Never said I was afraid of nuclear plants. On the contrary, my point was that I'm confident enough in the tech to even support nuclear rocketry in space. Launching with nukes might be more problematic, though sadly that's the critical point of space access at which we're failing. If nukes could be made more secure from terrorism, be run more efficiently, and their waste more securely handled, I would have more confidence in them. These things aren't impossible, and if we don't develop new energy resources to replace fossil fuels, I have no doubt that nukes will return, albeit in markedly superior form.
Gadzzzzzz... I was the nuclear energy reporter for Dow Jones Newswires for a couple of years and I'm not knee-jerk against the technology. In fact, I favor nuclear rocketry and other related applications.
As for evil spirits -- is there an Evil Spirits Regulatory Commission? : )
If anyone lives up to the name, "Anonymous Coward," it's you.
Defending my brother and the good folks at the Voice: the spelling was a joke, a reference to the fact that this potential nuclear revival would result from a Bush administration initiative. I'm astonished so many smart people in this group didn't get an obvious joke, mocking the administration.
Re:This poses interesting valid questions
on
Baldness Be Gone?
·
· Score: 1
I'm not one for botox and boob jobs, but rather than viewing these somewhat abusive applications of medical technology as distractions from useful ends, I see them as beneficial market mechanisms. More people want to erase wrinkles than need serious therapy for muscular disfunction. Those clients create a broad demand, which lowers overall costs associated with this biotech application, and helps refine its administration (with more case histories regarding allergies, pathologies, errors, etc).
So, the purely medical purpose for which we agree botox is suited is more rapidly developed thanks to cosmetic demand.
In "Sailing to Byzantium," a poem that SciFi/Fantasy reader should love for its imagery, William B. Yeats wrote:
"Nor is there singing school but studying Monuments of its own magnificence."
http://www.online-literature.com/yeats/781/
In other words, you learn to write poetry --singing school -- by reading lots and lots of it. Well, you certainly have immersed yourself in reading science fiction and fantasy, so why not stretch your creative muscles and try writing for a time? Maybe block off a few months in which the time you'd normally spend reading, you write instead? The best place to start is by scouring academic journals for new science breakthrough and promising avenues of research that haven't been reported on much and then ask yourself, "What if?"
Even if you don't find a commercial publisher, there are plenty of places online to share your work.
I guarantee you'll love the experience of writing if you take your stories on your own terms, rather than constantly measuring yourself against Dune. And you'll meet unforgettable characters, forming relationships with them that are more intimate than any you've encountered elsewhere.
First off, this gave me a chuckle: "One of the implications of Martin and Russell's theory is that life on our planet, even on other planets or some large moons in our own solar system, might be much more likely than previously assumed."
I'd already been sold on the idea of life on our planet.
Anyway, a fascinating passage in the book "LIFE AT THE LIMITS: Organisms in extreme environments." (Cambridge University Press, 2002), describes the role tides might have played in the origin of life. This is certainly old news for some list members, but I know it will interest others.
Author David A. Wharton, a zoologist, recounts one famous experiment that sets the stage with the MIller experiment relayed in another thread. In 1953, Harvard grad student Stanley Miller and chemist Harold Urey, demonstrated in a bottle that gaseous mix of ammonia, methane, water vapor, and hydrogen gas forms complex organic molecules, including amino acids, when exposed to electricity. That's a young Earth's atmosphere, with lightning. Subsequently, ultraviolet light was also found to work. This much a lot of us have seen in high school biology films and textbooks.
The problem was that many of the raw materials dusting down to earth from meteorites would have been in a weak solution in the ancient oceans -- a very thin primordial soup. Those basic compounds need to be bunched together to form the complex molecules that are a step away from life. Miller argues that the most likely place that vital concentration would have occurred is on the clay and sand of shorelines, deposited by the tides. The effect would have been even more dramatic a couple of billion years back: it seems a nearer moon made the tides 30 times more powerful than they are today.
Of course, the implication is that each year our tides are weakening. The moon slips about 1.6" away from us each year (go ahead -- calculate how much further away from you it is now than when you were born). If we're not swallowed up by our star turning into a red giant by then, that means eventually the moon will be a far enough away that it will match the Earth's rotation (also slowing) so that both a day and a month will come in at 47 days. In that case there will be no tidal friction, according to physicists.
Anyway, I was just stirred by that vision of tides acting as midwife to life. There are certainly other theories out there that don't rely on the tides (some call for a hotter Earth, others deep ocean thermal vent chemistry, and even the lattice structure of ice to concentrate compounds), but I wanted to share this one given our intimacy with this elemental force.
This initial photo is pretty much an equipment check. Your comment ring s a bit like a person who sees a video white balance test and then says, "I've seen this."
Let's let the probe get there and send back its results.
Well, the very word "Scotland" comes from Scoti, meaning, "an Irishman" in Latin. Look it up. There was a failing kingdom in northeast Ireland that took its chances in estavlishing itself anew across the strait.
Back in April I wrote about gliders' potential not only on Earth but on other worlds with oceans or dense atmospheres, especially those that feature notable temperature gradients:
I was quite nearsighted and astigmatic on Thursday night got lasik done on both eyes by Dr. Iman Ali of the Manhattan Eye, Ear, and Throat Hospital. I needed this procedure because as a journalist, I need more freedom to be spontaneous than glasses or contacts would allow. For example, I often write about the waterfront and do that research from my kayak (also for my pleasure, of course). Given that this can lead me to be in New York Harbor, at night, in winter, in snow... Well, you don't want to get hit by a wave or wake and roll up blind. But I also write about astronomy, so I worried about my loss of finer night vision. And finally, as a writer I stare at a screen as much as any software developer.
Here's my progress report:
Thursday night: Operation done in 20 minutes and I'm already at 20/40 vision when I step out. The numbing drops wear off on my subway ride home and I feel like I've got sand and pepper in my eyes. Extreme light sensitivity. Sent home with a valium to sleep it off and relax my eye muscles while the first stages of healing are underway. I'll be using antibacterial and anti-inflammation drops four times a day for a week.
