Free Ideas

What good do ideas do gathering dust in a drawer, bogarting electron holes on a disk? No good. So might as well share them. Maybe they can do you some good. Not asking anything in return. See something you like? Just call "dibs." More.
Peter Mucha

New Theme Song!

Cool! Never had a theme song before. Listen. Drew Anderson of MoHDI was nice enough to write this for me! You, too, can get "One Awesome Song."

Recent Posts

Tell a friend


The Online Name Game, Part 3

To recap, we all get Googled, so it makes sense to help people find your best you.

To that end, I’ve been brainstorming ways to put my full name in a web address, likely through buying a fresh domain. is taken, and I’m not looking to buy it from the Mississauga, Ontario, man who uses it as a photo album.

The most obvious alternative is to change the extension, which can be helpful, too.

.biz, .info, and .xyz all suggest information, while .me certainly adds a personal touch (even though it stands for the country of Montenegro).

Or, one could add a word or two, the way many people do with Twitter, like or fullnamepersonalpassion. Works great for or, but I’ve been wearing a lot of hats. is more tempting. Bio, profile, scrapbook might also work, Possibilities abound, including and, though they don’t click with me.

Another approach is to use any domain and put the full name be in a subdomain ( or as a page title ( A subdomain can read into domain to create something like Fred.designsallsortsofthingscom. The verb approach allows adapting the URL to cover other parties,  so Fred’s employees, colleagues, business partners or friends could each have Google-me spotlight, if he wants to add them later.

I’m tempted to use this last approach, because it would lend itself to something bigger, involving all sorts of friends and worthy strangers. Getting close to making a decision.

Good luck if you’re similarly seeking. Feel free to email if you’re stuck and would like some help.

The Online Name Game, Part 2

The creative process out to be simpler. Sometimes, the right answer is just coming out and saying something.

But naming is tricky. A product or a brand name wants to be unique, which tends toward the unfamiliar, while being memorable, which tends toward the familiar. You also want something short and easy to say, better to roll off the tongue in conversation. And if delivers a message, all the better.

LinkedIn, SnapChat, Pinterest, WordPress, YouTube, Reddit, Instagram and Cafe Press are successful names that are easy and semi-self-explanatory.

Then there are names that hint, like Tesla. Short. Easy to say. Doesn’t say “electric cars” but it’s tied through to electricity through the name of the inventor it pays homage to. Once a person makes the mental connections, it’s easy to remember and explain. Twitter suggests bursts of conversation, Amazon suggests hugeness, lushness and flow, FaceBook suggests keepsakes and friends.

Apple may seem like, oh, let’s call our company after a familiar piece of fruit, as seen in its logo. But the apple was also the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and, as the logo shows, somebody took a bite. Computers sure seem like inventions by creatures daring to play God.

Even Google, which sounds like babbling baby talk,  has fitting connotations. A googol is a huge number, a 1 followed by 100 zeroes. This idea of almost infinity fits its search aspirations, and 1’s and 0’s suggest binary code, the stuff behind the whole digital realm, including search-engine algorithms.

Interesting that Google spawned a bigger-umbrella parent company, Alphabet.  Since Google searches are based on words, it fits in its own elemental way. Not great, not memorable, but definitely easy and inoffensive.

Google+, on the other hand, is a bit of a clunker.  A social network should suggest people, not numbers. Why not Gaggle, as in a group of geese, with echoes of Google? Because of “gag” jokes? Giggle is interesting, with hints of laughter, sociability and even music (the gig part) and computers (giga).  Maybe it goes too counter to Google’s solemn repository ambitions? Again, it would tempt journalists to make cracks about Giggle being laughable, but I don’t know. Seems like a fun, attention-getting name to me.

Actually, best might have been a byproduct of Google+, Google Circles, referring to social circles.

Of course, some names are catchy coinages with few associations. Why Camry? Do we subconsciously notice it’s an anagram of My Car? Why Etsy? Sounds like et cetera, looks like and in French with a play on yes in Spanish? Close to artsy? Answer eludes this dude but I like the name. Why Tumblr? Because our minds are like contraptions that spin and let tumble out all sorts of ideas?

