Another week survived means another week’s worth of science news goodies for you lucky, lucky people!

First up : using the body of the car as a capacitor in order to increase the range of hybrid or electric cars.

First, a nit to pick in the article.

The capacitor car parts do not add much energy…

Ellipsis mine. And of course the capacitor car parts don’t add much energy, Popular Science, because a capacitor only stores energy, it doesn’t generate it.

They don’t add energy to the car’s system any more than your kitchen sink adds water to the water system.

(Yes, I know what they meant. I guess I am just feeling persnickety. )

Anyhow, that mental itch scratched, I quite like this idea. Obviously, while it doesn’t specifically mention this in the article, these would be insulated capacitors, so there would be no chance of you getting a serious zap from your car door or hood.

What I like most about the idea, besides the immediate prospect of making electricity using vehicles more efficient by getting around the battery weight-to-power paradox, and hence making them more affordable and practical, is that it shows that people are thinking outside of the internal combustion box and realizing that working with electricity gives you an enormous advantage over working with chemically generated mechanical motion via internal combustion.

There is a whole complicated part of the traditional automobile called the “transmission” because its job is to transmit power from the engine to the wheels. It’s expensive, hard to make, requires a lot of moving parts, and loses massive amounts of energy (and hence efficiency) at every coupling.

In an electric vehicle, power is transmitted by a freaking wire.

Next up, we have Iceland rewriting their constitution with the help of the Internet.

As usual, Popular Science overstates the case by claiming Iceland is “crowdsourcing” their new Constitution and other such malarkey. No country, even one in such incredibly dire straights as Iceland, whose entire economy went south with the economic collapse of 2008, would crowdsource their Constitution.

That would be just asking for a Constitution that was all about boobs and cats.

But what is actually happening is still pretty interesting, because the people who are working on said Constitution are taking an enormous amount of input from the Icelandic people via Twitter, Facebook, and other Internet avenues, and that will make this new Constitution the first one in history with such a wide base of opinion in its foundation.

While I am sure most of what the people contribute will not be terribly useful, what I like most about this approach is that a Constitution is the very sort of thing where you want as many people trying to think of potential pitfalls and omissions as you possibly can. It is, in many ways, the ultimate contract, the contract between a government and its people, and you want to cover as much as you can possibly cover without making the document completely incomprehensible.

So hats off to the men and women at the heart of all this, the ones who have to take all this input, add it to their own best intentions and diligence and intellect, and try to come up with a single, solid document that will stand the test of time.

If all goes well, this new Constitution could be an extremely awesome document, something that expresses the best ideals of our era in language of power and simplicity, just like previous Constitutions did.

Presumably, it will include provisions about keeping government morons from betting the entire treasury on real estate ponzi schemes.

Finally, in their never ending quest to fill the world with awesomeness, Google has recently added millions of miles of oceanographic date to their Google Earth application.

They are calling it Google Ocean, and while it does not cover the entirety of the oceans of the world, it does cover half of what we have mapped, which is an area the size of North America.

So now you can virtually explore thousands of miles of seabed, just like you were Jacques Cousteau, from the comfort of your computer chair.

Who knows, maybe some fresh eyes on a user-friendly form of this data will lead to fresh discoveries!

Well, that’s it for this week’s Roundup. Tune in next week for more science brain candy!

Oh, wait, there’s one last thing, something I haven’t been able to fit anywhere else.

CATS IN TANKS!

Cats in Tanks from Whitehouse Post on Vimeo.

The mystery is that there is no mystery.

Well, okay, it’s a little more complicated than that.

Motivation is a mysterious substance in the modern world of our goals, dreams, and obligations. When talking about the distance between themselves and what they want to do or feel they ought to be doing, people quite often complain about just not being able to find the motivation to do it.

But what is motivation? We talk about it like we all know what it is, but do we really? What is it? Where does it come from? Why do some people have it, and others do not?

The assumption seems to be that there is an inherent motive force in people called “motivation” that propels our actions. Certain potential actions give rise to the desire to do them, and it is this desire that we call motivation. If the desire is sufficient to move us to do said action, we say we had enough motivation. If it does not, we say we just weren’t motivated enough.

Now, from this commonsense definition, it would seem that motivation and desire are the same thing. If you want to do something enough, you do it. If you don’t, you don’t. Simple, right?

But a curious thing happens when you tell someone who is bemoaning their lack of action on some front (usually personal growth) that obviously, they just don’t want said thing enough to be bothered doing what it takes to get it.

Almost always, they strenuously object. To them, it is perfectly possible to want something really really badly, more than enough to do it, and yet, not do it. There exists, to such a person, a wide and deep grey area between the amount of desire it takes to do something and doing it, despite the apparently completely binary nature of the question.

I think this is because, while the same person might complain about their lack of motivation in another context or at another time, when you put it in simpler and more well defined terms, they are brought face to face with the basic irresolvable conflict between what they consider their dreams and the amount of motivation they actually have for pursuing said dreams.

In many ways, it’s easy to have the desire for something when said desire is entirely disconnected from any motivation to pursue it. That way, we can have our dreams without them threatening to disrupt out lives at all or lead us to depart from the soothing regularity of our routine lives, no matter how much said lives might drive us to complain about them.

Said sorts of dreams are particularly good for people who have trouble handling reality. It all stays in your head, where it’s safe.

So what is the difference, in such a person, between that which they are motivated to do, and that which they are not? Such a person might complain about having “no motivation”, but that is an exaggeration. A person with no motivation at all would do absolutely nothing at all, not even roll over in bed.

Obviously, in all people, there exists some degree of motivation. In all people, some actions are judged, consciously or not, to be worth doing. The benefit outweighs the cost. So what determines this? Why are some actions judged worth it, and others are not?

From my observations, the overwhelming factor that dwarfs all the others is familiarity. The familiar, no matter how unpleasant, has known values for pleasure, pain, and cost. Not only does this soothe the soul, but it creates a life which requires very little investment of fresh motivation to maintain.

A routine life is one which just keeps going, seemingly on its own momentum. The individual is obviously putting energy into it, otherwise they would be doing nothing, but they are taking no risks, investing no new emotion, and are gradually soothed into a sleepwalking state by this, until they are no longer merely taking advantage of this form of calmness, they are absolutely emotionally dependent on it. The slightest realistic thought of change (as opposed to merely daydreaming) sends the entire psyche into an uproar, as though the very foundations of reality were shaking.

So when someone in this position says they lack motivation, what they are really saying is that they are afraid to change their lives in any way.

Picture a person in a lifeboat, sitting stock still in the dead center, terrified that the slightest motion will cause their boat to capsize, and hence incapable of taking any action to steer or propel their craft, leaving them helpless before the whims of the current and the rocks.

Sound like anyone you know?