New Sub Dives To Crushing Depths

University of Washington Scientists are reporting that they have a new autonomous underwater vehicle that increases both the attainable depth and duration of deployment over current submersibles. Weighing in at just under 140 pounds, the "Deepglider" is able to stay out to sea for up to a year and hit depths of almost 9,000 feet. "Deepglider opens up new research possibilities for oceanographers studying global climate change. The glider's first trip revealed unexpected warming of water near the ocean floor, and scientists are interested in studying whether the temperatures are related to global warming."

Comments

Translation:

[Goalie_Ca]

For those who don't speak ancient google translated it to be:
9 000 feet = 2 743.2 meters

Re:Translation:

[mcho]

Here in the US we don't use the Metric System, which is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.

Re:Translation:

[Trigun]

And to put that further into perspective, from a quick Google, the current record holder was the Japanese The Shinkai 6500 With a maximum recorded depth of 6,527m.

It's still got a few K's to go.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks but why only convert one of the two measurements? Am I supposed to understand "140 pounds"?

Re:Translation:

[MouseR]

The point of the news/record is that this thing is both autonomous AND can last up to a year down there.

That's not the case of this manned submarine.

Re:Translation:

[drinkypoo]

It's still got a few K's to go.

A few Ks hotter or colder?

K is kelvin. km is kilometers (or kilometres, even.)

Re:Translation:

[throbbingbrain.com]

For those who don't speak ancient google translated it to be: 9 000 feet = 2 743.2 meters

Conversions like that are why people are afraid of the metric system.

"almost 9,000 feet" = almost 3,000 meters.

Re:Translation:

[c_forq]

k can also be thousands, but in that case I believe it is standard to have it be lower case, and almost always is immediately preceded by a number (i.e. 401k).

Re:Translation:

[Rudisaurus]

For those who don't speak ancient google translated it to be:

Google isn't really that ancient. It was only incorporated in 1998, I believe.

Re:Translation:

[TheMadcapZ]

That joke is older than 1,000,000,000 Sun orbits around the Earth.

Re:Translation:

[TheClam]

Were you going for (+1, Funny)? Cause you got a chuckle out of me.

Re:Translation:

[Cheapy]

Funny, that's exactly how I read it the first time. My first thought was "What the hell? Ancient google?" Only after reading it twice did I realize he forgot a coma. I think we should fix those kind of problems before our Metric vs. US Units problem :)

Re:Translation:

[baldass_newbie]

Actually, that 'k' is a subsection, thus 401(k).
Regards.

Re:Translation:

[BOFHelsinki]

Congratulations, you managed to pick the only Metric unit we don't use ;) (decimeter)

Re:Translation:

[Lane.exe]

I think you meant to say that the poster forgot a comma. While it is entirely possible that the poster has forgotten someone, somewhere in a comatose state, it is not directly relevant to the grammatical snafu at hand.

Re:Translation:

[Aaron England]

It's too bad google didn't teach you the concept of significant digits.

Re:Translation:

[mdielmann]

It's exactly that kind of thinking that makes interplanetary probes fail!

Re:Translation:

[greenzrx]

140lbs = 10 stone

Re:Translation:

[Intron]

The Bathyscaphe Trieste made it to the bottom of the Challenger Deep, 10,916 metres (5969 fathoms) in 1960 with two people on board. In 1995, the unmanned Kaiko made it to a similar depth.

Re:Translation:

[RxScram]

For those who don't speak that modern fancy schmancy metric stuff, google converted 6527m to equal 21414 feet.

Re:Translation:

[HoldenCaulfield]

All right, so this may be the joke flying over my head, but since when did the Sun orbit the Earth?

Re:Translation:

[Creepy]

I know this is derived from a grandpa Simpson quote, but to put the quote in perspective, 40 rods is .125 miles and a hogshead is 63 gallons, so doing the conversion it's .00198 miles per gallon (.00084 km/liter according to google) or roughly a thousand gallons of gas to go 2 miles. That would cost me roughly $30000 per day at current gas prices to get to and back from work.

Re:Translation:

[icedcool]

Since before the world was round. Duh.

Re:Translation:

[Greg.Rodden]

Only an American would fail to see what he was going for with that.

Re:Translation:

[644bd346996]

I think you answered your own question. Anyways, lookup Copernicus.

Re:Translation:

[drinkypoo]

Only an American would fail to see what he was going for with that.

Only an asshole would assume that I didn't know where he was going with that when I clearly understood what he was trying to say, and providing a gentle correction.

If you're wondering why your correction is not gentle, it's because you're being a cocky smartass and utterly failing to be smart, while they were simply using the wrong abbreviation.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but be damn sure I'm wrong.

Re:Translation:

[Cornflake917]

Only after reading it twice did I realize he forgot a coma. Well, memory loss is a common attribute people have when they wake up from comas.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

a hogshead is 63 gallons

What the fuck?? I would have thought a hog's head would hold at most 2 gallons. And that's for a pretty big hog. Mmmmmm, haaaaammmmm....

Re:Translation:

[geobeck]

K is kelvin.

Actually, K is Kelvins (capital letter). But thanks for not saying degrees Kelvin.

Re:Translation:

[grammar fascist]

Actually, K is Kelvins (capital letter). But thanks for not saying degrees Kelvin.

I always thought it was degrees Kelvins. Or was that Kelvin's degrees?

Re:Translation:

[CommunistHamster]

I can only think of two ways to get that kind of fuel efficiency

A)Your vehicle is obnoxiously heavy

B) You are spraying (non-ignited) petrol out the back with a hose as an eccentric form of jet propulsion

Re:Translation:

[broller]

From our point of view, once per day.

Re:Translation:

[altek]

Additionally, this is close to 2 miles depth!

Re:Translation:

[geobeck]

I always thought it was degrees Kelvins.

Nope. Kelvins are treated as regular units, rather than degrees. So it's correct to read 10 K as "ten Kelvins", as opposed to the common equivalent, which would be -263 degrees Celsius (or -442 degrees Fahrenheit). Must have something to do with the fact that Kelvins are absolute, and therefore cannot be negative, although interestingly enough, it's correct to say 18 degrees Rankine, not 18 Rankines.

Kelvin himself was rather absolute in some of his pronouncements, like his assertion that radio would never be more than a curiosity, and that heavier-than-air flight was impossible.

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

How many leagues underneath the sea is that?

Re:Translation:

[ZorinLynx]

The real question is, how many libraries of congress do you have to burn to get the same amount of energy? :)

Re:Translation:

[Bastard of Subhumani]

What's that in parsecs?

Re:Translation:

[Bastard of Subhumani]

It is? Thanks for the reminder.

Re:Translation:

[rhyder128k]

About four days, if the hidden cargo areas are fully laden.

Re:Translation:

[ThreeE]

Don't travel much eh?

Re:Translation:

[kurzweilfreak]

And, from our point of view, just what would it look like if it did look like the Earth was orbiting the sun instead?

Re:Translation:

[Sarisar]

Only one. Oh wait you said libraries of congress. I missed the first two words there...

Re:Translation:

[ArsonSmith]

Unless you were first hit by a Volkswagen bug sized meteor.

Re:Translation:

[ArsonSmith]

or almost 4km.

Re:Translation:

[tomatensaft]

People do make mistakes, but still, Kelvin was right about the absolute nature of temperature, wasn't he?

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware there was such a language as "ancient google".

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

// "What luck for rulers that men do not think." -Adolph Hitler

Who was Adolph Hitler? was he Adolf's brother or something?

Re:Translation:

[mlush]

All right, so this may be the joke flying over my head, but since when did the Sun orbit the Earth?

Well according to this guy it always has... and your just part of the Zionist conspiricy to cover up the fact.

For extra giggles Warren Chisum recently circulated a letter supporting the site (Page One & Two (He says he sent it out without reading it or following the links )

Re:Translation:

[jonadab]

> Kelvin himself was rather absolute in some of his pronouncements, like his
> assertion that radio would never be more than a curiosity, and that
> heavier-than-air flight was impossible.

Waitasec... are you telling me that the man didn't believe in the existence of birds?

Re:Translation:

[TrikerBob]

Wonder if this is deep enough to find the 911 passenger planes that were dumped at sea...

Re:Translation:

[T00lman]

"US units"?! You need to get out more.

Re:Translation:

[fok]

Would the Sun face the same side of the planet? Eternal day/night?

Re:Translation:

[Greg.Rodden]

Or what? Are you you going to e-fight me?
I was just pointing out how truly useless your post was. Don't go calling me an 'asshole' without knowing me in the slightest please.

I was only underlining exactly how unaware *most* Americans seem to be completely and utterly unaware of any culture other than their own.

Here in Australia, thats the big island by itself to the left of New Zealand (you may have to use google maps to find it http://maps.google.com/ ), we often say "K's" as slang or a colloquialism to denote kilometers.

Re:Translation:

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

What people often don't realise is that Kelvin was a pig farmer. In fact, he had the largest pig farm that has ever existed in the history of mankind. Having become rich from his science career, he decided to donate all of that pork to poor people in Africa. When considering how to deliver the payload, he calculated that he could actually deliver the pork quicker and more efficiently by using a series of hot air balloons, with all the pigs strung out between them. So that's what he did. And what a site it was to see! Miles and miles of pigs floating through the sky. It was so long that it crossed 1/30 of the sky! All of Ireland came out to have a look, and for years to come all they could talk about were ......... the six degrees of Kelvin's bacon!

Huh, global warming

[!Freeky2BGeeky]

More like the temp of the water is warmer since it's closer to the earth's crust? Why does it seem whenever you hear about something from scientists, they're trying to relate it to "Global Warming"? Cause it sells newspapers/magazines?

Re:Huh, global warming

[PitaBred]

Who the hell modded this troll? It's insightful! The water is deep in the ocean, closer to the earth's core... or does geothermal heat not exist in the mod's world?

Re:Huh, global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the planet Earth is a very simple system that conforms to a standard slashdotter's view of how it all should work.

Re:Huh, global warming

[syphax]

The average heat flux from the earth is less than 0.1W/m2. Compare that to ~ 1000 W/m2 for the sun. Sure, it varies all over the place (see: volcanoes, etc.), but it's not a no-brainer where any heat anomalies the glider detected came from. In general, the deep ocean is quite cold because of that whole thermal expansion thing (also note that seawater is densest a few degrees above freezing (~4 deg C, if I recall). So heating from the bottom tends to cause convection.

You'll note that the scientists quoted don't mention global warming; they are excited to see stuff that they didn't expect. That's good enough to satisfy their intellectual curiosity & need to come up with new and interesting grant proposals.

You'll also notice that scientists in general don't sell newspapers or magazines. It's the journalists whose job it is to butcher the science to sell newspapers and magazines.

Finally, the oceans are very much tied up in our little carbon experiment. A good bit of any extra heat that is trapped in the atmosphere will go into the oceans. Also, a lot of the CO2 that we've emitted is already going into the oceans, which leads to ocean acidification. This is the rate of carbonic acid input (that's CO2 + H2O H2CO3 H+ + HCO3-) is much higher than the ocean can buffer it with CaCO3 (which buffers effectively, but only on very long time scales). In the meantime, hope you don't like coral.

Re:Huh, global warming

[syphax]

I suppose it's insightful to the good portion of the ./ audience who fancies themselves armchair geologists, oceanographers, climatologists, astrophysicists, etc.

It's along the lines of the "duh, it's only the sun that's causing any warming, if there is any." (That's wrong, BTW).

