Sunday, June 28, 2020

Electrify America is a big disappointment



Las time around, it took quite an effort to get our Chevy Bolt 2020 charged using an Electrify America EV charging station near Target in Sacramento (3601 N Freeway Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95834).  The charging station kept giving an error message (a 'network' error).  After talking to an Electrify America rep on the phone we moved the car to a different station and were able to get the charge.
Yesterday, none of their three charging stations at that location worked--even after calling Electrify American and the representative giving tips and resetting the station.
We gave up on Electrify America and headed to an EV Go charging station in the Walmart parking lot (755 Riverpoint Ct, West Sacramento, CA 95605), but ran into another Electrify America charging station before we reached the EV Go charger.  We decided to give Electrify America one more chance.  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  Very true!  That Electrify America charging station did not work either.  More time wasted.  Altogether we wasted over an hour at these Electrify America EV charging stations.
Finally reached the EV Go charging station and it worked.

Thursday, June 25, 2020

Chevy Bolt EV mileage--EV mileage vs gas mileage



Two days ago the screen in my 2020 Chevy Bolt told me I had driven 1080 miles and had used 282 kW-hr of electric charge.  I quickly did the math:

1080 miles / 282 kW-hr means
3.8 miles / kW-hr

But I wanted to know how many kW-hr were needed for a run of 30 miles.  I needed that number because most cars running on gas give you 30 miles per gallon.

The answer is 7.83 kW-hr.  Chevy Bolt will consume 7.83 kW-hr in running a distance of 30 miles.

At my home I am using the special PG&E EV tariff.  During off peak hours (i.e., from 12 midnight to 3 pm) my electricity rate is $0.17/kW-hr.

To charge my car 7.83 kW-hr, I pay PG&E 7.83 X 0.17= $1.33 [Of course, there are other charges and taxes besides the actual energy usage, but let's not make things too complicated at this time.]

Currently, gasoline is selling for $3/gallon, in northern California.  If Chevy Bolt numbers are correct, I am saving $1.67 in every 30 miles the car runs.


Sunday, May 17, 2020

Water boils at 100° C and other ridiculous statements found in science books

A long time ago human beings lived with belief systems—some still do.  And we were not allowed to question those beliefs.  Whatever was told, had to be believed in. Then came science.  Science was about asking questions, boldly, bravely, unscrupulously; the new way of thinking was about chronic disbelief of anything being told.  So, questions were asked and belief systems got upended. But the cavalier attitude, the boldness, the valor did not live for too long.  Gradually, science became the new belief system.  Today, there is a morbid gullibility among the scientists. If one team of scientists says one thing, all others blindly follow.  Asking questions is uncomfortable, it rocks the boat.  Just carry on. 

Science is the new religion now.  Back in the days of strong beliefs, when questions were asked, the clergy used to say, ‘You are questioning God?’  No, they were not questioning God; they were questioning you, Mr. Priest.
It is now the same way with science.  You ask questions and they say, ‘You are questioning science?’  No, Dear, we are questioning you; you are not ‘Science.’  You are a scientist, just like us.

The COVID-19 saga makes it very clear how science has become a belief system.  Say anything what the 'scientists' have discovered, and people will believe it without asking any questions.

Science should NOT be taught from the books. Beliefs are learned from the books.

When science is taught from the books you find such nonsense in the science textbooks: Water boils at 100° C.

The statement above could very well be cited as Genesis 1:20. 

Water boils at 100° C is a belief. The temperature AT WHICH water boils has been conveniently but completely arbitrarily marked as 100° C, is a scientific statement.

A more detailed scientific explanation should go like this:


For a long time people observed how things were warmer or colder but there was no way to describe how much was something warmer than the other thing.  Then came other observations about liquids boiling, metals becoming softer, and gases expanding when they were made ‘hotter.’  Swedish scientist Anders Celsius observed expansion of mercury when heat was added to a pot of water.  Celsius observed that mercury contained in a glass tube immersed in the pot of water being heated always reached a specific point when the water started boiling--the amount of water in the pot, the time of the day, the material of the pot, the weather conditions did not matter at all.  He further observed how the mercury level dropped as the water was cooled down, and that it reached a certain point when the water was frozen into ice.  The experiments made over several days showed the same levels of mercury in the glass tube, for water freezing and water boiling.  Celsius proposed to call this movement of mercury between the two levels as the ‘temperature scale’, a way to describe how warm was the water.  He proposed calling the mercury level corresponding to the ‘boiling point’ of water as zero, and calling the lower mercury level, when the water froze as one-hundred, and then dividing the distance between the two levels into one-hundred ‘degrees’ of temperature.  The temperature scale thus described was called the Celsius scale, but mathematically it did not make sense to associate ‘hotter’ things to be at a lower temperature scale reading than colder things, and especially when things were heated up beyond the ‘boiling point’ of water.  After Celsius died, the temperature scale devised by him was reversed: the freezing point of water became zero degrees Celsius, and the boiling point of water became one-hundred degrees Celsius.


Like other sciences, Medical science too is full of CTRL-V, CTRL-C crowd.  Very few people are into original research.  Rest of them quietly believe in the original researchers. 

