I've been working

That's why I haven't been blogging lately.

More on EV Batteries

I've been doing some more thinking about Electric Vehicles and the battery technology that will drive it to eventually replace internal combustion cars.

In the previous article I pointed out that Electric Vehicle Battery Packs need to have an energy density of around 675 Watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg) if they are to have an equal range to today's petrol-powered cars. I also pointed out that the Nissan Leaf - the world's first truly mass-produced electric car - has a battery pack with an energy density of around 131.57 Wh/kg. This means that the Leaf only has an effective range of approximately 117km (72 miles). "Range Anxiety" is truly a problem for Leaf owners - even though the total cost of charging the Leaf is lower per kilometre than the cost of filling up regular cars with petrol (the equivalent fuel efficiency for the Nissan Leaf is 2.4 litres per 100 km - 99 miles per gallon).

As a result of this study, I've done some more number crunching - this time taking into consideration various different types of vehicle. The Nissan Leaf is essentially a "Compact Car" or "C-Segment" vehicle. The other electric car that is dominating the EV market is the Mitsubishi i-Miev. The i-Miev is different to the Leaf in that it is a "Subcompact" or "B Segment" vehicle (also known as a Kei Car). This means it has a smaller engine (47kw compared to 80kw in the Leaf) and is lighter (1080kg compared to 1521kg). Thus the cars can't really be compared.

So what I did was examine the various different types of cars and work out just how much battery density needs to increase before the range of that particular vehicle class can be effectively equaled by an EV.

The image from my spreadsheet is too large to post here, so click here to see it directly. I obviously need to explain it, so have it open in one tab while looking at this page and flick between them.

Each different column colour represents a vehicle class. We have Subcompact / B Segment all the way up to Full SUV / J Segment. In each of those columns I have also included a base vehicle to use by way of comparison. Since we recently bought a VW Caddy, I decided to stick pretty much with Volkswagens as far as possible, with the notable exception of the Australian Ford Falcon and Range Rover. Each of these vehicles is given a fuel economy figure in Litres per 100km (to convert to mpg, click here). I've also included the size of each fuel tank, in both litres and in weight, as well as in kilowatt hours of storage. The cars I used all had petrol, not diesel, engines.

Column B shows energy storage in Wh/kg. This assumes that, as technology improves, more and more power is able to be stored in an EV battery.

All those numbers from column 9 downwards, and from column D onwards, are the range (in kilometres) of each vehicle class according to the energy storage numbers in column B. The most important cell in this section, and the spreadsheet, is F19, showing 117km range at 131.57 Wh/kg for a compact car. This is the base figure for the Nissan Leaf that I mentioned above and in my previous post.

The important figures are shown there in bold. I'll dot point them here:

• Subcompact (VW Polo): 600 Wh/kg for 600km range.
• Compact (VW Golf): 675 Wh/kg.
• Mid Size (VW Passat): 785 Wh/kg
• Compact SUV (VW Tiguan): 950 Wh/kg
• Full Size (Ford Falcon): 1100 Wh/kg
• Mid SUV (VW Toureag): 1300 Wh/kg
  
• Full SUV (Range Rover): 2800 Wh/kg
  

As you can see, it is obvious that 675 Wh/kg may be enough to completely control the Subcompact and Compact markets, but as soon as you take bigger vehicles into consideration, the energy density needs to be higher. And this shows how the market will react as time goes by: the smaller, lighter vehicles will become more dominated by EVs than the bigger, heavier vehicles.

I've also placed another figure to look at: the energy density needed for the vehicle to have a range of 1000km. This is an important figure (though arbitrary) that will affect EV design. If we assume, for example, that battery energy density reaches 1300 Wh/kg (and thus control the mid sized SUV market), what would happen to the subcompact market? Well according to the spreadsheet, such a vehicle would have a range of 1300km, more than twice what is probably needed. When this occurs, it is very likely that EVs will have less space dedicated to battery packs and more space dedicated to other aspects, such as greater boot space and leg room. Thus the cars will have an ever increasing usability.

This is not outside the realms of possibility. Think about the battery packs needed to power your mobile phone or laptop - they have been decreasing in size and increasing in energy intensity for some time. The same should be true for EV battery packs.