Don’t know, don’t need to know. Point is, all sorts of names will work. Short is good, with two syllables and baby talk simplicity and baby talk simplicity (think Barbie, Oprah, eBay, Yahoo) possibly adding catchiness. Just keep in mind that the less self-explanatory, the less suggestive, the more you’ll be relying on word of mouth, going viral or advertising to make it click and stick in people’s minds.

Next time: Let’s invent some names.

The online name game

Look, I’m not a brand. Far from it. But, for professional reasons, I realize it’d be useful to have more of an online identity.

Those agents who got a draft of my children’s picture book, what did they likely do? Googled me.

Well, they sure learned a lot about a mathematics professor at UNC Chapel Hill. He’s all over the first page of results. Not me. And my name’s rare. I’m no Joe Smith.

Frankly, it’s a bit surprising, since I wrote thousands of online articles and blog entries for the Philadelphia Inquirer and over ten years.

Weirdly, even if you search for “Peter Mucha” it’s amazing what a wild snarl of randomness you get. Forget finding my “best” or most popular stuff. And, of course, there’s no trace of what I wrote for print, including thousands of Q&As for children I wrote while doing the Inquirer’s Kids’ Talk column for five years.

So what were those agents going to think? Guy’s a nobody?

I need to fix this.

Can you relate? If someone Googled you, would you look good? Or would you come across like a collage of selfies run though a Cuisinart and turned into a jigsaw puzzle?

What follows is some brainstorming, with subheads.

Point at yourself 

Online, you need to be like Blake Shelton on NBC’s The Voice. When he’s wants a singer to pick him as a coach, he puts his hands in the air, and keeps pointing fingers back at himself.

Online, copy that with links.

Links and keywords are what Google and other search engines notice. Their spiders follow links and keep score. Whoever gets the best set of incoming links wins. To say the most links would be oversimplifying. Better to get one lasting link from a website with a high score, like the New York Times, than a bunch from your friends’ short-lived Facebook posts. Generally, though, links rule.

Often a desire for links leads bloggers and others into begging and bargaining, but let’s try to map out a more real, reasonable, controllable and basic path.

First, think of all the places you post online. Besides this blog and a couple others, I have set up accounts with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and YouTube. I’m not sure about Instagram and Google Plus.

Now decide: What’s the best meet-and-greet page for you?  

If it’s LinkedIn, because a resume and the biz enviro suits you, then figure out how to link from all your other sites to that page. And then link LinkedIn back to those sites, and even interlink them all as much as possible, especially your busiest sites.

Bloggers might want to go beyond filling out some profile form to creating a full-out profile page, and link to that.

Now you’ve got a little network of Blake Shelton clones pointing at each other, with one ersatz Shelton getting the most attention. That’s the one you want Google to notice.

The main name should remain the same.

Key words count, too, so try to use the same full name in every profile spot. Of course, you might want to tailor it a bit if it matches someone famous. Be Bill or Billy or William Smith, not Will, or Kate L. Perry. not Katy.

Since repetition influences search results, bio is more ideal than auto-biography. If every I and me can be Firstname Lastname, Google has much more to notice.

Similarly, if you want to  be known for singing or landscaping, whatever,  mention it and drop some synonyms and related words. Think: What words might someone add who is searching for you?

Speaking of art, be sure to always add captions or explanations or titles to any songs, images or videos you post, because the words are what Google notices.

If you blog, figure out how to gracefully link to your profile occasionally. Maybe the byline can always link.

Best of all,

If you’re really determined to rise to the top, get a domain with your full name. Suppose you go by Alfred Jones and is taken. I can’t say for sure, but my hunch is to change the url, not alter the name. Here’s betting that,, or will be more successful than or or

And that’s my dilemma.

A website with my name might be best, since a LinkedIn profile is kind of formal, I have writings and images and videos I’d like to include (so Instagram wouldn’t be enough), and I have several blogs in various idea stages, without a for-sure No. 1 for all my years ahead.

