Where no man has “gone” before….

Army rations rehydrated by urine

July 24, 2004
New Scientist
Duncan Graham-Rowe
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996185
Food scientists working for the US military have, according to this story, developed a dried food ration that troops can hydrate by adding the filthiest of muddy swamp water or even peeing on it.
The Combat Feeding Directorate, part of the US Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Massachusetts, was cited as saying the ration comes in a pouch containing a filter that removes 99.9 per cent of bacteria and most toxic chemicals from the water used to rehydrate it. The story adds this is the same organisation that created the “indestructible sandwich” that will stay fresh for three years (New Scientist print edition, 10 April 2002).
Spokeswoman Diane Wood was cited as saying the aim is to reduce the amount of water soldiers need to carry, and that one day’s food supply of three meals, weighs 3.5 kilograms but that can be reduced to about 0.4 kilograms with the dehydrated pouches.
The pouch – containing chicken and rice initially – relies on osmosis to filter the water or urine. When two solutions of different concentrations are separated by a semipermeable membrane, with gaps that allow only water molecules to pass through, the water is drawn to the more concentrated side.
The membranes are made of thin sheets of a cellulose-based plastic, with gaps between the fibres that are just 0.5 nanometres across, too small for bacteria to pass through.
A hungry soldier pours dirty water into one end of a foil sachet containing two inner pouches separated by the membrane. The water seeps through the membrane into the dehydrated food on the other side. As it dissolves large molecules in the food, it creates a very high concentration solution. The osmotic pressure created then draws more water through the membrane.

I haven’t mentioned my garden much recently. I’m pleased with how it turned out this year, for the most part. The most surprising aspect has been the return of the morning glories. Frankly, I didn’t expect that many volunteers. I know their reputation for reseeding themselves, but since their entire plot had been excavated, had loose gravel poured into it, and then had paving stones put over it, I figured only the hard handful would make an appearance this year.

Man, was I ever wrong. Treated the early sprouts as weeds in May and June, and tried to pull them out as fast as they put in their appearances. Sometime mid-June I just gave up though (except for the ones sprouting directly between the paving stones – those are still goners). The result has been a more haphazard arrangement of morning glories this year.

Last year’s plants cross-pollinated with each other, and the result has been to provide a more uniform look among the flowers. Instead of six or so different kinds of morning glories, I’ve got two main colors this year. The most popular is a deep purple, with red-purple stripes inside its trumpet. I also have a fair number of hot pink morning glories, again with red-purple striping. There is one plant that is putting out something totally different, though.

It’s a color of morning glory I’ve never seen before. It’s a deep velvet red with overtones of brown, like the covers of antique books. It isn’t necessarily a “pretty” or “delicate” color, but mixed in with the loud pinks and purples, it is really striking. Pity it won’t breed true; I’d have made an effort to save those seeds otherwise.

I was in the walled garden area with The Socialist yesterday evening, admiring the progress of the hot peppers, when we were buzzed by a blur of wings. The Socialist started on about how this giant bee that had just buzzed us has been bothering him for a few days now when he goes outside. I tried to break the news to him that it wasn’t a giant bee, but a sphinx moth (sometimes called a hummingbird moth). I don’t think he believed me though. I had to make him promise not to kill it just so he could prove it was a bee. He tells me that the lady a few doors down from us has also been complaining about giant bees though, so I don’t hold out a lot of hope that this sphinx moth is going to come to a natural end.

A note to ADM: I reread what I wrote yesterday, and nowhere did I say that the parents loved one child more than another. What I implied is that the parents loved each child differently, though I didn’t say that either. While I appreciate that you meant “A parent who is truly capable of love cannot love one child more than another” in a non-judgemental way, for me to accept that is to believe that the five or six parents I was talking with are all incapable of love. I have a really hard time accepting that.