Now the second part of the graph needs some explanation. It is essentially the application of Moore's Law to battery technology in column B (column C is the multiplier for the spreadsheet, so ignore that unless you wish to check my figures - which you are welcome to). Moore's Law, in this case, assumes that battery energy density will double every two years. If we take this year (2011) to be the year when battery packs of 131.57 Wh/kg are currently available to the market (ie the battery packs for the Nissan Leaf), then you can see the sort of battery energy density that could be theoretically available as years go by.

If we take...

• a range of 300km to be the sort the market will respond to positively (and thus begin to be competitive with petrol driven vehicles),
  
• and if we see a range of 600km to be the sort that will completely control the market (and make petrol driven vehicles obsolete),
  
• and a range of 1000km to be the point at which these vehicles begin to reduce the amount of space needed for battery packs (and thus increase usability by having more space),
  
• and if we apply Moore's Law to battery technology...

...then we will see the following:

• Subcompact EVs will begin to be used in number from 2014. They will begin to control the market in 2016. They will begin to increase usability from 2017 onwards.
• Compact EVs will begin to be used in number from 2014. They will begin to control the market in 2016. They will begin to increase usability from 2018 onwards.
• Mid-Size EVs will begin to be used in number from 2015. They will begin to control the market in 2016/2017. They will begin to increase usability from 2018 onwards.
• Compact SUEVs will begin to be used in number from 2015. They will begin to control the market in 2017. They will begin to increase usability from 2019 onwards.
• Full Size EVs will begin to be used in number from 2015. They will begin to control the market in 2017. They will begin to increase usability from 2019 onwards.
• Mid-Size SUEVs will begin to be used in number from 2016. They will begin to control the market in 2018. They will begin to increase usability from 2020 onwards.
• Full-Size SUEVs will begin to be used in number from 2018. They will begin to control the market in 2020. They will begin to increase usability from 2022 onwards.
  

Now I don't really know too much about how the car market reacts to new vehicles and how long it takes for them to be taken up by the market, but it is probably likely that 2014-2016 will be the years when the electric car begins to hit world markets in number.

Battery technology is the key to EV Growth

In order for Electric Vehicles to enter the mainstream and compete equally with petroleum powered vehicles, battery technology must improve.

I consider the Nissan Leaf to be the one of the most important electric vehicles on the market today. Unlike the Prius or even the Volt, the Leaf is not a hybrid electric vehicle but a completely electric one. It is powered by an electric motor and energy is stored in the car's battery packs. The Leaf will not need to be "filled up" with petroleum, it needs to be plugged in to ensure that its rechargeable batteries have enough juice to keep the Leaf going.

The problem is that, while the cost of charging a car with electricity is very low compared to the cost of filling up a car with petroleum, the range of the Leaf is disconcertingly small. "Range anxiety" prevents many Leaf owners today from driving their vehicles beyond the normal commute. As a result it is more likely to be owned by people who already own petroleum powered cars that have greater range that they can use when needed. Nissan says that the Leaf's range is 160km but that is a very optimistic figure which does not take into account normal driving patterns: an "eco" mode ensures that acceleration is lower than it could be. In "normal" mode, and taking into account the need for air conditioning, heating, and music, the range of the Leaf is more likely to average out at 117km.

(Such normal driving patterns also lower the range of petroleum powered vehicles as well - it's just that we don't notice it too much because the car's range is still reasonably high).

After consulting the specs of my own comparable vehicle (A Mitsubishi Lancer) I have determined that modern cars need a range of around 600km. This would mean that, in order to properly compete, the Nissan Leaf's batteries would need to store 5.128205128 times more energy than it does currently.

And this is where the engineering challenges can be quantified.

The Automotive Energy Supply Corporation (AESC) is the company that builds the Battery Packs for the Nissan Leaf. Have a look at the specs on their product here.

From these specs we notice a number of things:

1. The Nissan Leaf does not have one battery pack, but 48 individual packs located under the car's floor.
2. According to the Leaf's specs, the total amount of energy stored in these 48 packs is 24 kilowatt hours (Kw/h).
3. Therefore, each battery pack contains, on average, 500 W/h.
4. Each individual battery pack weighs 3.8kg.
5. Therefore, the energy density of each battery pack is 131.57 W/h per kilogram.

