For the past few months, the US navy has been attacking drug-running boats from Venezuela. Videos show ships trying to run away with packages pushed overboard before the sailors are captured or killed. It’s claimed that the packages contained fentanyl, a deadly synthetic heroin. At the same time, there has been a dramatic drop in the rate of fentanyl deaths. Based on the graph above, it seems that some 1500 US lives were saved per month, from fentanyl death alone.
2023 from the Harlem Coalition. There are far more US drug overdose deaths than firearm or vehicle deaths/year.
Opioid overdose deaths have exceeded gun or vehicle deaths since 2005. But there has been a big uptick since the introduction of synthetic opioids, about 2014. Fentanyl is now the leading cause of overdose deaths, alone outpacing gun and vehicle deaths, see graph.
It’s not clear that the attacks on the boats is a primary reason for the drop in deaths, by the way. A lot of credit goes to seizures at the Mexico and Canada border, including the decrease in migrant passage. Some of those were “mules”, carrying drugs. Improved screening at the border seems to have help stop the mules. In 2025, the DEA seized over 47 million fentanyl-laced pills and nearly 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder, some made in the US, some brought in, cross-border.
An other positive change is increased screening of small packages, of value under $800. They previously entered the US, tariff free, at reduced postage rates. Chinese companies could send 2 oz packages to customers here for 70¢, cheaper than Americans could ship cross town. The DEA reports that most of the precursor chemicals enter the US in packages from China. More checking, and help from China, means fewer of these chemicals get in.
Before we compliment ourselves, our drug overdose numbers are still vastly too high, about 70,000 deaths in 2025, a vastly higher rate than in Europe or Japan, see chart below. The reason is, in my opinion, that we are over-diagnosed and over-medicated. We see ads for drugs of every sort on TV or in magazines telling us to ask for a pill for every sort of pain. They are all addictive. Doctors are happy to comply, and when the prescription stops, or stops being as effective as you’d like, you become a customer for heroin or fentanyl.
Addiction has become a middle-aged problem affecting mostly those 25 to 45. Part of addressing this should involve doctors, magazines, TV, and drug companies. Europe has stricter regulations, fewer prescriptions, no drug ads, and no automatic refills.
China is likely the largest economy in the world, 11% lager than the US calculated here based on food purchasing parity They also have a larger army and navy, 754 ships vs 440, with military ambitions for Taiwan and new, man-made islands in the China sea. They continue to add aircraft carriers and submarines (we’re still ahead there), but China fuels all this with oil. They use some 17 million barrels per day: 11.3 million imported by ship, and put another million bb//day per into reserve in case there is a shutoff.
A problem for China is that their internal production, 4.5million bbl/day, is far below their consumption, a big vulnerability. One of their main suppliers, Venezuela, just went off line, sending 800,000 bbl/day of oil to the US that would have gone to China. Two other of their major, sanctioned suppliers, Iran and Russia have had delivery issues too; a disruption in oil could cause a revolt in China. Perhaps this fear will drive China to war with us, similar to the way that a cut off in oil caused Japan went to go to war with us in WWII, see table below. Japan had the choice of war or shutting down their economy and ambitions. Perhaps China may choose the same if Iran and/or Russia goes off-line. That was my worry, I’m no longer that concerned.
This shows how dependent Japan was on foreign oil, before and during WWII. The cut off of imports sues them to attack Pearl Harbor, source = Sarah Paine, military historian
Currently, China buys most of its imported oil from four countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq; two of these are under sanction. China used to get another 0.8 million barrels per day from Venezuela, another country under sanction, but that route was closed by Trump last week. Buying from sanctioned countries saves them significantly, and supports the BRICS alliance, an alliance specifically against the US (NAFTA?) and the EU. The money they pay to Russia and Iran supports the war against Ukraine, plus ISIS’, war against us, and the mullahs oppression in Iran.
Oil production worldwide, 2024. How much China buys from each varies month to month.
China was buying, from Russia, some 2.2 million barrels of oil and refined products, plus natural gas and coal (China is a big coal user). The rest of Russia’s output goes to India, Turkey, and the EU. The EU buys more than half of eastern Russia’s natural gas output, shamefully it has likely kept Germany from collapsing. The problem for China is that Russian production is under attack from Ukraine. Ukraine sank or disabled several Russian tankers, and we took some more; they’ve blown up pumping stations, including three on the Caspian Sea, set fire, to a large liquid natural gas terminal and damaged the major off-load platform for Kazakh oil. According to the Foundation for Democracy report, here, by October 2025, China was down to getting only 800,000 bbl/day from Russia, a major blow, and Ukraine’s attacks continue.
Some dark fleet ships captured by the US navy off of Venezuela, on their way to China with sanctioned oil.