Friday morning: Pain has ebbed greatly. I wear sunglasses to shield my eyes from dust as much as light. Ride the elevated train and I'm astonished ro see distances, but twinges of pain come if I focus for too long -- dehydration, I suppose. Amazed to see distances from the elevated train. More amazed to take an eye exam in my follow-up apppointment: 20/20. The doctor expects 20/15 as things "tighten" over the week. The corneal flaps have healed so dust isn't a great concern.
I email a bit but take it easy on the computer.
Saturday: Pain is nearly gone. Rare twinges that are followed by minimal tearing. I walk in bright sunshine for 5 minutes to the new digs of the Museum of Modern Art to test out my new eyes in style. I see Van Gogh, Miro, Monet, Picasso, Rothke, Matisse... All with my own eyes! Near vision is still great (I'm 34) and I can see details across the room.
I wander town until 4AM -- I see stars clearly, and read a lot at Barnes & Noble. Flirt with more confidence for no some reason. : ) Headlights and other bright points produce a slight "halo" effect (more like fine radiatign spokes) but no more than I had with contacts. I had less of this with perfectly clear glasses, but my glasses were often smeared or scratched anyway! A friend says this haloing faded for her after a year.
I watched Jupiter drift by my window before dawn. Gorgeous and amazing for me still.
I check email and write a few short items, but again taking it easy on the computer.
Sunday: No pain at all. I wander town again and love the novelty of my sight. I catch up on work in the evening.
Monday: No pain and the computer isn't a concern -- I used it all day. I'll check out my telescope tonight. Nebulae are hard to spot in NYC anyway, so I'll be able to report only on stars and planets.
I am going to my doctor on Thursday for a follow-up exam. My right eye seems slightly less sharp than my left, but is still great. I think it's simply tearing a little more, thought it was my stronger eye before before lasik. I think that will correct itself as my comfort grows.
The moderator noted that the "laser broom" wasn't mentioned. I wrote the article and did cover this topic. Understandably, SPACE.com has a page weight limitation and length limitation to suit readers' preferences. As a result, this section was left out. I hope it proves useful here.
START
Even further off is the chance of an International Space Station commander eying a wayward wrench hurtling toward sleeping quarters and shouting, in the style of Captain Kirk, "Raise shields!" U.S. military labs are developing such protection for combat, especially for ships to make them lighter without sacrificing security. The vessels would be clad in tiles of plastic, optical fibers, armor, and metal coils. Incoming shells would cut through the fibers like trip wires, signaling capacitors to send an electric surge through the coils. That would create an electromagnetic field to dissipate the enemy shell. For a debris field, this would certainly be overkill, but even a scaled-down version would consume too much energy on a station power by wings of photovoltaic cells and popular opinion isn't likely to support a nuclear reactor in orbit. "I don't know of anybody who's researching this," Johnson noted.
Another page from science fiction is also unlikely to be turned anytime soon. Lasers have long been looked to as a solution - not to blast debris into oblivion, but to nudge it aside. Even heating a very small surface of debris can release vapors sufficient to alter its course, sending it away from the space station or a sensitive satellite.
"The concept is that ground based lasers could find very small debris and perturb its orbit to make it fall back more quickly. You push it further out, but what you're also doing is making the ellipse of its orbit more eccentric so it will come closer in as well as further out," Johnson said. The idea was circulated a few years ago under the name "Project Orion" and dubbed a "laser broom" but it was quietly shelved again. "It's a good idea that predates Project Orion by many years. The Russians thought of the same thing. But no one thought way of doing it well and cheaply enough to afford," Johnson added. Other factors putting the idea back in the laser broom closet are that such a device would demand too much energy from the space station, and that ground and space-based lasers could run into international objections.
In short, holes will happen. The obvious answer is a patch. Sverdrup Inc. and engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center developed the Kermit (Kit for Repair of Module Impacts) is a clear plastic plate ringed by a foam gasket. A central bolt connects it to the hull while adhesive is injected beneath an interior metal plate. The kit is meant to patch holes up to several inches across, and cracks up to eight inches long.
The moderator noted that the "laser broom" wasn't mentioned. I wrote the article and did cover this topic. Understandably, SPACE.com has a page weight limitation and length limitation to suit readers' preferences. As a result, this section was left out. I hope it proves useful here:
I'm comfortable with Yoda throwing a little force-induced razzmatazz into his routine, but where I felt cheated was seeing him command clone grunts in a typical battlefield scene. I hated seeing him as part of a machine, even at its head. Yoda as Patton? Nah.
And what happened to his quirky grammar? Does it drop out in high stress situations?
Okay, last rant -- Why does apparently parallel evolution produce humans in this other galaxy, but no other perfect matches? Or did this culture seed our galaxy at a later date?
Erik Baard
Shatner Comments on Chair Auction
on
Trek Prop Collecting
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Mark Baard had an exclusive break on this story with WIRED back on May 22:
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,52700,00 . tml
He subsequently posted comments from William Shatner to his personal website:
http://www.baard.com/
So yes, you somehow missed it.
Malletts explains the limits of time travel
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Hi All -
I have spoken with Dr. Mallett a few times and trade emails with him. I'm writing a science fiction story based on his ideas, and including him a straight journalism article.
Some comments and jokes about time paradoxes were raised in postings, so I'll hit a few points. Mallet believes that time portals work only from the time they are first opened. If you open a portal this Wednesday, you can receive a visitor from Thursday, but that person can't rush back to Tuesday or Monday.
The only "out" is that perhaps a person could go to a parallel past if there are myraid universes in a multiverse. Then you might get a visitor from Thursday to start your week Monday morning, but because you have no influence on that timeline, I wouldn't bank on it. Then there are issues of conservation of matter and energy to consider, right down to photons even if a person never passes through the portal.
Anyway, Mallett's not a nut. He's a theoretical physicist. Hard to tell them apart, of course, but I'm grateful when new ideas pop up from either.
Below is a Q&A on the experiment provided by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) where the experiment was conducted.
Q. What exactly was measured in this experiment?
A. Evidence for tritium production and neutron emission was observed during the collapse of bubbles in cavitation experiments using deuterated acetone. If correct, and this is a very important "if," the results suggest that nuclear reactions may have occurred. This would be a significant discovery in physics.