So in order for the Leaf to have a 600km range, each battery pack should store 2.56 Kw/h of energy, which means that the energy density of these battery packs must increase to approximately 675 Wh/kg (while assuming no increase in volume).

Of course battery technology is progressing in leaps and bounds - anyone who owns a mobile phone or laptop knows that storage capacity has improved considerably over the last five years. Nevertheless while the technology is moving forward, we need to remember that there is usually a lag between the technology being discovered and its ability to be mass produced at a reasonably low price.

I am quite confident that these technological and industrial goals can be met some time in the next 10-12 years.

How I would solve the EU Sovereign Bond Crisis and stop it from happening again

1. Pool all sovereign debt into a central fund. At the end of 2010, this amount totaled €7,822,443 million. Source.
2. This central fund will be run by a supranational entity under the control of the European Union, much like the ECB.
3. A Eurozone-wide financial services tax is introduced. This would be based upon either a Tobin Tax or a Market Capitalisation Tax. The purpose of this tax would be to pay off the sovereign debt that has been pooled into the central fund.
   
4. Because nation governments have shown that they cannot be trusted to maintain the fiscal agreements of the Maastricht Treaty, a Eurozone-wide supranational entity - let's call it the European Revenue Service, or ERS - is set up to a) determine a nation's tax rates, and b) take over the tax collection duties of member nations. This will necessitate the ceding of tax setting and tax collecting by all levels of Eurozone government.
   

Let me expand on these idea further.

The central fund and the financial services tax.
The pooling of debt into a single fund and then paying it off by a Tobin tax or Market Capitalisation tax takes care of the current mess. Individual Euro governments will no longer be responsible for the debt that they have accrued up until this point. It's a way of both "cleaning the slate and starting again" while still setting up structures to ensure that the debt gets paid off (and not defaulted upon). Moreover, the tax that is instituted is aimed squarely at the financial industry (who helped set up the current crisis) rather than upon ordinary wage earners. A central Eurozone-wide fund is better than a series of national funds simply because the central fund (preferably backed by the ECB) would be given clear parameters and not be subject to the whims of individual nations.

The short-term goal of the fund is to provide market confidence in the payback of sovereign debt.
The long-term goal of the central fund is to pool together and eventually retire all levels of Eurozone sovereign debt by way of a financial services tax.

The European Revenue Service.
The setting up of the ERS is certainly a controversial proposal - but it is a proposal that will ensure that this crisis never occur again. Ceding the sovereign authority  to set and collect taxes may sound frightening to those who do not support an ever-closer union, or who think the EU should no longer exist. Yet it is essential for the future of the EU - since it will prevent the blowing out of sovereign debt again.

Under this system, each member country has the power to spend as much they usually do - the ERS will not be responsible for spending decisions. What each nation will no longer have is the ability to set tax rates or tax law or have the ability to collect taxes - these things will be left to the ERS. The ERS will then set tax rates and tax laws for each member nation of the Eurozone to match the amount of spending they indulge in. Scandinavian nations, like Finland or Sweden, will continue to have big spending governments, which means that the ERS will set up high tax rates in those nations. Nations who have smaller governments in proportion to the economy will have lower tax rates. If a country decides to expand government spending, then the ERS will naturally increase the taxes in that nation over the long term; similarly, if a nation decides to cut spending, then the ERS will lower taxes over time. If a nation wants to "run a surplus" in order to create a sovereign wealth fund, then they will simply file this investment under spending, and the ERS will set taxes accordingly.

The ERS will also be the supranational tax collection agency, ensuring that the same quality of operations exists across the entire Eurozone.

The ERS will also have the authority to change tax rates in individual nations, or across the entire Eurozone, in response to certain economic conditions such as recessions or expansions. This would be done in conjunction with the ECB. Keynesian stimuli enacted by member nations will also be conducted in conjunction with ERS policy.

Individual nations can "reduce taxes" on certain industries if they wish through subsidies, which would have a net effect upon the taxes on that industry.

The short-term goal of the ERS would be to set tax rates in member countries, collect them and distribute them to these member countries.
The long term goal of the fund is to ensure that all nations maintain zero net sovereign debt over the course of the business cycle.