I do have ideas I don’t want to people to “steal,” and probably will have designed or written items to sell.

Problem is, I’m scattershot. Focus isn’t exactly my thing. And I think putting my name blatantly up in a url comes off as egotistical. I’ve been accused of that. Been working on that.

So I’m inclined to do something like, especially since is taken.

Maybe PeterMuchaUnfocused?

Whimsical. But there goes any hope of shooting freelance photos?

PeterMuchaThisNThat? Enh.

Thought of wordplay on my last name.

Pondering. More later.

How to rig a football to deflate (Update)

UPDATE Jan. 27:  Physicist spells out a way to make footballs “shrivel to completely flat after cooling.”


The New England Patriots could have legally rigged footballs to wind up underinflated.

Patriots head coach Bill Bellichick spelled out much of this scenario in a news conference much of the media apparently failed to understand.

He said vigorous rubbing to break in the balls raised the internal temperature. Then the air was adjusted (by the NFL refs, he implied), to the minimum, per the team’s request. Taking the ball into the cold outside would then automatically drop the air pressure below the legal minimum.

Bellichick argued it was all just accidental.

But could his confusing speech have been deliberately vague to cover up further but actually legal steps?

Heat inside, deflate, take outside

1. Heat it. (Hair dryer, warm in a sauna, running under hot water in a shower or hot tub.) Air pressure inside increases.
2. Release air to legal minimum (12.5 pounds per square inch).
3. Let refs check the ball. Seems OK.
4. Take outside in cold weather. Air inside chills and air pressure drops.

Nefarious but totally legal.

UPDATE: Boston University physics professor Martin Schmaltz spells out how a ball acclimated to a heated room could read 12.5 psi then show a dramatic pressure drop after being exposed to cold.

Replace dry air inside with steam, etc.

1. Remove all air. Pump up ball in environment saturated with steam or water vapor (like a locker room).
2. Follow steps 1 to 4 above.
5. Because of the cold, water vapor/steam inside CONDENSES, and air pressure inside DROPS EVEN MORE.

Bellichek was able to explain a pound on underinflation.

Perhaps the steamy explanation could account for the full two pounds.

This also explains why nothing unusual inadvertently happened to the footballs used by the Indianapolis Colts.

UPDATE: Physics professor Schmaltz agrees (to a degree). He emailed:

you are right.

although air at full saturation and 12.5 PSI pressure only holds about a factor of 2 less moisture than air at one atmosphere (assuming the same temperature). so the total amount of water is not that much, about 0.3 worth.

However, if you combine both effects, heat and water vapor, you can win big. As an extreme example, if you were to fill the balls with pure steam (at > 212F) to 12.5 PSI then the balls would shrivel to completely flat after cooling down just a little. of course, the ref might notice that something’s up 😉 but even a modest increase in temperature allows much higher levels of partial pressure due to water vapor.

cheers -m

UPDATE: USA Today shares same theory, quotes another physics professor:

Chang Kee Jung, a football fan and physics professor at The State University of New York at Stony Brook, chuckled when the theory was explained. But he agreed it’s possible — not only because of the temperature change, but other effects from the steam in the sauna.

“If you put it in the moisture with the hot air, then what happens is that some of the air — which is moist water — it could condense and then it could even more rapidly lose pressure,” Jung said. “They may consider it not illegal, but if they actually did it, does that really pass the moral test?”

A third wrinkle (new): Chill footballs on the sidelines

If the Patriots chilled balls in a cooler before using, they would have deflated even more — without releasing any air.

Once the media picks up the proper explanations, talk will deflate about punishing the Patriots, because if there was cheating, it didn’t violate the rules.

Back in the act!

Let the resurrection begin.

After 25 years at the Philadelphia Inquirer, and two more at, I finally totally on my own, ready to share, ready to dare, ready to stare .. at the walls, if you know what I mean.

Over the last six or years since I last blogged, I’ve learned a lot about websites, and communicating.

Be brief. Create things of lasting value. Remind about oldies but goodies. And add all sorts of playful art or other graphics.

Stay tuned.

I hope to post something almost daily from here out.

