Lab Tricks

No, not that kind of trick, you pervert*.

I was doing some homemade wiring, and whether it’s power or signal, you generally want to use twisted-pair (or triplet, or quad, etc.). It’s faster than running all of the single-wire, so there’s a labor-saving aspect to it, but there’s a data quality aspect to it as well.

Any time you have a pair of wires that completes a circuit, you have to worry about ground loops and other signal pickup. If the wires are separated, and the magnetic field that runs through them changes, Faraday’s law tells you that you’ll add some current or a potential difference to the loop. The bigger the loop, the more flux you’ll be capturing. If you write this onto the common ground for your experiment, you will be putting this signal onto all of your equipment. And this is not just the earth’s field — everything radiates. A loop is an antenna for picking up 50 or 60 Hz power and also any other frequency equipment you use in the lab. (Early on in my current job, in the dark days before I had a CD-burner, much less an iPod, I tried listening to the radio in the lab. At one point we added an Acousto-optic modulator and started driving it a smidge above 100 MHz, which was almost the same frequency as the local oldies station, and I couldn’t get that station anymore because of the interference). This will get written on to your signal lines, and will get picked up by power lines, which then writes it on to all of that precision equipment you soldered together, and forgot to add bypass capacitors everyplace you needed them) . Chasing down ground loops is a big pain, as is filtering out noise. Twisting the wires means that the net current flow of any power signal is zero, as current input is as close as it can be to the return path, so the far-field radiation — basically anything further away than the diameter of the wire bundle — is nonexistent. If it’s a data line, it doesn’t look like an antenna, except perhaps for extremely high frequencies — the area for magnetic flux is vanishingly small, so it has no opportunity to pick up a signal.

So you want twisted-pair, but the commercial pickings can be slim for the exact wire type you might want to use, and besides, you want to color-code what you’re doing. So here’s the trick: use a drill. Clamp on to the wires with the chuck, pull taught and squeeze the trigger. Wind up to a reasonable pitch and — I cannot emphasize this enough — release the chuck before lessening the linear tension on the wires. You’ve added a lot of “twist” to the wires, and they will untwist. If you release the linear tension first —trust me on this — it will jumble up like a telephone cord. (If you’re under 30 and don’t understand the phrase “telephone cord,” it’s the phone you’ve seen at your grandparents’ house, perhaps in the basement. The phone might even have a round disc on the front, with ten holes in it around the perimeter)

*my conclusion after perusing the somewhat disquieting search-engine stats. Suffice to say that using “animal robo-p*rn” in a title isn’t leading to searches that are attracting science-minded folk to the post.

On the Non-Omnipotence of Blogs

Some more great discussion over at Science after Sunclipse: What Science Blogs Can’t Do

My thesis is that it’s not yet possible to get a science education from reading science blogs, and a major reason for this is because bloggers don’t have the incentive to write the kinds of posts which are necessary. Furthermore, when we think in terms of incentive and motivation, the limitations upon the effects of online science writing become disquietingly clear. The problem, phrased without too much exaggeration, is that science blogs cannot teach science, nor can they change the world.

And one of these reasons is the level at which science blogs are written

Why is introductory material so poorly represented?

Well, what do we science bloggers write about, anyway? This is how I caricature what I see:

0. Fun posts about random non-science stuff — entertaining, humanizing, but not the subject I’m focusing on right now.

1. Reactions to creationists and other pseudo-scientists.

2. Reactions to stories in the mainstream media, often in the “My God, how did they screw up so badly” genre.

3. Reports on peer-reviewed research.

Pretty much spot-on. That’s what I tend to blog about — entertaining crap, science-y or not, take-downs of bad science and science reporting, and “real” science, whether these are posts of my own making or it’s me acting as curator to direct a reader elsewhere. But all of the science-y stuff assumes a background, at some level, in physics, without which you probably can’t appreciate what’s going on.

Blogs aren’t the only source of information, of course, but something that’s closely related, discussion forums, suffer a similar scarcity of this information, but it’s not a completely bare cupboard. The host of this blog is a science discussion forum, scienceforums.net (SFN), and there’s been a push for some discussions of basic topics, from the ground up, but I think paucity of these posts suffers from the same basic problems that Blake discusses. So yeah, I might be able to point out and perhaps explain some really neat things about physics, but it’s not going to make much sense unless you already know a little bit about the subject; you’re probably not going to learn F=ma here, and it’s questionable I could make that level of material accessible and sexy enough in this format.

Update: I’ve made another post on the topic