diesel engines - grew them into the giants we recall. Second, no amount of chicanery can make a winner out of a clearly technically inferior solution.

That's an important point to keep in mind.

The reasons gasoline and diesel became dominant fuels are simple and technical: power, weight, and storage/handling.

As students of aviation development know quite well, the Otto-cycle piston engine powered by gasoline has an enormous power-to-weight advantage over every other engine type in the sub-500 HP range, with diesel engines running a close second. The only engine type that beats them today is the Brayton-cycle turbine engine. (No, not the "turbocharged" or "turbo" engine, which is really a hotted up piston engine!) Technical issues involving manufacturing make turbine engines smaller than about 500 HP hard to justify, and 500 HP is rediculous overkill for a passenger car or light truck.

Airplanes proved impossible until Glenn Curtiss and his contemporaries made gasoline engines practical. The same power/weight advantages make these engines technically superior for passenger cars and light trucks as well. (Note that Curtiss started out making engines for racing motorcycles and only later adapted them to aircraft.)

Storage and handling make gasoline and diesel fuels technically superior as well. They are both non-volatile liquids, meaning that if you pour them out into an open container, they'll hang around for a useful length of time. Though gasoline will evaporate on the time scale of minutes to hours (depending on the container's geometry), that's long enough to run it through an engine and extract the energy locked inside. Diesel will hang around even longer.

Methane, propane, butane, and the mixture commonly known as natural gas must be kept pressurized or they'll have an instant escape. The same, by the way, goes for hydrogen, which has a host of additional issues. Gasoline and diesel fuel's low volatility makes designing, building, and maintaining in-vehicle fuel storage systems relatively cheap and easy. The skills involved are those of any Medieval Gypsy tinker, not those of a modern refrigeration specialist.

Another storage advantage gasoline and diesel fuel have is the amount of energy packed into every gram of mass and liter of volume. Ten gallons of gasoline, which weighs a mere 60 lb, is enough to push a four-passenger car weighing over a ton a couple of hundred miles without stopping.

This, of course, is the Achilles' heel of electric vehicles. While electricity, being pure energy, takes up no space and has no weight, the equipment needed to safely contain the stuff in quantities practical for motor transportation very definitely takes up large quantities of space and has enormous weight.

"But," you say, "those arguments hold quite well for that darling of the alternative fuels community, alcohol."

What messed up the works for alcohol at the dawn of the 20th Century, and haunts it still today, is the fact that the stuff doesn't occur naturally. Until humans figured out how to harness the sugar-munching-and-alcohol-pooping potential of microbes, alcohol simply did not exist in useful quantities. Fossil oil, on the other hand, occurs in oceanic quantities just below the surface of the Earth's crust. Not only is it laying around practically everywhere, but it's just dying to get out. One of the biggest technical problems for those whose life's work is to get the stuff out of the ground and into your tank is keeping it from spraying out all over the place before they have a chance to capture it in a pipe.

True, the stuff that comes out of the ground won't burn in your engine without some refining. That process, however, mainly involves heating it until the oversize molecules jiggle apart into smaller units, which are easy to separate and grade into various useful fractions - which include gasoline and fuel oil.

Alcohol, on the other hand, is a whole lot more expensive to produce. It is so expensive that nobody has found a way make it economically feasible for motor fuel. The same goes for other alternative fuels. The folks who advocate hydrogen for use as a fuel, for example, have to deal with this disadvantage as well.

Basically, we've disposed of pretty much all alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuel for motor vehicles. What makes the alternatives unable to compete with them are the same things that made our ancestors choose them in the first place. They're simply the best choice by far among many alternatives.

No matter how committed the Obama Administration is, and how politically charged the debate about climate change becomes, alternative fuels just won't displace gasoline and diesel as motor fuels as long as the latter is readily available. It's like King Canute commanding the tide to stay out. All he accomplished was getting his feet wet.

Yes, alternatives will win out eventually, but not until we use up the available fossil fuels. And that will take many decades, yet.

The old saying is that "A picture is worth 1,000 words," but a picture plus quantitative measurements can be worth far more. A case in point: thermographic surveys of residential and commercial buildings.