Iran is another major supplier under attack. Up until recently they provided nearly 2 million barrels of oil per day, 90% of Iran’s seaborne export. Much of that went indirectly, going to Indonesia, turkey, Iraq, and Kuwait where it was relabeled, blended or refined to avoid sanction penalties. Everyone makes a profit here, but Iran is in the midst of a revolution. Last week, Trump imposed an across-the board 25% additional tariff on counties that help Iran avoid the sanctions. My guess is that this tariff will be effective and that it will last until the revolution is over. His tariffs have been effective and profitable, it seems.
China has non-sanctioned suppliers. They buy some 1.6 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, about 1.2 million bbl/day, from Iraq, about 1.3 million bbl per day from Malaysia, about 700,000/ day from Brazil, and about 900,000/day from the USA. In principle, they could make up any losses by buying more here, but the price would be higher. Worse yet, Trump could cut China off. That would be devastating; it’s the reason China built up a reserve of 2.2 billion barrels amounting to 6 months of current use. Japan did something similar in 1941, building up a year’s worth. They then used all of it in the first year of the war, while conquering Indonesia, a new supplier. For all I know, Trump’s activities in Venezuela and Iran are meant to force a war decision on China before they are strong enough to defeat us. It seems to have been FDR’s logic.
China’s main way to address a possible oil disruption, as best I can tell, has been to push EVs development. They’ve financed some 500 new EV companies who now (late 2025) provide about 50% of new Chinese automobiles. Another 19% are hybrids. In the US, only 8% of new cars are EVs, and 16% hybrids. Large-scale use of EVs lessens the pressure on Chinese leaders to find oil sources, some 40% of oil imports can be assumed to go to fuel automobiles; if China were to go 80% EV, it would save 5.5 million barrels/day, more than it gets from Russia and Iran combined. For now, though, China has a big need for gasoline, and has a big excess in EV manufacturing. It has turned to Canada both as a customer for EVs and as a supplier for oil.
Last week, Canadian PM, Mark Carney visited China and announced a “Strategic Partnership” on Agriculture, energy, finance, and Global governance.” There’s no specific mention of oil, but it’s implied. China gets most favored nation status sending goods, including EVs to Canada at rates lower than on US goods. China will export some 50,000 EVs in 2026, rising to 70,000 by 2030 with tariffs set to 6.1%. US-made cars are tariffed at 25%. Canadians will get visa-free, tourist visits), plus a loan of $1B to be used buying Chinese ships. In Davos last week, “We are in the midst of a Rupture” away from the US. He urged the EU and other “middle powers” to band together. He talks like China is a good, reliable friend to Canada, and like the US isn’t. I would worry more about his comments and the “global governance” phrase, if the EU seemed to be going along, but it is not. Nor do I see a real move in China for war. I see positive effects of increased EV sales for China, Canada, and the world. Even if the quality isn’t great, Go Canada, go peace.
Robert Buxbaum, January 25, 2026. *The plan to attack Pearl Harbor was made in December 1940, a year before it happened and 9 months before we cut off oil shipments. We cut off oil shipments in September, following Japan’s invasion of Indonesia, done to take the oil there. While oil was not Japan’s only aim in WWII, it was an aim and a big participant at every step.
Economic experts claimed the tariffs would raise no signifiant money, would bring in no jobs, and would be so inflationary that the damage would far exceed any benefit. President Trump instituted them anyway, claiming they would benefit workers, raising wages, returning manufacturing to the US, and serving as a tool of diplomacy. Based on data so far, it appears the experts were completely wrong, and that Trump was right on all counts.
As an average, for the last nine months, our tariff rate has been about 17%, as shown in the chart above, bringing in about $30 billion per month. That tariff rate is as high as it’s been since the 1940s, but far lower than it was in the early 20th century. Chinese products are taxed more, at 47.5% on average, while goods from Mexico and Canada are taxed less, about 5%. High or low the tariffs generate complaints all around. Strangely, those complaining, in the US and out, see nothing amiss with the tariffs that our trading partners have placed on US products. The money from these tariffs came in handy, for example during the recent government shutdown, when we could not borrow money. This tariff money allowed us to pay the military and has helped reduce the annual deficit.
Despite the dire inflation prediction, there has been no noticeable uptick. Inflation has held constant for the last year, at about 2.7%. This is the same as during the last months under Biden, see chart, and is far lower than the 4-8% we saw for most of the Biden term. Basic commodities, in particular, remain cheap, with the price of gasoline and beer lower than in 2024, and luxury imports somewhat more expensive. Lower and middle income Americans don’t seem to mind since most of us don’t buy these goods. This year of inflation data supports Milton Friedman’s claim that taxes are inflation neutral, and that the cause of inflation is government overspending, as he says here. Liberal experts disagree, but the data says otherwise. I suspect the experts are blinded by overly simple theory, of Keynes, that they refuse to abandon. Alternately, they may be willfully lying to promote the agenda of university heads and all others who fund them. I noticed this pattern with global warming experts too. They don’t change their models and dire predictions though it’s way past 2014, and the arctic isn’t ice free.
