I respect the good intentions of Ian Chubb in wanting maths and science made ''cooler'' (''Quest to make maths and science cool'', February 8, p7), but we've already made everything in our schools as ''cool'' as we can and it hasn't made much difference, except to gut good subject matter. The skills of highly educated teachers are now routinely prostituted by having to keep order against a handful of unhappy misfits. Let the bored discover ''cool'' by leaving school early. Then the 70per cent who are interested - please note, not necessarily especially clever - can stay on at school and learn.
Barrie Smillie, Duffy
COMBUSTION CLANGER
Cuthbert Douglas (Letters, February 8) trivialises various issues I raised (Letters, February 7) and then proceeds to produce a clanger as regards my warning on units.
First, his numbers for the enthalpy (heat) of combustion (EOC) of the two component fuels in question are wrong by a factor of one million. The enthalpy of combustion of neat ethanol is -1367kj/mol. Now to a chemist the mole is not a little furry animal, but 46.0 grams in the case of ethanol, or 58.4millimetres, and 23,408kj/lt computes as its EOC. Likewise, unleaded petrol yields a number around 35mj/lt. Thus, despite Douglas's blunders, the relativity of the EOC's for the two fuels is about 2:3. My earlier letter never contested this.
He missed my point on efficiencies. His calculations assume the same efficiencies for burning of different fuels in the same engine. They are not. He also assumes the chemical and thermochemical properties of a mixture are precisely the sum of its parts. They are not.
John Bell (Letters, February 8) humorously bemoans the problem of E10 in his jalopy and likens it to his ageing human fuel lines. I sympathise - mine are ageing also. Even my ''swish'' car cannot run on E10. Finally, drivers know that the petrol price depends more on the day of the week than its composition.
Greg Jackson, Kambah
Greg Jackson (Letters, February 7) seems to be confused about octane ratings. In broad terms, fuels with a higher octane rating are used in high-compression engines that generally have higher performance.
However, ethanol will still produce 30per cent less power than premium petrol (high octane rating) used in the same high compression engine. In addition to this, E10 fuel will absorb water and make your engine run very roughly as many have found out.
Forcing the use of E10 is extremely foolish.
J. McKerral, Batemans Bay
BIKE ARROGANCE
Reading R. Reeks' comments (Letters, February 9) reminded me of a time last year driving along Clunies Ross Street.
There were bollards erected between the road and bike path underneath the Parkes Way overpass. The cyclist rode her bike on the roadside of the bollards, so there was not enough room for me to pass her safely. When we stopped at the lights, I rolled down my window and asked her politely if there some reason why she was not using the bike path? I was told rudely, ''Oh piss off! I've got every right to use the road if I want to!''
Unfortunately, there are arrogant cyclists out there who think they're infallible and put their safety at risk.
B. Lawson, O'Connor
PS INNOVATION
John Nethercote's article ''Recruiting the charisma to innovate'' (Public Sector Informant, February, p25) puts a resolutely negative and cynical spin on something that in reality is a positive news story. Following reports highlighting the need to encourage innovation in the public sector, the APS is setting up a Centre of Excellence for Public Sector Design to foster new thinking in policy and delivery. We have just advertised for a chief executive. The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education is leading this exercise, which is a partnership between five APS agencies.
Nethercote's take on this development includes that it is an Industry Department power grab. But what he sees as a grab for power, I perceive as a partnership between the relevant agencies. A good recent development is how collaborative departmental secretaries now are. With the design centre, my department has a legitimate interest - how can we preach innovation to the business sector if we do not practice it in the APS? Nethercote puzzles over why the exercise is not under the wing of the Public Service Commissioner. In fact the Australian Public Service Commission has been central to this whole exercise. Commissioner Steve Sedgwick launched the APS Innovation Action Plan in late 2011 which included a commitment to set up the centre. If the APSC's involvement or commitment to innovation is in any doubt, read chapter nine of its latest State of the Service Report. Nethercote questions the centre's location - in Canberra and housed at the ANU. As he points out, the government has already made a significant investment in the Australian National Institute for Public Policy at the ANU and, in times of limited funding, the ANU offered to accommodate the centre. However, the centre will not be dependent on the ANU for ideas or drive.
The story really should be about how, in a very tight budget situation, five major APS agencies, working together, have still found the resources to undertake at least a pilot of the centre to help us look at better and more effective ways of working.
Don Russell, Secretary, Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
RINEHART'S RIGHT
It is surprising that Don Sephton (Letters, February 3) objects to Gina Rinehart's purchase of shares in Fairfax Media. Why should she be denied the right of all Australians to buy stock in a publicly-listed company? She has acted quite properly within the law.
With regard to political influence, if she joins the board, like any member she could present ideas and have no controlling interest.
We are all entitled to attempt to sway public opinion by whatever legitimate means - these may include letters to the editor.
Eric French, Higgins
.gif)