So, the next time a health professional tries to explain to you everything about COVID-19, ask them if it is from their personal research; or if they have read it, have they verified the information; or if they have at least seen the Corona virus under a microscope.  If the answer is no, which is the case 99% of the time, tell them, “Thanks, Bozo.  I know how to read.”

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

A COVID-19 Game

A COVID-19 Game


Here is a super-simplified infectious disease game for your amusement.

The map
There are three towns: Town Alpha, Town Beta, and Town Gamma. Each town has three households and each household has three residents. There is an infectious disease out there and the three towns are trying to protect their citizens i.e., each town is trying to save the lives of its 9 denizens.

The disease
The disease has high infectivity and everybody outside the three homes in each town is already infected. Any citizen who will go out of their house and come in contact with an infected person will in turn get infected. The disease is slightly more lethal than regular flu and there is no drug to cure it. Initial data has suggested that people with a robust immune system can easily fight the disease; older people and sick people are at a higher risk--the risk increases with increasing age and increasing frailness or comorbidity. With good medical care, the acutely sick infected person can be cured in one day.

The demographics
Town Alpha and Town Beta have similar demographics. Each household has two elderly persons and one young person. Town Gamma has two young people and one elderly person in each household.

The healthcare system
Town Alpha and Town Beta both have one hospital each where only one acutely sick person can be looked after. Town Gamma has no hospitals.

The strategies
Town Alpha strategists come up with the idea of a lockdown to save their healthcare system from being overwhelmed. They calculate the probability of people leaving their homes and getting infected to be 33% each day, if a lockdown is enforced. The town announces a 3-day lockdown, with the calculation that each day three people will get infected, one young person and two vulnerable people; out of the two vulnerable persons one will get seriously sick and will need to be hospitalized. Since the hospital has one bed, it can easily take care of the acutely sick person. By the start of the second day, the person hospitalized the day earlier will be cured and will be sent home; the second day, three more people will go out and get infected, with one taken to the hospital, and so on. By the end of the third day--the last day of the lockdown--all nine citizens will have completed their exposure to the disease. Everybody will be saved! Hooray!

But the above was just one probable outcome--Scenario One, the best-case. There are other likely scenarios too. Here are a few:

Scenario Two: NO ONE listens to the lockdown instructions. Everybody goes out and everybody gets infected the first day, with three people being acutely sick. Since the hospital has only one bed, only one seriously ill patient is saved, the other two die.

Scenario Three: EVERYBODY takes the lockdown instructions very seriously and NOBODY goes out of their home for the three lockdown days. The hospital is empty for three days. Then the fourth day, at the end of the lockdown, everybody goes out at the same time; three people get acutely sick. Since the hospital has only one bed, only one seriously ill patient is saved, the other two die.

Scenario Four: The probability calculation of 33% per day exposure during a lockdown proves to be wrong. Instead, six people go out the first day (or the second day, or the third day). Two get seriously sick. Since the hospital has only one bed, only one seriously ill patient is saved, the other one dies.

There are other probable scenarios too, but for the sake of simplicity let’s ignore them. Let’s further assume that the social trends are strongly in favor of Scenario One--the other three scenarios weighing much less. And, in the end the weighted probability indicates that 1.6 lives can be saved with a lockdown (vs only ONE, with no lockdown).

So, Town Alpha opts for a 3-day general lockdown.

Town Beta strategists decide to not have a lockdown; they can see the harmful effects of that strategy. They believe the citizens can be quickly informed about the disease, and the probability of something going wrong per day (with no lockdown) is 33% i.e., three people will get infected through random human error, per day; only one person will get seriously ill and the one-bed hospital in town can take care of the acutely sick person. So, no lockdown for Town Beta.

By this time you know that Town Alpha is the US, Town Beta is Sweden, and Town Gamma is a developing country.

What is Town Gamma’s strategy? It does not have its own strategy. It believes in copying others. Since it has strong ties with Town A, it copies Town A’s strategy of a general lockdown, even when Town Gamma’s demographics are completely different than Town Alpha’s.

AND, which healthcare system is Town Gamma trying to save from being overwhelmed? It does not have one.

Monday, April 06, 2020

World's five most populous countries and their COVID-19 death toll


Look at their populations vs their COVID-19 death tolls.

China-1.4B—3,331 deaths
India-1.3B---136 deaths
USA—0.37B—10,764 deaths
Indonesia—0.26B—209 deaths
Brazil—0.21B—553 deaths

China’s death toll is understandable.  It started there and for almost a month nobody knew what was going on.
But why is the US death toll so high, especially when compared to India and Indonesia?

Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Why the Italian COVID-19 deaths are so high?


What happened in Italy is truly tragic but at the same time, in some cases, nothing short of a Charlie Chaplin comedy.  Watch this in your head.  Charlie develops signs of COVID-19: dry cough and shortness of breath.  He goes to the local hospital where he is promptly admitted.  He is attended by several doctors and other caregivers.  The same workers are also looking after other seriously ill patients in the hospital—these workers become a conduit of COVID-19 from Charlie to the other patients. Three days later, Charlie walks back home safe and sound while six hospital patients are already dead, and the staff is scrambling to put ventilators on others.