Q. Why do you say "if?"
A. These are very challenging measurements. The tritium and neutron levels are small, and experience has shown that measurements at these levels are difficult to interpret. In addition, an attempt to confirm the neutron data using a different detector and counting system yielded results that are not in agreement with the published data. The preliminary measurements are potentially very interesting, but it is premature to conclude that nuclear reactions have been achieved.
Q. ORNL seems very cautious about this publication. Do you believe the results?
A. We do not know. This level of uncertainty is not unusual when new phenomena are observed. What we do believe is that a legitimate scientific debate should proceed.
Q. What about potential applications that may come from this experiment?
A. We are far too early in the process to speculate on potential applications. If the effect is confirmed, there are obvious research opportunities. We have no way of knowing whether any practical applications, such as fusion energy, might be possible. The relevant cross sections for this particular process indicate that scale-up is unlikely. If the claim of nuclear fusion is indeed correct, these experiments would still have produced only one tenth of a millionth of a watt of power - far too small to measure.
Q. How does cavitation work?
A. When a sound wave propagates through a liquid, the molecules in the liquid are subjected to positive and negative pressures. During the negative pressure phase of the wave, tiny bubbles in the liquid can grow dramatically (up to a factor of 1,000 in volume), since the pressure is below the vapor pressure. When the positive pressure phase of the sound wave passes, the bubble collapses, and the energy accumulated in the bubble during growth is released. This process is called "acoustic cavitation." Temperatures in the collapsing bubbles can reach 10,000 kelvin, sufficient to influence chemical reactions.
Q. What is sonoluminescence?
A. If the energy density in the collapsing bubble is sufficiently high, the residual gases are heated to incandescence and emit light. This is sound-induced light, or sonoluminscence.
Q. How do you get nuclear reactions from sonoluminescence?
A. The energy in the collapsing bubbles must be increased by a factor of one million above traditional sonoluminescence energies. One way to increase the energy in the bubbles is to increase volume change during the bubble growth phase. This process occurred in the present experiments. Numerical calculations suggest that temperatures in imploding bubbles could approach those required for nuclear reactions under certain conditions.
Q. What is the nuclear reaction mechanism?
A. The proposed mechanism is the fusion of two deuterium nuclei. This reaction has two pathways with approximately equal probabilities. The first pathway produces helium and a 2.5-MeV neutron. The second pathway produces tritium and protons. In this experiment, the 2.5-MeV neutron and tritium production were investigated as signatures for the reaction.
Q. Is this related to cold fusion?
A. No. In cold fusion, an entirely new fusion mechanism was required. The interpretation of the present experiments is based on the premise that pressures and temperatures required for known fusion reactions can be achieved under special conditions in cavitation experiments.
Q. Has there been controversy concerning these results?
A. Controversy is often present in science. The tension from such controversy can be the source of scientific progress. The potential for controversy increases when the experiments are difficult, the measured effects small, and the impact potentially large. The controversy in this work relates primarily to the neutron data. We have conflicting results from two groups. In the end, we decided that the best path forward was to publish the results with appropriate caveats. Intellectual give and take is the way science works.
Q. What is the next step?
A. We believe it is very important that these measurements be repeated, and that differences in the data be resolved. We are planning follow-on experiments. We should know more in a few months.
Q. Is there agreement among the authors and the institutions on the results?
A. This question is an important one. One would expect that the authors would be very positive. The institutions have been more cautious in their conclusions. We have tried to strike an appropriate balance. There are no real differences between RPI and ORNL.
Q. Is this a breakthrough?
A. Again, we simply cannot know based on the existing data. The debate is an exciting one, but more work is needed to verify the results.
Q. Why is the second set of neutron measurements not described in this paper?
A. The differences in the two sets of neutron measurements have not been resolved. The authors disagree with the second set of measurements and chose not to include these measurements in their submission to Science. During subsequent reviews, it was decided to include a reference to the second measurement in the paper. This reference will aid the scientific community in drawing its own conclusions. Science is aware of the second measurements.
Q. Can you describe the second set of neutron measurements?
A. The second set of measurements was performed with the cooperation of the authors in their laboratory. The data were collected and analyzed by experienced nuclear physics experimentalists using a different detector system and counting electronics. The results do not agree with the original measurements. We do not understand the differences, and more measurements are needed to resolve this.
Q. What is your reaction to Bob Park's article in What's New? [Robert Park, a physicist who writes for the American Physical Society, said in an online column that Taleyarkhan's paper was accompanied by "unusual fanfare."]
A. We always enjoy Bob's newsletter. He has correctly pointed out differences in the neutron data. These differences are cited in the paper and have not been resolved. This situation emphasizes the need for additional measurements and for caution in interpreting the published results.
1) Blacklight Power's site is indeed up and is often updated.
2) Neither Blacklight Power nor the "bubble fusion" team is claiming cold fusion. They might both be wrong in believing they are producing excess energy, but they don't claim it to be cold fusion. That would be another story, which in itself isn't as pat as you might like to believe.
3) We introduced Blacklight and portrayed the battles surrounding it. We didn't endorse the company. Same as yesterday with bubble fusion.
4) Nearly all major media followed us and Science defended its decision and attacked Park's tactics last night. Are they part of the Village Voice cabal?
Thanks. I'm not upset, just felt the need to clarify.
2) To Publish or Not to Publish: Publication is the right option. by Donald Kennedy, Editor http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hot topics/b ubble/1793.pdf Every once in a while, we at Science receive a paper that causes us to exercise particular care in handling, because it may be controversial or because it is importantor both. The paper by Taleyarkhan et al. on p. 1868 of this issue is a case in point. It qualified for careful, responsible treatment on both counts. And its history with us has exposed some of the more unusual challenges that can arise in the publication process.
The paper reports experiments in which sonoluminescence is induced in solutions of deuterated acetone subjected to sound waves and neutron irradiation. These conditions cause bubbles to grow and then implode, locally generating high pressures and temperatures and the emission of sonoluminescent light. The authors present evidence for the production of tritium in the solution, and for neutron emission coincident with the light emission. They cautiously interpret these observations as evidence that deuterium-deuterium fusion occurred in the imploding bubbles. That prospect naturally encouraged us to treat the paper with care.