Thermography is the science of remotely sensing the temperatures of objects by mapping their infrared emissions to provide a qualitative image showing hot- and cool-spots on surfaces visible in the image along with highly accurate quantitative temperature readings of selected spots.

Contractors can use this information to quickly find energy leaks in existing buildings and then determine the amount and type of insulation best suited to close them up. For example, it makes no sense to pack extra insulation into a home's attic, if most of the heating and cooling losses go through the walls. Similarly, adding more and more insulation in the walls would reach a point of diminishing returns if the windows became the dominant loss. Better to put just enough insulation into the walls and then concentrate on upgrading the windows.

Such surveys are appropriate to help planning remodeling projects and to verify energy efficiency of new construction projects. Just having thermal imaging equipment, however, does no good unless contractors know how to use and interpret it. Teaching those skills is the job of engineering technology programs at two- and four-year colleges.

Through the Fluke Weatherization Grant Program, instructors in accredited programs in building science, weatherization, energy conservation, home inspection and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) can apply for grants of Fluke IR-InSIGHT thermal imagers to use in teaching. Fluke Corporation is donating the equipment to schools and training programs for use in teaching students to perform weatherization work and home inspections.

Instructors have just weeks to apply for $100,000 worth of infrared thermal imagers from Fluke Corporation. Twenty programs will be selected to receive one thermal imager kit including software, two rechargeable batteries, charger, operation manual and USB adapter. Complete guidelines and an application form are available at the Fluke Weatherization Solution Center. Deadline for applications is September 14, 2009. Fluke will announce the winners in September 2009.

For more information on the Fluke Weatherization Program, visit the Fluke Weatherization Solution Center, or contact Fluke Corporation, P.O. Box 9090, Everett, WA USA 98206, call (800) 44-FLUKE (800-443-5853), fax (425) 446-5116, or e-mail fluke-info@fluke.com.

To most people, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is about creating jobs. So, why should it include more than $327 million in new funding announced early this month go toward scientific research, instrumentation, and laboratory infrastructure projects?

The answer is that job creation, while the primary concern, is not the only consideration the Obama Administration has when deciding where to put our tax dollars. If possible, they like to see projects that provide long-lasting benefits that keep on giving long after the jobs are created.

In addition to immediate job creation, dollars spent on scientific research stimulate advances in the technology our society depends on, and generate business for high technology companies. That's a trifecta that few infrastructure projects - and no make-work projects - can equal.

An example is the approximately $60 million provided to Fermilab in Batavia, IL that, combined with over $40 million provided earlier this year, is providing dividends in all three areas.

On the jobs front, science projects funded by the Act require expansions of facilities built by construction workers, electricians, and all the other trades needed to put up new buildings. Of course, jobs are also created for the scientists, engineers, and support people who do the science. And, don't forget the jobs for teachers, policemen, grocery store clerks, bank managers, and everyone else in the local communities where those scientists, engineers, and support people - and their families - work and live. One of the things they taught us in MBA school was that for every job you create directly, several additional jobs are created indirectly.

In addition, advanced-science projects generally require developments of new technology along the way. For example, research at Fermilab aimed at making more advanced particle accelerators, also funded by the Act, is developing new superconducting materials that can be used in a wide range of applications from medical imaging to more efficient electricity distribution.

Finally, researchers developing those magnets will purchase the bismuth-based material from US vendors to conduct cabling and coil studies, and will partner with businesses to encourage industrial fabrication of high-field magnets, an effort that could result in cutting edge technologies for other applications.

Similar results accrue from other science projects being funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While some observers may question the value of earmarking tens of millions of dollars of recovery funds to make jobs for a few scientists, better informed people recognize that spending on scientific research provides big tangible returns even before gaining the intangible returns of expanding our understanding of the Universe.

I've had occasion to write articles about factory automation several times, and one question that often comes up is: "Why automate a manual process?" In the short run, automation is expensive. It's a lot cheaper to keep running the same old manual system (especially if it's working well) than to take on the capital expense of replacing it with automation.

