Science, is that what this is? I thoght it was more along the lines of quackery. And Researchers I didn't see anything about researchers in the cnn post. The article says...A joint U.S.-Turkish team of 10 explorers plans to make the arduous trek up... these are explorers. Explorers may be scientists and/or researchers but they are not necessarily so.
And what about the sponsors "Daniel P. McGivern, president of Shamrock- The Trinity Corporation" Hm... Shamrock, Trinity Corparation. This sounded like a Christian organization to me. So I did some quick checking.
Here is an interesting quote of Mr McGivern "There is value in suffering. We need only look to Christ's death for proof." Read more here
If you are not yet convinced of Mr McGivern's religious leanings check this page where he attacked the movie Dogma because it "openly blasphemes God, defames all organized religion, and particularly mocks Catholic teachings" What's wrong with this guy? Hey it's only a movie right?
Haven't had enough yet; two more links that show Mr McGivern's religious leanings. One at Christian Answers and one at Priests For Life.
I find it very disappionting that a major media outlet like CNN is covering this bullshit. Also, I know it's Tuesday but aren't there better stories to post on./:~)
I have attended several seminars (chemistry) where military money accounted for some of the funding. In particular a gentleman from the Colorado School of Mines was doing research on a methanol reformer/fuel cell. He alluded to the fact that it was only need for a one way trip. Apparently it was part of some missile technology.
I totally agree that the dual use argument is lingering just under the surface. Typically the researchers thank those that funded the research at the conclusion of the seminar, but it's never a really big deal. The importance of funding for scientific research is extremely important however it is achieved. You have to wonder if this leads to a more militant society though.
There will be ethical considerations with nanotechnology in the future however, as far as ethics are concerned, biotechnology is far more important now and in the near future. Questions like "Should genes be patentable?" "Should Human genes be patentable?" are very real and current questions. These questions do interface with nanotechnology, e.g. DNA-Nanoparticle composite materials. For the most part the issue of bioethics stands alone.
In addition to their unique electronic/optical properties nanoparticles may posses unique toxic properties. This statement must be qualified: there is very very little research in the public domian on the toxicity of nanoparticles. More research needs to be done.
One thing to consider is that nanoparticles are very unstable. This is one of the reasons that there are very few commercial applications to date. To make nanoparticles more usable they need to be surface protected (they will combine into bulk material if the unprotected surfaces come in contact). I would think that, if nanoparticles prove to be toxic, the stability will be a major factor.
A Mighty Mighty Wind Machine...
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wind energy is actually the only alternative energy form outside of hydro that is economically feasiable at the present time.
Wind technology is also vastly improved over the last twenty years; quieter more efficient bigger wind machines. The blades of the larger wind machines actually spin slower (50 RPM on older machines 15 on new bigger ones) which I think would be more astheticly pleasing to look at.
According to a recent (24Feb2003) Chemical & Engineering News article
GE recently announced it will supply its largest machines-3.6 MW-for the proposed Cape Wind project...The largest turbines have allowed the energy provider to cut the number of planned turbines from 170 to 130... and developers hope the reduction may calm some community anger over the project's location.
The machine GE plans for Cape Cod has three blades, each 50 meters long and weighing up to 16 tons...You can walk inside the 2-meter blade root, where the blade attaches to the turbine nose.
Lyons [James Lyons, GE chief engineer] says machines will grow to 5-MW size "We know we can do that, and other companies are going to as well. There's no reason to stop there. The big offshore machines will get to 7 to 10 MW".
I think wind in general is a good idea, but if the machines keep getting bigger I wonder what affect this will have.
1) Create successful company 2) Leave company 3) Create new successful company 4) Return to old company after 'they' screw in up 5) Buy ?old/new? company with ?new/old? company 6) Make animated movies with toys, bugs, and aliens
First of all I would reccomend that you not do any home experiments unless:
a.) you are fully aware of the hazards/risks involved and know how to minimize them.
or
b.) the experiments you perform are not hazardous.
I assume that you still want to do chemistry experiments. Choose choice b. There are many experiments that you can do that are not hazardous to humans. e. g. mix Baking Soda an Vinegar to produce carbon dioxide.