There has been some job growth, but less than hoped for. There was a decrease in the tech sector and in government employment, but an uptick in services and healthcare. Unemployment has changed little, remaining at 4.4%. Several foreign businesses have moved manufacturing to the US. These include BASF, Volkswagen, LG, and Hanwha to name a few. Hanwha just completed its purchase of the Philadelphia shipyard, and committed $5B to its modernization. I consider this very important. It provides jobs, but beyond this, improved shipbuilding will help us commercially and militarily.
The reason that employment has not gone up as much as hoped seems to be that we’re still buying the same amount from abroad as before, containerized are the same as in the pre-COVID years, see chart below. There’s been some switching of sources, with more coming from Mexico, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and less from Canada and India. Import volumes from China have hardly changed though, since last year, nor have the prices that Americans pay risen. This suggests that China is “eating the tariffs”. I suspect they’ve undervalued their currency to make this happen. We’re selling a little more too, causing the trade imbalance to narrow, but the sales increase are largely precious metals (gold) to China, about 1000 tons in 2025. I’m not sure what China achieves by this; they’ve raised the price of gold to $4,675/oz currently, about double in 1.5 years, and kept the price of Chinese currency low. Perhaps that’s the intent — to keep their currency devalued relative to the dollar. Maybe they have some other idea, like to switch to a gold-backed currency? Who knows? Their purchases increase the value of our gold in Ft. Knox.
Trump’s other justification for the tariffs was as a tool of diplomacy. Trump is using tariffs somewhat this way, as a non-military stick to encourage friendly nations to do what he wants. He got Mexico to stop immigrants and drugs, encouraged the same from Canada and Columbia. He got the EU to spend more in their defense, and got them deal a little less with Russia. They’re still the biggest buyer of Russian natural gas. He also used tariffs to nudge for peace in the Middle East, and between Cambodia and Thailand. Recently, he’s using them to support the Iranian rebels by threatening countries that buy from Iran, or that help the mullahs launder their money and oil. All in all, the tariffs seem to be working for us. The experts are not impressed.
Among the products our company sells is a non-toxic chelating agent, EDDS (ethylenediamine-disuccinic acid), typically sold as a purified salt in ammonia solution, see here. The main use of EDDS is to stabilize heavy metal ions in solution. We use it, for example, as an aide in electroless Palladium coating, to stabilize palladium ions, helping us produce a smaller grain, more continuous coat. The structure, shown below, is similar to that of EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), and the behavior is similar too. EDDS is more stabilizing in the presence of the other ions and we like that it is non-toxic.
Structure of EDDS, it binds metals by way of four OH groups. While each binding is weak, the total is strong.
The popular literature use for chelating agents like this is as a treatment for heavy metal poisoning by lead, arsenic, cadmium, nickel or copper. The TV series “House” featured patients with all these metal-poisoning problems, problems. Chelation treatment was important in Flint Michigan, 2015 when thousands got low-level lead poisoning and legionaries disease after the water department put insufficient phosphate and hypochlorite into the water and lead leached from pipes. Typically, EDTA is used for humans here, while EDDS is used by farmers and ranchers to treat animals. EDDS is less toxic, and removes fewer essential light minerals: magnesium, calcium, and zinc, so I’d think it would be better for humans too.
Effect of 300ppm SX-E in DI water, compared to standard DI water and acid wash. The biggest difference is with copper.
Our EDDS has been used to make cleaning solutions for silicon wafers, Sunsonix SXE, for example. Sunsonix SXE behaves as a soap, removing Fe, Cr, Ni, and Cu from solar cells, see reproduced figures at right. These metals will diffuse into surface of a silicon wafer, forming defects that absorb light and decrease solar cell performance by an average of 0.28%, see below.
Solar cell efficiency improvement with EDDS washing from a baseline of 16%. Occasionally 1.65% improvement was seen, but 0.28% on average
This is, based on a baseline efficiency of 16%. For more details see “Surface Contamination Removal from Si PV Substrates Using a Biodegradable Chelating Agent and Detection of Cleaning Endpoints Using UV/VIS Spectroscopy” ECS Transactions, 41 (5) 295-302 (2011). See also this article in Wikipedia.
This is the normal treatment regime for solar cells
At a different pH, EDDS and EDTH are used in remediation of metal-contaminated soils, see here. This can be done ex-situ, with the soil taken out to an external site and then washed. Alternately, for less contaminated soils, remediation can be done in-situ with the chelating wash applied to the soil. Plants, like vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides) then extract the heavy metals, concentrating them in their leaves. EDDS is more suitable for this as it is biodegradable and shows a high extraction efficiency in mineral rich soils, see here for comparison to EDTA.