Peter Mucha



Reviving a dormant blog

I just might start blogging again. Stay tuned.



Edible Tree Leaves!

While cooking spinach for an omelet, i thought: Why can’t this stuff grow on trees? Indeed, when you think about it, tree leaves might be the most abundant “vegetable” there is. Except you can’t eat them! Just imagine if some tree like a maple were genetically engineering so that its leaves were nutritious and tasty! Good grief! We’d increase the world’s food supply astronomically! Though, better make sure it’s also great for rats … 

Alternatively, create leaves that decay into fossil fuel somehow … melt right into oil.

Who says money can’t grow on trees?

See also: “If Fruits and Veggies Moved” and “Foliage Grass.” 

A Solution to Foreclosure Crisis? Play Dominos … or Mortgage Musical Chairs

More than two million homes are expected to be foreclosed this year. What a waste. All because the owners can’t affort the particular payment on that house. Hmm. So what if we switched the people and the houses? Orchestrated a kind of mortgage musical chairs? Take Joe. Can’t afford his $600,000 house. But he could afford the payments on Jill’s $400,000 house, which she can’t afford. And she could afford the payments on the $250,000 house, which Andrea has been struggling to meet. So, sort of like with the domino transplant surgery on Grey’s Anatomy, Joe is switched to Jill’s house and Jill moves to Andrea’s. Obviously, the chain could be much longer. Yes, at the bottom of the scale, the person’s out of luck, and at the top the mortgage holder is, but the overall cost and pain might be greatly reduced. The banks would lose less money, housing prices would stabilize because more people stay in homes, and fewer people would have their credit ruined. Having so many houses threatened should actually make the process easier to pull off, and some kind of legislatively mandated incentives or assurances could help grease the skids. Might have to mandate that mortgages in such a chain can be assumed.

Part 2: Mortgage Sharing! Wait a minute, perhaps here’s another answer: You know that vacant house at the top? What about finding two or three would-be defaulters to share the house? They’d each get some equity, and together they could make the payments, keeping the pricey house off the market. Could also help save the folks displaced at the bottom of the chain. Pulling this off would be tricky, too. But in this era of computer matchmaking, you telling me out of millions of potential foreclosures, we couldn’t save hundreds of thousands of cases this way?

Also check out: Overnight Energy-Free Shipping and the National Wish Fulfillment Chain.

Anti-Dissatisfaction Drugs for Dieters, Addicts

We’ve all heard of appetite suppressants, or drugs that reduce desire. But what if the “gotta have it” process is a two-part thing? One chemical process produces desire. But it’s a separate deal that makes us feel rotten when the desire isn’t satisfied. After all, you don’t feel rotten as soon as you desire, right? You might even feel great as you make that ham sandwich, contemplate a cigarette, or order that eighth beer. But if you fail to satisfy the craving, a new feeling sets in … some kind of nagging discomfort, even akin to pain. What if a drug could reduce that feeling? It would be like taking aspirin for pain. OK, you’d still have the desire, but maybe you could live with it. Put it off with promises of “Get back to you later.”

5th Dimension Isn’t Time or Space, It’s Volatility

String theorists investigate the possibility that the universe has more than three dimensions of space and one of time. Positing more dimensions (usually curled up in tiny spaces) yields equations that, in some sets, describe facets of the universe very well. Problem is, as I foggily understand it, is that the possibilities are so astronomical (excuse the pun) that no one sure if this isn’t a one-size-fits-all theory, explaining nothing, just infinitely customizable to fit the data.

A precursor of string theory, in a way, was an observation made to Einstein: That if  relativity’s equations were in five dimensions, they would be in sync with those of quantum mechanics, and voila, there’s your unified field theory.

What if the fifth dimension isn’t one of space? Maybe that observation could be gotten to work without relying on places that could be hiding ghosts, Heaven, Hell and most of gravity. So what could it be? Since quantum mechanics seems to embedded with probabilities, how about probability as a dimension? Or, to state it from an object’s point of view, not an observer’s, call it volatility: The ability of an object to shift to hop, skip and dance to various spots. 

