I have no problem saying their conclusions are not as "hard/concrete " (whatever descriptor you want) as some of the conclusions determined through much more thoroughly controlled experimentation. In no way does this mean that all "inferences" should be treated the same and I agree merely saying "it seems rational" is not enough. Outside of very specific types of research no field operates in a completely controlled experiment condition, it is just not possible. Here is where the science can help guide "inferences" by basing them on knowledge not just from observations but from controlled experimentation. I think another example of this is evolutionary biology. Fossils, geology, species, DNA, animal behavior, etc. were all observed and combined with controlled experimentation (at a extremely small scale that in no way equates to the all of life) to in my mind make evolution a fact as much as there are facts. Now there are certainly debates as there should be about how this all works together, and exact mechanisms at work./n
I will not agree that climatology, astronomy, etc. are not "science." Reading that statement only makes me think of XKCD and old math/physics/chem jokes. In an ideal world every conclusion (controlled testing or otherwise) would be taken on it own merit and examined for possible bias and shortcomings [Here I'm reminded of Feynman's story on the mass of an electron]. When this is done properly, I have no reservations calling a field science. I would hope we never look at something that we don't understand and say, well I cannot do a controlled repeatable experiment, so I can never do "science" in that area./n
Out of curiosity what are fields/areas that fit your thoughts on "science?"
I complete agree that you cannot perform a controlled experiment on the earth, or in astronomy. The lack of ability to perform a controlled experiment doesn't make it any less of a science or the knowledge gained any less true. At worst, I see it as meaning we need to have a better understanding of how our methods could bias a result(s).
I completely agree that science is filled with both normal politics and what i would call personal politics. This can be a very bad thing when it holds back knowledge. I also see it as a not quite as terrible thing as it encourages people to try to find the flaws in other peoples' work or test a "better" idea.
It is not quite that simple. I have not met a single person who would purpose a wholesale change from pumping CH4 to pumping H2 in the existing infrastructure. The issues are much greater than just steel having embrittlement. There are a whole host of materials in contact with natural gas including plastic and rubbers. Hell you might loose more gas then you get at the end of the pipe. Often, the purposed methodology centers around using a hydrogen loading in the current natural gas stream. The EU has spent billions looking into this: http://www.naturalhy.net/ The basic idea is use a clean/cheap methodology of producing hydrogen (maybe off peak hours of plants - and then pump into the natural gas system.
It has been some time since I was reading up on the project. If i recall there are two huge obstacles. First if you don't take it out of the natural gas (let it go to the home users) not all equipment likes that and some would become non functioning. Secondly there are not cost effective means to get the hydrogen back out before the end user. I was surprised to find out the materials issues were not show stopping.
I like how we accuse most companies of not thinking beyond this quarter and their immediate profits, but when it comes to drug and oil companies they are evil genius that plan for the future and would never cash in on the immediate gains they could get with new ideas/products.
I usually got the Mexican Coca Cola too. It tastes better. About three months ago I got one with my usual order from the taqueria, tasted it and something was just off about it. I checked the bottle and it now states "sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup." It is sad to see the only direct benefit I had disappear.
Wow, I'm familiar with the STM (I have never used one) but I am not familiar with many people have access or use for one. I thought they were used most for more basic surface physics type of work. Perhaps you are thinking of an SEM or STEM which are now quite common (especially the SEM) and used in a variety of fields? If not, what general use does the STM provide for biology?
Yes, as probably stated already, you can be both brittle and flexible. Flexible describes the ability of a material to absorb energy/deform and then return to it original shape [flexible is implying a large shape change]. Brittle address how a material "catastrophically" fails. A metal can flow (plastically deform) so it keeps absorbing energy until it actually changes shape and will never go back to it original shape. Something that fails brittlely will absorb energy until bam all the energy is released at once and a fracture has occurred. A simple example would be a CD. If you bend it pretty far it won't break and will return to it original shape. However, if you go far enough it will shatter sending pieces all over the place, where as a metal (Al) disk would have just bent.