Notes:

The fund and the ERS will only operate within the Eurozone. Members of the EU who are not members of the Eurozone will not be subject to these entities (eg UK, Denmark). However, once an EU country joins the Eurozone, these policies will affect them: their sovereign debt will be transferred to the central pool and their tax system will be run by the ERS. The idea that sovereign debt may be paid off on entry to the Eurozone gives potential member nations a huge incentive to join.

As for the importance of government bonds in the European Financial industry, the ECB would be able to issue enough bonds to cover this need. Just because debt is being/has been retired does not mean that government bonds need to disappear as well.

US Recession Indicators - October 2011

According to data from negative Real Interest Rates, another US recession is likely to begin between now and 2012 Q4, with 2012 Q1 the most likely... See below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net Monetary Base vs Inflation (spread)

The growth of the Net Monetary base (M0 minus excess reserves) over inflation has been above the historical average since September 2010 and has remained high at 659 in September 2011.

These results continue to be high and any future recession will either be delayed or else the results will begin to drop drastically.

Already there has been two months of straight decline in both M0 and Excess Reserves (2011-08 and 2011-09 results). Nevertheless Net M0 remains positive because reserves had declined faster than M0.

Inflation in September was 3.9%, the highest it has been since October 2008. This is the third straight month of price increases since a deflationary monthly result in June. The rate of monthly inflation has decreased however, with 6% in July, 4.5% in August and 3.6% in September.

Note: A negative result implies that inflation is growing faster than the money supply, an event which indicates that a recession will occur within 1 to 36 months (with an average of 12 months)

Note: All recessions are preceded by a negative result.

Data Series:
St Louis Fed

AMBNS
EXCRESNS
CPIAUCSL
GDPC1
POP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Funds Rate vs 10 Year Bond Rate (spread)

September ended with a reading of 190 after 10 year bond rates continued to decline. This is the lowest spread since May 2008. The recent decline is increasingly precipitous.

What I said in August needs to be remembered:

If this indicator stays true to its historical data, then there will be one of two events leading up to the beginning of the recession.

The first is if the Federal Reserve will keep the Federal Funds rate effectively at zero, which it will do barring any major inflationary outbreak. If this occurs then 10 year bond rates will drop to zero as well, or at least converge to within a few basis points. This appears to be the situation currently.

The second event will occur if the Federal Reserve increases rates in response to an outbreak of inflation. If this occurs then the Federal Funds rate will exceed the 10 year bond rate, thus placing the indicator into negative and presaging a recession. Inflation has been increasing markedly in the last six months, so this event may yet be the result.

Will Ten Year Bond rates drop to zero? Or will there be an outbreak of inflation first?

Note: A negative result implies a highly restrictive monetary environment, an event which indicates that a recession will occur within 4 to 39 months (with an average of 22 months).

Note: If both the first and second graphs are negative at the same time it indicates that a recession will occur within 1 to 21 months (with an average of 11 months).

Note: All recessions are preceded by a negative result.

Data Series:
St Louis Fed

FEDFUNDS
GS10
GDPC1
POP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real 10 Year Bond Rates Rates

Real Ten Year Bond rates came in at -1.32% in September. As I have pointed out before, all experiences of negative 10 year bond rates since the 1950s have resulted in an eventual recession.

If we take previous instances of negative real bond rates into account, a recession will begin between now and 2012 Q4, with 2012 Q1 the most likely. These previous experiences also indicate that unemployment will also likely peak between 12.1% and 18.7%, with a result around 16.9% the most likely.

Note: Real Interest Rates based upon 10 year Bonds can indicate how the value of money is determined in comparison with the market's safest investment. A negative result implies that inflation is eroding the savings of those who have invested in 10 Year Bonds. A negative result over a three month average indicates that a recession may occur between 4-18 months, with an average of 8½ months and a median of 6 months.

Note: Not all recessions are preceded by negative real 10 year bond rates. Nevertheless all instances of negative 10 year bond rates (since the 1950s) have been followed by a recession.

Data Series:
St Louis Fed

GS10
CPIAUCSL
GDPC1
POP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Capitalisation adjusted by USDX

(The orange line is the recession line, the red line is the line of resistance)

Data Sources

US Dollar Index
Russell 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archive of Historical graphs.