Keeping a laboratory book is essential in science laboratory and highly reccommended for amature experementation. This typically includes information such as Introduction/Purpose(what do you expect to occur)...Experimental Method(how you will do the experiment, EXACTLY)....Experimental Results...Disscussion of Experimental Results/Conclusion...Reference information.
Basically as far as the laboratory manual is concerned, your experiments should be repeatable by someone else. An excellent book on the subject is : H. M. Kanare, Writing the Laboratory Notebook, American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C., 1985; ASIN: 0841209065.
You should gain an understanding of some general laboratory techniques. e. g. measuring liquids, determining mass, quantatively transfering liquids, pipeting, using a buret. Technique is very important in Experimental Chemistry. Do not, however, underestimate the importants of theory. Also chemistry and science in general is about gathering and analyzing data. Therefore it is essential that you understand how to visually present you data (e. i. make a data table and graph). A good book on this subject is : Edward R. Tuft's 'The Visual Display of Quantative Information', Graphic Press, Cheshire CT, 1983.
As far as studying general chemistry goes; I would recommend you get a handle on fundamental chemical laws, basic naming of chemical compounds, understand the polyatomic ions, stoichiometry (e.g. 2 moles of hydrogen react with one mole of oxygen to produce 1 mole of water), Acid-Base Reactions, Oxidation-Reduction Reactions, gas laws and thermochemistry.
These are the things that you should master in the first course of general inorganic chemistry.
I think chemistry as an amature science is greatly underrepresented. As far as chemistry sets are concerned they are generally geared toward children and therefore may not be much fun for an adult. If you study chemistry seriously, and are interested, you can develop you own experiments. As far as chemicals and glassware are concened; it's probably better to get them at a yard sale or auction site. This is because they are cheaper. If you don't know exactly what chemical you need it is not recommended that you buy any though. Some chemicals available on ebay are extremely hazardous.
I stepped outside after the lan party; I looked up to the stars. I felt a slight rumbling down below. Low and behold, I bagan to spew chunks of a different kind. Brown chunks, orange chunks,... Green Chunks!!! Ah but my chunks blended well with the stars as they shot by. My Pie in the sky... if you will.
Slashdot Mirror
Science, is that what this is? I thoght it was more along the lines of quackery. And Researchers I didn't see anything about researchers in the cnn post. The article says ...A joint U.S.-Turkish team of 10 explorers plans to make the arduous trek up... these are explorers. Explorers may be scientists and/or researchers but they are not necessarily so.
And what about the sponsors "Daniel P. McGivern, president of Shamrock- The Trinity Corporation" Hm... Shamrock, Trinity Corparation. This sounded like a Christian organization to me. So I did some quick checking.
Here is an interesting quote of Mr McGivern "There is value in suffering. We need only look to Christ's death for proof." Read more here
If you are not yet convinced of Mr McGivern's religious leanings check this page where he attacked the movie Dogma because it "openly blasphemes God, defames all organized religion, and particularly mocks Catholic teachings" What's wrong with this guy? Hey it's only a movie right?
Haven't had enough yet; two more links that show Mr McGivern's religious leanings. One at Christian Answers and one at Priests For Life.
I find it very disappionting that a major media outlet like CNN is covering this bullshit. Also, I know it's Tuesday but aren't there better stories to post on ./ :~)
I have attended several seminars (chemistry) where military money accounted for some of the funding. In particular a gentleman from the Colorado School of Mines was doing research on a methanol reformer/fuel cell. He alluded to the fact that it was only need for a one way trip. Apparently it was part of some missile technology.
I totally agree that the dual use argument is lingering just under the surface. Typically the researchers thank those that funded the research at the conclusion of the seminar, but it's never a really big deal. The importance of funding for scientific research is extremely important however it is achieved. You have to wonder if this leads to a more militant society though.
There will be ethical considerations with nanotechnology in the future however, as far as ethics are concerned, biotechnology is far more important now and in the near future. Questions like "Should genes be patentable?" "Should Human genes be patentable?" are very real and current questions. These questions do interface with nanotechnology, e.g. DNA-Nanoparticle composite materials. For the most part the issue of bioethics stands alone.
In addition to their unique electronic/optical properties nanoparticles may posses unique toxic properties. This statement must be qualified: there is very very little research in the public domian on the toxicity of nanoparticles. More research needs to be done.