Re:Huh, global warming

[syphax]

Oops, ./ ate my brackets. I meant: CO2 + H20 <=> H2CO3 <=> H+ + HCO3- (bicarbonate)
Might as well go all the way: HCO3- <=> H+ + CO3- (carbonate)

Here's the carbonic acid scoop.

Re:Huh, global warming

[arhines]

They're not interested in the absolute temperature, they're interested in the change in temperature over both short and long time periods. This type of data allows scientists to make predictions about future temperatures in many other locations (yes, ocean temperature will couple strongly to atmospheric temperature), and if there is enough data it allows them to describe climate change on the global scale.

Re:Huh, global warming

[mrcdeckard]

why is it that topics like global warming (and evolution for that matter), everyone thinks they know better than someone whom has (presumably) studied the topic for years by dismissing them as saying what they "cause it sells newspapers/magazines"?

i'm not saying that your theory is wrong (or that the scientist is right), but assessing validity between A) a random poster on /. and B) a researcher at u of w, i think i may be inclined to believe the scientist.

sorry, not to pick on you, but it amazes me how often politicians, theologians, pundits, etc., spout their opinions as if it carries more weight than someone who has dedicated their life studying the subject. if it turns out that science is wrong, then the truth will bear out, and any scientist worth their salt will be the first to say it's wrong -- i also suspect that most scientists *are* worth their salt.

modern science has benefited humanity in so many ways, yet people deny it when it goes against their opinions/politics.

mr c

Re:Huh, global warming

[mdm-adph]

when you think about it, though, saying that the "bottom of the ocean is closer to the earth's core than the surface of the ocean" is like saying "my ankle is closer to my head than my toes."

considering how far down the core is, I don't think it makes much of a difference.

Re:Huh, global warming

[abigor]

Yeah, all those darned scientist types are just slapping their brows going "D'oh! Of course! We should read Slashdot more often!"

Come on, these are people who have studied this stuff forever. You think they haven't accounted for brain-dead obvious, common-sense stuff like this?

Re:Huh, global warming

[hey!]

No, they made no such conclusion. They are only marking climate change as one possible explanation for differences between expected and measured values.

Any physical oceanographer (my wife happens to be one) will tell you that ocean temperatures are a very complex phenomenon. If the surface temperature of the ocean increased, it wouldn't be seen any time soon as an across the board increase in deep ocean temperatures, because the ocean doesn't vertically mix much in any locality. Instead, surface currents carry energy great distances horizontally, eventually cooling and sinking to drive deep ocean return currents.

Monitoring changes in deep ocean temperatures in many places is an interesting objective, because it might say a great deal about changes in ocean circulation patterns. The relationship between increased surface temperatures and deep ocean temperatures is more complex than it would be if temperatures simply diffuse downard. It is quite possible that in some places a global increase in surface temperature would cause temperatures to drop in some deep ocean localities.

You can no more make conclusions about global climate change from a single deep ocean location than you can from a single surface weather station.

IIRC, there already is robotic monitoring of deep ocean temperatures. Extending the reach of these programs will give us a more complete picture, which in turn can be used to validate or invalidate climate change scenarios. If you believe global warming is a sham, then obtaining a more complete picture is a good thing. It'll make faulty models harder to validate.

AFAIK, the radiative cooling of the Earth is a relatively minor contributor to ocean temperatures; however by looking at changes in temperature, especially across many places, then it can be effectively factored out.

Re:Huh, global warming

[hansamurai]

More like the temp of the water is warmer since it's closer to the earth's crust? Why does it seem whenever you hear about something from scientists, they're trying to relate it to "Global Warming"? Cause it sells newspapers/magazines?

It not only sells newspapers, it wins Oscars!

Re:Huh, global warming

[ArcherB]

modern science has benefited humanity in so many ways, yet people deny it when it goes against their opinions/politics.

Exactly! I couldn't agree more. Of course, it also needs to be said every time an article comes up where a scientist says something against the group-think, like "Global Warming is not man-made".

While it is OK to voice your opinion, I don't think it is OK to question the ethics of the scientists involved.

Re:Huh, global warming

[LiquidCoooled]

Wow, don't see you around much and certainly not since zzz went off-air.
Hope you are OK, if you ever reopen for business make sure you let slash know :)

Re:Huh, global warming

[Trojan35]

"You'll also notice that scientists in general don't sell newspapers or magazines. It's the journalists whose job it is to butcher the science to sell newspapers and magazines."

You're kidding, right? I can think of many reasons a scientist could try and sell magazines. Fame and Grants come to mind rather quickly. I realize /. is a science-geek type crowd, but let's not pretend scientists are any more noble than the next guy.

Re:Huh, global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the expert disagreement is the media's "he said, she said balance" delusion.

In an article with a relevant scientist saying "global warming isn't real or isn't man-made", there should be quotes from ~100 other relevant scientists saying "global warming is real and is man-made".

Re:Huh, global warming

[Intron]

Temperature in South African mines goes up about 12 deg C per km. Considering that global warming refers to a few degree change, I would call that a significant amount. Don't forget that there are hydrothermal vents on the bottom of the ocean near the hot spots.

Re:Huh, global warming

[nido]

A good bit of any extra heat that is trapped in the atmosphere will go into the oceans.

If the heat came from the atmosphere, wouldn't it be detected in surface temperatures? This story seems to indicated the reverse: A good bit of any extra heat that is trapped in the ocean will leak into the atmosphere.

Heat from hydrothermal vents and other underwater volcanic phenomena heats the ocean water. The Juan de Fuca Ridge is in the pacific ocean along the Washington coastline, so I think it likely that this process is what the scientists' sub has detected.

Re:Huh, global warming

[suitepotato]

You'll also notice that scientists in general don't sell newspapers or magazines. It's the journalists whose job it is to butcher the science to sell newspapers and magazines.

Nevertheless, they live in the modern world we do and are not unaware of the power of sensationalism in science to loosen pursestrings to get paid to do not a whole lot, aka pure research. At this stage of the game where we're about three steps away from linking global warming to the supposed online pedophile predator crisis, no one should feel silly about being suspicious of anything scientists say.

Meanwhile, Johnny can't differentiate simple functions. But he will probably graduate with a degree in environmental science anyhow.

Re:Huh, global warming

[cynvision]

Same reaction I had. Hopefully, they aren't cruising somewhere down-current from a volcanic area when they brightly announce this. First time they got a thingi that can go really deep without breaking down, it can explore and poke around for a long time that deep, and the data all points to the evil global warming gremlin. I'm sincerely hoping the truth about the deep ocean will be stranger than we can imagine.

Re:Huh, global warming

[Volante3192]

I can think of many reasons a scientist could try and sell magazines. Fame and Grants come to mind rather quickly.

And at thirty magazine subscriptions, they get a brand new TI-84!

Re:Huh, global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

one word: funding!

Re:Huh, global warming

[OpieTaylor]

For scientists, the only thing sensationalism gets you is the ruthless mockery of your peers. For example, how did sensationalism work out for the Cold Fusion crew of Fleischmann & Pons?

Of course it helps your grant proposal to link your research to broader impacts, but sensationalism does not equal broader impacts.

Re:Huh, global warming

[gardyloo]

And at thirty magazine subscriptions, they get a brand new TI-84! The Silver one?!? Fuck dude, I'm so in!

Re:Huh, global warming

[syphax]

In my time as a scientist-wanna-be (at Dartmouth, WHOI, MIT), I didn't see a lot of this. What I did see was a lot of tenuous connections in grant writing to whatever topics were hot at the time in funding circles. So yes, e.g. climatologists will find a way to link just about anything they want to research to climate change. But I think that's much more prevalent in grant-writing than in general discourse. Sure, there are some sensationalist scientists out there, but not a lot (name some, please?).

I wonder why you cast such aspersions on scientists (it makes it easier to ignore their inconvenient findings, I suppose?). Most of the scientists I ever worked with worked hard for much less than they could have earned in the private sector (which is a big reason why I'm in the private sector). And they valued precision and rigor, not sensationalism. Yeah, they're human like the rest of us, but I think your characterizations are flat out wrong.

Of course, as I have a degree in environmental engineering (undergrad summa cum laude, then NSF grad. research fellowship), maybe you struck a nerve with me. BTW I can differentiate. And integrate. Symbolically and numerically, even.

Re:Huh, global warming

[arhines]

Sorry to branch off-topic here, but I'm glad people still remember it :) I'm contemplating a new site with the same theme, now that I'm graduating and will have some free time. I think user-moderation has become an important part of community-driven sites, and the reincarnation of ZZZ would probably tap into that heavily. I'll certainly spread the word when it starts coming together.

Re:Huh, global warming

[hesquibo]

> (also note that seawater is densest a few degrees above freezing
> (~4 deg C, if I recall)

You are thinking of fresh water.

The density of seawater (e.g. with a salinity of 35) as a function of temperature increases with decreasing temperature (BTW, the article you linked to also mentions this ;-)).

This graph (referenced by an article about arctic sea ice) shows that for seawater with a salinity greater than 24.7 the water freezes before it can get to the density maximum.
(The fact that sea ice floats seems to be related to density change due to phase transformation (sorry, no good source for that one)).

Re:Huh, global warming

[cbacba]

Actually, that should be global cooling. Since oceans are closer to the molton innards which is nasty rock melting hot still, it's obviously a bit of a thermal leak and when the heat leaks out, the remaining material cools down. Note that some heat is residual (or perhaps may be regenerated by some sort of natural nukular (w.r.t. gw bush) reactor at the core) and some heat is doubtlessy cause by the shifting of tectonic plates and the gravitational effects of sun and moon. However, it is reasonable to assume that that we do have global cooling going on and that eventually, the core will solidify. When that happens, we can probably say adios to our magnetic field and when that is gone, it's probably gonna get rather cloudy and cold, at least until our atmosphere gets mostly stripped away by the solar wind. All this probably occurs long before the sun turns red giant and creates some major bit of global warming around here - before we're totally evaporated. At that point, we're likely due to be blown out in a pretty, colorful planetary nebula (nothing to do with planets - just misnamed long ago), perhaps a bit like the Dumbbell nebula (sorry algore).

Re:Huh, global warming

[tc9]

Grant Writing 101. Make sure that, in the final paragraph, you claim the research is "potentially" related to whatever the fundingg agency is funding this month.

Re:Huh, global warming

[!Freeky2BGeeky]

I am sadly amazed that my comment has been considered "Trollish".

My comment was completely on topic as the original article was posted linking a few temperature findings at the bottom of the ocean that were found to be warmer than those above to "Global Warming".

As the article was not even using good, objective science, I was merely pointing out what seems to be a tendency toward sensationalism.

That I offered a layman's hypothesis of why the temps might've been warmer, while never claiming to be an oceanographic scientist, merely sparked a whole host of intelligent commentary.

How is that a troll?

From the standpoint of the diving device itself, I applaud the efficiency and ingenuity of the designer(s) and technicians that built it. With a whole fleet of these devices, we may gain a greater understanding of that which covers the majority of our planet. Until then, the relatively minuscule amount of data collected thus far should not be relied upon to make suppositions about global warming.

From the standpoint of global warming, I'm all for it! I live in the South for a reason, and I'm whole-heartedly opposed to another Ice Age, let alone the absolute zero of space.