After the external review process had been completed, we scheduled the paper for publication. Then we were contacted by senior science managers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), who said that certain reservations had developed about the findings and their interpretation. In a series of telephone and e-mail contacts, they urged that we delay the scheduled publication of the paper. The authors participated in a series of meetings to discuss objections raised by the ORNL managers, including some findings made by a second group of scientists who had been asked to perform additional tests, using the same apparatus but a different detector.
After some negotiation, a compromise was reached in which the authors responded to criticisms and subsequently made some modifications in the text to accommodate them. They also agreed to cite a short nonpeer-reviewed communication in which the second group present measurements that disagree in some respects with theirs, along with their own response to it. While these agreements were being reached, Science received communications from two distinguished scientists in this field, raising objections to the paper and urging that we reconsider our plans to publish it. And the matter became even more public on 1 March when Robert Park issued an airy, premature dismissal from the American Physical Society. By this time, it had become clear that a number of people didnt want us to publish this paper.
I have been asked, "Why are you going forward with a paper attached to so much controversy?" Well, thats what we do; our mission is to put interesting, potentially important science into public view after ensuring its quality as best as we possibly can. After that, efforts at repetition and reinterpretation can take place out in the open. Thats where it belongs, not in an alternative universe in which anonymity prevails, rumor leaks out, and facts stay inside. It goes without saying that we cannot publish papers with a guarantee that every result is right. Were not that smart. That is why we are prepared for occasional disappointment when our internal judgments and our processes of external review turn out to be wrong, and a provocative result is not fully confirmed. What we ARE very sure of is that publication is the right option, evenand perhaps especially when there is some controversy.
A reporter also asked me whether this was the only time pressure has been put on Science not to publish a paper. Although this case is exceptional, it is not unique; we have been there before. The motivations for urging us not to publish have varied from one case to another. Often they rest on serious legitimate scientific differences of opinion, although sometimes that is not so clear. In this instance, we see no good reason for abandoning our plans to publish the paper, and we can see no merit whatsoever in the efforts to discredit it in advance. Both the premature critics and those who believe in the result would do well to wait for the scientific process to do its work.
Yes, EMBARGOED copies were release to the press. But he broke the embargo, muddying the journal and the authors before they could even present their findings. That's crappy behavior no matter how you slice it. The journal has a duo of researchers on record casting doubt. They did their job, so Park is only promoting himself here, not serving the public.
Dr. Park is a professional naysayer, and he's got a safe gamble. Most weird new ideas are just that, weird. But he blasted the paper before they could even publish it, breaking the journal's embargo -- that's unfair at the very least.
More here: http://villagevoice.com/issues/0210/baard.php
The online conspiracy theory game, Majestic, already floated this idea. The following is a *fake* news article from the game. It is *not real.* My pen name for that game is Christian Larkin.
The home satellite dish idea is in the closing graph.
Earth Begins To Fade From Galactic View
By CHRISTIAN LARKIN (Special to SPACE.com)
Mountain View, CA, November 16, 2001. You can watch "Aliens" on DirecTV, but as a result fewer aliens will be watching you. At a time when the sphere of radiation carrying "I Love Lucy" has reached a radius of 50 light years, stray emissions from Earth into outer space are plummeting as communications technology moves away from the big broadcast antenna or yore into new delivery systems.
Like a ship deliberately eluding detection, we may slip into global radio silence.
In other words, for extraterrestrial civilizations scouting weak radio frequencies for signs of intelligent life in our neighborhood in future millennia may miss Earth because for practical purposes our beacon will have winked out.
Astronomer Frank Drake, SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute chief and author of the famous "Drake Equation" for calculating the number of civilizations beyond Earth, expressed his dismay in the book "Here be Dragons," by David Koerner and Simon LeVay.
"The thing that's ringing alarm bells for me," says Drake, "is that we see our civilization going very rapidly toward the use of fiber-optic systems, and direct to home satellites. A typical TV station radiates a million watts, but a typical satellite transmits at 100 watts, and of that only about 10 watts leak out into space. So we're rapidly losing visibility--by a factor of 100,000. Is that typical or quirky? We don't know, but it's a warning signal."
But while Drake fears the Earth will become a wallflower at the galactic dance, other express relief.
"Earth is dimming, and that may just save our civilization," according to researcher who requested the he remain anonymous. "I am certain that extraterrestrials exist, though I can't tell you why. All I can say is that we're not ready for our coming out party."
The fear of premature detection is one UFO enthusiasts have debated for years.
Experts say that one solution for those want to be spotted is to actively send transmissions in strong and steady streams in the frequency that matches quantum transitions of hydrogen, the most common element in the universe. Radio astronomers use the hydrogen band as a benchmark, much as videotape cameramen "white balance" their instruments.
Ironically, the plethora of home satellite dishes currently forcing the demise of broadcast television and radio could also be a boon for SETI. Eventually, linking volunteers with such hardware in an effort to scan the skies could propel the hunt for alien messages more economically than building large telescopes like the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. The effort to process radio waves from outer space has already gotten a boost from volunteers donating time on home machines for a parallel computing program called SETI@home.
I am writing about this topic, and have corresponded with a number of NASA and Space Telescope Institute scientists about the idea of using the sun's gravity to magnify distant objects. The consensus is that while this is an interesting idea to play with, it won't be happening for generations, if ever.
To start, our most distant Pioneer probe won't be at 550 AU for 180 years. Pluto, remember, is just at 39 AU. Radically increase speed and you'll have a probe there in what, 80 years?
Once there, where will you point it? You'd have to spend hundreds or thousands or years arcing the telescope into different positions to see a broad sweep of space. And we don't have that kind of fuel technology, including nuclear.
I was in love with the 550 AU idea (I've read that 763 AU might be ideal), but the reality check dampened that more than a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Never said I was afraid of nuclear plants. On the contrary, my point was that I'm confident enough in the tech to even support nuclear rocketry in space. Launching with nukes might be more problematic, though sadly that's the critical point of space access at which we're failing. If nukes could be made more secure from terrorism, be run more efficiently, and their waste more securely handled, I would have more confidence in them. These things aren't impossible, and if we don't develop new energy resources to replace fossil fuels, I have no doubt that nukes will return, albeit in markedly superior form.