Moving to another area of extraction. It seems that EDDS or EDTA solutions can be used to profitably extract rare earth metals, perhaps sending them to plants before final concentration. A standard methods of rare earth extraction uses chlorine and high temperatures. Alternate methods use ion-exchange extraction of liquid-liquid extraction. I suspect that chelation treatment might turn out to be more effective and cheaper. The price of rare earths has risen in recent years as China restricts sales so that the need for a new source has become a national priority.
Donald Trump has announced his intent to build at least two battleships, the first built for our navy since the USS Missouri, 1944. The press has been largely negative on this, claiming that these ships are obsolete already, and will be more-so when they are completed — assuming they are completed. My sense is these are useful, overdue really, and I’d like to explain why.
The George Washington Carrier with nine surface support ships.
The centerpiece of America’s military power lies in our aircraft carrier groups, currently. We have 11 carriers in service: two modern, Ford class, and nine older, Nimitz class. Each of these weighs 100,000 tons, is 1100 feet long, and carries some 6000 men and women, 3200 navy crew, another 2500 in the air wing, and perhaps 300 support staff of doctors, nurses, and marines. Because they are vulnerable, each carrier travels in a group with six to ten other ships carrying an additional 3000 people, see photo. Without the support ships a carrier is deemed to be too vulnerable for use. Even with the support ships, Swedish and French submarines successfully “sank” U.S. carriers during exercises in 2005 and 2015.
The support ships are typically slower than the carrier and difficult to maintain. Many are old with relatively short range. Our carriers can go around the world, 30000 miles, traveling at 30+ knots, but the main support ships, Arleigh Burke destroyers, 9000 tons, 350 crew, have a range of only 4,400 nmi at a slower, 20 knots. They require regular refuelings for any major mission, like patrolling the Caribbean. Still, they’re “cheap,” about $2.5B each, capable, and work relatively well. We have some 75 in service, built since 1991, with more on order.
We also have nuclear missile submarines, but these are blunt instruments of policy, not suited to most navy missions, like keeping open shipping lanes in the Red Sea or stopping ISIS, or for blockading Venezuela. The mostly hold weapons of last resort.
The navy has recognized the need for a larger support ship for better carrier protection and more flexible roles, a cruiser likely, with good range and weapons, and with enough speed to keep up with a carrier crossing the Pacific. We’ve built many cruisers over the years, but these are old. Our latest are the Ticonderoga class guided-missile cruisers built from 1980 onward. They have good speed, 32.5kn, and good range, 6000nm, but are well past their retirement date, and break down a lot. Only 7 are still in service.
The USS Zumwalt at sea. Trump said it was “Ugly as F.”
The supposed replacement, was a cruiser-size, stealth ship, the Zumwalt destroyer, 17,000 tons and 600 feet long. It is reasonably fast, 33.5kn, and carries a small crew, <100. We’ve managed to build three of these since 2008, but have cancelled the project due to operational problems and costs that rose to $8B per ship. Zumwalts have inward-sloped sides that deflect radar, but they become unstable in turns. Its main weapons are expensive, too: Aegis missiles and CPS hypersonics costing $28-$50 million each. That’s uneconomical compared to French Aster missiles, Mach 3, 80 mile range, $1.1 million. Originally, Zumwalt destroyers carried a rail gun, but it required so much power that you could not move the ship and fire at the same time. The rail guns were eventually replaced by conventional 5″ cannon with a 24 mile range. The three Zumwalts we have are hardly used today, and no more are on order. Something cheaper was needed at least for support, and that was supposed to be the Constellation Frigate, approved by Trump in 2017.
A frigate is smaller than a cruiser, in this case about half the weight. The Constellation was a proven Italian design, 492 feet long and only 7,291 tons. It had good speed, 26 kn, good range, 6000 nm at 16kn, and cost only $950 million, at least when built in Europe. The contract was awarded to Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM) of Marinette Wisconsin, the US division of the Italian company. What could go wrong? The problem was that the navy kept adding capabilities and weight. As of November 2025, eight years on, the weight had increased by 700 tons, the cost to $9 B for two, and no design has been finalized. The first Constellation frigate is only 12% built! Trump has not quite cancelled the program, but has reduced the order to two from the original eight.
Trump-class battleship, as envisioned, with a rail-gun, lasers and two, conventional 5″ cannon.
And that brings us to the current, Trump class battleship, shown above. It’s long, 840-880 feet, and heavy, 39,000 tons, or 2.5 times the weight of the cruiser-sized, Zumwalt. As was intended for the Zumwalt, the offensive weapons are missiles and a rail gun, 32 MJ, but now there is enough power run the ship and fire the weapon. Japanese versions of the rail gun have launched cheap shells at hypersonic speeds, ~5000 mph (hypersonic) at a distance of over 100 miles and a fire-rate of ~one per second. The shells cost only $85,000 each, a bargain compared to hypersonic missiles.