Any automated system replacing a manual one will be, by definition, novel. There is large technical risk in any novel system. Experienced engineers know that nobody is smart enough get it right the first time (at least not with any consistency). There are always things you don't know, forgot, or did just a little bit wrong - not to mention the dreaded unintended consequences that plague any complex system.

These days, it's possible to automate virtually any task. The challenge in the industrial engineering field is to interlink islands of automation into what my friends at Siemens like to call "Totally Integrated Automation" (TIA).

There are, however, still a few tasks that are manual in nature. Folding them in under the TIA umbrella, whether using technology from Siemens or another factory automation equipment vendor, as manual systems is problematic. There is a tendency to automate any task as a knee-jerk reaction to manualism.

That can be a mistake. Not everything should be automated, even in a TIA environment. Some things people are better at doing than machines. There aren't many, and the number grows fewer as automated systems become ever more capable. But, they are still there, and represent big land mines for system integrators.

The issue will also start to impact consumers in the general public as embedded control systems spread throughout society. In fact, it's already becoming significant in the automotive space, as systems become commercialized to monitor (and correct) driver actions that the computers deem suspect. Poor shifting habits were the first to succumb to the engineers' heavy hands with automatic transmissions. Then, decades later, overbraking by panicked drivers was theoretically eliminated by anti-lock brake systems (ABS). Now, we're poised for a host of computer intrusions into the driving process, from falling asleep at the wheel to clumsy parking techniques.

There are a number of criteria that can be used to decide when to automate a task, but the earliest, and still the most universally applicable, is the Three Ds. The Three Ds hail from the early days of robotics, when doing anything automatically was a major challenge. It's a razor that can be used to divide sharply between what is essentially for humans to do, and what is fair game for automation.

(A razor is a logical device used to guide difficult this versus that decisions. The famous Occam's Razor, which tells you to always favor the simplest hypothesis that explains the facts, is a well known example. Razors should be short, easy to understand and apply, and unambiguous. It also helps if the actually work!)

The Three Ds are "dirty, dull, and dangerous." The razor says that any task that exhibits even one of these characteristics should be considered for automation. If it exhibits any two, its a strong candidate for automation with all deliberate speed. If it exhibits all three, get the humans out of there as fast as their little legs can carry them.

Recently, NASA deployed some robotic sensing devices atop Mt. St. Helens that demonstrate how to apply the Three Ds. The task is to carefully monitor a number of significant variables at hot spots on the volcano.

Dirty does not just mean a tendency to get coated with unspecified unpleasant guck. I once had a summer job cleaning the hard-water scale from the insides of boiler tubes. It came out as nano-scale red powder particles suspended in the air. That was a traditionally dirty job. It was also dirty in a wider Three Ds sense: ambient conditions were such as to physically stress human organisms. Basically, the insides of boilers were uncomfortably hot. Not quite hyperthermia-inducing hot, but hot enough that you didn't want to be in there any longer than you had to be. While being outdoors on the top of a high mountain might seem an ideal environment to a city dweller locked in an office, to those of us who've been left out in the elements long enough to feel the effects of exposure, it qualifies as mildly dirty. Add in noxious vapors and other things that tend to leak out of volcanic hot spots, and it gets dirty, indeed.

Dull really means tedious. Anything repetitive, especially if the situation requires constant attention, is dull. Again, data logging is something that sounds like a walk in the park to those who haven't done it manually. I remember one day as an undergraduate student, when I was studying the stability of an oscillator I'd just finished building. I set the thing up with a frequency counter displaying measurements to six digit accuracy on a nixie-tube display. This was before the days of LED readouts, and long before PC-based data acquisition. Only the last two digits were changing. I sat in a (happily reasonably comfortable) chair writing down the last three digits every 30 seconds for six hours straight. No bathroom breaks. No talking with the guy at the next bench. No reading a book. That taught me the real meaning of dull. The poor robots on Mt. St. Helens are tasked with doing that job 24/7 with the only reprieve coming when the mountain next blows its top and ends their miserable existences.

