Holy crap, this is really scary!

Yes, I guess it’s scary that somebody reports on science with two articles in the business section. `Holy crap, this is really scary,’ inventor says of strange phenomenon. Thane Heins has a machine and an unexplained phenomenon, and people are starting to whisper, “perpetual motion,” and trying to be careful that the big, bad scientists don’t hear. We’re so unreasonable about things like this.

Now, I haven’t seen the device and I don’t know what’s going on. Apparently when you put some magnets near this motor, it spins faster. (Are you doing work moving the magnets? Is the system drawing more power? Did anyone bother to measure this?). The article also explains how one way of testing this would be to put a load on it (which, I must add, you should so after you use it to power itself). But there’s no mention of this simple test being conducted. Blech. This is what you get when you have a reporter asking the wrong questions.

“What I can say with full confidence is that our system violates the law of conservation of energy,” he says.

Well, I think you’re full of something, and to you it may seem like confidence. But conservation of energy stems from the time symmetry of the universe — the laws of physics are not changing. Nonconservation of energy requires the laws to change; this from Noether’s theorem.

The other bit is bad, too, especially because of the standard headline. Turning physics on its ear. Whoa, pardner. Nobody’s turned nuthin’ yet. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that. The thing about overturning physics with perpetual motion is this: it’s never been right. Not once.

What I want to know is this: is your house still hooked up to the grid, drawing energy? Why is that?

Bad Power

How not to get Amped up.

I noticed a quick blurb leading up to the Super Bowl that 30 minutes of the pregame power had been provided, literally, by AMP Energy drink. People, on bikes (and presumably, on AMP) had generated the necessary power for 30 minutes of broadcast (and the power for their own infrastructure) and had uploaded it to the grid. As this pdf file notes, they uploaded 37.2 kWh of energy to the grid, as well as well as generating 207 kWh of energy for local consumption at their event. It’s a schtick, it’s hype. I get it.

But let’s do some quick math. I searched a few grocery sites and AMP seems to be no cheaper than about $2 a bottle for 110 Calories of carbs. When you burn it at ~25% efficiency, you’ll get about 110 kJ of energy from that (a calorie being 4.18 Joules, it’s a pretty convenient approximation to be 1 Calorie — 1000 calories — consumed will give you a kiloJoule of work). To give you a kWh of energy, that’s 3600 kJ, requiring ~32 bottles of the “energy drink.”

That’s $64 per kWh.

There’s a reason we started using animals for doing work, and machines when they became available, and laziness isn’t it. Oxen eating grass is free — no effort went into obtaining the energy (which is ultimately solar in its origin). Oil, natural gas, coal — all are solar energy stored in the ground, and generally yield more energy than it takes to obtain, refine and transport for use. The food we (and some animals) eat, however, has energy invested in it. Planting, cultivating, harvesting, packaging, distributing. And if it’s meat, which has to eat food that we’ve cultivated, forget it. You’re much better off burning the original food directly for the energy.

18-1

Oh, yeah, that’s right. Hype doesn’t suit up and play.

A shame they couldn’t give the MVP to the Giants D-line.

Doo Wop

Dip, dip, dip, dip, dipping ethics for that superbowl party. (Sorry for the late notice) Or just file it away for the next party you go to.

Buffalo Hot Wing Dip
2 @8 oz. packages of softened cream cheese (i.e. 16 oz.)
1 cup chunky blue cheese dressing
1 cup shredded cheddar cheese
1/2 cup Frank’s Hot Sauce

Cream all the above ingredients together.

Add 2 or 2 1/2 cups of coarsely chopped cooked chicken, mix everything together and spread in shallow baking dish. Bake at 350 degrees (F) for 30-40 minutes, or until it’s bubbling quite nicely. Serve with sturdy chips, as in Scoops or Ruffles.

I think the Pats will win, but I’m rooting for the Giants. I’m not a fan, per se, but I’ve always liked them. I’m a Dolphins fan, and the irony of 18-1 would be pretty sweet.

The Physics of Weight Loss

The physics of weight loss is quite simple. It’s the first law of thermodynamics: Energy is conserved. Our body stores energy as fat, which has mass and thus weight, when we’re in the presence of gravity, as I assume we all are. Burning more calories as you consume results in an overall trend of less weight, if the two are equal the weight stays the same, and more calories in adds to the weight. Now, this discounts fluctuations you may have, due to things such as how much water (zero calories, but still has mass) or food is currently being processed by your body, so this is something that needs to be measured over a longer time frame than a day or two.