Erik
Gadzzzzzz... I was the nuclear energy reporter for Dow Jones Newswires for a couple of years and I'm not knee-jerk against the technology. In fact, I favor nuclear rocketry and other related applications.
As for evil spirits -- is there an Evil Spirits Regulatory Commission? : )
If anyone lives up to the name, "Anonymous Coward," it's you.
Erik
Defending my brother and the good folks at the Voice: the spelling was a joke, a reference to the fact that this potential nuclear revival would result from a Bush administration initiative. I'm astonished so many smart people in this group didn't get an obvious joke, mocking the administration.
Erik Baard
Maybe next time I'll write my article with a British accent -- "mad scientist" and other such "boffin" stories go over better that way!
2 4, 00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,588
I'm not one for botox and boob jobs, but rather than viewing these somewhat abusive applications of medical technology as distractions from useful ends, I see them as beneficial market mechanisms. More people want to erase wrinkles than need serious therapy for muscular disfunction. Those clients create a broad demand, which lowers overall costs associated with this biotech application, and helps refine its administration (with more case histories regarding allergies, pathologies, errors, etc).
So, the purely medical purpose for which we agree botox is suited is more rapidly developed thanks to cosmetic demand.
Erik Baard
In "Sailing to Byzantium," a poem that SciFi/Fantasy reader should love for its imagery, William B. Yeats wrote:
"Nor is there singing school but studying
Monuments of its own magnificence."
http://www.online-literature.com/yeats/781/
In other words, you learn to write poetry --singing school -- by reading lots and lots of it. Well, you certainly have immersed yourself in reading science fiction and fantasy, so why not stretch your creative muscles and try writing for a time? Maybe block off a few months in which the time you'd normally spend reading, you write instead? The best place to start is by scouring academic journals for new science breakthrough and promising avenues of research that haven't been reported on much and then ask yourself, "What if?"
Even if you don't find a commercial publisher, there are plenty of places online to share your work.
I guarantee you'll love the experience of writing if you take your stories on your own terms, rather than constantly measuring yourself against Dune. And you'll meet unforgettable characters, forming relationships with them that are more intimate than any you've encountered elsewhere.
Erik Baard
First off, this gave me a chuckle: "One of the implications of Martin and Russell's theory is that life on our planet, even on other planets or some large moons in our own solar system, might be much more likely than previously assumed."
I'd already been sold on the idea of life on our planet.
Anyway, a fascinating passage in the book "LIFE AT THE LIMITS: Organisms in extreme environments." (Cambridge University Press, 2002), describes the role tides might have played in the origin of life. This is certainly old news for some list members, but I know it will interest others.
Author David A. Wharton, a zoologist, recounts one famous experiment that sets the stage with the MIller experiment relayed in another thread. In 1953, Harvard grad student Stanley Miller and chemist Harold Urey, demonstrated in a bottle that gaseous mix of ammonia, methane, water vapor, and hydrogen gas forms complex organic molecules, including amino acids, when exposed to electricity. That's a young Earth's atmosphere,
with lightning. Subsequently, ultraviolet light was also found to work. This much a lot of us have seen in high school biology films and textbooks.
The problem was that many of the raw materials dusting down to earth from meteorites would have been in a weak solution in the ancient oceans -- a very thin primordial soup. Those basic compounds need to be bunched together to
form the complex molecules that are a step away from life. Miller argues that the most likely place that vital concentration would have occurred is on the clay and sand of shorelines, deposited by the tides. The effect would
have been even more dramatic a couple of billion years back: it seems a nearer moon made the tides 30 times more powerful than they are today.
Of course, the implication is that each year our tides are weakening. The moon slips about 1.6" away from us each year (go ahead -- calculate how much further away from you it is now than when you were born). If we're not swallowed up by
our star turning into a red giant by then, that means eventually the moon will be a far enough away that it will match the Earth's rotation (also slowing) so that both a day and a month will come in at 47 days. In that case there
will be no tidal friction, according to physicists.
Anyway, I was just stirred by that vision of tides acting as midwife to life. There are certainly other theories out there that don't rely on the tides (some call for a hotter Earth, others deep ocean thermal vent chemistry, and
even the lattice structure of ice to concentrate compounds), but I wanted to share this one given our intimacy with this elemental force.
Erik
This initial photo is pretty much an equipment check. Your comment ring s a bit like a person who sees a video white balance test and then says, "I've seen this."
Let's let the probe get there and send back its results.
Well, the very word "Scotland" comes from Scoti, meaning, "an Irishman" in Latin. Look it up. There was a failing kingdom in northeast Ireland that took its chances in estavlishing itself anew across the strait.
Back in April I wrote about gliders' potential not only on Earth but on other worlds with oceans or dense atmospheres, especially those that feature notable temperature gradients:
o gy /sea_glider_020410-1.html
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technol
Erik
Hi All -
I was quite nearsighted and astigmatic on Thursday night got lasik done on both eyes by Dr. Iman Ali of the Manhattan Eye, Ear, and Throat Hospital. I needed this procedure because as a journalist, I need more freedom to be spontaneous than glasses or contacts would allow. For example, I often write about the waterfront and do that research from my kayak (also for my pleasure, of course). Given that this can lead me to be in New York Harbor, at night, in winter, in snow... Well, you don't want to get hit by a wave or wake and roll up blind. But I also write about astronomy, so I worried about my loss of finer night vision. And finally, as a writer I stare at a screen as much as any software developer.
Here's my progress report:
Thursday night: Operation done in 20 minutes and I'm already at 20/40 vision when I step out. The numbing drops wear off on my subway ride home and I feel like I've got sand and pepper in my eyes. Extreme light sensitivity. Sent home with a valium to sleep it off and relax my eye muscles while the first stages of healing are underway. I'll be using antibacterial and anti-inflammation drops four times a day for a week.
Friday morning: Pain has ebbed greatly. I wear sunglasses to shield my eyes from dust as much as light. Ride the elevated train and I'm astonished ro see distances, but twinges of pain come if I focus for too long -- dehydration, I suppose. Amazed to see distances from the elevated train. More amazed to take an eye exam in my follow-up apppointment: 20/20. The doctor expects 20/15 as things "tighten" over the week. The corneal flaps have healed so dust isn't a great concern.