For defense, these battleships are to carry two, 300kW, Helios lasers, similar to Israel’s “Iron beam,” but 3 times as powerful. They are augmented by smaller lasers, by four, 30 mm chain guns (Gatling guns), and two, 5″ conventional navy guns of 24 mile range. Engines are estimated to be two gas turbines, perhaps 50MW each of for acceleration and to power the weapons, plus ~100 MW in diesel power for cruising at good speed and mpg. I thus estimate a total of ~200 MW, about as much as on a carrier. There is plentiful space for missiles and fuel, so it should provide some resupply of support ships. The crew size is bigger than on the Ticonderoga, 600 to 800, but far less than on a carrier, and the look is impressive. A Trump goal is that it should be an attractive, command ship. Still, there are objections.
A main complaint is vulnerability as discussed here, the claim is these ships are “bomb magnets,” not stealthy, nor as heavily armored as the Iowas. Detractors claim that lasers and chain guns are insufficient for defense from drone swarm attacks. They note that the Bismarck, Yamamoto, and Arizona have been sunk, typically by air attack. What the detractors don’t mention is that it took a lot of bombs and torpedos to sink these battleships nor that these battleships will travel with support ships, while the Bismarck travelled alone.
Detractors also question the rail gun. Can it shoot down an airplane? can it sink a ship? The tests I’ve seen suggest that the rail gun can take out an airplane, but that it can not sink a ship, at least not with one shot. That still needs a missile, but the battleship does have missiles. The gun seems appropriate for shore bombardment too, even against hardened targets, and for dissuading actions by a Chinese navy that is already bigger than ours. As for the defense against drones, the battleship is to have high-powered lasers that have been shown to stop drones and cruise missiles at a cost of only ~$10 per shot. That’s nothing compared to a harpoon missile ($1.4 million each) or Aegis ($28 million). These are great weapons, and I don’t see a smaller ship being able to power them. Also it’s nice to have extra room for expansion — like adding a nuclear reactor.
The time-line is what worries me most. These will take ten years at least. Until then, we will have to rely on our short-range Arleigh Burkes that did not have the firepower to bombard the Houthis effectively on land, nor effectively defend US shipping in the Red Sea. Those ships had to use million-dollar missiles to shoot down $20,000 drones. I expect us to really need the battleships, even if it takes us ten years to get one.
Robert Buxbaum, January 5, 2026. As a totally side issue: some claim this isn’t a battleship. It carries only one gun, admittedly a powerful gun. I half agree, you need at least two big guns to be a battleship, IMHO.
The Economist has run this burger-metric of currency valuation for 40 years or so. I find it instructive.
One can buy a new electric car in China for US $20,000, roughly half of what it would cost in the US. Similarly, a good phone is cheaper in China, or clothes, or a Big Mac. A McDonald’s Big Mac in China costs, effectively $3.55, 59% of what it costs in the US, slightly less than 3/5 the US price. The Chinese explanation is that China is nearly twice as efficient as the US at most every type of manufacturing. I don’t believe this explanation, though there is some truth to it: Their electricity is cheaper, in part because they burn mostly coal for electric power. Meanwhile we have shut-down our coal plants, and have hardly built nuclear since the 1970s.
Another source of efficiency is that China arranges its manufacturing into dedicated cities for different products, one city for toys, another for luggage, others for cars, planes, hair driers… This helps efficiency but I’m not sure how much, and I don’t see these advantages applying to McDonald’s. There is no way I believe their workers are 5/3 as efficient as US workers when it comes to making burgers. It’s not like they ship the burgers from a central factory, and they buy gain and meat from us. My sense, then, is that it’s not efficiency that keeps prices low, but that the Chinese currency, the yuan is undervalued.
It’s hard to estimate how much their currency is undervalued, but I will use the burger-metric, above and say the yuan selling for about 3/5 its true value, and that this explains most of why Chinese shoes, cars, and clothes are so cheap. The rest of the price difference is efficiency, I’d guess. China isn’t the only country with an under-valued currency; Japan’s currency seems even more undervalued. Similarly India, Taiwan… The China is a bigger economy, though, and correcting the Chinese GDP by 5/3, I find their economy is yet bigger, about 111% as big as ours. By a similar correction, European economies appear smaller than they are given credit for.
Chinese electricity is cheap, in part because they burn coal. Also, their currency is undervalued; ditto for India, Indonesia, Turkey.
China’s undervalued currency helps propel its growth, I think, and provides us with cheap goods, but our industry suffers. Also troubling, China will likely surpass us militarily in 3-5 years. One way of slowing this is through tariffs. Trump’s tariff formula, as I understand it, was designed to preserve some China trade, allowing US consumers to benefit, but also taxing the exchange. I think this is a good idea.