That’s all there is to it. Eat less and/or exercise more and you’ll tip the balance, as it were, toward losing weight.

But it’s never quite that simple in practice, now is it? There was a recent article in the NY Times, “In the Fatosphere, Big Is In, or at Least Accepted” in which the author states (about some overweight people): “And they reject a core belief that many Americans, including overweight ones, hold dear: that all a fat person needs to do to be thin is exercise more and eat less.” Well, they key here is a subtle distinction — “be thin” rather than “lose weight.” I agree that not everyone is going to be thin — hell, I’m never going to be thin, but that’s a separate issue. “Thin” is an ideal that doesn’t necessarily equate with “not overweight;” it’s a comparison of a physical dimension, a size and shape, compared with a mass. But the “core belief” is not a belief, it’s science. Eat less and exercise more, and you will lose weight. The barriers to that are largely psychological, it seems to me (what motivates you eat, or eat too much, and what prevents you from prioritizing exercise, and there’s a lot that can be written about that. And I’m sure a lot has been).

But there’s a little more physics, or at least math, that confounds the issue. Continue reading

A Ghost of Physics Past

In which I am haunted by Bernoulli

I’m helping to get a new building finished and operational; this has been ongoing for some time. It’s for very sensitive equipment (atomic clocks of various flavors), so there are some stringent environmental controls, and it’s taken a little while to get the spaces to meet spec. The big problem has been the dynamic response — in steady-state, everything looks very good, easily meeting the 0.1 C tolerance, but it’s clear that the design didn’t quite anticipate transient responses. Because of the need for a robust system, there are a lot of redundancies, such as two take-off ducts for each room. All of the fine-tuning for heating and flow adjustments happen in the take-off duct, so there are two ducts per room, with one active and the other acting as a back-up. One room has been a particular thorn: it and its twin have the highest flow and largest heat load, and for some heretofore unknown reason, the two rooms would not behave in an identical fashion to identical changes. Whenever a duct change occurred, the one troublesome room’s temperature would fluctuate wildly, and there were smaller effects in other rooms.

Today the proverbial light bulb went on. The engineer who has been wrestling the building into shape discovered a design condition that probably falls under the category of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. There is a static pressure sensor in the main supply duct, placed at some arbitrary point. There are also all of the take-off ducts going to the individual rooms, and the placement of the ducts and sensor was conflicting, and this is where Bernoulii steps in, moaning creepily, chains a-clanking and laughing (eerily, of course) because it turns out this has been a problem all along. You see, the pressure sensor was placed between two duct take-offs for the same room.

Continue reading

A Quantum Complaint

It’s not a big deal.

By that, I meant that “quantum” does not mean “big.” (This is a peeve of mine. Not so sure it’s a pet peeve. Perhaps a feral peeve?) I ran across a blog entry about the use of quantum that wasn’t wrong as it usually is. (But the blog is by a physicist, so there you go.) Now the entry is a little awkward in that, at the end, it seems to imply that quantum means “small,” and it doesn’t mean that either. But quantum things are usually small, which is why the use of the phrase “quantum leap” is doubly irritating to a pedantic, anal meticulous physicist. Years ago I tried convincing Phil Plait of this, back when the Bad Astronomy website was an only child (no forum, no blog, just posts that addressed misconceptions), but he politely disagreed, though he thought my day job was cool. But he was wrong (about the former, not the latter).

The “opposite” of quantum is continuum, because quantum means discrete. A quantum jump can be the smallest possible transition there is. If I were to offer you a quantum pile of money (and for a limited time, for only five dollars!) it could be whatever number of pennies constituted a “pile” because the penny is the quantum of currency (in the US, at least). Money is discrete, not continuous. Now, it doesn’t have to be small, either. That’s just it — size isn’t inherently part of the definition. “Quantum leap” doesn’t really tell you anything. You need to know what the quantum unit is; if the leap is actually big it should involve many quanta. If it only involves one, then it means it’s the smallest leap possible, and you shouldn’t be impressed.

The comment “Perhaps, just perhaps, we’ll finally have an example of quantum meaning small!” is probably better stated as “Perhaps, just perhaps, we’ll finally have an example of quantum being small!” since most quantum things in physicsland are small.