As a note failure has every thing to do with the part in question. In some parts a little shape change doesn't matter in other it is a failure and the part will no longer work. Additionally, CF composites are very directional but that is why you put layers in many directions.
I would think that a power plant no matter the size is always going to be more efficient than a small gas engine. The power plants operate at a specific load instead of a variable load and at a higher temperature. The temperature is important as the higher the delta T the greater efficiency is possible via the Carnot cycle.
I would say gas engines are horribly inefficient, they make lots and lots of unused heat. Granted they may be very close to the maximum possible efficiency of the Carnot cycle but that doesn't mean they are efficient. This is why i thought there was an effort to get away from internal combustion to a fuel cell power source. A fuel cell is not bound by the Carnot cycle so it has a better theoretical maximum efficiency.
That certainly is an interesting idea. I assume there is some legal problem with that too (I certainly don't want people pushing their car around to avoid red lights in the middle of the day). I usually just run then, but I look around for police first. Also the sensors in the ground are metal detectors so small vehicles like motorcycles and bikes often don't trip them. There should be a timer back up depending on the situation so that the senor only trips the light early not that it is the only way for it to trip.
I certainly agree that a car accident isn't the most likely way I'm going to die, but depending on the demographic it is more important. According to CDC and TSF data for someone 15-24 30% of the deaths are car accidents. It goes down in both directions from there. That seems to be a fairly high percentage.
I think the other issue would be car accidents are very much preventable. Like you said driver distraction is a major reason for accidents. If people were more responsible with driving deaths probably would go down, alternatively if people were removed from driving than accidents would probably go down.
Finally while the most important result of a car accident is death, however there are other consequences. Property damage and injury (308,000 Incapacitating, 759,000 non-Incapacitating, and 1,721,000 other) are important factors. A car accident can end someone's ability to work or cause a permanent drain on their funds due to an injury.
Off topic but my friends that got bored with Settlers changed to playing Puerto Rico instead. Very fun.
As for video games right now my friend and i split time on the 360 and the Wii. If we want more people involved it is only the wii.
I agree and would add that communicating well and correct spelling/grammar are not the same. Yes horrible grammar/spelling can get in the way often.
Perhaps small misspelling don't even matter. I'm sure we have all seen this (although not sure why it works):
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
That is a common offset, but has nothing to do with any real property. Al is ductile (deforms plastically) so the.2% is reasonable, but for other materials it may not be.
The yield strength might not go down. The reasons composites are so useful is you can tend to arrange them to get the best of both worlds. The idea here to add ductility to an otherwise brittle material. There are other ways of doing this with concrete, like wrapping it (a column)with fibers.
Yes I am still in school [It is actually a good deal; I get paid to attend school. Of course nothing would get done at a university w/ out grad students]...but after my classes are done about a year and a half I still earn about the same wage. Nothing but research and writting at that point for at least another 3 yrs.
I'm earning about 11 bucks an hour (Chicago area ~ NU), but that goes down as I work more then a 40 hr week. Not sure how much my professor makes I would assume more then 100K but that can vary depending on the school's prestidge level. That is certainly a good living...but that includes 5 yrs. past college and post doc work as well as the 5 yr tenure process. That is alot of money and time spent on training; min. wage applies to people with no additional training. I made what I make now in highschool (lifeguard).
As for other comments on social life - about 25% of my incoming grad class was married, and another 25% are in long term relationships.
I am currently in Grad school so clearly money doesn't mean that much to me. In engineering it turns out grad school doesn't really get you more money based on 5 yrs of lost wages/investments/raises/experience. Of course I would love to have more money and feel that I should be reimbursed for my work. I think the discussion here shows it not about the money at all. I could go into finance somewhere and make more money with less training. A frustrating part is that the wage of a worker is meaningless to most research budgets. Most equipment I use would easily cover a few years of wages for me.