Another proposal is to lower the US interest rates. Currently our prime interest rate is 6.5% while China’s is 3%. This provides an incentive for the Chinese industry to invest in the US, maintaining its undervalued currency. The benefit isn’t quite as large as it might seem since we have a 2.7% inflation rate and China has a 0.7% inflation rate. Correcting for this, our bonds return an effective 3.8% and Chinese bonds return 2.3%. The difference is about 3/5 similar to the mismatch in our currencies. Trump has been pushing the Federal Reserve to lower our interest rates, and The Fed has grudgingly agreed, slowly. A lower interest rate would also spike US industry and inflation, and help reduce the government deficit. Trump has also proposed new ships for the navy. Too little, too late, I think. Things should get dicy in the next decade between the US and China.
Robert Buxbaum, December 30, 2025. I started this post not knowing where it would lead. As I research and write, I learn. Perhaps you will too,
Generally, when you make hydrogen, you make wet hydrogen, hydrogen contaminated with water. Usually you want to dry the hydrogen before you use it or compress it. if you compress the hydrogen for transport or storage without drying it, the water will condense and perhaps freeze, clogging valves and fittings.
Water contamination of hydrogen is also a problem for brazing. Hydrogen is a good, cover gas for brazing because of its high heat transfer properties and its reducing chemistry. When the hydrogen is contaminated with water vapor it is unstable for use with stainless steel and similar metals as it will cause oxidation of the surface, resulting in a grey-green surface, and preventing good brazing. Some other contaminates can be problems, e.g. CO2 but water is the main problem in brazing environments.
One more example where drying hydrogen is important, is for its use in high altitude balloons. At high altitudes, water can condense, changing the lift characteristics, and perhaps freezing and puncturing the balloon. For all these applications, I suggest use of a silicone polymeric membrane operated as dryers, using a counter current flow as shown below. We sell these at REB Research, see here. These membranes also remove CO2, silanes, and H2S.
The dryer shown in the figure above has two extraction modules in series. for small flows, one module will suffice. As shown, wet hydrogen enters at left, typically at a slightly elevated pressure, 2-4 atm. The bleed stream must be at lower pressure. One atm will work for the bleed stream, but for efficient removal of the water and CO2, you will want mild vacuum, perhaps 1/3 atm. A small amount of dry hydrogen should be directed into the sweep stream as shown for efficient impurity removal. The amount directed to the bleed flow is large determined by the ratio of pressures and by the selectivity of the membrane. At a pressure ratio of ten, for example, you can show that you need at least a leaving bleed flow of 10% of the H2 to remove all the water in the hydrogen, leaving it perfectly dry. In practice, you’ll want a larger exit bleed flow, perhaps 15%, suggesting that you want a recycle stream of ~5% of the dry hydrogen. This will be joined by 10% more hydrogen that comes through the membrane modules. The membranes are 30x more selective to water than to hydrogen.
A silicone module of 0.1m2
Our silicone membranes remove CO2 too, but not with as high a selectivity. For mobile use, you might want to power the vacuum pump by a fuel cell that runs on the waste, wet hydrogen of the bleed stream.
For many applications you need to remove all the impurities, including all the nitrogen and CO2. This is true for diamond making, semiconductors, and nuclear fusion. For this, you want a metallic membrane, e.g. palladium-silver. We sell hydrogen purifiers based on palladium-silver membranes for these applications. Palladium-silver membranes remove all impurities, see why here. You still need a bleed flow, but it can be much lower than the pressure ratio because, with metallic membranes, the hydrogen goes through the membrane, and the impurities stay behind. Of course, palladium costs more than plastics. See our products at www.rebresearch.com.
For better or worse, the folks who run for library board and school board are a bizarre lot of political weirdos. It takes a lot of work and time and money to run for these boards, and you have to endure endless insults. For what? If you win, there’s no pay, and you get to sit through long, boring meetings. Because of this, almost everyone, who choses to run for these positions is a weirdo with a bering desire to either ban some book or idea, or to promote them. The rest are little better: developers who want to expand buildings and grounds. I don’t think this problem is unique to the US, or new. That’s just the way it is, and has always been. Noah Webster complained about this in the early 1800s. The net result is large schools – larger than they have to be – and many banned books, plus a preponderance of really perverted books.
In terms of teaching, I find myself on the side of classic books that are fairly non-sexual. That’s because I read them. Many people find them dull. I suspect that the students would prefer more modern and racier fare, or no books at all, but what do I know. In terms of library purchase, I like variety, but virtually no library works that way, either the board are a band of perverts pushing weird sex on under-age kids, or they are blue-noses who want to keep Shakespeare from the shelves. I also claim to prefer a diversity of opinions both in the classroom and in the library, but I suspect that, I’m likely to favor my own opinions over others. Below is the selection of banned books that the “don’t censor” organization wants on all shelves, all gay or transgender, as best I can tell. .
These books are banned in some counties K-12 public schools all are gay or transgender. While I’m not a fan of banning, I’m doubt these are the books to push. Pecksniffs on every side.