This is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

The oceans have always been a mystery to man, even in modern times. The fact that we can reach the summit of the highest point on Earth is wonderful, but we can't say the same about the ocean. It's been a theory of mine that if there are aliens on this planet that they would be at the bottom of the sea. Think about it, if they studied the planet they'd realise its mostly water. Ever seen The Abyss?

AC because mods piss me off.

Re:This is interesting

[Hucko]

Yeah, I did! I mistook it for a fiction.

Re:This is interesting

[meringuoid]

It's been a theory of mine that if there are aliens on this planet that they would be at the bottom of the sea.

The Lobstermen are the worst ones. They just will not die. And the ones who keep mind controlling my operatives.

Well, them and the Sea Devils - they used to give Jon Pertwee a terrible time.

Re:This is interesting

[Almost-Retired]

The oceans are indeed a mystery. We haven't studied them near as well as we have the land above, mainly becuase we humans are quite puny in comparison, and absolutely must have a ready supply of breathable air. Preferably at an ambient pressure of less than 100psi.

The deepest we've ever been, and two guys lived through it, is actually deeper than Everest is tall, 37,800 feet to the bottom of the Marianas Trench off the Phillipines. The iron ball, 6 feet in diameter that they were in, suspended from the kerosene ballast tanks of the Navy's Trieste, was squeezed by the nominally 18kpsi pressure, enough to warp the frames of the equipment braces holding the controls and monitors for the tv cameras that I actually helped build back in about 1960. The Treiste ran everything in it and on it from big racks of Sears Die-Hard batteries, each of which had a heavy balloon with half a pint or so of battery acid in them, snapped over the neck of the cell, with a wire cage to keep them from being dislodged by water currents. They brought back a lot of pix of blind, eyeless fish from down there, and they turned the cameras around to look at the batteries once and found that all of the balloons had been driven into the batteries. So don't ever let anybody tell you that water is incompressible, it is at 18,000 psi. So is oil, we had filled the pan & tilt drives with motor oil, and layed a neoprene rubber gasket on the top, then drilled some holes in the cover to let the pressure in. There was about an inch of clearance to the closest gear. One gasket was cut thru, the other was damaged by the turning gears slicing into it but held.

But the guys weren't in very good shape by the time it had surfaced and the gondola opened to let/get them out, so thats a trip they never repeated, and they were using state of the art air recycling gear. If something better has been invented now for that, I'm not aware of it. The danger of it imploding was very real, this was about 2x deeper than Alvin or its successor ilk have ever been. But then Alvin and company have access holes that can be opened, this ball didn't due to the pressure calcs saying they couldn't support it, so it was cut in half, and the seams epoxied together after the guys were inside, and it had to be removed somehow to get them back out. The Navy never said how they opened it once the epoxy was set.

But, man being the curious thing that he is, if better tools can be made, I expect there will be ready volunteers to occupy the viewports for yet another trip into that abyss.

Do you feel lucky? I think I'l stay up here, thank you...

--
Cheers, gene

Re:This is interesting

[Dragon By Proxy]

Hello, little sacks of flesh, it is I, Cthulhu, come to grace you with a grand revelation...

I am not an alien, you insensitive clod!

Re:This is interesting

[Deadstick]

if they studied the planet they'd realise its mostly water.

It's mostly iron and silicates. The outer 0.00000001 percent of it is mostly water.

rj

Re:This is interesting

[Cheapy]

It could only be one thing that caused this mystery...The Lobstermen from Mars have started their global conquest!

Re:This is interesting

[Saikik]

The oceans have always been a mystery to man, even in modern times. The fact that we can reach the summit of the highest point on Earth is wonderful, but we can't say the same about the ocean.

And where do you think we should look for the highest point in the ocean? An island maybe?

Re:This is interesting

[wellingj]

Don't you mean Claw Shrimp?

Re:This is interesting

[MikeHunt69]

Awesome info, thanks for sharing.

Re:This is interesting

[vecctor]

X-COM 2 Ftw!

Re:This is interesting

[Almost-Retired]

Well, one thing that's always bothered me a bit, has to do with their later 're-adjustment' of the depth of the mohole, back up to the 35,800 foot area.

This, AIUI, was done with echo-sounding, and I've always wondered if the measurements would have been skewed in that direction by the effect of the rising pressure with depth, on the speed of sound in water. Its faster than in air of course, but wouldn't the density increase be reflected in a speed of sound reading that increased in some proportion if not a direct density tracking change? It makes sense to me, so I've not been too bashfull about using the 37+k feet figure that was I believe, derived from the actual crush of the gondola, measured inside it at the time.

Jacques Piccard, we all know, survived ok, and went on to make all those other ocean related docudrama's. But I've never heard of the other fellow again, so I've always wondered if maybe he had some of the same problems our one survivor of the Sago mine explosion has. He'll need help doing 2*2 problems the rest of his life. That BTW, is only about 20 miles from here so it's pretty close to home.

All those pix they brought back were taken with (we were told) smallish leica rangefinder cameras with closeup tubes fitted, right off the screens of the two 8" monitors, because there was no video recording technology then that wasn't 5x the size of the whole gondola they were in. So the only way to bring back a pix was on film. And yes, it did leak some. Between the sweating walls because deep sea water is so cold, and a few drops that worked their way in through the packing seals around the wiring access, there was I'm told, about 2 feet of water in it when they got it opened back up. In 34F water, that would give you a whole new definition of cold feet. A real leak though would have been quite dangerous as a stream of water only .005" thick would have been so powerfull that just swinging an arm through it would have sliced the arm off far cleaner than you could have done with a modern chop saw.

Anyway, 2 cents from one who was a very small part of that particular piece of history, as he remembers it 47 years later. I didn't really understand then that what I was working on would be involved in something so exclusive as the only trip into the mohole that man has ever done. What we were really trying to do was build a camera that could be pulled through sewers to inspect them and the business model was to lease them out by the week. To say that we were surpised when a bunch of Navy Gold (nothing brass about those guys, all gold, all over) walked in the door and wanted to see what we had at the time is an understatement. The best demo we did was probably when we picked up the breadboard, with parts hanging out of it in all directions, and gently put it in a bench drawer and closed the drawer on the piece of rg59 that was running it. 2 seconds later we were watching (the auto target was a bit slow) the wood grain of the back panel of the drawer. They were sold, and gave us specs for the houseing and they would furnish the quartz windows the lenses would look through. We made the housings by drilling a 2 3/4" hole through the middle of a 6" round bronze rod about 2 feet long, which gave us room so the bronze could crush 1/4" internally before the cameras pcbs were crushed. It worked. They built or had built, similar housings for the lights since that's 33k feet deeper than light ever gets. Bring your own light in other words.

I better shut up before I really start rambling...

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:This is interesting

[neminem]

Good. I was really hoping someone would have mentioned The Abyss by now, or I'd have been sad. God, that was a good movie. Even better book, incidentally (only novelization I've ever read that was better than the movie it was based on!)

Re:This is interesting

[monkeydo]

According to the Wikipedia article, there was indeed a hatch.

Re:This is interesting

[Almost-Retired]

Thanks for the link, there is some stuff there I hadn't seen before. In particular, that vertical tunnel access port/hatch. I wasn't present when our stuff was installed in it, (so I never personally saw the gondola) which they actually did on a weekend right on the dock that was about 75 feet from our (Oceanographic Engineering) buildings back door. At the time, all the Navy brought over was an LST with the gondola pieces hanging from its crane. They set it down on the dock, the engineers installed their stuff and this story replay made me think there wasn't a hatch. After the top and been set in place, at one point there was an ensign walking around it, tapeing up the equatorial joint with a roll of rubber tape, and our engineer asked what that was for? The Ensign replied with a very straight face, "why it leaks, Sir" and kept on walking. There was at that point two guys in it, and when the tape had been applied and all the cables connected to a rack of batteries on the LST had been double checked, then the LST picked it up and backed away from the dock about 20 feet and set it down on the bottom of Mission Bay in about 12 feet of water and stood by, teathered to it to pick it up again when signaled. Our people stood around, and when it was brought back up, everybody came out with ear to ear grins and our prople could breath again. It was quite the talk of the shop monday morning and I regret not being there for the show. But I was trying to raise a handicapped child and family matters intervened.

--
Cheers, Gene

Funding guaranteed if ...

[Jerry]

you tie your pet project to Global Warming.

Doesn't matter how, just as long as you don't attempt to prove it wrong.

Re:Funding guaranteed if ...

[east coast]

I'd like to test the effects of global warming on the production and recreational use of the marijuana plant. I swear to God it will be a scientific study.

Re:Funding guaranteed if ...

[Pinkfud]

Right. How is the warming "unexpected"? The oceanic crust is much thinner than continental crust, and it's basaltic so it conducts heat a bit better than siliceous crustal rock. It doesn't surprise me at all if some heat is escaping through the ocean floors.

Re:Funding guaranteed if ...

[GiovanniZero]

and further more, gloabl warming is supposed to be happening at the surface level. Why would the warm global warming water go down to the bottom of the ocean when there is plenty of cooler water in between?

Re:Funding guaranteed if ...

[darjen]

Sweet! Can I be a volunteer on your study? I promise I will be as impartial as possible.

Re:Funding guaranteed if ...

[maxume]

I thought oil company and Bush administration money was only forthcoming if you did attempt to prove it wrong. Huh.

Re:Funding guaranteed if ...

[thrillseeker]

Why would the warm global warming water go down to the bottom of the ocean

Because that's where the funding is needed ...

Hi Al

[Zeek40]

scientists are interested in studying whether the temperatures are related to global warming

Wow Mr Gore, nice job! I was impressed with your ability to bring the topic of global warming up during your oscar speech yesterday, but today while summarizing an article about a new submarine! Very impressive!

Re:Hi Al

[C0y0t3]

Yes a master of manipulation indeed, slipping in a mention of Global Warming while accepting an award for a movie about Global Warming. Diabolical...

Re:Hi Al

[cynvision]

Since we no longer have the Cold War and the specter of being blown up by a Russian nuke (Although the whole nuclear thing comes back with Iran announcing they put up stuff to orbit on a rocket. Things are cyclical that way. We'll be back to having duck and cover bomb drills in no time.) And while we were distracted by the bomb thing, we generated a lot of trash and synthetic diapers and then had to tell our kids to conserve the Earth's resources or we'll all be sorry in the next generation. So then recycling and minimal cardboard packaging is doing a tiny bit to stop landfills from becoming the only thing we'll see... Then it's the battle to keep Nuclear Waste out of your state. All the cheap power was going to kill us by irradiating us by cans of goop from the reactors. Our grandkids would be *so* mad at us if we ever buried that in their future home on the prairie. We'll all be sorry in the next generation. So we kinda get past all that (send it to the West somewhere under the desert where, you know, nothing lives) and let kids entertain themselves playing with them new fangled computers. For some reason or another America had to reinvent another ending of doom to teach to the next generation. Our grandkids will be so mad at us for not being able to dive coral reefs and will have to enjoy the coastal cities we grew up in by mini-sub. (of course, they probably won't do those sorts of things because they never played outside much) But if our power generation and driving habits are to blame, is alternative fuels getting any backing that would bring it to the market in the next five years? No? We'll all be sorry in the next generation.

No matter that it's perfectly normal for the atmosphere to do it's carbon thing and the oceans to rise and fall. No matter that it's the local star driving the bus, the politicians and scientists at the back will still figure a way to make us scared of living. If it's not global warming, it's tidal wave from a collapsing African volcano, or the Earth's magnetic field switching, or Yellowstone's caldera blowing up. Isn't it dangerous outside the cave? Yeah! Deal.