I am a material scientist...and no direct tension measurement have been made on nano tubes as far as i am aware. They mostly test by resonating and getting a stiffness and then correlating that back to a modulus. You see a crazy variety of numbers quoted from low 60 GPa up to 2000 GPa. I usually see number more like 500 GPa when their strength is discussed. The theoretical calculations of strength usually put the young's modulus at a 1000 GPa (I have seen these numbers all over the place too), but often different calculations cannot agree if the modulus go up or down as the diameter of a nano tube shrinks. Just for comparison good steel is about 200 GPa, but of course is really dense compared to nano tube. Sorry but untill some one can directly tension test one of these things we won't know for sure.
Having taken a class from Squires as these rovers were being built, I know he was very aware of small problems being important. He explained how "small" problems caused failed missions in the past. Such as the previous mention of SI to imperial additionally not "testing as you fly."
A more complicated mission? Landing two rovers utilizing air bags on another planet isn't complicated enough for you?
He was the PI but he cannot be expected to observe everyone's work personally. This sort of thing should not need supervising.
I agree this should have been caught with better testing of full rovers, but the launch windows cannot be merely pushed back. It was a time crunch the rovers and instruments performed well, the analysis was wrong.
As someone already mentioned i think the ATM you refer to is usually called a STM (scanning tunnelling microscope).
However an AFM does not need to operate in contact (hammering) mode. There are other techniques called non-contact/lift mode. In these mode you don't sense the repulsion from the surface. You actually drive the tip near resonance and then sense the change in frequency as the tip is pulled toward the surface.
I don't know about anyone else but since i just left college I see no need to pay for a land line that i don't use just to get internet. Min. charge is something like 13 dollars i think. I don't mind getting cable tv something i do use with my internet. Not to mention since I don't have a land line I don't get any "courtesy calls."
Slashdot Mirror
I have no problem saying their conclusions are not as "hard/concrete " (whatever descriptor you want) as some of the conclusions determined through much more thoroughly controlled experimentation. In no way does this mean that all "inferences" should be treated the same and I agree merely saying "it seems rational" is not enough. Outside of very specific types of research no field operates in a completely controlled experiment condition, it is just not possible. Here is where the science can help guide "inferences" by basing them on knowledge not just from observations but from controlled experimentation. I think another example of this is evolutionary biology. Fossils, geology, species, DNA, animal behavior, etc. were all observed and combined with controlled experimentation (at a extremely small scale that in no way equates to the all of life) to in my mind make evolution a fact as much as there are facts. Now there are certainly debates as there should be about how this all works together, and exact mechanisms at work./n
I will not agree that climatology, astronomy, etc. are not "science." Reading that statement only makes me think of XKCD and old math/physics/chem jokes. In an ideal world every conclusion (controlled testing or otherwise) would be taken on it own merit and examined for possible bias and shortcomings [Here I'm reminded of Feynman's story on the mass of an electron]. When this is done properly, I have no reservations calling a field science. I would hope we never look at something that we don't understand and say, well I cannot do a controlled repeatable experiment, so I can never do "science" in that area. /n
Out of curiosity what are fields/areas that fit your thoughts on "science?"
I complete agree that you cannot perform a controlled experiment on the earth, or in astronomy. The lack of ability to perform a controlled experiment doesn't make it any less of a science or the knowledge gained any less true. At worst, I see it as meaning we need to have a better understanding of how our methods could bias a result(s).
I completely agree that science is filled with both normal politics and what i would call personal politics. This can be a very bad thing when it holds back knowledge. I also see it as a not quite as terrible thing as it encourages people to try to find the flaws in other peoples' work or test a "better" idea.
Please name site an experiment that has "controlled for ALL the variables." I feel we have a "no true Scotsman" argument here.