Sometimes very good books get banned, for no reason, or modified. This was done with Bowdlerized Shakespeare, for example. Once banned, it’s a lot harder to un-ban a book than it is to ban it. You’d have to get an unbanning committee together, almost impossible, and get them to read all the books. They’d have to make a coherent argument for their merits, and then have some vote. It would help to have balanced boards, but I fear that’s not likely/ possible. If nothing else, I’d like a time limit to banning: any banned book stays banned for only 12 years, or so.
I ran for school-board one year, by the way, and lost. I campaigned on math and science education, and less money for ever larger buildings and grounds. Against AI teaching of math and reading, claiming that math education suffers,. I also like cursive handwriting, something I consider an art form. I lost. You can find my Ballotopedia page if you’re interested.
Two tax questions: (1) How do the top rich people manage to pay such low taxes, e.g. Warren Buffett paying at 0.1%. and (2) why do these rich folks campaign for higher taxes. Warren Buffett has campaigned for higher taxes for 50 years. These questions seem perhaps related.
I got my tax data from a public tax advocacy group, ProPublica. In 2021 they received the tax filings for many important people including the 25 US richest from the years 2014 to 2018. They find that these individuals paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income tax while their wealth rose a collective $401 billion, go here for more. Dividing the numbers, we see an average income tax rate of only 3.4%, with Warren Buffett paying the least, 0.1%. This is far less than the “half of the rate that my secretary pays,” that Buffett likes to claim.
The reason these people pay so little tax is that their taxable income is zero. They use a very wide variety techniques to do this. Among these are charitable foundations, including those that lobby for higher taxes and against climate change. The foundations buy private planes and send the founders (and their families) to climate change events in the South of France or Davos, Switzerland. “Pro-tax” foundations hire tax accountants to research ways that the rich avoid taxes, often the founders then use these methods while speaking out against others who do the same. Bezos was so successful at avoiding income that he got welfare payments in two of the five years, ProPublica found. Soros and his son got $2,400 in COVID payments. They had almost no income. The one tax all these folks hate is tariffs because it is almost impossible to buy new, expensive things from abroad while avoiding them. See my essay, “Tariffs are inflationary, but not on you.”
Another advantage of a charitable foundation is that 74% of your donation can offset capital gains. You have to itemize your donations, but If you give $1 million to your foundation, you can use it to offset $740,000 of stock appreciation earnings. Not a bad deal. You can also use any stock losses against gains. Thus, it’s a good idea, if you itemize, to sell some losing stocks when you sell gainers (while holding on to other gainers, of course.) All of this is only available to those who itemize, and it’s only the rich who benefit by itemizing.
Borrowing money against your assets is another popular tax avoidance scheme, one that ordinary folks could use (but don’t over-do it*). The scheme is often called “Borrow, Buy, Die.” You borrow a large sum against your assets (your home, your stocks, or options –Musk has lots of Tesla options, etc). You then use the borrowed money to purchase property, typically: a vacation home, rental properties, a hotel, or a car. If you structure the purchase right, the interest can be deducted from any other earnings you have including rents. You then have no taxable income, or a lower income while the property appreciates. You can often structure the purchase so that depreciation can be deducted against income as well. Meanwhile, you get to drive the car, live at the vacation home, or rent it as an Air B&B, or stay at the hotel for free.
You live this way until you die. When you die, your heirs get the asset, but they are not taxed on the appreciation. The asset is transferred at its value at the time of death. You’ve avoided paying all the income tax you’d have to pay if you were to sell before death. Most home-owners do this on a small scale: They borrow to buy their home or the building where their business is. Or borrow to buy a vacation home or income property. They use through their life-time, deducting the interest, then leave it to their kids. There is no inheritance tax on most homes or small businesses, and the asset appreciates year to year. Both Nixon and Obama proposed eliminating this loophole by taxing appreciation at death. This would be a lot fairer than the current inheritance tax that is full of loopholes, and unfair when it works. If your parent bought a $10,000,000 item with taxable income, and it remains at that value, why should it be taxed a second time at death?
For a small businessman like me, it made sense to borrow to buy the building that my business operates out of and pay myself a normal rent. It’s income, as real as salary, but taxed at a lower rate, Besides there is no payroll tax on rental income. Another advantage of renting to myself is I can be trusted to fix the building and pay the rent, and I will not throw myself out if there is a downturn, nor will I raise the rents exorbitantly. My car is owned by my business, another plus. I pay a fee for personal use, but this is cheaper than using my own taxed income. When I die, the building (and car) will go to my heirs, tax free.
One last change I’d like to see is in the payroll tax. I’d like to see it tax the entire taxable income, but at a lower percent than the current 15.2 or 7.6. Currently the first $150,000 of income is payroll taxed at 15.2% for a self-employed individual, a plumber or office cleane, even before he/she pays income tax. An office worker is taxes at half this rate, 7.6% before income tax, with the company making up the other 7.6%. A CEO making $10 million pays this rate too, but only on the first $150,000. This amounts to $11,400 in payroll tax, or less than 0.11% of salary. I consider this disparity a bigger scandal than the fact that the richest 25 Americans paid only 3.4% in income tax.