I email a bit but take it easy on the computer.
Saturday: Pain is nearly gone. Rare twinges that are followed by minimal tearing. I walk in bright sunshine for 5 minutes to the new digs of the Museum of Modern Art to test out my new eyes in style. I see Van Gogh, Miro, Monet, Picasso, Rothke, Matisse... All with my own eyes! Near vision is still great (I'm 34) and I can see details across the room.
I wander town until 4AM -- I see stars clearly, and read a lot at Barnes & Noble. Flirt with more confidence for no some reason. : ) Headlights and other bright points produce a slight "halo" effect (more like fine radiatign spokes) but no more than I had with contacts. I had less of this with perfectly clear glasses, but my glasses were often smeared or scratched anyway! A friend says this haloing faded for her after a year.
I watched Jupiter drift by my window before dawn. Gorgeous and amazing for me still.
I check email and write a few short items, but again taking it easy on the computer.
Sunday: No pain at all. I wander town again and love the novelty of my sight. I catch up on work in the evening.
Monday: No pain and the computer isn't a concern -- I used it all day. I'll check out my telescope tonight. Nebulae are hard to spot in NYC anyway, so I'll be able to report only on stars and planets.
I am going to my doctor on Thursday for a follow-up exam. My right eye seems slightly less sharp than my left, but is still great. I think it's simply tearing a little more, thought it was my stronger eye before before lasik. I think that will correct itself as my comfort grows.
I hope this helps!
Erik
Hi All -
The moderator noted that the "laser broom" wasn't mentioned. I wrote the article and did cover this topic. Understandably, SPACE.com has a page weight limitation and length limitation to suit readers' preferences. As a result, this section was left out. I hope it proves useful here.
START
Even further off is the chance of an International Space Station commander eying a wayward wrench hurtling toward sleeping quarters and shouting, in the style of Captain Kirk, "Raise shields!" U.S. military labs are developing such protection for combat, especially for ships to make them lighter without sacrificing security. The vessels would be clad in tiles of plastic, optical fibers, armor, and metal coils. Incoming shells would cut through the fibers like trip wires, signaling capacitors to send an electric surge through the coils. That would create an electromagnetic field to dissipate the enemy shell. For a debris field, this would certainly be overkill, but even a scaled-down version would consume too much energy on a station power by wings of photovoltaic cells and popular opinion isn't likely to support a nuclear reactor in orbit. "I don't know of anybody who's researching this," Johnson noted.
Another page from science fiction is also unlikely to be turned anytime soon. Lasers have long been looked to as a solution - not to blast debris into oblivion, but to nudge it aside. Even heating a very small surface of debris can release vapors sufficient to alter its course, sending it away from the space station or a sensitive satellite.
"The concept is that ground based lasers could find very small debris and perturb its orbit to make it fall back more quickly. You push it further out, but what you're also doing is making the ellipse of its orbit more eccentric so it will come closer in as well as further out," Johnson said. The idea was circulated a few years ago under the name "Project Orion" and dubbed a "laser broom" but it was quietly shelved again. "It's a good idea that predates Project Orion by many years. The Russians thought of the same thing. But no one thought way of doing it well and cheaply enough to afford," Johnson added. Other factors putting the idea back in the laser broom closet are that such a device would demand too much energy from the space station, and that ground and space-based lasers could run into international objections.
In short, holes will happen. The obvious answer is a patch. Sverdrup Inc. and engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center developed the Kermit (Kit for Repair of Module Impacts) is a clear plastic plate ringed by a foam gasket. A central bolt connects it to the hull while adhesive is injected beneath an interior metal plate. The kit is meant to patch holes up to several inches across, and cracks up to eight inches long.
Hi All -
The moderator noted that the "laser broom" wasn't mentioned. I wrote the article and did cover this topic. Understandably, SPACE.com has a page weight limitation and length limitation to suit readers' preferences. As a result, this section was left out. I hope it proves useful here:
>
I'm comfortable with Yoda throwing a little force-induced razzmatazz into his routine, but where I felt cheated was seeing him command clone grunts in a typical battlefield scene. I hated seeing him as part of a machine, even at its head. Yoda as Patton? Nah.
And what happened to his quirky grammar? Does it drop out in high stress situations?
Okay, last rant -- Why does apparently parallel evolution produce humans in this other galaxy, but no other perfect matches? Or did this culture seed our galaxy at a later date?
Erik Baard
Mark Baard had an exclusive break on this story with WIRED back on May 22:0 . tml
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,52700,0
He subsequently posted comments from William Shatner to his personal website:
http://www.baard.com/
So yes, you somehow missed it.
Hi All -
I have spoken with Dr. Mallett a few times and trade emails with him. I'm writing a science fiction story based on his ideas, and including him a straight journalism article.
Some comments and jokes about time paradoxes were raised in postings, so I'll hit a few points. Mallet believes that time portals work only from the time they are first opened. If you open a portal this Wednesday, you can receive a visitor from Thursday, but that person can't rush back to Tuesday or Monday.
The only "out" is that perhaps a person could go to a parallel past if there are myraid universes in a multiverse. Then you might get a visitor from Thursday to start your week Monday morning, but because you have no influence on that timeline, I wouldn't bank on it. Then there are issues of conservation of matter and energy to consider, right down to photons even if a person never passes through the portal.
Anyway, Mallett's not a nut. He's a theoretical physicist. Hard to tell them apart, of course, but I'm grateful when new ideas pop up from either.
Erik
This ran on SPACE.com:
Below is a Q&A on the experiment provided by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) where the experiment was conducted.
Q. What exactly was measured in this experiment?
A. Evidence for tritium production and neutron emission was observed during the collapse of bubbles in cavitation experiments using deuterated acetone. If correct, and this is a very important "if," the results suggest that nuclear reactions may have occurred. This would be a significant discovery in physics.