At the quantum level, the level of particles, this is a real phenomenon, which leaves folks scratching their heads, declaring that QM is like Zen: He who says he understands it, doesn’t. Since QM and Zen are both are both about the mysteries of the universe, wow, that sounds cool, like there’s magic going, or, as Einstein put it, God is rolling dice.

Being a visual guy, someone who believes the cosmos is conceivable, I’m inclined to think what’s going on has less to do with dice, than physicists underestimating the power of virtual particles, particles that zap in and out of Nothingness in pairs, then disappear. Suppose these virtual particles easily interact. Here’s Electron A, going on its merry way, when virtual Electron B flits into existence with its antiparticle, Positron B. Pos B smacks El A, wiping it out. Slam bang, so fast, observer would think there’s still an electron going on its merry way, except for some dang reason it’s not exactly where it was before. 

This could keep happening over and over, with the universe destroying and renewing itself constantly.  

Maybe such regeneration also explains how a single electron can create interference patterns when traveling through one of two slits. It’s always being interfered with! At the quantum level, everything is being interfered with.

I also think it’s possible this phenomenon could explain gravity: Gravity is a push!  Large masses (like the Earth) catch streaming virtual particles, but empty space doesn’t. So more virtual particles are flitting in and out of existence in the cosmic background from outside the Earth. As a result, as because these particles have momentum, as they interact and replace the particles that make up, we get pushed down toward the Earth.

If gravity is a push, that could explain dark energy! That’s the mysterious force pushing the Universe apart. How I’m not sure, since if the net result is like gravity as we know, masses should move toward each other.

Anyway, back to volatility. It is a dimension in a way. Including it in equations would extend the volume of space where a particle or object could be. With larger solid objects, this dimension, hey, what do you know? would seem to be curled up in a tiny space, since the regeneration process has little macro-scale effect. But at the quantum level, the effect is apparently significant.

By the way, consider how an “observer” somehow influences the Virtual Replacement Process? The Uncertainty Principle says it’s impossible to measure both an electron’s speed and location. Could it partly be because sending a photon into the electron’s zone alters the virtual patterns, or that the photo itself undergoes replacement?

A former coworker, Will Willamson, had a saying: You too can be replaced! Well, maybe you are!  

Patience Is Key to Conversation

OK, guilty as charged! If you’re not talking, I am. Which means no silences. This is crazy. It’s tough to talk and think at the same time. It’s tough to listen and think too. So talk a little, then wait. A good listener will soon say something  smart!

Turn Down Your Inner Volume

turn down your inner volume

Now I know this will sound a little … nuts / spacey / new agey / silly … you take your pick. But I had an interesting experience today. While in a store, I felt myself get quiet. Now I’m not saying relaxed or peaceful. Or mindless or egoless. No, I was just my normal self. Except that I stopped thinking LOUDLY. See how weird that sounds? But I found out that instead of talking quietly to myself, well, I kind of talk assertively, forcefully, LOUDLY … I kind of even yell (but silently) apparently often. Does this make sense to you? Oh, and if there’s music running in my head, I played that loudly too. So down went the volume, and another interesting feeling happened. I felt as it I had vanished … or had become some stealthy silent ghost. I expected people to bump into me. Explanation? Well, before, apparently, I talked in LOUD silence subconsciously thinking it made people notice me. Ego thoughts loudly running through head over here, look at me! Or something like that. So turning down the sound created the counter illusion of invisibility. Kind of cool. Kind of comforting. Kind of scary, too.

Probably worth trying as a meditation technique.

Here’s a link to another serving of Mind Helper: “Be Everywhere Eternally.”

Hope for Newspapers: Services Die, Not Media

The other day my daughter, or someone she was reading, likened the future of newspapers to the fate of milkmen. They couldn’t imagine the service would fade away, but it did. Radio dramas were once popular, too, but they’re now a relic too.

But in these examples is kind of buried a lesson for newspapers: Don’t confuse your service with your medium. The delivery business didn’t die, just the delivery of milk. The radio business is still alive and kicking, with a lot less fictional storytelling (whatever you think of talk radio). 