It is not quite that simple. I have not met a single person who would purpose a wholesale change from pumping CH4 to pumping H2 in the existing infrastructure. The issues are much greater than just steel having embrittlement. There are a whole host of materials in contact with natural gas including plastic and rubbers. Hell you might loose more gas then you get at the end of the pipe. Often, the purposed methodology centers around using a hydrogen loading in the current natural gas stream. The EU has spent billions looking into this: http://www.naturalhy.net/ The basic idea is use a clean/cheap methodology of producing hydrogen (maybe off peak hours of plants - and then pump into the natural gas system.
It has been some time since I was reading up on the project. If i recall there are two huge obstacles. First if you don't take it out of the natural gas (let it go to the home users) not all equipment likes that and some would become non functioning. Secondly there are not cost effective means to get the hydrogen back out before the end user. I was surprised to find out the materials issues were not show stopping.
I like how we accuse most companies of not thinking beyond this quarter and their immediate profits, but when it comes to drug and oil companies they are evil genius that plan for the future and would never cash in on the immediate gains they could get with new ideas/products.
I usually got the Mexican Coca Cola too. It tastes better. About three months ago I got one with my usual order from the taqueria, tasted it and something was just off about it. I checked the bottle and it now states "sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup." It is sad to see the only direct benefit I had disappear.
Wow, I'm familiar with the STM (I have never used one) but I am not familiar with many people have access or use for one. I thought they were used most for more basic surface physics type of work. Perhaps you are thinking of an SEM or STEM which are now quite common (especially the SEM) and used in a variety of fields? If not, what general use does the STM provide for biology?
Yes, as probably stated already, you can be both brittle and flexible. Flexible describes the ability of a material to absorb energy/deform and then return to it original shape [flexible is implying a large shape change]. Brittle address how a material "catastrophically" fails. A metal can flow (plastically deform) so it keeps absorbing energy until it actually changes shape and will never go back to it original shape. Something that fails brittlely will absorb energy until bam all the energy is released at once and a fracture has occurred. A simple example would be a CD. If you bend it pretty far it won't break and will return to it original shape. However, if you go far enough it will shatter sending pieces all over the place, where as a metal (Al) disk would have just bent.
As a note failure has every thing to do with the part in question. In some parts a little shape change doesn't matter in other it is a failure and the part will no longer work. Additionally, CF composites are very directional but that is why you put layers in many directions.
I would think that a power plant no matter the size is always going to be more efficient than a small gas engine. The power plants operate at a specific load instead of a variable load and at a higher temperature. The temperature is important as the higher the delta T the greater efficiency is possible via the Carnot cycle.
I would say gas engines are horribly inefficient, they make lots and lots of unused heat. Granted they may be very close to the maximum possible efficiency of the Carnot cycle but that doesn't mean they are efficient. This is why i thought there was an effort to get away from internal combustion to a fuel cell power source. A fuel cell is not bound by the Carnot cycle so it has a better theoretical maximum efficiency.
That certainly is an interesting idea. I assume there is some legal problem with that too (I certainly don't want people pushing their car around to avoid red lights in the middle of the day). I usually just run then, but I look around for police first. Also the sensors in the ground are metal detectors so small vehicles like motorcycles and bikes often don't trip them. There should be a timer back up depending on the situation so that the senor only trips the light early not that it is the only way for it to trip.
I certainly agree that a car accident isn't the most likely way I'm going to die, but depending on the demographic it is more important. According to CDC and TSF data for someone 15-24 30% of the deaths are car accidents. It goes down in both directions from there. That seems to be a fairly high percentage.
I think the other issue would be car accidents are very much preventable. Like you said driver distraction is a major reason for accidents. If people were more responsible with driving deaths probably would go down, alternatively if people were removed from driving than accidents would probably go down.
Finally while the most important result of a car accident is death, however there are other consequences. Property damage and injury (308,000 Incapacitating, 759,000 non-Incapacitating, and 1,721,000 other) are important factors. A car accident can end someone's ability to work or cause a permanent drain on their funds due to an injury.
