Dilbert Betabert Sucksbert

I’ve been putting up with the new Dilbert website abomination for however long, a couple of months at least, and the fact that Scott Adams is a fellow Hartwick alum doesn’t mean I’m going to cut him any slack — the website breaks the first commandment of web design.

1. Thou shalt not abuse Flash.

Adobe’s (ADBE) popular Web animation technology powers everything from the much-vaunted Nike (NKE) Plus Web site for running diehards to many humdrum banner advertisements. But the technology can easily be abused—excessive, extemporaneous animations confuse usability and bog down users’ Web browsers.

What’s more, he’s admitted it. But it turns out that there’s a “fast Dilbert” web site.

This alternate site is a minor secret, mentioned only here and in the text footnote to the regular site as “Linux/Unix.”

So rejoice, go there instead (if you read Dilbert online) and pray that they look at web traffic statistics.

Come Sail Away

NASA to Attempt Historic Solar Sail Deployment

A few years ago, the Planetary Society attempted a mission like NanoSail-D called Cosmos I, but the launch vehicle failed and destroyed the undeployed spacecraft. Montgomery and team believe that NanoSail-D, however, will unfurl four gossamer wings from its pod in the blackness of space like a butterfly from a cocoon: movie.

“The structure is made of aluminum and space-age plastic,” says Montgomery. “The whole spacecraft weighs less than ten pounds. We carry it around in a special suitcase — airplane carry-on luggage size.” Fully opened, the kite-shaped sail spreads out to about 100 square feet of light-catching surface.
“A success would be huge for the future of space exploration,” Montgomery believes.

Not to burst any bubbles — a successful solar sail would be way cool — but “space age” technically just means it was invented after the Sputnik launch in 1957.

Dueling Blogjos

So, Blake wrote a post on What Science Blogs Can’t Do

Deedle dee dee-dee

Brian at Lealaps weighed in

If you know absolutely nothing about evolutionary biology, physics, ecology, or any other discipline you care to name you are not going to find the equivalent of a college course here on the science blogosphere. That doesn’t mean that it is not possible to gain some science education from the continuing efforts of so many writers, however.

Doddle da da-dum

So did I

Deedle dee dee-dee

Chad at Uncertain Principles responded

The mistake Blake is making is the flip side of the mistake in the most recent Ask a ScienceBlogger. The questioner in that case erred by thinking of blogs as a research tool, while Blake is erring in the opposite direction, by thinking of blogs as a teaching tool. In reality, they’re neither primarily about research, nor about teaching.

Doddle da da-dum

(End banjo/guitar parallel before the squealing starts)

I agreed with a lot of what Blake said. And I think that both Brian and Chad make some good points. And it’s a good thing I’m not running for office, lest someone call me a flip-flopper, but I think the real issue is everyone is arguing somewhat different points and there is not so much disagreement as all that.

It occurs to me I should also say that I’m not insisting that agreement be required here. Agreement is boring. Everybody is entitled to their opinion — and this is largely a discussion of opinion — and there’s a lot to be learned from looking at things from another perspective. So while I enjoy the saying “Opinions are like assholes: I don’t want to hear yours,” it’s not an actual maxim I apply.

Here’s more of what I would have written had I had more time the other evening, and what I have in response to the other posts. There are some closely-related but still distinct issues being addressed here: what roles do science bloggers play, what roles should they play, what role can they play and what roles do they want to play. And the answers will be different, depending on which question you are asking.
Continue reading

The Lumpy Gravity of the Moon

Bizarre Lunar Orbits

“The Moon is extraordinarily lumpy, gravitationally speaking,” Konopliv continues. “I don’t mean mountains or physical topography. I mean in mass. What appear to be flat seas of lunar lava have huge positive gravitational anomalies—that is, their mass and thus their gravitational fields are significantly stronger than the rest of the lunar crust.” Known as mass concentrations or “mascons,” there are five big ones on the front side of the Moon facing Earth, all in lunar maria (Latin for “seas”) and visible in binoculars from Earth.

moon acceleration anomaly

Blue/violet is reduced acceleration, yellow/red is increased acceleration.

h/t to D H

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

The Other Kind of Seven-Year Itch

THE ITCH by Atul Gawande from the New Yorker

Fascinating article, albeit with occasionally disturbing imagery, on itching and phantom pain.

Now various phenomena became clear. Itch, it turns out, is indeed inseparable from the desire to scratch. It can be triggered chemically (by the saliva injected when a mosquito bites, say) or mechanically (from the mosquito’s legs, even before it bites). The itch-scratch reflex activates higher levels of your brain than the spinal-cord-level reflex that makes you pull your hand away from a flame. Brain scans also show that scratching diminishes activity in brain areas associated with unpleasant sensations.
But some basic features of itch remained unexplained—features that make itch a uniquely revealing case study. On the one hand, our bodies are studded with receptors for itch, as they are with receptors for touch, pain, and other sensations; this provides an alarm system for harm and allows us to safely navigate the world. But why does a feather brushed across the skin sometimes itch and at other times tickle? (Tickling has a social component: you can make yourself itch, but only another person can tickle you.) And, even more puzzling, how is it that you can make yourself itchy just by thinking about it?

Photochrome


Photochrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of chemistry
Makes you think all the world’s a funky lab, oh yeah!

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Zap the molecule with UV and it turns green. This is due (as I understand it) to the molecule changing to another state (isomer) — and not simply fluorescence — where it then has a different absorption spectrum, so in this example it looks green. When you remove the UV, it reverts to the original state and becomes clear again, and it’s doing this quite rapidly.