Q. Why do you say "if?"
A. These are very challenging measurements. The tritium and neutron levels are small, and experience has shown that measurements at these levels are difficult to interpret. In addition, an attempt to confirm the neutron data using a different detector and counting system yielded results that are not in agreement with the published data. The preliminary measurements are potentially very interesting, but it is premature to conclude that nuclear reactions have been achieved.
Q. ORNL seems very cautious about this publication. Do you believe the results?
A. We do not know. This level of uncertainty is not unusual when new phenomena are observed. What we do believe is that a legitimate scientific debate should proceed.
Q. What about potential applications that may come from this experiment?
A. We are far too early in the process to speculate on potential applications. If the effect is confirmed, there are obvious research opportunities. We have no way of knowing whether any practical applications, such as fusion energy, might be possible. The relevant cross sections for this particular process indicate that scale-up is unlikely. If the claim of nuclear fusion is indeed correct, these experiments would still have produced only one tenth of a millionth of a watt of power - far too small to measure.
Q. How does cavitation work?
A. When a sound wave propagates through a liquid, the molecules in the liquid are subjected to positive and negative pressures. During the negative pressure phase of the wave, tiny bubbles in the liquid can grow dramatically (up to a factor of 1,000 in volume), since the pressure is below the vapor pressure. When the positive pressure phase of the sound wave passes, the bubble collapses, and the energy accumulated in the bubble during growth is released. This process is called "acoustic cavitation." Temperatures in the collapsing bubbles can reach 10,000 kelvin, sufficient to influence chemical reactions.
Q. What is sonoluminescence?
A. If the energy density in the collapsing bubble is sufficiently high, the residual gases are heated to incandescence and emit light. This is sound-induced light, or sonoluminscence.
Q. How do you get nuclear reactions from sonoluminescence?
A. The energy in the collapsing bubbles must be increased by a factor of one million above traditional sonoluminescence energies. One way to increase the energy in the bubbles is to increase volume change during the bubble growth phase. This process occurred in the present experiments. Numerical calculations suggest that temperatures in imploding bubbles could approach those required for nuclear reactions under certain conditions.
Q. What is the nuclear reaction mechanism?
A. The proposed mechanism is the fusion of two deuterium nuclei. This reaction has two pathways with approximately equal probabilities. The first pathway produces helium and a 2.5-MeV neutron. The second pathway produces tritium and protons. In this experiment, the 2.5-MeV neutron and tritium production were investigated as signatures for the reaction.
Q. Is this related to cold fusion?
A. No. In cold fusion, an entirely new fusion mechanism was required. The interpretation of the present experiments is based on the premise that pressures and temperatures required for known fusion reactions can be achieved under special conditions in cavitation experiments.
Q. Has there been controversy concerning these results?
A. Controversy is often present in science. The tension from such controversy can be the source of scientific progress. The potential for controversy increases when the experiments are difficult, the measured effects small, and the impact potentially large. The controversy in this work relates primarily to the neutron data. We have conflicting results from two groups. In the end, we decided that the best path forward was to publish the results with appropriate caveats. Intellectual give and take is the way science works.
Q. What is the next step?
A. We believe it is very important that these measurements be repeated, and that differences in the data be resolved. We are planning follow-on experiments. We should know more in a few months.
Q. Is there agreement among the authors and the institutions on the results?
A. This question is an important one. One would expect that the authors would be very positive. The institutions have been more cautious in their conclusions. We have tried to strike an appropriate balance. There are no real differences between RPI and ORNL.
Q. Is this a breakthrough?
A. Again, we simply cannot know based on the existing data. The debate is an exciting one, but more work is needed to verify the results.
Q. Why is the second set of neutron measurements not described in this paper?
A. The differences in the two sets of neutron measurements have not been resolved. The authors disagree with the second set of measurements and chose not to include these measurements in their submission to Science. During subsequent reviews, it was decided to include a reference to the second measurement in the paper. This reference will aid the scientific community in drawing its own conclusions. Science is aware of the second measurements.
Q. Can you describe the second set of neutron measurements?
A. The second set of measurements was performed with the cooperation of the authors in their laboratory. The data were collected and analyzed by experienced nuclear physics experimentalists using a different detector system and counting electronics. The results do not agree with the original measurements. We do not understand the differences, and more measurements are needed to resolve this.
Q. What is your reaction to Bob Park's article in What's New? [Robert Park, a physicist who writes for the American Physical Society, said in an online column that Taleyarkhan's paper was accompanied by "unusual fanfare."]
A. We always enjoy Bob's newsletter. He has correctly pointed out differences in the neutron data. These differences are cited in the paper and have not been resolved. This situation emphasizes the need for additional measurements and for caution in interpreting the published results.
Hi Dave,
A few points:
1) Blacklight Power's site is indeed up and is often updated.
2) Neither Blacklight Power nor the "bubble fusion" team is claiming cold fusion. They might both be wrong in believing they are producing excess energy, but they don't claim it to be cold fusion. That would be another story, which in itself isn't as pat as you might like to believe.
3) We introduced Blacklight and portrayed the battles surrounding it. We didn't endorse the company. Same as yesterday with bubble fusion.
4) Nearly all major media followed us and Science defended its decision and attacked Park's tactics last night. Are they part of the Village Voice cabal?
Thanks. I'm not upset, just felt the need to clarify.
Erik
2) To Publish or Not to Publish: Publication is the right option. byt topics/b ubble/1793.pdf
Donald Kennedy, Editor
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/ho
Every once in a while, we at Science receive a paper that causes us to
exercise particular care in handling, because it may be controversial or
because it is importantor both. The paper by Taleyarkhan et al. on p. 1868
of this issue is a case in point. It qualified for careful, responsible
treatment on both counts. And its history with us has exposed some of the
more unusual challenges that can arise in the publication process.
The paper reports experiments in which sonoluminescence is induced in
solutions of deuterated acetone subjected to sound waves and neutron
irradiation. These conditions cause bubbles to grow and then implode,
locally generating high pressures and temperatures and the emission of
sonoluminescent light. The authors present evidence for the production of
tritium in the solution, and for neutron emission coincident with the light
emission. They cautiously interpret these observations as evidence that
deuterium-deuterium fusion occurred in the imploding bubbles. That prospect
naturally encouraged us to treat the paper with care.