Re:Hi Al

[cynvision]

Got so wrapped up there I forgot about the awful Hole In The Ozone that was going to kill all life on Earth. The big, bad thing made out of the one man-caused goof of our chemical science and love of air conditioning and spray paint.

Serious question

[zyl0x]

How would global warming, if it even exists as people say it does, affect the temperature of water on the ocean floor?

Re:Serious question

[arhines]

How would the amount of brain matter inside of your skull, if it even exists as people say it does, affect the wisdom of your statement?

Re:Serious question

[High Hat]

Well under the assumption that global warming has an effect on ocean streams this could be a possibility.

Obviously heat radiated from the core of the Earth is a much more likely cause...

Re:Serious question

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that is exactly the question the scientists would like to answer. Hence, 'further study'

Re:Serious question

[san]

That is probably the very question they're trying to answer.

Ocean water is not stagnant and there are currents that mix surface water with warmer water in places where the surface water is colder (and denser) than the deeper water.

Re:Serious question

[Vr6dub]

Someone mentioned earlier...Isn't water most dense at 4 degC? Which would mean water at the lowest depths would be close to that temp?

Re:Serious question

[ArsonSmith]

I'd say that because the ocean floor is part of the globe we call earth, then global warming would make ir warmer? Was that a trick question?

Re:Serious question

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure water at its most dense at 277.13 K (3.98 degC) only at standard atmospheric pressure (101.325 kPa).

If it was at its most dense at that temperature at all pressures, the kilogram would have remained 1 dm^3 of pure water at that temperature. However, it doesn't, and pressure has mass as a factor (Pa = N/m^2; N = kg * m/s^2) leading to an unfortunate circular dependency.

The variation is small but important, and is related to the hydrogen bond.

However, oceans aren't pure water. The salinity (dissolved ions) reduces the maximum density of water to the freezing point of water. The freezing point of salt water is lower than that of pure water. (North Atlantic water at the surface usually freezes at 1.9 K colder than pure water in similar conditions.) Moreover, as the ocean surface begins to freeze, ions are ejected from the ice (brine rejection), leading to ice essentially identical to that formed from fresh water, and an increase in salinity in the water below the ice.

The salinity increase further lowers the freezing point of the remaining water, and increases its density.

However, because of convection and mixing, the mean subsurface temperature of the oceans is usually around 275 K, although metastable pockets and streams of colder and warmer water (+/- 2 K) are normal.

Or, to put it more simply, sea water would get saltier and colder with distance below the top surface, except that it keeps being stirred up to the point that it retains a uniform saltiness and temperature from very close to the top to very close to the bottom.

Melting ice decreases the overall salinity of the entire set of oceans through the same mixing processes, raising the average subsurface temperature of the whole set of oceans.

Not that deep...

[rkww]

The Marianas Trench is 35,813 feet (11521 metres) deep, according to the submariners who went to the bottom of it. So how is this new submersible in any way special?

Re:Not that deep...

[whisper_jeff]

Read the article you link to. Submariners have NEVER been to the bottom of the trench. If any person has been to the bottom of the trench, they were dead long before they got there. From the article, "Using echo sounding, the Challenger II measured a depth of 5,960 fathoms..." Nothing manmade has ever been to the bottom of the trench and returned.

Re:Not that deep...

[whisper_jeff]

Bah. Ignore me. I'm wrong. Me stoopid. sigh.... (and Slashdot's stupid time limit on additional posts is not letting me immediately correct my mistake...)

Re:Not that deep...

[casings]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste


Trieste departed San Diego on October 5, 1959 on the way to Guam by the freighter Santa Maria to participate in Project Nekton -- a series of very deep dives in the Mariana Trench.

On January 23, 1960, Trieste reached the ocean floor in the Challenger Deep (the deepest southern part of the Mariana Trench), carrying Jacques Piccard (son of Auguste) and Lieutenant Don Walsh, USN. This was the first time a vessel, manned or unmanned, had reached the deepest point in the Earth's oceans. The onboard systems indicated a depth of 11 521 m (37,800 ft), although this was later revised to 10 916 m (35,813 ft), and more accurate measurements made in 1995 have found the Challenger Deep to be slightly shallower, at 10 911 m (35,798 ft).

The descent took 4 hours and 48 minutes before reaching the ocean floor.[1] After passing 9,000 meters one of the outer plexiglas window panes shattered, shaking the entire vessel.[2] The two men spent barely twenty minutes at the ocean floor, eating chocolate bars to keep their strength. The temperature in the cabin was a mere 7C at the time. While on the bottom at maximum depth, Piccard and Walsh (unexpectedly) regained the ability to communicate with the surface ship, USS Wandank II ATA-204, using a sonar/hydrophone voice communications system. [1]. At a speed of almost a mile per second (about five times the speed of sound in air), it took about 7 seconds for a voice message to travel from the craft to the surface ship, and another 7 seconds for answers to return.

While on the bottom, Piccard and Walsh observed small soles and flounders swimming away, proving that certain vertebrate life can withstand all existing extremes of pressure in earth's oceans. They noted that the floor of the Challenger Deep consisted of "diatomaceous ooze".

After leaving the bottom, they undertook their ascent, which required 3 hours, 15 minutes. Since then, no manned craft has ever returned to the Challenger Deep. A Japanese robotic craft Kaiko reached the bottom of the Challenger Deep in 1995. This craft was lost at sea in 2003, leaving no craft in existence capable of reaching these most extreme ocean depths (which, however, represent an extremely tiny fraction of the ocean's bottom area).

hmm, i guess they were full of shit.

Re:Not that deep...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now come back and tell us when they've revisited almost 1/3 of the depth *autonomously*, and then stayed there for a year. /hint: it helps if you RTFA - or even just RTF summary - before posting smart-assed comments.

Re:Not that deep...

[hcdejong]

1. It's an autonomous vehicle. Most unmanned subs have to be remotely piloted. Many are tethered to their mothership, severely limiting their range and maneuverability.

2. Its range and endurance are nothing short of phenomenal. They've made a quantum leap in efficiency.

3. It may be the cheapest way to get to a depth of 9000 ft.

Re:Not that deep...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, and next you'll be telling us we landed on the moon...

Re:Not that deep...

[syphax]

From TFA:

"Gliders are a cost-effective alternative to traditional measuring techniques, which involve expensive boat-trips and floating instruments that simply drift with surface currents."

This one goes a lot deeper than previous gliders, opening up a whole lot more of the ocean to cost-effective data collection.

Using your logic, the Apollo 11 mission was not special because it did not go to Pluto (or whatever is the outermost planet these days).

Re:Not that deep...

[vwjeff]

Read the article you link to. Submariners have NEVER been to the bottom of the trench.

From the Wikipedia Article:

"In an unprecedented dive, the United States Navy bathyscaphe Trieste reached the bottom at 1:06 p.m. on January 23, 1960, with U.S. Navy Lieutenant Don Walsh and Jacques Piccard on board. Iron shot was used for ballast, with gasoline for buoyancy.[4] The onboard systems indicated a depth of 11,521 meters (37,800 ft), but this was later revised to 10,916 meters (35,813 ft). At the bottom, Walsh and Piccard were surprised to discover soles or flounder about 30 cm (1 ft) long, as well as shrimp."

Re:Not that deep...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about reading a bit further that article. Trieste was a bathyscape which two guys, Don Walsh and Jaques Piccard went down there, took some pictures and came up. Both were very much alive and well many years after that ... Manned devices classified as submarines haven't got much deeper than the NR-1 did though.

Re:Not that deep...

[wumpus188]

WTF are you talking about? Ever hear of Trieste?

Re:Not that deep...

[rkww]

"Nothing manmade has ever been to the bottom of the trench and returned."

How much do you want to bet?

Re:Not that deep...

[onemorechip]

Relax. You can always "correct" the Wikipedia article instead...

How did they know what it was before

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're only seeing the temperature there now, how can they say it has changed?

Need a budget? Reference Global Warming.

[Anonymous Coward]

I need a new cell phone plan that has a Global Warming clause.

Global Warming on the ocean floor? Ha

[brendanoconnor]

I find it extremely unlikely that global warming is having any effect on the ocean floor. Head a mile off the coast of the pacific and swim down 20 feat. You'll notice a couple of things. One, it gets dark very quickly; meaning light doesn't get to travel far. Two, it gets very cold very fast; meaning the heat from the sun is not penetrating all that deeply.

To keep this on topic, cool submersible though. It would be incredible to really explore the very depths of the ocean just to see what kind of life we find. I'm sure there are many secrets waiting to be discovered.

Brendan

Re:Global Warming on the ocean floor? Ha

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Two, it gets very cold very fast; meaning the heat from the sun is not penetrating all that deeply.

And that water has a density maximum at about 4 degrees C. So (to a first approximation, ignoring issues like salinity gradients) 4 degree C water sinks below water at any higher or lower temperature, regulating the deep-ocean temperature - until you get down to where the ocean bottom is heating it faster than it can float away.

Heat input at the top just changes the level where it reaches 4 degrees, not what the temperature below that point is.

Re:Global Warming on the ocean floor? Ha

[WindBourne]

1. IIRC, you personally do not believe that Global warming is occurring, but I could be wrong.
2. notice the current transport? That runs accross the surface and then submerges carrying heat with it. Since I am not an oceanographer, I could not make an intelligent guess on it. But, I would guess that are not as well.
3. I suspect that a long term study will find that the ocean is fairly variable. The truth is, that we do not have that good of data related to temps and salinity, except at the surface. That is why a number of these gliders may be useful to gathering this data.

OMG - It MUST be global warming..

[SuseLover]

So, the very first question is weather this is related to global warming or not. What about.. Or it may be due to hot magma underneath or some previously unknown "conveyor belt"?

Not jumping to conclusions or anything, are we??

Re:OMG - It MUST be global warming..

[the dark hero]

So, the very first question is weather this is related to global warming or not. What about.. Or it may be due to hot magma underneath or some previously unknown "conveyor belt"?

Not jumping to conclusions or anything, are we??

No. We have a mat for that. The "Global Warming" square is right next to the "Violent Videogames" and "Acts of Terror" squares. You cant miss it.

Re:OMG - It MUST be global warming..

[Cctoide]

In other news, global warming is found to be the cause of 99.8% of all cases of thermal processor failure.

Re:OMG - It MUST be global warming..

[ArsonSmith]

And the other .2% being the cause of global warming.

global warming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Water insulated by 9,000 feet (imperial measurement rules) affected by global warming?! Give me a break. More than likely there's an open fissure near by and magma is warming the water. Call me crazy but that seems much more likely than global climate change heating the depths of the worlds largest toilets.

Re:global warming?

[nietsch]

Gosh, an open fissure. So what would happen if some underwatervulcano heated a spot on the seafloor with a few degrees. What would happen to the density of this water? Stay there?
In other words: if you heat a single spot of water on the seafloor the warmer water will rise up.
These guys measured the unexpected rise in temperature on every dive. Lots of fissures maybe?

It gets grants

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Scientists sell too. They need funding to feed their families and buy machines than go beep. They need to use teaser language to get people interested in their work to get funding.

Error in article?

[asadodetira]

I'm working in a buoyancy related problem so I have to point this out. From the full article: "When pressure compresses a hull in a traditional glider, it gains buoyancy and requires more energy to control." If it's compressed, the volume shrinks, it gains density and loses buoyancy.