Real Interest Rate historical graph archive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of US oil consumption as percentage of GDP

The most recent figure is for 2011-Q2, which comes in at 1.17%.

With oil prices now $20 cheaper than 2011-Q2, 2011-Q3 will likely see a drop.

Methodology:

The average oil price for the quarter is multiplied by oil consumption for the quarter, which is then measured as a percentage of nominal GDP.

Sources:

• West Texas Intermediate, price averaged out for quarterly figure. Link.
• US Oil Consumption, quarterly. Link.
• Nominal GDP, quarterly. Link.

Notes:

• Orange lines represent recessions (annual decline of real GDP per capita)
• Yellow line represents historical average of 0.82% of GDP.

US Defense Cost Overruns: F-35 vs F4

The F-35 is a fighter-bomber aircraft that will be used by three of the four branches of the armed forces. The last time the Air Force, Navy and Marines had the same jet fighter was back in the 1960s when they all adopted the F-4 Phantom II fighter-bomber.

A good way to determine just how bad defense cost overruns are is to compare the relative cost of the F-35 with the F-4.

Of course there are a number of determining factors. One is the fact that inflation has distorted prices somewhat since the mid 1960s. Another is that real GDP has grown significantly in that time. The final thing to realise is that technology since then has improved markedly, thus granting "more bang for the buck" so to speak. So let's play with these adjustments:

• F-4E Phantom II "flyaway cost" in 1965 was $2.4 million (wikipedia source)
• Nominal GDP in 1965 Q4 was $747.5 Billion. (St Louis Fed source)
• The cost of a single F-4E Phantom II thus represented approximately 0.00032% of GDP.
• Adjusted for inflation, the cost of a single F-4E Phantom II in 2010 dollars is approximately $16.4 million (inflation calculator)
  
• F-35A Lightning II "flyaway cost" in 2011 is $122 million (wikipedia source)
• Nominal GDP in 2011 Q2 was $15,012.8 Billion (St Louis Fed source)
• The cost of a single F-35A Lightning II thus represents approximately 0.00081% of GDP.
• The cost of 0.00032% of GDP in 2011 Q2 was $48 million.
• The F-35A is, in dollar figures, 644% more costly than a F-4E.
• The F-35A is, in percentage of GDP, 154% more costly than a F-4E
  

So naturally the question arises: is one F-35A better than 2.5 aircraft that could've been built at lower cost but with far better technology that was ever available for the F-4? Or, better still, is one F-35A better than 7.4 of these aircraft?

The idea I'm trying to promote here is not a return to building F-4s, nor whether it would be better to build increasingly obsolete F-18s, F-16s or F-15s instead. Rather I'm trying to point out that a cheaper alternative could've been built than the F-35, and that this theoretical alternative would've replaced the F-18s, F-16s or F-15s.

This theoretical aircraft would not cost $122 million (like the F-35A), but be between $16.4m - $48m. While the chances are that this theoretical aircraft would be inferior in some ways to the F-35, it would still be superior to the aircraft it replaces and probably still be one of the best aircraft around.

Maybe the Pentagon should focus its attention upon cost, and let the developers and engineers work within that framework.

EDIT: Since the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet currently costs $55 million each, maybe it should replace all the obsolete fighter-bombers currently in service in the Air Force, Navy and Marines?

EDIT 2: Fixed up the last two dot points above to read "more costly than" rather than "the value of".

Market Failure

When a market is dominated by a monopoly or a cartel, and they use their market powers to reduce supply in order to boost their own profitability, then the market has failed.

Were Cali Dairy Cows Slaughtered to Raise the Price of Dairy?

US Recession Indicators - September 2011 - Market turmoil edition

According to data from negative Real Interest Rates, another US recession is likely to occur between 2011 Q4 and 2012 Q4, with 2012 Q1 the most likely... See below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net Monetary Base vs Inflation (spread)

The growth of the Net Monetary base (M0 minus excess reserves) over inflation has been above the historical average since September 2010 and has remained high at 646 in August 2011.