Similarly, people might stop reading news on paper, but paper probably won’t vanish as a medium. Books and magazines are still around (though they too are threatened by electronic versions), and free entertainment weeklies and shoppers are likely to persist.

The newspaper that survives then might be the one that news may not be the best thing to put on paper. Not in an age when printed words are hours or even days older than what’s available on the Internet.

Instead of trying to be timely, newspapers would be wise to embrace the timeless, original content with a long shelf life.  Useful information, like how-to and where-to and why-to stories. Explanatory writing. More commentary, including humor. Newsy storytelling, that revisits and retells events in cliffhanger style. Living advice. More puzzles and comics, of course. Plus why don’t papers create “programming,” the way TV does?

Not-so newsy papers could become nosey papers, by hosting “reality shows” the way TV does. Follow real life dramas (like a divorce or a difficult pregnancy or life in prison) or even set up local versions of shows like Biggest Loser, Survivor, or Big Brother.

Or “host” contests that play out dramatically like quiz shows.  

Reality shows and game shows have helped TV networks survive. Why not newspapers?

Shouldn’t somebody try it? 

For more concrete ideas, see my “How to Save Newspapers” website.

Could ‘snart’ be a useful word?

Idea: Combine smart and snide and make snart. Sounds kind of rude: He thinks he’s so snart.

3 drawbacks

1. Sounds too much like smart.

2. Snarky already does the trick.

3. Snart already exists, apparently, with a different meaning: “when one farts and sneezes at the same time, regardless of which causes which,” as so eloquently defined by the Urban Dictionary.

Solution: Instead, how about snartsy? Sounds like snart, snarky and artsy-fartsy all rolled up into one. For example, Mr. Snartsy Pants sounds even more insulting than Mr. Smarty Pants.

Overnight Energy-Free Shipping! And the National Wish Fulfillment Chain!

This a wild idea. Maybe it’s more of a stunt than a service. But with the power of the Web perhaps it’s possible: A way to ship something cross-country in just one day using almost no extra energy. Really puts the UNITED in United Parcel Service. Or maybe call it the Hand-Off Shipping Network. Basically people go to, just for fun and the eco-conscious kick and organizational thrill, and sign up, listing all the trips they regularly make, plus any extra scheduled longer trips.  

The trick is we’ll need hundreds if not thousands of people to sign up, because this will be pretty tricky to pull off.

Anyway, in advance of the stunt/demonstration/actual “shipment,” members will get emails asking if they have, or can borrow, a copy of a particular item.

Let’s say it’s Romeo & Juliet. Let’s it’s the play, not the DVD.

You respond, yes, I have a copy, or yes, I can borrow a copy.

Then a program goes through all the matches and figures out a national handoff network. A network that connects members across the country.

So how does Romeo & Juliet get from Atlantic City (Point A) to Yuma (Point Z) in a single day?

Well, it doesn’t. Not exactly. But on National Energy-Free Shipping Network Demonstration Day each member SIMULTANEOUSLY takes his or her copy to the next point in the chain. So the guy in Yuma gets a copy that day from a gal from Santa Fe, who just happened to be traveling to Yuma. When she gets back to Santa Fe, she’ll find her copy was already replaced by a dude from Boulder. He’ll find a copy when he returns home as well, dropped off by a lass from Denver. And so on, all across the country, people passing along Romeo & Juliet to the next step in the chain, while someone else is replenishing their given away copy.

Hmm. Kind of like Karma Shipping. “The Love You Make Is Equal to the Love You Take.”

Wouldn’t it be cool to do this with wishes?

Instead of everyone having the same copy, everyone lays out a different wish. Then you go and check the list of wishes and check out off, “Hey, I could fill that!”

The right website could then create The National Wish Fulfillment Chain. A kind of programmed Pay It Forward.

Each chain would link up people so each person has a wish come true. 

People, of course, could offer to grant wishes without asking for anything in return. That could be a check box: I’ll donate even if my wish isn’t granted.

Anybody want to help start either of these ideas?