Robert Buxbaum, November 25, 2025. *Trump presents a cautionary tale about property investing; if you invest at the wrong time, you can lose your shirt. In the late 80s, the property market in NY collapsed briefly, and he really was less than penniless. Don’t over-extend. The property market doesn’t collapse often, but you don’t want to be wiped out if it does.
Innovation is the special sauce that propels growth and allows a country to lead and prosper. The current Nobel prize believe that innovation powered the Industrial Revolution, causing England to become rich and powerful, while other nations remained poor, weak, and stagnant. Similarly, Innovation, they believe is why 19th century Japan rose to defeat China, and propelled China’s 21st century rise. But why did they succeed when others did not. What could the leader of a country do to bring power and wealth through innovation. Improved education seems to help; all of the innovation countries have it, but it is not the whole. Some educated countries (Germany, Russia) stagnate. An open economy is nice, but it isn’t sufficient or that necessary: (look at China). That was the topic of this year’s, 2025 Nobel prize in economics to Mokyr, Howitt, and Aghion, with half going to Joel Mokyr for his insights, historical and forward looking, the other half going for economic modeling. I give below my understanding of their insights, more technical than most, but not so mathematical as to be obtuse the normal reader..
The winners hold that innovation, as during the industrial revolution, is a non-continuous contribultion caused by a particular combination of education and market opportunity, of theoretical knowledge, and practical, and that a key aspect is depreciation (destruction) of other suppliers. Let’s start by creating a simple, continuous function model for economic growth where growth = capital growth, that is dK/dt. K, Capital, is understood to be the sum of money, equipment, and labor knowledge, and t is time with dK/dt, the change in K with time modeled as equal to the savings rate, s, times economic activity, Y minus a depreciation factor, δ, times capital, K.
growth = dK/dt = sY − δ K.
Innovation, in the Howett model, is discontinuous and accumulative. It builds on itself.
For the authors, Y = GDP + x, where x is the cost of outside goods used. They then claim that Y is a non-linear function of K, where K is now considered a product of capital goods and labor K = xL and,
dY/dK = AKα + γ where 0< α <1, and where γ is the contribution of innovation and/or depreciation. The power function, as I understand it, is a mathematical way of saying there are economies of scale. The authors assume a set of interacting enterprises (countries0 so that the innovation factor, γ for one country is the depreciation factor for the other. That is, growth and destruction are connected, with growth being a function of monopoly power — control of your innovation.
According to the Nobel winners, γ is built n previous γ as shown in the digram at right. It can not be predicted as such, but requires education and monopolistic power. The inventor-manufacturer of the typewriter has a monopolistic advantage over the makers of fountain pens. Innovation thus causes depreciation, δ K as one new innovation depreciates many old processes and products. If you add enough math, you can derive formulas for GDP and GDP growth, all based on factors like A and α, that are hard to measure.
GDP = α(2α/1−α) (1-α2)A L,
Thus, GDP is proportional to Labor, L and per-capita GDP is mostly an independent function related to economies of scale and the ability to use capital and labor which is related to general country-wide culture.
The above analysis, as I understand it, is in contrast to Kensyan models, where growth is unrelated to innovation, and where destruction is bad. In these Kenysean models, growth can be created by government spending, especial spending to maintain large industries with economies of scale and by spending to promote higher education. The culture preferred here, as I understand is one that rewards risk-taking, monopoly economics, and creative destruction. Howitt, and Aghion, importantly codify all this with formulas, as presented above that (to me) provide little specific. No great guidance to the head of a country. Nor does the math make the models more true, but it makes the statements somewhat clearer. Or perhaps the only real value of the math is to make things sound more scientific see the Tom Lehrer song, Sociology.
This insight from movie script by Grham Green suggests to me that progress may not be the greatest of advantages, perhaps not even worth it.
This work seems more realistic, to me, than the Keynesian models Both models are mathematically consistent, but if Keynes’s were true, Britain might still be on top, and Zambia would be a close competitor among the richest countries on earth. Besides these new fellows seem to agree with the views of Peter Cooper, my hero. See more here.
Writing all this reminds me that the fundamental assumption that progress is good, in not necessarily true. I quote above a line that Orson Wells, as Harry Lime, ad-libbed for the movie, “The Third Man.” Lime points out that innovation goes with suffering, and claims that Switzerland had little innovation because of its stability. Perhaps then, what you really want is the stability and peace of Switzerland, along with the lack of domination and innovation. On the same note, I’ve noticed that engineering innovators often ruin themselves dining in ruin, while the peaceable, stable civil engineers live long pleasant lives of honor.
Robert Buxbaum, November 16, 2025. A note about Switzerland is that was peaceful and stable because of a strong military. As Publius Vegetius wrote, Si vis pachim para bellum (if you wish of peace, prepare for war).