The results for August were higher than expected but I think a peak is likely to have been reached. M0 declined between July and August from 2706.799 to 2679.481, while Excess Reserves declined during the same period from 1618.188 to 1583.525. The result was an increase in Net M0, since reserves declined faster than M0. Over the following months, this should lead to a converging of inflation with the growth of net M0.

Inflation in August was 3.8%, the highest it has been since October 2008.

Nevertheless since the introduction of QE2 in November 2010, the net monetary base has increased faster than inflation.

Note: A negative result implies that inflation is growing faster than the money supply, an event which indicates that a recession will occur within 1 to 36 months (with an average of 12 months)
Note: All recessions are preceded by a negative result.

Data Series:
St Louis Fed

AMBNS
EXCRESNS
CPIAUCSL
GDPC1
POP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Funds Rate vs 10 Year Bond Rate (spread)

Like last month, I have factored in recent market turmoil in this indicator. August ended with a reading of 220 after 10 year bond rates plummeted to 2.3% for that month. By the close of trading on 2011-09-22, rates have dropped further to a record low of 1.72%, which has led to a mid-monthly reading of 163. What I said last month still applies:

If this indicator stays true to its historical data, then there will be one of two events leading up to the beginning of the recession.

The first is if the Federal Reserve will keep the Federal Funds rate effectively at zero, which it will do barring any major inflationary outbreak. If this occurs then 10 year bond rates will drop to zero as well, or at least converge to within a few basis points. This appears to be the situation currently.

The second event will occur if the Federal Reserve increases rates in response to an outbreak of inflation. If this occurs then the Federal Funds rate will exceed the 10 year bond rate, thus placing the indicator into negative and presaging a recession. Inflation has been increasing markedly in the last six months, so this event may yet be the result.

Note: A negative result implies a highly restrictive monetary environment, an event which indicates that a recession will occur within 4 to 39 months (with an average of 22 months).
Note: If both the first and second graphs are negative at the same time it indicates that a recession will occur within 1 to 21 months (with an average of 11 months).
Note: All recessions are preceded by a negative result.

Data Series:
St Louis Fed

FEDFUNDS
GS10
GDPC1
POP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real 10 Year Bond Rates Rates

Real ten year bond rates came in at -0.83% in August. As I have pointed out before, all experiences of negative 10 year bond rates since the 1950s have resulted in an eventual recession.

If we take previous instances of negative real bond rates into account, a recession will start between 2011 Q4 and 2012 Q4, with 2012 Q1 the most likely. These previous experiences also indicate that unemployment will also likely peak between 12.1% and 18.7%, with a result around 16.9% the most likely.

Note: Real Interest Rates based upon 10 year Bonds can indicate how the value of money is determined in comparison with the market's safest investment. A negative result implies that inflation is eroding the savings of those who have invested in 10 Year Bonds. A negative result over a three month average indicates that a recession may occur between 4-18 months, with an average of 8½ months and a median of 6 months.
Note: Not all recessions are preceded by negative real 10 year bond rates. Nevertheless all instances of negative 10 year bond rates (since the 1950s) have been followed by a recession.

Data Series:
St Louis Fed

GS10
CPIAUCSL
GDPC1
POP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Capitalisation adjusted by USDX

(The orange line is the recession line, the red line is the line of resistance)

Data Sources

US Dollar Index
Russell 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archive of Historical graphs.

Real Interest Rate historical graph archive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Writing Dreams

Two recent events have rocked the world of a couple of internet denizens.

The first is David C. Simon, the creator of the webcomic Crimson Dark. Simon, a talented user of computer graphics and scriptwriting, has been nabbed by the Game company that is producing "Star Wars: The Old Republic". Simon's role will be mainly in writing, but there's no doubt that his skills in creating Crimson Dark were an important part of this process.

The second is that a Redditor named Prufrock451 with a good script idea is now in talks with a Hollywood company. While this is early days yet, it is the culmination of a very quick few weeks in which the Redditor began writing a sci fi/fantasy story in which a Marine battalion in Afghanistan is transported back in time to ancient Rome. The story, called Rome Sweet Rome, started off mere weeks ago as an experiment in writing that somehow gained a huge following amongst Redditors. Just the mere idea of Machineguns mowing down Praetorian Guards got people involved, not just in reading but also in editing. I suppose you could call it a Saw and Sandal epic (see here).