After the external review process had been completed, we scheduled the paper
for publication. Then we were contacted by senior science managers at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), who said that certain reservations had
developed
about the findings and their interpretation. In a series of telephone and
e-mail contacts, they urged that we delay the scheduled publication of the
paper. The authors participated in a series of meetings to discuss
objections raised by the ORNL managers, including some findings made by a
second group of scientists who had been asked to perform additional tests,
using the same apparatus but a different detector.
After some negotiation, a compromise was reached in which the authors
responded to criticisms and subsequently made some modifications in the text
to accommodate them. They also agreed to cite a short nonpeer-reviewed
communication in which the second group present measurements that disagree
in some respects with theirs, along with their own response to it. While
these agreements were being reached, Science received communications from
two distinguished scientists in this field, raising objections to the paper
and urging that we reconsider our plans to publish it. And the matter became
even more public on 1 March when Robert Park issued an airy, premature
dismissal from the American Physical Society. By this time, it had become
clear that a number of people didnt want us to publish this paper.
I have been asked, "Why are you going forward with a paper attached to so
much controversy?" Well, thats what we do; our mission is to put
interesting, potentially important science into public view after ensuring
its quality as best as we possibly can. After that, efforts at repetition
and reinterpretation can take place out in the open. Thats where it
belongs, not in an alternative universe in which anonymity prevails, rumor
leaks out, and facts stay inside. It goes without saying that we cannot
publish papers with a guarantee that every result is right. Were not that
smart. That is why we are prepared for occasional disappointment when our
internal judgments and our processes of external review turn out to be
wrong, and a provocative
result is not fully confirmed. What we ARE very sure of is that publication
is the right option, evenand perhaps especially
when there is some controversy.
A reporter also asked me whether this was the only time pressure has been
put on Science not to publish a paper. Although this case is exceptional, it
is not unique; we have been there before. The motivations for urging us not
to publish have varied from one case to another. Often they rest on serious
legitimate scientific differences of opinion, although sometimes that is not
so clear. In this instance, we see no good reason for abandoning our plans
to publish the paper, and we can see no merit whatsoever in the efforts to
discredit it in advance. Both the premature critics and those who believe in
the result would do well to wait for the scientific process to do its work.
They are inflated to 1mm, if that is any help.
Also, in balance, remember Clarke's Law on this matter:
"When a distinguished elder scientist states something is impossible, he is almost always wrong."
-Arthur C. Clarke
Yes, EMBARGOED copies were release to the press. But he broke the embargo, muddying the journal and the authors before they could even present their findings. That's crappy behavior no matter how you slice it. The journal has a duo of researchers on record casting doubt. They did their job, so Park is only promoting himself here, not serving the public.
Dr. Park is a professional naysayer, and he's got a safe gamble. Most weird new ideas are just that, weird. But he blasted the paper before they could even publish it, breaking the journal's embargo -- that's unfair at the very least.
More here: http://villagevoice.com/issues/0210/baard.php
The online conspiracy theory game, Majestic, already floated this idea. The following is a *fake* news article from the game. It is *not real.* My pen name for that game is Christian Larkin.
The home satellite dish idea is in the closing graph.
Earth Begins To Fade From Galactic View
By CHRISTIAN LARKIN (Special to SPACE.com)
Mountain View, CA, November 16, 2001. You can watch "Aliens" on DirecTV, but as a result fewer aliens will be watching you. At a time when the sphere of radiation carrying "I Love Lucy" has reached a radius of 50 light years, stray emissions from Earth into outer space are plummeting as communications technology moves away from the big broadcast antenna or yore into new delivery systems.
Like a ship deliberately eluding detection, we may slip into global radio silence.
In other words, for extraterrestrial civilizations scouting weak radio frequencies for signs of intelligent life in our neighborhood in future millennia may miss Earth because for practical purposes our beacon will have winked out.
Astronomer Frank Drake, SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute chief and author of the famous "Drake Equation" for calculating the number of civilizations beyond Earth, expressed his dismay in the book "Here be Dragons," by David Koerner and Simon LeVay.
"The thing that's ringing alarm bells for me," says Drake, "is that we see our civilization going very rapidly toward the use of fiber-optic systems, and direct to home satellites. A typical TV station radiates a million watts, but a typical satellite transmits at 100 watts, and of that only about 10 watts leak out into space. So we're rapidly losing visibility--by a factor of 100,000. Is that typical or quirky? We don't know, but it's a warning signal."
But while Drake fears the Earth will become a wallflower at the galactic dance, other express relief.
"Earth is dimming, and that may just save our civilization," according to researcher who requested the he remain anonymous. "I am certain that extraterrestrials exist, though I can't tell you why. All I can say is that we're not ready for our coming out party."
The fear of premature detection is one UFO enthusiasts have debated for years.
Experts say that one solution for those want to be spotted is to actively send transmissions in strong and steady streams in the frequency that matches quantum transitions of hydrogen, the most common element in the universe. Radio astronomers use the hydrogen band as a benchmark, much as videotape cameramen "white balance" their instruments.
Ironically, the plethora of home satellite dishes currently forcing the demise of broadcast television and radio could also be a boon for SETI. Eventually, linking volunteers with such hardware in an effort to scan the skies could propel the hunt for alien messages more economically than building large telescopes like the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. The effort to process radio waves from outer space has already gotten a boost from volunteers donating time on home machines for a parallel computing program called SETI@home.
Copyright 2001 by Space.com, Inc
I am writing about this topic, and have corresponded with a number of NASA and Space Telescope Institute scientists about the idea of using the sun's gravity to magnify distant objects. The consensus is that while this is an interesting idea to play with, it won't be happening for generations, if ever.
To start, our most distant Pioneer probe won't be at 550 AU for 180 years. Pluto, remember, is just at 39 AU. Radically increase speed and you'll have a probe there in what, 80 years?
Once there, where will you point it? You'd have to spend hundreds or thousands or years arcing the telescope into different positions to see a broad sweep of space. And we don't have that kind of fuel technology, including nuclear.
I was in love with the 550 AU idea (I've read that 763 AU might be ideal), but the reality check dampened that more than a bit.
I hope this helps.
Erik Baard