Re:Error in article?

[arhines]

Yes, the article appears to be unclear on this. What they mean is that in a traditional glider, the compressibility will be either larger or smaller than that of seawater. In either of these cases, maintaining a steady rate of descent requires more ballast pumping to readjust the buoyancy. These gliders have isopycnal hulls, which have very close to the same compressibility of seawater, and thus require very little ballast pumping in order to maintain a constant glideslope.

Re:Error in article?

[asadodetira]

I see. That would be too much to write in a wired article for the general public.
Your explanation makes it clear that the seawater compressibility shouldn't be neglected.

Since it's supposed to use little power, I wonder if this would be useful as a means of transporting goods. Would be slow though.

Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these???

not a submarine

[192939495969798999]

The reason this matters, from TFA, is that this is a glider, not a submarine. It's cheaper, lighter, and more energy efficient than dropping a big ball to the bottom of the ocean. This thing can drive around and look at stuff very similarly to how a non-crush depth submersible could do.

Re:not a submarine

[FlyingGuy]

Ok.... So you are wrong. Sorry to say it but its true.

As per Reference.com and my own personal expirience ( 10 years in the United States Submarine Service ) , a submarine is ANY vessel that can navigate while submerged.

The fact that this submarines propulsion is the result of hydrodynamic forces on a "wing" makes no difference at all. A propeller, turned by an main propultion unit is a "wing" that hydrodynamic forces act upon, thereby resulting in movement in any plane of reference ( up, down, left, right ) satisfies the demand that this submarine have a mode of propulsion.

FTA and I quote:

Traditional gliders consume about half a watt of energy moving at a rate of half a knot. Deepglider's power consumption is about half that because of its exceptionally stiff hull that's resistant to pressure. When pressure compresses a hull in a traditional glider, it gains buoyancy and requires more energy to control.

On its face this is, well no other word for it, wrong. The principles of boyancy as described by Archimedes clearly indicate this. Boyancy is based upon a volume of water or gas that is displaced by a body or form and the pressure towards a lesser pressure with therefor lift the body or form towards the region of a lesser pressure.

The ONLY way for a bod or form to become more or less boyant is to either increase or decrease the volume of the water / gas being displaced. The only way to do this in any submersable device with a rigid hull form is to add or subtract water from a ballast tank.

MOD Parent +5

[INeededALogin]

Did anyone even read the article(submitter included). This isn't a sub at all. It is the equivilant of a buoyancy controlled rock with sensors. It is cool stuff though, but these guys aren't gonna be using this thing to look at ship wrecks or follow sperm whales or anything.

Re:MOD Parent +5

[hcdejong]

Not quite. Unlike a rock, this thing can move around. With those wings, they can convert depth changes into forward motion. It seems buoyancy control uses less energy than a propeller, so they've got a very efficient propulsion system. The tradeoff is a low top speed.

The Religion of Global Warming Strikes Again

[N3WBI3]

How sad is it when a scientist sees something for the first time and rather than say 'I have no clue whay this is happening, I should study the reason this is happening' says 'This might be because of gloabal working, I should go look for a link'.

Re:The Religion of Global Warming Strikes Again

[Falkkin]

How sad is it when a non-scientist is presented with evidence of a phenomenon for the millionth time and rather than saying "maybe these scientists are on to something after all" says "this must be religion striking yet again"?

Re:The Religion of Global Warming Strikes Again

[VENONA]

Yeah, that would be sad, if it had happened. But it didn't. Please read TFA. No causality claims were made.

Progress?

[PhotoGuy]

It always amazes me, that we (well, humankind that is, I can't take all the credit) managed to dive to almost 40,000 feet with the Challenger in *1951*, but haven't been back or deeper since! There is so much to explore on our own planet, and so much effort is being placed into going out into a vast, mostly empty vacuum, instead of looking under our own massive oceans, which are teeming with life (almost a new form, ever time we look at it).

The discoveries we are likely to make under our oceans, are undoubtedly going to be of far more relevance and benefit to our own lives on this little planet, that anything we find "out there." Yes, I think we should do both, but I think the depths of our oceans are severely and disproportionately neglected, except for the odd diving renegade.

Re:Progress?

[Anonymous Coward]

It always amazes me, that we (well, humankind that is, I can't take all the credit) managed to dive to almost 40,000 feet with the Challenger in *1951*, but haven't been back or deeper since!

it is a little difficult to dive below the deepest point in Earth's oceans, you know.

Captcha is "record" - go figure

Re:Progress?

[mdm-adph]

did you follow that link? apparently, the Challenger is an 1100-ton survey ship. Quite the accomplishment to dive with that thing, indeed! :P

Re:Progress?

[asadodetira]

the challenger was a sailboat carrying instruments. It didn't dive. The bastiscaphe trieste, did though. You probably were thinking about this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste

Re:Progress?

[rbanffy]

Believe it or not, going to space is almost easier than going that deep.

IIRC, they had no windows and just touched the bottom before releasing ballast and returning to the surface.

Re:Progress?

[Creeture]

Dude, HMS Challenger was a surface vessel, i.e. a rides-on-top-of-the-water boat. The 40,000 feet you reference was really about 35,800 and was surveyed by echo sounding. But hey, thanks for trying.

Re:Progress?

[asadodetira]

To dive deeper,I guess we'll have to wait until the polar ice caps melt.

Re:Progress?

[Hucko]

Aye, We should be living down there by now :( If I can't get to space, I want my underwater city and submersible transport.

Re:Progress?

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

It had one window.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trieste_drawing .jpg

Re:Progress?

[PhotoGuy]

D'oh, as some have pointed out, I posted an incorrect link. It was the Trieste, not the Challenger that dove that deep. Sometimes when I'm all excited about pointing something out, I google/wiki too quickly :) And yes, it's harder to dive deeper than the deepest point. But we could spend more time at these or similar depths, and learn a lot.

Re:Progress?

[PhotoGuy]

Not to ramble on too much, replying to my own posts, but for those interested... It really is quite amazing...

"The dive has never been repeated, and presently no manned or unmanned craft exists capable of reaching such depth."

Not even *unmanned* crafts today can reach those depths, and in 1951, they sent people down there.

Re:Progress?

[PhotoGuy]

Another interesting point about the Trieste. It was designed by Auguste Piccard and piloted by his son, Jacques Piccard. Auguste had a brother that was a balloonist, Jean Piccard.

I was wondering if Roddenberry named Jean-Luc Picard after these Hydronaut (love that term) pioneers. It turns out, that "Gene Roddenberry most likely named Captain Picard in Star Trek: The Next Generation for one or both of the twin brothers Auguste Piccard and Jean Felix Piccard, and derived Jean-Luc Picard from their names."

Re:Progress?

[Alomex]

managed to dive to almost 40,000 feet with the Trieste in *1951*, but haven't been back or deeper since!

How can you be so sure? Many of the deeper dives are classified information. The navy will not tell you what is their current max depth capability for subs nor for divers.

Measuring change.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

They're not interested in the absolute temperature, they're interested in the change in temperature over both short and long time periods.

Of course to measure the change you first have to measure the temperature at all. Then you wait a while and do it again.

Since they couldn't get there to measure it before this is that first measurement. Any comparisons are against models.

Meanwhile the definition of amount of information obtained is "how much it surprised the receiver".

Re:Measuring change.

[arhines]

Since they couldn't get there to measure it before this is that first measurement. Any comparisons are against models. This is not (generally) correct. Although autonomous submersibles are taking these measurements for the first time, accurate oceanographic surveys have been done using instruments dropped from ships for the good part of a century. The difference is that with gliders these measurements are greatly reduced in cost, so we can get many more of them with greater frequency.

Re:Measuring change.

[Belial6]

I'm not saying your wrong here, but a warning flag to be skeptical comes up when it is suggested that an autonomous robot is a cheaper way to get a temperature than a thermometer on the end of a cable, or a thermometer hooked to a radio transmitter. Feel free to let me know what I am missing that makes high pressure autonomous robots cheaper.

Re:Measuring change.

[arhines]

Simple. They aren't attached to a ship which costs upwards of $50,000 per day to operate. Their batteries last for months, and allow them to gather data at an unbelievably small fraction of the cost of traditional methods, beaming it back via satellite phone every time they surface.

Re:Measuring change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Autonomous robot: Deploy once, let it take a reading every 24 hours for a year, recover.

Thermometer on then end of a cable: Send a ship to the same spot every 24 hours for a year to drop a cable and take a reading.

Re:Measuring change.

[LordHugeMongus]

I'm not saying your wrong here, but a warning flag to be skeptical comes up when it is suggested that an autonomous robot is a cheaper way to get a temperature than a thermometer on the end of a cable, or a thermometer hooked to a radio transmitter. Feel free to let me know what I am missing that makes high pressure autonomous robots cheaper. Just a guess, but... Not having a rather large ship with a full crew dropping and reeling in 9000 feet of cable all across the ocean for a year might save a couple dollars...

Re:Measuring change.

[Belial6]

That makes sense. I'm not prepared to take it as fact, but it does fall into the 'mostly likely to be true' category when you point that out.

Re:Measuring change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Although autonomous submersibles are taking these measurements for the first time, accurate oceanographic surveys have been done using instruments dropped from ships for the good part of a century.

In that case they shouldn't be surprised about the temperature. Going from ship-based measurments to robot-based is not supposed to make any difference unless they were actually measuring the temperature of the robots engine.

huh?

[Der Reiseweltmeister]

How does a sub dive crush "depths"? Depths can't be crushed, AFAIK. This headline is phenomenally confusing.

Re:huh?

[The Darkness]

How does a sub dive crush "depths"? Depths can't be crushed, AFAIK. This headline is phenomenally confusing. I agree that the language used in the headline sucks.. but just in case you were serious:

The "Crush Depth" of a submarine is the depth at which it is crushed by the pressure.

Thus the headline translates to: New Sub Dives Deeper than other subs without being crushed

Re:huh?

[Der Reiseweltmeister]

I understand the concept of a crush depth. But the thing that gets crushed is the sub, not the depth. The headline is(was... looks like they fixed it) just miserable. Does no-one proofread any more?

Re:huh?

[The Darkness]

I understand the concept of a crush depth. But the thing that gets crushed is the sub, not the depth. The headline is(was... looks like they fixed it) just miserable. Does no-one proofread any more? They figure, why bother? That's what the spell checker is for.

For the humor impaired: I'm aware a spell checker doesn't validate grammar.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I submit there has never been a sub movie made where they didn't use the phrase "approaching crush depth."

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the headline is a Soviet Russia joke without "Soviet Russia"?

Error in the tile

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Should be "...Dives *to* Crushing Depths"

Re:Error in the tile

[riceboy50]

I hope you were trying to be ironic with your comment title.

Why are you asking it here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think that the scientists that are doing this and related studies are here? Or are you just trolling like many others?

No, actually it does contribute!

[benhocking]

I read a recent blog where a real scientist showed that hydrothermal vents could contribute as much as 0.0000343 K!

Speaking of jumping to conclusions

[VENONA]

From TFA:
"The energy-efficient, battery-powered glider carries sensors to measure oceanic conditions including salinity and temperature -- information that is key to understanding climate change."

Which sounds reasonable to me. No causality claims were made. These are scientists, with anomalous data which they're quite naturally curious about. That's what they do. Why are you so quick to assume that wild claims are being made? If it's magma, or a new conveyor belt, fine. Knowing about it is a Good Thing, as is nearly anything that may improve models, and allow more appropriate actions to be taken by one and all--people, companies, and nations.