Off topic but my friends that got bored with Settlers changed to playing Puerto Rico instead. Very fun. As for video games right now my friend and i split time on the 360 and the Wii. If we want more people involved it is only the wii.
just set it up in IE and it will save it and work in FF...don't bother taking out extensions
I agree and would add that communicating well and correct spelling/grammar are not the same. Yes horrible grammar/spelling can get in the way often. Perhaps small misspelling don't even matter. I'm sure we have all seen this (although not sure why it works):
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
I also add: Me fail English thats unpossible
That is a common offset, but has nothing to do with any real property. Al is ductile (deforms plastically) so the .2% is reasonable, but for other materials it may not be.
The yield strength might not go down. The reasons composites are so useful is you can tend to arrange them to get the best of both worlds. The idea here to add ductility to an otherwise brittle material. There are other ways of doing this with concrete, like wrapping it (a column)with fibers.
Yes I am still in school [It is actually a good deal; I get paid to attend school. Of course nothing would get done at a university w/ out grad students]...but after my classes are done about a year and a half I still earn about the same wage. Nothing but research and writting at that point for at least another 3 yrs. I'm earning about 11 bucks an hour (Chicago area ~ NU), but that goes down as I work more then a 40 hr week. Not sure how much my professor makes I would assume more then 100K but that can vary depending on the school's prestidge level. That is certainly a good living...but that includes 5 yrs. past college and post doc work as well as the 5 yr tenure process. That is alot of money and time spent on training; min. wage applies to people with no additional training. I made what I make now in highschool (lifeguard). As for other comments on social life - about 25% of my incoming grad class was married, and another 25% are in long term relationships.
I am currently in Grad school so clearly money doesn't mean that much to me. In engineering it turns out grad school doesn't really get you more money based on 5 yrs of lost wages/investments/raises/experience. Of course I would love to have more money and feel that I should be reimbursed for my work. I think the discussion here shows it not about the money at all. I could go into finance somewhere and make more money with less training. A frustrating part is that the wage of a worker is meaningless to most research budgets. Most equipment I use would easily cover a few years of wages for me.
I am a material scientist...and no direct tension measurement have been made on nano tubes as far as i am aware. They mostly test by resonating and getting a stiffness and then correlating that back to a modulus. You see a crazy variety of numbers quoted from low 60 GPa up to 2000 GPa. I usually see number more like 500 GPa when their strength is discussed.
The theoretical calculations of strength usually put the young's modulus at a 1000 GPa (I have seen these numbers all over the place too), but often different calculations cannot agree if the modulus go up or down as the diameter of a nano tube shrinks. Just for comparison good steel is about 200 GPa, but of course is really dense compared to nano tube. Sorry but untill some one can directly tension test one of these things we won't know for sure.
Having taken a class from Squires as these rovers were being built, I know he was very aware of small problems being important. He explained how "small" problems caused failed missions in the past. Such as the previous mention of SI to imperial additionally not "testing as you fly."
A more complicated mission? Landing two rovers utilizing air bags on another planet isn't complicated enough for you?
He was the PI but he cannot be expected to observe everyone's work personally. This sort of thing should not need supervising.
I agree this should have been caught with better testing of full rovers, but the launch windows cannot be merely pushed back. It was a time crunch the rovers and instruments performed well, the analysis was wrong.
As someone already mentioned i think the ATM you refer to is usually called a STM (scanning tunnelling microscope). However an AFM does not need to operate in contact (hammering) mode. There are other techniques called non-contact/lift mode. In these mode you don't sense the repulsion from the surface. You actually drive the tip near resonance and then sense the change in frequency as the tip is pulled toward the surface.
I don't know about anyone else but since i just left college I see no need to pay for a land line that i don't use just to get internet. Min. charge is something like 13 dollars i think. I don't mind getting cable tv something i do use with my internet. Not to mention since I don't have a land line I don't get any "courtesy calls."