Dangerous means who or what is undertaking the task is in imminent danger of annihilation, or at least grievous bodily harm. NASA's robots weren't put in nice, safe locations. They were put in places the volcanologists deemed most likely to vaporize catastrophically, taking the robots' spindly little bodies with them.

Folks - and you're going to see a lot of them in the next year or so as the economic recovery seems endlessly "jobless" - who complain that automation is taking away their jobs should heed the Three Ds. The only people that automation (properly done) will put out of work are those who are so stupid they embrace tedium, so expendable they get sent into the lion's maw, or so desperate that they're willing to work under inhuman conditions. The rest of us will make do with the good jobs.

Chevrolet leads off the content at its website for the Volt electric car with a cryptic explanation of the test conditions that allow them to claim 230 mpg fuel economy for an electric car. That's good, because nobody in their right mind would accept such an outlandish figure without at least a stab at knowing the test conditions. It's bad because fuel economy figures for an electric vehicle are meaningless, since an electric vehicle does not run on fuel.

Hybrid automotive propulsion systems run primarily on fuel (gasoline, diesel, liquified natural gas, etc.) with a means of capturing energy generated when the car's propulsion demand is lower than the engine's available output, then delivering it back when propulsion demand is high. That allows the vehicle to have an undersized engine and still deliver bursts of performance equivalent to a car with a much more powerful engine.

As an example of how this works in practice, some Formula One race cars use a similar technology called the kinetic energy recovery system (KERS). While braking for a corner, the KERS system captures some of the energy that would be burned off as heat in the brakes and stores it in a battery. The driver has a push button that pours that energy back through the drive train, delivering some 80 HP in excess of the engine's maximum output.

Two anecdotes are available from this experiment. First, it is said that KERS equipped cars are nearly impossible for non-KERS cars to pass under acceleration. Does that surprise anyone? The second bit of information is that the leader in this year's F1 constructors championship does not use KERS. What that really means, and what the standings will be at the end of the season are valid topics for beer hall debates.

Electric vehicles - the Volt included - are primarily driven by electric motors. From an engineering standpoint, there's a lot to be said for this architecture. It's well understood. It vastly simplifies the mechanical drive train. Leaving out the battery pack, it reduces the powerplant weight by a lot. Consequently, it will likely reduce the energy cost of getting the payload from A to B. It probably will reduce maintenance requirements as well, since the components are few, quite robust, and don't suffer much wear.

I said that the technology is well understood. It is and has been for a very long time. Some of the earliest experiments in automotive technology were electric vehicles. I drove an electric forklift during the 1960s. My grandson has owned and operated a series of electric go karts for most of his life. Electric golf carts dot the fairways of America. Electric vehicle technology has been under development for at least as long as the internal combustion engine. What we know about it is a lot!

The problem, which I sidestepped above, is that battery technology is such that storing the energy needed to get that payload from A to B is enormously bulky and heavy. If A and B are significantly far apart, the size and weight of the battery becomes impractical.

The problem is storing enough energy in electric form to run the thing a reasonable distance. The Volt gets around this problem by installing an auxiliary power unit (APU) to provide power when the driver has been foolish enough to drive past the vehicle's point of no return on battery power, and wants to get back by, say, 3:45 PM for a meeting. The APU kicks in, providing enough juice to get you home.

Altogether, I have no problem with the Volt itself. It looks great - or at least as good as allowed by the inaesthetic drech that passes for automobile styling today. Not having driven one myself, yet, I can't answer for its performance, but electric vehicles generally can be made to go as fast as you want (for a while). From my comments above, you can tell that I like the concept from an engineering standpoint - especially for short trips with long recharge spells in between.

My problem is with the idea of assigning a miles per gallon performance figure. It makes sense for hybrid vehicles because the whole driving experience is energized by fuel from a tank. For an electric vehicle, with the bulk of the energy theoretically supplied by an electric outlet, it is rediculous.

So what if the current test protocol returns a result of 230 mpg? I can double that just by jiggering the test protocol for shorter trips so the horse gets back to the barn for more oats before having to limp the last few furlongs. If the car is good for 40 mi on battery power, I can jack the fuel economy rating to infinity just by allowing test trips of 39.5 mi.

It's just soooo bogus!