Re:Speaking of jumping to conclusions

[SuseLover]

"Which sounds reasonable to me. No causality claims were made."

What do you call this???

"...and scientists are interested in studying whether the temperatures are related to global warming."

Re:Speaking of jumping to conclusions

[Abcd1234]

What do you call this???

And interesting question available for study?

Re:Speaking of jumping to conclusions

[VENONA]

IAMNAC, but temperatures and salinity are probably seen more as a result than a driver of climate change. For instance, good salinity data should give us another window into ice sheet melt rates. This isn't a causality claim.

Global Warming?

[cdn-programmer]

Why do they think they have to toss in a comment on Global Warming?

Then...

Consider that the oceanic currents have cycle times measured in 1000's of years. Depending on where they are diving, if they are finding unexpected warming then this would mean that mankind would not be responsible for any presumed planetary warming... since the temperature of the water they are measuring was determined centuries ago.

However, closer examination of such a silly statment leaves one with a question... If they had to send this new fangled sub down to measure the temperature then what did they use before and if they didn't have anything to use before then did they really measure the temperature? If not - then one could say the temperature is unexpected but one could certainly not conclude it is warmer or colder since it hasn't been measured before.

Of course, I think the idea that Global Warming should be part of the story is kinda silly to begin with.

If I get modded down because of these observations then it just proves there is a huge knee jerk reaction going on by people who don't really think about things.

Yar!

[Anonymous Coward]

And for thee that still be speakin' the pirate tongue, 1500 fathoms that would be!

9000 feet is less than the average ROV: wiki

[viking80]

This sub seems not to reach the depth the average ROV reaches

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROV ...More than half of the earth's ocean is deeper than 3000 meters, which is the current working depth of most of the ROV technology...

For those who don't know the fathoms, feet and furlongs, 9000 feet is 2743 meter.

Re:9000 feet is less than the average ROV: wiki

[Athena1101]

Glider technology != ROVs. Gliders are very new, very up-and-coming, and serve a very different market than an ROV. Gliders are useful for their endurance and the distance (including vertical distance) they can cover over long periods of time. I work for Bluefin Robotics, and I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

Re:9000 feet is less than the average ROV: wiki

[viking80]

I agree with you on most of this:
1. Time under water: Impressive
2. Distance covered: impressive
but
3. Max depth: Unimpressive

I was only challenging TFA: "increases the attainable depth of deployment over current submersibles", which is still incorrect.

The reason...

[Belial6]

The reason is because we have see the 'experts' being wrong all the time. A perfect example is the debate I was having just yesterday on the chicken pox vaccine. The experts will tell you how important it is to have your child vaccinated for chicken pox. They will tell you that it is important in reducing the mortality rate from chicken pox. What they don't tell you is that in the 12 years we have been using the vaccine, the average yearly drop in deaths has been 88. Not 88 per thousand. 88 in the entire US with a population of 300,000,000. What they will tell you is that the vaccine might need to have a booster shot administered in 20 years. What they leave out is that 18-25 year olds are massivly under insured, and prone to taking very high risks. What they conveniently leave out is that if a booster does end up needing to be administered, we could end up half of our adult population susceptible to a life threatening pox that is highly contagious and air born.

To put this in perspective, the number of deaths due to high school football averages to 30 a year. Given the dramatically lower exposure to playing high school football compared to chicken pox, the risk of death due to allowing your child to play football is in the rage of 100 times that of not getting vaccinated.

Now, I don't expect you to take my word for it. Go look up the numbers for yourself. Then go ask a bunch of 'experts' whether the vaccine is important or not. When you are done, you will understand why so many people feel they are qualified to argue with 'experts'. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a hundred times, shame on me.

Re:The reason...

[maxume]

Demographic skew will protect us from ending up with "half our adult population susceptible to a life threatening pox" until long after the necessity of a booster is determined.

Re:The reason...

[Belial6]

I really hope so, but that doesn't change the point of my post. The 'experts' are lying to the population. They are massivly over stating the risk. So, if medical 'experts' are willing to lie to us about vaccinations, it makes sense that we should question the environmental 'experts'. I can't think of any reason that we should believe that environmentalists are somehow inherently better than doctors.

Re:The reason...

[maxume]

Without disputing your twenty-somethings are foolish argument, the experts may very well be giving the parents the correct advice on an individual level; if the vaccine is safer than a childhood infection, they are immediately better off, and the expert doesn't know anything about their future decision making tendencies(as an individual), so better short term safety may well be preferable to long term prudence.

(reading a bit of your earlier discussion, what are the numbers for comparing natural infection/immunity vs vaccination for preventing reinfection? If the 'experts' are aware of and using this number, they may well have excellent reason for their advice.)

Re:The reason...

[mrcdeckard]

i should start by saying i'm not familiar with this case, but taking your data at face value -- i agree, we should reconsider. but let's remember, there may very well be concerns that those unfamiliar from the issue may not be aware of.

is the vaccine designed to *contain* the disease? perhaps there were models/simulations that indicated that if we *didn't* use the vaccine, we would be seeing a large increase in deaths.

of course, it could come to pass that they "experts" were payed off by pharma -- but that would make them NOT scientists in my book. surely some "experts" shouldn't be trusted.

but in the case of global warming, for example, it seems that an *overwhelmingly majority* of scientists agree on the issue -- yet people -- non scientists -- debate it as if they konow better than an ecologist about such matters.

any way, you seem intent on debating the vaccine issue. not that i don't trust you, but again, i must defer trust to someone who has studied a subject rather than a poster on /.

as i said, the "experts" in this case may be shills, and you could hold a phd in public health policy. of course, if i were to learn of this, i would trust you over the "experts" in this case -- but really, all that would have happened is that it turned out YOU were the actual expert.

mr c.

Re:The reason...

[Belial6]

I didn't find any specific numbers about re-infection, but we know it is extremely rare with infection/immunity, and the documentation that 2 different pediatricians gave me both stated that frequently the children will still get the pox, but with much milder symptoms. We also know that given only 12 years of immunization data, we have no idea what is going to happen with this in the long run. This means that even when immunized there is a countable chance that you are not actually immune, and as less and less of the virus is around, the chances of you getting infected as an adult become greater and greater.

I would say that the doctors are not even giving good advice on an individual level. Given that the chances of immunization saving you from death are 1 in 3,000,000 it can be effectively considered a useless procedure for the purposes of protection. If half of the effort that is put into convincing parents to get their kids vaccinated was put into stopping just high school football, we would see far greater results, given that a child who plays high school football is in the range of 100 times more likely to die. I also dispute that a pediatrician that recommends a procedure today that has a greater chance of killing the child as an adult than it does in saving the child as a child, is not doing their job. Remember, we are talking about a less than 1 in 3,000,000 mortality rate. This is almost identical to the number of people that die of lightning strikes each year.

Given that the number of deaths each year due to lack of immunization for chicken pox is less than 100, there is clearly some other factors involved.

I just looked up another piece of information. Per the CDC, one in ten people who have the vaccine end up with chicken pox anyway. From this link you can also see how an unrealistic fear of death, and the desire to save some money are the two factors being used to convince parents to get their small children vaccinated instead of waiting until they reach the age of 13 or 14 when the risk of the vaccine would equal out to the risk of not being vaccinated. Can you think of even one other medical procedure that only has a 1 in 3 million chance of saving your life, a 1 in 10 chance of failure, and increases the likelihood of adult death that we try to mandate?

Remember, the reason people haven't been dying in droves form chicken pox is because we almost all got it as children when it is not even close to being as dangerous as the flu, who's yearly death toll is estimated as ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 annually. So, lets say the immunization continues, and the amount of chicken pox in the wild decreases dramatically due to immunization. This would lead to the 10% of the population that the vaccine fails on being susceptible to the virus. With the reduced amount of wild chicken pox, these people are far more likely to reach adulthood before they run into the pox. So, even in the best case scenario, with us not needing a booster, we are faced with the eventual point where 10% of our adult population is not immune to an extremely contagious, air born, deadly disease. If we get to that point, and an outbreak occurs, we are royally screwed. If 10% of our population goes down, there won't be enough hospital beds to treat them. I highly doubt that our infrastructure could handle 10% of our population not being well enough to work for 2 or 3 weeks. The mortality rates among those that end up infected would skyrocket as the medical community wouldn't have the resources to treat them. If only half of them die from the disease, we are screwed in the long term, as it would take generations to recover from a 5% loss of our population in just one year. This isn't even counting the hysteria and violence that would ensue when people could start counting the number of neighbors that have died that year from the pox.

Yes, this sounds bad, and might never come to pass, but it isn't entirely unlikely either. The chicken pox vaccine is a little like making sure your kid doesn't get a steam burn by sealing up the holes in your tea kettle. Remember, we are talking about a mortality rate of 88 out of 300,000,000.

Re:The reason...

[Belial6]

"but let's remember, there may very well be concerns that those unfamiliar from the issue may not be aware of."

Doctors and the CDC are regularly telling parents that risk of death and money are the reasons to get your kids vaccinated. If the reason is something else, then they are lying, and we should not trust them. Would you really trust a doctor that was suggesting a medical procedure for reasons you knew were invalid?

"of course, it could come to pass that they "experts" were payed off by pharma -- but that would make them NOT scientists in my book. surely some "experts" shouldn't be trusted."

Of course that is exactly the point that all of these naysayers in the weather debate say.

"any way, you seem intent on debating the vaccine issue. not that i don't trust you, but again, i must defer trust to someone who has studied a subject rather than a poster on /."

The reason I use the vaccine issue as an example is because the numbers are easily available, and the numbers published by the pro-vaccine side can be clearly seen to show that the vaccine is a bad idea for small children, yet you will be hard pressed to find a single pediatrician that recommends against the vaccine. It clearly shows that being called an 'expert' doesn't mean you are right. In fact, most 'experts' are people, and people have a tendency to go along with the majority. If you want to easily see the numbers, just follow the thread I linked to originally. It has links to the CDC and New England Journal of Medicine that confirm the numbers I put out.

"as i said, the "experts" in this case may be shills, and you could hold a phd in public health policy. of course, if i were to learn of this, i would trust you over the "experts" in this case -- but really, all that would have happened is that it turned out YOU were the actual expert."

I do not have a PHD. That is exactly my point. As an average joe on Slashdot, I can look at the data and see that those with PHDs are clearly wrong. Of course, I don't have to worry about being completely discredited in my field if I point out that the Emperor has no clothes, so I am in a better position to point out the 2+2 does not equal 7.

The immunization is just a verifiable example of an *overwhelmingly majority* of scientists agreeing on an issue, yet still being wrong. Sometimes you really are the only one in the room with the right answer, and unless people are willing to stand up and say 'Wait a minute. That doesn't add up.' we are in very big trouble.

So, again. The reason that people question these things is because they have seen the experts be wrong enough times that they know better than to just take their word for it.

Re:The reason...

[maxume]

An interesting discussion. I like that one of his conclusions is that playing along is a reasonable idea(i.e., make sure that your children are exposed one way or another, if vaccination is prevalent, get it):

http://www.drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21&ref=510&act ion=detail

It is my belief that you are vastly overstating the future risk. In a 'massive outbreak' situation(5% of people trying to die), it is possible to simply administer the vaccine to people with potential exposure. This acts as a booster shot/vaccination, even in the case that a person with no prior immunity has been exposed.