One thing to consider is that nanoparticles are very unstable. This is one of the reasons that there are very few commercial applications to date. To make nanoparticles more usable they need to be surface protected (they will combine into bulk material if the unprotected surfaces come in contact). I would think that, if nanoparticles prove to be toxic, the stability will be a major factor.
Wind energy is actually the only alternative energy form outside of hydro that is economically feasiable at the present time.
Wind technology is also vastly improved over the last twenty years; quieter more efficient bigger wind machines. The blades of the larger wind machines actually spin slower (50 RPM on older machines 15 on new bigger ones) which I think would be more astheticly pleasing to look at.
According to a recent (24Feb2003) Chemical & Engineering News article
I think wind in general is a good idea, but if the machines keep getting bigger I wonder what affect this will have.
Nuclear plants need water a lot of water to prevent a meltdown. It would therefore be unwise to build a nuclear plant in a desert area.
Desert areas are best for solar energy (solar photovoltaics or solar thermal etc.).
Or if your name is Steve Jobs.
1) Create successful company
2) Leave company
3) Create new successful company
4) Return to old company after 'they' screw in up
5) Buy ?old/new? company with ?new/old? company
6) Make animated movies with toys, bugs, and aliens
Hey you got to live your life!!!
Me thinks the folks at Apple are cavorting with the 'TIME-TRAVELER' if they know their Second Quarter results.
I'm holding out for a Hydrogen powerd rocket bike!!
First of all I would reccomend that you not do any home experiments unless:
a.) you are fully aware of the hazards/risks involved and know how to minimize them.
or
b.) the experiments you perform are not hazardous.
Check up on your laboratory safety at The Laboratory Safety Institute or take an Online Safety Course or visit OSHA's site. Final note on safety---> It's always fun until someone gets hurt!!!
I assume that you still want to do chemistry experiments. Choose choice b. There are many experiments that you can do that are not hazardous to humans. e. g. mix Baking Soda an Vinegar to produce carbon dioxide.
Keeping a laboratory book is essential in science laboratory and highly reccommended for amature experementation. This typically includes information such as Introduction/Purpose(what do you expect to occur)...Experimental Method(how you will do the experiment, EXACTLY)....Experimental Results...Disscussion of Experimental Results/Conclusion...Reference information.
Basically as far as the laboratory manual is concerned, your experiments should be repeatable by someone else. An excellent book on the subject is : H. M. Kanare, Writing the Laboratory Notebook, American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C., 1985; ASIN: 0841209065.
You should gain an understanding of some general laboratory techniques. e. g. measuring liquids, determining mass, quantatively transfering liquids, pipeting, using a buret. Technique is very important in Experimental Chemistry. Do not, however, underestimate the importants of theory. Also chemistry and science in general is about gathering and analyzing data. Therefore it is essential that you understand how to visually present you data (e. i. make a data table and graph). A good book on this subject is : Edward R. Tuft's 'The Visual Display of Quantative Information', Graphic Press, Cheshire CT, 1983.As far as studying general chemistry goes; I would recommend you get a handle on fundamental chemical laws, basic naming of chemical compounds, understand the polyatomic ions, stoichiometry (e.g. 2 moles of hydrogen react with one mole of oxygen to produce 1 mole of water), Acid-Base Reactions, Oxidation-Reduction Reactions, gas laws and thermochemistry.
These are the things that you should master in the first course of general inorganic chemistry.
As far as amateur science is concerned the Society for Amature Scientists is excellent.
I think chemistry as an amature science is greatly underrepresented. As far as chemistry sets are concerned they are generally geared toward children and therefore may not be much fun for an adult. If you study chemistry seriously, and are interested, you can develop you own experiments. As far as chemicals and glassware are concened; it's probably better to get them at a yard sale or auction site. This is because they are cheaper. If you don't know exactly what chemical you need it is not recommended that you buy any though. Some chemicals available on ebay are extremely hazardous.
For further information I would recommend the very excellent Jounal of Chemical Education.
Think-Learn-Think-Experiment-Think-Learn have fun and be careful!!!
I stepped outside after the lan party; I looked up to the stars. I felt a slight rumbling down below. Low and behold, I bagan to spew chunks of a different kind. Brown chunks, orange chunks,... Green Chunks!!! Ah but my chunks blended well with the stars as they shot by. My Pie in the sky... if you will.