You are also understating the benefits. The death rate(while still very small) is something like 1 in 40,000(No fair not counting non footballers against everybody), and hospitalization is a major event, of which it helps prevent some of the 11,000 incidences a year. Also, shingles is less prevalent in those that have been vaccinated, rather than acquiring natural immunity.

My instinct is that the CDC are among the very best experts to go ahead and trust, and they seem to be o.k. with Varicella vaccination.

Re:The reason...

[Belial6]

That is a good link. I do not suggest that no one gets the vaccine. Only that it be administered at a much later date. When there are real risks to the disease. Even this link states: "This economic factor is a major force in the drive for universal immunization in the United States." When we start injecting things into kids because it is cheaper, I start to ask some pointed questions, and expect honest answers. As much as the CDC is generally a very good organization, the answers they give do help in reinforcing the pro vaccination side.

A 5% loss of our adult population may be on the pessimistic side, but relying on vaccination after an outbreak would not be a viable solution. I have found no data indicating why 10 percent of the people don't gain immunity due to the vaccine, adults need shots weeks apart from each other to gain immunity, and immunity does not happen immediately. Given these factors, by the time an outbreak happens, it is too late.

The reason I don't count the non-football players in the football death count is because football players are the only ones exposed to the risk of playing football. Chicken pox is a game that 100% of the population must play whether they want to or not. As for the hospitalizations... I didn't count the hospitalization of football players either. So, while the population as a whole MIGHT get a negligibly greater protection from the chicken pox vaccine, any single individual will get far greater protection by choosing not to play high school football. Of course the problem with statistics is coming to a common agreement as to what data is important. Either way, high school football is still in the same league for danger as not being vaccinated for chicken pox, yet I don't hear the suggestion that schools universally shut down their football programs.

Even the CDC is uses the risk of death and saving money as the two reasons to get your kid vaccinated. It is clear that the risk of death is FUD, and it is a little scary that large portions of the population are trading a major childhood incontinence for a risk of death as an adult to save a little money. I will give a pass to the very poor who really cannot take the time off to care for their child (although people having children they cannot afford is an entirely different debate.), but for those of us that can afford it, the questions to the CDC and doctors should be a lot harder.

Re:The reason...

[mrcdeckard]

well, it certainly brings up the very good question: why do so many doctors suggest the vaccine if the numbers clearly show that it doesn't work?

mr c

Re:The reason...

[Belial6]

Yes, it does. The second half of the CDC's reasoning for getting vaccinated likely points to the primary reason.

"Even with uncomplicated chickenpox cases, lost time from school and work and the cost of medications or treatment that may be needed can result in a significant cost for the family."

Most parents are crappy, and would gladly risk their child's life to save a few bucks. Others are sheep, and just do what they are told. Schools push for it because if a kid is out for a week with chicken pox, the school looses revenue, and the welfare of the students are not nearly as important as a consistent revenue stream. They can rest at night telling themselves that they are preventing kids from dying. They just don't risk asking what the actual odds of a kid dying of chicken pox is. The doctors are people too, and some of them just go along with what is recommended to them without asking questions. Others are also just people, and are looking after their bottom line. We see the same thing with Ritalin. Then there are people from all three groups that are just afraid to buck the status quo.

There is money to be made by doctors, pharma, schools, and parents (a penny saved is a penny earned after all) and all of them can tell themselves and each other that they doing it "for the children". Now, I have linked to the CDC and the New England Journal of Medicine to support my numbers, but you stall state "if the numbers clearly show". So, are you doubting these organizations as legitimate sources, are you just trying to be contrary, are you in denial, or do you see a different set of number being presented by sources as reliable as the CDC and New England Journal of Medicine? I don't ask you to take my word for the numbers. I would ask you to go verify my facts, and THEN if you disagree, point out where you disagree with my analysis instead of just giving a big Nuh-Uhh.

Re:The reason...

[fifedrum]

how about the push to "protect" from AIDS as a reason to get your children circumcised?

same lie, different backstory.

Re:The reason...

[mrcdeckard]

well, as a parent, if i knew the vaccination would keep my child from missing a week of school, i would do it. 1) i wouldn't want my kid to miss out on the lessons 2) i wouldn't want my kid miserable for a week and 3) i don't want to lose a week doctoring my kid if i didn't have to 4) i can't afford to stop my life for a week.

why shouldn't i vaccinate my child again? is your point that some children die from the vaccination?

i'm not trying to be contrary or obtuse. it just seems that a vaccination that protects someone from sickness is, in general, a good idea.

mr c

ps. about online discussions:
i say "if the numbers clearly show" because i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and frankly, i don't have time to investigate this -- i'm indulging you here, if only because i think you may have something interesting to say -- but this is a conversation. i trust that you won't trivialize my parsimonious use of time by accusing me of laziness or bias.

  also, keep in mind that although i'm aware there's a controversy surrounding vaccination, but it's just not something i've had the inclination to learn about.

Re:The reason...

[Belial6]

You certainly have the right to make that decision, but many parents are being bullied or tricked into getting the vaccine. I come from a very different perspective with my child than you do with yours. I don't believe for a second that missing a single week of school would make any difference in the long term results of a child's education. Your not necessarily stopping your kid from being miserable for a week. Your child may well get chicken pox anyway, AND you are also risking extremely serious illness for your kid when they are an adult, to prevent a week of feeling bad as a child. I perceive my responsibility as a parent to prepare my child for a happy healthy life. The vaccine does not meet that goal as it increases the chance of chicken pox as an adult when the disease is much more serious. I also would not bat an eye at losing a week doctoring my kid. That is one of the other responsibilities I chose when I decided to have a child. I highly doubt that you cannot afford to take a week off work. It is more likely that you are not willing to give up the things you could buy with that money, and you are willing to risk your child's life to keep having those things.

No, my point isn't that some children die from the vaccination. My point is that the number of otherwise healthy children that die without the vaccination is so low as to be irrelevant. It is that the vaccination is the trading of a major childhood inconvenience for a real risk of a life threatening disease in adulthood. It is that trading the adult health of a child for a little bit of money and convenience is a bad deal.

If the vaccination only had the benefit of protecting someone from sickness, it would be a good idea. The problem is that the vaccine is delaying the sickness for many, and that delay turns an illness that is less harmful than the flu into a life threatening disease. All so that Pharma, doctors, schools, and parents can have some extra cash in in their pockets.

That is why I am against the vaccination of healthy children with the chicken pox vaccine. Adults and those with compromised immune systems are already in as much risk as they are going to be, so they should be vaccinated if they have not had the chicken pox.

Re:The reason...

[mrcdeckard]

well, i understand why you've made your decision, but i do think that you represent a minority with that viewpoint. and i'm glad you're not making public health policy.

cheers,
mr c

Troll? I knew it!!

[cdn-programmer]

Knee jerk reaction has just been proven again.

Gawd the moderation around here stinks. But then I guess I'm partly to blame because I often don't meta-moderate and waste moderator points more often than not.

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

So the moderator calls these comments a troll however doesn't address the comparative nature of the statments in the story. If they were already able to measure in a reliable fashion the temperatures of the region in question, then they probably didn't need the new measurements from the sub to determine if there is a change. IE, they would typically already know what is going on so data from the new sub would not be unexpected (but could still be more complete and nice to have).

If they DO need the measurements from the sub then they cannot have reliable data from before and hense cannot really determine if we have change.

I stand by my former comment that it is fine to say the temperature measurements are unexpected, however to say the temperature measurements indicate a warming is really pushing it. Even if the measurements do indicate a warming, then for how long has this warming been going on? Is there really a good base line already known?

And again, if there is a baseline established then the data gathering before the sub should be good enough that the subs data should be expected... not unexpected.

Here's to you and here's to your soccer team

[gadlaw]

We have defeated the evil advocates of the metric system on every single front despite your best efforts. Your meters, your kilometers, your celsius - are all as popular and well known as is your strange game of soccer where men in shorts run around for hours never touching the polka dot ball with their hands. In America we don't learn no stinking metric system just like we don't learn no stinking foreign languages. So please take your amusing feelings of superiority and take your metric system bigotry and your conversion tables with you. We not only don't need any of it, we completely ignore it. :-P You can take my twelve inch ruler when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Re:Here's to you and here's to your soccer team

[Malc]

I have a meter that measures kilometres. What's a kilometer, and what does it measure?

My MiniSub (grad proj) could outpeform Deepglider

[mrnick]

I am building a robotic min submarine for my masters thesis in computer science. I have learned a lot about fluid dynamics and systems control is hostile environments. The remote monitoring and control systems have been developed in G using National Instruments' LabVIEW while the mini sub itself is currently utilizing multiple 8 bit Microchip microcontrollers. Though even as I write this the design process has started for a prefab PCB board that will see these chips replaced by 32 bit Freescale (Motorola) MCUs capable of extending the processing power to a level that will present the capability of added functionality beyond anything we have even speculated upon.

At this point I am just getting to the point were I can remote control the mini-sub and it only has a minimalistic set of autonomous functions, such as calculating the power reserve requirements and automatically surfacing when power levels are such that just enough power remains to surface. Sounds simple but there is a lot of calculations that go into this since this is not a stationary object. I have just started coding what will become the basis for computer controlled / assisted navigation. Teaching a system to control the 8 control motors and ballast system is proving to be a daunting task. But I'm getting there. With a bit more help this project could be at a 1st level prototype phase in a few months. Alone with my current funding, mostly from my mentor / physics professor credit card and my own meager contributions, it will take 2 to 3 years to reach that point.

My immediate future plans are to add a tethered buoy platform for mounting of high gain antennas for communications and solar panels arrays for trickle charging of the battery systems.

The biggest problem is power. If I could go the route I want I would install a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) powered by 238Pu. 1kg of fuel could provide me with over 100 watts of continuous power for nearly a century. 238Pu (yes plutonium) is fairly safe (for a radioactive material) because in the very unlikely series of specific events that could result in a fission reaction it would become unstable and fizzle out before a chain reaction could occur. It is completely unusable for any kind of weapons grade nuclear device.

An RTG generates electricity from the heat produced from the natural decay of the radioactive material. With 1kg of 238Pu I would have to dissipate nearly 400 watts of heat for ever 100 watts of electricity produced but that's not difficult when your payload is cruising around the ocean depths.

I have been researching issues surrounding extreme pressure also. I am thinking that the best way to offset pressure would be to have the cavities of the submarine filled with a dense liquid like one of 3m's non-conductive fluorocarbons that has a low melting point but a high boiling point. This would add tremendous structural integrity to the sub and could be used as an alternative heat sink for the RTG in times when the fluorocarbon would be cooler than the surrounding water, such as close to the surface or the ocean floor were thermal venting is present.

All I need is a modest research grant from a university that is not afraid to enter into communications with the nuclear regulations committee and I would be ready to take this to the next step. A successfully prototype of a semi-autonomous mini-sub with the specifications I have described would have endless military and commercial applications and could bring major recognition to any university whole would sponsor (seek sponsorship) for such a project. I work in the lab that is 2 doors down from the nuclear storage facility at my current university but I have been informed that the future of my project could be in jeopardy if I seriously brought up the idea of constructing and powering a functional RTG.

Deep sea exploration is virtually wide open. Hardly any of our oceans have been surveyed especially at any significant depths. Working in this arena is one of the most excitin

Translation:

[FormOfActionBanana]

That would cost you like 4,000 washing machines per month!

1.5 year of driving like that, and you could stack the US$ bills you'd spent to the Moon and back!

Thank God for Al Gore!

[Mongoose]

I was cooking on the grill today, and I started to feel warmer and warmer. It started getting so hot the meat cooked to a nice brown. Gobal warming ( thermaldynamics ) must be stopped! If only we could get another pop star to sing about the volcanic vents of the ocean caused by man!

Ahem.

[StickyWidget]

All subs can dive to crushing depths. The problem is getting back up.

In Other Words

[sycodon]

revealed unexpected warming of water near the ocean floor

Said another way...we guessed what the temperature was going to be and we were wrong.

Check this out

[cajunboy]

Interesting, but check this out http://www.cctechnol.com/ Since 2000, we've had an autonomous sub that can dive to 3000 meter for 50 hours. Currently, we are out testing our new 4500 meter version in the Gulf of Mexico. We run Solaris on a Sparc based cPCI chassis in our Payload sphere used to naviagate, collect data and control various sensors. In the Control sphere, implemented by our partner Kongsberg Maritime of Norway, we have a Control processor and Nav processor based on x86 technology. Communication between the Payload, Control and Nav processors is via corba. To date, with our two 3000 meter versions, we've done over 80,000 km of surveying world wide.

Warmer closer to the earth's core?

[Drakin020]

I may sound very stupid by saying this but the warmer temp. at the ocean floor...Couldn't that be caused by being closer to the earth's core?

Re:global warming

[Orig_Club_Soda]

I think if the bottom of the ocean is showing a dramatic increase in temperature it indicates something besides polution is happening, possible geo-thermic.

The cause:

[Anonymous Coward]

Toss a coin:

Heads: Global Warming
Tails: Terrorism

Whoop whoop whoop!

[It's a thing]

It's Zoidburg!

Ob

[Bastard of Subhumani]

You can take my hummer when you prise my dead, obese body from from the driver's couch. Er, you insensitive clod.

2/20 rule

[Anonymous Coward]

A maneuverable submarine, presumably with exterior machinery, that can go that deep is impressive. I seem to remember, though, something about a "rule of 2 and 20" or something like that. That rule said that an awful lot of the ocean bottom is reachable with a submersible capable of 2000ft. But that to get to much more, you'd have to shoot for 20000ft. It drops off pretty fast, out there.

Still quite an accomplishment.

Re:TMA-1

[zaax]

So it's down to Worzel Gummidge - didn't even see that one coming

Unexpected | Unforeseen = Global Warming ?

[fygment]

From the article: The glider's first trip revealed unexpected warming of water near the ocean floor, and scientists are interested in studying whether the temperatures are related to global warming.

"The maiden voyage was wonderful," says Charlie Eriksen, professor of physical oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle. "On every dive we got within 10 meters of the bottom and we were able to see some interesting bottom temperature and salinity variations that we didn't know about, that I certainly didn't expect."

Had the variations not been there before and this was different? Is there that much information on the deep ocean that we can make such pronouncements? Or have they come across something else that simply demonstrates how little mankind really knows about the environment and why, by extension, the models used for climate prediction must be at least equally lacking?

Global warming, who cares? Stop making a mockery of science. Using resources efficiently is just good sense, why must there be a grander reason?

Another trolling moderator!

[cdn-programmer]

Yup. Yet another trolling moderator on the loose. Is this open fly season?

Yet another trolling moderator

[cdn-programmer]

Yup. Yet another trolling moderator on the loose. Is this open fly season?

What is this... they can't address the issue so they attack the poster? Ad hominem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.

The issue is how they can know the ocean bottom is actually warming? Where did tehy get their benchmark data from and if they have good data then how is this new data from the sub surprising?

Re:Ahem. Mod parent up Funny!

[cdn-programmer]

Damn that is a funny comment!

Re:My MiniSub (grad proj) could outpeform Deepglid

[FlyingGuy]

Hey sounds like your having fun! Keep up the good work!

Developing your system of management of the various systems is not that daunting though. Consider using a prioritized message queue. Each subsystem passes its various status messages into you main control queue and then is handled via an escalatable priority system.

Setting up autonimous operation is not that hard. The basis for your model is an aircraft autopilot, since you are controlling a vehicle that can move in all axises, up-down, left-right, pitch and roll. The main navigational issue is one of either dead reconing or inertial. Since you wont have an antenna above the surface , you need to know the amount of time -v- acceleration in 4 axises. Depth is a simple matter of a pressure gause. +- 44 psi per 100 feet of depth.

You will find that your main problem is keeping everything dry as hull penetrations are notoriously leaky. Make sure every opening uses sea pressure to keep its closing cap or what-not against the sealing surface ( o-ring or whatever.)

Your MPU will be your main issue. Calculating battery run-time is always going to be a guess, an educated one, but a guess nevertheless. Make sure your ballast control system does not require power from the MPU power system as well as the navigational computer. A mechanical fail safe is a plus. You can use CO2 cartridges on a mechanical piercing system to be the last resort ballast blow system.

Nuetral boyancy will be your other problem. Hull squeeze will always make you go more negatively boyant the deeper you go. Its a race condition that will lead you past your degin depth to crush depth unless you compensate. If the hull is rigid enough you can use your MPU to drive to a shallower depth.

ABOVE ALL ELSE, apply the KISS system liberaly!

Random poster?

[cdn-programmer]

Ad hominem.

I don't think his wife is Random and I doubt she thinks she is random either. What he wrote is correct. Furthermore his wife is an oceanographer, at least according to him. Are you going to question his knowledge of this too?

Argument with a stats prof

[cdn-programmer]

This reminds me of an argument I had with a stats prof (PhD) who claimed that a 4 byte floating point number in a computer could clearly carry more than 2^32 values. He went so far as to tell me what the range of the exponent was.

No - I was not one of his students, I worked with him.

I gave up. If he wants to believe in virtual bits then let him! He also didn't seem to know how I could stuff floats into an integer array and later pull them back out as floats and all this without losing any precision. You see, ints don't have a decimal right?

Your point is well taken. There are a lot of experts who really don't know all that much.

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

I also proofed a PhD thesis in mathematical geology where the author assumed at the outset that the rate of erosion would be porportional to the height of the mountains. Next he determined the amount of sediment buildup would be porportional to the rate of erosion. Later he did an integration and concluded that the rate of mountain building was exponential (this was his thesis!). Of course, he missed the fact that the definition of exp() is a function that grows at a rate porportional to its size... and I leave out many details.

The PhD was awarded. The person in question was a very good geologist mind you and had a spectacular career and has now passed away. I prefer not to name names.

But this does illustrate that there is a great deal of misunderstandings on the part of experts.

How do you put in the brackets?

[cdn-programmer]

I tried on another post to enter brackets and gave up. How are they entered?

Re:How do you put in the brackets?

[schnipschnap]

Use the source, Luke.
<_<
>_>

Clue: the next question will be "how do I do an ampersand?"

Re:How do you put in the brackets?

[syphax]

<:

&lt;

>:

&gt;

MiniSub Specifics

[mrnick]

I have already implemented a prioritized message queue of sorts. All systems send their status. For systems that have boolean status on/off they represent a bit in a binary number. All of these devices combine to for a complete binary number. This is then converted into hexadecimal. All the other systems that have ranges of values, temperature (inside and out), pressure (inside and out), accelerometer(X and Y), etc are also converted from their native number system into hexadecimal. Through a mathematical computation these hexadecimal numbers are merged in such a way that there is no data loss.I then pass the data in intervals as 16 digit hexadecimal numbers. The LabVIEW program then unpacks the hexadecimal packets and presents the information in graphical form and records all the information so that it can be played back. Sort of a black box. The commands sent to the sub from LabVIEW follow the same communication method using hexadecimal representation. When I first came up with the idea of using HEX there were several people that were against it. Now that it is in use everyone brags on it. Several people working on other projects have had me help them develop similar communication protocols.

Of course, many of the autonomous functionality is controlled by the microcontrollers and subsystems. I am at the point to where I need the upgrade I spoke about earlier to get much more out of them. I am planning on using at least 4 32 bit Freescale microcontrollers. They have a lot of additional functionality built into the chips themselves. I will have 2 chips that have ALUs and will be capable or running embedded BSD Unix. The other 2 microcontrollers will pretty much take over the data acquisition and command parsing and the linux systems will form a highly available master control system. This is where the autonomous systems will be developed and ran. The Fresscale microcontrollers are very versatile with power management units that allow you to control the clock to reduce MHz when the system does not need to run at top speed. They have 3 power settings top speed, medium speed, and sleep mode. I will be able to put the subsystem microcontrollers into sleep mode and put the BSD chips into low speed when inactive to conserve energy and control heat. They have on dye Ethernet simplifying and speeding up the communications systems drastically. The current system runs through wireless Ethernet but it requires additional IC that converts TTL to Ethernet and then a WiFi bridge takes it wireless. The TTL portion really limits the speed at which data can be transmitted and received. I'll still need the bridge but since the microcontrollers have true Ethernet we won't be tied to TTL speed any longer. Also, intercommunication between the controllers will be greatly increased since they have PCI bus. If I can get help with the driver I would like to run IP over PCI. If not I'm sure I can you the low level PCI calls for intercommunication. As you can see I am very excited about getting this upgrade and could talk forever about it. So, I'll just say that once I get the new board integrated into the system things will really start to advance at an accelerated rate.

The video is sent as stream that LabVIEW converts through a A/D converter and displays the video on the control panel while recording it to disk. It's setup so that everything can be played back. Single frames can be snapped and saved as gif images. All the video is saved but it's also setup so that segments of the video can pulled out and saved as mpg. The video data that is stored in the black box style is in RAW data format.

The accelerometer can display where it is currently located on a map on the control panel or display a route of where it has been. Data from the accelerometer also displays speed and of course acceleration. The data is used to graphical display the sub's current orientation. The pressure gauge data is used to keep an eye on structural integrity (leaks) since the sub is pressurized. I have not had th

Re:MiniSub Specifics

[FlyingGuy]

First of all, you came up with a lossless encoding scheme. Stick to your guns and go with what you have proven to yourself will work.

Secondly. Navigation, MPU control, just about everything except video data aquisition, does not need to be speedy at all. Use low power, low clock speed micro-controllers for those. My guess is you are going to be making at most, maybe 5 knots? Keep in mind that MPU power increases at just about the CUBE of speed. Think about rate of change in any particular vector, its very very slow, if your depth excursions are more then say 1 meter over perhaps 15 seconds then your not building an observation platform, your building something else. I cannot imagine for even a moment that you need to sample ANY platform byte at say more then about every 1/10 of a second, and even then that is probably 10x over sampling.

Use the simplest bus architecture possible. PCI is crazy fast for everything except data aquisition and it will just suck your batteries dry. Keep video and audio where you really need sampling speed on a seperate micro controller or sub-miniature computer and shut it down when not in use. Remember this is a robot, its just piloting its way to point X in the ocean, makes its observation, then pilots someplace else.

Crushing Depth?

[egreshko]

Well, fathom that....

Unexpected warming?

[Jartan]

What pray tell are they measuring this "unexpected warming" against? Considering this is a new sub diving to new depths never reached before I'd love to know how they know the water down there is warming. They shouldn't HAVE any data for temperatures down that far.

Questions

[bryan1945]

This vehicle can go down deep and stay there for up to a year? Has this vehicle been tested for a year?